POLITICAL LAW:

1. APPOINTING POWER
2. AD INTERIM APPOINTMENT vs. REGULAR APPOINTMENT

An ad interim appointment is one made by A regular appointment is one made by the

the President while Congress is not in
session, which takes effect immediately, but
ceases to be valid if disapproved by the
Commission on Appointments or upon
inaction until the next adjournment of
Congress, either in regular or special session.
President while Congress is in session, which
takes effect only after confirmation by the
Commission on Appointment and, once
approved, continues until the end of the
term of the appointee.

(1) A permanent appointment is issued to a person who meets all the requirements for the position to
which he is being appointed, including the appropriate eligibility prescribed, in accordance with the
provisions of law, rules and standards promulgated in pursuance thereof. It lasts until lawfully
terminated, thus, enjoys security of tenure. (Sec. 25(a), PD 807, otherwise known as, Civil Service Decree)
(2) A temporary appointment is a kind of appointment issued to a person who meets all the
requirements for the position to which he is being appointed, except the appropriate civil service
eligibility, in the absence of appropriate eligibilities and it becomes necessary in the public interest to fill
a vacancy. Such appointment may not exceed 12 months (Sec. 25(b), PD 807, Sec. 25[b]).
(3) A regular appointment is one made by the President while Congress is in session, which takes effect
only after confirmation by the Commission on Appointment and, once approved, continues until the end
of the term of the appointee.
(4) An ad interim appointment is one made by the President while Congress is not in session, which
takes effect immediately, but ceases to be valid if disapproved by the Commission on Appointments or
upon inaction until the next adjournment of Congress, either in regular or special session.
(5) A provisional appointment is one which may be issued, upon the prior authorization of the
Commissioner of the CSC, to a person who has not qualified in an appropriate examination but who
otherwise meets the requirements for appointment to a regular position in the competitive service,
whenever a vacancy occurs and the filling thereof is necessary in the interest of the service and there is
no appropriate register of eligibles at the time of appointment. (Jimenea v. Guanzon, G.R. No. L-24795,
Jan. 29, 1968) Provisional appointments in general have already been abolished by RA 6040. It still,
however, applies with regard to teachers under the Magna Carta for Public School Teachers.

3. MIDNIGHT APPOINTMENT
 The prohibition on midnight appointments only applies to presidential appointments. It
does not apply to appointments made by local chief executives. Nevertheless, the Civil
Service Commission has the power to promulgate rules and regulations to
professionalize the civil service. It may issue rules and regulations prohibiting local chief
executives from making appointments during the last days of their tenure.
Appointments of local chief executives must conform to these civil service rules and
regulations in order to be valid (Provincial Government of Aurora v. Marco, G.R. No.
202331, April 22, 2015).
 Article VII is devoted to the Executive Department, and, among others, it lists the
powers vested by the Constitution in the President. Article VIII is dedicated to the
 Judicial Department and defines the duties and qualifications of Members of the
Supreme Court, among others. Section 4(1) and Section 9 of this Article are the
provisions specifically providing for the appointment of Supreme Court Justices. In
particular, Section 9 states that the appointment of Supreme Court Justices can only be
made by the President upon the submission of a list of at least three nominees by the
JBC; Section 4(1) of the Article mandates the President to fill the vacancy within 90 days
from the occurrence of the vacancy.
 Had the framers intended to extend the prohibition contained in Section 15, Article VII
to the appointment of Members of the Supreme Court, they could have explicitly done
so. They could not have ignored the meticulous ordering of the provisions. They would
have easily and surely written the prohibition made explicit in Section 15, Article VII as
being equally applicable to the appointment of Members of the Supreme Court in
Article VIII itself, most likely in Section 4 (1), Article VIII. That such specification was not
done only reveals that the prohibition against the President or Acting President making
appointments within two months before the next presidential elections and up to the
end of the Presidents or Acting Presidents term does not refer to the Members of the
Supreme Court. (De Castro v. Judicial And Bar Council, G.R. No. 191002, 17 March 2010)

4. IMMUNITIES OF CONGRESS
5. PARDONING POWER

The following are the limitations on the pardoning power of the President:
a. It cannot be granted in cases of impeachment;
b. Reprieves, commutations, pardon, and remission of fines and forfeitures can be
granted only after conviction by final judgment.
c. Amnesty requires the concurrence of the majority of all members of Congress;
d. The favorable recommendation of the COMELEC is required for violation of election
laws, rules and regulations.
e. The President cannot pardon members and employees of the Judiciary found guilty by
the Supreme Court in administrative cases.

Distinguish between pardon and amnesty.

The following are the distinctions between pardon and amnesty:
a. Pardon is a private act and must be pleaded and proved by the person pardoned;
while amnesty is a public act of which courts take judicial notice;
b. Pardon does not require the concurrence of Congress, while amnesty requires the
concurrence of Congress;
c. Pardon is granted to individuals, while amnesty is granted to classes of persons or
communities;
d. Pardon may be granted for any offense, while amnesty is granted for political
offenses;
e. Pardon is granted after final conviction, while amnesty may be granted at any time;
and
f. Pardon looks forward and relieves the offender from the consequences of his offense,
while amnesty looks backward and the person granted it stands before the law as
though he had committed no offense. (Barrioquinto v. Fernandez, 82 Phil. 642,)
6. OMBUDSMAN ACT vs. CONDONATION DOCTRINE
7. REQUISITES: VALID CHECKPOINT AND PLAIN VIEW SEARCH
The warrantless search of motor vehicles at
checkpoints should be limited to a visual
search. Its ocupants should not be subjected
toa body search. (Aniag, Jr. v. COMELEC, 237
SCRA 424, 1994) The “stop and frisk” rule
applies when a police officer observes
suspicious activity or unusual activity which
may lead him to believe that a criminal act
may be afoot. The “stop and frisk” is merely a
limited protective search of outer clothing for
weapons. Since there was no valid
warrantless search, the warrantless search
was also illegal. The unlicensed .22 caliber
pistol is inadmissible in evidence (Luz v.
People, 667 SCRA 421, 2012).
When is the abandonment of the doctrine of
condonation effective?
The abandonment of the condonation
doctrine is prospective reckoned from Nov.
10, 2015. (Carpio-Morales v. Binay, Jr.)
State the rationale for its abandonment.
There is no legal authority to sustain the
condonation doctrine in this jurisdiction. As
can be seen from this discourse, it was a
doctrine adopted from one class of US rulings
way back in 1959 and thus, out of touch
from–and now rendered obsolete by–the
current legal regime. In consequence, it is high
time to abandon the condonation doctrine
that originated from Pascual, and affirmed in
the cases following the same, such as
Aguinaldo, Salalima, Mayor Garcia, and
Governor Garcia, Jr. (Carpio-Morales v. Binay,
Jr., G.R. No. 217126-27, Nov. 10, 2015)
What is the “Plain View Doctrine”?
Under the plain view doctrine, objects falling
in the "plain view" of an officer, who has a
right to be in the position to have that view,
are subject to seizure and may be presented
as evidence. It applies when the following
requisites concur:
1. The law enforcement officer in search of
the evidence has a prior justification for an
intrusion or is in a position from which he can
view a particular area;
2. The discovery of the evidence in plain view
is inadvertent; and
3. It is immediately apparent to the officer
that the item he observes may be evidence of
a crime, contraband, or otherwise subject to
seizure.
8. ROME STATUTE: The ICC is a permanent international court established to investigate,
prosecute and try individuals accused of committing the most serious crimes of concern to the
international community as a whole, namely the crime of genocide, crime against humanity,
war crimes and the crimes of aggression. On 17 July 1998, a conference of 160 States
established the first treaty-based permanent international criminal court known as the Rome
Statute of the International Criminal Court.

9. AMENDMENT vs. REVISION

Amendment is the isolated or piecemeal Revision is the revamp or rewriting of the

change in the Constitution by mere adding, whole instrument altering the substantial
deleting, or reducing without altering the entirety of the Constitution.
basic principles involved.

10. IMPEACHMENT

Define impeachment. (2012, 2014 BAR)

As defined in Corona v. Senate, G.R. No. 200242 (2012), impeachment refers to the power of the
Congress to remove a public official for serious crimes or misconduct as provided in the
constitution. It is a method by which persons holding government positions with definite tenure
may be removed from office for causes closely related to their conduct as public officials. It is
primarily intended for the protection the people as a body politic and not for the punishment of
the offender.

Which officials may be removed through impeachment?

The Constitution provides for an exclusive list of officials which may be removed through
impeachment. These are the President, the Vice-President, Members of the Supreme Court,
Members of the Constitutional Commissions and the Ombudsman (1987 Constitution, Art. XI,
Sec. 2).

What is the procedure of impeachment? (2012 BAR)

1. Filing of a complaint
a. Verified complaint filed by any member of the House of Representatives or any
citizen upon resolution of endorsement by any member thereof.
2. Complaint is referred to the proper Committee

Referred to the proper committee within 3 session days from its inclusion in the order of
business.

a. The Committee shall decide whether or not the complaint is sufficient in form and
substance.
b. The committee, after hearing, and by majority vote of all its members, shall
submit its report to the House of Representatives together with the corresponding
resolution.
 c. The resolution shall be calendared for consideration by the House within 10 days
from submission;
d. A vote of at least 1/3 of all the members of the House of Representatives shall be
necessary either to affirm a favorable resolution with the Articles of Impeachment
of the committee or override its contrary resolution.

3. Complaint is sent to the Senate which will try and decide cases of impeachment: If the verified
complaint is filed by at least 1/3 of all its members of the House, the same shall constitute the
Articles of Impeachment.

4. Trial and Conviction: The Senators tries the impeachment and convicts by a vote of 2/3 of all
the members of the Senate. (Sec. 3, Art. XI, 1987 Constitution)

Is the power of impeachment a legislative prerogative?

NO. The power to impeach is essentially a non-legislative prerogative and can be exercised by
Congress only within the limits of the authority conferred upon it by the Constitution. (Gutierrez
v. House of Representatives Committee on Justice, G.R. No. 193459, February 15, 2011)

Who possesses the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment?

The Senate has the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment. When sitting for that
purpose, the Senators shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the Philippines
shall be impeached, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall preside, but shall not vote ( Art.
XI, Sec. 3[6], 1987 Constitution). Otherwise the Senate President shall preside in all other cases
of impeachment pursuant to Senate Resolution No. 890.

What is the quantum of evidence required for conviction?

Conviction in the impeachment proceeding will only require substantive evidence because the
same is only an administrative proceeding. By express provision of Sec. 3(7), Art. XI, 1987
Constitution, in case of conviction the officer subject of impeachment shall be meted out the
penalty only by (1) Removal from office; and (2) Disqualification to hold any office under the
Republic of the Philippines. The party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to
criminal prosecution according to law which conviction would require proof beyond reasonable
doubt.

What are the limitations imposed by the Constitution upon the initiation of impeachment
proceedings?

1. The House of Representatives shall have the exclusive power to initiate all cases of
impeachment.
2. Not more than one impeachment proceeding shall be initiated against the same official within
a period of one year. (One-year bar rule)

Two-Fold Purposes of the One-year bar rule:

 a. To prevent undue or too frequent harassment; and
b. To allow the legislature to do its principal task of legislation.

11. SECTION 18, ARTICLE VII

12. DAP CASE
13. PDAF CASE

Under the 2013 PDAF Article, individual legislators are given a personal lump-sum
fund from which they are able to dictate (a) how much from such fund would go to (b)
a specific project or beneficiary that they themselves also determine. Is this
constitutional? No. It is unconstitutional. The 2013 PDAF Article, insofar as it confers
post-enactment identification authority to individual legislators, violates the principle of
non-delegability since said legislators are effectively allowed to individually exercise the
power of appropriation which is lodged in Congress. The power to appropriate must be
exercised only through legislation. Section 29(1), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution
states that: "No money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an
appropriation made by law." The power of appropriation involves (a) the setting apart
by law of a certain sum from the public revenue for (b) a specified purpose.

As these two (2) acts under the 2013 PDAF Article comprise the exercise of the power of
appropriation, and given that the 2013 PDAF Article authorizes individual legislators to
perform the same, undoubtedly, said legislators have been conferred the power to
legislate which the Constitution does not, however, allow. Thus, the 2013 PDAF Article,
as well as all other forms of Congressional Pork Barrel which contain the similar
legislative identification feature is unconstitutional. [Belgica v. Executive Secretary, G.R.
No. 208566, November 19, 2013]

14. ENRILE BAIL CASE

Who has a constitutional right to bail?

The general rule is, therefore, that any person, before being convicted of any criminal
offense, shall be bailable, unless he is charged with a capital offense, or with an offense
punishable with reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, and the evidence of his guilt is
strong. Hence, from the moment he is placed under arrest, or is detained or restrained
by the officers of the law, he can claim the guarantee of his provisional liberty under the
Bill of Rights, and he retains his right to bail unless he is charged with a capital offense,
or with an offense punishable with reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, and the
evidence of his guilt is strong. Once it has been established that the evidence of guilt is
strong, no right to bail shall be recognized. [Enrile v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 213847,
August 18, 2015]
 If the guilt of the accused is not strong, discharge the accused upon the approval
of the bailbond (Section 19, Rule 114) Otherwise petition should be denied.
[Enrile v. Sandiganbayan, supra]
 Can special, humanitarian, and compelling circumstances be considered in
determining whether a person should be admitted to bail? Yes. This national
commitment to uphold the fundamental human rights as well as value the
worth and dignity of every person has authorized the grant of bail not only to
those charged in criminal proceedings but also to extraditees upon a clear and
convincing showing: (1) that the detainee will not be a flight risk or a danger to
the community; and (2) that there exist special, humanitarian and compelling
circumstances. Thus, an aging Senator, charged with a crime punishable by the
penalty of reclusion perpetua, may be granted bail due to his social standing
and his poor health indicating that the risk of his flight or escape from this
jurisdiction is highly unlikely. [Enrile v. Sandiganbayan, supra]