THE PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION  By a majority vote of all its Members, Congress may

submit to the electorate the question of calling such

AMENDMENT/REVISION
What are the distinctions between Amendment and Revision?
Amendment Revision
An addition or change within the Alters a basic principle in the
lines of the original constitution Constitution, like altering the
as will effect an improvement, principle of separation of
or better carry out the purpose powers or the system of checks-
for which it was framed. and-balances
Alters the substantial entirety of
A change that adds, reduces or
the constitution, as when the
deletes without altering the
change affects substantial
basic principles involved
provisions of the Constitution
Change of only a few specific Alterations of different portions
provisions of the entire document
The people cannot propose
May be proposed by the people since only the Congress or a
through initiative Constitutional Convention may
propose revisions
(Lambino vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 174153, October 25, 2006)
a convention (Art. XVII, Sec. 3, Consti.)
3. Through a people's initiative.
What are the requirements for a valid People’s Initiative?
1. The people may directly propose amendments through
initiative upon petition of at least 12% of the total number
of registered voters;
2. At least 3% of the registered voters of every legislative
district must vote for the initiative. (Art. XVII, Sect. 2,
Consti.);
3. The full text of the proposed amendments must be
embodied in the petition;
4. The required number of people must author and personally
sign the entire proposal (Lambino vs. COMELEC, 503 SCRA
160).
What is the “Doctrine of Proper Submission” in connection with
proposed amendments to the Constitution?
“Doctrine of Proper Submission” 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
(Tolentino v. COMELEC, 41 SCRA 702).

What are the three modes of amending the Constitution?
Article XVII of the Constitution speaks of three modes of amending
the Constitution:
1. Through Congress upon three-fourths vote of all its
Members.
2. Through a constitutional convention.
 Called for such purpose by a 2/3 vote of all the
Members of Congress; or
What is the two-part test in determining whether a proposal
involves an amendment or revision?
Quantitative Test – whether the proposed change is so extensive in
its provision as to change directly the “substance entirely” of the
Constitution by the deletion or alteration of numerous provisions.
The court examines only the number of provisions affected and
does not consider the degree of change

TANNER CONSOLIDATED TIPS 1

Qualitative Test – inquires into the qualitative effects of the DOCTRINE OF INCORPORATION VS. DOCTRINE OF
proposed change in the Constitution. The main inquiry is whether TRANSFORMATION
the change will “accomplish such far-reaching changes in the nature
of our basic governmental plan as to amount to a revision.” The doctrine of incorporation means that the rules of international
law form part of the law of the land and no legislative action is
Initiative vs. Referendum required to make them applicable to a country. Section 2, Article II
On one hand, initiative is the power of the people to propose of the Constitution states that the Philippines adopt the generally
amendments to the Constitution or to propose and enact legislation accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the
through an election called for the purpose. land.

There are three (3) systems of initiative, namely: The doctrine of transformation on the other hand requires that an
(a) Initiative on the Constitution; international law principle be transformed into domestic law
(b) Initiative on statutes; and through a constitutional mechanism, such as local legislation
(c) Initiative on local legislation. (Pharmaceutical and Health Care Association of the Philippines v.
Duque, G.R. No. 173034, October 9, 2007). The transformation
On the other hand, Referendum is the power of the electorate to theory is applied in the Philippines through treaty-making power of
approve or reject legislation through an election called for the the President. Through this power, rules and principles embodied in
purpose. It may be of two (2) classes, namely: a treaty in force would be transformed into Philippine Law and shall
(a) Referendum on statutes and become valid and effective upon the concurrence of 2/3 of all
(b) Referendum on local laws (Nachura, Outline Reviewer in Political members of the Senate.
Law, 2016).
What are the rules in case of conflict between International Law
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS and Municipal Law?
The general rule is that efforts should first be exerted to harmonize
ARCHIPELAGIC DOCTRINE them, so as to give effect to both.

Is the archipelagic doctrine reflected in the 1987 Constitution? In case of irreconcilable conflict:
Yes, the archipelagic doctrine is reflected in the 1987 Constitution.
Article I, Section 1 provides that the national territory of the International Law or Treaty vs. Constitution:
From the point
Philippines includes the Philippine archipelago, with all the islands Uphold the Constitution
of view of the
and waters embraced therein; and the waters around, between, municipal
and connecting the islands of the archipelago, regardless of their International vs. Statute: What comes last in time
tribunal
breadth and dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the will usually be upheld by the municipal tribunal
Philippines. (Bernas, International Law, 2009)

TANNER CONSOLIDATED TIPS 2

 Since the rights and obligations of a State in its
From the point international relations are determined by
of view of the international law, it is this law, and not the
international municipal law of the State, which provides the
tribunal standards by which to determine the legality of
its conduct (Briggs, The Law of Nations, 1982).
PRINCIPLES OF SOVEREIGNTY
What is the Doctrine of Auto-Limitation?
The doctrine provides that the Philippines adheres to principles of
international law as a limitation to the exercise of its sovereignty. It
means that any state may, by its consent, express or implied, submit
to a restriction of its sovereign rights. A State then, if it chooses to,
may refrain from the exercise of what otherwise is illimitable
competence. (Reagan vs. CIR, G.R. No. L-26379, December 27,
1969).
Distinguish Imperium from Dominium
Imperium is the State’s authority to govern as embraced in the
concept of sovereignty; include passing laws, governing a territory,
maintaining peace and order over it, and defending it against
foreign invasion.
Dominium is the capacity of the State to own or acquire property
(Lee Hong Hok vs. David, G.R. No. L-30389, December 27, 1972).
What is the principle of Jus Postliminium
The principle states that at the end of occupation, when the
occupant is ousted from the territory, the political laws which had
been suspended during the occupation shall automatically become
effective again (Peralta vs. Director of Prisons, G.R. No. L-49,
November 12, 1945).
TANNER CONSOLIDATED TIPS
In the same vein, political laws of the belligerent occupant are
automatically abrogated upon the cessation of the occupation (Co
Kim Cham vs. Valdez Tan Keh, G.R. No. L-5, September 17, 1945).
DELEGATION OF POWERS
Give the two-fold test for a valid delegation.
1. Completeness Test – the law must be complete in all its
essential terms and conditions when it leaves the legislature
so that there will be nothing left for the delegate to do
when it reaches him except to enforce it (U.S. vs. Ang Tang
Ho, G.R. No. L-17122, February 27, 1992).
2. Sufficient Standard Test – it must fix a standard (the limits
of which are sufficiently determinate or determinable) to
which the delegate must conform in the performance of his
function (Pelaez vs. Auditor General, G.R. No. L-23825,
December 24, 1965).
What is Social Justice as held in the case of Calalang vs. Williams?
Social Justice is neither communism, nor despotism, nor atomism,
nor anarchy, but the humanization of laws and the equalization of
social and economic forces by the State so that justice in its rational
and objectively secular conception may at least be approximated.
ARTICLE III – BILL OF RIGHTS
DUE PROCESS
What are the aspects of due process?
Substantive – serves as a restriction on government’s lawmaking
and rule-making power. Its requisites are:
(a) The interests of the public, in general, as distinguished from
those of a particular class, require the intervention of the State; and
3
(b) The means employed are reasonably necessary for the
accomplishment of the purpose, and not unduly oppressive on
individuals.
Procedural – serves as a restriction on actions of judicial and quasi-
judicial agencies of government. See table below for its requisites.
(Nachura, Outline Reviewer in Political Law, 2016)
Is Constitutional Due Process different from Statutory Due Process?
Yes. The Due Process Clause in Article III, Sec. 1 of the Constitution
is a constitutional restraint on the legislative, executive and judicial
powers of the government provided by the Bill of Rights. On the
other hand, Statutory Due Process is a procedure created by law,
which upholds the constitutional right of a person to due process.
EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS
What are the requisites of valid classification?
1. Such classification rests upon substantial distinctions;
2. It applies equally to all members of the same class;
3. It is germane to the purpose of the law; and
4. It is not confined to existing conditions only.
In People vs. Cayat, the SC upheld the validity of the Act 1639
prohibiting members of non-Christian tribes from drinking foreign
liquor, on the ground that their low degree of culture and
unfamiliarity with the drink rendered them more susceptible to its
effects. The term ‘non-Christian tribes’ refers, not to religious belief
but in a way, to the geographical area and more directly, to natives
of the Philippine Islands of a low grade of civilization, usually living
in tribal relationship apart from settled communities. This
distinction is unquestionably reasonable, for the Act was intended
to meet the peculiar conditions existing in the non-Christian Tribes
(People vs. Cayat, 68 PHIL 12, 1939).
TANNER CONSOLIDATED TIPS
SEARCH WARRANT
What are the requisites for a valid search warrant?
1. The existence of probable cause is determined personally by
the judge
 Probable cause here is concerned with probability,
not absolute or even moral certainty (Microsoft
Corporation vs. Maxicorp, G.R. No. 140946, September 13,
2004);
2. It must be issued upon a finding of probable cause;
3. The judge must examine under oath the complainant and
the witnesses he may produce;
4. The warrant must particularly describe the place to be
searched and person or things to be seized; and
5. It must be in connection with one specific offense (Sec. 2,
Art. III, Consti.).
X was riding a jeepney on his way home when the jeepney driver,
in a checkpoint, made a signal to the police informing the latter
that X was carrying marijuana. The police officer approached X
and asked about the contents of his bag. When asked if the police
can open his bag, X kept his silence. When asked for the bag, X
handed it to the police. Thereafter, the police saw marijuana;
hence, X was arrested. Was there a valid search?
The situation does not fall under the conditions where a warrantless
search is allowed. The police officer should not adopt the suspicion
initiated by another person. This is necessary to justify that the
person suspected be stopped and reasonably searched. Anything
less than this would be an infringement upon one’s basic right to
security of one’s person and effects (People of the Philippines vs.
Cogaed, G.R. No. 200334, July 30, 2014).
4
What is a General Warrant?
It is one that allows the seizure of one thing under a warrant
describing another and gives the officer executing the warrant the
discretion over which items to take (Vallejo vs. CA, G.R. No. 146413,
April 14, 2004).
Laud vs. People – Doctrine
Section 12, Chapter V of A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC states the
requirements for the issuance of search warrants in special criminal
cases by the RTCs of Manila and Quezon City. These special criminal
cases pertain to those "involving heinous crimes, illegal gambling,
illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions, as well as violations
of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, the Intellectual
Property Code, the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001, the Tariff
and Customs Code, as amended, and other relevant laws that may
hereafter be enacted by Congress, and included herein by the
Supreme Court."
Search warrant applications for such cases may be filed by "the NBI,
PNP and the Anti-Crime Task Force (ACTAF)," and "personally
endorsed by the heads of such agencies." The Executive Judges of
these RTCs and, whenever they are on official leave of absence or
are not physically present in the station, the Vice-Executive Judges"
are authorized to act on such applications and "shall issue the
warrants, if justified, which may be served in places outside the
territorial jurisdiction of the said courts.
Can human remains be the proper subjects of a search warrant
under Section 3, Rule 126 of RoC?
Yes. Considering that human remains can generally be transported
from place to place, and considering further that they qualify under
the phrase "subject of the offense" given that they prove the
crime’s corpus delicti, it follows that they may be valid subjects of a
search warrant under the above-cited criminal procedure provision.
TANNER CONSOLIDATED TIPS
Neither does the Court agree with Laud’s contention that the term
"human remains" is too all-embracing so as to subvert the particular
description requirement. As the Court sees it, the description points
to no other than the things that bear a direct relation to the offense
committed, i.e., of Murder (Laud vs. People, G.R. No. 199032,
November 19, 2014).
VALID CHECKPOINT IN RELATION TO PLAIN VIEW
What are the elements of Plain View Doctrine?
1. The executing law enforcement has a prior justification for
an initial intrusion or otherwise properly in a position from
which he can view a particular order;
2. The officer must discover incriminating evidence
inadvertently; and
3. It must be immediately apparent to the police that the
items they observed may be evidence of a crime,
contraband, or otherwise subject to seizure (United
Laboratories, Inc. vs. Isip, G.R. No. 163858, June 28, 2005).
The doctrine is usually applied where the police officer is not
searching for evidence against the accused, but nonetheless
inadvertently comes upon an incriminating object (People vs. Musa,
G.R. No. 96177, January 27, 1993).
Are checkpoints legal?
Checkpoints are not illegal per se. Thus, under exceptional
circumstances, as where the survival of organized government is on
the balance, or where the lives and safety of the people are in grave
peril, checkpoints may be allowed and installed by the government.
For as long as the vehicle is neither searched nor its occupants
subjected to a body search, and the inspection of the vehicle is
limited to a visual search, said routine checks cannot be regarded as
5
violative of an individual's right against unreasonable search
(Valmonte v de Villa, G.R. No. 83988 May 24, 1990).
What are the requisites for a valid checkpoint?
1. It must be warranted by the exigencies of public order;
2. It must be conducted in a way least inclusive to motorists;
and
3. The inspection of the vehicle is limited to a visual search
(Abenes vs. CA, G.R. No. 156320, February 14, 2007).
MIRANDA RIGHTS
What is Custodial Investigation?
It is any questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a
person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his
freedom of action in any significant way (Miranda vs. Arizona, 384
US 436, 1966).
It shall include the practice of issuing an “invitation” to a person
who is investigated in connection with an offense he is suspected to
have committed, without prejudice to the liability of the inviting
officer for any violation of law (R.A. 7438, Sec. 2).
What are the rights of suspects under Custodial Investigation or
the Miranda Rights?
1. Right to be informed of his rights to remain silent and to
counsel;
2. Right to be reminded that if he waives his right to remain
silent, anything he says can and will be used against him;
3. Right to remain silent;
4. Right to have a competent and independent counsel
preferably of his own choice (Art. III, Sec. 12, Consti.).
TANNER CONSOLIDATED TIPS
RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION
Judge Y was found guilty of gross insubordination, gross ignorance
of the law, gross misconduct, gross abuse of authority, oppression,
and conduct unbecoming of a judicial official. She argues that the
content of the complaint letter and the protest she wrote, which
contain derogatory language, could not be used against her
because the Constitution guarantees the right against self-
incrimination. Decide.
The constitutional guarantee against self-incrimination only sets the
privilege of an individual to refuse to answer incriminating
questions that may directly or indirectly render her criminally liable.
The constitutional guarantee simply secures to a witness – whether
a party or not – the right to refuse to answer any particular
incriminatory question. The privilege did not prohibit legitimate
inquiry in non-criminal matters. At any rate, the rule only finds
application in case of oral testimony and does not apply to object
evidence (Office of the Court Administrative vs. Judge Yu, et. al.,
A.M. No. MTJ-12-1813, March 14, 2017)>
RIGHT TO SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF CASES
State the difference between right to Speedy Trial under Section 14
and Speedy Disposition of Cases under Section 16.
In speedy disposition of cases, it involves all proceedings and
involves all parties. It also pertains to all stages of trial especially
during trial proper.
On the other hand, speedy trial under Section 14 specifically
involves criminal proceedings and is only intended for the accused.
It only involves trial proceedings and those anterior to it.
6
 WRIT OF AMPARO
What is a writ of amparo?
It is a remedy available to any person whose right to life, liberty and
security is violated or threatened with a violation by an unlawful act
or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private
individual or entity.
Can a writ of amparo be issued without government acquiescence?
No. A writ of amparo may lie against a private individual or entity.
But even if the person sought to be held accountable or responsible
in an amparo petition is a private individual or entity, still,
government involvement in the disappearance remains an
indispensable element (Navia vs. Pardico, G.R. No. 184467, June 19,
2012 J. Del Castillo).
WRIT OF KALIKASAN
What are the requisites for a party to avail of the writ of
kalikasan?
1. There is an actual or threatened violation of the
constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology;
2. The actual or threatened violation arises from an unlawful
act or omission of a public official or employee, or private
individual or entity; and
3. The actual or threatened violation involves or will lead to an
environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice
the life, health or property of inhabitants in two or more
cities or provinces (LNL Archipelago, 2016)
What is the Strategic Lawsuit against Public Participation in
relation to Writ of Kalikasan?
Strategic Lawsuit against Public Participation (SLAPP) is a legal
action filed to harass, vex, exert undue pressure or stifle any legal
TANNER CONSOLIDATED TIPS
recourse that any person, institution or the government has taken
or may take in the enforcement of environmental laws, protection
of the environment or assertion of environmental rights (Sec. 1,
Rule 6, A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC).
ARTICLE 4 - CITIZENSHIP
CITIZENSHIP
Who are citizens of the Philippines?
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 the accordance with law (Art.
IV, Sec. 1, Consti.).
What is the Caram Rule?
Under the 1935 Constitution, those born in the Philippines of
foreign parent, who before the adoption of the Constitution had
been elected to public office in the Philippines, are considered
Filipino citizens (Chiongbian vs. De Leon, G.R. No. L-2007, January
31, 1949).
Who are Natural-Born Citizens of the Philippines?
1. Citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to
perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine
citizenship; or
7
 2. Those born before January 17, 1973 of Filipino mothers,
who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of
majority (Art. IV, Sec. 2, Consti.)
3. Those former natural born citizens who reacquire Philippine
citizenship through repatriation;
4. Foundlings who, as a class, are treated by law as natural-
born citizens. (Poe-Llamanzares vs. Commission on
Elections, G.R. No. 221697, March 8, 2016).
NATURALIZATION
What are the modes of Naturalization?
Direct Naturalization – it is effected by:
1. Individual proceedings, usually judicial under general
naturalization laws;
2. Special act of the legislature, often in favor of distinguished
foreigners who have rendered some notable service to the
local state;
3. Collective change of nationality as a result of cession or
subjugation;
4. Adoption of orphan minors as nationals of the State where
they are born (Cruz, Philippine Constitutional Law, (2014), p.
802).; and
5. Administrative proceedings (RA 9139).
Derivative Naturalization – it is conferred on:
1. Wife of the naturalized husband;
2. Minor children of a naturalized parent; and
3. Alien woman upon marriage to a national (Cruz,
International Law (2003), p. 183).
What is the Doctrine of Indelible Allegiance?
The doctrine provides that an individual may be compelled by
municipal law to retain his original nationality even if he has already
TANNER CONSOLIDATED TIPS
renounced or forfeited it under the laws of the second state whose
nationality he has acquired (Nachura, Outline Reviewer in Political
Law (2016), p. 288).
DUAL ALLEGIANCE
Differentiate Dual Citizenship and Dual Allegiance
Dual citizenship comes about when as a result of the concurrent
application of the different laws of two or more countries he is
considered a citizen of all of them:
1. The country of the father of the dual citizen follows the
principle of jus soli and the country of the mother follows
the principle of jus sanguinis.
2. The law of the country of the alien father and the law of the
country of the mother both treat the child as its national
3. The law of the country of the father considers the Filipino
mother a citizen of his country. Dual citizenship is
involuntary.
Dual allegiance refers to the situation in which a person
simultaneously owes loyalty to one or more states by a positive act.
Dual citizenship is acquired involuntarily while dual allegiance is the
result of an individual’s volition and is prohibited by the
Constitution.
Is Dual Citizenship prohibited by the Constitution?
No. The Supreme Court stressed that the constitutional policy is not
against dual citizenship but dual loyalty, such as that often
manifested by naturalized Filipinos who, while professing allegiance
to their adoptive land, retain their allegiance to their native land
and even involve themselves in its political affairs (Mercado vs.
Manzano, G.R. No. 135083, May 26, 1999).
8
 LOSS AND REACQUISITION OF CITIZENSHIP
How is Philippine Citizenship lost?
1. By naturalization in foreign countries;
2. By express renunciation of citizenship (expatriation)
3. By subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support the
Constitution or laws of a foreign country upon attaining 21
years of age or more
4. By rendering service to, or accepting commission in the
armed forces of a foreign country;
5. By cancellation of the certificate of naturalization
6. By having been declared by competent authority a deserter
of the Philippine armed forces in time of war, unless
subsequently, a plenary pardon or amnesty has been
granted; or
7. In case of a woman, upon marriage to a foreigner, if by
virtue of the laws in force of her husband’s country, she
acquires his nationality (C.A. 63, Sec. 1).
How is Philippine Citizenship reacquired?
1. By naturalization;
2. By repatriation, i.e. R.A. No. 9225; or
3. By direct act of the Congress (C.A. 63, Sec. 2).
What is the effect of the Use of Foreign Passport after renunciation
of Foreign Citizenship under R.A. 9225?
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
(Maquiling vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 195649, April 16, 2013).
TANNER CONSOLIDATED TIPS
FOUNDLINGS
How did the Supreme Court treat foundlings?
The Supreme Court pronounced that foundlings are as a class,
natural born-citizens as based on the deliberations of the 1935
Constitutional Convention, wherein though its enumeration is silent
as to foundlings, there is no restrictive language either to definitely
exclude the foundlings to be natural born citizens. Foundlings are
automatically conferred with the natural-born citizenship as to the
country where they are being found, as covered and supported by
the principle that a foundling is presumed born of citizens of the
country where he is found, contained in Art. 2 of the 1961 United
Nations Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness (Poe-
Llamanzares vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 221697, March 8,
2016).
The COMELEC ruled that Sen. Poe’s repatriation in July 2006 under
the provisions of R.A. No. 9225 did not result in the reacquisition of
natural-born citizenship. Is the ruling correct?
No. The COMELEC's rule arrogantly disregarded consistent
jurisprudence on the matter of repatriation statutes in general and
of R.A. No. 9225 in particular. In the seminal case of Bengson Ill v.
HRET, repatriation was explained as follows:
Moreover, repatriation results in the recovery of
the original nationality. This means that a naturalized
Filipino who lost his citizenship will be restored to his prior
status as a naturalized Filipino citizen. On the other hand, if
he was originally a natural-born citizen before he lost his
Philippine citizenship, he will be restored to his former
status as a natural-born Filipino.
The COMELEC construed the phrase "from birth" in the definition
of natural citizens as implying "that natural-born citizenship must
9
begin at birth and remain uninterrupted and continuous from
birth." Is the ruling correct?
The ruling is not correct. R.A. No. 9225 was obviously passed in line
with Congress' sole prerogative to determine how citizenship may
be lost or reacquired. Congress saw it fit to decree that natural-born
citizenship may be reacquired even if it had been once lost.
In Bengson III v. HRET where the phrase "from birth" was clarified to
mean at the time of birth: "A person who at the time of his birth, is
a citizen of a particular country, is a natural-born citizen thereof."
Neither is "repatriation" an act to "acquire or perfect" one's
citizenship. In Bengson III v. HRET, it was pointed out that there are
only two types of citizens under the 1987 Constitution: natural-born
citizen and naturalized, and that there is no third category for
repatriated citizens.
ARTICLE VI - LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
2 IMMUNITIES OF CONGRESS
What are the Legislative Privileges/Parliamentary Immunities of
the Congress?
Privilege from Arrest – A Senator or Member of the HOR shall, in all
offenses punishable by not more than 6 years imprisonment, be
privileged from arrest while the Congress is in session (Art. VI, Sec.
11, Consti.) whether regular or special and whether or not the
legislator is actually attending session. Hence, it is not available
while Congress is in recess (Bernas, 1987 Philippine Constitution
Reviewer (2001), p. 232).
Session covers the entire period from its initial convening until its
final adjournment (Cruz, Philippine Constitutional Law, (2014), p.
228-229).
TANNER CONSOLIDATED TIPS
Privilege of Speech and Debate – No Member shall be questioned
nor be held liable in any other place for any speech or debate in the
Congress or in any commitment thereof (Art. VI, Sec. 11, Consti.).
“For any speech or debate” includes any statement or utterances a
legislator makes while he is performing his official functions (Suarez,
Political Law Reviewer (2002), p. 493).
The member of Congress may be held to account for such speech or
debate by the House to which he belongs. He can be subjected to
disciplinary action by the Congress itself (Chavez vs. JBC, G.R. No.
202242, April 16, 2013).
What are the requirements to avail of the privilege of speech and
debate?
1. The remarks must be made while the legislature or the
legislative committee is in session; and
2. That they must be made in connection with the discharge of
official duties (Cruz, Philippine Constitutional Law, (2014), p.
229).
While his appeal from a conviction of rape is pending, and while
confined at the national penitentiary, Congressman X was re-
elected. Thus, he argued that he should be allowed to attend the
legislative sessions and committee hearings because his
confinement was depriving his constituents of their voice in
Congress. Decide.
Congressman X’s contention is flawed.
The immunity from arrest or detention of Senators and Members of
the HOR has always been granted in a restrictive sense. Under
Article VI, Section 2 of the Constitution, a member of the HOR is
privileged from arrest only if punishable by not more than 6 years;
thus, he should not be allowed to attend the congressional sessions.
10
Otherwise, he would be virtually made a free man. Besides, when
he was elected into office, the voters were aware of his limitations
on his freedom of action. Congress can continue to function even
without all its members being present (People v. Jalosjos, G.R. No.
132875-76, February 3, 2000).
PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE FUND (PDAF)
Under the 2013 PDAF Article, individual legislators are given a
personal lump-sum fund from which they are able to dictate how
much from such fund would go to 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 (b) for a specified purpose.
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).
Is the “Pork Barrel” System constitutional?
No. The Court declared the Pork Barrel System as unconstitutional
in view of the inherent defects in the rules within which it operates:
1. Insofar as it has allowed legislators to wield, in varying
gradations, nonoversight, post-enactment authority in vital areas of
TANNER CONSOLIDATED TIPS
budget execution, the system has violated the principle of
separation of powers;
2. Insofar as it has conferred unto legislators the power of
appropriation by giving them personal, discretionary funds from
which they are able to fund specific projects which they themselves
determine, it has similarly violated the principle of non-delegability
of legislative power;
3. Insofar as it has created a system of budgeting wherein items are
not textualized into the appropriations bill, it has flouted the
prescribed procedure of presentment and, in the process, denied
the President the power to veto items;
4. Insofar as it has diluted the effectiveness of congressional
oversight by giving legislators a stake in the affairs of budget
execution, an aspect of governance which they may be called to
monitor and scrutinize, the system has equally impaired public
accountability;
5. Insofar as it has authorized legislators, who are national officers,
to intervene in affairs of purely local nature, despite the existence
of capable local institutions, it has likewise subverted genuine local
autonomy; and
6. Insofar as it has conferred to the President the power to
appropriate funds intended by law for energy related purposes only
to other purposes he may deem fit as well as other public funds
under the broad classification of “priority infrastructure
development projects,” it has once more transgressed the principle
of non-delegability (Id.).
DISBURSEMENT ACCELERATION PROGRAM (DAP)
What are the requisites for a valid transfer of appropriated funds
under Sec. 25(5)?
1. There is a law authorizing the President, Senate President,
Speaker, Chief Justice and heads of the Constitutional
Commissions;
11
 2. The funds to be transferred are savings generated from the augment items pertaining to other departments of the Government
appropriations for their respective offices; and in clear violation of the Constitution. To declare the implementation
3. The purpose of the transfer is to augment an item in the of the DAP unconstitutional without recognizing that its prior
general appropriations law for their respective offices implementation constituted an operative fact that produced
(Araullo, et al. v. Aquino III, et al. G.R. No. 209287). consequences in the real as well as juristic worlds of the
Government and the Nation is to be impractical and unfair (Araullo,
What are activities under the DAP declared unconstitutional by the et al. v. Aquino III, et al. G.R. No. 209287).
SC?
In Araullo vs. Aquino, the SC declared as unconstitutional the
following 4 acts and practices under the DAP:
ARTICLE VII – EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT
1. The withdrawal of unobligated allotments from the
POWER OF APPOINTMENT
implementing agencies, and the declaration of the withdrawn
unobligated allotments and unreleased appropriations as savings
What is the nature of the appointing power?
prior to the end of the fiscal year and without complying with the
The appointing power is executive in nature (Government vs.
statutory definition of savings contained in the General
Springer, G.R. No. L-26979, April 1, 1927). Since appointment to
Appropriations Act (GAA);
office is an executive function, the legislature may not usurp such
2. The cross-border transfers of the savings of the executive to
function. The Legislature may create an office and prescribe the
augment the appropriations of other offices outside the executive
qualifications of the person who may hold office, but it may neither
(prohibited cross-border augmentation);
specify who shall be appointed to such office nor actually appoint
3. The funding of Programs, Activities and Projects (PAPs) that are
him (Manalang vs. Quitoriano, G.R. No. L-6898, April 30, 1954).
not covered by any appropriation in the GAA since augmentation
can only be made from one existing item to another existing item
What are the four groups of officers whom the President shall
in the budget; and
appoint?
4. The use of unprogrammed funds in the absence of a legally
There are four (4) groups of officers whom the President shall
required certification by the National Treasurer that the whole
appoint:
revenue collections exceeded the total revenue targets.
1. The heads of the executive departments, ambassadors, other
public ministers and consuls, officers of the armed forces from the
How was the Operative Fact Doctrine Applied in the Araullo vs.
rank of colonel or naval captain, and other officers whose
Aquino (DAP case)?
appointments are vested in him in this Constitution;
The consequences resulting from the DAP and its related issuances
2. All other officers of the Government whose appointments are not
could not be ignored or could no longer be undone. The
otherwise provided for by law;
implementation of the DAP resulted into the use of savings pooled
3. Those whom the president may be authorized by law to appoint;
by the Executive to finance the PAPs that were not covered in the
4. Officers lower in rank whose appointments the Congress may by
GAA, or that did not have proper appropriation covers, as well as to
law vest in the President alone

TANNER CONSOLIDATED TIPS 12

Only appointments under the first sentence of Section 16, Article VII Does the prohibition apply to appointments made by the President
(first group hereof) need confirmation of the Commission on for a member of the Supreme Court?
Appointments (Sarmiento vs. Mison, G.R. No. L-79974, December No. The prohibition does not extend to appointments in the
17, 1987). Judiciary. Had the framers intended to extend the prohibition to the
appointment of Members of the Supreme Court, they could have
Ad Interim Appointment vs. Regular Appointment explicitly done so. The prohibition is confined to appointments in
Ad Interim Appointment Regular Appointment the Executive Department by the President or Acting President (De
Nature Castro vs. JBC, G.R. No. 191002, 2010)
Made by the President while
Made by the President while May the succeeding President revoke appointments to the
Congress is not in session or
Congress is in session. Judiciary made by an Acting President?
during recess.
Confirmation No. Sec. 14 Art. VII refers only to appointments in the Executive
After nomination is confirmed Department. It has no application to appointments in the Judiciary
Before confirmation of CA. because temporary or acting appointments can only undermine the
by the CA.
Effectivity judiciary due to their being revocable at will (De Castro vs. JBC, G.R.
Shall cease to be valid if Once confirmed by the CA, it No. 191002, 2010). (Take note of the case of Sereno).
disapproved by the CA or upon continues until the end of the
adjournment of the Congress term of the appointee. MARTIAL LAW RULE

What is midnight appointment?
A midnight appointment refers to “those appointments made
within two months immediately prior to the next presidential
election.” Midnight appointments are prohibited under Article VII,
Section 15 of the Constitution.
Does the prohibition against midnight appointments apply to
LGUs?
No. The constitutional prohibition on midnight appointments only
applies to presidential appointments. It does not apply to
appointments made by local chief executives. There is no law that
prohibits local elective officials from making appointments during
the last days of his or her tenure (The Provincial Government of
Aurora v. Marco, G.R. No. 202331, April 22, 2015).
What are the constitutional safeguards to the exercise of the
President’s power to proclaim martial law?
The following are the constitutional safeguards to the exercise of
the power of the President to proclaim martial law:
1. There must be an actual invasion or rebellion;
2. The duration of the proclamation shall not exceed sixty (60) days;
3. Within forty-eight (48) hours, the President shall report his action
to Congress. If Congress is not in session, it must convene within
forty-eight (48) hours;
4. Congress may by majority vote of all its members voting jointly
revoke the proclamation, and the President cannot set aside the
revocation;
5. By the same vote and in the same manner, upon initiative of the
President, Congress may extend the proclamation if the invasion or
rebellion continues and public safety requires the extension;

TANNER CONSOLIDATED TIPS 13

6. The Supreme Court may review the factual sufficiency of the
proclamation, and the Supreme Court must decide the case within
thirty (30) days from the time it was filed;
7. Martial law does not automatically suspend the privilege of the
writ of habeas corpus or the operation of the Constitution. It does
not supplant the functioning of the civil courts and of Congress.
Military courts have no jurisdiction over civilians where civil courts
are able to function [Cruz, Philippine Political Law, pp. 213-214]
What is the meaning of “appropriate proceedings” covered by Sec.
18[3], Article VII of the Constitution?
The phrase "in an appropriate proceeding" refers to any action
initiated by a citizen for the purpose of questioning the sufficiency
of the factual basis of the exercise of the Chief Executive's
emergency powers, as in these cases. It could be denominated as a
complaint, a petition, or a matter to be resolved by the Court (Rep.
Ecel Lagman, et al. v. Hon. Medialdea, et al., G.R. No. 231658, July 4,
2017, Del Castillo, J).
Is the judicial power to review the same with the congressional
power to revoke?
No. The Court's review power is passive; it is only initiated by the
filing of a petition "in an appropriate proceeding" by a citizen. On
the other hand, Congress' review mechanism is automatic in the
sense that it may be activated by Congress itself at any time after
the proclamation or suspension was made. The power of the Court
to review can be exercised independently from the power of
revocation of Congress (Id.).
What are the parameters for review to determine whether there
exists factual basis for the proclamation of Martial Law? What is
the standard of proof required in determining such?
The parameters for determining the sufficiency of factual basis are
as follows: (1) actual rebellion or invasion; (2) public safety requires
TANNER CONSOLIDATED TIPS
it; and (3) there is probable cause for the President to believe that
there is actual rebellion or invasion. The first two requirements
must concur. The President needs only to satisfy probable cause as
the standard of proof in determining the existence of either
invasion or rebellion for purposes of declaring Martial Law. To
require him to satisfy a higher standard of proof would restrict the
exercise of his emergency powers (Id.).
Can the Supreme Court look at the accuracy of the basis for
declaration?
No. The Court's review is confined to the sufficiency, not accuracy,
of the information at hand during the declaration or suspension;
subsequent events do not have any bearing insofar as the Court's
review is concerned.
The Court's power to review is limited to the determination of
whether the President in declaring martial law and suspending the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus had sufficient factual basis.
Thus, our review would be limited to an examination on whether
the President acted within the bounds set by the Constitution, i.e.,
whether the facts in his possession prior to and at the time of the
declaration or suspension are sufficient for him to declare martial
law or suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus (Id.).
When will Congress vote jointly in relation to proclamation of
Martial Law?
The Constitution grants the Congress the power to revoke the
President's proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus and prescribes how the
Congress may exercise such power, i.e., by a vote of at least a
majority of all its Members, voting jointly, in a regular or special
session.
14
Simply put, the provision only requires Congress to vote jointly on Was the Pardon granted to former President Estrada an Absolute
the revocation of the President's proclamation and/or suspension Pardon?
(Padilla, et al. v. Congress of the Phils., et al. & companion cases, Yes. Former President Estrada was granted an absolute pardon that
G.R. No. 231671, 231694, July 25, 2017, Leonardo-De Castro, J). fully restored all his civil and political rights, which naturally includes
the right to seek public office. The wording of the pardon extended
PARDONING POWER to former President Estrada is complete, unambiguous, and
unqualified. The only reasonable, objective, and constitutional
What are the forms of the pardoning power of the President? interpretation of the language of the pardon is that the same in fact
1. Reprieves; conforms to Articles 36 and 41 of the Revised Penal Code (Atty.
2. Commutations; Alicia Risos-Vidal v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 206666, January 21, 2015).
3. Pardons;
4. Amnesty; Can the pardoning power of the President be limited by legislative
5. Remission of fines and forfeiture, and amnesty (Art. VII, Sec. action?
19, Consti.). The exercise of the pardoning power is discretionary in the
President and may not be interfered with by Congress or the Court,
Pardon vs. Amnesty except only when it exceeds the limits provided for by the
Pardon Amnesty Constitution (Atty. Alicia Risos-Vidal v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 206666,
Can be given any time and even January 21, 2015).
Can be given only after final
before the filing of a criminal Therefore, it can be argued that any act of Congress by way of
conviction
case. statute cannot operate to delimit the pardoning power of the
Looks backward as if the President.
Looks forward accused never committed a
crime Are there cases in which the President cannot extend pardon?
Given to all criminal offenses Given for political offenses Yes. The only instances in which the President may not extend
Does not require the Requires the concurrence of pardon remain to be in:
concurrence of Congress Congress 1. Impeachment cases;
Must be proven, because it is a Need not be proven, because it 2. Cases that have not yet resulted in a final conviction; and
private act is a public act. 3. Cases involving violations of election laws, rules and
No need for distinct acts of regulations in which there was no favorable
Acceptance is necessary recommendation coming from the COMELEC.
acceptance

TANNER CONSOLIDATED TIPS 15

 ARTICLE VIII – JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
What is the expanded jurisdiction and authority of the Supreme
Court?
Art. VIII, Sec. 1, par. 2 of the Constitution expanded the power,
authority, and jurisdiction of the courts of justice, particularly the
Supreme Court, to determine whether any branch of the
government has committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction.
Under the expanded jurisdiction conferred to the Supreme Court,
the political question doctrine is no longer the insurmountable
obstacle to the exercise of judicial power or the impenetrable shield
that protects executive and legislative actions from judicial inquiry
(Oposa vs. Factoran, Jr., G.R. No. 101083, July 30, 1993). Courts can
review questions which are not truly political in nature (Francisco,
Jr. vs. HOR, G.R. No. 160261, November 10, 2003).
Can a senator represent a member of the House of Representatives
in the JBC and vice-versa?
Yes. In the JBC, any member of Congress, whether from the Senate
or the House of Representatives, is constitutionally empowered to
represent the entire Congress (Chavez vs. JBC, G.R. No. 202242,
April 16, 2013).
ARTICLE IX – CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS
COMMISSION ON AUDIT (COA)
What are the powers and duties of COA?
1. To examine and audit all forms of government revenue;
2. To examine and audit all forms of governments expenditure;
TANNER CONSOLIDATED TIPS
3. To settle government accounts (NOTE: This means the power to
settle liquidated accounts, i.e., those accounts which may be
adjusted simply by an arithmetical process. It does not include the
power to fix the amount of an unfixed or undetermined debt
(Compania General De Tobacos vs. French and Unson, G.R. No. L-
14027, November 8, 1918);
4. To define the scope and techniques for its own auditing
procedures;
5. To promulgate accounting and auditing rules including those for
the prevention and disallowance of irregular, unnecessary,
excessive, extravagant or unconscionable expenditures; and
6. To decide administrative cases involving expenditure of public
funds (Art. IX-D, Sec. 2, Consti.).
The COA can decide money claims based on law. But if a money
claim is denied by law, COA has no authority to pass judgment on
the constitutionality of the law (Parreno vs. COA, G.R. No. 162224,
June 7, 2007).
The COA has post-auditing authority over:
1. Constitutional bodies, commissions and offices that have
been granted fiscal autonomy under the Constitution;
2. Autonomous State Universities and Colleges;
3. Non-government entities receiving subsidy or equity,
directly or indirectly from or through the government which
are required by law or by the granting institution to submit
to such audit as a condition of subsidy or equity; and
4. Other GOCCs and their subsidiaries (Art. IX-D, Sec. 2,
Consti.)
Does the COA have jurisdiction over the Local Water Utilities
Administration?
Yes. A water district is a GOCC with a special charter. Under Sec 2,
subdivision D, Art. IX of the Constitution, it the mandate of the COA
16
to audit all government agencies, including GOCCs with original
charters. If COA finds the internal control system of audited
agencies inadequate, COA may adopt measures, including
temporary or special pre-audit, as necessary to correct
deficiencies It shall keep the general accounts of the government
and, for such period as may be provided by law, preserve the
vouchers and other supporting papers pertaining thereto.
The COA shall have exclusive authority, subject to the limitations in
this article, to define the scope of its audit and examination,
establish the techniques and methods required therefore, and
promulgate accounting and auditing rules and regulations, including
those for the prevention and disallowance of irregular, unnecessary,
excessive, extravagant, or unconscionable expenditures, or uses of
government funds and properties (Barbo vs. COA, G.R. No. 157542,
2008).
Laws and jurisprudence on COA’s jurisdiction.
 No law shall be passed exempting any entity of the
Government, or any investment of public funds, from the
jurisdiction of the COA (Art. IX-D, Sec. 3 Consti.).
 The Constitution vests in the COA audit jurisdiction over
GOCCs with or without original charters. GOCCs with
original charters are subject to COA pre-audit while GOCCs
without original charters are subject to COA post-audit. The
determining factor of COA’s audit jurisdiction is government
ownership or control of the corporation (Feliciano vs. COA,
G.R. No. 1477402, January 14, 2004).
 LGUs, though granted local fiscal autonomy , are still within
the audit jurisdiction of the COA (Veloso, et. al. vs. COA, G.R.
No. 193677, September 6, 2011).
 Following Art. IX-D, Sec. 3 of the Constitution, it is clear that
COA has jurisdiction over coconut levy funds, being special
public funds. The COA has the power, authority and duty to
TANNER CONSOLIDATED TIPS
examine, audit and settle all accounts pertaining to the
coconut levy funds and, consequently, to the UCPB shares
purchased using the said funds. However, declaring the said
funds as partaking the nature of private funds, ergo subject
to private appropriation, removes them from the coffers of
the public funds of the government, and consequently
renders them impervious to the COA audit jurisdiction.
Article III, Section 5 of both P.D. Nos. 961 and 1468 must be
struck down for being unconstitutional as it divests the COA
of its constitutionally-mandated function and undermine its
constitutional independence (Philippine COCOFED, et. al. vs.
Republic, G.R. Nos. 177957-58 & G.R. No. 178193, January
24, 2012).
1K BUDGET OF CHR – can’t find any pertinent jurisprudence
regarding this
Does the CHR enjoy fiscal autonomy?
No. There is no legal basis to support the contention that the CHR
enjoys fiscal autonomy. In essence, fiscal autonomy entails freedom
from outside control and limitations, other than those provided by
law. It is the freedom to allocate and utilize funds granted by law, in
accordance with law, and pursuant to the wisdom and dispatch its
needs may require from time to time. Thus, in Bengzon, we
explained:
As envisioned in the Constitution, the fiscal autonomy enjoyed by
the Judiciary, the Civil Service Commission, the Commission on
Audit, the Commission on Elections, and the Office of the
Ombudsman contemplates a guarantee of full flexibility to
allocate and utilize their resources with the wisdom and dispatch
that their needs require. It recognizes the power and authority to
levy, assess and collect fees, fix rates of compensation not
exceeding the highest rates authorized by law for compensation
and pay plans of the government and allocate and disburse such
17
 sums as may be provided by law or prescribed by them in the
course of the discharge of their functions
ARTICLE XII – NATIONAL ECONOMY AND
PATRIMONY
REGALIAN DOCTRINE
What is the Regalian Doctrine?
The Regalian Doctrine is a universal feudal theory that all lands were
held from the Crown. All lands not otherwise clearly appearing to be
privately owned are presumed to belong to the State (Carino vs.
Insular Government, G.R. No. 72, February 23, 1909).
Under Art. XII, Sec. 2 of the Constitution, all lands of the public
domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils,
all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests, or timber, wildlife,
flora and fauna, and other natural resources are owned the by the
State. With the exception of agricultural lands, all other natural
resources shall not be alienated.
 Exception: Any land that should have been in the
possession of an occupant and of his predecessors in
interest since time immemorial, for such possession would
justify the presumption that the land had never been part
of the public domain or that it had been a private property
even before the Spanish conquest (Cho vs. Director of
Lands, G.R. No. L-48321, August 31, 1946).
What are the limitations on the disposition of the State of
alienable lands of the public domain?
1. Only agricultural lands of the public domain may be alienated
(Art. XII, Sec. 2, Consti.);
2. Only Filipino citizens may acquire lands but not more than 12
hectares by purchase, homestead, or grant, or lease no more than
TANNER CONSOLIDATED TIPS
500 hectares. Private corporations may lease not more than 1,000
hectares for 25 years renewable for another 25 years (Art. XII, Sec.
3, Consti.);
3. The exploration, development, and utilization (EDU) of all
natural resources shall be under the full control and supervision of
the State either by directly undertaking such EDU or through co-
production, joint venture, or production sharing agreements with
qualified persons (Art. XII, Sec. 2, par. 1, Consti.)
 Exception: For large-scale EDU of minerals, petroleum, and
other mineral oils, the President may enter into agreements with
foreign-owned corporations involving technical or financial
assistance (Art. XII, Sec. 2, par. 4, Consti.)
 These agreements refer to service contracts which involve
foreign management and operation provided that the
Government shall retain that degree of control sufficient to
direct and regulate the affairs of individual enterprises and
restrain undesired activities (La Bugal-B’laan Tribal Assoc., et. al,
vs. Secretary, DENR, et.al., G.R. No. 127882, December 1, 2004);
4. The use and enjoyment of the marine wealth of the archipelagic
waters, territorial sea, and the EEZ shall be reserved for Filipino
citizens
5. Utilization of natural resources in rivers, lakes, bays and lagoons
may be allowed only on “small scale” to Filipino citizens or
cooperatives – with priority for subsistence fishermen and fish
workers (Art. XII, Sec. 2, Consti).
LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS
DISABILITIES AND INHIBITIONS OF PUBLIC OFFICERS
Explain the concept of Nepotism.
The Administrative Code of 1987 prohibits appointments in the
national government made in favor of relatives within the 3rd
degree of consanguinity or affinity of either the:
1. Appointing authority;
18
 2. Recommending authority; Who are exempted from Nepotism Rule?
3. Chief of bureau or office; or 1. Persons employed in a confidential capacity;
4. Persons exercising immediate supervision over the 2. Teachers;
appointee (ADM. Code, Title I, Sub. A, Chap. 7, Sec. 59). 3. Physicians; and
4. Members of the Armed Forces (ADM. Code, Title I, Sub. A,
The prohibition on nepotism covers promotions as well because Chap. 7, Sec. 59).
promotions are, in essence, appointments. The law on nepotism
applies to all kinds of appointments because the law does not The Mayor of San Jose City appointed his wife, A, as City Treasurer
distinguish (Debulgado vs. CSC, G.R. No. 111471, September 26, from among 3 employees of the city considered for the said
1994). position. Prior to said promotion, A had been an Assistant City
Treasurer for 10 years, that is, even before she married the City
The rule also admits of no distinction between appointment and Mayor. Should the Civil Service Commission approve the
designation. Although what was extended was merely designation promotional appointment of A? Why or why not?
and not an appointment, the prohibitive mantle on nepotism would No, the promotional appointment of A should not be approved as it
include designation because what cannot be done directly cannot violates the prohibition on nepotism. In Debulgado vs. Civil Service
be done indirectly (Laurel vs. CSC, G.R. No. 71562, October 28, Commission, the Court held that Section 59, Book V. of E.O. 292 on
1991). Nepotism means that the prohibition on appointment refers to “all
appointments” whether original or promotion in nature. Hence, CSC
Can Nepotism exist under the LGC? should not approve the appointment.
Yes. In the case of local government, the Local Government Code of
1991 provides that nepotism exists when an appointment is made IMPEACHMENT
within 4th degree of consanguinity or affinity of the appointing or
recommending authority (R.A. 7160, Sec. 79). Who can be impeached and what are the grounds for
impeachment?
When is there Nepotism under the Constitution? IMPEACHABLE OFFICERS GROUNDS
The Constitution also prohibits the spouse and relatives by 1. Culpable violation of the
1. President
consanguinity or affinity within the 4th civil degree of the President Constitution,
2. Vice President
during his tenure from being appointed as Members of the 2. Treason,
3. Members of the Supreme
Constitutional Commissions, or the Office of the Ombudsman, or as 3. Bribery,
Court
Secretaries, Undersecretaries, chairpersons or heads of bureaus or 4. Graft and Corruption, and
4. Members of the
offices, including government-owned or controlled corporations 5. Other high Crimes
Constitutional Commissions
(Art. VII, Sec. 13, Consti.). 6. Betrayal of Public Trust (Sec. 2,
5. Ombudsman (Sec. 2, Art. XI)
Art. XI)

TANNER CONSOLIDATED TIPS 19

NOTE: Failure to file the SALN is clearly a violation of the law. It
disregards the requirement of transparency as a deterrent to graft
and corruption. For these reasons, a public official who has failed to
comply with the requirement of filing the SALN cannot be said to be
of proven integrity and the Court may consider him/her disqualified
from holding public office (Republic of the Philippines vs. Sereno,
G.R. No. 237428, May 11, 2018).
What are the 3 ways of filing an impeachment complaint?
1. A verified complaint for impeachment filed by any member of the
House of Representatives
2. A verified complaint filed by any citizen upon a resolution of
endorsement of any member thereof
3. A verified complaint or resolution filed by at least ⅓ of the
members of all the members of the House of Representatives (Sec.
3, Art. XI)
What is the meaning of “initiate” in impeachment?
The term “initiate” means to file the complaint and take initial
action on it. The initiation starts with the filing of the complaint
which must be accompanied with an action to set the complaint
moving. It refers to the filing of the impeachment complaint
coupled with Congress’ taking initial action of said complaint. The
initial action taken by the House on the complaint is the referral of
the complaint to the Committee on Justice (Francisco v. House of
Representatives, et al., 460 Phil. 830 (2003).
A complaint for impeachment was filed on June 2. It was referred
to the Committee on Justice on Aug 5. On Oct 23, a 2nd complaint
was filed against the same public officer. Can the 2nd complaint be
entertained?
No. No impeachment proceeding shall be initiated against the same
official more than once within a period of one year. The proceeding
TANNER CONSOLIDATED TIPS
is initiated when a verified complaint is filed and referred to the
Committee on Justice for action (Francisco v. HoR, 2003).
An impeachment complaint was filed on Aug. 3. Another
impeachment complaint was filed on Aug. 18. Both complaints
were referred to the Committee on Justice on Aug. 25. Did this
violate the one year bar rule?
No. The term “initiate” refers to the filing of the impeachment
complaint and its referral to the Committee on Justice. Since both
complaints were referred on the same day, it did not violate the
one-year bar rule (Gutierrez v. HoR, 2011).
What are the effects of a conviction in an Impeachment Trial?
1. Removal from office of the official concerned
2. Disqualification from holding any office in the Republic of the
Philippines
3. Officer still liable to prosecution, trial and punishment if the
impeachable offense committed also constitutes a felony or crime.
Is impeachment the only way to remove an impeachable officer?
No. The language of Section 2, Article XI of the Constitution does
not foreclose a quo warranto action against impeachable officers.
The provision uses the permissive term “may” which denote
discretion and cannot be construed as having a mandatory effect,
indicative of a mere possibility, an opportunity, or an option. To
subscribe to the view that appointments or election of impeachable
officers are outside judicial review is to cleanse their appointments
or election of any possible defect pertaining to the Constitutionally-
prescribed qualifications which cannot otherwise raised in an
impeachment proceeding (Republic of the Philippines vs. Sereno,
G.R. No. 237428, May 11, 2018).
20
 CONDONATION DOCTRINE
What is the Doctrine of Condonation (Aguinaldo Doctrine)?
An elective official cannot be removed for administrative
misconduct committed during a prior term, since his re-election to
office operates as a condonation of the officer’s previous
misconduct to the extent of cutting off the right to remove him
therefor (Aguinaldo vs. Santos, G.R. No. 94115, August 21, 1992).
Does the Condonation Doctrine have basis in the Constitution and
in law?
None. Election is not a mode of condoning an administrative
offense, and there is simply no constitutional or statutory basis in
our jurisdiction to support the notion that an official elected for a
different term is fully absolved of any administrative liability arising
from an offense done during a prior term. In this jurisdiction,
liability arising from administrative offenses may be condoned by
the President in light of Section 19, Article VII of the 1987
Constitution which was interpreted in Llamas v. Orbos, 279 Phil.
920, 937 [1991], to apply to administrative offenses (Conchita
Carpio-Morales v. CA, et al., G.R. No. 217126-27, November 10,
2015).
Note: The doctrine of condonation may still be applied in cases
instituted prior to the ruling in (Conchita Carpio-Morales v. CA, et al
dated November 10, 2015 (Office of the Ombudsman vs. Mayor
Vergara, G.R. No. 216871, December 6, 2017).
LAW ON PUBLIC CORPORATIONS
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
Series of formal peace talks were conducted between the
Government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), one
TANNER CONSOLIDATED TIPS
result of which was the Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral
Domain (MOA-AD). The MOA-AD created a Bangsamoro Juridical
Entity (BJE) and granted it authority and jurisdiction over
Bangsamoro ancestral domain and ancestral lands. MOA-AD
describes the relationship of the Central Government and the BJE
as associative, characterized by shared authority and responsibility
and states that the structure of governance is the based on
executive, legislative, judicial, and administrative institutions with
defined powers and functions in the Comprehensive Compact. Is
vesting the BJE with associative relationship with the national
governments valid?
No, the creation of an entity vested with associative relationship
with the national government is inconsistent with the Constitution
and laws. An association is formed when two states of unequal
power voluntarily establish durable links. In the basic model, on
state (the associate) delegates certain responsibilities to the other
(the principal), while maintaining its international status as a state.
Free associations represent a middle ground between integration
and independence. No province, city, or municipality, not even the
ARMM, is recognized under our laws as having an associative
relationship with the national government. The concept of
Association implies the recognition of the associated entity as a
state. Thus, the creation of BJE vested with associative relationship
is unconstitutional (Province of North Cotabato vs. Government of
the Republic of the Philippines Peace Panel on Ancestral Domain,
G.R. No. 183591, October 14, 2008).
Is there double taxation in federalism?
None. There would be no double taxation under the generally
accepted principle of pre-emption in taxation because the matters
already subject to taxes of the Federal National Government cannot
be taxed anymore by the Federal State.
21
A law was enacted prescribing a higher income requirement. Will moral values which are of international community as a
this new requirement apply to pending bills of municipalities universal validity) whole
sought to be upgraded to cities? Legal Consequences of Violation
All States to which the
Answer: In League of Cities of the Philippines v. COMELEC (2010), in Consequences deriving from a
obligation is owed are entitled
upholding the legality of the creation of additional 16 cities, the breach of erga omnes
to claim from the responsible
Court held that Congress may not apply the revised requirements in obligations along with further
State in particular: cessation of
a new law during the pendency of the approval of all the bills consequences specific in Art.
the internationally wrongful
creating such new local government units. 53 of VLCT (a treaty is void if,
act and performance of the
at the time of its conclusion, it
obligation of reparation in the
conflicts with a peremptory
PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW interest of the State, entity or
norm of general international
individual which is specifically
law.
ERGA OMNES VS. JUS COGENS affected by the breach.

Distinguish Obligations Erga Omnes and Jus Cogens What is the Most Favored Nation Clause?
Obligations Erga Omnes Jus Cogens It is a pledge by a contracting party to a treaty to grant to the other
Definition party treatment not less favorable than that which has been or may
A norm accepted and be granted to the “most favored” among other countries. The most
Obligations of a State owed to favored nation clause is intended to establish the principle of
recognized by the international
international community as a equality of international treatment by providing that the citizens or
community of States as a
whole. These obligations are subjects of the contracting nations may enjoy the privileges
whole as a norm from which
the concerns of all States, and accorded by either party to those of the most favored nation (CIR
no derogation is permitted and
for whose protection all States vs. S.C. Johnson and Son, Inc. 309 SCRA 87, 107-108).
which can be modified only by
have a legal interest. Examples
a subsequent norm of general
include the right to self- DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY
international law having the
determination and the
same character (Article 53,
protection of basic human President X is both the head of state and head of government of
Vienna Convention on the Law
rights. State A. After his term, he was charged with committing acts of
of Treaties).
Main Difference torture in violation of international law. While President X admits
Only some rules creating erga that State A is a signatory to the Torture Convention, he submits
All jus cogens rules create erga that he cannot be liable for his acts because he enjoyed immunity
omnes obligations are rules of
omnes obligations while he was head of state. Can he be liable for being complicit in
jus cogens
Emphasis acts of torture committed during his incumbency?
On their nature (they embody On their recognition by the

TANNER CONSOLIDATED TIPS 22

Yes. Although immunity ratione materiae extends to heads of
states, it does not apply in respect to criminal proceedings. On the
other hand, immunity ratione personae under the Vienna
Convention on Diplomatic Relations extend to former Head of
States with respect to official acts only. Official acts are those
recognized by international law as functions of a Head of State,
irrespective of the terms of individual’s domestic constitution.
Accordingly, acts of torture and hostage taking are not functions of
a Head of State and therefore no immunity can attach to them in
respect of criminal proceedings (Regina vs. Bartle, House of Lords,
Great Britain, November 25, 1998).
A is an incumbent Minister for External Affairs of State X. He
serves as the official representative of the Head of State of State X
to State Y. During his mission in State Y on a rainy morning, he
drove his car on his way to the embassy when he accidentally hit a
7-year old child who was trying to cross the street. A policeman
who was witness to the car accident went on to apprehend the
Minister. He immediately informed the police of his identity, but
he was held in custody anyway. Is the detention of A valid?
No. The Minister for External Affairs is one of the officials who enjoy
diplomatic immunity. The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic
Relations grants diplomatic agents the inviolability of their persons
and thus cannot be held in custody. They are also immune from
criminal, civil and administrative suits. The remedy in this case is
diplomatic and not judicial channels (Articles 29 and 31, Vienna
Convention on Diplomatic Relations).
STATE IMMUNITY
What is the restrictive rule of State Immunity?
The traditional rule of State Immunity which exempts a State from
being sued in courts of another State without the former’s consent
or waiver has evolved into a restrictive doctrine which distinguishes
TANNER CONSOLIDATED TIPS
sovereign and governmental acts (jure imperii) from private,
commercial and propriety acts (jure gestionis).
A State may be said to have descended to the level of an individual
and can thus be deemed to have tacitly given its consent to be sued
only when it enters into business contracts. It does not apply where
the contract relates to the exercise of its sovereign functions (USA
vs. Ruiz).
The US Embassy requested diplomatic clearance for the vessel USS
Guardian. The USS Guardian was travelling through the Sulu Sea
when it ran aground on the northwest side of the South Shoal of
the Tubbataha Reefs. A petition for Writ of Kalikasan against the
commanding officers of the US navy was filed. Petitioners claim
that the grounding, salvaging and post-salvaging operations of
the USS Guardian cause and continue to cause environmental
damage of such magnitude as to affect several provinces. Will the
suit prosper?
No. 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. The alleged act or
omission resulting in the unfortunate grounding of the USS
Guardian on the Tubbataha Reef National Park was committed
while they were performing official military duties. This is a suit
against the US Government. 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 the Court over the
persons of respondents (Arigo vs. Swift, G.R. No. 2065, 2010).
23
 LAWS OF THE SEA
What are the Freedoms of the High Seas?
1. Navigation;
2. Overflight (civilian and military aircraft);
3. Lay submarine cables and pipelines;
4. Scientific research;
5. Construct artificial islands and other installations permitted
under International Law; and
6. Fishing (1958 Convention of the High Seas and 1982
UNCLOS).
WEST PHILIPPINE SEA
The Philippine Government initiated arbitration against the
People’s Republic of China, following the procedure set forth in
Annex VII of UNCLOS. The Philippines contend that the nine-dash
line encroaches on the Philippines’ EEZ and continental shelf to
which it is entitled under the 1982 UNCLOS. A petition for
prohibition was filed before the SC to direct the President and the
Solicitor General to withdraw the case against China contending
that the Philippine claim has no basis in international law because
China did not consent to arbitration and in fact strongly opposes it.
Is there a basis under international law for the Philippines to bring
China to arbitration?
Yes. The UNCLOS, of which both the Philippines and China are
parties, provide for a mechanism for compulsory arbitration for any
dispute concerning the interpretation or application of the
Convention.
Article 286 of UNCLOS provides that “any dispute concerning the
interpretation or application of this Convention shall, where no
settlement has been reached… be submitted at the request of any
party to the dispute to the court or tribunal having jurisdiction…”
TANNER CONSOLIDATED TIPS
Article 287 of UNCLOS provides that upon signing, ratification or
accession to UNCLOS, States shall choose the means for the
settlement of their disputes concerning the interpretation or
application of UNCLOS (i.e., they shall choose which court or
tribunal should have jurisdiction) namely:
a. The ITCLOS;
b. The ICJ;
c. An arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with
Annex VII;
d. A special arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with
Annex VIII for one or more of the categories of disputes
specified therein.
Moreover, if the parties have not chosen the same dispute
settlement procedure, the dispute may only be submitted to Annex
VII arbitration.
The dispute between the Philippines and China involve the
interpretation and application of UNCLOS especially the provisions
relating to the sovereign rights of a state over its EEZ and
continental shelf. Having exhausted all possible means to arrive at a
settlement, the Philippines has the right to submit its dispute with
China to compulsory arbitration. Since the Philippines and China did
not choose the same dispute settlement procedure when the signed
UNCLOS, their dispute may only be submitted to Annex VII
Arbitration. It is a basic rule in international law that the jurisdiction
of an international court or tribunal is based on the consent of the
State parties to the dispute. China’s consent to the Annex VII
arbitration has already been given in advance when it signed the
UNCLOS, by operation of the above provisions.
Give a summary of West Philippine Sea Arbitration between
Philippines and China.
24
As to Nine-Dash Line - The Tribunal concludes that, as between the
Philippines and China, the Convention defines the scope of maritime
entitlements in the South China Sea, which may not extend beyond
the limits imposed therein. As between the Philippines and China,
China’s claims to historic rights, or other sovereign rights or
jurisdiction, with respect to the maritime areas of the South China
Sea encompassed by the relevant part of the ‘nine-dash line,’ are
contrary to the Convention and without lawful effect to the extent
that they exceed the geographic and substantive limits of China’s
maritime entitlements under the Convention. The Tribunal
concludes that the Convention superseded any historic rights or
other sovereign rights or jurisdiction in excess of the limits imposed
therein (Republic of the Philippines vs. People’s Republic of China,
PCA Case No. 2013-19).
What is the treatment of the Scarborough Shoal following the
South China Sea Arbitration?
As a high tide entity, Scarborough Shoal is entitled to its own
territorial sea of 12 nautical miles. The waters surrounding
Scarborough Shoal do not form part of the exclusive economic zone
of the Philippines (The South China Sea Arbitration, July 12, 2016).
Who has historical fishing rights in Scarborough Shoal?
Fishermen of Philippines, China, and other countries have long
fished at Scarborough Shoal and have traditional fishing rights
within the area. By preventing Philippine fishermen from accessing
the shoal, China violated its duty to respect the traditional fishing
rights of these Filipino fishermen (The South China Sea Arbitration,
2013-19, July 12, 2016).
Who has the exclusive right to construct artificial islands or
structures on low-tide elevations (LTEs)?
A coastal state wherein an LTE is found within its EEZ has the
exclusive right to construct artificial islands or structures on the said
TANNER CONSOLIDATED TIPS
LTE. Only the Philippines has the exclusive right to construct
artificial islands or structures in Ayungin Shoal – an LTE within the
Philippines’ EEZ (In the Matter of the South China Sea Arbitration,
2013-19, 2016).
INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW
What is International Humanitarian Law (Laws of War; Laws of
Armed Conflict)
It is the body of international rules, established by treaties or
custom, which are specifically intended to solve humanitarian
problems directly arising from international or non-international
armed conflicts and which, for humanitarian reasons, limit the right
of parties to a conflict to use the methods and means of warfare of
their choice or protect persons and property that are, or may be,
affected by conflict (International Committee of the Red Cross,
Advisory Sevice on International Humanitarian Law).
What are the basic principles of International Humanitarian Law
(IHL)?
1. Principle of Distinction – persons fighting in armed conflict must,
at all times, distinguish between civilians and combatants and
between civilian objects and military objectives
2. Principle of Military Necessity – the belligerents may employ any
amount and kind of force to compel the complete submission of the
enemy with the least possible loss of lives, time, and money;
3. Principle of Humanity – prohibits the use of any measure that is
not absolutely necessary for the purposes of the war;
4. Principle of Chivalry – requires the belligerents to give proper
warning before launching a bombardment or prohibits the use of
perfidy in the conduct of hostilities; and
5. Principle of Proportionality – attacks which may be expected to
cause incidental loss to civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to
civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive
25
in relation to concrete and direct military advantage anticipated, are
prohibited. (Cruz, International Law, 2003)
Does IHL concern itself with justifications of engaging in a war?
No. The legality of the war or the justification of the
commencement of the hostilities is irrelevant in IHL. IHL only deals
with jus in bello, or laws that govern the conduct of warfare, not
with jus ad bellum (laws on use of force) (Jasmine Moussa,
International Review of the Red Cross).
When is there an armed conflict?
An armed conflict exists whenever there is a resort to armed force:
1. Between States; or
2. Protracted armed violence between governmental authorities
and organized armed groups; or
3. Between organized armed groups within a state (Prosecutor vs.
Tadic, October 5, 1995).
The United Nations Charter states that all Members of the United
Nations shall refrain in their international relations from the threat
or use of force against the territorial integrity or political
independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent
with the purpose of the United Nation (UN Charter, Art. 2(4)).
GENOCIDE
What is Genocide under RA 9851?
1. Any of the following acts with intent to destroy, in whole or in
part, a national, ethnic, racial, religious, social or any other similar
stable and permanent group such as:
a) Killing of members of the group
b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated
to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part
TANNER CONSOLIDATED TIPS
d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the
group
e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group
2. Directly and publicly inciting others to commit genocide (Sec. 5,
RA 9851).
Genocide may be committed either during war or armed conflict or
in times of peace.
ROME STATUTE
International Criminal Court
Established by the Rome Statute on July 17, 1988, it is the first
permanent treaty-based, international criminal court to promote
the rule of law and ensure that the gravest international crimes do
not go unpunished. It shall have the power to exercise its
jurisdiction over persons for the most serious crimes of
international concern, as referred to in the Rome Statute, and shall
be complementary to national criminal jurisdiction (Rome Statute,
Art. 1).
The Rome Statute accords the International Criminal Court
jurisdiction over which crimes?
The jurisdiction of the Court shall be limited to the most serious
crimes of concern to the international community as a whole. The
Court has jurisdiction with respect to the following crimes:
1. The crime of genocide;
2. Crimes against humanity;
3. War crimes;
4. The crime of aggression (Rome Statute, Art. 5).
26
Distinguish International Court of Justice and International Individual Responsibility
Criminal Court The idea behind international criminal law is that individuals can be
International Court of International Criminal held responsible for certain very serious offenses. Art. 27 of the
Justice Court Rome Statute makes it clear that high governmental rank will not
Jurisdiction UN Member States Individuals immunize an individual from prosecution.
1) Contentious between
Types of Criminal prosecution of Military commanders can also be held responsible not only for their
the parties
Cases individuals own international crimes but also for any international crimes
2) Advisory Opinions
Sovereignty, boundary committed by troops under their command if the knew, or should
disputes, maritime Genocide, crimes against have known, that troops were committing or were about to commit
Subject international crimes, and the commander failed to take measures to
disputes, trade, , human humanity, war crimes,
Matter prevent the commission of such crimes or to ensure that such
rights, treaty violations, crimes of aggression
etc. crimes were submitted for investigation and prosecution (Rome
None. The ICJ decision Statute, Art. 28).
in a contentious case is Appeals Chamber. Article
binding. If the State fails 80 of the Rome Statute State Responsibility
Appeals to comply with the allows retention of an States can also be held responsible for the commission of
judgment, the issue may acquitted defendant international crimes. For example, Serbia was found liable for its
be taken to the UN pending appeal. failure to prevent genocide during the Balkan War of the 1990s
Security Council (Bosnia and Herzegovina vs. Serbia and Montenegro, ICJ, 2007).
States that ratify the
U.N. Charter become Matobato Salangit, a self-proclaimed patriot, is a Filipino who
parties to the ICJ Statute resides in the Philippines. Because of his beliefs, he has developed
under Article 93. Non- hatred towards Filipinos who work abroad, branding them as
UN member states can traitors who choose to seek greener pastures instead of rendering
Authorizing also become parties to their service for the benefit of the country. One day, he went with
Legal the ICJ by ratifying the Rome Statute some cohorts to a dense Filipino Community in California and
Mechanism ICJ Statute. Each state murdered all who were appraised to be Filipinos or former Filipino
must provide consent to citizens. His group carried on the killings while they travelled
any contentious case by across the United States as they tried to escape. They were
explicit agreement, eventually captured, and a case for Genocide under Section 5 of RA
declaration, or treaty 9851 was filed before the RTC of Quezon City. Salangit’s defense is
clause that the act alleged was committed beyond the criminal
(Source: net lang hehe. Use at your own risk sorry). jurisdiction of the Philippines. Can the RTC acquire Jurisdiction?

TANNER CONSOLIDATED TIPS 27

Yes, the RTC can acquire jurisdiction over the case. Section 17 of RA
9851 provides that the state can acquire jurisdiction over a case
under the same law regardless of where the crime was committed
in case:
1. The accused is a Filipino citizen
2. The accused, regardless of citizenship or residence, is present in
the Philippines; or
3. The accused has committed a crime against a Filipino citizen.
In this case, the nationality of Salangit and/or the victims is Filipino.
Thus, the law itself allows the local courts to try any case punishable
under RA 9851. The act of genocide, being one of the acts
punishable under the special law, can be tried in the RTC of Quezon
City.
UNILATERAL WITHDRAWAL ACT OF PRES SA ICC
ISSUE: W/N the President has the power to unilaterally withdraw
from the ICC
Suggested Answer: Regardless of Senate Res. 289, s.2017, the
president has authority to unilaterally withdraw because:
o The president has role as lead diplomatic representative;
o He has authority to open or close diplomatic relationships
with other countries;
o He has authority anyway not to submit the treaty for senate
concurrence;
o The ‘greater includes lesser’ doctrine would indicate that if
he had option not to include us in a treaty then he should
have option to undo entry into treaty;
o By analogy, the President can nominate officials, which
congress confirms but president can afterward terminate
that appointment
o The structure of the Constitution
TANNER CONSOLIDATED TIPS
o Art. 127 of Rome Statute merely requires notice;
o Art. 18 of Vienna Convention states that a treaty starts to
apply right upon signing itself.
Source: Pre-Bar Notes 2018, Public International Law by Jemy
Gatdula
Pertinent law – Article 127, Rome Statute
1. A State Party may, by written notification addressed to the
Secretary-General of the United Nations, withdraw from this
Statute. The withdrawal shall take effect one year after the date of
receipt of the notification, unless the notification specifies a later
date.
2. A State shall not be discharged, by reason of its withdrawal, from
the obligations arising from this Statute while it was a Party to the
Statute, including any financial obligations which may have accrued.
Its withdrawal shall not affect any cooperation with the Court in
connection with criminal investigations and proceedings in relation
to which the withdrawing State had a duty to cooperate and which
were commenced prior to the date on which the withdrawal
became effective, nor shall it prejudice in any way the continued
consideration of any matter which was already under consideration
by the Court prior to the date on which the withdrawal became
effective.
28
TOPICS NOT ANSWERED:
 Militarization of spratlys etc is beyond the power of the
arbitral court
 Trillanes case: the application for amnesty is a factual issue
 All en banc decisions of csc coa and comelec auto review SC
en banc

TANNER CONSOLIDATED TIPS 29