U.E.

College of Law
Updated Political Law Review
January 2018
2nd Semester 2017-2018
Atty. Victoria V. Loanzon

I. THE PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION

A. NATURE OF THE CONSTITUTION
A.1: Constitutional Supremacy
Manila Prince Hotel v. Government Service Insurance System, 267 SCRA 408 (1997)
Under the doctrine of constitutional supremacy, if a law or contract violates any norm of the
constitution that law or contract whether promulgated by the legislative or by the executive
branch or entered into by private persons for private purposes is null and void and without any
force and effect. Thus, since the Constitution is the fundamental, paramount and supreme law
of the nation, it is deemed written in every statute and contract.
When our Constitution mandates that (i)n the grant of rights, privileges, and concessions
covering national economy and patrimony, the State shall give preference to qualified
Filipinos, it means just that—qualified Filipinos shall be preferred. And when our Constitution
declares that a right exists in certain specified circumstances an action may be maintained to
enforce such right notwithstanding the absence of any legislation on the subject; consequently,
if there is no statute especially enacted to enforce such constitutional right, such right enforces
itself by its own inherent potency and puissance, and from which all legislations must take their
bearings. Where there is a right there is a remedy. Ubi jus ibi remedium.

A.2: Due Process under a Revolutionary Government

Republic v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 104768.  July 21, 2003, 407 SCRA 10: In the absence of a
Constitution, citizens remain to be protected by the international agreements which the
revolutionary government did not repudiate upon accession to power. The revolutionary
government, after installing itself as the  de jure government, assumed responsibility for the
State’s good faith compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to
which the Philippines is a signatory.  Article 2(1) of the Covenant requires each signatory State
“to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the
rights recognized in the present Covenant.”   Under Article 17(1) of the Covenant, the
revolutionary government had the duty to insure that “[n]o one shall be subjected to arbitrary
or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence.”

A.3. Parts of the Constitution

(1) Constitution of Government – establishes the structure of government, its branches and
their operation; e.g. Art. VI, VII, VIII, IX
(2) Constitution of Sovereignty - provides how the Constitution may be changed; i.e. Art.
XVII
(3) Constitution of Liberty - states the fundamental rights of the people; e.g. Art. III
[Lambino v. COMELEC, G.R. No.174153. October 25, 2006]

1
A.4. Interpretation of the Constitution
(1) Verba legis– whenever possible, the words used in the Constitution must be given their
ordinary meaning except where technical terms are employed;
(2) Ratio legis est anima– words of the Constitution should be interpreted in accordance with
the intent of the framers; and
(3) Ut magis valeat quam pereat– the Constitution should be interpreted as a whole [Francisco
v. House of Representatives, 415 SCRA 44 (2003)]
Cases:
1. Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS, supra
2. Knights of Rizal v. DMCI Homes, Inc., – SCRA – (G.R. No. 213948, 25 April 2017)

B. AMENDING AND REVISING THE CONSTITUTION

B.1. Read The Preamble of the Constitution
B.2. CITIZENSHIP
People: Different meanings of words “people”: “People” as inhabitants, Art. XIII, Sec. 1; Art.
III, Sec. 2
Qua Chee Gan v. Deportation Board, 9 SCRA 27 (1963): The state has the right to exclude aliens
in its territory. The President of the Philippines is given the discretion to deport aliens who are
considered “undesirable.”
“People” as citizens, Read The Preamble, Article II, Sections 1 and 4; Art. III, Sec. 7
“People” as source of sovereignty, Article VII, Sec. 4 of the President and the Vice President
Read the rights of Filipino citizens under Art. IV (Citizenship) and Article V (Right of Suffrage)
R. A. No. 9189 – Overseas Voting Law
Nicolas- Lewis v. COMELEC, 497 SCRA 649: Overseas Filipinos qualified to vote under the R.A.
No. 9189 need not have one –year actual physical residence in the Philippines to exercise
their right of suffrage.
Cases:
1. Mercado v. Manzano, 307 SCRA 630 (1999)
2. Re: Application for Admission to the Philippine Bar, Vicente D. Ching, 316 SCRA 1 (1999)
3. Bengson III v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, 357 SCRA 545 (2001)
4. David v. Agbay, 753 SCRA 526 (2015)
5. Maquiling v. Commission on Elections, 696 SCRA 420 (2013) and 700 SCRA 367 (2013)
6. Poe-Llamanzares v. Commission on Elections, – SCRA – (G.R. Nos. 221697, 8 March 2016 and
5 April 2016)
7. Republic v. Sagun, 666 SCRA 321 (2012)*
8. Republic v. Batuigas, G.R. No. 183110, October 7, 2013*
9. Republic v. Huang Te Fu, G.R. No. 200983, March 18, 2015*

B.3 Modes of Amending the Constitution

1. Through Constituent Assembly, that is the Congress upon a vote of three-fourths of all
its members.
2. Through Constitutional Convention.

2
 3. By the people through initiative upon a petition of at least twelve per centum of the
total number of registered voters, of which every legislative district must be
represented by at least three per centum of the registered voters therein (Sections 1
and 2, Article XVII).

B.4 Modes of Revising the Constitution

1. Through Constituent Assembly, that is the Congress upon a vote of three-fourths of all
its members.
2. Through Constitutional Convention (Section 1, Art. XVII). The Congress may, by a vote of
two-thirds of all its members, call a Constitutional Convention, or by a majority vote of
all of its members, submit to the electorate the question of calling such a convention
(Section 3, Art. XVII).

B.5 Tests to apply to determine if the Constitution is being revised or amended : Quantitative
Test and Qualitative Test

B.6 Two Stages in the Process of Amending or Revising the Constitution: Proposal and
Ratification

B.6 Effectivity of the Amended/Revised Constitution: Any amendment to, or revision of, the
Constitution under Section 1 of Article XVII shall be valid when ratified by a majority of the
votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than sixty days nor later ninety days
after the approval of such amendment. Any amendment under Section 2 of Article XVII shall be
valid when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier
than sixty days nor later than ninety days after the certification by the Commission on Elections
of the sufficiency of the petition (Sec. 4, Art. XVII).
Cases:
1. Santiago v. Commission on Elections, 270 SCRA 106 (1997)
2. Lambino v. Commission on Elections, 505 SCRA 160 (2006)

II. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

A. NATIONAL TERRITORY AND THE ARCHIPELAGIC DOCTRINE
A.1. Two elements of archipelagic principle
1. The Archipelagic Doctrine: A body of water studded with islands, or the islands surrounded
with water, is viewed as a unity of islands and waters together forming one integrated unit.
The claim that the waters around, between and connecting the islands of the archipelago,
irrespective of their breadth and dimensions are parts of internal waters.
2. Straight baseline method: This consists of drawing straight lines connecting appropriate
points on the coast without departing to any appreciable extent from the general direction of
the coast, in order to delineate the internal waters from the territorial waters of an archipelago.
(Bernas, Primer, 2001ed., page 6)

3
A.2. The Philippine Territory: The national territory is comprised of –
(1) Philippine archipelago, with all the islands and waters embraced therein; Internal waters –
waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago, regardless of breadth
and dimension; and
(2) All other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction
consisting of its territorial sea, seabed, subsoil, insular shelves, and other submarine areas; and
its terrestrial, fluvial, and aerial domains.
Read relevant materials on the decision of the Permanent Court of Arbitration on the Philippine
case against China
The Philippine Territory and UNCLOS
Magallona v. Ermita, 655 SCRA 476 (2011): Far from surrendering the Philippines’ claim over
the KIG and the Scarborough Shoal, Congress’ decision to classify the KIG and the Scarborough
Shoal as “Regime(s) of Islands” under the Republic of the Philippines consistent with Article 121
of UNCLOS III manifests the Philippine State’s responsible observance of its pacta sunt servanda
obligation under UNCLOS III. Under Article 121 of UNCLOS III, any “naturally formed area of
land, surrounded by water, which above water at high tide,” such as portions of the KIG,
qualifies under the category of “regime of islands,” whose islands generate their own baselines.
Please take note of the different maritime zones under UNCLOS and remember UNCLOS will
settle only rights over these maritime zones and not scrutinize any claim over territories or
reclaimed areas.
The Philippine Territory and the U.S. –R.P. Mutual Defense Treaty
Reagan v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 30 SCRA 968 (1969)

B.STATE IMMUNITY
B.1. Concept and Basis: The Constitution declares, rather superfluously, that the State may not
be sued without its consent. This provision is merely recognition of the sovereign character of
the State and an express affirmation of the unwritten rule insulating it from the jurisdiction of
the courts of justice (Cruz, Philippine Political Law, 1993: 29).
The doctrine is sometimes called as the “royal prerogative of dishonesty” (Id., 33).
To Justice Holmes, the doctrine of non-suability is based not any formal conception or obsolete
theory but on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal right against the
authority which makes the law on which the right depends. Another justification is the practical
consideration that the demands and the inconveniences of litigation will divert the time and
resources of the State from the more pressing matters demanding its attention, to the
prejudice of the public welfare (Id.).

B.2. General Rule: The State cannot be sued without its consent.
Exception to the General Rule: The State consents to be sued.
Manner by which consent is given:
(1) Express consent –
(a) General law; or
(b) Special law

4
(2) Implied consent –
(a) When the State commences litigation, it becomes vulnerable to a counterclaim;
(b) State enters into a business contract in the exercise of its proprietary power;
(c) When it would be inequitable for the State to invoke immunity; and
(d) When the state exercises it power of eminent domain.
When a suit is against the state:
A suit is against the State regardless of who is named the defendant if:
(1) It produces adverse consequences to the public treasury in terms of disbursement of public
funds and loss of government property.
(2) It cannot prosper unless the State has given its consent.
When not against the state
A suit is not against the State:
(1) When the purpose of the suit is to compel an officer charged with the duty of making
payments pursuant to an appropriation made by law in favor of the plaintiff to make such
payment, since the suit is intended to compel performance of a ministerial duty.
(2) When from the allegations in the complaint, it is clear that the respondent is a public officer
sued in a private capacity;
(3) When the action is not in personam with the government as the named defendant, but an
action in rem that does not name the government in particular.

[See also Act 3083 * CA 327 * PD 1807 * Art. 2180, Civil Code]
Cases:
1. University of the Philippines v. Dizon, 679 SCRA 54 (2012)
2. Arigo v. Swift, 735 SCRA 102 (2014)
3. Republic v. Benigno, G.R. No. 205492, March 11, 2015*

C. SEPARATION OF POWERS AND CHECKS AND BALANCES

Concept: The government established by the Constitution follows fundamentally the theory of
separation of powers into the legislative, the executive and the judicial. Each branch performs
duties vested in it by the Constitution.
The principle of checks and balances ensures that there is harmony among the three branches
by allowing each branch to exercise the power to examine if there is an encroachment of the
functions of each respective branch.
Cases:
1. Belgica v. Ochoa, Jr., 710 SCRA 1 (2013)
2. Mendoza v. People, 659 SCRA 681 (2011)
3. Mamiscal v. Abdullah, 761 SCRA 39 (2015)
4. Liban v. Gordon, 639 SCRA 709 (2011)

5
D. DELEGATION OF POWERS
Tests for valid delegation
1. Completeness test: The law sets forth the policy to be executed, carried out, or implemented
by the delegate such that there is nothing left for the delegate to do but to enforce the law;
and
2. Sufficient standard test: The standard is sufficient if it defines legislative policy, marks its
limits, maps out its boundaries and specifies the public agency to apply it. It indicates the
circumstances under which the legislative command is to be effected.
Cases:
1. Sema v. Commission on Elections, 558 SCRA 700 (2008)
2. NPC Drivers and Mechanics Association (NPC DAMA) v. National Power
Corporation, 503 SCRA 138 (2006)
3. Movertrade Corporation v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 204835, September 22, 2015*

E. GENERAL PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES

Self-executing provisions under Articles II and XII
1. Right to Good Health under Sec. 15, Art II (Oposa v. Factoran, 224 SCRA 792)
2. Right to a balanced and healthful ecology under Sec. 16. Art. II (Ibid.)
3. Policy of full disclosure under Sec. 28 ( Province of North Cotabato v. GRP Peace Panel)
4. Preference of Filipinos in the grant of rights, privileges, and concessions covering
national economy and patrimony under Sec. 10 Art. XII (Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS,
supra).
Cases:
1. Ang Ladlad LGBT Party v. Commission on Elections, 618 SCRA 32 (2010)*
2. Imbong v. Ochoa, 721 SCRA kj146 (2014)
3. Garcia v. Drilon, 699 SCRA 352 (2013)
4. Republic v. Albios, 707 SCRA 584 (2013)
5. International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications, Inc. v. Greenpeace
Southeast Asia (Philippines), – SCRA – (G.R. No. 209271, 8 December 2015)
6. Quiambao v. Manila Electric Company, G.R. No. 171023, Dec. 18, 2009*

F. NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY

Relate provisions with the Regalian Doctrine, Filipino First Policy, Concept of Control in
Filipino-owned Companies, Control Requirements for Companies dealing with Mass Media,
Advertising and Public Utilities; Right of own Land by virtue of succession
1. Muller v. Muller, 500 SCRA 65 (2006)
2. Hulst v. PR Builders, Inc., 532 SCRA 74 (2007) NNN 566 SCRA 333 (2008)
3. Gamboa v. Teves, 652 SCRA 690 (2011) and Heirs of Wilson P. Gamboa v. Teves, 682 SCRA
397 (2012) READ ALSO Roy v. SEC Chairman Herbosa (2017)
4. Initiatives for Dialogue and Empowerment Through Alternative Legal Services, Inc. (IDEALS,
Inc.) v. Power Sector Assets and Liabilities Management Corporation (PSALM), 682 SCRA 602
(2012)
5. Narra Nickel Mining and Development Corporation v. Redmont Consolidated Mines
Corporation, 722 SCRA 382 (2014) and 748 SCRA 455 (2015)

6
6. Resident Marine Mammals of the Protected Seascape Tañon Strait v. Reyes, 756 SCRA 513
(2015)
7. Manila International Airport Authority v. Court of Appeals, 495 SCRA 591 (2006)

G. EDUCATION, SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ARTS, CULTURE AND SPORTS

1. University of San Agustin, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 230 SCRA 761 (1994)
2. University of the Philippines Board of Regents v. Court of Appeals, 313 SCRA 404 (1999)
3. Leus v. St. Scholastica’s College Westgrove, 748 SCRA 378 (2015)
4. Cudia v. Superintendent of the Philippine Military Academy, 751 SCRA 469 (2015)

III. THE THREE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT

A. LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
A.1. General Rule: Only Congress may exercise legislative power.
Exceptions:
(1) Delegated legislative power to local governments – Local governments, as an immemorial
practice, may be allowed to legislate on purely local matters.
(2) Subordinate legislation delegated to administrative agencies
(3) Those delegated by provisions of the Constitution: (a) Emergency power delegated to the
Executive during State of War or National Emergency [Art. VI, Sec. 23(2), Constitution]
(b) Certain taxing powers of the President [Art. VI, Sec. 28(2), Constitution]. The Congress may
authorize the President to fix, within specified limits, and subject to such limitations and
restrictions as it may impose, tariff rates, import and export quotas, tonnage and wharfage
dues, and other duties or imposts within the framework of the national development program
of the Government.
(4) The extent reserved to the people by the provision on initiative and referendum [Art. VI,
Sec. 1, Constitution]
A.2 Membership, Election, and Qualifications
Senate House of Representatives
(Art. VI, Sections 2 to 4) (Art. VI, Sections 5 to 8)
Composition
24 Senators elected at large Not more than 250 members, unless otherwise
provided by law, consisting of:
(1) District Representatives
(2) Party-List Representatives
Qualifications
(1) Natural-born citizen (1) Natural-born citizens
(2) At least 35 years old (2) At least 25 years old
on the day of the election on the day of the election
(3) Able to read and write (3) Able to read and write
(4) A registered voter (4) Registered voter in the district he seeks to
represent
(5) Resident of the Philippines for (5) A resident of the said district for at least
at least two years immediately one year immediately preceding the day of
preceding the day of the election election

7
Term of Office
Six (6) years Three (3) years
Term Limits
Two (2) consecutive terms Three (3) consecutive terms

Please take note of the implications of Sections 4 and 7 of Article VI on the commencement of
office of office of members of Congress as well Section 8 of Article VI on the date of holding of
elections of the members of Congress.

A.3. Party-list System and Representation based on Congressional Districts

Read Section 5, Article VI on the restrictions under the party list system and the standards for
legislative districts and instances where reapportionment may be done. Apportionment is the
determination of the number of representatives which a political subdivision may send to a
legislative body. (Please study the concept of gerrymandering in relation to apportionment)
Rules on Apportionment of Legislative Districts:
(a) Apportionment of legislative districts must be by law which could be a:
(i) General Apportionment Law; or
(ii) Special Law
(b) Proportional representation based on number of inhabitants
(i) Each city with a population of at least 250,000 shall have at least one representative.
(ii) Each province, irrespective of the number of inhabitants, shall have at least one
representative.
(c) Each legislative district shall comprise, as far as practicable, contiguous, compact, and
adjacent territory.
(d) Re-apportionment by Congress within three years after the return of each census
Party-list system
Party-List Representatives shall constitute 20% of the total number of representatives, elected
through a party-list system of registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or
organizations.
Three different parties or organizations may participate in the party-list system:
(a) national;
(b) regional; or
(c) sectoral
Limitations on party list representation:
(1) Only 20% of the total number of the membership of the House of Representatives is the
maximum number of seats available to party-list organizations.
(2) A party list must garner at least 2% of the total votes cast in the party-list elections to be
ensured of one (1) seat.
(3) The additional seats of the remaining seats after allocation of the guaranteed seats shall be
distributed to the party-list organizations including those that received less than two percent of
the total votes.
(4) Each party list can only have a maximum of three seats immaterial of the number of votes
garnered.

8
Cases:
1. Aquino III v. Commission on Elections, 617 SCRA 623 (2010)
2. Aldaba v. Commission on Elections, 611 SCRA 137 (2010)
3. Navarro v. Ermita, 612 SCRA 131 (2010)
4. Naval v. Commission on Elections, 729 SCRA 299 (2014)
5. Bagabuyo v. Commission on Elections, 573 SCRA 290 (2008)
6. Barangay Association for National Advancement and Transparency (BANAT) v. Commission
on Elections, 586 SCRA 210 (2009) and 592 SCRA 294 (2009)
7. Atong Paglaum, Inc. v. Commission on Elections, 694 SCRA 477 (2013)
8. Coalition of Associations of Senior Citizens in the Philippines, Inc. [Senior Citizens Party-List] v.
Commission on Elections, 701 SCRA 786 (2013)
9. Lico v. Commission on Elections, – SCRA – (G.R. No. (G.R. No. 205505, September 29, 2015)
10. Abang Lingkod v. Commission on Elections, 708 SCRA 133 (2013)
11. Ang Ladlad LGBT Party v. Commission on Elections, 618 SCRA 32 (2010)*

A.4. Legislative Privileges, Inhibitions and Disqualifications

Inhibitions and Disqualifications
(1) May not hold any other office or employment in the government during his term without
forfeiting his seat. [Art. VI, Sec. 13]
The provision refers to an incompatible office. Forfeiture of the seat in Congress shall be
automatic upon the member’s assumption of such office deemed incompatible
(2) May not be appointed to any office created or whose emoluments were increased during
the term for which he was elected. [Art. VI, Sec. 13]
The provision refers to a forbidden office. He cannot validly take the office even if he is willing
to give up his seat.
(3) Shall not be financially interested, directly or indirectly, in any contract with, or franchise or
special privilege granted by the government during his term of office. [Art. VI, Sec. 14]
(4) Shall not intervene in any matter before any office of the government when it is for his
pecuniary benefit or where he may be called upon to act on account of his office. [Art. VI, Sec.
14]
(5) Cannot personally appear as counsel before any court, electoral tribunal, quasi-judicial and
administrative bodies during his term of office. [Art. VI, Sec. 14]
Duty to Disclose
(1) SALN: Art. XI, Sec. 17
(2) Financial and business interests: Members must make full disclosure upon assumption of
office [Art. VI, Sec. 12]
(3) Potential conflicts of interest: Members must notify House, if conflict may arise from the
filing of a proposed legislation which they author. [Art. VI, Sec. 12]
Case: Liban v. Gordon, 593 SCRA 68 (2009) and 639 SCRA 709 (2011): a member of the Senate
may occupy a position in the Philippine National Red Cross without violating the discharge of his
responsibilities as Senator.

A.5. Discipline of Members

9
Discipline of Members
Each house may punish its members for disorderly behavior, and with the concurrence of 2/3 of
ALL its members, with (1) Suspension (shall not exceed 60 days); or (2) Expulsion
Other disciplinary measures may include:
(1) Deletion of unparliamentary remarks from the record
(2) Fine
(3) Imprisonment
(4) Censure
The suspension contemplated in the Constitution is different from the suspension prescribed in
the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019). The former is punitive in nature while the
latter is preventive. [Defensor-Santiago v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 118364, August 10, 1995].

Case:
1. Pobre v. Defensor-Santiago, 597 SCRA 1 (2009)

A.6. Legislative Functions

(1) Police power
(a) make, ordain, and establish all manner of wholesome and reasonable laws, statutes
and ordinances as they shall judge for the good and welfare of the constituents.
(b) includes maintenance of peace and order, protection of life, liberty and property and
the promotion of general welfare.
(2) Power of taxation
(3) Power of eminent domain
(4) Contempt power
Legislative Powers:
(1) Appropriation
(2) Taxation
(3) Expropriation
(4) Authority to make, frame, enact, amend, and repeal laws
(5) Ancillary powers (e.g. Conduct inquiry and punish for contempt)
Categories of congressional oversight functions:
(1) Scrutiny: Congress may request information and report from the other branches of
government. It can give recommendations or pass resolutions for consideration of the agency
involved.
(2) Congressional investigation: Art. VI, Sec. 21.
(3) Legislative supervision (Legislative Veto): Allows Congress to scrutinize the exercise of
delegated law-making authority, and permits Congress to retain part of that delegated
authority.

A.7. VOTING MAJORITIES

Doctrine of Shifting Majority – For each House of Congress to pass a bill, only the votes of the
majority of those present in the session, there being a quorum, is required.

10
Exceptions to Doctrine of Shifting Majority:
(1) Votes where requirement is based on “ALL THE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS” – requirement
is based on the entire composition of the Senate and the House of Representatives (in its
entirety), regardless of the number of Members present or absent.
Vote Required
Manner of Casting
Action (out of all Relevant Provision
of Votes
members)
Override presidential 2/3 Separately (House Art. VI,
veto where bill originated Sec. 27(1)
votes first)
Grant of tax exemptions Majority Not specified Art. VI,
Sec. 27(4)
Elect President in case Majority Separately Art. VII,
of tie Sec. 4, (5)
Confirm appointment of Majority Separately Art. VII,
VP Sec. 9
Revoke or extend (a) Majority Jointly Art. VII,
Martial Law or (b) Sec. 18
suspension of writ of
Habeas Corpus
Confirm amnesty grant Majority Not specified Art. VII,
Sec. 19, (2)
Submit question of Majority Not specified but the Art. XVII,
calling a Constitutional prevailing view this is Sec. 3
Convention to the by default, that both
electorate chambers must vote
Call for Constitutional 2/3 separately because Art. XVII,
Convention Congress is bicameral. Sec. 3
Propose amendments as ¾ Art. XVII,
Constituent Assembly Sec. 1(1)

(2) Other Special Cases

Circumstance Requiring
Manner of Casting Votes Relevant Provision
Congressional Action

Determine President’s 2/3 of both Houses, voting Art. VII,

disability separately Sec. 11 (4)
Declaring a State of War 2/3 of both Houses (in joint Art. VI,
session), voting separately Sec. 23(1)

11
Filling up Vacancy in the
Office of the Vice-President Majority vote of both Houses, Art. VII, Sec. 9
voting separately

A.8. LIMITATIONS ON LEGISLATIVE POWER

Formal/Procedural Limitations
(a) Rider clause: every bill passed by the Congress shall embrace only one subject which shall
be expressed in the title. [Art. VI, Sec. 26(1)]
(b) No bill passed by either house shall become law unless it has passed three readings on
separate days. [Art. VI, Sec. 26(2)]
(c) Printed copies in its final form must have been distributed to its members 3 days before the
passage of the bill. (Art. VI, Sec. 26[2])
Exception: President certifies to the necessity of its immediate enactment to meet a public
calamity or emergency
Presidential certification dispenses with the (1) printing requirement; and
(2) three readings on separate days requirement
Substantive Limitations
Express limitations:
(1) Exercise of general powers of the state - Bill of Rights [Art. III]
(2) Limitations on the power of taxation [Sections 28 and 29(3), Art. VII]
(3) Requisites to pass an appropriation bill [Sections 25 and 29(1) and (2), Art VI]
(4) Limitation on the appellate jurisdiction of the SC [Sec. 30, Art. VI]
(5) No law granting title of royalty or nobility shall be passed [Sec. 31, Art. VI]
Implied Limitations:
(1) No power to pass irrepealable law
(2) Non-encroachment on powers of other departments
(3) Non-delegation of powers

A.9. LIMITATIONS ON REVENUE, APPROPRIATIONS, AND TARIFF MEASURES

Appropriations
General Limitations:
1. Appropriations must be for a public purpose.
2. The appropriation must be by law.
3. Cannot appropriate public funds or property, directly or indirectly, in favor of
(a) Any sect, church, denomination, or sectarian institution or system of religion or
(b) Any priest, preacher, minister, or other religious teacher or dignitary as such.
Exception: if the priest etc. is assigned to:
(a) The Armed Forces;
(b) Any penal institution;
(c) Government orphanage;
(d) Leprosarium.

12
4. Government is not prohibited from appropriating money for a valid secular purpose, even if
it incidentally benefits a religion.

Specific Limitations
For General Appropriations Bills [Sec. 25 (1)-(5)]
(1) Congress may not increase the appropriations recommended by the President for the
operation of the Government as specified in the budget.
(2) Form, content and manner of preparation of the budget shall be prescribed by law.
(3) No provision or enactment shall be embraced in the general appropriations bill unless it
relates specifically to some particular appropriation therein.
(4) Procedure in approving appropriations FOR THE CONGRESS shall strictly follow the
procedure for approving appropriations for other departments and agencies.
(5) No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriations. However, the following
may, BY LAW, be authorized to AUGMENT any item in the general appropriations law for their
respective offices FROM SAVINGS in other items of their respective appropriations:
(a) President
(b) Senate President
(c) Speaker of the HOR
(d) Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
(e) Chairs of Constitutional Commissions
For Special Appropriations Bills
(1) shall specify the purpose for which it is intended
(2) shall be supported by funds
(i) actually available as certified by the National Treasurer; or
(ii) to be raised by corresponding revenue proposal therein.
LIMITATION ON USE OF PUBLIC FUNDS [SEC. 29]
(1) No money shall be paid out of the National Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation
made by law.
(2) However, this rule does not prohibit continuing appropriations, e.g. for debt servicing, for
the reason that this rule does not require yearly or annual appropriation.

LIMITATIONS ON ENACTMENT OF LAWS ON TAXATION [Sec. 28]

(1) Power to tax should be exercised only for a public purpose.
(2) Taxes to be imposed must be uniform and equitable.
(a) Power to tax must operate with the same force and effect in every place where the subject
of it is found.
(a) Classification for the purpose of taxation is not prohibited per se, but it must comply with
the Test of Valid Classification
CONSTITUTIONAL TAX EXEMPTIONS:
(1) Religious, charitable, educational institutions and their properties
(2) All revenues and assets of non-stock, non-profit educational institutions are exempt from
taxes and duties provided that such revenues and assets are actually, directly and exclusively
used for educational purposes [Art. XIV, Section 4(3)]

13
(3) Grants, endowments, donations or contributions used actually, directly and exclusively for
educational purposes shall be exempt from tax, subject to conditions prescribed by law [Art.
XIV, Sec. 4(4)]
UTILIZATION OF SPECIAL FUNDS COVERED BY SPECIAL LAWS
(1) Money collected on a tax levied for a special purpose shall be treated as a special fund and
paid out for such purpose only.
(2) Once the special purpose is fulfilled or abandoned, any balance shall be transferred to the
general funds of the Government.
Cases:
1. Neri v. Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations, 549 SCRA 77
(2008) and 564 SCRA 152 (2008)
2. Belgica v. Ochoa, Jr., 710 SCRA 1 (2013)
3. Araullo v. Aquino III, 728 SCRA 1 (2014) and 749 SCRA 284 (2015)
4. Abakada Guro Party List v. Purisima, 562 SCRA 251 (2008)

NON-LEGISLATIVE FUNCTIONS:
(1) Power to canvass the presidential elections;
(2) Declare the existence of war;
(3) Give concurrence to treaties and amnesties;
(4) Propose constitutional amendments;
(5) Impeachment: The HOR shall have the exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment.
[Sec. 3(1)]

A.10. ELECTORAL TRIBUNALS

Two Types
(1) Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET)
(2) House Electoral Tribunal (HRET)
Composition
(1) Three (3) Supreme Court justices, designated by Chief Justice
Senior Justice in the Electoral Tribunal shall be its Chairman
(2) Six (6) members of the Senate or House, as the case may be, chosen on the basis of
proportional representation from parties
Composition Rules
(1) The SET and the HRET shall be constituted within 30 days after the Senate and the House
shall have been organized with the election of the President and the Speaker. [Sec. 19]
(2) Members chosen enjoy security of tenure and cannot be removed by mere change of party
affiliation. (Bondoc v. Pineda, 201 SCRA 793).
Valid grounds/just cause for termination of membership to the tribunal:
(1) Expiration of Congressional term of office;
(2) Death or permanent disability;
(3) Resignation from political party which one represents in the tribunal;
(4) Removal from office for other valid reasons.
Jurisdiction: sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of their
respective members.

14
An election contest is one where a defeated candidate challenges the qualification and claims
for himself the seat of a proclaimed winner.
Commencement of jurisdiction: The electoral tribunal acquires jurisdiction only after (1) a
petition is filed before it, and (2) a candidate is already considered a member of the House.
(Ongsiako-Reyes v. COMELEC (G.R. No. 207264, June 25, 2013)
To be considered a member, in turn, there must be a concurrence of the following: (1) a valid
proclamation; (2) a proper oath (a) before the Speaker and (b) in open session; and (3)
assumption of office. [Id.]
The Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the Electoral Commission for the purpose of
determining the character, scope and extent of the constitutional grant to the Electoral
Commission as "the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications
of the members of the National Assembly." [Angara v. Electoral Commission (1936)]
The Constitution mandates that the HRET “shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the
election, returns and qualifications” of its members. By employing the word “sole,” the
Constitution is emphatic that the jurisdiction of the HRET in the adjudication of election
contests involving its members is exclusive and exhaustive. Its exercise of power is intended to
be its own — full, complete and unimpaired. [Duenas Jr. v. HRET, G.R. No. 185401, (2009)]

Independence of the Electoral Tribunals

As constitutional creations invested with necessary power, the Electoral Tribunals are, in the
exercise of their functions independent organs — independent of Congress and the Supreme
Court. The power granted to HRET by the Constitution is intended to be as complete and
unimpaired as if it had remained originally in the legislature [Co v. HRET (1991) citing Angara vs.
Electoral Commission (1936)].
Since all electoral tribunals are independent constitutional bodies, independent even of the
respective House, neither Congress nor the Courts may interfere with procedural matters
relating to the functions of the ET’s. [Macalintal v. Presidential Electoral Tribunal, G.R. No.
191618, Nov. 23, 2010]
The HRET was created to function as a nonpartisan court although two-thirds of its members
are politicians. To be able to exercise exclusive jurisdiction, the House Electoral Tribunal must
be independent. Its jurisdiction to hear and decide congressional election contests is not to be
shared by it with the Legislature nor with the courts. "The Electoral Commission is a body
separate from and independent of the legislature and though not a power in the tripartite
scheme of government, it is to all intents and purposes, when acting within the limits of its
authority, an independent organ; while composed of a majority of members of the legislature it
is a body separate from and independent of the legislature. [Bondoc v. Pineda, (1991)]

Judicial Review of Decisions of Electoral Tribunals

The Supreme Court may scrutinize the decision of the electoral tribunals only insofar as it was
rendered:
(1) without or in excess of jurisdiction; or
(2) with grave abuse of discretion tantamount to denial of due process.
Cases:
1. Reyes v. Commission on Elections, 699 SCRA 522 (2013) and 708 SCRA 197 (2013)

15
2. Velasco v. Belmonte, Jr., – SCRA – (G.R. No. 211140, 12 January 2016)
3. Ty-Delgado v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, – SCRA – (G.R.No. 219603,
26 January 2016)
4. Abayon v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, 612 SCRA 375 (2010)

A.11. COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS

Composition
(1) Senate President as ex-officio chairman (shall not vote except in case of a tie)
(2) 12 Senators
(3) 12 Members of the HOR
The provision of Section 18 on proportional representation is mandatory in character and does
not leave any discretion to the majority party in the Senate to disobey or disregard the rule on
proportional representation.
By requiring a proportional representation in the Commission on Appointments, sec. 18 in
effect works as a check on the majority party in the Senate and helps to maintain the balance of
power. No party can claim more than what it is entitled to under such rule. [Guingona v.
Gonzales (1993)]
The Commission on Appointments shall be constituted within 30 days after the Senate and the
House of Representatives shall have been organized with the election of the President and the
Speaker. [Sec. 19, Art. VI]
Jurisdiction
(1) The Commission on Appointments shall confirm the appointments by the President with
respect to the following positions:
(a) Heads of Executive departments (except if it is the Vice-President who is appointed to a
cabinet position, as this needs no confirmation);
(b) Ambassadors, other public ministers or consuls;
(c) Officers of the AFP from the rank of Colonel or Naval Captain;
(d) Other officers whose appointments are vested in him by the Constitution

B. EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT
B.1 ELECTION, IMMUNITY, PRIVILEGES, INHIBITIONS AND DISQUALIFICATIONS
The President: Qualifications-
(1) Natural-born citizen of the Philippines;
(2) A registered voter;
(3) Able to read and write;
(4) At least 40 years of age on the day of the election; and
(5) A resident of the Philippines for at least 10 years immediately preceding such election. [Art.
VII, Sec. 2]
Election:
(1) Regular Election – Second Monday of May
(2) National Board of Canvassers (President and Vice-President) – Congress
(a) Returns shall be transmitted to Congress, directed to the Senate President
(b) Joint public session – not later than 30 days after election date; returns to be opened in the
presence of the Senate and HOR in joint session

16
President: Official residence
The president shall have an official residence. [Sec. 6, Article VII]
Salary must be determined by law and shall not be decreased during tenure. No increase shall
take effect until after the expiration of the term of the incumbent during which such increase
was approved. [Sec. 6, Article VII]
Presidential Immunity
The President as such cannot be sued, enjoying as he does immunity from suit
But the validity of his acts can be tested by an action against other executive officials. [Carillo
vs. Marcos (1981)]
The privilege may be invoked ONLY by the President.—Immunity from suit pertains to the
President by virtue of the office and may be invoked only by the holder of the office; not by any
other person in the President's behalf. The President may waive the protection afforded by the
privilege and submit to the court's jurisdiction.
Exception: The president may be sued if the act is one not arising from official conduct. [See
Estrada v. Desierto, 353 SCRA 452, 523 (2001)]

Kinds of Executive Privilege

1. Privilege Presidential Communications Privilege (President): communications are
presumptively privileged; president must be given freedom to explore alternatives in policy-
making. (Neri v. Senate (2008))
2. Deliberative Process Privilege (Executive Officials): refers to materials that comprise part of a
process by which governmental decisions and policies are formulated. This includes diplomatic
processes. [Akbayan v. Aquino (2008)]
Cases:
1. Poe-Llamanzares v. Commission on Elections, – SCRA – (G.R. Nos. 221697, etc., 8 March 2016,
and, 5 April 2016)
2. Pormento v. Estrada, 629 SCRA 530 (2010)
3. Macalintal v. Presidential Electoral Tribunal, 635 SCRA 783 (2010); 651 SCRA 239 (2011)

B.2 POWERS AND FUNCTIONS

1. Power of Control: Control is essentially the power to [a] alter or modify or nullify or set aside
what a subordinate officer had done in the performance of his duties and to [b] substitute the
judgment of the former with that of the latter. [Biraogo v Philippine Truth Commission (2010)]
Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency (Alter Ego Principle)
All the different executive and administrative organizations are mere adjuncts of the Executive
Department. This is an adjunct of the Doctrine of One Executive.
The heads of the various executive departments are assistants and agents of the Chief
Executive. [Villena v. Sec. of Interior (1939)]
In the regular course of business, acts of executive departments, unless disapproved or
reprobated by the Chief Executive, are presumptively acts of the Chief Executive. [Free
Telephone Workers Union vs. Minister of Labor and Employment (1981)]
2. Power to Abolish Offices: Generally, power to abolish a public office is legislative. But as far
as bureaus, offices, or agencies of the executive department are concerned, power of control
may justify him to inactivate functions of a particular office. (See Buklod ng Kawaning EIIB v.

17
Zamora, 360 SCRA 718 [2001] 3. General Supervision over Local Government Units and the
Autonomous Regions: The President shall exercise general supervision over local governments.
[Art. X, Sec. 4]
The President shall exercise general supervision over autonomous regions to ensure that laws
are faithfully executed. [Art. X, Sec. 16]
4. Commander-in-Chief Powers under Art. VII, Sec. 18:
(1) calling out power (Armed Forces of the Philippines);
(2) power to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus; and
(3) power to declare martial law.
In the exercise of the latter two powers, the Constitution requires the concurrence of two
conditions, namely, an actual invasion or rebellion, and that public safety requires the exercise
of such power.
Suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus but not to exceed sixty (60) days unless
extended by Congress.
5. Exercise of Emergency Powers: While the President could validly declare the existence of a
state of national emergency even in the absence of a Congressional enactment, the exercise of
the emergency powers, such as the taking over of privately-owned public utility or business
affected with public interest, requires a delegation from Congress which is the repository of
emergency powers. [David v. Arroyo (2006)]
Delegated Powers: The president, under martial rule or in a revolutionary government, may
exercise delegated legislative powers. [Art. VI, Sec. 23[2]]. Congress may delegate legislative
powers to the president in times of war or in other national emergency.
6. Pardoning Powers/ Acts of Clemency: Except in cases of impeachment, or as otherwise
provided in this Constitution, the President may grant reprieves, commutations, and pardons,
and remit fines and forfeitures, after conviction by final judgment. [Art. VII, Sec. 19, par. 1]
Pardon cannot be granted in cases of violation of election laws without the favorable
recommendation of the COMELEC. [Art. IX-C, Sec. 5]
The President shall also have the power to grant amnesty with the concurrence of a majority of
all the Members of the Congress
7. Diplomatic Power: the president, being the head of state, is regarded as the sole organ and
authority in external relations and is the country’s sole representative with foreign nations.
8. Power to Contract Foreign Loans: Requisites for contracting and guaranteeing foreign loans:
(1) With the concurrence of the monetary board [Art. VII, Sec. 20]
(2) Subject to limitations as may be provided by law [Art. XII, Sec. 2]
(3) Information on foreign loans obtained or guaranteed shall be made available to the public
[Art. XII, Sec. 2]
9. Power to Fix Tariff Rates [Art. VI, Sec. 28]: The Congress may, by law, authorize the President
to fix (1) within specified limits, and (2) subject to such limitations and restrictions as it may
impose:
(a) Tariff rates;
(b)Import and export quotas;
(c) Tonnage and wharfage dues;
Other duties or imposts within the framework of the national development program of the
Government.

18
10. Exercise veto power under the principle of checks and balances:
General rule: All bills must be approved by the President before they become law.
Exceptions:
(1) The veto of the President is overridden by 2/3 vote of all the Members of the House where
it originated;
(2) The bill lapsed into law because of the inaction of the President; and
(3) The bill passed is the special law to elect the President and Vice-President.
11. Residual Powers: The President has unstated residual powers, which are implied from the
grant of executive power necessary for her to comply with her constitutional duties, such as to
safeguard and protect the general welfare. It includes powers unrelated to the execution of any
provision of law. [Marcos v. Manglapus (1988)]
Cases:
1. Funa v. Ermita, 612 SCRA 308 (2010)
2. Funa v. Agra, 691 SCRA 196 (2013)
3. De Castro v. Judicial and Bar Council, 615 SCRA 666 (2010) {Read also Separate Opinion of
Justice Brion} and 618 SCRA 639 (2010)
4. Velicaria-Garafil v. Office of the President, – SCRA – (G.R. No. 203372, 16 June 2015)
5. Resident Marine Mammals of the Protected Seascape Tañon Strait v. Reyes, 756 SCRA 513
(2015)
6. Almario v. Executive Secretary, 701 SCRA 269 (2013)
7. Monsanto v. Factoran, Jr., 170 SCRA 190 (1989)
8. Risos-Vidal v. Commission on Elections, 747 SCRA 210 (2015)
9. Kulayan v. Tan, 675 SCRA 482 (2012)
10. Ampatuan v. Puno, 651 SCRA 228 (2011)
11. Fortun v. Macapagal-Arroyo, 668 SCRA 504 (2012)
12. Vinuya v. Romulo, 619 SCRA 533 (2010) and 732 SCRA 595-622 (2014)*
13. Saguisag v. Ochoa, Jr., – SCRA – (G.R. Nos. 212426 and 212444, 12 January 2016)
14. Lagman v. Medialdea G.R. No. 231658, July 4, 2017**

C. JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
C.1. APPOINTMENTS IN THE JUDICIARY:
Constitutional Requisites
Supreme Court Justice
(1) Natural born citizens
(2) At least 40 years of age
(3) Engaged in the practice of law or a judge of 15 years or more
(4) Must be of proven competence, integrity, probity and independence.
Lower Collegiate Courts (Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan and Court of Tax Appeals)
(1) Natural born citizen
(2) Member of the Philippine Bar
(3) Must be of proven competence, integrity, probity and independence
(4) Such additional requirements provided by law.
Lower Courts

19
 (1) Filipino citizens
(2) Member of the Philippine Bar
(3) Must be of proven competence, integrity, probity and independence.
(4)Such additional requirements provided by law (N.B. The first clause of Art. VIII, Sec. 7(2)
provides: “The Congress shall prescribe the qualifications of judges of lower courts […]”)

C.2. JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL

Composition
Ex-officio members [Art. VIII, Sec. 8(1)]
(1) Chief Justice as ex-officio Chairman
(2) Secretary of Justice
(3) One representative of Congress
Regular members [Art. VIII, Sec. 8(1)]
(1) Representative of the Integrated Bar
(2) Professor of Law
(3) Retired member of the SC
(4) Representative of private sector
In the absence of the Chief Justice because of his impeachment, the most Senior Justice of the
Supreme Court, who is not an applicant for Chief Justice, should participate in the
deliberations for the selection of nominees for the said vacant post and preside over the
proceedings, pursuant to Section 12 of Republic Act No. 296, or the Judiciary Act of 1948.
[Famela Dulay v. Judicial and Bar Council, GR No. 202143 (2012)]
Appointment, Tenure, Salary of JBC Members
Regular members [Art. VIII, Sec. 8(2)] - The regular members shall be appointed by the
President with the consent of the Commission on Appointments. The term of the regular
members is 4 years.
Primary function of the JBC: Recommend appointees to the judiciary; may exercise such other
functions and duties as the SC may assign to it. [Art. VIII, Sec. 8(5)]

C.3. POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW: Duty to settle actual controversies involving rights which are
legally demandable and enforceable and to determine whether or not there has been a grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the Government [The Judiciary, Art. VIII, Sec. 1, par. 2]
Power of the courts to test the validity of executive and legislative acts in light of their
conformity with the Constitution [Angara v. Electoral Commission (1936)]
Jurisdiction – Power to decide and hear a case and execute a decision based on factual findings
and legal grounds.
Requisites for exercise:
(1) Actual case or controversy
(2) Locus Standi
(3) Question raised at the earliest opportunity
(4) Lis mota of the case

20
C.4. JUDICIAL SUPREMACY: The court only asserts the solemn and sacred obligation assigned to
it by the Constitution to determine conflicting claims of authority under the Constitution and to
establish for the parties in an actual controversy the rights which that instrument secures and
guarantees to them. [Angara v. Electoral Commission (1936)]

C.5. JUDICIAL RESTRAINT

The judiciary will not interfere with its co-equal branches when:
(1) There is no showing of grave abuse of discretion
(2) The issue is a political question.
C.6. JUDICIAL PRIVILEGE
Judicial privilege is a form of deliberative process privilege because certain court records which
are considered pre-decisional and deliberative in nature are protected and cannot be the
subject of a subpoena.
Judicial Privilege is an exception to the general rule of transparency as regards access to court
records.
Court deliberations are traditionally considered privileged communication.

C.6. POLITICAL QUESTION DOCTRINE

General Rule: The court will not take cognizance of the case.
The term “political question” refers to: (1) matters to be exercised by the people in their
primary political capacity; or (2) those specifically delegated to some other department or
particular office of the government, with discretionary power to act. It is concerned with issues
dependent upon the wisdom, not legality, of a particular measure. [Tañada v. Cuenco (1957)]

Guidelines for determining whether a question is political or not: [Baker v. Carr (369 US 186)]:
(1) There is a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a political
department;
(2) Lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it;
(3) The impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for non-
judicial discretion;
(4) Impossibility of a court’s undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the
respect due coordinate branches of government;
(5) An unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made; and
(6) Potential embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one
question.

C.7. OPERATIVE FACT DOCTRINE

General Rule: The interpretation (or declaration) of unconstitutionality is retroactive in that it
applies from the law’s effectivity
Exception: Subsequent declaration of unconstitutionality does not nullify all acts exercised in
line with [the law]. The past cannot always be erased by a new judicial declaration.
[Municipality of Malabang v. Benito (1969), citing Chicot County]

C.8. MOOT and ACADEMIC ISSUES

21
General Rule: Courts will not decide questions that have become moot and academic.

Exception: Courts will still decide if:

(a) There is a grave violation of the Constitution;
(b) The situation is of exceptional character and paramount public interest is involved;
(c) The constitutional issue raised requires formulation of controlling principles to guide
the bench, the bar and the public; and
(d) The case is capable of repetition yet evading review. [David v. Macapagal-Arroyo
(2006)

C.9. EN BANC AND DIVISION CASES

En banc – Cases decided with the concurrence of a majority of the Members who actually took
part in the deliberations and voted.

Instances when the SC sits En Banc:

Those involving the constitutionality, application, or operation of: (Article VIII, Sec.5 (2) b)
(a) Treaty
(b) International or executive agreement
(c) Law
(d) Presidential decree
(e) Proclamations
(f) Order
(g) Instruction
(h) Ordinance
(i) Or regulation
(1) Exercise of the power to Discipline judges of lower courts, or order their dismissal [Art.
VIII, Sec. 11]
(2) Discipline of judges can be done by a division, BUT En Banc decides cases for dismissal,
disbarment, suspension for more than 1 year, or fine of more than P10,000. [People v.
Gacott, G.R. No. 116049, Jul. 13, 1995]
(3) Cases or matters heard by a Division where the required number of votes to decide or
resolve (the majority of those who took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case
and voted thereon, and in no case less than 3 members) is not met. [Art. VIII, Sec. 4(3)]
(4) Modifying or reversing a doctrine or principle of law laid down by the court in a decision
rendered en banc or in division [Art. VIII, Sec. 4(3)]
(5) Actions instituted by citizen to test the validity of a proclamation of Martial law or
suspension of the privilege of the writ [Art. VIII, Sec. 18]
(6) When sitting as Presidential Electoral Tribunal [Art. VIII, Sec. 4, par. 7]
(7) All Other cases which under the Rules of Court are required to be heard by the SC en banc.
[Art. VIII, Sec. 4(2)]
Requirement and Procedures in Divisions
(1) Cases decided with the concurrence of a majority of the Members who actually took part in
the deliberations and voted.
(2) In no case without the concurrence of at least three of such Members.

22
 (3) When required number is not obtained, the case shall be decided en banc.
(a) Only cases are referred to En Banc for decision when required votes are not obtained.
(b) Cases are of first instance; matters are those after the first instance, e.g. MRs and post-
decision motions.
(c) Failure to resolve a motion because of a tie does not leave case undecided.
The SC En Banc is not an appellate court vis-à-vis the Divisions of the Court. The only constraint
is that any doctrine or principle of law laid down by the Court, either rendered en banc or in
division, may be overturned or reversed only by the Court sitting en banc.[Firestone Ceramics v.
CA, (2001)]

C.10. ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT [ART. VIII, SEC. 5[1]]
(1) Cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls
(2) Petition for certiorari
(3) Petition for prohibition
(4) Petition for mandamus
(5) Petition for quo warranto
(6) Petition for habeas corpus
Original Jurisdiction [Art. VIII, Sec. 5(2)] – on appeal or certiorari (as the Rules of Court provide),
SC may review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm final judgments and orders of lower courts in:
(1) Cases involving the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or executive
agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or
regulation
(2) Cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or toll, or any penalty imposed
in relation thereto
(3) Cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue
(4) Criminal cases where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher.
(5) Cases where only a question of law is involved.
Period for Deciding Cases [Art. VIII, Sec. 15(1)]

Supreme Court Lower Collegiate Courts Other Lower Courts

24 months 12 months, unless reduced by 3 months, unless reduced by the SC
the SC

C.11. SAFEGUARDS OF JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE

(1) The SC is a constitutional body. It cannot be abolished nor may its membership or the
manner of its meetings be changed by mere legislation. [Art. VIII, Sec. 4]
(2) The members of the judiciary are not subject to confirmation by the CA.
(3) The members of the SC may not be removed except by impeachment. [Art. XI, Sec. 2]
(4) The SC may not be deprived of its minimum original and appellate jurisdiction as prescribed
in Art. X, Sec. 5 of the Constitution. [Art. VIII, Sec. 2]
(5) The appellate jurisdiction of the SC may not be increased by law without its advice and
concurrence. [Art. VI, Sec. 30; Fabian v. Desierto (1988)]
(6) The SC has administrative supervision over all lower courts and their personnel. (Art. VIII,
Sec. 6.)

23
 (7) The SC has exclusive power to discipline judges of lower courts. [Art. VIII, Sec. 11]
(8) The members of the SC and all lower courts have security of tenure, w/c cannot be
undermined by a law reorganizing the judiciary. [Id.]
(9) They shall not be designated to any agency performing quasi-judicial or administrative
functions. [Art. VIII, Sec. 12]
(10) The salaries of judges may not be reduced during their continuance in office. [Art. VIII,
Sec. 10]
(11) The judiciary shall enjoy fiscal autonomy. [Art. VIII, Sec. 3]
(12) The SC alone may initiate rules of court. [Art. VIII, Sec. 5(5)]
(13) Only the SC may order the temporary detail of judges. [Art. VIII, Sec. 5(3)]
(14) The SC can appoint all officials and employees of the judiciary. [Art. VIII, Sec. 5(6)]
Cases:
1. Re: COA Opinion on the Computation of the Appraised Value of the
Properties Purchased by the Retired Chief/Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, 678 SCRA 1
(2012)
2. Re: Request for Guidance/Clarification on Section 7, Rule 111 of Republic Act. No.3. In The
Matter of Save the Supreme Court Judicial Independence and Fiscal Autonomy Movement v.
Abolition of Judiciary Development Fund (JDF) and Reduction of Fiscal Autonomy, 746 SCRA 352
(2015)
4. Chavez v. Judicial and Bar Council, 676 SCRA 579 (2012) and 696 SCRA 496 (2013)
5. Jardeleza v. Sereno, 733 SCRA 279 (2014) and Resolution (G.R. No. 213181, 21 January 2015)
6. Villanueva v. Judicial and Bar Council, 755 SCRA 182 (2015)
7. Re: Petition for Recognition of the Exemption of the Government Service Insurance System
from Payment of Legal Fees, 612 SCRA 193 (2010)
8. Dela Cruz v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 161929, December 8, 2009*

IV. CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS, PRINCIPLES GOVERNING ADMINISTRATIVE LAW,

ELECTION LAW AND THE LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS
A. THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND THE COMMISSION
ON AUDIT
Read Article IX, A, B, C and D on the powers of the Constitutional Commissions, the
composition, qualifications and disqualifications of its Members
Cases:
1. Funa v. Villar, 670 SCRA 579 (2012)
2. Funa v. Duque III, 742 SCRA 166 (2014)
3. Dela Llana v. Chairman, Commission on Audit, 665 SCRA 176 (2012)
4. Capablanca v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 179370, Nov 18, 2009*
5. Herrera v. National Power Corporation, G.R. No. 166570, Dec. 18, 2009*
6. Boy Scouts of the Philippines v. Commission on Audit, 651 SCRA 146 (2011)

B. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
B.1. Administrative Law and the Constitution
Administrative Law, Defined and Scope

24
Administrative Law is a part of Political Law: In the broadest sense, it refers to the entire
organization and operation of government.
In a less comprehensive sense, it refers to that part of “public law wherein it fixes the
organization and determines the competence of the administrative agency and indicates to the
individual remedies for violation of his rights” (Goodnow, Comparative Administrative Law 8-9
(1983) as cited in CORTES, Philippine Administrative Law p.3 (1984)

In a technical sense, administrative law covers a more limited field. It is the law governing
regulatory agencies but it is concerned not only with rule-making, the settlement of contested
matters and the distribution of benefits but also indicates the remedies available to those
aggrieved by the administrative action. Pound refers to it as “that branch of modern law under
which the executive department of government acting in a quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial
capacity, interferes with the conduct of the individual for the purpose of promoting the well-
being of the community, as under laws regulating public corporations, business affected with a
public interest, professions, trades and callings, rates and prices, laws for the protection of the
public health and safety and the promotion of the public convenience and advantage.”
SOURCE: CORTES, PHILIPPINE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW pp. 2-4 (1984)

A.2. Relationship of Administrative Law with the Constitution

Goodnow points out the relation of administrative law to constitutional law in this manner:
“Insofar as it fixes the organization of the administrative authorities, administrative law is
the necessary supplement of constitutional law. While constitutional law gives the general
plan of governmental organization, administrative law carries out this plan in its minutest
details. But administrative law, not only supplements constitutional law insofar as it
regulates the administrative organization of the government; it also complements
constitutional law, insofar as it determines the rule relative to the activity of the
administrative authorities. For while constitutional law treats of the rights of individual,
administrative law treats them from the standpoint of the powers of the government.
Constitutional law, it has been said, lays stress upon rights, administrative law emphasizes
the powers of government and duties of the citizens it, is nevertheless to the administrative
law that the individual must have recourse when his rights are violated. For just so far as
administrative law delimits the sphere of action of the administration, it indicates what are
the rights of the individual which the administration must respect; and, in order to prevent
the administration from violating them, offer to the individual remedies for the violation of
these rights”. (Emphasis supplied)
SOURCE: GOODNOW, COMPARATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, 8-9 (1893), as cited in CORTES,
PHILIPPINE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW p.4 (1984)

A.3. Constitutional Considerations

Separation of Powers
Section 1, Article II – Declaration of Principle and State Policies: “The Philippines is a democratic
and republican state. Sovereignty resides in the people and all governmental authority
emanates from them.”

25
Unless the Constitution permits it, no branch of government can abdicate its functions and
escape responsibility by delegating them.
Exception to the rule on delegation of powers: Within the limits of the law creating the
Executive Department, defining and limiting its powers, the executive may allocate specific
functions to agencies under its control and supervision for efficient management and better
governance.

Delegation of Powers
Rule: When the law vests in an administrative body the power to hear and decide
controversies, the delegation is not done by the judiciary but the power to adjudicate granted
by law proceeds from the plenary powers of legislative branch.

Other constitutional limitations

Bill of Rights: the right to due process. Section 1, Article III, Philippine Constitution: “No
person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, no shall any
person be denied the equal protection of the law.”
A.4. CREATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES
(1). Constitutional Provision:
Article IX, 1987 Constitution, Constitutional Commissions: (1) The Civil Service Commission; (2)
The Commission on Elections; and (3) The Commission on Audit; (4) Article XI, 1987
Constitution, Section 5. Ombudsman; and (5) Article XIII, 1987 Constitution, Section 17.
Commission on Human Rights
(2). Legislation: some government agencies created by law through special charters
(3). Other Modes
~May be created by local governments thru ordinance/local legislation
~Regulation in international field: The Council of International Civil Aviation Organization,
Administrative Tribunal of the International Labor Organization, CIAB and the WTO.
~May be created by executive action
A.5: Types of Administrative Agencies (Refer to the Revised Administrative Code for details)
- government instrumentality
- regulatory agency
- chartered institution
- government-owned or controlled corporation

A.6. CHECKS ON ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES

A.6.1. Sources of Checks
THE PRESIDENT (Article VII, 1987 Constitution)
~position of the Chief Executive (Section 1)
~duty to preserve and defend the Constitution (Section 5)
~appointing power (Section 16)
~control over executive departments, bureaus and offices (Section 17)
~sovereign guarantees on foreign loans (Section 20)
~submission of budget outlining programs and defining policies (Section 22)

26
THE LEGISLATURE (Article VI, 1987 Constitution)
~creation of government agencies pertains to the plenary powers (Section 1)
~consent over presidential appointees (Section 18)
~examination of books of accounts by COA (Section 20)
~power to conduct inquiries (Section 21 and 22)
~declaration of war (Section 23)
~enact budget (Section 24, 25 and 29)
THE COURTS: POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW (Article VIII, 1987 Constitution)
~availability of judicial review
~modes of judicial review Refer to Sec. 1, Sec 4(2), Sec. 5
~extent of judicial review
A.6.2. GRIEVANCE MECHANISM (Article XI, 1987 Constitution)
~Accountability of Public Officers
• Impeachment (Section 2)
• Procedure (Section 3)
~Powers of the Sandiganbayan (Section 4)
~Powers of the Ombudsman (Section 5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13)
~Civil Service Commission (Article IX, A. Common Provisions, B. The Civil Service Commission)
Sections 2 (1), (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6).

A.6.3. ROLE OF THE PUBLIC

~resolution of conflicting interests
~essence of public welfare/public interest

A.6.4. ROLE OF THE MEDIA

~print and broadcast media as potent sources of checks
~contribute to increased public awareness on issues

A.7. POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES

1. General Executive and Administrative Functions (Determinative in Nature)
Issuance of licenses, permits, leases, etc.: Acebedo Optical v. C.A et. al., G.R. No. 100152,
March 31, 2000
Fact-finding Investigation: Lovina v. Moreno, G.R. No. L-17821, November 29, 1963
Permissible delegation; delegation; when allowed: Abakada v. Sec. Purisima, 562 SCRA, 251:
Delegation of power in the implementation of the accretion law for BOC and BIR employees
People v. Maceren, 169 Phil., 447-448 (1977): Delegation of power; definition and scope of the
law and penalties to be imposed
2. Rule-making power (Legislative in Nature)
Principles to determine valid exercise of power: Completeness Test and Sufficient Standard
Test
Requisites: Sections 1-9, Book VII, Administrative Code of 1987, Administrative Procedure
Requisites for valid delegation of the power from the legislative branch to the executive
branch:
27
~it must have been promulgated in accordance with prescribed procedure;
~it must have reasonable standards;
~the power is issued under authority of law;
~administrative regulations (IRR) must be published in order to be effective; and
~ it must be within the scope and purview of the law.
Publication and Effectivity of Rules: If a question on validity of rules is raised before the
courts, it must be resolved with dispatch as it could result to irreparable injury to affected
individuals.
General Rule: Publication is mandatory before any administrative issuance particularly rules
and regulations especially so when they impose some form of burden on the public. Book VII,
Sections 3-8, Administrative Code of 1987
Rationale behind the Rule: Due process in the exercise of an administrative agency’s quasi-
legislative power requires publication of the promulgated rules and regulations.
Classes of Rules and Regulations in Exercise of Legislative Function
1. Internal, affecting only the internal operations/procedures of an agency
2. Personnel Regulations, refer only to personnel action of an agency relative to office
orders on transfer, reassignment, designation, etc.
3. Interpretative Rules, Clarificatory Rules (ex. DOJ opinions, BIR Circulars)
4. Fixing of Rates, Prices, and Toll Charges: This power is vested by law in administrative
agencies and carries with it an implied standard is part of the law.
Refer to: Administrative Code of 1987 Sec. 9, Book VII; Sections 17 – 18, Book VII,
Administrative Code of 1987
3. Adjudicatory power (Judicial in Nature)
Administrative Procedure
Due Process: twin requirements of notice and hearing
Due Process in Administrative Investigation
Investigation and Adjudication: part of quasi-judicial power of administrative agencies
~Sections 10-15, Book VII, Administrative Code of 1987
Cases:
1. IA1 ERWIN L. MAGCAMIT v. INTERNAL AFFAIRS SERVICE - PHILIPPINE DRUG ENFORCEMENT
AGENCY, as represented by SI V ROMEO M. ENRIQUEZ AND DIRECTOR GENERAL DIONISIO R.
SANTIAGO, January 25, 2016, G.R. No. 198140
JENNIFER A. AGUSTIN-SE AND ROHERMIA J. JAMSANI-RODRIGUEZ v. OFFICE OF
THE PRESIDENT, REPRESENTED BY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., ORLANDO C.
CASIMIRO, OVERALL DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN, OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, AND JOHN I.C.
TURALBA, ACTING DEPUTY SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, G.R.
No. 207355, February 03, 2016: observation of the rule of law in administrative proceedings;
the right to security of tenure of public officers
2. Jardeleza v. Chief Justice Sereno and the JBC, G.R. No. 213181, August 19, 2014: due process
in the application for a judicial position
3. Pontejos v. Desierto, G.R. No. 148600, 2011: action before the Ombudsman is independent of
the internal investigation before the HLURB
4. Dela Llana v. Chairperson, Commission on Audit, 665 SCRA 176 (2012)

28
5. Dalmacio-Joaquin v. Dela Cruz, A.M. No. P-06-2241, July 10, 2012*

Power to issue subpoena, declare in contempt: allowed only when provided by the law
creating the administrative agency.
~General Statutory Provision. Sec. 13, Book II, Administrative Code of 1987.
~Special Statutory Grant: Contempt power is inherently judicial.
Case:
Mayor Brigido Simon v. Commission on Human Rights, G.R. No.100150, January 5, 1994

A.8. ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL

~ Refer to: Sections 19-24, Book VII, Administrative Code of 1987
Principle of Primary Jurisdiction
Principle of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
Rationale behind the principle: Allow administrative agencies to exercise primary
jurisdiction.
1. SPOUSES RAMON and LIGAYA GONZALES v. MARMAINE REALTY CORPORATION, represented
by MARIANO MANALO, January 13, 2016, G.R. No. 214241: principle of primary jurisdiction;
jurisdiction of the HLURB
2. BASIANA MINING EXPLORATION CORPORATION, BASIANA MINERALS DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION AND RODNEY O. BASIANA, IN HIS OWN PERSONAL CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT AND
DULY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF BASIANA MINING EXPLORATION CORPORATION AND
BASIANA MINING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. HONORABLE SECRETARY OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, AND SR METALS INC. (SRMI),
G.R. No. 191705, March 07, 2016
3. B.F. Homes et al. v. MERALCO, G.R. No. 171624, 2010: resort to the court is premature until
the Energy Regulatory Commission resolves the rate petition.

EXCEPTIONS WHEN RESORT TO EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES IS NOT

NECESSARY
a. The question involved is purely legal;
b. The administrative body is in estoppel;
c. The act complained is patently illegal;
d. There is an urgent need for judicial intervention;
e. The claim involved is small;
f. Grave and irreparable injury will be suffered;
g. There is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy,
h. Strong public interest is involved;
i. The subject of the controversy is private law;
j. The case involves a quo warranto proceeding (Sunville Timber Products,
Inc. v. Abad, 206 SCRA 428 [1992]);
k. The party was denied due process (Samahang Magbubukid ng Kapdula,
Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 305 SCRA 147 [1999]);

29
 l. The decision is that of a Department of Secretary. (Nazareno v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 131641, February 23, 2000)
m. Resort to administrative remedies would be futile (University of the
Philippines Board of Regents v. Rasul, 200 SCRA 685 [1991]);
n. There is unreasonable delay (Republic v. Sandiganbayan, 301 SCRA 237
[1999]);
o. The action involves recovery of physical possession of public land
(Gabrito v. Court of Appeals, 167 SCRA 771 [1998]);
p. The party is poor (Sabello v. Department of Education, Culture and
Sports, 180 SCRA 623 [1989]); and
q. The law provides for immediate resort to the court (Rullan v. Valdez, 12
SCRA 501 [1964]).
Valmonte v. Belmonte, Jr., G.R. No. 74930, February 13, 1989: issue
involves public interest which necessitates the court to take jurisdiction
Sabello v. Department of Education, Culture & Sports, 180 SCRA 623
(1989): claim of money

C. ELECTION LAW
C.1. Right of Suffrage
A. Constitutional Basis: Art. II, 1987 Constitution
Article II – Declaration of Principles and State Policies, 1987 Constitution: “Sec. 1 –The
Philippines is a democratic and republican state. Sovereignty resides in the people and all
government authority emanates from them.”

C.2. Qualified Voters: Art. V. 1987 Constitution

“Sec. 1 - Suffrage may be exercised by all citizens of the Philippines not otherwise disqualified
by law, who are at least eighteen years of age, who shall have resided in the Philippines for at
least one year and in the place wherein they propose to vote for at least six (6) months
immediately preceding the election. No literacy, property, or other substantive requirement
shall be imposed on the exercise of suffrage. (emphasis supplied)”

C.3. Disqualified Voters: Sec. 118, Omnibus Election Code

The following shall be disqualified from voting:
• Any person who has been sentenced by final judgment to suffer imprisonment for
not less than one year, such disability not having been removed by plenary pardon
or granted amnesty: Provided, however, that any person disqualified to vote under
this paragraph shall automatically reacquire the right to vote upon expiration of five
(5) years after service of sentence.
• Any person who has been adjudged by final judgment by competent court or
tribunal of having committed any crime involving disloyalty to the duly constituted
government such as rebellion, sedition, violation of the anti-subversion and firearms
laws, or any crime against national security, unless restored to his full civil and
political rights in accordance with law: Provided, that he shall regain his right to vote
automatically upon expiration of five (5) years after service of sentence.

30
• Insane or incompetent persons as declared by competent authority.
C.4. ELECTION PERIOD: Unless otherwise fixed by the COMELEC in special cases, the election
period shall commence 90 days before the day of election and shall end 30 days thereafter.
(Sec. 9, Article IX-C, Constitution)
C.5. PRE-ELECTION ACTIVITIES/CONTROVERSIES
C.5.1. Certificate of Candidacy (“CoC”)
• As to FORM
• Contents of the CoC
• Name/s
• Citizenship
• Residence and Length of Stay
• Registered Voter of the Place
• Other Items
• WHEN to file the CoC Deadline/s:
• Under OEC: Day before the start of the campaign period
• National – 90 days before election
• Local/Congressional – 45 days before elections
Under RA 9369/Automated Election System: Deadline fixed by COMELEC

C.5.2. Effects of Filing:

One becomes an official and legitimate CANDIDATE files his Certificate of Candidacy
Rules:
~Under OEC, Section 67: Whether Elected or Appointed – ipso facto resigned – except an
elected official runs for same office/reelection or runs for President or Vice President.
~Under RA 9006: General repeal of Section 67 of the OEC & Section 11 rendered ineffective.
Hence, there is NO more ipso facto resignation for all elected officials.
~Under RA 9369 - Section 11 of Republic Act No. 8436 as amended by RA 9359: “A public
appointive office …shall be considered ipso facto resigned from his/her office and must vacate
the same at the start of the day of the filing of his/her certification of candidacy.”

C.5.3.Deny-due course/cancel Certificate of Candidacy

Under Section 78 of OEC & Section 23 of COMELEC RULES: Rule 23: Sec. 1. Exclusive Ground –
FALSE material representation in CoC.
Section 2. Period to File – within five (5) days from last day for filing of Certificate of Candidacy

C.5.4.Nuisance Candidates
Section 76, OEC and Rule 24, COMELEC RULES:
Classify:
• Makes Mockery/Disrepute
• Similarity of NAMES
• Not being BONAFIDE candidate
WHO can file: Candidate for the same elective position.
WHEN to file: within five (5) days from deadline/last day of filing Certificate of Candidacy

31
C.5.5. Disqualification
GROUNDS for Disqualification
First: Ineligibility – lack of mandated qualification
Second: Prohibited Acts before [premature convention/meeting to nominate/select
official candidates] and/or AFTER the Filing of CoC and before or after the Election BUT before
proclamation [Section 68 of OEC i.e. vote buying, terrorism illegal contribution; Please also refer
to Sec. 261 d, e, k & v, etc.]
Third: Under Section 12 of OEC – Incompetent/insane
Fourth:Under Section 40 of Local Government Code – for local officials
OTHERs: Green Card holder
Conviction
C.5.6. Substitution of Candidates: Only in three (3) instances:
• Death/Permanent Incapacity
• Disqualification
• Withdrawal
Case: VICE-MAYOR MARCELINA S. ENGLE v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS EN BANC and
WINSTON B. MENZON, January 19, 2016, G.R. No. 215995: grounds for substitution; sufficiency
of substitution

C.5.7. Jurisdiction over Election Contests

(1) COMELEC – over all contests relating to the elections, returns and qualifications of all
elective regional, provincial and city officials [Sec. 250. BP 881]
(2) RTC - over contests involving municipal officials [Sec. 251. BP 881]
(3) MeTC or MTC – over election contests involving barangay officials [Sec. 252. BP 881]
(4) HRET – over election contests involving members of the House of Representatives
(5) SET – over election contests involving members of the Senate
(6) PET – over election contests involving presidential and vice-presidential candidates
Cases:
1. Kabataan Party-List v. Commission on Elections, – SCRA – (G.R. No. 221318, 16 December
2015)
2. Magdalo Para sa Pagbabago v. Commission on Elections, 673 SCRA 651 (2012)
3. Jalosjos v. Commission on Elections, 670 SCRA 572 (2012)
4. Jalosjos v. Commission on Elections, 698 SCRA 742 (2013)
5. Goh v. Bayron, 742 SCRA 303 (2014)
6. Doromal v. Biron and Commission on Elections G.R. No. 181809, February 17, 2010*
7. GOV. EXEQUIEL B. JAVIER v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, CORNELIO P. ALDON,
and RAYMUNDO T. ROQUERO, January 12, 2016, G.R. No. 215847: liability for commission of
election offense; what constitutes an election offense
8. WIGBERTO "TOBY" R. TAÑADA, JR. v. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL
TRIBUNAL, ANGELINA "HELEN" D. TAN, AND ALVIN JOHN S. TAÑADA,G.R. No. 217012, March
01, 2016, grounds for cancellation of COC; jurisdiction of the HRE
D. LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS

32
D.1. Definition: Public Office is the right, authority and duty, created and conferred by law, by
which, for a given period either fixed by law or enduring at the pleasure of the creating power,
an individual is invested with some portion of the sovereign functions of government, to be
exercised by that individual for the benefit of the public. [Mechem, quoted in Fernandez v. Sto.
Tomas (1995)]
Philippine Constitution, Art. XI, Sec. 1 “Sec. 1. Public office is a public trust. Public officers and
employees must, at all times, be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost
responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency; act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest
lives.”
Case: JESSICA LUCILA G. REYES v. THE HONORABLE OMBUDSMAN, G.R. Nos. 212593-94,
March 15, 2016: Accountability of public officers; powers of the Ombudsman (Sections 5 to
14, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution, in relation to R.A. No. 6770, or otherwise known as
"The Ombudsman Act of 1989.")
Public office may be considered property in a limited sense:
(1) In quo warranto proceedings, the Court is called upon to decide which of the two persons is
entitled to a public office.
(2) It is a claim to property when a dispute concerns security of tenure.

D.2. The Civil Service

Eligibility and Qualification Requirements: Concepts of Merit and Fitness and Security of
Tenure
Eligibility: all government positions require specific eligibility to be considered as being legally
fit or qualified to be chosen.
Qualification: Endowment/act which a person must do before he can occupy a public office.
Restrictions on the Power of Congress to Prescribe Qualifications:
(1) Congress cannot exceed its constitutional powers;
(2) Congress cannot impose conditions of eligibility inconsistent with constitutional provisions;
(3) The qualification must be germane to the position;
(4) Congress cannot add to eligibility requirements specified in the Constitution; and
(5) Congress cannot prescribe qualifications so detailed to amount to making a legislative
appointment which violates the doctrine of separation of powers
Cases:
1. Pichay, Jr. v. Office of the Deputy Executive Secretary for Legal
Affairs-Investigative and Adjudicatory Division, 677 SCRA 408 (2012)
2. Civil Service Commission v. Dacoycoy, 306 SCRA 425 (1999)
3. Quimbo v. Gervacio, 466 SCRA 277 (2005)
4. Re: Application for Retirement of Judge Moslemen T. Macarambon under
Republic Act No. 910, as amended by Republic Act No. 9946, 673 SCRA 602 (2012)
5. Re: Letter of Court of Appeals Justice Vicente S.E. Veloso for Entitlement to Longevity Pay for
His Services as Commission Member III of the National Labor Relations Commission, 758 SCRA 1
(2015)
6. Fetalino v. Commission on Elections, 686 SCRA 813 (2012)
7. Ocampo v. Commission on Audit, 698 SCRA 136 (2013)

33
8.Philippine Ports Authority v. Coalition of PPA Officers, G.R. No. 203142, August 26, 2015*
9. Cabungcal v. Lorenzo, G.R. No. 160367, December 18, 2009*

D.3. Accountability of Public Officers

D.3.1.Three fold liability of a public officer: civil liability, criminal liability and administrative
liability
CASE: ALMA G. PARAISO-ABAN v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, January 12, 2016, G.R. No. 217948:
degree of diligence required of a public officer; liability for failure to observe responsibility of
required of a public officer

D.3.2. Preventive suspension is not a penalty but is mean to safeguard the integrity of the
administrative investigation. There is no compensation given during this period of
suspension.

D.3.3. Effects on resolution of cases on public officers:

When a public officer is suspended pending appeal, he is entitled to compensation for the
period of suspension if he is found innocent.
If a public officer is illegally removed, he may be reinstated. If there was bad faith or malice,
the superior who caused such illegal removal will be held personally accountable for the back
salaries of subject employee.
The award of backwages is limited to a maximum period of five years.

D.3.4. Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan (Art. XI, Sec. 4)

The Office of the Ombudsman
• Composition (Art. XI, Sec. 5)
• Qualification (Art. XI, Sec. 8)
• Appointment and term (Art. XI, Sections 8 and 11)
• Rank and Salary (Art. XI, Sec. 10)
• Disqualifications (Art. XI, Sec. 8, Art. IX, A, Sec. 2)
• Jurisdiction (Art. XI, Sec. 12)
• Powers and functions (Art. XI, Sec. 13)
• Fiscal autonomy (Art. XI, Sec. 14)
• Appointment of personnel (Art. XI, Sec. 6)
Cases:
1. Office of the Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals, 452 SCRA 714 (2005)
2. Bustillo v. People, 12 May 2010*
2. Gutierrez v. House of Representatives Committee on Justice, 643 SCRA 198 (2011)
3. Gonzales III v. Office of the President, 679 SCRA 614 (2012) and 714 SCRA 611 (2014)
4. Carpio Morales v. Court of Appeals (Sixth Division), – SCRA – (G.R. Nos. 217126-27, 4. Carpio
Morales v. Court of Appeals (Sixth Division), – SCRA – (G.R. Nos. 217126-27, 10 November 2015)

V. LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
34
A. PUBLIC CORPORATIONS: CONCEPT AND CLASSIFICATIONS
A.1.LGUs are independent juridical entities existing by virtue of congressional acts.
Types of public corporations: quasi-corporations and municipal corporations.
A.2. Factors considered in creating municipal corporations: Population, Income and Land Area
A.3. Principles of Local Autonomy; Devolution and Decentralization of Powers

B. POWERS OF LGUS
B.1. Sources of Powers (Constitution, Charter, Local Government Code and other laws)
Note: Review the General Principles Governing the Powers of the State

B.2. Kinds of Power: Police Power, Power of Eminent Domain, Power to Tax, Delegated Power to
Enact Laws
1. Police Power: General Welfare Clause and limitations on the exercise thereof (See 16, LGC)
Power to Open and Close Roads (Sec. 21, LGC, Art. 34-45, IRR)
Factors to consider in vacating a street
2. Power of Eminent Domain
Requisites for the Exercise (Sec. 9, Art. III, 1987 Constitution; Sec. 19, LGC and Art. 32
and 36, IRR; Rule 97, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure; and DILG Opinion No. 10-1996)
3. Powers of Taxation and Fiscal Administration
Principle: The revenue raised thru local taxation shall be for public purpose.
(a) Local Taxation (Sections 5, 6 & 7, Art. X, 1987 Const., Sees. 128-196, LGC)
Requisites for the exercise; publication requirements and public hearing
(b) Limitations on municipal taxing power
(c) Real Property Taxation (Sections 232-283, LGC)
Read also Sections 516, 517, 518, 519 on Penal Provisions, LGC.
Assessment and Appraisal (Sec. 201-231, LGC)
Principle: Special Education Fund is the share segregated in the proceeds of
real property taxes collected by the local government units.
(d) Local government’s share under NIRC
Internal Revenue Allocation (IRA) is the share of local government units in the
proceeds under the NIRC. (Sections 6 and 7, Art. X, Constitution, Sections 284-294,
LGC)

(e) Fiscal Autonomy and Self-Reliance of Local Governments

(f) Credit Financing (Sections 295-303, LGC; Read also Section 520, LGC on
Prohibited Acts)
(g) Local Fiscal Administration (Sections 304-383, LGC)
4. Legislative Powers (Sections 48-59, LGC; Sec. 9, Art. X, 1987 Constitution)
Note: Apply the concept of delegated authority because all local governments are
under the executive branch and not the legislative branch of government.
(a) Rule on effectivity of ordinances: Unless otherwise stated in the ordinance, local
ordinances shall take effect after ten days (10) from posting. (Read Section 511 of
LGC on Posting and Publication of Ordinances with Penal Provisions.)
(b) Law Making Capacity of LGUs: Quorum must exist to enact a law.
Requisites of a valid ordinance: Inclusion in Legislative Agenda, Consideration by

35
 Appropriate Legislative Council, Public Hearing where necessary, and Passage in 3
Readings, Approval by Chief Local Executive, Veto Power, Override Power,
Posting and Publication
(c) Local Initiative and Referendum (Sec. 120-127, Art. 133 to 153, IRR)
RULES TO BE OBSERVED IN VOTING:
Two-Thirds (2/3) Vote Required
Extending loans or entering into contracts;
Issuance of bonds or securities;
Authorizing the lease of public property;
Grant of franchises;
Creation of LGU liability or indebtedness
Over-ride the veto of the Mayor;
Grant of tax exemptions;
Levy of taxes;
Discipline / suspend a member of the sanggunian;
Opening or closing of roads;
Selection and transfer of government site or offices; and
Concurrence in the appointment of personnel (DILG Opinion No. 107-2003, dated 15
August 2003)
 To change the name of public structure will historical, cultural and ethnic
significance, a UNANIMOUS vote is required.
Distinction between an Ordinance and a Resolution
Rules governing the enactment of ordinances and resolutions (Art. 107, Arts. 108 to 114, IRR, LGC)

5. Corporate Powers (Sec. 22, LGC, Art. 46, IRR, Sections 14/15, LGC)
(a) Conditions under which a local executive may enter into a contract in behalf of his
government unit
(b) Authority to negotiate or secure grants and incurring indebtedness (Sec. 23, LGC)
(c) Build-Operate-Transfer (Sec. 302, LGC)

C. PRIVILEGES
1. Immunity from suit
2. Personality to Appeal
3. Hiring of Private Lawyers

D. LIABILITIES OF MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS

1. General Rule - Sec. 24, Local Government Code (LGC)
2. Exceptions as provided by law. Refer to Art. 34 and Art. 2189 Civil Code
3. Liability for torts, if engaged in proprietary function (Read Article 2180, Civil Code)
4. Liability under Contracts
5. Doctrine of implied municipal liability contra personal liability

E. SETTLEMENT OF BOUNDARY DISPUTES (Sec. 118, LGC, Sec. 15-19,IRR)

Rules in settlement of boundary disputes:
1. Regional trial courts exercise original jurisdiction over boundary disputes in involving a
MUNICIPALITY and an independent component city.

36
 2. Sangguniang Panlalawigan exercises original jurisdiction over boundary disputes
involving two municipalities of the same province.
3. Joint Sangguniang Panlalawigan exercises original jurisdiction over boundary disputes
involving two municipalities of the different provinces.
4. Sangguniang Panlungsod exercises original jurisdiction over boundary disputes
involving two barangays of the same city.
5. Joint Sangguniang Panlungsod exercises original jurisdiction over boundary disputes
involving two barangays of two different cities.
6. The regional trial court exercises APPELLATE jurisdiction over boundary disputes
among local government units.

F. RULES GOVERNING LGU PUBLIC OFFICERS

Requirements and Prohibitions applicable to all Local Officials and Employees, (Sections 90, 94, 95
Art. 177, 179, IRR)
F.1. ELECTIVE OFFICIALS
(1) Qualifications (Sections 39, 41 and 42, LGC
(2) Disqualifications (Section 40, LGC)
(3) Vacancies and succession (Sections 44 to 46, R.A. 7160)
Permanent vacancies
Temporary vacancies
Resignation
(4) Recall (Sections 69 - 75, LGC and Art. 154 to 162, IRR)
Requisites
Who may be recalled
Grounds for recall
When recall may not be held
Procedure for recall
Effectivity of Recall
(5) Term Limits and Recall (See R.A. No.9244)
F.2. Appointive Officials
Principles of Merit and Fitness and Security of Tenure
Co-terminus Positions
Midnight Appointments
Disciplinary Actions
Cases:
1. Limbona v. Mangelin, 170 SCRA 786 (1989)
2. City of Lapu-Lapu v. Philippine Economic Zone Authority, 742 SCRA 524 (2014)
3. Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority (MCIAA) v. City of Lapu-Lapu, 757 SCRA 323
(2015)
4. Boracay Foundation, Inc. v. Province of Aklan, 674 SCRA 555 (2012)
5. Umali v. Commission on Elections, 723 SCRA 170 (2014)
6. Carpio Morales v. Court of Appeals (Sixth Division), – SCRA – (G.R. Nos. 217126-27, 10
November 2015)
7. Cruz v. Gingoyon, G.R. No. 170404, September. 28, 2011*

VI. THE BILL OF RIGHTS

37
A. FUNDAMENTAL POWERS OF THE STATE AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS
1. Carlos Superdrug Corp. v. Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), 526 SCRA
130 (2007)
2. Manila Memorial Park v. Secretary of Social Welfare, G.R. No. 175356, December 3, 2013*
3. National Power Corporation v. Zabala, G.R. No. 173520, January 30, 2013*
4. Fernando v. St. Scholastica’s College, 693 SCRA 141 (2013)
5. Aquino v. Municipality of Malay, Aklan, 737 SCRA 145 (2014)
6. Ferrer, Jr. v. Bautista, 760 SCRA 652 (2015)
7. National Power Corporation v. City of Cabanatuan, 737 SCRA 305 (2014)
8. City of Iloilo v. Judge Contreras, G.R. No. 168967, February 12, 2010*
9. Mercado v. Land Bank of the Philippines, G.R. No. 196707, June 17, 2015*
10. Land Bank of the Philippines v. Heirs of Puyat, G.R. No. 175055, June 27, 2012*
11. People v. Marti, 193 SCRA 57 (1991)
B. DUE PROCESS
1. Agabon v. National Labor Relations Commission, 442 SCRA 573 (2004)
2. Bayan v. Ermita, 488 SCRA 226 (2006)
3. Integrated Bar of the Philippines v. Atienza, Jr., 613 SCRA 518 (2010)
4. Re: Letter of the UP Law Faculty Entitled “Restoring Integrity: A Statement by the Faculty of
the University of the Philippines College of Law on the Allegations of Plagiarism and
Misrepresentation in the Supreme Court,” 644 SCRA 543 (2011)
5. Sagana v. Francisco, G.R. No. 161952, October 2, 2009*
6. Evangelista v. People, G.R. No. 163267, May 5, 2010*
7. Petron LPG Dealers Association v. Ang, G.R. No. 199371, February 6, 2016*
C. EQUAL PROTECTION
1. Garcia v. Drilon, 699 SCRA 352 (2013)
2. Serrano v. Gallant Maritime Services, Inc., 582 SCRA 254 (2009)
3. Sameer Overseas Placement Agency, Inc. v. Cabiles, 732 SCRA 22 (2014)
D. SEARCHES AND SEIZURES
1. Laud v. People, 741 SCRA 239 (2014)
2. Social Justice Society v. Dangerous Drugs Board, 570 SCRA 410 (2008)
3. Dela Cruz v. People, 730 SCRA 655 (2014)
4. Pollo v. Constantino-David, 659 SCRA 198 (2011)
5. Lucas v. Lucas, 650 SCRA 667 (2011)
E. PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND CORRESPONDENCE AND WRIT OF HABEAS DATA
1. Salcedo-Ortañez v. Court of Appeals, 235 SCRA 111 (1994)
2. Zulueta v. Court of Appeals, 253 SCRA 699 (1996)
3. Ople v. Torres, 293 SCRA 141 (1998)
4. Kilusang Mayo Uno v. Director-General, National Economic Development Authority, 487 SCRA
623 (2006)
5. Vivares v. St. Theresa’s College, 737 SCRA 92 (2014)
6. Lee v. Ilagan, 738 SCRA 59 (2014)
F. FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
1. Disini, Jr. v. Secretary of Justice, 716 SCRA 2014 and 723 SCRA 109 (2014)
2. Social Weather Stations, Incorporated v. Commission on Elections, 357 SCRA 496 (2001)

38
3. GMA Network, Inc. v. Commission on Elections, 734 SCRA 88 (2014)
4. Diocese of Bacolod v. Commission on Elections, 747 SCRA 1 (2015)
5. 1-United Transport Koalisyon (1-Utak) v. Commission on Elections, 755 SCRA 441 (2015)
6. Social Weather Stations, Inc. v. Commission on Elections, 755 SCRA 124 (2015)
7. Pharmaceutical and Health Care Association of the Philippines v. Duque III, 535 SCRA 265
(2007) {Read Separate Opinion of C.J. Puno}
8. Re: Letter of the UP Law Faculty Entitled “Restoring Integrity: A Statement by the Faculty of
the University of the Philippines College of Law on the Allegations of Plagiarism and
Misrepresentation in the Supreme Court,” 644 SCRA 543 (2011)
G. FREEDOM OF RELIGION
1. Ang Ladlad LGBT Party v. Commission on Elections, 618 SCRA 32 (2010)*
2. Imbong v. Ochoa, 721 SCRA 146 (2014)
H. LIBERTY OF ABODE AND FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT
1. Office of Administrative Services-Office of the Court Administrator v. Macarine, 677 SCRA 1
(2012)
2. Marcos v. Manglapus, 177 SCRA 668 (1989)
I. RIGHT TO INFORMATION
1. Chavez v. Presidential Commission on Good Government, 299 SCRA 744 (1998)
2. Sereno v. CRTM (G.R. No. 175210, February 1, 2016)
3. Antolin v. Domondon, G.R. No. 165036, July 5, 2010*
J. RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION
1. In Re: Atty. Marcial A. Edillon, 84 SCRA 556 (1978)
K. EMINENT DOMAIN
1. Hacienda Luisita, Inc. v. Presidential Agrarian Reform Council, 670 SCRA 392 (2012)
2. Secretary of the Department of Public Works and Highways v. Tecson, 700 SCRA 243 (2013)
and Resolution dated 21 April 2015, – SCRA – (G.R. No. 179334, 21 April 2015)
3. Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority v. Lozada, Sr., 613 SCRA 618 (2010)
4. Republic v. Heirs of Saturnino Q. Borbon, 745 SCRA 40 (2015)
5. National Power Corporation v. Heirs of Macabangkit Sangkay, 656 SCRA 60 (2011)
L. RIGHTS OF SUSPECTS
1. People v. Lauga, 615 SCRA 548 (2010)
2. People v. Bio, G.R. No. 195850, February 16, 2015*
3. Philippine Ports Authority v. Coalition of PPA Officers, G.R. No. 203142, August 26, 2015*
M. RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
1. Enrile v. Sandiganbayan (Third Division), 767 SCRA 282 (2015)
2. Re: Petition for Radio and Television Coverage of the Multiple Murder Cases Against
Maguindanao Governor Zaldy Ampatuan, 652 SCRA 1
(2011) See also Resolution on Motion for Reconsideration d a t e d 2 3 O c t o b e r 2 0 1 2
3. Go v. People, 677 SCRA 213 (2012)
4. Jaylo v. Sandiganbayan (First Division), 746 SCRA 452 (2015)
5. Demaala v. Sandiganbayan & Ombudsman, February 19, 2014*
6. Almuete v. People, G.R. No. 179611, March 12, 2013*
N. SELF-INCRIMINATION CLAUSE
1. Dela Cruz v. People, 730 SCRA 655 (2014)

39
2. People v. Constancio, G.R. No. 206226, April 4, 2016*
O. DOUBLE JEOPARDY
1. People v. Velasco, 340 SCRA 207 (2000)
2. Ivler v. Modesto-San Pedro, 635 SCRA 191 (2010)
3. People v. Relova, 148 SCRA 292 (1987)
P. EX POST FACTO LAWS AND BILLS OF ATTAINDER
1. Valeroso v. People, 546 SCRA 450 (2008)
2. Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) v. Carpio Morales, 740 SCRA 368
(2014)
3. Bureau of Customs Employees Association (BOCEA) v. Teves, 661 SCRA 589 ((2011)
R. WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS, AMPARO, HABEAS DATA, AND KALIKASAN
1. Gamboa v. Chan, 677 SCRA 385 (2012)
2. De Lima v. Gatdula, 691 SCRA 226 (2013)
3. Navia v. Pardico, G.R. No. 184467, June 19, 2012*
4. Caram v. Segui, 732 SCRA 86 (2014)
5. Paje v. Casino, G.R. No. 207257, February 3, 2015*

VII. PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

A. International Law is essentially the law which governs the relationship between nation-
states, although the subjects of international law now also extend to individuals, international
organizations and other actors.
The Permanent Court of International Justice in the Lotus Case declares: “International Law
governs relations between states. The rules of law binding upon states therefore emanate from
their own free will as expressed in conventions or by usages generally accepted as expressing
principles of law and established in order to regulate relations between those co-existing
independent communities or with a view to the achievement of common aims.” (Series A, No.
10, 1927, p.18 as cited in Magallona, Fundamentals of Public International Law (2005), p. 3.
B. Public International Law and Private International Law
Public International Law governs the activities of governments in relation to other governments
while Private International Law governs the activities of individuals, corporations, and other
similar entities when such private entities cross national borders.
Entities that create international law: States and international organizations (which are
composed of states)
C. Basis of Public International Law
1. Naturalist: Natural Law controls the relations of states
2. Positive: Basis of relations of states is consent (tacit, express or presumed)
3. Groatians or Eclectics: Middle ground between Naturalist and Positive
D. Grand Divisions of Public International Law
1. Laws of Peace
2. Laws of War
3. Laws of Neutrality

E. Theories of International Law

40
1. Monist Theory: This theory is of the view that both international law and national/municipal
law regulate the same matter and international law holds supremacy even in the sphere of
municipal law.
2. Dualist Theory: This theory affirms that international law and domestic law are separate and
distinct. The two legal systems being distinct and separate, international law becomes binding
on states by incorporation of general norms of international law or by transformation of
conventional rules of international law into municipal law.
Read Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
F. Doctrines Governing Relations in International Law
1. Doctrine of Transformation
Legislative action is required to make the treaty enforceable in the municipal sphere.
2. Doctrine of Incorporation
Concept of Auto-limitation
Reagan v. CIR, G.R. No. L-26379, December 27, 1969: Under the principle of auto-limitation,
any state may by its consent, express or implied, submit to a restriction of its sovereign rights.
There may thus be a curtailment of what otherwise is a plenary power.
MODES OF INTERNALIZATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
Under the 1987 Constitution, international law can become part of the sphere of domestic law
either by transformation or incorporation. The transformation method requires that an
international law be transformed into a domestic law through constitutional mechanism such
as local legislation. The incorporation method applies when, by mere constitutional declaration,
international law is deemed to have the force of domestic law (Pharmaceutical and Health Care
Association of the Philippines v. Duque III, 535 SCRA 265, 289).

G. State Responsibility
1. Scope of State Responsibility
Read Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts
Article 1: Responsibility of a State for wrongful acts
Article 2: Elements of internationally wrongful act: act is attributable to the State; and it
constitutes a breach of an international obligation of the State.
Attribution: The act of an organ or official of the State is attributed to the State as its own act to
determine state responsibility for a wrongful act.
Objective responsibility: one arising from breach of duty by reason of result alone of the act or
omission as the cause, without regard as to whether there is fault or culpa.
Articles 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10(1) and 11: Acts attributable to the State and are considered its own
acts.
2. Legal Consequences of Wrongful Acts
Full reparation: restitution, compensation and satisfaction
Obligation breached continues to exist and performance of obligation subsists.
State must cease the wrongful act and if continues to do so, it must offer assurances and
guarantees not to repeat the same.
3. Acts of Aggression
Read Article 1of U.N. GA Resolution 3314(XXXIX) for Definition;
Read Article 3 for prima facie acts of aggression.

41
4. Remedies of Parties
Reprisal distinguished from retorsion (Naulilaa Case, 2 RIAA 1102, 1026 (1928) cited in
Magallona, Fundamentals of Public International Law (2005), pp.71-72.
Countermeasures (Air Services Agreement Case, 54 ILR 304, 337 (1979) cited in Magallona,
Fundamentals of Public International Law (2005), p. 73.
4. Belligerency
Two Senses of Belligerency
1. State of War between two or more States
2. Actual Hostilities amounting to Civil War within a State
Requisites of Belligerency:
1. An organized civil government that has control and direction over the armed struggle
launched by the rebels;
2. Occupation of a substantial portion of the state’s territory by an aggressor;
3. Seriousness of the struggle, which must be so widespread thereby leaving no doubt as to the
outcome in case of internal hostilities.
H. Criminal Liability of Natural Persons under International Law
Natural persons may be held criminal liable only under conventional international law.
Examples: Charter and Judgment of the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal;
International Tribunal for former Yugoslavia; International Tribunal for Rwanda; Rome Statute
of the International Criminal Court (July 17, 1998)
I. Sources of International Law
I.1. Primary Sources of International Law:
A. Treaties or International conventions, whether general or particular, establishing rules
expressly recognized by the contesting states.
Types of Treaties
Contract Treaties [Traite-Contrat]: Bilateral arrangements concerning matters of particular or
special interest to the contracting parties; and is a source of “Particular International Law.”
Law-Making Treaty [Traite-Loi]: Concluded by a large number of States for purposes of:
(1). Declaring, confirming, or defining their understanding of what the law is on a particular
subject;
(2). Stipulating or laying down new general rules for future international conduct; and
(3). Creating new international institutions
Stages in the Adoption of a Treaty: (NERE)
Negotiation
Execution/Signing
Ratification
Exchange of Instrument/ Deposit of Instrument
B. International Custom: International custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as
law.
Read Article 38(1) (b). Two elements: (1) general practice, characterized by uniformity and
consistency; and (2) opinion juris sive necessitates, or recognition of that practice as legally
binding.
Principles of International Law Declared as Customary International Law

42
Nature of generally accepted principles of international law. The Supreme Court characterized
the “generally accepted principles of international law” contemplated under Section 2, Article II
of the Constitution as norms of general or customary international law that are binding on all
states (Razon, Jr. v. Tagitis, 606 SRA 598, 673).

o The Hague Convention and the Geneva Conventions are customary international law.
The Supreme Court said that the rules and regulation of the Hague and Geneva
conventions form part of and are wholly based on the generally accepted principals of
international law. “Such rule and principles therefore form part of the law of our nation
even if the Philippines was not a signatory to the conventions embodying them for our
Constitution has been deliberately general and extensive in its scope and is not confined
to the recognition of rule and principle of international law as contained in treaties to
which our government may have been or shall be a signatory” (Kuroda v. Jalandoni, 83
Phil. 171).

o The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is based on customary international law

(Mejoff v. Director of Prisons, 90 Phil. 70).

o Pacta sunt servanda as customary international law. One of the olderst and most
fundamental rules in international law is pacta sunt sevanda—international agreement
must be performed in good faith.

o Exchange of notes as traditional form of international agreement. An exchange of notes

falls into the category of inter-governmental agreement which is an internationally
accepted form of international agreement (Bayan Muna v. Romulo, 641 SCRA 244, 257).
Said the Supreme Court in the Bayan Muna v. Romulo case: In another perspective, the
terms “exhange of notes” and “executive agreements” have been used interchangeably,
exchange of notes being considered as a form of executive agreement that becomes
binding through executive action. On the other hand, executive agreements concluded
by the President “sometimes thake the form of exchange of notes and at other times
that of more formal documents denominated “agreements” or “protocols” (Id., 257-
258).

o Ban on enforced disappearance is customary international law. At the time the case of
Razon, Jr. v. Tagitis was decided by the Supreme Court, the Philippines was yet to ratify
the Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance. The
Court declared: While the Philippines is not yet formally bound by the terms of the
Convention on enforced disappearance (or by the specific terms of the Rome Statute)
and has not formally declared enforced disappearance as a specific crime, the above
recital shows that enforced disappearance as a State practice has been repudiated by
the international community, so that the ban on it is now a generally accepted principle
of international law, which we should consider a part of the law of the land, and which
we should act upon to the extent allowed under our laws and the international

43
 convention that bind us (Razon, Jr. v. Tagitis, 606 SCRA 598, 679). The SC defined
enforced disappearance as the “arrest, detention, abduction or any other form of
deprivation of liberty by agents of the State or by persons or groups of persons acting
with the authorization, support or acquiescen of the State, followed by a refusal to
acknowledge the deprivation of liberty or by concealment of the fate or whereabouts of
the disappeared person, which place such a person outside the protection of the law.
Under this definition, the elements that constitute enforced disappearance are
essentially fourfold: (a) arrest, detention, abduction or any form of deprivation of liberty;
(b) carried out by agents of the State or persons or groups of persons acting with the
authorization, support or acquiescence of the State; (c) followed by a refusal to
acknowledge the detention, or a concealment fo the fate of the disappeared person; and
(d) placement of the disappeared person outside the protection of the law (Id., 694).

o The right to return to one’s country is customary international law. The right to return to
one’s country is not among the rights specifically guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, which
treats only of the liberty of abode and the right to travel, but right to return may be
considered as a generally accepted principle of international law and, under the
Constitution, is part of the law of the land (see Marcos v. Manglapus, 177 SCRA 668,
687).

o The right not to be arbitrarily deprived of his property is generally accepted principle of
international law. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides in its Article 17(2)
that no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property. Although the signatories to the
Declaration do not intend it as a legally binding document, being only a declaration, the
Supreme Court has interpreted the Declaration as part of the generally accepted
principles of international law and binding on the State (Republic v. Sandiganbayan, 135
SCRA 706).

ICC Statute is not customary international law. No matter how hard one insists, the ICC, as an
international tribunal, found in the Rome Statute is not declaratory of customary international
law (Bayan Muna v. Romulo, 641 SCRA 244, 398).

I.2. Secondary Sources of International Law:

A. Judicial decisions;
B. Teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations, as subsidiary means
for the determination of rules of law; and
C. Soft law.
Read Article 38(1) (d) of the ICJ Statute.
Judicial decisions and teachings of publicists are the means by which rules of law may be
verified and may be regarded as evidence of law. (Magallona, Fundamentals of Public
international Law (2005), p. 24)

44
J. Subjects of International Law
A. State
1. Preliminaries
International law developed to regulate states because of: the emergence of states, state
interaction and the development of the laws of war
2. Elements of a state:
2.1. Territory
Modes of Acquisition of Territory:
(1). Original Title
(a). Discovery and Occupation
(b). Accretion
(2). Derivative Title
(a). Prescription
(b). Cession
(c). Conquest/Subjugation
(3). Other Modes
(a). Dereliction/Abandonment
(b). Erosion
(c). Revolution
(d). Natural Causes
POLITICAL AND LEGAL RESULTS OF SECESSION: The new state does not have to recognize the
government of the state from which it broke.
The new state has the right to govern its own citizens.
The new state can independently enter into treaties.
The new state can have membership in organizations that were previously closed to it, as some
international organizations are open only to certain states.
The new state can be a party to an ICJ case
2.2 Sovereignty
Sovereignty in the relations between States signifies independence. Independence in regard to
a portion of the globe is the right toe exercise therein, to the exclusion of other States, the
functions of a State. (Island of Palmas Case, 2 UNRIAA, 1928, 829 at 838-9).
Principle of Sovereign Immunity: a State on account of its status requiring sovereign equality is
not subject to judicial process of another state without its consent.
TWO THEORIES OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY:
Theory of Absolute Immunity: all acts of a State are immune from judicial process by other
States.
Theory of Restrictive Immunity: acts may be distinguished to determine suability of a State (jure
imperii and jure gestionis)
PRINCIPLES GOVERNING THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY AMONG STATES:
(a): States are juridically equal;
(b) Each State shall enjoy the rights inherent to full sovereignty;
(c) Each State has the duty to respect the personality of other States;
(d) The territorial integrity and political integrity and political independence of the State are
inviolable;
45
(e) Each State has the right freely to choose and develop its political, social, economic and
cultural systems; and
(f) Each State has the duty to comply fully and in good faith its international obligations and to
live in peace with other States.
State Jurisdiction: competence of the State to prescribe rules of conduct, to enforce its legal
processes and to adjudicate controversies and claims.
BASES FOR STATE’S EXERCISE OF CRIMINAL JURISDICTION:
(a) territoriality principle
(b) nationality principle
(c) protective or security principle
(d) universality principle
EXTRADITION OF NATURAL PERSONS, HOW EXECUTED:
(a) through diplomatic negotiations based on comity or friendly relations between two States
concerned; or (b) by means of an extradition treaty.
Types of Extradition Treaties
1. One which contains a specific list of offenses which a fugitive should have committed in order
to be extradited.
2. One which contains no list of crimes but provides that the offenses in question should be
punishable in both states.
General Principles of Extradition
1. There is no legal obligation to surrender the fugitive unless there is a treaty;
2. Religious and political offenses are generally not extraditable;
3. A person extradited can be prosecuted by the requesting State only for the crime for which
he was extradited; and
4. Unless provided for in a treaty, the crime for which the person is extradited must have been
committed in the territory of the requesting State.
Doctrines which Govern Extradition: Political Offense Doctrine and Doctrine of Reciprocity
1. Political Offense Doctrine
General Rule: Political offenses are exempt from extradition.
Rational for the Doctrine:
1. The political offender deserves humanitarian treatment.
2. The political offender has the right to revolt against tyranny, and if this right is to be
meaningful, he is entitled to political asylum.
3. The principle of neutrality and non-interference in the internal affairs of another state
dictates that where there is a “contest” between the government and a segment of the
population, the political offender should not be extradited.
Kinds of political offenses:
(1). The pure political offense is an act exclusively against the political order of the state,
including its independence, the integrity of its territory, its relation with other states, the form
of its government, the organization of public powers, their mutual relations, in short, the
political rights of its citizens. (Garraud, Precis de Droit Crimnel 88 (1912), cited in Ferrari,
Political Crime and Criminal evidence, 3 Miin, L. Rev. , 365 (1919) ).
(2). The relative political offense is an act in which a common crime is either implicit in or
connected with the political act.

46
2. Doctrine of Reciprocity
In many states in continental Europe and South America, States consider the factor that if a
crime committed by one of their nationals anywhere, the same constitutes a violation of their
own laws, just as much as in the place where the crime was committed. This saw the
emergence of the doctrine of reciprocity in extradition of fugitives. This practice allows
extradition through consensual acts of the requesting state and the state where the fugitive is
found.
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF STATES [S P E E D]
1. Right to Sovereignty and Independence;
2. Right to Property and Jurisdiction;
3. Right to Existence and Self-Defense
4. Right to Equality
5. Right to Diplomatic Intercourse

2.3. People are those who inhabit the territory from whom the state derives its powers. They
are:
(a). the inhabitants of the State
(b). must be numerous enough to be self-sufficing and to defend themselves and small enough
to be easily administered and sustained.
(c). the aggregate of individuals of both sexes who live together as a community despite racial
or cultural differences
(d). groups of people which cannot comprise a State:
i. Amazons – not of both sexes; cannot perpetuate themselves
ii. Pirates – considered as outside the pale of law, treated as an enemy of all mankind;
“hostis humani generis”
iii. Nomadic tribes -will not constitute a State
2.4. Government: Political structure/organs, through which the will of the State is formulated,
expressed and realized.
Difference between a “state” and a “government”
States, not governments, are the bearers of rights and obligations under international
law. However, how a state governs internally may be relevant to statehood and
recognition of governments
3. RECOGNITION OF STATES
3.1. Theories on nature and effect of recognition
Constitutive Theory: maintains that it is the act of recognition which constitutes or creates the
statues of a State as a subject of public international law and thus gives it a legal personality.
Declaratory Theory: asserts that recognition merely confirms the acceptance of the States of
the status of the entity as a State.
3.2. Functions of Recognition:
First, the determination of statehood is a question of law.
Second, the act of recognition is a condition for the establishment of formal, optional and
bilateral relations including diplomatic relations and the conclusion of treaties.
THREE DIFFERENT APPROACHES TO RECOGNITION OF GOVERNMENTS BY OTHER STATES:
(a) Traditional approach: States consider four factors in deciding whether to recognize a state:
47
 (1) effectiveness of control
(2) stability and permanence
(3) popular support
(4) ability and willingness to fulfill obligations
(b) Estrada doctrine: when a new government comes to power either through constitutional
means or otherwise, its relations with other states remain unchanged.
This was created by the Mexican government, which found that it would be insulting to make
determinations about recognition of governments because it would involve passing judgment
on the internal affairs of other states.
(c) Tobar doctrine: States will not recognize governments which come into power as a
consequence of a coup or of a revolution against the government, so long as the freely elected
representatives of the people thereof have not constitutionally reorganized the country.
J. The International Court of Justice
1. What is the ICJ: The ICJ is the judicial organ of the United Nations. All members of the United
Nations are ipso facto parties to the Statute of the ICJ. A non-member may become a party on
conditions to be determined in each case by the General Assembly upon the recommendation
of the Security Council.
2. What are the principal functions of the ICJ?
(a). To render advisory opinions; and
(b).To decide contentious cases which includes:
(i). The interpretation of any treaty, any question of international law,
(ii). The existence of any fact which if established would constitute a breach of
international obligation; and
(iii). The nature and extent of reparation to be made for the breach of international
obligation.
3. The Jurisdiction of the ICJ: The Court is competent to entertain a dispute only if the States
concerned have accepted its jurisdiction in one or more of the following ways:
(a). by the conclusion between them of a special agreement to submit the dispute to the Court;
(b). by virtue of a jurisdictional clause, i.e., typically, when they are parties to a treaty
containing a provision whereby, in the event of a disagreement over its interpretation or
application, one of them may refer the dispute to the Court. Several hundred treaties or
conventions contain a clause to such effect; or
(c). through the reciprocal effect of declarations made by them under the Statute whereby each
has accepted the jurisdiction of the Court as compulsory in the event of a dispute with another
State having made a similar declaration. The declarations of 65 States are at present in force, a
number of them having been made subject to the exclusion of certain categories of dispute.
4. Composition, Term of Office, Voting Rules and Inhibitions of Judges
The ICJ is composed of 15 judges.
Each judge serves a term of 9 years, staggered at three yea intervals by dividing the
judges first elected into three equal groups and assigning them by lottery terms of
three, six and nine years respectively. Immediate re-election is allowed. The President
and the Vice President elected by the Court for three years may also be re-elected.
Terms of office of 5 of the 15 members shall expire at the end of every 3 years.

48
ICJ Voting Rules
All questions before the Court are decided by a majority of the judges present, the
quorum being nine when it is sitting en banc. In case of tie, the President or his
substitute shall have cast a vote.
Rule for Inhibition of Judges
No judge may participate in the decision of a case in which he has previously taken part
as agent, counsel or advocate for one of the parties, or as a member of a national or
international court, or of a commission of injury, or in any other capacity.
Nicaragua Case (1986 ICJ Report 14), The International Court of Justice considered the
planting mines by one state within the territorial waters of another as a violation of Art.
2(4) of the UN Charter. If the support provided by America to rebels of Nova goes
beyond the mere giving of monetary or psychological support but consist in the
provision of arms and training, the acts of America can be considered as indirect
aggression amount to another violation of Art. 2(4).
In addition, even if the provision of support is not enough to consider the act a violation
of the non-use of force principle, this is a violation of the principle of non-intervention in
customary international law.
5. What is the relationship of ICJ with the International Criminal Court (ICC)? The ICC is an
independent judicial institution created by the treaty known as Rome Statute with the power to
try and punish individuals for the most serious crimes of international concern, to include the
following:
1. Genocide
2. Crimes against humanity
3. Crimes of aggression, and
4. War crimes.
K. THE RIGHT OF LEGATION:
1. Definition; types
The right of legation is the right to send and receive diplomatic missions. It is strictly not a right
since no State can be compelled to enter into diplomatic relations with another State.
Diplomatic relations is established by mutual consent between two States.
The right of legation is purely consensual. If it wants to, a state may shut itself from the rest of
the world, as Japan did until the close of the 19th century. However, a policy of isolation would
hinder the progress of a state since it would be denying itself of the many benefits available
from the international community.
Active right of legation – send diplomatic representatives
Passive right of legation – receive diplomatic representatives
Resident Missions
2. CLASSIFICATION OF DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATIVES [A N E M I C]
(1). Ambassadors or nuncios accredited to Heads of State and other heads of missions of
equivalent rank, who when abroad are allowed to represent the person of their sovereign;
(2). Envoys, ministers or persons accredited to the sovereign; and
(3). Charge’s d’ affaires who are accredited to the minister of foreign affairs.

49
The appointment of diplomats is not merely a matter of municipal law for the receiving state is
not obliged to accept a representative who is a persona non grata to it. Indeed, there have
been cases when duly accredited diplomatic representatives have been rejected, resulting in
strained relations between the sending and receiving state.
How are diplomatic agents chosen? To avoid such awkward situation, most states now observe
the practice of agreation, by means of which inquiries are addressed to the receiving state
regarding a proposed diplomatic representative of the sending state. It is only when the
receiving state manifests its agreement or consent that the diplomatic representative is
appointed and formally accredited.
Agreation: It is a practice of the states before appointing a particular individual to be the chief
of their diplomatic mission in order to avoid possible embarrassment.
It consists of two acts:
(i). The Inquiry, usually informal, addressed by the sending state to the receiving state regarding
the acceptability of an individual to be its chief of mission; and
(ii). The agreement, also informal, by which the receiving state indicates to the sending state
that such person, would be acceptable.
Letter of Credence (Letre d’ Creance) is the document which the envoy receives from his
government accrediting him to the foreign state to which he is being sent. It designates his rank
and the general object of his mission and asks that he be received favorably and that full
credence be given to what he says on behalf of his state.
Functions of diplomatic representatives
The functions of diplomatic mission consist inter alia in:
(a) Representing the sending state in the receiving state.
(b) Protecting in the receiving state the interests of the sending state and its nationals.
(c) Negotiating with the government of the receiving state.
(d) Ascertainment through lawful means of the conditions and developments in the
receiving state and reporting thereon to the government of the sending state.
(e) Promoting friendly relations between the sending and receiving state and developing
their economic, cultural and scientific relations.
(f) In some cases, representing friendly governments at their request.
L. CONSULAR RELATIONS
Letter Patent (Letre d’ Provision): The appointment of a consul is usually evidenced by a
commission, known sometimes as letter patent or letre d’ provision, issued by the appointing
authority of the sending state and transmitted to the receiving state through diplomatic
channels.
Consuls belong to a class of state agents distinct from that of diplomatic officers. They do not
represent their state in its relations with foreign states and are not intermediaries through
whom matters of state are discussed between governments.
They look mainly after the commercial interest of their own state in the territory of a foreign
state.
They are not clothed with diplomatic character and are not accredited to the government of
the country where they exercised their consular functions; they deal directly with local
authorities.

50
Two Kinds of Consuls
1. consules missi – professional or career consuls who are nationals of the sending state and are
required to devote their full time to the discharge of their duties.
2. consules electi –may or may not be nationals of the sending state and perform their consular
functions only in addition to their regular callings.
Consuls derive their authority from two principal sources, to wit, the letter patent or letter ‘de
provision, which is the commission issued by the sending state, and the exequator, which is the
permission given them by the receiving state to perform.
M. PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES
1. By way of customary and conventional international law, a diplomatic agent enjoys a wide
range of privileges and immunities, to include among others, the following:
1. Personal inviolability;
2. Inviolability of premises and archives;
3. Right of an official communication;
4. Exemption from local jurisdiction;
5. Exemption from subpoena as witness;
6. Exemption from taxation
2. Pointers on Diplomatic Immunities and Privileges
(a) The person of a diplomatic agent shall be inviolable and he shall not be liable to any
form of arrest or detention. The receiving state shall treat him with due respect and
shall take all appropriate steps to prevent any attack on his person, freedom or dignity.
(b) A diplomatic agent shall enjoy immunity from the criminal, civil and administrative
jurisdiction of the receiving state, except in certain cases as, for example, when the civil
action deals with property held by him in a private or proprietary capacity.
(c) The diplomatic premises shall be inviolable, and the agents of the receiving state may
not enter them without the consent of the head of the mission. Such premises, their
furnishings and other property thereon and the means of transportation of the mission
shall be immune from search, requisition, attachment or execution.
(d) The archives and documents of the mission shall be inviolable at any time and
wherever they may be.
(e) The receiving state shall permit and protect free communication on the part of the
mission for all official purposes. In communicating with the government and other
missions, and consulates of the sending state wherever situated, the mission may
employ all appropriate means, including diplomatic couriers and messages in code or
cipher. The official correspondence of the mission shall be inviolable.
(f) Subject to its laws and regulations concerning national security, the receiving state
shall insure to all members of the mission freedom of movement and travel in its
territory.
(g) A diplomatic agent is not obliged to give evidence as a witness.
h) A diplomatic agent shall be exempt from all dues and taxes, personal or real, national,
regional, or municipal except in certain specified cases like the imposition of indirect
taxes.

51
 (i) The mission and its head shall have the right to use the flag and emblem of the
sending state on the premises of the mission, including the residences of the head of the
mission and on his means of transport.
N. Termination of Diplomatic Relations
A diplomatic mission may come to an end by any of the usual methods of terminating
official relations like:
Under Municipal Law: (RADAR)
(a) Resignation
(b) Accomplishment of the purpose
(c) Death
(d) Abolition of the office
(e) Removal
Under the International Law:
(a) War - the outbreak of war between the sending and receiving states terminates their
diplomatic relations, which is usually severed before the actual commencement of
hostilities;
(b) Extinction - extinction of either the sending state or the receiving state will also
automatically terminate diplomatic relations between them; or
(c) Recall – may be demanded by the receiving state when the foreign diplomat
becomes a persona non grata to it for any reason. Where the demand is rejected by the
sending state, the receiving state may resort to the more drastic method of dismissal, by
means of which the offending diplomat is summarily presented with his passport and
asked to leave the country.
Cases:
1. Magallona v. Ermita, 655 SCRA 476 (2011)
2. Vinuya v. Romulo, 619 SCRA 533 (2010) and 732 SCRA 595-622 (2014)*
3. Pimentel, Jr. v. Office of the Executive Secretary, 462 SCRA 622 (2005)
4. Secretary of Justice v. Lantion, 343 SCRA 377 (2000)
5. Province of North Cotabato v. Government of the Republic of the Philippines Peace Panel on
Ancestral Domain (GRP), 568 SCRA 402 (2008)
6. Tañada v. Angara, 272 SCRA 18 (1997)
7. Liang v. People, 323 SCRA 692 (2000) and 355 SCRA 125 (2001) {See Justice Puno’s
Concurrence}
8. Arigo v. Swift, 735 SCRA 102 (2014)

Computation of Grades: 25% Class Standing; 35% Midterm Examinations; 40% Final
Examinations

52