UST Golden Notes on Political Law

lOMoARcPSD|8033415
2019 UST Golden Notes Political LAW
College of Law (Arellano University)
StuDocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university

Downloaded by Justine May Sanchez (justinemaysanchez@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|8033415
POLITICAL LAW
2019 GOLDEN NOTES FACULTY

OF CIVIL LAW UNIVERSITY OF
SANTO TOMAS MANILA

lOMoARcPSD|8033415
The UST GOLDEN NOTES is the annual student -edited bar review material of
the University of Santo Tomas, Faculty of Civil Law. Communications regarding
the Notes should be addressed to the Academics Committee of the Team: Bar-
Ops.
Address: Academics Committee

UST Bar Operations
Faculty of Civil Law
University of Santo Tomas
España, Manila 1008
Tel. No: (02) 731-4027

(02) 406-1611 loc. 8578
Academics Committee
Faculty of Civil Law
University of Santo Tomas
España, Manila 1008
All rights reserved by the Academics Committee of the Faculty of Civil Law of the
Pontifical and Royal University of Santo Tomas, the Catholic University of the Philippines.
2019 Edition.
No portion of this material may be copied or reproduced in books, pamphlets, outlines or

notes, whether printed, mimeographed, typewritten, copied in different electronic
devises or in any other form, for distribution or sale, without a written permission.
A copy of this material without the corresponding code either proceeds from an illegal
source or is in possession of one who has no authority to dispose the same.
No. ____________
Printed in the Philippines August 2019.

lOMoARcPSD|8033415
ACADEMIC YEAR 2019-2020

CIVIL LAW STUDENT COUNCIL
LYODYCHIE Q. CAMARAO PRESIDENT
MARIA FRANCES FAYE R. GUTIERREZ INTERNAL VICE PRESIDENT
KRYSTAL GAYLE R. DIGAY SECRETARY
TEAM: BAR-OPS
NICOLE MARIE A. CORTES CHAIRPERSON
MARYLOU RENZI M. OLOTEO VICE-CHAIRPERSON
CHRISTINE JOYCE P. ANDRES SECRETARY
KRIZA NIÑA B. MALALUAN ASST. SECRETARY
ELOUISA ANN DC. CARREON HEAD, PUBLIC RELATIONS OFFICER
CIARI T. MENDOZA ASST. HEAD, PUBLIC RELATIONS OFFICER
ELISHA ELAINE D. BAYOT HEAD, FINANCE COMMITTEE
JOSEPHINE GRACE W. ANG HEAD, HOTEL ACCOMODATIONS COMMITTEE
PATRICIA MAE D. GUILLERMO ASST. HEAD, HOTEL ACCOMODATIONS COMMITTEE
RAFAEL JEROME M. MENDOZA ASST. HEAD, HOTEL ACCOMODATIONS COMMITTEE
KHYNA MATHEA N. CANLAS ASST. HEAD, HOTEL ACCOMODATIONS, COMMITTEE
MARSHAN DEINN S. GUALBERTO ASST. HEAD, HOTEL ACCOMODATIONS, COMMITTEE
KIER JOHN V. UY LOGISTICS COMMITTEE
GLENN MATTHEW C. MANLAPID LOGISTICS COMMITTEE
VAN ANGELO K. RESPICIO LOGISTICS COMMITTEE
JAMES ROSS L. TAN LOGISTICS COMMITTEE
LOUELL JUDE B. QUE LOGISTICS COMMITTEE
MON FRANCIS A. TOLENTINO SENIOR MEMBER
CLARA LOUISSE J. YUMANG SENIOR MEMBER
JOCHRIS DANIEL Z. GUADES SENIOR MEMBER
JERREMIAH KRIZIAH B. BATALLER SENIOR MEMBER
ATTY. AL CONRAD B. ESPALDON

ADVISER

lOMoARcPSD|8033415
ACADEMICS COMMITTEE
EDREA JEAN V. RAMIREZ SECRETARY GENERAL
AYA DOMINIQUE S. CAPARAS ASST. SECRETARY GENERAL
ARIANNA LAINE T. SARMIENTO EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
BELLE COLLEEN T. DE LEON EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
PAMELA NICOLE S. MANALO EXECUTIVE COMMITTE
RUTH MAE G. SANVICTORES EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
LAURISSE MARIE T. PERIANES LAYOUT ARTIST
CIARI T. MENDOZA COVER DESIGN ARTIST
POLITICAL LAW COMMITTEE

JAYSON GABRIEL R. SORIANO
POLITICAL LAW COMMITTEE HEAD
SARA D. LARCE POLITICAL LAW COMMITTEE ASST. HEAD

KIMBERLY S. GUILLERMO CONSTITUTIONAL LAW COMMITTEE ASST. HEAD
ROCHELLE NIEVA D. CURIBA PUBLIC CORPORATIONS COMMITTEE ASST. HEAD
JULIE ANN C. MANGUIAT LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS AND
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW COMMITTEE ASST. HEAD
LAUREN STAR A. BORROMEO PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW COMMITTEE ASST.
HEAD
MEMBERS
MA. SHEMEDA P. CARO MAECY JEAN L. PALAD
CJ DELA CRUZ GABRIEL THADEUS S. PELAGIO
AIREI KIM P. GUANGA DHEN-DHEN G. RAMOS
MARIA FRANCES FAYE R. GUTIERREZ STEPHANIE BRIANNE C. SALIBA
ATTY. AL CONRAB B. ESPALDON

Adviser

lOMoARcPSD|8033415
FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
ACADEMIC OFFICIALS
ATTY. NILO T. DIVINA REV. FR. ISIDRO C. ABAÑO, O.P.

DEAN REGENT
ATTY. ARTHUR B. CAPILI

FACULTY SECRETARY
ATTY. ELGIN MICHAEL C. PEREZ

LEGAL COUNSEL
UST CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTO CONCEPCION LEGAL AID CLINIC
JUDGE PHILIP A. AGUINALDO

SWDB COORDINATOR
LENY G. GADANIA, R.G.C.

GUIDANCE COUNSELOR

lOMoARcPSD|8033415
OUR DEEPEST APPRECIATION TO OUR

MENTORS AND INSPIRATION
Justice Amy Lazaro-Javier
Justice Oswaldo D. Agcaoili
Judge Charito M. Sawali
Atty. Carlo L. Cruz
Atty. Enrique V. Dela Cruz
Atty. Rene B. Gorospe
Atty. Victoria V. Loanzon
Atty. Rafaelito M. Garayblas
Atty. Anicia C. Marquez
Atty. Edwin R. Sandoval
Atty. Mauricio C. Ulep
For being our guideposts in understanding the intricate sphere of Political Law.
-Academics Committee 2019

lOMoARcPSD|8033415
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Preliminary Provisions and Basic Concepts.......................................................................................................1
A. National Territory.........................................................................................................................................1
1. Archipelagic doctrine...................................................................................................................................1
B. Declaration of principles and state policies.............................................................................................2
C. Separation of powers..................................................................................................................................10
D. Checks and balances...................................................................................................................................12
E. State immunity.............................................................................................................................................13
II. Legislative Department...................................................................................................................................... 19

A. Legislative Power.........................................................................................................................................19
B. Principle of Non-Delegability....................................................................................................................19
C. Houses of Congress......................................................................................................................................20
D. District Representatives and Questions of Apportionment............................................................... 22
E. Party-List System.........................................................................................................................................24
F. Legislative Privileges, Inhibitions and Disqualifications.....................................................................28
G. Discipline of Members................................................................................................................................30
H. Process of Law Making...............................................................................................................................31
I. Quorum and Voting Majorities..................................................................................................................34
J. Appropriation and Re-Alignment..............................................................................................................36
K. Legislative Inquiries and Oversight Functions......................................................................................39
L. Power of Impeachment...............................................................................................................................44
M. Electoral Tribunals.....................................................................................................................................46
N. Commission on Appointments.................................................................................................................49
O. Initiative and Referendum........................................................................................................................50
III. Executive Department.......................................................................................................................................53

A. Qualifications, Election and Term of the President and Vice-President..........................................53
B. Privileges, Inhibitions and Disqualifications........................................................................................ 54
C. Powers of the President.............................................................................................................................59
1. Executive and administrative powers in general.....................................................................................59
2. Power of appointment...............................................................................................................................60
a. Confirmation and by-passed appointments 61
b. Ad interim appointments 61
c. Midnight appointments 63
d. Power of removal.......................................................................................................................................64
3. Power of control and supervision.............................................................................................................65
a. Doctrine of qualified political agency 66
b. Executive departments and offices 67
c. Local government units 67
4. Military powers.........................................................................................................................................68
5. Executive clemency....................................................................................................................................72
6. Powers pertinent to foreign relations.......................................................................................................76
D. Rules on Succession....................................................................................................................................77
IV. Judicial Department............................................................................................................................................80

A. Concepts........................................................................................................................................................80

lOMoARcPSD|8033415
1. Judicial power............................................................................................................................................80
2. Judicial review...........................................................................................................................................80
a. Requisites of judicial review 80
b. Political Question Doctrine 83
c. Moot questions 84
d. Operative Fact Doctrine 85
B. Safeguards of Judicial independence......................................................................................................85
C. Judicial and Bar Council.............................................................................................................................87
a. Composition of JBC....................................................................................................................................87
b. Powers of JBC.............................................................................................................................................87
D. Fiscal Autonomy..........................................................................................................................................88
E. Qualifications of Members of the Judiciary............................................................................................88
F. Workings of the Supreme Court................................................................................................................90
1. En banc decisions...................................................................................................................................... 90
2. Procedural rule-making............................................................................................................................91
3. Administrative supervision over lower courts..........................................................................................92
4. Original and appellate jurisdiction...........................................................................................................92
V. Constitutional Commissions...............................................................................................................................93
A. Common Provisions....................................................................................................................................93
B. Powers and functions of the CSC, COMELEC and COA...........................................................................94
C. Composition and Qualifications of Members.........................................................................................94
D. Prohibited Offices and Interests..............................................................................................................97
E. Review of final orders, resolutions and decisions................................................................................97
1. Rendered in the exercise of quasi-judicial functions................................................................................97
2. Rendered in the exercise of administrative functions..............................................................................97
F. Jurisdiction of Each Constitutional Commission...................................................................................98
VI. Bill of Rights......................................................................................................................................................100

A. Fundamental powers of the state (police power, eminent domain, taxation)..............................100
B. Private acts and the Bill of Rights..........................................................................................................108
C. Rights to life, liberty & property............................................................................................................108
1. Procedural and substantive due process................................................................................................109
2. Constitutional and statutory due process..............................................................................................111
3. Void-for-vagueness doctrine...................................................................................................................113
4. Hierarchy of rights..................................................................................................................................114
D. Equal protection........................................................................................................................................115
1. Requisites for valid classification........................................................................................................... 115
2. Rational basis, strict scrutiny and intermediate scrutiny test..............................................................116
E. Searches and seizures..............................................................................................................................117
1. Requisites for a valid warrant................................................................................................................118
2. Warrantless searches and seizures.........................................................................................................121
3. Administrative arrests............................................................................................................................125
4. Evidence obtained through purely mechanical act...............................................................................126
F. Privacy of communications and correspondence...............................................................................127
1. Private and public communications.......................................................................................................127
2. Intrusion, when allowed; exclusionary rule...........................................................................................127
G. Freedom of speech and expression.......................................................................................................131
1. Prior restraint and subsequent punishment..........................................................................................133
2. Content-based and content-neutral regulations....................................................................................136
3. Facial challenges and the overbreadth doctrine...................................................................................136

lOMoARcPSD|8033415
4. Dangerous tendency, balancing of interests, and clear and present danger test.................................138
5. State regulation of different types of mass media.................................................................................138
6. Commercial speech................................................................................................................................. 140
7. Unprotected speech.................................................................................................................................141
H. Freedom of religion..................................................................................................................................141
1. Non-establishment clause and free exercise clauses..............................................................................141
2. Benevolent neutrality and conscientious objectors...............................................................................143
3. Lemon and compelling state interest.....................................................................................................145
I. Liberty of abode and right to travel........................................................................................................146
1. Scope and limitations..............................................................................................................................146
2. Watch-list and hold departure orders....................................................................................................147
J. Right to information..................................................................................................................................148
1. Scope and limitations..............................................................................................................................149
2. Publication of laws and regulations.......................................................................................................150
3. Non-impairment of contracts.................................................................................................................150
K. Free access to courts and adequate legal assistance.........................................................................151
L. Miranda/custodial investigation rights................................................................................................152
M. Rights of the accused...............................................................................................................................155
N. Right to speedy disposition of cases.....................................................................................................155
O. Right against self-incrimination............................................................................................................156
P. Right against double jeopardy................................................................................................................157
Q. Involuntary servitude..............................................................................................................................160
R. Right against excessive fines and cruel and inhuman punishments..............................................160
S. Non-imprisonment for debts..................................................................................................................161
T. Ex-post facto law and bill of attainder...................................................................................................161
U. Writs of Habeas Corpus, Kalikasan, Habeas Data, and Amparo......................................................162
VII. Citizenship........................................................................................................................................................168
A. Who are Filipino citizens.........................................................................................................................168
B. Modes of acquiring citizenship..............................................................................................................168
C. Loss and re-acquisition of Philippine citizenship..............................................................................168
D. Dual citizenship and dual allegiance....................................................................................................170
E. Foundlings..................................................................................................................................................170
VIII. Law on Public Officers..................................................................................................................................172

A. General principles....................................................................................................................................172
B. Modes of acquiring title to public office...............................................................................................174
C. Kinds of appointment...............................................................................................................................174
D. Eligibility and qualification requirements..........................................................................................179
E. Disabilities and inhibitions of public officers.....................................................................................180
F. Rights and liabilities of public officers..................................................................................................184
G. De facto v. de jure officers........................................................................................................................186
H. Termination of official relation............................................................................................................. 188
I. The Civil Service.........................................................................................................................................191
J. Personnel actions.......................................................................................................................................197
K. Accountability of public officers............................................................................................................197
1. Discipline.................................................................................................................................................197
2. Grounds...................................................................................................................................................197
3. Jurisdiction..............................................................................................................................................199
L. Dismissal, preventive suspension, reinstatement and back salaries.............................................200
1. Condonation doctrine.............................................................................................................................202

lOMoARcPSD|8033415
2. Impeachment..........................................................................................................................................203
3. The Ombudsman.....................................................................................................................................205
a. Functions 205
b. Judicial review in administrative proceedings 209
c. Judicial review in penal proceedings 209
4. Office of the Special Prosecutor..............................................................................................................209
5. The Sandiganbayan................................................................................................................................210
IX. Administrative Law..........................................................................................................................................213

A. General principles....................................................................................................................................213
B. Powers of administrative agencies........................................................................................................214
1. Quasi-legislative (rule-making) power..................................................................................................214
a. Kinds of administrative rules and regulations 216
b. Requisites for validity 216
2. Quasi-judicial (adjudicatory) power......................................................................................................217
a. Administrative due process 218
b. Administrative appeal and review 219
c. Administrative res judicata 220
3. Fact-finding, investigative, licensing and rate-fixing powers................................................................220
C. Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction and Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies..........................222
X. Election Law........................................................................................................................................................227
A. Suffrage.......................................................................................................................................................227
B. Qualification and disqualification of voters........................................................................................228
C. Registration of voters...............................................................................................................................229
D. Inclusion and exclusion proceedings....................................................................................................230
E. Detainee voting..........................................................................................................................................232
F. Candidacy....................................................................................................................................................232
1. Qualifications and disqualifications of candidates................................................................................232
2. Filing of certificates of candidacy...........................................................................................................234
a. Effect of filing 234
b. Substitution of candidates 235
c. Nuisance candidates 236
d. Ministerial duty of COMELEC to receive certificates 237
G. Remedies and jurisdiction in election law...........................................................................................237
1. Petition not to give due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy................................................ 237
2. Petition for disqualification....................................................................................................................237
3. Failure of election, call of special election..............................................................................................239
4. Pre-proclamation controversy................................................................................................................240
5. Election protest.......................................................................................................................................242
6. Quo warranto..........................................................................................................................................244
XI. Local Governments...........................................................................................................................................246

A. Principles of local autonomy..................................................................................................................246
1. Autonomous regions and their relation to the national government...................................................247
B. Local government units powers.............................................................................................................248
1. Police power (general welfare clause)...................................................................................................248
2. Eminent domain......................................................................................................................................254
3. Taxing power...........................................................................................................................................258
4. Legislative power....................................................................................................................................263
a. Requisites for valid ordinance................................................................................................................265

lOMoARcPSD|8033415
b. Local initiative and referendum.............................................................................................................267

5. Ultra vires acts........................................................................................................................................ 268
7. Liability................................................................................................................................................... 269
8. Settlement of boundary disputes............................................................................................................272
9. Vacancies and succession........................................................................................................................273
10. Discipline of local officials....................................................................................................................298
11. Recall.....................................................................................................................................................276
12. Term limits............................................................................................................................................ 279
Xll. National Economy and Patrimony................................................................................................................281

A. Regalian doctrine......................................................................................................................................281
B. Nationalist and citizenship requirement provisions.........................................................................282
C. Exploration, development and utilization of natural resources.....................................................283
D. Franchises, authority and certificates for public utilities................................................................285
E. Acquisition, ownership and transfer of public and private lands...................................................286
F. Practice of professions............................................................................................................................. 288
G. Organization and regulation of corporations, private and public..................................................289
H. Monopolies, restraint of trade and unfair competition....................................................................289
XIII. Social Justice and Human Rights................................................................................................................ 291

A. Concept of social justice...........................................................................................................................291
B. Economic, social and cultural rights.....................................................................................................292
C. Commission on Human Rights................................................................................................................293
XV. Education, Science, Technology, Arts, Culture and Sports.......................................................................294

A. Academic freedom....................................................................................................................................294
XVI. The Family.......................................................................................................................................................298

A. Rights...........................................................................................................................................................298
XVII. Amendments or Revisions of the Constitution.......................................................................................298

A. Procedure to amend or revise the Constitution.................................................................................298
XVIII. Public International Law...........................................................................................................................303

A. Fundamental Concepts............................................................................................................................303
1. Obligations erga omnes..........................................................................................................................303
2. Jus cogens................................................................................................................................................303
3. Concept of ex aequo et bono...................................................................................................................304
B. Relationship between international and national law......................................................................304
C. Sources of obligation in international law...........................................................................................306
F. Subjects........................................................................................................................................................309
G. States...........................................................................................................................................................311
H. International organizations...................................................................................................................317
I. Individuals...................................................................................................................................................318
J. Jurisdiction of states..................................................................................................................................319
1. Basis of jurisdiction.................................................................................................................................319
a. Territoriality principle 320
b. Nationality principle 320
c. Statelessness 320
d. Protective principle 321
e. Universality principle 321

lOMoARcPSD|8033415
f. Passive personality principle..........................................................................................................322

2. Exemptions from jurisdiction.................................................................................................................322
a. Acts of state doctrine.....................................................................................................................322
3. International organizations and its officers..........................................................................................322
K. General Principles of Treaty Law...........................................................................................................328
1. Doctrine of state responsibility...............................................................................................................335
1. Refugees...................................................................................................................................................337
2. Extradition.............................................................................................................................................. 337
L. Basic principles of international human rights law...........................................................................340
M. Basic principles of international humanitarian law.........................................................................343
1. Categories of armed conflicts................................................................................................................. 345
a. International armed conflicts....................................................................................................... 346
b. Internal or non-international armed conflict...............................................................................346
c. War of national liberation.............................................................................................................347
2. R.A. 9851 (Philippine Act on Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law, Genocide, and
Other Crimes Against Humanity)...........................................................................................................350
M. Law of the sea............................................................................................................................................357
1. Baselines..................................................................................................................................................357
2. Archipelagic states..................................................................................................................................358
3. Internal waters........................................................................................................................................361
4. Territorial sea..........................................................................................................................................361
5. Contiguous zone......................................................................................................................................364
6. Exclusive economic zone.........................................................................................................................365
7. Continental shelf..................................................................................................................................... 366
8. Extended continental shelf......................................................................................................................367
9. International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.......................................................................................374
N. Basic principles of international environmental law........................................................................379
1. Precautionary principle..........................................................................................................................380

lOMoARcPSD|8033415
DISCLAIMER
THE RISK OF USE OF THIS BAR

REVIEW MATERIAL SHALL BE
BORNE BY THE USER

lOMoARcPSD|8033415

lOMoARcPSD|8033415
Preliminary Provisions and Basic Concepts
PRELIMINARY PROVISIONS 23 NO. William is not correct. The premises

AND BASIC CONCEPTS occupied by the United States Embassy do not
constitute territory of the United States but of the
Political Law Philippines. Crimes committed within them are
subject to the territorial jurisdiction of the
Branch of public law that deals with the Philippines. Since William has no diplomatic
organization and operations of the governmental immunity, the Philippines can prosecute him if it
organs of the State and defines its relations with acquires custody over him. (UPLC Suggested
the inhabitants of the territory. (People v. Perfecto, Answers)
G.R. No. L-18463, October 4, 1922)
NOTE: Foreign embassies retain their status as
Scope of Political Law native soil. They are still subject to Philippine
authority. Its jurisdiction may be diminished, but it
Political Law does not disappear. So, it is with the bases under
Constitutional Law lease to the American armed forces by the military
Administrative Law base’s agreement of 1947. They are not and cannot
Law on Municipal Corporations be considered as foreign territory.
Law on Public Officers
Election laws Also, if an attaché commits an offense within the
Public International Law precincts of an embassy, his immunity from
prosecution is not because he has not violated the
NATIONAL TERRITORY local law, but rather because the individual is
exempt from prosecution. If a person not so
Composition of the Philippine Territory exempt, or whose immunity is waived, similarly
commits a crime therein, the territorial sovereign,
The national territory comprises the Philippine if it secures custody of the offender, may subject
archipelago, with all the islands and waters him to prosecution. It is not believed, therefore,
embraced therein, and all other territories over that an ambassador himself possesses the right to
which the Philippines has sovereignty or exercise jurisdiction, contrary to the will of the
jurisdiction, consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial and State of his sojourn, even within his embassy with
aerial domains, including its territorial sea, the respect to acts there committed. Nor is there
seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves, and other apparent at the present time any tendency on the
submarine areas. The waters around, between, and part of States to acquiesce in his exercise of it.
connecting the islands of the archipelago, (William C. Reagan v. CIR, G.R. No. L-26379,
December 27, 1969)
regardless of their breadth and dimensions, form
part of the internal waters of the Philippines. (Art.
I, 1987 Constitution) Archipelagic Doctrine
23 William, a private American citizen and The waters around, between, and connecting the
frequent visitor to the Philippines, was inside islands of the archipelago, regardless of their
the U.S. embassy when he got into a heated breadth and dimensions, form part of the internal
argument with a private Filipino citizen. Then, waters of the Philippines.
in front of many shocked witnesses, he killed
the person he was arguing with. The police Under the Archipelagic Doctrine, we connect the
came and brought him to the nearest police outermost points of our archipelago with straight
station. Upon reaching the station, the police baselines and consider all the waters enclosed
investigator, in halting English, informed thereby as internal waters. The entire archipelago
William of his Miranda rights, and assigned is regarded as one integrated unit instead of being
him an independent local counsel. William fragmented into so many thousand islands. (Cruz
protested his arrest. He argued that since the and Cruz, Philippine Political Law, p. 24)
incident took place inside the U.S. embassy,
Purposes of the Archipelagic Doctrine
Philippine courts have no jurisdiction because
the U.S. embassy grounds are not part of
Philippine territory; thus, technically, no 23 Territorial Integrity
crime under Philippine law was committed. Is 24 National Security
William correct? (2009 Bar) 25 Economic reasons
1
lOMoARcPSD|8033415
POLITICAL LAW
NOTE: The main purpose of the archipelagic doctrine Philippine Baselines Law of 2009 (RA 9522), the
is to protect the territorial interests of an archipelago, Spratly Islands and the Scarborough Shoal are
its territorial integrity. Without it, there would be classified as islands under the regime of the
“pockets of high seas” between some of our islands Republic of the Philippines. (Philippine Baselines
and islets, thus foreign vessels would be able to pass Law of 2009)
through these “pockets of seas” and would have no
jurisdiction over it. DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND STATE
POLICIES
Effect of RA 9522 “Archipelagic Baselines Law”
on our sovereignty over our national territory Doctrine of Constitutional Supremacy
RA 9522 amends RA 3046, which defines the Under this doctrine, if a law or contract violates
baselines of the territorial sea of the Philippines. any norm of the Constitution, that law or contract,
The Kalayaan Island Group as constituted under PD whether promulgated by the legislative or by the
1596 and Bajo de Masinloc, also known as executive branch or entered into by private persons
Scarborough Shoal is determined as “Regime of for private purposes, is null and void and without
Islands” under the Republic of the Philippines any force and effect. Since the Constitution is the
consistent with Art. 121 of the United Nations fundamental, paramount and supreme law of the
Convention on the Law of the Sea which states: nation, it is deemed written in every statute and
contract. (Manila Prince Hotel v GSIS, G.R. No.
An island is a naturally formed area of land, 122156, February 3, 1997)
surrounded by water, which is above water at high
tide. Republican State (1996 Bar)
Except as provided for in par. 3, the territorial sea, The Philippines is a democratic and republican
the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone State. Sovereignty resides in the people and all
and the continental shelf of an island are government authority emanates from them. (Sec.
determined in accordance with the provisions of 1, Art. II, 1987 Constitution)
this Convention applicable to other land territory.
Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or A state wherein all government authority
economic life of their own shall have no exclusive emanates from the people and is exercised by
economic zone or continental shelf. representatives chosen by the people. (Dissenting
Opinion of Justice Puno, Tolentino v. COMELEC, G.R.
Spratlys Group of Islands (SGI) is not part of the No. 148334, January 21, 2004)
Philippine Archipelago because it is too far to be
included within the archipelagic lines encircling the Manifestations of Republicanism
internal waters of Philippine Archipelago. The SGI,
however, is part of the Philippine territory because 23 Ours is a government of laws and not of
it was discovered by a Filipino seaman in the name men.
of Tomas Cloma who later renounced his claim over 24 Rule of Majority (Plurality in elections)
it in favor of the Republic of the Philippines. 25 Accountability of public officials
Subsequently, then Pres. Marcos issued a 26 Bill of Rights
Presidential Decree constituting SGI as part of the 27 Legislature cannot pass irrepealable laws
Philippine territory and sending some of our armed 28 Separation of powers
forces to protect said island and maintain our
sovereignty over it. NOTE: The Philippines is not only a representative
or republican state but also shares some aspects of
SGI and Scarborough Shoal as part of the direct democracy that accords to the citizens a
National Territory greater participation in the affairs of the
government such people’s as initiative and
The SGI and Scarborough Shoal fall under the 2nd referendum, the right to information on matters of
phrase of Art. II, i.e. “and all other territories over public concern etc.
which the Philippines has sovereignty or
jurisdiction.” It is part of our national territory Constitutional Authoritarianism
because the Philippines exercise sovereignty
(through election of public officials) over the As understood and practiced in the Marcos regime
Spratly Group of Islands. Moreover, under the under the 1973 constitution, it is the assumption
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 2

2019 GOLDEN NOTES
lOMoARcPSD|8033415

of extraordinary powers by the President including All existing treaties or international agreements
legislative and judicial and even constituent which have not been ratified shall not be renewed
powers. or extended without the concurrence of at least
two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate. (Sec. 4,
Compatibility of constitutional Art. XVIII, 1987 Constitution)
authoritarianism with a republican state
After the expiration in 1991 of the Agreement
Constitutional authoritarianism is compatible with between the Republic of the Philippines and the
a republican state if the Constitution upon which United States of America concerning military bases,
the Executive bases his assumption of power is a foreign military bases, troops, or facilities shall not
legitimate expression of the people’s will and if the be allowed in the Philippines except under a treaty
Executive who assumes power received his office duly concurred in by the Senate and, when the
through a valid election by the people. Congress so requires, ratified by a majority of the
votes cast by the people in a national referendum
State policy on war held for that purpose, and recognized as a treaty by
the other contracting State. (Sec. 25, Art. XVIII,
The State renounces war as an instrument of 1987 Constitution)
national policy. (Sec. 2, Art. II, 1987 Constitution)
Policies of the State on the following:
NOTE: The Philippines does not renounce defensive
war because it is duty bound to defend its citizens. 23 Working women – 1987 Constitution, Sec. 14,
Under the Constitution, the prime duty of the Art. XIII: "The State shall protect working
government is to serve and protect the people. women by providing safe and healthful
working conditions, taking into account their
Voting requirements to declare the existence maternal functions, and such facilities and
of a state of war opportunities that will enhance their welfare
and enable them to realize their full potential
23 2/3 vote of both Houses in the service of the nation."
24 In joint session
25 Voting separately 24 Ecology – 1987 Constitution, Sec. 16, Art. II:
“The State shall protect and advance the right
NOTE: Even though the legislature can declare an of the people and their posterity to a balanced
existence of war and enact measures to support it, and healthful ecology in accord with the
the actual power to engage in war is lodged, rhythm and harmony of nature."
nonetheless, in the executive.
23 The residents of Taguig City brought a
Independent Foreign Policy and a nuclear-free complaint before Laguna Lake Development
Philippines Authority (LLDA) about an open garbage
dumpsite in their city and sought its closure
The State shall pursue an independent foreign due to its harmful effects on health and the
policy. In its relations with other states, the pollution it brings to the lake. Upon
paramount consideration shall be national investigation, LLDA discovered that the Taguig
sovereignty, territorial integrity, national interest, City Government has been maintaining the
and the right to self-determination. (Sec. 7, Art. 2, said dumpsite without an Environmental
1987 Constitution) Compliance Certificate from the Environmental
Management Bureau of the DENR, and also found
The Philippines, consistent with the national the water to have been directly contaminated by
interest, adopts and pursues a policy of freedom the dumpsite operations. Then, LLDA, under RA
from nuclear weapons in its territory. (Sec. 8, Art. 4850, issued a “cease and desist” order against
II, 1987 Constitution) the City
Government to completely stop the dumping
NOTE: This pertains to use of nuclear weapons and of any form or kind of waste matter to the
not nuclear source of energy. dumpsite. Does the LLDA have the power and
authority to issue a “cease and desist” order
under RA 4850 enjoining the dumping of
garbage in Taguig City?
3
lOMoARcPSD|8033415
POLITICAL LAW
23YES. In the exercise, therefore, of its express Development of national talents consisting of
powers under its charter as a regulatory and quasi- Filipino scientists, entrepreneurs, professionals,
judicial body with respect to pollution cases in the managers, high-level technical manpower and
Laguna Lake region, the authority of the skilled workers and craftsmen. (1987
LLDA to issue a “cease and desist” order is implied Constitution, Art. XII, Sec. 14)
and need not necessarily be express. Moreover, the
immediate response to the demands of "the Mandate on educational institutions. [1987
necessities of protecting vital public interests" gives Constitution, Art. XIV, Sec. 3(4)]
vitality to the statement on ecology embodied in
Art. II, Sec. 16 of the Constitution which provides: Priority to research and development,
The State shall protect and advance the right of the invention, innovation of science and
people to a balanced and healthful ecology in technology. (1987 Constitution, Art. XIV, Sec.
accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature. As 10)
a constitutionally guaranteed right of every person,
it carries the correlative duty of non-impairment. Incentives, tax deductions, and scholarships to
Hence, the issuance of the cease and desist order by encourage private participation in programs
the LLDA is a proper exercise of its power and of basic and applied scientific research. (1987
authority under its charter and in consonance with Constitution, Art. XIV, Sec. 11)
the declared policy of the state to protect and
promote the right to health of the people and instill Encouragement of widest participation of
health consciousness among them. (Laguna Lake private groups, local governments, and
Development Authority v. CA, G.R. No. 110120, organizations in the generation and utilization
March 16, 1994) of science and technology. (1987 Constitution,
Art. XIV, Sec. 12)
23 The symbols of statehood – Flag of the
Philippines. (1987 Constitution, Art. XVI, Sec. Constitutional provision on transparency in
23 matters of public concern (2000 Bar)
Name of the country, National Anthem, and The 1987 Constitution provides for a policy of
National Seal. (1987 Constitution, Art. XVI, Sec. transparency in matters of public interest:
24
23 Policy of full public disclosure of government
24 Cultural minorities – Recognition and transactions. (1987 Constitution, Art. II, Sec.
Promotion of Rights of Indigenous Cultural 23
Communities. (1987 Constitution, Art. II, Sec. 24 Right to information on matters of public
23 (1994, 1996 Bar) concern. (1987 Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 7)
25 Access to the records and books of account of the
Protection of Ancestral Lands of Indigenous Congress. (1987 Constitution, Art. VI, Sec.
Communities. (1987 Constitution, Art. XII, Sec. 23 (2000 Bar)
5) 23 Submission of Statement of Assets, Liabilities,
and Net worth. (1987 Constitution, Art. XI,
Application of Principles of Agrarian Reform Sec. 17)
and Stewardship to Indigenous Communities 24 Access to information on foreign loans
and Landless Farmers. (1987 Constitution, Art. obtained or guaranteed by the government.
XIII, Sec. 65) (1987 Constitution, Art. XII, Sec. 21)
Preservation and Development of the Culture, NOTE: These provisions on public disclosures are
Traditions, and Institutions of Indigenous intended to enhance the role of the citizenry in
Communities. (1987 Constitution, Art. XIV, Sec. governmental decision-making as well as in
17) checking abuse in government. (Valmonte v.
Belmonte, G.R. No. 74930, February 13, 1989)
23 Science and technology – Priority to Education,
Science and Technology, Arts, Culture, and Sports. Right of Parents to Rear their Children
(1987 Constitution, Art. II, Sec. 17)
(1992, 1994 Bar) The natural and primary right and duty of parents in
the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the
development of moral character shall receive

2019 GOLDEN NOTES
lOMoARcPSD|8033415

the support of the Government. (Sec. 12, Art. II, effectively given unfettered authority over their
1987 Constitution) children's conduct during curfew hours when they
are able to supervise them. Thus, in all actuality,
NOTE: The rearing of children (i.e., referred to as the only aspect of parenting that the Curfew
the "youth") for civic efficiency and the Ordinances affects is the parents' prerogative to
development of their moral character are allow minors to remain in public places without
characterized not only as parental rights, but also parental accompaniment during the curfew hours.
as parental duties. This means that parents are not (SPARK, Et. al. vs. Quezon City, GR No. 225442,
only given the privilege of exercising their authority August 8, 2017)
over their children; they are equally obliged to
exercise this authority conscientiously. For indeed, Incorporation Clause
it is during childhood that minors are prepared for
additional obligations to society. "[T]he duty to The Philippines adopts the generally accepted
prepare the child for these [obligations] must be principles of international law as part of the law of
read to include the inculcation of moral standards, the land. (1987 Constitution, Art. II, Sec. 2) (See
religious beliefs, and elements of good citizenship." discussion under Public International Law)
"This affirmative process of teaching, guiding, and
inspiring by precept and example is essential to the Doctrine of Incorporation vs. Doctrine of
growth of young people into mature, socially Transformation
responsible citizens." (SPARK, Et. al. vs. Quezon City,
GR No. 225442, August 08, 2017) DOCTRINE OF
DOCTRINE OF
BASIS TRANSFORM
23 Three cities in Metro Manila passed INCORPORATION
ordinances that impose curfew on minors in ATION
their respective jurisdictions. Petitioners Generally Rules of
argue that the Curfew Ordinances are accepted international
unconstitutional because they deprive parents principles oflaw are not
of their natural and primary right in rearing International Law per se binding
the youth without substantive due process. Is form part of theupon the
the petitioners’ contention proper? law of the land; no State but
legislative actionmust first be
23 NO. While parents have the primary role in is required toembodied in
child-rearing, it should be stressed that "when Definition make themlegislation
actions concerning the child have a relation to the applicable in aenacted by
public welfare or the well-being of the child, the country. the
State may act to promote these legitimate interests. lawmaking
Thus, in cases in which harm to the physical or body and so
mental health of the child or to public safety, peace, transformed
order, or welfare is demonstrated, these legitimate into
state interests may override the parents' qualified municipal
right to control the upbringing of their children. law.
As our Constitution itself provides, the State is NOTE: The fact that the international law has been
mandated to support parents in the exercise of made part of the law of the land does not by any
these rights and duties. State authority is, therefore, means imply the primacy of international law over
not exclusive of, but rather, complementary to national law in the municipal sphere. (Philip
parental supervision. Morris, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 91332, July 16, 1993)
It should be emphasized that the Curfew Ordinances Sovereignty

apply only when the minors are not— whether
actually or constructively— accompanied by their Supreme and uncontrollable power inherent in a
parents. This serves as an explicit recognition of the State by which the State is governed.
State's deference to the primary nature of parental
authority and the importance of parents' role in child- Characteristics of Sovereignty
rearing. Parents are
23 Permanent;
24 Exclusive;
25 Comprehensive;
5
lOMoARcPSD|8033415
POLITICAL LAW
23 Absolute; not simply restricted to situations involving use of
24 Indivisible; force, acts of aggression, or armed conflict. It has
25 Inalienable; and been further clarified by the International Court of
26 Imprescriptible. (Laurel v. Misa, G.R. No. L- Justice to include the concept that a state cannot
409, Jan. 30, 1947) intervene in a dictatorial way in the internal affairs
of another state.
Sovereignty: Imperium vs. Dominium
Within the Nicaragua Decision, the ICJ declared
BASIS IMPERIUM DOMINIUM that the principle precisely forbids all States (or
The State’s Capacity of the groups of States) from directly or indirectly
authority to state to own or intervening “in the internal or external affairs of
govern as acquire other States.” The Court went on to clarify,
embraced in the property. however, that for an intervention to be prohibited,
concept of it must impinge on matters that are directly within
sovereignty; a state’s sovereign rights. These include the choice
Definitio includes of a political, economic, or social and cultural
n system and the creation and formulation of foreign
passing laws policy. An intervention is, therefore, “wro ngful
and
governing a when it uses methods of coercion in regard to such
Extent
territory, choices, which must remain free ones” unmarked
maintaining by any evidence of coercion which would be
peace and order evidence of a prohibited intervention. In
over it, and Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda , the
defeating it Court affirmed that the Nicaragua Decision had
against foreign “made it clear that the principle of non-
invasion. intervention prohibits a State “to intervene,
(Lee Hong Hok v. David, G.R. No. L-30389, Dec. 27, directly or indirectly, with or without armed force,
1972) in support of the internal opposition within a
State.”
NOTE: Sovereignty is deemed absolute, subject to
restrictions and limitations. Constitutional provisions which ensure
civilian supremacy
Doctrine of Auto Limitation
0 By the installation of the President, the
While sovereignty has traditionally been deemed highest civilian authority, as the commander-
absolute and all-encompassing on the domestic in-chief of all the armed forces of the
level, it is however subject to restrictions and Philippines. (1987 Constitution, Art. VII, Sec.
limitations voluntarily agreed to by the Philippines, 18)
expressly or impliedly as a member of the family of
nations. 1 Through the requirement that members of the
AFP swear to uphold and defend the
The sovereignty of a state therefore cannot in fact Constitution, which is the fundamental law of
and in reality be considered absolute. Certain a civil government. (1987 Constitution, Art.
restrictions enter into the picture: (1) limitations XVI, Sec. 5, Par. 1)
imposed by the very nature of membership in the
family of nations and (2) limitations imposed by NOTE: By civilian supremacy, it is meant that
treaty stipulations. (Tañada v. Angara, G.R. No. civilian authority is, at all times, supreme over the
118295, May 2, 1997) military. (2003, 2006, 2009 Bar)
Principle of Non-Intervention Mandatory rendition of military services to

defend the State
The United Nations has repeatedly clarified that
states are strictly prohibited from intervening in the One cannot avoid compulsory military service by
domestic affairs of other states, most famously in invoking one’s religious convictions or by saying
Article 2.4 of the UN Charter, which prohibits the that he has a sick father and several brothers and
threat or use of force against the territorial integrity sisters to support. Accordingly, the duty of
or political independence of another state. The non- government to defend the State cannot be
intervention principle, however, is

2019 GOLDEN NOTES
lOMoARcPSD|8033415

performed except through an army. To leave the be an additional ground for the cancellation
organization of an army to the will of the citizens of their registration with the Commission, in
would be to make this duty to the Government addition to other penalties that may be
excusable should there be no sufficient men who prescribed by law.”
volunteer to enlist therein. The right of the
Government to require compulsory military service XPNs to the principle are the following provisions
is a consequence of its duty to defend the State and of the Constitution:
is reciprocal with its duty to defend the life, liberty,
and property of the citizen. (People v. Zosa, G.R. No. 0 Art. VI, Sec. 28[3]: “Charitable institutions,
L-45892-93, July 13, 1938) churches and parsonages or convents
appurtenant thereto, mosques, non-profit
Separation of Church and State cemeteries, and all lands, buildings, and
improvements, actually, directly, and
Provisions of the Constitution that support the exclusively used for religious, charitable, or
principle of separation of Church and State: educational purposes shall be exempt from
taxation.”
0 Art. III, Sec. 5: “No law shall be made respecting
an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the 1 Art. VI, Sec. 29[2]: “No public money or property
free exercise thereof. The free exercise and shall be appropriated, applied, paid, or
enjoyment of religious profession and worship, employed, directly or indirectly, for the use,
without discrimination or preference, shall benefit, or support of any sect, church,
forever be allowed. No religious test shall be denomination, sectarian institution, or system of
required for the exercise of civil or political religion, or of any priest, preacher, minister, or
rights.” other religious teacher, or dignitary as such,
except when such priest, preacher, minister, or
1 Art. VI, Sec. 5[2]: “The party-list dignitary is assigned to the armed forces, or to
representatives shall constitute twenty per any penal institution, or government orphanage
centum of the total number of representatives or leprosarium.”
including those under the party list. For three (1992, 1997 Bar)
consecutive terms after the ratification of this
Constitution, one-half of the allocated to 2 Art. XIV, Sec. 3[3]: “At the option expressed in
party-list representatives shall be filled, as writing by the parents or guardians, religion
provided by law, by selection or election from shall be allowed to be taught to their children
the labor, peasant, urban poor, indigenous or wards in public elementary and high
cultural communities, women, youth, and schools within the regular class hours by
such other sections as may be provided by instructors designated or approved by the
law, except the religious sector. religious authorities of the religion to which
the children or wards belong, without
2 Art. IX-CI, Sec. 2[5]: “Register, after sufficient additional cost to the Government.”
publication, political parties, organizations,
or coalitions which, in addition to other 3 Art. XIV, Sec. 4[2]: “Educational institutions,
requirements, must present their platform or other than those established by religious
program of government; and accredit groups and mission boards, shall be owned
citizens' arms of the Commission on Elections. solely by citizens of the Philippines or
Religious denominations and sects shall not corporations or associations at least sixty per
be registered. Those which seek to achieve centum of the capital of which is owned by
their goals through violence or unlawful such citizens. The Congress may, however,
means, or refuse to uphold and adhere to this require increased Filipino equity participation
Constitution, or which are supported by any in all educational institutions.”
foreign government shall likewise be refused
registration. Financial contributions from Theories on the separation of church
foreign governments and their agencies to and state:
political parties, organizations, coalitions, or
candidates related to elections, constitute 0 Separation Standard - May take the form of
interference in national affairs, and, when either (a) strict separation or (b) the tamer
accepted, shall version of strict neutrality, or what Justice

lOMoARcPSD|8033415
POLITICAL LAW
Carpio refers to as the second theory of based on religious belief, it shall adopt the Strict-
governmental neutrality. Compelling State interest test because it is most
in line with the benevolent neutrality-
Strict Separationist – The establishment clause accommodation.
was meant to protect the State from the
church, and the State’s hostility towards Difference between Mandatory
religion allows no interaction between the accommodation, Permissive accommodation
two. and Prohibited accommodation
Strict Neutrality Approach – It is not hostility MANDATORY PERMISSIVE PROHIBITED

towards religion, but a strict holding that ACCOMMODA ACCOMODA ACCOMMODA
religion may not be used as a basis for TION TION TION
classification for purposes of Basis and Action Taken
governmental action, whether the action When Means that Results when
confers rights or privileges or imposes religious the state the court finds
duties or obligations. Only secular criteria conscience may, but is no basis for a
may be the basis of government action. It
conflicts with not mandatory
does not permit; much less require
a required to, accommodati
accommodation of secular programs to government accommoda on, or it
religious belief.
obligation or te religious determines
prohibition, interests. that the
0 Benevolent Neutrality Approach (2016 Bar) –
the legislative
The “wall of separation” is meant to protect the
government accommodati
church from the State. It believes that with
sometimes on runs afoul
respect to governmental actions,
may have to of the
accommodation of religion may be allowed,
give way. establishment
not to promote the government’s favored form
This or the free
of religion, but to allow individuals and groups
accommodat exercise
to exercise their religion without hindrance.
ion occurs clause. In this
(Estrada v. Escritor, A.M. No. P-02-1651, June
when all case, the court
22, 2006)
three finds that
conditions of establishment
NOTE: In the Philippine context, the Court
the concerns
categorically ruled that, “the Filipino people, in
compelling prevail over
adopting the Constitution, manifested their
state interest potential
adherence to the benevolent neutrality
test are met. accommodati
approach that requires accommodations in
on interests.
interpreting the religion clauses.” (Estrada v.
Escritor, ibid.)
NOTE: The purpose of accommodations is to
remove a burden on, or facilitate the exercise of, a
Kinds of accommodation that result from free
person’s or institution’s religions.
exercise claim
0 Mandatory – Those which are found to be Ȁ㨀ĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀ̀ĀĀĀĀȀĀ⸀ĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀ

constitutionally compelled, i.e. required by the ĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀ0 In his letters addressed to
Free Exercise Clause; Chief Justice Puno, Valenciano reported that
1 Permissive – Those which are discretionary or the basement of the Hall of Justice of Quezon
legislative, i.e. not required by the Free Exercise City had been converted into a Roman Catholic
Clause; and Chapel, complete with offertory table, images
2 Prohibited – Those which are prohibited by the of Catholic religious icons, a canopy, an
religion clauses. electric organ, and a projector. Valenciano
believed that such practice violated the
NOTE: Based on the foregoing, and after holding constitutional provision on the separation of
that the Philippine Constitution upholds the Church and State and the constitutional
Benevolent Neutrality Doctrine which allows for prohibition against the appropriation of
accommodation, the Court laid down the rule that public money or property for the benefit of a
in dealing with cases involving purely conduct sect, church, denomination, or any other
system of religion. Valenciano also prayed that
rules be promulgated by the Court to put a
stop to the
Downloaded by Justine May 8

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS Sanchez (justinemaysanchez@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|8033415
2019 GOLDEN NOTES

lOMoARcPSD|8033415

holding of Catholic masses, or any other committed when the subject basement is allowed to
religious rituals, at the QC Hall of Justice and be temporarily used by the Catholics to celebrate
in all other halls of justice in the country. mass, as the same area can be used by other groups
of people and for other purposes. Thus, the
0 Does the holding of masses at the QC Hall basement of the QC Hall of Justice has remained to
of Justice violate the principle of separation of be a public property devoted for public use because
Church and State? the holding of Catholic masses therein is a mere
1 Was there a violation against incidental consequence of its primary purpose.
appropriation of public money or property for
the benefit of any sect, church, denomination, What the law prohibits the use of public money or
sectarian institution, or system of religion? property for the sole purpose of benefiting or
supporting any church. The prohibition
A: contemplates a scenario where the appropriation
0 NO. Allowing the citizens to practice their is primarily intended for the furtherance of a
religion is not equivalent to a fusion of Church and particular church. It does not inhibit the use of
State. The State adopts a policy of accommodation public property for religious purposes when the
as a recognition that some governmental measures religious character of such use is merely incidental
may not be imposed on a certain portion of the to a temporary use which is available
population for these measures are contrary to their indiscriminately to the public in general. (Re:
religious beliefs. As long as it can be shown that the Letter of Tony Q. Valenciano, Holding of Religious
exercise of the right does not impair the public Rituals at the Hall of Justice Building in Quezon
welfare, the attempt of the State to regulate or City, A.M. No. 10-4-19-SC, March 7, 2017)
prohibit such right would be an unconstitutional
encroachment. Self-executing provision
The holding of Catholic masses at the basement of A provision which is complete by itself and becomes
the QC Hall of Justice is merely a case of operative without the aid of supplementary or
accommodation. First, there is no law, ordinance or enabling legislation, or that which supplies
circular issued by any duly constitutive authorities sufficient rule by means of which the right it grants
expressly mandating that judiciary employees may be enjoyed or protected; nature and extent of
attend the Catholic masses at the basement. the right conferred and the liability imposed are
Second, when judiciary employees attend the fixed by the Constitution itself.
masses to profess their faith, it is at their own
initiative as they are there on their own free will GR: All provisions of the Constitution are self-
and volition, without any coercion from the judges executory.
or administrative officers. Third, no government
funds are being spent because the lightings and air- Rationale: A contrary rule would give the
conditioning continue to be operational even if legislature discretion to determine when, or
there are no religious rituals there. Fourth, the whether, they shall be effective. These provisions
basement has neither been converted into a Roman would be subordinated to the will of the
Catholic chapel nor has it been permanently lawmaking body, which could make them entirely
appropriated for the exclusive use of its faithful. meaningless by simply refusing to pass the needed
Fifth, the allowance of the masses has not implementing statute. (Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS,
prejudiced other religions. G.R. 122156, Feb. 3, 1997)
0 NO. The basement of the QC Hall of Justice is not XPN:

appropriated, applied or employed for the sole 0 When it is expressly provided that a legislative
purpose of supporting the Roman Catholics. act is necessary to enforce a constitutional
mandate; and
The basement is also being used as a public waiting 1 Provisions merely expressing general principles
area for most of the day and a meeting place for like:
different employee organizations. The use of the area a. Art. II: "Declaration of Principles and State
for holding masses is limited to lunch break period Policies"
from twelve (12) o'clock to one 0 Art. XIII: "Social Justice and Human Rights"
0 o'clock in the afternoon. The masses run for just a
little over thirty (30) minutes. It is, therefore, clear
that no undue religious bias is being
9
lOMoARcPSD|8033415
POLITICAL LAW
c. Art. XIV: "Education Science and Technology, Plea bargaining in drug cases
Arts, Culture end Sports” ( Manila Prince Hotel
v. GSIS, G.R. 122156, Feb. 3, 1997) Plea bargaining operates as a means to implement
an existing right by regulating the judicial process
NOTE: Such provisions are not ready for for enforcing rights and duties recognized by
enforcement through the courts but are used by the substantive law and for justly administering
judiciary as aids or guides in the exercise of its remedy and redress for a disregard or infraction of
power of judicial review, and by the legislature in them. (Estipina v. Lobrigo, G.R.No. 226679, August
its enactment of laws. (Tondo Medical Employees 15, 2017)
Association v. CA, G.R. No. 167324, July 17, 2007)
The power to promulgate rules of pleading,
XPN to the XPN: practice and procedure is exclusive domain of the
Judicial department and no longer shared with the
0 Sec. 16, Art. II: Right to a balanced and healthful Executive and Legislative departments. The
ecology (Oposa v. Factoran, G.R. No. 101083, July adoption of the plea bargaining framework in
30, 1993) Drug Cases under Section 23 of Republic Act No.
1 Sec. 17, Art. III: Right to information (Manila 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act
Prince Hotel v. GSIS, G.R. No. 122156, Feb. 3, of 2002 is unconstitutional for the inclusion of the
1997); and provision in the law encroaches on the exclusive
2 Sec. 10, Art. XII: Filipino First Policy. (Manila Prince constitutional power of the Supreme Court.
Hotel v. GSIS, G.R. No. 122156, Feb. 3, 1997) (Estipina v. Lobrigo, G.R.No. 226679, August 15,
2017)
NOTE: In case of doubt, the provisions of the
Constitution should be construed as self-executing; Exceptions of plea bargaining in drug cases
mandatory rather than directory and prospective
rather than retroactive. (Cruz and Cruz, 0 Imposable penalty is life imprisonment or life
Constitutional Law, p. 8) imprisonment to death.
1 Under Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165, or the
SEPARATION OF POWERS Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002,
(Sale, Trading, etc, of Dangerous Drugs) involving
Doctrine of Separation of Powers other kinds of dangerous drugs, except shabu and
marijuana.
Legislation belongs to the Congress,
implementation to the executive, and settlement of 0 A group of losing litigants in a case decided
legal controversies and adjudication of rights to the by the SC filed a complaint before the
judiciary. Each department has exclusive Ombudsman charging the Justices with
cognizance of and is supreme in matters falling knowingly and deliberately rendering an
within its own constitutionally allocated sphere. unjust decision in utter violation of the penal
Each is therefore prevented from invading the laws of the land. Can the Ombudsman validly
domain of the others. take cognizance of the case?
Purposes of Separation of Powers 0 NO. Pursuant to the principle of separation of

powers, the correctness of the decisions of the SC as
0 Secure action; final arbiter of all justifiable disputes is conclusive
1 Forestall over-action; upon all other departments of the government; the
2 Prevent despotism; and Ombudsman has no power to review the decisions
3 Obtain efficiency. of the SC by entertaining a complaint against the
Justices of the SC for knowingly rendering an unjust
Powers vested in the three branches of decision. (In re: Laureta, G.R. No. L-68635, May 14,
government 1987)
0 May the RTC or any court prohibit a

EXECUTIVE LEGISLATIVE JUDICIARY committee of the Senate like the Blue Ribbon
Interpretation Committee from requiring a person to appear
Implementation Making of laws of laws before it when it is conducting investigation in
of laws
(Power of the (Power of the (Power of aid of legislation?
purse) judicial
sword)
review)

2019 GOLDEN NOTES Downloaded by Justine May Sanchez (justinemaysanchez@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|8033415

0 NO. The RTC or any court may not do so because massacre, as to which his admission operated as an
that would be violative of the principle of acquittal, unless he later on refuses or fails to
separation of powers. The principle essentially testify in accordance with the sworn statement that
means that legislation belongs to Congress, became the basis for his discharge against those
execution to the Executive and settlement of legal now charged for the crimes. (Ampatuan, Jr., v. De
controversies to the Judiciary. Each is prevented Lima, G.R. No. 197291, April 3, 2013)
from invading the domain of the others. (Senate
Blue Ribbon Committee v. Majaducon, G.R. No. 0 Pres. Benigno Aquino III signed E.O. No. 1
136760, July 29, 2003) establishing the Philippine Truth Commission,
a special body to investigate reported cases of
5888 The Panel of Prosecutors issued a joint graft and corruption allegedly committed
resolution based on the affidavits of Kenny during the Arroyo administration. Is E.O. No. 1
Dalandag, charging several individuals with constitutional?
multiple murder in relation to the Maguindanao
massacre. Kenny Dalandag was then admitted to 0 NO. The President has no power to create a
the Witness Protection Program of the DOJ. public office. It is not shared by Congress with the
Petitioner Andal Ampatuan, Jr., one of the President, until and unless Congress enacts
principal suspects, wrote to respondent legislation that delegates a part of the power to the
Secretary of Justice De Lima and Asst. Chief State President, or any other officer or agency. It is
Prosecutor Fadullon, requesting that Dalandag already settled that the President’s power of
be included in the information for murder control can only mean the power of an officer to
considering he already confessed his alter, modify, or set aside what a subordinate
participation in the massacre. Respondent officer had done in the performance of his duties,
refused. Petitioner Ampatuan then filed a and to substitute the judgment of the former for
petition for mandamus. May the respondents be that of the latter. As such, the creation by the
compelled by the writ of mandamus to charge President of a public office like the Truth
Dalandag as an accused for multiple murder in Commission, without either a provision of the
relation to the Maguindanao massacre even if he Constitution or a proper law enacted by Congress
is under the Witness Protection Program? authorizing such creation, is not an act that the
power of control includes. (Biraogo v. The
Philippine Truth Commission, G.R. No. 192935, 7
0 NO. Consistent with the principle of separation December 2010, Bersamin, J. separate opinion)
of powers enshrined in the Constitution, the Court Pork Barrel
deems it a sound judicial policy not to interfere in
the conduct of preliminary investigations, and to "PORK BARREL" is political parlance of American
allow the Executive Department, through the -English origin. Its usage may be traced to the
Department of Justice, exclusively to determine degrading ritual of rolling out a barrel stuffed with
what constitutes sufficient evidence to establish pork to a multitude of black slaves who would cast
probable cause for the prosecution of supposed their famished bodies into the porcine feast to
offenders. By way of exception, however, judicial assuage their hunger with morsels coming from the
review may be allowed where it is clearly generosity of their well-fed master. This practice was
established that the public prosecutor committed later compared to the actions of American legislators
grave abuse of discretion, that is, when he has in trying to direct federal budgets in favor of their
exercised his discretion “in an arbitrary, capricious, districts. While in the Philippines it was referred as
whimsical or despotic manner by reason of passion lump-sum, discretionary funds of Members of the
or personal hostility, patent and gross enough as to Legislature.
amount to an evasion of a positive duty or virtual
refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law.” 0 Amog was elected Congressman. Before the
end of her first year in office, she inflicted
Kenny Dalandag who admitted his participation in the physical injuries on a colleague, Camille
commission of the Maguindanao massacre was no Gonzales, in the course of a heated debate.
hindrance to his admission into the Witness Charges were filed in court against her as well
Protection Program as a state witness, for all that was as in the House Ethics Committee. Later, the
necessary was for him to appear not the most guilty. HoR, dividing along party lines, voted to expel
Accordingly, he could not anymore be charged for his her. Claiming that her expulsion was
participation in the Maguindanao railroaded and tainted by bribery, she filed a
petition seeking a declaration by the SC that
11
lOMoARcPSD|8033415
POLITICAL LAW
the House gravely abused its discretion and should shy away from encroaching upon the
violated the Constitution. She prayed that her primary function of a co-equal branch of the
expulsion be annulled and that she should be Government; otherwise, this would lead to an
restored by the Speaker to her position as inexcusable breach of the doctrine of separation of
Congressman. Is AviAmog’s petition before the powers by means of judicial legislation. (Corpuz v.
Supreme Court justiciable? People, G.R. No. 180016, April 29, 2014)
0 NO. The petition is not justiciable because as Principle of Blending of Powers

stated in Alejandrino v. Quezon, et al. (46 Phil. 83),
the Supreme Court held that it could not compel the Refers to an instance when powers are not confined
Senate to reinstate a Senator who assaulted exclusively within one department but are assigned
another Senator and was suspended for disorderly to or shared by several departments.
behavior, because it could not compel a separate
and co-equal department to take any particular Examples of the Blending of Powers
action. In Osmeña v. Pendatun (109 Phil. 863), it
was held that the Supreme Court could not 0Power of appointment which can be exercised
interfere with the suspension of a Congressman for by each department and be rightfully
disorderly behavior, because the House of exercised by each department over its own
Representatives is the judge of what constitutes administrative personnel;
disorderly behavior. The assault of a fellow Senator 1General Appropriations Law – President
constitutes disorderly behavior. However, under prepares the budget which serves as the
Sec. 1, Art. VIII of the 1987 Constitution, the basis of the bill adopted by Congress;
Supreme Court may inquire whether or not the 2Amnesty granted by the President requires the
decision to expel AviAmog is tainted with grave concurrence of the majority of all the
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of members of the Congress; and
jurisdiction. 3Power of the COMELEC to deputize law-
enforcement agencies and instrumentalities
0 Joey Tribbiani was convicted of estafa. of the government for the purpose of
When his case reached the Supreme Court, ensuring free, orderly, honest, peaceful and
some Justices proposed to alter the penalties credible elections in accordance with the
provided for under RPC on the basis of the power granted to it by the Constitution to
ratio of P1.00 to P100.00, believing that it is enforce and administer all laws and
not fair to apply the range of penalties, which regulations relative the conduct of elections.
was based on the value of money in 1932, to [Art. IX-C, Sec. 2(1)] (Concurring and
crimes committed at present. However, other Dissenting Opinion of Justice Puno,
justices opposed the said proposal for it Macalintal v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 157013,
amounts to judicial legislation. Is the July 10, 2003)
opposition correct?
CHECKS AND BALANCES
0 YES. The opposition is correct because the
Court cannot modify the said range of penalties Principle of Checks and Balances
because that would constitute judicial legislation.
What the legislature's perceived failure in Allows one department to resist encroachments
amending the penalties provided for in the said upon its prerogatives or to rectify mistakes or
crimes cannot be remedied through this Court's excesses committed by the other departments.
decisions, as that would be encroaching upon the
power of another branch of the government. Executive check on the other two branches
Verily, the primordial duty of the Court is merely to EXECUTIVE CHECK

apply the law in such a way that it shall not usurp Legislative Judiciary
legislative powers by judicial legislation and that in
- Through its power of
the course of such application or construction, it
pardon, it may set aside the
should not make or supervise legislation, or under the
Through its judgment of the judiciary.
guise of interpretation, modify, revise, amend, distort,
veto power - Also by power of
remodel, or rewrite the law, or give the law a
appointment – power to
construction which is repugnant to its terms.
appoint members of the
Succinctly put, the Court
Judiciary.

2019 GOLDEN NOTES
lOMoARcPSD|8033415

Legislative check on the other two branches grant of express power carried with it all other
powers that may be reasonably inferred from it.
LEGISLATIVE CHECK
Executive Judiciary 23 An appropriations law granting the
legislators lump-sum funds in which they have
Revoke or amend the full discretion on what project it would fund
decisions by either: and how much the project would cost, was
- Enacting a new law passed. Is such law unconstitutional?
- Amending the old
Override the veto of
law, giving it certain
the President A: YES.
definition and
interpretation 23 It violated the principle of separation of
different from the powers - Insofar as it has allowed legislators to
old. wield, in varying gradations, non-oversight, post-
Reject certain Impeachment of SC enactment authority in vital areas of budget
appointments made members execution.
by the president
Define, prescribe, 24 It violated the principle of non-
apportion jurisdiction delegability of legislative power -insofar as it
Revoke the
of lower courts: has conferred unto legislators the power of
proclamation of
- Prescribe the appropriation by giving them personal,
martial law or
qualifications of discretionary funds from which they are able to
suspension of the
lower court judges fund specific projects which they themselves
privilege of the writ
- Impeachment determine.
of habeas corpus
- Determination of
salaries of judges. 25 Denied the President’s power to veto items -
Impeachment insofar as it has created a system of budgeting
wherein items are not textualized into the
Determine the
appropriations bill, it has flouted the prescribed
salaries of the procedure of presentment.
president or vice
president 26Impaired public accountability - insofar as it
Concur to or reject has diluted the effectiveness of congressional
treaties the oversight by giving legislators a stake in the affairs
president may enter of budget execution, an aspect of governance which
into they may be called to monitor and scrutinize.
Judicial check on the other two branches 27 Subverted genuine local autonomy -
insofar as it has authorized legislators, who are
It may declare (through the SC as the final arbiter) national officers, to intervene in affairs of purely
the acts of both the legislature and executive as local nature, despite the existence of capable local
unconstitutional or invalid so long as there is grave institutions.
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction. 28 Transgressed the principle of non-
delegability -insofar as it has conferred to the
Test to determine whether a given power has President the power to appropriate funds intended
been validly exercised by a particular by law for energy-related purposes only to other
department: purposes he may deem fit as well as other public
funds under the broad classification of "priority
GR.: Whether the power has been constitutionally infrastructure development projects."
conferred upon the department claiming its (Belgica v. Ochoa, G.R. No. 208566, Nov. 19, 2013
exercise. PER J. PERLAS-BERNABE)
XPN: Doctrine of Necessary Implication (2010 STATE IMMUNITY

Bar)
Exercise of the power may be justified in the Doctrine of State Immunity
absence of an express conferment because the
13
lOMoARcPSD|8033415
POLITICAL LAW
The State may not be sued without its consent. US have statutorily waived their immunity to
(1987 Constitution, Art. XVI, Sec. 3) any action. Is he correct?
Basis of the Doctrine of State Immunity 23NO. The VFA is an agreement which defines the
treatment of United States troops and personnel
23 Indiscriminate suits against the State will visiting the Philippines to promote “common security
impair its dignity and supposed infallibility. interests” between the US and the
24 Per Justice Holmes, there can be no legal Philippines in the region. The invocation of US
right against the authority which makes the law federal tort laws and even common law is thus
on which the right depends. improper considering that it is the VFA which
25 If it were otherwise, government service governs disputes involving US military ships and
may be severely obstructed and public safety crew navigating Philippine waters in pursuance of
endangered because of the number of suits that the objectives of the agreement. However, the
the State has to defend against. waiver of State immunity under the VFA pertains
only to criminal jurisdiction and applicable only to
GR: All states are sovereign equals and cannot US personnel under VFA and not to special civil
assert jurisdiction over one another, consonant actions such as the present petition for issuance of
with the public international law principle of par in a Writ of Kalikasan. The principle of State
parem non habet imperium. A contrary disposition immunity therefore bars the exercise of jurisdiction
would "unduly vex the peace of nations." (Arigo v. by this Court over the persons of the US Officials.
Swift, G.R. No. 206510, September 16, 2014) (Arigo v. Swift, G.R. No. 206510, September 16,
2014)
The head of State, who is deemed the
personification of the State, is inviolable, and thus, Remedy of a person who feels aggrieved by
enjoys immunity from suit. (JUSMAG Philippines v. the acts of a foreign government
NLRC, G.R. No. 108813, Dec. 15, 1994)
Under both Public International Law and
Likewise, public officials may not be sued for acts Transnational Law, a person who feels aggrieved
done in the performance of their official functions by the acts of a foreign sovereign can ask his own
or within the scope of their authority. (DOH v. Phil. government to espouse his cause through
Pharmawealth, Inc., G.R. No. 182358, February 20, diplomatic channels. (Holy See v. Rosario, G.R. No.
2013) 101949, December 1, 1994)
NOTE: The rule is that if the judgment against such Forms of consent
officials will require the state itself to perform an
affirmative act to satisfy the same, the suit may be 23 Express consent
regarded as against the state itself although it has not a. General law
been formally impleaded. (Garcia v. Chief of Staff, G.R. 23 Act No. 3083 and CA 327 as amended
No. L-20213, January 31, 1966) by Secs. 49-50, PD 1445 – Money
claims arising from contracts which
XPN: A State may be sued if it gives consent, could serve as a basis of civil action
whether express or implied. between private parties to be first
filed with COA before a suit may be
23 The USS Guardian of the US Navy ran aground filed in court. The COA must act upon
on an area near the Tubbataha Reefs, a marine the claim within 60 days. Rejection of
habitat of which entry and certain human the claim authorizes the claimant to
activities are prevented and afforded protection elevate the matter to the Supreme
by Philippine laws and UNCLOS. Bishop Arigo of Court on certiorari.
Palawan filed a petition for the issuance of Writ 24 Art. 2180, NCC – Tort committed by
of Kalikasan and impleaded US officials in their special agent;
capacity as commanding officers of the US Navy. 25 Art. 2189, NCC – LGUs liable for
He argues that there is a waiver of immunity injuries or death caused by defective
from suit found in the Visiting Forces Agreement condition of roads or public works
(VFA) between the US and the Philippines, and under their control (City of Manila v.
invoke federal statues in the US under which Teotico, et al., G.R. No. L-23052,
agencies of the January 29, 1968);

2019 GOLDEN NOTES

lOMoARcPSD|8033415

23 Sec. 22(2), RA 7160, LGC of 1991 – by its Director General is the only way
LGUs have power to sue and be sued; by which it may relinquish or
and abandon this immunity. (Callado, v.
24 Sec. 24 of LGC – LGUs and their IRRI, G.R. No. 106483, May 22, 1995)
officials are not exempt from liability
for death or injury or damage to 23 Implied consent
property. 23 When the State commences litigation, it
becomes vulnerable to counterclaim.
NOTE: The express consent of the State to be sued (Froilan v. Pan Oriental Shipping, G.R. No.
must be embodied in a duly enacted statute and L-6060, September 30, 1954)
may not be given by a mere counsel of the
government. (Republic v. Purisima, G.R. No. L- 23 In a property dispute, the Attorney General
36084, Aug. 31, 1977) of the United States and the defendant-
intervenor Republic of the Philippines each
23 Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas (KMP) filed an answer alleging by way of affirmative
members clashed with the anti-riot squad defense that the lower court had no
which resulted to 13 deaths and several jurisdiction over the claim since the action in
casualties. Thereafter, President Corazon C. that regard constituted a suit against the
Aquino issued AO 11 creating the Citizens’ United Sates to which it had not given its
Mendiola Commission to conduct the consent. Did the Republic of the Philippines by
investigation about the incident. The its intervention waive its right of immunity
commission recommended compensating the from suit?
victims. The petitioners (Caylao group)
together with the military personnel involved 23 NO. The Republic of the Philippines did not
in the Mendiola incident instituted an action waive its immunity from suit. It intervened in the
against the Republic of the Philippines before case merely to unite with the defendant Attorney
the trial court. Respondent Judge Sandoval General of the United States in resisting plaintiff’s
dismissed the complaint on the ground of claims, and for that reason asked no affirmative relief.
state immunity from suit. Petitioners argued This is not a case where the state takes the initiative
that the State has impliedly waived its against a private party by filing a complaint in
immunity from suit with the recommendation intervention, thereby surrendering its privileged
of the Commission to indemnify the heirs and position and coming down to the level of the
victims of the Mendiola incident by the defendant, but one where the state, as one of the
government and by the public addresses made defendants, merely resisted a claim against it
by then President Aquino in the aftermath of precisely on the ground among others, of its
the killings. Is the argument meritorious? privileged position, which exempts it from suit. (Lim v.
Brownell, G.R. No. L-8587, March 24, 1960)
23NO. The actions of President Aquino cannot be
deemed as a waiver of State immunity. Whatever acts 23 When State enters into a business
or utterances that then President Aquino may have contract.
done or said, the same are not tantamount to the
State having waived its immunity from suit. The Capacities of the State in entering into
President's act of joining the marchers, days after the contracts
incident, does not mean that there was an admission
by the State of any liability. Moreover, petitioners rely 23 In jure gestionis – By right of economic or
on President Aquino's speech promising that the business relations; commercial, or
government would address the grievances of the proprietary acts. MAY BE SUED. (US v. Guinto,
rallyists. By this alone, it cannot be inferred that the G.R. No. 76607, February 26, 1990)
State has admitted any liability, much less can it be
inferred that it has consented to the suit. (Republic v. NOTE: The State may be said to have
Sandoval, G.R. No. 84607, March 19, 1993) descended to the level of an individual and
can thus be deemed to have tacitly given its
23 Special law consent to be sued only when it enters into
23 By virtue of PD 1620, the grant of business contracts. Consequently, the
immunity to IRRI is clear and restrictive application of State immunity is
unequivocal, and an express waiver proper only in such case. (Restrictive
Theory of State Immunity from suit)
15
lOMoARcPSD|8033415
POLITICAL LAW
23 In jure imperii – By right of sovereign power suit is determined by the character of the objects for
and in the exercise of sovereign functions. No which the entity is organized. When the government
implied consent. (US v. Ruiz, G.R. No. L-35645, enters into a commercial business, it abandons its
May 22, 1985) sovereign capacity and is to be treated like any other
corporation. In this case, the State divested itself of its
NOTE: In exercising the power of eminent sovereign capacity when it organized the PNR which
domain, the State exercises a power jure is no different from its predecessors, the Manila
imperii. Yet, it has been held that where Railroad Company. (Malang v. PNRC, G.R. No. L-
property has been taken without the payment 49930, August 7, 1985)
of just compensation, the defense of immunity
from suit cannot be set up in an action for Unincorporated government agency
payment by the owner. (Republic v. performing governmental function vs. one
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 90478, November performing proprietary functions
21, 1991)
UNINCORPOR UNINCORPORAT
23 Do all contracts entered into by the ATED ED
government operate as a waiver of its non- GOVERNMENT GOVERNMENT
suability? BASIS AGENCY AGENCY
PERFORMING PERFORMING
23NO. Distinction must still be made between one GOVERNMENT PROPRIETARY
which is executed in the exercise of its sovereign AL FUNCTIONS FUNCTIONS
function and another which is done in its proprietary Immunity has
capacity. A State may be said to have descended to the Immunity has not been upheld
level of an individual and can be deemed to have been upheld in its favor (Air
actually given its consent to be sued only when it
Definition in its favor. Transportation
enters into business contracts. It does not apply where Office v. Sps.
the contract relates to the exercise of its sovereign David, G.R. No.
functions. (Department of Agriculture v. NLRC G.R. 159402)
No. 104269, Nov. 11, 1993)
0 Spouses David and Elisea Ramos discovered
When suit is considered as suit against the that a portion of their land in Baguio City was
State being used as part of the runway and running
shoulder of the Loakan Airport being operated
23 The Republic is sued by name; by Air Transportation Office (ATO). The Spouses
24 The suit is against an unincorporated Ramos agreed to convey the affected portion by
government agency performing propriety deed of sale to the ATO for consideration, which
functions; and ATO failed to pay. In an action for collection of
25 The suit is on its face against a government money against ATO, the latter invoked
officer but the case is such that ultimate Proclamation No. 1358 whereby it reserved
liability will belong to the government. certain parcels of land, including the subject
(Republic v. Sandoval, G.R. No. 84607, March portion herein, for the use of the Loakan Airport.
19, 1993) They asserted that RTC did not have any
jurisdiction to entertain the action without the
512 Spouses Sison sued the Philippine National
State’s consent. The RTC and CA dismissed the
Railways for damages for the death of their son
petition. Can the ATO be sued without the State’s
who fell from an overloaded train belonging to
consent?
the PNR. The trial court dismissed the suit on the
ground that the charter of the PNR, as amended
0 YES. An unincorporated government agency
by PD 741, has made the same a government
without any separate juridical personality of its
instrumentality, and thus immune from suit. Is
own enjoys immunity from suit because it is
the dismissal proper?
invested with an inherent power of sovereignty.
However, the need to distinguish between an
NO. PNR is not immune from suit. It did not remove
unincorporated government agency performing
itself from the operation of Arts. 1732 to 1766 of the
governmental function and one performing
Civil Code on common carriers. Not all government
proprietary functions has arisen. The juridical
entities, whether corporate or non-corporate, are
character of ATO is an agency of the government
immune from suits. Immunity from
without performing a purely governmental or

2019 GOLDEN NOTES
lOMoARcPSD|8033415

sovereign function but is instead involved in the 0 Government agencies– Establish whether or
management and maintenance of the Loakan not the State, as principal which may
Airport, an activity that was not exclusive ultimately be held liable, has given its
prerogative of the State in its sovereign capacity. consent.
Hence, the ATO had no claim to the State immunity 1 Government– Doctrine of State immunity is
from suit. The obligation of ATO to Spouses Ramos available.
might be enforced against CAAP. (Air
Transportation Office v. Sps. David, G.R. No. Instances when a public officer may be sued
159402, February 23, 2011) without the State’s consent
Suability vs. Liability vs. Execution ĀȀᜀĀЀĀȀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀȀĀȀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀ

ᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀ0 To compel him to do an act
BASIS SUABILITY LIABILIT EXECUTION Y required by law;
Depends Depend Depends ĀȀᜀĀЀĀȀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀȀĀȀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀ
on the s on the on the ᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀ1 To restrain him from enforcing an
consent applica appropria act claimed to be unconstitutional;
As to of the ble law tion of ĀȀᜀĀЀĀȀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀȀĀȀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀ
basis State to and the funds by ᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀ2 To compel payment of damages
be sued establis the from an already appropriated assurance fund
hed Congress or to refund tax over-payments from a fund
facts already available for the purpose;
ĀȀᜀĀЀĀȀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀȀĀȀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀ
The The A
ᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀ3 To secure a judgment that the
circumsta State judgment
officer impleaded may satisfy the judgment by
nce that a can against
himself without the State having to do a
As a State is never the State
positive act to assist him; or
conseque suable be held cannot be
ĀȀᜀĀЀĀȀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀȀĀȀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀ
nce of does not liable if automatic
ᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀ4 Where the government itself has
another necessaril it is not ally
violated its own laws because the doctrine of
y mean suable. executed.
State immunity cannot be used to perpetrate
that it is
an injustice.
liable.
GR: The true test in determining whether a suit
NOTE: It is one thing to consent to being sued, against a public officer is a suit against the State is
another to admit liability, thus the phrase, “waiver that, if a public officer or agency is sued and made
of immunity by the State does not mean a liable, the State will have to perform an
concession of its liability.” affirmative act of appropriating the needed
amount to satisfy the judgment. If the State will
“By consenting to be sued, a state simply waives its have to do so, then, it is a suit against the State.
immunity from suit. It does not thereby concede its
liability.” (Merritt v. Government of the Philippine XPNs:
Islands, G.R. No. L-11154, March 21, 1916) 0 The public official is charged in his official
capacity for acts that are unlawful and
And where “…liability is ascertained judicially, the injurious to the rights of others. Public
state is at liberty to determine for itself whether to officials are not exempt, in their personal
satisfy judgment or not.” (Municipality of Hagonoy, capacity, from liability arising from acts
Bulacan v. Dumdum, Jr., G.R. No. 168289; March 22, committed in bad faith; or
2010) 1 The public official is clearly being sued not in
his official capacity but in his personal
Rule on the liabilities of the following: capacity, although the acts complained of
may have been committed while he occupied
0 Public officers– By their acts without or in a public position. (Lansang v. CA, G.R. No.
excess of jurisdiction: any injury caused by 102667, February 23, 2000)
him is his own personal liability and cannot
be imputed to the State. Garnishment of government funds
GR: Whether the money is deposited by way of

general or special deposit, they remain government
funds and are not subject to garnishment.
XPN: Where a law or ordinance has been enacted

appropriating a specific amount to pay a valid
lOMoARcPSD|8033415
17

lOMoARcPSD|8033415
POLITICAL LAW
government obligation, then the money can be erroneous, let alone irregular. This principle
garnished. applies in land registration cases. Certainly, the
State will not be allowed to abdicate its authority
NOTE: Funds belonging to government over lands of the public domain just because its
corporations, which can sue and be sued and are agents and officers have been negligent in the
deposited with a bank, can be garnished. (PNB v. performance of their duties. (Republic v. Sps.
Pabalan, G.R. No. L-33112, June 15, 1978) Benign)
If the local legislative authority refuses to enact a

law appropriating the money judgment rendered
by the court, the winning party may file a petition
for mandamus to compel the legislative authority
to enact a law. (Municipality of Makati v. CA, G.R.
Nos. 89898-99, October 1, 1990)
The government cannot be made to pay

interest in money judgments against it, except
in the following instances
0 Exercise of the power of eminent domain

1 Erroneous collection of taxes
2 Where government agrees to pay interest
pursuant to law
23 Keanu Lazzer filed an action directly

in court against the government seeking
payment for a parcel of land which the
national government utilized for a road
widening project. Can the government invoke
the doctrine of non-suitability of the state?
23 NO. When the government expropriates

property for public use without paying just
compensation, it cannot invoke its immunity from
suit. Otherwise, the right guaranteed in Sec. 9, Art.
III of the 1987 Constitution that private property
shall not be taken for public use without just
compensation will be rendered nugatory.
(Ministerio v. CFI, G.R. No. L-31635, August 31,
1971)
23Sps. Benigno sought to register their lot. The

RTC granted their petition. Arguing that the lot is
inalienable, the Republic, through the OSG,
appealed before the CA but moved four times to
extend the period for filing its appellant’s brief.
CA dismissed the OSG’s appeal. The OSG filed its
brief after moving to reconsider the
CA’s denial of its appeal. However, CA stood its
ground on its original decision. Does the OSG’s
failure to file the Republic’s appeal brief bind
the State?
0 NO. As a matter of doctrine, illegal acts of

government agents do not bind the State, and the
Government is never estopped from questioning the
acts of its officials, more so if they are

2019 GOLDEN NOTES
lOMoARcPSD|8033415
Legislative Department
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT 0 On Appropriations [1987 Constitution,

Art. VI, Secs. 25 and 29(1&2)]
LEGISLATIVE POWER 1 On Taxation (1987 Constitution, Art. VI,
Secs. 28 and 29, par. 3)
2 On Constitutional appellate jurisdiction of
SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS
SC (1987 Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. 30)
3 No law granting a title of royalty or
The following may exercise legislative power nobility shall be enacted (1987
Congress Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. 31).
Regional/Local Government Units 4 No specific funds shall be appropriated or
The People through initiative and referendum. paid for use or benefit of any religion, sect,
(2002 Bar) etc., except for priests, etc., assigned to
AFP, penal institutions, etc. (1987
Limitations on the legislative power of Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. 29[2])
Congress
23 Implied:
The Constitution itself provides limitations on the 23 Prohibition against irrepealable laws
exercise of legislative powers. 24 Non-delegation of powers
0 Substantive: limitations on the content of laws. XPNs to Non-Delegation Doctrine:
1 Procedural: limitations on the manner of 23 Delegation to the President [1987
passing laws. Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. 23(2)
2 Congress cannot pass irrepealable laws. and Sec. 28(2)]
3 Congress, as a general rule, cannot delegate its 24 Delegation to the people (1987
legislative power. Constitution, Art VI, Sec. 32)
XPN: See Delegation of Legislative Powers. Procedural
23 Only one subject, to be stated in the title of the
Powers of Congress Legislative power bill [1987 Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. 26(1)].
24 Three (3) readings on separate days; printed
copies of the bill in its final form to be
The power or competence to propose, enact, ordain, distributed to its members 3 days before its
amend/alter, modify, abrogate or repeal laws. It is passage, except if the President certifies to its
vested in the Congress which shall consist of a immediate enactment to meet a public
Senate and a House of Representatives, except to calamity or emergency; upon its last reading,
the extent reserved to the people by the provision no amendment shall be allowed and the vote
on initiative and referendum. thereon shall be taken immediately and the
yeas and nays entered into the Journal [1987
Legislative powers of Congress Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. 2(2)].
25 Appropriation bills, revenue bills, tariff bills,
0 General plenary power (Art. VI, Sec. 1) bills authorizing the increase of public debt,
1 Specific power of appropriation bills of local application and private bills shall
2 Taxation and expropriation originate exclusively in the House of
3 Legislative investigation Representatives. (1987 Constitution, Art. VI,
4 Question hour Sec. 24)
Doctrine of Shifting Majority Classes of legislative power

23 Original: Possessed by the people in their
For each House of Congress to pass a bill, only the sovereign capacity i.e. initiative and
votes of the majority of those present in the session, referendum.
there being a quorum, is required. 24 Delegated: Possessed by Congress and other
legislative bodies by the Constitution.
Limitations on Legislative Powers 25 Constituent: The power to amend or revise the
Constitution.
Substantive
26 Ordinary: The power to pass ordinary laws.
0 Express:
a. Bill of Rights (1987 Constitution, Art. III) PRINCIPLE OF NON-DELEGABILITY
19

lOMoARcPSD|8033415
POLITICAL LAW
GR: What has been delegated cannot be delegated. may be provided NOTE: Congress itself
by law). may by law increase
It is based upon the ethical principle that such the composition of the
delegated power constitutes not only as a right, but HoR through the
also as a duty to be performed by the delegate creation of new
through the instrumentality of his own judgment and provinces,
not through the intervening mind of another. A redistricting, and
further delegation of such power, unless permitted by attendant adjustments
the sovereign power, would constitute a negation of in number of party-list
this duty in violation of the trust reposed in the representatives.
delegate. (Cruz, supra at 160) Qualifications
XPNS: (1993, 1999 Bar)
23 Natural-born
citizen of the
1.) Delegations to the People at large;
Philippines;
23 R.A. 6735 – The Initiative and Referendum
24 At least 25 years
Act as authorized by the constitutional
of age on the day
mandate for the creation of a system of
of election
legislation by initiative and referendum
XPN: A youth sector
24 A plebiscite is required in the creation,
nominee must be at
division, merger, abolition of province, city,
least twenty-five
municipality, or barangay or the substantial
23 but not more
alteration of its boundary.
than thirty (30) years
23 Natural-born
of age on the day of
NOTE: These are more of reservations of power by citizen of the
the election. Once he
the people than delegations considering the fact Philippines;
attains the age of
that the people are repositories of all governmental 24 At least 35 years
thirty (30) during his
powers. of age on the day
term, he shall be
of election;
allowed to continue
2.) Emergency powers of the President; 25 Able to read and
in office until the
3.) Tariff powers of the President; write;
expiration of his
4.) Delegation to Administrative bodies of the 26 A registered voter;
term. [RA No. 7941,
power of subordinate legislation. 27 Resident of the
Sec. 9 (2)]
Philippines for not
23 Able to read and
HOUSES OF CONGRESS less than 2 years
write;
immediately
24 Except the party-
Composition of Congress preceding the day
list
of election. (Art. VI,
representatives, a
The Philippine Congress is bicameral in nature, Sec. 3)
registered voter in
composed of:
the district in
23 Senate NOTE:
which he shall be
24 House of Representatives Enumeration is
elected;
23 District representatives exclusive.
25 Resident thereof
24 Party-list representatives
for a period of not
less than 1 year
Composition, qualifications, and term of office
immediately
of members of Congress
preceding the day
of the election.
HOUSE OF
SENATE (Art. VI, Sec. 6)
REPRESENTATIVES
Composition NOTE:
24 Senators Not more than 250 Enumeration is
(elected at large members, unless exclusive.
by qualified otherwise fixed by Term of office
voters of the law. (2001 Bar)
Philippines as

2019 GOLDEN NOTES
lOMoARcPSD|8033415
6 years, which shall 3 years, which shall Disqualifications of members of Congress
commence, unless begin, unless
otherwise provided by otherwise provided by HOUSE OF
SENATE
law, at noon on the law, at noon on the REPRESENTATIVES
30th day of June next 30th day of June next No Senator shall serve Shall not serve for more
following their following their for more than two (2) than three (3)
election. election. consecutive terms. consecutive terms.
Voluntary Voluntary renunciation
Term limit: Not more Term limit: Not more renunciation of the of the office for any
than 2 consecutive than 3 consecutive office for any length of length of time shall not
terms. terms. time shall not be be considered as an
considered as an interruption in the
Note: Senators have a interruption in the continuity of his service
term of office of six continuity of his for the full term for
years on a staggered service for the full which he was elected
basis - each set of term for which he was (Art. VI, Sec. 7). (2001
twelve senators end elected (Art. VI, Sec. 4). Bar)
their term three years
One who has been declared by competent
apart.
authority as insane or incompetent
In Imelda Romualdez-Marcos v. COMELEC, the Court One who has been sentenced by final
upheld the qualification of Mrs. Imelda Romuladez- judgment for: (SIR-18-M)
Marcos (IRM) despite her own declaration in her
certificate of candidacy that she had resided in the 23 Subversion;
district for only seven (7) months, because of the 24 Insurrection;
following: 25 Rebellion;
26 Any offense for which he has been
23 A minor follows the domicile of his parents; sentenced to a penalty of not more than 18
Tacloban became IRM’s domicile of origin by months; or
operation of law when her father brought the 27 A crime involving Moral turpitude,
family to Leyte; unless given plenary pardon o granted
24 Domicile of origin is lost only when: amnesty (BP 881, Sec. 12).
23 there is actual removal or change of
domicile Expulsion of members of Congress
24 a bona fide intention of abandoning the
former residence and establishing a MEMBERS OF THE
new one SENATORS HOUSE OF
25 acts which correspond with the REPRESENTATIVES
purpose Expulsion by the Expulsion by the House
Senate with the with the concurrence
25 The wife does not automatically gain the concurrence of 2/3 of of 2/3 of all its
husband’s domicile because the term all its members. (1987 members. (1987
“residence” in Civil Law does not mean the Constitution, Art. VI, Constitution, Art. VI,
same thing in Political Law; when IRM Sec. 16, par. 3) Sec. 16, par. 3)
married Marcos in 1954, she kept he domicile
of origin and merely gained a new home, not a NOTE: The Congress cannot validly amend or
domicilium necessarium (necessary domicile); otherwise modify these qualification standards, as
26 Even assuming that she gained a new it cannot disregard, evade, or weaken the force of a
domicile after her marriage and acquired the constitutional mandate, or alter or enlarge the
right to choose a new one only after her Constitution. (Social Justice Society v. DDB and
husband dies, her acts following her return to PDEA, G.R Nos. 157870, 158633, 161658, Nov. 3,
the country clearly indicates that she chose 2008)
Tacloban, her domicile of origin, as her
domicile of choice. (Imelda Romualdez- Rule on voluntary renunciation of office
Marcos v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 119976, Sept.
18, 1995) Voluntary renunciation of office for any length of
time shall not be considered as an interruption in
the continuity of his service for the full term for
21
lOMoARcPSD|8033415
POLITICAL LAW
which he was elected. (1987 Constitution, Art. VI, months prior to to election prohibits
Secs. 4 and 7) election does not the party-list
prevent a district representative from
Composition of the HoR (2002, 2007 Bar) representative from listing as
running under his representative under
DISTRICT PARTY-LIST new party. his new party or
REPRESENTATIVE REPRESENTATIVE organization.
As to who will vote
Elected by the Elected nationally DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVES AND
constituents of his (those garnering at QUESTIONS OF APPORTIONMENT
respective district. least 2% of all votes cast
for the party-list system District representatives
are entitled to 1 seat,
which is increased Those who are elected from legislative districts
according to apportioned among the provinces, cities and the
proportional Metropolitan Manila area.
representation, but is in
no way to exceed 3 Apportionment of legislative districts
seats per organization.)
Residency requirement Legislative districts are apportioned among the
Must be a resident of No special residency provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan Manila area.
his legislative district requirement. They are apportioned in accordance with the
for at least 1 year number of their respective inhabitants and on the
immediately before basis of a uniform and progressive ratio. (1987
the election. Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. 5)
Name in the ballot
Elected personally, Voted upon by party or Apportionment is the determination of the number of
by name. organization. representatives which a State, country, or other
subdivision may send to a legislative body. It is the
Effect of change in party affiliation
allocation of seats in a legislative body in proportion
Does not lose seat Loses his seat, in which
to the population; the drawing of voting district lines
case he will be
so as to equalize population and voting power.
substituted by another
(Bagabuyo v. COMELEC)
qualified person in the
party or organization
Each city with a population of at least 250,000 shall
based on the list
have at least one representative. Each province,
submitted to the
irrespective of the number of inhabitants, shall have
COMELEC.
at least one representative.
As to vacancy
A special election A substitution will be While Sec. 5(3) of Art. VI requires a city to have a
may be held made within the party, minimum population of 250,000 to be entitled to
provided that the based on the list one representative; it does not have to increase its
vacancy takes place submitted to the population by another 250,000 to be entitled to an
at least 1 year before COMELEC. additional district. (Senator Aquino III v.
the next election. COMELEC, G.R. No. 189793, April 7, 2010)
Effect of defeat in the election
A district A party-list NOTE: When one of the municipalities of a
representative is not representative cannot congressional district is converted to a city large
prevented from sit if he ran and lost in enough to entitle it to one legislative district, the
running again as a the previous election. incidental effect is the splitting of district into two.
district The incidental arising of a new district in this
representative if he manner need not be preceded by a census. (Tobias
lost in the previous v. Abalos, G.R. No. L-114783, Dec. 8, 1994)
election.
Effect of change in party affiliation Essence of apportionment
to the upcoming elections
A change in A change in affiliation
affiliation within within 6 months prior

2019 GOLDEN NOTES
lOMoARcPSD|8033415
The underlying principle behind the rule for Reapportionment may be made through a special
apportionment is the concept of equality of law. The Constitution did not preclude Congress
representation, which is a basic principle of from increasing its membership by passing a law,
republicanism. One man’s vote should carry as other than a general reapportionment of the law.
much weight as the vote of every other man. To hold that reapportionment can only be made
through a general apportionment law, with a
NOTE: The question of the validity of an review of all the legislative districts allotted to each
apportionment law is a justiciable question. (Macia local government unit nationwide, would create an
v. Comelec, G.R. No. L-18684, Sept. 14, 1961) inequitable situation where a new city or province
created by Congress will be denied legislative
Conditions for apportionment representation for an indeterminate period of time.
Thus, a law converting a municipality into a
23 Elected from legislative districts which are highly-urbanized city automatically creates a new
apportioned in accordance with the number legislative district and, consequently, increases the
of inhabitants of each area and based on a membership of the HoR. (Mariano, Jr. v. COMELEC,
uniform and progressive ratio. G.R. No. 118577, March 7, 1995)
24 Uniform– Every representative of Congress
shall represent a territorial unit with more or NOTE: The Constitution does not require a
less a population of 250,000. All the other plebiscite for the creation of a new legislative
representatives shall have the same or nearly district by a legislative reapportionment. It is
the same political constituency so much so required only for the creation of new local
that their votes will constitute the popular government units. (Bagabuyo v. COMELEC, 2008)
majority. (2015 Bar)
25 Progressive – It must respond to the change in
times. The number of House representatives Gerrymandering (2014 Bar)
must not be so big as to be unwieldy (Let us
say, there is a growth in population. The ratio Formation of one legislative district out of separate
may then be increased. From 250,000 territories for the purpose of favoring a candidate
constituents/1 representative it may be or a party. It is not allowed because the
reapportioned to 300, 000 constituents/1 Constitution provides that each district shall
representative). comprise, as far as practicable, contiguous,
26 Each city with a population of at least compact and adjacent territory.
250,000 or each province, irrespective of
number of inhabitants, shall at least have one 23 Congress enacted a law creating the
representative. legislative district of Malolos based on a
certification of the demographic projection
GR: There must be proportional from NSO stating that by 2010, Malolos is
representation according to the number of expected to reach the population of 250,000,
their constituents/inhabitants. hence entitling it to one legislative district. Is
XPN: In one city-one representative/one the law valid?
province-one representative rule.
23NO. Congress cannot establish a new legislative
23 Legislative districts shall be reapportioned by district based on a projected population of the
Congress within 3 years after the return of National Statistics Office (NSO) to meet the
each census. (Senator Aquino III v. COMELEC, population requirement of the Constitution in the
G.R. No. 189793, April 7, 2010) reapportionment of legislative districts.
Manner of reapportionment A city that has attained a population of 250,000 is

entitled to a legislative district only in the
Reapportionment is the realignment or change in “immediately following election.” In short, a city
legislative districts brought about by change in must first attain the 250,000 population, and
legislative districts brought about by changes in thereafter such city shall have a district
population and mandated by the constitutional representative in the immediately following
requirement of equality of representation. election. There is no showing in the present case
(Bagabuyo v. COMELEC) that the City of Malolos has attained or will attain
a population of 250,000, whether actual or
23

lOMoARcPSD|8033415
POLITICAL LAW
projected, before May 10, 2010 elections. Thus, the legislative district is not a political subdivision
City of Malolos is not qualified to have a legislative through which functions of government are carried
district of its own under Sec. 5(3), Art. VI of the 1987 out. It can more appropriately be described as a
Constitution and Sec 3 of the Ordinance appended to representative unit that merely delineates the
the 1987 Constitution. (Aldaba v. COMELEC, G.R. No. areas occupied by the people who will choose a
188078, January 25, 2010) representative in their national affairs. A plebiscite
is required only for the creation, division, merger,
23 Congress enacted a law reapportioning the or abolition of local government units. (Bagabuyo
composition of the Province of Camarines Sur v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 176970, December 8, 2008)
and created legislative districts thereon. Frankie
challenged the law because it runs afoul to the PARTY-LIST SYSTEM (RA No. 7941)
constitutional requirement that there must be at
least a population of 250,000 to create a Party-list system
legislative district. COMELEC argued that the
mentioned requirement does not apply to Mechanism of proportional representation in the
provinces. Is the 250,000 population standard an election of representatives to the HoR from
indispensable requirement for the creation of a national, regional and sectoral parties or
legislative district in provinces? organizations or coalitions thereof registered with
the COMELEC.
23NO. Sec. 5(3), Art. VI of the 1987 Constitution
which requires 250,000 minimum population apply NOTE: Party-list representatives shall constitute
only for a city to be entitled to a representative but 20% of the total number of representatives in the
not for a province. HoR including those under the party list. (1987
Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. 5, par. 2) (2007 Bar)
The provision draws a plain and clear distinction
between the entitlement of a city to a district, on Purpose of the party-list system
one hand, and the entitlement of a province to a
district on the other. For while a province is entitled To make the marginalized and the
to at least a representative, with nothing underrepresented not merely passive recipients of
mentioned about population, a city must first meet the State’s benevolence, but active participants in
a population minimum of 250,000 in order to be the mainstream of representative democracy. (Ang
similarly entitled. (Aquino and Robredo v. Bagong Bayani v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 147589, June
COMELEC, G.R. No. 189793, April 7, 2010) 26, 2001)
23 Congress passed a law providing for the To democratize political power by giving political
apportionment of a new legislative district in parties that cannot win in legislative district
CDO City. COMELEC subsequently issued a elections a chance to win seats in the HoR. (Atong
resolution implementing said law. Jovi now Paglaum v. COMELEC, G.R. 203766, April 2, 2013)
assails the resolution, contending that rules
for the conduct of a plebiscite must first be Different parties under the party-list system
laid down, as part of the requirements under
the Constitution. According to Jovi, the No votes cast in favor of political party,
apportionment is a conversion and division of organization or coalition shall be valid except for
CDO City, falling under Sec. 10 Art. X of the those registered under the party-list system.
Constitution, which provides for the rule on
creation, division, merger, and abolition of Political party – Organized group of citizens
LGUs. Decide. advocating ideology or platform, principles
and policies for the general conduct of
512 There is no need for a plebiscite. CDO City government and which, as the most
politically remains a single unit and its immediate means of securing their adoption,
administration is not divided along territorial lines. regularly nominates and supports certain of
Its territory remains whole and intact. Thus, Sec. its leaders and members as candidate in
10, Art. X of the Constitution does not come into public office. (Ang Bagong Bayani v.
play. COMELEC and Bayan Muna v. COMELEC, G.R.
Nos. 147589 and 147613, June 26, 2001, June
No plebiscite is required for the apportionment or 26, 2001)
reapportionment of legislative districts. A

2019 GOLDEN NOTES
lOMoARcPSD|8033415
0 National party – Its constituency is spread over To require all national and regional parties under
the geographical territory of at least a the party-list system to represent the
majority of regions. “marginalized and underrepresented” is to deprive
1 Regional party – Its constituency is spread over and exclude, by judicial fiat, ideology-based and
the geographical territory of at least a cause-oriented parties from the party-list system.
majority of the cities and provinces To exclude them from the party-list system is to
comprising the region. prevent them from joining the parliamentary
2 Sectoral party – Organized group of citizens struggle, leaving as their only option armed
belonging to any of the following sectors: struggle. To exclude them from the party-list
labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, system is, apart from being obviously senseless,
indigenous, cultural communities, elderly, patently contrary to the clear intent and express
handicapped, women, youth, veterans, wording of the 1987 Constitution and RA 7941.
overseas workers and professionals, whose (Atong Paglaum v. COMELEC, ibid.)
principal advocacy pertains to the special
interest and concerns of their sectors. NOTE: Major political parties cannot participate in
3 Sectoral Organization – Refers to a group of the party-list elections since they neither lack
citizens who share similar physical attributes “well-defined political constituencies” nor
or characteristics, employment, interest or represent “marginalized and underrepresented”
concerns. sectors. (Atong Paglaum v. COMELEC, ibid.)
4 Coalition – Refers to an aggregation of duly
registered national, regional, sectoral parties However, the participation of major political
or organizations for political and/or election parties may be through their sectoral wings, a
purposes. majority of whose members are “marginalized and
underrepresented” or lacking in “well-defined
Composition of the party-list system political constituencies.” (Atong Paglaum v.
COMELEC, ibid.)
0 National parties or organizations
1 Regional parties or organizations; and Nomination of party-list representatives
2 Sectoral parties or organizations.
Each registered party, organization or coalition
National and regional parties or organizations are shall submit to the COMELEC not later than 45
different from sectoral parties or organizations. days before the election a list of names, not less
National and regional parties or organizations than five (5), from which party-list representative
need not be organized along sectoral lines and need shall be chosen in case it obtains the required
not represent any sector. number of votes.
The party-list system is not solely for the Limitations

benefit of sectoral parties
0 A person may be nominated in one (1) list
Sec. 5(1), Art. VI of the Constitution is crystal-clear only.
that there shall be “a party-list system of registered 1 Only persons who have given their consent in
national, regional, and sectoral parties or writing may be names in the list
organizations,” had the framers of the 1987 2 The list shall not include:
Constitution intended national and regional parties any candidate for any elective office; or
to be at the same time sectoral, they would have a person who has lost his bid for elective
stated “national and regional sectoral parties.” office in the immediately preceding
They did not, precisely because it was never their election;
intention to make the party-list system exclusively
sectoral. National and regional parties are 3 No change shall be allowed after the list shall
separate from sectoral parties and need not be have been submitted to the COMELEC.
organized along sectoral lines nor represent any XPN: Change may be allowed in cases
particular sector. (Atong Paglaum v. COMELEC, where:
G.R. No. 203766, April 2, 2013) nominees dies;
withdraws in writing his nomination; or
National and Regional parties need not becomes incapacitated
represent the “marginalized and
underrepresented” sectors
25
lOMoARcPSD|8033415
POLITICAL LAW
1987 Constitution on the right of the people to
NOTE: Incumbent sectoral representatives in the information on matters of public concern as
HoR who are nominated in the party-list system complemented by the policy of full disclosure and
shall not be considered resigned. transparency in Government. (Bantay RA 7941 v.
COMELEC, G.R. No. 177271, G.R. No. 177314, May 4,
Effect of Failure to Submit a List of Nominees 2007)
Failure to submit the list of five (5) nominees before Guidelines in determining who may participate in
the election warrants the cancellation of the party’s the party-list elections
registration. (Cocofed-Philippines Coconut
Producers Federation, Inc. v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 23 Three different groups may participate:
207026, Aug. 6, 2013) 23 National;
24 Regional; and
Qualifications of a party-list nominee
0 Natural- born citizen of the Philippines;

1 Registered voter;
2 Resident of the Philippines for at least 1 year
immediately preceding the day of the election;
3 Able to read and write;
4 Bona fide member of the party or
organization which he seeks to represent at
least 90 days preceding election day; and
NOTE: In the case of sectoral parties, to be a

bona fide party-list nominee, one must
either belong to the sector represented, or
have a track record of advocacy for such
sector. (Atong Paglaum v. COMELEC, ibid.)
̀ĀȀ㨀ĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀ̀ĀȀ㨀ĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀ
ĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀĀȀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀ̀̀ ĀȀ㨀ĀᜀĀ
ᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀ̀ĀȀ㨀ĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀ
ĀĀȀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀĀȀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀ
ĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀĀȀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀĀȀᜀĀᜀĀᜀ
ĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀĀȀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀȀĀȀᜀĀ
ᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀĀȀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀ
ᜀĀЀĀȀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀĀȀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀ
ĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀȀĀȀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀЀĀȀᜀĀ
ᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀĀȀᜀĀЀĀȀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀ
ᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀĀĀĀЀĀĀĀЀЀĀȀȀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀȀĀȀᜀĀЀĀȀĀᜀĀЀĀĀȀĀ
ᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀĀȀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀĀȀᜀĀ
ᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀ̀ĀĀĀĀȀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀ
ᜀĀᜀȀ̀ĀȀᜀĀĀĀĀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀĀȀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀ
ᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀĀȀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀĀȀᜀĀ
ᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀĀȀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀ
ᜀȀĀȀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀĀȀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀ
ĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀᔀĀȀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀĀȀᜀĀ
ᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀĀȀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀĀᜀ0
At least 25 years of age. (For youth sector
nominees, at least 25 years and not more
than 30 years of age)
NOTE: Any youth representative who attains

the age of 30 during his term shall be allowed
to continue in office until the expiration of his
term.
Disclosure of Names of Party-List Nominees
The COMELEC has a constitutional duty to disclose

and release the names of the nominees of the party-
list groups, in accordance with Downloaded
Sec. 7, Art. by
IIIJustine
of the May Sanchez (justinemaysanchez@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|8033415
constituencies.” It is enough that their

c. Sectoral parties or organizations. principal advocacy pertains to the special
interests and concerns of their sector.
23 National parties or organizations and
regional parties or organizations do not NOTE: Those “marginalized and
need to organize along sectoral lines underrepresented” include labor, peasant,
and do not need to represent any fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural
"marginalized and communities, handicapped, veterans, and o
underrepresented" sector. verseas workers. (LUV-OF-HIP)
24 All political parties must register under the Those lacking in “well-defined political
party-list system and do not field constituencies” include professionals, the
candidates in legislative district elderly, women, and the youth. (PEWY)
elections.
23 A majority of the members of sectoral parties
A political party, whether major or or organizations that represent the
not, that fields candidates in “marginalized and underrepresented” or
legislative district elections can those representing parties or organizations
participate in party-list elections only that lack “well-defined political
through its sectoral wing that must constituencies” must belong to the sector
separately register under the party- they respectively represent.
list system. The sectoral wing is by
itself an independent sectoral party; it 24 The nominees of SECTORAL parties or
is linked to a political party through a organizations that represent the
coalition. (2015 Bar) “marginalized and underrepresented” or that
represent those who lack “well-defined
23 Sectoral parties or organizations may political constituencies,” either must belong
either be “marginalized and to their respective sectors, or must have a
underrepresented” or lacking in track record of advocacy for their
“well-defined political respective sectors.

2019 GOLDEN NOTES

lOMoARcPSD|8033415
Number of
seats available Number of seats to legislaive

23 The nominees of NATIONAL and REGIONAL districts
× 0.20 = available to party-
parties or organizations must be bona-fide 0.8

list representatives
members of their respective parties or ( )
organizations.
Simpler formula: No. of seats available to
24 National, regional, and sectoral parties or legislative districts DIVIDED BY 4
organizations shall not be disqualified if some
of their nominees are disqualified, provided The above formula allows the corresponding
that they have at least one nominee who increase in the number of seats available for party-
remains qualified. (Ibid.) list representatives whenever a legislative district
is created by law.
NOTE: It is the parties or organizations which are
voted for, not their candidates. However, it is the After prescribing the ratio of the number of party-
party-list representatives who are seated or elected list representatives to the total number of
into office, not their parties or organizations. representatives, the Constitution left the manner of
(Abayon v. HRET, G.R. No. 189466, Feb. 11, 2010) allocating the seats available to party-list
representatives to the wisdom of the legislature.
Effect of the change in affiliation of any party- (BANAT v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 179271, April 21,
list representative 2009)
Any elected party-list representative who changes Guidelines in the allocation of seats for party-
his party-list group or sectoral affiliation during his list representatives under Sec. 11 of RA 7941
term of office shall forfeit his seat. (Amores v. (2014 Bar)
HRET, G.R. No. 189600, June 29, 2010)
23 The parties, organizations, and coalitions
NOTE: If he changes his political party or sectoral shall be ranked from the highest to the lowest
affiliation within 6 months before an election, he based on the number of votes they garnered
shall not be eligible for nomination as party-list during the elections.
representative under his new party or 24 The parties, organizations, and coalitions
organization. (Amores v. HRET, Ibid.) receiving at least 2% of the total votes cast
for the party-list system shall be entitled to
Vacancy in the seat reserved for party-list one guaranteed seat each.
representatives 25 Those garnering sufficient number of votes,
according to the ranking in paragraph 1,
It shall be automatically occupied by the next shall be entitled to additional seats in
representative from the list of nominees in the proportion to their total number of votes until
order submitted by the same party to the COMELEC all the additional seats are allocated.
and such representative shall serve for the 26 Each party, organization, or coalition shall be
unexpired term. If the list is exhausted, the party, entitled to not more than 3 seats.
organization, or coalition concerned shall submit
additional nominees. NOTE: In computing the additional seats, the
guaranteed seats shall no longer be included
Formula mandated by the Constitution in because they have already been allocated at one
determining the number of party-list seat each to every two-percenter. Thus, the
representatives remaining available seats for allocation as
“additional seats” are the maximum seats reserved
The number of seats available to party-list under the party-list system less the guaranteed
representatives is based on the ratio of party-list seats. Fractional seats are disregarded in the
representatives to the total number of absence of a provision in RA 7941 allowing for a
representatives. Accordingly, we compute the rounding off of fractional seats. (BANAT v.
number of seats available to party-list COMELEC, Ibid.)
representatives from the number of legislative
districts. 2% threshold as regards the allocation of
additional seats is not valid anymore
27

lOMoARcPSD|8033415
POLITICAL LAW
The Court strikes down the 2% threshold only in Its basic defect lies in its characterization of the
relation to the distribution of the additional seats non-participation of a party-list organization in an
as found in the 2nd clause of Sec. 11(b) of RA 7941. election as similar to a failure to garner the 2%
The 2% threshold presents an unwarranted threshold party-list vote.
obstacle to the full implementation of Sec. 5(2), Art.
VI of the Constitution and prevents the attainment The Court cannot sustain PGBI’s delisting from the
of the “broadest possible representation of party, roster of registered parties, organizations or
sectoral or group interests in the House of coalitions under the party-list system. Clearly, the
Representatives.” (BANAT v. COMELEC, Ibid.) Court cannot allow PGBI to be prejudiced by the
continuing validity of an erroneous ruling. Thus,
NOTE: The 2% threshold is constitutional only the Court now abandons Minero and strikes it out
insofar as the determination of the guaranteed seat from our ruling case law. (PGB v. COMELEC, G.R.
is concerned. No. 190529, April 29, 2010)
Refusal and/or Cancellation of Registration LEGISLATIVE PRIVILEGES, INHIBITIONS AND

DISQUALIFICATIONS
The COMELEC may, motu proprio or upon a
verified complaint of any interested party, refuse or Immunity from Arrest
cancel, after due notice and hearing, the
registration of any national, regional or sectoral Grants the legislators the privilege from arrest
party, organization or coalition or any of the while Congress is “in session” with respect to
following grounds: offenses punishable by NOT more than 6 years of
imprisonment, (1987 Constitution, Art. VI, Sec.
23 It is a religious sect or denomination, 11), whether or not he is attending the session.
organization or association organized for (People v. Jalosjos, G.R. Nos. 132875-76, February
religious purposes; 3, 2000)
24 It advocates violence or unlawful means to
seek its goals; Purpose of Parliamentary Immunities
25 It is a foreign party or organization;
26 It is receiving support from any foreign It is not for the benefit of the officials; rather, it is to
government, foreign political party, protect and support the rights of the people by
foundation, organization, whether directly or ensuring that their representatives are doing their
through any of its officers or members, or jobs according to the dictates of their conscience and
indirectly through third parties, for partisan to ensure the attendance of Congressman.
election purposes;
27 It violates or fails to comply with laws, rules Legislative Privilege
or regulations relating to elections
28 It declares untruthful statements in its No member shall be questioned or held liable in any
petition; forum other than his respective Congressional body
29 It has ceased to exist for at least one (1) year; for any debate or speech in Congress or in any
30 It fails to participate in the last two (2) committee thereof. (1987 Constitution, Art. VI, Sec.
preceding elections; 11; Pobre v. Sen. Santiago, August 25, 2009)
31 It fails to obtain at least 2% of the votes cast
under the party-list system in the two (2) Limitations on Legislative Privilege
preceding elections for the constituency in
which it has registered 23 Protection is only against the forum other than
the Congress itself. Thus, for defamatory
The Minero Ruling is erroneous remarks, which are otherwise privileged, a
member may be sanctioned by either the Senate
The Minero Ruling provides that a party list or the HoR, as the case may be.
organization which does not participate in an 24 The “speech or debate” must be made in
election, necessarily gets, by default, less than 2% performance of their duties as members of
of the party-list votes. Said ruling isan erroneous Congress.
application of Sec. 6(8) of RA 7941 [Party-List
System Act]. Requirements for the privilege of speech and
debate to operate

2019 GOLDEN NOTES
lOMoARcPSD|8033415
23 Remarks or comments are made while in not a legislative act, but “political in nature,”
session; and outside of the ambit of the immunity conferred
24 Must be made in connection with the under the Speech or Debate Clause in the 1987
discharge of official duties Constitution. The privilege arises not because of the
statement made by a lawmaker, but because it is
Coverage of speech or debate uttered in furtherance of legislation. (Sen. Antonio
Trillanes vs. Hon. Evangeline Castillo-Marigomen,
It includes utterances made by Congressmen in the G.R. No. 223451, March 14, 2018)
performance of their official functions, such as
speeches delivered, statements made, or votes cast Purpose of legislative privilege
in the halls of Congress, while the same is in session,
as well as bills introduced in Congress, whether the To ensure the effective discharge of functions of
same is in session or not, and other acts performed Congress.
by Congressmen, either in Congress or outside the
premises housing its offices, in the official discharge NOTE: The purpose of the privilege is to ensure the
of their duties as members of Congress and of effective discharge of functions of Congress. The
Congressional Committees duly authorized to privilege may be abused but it is said that such is not
perform its functions as such, at the time of the so damaging or detrimental as compared to the
performance of the acts in question. (Jimenez v. denial or withdrawal of such privilege.
Cabangbang, G.R. No. L-15905, August 3, 1966)
The senator-lawyer’s privilege speech is not
23 The Senate Committee on Accountability of actionable criminally or be subject to a disciplinary
Public Officials and Investigation conducted an proceeding under the Rules of Court. The Court,
investigation, in aid of legislation, regarding the however, would be remiss in its duty if it let the
alleged P1.601 billion overpricing of the new 11- Senator’s offensive and disrespectful language that
storey Makati City Hall II Parking Building. tended to degrade the institution pass-by. It is
During media interviews in the Senate, imperative on the Court’s part to re-instill in
particularly during gaps and breaks in the Senator/Atty. (Santiago) her duty to respect courts
plenary hearings, Sen. Trillanes expressed his of justice, especially this Tribunal, and remind her
opinion that Antonio Tiu appears to be a anew that parliamentary non-accountability thus
“front” or “nominee” or is acting as a “dummy” granted to members of Congress is not to protect
of the actual and beneficial owner of the them against prosecutions for their own benefit,
Hacienda Binay. As such, Tiu filed a complaint but to enable them, as the people’s representatives,
for damages against Sen. Trillanes. to perform the functions of their office without fear
Consequently, Sen. Trillanes asked for the of being made responsible before the courts or
dismissal of the case claiming he enjoys other forums outside the congressional hall. It is
parliamentary immunity. Is Sen. Trillanes intended to protect members of congress against
correct? government pressure and intimidation aimed at
influencing the decision-making prerogatives of
23 NO. The remarks of Sen. Trillanes fall outside the Congress and its members. (Pobre v. Sen. Defensor-
privilege of speech or debate under Sec. 11, Art. VI of Santiago, A.C. No. 7399, August 25, 2009)
the 1987 Constitution. The statements were clearly
not part of any speech delivered in the Senate or any Congress “in recess”
of its committees. They were not also spoken during
any debate. It cannot likewise be successfully If the recess was called for in between a regular or
contended that they were made in the official special session, the Congress is still considered in
discharge or performance of Sen. session. But if the recess was the 30-day
Trillanes’ duties as a Senator, as the remarks were not compulsory recess, Congress is not in session.
part of or integral to the legislative process. To (1987 Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. 15)
participate in or respond to media interviews is not an
official function of any lawmaker; it is not demanded Prohibitions attached to a legislator during
by his sworn duty nor is it a component of the process his term
of enacting laws. A lawmaker may well be able to
discharge his duties and legislate without having to INCOMPATIBLE
FORBIDDEN OFFICE
communicate with the press. A lawmaker’s OFFICE
participation in media interviews is
29

lOMoARcPSD|8033415
POLITICAL LAW
1st sentence of Sec. 2nd sentence of Ethics, Page 34)
13, Art.VI Sec. 13, Art. VI
Senator or any member of HoR 23 Upon assumption of office, all members of the
May not hold any Cannot be appointed to Senate and HoR must make a full disclosure of
other office or any office which have their financial and business interests. They
employment in the been created, or the shall notify the House concerned of a
Government, during emoluments thereof potential conflict in interest that may arise
his term without increased during the from the filing of a proposed legislation of
forfeiting his seat term for which he was which they are authors. (1987 Constitution,
elected Art. VI, Sec. 12) (2004, 2010
NOTE: After such term, Bar)
and even if he is re-
elected, the Disqualifications attached to Senators and
disqualification no Representatives and their applications
longer applies and he
may therefore be DISQUALIFICATION WHEN APPLICABLE
appointed to the office Incompatible Office During his term
Automatically forfeits Even if he is willing to
seat upon the forfeit his seat, he may If he does so, he forfeits
member’s not be appointed to his seat (1987
assumption of such said office Constitution, Art. VI,
other office Purpose: to prevent Sec. 13)
XPN: holds other trafficking in public Forbidden Office If the office was created
office in ex-officio office. or the emoluments
capacity thereof increased
More of an More of a during the term for
inhibition prohibition which he was elected
(1987 Constitution, Art.
Rule on increase in salaries of members of VI, Sec. 13)
Congress Cannot personally During his term of
appear as counsel office (1987
Increase in the salaries shall take effect after the before any court of Constitution, Art. VI,
expiration of the full term of all the members of the justice, electoral Sec. 14)
Senate and the House of Representatives approving tribunal, quasi-
such increase. (1987 Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. 10) judicial and
administrative
Particular inhibitions attached to the bodies. (2004 Bar)
respective offices of Senators and Cannot be During his term of
Representatives financially office (1987
interested, directly Constitution, Art. VI,
23 From “personally” appearing as counsel or indirectly, in any Sec. 14)
before any court of justice or before the contract with or in
Electoral Tribunals, or quasi-judicial or other any franchise, or
administrative bodies. (1987 Constitution, special privilege
Art. VI, Sec. 14) (2004 Bar) granted by the
Government. (2004
NOTE: Since the practice of law covers a wide Bar)
range of legislative activities (Cayetano v. Cannot intervene in When it is for his
Monsod, G.R. No. 100113, Sept. 3, 1991) the any matter before pecuniary benefit or
Senator or member of House of the any office of the where he may be called
Representatives is allowed to engage in other Gov’t. (2004 Bar) upon to act on account
aspects of the law practice such as the giving of of his office. (1987
legal advice to clients, negotiating contracts in Constitution, Art. VI,
behalf of clients which necessitates legal Sec. 14)
knowledge, preparation of documents and
similar others. (Pineda, Legal DISCIPLINE OF MEMBERS

2019 GOLDEN NOTES

lOMoARcPSD|8033415
Disciplinary power of Congress
Rules regarding the passage of bills
Each house may punish its members for disorderly
behavior and, with concurrence of 2/3 of all its 23 No bill passed by either House shall become a
members, suspend, for not more than 60 days, or law unless it has passed 3 readings on
expel a member. (1987 Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. separate days.
16, par. 3) (1993, 2002 Bar) 24 Printed copies of the bill in its final form
should be distributed to the Members 3 days
Determination of disorderly behavior before its passage
25 Upon the last reading of a bill, no amendment
The House of Representatives is the judge of what thereto shall be allowed.
constitutes disorderly behavior. The courts will not 26 The vote on the bill shall be taken
assume jurisdiction in any case which will amount immediately after the last reading of a bill.
to an interference by the judicial department with 27 The yeas and the nays shall be entered in the
the legislature. (Osmeña v. Pendatun, G.R. No. L- Journal.
17144, October 28, 1960)
XPN: The certification of the President, due to the
NOTE: Members of Congress may also be necessity of its immediate enactment to meet a
suspended by the Sandiganbayan or by the Office of public calamity or emergency, dispenses with the
the Ombudsman. The suspension in the Constitution reading on separate days and the printing of the
is different from the suspension prescribed in RA bill in the final form before its final approval
3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). The (Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance, G.R. No. 115455,
latter is not a penalty but a preliminary preventive October 30, 1995).
measure and is not imposed upon the petitioner for
misbehavior as a member of Congress. (Santiago v. Instances when a bill becomes a law (1991,
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 128055, April 18, 2001) 1993, 1996 Bar)
Preventive suspension is not a penalty (2015 23 Approved and signed by the President
Bar) 24 Presidential veto overridden by 2/3 vote of all
members of both Houses
A court-ordered preventive suspension is a 25 Failure of the President to veto the bill and to
preventive measure that is different and distinct return it with his objections to the House
from the suspension ordered by the HoR for where it originated, within 30 days after the
disorderly behavior which is a penalty. Such House- date of receipt
imposed sanction is intended to enforce discipline 26 A bill calling a special election for President
among its members. (Paredes, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, and Vice-President under Sec. 10. Art. VII
G.R. No. 118354, August 8, 1995) becomes a law upon its approval on the third
reading and final reading.
NOTE: The suspension under the Anti-Graft Law is One bill-one subject rule
mandatory, imposed not as a penalty but as a
precautionary measure to prevent the accused Every bill passed by the Congress shall embrace
public officer from frustrating his prosecution. It is only one subject. The subject shall be expressed in
incidental to the criminal proceedings before the the title of the bill. This rule is mandatory.
court.
NOTE: The purposes of such rule are:
The House-imposed sanction on the other hand, is a
penalty for disorderly behavior. 23 To prevent hodgepodge or log-rolling
legislation;
Thus, the order of suspension in the Anti-Graft Law 24 To prevent surprise or fraud upon the
is distinct from the power of the Congress under the legislature; and
Constitution to discipline its own ranks. (De 25 To fairly apprise the people of the subjects of
Venecia Jr., v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 130240, legislation. (Central Capiz v. Ramirez, G.R. No.
February 5, 2002) 16197, March 12, 1920)
PROCESS OF LAW-MAKING Determination of the sufficiency of the title
31

lOMoARcPSD|8033415
POLITICAL LAW
It suffices if the title should serve the purpose of the ARMM regional officials to the second Monday
constitutional demand that it informs the of September 2001 unconstitutional by giving
legislators, the persons interested in the subject of it a character of an irrepealable law?
the bill, and the public, of the nature, scope and
consequences of the proposed law and its 23 YES. The supermajority (2/3) voting
operation; thus, prevent surprise or fraud upon the requirement required under Sec. 1, Art. XVII of RA
legislators. 9054 (second Organic Act of ARMM) must be struck
down for giving said law the character of an
Test: Whether or not it is misleading; either in irrepealable law by requiring more than what the
referring to or indicating one subject where Constitution demands.
another or different one is really embraced in the
act, or in omitting any expression or indication of Sec. 16(2), Art. VI of the Constitution provides that
the real subject or scope of the act. (Lidasan v. a “majority of each House shall constitute a
COMELEC, G.R. No. L-28089, Oct. 25, 1967) quorum to do business.” In other words, if majority
of the members of the House of Representatives or
Number of readings before becoming a law the Senate are present, these bodies have the
(1996 Bar) quorum needed to conduct business and hold
session. Within a quorum, a vote of majority is
During the First Reading, only the title of the bill generally sufficient to enact laws or approve acts.
is read, then it is passed to the proper committee
for study. On the Second Reading, the entire text is In contrast, Sec. 1, Art. XVII of RA 9054 requires a vote
read, and debates and amendments are held. On of no less than 2/3 of the Members of the House of
the Third Reading, only the title is read, and votes Representatives and of the Senate, voting separately,
are taken immediately thereafter. in order to effectively amend RA 9054. Clearly, this
requirement is higher than what the Constitution
Each bill must pass 3 readings each in both Houses. requires for the passage of bills and served to restrain
In other words, there must be a total of 6 readings. the plenary powers of Congress to amend, revise or
repeal the laws it had passed.
GR: Each reading shall be held on separate days
and printed copies thereof in its final form shall be While a supermajority is not a total ban against
distributed to its Members, 3 days before its repeal, it is a limitation in excess of what the
passage. Constitution requires on the passage of bills and is
constitutionally obnoxious because it significantly
XPN: If a bill is certified as urgent by the President constricts the future legislators’ room for action
as to the necessity of its immediate enactment to and flexibility. (Abas Kida v. Senate, G.R. No.
meet a public calamity or emergency, the 3 196271, Oct. 18, 2011)
readings can be held on the same day [1987
Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. 26(2)] NOTE: Every legislative body may modify or abolish
the acts passed by itself or its predecessors. This
Reasons for the “three readings on separate legislature cannot bind a future legislature to a
days” rule particular mode of repeal. It cannot declare in
advance the intent of subsequent legislatures or the
To prevent hasty and improvident legislation and effect of subsequent legislation upon existing statutes.
afford the legislators time to study and deliberate (Abas Kida v. Senate, ibid.)
the measures. The two-fold purpose:
The Bicameral Conference Committee
23 To inform the legislators of the matters they
shall vote on; and In a bicameral system, bills are independently
24 To give them notice that a measure is in processed by both Houses of Congress. It is not
progress through enactment process. (Abas unusual that the final version approved by one
Kida, v. Senate, G.R. No. 196271, October 18, House differs from what has been approved by the
2011) other.
23 Is the supermajority vote requirement under The “conference committee,” consisting of members
R.A. 9054, the second Organic Act of ARMM nominated from both Houses, is an extra-
which reset the regular elections for the constitutional creation of Congress whose

2019 GOLDEN NOTES

lOMoARcPSD|8033415
function is to propose to Congress ways of settling,
reconciling or threshing out conflicting provisions Every bill passed by Congress must be presented to
found in the Senate version and in the House version the President for approval or veto. In the absence
of a bill. (Opinion of J. Callejo, Sr., ABAKADA v. Ermita, of presentment to the President, no bill passed by
G.R. No. 168056, September1, 2005) Congress can become a law.
Extent of the power of the Committee Rule on presidential veto
The conferees are not limited to reconciling the GR: If the President disapproves a bill enacted by
differences in the bill but may introduce new Congress, he should veto the entire bill. He is not
provisions germane to the subject matter or may allowed to veto separate items of a bill.
report out an entirely new bill on the subject.
(Tolentino v. Sec. of Finance, G.R. No, 115455, XPN: Item-veto is allowed in case of Appropriation,
August 25, 1994) Revenue, and Tariff bills [1987 Constitution, Art. VI,
Sec. 27(2)]. (1991, 2010 Bar)
Scope of the powers of the Committee
XPNs to the XPN:
23 Adopt the bill entirely 23 Doctrine of inappropriate provisions – A
24 Amend or Revise provision that is constitutionally
25 Reconcile the House and Senate Bills inappropriate for an appropriation bill
26 Propose entirely new provisions not found in may be singled out for veto even if it is not
either the Senate or House bills an appropriation or revenue item
(Gonzales v. Macaraig, G.R. No. 87636,
Reconcile or harmonize disagreeing Nov. 19, 1990).
provisions 24 Executive impoundment – Refusal of the
President to spend funds already allocated
The changes introduced by the Bicameral by Congress for specific purpose. It is the
Conference Committee are meant only to reconcile failure to spend or obligate budget
and harmonize the disagreeing provisions for it authority of any type. (Philconsa v.
does not inject any idea or intent that is wholly Enriquez, G.R. No. 113105, August 19,
foreign to the subject embraced by the original 1994)
provisions.
Appropriation Item or Line-item
To reconcile or harmonize disagreeing provisions,
the Bicameral Conference Committee may then (a) An indivisible sum of money dedicated to a stated
adopt the specific provisions of either the House bill purpose. It is indivisible because the amount
or Senate bill, (b) decide that neither provisions in cannot be divided for any purpose other than the
the House bill or the provisions in the Senate bill specific purpose stated in the item. It is an item,
would be carried into the final form of the bill, which, in itself, is a specific appropriation of money,
and/or (c) try to arrive at a compromise between not some general provision of law, which happens
the disagreeing provisions. to be put into an appropriation bill.
Thus, the changes made by the Bicameral An item of appropriation must be an item
Conference Committee in the versions passed by the characterized by singular correspondence –
Senate and House of the RVAT Law such as the meaning an allocation of a specified singular
inclusion of the stand-by authority of the President, amount for a specified singular purpose, otherwise
omission of the no pass-on provision included in known as a "line -item." (Araullo v. Aquino III, G.R.
both Senate and House versions, inclusion of No. 209287, July 1, 2014)
provisions on other kinds of taxes and VAT only
found in the Senate bill are valid. (Escudero v. NOTE: For the President to exercise his item-veto
Purisima, G.R. No. 168463, September 1, 2005; power, it is necessary that there exists a proper "item"
ABAKADA v. Ermita, GR 168056, September 1, which may be the object of the veto. Consequently, to
2005) ensure that the President may be able to exercise said
power, the appropriations bill must contain "specific
Presidential Veto and Congressional Override appropriations of money" and not only "general
provisions" which provide
Rule on presentment
33

lOMoARcPSD|8033415
POLITICAL LAW
for parameters of appropriation. (Araullo v. manner and under such penalties as each House
Aquino III, ibid.) may provide.
Instances of pocket veto (2010 Bar) NOTE: The members of the Congress cannot
compel absent members to attend sessions if the
23 When the President fails to act on a bill; and reason of absence is a legitimate one. The
24 When the reason he does not return the bill to confinement of a Congressman charged with a non-
the Congress is that Congress is not in session. bailable offense is certainly authorized by law and
has constitutional foundations. (People v. Jalosjos,
Pocket veto is NOT applicable in the G.R. No. 132875-76, February 3, 2000)
Philippines because inaction by the President for
30 days never produces a veto even if Congress is in Instances when the Constitution requires that
recess. The President must still act to veto the bill the yeas and nays of the Members be taken
and communicate his veto to Congress without every time a House has to vote
need of returning the vetoed bill with his veto
message. 23 Upon the last and third readings of a bill
(1987 Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. 26, par. 2);
Rider 24 At the request of 1/5 of the members present
(1987 Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. 16, par. 4); and
A provision in a bill which does not relate to a 25 In repassing a bill over the veto of the
particular appropriation stated in the bill. Since it President. (1987 Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. 27,
is an invalid provision under Art. VI, Sec. 25[2], the par. 1)
President may veto it as an item.
Instances when Congress is voting separately
Congressional override and voting jointly
If, after reconsideration, 2/3 of all members of such SEPARATE JOINT

House agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent to the  Choosing the  When revoking or
other House by which it shall likewise be President in case of extending the
reconsidered and if approved by 2/3 of all a tie (1987 proclamation
members of that House, it shall become a law Constitution, Art. VII, suspending the
without the need of presidential approval. Sec. 4). privilege of writ of
 Determining habeas corpus
QUORUM AND VOTING MAJORITIES President’s inability (1987 Constitution,
to discharge the Art. VII, Sec. 18).
Quorum powers and duties  When revoking or
of his office (1987 extending the
Such number which enables a body to transact its Constitution, Art. VII, declaration of
business and gives such body the power to pass a Sec. 11). martial law(1987
law or ordinance or any valid act that is binding. In  Confirming Constitution, Art.
our constitution, it is required that the quorum be a nomination of Vice- VII, Sec. 18).
majority of each house. President (1987
Constitution, Art. VII,
NOTE: In computing quorum, members who are Sec. 9).
outside the country and, thus, outside of each 23Declaring the
House’s jurisdiction are not included. The basis for existence of a state
determining the existence of a quorum in the of war in joint
Senate shall be the total number of Senators who session (1987
are within the coercive jurisdiction of the Senate. Constitution, Art.
(Avelino v. Cuenco, G.R. No. L-2821, March 4, 1949) VI, Sec. 23, Par. 1).
24Proposing
Effect if there is no quorum Constitutional
amendments (1987
Each House may adjourn from day to day and may Constitution, Art.
compel the attendance of absent members in such XVII, Sec. 1).
Instances when Congress votes by majority

2019 GOLDEN NOTES
lOMoARcPSD|8033415
Majority vote of all respective members. (1987
INSTANCES WHEN NUMBER OF VOTES Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. 16, par. 1)
CONGRESS VOTES REQUIRED
Elect the Senate
Majority vote of all its Regular session of Congress
President or House respective members
of Representatives (1987 Constitution, Congress convenes once every year on the 4th Monday
Speaker Art. VI , Sec. 16, Par. 1) of July, unless otherwise provided for by law. It
Commission on
Majority vote of all the continues in session for as long as it sees fit, until 30
Appointments ruling members (1987 days before the opening of the next regular session,
Constitution, Art. VI, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays.
Sec. 18) (1987 Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. 15)
Passing a law Majority of all the (1996 Bar)
granting any tax members of Congress
exemption (1987 Constitution, Instances when there are special sessions
Art. VI , Sec. 28, Par. 4)
23 Due to vacancies in the offices of the
Instances when Congress votes other than President and Vice President at 10 o’clock
majority a.m. on the third day after the vacancies
(1987 Constitution, Art. VII, Sec. 10)
24 To decide on the disability of the President
INSTANCES WHEN NUMBER OF VOTES because a majority of all the members of the
CONGRESS VOTES REQUIRED cabinet have “disputed” his assertion that he
To suspend or expel 2/3 of all its is able to discharge the powers and duties of
a member in members (1987 his office (1987 Constitution, Art. VII, Sec. 11)
accordance with its Constitution, Art. VI, 25 To revoke or extend the Presidential
rules and Sec. 16, Par. 3) Proclamation of Martial Law or suspension of
proceedings the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus
To enter the Yeas 1/5 of the members (1987 Constitution, Art. VII, Sec. 18)
and Nays in the present 26 Called by the President at any time when
Congress is not in session (1987 Constitution,
Journal (1987 Constitution,
Art. VI, Sec. 15)
Art. VI, Sec. 16, Par. 4)
27 To declare the existence of a state of war in a
To declare the 2/3 of both houses
joint session, by vote of 2/3 of both Houses
existence of a state in joint session
(1987 Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. 23, par. 1)
of war voting separately
28 When the Congress acts as the Board of
(1987 Constitution,
Canvassers for the Presidential and Vice-
Art. VI, Sec. 23)
Presidential elections (1987 Constitution, Art.
VII, Sec. 4)
Non-intervention of courts in the 29 During impeachment proceedings (1987
implementation of the internal rules of Constitution, Art. XI, Sec. 3, par. 4 and 6).
Congress
In a special session, the Congress may consider
As part of their inherent power, Congress can “general legislation or only such subjects as the
determine their own rules. Hence, the courts cannot President may designate”. In a regular session, “the
intervene in the implementation of these rules power of the Congress is not circumscribed except
insofar as they affect the members of Congress. by limitations imposed by organic law.” (Cruz and
(Osmeña v. Pendatun G.R. No L-17144, October 28, Cruz, Philippine Political Law, p. 241)
1960)
Mandatory recess
Elected officers of Congress
The 30-day period prescribed before the opening of
23 Senate President the next regular session, excluding Saturdays,
24 Speaker of the House Sundays, and legal holidays. This is the minimum
25 Such officers as deemed by each house to be
period of recess and may be lengthened by the
necessary
Congress in its discretion. It may, however, be
called in special session at any time by the
Vote required in election of officers President. (1987 Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. 15)
35
lOMoARcPSD|8033415
POLITICAL LAW
Constitutional limitations on the legislative’s
Rule on Adjournment power to enact laws on appropriation,
revenue and tariff (ART) measures
Neither House during the sessions of the Congress
shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for 23 Bills which shall originate exclusively in the
more than 3 days, nor to any other place than that HoR, but the Senate may propose or concur
in which the two Houses shall be sitting. (1987 with amendments: (APRIL) (1996 Bar)
Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. 16, par. 5) 23 Appropriation,
24 Revenue or tariff
NOTE: The phrase “any other place” as here used 25 authorizing Increase of the public debt,
refers not to the building but to the political unit 26 Local application, and
where the two Houses may be sitting. Hence, if both 27 Private bills (1987 Constitution, Art. VI,
Houses are sitting in the same building in the City Sec. 24)
of Manila, either of them may sit in another
building in the same city without getting the NOTE: It does not prohibit the filing in the Senate
consent of the other. (Cruz, Philippine Political Law, of a substitute bill, so long as the action by the
p. 250) Senate is withheld pending the receipt of the House
bill. (Tolentino v. Sec. of Finance, G.R. No. 115455,
Adjournment sine die Aug. 25, 1994)
An interval between the session of one Congress 23 The President shall have the power to veto
and that of another. any item/s in an ART bill, but the veto shall
not affect the item/s to which he does not
APPROPRIATION AND RE-ALIGNMENT object. [1987 Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. 27(2)]
Appropriation bill Power of appropriation
Primarily made for the appropriation of a sum of The spending power, also called the “power of the
money from the public treasury. purse”, belongs to Congress, subject only to the
veto power of the President. It carries with it the
NOTE: A bill creating a new office, and power to specify the project or activity to be funded
appropriating funds for it is not an appropriation under the appropriation law.
bill.
Appropriation law
Revenue bill
A statute enacted for the specific purpose of
Specifically designed to raise money or revenue authorizing the release of public funds from the
through imposition or levy. treasury.
Bill of local application Classifications of appropriations
A bill limited to specific localities, such as the creation 23 General appropriation law – Passed annually,
of a town. Hence, it is one involving purely local or and intended for the financial operations of
municipal matters, e.g. the charter of a city. the entire government during one fiscal
period;
Private bills
Contains an estimate of revenues and funding
Those which affect private persons, such as a bill sources, which are usually (1) taxes,
granting citizenship to a specific foreigner, or a bill (2) capital revenues (like proceeds from the
granting honorary citizenship to a distinguished sales of assets), (3) grants, (4) extraordinary
foreigner. income (like dividends of government
corporations) and (5) borrowings. (Araullo v.
Tariff bills Aquino III, G.R. No. 209287, July 1, 2014)
Those that specify the rates or duties to be imposed GAA is not self-executory
on imported articles.

2019 GOLDEN NOTES
lOMoARcPSD|8033415
The execution of the GAA was still subject to a 0 Congress may not increase appropriations
program of expenditure to be approved by the recommended by the President for the
President, and such approved program of operations of the government;
expenditure was the basis for the release of 1 Form, content and manner of preparation of
funds. The mere approval by Congress of the budget shall be provided by law;
GAA does not instantly make the funds 2 No provision or enactment shall be embraced in
available for spending by the Executive the bill unless it releases specifically to some
Department. The funds authorized for particular appropriations therein;
disbursement under the GAA are usually still 3 Procedure for approving appropriations for
to be collected during the fiscal year. Thus, it Congress shall be the same as that of other
is important that the release of funds be duly departments in order to prevent sub-rosa
authorized, identified, or sanctioned to avert appropriations by Congress; and
putting the legitimate Program, Activity, 4 Prohibition against transfer of appropriations
Projects (PAPs) of the Government in fiscal from one branch (judiciary, legislative, and
jeopardy. (TESDA v. COA, G.R. No. 196418, executive) to another. Nonetheless, the
Feb. 10, 2015) following may, by law, be authorized to
augment any item in the general
NOTE: The requirement of availability of funds appropriations law for their respective offices
before the execution of a government contract, from savings in other items of their respective
however, has been modified by R.A. No. 9184 appropriations (Doctrine of Augmentation):
[Government Procurement Reform Act] which
requires not only the sufficiency of funds at the 0 President
time of the signing of the contract, but also upon 1 Senate President
the commencement of the procurement process. 2 Speaker of the HoR
Unless R.A. No. 9184 is amended or repealed, all 3 Chief Justice
future government projects must first have a 4 Heads of Constitutional Commissions
sufficient appropriation before engaging the [1987 Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. (5)];
procurement activity. (Jacomille v. Abaya, G.R.
No. 212381, April 22, 2015) Doctrine of Augmentation (1996, 1998 Bar)
GR: No law shall be passed authorizing any

0 Special appropriation law – Designed for a transfer of appropriations.
specific purpose.
XPN: The following may, by law, be authorized to
Implied limitations on appropriation power augment any item in the general appropriations
law for their respective offices from savings in
Must specify a public purpose; other items of their respective appropriations in
Sum authorized for release must be determinate, accordance with Doctrine of Augmentation:
or at least determinable. (Guingona v.
Carague, G.R. No. 94571, April 22, 1991) President;
President of the Senate;
Constitutional limitations on special Speaker of the House of Representatives;
appropriations measures Chief Justice of the Supreme Court; and
Heads of Constitutional Commissions. (1987
0 Must specify public purpose for which the sum Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. 25[5]; Demetria v.
was intended; Alba, G.R. No. 71977, February 27, 1987 and
1 Must be supported by funds actually available as Araullo v. Aquino III, G.R. No. 209287, July 1,
certified by the National Treasurer or to be 2014)
raised by corresponding revenue proposal 0 Prohibitions against appropriations for
therein [1987 Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. sectarian benefit; and
25(4)]. 1 Automatic re-appropriation– If, by the end
of any fiscal year, the Congress shall have
Constitutional rules on General failed to pass the general appropriations bill
Appropriations Laws for the ensuing fiscal year, the general
appropriations law for the preceding fiscal
year shall be deemed reenacted and shall
37

lOMoARcPSD|8033415
POLITICAL LAW
remain in force and effect until the general province mates to Mecca, Saudi Arabia, Islam's
appropriations bill is passed by the Congress holiest city.
[1987 Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. 25(7)].
Philconsa, on constitutional grounds, has filed
Ratio: For the purpose of preventing the suit to nullify the resolution of the
disruption in government operations and Sangguniang Panlalawigan giving the special
unauthorized disbursement of funds discretionary fund to the Governor for the
stated purpose. How would you decide the
Budget case? Give your reasons.
Financial program of the national government for A: The resolution is unconstitutional because:
the designated calendar year, providing for the
estimates of receipts of revenues and expenditures. 0 It violates Art. VI, Sec. 29(2) which prohibits
the appropriation of public money or property,
Budget proposal directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit or
support of any system of religion;
The President shall propose the budget and submit 1 It contravenes Art. VI, Sec. 25(6) which limits
it to Congress. It shall indicate the expenditures, the appropriation of discretionary funds only
sources of financing, receipts from previous for public purposes; and
revenues and proposed revenue measures. It will 2 It constitutes a clear violation of the Non-
serve as a guide for Congress: establishment Clause of the Constitution.
0 In fixing the appropriations; NOTE: The use of discretionary funds for a purely
1 In determining the activities which should be religious purpose is unconstitutional, and the fact
funded (1987 Constitution, Art. VII, Sec. 22). that the disbursement is made by resolution of a
local legislative body and not by Congress does not
NOTE: The proposed budget is not final. The make it any less offensive to the Constitution. Above
President may propose the budget but still the final all, the resolution constitutes a clear violation of
say on the matter of appropriation is lodged in the the Non-establishment Clause of the Constitution.
Congress. (Philippine Constitution Association v.
Enriquez, G.R. No. 113105, August 19, 1994) Deficit in the final budget cannot be
automatically taken from the National
Modification of Congress of the budget Treasury
proposal
Congress will still have to enact a law before money
Congress may only reduce but not increase the can be paid out of the National Treasury [Art. VI,
budget. Sec. 29(1)].
Each legislator cannot exercise the 23 Daraga Press filed with COA a money claim
appropriation power of the Congress for the payment of textbooks it allegedly
delivered to DepEd-ARMM. COA denied the
Legislative power shall be exclusively exercised by the money claim because it found no
body to which the Constitution has conferred the appropriation for the purchase of said
same. The power to appropriate must be exercised textbooks. Is COA’s denial correct?
only through legislation, pursuant to Sec. 29(1), Art.
VI of the Constitution. (Belgica v. Ochoa, G.R. No. 23 YES. There was no appropriation for the purchase
208566, November 19, 2013) of the subject textbooks as the Special Allotment
Release Order (SARO) in the amount of
0 The budget of a predominantly Muslim P63,638,750.00, upon which Daraga Press anchors its
province provides the Governor with a certain claim, pertains to the payment of personal services or
amount as his discretionary funds. Recently, salaries of the teachers, not for the purchase of
however, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan passed textbooks. Since there was no appropriation for the
a resolution appropriating P100,000 as a special purchase of the subject textbooks, the respondent COA
discretionary fund of the Governor, to be spent had reason to deny the money claim as Section 29(1),
by him in leading a pilgrimage of his Article VI of the 1987 Constitution provides that: "No
money shall

2019 GOLDEN NOTES

lOMoARcPSD|8033415
be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of were being transferred to the Legislative and other
an appropriation made by law." (Daraga Press, Inc. non-Executive agencies.
v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 201042, June 16,
2015) Further, transfers “within their respective offices”
also contemplate realignment of funds to an
Requisites for the valid transfer of existing project in the GAA. Under the DAP, even
appropriated funds though some projects were within the Executive,
these projects are non-existent insofar as the GAA is
The transfer of appropriated funds, to be valid concerned because no funds were appropriated to
under Art. VI, Section 25(5), must be made upon a them in the GAA. Although some of these projects
concurrence of the following requisites, namely: may be legitimate, they are still non-existent under
the GAA because they were not provided for by the
23 There is a law authorizing the President, GAA. As such, transfer to such projects is
the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the unconstitutional and is without legal basis.
House of Representatives, the Chief Justice of
the Supreme Court, and the heads of the These DAP transfers are not “savings” contrary to
Constitutional Commissions to transfer funds what was being declared by the Executive. Under
within their respective offices; the definition of “savings” in the GAA, savings only
24 The funds to be transferred are savings occur, among other instances, when there is an
generated from the appropriations for their excess in the funding of a certain project once it is
respective offices; and (3) The purpose of the completed, finally discontinued, or finally
transfer is to augment an item in the general abandoned. The GAA does not refer to “savings” as
appropriations law for their respective offices. funds withdrawn from a slow-moving project.
(Araullo, et.al v. Aquino III, et. al. G.R. No. Thus, since the statutory definition of savings was
209287, July 1, 2014) not complied with under the DAP, there is no basis
at all for the transfers. Further, savings should only
23 The Disbursement Acceleration Program be declared at the end of the fiscal year. But under
(DAP) was instituted by the Department of the DAP, funds are already being withdrawn from
Budget and Management in 2011 to ramp up certain projects in the middle of the year and then
spending after sluggish disbursements had being declared as “savings” by the Executive
caused the growth of the gross domestic particularly by the DBM.
product (GDP) to slow down. It allowed the
Executive to allocate public money pooled Unprogrammed funds from the GAA cannot be used
from programmed and unprogrammed funds as money source for the DAP because under the
of its various agencies notwithstanding the law, such funds may only be used if there is a
original revenue targets being exceeded. In a certification from the National Treasurer to the
petition, the constitutionality of the DAP was effect that the revenue collections have exceeded
challenged, claiming that it contravened the revenue targets. In this case, no such
Section 29(1), Art. VI of the 1987 Constitution certification was secured before unprogrammed
under the guise of the President exercising his funds were used. (Araullo v. Aquino III, G.R. No.
constitutional authority under Section 25(5) 209287, February 3, 2015)
of the 1987 Constitution to transfer funds out
of savings to augment the appropriations of LEGISLATIVE INQUIRIES AND OVERSIGHT
offices within the Executive Branch of the FUNCTIONS
Government. Is the DAP constitutional?
Legislative Inquiries/Inquiries In Aid Of
23 NO. The transfers made through the Legislation
DAP were unconstitutional. It is true that the
President (and even the heads of the other The Senate or the House of Representatives or any
branches of the government) are allowed by the of its respective committees may conduct inquiries
Constitution to make realignment of funds, in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly
however, such transfer or realignment should only published rules of procedure. The rights of persons
be made appearing in, or affected by, such inquiries shall be
“within their respective offices”. Thus, no cross- respected. (1987 Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. 21)
border transfers/augmentations may be allowed.
But under the DAP, this was violated because funds
appropriated by the GAA for the Executive
39
lOMoARcPSD|8033415
POLITICAL LAW
Matters that can be the subject of inquiries in
aid of legislation 23 Congress may no longer punish the witness in
contempt after its final adjournment. The
Indefinite. The field of legislation is very wide, and basis of the power to impose such penalty is
because of such, the field of inquiry is also very the right to self-preservation. And such right
broad and may cover administrative, social, is enforceable only during the existence of the
economic, political problem (inquiries), discipline legislature. (Lopez v. Delos Reyes, G.R. No. L-
of members, etc. Suffice it to say that it is 34361, Nov. 5, 1930)
“intrinsic” in andco-extensive with legislative 24 Congress may no longer inquire into the same
power. (Arnault v. Nazareno, G.R. No. L-3820, July justiciable controversy already before the
18, 1950) court. (Bengzon v. Senate Blue Ribbon
Committee, G.R. No. 89914, November 20,
“In aid of legislation” does not mean that there is 1991)
pending legislation regarding the subject of the
inquiry. In fact, investigation may be needed for 512Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago introduced
purposes of proposing future legislation. Proposed Senate Resolution (PSR) No. 455
directing the conduct of an inquiry, in aid of
NOTE: If the stated purpose of the investigation is legislation, on the anomalous losses incurred
to determine the existence of violations of the law, by POTC, PHILCOMSAT and PHC and the
the investigation is no longer “in aid of legislation” mismanagement committed by their
but “in aid of prosecution.” This violates the respective board of directors. Can the persons
principle of separation of powers and is beyond the involved in the legislative inquiry question the
scope of Congressional powers. haste with which the Senate approved their
Committee Report? Can said persons invoke
Limitations on legislative investigation their basic right to counsel?
23 The persons appearing in or affected by such NO. The Senate or the House of Representatives or
legislative inquiries shall be respected. any of its respective committees may conduct
24 The Rules of procedures to be followed in such inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance with its
inquiries shall be published for the guidance duly published rules of procedure. The wide latitude
of those who will be summoned. This must be given to Congress with respect to these legislative
strictly followed so that the inquiries are inquiries has long been settled, otherwise, Article VI,
confined only to the legislative purpose and to Section 21 would be rendered pointless. The right to
avoid abuses. be assisted by counsel can only be invoked by a person
under custodial investigation suspected for the
NOTE: It is incumbent upon the Senate, HOR, commission of a crime, and therefore attaches only
or any of its respective committee to publish during such custodial investigation.
the rules for its legislative inquiries in each
Congress or otherwise make the published (Philcomsat Holdings Corp. vs. Senate, G.R. No.
rules clearly state that the same shall be 180308, June 19, 2012, PER J. PERLAS-
effective in subsequent Congresses or until BERNABE)
they are amended or repealed to sufficiently
put the public on notice. Publication of said 0 Sen. Rodolfo Diaz accused the Vice Chairman
rules in the internet cannot be considered as of the Standard Chartered Bank (SCB) of
compliance with this constitutional violating the Securities Regulation Code for
requirement. selling unregistered foreign securities. This
has led the Senate to conduct investigation in
25 The investigation must be in aid of aid of legislation. SCB refused to attend the
legislation. investigation proceedings claiming criminal
26 Congress may not summon the President as and civil cases involving the same issues were
witness or investigate the latter in view of the pending in courts. Decide.
doctrine of separation of powers except in
impeachment cases. 0 The mere filing of a criminal or administrative
complaint before a court or a quasi-judicial body
NOTE: It is the President’s prerogative, whether to should not automatically bar the conduct of
divulge or not the information, which he deems legislative investigation. Otherwise, it would be
confidential or prudent in the public interest. extremely easy to subvert any intended inquiry by

2019 GOLDEN NOTES
lOMoARcPSD|8033415
Congress through the convenient ploy of instituting legislation, so as to prevent the occurrence of
a criminal or an administrative complaint. Thus, a similar fraudulent activity in the future.”
the Vice Chairman of SCB is not correct in refusing (Standard Chartered Bank v. Senate, G.R. No.
to attend the investigation proceeding on the 167173, December 27, 2007)
ground that criminal and civil cases involving the
same issues are pending in courts. (Standard Contempt powers of Congress
Chartered Bank v. Senate, G.R. No. 167173,
December 27, 2007) Even if the Constitution only provides that Congress
may punish its members for disorderly behavior or
Distinction between Standard Chartered Bank expel the same, it is not an exclusion of power to
v. Senate and Bengzon v. Senate Blue Ribbon hold other persons in contempt.
Committee
0 In the exercise of its power to investigate in aid
It is true that in Bengzon, the Court declared that of legislation, can Congress cite a person in
the issue to be investigated was one over which contempt and detain him indefinitely?
jurisdiction had already been acquired by the
Sandiganbayan, and to allow the Senate Blue NO. The Court finds that the period of
Ribbon Committee to investigate the matter would imprisonment under the inherent power of
create the possibility of conflicting judgments; and contempt by the Senate during inquiries in aid of
that the inquiry into the same justiciable legislation should only last until the termination of
controversy would be an encroachment on the the legislative inquiry under which the said power
exclusive domain of judicial jurisdiction that had is invoked or when Congress adjourns sine die. If
set in much earlier. Congress decides to extend the period of
imprisonment for the contempt committed by a
There are a number of cases already pending in witness beyond the duration of the legislative
various courts and administrative bodies involving inquiry or after it has already adjourned, then it
Standard Chartered Bank, relative to the alleged may file a criminal case under the existing statute
sale of unregistered foreign securities. There is a or enact a new law to increase the definite period
resemblance between this case and Bengzon. of imprisonment.
However, the similarity ends there.
Further, the Court rules that the legislative inquiry of
Central to the Court’s ruling in Bengzon – that the the Senate terminates on two instances:
Senate Blue Ribbon Committee was without any
constitutional mooring to conduct the legislative First, upon the approval or disapproval of the
investigation – was the Court’s determination that the Committee Report. Evidently, the Committee
intended inquiry was not in aid of legislation. The Report is the culmination of the legislative inquiry.
Court found that the speech of Senator Enrile, which Its approval or disapproval signifies the end of such
sought such investigation, contained no suggestion of legislative inquiry and it is now up to the Senate
any contemplated legislation; it merely called upon whether or not to act upon the said Committee
the Senate to look into possible violations of Sec. 5, RA Report in the succeeding order of business. At that
No. 3019. Thus, the Court held that the requested point, the power of contempt simultaneously ceases
probe failed to comply with a fundamental and the detained witness should be released. As the
requirement of Sec. 21, Art. VI. legislative inquiry ends, the basis for the detention
of the recalcitrant witness likewise ends.
Unfortunately for SCB, this distinguishing factual
milieu in Bengzon does not obtain in the instant Second, the legislative inquiry of the Senate also
case. The unmistakable objective of the terminates upon the expiration of one (1) Congress.
investigation, as set forth in the said resolution, As stated in Neri, all pending matters and
exposes the error in SCB’s allegation that the proceedings, such as unpassed bills and even
inquiry, as initiated in a privilege speech by the legislative investigations, of the Senate are
very same Senator Enrile, was simply “to denounce considered terminated upon the expiration of that
the illegal practice committed by a foreign bank in Congress and it is merely optional on the Senate of
selling unregistered foreign securities.” This fallacy the succeeding Congress to take up such unfinished
is made more glaring when we consider that, at the matters, not in the same status, but as if presented
conclusion of his privilege speech, Senator urged for the first time. Again, while the Senate is a
the Senate “to immediately conduct an inquiry, continuing institution, its proceedings
in aid of
41
lOMoARcPSD|8033415
POLITICAL LAW
are terminated upon the expiration of that
Congress at the final adjournment of its last session. Question hour vs. Legislative investigation
Hence, as the legislative inquiry ends upon that
expiration, the imprisonment of the detained LEGISLATIVE
QUESTION HOUR
witnesses likewise ends. (Balag vs. Senate, G.R. No. INVESTIGATION
(SEC. 22, ART. VI)
234608, July 03, 2018) (SEC. 21, ART. VI)
As to persons who may appear
Can Congress issue a subpoena to compel
attendance of Justices of the Court of Appeals Only a department
Any person
in its investigation in-aid of legislation, and head
cite them in contempt should they refuse to As to who conducts the investigation
appear?
Committees/Entire
Entire body
Body
NO. Congressional powers cannot be used to deprive
the Supreme Court of its Constitutional duty to As to subject matter
supervise judges of lower courts in the performance of Matters related to the Any matter for the
their official duties. The fact remains that the CA department only purpose of legislation
Justices are non-impeachable officers. As such,
authority over them primarily belongs to the Supreme
Oversight power of Congress
Court and to no other. The principle of separation of
powers also serves as one of the basic postulates for
Embraces all activities undertaken by Congress to
exempting the Justices, officials and employees of the
enhance its understanding of and influence over
Judiciary and for excluding the Judiciary's privileged
the implementation of legislation it has enacted. It
and confidential documents and information from any
concerns post-enactment measures undertaken by
compulsory processes which very well includes the
Congress. (Opinion of J. Puno, Macalintal v.
Congress' power of inquiry in aid of legislation. Such
COMELEC, G.R. No. 157013, July 10, 2003)
exemption has been jurisprudentially referred to as
judicial privilege as implied from the exercise of
Scope of the power of oversight
judicial power expressly vested in one Supreme Court
and lower courts created by law. [Agcaoli v. Farinas,
Monitor bureaucratic compliance with program
GR No. 232395, July 3, 2017]
objectives;
Determine whether agencies are properly
Legislative contempt vis-à-vis pardoning
administered;
power of the President
Eliminate executive waste and dishonesty;
Prevent executive usurpation of legislative
Legislative contempt is a limitation on the
authority; and
President’s power to pardon by virtue of the Assess executive conformity with the
doctrine of separation of powers. congressional perception of public interest.
(Opinion of J. Puno, Macalintal v. COMELEC,
Question Hour Ibid)
Where the heads of departments may, upon their Bases of oversight power of Congress
own initiative, with the consent of the President, or
upon the request of either House, as the rules of Intrinsic in the grant of legislative power itself;
each House shall provide, appear before and be Integral to the system of checks and balances; and
heard by such House on any matter pertaining to Inherent in a democratic system of government.
their departments. Written questions shall be
submitted to the President of the Senate or the Categories of Congressional Oversight
Speaker of the HoR at least 3 days before their Functions
scheduled appearance. Interpellations shall not be
limited to written questions, but it may cover Scrutiny — to determine economy and efficiency
matters related thereto. When the security of the of the operation of government
State or the public interest so requires and the activities.
President so states in writing, the appearance shall 2.
be conducted in executive session. (1987
Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. 22)

2019 GOLDEN NOTES

lOMoARcPSD|8033415
Congress may request information and report not it conformed to the law, Congress arrogated
from the other branches of government and judicial power unto itself, a power exclusively
give recommendations or pass resolutions for vested in the Supreme Court by the Constitution.
consideration of the agency involved through: Thus, violating the doctrine of separation of
powers.
a. Power of appropriation and budget
hearing (1987 Constitution, Art. VII, From the moment the law becomes effective, any
Sec. 22) provision of law that empowers Congress or any of
Question Hour (1987 Constitution, Art. its members to play any role in the implementation
VI, Sec. 22) or enforcement of the law violates the principle of
Power of Confirmation (1987 separation of powers and is thus unconstitutional.
Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. 18) (ABAKADA Guro Party-list v. Purisima, Ibid.)
But legislative scrutiny does not end in budget Senate is not allowed to continue the conduct
hearings. Congress can ask the heads of of legislative inquiry without a duly published
departments to appear before and be heard rules of procedure
by either the House on any matter pertaining
to their department. The phrase “duly published rules of procedure”
requires the Senate of every Congress to publish its
Likewise, Congress exercises legislative rules of procedure governing inquiries in aid of
scrutiny thru its power of confirmation to find legislation because every Senate is distinct from
out whether the nominee possesses the the one before it or after it. (Garcillano v. HoR
necessary qualifications, integrity and probity Committee on Public Information, G.R. No. 170338,
required of all public servants. December 23, 2008)
Congressional Investigation — Involves a more Invalidity of Publication in the Internet

intense digging of facts through inquiries in
aid of legislation under Sec. 21, Art. VI. The Electronic Commerce Act of 2009 merely
recognizes the admissibility in evidence of
4. Legislative Supervision — most electronic data messages and/or documents. It
encompassing form; connotes a continuing does not make the internet a medium for
and informed awareness on the part of publishing laws, rules and regulations. (Garcillano
congressional committee regarding executive v. HoR Committee on Public Information, ibid.)
operations in a given administrative area It
allows Congress to scrutinize the exercise of Publication of the internal rules of Congress
delegated law-making authority, and permits
Congress to retain part of that delegated The Constitution does not require publication of
authority through: the internal rules of the House or Senate. Since
rules of the House or Senate affect only their
Legislative veto – Congress retains a “right” members, such rules need not be published, unless
or “power” to approve or disapprove any such rules expressly provide for their publication
regulation enacted by administrative body before the rules can take effect. (Pimentel v. Senate
before it takes effect. It is in the form of an Committee of the Whole, G.R. No. 187714, March 8,
inward-turning delegation designed to attach 2011)
a congressional leash to an agency to which
Congress has by law initially delegated broad During a hearing of the Senate Committee of the
powers. (ABAKADA Guro Party-list v. Purisima, Whole, some proposed amendments to the Rules
G.R. No. 166715, Aug. 14, 2008) of the Ethics Committee that would constitute
the Rules of the Senate Committee of the Whole
Legislative veto violates the doctrine of were adopted. Senator Chi raised as an issue the
separation of powers, thus, unconstitutional need to publish the proposed amended Rules of
the Senate Committee of the Whole, as directed
In exercising discretion to approve or disapprove by the amended Rules itself. However, the Senate
the IRR based on a determination of whether or Committee of the Whole proceeded without
publication of the amended Rules. Is the
publication of the Rules of the
43

lOMoARcPSD|8033415
POLITICAL LAW
Senate Committee of the Whole required for POWER OF IMPEACHMENT
their effectivity?
Steps in the impeachment process (2012 Bar)
YES. The Rules must be published before the Rules
can take effect. Thus, even if publication is not Constitution provides that the House of
required under the Constitution, publication of the Representatives shall have the exclusive power to
Rules of the Senate Committee of the Whole is initiate all cases of impeachment. (1987
required because the Rules expressly mandate their Constitution, Art XI)
publication. To comply with due process
requirements, the Senate must follow its own Initiating impeachment case
internal rules if the rights of its own members are Verified complaint filed by any member of the
affected. (Pimentel v. Senate Committee of the House of Representatives or any citizen
Whole, ibid.) upon resolution of endorsement by any
member thereof;
Senate is no longer a continuing legislative
body NOTE: If the verified complaint is filed by
at least 1/3 of all its members of the House
The present Senate under the 1987 Constitution is of Representatives, the same shall
no longer a continuing legislative body. It has 24 constitute the Articles of Impeachment,
members, 12 of whom are elected every 3 years for and trial by the Senate shall forthwith
a term of 6 years each. Thus, the term of 12 proceed. [1987 Constitution, Art. XI, Sec. 3
Senators expires every 3 years, leaving less than a (4)]
majority of Senators to continue into the next
Congress since the Rules of Procedure must be Inclusion in the order of business within 10
republished by the Senate after every expiry of the session days;
term of the 12 Senators. (Garcillano v. HoR Referred to the proper committee within 3
Committee on Public Information, G.R. No. 170338, session days from its inclusion;
December 23, 2008) The committee, after hearing, and by majority
vote of all its members, shall submit its
Senate as an INSTITUTION is continuing (2014 report to the House of Representatives
Bar) together with the corresponding
resolution;
There is no debate that the Senate as an institution Placing on calendar the Committee resolution
is "continuing", as it is not dissolved as an entity within 10 days from submission;
with each national election or change in the Discussion on the floor of the report; and
composition of its members. However, in the A vote of at least 1/3 of all the members of the
conduct of its day- to-day business the Senate of House of Representatives shall be
each Congress acts separately and independently of necessary either to affirm a favorable
the Senate of the Congress before it. resolution with the Articles of
Impeachment of the committee or
Undeniably, all pending matters and proceedings, override its contrary resolution. [(1987
i.e. unpassed bills and even legislative Constitution, Art. XI, Sec. 3 (2-3)]
investigations, of the Senate of a particular
Congress are considered terminated upon the Trial and Decision in impeachment proceedings
expiration of that Congress and it is merely The Senators take an oath or affirmation; and
optional on the Senate of the succeeding Congress
to take up such unfinished matters, not in the NOTE: When the President of the Philippines
same status, but as if presented for the first shall be impeached, the Chief Justice of the
time. The logic and practicality of such a rule is Supreme Court shall preside, otherwise the
readily apparent considering that the Senate of the Senate President shall preside in all other
succeeding Congress (which will typically have a cases of impeachment. (Senate Resolution
different composition as that of the previous No. 890)
Congress) should not be bound by the acts and
deliberations of the Senate of which they had no
part. (Neri v. Senate Committee, GR. No. 180643,
September 4, 2008)

2019 GOLDEN NOTES
lOMoARcPSD|8033415
b. A decision of conviction must be concurred charged and determinative of the jurisdiction of
in by at least 2/3 of all the members of the committee.” (Gutierrez v. House of
Senate. Representatives Committee on Justice, ibid.)
NOTE: The power to impeach is essentially a non- Limitations imposed by the Constitution upon
legislative prerogative and can be exercised by the initiation of impeachment proceedings
Congress only within the limits of the authority
conferred upon it by the Constitution. ( Gutierrez v. The House of Representatives shall have the
House of Representatives Committee on Justice, exclusive power to initiate all cases of
G.R. No. 193459, February 15, 2011) impeachment; and
Not more than one impeachment proceeding shall
The Senate has the sole power to try and decide all be initiated against the same official within a
cases of impeachment [1987 Constitution, Art. XI, period of one year (One-year bar rule).
Sec. 3(6)]. Hence, judgment in an impeachment
proceeding is normally not subject to judicial NOTE: An impeachment case is the legal
review. controversy that must be decided by the Senate
while an impeachment proceeding is one that is
XPN: Courts may annul the proceedings if there is a initiated in the House of Representatives. For
showing of a grave abuse of discretion or non- purposes of applying the one-year bar rule, the
compliance with the procedural requirements of proceeding is initiated or begins when a verified
the Constitution. complaint is filed and referred to the Committee
on Justice for action. (Francisco v. House of
Determination of sufficiency of form and Representatives, et. al., G.R. No. 160261,
substance of an impeachment complaint November 10, 2003)
An exponent of the express constitutional grant of The power to impeach is essentially a non-
rulemaking powers of the HoR. legislative prerogative and can be exercised by
Congress only within the limits of the authority
In the discharge of that power and in the exercise of conferred upon it by the Constitution
its discretion, the House has formulated (Francisco v. House of Representatives, ibid). It
determinable standards as to form and substance is, by its nature, a sui generis politico-legal
of an impeachment complaint. Furthermore, the process. (Gonzales III v. Office of the President,
impeachment rules are clear in echoing the G.R.196231, January 28, 2014)
constitutional requirements in providing that there
must be a “verified complaint or resolution” and Impeachment is deemed initiated
that the substance requirement is met if there is “a
recital of facts constituting the offense charged and A verified complaint is filed and referred to the
determinative of the jurisdiction of the committee.” Committee on Justice for action. This is the
(Gutierrez v. House of Representatives Committee initiating step which triggers the series of steps
on Justice, G.R. No. 193459, February 15, 2011) that follow. The term “to initiate” refers to the filing
of the impeachment complaint coupled with
Power of the HoR to determine the sufficiency Congress’ taking initial action of said complaint.
of form and substance of an impeachment (Francisco v. House of Rep., G.R. No. 160261, Nov.
complaint 10, 2003)
It is an exponent of the express constitutional grant One-year bar rule (2014 Bar)
of rulemaking powers of the HoR. In the discharge
of that power and in the exercise of its discretion, Initiation takes place by the act of filing of the
the House has formulated determinable standards impeachment complaint and referral to the House
as to form and substance of an impeachment Committee on Justice. Once an impeachment
complaint. Furthermore the impeachment rules are complaint has been initiated in the foregoing manner,
clear in echoing the constitutional requirements in another may not be filed against the same official
providing that there must be a “verified complaint within the one-year period. (Gutierrez v. HoR
or resolution” and that the substance requirement Committee on Justice, ibid.)
is met if there is “a recital of facts constituting the
offense
45

lOMoARcPSD|8033415
POLITICAL LAW
NOTE: The limitation refers to the element of time, Jurisdiction of the ETs
and not the number of complaints. The
impeachable officer should defend himself in only Each electoral tribunal shall be the sole judge of all
one impeachment proceeding, so that he will not be contests relating to the election, returns, and
precluded from performing his official functions qualifications of their respective members (1987
and duties. Similarly, Congress should run only one Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. 17). This includes
impeachment proceeding so as not to leave it with determining the validity or invalidity of a
little time to attend to its main work of law- proclamation declaring a particular candidate as
making. (Gutierrez v. The House of Representatives the winner. Each ET is also vested with rule-making
Committee on Justice, ibid.) power. (Lazatin v. HRET, G.R. No. L-84297, Dec. 8,
1988)
Purpose of the one-year bar rule
NOTE: It is independent of the Houses of Congress
To prevent undue or too frequent harassment; and and its decisions may be reviewed by the Supreme
To allow the legislature to do its principal task of Court only upon showing of grave abuse of
legislation. (Francisco v. House of discretion.
Representatives supra.)
Electoral contest
The consideration behind the intended limitation
refers to the element of time, and not the number of Where a defeated candidate challenges the
complaints. The impeachable officer should defend qualification and claims for himself the seat of the
himself in only one impeachment proceeding, so proclaimed winner. In the absence of an election
that he will not be precluded from performing his contest, ET is without jurisdiction.
official functions and duties. Similarly, Congress
should run only one impeachment proceeding so as When the winning candidate is considered as
not to leave it with little time to attend to its main member of the Senate or HoR
work of law-making. The doctrine laid down in
Francisco that initiation means filing and referral Once he has: (POA)
remains congruent to the rationale of the
constitutional provision. (Gutierrez v. The House of Been Proclaimed
Representatives Committee on Justice, supra) Taken his Oath; and
NOTE: Congress may look into separate complaints NOTE: The oath must be made:
against an impeachable officer and consider the Before the Senate President or Speaker of the
inclusion of matters raised therein, in the adoption of House, as the case may be; and
the Articles of Impeachment. (Francisco v. House of In open session. (Reyes v. COMELEC, G.R. No.
Representatives, et. al., supra) 207264, June 25, 2013)
ELECTORAL TRIBUNALS Assumed office
Composition of the Electoral Tribunal (ET) NOTE: Once a winning candidate has been
proclaimed, taken his oath, and assumed office as
3 Supreme Court Justices designated by the Chief Member of the House of Representatives (or of the
Justice; Senate), the COMELEC’s jurisdiction over the
6 members of the Senate or the House of election contest relating to his election, returns and
Representatives. as the case may be, chosen qualifications ends, and the HRET’s (or SET’s) own
on the basis of proportional representation jurisdiction begins. (Vinzons-Chato v. COMELEC,
from the political parties and from those G.R. No. 172131, April 2, 2007)
registered under the party-list system
represented therein. (1987 Constitution, Art. By analogy with the cases of district
VI, Sec. 17) representatives, once the party or organization of
the party-list nominee becomes a member of the
NOTE: The senior Justice in the Electoral Tribunal HoR, HRET has authority to pass upon election
shall be its Chairman. contests relating to his qualifications. (Abayon v.
HRET, G.R. No. 189466, February 11, 2010)

2019 GOLDEN NOTES

lOMoARcPSD|8033415
Liwayway Vinzons-Chato renewed her bid in the petition was pending, Wigberto initiated the
May 2010 elections as the representative of the instant certiorari case against the COMELEC
2nd Legislative District of Camarines Norte but En Banc Resolution declaring Alvin not a
was eventually defeated by Elmer Panote. nuisance candidate. Is the petition tenable?
Aggrieved, Chato filed an electoral protest before
the HRET assailing the results in all the 160 NO. The petition must fail. Section 17, Article VI of the
clustered precincts in 4 municipalities. Chato 1987 Philippine Constitution provides that the HRET
designated forty (40) pilot clustered precincts, in is the sole judge of all contests relating to the election,
which revision of ballots shall be conducted. returns, and qualifications of its respective members.
After the initial revisions of the designated Case law states that the proclamation of a
clustered precints, Chato moved for the revision congressional candidate following the election divests
of ballots in all of the protested clustered the COMELEC of jurisdiction over disputes relating to
precincts. The motion was initially denied, but a the election, returns, and qualifications of the
resolution was eventually issued by the HRET proclaimed representative in favor of the HRET.
directing the continuation of the revision of Considering that Angelina had already been
ballots in the remaining seventy-five percent proclaimed as Member of the House of
(75%) protested clustered precincts, or a total of Representatives for the 4th District of Quezon
120 precincts. Such was opposed by Panote, Province on May 16, 2013, as she has in fact taken her
ascribing grave abuse of disctretion on the part oath and assumed office past noon time of June 30,
of HRET. Is the opposition of Panote correct? 2013, the Court is now without jurisdiction to resolve
the case at bar. As they stand, the issues concerning
the conduct of the canvass and the resulting
NO. The Constitution mandates that the HRET proclamation of Angelina as herein discussed are
"shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to matters which fall under the scope of the terms
the election, returns and qualifications" of its election and return and hence, properly fall under the
members. By employing the word "sole", the HRET’s sole jurisdiction. (Wigberto Tañada, Jr. vs.
Constitution is emphatic that the jurisdiction of the COMELEC, G.R. Nos. 207199-200, October 22,
HRET in the adjudication of election contests 2013, PER J. PERLAS-BERNABE)
involving its members is intended to be its own full,
complete and unimpaired. There can be no Gemma ran for Congresswoman of Muntinlupa in
challenge, therefore, to such exclusive control the May 2013 elections. However, before the
absent any clear showing, as in this case, of elections, the COMELEC cancelled her CoC after
arbitrary and improvident use by the Tribunal of its hearing a complaint filed against her. Later, she
power that constitutes a denial of due process of was declared winner as Congresswoman of
law, or upon a demonstration of a very clear Muntinlupa. The decision said she took her oath
unmitigated error, manifestly constituting such already and had not assumed her office as
grave abuse of discretion that there has to be a Congresswoman. Subsequently, COMELEC issued
remedy therefor. (Liwayway Vinzons-Chato v. a certificate of finality on its earlier resolution
HRET, G. R. No. 201350, January 22, 2013, PER J. cancelling
PERLAS-BERNABE) Gemma’s COC. Gemma comes before the Court
arguing that COMELEC has lost jurisdiction
Wigberto and Angelina and Alvin were over the case and it is the HRET that has
contenders for the position of Member of the jurisdiction as she is already declared a
House of Representatives for the 4th District of winner. Is Gemma’s contention tenable?
Quezon Province on the May 13, 2013 National
Elections. Wigberto filed before the COMELEC NO. Gemma cannot be considered a Member of the
two separate petitions: to cancel Alvin’s CoC and House of Representatives because, primarily, she
to declare him as a nuisance candidate. has not yet assumed office. The jurisdiction of the
The COMELEC cancelled Alvin’s CoC but did not HRET begins only after the candidate is considered
declare him to be a nuisance candidate. Despite a Member of the House of Representatives, as
the cancellation of Alvin’s CoC due to his material stated in Art. VI, Sec. 17 of the 1987 Constitution.
misrepresentations therein, his name was not To be considered a Member of the House of
deleted from the ballot. Subsequently, Angelina Representatives, there must be a concurrence of the
was proclaimed as the winning candidate. It following requisites: (1) a valid proclamation, (2) a
appears that Wigberto had filed with the proper oath, and (3) assumption of office.
COMELEC a Petition to Annul the Proclamation of
Angelina and while such
47
lOMoARcPSD|8033415
POLITICAL LAW
Ating Koop. Is COMELEC En Banc’s decision
The term of office of a Member of the House of correct?
Representatives begins only “at noon on the
thirtieth day of June next following their election.” NO. While the COMELEC correctly dismissed the
Thus, until such time, the COMELEC retains Petition to expel petitioner Lico from the House of
jurisdiction. Consequently, before there is a valid or Representatives for being beyond its jurisdiction, it
official taking of the oath it must be made (1) nevertheless proceeded to rule upon the validity of
before the Speaker of the House of Representatives, his expulsion from Ating Koop
and (2) in open session. Here, although she made – a matter beyond its purview. Without legal basis,
the oath before Speaker Belmonte, there is no however, is the action of the COMELEC in
indication that it was made during plenary or in upholding the validity of the expulsion of petitioner
open session and, thus, it remains unclear whether Lico from Ating Koop, despite its own ruling that
the required oath of office was indeed complied the HRET has jurisdiction over the disqualification
with. (Reyes v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 207264, June 25, issue. These findings already touch upon the
2013) qualification requiring a party-list nominee to be a
bona fide member of the party-list group sought to
Power of each House over its members in the be represented. The petition for Lico's expulsion
absence of election contest from the House of Representatives is anchored on
his expulsion from Ating Koop, which necessarily
The power of each House to expel its members or affects his title as member of Congress. A party-list
even to defer their oath-taking until their nominee must have been, among others, a bona
qualifications are determined may be exercised fide member of the party or organization for at
even without an election contest. least ninety (90) days preceding the day of the
election. Needless to say, bona fide membership in
Imelda ran for HoR. A disqualification case the party-list group is a continuing qualification x
was filed against her on account of her xx. Under Section 17, Article VI of the Constitution,
residence. The case was not resolved before the HRET is the sole judge of all contests when it
the election. Imelda won the election. comes to qualifications of the members of the
However, she was not proclaimed. Imelda now House of Representatives. Consequently, the
questions the COMELEC’s jurisdiction over the COMELEC failed to recognize that the issue on the
case. Does the COMELEC have jurisdiction over validity of petitioner Lico's expulsion from Ating
the case? Koop is integral to the issue of his qualifications to
sit in Congress.
YES. The COMELEC retains jurisdiction. Since
Imelda has not yet been proclaimed, she is not yet a Our ruling here must be distinguished from Regina
member of the HoR. HRET’s jurisdiction as the sole Ongsiako Reyes v. Commission on Elections. In Reyes,
judge of all contests relating to elections, etc. of the petitioner was proclaimed winner of the 13 May
members of Congress begins only after a candidate 2013 Elections, and took her oath of office before the
has become a member of the HoR. (Romualdez- Speaker of the House of Representatives. However, the
Marcos v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 119976, September Court ruled on her qualifications since she was not yet
18, 1995) a member of the House of Representatives: petitioner
Reyes had yet to assume office, the term of which
Ating Koop party-list expelled its first would officially start at noon of 30 June 2013, when
nominee/representative Lico for refusing to she filed a Petition for Certiorari dated 7 June 2013
honor the term-sharing agreement. A petition assailing the Resolutions ordering the cancellation of
was filed with the COMELEC which sought his her Certificate of Candidacy. In the present case, all
removal from being Ating Koop’s representative. three requirements of proclamation, oath of office,
COMELEC 2nd Division expelled Lico. COMELEC En and assumption of office were satisfied.
Banc, however, dismissed the petition on the
ground that it had no jurisdiction to expel Lico Moreover, in Reyes, the COMELEC En Banc
from the HoR, considering that his expulsion Resolution disqualifying petitioner on grounds of
from Ating Koop affected his qualifications as lack of Filipino citizenship and residency had
member of the House, and therefore it was the become final and executory when petitioner
HRET that had elevated it to this Court. Therefore, there was no
jurisdiction over the Petition. longer any pending case on the qualifications of
Notwithstanding, COMELEC En Banc still
affirmed the validity of Lico’s expulsion from

2019 GOLDEN NOTES
lOMoARcPSD|8033415
petitioner Reyes to speak of. Here, the question of Remedy from an adverse decision of the ET
whether petitioner Lico remains a member of the
House of Representatives in view of his expulsion A special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of
from Ating Koop is a subsisting issue. Finally, in the Rules of Court may be filed. This is based on
Reyes, We found the question of jurisdiction of the grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
HRET to be a non-issue, since the recourse of the excess of jurisdiction. This shall be filed before the
petitioner to the Court appeared to be a mere Supreme Court.
attempt to prevent the COMELEC from
implementing a final and executory judgment. In NOTE: Under the doctrine of primary
this case, the question on the validity of petitioner administrative jurisdiction, prior recourse to the
Lico's expulsion from Ating Koop is a genuine issue House is necessary before the petitioners may bring
that falls within the jurisdiction of the HRET, as it the case to the Supreme Court. (Pimentel vs. House
unmistakably affects his qualifications as party-list of Representative Electoral Tribunal, G.R. No.
representative. (Lico v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 205505, 141489, November 29, 2002)
September 29, 2015)
COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS
Valid grounds or just causes for termination of
membership to the tribunal Composition of the Commission on
Appointments (CA)
Members of the Electoral Tribunal enjoy the
security of tenure. However, they may be Senate President as ex-officio chairman
terminated for a just cause such as: 12 Senators
12 members of the HoR. (1987 Constitution, Art.
Expiration of Congressional term of office VI, Sec. 18)
Death or permanent disability
Resignation from the political party he represents NOTE: A political party must have at least two (2)
in the tribunal senators in the Senate to be able to have a
Formal affiliation with another political party representative in the CA.
Removal from office for other valid reasons.
(Bondoc v. Pineda, G.R. No. 97710, September Thus, where there are two or more political parties
26, 1991) represented in the Senate, a political party/coalition
with a single senator in the Senate cannot
NOTE: Unlike the Commission on Appointments, constitutionally claim a seat in the Commission on
the ET shall meet in accordance with their rules, Appointments. It is not mandatory to elect 12
regardless of whether Congress is in session or not. senators to the Commission; what the Constitution
requires is that there must be at least a majority of
Can the Senators-members of the Senate the entire membership. (Guingona, Jr. v. Gonzales, G.R.
Electoral Tribunal be disqualified because an No. 106971, October 20, 1992)
election contest is filed against them?
Membership in the CA
NO. The Supreme Court held that it cannot order the
disqualification of the Senators-members of the The members of the Commission shall be elected by
Electoral Tribunal simply because they were each House based on proportional representation
themselves respondents in the electoral protest, from the political party and party list. Accordingly,
considering the specific mandate of the Constitution the sense of the Constitution is that the
and inasmuch as all the elected Senators were membership in the CA must always reflect political
actually named as respondents. (Abbas v. SET, G.R. No. alignments in Congress and must therefore adjust
83767, October 22, 1988) to changes. It is understood that such changes in
party affiliation must be permanent and not
ET decisions are not appealable merely temporary alliances. Endorsement is not
sufficient to get a seat in CA. (Daza v. Singson, G.R.
Art. VI, Sec. 17 provides that the SET/HRET is the No. 86344, Dec. 21, 1989)
sole judge of all contests. Hence, from its decision,
there is no appeal. Appeal is not a constitutional NOTE: The provision of Sec. 18, Art. VI of the
right but merely a statutory right. Constitution, on proportional representation is
mandatory in character and does not leave any
discretion to the majority party in the Senate to
49
lOMoARcPSD|8033415
POLITICAL LAW
disobey or disregard the rule on proportional Since the Commission is also an independent
representation; otherwise, the party with a constitutional body, its rules of procedure are
majority representation in the Senate or the HoR also outside the scope of congressional
can by sheer force of numbers impose its will on the powers as well as that of the judiciary
hapless minority. By requiring a proportional (Bondoc v. Pineda, G.R. No. 97710, September
representation in the CA, Sec. 18 in effect works as 26, 1991).
a check on the majority party in the Senate and
helps maintain the balance of power. No party can NOTE: The ET and the CA shall be constituted
claim more than what it is entitled to under such within 30 days after the Senate and the HoR shall
rule. (Guingona, Jr., et al., v. Gonzales, et al., G.R. No. have been organized with the election of the Senate
106971, March 1, 1993) President and the Speaker of the House.
Presidential appointments subject to Remedy from an adverse decision of the CA

confirmation by the Commission
A special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of
Heads of the Executive departments the Rules of Court may be filed. This is based on
XPN: Vice-President who is appointed to the grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
post excess of jurisdiction. This shall be filed before the
Ambassadors, other public ministers, or consuls Supreme Court.
Officers of the AFP from the rank of colonel or
naval captain INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM
Other officers whose appointments are vested in
him by the Constitution (i.e. COMELEC Initiative
members, etc.)
It is the power of the people to propose
NOTE: The enumeration is exclusive. amendments to the Constitution or to propose and
enact legislation.
Rules on voting
Kinds of Initiative under the Initiative and
The CA shall rule by a majority vote of all the Referendum Act (RA 6735)
members.
The chairman shall only vote in case of tie. Initiative on the Constitution – Refers to a petition
The CA shall act on all appointments within 30 proposing amendments to the Constitution.
session days from their submission to Initiative on statutes – Refers to a petition to
Congress. (1987 Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. 18) enact a national legislation.
Initiative on local legislation – Refers to a petition
Limitations in the confirmation of proposing to enact a regional, provincial,
appointment municipal, city, or barangay law, resolution or
ordinance[RA 6735, Sec. 3 (a)].
Congress cannot by law prescribe that the
appointment of a person to an office created NOTE: Sec. 3 (b) of RA 6735 provides for:
by such law be subject to confirmation by the
Commission. Indirect Initiative – Exercise of initiative by the
Appointments extended by the President to the people through a proposition sent to
above-mentioned positions while Congress is Congress or the local legislative body for
not in session shall only be effective until action.
disapproval by the Commission or until the Direct Initiative – The people themselves filed
next adjournment of Congress. (Sarmiento III, the petition with the COMELEC and not
v. Mison, G.R. No. L-79974, Dec. 17, 1987) with Congress.
Guidelines in the meetings of the CA RA 6735 is INADEQUATE in covering the

system of initiative on amendments to the
The Commission shall meet only while Congress is Constitution (2014 Bar)
in session, at the call of its Chairman or a
majority of all its members. Under the said law, initiative on the Constitution is
confined only to proposals to amend. The people

2019 GOLDEN NOTES

lOMoARcPSD|8033415
are not accorded the power to "directly propose, Propose and
enact, approve, or reject, in whole or in part, the enact legislation.
Constitution" through the system of initiative. They
can only do so with respect to "laws, ordinances, or NOTE: The following are the limitations on
resolutions." Secondly, the Act does not provide for initiative or referendum:
the contents of a petition for initiative on the
Constitution. The use of the clause "proposed laws No petition embracing more than one (1) subject
sought to be enacted, approved or rejected, shall be submitted to the electorate.
amended or repealed" denotes that RA 6735 Statutes involving emergency measures, the
excludes initiative on the amendments of the enactment of which are specifically vested in
Constitution. Congress by the Constitution, cannot be subject
to referendum until 90 days after their
Also, while the law provides subtitles for National effectivity. (RA 6735, Sec. 10).
Initiative and Referendum and for Local Initiative and
Referendum, no subtitle is provided for initiative on Non-Legislative Powers
the Constitution. This means that the main thrust of
the law is initiative and referendum on national and Informing function of Congress
local laws. If RA 6735 were intended to fully provide
for the implementation of the initiative on The informing function of the legislature includes
amendments to the Constitution, it could have its function to conduct legislative inquiries and
provided for a subtitle, considering that in the order of investigation and its oversight power.
things, the primacy of interest, or hierarchy of values,
the right of the people to directly propose The power of Congress does not end with the
amendments to the Constitution is far more important finished task of legislation. Associated with its
than the initiative on national and local laws. principal power to legislate is the auxiliary power
to ensure that the laws it enacts are faithfully
While RA 6735 specially detailed the process in executed.
implementing initiative and referendum on
national and local laws, it intentionally did not do The power of oversight has been held to be intrinsic
so on the system of initiative on amendments to the in the grant of legislative power itself and integral
Constitution (Defensor-Santiago v. COMELEC G.R. to the checks and balances inherent in a
No. 127325, March 19, 1997). democratic system of government. Woodrow
Wilson emphasized that “Even more important
Referendum than legislation is the instruction and guidance in
political affairs which the people might receive
It is the power of the electorate to approve or reject from a body which kept all national concerns
legislation through an election called for that suffused in a broad daylight of discussion.”
purpose. (Opinion of J. Puno, Macalintal v. COMELEC, G.R.
No. 157013, July 10, 2003)
Kinds of Referendum
Other non-legislative powers
Referendum on Statutes - Refers to a petition to
approve or reject a law, or part thereof, Power to declare the existence of state of war
passed by Congress. (1987 Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. 23, Par. 1)
Referendum on Local Law – Refers to a petition to
approve or reject a law, resolution or NOTE: Under Art. VI, Sec. 23(2), Congress may
ordinance enacted by regional assemblies and grant the President emergency powers subject
local legislative bodies. to the following conditions:
(WaLiReN)
Initiative vs. Referendum (2000 Bar)
There is a War or other national
emergency;
BASIS INITIATIVE REFERENDUM The grant of emergency powers must be
1. Propose Approve or for a Limited period;
Extent amendments to reject The grant of emergency powers is subject
the Constitution; legislation to such Restrictions as Congress may
prescribe; and
51
lOMoARcPSD|8033415
POLITICAL LAW
23 The emergency powers must be
exercised to carry out a National
policy declared by Congress.
Power to act as Board of Canvassers in election of

President (1987 Constitution, Art. VII, Sec. 10)
Power to call a special election for President and
Vice-President (1987 Constitution, Art. VII,
Sec. 10)
Power to judge President’s physical fitness to
discharge the functions of the Presidency
(1987 Constitution, Art. VII, Sec. 11)
Power to revoke or extend suspension of the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or
declaration of martial law (1987
Constitution, Art. VII, Sec. 18)
Power to concur in Presidential amnesties.
Concurrence of majority of all the members of
Congress (1987 Constitution, Art. VII, Sec. 19)
Power to concur in treaties or international
agreements; concurrence of at least 2/3 of all
the members of the Senate (1987
Constitution, Art. VII, Sec. 21)
Power to confirm certain appointments/
nominations made by the President (1987
Constitution, Art. VII, Secs. 9 and 16)
Power relative to natural resources
(1987 Constitution, Art. XII, Sec. 2)
Power of internal organization (1987
Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. 16)
Election of officers
Promulgate internal rules
Disciplinary powers

2019 GOLDEN NOTES

lOMoARcPSD|8033415
Executive Department
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT his tenure. (1987 2. If appointed to a

Constitution, Art. Cabinet post, no
Head of the Executive Department VII, Sec. 6) need for
3. Immunity from Commission on
The President is both the head of State and head of suit for official Appointments’
government; hence, executive power is exclusively acts. confirmation. (1987
vested on him. Constitution, Art.
VII, Sec. 3)
QUALIFICATIONS, ELECTION, AND TERM OF
THE PRESIDENT AND VICE-PRESIDENT Presidential or executive immunity
Qualifications of the President The President is immune from suit during his
incumbency.
Natural-born citizen of the Philippines;
A registered voter; Rules on executive immunity
Able to read and write;
At least forty years of age on the day of the A. Rules on immunity DURING tenure (not term):
election; and
A resident of the Philippines for at least ten The President is immune from suit during his
years immediately preceding such election. tenure. (In re: Bermudez, G.R. No. 76180,
(1987 Constitution, Art. VII, Sec. 2) October 24, 1986)
An impeachment complaint may be filed against
Term of office of the President him during his tenure. (1987 Constitution,
Art. XI)
The President shall be elected by direct vote of the The President may not be prevented from
people for a term of 6 years which shall begin instituting suit. (Soliven v. Makasiar, G.R. No.
at noon on the 30th day of June next following 82585, November 14, 1988)
the day of the election and shall end at noon There is nothing in our laws that would prevent
of the same date, 6 years thereafter. the President from waiving the privilege. He
The President shall not be eligible for any re- may shed the protection afforded by the
election. privilege. (Soliven v. Makasiar, ibid.)
NOTE: The Vice-President cannot serve for Heads of departments cannot invoke the
more than 2 successive terms. President’s immunity. (Gloria v. CA, G.R. No.
No person who has succeeded as President and 119903, August 15, 2000)
has served as such for more than four years
shall be qualified for election to the same Rule on immunity AFTER tenure:
office at any time. (1987 Constitution, Art.
VII, Sec. 4) Once out of office, even before the end of the 6-
year term, immunity for non-official acts is
NOTE: Vice- President shall have the same lost. Immunity cannot be claimed to shield a
qualifications and term of office and be elected with, non-sitting President from prosecution for
and in the same manner, as the President. He may be alleged criminal acts done while sitting in
removed from office in the same manner as the office. (Estrada v. Desierto, G.R. Nos. 146710-
President. (1987 Constitution, Art. VII, Sec. 3. 15, March 2, 2001)
PRIVILEGES, INHIBITIONS AND When a non-sitting President is not immune

DISQUALIFICATIONS from suit for acts committed during his tenure
Privileges of the President and Vice-President A non-sitting President does not enjoy immunity
from suit, even though the acts were done during
her tenure. The intent of the framers of the
PRESIDENT VICE-PRESIDENT
Constitution is clear that the immunity of the
1. Official residence; 1. Salary shall president from suit is concurrent only with his
2. Salary is not be tenure and not his term. Former President Arroyo
determined by law decreased cannot use the presidential immunity from suit to
and not to be during his shield herself from judicial scrutiny that would
decreased during tenure;
53

lOMoARcPSD|8033415
POLITICAL LAW
assess whether, within the context Elements of command responsibility
of amparo proceedings, she was responsible or
accountable for the abduction of Rodriguez. The existence of a superior-subordinate
(Rodriguez v. GMA, G.R. Nos. 191805 & 193160, relationship between the accused as superior
November 15, 2011) and the perpetrator of the crime as his
subordinate;
When a former President cannot be impleaded The superior knew or had reason to know that the
crime was about to be or had been
Impleading the former President as an unwilling co- committed;
petitioner, for an act she made in the performance of The superior failed to take the necessary and
the functions of her office, is contrary to the public reasonable measures to prevent the criminal
policy against embroiling the President in suits, “to acts or punish the perpetrators thereof.
assure the exercise of Presidential duties and (Rodriguez v. GMA, G.R. Nos. 191805 &
functions free from any hindrance or distraction, 193160, November 15, 2011)
considering that being the Chief Executive of the
Government is a job that, aside from requiring all of Application of the doctrine of command
the office holder’s time, also demands undivided responsibility in amparo proceedings
attention. Therefore, former President GMA cannot be
impleaded as one of the petitioners in this suit. Thus, It should, at most, be only to determine the author
her name is stricken off the title of this case. (Resident who, at the first instance, is accountable for, and has
Marine Mammals v. Reyes, G.R. No. 180771, April 21, the duty to address, the disappearance and
2015) harassments complained of, so as to enable the Court
to devise remedial measures that may be appropriate
Purpose of presidential immunity under the premises to protect rights covered by the
writ of amparo. (Rubrico v. GMA, G.R. No. 183871,
Separation of powers – viewed as demanding the February 18, 2010)
executive’s independence from the judiciary,
so that the President should not be subject to President may be held liable for extrajudicial
the judiciary’s whim. (Almonte, v. Vasquez, killings and enforced disappearances as
G.R. No. 95367, May 23, 1995) Commander-in-Chief
Public convenience – The grant is to assure the
exercise of presidential duties and functions The President may be held accountable under the
free from any hindrance or distraction, principle of command responsibility. Being the
considering that the presidency is a job that, commander-in-chief of all armed forces, he
aside from requiring all of the office-holders’ necessarily possesses control over the military that
time, demands undivided attention. (Soliven qualifies him as a superior within the purview of
v. Makasiar, G.R. No. 82585, Nov. 14, 1988) the command responsibility doctrine.
NOTE: The immunity of the President from suit is On the issue of knowledge, it must be pointed out that
personal to the President. It may be invoked only by although international tribunals apply a strict
the President and not by any other person. Such standard of knowledge, i.e. actual knowledge, the
privilege pertains to the President by the virtue of same may nonetheless be established through
the office and may be invoked only by the holder of circumstantial evidence. In the Philippines, a more
that office; and not by any other person in his liberal view is adopted and superiors may be charged
behalf. (Soliven v. Makasiar, ibid.) with constructive knowledge.
Principle of command responsibility Knowledge of the commission of irregularities,

crimes or offenses is presumed when:
It is “an omission mode of individual criminal
liability,” whereby the superior is made responsible The acts are widespread within the government
for crimes committed by his subordinates for failing official’s area of jurisdiction;
to prevent or punish the perpetrators (as opposed The acts have been repeatedly or regularly
to crimes he ordered). (Rubrico v. GMA, G.R. No. committed within his area of responsibility;
183871, February 18, 2010) or
Members of his immediate staff or office personnel
are involved.

2019 GOLDEN NOTES
lOMoARcPSD|8033415
As to the issue of failure to prevent or punish, it is Executive Secretary, upon proper authorization
important to note that as the commander-in-chief from the President
of the armed forces, the President has the power to NOTE: Executive Secretary must state that
effectively command, control and discipline the the authority is “By order of the President,”
military. (Rodriguez v. GMA, G.R. Nos. 191805 & which means he personally consulted with the
193160, Nov. 15, 2011) President.
Presidential or Executive Privilege (2009, Requirement if an official is summoned by

2010, 2015 Bar) Congress on a matter which in his own
judgment might be covered by executive
It is the power of the President and high -level privilege
executive branch officers to withhold certain types
of information from Congress, the courts, and He must be afforded reasonable time to inform the
ultimately the public. President or the Executive Secretary of the possible
need for invoking the privilege, in order to provide
Invocation of the privilege the same with fair opportunity to consider whether
the matter indeed calls for a claim of executive
It must be invoked in relation to specific categories of privilege. If, after the lapse of that reasonable time,
information and not to categories of persons. neither the President nor the Executive Secretary
invokes the privilege, Congress is no longer bound
NOTE: A claim of the executive privilege may be to respect the failure of the official to appear
valid or not depending on the ground invoked to before Congress and may then opt to avail of the
justify it and the context in which it is made. necessary legal means to compel his appearance
Noticeably absent is any recognition that executive (Senate v. Ermita, ibid.).
officials are exempt from the duty to disclose
information by the mere fact of being executive Requirements in invoking the privilege
officials. (Senate v. Ermita, G.R. No. 169777, April
20, 2006) There must be a formal claim of the privilege; and
The claim has specific designation and description
Consequently, in case where the privilege is invoked of the documents within its scope and with
through executive orders (EOs) prohibiting the precise and certain reasons for preserving
executive officials from participating in legislative their confidentiality.
inquiries, the Court held that “to the extent that
investigations in aid of legislation are generally Reason: Without this specificity, it is impossible for
conducted in public, any executive issuance tending a court to analyze the claim short of disclosure of
to unduly limit disclosures of information in such the very thing sought to be protected.
investigations necessarily deprives the people of
information which, being presumed to be in aid of NOTE: Congress, however, must not require the
legislation, is presumed to be a matter of public Executive to state the reasons for the claim with
concern. The citizens are thereby denied access to such particularity as to compel disclosure of the
information which they can use in formulating information, which the privilege is meant to
their own opinions on the matter before Congress protect (Senate v. Ermita, ibid.).
— opinions which they can then communicate to
their representatives and other government Limitation of executive privilege
officials through the various legal means allowed
by their freedom of expression.” (Senate v. Ermita, Claim of executive privilege is subject to balancing
ibid.) against other interest. Simply put, confidentiality
in executive privilege is not absolutely protected by
Persons who can invoke executive privilege the Constitution. Neither the doctrine of separation
of powers nor the need for confidentiality of high-
President level communications can sustain an absolute,
NOTE: Being an extraordinary power, the unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from
privilege must be wielded only by the highest judicial process under all circumstances (Neri v.
official in the executive department. Thus, the Senate, G.R. No. 180643, March 25, 2008).
President may not authorize her subordinates
to exercise such power.
55
lOMoARcPSD|8033415
POLITICAL LAW
EO 464 requiring all Executive department BASIS PRESIDENTIA
heads to secure the consent of the President L DELIBERATIV
before appearing in Question Hour is valid COMMUNICA E PROCESS
TIONS PRIVILEGE
The requirement to secure presidential consent, PRIVILEGE
limited as it is only to appearances in the question Pertains
hour, is valid on its face. For unlike inquiries in aid to
of legislation under Sec. 21, Art. VI of the communi Includes
Constitution where such appearance is mandatory, cations, advisory
under Sec. 22, the appearance of department heads documen opinions,
in the question hour is discretionary on their part. ts or recomme
other ndations
Dictated by the basic rule of construction that materials and
issuances must be interpreted, as much as possible, in that deliberati
a way that will render it constitutional, the said reflect ons
provision must be construed as applicable only to president comprisin
appearances in question hour under Sec. 22, not in Scope of
ial g part of a
inquiries in aid of legislation under Sec. the
decision- process
Congress is not bound in the latter instance to privilege
making by which
respect the refusal of the department head to and governme
appear in such inquiry, unless a valid claim of deliberati ntal
privilege is subsequently made, either by the ons that decisions
President herself or by the Executive Secretary the and
(Senate v. Ermita, G.R. No. 169777, April 20, 2006) . President policies
believes are
Kinds of executive privilege should formulate
remain d
State secret privilege– Invoked by Presidents on confident
the ground that the information is of such ial
nature that its disclosure would subvert Applies
crucial military or diplomatic objectives. Applies to
To to
Informer’s privilege– Privilege of the government decision-
whom decision-
not to disclose the identity of persons who making of
applic making
furnish information in violations of law to executive
able of the
officers charged with the enforcement of the officials
President
law. Rooted in
Generic privilege for internal deliberation– Said to the
attach to intra-governmental documents constituti
reflecting advisory opinions, onal
recommendations and deliberations principle
comprising part of a process by which of Rooted in
governmental decisions and policies are Foun
separatio common
formulated. datio
n of law
Presidential communications privilege; n
powers privileges
Deliberative process privilege (In Re: Sealed Case and the
No. 96-3124, June 17, 1997). President
’s unique
Test to determine the validity of a claim of constituti
privilege: Whether the requested information falls onal role
within one of the traditional privileges and whether
that privilege should be honored in a given
Presidential Communications Privilege
procedural setting.
Elements:
Presidential communications privilege vs.
Deliberative process privilege The protected communication must relate to a
“quintessential and non-delegable presidential
power.”

2019 GOLDEN NOTES
lOMoARcPSD|8033415
The communication must be authored or even after the JPEPA is published. Disclosing these
“solicited and received” by a close advisor of offers could impair the ability of the Philippines to
the President or the President himself. The deal not only with Japan but also with other
judicial test is that an advisor must be in foreign governments in future negotiations. Thus,
“operational proximity” with the President. the DTI USec. correctly invoked executive privilege
The presidential communications privilege remains based claiming the information sought pertains to
a qualified privilege that may be overcome by a diplomatic negotiations then in progress (
showing of adequate need, such that the AKBAYAN v. Aquino, G.R No. 170516, July 16, 2008).
information sought “likely contains important
evidence” and by the unavailability of the NOTE: Such privilege is only presumptive.
information elsewhere by an appropriate
investigating authority. Matters involving diplomatic negotiations are
covered by executive privilege. However, such
Presumed privilege status of presidential privilege is only presumptive. Recognizing a type of
communications information as privileged does not mean that it will
be considered privileged in all instances. Only after
The presumption is based on the President’s a consideration of the context in which the claim is
generalized interest in confidentiality. The privilege made may it be determined if there is a public
is necessary to guarantee the candor of presidential interest that calls for the disclosure of the desired
advisors and to provide the President and those information, strong enough to overcome its
who assist him with freedom to explore alternatives traditionally privileged status (AKBAYAN v. Aquino,
in the process of shaping policies and making ibid.).
decisions and to do so in a way many could be
unwilling to express except privately. The Prohibitions attached to the President, Vice-
presumption can be overcome only by mere President, Cabinet Members, and their
showing of public need by the branch seeking deputies or assistants, unless otherwise
access to conversations. The courts are enjoined to provided in the Constitution (1996, 1998,
resolve the competing interests of the political 2002, 2004 Bar)
branches of the government “in a manner that
preserves the essential functions of each Branch.” Shall not receive any other emolument from the
government or any other source (1987
The HoRs’ House Committee conducted an Constitution, Art. VII, Sec. 6).
inquiry on the Japan-Philippines Economic Shall not hold any other office or employment
Partnership Agreement (JPEPA), then being during their tenure unless:
negotiated by the Philippine Government. The Otherwise provided in the Constitution (e.g. VP
House Committee requested DTI USec. Aquino to can be appointed as a Cabinet Member
furnish it with a copy of the latest draft of the without the need of confirmation by
JPEPA. Jay replied that he shall provide a copy Commission on Appointments; Sec. of Justice
thereof once the negotiations are completed. sits in the Judicial and Bar Council)
The positions are ex-officio and they do not
A petition was filed with the SC which seeks to receive any salary or other emoluments
obtain a copy of the Philippine and Japanese therefore (e.g. Sec. of Finance as head of
offers submitted during the negotiation the Monetary Board)
process and all pertinent attachments and
annexes thereto. Jay invoked executive NOTE: This prohibition must not, however, be
privilege based on the ground that the construed as applying to posts occupied by the
information sought pertains to diplomatic Executive officials without additional
negotiations then in progress. On the other compensation in an ex-officio capacity, as
hand, Akbayan for their part invoked their provided by law and as required by the
right to information on matters of public primary functions of the said official’s office
concern. Are matters involving diplomatic (National Amnesty Commission v. COA, G.R. No.
negotiations covered by executive privilege? 156982, September 2, 2004).
YES. The Court held that while the final text of the Shall not practice, directly or indirectly, any other
JPEPA may not be kept perpetually confidential, the profession during their tenure
offers exchanged by the parties during the Shall not participate in any business
negotiations continue to be privileged
57
lOMoARcPSD|8033415
POLITICAL LAW
Shall not be financially interested in any contract tenure unless otherwise provided in the
with, or in any franchise, or special privilege Constitution. On the other hand, Kimberly
granted by the Government, including GOCCs claims that according to Sec. 7, par. (2), Art. IX-
Shall avoid conflict of interest in conduct of office B of the Constitution, her appointment to such
Shall avoid nepotism(1987 Constitution, Art. VII, positions is outside the coverage of the
Sec. 13). prohibition under Sec. 13 of Art. VII as it falls
into one of the exceptions as being allowed by
NOTE: The spouse and relatives by consanguinity law or by the primary functions of her
or affinity within the 4th civil degree of the position. Does the designation of Kimberly as
President shall not, during his tenure, be appointed the Acting Secretary of Justice, concurrently
as: with his position as Acting Solicitor General,
violate the constitutional prohibition against
a. Members of the Constitutional dual or multiple offices for the Members of the
Commissions; Cabinet and their deputies and assistants?
Office of the Ombudsman;
Secretaries; YES. There is violation of the Constitution in case
Undersecretaries; an Acting Secretary of Justice is designated as
Chairmen or heads of bureaus or offices, Acting Solicitor General because while all other
including GOCCs and their subsidiaries. appointive officials in the civil service are allowed
to hold other office or employment in the
If the spouse, etc., was already in any of the above government during their tenure when such is
offices at the time before his/her spouse became allowed by law or by the primary functions of their
President, he/she may continue in office. What is positions, members of the Cabinet, their deputies
prohibited is appointment and reappointment, not and assistants may do so only when expressly
continuation in office. authorized by the Constitution itself. In other
words, Sec. 7, Art. IX-B is meant to lay down the
Spouses, etc., can be appointed to the judiciary and general rule applicable to all elective and
as ambassadors and consuls. appointive public officials and employees, while
Sec. 13, Art. VII is meant to be the exception
Joey, the Chief Presidential Legal Counsel applicable only to the President, the Vice-President,
(CPLC), was also appointed as Chairman of the and Members of the Cabinet, their deputies and
PCGG. May the two offices be held by the same assistants.
person?
On its face, the language of Sec. 13, Art. VII is
NO. When the Chief Presidential Legal Counsel was prohibitory so that it must be understood as
also appointed as Chairman of the PGCC, the Court intended to be a positive and unequivocal negation
held that the two offices are incompatible. Without of the privilege of holding multiple government
question, the PCGG is an agency under the offices or employment.
Executive Department. Thus, the actions of the
PCGG Chairman are subject to the review of the The phrase "unless otherwise provided in this
CPLC(Public Interest Group v. Elma, G.R. No. Constitution" must be given a literal interpretation
138965, June 30, 2006). to refer only to those instances cited in the
Constitution itself, to wit:
The President appointed Kimberly as the
Acting Secretary of Justice. After a couple of The Vice-President being appointed as a member of
days, the President designated her as the the Cabinet under Sec. 3, par. (2), Art. VII; or
Acting Solicitor General in a concurrent acting as President in those instances provided
capacity. Julie contested the appointment of under Sec. 7, pars. (2) and
Kimberly on the ground that the appointment (3), Art. VII; and
violated Sec. 13, Art. VII of the Constitution b. The Secretary of Justice being ex-officio
which expressly prohibits the President, Vice- member of the Judicial and Bar Council by
President, the Members of the Cabinet, and virtue of Sect. 8 (1), Art. VIII (Funa v. Agra, G.R.
their deputies or assistants from holding any No. 191644, February 19, 2013).
other office or employment during their
Sec. 13, Art. VII undoubtedly covers the Acting
Secretary of Justice as being concurrently
designated as Acting Solicitor General; therefore,

2019 GOLDEN NOTES
lOMoARcPSD|8033415
he could not validly hold any other office or Borrowing power (1987 Constitution, Art. VII, Sec.
employment during his tenure as the Acting 20)
Solicitor General, because the Constitution has not Diplomatic/Treaty-making power (1987
otherwise so provided. Constitution, Art. VII, Sec. 21)
Budgetary power (1987 Constitution, Art. VII, Sec.
POWERS OF THE PRESIDENT 22)
Informing power (1987 Constitution, Art. VII, Sec.
EXECUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE POWERS 23)
IN GENERAL Veto power (1987 Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. 27)
Power of general supervision over local
Executive Power governments (1987 Constitution, Art. X, Sec.
4)
Power vested in the President of the Philippines. Power to call special session (1987 Constitution,
The President shall have control of all executive Art. VI, Sec. 15)
departments, bureaus and offices. He shall ensure
that laws are faithfully executed (1987 Administrative power
Constitution, Art. VII, Sec. 17).
Power concerned with the work of applying policies
Faithful Execution Clause and enforcing orders as determined by proper
governmental organs. It enables the President to fix
The power to take care that the laws be faithfully a uniform standard of administrative efficiency
executed makes the President a dominant figure in the and check the official conduct of his agents. To this
administration of the government. The law he is end, he can issue administrative orders, rules and
supposed to enforce includes the Constitution, regulations (Ople v. Torres, G.R. No. 127685, July
statutes, judicial decisions, administrative rules and 23, 1998).
regulations and municipal ordinances, as well as
treaties entered into by the government. Power of administrative reorganization
Scope of executive power The President has the continuing authority to

reorganize the national government, which
Executive power is vested in the President of the includes the power to group, consolidate bureaus
Philippines. (1987 Constitution, Art. VII, Sec. and agencies, to abolish offices, to transfer
1). functions, to create and classify functions, services
It is not limited to those set forth in the Constitution and activities and to standardize salaries and
(Residual powers) (Marcos v. Manglapus, G.R. materials; it is effected in good faith if it is for the
No. 88211, October 27, 1989). purpose of economy or to make bureaucracy more
Privilege of immunity from suit is personal to the efficient(MEWAP v. Exec. Sec., G.R. No. 160093, July
President and may be invoked by him alone. It 31, 2007).
may also be waived by the President, as when
he himself files suit (Soliven v. Makasiar, G.R. President Benigno Simeon Aquino III issued
No. 82585, November 14, 1988). Executive Order No. 13 (E.O. 13), abolishing the
PAGC and transferring its functions to the Office
Specific powers of the President of the Deputy Executive Secretary for Legal
Affairs (ODESLA), more particularly to its
Appointing power (1987 Constitution, Art. VII, newly-established Investigative and
Sec. 16) Adjudicatory Division (IAD). Does the EO
Power of control over all executive departments, usurp the legislative power to create office?
bureaus and offices (1987 Constitution, Art.
VII, Sec. 17) NO. The President has Continuing Authority to
Commander-in-Chief powers (calling-out power, Reorganize the Executive Department under E.O. 292.
power to place the Philippines under martial In Domingo v. Zamora, the Court gave the rationale
law, and power to suspend the privilege of the behind the President's continuing authority. The law
writ of habeas corpus) (1987 Constitution, grants the President this power in recognition of the
Art. VII, Sec. 18) recurring need of every President to reorganize his
Pardoning power (1987 Constitution, Art. VII, Sec. office "to achieve simplicity, economy and efficiency."
19) The President
59

lOMoARcPSD|8033415
POLITICAL LAW
merely organized his office. (Prospero Pichay v. NOTE: The incumbent must first be legally
Executive Secretary, G. R. No. 196425, July 24, removed, or his appointment validly
2012, PER J. PERLAS-BERNABE) terminated, before one could be validly
installed to succeed him.
POWER OF APPOINTMENT
Receipt of the appointment paper and Acceptance
Appointment of the appointment by the appointee who
possesses all the qualifications and none of
The selection of an individual who is to exercise the the disqualifications
functions of a given office. It may be made verbally
but it is usually done in writing through what is NOTE: The possession of the original
called the commission. appointment paper is not indispensable to
authorize an appointee to assume office. If it
NOTE: The appointing power of the President is were indispensable, then a loss of the original
executive in nature. While Congress and the appointment paper, which could be brought
Constitution in certain cases may prescribe the about by negligence, accident, fraud, fire or
qualifications for particular offices, the theft, corresponds to a loss of the office. Howe
determination of who among those who are ver, in case of loss of the original appointment
qualified will be appointed is the President’s paper, the appointment must be evidenced by a
prerogative (Pimentel v. Ermita, G.R. No. 164978, certified true copy issued by the proper office, in
October 13, 2005). this case the Malacañang Records Office.
Note: Although intrinsically executive and NOTE: Acceptance is indispensable to

therefore pertaining mainly to the President, the complete an appointment. Assuming office
appointing power may be exercised by the and taking the oath amount to acceptance of
legislature and by the judiciary, as well as the the appointment. An oath of office is a
Constitutional Commissions, over their respective qualifying requirement for a public office, a
personnel. prerequisite to the full investiture of the office.
Kinds of Presidential appointments Concurrence of all these elements should

always apply, regardless of when the appointment
Appointments made by an Acting President; is made, whether outside, just before, or during the
Midnight Appointment; (1987 Constitution, Art. appointment ban. These steps in the appointment
VII, Sec. 15) process should always concur and operate as a
Regular Presidential Appointments, with or single process. There is no valid appointment if the
without the confirmation by the CA; or process lacks even one step. And there is no need to
Ad-interim Appointments. further distinguish between an effective and an
ineffective appointment when an appointment is
Elements in making a valid, complete, and valid (Velicaria-Garafil v. Office of the President,
effective Presidential appointment: (ATVA) G.R. No. 203372, June 16, 2015).
Authority to appoint and evidence of the exercise Non-justiciability of appointments

of the authority;
Transmittal of the appointment paper signed by Appointment is a political question. So long as the
the President and evidence of the transmittal; appointee satisfies the minimum requirements
prescribed by law for the position, the appointment
NOTE: It is not enough that the President signs the may not be subject to judicial review.
appointment paper. There should be evidence that
the President intended the appointment paper to be Rule on the effectivity of appointments made
issued. Release of the appointment paper through by an Acting President
the Malacañang Records Office (MRO) is an
unequivocal act that signifies the President’s intent Shall remain effective unless revoked by the elected
of its issuance. President within 90 days from his
A Vacant position at the time of appointment;

2019 GOLDEN NOTES

lOMoARcPSD|8033415
assumption/re-assumption (1987 Constitution,
Art. VII, Sec. 14). Ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls–
Those connected with the diplomatic and
Designation consular services of the country.
Officers of AFP from the rank of colonel or naval
The imposition of additional duties on a person captain
already in the public service. It is considered only as NOTE: PNP of equivalent ranks and the
an acting or temporary appointment, which does Philippine Coast Guard is not included.
not confer security of tenure on the person named Other officers of the government whose
(Binamira v. Garrucho, G.R. No. 92008, July 30, appointments are vested in the President in
1990). the Constitution (1987 Constitution, Art. VII,
Sec. 16), such as:
NOTE: The President has the power to temporarily
designate an officer already in the government Chairmen and members of the CSC,
service or any other competent person to perform COMELEC and COA [1987 Constitution,
the functions of an office in the executive branch. Art. IX-B, C, D, Sec. 1(2)]
Temporary designation cannot exceed one year. Regular members of the JBC [1987
Constitution, Art. VIII, Sec. 8(2)]
Appointments made solely by the President
NOTE: The enumeration is exclusive.
Those vested by the Constitution on the President
alone; Appointing procedure for those that need
Those whose appointments are not otherwise Commission’s confirmation
provided by law;
Those whom he may be authorized by law to Nomination by the President
appoint; and Confirmation by the CA
Those other officers lower in rank whose Issuance of commission
appointment is vested by law in the President Acceptance by the appointee
alone (1987 Constitution, Art. VII, Sec. 16).
NOTE: At any time, before all four steps have been
Presidential appointments that need prior complied with, the President can withdraw the
recommendation or nomination by the nomination and appointment (Lacson v.
Judicial and Bar Council Romero,.R. No. L-3081, October 14, 1949).
Members of the Supreme Court and all lower Appointments where confirmation of the
courts (1987 Constitution, Art. VIII, Sec. Commission on Appointments is NOT
9). required:
Ombudsman and his 5 deputies
All other officers of the Government whose
CONFIRMATION AND BY-PASSED appointments are not otherwise provided for by
APPOINTMENTS law
Those whom the President may be authorized by
Appointments where confirmation of the law to appoint
Commission on Appointments is required Officers lower in rank whose appointments the
(HA2O) Congress may by law vest in the President alone
(Manalo v. Sistoza, 312 SCRA 239, August 11,
Heads of executive departments 1999, En Banc).
GR: Appointment of cabinet secretaries Procedure for those that do not need the
requires confirmation. Commission’s confirmation
Appointment
XPN: Vice-president may be appointed as Acceptance
a member of the Cabinet and such
appointment requires no confirmation AD INTERIM APPOINTMENTS
[1987 Constitution, Art. VII, Sec. 3(2)].
Ad interim Appointment
61

lOMoARcPSD|8033415
POLITICAL LAW
s is in
Power of the President to make appointments session
during the recess of Congress, but such or not
appointments shall be effective only until Require Does not
As to
disapproval by the Commission on Appointments or s require
confirm
until the next adjournment of the Congress confirm confirm
ation of
(Matibag v. Benipayo, G.R. No. 149036, April 2, ation of ation of
2002). the
the the
Commiss
Commis Commis
Purpose of ad interim appointment ion
sion sion
Permanent in Temporary in
Ad interim appointments are intended to prevent a Nature
nature nature
hiatus in the discharge of official duties. Obviously,
the public office would be immobilized to the Appoint Appoint
prejudice of the people if the President had to wait ee ee does
As to
for Congress and the Commission of Appointments enjoys not
security
to reconvene before he could fill a vacancy security enjoy
of
occurring during the recess (Guevara v. Inocentes, of security
tenure
G.R. No. L-25577, March 15, 1966). tenure of
tenure
Nature of ad interim appointment
Permanent Appointment vs. Temporary
Ad interim appointments are permanent Appointment
appointments. It is permanent because it takes
effect immediately and can no longer be withdrawn PERMANEN TEMPORARY
by the President once the appointee qualified into T APPOINTMEN
BASIS
office. The fact that it is subject to confirmation by APPOINTME T
the CA does not alter its permanent character. In NT
cases where the term of said ad interim appointee Extende Given to
had expired by virtue of inaction by the Commission d to persons
on Appointments, he may be reappointed to the persons without
same position without violating the Constitutional As to possessi such
provision prohibiting an officer whose term has persons ng the eligibility;
expired from being re-appointed (Matibag v. appointed requisit
Benipayo, G.R. No. 130657, April 1, 2002). e
eligibilit
NOTE: Being a permanent appointment, an ad y
interim appointee pending action by the Not Revocable
Commission on Appointments enjoys security of revocab at will
tenure (Marombhosar v. CA, G.R. No. 126481, le at will without
February 18, 2000). the
necessity
Ad interim appointment vs. Appointment in an of just
Acting Capacity As to
cause or a
acts of
valid
APPOINTME the
AD INTERIM investigati
NT IN AN appoin
BASIS APPOINTME on;
ACTING tee
NT appointin
CAPACITY g power
Made at has full
any time discretion
Made during there is to change
When made the recess of vacancy,
Congress i.e., (See further discussion under Law on Public
whether Officers)
Congres

2019 GOLDEN NOTES

lOMoARcPSD|8033415
President may appoint Acting Secretaries
without the consent of the Commission while Prohibited appointments under Sec. 15, Art.
the Congress is in session VII of the Constitution
Congress, through a law, cannot impose on the Those made for buying votes– Refers to those
President the obligation to appoint automatically the appointments made within two months
undersecretary as her temporary alter ego. An alter preceding the Presidential election and are
ego, whether temporary or permanent, holds a similar to those which are declared election
position of great trust and confidence. The office of a offenses in the Omnibus Election Code; and
department secretary may become vacant while Those made for partisan considerations– Consists
Congress is in session. Since a department secretary is of the so-called “midnight” appointments
the alter ego of the President, the acting appointee to (In Re: Hon. Valenzuela and Hon. Vallarta,
the office must necessarily have the President’s A.M. No. 98-5-01-SC, November 9, 1998).
confidence (Pimentel v. Ermita, G.R. No. 164978,
October 13, 2005). Does the prohibition against appointments
provided under Sec. 15, Art VII of the
NOTE: Acting appointments cannot exceed one Constitution apply to appointments to the
year [EO 292, Book III, Title I, Chapter 5, Sec. 17 (3)] judiciary?
Limitations on the appointing power of the NO. Art. VII is devoted to the Executive
President Department. Had the framers intended to extend
the prohibition contained in Sec. 15, Art. VII to the
The spouse and relatives by consanguinity or appointment of Members of the Supreme Court,
affinity within the 4th civil degree of the they could have explicitly done so. They could not
President shall not, during his "tenure" be have ignored the meticulous ordering of the
appointed as: provisions. They would have easily and surely
written the prohibition made explicit in Sec. 15,
Members of the Constitutional Commissions; Art. VII as being equally applicable to the
Member of the Office of Ombudsman; appointment of Members of the Supreme Court in
Secretaries; Art. VIII itself, most likely in Sec. 4 (1), Art. VIII.
Undersecretaries; That such specification was not done only reveals
Chairmen or heads of bureaus or offices, that the prohibition against the President or Acting
including government-owned or President making appointments within two months
controlled corporations and their before the next presidential elections and up to the
subsidiaries (1987 Constitution, Art. VII, end of the President’s or Acting President’s term
Sec. 13[2]). does not refer to the Members of the Supreme
Court (De Castro v. JBC, G.R. No. 191002, March 17,
Appointments made by the acting-President shall 2010).
remain effective unless revoked within 90
days from assumption of office by elected President Arroyo appointed Atty. Velicaria-
President (1987 Constitution, Art. VII, Sec. Garafil as State Solicitor II on 5 March 2010. The
14). appointment paper was transmitted on 8 March
GR: Two months immediately before the next 2010 and was received by the Malacañang
Presidential elections (2nd Monday of May), Records Office (MRO) on 13 May 2010. Atty.
and up to the end of his "term" (June 30), a Velicaria-Garafil, on the other hand, took her
President (or Acting President) shall not oath of office on 22 March 2010 and assumed
make appointments. thereto 6 April 2010. The cut-off date for valid
presidential appointments was on 10 March
XPN: Temporary appointments, to executive 2010 or two months preceding the 10 May 2010
positions, when continued vacancies therein will elections. Upon assumption of President Aquino
prejudice public service (1987 Constitution, Art. III, he issued E.O. No. 2 recalling, withdrawing,
VII, Sec. 15), e.g. Postmaster; or endanger public and revoking all midnight appointments of
safety, e.g. Chief of Staff. President Arroyo which includes all
(1991, 1997 Bar) appointments bearing dates prior to 11 March
2010 where the appointee has accepted, or
MIDNIGHT APPOINTMENTS taken his oath, or assumed
63

lOMoARcPSD|8033415
POLITICAL LAW
public office on or after 11 March 2010. Atty. fact, considering the purpose of the
Velicaria-Garafil asserts the validity of her appointment ban, the concurrence of all steps
appointment and now questions the in the appointment process must be strictly
constitutionality of E.O. No. 2. Decide. applied on appointments made just before or
during the appointment ban (Velicaria-Garafil
E.O. No. 2 is constitutional. Atty. Velicaria- v. Office of the President, ibid.).
Garafil’s appointment is a midnight appointment
and is void for violation of Art. VII, Sec. 15 of the Prohibition on midnight appointments only
1987 Constitution. Appointment to a government applies to presidential appointments
post is a process that takes several steps to
complete. Any valid appointment, including one The prohibition on midnight appointments only
made under the exception provided in Section 15, applies to presidential appointments. It does not
Article VII of the 1987 Constitution, must consist of apply to appointments made by local chief executives.
the President signing an appointee’s appointment Nevertheless, the Civil Service Commission has the
paper to a vacant office, the official transmittal of power to promulgate rules and regulations to
the appointment paper (preferably through the professionalize the civil service. It may issue rules and
MRO), receipt of the appointment paper by the regulations prohibiting local chief executives from
appointee, and acceptance of the appointment by making appointments during the last days of their
the appointee evidenced by his or her oath of office tenure. Appointments of local chief executives must
or his or her assumption to office. The purpose of conform to these civil service rules and regulations in
the prohibition on midnight appointments is to order to be valid (Provincial Government of Aurora v.
prevent a President, whose term is about to end, Marco, G.R. No. 202331, April 22, 2015).
from preempting his successor by appointing his
own people to sensitive positions (Velicaria-Garafil POWER OF REMOVAL
v. Office of the President, G.R. No. 203372, June 16,
2015) GR: From the express power of appointment, the
President derives the implied power of removal.
Supposing that Atty. Velicaria-Garafil’s
appointment and its transmittal are made XPN: Not all officials appointed by the President
before the ban (11 March 2010) but she took are also removable by him since the Constitution
her oath and assumed (acceptance of prescribes certain methods for the separation from
appointment) as State Solicitor II only after the public service of such officers
the ban, is the appointment still a midnight e.g. impeachment
appointment?
NOTE: The President is without any power to
YES. The President exercises only one kind of remove elected local officials since the power is
appointing power. There is no need to differentiate exclusively provided in the last paragraph of
the exercise of the President’s appointing power Section 60 of the Local Government Code.
outside, just before, or during the appointment ban.
The Constitution allows the President to exercise Source of the President’s Power of Removal
the power of appointment during the period not
covered by the appointment ban and disallows The President derives his implied power of removal
(subject to an exception) the President from from other powers expressly vested in him.
exercising the power of appointment during the
period covered by the appointment ban. The It is implied from his power to appoint.
concurrence of all steps in the appointment Being executive in nature, it is implied from the
process is admittedly required for constitutional provision vesting the executive
appointments outside the appointment ban. power in the President.
There is no justification whatsoever to remove It may be implied from his function to take care
acceptance as a requirement in the appointment that laws be properly executed; for without it,
process for appointments just before the start of the his orders for law enforcement might not be
appointment ban, or during the appointment ban effectively carried out.
in appointments falling within the exception. The The power may be implied from the
existence of the appointment ban makes no President’s control over the administrative
difference in the power of the President to appoint; departments, bureaus, and offices of the
it is still the same power to appoint. In

2019 GOLDEN NOTES

lOMoARcPSD|8033415
government. Without the power to remove, it
would not be always possible for the President Clarence sued PGA Cars before the DTI
to exercise his power of control. pursuant to the Consumer Act (R.A. 7394) due
to the defect in the BMW he bought from the
NOTE: Members of the career service of the Civil latter. DTI sided with Clarence. PGA Cars
Service who are appointed by the President may be appealed before the Office of the President
directly disciplined by him. (Villaluz v. Zaldivar, G.R. (OP) which reversed the DTI’s decision.
No. L-22754, Dec. 31, 1965) provided that the same Clarence elevated the matter before the CA
is for cause and in accordance with the procedure through Rule 65 and argued that the OP had no
prescribed by law. appellate jurisdiction over DTI’s decision. The
OP countered that it has an appellate
Members of the Cabinet and such officers whose jurisdiction over DTI on the ground that the
continuity in office depend upon the President may be President’s power of control over the
replaced at any time. Legally speaking, their executive department grants him the power to
separation is effected not by the process of removal amend, modify, alter or repeal decisions of the
but by the expiration of their term(Aparri v. CA, G.R. department secretaries. Decide.
No. L-30057, January 31, 1984).
Clarence is correct. The executive power of
The President has no disciplinary authority control over the acts of department secretaries is
over the Ombudsman laid down in Section 17, Article VII of the 1987
Constitution. The power of control has been defined
Sec. 8(2) of RA 6770 vesting disciplinary authority on as the "power of an officer to alter or modify or
the President over the Deputy Ombudsman violates nullify or set aside what a subordinate officer had
the independence of the Office of the Ombudsman and done in the performance of his duties and to
is, thus, unconstitutional. substitute the judgment of the former for that of
the latter."
Subjecting the Deputy Ombudsman to discipline
and removal by the President, whose own alter egos Such "executive control" is not absolute. The
and officials in the Executive Department are definition of the structure of the executive branch
subject to the Ombudsman's disciplinary authority, of government, and the corresponding degrees of
cannot but seriously place at risk the independence administrative control and supervision is not the
of the Office of the Ombudsman itself. The law exclusive preserve of the executive. It may be
directly collided not only with the independence effectively limited by the Constitution, by law, or by
that the Constitution guarantees to the Office of the judicial decisions. All the more in the matter of
Ombudsman, but inevitably with the principle of appellate procedure as in the instant case. Appeals
checks and balances that the creation of an are remedial in nature; hence, constitutionally
Ombudsman office seeks to revitalize. What is true subject to this Court’s rulemaking power. The Rules
for the Ombudsman must be equally and of Procedure was issued by the Court pursuant to
necessarily true for her Deputies who act as agents Section 5, Article VIII of the Constitution, which
of the Ombudsman in the performance of their expressly empowers the Supreme Court to
duties (Gonzales III v. promulgate rules concerning the procedure in all
Ochoa, G. R. No. 196231; Barreras -Sulit v. courts.
Ochoa, G.R. No. 196232; February 26, 2014, PER
J. PERLAS-BERNABE). Parenthetically, Administrative Order (A.O.) No. 18
expressly recognizes an exception to the remedy of
POWER OF CONTROL AND SUPERVISION appeal to the Office of the President from the
decisions of executive departments and agencies.
The President shall have control of all executive Under Section 1 thereof, a decision or order issued
departments, bureaus and offices. (1987 by a department or agency need not be appealed to
Constitution, Art. VII, Sec. 17) the Office of the President when there is a special
law that provides for a different mode of appeal.
Power of Control
In this case, a special law, RA 7394, expressly
The power of an officer to alter or modify or nullify or provided for immediate judicial relief from
to set aside what a subordinate has done in the decisions of the DTI Secretary by filing a petition
performance of his duties and to substitute one’s own for certiorari with the "proper court." Hence,
judgment for that of a subordinate.
65
lOMoARcPSD|8033415
POLITICAL LAW
private respondent should have elevated the case NOTE: Applying this doctrine, the power of the
directly to the CA through a petition for certiorari President to reorganize the National Government
(Moran v. Office of the President, G.R. No. 192957, may be validly delegated to his Cabinet Members
Sept. 29, 2014). exercising control over a particular executive
department (DENR v. DENR Region XII Employees,
NOTE: The President’s power over GOCCs comes G.R. No. 149724, August 19, 2003).
from statute, not from the Constitution, hence, it
may be taken away by statute. The Toll Regulatory Board (TRB) and PNCC
executed the Amendment to the Supplemental
The President has full control of all the members of Toll Operation Agreement (ASTOA). The
his Cabinet. He may appoint them as he sees fit, ASTOA incorporated the amendments to cover
shuffle them at pleasure, and replace them in his the design and construction of Stage 2 of the
discretion without any legal inhibition whatever. South Metro Manila Skyway. The DOTC
However, such control is exercisable by the Secretary then approved the ASTOA. Risa
President only over the acts of his subordinates and Hontiveros assailed the DOTC Secretary’s
not necessarily over the subordinate himself. (Ang- approval on the ground that it could not take the
Angco v. Castillo, G.R. No.L-17169, November 30, place of the presidential approval required
1963) under P.D. 1113 and P.D. 1894 concerning the
franchise granted to PNCC. Is Risa Correct?
DOCTRINE OF QUALIFIED POLITICAL AGENCY
NO. The doctrine of qualified political agency declares
“Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency” or that, save in matters on which the Constitution or the
“Alter Ego Principle” (2014, 2015 Bar) circumstances require the President to act personally,
executive and administrative functions are exercised
The acts of the secretaries of the Executive through executive departments headed by cabinet
departments performed and promulgated in the secretaries, whose acts are presumptively the acts of
regular course of business are presumptively the the President unless disapproved by the latter. There
acts of the Chief Executive (Villena v. Sec. of the can be no question that the act of the secretary is the
Interior, G.R. No. L-46570, April 21, 1939). act of the President, unless repudiated by the latter. In
this case, approval of the ASTOA by the DOTC
XPNs to the Alter Ego doctrine Secretary had the same effect as approval by the
President. The same would be true even without the
If the acts are disapproved or reprobated by the issuance of E.O. 497, in which the President, on 24
President; January 2006, specifically delegated to the DOTC
If the President is required to act in person by Secretary the authority to approve contracts entered
law or by the Constitution. into by the
e.g. executive clemency TRB. Risa’s reliance on P.D. 1113 and P.D. 1894 is
misplaced. When we say that the approval by the
NOTE: It would appear though that doctrine of DOTC Secretary in this case was approval by the
qualified political agency would not be applicable President, it was not in connection with the
to acts of cabinet secretaries done in their capacity franchise of PNCC, as required under P.D. 1113 and
as ex-officio board directors of a GOCC of which P.D. 1894. Rather, the approval was in connection
they become a member not by appointment of the with the powers of the TRB to enter into contracts
President but by authority of law (See: Trade and on behalf of the government as provided under
Investment Development Corporation of the Section 3(a) of P.D. 1112 (Hontiveros-Baraquel v.
Philippines v. Manalang-Demigillo, G.R. Nos. Toll Regulatory Board, G.R. No. 181293, February
168613 & 185571). 23, 2015).
Essence of the Alter Ego doctrine Atty. Alcantara questioned R.A. 9337 which
authorizes the President, upon
Since the President is a busy man, he is not recommendation of the Secretary of Finance,
expected to exercise the totality of his power of to raise the VAT rate to 12%. Atty. Alcantara
control all the time. He is not expected to exercise argues that said law is unconstitutional since
all his powers in person. He is expected to delegate the law effectively nullified the President’s
some of them to men of his confidence, particularly power of control over the Secretary of Finance
to members of his Cabinet. by mandating the raising of the VAT rate upon

2019 GOLDEN NOTES

lOMoARcPSD|8033415
the latter’s recommendation. Is Atty. Alcantara The power of a superior officer to ensure that the
correct? laws are faithfully executed by subordinates.
NO. In making his recommendation to the The power of the President over LGUs is only of
President, the Secretary of Finance is not acting as general supervision. Thus, he can only interfere in
the alter ego of the President or even her the affairs and activities of a LGU if he finds that
subordinate. In such instance, he is not subject to the latter acted contrary to law.
the power of control and direction of the President.
He is acting as the agent of the legislative The President or any of his alter egos cannot
department, to determine and declare the event interfere in local affairs as long as the concerned
upon which its expressed will is to take effect. The LGU acts within the parameters of the law and the
Secretary of Finance becomes the means or tool by Constitution. Any directive, therefore, by the
which legislative policy is determined and President or any of his alter egos seeking to alter
implemented, considering that he possesses all the the wisdom of a law-conforming judgment on local
facilities to gather data and information and has a affairs of a LGU is a patent nullity, because it
much broader perspective to properly evaluate violates the principle of local autonomy, as well as
them. Thus, being the agent of Congress and not of the doctrine of separation of powers of the
the President, the President cannot alter or modify executive and the legislative departments in
or nullify, or set aside the findings of the Secretary governing municipal corporations (Dadole v. COA,
of Finance and to substitute the judgment of the G.R. No. 125350, December 3, 2002).
former for that of the latter(ABAKADA v. Exec. Sec.,
G.R. No. 168056, September 1, 2005). Control vs. Supervision
NOTE: As a rule, an aggrieved party need not BASIS CONTROL SUPERVISION

appeal to the Office of the President the decision of The
a cabinet secretary and may file a petition for An supervisor or
certiorari directly with the court assailing the act officer in superintende
of the said secretary. His acts are presumed to be of control nt merely
the President’s unless disapproved or reprobated by lays sees to it that
him (Manubay v. Garilao, G.R. No. 140717, April 16, Nature down the rules are
2009). the rules followed, but
in the he himself
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND OFFICES doing of does not lay
an act. down such
Department Heads may exercise power of rules.
control in behalf of the President including the The
power to reverse the judgment of an inferior supervisor
officer. If the rules does not
are not have the
For instance, the Sec. of Justice may reverse the followed, discretion to
judgment of a prosecutor and direct him to the officer modify or
withdraw information already filed. One, who in control replace them.
disagrees, however, may appeal to the Office of the may, in his If the rules
President in order to exhaust administrative discretion, are not
remedies prior filing to the court. As to order the observed, he
discreti act may order
Also, the Executive Secretary when acting “by on of the undone or the work
authority of the President” may reverse the decision officer re-done done or re-
of another department secretary (Lacson- by his done but
Magallanes v. Paño, G.R. No. L-27811, November subordina only to
17, 1967). te or he conform to
may even the
LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS decide to prescribed
do it rules. (Drilon
Power of General Supervision himself. v. Lim, G.R.
No. 112497,
Aug. 4, 1994)
67
lOMoARcPSD|8033415
POLITICAL LAW
NOTE: What is permitted to be suspended by
NOTE: The power of supervision does not include the President is not the writ itself but its
the power of control; but the power of control privilege.
necessarily includes the power of supervision.
WRIT OF HABEAS PRIVILEGE OF THE
MILITARY POWERS CORPUS WRIT
An order from the That portion of
Scope of the President’s Commander-in-Chief court commanding a the writ
Powers detaining officer to requiring the
inform the court if he detaining
COMMAND OF THE ARMED FORCES – absolute has the person in officer to show
authority over the persons and actions of the custody, and what his cause why he
members of the armed forces (Gudani v. basis is in detaining should not be
Senga, G.R. No. 170165, Aug. 15, 2006). that person. tested.
NOTE: By making the President the Requisites for the suspension of the privilege
Commander-in-Chief of all the armed forces, of the writ of habeas corpus
the principle announced in Sec. 3, Art. II is
bolstered. Thus, the Constitution lessens the There must be an invasion or rebellion; and
danger of a military take-over of the Public safety requires the suspension
government in violation of its republican
nature. NOTE: The invasion and rebellion must be actual
and not merely imminent.
The President as Commander-in-Chief can
prevent the Army General from appearing in Non-impairment of the right to bail
a legislative investigation and, if disobeyed,
can subject him to court martial (Gudani v. The right to bail shall not be impaired even when
Senga, G.R. No. 170165, August 15, 2006). the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is
suspended. (1987 Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 13)
CALLING-OUT POWERS – Call the armed forces
to prevent or suppress lawless violence, Limitations on the suspension of the privilege
invasion, or rebellion. The only criterion for of writ of habeas corpus
the exercise of this power is that whenever it
becomes necessary. Applies only to persons judicially charged for
rebellion or offenses inherent in or directly
NOTE: The declaration of a state of emergency connected with invasion; and
is merely a description of a situation which Anyone arrested or detained during suspension
authorizes her to call out the Armed Forces to must be charged within 3 days. Otherwise,
help the police maintain law and order. It gives he should be released.
no new power to her, nor to the police. Certainly,
it does not authorize warrantless arrests or Role of the Supreme Court in reviewing the
control of media (David v. GMA, G.R. No. factual bases of the promulgation of the
171409, May 3, 2006). suspension of the privilege of the writ of
(2015 Bar) habeas corpus
The Constitution does not require the Although the Constitution reserves to the Supreme
President to declare a state of rebellion to Court the power to review the sufficiency of the
exercise her calling out power. Sec. 18, Art. VII factual basis of the proclamation or suspension in a
grants the President, as Commander-in- proper suit, it is implicit that the Court must allow
Chief a “sequence” of “graduated powers” Congress to exercise its own review powers, which is
(Sanlakas v. Exec. Sec., G.R. No. 159085, automatic rather than initiated. Only when Congress
February 3, 2004). (2015 Bar) defaults in its express duty to defend the Constitution
through such review should the Supreme Court step in
SUSPENSION of the privilege of the writ of as its final rampart. The constitutional validity of the
habeas corpus President’s proclamation of martial law or suspension
of the writ of habeas corpus is first a

2019 GOLDEN NOTES

lOMoARcPSD|8033415
political question in the hands of Congress Limitations on the declaration of martial law
before it becomes a justiciable one in the
hands of the Court. (Fortun v. GMA, G.R. No. It does not suspend the operation of the
190293, March 20, 2012) Constitution;
It does not supplant the functioning of the civil
He may proclaim MARTIAL LAW over the courts or legislative assemblies;
entire Philippines or any part thereof. It does not authorize conferment of jurisdiction
over civilians where civil courts are able to
Nature of martial law function;
Martial law is a joint power of the President and NOTE: Civilians cannot be tried by military
the Congress. Thus: (60-48-24-jointly) courts if the civil courts are open and
functioning. (Open Court Doctrine) (Olaguer
The President’s proclamation or suspension is v. Military Commission No. 34, G.R. No. L-
temporary, good for only 60 days; 54558, May 22, 1987).
He must, within 48 hours of the proclamation or
suspension, report his action in person or in It does not automatically suspend the privilege of
writing to Congress; the writ of habeas corpus (1987 Constitution,
Both houses of Congress, if not in session must Art. VII, Sec. 18 (2)].
jointly convene within 24 hours of the
proclamation or suspension for the purpose of NOTE: When martial law is declared, no new powers
reviewing its validity; and are given to the President; no extension of arbitrary
The Congress, voting jointly, may revoke or authority is recognized; no civil rights of individuals
affirm the President’s proclamation or are suspended. The relation of the citizens to their
suspension, allow their limited effectivity to State is unchanged. The Supreme Court cannot rule
lapse, or extend the same if Congress deems upon the correctness of the President’s actions but
warranted. only upon its arbitrariness.
It is evident that under the 1987 Constitution the Ways to lift the proclamation of martial law
President and the Congress exercise the power
sequentially and jointly since, after the President Lifting by the President himself
has initiated the proclamation or the suspension, Revocation by Congress
only the Congress can maintain the same based on Nullification by the SC
its own evaluation of the situation on the ground, a By operation of law after 60 days
power that the President does not have (Fortun v.
GMA, ibid.). In light of recent attacks in Marawi City by the
Maute group and other terrorist organizations,
Guidelines in the declaration of martial law President Duterte declared a state of martial law
(IR-PS-60-48-jointly) and suspended the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus in the whole of Mindanao,
There must be an Invasion or Rebellion, and invoking as factual basis a written report
Public Safety requires the proclamation of martial pointing out that for decades, Mindanao has
law all over the Philippines or any part been plagued with rebellion and lawless
thereof. violence which only escalated and worsened
Duration: Not more than 60 days following which with the passing of time and the strategic
it shall be automatically lifted unless extended location of Marawi City and its crucial role in
by Congress. Mindanao and the Philippines as a whole. Is the
Duty of the President to report to Congress: within factual basis for the proclamation enough, and
48 hours personally or in writing. therefore constitutional?
Authority of Congress to affirm or revoke or allow
the lapse or extend the effectivity of YES. The President deduced from the facts
proclamation: by majority vote of all its available to him that there was an armed public
members voting jointly. uprising, the culpable purpose of which was to
remove from the allegiance to the Philippine
NOTE: Once revoked by Congress, the President Government a portion of its territory and to
cannot set aside the revocation. deprive the Chief Executive of any of his powers
and prerogative, leading the President to believe
69
lOMoARcPSD|8033415
POLITICAL LAW
that there was probable cause that the crime of Role of the Supreme Court in inquiring into
rebellion was and is being committed and that public the factual bases of the President’s
safety requires the imposition of martial law and declaration Martial Law (ML)
suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus. Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution itself The power of the Court to review the sufficiency of
sets the parameters for determining the sufficiency of the factual basis under Sec. 18, Art VII of the
the factual basis for the declaration of martial law Constitution is independent of the actions taken by
and/or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of Congress.
habeas corpus, namely (1) actual invasion or
rebellion, and (2) public safety requires the exercise of The Court can simultaneously exercise its power of
such power. Without the concurrence of the two review with, and independently from the power to
conditions, the President's declaration of martial law revoke by Congress. Corollary, any perceived inaction
and/or suspension of the privilege of the writ of or default on the part of Congress does not deprive or
habeas corpus must be struck down. A review of the deny the Court its power to review.
aforesaid facts similarly leads the Court to conclude
that the President, in issuing Proclamation No. 216, JUDICIAL CONGRESSIONAL
had sufficient factual bases tending to show that POWER TO POWER TO REVOKE
actual rebellion exists. The President's conclusion, that REVIEW
there was an armed public uprising, the culpable Court may strike Congress may revoke the
purpose of which was the removal from the allegiance down the proclamation/suspension,
of the Philippine Government a portion of its territory presidential which revocation shall not
and the deprivation of the President from performing proclamation in be set aside by the
his powers and prerogatives, was reached after a an appropriate President.
tactical consideration of the facts. In fine, the proceeding filed
President satisfactorily discharged his burden of by any citizen on
proof. After all, what the President needs to satisfy is the ground of lack
only the standard of probable cause for a valid of sufficient
declaration of martial law and suspension of the factual basis.
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. (Lagman v. Court considers May take into
Medialdea, G.R. No. 231658, July 4, 2017). only the consideration not only
information and data available prior to, but
data available to likewise events
Does Congress have the mandatory duty to the President supervening the
convene and meet in joint session upon the prior to or at the declaration.
President's proclamation of martial law or the time of the
suspension of the privilege of the writ of declaration; it is
habeas corpus? Explain. not allowed to
undertake an
NO. Congress is not constitutionally mandated to independent
convene in joint session except to vote jointly to revoke investigation
the President's declaration or suspension. By the beyond the
language of Article VII, Section 18 of the 1987 pleadings.
Constitution, the Congress is only required to vote Does not look into Could probe deeper and
jointly to revoke the President's proclamation of the absolute further; it can delve into
martial law and/or suspension of the privilege of the correctness of the the accuracy of the facts
writ of habeas corpus. If Congress does not want to factual basis. presented before it.
revoke or lift the declaration of martial law, then Review power is Review mechanism is
there is no need for them to meet in joint session. It is passive – only automatic in the sense
worthy to stress that the provision does not actually initiated by the that it may be activated by
refer to a "joint session.” The requirement of voting filing of a petition Congress itself at any time
jointly explicitly applies only to the situation when the “in an appropriate after the proclamation of
Congress revokes the President's proclamation of proceeding” by a suspension was made.
martial law. [Padilla v. Congress, 25 July 2017] citizen.
NOTE: There is sufficient factual basis for the

declaration of Martial Law or the suspension of the
privilege of the writ if from the facts available to

2019 GOLDEN NOTES
lOMoARcPSD|8033415
the President, it led him to believe that there was ng grave possible Review
PROBABLE CAUSE that the crime of rebellion was abuse of nullifica- and
and is being committed and that the public discretio tion by the possible
n. SC nullifica-
safety requires it. After all, only the standard of
tion by
probable cause is what the President needs to
But the SC
satisfy.
generally,
president
Power of Judicial Review vis-à-vis Military
Powers of the President has full
discretio
The power of judicial review does NOT extend to n
calibrating the President’s decision pertaining to
which extraordinary power to avail given a set of Subject Actual YES. YES.
facts or conditions. to use to Limited to Limited
judicial which the to the
BASIS CALLING SUSPENSI ML review? President determina determin
OUT ON OF puts the -tion of a-tion of
THE armed whether whether
PRIVILLE forced the the
GE NOT President President
subject to had had
Charact Most Involve Involve
judicial sufficient sufficient
er benign curtailmen curtailme
factual factual
and t and nt and
basis. basis.
involves suppressio suppre-
ordinary n of civil ssion of
police rights and civil NOTE: Graduation of powers refers to hierarchy
action individual rights based on scope and effect; it does not refer to
freedom and sequence, order, or arrangement by which the
individua Commander- in- Chief must adhere to. The power
l freedom to choose, initially, which among the extraordinary
powers to wield in a given set of conditions is a
When Wheneve Only when Only judgment call on the part of the President. A plain
reading of Sec. 18, Art. VII shows that the
may the r it there is when
President’s power to declare ML is not subject to
Preside becomes actual there is
any condition except for the requirements of actual
nt necessar invasion, actual
resort to y to rebellion, invasion, invasion or rebellion and that public safety
requires it. No need for recommendation of the
this prevent and public rebellion,
Defense Secretary.
power? or safety and
suppress requires it. public
Territorial Coverage of ML or the Suspension
lawless safety
of the Privilege of the Writ of HC
violence, requires
invasion, it.
The 1987 Constitution grants to the President, as
or
Commander-in-Chief, the discretion to determine
rebellion.
the territorial coverage or application of ML or the
suspension of the privilege of the writ of HC. There
Limitati President 1. Time 1. Time
is no constitutional edict that ML should be
on must act limit of limit of
confined only in the particular place where the
within 60 days; 60
armed public uprising actually transpired. The
permissi 2. Review days;
President’s duty to maintain peace and public
ble and 2. Review
safety is not limited only to the place where there is
constituti possible and
actual rebellion; it extends to other areas where
o-nal revoca- possibl
the present hostilities are in danger of spilling over.
bounda- tion by e
ries or in Congres revoca-
Calling out power does not need
a manner s tion by
Congressional authority
not Review Congre
constituti and ss;
71
lOMoARcPSD|8033415
POLITICAL LAW
discretion, the Court will accord respect to the
There is no need for congressional authority to President’s judgment (Ampatuan v. Hon. Puno, G.R.
exercise the calling out power of the President since No. 190259. June 7, 2011).
calling out of the armed forces to prevent or
suppress lawless violence is a power that the EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY
Constitution directly vests in the President. As in the
case where the President did not proclaim a Pardon
national emergency but only a state of emergency
in 3 places in Mindanao and she did not act An act of grace, which exempts individual on whom it
pursuant to any law enacted by Congress that is bestowed from punishment, which the law inflicts
authorized her to exercise extraordinary powers for a crime he has committed. As a consequence,
(Ampatuan v. Hon. Puno, G.R. No. 190259, June 7, pardon granted after conviction frees the individual
2011). from all the penalties and legal disabilities and
restores him to all his civil rights. But unless expressly
May the President, in the exercise of peace grounded on the person’s innocence (which is rare), it
negotiations, agree to pursue reforms that cannot bring back lost reputation for honesty,
would require new legislation and integrity and fair dealing. (Monsanto v. Factoran, G.R.
constitutional amendments, or should the No. 78239, Feb. 9, 1989)
reforms be restricted only to those solutions
which the present laws allow? NOTE: Because pardon is an act of grace, no legal
power can compel the President to give it. Congress
If the President is to be expected to find means for has no authority to limit the effects of the
bringing this conflict to an end and to achieve President’s pardon, or to exclude from its scope any
lasting peace in Mindanao, then he must be given class of offenders. Courts may not inquire into the
the leeway to explore, during peace negotiations, wisdom or reasonableness of any pardon granted
solutions that may require changes to the by the President.
Constitution for their implementation. So long as
the President limits himself to recommending Purpose of pardon
these changes and submits to the proper procedure
for constitutional amendment and revision, his To relieve the harshness of the law or correcting
mere recommendation need not be construed as mistakes in the administration of justice. The
unconstitutional act. Given the limited nature of the power of executive clemency is a non-delegable
President’s authority to propose constitutional power and must be exercised by the President
amendments, he cannot guarantee to any third personally.
party that the required amendments will
eventually be put in place, nor even be submitted to NOTE: Clemency is not a function of the judiciary;
a plebiscite. The most she could do is submit these it is an executive function. The grant is
proposals as recommendations either to Congress discretionary, and may not be controlled by the
or the people, in whom constituent powers are legislature (Congress) as to limit the effects of the
vested (Province of North Cotabato v. GRPs Peace President’s pardon, or to exclude from its scope any
panel on Ancestral Domain, G.R. No. 183591, class of offenders. Also, the Courts may not inquire
October 14, 2008). into the wisdom or reasonableness of any pardon
granted by the President or have it reversed, save
Role of the Supreme Court in inquiring into only when it contravenes its limitations. It includes
the factual bases of the President’s declaration cases involving both criminal and administrative
of a state of national emergency cases.
While it is true that the Court may inquire into the Kinds of executive clemency (FPARC)
factual bases for the President’s exercise of the
above power, it would generally defer to her Pardons (conditional or plenary);
judgment on the matter. It is clearly to the Reprieves;
President that the Constitution entrusts the Commutations;
determination of the need for calling out the armed Remission of Fines and Forfeitures; and
forces to prevent and suppress lawless violence. Amnesty
Unless it is shown that such determination was
attended by grave abuse of NOTE:

2019 GOLDEN NOTES

lOMoARcPSD|8033415
Executive Clemency Requirement penalties imposed upon the offender, including

Pardons accessory disabilities
Reprieves Partial pardon– Does not extinguish all the
Requires penalties; partially extinguishes criminal
Commutatio
conviction liability [See: RPC, Art. 94(1)].
ns
by final
Remission of
judgment NOTE: A judicial pronouncement that a convict who
Fines
and Forfeitures was granted a pardon subject to the condition that he
Requires should not again violate any penal law is not
concurren necessary before he can be declared to have violated
Amnesty the condition of her pardon (Torres v. Gonzales, G.R.
ce of
Congress No. L-76872, July 23, 1987).
Limitations on the President’s Pardoning Effects of the grant of pardon

Powers (CAN-F, CANNOT-CLIEP) (2015 BAR)
The grant of pardon from the President:
Can be granted only after conviction by
Final judgment Frees the individual from all the penalties and
XPN: AMNESTY legal disabilities imposed upon him by the
Cannot be granted in cases of civil or legislative sentence, and
Contempt.
Cannot absolve convict of civil Liability. NOTE: RPC, Article 36. Pardon; its effect: A
Cannot be granted in cases of Impeachment. (1987 pardon shall in no case exempt the culprit
Constitution, Art. VII, Sec. 19) from the payment of the civil indemnity
Cannot be granted for violations of Election
laws without favorable recommendations of Restores to him all his civil and political rights.
the COMELEC.
Ratio: The COMELEC is an independent body. NOTE: RPC, Article 36. Pardon; its effect: A
Cannot restore Public offices forfeited. pardon shall not work the restoration of the
right to hold public office, or the right of
suffrage, unless such rights be expressly
Kinds of pardon
restored by the terms of the pardon.
As to presence of condition:
Options of the convict when granted pardon
Absolute pardon– One extended without any
conditions; totally extinguishes criminal
Conditional Pardon– The offender has the right
liability (See: RPC, Art. 89[4]).
to reject it since he may feel that the condition
Conditional pardon – One under which the convict
imposed is more onerous than the penalty
is required to comply with certain
sought to be remitted.
requirements.
Absolute Pardon– The pardonee has no option at
all and must accept it whether he likes it or
Mateo was convicted of Homicide but was
not.
later on granted conditional pardon by the
president. When Mateo was filling up his
NOTE: In this sense, an absolute pardon is
personal data sheet for employment in public
similar to commutation, which is also not
office, he did not disclose the existence of a
subject to acceptance by the offender.
prior criminal conviction for homicide. Can
Mateo be employed as a public employee?
Pardon does not ipso facto restore former
office and his rights and privileges
NO. The pardon granted to Mateo is one of
Conditional Pardon, the pardon did not expressly
Pardon does not ipso facto restore a convicted felon
remit the accessory penalty of Homicide which is
neither to his former public office nor to his rights
perpetual absolute disqualification from holding
and privileges, which were necessarily relinquished
public office or employment (Mateo v. Executive
or forfeited by reason of the conviction although
Secretary, G.R. No. 177875, Aug 8, 2016).
such pardon undoubtedly
As to effect:
a. Plenary pardon– Extinguishes all the
73
lOMoARcPSD|8033415
POLITICAL LAW
restores his eligibility to that office (Monsanto v.
Factoran, G.R. No. 78239, February 9, 1989). Thus, Atty. Risos-Vidal and former Manila Mayor
Lim’s contentions that the said pardon granted was
Former President Estrada was convicted of the a conditional pardon as it did not expressly provide
crime of plunder by the Sandiganbayan. He for the remission of the penalty of perpetual
was granted an executive clemency by Former absolute disqualification especially the restoration
President Macapagal-Arroyo. In 2013, he ran of the right to vote and be voted for public office, as
for the position of Mayor of Manila, and won required by the RPC and that the third preambular
the election. clause in the pardon, which states that Estrada had
publicly committed to no longer seek any elective
Atty Risos-Vidal, and, former Mayor of Manila, position or office, disqualifies him from the post of
Alfredo Lim question the eligibility of Estrada Mayor are untenable (Risos-Vidal v. Estrada, G.R.
to hold an elective post. They contend that the No. 206666, January 21, 2015)
pardon granted by Pres. Arroyo to the latter
was a conditional pardon as it did not Forms of Executive Clemency
expressly provide for the remission of the
penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification Reprieve
especially the restoration of the right to vote Commutations
and be voted for public office, as required by Remission of fines and forfeitures
Articles 36 and 41 of the Revised Penal Code. Probation
Parole
They further contend that the third Amnesty
preambular clause in the pardon, which states
that Estrada had publicly committed to no Reprieve
longer seek any elective position or office,
disqualifies him from the post of Mayor. Is the The postponement of sentence to a date certain or
contention of the petitioners tenable? stay of execution.
NO. Former President Estrada, who was convicted NOTE: It may be ordered to enable the government
for the crime of plunder by the Sandiganbayan, was to secure additional evidence to ascertain the guilt
granted an absolute pardon that fully restored all of the convict or, in the case of the execution of the
his civil and political rights, which naturally death sentence upon a pregnant woman, to prevent
includes the right to seek public elective office. The the killing of her unborn child.
wording of the pardon extended to him is complete,
unambiguous and unqualified. He is therefore Commutation
eligible for the post of Mayor of Manila.
The reduction or mitigation of the penalty, from
The pardoning power of the President cannot be death penalty to life imprisonment, remittances
limited by legislative action. It is a presidential and fines. Commutation is a pardon in form but not
prerogative, which may not be interfered with by in substance, because it does not affect his guilt; it
Congress or the Court, except when it exceeds the merely reduces the penalty for reasons of public
limits provided by the Constitution. Articles 36 and interest rather than for the sole benefit of the
41 of the RPC should thus be construed in a way offender.
that will give full effect to the executive
clemency instead of indulging in an overly NOTE: Commutation does not have to be in any
strict interpretation that may serve to impair or particular form. Thus, the fact that a convict was
diminish the import of the pardon which emanated released after 6 years and placed under house
from the Office of the President, and duly signed by arrest, which is not a penalty, already leads to the
the Chief Executive herself. conclusion that the penalty has been shortened.
The third preambular clause is not an integral part Judicial power to pass upon the validity of the
of the decree of the pardon and therefore, does not actions of the President in granting executive
by itself operate to make the pardon conditional or clemency
to make its effectivity contingent upon the
fulfillment of the commitment nor to limit the scope
of the pardon.

2019 GOLDEN NOTES

lOMoARcPSD|8033415
The SC is not deciding a political question in reviewing e
the correctness of the action of the President in
granting executive clemency by commuting the Parole
penalty of dismissal to a dismissed clerk of court.
What it is deciding is whether or not the President has The suspension of the sentence of a convict granted
the power to commute the penalty of the said clerk of by a Parole Board after serving the minimum term
court. As stated in Daza v. Singson (G.R. No. 87721-30, of the indeterminate sentence penalty, without
December 21, 1989), it is within the scope of granting a pardon, prescribing the terms upon
judicial power to pass upon the validity of the which the sentence shall be suspended.
actions of the other departments of the
Government. Parole vs. Pardon
Remission of fines and forfeitures BASIS PAROLE PARDON
Merely prevents the collection of fines or the Release of a Release of

confiscation of forfeited property. It cannot have convict from convict from
the effect of returning property which has been imprisonment conviction
vested in third parties or money already in the Effect and is not a
public treasury. restoration of
his liberty
NOTE: The power of the President to remit fines
and forfeitures may not be limited by any act of In custody of Sentence is
Congress. But a statute may validly authorize other the law but no condoned,
officers, such as department heads or bureau chiefs, longer under subject to
to remit administrative fines and forfeitures. confinement reinstatement
in case of
Nature
Probation violation of
the condition
A disposition under which a defendant after that may have
conviction and sentence is released subject to been attached
conditions imposed by the court and to the to the pardon
supervision of a probation officer.
Amnesty
NOTE: It is not a right granted to a convicted
offender; it is a special privilege granted by the The grant of general pardon to a class of political
State to a penitent qualified offender, who does not offenders either after conviction or even before the
possess the disqualifications under P.D. No. 968, as charges is filed. It is the form of executive clemency
amended. Likewise, the Probation Law is not a which under the Constitution may be granted by
penal law for it to be liberally construed to favor the President only with the concurrence of the
the accused (Maruhom v. People, G.R. No. 206513, legislature.
October 20, 2015).
Requisites of amnesty
Probation vs. Pardon
Concurrence of a majority of all the members of
BASIS PROBATIO PARDON Congress (1987 Constitution, Art. VII, Sec. 19);
N and
Judicial Executiv A previous admission of guilt (Vera v. People, G.R.
Nature in e in No. L-18184, January 31, 1963).
nature nature
May be Requires Effects of the grant of amnesty
granted convictio
When after n by final The total extinguishment of the criminal liability
applicabl actual judgmen and of the penalty and all its effects. Amnesty
e service t reaches back to the past and erases whatever
of shade of guilt there was. In the eyes of the law, a
sentenc
75

lOMoARcPSD|8033415
POLITICAL LAW
person granted amnesty is considered a new-born Sources of the President’s diplomatic powers
child.
The Constitution
Amnesty vs. Pardon The status of sovereignty and independence
BASIS AMNESTY PARDON NOTE: By reason of the President's unique position

Addressed Addressed as Head of State, he is the logical choice as the
Nature of the nation's chief architect of or spokesman in foreign
to Political to Ordinary
offense relations. The Senate, on the other hand, is granted
offenses offenses
As to Granted to Granted to the right to share in the treaty-making power of
whom a class of individuals the President by concurring with him with the right
granted persons to amend.
Requires Does not
concurrenc require Scope of the foreign relations powers of the
As to President (N-ARC-DP-Reco)
e of concurrenc
concurrenc
majority of e of
e of Negotiate treaties and other international
all Congress
Congress agreements. However, such treaty or
members of
Congress international agreement requires the
Public act Private act concurrence of the Senate, (Art. VII, Sec. 21)
which the which must which may opt to do the following:
Nature of
court may be pleaded
the act Approve with 2/3 majority;
take judicial and proved
notice of Disapprove outright; or
Approve conditionally, with suggested
Looks Looks
amendments which if re-negotiated and the
backward forward
and puts to and relieves Senate’s suggestions are incorporated, the
treaty will go into effect without need of
As to oblivion the the
perspectiv offense pardonee of further Senate approval.
e itself the
NOTE: Executive agreements, however,
consequenc
do not require legislative concurrence
e of the
(Bayan Muna v. Romulo, G.R. No. 159618,
offense
February 1, 2011). (2015 Bar)
May be Only
granted granted
An executive agreement is a “treaty” within
When before or after
the meaning of that word in international law
granted after conviction
and constitutes enforceable domestic law
conviction by final
(Nicolas v. Romulo, G.R. No. 175888, February
judgment
11, 2009).
Need Must be
As to not be accepted Requisites of Executive Agreement
acceptance accepte (under Vienna Convention):
d
The agreement must be between states;
NOTE: The right to the benefits of amnesty, once It must be written; and
established by the evidence presented either by the It must be governed by international law
complainant or prosecution, or by the defense, (China National Machinery and
cannot be waived, because it is of public interest Equipment Corporation v. Sta. Maria,
that a person who is regarded by the Amnesty G.R. No. 185572, February 7, 2012).
Proclamation which has the force of a law, not only
as innocent, for he stands in the eyes of the law as if Role of the Senate
he had never committed any punishable offense
(Barrioquinto v. Fernandez, G.R. No. L-1278, The role of the Senate, however, is limited only
January 21, 1949). to giving or withholding its consent, or
concurrence, to the ratification. It should be
POWERS PERTINENT TO FOREIGN RELATIONS emphasized that under our Constitution, the

2019 GOLDEN NOTES
lOMoARcPSD|8033415
power to ratify is vested in the President,
subject to the concurrence of the Senate. The members of the MALAYA LOLAS, a non-
stock, non-profit organization, established for
Hence, it is within the authority of the the purpose of providing aid to the victims of
President to refuse to submit a treaty to the rape by Japanese military forces in the
Senate or, having secured its consent for its Philippines during the Second World War, claim
ratification, refuse to ratify it. Although the that since 1998, they have approached the
refusal of a state to ratify a treaty which has Executive Department through the DOJ, DFA, and
been signed in its behalf is a serious step that OSG, requesting assistance in filing a claim
should not be taken lightly, such decision is against the Japanese officials and military
within the competence of the President alone. officers who ordered the establishment of the
(Pimentel v. Exec. Sec., G.R. No. 158088, July 6, comfort women stations in the Philippines.
2005) However, officials of the Executive Department
declined to assist the petitioners and took the
Appoint ambassadors, other public ministers, and position that the individual claims of the comfort
consuls. women for compensation had already been fully
Receive ambassadors and other public ministers satisfied by Japans compliance with the Peace
accredited to the Philippines. Treaty between the Philippines and Japan.
Contract and guarantee foreign loans on behalf of Hence, they file a Petition for Certiorari under
RP (1987 Constitution, Art. VII, Sec. 20). Rule 65 of the Rules of Court with an application
(1994, 1999 Bar) for the issuance of a writ of preliminary
Deport aliens – mandatory injunction. Will the action prosper?
This power is vested in the President by virtue

of his office, subject only to restrictions as NO. The Constitution has entrusted to the Executive
may be provided by legislation as regards Department the conduct of foreign relations for the
to the grounds for deportation (Revised Philippines. Whether or not to espouse petitioners'
Administrative Code, Sec. 69). claim against the Government of Japan is left to the
In the absence of any legislative restriction to exclusive determination and judgment of the
authority, the President may still exercise Executive Department. The Court cannot interfere
this power. with or question the wisdom of the conduct of
The power to deport aliens is limited by the foreign relations by the Executive Department.
requirements of due process, which entitles Accordingly, the court cannot direct the Executive
the alien to a full and fair hearing. NOTE: Department, either by writ of certiorari or
Summary deportation shall be observed in injunction, to conduct our foreign relations with
cases where the charge against the alien is Japan in a certain manner (Vinuya v. Executive
overstaying or expiration of his passport. Secretary, G.R. No. 162230, April 28, 2010).
(Board of Commissioners v. Jong Keun
Park, G.R. No. 159835, January 21, 2010) RULES ON SUCCESSION
An alien has the right to apply for bail
provided certain standard for the grant is
Rules to be applied if there is vacancy before
necessarily met (Government of Hong
the beginning of the term of the President.
Kong v. Olalia, G.R. No. 153675, April 19,
(1987 Constitution, Art. VII, Sec 7)
2007).
NOTE: The adjudication of facts upon which CAUSE OF VACANCY CONSEQUENCE

the deportation is predicated devolved on the In case of death or The Vice-President
President whose decision is final and executory permanent elect shall become
(Tan Tong v. Deportation Board, G.R. No. L- disability of the President.
7680, April 30, 1955). President-elect.
In case of failure to The Vice-President
Decide that a diplomatic officer who has become elect the President shall act as the
Persona non grata be recalled. (i.e. Presidential President until the
Recognize governments and withdraw recognition. elections have not President shall have
been held or non- been chosen and
completion of the qualified.
canvass of the
77

lOMoARcPSD|8033415
POLITICAL LAW
Presidential Rules and procedure to be followed if a
elections) vacancy occurs in the offices of the President
In case no President The Senate President, and Vice-President. (1987 Constitution, Art. VII,
and Vice-President or in case of his Sec. 10)
shall have been inability, the Speaker
chosen and of the HoR shall act as At 10:00 A.M. of the third day after said vacancy
qualified, or where President until a occurs – Congress shall convene in accordance
both shall have died President or a Vice- with its rules without need of call.
or become President shall have Within 7 days — Congress shall enact a law
permanently been chosen and calling for a special election to elect a
disabled. qualified. President and a Vice President.
Said special election shall be held — Not earlier
Congress shall by law than forty-five (45) days nor later than sixty
provide for the manner (60) days from the time of such call.
in which one who is to The bill calling such special election — Shall be
act as President shall deemed certified under Sec. 26, par. 2, Art. VI
be selected until a of the Constitution and shall become law
President or a Vice- upon its approval on third reading by
President shall have Congress.
qualified, in case of Appropriations for said special election — Shall
death, permanent be charged against any current
disability or inability of appropriations and shall be exempt from the
the officials. requirements of, Sec. 25, par. 4, Art. VI of the
Constitution.
Limitation on the power of the Acting The convening of Congress and the special
President election — cannot be suspended or postponed
No special election shall be called — If the
Appointments extended by an Acting President vacancy occurs within eighteen (18) months
shall remain effective, unless revoked by the elected before the date of the next presidential
President, within 90 days from his assumption or elections.
reassumption of office (1987 Constitution, Art. VII,
Sec. 14). Instances when there is presidential inability
to discharge powers and duties of his office
Rules to be applied if the vacancy occurs (1987 Constitution, Art. VII, Sec. 11)
during the incumbency of the President
INSTANCE CONSEQUENCE
CAUSE OF CONSEQUENCE When the President The powers and
VACANCY transmits to the Senate duties of his office
In case of : (DPR2) The Vice President President and to the shall be discharged
a. Death; shall become the Speaker of the HoR his by the Vice-
b. Permanent President to serve the written declaration President as Acting
Disability; unexpired term. that he is unable to President.
c. Removal from discharge the powers
office; or and duties of his office.
d. Resignation of the
President When a majority of all The Vice-President
In case of : The Senate the members of the shall immediately
a. Death; President, or in case Cabinet transmit to the assume the powers
b. Permanent of his inability, the Senate President and to and duties of the
Disability; Speaker of the HoR, the Speaker of the HoR office as Acting
c. Removal from shall act as President their written President.
office; or until the President or declaration that the
d. Resignation of both Vice President shall President is unable
the President and have ben elected and to discharge the
the Vice-President qualified.

2019 GOLDEN NOTES

lOMoARcPSD|8033415
powers and duties of
his office .
NOTE: The President can reassume power and

duties of his office once he transmits to the Senate
President and to the Speaker of the HoR his written
declaration that no inability exists.
79
lOMoARcPSD|8033415
POLITICAL LAW
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT assigned to it by the Constitution to determine

conflicting claims of authority under the
JUDICIAL POWER Constitution and to establish for the parties in an
actual controversy the rights which that
The duty of the courts of justice to settle actual instrument secures and guarantees to them. This is
controversies involving rights, which are legally in truth all that is involved in what is termed as
demandable and enforceable and to determine ‘Judicial Supremacy’, which properly is the power
whether or not there has been a grave abuse of of judicial review under the Constitution. (Angara
discretion amounting to lack or excess of v. The Electoral Commission, G.R. No. L-45081, July
jurisdiction on the part of any branch or 15, 1936)
instrumentality of the Government. [1987
Constitution, Art. VIII, Sec. 1(2)] REQUISITES OF JUDICIAL REVIEW
Body vested with judicial power Actual case or Controversy– It involves a conflict
of legal rights, assertion of opposite legal
It is vested in one Supreme Court and such lower claims susceptible of legal resolution. It must
courts as may be established by law. (1987 be both ripe for resolution and susceptible of
Constitution, Art. VIII, Sec. 1) judicial determination, and that which is not
conjectural or anticipatory, or that which
Judicial inquiry seeks to resolve hypothetical or feigned
constitutional problems.
The power of the court to inquire into the exercise of
discretionary powers to determine whether or not NOTE: But even with the presence of an actual
there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting case or controversy, the Court may refuse judicial
to lack or excess of jurisdiction. review unless a party who possesses locus
standior "a right of appearance in a court of
Paragraph 2 of Sec. 14 of the Ombudsman Act justice on a given question” to brings the
(R.A. 6770) provides: “No court shall hear any constitutional question or the assailed illegal
appeal or application for remedy against the movement or act before it.
decision or findings of the Ombudsman, except
the Supreme Court, on pure question of law.” Angelo Raphael petitions the SC to nullify
Decide on the constitutionality of this House Bill No. 4738 which abolishes the
provision. Judicial Development Fund (JDF) and replaces
it with the Judiciary Support Fund (JSF). The
Since the Par. 2 of Sec. 14 of R.A. 6770 limits the funds from JSF shall be remitted to the
remedy against “decision or findings” of the national treasury and Congress shall
Ombudsman to a Rule 45 appeal and thus – similar determine how the funds will be used; unlike
to the Par. 4 of Sec. 27 of RA 6770 – attempts to the JDF, the spending of which is exclusively
effectively increase the Supreme Court’s appellate determined by the SC. Rolly argues that House
jurisdiction without its advice and concurrence, Bill No. 4738 infringes SC’s fiscal autonomy. Is
therefore, the former provision is also the petition meritorious?
unconstitutional and invalid. (Carpio-Morales v.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 217126-27, November NO. There is no actual case or controversy. The
10, 2015) Court cannot speculate on the constitutionality or
unconstitutionality of a bill that Congress may or
JUDICIAL REVIEW may not pass. It cannot rule on mere speculations
or issues that are not ripe for judicial
The power of the SC to determine the determination. Filing of bills is within the
constitutionality of a law, treaty, ordinance, legislative power of Congress and is "not subject to
presidential issuance, and other governmental acts. judicial restraint" (In the Matter of Save the
Supreme Court v. Abolition of JDF, UDK-15143, Jan.
NOTE: When the judiciary mediates to allocate 21, 2015)
constitutional boundaries, it does not assert any
superiority over other departments; it does not in Proper party– One who has sustained or is in
reality nullify or invalidate an act of the legislature, immediate danger of sustaining an injury as a
but only asserts the solemn and sacred obligation result of the act complained of. (People v.
Vera, G.R. No. 45685November 16, 1937)

2019 GOLDEN NOTES
lOMoARcPSD|8033415
Judicial Department
To have standing, one must show that: XPN: If the question is of transcendental
importance.
He has suffered some actual or threatened
injury as a result of the allegedly NOTE: Principle of Transcendental Importance
illegal conduct of the government; is determined by: (CDO)
The injury is fairly traceable to the
challenged action; and The Character of the funds or other assets
The injury is likely to be redressed by a involved in the case;
favorable action. (Francisco, Jr. & The presence of a clear case of Disregard of a
Hizon v. Toll Regulatory Board, G.R. constitutional or statutory prohibition by the
Nos. 166910, October 19, 2010) public respondent agency or instrumentality
of the government;
Locus Standi vs. Real party-in-interest The lack of any Other party with a more direct
and specific interest in raising the questions
REAL PARTY-IN- being raised. (Francisco, et al., v. House of
LOCUS STANDI Representatives. Ibid.)
INTEREST
Character of the plaintiff
One who has The party who stands to Rule on standing is a matter of procedure,
sustained or is in be benefited or injured hence, can be relaxed
imminent danger of by the judgment in the
sustaining an injury suit, or the party When the proceeding involves the assertion of a
as a result of the act entitled to the avails of public right, the mere fact that the petitioner is a
complained of the suit. citizen satisfies the requirement of personal
(Direct injury interest. Thus, the privatization of power plants in
test). (Ex parte a manner that ensures the reliability and
Levitt, 302 U.S. 633, affordability of electricity in our country is an issue
1937) of paramount public interest in which the Court
Legal nature held that petitioner possesses the requisite legal
Has constitutional A concept of civil standing to file the case. (Osmeña v. Power Sector
underpinnings. procedure. Assets and Liabilities Management Corporation,
As to the issue involved G.R. No. 212686, September 28, 2015)
Whether such Whether he is "the
parties have party who would be When the issue concerns a public right, it is
"alleged such a benefited or injured by sufficient that the petitioner is a citizen and has an
personal stake in the judgment, or the interest in the execution of the laws. (The Prov. of
the outcome of the 'party entitled to the North Cotabato v. Gov’t of the Rep. of the Phil.
controversy as to avails of the suit”. Peace Panel on Ancestral Domain, G.R. No. 183591,
assure that (Francisco, et al., v. October 14, 2008)
concrete House of
adverseness which Representatives, G.R. No. Locus Standi in cases involving Taxes
sharpens the 160261, Nov. 10, 2003)
presentation of A taxpayer need not be a party to the contract to
issues upon which challenge its validity. If taxes are involved, people
the court so largely have a right to question contracts entered into by the
depends for government. Further, the issues raised in the petition
illumination of do not refer to the wisdom but to the legality of the
acts complained of. Thus, we find the instant
difficult
controversy within the ambit of judicial review.
constitutional
Besides, even if the issues were political in nature, it
questions."
would still come within our powers of review under
the expanded jurisdiction conferred upon us by
Legal personality
Section 1, Article VIII of the Constitution, which
includes the authority to determine whether grave
GR: If there is no actual or potential injury,
abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of
complainant has no legal personality to raise
jurisdiction has been committed by any branch or
constitutional questions.
instrumentality
81
lOMoARcPSD|8033415
POLITICAL LAW
of the government. (Mamba v. Lara, G.R. No. and, if not considered in trial, it cannot be
165109, December 14, 2009) considered on appeal.
Locus Standi in Environmental Cases The Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to

entertain questions regarding
In our jurisdiction, locus standi in environmental constitutionality of laws. Thus, when the issue
cases has been given a more liberalized approach. of constitutionality of a law was raised before
Recently, the Court passed the landmark Rules of the Court of Appeals, which is the competent
Procedure for Environmental Cases, which allow court, the constitutional question was raised
for a “citizen suit,” and permit any Filipino citizen, as at the earliest opportune time. (Estarija v.
steward of nature, to file an action before our courts Ranada, G.R. No. 159314, June 26, 2006)
for violations of our environmental laws. Thus, the
need to give the Resident Marine Mammals legal Necessity of deciding constitutional questions –
standing has been eliminated by our Rules and it is As long as there are other bases which courts
worth noting here that the Stewards are joined as real can use for decision, constitutionality of the
parties in the Petition and not just in representation law will not be touched, thus, courts should
of the named cetacean species. (Resident Marine refrain from resolving any constitutional issue
Mammals v. Reyes, G.R. No. 180771, April 21, 2015) "unless the constitutional question is the lis
mota of the case."
The filing of a petition for the issuance of a writ of
kalikasan does not require that a petitioner be Lis mota means "the cause of the suit or
directly affected by an environmental disaster. The action." Given the presumed validity of an
rule clearly allows juridical persons to file the petition executive act, the petitioner who claims
on behalf of persons whose constitutional right to a otherwise has the burden of showing first that
balanced and healthful ecology is violated or the case cannot be resolved unless the
threatened with violation. (West Tower v. First constitutional question he raised is
Philippine, G.R. No. 194239, June 16, 2015) determined by the Court. (General v. Urro,
G.R. No. 191560, March 29, 2011)
Earliest opportunity– Constitutional question
must be raised at the earliest possible Scope of Judicial Review
opportunity.
The courts have the power to pass upon the validity
GR: It must be raised in the pleadings. and the constitutionality of laws enacted by the
legislature, and other bodies of the government,
XPN: under the doctrine of checks and balances.
Criminal case – It may be brought at any
stage of the proceedings according to the The lower courts are likewise vested with the
discretion of the judge (trial or appeal) power of judicial review, subject however to the
because no one shall be brought within appellate jurisdiction of the higher courts.
the terms of the law who are not clearly
within them and the act shall not be Constitutional Challenges
punished when the law does not clearly
punish them. When a law is passed, the court awaits an actual case
Civil case – It may be brought anytime if the that clearly raises adversarial positions in their
resolution of the constitutional issue is proper context before considering a prayer to declare
inevitable in resolving the main issue. it as unconstitutional. (Sameer Overseas v. Cabiles,
G.R. No. 170139, August 5, 2014)
When the jurisdiction of the lower court is in
question except when there is estoppel. However, in a case where the law passed
(Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, G.R. No. L-21450, April incorporates the exact clause already declared as
15, 1968) unconstitutional, without any perceived substantial
NOTE: The earliest opportunity to raise a change in the circumstances, the Court ruled that
constitutional issue is to raise it in the pleadings there is a necessity to decide the
before a competent court that can resolve the
same, such that, if not raised in the pleadings, it
cannot be considered in trial

2019 GOLDEN NOTES

lOMoARcPSD|8033415
Judicial Department
constitutional issue involved. (Sameer Overseas v. Power of judicial review in impeachment
Cabiles, ibid.) proceedings includes the power of review over
justiciable issues in impeachment proceedings.
Thus, when a law or a provision of law is null (Francisco v. HoR, G.R. No. 160261, November 10,
because it is inconsistent with the Constitution, the 2003)
nullity cannot be cured by reincorporation or
reenactment of the same or a similar law or Judicial review of the SC on findings of facts of
provision. A law or provision of law that was administrative tribunals and trial courts
already declared unconstitutional remains as such
unless circumstances have so changed as to GR: The SC will not disturb the findings of facts of
warrant a reverse conclusion. (Sameer Overseas v. administrative tribunals and the trial courts.
Cabiles, ibid.) (2014 Bar)
XPN: The SC may review findings of facts of the
The constitutionality of an official act may be the lower courts under the following exceptions: (SM-
subject of judicial review, provided the matter is GF-CBA-TW-NE)
not raised collaterally. (Laude v. Hon. Ginez, G.R.
No. 217456, November 24, 2015) When the conclusion is a finding grounded
entirely on Speculation, surmises and
Requisites before a law can be declared conjectures;
partially unconstitutional When the inference made is manifestly Mistaken,
absurd or impossible;
The legislature must be willing to retain valid Where there is a Grave abuse of discretion;
portion (separability clause); and When the judgment is based on a
The valid portion can stand independently as law. misapprehension of Facts;
When the findings of fact are Conflicting;
Principle of Stare Decisis When the Court of Appeals, in making its findings,
went Beyond the issues of the case and the
Deemed of imperative authority, controlling the same is contrary to the Admissions of both
decisions of like cases in the same court and in appellant and appellee;
lower courts within the same jurisdiction, unless When the findings are contrary to those of the
and until the decision in question is reversed or Trial court;
overruled by a court of competent authority. (De When the findings of fact are Without citation of
Castro v. JBC, G.R. No. 191002, April 20, 2010) specific evidence on which the conclusions are
based;
NOTE: The Court, as the highest court of the land, When the facts set forth in the petition as well as
may be guided but is not controlled by precedent. in the petitioner’s main and reply briefs are
Thus, the Court, especially with a new membership, Not disputed by the respondents; and
is not obliged to follow blindly a decision that it When the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals
determines, after re-examination, to call for a are premised on the supposed absence of
rectification. (De Castro v. JBC, ibid.) Evidence and contradicted by the evidence on
record. (David v. Misamis Occidental II, G.R.
Functions of judicial review No. 194785, July 11, 2012)
Checking – Invalidating a law or executive act that is POLITICAL QUESTION DOCTRINE

found to be contrary to the Constitution.
Legitimizing – Upholding the validity of the law that Those questions which, under the Constitution, are
results from a mere dismissal of a case to be decided by the people in their sovereign
challenging the validity of the law. capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary
Symbolic – To educate the bench and bar as to the authority has been delegated to the legislative or
controlling principles and concepts on matters executive branch of the government. (Tañada v.
of grave public importance for the guidance of, Cuenco, G.R. No. L-10520, February 28, 1957)
and restraint upon the future. (Dumlao v.
COMELEC, G.R. No. L-52245, January 22, 1980) Political Question Doctrine
The doctrine that the power of judicial review

cannot be exercised when the issue is a political
83

lOMoARcPSD|8033415
POLITICAL LAW
question. It constitutes another limitation on such delimitation as to whether or not there has been a
power of the judiciary. (Tañada v. Cuenco, ibid.) grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction on the part of the official
Justiciable questions vs. Political questions whose action is being questioned.
BASIS JUSTICIABLE POLITICAL MOOT QUESTIONS

QUESTIONS QUESTIONS
Imply a Questions Questions on which a judgment cannot have any
given right which involve practical legal effect or, in the nature of things,
legally the policy or the cannot be enforced. (Baldo, Jr. v. COMELEC, G.R. No.
demandable wisdom of the 176135, June 16, 2009)
and law or act, or
enforceable, the morality or Moot and academic
an act or efficacy of the
omission same. Generally It is moot and academic when it ceases to present a
violative of it cannot be justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening
such right, inquired by the events so that a declaration thereon would be of no
and a courts. Further, practical use or value.
remedy these are
granted and questions which Court actions over moot and academic cases
sanctioned under the
by law for Constitution: GR: The courts should decline jurisdiction over
Definitio said breach a. are decided such cases or dismiss it on ground of mootness.
n
of right. by the
people in XPNs: (GPFR)
their There is a Grave violation of the Constitution.
sovereign There is an exceptional character of the situation
capacity; and and the Paramount public interest is involved.
b. where full When the constitutional issue raised requires
discretionary Formulation of controlling principles to guide
authority has the bench, the bar, and the
been public.
delegated by 4. The case is capable of Repetition yet evading
the review. (David v. Macapagal-Arroyo, G.R. No.
Constitution 171396, May 3, 2006; Republic v. Principalia
either to the Management, G.R. No. 198426, September 2,
executive or 2015)
legislative
department. NOTE: Judicial power presupposes actual
controversies, the very antithesis of mootness. In
Effect of the expanded definition of judicial the absence of actual justiciable controversies or
power on the political question doctrine disputes, the Court generally opts to refrain from
(1995, 1997, 2004 Bar) deciding moot issues. Where there is no more live
subject of controversy, the Court ceases to have a
The 1987 Constitution expands the concept of reason to render any ruling or make any
judicial review. Under the expanded definition, the pronouncement. (Suplico v. NEDA, G.R. No. 178830,
Court cannot agree that the issue involved is a July 14, 2008)
political question beyond the jurisdiction of the
court to review. When the grant of power is PSBank filed a Petition for Certiorari and
qualified, conditional or subject to limitations, the Prohibition seeking to nullify the order of the
issue of whether the prescribed qualifications or Senate, sitting as an Impeachment Court, to
conditions have been met or the limitations issue a subpoena duces tecum and ad
respected is justiciable—the problem being one of testificandum to PSBank and/or its
legality or validity, not its wisdom. Moreover, the representative requiring them to testify and
jurisdiction to delimit constitutional boundaries produce documents relative to the foreign
has been given to the SC. When political questions
are involved, the Constitution limits the

2019 GOLDEN NOTES Downloaded by Justine May Sanchez (justinemaysanchez@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|8033415
Judicial Department
currency accounts that were alleged to belong to subsequently revoked by the agency in question of
then SC Chief Justice Renato Corona. Pending the nullified by the Court. (Hacienda Luisita v.
resolution for such petition, supervening events Presidential Agrarian Reform Council, G.R. No.
have taken place such as the conviction of CJ 171101, November 22, 2011)
Corona as well as his execution of a waiver
against confidentiality of all his bank accounts. Doctrine of Relative Constitutionality
Did the Impeachment Court act arbitrarily when
it issued the assailed subpoena to obtain A statute valid at one time may become void at
information concerning the subject foreign another time because of altered circumstances.
current deposits notwithstanding the The constitutionality of a statute cannot, in every
confidentiality of such deposits? instance, be determined by a mere comparison of
its provisions with applicable provisions of the
The Court finds it appropriate to abstain from Constitution, since the statute may be
passing upon the merits of this case where legal constitutionally valid as applied to one set of facts
relief is no longer needed no called for. The and invalid in its application to another.
supervening conviction of CJ Corona has rendered
the present petition moot and academic. Thus, if a statute in its practical operation becomes
(Philippine Savings Bank v. Senate arbitrary or confiscatory, its validity, even though
Impeahcment Court, G. R. No. 200238, affirmed by a former adjudication, is open to
November 12, 2012, PER J. PERLAS-BERNABE) inquiry and investigation in the light of changed
conditions. (Central Bank Employees
OPERATIVE FACT DOCTRINE Association, Inc. v. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas,
G.R. No. 148208, December 15, 2004)
Under this doctrine, the law is recognized as
unconstitutional but the effects of the SAFEGUARDS OF JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE
unconstitutional law, prior to its declaration of
nullity, may be left undisturbed as a matter of Constitutional safeguards that guarantee the
equity and fair play. It is a rule of equity. (League of independence of the judiciary
Cities v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 176951, November 18,
2008) The SC is a constitutional body and may not be
abolished by the legislature.
In another case, the Court held that to return the Members are only removable by impeachment.
amounts received to the respective taxing (1987 Constitution, Art. XI, Sec. 2)
authorities would certainly impose a heavy, and The SC may not be deprived of its minimum
possibly crippling, financial burden upon them who original and appellate jurisdiction (1987
merely, and presumably in good faith, complied Constitution, Art VIII, Sec. 2); appellate
with the legislative fiat subject of this case; hence jurisdiction may not be increased without its
the doctrine of operative fact shall be applied. advice or concurrence. (1987 Constitution,
(Film Development Council v. Colon Heritage Art. VI, Sec. 30)
Realty, G.R. No. 203754, June 16, 2015)
NOTE: The Congress shall have the power to
NOTE: The invocation of this doctrine is an define, prescribe, and apportion the
admission that the law is unconstitutional. Further, jurisdiction of the various courts (all courts
as an exception to the general rule, the doctrine below the SC) but may not deprive the
only applies as a matter of equity and fair play. Supreme Court of its jurisdiction over cases
enumerated in Section 5 (express powers of
Applicability on executive acts the SC) hereof. (1987 Constitution, Art. VII,
Sec. 2)
The Operative Fact Doctrine also applies to executive
acts subsequently declared as invalid. A decision made The SC has administrative supervision over all
by the president or the administrative agencies has to inferior courts and personnel. (1987
be complied with because it has the force and effect of Constitution, Art. VIII, Sec. 6)
law. The term “executive act” is broad enough to The SC has exclusive power to discipline
encompass decisions of administrative bodies and judges/justices of inferior courts. (1987
agencies under the executive department which are Constitution, Art. VIII, Sec. 11)
85

lOMoARcPSD|8033415
POLITICAL LAW
The members of the judiciary enjoy security of impeachment of an impeachable officer make
tenure. [1987 Constitution, Art. VIII, Sec. 2 them disqualified to hear a petition for quo
(2)] warranto against said officer?
The members of the judiciary may not be
designated to any agency performing quasi- NO. Their appearance thereat is in deference to the
judicial or administrative functions. (1987 House of Representatives whose constitutional duty
Constitution, Art. VIII, Sec 12) to investigate the impeachment complaint filed
The salaries of judges may not be reduced; the against an impeachable officer could not be
judiciary enjoys fiscal autonomy. (1987 doubted. The same is not a ground for inhibition
Constitution, Art. VIII, Sec. 3) provided that their appearance is with the prior
The SC alone may initiate the promulgation of the consent of the Supreme Court En Banc and they
Rules of Court. [1987 Constitution, Art. VIII, faithfully observe the parameters that the Court set
Sec. 5 (5)] for the purpose.
The SC alone may order temporary detail of judges.
[1987 Constitution, Art. VIII, Sec. 5 (3)] Requisites for a document to be protected by
The SC can appoint all officials and employees of DPP
the Judiciary. (1987 Constitution, Art. VIII,
Sec. 5 (6)] It must be shown that the document is both:
Pre-decisional – If they were made in the attempt
Judicial Privilege (Deliberative Process to reach a final decision; and
Privilege or DPP) Deliberative – If it reflects the give-and-take of the
consultative process such as the disclosure of
The privilege against disclosure of information or the information would discourage open
communications that formed the process of judicial discussion within the agency.
decisions.
NOTE: Court records which are pre-decisional and
This applies to confidential matters, which refer deliberative in nature are thus protected and
to information not yet publicized by the Court like cannot be the subject of subpoena if judicial
raffle of cases, (2) actions taken in each case in the privilege is to be preserved. (Ibid.)
Court’s agenda, and (3) deliberations of the
Members in court sessions on case matters pending NOTE: In a case where the House Impeachment
before it. Panel, through letters, asked for the examination of
records and the issuance of certified true copies of
This privilege, however, is not exclusive to the the rollos and the Agenda and Minutes of
Judiciary and it extends to the other branches of Deliberations of specific SC-decided cases and at
government due to our adherence to the principle the same time, requested for the attendance of
of separation of powers. (In Re: Production of Court court officials including judges, justices, and
Records and Documents and the Attendance of employees as witnesses under subpoenas, it was
Court Officials and Employees as Witnesses under held that Members of the Court may not be
the Subpoenas of Feb. 10, 2012 and the Various compelled to testify in the impeachment
Letters of Impeachment Prosecution Panel dated proceedings against the Chief Justice or other
January 19 and 25, 2012, February 14, 2012) Members of the Court about information acquired
in the performance of their official adjudicatory
Purpose of Judicial Privilege functions and duties; otherwise, their disclosure of
confidential matters learned in their official
To prevent the ‘chilling’ of deliberative capacity violates judicial privilege as it pertains to
communications. It insulates the Judiciary from an the exercise of the constitutional mandate of
improper intrusion into the functions of the judicial adjudication. (Ibid.)
branch and shields judges, justices, and court
officials and employees from public scrutiny or the XPN: If the intent only is for them to identify or
pressure of public opinion that would impair their certify the genuineness of documents within their
ability to render impartial decisions. (Ibid.) control that are not confidential and privileged,
their presence in the Impeachment Court may be
Does the participation of Associate Justices in permitted.
the hearings of the House Committee on
Justice determining probable cause for the

2019 GOLDEN NOTES

lOMoARcPSD|8033415
Judicial Department
Waiver of privilege Other Members
Representative of the Integrated Bar – 4
This privilege, incidentally, belongs to the Judiciary years
and is for the SC (as the representative and entity A professor of law – 3 years
speaking for the Judiciary), and not for the A retired member of the SC – 2 years
individual justice, judge, or court official or Private sector representative – 1 year. [1987
employees to waive. Thus, every proposed waiver Constitution, Art. VIII, Sec. 8(2)]
must be referred to the SC for its consideration and
approval. Rationale: continuity and preservation of the
institutional memory
Principle of Judicial Restraint
Representative of Congress in the JBC
Theory of judicial interpretation that encourages
judges to limit the exercise of their own power. Only one. The word “Congress” used in Sec. 8(1),
Art. VIII is used in its generic sense. Only a singular
In terms of legislative acts, it means that every representative may be allowed to sit in the JBC
intendment of the law must be adjudged by the from either the Senate or HoR. The seven -member
courts in favor of its constitutionality, invalidity composition of the JBC serves a practical purpose,
being a measure of last resort. Therefore, in that is, to provide a solution should there be a
construing the provisions of a statute, courts must stalemate in voting.
first ascertain whether an interpretation is possible
to sidestep the question of constitutionality. It is evident that the definition of “Congress” as a
(Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148560, bicameral body refers to its primary function in
November 19, 2001) government – to legislate. In the passage of laws,
the Constitution is explicit in the distinction of the
JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL role of each house in the process. The same holds
true in Congress’ non-legislative powers. An inter-
Composition of the JBC (C2RISP2) play between the two houses is necessary in the
realization of these powers causing a vivid
Chief Justice, as ex-officio chairman dichotomy that the Court cannot simply discount.
Secretary of Justice, as an ex-officio member This, however, cannot be said in the case of JBC
Representative of Congress, as an ex-officio representation because no liaison between the two
member houses exists in the workings of the JBC. Hence, the
Representative of the Integrated Bar term “Congress” must be taken to mean the entire
A Professor of law legislative department. The Constitution mandates
A Retired member of the SC that the JBC be composed of seven (7) members
Private sector representative only. (Chavez v. JBC, G.R. No. 202242, July 17, 2012)
NOTE: JBC does not fall within the scope of a POWERS OF JBC
tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or
quasi-judicial functions. However, since the Functions of the JBC (2000 Bar)
formulation of guidelines and criteria is necessary
and incidental to the exercise of the JBC’s The principal function of the JBC is to recommend
constitutional mandate, a determination must be appointees to the judiciary. It may, however,
made on whether the JBC has acted with grave exercise such functions as the SC may assign to it.
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of (1987 Constitution, Art. VIII, Sec. 8)
jurisdiction in issuing and enforcing the said policy.
(Villanueva v. JBC, G.R. No. 211833, April 7, 2015) NOTE: The duty of the JBC to submit a list of
nominees before the start of the President’s
Staggered Terms of members of the JBC mandatory 90- day period to appoint is
ministerial, but its selection of the candidates
Regular Members whose names will be in the list to be submitted to
Chief Justice – 4 years the President lies within the discretion of the JBC.
Secretary of Justice – 4 years (De Castro v. JBC, G.R. No. 191002, March 17, 2010)
Representative of Congress – 4 years
Unanimity rule on integrity
87

lOMoARcPSD|8033415
POLITICAL LAW
Under Sec. 2, Rule 10 of JBC-009, an applicant must QUALIFICATIONS OF MEMBERS OF THE

obtain the unanimous vote of the JBC members in JUDICIARY
order to be included in the shortlist of nominees to
be submitted to the President whenever a question Of proven competence, integrity, probity and
of integrity is raised against him. independence. [1987 Constitution, Art. VIII, Sec.
7(3)]
FISCAL AUTONOMY
Composition of the SC
Constitutional guarantee of fiscal autonomy
Chief Justice
In Bengzon v. Drilon (G.R. No. 103524, April 15, 14 Associate Justices
1992), the SC explained that fiscal autonomy
contemplates a guarantee of full flexibility to Divisions of the SC
allocate and utilize resources with the wisdom and
dispatch that the needs require. It may sit en banc or in its discretion, in divisions of
three, five, or seven members. [1987 Constitution,
It recognizes the power and authority to deny, Art. VIII, Sec. 4(1)]
assess and collect fees, fix rates of compensation
not exceeding the highest rates authorized by law Qualifications for appointments to the SC
for compensation and pay plans of the government
and allocate and disburse such sums as may be Natural born citizen of the Philippines;
provided by law or prescribed by it in the course of At least 40 years of age; and
the discharge of its functions. A judge of a lower court or engaged in the practice of
law in the Philippines for 15 years or more. [1987
The Court received two letters requesting for Constitution, Art. VIII, Sec. 7(1)]
copies of Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and
Net worth (SALN) and the Personal Data Sheet The members of the judiciary are appointed by the
(PDS) or the Curriculum Vitae (CV) of its President of the Philippines from among a list of at
justices for the year 2008 for the purposes of least three (3) nominees prepared by the Judicial
updating their database of information on and Bar Council (JBC) for every vacancy.
government officials. Other requests for
copies of SALN and other personal documents NOTE: The appointment shall need no
of the Justices of the Court, Court of Appeals confirmation from the Commission on
(CA), and Sandiganbayan (SB) were filed. Can Appointments. (1987 Constitution, Art. VIII, Sec. 9)
the Court allow the release of copies of SALN
and other personal documents of the Rules on vacancies in the SC
incumbent Justices?
Vacancies in the SC should be filled within 90 days
The Court may deny request for certified copies of from the occurrence of the vacancy. (1987
Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth Constitution, Art. VIII, Sec. 4(1))
(SALNs) of all incumbent justices of the SC and Vacancies in lower courts should be filled within
Court of Tax Appeals if it is lacking sufficient basis. 90 days from submission to the President of
It should not be forgotten that invoking one’s the JBC list.
constitutional right to information must not set The filling of the vacancy in the Supreme Court
aside the need to preserve the integrity and within the 90-day period is an exception to
independence of the judiciary. It must be invoked if the prohibition on midnight appointments of
under the circumstances it would not result in the president. This means that even if the
endangering, diminishing or destroying the period falls on the period where the president
independence and security of the members of the is prohibited from
judiciary in the performance of their judicial making appointments (midnight
functions or expose them to revenge for adverse appointments); the president is allowed to
decisions. (RE: Request for Copies of the SALN and make appointments to fill vacancies in the
Personal Data Sheet or Curriculum Vitae of the Supreme Court.
Justices of the Supreme Court and Officers and
Employees of the Judiciary, A.M. No. 09-8-6-SC, June Otherwise stated, the prohibition of the
13, 2012) President to make appointments two (2)

2019 GOLDEN NOTES
lOMoARcPSD|8033415
Judicial Department
months prior the immediate presidential each other as these remedies are distinct as to
election is limited to appointments to the jurisdiction, grounds, applicable rules pertaining to
lower courts. (De Castro v. JBC, G.R. No. initiation, filing and dismissal, and limitations.
191002, March 17, 2010) (Republic v. Sereno, G.R. No. 237428, May 11, 2018)
Tenure of the members of the SC and judges General qualifications for appointments to
(1993, 1996, 2000 Bar) LOWER COLLEGIATE courts
Members of the SC and judges of lower courts can Natural born citizen of the Philippines; and
hold office during good behavior until: Member of the Philippine Bar.
23 The age of 70 years old; or General qualifications for appointments to

24 They become incapacitated to discharge their LOWER courts
duties.
Citizen of the Philippines; and
May the Supreme Court assume jurisdiction Member of the Philippine Bar.
and give due course to a petition for quo
warranto against an impeachable officer and NOTE: For both lower collegiate courts and lower
against whom an impeachment complaint has courts, Congress may prescribe other
already been filed with the House of qualifications. [1987 Constitution, Art. VIII, Sec. 7
Representatives? (1) and (2)]
YES. The language of Section 2, Article XI of the By virtue of Republic Act No. 10660, two new
Constitution does not foreclose a quo warranto divisions of the Sandiganbayan were created
action against impeachable officers. The provision with three members each, and there were six
reads: simultaneous vacancies for Associate Justice
of said collegiate court. The JBC then
The xxx Members of the Supreme Court, xxx may be submitted six separate shortlists for the
removed from office on impeachment for, and vacancies for the 16th to the 21st
conviction of, culpable violation of the Constitution, Sandiganbayan Associate Justices. Petitioners
treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high assert that President Aquino's power to
crimes, or betrayal of public trust. Xxx appoint is limited to each shortlist submitted
by the JBC, President Aquino should have
The provision uses the permissive term "may" which, appointed the 16th Sandiganbayan Associate
in statutory construction, denotes discretion and Justice from the nominees in the shortlist for
cannot be construed as having a mandatory effect. the 16th Sandiganbayan Associate Justice, the
The term "may" is indicative of a mere possibility, an 17th Sandiganbayan Associate Justice from
opportunity or an option. The grantee of that the nominees in the shortlist for the 17th
opportunity is vested with a right or faculty which he Sandiganbayan Associate Justice, and so on
has the option to exercise. An option to remove by and so forth. By totally overlooking the
impeachment admits of an alternative mode of nominees for the 16th Sandiganbayan
effecting the removal. Therefore, by its tenor, Section Associate Justice and appointing respondents
2, Article XI of the Constitution allows the institution Musngi and Econg, who were both nominees
of a quo warranto action against an impeachable for the 21st Sandiganbayan Associate Justice,
officer. as the 16th and 18th Sandiganbayan Associate
Justices, respectively, President Aquino
While both impeachment and quo warranto may violated the Art. VIII, Sect. 9 of the 1987
result in the ouster of the public official, the two Constitution, which requires the President to
proceedings materially differ. Thus, they are not appoint from a list of at least three nominees
mutually exclusive remedies and may proceed submitted by the JBC for every vacancy. Are
simultaneously. At its most basic, impeachment the petitioners correct?
proceedings are political in nature, while an action for
quo warranto is judicial or a proceeding traditionally NO. Nomination by the JBC shall be a qualification
lodged in the courts. Aside from the difference in their for appointment to the Judiciary, but this only
origin and nature, quo warranto and impeachment means that the President cannot appoint an
may proceed independently of individual who is not nominated by the JBC. It
should be stressed that the power to recommend
89
lOMoARcPSD|8033415
POLITICAL LAW
of the JBC cannot be used to restrict or limit the observance of due process neither negates nor
President's power to appoint as the latter's renders illusory the fulfillment of the duty of
prerogative to choose someone whom he/she JBC to recommend. This holding is not an
considers worth appointing to the vacancy in the encroachment on its discretion in the
Judiciary is still paramount. As long as in the end, nomination process. Actually, its adherence to
the President appoints someone nominated by the the precepts of due process supports and
JBC, the appointment is valid. This does not violate enriches the exercise of its discretion.
Article VIII, Section 9 of the 1987 Constitution. To
meet the minimum requirement under said YES. Even as Jardeleza was verbally informed of the
constitutional provision of three nominees per invocation of Section 2, Rule 10 of JBC-009
vacancy, there should at least be 18 nominees from against him and was later asked to explain
the JBC for the six vacancies for Sandiganbayan himself during the meeting, these circumstances
Associate Justice; but the minimum requirement still cannot expunge an immense perplexity that
was even exceeded herein because the JBC lingers in the mind of the Court. What is to
submitted for the President's consideration a total become of the procedure laid down in JBC-010 if
of 37 qualified nominees. (Aguinaldo v. Aquino, G.R. the same would be treated with indifference and
No. 224302, November 29, 2016) disregard? To repeat, as its wording provides,
any complaint or opposition against a candidate
Upon the retirement of Associate Justice may be filed with the Secretary within ten (10)
Roberto Abad, the Judicial and Bar Council days from the publication of the notice and a list
(JBC) announced the opening for application of candidates. Surely, this notice is all the more
or recommendation for the position. Francis conspicuous to JBC members. (Jardeleza V.
H. Jardeleza (Jardeleza) was nominated for the Sereno, et al., G.R. No. 213181, 19 August 2014)
said position and upon acceptance of the
nomination, he was included in the names of
candidates. However, Chief Justice Sereno WORKINGS OF THE SUPREME COURT
invoked Sect. 2, Rule 10 of JBC-009 against
him, and thereafter, the JBC released the short EN BANC DECISIONS
list of four nominees, which did not include
Jardeleza. Jardeleza resorted to judicial Cases that should be heard by the SC en banc
intervention, alleging the illegality of his (TRuP-DE-PreJ)
exclusion from the short list due to the
deprivation of his constitutional right to due All cases involving the constitutionality of a
process. Treaty, international or executive agreement,
or law;
Is the right to due process available in JBC All cases which under the Rules of Court may be
proceedings? required to be heard en banc;
Was Jardeleza denied his right to due All cases involving the constitutionality,
process? application or operation of Presidential
A: decrees, proclamations, orders, instructions,
YES. An applicant’s access to the rights afforded ordinances, and other regulations;
under the due process clause is not Cases heard by a Division when the required
discretionary on the part of the JBC. While the majority in the division is not obtained;
facets of criminal and administrative due Cases where the SC modifies or reverses a doctrine
process are not strictly applicable to JBC or principle of law Previously laid either en
proceedings, their peculiarity is insufficient to banc or in division;
justify the conclusion that due process is not Administrative cases involving the discipline or
demandable. The fact that a proceeding is sui dismissal of Judges of lower courts;
generis and is impressed with discretion does Election contests for president or vice-president.
not automatically denigrate an applicant’s
entitlement to due process. Notwithstanding Cases that may be heard by division
being “a class of its own,” the right to be heard
and to explain one’s self is availing. The Court Other cases or matters may be heard in division, and
subscribed to the view that in cases where an decided or resolved with the concurrence of a
objection to an applicant’s qualifications is majority of the members who actually took part in
raised, the

2019 GOLDEN NOTES

lOMoARcPSD|8033415
Judicial Department
the deliberations on the issues and voted thereon, When change of venue is permitted
but in no case without the concurrence of at least
three such members. Where there are serious and weighty reasons
present, which would prevent the court of original
Advice and concurrence of SC needed for jurisdiction from conducting a fair and impartial
increase of its appellate jurisidiction trial, the Court has been mandated by Sec. 5(4),
Art. VIII to order a change of venue to prevent a
No law shall be passed increasing the appellate miscarriage of justice.
jurisdiction of the SC as provided in the
Constitution without its advice and concurrence. In this case, that fact that the respondent filed
(1987 Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. 30) several criminal cases for falsification in different
jurisdictions, which unduly forced Navaja to spend
PROCEDURAL RULE-MAKING POWER scarce resources to defend herself cannot be
considered as compelling reason which would
Scope of the rule-making power of the SC. prevent the MCTC from conducting a fair and
(1991, 2000, 2008, 2009, 2013, 2014, 2015 impartial trial. (Navaja v. de Castro, G.R. No.
Bar) 182926, June 22, 2015)
The protection and enforcement of constitutional The authority vested in the Congress and
rights Supreme Court is separate and distinct
Pleadings, practice and procedure in all courts
Admission to the practice of law CONGRESS SUPREME COURT
The Integrated Bar Authority to define, Power to promulgate
Legal assistance to the underprivileged prescribe, and rules of pleading,
apportion the practice, and
Limitations on its rule making power jurisdiction of the procedure. [1987
various courts. (1987 Constitution, Art. VIII,
It should provide a simplified and inexpensive Constitution, Art. VIII, Sec. 5(5)]
procedure for the speedy disposition of cases. Sec. 2)
It should be uniform for all courts of the same
grade. Authority to create
It should not diminish, increase, or modify statutory courts. (1987
substantive rights. Constitution, Art. VIII,
Sec. 1)
Requirements for the decisions of the SC
NOTE: Albeit operatively interrelated, these
The conclusions of the Supreme Court in any case powers are institutionally separate and distinct,
submitted to it for decision en banc or in each to be preserved under its own sphere of
division shall be reached in consultation authority.
before the case is assigned to a Member for
the writing of the opinion of the Court. When Congress creates a court and delimits its
A certification to this effect signed by the Chief jurisdiction, it is the Court which fixes the
Justice shall be issued. procedure through the rules it promulgates.
A copy thereof shall be attached to the record of the
case and served upon the parties. It was held that the 1st par. of Sec. 14, RA 6770 is
Any Member who took no part, or dissented, or not a jurisdiction-vesting provision because it does
abstained from a decision or resolution, must not define, prescribe, and apportion the subject
state the reason thereof. (1987 Constitution, matter jurisdiction of courts to act on certiorari
Art. VIII, Sec. 13) cases, instead, Congress interfered with a
provisional remedy created by this Court under its
NOTE: No decision shall be rendered by any court duly promulgated rules of procedure, which utility
without expressing therein clearly and distinctly is both integral and inherent to every court’s
the facts and the law on which it is based. (1987 exercise of judicial power. Without the Court’s
Constitution, Art. VIII, Sec. 13) consent to the proscription, as may be manifested
by an adoption of the same as part of the rules of
procedure through an administrative circular
issued therefor, there thus, stands to be a
91
lOMoARcPSD|8033415
POLITICAL LAW
violation of the separation of powers principle.
(Carpio-Morales v. CA, G.R. No. 217126-27,
November 10, 2015)
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERVISION OVER LOWER

COURTS
The Supreme Court exercises administrative

supervision over all lower courts. (1987
Constitution, Art. VIII, Sec. 6)
The SC is assisted by the Court Administrator and

the Deputy Court Administrators in exercising the
administrative function.
Matters to be attended by the Court En Banc:
Disciplinary Matters involving justices and judges

of all lower courts and lower court personnel.
Designation of Judges.
Request for transfer of cases from one court,
administrative area or judicial region to another
and/or transfer of venue of cases to avoid
miscarriage of justice as provided for in Section
5(4), Article VIII of the Constitution.
Amendment, modification and/or revocation of
Administrative Orders and Circulars issued by the
Supreme Court.
Matters for policy determination.
ORIGINAL AND APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Original and appellate jurisdiction of the SC

(1994, 1995, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2006 Bar)
The Supreme Court has the power to review,

revise, reverse, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as
the law or the Rules of Court may provide, final
judgments and orders of lower courts in:
All cases in which the constitutionality or validity

of any treaty, international or executive
agreement, law, presidential decree,
proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance,
or regulation is in question.
All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost,
assessment, or toll, or any penalty imposed in
relation thereto.
All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower
court is in issue.
All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is
reclusion perpetua or higher.
All cases in which only an error or question of law
is involved. [1987 Constitution, Art VIII, Sec.
5(2)]

2019 GOLDEN NOTES

lOMoARcPSD|8033415
Constitutional Commissions
CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS
Salaries of chairmen and members are
COMMON PROVISIONS relatively high and may not be decreased
during continuance in office. (1987
Independent Constitutional Commissions: Constitution, Art. IX-A, Sec. 3; Art. XVIII, Sec.
17)
Civil Service Commission (CSC) Commissions enjoy fiscal autonomy. (1987
Commission on Elections (COMELEC) Constitution, Art. IX-A, Sec. 5)
Commission on Audit (CoA) Each commission may promulgate its own
procedural rules, provided they do not
NOTE: The CSC, COMELEC, and COA are equally diminish, increase or modify substantive
pre-eminent in their respective spheres. Neither one rights [though subject to disapproval by the
may claim dominance over the others. In case of Supreme Court]. (1987 Constitution, Art. IX-A,
conflicting rulings, it is the judiciary, which Sec. 7)
interprets the meaning of the law and ascertains Chairmen and members are subject to certain
which view shall prevail. (CSC v. Pobre, G.R. No. disqualifications and inhibitions calculated to
160508, September 15, 2004) strengthen their integrity. (1987 Constitution,
Art. IX-A, Sec. 2)
Purpose Commissions may appoint their own officials and
employees in accordance with Civil Service
The Constitution established the Constitutional Law. (1987 Constitution, Art. IX-A, Sec. 4)
Commissions for the importance of their functions and
the need of insulation from undesired political NOTE: The Supreme Court held that the “no report,
interference or pressure; if merely created by statute, no release” policy may not be validly enforced
their independence is not assured. against offices vested with fiscal autonomy, without
violating Art. IX-A, Sec. 5. The “automatic release”
Guarantees of independence provided for by of approved annual appropriations to a
the Constitution to the 3 Commissions Constitutional Commission vested with fiscal
autonomy should thus be construed to mean that
They are constitutionally-created; may not be no condition to fund releases may be imposed. (CSC
abolished by statute of its judicial functions. v. DBM, G.R. No. 158791, July 22, 2005)
(1987 Constitution, Art. IX-A, Sec. 1)
Each is conferred certain powers and functions Salary
which cannot be reduced by statute. (1987
Constitution, Art. IX-B, C and D) Salaries may be increased by a statute but may not be
Each is expressly described as independent. (1987 decreased during incumbent’s term of office.
Constitution, Art. IX-A, Sec. 1)
Chairmen and members are given long terms of NOTE: The decrease is prohibited to prevent the
office for seven (7) years. [1987 Constitution, legislature from exerting pressure upon the
Art. IX-B, C and D, Sec. 1(2)] Commissions by “operating on their necessities.”
Chairmen and members cannot be removed Salaries may be increased, as a realistic recognition of
except by impeachment. (1987 Constitution, the need that may arise to adjust the compensation to
Art. XI, Sec. 2) any increase in the cost of living.
Chairmen and members may not be reappointed
or appointed in an acting capacity. [1987 TERM
Constitution, Art. IX-B, C and D, Sec. 1(2)]
Seven years without reappointment.
NOTE: When an ad interim appointment is
not confirmed (as it was by-passed or that NOTE: Appointment to any vacancy shall be only for
there was no ample time for Commission on the unexpired term of the predecessor. In no case shall
Appointments to pass upon the same), any Member be appointed or designated in a
another ad interim appointment may be temporary or acting capacity. (1987 Constitution, Art.
extended to the appointee without violating IX-C, Sec. 1[2]) (1997, 2005 Bar)
the Constitution. (Matibag v. Benipayo, G.R.
No. 149036, April 2, 2002)
93

lOMoARcPSD|8033415
POLITICAL LAW
Requisites for the effective operation of the As collegial bodies, each Commission must act as
rotational scheme of terms of constitutional one, and no one member can decide a case for
bodies the entire commission.
The original members of the Commission shall Any decision, order or ruling of each Commission
begin their terms on a common date; may be brought to the SC on certiorari by the
Any vacancy occurring before the expiration of the aggrieved party within thirty (30) days from
term shall be filled only for the balance of receipt of a copy thereof.
such term. (Republic v. Imperial, G.R. No. L-
8684, March 31, 1995) NOTE: When the Court reviews a decision of the
COMELEC, it exercises extraordinary jurisdiction
NOTE: The members of the Constitutional thus, the proceeding is limited to issues involving
Commissions have staggered terms: grave abuse of discretion resulting in lack or excess
of jurisdiction and not factual findings of the
23 To minimize the opportunity of the Commission. (Aratuc v. COMELEC, G.R. No. L-
President to appoint during his own term 49705-09, February 8, 1979)
more than one member or group of
members in the Constitutional The appropriate remedy to invalidate disputed
Commissions; and COMELEC resolutions (i.e. final orders, rulings and
decisions of the COMELEC rendered in the exercise
To ensure continuity of the body and its of its adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers) is
policies. certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
(Loong v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 93986, December 22,
POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF THE CSC, 1992)
COMELEC AND COA
COMPOSITION AND QUALIFICATIONS OF
Decision-making process in these MEMBERS
Commissions
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
The CSC, COMELEC, and CoA shall decide matter
or cases by a majority vote of all the members (See discussion under Law on Public Officers)
within sixty (60) days from submission. (Sec. 7
Art. IX-A) COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
COMELEC may sit en banc or in 2 divisions. Composition of the COMELEC

Election cases, including pre-proclamation
controversies are decided in division, with Chairman
motions for reconsideration filed with the Six (6) Commissioners
COMELEC en banc.
The SC has held that a majority decision TERM:
decided by a division of the COMELEC is a
valid decision. Seven years without reappointment.
NOTE: Pursuant to COMELEC Rules of Procedure, NOTE: If the appointment was ad interim, a
when the COMELEC en banc is equally divided in an subsequent renewal of the appointment does not
opinion and cannot have the required majority, violate the prohibition on reappointments because
rehearing shall be done. If rehearing is originally no previous appointment was confirmed by the
commenced in the Commission and no majority Commission on Appointments. The total term of
decision is reached, rehearing shall be dismissed. In both appointments must not exceed the 7-year
appealed cases, the judgment or order appealed limit. (Matibag v. Benipayo, G.R. No. 149036, April
from shall stand affirmed and the petition or 2, 2002)
motion on all incidental matters shall be denied.
(Mamerto Sevilla v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 202833, Qualifications
March 19, 2013)
Natural-born citizen;
At least 35 years old at the time of appointment;

2019 GOLDEN NOTES

lOMoARcPSD|8033415
College degree holder; and NOTE: The COMELEC may issue writs of
Not a candidate in any election immediately certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus in
preceding the appointment. exercise of its appellate functions.
NOTE: Majority of the members, including the Decide, except those involving the right to vote, all
Chairman, shall be members of the Philippine Bar questions affecting elections, including
who have been engaged in the practice of law for at determination of the number and location of
least ten years. [1987 Constitution, Art. IX-C, Sec polling places, appointment of election officials
1(1)] and inspectors, and registration of voters.
Constitutional powers and functions of the NOTE: Questions involving the right to vote
COMELEC (1991, 1996, 2001 Bar) fall within the jurisdiction of ordinary courts.
Enforce and administer all laws and regulations Deputize, with the concurrence of the President,
relative to the conduct of an election, law enforcement agencies and
plebiscite, initiative, referendum, and recall. instrumentalities of the government, including
the AFP, for the exclusive purpose of ensuring
Note: COMELEC may order the correction of free, orderly, honest, peaceful and credible
manifest errors in the tabulation or tallying elections.
results during the canvassing and petitions for Registration of political parties, organizations, or
this purpose may be filed directly with the coalitions and accreditation of citizens’ arms
Commission even after the proclamation of the of the COMELEC.
winning candidates. File, upon a verified complaint, or on its own
initiative, petitions in court for inclusion or
Exercise: exclusion of voters; investigate and, where
Exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests appropriate, prosecute cases of violations of
relating to the election, returns and election laws, including acts or omissions
qualifications of all elective: constituting election frauds, offenses and
23 Regional malpractices.
24 Provincial
25 City officials NOTE: The grant of exclusive power to
investigate and prosecute cases of election
Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all offenses to the COMELEC was not by virtue of the
contests involving: Constitution but by the OEC which was eventually
23 Elective municipal officials decided by amended by Sec. 43 of RA 9369. Thus, the DOJ
trial courts of general jurisdiction. now conducts preliminary investigation of
24 Elective barangay officials decided by election offenses concurrently with the COMELEC
courts of limited jurisdiction. and no longer as mere deputies. (Jose Miguel T.
Arroyo v. DOJ, et al., G.R. No. 199082, September
Contempt powers 18, 2012)
23 COMELEC can exercise this power only
in relation to its adjudicatory or Recommend to the Congress effective measures to
quasi-judicial functions. It cannot minimize election spending, including
exercise this in connection with its limitation of places where propaganda
purely executive or ministerial materials shall be posted, and to prevent and
functions. penalize all forms of election frauds, offenses,
24 If it is a pre-proclamation controversy, malpractices, and nuisance candidacies.
the COMELEC exercises Recommend to the President the removal of any
quasi-judicial/ administrative powers. officer or employee it has deputized, or the
25 Its jurisdiction over contests (after imposition of any other disciplinary action, for
proclamation), is in exercise of its violation or disregard of, or disobedience to its
judicial functions. directive, order, or decision.
Submit to the President and the Congress a
comprehensive report on the conduct of each
95

lOMoARcPSD|8033415
POLITICAL LAW
election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum, or during the respondent’s tenure; if the ground is loss
recall. of the required qualifications, the petition may be
filed at any time during the respondent’s tenure, as
Remedy of a dissatisfied party in election soon as the required qualification is lost. The
cases decided by the COMELEC in division petitioner may not be a candidate, unlike in an
election protest, which is filed only by a candidate
The dissatisfied party may file a motion for who duly filed a certificate of candidacy and had
reconsideration before the COMELEC en banc. If the been voted for the office of Senator. In an election
en banc’s decision is still not favorable, the same, in protest, the filing period is thirty (30) days from
accordance with Sec. 7, Art. IX-A, “may be brought prostestee’s proclamation.
to the SC on certiorari within 30 days from receipt
of copy thereof.” (Reyes v. RTCof Oriental Mindoro, Under the 2013 Rules of the Tribunal, joint election
G.R. No. 108886, May 5, 1995) protests are not allowed, but for good and
sufficient reasons, the Tribunal may order the
NOTE: The fact that decisions, final orders or consolidation of individual protests, hear, and
rulings of the COMELEC in contests involving decide them jointly.
elective municipal and barangay offices are final,
executory and not appealable, (1987 Constitution, COMMISSION ON AUDIT
Art. IX-C, Sec. 2[2]) does not preclude recourse to
the SC by way of a special civil action of certiorari. Composition of the COA
(Galido v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 95346, January 18,
1991) Chairman
Two (2) Commissioners
COMELEC can exercise its power of contempt in
connection with its functions as the National TERM
Board of Canvassers during the elections
Seven years without reappointment
The effectiveness of a government institution vested
with quasi-judicial power hinges on its authority to Qualifications
compel attendance of the parties and/or their
witnesses in hearings and proceedings. Suchlike, Natural-born citizen;
the COMLEC’s investigative power to punish At least 35 years old at the time of appointment;
individuals who refuse to appear during a fact- Certified Public Accountant with not less than ten
finding investigation, despite a previous notice and years of auditing experience, or member of
order to attend, cannot be withheld, for it is an the Philippine Bar who has been engaged in
essential to its constitutional mandate to secure the the practice of law; and
conduct of honest and credible elections. (Bedol v. Not a candidate in any election immediately
COMELEC, G.R. No. 179830, December 3, 2009) preceding the appointment.
Function of Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET) NOTE: At no time shall all Members of the
Commission belong to the same profession. [1987
The SET has jurisdiction to entertain and resolve Constitution, Art. IX-D, Sec 1(1)]
two types of electoral contests against a Member of
the Senate: a) petition for quo warranto, and b) Powers and duties of COA
election protest. Mutually exclusive, a petition for
quo warranto cannot include an election protest, Examine, audit and settle all accounts pertaining
nor can an election protest include a petition for to revenue and receipts of, and expenditures
quo warranto. or uses of funds and property owned or held
in trust or pertaining to government.
Any registered voter who seeks to disqualify a Member Keep general accounts of government and
of the Senate on the ground of ineligibility or preserve vouchers and supporting papers.
disloyalty to the Republic of the Philippines must file a Authority to define the scope of its audit and
petition for quo warranto within ten examination, establish techniques and
days from therespondent’s proclamation. methods required therein.
However, if the basis of ineligibility is on
citizenship, the petition may be filed any time

2019 GOLDEN NOTES

lOMoARcPSD|8033415
NOTE: The power of the Commission to define or excess of jurisdiction, may the SC entertain a
the scope of its audit and to promulgate auditing petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
rules and regulations and the power to disallow CSC: In the case of decisions of the CSC,
unnecessary expenditures is exclusive but its Administrative Circular 1-95538 which took
power to examine and audit is not exclusive. effect on June 1, 1995, provides that final
(Development Bank of the Philippines v. resolutions of the CSC shall be appealable by
Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 88435, January certiorari to the CA within 15 days from receipt
16, 2002) of a copy thereof. From the decision of the CA,
the party adversely affected thereby shall file a
Promulgate accounting and auditing rules and petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45
regulations, including those for prevention of the Rules of Court.
and disallowance. (1987 Constitution, Art. IX- COMELEC: Only decisions of COMELEC en banc
D, Sec. 2) may be brought to the Court by certiorari
since Art. IX-C provides that motions for
PROHIBITED OFFICES & INTERESTS reconsideration of decisions shall be decided
by the Commission en banc. (Reyes v.
No member of a Constitutional Commission shall, Mindoro, G.R. No. 108886, May 5, 1995)
during his tenure:
Procedural requisite before certiorari to the
Hold any other office or employment Supreme Court may be availed of
Engage in the practice of any profession
Engage in the active management and control of Sec. 1 of Rule 65 provides that certiorari may be
any business which in any way may be resorted to when there is no other plain or speedy
affected by the function of his office and adequate remedy. But reconsideration is a
Be financially interested, directly or indirectly, in any speedy and adequate remedy. Hence, a case may be
contract with, or in any franchise or privilege brought to the Supreme Court only after
granted by the Government, any of its reconsideration.
subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities,
including GOCCs or their subsidiaries. (1998, Rule on appeals
2015 Bar)
Decisions, orders or rulings of the COMELEC/COA
Purpose may be brought on certiorari to the SC under
Rule 65.
To compel the chairmen and members of the Decisions, orders or rulings of the CSC should be
Constitutional Commissions to devote their appealed to the CA under Rule 43.
full attention to the discharge of their duties;
and RENDERED IN THE EXERCISE OF
To remove from them any temptation to take ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTION
advantage of their official positions for selfish
purposes. Power of the CSC to hear and decide
administrative cases
REVIEW OF FINAL ORDERS, RESOLUTIONS &
DECISIONS Under the Administrative Code of 1987, the CSC has
the power to hear and decide administrative cases
RENDERED IN THE EXERCISE OF instituted before it directly or on appeal, including
QUASIJUDICIAL FUNCTION contested appointments.
SC’s jurisdiction over decisions of the Body which has the jurisdiction on personnel
Commissions actions, covered by the civil service
COA: Judgments or final orders of the Commission on CSC. It is the intent of the Civil Service Law, in
Audit may be brought by an aggrieved party to requiring the establishment of a grievance procedure,
the Supreme Court on certiorari under Rule 65. that decisions of lower officials (in cases involving
Only when COA acts without or in excess of personnel actions) be appealed to the agency head,
jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion then to the CSC. The RTC does not
amounting to lack
97
lOMoARcPSD|8033415
POLITICAL LAW
have jurisdiction over personnel actions. (Olanda v. rewards system, and to adopt measures to promote
Bugayong, G.R. No. 140917, October 10, 2003) morale, efficiency and integrity in the civil service.
Section 12 of Administrative Code of 1987
Certiorari jurisdiction of the SC over these enumerates the powers and functions of the CSC.
Commissions Sec. 11 thereof states that CSC has the power to
hear and decide administrative cases instituted by
Proceedings are limited to issues involving grave or brought before it directly or on appeal, including
abuse of discretion resulting in lack or excess of contested appointments, and review decisions and
jurisdiction and do not ordinarily empower the actions of its offices and of the agencies attached to
Court to review the factual findings of the it. Further, Section 28, Rule XIV of the Omnibus
Commissions. (Aratuc v. COMELEC, G.R. No. L- Civil Service Rules and Regulations specifically
49705-09, February 8, 1979) confers upon the CSC the authority to take
cognizance over any irregularities or anomalies
Decisions rendered in proceedings or actions connected with the examinations. Hence, CSC acted
recognized by the Commissions in the exercise of within its jurisdiction. (Capablanca v. Civil Service
adjudicatory and quasi-judicial power are limited Commission, G.R. No. 179370, November 19, 2009)
but not to purely executive powers. Hence,
questions based from award of a contract for COMMISSION ON ELECTION
construction of voting booths can be brought
before the trial court. (Ambil v. Comelec, G.R. No. Cases that fall under the jurisdiction of
143398, October 5, 2000) COMELEC by DIVISION
JURISDICTION OF EACH CONSTITUTIONAL Election cases should be heard and decided by a

COMMISSION division. If a division dismisses a case for failure of
counsel to appear, the MR may be heard by the
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION division.
Scope of the Civil Service (1999, 2003 Bar) NOTE: According to Balajonda v. COMELEC (G.R.
No. 166032, Feb. 28, 2005), the COMELEC can
The civil service embraces all branches, order immediate execution of its own judgments.
subdivisions, instrumentalities, and agencies of the
Government, including government-owned or Cases that fall under the jurisdiction of
controlled corporations with original charters. COMELEC EN BANC
[1987 Constitution, Art. IX-B, Sec. 2(1)]
Motion for Reconsideration of decisions may be
Capablanca, acquired a permanent status as decided by COMELEC En Banc. It may also directly
Police Officer 1 after taking the required assume jurisdiction over a petition to correct
examinations including the Career Service manifest errors in the tallying of results by Board
Professional Examination-Computer Assisted of Canvassers.
Test (CSP-CAT) given by the Civil Service,
However, it was found out that the person in NOTE: Any decision, order or ruling of the
the picture pasted in the Picture Seat Plan as COMELEC in the exercise of its quasi-judicial
well as the signature therein when he took the functions may be brought to the SC on certiorari
exam is different from the person whose under Rules 64 and 65 of the Revised Rules of Court
picture and signature is attached in the within 30 days from receipt of a copy thereof.
Personal Data Sheet. CSC conducted
preliminary investigation. Capablanca’s These decisions or rulings refer to the decision or
counsel moved to dismiss arguing that the final order of the COMELEC en banc and not of any
administrative discipline over police officers division thereof.
falls under the jurisdiction of the PNP and/or
NAPOLCOM. Does CSC have jurisdiction and Acts that fall under the COMELEC’s power to
disciplinary authority over a member of the supervise or regulate
PNP?
The enjoyment or utilization of all franchises or
YES. The CSC, as the central personnel agency of permits for the operation of
the Government, is mandated to establish a career
service, to strengthen the merit and

2019 GOLDEN NOTES
lOMoARcPSD|8033415
transportation and other public utilities, agencies. (Development Bank of the Philippines v.
media of communication or information. COA, G.R. No. 88435, January 16, 2002)
Grants, special privileges or concessions granted by
the government or any subdivision, agency or Audit jurisdiction of the COA on privatized,
instrumentality thereof, including any GOCC or formerly government-owned banks
its subsidiary. (1987 Constitution, Art. IX-C, Sec.
4) Since the PNB is no longer owned by the
Government, the COA no longer has jurisdiction to
Instances when COMELEC can exercise its audit it as an institution. Under Sec. 2(2), Art. IX-D
constitutional powers and functions of the Constitution, it is a GOCC and their
subsidiaries which are subject to audit by the COA.
During election period – 90 days before the day of However, in accordance with Sec. 2(1), Art. IX-D,
the election and 30 days thereafter. In special the COA can audit the PNB with respect to its
cases, COMELEC can fix a period. accounts because the Government still has equity in
Applies not only to elections but also to plebiscites it. (Philippine Airlines v. COA, G.R. No. 91890, June
and referenda. 9, 1995)
Jurisdiction of the COMELEC before the Extent of COA’s audit jurisdiction over Manila
proclamation vs. its jurisdiction after Economic and Cultural Office (MECO)
proclamation
MECO is a sui generis private entity and not a GOCC or
OVER PRE- OVER CONTESTS government instrumentality. the Government
PROCLAMATION (AFTER entrusted with the facilitation of unofficial relations
CONTROVERSY PROCLAMATION) with the people in Taiwan without jeopardizing the
Due process implications country’s faithful commitment to the One China policy
COMELEC’s of the PROC. However, despite its non-governmental
jurisdiction is character, the MECO handles government funds in the
administrative or form of the "verification fees" it collects on behalf of
quasi-judicial and is the DOLE and the "consular fees" it collects under
COMELEC’s Section 2(6) of EO No. 15, s. 2001. Hence, accounts of
governed by the less
stringent requirements jurisdiction is the MECO pertaining to its collection of such
judicial and is "verification fees" and "consular fees" should be
of administrative due
governed by the audited by the COA. (Funa v. MECO and COA, G.R. No.
process (although the
requirements of 193462, February 4, 2014)
SC has insisted that
judicial process.
questions on
“qualifications” should
be decided only after a
full-blown hearing).
NOTE: Hence, even in the case of regional or

provincial or city offices, it does make a difference
whether the COMELEC will treat it as a pre-
proclamation controversy or as a contest.
COMMISSION ON AUDIT
The COA cannot be divested of its power to

examine and audit government agencies.
No law shall be passed exempting any entity of the
Government or its subsidiary in any guise, or any
investment of public funds, from the jurisdiction of the
Commission on Audit. (Sec.3, ART. IX-D)
The mere fact that private auditors may audit

government agencies does not divest the COA of its
power to examine and audit the same government
99
lOMoARcPSD|8033415
POLITICAL LAW
BILL OF RIGHTS Lawful means – The means employed are

reasonably necessary for the
FUNDAMENTAL POWERS OF THE STATE accomplishment of the purpose and not
unduly oppressive upon individuals.
The following are the fundamental/inherent (NTC v. Philippine Veterans Bank, 192
powers of the state: SCRA 257, December 10, 1990)
Police Power President Rodrigo Duterte issued

Power of Eminent Domain Proclamation No. 475 formally declaring a
Power of Taxation state of calamity in Boracay and ordering its
closure for six (6) months. On account of this,
POLICE POWER Boracay residents Mark Anthony Zabal and
Thiting Jacosalem filed the present petition
Police power is the power of the state to promote alleging that they would suffer grave and
public welfare by restraining and regulating the irreparable damage as their livelihood
use of liberty and property. It is the most pervasive, depends on the tourist activities therein. They
the least limitable, and the most demanding of the attacked the order on the ground that it is an
three fundamental powers of the State. invalid exercise of legislative powers. Is the
order invalid?
As an inherent attribute of sovereignty which
virtually extends to all public needs, police power NO. That the assailed governmental measure in
grants a wide panoply of instruments through this case is within the scope of police power cannot
which the State, as parens patriae, gives effect to a be disputed. Verily, the statutes from which the said
host of its regulatory powers. We have held that the measure draws authority and the constitutional
power to “regulate” means the power to protect, provisions which serve as its framework are
foster, promote, preserve, and control, with due primarily concerned with the environment and
regard for the interests, first and foremost, of the health, safety, and well-being of the people, the
public, then of the utility of its patrons. (Gerochi v. promotion and securing of which are clearly
Department of Energy, G. R. 159796, July 17, 2007) legitimate objectives of governmental efforts and
regulations. The only question now is whether the
The state, in order to promote general welfare, may temporary closure of Boracay as a tourist
interfere with personal liberty, with property, and destination for six months reasonably necessary
with business and occupations. Persons may be under the circumstances? The answer is in the
subjected to all kinds of restraint and burdens in affirmative.
order to secure the general comfort, health and
prosperity of the state and to this fundamental aim Tourist arrivals in the island were clearly far more
of our Government, the rights of the individual are than Boracay could handle. Certainly, the closure of
subordinated. (Ortigas and Co., Limited Boracay, albeit temporarily, gave the island its
Partnership v. Feati Bank and Trust Co, December much needed breather, and likewise afforded the
14, 1979) government the necessary leeway in its
rehabilitation program. Note that apart from
Generally, police power extends to all the great review, evaluation and amendment of relevant
public needs. Its particular aspects, however, are policies, the bulk of the rehabilitation activities
the following: involved inspection, testing, demolition, relocation,
and construction. These works could not have
Public health; easily been done with tourists present. The
Public morals; rehabilitation works in the first place were not
Public safety; and simple, superficial or mere cosmetic but rather
Public welfare. quite complicated, major, and permanent in
character as they were intended to serve as long-
Requisites for a valid exercise of police power term solutions to the problem. (Zabal v. Duterte,
Lawful subject – The interests of the public G.R. No. 238467, February 12, 2019)
generally, as distinguished from those of a
particular class, require the exercise of the
police power; and Hotel and motel operators in Manila sought to
declare Ordinance 4670 as unconstitutional
for being unreasonable, thus violative of the

2019 GOLDEN NOTES
lOMoARcPSD|8033415
Bill of Rights
due process clause. The Ordinance requires NO. A reasonable relation must exist between the
the clients of hotels, motels and lodging house purposes of the measure and the means employed
to fill out a prescribed form in a lobby, open to for its accomplishment, for even under the guise of
public view and in the presence of the owner, protecting the public interest, personal rights and
manager or duly authorized representative of those pertaining to private property will not be
such hotel, motel or lodging house. The same permitted to be arbitrarily invaded. It must also be
law provides that the premises and facilities of evident that no other alternative for the
such hotels, motels and lodging houses would accomplishment of the purpose less intrusive of
be open for inspection either by the City private rights can work. In the present case, there
Mayor, or the Chief of Police, or their duly is less intrusive measures which can be employed
authorized representatives. It increased their such as curbing out the prostitution and drug use
annual license fees as well. Is the ordinance through active police force. The ordinance has a
constitutional? lawful purpose but does not have the lawful means
hence, unconstitutional. (White Light Corporation
YES. The mantle of protection associated with the due vs. City of Manila, G.R. No. 122846, January 20,
process guaranty does not cover the hotel and motel 2009)
operators. This particular manifestation of a police
power measure being specifically aimed to safeguard Are the rates to be charged by utilities like
public morals is immune from such imputation of MERALCO subject to State regulation?
nullity resting purely on conjecture and unsupported
by anything of substance. To hold otherwise would be YES. The regulation of rates to be charged by
to unduly restrict and narrow the scope of police public utilities is founded upon the police powers of
power which has been properly characterized as the the State and statutes prescribing rules for the
most essential, insistent and the least limitable of control and regulation of public utilities are a valid
powers, extending as it does "to all the great public exercise thereof. When private property is used for
needs." There is no question that the challenged a public purpose and is affected with public
ordinance was precisely enacted to minimize certain interest, it ceases to be juris privati only and
practices hurtful to public morals. The challenged becomes subject to regulation. The regulation is to
ordinance then proposes to check the clandestine promote the common good. As long as use of the
harboring of transients and guests of these property is continued, the same is subject to public
establishments by requiring these transients and regulation. (Republic v. Manila Electric Company,
guests to fill up a registration form, prepared for the G.R. No. 141314, November 15, 2002)
purpose, in a lobby open to public view at all times,
and by introducing several other amendatory NOTE: Mall owners and operators cannot be
provisions calculated to shatter the privacy that validly compelled to provide free parking to their
characterizes the registration of transients and customers because requiring them to provide free
guests. Moreover, the increase in the licensed fees was parking space to their customers is beyond the
intended to discourage "establishments of the kind scope of police powers. It unreasonably restricts
from operating for purpose other than legal" and at the right to use property for business purposes and
the same time, to increase "the income of the city amounts to confiscation of property. (OSG v. Ayala
government." (Ermita-Malate Hotel v. City Mayor of Land, Inc., 600 SCRA 617, September 18, 2009)
Manila, G.R. No. L-24693, July 31, 1967) (2014 Bar)
Requisites for the valid exercise of police

power by the delegate
The City of Manila enacted Ordinance No.
7774 entitled, “An Ordinance Prohibiting Express grant by law;
Short-Time Admission, Short-Time Admission Must not be contrary to law; and
Rates, and Wash-Up Rate Schemes in Hotels, GR: Within territorial limits of LGUs.
Motels, Inns, Lodging Houses, Pension Houses, XPN: When exercised to protect water supply.
and Similar Establishments in the City of (Wilson v. City of Mountain Lake Terraces, 417
Manila.” The purpose of the ordinance is to P.2d 632,August 18, 1966)
prohibit motel and inn operators from offering
short-time admission, as well as pro-rated or The courts cannot interfere with the exercise
“wash-up” rates for abbreviated stays. Is the of police power
ordinance a valid exercise of police power?
101
lOMoARcPSD|8033415
POLITICAL LAW
If the legislature decides to act, the choice of measures
or remedies lies within its exclusive discretion, as long The power is It can only be
as the requisites for a valid exercise of police power pervasive and broad as the
have been complied with. all- enabling law
encompassing; and the
Q: Can MMDA exercise police power? It can reach conferring
every form of authorities
NO. The MMDA cannot exercise police powers since property which want it to be.
its powers are limited to the formulation, may be needed
coordination, regulation, implementation, by the State for
preparation, management, monitoring, setting of public use. In
policies, installing a system, and administration. fact, it can reach
Nothing in RA No. 7924 granted the MMDA police even private
Scope
power, let alone legislative power (MMDA v. property
Trackworks, G.R. No. 179554, December 16, 2009) already
dedicated to
EMINENT DOMAIN public use, or
even property
Power of eminent domain already devoted
to religious
The power of eminent domain is the inherent right worship.
of the State to condemn private property to public (Barlin v.
use upon payment of just compensation. Ramirez, 7 Phil.
41, November
It is well settled that eminent domain is an inherent 24, 1906).
power of the State that need not be granted even by Question Political Judicial
the fundamental law. (Republic v. Tagle, December of question question (The
2, 1998) necessity courts can
determine
The power of the nation or the sovereign state to whether there
take, or to authorize the taking of private property is genuine
for public use without the owner’s consent, necessity for its
conditioned upon payment of just compensation. exercise, as
(Brgy. Sindalan, San Fernando, Pampanga v. CA, well as the
G.R. No. 150640, March 22, 2007) value of the
property).
Conditions for the exercise of the Power of
Eminent Domain (TUCO) Requisites for a valid taking
Taking of private property; The expropriator must enter a private

For public Use; property;
Just Compensation; and Entry must be for more than a momentary
Observance of due process. period;
Entry must be under warrant or color of legal
NOTE: There must be a valid offer to buy the authority;
property and refusal of said offer. Property must be devoted to public use or
otherwise informally appropriated or
Power of expropriation as exercised by injuriously affected; and
Congress vs. Power of expropriation as Utilization of property must be in such a way
exercised by delegates as to oust the owner and deprive him of
beneficial enjoyment of the property.
Power of Power of (Republic v. De Castellvi, G.R. No. L-20620,
expropriation expropriation August 15, 1974)
as exercised as exercised
by Congress by delegates Nature of property taken

2019 GOLDEN NOTES
lOMoARcPSD|8033415
Bill of Rights
GR: All private property capable of ownership, area into a model housing community, urban land
including services, can be taken. reform and housing. There is a vicarious advantage
to the society. (Filstream International
XPNs: Incorporated v. CA, 284 SCRA 716, January 23,
Money; and 1998)
Choses in action - personal right not reduced in
possession but recoverable by a suit at law The Republic, through the Office of the
such as right to receive, demand or recover Solicitor-General, instituted a complaint for
debt, demand or damages on a cause of expropriation of a piece of land in Taguig,
action ex contractu or for a tort or alleging that the National Historical Institute
omission of duty. declared said land as a national historical
landmark, because it was the site of the birth
NOTE: A chose in action is a property of Felix Manalo, the founder of Iglesiani Cristo.
right in something intangible, or which is The Republic filed an action to expropriate the
not in one’s possession but enforceable land. Petitioners argued that the
through legal or court action e.g. cash, a expropriation was not for a public purpose. Is
right of action in tort or breach of this correct?
contract, an entitlement to cash refund,
checks, money, salaries, insurance claims. YES. Public use should not be restricted to the
traditional uses. It has been held that places invested
Requisites before an LGU can exercise with unusual historical interest is a public use for
Eminent Domain which the power of eminent domain may be
authorized. The purpose in setting up the marker is
An ordinance is enacted by the local legislative essentially to recognize the distinctive contribution of
council authorizing the local chief executive, in the late Felix Manalo to the culture of the Philippines,
behalf of the LGU, to exercise the power of rather than to commemorate his founding and
eminent domain or pursue expropriation leadership of the Iglesia ni Cristo. The practical
proceedings over a particular private property; reality that greater benefit may be derived by
The power of eminent domain is exercised for members of the Iglesia ni Cristo than by most others
public use, purpose or welfare, or for the could well be true but such a peculiar advantage still
benefit of the poor and the landless; remains to be merely incidental and secondary in
There is payment of just compensation; and nature. Indeed, that only a few would actually benefit
A valid and definite offer has been previously made from the expropriation of property does not
to the owner of the property sought to be necessarily diminish the essence and character of
expropriated, but said offer was not accepted. public use. (Manosca v. CA, supra.)
(Municipality of Paranaque v. V.M. Realty
Corp., 292 SCRA 678, July 20, 1998)
Just Compensation
Expansive concept of “Public Use”
It is the full and fair equivalent of the property
Public use does not necessarily mean “use by the taken from the private owner (owner’s loss) by the
public at large.” Whatever may be beneficially expropriator. It is usually the fair market value
employed for the general welfare satisfies the (FMV) of the property and must include
requirement. Moreover, that only few people consequential damages (damages to the other
benefit from the expropriation does not diminish its interest of the owner attributed to the
public- use character because the notion of public expropriation) minus consequential benefits
use now includes the broader notion of indirect (increase in the value of other interests attributed
public benefit or advantage. (Manosca v. CA, G.R. to new use of the former property).
166440, January 29, 1996)
NOTE: To be just, the compensation must be paid
Concept of Vicarious Benefit on time. (2009 Bar)
Abandons the traditional concept (number of actual Fair Market Value

beneficiaries determines public purpose). Public use
now includes the broader notion of indirect public The price that may be agreed upon by parties who are
advantage, i.e. conversion of a slum willing but are not compelled to enter into a
103

lOMoARcPSD|8033415
POLITICAL LAW
contract of sale. (City of Manila v. Estrada, G.R. No.
7749, September 9, 1913) Consequential Benefits
Period to determine just compensation If the remainder is as a result of the expropriation

placed in a better location, such as fronting a street
GR: Reckoning point is determined at the date of where it used to be an interior lot, the owner will
the filing of the complaint for eminent domain. enjoy consequential benefits which should be
deducted from the consequential damages. (Cruz,
XPN: Where the filing of the complaint occurs after Constitutional Law, 2007 ed., p. 79)
the actual taking of the property and the owner would
be given undue incremental advantages arising from NOTE: If the consequential benefits exceed the
the use to which the government devotes the property consequential damages, these items should be
expropriated, just compensation is determined as of disregarded altogether as the basic value of the
the date of the taking. (NPC v. CA, G.R. No. 113194, property should be paid in every case. (Rule 67,
March 11, 1996) Section 6, Rules of Court)
Consequential Damages Form of payment
Consist of injuries directly caused on the residue of GR: Compensation has to be paid in money.
the private property taken by reason of
expropriation. (Cruz and Cruz, Constitutional Law, XPN: In cases involving CARP, compensation may
2015 Ed.) be in bonds or stocks, for it has been held as a non-
traditional exercise of the power of eminent
Spouses Salvador owns a land where a one- domain. It is not an ordinary expropriation where
storey building is erected. The said land is only a specific property of relatively limited area is
subject to expropriation wherein the DPWH shall sought to be taken by the State from its owner for a
construct the NLEX extension exiting McArthur specific and perhaps local purpose. It is rather a
Highway. DPWH paid the spouses amounting to revolutionary kind of expropriation. (Association
P685,000 which was the fair market value of the of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. v.
land and building. RTC issued a Writ of Secretary of Agrarian Reform, G.R. No. 78742, July
Possession in favor of the Republic but decided 14,1989)
to pay an additional amount corresponding to
the capital gains tax paid by the spouses. The NOTE: The owner is entitled to the payment of
Republic, represented by DPWH contested the interest from the time of taking until just
decision of the RTC adding the capital gains tax compensation is actually paid to him. Taxes paid by
as consequential damages on the part of the him from the time of the taking until the transfer of
Spouse Salvador. Is the decision of the RTC title (which can only be done after actual payment
correct? of just compensation), during which he did not
enjoy any beneficial use of the property, are
A:NO. Just compensation is defined as the full and fair reimbursable by the expropriator.
equivalent of the property sought to be expropriated. Pursuant to Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Circular No.
The measure is not the taker’s gain but the owner’s 799, series of 2013, from July 1, 2013 onwards and
loss. The compensation, to be just, must be fair not until full payment, an interest rate of 6% per annum
only to the owner but also to the taker. Consequential should be used in computing the just compensation.
damages are only awarded if as a result of the (Land Bank of the Philippines v. Hababag, G.R. No.
expropriation, the remaining property of the owner 172352, September 16, 2015)
suffers from an impairment or decrease in value. In
this case, no evidence was submitted to prove any NOTE: The right to recover just compensation is
impairment or decrease in value of the subject enshrined in no less than our Bill of Rights, which
property as a result of the expropriation. More states in clear and categorical language that
significantly, given that the payment of capital gains private property shall not be taken for public use
tax on the transfer· of the subject property has no without just compensation. This constitutional
effect on the increase or decrease in value of the mandate cannot be defeated by statutory
remaining property, it can hardly be considered as prescription. (NPC v. Sps. Bernardo, G. R. No.
consequential damages that may be awarded to 189127, April 25, 2012) (2014 Bar)
respondents. (Republic v. Sps. Salvador, G.R. No.
205428, June 7, 2017) Determination

2019 GOLDEN NOTES
lOMoARcPSD|8033415
Bill of Rights
Role of the Judiciary ATO would abandon the Lahug Airport,
pursuant to an established policy involving
The value of the property must be determined similar cases. Because of this promise, the
either at the time of taking or filing of the landowners did not pursue their appeal.
complaint, whichever comes first. (EPZA v. Dulay, Thereafter, the lot was transferred and
G.R. No. 59603, April 29, 1987) registered in the name of the Government.
The projected improvement and expansion
In cases where a property is not wholly plan of the old Lahug Airport, however, was
expropriated, the consequential damages of the not pursued. From the date of the institution
remaining property shall be added in the fair of the expropriation proceedings up to the
market value, minus the consequential benefits, but present, the public purpose of the said
in no case will the consequential benefits exceed the expropriation (expansion of the airport) was
consequential damages. (Sec. 6, Rule 67, Rules of never actually initiated, realized, or
Court) implemented.
Effect of Delay Thus, the landowners initiated a complaint for

the recovery of possession and reconveyance
GR: Non-payment by the government does not of ownership of the lands based on the
entitle private owners to recover possession of the compromised agreement they entered into
property because expropriation is an in rem with the ATO. Do the former owners have the
proceeding, not an ordinary sale, but only entitle right to redeem the property?
them to demand payment of the fair market value
of the property. YES. It is well settled that the taking of private
property by the Government’s power of eminent
XPNs: domain is subject to two mandatory requirements:
When there is deliberate refusal to pay just (1) that it is for a particular public purpose; and
compensation; and (2) that just compensation be paid to the property
Government’s failure to pay compensation within 5 owner. These requirements partake of the nature of
years from the finality of the judgment in the implied conditions that should be complied with to
expropriation proceedings. This is in enable the condemn or to keep the property
connection with the principle that the expropriated.
government cannot keep the property and
dishonor the judgment. (Republic v. Lim, G.R. More particularly, with respect to the element of
No. 161656, June 29, 2005) public use, the expropriator should commit to use
the property pursuant to the purpose stated in the
Abandonment of intended use and right of petition for expropriation filed, failing which, it
repurchase should file another petition for the new purpose. If
not, it is then incumbent upon the expropriator to
Several parcels of lands located in Lahug, Cebu return the said property to its private owner, if the
City were the subject of expropriation latter desires to reacquire the same. Otherwise, the
proceedings filed by the Government for the judgment of expropriation suffers an intrinsic flaw,
expansion and improvement of the Lahug as it would lack one indispensable element for the
Airport. The RTC rendered judgment in favor proper exercise of the power of eminent domain,
of the Government and ordered the latter to namely, the particular public purpose for which the
pay the landowners the fair market value of property will be devoted. Accordingly, the private
the land. The landowners received the property owner would be denied due process of
payment. law, and the judgment would violate the property
owner’s right to justice, fairness, and equity. (MIAA
The other dissatisfied landowners appealed. and Air Transportation Office v. Lozada, G.R. No.
Pending appeal, the Air Transportation Office 176625, February 25, 2010)
(ATO), proposed a compromise settlement
whereby the owners of the lots affected by the NOTE: To continue with the expropriation
expropriation proceedings would either not proceedings despite the definite cessation of the
appeal or withdraw their respective appeals in public purpose of the project would result in the
consideration of a commitment that the rendition of an invalid judgment in favor of the
expropriated lots would be resold at the price expropriator due to the absence of the essential
they were expropriated in the event that the
105
lOMoARcPSD|8033415
POLITICAL LAW
element of public use. (Republic v. Heirs of Borbon, Public purpose;
G.R. No. 165354, January 12, 2015) Non-delegability of power;
Territoriality or situs of taxation;
TAXATION Exemption of government from taxation; and
International comity.
It is the process by which the government, through
its legislative branch, imposes and collects revenues Constitutional limitations
to defray the necessary expenses of the government, Due process of law (Art. III, Sec.1);
and to be able to carry out, in particular, any and Equal protection clause (Art. III, Sec.1);
all projects that are supposed to be for the common Uniformity, equitability and progressive system
good. Simply put, taxation is the method by which of taxation (Art. VI, Sec 28);
these contributions are exacted. Non-impairment of contracts (Art. III, Sec. 10);
Non-imprisonment for non-payment of poll tax
The power to tax includes the power to destroy only (Art. III, Sec. 20);
if it is used as a valid implement of the police power Revenue and tariff bills must originate in the
in discouraging and in effect, ultimately prohibiting House of Representatives (Art IV, Sec. 24);
certain things or enterprises inimical to public Non-infringement of religious freedom (Art.
welfare. But where the power to tax is used solely III, Sec.4);
for the purpose of raising revenues, the modern Delegation of legislative authority to the
view is that it cannot be allowed to confiscate or President to fix tariff rates, import and
export quotas, tonnage and wharfage
destroy. If this is sought to be done, the tax may be
dues;
successfully attacked as an inordinate and
Tax exemption of properties actually, directly
unconstitutional exercise of the discretion that is
and exclusively used for religious,
usually vested exclusively in the legislature in
charitable and educational purposes
ascertaining the amount of tax. (Roxas v. CTA, G.R.
(NIRC, Sec 30);
No. L-25043, April 26, 1968)
Majority vote of all the members of Congress
required in case of legislative grant of tax
Taxes
exemptions;
Non-impairment of SC’s jurisdiction in tax
Enforced proportional contributions from persons cases;
and property levied by the State by virtue of its Tax exemption of revenues and assets of,
sovereignty for the support of the government and including grants, endowments, donations
for public needs. or contributions to educational
institutions. (Art. VI of the 1987
NOTE: Payment of taxes is an obligation based on Constitution, Sec. 28 [3])
law, and not on contract. It is a duty imposed upon the
individual by the mere fact of his membership in the Notice and hearing in the enactment of tax laws
body politic and his enjoyment of the benefits
available from such membership. Except only in the From the procedural viewpoint, due process does
case of poll (community) taxes, non-payment of a tax not require previous notice and hearing before a
may be the subject of criminal prosecution and law prescribing fixed or specific taxes on certain
punishment. The accused cannot invoke the articles may be enacted. But where the tax to be
prohibition against imprisonment for debt, as taxes collected is to be based on the value of taxable
are not considered debts. property, the taxpayer is entitled to be notified of
the assessment proceedings and to be heard
Scope of legislative discretion in the exercise therein on the correct valuation to be given the
of taxation property.
Whether to impose tax in the first place Uniformity in taxation
Whom or what to tax;
For what public purpose; and It refers to geographical uniformity, meaning it
Amount or rate of the tax. operates with the same force and effect in every
place where the subject of it is found.
General Limitations on the power of taxation
A. Inherent limitations

2019 GOLDEN NOTES

lOMoARcPSD|8033415
Bill of Rights
For the same taxing Periods;
GR: The power to tax operates with the same force On the same Subject matter;
and effect in every place where the subject of it is Within the same taxing Jurisdiction; and
found. This is known as geographical uniformity. Of the same Kind or character. (Swedish Match
Philippines v. Treasurer of the City of
XPN: The rule on uniformity does not prohibit Manila, G.R. No. 181277, July 3, 2013)
classification for purposes of taxation, provided the
requisites for valid classification are met. (Ormoc Tax exemptions may either be
Sugar v. Treasurer of Ormoc, February 15, 2013)
Constitutional; or
Progressive system of taxation
NOTE: Requisites for Constitutional
It posits that the tax rate increases as the tax base exemption: Actual, Direct and Exclusive Use
increases. by the following:
Educational;
Double taxation charitable institutions; and
Religious organizations. [Sec. 28(3),
It means taxing the same property twice when it Art. VI, 1987 Constitution]
should be taxed only once; that is, “taxing the same Statutory.
person twice by the same jurisdiction for the same
thing.” It is obnoxious when the taxpayer is taxed NOTE: It has to be passed by majority of all
twice, when it should be but once. Otherwise the members of the Congress. [Art. VI, 1987
described as “direct duplicate taxation,” the two Constitution, Sec. 28(4)]
taxes must be imposed on the same subject matter,
for the same purpose, by the same taxing authority, Revocability of tax exemptions
within the same jurisdiction, during the same
taxing period; and the taxes must be of the same Exemption is granted gratuitously – revocable;
kind or character. (City of Manila v. Coca-Cola and
Bottlers Philippines, G.R. No. 181845, August 4, Exemption is granted for valuable
2009) consideration (non-impairment of
contracts) – irrevocable.
Tax treaties
Construction of tax laws
In negotiating tax treaties, the underlying rationale
for reducing the tax rate is that the Philippines will In case of doubt, tax statutes are to be construed
give up a part of the tax in the expectation that the strictly against the Government and liberally in favor
tax given up for this particular investment is not taxed of the taxpayer, for taxes, being burdens, are not to be
by the other country. presumed beyond what the applicable statute
expressly and clearly declares. (CIR v. La Tondena, Inc.
In order to eliminate double taxation, a tax treaty and CTA, 5 SCRA 665,July 31, 1962)
resorts to several methods. First, it sets out the
respective rights to tax of the state of source or Construction of laws granting tax exemptions
situs and of the state off residence with regard to
certain classes of income or capital. Second, It must be strictly construed against the taxpayer,
whenever the state of source is given a full or because the law frowns on exemption from
limited right to tax together with the state of taxation; hence, an exempting provision should be
residence, the treaties make it incumbent upon the construed strictissimi juris. (Acting Commissioner
state of residence to allow relief in order to avoid of Customs v. Manila Electric Company, G.R. No. L-
double taxation. (Commissioner of Internal 23623, June 30, 1977)
Revenue v. S.C Johnson & Son, Inc, June 25, 1999)
Tax vs. License fee
Two tax laws or ordinances constitute Double
Taxation when they tax: (PAPS-JK) TAX LICENSE FEE
Levied in exercise Imposed in the exercise of
For the same Purpose; of the taxing the police power of the
By the same taxing Authority; power. state.
107

lOMoARcPSD|8033415
POLITICAL LAW
The purpose of License fees are imposed
the tax is to for regulatory purposes The Bill of Rights cannot be invoked against private
generate which means that it must individuals. In the absence of governmental
revenues. only be of sufficient interference, the liberties guaranteed by the
amount to include Constitution cannot be invoked. The equal
expenses in issuing a protection erects no shield against private conduct,
license, cost of necessary however discriminatory or wrongful. (Yrasegui v.
inspection or police PAL, G.R. No. 168081, October 17, 2008)
surveillance, etc.
Its primary Regulation is the primary NOTE: However, where the husband invoked his
purpose is to purpose. The fact that right to privacy of communication and
generate revenue, incidental revenue is also correspondence against a private individual, his
and regulation is obtained does not make wife, who had forcibly taken from his cabinet
merely incidental. the imposition a tax. documents and private correspondence, and
presented as evidence against him, the Supreme
NOTE: Ordinarily, license fees are in the nature of Court held these papers are inadmissible in
the exercise of police power because they are in the evidence, upholding the husband’s right to privacy.
form of regulation by the State and considered as a (Zulueta v. CA, G.R. No. 107383, February 20, 1996)
manner of paying off administration costs.
However, if the license fee is higher than the cost of RIGHTS TO LIFE, LIBERTY, AND PROPERTY
regulating, then it becomes a form of taxation.
(Ermita-Malate Hotel v. City Mayor of Manila, G.R. Meaning of Life
No. L-24693, October 23, 1967)
The right to life is not merely a right to the
Can taxes be subject to off-setting or preservation of life but also to the security of the
compensation? limbs and organs of the human body against any
unlawful harm. This constitutional guarantee
NO. Taxes cannot be subject to compensation for includes the right of an individual to pursue a
the simple reason that the government and the lawful calling or occupation; to express, write or
taxpayer are not creditors and debtors of each even paint his ideas for as long as he does not
other. There is a material distinction between a tax unlawfully transgress the rights of others; to
and debt. Debts are due to the Government in its exercise his freedom of choice, whether this is in the
corporate capacity, while taxes are due to the area of politics, religion, marriage, philosophy and
Government in its sovereign capacity. It must be employment, or even in the planning of his family;
noted that a distinguishing feature of tax is that it and in general, to do and perform any lawful act or
is compulsory rather than a matter of bargain. activity which, in his judgment, will make his life
Hence, a tax does not depend upon the consent of worth living. (Suarez, 2016)
the taxpayer. (Philex Mining Corp. v. CIR, 294 SCRA
687, August 28, 1998) Meaning of Liberty
PRIVATE ACTS AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS It is not only the right of a citizen to be free from
the mere physical restraint of his person, as by
Bill of Rights incarceration, but the term is deemed to embrace
the right of the citizen to be free in the engagement
Set of prescriptions setting forth the fundamental of all his faculties; to be free to use them in all
civil and political rights of the individual, and lawful ways. (Allegeyer vs. Louisianna, 165 U.S.
imposing limitations on the powers of government 578, January 6, 1897)
as a means of securing the enjoyment of those
rights. Meaning of Property
The Bill of Rights governs the relationship between It refers to things which are susceptible of
the individual and the State. Its concern is not the appropriation and which are already possessed and
relation between private individuals. What it does found in the possession of man. (Suarez, 2016)
is to declare some forbidden zones in the private
sphere inaccessible to any power holder. (People v.
Marti, G.R. No. 81561, January 18, 1991)

2019 GOLDEN NOTES

lOMoARcPSD|8033415

UST Golden Notes on Political Law

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

UST Golden Notes on Political Law

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

lOMoARcPSD|8033415

2019 UST Golden Notes Political LAW

College of Law (Arellano University)

StuDocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university

2019 GOLDEN NOTES FACULTY

Downloaded by Justine May Sanchez (justinemaysanchez@gmail.com)

Address: Academics Committee

Tel. No: (02) 731-4027

No portion of this material may be copied or reproduced in books, pamphlets, outlines or

Printed in the Philippines August 2019.

Downloaded by Justine May Sanchez (justinemaysanchez@gmail.com)

ACADEMIC YEAR 2019-2020

ATTY. AL CONRAD B. ESPALDON

Downloaded by Justine May Sanchez (justinemaysanchez@gmail.com)

POLITICAL LAW COMMITTEE

SARA D. LARCE POLITICAL LAW COMMITTEE ASST. HEAD

ATTY. AL CONRAB B. ESPALDON

Downloaded by Justine May Sanchez (justinemaysanchez@gmail.com)

FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW

ATTY. NILO T. DIVINA REV. FR. ISIDRO C. ABAÑO, O.P.

ATTY. ARTHUR B. CAPILI

ATTY. ELGIN MICHAEL C. PEREZ

JUDGE PHILIP A. AGUINALDO

LENY G. GADANIA, R.G.C.

Downloaded by Justine May Sanchez (justinemaysanchez@gmail.com)

OUR DEEPEST APPRECIATION TO OUR

Justice Amy Lazaro-Javier

Justice Oswaldo D. Agcaoili

Judge Charito M. Sawali

Atty. Carlo L. Cruz

Atty. Enrique V. Dela Cruz

Atty. Rene B. Gorospe

Atty. Victoria V. Loanzon

Atty. Rafaelito M. Garayblas

Atty. Anicia C. Marquez

Atty. Edwin R. Sandoval

Atty. Mauricio C. Ulep

Downloaded by Justine May Sanchez (justinemaysanchez@gmail.com)

II. Legislative Department...................................................................................................................................... 19

III. Executive Department.......................................................................................................................................53

IV. Judicial Department............................................................................................................................................80

Downloaded by Justine May Sanchez (justinemaysanchez@gmail.com)

VI. Bill of Rights......................................................................................................................................................100

Downloaded by Justine May Sanchez (justinemaysanchez@gmail.com)

VIII. Law on Public Officers..................................................................................................................................172

Downloaded by Justine May Sanchez (justinemaysanchez@gmail.com)

IX. Administrative Law..........................................................................................................................................213

XI. Local Governments...........................................................................................................................................246

Downloaded by Justine May Sanchez (justinemaysanchez@gmail.com)

b. Local initiative and referendum.............................................................................................................267

Xll. National Economy and Patrimony................................................................................................................281

XIII. Social Justice and Human Rights................................................................................................................ 291

XV. Education, Science, Technology, Arts, Culture and Sports.......................................................................294

XVI. The Family.......................................................................................................................................................298

XVII. Amendments or Revisions of the Constitution.......................................................................................298

XVIII. Public International Law...........................................................................................................................303

Downloaded by Justine May Sanchez (justinemaysanchez@gmail.com)

f. Passive personality principle..........................................................................................................322

Downloaded by Justine May Sanchez (justinemaysanchez@gmail.com)

THE RISK OF USE OF THIS BAR

Downloaded by Justine May Sanchez (justinemaysanchez@gmail.com)

Downloaded by Justine May Sanchez (justinemaysanchez@gmail.com)

Preliminary Provisions and Basic Concepts