POLITICAL LAW

2019
PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

While mandating adherence to the general policy of the government that contracts for the
procurement of civil works or supply of goods and equipment shall be undertaken only after
competitive public bidding, RA 9184 recognizes the country's commitment to abide by its
obligations under any treaty or international or executive agreement. (Land Bank of the
Philippines v. Atlanta Industries, Inc. G.R. NO. 193796 July 2, 2014)

International humanitarian law (IHL) is the branch of public international law which governs
armed conflicts to the end that the use of violence is limited and that human suffering is
mitigated or reduced by regulating or limiting the means of military operations and by
protecting persons who do not or no longer participate in the hostilities. (Magallona,
Fundamentals of Public International Law, 2005 ed., p. 291)

Distinguished from human rights law, IHL applies only in times of armed conflict, whether
national or international; whereas human rights law applies both in times of war or in times of
peace.

IHL permits of no derogation; whereas there are certain human rights treaties that allow
governments to derogate on certain rights in times of public emergency.

IHL protects civilians and persons who no longer participate in armed conflict (like prisoners of
war and persons hors de combat); whereas human rights law protects the individual from
arbitrary acts of governments at all times.

Refugees
Karbasi's status as a refugee has to end with the attainment of Filipino citizenship, in
consonance with Philippine statutory requirements and international obligations. Indeed, the
Naturalization Law must be read in light of the developments in international human rights law
specifically the granting of nationality to refugees and stateless persons. (Republic vs Karbasi,
G.R. No. 210412 July 29, 2015)

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

Abandonment of the Condonation Doctrine

There is no truth in Pascual's postulation that the courts would be depriving the electorate of
their right to elect their officers if condonation were not to be sanctioned. In political law,
election pertains to the process by which a particular constituency chooses an individual to
hold a public office. In this jurisdiction, there is, again, no legal basis to conclude that election
automatically implies condonation.

Equally infirm is Pascual's proposition that the electorate, when re-electing a local official, are
assumed to have done so with knowledge of his life and character, and that they disregarded or
forgave his faults or misconduct, if he had been guilty of any. Suffice it to state that no such
presumption exists in any statute or procedural rule. Besides, it is contrary to human
experience that the electorate would have full knowledge of a public official's misdeeds.

It should, however, be clarified that this Court's abandonment of the condonation doctrine
should be prospective in application for the reason that judicial decisions applying or

1
 POLITICAL LAW

2019
interpreting the laws or the Constitution, until reversed, shall form part of the legal system of
the Philippines. (Ombudsman v. CA and Binay, G.R. Nos. 217126-27, Nov 10, 2015)

GENERAL PROVISIONS

Section 1. The flag of the Philippines shall be red, white, and blue, with a sun and three stars,
as consecrated and honored by the people and recognized by law.

Section 2. The Congress may, by law, adopt a new name for the country, a national anthem,
or a national seal, which shall all be truly reflective and symbolic of the ideals, history, and
traditions of the people. Such law shall take effect only upon its ratification by the people in a
national referendum.

While mandating adherence to the general policy of the government that contracts for the
procurement of civil works or supply of goods and equipment shall be undertaken only after
competitive public bidding, RA 9184 recognizes the country's commitment to abide by its
obligations under any treaty or international or executive agreement. (Land Bank of the
Philippines v. Atlanta Industries, Inc. G.R. NO. 193796 July 2, 2014)

While mandating adherence to the general policy of the government that contracts for the
procurement of civil works or supply of goods and equipment shall be undertaken only after
competitive public bidding, RA 9184 recognizes the country's commitment to abide by its
obligations under any treaty or international or executive agreement. (Land Bank of the
Philippines v. Atlanta Industries, Inc. G.R. NO. 193796 July 2, 2014)

FUNDAMENTAL POWERS OF THE STATE

While the Regional Trial Court, acting as a Special Agrarian Court (SAC), is not strictly bound
by the different formula created by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) since the
valuation of property or the determination of just compensation is essentially a judicial
function which is vested with the courts, and not with administrative agencies, it must explain
and justify in clear terms the reason for any deviation from the prescribed factors and the
applicable formula. (Heirs of Pablo Feliciano vs. Landbank of the Philippines, G.R. No.
215290, January 11, 2017)

INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES

Rights Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures

Meaning of “inadvertence” in plain view.
- The officer must not have known in advance of the location of the evidence and
intend to seize it.
- Discovery is not anticipated.

Rights of Persons under Custodial Investigation

Elements of a Custodial Interrogation
1. If there is questioning, it must be by the Police
2. Person is a Suspect
3. Person is under Custody/ Arrest

2
 POLITICAL LAW

2019
Miranda rights; waivable?
May be waived provided it must be in writing and in presence of counsel.

Freedom of Speech
The doctrine of vagueness and the doctrine of overbreadth do not operate on the same plane. A
statute or act suffers from the defect of vagueness when it lacks comprehensible standards
that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its
application. (Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network, Inc. vs. Anti-Terrorism Council
632 SCRA 146)

Is the vagueness doctrine an applicable ground to assail a penal statute?

Yes, but only in an as-applied challenge. A statute or act suffers from the defect of vagueness
when it lacks comprehensible standards that men of common intelligence must necessarily
guess at its meaning and differ as to its application. It is repugnant to the Constitution
because it violates due process for failure to accord persons, especially the parties targeted by
it, fair notice of the conduct to avoid.

Freedom of Religion
Allowing the holding of Catholic masses at the basement of the QC Hall of Justice is not a case
of establishment, but merely accommodation. To give life to the constitutional right of freedom
of religion, the State adopts a policy of accommodation. Benevolent neutrality allows
accommodation of religion under certain circumstances. Accommodations are government
policies that take religion specifically into account, not to promote the government's favored
form of religion, but to allow individuals to exercise their religion without hindrance. Their
purpose or effect therefore is to remove a burden on, or facilitate the exercise of, a person's or
institution's religion. (In re: Holding of Religious Rituals at the Hall of Justice Building in
Quezon City, A.M. No. 10-4-19-SC)

ACADEMIC FREEDOM

Academic freedom of institutions of higher learning is a freedom granted to “institutions of

higher learning” which is thus given a “wide sphere of authority certainly extending to the
choice of students.” If such institution of higher learning can decide who can and who cannot
study in it, it certainly can also determine on whom it can confer the honor and distinction of
being its graduates.

Where it is shown that the conferment of an honor or distinction was obtained through fraud, a
university has the right to revoke or withdraw the honor or distinction it has thus conferred.
This freedom of a university does not terminate upon the “graduation” of a student, for it is
precisely the “graduation” of such a student that is in question. (UP Board of Regents v. Hon.
Court of Appeals and Arokiaswamy William Margaret Celine, G.R. No. 134625, Aug. 31,
1999, 2nd Div. [Mendoza])

EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT

Executive Privilege
It is the power of the Government to withhold information from the public, the courts, and the
Congress. It is the right of the President and high-level executive branch officers to withhold

3
 POLITICAL LAW

2019
information from Congress, the courts, and ultimately the public. (Senate v. Ermita, G.R. No.
169777)

For the claim of executive privilege to be recognized, the following requirements must be
complied with:
1. The type of information must covered by executive privilege (Substantive
requirement)
2. Executive privilege must properly claimed or asserted (Procedural requirement)
The purpose is to protect the free exchange of ideas between those tasked with decision-making
in the executive branch and to prevent public confusion before an agency has adopted a final
policy decision. (Department of Foreign Affairs vs. BCA International Corporation, 795
SCRA 276)

Elements of the Presidential Communications Privilege

1. Relates to a “quintessential and non-delegable presidential power”
2. The communication must be authored or “solicited and received” by a close adviser
of the president or the president himself
3. The information sought “likely contain important evidence”

To be valid, the claim of executive privilege must be:

1. Clearly asserted or formally claimed, giving congress the precise and certain reasons
or specific basis for the claim; and
2. Invoked by the president himself or through his Executive Secretary for and in
behalf of the President

Diplomatic Power
- The president is the sole organ and authority in the external affairs.
- The conduct of foreign relations is primarily an executive prerogative. Courts may not
inquire into the wisdom or unwisdom in the exercise thereof.
- The Supreme Court cannot invalidate the acts of the President in entering into and
ratifying a treaty in the absence of showing grave abuse of discretion.

Calling-Out Power
- Power of the President to order the armed forces, whenever it becomes necessary, to
suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. (David v. Macapagal Arroyo, G.R.
No. 171396, May 3, 2006)
- Discretionary power solely vested in his wisdom; full discretionary power

Borrowing Power
Contracting or Guaranteeing Foreign Loans
- President may contract or guarantee foreign loans on behalf of the Republic of the
Philippines
- Only upon prior concurrence of the Monetary Board
- Congress may, by law, provide limitations on the President’s power to contract or
guarantee foreign loans on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines.

Service Contract Loans

Requirements
1. Under a treaty duly concurred by the 2/3 votes of the members of the Senate
2. Recognized as a treaty by the other contracting state

4
 POLITICAL LAW

2019
3. When the congress so requires, ratified by a majority of the votes cast by the people
in a national referendum held for that purpose

Presidential Succession
Sec. 12. In case of serious illness of the President, the public shall be informed of the state of
his health. The Members of the Cabinet in charge of national security and foreign relations and
the chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, shall not be denied access to the
President during such illness.

Military Powers
In determining the sufficiency of the factual basis of the declaration and/or the suspension,
the Court should look into the full complement or totality of the factual basis, and not
piecemeal or individually. Neither should the Court expect absolute correctness of the facts
stated in the proclamation and in the written Report as the President could not be expected to
verify the accuracy and veracity of all facts reported to him due to the urgency of the situation.
To require him otherwise would impede the process of his decision-making. The
recommendation of the Defense Secretary is not a condition for the declaration of martial law
or suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. (Lagman vs. Medialdea  829
SCRA 1  , July 04, 2017)

LEGISLATIVE POWER

Legislative veto is a statutory provision requiring the President or an administrative agency to

present the proposed implementing rules and regulations of a law to Congress which, by itself
or through a committee formed by it, retains a "right" or "power" to approve or disapprove such
regulations before they take effect.

A legislative veto is unconstitutional. It violates the principle of separation of powers. From the
moment the law becomes effective, any provision of law that empowers Congress or any of its
members to play any role in the implementation or enforcement of the law violates the principle
of separation of powers and is thus unconstitutional. (Abakada Guru Party-list v. Purisima,
G.R. No. 166715, 8-14-2008)

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Judicial Review
Direct Injury Test
- He must have a personal and substantial interest in the case such that he sustained, or
will sustain, direct injury as a result of its enforcement.

When Direct Injury is not required

- Facial challenges on the ground of vagueness or overbreadth;
- Actions for violations of environmental laws
- Actions that raise an issue of transcendental importance
- Assertion of a public right, such as the right to information
- Tax payer’s suit
- Citizen’s petition to set aside the declaration of martial law or suspension of the
privilege of habeas corpus.

5
 POLITICAL LAW

2019
Political Question Doctrine
- The Supreme Court cannot review the decision of the Committee on Justice to impeach.
- The Supreme Court cannot review the sufficiency of the substance of the impeachment
complaints.
- The sufficiency of the substance will delve into the merits of the impeachment
complaints over which the Court has no jurisdiction.
- The Court can only rule on whether there is a gross violation of the Constitution in
filing the impeachment complaint, in particular, whether the complaint was filed in
violation of the one-year ban.
- The Court cannot review the decision of the Committee on Justice to impeach.
Impeachment is a political process. Thus, the decision to impeach lies exclusively on
Congress. (Gutierrez v. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 193459)

Operative Fact Doctrine

- Nullifies the void law or executive act but sustains its effects.
- It provides an exception to the general rule that a void or unconstitutional law produces
no effect.
- But its use must be subjected to great scrutiny and circumspection, and it cannot be
invoked to validate an unconstitutional law or executive act, but is resorted to only as a
matter of equity and fair play.
- It applies only to cases where extraordinary circumstances exist, and only when the
extraordinary circumstances have met the stringent conditions that will permit its
application. (Araullo v. Aquino III, et al. 728 SCRA 1)

Rule Making Power

- The prohibition under Section 14, RA 6770 against courts other than the Supreme
Court from issuing provisional injunctive writs to enjoin investigations conducted by the
Office of the Ombudsman encroaches upon the Supreme Court’s rule-making authority
and should be considered ineffective, pending deliberation on whether or not the
Supreme Court should adopt such prohibition.

Judicial and Bar Council

- The JBC has the authority to set the standards and criteria in choosing its nominees for
every vacancy in the judiciary, subject only to the minimum qualifications required by
the Constitution and Law for every position. (Villanueva v. Judicial and Bar Council
G.R. No. 211833

- In Jardeleza, the JBC's act of selectively applying its own rules, which resulted in the
violation of the petitioner (now Justice) Francis Jardeleza's due process rights, both
amounted to a grave abuse of discretion and to a cause that triggered the Court's
supervisory jurisdiction over the JBC. The JBC's grave abuse of discretion necessarily
called for the Court's duty to supervise the JBC - under the circumstances of that case
- to make sure that it would follow its own rules. - Unlike the selective application of the
JBC's own rules in Jardeleza, the JBC's assailed actions in the present case were in
accord with the policies it had long laid down. The application of this policy, according
to the Villanueva petition, violated the Constitution as it disregarded the enumeration of
qualifications of members of the judiciary under Article VIII, Section 7; violated as well
his due process and equal protection rights; and are contrary to the socio-economic
provisions in Article XIII, Section 3. - Note at this point, that the independent character

6
 POLITICAL LAW

2019
of a constitutional body does not remove it from the Court's jurisdiction. (Separate
Opinion: Justice Brion, (Villanueva v. Judicial and Bar Council G.R. No. 211833)

Commission on Audit
- COA’s authority over money claims is limited to liquidated claims or those determined
already or readily determinable from vouchers, invoices, and such other papers within
reach of accounting officers. (Province of Aklan vs. Jody King Construction and
Development Corp., GR No. 197592 and 20262)

ELECTION LAW

The Supreme Court may not substitute its own judgment to the findings of the HRET because
it will constitute an intrusion into its domain and a curtailment of its power to act of its own
accord on its evaluation of the evidentiary weight of testimonies presented before it. (Vinzons-
Chato V. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal G.R. No. 199149 & 201350
January 22, 2013)

The proclamation of a congressional candidate following the election divests the COMELEC of
jurisdiction over disputes relating to the election, returns and qualifications of the proclaimed
Representative, At this point, the HRET assumes jurisdiction. (Jalosjos V. Commission on
Elections G.R. No. 205033. June 18, 2013, Tañada, Jr. v. Commission on Elections G.R.
Nos. 207199-200, October 22, 2013.)

Contrary to petitioner’s claim that Section 5(d) circumvents the Constitution, Congress enacted
the law prescribing a system of overseas absentee voting in compliance with the constitutional
mandate. Such mandate expressly requires that Congress provide a system of absentee voting
that necessarily presupposes that the "qualified citizen of the Philippines abroad" is not
physically present in the country. The provisions of Sections 5(d) and 11 are components of the
system of overseas absentee voting established by R.A. No. 9189. The qualified Filipino abroad
who executed the affidavit is deemed to have retained his domicile in the Philippines. He is
presumed not to have lost his domicile by his physical absence from this country. His having
become an immigrant or permanent resident of his host country does not necessarily imply an
abandonment of his intention to return to his domicile of origin, the Philippines. Therefore,
under the law, he must be given the opportunity to express that he has not actually abandoned
his domicile in the Philippines by executing the affidavit required by Sections 5(d) and 8(c) of
the law. (Macalintal vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 157013, July 10, 2003)