Answer Format

Yes/ No,
Under the law,
Here,
Hence, (optional)
SC Sample Answer

1. Yes, all of the elements of the crime of theft are present.

Under the RPC, the essential elements of theft are:
(1) The taking of a personal property;
(2) The property taken belongs to another;
(3) The taking was done without the owner’s consent;
(4) There was intent to gain; and
(5) The taking was done without violence against or intimidation of the person
or force upon things.
The return of the thing is not an exempting or justifying circumstance.

2. No. Under the Rules, a notary public must be a member of the Philippine Bar.
Here, X’s sole credential civil service eligibility does not satisfy the requirements
to apply as a notary public.
Hence, the petition should not be granted.

3. Yes. Under the law, MeTC, MTC and MCTC have EOJ exclusive original
jurisdiction over cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer.
Here, the RTC of Isabela has no jurisdiction over the complaint for FE.
Hence, the RTC can dismiss it outright.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 POLITICAL LAW SYLLABUS ANSWERS WITH BAR A '08-'21 - 59 pages
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current events:
- Ermita v Magallona - issue of Scarborough Shoal,
- Libel Conviction or Maria Ressa,
- Shutdown of ABS CBN Franchise,
- Pending case of Rappler before SC validity of foreign investment, American
investors on Rappler
- Belgica vs Ochoa Pork Barrel - separation of powers
Video Lecture: Critical Areas in Political Law by Atty. Victoria Loanzon
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpQTlswnjGY
- Tip set the youtube setting to 2x faster to lessen time on your 2nd view.
- Turn on subtitles.
Environmental Law is closest to the heart of Justice Leonen so expect a question from it
in Poli, Rem or PIL
2021 Notes and Cases on Political Law & Public International Law *****

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
1. Aguinaldo doctrine

BASIC CONCEPTS
1. Amendments to the Constitution - (Lambino v. COMELEC)
2. Constitutional revision
 3. Precautionary Principle; Immunity from Suit of Foreign States - (Arigo v. Swift)
4. Principle of Postliminy - (Co Kim Chan v. Tan Khe)
5. Revision vs amendments

ELECTION LAW
1. Citizenship on election candidates regarding affidavit of renunciation
2. Guidelines for Party-lists - (Atong Paglaum Doctrine)
3. Jurisdiction of the Electoral Tribunals - (Reyes v. HRET)
4. Power of the COMELEC over inter party issues - (Atienza v. COMELEC)

NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY

1. Ancestral Land v. Domain - (Cruz v. Sec. DENR)
2. Public Utilities - (Roy v. Herbosa)

PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

1. Archipelagic doctrine-9 dash line
2. Differentiate soft law and hard law
3. Rights in the Contiguous Zone and EEZ
4. Treaties; the President as the Sole Organ of Foreign Relations - (Vinuya v. Romulo)

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
1. Computing just compensation - (City of Manila v. Estrada)
2. Custodial Investigation; When it begins; Rights - (People v. Domantay; People v. Tan)
3. Deliberative Process Privilege - (In Re Production of Court Records)
4. Doctrine of Specialty (in extradition)
5. Due Process in Deportation Proceedings - (Lao Gi v. CA)
6. Due Process in Student Disciplinary Proceedings - (ADMU v. Capulong)
7. Expropriation validity regarding private use
8. Hold Departure Order - (Genuino v. De Lima)
9. John Doe Warrants - (People v. Veloso)
10. Meaning of being a witness against himself - (US v. Tan Tent; US v. Ong Siu Hong;
Beltran v. Samson)
11. Non establishment of religion clause regarding government property is used
12. Non-establishment Clause - (Tilton v. Richardson)
13. Over breadth vs void for vagueness
14. Requisites of a Valid Warrant; Reliance on Prosecutor's Certification - (Uy v. BIR;
Placer v. Villanueva)
15. Right to Privacy; Subjective and Objectivel Test - (Pollo v. Constantino)
16. Search of a Moving Vehicle - (Carrol Doctrine)
17. Signing articles of the crime; booking sheets - (People v. Linsangan; People v. Ang
Chun Kit)
18. Specificity of Offense; General Pattern of Business Exception - (Stonehill v. Diokno;
CB v. Morfe)
19. Suspicionless Drug Tests - (SJS v. Dangerous Drugs Board)
20. Valid search subsequent to valid arrest
21. What constitutes taking? - (Penn Central v. New York; OSG v. Ayala Land)
2017 UP Examiners Bar Highlights 2018 2019
AR 1 BP 1 NT BOR 1 LD 3 ED 3 JD AR 0 BP 0 NT 1 BOR 4 LD 2 ED 2 JD AR 1 BP 1 NT 1 BOR 3 LD 2 ED 2 LG 1 APO
2 LG 0 APO 0 EL 5 PIL 2 1 EL 4 PIL 1
CC 1 LG APO 1 NEP 1 EL 1 PIL 2
I. RH Law - Imbong v Ochoa A.1. PIL A. Jus cogens
AR AMENDMENTS OR REVISIONS A. Right to life B. Principle of double criminality
BP STATE IMMUNITY FROM SUIT B. Invol Servitude C. Act of State doctrine
LD PROHIBITION ON CROSS-
BORDER TRANSFERS
NEP REGALIAN DOCTRINE -
patriotism
LD GENERAL APPROPRIATION ACT -
corruption
LD ENROLLED BILL DOCTRINE
EL ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL:
FUNCTIONS & COMPOSITION
APO IMPEACHMENT - corruption
gihapon
ED APPOINTING POWER
ED CALLING OUT POWER AND
COMMAND RESPONSIBILITY - abuse
of authority naay trend ang ganahan
topic sa taga UP, mejo aktibista
ED PARDONING POWER -
JD Judicial independence and
autonomy FISCAL AUTONOMY
CC CONSTITUTIONAL
COMMISSIONS; COMMISSION ON
AUDIT; JURISDICTION - corruption
gihapon
BOR NON-ESTABLISHMENT AND
FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION
PIL DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY
Diplomatic and consular law
PIL TREATY
wala may election. puro man corruption
or about sa executive giigo sa ila
questions;
naa ba kaha election law mogawas nga
duol na raba pud election
C. Freedom of Religion
II. Writ of Amparo;
A. Issued WOA already
includes TPO
B. Pres Immunity from suit
only incumbency
III. What and reqd vote
A. Repeal tax exempt
Cong. - Majority vote
B. Dec exist state of war
Cong. - ⅔ sep
C. Amend consti prov thru
con ass
Cong. - proposal to be valid ¾
- proposal effective
majority
D. tie in presidency
Cong. - majority sep.
E. extension susp. of priv. writ
habeas corpus
Cong. - majority joint
IV. Election; 3 Term Limit
V. A. Appointment judge lower
court must be natural born.
Adding naturalized. Unconsti
B. Elective offices to
be college degree holders. Additional
reqt: Unconsti
C. Acting Comm in CSC; No
temp. or acting; Unconsti
D. Dep Omb 5 yrs engd law;
Consti since only Omb 10 yrs
E. Not bona fide member;
Unconsti nominee must be bona fide
M of the national party
VI. Election; HRET jurisd; already
a M of HOR
VII. Election;
A. using passport revert
to dual citi; cancel
COC
B. COC void; stray vote,
not counted; next
highest votes apply
VIII. Election; COMELEC division ->
MR en banc
IX. Election; Repatriation; restored
natural born
X. JD Carpio-Morales 2015
A. Omb invest. Comm COA ->
Consti for purpose of filing a ver
complaint for impeacht
B. A law prohibit any court
except SC to issue injunct Omb ->
Unconsti, SC power not legislative
C.Law prohibit appeal from Omb
admin cases -> Unconsti, SC power
not legislative
XI. PIL; Foreign Armed Forces
immunity from jurisd. Case: VFA
XII. JD Rules of Proced. SB and Con
Comm -> reviewable by SC
Rules of Proced. Congress -> GR
political question not reviewable.
XPN. GADALEJ
D. Precautionary principle
A.2. National Territory - UNCLOS - Right
within CZ, EEZ
A.3. PIL - Refugee definition
A.4. BOR- Def Custodial investigation;
Rights
A.5. BOR - Stop and Frisk
A.6. LD Legislative Dept - Cong.Inquiry -
Exec Priv
A.7. ED Art. 7 - Exec Dept - Calling Out
Powers - Dec. of Martial Law
A.8. APO Art. 11 - Accountability of Public
Officers - Condonation Rule
A.9 LG Art. 10 - Local Government - Curfew
Ordinance - Ordinance Scrutiny Test
A.10. BOR Art. 3 - Bill of Rights - Double
Jeopardy
B.11. EL Art. 10 - LGC - Election Law - 3
year term - COMELEC election contest R, P
or City - RTC - Municipal Officers
B.12. EL Election Law - Elective and
Appointive Office - Filing COC
B.13. APO Art. XI - Impeachable Officers;
Procedure
B.14. AR Art. XVII - Amendment or Revision -
Qualitative Test; Process to revise the 1987
Constitution
B.16. LD Art. 12. Congress std compensation
to govt officials and employees
Art. 9. COA - keep gen. account of the
Govt
Art. 6. Congress ⅔ Declare Exist. State
of War.
Art. 6. Congress pow small scale util. of
natural resources, coop fish farming
Art. Pres ratify treaties and IA
B.17. BP Art. VI - Pork Barrel
Unconstitutionality
B.18. ED Art. - Ad Interim Appt; Permanent;
Inaction of CA
B.19. EL Art. IV - Citizenship - Before
proclamation - COC HRET - After
proclamation contest in COMELEC
B.20. EL Election Law - COC Congress
elective office - renunciation citizenship
 XIII. Art. 3 BOR - Right to privacy;
Self-incrimination; urine test not drug
related case; Case: Dela Cruz 014
XIV. Art. 3 BOR; Double Jeopardy;
court martial acquittal is a bar to RTC;
XV. PIL; State immunity applies; no
consent
XVI. Art 3 BOR; search and seizure;
custom searches in airport is valid;
admissible
XVII. Art. 3 BOR; CI rights; start of CI;
uncounselled confession inadmissible
XPN spontaneous declaration without
interrogation of Mayor etc
XVIII. Art. 3 WA; 2 reqt WA; Hot
pursuit
1. Offense just been committed
2. Probable cause based on
facts or circumstances; relay info on
2nd Team is equivalent PK based on
probable cause
XIX. Art. 7, Exec Dept;
A. only a member of the
Senate or HOR may be nominated
successor as VP;
B. served less 4 yrs may still run
Pres.
XX. Art. ; A. deportation is an act of
state; political act not subj to judicial
review;
PIL B. Diplomatic immunity not apply;
commission of crime not part of
official functions;
I. THE 1987 CONSTITUTION
A. Nature and concept of a constitution
B. Parts of a constitution
C. Amendments and revisions
2019. B.14. Art. XVII - Amendment or Revision - Qualitative Test - Process to revise the
1987 Constitution
A proposal to change a provision of the 1987 Constitution has been put forth as follows:
Xxxx.

A. This is a revision. Using the qualitative test, the proposal will accomplish such far
reaching changes in the nature of our basic governmental plan as to amount to a
revision. A change in the nature of the basic governmental plan also includes
changes that jeopardize the traditional form of government and the system of
check and balances.

B. These are 2 steps in this process:

1. Proposal, a revision of the Constitution may be proposed by:

a. The Congress itself or Con Ass, upon a vote of ¾ of all its M; or
b. A ConCon may,
i. by a vote of ⅔ of all its M, called a ConCon, or
ii. by a majority vote of all its M, submit to the electorate the
question of calling such ConCon;
2. Ratification, the revision shall be valid when ratified by a majority of the votes cast
in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than 60 days nor later than 90 days after
the approval of such amendment or revision. Art. XVII Sec 1,3,4

ARTICLE XVII: AMENDMENTS OR REVISIONS

2017. The following are the methods of amending the Constitution: - note amending not
revision.
1. By ConCon where Art. XVII, Sec. 3 of the Constitution states that the Congress
may,
I. by a vote of ⅔ of all its Members, call a ConCon, or
II. By a majority vote of all its Members, submit to the electorate the question of
calling such a convention. Both houses shall vote separately, and the members
includes all those within the jurisdiction of the Congress.

2. By ConAss, composed of all members of the bicameral Ph Congress, Senate

and the HOR.
It is convened by Congress to propose amendments to the 1987 Constitution.
Under Art. XVII of the Constitution of the Ph, amendments pass upon a vote of ¾
of all members of Congress, bicameral nature.

3. By People’s Initiative upon a petition of at least 12% of the total number of

registered voters, of which every legislative district must be represented by at
least 3% per centum of the registered voters therein.
No amendment under this section shall be authorized within 5 years following the
ratification of this Constitution nor often than once every 5 years thereafter.

Note: People’s Initiative is not a mode allowed for revisions because a revision of
the Consti affects basic principles or several provisions of the Consti, thus a
deliberative body with recorded proceedings is best suited to undertake a
revision.

B. To effect change from unitary to federal, 3 provisions that need to be amended or

revised are:
1. Art. X on Local Government, Sec. 3 must be omitted because the legislature will
no longer define the scope of the powers of the government.
2. Art. X, Sec. 4 will have to be omitted. The Pres will no longer have the power of
supervision over local governments.
3. Art. X, Sec. 5 must be omitted. Congress will no longer be allowed to impose
limitations on the power of taxation of local governments.

2014. Constituent power refers to the authority to propose constitutional amendments or

revisions.

2014. The proposals were not validly adopted, because the 10 out of the 24 Senators
who voted in favor of the proposed amendments constituted less than ¾ of all Members
of the Senate. ConAss
Although S1, Art. XVII of the Constitution did not expressly provide that the Senate and
the HOR must vote separately, when the Legislature consists of 2 houses, the
determination of 1 house is to be submitted to the separate house for determination.

2014. I shall advise those starting a people’s initiative that initiative to pass a law
defining political dynasties may proceed as their proposal is to enact a law only and not
to amend the Constitution. The decision in Santiago v COMELEC which has not been
reversed, upheld the adequacy of the provisions in RA 6735 on initiative to enact a law.

ARTICLE XVI: GENERAL PROVISIONS

2006. The Constitution itself prescribes the design of the flag, it can only be changed by
constitutional amendment. Hence, law is unconstitutional.

D. Methods of interpreting the Constitution

II. BASIC CONCEPTS

A. Declaration of principles and state policies
RIGHT TO A BALANCE AND HEALTHFUL ECOLOGY

2016: A. The assertion that the students/petitioners who are minor have no locus standi
is erroneous. Pursuant to the obligation of the State under Sec. 16, Art. II of the
Constitution to protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful
ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature, minors have standing to sue
based on the concept of intergenerational responsibility.

B. The order of the SC to the defendants to clean up, rehabilitate and sanitize Manila
Bay is an exercise of judicial power, because the execution of its decision is an integral
part of its adjudicative function. Since the submission of periodic reports is needed to
fully implement the decision, the SC can issue a writ of mandamus to the MMDA until
full compliance with its order is shown.

B. Sovereignty
C. State immunity

STATE IMMUNITY FROM SUIT

2018. The motion of the Republic should be granted. There appears to be no consent
on the part of the State to be sued.
Sec. 3 Art. XVI of the Consti provides that the state shall not be sued without its
consent.

That no consent was given by the Republic is shown by the fact that the Bureau or the
Government did seem to have complied with the demands of the deeds of Donation.
Compliance with the state immunity is essential for two reasons:
1. It is required as a provision for the Constitution, and
2. Immunity is an essential element of state sovereignty.
2017. Under the doctrine of immunity from suit, the State cannot be sued without its
consent. The consent may be given by: express - by law, and implied - jus imperii jus
gestionis

2016. The defense raised by the US Govt is not valid.

A. This defense relies on sovereign immunity from suit as advanced by the US
Govt. But the suit is filed by the officials of Palawan draws its strength from Art.
30 and 31 of the UNCLOS.
However, the US defense is defeated by the UNCLOS xxx.

D. Separation of powers
2009. Congress cannot enact a law regulating the admission to the legal profession. It is
within the power of the SC to promulgate rules concerning the admission to the legal
profession. The present Constitution has taken away the power of Congress to alter the
Rules of Court. The law will violate the principle of separation of powers.

E. Checks and balances

F. Delegation of powers
2019. B.17. Art. VI - Pork Barrel Unconstitutionality
The argument of Mr. Z has merit and the argument of the Congressman will fail.
The 2014 appropriation violates the principle of separation of powers and is, thus,
unconstitutional.
The Article, as well as all other provisions of the law, which similarly allow legislators to
wield any form of post-enforcement authority in the implementation and enforcement of
the budget, such as in the areas of project identification, fund release and fund
realignment, unrelated to congressional oversight, violates the principle of separation of
powers. From the moment the law becomes effective, any provision that empowers
Congress or any of its members to intervene and assume duties that properly belong to
the sphere of budget execution, is unconstitutional.

The 2014 appropriation also violates the principle of non delegability of legislative power
- 1 Congressman acts alone instead of Congress as a body to act and is, thus,
unconstitutional.
The 2014 appropriation deprives the Pres of the exercise of his prerogative of item-veto,
impairs the system of checks and balances, and is,thus, unconstitutional insofar as the
post enactment features dilute Congressional oversight and violate Sec. 14, Art. VI of
the Constitution, thus impairing public accountability and insofar as individual
legislators are authorized to intervene in purely local matters and thereby subvert
genuine local autonomy.
The 2014 appropriation, as well as all other similar forms of Congressional Pork Barrel,
is deemed unconstitutional.

PROHIBITION ON CROSS-BORDER TRANSFERS

- transfer to other branches or ConComm

2017. The Pres may not transfer savings to the COMELEC as aid. The Constitutional
prohibition against the transfer of appropriations to other branches of government or
ConComm applies for whatever reason.

The SC has held unconstitutional the following act and practice under the DAP, to wit::
“ The funding of PAP’s that are not covered by any appropriation in the GAA since
augmentation can only be made from one existing item to another existing item into the
budget.
However, in a resolution dated Feb 3, 2015, the SC partially granted the MR filed by the
OSG and allowed the funding of PAP’s not covered by any appropriation in the GAA.

Cross-border transfers are illegal as it was ruled in the Araulio case where the SC
declared that the CBT of the savings of the executive to augment the appropriation of
other offices outside the executive is an unconstitutional act.

G. Fundamental powers of the State

1. Police power
POLICE POWER

2014. No, mall owners and operators cannot be compelled to provide free parking xxx
because it is beyond the scope of police powers. It unreasonably restricts the right to
use the property for business purposes and amounts to a confiscation of property.

2010. The City Govt has no power to stop the operations of the plant because the
operations are not a nuisance per se (not constant, seldom emit fluid). The City Govt
cannot abate it extrajudicially. A suit must be filed in court.

2009. Police power 2 test

1. Lawful subject - refers to the interest of the general welfare requiring the
interference of the State and
2. Lawful means - refers to the reasonable means employed necessary for the
accomplishment of its objective and not oppressive upon individuals.
Basis of the exercise of PP:
1. Sic utere tuo et alienum non laedas - use your property so that you do not injure
that of another;
2. Salus populi est suprema lex - the welfare of the people is the highest law.

DEFENSE OF STATE
2009. In the defense of the State, all citizens may be required by law to render personal,
military or civil service. Art II Sec 4

2. Eminent domain
EMINENT DOMAIN
2016. A. If the Govt does not pay Baldomero the just compensation immediately, he
cannot demand the return of the property to him. Instead, legal interest should be paid
from the time of taking of the property until actual payment in full.

B. With respect to the element of public use, the expropriator should commit to use the
property for the purposes stated in the petition. If not, it is incumbent upon it to return
the property to the owner, if the owner desires to reacquire it. Otherwise, the judgment
of the expropriation will lack the element of public use. The owner will be denied due
process and the judgment will violate his right to justice.
If the compensation was not paid within 5 years from the finality of judgment, the owner
is entitled to recover the property.
2014. Farmerjoe’s demand for payment is justified and cannot be considered as
prescribed.
His demand for payment is an action for the payment of just compensation and not an
action for damages as provided in the Charter in the NPGC.
It partakes of the nature of a reverse eminent domain proceeding xxx.

2010. A valid and definite offer to buy a property is a prerequisite before expropriation
can be initiated.

1993. The SC has held that RA 8974 now requires full payment of just compensation
before the State may exercise proprietary rights in an expropriation proceeding and
making the previous ruling obiter dictum.

REGALIAN DOCTRINE

2017. The government cannot deny the bank its right as owner of the mineral resources
underneath the surface of the property.
The mining rights acquired under the Ph Bill of 1902 before the effectivity of the 1935
Consti were vested rights that cannot be impaired by the government

2016. The term “capital” mentioned in Sec. 11 Art. XII of the Consti refers to the total
outstanding capital stock of public utilities. OCS of public util
The requirement that at least 60% of the capital must be owned by Filipino citizens
applies separately to each class of shares, whether common, preferred, non-voting,
preferred voting, or any class of shares.
Mere legal title is not enough.
Full beneficial ownership of 60% of the OCS is required.

2015. PSALMS’s claim is correct.

Under the Water Code, a foreign company may not be said to be appropriating our
natural resources if it utilizes the waters collected in the dam and converts the same into
electricity through artificial devices such as the hydroelectric facility as in the case at
bar.
Since the NPC remains in control of the operation of the dam by virtue of water rights
granted to it, there is no legal impediment to foreign-owned companies undertaking the
generation of electric power using waters already appropriated by the NPC, the holder
of the water permit. WIth the advent of privatization of the electric power industry which
resulted in its segregation into four sectors, NPS’s generation and transmission
functions were unbundled.
Hence, the acquisition by a foreign company of the hydroelectric facility did not violate
any constitutional provision.

2015. AT’s contention does not hold water.

The determination of the percentage of Filipino ownership in a corporation is no longer
primarily based on the number of apparent shares of SH, nor to the class of stocks a SH
holds.
In the latest ruling of the SC in Narra Nickel Mining v Redmont Consolidated Mines, the
computation of the total percentage of the Filipino ownership in a corporation is applied
to BOTH:
 1. The total outstanding shares of stocks entitled to vote in the election of
directors; AND
2. The total outstanding shares of stocks, whether or not entitled to vote in the
election of directors.
In the above case, foreign corporations have resorted to elaborate corporate layering to
make it appear that there is compliance with the minimum Filipino ownership in the
Constitution. The corporate layering employed by certain foreign corporations was
evidently designed to circumvent the constitutional caveat allowing only Filipino citizens
and corporations 60% owned by Filipino citizens to explore, develop and use the
country’s natural resources.
The application of the Control Test and the Grandfather Rule.. p. 224

3. Taxation

III. NATIONAL TERRITORY A1

IV. CITIZENSHIP A4

A. Kinds of citizenship, purpose of distinguishing citizenship and kinds of citizenship

B. Who are citizens
2015. Under the 1935 Constitution, Filipino citizens under the principle of jus sanguinis
are only those whose fathers are citizens of the Ph.
Under the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions, Filipino citizens are those whose fathers or
mothers are Filipino citizens.

C. Who can be citizens

D. Modes of acquiring citizenship
E. Modes of losing and reacquiring citizenship
F. Dual citizenship and dual allegiance

2009. An individual may have 2 or more citizenships but owe allegiance to one State.
Taking for example RA 9225 provides for retention of Ph citizenship among natural born
Filipino citizens.

Dual citizenship arises when, as a result of the concurrent application of the different
laws of two or more states, a person is simultaneously considered a national by those
states and is involuntary.

Dual allegiance refers to the situation in which a person is simultaneously owes by

some positive and voluntary act, loyalty to two or more states.

V. LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT

2019. B.16. Art. 12. Congress standard compensation to government officials and
employees
Art. 9. ConComm - COA
Art. 6. Declare War Congress.
 a. The COA has authority to keep the general accounts of the Government and for
such period provided by law, preserve the vouchers and other supporting
documents pertaining thereto.
b. The Congress has the power to allow small-scale utilization of natural resources
by Filipino citizens, as well as cooperative fish farming, with priority to
subsistence fishermen and fish workers in rivers, lakes, bays, and lagoons.
c. The Congress has the authority to provide for the standardization of
compensation of government officials and employees.
d. The Congress has the sole power to declare the existence of a state of war.
The Congress, by a vote of ⅔ of both Houses in a joint session assembled,
voting separately, shall have the sole power to declare the existence of a state of
War.
e. The President has the power to ratify treaties and international agreements.

A. Legislative power
ARTICLE VI: LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT

GENERAL APPROPRIATION ACT

2017: As an implied limitation, an appropriation law in order to be valid must be devoted

for public purpose. No public money shall be spent for private gains only.
For example, an appropriation for the construction of roads inside a private subdivision
is not allowed.

Also the following are the limitations on the power of the Congress to enact the GAA set
forth in the 1987 Constitution:

1. All appropriation bills shall originate from the HOR. Discretionary funds
appropriated for particular officials shall be disbursed only for public purposes to
be supported by appropriate vouchers and subject to guidelines as may be
prescribed by law.
Special appropriations bill shall specify the purpose for which it is intended and
shall be supported by funds actually available as certified by the National
Treasurer, to be raised by a corresponding revenue proposal included therein.

2. The Congress shall not increase the GA recommended by the President. Form,
content and manner of preparation of the budget shall be prescribed by law.

3. No riders or irrelevant provisions shall be included in the GAB.

The procedure in approving the appropriations in the Congress shall strictly
follow the same procedure for approving appropriations for other departments
and agencies.

4. Transfer of appropriations shall not be allowed but the President, Senate

President, Speaker of the HOR, CJ and heads of ConComm may be authorized
to augment any item in the GAL for their respective agencies from savings in
other items of their respective appropriations.

5. Prohibition against the use of public funds or property for sectarian purposes.
 6. Old GAA is deemed re-enacted if the Congress fails to pass a GAB for the
ensuing year. All money collected on any tax levied for a special purpose shall be
treated as a special fund and paid out for such purpose only.

ENROLLED BILL DOCTRINE

2017. A. No, the enrolled bill became a law already.

It has to be repealed by a subsequent law, except when the signature was attained due
to fraud or other illegal circumstances which appears that the enrolled bill is totally
different from that which was intended as reflected in the journal.
XPN enrolled bill doct is fraud or illegality in signature of Pres.

B. Yes, in this extraordinary situation, the President may withdraw his signature to avoid
constitutional or legal impediment.

C. Yes, there is an exception to the abovementioned provision.

When the President certifies the urgency and necessity of the enactment of a bill into
law to meet a public calamity or emergency or for the advancement of the people,
the (1) printing requirement and (2) readings on separate days may be dispensed. (so
pwede ang 3 reading is within 1 day)
However, this does not guarantee that a bill will be passed. It only speeds up the
procedure.

DISCIPLINE OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

2015. No, Senator Lis’ contention is not tenable.

The suspension contemplated in the Constitution to discipline a Member of the Senate
is not the suspension contemplated under Sec. 5 of the Plunder Law. The latter is not
a penalty but a preliminary preventive measure and is not imposed upon the
petitioner for misbehavior as a member of Congress.
In a similar case Santiago vs SB, it appears to be a ministerial duty of the court to issue
the order of suspension upon determination of the validity of the criminal information
filed before it. The order of suspension provided in RA 3019 is distinct from the power of
Congress to discipline its own ranks. Neither does the order of suspension encroach
upon the power of Congress. The doctrine of separation of powers, by itself, is not
deemed to have effectively excluded the members of Congress from RA 3019.

DOCTRINE OF OPERATIVE FACT

2010. Doctrine of operative facts provides that as a GR an unconstitutional law is void. It

produces no rights, imposes no duties and affords no protection. However, the doctrine
of OF is an exception to the GR and it only applies as a matter of equity and fair play.
It can never be invoked to validate as constitutional an unconstitutional act.

DOCTRINE OF NECESSARY IMPLICATION provides that every statues is understood,

by implication, to contain all such provisions as may be necessary to effectuate its
object and purpose, or to make effective rights, powers, privileges or jurisdiction which it
grants, including all such collateral and subsidiary consequences as may be fairly and
logically inferred from its terms. Ex necessitate legis
PRINCIPLE OF HOLDOVER provides that an incumbent officer or official may remain in
office and continue performing his functions beyond tenure or term until his successor
has been elected and qualified.

ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL: FUNCTIONS & COMPOSITION

2006. Under Art. VI, Sec. 17 of the Constitution, the SET and HRET shall be the sole
judge of all contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of their respective
Members.

2018. Alejandro’s petition should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. It is the HRET
which has jurisdiction over the case, because Alejandro is already a member of the
HOR.

2017. To be considered a member of the HOR, 3 requisites must concur:

1. A valid proclamation;
2. A proper oath; and
3. Assumption of office.
Once a winning candidate has been proclaimed and taken his oath, and assumed office
as a member of the HOR, the jurisdiction of the COMELEC over the election contests
ends, and the jurisdiction of the HRET begins.

2014. A, The HRET had acquired exclusive jurisdiction over the case of Beauty, since
she had already been proclaimed.
The proclamation of the winning candidate is the operative fact that triggers the
exclusive jurisdiction of the HRET over the election contests relating to the election,
returns and qualifications of the winning candidate.
The proclamation divests the COMELEC of jurisdiction over the question of
disqualification pending before it at the time of the proclamation. Any case pertaining to
questions over the qualifications of a winning candidate should be raised before the
HRET.

B. The SC would have jurisdiction if it were the SET who issued the challenged ruling.
The SC can review its decision if it acted with GAD.

INVESTIGATION IN AID OF LEGISLATION

The subject executive order is unconstitutional.

The SC has held that executive privilege is the power of the government to withhold
information from the public, the courts, and the Congress.
But this is recognized only for certain types of information of a sensitive character.
When Congress exercises its power of inquiry, the only way for department heads to
exempt themselves therefrom is by a valid claim of privilege. They are not exempt by
the mere fact that they are department heads. Only one official may be exempted from
this power --- the President.

Under the Constitution, these are two different functions of the Legislature:
The power to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation and the power to conduct inquiry
during question hour.
The objective of conducting a question hour is to obtain information from the pursuit of
Congress oversight function. When Congress merely seeks to be informed on how
department heads are implementing the statues which it had issued, the department
head’s appearance is merely requested. The power of inquiry in aid of legislation is
inherent in the power to legislate. A legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively
in the absence of information respecting the conditions which the legislation is intended
to affect or change. And where the legislative body does not itself possess the requisite
information, recourse must be had to others who do possess it. The executive
privilege is the exception under this type of inquiry. (in aid of legislation. EP is
applicable)

When an official is being summoned by Congress on a matter which, in his own

judgment, might be covered by executive privilege, he must be afforded reasonable
time to inform the President or the Exec Secretary of the possible need for invoking the
privilege. This is necessary to provide the President or the ES with fair opportunity to
consider whether the matter indeed calls for a claim of exec privilege. If after the lapse
of reasonable time, neither the Pres nor the EC invokes the privilege, Congress no
longer bound to respect the failure of the official to appear before Congress and may
then opt to avail the necessary legal means to compel his appearance.

2014. Yes, the senators are right. The Senate is to be considered as a continuing body
for purposes of its exercise of its power to punish for contempt.
Accordingly, the continuing validity of its orders punishment for contempt should not be
affected by its sine die adjournment.

2010. A. Yes, individuals invited to a legislative inquiry can be anybody whether an exec
head or not. The inquiry is in aid of legislation which is to elicit information useful for
legislation not for prosecution or persecution. The attendance of the resource person is
mandatory and can be compelled through compulsory processes. Only the Pres or the
ES by order of the Pres can invoke exec privilege. He may be cited for contempt if he
fails to attend.

B. No, exec privilege is granted to the Pres himself not to anybody else. It. is the Pres
who shall invoke the privilege. The inquiry in aid of legislation and neither the Pres nor
the EX by order of the Pres invoke exec privilege.

2009. The argument is untenable. The mere filing of the criminal or administrative
complaint before the court of a quasi-judicial body should not automatically bar the
conduct of legislative inquiry provided that there is an explicit subject and nature of the
inquiry. Since legislative inquiry is an essential part of legislative power, it cannot be
made subordinate to criminal and civil actions. Otherwise, it would be very easy to
subvert any investigation in aid of legislation through a convenient ploy of instituting civil
and criminal actions.

LEGISLATIVE POWER

2018. A. The Constitution is silent on the voting requirement for repealing a tax
exemption. However, it could be considered that the voting requirement to grant tax
exemption is also the voting requirement to repeal, hence, the required vote is the
majority of all the members of Congress.
2018. B. The law requiring all candidates for national or local elective offices to be
college degree holders should be considered as unconstitutional with respect to national
elective officers, because it is not one of the qualifications specifically required for these
offices. The qualifications for these positions under the Constitutions are exclusive in
character and the Congress would be incompetent to prescribe this requirement as an
additional qualification for candidates for national and elective office. This additional
requirement would, however, be valid with respect to candidates for local elective posts.

2014. D. Only with the advice and concurrence of the SC.

2014. A. Creating or dividing congressional districts in a manner intended to favor a

particular party or candidate.

2008. The law abolishing the MWMC is valid. Within the plenary powers of the
Congress, it can create as well as destroy what is created after determination its
purpose could no longer be attained by subsequent circumstances. The power to create
also carries with it the power to destroy so long as it was done in good faith and
consistent with the purpose of promoting the general welfare.

1. Scope and limitations

2. Principle of non-delegability; exceptions
B. Chambers of Congress; composition; qualifications
1. Senate
2. House of Representatives
a. District representatives and questions of apportionment
b. Party-list system
PARTY-LIST SYSTEM

2018. The nomination is invalid, because nominees of national parties must be a bona
fide member of such parties. Atong Paglaum v Comelec

2015. Yes, the PMP can join the party-list system in accordance with the rules
enunciated in Atong Paglaum. Accordingly, political parties can participate in PLE
provided they register under the party-list system and do not field candidates in
legislative district elections.
A political party, whether major or not, that fields candidates in legislative district
elections can participate in party-list elections only through its sectoral wing that can
separately register under the party-list system. The sectoral wing is by itself an
independent sectoral party, and is linked to a political party through a coalition.

2014. The claim of Bluebean that Greenpeas is not entitled to a seat under the PLS
because it obtained only 1.99 percent of the votes cast under the PLS is not correct.
Under Sec. 5(2) of Art VI of the Constitution that the party-list representative shall
constitute 20% of the TN of members of the HOR is mandatory, after the parties
receiving at least 2% of the total votes case for the PLS have been allocated one seat,
the remaining seats should be allocated among the parties by the proportional
percentage of the votes received by each party as against the total party-list votes.
B. The claim of Bluebean that Greenpeas is not entitled to participate in the party-list
elections because it does not represent any marginalized and underrepresented sectors
of the society is not correct. It is enough that its principal advocacy pertains to the
special interests of its sector.

2010. No, Kabaka and Rudy will not be qualified as a PL and nominee because
KABAKA is a partner of Dutch Foreign Ministry, a foreign based organization. KABAKA
is indirectly receiving support from Dutch Ministry.

C. Legislative privileges, inhibitions, and disqualifications'

D. Quorum and voting majorities
E. Discipline of members
F. Process of law-making
A bill is signed by its authors and filed with the Sec. of the House. It may originate from either the lower or
upper House, except ART bills, bills authorizing increase of public debt, bills of local application, and
private bills, which shall originate exclusively from the HOR.
1. First reading. Reading of the number and title of the bill, which is then referred to the appropriate
Committee for the study and recommendation, which may include the conduct of public
hearings. The Committee will submit its report and recommendation for Calendar for second
reading.
2. Second reading. Reading of the bill in full with the amendments proposed by the Committee, if
any, unless copies thereof are distributed and such reading is dispensed with. The bill will be
subject to debates, pertinent motions, and amendments. After the amendments shall have been
acted upon, the bill will be voted on second reading.
3. Third reading. Submission of the bill as approved on second reading for final vote by yeas and
nays.
4. Conference Committee reports. Transmittal of the bill approved on the third reading by one house
to the other House for concurrence. The other House shall follow the same procedure. If the other
House approves the bill without amendments, the bill is passed by the Congress and the same
will be transmitted to the President. If the other House introduces amendments, with which the
originating House does not agree, the differences will be settled by the Conference Committees
of both Houses. The Conference Committee’s report will have to be approved by both Houses in
order that it will be considered passed by Congress and thereafter sent to the President.
5. Authentication of bills. Signing by the Speaker and the Senate President of the printed copy of the
approved bill, followed by the certification by the respective secretaries of both Houses, before it
is sent to the President.
6. President’s approval or veto. Transmittal of the authenticated bill to the President. If he approves
the same, he shall sign it, otherwise, he shall veto it and return the same with his objections to the
House where it originated, which shall enter the objections at large in its Journal and proceed to
reconsider it. The President shall communicate his veto of any bill to the House where it
originated within thirty (30) days after the date of receipt thereof; otherwise, it shall become a law
as if he had signed it.
7. Reversal of veto. If, after such reconsideration, two-thirds of all the Members of such House shall
agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House by which it
shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two-thirds of all the Members of that House, it
shall become a law.

G. Electoral tribunals and the Commission on Appointments

1. Nature
2. Powers
H. Powers of Congress
1. Legislative inquiries and oversight functions

Sec. 21 Inquiries in aid of Sec. 22 Question Hour

legislation
 Person to appear Any person Dept head only

Who conduct investigation Committees Entire body

Subj Matter Any matter for purpose of Matters related to the

legislation department only

As to purpose To elicit information that To obtain information in

may be used for legislation pursuit of Congress
oversight functions

As to appearance Mandatory; Congress can Discretionary; Congress

compelling power
compel the appearance of
executive officials and can
punish contumacy therefor
cannot compel the
appearance of executive
officials if the required
consent of the Pres is not
obtained first, or if no such
consent is given.

2019. A.6. Legislative Department - Congressional Inquiry - Executive Privilege

A. No. The Congress’s power of inquiry includes the power to compel attendance not
only by each House, Senate or HOR, but also by any of its respective committees.

B. No, if the officer wants to withhold information on the ground that it is privileged, he
must assert it and state the reason therefore and why it must be respected. The mere
claim of privilege without providing precise and certain reasons for the claim severely
frustrates the power of inquiry of Congress.

2010. The grant of authority to the oversight Committee to screen beneficiaries is

unconstitutional. It violates the principle of separation of powers. By being involved in
the implementation of the law, the oversight committee will be exercising executive
power.

2. Non-legislative
a. Informing function
b. Power of impeachment
The HOR shall have the exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment.
The Senate has the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment.
2019. B.13. Art. XI - Impeachable Officers
The President, the VP, the Members of the SC, the Members of the ConComm, and the
Ombudsman are the impeachable officers.

The process of impeachment is laid down in Art. XI, Sec. 3 of the Constitution. In
summary:
1. Filing of a complaint: The verified complaint for impeachment is filed either by
any M of the HOR or by any citizen upon a resolution of endorsement by any M
thereof.
2. If the verified complaint or resolution is filed by at least ⅓ of all the M of the
HOR, the same shall constitute the AOI and sent to the Senate.
3. If not, the complaint is referred to the proper Committee:
 A. The Committee conducts deliberation of the complaint that was filed.
Thereafter, the Committee should decide whether the complaint is
sufficient in form and substance.
B. The Committee, after hearing, and by a majority vote of all its Members,
shall submit its report to the House, within 60 session days from such
referral, together with the corresponding resolution.
C. The resolution shall be calendared for consideration by the House within
10 session days from receipt thereof;
D. A vote of at least ⅔ of all the MHOR shall be necessary either to affirm a
favorable resolution with the AOI of the Committee, or override its contrary
resolution. The vote of each M shall be recorded;
4. Complaint is sent to the Senate which will try and decide cases of impeachment.
5. Trial and conviction. The Senate tries the impeachment and convicts by a vote of
⅔ of all M of the Senate.

2012. The purpose of impeachment is not to punish but only to remove a public officer
to secure the people against gross political misdemeanors.
Conviction does not prevent further prosecution and punishment. The person convicted
is subject to prosecution and punishment according to law. S3 A11

The following are the grounds for impeachment:

1. Culpable violation of the Consti,
2. Treason,
3. Bribery,
4. Graft and Corruption,
5. other High Crimes, and
6. Betrayal of Public Trust

IMPEACHMENT

2017. B. A complaint for disbarment cannot be filed against the Omb during her
incumbency.
A11 S8 imposes membership of the Ph Bar as a qualification to be an OMB.
The Omb is removable only by impeachment. If he were to be disbarred, he would be
removed from office without undergoing impeachment.

C. It is held that an impeachment complaint is initiated when a verified complaint is filed

and referred to the Committee on Justice for action.

2014. B. Impeachment complaint is referred to the Committee on Justice.

2013. The Pres can be impeached by CTBGHB.

The SC has already ruled that the provision in A18, S25 of the Constitution requires a
treaty even for the mere temporary presence of foreign troops in the Ph.
The Pres cannot claim, therefore, that he acted in GF.
Betrayal of public trust includes violation of the oath of office of the Pres.
In his oath of office, the Pres swore to preserve and defend the Constitution. AVII S5

I. Initiative and referendum

VI. EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT A7

A. Qualifications, election, and term of the President and Vice-President

B. Privileges, inhibitions, and disqualifications
1. Presidential immunity
PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY

2018. A. Yes, the writ of amparo is an extraordinary and independent remedy that
provides rapid judicial relief, as it partakes of a summary proceeding and requires only
substantial evidence to make appropriate interim and permanent reliefs to the petitioner.
It serves both preventive and curative reliefs, addressing extrajudicial abduction and
torture.
Temporary protection orders are merely intended to assist the Court before it can arrive
at the judicious determination of the amparo petition.
A temporary protection order, being an interim relief, can only be granted before final
adjudication on the amparo case is made.
The privilege of the writ of amparo, once granted, already entails the protection of the
aggrieved party.
Hence, since the writ of amparo was already granted and issued, there is no more need
to issue a TRO.

2. Presidential privilege
PRIVILEGE: PRES COMMUNICATIONS VS DELIBERATIVE PROCESS

2010. Jurisprudence laid down 2 kinds of executive privilege which are presidential
communication privilege and deliberative process privilege.

PCP pertains to the communications, documents or other materials that reflect

presidential decision-making and deliberations and that the Pres believes should remain
confidential. It applies to decision-making of the Pres. It is based on separation of
powers. It is always subject to greater scrutiny.
DPP includes advisory opinions, recommendations and deliberations comprising part of
a process by which governmental decisions and policies are formulated. Based on
common law privilege it applies to decision-making of exec officials and not subject to
greater scrutiny.

C. Powers of the President

1. General executive and administrative powers
2. Power of appointment
a. In general
b. Limitations on the exercise/power
c. Types of appointment
2019. B.18. A. No, Atty. B’s contention is incorrect. An ad interim appointment is a
permanent appointment because it takes effect immediately and can no longer be
withdrawn by the President once the appointee has qualified into office.

B. Yes, subsequent renewals by the President of ad interim appointment of

Commissioners of the COMELEC do not violate the constitutional provision proscribing
their reappointment. Sec. 1, Art. IX-C, because CA did not act on said appointment after
submission by the President. An ad interim appointment that has lapsed by inaction of
the CA does not constitute a term of office.
The phrase “without reappointment” applies only to one who has been appointed by the
President and confirmed by the CA, WON such person completes his term of office.
There must be a confirmation by the CA of the previous appointment before the
prohibition on reappointment can apply.

APPOINTING POWER

2017. Yes, as it is prescribed under Ar. VII, Sec. 3 which states that the VP may be
appointed as a Member of the Cabinet. Such appointment requires no confirmation.

2016. A. The appointment of Antero as Sec of Tourism is ad interim because it is subj to

confirmation of the CA and was made while Congress was not in session. He can start
performing his duties upon his acceptance, because it is permanent and cannot be
withdrawn after its acceptance.

B. “ Benito as Commissioner of the BI is a ( R and P ) regular and permanent. It is not

required to be confirmed by CA. He can start performing his duties upon acceptance of
the appointment. Art. 7 Sec 16

C. “ Clodualdo as Chairman of the CSC is ad interim because it is subject to confirm CA

and was made while xxx Congres not in session. He can start “because it is permanent
and cannot be withdrawn.

D. “ Dexter as Chairman of CHR is R and P upon acceptance. reg and permanent. No

CA. Can start perform duties upon acceptance.

E. “ Emmanuel as Ambassador to Cameron is ad interim, because it is subject to

confirmation by the CA.

The claim of VAMP is not correct.

The Commission of Investigation and CHR can immediately start performing their
functions upon acceptance since they are not required to be confirmed.
The Sec of DOT and the Chairman of the CS, can immediately start performing their
duties upon acceptance, since their ad interim appointment is permanent.

2013. No confirmation of CA except appointment to offices expressly mentioned in Sec

16 Art 7 of the Consti.
Since the appointment of an acting secretary is not included in the above provision, it is
not subject to confirmation by the CA.

2010. The career Ambassador cannot reassume his position as career Ambassador.
His ad interim appointment as Cabinet Member was a permanent appointment.
He abandoned his position as AMB when he accepted his appointment as Cabinet
Member because as CM, he could not hold any other office during his tenure. Sec 13,
Art 7

3. Power of control and supervision

 Pres power of supervision is limited to seeing that the rules are followed and laws
are faithfully executed.
a. Doctrine of qualified political agency
b. Executive departments and offices
c. Local government units
CONTROL POWER

2009. The Pres exercises the power of control over all exec dept and agencies,
including GOCC’s with or without original charters. But the Pres does not have the
power of control over the LGU’s.

2010. The argument of the chancellor of Central Luzon State University is not valid.
Since an alien has no right to enter the Ph, preventing Prof Sing Kui from entering the
Ph is not a violation of his rights.
Since the Pres has the Power of Control over foreign relations, he has the power to ban
aliens from entering the Ph.

4. Emergency powers
POWER TO DECLARE STATE OF EMERGENCY

2015. Pres auth to declare a state of rebellion from state of national emergency
The auth to declare a state of rebellion emanates from the Pres powers as Chief
Executive, S4 C2 B2, Administrative Code of 1997.
Its declaration is deemed harmless and without legal significance.

In declaring a state of national emergency, in PP1017, Pres Arroyo did not rely on Sec.
18 Art. VII of the Consti, but also on S17 A12 of the Consti, calling for the exercise of
emergency powers which cannot be deemed as harmless or without legal significance.

2015. No, the action of the governor is not proper.

Under the Constitution, it is only the President, as Executive, who is authorized to
exercise emergency powers as provided under Sec. 23, Art. VI, as well as the calling-
out powers under Sec. 7, Art. VII thereof.
Here, the provincial governor is not endowed with the power to call upon the state
forces at his own bidding. It is an act which is ultra vires and may not be justified by the
invocation of Sec. 465 of the LGC.

2010. The statement that a proclamation of emergency is sufficient to allow the

President to take over any public utility is false.
Since it is an aspect of emergency powers, in accordance with Sec. 23(2), Art. VI of the
Constitution, there must be a law delegating such power to the President.

5. Commander-in-chief powers
a. Calling out powers

CALLING OUT POWER AND COMMAND RESPONSIBILITY

2017. A. In the decided case of Saez v Macapagal-Arroyo, the following elements must
be established to hold someone liable under the doctrine of command responsibility:
1. Existence of superior-subordinate relp bet the accused as superior and the
perpetrator of the crime as his subordinate;
2. The superior knew or had reason to know, that the crime was about to be or had
been committed, and
3. The superior failed to take the necessary and reasonable means to prevent the
criminal acts or punish the perpetrators itself.

B. Yes, the Pres may be held liable for the abuses made by the AFP under the doctrine
of command responsibility.
As held in the case above, the Pres as the CIC of the AFP, can be held liable for affront
against the petitioners LLS as long as substantial evidence exist to show that she had
exhibited involvement in or can be imputed with knowledge of the violations or had
failed to exercise necessary and reasonable diligence in conducting the necessary
investigations required under the rules.

b. Declaration of martial law and suspension of the privilege of the writ of

habeas corpus; extension
2019. A.7. Art. 7 - Executive Department - Calling Out Powers - Declaration of Martial
Law
A. Under Art. V of the Constitution, only the President is authorized to exercise the
calling out powers. He is the only one who has full discretion to call the military when
in his judgment it is necessary to do so in order to prevent or suppress lawless
violence, invasion or rebellion. VIR

B. Yes. The President’s power to declare ML is not subject to any condition except for
the 2 requirements of actual invasion or rebellion and that the public safety requires it.
It does not need the recommendation of the Defense Secretary and the AFP.

MARTIAL LAW & SUSPENSION OF WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

The Pres power to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus and to
proclaim martial law is subject to several checks by Congress and by the SC.

1. The Pres is required to report to Congress

2. within 48 hours his action in declaring martial law or suspending the privilege of
the writ, and Congress is in turn required to convene, if it is not in session, within
24 hours following the proclamation of martial law or the SPWHC without need of
any call, in accordance with its rules.
3. The proclamation of martial law or suspension of the writ is effective for 60 days
only,
4. Congress can cut short its effectivity by revoking the proclamation by the vote of
at least a majority of all its members, voting, jointly.
5. Any extension of the proclamation of ML or SPWHC can only be granted by
Congress which will also determine the period of such extension.

6. On the other hand, the SC exercises a check on Executive action in the form of
judicial review at the instance of any citizen. The Constitution embodies in this
 respect the SC ruling that the Court can determine the sufficiency of the factual
basis of the proclamation of ML or SPWHC or the extension thereof not for the
purpose of supplanting the judgment of the Pres but to determine whether the
latter did not act arbitrarily. Indeed, Art. VIII, Sec. 1 imposes upon the courts the
duty of determining WON there has been GADALEJ on the part of the other
branches of the government, in this case, the President.

7. The Pres, cannot, by means of the proclamation of ML, suspend the Constitution
or supplant the courts and the legislature.
Neither can he authorize the trial of civilians by military tribunals so long as courts are
open and functioning, thus, overruling the case of Aquino v Military Commission.
His proclamation of ML does not carry with it the suspension of the WHC. (only the
privilege if in connection with rebellion invasion only so WHC is still available) Nor does
the suspension of the writ deprive the courts of their power to admit a person to BAIL,
where proper.

The Pres has 3 options:

1. To CALL OUT the AFP to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or
rebellion; VIR
2. To SUSPEND the PWHC or
3. To PROCLAIM ML.

The last 2 options can be resorted only in cases of invasion or rebellion when the public
safety requires either the SPWHC or the proclamation of ML.

6. Executive clemency
a. Nature and limitations
b. Forms of executive clemency
PARDONING POWER

2017. Except in cases of impeachment or as otherwise provided in this Constitution, the

Pres may grant reprieves, commutations and pardons, and remits fines and forfeitures,
after conviction by final judgment. He shall also have the power to grant amnesty with
the concurrence of the majority of all Members of the Congress.

No pardon, amnesty, parole or suspension of sentence for violation of election laws,

rules and regulations shall be granted by the Pres without the favorable
recommendation of the Commission. - COMELEC

The only instances in which the Pres may not extend pardon remain to be in:
1. Impeachment cases;
2. Cases that have not yet resulted in a final conviction; and
3. Cases involving violations of election laws, rules and regulations in which there
was no favorable recommendation coming from the COMELEC. Any act of the
Congress by way of statute cannot delimit the power of the President to grant
pardon.

Distinguish pardon from amnesty.

 1. Pardon can only be given after final conviction, amnesty can be given at any
time and even before the filing of the criminal case.
2. P looks forward while A looks backward in obliterating the offense;
3. P is given to individuals while A is given to a class of persons;
4. P is given for all criminal offenses. A is given for political offenses;
5. P does not require the concurrence of Congress, A does;
6. P must be proven because it is a private act, A need not be proven because it is
a public act.

7. Diplomatic power
TO ENTER INTO EXECUTIVE AGREEMENTS

2016. The agreement creating the Inter’l Economic Organization is an executive

agreement and not a treaty.
Sec. 21, Art. VII is the only provision of the Constitution which defines a treaty or IE as
valid and effective law by reason of concurrence of the Senate.
However, it is the intent of the Constitution that such treaty or IE does not include EA
which is excluded from the Senate’s authority of concurrence over treaties. This
constitutional intent is expressed in the proceedings of the ConComm in its awareness
that at the time the power of the Pres to conclude exec agreement was clearly
recognized by at least decisions of the SC establishing the principle that the Pres power
includes EA which are valid without need of Senate concurrence.
Hence, logically the Treaty Clause in Sec. 21 of Art. VII is to be interpreted as
excluding EA.

Moreover, as the SC has pointed out, the Pres has the sole power to ratify treaties. The
Senate may be able to exercise its authority of concurrence only if the Pres transmits
the instrument of ratification by which he accepts the terms agreed on by his diplomatic
negotiators of the proposed treaty as requested by the President. It is only on the basis
of the authority of the Pres to ratify treaties that the Senate may act in concurrence
under the Treaty Clause in the Constitution. - ( so Pres have discretion not to ratify)

2015. Senator Maagap is correct in so far as the second EA is concerned.

The first EA is in such a nature that such need not be concurred in by the Senate.
The SC has held that the right of the Executive to enter into binding agreements without
the necessity of subsequent congressional approval has been confirmed by long usage.

From the earliest days of our history, we have entered EA covering such subjects as
commercial and consular relations, most favored nations rights, patent right, trademark
and copyright protection, postal and navigation arrangements and the settlement of
claims.
However for the second EA which is in the nature of an IA involving political issues or
changes on national policy (national policy under the constitution) and those involving
international arrangements of a permanent character, is deemed as a treaty, in which
case must be concurred in by the Senate.
Hence, Senator Maagap is only correct as regards, the second EA which must be
submitted for the concurrence of the Senate. The delay is excusable, since it will be
impossible to comply with his obligation.

8. Powers relative to appropriation measures

 9. Delegated powers
10. Residual powers
11. Veto powers
2010. Pocket veto vs Item veto
An item veto refers to the veto made by the Pres but not the entire bill is vetoed but
only a specific item. Generally, item veto is not allowed but the Constitution permits
item veto on revenue, tariff and appropriation bill ART. And although it is not a ART an
item veto is still allowed for inappropriate provision in the bill.
On the other hand, a pocket veto occurs when the Pres fails to act on the bill and does
not return the bill to Congress because the latter is not in session. In the Ph pocket veto
is not applicable because a bill is passed into law if remain inacted within 30 days from
receipt thereof.

D. Rules of succession
SUCCESSION:

2018. A. No, Anna Maria’s assumption as VP is unconstitutional.

Only a member of the Senate or HOR may be nominated by the successor President
as VP. Art. 7 Sec 9

B. Yes, Anastacia can still run for Pres in the next election since she has served for less
than 4 years. Sec. 4 Art VII provides that “no person who has succeeded as Pres and
has served as such for more than 4 years shall be qualified for election to the same
office at any time.

PRESIDENT’S PARTICIPATION IN LEGISLATIVE PROCESS

2014. The Pres has the authority to withhold the release of the funds under a Special
Appropriation Act for a project which he considered unnecessary. The faithful
execution of the laws requires the Pres to desist from implementing a law if by doing
so will prejudice public interest. It is a folly to require the Pres to spend the entire
amounts appropriated in the law in such a case.

VII. JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT A8

A. Concepts
1. Judicial power

JUDICIAL POWER

2013. The law providing for trial by jury is unconstitutional because of the omission in
Art. VIII Sec. 5 of the 1987 Constitution of the 1935 provision which authorized the
Legislature to RAS the rules of procedure promulgated by the SC.
Congress can no longer enact any law governing rules of procedure of the courts.

2008. The law is unconstitutional because the power to promulgate rules concerning the
protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, PPP in all courts, is vested only in
the SC. Congress cannot encroach on the prerogatives of the Judiciary particularly
those expressly given by the Constitution. The interference of Congress of such power
would be struck down because it violates the separation of powers.
2010. On the assumption that Mang Pandoy is a beneficiary of the financial legal
assistance, he has a legal standing to question the law. He may be prejudiced by the
improper screening of the beneficiary families.
Besides, since the implementation of the law will require the expenditure of public
funds, as a taxpayer Mang Pandoy has legal standing to question the law.

RULE MAKING POWER

2018. The challenge is without merit

The rule in international law is that foreign armed forces allowed to enter one’s
territory are immune from local jurisdiction, except to the extent agreed upon. As a
result, the situation involved is not one in which the power of the SC to adopt rules of
procedure is curtailed or violated, rather, it is one which, as is normally encountered
around the world, the laws, including rules of procedure, of one State do not extend or
apply, except to the extent agreed upon, to subjects of another State due to the
recognition of extraterritorial immunity given to such bodies as visiting foreign armed
forces.

Nothing in the Constitution prohibits such agreements recognizing immunity from

jurisdiction or some aspects of jurisdiction, such as custody, in relation to long-
recognized subjects of such immunity, like Heads of State, diplomats, and members
of the armed forces contingents of a foreign State allowed to enter another State’s
territory. The Constitution, on the contrary, states that the Ph adopts the generally
accepted principles of international law GAPI as part of the law of the land. Art. II, S2
Consti

The equal protection clause is not violated, either, because there is a substantial basis
for a different treatment of foreign military armed forces allowed to enter our territory
and all other accused.

2016. Patricio is not correct. Defining the penalty for criminal offense involves the
exercise of legislative power.
When Sec. 23 of the CDDA prohibited plea-bargaining, Congress defined what
should be the penalty for the criminal offense. ( - so the Congress’ action is ok)
The power of the SC to promulgate rules of procedure is subject to the limitation that
it should not modify substantive rights. (substantive rights provided by the law)

2015. The claim of exemption is not tenable.

Sec. 23 of RA 14344 runs contrary to the provisions of the Constitution.
Under the Constitution, only the SC has the power to promulgate its rules on
pleadings, practice and procedures PPP in court. S5 A8
Payment of legal fees is a vital component of the rules promulgated by the Court
concerning PPP pleading, practice, procedure, it cannot be validly annulled, changed or
modified by Congress. As one of the safeguards of this Court’s institutional
independence, the power to promulgate PPP is now the Court’s exclusive domain.
That power is no longer shared by this Court with Congress, much less with the
Executive. Such an act by Congress also transgresses the fiscal autonomy of the
Courts.
Hence, the City of Masuwerte cannot question the assessment of legal fees for the
cases it filed before the court.

2015. The Rule-making power of the SC was vested by the 1987 Constitution, to
promulgate rules that would protect the constitutional rights of our people, PPP in
courts. This is a recognized power exclusive to the SC. But while the power of the
judiciary is to interpret laws, judicial legislation takes place when a court steps in to
craft missing parts or to fill in the gaps in laws or when it oversteps its discretional
boundaries and goes beyond the law to coin doctrines or principles where none was
before.
This is frowned upon because the courts should merely interpret laws, and not make
new laws.

2014. The law is unconstitutional. The Constitution has taken away the power of
Congress to repeal, alter or supplement RAS the Rules of Court. The fiscal autonomy
guaranteed the Judiciary by Sec. 3, Art VIII of the Constitution recognized the authority
of the SC to levy, assess and collect fees. Congress cannot amend the rules
promulgated by the SC for the payment of legal fees by granting exemptions.

2014. The statutory authority granted to the administrative Board to promulgate rule and
regulations cannot encroach upon the exclusive authority of the SC to regulate the
admission to the practice of law.
Thus, the Administrative Board cannot prescribe additional standards for admission to
the practice of law, adopt a course of study which is inconsistent with the requirements
of the SC, and impose additional requirements to take the bar examinations. Since
Congress has no power to repeal, alter or supplement the Rules of Court, it cannot
delegate such power to the Administrative Board.

2013. The advice of Vannie’s counsel that she’ll file a petition for a writ of amparo is
not correct. In order that the writ of amparo can be used against a private individual for
the disappearance of someone, the involvement of the government is indispensable.
There is no showing of any participation of the government in Conrad’s disappearance.

2. Judicial review
a. Requisites
b. Operative fact doctrine
c. Political question doctrine
POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW
2018. A. The power to deport aliens is an act of State, an act done by or under the
authority of the sovereign power. It is a police measure against undesirable aliens
whose continued presence in the country is found to be injurious to the public good and
domestic tranquility of the people. An act of State is one done by the sovereign power of
a country, or by its delegate, within the limits of the power vested in him. An act of State
cannot be questioned or made the subject of legal proceedings in a court of law. With
particular reference to Political Law, an act of State is an act done by political
departments of the government and is not subject to judicial review.

2018. Sec. 5 of Art. VIII of the Constitution clearly provides that the Rules of procedure
of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless
disapproved by the SC, accordingly, it is clear that the SC may review and reverse the
rules of procedure of the SB and the ConComm.

With respect to the rules of procedure of Congress in its proceedings, legislative

inquiries and on impeachment, while these rules may generally be considered as
political questions, when questioned before the courts in a proper case, GR courts
would not interfere. XPN: it is subject to the power of judicial review under the second
par. of Sec 1, Art. VIII of the Constitution, which authorizes it to review and annul all
acts of any branch or instrumentality of the government which may be tainted with
GADALEJ.

2015. The 1987 Constitution narrowed the reach of the political question doctrine
when it expanded the power of judicial review of this court not only to settle actual
controversies involving political rights which are legally demandable and
enforceable but also to determine whether or not there has been a GADALEJ on the
part of any branch or instrumentality of government.
Heretofore, the judiciary has focused on the “though shall not’s” of the Constitution
directed against the exercise of its jurisdiction.
With the new provision, however, courts are given a greater prerogative to determine
what it can do to prevent GADALEJ on the part of any branch or instrumentality of
government. Clearly, the new provision did not just grant the Court power of doing
nothing.

2014. The SC can proceed to decide the case even if the law has not yet become
effective. Since the petitions that were filed sought to nullify the Cybercrime Prevention
Act, because it violated several provisions of the Bill of Rights, the SC became duty
bound to settle the dispute. Since it is alleged that the Cybercrime Prevention Act
violates various provisions of the Bill of Rights, including freedom of speech,
freedom of the press, and the right against unreasonable xxx p. 155

B. Judicial independence and autonomy

FISCAL AUTONOMY
2017. Fiscal autonomy signifies the independence of judiciary to utilize the funds
allocated therein. It refers to the independence of a branch of government to utilize the
funds allocated to it in order to attain its governmental objective.
Fiscal autonomy means that the approved annual appropriations of the Judiciary shall
be released automatically without imposing any condition before releasing the funds.
Furthermore, in the case of the Judiciary, the Congress is prohibited from reducing the
appropriations below the amount appropriated for them for the previous year.

C. Appointments to the judiciary

1. Qualifications of members of the judiciary
2. Judicial and Bar Council
a. Composition
b. Powers
JUDICIAL APPOINTMENT
2018. A. The law prescribing as a qualification for appointment to any lower court mere
Ph citizenship, whether natural-born or naturalized, would be unconstitutional with
respect to appointments to collegiate courts, because all appointees to these courts
must be natural-born citizens.

2014. The Pres can make appointments to the SC 2 months before a presidential
election until the end of his term but not to the rest of the judiciary like the CA.
Under Sec. 4 Art. VIII of the Constitution, vacancies in the SC shall be filled within 90
days from the occurrence of the vacancy.
Under Sec. 9 Art. VIII of the Constitution, vacancies in the lower shall be filled within 90
days from submission of the list of nominees. These appointments are screened by the
JBC and the process necessarily precludes or prevents the Pres from making purely
political appointments to the courts, which is what is sought to be prevented by the
prohibition. (Reason is urgency, the negative effect of longer period of vacancy in the
SC unlike the CA and lower courts. Constitution safeguards this by filling within 90 days
from the occurrence of the vacancy.)

The Pres may also appoint his first cousin, Margie, as a Justice of the CA. The
prohibition in Sec. 13 Art. VII of the Constitution against appointment by the Pres of
relative within the fourth degree by consanguinity or affinity does not include
appointments to the Judiciary. (So only in appointive offices.)

D. The Supreme Court

1. Composition
2. Powers and functions

PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL

2012. Page 158

SUPERVISION OF COURTS AND ITS PERSONNEL

2012. A. Since the complaint refers to the performance of the duties of Judge Red,
Ombudsman Grey should not act on it and should refer it to the SC. His investigation
will encroach upon the exclusive power of administrative supervision of the SC over all
courts.

B. The Ombudsman can investigate crimes or offenses committed by public officers

which are not connected with the performance of their duties.
Under Sec. 13 of Art. XI of the Constitution, the Ombudsman can investigate any act or
omission of a public official which is illegal.

C. All public officers and employees are required to submit a declaration under oath of
their assets, liabilities and net worth. SALN S17 A11

FINALITY OF DECISION

2014. A. The decision cannot be deemed to have been promulgated simply because of
the announcement of the voting in a press release, because the decision has not yet
been issued and filed with the COC. Until the decision is filed with the COC, the
Justices still have control over the decision and they can still change their votes.
B. The decision can no longer be promulgated if the Justice belonging to the majority
died, for lack of a majority vote. The vote he cast is no longer valid, as he was no longer
an incumbent member of the SC.

C. The SC should not release to the public the majority opinion and the separate
opinions, as well as its deliberations. They are part of its confidential internal
deliberations.

VIII. CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS

A. Common provisions
B. Institutional independence safeguards
C. Powers and functions
D. Composition and qualifications of members
E. Prohibited offices and interests
ARTICLE IX. CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS

COMMISSION ON AUDIT; JURISDICTION

2017. A. No, all GOCCS should be subject to COA regardless of their incorporation.
Funds received by the government by means of any of its proprietary acts, or through
its power of taxation, or through any gratuitous act shall accrue to the national
treasury. All funds accrued to the national treasury are public funds, subject to the
jurisdiction of COA. The Congress is the only governmental department vested with
the power of appropriation and such power cannot be delegated to any department
or instrumentalities of the government.

B. No, all donations especially foreign aids/grants cannot be without the jurisdiction
of COA.

APPOINTMENT

2018. C. Such designation is unconstitutional because the Constitution provides that no

person shall be appointed or designated in any of the ConComm in a temporary or
acting capacity. A9-B

2015. Yes, the petition will prosper.

The appointment of Melchor as ex-officio member of the GSIS, ECC and
PHILHEALTH during his tenure as the chairperson of the CSC is unconstitutional for
violating Sec. 2 Art. 9-A of the 1987 Constitution, prohibiting members of ConComm
from holding any other office or employment and impairing the independence of the
CSC. S1 A9-A
This has been a settled case where the Court ruled that the CSC Chairperson’s holding
other offices resulted in double compensation and impairment to CSC’s
independence because other offices held by the CSC chairperson are under the Office
of the Pres.

2015. No, the constitutional challenge will not succeed.

It is well settled that when an ad interim appointment of the Chairman of Comelec is
not confirmed, as it was bypassed or that there was not ample time for the CA to pass
upon the same, another ad interim appointment may be extended to the appointee
without violating the Constitution.

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

DUAL EMPLOYMENT
2015. No, the argument is not valid.
The prohibition of dual employment does not apply to Professor Masipag because Sec.
5, Canon III of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel allows court personnel to
acquire outside employment provided, among others, that the outside employment does
not require the practice of law, and provided, however, that court personnel may
render services as professor, lecturer or resource person in law schools, review or
continuing education centers or similar institutions.
Dual employment applies to appointive officials who are not allowed to hold any
other office or employment in the Government or any subdivision, agency or
instrumentality thereof, including GOCCS, unless otherwise allowed by law or the
primary functions of his position. Art. 9-B

APPOINTMENT OF RELATIVES

2008. The CSC should disapprove the promotional appointment if at the time of
appointment Amelia is already married to the appointing authority, the Mayor, because it
violates the rule on nepotism which prohibits the appointment of relatives by
consanguinity or affinity within the third degree of the appointing authority in public
office. This is to ensure that entrance to public office should be based on merits and
fitness. The rule on nepotism also extends to promotional appointments. However, if at
the time of appoint, the Mayor and Amelia is not yet married and thereafter married
each other, the promotional appointment should remain as valid appointment.

2010. The Rule on Nepotism extends to designation and promotional appointment in

favor of a relative.

2010. A discretionary duty of a public officer can be delegated if the delegation is

authorized.

OATH OR AFFIRMATION

2007. All public O and E shall take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.

SECURITY OF TENURE

2005. Security of tenure means that dismissal should only be for cause, as provided by
law and not otherwise. Plus due process.

IX. BILL OF RIGHTS A3

A. Concept of Bill of Rights
 1. Privacy and autonomy
2. Relation to human rights
B. Due process of law
1. Concept of right to life, liberty and property
2. Kinds of due process
a. Substantive
b. Procedural
1. Judicial
11. Administrative

Substantive Procedural

As to nature Requires that the law itself,

not merely the procedure
by which the law would be
forced, is fair, reasonable,
and just.

As to who must comply Directed to the lawmakers. Addressed to those who

with the requirement adjudicate.

As to the requirements to Implies fundamental Right to be notified and be

be complied with notions of fairness and heard
justice.

c. Levels of scrutiny
C. Equal protection of laws
1. Concept
2. Requisites for valid classification
The requisites for a valid classification are: SAGE
1. Such classification rests upon substantial distinctions;
2. It applies equally to all members of the same class;
3. It is germane to the purpose of the law; and
4. It is not limited to existing conditions only.
3. Levels of scrutiny
RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS
2016. A. The law does not violate the equal protection clause. It is based on
substantial distinctions. The unequal power relationship between women and men, the
greater likelihood for women than men to be victims of violence, and the widespread
gender bias and prejudice against all women all make for real differences.

B. The grant of authority to the Barangay Chairman to issue a Brgy Protection Order is
a purely executive function pursuant to his duty to enforce all laws and ordinances
and to maintain public order.

2015. The 3 kinds of tests applied in equal protection cases are:

1. Strict Scrutiny Test

Requires the government to show that the challenged classification serves a
compelling state interest and that the classification is necessary to serve that
interest.
 This is used in cases involving classifications based on race, national origin,
religion, alienage, denial of the right to vote, interstate migration, access to courts
and other rights recognized as fundamental.

2. Intermediate or middle-tier scrutiny test

Requires the government to show that the challenged classification serves as an
important state interest and that the classification is at least substantially
related to serving that interest. This applies to suspect classification like gender
or illegitimacy.

3. Minimum or rational basis scrutiny test

According to this test, the government need only to show that the challenged
classification is rationally related to serving a legitimate state interest.
This is the traditional rationality test and it applies to all subjects other than those
listed above.

B. The Rational Basis Test should be applied to the present case.

In our jurisdiction, the SC has held that the standard of analysis of equal protection
challenges is the rational RBT.
Jurisprudence has affirmed that if a law neither burdens a fundamental right nor
targets a suspect class, the classification shall be upheld as long as it bears a
rational relationship to some legitimate end.
Here, insofar as the party-list system is concerned, GBTYA is similarly situated as all
other groups which are running for a party-list seat in Congress. Ang Ladlad v
COMELEC

2014. I will argue that since Sec. 10 of RA 8042 has already been declared
unconstitutional by the SC. Its nullity cannot be cured by reincorporation or reenactment
of the same or similar law or provision.
Once a law has been declared unconstitutional, it remains unconstitutional unless
circumstances have so changed as to warrant a reverse conclusion. Sameer Agency v
Cabiles

D. Right against unreasonable searches and seizures

1. Concept of privacy
The right to privacy is the right to be free from unwarranted exploitation of one’s
person or from intrusion into one’s private activities in such a way as to cause
humiliation to a person’s ordinary sensibilities. It is the right of an individual to be free
from unwarranted publicity, or to live without unwarranted interference by the public in
matters in which the public is not necessarily concerned. Simply put, the right to
privacy is the “right to be let alone”.
2. Concept of a search
3. Requisites of a valid warrant
1. A determination of C;
2. The determination of PC was based on exam under oath or affirmation of the
complainant and the W he may produce;
3. The C and/or W testified to facts within their PK; and
4. The warrant issued must particularly describe the place to be searched or the
persons or things to be seized.
4. Warrantless searches
2019. A.5. BOR - Stop and Frisk ; Genuine reason
A. Stop and Frisk rule is a vernacular designation of the right of a police officer to stop
a citizen on the street, interrogate him, and pat him for weapons.

B. It was not valid. Stop and frisk serves a two-fold interest:

1. Crime prevention and detection; and
2. Safety and self-preservation of the police officer.
While probable cause is not required to conduct a SAF, it nevertheless holds that mere
suspicion or a hunch will not validate a SAF.
A genuine reason must exist, in light of the police officer’s experience and surrounding
conditions, to warrant a belief that the person has weapons concealed about him.
Since the drug seized was a product of an unlawful search and seizure, the same is
inadmissible in evidence against X and Y.
5. Warrantless arrests and detention
WA are valid under the ff circs:
1. When caught in flagrante delicto. When the person to be arrested has committed,
is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense.
2. Continuing offense. Membership in org like NPA may be arrested anytime under
the in flagrante delicto principle.
3. Doctrine of hot pursuit. When an offense has just been committed and the
arrestor has PC to believe, based on PK of F or C, that the person to be arrested
has committed the offense.
4. Bondsmen may arrest the accused.
5. Escapee.
6. If accused released on bail attempts to depart from the Ph.
7. Doctrine of exigent circumstances.
6. Exclusionary rule
Any evidence obtained in violation of the right against unreasonable searches and
seizures shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
7. Effects of unreasonable searches and seizures - inadmissibility
8. Effects of illegal detention
ILLEGAL ARREST, SEARCH AND SEIZURE

2018. The warrantless arrest is lawful.

There are 2 ingredients before a warrantless arrest can be effected under Sec. 5b, Rule
113, that is (1) an offense has just been committed, and (2) he has probable cause
based on PK of facts OR circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed
it.

Here, both requirements are present in the instant case. An offense has just been
committed by the kidnappers and the first police team has PK on facts while the second
police team has PK on circumstances, which these CIRCUMSTANCES WERE BASED
ON FACTS given by the first police team.

FACT: The first police team were present in the Angola Commercial Center where the
pay-off was taking place which effectively consummated the crime of kidnapping. The
first police team has PK on the fact that the kidnappers were on board the specific car
with the ransom money in its car trunk. Such personal knowledge on the description of
the kidnappers and the car was then relayed to the second team of police officers
stationed in Amorsolo St., where the kidnappers were expected to pass.
CIRCUMSTANCES BASED ON FACTS: The second team’s PK on circumstances
based on facts relayed by the first team is sufficient to establish a probable cause.
Hence, the second police team’s warrantless arrest is lawful.

2016. A. The warrantless search of the motor vehicles at checkpoints should be limited
to a visual search. Its occupants should not be subjected to a body search.
The stop and frisk rule applies only when the police officer observes suspicious activity
or unusual activity which may lead him to believe that a criminal act may be afoot.
GENUINE REASON.
The SAF is merely limited to a search in the outer clothing for weapons. Luz v. Pp

B. Since there was no valid warrantless arrest, the warrantless search was also illegal.
The unlicensed .22 caliber pistol is inadmissible in evidence.

2016. A. The confiscation of the materials constituted an illegal search and seizure
because it was done without a valid warrant.
It also cannot be justified as a valid warrantless search and seizure because such
was not not done after a lawful warrantless arrest. There was no lawful arrest.

B. The argument of Dominador that pornographic materials are protected by the

constitutional right to freedom of expression is erroneous.
Obscenity is not a protected expression. Sec. 2 od PD 969 requires the forfeiture and
destruction of pornographic materials.

2015. Hade’s claim is correct. The evidence obtained was illegally seized and is thus
inadmissible in evidence. A consented warrantless search, if it exists or whether it was
in fact voluntary is a question of fact to be determined from the totality of all the
circumstances. Hades’ mere silence does not amount to consent. In the absence of
such consent, evidence obtained thereof shall be inadmissible in evidence, in which
case precludes conviction and calls for the acquittal of the accused.

2009. The arrest is valid. The law enforcer has sufficient reason to accost the accused
because of his suspicious actuations, coupled with the fact based on reliable
information the area was a haven for drug addicts. Manalili v CA

2008. A. As counsel for the accused, I would invoke the constitutional right to be
secured against unreasonable searches and seizure, Art. III, Sec. 2, which
guarantees:
1. Sanctity of the home;
2. Inadmissibility of the capsules seized;
3. Inviolability of the person.
A mere tip from a reliable source is not sufficient to justify a warrantless arrest or
search.

B. The court should declare the search and seizure illegal:

1. The entry into the accused’s home was not a permissible warrantless action
because the police had no personal knowledge that any crime was taking
place.
2. Due to the invalid entry, whatever evidence the police gathered would be
inadmissible.
 3. The arrest of the accused was already invalid and causing him to vomit while
under custody was an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy.

2010. The WLSS was not valid. It was not made as an incident to a lawful WLA.
The caretaker had no authority to waive the right of the brothers Pilo and Ramon to
waive their right against USS.
The WLS of the ski masks and bats cannot be justified under the plain view doctrine,
because they were seized after invalid intrusion into the house.

Hot pursuit:
1. A crime has just been committed;
2. He has probable cause, based on PK on facts or circumstances, that the
person to be arrested has committed it.

E. Privacy of communications and correspondence S3 A3

The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon
lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise as
prescribed by law.
1. Concept of communications, correspondence
2. Intrusion, when and how allowed
3. Exclusionary rule
PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATION

2009. The objection should be overruled. What the law prohibits is the overhearing,
intercepting, and recording of private communication.
Since the exchange of heated words was not private, its videotape recording is not
prohibited.

RIGHT TO INFORMATION

2009. The petition of KMM must be denied.

Diplomatic negotiations are privileged in order to encourage a frank exchange of
exploratory ideas between the parties by shielding the negotiations from public view.

RIGHT TO LIBERTY

2008. Although the PNP is civilian in character, it partakes of some of the military life,
thus permitting the imposition of reasonable measures for discipline, uniformity in
behavior and presentableness. The circular does not go beyond what is reasonable
and therefore passes the test of due process.
Rational connection.
The requisite connection was present since the government had a legitimate interest
in policemen’s appearances so that the would:
1. Readily recognizable to the public and
2. Feel a sense of “esprit de corps” that comes from being similar.

RH LAW

2018. A. The law in question does not sanction abortion even in practical means.
In case of Imbong v Ochoa, the law on its face expressly mentioned that abortion is not
permissible, and this was the determinative factor in making the ruling.
In the same case, the Court also found that the RH law was replete with provisions that
embody the policy of protecting the unborn from the moment of fertilization.

In addition, the majority of the court believed that the question of when life starts is a
scientific and medical issue, hence, the Court refused to make a ruling on this issue.

B. Involuntary servitude denotes compulsion or coercion to do something either through

force, threats, intimidation, or other means. The accreditation with the Philhealth, as
ruled by the SC should be viewed as an incentive and not a punishment. These health
service providers also enjoy the liberty to choose which kind of health service they wish
to provide. Clearly, there is no compulsion, force, or threat upon them to render the pro
bono services against their will.

C. What is prohibited in the Constitution is the establishment of a State religion. While

the establishment clause in the Constitution restricts what the government can do with
religion, it also limits what religious sects can or cannot do with the government.
They can neither cause the government to adopt their particular doctrine as policy for
everyone, nor can they cause the government to restrict other groups. To do so would
cause the State to adhere to a particular religion, and thus establish a state religion.

F. Freedom of speech and expression S4 A3

Under the Constitution, no law shall be passed abridging the: SEPA
1. F of Speech;
2. F of Expression;
3. F of the Press; and
4. Right of the people to peaceably Assemble and petition the government for redress of
grievances.
1. Concept
a. Continuum of thought, speech, expression, and speech acts
b. Purposes of free speech doctrines
c. Balance between unbridled expression and liberty
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
2015. Facial challenge to the constitutionality of a law is traditionally allowed when it
operates in the area of freedom of expression.
The established rule is that a party can question the validity of a statute only, if as
applied to him, it is unconstitutional. The exception is the so-called “Facial
Challenge”.
But the only time a facial challenge to a statute is allowed is when it operates in the area
of freedom of expression.
In such an instance, the “overbreadth doctrine” permits a party to challenge the
validity of a statute even though, as applied to him, it is not unconstitutional, but might
be if applied to others not before the Court whose activities are constitutionally
protected. Invalidation of the statute “on its face”, rather than “as applied”, permitted
in the interest of preventing a “chilling effect” on freedom of expression.
A facial challenge to a legislative act is the most difficult challenge to mount
successfully since the challenge must establish that no set of circumstances exist
under which the act would be valid.

2014. The petition of Surveys Galore is meritorious.

Freedom of speech and freedom of the press may be identified with the liberty to
discuss publicly and truthfully any matter of public interest without censorship and
punishment.
There should be no previous restraint on the communication of views or subsequent
liability whether in libel suits, prosecution for sedition, or action for damages, or
contempt proceedings unless there is a clear and present danger of substantive evil
that Congress has a right to prevent. Chavez v Gonzales

Freedom of speech should not be impaired through the exercise of the power to punish
for contempt of court unless the statement in question is a serious and imminent threat
to the administration.

2014. The guarantee of freedom of expression signifies (1) freedom from prior restraint
and (2) freedom from subsequent punishment

FREEDOM OF THE PRESS

2014. If I were the judge, I would rule that the distribution of the newspaper cannot be
banned.
Freedom of the news should be allowed although it induces a condition of unrest and
stirs people to anger.
Freedom of the press includes freedom of circulation. When government action that
restricts freedom of the press is based on content, it is given the strictest scrutiny
and the government must show that there is a clear and present danger as to warrant
curtailment of the right of Deep Throat to distribute the newspaper.

2009. The contention of KKK-TV is not tenable.

The prior restraint is a valid exercise of police power. Television is a medium which
reaches even the eyes and ears of children.

2004. Since Senator XXX is a public person and the questioned imputation is directed
against him in his public capacity, in this case actual malice means that statement was
made with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false
or not.
Since there is no proof that the report was published with knowledge that it is false or
with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not, the defendants are not liable.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH

2007. A private association formed by advertising companies for self regulation was the
one who ordered that the advertisement be pulled out, because Destilleria did not
comply with the association’s ethical guidelines.
The guarantee of freedom of speech is a limitation on state action and not on the action
of private parties. The mass media are private enterprises, and their refusal to accept
any advertisement does not violate freedom of speech.

2008. The wearing of black shirts is an exercise of freedom of expression and not
necessarily freedom of assembly.
Regardless of the distinction, in both cases, the Constitutional guarantee includes
freedom from prior restraint and freedom from subsequent liability.
These are 3 tests to determine whether or not there was valid government
interference:
1. Dangerous tendency rule;
2. Balancing of interest test; and
3. Clear and present danger test.
In the Philippine jurisdiction, we adhere to the clear and present danger of a
substantive evil which the State has the right to prevent. - Strict Scrutiny Test

Applying the CPDT, the protest conducted by the students was only moderately
successful and the wearing of black shirts was neither tumultuous nor disruptive.
Thus, the substantive evil which the school authorities were trying to suppress did not
even occur.
Hence, the prohibition imposed by the circular violates f∫ while the threat of expulsion by
the school authorities violates freedom from subsequent liability.

Since ABS CBN has a franchise. It may be considered an agent of the government by
complying with the law and refusing to air the advertisement.
Under Art. 32 of the CC, even private parties may be liable for damages for impairment
of the freedom of speech.

Cowboy Levy’s may invoke the constitutional guarantee of FOS in its favor.
The SC has held that the guarantee of FOS extends to corporations. It also extends
to commercial advertisements. SC also held that even if the production of a film is a
commercial activity that is expected to yield profits, it is covered by the GFOS.

HIERARCHY OF CIVIL LIBERTIES

2012: The hierarchy of civil liberties means that the FOE and the rights to peaceful
assembly are superior to property rights.

The freedom of exercise of religion entails the right to believe which is absolute, and the
right to act on one’s belief which is subject to regulation.
As a GR the FOER can be restricted only if there is a clear and present danger of a
substantive evil which the state has the right to prevent.

The non-establishment clause implements the principle of separation of church

and state. The state cannot set up a church, pass laws that aid one religion and all
religions, prefer one religion over another, force or influence a person to go to or remain
away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any
religion.

2. Types of regulation
a. Prior restraint and subsequent punishment
b. Content based and content neutral
c. Incitement and advocacy
d. Specificity of regulation and overbreadth doctrine '
OVERBREADTH DOCTRINE VS. VOID FOR VAGUENESS
2014. The VFV doctrine means that if a law is incomprehensible to ordinary people,
such that they do not really know what is required or prohibited, then the law must be
struck down.

2012. A statute is overbroad when a governmental purpose to control or prevent

activities constitutionally subject to state regulations is sought to achieve by means
which sweep unnecessarily broadly and invade the area of protected freedom. It
applies both to free speech cases and penal statutes.
However, facial challenge on the ground of overbreadth can only be made in free
speech cases because of its chilling effect upon protected speech.
A facial challenge on the ground of overbreadth is not applicable to penal statutes,
because in general they have an in terrorem effect.
e. Speech regulation in relation to election
f. Speech regulation in relation to media
3. · Judicial analysis, presumptions and levels and types of scrutiny
4. Special topics in free expression cases
a. Hate speech
b. Defamation and libel
c. Sedition and speech in relation to rebellion
d. Obscenity/pornography
e. Commercial speech
f. National emergencies
g. Speech of public officers
5. Cognate rights
a. Freedom of assembly
b. Freedom of association
c. Freedom of information

G. Freedom of religion
1. Basic principles
a. Purpose
b. Concept of religion
2. Principle of separation of church and state
3. Non-establishment clause
4. Free exercise clause

NON-ESTABLISHMENT AND FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION

2017. Yes, the President has violated the provision under Sec. 25, Art. VI of the
Constitution, which provides that discretionary funds appropriated for particular officials
shall be disbursed only for public purpose.
Here, the act of the President in relation to his discretionary funds is an act of spending
for his personal benefit which is contrary to public interest. Also, the President violated
the provision under Sec. 29. Art. VI of the Constitution which states that “No public
money, or property shall be appropriated, applied, paid, or employed, directly or
indirectly, for the use, benefit or support of any sect, church, denomination, sectarian
institution or system of religion, or of any priest, preacher, minister, or other religious
teacher or dignitary as such, except when such priest, preacher, minister, or dignitary is
assigned to the armed forces, or to any penal institution.
2016. The contention must be rejected. The use of the site temple will not be limited to a
particular religious sect. It will be made available to all religious sects. The temporary
use of public property for religious purposes without discrimination does not violate the
Constitution.

2016. A. Amelia is not administratively liable. There is no compelling state interest that
justifies inhibiting the free exercise of religious beliefs. The means used by the
government to achieve its legitimate objective is not the least intrusive means.

B. Benevolent neutrality means that with respect to governmental actions,

accommodation of religion may be permitted to allow individuals and groups to
exercise their religion without hindrance. That is sought is not a declaration of
unconstitutionality of the law but an exemption from its application.

2009. A. Yes, the right to freedom of religion must prevail. Benevolent neutrality
recognizes that the government must pursue its secular goals and interests, but at the
same time, strive to uphold religious liberty to the greatest extent possible within flexible
constitutional limits.
Although the morality contemplated by laws is secular, benevolent neutrality could
allow for accommodation of morality based on religion, provided it does not offend
compelling state interest.
Benevolent neutrality approach requires that the court make an individual determination
and not dismiss the claim outright.

B. The case will not prosper. The expulsion/excommunication of members of a religious

institution/organization is a matter best left to the discretion of the officials, and the laws
and canons of said institution/organization.

H. Liberty of abode and freedom of movement

1. Scope and limitations
2. Watch-list and hold departure orders

I. Eminent domain
1. Concept
2. Just compensation
3. Abandonment of intended use and right of repurchase
4. Expropriation by local government units

J. Non-impairment of contracts
K. Adequate legal assistance and free access to courts
L. Right against self-incrimination
1. Scope and coverage
2. Application
3. Immunity statutes
M. Rights of persons under custodial investigation
1. Availability
2. Requisites
3. Waiver
2019. A.4. BOR- CI Custodial investigation is the stage where an investigation ceases
to be a general inquiry into an unsolved crime, and direction is then aimed upon a
particular suspect who has been taken into custody and to whom the police would
then direct interrogatory questions which tend to elicit incriminating statements.

CI also includes the practice of issuing an invitation to a person who is investigated in

connection with an offense he is suspected to have committed, without prejudice to the
liability of the inviting officer for any violation of law.

A person under CI has the following rights, to wit:

1. To remain silent;
2. To have a competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice and
if he cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one;
3. To be informed of such rights;
4. A waiver of these rights is not allowed except in writing and in the presence of
counsel;
5. No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiate
the free will can be used against him;
6. Secret detention places, solitary incommunicado or other similar forms of
detention are prohibited; and
7. Any confession or admission obtained in violation of these rights are
inadmissible in evidence against him.

B. Yes, the PNP’s denial of Mrs. W’s request violated her right to counsel in the
proceedings conducted before the PNP because Mrs. W was already under custodial
investigation.
The SC has held that custodial investigation includes the “invitation” to a person who is
investigated in connection with an offense he or she is suspected to have committed.

N. Rights of the accused

1. Criminal due process
2016. The contention of Art is not meritorious. The right to be informed of the complaint
and to be given the opportunity to raise one’s defenses does not apply to PI.
PI is merely procedural. It may be dispensed with without violating the right of the
accused to due process.
2. Bail
3. Presumption of innocence
4. Right to be heard
5. Assistance of counsel
6. Right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation
7. Right to speedy, impartial, and public trial
8. Right of confrontation
9. Compulsory process
10. Trials in absentia

0. Right to the speedy disposition of cases

P. Right against excessive fines and cruel, degrading, and inhuman punishments
Q. Non-imprisonment for debts
R. Right against double jeopardy
1. Requisites; scope
2. Limitations
2019. A.10. Art. 3 - Bill of Rights - Double Jeopardy
 To raise the defense of DJ, 3 requisites must be present:
1. The 1st jeopardy must have attached prior to the 2nd;
2. The 1st jeopardy must have been validly terminated; and
3. The 2nd jeopardy must be for the same offense as that of the 1st.
In relation to this, the 1st jeopardy attaches only
a. Upon a valid complaint or information,
b. A valid plea has been entered; and
c. The accused was previously acquitted, convicted or the case was
dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent.
XPN insuff of evidence and right to speedy trial.

The MTD of Mr. D should be granted.

While it s is true that the right against DJ cannot be invoked if the dismissal of the
original case was with the express consent of the accused, this rule, however admits of
two exceptions, namely: insufficiency of evidence and denial of the right to speedy trial.

RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED

2018. Ariston was already under CI when he confessed to the police. The police should
have secured a lawyer so that the confession is in the presence of his counsel.
It is admitted that the police failed to inform him of his constitutional rights when he was
investigated and interrogated. His confession to the police is therefore inadmissible in
evidence.

His confession before the Mayor, however, is admissible. While it may be true that the
mayor has operational supervision and control over the local police and may arguably
be deemed a law enforcement officer for purposes of applying Sec. 12 of Art. III of the
Constitution, Ariston’s confession to the mayor, as described in the problem, was not
made in response to any interrogation of the latter. In fact, the mayor did not appear as
having questioned Ariston at all. No police authority ordered Sriston to talk to the mayor.
It was he himself who spontaneously, freely, and voluntarily sought the mayor for a
private meeting. The mayor did not know that he was going to confess his guilt to him.
When he talked with the mayor as a confidant and not as a law enforcement officer, his
uncounselled confession to the Mayor did not violate his constitutional rights.

His confession to the media can likewise be properly admitted. The confessions were
made in response to questions by news reporters, not by the police or any other
investigating officer. Statements spontaneously made by suspects to news reporters
during televised interviews are deemed voluntary and are admissible in evidence.

2018. Yes, shabu obtained in ordinary customs searches such as those done in an
airport, which are valid warrantless searches, are admissible in evidence.

2018. Yes, the MTD should be granted. A defendant, having been acquitted of a crime
by a court martial of competent jurisdiction proceeding under lawful authority, cannot be
subsequently tried for the same offense in civil court. It appears the offense charged in
the Court Martial and in the RTC is the same.
The acquittal by the military court should be a bar to Amoroso’s further prosecution for
the same offense in the RTC.
2018. PO1 Adrian is correct that his rights to privacy and against self-incrimination have
been violated. The results of the confirmatory urine test should therefore be rejected as
evidence against him. It should be noted that RA 9165 allows the conduct of urine tests
only for persons arrested for acts prohibited under the said law, such as, among others,
the manufacturing, sale, use or possession of illegal drugs, and not for any unlawful act,
like extortion, for which PO1 Adrian was arrested.

2016. The drug testing of students of secondary and tertiary schools is valid.
Deterring their use of drugs by random drug testing is as important as enhancing
efficient enforcement.
Random drug testing of officers and employees of public and private is justifiable. Their
expectation of privacy in the office is reduced. PO and PE are required by the
Constitution to be accountable at all times to the people and to serve them with utmost
responsibility and efficiency.
The mandatory testing of all persons charged before the prosecutor’s office of a criminal
offense punishable with imprisonment of at least 6 years and 1 day is void. They are
not randomly picked and are not beyond suspicion. They do not consent to the
procedure or waive their right to privacy.

2016. No, the defense of Paulyn is not valid.

When she was invited for questioning by the Makati City Police Department and she
volunteered information, she was not yet a suspect. Her constitutional rights of a person
under investigation for the commission of an offense under Sec. 12 of Art. III of the
Constitution begins to operate when the investigation ceases to be a general inquiry
upon an unsolved crime and begins to be aimed upon a particular suspect who has
been taken into custody and the questions tend to elicit incriminating statements.

2014. If I were the judge, I would rule that the confession is inadmissible.
First, the rights under CI in Sec. 12, Art. III of the Consti are applicable to any person
under investigation for the commission of an offense. The investigation began when a
policeman told Edward that several witnesses pointed to him as the shooter, because it
started to focus on him as the suspect.
Second, under Sec. 2 of RA 7438, for a confession to be admissible it must be in
writing.

2014. Alienmae can invoke her right against self-incrimination even if it is in regard to
her foreign law, if her home is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights. Art. 14(3) of the said Covenant provides “ In the determination of any
criminal charge against him, everyone shall be entitled to the following minimum
guarantees, in full equality”. (g) Not to be compelled to testify against himself or to
confess guilt.

2009. A. William was not denied with his Miranda rights. True that he has the right to
counsel preferably of his own choice. But if he cannot afford the services of a counsel,
he should be provided with one. Moreover, the Miranda rights are available only during
CI that is, from the moment the IO begins to ask questions for the purpose of eliciting
admissions, confessions or any information from the accused.
Hence, it is proper that he was only informed of his right at the police station.
B. William is not entitled to Bail as a matter of right. His contention is not tenable.
Observing the territorial jurisdiction of commission of the offense, the applicable law in
the case is the Ph laws, not the law of the country to where he is a national. Sec. 13,
Art.III.
Under our law, bail is not a matter of right if the felony or offense committed has an
imposable penalty of RP or higher and the evidence of guilt is strong.

2008. As a GR, bail is not a MR when the offense charged carries with an imposable
penalty of RP or higher.
Here, JC is charged with murder which has a penalty of RP, hence, he cannot be
allowed bail.
However, should the evidence of guilt be found weak after hearing, the court may in its
discretion, fix bail for temporary liberty.

B. Double jeopardy sets in when the first jeopardy has attached.

2012. Brown is not entitled to counsel during the police line-up. He was not yet being
asked questions (interrogation) to answer for a criminal offense.

B. Here, Brown would be entitled to the assistance of a lawyer. He was already

considered as a suspect and was therefore entitled to the rights under CI..

C. The Miranda rights is informed to a person in custody with the following rights:
1. He has the right to remain silent;
2. Anything said can be used as evidence against him;
3. He has the right to have counsel during the investigation; and
4. He must be informed that if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to
represent him.

CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION

2013. The judgment of conviction should be reversed on appeal. It relied mainly on the
extrajudicial confession of the accused.
The lawyer assisting them must be independent. City Atty Juan Buan is not
independent, as he provides legal support to the City Mayor in performing his duties,
which includes the maintenance of peace and order.

S. Right against involuntary servitude

T. Ex post facto laws and bills of attainder

X. LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS

A. General principles
B. Modes of acquiring title to public office
C. Modes and kinds of appointment
D. Eligibility and qualification requirements
E. Disabilities and inhibitions of public officers
F. Powers and duties of public officers
G. Rights of public officers
H. Liabilities of public officers
 1. Preventive suspension and back salaries
2. Illegal dismissal, reinstatement, and back salaries
I. Immunity of public officers
J. Distinguish: de facto and de Jure officers
K. Termination of official relation
L. Civil service
1. Scope
2. Appointments to the civil service
3. Personnel actions
M. Accountability of public officers
1. Types of accountability
a. Administrative
b. Criminal
2. The Ombudsman and the Office of the Special Prosecutor
3. The Sandiganbayan
2019. A.8. Art. 11 - Accountability of Public Officers - Condonation Rule
A. November 2015, abandoned the condonation doctrine
Hence, May 2014 condonation doctrine can still be availed by erring elective officials

B. No. The condonation doctrine does not apply to appointive officials because as to
them there is no sovereign will to disenfranchise.

ARTICLE XI: ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

2018. A. The act is constitutional. Art. XI Sec. 13 of the Constitution expressly give ths
Ombudsman the power to investigate on its own or on complaint by any person, any act
or omission of any public official, employee, office or agency, when such act or omission
appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient.

B. The law is unconstitutional. The power to issue injunctive writs is part of judicial
power. The rules governing the exercise of this power are within the powers of the SC
to promulgate
The law thereof is an encroachment of the Court’s rule-making power.

C. The law is unconstitutional.

The SC invalidated Sec. 27 of RA 6770, insofar as it provided for appeal by certiorari
under Rule 45 from the decisions or orders of the OMB in administrative cases.
Sec. 27 or RA 6770 had the effect, not only of increasing the appellate jurisdiction of the
SC without its advice and concurrence in violation of Sec. 30, Art. VI of the Constitution.
It is also inconsistent with Sec. 1 Rule 45 of the Rules of Court which provides that a
petition for review on certiorari shall apply only to a review of judgements or final orders
of the CA, the SB, the CTA, the RTC or other courts authorized by law.
In the absence of concurrence by the SC, such a law would be unconstitutional.

2018. D. Constitutional. The appointment by the Pres as Deputy Ombudsman of a

lawyer who has been engaged in the practice of law for 5 years -
Under the Constitution OMB - 10 years, Deputy OMB can be any years.

N. Term limits
XI. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
A. General principles
B. Administrative agencies
C. Powers of administrative agencies
1. Rule-making power
a. Kinds of administrative rules and regulations
b. Requisites for validity
2. Adjudicatory power
a. Administrative due process
b. Administrative appeal and review
c. Administrative res judicata
3. Fact-finding, investigative, licensing, and rate-fixing powers

D. Judicial review
1. Doctrine of primary administration jurisdiction
2. Doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies
3. Doctrine of finality of administrative action
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER
2016. A. The completeness test means that the law sets forth the policy (objetive) to
be executed, carried out or implemented by the delegate.
The sufficient standard test means the law lays down adequate guidelines or
limitations to map out the boundaries of the authority of the delegate and prevent the
delegate from running riot.
The standard must specify the limits of the authority of the delegate, announce the
legislative policy and identify the condition under which it is to be implemented.

B. The assailed portion of the PD 910 does not satisfy the tests.
The phrase “and for such other purposes as may be hereafter directed by the Pres”
give the Pres unbridled discretion to determine the purpose for which the funds will be
used. An infrastructure is any basic facility needed by society. The power to determine
what kind of infrastructure to prioritize and fund is a power to determine the purpose of
the appropriation and is an undue delegation of the power to appropriate - power of
Congress. Belgica v Ochoa

The assailed provision does not fall under the principle of ejusdem generis.
First, the phrase “ energy resource development and exploitation programs and projects
of the government states a singular and general class.
Second, it exhausts the class it represents.

EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

2015. The motion by the DENR to dismiss the case for ABC’s failure to exhaust
administrative remedies should be set aside.
The rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies applies only to decisions of
administrative agencies made in the exercise of their quasi-judicial powers.
Hence, where what is assailed is the validity or constitutionality of a rule or regulation
issued by the administrative agency in the performance of its quasi-legislative function,
the regular courts have jurisdiction to pass upon the same.
DOCTRINE OF QUALIFIED POLITICAL AGENCY
2015. The contention of the BOD is proper.
Under the DQPA or alter ego principle, all executive and administrative org are adjuncts
of the Exec Dept, the heads of the various exec, and ,except in all cases where the
Chief Executive is required by the Constitution or law to act in person or the exigencies
of the situation demand that he acts personally, the multifarious executive and
administrative functions of the Chief Executive are performed by and through the
executive depts and the acts of the Secretaries of Executive depts when performed and
promulgated in the regular course of business or unless disapproved or reprobated by
the Chief Exec, are presumptively the acts of the Chief Executive.

Under our governmental set-up, corporations owned or controlled by the government..

Partake of the nature of government bureaus or offices, which are administratively
supervised by whose compensation and rank shall be that of the head of an Exec
Dept and who shall be responsible to the Pres of the Ph under whose control his
functions shall be exercised.
Through the Sec of Finance, any act of the BOD shall be subject to the constitutional
power of control by the Pres over all exec depts, bureaus and offices.

XII. ELECTION LAW

COMELEC
JURISDICTION

2018. Anselmo is correct.

The rule is every quasi-judicial matter must first be tackled by a division subject to
appeal by way of a MR to the COMELEC en banc.
The SC has held that cancellation on the basis of perpetual disqualification is a matter
that can be taken judicial notice of. When it cancels a COC on that ground, it is acting in
performance of an administrative function and, therefore, the rule in Art. IX, Sec. 3
does not apply.

REMEDIES

2015. The two remedies available to prevent a candidate from running in an electoral
race are under Sec. 68 Petition for Disqualification and 78 Petition for Cancellation
of COC of the OEC.

Sec. 68 OEC, the candidate who is disqualified based on the grounds under Sec. 68,
i.e. prohibited acts of candidates, and the fact of a candidate’s permanent residency
in another country when that fact affects the residency requirement of a candidate,
is merely prohibited to continue as a candidate.

On the other hand, Sec. 78, OEC, provides that a candidate whose certificate is
cancelled or denied due course based on a statement of a material representation in
the said COC that is false under Art. 78, is not treated as a candidate at all, as if he/she
never filed a COC.

CITIZENSHIP
2018. Agripina is eligible to run as a member of the Congress.
Repatriation results in the recovery of a person’s original nationality.
This means that a naturalized Filipino who lost his citizenship will be restored to his prior
status as a Filipino citizen. If she were originally a natural-born before she lost her Ph
citizenship, she would be restored to her former status as a natural-born Filipino.

RA 9225 makes distinction between those NB Filipino who became foreign citizens
before and after the effectivity of RA 9225. For those who were naturalized in a foreign
country, they shall be deemed to have reacquired their Ph citizenship which was lost
pursuant to CA 63. In the case of those who became foreign citizens after RA 9225 took
effect, they shall retain Ph citizenship despite having acquired foreign citizenship,
provided they take the oath of allegiance under the new law.

Considering that petitioner was a naturalized Canadian citizen prior to the effectiveness
of RA 9225, she belongs to the first category of natural-born Filipino who lost their Ph
citizenship by naturalization in a foreign country, under the first paragraph of Sec. 3.
As the new law allows dual citizenship, she was able to reacquire her Ph citizenship by
taking the required oath of allegiance.

2018. A. The sole act of using a foreign passport does not divest Anacleto of his Filipino
citizenship which he acquired by repatriation. By representing himself as a Spanish
citizen, however, Anacleto voluntarily and effectively reverted to his earlier status as a
dual citizen. Such reversion was not retroactive, it took place the instant Anacleto
represented himself as a Spanish citizen by using his Spanish passport.
He is, thus, disqualified for being a dual citizen, and his COC should be cancelled.

Note: The use of foreign passport amounts to a recantation of the Oath of Renunciation
required to qualify one to run for an elective position.

2014. Rosebud remained a NB Filipino citizen even if under the laws of Frozen, she
became a citizen of it because of her marriage to Rockcold.
Under Sec. 4 Art. IV of the Constitution, she retained her Ph citizenship.
Rosebud cannot seek elective office.
Under Sec. 5 of RA 9225, even those who retained their Ph citizenship by birth and
acquired foreign citizenship by virtue of marriage to a foreign spouse are required to
renounce their foreign citizenship.

2016. A. The reacquisition of the Ph citizenship by Onofre did not automatically make
his American wife, Salvacion, a Filipino citizen. Nowhere does RA 9225 provide that the
foreign wife of a former Filipino citizen who reacquired his Filipino citizenship will
automatically become a Filipino citizen. Robert who is 16 years old, and Marie, who is
14 years old, also became Filipino citizens. The unmarried children below 18 years of
age, of those who reacquire Ph citizenship are also deemed citizens of the Ph.

B. The lawyer of Congressman Profundo can ask for the cancellation of the COC on the
ground that he did not execute an affidavit renouncing his American citizenship as
required by Se. 5 of RA 9225 and he lacked 1 year residence in the Ph as required by
Sec. 6 Art VI of the Constitution.

THREE-TERM LIMIT
2018. My advice is for him not to run for SP member, because doing so violates the limit
of three consecutive terms upon local elective officials.
The SC has held that the three-term limit applies notwithstanding any reappointment,
renaming, or reclassification of any LGU.
The clear intent of the framers of the Constitution was to limit the term to three
consecutive elections to the same position.

2016. A. In computing the three-term limit, only the term for which the local official was
elected should be considered. The second sentence of Sec. 8, Art. X of the
Constitution states that the voluntary renunciation shall not be considered as
interruption of the continuity of the service for the full term for which he was elected.

B. A mayor who served three consecutive terms and did not seek a fourth term but ran
and won in the recall election can serve. Because the recall election was not an
immediate re-election.

C. If the municipality in which a mayor served for three consecutive terms was
converted to a city, he cannot run as city mayor in the first election. For purposes of
applying the three-term limit, the office of the municipal mayor should not be considered
as different from that of the city mayor.

D. The temporary inability of an elective official to exercise his functions due to

preventive suspension is not an interruption of his term, because it did not involve loss
of title to the office.

E. If a candidate was proclaimed for three consecutive terms but did not serve it in full
because of loss in an election protest he is not disqualified.

2008. I will advise Abdul that he can no longer run for Vice-Governor in the forthcoming
May 2010 election because there is no interruption of service of his 2004-2007 term. He
is considered to have already served and thereof it is counted in the consecutiveness of
his term of office.

SUCCESSION

2018. B. The rule on succession would not apply if the permanent vacancy was
caused by one whose certificate of candidacy was void ab initio. Specifically with
respect to dual citizens, their COC are void ab initio, because they possess a
substantive disqualifying circumstance existing prior to the filing of their COC.
Legally, they should not even be considered candidates. The votes cast for them should
be considered stray and should not be counted.

In cases of vacancies caused by those with void ab initio COC, the person legally
entitled to the vacant position would be the candidate who garnered the next highest
number of votes among those eligible.
Here, it was Arnaldo.
2015. Vice Mayor Umaasa has the right to occupy the position of Mayor. This was
settled when the SC upheld that the disqualification of Bal created a situation of a
permanent vacancy in the xxx
ELECTION PROTEST

2009. Xxx

2010. The candidate who received the highest number of votes in the recall will succeed
Governor Diy.

Yes, because recall election is an interruption of the consecutiveness of the term of

office, it cannot be counted. A recall election is a mid-way election and the term is not
completed when one is conducted. The third term of Governor Diy should not be
included in computing the three-term limit.

Governor Diy cannot refuse to run in the recall election. He was automatically
considered as a duly registered candidate.

2008. If Benito is affiliated with a political party, the vacancy in the SP shall be filled
by a nomination and certificate of membership of the appointee from the highest
official of the political party. Must be filled with someone who belongs to the political
party to maintain the party representation as willed by the people in the election.

2. If Benito is not affiliated with a political party, the vacancy shall be filled by the Pres
through the executive secretary.

COMELEC AS A BODY

2010. It is the Commission on elections en banc which should decide the petition. Since
it involves the exercise of the administrative powers of the COMELEC. Sec 3 Art 9-C
is not applicable.

The petition should be denied . Under Sec. 80 of the OEC, to be liable for premature
campaigning he must be a candidate. Unless he filed his COC, he is not a candidate.

In quo warranto in elective office, the issue is the ineligibility of the elected candidate.
If he is ineligible, the candidate who got the second highest number of votes can be
proclaimed elected. A voter may file a petition for quo warranto against an elected
candidate. The petition should be filed within 10 days after the proclamation of the
elected candidate.

In quo warranto in appointive office, the issue is the legality of the appointment. The
court will decide who between the parties has the legal title to the office.

GRANT OF PARDON TO ELECTION OFFENSES

2010. Mayor Galicia can run again for an elective office but not immediately.
Under Sec. 40 of the LGC, he can run for an elective national office after the expiration
of 5 years from his service of sentence. The pardon granted to him is invalid. The
offense involved a violation of the OEC and the pardon was granted without the
favorable recommendation of the COMELEC.

A. Suffrage
1. Qualification and disqualification of voters
2. Registration and deactivation of voters
3. Inclusion and exclusion proceedings
4. Local and overseas absentee voting
5. Detainee voting
B. Political parties
1. Jurisdiction of the Commission on Elections over political parties
2. Registration of political parties
C. Candidacy
1. Qualifications and disqualifications of candidates
2. Filing of certificates of candidacy
a. Effect of filing
2019. B.12. Election Law - Elective and Appointive Office - Filing COC
A. No. If the person is holding an elective office, he shall not be considered ipso
facto resigned from his office upon the filing of his COC for the same or any
other elected office or position, and can still continue to hold the office.
In fine, an elected official may run for another position without forfeiting his seat.
B. The effect is that he shall be considered ipso facto resigned from his office and
must vacate the same at the start of the day of the filing of his COC.

b. Substitution and withdrawal of candidates

c. Nuisance candidates
d. Effect of disqualification

D. Campaign
1. Premature campaigning
2. Prohibited contributions
3. Lawful and prohibited election propaganda
4. Limitations on expenses
5. Statement of contributions and expenses
E. Board of Election Inspectors and Board of Canvassers.
1. Composition
2. Powers

F. Remedies
1. Petition to deny due course to or cancel certificate of candidacy
2. Petition for disqualification
3. Failure of election; call for special election
4. Pre-proclamation controversy
5. Election protest
2019. B.19. Election- Art. IV - Citizenship - Before proclamation - COC HRET - After
proclamation contest in COMELEC

A. In general, natural-born citizens are those who are citizens of the Philippines
from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Ph
citizenship. As an exception, those born before January 17, 1973 of Fil mothers
 who elect Ph citizenship upon reaching the age of majority are also natural-born
citizens although they perform a certain act to perfect their Ph citizenship.
On the other hand, naturalized citizens have undergone naturalization procedure
in accordance with law. Simply put, all naturalized citizens have performed a
certain act to acquire or perfect their Ph citizenships, while some natural -born
citizens have and some have not. Art. IV Sec. 2

B. No, candidate X is not qualified. Under the Constitution, no person shall be a

Member of the HOR unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Ph. Art. IV Sec. 2
Candidate X is a naturalized Filipino.

C. First, an election protest or even a quo warranto can be filed only after
proclamation, within 10 days therefrom, in the given set of facts, it was filed
before proclamation.
Second, ineligibility such as in citizenship is not a proper ground for an election
contest. It is a ground for a petition for QW or a petition for the denial of due
course to or cancellation of COC.

In the given facts, it states that the ground used for the election protest was
because Candidate is not a natural-born Filipino citizen.
Lastly, since the issue involves eligibility of a candidate and the case was filed
before proclamation, the case must be referred to a petition for the denial of due
course to or cancellation of COC.

However, this is filed within 5 days from the last day of filing of COC, but not later
than 25 days from the time of filing of the COC subject of the petition.

Here, it appears it is filed way after the prescribed period or after the election but
before proclamation.

If the case is an election protest filed within 10 days from proclamation then there
will be no issue and the COMELEC retains jurisdiction until it decides the case.
But if the case filed was for the denial of due course to or cancellation of COC,
proclamation would ipso facto jure divest the COMELEC of its jurisdiction in favor
of the HRET provided the winner, aside from proclamation, has taken the proper
oath, and assumed the office.
Otherwise the COMELEC may still continue in hearing and deciding the case.

B.20. Election Law - COC Congress elective office - renunciation citizenship

A. No, H’s filing of a COC is not sufficient to renounce foreign citizenship.
While the SC has previously declared that the filing by a person with dual
citizenship of a COC is already considered a renunciation of foreign citizenship,
such ruling was already adjudged superseded by the enactment of RA 9225,
AUgust 2003, which provides for the additional condition of a personal and sworn
written renunciation of foreign citizenship of those who desire to run for elective
public office in the Ph.

B. Yes, assuming H is a dual citizen because his parents are Filipino citizens and
he was born in US, the filing of a COC is sufficient to renounce his foreign
citizenship.
 H’s dual citizenship is from birth without performing another act such as swearing
allegiance thereto to be naturalized. Xxx born under jus soli

The SC has held that a dual citizen from birth seeking public office in the Ph does
not need to execute a PSR of foreign citizenship.
His COC which states that he renounces any and all foreign citizenships suffices.

6. Quo warranto

XIII. LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

ARTICLE X. LOCAL GOVERNMENT

CREATION, DIVISION, MERGING, ABOLITION OR BOUNDARY ALTERATION OF

LGU

2016. Gov Yuri is correct. All the registered voters of the Province of Laguna should be
included in the plebiscite. The conversion of the City of Malumanay into a highly
urbanized city will adversely affect the Province of Laguna and its residents. The
territory of the Province of Laguna will be reduced. Its share in the IRA will be reduced,
because the population and land area are included as basis for determining its share.
Once the City of Malumanay becomes a highly urbanized city, the Province of Laguna
will no longer share in the taxes collected by the City of Malumanay.
The City of Malumanay will be under the supervision of the Pres instead of the Province
of Laguna.
Decisions of the City of Malumanay in administrative cases involving barangay officials
will no longer be appealable to the SP.
The registered voters of the City of Malumanay will no longer be entitled to vote for
provincial officials.
To limit the plebiscite to the voters of the City of Malumanay would nullify the principle of
majority rule.

2015. No, Piolo Cruz’s claim is incorrect.

While the Constitution and the LGC expressly require a plebiscite to carry out any
CDMAA of the boundary of a LGU, no plebiscite requirement exists under the
apportionment or reapportionment provision.
Here, it merely increased in its representation in the HOR.
There was no CDMAA of a LGU that took place. RA 1234 did not bring about any
change in the CIty of Pangarap’s territory, population and income classification.
Hence, no plebiscite is required.

INTERNAL ALLOTMENT FUND

2007. No, this requirement is not valid.

Under the 1987 Constitution, it is provided that LGU shall have a just share, as
determined by law, in the national taxes which shall be automatically released to
them.
The SC has held that a basic feature of local fiscal autonomy is the automatic release
of the shares of LGUs in the national internal revenue.
The LGC specifies further that the release shall be made directly to the LGU concerned
within 5 days after every quarter of the year and shall not be subject to any lien or
holdback that may be imposed by the national government for whatever purposes.

ORDINANCE VALIDITY
2009. The LGU can exercise the power of eminent domain only pursuant to an
ordinance passed by the legislative body of a municipality that is subject to review by
the SP.
The review by the SP is only to determine WON the ordinance is beyond the power
conferred upon the SB of the municipality.
The SP will declare the ordinance invalid if it goes beyond the power granted to it.
The power of eminent domain is granted to the Municipality and it is within their
competence to determine the necessity to expropriate private property for public
purpose. This determination is not within the review powers of the SP.
Hence, the disapproval of the ordinance is incorrect.

Autonomous Regions and their relation to the National Government Public corporations
Totality of the relation of the corporation to the State
Public corporation - governmental functions; State’s agency or instrumentality
1. Concept; distinguished from Government-Owned or Controlled Corporations
Any agency organized as a S or NS corp, vested with functions relating to public needs,
whether governmental or proprietary in nature, and owned by the Govt directly or
through its instrumentalities either wholly, or, where applicable as in the case of stock
corp, to the extent of at least 51% of its capital stock.
2. Classifications
a. Quasi-corporations
b. Municipal corporations
1. Elements
11. Nature and functions
111. Requisites for creation, conversion, division, merger or dissolution

Principles of local autonomy

Powers of local government units
1. General welfare clause - two branches; gen legislative power; police power proper
2. Eminent domain
3. Taxing power
State supremacy over local govts
4. Closure and opening of roads
5. Legislative power
a. Requisites for valid ordinance

2019. A.9 Art. 10 - Local Government - Curfew Ordinance - Ordinance Scrutiny Test
A. No, it does not violate the primary right and duty of parents to rear their children.
While parents have the primary role in child rearing, it should be stressed that when
actions concerning the child have a relation to the public welfare or the well being of
the child the state may act to promote these legitimate interests.
Thus, in cases in which harm to the physical or mental health of the child or to public
safety, peace, order, or welfare is demonstrated, these legitimate state interests
may override the parents’ qualified right to control the upbringing of their
children.
As parens patriae, the State has the inherent right and duty to aid parents in the
moral development of their children.

B. No, it does not infringe the minor’s fundamental rights.

The ordinance has passed the 2 prongs of the strict scrutiny test:
1. The ordinance is necessary to achieve a compelling state interest, that is to
promote juvenile safety and prevent juvenile crime in the concerned locality; and
2. The least restrictive means to protect such interest or the means chosen is
narrowly tailored to accomplish the interest. That is, the ordinance provides for
adequate exceptions that enable minors to freely exercise their fundamental
rights during the prescribed curfew hours, and therefore, narrowly drawn to
achieve the State’s purpose.

b. Local initiative and referendum

6. Ultra vires acts
7. Corporate powers
8. Liability of local government units
9. Settlement of boundary disputes
10. Local officials
a. Vacancies and succession
b. Discipline
i. Elective officials
(a) Grounds
(b) Jurisdiction
( c) Preventive suspension
(d) Removal
(e) Administrative appeal
(f) Doctrine of condonation
ii. Appointive officials
iii. Recall
iv. Term Limits

B.11. Art. 10 - LGC - Election Law - 3 year term - COMELEC election contest R, P or
City - RTC - Municipal Officers

A. The term of office of both Governor and Mayor is three (3) years and for not more
than three (3) terms in the same position. Sec. 43, LGC
B. No. It is the COMELEC which has jurisdiction over election contests for any
regional, provincial or city official. Sec. 250, OEC
C. No. It is the RTC which has jurisdiction over election contests for municipal
officials. Sec. 251, OEC

XIV. NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY

A. Exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources
B. Franchises, authorities, and certificates for public utilities
C. Acquisition, ownership, and transfer of public and private lands
D. Practice of professions
E. Organization and regulation of private and public corporations
F. Monopolies, restraint of trade, and unfair competition

XV. SOCIAL JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS

A. Concept of social justice

B. Economic, social, and cultural rights
C. Commission on Human Rights
1. Powers
2. Composition and qualification of members

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

A. Academic freedom
ARTICLE XIV: EDUCATION, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, ARTS

EDUCATION: ACADEMIC FREEDOM

2013. I shall argue that under Art. 14 Sec. 5 of the Constitution, the educational
institution enjoys academic freedom. Academic freedom includes its rights to prescribe
academic standards, policies and qualifications for the admission of a student.

2008. The law is unconstitutional because creating occupation against the will of the
student in making a living is a form of involuntary servitude, not constitutionally
encouraged. The Constitution provides that every citizen has the right to select a
profession or a course of study, subject to a fair, reasonable and equitable admission
and academic requirements.
Although the freedom to choose a profession can be regulated, the limitation should not
be oppressive, unreasonable and unfair so as to restrict the freedom of choice. It is not
for the State to decide what a student would take up in college. But if it were for national
security in order to defend the State then a compulsory rendition of military service may
be made through a law.

XVII. PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

2019. A.1. PIL
A. Jus cogens
Jus cogens is a peremptory (absolute) norm of general international law accepted
and recognized by the international community as a whole as a norm from which no
derogation is permitted and which can be modified only by a subsequent norm of
general international law having the same character.

B. Principle of double criminality

Under the principle of double criminality rule, the extraditable offense must be
criminal under the laws of both the requesting and the requested states. This simply
means that the requested state comes under no obligation to surrender the person if
its laws do not regard the conduct covered by the request for extradition as criminal.

C. Act of State doctrine

Under this doctrine, courts of one country will not sit in judgment on the acts of the
government of another in due deference to the independence of sovereignty of
every sovereign state.

A. Concepts
B. Relationship between international and Philippine domestic law
C. Sources of international law
1. Article 13 8, International Court of Justice Statute
2. Effect of United Nations Declarations, Security Council Resolutions
3. Effect of actions of organs of international organizations created by treaty

D. Subjects of international law

1. States
2. International organizations
3. Individuals
4. Others
E. Jurisdiction of states
1. Basis of jurisdiction
a. Territoriality principle
b. Nationality principle and statelessness
c. Protective principle
d. Universality principle
e. Passive personality principle
2. Exemptions from jurisdiction
a. Act of State doctrine
b. International organizations and their officers
DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY
2018. B. The claim of diplomatic immunity is improper.
Courts cannot blindly adhere to and take on its face the communication from the DFA
that Aristotle is covered by an immunity. The DFA’s determination that a certain person
is covered by immunity is only preliminary and has no binding effect on courts.
Besides, slandering a person cannot possibly be covered by immunity agreement
because our laws do not allow the commission of a crime, such as defamation, under
the guise of official duty. Under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, a
diplomatic agent enjoys immunity from criminal jurisdiction of the receiving state except
in the case of an action relating to any professional or commercial activity exercised by
the diplomatic agents outside his official functions in the receiving state. The
commission of a crime is not part of official duty.

2017. A. As a GR, he is not a subject to arrest.

Being an ambassador of a foreign state, he is immune from arrest and exempted from
criminal prosecution by virtue of their diplomatic immunity, which is also absolute in
nature. Through their diplomatic immunity, they are exempted from criminal
prosecutions except when the very serious crime relates to crimes against inter’l
law.

B. In principle of specialty, a person extradited to the requesting state may be

tried and punished only for the offense for which extradition had been sought
and granted.
 On the other hand, under the principle of dual criminality, the crime subject of
request for extradition must be punishable in both the requesting state and the
requested state.

C. Yes, the agreement entered into by the Pres is an exec agreement which needs
no concurrence of the Senate, not a treaty or IE as provided in Sec. 21, Art. VII
of the Constitution.
2014. Xxx p 265

F. Diplomatic and consular law

RIGHT OF LEGATION AKA RIGHT OF DIPLOMATIC INTERCOURSE

2017. The right of legation is the right accorded to a State to be represented by an

ambassador or diplomatic agent in another State.
Right of legation, also known as the right of diplomatic intercourse refers to the right
of the State to send and receive diplomatic missions, which enables States to carry
on friendly intercourse. It is not a natural or inherent right, but exists only by common
consent.
No legal liability is incurred by the State for refusing to send or receive diplomatic
representatives. Governed by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.

The exercise of the right of legation is one of the most effective ways of facilitating and
promoting intercourse among nations. Through the active right of sending diplomatic
representatives and the passive right of receiving them, States are now able to deal
more directly and closely with each other in the improvement of their mutual
intercourse.

No, Malaysia cannot insist as it is not a natural right or inherent right. The right of
legation is purely consensual. The Ph should give its consent. No legal liability is
incurred by refusing to send or to receive a diplomatic representative.

G. Nationality and statelessness

H. General principles of treaty law

TREATY

2017. A. State A cannot unilaterally withdraw from its treaty obligations under the
principle of pacta sunt servanda upon which signatory States who entered in treaty
must comply with its obligation in GF
However, in invoking the principle of rebus sic stantibus, State A can unilaterally
withdraw from its treaty obligation with State B, on the ground that in such withdrawal
from the treaty, State A is protecting its existence from harm.

B. Pacta Sunt Servanda as generally accepted principle of intl law, requires

compliance of treaty obligations of signatory states in GF irrespective of constraints in
its enforcement.
On the other hand, rebus sic stantibus demands the unitary withdrawal or
severance in the enforcement of state’s treaty obligations, when impossibility to
comply intervenes. Under this principle of international law, if the change in
fundamental circumstance affects a signatory state, and to comply with the treaty
provisions would seriously jeopardize its own existence, a withdrawal is allowed
because its fundamental right to exist is stronger than its duty to comply with the
treaty.

C. Yes, State A and B who are both signatories to the Mutual Defense Treaty must
comply with their treaty agreements as it is a norm in intl law applying the principle of
pacta sunt servanda.
State B is also correct in invoking the principle of rebus sic stantibus in his relp with
State A.
The principle of rebus sic stantibus can be invoked by a signatory state has treaty when
there is a vital change in the fundamental circs, and said change and cir will affect the
signatory state that for it to continue to comply with his treaty obligation would seriously
jeopardize its own existence. Also the change in the fundamental circs has not been
foreseen by State B during the time it entered into a treaty agreement with State A.
As to the relations between State B and State C, both as signatories to their trade
treaties must comply with their treaty obligations under the principle of pacta sunt
servanda. However, both states cannot invoke the principle of rebus sic stantibus since
there is no fundamental change of circs present that could affect or jeopardize their
existence as a sovereign state.

I. Doctrine of state responsibility

J. Refugees
2019. A.3. PIL - Refugee definition
Yes, the displaced families may be considered as “refugees” under international law.
Under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, to which the Ph is a
signatory, a refugee includes one who, as a result of events and owing to well-
founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality,
membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, is outside the country of
his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the
protection of that country.

K. Treatment of aliens
1. Extradition
a. Fundamental principles
b. Procedure
c. Distinguished from deportation
L. International human rights law
1. Universal Declaration of Human Rights
2. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
3. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
M. International humanitarian law
1. Categories of armed conflicts
a. International armed conflicts
b. Internal or non-international armed conflict
c. War of national liberation
2. Core international obligations of States
3. Principles of international humanitarian law
a. Treatment of civilians
b. Prisoners of war
 4. Law on neutrality

N. Law of the sea

1. Baselines
2. Archipelagic States
a. Straight archipelagic baselines
b. Archipelagic waters
c. Archipelagic sea lanes passage
d. Regime of islands
3. Internal waters
4. Territorial sea
5. Contiguous zone
6. · Exclusive economic zone
7. Continental shelf
8. International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea

2019. A.2. National Territory - UNCLOS - CZ, EEZ

Under the UNCLOS, the rights of the Ph within the following areas are as follows:
A. Contiguous zone
Within the CZ, the coastal state may exercise control necessary to:
1. Prevent infringement of its customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary
CFIS laws and regulations within its territory or TS; and
2. Punish infringement of the above laws and regulations committed within
its territory or TS. Art. 3 UNCLOS

B. Exclusive economic zone

Within the EEZ, the coastal state has:
1. Sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting, conserving and
managing EE CM the natural resources, whether living or nonliving, of the
waters superjacent to the seabed and of the seabed and its subsoil, and with
regard to other activities for the economic exploitation and exploration of the
zone, such as the production of energy from the water, currents and winds;
2. Jurisdiction as provided for in the relevant provisions of this Convention with
regard to:
I. The establishment and use of artificial islands, installations and structures;
II. Marine scientific research;
III. The protection and preservation of the marine environment; and
IV. Other rights and duties provided for in this Convention. Srt. 56 UNCLOS

ARCHIPELAGIC DOCTRINE
2016. A. By the term “archipelagic doctrine of national territory” means that all islands
and waters of the Ph archipelago are unified in sovereignty, together with “all
territories over which the Ph has sovereignty or jurisdiction.
This archipelagic doctrine, so described under Art. 1 of the Constitution, draws its
rationale from the status of the whole archipelago in sovereignty by which under Part IV
of the UNCLOS the Ph is defined as an Archipelagic State in Art. 46, thus:
a. “Archipelagic state” means a state constituted wholly in one or more archipelagos
and may include other islands;
b. “Archipelago” means a group of islands including parts of islands interconnecting
waters and other natural features which are so closely interrelated that such
 islands, waters and other natural features form an intrinsic geographic, economic
and political entity, or which historically have been regarded as such.
As an archipelagic state, the national territory is implemented by drawing its “straight
archipelagic baselines” pursuant to Art. 47 of the UNCLOS, which prescribed among its
main elements, as follows:
1. By “joining the outermost points of the outermost islands and drying reefs of
the archipelago”, including the main islands and an area in which the ratio of the
area of the water to the land including atolls, is between 1 to 1 and 9 to 1.
2. Mainly, the length of such baselines shall not exceed 100 nautical miles..”
3. The drawing of such baselines shall not depart to any appreciable extent from
the general configuration of the archipelago”.

B. The contention of Prof. Agaton is not correct.

“Regime of islands” is a concept provided in Art. 121 of the UNCLOS.
It is a definition of the island as a “naturally formed area of land, surrounded by water
which is above water at high tide”.
On the other hand, this provision is differentiated from “rocks” which cannot sustain
human habitation of their own. The importance of the difference between a natural
island and rock is that an island is provided with TS, EEZ and CZ.
This is the difference by which RA 9522 introduced into the KIG and separately Panatag
or Scarborough Shoal which is an island.
“Regime of Islands”, has no evidence of acquisition or loss of sovereignty. RA 9255 has
the effect of dividing the area in question into islands and rocks, apparently to make
clear for each maritime zone involved in the definition of island or of rocks.

2015. No, the objection is not tenable. UNCLOS has nothing to do with the redefinition
of our territory. It merely regulates sea-use rights over MZ, CZ, EEZ, CS which it
delimits.
Whether the bodies of water lying landward of the baselines of the Ph are internal
waters or archipelagic waters, the Ph retains jurisdiction over them.

2015. A. Territorial Sea - 12NM from the baseline

B. Contiguous Zone - 24NM from the baseline
C. Exclusive Economic Zone - 200NM from the baseline
D. Continental Shelf - The continental shelf of a coastal State comprises the seabed
and the subsoil of the submarine areas that extend beyond its TS throughout the
natural prolongation of its land territory to the outer edge of the continental margin, or to
a distance of 200NM from the BL from which the breadth of the TS is measured where
the outer edge of the continental margin does not extend up to that distance.

2013. No, the petition is not meritorious.

UNCLOS has nothing to do with the acquisition or loss of territory. It merely regulates
sea-use rights over maritime zones MZ, CZ, EEZ and CS which it delimits.
The KGI and the Scarborough Shoals are located at an appreciable distance from the
nearest shoreline of the Ph archipelago. A straight baseline loped around them from the
nearest baseline will violate Art. 47(3) and 47(2) of the UNCLOS III.
Whether the bodies of water lying landward of the baselines of the Ph are internal
waters or archipelagic waters, the Ph retains jurisdiction over them. Magallona v Ermita
2009. Under Art. 1 of the Constitution, the waters abc the islands of the archipelago
forms the internal waters. Under Art. 49(1) of the UNCLOS, these waters do not form
part of the TS but are described as archipelagic waters.

CONTIGUOUS ZONE VS EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE

2004. CZ is a zone contiguous to the TS and extends up to a 12 NM from the TS and

over which the coastal state may exercise control necessary to prevent infringement of
its customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations within it TS. Art. 33
UNCLOS
On the other hand, the EEZ is a zone extending up to 200NM from the baselines of a
state over which the coastal state has sovereign rights for the purpose of ECM the
natural resources, whether living or nonliving, of the waters superjacent to the seabed
and of the seabed and subsoil, and with regard to other activities for the economic
exploitation and exploration of the zone. Art. 56 and 57 UNCLOS.

0. International environmental law

1. Principle 21 of Stockholm Declaration
2. Precautionary principle

2019. A1. D. Precautionary principle

Under this principle, in order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach
shall be widely applied by the States according to their capabilities. Where there are
threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not
be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent
environmental degradation. Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration

LIST OF RELEVANT LAWS AND TREATIES

I. THE 1987 CONSTITUTION

II. LAWS
Omnibus Election Code of the Philippines
Administrative Code of 1997
The Initiative and Referendum Act
The Ombudsman Act of 1989
Local Government Code of 1'991
Synchronized Elections Law of 1991
Rights of Persons Arrested, Detained or Under Custodial Investigation
Institution of Electoral Reforms
Party-List System Act
Repatriation of Fil Women & of Natural-Born Filipinos Who Lost Their Ph Citizenship
Election Automation Law
Prohibiting Lower Courts from Issuing Temporary Restraining Orders, Preliminary Injunctions or
Preliminary Mandatory Injunctions on Government Infrastructure Projects
Fair Elections Act
The Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003
Citizenship Retention acquisition Act of 2003
An Act Eliminating the Preparatory Recall Assembly as a Mode of Instituting Recall of Elective Local
Government Officials
An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines
An Act to Define the Baselines of the Territorial Sea of the Philippines
Philippine Act on Crimes International Humanitarian Genocide, and Other Crimes Humanity against Law,
Human Rights Victims Reparation and Recognition Act of 2013
Ill. TREATIES
1. Statute of the International Court of Justice, art. 38(l)(a).
2. Charter of the United Nations
3. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
4. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
5. Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations
6. Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the UN
7. Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies
8. Universal Declaration of Human Rights
9. International Covenant on Civil and Political Right
10. International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights
11. Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949
12. 1949 Geneva Conventions (first to fourth)
13. 1977 Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions
14. 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------