CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REHASH

1. CONDONATION DOCTRINE

·       The Supreme Court has clarified that the doctrine of condonation can no longer be
used by elected public officials as a defense if they have been re-elected on or after
_April 12, 2016_, following its abandonment in Carpio- Morales.

·       The doctrine of condonation first enunciated in the 1959 En Banc ruling in Pascual v.
Provincial Board of Nueva Ecija and reiterated in Aguinaldo v. Santos, hence also
known as Aguinaldo doctrine, states that an elected public official _cannot be removed_
for ____administrative misconduct_ committed during a _prior term_, since his re-
election to office operates as a condonation of the officer's previous misconduct to the
extent of cutting off the right to remove him therefor.

·       This doctrine of forgiveness or condonation cannot, however, apply to _criminal

acts_which the re-elected official may have committed during his previous term. The
Court also clarified that the condonation doctrine would not apply to _appointive
official__ since, as to them, there is _no sovereign will to disenfranchise__.

·       It bears noting that the condonation doctrine was abandoned in Carpio-Morales

primarily on the grounds that there was _no legal authority to sustain the condonation_
doctrine in this jurisdiction, and for being contrary to the present Constitution's mandate
of holding all _public officers accountable_ to the people at all times. However, Carpio-
Morales was also clear that the abandonment of the condonation doctrine shall be
"prospective_ in application for the reason that judicial decisions applying or interpreting
the laws or the Constitution, until reversed, shall form part of the legal system of the
Philippines."

The condonation doctrine covers re-election through regular and recall elections.

·       It is noteworthy that the rationale behind the doctrine of condonation speaks of "_re-
election_" without specifying the type of elections conducted, thereby, signifying that the
pivotal consideration in the application of the doctrine is the electorate's act of electing
again an erring public official. Thus, the Court applies by analogy the well-established
legal maxim "ubi lex non distinguit, nec nos distinguere debemus." When the law, a
case law in this instance, does not distinguish, neither should we distinguish.
Accordingly, that the manner of re-election was through a regular or recall elections is
beside the point for the doctrine of condonation to apply. There should be no distinction
as to the manner of re-election in the application of the said doctrine where none is
indicated.

2. Who are citizens of the Philippines under the 1987 Constitution?

Article IV Sec. 1
The following are citizens of the Philippines:

[1] Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the _adoption of the 1987
Constitution__;
[2] Those whose _fathers and mothers_ are citizens of the Philippines;
[3] Those born before _January 17, 1973__, of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine
citizenship upon reaching the age of majority; and
[4] Those who are _naturalized_ in accordance with law.

3. Who are natural-born citizens of the Philppines?

Section 2. Natural-born citizens are those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth _without
having to perform any act to acquire their citizenship__. Those who elect Philippine citizenship
in accordance with paragraph (3), Section 1 hereof shall be deemed natural-born citizens.

4. Can a dual-citizen run for election?

Yes, a dual-citizen may run for election provided he will make a _personal sworn statement
renouncing his foreign citizenship_at the time of the filing of the Certificate of Candidacy.
Section 5 of RA 9225 provides that those who shall retain or reacquire Philippine citizenship
under this law shall enjoy full civil and political rights, with those seeking elective public office
required to make a personal and sworn renunciation of foreign citizenship at the time of the filing
of the COC.
 
In the Arnado v. Comelec case, which the high court decided on Aug. 18, the high tribunal ruled
that a person with dual citizenship may run for public office in the Philippines provided that they
meet the qualifications set by the Constitution and existing laws, and make a personal and
sworn renunciation of foreign citizenship at the time of the filing of the COC.

 
5. Second Placer Rule

The _Rule on Succession_ under Section 44 of RA 7160, would not apply if the permanent vacancy
56

was caused by one whose _COC is void_. In case of vacancies caused by those with void ab initio
COCs, the person legally entitled to the vacant position would be the candidate who garnered the
next highest number of votes among those eligible. Halili vs. COMELEC, G.R. No.  231643, Jan 15,
2019

6. Quinto vs. Comelec

 If the person is holding an elective office_, he shall not be considered _ipso facto resigned__
from his office upon the _filing of the Certificate of Candidacy_ 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.
 If a person is holding an appointive office_, including active members of the AFP and
employees of the GOCCs, 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.

7. Miranda Rights
With the enactment of RA 7438, police officers face more than 10 years_ of imprisonment if they
fail to read the Miranda Rights to the person being arrested. RA 7438 is an act defining certain
rights of person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation as well as the duties of the
arresting, detaining and investigating officers, and providing penalties for violations thereof.

Article III, Section 12, paragraph 1 of the Constitution provides:

Any person under _investigation_for the commission of an offense shall have the right
to be informed of his right to __remain silent_ and to have _competent and independent
counsel, preferably of his own choice__. If the person _waives_ the services of counsel,
he must be ______________. These rights cannot be waived except in writing_and in
the _presence of a counsel_.

8. Inherent Powers of the State

Definition
1. Police Power. It is the power of the state to _regulate liberty and property_ for the
promotion of the _welfare of the society_.
2. Power of Eminent Domain. It enables the State to __forcibly acquire property_,
upon payment of _just compensation_, for some intended_lawful purpose_.
3. Power of Taxation. It enables the State to _demand_ from the members of society
their __proportionate share of contributions_ in the maintenance of the government.
Similarities of the Three Inherent Powers of the State
1. They are inherent in the State and may be exercised by it without need of express
constitutional grant.
2. They are not only necessary but indispensable. The State cannot continue or be
effective unless it is able to exercise them.
3. They are methods by which the State interferes with private rights.
4. They all presuppose an equivalent compensation for the private rights interfered with.
5. They are exercised primarily by the legislature.
 
Differences of the Three Inherent Powers of the State
POLICE POWER
regulates liberty and property, exercised by govt, property taken is destroyed for being
noxious and intended for noxious purposes, compensation is the altruistic feeling that
he has contributed to the general welfare)
Power of EMINENT DOMAIN
affects property rights only, may be exercised by both the govt and private entities,
property taken is intended for public use, compensation is more concrete, to wit, a full
and fair equivalent of the property expropriated or protection) 
Power of TAXATION
affects property rights only, property taken is intended for public use, exercised by the
govt, compensation is more concrete, a full and fair equivalent of the public
improvements for the taxes paid)
Limitations of These Powers 
 A. The basic limitations of due process and equal protection are found in the following
provisions of our Constitution:
SECTION 1. (1) No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due
process of law, nor any person be denied the equal protection of the laws. (Article III,
Phil. Constitution)
 B. The presumption of libertarian societies is in favor of private rights and against
attempts on the part of the State to interfere with them.
 C. The exercise of these fundamental powers is subject at all times to the limitations
and requirements of the Constitution and may in proper cases be annulled by the courts
of justice.
 
9. Constitutionality of a Law Mandating Vaccination
A law mandating vaccination is constitutional. It is an exercise of the State’s Police
Power and the discharge of the constitutional state policy of protecting and promoting
the people’s right to health_.
Certainly, one’s right to freely choose cannot be exercised in complete and utter
disregard of the rights of others.

The unavoidability of hampering rights to respond to such _indispensable_ need to

_protect the public_ is clear. Nevertheless, citizens are expected to uphold and
participate in the promotion of common good.
Invocation of constitutional rights perceived to be violated by a mandatory inoculation,
such as the right to privacy, should not prevail if it would be detrimental to the common
good. The exercise of a right is not absolute.

10. Most Rev. Pedro D. Arigo, et al v. Scott H. Swift, et al., G. R. No. 206510
On January 15, 2013, the USS Guardian departed Subic Bay for its next port of call in Makassar,
Indonesia. On January 17, 2013 at 2:20 a.m. while transiting the Sulu Sea, the ship ran aground on
the northwest side of South Shoal of the Tubbataha Reefs, about 80 miles east-southeast of
Palawan. No cine was injured in the incident, and there have been no reports of leaking fuel or oil.
Issue: WON the Writ of Kalikasan and demand for compensation for damages caused to our corrals
there, naming the Commander of the US Pacific fleet as respondent prosper?
Held:
The petition will have to be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because of the _violation of supreme
equality between states_as well as the Immunity from Suit__. The suit, in effect, is a suit against the
United States since the USS Guardian, an American naval vessel, is considered an extension of the
territory of the US under customary international law. Besides, the respondent is the Commander of
the American Pacific Fleet. The doctrine of state immunity from suit applies to complaint filed against
public officials in the performance of their duties.
The demand for compensation for damages had been rendered moot and academic in this case
because the US government, as expressed by the US embassy in the Philippines, already signified
its intention to pay damages, the only request, which is a reasonable one, is that a panel of experts
made up scientists be constituted to assess the total damage caused to our corrals because of the
incident.