POLITICAL LAW

Ø Power of Eminent Domain by the State is equated by the right to Just

Compensation enshrined by the Constitution. Such inherent power is beyond the
power of judicial review by the courts, except if there is a grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack to excess of jurisdiction (Rule 65)

Ø EDSA Lane is a social and supervening factor. The relocation of household along
EDSA was already done when the Congress pronounced that the supervening
factor is already gone – becomes moot and academic.

Ø The exercise of such inherent power is primarily for public use. As long as the
purpose is for public use, the State may expropriate property, however subject to
just compensation.

Ø Motion to Dismiss is not available in Expropriation Proceedings – the only issue

that can be raise is the issue of public use and just compensation.

Ø If the property is no longer intended for public use, the State must reconvey to
the original owner at value at the time when the property took by the State.

Ø Just compensation means Value of the compensation

Ø Entrance to the property characterized by permanence; holds Title & total

Deprivation of beneficial use of the property

Ø There must be an Ordinance authorizing the filing of expropriation of a property

– authority file

Ø Judicial determination of just compensation – Appointment of a Committee to

determine the just value of compensation – aspect of Due Process

Ø The determination made by the Landbank and Department of Agrarian Reform is

considered as initial determination

Ø Due process means opportunity to be heard (Notice of summon, subpoena and

other administrative & judicial process)

Ø No person can be deprived of life, liberty or property without Due Process of Law

Ø Police Power by the Sate – Took a property for the General Welfare of the people

Ø Inherent power of the State – only restrict the use of the property; Inseparable;
For Public Use and intended for Common Good

Ø LGU exercised Police Power to protect the morality of the public; to promote
General Welfare of the people; to promote the Economy; to promote the Health
of the people

Ø Petition for Mandamus – to compel the execution of the ordinance

Ø Senior Citizen Act (includes disabled)– can be claim as tax deduction – exercise
of Police Power to give them protection, promote their welfare and health

Ø Restraint must not result in the total deprivation of enjoyment of the property or
business

Ø Ordinance enacted by LGU in order to promote orderliness

Ø Ordinance enacted by LGU to designate a proper parking are

Ø Power of Taxation by the State – is the power to destroy

Ø Exempt property from taxation – property directly, actually & exclusively devoted
for religious purposes – income incidental to the main purpose is likewise
exempt

Ø Contractual tax exemption will violate Non-impairment of Contract Clause

Ø Citizenship

Ø Jurisprudence: Foundling is presumptively a natural born citizen – a citizen from

birth without performing an act to perfect citizenship

Ø Jurisprudence: Facts – Before filing of certificate of candidacy, the respondent

filed an Application of Repatriation before the DOJ. Before the resolution and at
the time of the filing of the certificate of candidacy, election and proclamation,
the respondent is an American Citizen. However, the effect of the order of
repatriation will retroact from the time of the filing of the certificate of
candidacy.

Ø Grace Poe Case

Ø Foundling is presumed to be a natural born citizen; presumed to have been born

in the Philippines by Filipino parents. The respondent has the burden of proof
that she is indeed a natural born citizen through Circumstantial Evidence: (1)
That she is found in Jaro Iloilo in front of the church; (2) That when she is found,
there was no airport at that time yet, to be born an a foreign parents; (3) That the
overall physical appearance of the respondent is of a Filipina

Ø Citizenship is a qualification to hold Public Office

Ø A naturalized citizen can hold only up to RTC Judge

Ø The use of a foreign passport after repatriation will revert back the status of dual
citizenship, ineligible to run for public office

Ø Filipino married a foreign wife is a case of Derivative Citizenship. The wife will
follow the citizenship of the husband – the Alien Certificate of Registration must
be cancelled before the Phil based Embassy of such alien wife

Ø A 17 years of age return to the Philippines must elect Filipino before the age of
majority

Ø Citizenship cannot be attack collaterally in a disbarment case or criminal case

Ø Citizens of the Philippines categorized in two: Natural born citizen & Naturalized
citizen through the process of Naturalization

Ø Bill of Rights

Ø Rights of the Accused – to Due Process – Opportunity to be heard thru notice or

summons

Ø The accused declared in default is not a violation of due process, since he was
given notice by way of summons

Ø Substantive Due Process – reasonable means employed to protect the rights of

the OFW female workers

Ø Equal Protection Clause

Ø Protection of a class of their own; Equality in the eyes of the law; Belong to a
different category; Protection among the same class
Ø Germane to the purpose of the law; Applicable to present and future condition –
not economic equality; Applicable within the same class i.e Broadcast media vs.
Print media – the former is not a property, the latter considered as property

Ø You cannot make a classification/distinction belonging to the same class

Ø Rights of a person under Custodial Investigation

Ø To be informed of his right: To remain silent and To have a Counsel

Ø May be waive provided the waiver must be in writing and in the presence of a
counsel

Ø Any testimony or admission in violation of the rights is inadmissible in evidence

before a court of competent jurisdiction

Ø Spontaneous and voluntary admission assisted by a counsel is admissible in

evidence, since the person is not yet under custodial investigation

Ø The rights will set-in from the very moment the investigating officer start
soliciting testimony pertaining to the guilt and participation of the accused to the
crime

Ø Bantay Bayan of a Barangay is an auxiliary PNP

Ø Police Line Up – mere pointing of a finger is not part custodial investigation

EXCEPT if the police officer execute inquisitorial process – a follow up inquiry
regarding the participation of that pointed person to the crime

Ø Admission upon presentation to Media accompanied by police officers is

admissible, EXCEPT if the admission is made under intimidation by the police
officers

Ø Voluntary admission during interview before the media while in prison cell is
admissible, UNLESS the admission is made under intimidation

Ø Even if the admission is the only true testimony given by the accused, as long as
there is a violation of the right, the admission cannot be used as evidence before
the court

Ø Prosecutors’ interest in the prosecution of the accused and not on his/her

acquittal

Ø The accused is not assisted by his counsel during confession of his guilt is not
admissible in evidence

Ø Early admission if not in accordance with the Miranda Right Doctrine is

inadmissible

Ø Rights of the accused under Criminal Prosecution

Ø To be informed of the nature and cause of accusation against him

Ø Jurisprudence: (Upon reading to the mute accused of the accusation against

him) Interpretation of a person not really an official interpreter or expert in sign
language is considered as violation of the right to be informed of the nature and
cause of the accusation

Ø Error of Judgment once become Final and Executory, it will be implemented.

Subject to the resort of the accused to the Supreme Court on the ground that
there is a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
Ø Conviction without due process

Ø Right against Self Incrimination

Ø Pertains to testimonial evidence not to physical evidence

Ø Writing involve control of mind, therefore subject of self-incrimination

Ø Use and Proof Immunity Statute – May be granted to the accused. Although the
evidence is pointing to the accused, HOWEVER, such cannot be used in trial
against him. The prosecution must prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Ø Transactional Immunity Statute – May also be granted to the accused. The

intention of the State is not to imprison the accused, BUT rather to determine
who is/are perpetrator/s and their motives thereon.

Ø Immunity from prosecution may be availed of before a complaint can be filed in

court; If the complaint is already filed in court, the accused may be dropped
thereof to utilized as State Witness – subject to State Witness Rule – Least
Guilty

Ø RA 1379 – Forfeiture Law – Unexplained wealth presumed prima facie to have

been unlawfully acquired

Ø If there is no direct evidence to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
ground, circumstantial evidence may be offered or presented.

Ø The elements of the crime must be stated in the complaint, in compliance with
the right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation against him.

Ø In cases under general investigation – as long as a person is not excluded as a

suspected perpetrator of the crime – the right to counsel will not attach yet –
considered as not under custodial investigation.

Ø Right to have a compulsory process to secure the attendance of witness and the
production of evidence in his behalf.

Ø Speedy disposition of cases before judicial and administrative bodies – may be

invoked thru Motion to Dismiss on the ground of right to speedy disposition of
case.

Ø Right to Bail – as a Matter of Right – in accordance of constitutional guarantee

of all person before conviction shall have the right to temporary liberty through
bail or recognizance – as Matter of Discretion – except for crimes punishable by
Reclusion Perpetua when the evidence of guilt is strong.

Ø Petition for Bail should be filed where the case is pending

Ø Constructive Custody – depend on the situation of the accused – petition for bail
should be granted

Ø Motion for Reduction of Bail on the ground of excessive bail

Ø Pending case – liberty of abode or even liberty of travel may be restricted

through Hold Departure Order.

Ø Leave of Court is necessary for instance of travel abroad for medical treatment
(reason: non-availability of facility here in the Phil.) – discretionary to the court

Ø As a Matter of Discretion, the court may grant Petition for Bail based on
 humanitarian reason, like age, health and sickness

Ø As a Matter of Discretion, when a person is a Crime Risk – convicted before for a

crime punishable by 6 years imprisonment – provided the accused is not a
recidivist or quasi-recidivist

Ø Person subject of Extradition Case is not entitled to Bail

Ø No Ex Post Facto Law shall be enacted – the law must be a Penal Statute –
provides for penalty of conviction

Ø Making the act/s illegal when at the time it was committed it was legal;
increases the penalty of an infraction after it has been committed or changes the
rules of evidence for easy conviction.

Ø The law is absolutely prejudicial to the person/accused if it was given retroactive

effect – the crime is punishable by the law at the time it was committed, not by
the later law that prosecutes an innocent person, provides higher penalty or
provides for easy conviction

Ø RA 1379 Forfeiture Act - it follows that that penalty of forfeiture prescribed by

R.A. No. 1379 cannot be applied to acquisitions made prior to its passage
without running afoul of the Constitutional provision condemning ex post facto
laws

Ø Extradition Treaty is not an ex post facto law – it is not a penal statute, since it
does not imposed penalty

Ø Bill of Attainder – penalized a person without the benefit of judicial trial

Ø The repealed RA 1700 - Anti-Submersion Law is declared to be a Bill of Attainder

for penalizing a member of the communist party of the Phil. without judicial trial
– a substantial violation not only by the Constitutional prohibition against
enactment of Bill of Attainder but by the fundamental right of a person to Due
Process of Law.

Ø Right against Double Jeopardy or Res Judicata dressed in prison grey

Ø Acquitted after a full blown trial, can be charged again? No. Double jeopardy will
set in

Ø The case was dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, can be charged again? Yes. Since
no final determination of the case. The remedy of the prosecution is to file with
the court of proper and competent jurisdiction

Ø Requisites: (1) Filed in court of proper and competent jurisdiction; (2) Accused
entered Arraignment and Plea; (3) The case is dismiss without the consent of the
accused

Ø There must be a final determination of the case

Ø Military Courts has no jurisdiction over civilian during martial law, since the
declaration of martial law does carry the suspension of Civil Courts

Ø Municipal Court convicted the accused for 20 years sentence. Later, pardon by
the President – by virtue of the Operative Facts Doctrine, double jeopardy set-in.
The accused cannot be charged again

Ø Plea of Guilty to a Capital Offense – must be unconditional admission of guilt,

subject to inquiry by the court as to the voluntariness of the admission
Ø Absence of plea of the accused will render the order of the court of acquitting
the accused void – Remedy, re-arraignment of the accused

Ø Motion to Dismiss/Quash filed by the accused when granted by the court will not
constitute violation against double jeopardy when a complaint/information for
the same act was filed against him, since the dismissal of the case was with his
consent

Ø If the prosecutor move for the quashal of the complaint or information with the
consent of the accused, the refilling of the same will not constitute double
jeopardy

Ø If the defense counsel move for the quashal of the complaint or information on
the ground of right of the accused to speedy trial, even with the consent of the
accused, will put the accused in double jeopardy if the same case was filed

Ø Ivler Case – Imprudence is the main issue resulting to homicide, physical injuries
and damage to property. The dismissal or conclusion of the case will put the
accused in double jeopardy

Ø Search and Seizure

Ø Exception to procurement of Warrant: (1) Plain View Doctrine – valid intrusion

first then able to see the contraband without making an act to locate it; (2)
Search incidental Lawful Arrest i.e. Illegal Possession of Firearms; (3) Stop and
Frisk – search first before arrest – acting suspiciously – the police officer should
determine the suspicious act – has a reasonable ground to believe based on
circumstantial experience that the person is about to commit an offense

Ø Airport search thru scanners – less physical intrusion – limited privacy

Ø Police and Military Checkpoint – only visual search, EXCEPT over

apprehensiveness – the motor vehicle owner give its consent

Ø Search Warrant can be implemented in a judicial region

Ø Right to Privacy – intrusion to privacy – prove probable cause to stop the

successive filing of a case

Ø Drug testing cannot be implemented if there no connection to the crime

committed

Ø Right to formed Association

Ø Government Employees can formed an organization BUT cannot go to strike or

on mass leave, because it will paralyze the public service

Ø Under exceptional circumstances, government employees can go to strike during

holidays

Ø Liberty of Abode and of Travel

Ø Although prostitutes are considered headaches of the society, they are not
chattels to seclude them in another place, in violation of liberty of abode

Ø Return to one’s country is founded in International Humanitarian Treaty which

the Phil. is a signatory, HOWEVER, if the president prohibited a person from
returning to the country by reason of National Security, the prohibition is valid

Ø Liberty of Abode can be restricted under the Police Power of the State, for the
 general welfare of the people

Ø Freedom of Religion – must be exercise in good faith – Freedom to believe

Ø Test: Clear and Present Danger Rule – the President and his immediate family
will endanger by the public uprising due to sentiments of the people against the
government in the exercise of their freedom of religion

Ø Separation of Church and State

Ø The State cannot intervene in a purely ecclesiastical acts of the church

Ø The State should not support religious group or society

Ø No money of the government should be parted for the support of religious group,
EXCEPT, temporary or incidental used of the government property by a religious
group – all religious society is free to utilize the government property or facility –
Benevolent Neutrality of the State

Ø Jurisprudence: Jehovah witnesses students in not saluting the flag during flag
raising according to their religion was allowed, and justified by their few numbers
in that particular school, so long as they will not disturb the majority

Ø Jurisprudence: Uphold the cohabitation of an employee, single woman with a

married man, because according to their religion and religious elders it was
sanctioned religious belief

Ø Freedom of Expression – not an absolute right – must be exercise in good faith

Ø Censored utterances that will fall under the Clear and Present Danger will be
subject to regulation by the State – the possibility of public uprising

Ø Contempt Based Restriction – prohibited to talk or prevent from talking –

censorship - unconstitutional

Ø Contempt Neutral Restriction – transferred to talk to another place

Ø Freedom of expression vs. Independence of the Judiciary – there is no choice –

there is a clear and present danger that the court will have to prevent with regard
to the utterances of Raul Gonzales – it may trigger public uprising

Ø Balancing of Interest Test – it may involve freedom of expression as against

Property Right i.e. prohibiting a Broadcast Media Company from airing news

Ø Freedom of Information as against National Security of State using the balancing

of interest test

Ø Dangerous Tendency Rule – Libel – will incite the people to commit rebellion
Ø By putting the sticker of a candidate for election in the windshield of his jeepney
will create the impression that the driver support the said candidate

Ø Power of Congress
Ø National Patrimony – all lands of public domain are owned by the State
Ø Classified into: Agricultural lands; Timber or Forest lands; Mineral lands
Ø Alienable land of public domain shall be limited to agricultural lands
Ø Citizens may lease 500 hectares and may acquire 12 hectares by purchase,
homestead or grant
Ø Private corporations may lease 1,000 hectares for a period of 25 years + 25
years

Ø Alien cannot owned private land in the Phil., except in cases of intestate
succession

Ø Natural born Filipino citizen who is naturalized American citizen may acquire
land in the Phil. subject to limitation

Ø When they bought the property they are Filipino citizen, then later becomes
naturalized. The registration of the same served as confirmation of the imperfect
title of the land

Ø After 30 years, an alienable land of public domain becomes private land, capable
of registration to private persons

Ø Filipino married a foreigner – circumventing the prohibition against foreigner in

acquiring private land in the Phil. by registering the land in the name of the
Filipino wife

Ø The constitutional prohibition is to preserve and conserve our national patrimony

for the benefit of the Filipino people

Ø Former natural born Filipino citizen may acquire 3 hectares agricultural land in
urban area and 5 hectares in rural area

Ø Jurisprudence: A Chinese national become a Filipino citizen, then acquired land

and sold to a national born Filipino – considered the sale valid to uphold national
patrimony

Ø Control by the State of a Public Utility Corporation – majority of (capital) shares

of stock with voting rights belong to the Filipino citizen (60% - 40%)

Ø Ownership of Educational Institution – should be 100% owned by Filipino citizen

Ø Ownership in Advertising Company – should be 70% owned by Filipino
Ø Manila Hotel – considered part of national patrimony – Filipino first policy
should be implemented (60%-40%) – Article 12 Section 10 of the 1987
Constitution, which heavily favors Filipino businessmen over foreign investors
with respect to the grant of rights, privileges, and concessions covering the
national economy and patrimony.

Ø 8 subjects of Political Law: (1) Political Law – deals with Fundamental Principles
and structure of the Government; (2) Constitutional Law – deals with Bill of
Rights and Power of the State; (3) Ombudsman; (4) Election Law; (5) Public
Corporation; (6) Local Government Unit; (7) Public International Law; (8) Public
Officers

Ø Constitutional Supremacy – being the supreme or paramount law of the land, it’s
provision are deemed written in every law or contract, otherwise it must be
declared null and void.

Ø 2 kinds provision of the Constitution: Self-executing provisions and Non

self-executing provisions

Ø Self-executing – no need for an enabling acts of the Legislature i.e. Article 3 Bill
of Rights

Ø Non self-executing – needs an enabling acts of the Legislature i.e. Article 2

 Declaration of Principles and State Policies; Article 12 National Economy and
Patrimony

Ø Unless otherwise provided, provisions of a law enacted by the Congress are

presumed to be self-executing

Ø Article 17 Amendments or Revisions – at present we are a unitary form of gov’t –

proposed to be a federal form of gov’t

Ø Amendments deals with piece meal change; Revisions deals with overhaul of the
Constitution

Ø Quantity Test – how many provisions affected – to determine whether there is

an amendment or revision

Ø Quality Test – determine the effect of the change from unitary to federalism –
the union of Executive and Legislative

Ø Stages of Amendment or Revision: Proposal and Ratification

Ø Proposal – (1) Congress acting as Constituent Assembly may directly propose –
needs 3/4 votes of the Congress – HOWEVER, problem may arise on how do
they meet and vote, as a whole or each house?; (2) Constitutional Convention –
directly called by the Congress – needs 2/3 votes of all its members or a
majority vote of all its members may submit to the electorate the calling of such
convention – Con-Con is a body separate from Congress itself, whose delegates
are directly elected by the electorate of their respective legislative district – such
proposal is costly; (3) People’s Initiative – Article 17 Section 2 – through petition
at least 12% of the total number of registered voters (every Legislative District
must be represented by at least 3% of the registered voters therein) -
Jurisprudence: RA 6735 Initiative and Referendum Act pertains only to the
amendment of the Constitution

Ø RA 6735 – (1) Initiative dealing with the Constitution, Implementing Rules of

Article 17 Section 2; (2) Initiative dealing with the statute; and (3) Initiative
dealing with local legislation

Ø Ratification – through Plebiscite – Majority Vote of the People

Ø Article 1 National Territory – Philippine Archipelago and all other territory over
which the Phil. has sovereignty or jurisdiction

Ø Spratly Islands or the Kalayaan Group of Island located in West Phil. Sea is
beyond the 200 nautical miles from baseline of Phil. Exclusive Economic Zone –
since the discovery of the island, Congress enacted a law creating the
Municipality of Kalayaan, regular election of LGU were held up to present

Ø Treaty of Paris – Spanish Government ceded territories to America – that was

the Phil. Archipelago

Ø The waters around, between and connecting the islands of the Archipelago,
regardless of their breadth and dimensions forms part of the internal waters of
the Phil. – adherence to Archipelagic Doctrine – forms part of the land domain
of the State, not by maritime domain

Ø In relation to Public International Law

Ø Components of a Territory: (1) Terrestrial or Land Domain; (2) Fluvial or Maritime
Domain; and (3) Aerial Domain
Ø Ports, canals, rivers inside the archipelago considered part of land domain of the
State

Ø Innocent Passage can be invoke only over maritime domain, never in aerial
domain of a particular State

Ø Land Domain
Ø Modes of Acquiring Territory: (1) Discovery and occupation of a territory which is
Terra Nullius; (2) Cession; (3) Prescription; and (4) Accretion

Ø Terra Nullius Territory – Doctrine of Effective Occupation – mere discovery grant

inchoate right only to the discoverer. Effective occupation is necessary i.e
Spratly Islands

Ø Cession – happens through a Treaty – a derivative mode of acquiring territory

Ø Regimes in Maritime Domain: (1) Territorial Sea; (2) Contiguous Zone; and (3)
Exclusive Economic Zone or Continental Shelf

Ø Territorial Sea – 12 nautical miles from the baseline – State has full Sovereignty
over the waters

Ø Contiguous Zone – 24 nautical miles from the baseline – State has jurisdiction
over custom, fiscal, immigration and sanitary rules

Ø Exclusive Economic Zone or Continental Shelf – 200 nautical miles from the
baseline – Sovereign Right – State has exclusive right to exploit the Seabed,
Subsoil and other Submarine Areas – resources over living and non-living

Ø High Seas – beyond the 200 nautical miles EEZ – Res Communes – Regime of
Freedom of the High Seas – Form part of the common heritage of all mankind –
not subject for occupation by any State – Freedom of Navigation – the most
continuous and expeditious passage over the open sea

Ø Fundamental Freedom over: (1) Navigation or flight; (2) Fishing; (3) Mining; (4)
Laying down of underwater cable; and (5) Scientific research

Ø Jurisdiction over a vessel navigating on high seas – Flag State – Nationality of

the vessel can be determine on the registration thereof

Ø Exceptions: (1) Pirate Ship – enemies of mankind – any State may assume
jurisdiction; (2) The vessel engaged in slave trade; (3) The vessel has no flag,
false flag or refuse to show its flag when required to do so; (4) Unauthorized
broadcast against another State; (5) Under the doctrine of Hot Pursuit

Ø Hot Pursuit over the high seas vs. Arrest in Hot Pursuit – the subject of the
former is a vessel, the latter is a person

Ø How it will happen (hot pursuit over the high seas) – Foreign vessel enter the
territorial sea of a State (i.e. Contiguous Zone), there is reason to believe that
such vessel committed violation of the maritime law

Ø Scarborough Shoal. Other names: Scarborough Reef, Bajo de Masinloc,

Democracy Reef, Huangyan Dao, Minzhu Jiao, Panatag Shoal and Panacot Shoal
– located 198km or 106.91 nautical mile west of Subic Bay; 220km or 118.79
nautical mile east of Palauig, Zambales

Ø Aerial Domain – State has exclusive sovereignty

Ø No right of innocent passage recognized, EXCEPT through a Treaty
Ø Passage is innocent if no harmful done or violation committed during the
passage

Ø Outer Space – Res Communes – common heritage of all mankind

Ø RA 9522 New Baseline Law of Archipelagic State – as far as International Law is
concern, such law is a notice to the whole world that the Phil. is a Baseline
Archipelagic State. Therefore, other States must recognized and respect such
law

Ø Sovereign Equality of all State – all State are sovereign equal

Ø Article 16 Section 3 – State Immunity from suit
Ø Can be sue, provided the State waive its right expressly or impliedly
Ø Express Waiver – through General Law or Special Law – only Congress through
enactment of a law may validly waive the Immunity of State from suit

Ø A mere lawyer may not validly waive Immunity of State from suit
Ø Act No. 3083 – money claim arising from a contract with the government must
file a claim first with the Commission on Audit before suing the State

Ø Implied Waiver – (1) State itself commences an action against a private person
– open for counterclaim – such private person must answer with counterclaim;
(2) State enter into a contract with a private person – Conditions: (a) Enters in its
sovereign or governmental capacity – no implied waiver – cannot be sued; (b)
Enters in its proprietary capacity – there is an implied waiver – can be sued

Ø Jurisprudence: it involves the installation of US Military Base in Subic Zambales.

The contract entered into with a private company is a sovereign or governmental
function exempting the State from suit. As a matter of security, the defense of
the territory is the most important power of a State in its highest order

Ø Suability vs. Liability – the former is a matter of immunity of the State from suit,
the latter is a matter of applicability of the law

Ø The suability of the State extends only up to the rendition of judgment, another
waiver is needed for the execution of the same (execution means the fruit of
litigation)

Ø The remedy of the litigant is to ask Congress to appropriate an amount to satisfy

the judgment in his favor

Ø In case of adverse action by the Congress, the applicant may compel the
Congress thru Mandamus. Since the government must be the first one to obey
the judgment which attained finality – by virtue of the finality of the ruling, the
discretionary duty of the Congress converted to ministerial duty – now covered
already by Mandamus

Ø Generally, only ministerial duty can be compelled by Mandamus. However, when

the ruling of the court against the government attains finality, it is converted to
ministerial duty that can be the subject of Mandamus

Ø Funds of the University of the Philippines (UP) is public in character – used for
the purpose of their creation – for the attainment of their purpose. Such cannot
be the subject of writ of execution
Ø Suability does not mean liability
Ø Public Officers in the performance of their official duty – can invoke State
Immunity from suit, since Public Officers considered as agents of the State,
EXCEPT, Unlawful or Injurious Acts in the performance of official duty

Ø Mendiola Case – Initially lawful acts – but later becomes unlawful – can be sued
in his personal capacity – considered not in his official capacity although the
acts committed are in the course of official function or during occupation as
public official

Ø Jurisprudence (Tubbataha Reef Case) – Under Customary International Law,

foreign vessel and embassy considered extension of their territory – Lack of
jurisdiction can be invoke on the ground of Equality of Sovereignty – it will be a
case of State vs. State - State cannot sue another State

Ø Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA Treaty) – applies only to the waiver of

jurisdiction in relation to the criminal acts committed by American soldier while
in the territory of the Phil.

Ø Fundamental Principles
Ø Article 2 Section 1 – Philippines is a Democratic and Republican State
Ø Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from
them

Ø In relation to Article 11 Section 1 – Accountability of Public Officers – Public

Office is a Public Trust

Ø Characteristics of Public Office in a Republican form of Gov’t: (1) Not a

privileged; (2) Not inherited; (3) Outside the commerce of men – cannot be the
subject of a valid contract; (4) Not a property – not protected by Due Process
Clause

Ø Abolition of Office vs. Removal of an Officer – the former, office is abolish along
with the officer, for the latter, the officer is remove from office for just cause and
with due process

Ø Article 11 Section 2 – Impeachment – Jurisprudence: Public Officials covered by

impeachment is exclusive (President, Vice President, Members of the Supreme
Court, Members of Civil Service Commission, Members of COMELEC, Members
of COA and the Ombudsman); Grounds: Culpable violation of the Constitution;
Treason; Bribery; Graft and Corruption; Other high crimes; and Betrayal of Public
Trust
Ø Former President Estrada and former Chief Justice Coruna both are impeached
Ø Article 11 Section 3 – Articles of Impeachment – Initiated by the House of the
Representatives and heard by the Senate – the latter act as Judges

Ø Article 2 Section 2 in relation to Article 6 Section 23 – Philippines renounces war

as an instrument of National Policy, and the latter, the power of Congress to
declare the existence of war – 2/3 votes of each house – in a joint session –
voting separately

Ø Rights of a State: (1) Sovereignty/Independence ; (2) Jurisdiction; (3)

Existence/Self Defense; (4) Equality
Ø Phil. adopts the generally accepted principles of International Law – Doctrine of
Incorporation – no need of enabling law – automatic incorporation; vs. Doctrine
of Transformation – need an enabling law to adopt the international
Ø The principle of Pacta Sunt Servanda – a treaty must be observed in Good Faith
Ø Right to Self Determination – considered as generally accepted principles of
international – Internal: Peoples pursuit of his own political, economic, social,
culture development within the framework of an existing State; External:
Assertion of a right to unilateral cessation and independence those under
colonial or foreign rule

Ø Application of International Human Rights in relation to Gender Identification –

Ang Ladlad Case – does not constitute binding obligation
Ø Jurisprudence: National Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS Act) in
relation to Article 2 Section 16 – right of the people to a balanced and healthful
ecology – Opposa vs. Factoran, minor parties represented by their parents

Ø Article 12 Section 2 – Regalian Doctrine

Ø Qualified Political Agency or Alter Ego Doctrine – cannot be invoked if the
subject matter of the agreement is the exploration of National Resources or
Patrimony of the State

Ø Article 12 Section 2 Par. 4: (1) The president shall personally enter into the
agreement; (2) The agreement must be in accordance with the general terms and
conditions provided by law; a nd (3) The president shall notify the Congress
within 30 days from execution

Ø National Patrimony – Heritage – National Resources and Cultural Resources

Ø Jurisprudence: Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) – harmful to environment
– ground: Article 2 Section 16. Writ of Kalikasan cannot be issued by the court,
since the field testing is finish, the issue is already moot and academic

Ø Hot Tub Hearing – both parties should produce expert witness – expert
testimony

Ø Precautionary Principle – Better be safe than sorry

Ø Freedom of Religion
Ø Separation of Power in relation to Checks and Balances – to prevent
concentration of power

Ø Permissible Delegation: P-People’s Plebiscite, E-Executive Power of the

President, T-Tariff, A-Administrative Agency, L-Local Government

Ø Delegation to Executive Branch

Ø Article 6 Section 23 Par. 2 – There must be a law authorizing the President to
exercise Emergency Power

Ø Requisites: (1) There must be a war or national emergency; (2) The grant of
power must be for a limited period of time; (3) The power must be subject to
restrictions/limitations as the Congress may provide; (4) Pursuant to a declared
National Policy

Ø A mere resolution from the Congress will suffice to withdraw the power granted
 to the President

Ø Delegation to Administrative Agency

Ø Quasi-legislative Power; Rule Making Power; Power of Subordinate Legislation –
delegated by the Congress – to promulgate administrative relation –
implementation of the rules and regulation

Ø Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of Local Government Code –

Implemented by the Oversight Committee of the Department of the Interior and
Local Government (DILG)

Ø Delegation to Local Government

Ø Article 10 Section – the territorial and political subdivisions of the Republic of
the Philippines are the provinces, cities, municipalities and barangays

Ø LGU has no inherent power, since they are merely created by Congress – powers
are delegated and implied power from the power so delegated

Ø Test of Valid Delegation: (1) Completeness Test – must be complete in essential

term- nothing left but to implement the law; (2) Sufficient Standards Test – as
long as there are standards to follow for the implementation of the law

Ø The purpose of the test is to avoid undue delegation of power

Ø Jurisprudence: Pork Barrel System – Lump Sum Discretionary Fund – Priority
Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) – a Congressional Pork Barrel

Ø Sources of PDAF: (1) Malampaya Fund – earnings from Malampaya Project

located in Northern Palawan; (2) Presidential Social Fund – earnings from
gambling regulated by PAGCOR. The Malampaya Fund is for energy related
projects and such other purposes. The Presidential Social Fund is for priority
infrastructure projects

Ø Per Senator allocated 200M PDAF and per Representative allocated 70M PDAF.
They will identify projects on their respective legislative district – discretionary in
nature

Ø SC declared PDAF unconstitutional for the ff reasons: (1) Violates the Principle
of Separation of Power – Congress as a Legislative Brach may only enact laws
and has no power to implement it, since that belong to the Executive Branch; (2)
Violates the Undue Delegation of Legislative Power – the determination of the
project that will covered by PDAF is a matter of legislative power that only
Congress as a body can exercise, the implementation of PDAF cannot be
delegated to its members without violating the Undue Delegation of Legislative
Power Principle; (3) Denies the Item Veto Power of the President – Article 6
Section 27 Par. 2 – since PDAF is an appropriation bill , it must be itemized for
the easy exercise of Item Veto Power of the President. In this case, PDAF is
passed on in its general term; (4) Impaired Public Accountability – the duty of the
Congress after enactment is to monitor the implementation of thereof. BUT how
can it monitor if the one tasked to oversee the implementation is the one who
implement the law; (5) Subverted Local Autonomy – it patronized favored
politics

Ø General Veto – the President may sign or veto the entire bill; Item Veto – the
President may veto any particular item or items in an appropriation, revenue
regulation and tariff bill, the veto will not affect the item or items of which he will
 not object

Ø Article 6 Section 29 Par. 2 – No public money or property shall be appropriated

for the use, benefit or support of any sect or church

Ø Article 6 Section 25 Par. 5 – Power of Augmentation by: President; Senate

President; Speaker of the House of the Representatives; Supreme Court Chief
Justice; and Heads of Constitutional Commissions. (1) There must be a law
authorizing to exercise such power; (2) The fund to be used is from the savings
in other items of their respective appropriation of their respective offices; (3) No
cross boarder transfer of fund i.e. fund of executive transfer to judiciary

Ø Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) Case – decided by Associate Justice

Lucas Bersamin – there was a violation of Separation of Power, the Executive
Department converted the unappropriated funds into savings, in a way
appropriated the fund balance to their department without the approval of the
Congress – only Congress can appropriate fund – in violation further of Article 6
Section 29 Par. 3 – Special fund balance shall be transferred to the General
Funds of the Government

Ø DAP declared unconstitutional by SC, HOWEVER, by applying

Ø Doctrine of Operative Fact – it recognizes the existence of the law prior to the
decision, but nullify such law, HOWEVER, sustain the effects

Ø ***