READINGS NOTES

⮚ Law as defined
o Law in its broadest sense means any rule of action or norm of conduct
applicable to all kinds of action and to all objects of creation. In this sense
therefore, it includes all laws, whether they refer to state law, physical law,
divine law and others.
o Law is a rule of conduct, just and obligatory, promulgated by competent
authority for the common observance and benefit (Sanchez Roman, 23)
▪ Law is a rule of conduct
● Law serves as the guides of an individual in relation to his
fellowmen and to his community.
● It serves as a control to our movements as a citizen
● It not only protects us from others but also others from us.
● Law tells us what we can and cannot do
▪ Law must be just
● “Should run as golden threads through society, to the end that
law may approach its supreme ideal which is the sway and
dominance of justice” (Report of the Code Commission, p. 39)
● It should be permanent, strong, cannot be bended by anyone
● Law should stand firm to its ground
● To obtain stability of the social order.
▪ It must be obligatory
● The law must be followed.
● The law maybe harsh, but it is the law
● Ignorantia legis non excusat: ignorance of the law excuses no
one
● It should be enforced lest it will not serve its purpose
▪ Law must be prescribed by legitimate authority
● “Sovereignty resides in the people and all government
authority emanates from them’
● If laws are not prescribed by legitimate authority, the people
could not be expected to observe them
o Section 1, Article 2 of the Philippine Constitution
▪ We people have a high sight on people with
power, therefore if a rule or law is imposed by
them, it is expected to be followed as we all
 know, violation of the law results into
punishment.
● Authority to make the laws conferred upon those duly chosen
by the sovereign will of the people.
▪ Laws must be ordained for the common benefit
● “Salus Populi Est Suprema Lex”— the welfare of the people
shall be the supreme law.
● The purpose of the law is for the common good and observance
● It must be used for the betterment of the people and not be
used for evil acts
o If used in the wrong ways, it is not the law’s fault but
the one who used it in the wrong.
● Law shall not be biased but be equal to all, meaning the law
shall be equally applied to all citizens regardless of their
religion, political persuasion, and status in life.
⮚ Tañada v. Tuvera G.R. No. L-63915 Dec. 29, 1986
o Issue: wherefore, the Court hereby orders respondents to publish in the
Official Gazette all unpublished presidential issuances which are of general
application, and unless so published, they shall have no binding force and
effect.
o Petitioners suggest that there should be no distinction between laws of
general applicability to those that are only implemented to the internal
administration of the government or private sectors. That publication means
publication whether the law must be followed by all or by a select few, and
that the publication should be done in the Official Gazette.
o Solicitor General: unless it is otherwise provided, that the decrees cannot
be published under the Official Gazette if it is stated that it will not be
published there. And since the decision was concurred in only by three
justices and consequently not binding.
o “Otherwise provided” does not mean that the place of publication or
where the decree should be published, it pertains to the date of
effectivity after publication.
▪ The general 15 rule of effectivity after publication will not apply
unless there is a specified or given time when the rule or law shall
take effect.
● i.e.: the Article 2, it did not take effect after 15 days of
publication but as it’s stated, “one year after such
publication”
o Article 3 Bill of Rights Section 6: the right of the people to information
on matters of public concern
o Laws: strictly speaking all laws relate to the people in general albeit there
are some that do not apply to them directly.
▪ To be valid: the law must invariably affect the public interest even if
it might be directly applicable only to one individual, or some of the
people only, and to the public as a whole
▪ In fact, a law without any bearing on the public would invalid as an
intrusion of privacy or as class legislation or as an ultra vires act of
the legislative
● Ultra Vires: beyond the powers
o All statutes, including those of local application and private laws, shall be
published as a condition for their effectivity:
o Interpretative regulations and those merely internal in nature, that is,
regulating only the personnel of the administrative agency and not the
public, need not be published.
o Even the charter of a city must be published even though it only applies to a
portion of national territory and only the inhabitants of that place.
o All presidential decrees must be published, whether it be for the public or
because he/she just wants to do that. (naming a place after someone or
exempting him from anything)
o Instructions for legal documents, case studies, rules in that department,
wearing of uniforms or anything alike does not need to be published.
▪ Municipal ordinances are not covered by this rule but by the Local
Government Code
o Publication must be full or no publication at all since its purpose is to
inform the public of the contents of the law.
o Official Gazette has low readership rate, although with the suggestion
of spreading the law with news, newspapers (of general circulation), and
magazines and such that has high readership rate and comes out
periodically, it is not the kind of publication required or authorized by
the existing law.
▪ Four criteria or qualifications to consider a newspaper of general
circulation:
● Must be published within the court’s jurisdiction
● must be published at regular intervals for disseminating
local news and general information
● has a bona fide subscription list of paying subscribers
 ● it is not devoted to the interest or published for the
entertainment of a particular class, profession, trade,
calling, race or religious denomination (Alvarez v. People G.R.
No. 19259)
o The Court’s function is to merely interpret the law as conceived and
approved by the political departments of the government in accordance with
the prescribed procedure.
o It is in the legislature’s function to repeal or modify that said article.
o The furtive law is like a scabbarded saber that cannot feint parry or cut
unless the naked blade is drawn.
⮚ R.A. 8792- Electronic Act of 2000
⮚ Article 3 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines
o Ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith
▪ Ignorance is a bliss
▪ Not knowing the law does not excuse you from the penalties or
punishments that comes with it
▪ Not knowing the law does not mean you are immune to it
▪ Every citizen of the said country should be informed of its laws, you
can always ask
⮚ Article 2 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines
o Laws shall take effect after 15 days following their completion of their
publication on the Official Gazette, unless it is otherwise provided.
▪ ‘Unless it is otherwise provided’= unless there is a specified date and
time for the law to take effect, it will follow the 15 day rule.

LLP Lesson 1 (Oct. 8, 2021)

INTRO TO LAW AND LEGAL PROFESSION

⮚ Law (Diaz, 2013)

o A rule of conduct formulated and made obligatory by legitimate power of
the state
▪ tells us what we can and cannot o
▪ must be followed for the safety of us and the people around us
▪ Legitimate power of the state: it cannot be formulated by anyone
else
▪ Enactment of laws
● only the congress who has the powers to enact the laws
⮚ 3 Branches of the Govt.
 o Executive Department: enact and implement laws
▪ Conflict: tama ung batas pero mali ung implementation
▪ the law is made and enacted properly, but sometimes, it is the
implementation where the problem arises
o Legislative Department: make the laws
o judiciary Department: Interpret the laws
▪ Conflict: the law is right, but the interpretation can vary from person
to person and so, misunderstanding may arise
⮚ Effectivity of Laws
o New Civil Code Article 2, as amended by EO 200: Laws shall take effect
following their completion on their publication on the Official Gazette, or in
a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines, unless it is otherwise
provided
▪ “Unless it is otherwise provided” refers to the day of effectivity
and not the requirement of the publication itself. The requirement of
publication may not be omitted in any event. this clause does not mean
that the legislator may make the law be effective immediately upon
approval, or any other date without the previous publication
▪ Tanada v. Tuvera, G.R. No. L-63915, Dec. 29, 1986
● a landmark case
● Umali v. Estanislao, G.R. No. 104037, May 29, 1992
o Publication Requirement: Publication is indispensable in every case, but the
legislature may in its discretion provide that the usual 15- day period shall
be shortened or extended
▪ Newspaper of General Circulation: it should also be published there
aside from the Official Gazette
▪ The Official Gazette has low readership, hence, why it needs to be
published in the newspaper
● it became a necessity
▪ Art 3, Sec 6: the right of the people to information on matters of
public concern
o Indispensability of Publication: Laws must be published in full publication or
not publication at all
▪ maxim ignorantia legis non excusat, as it can be used as a defence…
⮚ Effectivity: it depends whether or not it has provided a specific date for its
effectivity
o if date is specified: upon the lapse of the said period following its
completion publication and not before
 o if no date is specified: 15 day period, which may be either be on the 15th
or on the 16th day depending on the language used by the Congress in fixing
the effectivity date of the statute (Rabuya, 2009)
▪ 15th day- “15 days after its publication”
▪ 16th day- “After 15 days following its publication”
o if the law provides for immediate effectivity or upon approval: it is
effective immediately after its complete publication and not after signing by
the President
o if the Law is voluminous: reckoning shall begin from the release of the last
of the series
⮚ Substantial Compliance: relates to the satisfaction of the purpose or the objective
of what is required upon something
o satisfy the basic requirements, it can be not full
o just to inform
⮚ Exceptions to the Publication Requirement:
o Municipal Ordinances (Local Govt. code)
o Rules and regulations which are internal in nature
o Letter of Instruction issued by administrative supervisors on internal rules
and guidelines
o Interpretative regulations regulating only the personeel of administrative
agency
⮚ Administrative Rules and Regulations that require publication:
o the purpose of which is to implement or enforce existing laws pursuant to a
valid Delegation
▪ Consti Law: 3 Inherent Powers of the State
● police power
● power of taxation
● power of eminent domain
o penal in nature
o it diminishes existing rights of certain individuals
⮚ Those who have less in life should have more in law

~~~
Lesson 2 (Oct. 21, 2021)

JURISPRUDENCE THAT TACKLES ABOUT EFFECTIVITY OF LAW

⮚ Honasan, II v. The Panel of Investigating Prosecutors of the DOJ, G.R. No. 159747,
June 15, 2004

o Issue: whether or not the OMB- DOJ Circular No. 95- 001 ineffective
because it was not published
 ▪ DOJ gets their authority from the Circular No. 95- 001 to conduct a
preliminary investigation

▪ The DOJ claims that it has concurrent jurisdiction, invoking an OMB-

DOJ Joint Circular which outlines the authority and responsibilities
among prosecutors of the DOJ and the Office of the Ombudsman in
the conduct of preliminary investigations.

o Is Sen. Honasan wrong? Ruling:

▪ NO. OMB-DOJ Circular No. 95-001 is merely an internal circular

between the two offices which outlines the authority and
responsibilities among prosecutors of the DOJ and of the Office
of the Ombudsman in the conduct of preliminary investigations. It
does not contain any penal provision nor prescribe a mandatory act or
prohibit any under pain of penalty. It does not regulate the conduct
of persons or the public, in general. It need not be published

⮚ Sec 188, Local Govt. Code; Hagonoy v. Municipality, G.R. No. 137621, Feb. 6, 2002

o Issue: Did the Ordinance comply with the rule of publication

▪ Sangguniang Bayan of Hagonoy, Bulacan enacted an ordinance which

increases the stall rentals of the market vendors in Hagonoy.

▪ Art. 3: that the ordinance shall take effect upon the approval

▪ posted from nov. 4 to 25, 1996, petitioners were personally given

copies in 1997 and informed that it shall be enforced in january 1998

o Ruling:

▪ YES. An ordinance which increased the stall rentals of the market

vendors has complied with the publication requirement when the same
was posted in 3 conspicuous places

● Nov 1996

● Nov 1997

● January 1998

▪ Note: Within ten (10) days after their approval, certified true copies
of all provincial, city, and municipal tax ordinances or revenue
measures shall be published in full for three (3) consecutive days in a
newspaper of local circulation: Provided, however, That in provinces,
 cities and municipalities where there are no newspapers of local
circulation, the same may be posted in at least two (2) conspicuous
and publicly accessible places (Sec. 188, Local Government Code).

⮚ Villanueva v. Judicial and Bar Council, G.R. No. 211833, April 7, 2015

o Issue: Did the JBC violate the procedural due process for not publishing the
questioned policy?

▪ long-standing policy of opening the chance for promotion to second-

level courts to those judges who have served in their current
positions for at least 5 years

▪ Judge Villanueva: it is unconstitutional, it violates the procedural due

process for lack of publication

o Ruling:

▪ YES. The petition was dismissed but the SC directed the JBC to
comply with the publication requirement of the assailed policy.
According to SC, it is but a natural consequence that potential
applicants be informed of the requirements to the judicial positions
so that they would be able to prepare for and comply with them

⮚ Garcillano v. The House of Representatives et. al. G.R. No. 170338, Dec. 23, 2008

o Issue: Did the publication of the assailed Rules of Procedure through the
Senate’s website satisfy the due process requirement of law?

▪ without being apprised not only of his rights therein through the
publication of the Senate Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries in
Aid of Legislation

▪ R.A No. 8792: Electronic Commerce Act of 2000, to support the claim
of valid publication through the internet

o Ruling:

▪ No. R.A. 8792 considers an electronic data message or an electronic

document as a functional equivalent of a written document only for
evidentiary purposes. it does not make the internet a medium for
publishing laws, rules or regulations

~~~
LESSON 3

CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES ARTICLE 3

➢ Ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith

○ ignorantia juris non excusat or ignorantia legis neminem excusat
○ This conclusive presumption presupposes that the law has been published.
without such notice and publication, there would be no basis for the
application of the maxim ignorantia legis non excusat (Rabuya, 2009)
➢ Exceptions
○ a mistake upon doubtful or difficult question of law may be the basis of good
faith (NCC, Art. 526 (3)
○ payment by reason of a mistake in the construction or application of a
doubtful or difficult question of law may come within the scope of the
preceding article (NCC, Art. 2155)
○ In order that fraud may make a contract violable, it should be serious and
should not have been employed by both contracting parties. Incidental fraud
only obliges the person employing it to pay damages (NCC, Art. 1344)
➢ Doctrine of Processual Presumption
○ the foreign law is treated as a question of fact to be properly pleaded and
proved as the judger or l;abor arbiter cannot take judicial notice of a forign
law. he is p[resummed to know only domestic of forum law
➢ Mistake of Facts:
○ want of knowledge of some facts or facts consisting or relating to the
subject matter on hand
○ Nature of Mistake of Facts
■ when some facts which really exist are unknown or some fact is
supposed to exist which really does not exist.
○ GOOD FAITH IS AN EXCUSE
➢ Mistake of Law
○ want of knowledge or acquaintance with the laws of the land insofar as they
apply to the act, relation, duty, or matter under consideration
○ Nature of Mistake of Laws
■ occurs when a person having full knowledge of the facts come to an
erroneous conclusion as to its legal effects
○ NOT EXCUSABLE, EVEN IF IN GOOD FAITH

~~~

CHAPTER 1: LAW: IT’S CONCEPTS AND CLASSIFICATION

❖ Definition of Law (Sanchez Roman, 23)
➢ it is a rule of conduct
➢ law must be just
➢ it must be obligatory
➢ laws must be prescribed by legitimate authority
➢ laws must be ordained for the common benefit
❖ Concept of Law
➢ abstract sense
➢ material sense
❖ Division of Law
➢ legal sense
➢ non legal sense
❖ Subject of Law
➢ State of Law
➢ Moral Law
➢ Divine Law
➢ Physical Law
❖ Classification of Law
➢ Natural Law
■ derives its force from authority from God
■ applies to every human being
■ St. Thomas Aquinas
■ man-made laws are based in it
● Physical Law
◆ Universal rule of action that governs the conduct and
movement of things which are non-free and material.
◆ set of rules for inanimate objects
● Moral Law
◆ set of rules which establishes what is right and what is
wrong as dictated by the human conscience and as
inspired by the eternal law.
◆ Conscience
❖ Purpose of Law and Morals
➢ Article 2, Section 6 of the Philippine Constitution
■ “The separation of the church and state shall be inviolable.”
● The govt. Cannot make any laws based on a religion nor
prohibits the church or any religious group from participating
on a political sphere.
 ● This is to be backed up by SECTION 5, Article III of our Bill
of Rights states, “No law shall be made respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof.”
➢ Positive Law
■ positus: laid down
■ human- made laws that oblige or specify an action
● Divine Law:
◆ Divine Positive Law: law given by God to man
➢ e.g.: Ten Commandments, Old and New
Testament
◆ Divine Human POsitive Law: Man-made laws that oblige
or specify an action.
➢ e.g.: Commandments of the Church
● Public Law: issues that involve society as a whole or even state
◆ Constitution Law: the fundamental law of the land which
defines the powers of the govt.
◆ Criminal Law:
◆ Administrative Law: laws governing govt.
administrations as well as determines the competence
of administrative authorities. It also acts as a regulator
on how th functions of the govt. are performed
◆ International Law: a body of rules established by
custom or treaty and recognized by nations as binding
in their relations with one another
● Private Law: concerned with the relationship between
individuals with one another or private relationship between
citizens and companies that are not of public importance
◆ Substantive Private Law: those rules which declared
legal relations of litigants when the courts have been
properly moved to action upon facts duly presented to
them
◆ Procedural or Adjective Private Law: refers to the
means and methods of setting the courts in motion,
making the facts known to them and effectuating their
judgements
 ❖ Sources of Law
➢ Legislation
■ Latin> law: to make
■ Salmond: legislation is the source of law which consists in the
declaration in legal rules by a competent authority
■ Sec, 1 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution
■ Article 6, Section 21 of the Philippine Constitution
➢ Precedent
■ as a rule of law established for the first time by a court for a
particular type of case and thereafter referred to in deciding similar
cases. (Black Law’s Dictionary)
■ STARE DECISIS ET NON QUIETA MOVERE:
● to stand by things decided
● past decisions shall be used to decide the current case with
the same question
■ Persuasive Precedent
● this is where a judge will follow a decision or part of a decision
even though it is not legally binding them
➢ Custom
■ have the force of law only when they are acknowledge and approved
by society through long and uninterrupted usage
■ Requisites
● a custom must be proved as a fact according to the rules of
evidence (Art. 12, NCC)
● the custom must not be contrary to law (Art. 11, NCC)
● there must be a number of repeated acts ans these repeated
acts must have been uniformly performed
● there must be a judicial intention to make a rule of social
conduct
● a custom must be acknowledged and approved by society
through long and uninterrupted usage
➢ Court Decision
■ the official decision of a court finally determining the respective
rights and claims of the parties to a suit

~~~
WORLD’S LEGAL SYSTEM

Legal systems vary from country to country, and sometimes within a single country.
although they develop in different ways, legal systems also have some similarities based on
historically accepted justice ideals

❖ Roman Law
➢ The Evolution of Roman Law
➢ The Founding
➢ The Importance
➢ 3 periods of Rome’s Political History
■ Monarchy
● 753- 509 B.C.
● Abolition of Kingship
■ Republic
● 509- 31 B.C.
● Unification of Italy
■ Empire
● 753- 509 B.C.
● Old Republican Form to Fierce Political Strife
➢ Roman Republic
■ the city of Rome, being a Republic does not guarantee peace. As
kingship ended, injustices arises. When people were separated to two
classes:
● Plebeians (common or usual citizens)
◆ which are barred from office and suffered unjust debt
debt laws and unfair distribution territory
● Patricians (the aristocats or elite citizens)
■ In the early days of the Republic, the power of the government. was
controlled by two patrician magistrates called ‘consuls’ that were
elected for one year.
● Comitia Centuriata
◆ the assembly of the centuries (soldiers), and they
elected magistrates who had imperium powers (consuls
and praetors)
◆ the Comitia Centuriata primary consists of patrician
citizens
■ but later on, the plebeians learn to fight for their rights and equal
privileges.
■ The plebeians were further granted the right to be represented by
new officials, called Tribunes, which had the right to vote on any acts
of any magistrate which was unjust to any citizen.
■ in 450 B.C., the plebeians continued to fight for reforms until they
managed to have an assembly of their own called Concilium Plebis
(meaning Assembly of the people or Plebeian Council)
■ Lex Canuleia: law that allowed plebeians to marry patricians (445
B.C.)
■ and around 367 B.C. Licensian Laws passed. Revised debt laws and
implement land reforms
■ in 350 B.C., the plebeians were admitted to dictatorship and
extraordinary magistracy, whereby supreme power was given to one
man at critical times
■ Comitia Tributa: was an assembly just for plebeians or the ‘tribes’ of
Rome. This plebeian assembly started with minimal power, but its
power grew as the republic evolved and the balance of power shifted
from one group to another.
■ Rome was gradually expanding its power to leadership in the Italian
Peninsula
■ This scenario also marked the unification of Italy
■ Intoxicated by their sudden rise to power, the new generation of
politicians in the Rome Republic departed from the wise policies of
their predecessors
■ The plebeians were oppressed again and deprived of their
landholdings.
■ it led to bitter hostility between the aristocratic few and the poor
segments of society
■ The Rome Republic began to collapse.
■ But, few statesmen tried to save the Roman Republic from vanishing
■ The Gracchih Brothers named Tiberius and Gaius came forward to
the people to propose laws to redistribute the public lands and limit
the corrupt senate’s powers
■ The death of the Gracchi Brothers triggered a revolution and civil
war that ended in the establishment of the Roman Empire
 ■ Other statesmen such as Sulla, Pompey, Cicero, and Caesar also tried
to reorganize the state to save it from ultimate destruction. They
scrapped the old republican framework and remolded the government.
structure into an empire
➢ Roman Empire
■ The Roman revolution ended when Augustus took power. He led
Rome’s transformation from a republic into an empire years after the
assassination of Caesar
■ In the first two centuries of the Roman Empire, there was gradual
peace.
■ But, this century of peace and prosperity ended when Nero, the last
ruler in the line of Augustus, died.
■ Poverty became rampant. The peasantry or workers had been
degraded into serfs or beggars, and the middle class, which once had
been the nation’s backbone, had almost disappeared.
■ The long period of the Roman Empire was divided into two.
● Principate
◆ the emperor’s power is supreme, but it is disguised
under republican forms
● Dominate
◆ The power of the emperor is no longer in disguise. Here,
the emperor is considered as ‘FIRST CITIZEN’
■ When Emperor Diocletian ascended to the throne in 284 A.D., he
introduced significant reforms that changed the Roman Constitution.
● DECREASED SENATE POWER
● WESTERN EMPIRE AND EASTERN EMPIRE
■ The Division in the Roman Empire weakened the whole Empire itself
■ In 330 A.D., Emperor Constantine transferred the capital to
Constantinople, resulting in the gradual disintegration of the Western
Empire that later collapsed with the Teutonic invasion. On the other
hand, the Eastern Empire managed to survive for a long time. it only
fell when Turks captured its capital in 1450 A.D.
➢ Values of Roman Law
■ Roman law is ready for use and able to shed light in the solution of
numerous complex problems which confront the modern civilized
world
 ■ Roman law is simple, clear, brief, and precise
➢ Importance of Roman Law
■ The new civil code is Roman in origin
■ It is a good foundation for law students
■ Modern laws and concerts of civil rights are greatly affected by the
Roman Legal System (European countries and former colonies in Asia,
mostly).
➢ Legal Maxims
■ Ignorantia legis non excusat
● ignorance of the law excuses no one
■ Cessante ratione cessat ipsa lex
● when the reason for the law ceases, the law also ceases to
exist
■ Dura lex sed lex
● the law maybe harsh, but it is the law
■ Patria potesta
● paternal authority
■ Sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas
● the owner of the thing cannot make use thereof in such
manner as to injure the rights of a third person (Art. 431,
NCC)
■ Negotiorum gestio
● unauthorized management
■ Res perit domino
● the thing perishes with the owner
■ Jus utendi
● the right to use
■ Jus possidendi
● the right to possess
■ Jus abutendi
● the right to abuse
■ Jus fruendi
● the right to the fruits
■ Jus disponendi
● the right to dispose
■ Jus vendicandi
 ● the right to recover
■ Caveat employ
● buyers beware
■ Nulla poena sine lege
● there is no crime when there is no law punishing it
■ Salus populi est suprema lex
● the welfare of the people shall be the supreme law
■ Accessorium sequitur principale
● land is always principal
■ Aedificium solo credit
● the building follows the land
■ Solutio indebiti
● unjust enrichment
■ Nullum tempus occurrit regi
● time runs not against the sovereign
❖ Common Law
➢ is law developed by judges, courts, and similar tribunals, stated in decisions
that nominally decide individual cases but that in addition have precedential
effect on future cases
➢ is a body of unwritten law based on legal precedents established by the
courts
➢ also known as case law
➢ Common laws draws from institutionalized opinions and interpretation from
judicial authorities and public juries
➢ Common laws sometimes prove the inspiration for new legislation to be
enacted
❖ Mohammedan Law
➢ derived principally from the Koran and from writings of Islamic jurists
➢ called Shari’ah or Islamic law: it is derived from the Quran, Islam’s holy
book, as well as the Sunnah and Hadith- the deeds and sayings of the
Prophet Muhammad
❖ Talmudic Law
➢ applies in some countries and regions with heavily concentrated Jewish
populations
➢ Major sources of Law:
 ■ Torah (the first books of the Old Testament in the Christian
western tradition)
■ Talmud (a written commentary of valuable opinions about the content
on the written and oral Torahs)
❖ Canon Law
➢ body of laws and regulations made or adopted by ecclessiastical authority
for the government of Christian Communities
❖ Other Legal Systems
➢ Customary Law
■ generally found at the tribal or local level in districts, countries, and
villages, and is a vast set of practices that vary from community to
community
➢ Hybrid Legal Systems
■ mixed legal systems that draw on common law and/ or civil law
traditions, mixed with customary or religious laws
❖ Blending of Legal Systems in the Philippines
➢ The New Civil Code is the combination and the blended version of the three
legal systems in the Philippines. It is Roman in Origin. However, the Filipino
Muslims still practice the procedural laws seeing that it doesn’t have any
conflict to the general laws of the land.

~~~

INTRODUCTION TO LAW

❖ Doctrine of Incorporation
➢ sovereignty— traditionally been deemed absolute and all encompassing on the
domestic level, however subject to restrictions and limitations voluntarily
agreed to by the Philippines; expressly or impliedly
➢ The constitution “adopts the generally accepted principles of international
law as part of the law of the land, and adheres to the policy of peace,
equality, justice, freedom, cooperation and amity, with all nations.”
■ Declaration of Principles and state Policies
➢ international law= automatically part of our own laws
➢ PACTA SUNT SERVANDA
■ Agreement must be kept
 ■ “A treaty engagement is not a mere moral obligation but creates a
legally binding obligation on the parties. A state which has contracted
valid international obligations is bound to make in its legislation such
modifications as may be necessary to ensure the fulfillment of the
obligations undertaken.”
■ treaties really limit or restrict the absoluteness of sovereignty
➢ by their voluntary act, nations may surrender some aspects of their state
power in exchange for greater benefits granted by or derived from a
convention or pact.
■ After all, states, like individuals, live with co-equals, and in pursuit of
mutually coveted objectives and benefits, they also commonly agreed
to limit the exercise of their otherwise absolute rights.
❖ International Law (DEFINED)
➢ Traditional
■ It is a body of rules and principles of action which are binding upon
civilized states in their relations to one another.
● Joaquin G. Bernas (An Introduction to Public International
Law, 2002 ed.)
➢ Modern
■ It is law which deals with the conduct of states and of international
organizations and with their relations inter se, as well as with some of
their relations with persons, whether natural or juridical.
● Joaquin G. Bernas (An Introduction to Public International
Law, 2002 ed.)
❖ Public International Law
➢ This governs the relationships between and among states and also their
relations with international organizations and individual persons.
■ Joaquin G. Bernas (An Introduction to Public International Law, 2002
ed.)
❖ Private international Law
➢ It is really domestic law which deals with cases where foreign law intrudes in
the domestic sphere where there are questions of the applicability of
foreign law or the role of foreign courts
■ Joaquin G. Bernas (An Introduction to Public International Law, 2002
ed.)
❖ Classification of Sources of International Law
 ➢ Formal Sources:
■ it refers to the various processes by which rules comes into
existence
➢ Material Sources:
■ it is concerned with the substance and content of the obligation.
Sometimes referred to as the evidence of international law
❖ Sources of International Law
➢ International conventions, whether general or particular, establishing rules
expressly recognized by contesting states;
➢ International custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law;
➢ General principles of law recognized by civilized nations;
➢ Judicial decisions and teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the
various nations, as subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law
❖ Is Equity a Source of Law?
➢ YES
➢ The Permanent Court of Justice had occasion to use equity as a source of
law in one case. Equity, when accepted, is an instrument whereby
conventional or customary law may be supplemented or modified in order
achieve justice
❖ What is Soft Law?
➢ it is an international agreement no concluded as treaty and therefore not
covered by the vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
❖ Municipal Law
➢ product of local custom or of legislation;
➢ regulates relations between individual persons under the state;
➢ law of sovereign over individuals;
❖ International Law
➢ treaties and custom grown among states;
➢ regulates relations between states;
➢ law between sovereign states
❖ Difference between Municipal Law and International Law
➢ municipal law regulates relations between individual persons under the state
whereas international law regulates relations between states. For dualists,
when international law and municipal conflict.
❖ Conflict between International Law and Domestic Law
➢ International Rule
 ■ before an international tribunal, a state may not plead its own law as
an excuse for failure to comply with international law
■ Exception: Art. 46 of Vienna Convention= in cases where the
constitutional violation was manifest and concerns a rule of its
internal law of fundamental importance
■ Manifest= objectively evident to any State conducting itself in the
matter in accordance with normal practice and in good faith
➢ Municipal Rule
■ domestic courts are bound to apply the local law
■ should a conflict arise between an international agreement and the
Constitution, the treaty would not be valid and operative as domestic
law
■ Art. 8, Sec. 5 of the Constitution explicitly recognizes the power of
the Supreme Court to declare a treaty unconstitutional; however,
even if declared unconstitutional, the treaty will not lose its
character as an international law
❖ Which law prevails in a domestic court?
➢ Municipal Law for the domestic courts are bound to apply the local law
❖ Which law prevails in an international tribunal?
➢ International Law
➢ it is an established principle that, before an international tribunal, a state
may not plead its own law as an excuse for failure to comply with
international law
❖ Should a conflict arise between an international agreement and the Philippine
Constitution, which should prevail?
➢ Philippine Constitution. The treaty would not be valid and operative as
domestic law

~~~

READINGS NOTES

BELGICA V. OCHOA |G.R. NO. 208566|19 NOVEMBER 2013| PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

❖ DECISION;
➢ “Experience is the oracle of truth.” — James Madison
■ Before the court are consolidated petitioners taken under Rule 65 of
the Rules of Court, all of which assail the constitutionality of the
 Pork Barrel System. Due to the complexity of the subject matter,
the court shall heretofore discuss the system’s conceptual
underpinnings before detailing the particulars of the constitutional
challenge.
❖ FACTS:
➢ Pork Barrel: General Concept:
■ American- English origin, Pork Barrel is a political parlance that
refers to an appropriation of govt. spending meant for localized
projects and secured solely or primarily to bring money to a
representative district.
■ LUMP-SUM:
● a single payment made at a particular time; unlike small number
of payments
➢ History of Congressional Pork Barrel in the Philippines:
■ Earliest form of Pork Barrel System: Act 3044, Sect. 3: Public Works
of 1922;
● Under this provision, any transfer or utilization of unexpended
portions of any item of appropriation is subjected to the
approval of a joint committee elected by the Senate and the
House of Representatives.
■ In 1950, the Members of the Congress, being the representatives of
the people, became part of the approval.
■ In 1960, PB was reportedly ceased due to a stalemate between the
Senate and the House of the Representatives.
■ Congressional Pork Barrel was discontinued in 1972, as Martial Law
was declared.
■ 1982: Batsang Pambansa introduced a new item in the General
Appropriations Act (GAA) called the “Support for Local Development
Projects” (SLDP)
● SLDP started giving lump-sum allocations to individual
legislators
● SLDP also covers not only the public work projects but also
the hard-projects and also soft- projects
◆ they are the non- public work projects: education,
health, livelihood, etc.
■ After EDSA in 1986, Congressional Pork Barrel was revived in the
forms of “Mindanao Development Fund” and “Visayas Development
Fund”
■ In 1990, pork barrel was renamed into “Countrywide Development
Fund” (CDF) which covers small local infrastructure and other priority
community projects.
● CDF, by the approval of the President, released directly to the
implementing agencies but “subject to the submission of the
required list of projects and activities.
● Senators and Representatives could identify any kind of
project, from hard- projects (roads, bridges and buildings) to
soft-projects (textbooks, medicines and scholarships)
■ In 1993, CDF was altered to be made upon the submission of the list
of projects and activities identified by individual legislators.
● also the first time the Vice- President was given an allocation.
■ In 1994- 1996, GAAs retained the same provisions but except the
Department of Budget and Maintenance (DBM) who needs to submit
reports to the Senate Committee on Finance and the House
Committee on Appropriations
■ Congressional Insertions (CI): another form of the Congressional Pork
Barrel
● Examples of CIs: DepEd School Building Fund, the
Congressional Initiative Allocations, the Public Works Fund,
the El Nino Fund, and the Poverty Alleviation Fund
◆ the allocations for the School Building Fund,
particularly— shall be made upon prior consultation
with the representative of the legislative district
concerned.
■ 1999, CDF was removed and replaced with 3 CI’s:
● Food Security Program Fund
● Lingap Para Sa Mahihirap Program Fund
● Rural/Urban Development Infrastructure Fund
■ 2000, PDAF appeared in GAA with the requirement of prior
consultation with the respective Representative of the District.
PDAF allowed expense of the funds in exception of personal services
and other personal benefits
 ■ 2005: PDAF shall be used to fund priority programs under the ten
point agenda of the national govt. and shall be released directly to
the implementing agencies.
● the concept of menu program
■ During arroyo’s administration, NGOs were allowed in formal
participation
■ the PDAF articles were silet from 2002 to 2010 with respect to the
specific amounts allocated for the individual legislators
■ 2011: PDAF included an express statement on lump-sum amounts
allocated for individual legislators and the Vice President; a provision
realignment of funds was included but with the qualification that it
may be used only once.
■ 2013: PDAF article now allowed LGUs to be identified as implementing
agencies. Legislators were also allowed to identify programs/projects.
Any realignment of PDAF funds were all required to be favorably
endorsed by the House Committee on Appropriations and the Senate
Committee of Finance.
➢ History of the Presidential Pork Barrel in the Philippines
■ Malampaya Funds and the Presidential Social funds were added to the
term PORK BARREL
■ March 22, 1976, late President Ferdinand Marcos created the
MALAMPAYA FUNDS under Sect. 8 of Presidential Decree No. 910.
■ The Presidential Social Fund was created under Section 12, Title
IV84 of PD 1869,85 or the Charter of the Philippine Amusement and
Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR). PD 1869 was similarly issued by
Marcos on July 11, 1983.
➢ Controversies of the Pork Barrel
■ 1996: Romeo Candazo revealed huge sums of money that went to the
pockets of the legislators as kickback
● kickbacks being a Standard Operating Procedure
■ 2004: several concerned citizens sought the nullification of the PDAF
but the petition was dismissed due to lack of evidence.
■ 2013: Commission on Audit released the results of the 3year
investigation covering the misconducts PDAF 2007 to 2009.
■ Whistle-blowers also alleged that at least P900 million from the
Malampaya Funds had gone into a dummy NGO.
❖ ISSUES:
➢ Procedural Issues:
■ (A) whether or not the issues raised in the consolidated petitions
involve an actual and justiciable controversy
■ (B) whether or not the issues raised in the consolidated petitions are
matters of policy not subject to judicial review
■ (C) whether or not petitioners have legal standing to sue
■ (D) whether or not the Court’s Decision in “Philippine Constitution
Association v. Enriquez” (Philconsa) and in “Lawyers Against Monopoly
and Poverty v. Secretary of Budget and Management” (LAMP) bar the
re-litigation of the issue of constitutionality of the “Pork Barrel
System” under the principles of res judicata and stare decisis.
➢ Substantive Issues:
■ whether or not the 2013 PDAF Article and all other Congressional
Pork Barrel Laws similar thereto are unconstitutional considering that
they violate the principles of/ constitutional provisions on
● separation of powers
● non-delegability of legislative power
● checks and balances
● accountability
● political dynasties
● local autonomy
❖ RULINGS:
➢ Procedural Issues:
■ (A) The Court finds that there exists an actual and justiciable
controversy in these cases. The requirement of contrariety of legal
rights is clearly satisfied by the antagonistic positions of the parties
on the constitutionality of the "Pork Barrel System."
● Since the challenged funds are fully operational, there exists
an immediate or threatened injury to petitioners as a result of
an unconstitutional use of these public funds.
● The case is not moot as the proposed reforms on the PDAF
and the abolition thereof does not actually terminate the
controversy on the matter. The President does not have
constitutional authority to nullify or annul the legal existence
of the PDAF.
 ● The “moot and academic principle” cannot stop the Court from
deciding the case considering that: (a) petitioners allege grave
violation of the constitution, (b) the constitutionality of the
pork barrel system presents a situation of exceptional
character and is a matter of paramount public interest, (c)
there is a practical need for a definitive ruling on the system’s
constitutionality to guide the bench, the bar and the public,
and (d) the preparation and passage of the national budget is
an annual occurrence.
■ (B) Political Question Doctrine is Inapplicable
● The intrinsic constitutionality of the “Pork Barrel System” is
not an issue dependent upon the wisdom of the political
branches of the government but rather a legal one which the
Constitution itself has commanded the Court to act upon.
● The 1987 Constitution expanded the concept of judicial power
such that the Supreme Court has the power to determine
whether there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality on the part of the government.
■ (C)Locus Standi = the right to appear on court; a right to be heard.
The petitioners have a legal standing to sue.
● Petitioners have legal standing by virtue of being taxpayers
and citizens of the Philippines.
● As taxpayers, they are bound to suffer from the
unconstitutional usage of public funds.
● As citizens, the issues they have raised are matters of
transcendental importance, of overreaching significance to
society, or of paramount public interest.
■ (D) Res Judicata: a matter that has been adjudicated. Stare Decisis:
to stand by things decided.
● The present case is not barred by the ruling in Philconsa vs.
Enriquez because the Philconsa case was a limited response to
a separation of powers problem, specifically on the propriety
of conferring post-enactment identification authority to
Members of Congress.
 ● This case deals with a more holistic inspection regarding the
CDF and PDAF articles together with the post- enactment
measures, including the realignment and the fund releases.
● The Court observes that the Philconsa ruling was actually
riddled with inherent constitutional inconsistencies which
similarly countervail against a full resort to stare decisis. As
may be deduced from the main conclusions of the case,
Philconsa‘s fundamental premise in allowing Members of
Congress to propose and identify projects would be that the
said identification authority is but an aspect of the power of
appropriation which has been constitutionally lodged in
Congress.
● As for LAMP, suffice it to restate that the said case was
dismissed on a procedural technicality and, hence, has not set
any controlling doctrine susceptible of current application to
the substantive issues in these cases. In fine, stare decisis
would not apply.
➢ Substantive Issues:
■ PORK BARREL SYSTEM
● "collusion between the Legislative and Executive branches of
government to accumulate lump-sum public funds in their
offices with unchecked discretionary powers to determine its
distribution as political largesse."
■ SEPARATION OF POWERS
● To the legislative branch of government, through Congress,164
belongs the power to make laws; to the executive branch of
government, through the President,165 belongs the power to
enforce laws; and to the judicial branch of government,
through the Court,166 belongs the power to interpret laws.
Because the three great powers have been, by constitutional
design, ordained in this respect, "each department of the
government has exclusive cognizance of matters within its
jurisdiction, and is supreme within its own sphere."
● The Court rules in favor of petitioners. As may be observed
from its legal history, the defining feature of all forms of
Congressional Pork Barrel would be the authority of legislators
 to participate in the post-enactment phases of project
implementation.
■ NON- DELEGABILITY OF LEGISLATIVE POWER
● Section 1, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution states that the
legislative power shall be vested in the Congress of the
Philippines which shall consist of a Senate and a House of
Representatives, except to the extent reserved to the people
by the provision on initiative and referendum.
● That the power to appropriate must be exercised only through
legislation is clear from Section 29(1), Article VI of the 1987
Constitution which states that: ― No money shall be paid out
of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made
by law.
● The legislators are individually exercising the power of
appropriation because each of them determines (a) how much
of their PDAF fund would go to and (b) a specific project or
beneficiary that they themselves also determine.
■ CHECK AND BALANCES
● The Court agrees with petitioners.
● Under the 2013 PDAF Article, the amount of ₱24.79 Billion
only appears as a collective allocation limit since the said
amount would be further divided among individual legislators
who would then receive personal lump-sum allocations and
could, after the GAA is passed, effectively appropriate PDAF
funds based on their own discretion.
● Moreover, even without its post-enactment legislative
identification feature, the 2013 PDAF Article would remain
constitutionally flawed since it would then operate as a
prohibited form of lump-sum appropriation above-
characterized.
■ ACCOUNTABILITY
● The Court agrees in part.
● The notion of a public trust connotes accountability, hence,
the various mechanisms in the Constitution which are designed
to exact accountability from public officers.
 ● The Court agrees with petitioners that certain features
embedded in some forms of Congressional Pork Barrel, among
others the 2013 PDAF Article, has an effect on congressional
oversight. The fact that individual legislators are given post-
enactment roles in the implementation of the budget makes it
difficult for them to become disinterested "observers" when
scrutinizing, investigating or monitoring the implementation of
the appropriation law.
● In sum, insofar as its post-enactment features dilute
congressional oversight and violate Section 14, Article VI of
the 1987 Constitution, thus impairing public accountability, the
2013 PDAF Article and other forms of Congressional Pork
Barrel of similar nature are deemed as unconstitutional.
■ POLITICAL DYNASTIES
● Section 26, Article II of the 1987 Constitution, which
provides that the state shall prohibit political dynasties as
may be defined by law, is not a self-executing provision.
● Since there appears to be no standing law which crystallizes
the policy on political dynasties for enforcement, the Court
must defer from ruling on this issue.
■ LOCAL AUTONOMY
● The State‘s policy on local autonomy is principally stated in
Section 25, Article II and Sections 2 and 3, Article X of the
1987 Constitution which read as follows:
◆ Art 2, Sect. 25: The State shall ensure the autonomy
of local governments
◆ Art. 10, Sect 2: The territorial and political
subdivisions shall enjoy local autonomy
● The above-quoted provisions of the Constitution and the LGC
reveal the policy of the State to empower local government
units (LGUs) to develop and ultimately, become self-sustaining
and effective contributors to the national economy.
● In the cases at bar, petitioners contend that the
Congressional Pork Barrel goes against the constitutional
principles on local autonomy since it allows district
representatives, who are national officers, to substitute their
 judgments in utilizing public funds for local development.230
The Court agrees with petitioners.
❖ Thus, insofar as individual legislators are authorized to intervene in purely local
matters and thereby subvert genuine local autonomy, the 2013 PDAF Article as
well as all other similar forms of Congressional Pork Barrel is deemed
unconstitutional.

~~~

CASE DIGEST (Grave Abuse of Discretion: Marcos Case)

OCAMPO v. ENRIQUEZ G.R. NO. 225973 8

❖ FACTS:
➢ On 7 August 2016, National Defense Secretary Delfin N. Lorenzana issued a
Memorandum to the AFP Chief of Staff General Ricardo R. Visaya, regarding
the interment of Marcos at the LNMB, to wit:
➢ Subject:
■ Interment of the late Former President Ferdinand Marcos at LNMB
Reference; Verbal Order of President Rodrigo Duterte on July 11,
2016. In compliance to (sic) the verbal order of the President to
implement his election campaign promise to have the remains of the
late former President Ferdinand E. Marcos be interred at the
Libingan ng mga Bayani, kindly undertake all the necessary planning
and preparations to facilitate the coordination of all agencies
concerned specially the provisions for ceremonial and security
requirements. Coordinate closely with the Marcos family regarding
the date of internment and the transport of the late former
President’s remains from Ilocos Norte to LNMB. The overall OPR for
this activity will [be] the PVAO since the LNMB is under its
supervision and administration. PVAO shall designate the focal person
for this activity who shall be the overall overseer of the event. On 9
August 2016, AFP Rear Admiral Ernesto C. Enriquez issued directives
to the Philippine Army Commanding General commanding it to provide
services, honor and/other courtesies for the late Former President
Ferdinand E. Marcos.
❖ ISSUES:
➢ Procedural Issues:
 ■ Whether President Duterte’s determination to have the remains of
Marcos interred at the LNMB poses a justiciable controversy.
■ Whether petitioners have locus standi
■ Whether petitioners violated the doctrines of exhaustion of
administrative remedies and hierarchy of courts. .
➢ Substantive Issues:
■ Whether the National Defense Secretary and AFP Rear Admiral
committed grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction, when they issued the assailed memorandum and directive
in compliance with verbal order of President Duterte to implement his
election campaign promise to have the remains of Marcos interred at
the LNMB.
■ Whether the issuance and implementation of the assailed
memorandum and directive violate the Constitution, domestic and
international laws.
■ Whether historical facts, laws enacted to recover ill-gotten wealth
from Marcos’s and their cronies, and the pronouncements of the
Court on the Marcos regime have nullified his entitlement as a soldier
and former President to internment at the LNMB.
■ Whether the Marcos family is deemed to have waived the burial of
the remains of former President Marcos at the LNMB after they
entered into an agreement with the Government of the Republic of
the Philippines as to the conditions and procedure by which his
remains shall be brought back to and interred in the Philippines.
❖ RULINGS:
➢ Procedural Issues:
■ (A) NO. The Court agrees with the OSG that President Duterte's
decision to have the remains of Marcos interred at the LNMB
involves a political question that is not a justiciable controversy. In
the exercise of his powers under the Constitution and the Executive
Order (E.O.) No. 292 (otherwise known as the Administrative Code of
1987) to allow the interment of Marcos at the LNMB, which is a land
of the public domain devoted for national military cemetery and
military shrine purposes, President Duterte decided a question of
policy based on his wisdom that it shall promote national healing and
forgiveness. There being no taint of grave abuse in the exercise of
 such discretion, as discussed below, President Duterte's decision on
that political question is outside the ambit of judicial review.
■ (B) NO. Unless a person has sustained or is in imminent danger of
sustaining an injury as a result of an act complained of, such proper
party has no standing.29 Petitioners, who filed their respective
petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, in their capacities
as citizens, human rights violations victims, legislators, members of
the Bar and taxpayers, have no legal standing to file such petitions
because they failed to show that they have suffered or will suffer
direct and personal injury as a result of the interment of Marcos at
the LNMB.
■ (C)YES, Contrary to their claim of lack of plain, speedy, adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law, petitioners should be faulted
for failing to seek reconsideration of the assailed memorandum and
directive before the Secretary of National Defense. The Secretary
of National Defense should be given the opportunity to correct
himself, if warranted, considering that AFP Regulations G 161-375
was issued upon his order. Questions on the implementation and
interpretation thereof demand the exercise of sound administrative
discretion, requiring the special knowledge, experience and services
of his office to determine technical and intricate matters of fact. If
petitioners would still be dissatisfied with the decision of the
Secretary, they could elevate the matter before the Office of the
President which has control and supervision over the Department of
National Defense (DND).
● YES, In the same vein, while direct resort to the Court
through petitions for the extraordinary writs of certiorari,
prohibition and mandamus are allowed under exceptional
cases,45 which are lacking in this case, petitioners cannot
simply brush aside the doctrine of hierarchy of courts that
requires such petitions to be filed first with the proper
Regional Trial Court (RTC). The RTC is not just a trier of
facts, but can also resolve questions of law in the exercise of
its original and concurrent jurisdiction over petitions for
certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, and has the power to
issue restraining order and injunction when proven necessary
➢ Substantive Issues;
■ (A)NO, Consistent with President Duterte's mandate under Sec. 17,
Art. VII of the Constitution, the burial of Marcos at the LNMB does
not contravene R.A. No. 289, R.A. No. 10368, and the international
human rights laws cited by petitioners.
● Petitioners' reliance on Sec. 3(2) of Art. XIV and Sec. 26 of
Art. XVIII of the Constitution is also misplaced. Sec. 3(2) of
Art. XIV refers to the constitutional duty of educational
institutions in teaching the values of patriotism and
nationalism and respect for human rights, while Sec. 26 of Art.
XVIII is a transitory provision on sequestration or freeze
orders in relation to the recovery of Marcos' ill-gotten wealth.
Clearly, with respect to these provisions, there is no direct or
indirect prohibition to Marcos' internment at the LNMB.
■ (B) NO. Consistent with President Duterte's mandate under Sec. 17,
Art. VII of the Constitution, the burial of Marcos at the LNMB does
not contravene R.A. No. 289, R.A. No. 10368, and the international
human rights laws cited by petitioners.
● RA NO. 289: petitioners' repeated reference to a "hero's
burial" and "state honors," without showing proof as to what
kind of burial or honors that will be accorded to the remains
of Marcos, is speculative until the specifics of the interment
have been finalized by public respondents.
● RA NO. 10368: This Court cannot subscribe to petitioners'
logic that the beneficial provisions of R.A. No. 10368 are not
exclusive as it includes the prohibition on Marcos' burial at
the LNMB. It would be undue to extend the law beyond what it
actually contemplates. With its victim-oriented perspective,
our legislators could have easily inserted a provision
specifically proscribing Marcos' internment at the LNMB as a
"reparation" for the HRVVs, but they did not. As it is, the law
is silent and should remain so. This Court cannot read into the
law what is simply not there. It is irregular, if not
unconstitutional, for Us to presume the legislative will by
supplying material details into the law. That would be
tantamount to judicial legislation.
 ● INTERNATIONAL LAWS: We do not think so. The ICCPR,88
as well as the U.N. principles on reparation and to combat
impunity, call for the enactment of legislative measures,
establishment of national programmes, and provision for
administrative and judicial recourse, in accordance with the
country's constitutional processes, that are necessary to give
effect to human rights embodied in treaties, covenants and
other international laws.
■ (C)NO. The "nation's esteem and reverence for her war dead, " as
originally contemplated by President Magsaysay in issuing
Proclamation No. 86, still stands unaffected. That being said, the
interment of Marcos, therefore, does not constitute a violation of
the physical, historical, and cultural integrity of the LNMB as a
national military shrine.
● Likewise, President Duterte's determination to have Marcos'
remains interred at the LNMB was inspired by his desire for
national healing and reconciliation.
■ (D) NO. The presidential power of control over the Executive Branch
of Government is a self-executing provision of the Constitution and
does not require statutory implementation, nor may its exercise be
limited, much less withdrawn, by the legislature. This is why President
Duterte is not bound by the alleged 1992 Agreement between former
President Ramos and the Marcos family to have the remains of
Marcos interred in Batac, Ilocos Norte. As the incumbent President,
he is free to amend, revoke or rescind political agreements entered
into by his predecessors, and to determine policies which he
considers, based on informed judgment and presumed wisdom, will be
most effective in carrying out his mandate.

~~~

INTRODUCTION TO LAW PART 2

THE PHILIPPINE LEGAL SYSTEM

❖ Judicial Power (Lopez v. Roxas G.R. No. L-25716 | 28 July 1966) [Conception, C.J.
{Judicial Power Defined}]
 ➢ is the authority to settle justiciable controversies or disputes involving
rights that are enforceable and demandable before the courts of justice or
the redress of wrongs for violations of such rights. the proper exercise of
said authority requires legislative action:
■ defining such enforceable and demandable rights and/or prescribing
remedies for violations thereof; and
■ determining the court with jurisdiction to hear and decide said
controversies or disputes, in the first instance and/or on appeal .
➢ For this reason, the Constitution ordains that “Congress shall have the power
to define, prescribe, and apportion the jurisdiction of the various courts,”
subject to the limitations set forth in the fundamental law
➢ SECTION 1. ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONSTITUTION vests in the judicial
branch of the govt. not merely some specified or limited judicial power, but
the entirety or ‘all’ of said power, except so much as the Constitution
confers upon some other agency, such as the power to ‘judge all contests
relating to the election, returns and qualifications’ of members of the
Senate and those of the House of Representative, which is vested by the
fundamental law solely in the Senate Electoral Tribunal and the House
Electoral Tribunal, respectively (Article 6. Sect. 11, of the Constitution)
■ The power to judge contests relating to election, returns and
qualifications of any public officer is essentially judicial.
■ it belongs exclusively to the judicial department except only insofar
as the Constitution provides otherwise.
❖ Ineligibility as a Candidate and Nominee for the Position of Chief Justice (Republic
v. Sereno G.R. No. 23748 | 11 May, 2018)
➢ The Court’s supervisory authority over the JBC includes ensuring that the
JBC complies with its own rules, The Court’s supervisory power consists of
seeing to it that the JBC complies with its own rules and procedures.
➢ The SALN requirement is imposed no less than by the Constitution and made
more emphatic by its accompanying laws and its implementing rules and
regulations. In other words, one who fails to file his or her SALN violates
the Constitution and the laws cannot rightfully claim to be a person of
integrity as such an equation is theoretically and practically antithetical.
 ➢
■ filing of SALN is nut just a statutory requirement but also a part of
mandatory conduct
● “Honorable competent and independent Judiciary exists to
administer justice and thus promote the unity of the country,
the stability of government, and the well-being of the people.”
■ Proven integrity= steadfast adherence to moral and ethical principles
➢ failure to file the SALN is clearly a violation of the law.
■ The offense is penal in character and is a clear breach of the ethical
standards set for public officials and employees.
■ failure to do so, the Court may consider him/her disqualified from
holding public office.
❖ Sub Judice Rule (Republic v. Sereno G.R. No. 237428 | 11 May, 2018)
➢ restrits comments and disclosures pertaining to the judicial proceedings in
order to avoid prejudging the issue, influencing the court, or obstructing the
administration of justice. The sub judice rule finds a more austere
application to members of the Bar and the Bench as the strict observance
thereof is mandated by the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Code
of Judicial Conduct.
❖ Ruling of Supreme Court in the Case at BAR (Republic v. Sereno G.R. No. 237428 |
11 May, 2018)
➢ Petition is GRANTED. Respondent Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno is found
DISQUALIFIED from and is hereby adjudged GUILTY of UNLAWFULLY
HOLDING and EXERCISING the OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE.
 accordingly, Respondent Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno is OUSTED and
EXCLUDED therefrom. the position of the Chief Justice of the Supreme
Court is directed to commence the application and nomination process.
Respondent Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno is ordered to SHOW CAUSE within
10 days from receipt hereof why she would not be sanctioned for violating
the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Code of Judicial Conduct for
transgressing the sub judice rule and for casting aspersions and ill motives
to the Members of the Supreme Court.
❖ The Supreme Court: Rule-Making Powers (Art. 8, Sect. 5 1987 Philippine
Constitution)
➢ (5) Promul;gate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of
constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the
admission to the practice of law, the integrated bar, and legal assistance to
the underprivileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive
procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts
of the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase or modify substantive
rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi- judicial bodies shall
remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court.
❖ Appellate Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (Art. 6 Sect. 30 of the 1987 Philippine
Constitution)
➢ No law shall be passed increasing the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court as provided in this Constitution without its advice and concurrence.
❖ Court of Tax Appeals v. Court of Appeals (Republic Act 9282: CTA as third level
court)
➢ Under RA No. 9282: The Court of Tax Appeals was elevated to the same
level as the Court of Appeals, possessing all the inherent powers of the
Court of Justice. It shall now consist of 1 Presiding Justice and 5 Associate
Justices. They shall have the same qualifications, ranks, category, salary,
emoluments and other privileges, be subject to the same inhibitions and
disqualifications, and enjoy the same retirements and other benefits as
those provided for under existing laws for the Presiding Justice and
Associate Justices of the Court of Appeals. It shall sit en banc, or in 2
divisions with 3 Justices each. A decision of a division of the CTA may
further be appealed by verified petition for certiorari to the Supreme
Court. (Due to the enactment of RA 9503 on 12 June 2008 and took effect
on 5 July 2008, the organizational structure of a Third Division which has 3
 additional Justices. Therefore, CTA is now composed of 1 Presiding Justice
and 8 Associate Justices. The CTA may sir en banc or in 3 divisions with
each division consisting of 3 Justices.
❖ CTA’s Original Appellate Jurisdiction- Expanded RA 9282
➢ Criminal cases involving violations of the NIRC and the Tariff and Customs
Code;
➢ Decisions of the RTC in local tax cases;
➢ Decisions of the Central Board of Assessment Appeals (CBAA) in cases
involving the assessment and taxation of real property; and
➢ Collection of internal revenue taxes and customs duties the assessment of
which have already become final
❖ SANDIGANBAYAN- Third Level Court (Republic Act No. 8249)
➢ Sandiganbayan is a special court, of the same level as the Court of Appeals
and possessing all the inherent powers of a court of justice. It shall consist
of 1 Presiding Justice and 14 Associate Justices who shall be appointed by
the President. Before RA 8249 was enacted, the jurisdiction of
Sandiganbayan was determined based on the penalty imposable on the
offense or offenses charged on the accused. Under RA 8249 Sandiganbayan
has jurisdiction regardless of the penalty, so long as the offense charged
was committed by a public officer. To determine whether the Sandiganbayan
has jurisdiction, 2 criteria must be taken into consideration, namely:
■ The nature of the offense; and
■ The salary grade of the public official
❖ Original Exclusive Jurisdiction: Sandiganbayan
➢ (A) Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, (Anti-graft and Corrupt Practices
Act).
➢ (B) Republic Act. No. 1379, and Chapter 2, Sect. 3, Title 8, Book 2 of the
Revised Penal Code, where one or more of the accused are officials
occupying the following positions in the government. whether in a permanent,
acting or interim capacity, at the time of the commission of the offense;
■ 1. Officials of the executive branch occupying the positions of
regional director and higher, otherwise classified as Grade 27 and
higher, of the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989
RA No. 6758 specifically including;
 ● a) Provincial governors, vice-governors, members of the
sangguniang panlalawigan, provincial treasurers, assessors,
engineers and other provincial department heads;
● b) City mayors, vice-mayors, members of the sangguniang
panlungsod, city treasurers, assessors, engineers and other
department heads;
● c) Officials of the diplomatic service occupying the position of
consul and higher;
● d) Philippine Army and Air force colonels, naval captains and all
officers of higher rank;
● e) Officers of the PNP while occupying the position of
Provincial Director and those holding the rank of Senior
Superintendent or higher;
● f) City and provincial prosecutors and their assistants:
officials and the prosecutors in the Office of the Ombudsman
and special prosecutor;
● g) President, directors or trustees or managers of government
owned or controlled corporations, state universities or
educational institutions or foundations;
■ 2. Members of Congress and Officials thereof classified as Grade 27
and up under the Compensation and Classification Act of 189;
■ 3. Members of the Judiciary without prejudice to the provision of
the Constitution;
■ 4. Chairmen and members of Constitutional Commissions, without
prejudice to the provision of the Constitution;
■ 5. All other national and local officials classified as Grade 27 aand
higher under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of
1989
➢ (C)Other offenses or felonies whether simple or complexed with other
crimes committed in relation to their office by the public officials and
employees mentioned above;
➢ (D) Civil and Criminal Cases filed pursuant to and in connection with EO 1, 2,
14 & 14-A issued in 1989
❖ Sandiganbayan has Concurrent Jurisdiction with the Supreme Court in:
➢ Petitioners for issuance of Writ of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas
corpus, injunction, and other ancillary writs and processes in aid of its
 appellate jurisdiction: Provided, jurisdiction is not exclusive of the Supreme
Court
❖ The Sandiganbayan is vested with Appellate Jurisdiction in:
➢ a. Final judgments, resolutions or order of the RTC whether in the exercise
of their original or appellate jurisdiction over crimes and civil cases falling
within the original exclusive jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan but which
were committed by public officers below Salary Grade 27;
➢ b. In case private individuals are charged as co-principals, accomplices or
accessories with the public officers or employees, including those employed
in government- owned or controlled corporations, they shall be tried jointly
with said public officers and employees in the proper courts which shall
exercise exclusive jurisdiction over them
❖ Regional Trial Courts: 2nd level courts (Batas Pambansa 129)
➢ Sect. 18. Authority to define territory appurtenant to each branch.--- The
Supreme Court shall define the territory over which a branch of the
Regional Trial Courtshall exercise its authority. The territory thus defined
shall be deemed to be the territorial area of the branch concerned for
purposes of determining the venue of all suits, proceedings or actions,
whether civil or criminal, as well as determining the Metropolitan Trial
Courts, Municipal TrialCourts, and Municipal lCircuit Trial Courts over the
said branch may exercise appellate jurisdiction. The power herein granted
shall be exercised with a view to making the courts readily accessible to the
people of the different parts of the region and making the attendance of
litigants and witnesses as inexpensive as possible.
❖ MTCs: 1st level courts (Republic Act No. 7691)
➢ Sect. 2 Section 32 of the same law is hereby amended to read as follows:
■ Sect 32. Jurisdiction of metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial
Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in Criminal Cases. — Except
in cases falling within the exclusive original jurisdiction of Regional
Trial Courts and of the Sandiganbayan, the Metropolitan Trial Courts,
Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall
exercise:
● 1. Exclusive original jurisdiction over all violations of city
municipal ordinances committed within their respective
territorial jurisdiction; and
 ● 2. Exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses punishable
with imprisonment not exceeding 6 years irrespective of the
Page 71 of 169 amount of fine, and regardless of other
imposable accessory or other penalties including the civil
liability arising from such offenses or predicted thereon,
irrespective of kind, nature, value or amount thereof;
Provided, however, that in offenses involving damage to
property through criminal negligence, they shall have exclusive
original jurisdiction thereof.
❖ The Supreme Court: En Banc and Division Cases (Art. 8, Sec. 4, Par. 2-3)
➢ (1) All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty, international or
executive agreement, or law, which shall be heard by the Supreme Court En
banc, and all other cases which under the rules of Court are required to be
heard En banc, including those involving the constitutionality, application, or
operation of presidential decrees, proclamations, orders, instructions,
ordinances, and other regulations shall be decided with the concurrence of a
majority of the members who actually took part in the deliberations on the
issues in the case and voted thereon.
➢ (2) Cases or matters heard by a division shall be decided or resolved with
the concurrence of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the
deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon, and in no case
without the concurrence of at least 3 of such Members. When the required
number is not obtained, the case shall be decided En banc: Provided, that no
doctrine or principle of law laid down by the court in a decision rendered En
banc or in division may be modified or reversed except by the court sitting
En banc
❖ From Mam Ghena:
➢ Legal Experts
➢ Rules of Statutory Construction
➢ When the law is clear and not ambiguous, it must be applied as it is without
need of construction
➢ Settled is the rule that the first and fundamental duty of courts is to apply
the law as they find it, NOT as they like it (jurisprudence)
➢ When the law is clear and unambiguous, it must be taken to mean exactly
what it says and the court has no choice but to see to it that its mandated is
obeyed (jurisprudence)
 ➢ I gave you (courts) legal assistance to the underprivileged: indigent
➢ “Judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall
form part of the legal system of the Philippines.”
➢ LEGIS INTERPRETATIO LEGIS VIM OBTINET
■ the authoritative interpretation of the SC of a statute acquires the
force of law by becoming a part thereof as of the date of its
enactment, since the court’s interpretation merely establishes the
contemporaneous legislative intent that the statute thus construed
intends to effectuate. The rulings of the SC are LAWS IN THEIR
OWN RIGHTS because they INTERPRET what the laws say or mean.”
➢ Principle of stare decisis et non quieta movere

~~~