Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
USERS GUIDE
Most likely to come out in the exams:
TN Take note, BAR Bar Question,
***** - Memorize.
From beginning to Legislative, it was arranged
according to the syllabus, but thereafter, its not.
Blue fonts mean, the subheadings were created by us.
The italicized portions came from the cases cited.
The Times New Roman Bold fontface are from
provisions of the law.
Not all cases have been placed with syllabus or cited
Subject Head:
Luigine Chan
Members:
Johnbee Biton, Abegail Borres, Richard Caminade, Kaitlin Caada, Riza Duran,
Bryce Fookson, Rajane Gallego, Ruby Gan, Clyde Gregorio, Rhea Judilla, Fiona
Lao, Jinky Lesigues, Albert Lulu, Miguel Lumapas, Daphne Ortezuela, Angeli
Otero, Athena Salas, Shane Tampus, RalphSanchez, Camille Ubod, Judito Tapia
Jr., Rose Paglinawan, Prince Robles, Joahnna Tan-Yu, Brendale Bayalas, Riza
Torres, Nico Pea, Jovelle Rejuso
2.
Archipelagic doctrine
A:
In gist RA 9522 defines the general configuration
of the archipelago including the extended continental
shelf and the EEZ to make it more compliant to UNCLOS.
Q:
ECONOMIC
ZONE?
A:
It is reckoned from normal base line of adjacent
territory, 200 NM. It means that beyond 12 NM onwards to
200 NM, its not part of our territory BUT we have
EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS over the seawaters including the
living and non-living resources found therein to Exploit,
Develop and Utilize (EDU).
Q:
Is it provided in the Constitution? Is it merely
directory? Or self-executing?
A:
The Constitution is very clear on this and this is
self-executing according to the Supreme Court, that
because it is exclusive, it cannot be shared with anyone,
not even overlapping. That is your EXCLUSIVE right.
Q:
In the case of (Magallona v. Ermita, G.R. No.
187167, August 16, 2011), RA 9522 was challenged on
the ground that by adopting this law, in effect, we are
deprived of our rights to explore the resources over the
waters separating these islands such as KGI and the
Scarborough shoal from the main archipelago. How was
this resolved by the Supreme Court?
A:
The Supreme Court ruled that Had Congress in
RA 9522 enclosed the KGI and Scarborough Shoal as
part of the archipelago, adverse legal effects would have
ensued. The Philippines will have committed breach of
the two provisions of UNCLOS. First, Article 47(3) thereof
requires that the drawing of such baseline shall not
depart from any appreciable extent from the general
configuration of the archipelago. Article 47 of the same
provision provides that the length of the base line shall
not exceed 100 NM same for 3% of the total number of
baselines which can be up to 125 NM. Although the
Philippines has consistently claimed sovereignty over the
KIG and the Scarborough Shoal for several decades,
these outlying areas are located at an appreciable
distance from the nearest shoreline of the Philippine
archipelago, such that any straight baseline loped
around them from the nearest basepoint will inevitably
"depart to an appreciable extent from the general
configuration of the archipelago."||| (Magallona v. Ermita,
G.R. No. 187167, August 16, 2011).
TN:
Thats why if you extend it, the configuration
becomes rectangular instead of triangular which is the
original configuration of the archipelago under the Treaty
of Paris.
Q:
What is our basis of our claim over Scarborough
Shoal?
A:
Primarily on discovery.
Q:
There is another principle on overlapping. What
is the basis for this principle?
TN:
But China claims that they have discovered it as
early as 18th century. Remember that we only started
claiming after the WWII.
A:
It is based on equality, equity, solution in the
determination of extent of jurisdiction proportionate on
how big your island is, adjacent to the EEZ It is not totally
equal but based on equity.
IMPORTANT:
At any rate, the more important basis
for our claim is our EEZ. Part of our 200 EEZ. Read
Carpios paper.
TN:
But for as long as there is no overlapping, there
cannot be sharing in the exploration. What China wants,
the least, is to share the exploration of the national
resources including Malampaya.
Q:
Is the Philippines
exploration of our islands?
allowed
to
share
the
A:
That is contrary to the Constitution if we agree to
that. Why? Read again the constitution, it says: exclusive
rights of Filipino citizen on marine wealth. We may only
hire them as contractors to provide us financial and
technical assistance just like Shell, but there cannot be
any sharing.
Q:
What are our rights over our Internal Waters,
and Extended Continental Shelf?
A:
Our claim over the seawaters separating the
islands, there is no doubt that if we follow the archipelagic
doctrine that theyre part of our INTERNAL WATERS,
PART OF OUR TERRITORY. Our jurisdiction is only up to
the 12 NM which means within 12 NM as part of our
territory which we described as territorial seas, we can
limit foreign vessel navigation and over-flight.
A:
Insofar as the extended continental shelf, we
have up to 24 NM from the normal baseline. Beyond the
12 NM, although still within the continental shelf, it is
A:
In the drawing of the EEZ as part of the territory,
always remember that it has to be drawn from the normal
baseline along the coastline of an island or continental
shelf. NORMAL BASELINE of an island that is
HABITABLE,
Q:
A:
That that can be inhabited, or can sustain on its
own economic growth.
Q:
A:
That EEZ of 200 NM cannot apply if your basis is
a reef or rocks. China cannot make a claim because their
bases are the Nine-dash lines and Paracels that cannot
be occupied. If you live there, you need to depend on the
food that is being brought there. But on their own, they
cannot sustain economically. So if that is the basis of the
EEZ. That is not allowed.
TN:
Our archipelago is sustainable economically; we
can survive on our own. It is obviously habitable. If we
follow that, we have better right for EEZ where you can
find the Scarborough Shoal.
TN:
Another point that we should take note is that
this is now being subjected to arbitration under the
UNCLOS. China however refused to submit and opted
out from that arbitration saying that being a sovereign
state it is discretionary on their part whether or not to
submit itself to arbitration.
Q:
A:
Answer is NO, because they are signatory to the
UNCLOS. When they signed in the UNCLOS, they
consented to follow the provisions of the UNCLOS.
In which case, they have given their consent impliedly
and if they have given their consent, they are subjected to
the jurisdiction of UNCLOS Arbitration.
TN: The jurisdiction of the UNCLOS. Its jurisdiction is
limited only to disputes involving sea waters of the
continental shelf and the Exclusive Economic Zone NOT
Territorial Seas.
Kung mu ingon kag territorial imung dispute involving the
territorial seas or the maritime domain, adto na siya, ang
application kay General Principles of International Law.
ICJ has jurisdiction over that.
But when we say maritime dispute involving claims over
sea waters relating to the continental shelf, extended
continental shelf or exclusive economic zone this is under
the jurisdiction of the UNCLOS. Im just discussing this in
relation to the claims of China over the Regime of Islands.
10
11
12
13
14
Q: Can it be sued?
A: if purely commercial, yes but if it is something to do
with the official function of Vatican, not suable.
That case involved the performance of an official function
therefore like any sovereign state it is immune.
Article II Declaration of Principles and State Policies
(Political Creed of the Government)
It is the enumeration of the obligations of the government,
underlying principles in the operations of government.
TN: Article II is not self-executing. It cannot be the source
of rights and obligations. If violated, you cannot go to
court and seek judicial relief unless there is a law that was
violated based on Article II.
Similar to the Apostles Creed, there is no sanction there
that you will be less catholic if you violated. Not obliged to
observe. No binding effect if there is no law implementing
such. Legislation is needed to implement it
Taada v Angara G.R. No. 118295. May 2, 1997
It is true that in the recent case of Manila Prince Hotel vs.
Government Service Insurance System, et al.,[31] this
Court held that Sec. 10, second par., Art. XII of the 1987
Constitution is a mandatory, positive command which is
complete in itself and which needs no further guidelines
or implementing laws or rules for its enforcement. From
its very words the provision does not require any
legislation to put it in operation. It is per se judicially
enforceable. However, as the constitutional provision
itself states, it is enforceable only in regard to the grants
of rights, privileges and concessions covering national
economy and patrimony and not to every aspect of trade
and commerce. It refers to exceptions rather than the
rule. The issue here is not whether this paragraph of
Sec. 10 of Art. XII is self-executing or not. Rather, the
issue is whether, as a rule, there are enough balancing
provisions in the Constitution to allow the Senate to ratify
the Philippine concurrence in the WTO Agreement. And
we hold that there are.
15
November
16
17
18
19
3.
4.
20
21
22
Case in point: Oposa vs. Factoran (id). All the rest of the
cases were decided taking into consideration this case.
This is a landmark case. The point that was emphasized
in the Oposa case, which was reiterated in succeeding
environmental cases, that this is Self-Executing. You dont
need legislation in order to enforce it. The SC also
emphasized the fact that this is a public right of the
people. This is as important as the guaranteed protection
under Art. III.
that
were
declared
23
24
25
3.
4.
26
27
28
Monarchy
Aristocracy
Democracy
b)
Parliamentary
There is fusion of the Executive and Legislative
Departments where there is the supremacy of the
Legislature; the Legislature is the parliament and there
is always the supremacy of the parliament in the
government; the Members of the Cabinet come from the
parliament thus the fusion of powers between the
Executive and the Legislative departments so there is no
confusion as to who is more superior to the other
because it is understood that there is the supremacy of
De Facto
A De Facto Government is one that is
established against the will of the people.
Usually, it does not have the general
support of the people.
29
the parliament.
The Prime Minster has no fixed term of office. He is
chosen by the members of the parliament. He stays in
power for as long as he holds the trust and confidence of
the members of the parliament. Where there is major
conflict of issues between the two departments, either
the President or the Prime Minister will dissolve the
Parliament, OR the Parliament will remove the Prime
Minister through a vote of no confidence.
The preside
years
30
31
32
B. Houses of Congress
2. Constituent v. Ordinary
Constituent function is the power of Congress propose
amendments to the Constitution acting as a constituent
assembly, it is not a law-making power. On the other
hand, Ordinary function is the power of Congress to make
laws and changes in the law.
Qualifications
4.
Others
1. Congress
Q: Where is Legislative Power Vested?
A: 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. (Art. VI, Section 1)
2. Regional/Local legislative power
3. Peoples initiative on statutes
The Reservation in the People to make Laws
The Congress shall, as early as possible, provide for a
system of initiative and referendum, and the exceptions
therefrom, whereby the people can directly propose and
enact laws or approve or reject any act or law or part
thereof passed by the Congress or local legislative body
xxx (Art. VI, Section 32)
So, since there is a constitutional mandate to provide a
system of initiative and referendum, Congress has
enacted RA 6735.
a) Initiative and referendum
4. The President under a martial law rule or in a revolutionary
government
33
34
35
party-list representatives.
To illustrate: There are 55 available party-list seats.
Suppose there are 50 million votes cast for the 100
participants in the party list elections. A party that has
two percent of the votes cast, or one million votes, gets a
guaranteed seat. Let us further assume that the first 50
parties all get one million votes. Only 50 parties get a
seat despite the availability of 55 seats. Because of the
operation of the two percent threshold, this situation will
repeat itself even if we increase the available party-list
seats to 60 seats and even if we increase the votes cast
to 100 million. Thus, even if the maximum number of
parties get two percent of the votes for every party, it is
always impossible for the number of occupied party-list
seats to exceed 50 seats as long as the two percent
threshold is present.
We therefore strike down the two percent threshold only
in relation to the distribution of the additional seats as
found in the second clause of Section 11(b) of R.A. No.
7941.
The two percent threshold presents an
unwarranted obstacle to the full implementation of
Section 5(2), Article VI of the Constitution and prevents
the attainment of the broadest possible representation of
party, sectoral or group interests in the House of
Representatives.[30]
In determining the allocation of seats for party-list
representatives under Section 11 of R.A. No. 7941, the
following procedure shall be observed:
1. The parties, organizations, and coalitions shall
be ranked from the highest to the lowest based
on the number of votes they garnered during the
elections.
2. The parties, organizations, and coalitions
receiving at least two percent (2%) of the total
votes cast for the party-list system shall be
entitled to one guaranteed seat each.
3. Those garnering sufficient number of votes,
according to the ranking in paragraph 1, shall be
entitled to additional seats in proportion to their
total number of votes until all the additional
seats are allocated.
4. Each party, organization, or coalition shall be
entitled to not more than three (3) seats.
In computing the additional seats, the guaranteed seats
shall no longer be included because they have already
been allocated, at one seat each, to every two-percenter.
Thus, the remaining available seats for allocation as
additional seats are the maximum seats reserved
under the Party List System less the guaranteed seats.
Recently: The case on Atong Paglaum vs. Comelec GR
No. 203766 (April 02, 2013)
Q: Veterans Case: it was emphasized there that to qualify
for a seat, the party list must garner how many votes?
A: 2% of the total votes cast for the party list.
Our perception was, that even with additional seats, you
must also get at least 2%, that was the perception. But
the Supreme Court said in the BANAT case that it will
defeat the purpose of filling up the 20% allocation. Thus it
was clarified under the BANAT case that while 2% is
36
should
therefore
in
or
or
or
2.
37
TN: On the party list, read the case of Ang Ladlad LGBT
Party v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 190582, April
8, 2010,|||That is sectoral representation, representing the
marginalized and under-represented sector of society. In
the Ladlad case the SC has explained the qualifications to
represent a marginalized group. The SC said in this case
that the LGBT qualifies to be accredited under the
marginalized group because it has qualified with the
following qualifications:
(1) there must be possible division or discrimination
suffered by the group, and certainly they are
discriminated.
(2) a distinguished characteristic, attribute or experience
that defines them as a discreet group. Definitely there is a
distinguishing characteristic.
(3) there is present political or economic powerlessness.
3.
4.
5.
38
What you see on the certified list are only the names of
the organizations. Now, at one time in the case of [Judge
cited Bara case, but the doctrine discussed here is not
there], they asked for the names of the nominees of this
different organizations accredited by the Comelec
because they suspected that most of them are relatives of
President Arroyo, if not friends, and Comelec said that is
confidential, that cannot be disclosed. Supreme Court
said however, the Comelec abused its discretion because
that is of public record and there is no prohibition against
disclosure for as long as it is not disclosed in the certified
list. You have seen this in the polling place.
39
40
41
42
43
G. Powers of Congress
1. Legislative
The Law-Making Process
Q: What are the limitations?
A: There are substantial and procedural limitations.
Substantial limitations:
For as long as they are not contrary to the
Constitution, there cannot be any problem as to
whatever law that may be passed by Congress.
It must not be irrepealable , all laws passed by
Congress are subject to amendments or even
repeal.
Except: for a law that may violate the
non-impairment clause. (ex. the grant of
44
tax
emption
for
a
valuable
consideration. It cannot be repealed as
it will violate the non-impairment
clause).
Appropriation bill
Revenue bill or
Tariff bill
Q: Do they prevail?
A: Virtually they prevail but TN: there has to be approval
or concurrence by MAJORTIY VOTES OF BOTH
HOUSES, in other words they may also amend the
version of both houses and come up with their own
version, mao ni gitwag nila ug AMENDMENT BY
SUBSTITUION but such will only be effective if approve
by majority votes of both houses, it will be submitted to
plenary session of both houses and thereafter
Q: what will happen?
A: if they can agree now then there is the signing by
officers of both houses certifying to the effect that this is
45
2.
A:
When the president does not act within the
period of 30 days from receipt
46
Executive action
Q: is that allowed?
A: Indispensable
47
48
49
50
51
Appropriation bills
Revenue or Tariff Bills
Bills Increasing Public Debts
Bills of Local Application
Private Bills
52
Q: To whom is it submitted?
A: Congress
Q: What is an appropriation?
A: An authority or law that authorizes the disbursement of
public funds for a public purpose or for a specific public
purpose.
53
54
Council
55
7.
56
Q: up to what extent?
57
58
Term of Office
A: no
59
60
61
62
Case:
With constitutional parameters already established, we
may also note, as a source of suppletory guidance, the
provisions of R.A. No. 245. The afore-quoted Section 1
thereof empowers the Secretary of Finance with the
approval of the President and after consultation of the
Monetary Board, "to borrow from time to time on the
credit of the Republic of the Philippines such sum or
sums as in his judgment may be necessary, and to issue
therefor evidences of indebtedness of the Philippine
Government." Ineluctably then, while the President wields
the borrowing power it is the Secretary of Finance who
normally carries out its thrusts.|||(Spouses Constantino v.
Cuisia, G.R. No. 106064, October 13, 2005)
Section 18 POWER OF THE PRESIDENT AS THE
COMMANDER IN CHIEF OF THE AFP
Q: What are the calling-out powers of the President?
A: These are:
1. Declaration of Martial Law
2. Suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus
3. Review decisions of Court Marshalls
DECLARATION OF MARTIAL LAW
Q: When can the President call out the AFP to assist him
in the discharge of his functions?
A: Whenever it becomes necessary in order to prevent or
suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion
Q: Is it subject to judicial review?
A: NO.
Q: Is it subject to revocation by Congress?
A: NO. In fact, it is the most potent power that the
President may exercise as the Commander In Chief of the
AFP.
63
64
65
Impeachment
Convicted of election offenses - you cannot
be granted pardon unless there is a
favorable recommendation form the
COMELEC
If cited in contempt by the Congress
pursuant to a Legislative Inquiry
If cited in contempt by Civil Courts
AMNESTY
TN that this is not under the sole discretion by the
President. This is subject to the favorable
recommendation of the Congress.
TN that this can only be granted to individuals or class of
persons who are charged with offenses of political nature.
This can be granted even before conviction. So this
particular power of the President may be availed of before
66
Section 23 (SONA)
Section 23. The President shall address the Congress
at the opening of its regular session. He may also
appear before it at any other time.
The President will lay down his programs, what he
has achieved, WON he has already complied with
his promise. That is part of the transparency of the
government.
V. Judicial Department
The Judicial Department is vested with judicial
power.
67
68
Exceptions:
1. When the issue raised is the jurisdiction- anytime
at any stage of the proceeding
2. When you cannot resolve the case without first
settling the issue of constitutionality in civil cases
3. In criminal cases- anytime because after all,
where there is no law punishing the act, no crime
is committed. So if the law is nullified, it is as if
theres no crime committed by the accused.
(TN) And finally, the issue raised must be the lis mota of
the case because if it is not, then the court by all means
must use other grounds to dispose of the issue without
going into the merits of the case in order to maintain the
equality among the 3 branches and maintain the
separation of powers so that one cannot be accused of
intruding into the prerogative of the 2 other branches of
the government.
So you take note of those requisites for a valid exercise of
judicial review
because they are repeated in the
subsequent and more recent decisions of the SC.
Q: What would then be the consequences after the
resolution of the case?
A: It depends on what the resolution is.
Q: If the law is valid, what would SC do?
A: Make a double negative declaration- that the law is not
69
Or the SC will declare the law to be null and void for being
unconstitutional. By that act, through the exercise of
judicial review, the SC checks. Thats part of the checking
power of the court over the act of executive and
legislative departments. Either way, the SC will perform its
symbolic function to educate the bench and the bar by
providing principles, precepts, guidelines on how the law
should be construed or interpreted in actual cases.
70
71
Also, the Supreme Court has the power to appoint its own
officials and employees in accordance with the Civil
Service Law (Sec. 5(6), Art. XVIII, Constitution). This is to
maintain its independence subject to civil service law.
The Supreme Court shall have administrative
supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof
(Sec. 6, Art. VIII).
The administrative supervision of the Supreme Court over
judges and court personnel is exclusive. The
Ombudsman does not have jurisdiction over judges and
court personnel because the supervision over them is
exclusive to the Supreme Court.
Q: Can the ombudsman investigate a judge involving a
criminal case?
A: The Ombudsman has to wait for the recommendation
of the Supreme Court to conduct the preliminary
investigation.
Q: In an administrative case?
A: It should be dismissed because the Ombudsman has
no jurisdiction since the Constitution provides that
supervision of judges and court personnel is exclusive to
the Supreme Court. In fact, the President cannot grant
pardon to a judge or court personnel who is convicted.
TN
Section 7. Qualifications.
No person shall be appointed Member of the Supreme
Court or any lower collegiate court unless he is a
natural-born citizen of the Philippines. A Member of
the Supreme Court must be at least forty years of age,
and must have been for fifteen years or more, a judge
of a lower court or engaged in the practice of law in the
Philippines.
The Congress shall prescribe the qualifications of
judges of lower courts, but no person may be appointed
judge thereof unless he is a citizen of the Philippines
and a member of the Philippine Bar.
A Member of the Judiciary must be a person of proven
competence, integrity, probity, and independence. - TN
Q: What is the qualification for a member of the judiciary
that is not required in ordinary employees in the
government?
A: He must be a person of proven competence, integrity
and independence. (BAR)
(BAR) Section 8. Composition of the Judicial and Bar
Council
A Judicial and Bar Council is hereby created
under the supervision of the Supreme Court
composed of the Chief Justice as ex officio
Chairman, the Secretary of Justice, and a
representative of the Congress as ex officio
Members, a representative of the Integrated Bar, a
professor of law, a retired Member of the Supreme
Court, and a representative of the private sector.
72
As
early
as Novino,
et
al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., it has been stressed that
these "resolutions" are not "decisions" within the
constitutional requirements of Section 14, Article VIII; they
merely hold that the petition for review should not be
entertained and even ordinary lawyers have all this time
so understood it; and the petition to review the
decision of the Court of Appeals is not a matter of right
but of sound judicial discretion, hence there is no need to
fully explain the Court's denial since, for one thing, the
facts and the law are already mentioned in
the Court of Appeals' decision. This was reiterated
in Que vs. People, et al., and further clarified in Munal vs.
Commission on Audit, et al. that the constitutional
mandate is applicable only in cases "submitted for
decision," i.e., given due course and after the
filing of briefs or memoranda and/or other pleadings, but
not where the petition is refused due course, with the
resolution therefor stating the legal basis thereof. Thus,
when the Court, after deliberating on a petition and
subsequent pleadings, decides to deny due course to the
petition and states that the questions raised are factual or
there is no reversible error in the respondent court's
decision, there is sufficient compliance with the
constitutional requirement.||| (Komatsu Industries (Phils.),
Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127682, April 24,
1998) HDATCc
73
74
of
the
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
COMELEC
Q: Can they issue writs of certiorari, prohibition and
mandamus?
A: Answer is yes, but only in aid of their appellate
jurisdiction. Lets go into the powers of the COMELEC
guys. This will be discussed in detail in your Election
Laws, so Im not going to deal so much on that. Well just
go to provisions that are mentioned in the Constitution.
Now lets go directly to Section 2, on powers and
functions. Enforce and administer all regulations relative
to the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative,
referendum and recall. You must know the meanings of
these terms.
*****Q: Okay, so they have exclusive original jurisdiction
over all contests relating to what? Election returns and
qualifications of all elective officials coming from the
regional, provincial and city officials. Lets now go to the
jurisdiction of the COMELEC? Have you mastered this?
Election contests involving barangay officials, where do
you file your election protest or Quo Warranto Petition?
A: You file it with the MTC or the City Courts that has
jurisdiction.
*****Q: If the decision is rendered by the MTC, you are
aggrieved, where do you appeal?
A: You dont appeal to the RTC. You appeal directly to the
COMELEC. MTC to COMELEC.
The Supreme Court here was saying that the Task-ForceMaguindanao Fact-Finding-Investigation was created for
the purpose of probing into the veracity of the alleged
fraud that marred the elections in the Province of
Maguindanao and consequently, to determine whether
the certificates of canvass were genuine or spurious and
whether an election offense had possibly been committed
could by no means be classified as purely ministerial or
administrative function.
So since it is not a ministerial or administrative function, it
was a quasi-judicial function according to the Comelec. It
was just right for the Comelec to sight this Atty. Bedol in
84
contempt. So the Comelec from the Task-ForceMaguindanao (TF) was exercising its quasi-judicial power
in pursuit of the truth behind the allegations of massive
fraud during the elections in Maguindanao; to achieve its
objective the TF conducted hearings and required the
attendance of the parties concerned, including Bedol,
and the counsels to give them the opportunity argue and
support their respective positions.
Task Force Maguindanao's fact-finding investigation to
probe into the veracity of the alleged fraud that marred
the elections in said province; and consequently, to
determine whether the certificates of canvass were
genuine or spurious, and whether an election offense had
possibly been committed could by no means be
classified as a purely ministerial or administrative
function.
The COMELEC, through the Task Force Maguindanao,
was exercising its quasi-judicial power in pursuit of the
truth behind the allegations of massive fraud during the
elections in Maguindanao. To achieve its objective, the
Task Force conducted hearings and required the
attendance of the parties concerned and their counsels to
give them the opportunity to argue and support their
respective positions.
||| (Bedol v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 179830, December 03,
2009)
85
86
87
88
with a private audit the COA will still conduct its usual
examination and audit, and its findings and conclusions
will still bind government agencies and their officials. A
concurrent private audit poses no danger whatsoever of
public funds or assets escaping the usual scrutiny of
a COA audit. Manifestly, the express language of the
Constitution, and the clear intent of its framers, point to
only one indubitable conclusion the COA does not
have the exclusive power to examine and audit
government agencies. The framers of the Constitution
were fully aware of the needs to allow independent
private audit of certain government agencies in addition
to the COA audit, as when there is a private investment in
a government-controlled corporation, or when a
government corporation is privatized or publicly listed, or
as in the case at bar when the government borrows
money from abroad.||| (DBP v. COA, G.R. No. 88435,
January 16, 2002)
Supreme Court said that the mere fact that these private
auditors may audit Government agencies do not divest
COA of its power to examine and audit the same
agencies. Nonetheless, the intent of the framers of the
Constitution point to one indubitable proposition, that
COA does not have the exclusive power to examine and
audit Government agencies.
The only thing that is exclusive to them is to determine
the scope of their audit and their system of audit. But the
conduct of the audit itself is not exclusive.
Q: Who can be audited by COA?
A: All government agencies.
Q: What about private agencies? Can they be audited by
COA?
A: Yes, if they are holding Government funds or property.
We have the case of Blue Bar Coconut Philippines vs
Tantuico Jr.:
3.CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; COMMISSION ON AUDIT;
JURISDICTION;
SECTION
2(1),
ART.
IXD, PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION;
AUTHORITY
TO
EXAMINE AND AUDIT FUNDS INCLUDES SUCH NONGOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES RECEIVING SUBSIDY OR
EQUITY FROM THE GOVERNMENT. The petitioners
also question the respondents' authority to audit them.
They contend that they are outside the ambit of
respondents' "audit" power which is confined to
government-owned or controlled corporations. This
argument has no merit. Section 2 (1) of Article IX-D of the
Constitution provides that "The Commission on Audit
shall have the power, authority and duty to examine,
audit, and settle all accounts pertaining to the revenues
and receipts of, and expenditures or uses of funds and
property, owned or held in trust by or pertaining to, the
Government, or any of its subdivisions, agencies or
instrumentalities,
including
government-owned
or
controlled corporation with original charters, and on a
post-audit basis . . . (d) such non-governmental entities
receiving subsidy or equity directly or indirectly from or
through the Government which are required by law or the
granting institution to submit to such audit as a condition
of subsidy or equity." The Constitution formally embodies
the long established rule that private entities who handle
government funds or subsidies in trust may be examined
89
These are the only things you should TN, for purposes of
the BAR relating to local governments, this pertains to,
ang importante ani.
90
TERM OF OFFICE
91
When you serve, even if you dont finish your term, it may
be considered one full term for purposes of determining
the continuity or successiveness of the term of office.
Regular election ra ha! Not succession, recall election TN
Bolos vs COMELEC
In this case, it is undisputed that petitioner was elected
as Punong Barangay for three consecutive terms,
satisfying the first condition for disqualification.
What is to be determined is whether petitioner is deemed
to have voluntarily renounced his position as Punong
92
Borja vs COMELEC
1. POLITICAL LAW; LOCAL GOVERNMENT; TERM OF
OFFICE
OF
ELECTIVE
LOCAL
OFFICIALS;
PROHIBITION AGAINST SERVING FOR MORE THAN
THREE CONSECUTIVE TERMS; TO BAR THE
ELECTION OF A LOCAL OFFICIAL BECAUSE HE HAS
ALREADY SERVED THREE TERMS, ALTHOUGH THE
FIRST AS A RESULT OF SUCCESSION BY
OPERATION OF LAW RATHER THAN ELECTION
WOULD BE A VIOLATION OF THE PEOPLE'S RIGHT
TO CHOOSE THOSE WHOM THEY PLEASE TO
GOVERN THEM. A fundamental tenet of
representative democracy is that the people should be
allowed to choose those whom they please to govern
them. To bar the election of a local official because he
has already served three terms, although the first as a
result of succession by operation of law rather than
election, would therefore be to violate this principle.
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ARTICLE X, SECTION 8 OF THE
1987 CONSTITUTION CONTEMPLATES SERVICE BY
LOCAL OFFICIALS FOR THREE CONSECUTIVE
TERMS AS A RESULT OF ELECTION. Not only
historical examination but textual analysis as well
supports the ruling of the COMELEC that Art. X, Section
8 contemplates service by local officials for three
consecutive terms as a result of election. The first
sentence speaks of "the term of office of elective local
officials" and bars "such official[s]" from serving for more
than three consecutive terms. The second sentence, in
explaining when an elective local official may be deemed
to have served his full term of office, states that "voluntary
renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not
be considered as an interruption in the continuity of his
service for the full term for which he was elected." The
term served must therefore be one "for which [the official
concerned] was elected." The purpose of this provision is
to prevent a circumvention of the limitation on the number
of terms an elective local official may serve. Conversely, if
he is not serving a term for which he was elected
because he is simply continuing the service of the official
he succeeds, such official cannot be considered to have
fully served the term notwithstanding his voluntary
renunciation of office prior to its expiration. DCcHAa
||| (Borja, Jr. v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 133495, September
03, 1998)
Ong vs Alegre
1.POLITICAL LAW; ELECTION LAWS; ELECTIVE
OFFICIALS; TERM OF OFFICE; THREE-TERM LIMIT
RULE; PETITIONER'S PROCLAMATION AS THE DULY
ELECTED MAYOR IN THE 1998 MAYORALTY
ELECTION COUPLED BY HIS ASSUMPTION OF
OFFICE AND HIS CONTINUOUS EXERCISE OF THE
FUNCTIONS THEREOF FROM START TO FINISH OF
THE TERM, SHOULD BE LEGALLY BE TAKEN AS
SERVICE FOR A FULL TERM IN CONTEMPLATION OF
THE THREE-TERM RULE. The three-term limit rule for
elective local officials is found in Section 8, Article X of
the 1987 Constitution. Section 43 (b) of the Local
Government Code restates the same rule. For the threeterm limit for elective local government officials to apply,
two conditions or requisites must concur, to wit: (1) that
93
Q: Dismissal?
A: there is an interruption because he did not finish the
term . then it is not considered as the full term that they
serve.
CASE OF ALDOVINO JR VS COMELEC
The preventive suspension of public officials does not
interrupt their term for purposes of the 3 term limit rule
under the Constitution and the local government code.
Preventive suspension by its nature does not involve an
effective interruption of service.
94
Vice-Mayor of Tuburan due to the retirement of the ViceMayor pursuant to Section 44 of R.A. No.
7160. Potencioso's assumption of office as Vice-Mayor
was considered an involuntary severance from his office
as Municipal Councilor, resulting in an interruption in his
second term of service. The Court held that it could not
be deemed to have been by reason of voluntary
renunciation because it was by operation of law. Hence,
Potencioso was qualified to run as candidate for
municipal councilor of the Municipality of Tuburan, Cebu
in the May 14, 2007 Synchronized National and Local
Elections. |(Bolos, Jr. v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 184082,
March 17, 2009)
HELD: The SC said that Bolos was serving his third term
as punong barangay when he ran for the Sangunian
Bayan membership and upon winning and assuming the
position as a Sangguniang Bayan member, thus
voluntarily relinquishing his office as Punong Baranggay.
The court deemed this as a voluntary loss of title to the
office of Punong Baranggay and therefore, does not
interrupt the three-term limit.
95
***Memorize impeachable officials: (President, VicePresident, Supreme Court Justices, Commissioners of the
Constitutional Commissions and Ombudsman). That is
EXCLUSIVE and the GROUNDS also are EXCLUSIVE.
Grounds for Impeachment:
1. Culpable violation of the Constitution
a. Q: Is the offense relating to that
impeachable
offense?
Can
the
President be impeached for it?
b. A: It is impeachable but whether he can
be impeached is another story. Its a
waste of time according to Fr. Bernas.
You know some people they just want
to put an impeachment complaint on
record even if it may not prosper at all.
Makataghap diay. (Its clear that there
was a violation, particularly Section
25(5) of Art. VI, whether there was good
or bad faith, but the next question is
whether it is culpable. Thats another
story.)
2. Bribery
3. Graft and Corruption
4. Betrayal of Public Trust
5. Treason
96
97
Cases
Facura vs CA, et al., GR No. 166495, February 16, 2011.
Appeals from the decisions of the Ombudsman in
administrative cases do not stay the execution of the
penalty imposed.
98
legislative
prerogative
and can be
exercised by
the Congress
only within
the limits of
the authority
conferred
upon it by the
Constitution.
This authority
may not be
expanded by
the grantee
itself even if
motivated by
the desire to
strengthen
the security
of tenure of
other officials
of the
government.
The
impeachable
officers are
the President
of the
Philippines,
the VicePresident,
the members
of the
Supreme
Court, the
members of
the
Constitutiona
l
Commissions
, and the
Ombudsman.
(see Art. XI,
Sec. 2) The
list is
exclusive
and may not
be increased
or reduced
by legislative
enactment.
The power to
impeach is
essentially a
non-
99
100
101
102
103
Timber lands
National parks
104
105
106
incomplete title. By
legal fiction, the
land has already
ceased to be part
of
the
public
domain and has
become
private
property. 37
(b)Lands of the public
domain
subsequently
classified
or
declared as no
longer intended for
public use or for
the development of
national wealth are
removed from the
sphere of public
dominion and are
considered
converted
into
patrimonial lands
or lands of private
ownership
that
may be alienated
or
disposed
through any of the
modes of acquiring
ownership under
the Civil Code. If
the
mode
of
acquisition
is
prescription,
whether ordinary
or
extraordinary,
proof that the land
has been already
converted
to
private ownership
prior
to
the
requisite
acquisitive
prescriptive period
is a condition sine
qua
non in
observance of the
law
(Article
1113, Civil Code)
that property of the
State
not
patrimonial
in
character shall not
be the object of
prescription.
||| (Heirs of Malabanan v. Republic, G.R. No. 179987,
September 03, 2013)
TN: so if you have been an occupant of the property of
your predecessors. Take note of the period when to recon
from the possession to recon the 30 years. You must
have the possession of the property since June 12, 1945.
That at the time of the occupation of the land it was not
107
108
109
2.
110
111
112
113
5.
6.
7.
This was ask in the bar exam, kani bitawng who can take
an oath and affirmation to uphold and defend the
constitution? Dili lang ang president, the armed forces of
the Philippines and public officers and employees
Also the 4th paragraph that was also ask in the bar exam
4.
Sections 6.
Police Force is Civilian. National in scope but civilian in
character. Under authority of the local executives. They
are only operational because they are directly under the
DILG. Under the president through the DILG.
Section 11
On mass media: (pending amendment) No foreigner shall
be allowed to engage in this kind of business but in
advertising, foreigners are allowed. 70% fil 30 %
foreigner. But in mass media 100% Filipino. However, the
truth of the matter is, wala nka kwarta ang government
because our media companies are directly entering into
contracts with the foreign outfits and they are feeding
them news from the Philippines. They are giving them
news. So why not allow them instead to invest money in
mass media so they can be regulated by the government
because ,as of now, it is prohibited. The requirement in
mass media is still 100% Fil.
BAR: In advertising, proportionate gihapon ang iyang
managing officers. (70%fil 30% Foreign)
ARTICLE XVII AMENDMENTS AND REVISIONS
TN: who can propose; the process; proposal; submission
and then ratification.
114
115
116
June 9,
117
Procedural
proceedings
due
process
in
administrative
118
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
2.
3.
4.
119
120
121
A. the police may ask him to stop and if he does not stop
then it is a justification for extensive search, not just
frisking. In the stop and frisk, you are stopped and then
you are frisked, however the frisking is limited only to
protective search which means only to outer garments
and not extensive but if probable cause is established that
you are commiting a crime then in the course of the
search they found a contraband in your possession then
search ca be made now after lawful arrest because here it
will be as if you are commiting a crime in the presence of
the arresting officers search conducted is incidental to
that lawful arrest. So then on mere suspicion you can
stop and frisk but if you are to make an arrest and make a
search incidental to that arrest you must establish
probable cause, otherwise there is no justification for
further extensive search.
Q. another exception?
A. the search of a moving vehicles, especially at the
check points. TN moving vehicle is limited only to visual
search unless when probable cause is established that
would justify an extensive search. Check point also
limited to visual search unless proabable cause is
established.
Customs search, limited only on warehouses but
residential houses where there is a suspicion that
smuggled goods are kept for non-payment of taxes,
cannot search without a warrant. In a warehouse,
may even without a search warrant.
not
the
you
you
122
1.
Consented Search
2.
3.
4.
5.
Customs Search
6.
7.
8.
WARRANT OF ARREST
First, there has to be a warrant of arrest. But unlike in a
search warrant, it is not necessary that its application has
to be done summarily. Theres this PI conducted by the
fiscal and then if there is probable cause or it is
established, the case is filed in court.
Q: What does the judge do?
A: The judge within 10 days from receipt of the records
must determine probable cause, not for the purpose of
indicting, but for the purpose of determining whether there
is basis to believe that a crime was committed and the
person to be arrested must have committed the crime. He
must immediately be place in the custody of law.
2.
123
In flagrante delicto
2.
Hot Pursuit
3.
Arrest of an Escapee
4.
5.
Administrative Arrest
Section 3.
1.The privacy of communication and
correspondence shall be inviolable except
upon lawful order of the court, or when
public safety or order requires otherwise,
as prescribed by law.
2.Any evidence obtained in violation of
this or the preceding section shall be
inadmissible for any purpose in any
proceeding.
Q: What is covered by this protection?
A:
It
covers
everything,
including
electronics
communication now. Emails, texting, cellphone calls, etc.
Q: Is evidence obtained in violation of this protection
admissible? What are the Exceptions?
A: Any evidence in violation of this right is inadmissible.
The only exception are when there is a warrant or a lawful
order of the court or when public safety or order requires
otherwise as may be prescribed by law.
What
you must consider then in the privacy of
communication and correspondence is:
Q: With respect to prisoners, do they have privacy of
communication and correspondence?
A: They have no right. According to the Supreme Court,
under the law, the right of one who is detained, their
expectation of privacy is not as much as those who are
outside of jail or the public at large. If they are detained,
there is their loss of right to privacy.
But take note of the case of Alejano et al vs. Cabujay on
letters of prisoners.
CASE: Alejano v. Cabujay (case of Trillanes)
-
124
125
126
Content-based Restrictions
Content-neutral Regulations
127
March
128
129
130
131
Though it has been said that the act of referral is an optout clause, it is, however, a false compromise because it
makes pro-life health providers complicit in the
performance of an act that they find morally repugnant or
offensive. They cannot, in conscience, do indirectly what
they cannot do directly. One may not be the principal, but
he is equally guilty if he abets the offensive act by indirect
participation.
Section 6. The liberty of abode and of changing the same
within the limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired
except upon lawful order of the court. Neither shall the
right to travel be impaired except in the interest of national
security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided
by law.
LIBERTY OF ABODE & RIGHT TO TRAVEL
On Section 6, on liberty of abode and the right to travel.
What you must take note on the liberty of abode is that
you also have the right to change the same within the
limits prescribed by law.
00:50:01-00:57:50 Ortezuela
TN: You also have the right to change the same within the
limits described by law. What are the limitations,
exceptions when there is a lawful order of the court, then
you cannot demand where you want to reside.
Q:But the right to travel, what are the restrictions?
A:In the interest of national security, public health or
public safety.
Q:Who determines?
A: Its not the court. It could be administrative agencies
exercising its functions that may have the responsibility to
make sure that there is no violation of the states public
health, or public safety, or national security.
Q: And thus the question of the right to travel of the
Arroyo couple they are going abroad. Can it be restrained
because there is an impending investigation conducted
on them? Of course not. What is the limitation?
A: Only in the interest of national security, public health,
public safety. Which was not established by the DOJ
nonetheless they refiled for the TRO.And so they were
not able to go abroad because eventually there was a
filing of an election case against them where it became
nonbailable as far as the president is concerned and then
after, the plunder case, which is an even more
nonbailable offense.
Q:But what about the requirement of judges and court
personnel?
A: To first secure a permit to travel before going abroad.
Q:Does this violate the right to travel?
132
2.
133
Executive Privilege
2.
Judicial Privilege
3.
Military Secrets
4.
5.
6.
Trade Secrets
7.
8.
Diplomatic Correspondence
9.
134
135
136
Private Property
Entry to the property in the Constitutional sense
For public use
Payment of just compensation
Observance of Due process
b.
c.
d.
We
hold,
therefore,
that
the
"taking'
of
the Castellvi property should not be reckoned as of the
year 1947 when the Republic first occupied the same
pursuant to the contract of lease, and that the just
compensation to be paid for the Castellvi property should
not be determined on the basis of the value of the
property as of that year. The lower court did not commit
an error when it held that the "taking" of the property
under expropriation commenced with the filing of the
complaint in this case.|||(Republic v. Vda. de Castellvi,
G.R. No. L-20620, August 15, 1974)
If from the very beginning, if the entry of the Government
is without color of title, then there is no valid entry for
purposes of determining just compensation. It must be
reckoned from the time expropriation case was filed not
from the time of actual occupancy by the government,
because for entry to be lawful it must be under the color
of title.
But generally the basis for determining just compensation
should be reckoned from the time of taking of possession
by the Government, even if this is before the filing of the
expropriation case.
It must be for public use, defined as anything that
redounds to the benefit of the public. Even if only a
greater number of the people or the public may be
benefited from it. TN of the case of Vda. De Ouano vs.
The Republic. This was decided just last 2011, this is the
IT Park case I think. Public use, according to the
Supreme Court, includes any use that is of usefulness,
utility or advantage.
In esse, expropriation is forced private property taking,
the landowner being really without a ghost of a chance to
defeat the case of the expropriating agency. In other
words, in expropriation, the private owner is deprived of
property against his will. Withal, the mandatory
requirement of due process ought to be strictly followed,
such that the state must show, at the minimum, a genuine
need, an exacting public purpose to take private property,
the purpose to be specifically alleged or least reasonably
deducible from the complaint.
DTAIaH
Public use, as an eminent domain concept, has now
acquired an expansive meaning to include any use that is
of "usefulness, utility, or advantage, or what is productive
of general benefit [of the public]." 41 If the genuine public
necessity the very reason or condition as it were
137
In RA 8974, it is 100%
138
139
2.
140