MINISTERIAL DUTY

It refers to the official duty of a public officer wherein the officer has no room for
the exercise of discretion, and the performance being required by direct and
positive command of the law. The powers and duties of public officers are, in
general, classified as ministerial and discretionary.

The distinction between a ministerial and discretionary act is well delineated.

A purely ministerial act or duty is one which an officer or tribunal performs in a
given state of facts, in a prescribed manner, in obedience to the mandate of a legal
authority, without regard to or the exercise of his own judgment upon the
propriety or impropriety of the act done.

If the law imposes a duty upon a public officer and gives him the right to decide
how or when the duty shall be performed, such duty is discretionary and
not ministerial. The duty is ministerial only when the discharge of the same
requires neither the exercise of official discretion or judgment. (Codilla, Sr. v. de
Venecia, 442 Phil. 139 (2002).

POLITICAL QUESTION
In my more than 40 years of being a lawyer, I have never seen a busier Supreme Court
than the present one, more specifically the Supreme Court after the 1987 Constitution. So
many controversial issues have seen their way into the halls of this highest court in the
land which in the past should have been initially resolved by the lower courts.
Government contracts and transactions of public interests have been brought for scrutiny
at the first instance before this supposed court of last resort by just about any individual
or juridical entity having doubts as to their factual validity and regularity. The emerging
belief, though erroneous, is that the Supreme Court’s approval is required in
government deals or in any government action; a belief that has engendered the tendency
to run to the Supreme Court for all sorts of grievances or disagreements with certain
government decisions. A case in point is the recent filing by two lawyers of a petition
questioning the controversial appointments of two commissioners to the recently vacated
posts in the Comelec.

To be sure, the Supreme Court seems to be "busier" now not because it wants to dip its
finger into every pie. It really has more work to do now because the 1987 Constitution
expanded its power of judicial review not only to settle actual controversies involving
rights which are legally demandable and enforceable but also to determine whether or not
there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on
the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government (Section 1, Article VIII). The
new provision clearly "did not just grant the court the power to do nothing". It gave the
court greater prerogative to determine what it can do to prevent such grave abuse of
discretion on the part of any branch or instrumentality of government (Estrada vs.
Desierto 353 SCRA 491). But can the Supreme Court use this expanded power to review
the presidential power to appoint, particularly of the two Comelec commissioners?

Under the "political question" doctrine arising from the principle of separation of powers,
the Judicial Branch cannot decide questions "in regard to which full discretionary
authority has been delegated to the legislative or executive branch of the government"
(Taada vs. Cuenco 103 Phil.1068). In the matter of the power of appointment, there is no
question that it is executive in nature (Gov’t vs. Springer 50 Phil. 259). It is
essentially a discretionary power of the president performed according to "his best lights".
(Luego vs. CSC 143 SCRA 327). The selection of the appointee–taking into account
the totality of his qualifications, including those abstract qualities that define his
personality – is the prerogative and a matter addressed solely to the discretion of
the appointing authority (Lapinid vs. CSC 197 SCRA 106). Thus both the Luego and
Lapinid cases categorically declare that "this is a political question involving
considerations of wisdom which only the appointing authority can decide".

The 1987 Constitution has indeed limited the scope of the political question doctrine when
it expanded the power of judicial review. Thus in the case of the president’s
appointing power, judicial review may be done if grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction has been committed. This means that the president’s
exercise of the discretionary power to appoint according to his best lights is subject to the
condition that the appointee "should possess the qualifications required by law. If he does,
then the appointment cannot be faulted on the ground that there are others better
qualified who should have been preferred" (Luego, Supra). If he does not, then the
appointment may be questioned as a grave abuse of discretion.

In the case of the two Comelec Commissioners, there is clearly no grave abuse of
discretion, not even any abuse of discretion. It is unquestionable that the President has the
power to appoint them (Section1[2] Art. IX C, Section 16, Art. VII). Apparently, nobody
has also questioned their qualifications for the position fixed by the Constitution
(Section1[1] Art. IX C). Questions have been raised only as to their character and
personality and their alleged partisan inclinations which have nothing to do with the
minimum qualification requirements for the position. The Supreme Court should
therefore junk the petition for it merely raises issues dependent upon the wisdom, not
legality of their appointment. The wisdom or folly of their appointment, or any
appointment for that matter, is the sole responsibility of the President to the sovereign
people. This is purely a political question.
 PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 532

ANTI-PIRACY AND ANTI-HIGHWAY ROBBERY LAW OF 1974

WHEREAS, reports from law-enforcement agencies reveal that lawless elements

are still committing acts of depredations upon the persons and properties of
innocent and defenseless inhabitants who travel from one place to another,
thereby distributing the peace, order and tranquility of the nation and stunting the
economic and social progress of the people;

WHEREAS, such acts of depredations constitute either piracy or highway

robbery/brigandage which are among the highest forms of lawlessness
condemned by the penal statutes of all countries; and,

WHEREAS, it is imperative that said lawless elements be discouraged from

perpetrating such acts of depredations by imposing heavy penalty on the
offenders, with the end in view of eliminating all obstacles to the economic, social,
educational and community progress of the people;

NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the Philippines,

by virtue of the powers vested in me by the Constitution and pursuant to
proclamation No. 1081, dated September 21, 1972 and No. 1104, dated January 17,
1973 and General Order No. 1, dated September 22, 1972, do hereby order and
decree as part of the law of the land the following:

Section 1. Title. This Decree shall be known as the Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway
Robbery Law of 1974.

Section 2. Definition of Terms. The following terms shall mean and be understood,
as follows:

a. PHILIPPINE WATERS. It shall refer to all bodies of water, such as but not
limited to, seas, gulfs, bays around, between and connecting each of the Islands of
the Philippine Archipelago, irrespective of its depth, breadth, length or dimension,
and all other waters belonging to the Philippines by historic or legal title, including
territorial sea, the sea-bed, the insular shelves, and other submarine areas over
which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction.

b. VESSEL. Any vessel or watercraft used for transport of passengers and cargo
from one place to another through Philippine Waters. It shall include all kinds and
types of vessels or boats used in fishing.
c. PHILIPPINE HIGHWAY. It shall refer to any road, street, passage, highway
and bridges or other parts thereof, or railway or railroad within the Philippines
used by persons, or vehicles, or locomotives or trains for the movement or
circulation of persons or transportation of goods, articles, or property or both.

d. PIRACY. Any attack upon or seizure of any vessel, or the taking away of the
whole or part thereof or its cargo, equipment, or the personal belongings of its
complement or passengers, irrespective of the value thereof, by means of violence
against or intimidation of persons or force upon things, committed by any person,
including a passenger or member of the complement of said vessel, in Philippine
waters, shall be considered as piracy. The offenders shall be considered as pirates
and punished as hereinafter provided.

e. HIGHWAY ROBBERY/BRIGANDAGE. The seizure of any person for ransom,

extortion or other unlawful purposes, or the taking away of the property of
another by means of violence against or intimidation of person or force upon
things of other unlawful means, committed by any person on any Philippine
Highway.

Section 3. Penalties. Any person who commits piracy or highway

robbery/brigandage as herein defined, shall, upon conviction by competent court
be punished by:

a. Piracy. The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium and maximum periods
shall be imposed. If physical injuries or other crimes are committed as a result or
on the occasion thereof, the penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be imposed. If rape,
murder or homicide is committed as a result or on the occasion of piracy, or when
the offenders abandoned the victims without means of saving themselves, or when
the seizure is accomplished by firing upon or boarding a vessel, the mandatory
penalty of death shall be imposed.

b. Highway Robbery/Brigandage. The penalty of reclusion temporal in its

minimum period shall be imposed. If physical injuries or other crimes are
committed during or on the occasion of the commission of robbery or brigandage,
the penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium and maximum periods shall be
imposed. If kidnapping for ransom or extortion, or murder or homicide, or rape is
committed as a result or on the occasion thereof, the penalty of death shall be
imposed.
Section 4. Aiding pirates or highway robbers/brigands or abetting piracy or highway
robbery/brigandage. Any person who knowingly and in any manner aids or protects
pirates or highway robbers/brigands, such as giving them information about the
movement of police or other peace officers of the government, or acquires or
receives property taken by such pirates or brigands or in any manner derives any
benefit therefrom; or any person who directly or indirectly abets the commission
of piracy or highway robbery or brigandage, shall be considered as an accomplice
of the principal offenders and be punished in accordance with the Rules prescribed
by the Revised Penal Code.

It shall be presumed that any person who does any of the acts provided in this
Section has performed knowingly, unless the contrary is proven.

Section 5. Repealing Clause. Pertinent portions of Act No. 3815, otherwise known
as the Revised Penal Code; and all laws, decrees, or orders or instructions, or parts
thereof, insofar as they are inconsistent with this Decree are hereby repealed or
modified accordingly.

Section 6. Effectivity. This Decree shall take effect upon approval.

Done in the City of Manila, this 8th day of August, in the year of Our Lord,
nineteen hundred and seventy-four.

(Sgd.) FERDINAND E. MARCOS

By the President:
(Sgd.) ALEJANDRO MELCHOR
Executive Secretary
 REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7438
April 27, 1992

AN ACT DEFINING CERTAIN RIGHTS OF PERSON ARRESTED,

DETAINED OR UNDER CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION AS WELL AS THE
DUTIES OF THE ARRESTING, DETAINING AND INVESTIGATING
OFFICERS, AND PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress

assembled::

Section 1. Statement of Policy. It is the policy of the Senate to value the dignity
of every human being and guarantee full respect for human rights.

Section 2. Rights of Persons Arrested, Detained or Under Custodial Investigation;

Duties of Public Officers.

(a) Any person arrested detained or under custodial investigation shall at

all times be assisted by counsel.

(b) Any public officer or employee, or anyone acting under his order or his
place, who arrests, detains or investigates any person for the
commission of an offense shall inform the latter, in a language known
to and understood by him, of his rights to remain silent and to have
competent and independent counsel, preferably of his own choice, who
shall at all times be allowed to confer privately with the person arrested,
detained or under custodial investigation. If such person cannot afford
the services of his own counsel, he must be provided with a competent
and independent counsel by the investigating officer.lawphi1

(c) The custodial investigation report shall be reduced to writing by the

investigating officer, provided that before such report is signed, or
thumbmarked if the person arrested or detained does not know how to
read and write, it shall be read and adequately explained to him by his
counsel or by the assisting counsel provided by the investigating officer
in the language or dialect known to such arrested or detained person,
otherwise, such investigation report shall be null and void and of no
effect whatsoever.
 (d) Any extrajudicial confession made by a person arrested, detained or
under custodial investigation shall be in writing and signed by such
person in the presence of his counsel or in the latter's absence, upon a
valid waiver, and in the presence of any of the parents, elder brothers
and sisters, his spouse, the municipal mayor, the municipal judge,
district school supervisor, or priest or minister of the gospel as chosen
by him; otherwise, such extrajudicial confession shall be inadmissible as
evidence in any proceeding.

(e) Any waiver by a person arrested or detained under the provisions of

Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, or under custodial investigation,
shall be in writing and signed by such person in the presence of his
counsel; otherwise the waiver shall be null and void and of no effect.

(f) Any person arrested or detained or under custodial investigation shall

be allowed visits by or conferences with any member of his immediate
family, or any medical doctor or priest or religious minister chosen by
him or by any member of his immediate family or by his counsel, or by
any national non-governmental organization duly accredited by the
Commission on Human Rights of by any international non-
governmental organization duly accredited by the Office of the
President. The person's "immediate family" shall include his or her
spouse, fianc or fiance, parent or child, brother or sister, grandparent
or grandchild, uncle or aunt, nephew or niece, and guardian or ward.

As used in this Act, "custodial investigation" shall include the practice of issuing
an "invitation" to a person who is investigated in connection with an offense he is
suspected to have committed, without prejudice to the liability of the "inviting"
officer for any violation of law.

Section 3. Assisting Counsel. Assisting counsel is any lawyer, except those

directly affected by the case, those charged with conducting preliminary
investigation or those charged with the prosecution of crimes.
The assisting counsel other than the government lawyers shall be entitled to the
following fees;

(a) The amount of One hundred fifty pesos (P150.00) if the suspected
person is chargeable with light felonies;
(b) The amount of Two hundred fifty pesos (P250.00) if the suspected
person is chargeable with less grave or grave felonies;
(c) The amount of Three hundred fifty pesos (P350.00) if the suspected
person is chargeable with a capital offense.
 The fee for the assisting counsel shall be paid by the city or municipality
where the custodial investigation is conducted, provided that if the
municipality of city cannot pay such fee, the province comprising such
municipality or city shall pay the fee: Provided, That the Municipal or City
Treasurer must certify that no funds are available to pay the fees of assisting
counsel before the province pays said fees.

In the absence of any lawyer, no custodial investigation shall be conducted and

the suspected person can only be detained by the investigating officer in
accordance with the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code.

Section 4. Penalty Clause. (a) Any arresting public officer or employee, or any
investigating officer, who fails to inform any person arrested, detained or under
custodial investigation of his right to remain silent and to have competent and
independent counsel preferably of his own choice, shall suffer a fine of Six
thousand pesos (P6,000.00) or a penalty of imprisonment of not less than eight (8)
years but not more than ten (10) years, or both. The penalty of perpetual absolute
disqualification shall also be imposed upon the investigating officer who has been
previously convicted of a similar offense.

The same penalties shall be imposed upon a public officer or employee, or

anyone acting upon orders of such investigating officer or in his place, who
fails to provide a competent and independent counsel to a person arrested,
detained or under custodial investigation for the commission of an offense
if the latter cannot afford the services of his own counsel.

(b) Any person who obstructs, prevents or prohibits any lawyer, any
member of the immediate family of a person arrested, detained or under
custodial investigation, or any medical doctor or priest or religious minister
chosen by him or by any member of his immediate family or by his counsel,
from visiting and conferring privately with him, or from examining and
treating him, or from ministering to his spiritual needs, at any hour of the
day or, in urgent cases, of the night shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment
of not less than four (4) years nor more than six (6) years, and a fine of four
thousand pesos (P4,000.00).

The provisions of the above Section notwithstanding, any security officer with
custodial responsibility over any detainee or prisoner may undertake such
reasonable measures as may be necessary to secure his safety and prevent his
escape.
 REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9372
March 06, 2007

ANTI-TERRORISM ACT
Section 3 TERRORISM Any person who commits an act punishable under any
of the following provisions of the Revised Penal Code:
a. Article 122 (Piracy in General and Mutiny in the High Seas or in Philippine
Waters);
b. Article 134 (Rebellion or Insurrection);
c. Article 143-A (Coup d Etat), including acts committed by private persons;
d. Article 248 (Murder);
e. Article 267 (Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention);
f. Article 324 (Crimes Involving Destruction)
or under
1. Presidential Decree No. 1613 (The Law on Arson);
2. Republic Act No. 6969 (Toxic Substances and Hazardous and Nuclear
Waste Control Act of 1990);
3. Republic Act No. 5207 (Atomic Energy Regulatory and Liability Act of
1968);
4. Republic Act No. 6235 (Anti-Hijacking Law);
5. Presidential Decree No. 532 (Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery Law
of 1974) and,
6. Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended (Decree Codifying the Laws on
Illegal and Unlawful Possession, Manufacture, Dealing in, Acquisition or
Disposition of Firearms, Ammunitions or Explosives)
thereby sowing and creating a condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and
panic among the populace, in order to coerce the government to give in to an
unlawful demand, shall be guilty of the crime of terrorism and shall suffer the
penalty of forty (40) years of imprisonment, without the benefit of parole as
provided for under Act No. 4103, otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence
Law, as amended.
Section 6 ACCESSORY Any person who, having knowledge of the commission
of the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism, and without having
participated therein, either as principal or accomplice under Articles 17 and 18 of
the Revised Penal Code, takes part subsequent to its commission in any of the
following manner: (a) by profiting himself or assisting the offender to profit by the
effects of the crime; (b) by concealing or destroying the body of the crime, or the
effects or instruments thereof, in order to prevent discovery; (c) by harboring,
concealing, or assisting in the escape of the principal or conspirator of the crime,
shall suffer the penalty of ten (10) years and one day to twelve years of
imprisonment.

Notwithstanding the above paragraph, the penalties prescribed for accessories

shall not be imposed upon those who are such with respect to their spouses,
ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural and adopted brothers and sisters, or
relatives by affinity within the same degree, with the single exception of
accessories falling within the provisions of subparagraph (a).
Section 7 SURVEILLANCE OF SUSPECTS AND INTERCEPTION AND
RECORDING OF COMMUNICATIONS The provisions of Republic Act No.
4200 (Anti-Wire Tapping Law) to the contrary notwithstanding, a police or law
enforcement official and the members of his team may, upon a written order of the
Court of Appeals, listen to, intercept and record, with the use of any mode, form,
kind or type of electronic or other surveillance equipment or intercepting and
tracking devices, or with the use of any other suitable ways and means for that
purpose, any communication, message, conversation, discussion, or spoken or
written words between members of a judicially declared and outlawed terrorist
organization, association, or group of persons or of any person charged with or
suspected of the crime of terrorism of conspiracy to commit terrorism.
Provided, that surveillance, interception and recording of communications
between lawyers and clients, doctors and patients, journalists and their sources
and confidential business correspondence shall not be authorized.
Section 26 RESTRICTION ON TRAVEL In cases where evidence of guilt is not
strong, and the person charged with the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to
commit terrorism is entitled to bail and is granted the same, the court, upon
application by the prosecutor, shall limit the right of travel of the accused to within
the municipality or city where he resides or where the case is pending, in the
interest of national security and public safety, consistent with Article III, Section 6
of the Constitution. Travel outside of said municipality or city, without the
authorization of the court, shall be deemed a violation of the terms and conditions
of his bail, which shall then be forfeited as provided under the Rules of Court.
He/she may also be placed under house arrest by order of the court at his or her
usual place of residence.
While under house arrest, he or she may not use telephones, cell phones, e-mails,
computers, the internet or other means of communication with people outside the
residence until otherwise ordered by the court.
The restrictions above-mentioned shall be terminated upon the acquittal of the
accused or of the dismissal of the case filed against him or earlier upon the
discussion of the court on motion of the prosecutor or of the accused.
Section 39 SEIZURE AND SEQUESTRATION The deposits and their
outstanding balances, placements, trust accounts, assets, and records in any bank
or financial institution, moneys, businesses, transportation and communication
equipment, supplies and other implements, and property of whatever kind and
nature belonging:
1) to any person suspected of or charged before a competent Regional
Trial Court for the crime of terrorism or the crime of conspiracy to
commit terrorism;
2) to a judicially declared and outlawed organization, association, or
group of persons; or
3) to a member of such organization, association, or group of persons
shall be seized, sequestered and frozen in order to prevent their use,
transfer, or conveyance for purposes that are inimical to the safety
and security of the people or injurious to the interest of the State.
The accused or a person suspected of may withdraw such sums as
may be reasonably needed by the monthly needs of his family,
including the services of his or her counsel and his or her familys
medical needs, upon approval of the court. He or she may also use
any of his property that is under seizure or sequestration or frozen
because of his/her indictment as a terrorist upon permission of the
court for any legitimate reason.
Any person who unjustifiably refuses to follow the order of the
proper division of the Court of Appeals to allow the person accused
of the crime of terrorism or of the crime of conspiracy to commit
terrorism to withdraw such sums from sequestered or frozen
deposits, placements, trust accounts, assets and records as may be
necessary for the regular sustenance of his/her family or to use any
of his/her property that has been seized, sequestered or frozen for
legitimate purposes while his/her case is pending shall suffer the
penalty of ten (10) years and one day to twelve (12) years of
imprisonment.
 ANTI-HIJACKING LAW (PD 6235)

The following are the punishable acts:

1. Usurping or seizing control of an aircraft of Philippine registry

while it is in flight, compelling the pilots thereof to change the
course or destination of the aircraft;

2. Usurping or seizing control of an aircraft of foreign registry while

within Philippine territory, compelling the pilots thereof to land
in any part of the Philippine territory;

3. Carrying or loading on board an aircraft operating as

a public utility passenger aircraft in the Philippines,
any flammable, corrosive, explosive, substances; or poisonous

4. Loading, shipping or transporting on board a cargo aircraft

operating as a public utility in the Philippines,
any flammable, corrosive, explosive, or poisonous substance if
this was done in accordance with the rules and regulations set and
promulgated by the Air Transportation Office on this matter;

AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES TO NOS. 1 AND 2:

a) When the offender has fired upon the pilot, member of the crew,
or passenger of the aircraft;

b) When the offender has exploded or attempted to explode any

bomb or explosive to destroy the aircraft;

c) Whenever the crime is accompanied by murder, homicide, serious

physical injuries or rape;

Before the AntiHijacking Law or R.A. 6235 may apply, the aircraft must
be of Philippine registry and it must be in flight.

An aircraft is considered in flight from the moment all exterior

doors are closed following the embarkation until such time when the
same doors are again opened for disembarkation. (Section 1). This
means that there are passengers that boarded. The aircraft shall be
deemed to be already in flight even if its engine has not yet been started.
If the aircraft is of Philippine registry but it is not in flight and any of
the four circumstances mentioned under R.A. 6235 is committed, the
AntiHijacking Law will not apply and the acts will be punished
accordingly under the RPC or the applicable special penal laws. The
correlative crime may be one of grave coercion or grave threat. If
somebody is killed, the crime is homicide or murder, as the case may
be.

If the aircraft is of foreign registry, it is not required that it is in flight

before R.A. 6235 applies because aircrafts of foreign registry are
considered in transit while they are in foreign countries.

There is no hijacking in the attempted stage. R.A. 6235 is a special law,

where the attempted stage is not punishable.

Where in the course of the hijacking, a passenger or complement was

shot and killed. The crime remains to be a violation of the AntiHijacking
law, but the penalty thereof shall be higher because a passenger or
complement of the aircraft had been killed. The crime of homicide or
murder per se is not punished.
 EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 272
July 25, 1987

FURTHER AMENDING ARTICLE 125 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE,

AS AMENDED

WHEREAS, in the interest of public safety and order, it is imperative that a

reasonable and sufficient period be given within which to conduct adequate and
thorough investigation of persons detained for some legal grounds.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, CORAZON C. AQUINO, President of the Philippines, do

hereby order:

Section 1. Article one hundred twenty-five of Act Numbered Three Thousand

Eight Hundred Fifteen (Act No. 3815) otherwise known as the Revised Penal Code,
as amended, is hereby further amended to read as follows:

"Art. 125. Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial
authorities. The penalties provided in the next preceding article shall be
imposed upon the public officer or employee who shall detain any
person for some legal ground and shall fail to deliver such person to the
proper judicial authorities within the period of twelve (12) hours, for
crimes or offenses punishable by light penalties, or their equivalent;
eighteen (18) hours, for crimes or offenses punishable by correctional
penalties, or their equivalent, and thirty-six (36) hours, for crimes or
offenses punishable by afflictive or capital penalties, or their equivalent.

In every case, the person detained shall be informed of the caused of his
detention and shall be allowed, upon his request, to communicate and
confer at any time with his attorney or counsel."