Untitled PDF

CONSTITUTIONAL
LAW 1 – Judge Singco Transcripts 2012

BY: Laarnie, Marigold, Diane, Neil Jason 1

June 8, 2012 (3 hours)
1.Introduction: Definition of Terms
If you wish to top the bar, you should know what Political Law is, what is Constitutional law, what is
Administrative Law, Election Law, etc. Basically, they are all branches of Political law. As you already learned in
your first year, when we speak of Political, it is derived from the word “polis” meaning city states. So basically, if
you are to study Political law, it is a public law that deals on the study of the state. When we speak about the
state, you go into the 4 elements: people, territory, government, and sovereignty. Just so it can be considered as
state by all the other states, you have two other factors that you have to take into consideration: the recognition
by the family of nations and the degree of civilization acceptable by the family of nations. That is still part of
public international law. That is the reason why public international law is part of the study of political law.
When we deal on the basic elements of the state, you study about people, in particular, the Filipino people. And
thus you have provisions on Article IV. You have to master on citizenship and as such, you have your obligations
of a citizen and the right to suffrage. Not only obligations, they also have rights found on the bill of rights. Then
you have territory, thus you have the definition of the National territory. And then you have government. You
have executive, legislative and judiciary. Constitutional bodies and all other principles relating to these branches
and constitutional bodies. In other words, we don’t have to study one provision in isolation from other
provisions. We always relate one provision with all other pertinent political laws. This is important so that you
will have a holistic view of political law so that one you are given a situation especially in legal memorandum
making, you can relate laws not just political laws but the other related laws as well. Only when you have a
holistic view of the laws of the country will you then be prepared for the bar. But then the most important thing
here is that you have the mastery of the basics so that you will be able to relate the laws. After defining what we
will be dealing on Political law, we go into the matter of defining terms. One of the branches of political law is
Constitutional law. Constitutional law is a particular subject matter in Political law. It deals only on how to
balance the authority representing the state such as eminent domain power, taxation power, and police power.
These are all exercised by all three branches of the government and the rights of individuals as embodied in the
bill of rights. And so when we speak of the Bill of rights, you have to think of what are the rights of individuals
that may serve as limitations on the powers of the state or how are the rights of individuals regulated or limited
by the state. So the issue raised in Constitutional law is the conflict between authority by the state in one hand
and liberty on the other. And then of course, you have political law. The broader part which deals on
organization, of the government, the structure, and then you have powers of the different branches of the
government, and the limitations to the exercise of the powers, and how the different branches of the
government relate with each other. Now, when I discuss political law, I will start with the national territory. And
then we go to declaration of state principles and policies, citizenship, the 3 branches of the government,
constitutional bodies and the laws in relation to principles governing the relationship of the three branches as
well as the constitutional bodies. That would be one topic. The bill of rights, we will discuss it separately.
So I usually have two long exams, one on Poli and one on Consti.
2.History of the Constitution and Sources of Philippine Political Law
If you can recall, prior to the 1987 Constitution, there were other Constitutions passed and other organic laws
passed which until now, we make reference to in order to understand better the process. Even before the
Spaniards, there were already some set of rules. Like you have the earliest laws, basically the customs and
traditions, and these were codified during that time. And then the Spaniards occupied the country for more than
300 years. There were laws passed as well by the Spanish Cortes. Then came the Americans. There was an
1
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 – Judge Singco Transcripts 2012

instrument which was used as a legal basis for the occupation and the establishment of government by the
Americans which eventually we also have to refer when we understand some processes now of the government.
That basis or instrument is what we call the Treaty of Paris on December 10, 1898. We always make reference to
this. This is an organic law. We make reference on this in determining the matter on citizenship and even on the
definition of the national territory. Now this treaty was signed in the US and by virtue of this law, it ended the
Spanish colonization however marked the beginning of American occupation. This treaty of Paris, take note,
authorize Congress (not even the President) of the US to pass organic laws in order to govern the territory that
were transferred to them insofar as sovereignty is concerned.
Going back to the organic laws forming part of the political law, the treaty defines the territories transferred to
US by Spain including the Marianas Island and Guam which explains why we are claiming these islands and other
certain islands not only Sabah. We have first and foremost, the President McKinley’s instruction instructing the
Commission to do an investigation whether people are already prepared for a civilian government. The treaty of
Paris initially established not a civilian government but a military government. And then after the President
McKinley’s Instruction to Philippine Commission and with the recommendation that the people were already
ready for a civilian government, Spooner amendment was passed. It was an appropriation law sponsored by
Spooner for an initial transfer of power from military to civilian. For the first time, we had a civil American
governor and the members of the 2nd Philippine Commission served as the cabinet members to the seat of
governor. The seat of governor was Taft heading the Commission. All Americans. And the Philippine Bill of 1902
was passed this time, with a parliamentary form of government, we had the 2nd Philippine Commission headed
by the chairman who became the governor , the members as cabinet, and serving ait the same time on the
upper house of the legislature and for the first time, Filipinos were made to participate by creating the
Philippine Assembly which was known as the political beachhead of the Filipino people because for the first
time, they were made to participate as members of the lower house consisting of the members of the Philippine
Assembly. No judiciary yet until we had the Jones’ law of 1916 although it was otherwise known as the
Philippine Autonomy Act. Under the Jones’ Law of 1916, you have the executive branch consisting of all the
Americans, legislature consisting of all Filipinos this time. They were not afraid then because all laws passed
would still be subject to veto power of the governor. No fear that they would pass a law against the Americans.
Then we had a judiciary, you have the city court, you have a Supreme Court for the first time although the
Philippines then was not independent. Then finally, we had the Tidings McDuffie law. In the tydings McDuffie
law, we were promised with the grant of independence however only after the lapse of ten years. And with this,
we needed to be prepared and so there was a requirement of the Constitution to be drafted and that was the
1935 Constitution which was ratified by the President of the US. And then we had the Commonwealth
government, this time it was occupied by all Filipinos for the first time. You have the President, the Vice
President, and the National Assembly which was then Unicameral, and then you have the Supreme Courts and
all other lower courts. The first President of the Commonwealth, you recall just in case it will be asked, was
President Manuel Quezon and the VP was Sergio Osmeña. That is why you have a Cebuano President for the
first time. When quezon died, he succeeded. The original provision of the 1935 Constitution provided for a term
of office which was 6 years without re-election. That is very clear. That is familiar because the 1987 Constitution
adopted the same. But take note, this was amended during the time of Quezon. He was so sick during that time
and the Japanese were already occupying the country. So they changed the term of office to four years with one
re-election. However, Quezon died.
What is significant in the Commonwealth government is that you had, for the first time a Filipino government.
However, it was still subject to the control of US. After that, there was an interruption because of the occupation
of the Japanese. This is important for political law purposes. How was it possible for the Japanese to occupy
when there was a Commonwealth government? We had two governments then at the same time. That was
2

possible because of the Principle of de jure and de facto government. And this you must not forget for bar
examinations purposes. You cannot deny the existence of the Japanese government however, they do not have
the legal basis for it. They exist in fact but not probably in law. You can only then describe that government as a
de facto: a government that was established against a rightful authority.
Particularly, Co Kim Cham case, you have to memorize the different kinds of de facto government:
1.the government established by the inhabitants of a territory who rise in insurrection against the
mother country (eg. The first Philippine Republic established during the Spanish colonization. The
President then was Aguinaldo. There was no transfer of sovereignty during that time from Spain so you
can virtually describe that as a de facto government. For bar examination purposes, there was even the
Malolos government and a Malolos Constitution. However, it was not recognized as such because there
was no international recognition. Aguinaldo sought for recognition, however, he failed because it was
only short-lived. It lasted only for a month).
2. the government established by a belligerent occupant. By invading a territory and establishing a

government, maintaining that government against a rightful authority. So you go into the consequences
now. When laws are political in nature, they are suspended only except laws relating to your loyalty to
the government especially for military men. Non political laws on the other hand remain unless they are
repealed by the occupant.
So civil laws are still considered valid during the Japanese occupation unless they are repealed by the belligerent
occupant. In other words, the loans granted to you under the Commonwealth government were still considered
valid during the Japanese occupation. The only thing is, you have to consider what the legal tender should be in
the payment because legal tender is political in nature.
When the Japanese were driven out of the country, there was a resumption of the Commonwealth government
by the rightful authority. What happened now to the laws that were passed by the Japanese government? Are
they still valid? Especially on the decisions of the courts that time. For political laws, they were automatically
abrogated. Non political laws remain good and valid unless repealed. So for example if you were convicted
during the Japanese occupation of robbery, that decision of the Supreme Court of the Japanese occupation is
good and valid. You cannot file habeas corpus. Unless the decision in that case is politically tainted like for
example the crime was done to sabotage the military operation of the Japanese. So that is political which is then
automatically abrogated.
3. When one government usurp the legitimate government by force or by the voice of the majority, like
a coup d' etat, and that government would remain against the legitimate government. That’s the issue
on the revolutionary government of Cory. There was a question of whether it was a de facto or a de jure
government because it was a government established by a revolution not by an election. Insofar as the
election was concerned, the rightful president was Mr. Marcos who was proclaimed by the Speaker of
the Interim Batasang pambansa. The decision of the Supreme Court regarding this is that when you
describe a government as a de facto government or de jure, it presupposes the existence of two
governments at the same time, one existing in fact and the other one existing in law. There was no
Marcos government existing at that time as against the Cory government because the Marcos
government fled. Since there was only one government and there was no other government
maintaining itself against another one. However it was a government that was established by revolution
but eventually, it gained recognition as a legitimate government. It cannot be described as a de facto
government but only as a revolutionary government.
3

Another point on de facto is the Arroyo administration following the Edsa Dos. There was a question of the
Constitutionality of the Arroyo Administration. Take note that because there was a resignation as declared by
the Supreme Court, an emergency occurred and by operation of law, Arroyo as Vice President succeeded. So
therefore there was only one government. You only have Arroyo as the successor. It can only be described as de
jure.
Now who was the first President of the 3rd Republic? It was Roxas. And who was the last? You cannot recall. It
was Mr. Marcos. After that, the 1935 Constitution was revised and so you have the 1971 Constitutional
Convention. And then there was the declaration of Martial Law which is very significant providing for a
Democratic Dictatorship or a Constitutional Authoritarianism kind of government.
The system of government established by the 1973 Constitution was parliamentary. The head of the State was
the Prime Minister and the ceremonial head was the president, both occupied by Mr. Marcos. And so you won’t
be confused J. And then you have the Interim National Assembly however it was not convened because
according to Mr. Marcos, it was rejected so in the meantime, he said he would declare himself to be the
lawmaker , very smartJ. Until in 1976 there was a creation of the Interim Batasang Pambansa and the election
of members to the IBP. It was unicameral. He then had the Constitution amended to modify the form of
government which is the modified parliament towards a presidential form of government. It was presidential in
the sense that there was a fixed term of office which was six years and as to re-election, there was no
mentioning of it. As to the Prime Minister, it was nominated BY THE President elected by the majority of the
members of the IBP. The one who sat in office was Virata because there was no other nominees. And the
President was exercising judicial functions as well. Remember it was Martial Law. He was the Commander in
Chief of the Armed forces of the Philippines. All cases involving the national security are being decided by the
military commission whose decisions are subject to the review by the President in his capacity as the
Commander in Chief of the AFP. Until finally, the people wanted a fresh mandate. They wanted an election in
1986. Remember that Marcos’ term was yet to expire that time since his last re-election was in 1981. Yet,
people could not wait so an election was held in 1986 where he won J but was overrun by the revolution. So
now you can understand why he never wanted to leave his office but the Supreme Court decided that the
decision of the people was a political question in which they cannot decide.
Aquino’s did not recognize the existence of the 1973 Constitution otherwise, her government would be illegal.
So she issued proclamation Number 3 otherwise known as the Freedom Constitution. The Freedom Constitution
virtually adopted the provisions in the 1973 Constitution except for the provisions of the government. So there
was no legislative body. Cory Aquino then exercised both executive and legislative powers so she can propose
changes to the Constitution. But that is not allowed in the 1987 Constitution.
You had the Freedom Constitution and Proclamation no.9. The significance of this proclamation no.9 is that this
created the Constitutional Commission whose members were not elected. They were all appointed by the
President upon nomination by the different sectors of society. I think they convened sometime in 1986. This is
actually a 1986 Constitution only that it was called the 1987 Constitution because the ratification was done on
February 2, 1987. Do not forget that. Why is this significant? Take note of the case of de leon vs.esguerra. The
issue there is when the 1987 Constitution took effect because there are certain provisions in the 1987
Constitution that are contrary to the 1973 or even the Freedom Constitution. For example, on the matter of the
authority of the President to replace incumbents in the local government. Remember, they described them as
OIC’s. Under the Freedom Constitution, the President who was exercising legislative power can appoint and
replace the incumbent with the people they trust. The local officials were not yet replaced because there was
yet no local election. So what they did when they had the revolutionary government there were people that
4

they do not trust at all because they were identified with the Marcoses . They replaced by the appointees of
Cory and that was justified under the freedom Constitution. This was exercised by the Ministry of the Local
Government as an alter ego of the president. The controversy involves a barangay captain. He was replaced
sometime in February 9 or 7 of 1987. He argued that he could not be removed anymore because the 1987
Constitution provides in the transitory provision that you hold on to your office as long as you can until an
election is held. He argued that the Freedom Constitution cannot anymore be applied but the 1987 Constitution.
And so the issue on when did the Constitution take effect. It was declared to have been validly enacted
sometime on February 9 when there was an executive order issued by Cory Aquino declaring that the 1987
Constitution was validly ratified on February 2, 1987. The Supreme Court decided that the Ministry no longer
had the authority to remove because under the 1987 Constitution, he enjoys the security of tenure until
elections are held. It is very clear in the Constitution that it took effect upon its ratification by the people which
happened on February 2, 1987.
So briefly, the sources of your political law are:
• Treaty of Paris
• Organic laws such as the Philippine Bill of 1902, Jones’ Law of 1916 and Tydings Mcduffie law
• 1935 Constitution
After that, you already have the 1987 Constitution described as conventional, written, and rigid. Now I suppose
you don’t have problems memorizing your preamble just in case. Just for purposes of topping the barJ because
there has never been yet a question on the preamble but who knows? Just take note that the Constitution is still
valid even without the preamble because it does not form an integral part of the Constitution. It is not a source
of rights and neither of obligations.
3.Classification of a Constitution
1. According to origin
• Conventional or enacted constitution- a constitution made for a particular period of time

(1987 Constitution) there is a particular procedure. Your constitution was made by the 1986
Constitutional Commission.
• Evolutionary or cumulative constitution- a product of history. Basically, a developing law or
constitution (eg. Constitution of Great Britain).
• Fiat or granted constitution- It is made by one sovereign for another country ( Constitution
of Japan after the WW-II)
2. According to Form
• Written- the sources are found in one single instrument.

• Unwritten- there are several sources. (eg. Great Britain)
3. According to the kind of Government
The Constitution being the highest fundamental law of the land is the basis of all government
operations and activities. In other words, the kind or the form of government that you have is
5

just reflective of the kind of Constitution adopted. What kind of government do you have?
Sec.1, Art. 2 provides that the Philippines is a Republican and democratic state.
So you have the Constitution that is democratic, republican, civilian, etc.
4. According to the Manner of Changing or Amending the Provisions
• Rigid-
• Flexible- can be changed anytime even without the need of approval by the people.
4. Constitution Distinguished from other Laws
Distinguished from Statute-first, you have to determine their similarities. They are both governing rules in the
operation of government as well as governing the people in a society. However, they are different because the
Constitution is directly made by the people because they are the ones ratifying it although it may have been
drafted by a Constituted body. But ultimately, the draft is just a mere scrap of paper until it is ratified by
majority of the people. What about the statute? In the first place, what is a statute? These are legislative
enactments so it is a law passed by a legislative body. You call that as Republic Acts. They are made not by the
people directly but by the representative of the people. The Constitution should be broad, brief and definite.
Any detail is supplemented by the statutes passed by Congress.
Another difference is that the Constitution is drafted in such a way that it is applicable not only on the present
condition but also it anticipates future needs of the society. The statutes are made to meet existing needs of the
country. So it’s possible that a statute may no longer be applicable in the future because it was passed for a
specific purpose. To give you an example is the appropriation power of congress regardless of who the members
of Congress are or the president or the number of years that would pass, that would remain. The Congress has
the power to pass laws for disbursement of public funds for a public purpose, unless the Constitution is
amended. But it does not state specific amounts or specific projects covered. These are supplemented by
appropriation laws passed by Congress. There is a specific date when you should disburse the money. You
cannot apply the same law the following year because it has to be very specific.
Finally, if we are to change the Constitution, it has to have the approval of the people unlike the statutes. When
a new law is passed modifying or repealing it, that’s it. You have delegated the exercise of that power to
Congress.
5.Amendments and Revision
The thing that you should take note on the matter of amendment or revision is the stages of proposal and
ratification. Always remember also that there is a difference between an amendment and revision.
Now, revision would entail overhaul. You change the philosophy of the Constitution. But if you change only a
portion or certain portions of the Constitution, then it just an amendment. Why am I making a comparison
between these two? The reason is that there is a provision relating to those who have the power or authority to
propose changes to the Constitution. You go by the process. First and foremost, there has to be a proposal. And
then the proposal is submitted to the people and then finally, you have the ratification.
First let’s take up on the proposal. Who can propose amendments and revision? First let’s take up on
amendment. These people can propose amendments to the Constitution:
6

1. Constituent Assembly- You have ¾ vote of Congress. Although the Constitution is not so clear on
whether it is separate or joint, it is understood that it should be upper house and lower house
separately, not joint. Take note that this is discretionary for Congress whether they would act as a
Constituent Assembly (as a constitutional body) to propose amendments OR they would call for a
Constitutional Convention.
2. Congress calling for a Constitutional Convention- and that would require 2/3 vote
3. Congress letting the people decide whether they want a ConCon and that would require a majority
vote (Initiative). This is done through a petition signed by 12% of the total number of registered
voters provided that each legislative district is represented by at least 3% of registered voters
therein.

The Constitution is very clear that the people can only propose amendments only. This was emphasized in the
case of Santiago vs. Comelec and also Lambino vs. Comelec. Although it was not much emphasized in Lambino,
however it was still mentioned that people can only propose amendments. Thus, the issue on charter change for
the purpose of adopting a different system of government from presidential to parliamentary system, whether it
is just an amendment or a revision. If you adopt a new system of government, you practically change the
philosophy of the kind of Constitution because basically, you change the operation of the government. But if you
are to change a term of office of the President, it’s only an amendment because it doesn’t change the system or
the operation of government unlike when there is revision. So that cannot be changed by the people through
Initiative.
Ordinary statutes requiring initiative only requires 10% and 3% but here, it’s 12%. Now why are we mentioning
this? You recall first and foremost that there was an issue at one time. This was the time of Ramos. He actually
was the one initiating charter change. The Congress then was not so welcoming in the matter of proposing
changes to the Constitution and so what happened is that they created a commission for amendments to the
Constitution. And there was a question on whether it was constitutional considering that the President may not
propose amendments under the 1987 Constitution. And the Supreme Court sustained. The Court justified that it
was not the President’s intention to propose. It was just a study and the budget anyhow will not be taken from
the national budget. There was never any intention to propose amendments because that would be contrary to
the Constitution. But in the case of North Cotabato vs. Comelec if you can recall, remember the Bangsa Moro
Juridical entity? As it was stated in the MOAD, diba there was a proposal to establish, to end these controversies
in Mindanao, with respect to the Muslims. They wanted to have their own some kind of an associate state
known as Bangsa Moro. This can only be effective if you amend the Constitution because the Constitution is very
clear. There is only one state and that is the Republic of the Philippines. If you allow that, you are practically
allowing the existence of a state within one state. And if the President signs it, the President virtually proposes
for the people to amend the Constitution. That was the reason why SC declared it as unconstitutional because
then, the President would be usurping legislative function which is to propose amendments to the Constitution.
So do not confuse the power of the President to propose under the 1973 and the Freedom Constitution, more
particularly Marcos and Cory. The 1987 Constitution is very clear. It can only be amendments proposed by
Congress, ConCon and the People through initiative. On revision, the people definitely cannot propose revision.
Now on the issue also of: Can the people propose amendments to the Constitution without express delegation
of Congress? Considering that the Constitution has expressly provided that initiative can only be exercised by
the people if there is an existing law passed by Congress. Congress is mandated to pass a law to provide for a
procedure on how the people can exercise the power. You recall the case of Santiago (ma’am said vs. Ramos),
the SC was saying there that RA6735 is insufficient insofar as initiative on the amendments of the Constitution.
Not on statutes. There is a procedure provided for there but there is no mention about people initiating
amendments on the Constitution under the law. You recall that? And that was the reason why the initiative on a
7

charter change during that time was dismissed by the SC because there is no law providing for the procedure.
And the same issue was raised in Lambino vs.Comelec. The Supreme Court was rather vague on that issue guys
because SC was simply saying that while the law was not very specific on that power to be exercised by the
people but ultimately, the issue there may become political. And it is ultimately people who may decide
whether indeed they can exercise the power notwithstanding that there is no specific law and implementing law
providing on the exercise of the power. If you go by the Constitution, it states there that the people are
empowered to propose amendments. But is that self-executing or it needs legislation? Nonetheless, in the
Lambino case, the petition was dismissed sustaining the Comelec for the reason that there was no proper
initiation of the proposal simply because the petition was not sufficient. Supposedly, it was to be signed by the
people who were the initiators. Na technical sila, not on the substance of the issue relating on whether or not
the people can directly propose revision or whether or not they can initiate changes to the Constitution.
Ultimately, it is a political question to be answered by the people in their sovereign capacity and that would be
beyond the ambit of the Supreme Court to review because it is by nature political.
6.Preamble
I suppose Preamble is not controversial except that there are certain changes that have been introduced
different from that of the 1973 Constitution but basically, they are the same. Just for purposes of topping the
bar J, memorize it if you can. There has never a question yet on this but who knows? Just take note that the
Constitution is still valid without a preamble because it does not form an integral part of the Constitution. Why?
Because it is not a source of right and neither of obligations. These are just simply statements of principles. They
are not self-executing. They are mere guidelines for purposes of interpreting the subsequent provisions of the
Constitution. The only question in case is: is it not a violation of the Constitution when you make mention of the
Almighty God considering that there is a separation of the church and the state? Take note that this is not an
obligation that we should believe in the Almighty God because the statement is just a fact that we are Christians.
It cannot be a basis for judicial action. You cannot say that I was discriminated because as I said, it is not a source
of political right or any other right for that matter. Just like Art II, they are merely statements of principles.
7.National Territory
So many controversies in Art I. Questions from here are expected in the bar exams. Memorize this article if you
can. Very easy. What consists of the Philippine national territory? It comprises of:
1. the Philippine archipelago and all the islands and waters embraced therein
2. and all other territories over which the Philippines has jurisdiction or sovereignty
Consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial and aerial domains including territorial seas, the seabed, subsoil, insular
shelves, and other submarine areas. The waters (ABC) around, in between, and connecting the islands of the
archipelago, regardless of their breadth and dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the Philippines.
Now then, if you are asked again what comprises of the Philippine national territory, first thing is Philippine
archipelago. What is an archipelago? There is a definition. Take note, United Nation Convention on the Law of
the Seas (UNCLOS) is related to the question of what an archipelagic state is. You relate these to public
international law and you would be okay. Basically, you have two definitions on archipelagos. It could be a body
of water studded with several islands or it could be several islands surrounded by the sea water. It could be, you
have a mainland and several islands near to it so that may consist of archipelagos as well and you have several
islands farther from the mainland in the ocean like Indonesia for example. That may still be considered as one
8

archipelago. Insofar as the Philippines is concerned, we have how many islands embraced by the Philippine
archipelago? 7,100 depending on the tide, whether high tide or low tide J.
How do you acquire these islands comprising the archipelago? Take note, most of these islands were acquired
by transfer or cession like the Batanes group of islands. This Batanes group of islands, we have claimed them by
long possession and occupation. All the rest were transferred to us by virtue of the Treaty of Paris. And then
there were other islands added to it. You remember other treaties like the treaty of Washington, US, British? Do
you recall these guys (?) J were there were transfer of islands like Turtle islands, Mangsee island, Sulu, Kalayaan
and Sibutu. Do you recall these? You recall this because we have acquired these islands by cession. Now insofar
as the island comprising the archipelago are concerned, they are part of the Philippine national territory. But of
course this is just our own self declaration. It has no binding effect insofar as international law is concerned.
Always remember that. The decision of municipal courts (Philippine courts) are not binding to other countries.
We used to consider the controversial islands as part of the Philippine archipelago until recently. So when we
speak of archipelago, we treat these islands as not separate from each other but rather as comprised of one
single unit. The justification is in the Constitution itself because it says, “and all other waters embraced therein”.
So when you will be asked in the bar exam: where in the provisions of the Constitution did we expressly adopt
archipelagic doctrine? Your answer: two provisions. One, the Philippine archipelago with all the islands and
waters embraced therein. You treat these islands as if they were not separated by waters. Second, the
Constitution states the waters around, between and connecting the islands regardless of breadth and dimension
form part of the internal waters of the Philippine territory. And so they are treated as one single unit not divided
by the sea waters.
Now then we also have all other territories over the Philippines has jurisdiction or sovereignty. When we speak
of jurisdiction, it means we have possession, occupation, and control over the territory. And this is manifested
by the establishment of a government in the territory. When we speak of sovereignty, it may not necessarily be
actual occupation and possession. But it is part of the territory because of legal basis or historical claim. To give
you an example, you can say that we have jurisdiction over the Republic of Bohol J because we occupy it and it
is subject to the government and subject to our national laws. Okay? But would you say that those foreign
embassies like in Manila are subject to the jurisdiction of the Philippine government and control? But do we
have sovereignty over the premises occupied? Yes we do! They’re part of the Philippine national territory only
we do not exercise jurisdiction and control over them because of the principle of exterritoriality. Legally, it is
part of the territory of course only that we made an agreement or because of a tradition or it is customary to do
that. Now in that premise, do we control and sovereignty over Sabah? North Borneo? Marianas Island? Guam?
Are they part of the Philippine National territory following the phrase and all other territories over the
Philippines has jurisdiction or sovereignty? Definitely, we don’t have jurisdiction over them because they are
being occupied and controlled by the Malaysian government, etc. But do we have sovereignty over them? We
have some basis to claim on history. If you can recall, legal title, if you can remember, that part was owned by
the datu of Sulu and it was rented out to the British Indies Company. This is a government company because
Malaysia then was under the British government. And in fact they were saying that in recognition to the claim of
the datu of Sulu, they were receiving rentals from the company. But because they were occupied mostly by
Malaysians, when Malaysia was granted its independence, this territory was surrendered as well to them and
never returned to the Datu of Sulu. That’s the start of the claim of the Malaysian government. Now legally
therefore, it belongs to the Datu of Sulu but it cannot make a claim against a sovereign state so what he did was
to transfer his rights to the Philippine government. Then there was this controversy involving the Marcoses
(soooo much history here. To make Ma’am’s story short, I think she was referring to “Operation Merdeka” : a
failed attempt by the government to claim Saba sauna by putting Filipino citizens from Sulu kunohay didto and
9
0
make friends with the locals there then after kay bawion dayon ang territory. But this resulted to jabidah
massacre kay those people gibutang didto kay nag mutiny man for lack of food supply, etc if I remember
correctly).
Although we dropped already our claim there because the whole world knew of Marcos’ plan, that doesn’t
mean we cannot claim anymore. For as long as the mode of acquiring it is in accordance with International Law.
Our basis is always on the historic right. Who knows, we might become a superpower and might claim Saba. But
as of now, it is still a dream J. Aside from Saba, we are claiming Guam and the Marianas Island based on the
Treaty of Paris. However the people there would not want to become part of the Philippines. They’d rather stay
as a Mandate or Trust territory of the US as can be proven by their express objection on the referendum held
there J. Now the more controversial ones, we have the Kalayaan Islands and the Spratley Islands as well as the
Bajo de Masinloc. Sometimes they described the water surrounding it as South China Sea. Now we describe it as
the West Philippine Sea J (a lot of smile from the class). Now what is the basis over the claim of the Kalayaan
Island and the Freedomland Islands? They are not the same class. Once upon a time, a Filipino Mariner and
businessman by the name of Tomas Cloma (hello Girlie J ) discovered them. Now who is the grandchild of
Admiral Cloma here from the Republic of Bohol? Haha. He shouted to the whole world that he discovered these
islands and even brought there his family, goats, pigs, etc. But then they were not able to sustain their livelihood
there so eventually, they transferred their claim over the islands to the government then. So here comes Mr.
Marcos claiming that the Islands when discovered were Terra Nullius. Nobody owned them. Whoever occupies
them becomes the owner. So we did that the moment we announced to the whole world our discovery but
many other countries are also claiming the same. We have barangay there as part of Palawan. That’s why there
was a question on how we determine our internal waters. That’s why we were warned by the UN to better
define our archipelagic waters because we might extend them to include those that are part of our neighboring
states. Now you have the Scarborough Shoal. It is nearest to us by distance. We said we occupied them a long
long time ago and nobody complained. Until we announced the regime of islands, etc. Now the problem is that
the Chinese are claiming not for any reason but geopolitics. They wanted to be recognized as the superpower in
Asia. They are claiming it imagine since the year 1200. Now our assertion is, okay fine, you discovered it way
back then but did you occupy it or claim it? We on the other hand have occupied the island since 1935. It only
gave China the inchoate title which never ripened into ownership because they never occupied. We have RA
9552 defining the territories included. You read the case of Magalona, et al. vs. The Exec Secretary, August
16,2011 where the Supreme Court said had Congress in RA 9552 included the Kalayaan Island and the
Scarborough Shoal as part of the Philippine Archipelago, adverse legal effect would have resulted. The
Philippines would have committed a breach on two provisions of the UNCLOS. First, you have Article 47
paragraph 3, requires that the drawing of such baselines shall not be part to any appreciable extent from the
general configuration of the archipelago. Second, on Article 47, paragraph 2, requires that the length of baseline
shall not exceed 100 nautical miles save for 3% of the total number of baselines which can reach up to 125
nautical miles. Ours is beyond 100. Should we include Scarborough shoal and the Kalayaan islands? So they have
been excluded but are considered as regime of islands but they are still part of the Philippine territory. No longer
part of the Philippine archipelago but part of the Philippine national territory. So read RA 9552 where the two
islands are considered only as part of the regime of islands, no longer part of the Philippine archipelago.
Now other than that, you just take note that insofar as terrestrial domain, that includes the subsoil. Terrestrial
meaning, that strip of land over which the Philippines has jurisdiction and control. And that includes the subsoil.
As to the extent, there is no limit. As far as you can go, who knows, you can meet at the core of the earth J. In
relation to the Regalian doctrine, you must remember that any natural resources do not belong to a person.
They belong to the state and thus the exploration on the natural resources is subject to the control of the state.
Now we also have the fluvial domain. You have the rivers, the lakes, the swamps, etc. That’s not controversial in
10
1
the Philippines. Basically, in International Law, we follow the Thalweg Doctrine. You know that already so we
don’t have to discuss that. Another part of the territory is the Airspace. To what extent do we have jurisdiction:
As far as you can see, adjacent to your territory subject of course to the right of way of the aircraft if that is the
ordinary route. That is precisely why we enter into treaties to allow these civilian planes to pass through it. But
the universe, that’s free for everybody’s use. Then finally, you have the territorial seas. They refer to territorial
seas along the coastline if the territory is compact. You apply that to an archipelago by following the archipelagic
doctrine. So there are two way of identifying the territorial seas. You have the normal baseline and the straight
baseline method. So the normal baseline applies only when it is a compact territory. That is only determining the
low watermark. From there, you determine the 12 nautical miles. But if it is an archipelago like ours, you follow
the straight baseline method where you determine certain outermost portions of the outermost islands. From
there, you draw straight line. All waters inside are considered as internal waters, you call that archipelagic
waters. Outside of that, you call that territorial seas or the maritime domain.
8.Declaration of Principles and State Policies
In general, these are not self-executing. This means that they cannot be a source of right and neither of
obligations. You cannot use them as basis for judicial action unless there are laws implementing them. You have
the case of Angara involving the WTO. There was a question of the Constitutionality of the World trade
agreement of the WTO because the Constitution states that we are supposed to be independent in our foreign
policy. There is this stipulation in the agreement that there would be no laws that would be passed that would
be contrary to the WTO Agreement. They said that would be contrary to the sovereignty and independence of
the Philippines as our laws would have to depend on the condition. Supreme Court said that you cannot use
Article II as the basis because it is not self executing.
But there are certain principles there that you should remember and you must relate them with other laws. I will
not be discussing all of them, only the important ones:
• Sec.1 where it says that the Philippines is a Republican and a Democratic State. Sovereignty resides in
the people and all government authority resides from them. Of course you have mastered what is
republicanism and what is democratic.
• Separation of powers
• Non-delegation of powers
• Judicial review
• Accountability of public officials and impeachment
• Popular election
• Right to suffrage
• Provision against the passage laws that cannot be repealed
• Immunity of the state from suit
• Separation of the church and the state
Now on the existence of the bill of rights, you need that to limit the exercise of the powers of the government.
You have to maintain the balance through that. Also, you have to master the Separation of powers. In relation to
that, you have the No-delegation of the powers particularly legislative powers in relation to the two other
departments. The reason why powers are assigned to each branch is that you want to maintain their
independence. The more that the powers are concentrated in one single department, there is more tendency of
having a dictatorial government. No less than the Constitution, duly ratified by the people assigned the powers
to each branch. You have to master all the powers assigned to each particular branch. You also have the check
11
2
and balance. They say that this is an adversarial form of government because the branches seem not to trust
each other fearing that one can be more powerful than the other. There are also instances when one branch is
allowed to share the powers exercised by it to another. For example: the power of appointment. That power is
enjoyed by the President but that can also be exercised by the Congress. Similarly, the Supreme Court also can
do that. The Court Administrator of the Supreme Court cannot be removed by the President even if he wants to
because he is not the appointing authority. That adds somehow to the confusion of the separation of powers. I
will just discuss that further when we reach the discussion on the three branches in particular. // arnie//
June 09,2012 (2 hours)
MANIFESTATIONS OF REPUBLICANISM
1. Bottom line is there is no absolute separation of powers but rather there is blending of the powers because of
the principle of check and balances and because the constitution has also provided the exercise of the same
power to another branch. Or there are powers supposed only to be assigned to one branch but by some express
provision of the constitution have also been shared by other branch of the government
2. To make sure that there is no violation of the separation of power you have the power of judicial review of the
SC. Not only to check whether you have exercised the power in accordance of the law but also to determine
whether there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
3. Corollary to the separation of powers there is also the principle of Non- Delegation of Power.
Potestas delegata non delegari potest….
Meaning, what has been delegated by the people cannot be delegated to another delegate for under the
constituiton the powers are expressly assigned to each branch. Not only the power to exercise but also the
obligation to perform. They cannot therefore, because it’s a delegated power form the people through the
constitution, delegate this power in turn to the delegate. That is prohibited.
Ex: making of laws- Congress could not just delegate that to anyone: To the pres or the SC. Although there are
some exceptions to this, as a GR, it cannot because it is a function assigned to it so it is a duty which it must
perform. OW there will be an invalid exercise of the power by the delegate.
4. You have some test of Valid delegation-
Completeness test
Sufficiency of standard
But as a GR, there should not be any delegation of the powers
But because of the complexities and the need of the society, this cannot be attended to only by one branch.
There has to be some kind of cooperation or sometimes the need of delegation so that the needs of the people
can be met immediately, thus, there is what we call the Permissive Delegation of Power, more particularly of the
Legislative Powers.
5. Exceptions to non- delegation of Powers
Delegation of powers as may be expressly provided by law:
12
3
i. delegation of powers to the President- under the constitution the president may exercise Legislative
powers under Sec 23 and 28 of Art VI or the Emergency Powers of the Pres. This power is with Congress
delegated to the president. Usually when there is a problem in the government or country like of energy
or oil they will always propose that this power be delegated to the president
Requirements:
a. There has to be a statute
This cannot be exercised by the government without express delegation
Case: David vs. Exec Sec: while it is true that the president can declare a state of National emergency,
being the pres to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed bolstered by the fact that as the
commander in chief of AFP, however, he cannot exercise Emergency powers without express
delegation of Congress
b. It must have a specific purpose which must be stated in the declared policy of Congress as may be
embodied in the law delegating the exercise of the power to the pres
c. It must only be for National Emergency
d. It is only of r a certain period of time
- If it is not supposedly withdrawn by congress, it is understood that the power is exercised only until the
adjournment of the next session of congress not during the session in which the power is granted or the
delegation of power to the pres
- The withdrawal of the Emergency powers from the president is not necessarily made in the statute. a
resolution will be sufficient for that would not require the approval of the pres so that the pres will not
the chance to veto the withdrawal of the EP
The question of propriety or constitutionally of the pres power to create the Truth commission by the pres
through an E.O.is neither an exercise of Emergency powers or legislative power.
The power of the president is questioned in as much as only Congress can appropriate funds for certain
purposes which includes offices or salaries of offices. So it is understood that offices have to be created by
Congress because that would require appropriation
- SC was saying that there is no question that the president has the power to ensure that laws are faithfully
executed and as such the pres as the head of the Executive can reorganize the Exec Dept and by reorganization
it may include the creation or abolition offices under or within the exec dept
- There is no more need of appropriation because that would be taken from the budget appropriated already for
the pres
- Only, It was declared because of violation of equal protection clause not on the Pres power to create it
ii. Tariff Powers under Sec 28
Requirements:
a. Must be made through a law

13
4
b. Must be within the economic/development framework of the country
iii. Delegation to administrative bodies as part of subordinate legislation to provide of details if not for
facts and contingencies upon which the law can be enforced or implemented
Administrative bodies- we refer to the departments of the exec branch. They exercise only the rule making
power to execute the law but not to make the law. Basically it is subordinate legislation. The members of
Congress, you have to concede, are not experts all the time n all fields. So they may not be able to anticipate the
need of effective implementation of the law.
Precisely there is the oversight function of congress to follow up if indeed the law passed effective and what is
needed to enforce the law.
The administrative bodies are experts in their different fields to provide of the details if not for the limitations,
facts, contingencies upon which the implementation of the law would depend, aka, Subordinate Legislation.
It is not actually, simply speaking a law but only has the force and effect of a law. So, it presupposes a law
already been filed by congress providing of the standard and it must be complete but nothing is there to
delegate to the admin bodies to determine what the law is but simply to enforce the law by providing the
details, facts or contingencies that is needed to implement the law or carry out the law.
In relation to this, you have to understand the completeness test and the sufficient standard. Both should be
present for there to be a valid delegation of power to the AB
Case: Gerochi vs. Dept of energy, July 17, 2007
- On the connection of the universal charge for the distribution of electricity to be which was exercised used on
the expenses on equipments to be used for the distribution of the electricity all over the country
- DoE is collecting this charge. Taxing power is legislative. but Sc said that there is a valid delegation for this is not
a taxing power but a Police power that is being exercised and is delegated through a law passed by congress
regarding the imposition of EPIRA
Case: Abkada guro- increase of VAT up to 12 percent
There was a question on the constitutionality of the increase of the VAT because it is purely legislative function
But take note what the president is doing here in behalf of the Dept of Finance is to ascertain the facts as stated
in the law whether the present would justify an increase as found to be present by the Dept of Finance who is an
expert on the field and the president has no choice but to enforce the law and the law says increase the VAT
from 10% to 12%.
So it is more on the ascertainment of facts and the implementation of the law rather than the usurpation of
Legislative function.
iv. Delegation of Powers to the Local Governments
-in managing their affairs
- There has to be an express delegation here for without express delegation there cannot be no valid exercise of
the power by the delegate
14
5
- R.A No. 7160 is the law delegating the power to LG’s
- LG’s cannot make laws contrary to laws contrary to RA no. 7160 or any law passed by Congress
- They cannot even modify, amend or change statutes
- the matter of exercise of police power under the General Welfare clause of the Local Government Code, Sec
19, they cannot in the guise of promoting the general welfare pass an ordinance or resolution that would
prohibit an activity or trade which is allowed under existing laws
- They can only regulate and cannot prohibit because there is no transfer of power but only a mere delegation of
the exercise of the power for the promotion of the general welfare but it should not be contrary to the
constitution
v. Delegation of power to the people at large
-through initiative or referendum
Initiative referendum
3 kinds:
a. On statute - 10% of the total registered voters nationwide of which each legislative district is
represented by at least 3 % of its registered voters
b. Local leg- autonomous regions through the regional assembly 200O, provinces 1000, cities 500,
municipalities 100, brgys 50
c. Amendments on constitution- RA no. 6735 -to initiate amendments 12 % of the total registered voters
of which 3 % of each legislative district is represented by at least 3 % - It is congress proposes and
people either rejecting or approving it in a referendum
- Same applies in local legislation
- The people cannot exercise the power without express delegation of the power to LG’s for the provision of the
constitution on this matter is not self- executing and as a requirement of the law congress was mandated to
pass a law and that is RA 6735
Case: Santiago vs. Ramos- apparently that law was not sufficient to provide for procedure on how to go about
initiating amendments to the const
6. JUDICIAL REVIEW
– is the power exercised by SC and can make the courts even more powerful than any branch of government the
moment their authority is invoked particularly the SC
- Power of the courts not only to interpret the laws and apply to actual controversies but most importantly it is
the power to check on the validity or constitutionality of the law on whether they are in accordance with the law
or whether the exercise of the power a particular branch has been greatly abused amounting to lack or in excess
of jurisdiction
15
6
- Not an exclusive power of SC but can also be exercised by the lower courts but whatever decisions that lower
courts exercise regarding judicial review is not yet final and executor because they are still affirmed or reversed
by SC if it is appealed
- The decision of the lower courts even it has become final is binding only in so far as the parties of the case are
concerned and not against the whole world. You cannot use it as precedent.
3 purposes:
a. Checking
b. Legitimating- because if it is found to be valid the court is simply ratifying its validity because it is
already presumed to be valid
c. To educate the bench and the bar because by that SC will provide for principles and precepts on
how the law should be understood and applied in actual cases
-because of the separation of powers and the independence of the 3 branches because they are equal, this
power cannot just be exercised by the court indiscriminately or anytime
-This can only be exercised if the requisites are present
Requisites:
i. Actual case or controversy
- Must be a justifiable question ripe for judicial adjudication
- “justiciable”- meaning it involves rights or an obligation based on a law or on a provision of the Constitution not
on the wisdom, philosophy or reasoning of the law but based on the constitutionality or legality
- So there has to be an existing law or a provision of the law as a basis of questioning such validity or legality of
the act
- “ripe for judicial adjudication”- meaning it should not be premature, neither already stale or moot or academic
- When it is already premature the SC will not touch on the constitutionality of that petition lest it would
intervene to the prerogatives of the other 2 branches of the government
- The mootness and acdemicness of the issue is a different story. There are cases where the SC even if the issue
has become moot and academic proceeded in hearing the case and reviewing the act complained of for the
reason that:
- The issue could be of transcendental importance or paramount public interest
- that there is a claim that violation of the law
- may repeated in the future
- And that it evades review
Case: David, et al vs. Exec. Sec –Sc emphasized that it is within its discretion even if the issue has become stale, it
can still exercise it JR power assuming that the other requisites are present
16
7
- Except for Declaratory Relief , where there is no violation of a right yet but is certain it happen, where the court
is asked to interpret a statute as to its validity for if the court fails to do that it is certain that a violation will be
committed. There is an actual conflict here which can be taken cognizance by the courts to interpret the statutes
or a contract to determine the validity of the act complained of although there is no actual violation that there is
already a conflict of rights that there is now a need to determine the validity of the act complained of by the
conflicting parties
ii. Raised by the proper party
- We apply Direct Injury principle
- He must be aggrieved by the act complained of
- Since he is the only one who can raise the issue of constitutionality
AS A CITIZEN:
- Only when there is injury or aggrieved, which could be actual or potential
- “actual”- meaning one who is directly injured
- But an exception is when the requirement of proper party is said to be a mere technicality when the issue is of
transcendental importance or of paramount public interest; that matter of proper party may be set aside; in
other words when a public right is involved and it gets affected by the act complained of even if one is not yet
injured yet by application of law but it is the right of the public which will be affected because of the obvious
violation of the law and if not reviewed by the Sc it can evade the responsibility of being checked or that it may
repeated in the future; even if he is only an ordinary citizen not yet injured then he is a proper party
- In this case what is only needed is Locus standi or legal standing not actionable right just as in civil case
- So generally, it is direct injury, unless the issue raised is of transcendental importance or paramount public
interest
- Case: Oposa vs. Factoran: minor children were the ones who questioned the validity of the act of DENR on the
indiscriminate issuance of logging concessions; their basis is intergenerational responsibility to preserve the
patrimony, the timber; for now we are not directly affected by it but if there would be indiscriminate cutting of
trees without replacement ultimately what patrimony would they inherit
o So it is potential or certain to happen so they were considered as proper party
- Case: LA BUGAL-B’LAAN TRIBAL ASS., INC., VS RAMOS, 421 SCRA 148.
- : where the natives were the ones questioning the validity of that mining contract or law allowing foreign
corporations to engage in exploration off natural resources in the guise of service contrac
AS A TAXPAYER:
When it involves a disbursement of public funds which is anomalous
o It is anomalous when it is contrary to law
17
8
o You cannot just simply say that you are questioning because there is disbursement of funds; you have to
establish the disbursement of public funds that is anomalous or contrary to law that would amount to
misappropriation of public funds
- When it involves exorbitant taxes tantamount to taking of property without due process of law
2 circumstances when a voter becomes a proper party :
-when it involves his right to vote;
- Election laws which affect his right to run for public office
-case: Kilosbayan vs. exec sec:
- Question on the qualification of Justice Ong of Sandiganbayan in his appointment as SC Justice
- as to the issue on whether Kilosbayan is a proper party, SC recognized KB because what is involved here is a
provision of the constitutional which the KB wants to implement which is on the qualifications of a Supreme
Court Justice one of which is on citizenship; one must be a natural- born
-KB doubted the citizenship of J. Ong so the matter is of constitutional significance
- Sc ruled that it is not only the duty of JBC to screen appointments of the nominees to the SC but also the duty
of SC to make sure that the appointees should have followed the qualifications provided by no less than the
Constitution
iii. At the earliest opportunity in time
-if it is not raised in the pleadings one may not be allowed to present any evidence during the hearing if the case
if you have never alleged that in your complaint nor in the answer
- or if you have stated that in your pleadings however you never presented as evidence, you have never touched
on that during the hearing of the case you may not be allowed to raise the issue of constitutionality for the first
time on appeal
EXCEPTIONS: (BAR)
- In criminal cases, the validity of the law can be questioned even for the first time on appeal , as a matter of
defense by the accused, the moment the law is considered unconstitutional then there is no crime committed
hence, that would cause the acquittal of the accused and dismissal
- In civil cases, when the issue could not be decided without first settling the issue of constitutionality
- When the issue is on jurisdiction, it can be raised even for the first time on appeal
iv. The issue of constitutionality to be decided must be the lis mota of the case
- Meaning, the issue of the case cannot be resolved unless first the issue of constitutionality is settled
- If there are other grounds other than touching the issue of constitutionality by all means the courts the courts
must refer to those grounds such as estoppels, lack of jurisdiction, raised not by the proper party, for there is
always validity or constitutionality of laws passed congress or as made by the Office of Pres to avoid the conflict
bet diff branches of the government
18
9
Ultimately, the one whom is going to determine whether the act of the other branches of Government is in
accordance with the law is vested in the SC
- Absence of any of the requisites would be the dismissal of any petition questioning the constitutionality or
validity of act of government for the reason that the SC cannot just interfere with the discretionary powers of its
coequal branch of government
7. Matter of Initiation in Impeachment cases
- If it is just an ordinary complainant filing an impeachment complaint so it has to be endorsed by a

Member
- If it is a Member who files a complaint, there is no need of an endorsement
- But either ordinary complainant or a Member, that has to be referred to a committee to determine whether the
complaint is sufficient in form or substance
- But when the complainant is endorsed and filed by at least 1/3 of the Members of House of Rep certainly it
would no longer pass through a Committee of Justice to determine whether its sufficiency in form and in
substance
- Was it validly ratified? By ratification, you sign after you have read it
8. GOVERNMENT OF LAWS AND NOT OF MEN
- Basic in public accountability
- The essence of public office; it is not only a public trust, there must also be transparency
- No matter how good your intentions are you must follow the law
9. ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS
- You have impeachment , OMB, public opinion, media
10. ELECTION BY POPULAR SUFFRAGE
- Majority, 2/3, ¾ votes
11. IMMUNITY OF THE STATE FROM SUIT
- Part of republicanism
- Basis: There can be no legal right against the authority that makes the law on which that right depends.
- If it is sovereign there could be no other authority higher or even equal to that
- If you are to sue the state, you are subjecting it to the authority of the courts which is contrary to its being
sovereign
- Simply put, if you have a valid claim against the government, it will not prosper because the state is immune
from suit
19
0
- Sometimes called as Doctrine of Royal Dishonesty” because you cannot make the state liable because you
cannot sue it
EXCEPTIONS:
i. State gives its consent expressly or impliedly
- Who is sued? The Republic of the Philippines, unincorporated agency of the government, incorporated agency of
the government, and public officers or employees performing governmental functions
- Take note: it is not always the RP but can against a department of RP, or against a government office or against a
local government unit or against the President or against the Secretary of a department or lowly government or
employee
- Can you sue them?
GR: you cannot sue them because they are immune from suit
EXC: 1. when there is consent given
Express: it must be through a legislative enactment/statute or if you have a contract where the state has waived
its immunity from suit neither by the waiver by a lawyer of the government. It is always by a statute
Case: Sandoval vs. Republic: when Cory Aquino admitted that there is somehow some mistakes done in that
massacre of the farmers at Mendiola and there was an investigation conducted which was taken to be a waiver
on the part of the President representing the state to sue the Military and SC said that you cannot use it because
should there be an express delegation it can only be through a statute.
Case: it was a lawyer of the Dept of the government which says that “it is fine to sue us”. That cannot also be
used as waiver of immunity. Only through a legislative enactment.
- General Law:
Examples:
Act 3083- law granting anyone the right to sue the state if its liability arises from a contract
C.A. no. 327 as amended by P.D. 1545 on accounting- where the law provides that in the event your claim
against the government is denied by the Commission on Audit you have a period of 60 days within which to file a
petition for certiorari
- in other words, you can file a petition in SC provided that you have first filed your claim with COA
Art. 2180 of Civil Code- on acts of special agent; whether or not they are acting in their official capacity, even if
they are negligent if they are special agent their acts are considered to be acts of the state in which case the
state is suable
Art. 2189 of the Civil Code- torts and damages; whatever damages that you would suffer or sustain because of
improper management and maintenance if infrastructures, it is the liability of the municipality maintaining it or
government office.
Local Government Code- if LGU’s charter allows them to sue and be sued
20
1
- Implied Giving of Consent:
- When the government engages in commercial business because if it is incidental tithe exercise to its principal
governmental function it is not suable still
- Or when the government enters into proprietary contract you can sue the state and if it is governmental then
you go to COA
- Or when the government initiates the filing of a complaint for affirmative relief then that is a waiver of immunity
§ EXCEPT when the purpose of filing of the suit to intervene for example is for the purpose of resisting a claim
against it and so in that case the state can invoke its immunity from suit
-can you compel the state in an interpleader case where you compel the state to sue? NO, for if without its
consent it is tantamount to suing the state without its consent. So including interpleader.
2. if it would cause an injustice to a citizen
- ex: payment of just compensation in Expropriation cases when you recover your property because you have
not been paid just compensation
Case: Ministerio: where there was an expropriation of a property without the authority from the government
and government would to pay the owner of property because there was no appropriation law. The government
simply involved immunity from suit. SC ruled that by invoking immunity from suit that would practically cause
injustice to the owner of the property because you are already using the property and you are not paying him of
JC.
Bottom line: if it does not involve any affirmative act from the government such as disbursement of public funds
or appropriation of public funds or loss of government property you need not secure its consent.
In so far as unincorporated, it enjoys immunity from suit for they do not have a separate and distinct personality
from the state or RP unless when their acts do not involve disbursement of public funds or appropriation of
public funds or loss of government property.
As to incorporated , you can definitely sue them because their own charter or the special law creating them
allow them to sue and be sued; basically proprietary; engaged in business
Local Governments have dual personality both governmental and proprietary functions.
- In the exercise of governmental functions they can be sued because the local government code allows it; Of if it
is a chartered city or province and its charter allows it
- But they cannot be held liable because not if it involves public; funds; you have to file a separate case or you file
a mandamus case to compel them to appropriate
- So definitely they are suable but not automatic liability as it involves public funds
- In the exercise of proprietary functions, they are suable
Ex: if the government is into water distribution, if the funds are not public funds then it can be attached or
garnished; but when they are public funds you need an appropriation or authority to disburse the money
21
2
- On public officers and employees:
GR: they are not suable provided that they are performing governmental function in accordance with law
EXC: when they exercise the function in excess or without authority or when they are SPECIAL AGENTS
- Suability does not mean liability. Suability one thing to prove your claim but to hold government liable is another
thing for you need another authority
- So after you get a judgment from the court you cannot ask for writ of execution because you need consent so as
in the case of expropriation where it is only up to rendition of judgment. You need another consent to hold the
state liable meaning there has to be an appropriation law is the consent or the authority to disburse the fund to
satisfy the judgment. Precisely you will file your claim to COA and COA and if it is valid COA will indorse the claim
with the Office of the President through DBF who will submit it to congress will include it in the appropriation
law to authorize the disbursement of public funds. That is National.
- If that is Local, you file case for mandamus against the sangguniang for the passage of an ordinance authorizing
the disbursement of public funds to satisfy the judgment.
- You cannot in other words attach the property of the government neither can you garnish the funds of
government in the banks
12. SEPARATION OF THE CHURCH AND THE STATE
-to be explained in Declaration of Principles and State Policies; Sec 5, Art II
13. ARTICLE II
DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES PRINCIPLES
Section 1. The Philippines is a democratic and republican State. Sovereignty resides in the people and all
government authority emanates from them.
- Authority emanates from the people
- People directly exercise sovereignty only during:
§ Election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum, recall, revolution
13. Section 2.
The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy, 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.
- We only renounce aggressive war.
- INCORPORATION CLAUSE- important because by this provision we made a declaration in the Constitution that
we are automatically adopting the generally principle of international law as part of our statutes. They are part
of our legal system
2 ways:
22
3
-INCORPORATION
- TRANSFORMATION
INCORPORATION TRANSFORMATION
- through a declaration no less than the Constitution
- Declaration could either by a Judicial Declaration or fiat or by the Constitution
- In our case, it is the Constitution
- We have expressly provided iun the constitution “the generally accepted principles of international law
as part of the law of the land”
- meaning, there is no need for Congress to legislate
- automatically they become part of the legal system and are applied as if they are ordinary laws
- Merely transforms treaties or international obligations into local legislation by ratifying the treaty
- No treaties will bind the RP of they are not signed by the Pres and concurred by 2/3 vote of Senate
- Unless it is concurred by the Senate a Treaty does not bind the Republic even if signed by the president
- Although we may be bind because of Pacta Sunct Servanda, which is a generally accepted principle of
PIL but technically it cannot be considered as law binding the RP
- Only when it is concurred by the senate that it will bind the R and will transform the treaty as part of the
legal system
- Case: Pimentel vs. Exec. Sec. :
- President not pursuing the signing of the statute ; DFA refused to submit a copy of draft
- So Pimentel filed a mandamus case compelling the President to submit to them for review
- SC ruled that the matter of ratification of a treaty is a sole prerogative of the pres.; not even the SC
cannot compel the President for concurrence
- For even if concurred by the Senate and the President chose not to sign or ratify it they cannot compel
the Pres to sign and neither will it bind the RP
- - So for a treaty to be transformed into part of the legal system under the incorporation clause to bind
the RP it must duly ratified. Meaning, there has to concurrence of 2/3 of senate and ratified by Pres
- Then it is transformed and automatically become part of the legal system
- Generally accepted principles include:
i. Treaties validly ratified
ii. Norms of general or customary laws
23
4
Example: extraterritoriality principle, immunity of Heads of State from suit
How do you know that they are General of customary laws?
Case: Mijares et al vs. Javier
Requirement for an act to be considered as customary law or norm of conduct: (BAR)
a. It must be a established, widespread and continued practice on the part of the states
b. There must be a psychological element known as opinion juris, ________ or opinion as to law or
necessity
- If these two are combined then you would consider the act as forming part of the Constitution they being
considered as customary laws
- with reference to a foreign judgment rendered another court outside and being enforced in the Phil that is
normal; there is no treaty signed between us and the us; but there is a customary law that it is recognized you
just have to prove that it is issued and we have to recognize it eventually.
Case: Pharmaceutical of Health care association of the Phil vs. Duque
- “Breast milk is still the best milk” J was required to be posted in all powdered milks which was pending but
there has already been a law in UN providing that this has become customary law
- and Duque implemented the law by invoking the incorporation clause which was sutained by the court
- Sc: customary international law is deemed incorporated in our domestic system by a mere constitutional
declaration, international law is deemed to have the force of domestic law
Case: Kuroda vs. Jalandoni: creation of military commissions to prosecute criminals of war during the Japanese
occupation. Kuroda questioned the jurisdiction of the military commission o prosecute him saying that the
military commission have no jurisdiction because the Phil is never a signatory to Kellogg Brian Pact that allows
the creation of military commission to make those war criminals accountable for their acts
SC: Kellogg Brian Pact has become a customary law although we are not a signatory to it under the incorporation
clause automatically it is adopted as part of the legal system and so we adopted it
- KBP justified the creation of military commission that will have jurisdiction over kuroda
iii. Treaties which become part of customary law
Example: Kellogg Brian Pact
Case: Pimentel vs. Ermita: our membership in the ICJ
14. WHEN INTERNATIONAL LAW CONFLICTS WITH OUR LAW
- You must first harmonize the 2 because the understanding is that government would not enter into agreements
which are contrary to the constitution
- Neither would it pass laws that would be contrary to international obligation
24
5
Case: Retail Trade agreement- which prohibits foreigners including Chinese to engage retail trade
- According to them that would be contrary to treaty entered into by the Phil and china
- SC: our laws are given priority in case of conflict
- Take note: our state is sovereign you cannot bargain away the power to make laws nor limit the power if state
to make laws
- You cannot even, if there is an agreement, entered into between a country and our another country saying that
“we should not pass a law contrary to a treaty” for Police power of the State cannot be subject of a contract
- Our courts are created by laws, meaning the courts cannot render a decision against the laws creating them
- Bottom line: in case of a conflict that is irreconcilable, it is s always political laws, our statutes to prevail over
international laws
- But when it is tried before international tribunal the n of course they will always sustain the validity of
international law or the generally accepted principle of international law
- In practice it has been understood that if treaties of international agreement will be treated equally with our
statutes they should not be considered superior to our statutes then you apply stat con that kung kinsa nauna
will be ____ by a subsequent law
- Kung naguna ang law pasaka then you have a treaty then it is understood that our law submits to the treaty
because you would not enter into a treaty which is contrary to our statutes for it would amend in other words
earlier
But if we pass a law after a treaty was entered into it is understood that that law amends the treaty that has
been entered into but it is not as easy as that because under international law you have the principle of pacta
sucnt servanda to reckon with
- The ______ statute although not signed and ratified by pres we are ultimately bound by it because it has now
become part of international law and under incorporation clause it is auto adopted part of the legal system
15. “adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation, and amity with all nations.”
- Does not automatic recognition of a country as a state or diplomatic relationships or automatic acceptance of
diplomatic representatives of another country
16. Section 3.
Civilian authority is, at all times, supreme over the military. The Armed Forces of the Philippines is the protector
of the people and the State. Its goal is to secure the sovereignty of the State and the integrity of the national
territory.
Section 4. The prime duty of the Government is to serve and protect the people. The Government may call upon
the people to defend the State and, in the fulfillment thereof, all citizens may be required, under conditions
provided by law, to render personal, military or civil service.
Section 5. The maintenance of peace and order, the protection of life, liberty, and property, and promotion of the
general welfare are essential for the enjoyment by all the people of the blessings of democracy.
25
6
- What makes the president supreme over the military at all times? It is in consonance with the rule of law and
government of laws and not of man and that the president as the pres as the commander in chief of AFP
- Mgbuot ang president kng ikamiltary officer ka kung paatubangon ba ka sa congress in na legislative inquiry or
not because of the supremacy of the civilian authorit
- Case: Godani vs. ___
- Military courts like court marshal where the member of AFP are subjected to trial before the court marshals
- Case: Gonzales vs. Gen. Abaya, Aug 10, 2006
o SC: Court Marshalls are instrumentalities of the executive to enable the pres as the commander in chief
to effectively command control and discipline the AFP
o In short the court marshals are part of the disciplinary system that ensures the pres control and the
civilian supremacy over the military
- Also to maintain peace and order
Case: Chavez vs. Romulo- is it a matter of right to be armed, to carry firearms? So that if revoked without
hearing is a violation of due process of law?
SC: the maintenance of peace and order and the protection of people from violence are constitutional duties of
the state and to bear arms is to be construed in connection and in harmony with constitutional duties.
- to carry or bear arms in not a property nor a property right therefore not protected under the due process
clause. It can be removed; it can be taken away from you even without hearing because it is not a property nor a
property right
17. SEPARATION OF THE CHURCH AND THE STATE
Section 6. The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable.
How reinforced? Article III, Section 5. No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship,
without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the
exercise of civil or political rights.
- There should not be any representative from the religious sector in the government and that there should not
be any accreditation or registration in the party list for religious denominations and sects as political parties and
government funds should not be used for any church denomination, sects or any religious ministers, dignitaries,
etc
o EXCEPTION (when the state accommodated religion because of their contribution to the state welfare:
i. Tax exemption- churches, personages that are ADE used of a religious purpose but take note
that tax exemption is limited only to property tax
- Prohibition against appropriation of sectarian purposes
26
7
ART VI, Section 29.
1. No money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law.
2. No public money or property shall be appropriated, applied, paid, or employed, directly or indirectly, for
the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, sectarian institution, or system of
religion, or of any priest, preacher, minister, other religious teacher, or dignitary as such, except when
such priest, preacher, minister, or dignitary is assigned to the armed forces, or to any penal institution,
or government orphanage or leprosarium.
3. All money collected on any tax levied for a special purpose shall be treated as a special fund and paid
out for such purpose only. If the purpose for which a special fund was created has been fulfilled or
abandoned, the balance, if any, shall be transferred to the general funds of the Government.
4. EXCEPTION: when the funds are used for such priest, preacher, minister, or dignitary is assigned to the
armed forces, or to any penal institution, or government orphanage or leprosarium.
- Optional religious instruction in public schools
o Religion is taught in private schools because that does not apply but not to government schools because of the
prohibition of church and state
o However, the requirements if you are to teach religion in elementary and highschool there has to be written
consent from parents or guardians, within school hours by an accredited children of religion and should not
entail additional cost to the government (BAR)
- Ownership and management of educational institution which can only by a Filipino citizen or qualified Filipino
corrporation
EXCEPTION: establishment of educational institution by religious group, mission boards even if they are all
foreigners it is allowed because it is an accommodation to religion as an exception to separation of church and
state
Case: Estrada vs Escritor- even on matter morality it is not based on religion it is an accommodation to religion
as part of the benevolent neutrality accommodation as long as there is no compelling state interest that is
involved, no clear and present danger of any substantial evil that will be crated should religion be
accommodated
- Case: Islamic Da’Wah Council of the Philippines vs. Office of the Executive Secretary, July 9, 2003. Only the
prevention of an immediate and grave danger to the security and welfare of the community can justify the
infringement of religious freedom. If the government fails to show the seriousness and immediacy of the threat,
State intrusion is constitutionally unacceptable. In a society with a democratic framework like ours, the State
must minimize its interference with the affairs of its citizens and instead allow them to exercise reasonable
freedom of personal and religious activity.
18. Section 16. The State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in
accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature.
- This is a right of the public that is outside of Bill of rights
27
8
- Case: oposa vs. factoran- that while this is a public right stated in aRT. II. It is self executing and it does not make
it less important than those rights enumerated in Art III
- Case: Prov of Rizal vs. Exec sec: - SC: the right to balanced and healthful ecology is a fundamental legal right that
carried with it the correlative duty to refrain from impairing the government which includes the judicious
management and conservation of the country’s resources which duty is reposed in the DENR
19. LOCAL AUTONOMY
Section 25. The State shall ensure the autonomy of local governments.
- This does not mean that LG’s are independent from the state because the system is still unitary and not federal
- There could never be a state within a state
- Case: Province of north cotabato vs. GRPP, Oct 14, 2008-.
- The constitution does not contemplate any state in this jurisdiction other than the Philippine state, much less
does to provide for a transitory status that aims to prepare any part of the Philippine territory for independence
- Still it is autonomous not federalism
20. EQUIAL ACCES TO OPPRTUNITY TO PUBLIC
Section 26. The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service and prohibit political
dynasties as may be defined by law.
- This does not mean that anyone can run it is subject to the laws you are given only the opprtunety but not a
matter right
Case: Pamatong vs. Comelec: April 13, 2004
- Pamatong wanted to run as pres of RP but was disqualified
- The provision regarding equal access to opportunities for public service does not bestow a right to seek the
presidency it does not contain a judicial enforceable constitutional right but merely specifies a guideline for
legislative action;
- Not self executing; does not intended to compel the state to enact positive measures to accommodate as many
as possible into public office
21. IDEPENDENT FOREIGN POLICY
Section 7. The State shall pursue an independent foreign policy. In its relations with other states, the paramount
consideration shall be national sovereignty, territorial integrity, national interest, and the right to self-
determination.
Section 8. The Philippines, consistent with the national interest, adopts and pursues a policy of freedom from
nuclear weapons in its territory.
- What is prohibited is of course the stocking of nuclear arms in the country but never its beneficial use
28
9
- Our foreign policy always the paramount consideration shall be national sovereignty, territorial integrity,
national interest, and the right to self-determination.
22. Section 27. The State shall maintain honesty and integrity in the public service and take positive and effective
measures against graft and corruption.
= transparency and disclosure
- Non disclosure per se is not a crime but the outcome of not telling the truth of your assets and liabilities
- Part of transparency for government office is not anybody’s property it is a public trust there is accountability
which requires transparency and public disclosure especially when it involves public interest
23. ARTICLE IV
CITIZENSHIP
Citizenship nationality
- As a member of a political community you have the political right such as the right to vote and the right to run
for public office, right to information in matters of public concern -Membership of a racial community ;
more of an ethnic concept; you may be a Filipino by nationality however you are already a US citizen
- ACQUIRING CITIZENSHIP:
i. By jus sanguinis- blood relationship
ii. Jus soli- place of birth
iii. Naturalization
1. Congressional act
2. Judicial declaration
case: Roa vs. Collector of customs- during the japans occupation we recognize place of birth but that was
erroneous according to SC but the judgment ha already become final and so we recognize it under the principle
of res judicata but never we are to recognize jus soli
CLASSIFICATION OF CITIZENS IN THE PHIL:
1. Native- aborigines
2. natural born
3. naturalize
who are citizens of the Philippines?
Section 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines:
1. Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of this Constitution (on February 2);
2. Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines;
29
0
3. Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine Citizenship upon reaching
the age of majority; and
4. Those who are naturalized in the accordance with law.
1. Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of this Constitution (on February 2)
-Referring to those recognized as citizens of Phil under Treaty of Paris, 1935 and 1973 Constitutions and
principle of jus soli and res judicata
- Treaty of Paris
Case: Tecson vs. Comelec: citizenship FPJ
- Treaty of Paris as mass naturalization of natives, peninsulares, insulares, Spaniards who chose to remain in the
Philippines as of 1899 considered as Filipino citizens
- SC: inhabit an who was considered as citizen of the Philippines under the treaty of Paris refers to:
o Native born inhabitants- indios
o Inhabitants who obtained Spanish papers on or before April 11, 1899 sp they could be Spaniards,
foreigners who continued to reside in the Philippines without the intention of leaving the Philippines
territory
§ One whom was the grandfather of FPJ
FILIPINO CITIZENS UNDER THE 1935 CONSITUTION
1. Citizens at the time of adoption of the 1935 constitution
- Referring to the Treaty of Paris and organic laws defining who are citizens of the Philippines
2. Those born in the Philippines of foreign parents before the adoption of 1935 constitution and elected to
public office
- To correct the errors of have elected foreigners to public offices
- Caram case
- Case of Chongbian- he to became a Filipino being born to Chinese parents before 1935 cons is adopted by
derivative citizenships; natural born citizen
- What determines citizenship of the child is the father’s citizenship regardless of the mother’s
- if a Filipina at the time marries a foreigner then she loses her Filipino citizenship and she is presumed to have
acquired cit of husband
- child can still elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching 21
participation in election like voting or by running for candidacy- you already make election
- 1946 required that this election should be register it with the civil registry
30
1
case: Ma Vs. Fernandez. July 26, 2012
- SC: should not defeat the election and negate the permanent fact that they have a Filipino mother // gold//
June 15 2012 (1st hour)
ARTICLE IV
CITIZENSHIP
Section 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines:
1. Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of this Constitution;
2. Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines;
3. Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine Citizenship upon
reaching the age of majority; and
4. Those who are naturalized in the accordance with law.
Section 2. Natural-born citizens are those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to
perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship. Those who elect Philippine citizenship in
accordance with paragraph (3), Section 1 hereof shall be deemed natural-born citizens.
Section 3. Philippine citizenship may be lost or reacquired in the manner provided by law.
Section 4. Citizens of the Philippines who marry aliens shall retain their citizenship, unless by their act or
omission they are deemed, under the law to have renounced it.
Section 5. Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt with by law.
1. Treaty of Paris was the basis for the enactment of Jones law of 1916.
2. Lopez vs. Comelec:
involving Valles whose father was a Filipino citizen and got married to an Australian and resided in Australia.
Lopez who was later married to Valles was born in Australia and was considered as Australian citizen and she
came back to Philippines and run for elective position and she won. A case for disqualification on the ground
that she is holding an Australian passport and registered as alien and that she was an Australian citizen having a
mother who is an Australian and having been born in Australia. So they have to determine whether she is a
Filipino or Australian citizen. This case was prior to Tecson vs. Comelec.
SC: found out that the father was a citizen of Philippines at the time he got married to the mother of this Lopez
because the predecessors of his father were inhabitants of the Philippine territory as of April 11, 1899. That
made the father of Lopez a Filipino citizen and he remained a SFilipino citizen apparently even if he was married
to an Australian citizen. So this Rosario Lopez had dual citizenship;
SC: mere possession of a foreign passport is not conclusive that he had renounced her Phil citizenship even if she
is registered as_________ unless there is evidence that she had expressly renounced her cititizenship as
reiterated in Aznar vs. Comelec.
3. Rep vs. Nora Fe Sagun, Feb 15, 2012: Sagun claimed that she is a Filipino
31
2
Mother was a Filipino and father was a foreigner. Under 1935 const, within reasonable period of time upon
reaching the age of majority she must elect Philippine citizenship. However there is no evidence that she had
elected Phil cit but she claimed to have elected as such claiming to have voted in an election.
Note that under 1935 Constitution, you are required to make an election and it is required that that election for
Philippine citizenship must be registered as required in 1941. While she claimed to have elected Philippine
citizenship, there was no proof.
She went to court to be declared as Filipino citizen. She petitioned for a declaration as Filipino citizen based on
her self-serving claim that she had elected Philippine citizenship.
Issue: Is that a correct remedy on her part? Is she a Filipino citizen if declared by court as such?
Lower court declared her to be a Filipino citizen and this was questioned by the Solicitor General (SG) as wrong
procedure and that she should not have been declared as Filipino citizen by election
SC: There is no specific statutory or procedural rule which authorizes the direct filing of a petition for a
declaration of election of Philippine citizen before the courts. CA No. 625 is very clear that election has to be
done within a reasonable time within 3 years from reaching the age of majority. Such was not established in this
case, therefore she cannot be considered as a Filipino citizen for having failed to elect Philippine citizenship
within a reasonable period of time.
If you want to be cleared as to your citizenship, you cannot go to court and ask for a declaration that you have
elected Philippines citizenship.
4. Memorize who are citizens under 1935 const
1935 CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE IV
Citizenship
SECTION 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines.
(1) Those who are citizens of the Philippine Islands at the time of the adoption of this Constitution.
- making reference to previous laws: treaty of Paris, Philippine bill 1902, Jones law
(2) Those born in the Philippine Islands of foreign parents who, before the adoption of this Constitution,
had been elected to public office in the Philippine Islands.
- erroneous recognition of jus soli principle which by reason of res judicata had to be recognized by the court
because judgment has become final but we never recognize jus soli.
- if there was the recognition of Philippine citizenship because of the judgment of a case:
- Roa vs. collector of customs: by reason of jus soli because the judgment has become final and under the
principle of res judicata you cannot just simply ignore the judgment which recognized the person as Filipino
citizen by reason of jus soli
32
3
- This is election not by appointment; this is to rectify the mistakes of people having elected foreigners to public
offices because prior to Philippine bill 1902 there was no distinction between a Filipino or any one else who was
residing in the Philippines at the particular time
- Caram case: got elected to con-con to draft the constitution although he was born to a Syrian couple by reason
of this provision he was recognized as a Filipino citizen
- William Chongbian: it was the father who was elected to a public office and William at that time was still a minor
and so by derivative citizenship he also adopted the citizenship of the fathers and so became a Filipino citizen
and the children of Chongbian subsequently became natural born citizens having been born to a Filipino father
3) Those whose fathers are citizens of the Philippines.
- Tecson vs. Comelec
- Valles vs. Comelec
(4) Those whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines and, upon reaching the age of majority, elect
Philippine citizenship.
- During the minority of the child he is a foreigner, following the citizenship of the father but the child is given the
right to become a Filipino, that if he elects Philippine citizenship
NOTE: This is very catchy. In the sense that the reason why the child is considered as a foreigner is because of
the presumption of the law that when the mother married the foreigner father she lost her Philippine citizenship
precisely because she acquired the citizenship of the husband. It is on that presumption. In which case if it can
be established that notwithstanding the marriage under the 1935 constitution of a Filipina to a foreigner
husband that she has not acquired the citizenship of the husband then she remains to be a Filipino citizen.
- if the father is a Filipino certainly the child is a Filipino
- under the 1935 constitution, it is only when the mother although a Filipino is married to the father regardless if
she acquires the citizenship of the husband the child is a foreigner during his minority
- if the mother, however, is not married to the father-foreigner then the child remains a Filipino following the
citizenship of the mother
- Rep vs. Nora Fe Sagun: she claimed that the mother was married to foreigner father but she said the
mother never acquired the citizenship of the father and therefore she does not need to elect Philippine
citizenship but that was never established here because what determines the citizenship of the child under the
1935 constitution was the father. It was only under 1973 where it specifically provides that either the mother or
the father is a Filipino citizen, the child is a Filipino citizen. The fact remains in this particular case that Sagun
failed to elect Philippine citizenship within reasonable period of time.
- bottom line: it is not for the courts to declare that you had elected Philippine citizenship. It is not the procedure
provided for in CA 625
- example: if the mother was married to the father foreigner under the 1935 const however the child was born
during the 1973 Constitution. What would be the citizenship of the child during minority?
A: The child is a foreigner during his minority.
33
4
Q: Can the child elect Phil cit?
A: No, he cannot because at that time of his birth the mother is presumed to be a foreigner and under the 1973
constitution it says “those whose father or mother” but the mother who had lost her citizenship because of her
marriage to father under the 1935 Constitution is presumed to be a foreigner at the time of birth so how could
the child elect Philippine citizenship.
- The election of citizenship thereof is only when he was born during the 1935 Constitution not under 1973
Constitution.
- take note of the requirements:
- Father foreigner; mother Filipino, married under the 1935 const and the child was born under the 1935
const meaning prior to adoption of 1973, the child must elect Philippine citizenship within reasonable
time
- take note of the case Ma vs. Fernandez July 26,(2011): Sc ruled that after election you have to have it
registered. Failure to do so will not affect your election so long as your mother is a Filipino citizen at the time she
got married to a foreigner. You can only be subjected to administrative penalties. For as long as you can prove
that you have elected Philippine citizenship however you have failed to register it as required by law. You are
considered a Filipino citizen having complied substantially the requirement of the law that you have to elect
Philippine citizenship.
- Now, should a Filipina marry a foreigner , she does not automatically lose her citizenship. As a consequence the
child is a Filipino citizen and can be at the same time a citizen of the child’s country as well. That is jus sanguinis.
But the cut off period: the child has to be born on January 17, 1973 or thereafter. OW prior to that what would
govern to a child whose father is a foreigner married to a Filipina mother is 1935 Constitution and the
requirement of election is very significant and you take note of the circumstances of the development of
decisions of SC relating to that.
- Another point: those who elected Philippine citizenship pursuant to the provision of 1935 Constitution are also
considered as Filipino citizens. But take note that under 1973 constitution there is now a definition who are
natural born citizens. This you cannot find in 1935 constitution.
1973 Constitution
(5) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.
SECTION 2. Philippine citizenship may be lost or reacquired in the manner provided by law.
5. Q: How do you classify those considered Filipino citizens by election and by naturalization under 1935 Constitution?
Are they naturalized? Or Natural born? Or citizens by election?
A: Since 1935 constitution did not make any distinction then they are presumed to be considered all citizens of
Philippines and under the first paragraph of the 1973 Constitution they are considered as natural born.
THE 1973 CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE III
Citizenship
34
5
SECTION 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines:
(1) Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of this Constitution.
(2) Those whose fathers and mothers are citizens of the Philippines.
(3) Those who elect Philippine citizenship pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution of nineteen
hundred and thirty-five.
(4) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.
SECTION 4. A natural-born citizen is one who is a citizen of the Philippines from birth without having to perform
any act to acquire or perfect his Philippine citizenship.
- Therefore a child who has elected Philippine citizenship because father is foreigner and mother is Filipino citizen,
under that definition the child is not considered as natural born and it was not fair because for children born
under the 1935 Constitution father is foreigner and mother is Filipino citizen and elected Philippine citizenship
under 1935 Constitution is considered as natural born, however, under the 1973 Constitution he is not
considered as natural born simply because he elected Philippine citizenship only after 1973 Constitution was
adopted.
- This anomaly was rectified by the 1987 Constitution
1987 Constitution
Section 2. Natural-born citizens are those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to
perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship. Those who elect Philippine citizenship in
accordance with paragraph (3), Section 1 hereof shall be deemed natural-born citizens.
- it is now very clear that even those children who elected Philippine citizenship pursuant to the provision of 1935
Constitution are considered as natural born citizens. That is the significance of election.
- You have to master election of citizenship: read C.A 625
• Still relevant ; not yet repealed
COMMONWEALTH ACT No. 625
AN ACT PROVIDING THE MANNER IN WHICH THE OPTION TO ELECT PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP SHALL BE DECLARED
BY A PERSON WHOSE MOTHER IS A FILIPINO CITIZEN
Be it enacted by the National Assembly of the Philippines:
Section 1. The option to elect Philippine citizenship in accordance with subsection (4), section 1, Article IV, of the
Constitution1 shall be expressed in a statement to be signed and sworn to by the party concerned before any
officer authorized to administer oaths, and shall be filed with the nearest civil registry. The said party shall
accompany the aforesaid statement with the oath of allegiance to the Constitution and the Government of the
Philippines.
35
3
BY: Laarnie, Marigold, Diane, Neil Jason
6
Section 2. If the party concerned is absent from the Philippines, he may make the statement herein authorized before any
officer of the Government of the United States2 authorized to administer oaths, and he shall forward such
statement together with his oath of allegiance, to the Civil Registry of Manila.
Section 3. The civil registrar shall collect as filing fees of the statement, the amount of ten pesos.
Section 4. The penalty of prision correccional, or a fine not exceeding ten thousand pesos, or both, shall be imposed on
anyone found guilty of fraud or falsehood in making the statement herein prescribed.
Section 5. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.
6. NATURALIZATION –
a process of adopting an alien into the body politic and clothe him with all the rights and privileges of a citizen of
the country.
- Another way of becoming a Filipino citizen
- Judicial process
- Legislative enactment
- Administrative
- if you have to compare natural born and naturalized there is no difference at all in terms of rights and
obligations OW there may be violation of the equal protection of laws if there would be rights that would be
withheld simply because he is naturalized cit except those reservations made by const that only natural born or
native citizen can enjoy.
Ex: Politically: running for certain cut pres, VP, Congress, or appointment to SC, CA or Sandiganbayan. You have
to be a natural cit. in all other elective position it is enough that you are a citizen and you have the same rights
as that of any other cit as provided by law
Economic: former natural born a balikbayan acquiring parcel of land because as a GR a foreigner cannot acquire
lands in Philippine. As an exception to the rule a former natural born may acquire lands however limited. This is
not true to a naturalized citizen.
7. Take note of the qualification and disqualifications: CA 470??
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9139 June 08, 2001
AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE ACQUISITION OF PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP FOR CERTAIN ALIENS BY ADMINISTRATIVE
NATURALIZATION AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled:
Section 1. Short Title. - This Act shall be known as "The Administrative Naturalization Law of 2000."
Section 2. Declaration of Policy. - The State shall control and regulate the admission and integration of aliens into its
territory and body politic including the grant of citizenship to aliens. Towards this end, aliens born and residing in the
Philippines may be granted Philippine citizenship by administrative proceedings subject to certain requirements dictated
by national security and interest.
36
7
Section 3. Qualifications. - Subject to the provisions of the succeeding section, any person desiring to avail of the benefits
of this Act must meet the following qualifications:
(a) The applicant must be born in the Philippines and residing therein since birth;
(b) The applicant must not be less than eighteen (18) years of age, at the time of filing of his/her petition;
(c) The applicant must be of good moral character and believes in the underlying principles of the Constitution, and must
have conducted himself/herself in a proper and irreproachable manner during his/her entire period of residence
in the Philippines in his relation with the duly constituted government as well as with the community in which
he/she is living;
(d) The applicant must have received his/her primary and secondary education in any public school or private educational
institution dully recognized by the Department of Education, Culture and Sports, where Philippine history,
government and civics are taught and prescribed as part of the school curriculum and where enrollment is not
limited to any race or nationality: Provided, That should he/she have minor children of school age, he/she must
have enrolled them in similar schools;
(e) The applicant must have a known trade, business, profession or lawful occupation, from which he/she derives income
sufficient for his/her support and if he/she is married and/or has dependents, also that of his/her family:
Provided, however, That this shall not apply to applicants who are college degree holders but are unable to
practice their profession because they are disqualified to do so by reason of their citizenship;
(f) The applicant must be able to read, write and speak Filipino or any of the dialects of the Philippines; and
(g) The applicant must have mingled with the Filipinos and evinced a sincere desire to learn and embrace the customs,
traditions and ideals of the Filipino people.
Section 4. Disqualifications, - The following are not qualified to be naturalized as Filipino citizens under this Act:
(a) Those opposed to organized government or affiliated with any association of group of persons who uphold and teach
doctrines opposing all organized governments;
(b) Those defending or teaching the necessity of or propriety of violence, personal assault or assassination for the success
or predominance of their ideas;
(c) Polygamists or believers in the practice of polygamy;
(d) Those convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude;
(e) Those suffering from mental alienation or incurable contagious diseases;
(f) Those who, during the period of their residence in the Philippines, have not mingled socially with Filipinos, or who have
not evinced a sincere desire to learn and embrace the customs, traditions and ideals of the Filipinos;
(g) Citizens or subjects with whom the Philippines is at war, during the period of such war; and
(h) Citizens or subjects of a foreign country whose laws do not grant Filipinos the right to be naturalized citizens or
subjects thereof.
Section 5. Petition for Citizenship. - (1) Any person desiring to acquire Philippine citizenship under this Act shall file with
the Special Committee on Naturalization created under Section 6 hereof, a petition of five (5) copies legibly typed
37
8
and signed, thumbmarked and verified by him/her, with the latter's passport-sized photograph attached to each
copy of the petition, and setting forth the following:
(a) The petitioner's name and surname, and any other name he/she has used or by which he/she is known;
(b) The petitioner's present and former places of residence;
(c) The petitioner's place and date of birth, the names and citizenship of his/her parents and their residences;
(d) The petitioner's trade, business, profession or occupation, and if married, also that of his/her spouse;
(e) Whether the petitioner is single or married or his/her marriage is annulled. If married, petitioner shall state the date
and place of his/her marriage, and the name, date of birth, birthplace, citizenship and residence of his/her
spouse; and if his marriage is annulled, the date of decree of annulment of marriage and the court which granted
the same;
(f) If the petitioner has children, the name, date and birthplace and residences of his/her children ;
(g) A declaration that the petitioner possesses all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications under this Act;
(h) A declaration that the petitioner shall never be a public charge; and
(i) A declaration that it is the petitioner's true and honest intention to acquire Philippine citizenship and to renounce
absolutely and forever any prince, potentate, State or sovereign, and particularly the country of which the
applicant is a citizen or subject.
(2) The application shall be accompanied by:
(a) Duplicate original or certified photocopies of petitioner's birth certificate;
(b) Duplicate original or certified photocopies of petitioner's alien certificate of registration and native born certificate of
residence;
(c) Duplicate original or certified photocopies of petitioner's marriage certified, if married, or the death certificate of his
spouse, if widowed, or the court decree annulling his marriage, if such was the fact;
(d) Duplicate original or certified photocopies of birth certificates, alien certificate of registration or native born
certificate of residence if any, of petitioner's minor children, wherever applicable;
(e) Affidavit of financial capacity by the petitioner, and sworn statements on the good moral character of the petitioner
by at least two (2) Filipino citizens of good reputation in his/her place of residence stating that they have
personally known the petitioner for at least a period of ten (10) years and that said petitioner has in their own
opinion all the qualifications necessary to become a citizen of the Philippines and is not in any way disqualified
under the provisions of this Act;
(f) A medical certificate that petitioner is not a user of prohibited drugs or otherwise a drug dependent and that he/she is
not afflicted with acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS);
(g) School diploma and transcript of records of the petitioner in the schools he attended in the Philippines. Should the
petitioner have minor children, a certification that his children are enrolled in a school where Philippine history,
government and civics are taught and are part of the curriculum; and
38
9
(h) If gainfully employed, the income tax return for the past three (3) years.
Section 6. Special Committee on Naturalization. - There shall be constituted a Special Committee on Naturalization herein
referred to as the "Committee", with the Solicitor General as chairman, the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, or his
representative, and the National Security Adviser, as members, with the power to approve, deny or reject
applications for naturalization as provided in this Act.
The Committee shall meet, as often as practicable, to consider applications for naturalization. For this purpose, the
chairman and members shall receive an honorarium of Two thousand pesos (P2,000.00) and One thousand five
hundred pesos (P1,500.00), respectively, per meeting attended.
Section 7. Powers/Functions of the Special Committee on Naturalization. - An alien who believes that he has all the
qualifications, and none of the disqualifications, may file an application for naturalization with the secretariat of
the Special Committee on Naturalization, and a processing fee of Forty thousand pesos (P40,000.00). Thereafter,
the petition shall be stamped to indicate the date of filing and a corresponding docket number. Within fifteen
(15) days from the receipt of the petition, the Committee shall determine whether the petition is complete in
substance and in form. If such petition is complete, the Committee shall immediately publish pertinent portions
of the petition indicating the name, qualifications and other personal circumstances of the applicant, once a
week for three (3) consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation, and have copies of the petition
posted in any public or conspicuous area. The Committee shall immediately furnish the Department of Foreign
Affairs (DFA), the Bureau of Immigration (BI), the civil registrar of the petitioner's place of residence and tile
National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) copies of the petition and its supporting documents. These agencies shall
have copies of the petition posted in any public or conspicuous area in their buildings, offices and premises, and
shall, within thirty (30) days from the receipt of the petition, submit to the Committee a report stating whether or
not petitioner has any derogatory record on file or any such relevant and material information which might be
adverse to petitioner's application for citizenship.
If the petition is found by the Committee to be wanting in substance and form, the petition shall be dismissed without
prejudice.
Section 8. Approval or Disapproval of the Petition. - Within sixty (60) days from receipt of the report of the agencies
which were furnished a copy of the petition or the date of the last publication of the petition, whichever comes in
later, the Committee shall consider and review all relevant and material information it has received pertaining to
the petition, and may, for the purpose call the petitioner for interview to ascertain his/her identity, the
authenticity of the petition and its annexes, and to determine the truthfulness of the statements and declarations
made in the petition and its annexes.
If the Committee shall have received any information adverse to the petition, the Committee shall allow the petitioner to
answer, explain or refute the information.
Thereafter, if the Committee believes, in view of the facts before it, that the petitioner has all the qualifications and none
of the disqualifications required for Philippine citizenship under this Act, it shall approve the petition and
henceforth, notify the petitioner of the fact of such approval. Otherwise, the Committee shall disapprove the
same.
Section 9. Decree of Naturalization and Naturalization Processing Fee. -Within thirty (30) days from the receipt of the
notice of the approval of his/her petition, the applicant shall pay to the Committee a naturalization fee of One
hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) payable as follows: Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) upon the approval
of the petition and Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) upon the taking of the oath of allegiance to the Republic of
39
0
the Philippines, forthwith, a certificate of naturalization shall be issued. Within sixty (60) days from the issuance
of the certificate, the petitioner shall take an oath of allegiance in the proper forum upon proof of payment of
the required naturalization processing fee and certificate of naturalization. Should the applicant fail to take the
abovementioned oath of allegiance within said period of time, the approval of the petition shall be deemed
abandoned.
Section 10. Duty of the Bureau of Immigration. - Within five (5) days after the applicant has taken his oath of allegiance
as required in the preceding section, the BI shall forward a copy of the petitioner's oath to the proper local civil
registrar. Thereafter, the BI shall cancel the alien certificates of registration of the applicant.
Section 11. Status of Alien Wife and Minor Children. - After the approval of the petition for administrative naturalization
in cancellation of applicant's alien certificate of registration, applicant's alien lawful wife and minor children may
file a petition for cancellation of their alien certificates of registration with the Committee subject to the payment
of the filing fee of Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) and naturalization fee of Forty thousand pesos
(P40,000.00) payable as follows: Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) upon the approval of the petition and
Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) upon the taking of the oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines.
Section 12. Status of Alien Husband and Minor Children. - If the applicant is a married woman, the approval of her
petition for administrative naturalization will not benefit her alien husband but her minor children may file a
petition for cancellation of their alien certificates of registration with the BI subject to the requirements of
existing laws.
Section 13. Cancellation of the Certificate of Naturalization. - The Special Committee may cancel certificates of
naturalization issued under this Act in the following cases:
(a) If it finds that the naturalized person or his duly authorized representative made any false statement or
misrepresentation or committed any violation of law, rules and regulations in connection with the petition for
naturalization, or if he otherwise obtains Philippine citizenship fraudulently or illegally, the certificate of
naturalization shall be cancelled;
(b) If the naturalized person or his wife, or any or his minor children who acquire Filipino citizenship by virtue of his
naturalization shall, within five (5) years next following the grant of Philippine citizenship, establish permanent
residence in a foreign country, that individual's certificate of naturalization or acquired citizenship shall be
cancelled or revoked: Provided, That the fact of such person's remaining for more than one (1) year in his country
of origin, or two (2) years in any foreign country, shall be considered prima facie evidence of intent to
permanently reside therein;
(c) If the naturalized person or his wife or child with acquired citizenship allows himself or herself to be used as a dummy
in violation of any constitutional or legal provision requiring Philippine citizenship as a condition for the exercise,
use or enjoyment of a right, franchise or privilege, the certificate of naturalization or acquired citizenship shall be
cancelled or revoked; and
(d) If the naturalized person or his wife or child with acquired citizenship commits any act inimical to national security,
the certificate of naturalization or acquired citizenship shall be cancelled or revoked.
In case the naturalized person holds any hereditary title, or belong to any order of nobility, he shall make an express
renunciation of his title or membership in this order of nobility before the Special Committee or its duly
authorized representative, and such renunciation shall be included in the records of his application for
citizenship.
40
4
1
Section 14. Penalties. - Any person who shall fraudulently make, falsify, forge, change, alter, or cause or aid any person to
do the same, or who shall purposely aid and assist in falsely making, forging, falsifying, changing or altering a
naturalization certificate issued under this proceeding for the purpose of making use thereof, or in order that the
same may be used by another person or persons, and any person who shall purposely aid and assist another in
obtaining a naturalization certificate in violation of this Act, shall be punished by a fine of not more than Five
hundred thousand pesos (P500,OOO.OO) and by imprisonment for not more than five (5) years, and in the case
that the person convicted is a naturalized citizen, his certificate of naturalization shall, if not earlier cancelled by
the Special Committee, be ordered cancelled.
Section 15. Any person who failed to register his/her birth with the concerned city or municipal civil registrar may, within
two (2) years from the effectivity of this Act, file a petition for the acquisition of the Philippine citizenship:
Provided, That the applicant possesses all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications under this Act and
subject to the requirements of existing laws.
Section 16. Special Disposition of the Filing Fee. - An amount equivalent to twenty five percent (25%) of the filing fee to
be paid by the applicants pursuant to Section 7 hereof shall accrue to the University of the Philippines Law Center
and another twenty-five percent (25%) shall be allotted for the publication of the Journal of the House of
Representatives. Said amount shall be treated as receipts automatically appropriated.
Section 17. Implementing Rules and Regulations. - The Special Committee on Naturalization is hereby authorized to
promulgate such rules and regulations as may be needed for the proper implementation of the provisions of this
Act.
Section 18. Repealing Clause. -All provisions of existing laws, orders, decrees, rules and regulations contrary to or
inconsistent with this Act are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.
Section 19. Separability CIause. - If any part, section or provision of this Act is declared invalid or unconstitutional, the
part, section or provision not affected thereby shall continue to be in force and effect.
Section 20. Effectivity Clause. - This Act shall take effect after fifteen (15) days following its publication in at least two (2)
newspapers of general circulation.
Qualifications for Naturalization:
1. not less than 18 years of age on date of hearing of petition (as amended by RA 6809);
2. resided in the Philippines for not less than 10 years; may be reduced to 5 years, if:
a. honorably held office in the Philippines;
b. established new industry or introduced a useful invention;
c. married to a Filipino woman;
d. engaged as teacher in Philippine public or private school not established for exclusive instruction to particular
nationality or race, or in any of branches of education or industry for a period of not less than 2 years; and
e. born in the Philippines;
3. character:
a. good moral character;

41
2
b. believes in the Constitution;
c. conducted himself in an irreproachable conduct during his stay in the Philippines;
4. Own real estate in the Philippines not less than P5,000 in value; or have some lucrative trade, profession or
lawful occupation that can support himself and his family;
5. Speak and write English or Filipino and any principal Philippine dialects; (as amended by Sec. 6 Art. XIV); and
6. Enrolled minor children in any public or private school recognized by government where Philippine history,
government and civics are taught as part of curriculum, during the entire period of residence prior to hearing of
petition.
Disqualification for Naturalization:
a. opposed to organized government or affiliated with any association or group of persons who uphold and teach
doctrines opposing all organized governments;
b. defending or teaching necessity or propriety of violence, personal assault or assassination for the success or
predominance of their ideas;
c. polygamists or believers in polygamy;
d. suffering from mental alienation or incurable contagious disease;
e. convicted of crime involving moral turpitude;
f. who during residence in the Philippines have not mingled socially with Filipinos, or not evinced sincere desire to
learn and embrace customs, traditions and ideals of Filipinos;
g. citizens or subjects of nations with whom the Philippines is at war, during the period of such war;
h. citizens or subjects of foreign country whose laws do not grant Filipinos right to become naturalized citizens or
subjects thereof (no reciprocity).
- But lately the courts have relaxed the rule. As long as you can prove that you suffered none of the
disqualification then you may have a chance to become a Philippine cit
- The point is that applying for Filipino citizenship is not a matter of right but rather a privilege granted by a
sovereign state to a foreigner applicant. So it must be strictly construed against the foreigner
- Q: If there is a question as to the validity of the proceedings how do you go about it? If you are to question the
validity of the proceedings of the naturalization of a particular foreigner who was granted Philippine citizenship?
- A: Limkaichong case, Paras et la against the Comelec trying to disqualify Limkaichong as congressman of Negros
Oriental: Limkaichong garnered the highest number of votes and pursuant to a resolution of Comelec she was
declared to have been elected without prejudice to any questions as to qualifications, not anymore with
Comelec but with HRET which is the sole judge of any election returns and qualifications of a member because
she was already proclaimed and assumed office and became a member of congress.
- Question posed: Can the petitioner in the Comelec case continue to question the validity of the proceedings of
naturalization of father
42
3
- Limkaichong became a citizen of the country because father was naturalized Filipino citizen and by derivative
citizenship, Limkaichoing became also a Filipino. Mother was a Filipino but married to a foreigner so she lost her
cit because of her marriage and so the husband applied for naturalization and was granted Philippine citizen. But
now there was a question on the legality of the proceeding with the intention of disqualifying Limkaichoing.
Because if the father was not a naturalized citizen because the proceedings are illegal and invalid that makes
Limkaichong a foreigner or if not, a stateless individual.
- Issue in this case:
- Case: Ronald Villando vs. HRET Aug 23, 2011- Villando was the petitioner in the Comelec case which was
continued in HRET. Can he question then the validity of the proceedings of naturalization of father of
Limkaichong in order to disqualify Limkaichong, considering that HRET is the sole judge on qualifications, is that
proper?
- Sc: Questions on validity or legality of a particular naturalized citizen. Who has that burden or authority to
question? It is not any other individual.
Answer: Clearly under law and jurisprudence, it is the State through its representative like the office of SG
designated by the statute that may question the illegally or invalidly procured cert of naturalization in the
appropriate denaturalization proceedings not in an election case such as in this case of Villando. You cannot
collaterally attack the citizenship of a person through a process a filing a disqualification case against the
candidate because it was not Limkaichong’s naturalization that was questioned here but it was her father’s and
therefore HRET was not the proper venue. It must be in a denaturalization proceedings which can only be
initiated by the government through its designated representative like the SG
- HRET no matter how complete and exclusive does not carry with authority to delve on the legality of judgment
of naturalization in the pursuit of disqualifying Limkaichong. To rule OW would operate as collateral attack on
the cit of the father which is not permissible
8 . File a petition the intention to apply Philippine citizenship not with the court immediately because that intention
had to be filed with the office of SG.
It has a period of suspension of one year. Although you file a case with the court, the court will not act on it
until one year because it still have to be referred to SG who still have to make an investigation of your sincerity
of becoming Filipino citizen whether you are qualified and if found to be qualified will make recommendation in
court. Ordering of publication of the petition.
- If it is granted still have to wait for 2 years just to test the perseverance of becoming Philippine citizenship. But
there is no finality. Principle of res judicata will not apply, always a subject to a question by a government
agency
9. Effects of Naturalization:
1. On the wife
- does not automatically become a Filipino cit and need not go through judicial process like the husband.
- You have to follow case of Moya Lim Yao vs. CA: although it is not automatic she still have to prove that she
suffers none of disqualification by filing as petition for the cancellation of alien certificate of registration and in
43
4
that forum she will prove that she suffers none of disqualification as required under CA 470 and if she can prove
that she becomes a Filipino citizen.
- vests citizenship on wife who might herself be lawfully naturalized; She need not prove her qualifications but
only that she is not disqualified.
2. On the minor children
- If born at the time when naturalization was granted’ If of age, not anymore. If he wants to become a Filipino
citizen he must follow the procedure as that of the father
If minor-
(i) If born in the Philippines – automatically becomes a citizen;
If born abroad upon reaching the age of majority he must go to nearest Philippine embassy in order to
elect Philippine citizenship. Failure to do so would make him again a foreigner such as that original cit of
the father.
If born before the naturalization of the father
(ia) residing in RP at the time of naturalization – automatically becomes citizen;
(ib) if not residing in RP at the time of naturalization – considered citizen only during minority,
unless begins to reside permanently in the Philippines;
(ii) If born outside the Philippines after parents’ naturalization considered Filipino, provided registered
as such before any Philippines consulate within 1 year after attaining majority age and takes oath of
allegiance.
10. REVOCATION of naturalization of the father
Q: how does this affect on the applicant himself, wife and children who derived their citizenship on his
naturalization
A: on the applicant himself- he ceases to be a Filipino cit he can be a stales individual
Wife and children
- it depends on the reason for revocation:
§ If reason is fraud or lack of qualification of the applicant then there is never a right that was derived by the wife
or children. How can you derive a right from an invalid judgment or proceeding. In which case wife and children
would likewise lose Philippine citizenship
- When there is appending case for revocation or cancellation of a cert of naturalization and the subject of
revocation died.
- Q: Can the wife or the children move for the dismissal of the case for the reason that the issue had already
become moot and academic considering that the subject of revocation of cit is already dead
- A: No because the ground of revocation is fraud or lack of qualification on the part of petitioner applicant.
However if the reason of revocation is because the applicant has violated the conditions of the grant of
44
5
Philippine cit such as the commission of a crime after he has granted Philippine cit and that would be a
forfeiture of his citizenship as a consequence that will not prejudice the right of wife and children.
11. ADMINISTRATIVE NATURALIZATION
[BAR]- R.A. No. 9189- applies only to aliens born and residing in the Philippines
- They have the choice to apply for judicial or administrative naturalization subject to the prescribed
qualification and disqualification.
12. -Modes of losing Citizenship
- C.A. No. 63
i. Naturalization in a foreign country;
- Take note: under R.A. 9225 even if you applied for naturalization in another country you still retain your being a
Filipino citizen; you can enjoy dual citizenship in so far as foreign country is concerned but as far as Philippine is
concerned you are still a Filipino citizen but you may recognized as a citizen of another country where you
applied for naturalization
- This not only the reacquisition but also a retention of your Philippine citizen while you are apply for natural in
another country
- Take note when does this law take effect
ii. Express renunciation of citizenship - must be formal
iii. Rendering service to or accepting commission in the armed forces of a foreign country;
- except for Filipino who served US military because of the mutual defense agreement we have with U.S.; unless
you apply for naturalization in America while serving in the military you will certainly lose your Philippine
citizenship
iv. Cancellation of certificate of naturalization;
v. Having been declared by final judgment a deserter of Philippines Armed Forces in times of war.
vi. When you are convicted of a crime for disloyalty to the Republic
- Cases of Valles
- Aznar
o Mere possession of a foreign passport does not necessarily mean that you have renounce is not a conclusive
proof because sometimes it is not your intention really of becoming a foreign cit as well nit is by virtue of some
circumstance such as being born in America. It is not voluntary. So for as long as there is really no international
proof that you have expressly renounced Philippine citizenship you are still considered as Filipino citizen
- Case: while applying for naturalization in Philippine and became Filipino citizen but still he continued to carry a
Portuguese passport and even used it outside of country it is taken as a renunciation of Philippine citizen
13. MANNER OF REACQUIRING lost citizenship

45
6
1. By denaturalizing yourself of foreign citizenship and apply either repatriation or naturalization; or
2. Conferment again of Philippine cit to you at the discretion of Congress by way of legislative Act //gold//
June 15, 2012 (2nd and 3rd hours)
13 .Repatriation and Naturalization
The mode of reacquiring citizenship depends on how you have lost your citizenship. If you applied for
naturalization before, you intentionally/deliberately renounce your citizenship. You cannot just reacquire it by
repatriation but through naturalization.
What is the difference between naturalization and repatriation?
-In naturalization you go through judicial process again. Just like any foreigner applying for Philippine citizenship.
- For repatriation, it’s a lot easier. All you have to do is you take the oath of allegiance again and have that oath
registered in the nearest civil registry where you are residing or where you have last resided. The moment you
reacquire your citizenship, you reacquire your original status. If you were natural born when you lost it, then you
will reacquire your natural born citizenship.
- In naturalization, if granted, you will only acquire a naturalized citizenship.
CASE: (faith healer from Baguio daw na guy)
He got married to an Australian national and applied for naturalization there. He went back to Baguio and ran as
mayor. He won in the election. He was disqualified because he was not a Filipino citizen. He was not able to
reacquire his Filipino Citizenship. His contention is that he had declared himself as Filipino citizen and filed his
certificate of candidacy.
SC: since he deliberately renounced his Philippine citizenship, he cannot reacquire it by simply taking again his
oath of allegiance as a citizen of this country. He can only reacquire his citizenship through naturalization. In as
much as he had not applied for naturalization then he is disqualified.
Who can reacquire citizenship through repatriation? How do you go about it?
- Before you have RA 7181
Grounds to reacquire Phil. citizenship:
1. Filipino women who have lost their Philippine citizenship by marriage to aliens(under 1935
Constitution)
- By repatriation
2. Filipinos who have lost their Philippine citizenship on account of political or economic necessity
- By repatriation
FRIVALDO CASE:
FACTS: he was a great dissenter of Marcos during his time. He was compelled to leave the country otherwise he
will be sent to jail. He went to America and applied for naturalization and he became a US citizen. After the
46
7
Marcoses left the country he came back and ran as governor. He won the election three times and in all those
elections he was disqualified. He insisted that he is a Filipino citizen. According to him the moment he filed the
certificate of candidacy and declared himself as Filipino citizen, he reacquired his citizenship.
SC: you have taken your oath of allegiance but you have to register your oath with the nearest Civil Registry.
Otherwise, you have never reacquired your citizenship. After all, the effectivity of your reacquisition shall be
reckoned not from the time of the grant but the time you filed your application. For as long as he became a
Filipino citizen before he assumes office, according to the SC he is qualified.
- He registered but it was only granted after the election before he assumed office. So there was the case for his
removal because he was not a citizen at the time he filed his certificate of candidacy or the time election was
held. SC says nothing in the world that says you have to be a citizen of the Philippines on the day of election or
on the time of the filing of certificate of candidacy. Unlike requirements relating to age or residency which has to
be on the day of election but not citizenship. For as long as you acquired your citizenship before assumption of
office because after all it reckons to the time of the filing. That is the effect on repatriation.
Those who have lost their citizenship because they served the arm forces of other country during World War 2.
- A way of reacquiring it is through repatriation.
For reasons of political and economic necessity
- One can reacquire citizenship through repatriation
TABASA v COMELEC CASE:
F: the father went to America and applied for naturalization and became a Filipino citizen. The children wanted
to be repatriated as Filipino citizen. As there was no proof that Tabasa’s parents lost their Philippine citizenship
“on account of political or economic necessity”
SC: they are not qualified for repatriation. If they want to apply for Filipino Citizenship they have to go through
naturalization.
14.Several other laws for repatriation:
RA 8171
- the only requirement is for one to take his oath of allegiance and register it.
- Subsequently there was a law requiring that you have to furnish a copy of your oath of allegiance to the special
committee on naturalization (Commission of Immigration)
RA 9225
- Take note of this law because there are consequences because of the enactment of this law
- Take note of that case questioning the validity or constitutionality of RA 9225
AASGJS CALILONG v Datumanong CASE:May 11, 2007
- Purpose of 9225 is to do away with the provision in CA 63 which take away Phil. Citizenship from natural born
Filipinos who became naturalized citizen of other countries.
47
8
- The objection on the constitutionality of this law relates to the outcome of reacquiring or retaining Phil.
Citizenship because one can become a dual citizen.
- What would be the consequence if this is granted to an applicant?
o If he was a former Fil. Citizen and lost his citizenship and now a foreigner, he can reacquire his Fil. Citizenship
pursuant to 9225. Or if he is a now a Fil. Citizen and applies for a citizenship of another country, he retains his
citizenship and at the same time acquire a foreign citizenship.
- SC in the DATUMANONG CASE: it does not violate on the matter of dual allegiance as it is prohibited by law as
being inimical to public interest because there is no such thing as dual citizenship actually. Technically in this
law, the moment you reacquire your Phil. Citizenship and declare allegiance of the Phil. you are only a Fil. Citizen
as far as the Phil. Government is concerned. The government will treat you as having impliedly renounced your
foreign citizenship. Notwithstanding that you are still recognized by the foreign country which you are also a
citizen, that is no longer the problem of the Phil. Government because that is not the concern of the Phil
government.
- There is no more requirement anymore of registering. What is required is you take your oath of allegiance and
pay the necessary fees.
- Do you enjoy the same rights as that of a Filipino citizen?
o Definitely because you are a Fil. Citizen. In fact, you are a natural born citizen. Your children who are unmarried
and under 18 years of age are considered Fil. Citizens by derivative citizenship.
- Can you vote or run for public office considering that you are a Fil. Citizen?
o SC: yes because you are a fil citizen.
o What about the question of residency?
§ Requirement on residency: That you have to be a resident of the Phil. Within a year in the Phils. and six months
in the place where you are supposed to vote.
§ How you are going to comply with that requirement considering that you are not expected after reacquiring
your citizenship to stay and live in the phils? It is expected that you are to return of your country of origin.
§ LEWIS v. COMELEC CASE:
SC: apply RA 9189. Absentee voting, voting by proxy for OFWs.
§ MACALINTAL v. COMELEC CASE:(for residency)
For as long as there is intention to return to the country. Animus revertendi.
Purpose of the law is more on enfranchising more voters to exercise their right of suffrage. You have to execute
an affidavit that within 3 years you will return to the country.
- No problem with right of suffrage but more on right to run for public office.
- Can you run for public office under 9225?
o If you can vote then you can run. RA 9225 is very clear on the requirements.
48
9
o Additional requirement: aside from taking the oath of allegiance you have to make an express renunciation
under oath of all your other foreign citizenship. Failure to do so would disqualify you to run for public office.
FRIVALDO AND MANZANO CASE:
o Their taking of oath of allegiance or electing Fil. Citizenship was through the mode of participating in electoral
process such as voting, running for public office. They filed their certificate of candidacy and made declaration
under oath that one is a Fil. Citizen.
o Would that be sufficient under 9225?
§ JAPSON v. COMELEC, KURODORA v. COMELEC CASES
§ Kurodora is in contrast to Japson
KURODORA:
F: case of Tambunting. His father was an American citizen and the mother was Fil. Citizen. He was therefore
enjoying dual citizenship. Tambunting run for public office after 9225 was passed requiring one to renounce all
his foreign citizenship.
SC: this requirement does not apply to Tambunting. Because insofar as Tambunting is concerned, he enjoyed
dual citizenship, however, it was not by naturalization that he acquired foreign citizenship. It was because from
birth he had dual citizenship already, not of his own doing but simply because of the circumstances that the
father is US citizen and the mother is Fil. The mere filing of his certificate of candidacy, he is considered to have
renounced his foreign citizenship. Implied renunciation – because he had dual citizen not in same circumstances
under 9225.
§ 9225 presupposes a situation where a former Fil. Citizen lost his citizenship through naturalization, he applied
for foreign citizenship. Thereafter he applies for reacquisition under 9225, he consequently enjoys dual
citizenship.
§ HAKOT CASE:
He has dual citizenship; one naturalized foreign citizenship and the reacquired Fil. Citizenship under 9225. To run
for public office he has to comply the additional requirement of 9225, he had to expressly renounce under oath
all his foreign citizenship. There is no way he can retain the foreign citizenship. If he does not run for public
office then no problem, he can retain both. But if he does run, he cannot retain the foreign citizenship because
he has to make an express renunciation.
SC: the Manzano case will not apply, because in Manzano it was not by naturalization. It was by reason of his
birth that he was recognized as a US citizen. By filing his certificate of candidacy he was considered to have
impliedly renounced his foreign citizenship.
§ Other cases: ROSELIER DE GUZMAN v. COMELEC, LOPEZ v. COMELEC, FRIVALDO CASE v. COMELEC
FRIVALDO: what is lacking is the registration required under RA 8171 not 9225. He has to register which he
refused. No implied renunciation because he applied for naturalization in another country. It was not by reason
of birth that he acquired dual citizenship. To reacquire by repatriation under 8171 he has to take his oath of
allegiance and register it with the nearest Civil Registry.
49
0
- Another requirement under 9225 aside from taking oath of allegiance and expressly renouncing your other
citizenship under oath is you must also possess all other qualifications prescribe by law to run for public office.
Like:
o requirement on residency
§ being a citizen in this country does not automatically recognized you as a resident for a certain period of time
§ JALOSJOS CASE(4/24/2012):
F: Romel Apolinario Jalosjos reacquired his citizenship by virtue of 9225. There was a question on domicile. He
resided in Quezon City. Later he went back to Dipolog and run as governor. Petition for disqualification was filed
against him for lack of qualification, the lack of residency. His contention: he is already a citizen under 9225 and
therefore he is a Filipino citizen and qualified to run.
SC: it is not enough that you have renounce your foreign citizenship, you must also comply with the
qualifications prescribed by law. Jalosjos is qualified because the time returned from US/Australia, he resided in
Dipolog and therefore qualified to run for public office.
PRINCIPLE: 9225 is required for those who reacquire their citizenship and run for public office, they have two
other requirements to comply aside from taking oath of allegiance:
a. Renunciation under oath, express of his foreign citizenship
b. Must be qualified for the position he is running
Now that you are a citizen again under 9225, can you practice your law profession again?
- Situation: you passed the Bar, you applied for naturalization in America and became a practitioner in New York.
Later you realized that you prefer to do your practice in our country. You applied for reacquisition of your
citizenship under 9225. Granted. Now you are a Fil. Citizen. You resumed your practice as a lawyer. You can
vote, you can run for public office. Can you practice?
o Not automatic.
o CASE: Bar Matter 1678, Dec. 17, 2007
Benjamin Dacanay
SC: dual citizens may practice law in the Philippines only by leave of the SC and upon compliance with the
requirements which will restore their good standing as members of the Philippine bar. He pays his annual dues
and his arrears in annual dues. Consequently, he has to comply with the MCLE requirements.
TAKE NOTE:
KILOSBAYAN v. ERMITA CASE (7/3/07):
This pertains to the citizenship requirement of Justice Ong of the Sandiganbayan. He was appointed as justice of
the SC. His citizenship was questioned by Kilosbayan. They asserted that Justice Ong is not a natural born citizen.
Under the constitution, one has to be a natural born citizen to be appointed as justice to the SC.
50
1
F: justice Ong’s father is Chinese. Mother originally was Chinese but the father of his mother applied for
naturalization and became a Filipino citizen at the time when the mother was still a minor. By derivative
citizenship, the mother also became a Fil. Citizen. Then she got married to a Chinese. Under 1935 consti she lost
her citizenship by her marriage to the Chinese national. The father of justice Ong (a Chinese national) applied for
naturalization and became Fil. Citizen at the time that justice Ong was still a minor. Father became a naturalized
Fil citizen, wife now became also a naturalized Fil citizen. That makes justice Ong a naturalized Fil citizen. He
took the bar exam. Because his family name was Chinese, he was asked to clarify if he is a citizenship of the
country. The DOJ issued a resolution through the BID declaring him a natural born citizen. That was the basis of
his assertion that he was a natural born. That was his basis for applying as an RTC judge. Then he applied for the
Sandiganbayan; until he applied for the SC. There is now a conflict between a judicial declaration and an
administrative declaration. Which of this two will prevail?
SC: the alleged subsequent recognition of his natural born status by the BID and the DOJ cannot amend the final
decision of the trial court stating that respondent Ong and his mother were naturalized along with his father.
Therefore he is naturalized, not natural born.
ACTS OF DE FACTO OFFICER: judgments are valid because rendered by someone in good faith.
Ultimately, the SC sustained his being a natural born citizen. Because there was never any proof showing that
the mother had lost her citizenship when she married the father, then the mother was a natural born
citizenship. But this would not be done without a judicial order. Thus, file a petition for correction of entry in his
birth certificate. And have himself declared as natural born citizen. You cannot set aside a judicial declaration by
just an administrative declaration.
LIMKAICHONG v. COMELEC CASE (4/1/09):
VILLARDO v. HRET:
SC: clearly under the law and jurisprudence, it is the state through its representative designated by statute that
may question the illegally or invalidly procured certificate of naturalization.
15.DUAL ALLEGIANCE
- Per se dual citizenship is not prohibited
- It is only when it will result to dual allegiance that one has to be treated accordingly
- If it results to dual allegiance that could be a ground for disqualification or dismissal from government service if
you are already working with government
- But per se it could not be a ground for disqualification for public office
TAKE NOTE:
GREENCARD (BAR QUESTION)
- A green card holder is not a citizen of the US.
- Is only an immigrant
- Purpose of greencard: A proof that he is residing in a foreign country
51
2
- It is not a recognition of citizenship, it is just a proof of residency to that foreign country
- If you are a greencard holder of a foreign country, does it qualify you then (because you are not yet a citizen of
that foreign country) to run for public office or to be appointed in a public office? If appointed, would that be a
ground for disqualification or dismissal from the service?
o OPERACION, JR v. COMELEC
A Filipino citizen’s acquisition of permanent resident’s status abroad constitutes an abandonment of his domicile
and residence in the Philippines. The Greencard status in the USA is a renunciation of the status as a resident of
the Philipines. Therefore, if you run for public office, there is a requirement of residency so that could be a
ground for disqualification. Not because you acquired a foreign citizenship, but because you lost your residency
in the Philippines. It will be inconsistent to hold a public office and you are not a resident of the Phils. Under the
greencard status you are actually a resident of another country.
16.RIGHT OF SUFFRAGE
- Right to vote
Requirements:
1. Age requirement: 18 yrs of age
2. Resident of the Philippines
o 1 year in the Philippines
o 6 months in the place where you propose to vote
17.What does RESIDENCY mean?
§ MAKALINTAL v. COMELEC which decision was reiterated in the case of JALOSJOS
§ In the case of Jalosjos, he was only living with the brother, renting a house in Dipolog
SC: that doesn’t matter. What is required is physical presence. You are living in the place.
o DOMICILE
§ Synonymous to residence
§ The bottomline is wherever you are in the world there is always the intention to return to the Philippines
§ Even if you don’t own a house, even if you are just renting or living with someone else not even renting, as long
as present (JALOSJOS CASE)
§ ROMUALDEZ-MARCOS v. COMELEC CASES:
F: Romualdez-Marcos got married to Marcos and eventually resided in San Juan, Greenhills. She continuously
resided in Manila until she became a widow. Then she came back to Tacloban. She filed her certificate of
candidacy and stated there that she had been in living there only for 11 months. But the requirement for
residency to run for Congress is 1 year.
52
3
SC: sustained her residency as not just 11 months but since birth because there is this domicile of origin by
choice.
By origin you have no choice because you are born in that place. You have no choice because it is your parent’s
choice. You are considered to be a resident because you are born there, you studied there, you were raised
there. When you transfer to a place because it is where you work or you got married to someone residing in that
place. So the choice of Marcos when she resided in Manila was because of her marriage and because of her
work. In so far as domicile of origin is concerned she is a native of Tacloban.
When she returned in this country it is manifested her return to her domicile of origin. She has been a resident
there since her birth and she resumed her residency.
§ AQUINO v. COMELEC CASE:
F: for so many years Aquino was registered in Tarlac as resident of that place. He ran for senator. He won twice.
He declared that he was a resident of Tarlac. When his term expired, he opt to run for congress (House of Reps).
But he cannot run against the Cojuancos in Tarlac, so he had to transfer residence. He transferred to Makati and
rented a condominium. He then ran as congressman and won. However, he was disqualified by COMELEC upon
petition of his oppositor Cong. Sijuco. Aquino was disqualified because when you transfer residents there are
requirements:
1. There has to be a bona fide intention to transfer residence
2. That intention must correspond to acts of abandoning your old residency and establish a new
one
These requirements were not complied with and were not proven by Aquino. Thus, he was disqualified for lack
of residency.
§ This also applies in voting.
§ More recent case is Jalosjos case decided on 4/12/2012, there is an explanation there by the COMELEC.
3. You have to be sane, not feeble minded
4. Must not have suffered any disqualifications like:
o You deserted the arm forces
o Convicted by final judgment for disloyalty of the Republic
o Convicted for offenses where the penalty is more than one year
§ For as long as judgment is not final, he is qualified
§ If it is on appeal, he is qualified to vote
- This right to vote is a privilege. It is up to you if you want to exercise it.
- Unlike in the 1973 constitution, it was not only a right, it was also an obligation. If you fail to vote you can be
penalized/sanctioned.
53
4
- Right of suffrage is not absolute. It is subject to existing substantive and procedural requirements embodied by
our constitution, statutes, and other laws
- Right of citizen to vote is necessarily conditioned upon certain procedural requirements he must undergo among
others the process of registration under RA 8189 which is The Voter’s Registration Of 1996
18.RA 9189 :The Absentee Voting ACT
- One may vote in a place he is not actually residing at
- This is an exception to the requirement of 1 year and 6 months residency
- Two kinds of absentee voter:
1. Those who may have registered in the Philippines to vote but because of the nature of his job, he is
assigned to another place so he cannot vote to the place where he was registered
EX: teacher, police, military.
§ Usually during election day they are assigned to a precint of another place other than the place where
he is registered as a voter
2. OFWs
§ Those people abroad can vote even if they are not actually residing in the Philippines
§ This 9189 as regards to OFWs will apply to those who became citizens of this country pursuant to RA
9225
§ LEWIS v. COMELEC CASE:
There is no provision in the dual citizenship law - R.A. 9225 - requiring "duals" to actually establish
residence and physically stay in the Philippines first before they can exercise their right to vote. On the
contrary, R.A. 9225, in implicit acknowledgment that “duals” are most likely non-residents, grants under
its Section 5(1) the same right of suffrage as that granted an absentee voter under R.A. 9189 (election
for president, v-pres., senators). It cannot be overemphasized that R.A. 9189 aims, in essence, to
enfranchise as much as possible all overseas Filipinos who, save for the residency requirements exacted
of an ordinary voter under ordinary conditions, are qualified to vote.
Under what law that grants the right to a citizen under RA 9225(dual citizens) the right to vote?
- RA 9225, but the manner of voting is RA 9189
- The right of suffrage is granted by 9225 but the manner of voting is 9189
19.COMPUTERIZED/AUTOMATED COUNTING
BAR QUESTION:
If the PCOS machines fail, is there a failure of election because it is unconstitutional to go manual counting?
Because the law mandates automated counting?
- COMELEC is never precluded into manual counting should automated counting fails
54
5
Who has the duty to prescribe laws on election and procedure?
- It is congress that shall provide a system for securing the secrecy and sanctity of the ballot. It is congress who
designs the procedure for the disabled and the illiterates to vote.
- It is COMELEC that promulgate rules to protect the secrecy of the ballot.
- The promulgation of the rules to execute the law passed by congress, it is the COMELEC. But insofar as the law
securing the secrecy and sanctity of the ballot and designing the procedure for disabled/illiterates, it is Congress.
20. ARTICLE VI: LEGISLATIVE DEPARMENT
Section 1
Who is vested with the power to make laws?
- It is congress consisting of two houses, except those that is reserved in the people through the process of
initiative and referendum pursuant to Sec. 32 of the same provision of the law
People’s right to make laws:
Is that a self-executing provision?
- No.
- It has to be a law to be passed by congress as mandated under sec. 32
21. RA 6735
- Modes of proposing laws: through the process of (1)initiative and (2)referendum
1. INITIATIVE
How many votes required?
INITIATIVE ON STATUTES
o 10% of the total registered voters wherein each legislative district is represented by at least 3%
INITIATIVE ON LOCAL LEGISLATION
o How many votes on autonomous regions, provinces, cities, municipalities and barangays
§ Go over LGC and RA 6735
INITIATIVE ON AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION
o 12% of the total registered voters of which each legislative district is represented by at least 3%
2. REFERENDUM
Who proposes a bill or a statute to be enacted by the people directly?
- It is congress that proposes
55
6
- People either reject or approve it in a referendum
- Autonomous Region: the regional assembly
- Province: Sanguniang Panlalawigan
- Cities: Sanguniang Panlungsod
- Municipalities: Sanguniang Bayan
- Barangay: Sanguniang Barangay
22. Section 2: Composition and how are they chosen and what is the term of office?
The Senate:
- 24 members
- Elected nationwide
- Term of 6 years with one re-election but in no case shall be more than two consecutive terms
Can membership be increased or decreased by law?
- NO
Can you change the mode of election?
- YES, as may be provided by law
The House of Representatives:
- Two kinds of members:
a. By districts
b. By party-list system
By districts:
o More or less 250 members
§ Depending of the results of the survey every after 3 years
o Proportionate election, depending on the population
§ For every legislative district, one representative depending on the population
§ For province, regardless of population
§ City, it has to be no less than 250,000
§ DINAGAT PROVINCE CASE:
56
7
There was a question on whether it should be considered as one legislative district for lack of the requirement
on population. That is of no moment if it is a province. But if it is a city it has to be no less than 250,000
population in order to have at least one legislative district
Requirements for creating a legislative district:
• As far as practicable a compact, adjacent territory of contiguous
o to prevent gerrymandering
Who determines the apportionment of legislative districts?
- It is a legislative function
- It is discretionary of congress
Crazy for congress to question the creation of legislative districts of Camarines Sur, Dinagat and other legislative
districts created during the administration of Arroyo. In the first place they were the members of congress who
created these legislative districts. Then they blame the SC for declaring it constitutional. In the first place why
would they pass and then question the validity. SC will just sustain the validity of the law as it is discretionary
power of congress. Why blame it to the SC? It’s one of the accusations against Corona because they were saying
that Corona and the rest favour the Arroyo administration. The point is: the creation or apportionment of
legislative district is a discretion of congress.
As it was emphasized in the case involving the province of Biliran. Because of the creation of the province of
Biliran, a legislative district was created. However, the composition of that legislative district were taken from
the municipalities of Leyte, thereby affecting a district of Leyte. It’s for the COMELEC to balance the saving
inequity in the distribution of municipalities for the districts in Leyte transfer some of them as well to compose
5th district which was affected by the creation of Biliran. SC says it is not for COMELEC to do that, it was a
legislative function.
o Term of office
§ 3 years but shall in no case be more than 3 successive terms
§ Voluntary renunciation of the office is not considered an interruption of the consecutiveness or successiveness
of the term of office
Can you increase the membership in congress by law without necessary amending the constitution? Including
party-list?
- Yes because the law says as may be provided by law.
- When a law is passed creating a legislative district then you will be increasing the number of legislative districts
and naturally as a consequence the membership of the party-list because they compose no less than 20% of the
total membership.
- If there is an increase in district membership consequently there is an increase also in the membership of the
party-list.
- It is proportionate to the population
57
8
23. PARTY LIST
What is that law that provided for a party-list system?
- RA 7941
Accreditation to be considered a political party under the party-list system:
Who determines the accreditation?
- COMELEC
Prohibitions:
1. Must not represent a religious sect
2. Must not be supported by a foreign government or foreign source
3. Must not be subsidized by government
LADLAD CASE:
F: they were refused accreditation because they are immoral. At first they were denied of membership because
there was no proof that they represent a marginalized group. The purpose of the party-list is to represent a
marginalized group.
SC: that Ang Ladlad, an organization composed of men and women who identify themselves as lesbians, gays,
bisexuals, or trans-gendered individuals (LGBTs), has satisfied the exacting standards that the “marginalized and
underrepresented sector must demonstrate (1) past subordination or discrimination suffered by the group; (2)
an immutable or distinguishing characteristic, attribute, or experience that define them as a discreet group; and
(3) present political and/or economic powerlessness.”
The Court said that Ang Ladlad has shown “that the LGBT sector has been historically disadvantaged and
discriminated against because of negative public perception, and has even alleged acts of violence perpetrated
against members of the LGBT community by reason of their sexual orientation and gender identity.” It added
that the magnitude of opposition against petitioner’s participation in the party list system is, by itself,
demonstrative of the sector’s lack of political power; so, too, is the fact that proposed legislations seeking to
prohibit discriminatory treatment against LGBTs have been languishing in Congress.
Other reason: because of separation of church and state. Why are you using the Koran/bible as basis whether
these people are immoral? The state has no morality. There shouldn’t be any concept of morality or religion
because the church and state are separated. There shouldn’t be any mention about the bible as basis for the
disqualification or non-accreditation.
24. Go back to POPULATION OF LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT
AQUINO v COMELEC (4/7/2010):
SC: there is no specific provision in the constitution that fixes 250,000 minimum population that must compose
a legislative district. For while a province is entitled to at least a representative with nothing mentioned about a
population, a city must first meet a population minimum of 250,000 in order to be similarly situated.
58
9
The province has no requirement as to population. But a city has to comply with that requirement (not less than
250,000 population).
ALDAVA et al v COMELEC CASE (1/25/2010):
F: This is the creation of the City of Malolos as a highly urbanized city in order to be considered a legislative
district. There basis was a projected population of 250,000, not actual but projected.
SC: the population of the city of Malolos will be at least 250,000 actual or projected prior to May 2010 election.
Thus, the city of Malolos is not qualified to have legislative district of its own under Sec. 5, Par. 3, Art. 6 of the
Constitution. It has to be actual before the election not just projected.
The law does not specifically require that a legislative district should have 250,000 population because a
legislative district may compose of a province that does not require 250K population.
Going back to PARTY-LIST:
How do you get a seat in the congress representing the party-list?
- You have to be a member of an accredited, may be a political-party organization or sectoral association.
Does this mean that a major political party can participate in the party-list system for as long as it is accredited?
- YES.
- For as long as the political party (ex: Liberal Party) has a group representing a marginalized group.
- Ex: Kabataan which is a wing only of a major political party
- Not representing the political party itself but a marginalized group, then it can be accredited as a party-list
organization
- Bottomline is it represents a marginalized or underprivileged group, even if it may be related to a major political
party
BANAT v. COMELEC CASE:
What is the requirement in order to get a seat?
- That political party or sectoral organization has to get at least 2% of the total votes cast for the party-list not for
the election itself
- The 2% shall be based on the votes cast only for the party-list
- The moment you get at least 2% of the votes, you get a guaranteed seat
- The requirement of 2% is only for a guaranteed seat
EX: 20% of the 250 is at least 56. If all of this 56 is filled up by at least 2%, no problem. There will be no free seats
no more. Free seats are additional seats for the others. But that is impossible because to get at least 2% is very
difficult. Most voters do not vote for the party-list. But if you get at least 2% you’ll get a guaranteed seat.
EX: Only 20 of the organizations got at least 2%. Then you have 30 more seats left.
59
0
Before, in the VETERANS case it was very strict. Even to get an additional seat you have to get at least 2% also of
the total votes cast.
But now, not anymore. What happens now you get the guaranteed seat and the additional seats. The voting in
the additional seat is different. You have the total number of votes you garnered over the highest number of
votes times the additional seat left.
It is possible then, even if you got less than 2% of the total votes cast for as long as masulod pa ka sa remaining
30 seats allocated of the 20% for party-list, then you will get a seat in the HR.
Remember 6 years ago, the case of BANAT, COCOFED, ABAKADA, TUCP
o They got less than 1% of the total votes cast but they got a seat because they are still covered by the remaining
seats of the 20% allocated for the party-list system
- Only when you have to get a guaranteed seat that the requirement of 2%
- But shall in no case one party list organization will get more than 3 seats
- Maximum is 3 seats
- If you get more than 2% of the total votes cast you can get more but shall in no case be more than a total of 3
seats including the guaranteed seat
- For additional seats, for as long as there are remaining seats after getting the guaranteed seats who got at least
2% might get a chance of becoming a member of the House of Reps. for as long as they can still be covered by
the remaining seat of the 20% allocated for the party-list as members to the house of reps
SC was saying 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 percent. Thus the remaining available seats as
additional seats are maximum seats reserved under the party-list system less(minus) the guaranteed seats.
Fractional seats are disregarded in the absence of provision under RA 7941.
I REPEAT!
- A maximum of 20%
- Each has to get 2%
- But in no case shall a political party be getting more than 3 seats
- Additional seats for those who probably get less than 2%, however, they are covered by the remaining seats for
the 20% allocation after deducting the guaranteed seats who got at least 2%. //diane//
June 22,2012 (1st hour)
ARTICLE VI
THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
Section 1. 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.
60
1
Section 2. The Senate shall be composed of twenty-four Senators who shall be elected at large by the qualified
voters of the Philippines, as may be provided by law.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines and, on the day of the
election, is at least thirty-five years of age, able to read and write, a registered voter, and a resident of the
Philippines for not less than two years immediately preceding the day of the election.
Section 4. The term of office of the Senators shall be six years and shall commence, unless otherwise provided by
law, at noon on the thirtieth day of June next following their election. No Senator shall serve for more than two
consecutive terms. 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 of which he was elected.
1. As to Membership of Congress
SENATE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
- Number of membership is limited by the Constitution; cannot be increased or decreased by legislative

enactment
- What may be changed is only the manner of electing members - 250 More or less
- 20% of which comes from the party list
- Membership may be increased by ordinary law
2. Q: Who has that power or function to apportion legislative district first?
A: Congress. It is not the function of Comelec.
Case:
Montejo vs. Comelec- in relation to the creation of Biliran as a province separate from the province of Leyte
affecting therefore the apportionment of municipality constituting the legislative district in the province of
Leyte. It was the Comelec that apportioned these municipalities. They were transferred to other districts in
order to balance the number of voters according to particular district. It was declared unconstitutional by SC and
complained of by Montejo, a candidate in the 2nd district of Leyte.
SC emphasized that in so far as the apportionment of legislative district such is a Legislative function not at all a
function of Comelec.
Senma vs. Comelec- reiterated Montejo ruling
- creation or conversion of the Cotabato City as highly urbanized City and thereby entitling to a legislative district
this was through law that was passed by the Regional Assembly of the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao
(ARMM)
- Generally, Regional Assembly of the ARMM has the power to pass laws relating to the provinces constituting the
Autonomous region of Muslim Mindanao. However, if that would affect national affairs that would be a
different story. Such as in this case because with the conversion of Cotabato as highly urbanized City or a
province (Judge is not sure..) it will definitely entitle Cotabato to a Legislative district thereby increasing the
embership in the House of Rep.
61
2
- SC ruled that Congress could not validly delegate to the ARMM the power to create legislative districts. The
power to increase the allowable membership in the House of Reps and to reapportion legislative districts is still
vested EXCUSIVELY to Congress.
3. Section 5.
1. The House of Representatives shall be composed of not more than two hundred and fifty members,
unless otherwise fixed by law, who shall be elected from legislative districts apportioned among the
provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan Manila area in accordance with the number of their respective
inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio, and those who, as provided by law,
shall be elected through a party-list system of registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or
organizations.
2. The party-list representatives shall constitute twenty per centum of the total number of representatives
including those under the party list. For three consecutive terms after the ratification of this
Constitution, one-half of the seats allocated to party-list representatives shall be filled, as provided by
law, by selection or election from the labor, peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities,
women, youth, and such other sectors as may be provided by law, except the religious sector.
3. Each legislative district shall comprise, as far as practicable, contiguous, compact, and adjacent territory.
Each city with a population of at least two hundred fifty thousand, or each province, shall have at least
one representative.
4. Within three years following the return of every census, the Congress shall make a reapportionment of
legislative districts based on the standards provided in this section.
Membership of the Party-list would depend on the total membership of Legislative district members because
they constitute 20% of the total membership. If there would be an increase of membership coming from the
legislative districts consequently there would also be an increase in th membership form the party-list system.
e- Bottom line: the ceiling is 20% of the total membership
4. With respect to party-list in particular getting a seat in party- list, they should at least get or obtain 2% of the total
votes cast for the party-list election but should not in all case get more than 3 seats.
Q: Is it possible for this party-list organization getting another additional seat however getting less than the 2%
required to a guaranteed seat?
A: YES. This is already settled in the case of Banat vs. Comelec, modifying the decision of the SC in the case of
Veterans Federation Party cs. Comelec
- NOTE: The guaranteed seat: the party-list org should get at least 2% of the total votes cast but for an additional
seat as long they are still covered of the 20% allocated for party-list then they get less than 2%. So it would be
against the remaining seats covered by the 20% allocation. So that even if an organization less than 2 % for as
long as it is covered by the 20% allocation then that party-list org should have a chance to get a seat in the
House of Representatives.
5. Q: Are political parties allowed to participate in the party-list system?
62
3
A: YES, provided that they represent marginalized under represented sector of society. That is the only
qualification there. Example: Liberal party: it is not the party itself but the sector that the party represents that it
must be marginalized under represented sector of society. For as longs as long as the org is not one of those not
to be accreted as enumerated in RA 7941 (?) and the Constitution then they can be accredited.
Case: LGBT: SC recognized them as a party-list or org as they represent the marginalized under represented
sector of society. Take note of the other qualifications not only that. Also when there is appearance of
discrimination.
6. As regards the power of Congress, take note
Section 32. 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 after the registration of a petition therefor
signed by at least ten per centum of the total number of registered voters, of which every legislative district must
be represented by at least three per centum of the registered voters thereof.
7. it would appear the power is being exercised by an office and there is always a question on whether there is a
usurpation of the function.
Ex:
a. exercise of power of President- that is under the permissible delegation of the power
[Favorite in the BAR]
Section 23.
1. The Congress, by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses in joint session assembled, voting separately, shall have
the sole power to declare the existence of a state of war.
2. In times of war or other national emergency, the Congress may, by law, authorize the President, for a limited
period and subject to such restrictions as it may prescribe, to exercise powers necessary and proper to carry out
a declared national policy. Unless sooner withdrawn by resolution of the Congress, such powers shall cease
upon the next adjournment thereof.
b. Ordinance Power of president- refers only to the Executive rule-making authority in implementing and executing
constitutional or statutory powers indisputably there are constitutional powers vested in the power of pres that
are self- executor without the need of legislative enactment. In other words, the Constitution is itself or a statue
as the case may be grants the power to the president and the pres to implement it in the exercise of the
ordinance power. That is not a legislative function but more of a rule-making power of president.
Case: Sec. of Finance vs. La Suerte Cigar (June 11, 2009)- Sec. of finance relating to the definition of cigarette
brands which could be subject of taxation; whether that can be done by the Sec. of finance or a legislative
function
o SC: unless expressly granted to the BIR the power to reclassify cigarette brands remained as prerogative of the
Legislature which cannot be usurped by BIR which is under the Department of Finance.
Review Center Association of the Philippines vs. Ermita: with reference to the amendment of the functions of
CHED whether the president can do that?
63
4
o SC: has no inherent or delegate legislative power to amend the function of CHED under RA 772. Such is still a
legislative function.
Abakada Guro vs. Exec. Sec- matter of VAT; definitely Congress did not delegate the power to tax to the
President because there the President is only _____ whether there exists the requirements for an increase of tax
as provided by law.
Abakada Guro vs. Purisima- the requirement that the Implementing Rules of law be subjected to approval of
Congress as a condition for their effectivity violates the cardinal Constitutional principle of Bicameralism and the
rule of presentment.
- A valid exercise of legislative power requires the act of both Chambers. It can be exercised neither solely by one
of the 2 Chambers, not by the committee of either or of both Chambers.
- Note that Congress is composed of 2 Houses. They cannot act independently of each other. It has to be
understood that it is a Bicameral legislature and therefore has to be acted by both.
§ Remember that controversy relating on the initiative on amendments of the Constitution at that time of Arroyo
the Senate was not so keen on proposing amendments to the Constitution. Congress can act as a Constituent
Assembly by ¾ votes but the Constitution is silent whether it is a separate voting or not. So then they were
saying, “Why not?” “There are only 24 in the Senate and there are more than 250 of us to get the ¾ of Congress.
It easy very easy for us to get the number.” However, it may probably come all from the House of
Representatives.
§ So following the decision of SC it is obvious that they cannot because it is a Bicameral Legislative body, hence,
should be acted by both or approved by both to pass it.
8. DISCLOSURE OF NAMES OF PARTY –LIST NOMINEES
- names would no longer be alphabetical but listed in the certified list at random as now proposed; OW all names
of party-list would all start with “A”, etc….
- Disclosure of names of nominees in the certified list is PROHIBITED. The law only allows the disclosure of the
name of the Party List.
- this became a controversy during the time of Arroyo because many of the nominees are related to the Arroyo
admin and so therefore they are not chosen because of the organization they represent but more because they
are connected to the administration
- BARAK Group??? J- demanded Comelec to disclose the names of the nominees to be disclosed but Chairman
Abalos denied the request saying that it is prohibited under the law. What is being regulated is the disclosure of
the names in the certified list because this is not an election of nominees but an election of party-list
organization. There is no prohibition at all regarding on the disclosure of the names of nominees by means of
other forms of media or mass media communication. It can be in a newspaper, radio TV, comics if you want,
there is no such prohibition. Also, having the right to information on matter of public concern definitely the
Chairman of Comelec has greatly abused his discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
9. SALARY
64
5
- They may increase salary but those responsible for the increase, all of the members of Congress, cannot enjoy
until after the expiration of the full term of office. That is the only matter regarding salaries.
Section 10. The salaries of Senators and Members of the House of Representatives shall be determined by law.
No increase in said compensation shall take effect until after the expiration of the full term of all the Members of
the Senate and the House of Representatives approving such increase.
10 . PERKS OR PRIVILEGES OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
a. Allowances- there is no limit; includes travel allowance
b. Parliamentary Immunities
i. Freedom of Speech- they cannot be held criminally and civilly liable for statements made in connection
with their legislative functions
o Either they were given during a ________ discussion or within the halls of Congress or even outside of Congress
for as long as it is in relation to the performance of his legislative functions such as committee hearings outside
of Congress that is covered by the immunity
o This is not limited to oral or verbal statements given but also other acts communicative in nature such as reports
and even extend to their agents or staff performing the legislative function
o Take note that immunity is limited only to not being sued for libel or for slander or for damages but there is no
immunity in so far as administrative liability
o In other words, should he make derogatory remarks which would constitute disorderly behavior as defined by
the rules of the House, there is no immunity as to that. He can be disciplined for those statement even if he
enjoys the freedom of speech
ii. Freedom form Arrest- this is to protect the member of Congress from being harassed while he is attending
session
o By “ attendance in a session”- it does not mean actual presence during the Congress session; because he could
only be sleeping in his condominium; for as long as Congress is in session
o But take note: he cannot be arrested if charged by an offense punishable by not more than 6 years
o If charged with rape or murder definitely with or without session he is not immune from arrest
o If it is less than 6 years, even if he is not attending, for as long as Congress is in session, he cannot be arrested
OW the arresting officer which makes the arrest can be prosecuted for a violation of RPC for obstruction of a
member of Congress to attend a session.
Section 11. A Senator or Member of the House of Representatives shall, in all offenses punishable by not more than six
years imprisonment, be privileged from arrest while the Congress is in session. No Member shall be questioned nor be
held liable in any other place for any speech or debate in the Congress or in any committee thereof.
11. “Session”- commences every 4th Monday of July and continues until 30 days before the opening of the next
regular session; includes special session as well
65
6
Section 15. The Congress shall convene once every year on the fourth Monday of July for its regular session,
unless a different date is fixed by law, and shall continue to be in session for such number of days as it may
determine until thirty days before the opening of its next regular session, exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays, and
legal holidays. The President may call a special session at any time.
REGULAR SESSION
SPECIAL SESSION
commences every 4th Monday of July and continues until 30 days before the opening of the next regular session
unless otherwise provded for by law - When the president calls for a special section when congress is
in recess
Cases:
Trillanes and Jalosjos- this is not matter of right but a privilege granted by law and therefore it should be strictly
construed as an exception rather as a GR
- Jalosjos- he was already convicted but he still wanted to continue attending the session saying that his
constituents knew already of his conviction notwithstanding he was elected
- Remember: this is a criminal case not administrative
o SC: history of provisions granting immunity to Senators and Congressmen immunity from arrest and detention
sows that the privilege has always been granted in the restrictive sense
- This is reiterated in the case of Trillanes vs. Pimentel (June 27, 2008)- the argument is similar of Trillanes is that
his case is not the same as that of Jalosjos because he is not yet convicted but only charged and it so happened
that the charge is non bailable. In the case of Jalosjos, he was convicted already and so you have to apply the
law strictly in the enforcement such as the judgment in this case which had already became final and executory.
o But SC still reiterated the decision in Jalasjos and denied him of his attendance in congress to attend session
§ Presumption of innocence does not necessarily carry with it the full enjoyment of civil and political right.
12. PROHIBITIONS AGAINST MEMBER OF CONGRESS
Section 13. No Senator or Member of the House of Representatives may hold any other office or employment in
the Government, or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or
controlled corporations or their subsidiaries, during his term without forfeiting his seat. Neither shall he be
appointed to any office which may have been created or the emoluments thereof increased during the term for
which he was elected.
Section 14. No Senator or Member of the House of Representatives may personally appear as counsel before any
court of justice or before the Electoral Tribunals, or quasi-judicial and other administrative bodies. Neither shall
he, directly or indirectly, be interested financially in any contract with, or in any franchise or special privilege
granted by the Government, or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including any government-
owned or controlled corporation, or its subsidiary, during his term of office. He shall not intervene in any matter
before any office of the Government for his pecuniary benefit or where he may be called upon to act on account
of his office.
66
7
- If you are a member you cannot be appointed to any of the positions in government that are in conflict with
your legislative function
o Ex: you cannot be appointed as member of Cabinet without forfeiting your seat during your TENURE not term
o Meaning if you accept the appointment you need to resign; you cannot be a member of Congress and at the
same time and member of Cabinet
Q: What about if you will be appointed to an office that is private in nature not governmental function, are you
also prohibited just because you are a member of Congress during your tenure or term.
A: Case of Gordon: SC: Richard Gordon did not relinquish his senatorial post despite his election to and
acceptance of the position of Chairman of Philippine National Red Cross Board of Governors because PNRC is a
private organization merely performing governmental function and PNRC Chairman is not a government official
or employee. Not being a government office, PNRC Chairmanship may be held by any individual including a
Senator or House of Congress. PNRC is autonomous, neutral and independent of the Philippine government. It is
a voluntary organization that does not have government assets and does not receive any appropriation from
Congress. PNRC is not part of any of the government branches; PNRC Chairmanship is neither a government
office nor an office in a GOCC for the purposes of the prohibition in the Constitution. Senator Gordon therefore
can validly serve as Chairman of PNRC without giving up his Senatorial position
- On the other hand, even if he resigns he is still disqualified for appointment in particular office this is what we
call as FORBIDDEN OFFICE when:
i. that member of Congress is responsible for the creation of the office which he may be appointed later;
ii. Or when he is responsible for the increase of the salary or emoluments of that office
13. DISCLOSURE OF FINANCIAL OR BUSINESS INTERESTS [BAR]
Section 12. All Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives shall, upon assumption of office, make a
full disclosure of their financial and business interests. They shall notify the House concerned of a potential
conflict of interest that may arise from the filing of a proposed legislation of which they are authors. The
President may call a special session at any time.
Section 13. No Senator or Member of the House of Representatives may hold any other office or employment in
the Government, or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or
controlled corporations or their subsidiaries, during his term without forfeiting his seat. Neither shall he be
appointed to any office which may have been created or the emoluments thereof increased during the term for
which he was elected.
Section 14. No Senator or Member of the House of Representatives may personally appear as counsel before any
court of justice or before the Electoral Tribunals, or quasi-judicial and other administrative bodies. Neither shall
he, directly or indirectly, be interested financially in any contract with, or in any franchise or special privilege
granted by the Government, or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including any government-
owned or controlled corporation, or its subsidiary, during his term of office. He shall not intervene in any matter
before any office of the Government for his pecuniary benefit or where he may be called upon to act on account
of his office.
67
8
- This is one of the purpose of SALN because you are supposed to disclose all your business interest and if it would
be in conflict with your being a member of Congress you are supposed to relinquish your interest in that
corporation
- This is nonsense because they can just relinquish their position in favor of children or wife; they also cannot
relinquish their relationship to their wife J
- You should not be financially interested directly or indirectly in any contract with or any franchise or special
privilege granted by the government or any subdivision or any agencies or instrumentalities
- So if you are to apply for a loan (in government financial agency such as Landbank) in order to invest in a
business definitely that is a contract with financial interest prohibited under this provision; But if you apply for
loan to build a home that is not prohibited
- Also they cannot intervene in any manner before any office of government; all to avoided any conflict of
interest
14. OFFICERS OF CONGRESS
Section 16.
1. The Senate shall elect its President and the House of Representatives, its Speaker, by a majority vote of
all its respective Members. Each House shall choose such other officers as it may deem necessary.
2. A majority of each House shall constitute a quorum to do business, but a smaller number may adjourn
from day to day and may compel the attendance of absent Members in such manner, and under such
penalties, as such House may provide.
3. Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly behavior, and,
with the concurrence of two-thirds of all its Members, suspend or expel a Member. A penalty of
suspension, when imposed, shall not exceed sixty days.
4. Each House shall keep a Journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting
such parts as may, in its judgment, affect national security; and the yeas and nays on any question shall,
at the request of one-fifth of the Members present, be entered in the Journal. Each House shall also keep
a Record of its proceedings.
5. Neither House during the sessions of the Congress shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for
more than three days, nor to any other place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.
Officers:
- Senate: President
- House: Speaker
Q: How are they chosen?
A: Not always through representation from a particular political party which may be a dominant or an
opposition political party but by Majority of the members of the House.
68
9
All that is needed is majority vote of all members of House. He can be from a dominant or an opposition political
party.
15. QUORUM- Simply more than a majority; 50% of membership plus 1
o Point of reference: it is not the total membership but on the number of members which may be coerced into
attending the session. It limits only to members of Congress within the coercive power of congress
o Example: in Senate 24 Members: 1 gone abroad; 23 physically are present in Philippines but 3 of which are in
the hospital at ICU. Only 20 are present.
§ Q: How do you determine majority now?
§ A: You base it on 23 because even if the 3 are in the ICU you can always bring them in the session hall if you
want. In other words, still within the coercive powers of congress. The one who has gone abroad shall not be
included because even if they want him to attend and issue a Warrant of Arrest that is just useless because he
cannot be forced abroad.
16. INTERNAL RULES OF CONGRESS
- On the internal rules of Congress they have discretion to promulgate their own rules on:
o legislative inquiry
o impeachment
- every Congress (the set of members chosen every after 3 years) shall have their own set of rules an regulation
and that is discretionary of Congress and not even the SC can interfere
- case:
• de Venecia vs. Arroyo- proposal to increase the vat
§ - On the question of quorum. Arroyo insisted on the roll call because he said there is no quorum and they cannot
hold session but de Venecia refused and proceed on holding a session notwithstanding that there was a
question of quorum
§ SC: it is presumed that they have followed their internal rules so the matter of internal rules is for them to follow
and comply and not the SC by way of mandamus to compel or question the internal rulers of Congress
§ De venecia was sustained
- Requirement of publication of Legislative Inquiry- must be published in a newspaper of general circulation or in

the Official Gazette; not in the Internet
o Neri vs. Senate: contempt order of senate set aside because there was an issue on whther the rules were
publicized
o Neri was cited for contempt and a warrant of arrest has been issued against him because of his refusal to return
to Congress in a legislative inquiry
69
0
o What was invoked by the Executive Secretary were: 1. Executive privilege; 2. There were no rules on legislative
inquiry that were publicized, it is very clear in the Constitution that it has to be publicized in order to protect the
right of the person subject of inquiry to due process of law
o SC: Contempt was invalid because there was no proper publication of internal rules on legislative inquiry
• Same argument was invoked by Ombudsman Gutierrez in the impeachment case against her. She argued that
the internal rules of House of Representatives had not been published, hence, her right to due process of law is
violated
o SC: The requirement of publication of rules is only required in Legislative inquiry not on impeachment
proceedings. The House can even adopt in toto the internal rules of impeachment of the previous without
having it published because the Constitution is only explicit on the publication of rules relating to Legislative
inquiry.
- SC on parliamentary rules in general: “They are mere procedures which may be waived or disregarded by
Congress. That is discretionary. If Congress fails to comply with its own rules in the absence of showing that
there was a violation of a Constitutional provision or private rights then SC will not interfere (Arroyo vs. de
Venecia).
17. RECORDS
JOURNAL ENROLLED BILLS
- Required by the Constitution
- Needed to be entered in the journal:
a. Yeas and nays of majority votes cast for every legislative proposal;
b. Yeas and nays that is requested by at least ¼ of the members of the House;
c. The veto of president
d. Yeas and nays of the votes cast overriding the veto of the president
- Probative of journal: Conclusive upon the courts unless you can prove OW, the journals as regards to those
entries are good as binding upon courts. This is in deference to acts or records of coequal branch of
government. That is why it is given much weight by the court.
- Should there any question on it, the burden of proof to the contrary is on the person questioning the entry as
stated in the Journal
- Only the practice of Congress in recording legislative enactments/proposals
- Supposedly a draft a draft of bill or a legislative proposal
- If we go by the tenor of the bill and due execution of the bill passed where it is being certified to by the Speaker
and the President of both Houses as to the version being passed, between the Journal and the Enrolled bill, it is
the Enrolled Bill will which is conclusive upon on courts
70
1
- Contents and due execution it is enrolled bill
- In case if conflict, enrolled bill prevails
- Take note of:
- Subido case and U.S. vs. Pons- landmark cases
18. ADJOURNMENT
5. Neither House during the sessions of the Congress shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for
more than three days, nor to any other place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting
19. ADJUNCTS OF CONGRESS- there are two: Electoral Tribunal and Commission on Appointments
Section 17. The Senate and the House of Representatives shall each have an Electoral Tribunal which shall be the
sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of their respective Members. Each
Electoral Tribunal shall be composed of nine Members, three of whom shall be Justices of the Supreme Court to
be designated by the Chief Justice, and the remaining six shall be Members of the Senate or the House of
Representatives, as the case may be, who shall be chosen on the basis of proportional representation from the
political parties and the parties or organizations registered under the party-list system represented therein. The
senior Justice in the Electoral Tribunal shall be its Chairman.
Favorite in the BAR:
- sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of their respective Members
- note:
- election contest- so meaning there is a controversy relating to the election of a particular member on grounds
of fraud, vote buying, etc; you go into the results of the election
- contest- there has to be 2 contending parties; one who won and who is already a member and the other one
who got defeated
- it can either be:
- regular electoral protest; or
- quo warranto proceedings- also pertain to the qualification of a member or his disloyalty to the Republic as
grounds for the removal of a member of the House and ET has the jurisdiction
- therefore, for ET to assume jurisdiction over an election contest it has to be filed by a defeated candidate if it is
election contest
- there is also a concerned citizen questioning the results of the election because if in the event that it is found
that there is fraud attendant to the election of member, he cannot be replacing the member
what about if the issue is on the qualification?
a. If you question the qualification of Congress member before his proclamation ( he is only a candidate
elect, not yet a member), supposedly that issue is rather ticklish because there is no pre- proclamation
contest in so far as the president, VP and members of Congress so we presume that the disqualification
71
2
case was filed prior to the election and has not been terminated because the election set in and in the
election he garnered the highest number of votes
- There is now a question of qualification however he won in the election
- There is now a resolution of the SC recently in the case of Limkaichong where the SC said that notwithstanding
the pendency of the disqualification case because the results of the election showed that she won h election she
should then be proclaimed by Comelec. But this should however be without prejudice to the continuation of the
disqualification case not anymore lodged in the Comelec but in the ET as the sole judge of qualifications so
therefore pertaining to the qualifications of a member of Congress it is ET; if he is not a member yet so file with
Comelec
- Case: Codilla- he was disqualified by a division of Comelec because of electioneering. He file a MR so pending
motion he was able to run and even won in the election but Comelec because of the disqualification did not
count his votes so it would be as if that Locsin was the only candidate running and so she was proclaimed and
became member of House
- when the disqualification case of Codilla was reconsidered by Comelec en banc and was proclaimed as winner,
now Codilla asked de Venecia to swear him in as member of the House because according to Comelec en banc
he was not disqualified and so his votes should be credited to him. De venecia refused saying that Codilla would
have to file his election protest with ET because Locsin is now a member; file a quo warranto proceeding against
her, recover the office from her because she is already a member
- SC: when the motion for reconsideration was filed by Codilla Comelec still had jurisdiction over the case on
disqualification and therefore the proclamation of Locsin was premature because the MR of Codilla was still
pending; in which case it was rightful for Comelec to resolve the issue on disqualification of Codilla, it was not
ousted of its jurisdiction to resolve on the qualification of Codilla
- so in as much as the division was reversed and Codilla was declared as a member you need not go to the
electoral tribunal because Comelec still has jurisdiction over the matter
- in contrast to the decision in Limkaichong, there was no resolution yet at that time that “even if you would win
in the election you can be proclaimed notwithstanding subject to the continuation of the disqualification case in
the ET
Compare with that of Codilla: he was disqualified by a division of Comelec which was reversed by Comelec en
banc in other words this is an issue which has jurisdiction over that matter: the issues on qualifications of a
candidate for a position on Congress, Comelec or ET??
- bottom line: the moment a candidate is proclaimed as the winner then he takes his oath of office he is now a
member and Comelec is ousted of jurisdiction; the proceedings on qualification will now continue in ET but
before that proclamation becomes final even if you have sworn into office but the proclamation is not yet final
Comelec is not yet ousted with jurisdiction and should continue until that issue is resolved. You should waited
on the resolution of Comelec on the issue before you swear in office as member of Congress
b. what if there was only one candidate running for the office and there is a qualification of qualification of that
candidate
case: Singson vs. Daza- lone candidate of a district in Samar
72
3
§ there was a question on his qualification alleging that he is a green card holder so there was a question on the
residency requirement
§ Q: does the ET has jurisdiction of the disqualification case because as a GR it has to be contested ( a loser and
winner with the intention of substituting him)
§ A: No jurisdiction because this is not an electoral contest although this pertains to disqualification.
§ Q: Who shall then take cognizance over that question qualification?
§ A: The House or Congress is never precluded from preserving the integrity of the membership of the House to
make sure that only qualified members should sit in Congress. They can always conduct exclusionary
proceedings. //gold//
June22, 2012 (2nd and 3rd hours)
20. Clarification on the Daza case:
The one that has jurisdiction is the house concerned where he is elected as a member of Congress in an
exclusionary proceeding where there is no other person contesting the position. So if he is a lone candidate, he
may not be proclaimed until his qualifications are settled. If he is proclaimed, there is the exclusionary
proceeding available for purposes of his disqualification if indeed he is disqualified.
21. the meaning of “SOLE JUDGE”: Limkaichong case
It said that the Electoral Tribunal is the sole judge on qualifications. But the issue in Limkaichong was the
naturalization of her father. That cannot be collaterally attacked in a disqualification case before the electoral
tribunal. Definitely, electoral tribunal does not have jurisdiction over the issue because it does not pertain to the
qualification of the member however, indirectly through the father.
22. Take note of the case of Barbers vs. Comelec
The Supreme Court said that election, returns and the qualifications should be interpreted in its totality and
referring to all matters affecting the validity on the contested title. If it is necessary to specify, you can say,
election refers to the conduct of polls, including the listing of voters, the holding of the electoral campaign and
the casting and counting of votes. What about returns? Returns to the canvass of the returns (?) and the
proclamation of winners, including questions regarding the composition of the board of canvassers and the
authenticity of the election returns and the qualification to matters that could be raised in a quo warranto
proceedings against the proclaimed winner such as his disloyalty or ineligibility or inadequacy of his certificate of
candidacy.
Then we go back to the issue on returns. You remember the case of Zubiri. In the Comelec, Pimentel asked that
all the returns of the election in Maguindanao be submitted to the Comelec. Bidol was in fact ordered to do so.
What happened there was, it was overrun by Zubiri having been proclaimed as the last senator candidate who
won in the election and he assumed his office while this matter was being heard in the Supreme Court. I think
what happened here is that this Pimentel wanted the Supreme Court to enjoin the Comelec from proclaiming
Zubiri. And so this issue here is whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the matter. Supreme Court said
it is the senate electoral tribunal which has exclusive jurisdiction to act on the complaint of Pimentel, involving
as it does a contest relating to the election of Zubiri, now proclaimed a member of the Senate. He was insisting
that this was an administrative function of the Comelec. It has nothing to do with qualifications or contest
73
4
relating to the election of Zubiri. What he was asking was that all these returns be submitted to the Comelec and
for the Comelec to open the ballot boxes whether they would jibe to the election returns. And so the SC
dismissed the petition because it pertains to the returns and therefore, it should be filed with the Senate
Electoral Tribunal.
23. As to how many electoral tribunals we have and how are they chosen
There are two electoral tribunals (SET and the HRET) and there are nine members of each. The first three
members are senior justices of the Supreme Court and the remaining six, this is important. You determine who
qualifies as such. It would be proportionate to the representation of the political parties in the house concerned.
This important because of the concern of the party list representatives. They want to be members of the
Electoral Tribunal. This was the case of Pimentel, Jr. Vs. House of Representatives. How do you compute the
number of the political party? You divide it by total number of members of the house. That would be the
number of representation from that political party to the electoral tribunal. So if the party list has only, say three
seats maximum from a particular party, Supreme Court said: even assuming the party list representation
comprised is sufficient number, and agreed to designate common nominees to the HRET, the primary recourse
lies to the House of representatives and not with the Supreme Court. Under Section 17 and 18, party list must
first show to the house that they possess the required numerical strength to be entitled to sit in the HRET and
the Commission on Appointments. Only if the House fails to comply with the directive of the Constitution on
proportional representation of political parties in the HRET and the CA can the party-list representatives take
recourse to the Supreme Court under the power of Judicial review. Under the Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction,
the primary recourse to the House is necessary. Consequently, judicial recourse to this court is premature. In
other words, what is only required is proportional representation. You cannot therefore prohibit the election of
a member of a political party to the electoral tribunal if he represents by proportional representation. You
cannot disqualify someone simply because of allegations of bias if he is chosen through proportional
representation. The only qualification to get a seat in the electoral tribunal is that you represent the political
party by proportional representation. The moment they are elected to the electoral tribunal, they become
independent and therefore their removal as members of the political party cannot be a reason to remove them
as members of the Electoral Tribunal. Unlike in the CA.
24. Decisions of the Electoral Tribunal
They are the sole judge. But are their decisions appealable and if yes, where? Supreme court said in the case of
Abubakar vs. HRET: the SC’s jurisdiction to review decisions and resolutions of HRET is only upon showing of
grave abuse of discretion on the part of the tribunal amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction. Such grave
abuse of discretion implies capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment. In other words, decisions of the
Electoral Tribunals are final and executory unless there is GAD.
25. Commission on Appointments (CA): In General
It has twenty five members including the chairman and who is the presiding officer who is the President of the
Senate. Members: 12 from house of representatives, 12 from the Senate. It need not be filled up totally as long
as they would constitute majority. It is highly partisan, meaning, you should be a member of a political party. If it
is only coalition, you have to be grouped by one party however you belong to different political parties, that will
not be taken as a change of political party and be considered as a ground for your removal. It can only be
considered as a ground for your removal if you have permanently changed your political party affiliation.
Otherwise, if it is only temporary alliance, you can still remain as member of the CA.
74
5
26. Take note also of the appointments of certain officials that requires confirmation of the CA
You have to memorize this guys for MCQ purposes. That is found in Section 16, Article VII. You have:
• the heads of the Executive department
• Armed forces officers whose rank ranges from Colonel to General, (etc). This do not include the PNP and
the coastguards. PNP is under DILG which is civilian and coastguard is under the DOTC, civilian also.
• Ambassadors, consuls, and other public ministers
And then you also have the appointments that are vested in the President by the Constitution such as:
• The JBC’s regular members-subject to the confirmation
• The chairmen of the Civil Service, Comelec, and the Commission on Appointments.
• Administrative heads of the supposedly autonomous Region so far because Mindanao has already an
election of the chairman. We now have only the Cordillera Administrative Region.
27. Process of Appointment
The President nominates and then the CA, within the period of thirty (30) days from the receipt of nomination,
may approve or disapprove. If disapproved, the President cannot re-nominate the same. However, if it is not
acted upon within the period of thirty days, it is considered to have been bypassed and therefore, the President
may still nominate the same candidate. Once approved by the CA, then appointment is effective upon
assumption of office. So there is:
-nomination
-confirmation
-issuance of the appointment
-assumption of office
That is a regular appointment with the confirmation of the CA.
28. Ad Interim Appointment: When Effective
What about if Congress is not in session and there cannot be a decision of the CA? The President can still make
an appointment of course because that is executive in nature. But as to the appointment enumerated in the
Constitution that requires confirmation by the CA considering that the Congress is not in session, the President
can still make an appointment which we call an AD INTERIM APPOINMENT/RECESS APPOINTMENT. It is effective
upon qualification of the appointee and it is permanent. However, its duration is limited in a sense that it is
effective until it is revoked upon resumption of the session of the Congress.
Now what if it is not revoked by the CA? What is the status of the appointment made by the President? It is still
permanent however, it will last only until the next adjournment of session of Congress. Can he be re-
nominated? Yes because the appointment was not regular but a special appointment or an ad interim
appointment. The provision of the appointment as regards the Commissioners of the Constitutional Bodies
applies only to regular appointments and not to an ad interim or special appointment.
75
6
Another thing is that even if it pertains to the appointment of a head of the executive department or a Secretary
of a department, if it is only in acting capacity, that would not require confirmation from the CA because that is a
discretionary power of the President to make an acting appointment. That is true even if the positions pertain to
those that are enumerated by the Constitution that need confirmation by the CA. That was the case again of
Pimentel vs. The Executive Secretary.
29. Legislative Inquiry
This is in consonance with question hour guys. Take note of the scope of legislative inquiry. It must be in aid of
legislation. It does not mean however that there should be a pending legislation regarding the subject of the
inquiry. So the relevancy of the question is determined not by the connection to any pending legislation but by
the connection of the general scope of the inquiry. It must be emphasized that it must be in aid of legislation,
not in aid of election or prosecution.
This is a prerogative of Congress that should not be interfered with even by the courts. Take note however of
the limitations of the legislative inquiry:
1. It must be in aid of legislation
2. The inquiry must be conducted in accordance with the duly published rules of procedure of the
house conducting the inquiry. So you have to comply with the requirements of law that it be published
in the newspaper of general circulation at least or in the official gazette
3. The rights of persons appearing or affected by such inquiry shall be respected such as his rights
against self-incrimination.
30. Legislative Inquiry in relation to Executive Privilege
Another point you should take note is on the matter of Executive Privilege that may be invoked. You take note
on the limitations. Who can be compelled to appear before a legislative inquiry? It could be any person. It need
not be a cabinet member. It could be just an ordinary individual for as long as his testimony will help the court
and the Congress in the making of a law. Supposedly, he is only a witness and not an accused or a respondent in
any criminal or administrative case. However, on what we study now based on what we see in the TV regarding
the legislative inquiry, it is so scary because you are supposed to be only a witness, an expert witness, but you
become an accused all of a sudden. They would berate you and that had caused the life of certain individuals for
instance, Angelo Reyes. He was embarrassed because it appears that even if there was no preliminary
investigation on criminal charges against him, he was already convicted in the eyes of the public. Anyhow, the
thing that you should take note on this guys, we will have to clear this up because this is also a favourite in the
bar.
Now, you take note of the case of Bengzon vs. The Senate of Blue Ribbon. This particular case is an old case but
is still applicable now. This hasn’t been reversed. In this case, Bengzon was the subject of a legislative inquiry
involving corruption but that particular matter was already pending in the Sandiganbayan. So he begged not to
appear saying that there is already a pending case. To allow it, it might pre-empt, if not, influence the court
relating to his case. Supreme Court said that an investigation that seeks the determination of whether a law has
been violated is NOT in aid of legislation. It is therefore violative of the separation of powers to allow the
committee to investigate the matter. It would create a possibility of conflicting judgments and that the inquiry
would be a justiciable controversy because it would constitute an encroachment of the exclusive domain of
judicial jurisdiction. Thus we have what we call the SUB JUDICI RULE. It restricts comments and disclosures
76
7
pertaining to judicial proceedings to avoid pre-judging the issue influencing the court or obstructing the
administration of justice. The case, too is Romero vs. Estrada, April 2, 2009. That is the sub judici rule. That is
why you notice that in some cases where the witnesses supposedly involving the generals, they always invoke
their right against self-incrimination because a case is already pending in court. Even when there is no pending
case before the court, but there is a possibility of being indicted in a criminal case, you can always invoke the
right against self-incrimination.
However, take note the case of Standard Chartered Bank vs. The Senate Committee on Banks, December 27,
2007. This is the recent decision regarding on the legislative inquiry. This is a different matter. This pertains to
the inquiry of banks’ practices where they were not so transparent in their transactions with foreigners relating
to the, i think, the shares of the bank. This was question because it might undermine the economy of the
country. So the Committee then summoned the officers of Standard. They, however, refuse to attend saying
that there is already a pending administrative investigation being conducted by the BSP, not to mention the
bank itself. So the question there is WON they can refuse the summons issued by the Committee. Supreme
Court said the mere filing of a criminal or and administrative complaint before a court or quasi-judicial body
should not automatically bar the conduct of legislative inquiry. Otherwise it would be easy to subvert any
intended inquiry by the Congress through the convenient ploy of instituting a criminal or administrative case.
You need to distinguish this case from that of Bengzon.
And then there is the issue of the executive privilege. It may be invoked by the President or by the executive
secretary. So the issue here is settled in the case of Drilon vs. The Executive Secretary and then there is the case
of Neri vs. The Senate Committee. Take note: executive privilege is an implied power of the President to
withhold information requested by other branches of the government. The Constitution does not expressly
grant this power to the President but courts have long recognized the implied power if necessary and proper in
carrying out the powers expressly granted by the Constitution to the Executive department. As the Commander
in Chief of the Armed Forces, the President is ultimately responsible for maintaining the national security
matters affecting the nation. In relation to the discharge of the responsibility, the President might find it
necessary to withhold sensitive military and national security secrets from the legislature or the public.
31. Different Kinds of Executive Privilege of the President or the Information that may not be disclosed by the
President:
• Military secrets
• National security matters
• Internal deliberation of the President with the Cabinet
• The President’s Communication with his cabinet and advisers
This executive privilege however is not absolute. In the interest of protecting military, national security, and
economic secrets as well as Presidential Communication must be weighed against other constitutionally
recognized interest. These constitutional interests refer to:
• Full disclosure of transactions involving public interest
• The right of the people to information on matters of public concern
• Accountability of public officers
77
8
• Power of legislative inquiry
• Judicial power to secure testimonial and documentary evidence in deciding cases
Following the balancing of interest, ultimately, it is for the Supreme Court to decide which prevails as between
executive privilege and compelling on the constitutionally recognized rights.
Take note of the case of Akbayan vs. Aquino. This is the case of JPEPA where Aquino who was the
Undersecretary of DTI, refused to disclose the negotiations between Japan and the Philippines pertaining to
JPEPA. It was questioned saying that the members of Congress have the right to know because it is for them to
review the economic terms of JPEPA. Can they demand as a matter of right that that be disclosed? Now, it is a
matter of practice for as long as it is still on the negotiation stage. So that is okay ha as long as it is by practice.
32. Operational Proximity Test
Then we have the case of Neri vs. Senate. This was asked in the bar. This is still under executive privilege. They
cannot be disclosed for reasons of operational proximity test. This is the communication between the President
and his advisors. Supreme Court said in this case: the communication elicited questions are Presidential
communication. SC gave the following reasons: first, the communications relate to a non-delegable power of the
President and that is treaty negotiations. The power to enter into an executive agreement has traditionally been
recognized in the Philippines as confidential. Second, the communications are received by the advisor of the
President. Under the operational proximity test, petitioner can be considered as a close advisor of the President
being the member of her cabinet. Third, there is no adequate showing of a compelling need that would justify
the limitation of the privilege and of the unavailability of the information elsewhere by the appropriate
investigating agency.
Another issue that can be raised in executive privilege is regarding the PCGG. The law creating it gave it a
privilege not to disclose information which they think are confidential. F you recall, during the time of the
Chairman Sabio, there were allegations of abuses being committed by the Commissioners. Bantay salakay daw
sa properties that they were able to recover J. And so they were made to explain by Congress in a legislative
inquiry. However, the Commissioner refused saying that they are cannot be subject to investigations conducted
by any agency of the government as provided by law. On the other hand, the Congress insisted on its power.
Supreme Court said: Congress’ power of inquiry being broad, encompasses everything that concerns the
administration of existing laws as well as propose needed statutes. It even extends to government agencies
created by Congress and officers’ positions are within the power of Congress to regulate or even abolish. The
PCGG belongs to this class. So long as the Constitutional rights of witnesses like that of Chairman Sabio will be
respected by the Senate Committee, it is their duty to cooperate with them in their efforts to have the needed
information.
33. the varieties of Executive Privilege
-state secrets
-Informer’s Privilege
-Privilege for the internal deliberation in cabinet meetings
34. Oversight Function Compared to Legislative Inquiry
78
9
This is more of question hour. The aid in legislation is not just limited to inquiry. In a legislative inquiry, if the
subject of the inquiry is a cabinet member, it does not require consent of the President. That is already a settled
rule the Senate vs. Ermita. Except when the information being held by a cabinet member is a privilege
information of the President. It is then for the President to determine whether he should invoke the executive
privilege or not but not for the cabinet member to invoke that right. It is exclusive to the President and can be
invoked only by him and his Executive secretary by virtue of the authority by the President.
On the other hand, we have question hour. The subject of the investigation is only members of the cabinet. It
has to be with the consent of the President. It is limited only to matters relating to the enforcement of the law.
This is what you call the oversight function of the Congress. So they would ask from the cabinet members how
the laws are enforced for the purpose of determining whether there is a need of reinforcement or some other
changes. It embraces all activities undertaken by Congress to enhance its undertaking of its influence over the
implementation of the laws it has enacted. Briefly, it has three categories namely: scrutiny, investigation, and
supervision.
35. The Process of Law-making
There has to be a sponsor coming from the member. For the bills to be considered by the House, it has to be
calendared to the Secretary of the House. What follows is the call for a first reading. In this stage, it would be on
the title. It will not be immediately acted upon by the Congress as a body collectively. It would be assigned to a
committee in order to decide whether to take it up or shelve it or lay it on the table and let the dust gather over
it and remember it laterJ.
Should they act on it, then they would conduct public hearing. Otherwise, they would do some research and in
which case they can make some recommendations for changes, etc. And then finally after that, it will go through
a second reading. Here, it will not be only the title that will be read. It would be the whole provision of the law
(proposed law) with the proposed changes and amendments. It is here where they have to discuss and debate
will follow. That is the purpose why the second reading is made. After that, it will be in its final form, printed.
And then, there will be a final reading. Only the title will be read and thereafter follows the voting on the bill. If
it is approved by the majority of those who are present based on a quorum, then it goes to the other house and
it will go through the same process.
Are the three readings indispensable? The “three readings” is INDESPENSABLE. What is dispensable is the
separate readings and not the three readings itself. Especially when there is certification that the bill is urgent
that if it will not be passed right away, it would prejudice public interest, then the three readings may be done
on the same day.
The thing that you should take note is that there are certain proposals that can only originate from one house so
that the other house cannot act on it initially without first receiving the version of the other house. Particularly,
the bills that must originate from the House of Representatives are: Appropriation bills, Tariff bills, revenue
bills Bills relating to public debts, Bills on local application.
36. Appropriation Bills
Take note that it would be based on the budget submitted by The President. Usually it is submitted within thirty
(30) days following the opening of the regular session. The Congress cannot increase the budget proposed by
the President but the Congress can decrease the said budget.
79
0
The next is on the Special and General Appropriation. In the general appropriation, there is a list of expenses
with corresponding appropriations. It does not necessarily state the source and thus, the issue on deficit
because you have a list of appropriation and yet the source of revenue to sustain the appropriation would not
be sufficient.
In the Special Appropriation however, it has to be with specific source of revenue otherwise, it cannot be
passed. That is the difference.
Another thing is that there cannot be a disbursement of public funds without authority by way of an
appropriation law. Now what about if we borrow money from a foreign bank for a particular purpose of the
government? This is with regards to the ZTE project, the loan that we procured for the broadband project of the
governmnet. Remember they borrowed money from a Chinese bank. It did not pass through the process of
asking the Congress to give the authority to borrow money, thus, it was questioned in Suplico, et al vs. Romulo
Neri (July 14, 2008). Supreme Court said a government expenditure without a corresponding appropriation from
Congress is unconstitutional. There can be no dispute that the proceeds of the foreign loan, whether concluded
or not should not be done in a procurement contract without prior appropriation from Congress. When the
executive branch secures a loan, the loan proceeds enter the national treasury as part of the general funds of
the government. This money or fund should have been first deposited with the national treasury. Then Congress
must appropriate by law, otherwise, it cannot be spent by the executive branch. When the loan falls due and
there is repayment of it, Congress must make another law authorizing the repayment of such loan. This is what
is covered by the automatic appropriation. Diba, every disbursement has to be supported by an appropriation
law. As regards to the payment of our law, there is already a schedule of payments. In which case, it is
automatically appropriated for every year. But that is not the same in this case.
As regards to AUTOMATIC ADOPTION OF THE APPROPRIATION OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR if the General
Appropriation Act for a particular year has not been approved. What happens is the Appropriation bill of the
previous year is automatically adopted.
As to the origin, it has to come from the House of Representatives. The Senate can make its own version but it
cannot act until it receives the version of the lower house even if it is totally different from that of the House of
Representatives. This is what we call as amendment by substitution.
On the transfer of Appropriation, diba, based on the appropriation act authorizing the disbursement of public
funds, there are items already with corresponding appropriation. Can you transfer specific appropriation from
one particular item to another item? Take note that is prohibited if done without the consent of the President if
it pertains to the budget of the executive department. Insofar as Congress is concerned, like the PORK J barrels
of members of Congress, diba they have appropriations for specific projects taken from the pork barrel of a
particular member. Can he just simply transfer, say the budget for automation to another project? The GR: You
can’t unless it has the approval of the heads of the houses of the Congress (Senate President and Speaker of the
House). In the Supreme Court, there has to be the consent or the approval of the Chief Justice of the Supreme
Court. For the Constitutional bodies, you have to have the approval of the chairmen of these three
constitutional bodies. That has already been asked in the bar exams.
37. Taxation
The policy is you have to pay tax unless you can prove that you are exempt. Now this was asked in the bar: what
is the requirement for the exemption? It should have the concurrence of majority of all the members of
Congress.
80
1
38. Veto Powers of the President
Should the President veto a bill, he must return the bill to the house of origin. Should he fail to act on the bill
within thirty days from receipt, the bill becomes a law. So if it is returned to the house of origin, it is not the end
of it. It can be passed and voted again by 2/3. The other house has to agree otherwise, the bill cannot be
revived. It has to be 2/3 of both houses.
The general rule is, should the President veto on a bill, he vetoes the entire bill. He has to return that to the
house of origin. There are exceptions: Appropriation bill and Revenue Bill or tariff bills or when the provision
inappropriate because it is not covered or related in the same subject matter. Here he may only veto items or
inappropriate provisions.
39. Declaration of the Existence of State of War and Emergency Powers
The Emergency Power is vested not on the President himself but to the Congress. However, the Congress can
grant or delegate the same to the President in accordance with Section 23. This can be done only in cases of war
or national emergency as defined in the case of Drilon vs. Ermita. Take note also of the other delegations. First,
there has to be a statute delegating the exercise of the power for a limited period of time and that is to carry out
a declared policy of Congress. It is therefore subject to limitations being prescribed by Congress. Only for a
limited period of time can it be exercised and if the emergency ceases, it also ceases automatically to be
exercised. However, if the emergency continues, it can only be exercised by the President unless it is withdrawn
by a resolution until the next adjournment of session of Congress.
We now have the declaration of the existence of a state of war. The President being the Commander in Chief of
the Republic can declare war. Congress can also do that because in fact, it is them who declare the existence of a
state of war. But can the President declare war even without the determination by the Congress of the existence
of a state of war? Of course, he is never precluded from doing that. However, the President cannot exercise
emergency powers. The declaration of the existence of state of war is the basis for Congress to grant or delegate
emergency powers to the President.
The delegation of emergency powers to the President would require a majority vote of both houses. The
declaration of the existence of a state of war would require 2/3 votes in joint session voting separately. Always
remember that because that is a favourite in the bar exams.
There are only Two Instances where Congress would meet jointly and voting jointly:
1. Declaration of Martial Law

2. Suspension of the Privilege of the writ of habeas corpus
All that is needed in the two instances is MAJORITY of Congress voting jointly. The declaration of temporary
disability of the President needs 2/3 votes and the Congress voting separately in joint session.
40. Initiative and Referendum: Votes required
Review also on the votes needed on initiative and referendum. Take note of the votes needed on initiative of
statute is found on RA 6735 (10% where each legislative district is represented by 3%) and initiative on local
legislation needs:
Regional Assemby= 2000;
81
2
Provinces and cities= 1000;
municipalities= 100;
barangay= 50
Then you have referendum. On local legislation could either be by of an ordinance or a resolution. There are
limitations on that. It can only be done once a year.
On initiative, you already know this. This can be done only in amendments. The vote required is 12%, where
each legislative district is represented by 3% vote. The petition should be registered with the Comelec. //arnie//
June 23, 2012, Saturday

ARTICLE VII
THE PRESIDENT
Functions:
ð Chief Executive
o Heads of all the heads of the Executive Department
o Has Control and supervision over the Executive Department
ð Administrator of the laws of the land
o Has the power to ensure that all laws are faithfully executed

Not all powers are stated in the constitution, the president also exercise RESIDUAL POWER. Meaning even if his powers
are not expressly provided in the constitution, however may not be exercised by congress, they are to be exercised by
the president because they are necessary to carry out the functions of the president as chief executive and
administrator of the laws of the land.

Whether or not the president has the power to declare war or to declare a state of national emergency or a state of
rebellion.
ð All these are based on his being the Chief Executive and administrator of the laws of the land and bolstered by
the fact that he is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines.

IMMUNITY OF THE PRESIDENT FROM SUIT:
ð Part of the power to carry out the functions of the president
ð This is not provided by the constitution
ð It is by jurisprudence that the president enjoys this immunity
ð This is necessary for the president to be effective as chief executive and administrators of the laws of the land
ð The enjoyment from immunity from suit is discretional to the president and therefore non-delegable
ð This cannot be delegated to his alter egos such as the secretary of the different departments
ð Only the president enjoys immunity from suit
ð It being personal to the president this cannot be invoked by anyone else
o SOLIVEN v. MAKASIAR CASE:
82
3
F: Soliven and Beltran being pursued by President Cory for a column that was written by Beltran that
during the coup d etat she the chief executive who is the commander in chief of the AFP was hiding
under her bed. She did not take it sitting down. She sued the publishing company and Soliven. They
move for the dismissal of the case on the ground that the president is immune from suit. That it was not
fair because they cannot file a counterclaim against her because she can always invoke immunity from
suit.
I: could that be use as defense by the defendants of that case?
SC: this is personal to the president. Only the president can invoke that immunity. You cannot use that
as a matter of defense. It is up to the president if she is going to invoke it or waive it. In this case it is
understood that the president has waive that immunity. That cannot be used as a matter of defense by
the defendant in order to have the case dismissed.

ð Only enjoyed by the president during his incumbency
o Even if his term had not expired yet, however he is no longer the president, because either he was
removed by impeachment or resigned or considered to have become permanently incapacitated to
perform his duties he cannot invoke the immunity from suit

ESTRADA v. DESIERTO CASE:
F: Estrada asked that the cases filed against him in the Sandiganbayan be dismissed on the ground that
he was never removed through impeachment because it did not push through as it is overrun by the
EDSA 2. He was saying that he did not resigned and was only under temporary disability. And therefore
he is still the president and cannot be prosecuted for he enjoys immunity from suit.
SC: There is no basis in the contention that the immunity of the President extends to the end of the term
to which he was elected notwithstanding his resignation. It is clear that the immunity of the President
from suit is concurrent only with his tenure (representing the period during which the incumbent
actually holds office) and not his term (the time during which the officer may claim to hold office as a
matter of right)
1. Reiterated in Romualdez v. Sandiganbayan

ð You must have observed in all the cases where the subject of the question of constitutionality were the acts of
the president but never in those cases where Arroyo was impleaded as a party respondent or defendant. Simply
because the president is immune from suit.
ð This was pointed out in the case of DAVID et al v. ARROYO
This is the case with respect to Arroyo and as a result of which always the Executive Secretary is starring in all
the cases where they are just nominal party defendant because actually the subject of the question of
constitutionality are that of the acts of the president. But you cannot find the name of the president there
simply because of the immunity of the president from suit.
SC: It is not proper to implead President Arroyo as respondent. Settled is the doctrine that the President, during
his tenure of office or actual incumbency, may not be sued in any civil or criminal case, and there is no need to
provide for it in the Constitution or law.
ELECTION OF A PRESIDENT:
How is the president chosen?
ð By direct election for a definite term of office
Qualifications:
83
4
1. Able to read and write
o As long as he knows how to sign his signature
o Qualifications of a bagger are higher than that of the president. A bagger is required to be at least 2nd
year college whereas all that is required for a person to run as president is able to read and write. As
long as he knows how to sign his signature he is presumed to be literate.
o Does not require a degree holder
2. Registered voter
3. A natural born citizen
4. Age must be at least 40
5. 10 years of residency obtained at least on the day of election
6. A citizen of the country before he assumes office

ELECTION PROTEST ON QUALIFICATIONS, RETURNS OR HIS ELECTION:

Where to file an electoral protest?
ð Before he is proclaimed, is there a pre-proclamation contest that may be entertained by the COMELEC?
o NO. Any contest relating to the election of a president, his qualification and returns, it is the Presidential
Electoral Tribunal (PET) who has the power otherwise known as the Supreme Court as well.
o You have the Electoral Tribunal which is the Supreme Court
FERNANDO POE JR. CASE:

Who is the proper party as a protestant in electoral contest involving the president or the V-president?
1. Take note of that case coz it’s easy to understand daw.

TERM OF OFFICE:
ð As provided in the law the term of office of the President is 6 years without re-election
Why was Estrada able to run the second time? What do you mean by 6 years without re-election? Is it perpetual
disqualification? After being elected for the first time, whether or not he has finished his term. That should have been
the case.
Regardless whether one has finished his term, he is supposed to disqualify perpetually and absolutely for another re-
election.
In the case of Estrada, he was declared as having resigned. In all other provisions regarding on the continuity or
successiveness of term for purposes of determining the second or third term disqualification, there is no provision
saying that voluntary renunciation is considered not an interruption of the continuity or successiveness of the term of
office. In the case of Estrada, he insisted that he never resigned. So, how could you consider him resigned voluntarily?
Even if he voluntarily resigned, there is no prohibition in the law because otherwise if the intention of the ConCon there
prohibiting one who has resigned and therefore not being able to finish his term to run for a re-election, that should
have been stated in the law. It was not so. You will notice in the case of the term of office of a senator, it says “Shall in
no case be more than two successive terms. Voluntary renunciation of his office shall not be considered an interruption
of the continuity or successiveness of the term of office.” That is not so stated insofar as the president is concerned.
84
5
There was a case relating to this questioning on the propriety or constitutionality of Estrada running for that second
election after he resigned supposedly in 2004. SC dismissed the case on the ground that the issued has already become
moot and academic simply because he was not elected. They did not discuss anymore on the merits of the case.
There is no jurisprudence to go by the literal meaning of the provision of the law.

MANNER OF SUCCESSION:
In case of vacancy occurring in the Office of the President, how is succession being followed?
It depends on when the vacancy occurs.
o At the beginning of the term, before he assumed office; or
o During his incumbency

ð At the beginning of the term:
o Vacancy caused by permanent cause or temporary cause
o In the case where there is no president elected because he has not yet qualified or he has not assumed
office yet or because of a tie, who will then succeed to the office of the president? This is temporary
cause.
§ Vice-president shall only act as president
§ Until the cause of vacancy becomes permanent, like he died before he assumed office, the VP
becomes the new president
o In the event, the VP is likewise disqualified to succeed the president, congress must immediately meet
and convene in order to pass a law for the purpose of calling for a special election

ð During the incumbency:
o Causes that may result to a vacancy that will justify succession of the VP to the President
1. Death
• imputable
2. Resignation
• ESTRADA v. DESIERTO CASE:
SC: There are no formalities. It need not be in writing for as long as there is intention to
relinquish the powers by abandoning the office with the intention to relinquish the
powers of the office. His intention must correspond to his acts. The moment he
relinquish the powers of the state then he is considered to have resigned already. Mr.
Estrada had intimated to Angara that he wants to resign and it was so indicated in his
diary. The fact that he left Malacanang, then it is clear that he had intention to resign.
And so he was considered resigned.
What Mr. Estrada is saying is he is only on leave and in fact he should have been
declared only under temporary disability.
• TAKE NOTE: Under temporary disability(such a ridiculous provision)
o When is it considered that the president is under temporary disability?
§ Two ways:
a) The president himself declares that he is under temporary disability
1. In which case the VP shall automatically act as the
president
2. Congress need not intervene
85
6
b) When the majority of his cabinet will report to congress and tell
congress that the president is under temporary disability, VP shall
automatically act as president
3. If the president does not dispute that, VP may continue
to act
4. But the president can always dispute that
5. The moment the president would say otherwise, then
he reassumes the functions of the president
6. Congress will still not intervene
7. But the moment the second time the majority of the
cabinet would insist that indeed the president is under
temporary disability, this time it is disputed by the
president, congress has to decide
8. Required votes: 2/3 votes in a joint session voting
jointly/separately to declare the president under
temporary disability in order for the VP to act as
president
9. ESTRADA v DESIERTO
SC: the matter of declaration whether the president is
under temporarily disability or not is a discretionary
power of congress which cannot be interfered with by,
even by the SC

3. Permanent incapacity
• Is this necessarily physical disability that is permanent?
o Maybe our understanding of a vacancy that may be created because the
president is permanently physically incapacitated to perform his duties
o But ESTRADA CASE OPINION: There was permanent incapacity on his part
because of the lack of support already of his cabinet as well as the local
governments. This is more of a functional disability which may constitute a
permanent incapacity
4. Impeachment
• Is a removal of a president when he is impeached and there will be a vacancy
What if the VP is the one whose office is vacant? How is the manner of succession?
ð He will be nominated by the President from Congress to be elected by majority votes of the members of
Congress
ð Joint session however voting separately
What if both offices are vacant?
ð Congress has to meet immediately and call for a special election or the manner of filling the gap
ð Take note of the requirements: if the vacancy occurs within 18 months pwede pa but if it’s less than 18 months
there cannot be a special election anymore, we’ll just have to wait for the regular election to come.
ð In the meantime congress has to provide a manner of filling up the vacancy in the meantime
GOING BACT: TERM OF OFFICE:
86
7
PORMENTO v. ESTRADA (8/31/2010)
Regarding Estrada who for the 2nd time as president

SC: Estrada was not elected President the second time he ran. Since the issue will be premised on the second election as
President, there is no case or controversy to be resolved in this case.
In other words, the SC refused to take cognizance if not exercise judicial review on the constitutionality of Estrada
running for the second time.

DISQUALIFICATION RELEVANT IN THE BAR EXAM:
Prohibitions/Disqualifications of being the president:
1. Appointments of some relatives that is prohibited under the constitution
§ Cannot appoint spouse or a relative up to the 4th degree either by consanguinity or affinity to the following:
a. Members of the Constitutional Commissions like Civil Service, COMELEC, Commission on Audit
b. Office of the ombudsman
c. As department secretaries, undersecretaries
d. As chairmen or heads of GOCCs
§ If spouse is already in office by the time he became the president this prohibition would no longer cover
§ Spouse can be appointed as CJ of the SC, if spouse is a lawyer, there is no prohibition against it
§ No prohibition as well as to ambassadors or consuls

APPOINTMENT POWER OF THE PRESIDENT
Section 14-16: (take note)
Appointments that need confirmation by the Commission on Appointments:

GR: appointment power is executive in nature
ð Temporary appointments
o even if they refer to those enumerated in Sec. 14-16, even if they are made while congress is
in session, you need not submit the name of these individuals because after all the
appointment is only temporary in nature and the power of appointment is by nature an
executive function that is discretionary to the president
ð Permanent and Regular appointments
o It refers to positions like
§ Heads of the Exec. Dept.,
§ Ambassadors, Public Ministers or consuls,
§ officers of the AFP ranging from colonel to general or captain to admiral, and
§ appointments where the constitution vested in the president such power
o requires the confirmation of the CA
o This enumeration is exclusive. They cannot be expanded nor reduced by ordinary legislation.
o Read PIMENTEL v. ERMITA regarding temporary appointments

AD INTERIM OR MIDNIGHT APPOINTMENTS
AD INTERIM:
87
8
ð Appointments made by the president while congress is not in session
ð Appointments made by the president even if doing those that would require confirmation by the CA are
PERMANENT(take note) only that the duration of the appointment is limited, if it is not confirmed upon
resumption of the session of the CA
ð In other words, if it is disapproved then the appointment is as good as until it is disapproved by the CA.
ð If it is not acted upon within 30 days from the resumption of session of the CA, then it is understood that the ad
interim appointment however permanent, shall last only until the adjournment of the next session of congress.
But the president is never precluded from nominating the same candidate because it has not been disapproved.
ð MATIBAG v BENIPAYO CASE: (take note)
F: the chairman of the COMELEC was appointed thru ad interim appointment. The constitution prohibits the
appointment of a commissioner to COMELEC to maintain the independence of the constitutional bodies. In the
case of Benipayo, he was appointed by the President however bypassed. And so what the president did was to
reappoint him while congress was not in session. So the appointment was permanent. However, again he was
not confirmed. In other words, he was still bypassed so it lasted only until the adjournment of the next session
of congress. For the third time, he was reappointed by the president.
I: is that possible when there is a prohibition under the constitution?
SC: yes it is possible because after all the prohibition applies only to regular appointments and not to ad interim
appointments.

MIDNIGHT APPOINTMENT:
ð Prohibition against the president for appointing anyone especially to key positions in the government within 60
days before the next PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION (not just any other election)
ð This is to prevent putting people in the government and thereby depriving the next president the chance of
appointing people that he can trust

Does the midnight appointment prohibition apply to the judiciary?
ð There are already SC decisions regarding this but it does not involve justices but judges only of the judiciary.
ð SC: midnight appointment prohibition applies even to the judiciary.
ð However, in a recent decision involving CJ Corona, SC was saying that it does not apply to justices of the SC
because if that was the intention of the framers of the constitution, why was it not so stated in the law?
ð There has to be a filling up of the vacancy in the SC for a certain period of time in order to maintain its
independence.
How many days?
ð 90 days from the occurrence of the vacancy.
ð If they have to wait for the next president to make his own then they will never know what will happen.
ð Politically it may be right for Arroyo to make that appointment, however, the proprieties
ð When you speak of legal, it’s in the right track; there is no prohibition against the appointment as the SC said.
But if you are to let this government speak about it, it is improper because they should have been given a
chance to make their own appointment.

EXCEPTION: where the president can make appointment notwithstanding
ð If it applies only to position in the Executive department, if not filled up it will affect public safety or public
service.
88
9

TAKE NOTE of the 60 day period.

ð This does not apply to Chief Executive of the Local Governments.

POWER BEING THE HEAD OF THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT

ð Control and supervision over all the heads of the Executive Departments

POWER OF CONTROL
ð Power to re-organize the government
o In order to promote simplicity, honesty and integrity in government and even efficiency and equality

What does it take to reorganize the Exec. Dept?
ð It includes creating offices

ð Inactivating or abolishing offices
The general understanding of reorganization could even go to the extent of inactivating or abolishing certain offices or
consolidating offices in the Exec. Dept.
There may have been in the past offices created by the president however, there has been no question on the
constitutionality until the Truth Commission was created. There was a question on WON the president can do that and
not violate the powers of congress because that power to create an office is essentially a legislative function.
The power of reorganization of the president is part of controlling the Exec. Dept. which may include reorganizing the
offices in order to be efficient, simple and economy. That organization may obtain changing the offices by consolidating
one office with the other. Remember the Dept. of Education consolidating Culture and Sports, it was consolidated
before but later separated. Now it’s Dept. of Educ. But that is a discretionary power of the president to do and nobody
can complain about that.

BUKLOD NG KAWANING ECONOMIC INTELLIGENCE INVESTIGATION BUREAU (EIIB) v. ZAMORA, JULY 10, 2001CASE:
F: While it was not abolish by the president but in event the president by inactivating it abolish it. Because the personnel
in that office where transferred to other offices. Those who cannot be absorbed in other offices in effect were removed
from office.
SC sustained the president’s power of control over the Exec Dept that the president has the power to deactivate as part
of his being the Chief Executive.
SC: The general rule has always been that the power to abolish a public office is lodged with the legislature. The
exception, however, is that as far as bureaus, agencies or offices in the executive department are concerned, the
President’s power of control may justify him to inactivate the functions of a particular office, or certain laws may grant
him broad authority to carry out reorganization measures. The chief executive, under our laws, has the continuing
authority to reorganize the administrative structure of the Office of the President.
MALARIA CASE: bar question

LUNG CENTER CASE:
89
0
Lung Center was absorbed by DOH and some people lost their jobs. There was the question on the constitutionality
SC: sustained the power of the president as part of his being the Chief Exec.

MALARIA EMPLOYEES AND WORKERS ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC. (MEWAP) VS. ROMULO:
SC: The President has the authority to carry out a reorganization of the Department of Health under the Constitution
and statutory laws. This authority is an adjunct of his power of control under Article VII, Sections 1 and 17 of the 1987
Constitution. The President’s power to reorganize the executive branch is also an exercise of his residual powers under
Section 20, Title I, Book III of E.O. No. 292 which grants the President broad organization powers to implement
reorganization measures. Be that as it may, the President must exercise good faith in carrying out the reorganization of
any branch or agency of the executive department. Reorganization is effected in good faith if it is for the purpose of
economy or to make bureaucracy more efficient.

The other cases that I mentioned are more on the abolition of office or inactivating an office. There is no instance where
an office has been created as a controversy being brought to the SC.
PSG was created by the President. But Cory Aquino was also exercising legislative power at the same time. So there is no
question or controversy relating to that.
TRUTH COMMISSION
BIRAOGO VS. PHILIPPINE TRUTH COMMISSION, GR NO. 192935, DECEMBER 7, 2010 CASE:
F: There was a question on the Truth Commission’s creation. One of the questions raised there was that the President
usurped legislative function. The creation of offices is essentially a legislative function because that would require
appropriation of public funds. Only Congress can pass law to appropriate funds for certain public disbursements.
SC: definitely the president has the power to create an office as part of his being the administrator of the laws of the
land to ensure that laws are faithfully executed.
The creation of the Philippine Truth Commission finds justification under Section 17, Article VII of the Constitution,
imposing upon the President the duty to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed. The President's power to conduct
investigations to aid him in ensuring the faithful execution of laws - in this case, fundamental laws on public
accountability and transparency - is inherent in the President's powers as the Chief Executive. Suffice it to say that there
will be no appropriation but only an allotment or allocations of existing funds already appropriated. Accordingly, there
is no usurpation on the part of the Executive of the power of Congress to appropriate funds.
Nonetheless, the law was declared unconstitutional not for this reason but because it violated the equal protection
clause.

Can the power of control of the president be delegated or extended to his alter-egos?
ð Yes it is delegable
ð Can be delegated to the different secretaries of the different departments under the principle of Qualified
Political Agency
PRINCIPLE OF QUALIFIED POLITICAL AGENCY
ð This is relevant likewise to administrative laws because the exhaustion of administrative remedies can be
excepted because of the principle of Qualified Political Agency
90
1
ð Always relate why you need not appeal anymore to the president cases involving quarrels for example of
administrative officers, cases adjudicated by heads of departments because of this principle (QPA)
ð The act of a subordinate such as a secretary of a department is considered to be the act of the president unless
reprobated, withdrawn or reversed by the president, otherwise it is understood that whatever the decision of
the secretary is the decision of the president
ð In which case the moment the secretary of a department makes a decision you need not go anymore to the
president for an appeal you can now avail of judicial remedies as an exception to the exhaustion of
administrative remedies
Take note:
ð Not all powers of the president are delegable to the alter egos
ð What are these powers that CANNOT be delegated?
o Immunity from suit
o Contracting and guaranteeing foreign laws
§ Can this be delegated to the BSP chairman so that the BSP chairman shall contract and
guarantee foreign loans this is good as having been entered into by the president?
• CUISIA CASE:
F: The chairman of the BSP contracted foreign loans and guaranteed the payment. There
was the question on its validity, WON it will bind the republic.
He was insisting that it is a delegable power the therefore his act is as good as the act of
the president.
SC: delegable powers are those that can be exercised by subordinates. They are
considered also as acts of the president. But there are certain powers that cannot be
just delegated to anyone. And apparently to conduct foreign loans are not one among
those.
o Powers that cannot be delegated:
1. Pardoning power of the president
2. Declaration of martial law
3. Suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus
CONSTANTINO VS. CUISIA, G.R. NO. 106064, OCTOBER 13, 2005:
Nevertheless, there are powers vested in the President by the Constitution which may not be
delegated to or exercised by an agent or alter ego of the President. Justice Laurel, in his
ponencia in Villena, makes this clear: Withal, at first blush, the argument of ratification may
seem plausible under the circumstances, it should be observed that there are certain acts which,
by their very nature, cannot be validated by subsequent approval or ratification by the
President. There are certain constitutional powers and prerogatives of the Chief Executive of the
Nation which must be exercised by him in person and no amount of approval or ratification will
validate the exercise of any of those powers by any other person. Such, for instance, in his
power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus and proclaim martial law (PAR. 3, SEC. 11, Art. VII)
and the exercise by him of the benign prerogative of mercy (par. 6, sec. 11, idem]. These
distinctions hold true to this day. There are certain presidential powers which arise out of
exceptional circumstances, and if exercised, would involve the suspension of fundamental
freedoms, or at least call for the supersedence of executive prerogatives over those exercised by
co-equal branches of government. The declaration of martial law, the suspension of the writ of
habeas corpus, and the exercise of the pardoning power notwithstanding the judicial
determination of guilt of the accused, all fall within this special class that demands the exclusive
91
2
exercise by the President of the constitutionally vested power. The list is by no means exclusive,
but there must be a showing that the executive power in question is of similar gravitas and
exceptional import. We cannot conclude that the power of the President to contract or
guarantee foreign debts falls within the same exceptional class. Indubitably, the decision to
contract or guarantee foreign debts is of vital public interest, but only akin to any contractual
obligation undertaken by the sovereign, which arises not from any extraordinary incident, but
from the established functions of governance.

In others words it’s just ordinary and therefore that can be delegated by the president.

POWER OF THE PRESIDENT BEING THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES:
ð What are the powers of the president being the commander in chief?
1. Head of the military
2. Calling out power
§ Calling out the Armed Forces to assist him in the performance of his duties whenever there is
a) Rebellion
b) Invasion
c) lawlessness
§ this is a very potent power because president need not report to congress that the President
calls the AFP to assist him
§ not subject to judicial review
§ basically discretionary of the president, so the determination of whether there is rebellion, or
invasion, or lawlessness is vested in the president to determine a political question beyond the
ambit of judicial inquiry unless there is allegation of abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in
excess of jurisdiction
§ WON the president can declare a state of rebellion?
• Certainly because he can call out the AFP
§ How would he justify his calling out of the AFP to assist him if the reason is rebellion?
• He has to declare a state of rebellion
3. Power to declare MARTIAL LAW or SUSPEND THE PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (PWHC)
§ 2 Grounds to the declaration of martial law or suspension of the privilege of the writ of Habeas
corpus :
a) Actual Rebellion
b) Actual invasion
§ 2 Requisites:
a) Actual Rebellion or invasion, and
b) When public safety requires
§ Even if there is rebellion or invasion, however public safety does not require, then there is no
factual basis to declare martial law or suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus
§ Actual rebellion or actual invasion, not imminent danger
§ Within 48 hours either declaration of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the WHC,
the president shall report to congress and congress shall immediately convene and has the
option to either revoke or if it has already expired after 60 days, extend it
§ Take note of the voting:
92
3
All that is needed is MAJORITY only; one of the instances, joint voting, joint session; second one,
suspension of the privilege of WHC
§ Subject to judicial review

a) The SC is only to determine whether there is error of law, review only on the application
of laws; merely on legal issue whether there has been grave abuse of discretion, but this
time SC can go on the factual basis of the declaration of martial law or the suspension of
the privilege of the WHC
§ Limitations:
o Subject to revocation by congress by majority votes in a joint session
o Subject to judicial review
o Limited only for a certain period of time
§ Unless it is extended or revoke earlier, it would expire by operation of
law 60 days thereafter
o Even with the suspension of the PWHC, bail is still available for as long as the
offense charged is bailable
o You cannot be detained more than 72hrs without being charged judicially.
o Suspension of the PWHC has only the effect of extending the period of
allowable detention under ART. 125 from 36 to 72 hrs on offenses related to
either on the declaration of martial law or suspension of the PWHC.
o Under ART. 125 one cannot be detained for more than: if it is a grave offense 36
hrs, less grave 18 hrs, if slight 12 hrs, the police detention officer can be held
criminally liable for arbitrary detention.
o But for suspension of the PWHC it can be extended up to 72 hrs of detention
without intervention by the courts, but the offense must be related to the
reasons to the declaration of martial law or the suspension of the PWHC
§ When is it lifted?
a) When the president lift it even before the expiration of the 60 day period
b) When revoked by congress by majority votes
c) When declared unconstitutional by the SC
d) When the 60 day period expires
SANLAKAS VS. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, 421 SCRA 656, FEBRUARY 3, 2004
SC: The President’s authority to declare a state of rebellion springs in the main from her powers as chief executive and,
at the same time draws strength from her Commander-in-Chief powers pursuant to her calling out power.

GUDANI VS. SENGA, AUGSUT 15, 2006
The president being the commander-in-chief of the AFP can prohibit members of the AFP to appear before a legislative
inquiry, not on the basis of the executive privilege but his being the commander-in-chief of the AFP where subordinates
must obey commands of superiors under the chief of command.
SC: It is on the President that the Constitution vests the title as commander-in-chief and all the prerogatives and
functions appertaining to the position. Again, the exigencies of military discipline and the chain of command mandate
that the President’s ability to control the individual members of the armed forces be accorded the utmost respect.
Where a military officer is torn between obeying the President and obeying the Senate, the Supreme Court will without
hesitation affirm that the officer has to choose the President. After all, the Constitution prescribes that it is the
President, and not the Senate, who is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. if the President or the Chief of Staff
93
9
4
refuses to allow a member of the AFP to appear before Congress, the legislative body seeking such testimony may seek
judicial relief to compel the attendance.
EMERGENCY POWER OF THE PRESIDENT
- Go over Sec. 23 Art. VI and read with the case of:

DAVID ET AL v ERMITA:
Regarding the declaration of a state of national emergency and being the authority to review decisions of the military
tribunal.

SC: It may be pointed out that the second paragraph of the above provision refers not only to war but also to other
national emergency. If the intention of the Framers of our Constitution was to withhold from the President the
authority to declare a state of national emergency pursuant to Section 18, Article VII (calling-out power) and grant it to
Congress (like the declaration of the existence of a state of war), then the Framers could have provided so. Clearly, they
did not intend that Congress should first authorize the President before he can declare a state of national emergency.
The logical conclusion then is that President Arroyo could validly declare the existence of a state of national emergency
even in the absence of a Congressional enactment. But the exercise of emergency powers, such as the taking over of
privately owned public utility or business affected with public interest, is different matter. This requires a delegation
from Congress.

ð What is important here is that the power can be vested in the president subject to the limitations provided
under Sec. 23 and that the president can declare a state of national emergency, however cannot exercise
emergency power without the express delegation of congress
PARDONING POWER:
- Cannot be delegated
Powers of the President under Executive Clemency
1. Pardon
2. Amnesty
3. Commutation, reprieve, and remission of fines and forfeitures

PARDON
ð Granted to persons who are charged with ordinary offenses

ð Has only the effect of relieving him of further punishment
ð Will not obliterate criminal liability
ð Does not automatically reinstate in administrative cases
ð Granted either in criminal and administrative cases

Will pardon granted by the president still relevant if the person granted the pardon has already fully served his
sentence?
ð Yes because the moment the president grants pardon specially when it’s absolute, it also includes the accessory
penalties such as: disqualification to run for public office or civil interdiction with regards to parental authority
and administrator over the conjugal property
ð The moment it is granted, he is restored to his political and civil rights

94
5
Pardon can only be granted if the judgment of conviction is final because if there is still a pending appeal, the president
cannot grant pardon. Pardon granted is immediately executory.

DRILON CASE:
SC: The pardoning power of the President is final and unappealable.

Pardoning power is a political discretionary power that cannot be reviewed even by the SC.
Pardon cannot be granted to those who had been removed from office by impeachment.
- If Estrada was removed by impeachment and it includes the attached accessories, he could not run again
for president even if he was granted pardon.
Exceptions:
ð Pardon cannot be extended to those who had been removed from office through impeachment
ð Cannot be granted to those in the judiciary because of the exclusive supervision of the SC over court personnel
ð Cannot be granted to those convicted for election offenses, unless there is a favourable recommendation from
the COMELEC

AMNESTY
ð Only applicable to those who had been charged with political offenses
ð This can be granted to INDIVIDUALS for as long as they belong to a class
o Usually granted to a group of individuals who are charged with offenses that are political in nature
ð Can be extended even before he is charged judicially
o Even if the case is pending or he has not been convicted yet
o TRILLIANES ET AL :
They were granted amnesty and not pardon.
ð As if you have never committed a crime
o Absolute obliteration of criminal liability
Is this applicable to military men who have rebelled against the government?
ð KAPUNAN, JR. VS. CA, 51 SCRA 42, MARCH 13, 2009.
F: kapunan and honasan were having these coup de etats during the time of Pres. Cory and thereafter the
change of administration.
SC: The text of Proclamation No. 347 then issued by President Fidel V. Ramos covered the members of the AFP-
it extends to all persons who committed the particular acts described in the provision, and not just rebels or
insurgents.

TAKE NOTE: Amnesty is effective only upon concurrence by the majority of the members of congress. Without the
concurrence, it is useless. It is unlike pardon where concurrence of congress is not needed.

COMMUTATION, REDUCTION OF PENALTY 1 DEGREE LOWER, REPRIEVE, POSTPONEMENT OF THE EXECUTION OF THE
PENALTY, CANCELLATION OF FINES AND FORFEITURES BY RESTORING THE PERSON TO HIS CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS.

95
9
6
TREATY MAKING POWER:

Process of treaty making:
ð Negotiation done not by the president but by his representative like the charges d affaires
ð Initial signature or signing of the negotiation made
ð Submission to the president to the DFA
ð DFA supposedly must submit draft to the senate for review so that the senate can act on it whether to concur or
withhold concurrence
Important:
- If the president does not submit the treaty to the senate, he cannot be compelled to submit it

PIMENTEL v. ERMITA
SC: the ratification of a treaty is a sole discretionary power of the president. Even if the senate concurs to a
treaty but the president decides not to sign and ratify it, they cannot chose otherwise. They cannot compel her
because that is a sole discretion of the president.

- But if the president will sign, however without the concurrence of the senate will it bind the republic?
o to transform a treaty into a local law to bind the republic, that would require 2/3 votes of the senate

Two ways to adopt general principles of international law and treaties into the legal system to bind the republic:
1. incorporation
§ automatic adoption by a constitutional declaration or statute
2. transformation
§ when it is concurred by the legislative body and transformed into a repository of laws and binds
the republic
To bind us into a treaty entered into by the president it has to be concurred by 2/3. But whether or not the senate
concurs ultimately the matter of ratification is a full discretionary power of the president. (ROME STATUTE)TAKE NOTE
Treaty negotiation is historically is confidential except privilege, therefore the president cannot be compelled to disclose
what is being negotiated for as long as still under negotiation. (AKBAYAN v. AQUINO)
AKBAYAN VS. AQUINO
SC: The doctrine in PMPF v. Manglapus that the treaty-making power is exclusive to the President, being the sole organ
of the nation in its external relations, was echoed in BAYAN v. Executive Secretary where the Court held:
By constitutional fiat and by the intrinsic nature of his office, the President, as head of State, is the sole
organ and authority in the external affairs of the country. In many ways, the President is the chief
architect of the nation's foreign policy; his "dominance in the field of foreign relations is (then)
conceded." Wielding vast powers and influence, his conduct in the external affairs of the nation, as
Jefferson describes, is “executive altogether.”
As regards the power to enter into treaties or international agreements, the Constitution vests the same in the
President, subject only to the concurrence of at least two thirds vote of all the members of the Senate. In this light,
the negotiation of the VFA and the subsequent ratification of the agreement are exclusive acts which pertain solely to
the President, in the lawful exercise of his vast executive and diplomatic powers granted him no less than by the
fundamental law itself. Into the field of negotiation the Senate cannot intrude, and Congress itself is powerless to
invade it. x x x (Italics in the original; emphasis and underscoring supplied)
ROME STATUTE:
ð the statute Rome which was the law that created the International Court of Justice has not become a customary
law
96
7
ð as such under incorporation clause we are bound by it
ð remember the generally accepted principles of Intl Law are legally adopted as part of the legal system
notwithstanding that we did not ratify it
PIMENTEL, JR. VS. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, JULY 6, 2005

SC: Under our Constitution, the power to ratify is vested in the President, subject to the concurrence of the Senate.
The role of the Senate, however, is limited only to giving or withholding its consent, or concurrence, to the ratification.
Hence, it is within the authority of the President to refuse to submit a treaty to the Senate or, having secured its consent
for its ratification, refuse to ratify it. Although the refusal of a state to ratify a treaty which has been signed in its behalf
is a serious step that should not be taken lightly, such decision is within the competence of the President alone, which
cannot be encroached by this Court via a writ of mandamus. The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over actions seeking
to enjoin the President in the performance of his official duties. The Court, therefore, cannot issue the writ of
mandamus prayed for by the petitioners as it is beyond its jurisdiction to compel the executive branch of the
government to transmit the signed text of Rome Statute to the Senate.

Does the president have the power to classify and sell lands of public domain?
ð The power to classify lands as alienable belongs to the president
ð The matter of selling or disposing requires the approval of congress
ð There must be a law authorizing the sale or alienation by the president or by another officer before conveyance
can be executed in behalf of the government
ð The president may not convey valuable real property of the government on her sole will
ð Conveyances being authorized by law enacted by congress
SRP:
This was the ground for their objection to the government selling the properties. They are saying that it should be with
the consent of congress. That it would require a law authorizing the mayor to sell the same.
This does not apply to SRP because those lands are reclaimed and being owned by the LGU in their proprietary capacity.
In fact a special patent has been issued already to the LGU. It is owned not in its sovereign capacity that makes it a land
of public domain but rather private lands. What was invoked here was the case of Laurel vs Garcia – land in Japan sold
by the president w/o concurrence of congress.

SUPERVISION OVER LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
ð Merely supervision and not control
ð Control
o President can change the decision of a subordinate like the local chief executives and even laws passed
by the local councils
ð This is not the case, president has only supervision over them
ð President only oversee these local officials to make sure that they act in accordance with law
ð To ensure that the local affairs are administered according to law insofar as existing legislation authorizes the
president through the secretary of local government to proceed against local officials administratively

Which one requires concurrence from senate? Treaty or executive agreement?
ð Treaty
ð Remember VFA is an executive agreement. That does not need the concurrence of senate. But it was concurred
by senate.
ð Any change to the provisions of VFA because it was concurred by senate must likewise be concurred by senate
97
8
ð The case of Smith who was accused of rape they changed the provision in the VFA regarding custody of convicts
or prisoners belonging to the US military forces. They changed it to put the custody in the US embassy. It was
questioned as to its constitutionality.
SC sustained the one who questioned on that issue saying that while VFA not a treaty and therefore would not
require any concurrence by the senate but it was then concurred by the senate and treated it like an
international agreement so there are any changes follow the same process as you negotiate an international
agreement.
TAKE NOTE:
What kind of agreement that requires the concurrence of senate?
ð Treaty and international agreement
Executive agreement does not need because executive agreement only provide for details which are temporary in
nature (transitory) of an existing International agreement.
VFA was only providing for details of a previous agreement that we had entered into with the US such as the US-RP
Mutual Defense Treaty.

ARTICLE VIII
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Section 1(very important)
Difference between this one and the 1973 Constitution
ð Used to only having the power to settle disputes, applying laws because this involves settling disputes involving
rights that are enforceable under existing laws
ð That was the only job of the court, to settle disputes
ð Take note that the power of the courts has been expanded to include the power to review
ð It was nothing to do with question of violation of law, or the constitution or the review on the abuse of
discretion of a public official exercising its full discretionary power
ð Known as the expanded jurisdiction of the courts to review as part of its power of judicial review
ð It is the sole power of the senate to determine WON the chief justice was guilty of the offense charged, so it
cannot be reviewed by the SC. The moment there is grave abuse of discretion (ex: CJ is impeached because he
doesn’t like the color of his eyes) then it can be reviewed by the SC

JUDICIAL REVIEW
ð Not just a power exercised by the SC, it is also exercised by the lower courts
ð Only that the lower courts are warned by the SC to exercise such power with utmost prudence and caution
because after all there declaration of unconstitutionality of a law or treaty is not yet final

Exercise of the lower courts of the power of judicial review: (TAKE NOTE OF THESE PROVISIONS)
ð Sec. 1: judicial power is vested in the SC and such other courts that are established by law which includes the
power of judicial review.
o Then there is no doubt that lower courts may declare a law unconstitutional
ð Sec. 5: the decisions on unconstitutionality of a law, treaty, presidential proclamations, etc are subject to review
by the SC
o What will the SC review if the lower courts cannot declare a law unconstitutional?

REQUISITES OF THE EXERCISE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW:
98
9
1. Actual case or controversy
2. Raised by the proper party
3. Earliest opportunity of time
4. Issue of constitutionality must be the lis mota of the case

REASONS FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW:
1. Checking the validity of the acts of the government
o Checking the exercise of powers by the other branches of government based on separation of powers
and no violation of the non delegation of powers
2. Legitimating valid laws and acts of the government
o Inasmuch as laws are presumed to be valid and if declared to be not unconstitutional by the courts
3. To comply with symbolic function to educate the bench, the bar and the public as to precepts, principles and
guidelines as to what the law is
o If the same is repeated in the future, the people will be guided accordingly in the understanding of the
provision of the law

SAFEGUARDS OF THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE SUPREME COURT:
ð Fiscal Autonomy
o The congress cannot interfere with its budget. Even the president can’t. It’s congress that appropriate
funds
o Congress cannot reduce the budget even a single centavo, otherwise it is considered as interference into
the independence of the SC/judiciary
o Automatically the budget of the year before that will be adopted
o The entire judiciary should enjoy fiscal autonomy especially on the annual appropriation of the judiciary.
o Cannot reduce below the amount appropriated for the previous year
o Once approve, appropriation shall automatically and regularly released

ð Justice of the SC appointment is permanent
o No acting appointees
§ Cannot just appoint a clerk of court to act as a justice for the mean time
§ The 90 day period is mandatory, that vacancy should be filled up within 90 days
§ There cannot be an acting or a hold-over capacity, the moment you reached 70, goodbye bunot!
§ No hold-over, no extension
§ If it is lacking in quorum, you cannot have some to act or to hold on to the office until a quorum
so that they can deliberate on an important case
§ So, there has to be permanent appointment and should be filled up within 90 days from vacancy

ð Removable only through impeachment
o For as long as they are in good behaviour and they are sane and not senile they can stay as justice or
judge of the lower court until the age of 70

ð Promulgating their own rules and regulation governing pleadings and procedures in court
o Sec. 5, Art. 8: Powers of the SC to promulgate rules and regulations relating to the enforcement of
fundamental rights of individuals, on the matter of pleadings, governing procedure, practice of law and
admission to the bar

ð Not allowed to exercise administrative functions
o Cannot appoint an incumbent justice of the SC or judge of a lower court to be a consultant to the
president on legal matters
o This is to maintain the independence of the judiciary
99
0
o If a justice accepts the position he should resign as a justice of the SC 0

ROLE OF CONGRESS RELATING TO THE JUDICIARY
ð It is congress that creates the courts
ð The matter of assignment of functions (EX: designating a particular court as a commercial court) that is a
discretion of the SC as part of its power of supervision over courts and its personnel
ABOLITION OF A COURT
ð No. Only congress can abolish
ð Requirements on the abolition:
o Has to be in good faith
o Would not undermine the security of tenure as well as the independence of the judiciary

COMPOSITION:
ð Consist of 15 justices including the Chief Justice of the SC
ð How is a CJ chosen?
o Tradition: one appointed to the CJ is the most senior
§ Seniority is not based on age
§ Based on the date of appointment
§ In the appointment paper of the justices of the SC, even if they are appointed on the same day,
there are hours, minutes, seconds stated on the appointment because this would determine
seniority
§ This would also maintain the competence, integrity, independence of the SC
§ You go by tradition in which case regardless of who the president is, he would have no hand in
the appointment
o Go back to theory: the matter of appointment is a full discretionary power of the president
§ The matter of recommending the most senior to be the next CJ is just a practice never been a
law
§ So ultimately it is the president who will decide who will be the next CJ
§ It could be someone from inside the SC or an outsider, it is the discretion of the president
MANNER OF DECIDING CASES:
ð Lower court: only one judge so no problem
ð Appellate court: the problem is there are several justices
o In the CA:
§ 69 justices
§ Divided into divisions by 3s
o In the SC:
§ only 15 justices
§ decide cases either:
• en banc
o that means as a whole
o for MCQ purposes
§ know what cases that should be decided by the SC en banc
§ or when does SC decide cases in division and how many per divisions
• in division
§ ordinarily SC decide cases by division
§ except for certain cases that the SC has enumerated that has to be decided by the SC en banc
• example:
o cases involving constitutionality of a law or treaty
100
0
o treaties, international executive agreement, law or cases required to heard en 1
banc under the rules of court such as cases involving when you modify or
overturn a decision rendered by the SC either sitting en banc or in division
o Appeals from the sandiganbayan, sandiganbayan has both original and appellate
jurisdiction. On original decision involving high ranking officials, judgment of
conviction are not appealable to the CA because they are of the same rank.
Appealable directly to the SC. SC act as an appellate court and it will be en banc.
o Or on certiorari, or on pure questions of law especially when it is in the exercise
of the appellate jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan involving a low ranking official
from RTC the appeal is not to the CA but to the SAndiganbayan, and if the
decision of conviction of the lower court is affirmed in the Sandiganbayan, it
goes to the SC not on ordinary appeal but on petition for review or on certiorari
as the case may be. And which case either way has to be decided by the SC
sitting en banc.
o Decisions of the COMELEC, CSC, COA
§ There is no doubt that decisions en banc of the COMELEC are directly
appealable to the SC
§ Referring to cases originally filed in the COMELEC and thereafter
appealed to the SC, not on the appellate jurisdiction of the COMELEC
because the decision of the COMELEC is final and executor. Only when
there is allegation of abuse of discretion that it goes to the SC on
certiorari, decided en banc.
§ Same on COA
o Cases involving approval of disbursement of funds or allowances
§ Suspension of payments of disbursements, they are decided by the COA
whose decisions are on appealable within 60 days on certiorari directly
to the SC sitting en banc
o CSC can’t go directly to the SC, it must pass through the CA and from the CA it
goes to the SC to be decided en banc

//diane//

THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT
• President is the Chief Executive and Administrator of all the laws of the land
• He is the head of all the departments of the government
• It is his power to ensure that all laws be faithfully executed
• RESIDUAL POWER OF THE PRESIDENT
o Even if his powers are not expressly provided in the consti and not exercised by Congress and the courts
they are exercised by the President because they are necessary to carry out the laws of the land.
o WON has the power to declare war/national emergency or rebellion?
§ All these are based on his being Chief Executive and administrator of all the laws of the land and
Commander in Chief of the Armed forces.
• IMMUNITY OF THE PRESIDENT FROM SUIT
o Not provided for by the consti
o Provided by jurisprudence
o This cannot be delegated to his alter-egos, heads of other departments. This cannot be invoked by
anyone else.
o CASE: Soliven vs Macasiar
101
0
§ President’s immunity from suit cannot be used by the defendant or the person sued by the 2
president in order to have the case dismissed.
§ Only enjoyed by the president during his encumbency.
• Even if his term has not expired yet but he is no longer the president because he was
removed in any way, he cannot invoke the immunity from suit.
• CASE: ESTRADA VS DESIERTO
o Immunity of the president from his suit is concurrent only during his TENURE.
Not his TERM the time during which may claim to hold office as a matter of
right.
• CASE: ROMUALDES VS SB
• PRACTICAL APPLICATION: DAVID ET AL VS ARROYO
o The SC dismissed the case with respect to GMA, and retained only for the
executive secretary -à this is because of the immunity of the president from
suit.
o It is not proper to implead PGMA as respondent. The president during his
encumbency cannot be sued in any civil or criminal case. There is no need to
provide that in the consti and law.
• ELECTION OF A PRESIDENT
o HOW?
§ Direct vote for a definite term of office.
§ QUALIFICATIONS:
• Able to read and write
• Registered voter
• Natural-born citizen (presumed that he is a citizen before he assumes office)
• 40 years on the day of election
• 10 years at least on the date of election.
§ ELECTION PROTEST: ELECTION, RETURNS, QUALIFICATIONS
• No pre-proclamation contest allowed.
• Any protest allowed is to be under the jurisdiction under the Presidential Electoral
Tribunal: SC en banc
• FERNANDO POE JR CASE:
o Proper party in electoral contest involving Pres or VP
§ TERM OF OFFICE
• 6 years with no re-election.
• SO GO BY THE LITERAL MEANING OF THE PROVISION OF THE LAW because there is no
jurisprudence on the matter yet.
• SUCCESSION
o At the beginning of the term/before assumption of office:
§ PERMANENT CAUSE: death, resignation, permanent incapacity, impeachment = VP becomes
president.
• RESIGNATION
o IN THE CASE OF ESTRADA VS DESIERTO
§ There is no formality needed in resignation. For as long as there is
intention to relinquish the powers. his intention must correspond to his
acts. “The Angara Diary”
102
0
• “TEMPORARY DISABILITY” 3
o 2 ways:
§ President declares himself to be under such =
automatic VP act as president
§ It is majority of the cabinet who reports to
Congress that P is under such = VP acts
president. If the P disbutes that, then he
reassumes of the P.
§ The moment the 2nd time majority of the
cabinet insists that the P is under temporary
disability, then Congress has to decide. : 2/3
vote in a joint session voting separately.
§ the matter of declaration is a discretionary
power of Congress which cannot be intervened
of by the SC.
§ PERMANENT INCAPACITY
§ TEMPORARY CAUSE: not qualified, not assumed office yet, in case of tie = THE VP SHALL ACT AS
PRESIDENT until the cause of the vacancy becomes president then the VP BECOMES the new
president.
• If VP is DQed to succeed the P, Congress must meet to pass a law to call for a special
election.
o WHAT IF THE VP IS THE ONE WHOSE OFFICE IS VACANT? What is the manner of succession?
§ He will be nominated by the President from Congress, voted by Congress by majority vote
separately.
o If both are vacant
§ Special election needed.
o If the vacancy occurs within 18 months, pwede pa. If not then just wait for the regular election.
§ PORMENTO VS ESTRADA AUG.31, 2010
• Estrada was not elected president the 2nd time he ran, there is no case or controversy to
be resolved of this case.
• DISQUALIFICATIONS:
o He cannot wife/spouse/relative up to 4th degree either by consanguinity or affinity.
o Take note of the offices listed!
o The wife/husband is already in office by the time the spouse becomes president, this prohibition will not
apply.
o The spouse of president can be Chief Justice, Ambassador, Consul. There is no prohibition.
• APPOINTMENT POWER OF THE PRESIDENT (SEC. 14-16)
o Remember the appointments that need the confirmation of the CA.
o GR: appointment power is executive in nature.
o Temporary appointments – no need to submit the names to CoA.
o If the appointment is president – requires the confirmation of the CA.
o Just remember that the provision on the constitution on the enumeration here is EXCLUSIVE.
o CASE: PIMENTEL VS ERMITA
103
0
• AD INTERM APPOINTMENTS 4
• MIDNIGHT APPOINTMENT
o Prohibition from appointment within 60 days from ANY election.
o Does this apply to the judiciary?
§ the midnight appointment prohibition applies to the judiciary except to the Justices of the SC
because if that was the intention of the framers they could have specifically stated so.
§ 90 DAYS FROM THE OCCURRENCE OF VACANCY must be filled up in the SC!
• Take note of the exceptions: Where the president can make an appointment:
o Positions in the executive department that if not filled up will affect public safety or public service.
• CHIEF EXECUTIVES OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT DO NOT HAVE THE 60 DAY MIDNIGHT PROHIBITION.
• CONTROL AND SUPERVISION OVER ALL THE HEADS OF THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT

o POWER OF CONTROL
o Includes the power to reorganize the government for simplicity, efficiency and economy.
o How to reorganize the executive department?
§ Includes creating offices
§ Abolishing offices.
§ Inactivate offices
o Can the President create the truth commission?
§ Creation of offices is essentially a legislative function but the president has the power to create
an office to ensure that laws of the land are administered and effective.
§ However the creation was declared unconstitutional because it violated the equal protection
clause.
§ BIRAOGO VS PHIL TRUTH COMMISSION
o EIIB CASE
o MALARIA EMPLOYEES VS ROMULO
• POWER OF CONTROL OF THE PRESIDENT
o Delegable to the different secretaries of the different departments under the PRINCIPLE OF QUALIFIED
POLITICAL AGENCY.
o NOT ALL POWERS OF THE PRESIDENT CAN BE DELEGATED TO ALTER EGOS:
§ Immunity from suit
§ Contracting and guaranteeing foreign laws
§ Pardoning power
§ Declaration of martial law
§ Suspension of the privilege of the writ of HB
§ Declaration of martial law
§ Veto power
§ Constantino vs. Cuisia,
• Contracting foreign loans
o Can be delegated by the president
• POWER AS COMMANDER IN CHIEF OF ARMED FORCES
104
0
o Take note: powers of the president as commander in chief: 5
§ Calling out power: call the armed forces to assist him in the performance of his duties
WHENEVER THERE IS REBELLION, INVASION, LAWLESSNESS.
• This is not subject to judicial review: determination of whether there is rebellion,
invasion or lawlessness unless there is grave abuse of discretion.
§ PRESIDENT CAN declare a STATE OF REBELLION.
o DECLARATION OF MARTIAL LAW
§ 2 grounds:
• Rebellion or invasion :must be actual
• When public safety requires it.
§ Report to Congress within 48 hours and Congress will convene and it has the option to revoke,
and if expired, can extend it.
• VOTING REQUIREMENT: MAJORITY. JOINT VOTING IN A JOINT SESSION.
o Another instance of joint voting in joint session: SUSPENSION of the privilege of
the writ of HB
o LIMITATIONS:
§ SUBJECT to revocation by majority of Congress in a joint session
§ Expires by operation of law 60 days thereafter.
§ Bail is still available for as long as the offense charged is bailable.
§ You cannot be detained more than 72 hours without being charged judicially.
§ Suspension of the privilege of the writ of HB only extends the period of detention to 72 hours
without intervention by the courts but the offenses must be related for the declaration of
martial law or suspension of the privilege of the writ of HB.
o WHEN LIFTED:
§ When P lifts it
§ Revoked by Congress by majority votes
§ When 60 day period by provision of law
§ -
• CASE: SANLAKAS VS EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
• CASE: GUDANI VS SENGA
o PRESIDENT being the commander in chief, can prohibit the members of the AFP to appear before a
legislative inquiry.
• DAVID ET AL VS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
OTHER POWERS OF THE PRESIDENT
• Read this side by side with the case of David et al vs Executive Secretary
PARDONING POWER
• Pardon: ordinary offences. Effect of relief from ordinary offences.

o What if the person already fully served his sentence?
§ Pardon includes civil penalties. He is restored to his political and civil rights.
§
105
0
Can only be granted if the judgment of conviction is final. 6
o Cannot be granted to those removed through impeachment.

o Cannot be granted to those in the judiciary because of the exclusive jurisdiction of the president over
those in the judiciary.

• Amnesty
o Applicable to those charged with political offenses.
o Can be granted to individuals who belong to a class
o Can be given even before he is judicially charged. While the case is pending. (Like Trillanes)
o Absolute
o It’s as if you do not have committed a crime at all.
o CAPUNAN JR VS CA: MARCH 13, 2009
o Effective upon concurrence of majority of the members of Congress. MCQ take note!

• Reprieve
• Forfeiture of fines and forfeitures
TREATY MAKING POWER OF THE PRESIDENT
• PIMENTEL VS ERMITA:
o Ratification treaty is the sole discretion of the P.
o Cannot be forced by Congress.
• If P will sign it without the concurrence of Congress, will it bind the PH?
o No. It must have 2/3 vote of the senate. Transformation.
• Executive privilege. President cannot be compelled to disclose what is being negotiated.
o AKBAYAN VS AQUINO
§ Treaty making power is the exclusive power to the president.
• Any treaty not transformed by Congress will not bind PH.
o But in PIL, the principle of pacta sunct servanda, PH will still be obliged under this principle.
• ROME STATUTE
o Not ratified by President but this has become a general principle of PIL, so it is binding to us.
POWER TO CLASSIFY LANDS OF THE PUBLIC LANDS
• Power to classify lands as alienable belongs to the President
KINDS OF AGREEMENTS THAT NEED THAT NEED CONCURRENCE OF SENATE:
• Treaty
• Executive agreement
• President can lend money to IMF
JUDICIARY
106
0
• You must take note of the executive and judiciary because this is the most controversial now!!! 7
• Master all the provisions relating to all these branches of government now!!
• Take note of Sec.1:

o The power of the court has been expanded to include violations of law.
o EXPANDED JURISDICTION OF THE COURT TO REVIEW AS PART OF ITS POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW.
§ Sole power of the senate to impeach the CJ is the sole prerogative of the Legislative. But the
moment grave abuse of discretion is alleged, then that can be raised to the SC.
§ Basis of the exercise of the lower courts of the power of judicial review: Sec.1
o REQUISITES OF THE POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW
§ Purposes:
• Checking the validity of the acts of government.
• The SC has simply legitimated what has been passed by law
• Educate the bench and bar
• SAFEGUARDS OF THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE SUPREME COURT
1. Fiscal autonomy
§ Congress cannot interfere with its budget. OW, it is an interference into the independence of
the SC and judiciary.
§ The entire supposedly should enjoy Fiscal autonomy cannot be reduced
2. Appointment of Justice of SC is permanent.
§ Thus the mandatory 90 period there must be appointment.
§ The moment you reach 70 goodbye. There is no hold-over.
3. Justices of SC are removable only through impeachment.
§ As long as they are in good behaviour they can stay until 70.
4. Promulgating their own rules and regulations governing pleadings and procedures in court.
§ Art. VIII
5. Not allowed to exercise admin functions.
§ You cannot appoint an incumbent justice of SC or lower court to be consultant of the P. If he is
appointed, he should resign as justice.
6. Congress creates the courts. But the designation of court (ex. Family/envi) is on the SC.
7. Only Congress can abolish courts in good faith and must not undermine the security of tenure and the
independence of the judiciary. //neil//
June 29, 2012
50:50
1. COMPOSITION OF JUDICIARY

- 15 justices including CJ
- Jbc screens nominees and President to chose among the nominees
107
0
Section 4. 8
1. The Supreme Court shall be composed of a Chief Justice and fourteen Associate Justices. It may
sit en banc or in its discretion, in division of three, five, or seven Members. Any vacancy shall be filled
within ninety days from the occurrence thereof.
2. 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.
3. 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 three 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.
2. SC may decide en banc or division
EN BANC IN DIVISION
- All 15 must be present

2. 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.
3. Cases or matters heard by a division shall

be decided or resolved with the
108
0
concurrence of a majority of the Members 9
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 three 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.

- Shall in no case be decided by less than 3
votes so it shall be submitted en banc

4. When SC reverses a doctrine or principle
of law laid down by SC sitting en banc or
by division; when there is already an
established jurisprudence either on the
basis of a decision rendered by SC en banc
or by a division if there is any modification
or reversal of that doctrine should be
decide by SC sitting en banc: should it be
reversed or modified

Ex: a decision already reached by division
and MR is files to reversed it, should be
decided by SC en banc
5. Administrative cases involving disciple or

dismissal of judges of lower court when
the penalty is more than 10k as a fine and
a suspension more than a year to dismissal
from service
6. Election protest involving president and VP
because it is also the electoral tribunal
- You have 7 or 8; 5 and 3

- Division of 8, you should have a vote of
Q: HOW DO THEY VOTE OR REACH A DECISION:
(8/2 plus 1) 5 in order to reach a decision
in
- If you have 7, you need 4 ????
109
1
A: sitting en banc: a vote of majority of those who - If you have 6, you need 4 0
actually participated in the deliberation; there has - If you have 5, you need 3
to be a quorum; 15/2 plus 1 = 7 plus 1= 8 - If there are 4, 3
- 3, you still need 3 so you have to get

unanimous OW you go to en banc
- When you say majority of at least 8 - If there is only 4 present there is no
justices then it will be a vote of at least 5 quorum; but in no case to be less than 3;
en banc; if there are 3 justices there is no quorum
- If you have 15 justices, you must have 8 - Failure to get the requisite votes, it has to
votes be decide by SC en banc
- If you have 14 justices, you must have 8
votes
votes
votes
votes
votes
votes
votes
-no more 7, OW there will be no quorum
4. JURISDICTION
Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:
1. Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and
consuls, and over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus.
2. Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court
may provide, final judgments and orders of lower courts in:
a. All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or executive
agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in
question.
b. All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or toll, or any penalty imposed in
relation thereto.
110
1
c. All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue. 1
d. All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher.
e. All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved.
3. Assign temporarily judges of lower courts to other stations as public interest may require. Such
temporary assignment shall not exceed six months without the consent of the judge concerned.
4. Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice.
5. Promulgate 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 under-privileged. 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.
6. Appoint all officials and employees of the Judiciary in accordance with the Civil Service Law.
ORIGINAL APPELLATE
- SC acting as trial court; SC hears the case - SC reviews the decision of lower courts
both on question of facts and law
1. 1. Exercise original jurisdiction over cases 2. Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm
affecting ambassadors, other public ministers on appeal or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of
and consuls, Court may provide, final judgments and orders of
2. lower courts in:
3. 2. and over petitions for certiorari, prohibition,
a. All cases in which the constitutionality or
mandamus, quo warranto,
4. validity of any treaty, international or executive
agreement, law, presidential decree,
3. and habeas corpus; now Writ of amparo also proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or
regulation is in question.

- refers to foreign ambassadors who are staying in
the Philippines within the original jurisdiction of - asked in the Bar in relation to power of judicial
SC; review of lower courts; one of the reason you can
conclude that lower courts have the power to

declare law unconstitutional for what would SC
- Concurrent with RTC and CA review if lower courts have no power of judicial
review
b. All cases involving the legality of any tax,
111
1
impost, assessment, or toll, or any penalty 2
imposed in relation thereto.
c. All cases in which the jurisdiction of any

lower court is in issue.
d. All criminal cases in which the penalty

imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher.
- Note: in so far was where the penalty is

reclusion temporal you appeal from RTC to
CA then to SC
- If it involves a public official in RTC
regardless of penalty appeal to
Sandiganbayan (murag CA) from SB then
to SC for petition for review

- manner of appeal is Notice of Appeal
- with regards Reclusion perpetua in RTC, you file

a notice of appeal with RTC and case is elevated to
CA because this is not covered by automatic
appeal
- Justified by SC as this not precluding intermediate

review by an intermediate court such as CA
because when it goes to SC the latter only look
into in whether there is grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction or
wrong application of law by trial court unlike when
it is reviewed by CA which can review the case on
the question of fact or law
- appellant is never deprive of going to SC
- if death there is no need for clerk of court to wait

for a notice of appeal filed by accused,
112
1
automatically it will be forwarded to SC for review 3
Case:
- PP VS. TUBONGBANUA, GR No.

171271- August 31, 2006- In
view of the enactment of
Republic Act No. 9346 or the Act
Prohibiting the Imposition of
Death Penalty on June 24, 2006,
the penalty that should be
meted is reclusion perpetua,
thus:
- SECTION 1. The imposition of

the penalty of death is hereby
prohibited. Accordingly,
Republic Act No. Eight
Thousand One Hundred
Seventy-Seven (R.A. No. 8177),
otherwise known as the Act
Designating Death by Lethal
Injection is hereby repealed.
Republic Act No. Seven
Thousand Six Hundred Fifty-
Nine (R.A. No. 7659), otherwise
known as the Death Penalty
Law and all other laws,
executive orders and decrees
insofar as they impose the
death penalty are hereby
repealed or amended
accordingly.
- SEC. 2. In lieu of the death

penalty, the following shall be
imposed:
(a) the penalty of
113
1
reclusion perpetua, when the law 4
violated makes use of the
nomenclature of the penalties of
the Revised Penal Code; or
(b) the penalty of life

imprisonment, when the law
violated does not make use of the
nomenclature of the penalties of
the Revised Penal Code.
e. All cases in which only an error or question

of law is involved.
3. Assign temporarily judges of lower courts

to other stations as public interest may require.
Such temporary assignment shall not exceed six
months without the consent of the judge
concerned.
4. Order a change of venue or place of trial to

avoid a miscarriage of justice.
- you have to ask for consent from SC and
Case:
- PP vs. Sola, 103 SCRA 393

(1981)- In case of doubt, it
should be resolved in favor of
change of venue.
5. Promulgate rules concerning the

protection and enforcement of constitutional
rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all
114
1
courts, the admission to the practice of law, the 5
integrated bar, and legal assistance to the under-
privileged.
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.
6. Appoint all officials and employees of the

Judiciary in accordance with the Civil Service Law.
• It is congress who confers jurisdiction to the courts
Q: Can congress remove or deprive SC of original jurisdiction as created by constitution?
A: No. that is part of the guaranties of independence of SC.
Q: Can congress increase the original jurisdiction of SC?
A: Yes.
- Congress cannot remove or reduce original jurisdiction but it can be increased with or without the consent
of SC.

5. WRITS ISSUED BY SC FOR THE PROTECTION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
I .Writ of amparo- nature: to guarantee the implementation of Bill of rights; right to life, liberty and security, property is
not included
- This does not only protect persons whose rights have been actually violated because this is also extended to
anyone whose right may have been threatened of violation
- Take note of the injunctive reliefs
- PROMULGATE RULES concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional

rights, pleading, practice and procedure in all court, the admission to the practice of
law, the IBP, and legal assistance to the underprivileged.
115
1
NOTE: Limitations: simplified and inexpensive procedure; uniform; not diminish, 6
increase or modify substantive rights.
WRIT OF AMPARO – The right to enforce and protect a person’s rights guaranteed
and recognized by the bill of rights. It is a remedy available to any person whose right
to life, liberty, and security has been violated or is threatened with violation by an
unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or
entity. The writ covers extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or threats
thereof.
Upon filing of the petition or at any time before final judgment, the court, justice
or judge may grant any of the following reliefs:
(a) Temporary Protection Order. “The court, justice or judge, upon motion or motu
proprio, may order that the petitioner or the aggrieved party and any member of
the immediate family be protected in a government agency or by an accredited
person or private institution capable of keeping and securing their safety. If the
petitioner is an organization, association or institution referred to in Section 3(c)
of the Rule, the protection may be extended to the officers involved. The
Supreme Court shall accredit the persons and private institutions that shall
extend temporary protection to the petitioner or the aggrieved party and any
member of the immediate family, in accordance with guidelines which it shall
issue. The accredited persons and private institutions shall comply with the rules
and conditions that may be imposed by the court, justice or judge.
(b) Inspection Order. ” The court, justice or judge, upon verified motion and after due
hearing, may order any person in possession or control of a designated land or other
property, to permit entry for the purpose of inspecting, measuring, surveying, or
photographing the property or any relevant object or operation thereon. The motion
shall state in detail the place or places to be inspected. It shall be supported by
affidavits or testimonies of witnesses having personal knowledge of the enforced
disappearance or whereabouts of the aggrieved party. If the motion is opposed on
the ground of national security or of the privileged nature of the information, the
court, justice or judge may conduct a hearing in chambers to determine the merit of
the opposition. The movant must show that the inspection order is necessary to
establish the right of the aggrieved party alleged to be threatened or violated. The
inspection order shall specify the person or persons authorized to make the
inspection and the date, time, place and manner of making the inspection and may
prescribe other conditions to protect the constitutional rights of all parties. The order
shall expire five (5) days after the date of its issuance, unless extended for justifiable
116
1
reasons. 7
(b) Production Order. “The court, justice or judge, upon verified motion and after
due hearing, may order any person in possession, custody or control of any
designated documents, papers, books, accounts, letters, photographs, objects or
tangible things, or objects in digitized or electronic form, which constitute or
contain evidence relevant to the petition or the return, to produce and permit
their inspection, copying or photographing by or on behalf of the movant. The
motion may be opposed on the ground of national security or of the privileged
nature of the information, in which case the court, justice or judge may conduct a
hearing in chambers to determine the merit of the opposition. The court, justice
or judge shall prescribe other conditions to protect the constitutional rights of all
the parties.
(c) Witness Protection Order. “ The court, justice or judge, upon motion or motu
proprio, may refer the witnesses to the Department of Justice for admission to
the Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Program, pursuant to Republic Act
No. 6981. The court, justice or judge may also refer the witnesses to other
government agencies, or to accredited persons or private institutions capable of
keeping and securing their safety.
(d)
WRIT OF HABEAS DATA- It is a remedy available to any person whose right to privacy
in life, liberty or security is violated or threatened by an unlawful act or omission of a
public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity engaged in the
gathering, collecting or storing of data or information regarding the person, family,
home and correspondence of the aggrieved party.
Writ of Habeas Corpus Writ of Amparo
-subject of protection is only the physical liberty; - even if the person is free to go anywhere but
the moment the person is fit there is no more there is always a threat that his liberty can be
need of habeas corpus; its already mooted curtailed or his life violated then he can always
apply for writ of amparo
- Cannot be treated in the same way as

habeas corpus
117
1
8
Writ of Amparo Writ of Habeas Data
Addressed not only against government but also against private entity
- Masangkay vs. del Rosario, G.R. No. 182484, June 17, 2008- To start off with the
basics, the writ of amparo was originally conceived as a response to the extraordinary
rise in the number of killings and enforced disappearances, and to the perceived lack
of available and effective remedies to address these extraordinary concerns. It is
intended to address violations of or threats to the rights to life, liberty or security, as
an extraordinary and independent remedy beyond those available under the
prevailing Rules, or as a remedy supplemental to these Rules. What it is not, is a writ
to protect concerns that are purely property or commercial. Neither is it a writ that
we shall issue on amorphous and uncertain grounds. Where, as in this case, there is
an ongoing civil process dealing directly with the possessory dispute and the reported
acts of violence and harassment, we see no point in separately and directly
intervening through a writ of amparo in the absence of any clear prima facie
showing that the right to life, liberty or security – the personal concern that the writ
is intended to protect - is immediately in danger or threatened, or that the danger
or threat is continuing. We see no legal bar, however, to an application for the
issuance of the writ, in a proper case, by motion in a pending case on appeal or on
certiorari, applying by analogy the provisions on the co-existence of the writ with a
separately filed criminal case.
- Section 6 of the Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data requires the following material
allegations of ultimate facts in a petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas data:
- (a) The personal circumstances of the petitioner and the respondent;

(b) The manner the right to privacy is violated or threatened and how it
affects the right to life, liberty or security of the aggrieved party;
- (c) The actions and recourses taken by the petitioner to secure the data or
information;
- (d) The location of the files, registers or databases, the government office,
and the person in charge, in possession or in control of the data or
information, if known;
118
1
9
- (e) The reliefs prayed for, which may include the updating, rectification,
suppression or destruction of the database or information or files kept by the
respondent.
ii. writ of habeas data
iii. writ of kalikasan
6. PROMULGATE RULES concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading,
practice and procedure in all court, the admission to the practice of law, the IBP, and legal
assistance to the underprivileged.
NOTE: Limitations: simplified and inexpensive procedure; uniform; not diminish, increase or modify
substantive rights.

- Exclusive to the SC
Aruelo vs. Court of Appeals, 227 SCRA 475- The COMELEC cannot adopt a rule
prohibiting the filing of certain pleadings in the regular courts. The power to
promulgate rules concerning pleadings, practice and procedure in all courts is vested
on the Supreme Court.
- Comelec cannot promulgate rules on what kind of pleadings that may be filed with
the SC relating to election cases as the matter of promulgating rules in courts is
exclusive to the SC; Comelec is only empowered to promulgate their own rules
governing their procedure but should only apply to their procedures and not to go
beyond their jurisdiction

- Republic vs. Gingoyon, G.R. No. 16429, December 19, 2005- Congress has the plenary
legislative power. The silence of the Constitution on the subject can only be
interpreted as meaning there is no intention to diminish that plenary power. RA 8974
which requires full payment before the State may exercise proprietary rights, contrary
to Rule 67 which requires only a deposit was recognized by the Supreme Court.
119
2
0
7. DECISIONS
Section 14. No decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly
the facts and the law on which it is based.
No petition for review or motion for reconsideration of a decision of the court shall be refused due
course or denied without stating the legal basis therefor.

- Applicable not only to SC but also to lower courts
- Not only stating the applicable law but also to discuss on how the law is applied in the case
- If you file petition of review and it is dismissed outright by SC for lack of merit Sc is in effect adopting in toto
the decision of CA; there is no need to explain as the explanation is already provided the decision of CA
- It could be a petition for review or certiorari
- If given due course by SC by requiring parties to submit their briefs then Sc is giving due course to a petition,
this time the SC would have to discuss and clearly state the reason for their dismissal after giving due course
to it
- Adopting memorandum decision by simply adopt the appreciation of facts by trial court by ,merely making
reference “to refer to these facts” they do not have to copy verbatim the facts of the case into their
decision
- - this is to simplify matters and expedite the making of the decision
- Period of time within which
- MINUTE RESOLUTION- Komatsu vs. CA, 289 SCRA 604- does not violate Section 14.
Resolutions are not decisions within the constitutional requirement; they merely hold
that the petition for review should not be entertained and the petition to review
decision of the CA 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 CA decision.
- German Machineries Corporation vs. Endaya, 444 SCRA 329- The mandate under
Section 14, Article VIII of the constitution is applicable only in cases “submitted for
decision”, i.e, given due course and after the filing of the briefs or memoranda and/or
other pleadings, but not where a resolution is issued denying due course to a petition
and stating the legal basis thereof.
120
2
- Solid Homes, Inc. vs. Laserna, 550 SCRA 613- The constitutional mandate that “no 1
decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly and
distinctly the facts and the law on which it is bases”, does not preclude the validity of
“memorandum decisions”, which adopt by reference the finding of fact and
conclusions of law contained in the decisions of inferior tribunals.
- Joaquin-Agregado v. Yama, March 20, 2009, GR No. 181107- The Supreme Court
stressed that it has the discretion to decide whether a “minute resolution” should be
used in lieu of a full-blown decision in any particular case. Further, the Supreme Court
explained that the grant of due course to a petition for review is not a matter of right,
but of sound judicial discretion. When it fails to find any reversible error committed
by the CA, there is no need to fully explain the Court’s denial as it means that the
Supreme Court agrees with or adopts the findings and conclusions of the CA. “There is
no point in reproducing or restating in the resolution of denial the conclusions of the
appellate court affirmed”. The constitutional requirement of sec. 14, Art. VIII of a
clear presentation of facts and laws applies to decisions, where the petition is given
due course, but not where the petition is denied due course, with the resolution
stating the legal basis for the dismissal.
- Oil & National Gas Com. vs. CA, 293 SCRA 26- Section 14 does not preclude the
validity of “Memorandum Decision” which adopt by reference the findings of fact
and conclusions of law contained in the decisions of inferior tribunals. It is intended to
avoid cumbersome reproduction of the decision (or portions thereof) of the lower
court.
8. PERIOD WITHIN WHICH TO DECIDE CASES

- Reckoned submission of the case for decision or resolution within which to decide case
- 20 or 30 years of trial until finally the case has been submitted for decision, it is when the last pleading is
filed, you have 3 months in so far as lower courts, and so on and so forth

- Q: What is the effect of a decision rendered beyond the period prescribed by constitution? Is the court
removed of its authority to decide the case beyond the period prescribed by law? Is it mandatory or
directory?

121
2
- A: It is only directory. It is still a valid decision even if rendered beyond the period prescribed, however, this 2
is without prejudice to the administrative liability of the trial judge of the reviewing justice
Lower courts 3 months from submission of case for decision

within which to decide case
Intermediate appellate court 12 months
Supreme Court 24 month
9. CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS

i. Civil service commission
ii. Comelec
iii. Commission on Audit
- They are called as Constitutional bodies such because they are created by the constitution primarily to
make them independent from the other 3 branches of the government
- Since they are created by the Constitution you cannot say that under either executive, judiciary or
legislative; they are independent
ARTICLE IX
CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION
A. COMMON PROVISIONS
Section 1. The Constitutional Commissions, which shall be independent, are the Civil Service
Commission, the Commission on Elections, and the Commission on Audit.
Section 2. No member of a Constitutional Commission shall, during his tenure, hold any other office or
employment. Neither shall he engage in the practice of any profession or in the active management or
control of any business which, in any way, may be affected by the functions of his office, nor shall he be
financially interested, directly or indirectly, in any contract with, or in any franchise or privilege granted
by the Government, any of its subdivisions, agencies, or instrumentalities, including government-owned
or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries.
Section 3. The salary of the Chairman and the Commissioners shall be fixed by law and shall not be
decreased during their tenure.
Section 4. The Constitutional Commissions shall appoint their officials and employees in accordance with
law.
Section 5. The Commission shall enjoy fiscal autonomy. Their approved annual appropriations shall be
automatically and regularly released.
Section 6. Each Commission en banc may promulgate its own rules concerning pleadings and practice
before it or before any of its offices. Such rules, however, shall not diminish, increase, or modify
substantive rights.
122
2
Section 7. Each Commission shall decide by a majority vote of all its Members, any case or matter 3
brought before it within sixty days from the date of its submission for decision or resolution. A case or
matter is deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon the filing of the last pleading, brief, or
memorandum required by the rules of the Commission or by the Commission itself. Unless otherwise
provided by this Constitution or by law, any decision, order, or ruling of each Commission may be
brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within thirty days from receipt of a
copy thereof.
Section 8. Each Commission shall perform such other functions as may be provided by law.
1. Institutional Independence Safeguards
a. they are constitutionally created; may not be abolished by statute;

b. each is expressly described as “independent;”

c. each is conferred certain powers and functions which cannot be reduced by statute;

d. the Chairmen and members cannot be removed except by impeachment;

e. the Chairmen and members are given fairly a long term of office of 7 years;
- not anymore staggering
f. the Chairmen and members may not be reappointed or appointed in an acting capacity;
- can only be appointed on permanent basis; there is no such thing as Acting Commissioner;
- the moment the term expires they cannot be reappointed;
- “appointment” meaning regular and not a interim
123
2
4
- REAPPOINTMENT OF COMMISSIONERS- Matibag vs. Benipayo, April 2, 2002- The phrase
“without reappointment” applies only to one who has been appointed by the President and
confirmed by the Commission on Appointments, whether or not such person completes his
term of office which could be seven, five or three years. There must be a confirmation by the
Commission on Appointments of the previous appointment before the prohibition on
reappointment can apply.

g. the salaries of the Chairmen and members are relatively high and may not be decreased during
continuance in office;
h. the Commissions enjoy fiscal autonomy;
- their budget cannot be reduced from the last year’s appropriation
i. each Commission may promulgate its own procedural rules, provided they do not diminish,
increase or modify substantive rights [though subject to disapproval by the SC];
- they exercise both QL and QJ functions
j. the Chairmen and members are subject to certain disqualifications calculated to strengthen
their integrity;
k. the Commissions may appoint their own officials and employees in accordance with Civil Service Law
124
2
5
10. APPEAL OF DECISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL BODIES IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN INDEPENDENCE
COA Unanimous if only 3 members Appeal to SC on certiorari

which has to be filed within
60 days
COMELEC 7 members so majority Only decisions of Comelec en

banc can be appealed to SC

directly;
In division - if adjudicatory in
nature;
- - MR with the division which
is denied, the order of denial
of that division can only be
En banc- administrative in nature appealed to Comelec en
banc
-
- In the first place Comelec
in division has no
authority to decide that
case, so the MR of
decision of Comelec in
division has to be filed
with Comelec en banc
because only decisions en
banc of constitutional
bodies are appealable to
Sc directly

- - They only decide cases en

banc on administrative
matters
CSC Unanimous if only 3 members - - must first pass through CA

before they go to SC
- Note: Party is never
deprived of remedy to SC
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

125
2
1:15 6
B. THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
Section 1.
1. The civil service shall be administered by the Civil Service Commission composed of a
Chairman and two Commissioners who shall be natural-born citizens of the Philippines and, at the
time of their appointment, at least thirty-five years of age, with proven capacity for public
administration, and must not have been candidates for any elective position in the elections
immediately preceding their appointment.
2. The Chairman and the Commissioners shall be appointed by the President with the consent
of the Commission on Appointments for a term of seven years without reappointment. Of those
first appointed, the Chairman shall hold office for seven years, a Commissioner for five years, and
another Commissioner for three years, without reappointment. Appointment to any vacancy shall
be only for the unexpired term of the predecessor. In no case shall any Member be appointed or
designated in a temporary or acting capacity.
Section 2.
1. The civil service embraces all branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities, and agencies of the
Government, including government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters.
2. Appointments in the civil service shall be made only according to merit and fitness to be
determined, as far as practicable, and, except to positions which are policy-determining, primarily
confidential, or highly technical, by competitive examination.

3. No officer or employee of the civil service shall be removed or suspended except for cause
provided by law.
4. No officer or employee in the civil service shall engage, directly or indirectly, in any
electioneering or partisan political campaign.
5. The right to self-organization shall not be denied to government employees.
6. Temporary employees of the Government shall be given such protection as may be

provided by law.
Section 3. The Civil Service Commission, as the central personnel agency of the Government, shall
establish a career service and adopt measures to promote morale, efficiency, integrity,
responsiveness, progressiveness, and courtesy in the civil service. It shall strengthen the merit and
rewards system, integrate all human resources development programs for all levels and ranks,
and institutionalize a management climate conducive to public accountability. It shall submit to
the President and the Congress an annual report on its personnel programs.
Section 4. All public officers and employees shall take an oath or affirmation to uphold and
defend this Constitution.
Section 5. The Congress shall provide for the standardization of compensation of government
officials and employees, including those in government-owned or controlled corporations with
126
2
original charters, taking into account the nature of the responsibilities pertaining to, and the 7
qualifications required for, their positions.
Section 6. No candidate who has lost in any election, shall within one year after such election, be
appointed to any office in the Government or any Government-owned or controlled corporations
or in any of their subsidiaries.
Section 7. No elective official shall be eligible for appointment or designation in any capacity to
any public office or position during his tenure.
Unless otherwise allowed by law or by the primary functions of his position, no appointive official
shall hold any other office or employment in the Government or any subdivision, agency or
instrumentality thereof, including Government-owned or controlled corporations or their
subsidiaries.
Section 8. No elective or appointive public officer or employee shall receive additional, double, or
indirect compensation, unless specifically authorized by law, nor accept without the consent of
the Congress, any present, emolument, office, or title of any kind from any foreign government.
Pensions or gratuities shall not be considered as additional, double, or indirect compensation.

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
1.
SCOPE OF CIVIL SERVICE LAW: (for Bar Purposes) memorize.

It covers the:
-3 branches,
- Subdivisions, LGU’s from the Autonomous Region to the barangays,
-instrumentalities,
-agencies of government including GOCC with original charters

2.
INSTRUMENTALITY AGENCY
Both are covered by the Civil Service and governed by Civil Service Law.
Leveriza vs. IAC, 157 SCRA 282- Leveriza vs. IAC, 157 SCRA 282-
Instrumentality refers to any agency of the An agency of government refers to any of the
national government, not integrated within the various units of the government, including a
department framework, vested with special department, bureau, office, instrumentality or
functions or jurisdiction by law, endowed with government-owned or controlled corporation or a
some if not all corporate powers, administering local government or a distinct unit therein.
special funds, and enjoying operational autonomy,
usually through a charter. This term includes
regulatory agencies, institutes and government-
owned or controlled corporations

127
2
8
Bottom line: Usually performing proprietary or

ministrant function.
Bottom line: agency refers to those offices of the
government exercising governmental functions or
performing governmental functions
In so far as GOCC’S are concerned, only those with original charters meaning they are created by special
laws or chartered by special laws
As to WATER DSTRICTS:
- MWSS vs. Hernandez, 143 SCRA 602- If one is employed in a GOCC, whether regular
or not, the civil service law applies. It is not true either that with respect to money
claims, the Labor Code applies. Regardless of the nature of employment or claim, an
employee in a GOCC with original charter is covered by the Civil Service Law.
- Are governed by original charter, therefore, they are subject to the Civil Service Law.

3. EXTENT AND POWER OF CIVIL SERIVCE
- Primarily , it is an administrative body and it is exercising both quasi- legislative and quasi- judicial functions

quasi- legislative functions quasi- judicial/ adjudicatory power
- they can promulgate their own rules - - GSIS VS. CSC, 202 SCRA 799- The grant
governing personelling because the to the Civil Service Commission of
CSC is the central personnel agency of adjudicatory power, or the authority to
the government hear and adjudge cases, necessarily
- pertaining to appointment to includes the power to enforce or order
promotions, dismissal from execution of its decisions, resolutions, or
employment in government it is orders. The authority to decide cases
subject to rules promulgated by CSC would be inutile unless accompanied by
the authority to see that what has been
decided is carried out.
128
2
9
- - meaning, in the cases decided by CSC

exercising its quasi judicial function, it can
have it enforced or implemented
- [back then you still have to ask for writ of

execution from the court for the
implementation of their orders or
resolution]
Take note: CSC is the sole arbiter of

controversies relating to civil service.
Ex: relating to examinations conducted if there

is any protest regarding on that; appointments
on attestation that is exclusive to CSC
- - But on administrative matters/ cases

involving conflicts of employees of
government it can be concurrent with the
office of government to which those
personnel are directly connected or
belonging to or you also have the Office of
Ombudsman

4. MATTER OF APPPPOINTMENTS IN THE CIVIL SERVICE
- On appointments, it is always as far as practicable based on Merit and Fitness
- REGULAR APPOINTMENTS; APPOINTMENT BASED ON TRUST AND CONFIDENCE

DIFFERENT POSITIONS IN GOVERNMENT:
COMPETITIVE NON- COMPETITIVE CAREER NON- CAREER
-Always based on merit - - There is no need of - it is like competitive - based on other than
and fitness, as far as competitive because their entrance the usual test that are
practicable, it must be examinations to the government is given by the
based on competitive - based on Merit and government
examination Fitness which is based
3 KINDS:
on competitive

129
3
-That is the examinations -ex: election 0
requirement
A. POLICY
Of Civil Service DETERMINING
- entitled to Security of
eligibility; failure to get
one it would be very - ex: consultants that Tenure
- There is a fixed term
would not be based on
difficult to get a regular of office such as
civil service eligibility;
appointment or elective official
permanent can be hired in the
government without
appointment if - Or for contractual
taking that
into
government there is a period of
consideration because
time within which
the position is
noncompetitive they stay in the

-There is always room government or
for promotions based depending on the
on your qualification availability of funds
and civil service B. PRIMARILY or depending on the
CONFIDENTIAL
eligibility duration of a
POSITIONS
particular project
-primarily based on
trust and confidence in

the person regardless if
his other qualification - - Unless you run for a
higher position, you
cannot be, as a matter
- - enjoys security of of right, be promoted
tenure as long as he from barangays captain
continues to hold the to municipal mayor if
trust and confidence you will not run for
- just like Competitive election
of the appointing
positions, Career
authority; the moment
Service has room for
he loses the trust and
promotions
confidence all that
would happen here is
only an expiration of
his term and not a
removal
- - ex: the position of a
city attorney/
provincial attorney is
controversial; before
your appointment to
that position you were
a regular member of
the office of city
130
3
attorney as a lawyer 1
and you accepted the
appointment which is
confidential; from
permanent regular to
something which is
conterminous to the
mayor or based on the
trust and confidence of
the mayor; if removed
by appointing authority
you cannot invoke
violation of security of
tenure- you have
waived the right the
moment you accept the
appointment which is
coterminous or based
on the trust and
confidence
C. HIGHLY TECHINICAL
- the expertise of a
person as qualification
for appointment
3 POSITIONS WHICH ARE PRIMARILY CONFIDENTIAL :
1. When the president declares the position to be primarily confidential upon the
recommendation of the CSC;
2. When by the nature of the functions there exist close intimacy between the appointee and
appointing authority which ensures freedom of intercourse without embarrassment or from
freedom from misgivings or betrayal of public trust or confidential matters;
- A city attorney is primarily confidential

- A casino operations manager his position is not confidential it only the president who can
declare it and depending on the nature of the position but definitely not confidential
131
3
2
3. (not discussed)
Security of Tenure – generally, it refers to the fact that if you have a permanent regular appointment in
the government you cannot just be removed without hearing and that it has to be always for just cause
that is provided by law; that is on the assumption that you have both the qualifications and the requisite
eligibility for that position. [so as not to be confused during the Bar exams because you might be given a
situation like that and you would immediately conclude….why is he removed?... ]
- Predicated or is under the principle that you have the qualifications and the required
eligibility to stay in that position
- For every position in the government there are prescribed qualification (QS) and Eligibility;
these 2 must concur because even if you have the Civil Service Eligibility but that is not the
kind of eligibility required by the position that is required for the position you can still be
removed and you cannot invoke your security of tenure
-ex: Regional Director of a position in the government, now it is required that they pass the Career
Executive Eligibility or the CESO.
- You are appointed prior to this requirement to that position as Director, you have the minimum
qualifications, you are a lawyer, but you are removed because of the requirement that you must have to
be a Career Executive Eligible. You cannot invoke security of tenure. You can be replaced by someone
who has the proper eligibility for that position.
- or even if he passed the CESO but the position required that he must be lawyer, the lawyer who also
passed the CESO qualifies over the person who has passed CESO but not a lawyer, the latter cannot
invoke security of tenure but he has security of tenure in so far as the position that he is in, meaning he
cannot be demoted, not specifically to the office that supposedly he was occupying, whatever is the
rank he cannot be demoted if he has CESO but there is no guarantee that he can get the position
because the position specifically requires for certain qualification
- Controversy on PAGASA director who eventually resigned who did not have CESO but had all
the technical qualifications. He was replace for lack of legibility.
5. WHO MAY BE APPOINTED TO THE GOVERNMENT

- We have prescribed qualifications provided by law for each position
- It is called QS: Qualification Standard
132
3
- But ultimately the matter of appointment is the prerogative of the appointing authority 3
- He is given the highest prerogative or leeway/ discretion as to the person who should be appointed given all
the applicants are qualified ultimately it is the appointing authority that has the discretion to make the
choice
- CSC’ s role in the choice is only to attest on whether the person appointed by the appointing authority has
the qualification prescribed by law because even if it is the choice of the appointing authority, who has the
discretion to make an appointment, however, the appointee does not have the qualifications as prescribed
by law , the CSC definitely has the authority to disapprove appointment
- However, even if the CSC would think that other applicants are more qualified than the appointee of the
appointing authority for as long as the appointee has the minimum qualification as provided by the QS the
CSC cannot interfere into that choice of that appointing authority.
6. NEXT-IN- RANK PRINCIPLE

- Only the basis of appointment but definitely not a priority; ultimately it is discretionary of the appointing
authority to make the choice
7. DOUBLE COMPENSATION- prohibited!

- This is to avoid graft and corruption but you are not precluded from receiving honoraria form another
government office for the purposes of defraying expenses you have incurred in relation to the discharge of
that office which is in additional designation to the present position that you are occupying
- Q: But in a case when one is already retired and is receiving pension form government regularly, can he still
receive pension from government the moment he is also being appointed because he is not yet of retirable
age or that is appointed to a confidential position which does not require age qualification?
- A: Yes, that is not a double compensation. Pension is not a compensation compared to a salary which one is
receiving regularly on account of being employed in the government.
8. FORBIDDEN OFFICE
GR: you cannot be holding multiple offices in the government
ECX: when it allowed by the law or the constitution
Ex: VP appointed to any cabinet position of the government upon discretion of president; sec of DOJ who is an
ex-officio member of JBC; members Congress because of the position that they are occupying requires them to hold the
positions mentioned
Case:

PILC vs. Elma, G.R. No. 138965, March 5, 2007 – PCCG Chair Magdangal Elma is prohibited under the
Constitution from simultaneously serving as Chief Presidential Legal Counsel. The position of PCCG Chair and CPLC
are incompatible offices since the CPLC reviews actions of the PCGG Chair. It pointed out that the general rule to
hold more than one office is “allowed by law or by the primary functions of his position”

9. If you are an elective official you cannot be appointed to any other position is the government even on consultation
purposes.
Ex: if you are a mayor, you cannot also be a consultant of another office; that is prohibited

133
1
3
10. Those persons subjected to disciplinary actions by any office of the government including Office of OMB or CSC. 4

Q: if one is suspended or dismissed and later reinstated, will he be entitled to payment of back salaries or
wages?

A: Distinguish:

PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION SUSPENSIONS AS PENALTY OR DISMISSAL OR
SERVICE
- - While the case is being investigated you are

temporarily, as employee of the government,
removed from office in the event the period of
suspension has already expired or even before
the case is terminated and you are exonerated
thereafter are you entitled to back pages
GR: “ no work no pay”
- Unless it is expressly provided in the preventive - if you appeal the conviction in appellate court
suspension that you are entitled to backwages and there is an order of reinstatement, it is not
then you will be paid with backwages because of automatic that you can demand for backwages
the policy that “no work no pay”
Cases:

- Del Castillo vs. Civil Service Commission,

August 21, 1997- When an employee is
illegally dismissed, and his reinstatement
is later ordered by the Court, for all legal
intents and purposes he is considered as
not having left his office, and
notwithstanding the silence of the
decision, he is entitled to payment of
back salaries.
Take note: only when it is an illegal

dismissal OW if done in good faith he would
not be entitled what would apply will be no
work no pay
- DOTC vs. Cruz, GR No. 178256, July 23,

2008 –The Supreme Court follows as a
precedent, the DOTC did not effect Cruz's
termination with bad faith and, consequently,
134
3
no backwages can be awarded in his favor. 5
- David vs. Gania GR No. 156030, August 14,

2003- A civil service officer or employee,
who has been found illegally dismissed or
suspended, is entitled to be reinstated and
to back wages and other monetary
benefits from the time of his illegal
dismissal or suspension up to his
reinstatement, and if at the time the
decision of exoneration is promulgated, he
is already of retirement age, he shall be
entitled not only to back wages but also to
full retirement benefits.

11. POWER OF CSC ON IMPOSING RULES AND REGULATION TO THE EXTENT OF PROVIDING PUNISHMENT FOR
VIOLATION ON PROTECTING THE INTEGRITY OF CIVIL SERVICE

- CSC vs. Albao, October 13, 2005- The present case partakes of an act by petitioner CSC to protect the
integrity of the civil service system, and does not fall under the provision on disciplinary actions under
Sec. 47. It falls under the provisions of Sec. 12, par. 11, on administrative cases instituted by it
directly. This is an integral part of its duty, authority and power to administer the civil service system
and protect its integrity, as provided in Article IX-B, Sec. 3 of the Constitution, by removing from its list
of eligibles those who falsified their qualifications. This is to be distinguished from ordinary
proceedings intended to discipline a bona fide member of the system, for acts or omissions that
constitute violations of the law or the rules of the service.

- This is not an exercise of adjudicatory power of CSC but more on of its being and administrative office
implementing the CS law to protect the civil service system

- They found out that he was not really a civil engineer but claimed such eligibility. He did not pass the
board exam. He was investigated. So he withdraw his application for employment; he later reapplied
as conterminous employee of VP which does not require any eligibility because it is noncompetitive
and non- career, nonetheless, when his appointment was pending and at the same time his case was
also pending , he complained saying why are you going into the qualification when the eligible
inquired into is not anymore required for the position.

- CSC vs. Dacoycoy, April 29, 1999 – The CSC as an aggrieved party, may appeal the decision of the
Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court. Appeal now lies from a decision exonerating a civil service
employee of administrative charges.

12. RIGHT OF CIVIL SERVANTS TO ENGAGE IN A STRIKE/ CONCERTED ACTIVITIES
135
3
6
- Not prohibited by the constitution; in fact const says that you have the right to join or form an organization
or union for as long as the purpose is not contrary to law which may include you engaging in activities in
relation the membership in your organization
- However, unless it is prohibited by law then you cannot exercise the power
- If there is any prohibition, it is not the constitution but the statute
- SC in many cases ruled that even if it is not prohibited by law, it does not violate the constitution relating to
your right to association because the right to engage in concerted activities such as to strike does not form
an integral part of the right o association
- Bottom line: in so far as government employees are concerned:
Case:

SSS Employees Ass. vs. CA, 175 SCRA 686- While the Constitution and the Labor Code are silent as to whether
government employees may strike, they are prohibited from striking by express provision of Memorandum
Circular No. 6, series of 1997 of the CSC and as implied in E.O. 180.

- This prohibition does not apply against employees of GOCCS governed by Corporation Code (subject to
Labor laws) not those with original charters because they are governed by the Civil Services law

13. COMELEC
C. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
Section 1.
1. There shall be a Commission on Elections composed of a Chairman and six Commissioners who
shall be natural-born citizens of the Philippines and, at the time of their appointment, at least thirty-five
years of age, holders of a college degree, and must not have been candidates for any elective positions
in the immediately preceding elections. However, a majority thereof, including the Chairman, shall be
members of the Philippine Bar who have been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years.
2. The Chairman and the Commissioners shall be appointed by the President with the consent of
the Commission on Appointments for a term of seven years without reappointment. Of those first
appointed, three Members shall hold office for seven years, two Members for five years, and the last
Members for three years, without reappointment. Appointment to any vacancy shall be only for the
unexpired term of the predecessor. In no case shall any Member be appointed or designated in a
temporary or acting capacity.

Section 2. The Commission on Elections shall exercise the following powers and functions: [BAR]

1. Enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite,
initiative, referendum, and recall.
2. Exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests relating to the elections, returns, and
qualifications of all elective regional, provincial, and city officials, and appellate jurisdiction over all
contests involving elective municipal officials decided by trial courts of general jurisdiction, or involving
136
3
elective barangay officials decided by trial courts of limited jurisdiction. 7
Decisions, final orders, or rulings of the Commission on election contests involving elective municipal
and barangay offices shall be final, executory, and not appealable.
3. Decide, except those involving the right to vote, all questions affecting elections, including
determination of the number and location of polling places, appointment of election officials and
inspectors, and registration of voters.
4. Deputize, with the concurrence of the President, law enforcement agencies and
instrumentalities of the Government, including the Armed Forces of the Philippines, for the exclusive
purpose of ensuring free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible elections.
5. Register, after sufficient publication, political parties, organizations, or coalitions which, in

addition to other requirements, must present their platform or program of government; and accredit
citizens' arms of the Commission on Elections. Religious denominations and sects shall not be registered.
Those which seek to achieve their goals through violence or unlawful means, or refuse to uphold and
adhere to this Constitution, or which are supported by any foreign government shall likewise be refused
registration.
Financial contributions from foreign governments and their agencies to political parties, organizations,
coalitions, or candidates related to elections, constitute interference in national affairs, and, when
accepted, shall be an additional ground for the cancellation of their registration with the Commission, in
addition to other penalties that may be prescribed by law.
6. File, upon a verified complaint, or on its own initiative, petitions in court for inclusion or
exclusion of voters; investigate and, where appropriate, prosecute cases of violations of election laws,
including acts or omissions constituting election frauds, offenses, and malpractices.
7. Recommend to the Congress effective measures to minimize election spending, including

limitation of places where propaganda materials shall be posted, and to prevent and penalize all forms
of election frauds, offenses, malpractices, and nuisance candidacies.
8. Recommend to the President the removal of any officer or employee it has deputized, or the
imposition of any other disciplinary action, for violation or disregard of, or disobedience to, its directive,
order, or decision.
9. Submit to the President and the Congress, a comprehensive report on the conduct of each
election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum, or recall.
Section 3. The Commission on Elections may sit en banc or in two divisions, and shall promulgate its
rules of procedure in order to expedite disposition of election cases, including pre- proclamation
controversies. All such election cases shall be heard and decided in division, provided that motions for
reconsideration of decisions shall be decided by the Commission en banc.
Section 4. The Commission may, during the election period, supervise or regulate the enjoyment or
137
3
utilization of all franchises or permits for the operation of transportation and other public utilities, 8
media of communication or information, all grants, special privileges, or concessions granted by the
Government or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including any government-owned or
controlled corporation or its subsidiary. Such supervision or regulation shall aim to ensure equal
opportunity, time, and space ,and the right to reply, including reasonable, equal rates therefor, for
public information campaigns and forums among candidates in connection with the objective of holding
free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible elections.
Section 5. No pardon, amnesty, parole, or suspension of sentence for violation of election laws, rules,
and regulations shall be granted by the President without the favorable recommendation of the
Commission.
Section 6. A free and open party system shall be allowed to evolve according to the free choice of the
people, subject to the provisions of this Article.
Section 7. No votes cast in favor of a political party, organization, or coalition shall be valid, except for
those registered under the party-list system as provided in this Constitution.
Section 8. Political parties, or organizations or coalitions registered under the party-list system, shall not
be represented in the voters' registration boards, boards of election inspectors, boards of canvassers, or
other similar bodies. However, they shall be entitled to appoint poll watchers in accordance with law.
Section 9. Unless otherwise fixed by the Commission in special cases, the election period shall
commence ninety days before the day of election and shall end thirty days thereafter.
Section 10. Bona fide candidates for any public office shall be free from any form of harassment and
discrimination.
Section 11. Funds certified by the Commission as necessary to defray the expenses for holding regular
and special elections, plebiscites, initiatives, referenda, and recalls, shall be provided in the regular or
special appropriations and, once approved, shall be released automatically upon certification by the
Chairman of the Commission
14. POWERS OF COMELEC –important for Bar purposes

15. CONTROVERSY OF REAPPOINTMENT- applies only
138
3
- REAPPOINTMENT OF COMMISSIONERS- Matibag vs. Benipayo, April 2, 2002- The phrase “without 9
reappointment” applies only to one who has been appointed by the President and confirmed by the
Commission on Appointments, whether or not such person completes his term of office which could
be seven, five or three years. There must be a confirmation by the Commission on Appointments of
the previous appointment before the prohibition on reappointment can apply.

- Not for ad interim appointment made by president therefore the appointee can be renominated and have another
appointment

16. ISSUANCE of writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus only in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.-
(Relampagos vs. Cumba, 243 SCRA 690.)

17. JURISDICTION OF COMELEC

ORIGINAL JURISDICITION APPELLATE JURISDCTION
- If you have an election protest involving è in the event you lose the case in MTC, you
barangay offices (barangays captains and appeal not to RTC but to Comelec; that is an
kagawads), you file your election protest in appellate jurisdiction of Comelec.
MTC

è MTC offices: where do you file a protest? You
- In such case, Comelec can issue writs of file it with RTC if you lose case in RTC; you
certiorari, mandamus and prohibition in all of appeal to Comelec; Again this appellate
its appellate jurisdiction jurisdiction; if you lose again in Comelec there
is no more appeal unless there is an allegation
- From Comelec, in case you lose the case, there is of abuse of discretion
no more appeal; it is final and executor; you
can only go to SC on certiorari on questions of
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction

- As to City Offices: you file it with Comelec, that is
the original jurisdiction of Comelec, if you lose
you can appeal to SC; same with the province
and Autonomous Region; appeal to SC as long
as it is decision of Comelec en banc

-

18. OTHER FUNCTIONS OF COMELEC

139
4
- NOTE: it is by nature an administrative body exercising both Quasi- legislative and Quasi- Judicial functions 0
- You have to know which is an administrative and which one is Quasi- judicial because of the matter of issuance of
contempt power
- Contempt power is given to Comelec in the exercise of its QJ function and not in an administrative function
Case: Pimentel demanding that Bedol be ordered by Comelec to transmit or forward all election returns or ballot boxes
presumably containing the ballots and election returns.. if Comelec orders that it is more of administrative function.
Note: we are talking about a Senator’s election protest
Remember: there is no pre proclamation protest
Should there be any contests it shall be resolved by the Electoral Tribunal, at most therefore, ordering the ______ to
transmit Election Returns is more of an administrative function
What happened? Bedol refused to transmit and did not appear in the hearing
- Bedol vs. COMELEC, GR No. 179830, December 3, 2009- The COMELEC possesses the
power to conduct investigations as an adjunct to its constitutional duty to enforce
and administer all election laws, by virtue of the explicit provisions of paragraph 6,
Section 2, Article IX of the 1987 Constitution, which reads:
Article IX-C, Section 2. xxx
- (6) xxx; investigate and, where appropriate, prosecute cases of violations of election
laws, including acts or omissions constituting election frauds, offenses, and
malpractices.
- The powers and functions of the COMELEC, conferred upon it by the 1987
Constitution and the Omnibus Election Code, may be classified into administrative,
quasi-legislative, and quasi-judicial. The quasi-judicial power of the COMELEC
embraces the power to resolve controversies arising from the enforcement of
election laws, and to be the sole judge of all pre-proclamation controversies; and of
all contests relating to the elections, returns, and qualifications. Its quasi-legislative
power refers to the issuance of rules and regulations to implement the election laws
and to exercise such legislative functions as may expressly be delegated to it by
Congress. Its administrative function refers to the enforcement and administration of
election laws. In the exercise of such power, the Constitution (Section 6, Article IX-A)
and the Omnibus Election Code (Section 52 [c]) authorize the COMELEC to issue rules
and regulations to implement the provisions of the 1987 Constitution and the
Omnibus Election Code.
- The quasi-judicial or administrative adjudicatory power is the power to hear and

determine questions of fact to which the legislative policy is to apply, and to decide in
accordance with the standards laid down by the law itself in enforcing and
administering the same law. The Court, in Dole Philippines Inc. v. Esteva, described
quasi-judicial power in the following manner, viz:
140
4
1
- Quasi-judicial or administrative adjudicatory power on the other hand is the power of

the administrative agency to adjudicate the rights of persons before it. It is the power
to hear and determine questions of fact to which the legislative policy is to apply and
to decide in accordance with the standards laid down by the law itself in enforcing
and administering the same law. The administrative body exercises its quasi-judicial
power when it performs in a judicial manner an act which is essentially of an
executive or administrative nature, where the power to act in such manner is
incidental to or reasonably necessary for the performance of the executive or
administrative duty entrusted to it. In carrying out their quasi-judicial functions the
administrative officers or bodies are required to investigate facts or ascertain the
existence of facts, hold hearings, weigh evidence, and draw conclusions from them as
basis for their official action and exercise of discretion in a judicial nature. Since rights
of specific persons are affected, it is elementary that in the proper exercise of quasi-
judicial power due process must be observed in the conduct of the proceedings.
- 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.
- The effectiveness of the quasi–judicial power vested by law on a government

institution hinges on its authority to compel attendance of the parties and/or their
witnesses at the hearings or proceedings.
- In the same vein, to withhold from the COMELEC the power to punish individuals who
refuse to appear during a fact-finding investigation, despite a previous notice and
order to attend, would render nugatory the COMELEC’s investigative power, which is
an essential incident to its constitutional mandate to secure the conduct of honest
and credible elections. In this case, the purpose of the investigation was however
derailed when petitioner obstinately refused to appear during said hearings and to
answer questions regarding the various election documents which, he claimed, were
stolen while they were in his possession and custody. Undoubtedly, the COMELEC
141
4
could punish petitioner for such contumacious refusal to attend the Task Force 2
hearings.
- Even assuming arguendo that the COMELEC was acting as a board of canvassers at
that time it required petitioner to appear before it, the Court had the occasion to rule
that the powers of the board of canvassers are not purely ministerial. The board
exercises quasi-judicial functions, such as the function and duty to determine whether
the papers transmitted to them are genuine election returns signed by the proper
officers. When the results of the elections in the province of Maguindanao were being
canvassed, counsels for various candidates posited numerous questions on the
certificates of canvass brought before the COMELEC. The COMELEC asked petitioner
to appear before it in order to shed light on the issue of whether the election
documents coming from Maguindanao were spurious or not. When petitioner
unjustifiably refused to appear, COMELEC undeniably acted within the bounds of its
jurisdiction when it issued the assailed resolutions.
- Which means in this particular case of Bedol, when he failed to produce them despite the order an investigation
was conducted or was going on because there was allegations that there were some anomalies in Maguindanao;
- This was already an exercise of adjudicatory or investigatory power of Comelec which includes the power to cite
contempt OW Comelec will just be toothless;
- In other words, SC sustained Comelec in so far as punishing or citing in contempt Bedol for refusal to attend the
hearing on the matter on hand.

19. Q: Who has the power to call for elections?
A: Congress.

Sema vs. COMELEC, 558 SCRA 700- The COMELEC does not have the requisite power to call elections, as the same is
part of the plenary legislative power
- This is confusing because this is an exercise by the Regional assembly in ht autonomous region in Mindanao but in
this case the sc ruled that even in the calling of special election in Maguindanao is not a function of Comelec but part
of the plenary power of congress

20. Who are the real/ legitimate officers or members of a political party?

- The matter of accreditation of political parties is vested in the Comelec because this determines election if
there are no political parties and no officers so there can be no regular election; election is the
responsibility of Comelec, within its jurisdiction
- LDP vs. COMELEC, GR No. 151265, February 24, 2004 - The COMELEC correctly stated
that “the ascertainment of the identity of [a] political party and its legitimate officers”
is a matter that is well within its authority. The source of this authority is no other
than the fundamental law itself, which vests upon the COMELEC the power and
function to enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of
142
4
an election. In the exercise of such power and in the discharge of such function, the 3
Commission is endowed with ample “wherewithal” and “considerable latitude in
adopting means and methods that will ensure the accomplishment of the great
objectives for which it was created to promote free, orderly and honest elections.
- LP vs. ATIENZA, ET AL., GR No. 174992- April 17, 2007 – COMELEC has jurisdiction to
decide questions of leadership within a party and to ascertain its legitimate officers
and leaders. xxx The COMELEC is endowed with ample “wherewithal” and
“considerable latitude in adopting means and methods that will ensure the
accomplishment of the great objectives for which it was created to promote free and
orderly honest elections.
- Atienza vs. COMELEC, GR No. 188920, February 16, 2010- While the question of party
leadership has implications on the COMELEC’s performance of its functions under
Section 2 of Art. IX-C of the constitution, the same cannot be said of the issue
pertaining to Ateinza, et al.’s expulsion from the LP. Such expulsion is for the moment
an issue of party membership and discipline, in which the COMELEC cannot interfere,
given the limited scope of its power over political parties.
21. JURISDICTION OF COMELEC REGARDING ELECTION CASES INVOLVING DECISIONS OF A MUNICIPALL DIRECTOR
- Appeal should be filed with the Comelec through a petition of certiorari in aid of jurisdiction
- Galang vs. Geronimo and Ramos, (GR No. 192793, February 22, 2011)- In election
cases involving an act or omission of a municipal or regional trial court, petition for
certiorari shall be filed exclusively with the COMELEC, in aid of its appellate
jurisdiction.
- Balajonda vs. COMELEC, GR No. 166032, February 28, 2005- Despite the silence of
the COMELEC Rules of Procedure as to the procedure of the issuance of a writ of
execution pending appeal, there is no reason to dispute the COMELEC’s authority to
do so, considering that the suppletory application of the Rules of Court is expressly
authorized by Section 1, Rule 41 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure which provides
that absent any applicable provisions therein the pertinent provisions of the Rules of
Court shall be applicable by analogy or in a suppletory character and effect.
143
4
22. ADJUDICATORY POWER OF COMELEC 4
- By division and not directly with Comelec en banc which can only perform administrative functions like
procuring computers for automated election
- Adjudicatory power it has to be initiated in the division but if you lose the case file an MR and it has to be
decided by SC en banc
- Codilla vs. De Venecia, et al., December 10, 2002- Section 3, Article IX-C of the 1987
Constitution empowers the COMELEC en banc to review, on motion for
reconsideration, decisions or resolutions decided by a division. Since the petitioner
seasonably filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Order of the Second Division
suspending his proclamation and disqualifying him, the COMELEC en banc was not
divested of its jurisdiction to review the validity of the said Order of the Second
Division. The said Order of the Second Division was yet unenforceable as it has not
attained finality; the timely filing of the motion for reconsideration suspends its
execution. It cannot, thus, be used as the basis for the assumption in office of the
respondent as the duly elected Representative of the 4th legislative district of Leyte.
- Sarmiento vs. COMELEC, 212 SCRA 307- The COMELEC en banc does not have the
authority to hear and decide cases at the first instance. Under the COMELEC Rules,
pre-proclamation cases are classified as Special Cases and in compliance with the
provision of the Constitution, the two divisions of the COMELEC are vested with the
authority to hear and decide these special cases.
23. CONDUCT OF PLEBISCITES

- Question on results of plebiscite, it is Comelec which has jurisdiction not courts
- Santiago vs. COMELEC, March 19, 1997 - COMELEC cannot validly promulgate rules
and regulations to implement the exercise of the right of the people to directly
propose amendments to the Constitution through the system of initiative. It does not
have that power under R.A. No. 6735. Reliance on the COMELEC’s power under
Section 2(1) of Article IX-C of the Constitution is misplaced, for the laws and
regulations referred to therein are those promulgated by the COMELEC under (a)
Section 3 of Article IX-C of the Constitution, or (b) a law where subordinate legislation
is authorized and which satisfies the “completeness” and the “sufficient standard”
tests.
- The COMELEC acquires jurisdiction over a petition for initiative only after its filing.
The petition then is the initiatory pleading. Nothing before its filing is cognizable by
the COMELEC, sitting en banc. The only participation of the COMELEC or its personnel
before the filing of such petition are (1) to prescribe the form of the petition; (2) to
issue through its Election Records and Statistics Office a certificate on the total
number of registered voters in each legislative district; (3) to assist, through its
144
4
election registrars, in the establishment of signature stations; and (4) to verify, 5
through its election registrars, the signatures on the basis of the registry list of voters,
voters’ affidavits, and voters’ identification cards used in the immediately preceding
election.
- Cayetano vs. COMELEC, January 23, 2006- The conduct of plebiscite and
determination of its result have always been the business of the COMELEC and not
the regular courts. Such a case involves the appreciation of ballots which is best left
to the COMELEC. As an independent constitutional body exclusively charged with the
power of enforcement and administration of all laws and regulations relative to the
conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum and recall, the COMELEC
has the indisputable expertise in the field of election and related laws.” Its acts,
therefore, enjoy the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties.
24. POWER OF COMELEC RELATING TO PROMULGATION OF RULES IN THE EXERCISE OF QL FUNCTIONS
- Limkaichong vs. COMELEC- Resolution No. 8062 is a valid exercise of the COMELEC’s
constitutionally mandated power to promulgate its own rules of procedure relative to
the conduct of the elections. In adopting such policy-guidelines for the May 14, 2007
National and Local Elections, the COMELEC had in mind the objective of upholding the
sovereign will of the people and in the interest of justice and fair play. Accordingly,
those candidates whose disqualification cases are still pending at the time of the
elections, should they obtain the highest number of votes from the electorate, shall
be proclaimed but that their proclamation shall be without prejudice to the
continuation of the hearing and resolution of the involved cases.
CAYETANO VS. COMELEC: (April 12, 2001)
Final orders- example you file an election protest and there is an answer to complaint with affirmative defenses like lack
of jurisdiction, the moment hat is being resolved by Comelec division that cannot be appealed to SC even via a petition
for certiorari
- Cayetano vs. COMELEC, GR 193846, April 12, 2011- Final orders of a COMELEC
Division denying the affirmative defenses of petitioner cannot be questioned before
the Supreme Court even via a petition for certiorari.
145
4
6
25. COMMISSION ON AUDIT (COA)- considered as watchdog not only of Philippine expenditures but as well as
government funds that are received
- To determine whether expenditures are reasonable or extravagant

D. THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT
Section 1.
1. There shall be a Commission on Audit composed of a Chairman and two Commissioners, who
shall be natural-born citizens of the Philippines and, at the time of their appointment, at least thirty-five
years of age, Certified Public Accountants with not less than ten years of auditing experience, or
members of the Philippine Bar who have been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years, and
must not have been candidates for any elective position in the elections immediately preceding their
appointment. At no time shall all Members of the Commission belong to the same profession.
2. The Chairman and the Commissioners shall be appointed by the President with the consent of
the Commission on Appointments for a term of seven years without reappointment. Of those first
appointed, the Chairman shall hold office for seven years, one Commissioner for five years, and the
other Commissioner for three years, without reappointment. Appointment to any vacancy shall be only
for the unexpired portion of the term of the predecessor. In no case shall any Member be appointed or
designated in a temporary or acting capacity.
Section 2.
1. The Commission on Audit shall have the power, authority, and duty to examine, audit, and settle
all accounts pertaining to the revenue 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 corporations with original charters, and on
a post- audit basis:
a. constitutional bodies, commissions and offices that have been granted fiscal autonomy under
this Constitution;
b. autonomous state colleges and universities;
c. other government-owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries; and
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. However, where the internal control system of the audited agencies
is inadequate, the Commission may adopt such measures, including temporary or special pre-audit, as
are necessary and appropriate to correct the deficiencies. It shall keep the general accounts of the
Government and, for such period as may be provided by law, preserve the vouchers and other
supporting papers pertaining thereto.
2. The Commission shall have exclusive authority, subject to the limitations in this Article, to define
146
4
the scope of its audit and examination, establish the techniques and methods required therefor, and 7
promulgate accounting and auditing rules and regulations, including those for the prevention and
disallowance of irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant, or unconscionable expenditures or uses
of government funds and properties.
Section 3. No law shall be passed exempting any entity of the Government or its subsidiaries in any
guise whatever, or any investment of public funds, from the jurisdiction of the Commission on Audit.
Section 4. The Commission shall submit to the President and the Congress, within the time fixed by law,
an annual report covering the financial condition and operation of the Government, its subdivisions,
agencies, and instrumentalities, including government-owned or controlled corporations, and non-
governmental entities subject to its audit, and recommend measures necessary to improve their
effectiveness and efficiency. It shall submit such other reports as may be required by law.
Preaudit- simple determines whether disbursement is accordance with law and is there available funds is it within the
budget; Reasonable
Post- audit- money is already expended; it is already liquidated; amounts must be liquidated meaning amounts are
already specified OW Comelec has no right to disapprove;
26. PROMULGATION OF ACCOUNTING AND AUDTING IN GOVERNMENT OFFICES- exclusive with COA
- Conduct of audit pre or post audit is not exclusive to COA.
- Subject of audit are government funds which are not only in the hands of government offices but also in the
hands of corporations which are private however, subsidized by government to hold money; still subject to
audit by COA.
- COA’S AUDITING POWER- Blue Bar Coconut Phils. vs. Tantuico- Corporations
covered by the COA’s auditing powers are not limited to GOCCs. Where a private
corporation or entity handles public funds, it falls under COA jurisdiction. Under Sec.
2(1), item, (d), non-governmental entities receiving subsidies or equity directly or
indirectly from or through the government are required to submit to post audit.
- DBP vs. COA, January 16, 2002 -The mere fact that private auditors may audit
government agencies does not divest the COA of its power to examine and audit the
same government agencies. The COA is neither by-passed nor ignored since even
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
147
4
government agencies. The framers of the Constitution were fully aware of the need 8
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.
- BSP vs. COA, January 22, 2006 - Retirement benefits accruing to a public officer may
not, without his consent, be withheld and applied to his indebtedness to the
government.
- MISON vs. COA, 187 SCRA 445, The chairman of COA, acting by himself, has no
authority to render or promulgate a decision for the commission. The power to
decide on issues relating to audit and accounting is lodged in the COA acting as a
collegial body which has the jurisdiction to decide any case brought before it.
- PHIL. OPERATIONS, INC. vs Auditor General, 94 Phil 868, COA’s power over the
settlement of accounts is different from power over unliquidated claims, the latter
of which is within the ambit of judicial power.
- Santiago vs. COA, 537 SCRA 740- The COA can direct the proper officer to withhold a
municipal treasurer’s salary and other emoluments up to the amount of her alleged
shortage but no to apply the withheld amount to the alleged shortage for which her
liability is still being litigated.
- NHA vs. COA, 226 SCRA 55, COA can validly disallow the approval of excess or
unnecessary expenditures.
//gold//
June 30, 2012
IMPORTANT POINTS:
• LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
148
4
o BICAMERAL CONFERENCE COMMITTEE 9
§ Basically there are 2 houses, Senate and House of reps, but if they cannot agree on certain
issues like a law, that can be assigned or referred to the bicameral conference committee,
consisting of equal numbers coming from the senate and house of reps. They’re the ones who
are tasked to harmonize the conflicting versions of the laws of the 2 houses.
§ What is the extent of the extent of their resolution of the versions of the 2 houses?
• It can go to the extent of amending the versions of both by way of substitution. So it
could be an AMENDMENT BY SUBSTITUTION and make a recommendation to the
plenary to both houses. If it will be approved and carried out by both houses, then most
likely it will be carried out. But it doesn’t mean that it is supreme over the 2 houses
because it still requires the concurrence of both houses.
§ BOTTOMLINE: they can propose changes and amendments to the versions of both houses even
to the extent of coming up with its own version different from the versions of either house.
o LIMITATIONS TO THE EXERCISE OF LEGISLATIVE POWER
§ Specially on the process: requirement of 3 readings. But this can be done on the same day.
Because the law says what is indispensable is the 3 readings always 3 readings. But the separate
readings may be done at one time because of the certification from the president that the
matter on hand is urgent and if it is not taken up, prejudice public safety or public service.
o REVENUE APPROPRIATION
§ Initiated by house of reps and then goes to the Senate. It’s only when the senate receives the
version of the house that it can act on its own version even amending it to their own version –
AMENDMENT BY SUBSTITUTION.
• PRESIDENT’S VETO POWER
o PRESident has a period of 30 days from receipt of the enrolled bill from both houses to act on it. OW, if
the president fails to act on it, the bill becomes a law.
o No pocket veto in PH
o The president has to act within 30 days. If he does not agree on the bill then, veto.
§ GR: when the president vetoes, he vetoes the whole thing.
§ EXC: when the bill is:
• Appropriation bill
• Revenue bill
• Tariff bill
• For these, He can make a veto by items on these as long as the rest of the items can
stand.
§ When the president vetoes a bill he has to return it to the house of origin with his veto message
(what he is vetoing) because that can still be rectified by Congress.
§ If they do not want the suggestion of the president, they can just simply repass it again.
• Obtain 2/3 votes in both houses. Not just from the house of origin.
• Failure to obtain 2/3 vote cannot override the veto of the president.
§ The president can also veto a portion of the bill when it is inappropriate –INAPPROPRIATE
PROVISIONS – especially in appropriation bills --- riders/insertions. Should cover only 1 subject
matter to avoid hodgepodge or log rolling. This justifies an ITEMIZED VETO OF THE PRESIDENT.
• INFORMING FUNCTION
o Question hour
o SONA
• EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT
149
5
o POWER OF REMOVAL 0
§ Part of the power of appointment. If he has power to appoint, then he has power to remove.
§ Issue: WON the president can remove a deputy OMB? Following the Chinese hostage case: as a
result of the investigation, the deputy ombudsman was removed by the president.
• Was this constitutional? Or allowed? Because the constitution does not provide for the
removal of deputy OMB. Only the OMB is subject to impeachment. The deputy of OMB
can only be investigated by his peers so as to maintain the OMB’s independence. Here,
the committee of peers has exonerated the deputy OMB, notwithstanding the president
has removed him.
• Judge Singco: president has that power. Because it is an IMPLIED power of the
president. Implied from the power of appointment. Power to appoint carries with it the
power to remove.
• POWER OF APPOINTMENT OF PRESIDENT
o New issue decided Oct. 2011. ARMM elected officials term already expired, however there was a
postponement of the elections so as so sync it with the national midterm elections.
o Appointment of OICs appointment in Mindanano?
§ GR: No. There should no appointment by the president because this is a republican government,
it must be the vote of the people. OW, it would be a bad precedent where you would substitute
the people’s choice by appointment of president.
§ But in this particular case, the president can do it, because that power of appointment is
primarily lodged in the President for reasons of necessity of the situation. Based also on Sec4
where if the power is not vested in any branch in government, it is vested in the president.
Because Congress postponed the election. It is not for the court nor the COMELEC to order the
hold-over. The
§ MAGUINDANAO FEDERATION VS SENATE OCT. 18, 2011 (new) must read!!!
o Remember that over the executive departments/local government units president only has supervision,
not control over them.
REVIEW: JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
• OPERATIVE FACT DOCTRINE

o Consequence of declaration of unconstitutionality of the law.
o We follow the modern view.
• MOOT AND ACADEMIC QUESTIONS
o GR: no.
o EXC: transcendental importance. Take note of the other requisites.
o FORTUN VS ARROYO
• POLITICAL QUESTION DOCTRINE
o Limited to determination of whether there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of juris. Because as a GR the SC has no juris over political questions.
• JUDICIAL RESTRAINT
o The SC should restrain from going into the prerogatives of the 2 other branches of government lest it
will be accused intruding unnecessarily and making judicial legislation which is frowned at because of
the principle of separation of powers.
• APPOINTMENTS OF JUDGES AND JUSTICES
150
5
o Take note who has the power to screen nominees? 1
§ JBC
• Function of JBC: screen and recommend nominees to the judiciary and OMB
• Members! Memorize composition:
o CJ: ex officio chairman
o SOJ: ex officio member
o A representative of Congress
§ Issue now is there are 2: one from senate and one from House. But
ideally 1 only, if 2, ½ vote only.
o IBP representative (regular member)
o Law professor (regular member)
o Retired SC justice (regular member)
o Representative from the private sector. (regular member)
• When they make recommendations, they should submit at least 3 nominees for each
vacancy.
o There cannot be an nomination if there is only 1 applicant.
• Appointment of justice to SC:
o Filled up within 90 days from vacancy.
• Appointment to lower courts:
o Filled up within 90 days from submission of list to the president.
• KILOSBAYAN VS ONG
o Ong questioned the SC’s interference to his appointment. He was supposed to
be appointed to SC. But wala nadayun.
§ SC: even if the JBC is there to initially screen, the SC is never precluded
from reviewing the qualification of the appointee especially here when
it is the consti that prescribes the qualifications of the justices.
§ The role of the JBC that can be encroached by the SC at its discretion in
order to see to it that the requirements of the consti are complied with.
• ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERVISION
o Exclusive to SC
o Judges and rank and file cannot be investigated by the president nor OMB on admin cases. Because it is
exclusive to SC.
o Is the OMB going beyond its authority to investigate CJ Corona?
§ This has still to be resolved by the SC because the precedent jurisprudence is that it has no
jurisdiction (Maceda case), but on the other hand, the OMB has power of inquiry. They cannot
inquire into bank accounts unless there is a pending case in the court (not OMB).
§ Bank accounts cannot be looked into by the OMB without a pending case in court (not pending
case in OMB).
• Remember Laurel case.
o Because of admin supervision of SC, president cannot grant pardon to an erring judge. Because it is
exclusive to the SC to discipline members of the judiciary.
CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS
• Matibag case:
151
5
o In the Matibag case, the prohibition against reappointment applies only to regular appointment. 2
There is a new jurisprudence regarding that. The term of office is 7 years. Its only when it was first
created to have rotation scheme that staggered terms took place.
o This is COA but also applies to all constitutional commissions.
o Prohibition on reappointment:
§ New jurisprudence: FUNA VS COA APRIL 24, 2012 (NEW)
• After the staggered terms of those 1st commissioners appointed, each will have a
term of 7 years.
• An appointment of a lesser period is void and unconsti. As this will result in the
distortion of the rotational system prescribed by the consti.
• What happens if a vacancy is created? (death, impeachment, resignation, disability
of commissioner, thus his term is shortened)
o One who replaces him gets only the remaining term and this cannot be
shortened also. Serve just the remaining unexpired term.
• Commissioner resigned before his term expired, and then he was appointed with
the full term of 7 years as chairman. But there is that prohibition against
reappointment. Villar resigned when he was first appointed. He again was
reappointed as Chairman now. Is that reappointment valid? VALID. Sa Matibag case,
clear that the 2nd appointment is valid because the first appointment was not a
regular appointment which requires confirmation by CA. It was an ad interim
appointment, and it automatically expired after the adjournment of the next session
of Congress. In this case its different, he was appointed but he didn’t finish because
he resigned. After he resigned, he was again appointed as chairman. Is the
appointment constitutional? (this applies to all consti commissions as well)
o SC: members of the commission who were appointed for the full term of 7
years and who served the entire period are barred from reappointments to
any position in the commission. A commissioner who resigns after serving in
the commission for less than 7 years is qualified, eligible. This is something
new. Eligible for reappointment for the unexpired term or portion of the
term of his predecessor. Such appointment is not covered by the ban on
reappointment provided that the aggregate period of the length of service
as commissioners and the unexpired period of the term of the predecessors
should not exceed 7 years and provided further that the vacancy in the
position of the chair resulted from: (permanent reasons:)
§ Death
§ Resignation
§ Disability
§ Removal by impeachment
o And that any member of the commission cannot be appointed or
designated in temporary or acting capacity.
o See FUNA vs COA
o This applies to all consti commissions
• DE LA LLANA VS COA February 7, 2012
o Pre-audit of COA case. It is the function of COA to do pre and post audit.
However, not exclusive.
o Pre-audit is not mandatory.
152
5
o Prescribing rules on audit exclusive to COA 3
o Conduct of audit is NOT EXCLUSIVE to COA.
o SC: there is nothing in the provision that requires COA to conduct a pre-
audit of all government transactions for all government agencies. The only
clear reference to pre-audit is found in Sec2, par1.
o COA has exclusive authority to prescribe rules for its audit.
o Prescribing the scope of its audit (pre/post) exclusive on COA.
o The conduct of audit is NOT EXCLUSIVE TO COA
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
§ Political subdivisions:
o Autonomous regions--- only 2---cannot be increased unless consti is amended (ARMM and Cordillera)
o MMDA is not a political subdivision it is an admin coordinating body.
§ Can an LGU be abolished by ordinary legislation? (ex. No more provinces)
o NO. What can be done is consolidation of barangays, converting cities. However this must be with
approval of the residents or through people who are affected by it through a plebiscite.
o Adjacent, contiguous and compact requirement.
§ TERM LIMITS
o MAGUINDANAO FEDERATION VS SENATE OCT. 18, 2011
§ They passed a law to postpone elections in Maguindanao, to implement this, they passed a law
of hold-over until 2013 elections. Para synchronized.
§ Can Congress extend the term? What is provided by consti?
• 3 years, should not be more than 3 years except Kabataan Barangay. This regional
assembly and autonomous region, this is included
• The 3-year term of office of local officials cannot be extended by hold-over by Congress.
• Hold over is constitutionally infirm.
• Terms fixed by consti cannot be changed by statute. Not even Congress nor SC has the
power to fix the term of officials for less or more than 3 years.
• The only option left, is to grant the president to appoint OICs.
o SUCCESSIVE TERMS
§ Not more than 3 successive terms.
• Means regular election.
• If one became the chief executive by succession that is not counted in the
determination of successiveness of term.
• Or when he ran in a recall election—not also counted.
• If he resigns, take note under the consti, voluntary renunciation is not considered an
interruption of the term of office. So for example, he ran for mayor for the 1st time and
he resigned before expiration of the term, (BAR FAVORIte!!!), he ran the 2nd time, he
won, 3rd time, won, 4th time, he is not anymore qualified because he had already been
elected the first time.
• ALTOFINO VS COMELEC DECEMBER 23, 2009
o He got preventively suspended while he was still captain. Because of that his
term was interrupted. So he ran for the 4th election saying that there was an
153
5
interruption because there was an involuntary removal during the period of 4
preventive suspension.
o SC: the preventive suspension of public officials DOES NOT INTERRUPT their
term for purposes of the application of the 3 term limit under the consti, and
the LGC. Preventive suspension by its nature does not involve an effective
interruption of service within a term and should therefore not be a reason to
avoid the 3 term limitation.
o Read this case!!!
• BOLOS JR VS COMELEC MARCH 18, 2009
o He was captain. He ran for election of brgy kagawad. He resigned as kagawad
and ran again for captain.
o Q: is he qualified?
o SC: Bolos was serving his 3rd term as captain when he ran for council. ...
o Just read this case!!!
• AROMEO CASE/HAGEDORN CASE
o Recall election
o Read!!!
o A recall election was called, he qualifies.
o 1st, 2nd, 3rd ,he won. He did not run on the 4th. But there was recall election of
the one elected after him. He can run. There is no more prohibition.
• ONG VS ALEGREE
o He served all 3 terms. But on the 3rd term, before expiration of term, he was
ousted. Because the person who actually won was his kontra. Iyang kontra took
over. An election was held, Ong ran again for the 4th time saying that he was
never elected when in fact he practically served it.
o SC: No. You virtually served the 3rd term. DQ.
§ REQUIREMENTS FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO BE CONSIDERED AS A CITY, PROVINCE, MUNI OR BRGY –LGC
o NAVARRO VS ERMITA APRIL 12, 2011
§ Dinagat island is now a province. Although there is a question on the requirement of area and
population.
§ SC: the land area requirement shall not apply where the proposed province is composed of 1 or
more islands. RA9355 creating Dinagat as province is valid and constitutional.
o LEAGUE OF CITIES OF PH VS COMELEC APRIL 12, 2011
§ They are validly created as cities. Requirement of income, new amendment of the law should
not apply to them, under the equal protection clause of the constitution. Because prior to
enactment of the new law RA 9009 increasing the income requirement, a petition for cityhood
for the 16 cities has already been filed. Equal protection clause valid classification.
§ MMDA
o Has no authority to dismantle billboards and ads posted in MRT because it is private property.
o Limited powers: information, coordination, regulation, implementation, preparation, management,
monitoring, setting of policies, installing a system (in and?) administration, and thus has no power to
dismantle billboards under the guise of police and legislative power.
o MMDA VS MENCOR TRANSPORT
§ MMDA cannot transfer bus depot
§ Not even under police power.
• IRA
154
5
o Automatic release 5
o Amount is subject to availability of funds, thus has to be determined by Congress.
• LOCAL TAXATION
o To ensure local autonomy
o Sources of revenue of local governments:
§ Own taxes
§ IRA
§ Development and exploration of natural resources has share because as part of its source of
income
o LOCAL TAX
§ Discretion
§ DADULE CASE
§ Imposing taxes on insturmentalities of national government
• PPA vs ILO-ILO
o Proprietary function-- subject to tax if there is no law exempting them from tax.
• GSIS VS DAVAO
• MCIAA VS MARCOS JULY 20, 2006
o Can MCIAA be taxed?
o MCIAA is subject to tax because proprietary unless exempted from law.
o But in the MIA case
§ Exempt because the properties of MIA are held by government are held
by government in its sovereign capacity unlike MCIAA which is really a
corporation, MIA is not subject to tax.
• WHERE THERE IS NO EXPRESS LAW EXEMPTING A NATIONAL INSTRUMETNALITY
ENGAGED IN PROPRIETARY function, then taxable. However, in case of doubt, resolve
against the LGU.
• LOCAL AUTONOMY
o NORTH COTABATO VS GRP PEACE PANEL
§ There cannot be a state within a state
o Does not mean transfer of powers but only administration.
ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS
• Memorize section1
• How are the officials made accountable?
o IMPEACHMENT for OMB and high ranking officials
§ IMPEACHMENT
• For removal of high ranking officials. Exclusive list.
o P
o VP
o Justices of SC
o OMB
o Exluded and deputy OMB
• Grounds for IMPEACHMENT:
o Culpable violation of the constitution
155
5
o Bribery 6
§ Defined by RPC
o Treason
§ Defined by RPC
o Graft and corruption
o Other high crimes
§ No definition
o Betrayal of public trust
§ No definition
§ Discretion of the senate to determine
o MEMORIZE!!! THE GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT!!! Exclusive!
• PROCESS OF IMPEACHMENT
o Initiation of the proceedings:
§ Vested in House of Reps: discretionary in the house of reps. It has the
power to promulgate rules governing it.
§ FRANCISCO ET AL VS HOUSE OF REPS
• Davide was the subject of the impeachment complaint.
o referral to committee on justice whether sufficient in form and substance
§ the impeachment proceedings is deemed initiated upon filing and
referral, regardless of the action taking by the committee.
ORDINARY INDIVIDUAL MEMBER OF HOUSE
Needs indorsement No need for endorsement
Filed directly – then referred to

comittee

Or
o V
E 1/3 signed of members of the
R house: not pass through
I committee anymore.
F
ICATION
o Then transmitted to senate.
o If not signed by at least of the members, referral to committee.
o Committee will conduct investigation/hearings.
o Committee will make a report/recommendation within 60 days whether to
dismiss or recommend the filing.
o OW, can be compelled by mandamus.
o Voting. 1/3 of the members of the house vote.
o Even if the recommendation is dismissal, but there are 1/3
members wanting to proceed, then the impeachment will
proceedings.
o Even if 2/3 of the house who prefers the dismissal, the 1/3 can still
push through with the impeachment.
156
5
GUTIERREZ vs HOUSE COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE FEB 15, 2011 7
o Limitation of impeachment: 1x a year.

o SC: no violation, because filed on different dates but simultaneously
referred on the same time. So there was only 1 impeachment
proceedings.
o You may have several impeachment complaints but only.
o Initiation does not mean the complaints but rather the initiation of
impeachment proceedings.
o Gutierrez was denied of due process because there was no
publication of the impeachment rules. BUT IT NOT REQUIRED BY
THE CONSTITUTION TO PUBLISH.
DE CASTRO VS HOUSE (1995)
• PRESIDED over by the president.

o if the president was subject of impeachment, then it is the Chief Justice who will
preside.
• Impeachment is SUI GENERIS. It is a kind of its own. Difficult to define because purpose is
removal of political officers as provided in the constitution.
o In a sense still criminal because you still need to respect the right of the accused.
Because it is adversarial proceedings.
o In a sense, admin, because purpose is removal from office.
• QUANTUM OF EVIDENCE needed
o More than substantial but less then proof beyond reasonable doubt.
o Discretion of the senate judges
o You cannot question the wisdom of the people because it is vested on them
• VOTE TO CONVICT
o 2/3 vote of the Senate
• EFFECT
o Removal from office
o Issue on accessory penalties: can penalty be less than removal from office?
§ This is an issue.
o Ordinarily in admin case, if dismissed from service accessory penalties are attached:
perpetual DQ from appointment from public office, forfeiture of benefits.
o Consti says that it impeachment is without prejudice to criminal prosecution.
o Once impeached, no more protection of security of tenure. So can be criminally
prosecuted. This is not double jeopardy because impeachment is admin in nature.
o Impeachment is not condition precedent for prosecution.
• PARDON BY PRESIDENT
o No pardon allowed if impeached. ERAP was pardoned because he was not really
impeached.
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN
• Aka Tanodbayan
• Extent of power and jurisdiction
157
5
o To make all people in government accountable at all times. 8
o No exemption
o 2 kinds of investigation that can be conducted:
§ 1. ADMINISTRATIVE: omb acts as judge. Reprimand to dismissal from service.
§ 2. CRIMINAL: OMB acts as prosecutor. Determines if there is probable cause to file complaint in
SB or regular court.
o Ultimately it is the court that determines the guilt, not OMB.
• ADMINISTRATIVE INVESTIGATION
o RA 6770: ALL,
§ As long as you are receiving salary from government.
§ LAUREL CASE
§ EXCEPT:
• Impeachable officers
• judiciary
§ CASES:
• MACEDA vs DESIERTO
o Judges not subject to admin complaint
• MASING VS OMB G.R. No. 165584, January 22, 2008
o Can public school teachers be subject to investigation by OMB? YES. Consti,
being the later law, prevails over the magna carta which was enacted in 1960s.

reiterated this ruling in Office of the Ombudsman v. Laja, where we emphasized
that “the
Ombudsman’s order to remove, suspend, demote, fine, censure, or prosecute
an officer or
employee is not merely advisory or recommendatory but is actually
mandatory.” Implementation
of the order imposing the penalty is, however, to be coursed through the proper
officer.
- Section 23(1) of the same law provides that administrative investigations
conducted by the Office of
the Ombudsman shall be in accordance with its rules of procedure and
consistent with due process.
It is erroneous, therefore, for respondents to contend that R.A. No. 4670
confers an exclusive
disciplinary authority on the DECS over public school teachers and prescribes an
exclusive
procedure in administrative investigations involving them. R.A. No. 4670 was
approved on June 18,
1966. On the other hand, the 1987 Constitution was ratified by the people in a
plebiscite in 1987
while R.A. No. 6770 was enacted on November 17, 1989. It is basic that the
1987 Constitution should
not be restricted in its meaning by a law of earlier enactment. The 1987
Constitution and R.A. No.
158
5
6770 were quite explicit in conferring authority on the Ombudsman to act on 9
complaints against all
public officials and employees, with the exception of officials who may be
removed only by
impeachment or over members of Congress and the Judiciary.
o Marquez vs. Desierto, June 27, 2001- there must be a pending case before a
court of competent jurisdiction before inspection of bank accounts by
Ombudsman may be allowed.
• While case is being investigated, OMB can place the official under preventive suspension FOR 6 MONTHS.
o It can be less than 6 months, but not more than 6 months.
o 6 months cannot be done on instalment basis.
• In admin case, penalty may be imposed by OMB:
o Range of penalty: reprimand – dismissal
o But the can the OMB implement its decision?
§ LEDESMA VS CA July 29, 2005
• Not merely recommendatory. Recommendatory in the sense in the case of
implementation, but definitely the OMB can implement its decision.
§ OMB VS CA JUNE 16, 2006
§ FACURA VS CA FEB. 16, 2011
• Appeals from the decisions of OMB in admin case do not stay the execution of the
penalty imposed.
• If judgement of OMB is dismissal, then you are dismissed right away even if still on
appeal.
• Execution pending appeal.
§ OMB VS CA JANUARY 26, 2011
• CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION
o SCOPE: all public officers including impeachable officers and judiciary.
§ President: wait after the end of term, OW immune from suit.
o This power is not exclusive to OMB. It is concurrently exercised by DOJ.
§ Difference:
• When it involves a high ranking official --- triable at SB --- it has to be with the
imprimatur of the OMB or Deputy.
o Ex. You in Samar before you can file the case at prosecutor’s office. But it
has to be with approval of the OMB before going to SB , OW complaint can
be quashed.
o No private prosecutor in SB unless there is a civil liability that you want to claim there.
o UY VS SB – prosecutorial power – MARCH 20, 2011
• GOCC if performing governmental function, subject to OMB jurisdiction.
o MACALINO VS OMB
• RECOVERY OF ILL GOTTEN WEALTH
o Can also be initiated by OMB.
o No prescriptive period. But the prosecution for ill gotten wealth is subject to prescription. File within
15 years from discovery.
***cross reference to KWIN transcripts***
159
6
NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PARTRIMONY 0
• REGALIAN DOCTRINE
• ANCESTRAL DOMAIN
o Part of lands and natural resources that as a general rule do not belong to the state because they
are owned by the natives since time immemorial based on native title.
• CLASSIFICATION OF LANDS
o Private
o Public
§ Agricultural --- A & D: can be acquired by citizens
• Can only be acquired by individual citizens not more than 12 hectars. Lease not
more than 500 hectares.
• Qualified Filipino corps cannot acquire, lease only up to 1000 hectares.
§ Timber
§ Timberlands
§ National parks
o FORESHORE LANDS: cannot be acquired UNLESS declared A & D.
§ If reclaimed, can they be the subject of acquisition? (ex. SRP)
• GR: if not classified as agri, cannot be acquired. There has to be classification by P
thru bureau of lands.
• Can they be acquired by individual citizens?
o Yes. 12 hectares only.
o Qualified pinoy corps cannot acquire. Lease only.
o Directors of the corp who are Filipino citizens can acquire it individually, it
becomes private lands, then they can sell it to Filipino qualified corps.
§ Does it acquire the consent of congress? If private land, NO.
§ If owned by state, even if A&D, needs Congress consent.
o Issue on SRP and NHA.
o CHAVEZ VS NHA AUGUST 15, 2007
§ If it was PEA that reclaimed the land, it becomes part of public
domain thus cannot be disposed. But here NHA reclaimed the land,
it was issued with a special patent, thus it was owned by NHA in
proprietary capacity, not public, so can be acquired by individuals
and private qualified corps.
o SRP case
§ Who reclaimed it? SRP. Issued a special patent. So it is a private
land. Owned by LGU.
§ It can be acquired by individuals and qualified corps.
§ WON the disposition of these lands are subject to the consent of
congress? NO. Because it is private lands. So no consent of congress
needed.
o Roponggi case
§ Property owned by state in its sovereign capacity, so needs consent
of congress.
• PRIVATE LANDS
o Can be acquired by individuals, citizens and pinoy corps.
160
6
o Foreigners cannot acquire lands except in hereditary succession where they 1
are compulsory heirs or former citizens like balikbayans.
o FOREIGNERS can own condominiums because they are not lands.
o Foreigners can own trees as long as it does not include the land where the
tree is planted.
• NATURAL RESOURCES
o Belong to the state because of regalia doctrine.
o But in ANCESTRAL LANDS that have natural resources, is it under control of the state?
o Who can exploit natural resources under control of the state?
§ 3 ways to exploit these natural resources?
• JOIN VENTURE WITH THE STATE
• CO-PRODUCTION
• PRODUCTION SHARING
o Can foreigner engage directly in mining in PH, large scale mining?
§ No. Because only Pinoy and qualified pinoy corps that can enter into those contracts as
provided in consti.
§ Only in service contracts that the government may enter into contracts with foreign
corporations.
• FISHING
o Exclusive to individual citizens of the country
• BORACAY
o Take note: can you own lands in Bora by prescription? NO because they are not classified as A & D
agri lands. They are still classified as timber lands.
o DENR VS YAP
o SACAY VS DENR OCT 8, 2008
o Can it be applied as registration of title? ONLY after reclassification as A &D.
§ 10 years: reckoned from before the declaration
§ 30 years:
§ MALABANAN VS RP APRIL 29, 2009
o LAUREANO VS HERMOSO APRIL 24, 2009
o Private lands sold to foreinger is invalid. VOID. Can you recover the land even if sold in bad faith?
YES.
o You sold property to foreigner. That foreigner become Filipino citizen. Cannot recover anymore.
Cured.
o I have land sold to foreigner, foreigner sold to Pinoy. Sale is valid. BORROMEO VS DESCALLAR
• PRIOR TO 1987, the owner of the property was the owner of the natural resources. Controller of the
exploration is the owner of the land.
o Q: you had your permit to explore for 25 years. Given in 1975. It will expire in 2000. What will apply?
The 1973 consti or 1987?
§ Contract has to be respected by 1987 consti has to be respected under the non-impairment
clause.
§ Application of regalia doctrine under the 1987 consti is not retroactive REPUBLIC VS
ROSEMOOR MINING
• LA BUGAL BLAAN VS CASE

161
6
LIBERALIZATION OF INVESTMENTS/BUSINESSES 2
• PUBLIC UTILITY
o BOT (Build Operate Transfer) IS NOT PUBLIC UTILITY. Not subject to citizenship requirement. so no violation
of citizenship requirement.
o Is not exclusive to a corporation.
• MASS MEDIA
o Required 100% Filipino
• ADVERTISEMENT
o 70%
• SCHOOLS
o 100% EXCEPT IF established by a religious mission board.
• FRANCHISES
o Given by Congress. 25 years. Renewable for another 25 years.
• PRACTICE OF PROFESSION
o Reserved for Filipino citizens
o Foreigner allowed as long as follow requisites.
• ORGANIZATION OF CORPORATIONS
o Is monopoly: allowed as long as public interest is not affected
o Restraint of trade: prohibited
o Unfair competition: prohibited
• TAKE OVER
o Can be done in cases of war or national emergency
o When government takes over corps or vital installations permanently: exercise of eminent domain and
payment of just compensation. Follow process of expropriation.
SOCIAL JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS
• SOCIAL JUSTICE
o Giving those who have less in life more in law.
o Not just money poor.
• In relation to human rights,
o HUMAN RIGHTS: EPZA VS HR : human rights is limited to violation of civil and political rights.
§ It does not include ejectment of squatters.
§ Excludes socio-economic rights
• ROLE OF CHR
o Investigate only. No adjudicatory power.
o Cannot decide whether there is violation of human rights.
o Can only recommend to proper officers of government for action.
o Cannot issue a contempt order. They do not exercise adjudicatory power.
o If you don’t follow admin rules they promulgate, you can be cited for contempt.
§ When called to appear and you don’t appear. (Example)
o Under the human security act, CHR has prosecutorial power ONLY when it refers to the HUMAN
SECURITY ACT. – adjudicatory and prosecutorial power
§ Because the consti states “perform such other functions as may be provided by law.”
ART.14: ACADEMIC FREEDOM

162
6
• 3 points of view: 3
o Student POV
§
o Academe POV
§ Free to do research and publish research, how and what to teach the students.
§ PLAGIARISM against Justice Del Castillo
• Defense of UP law professors: academic freedom
• LETTER OF THE UP LAW: AM 10-10-4-SC MARCH 8, 2011
o SHOW CAUSE resolution does not interfere with the respondent’s academic
freedom...
o Educational institution of higher learning POV (not mababang paaralan!)
§ Freedom to chose who are to teach, to be admitted as enrolees, and how the subject matter
may be tought.
• In the choice of students, they have rules on entrance and expulsion.
• Students has contract with school the moment they are enrolled--- finish the course.
• DLSU VS CA DECEMBER 19, 2007
o Case of student involved in frat and was removed.
§ REVIEW CENTER ASSOCIATION VS ERMITA APRIL 2,2009
• Institution of higher learning is one that offers a degree-granting program that would
put it under the jurisdiction of CHED. Not high school or elementary.
§ CHOICE OF TEACHERS: discretionary on the part of educ institution
• LACUESTA VS ATENEO DEC. 9, 2005
• MORALES VS UP BOARD OF REGENTS DEC. 13, 2004
o Professor went abroad, did not even apply for leave. But went back and
promoted by UP.
o SC: academic freedom. UP cannot be forced by civil service commission to
dismiss the AWOL teacher.
ART. 16: GENERAL PROVISIONS
• Read for MCQ!

• Flag and seal cannot be changed.
• National language
o Filipino
• Official language
o Filipino, English.
• IMMUNITY FROM SUIT
o State is immune from suit except when it gives its consent.
§ Consent: express or implied
§ Basta consent must be under a law.
o 327
§ Obligations arising from contracts: state can be sued.
• Procedure: PD 1445
o You can only sue the state that it must first be filed with COA.
163
6
• PD 2180 on special agents 4
o Government officials are immune from suit, unless excess of authority
o Special agents whether or not in excess of duty, the state is liable.
• DAMAGES CAUSED TO INDIVIDUALS because of infra owned by LGU
o Can sue the LGU
o Special law
§ Congress enacts a special law allowing you to sue government. This is by way of resolution
issued by Congress.
o IMPLIED CONSENT
§ 1. When government engages primarily in business
• If business is incidental: no waiver
§ 2. Primarily commercial contract
• Can be sued, OW must first apply with COA.
§ 3. When government initiates the filing of complaint for affirmative relief.
• But if the filing of the complaint is to resist a claim against the state then no waiver
• State cannot be compelled to INTERPLEAD.
§ 4. Expropriation cases
§ 5. When it causes injustice to an individual
§ BOTTOMLINE: IF YOU SUE an unincorporated agency, corporations engaged in performance of
governmental functions, government officials performing government officials, then it is a suit
against the state.
o SUIT DIFFERENT FROM LIABILITY
§ You cannot garnish the funds of government in bank.
§ You cannot levy the properties of government.
o NATIONAL POLICE FORCE
§ Civilian but nationwide in scope
• SANTIAGO VS RAMOS
• LAMBINO VS COMELEC
TRANSITORY PROVISIONS
• TREATY MAKING
o Foreign troops stationed in PH is not generally allowed. Allowed now because of an exception. Now
because there is VFA.
o VFA is not a treaty because it is an executive agreement.
o Executive agreement
§ Implementation by providing details
o Treaty
§ Permanent
§ Broader terms
o In VFA we allow troops to come here in PH
§ SMITH CASE
• Accused of rape.
• In the VFA, first to file the case is the one who has juris.
• Smith was convicted.
• But in CA, acquitted because complainant desisted.
164
6
• NICOLAS VS ROMULO, SALONGA VS SMITH, MAKABAYAN VS ARROYO FEB. 11, 2009 5
o Iow, there is a manner of entering a treaty, if there are changes, it must be in
accordance with the manner provided by law.
//neil//
--- ---- ---- ---- ----
JUNE 30, 2012
Only in a service contract that a government will enter into. In a service contract the government is the one who hires
the foreigner contractor, and because they are the contractor then they are directly doing the mining and need not be
directly controlled by the government. Only the control is through the laws passed like the mining law. That is the kind
of control over the foreign corporation engaged in the development of the natural resources in the guise of service
contract. Suffice it to say they are allowed under the service contract, not under the joint venture,co- production
contract. Did you understand? J
TAKE NOTE!! The exploration of our marine is exclusive to the Filipino citizens.
Then the matter of Boracay, there has been application of ownership over the land. Unless you have a title over it as an
individual owner , then you may acquire it even by prescription. So take note, they are occupying or leasing lands that
actually belonging to the State because not yet classified as agricultural land. Even if they stay there for 100yrs, you can
never acquire them by prescription, because they considered as timberlands and therefore inalienable.
TAKE NOTE! Because this is a controversy up to the present.
DENR vs YAP; SAKAY vs DENR

- DENR vs. Yap, GR No. 167707, Sacay vs. DENR, GR No. 17775, October 8, 2008- Boracay Island is
owned by the State except for the lot areas with existing titles. The continued possession and
considerable investment of private claimants do not automatically give them a vested right in
Boracay. Nor do these give them a right to apply a title to the land they are presently occupying. The
present land law traces its roots to the Regalian Doctrine.

- Except for lands already covered by existing titles, the Supreme Court said that Boracay was
unclassified land of the public domain prior to Proc. 1064 (which classified Boracay as 400 hecs of
reserved forest land and 628.96 hecs. of agricultural land). Such unclassified lands are considered
public forest under PD No. 705. Forest lands do not necessarily refer to large tracts of wooded land or
expanses covered by dense growths of trees and underbrushes.
Because in fact they are aleready occupied by buildings, and there is no wood there.
Can it be applied for registration of title?
Yes. Only when it is declared as alienable and disposable. SABOT? The thing is on revocation of title, in order to apply
must have occupied or resided in good faith for 10 years or if you know that the owner is the government, at least for 30
years. RECKONED from the time it is declared inalienable or from the time occupied by your predecessor.
165
6
You have been occupying that since time immemorial and it is only in 2010 that it was declared as alienable and 6
disposable, then if you apply for registration, if you have stayed as early as 1946 thus that is the cut off period, 1946
because of the parity right period, etc. NOW, it is only in 2010 that it is declared as alienable or in 1946 when your
predecessors occupied the property. Do you understand? J are you following, yaw katog. J
- Heirs of Mario Malabanan v. Republic of the Philipipnes, GR No. 179987, April 29, 2009)- public
domain lands become patrimonial property or private property of the government only upon a
declaration that these are alienable or disposable lands, together with an express government
manifestation that the property is already patrimonial or no longer retained for public service or the
development of national wealth. Only when the property has become patrimonial can the prescriptive
period for the acquisition of property of the public domain begin to run.

- in connection with Section 14 (1) of the Property Registration Decree, Section 48 (b) of the Public
Land Act recognizes that “those who by themselves or through their predecessors in interest have
been in open, continuous and exclusive possession and occupation of alienable and disposable lands
of the public domain, under a bona fide claim of ownership, since June 12, 1945” have acquired
ownership of, and registrable title, to such lands based on the length and quality of their possession.
The Court clarified that the Public Land Act merely requires possession since June 12, 1945 and does
not require that the lands should have been alienable and disposable during the entire period of
possession. The possessor is thus entitled to secure judicial confirmation of title as soon as the land it
covers is declared alienable and disposable. This is, however, subject to the December 31, 2020
deadline imposed by the Public Land Act, as amended by R.A. 9176.

Kasabot? Any problems or clarifications relating to that? J
How do you classify lands?
- Laureano V. Hermoso, et al. vs. Francia, et al., GR No. 16678, April 24, 2009 – The classification of
lands of the public domain is of two types, i.e., primary classification and secondary classification. The
primary classification comprises agricultural, forest or timber, mineral lands, and national parks. The
agricultural lands of the public domain may further be classified by law according to the uses to which
they may be devoted. This further classification of agricultural lands is referred to as secondary
classification. Congress, under existing laws, granted authority to a number of government agencies
to effect the secondary classification of agricultural lands to residential, commercial or industrial or
other urban uses.
*4 ra ha ang classification.
Let me ask you, kung private lands it may be acquired by anyone, the land of public domain or agricultural. Kung ibaligya
na siya sa foreigner, is it valid? NO. L can you recover the property knowing that the foreigner acquired the land, in bad
faith ka, can you? YES J definitely. Bad faith or pari de licto does not apply in cases like this.
But you sold the property to foreigner then become Filipino. Can you recover the property? Not anymore, it has been by
the foreigner becoming a Filipino citizen. TAKE NOTE!
- Borromeo v. Descallar, GR No. 159310, February 24, 2009- While the acquisition and the purchase of
real properties in the country by a foreigner is void ab initio for being contrary to the Constitution, the
subsequent acquisition of the said properties from the foreigner by a Filipino citizen has cured the
flaw in the original transaction and the title of the transferee is valid.
I have a parcel of land, I sold it to the foreigner,in turn the foreigner sold it to a Filipino citizen.
Q: is the sale valid? Yes.
166
6
Another point to take note on the classification of natural resources. What you follow is the Regalian doctrine, ang tag- 7
iya sa natural resources is the state. BUT TAKE NOTE, prior to 1987 constitution, it is not the case. The case then before
is that ang tag iya sa yuta is the tag iya of the natural resources. In terms of taxes and permit to do the exploration, then
the share of income and pay royalty tax to the government. In other words,the control for the exploration is the owner
of the land.
QUESTION! You have a concession or permit to do the mining, now under the 1973 constitution, you have 25 years,
when will it expire if for example if you have it in 1975 plus 25 yrs, in 2000 pa.
What will apply now, that all you need to do is pay royalty tax or under the 1987 constitution that natural resources
belong to the state? Should the contract be respected under 1987 constitution? Yes it has to be respected by virtue of
non impairment clause. In other words, the regalian doctrine as provided in 1987 constituion is not applied retroactively.
- Republic vs. Rosemoor Mining & Development Corp., 426 SCRA 517 – Section 2, Article XII of the
1987 constitution does not apply retroactively to a “license, concession or lease” granted by the
government under the 1973 constitution or before the effectivity of the 1987 constitution.

- La Bugal-B’laan Tribal Ass., Inc. vs. Ramos, December 1, 2004 – Foreign corporations are confined to
technical and financial assistance. The State itself may explore, develop or utilize the country’s
natural resources by entering into the necessary agreements with individuals or entities in the pursuit
of visible operations. Service contracts with foreign corporations as contractors who invest in and
operate and manage extractive enterprises, subject to the full control and supervision of the State.
Control by the state must be on the macro level, through the establishment of policies, guidelines,
regulations, industry standards and similar measures that would enable the government to control
the conduct of the affairs in various enterprises and restrain activities deemed not desirable or
beneficial.
Now it has been an issue for declaration of unconstitutionality to many environmentalist. You actually allow the
foreigners to exoplore the natural resources, only they do is to ask them to follow our regulations. Anyway, it has been
so far as the matter of natural resources.
PUBLIC UTILITIES – engaged in services offered to the public like electrification, distribution of water, etc.
TAKE NOTE! That the building, operation and transfer (BOT) is not a public utility. And therefore not subject to the
requirement of citizenship. Kanang MRT sa Manila, LRT, they are under BOT thus does not require Filipino citizenship in
matters of operation. The moment they have the return of investment, then they will transfer ownership to the
government. The one engaged in this is the foreign corporation.
NOW, the matter of public utility, this is not exclusive, by a corpoeration, the franchises can be issued to other
corporation engaged in the operation of public utility.
What is the citizenship requirement on mass media? 100%. This is the one they want to amend.
ADVERTISEMENT – 70 % owned by a qualified Filipino corporation.
Educational institutions 60%; foreigners – 40%. 60% by a Filipino citizen EXCEPT when it is established by a religious
board or by a religious group or mission board.
On FRANCHISE and certificate of public utility, must be allowed only for 25 years renewable for another 25 years.
The PRACTICE OF PROFESSION – reserved for Filipino citizens. Can a foreigner be allowed? Yes as long as they are
qualified, they must take an exam. If for bar exam?no, must be a Filipino citizen.
167
6
Organization of corporation private or public. On restraint of trade and unfair competition – prohibited. But monopoly 8
guys, it is not prohibited. Sometimes it is required especially by the government, because it is difficult to left it at the
mercy of a private corporation, as long as the public interest is not affected by it. It is allowed. SABOT? J
On government taking over of corporations. In cases of emergency, in declaration of national emergency and war,
certainly it can be done. NOW! The instance of taking over of the government on vital industry – when it is permanent, it
is an exercise of eminent domain, then require just compensation and follow the process of expropriation. SABOT? J
The airport, YASCO (not clear), the airport there has a problem with the contractor then the government decided to
expropriate it. then there has been the problem on the payment of just compensation. There was a controversial case in
Cebu where the govt took over by eminent domain.
NOTE! That if an industry is to be taken over by the government it has to be with just compensation UNLESS it is
temporary, then no requisite payment needed.
SOCIAL JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Social justice means giving those who are less in life more in law. In other words, you should be given more protection.
The human right must be understood in the case of:
- HUMAN RIGHTS- read EPZA VS, HR, 208 SCRA; Simon vs. Com. on Human Rights, 229 SCRA 1170-
limited to violations of civil and political rights only either by government official or private individual.
BUT on ejectment of squatters, remember, the ejectment by the Mayor of Quezon City they complained to CHR. SC said
no violation.
On powers of the CHR, they can only investigate, matter of adjudicatory power. They can only investigate and
recommend to agency of government from further investigation. They would refer it to DOJ or OMB. But definitely not
for tehm to decide, nor make a finding of violation of law, nor issue a contempt or restraining order. Bec they only
exercise adjudicatory power.
BUT if you don’t follow their orders, then they can cite you for contempt. So if you are summoned to appear then you
refuse, then you can be cited for contempt for not following administrative rule.
- Human Security Act- granting adjudicatory and prosecutorial powers to the CHR re violations of
human rights.- refer to Section 5- perform such other functions and duties as may be provided by law.
GR: CHR has no adjudicatory or prosecutorial power
EXC: when it refers to Human Security Act where there is allegations on violation of human rights
If mga police pataka lang panakop, then in the course of that they violate human right. Here the CHR can investigate, it is
an adjudicatory or prosecutorial power. Here they can investigate. Because the constitution says “UNLESS OW
AUTHORIZED BY LAW” – catch all provision.
On Article 14, focus on ACADEMIC FREEDOM.
There are 3 kinds of view: point of view of student, academe or of the educational institution of higher learning. Dili
mababang paaralan ng TIMBOKTO. J
On point of view of educational institution of higher learning – they are to choose who are to be admitted as enrolees or
the teachers and the way of teaching. On the choice for example of admission, while it is true that the student has a
168
6
contract with the institution, the moment they finished with their education, choosing the course – subject to the 9
requirements of educational institution on the exercise of its academic freedom.
One case of La Salle: the student is included in the fraternity ramble, then he was expelled.
- De LaSalle University vs. CA, December 19, 2007- Section 5(2), Article XIV of the Constitution
guaranties all institutions of higher learning academic freedom. This institutional academic freedom
includes the right of the school or college to decide for itself, its aims and objectives, and how best to
attain them free from outside coercion or interference save possibly when the overriding public
interest calls for some restraint. According to present jurisprudence, academic freedom
encompasses the independence of an academic institution to determine for itself (1) who may
teach, (2) what may be taught, (3) how it shall teach, and (4) who may be admitted to study.

- It cannot be gainsaid that “the school has an interest in teaching the student discipline, a necessary, if
not indispensable, value in any field of learning. By instilling discipline, the school teaches discipline.
Accordingly, the right to discipline the student likewise finds basis in the freedom “what to teach.”
Indeed, while it is categorically stated under the Education Act of 1982 that students have a right
“to freely choose their field of study, subject to existing curricula and to continue their course
therein up to graduation,” such right is subject to the established academic and disciplinary
standards laid down by the academic institution. Petitioner DLSU, therefore, can very well exercise
its academic freedom, which includes its free choice of students for admission to its school.

On the point of view of the academe – meaning they are free to do their research and publish their research and the
matter of what to be taught and how it should be taught.
- Review Center Association of the Philippines v. Ermita, GR No. 180046, April 2, 2009- A “review
center is not an institution of higher learning as contemplated by RA 7722…[i]t does not offer a
degree-granting program that would put it under the jurisdiction of the CHED.” Moreover, “[a] review
course is only intended to ‘refresh and enhance the knowledge or competencies and skills of
reviewees,’” and it does not require enrollment, attendance, a grade or submission of a thesis in
order to complete the review center course requirements or take the licensure examination.

Way labot ang STC ky dili man na siya education of higher learning.
On the issue of plagiarism of an SC Judge, del Castillo was made to show cause why they should not be cited for
contempt, sila na hinuon i contempt. DMD. What was the defense of law professors? On academic freedom on the point
of view of the academe – they do their research and express it.
- Letter of the UP LAW: AM 10-10-4 SC; March 8, 2011- The Show Cause Resolution does not interfere
with respondnets’ academic freedom as it does not dictat upon the law professors the subject matter
they can teach and the manner of their instruction. They are free to determine what they will teach
their students and how they will teach. Moreover, it is not inconsistent with the principle of academic
freedom for the Supreme Court to subject lawyers who teach law to disciplinary action for
contumacious conduct and speech, coupled with undue intervention in favor of a party in a pending
case, without observing proper procedure, even if purportedly done in their capacity as teachers. The
right to freedom expression of members of the BAR may be circumscribed by their ethical duties as
lawyers to give due respect to the courts and to uphold the public’s faith in the legal profession and
the justice system.

169
7
Point of view of institution relating to the choice of teachers – it is discretionary on the institution 0
kung kinsa ilang patudluon.

An Ateneo teacher after reaching the 5 year probationary period was later removed. He complained to the SC.
Lacuesta vs. Ateneo, December 9, 2005- Consistent with academic freedom and constitutional autonomy,
an institution of higher learning has the prerogative to provide standards for its teachers and determine
whether these standards have been met. At the end of the probation period, the decision to re-hire an
employee on probation, belongs to the university as the employer alone.

They teach only for a number of hours the rest is consultation only. They are competent and all. The problem is some
are not satisfied notwithstanding their qualifications and all, they go abroad for a greener pasture. One professor who
went abroad without permission but returned to UP and upon his return he was welcomed with open arms and with
promotion too. Others did not take it sitting down and complain to the CSC. UP has original charter subject to Civil
Service Law. CS Law states that once you leave without permission you are considered AWOL and as a consequence you
will be dismissed. DISMISSAL dli PROMOTION!!
UP vs. CSC, April 3, 2001- the University has the academic freedom to determine for itself on academic
grounds who may teach, what may be taught, how it shall be taught, and who may be admitted to study.”
Clearly, this freedom encompasses the autonomy to choose who should teach and, concomitant therewith,
who should be retained in its rolls of professors and other academic personnel. This Court declared in
Ateneo de Manila University v. Capulong: “As corporate entities, educational institutions of higher learning
are inherently endowed with the right to establish their policies, academic and otherwise, unhampered by
external controls or pressure.”
As between CS Law and academic freedom, academic freedom prevails.
ARTICLE XVI – GENERAL PROVISIONS:
Can you change the color, design of your flag?
- Can be done by legislation subject to ratification in a referendum.
What is your national language?
- Filipino
What are your official languages?
- Filipino, English unless otherwise provided by law( ang English pwede mausab, maybe in the future you have
Arabic, Mandarin)
- Regional dialects
IMMUNITY FROM SUIT
- The state is immune from suit except when it gives its consent.
170
7
- Consent could either be express or implied. 1
- Express could either be by a general law or a special law
- The bottomline is it has to be a statute giving you consent.
GENERAL LAWS:
CA 327
- Obligations arising from Contract
Then there is the law regarding the procedure on how to sue the state. 3083, i think. That has been amended by PD
4045 on accounting and audit. Wherein the law states that you can only sue the state on one condition. That it has to be
filed first with the COA. The moment it is disapprove, then you can go to SC on certiorari. Only in that circumstance.
1180
- Special agents
- Government officials likewise are immune from suit unless they perform their duties in excess or without
authority.
- Thus, as a special agent, with or without authority, in excess or not in excess, as long as he is a special agent
if he caused damage or injury to any person, the state is sueable, not necessarily liable for the acts of a
special agent.
21 86
- Damages done to individuals from infrastructures maintained by the Local Government Units.
- Ex: man fell on an uncovered manhole, he can sue the LGU for that
SPECIAL LAWS:
- When congress passed a law granting an individual to sue the state, you have to go to congress to ask for
that law. It is by way of a resolution.
- On the things that a judge might look into when the government is sued is whether there is consent to be
sued. It is usually attached to the complaint.
- The waiver resolution issued by congress that is a special law.
- In this case you can sue the state because the state has waived its immunity.
IMPLIED GIVING OF CONSENT:
What are the circumstances?
1. When government engages primarily in business
• Because if the business is really incidental to the performance of the government function, there is no
waiver of immunity there
171
7
2. When government enters into a commercial contract 2
• If it is a government contract, then in which case you have to apply first with COA for consent before
you can sue the state.
• Otherwise if it is a commercial contract then you will consider the state as an ordinary individual person
and can now be sued. It is considered as a waiver of immunity.
3. When government initiates the filing of the complaint
• When government files a complaint for affirmative relief then consider the state as initiator then its
immunity is waived.
• But if the complaint is to resist a claim against it then there is no waiver of immunity.
• Can you compel the state in an interpleader? (compel the state to intervene)
o No that is not allowed because that is tantamount to suing the state without its consent.
4. Expropriation cases
• It is a waiver of immunity and you can sue the state for payment of just compensation
• Because supposedly in an expropriation cases there is already an appropriation of funds. The reason
why you have this community in order not to compel the state to appropriate public funds for the
payment of whatever claims one has against the state. That is what is prohibited.
• In expropriation cases you cannot expropriate without first an appropriation of funds. If you are not paid
with just compensation you can recover from the state by the suing it because not to allow the recovery
will cause injustice to the individual.
The bottomline, it is considered as suit against the state if you sue the republic of the state; when you sue
unincorporated agencies of the government; corporations engage in governmental functions; when you sue public
officers in the performance of their official functions.
Insofar as corporations, if incorporated – suable
Insofar as political corporations, in proprietary functions – suable without need of getting the consent
Insofar as public officers, suable if special agents or they are performing a function that is without or in excess of
authority or abuse of the authority
When it is a suit against the state that does not mean liability. It is not automatic, you have to get another consent for
making the state liable. Therefore when you get a judgment favourable to you, you can ask a writ of execution. It does
not necessarily follow. You get another consent in order to execute the judgment because that would require
appropriation. You cannot garnish the funds of the government in the bank because that is already earmarked for
specific purposes.
NATIONAL POLICE FORCE
172
7
- Civilian in character however national in scope. 3
- Not under the PNP
STAGES OF AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION
• Proposal
• Submission
• Ratification
Who can propose?
- Congress
- CONCON
- People
Submission and ratification
- Majority votes only are needed
CASES:
SANTIAGO VS. COMELEC, 270 SCRA 106- RA 6735 is insufficient in providing for mechanism to govern
initiatives for constitutional amendments. While the Constitution recognizes the right of citizens to
propose amendments, the people cannot exercise such until Congress provides for its
implementation.

LAMBINO VS., ET AL. VS. COMELEC, October 25, 2006 -Clearly, the framers of the Constitution
intended that the “draft of the proposed constitutional amendment” should be “ready and shown”
to the people “before” they sign such proposal. The framers plainly stated that “before they sign
there is already a draft shown to them.” The framers also “envisioned” that the people should sign
on the proposal itself because the proponents must “prepare that proposal and pass it around for
signature.” The essence of amendments “directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a
petition” is that the entire proposal on its face is a petition by the people. This means two essential
elements must be present. First, the people must author and thus sign the entire proposal. No agent
or representative can sign on their behalf. Second, as an initiative upon a petition, the proposal must
be embodied in a petition.

ARTIBLE XVIII – TRANSITORY PROVISIONS
Treaty Making
- Are foreign troops stationed here in the Philippines allowed?
o Not allowed. It is by way of exception more than anything else. If it is allowed it is by exception.
VFA
173
7
- An executive agreement not an international agreement and therefore does not need the concurrence of 4
senate.
- Incidentally it was concurred by the senate
- This is like a treaty although other countries may not treat is as a treaty
- It is an executive agreement because it only provides for the details of the treaty we entered into which the
US-RP DEFENSE AGREEMENT
- Difference between EXEC. AGREEMENT and a TREATY
o Treaty – more permanent and provides for broader terms of agreement
o EXEC. Agreement – provides details of what has been agreed
- In the VFA we allow US troops to come here in the Philippines for exchange of learning skills
- There is something relevant here. Smith who was accused of rape and in that particular agreement, the VFA
if any of the member of the US military is accused of violating our laws, whoever prosecutes first will have
jurisdiction. We have concurrent jurisdiction. We had Smith prosecuted in our courts. Philippines had the
jurisdiction. Convicted in the RTC, appealed to the CA then went to the SC only to be acquitted. When he
was convicted he was detained with other ordinary criminals. He was later transferred to the US embassy.
Klaro man sa VFA that we had custody especially that he was convicted though the case was on appeal. VFA
was amended. There was an agreement bet. Sec. Romulo and Amb. Keeney. Should that be annulled? While
VFA was treated like a treaty so if amended it has to be ratified by Senate.
Nicolas vs. Romulo, et al., G.R. No. 175888; Salonga vs. Smith, et al. G.R. No. 176051; and Makabayan vs.
Arroyo, et al., G.R. No. 176222- February 11, 2009 - The Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) between the
Republic of the Philippines and the United States, entered into on February 10, 1998, is UPHELD as
constitutional, but the Romulo-Kenney Agreements of December 19 and 22, 2006 are DECLARED not in
accordance with the VFA, and respondent Secretary of Foreign Affairs is hereby ordered to forthwith
negotiate with the United States representatives for the appropriate agreement on detention facilities
under Philippine authorities as provided in Art. V, Sec. 10 of the VFA, pending which the status quo shall be
maintained until further orders by this Court.

In other words, any changes or amendment to a treaty must be in accordance with the rules on how to
enter into a treaty.
//diane//
+ end of Constitutional Law 1 +
174

Untitled PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Untitled PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CONSTITUTIONAL

LAW 1 – Judge Singco Transcripts 2012

1.Introduction: Definition of Terms

2.History of the Constitution and Sources of Philippine Political Law

2. the government established by a belligerent occupant. By invading a territory and establishing a

So briefly, the sources of your political law are:

• Conventional or enacted constitution- a constitution made for a particular period of time

• Written- the sources are found in one single instrument.

3. According to the kind of Government

So you have the Constitution that is democratic, republican, civilian, etc.

4. According to the Manner of Changing or Amending the Provisions

4. Constitution Distinguished from other Laws

5.Amendments and Revision

8.Declaration of Principles and State Policies

June 09,2012 (2 hours)

Potestas delegata non delegari potest….

4. You have some test of Valid delegation-

But as a GR, there should not be any delegation of the powers

5. Exceptions to non- delegation of Powers

Delegation of powers as may be expressly provided by law:

a. There has to be a statute

This cannot be exercised by the government without express delegation

c. It must only be for National Emergency

d. It is only of r a certain period of time

ii. Tariff Powers under Sec 28

a. Must be made through a law

Case: Gerochi vs. Dept of energy, July 17, 2007

Case: Abkada guro- increase of VAT up to 12 percent

iv. Delegation of Powers to the Local Governments

-in managing their affairs

- They cannot even modify, amend or change statutes

v. Delegation of power to the people at large

-through initiative or referendum

- Same applies in local legislation

-This can only be exercised if the requisites are present

i. Actual case or controversy

- Must be a justifiable question ripe for judicial adjudication

- The issue could be of transcendental importance or paramount public interest

- that there is a claim that violation of the law

- may repeated in the future

- And that it evades review

ii. Raised by the proper party

- We apply Direct Injury principle

- He must be aggrieved by the act complained of

- Only when there is injury or aggrieved, which could be actual or potential

- “actual”- meaning one who is directly injured

o So it is potential or certain to happen so they were considered as proper party

- Case: LA BUGAL-B’LAAN TRIBAL ASS., INC., VS RAMOS, 421 SCRA 148.

When it involves a disbursement of public funds which is anomalous

o It is anomalous when it is contrary to law

2 circumstances when a voter becomes a proper party :

-when it involves his right to vote;

-case: Kilosbayan vs. exec sec:

- Question on the qualification of Justice Ong of Sandiganbayan in his appointment as SC Justice

-KB doubted the citizenship of J. Ong so the matter is of constitutional significance

iii. At the earliest opportunity in time

7. Matter of Initiation in Impeachment cases

- If it is just an ordinary complainant filing an impeachment complaint so it has to be endorsed by a

- If it is a Member who files a complaint, there is no need of an endorsement

8. GOVERNMENT OF LAWS AND NOT OF MEN

- Basic in public accountability

9. ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS