Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 411

i

G. FORMS OF GOVERNMENT ...........18


G.1. DEFINITION .................................18
G.2. AS TO THE EXISTENCE OR
TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSENCE OF CONTROL ...................19
G.3. AS TO CONCENTRATION OF
I. THE CONSTITUTION ....................... 2
POWERS ...............................................19
A. DEFINITION, NATURE, CONCEPTS
G.4. AS TO CENTRALIZATION ........19
..................................................................... 2
A.1. POLITICAL LAW........................... 2 III. LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT . 20
A.2. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW ............. 2 A. WHO MAY EXERCISE
A.3. CONSTITUTION DEFINED .......... 2 LEGISLATIVE POWER........................20
A.4. CLASSES OF CONSTITUTIONS .. 2 A.1. CONGRESS...................................20
A.5. BASIC PRINCIPLES ...................... 3 A.2. REGIONAL/LOCAL
A.6. TYPES OF JUDICIAL REVIEW.... 3 LEGISLATIVE POWER.......................20
B. PARTS OF A CONSTITUTION ......... 3 A.3. PEOPLE’S INITIATIVE ON
C. AMENDMENTS AND REVISIONS .. 3 STATUTES ...........................................20
C.1 CONCEPTS ...................................... 3 A.4. THE PRESIDENT UNDER
C.2 PROCEDURE ................................... 4 MARTIAL LAW OR IN A
C.3. SUMMARY OF TWO STAGES OF REVOLUTIONARY GOVERNMENT 21
AMENDATORY/ REVISION PROCESS B. HOUSES OF CONGRESS .................21
................................................................. 4 B.1. SENATE ........................................21
D. SELF-EXECUTING AND NON- B.2. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
SELF-EXECUTING PROVISIONS ........ 7 ...............................................................21
D.1. RULE ............................................... 7 C. LEGISLATIVE PRIVILEGES,
E. GENERAL PROVISIONS ................... 7 INHIBITIONS, DISQUALIFICATIONS
...................................................................24
II. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS..... 9
C.1. PRIVILEGES .................................24
A. NATIONAL TERRITORY.................. 9
C.2. INHIBITIONS AND
A.1. ARCHIPELAGIC DOCTRINE ....... 9
DISQUALIFICATIONS........................25
B. STATE IMMUNITY ............................ 9
C.3. DUTY TO DISCLOSE ..................26
B.1. – SUMMARY OF RULE ................ 9
D. QUORUM AND VOTING
B.2 CONCEPTS .................................... 10
MAJORITIES ..........................................27
B.3. SUITS AGAINST THE STATE .... 10
D.1. QUORUM ......................................27
B.4. SPECIFIC RULES ......................... 11
D.2. VOTING MAJORITIES ................27
B.5. SUITS AGAINST PUBLIC
E. DISCIPLINE OF MEMBERS ...........28
OFFICERS ............................................ 12
F. ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL AND THE
B.6. EXCEPTIONS TO PRIOR
COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS 28
CONSENT RULE ................................. 12
ELECTORAL TRIBUNALS.................28
B.7. SCOPE OF CONSENT.................. 12
F.1. NATURE ........................................29
C. GENERAL PRINCIPLES AND
F.2. POWERS ........................................30
POLICIES ................................................ 12
G. POWERS OF CONGRESS ...............31
D. SEPARATION OF POWERS ........... 16
G.1. INHERENT POWERS ..................31
E. CHECKS AND BALANCES ............. 16
G.2. LEGISLATIVE ..............................31
F.1. RULE OF NON-DELEGATION OF
G.3. NON-LEGISLATIVE ....................36
LEGISLATIVE POWER ...................... 17
REGULAR PROCEDURE: [SEC.
F.2. TESTS FOR VALID DELEGATION
3(2)(3)].......................................................37
............................................................... 18
ii
G.4. SPECIFIC POWERS ..................... 38 D.4. DISQUALIFICATION FROM
OTHER POSITIONS OR OFFICES .....70
IV. EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT ..... 38
E. SUPREME COURT............................70
A. PRIVILEGES, INHIBITIONS,
E.1. COMPOSITION.............................70
DISQUALIFICATIONS ......................... 39
E.2. EN BANC AND DIVISION CASES
A.1. PRESIDENTIAL PRIVILEGES ... 39
...............................................................70
B. POWERS ............................................. 41
INSTANCES WHEN THE SC SITS EN
B.1. EXECUTIVE AND
BANC: ...................................................70
ADMINISTRATIVE POWERS IN
E.3. PROCEDURAL RULE-MAKING 71
GENERAL ............................................ 41
E.4. ADMINISTRATIVE
B.2. POWER OF APPOINTMENT ...... 42
SUPERVISION OVER LOWER
B.3. POWER OF CONTROL AND
COURTS ...............................................71
SUPERVISION ..................................... 47
E.5. ORIGINAL AND APPELLATE
B.4. MILITARY POWERS ................... 48
JURISDICTION ....................................73
B.5. PARDONING POWERS ............... 52
F. JUDICIAL PRIVILEGE ....................73
B.6. DIPLOMATIC POWER ................ 54
G. REQUIREMENTS FOR DECISIONS
B.7. POWERS RELATIVE TO
AND RESOLUTIONS .............................74
APPROPRIATION MEASURES ......... 56
B.8. DELEGATED POWERS............... 57 VI. CONSTITUTIONAL
B.9. VETO POWER .............................. 58 COMMISSIONS.................................... 74
B.10. RESIDUAL POWERS................. 59 A. CONSTITUTIONAL SAFEGUARDS
B.11. EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.......... 59 TO ENSURE INDEPENDENCE OF
C. RULES ON SUCCESSION ............... 61 COMMISSIONS ......................................75
C.1. PRESIDENT .................................. 61 A.1 PROMOTIONAL APPOINTMENT
C.2. CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY OF OF COMMISSIONER TO CHAIRMAN
CONGRESS IN CASE OF VACANCY ...............................................................75
IN THE OFFICES OF THE PRESIDENT A.2 TERM OF OFFICE OF EACH
AND VICE-PRESIDENT ...................... 62 COMMISSION MEMBER .....................76
C.3. VACANCY IN THE OFFICE OF B. POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF
THE VICE-PRESIDENT ...................... 62 EACH COMMISSION............................76
B.1. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION .76
V. JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT ........... 63
B.2. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS .78
A. CONCEPTS ........................................ 63
B.3. COMMISSION ON AUDIT ..........80
A.1. JUDICIAL POWER ...................... 63
C. PROHIBITED OFFICES AND
A.2. JUDICIAL REVIEW ..................... 63
INTERESTS .............................................81
B. SAFEGUARDS OF JUDICIAL
D. JURISDICTION .................................81
INDEPENDENCE ................................... 66
D.1. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION .81
C. JUDICIAL RESTRAINT ................... 67
D.2. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS 81
D. APPOINTMENTS TO THE
D.3. COMMISSION ON AUDIT ..........82
JUDICIARY ............................................. 68
E. REVIEW OF FINAL ORDERS,
D.1. CONSTITUTIONAL
RESOLUTIONS, AND DECISIONS .....82
REQUIREMENTS ................................ 68
E.1. RENDERED IN EXERCISE OF
D.2. JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL 69
QUASI-JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS ........82
D.3. PROCEDURE OF APPOINTMENT
E.2. RENDERED IN THE EXERCISE
............................................................... 70
OF ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIONS 83

iii
VI. CITIZENSHIP ................................ 83 IX. SOCIAL JUSTICE AND HUMAN
A. WHO ARE FILIPINO CITIZENS ... 83 RIGHTS ................................................. 93
A.1. CITIZENS UNDER THE 1973 A. CONCEPT OF SOCIAL JUSTICE ..93
CONSTITUTION .................................. 84 B. COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
A.2. CITIZENS UNDER THE 1935 ...................................................................94
CONSTITUTION .................................. 84
X. EDUCATION, SCIENCE,
B. MODES OF ACQUIRING
CITIZENSHIP ......................................... 84 TECHNOLOGY, ARTS, CULTURE
B.1. NATURALIZATION .................... 84 AND SPORTS ........................................ 94
B.2. DENATURALIZATION ............... 85 A. RIGHT TO EDUCATION
C. DUAL CITIZENSHIP AND DUAL PROVISIONS [ART. XIV] .....................94
ALLEGIANCE ........................................ 86 B. ACADEMIC FREEDOM ...................95
C.1. DUAL CITIZENSHIP ................... 86 I. FUNDAMENTAL POWERS OF THE
C.2. DUAL ALLEGIANCE .................. 86 STATE .................................................... 97
D. LOSS AND RE-ACQUISITION ....... 86 A. CONCEPT, APPLICATION AND
E.1. GROUNDS .................................... 86
LIMITS .....................................................97
E.2. REACQUISITION ......................... 87 A.1 POLICE POWER ...........................97
F. NATURAL-BORN CITIZENS AND
PUBLIC OFFICE .................................... 87 ILLUSTRATIONS ON THE
F.1 NATURAL-BORN CITIZENS ....... 87 EXERCISE OF POLICE POWER ..... 98
F.2. WHO MUST BE NATURAL- A.2 EMINENT DOMAIN .....................99
BORN? .................................................. 88 A.3 TAXATION ..................................100
B. REQUISITES FOR VALID
VIII. NATIONAL ECONOMY AND
EXERCISE .............................................100
PATRIMONY ........................................ 88 B.1 POLICE POWER ..........................101
A. REGALIAN DOCTRINE .................. 88
A.1. DOCTRINE OF NATIVE TITLE . 88 TESTS FOR VALIDITY OF
B.1. FILIPINO FIRST ........................... 89 EXERCISE OF POLICE POWER ... 101
D. FRANCHISES, AUTHORITY AND B.2 EMINENT DOMAIN ...................101
CERTIFICATES FOR PUBLIC
REQUISITES: ..................................... 101
UTILITIES............................................... 91
B.3 TAXATION ..................................101
D.1. NATURE OF A FRANCHISE ...... 91
C. SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES
E. ACQUISITION, OWNERSHIP, AND
.................................................................101
TRANSFER OF PUBLIC AND
D. DELEGATION .................................102
PRIVATE LANDS................................... 91
D.1 POLICE POWER .........................102
F. PRACTICE OF PROFESSIONS....... 92
D.2 EMINENT DOMAIN ...................103
G. ORGANIZATION AND
D.3 TAXATION ..................................103
REGULATION OF CORPORATIONS,
PRIVATE AND PUBLIC II. PRIVATE ACTS AND THE BILL
(STEWARDSHIP CONCEPT) .............. 92 OF RIGHTS ......................................... 104
H. MONOPOLIES, RESTRAINT OF
III. DUE PROCESS ............................ 105
TRADE AND UNFAIR COMPETITION
A. RELATIVITY OF DUE PROCESS 106
................................................................... 92
B. PROCEDURAL AND SUBSTANTIVE
H.1. MONOPOLIES.............................. 92
DUE PROCESS .....................................106
H.2. CENTRAL MONETARY
B.1 SCOPE ..........................................106
AUTHORITY [ART. XII, SEC. 20] ..... 93
iv
B.2 SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS 107 C.8. EXIGENT AND EMERGENCY
B.3 PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS 107 CIRCUMSTANCES ............................121
C. SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS ... 108 C.9. VISUAL SEARCHES AT
D. CONSTITUTIONAL AND CHECKPOINTS ..................................122
STATUTORY DUE PROCESS ........... 109 D. WARRANTLESS ARRESTS ..........124
D.1 CONSTITUTIONAL DUE E. ADMINISTRATIVE ARRESTS .....126
PROCESS ............................................ 109 F. DRUG, ALCOHOL AND BLOOD
D.2. STATUTORY DUE PROCESS .. 109 TESTS .....................................................126
E. HIERARCHY OF RIGHTS............. 109
VI. PRIVACY ...................................... 127
F. JUDICIAL STANDARDS OF
A. PRIVATE AND PUBLIC
REVIEW ................................................ 109
COMMUNICATIONS ..........................127
F.1. “RATIONAL BASIS TEST” ....... 109
B. INTRUSION, WHEN ALLOWED .128
F.2. “STRICT SCRUTINY TEST” ..... 110
C. WRIT OF HABEAS DATA ..............131
F.3. “INTERMEDIATE SCRUTINY
TEST” .................................................. 110 VII. FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION . 132
G. VOID-FOR-VAGUENESS A. NATURE AND SCOPE....................132
DOCTRINE............................................ 110 A.1 PRIOR RESTRAINT ....................132
A.2 SUBSEQUENT PUNISHMENT ..133
IV. EQUAL PROTECTION .............. 112
B.1 CONTENT-BASED
A. CONCEPT ......................................... 112
RESTRICTIONS .................................136
SCOPE.................................................. 112 B.2 CONTENT-NEUTRAL
B. REQUISITES FOR VALID RESTRICTIONS .................................138
CLASSIFICATION ............................... 112 C. FACIAL CHALLENGES AND THE
B.1 EXAMPLES OF VALID OVERBREADTH DOCTRINE ...........139
CLASSIFICATION ............................. 113 C.1 FACIAL CHALLENGES .............139
C. STANDARDS FOR JUDICIAL C.2 OVERBREADTH DOCTRINE ....139
REVIEW ................................................ 113 D. TESTS ................................................140
D.1 DANGEROUS TENDENCY TEST
V. SEARCHES AND SEIZURES ...... 115
.............................................................141
A. CONCEPT ......................................... 115
D.2 CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER
B. WARRANT REQUIREMENT ........ 115
TEST ....................................................141
C. WARRANTLESS SEARCHES ....... 118
D.3 BALANCING OF INTEREST TEST
C.1. WARRANTLESS SEARCHES
.............................................................141
RECOGNIZED BY JURISPRUDENCE
D.4 DIRECT INCITEMENT TEST ....141
............................................................. 118
D.5 INTERMEDIATE REVIEW ........141
C.2. SEARCH INCIDENT TO A
D.6 GRAVE-BUT-IMPROBABLE
LAWFUL ARREST ............................ 118
DANGER TEST ..................................141
C.3. PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE ......... 120
D.7 MILLER TEST .............................142
C.4. SEARCH OF MOVING VEHICLES
D.8 TEST FOR CONTENT-NEUTRAL
............................................................. 120
REGULATION....................................142
C.5. VALID EXPRESS WAIVER MADE
E. STATE REGULATION OF
VOLUNTARILY AND
DIFFERENT TYPES OF MASS MEDIA
INTELLIGENTLY .............................. 120
.................................................................142
C.6. CUSTOMS SEARCH .................. 121
F. COMMERCIAL SPEECH ...............144
C.7. STOP AND FRISK SEARCHES 121

v
G. PRIVATE VERSUS GOVERNMENT D. ABANDONMENT OF INTENDED
SPEECH ................................................. 144 USE AND RIGHT OF REPURCHASE
H. HECKLER’S VETO ........................ 144 .................................................................161
E. MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION
VIII. FREEDOM OF RELIGION ..... 145
.................................................................161
A. NON-ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE
................................................................. 145 XIII. CONTRACTS CLAUSE ........... 161
A.1 CONCEPT .................................... 145 A. CONTEMPORARY APPLICATION
A.2 BASIS ........................................... 145 OF THE CONTRACT CLAUSE .........162
A.3 ACTS NOT PERMITTED BY NON- B. LIMITATIONS .................................162
ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE ............ 146
XIV. LEGAL ASSISTANCE AND
A.4 ACTS PERMITTED BY NON-
FREE ACCESS TO COURTS ........... 162
ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE ............ 146
A.5 TWO STANDARDS USED IN XV. RIGHTS OF SUSPECTS ............ 164
DECIDING RELIGION CLAUSE A. AVAILABILITY...............................164
CASES ................................................. 147 A.1 CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION 164
B. FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE ........... 147
INVOLVES ANY QUESTIONING
B.1 BENEVOLENT NEUTRALITY
DOCTRINE ......................................... 148 INITIATED BY LAW
C. TESTS ................................................ 148 ENFORCEMENT. .............................. 164
C.1 CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER A.1.1. CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION
............................................................. 148 REPORT ..............................................165
C.2 BENEVOLENT NEUTRALITY – A.2 CRITICAL PRE-TRIAL STAGE .165
COMPELLING STATE INTEREST .. 149 A.3 SHOW-UP AND POLICE LINE-UP
C.3 CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR.. 149 .............................................................165
A. LIMITATIONS ................................. 150 B. REQUISITES ....................................165
B. RIGHT TO RETURN TO ONE’S C. WAIVER ...........................................167
COUNTRY ............................................. 151 XVI. RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED .. 168
X. RIGHT TO INFORMATION ....... 152 A. CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS ..........169
A. LIMITATIONS ................................. 152 B. BAIL ...................................................169
B. PUBLICATION OF LAWS AND C. PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE
REGULATIONS.................................... 153 .................................................................171
C. ACCESS TO COURT RECORDS .. 153 C.1. EQUIPOISE RULE......................171
D. RIGHT TO INFORMATION D. RIGHT TO BE HEARD...................171
RELATIVE TO GOVERNMENT E. ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL .........172
CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS .......... 154 F. RIGHT TO BE INFORMED ...........172
G. RIGHT TO SPEEDY, IMPARTIAL
XI. RIGHT TO ASSOCIATION ....... 156 AND PUBLIC TRIAL ...........................172
XII. EMINENT DOMAIN .................. 157 H. RIGHT TO CONFRONTATION ...173
A. CONCEPT ......................................... 158 I. TRIAL IN ABSENTIA ......................174
B. EXPANSIVE CONCEPT OF I.1 WHEN CAN TRIAL IN ABSENTIA
“PUBLIC USE” ..................................... 159 BE DONE ............................................174
C. JUST COMPENSATION ................ 160 I.2 WHEN PRESENCE OF THE
C.1 DETERMINATION ..................... 160 ACCUSED IS A DUTY ......................174
C.2 EFFECT OF DELAY ................... 160 I.3 TRIAL IN ABSENTIA ..................174

vi
XVII. WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 174 C. MANNER OF CREATION .............190
D. KINDS ................................................190
XVIII. WRITS OF AMPARO, HABEAS
DATA AND KALIKASAN ................. 177 III. POWERS OF ADMINISTRATIVE
A. WRIT OF AMPARO ......................... 177 AGENCIES .......................................... 191
A.1 BASIS ........................................... 177 A. QUASI-LEGISLATIVE (RULE-
A.2 PETITION FOR WRIT ................ 177 MAKING) POWER...............................191
B. WRIT OF HABEAS DATA .............. 178 A.1 LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION ..191
C. WRIT OF KALIKASAN ................... 179 A.2. LEGISLATIVE RULES AND
INTERPRETATIVE RULES,
XIX. SELF-INCRIMINATION DISTINGUISHED ...............................192
CLAUSE ............................................... 180 A.3. REQUISITES FOR VALIDITY ..193
A. SCOPE AND COVERAGE ............. 180 A.4. POWER TO AMEND, REVISE,
B. APPLICATION ................................ 180 ALTER OR REPEAL RULES ............195
C. IMMUNITY STATUTES ................ 181 B. QUASI-JUDICIAL
XX. INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE (ADJUDICATORY) POWER ..............195
AND POLITICAL PRISONERS ....... 181 B.1. SOURCE ......................................195
B.2. DISTINCTIONS FROM JUDICIAL
XXI. EXCESSIVE FINES AND CRUEL PROCEEDINGS ..................................195
AND INHUMAN PUNISHMENTS ... 182 B.3. POWERS INCLUDED IN QUASI-
WHAT IS A CRUEL PUNISHMENT? JUDICIAL FUNCTION ......................196
B.4. ADMINISTRATIVE DUE
............................................................... 183
PROCESS ............................................196
XXII. NON-IMPRISONMENT FOR C. FACT-FINDING, INVESTIGATIVE,
DEBTS .................................................. 184 LICENSING AND RATE-FIXING
POWERS ................................................201
XXIII. DOUBLE JEOPARDY ........... 185
C.1. ASCERTAINMENT OF FACT ...201
A. REQUISITES .................................... 185
C.2. INVESTIGATIVE POWERS ......201
B. MOTIONS FOR
C.3. LICENSING FUNCTION ...........201
RECONSIDERATION AND APPEALS
C.4. FIXING OF RATES, WAGES,
................................................................. 185
PRICES ................................................202
C. DISMISSAL WITH CONSENT OF
ACCUSED .............................................. 186 IV. JUDICIAL RECOURSE AND
REVIEW .............................................. 203
XXIV. EX POST FACTO AND BILLS
A. DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY
OF ATTAINDER ................................ 186
ADMINISTRATIVE JURISDICTION204
A. EX POST FACTO LAWS ................. 186
A.1. WHEN THE DOCTRINE IS
B. BILLS OF ATTAINDER ................. 186
INAPPLICABLE: ................................205
I. GENERAL PRINCIPLES .............. 189 A.2. EFFECT .......................................205
A. DEFINITION .................................... 189 B. DOCTRINE OF EXHAUSTION OF
B. HISTORICAL CONSIDERATIONS ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES .......205
................................................................. 189 B.1. EXCEPTIONS TO THE
DOCTRINE OF EXHAUSTION OF
II. ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES 189
REMEDIES: ........................................206
A. DEFINITION .................................... 189
B. WHEN IS AN AGENCY
ADMINISTRATIVE? ........................... 189
vii
B.2. EFFECT OF FAILURE TO E. CONSULTATIONS ..........................220
EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE
IV. POWERS OF LOCAL
REMEDIES: ........................................ 206
GOVERNMENT UNITS .................... 221
B.3. WHEN APPEALS TO THE OFFICE
A. POLICE POWER (GENERAL
OF THE PRESIDENT ARE REQUIRED:
WELFARE CLAUSE)...........................221
............................................................. 207
B. EMINENT DOMAIN .......................222
C. DOCTRINE OF FINALITY OF
C. TAXING POWER ............................224
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION ............ 207
C.1. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES
I. PUBLIC CORPORATIONS........... 209 ON TAXATION BY AN LGU ...........224
A. CONCEPT ......................................... 209 C.2. WITHDRAWAL OF LOCAL TAX
A.1. COMPARISON [MARTIN] ......... 209 EXEMPTION PRIVILEGES ..............224
A.2. TEST TO IDENTIFY PUBLIC OR C.3. REAL PROPERTY TAXATION 224
PRIVATE CHARACTER ................... 209 C.4. OTHER LIMITATIONS ON
B. CLASSIFICATIONS ........................ 211 TAXING POWERS OF LGUS ...........225
B.1. TRADITIONAL (PRE-LOCAL D. RECLASSIFICATION OF LANDS225
GOV’T CODE) CLASSIFICATIONS E. CLOSURE AND OPENING OF
[SINCO] .............................................. 211 ROADS ...................................................226
F. LEGISLATIVE POWER .................226
II. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS. 212
F.1. WHO MAY EXERCISE ..............226
A. ELEMENTS ...................................... 212
F.2. ORDINANCE V. RESOLUTION 227
B. NATURE AND FUNCTION ............ 212
F.3. PRESIDING OFFICER ................227
B.1. DUAL NATURE ......................... 212
F.4. INTERNAL RULES OF
B.2. DUAL FUNCTIONS ................... 212
PROCEDURE......................................227
C. REQUISITES FOR CREATION,
F.5. QUORUM ....................................228
CONVERSION, DIVISION, MERGER,
F.6. SANGGUNIAN SESSIONS ........228
OR DISSOLUTION .............................. 212
F.7 SPECIAL SESSIONS ...................228
C.1. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS ... 212
F.8. NO SUBPOENA AND CONTEMPT
C.2. SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS..... 215
POWERS .............................................229
C.3. OTHER LGUS ............................. 216
F.9. APPROVAL AND VETO OF
C.4. OTHER MATERIAL CHANGES
ORDINANCES....................................229
............................................................. 217
F.10. PUBLICATION AND
III. PRINCIPLES OF LOCAL EFFECTIVITY OF ORDINANCES ...229
AUTONOMY ....................................... 218 F.11. REVIEW OF ORDINANCES/
A. LOCAL AUTONOMY ..................... 218 RESOLUTIONS [SEC. 59, LGC] .......230
A.1. DECLARATION OF POLICY ... 218 F.12. FULL DISCLOSURE OF
B. DECENTRALIZATION V. FINANCIAL AND BUSINESS
DEVOLUTION ...................................... 218 INTERESTS OF SANGGUNIAN
C. GENERAL SUPERVISION OVER MEMBERS ..........................................231
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS .................. 219
V. LOCAL INITIATIVE AND
C.1 PRESIDENT’S POWER OF
REFERENDUM .................................. 232
SUPERVISION ................................... 219
A. LOCAL INITIATIVE ......................232
D. LOCAL FISCAL AUTONOMY ..... 220
A.1. PROCEDURE [SEC. 122, LGC] .233
D.1. SOURCES OF LGU FUNDS ...... 220
B. LOCAL REFERENDUM .................233
D.2. INTERNAL REVENUE
B.1. INITIATIVE V. REFERENDUM233
ALLOTMENTS................................... 220
viii
VI. CORPORATE POWERS............. 234 A.1. GROUNDS FOR DISCIPLINARY
A. TO SUE AND BE SUED .................. 235 ACTION ..............................................244
B. TO ACQUIRE AND SELL A.2. JURISDICTION ..........................244
PROPERTY (REAL OR PERSONAL) A.3. GROUNDS FOR DISCIPLINARY
................................................................. 235 ACTION ..............................................245
C. TO ENTER INTO CONTRACTS .. 235 A.4. REMOVAL AND OTHER
C.1. REQUISITES ............................... 235 SANCTIONS .......................................247
C.2. ULTRA VIRES CONTRACTS ... 236
XI. ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL ... 247
VII. LIABILITY OF LOCAL A. PERIOD FOR APPEAL UNDER THE
GOVERNMENT UNITS .................... 237 LGC.........................................................247
A. IN CONTRACTS .............................. 237 B. TO WHOM APPEALABLE: ...........247
B. IN TORTS ......................................... 238 C. DOCTRINE OF CONDONATION.248
C. PERSONAL LIABILITY OF THE D. DISCIPLINE OF APPOINTIVE
PUBLIC OFFICIAL.............................. 238 OFFICIALS ...........................................248
D.1. DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY .248
VIII. SETTLEMENT OF BOUNDARY D.2. PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION OF
DISPUTES ........................................... 239 APPOINTIVE OFFICIALS.................249
A. AMICABLE SETTLEMENT .......... 239 E. RECALL ............................................249
B. FORMAL TRIAL ............................. 239 E.1. REQUISITES ...............................249
C. APPEAL ............................................ 239 E.2. PROCEDURE ..............................250
IX. SUCCESSION OF ELECTIVE XII. TERM LIMITS............................ 251
OFFICIALS ......................................... 240 A. LENGTH OF TERM ........................251
A. SUCCESSION IN PERMANENT A.1. R.A. NO. 9164: SYNCHRONIZED
VACANCIES ......................................... 240 BARANGAY AND SANGGUNIANG
A.1. VACANCY IN THE LOCAL BARANGAY ELECTIONS (2002) ....251
CHIEF EXECUTIVE [SEC. 44, LGC]240 A.2. R.A. NO. 9006: FAIR ELECTIONS
A.2. PERMANENT VACANCIES IN ACT .....................................................251
THE SANGGUNIAN [FARIÑAS V. B. LIMITATION OF CONSECUTIVE
BARBA, G.R. NO. 116763 (1996); SEC. TERMS ...................................................252
45, LGC] .............................................. 241 B.1. WHAT CONSTITUTES A TERM
A.3. RESIGNATION OF ELECTIVE OF OFFICE .........................................252
OFFICIALS ......................................... 242
B. SUCCESSION IN TEMPORARY
I. GENERAL PRINCIPLES .............. 255
VACANCIES [SEC. 46, LGC] ............. 243 A. CONCEPT AND APPLICATION ..255
B.1. EXTENT OF DUTY EXERCISED A.1. DEFINITION ...............................255
BY TEMPORARY SUCCESSOR ...... 243 A.2. BREAKDOWN OF THE
B.2. TERMINATION OF TEMPORARY DEFINITION .......................................255
INCAPACITY ..................................... 243 A.3. BASIC CONSTITUTIONAL
B.3. LEAVES OF ABSENCE ............. 244 PRINCIPLES .......................................255
A.4. ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF A
X. DISCIPLINE OF LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICE: ...............................255
OFFICIALS ......................................... 244 B. CHARACTERISTICS OF A PUBLIC
A. DISCIPLINE OF ELECTIVE OFFICE ..................................................256
OFFICIALS ........................................... 244 B.1. PUBLIC OFFICE V. PUBLIC
EMPLOYMENT..................................256
ix
B.2. PUBLIC OFFICE V. CONTRACT IV. ELIGIBILITY AND
............................................................. 256 QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS
B.3. PUBLIC OFFICE IS NOT ............................................................... 267
PROPERTY ......................................... 256 A. DEFINITIONS ..................................267
B.4. NO VESTED RIGHT IN A PUBLIC B. POWER TO PRESCRIBE
OFFICE ............................................... 257 QUALIFICATIONS ..............................268
C. CREATION, MODIFICATION AND B.1. WHO MAY PRESCRIBE
ABOLITION OF PUBLIC OFFICE ... 257 QUALIFICATIONS ............................268
C.1. CREATION OF PUBLIC OFFICE B.2. RESTRICTIONS ON THE POWER
............................................................. 257 OF CONGRESS TO PRESCRIBE
C.2. MODIFICATION AND QUALIFICATIONS: ...........................268
ABOLITION OF PUBLIC OFFICE ... 257 C. TIME OF POSSESSION OF
D.1. WHO ARE PUBLIC OFFICERS 257 QUALIFICATIONS ..............................268
D.2. WHO ARE NOT PUBLIC D. QUALIFICATIONS PRESCRIBED
OFFICERS .......................................... 258 BY THE CONSTITUTION ..................269
II. MODES OF ACQUIRING TITLE E. PARTICULAR QUALIFICATIONS
TO PUBLIC OFFICE ......................... 259 .................................................................270
E.1. RELIGIOUS TEST OR
III. MODES AND KINDS OF QUALIFICATION IS NOT REQUIRED
APPOINTMENT ................................. 260 .............................................................270
A. NATURE AND CHARACTERISTICS E.2. QUALIFICATION STANDARDS
OF APPOINTMENTS .......................... 260 AND REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE
A.1. APPOINTMENT IS A CIVIL SERVICE LAW .......................270
DISCRETIONARY POWER. ............. 260 E.3. POLITICAL QUALIFICATIONS
A.2. APPOINTMENT IS GENERALLY FOR OFFICE .......................................270
AN EXECUTIVE FUNCTION. .......... 261 E.4. NO PROPERTY
A.3. APPOINTMENT V. QUALIFICATIONS ............................271
DESIGNATION .................................. 261 E.5.ALIENS ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
B. CLASSIFICATION OF PUBLIC OFFICE ................................271
APPOINTMENTS ................................. 262 E.6. EFFECT OF PARDON UPON THE
B.1. PERMANENT AND TEMPORARY DISQUALIFICATION TO HOLD
............................................................. 262 PUBLIC OFFICE ................................271
B.2. PRESIDENTIAL APPOINTMENTS
V. DISABILITIES AND INHIBITIONS
............................................................. 263
C. RULES ON ACCEPTANCE AND OF PUBLIC OFFICERS .................... 272
REVOCATION...................................... 266 A. DISQUALIFICATIONS TO HOLD
C.1. FOUR ELEMENTS OF A VALID, PUBLIC OFFICE ..................................272
EFFECTIVE, AND COMPLETED B. CONSTITUTIONAL DISQUALIFI-
APPOINTMENT ................................. 266 CATIONS ...............................................272
C.2. RULE ON ACCEPTANCE ......... 266 B.1. IN GENERAL ..............................272
C.3. IRREVOCABILITY OF A VALID, B.2. SPECIFIC CONSTITUTIONAL
EFFECTIVE, AND COMPLETED DISQUALIFICATIONS......................273
APPOINTMENT ................................. 267 C. OTHER DISQUALIFICATIONS AND
PROHIBITIONS ...................................273
C.1. IN GENERAL ..............................273

x
C.2. PROHIBITION ON HOLDING C.1. KINDS OF PREVENTIVE
OFFICES IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR SUSPENSION .....................................281
............................................................. 273 C.2. RULES ON PREVENTIVE
C.3. PROHIBITION ON NEPOTIC SUSPENSION: ....................................282
APPOINTMENTS; EXCEPTIONS .... 274 D. ILLEGAL DISMISSAL,
C.4. DISQUALIFICATIONS IN THE REINSTATEMENT AND BACK
LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE ....... 274 SALARIES .............................................283
D.1. DEFINITIONS.............................283
VI. POWERS AND DUTIES OF
D.2. DUTY OF PLAINTIFF TO PROVE
PUBLIC OFFICERS........................... 275 HIS RIGHT TO OFFICE.....................283
A. CLASSIFICATION OF POWERS
D.3.OTHER RULES ...........................283
AND DUTIES [DE LEON] .................... 275
A.1. AS TO NATURE ......................... 275 IX.IMMUNITY OF PUBLIC
A.2. AS TO THE OBLIGATION OF OFFICERS ........................................... 284
THE OFFICER TO PERFORM HIS A. RATIONALE..................................284
POWERS AND DUTIES .................... 275 A.1.OTHER PUBLIC POLICY
B. AUTHORITY OF PUBLIC CONSIDERATIONS:..........................284
OFFICERS ............................................. 275 B. OFFICIAL IMMUNITY
C. DUTIES OF PUBLIC OFFICERS.. 276 DISTINGUISHED FROM STATE
IMMUNITY ........................................284
VII. RIGHTS OF PUBLIC OFFICERS
C. PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY FROM
............................................................... 277 SUIT ....................................................284
A. IN GENERAL [ ................................. 277
B. RIGHT TO COMPENSATION ...... 277 X. DE FACTO OFFICERS ................. 285
C. OTHER RIGHTS ............................. 278 A. DE FACTO DOCTRINE ..................285
B. DE FACTO OFFICER DEFINED ...285
VIII. LIABILITIES OF PUBLIC B.1. ELEMENTS OF A DE FACTO
OFFICERS ........................................... 280 OFFICERSHIP ....................................285
A. IN GENERAL ................................... 280 B.2. DISTINGUISHED FROM OTHER
B. THREE-FOLD RESPONSIBILITY OFFICERS ...........................................285
OF PUBLIC OFFICERS ...................... 280 C. OFFICE CREATED UNDER AN
B.1.LIABILITY OF MINISTERIAL UNCONSTITUTIONAL STATUTE ...286
OFFICERS[NACHURA] .................... 281 D. LEGAL EFFECT OF ACTS OF DE
B.2. STATUTORY LIABILITY ......... 281 FACTO OFFICERS [MONROY V. CA
B.3. LIABILITY OF SUPERIOR (1967)] .....................................................286
OFFICERS FOR ACTS OF D.1. DE FACTO OFFICER’S OFFICIAL
SUBORDINATE OFFICERS ............. 281 ACTS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO
B.4. LIABILITY OF SUBORDINATE COLLATERAL ATTACK ..................286
OFFICERS .......................................... 281 E. LIABILITY OF DE FACTO
B.5. NON-APPLICABILITY OF THE OFFICER [DE LEON] ..........................286
DOCTRINE OF COMMAND F. RIGHT TO COMPENSATION OF DE
RESPONSIBILITY AND THE FACTO OFFICER ................................286
PRINCIPLE OF RESPONDEAT
SUPERIOR TO PUBLIC OFFICERS . 281 XI. TERMINATION OF OFFICIAL
C. PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION AND RELATION.......................................... 287
BACK SALARIES................................. 281 A. EXPIRATION OF THE TERM OR
TENURE OF OFFICE ..........................287
xi
B. REACHING THE AGE LIMIT XIII. ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC
(RETIREMENT) ................................... 287 OFFICERS ........................................... 295
C. DEATH OR PERMANENT A. IMPEACHMENT .............................295
DISABILITY.......................................... 287 A.1. IMPEACHABLE OFFICERS .....295
D. RESIGNATION ................................ 288 A.2. GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT
E. ACCEPTANCE OF AN .............................................................295
INCOMPATIBLE OFFICE ................. 288 A.3. PROCEDURE ..............................295
F. ABANDONMENT OF OFFICE ...... 289 A.4. JUDGMENT ................................295
G. PRESCRIPTION OF RIGHT TO B. OMBUDSMAN [AGPALO, 2005] ....295
OFFICE .................................................. 289 B.1. FUNCTIONS ...............................295
H. REMOVAL ....................................... 289 B.2. JUDICIAL REVIEW IN
I. IMPEACHMENT .............................. 290 ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS
J. ABOLITION ...................................... 290 .............................................................296
K. CONVICTION OF A CRIME ........ 290 B.3. JUDICIAL REVIEW IN PENAL
L. NON-USER ........................................ 290 PROCEEDINGS ..................................297
M. RECALL ........................................... 291 C. SANDIGANBAYAN .........................297
N. FILING OF A CERTIFICATE OF C.1. NATURE AND COMPOSITION 297
CANDIDACY BY AN APPOINTIVE C.2. EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL
OFFICIAL.............................................. 291 JURISDICTION ..................................297
XII.THE CIVIL SERVICE ................ 291 C.3. OFFICIALS AND PRIVATE
A. SCOPE ............................................ 291 INDIVIDUALS SUBJECT TO ITS
B. JURISDICTION OF THE CIVIL JURISDICTION ..................................297
SERVICE COMMISSION (CSC) ........ 291 C.4. EXCLUSIVE APPELLATE
B.1. EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION ... 291 JURISDICTION ..................................298
C. APPOINTMENTS TO THE CIVIL C.5. APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF
SERVICE ............................................... 292 THE SUPREME COURT....................298
C.1. CLASSIFICATION OF POSITIONS D. ILL-GOTTEN WEALTH ................298
IN THE CIVIL SERVICE ................... 292 XIV. TERM LIMITS .......................... 300
C.2. RECALL OF APPOINTMENTS. 292 A. ALL ELECTIVE LOCAL
C.3. APPOINTMENTS NOT OFFICIALS, EXCEPT BARANGAY
REQUIRING CSC APPROVAL......... 292 OFFICIALS .........................................300
C.4. LIMITATIONS ON POWER TO B. BARANGAY AND SANGGUNIANG
APPOINT ............................................ 292 KABATAAN OFFICIALS ..................300
D. PERSONNEL ACTIONS ................. 293
D.1. PROMOTION.............................. 293 I. SUFFRAGE ...................................... 302
D.2. TRANSFER ................................. 293 A. DEFINITIONS ...............................302
D.3. REINSTATEMENT .................... 293 B. SOURCES OF ELECTION LAWS
D.4. DETAIL ....................................... 293 302
D.5. REASSIGNMENTAN EMPLOYEE C. KINDS OF ELECTIONS ..............302
MAY BE REASSIGNED FROM ONE D. ELECTION PERIOD ....................303
ORGANIZATIONAL UNIT TO II. QUALIFICATION AND
ANOTHER IN THE SAME AGENCY. DISQUALIFICATION OF VOTERS303
............................................................. 294 A. QUALIFICATIONS, IN GENERAL
D.6. REEMPLOYMENT .................... 294 .................................................................303

xii
B. DISQUALIFICATIONS, IN FOLLOWING WORKING DAY [SEC.
GENERAL ............................................. 304 18, R.A. 8189] ......................................307
C. SPECIAL RULES FOR OVERSEAS HEARING ............................................307
ABSENTEE VOTERS .......................... 304 3RD MONDAY OF THE MONTH ......307
C.1. QUALIFICATIONS .................... 304 DECISION ...........................................307
C.2. DISQUALIFICATIONS .............. 304 BEFORE THE END OF THE MONTH
.............................................................307
III. REGISTRATION OF VOTERS
C. REMEDY IN CASE OF
305
APPROVAL/DISAPPROVAL OF
A. DEFINITION AND NATURE......... 305
APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION
B. SYSTEM OF CONTINUING
.................................................................307
REGISTRATION OF VOTERS .......... 306
D. DEACTIVATION OF
B.1. PERIOD OF REGISTRATION ... 306
REGISTRATION ..................................307
B.2. MANNER OF REGISTRATION
D.1. DEFINITION ...............................307
FOR ILLITERATE OR DISABLED
D.2. CAUSES OF DEACTIVATION .307
VOTERS.............................................. 306
D.3. REACTIVATION OF
B.3. ELECTION REGISTRATION
REGISTRATION ................................308
BOARDS ............................................. 306
E. CERTIFIED LIST OF VOTERS .308
B.4. CHANGE OF RESIDENCE OR
E.1. DEFINITIONS .............................308
ADDRESS ........................................... 306
E.2. GROUNDS WHEN LIST OF
B.5. CHALLENGES TO RIGHT TO
VOTERS WILL BE ALTERED..........308
REGISTER .......................................... 307
E.3. ANNULMENT OF BOOK OF
BY ........................................................ 307
VOTERS ..............................................308
ANY (1) VOTER; ............................... 307
F. SPECIAL RULES FOR OVERSEAS
(2) CANDIDATE; OR......................... 307
ABSENTEE VOTERS...........................309
(3) REPRESENTATIVE OF A
REGISTERED POLITICAL PARTY . 307 IV. INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION
FORM .................................................. 307 PROCEEDINGS .................................. 310
(1) IN WRITING, STATING THE A. JURISDICTION IN INCLUSION
GROUND THEREFOR ...................... 307 AND EXCLUSION CASE ....................310
(2) UNDER OATH; AND ................... 307 B. PROCESS ..........................................310
(3) ATTACHED TO THE C. SPECIAL RULES ON OVERSEAS
APPLICATION, TOGETHER WITH ABSENTEE VOTERS...........................310
PROOF OF NOTICE OF HEARING TO
V. POLITICAL PARTIES ............... 311
THE CHALLENGER AND THE
A. LEGAL BASIS AND PURPOSE.....311
APPLICANT ....................................... 307
B. DEFINITIONS ..................................311
WHEN FILED...................................... 307
B.1. POLITICAL PARTIES, IN
MUST BE FILED NOT LATER THAN
GENERAL ...........................................311
THE 2ND MONDAY OF THE MONTH
B.2. UNDER THE PARTY-LIST
IN WHICH THE SAME IS
SYSTEM .............................................311
SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD OR
C. JURISDICTION OF THE COMELEC
PROCESSED BY THE ERB. ............. 307
OVER POLITICAL PARTIES ............312
SHOULD 2ND MONDAY FALL ON A
D. REGISTRATION .............................312
NON-WORKING HOLIDAY, FILING
D.1. PURPOSES OF REGISTRATION
MAY BE MADE ON THE NEXT
.............................................................312

xiii
D.2. REGISTRATION UNDER THE C. MINISTERIAL DUTY OF
PARTY-LIST SYSTEM...................... 312 COMELEC TO RECEIVE
D.3. GROUPS WHICH CANNOT BE CERTIFICATES OF CANDIDACY ...320
REGISTERED AS POLITICAL D. NUISANCE CANDIDATES ............321
PARTIES ............................................. 313 E. PETITION TO DENY OR CANCEL
E. GROUNDS FOR CERTIFICATES OF CANDIDACY ...321
REFUSAL/CANCELLATION OF F. EFFECTS OF DISQUALIFICATION
REGISTRATION .................................. 313 .................................................................322
CERTIFIED LIST OF REGISTERED G. WITHDRAWAL OF CANDIDATES
PARTIES.- THE COMELEC SHALL, 323
NOT LATER THAN SIXTY (60) DAYS
VII. CAMPAIGN.............................. 324
BEFORE ELECTION, PREPARE A
A. PREMATURE CAMPAIGNING ....324
CERTIFIED LIST OF NATIONAL,
A.1. PROHIBITED CAMPAIGNING
REGIONAL, OR SECTORAL PARTIES,
DAYS ..................................................325
ORGANIZATIONS OR COALITIONS
A.2. CAMPAIGN PERIODS ..............325
WHICH HAVE APPLIED OR WHO
A.3. EQUAL ACCESS TO MEDIA
HAVE MANIFESTED THEIR DESIRE
TIME AND SPACE ............................325
TO PARTICIPATE UNDER THE
A.4. ELECTION SURVEYS ...............326
PARTY-LIST SYSTEM AND
A.5. RALLIES, MEETINGS, OTHER
DISTRIBUTE COPIES THEREOF TO
POLITICAL ACTIVITY .....................326
ALL PRECINCTS FOR POSTING IN
B. PROHIBITED CONTRIBUTIONS 327
THE POLLING PLACES ON
B.1. DEFINITIONS .............................327
ELECTION DAY. THE NAMES OF
B.2. PROHIBITED CONTRIBUTIONS
THE PARTY-LIST NOMINEES SHALL
.............................................................327
NOT BE SHOWN ON THE CERTIFIED
B.3. PROHIBITED FUND-RAISING
LIST. [SEC. 7, R.A. NO. 7941]............ 313
ACTIVITIES .......................................327
F. NOMINATION OF PARTY-LIST
B.4. PROHIBITED DONATIONS ......328
REPRESENTATIVES .......................... 314
B.5. PROHIBITED WHETHER
G. PARAMETERS IN ALLOCATION
DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY ..........328
OF SEATS FOR PARTY-LIST
C. LAWFUL AND PROHIBITED
REPRESENTATIVES .......................... 314
ELECTION PROPAGANDA ...............328
H. GUIDELINES AS TO WHO MAY
C.1. LAWFUL ELECTION
PARTICIPATE IN THE PARTY-LIST
PROPAGANDA ..................................328
ELECTIONS .......................................... 315
C.2. PROHIBITED ACTS ...................329
I. EFFECT OF CHANGE OF
D. LIMITATIONS ON EXPENSES ....329
AFFILIATION ...................................... 316
D.1. FOR CANDIDATES ...................329
VI. CANDIDACY ........................... 316 D.2. FOR CANDIDATES WITHOUT A
A. QUALIFICATIONS OF POLITICAL PARTY...........................329
CANDIDATES ....................................... 316 D.3. FOR POLITICAL PARTIES .......330
A.1. QUALIFICATIONS .................... 316 E. STATEMENT OF CONTRIBUTIONS
A.2. DISQUALIFICATIONS .............. 316 AND EXPENSES ...................................330
B. FILING OF CERTIFICATES OF E.1. EFFECT OF FAILURE TO FILE
CANDIDACY ........................................ 319 STATEMENT......................................330
E.2. ADMINISTRATIVE FINES
(EXCEPT CANDIDATES FOR
xiv
ELECTIVE BARANGAY OFFICE) D.1. JURISDICTION ..........................337
[SEC. 14, RA 7166] ............................. 330 D.2. WHEN NOT ALLOWED............337
D.3. NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS ...337
VIII. BOARD OF ELECTION
D.4. ISSUES THAT MAY BE RAISED
INSPECTORS (BEI) AND BOARD OF .............................................................337
CANVASSERS (BOC) ........................ 330 D.5. ISSUES THAT CANNOT BE
A. BOARD OF ELECTION RAISED ...............................................337
INSPECTORS........................................ 330 D.6. PROCEDURE ..............................338
A.1. COMPOSITION OF BOARD OF D.7 EFFECT OF FILING OF PRE-
ELECTION INSPECTORS ................. 330 PROCLAMATION CONTROVERSY
A.2. POWERS OF BOARD OF .............................................................339
ELECTION INSPECTORS ................. 331 D.8. EFFECT OF PROCLAMATION OF
B. BOARD OF CANVASSERS ............ 331 WINNING CANDIDATE ...................339
B.1. DEFINITIONS AND FUNCTIONS D.9. EFFECT OF FILING PETITION TO
............................................................. 331 ANNUL OR SUSPEND
B.2. COMPOSITION OF BOARD OF PROCLAMATION..............................339
CANVASSERS [SEC. 20, R.A. 6646]. 331 E. ELECTION PROTEST ....................339
C. PROCLAMATION........................... 333 E.1. NATURE......................................340
C.1. WHEN PROCLAMATION VOID E.2. PURPOSE ....................................340
............................................................. 333 E.3. WHO MAY FILE.........................340
C.2. PARTIAL PROCLAMATION .... 333 E.4. WHEN ..........................................340
C.3. ELECTION RESULTING IN A TIE E.5. WHO HAS JURISDICTION .......340
............................................................. 333 E.6. GROUNDS...................................340
C.4 PROCLAMATION OF A LONE E.7. PAYMENT OF DOCKET FEE ...340
CANDIDATE ...................................... 333 E.8. EFFECT OF FILING PETITION TO
IX. REMEDIES AND ANNUL OR TO SUSPEND THE
JURISDICTION IN ELECTION LAW PROCLAMATION..............................340
334 F. QUO WARRANTO...........................340
F.1. WHO MAY FILE .........................341
A. PETITION NOT TO GIVE DUE
F.2. WHEN TO FILE ..........................341
COURSE TO OR CANCEL A
CERTIFICATE OF CANDIDACY ..... 334 F.3. WHO HAS JURISDICTION........341
F.4. GROUNDS ...................................341
B. PETITION FOR
F.5. EXECUTION PENDING APPEAL
DISQUALIFICATION ......................... 334
.............................................................341
C. PETITION TO DECLARE FAILURE
OF ELECTIONS ................................... 335 X. PROSECUTION OF ELECTION
C.1. WHAT CONSTITUTES AN OFFENSES .......................................... 343
ELECTION.......................................... 335 A. JURISDICTION OVER ELECTION
C.2. FAILURE OF ELECTIONS ........ 335 OFFENSES.............................................343
C.3. DECLARATION OF FAILURE OF B. PREFERENTIAL DISPOSITION OF
ELECTION.......................................... 336 ELECTION OFFENSES.......................343
C.4. JURISDICTION .......................... 336 B.1. ELECTION OFFENSES..............343
C.5. REQUISITES ............................... 336 B.2. PENALTIES ................................345
C.6. PROCEDURE .............................. 336 C. ARRESTS IN CONNECTION WITH
D. PRE-PROCLAMATION ELECTION CAMPAIGN .....................345
CONTROVERSY .................................. 336 D. PRESCRIPTION ..............................345
xv
E. GRANT OF TRANSACTIONAL V. DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR
IMMUNITY ........................................... 345 LAW ..................................................... 359
F. PROHIBITED ACTS UNDER RA A. DIPLOMATIC INTERCOURSE ....359
9369 ......................................................... 345 A.1 AGENTS OF DIPLOMATIC
I. CONCEPTS...................................... 348 INTERCOURSE ..................................359
A. OBLIGATIONS ERGA OMNES ..... 348 A.2. FUNCTIONS AND DUTIES OF
A.1. DEFINITION ............................... 348 AGENTS .............................................360
B. JUS COGENS ................................... 349 A.3. IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES
B.1. DEFINITION ............................... 349 .............................................................360
C. CONCEPT OF EX AEQUO ET B. CONSULAR RELATIONS ..............363
BONO ..................................................... 349 B.1. ESTABLISHMENT AND
SEVERANCE ......................................363
II. INTERNATIONAL AND B.2. CONSULS ...................................363
NATIONAL LAW ............................... 349 B.3. RANKS ........................................363
A. INTERNATIONAL AND NATIONAL B.4. CONSULAR FUNCTIONS .........363
(MUNICIPAL) LAW, DISTINGUISHED B.5. RIGHT TO CONSULAR
................................................................. 349 ASSISTANCE .....................................364
B. RELATIONSHIP .............................. 350 B.6. NECESSARY DOCUMENTS.....364
B.1. THEORIES .................................. 350 B.7. IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES
.............................................................364
III. SOURCES ..................................... 351
A. IN GENERAL ................................... 351 VI. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF
B. TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS 351 TREATY LAW .................................... 366
C. CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL A. CONCEPT .........................................366
LAW........................................................ 352 A.1. UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW
D. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF LAW .............................................................366
................................................................. 353 A.2. UNDER PHILIPPINE LAW .......366
E. JUDICIAL DECISIONS AND
TEACHINGS OF HIGHLY QUALIFIED TREATY ................................................ 366
PUBLICISTS ......................................... 354 EXECUTIVE ........................................ 366
F. NON-SOURCES................................ 354
AGREEMENTS.................................... 366
IV. SUBJECTS .................................... 354
A. SUBJECTS AND OBJECTS SUBJECT MATTER ............................ 366
DISTINGUISHED ................................. 354 RATIFICATION .................................. 366
B. OBJECTIVE AND SPECIAL B. TREATY-MAKING PROCESS ......367
PERSONALITY .................................... 355 B.1. INVALID TREATIES .................368
C. STATES ............................................. 355 B.2. GROUNDS FOR TERMINATION
D. INTERNATIONAL .............................................................368
ORGANIZATIONS ............................... 358
D.1. PRECONDITIONS FOR VII. NATIONALITY AND
INTERNATIONAL PERSONALITY. 359 STATELESSNESS .............................. 369
D.2. CAPACITY TO BRING CLAIM A. NATIONALITY ................................369
FOR REPARATION OF THE UNITED B. ACQUISITION OF NATIONALITY
NATIONS ............................................ 359 .................................................................369
D.3. INDIVIDUALS ........................... 359 B.1. BIRTH..........................................369
B.2. NATURALIZATION ..................369
xvi
C. MULTIPLE NATIONALITY ......... 370 A. DEFINITION ....................................379
C.1. ILLUSTRATIONS ...................... 370 B. CLASSIFICATION ..........................379
C.2. DOCTRINE OF INDELIBLE
OBLIGATORY FORCE ....................... 379
ALLEGIANCE .................................... 370
C. UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF
C.3. CONFLICT OF NATIONALITY
HUMAN RIGHTS .................................379
LAWS .................................................. 370
D. INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON
C.4. PRINCIPLE OF EFFECTIVE
CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS ....379
NATIONALITY .................................. 370
E. INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON
D. LOSS OF NATIONALITY .............. 370
ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND
E. STATELESSNESS ............................ 370
CULTURAL RIGHTS ..........................380
F. CITIZENSHIP OF FOUNDLINGS 370
XII. INTERNATIONAL
VIII. STATE RESPONSIBILITY ..... 372
HUMANITARIAN LAW.................... 381
A. DOCTRINE OF STATE
A. DEFINITION ....................................381
RESPONSIBILITY ............................... 372
B. TWO BRANCHES: ..........................381
A.1. DEFINITION ............................... 372
C. PHILIPPINE PRACTICE ...............381
A.2. ELEMENTS ................................ 372
D. CATEGORIES OF ARMED
A.3.ATTRIBUTION ........................... 372
CONFLICT ............................................381
A.4.EFFECTIVE CONTROL ............. 373
D.1. INTERNATIONAL ARMED
B. CONSEQUENCES OF STATE
CONFLICTS........................................381
RESPONSIBILITY ............................... 373
D.2. INTERNAL OR NON-
B.1.DUTY TO CEASE THE ACT ...... 373
INTERNATIONAL ARMED
B.2.DUTY TO MAKE REPARATIONS
CONFLICTS........................................381
............................................................. 373
D.3. WAR OF NATIONAL
IX. JURISDICTION OF STATES .... 375 LIBERATION .....................................382
A. DEFINITION .................................... 375 E. CORE INTERNATIONAL
B. KINDS OF JURISDICTION ........... 375 OBLIGATIONS OF STATES IN IHL 382
C.PRINCIPLES OF STATE F. PRINCIPLES OF IHL ......................383
JURISDICTION .................................... 375 F.1. COMBATANTS...........................383
D.RESERVED DOMAIN OF F.2. HORS DE COMBAT ...................383
DOMESTIC JURISDICTION ............. 375 F.4. CIVILIANS ..................................383
E. DOCTRINE OF STATE IMMUNITY F.5. PRISONERS OF WAR ................383
................................................................. 375 G. LAW ON NEUTRALITY ................384
X. TREATMENT OF ALIENS .......... 376 XIII. LAW OF THE SEA ................... 385
A. STANDARD OF TREATMENT ..... 376 A. DEFINITION ....................................385
B. STATE RESPONSIBILITY ............ 377 B. BASELINES ......................................385
C. CALVO CLAUSE ............................. 377 C. ARCHIPELAGIC STATES.............385
D. EXTRADITION................................ 377 C.1. STRAIGHT ARCHIPELAGIC
D.1. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES 377 BASELINES ........................................385
D.2. PROCEDURE.............................. 378 C.2. ARCHIPELAGIC WATERS .......385
D.3. EXTRADITION AND C.3. ARCHIPELAGIC SEA LANES
DEPORTATION DISTINGUISHED .. 378 PASSAGE ...........................................385
C.4. OTHER RIGHTS RELATING TO
XI. INTERNATIONAL HUMAN
ARCHIPELAGIC WATERS...............386
RIGHTS LAW ..................................... 379
D. INTERNAL WATERS .....................386
xvii
E. TERRITORIAL SEA ....................... 386 B.2. PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE
F. CONTIGUOUS ZONE ..................... 387 .............................................................391
F.1. DEFINITION ............................... 387 B.3. SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
F.2. JURISDICTION OVER .............................................................391
CONTIGUOUS ZONE........................ 387 B.4. SIC UTERE TUO UT ALIENUM
G. EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE. 387 NON LAEDAS (PRINCIPLE 21 OF THE
G.1. DEFINITION ............................... 387 STOCKHOLM DECLARATION) ......392
H. CONTINENTAL SHELF ................ 388
XVI. INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC
H.1. EXTENDED CONTINENTAL
LAW ..................................................... 392
SHELF ................................................. 388
H.2. LIMITS OF THE CONTINENTAL
SHELF ................................................. 388
H.3. RIGHTS OF THE COASTAL
STATE ................................................. 388
RIGHTS OF THE COASTAL STATE TO
LIVING RESOURCES ........................ 389
I. THE AREA ......................................... 389
I.1. DEFINITION ................................ 389
I.2. LEGAL STATUS OF THE AREA
AND ITS RESOURCES ..................... 389
I.3. INTERNATIONAL SEABED
AUTHORITY ...................................... 389
I.4. ACTIVITIES IN THE AREA ....... 389
J. INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL FOR
THE LAW OF THE SEA (ITLOS)...... 389
J.1. DEFINITION ................................ 389
J.2. JURISDICTION OF THE ITLOS 389
J.3. PEACEFUL SETTLEMENT OF
DISPUTES .......................................... 389
J.4. COMPULSORY SETTLEMENT OF
DISPUTES .......................................... 390
J.5. APPLICABLE LAWS .................. 390
XIV. MADRID PROTOCOL AND
PARIS CONVENTION ...................... 390
A. MADRID PROTOCOL.................... 390
B. PARIS CONVENTION .................... 391
XV. INTERNATIONAL
ENVIRONMENTAL LAW ................ 391
A. DEFINITION .................................... 391
B. BASIC PRINCIPLES ....................... 391
B.1. PRINCIPLE OF COMMON BUT
DIFFERENTIATED RESPONSIBILITY
............................................................. 391

xviii
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 POLITICAL LAW

POLITICAL LAW
CONSTITUTIONAL
LAW 1

PAGE 1 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 POLITICAL LAW

It is the document which serves as the


I. The Constitution fundamental law of the state; that written
instrument enacted by the direct action of the
people by which the fundamental powers of the
A. DEFINITION, NATURE, CONCEPTS government are established, limited and defined,
and by which those powers are distributed
A.1. POLITICAL LAW among the several departments for their safe and
useful exercise, for the benefit of the body
Political law – branch of public law which deals politic. [Malcolm, Phil. Constitutional Law]
with the organization and operations of the
governmental organs of the State and defines "A law for the government, safeguarding
the relations of the State with the inhabitants of individual rights, set down in writing."
its territory. [People v. Perfecto, 43 Phil 88 [Hamilton]
(1922)] According to Schwartz, "a constitution is seen
The entire field of political law may be as an organic instrument, under which
subdivided into: governmental powers are both conferred and
circumscribed. Such stress upon both grant and
(1) The law of public administration- limitation of authority is fundamental in
organization and management of the American theory. 'The office and purpose of the
different branches of the government constitution is to shape and fix the limits of
(2) Constitutional law - guaranties of the governmental activity.'" [Fernando, The
constitution to individual rights and the Constitution of the Philippines 20-21 (2nd ed.,
limitations on governmental action 1977)]

(3) Administrative law - exercise of executive


power in the making of rules and the A.4. CLASSES OF CONSTITUTIONS
decision of questions affecting private
(1) Written v. unwritten.
rights
A writtenconstitution’s precepts are
(4) The law of public corporations-
embodied in one document or set of
governmental agencies for local
documents. An unwrittenconstitution
government or for other special purposes
consists of rules which have not been
[Sinco]
integrated into a single, concrete form but
are scattered in various sources, such as
A.2. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW statutes of fundamental character, judicial
decisions, commentaries of publicists,
Designates the law embodied in the customs and traditions. [Cruz,
Constitution and the legal principles growing Constitutional Law 4-5; Nachura, Outline
out of the interpretation and application of its Reviewer in Political Law 2]
provisions by the courts in specific cases. It is
the study of the maintenance of the proper (2) Enacted (conventional) v. evolved
balance between the authority as represented by (cumulative)
the three inherent powers of the State and liberty Aconventional constitution is enacted
as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. formally at a definite time and place following
a conscious or deliberate effort taken by a
constituent body or ruler. A cumulative body
A.3. CONSTITUTION DEFINED is the result of political evolution, not
The body of rules and maxims in accordance inaugurated at any specific time but changing
with which the powers of sovereignty are by accretion rather than by any systematic
habitually exercised. [Cooley, The General method. [Cruz, id., at 5]
Principles of Law in the United States of
America]

PAGE 2 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 POLITICAL LAW

(3) Rigid v. flexible B. PARTS OF A CONSTITUTION


A constitution is classified as rigid when it (1) Constitution of Government – establishes
may not be amended except through a the structure of government, its branches
special process distinct from and more and their operation; e.g. Art. VI, VII, VIII,
involved than the method of changing IX
ordinary laws. It is supposed that by such a
special procedure, the constitution is (2) Constitution of Sovereignty - provides how
the Constitution may be changed; i.e. Art.
rendered difficult to change and thereby
XVII
acquires a greater degree of stability. A
constitution is classified as flexiblewhen it (3) Constitution of Liberty - states the
may be changed in the same manner and fundamental rights of the people; e.g. Art.
through the same body that enacts ordinary III [Lambino v. COMELEC, G.R.
legislation. The Constitution of the UK is No.174153. October 25, 2006]
flexible.
N.B. The Philippine Constitution is written, C. AMENDMENTS AND REVISIONS
enacted and rigid.
[ART. XVIII –AMENDMENTS OR
Date of Effectivity of the 1987 Const.: REVISIONS]
February 2, 1987, the date of the plebiscite, and
not on the date its ratification was proclaimed.
[De Leon v. Esguerra, G.R. No. 78059, August C.1 CONCEPTS
31, 1987]
Amendments – An addition or change within
the lines of the original constitution as will
A.5. BASIC PRINCIPLES effect an improvement, or better carry out the
purpose for which it was framed; a change that
(1) Verba legis– whenever possible, the words adds, reduces or deletes without altering the
used in the Constitution must be given their basic principles involved; affects only the
ordinary meaning except where technical specific provision being amended. [Lambino v.
term are employed; COMELEC, G.R. No.174153. October 25,
(2) Ratio legis est anima– words of the 2006]
Constitution should be interpreted in Revisions – A change that alters a basic
accordance with the intent of the framers; principle in the constitution, like altering the
(3) Ut magis valeat quam pereat– the principle of separation of powers or the system
Constitution should be interpreted as a of checks-and-balances; alters the substantial
whole [Francisco v. House of entirety of the constitution, as when the change
Representatives, 415 SCRA 44 (2003)] affects substantial provisions of the constitution.
[Id.]
Difference– Revision generally affects several
A.6. TYPES OF JUDICIAL REVIEW provisions of the constitution, while amendment
US Judicial Review generally affects only the specific provision
Europe Judicial being amended [Id.] This distinction is
Review (Followed by the
significant because the 1987 Constitution
PHL)
allows people’s initiative only for the purpose
Constitutional Courts: US Supreme Court: of amending, not revising, the Constitution. [See
centralized, only one decentralized; all courts Lambino, supra]
court can exercise can exercise judicial
review
Principaliter: questions Incidenter: question that Legal tests
are independent of is recognized by the Lambino considered the two-part test: the
disputes Court must be part of the quantitative test and the qualitative test.
controversy
PAGE 3 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 POLITICAL LAW

(1) Quantitative test– The court examines only authorized (1) within 5 years
the number of provisions affected and does following the ratification of the
not consider the degree of the change. 1987 Const. nor (2) more often than
once every 5 years thereafter.
(2) Qualitative test – The court inquires into the
qualitative effects of the proposed change in (ii) Enabling Law: Constitutional
the constitution. The main inquiry is provision on amendments via
whether the change will “accomplish such People’s Initiative not self-
far reaching changes in the nature of our executory [Defensor-Santiago v.
basic governmental plan as to amount to a COMELEC, 270 SCRA 170 (1997)]
revision.” The changes include those to the
(2) Ratification– the proposed amendment
“fundamental framework or the
shall be submitted to the people and shall be
fundamental powers of its Branches,” and
deemed ratified by the majority of the votes
those that “jeopardize the traditional form
cast in a plebiscite, held not earlier than 60
of government and the system of check and
days nor later than 90 days:
balances.” Whether there is an alteration in
the structure of government is a proper (a) After approval of the proposal by
subject of inquiry. [See Lambino, supra.] Congress or ConCon;
C.2 PROCEDURE (b) After certification by the COMELEC of
sufficiency of petition of the people.
There are two steps in the amendatory process:
(1) proposal, and (2) ratification
(1) Proposal– The adoption of the suggested Doctrine of Proper Submission – A plebiscite
change in the Constitution. may be held on the same day as a regular
election [Gonzales v. COMELEC, 21 SCRA
(a) Congress (as a Constituent Assembly) –
774]. The entire Constitution must be submitted
a vote of 3/4 of ALL its members.
for ratification at one plebiscite only. The
(b) Constitutional Convention – Called into people must have a proper “frame of reference”.
existence by (i) 2/3 of all members of [Dissent ofTolentino v. COMELEC, 41 SCRA
Congress OR (ii) the electorate, in a 702]. No “piecemeal submission,” e.g.
referendum called for by a majority of submission of age amendment ahead of other
all members of Congress [CONST., art. proposed amendments. [Lambino v. COMELEC,
XVII, sec. 3] G.R. No.174153. October 25, 2006]
(c) People(through a People’s Initiative) – N.B. The process of revision is the same in all
petition of at least 12% of the total respects except that it cannot be proposed via a
number of registered voters; every People’s Initiative. [See Lambino, supra]
legislative district must be represented
Judicial Review of Amendments – The validity
by at least 3% of the registered voters
of the process of amendment is not a political
therein.
question because the Court must review if
(i) Limitation on Initiative: No constitutional processes were followed. [See
amendment in this manner shall be Lambino, supra]
C.3. SUMMARY OF TWO STAGES OF AMENDATORY/ REVISION PROCESS
By Proposal Ratification
A. Congress (as
By a vote of 3/4 of all its
Constituent
members
Assembly) Via Plebiscite, 60-90 days
Amendments (In practice) per internal after submission of the
B. Constitutional rules, limited by the amendments
Convention Doctrine of Proper
Submission

PAGE 4 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 POLITICAL LAW

Upon COMELEC’s
C. People’s
certification of the
Initiative
sufficiency of the petition
A. Congress (as
By a vote of 3/4 of all its
Revision Constituent
members
Assembly) Via Plebiscite, 60-90 days
(In practice) per internal after submission of the
B. Constitutional rules, limited by the revision
Convention Doctrine of Proper
Submission

TABLE OF CASES RE: CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS AND CHANGES IN GOVERNMENT


TItle Facts Held and Ratio
Mabanag v. Lopez Resolution of Congress proposing the Petition dismissed. Proposal of amendments
Vito(1947) Parity Amendment was assailed on the to the constitution is a political question.
ground that it did not comply with the The enrolled copy of the resolution in
Congressional 3/4 rule prescribed by the Constitution. which it was certified that the proposal had
Resolution proposing been approved by the required vote was
the Parity Amendment conclusive upon the courts.
Modified by Gonzales, infra, and Tolentino,
infra.
Gonzales v. RBH No. 1 called for an increase in the Petition denied.
COMELEC (1967) membership of the HOR; RBH No. 2
(1) Proposal of amendments is not a
called for a Constitutional Convention;
Resolutions of Both political but a justiciable question
and RBH No. 3 called for the
Houses (RBH) calling subject to judicial review.
amendment of Sec. 16, Art.VI to allow
for the 1971 members of Congress to become (2) Congress may propose amendments
Constitutional delegates to the CONCON without and at the same time call for a
Convention and losing their seats. Petitioners seek to Constituent Assembly.
amendments to the restrain respondents from enforcing the
1935 Constitution (3) Ratification may be done
law passed by Congress submitting
simultaneously with a general election
RBH Nos. 1 and 2 for ratification
or in a special election called
during the general elections scheduled
specifically for that purpose.
on Nov. 1967.
(4) There was a proper submission.
Tolentino v. Validity of a CONCON Resolution Petition granted. All amendments proposed
COMELEC(1971) (submitting, for ratification, the by the same Constitutional Convention
proposal to lower the voting age to 18) shall be submitted to the people in a single
1971 Constitutional was assailed. The question here is election.
Convention convened whether piecemeal amendments to the
Constitution could be submitted to the
people for ratification or rejection.
TItle Facts Held and Ratio
Planas v. COMELEC Petitioners seek to enjoin respondents Petition dismissed.The issue of validity of
(1973) from implementing PD 73, which called calling for a plebiscite (submission) is
for a plebiscite (to be held on January justiciable; BUT, issue became moot.
Plebiscite cases
15, 1973) for the constitution approved
by the CONCON on 1972, on the theory
PAGE 5 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 POLITICAL LAW

that: (a) the power to submit is lodged


exclusively in Congress, and (b) there is
no proper submission to the people.
Javellana v. Petitioners seek to enjoin the Although the question of whether a
Executive Secretary respondents from implementing any of Constitution was validly ratified is a
(1973) the provisions of the “new constitution” justiciable question, the question of whether
not found in the 1935 Constitution, on a Constitution has come into force and
Ratification cases the theory that it was not validly ratified effect is a political question beyond the
in accordance with the provisions of competence of the Court to decide.
Art.1, Section XV.
Sanidad v. Petitioners question the authority of the (1) The amending process, both as to
COMELEC(1976) President in issuing several PDs proposal and ratification, raises a
proposing amendments to the New justiciable question.
1976 Amendments Constitution and calling for a national
(2) In a crisis government, the President
referendum-plebiscite for the said
shall have the power to assume the
amendments.
constituent power to propose
amendments lodged in the Legislative
body.
Mitra v. Petitioners argue that the 1973 Even without valid ratification, a new
COMELEC(1981) Constitution never validly took effect, Constitution could come into force and
Javellana aside, on the theory that the effect by the acquiescence of the people.
1973 Constitution, 1973 Constitution was still and is still at Popular acquiescence to a new Constitution
effective. the stage of proposal. They ask the gives the document the force and effect of
Court to order a plebiscite for the the Fundamental Law of the Land,
ratification of the 1973 Constitution. regardless of the method of ratification. If it
is accepted by the people (as shown by their
participation in several elections and
referenda since then), in whom sovereignty
resides according to the Constitution, the
courts cannot refuse to yield assent to such
a political decision.
Lawyers’ League for Petitioners questioned legitimacy of the The question of legitimacy of a new
a Better Philippines Aquino government. government arising from a successful
v. Aquino(1986) revolution is a political question beyond the
pale of review by the courts.
EDSA Revolution
De Leon v. Esguerra Petitioners question the appointment of Date of effectivity of 1987 Constitution
(1987) respondents as barangay officials and retroacts to the date of the plebiscite, i.e. 2
maintain that with the ratification of the Feb. 1987.Provisional Constitution deemed
1987
1987 Constitution, the OIC did not have to have been superseded by 1987
Constitutionratified
the authority to simply appoint their Constitution on said date of effectivity.
replacements.

Santiago v. Petitioners seek to enjoin respondent COMELEC permanently enjoined from


COMELEC(1997) COMELEC from acting on the petition entertaining or taking cognizance of any
by the PIRMA group asking for an petition for initiative until a sufficient law
PIRMA case order fixing details on how to collect shall have been validly enacted to provide
signatures for a people’s initiative to for the implementation of the system.
amend the Constitution
The system of initiative found in Article
XVII, Sec. 2 is not self-executory. It needs
an enabling law before the right of the
PAGE 6 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 POLITICAL LAW

people could be exercised. However, an


examination of its provisions reveals that
RA 6735 is incomplete, inadequate, or
wanting in essential terms and conditions
insofar as initiative on amendments to the
Constitution is concerned.
Estrada vs. Estrada questions legitimacy of Arroyo (Legal distinction between EDSA I and
Desierto(2001) government and claims, inter alia, that EDSA II) The government arising from
he did not resign from position and that EDSA I was extra-constitutional, while
EDSA II Arroyo is merely an acting president. EDSA II was a constitutional exercise of
the right to free speech, freedom of
assembly, and to petition the government
for redress.
Lambino vs. Petitioners seek review of COMELEC The constituent power reserved to people
COMELEC (2007) decision denying due course to a under Art. XVII Sec. 2 is limited to the
people’s initiative to amend the 1987 power to propose amendments to, not
Lambino Group Constitution. revision of, the Constitution.
People’s Initiative
Moreover, “direct proposal by the people”
means that the petition signed by the people
should contain the full text of the proposed
amendments to the Constitution.

D. SELF-EXECUTING AND NON-SELF- II, sec. 15] is also self-executory [Imbong v


EXECUTING PROVISIONS Executive Secretary, GR 204819, 8 April 2014]
N.B. Other “exceptions” to the exception, e.g.
(1) right to information in art. III [See Legaspi v.
D.1. RULE
CSC (1987)] and the (2) Filipino First Policy
General Presumption: All provisions of the [See Manila Prince, supra] are self-executing
constitution are self-executing. “Unless the because they actually fall under the general rule.
contrary is clearly intended, the provisions of Non-Self Executing: Provisions which merely
the Constitution should be considered self- “la[y] down a general principle.” [Manila
executing” [Manila Prince v. GSIS, 335 Phil. 82 Prince, supra]
( 1997)]
Declaration of principles and state policies are
Exception: Statements of general principles, not self-executing. [Espina v. Zamora, G.R. No.
such as those in Art. II, are usually not self- 143855; September 21, 2010]
executing. (Id.) Other examples in
jurisprudence: constitutional provisions on Legislative’s failure to pursue policies do not
personal dignity, sanctity of family life, vital give rise to a cause of action. (Id.)
role of the youth in nation-building, values of N.B. A provision may be self-executing in one
education, social justice and human rights, part, and non-self-executing in another. (Manila
promotion of general welfare, vital role of the Prince, supra)
youth in nation-building, promotion of total
human liberation and development are merely
guidelines for legislation (Id; citations omitted.) E. GENERAL PROVISIONS
Exception to the Exception: The (1) right to a
balanced and healthful ecology is self-
executing [Oposa v. Factoran (1993)]. The (2) [Art. XVI – General provisions]
promotion and protection of health [Const., art. (1) Flag of the Philippines [sec. 1]

PAGE 7 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 POLITICAL LAW

(a) Red, white and blue, with a sun and (f) Tour of duty of the Chief of Staff shall
three stars not exceed three years [sec. 5(7)] except
when extended by the President in times
(b) Design of the flag may be changed only
of war or other national emergency
byconstitutional amendment [BERNAS]
declared by the Congress [Id.]
(2) Name of the country, national anthem, and
(4) Police Force [sec. 6]
national seal [sec. 2]
(a) One police force
(a) May be changed by Congress by law
(b) National in scope
(b) Such law will only take effect upon
ratification by the people in a national (c) Civilian in character
referendum
(5) Consumer Protection [sec. 9]
(6) Mass Media [sec.11]
(3) Armed Forces of the Philippines [sec. 4]
(a) Ownership and management limited to
(a) Composed of a citizen armed force (i) citizens of the Philippines or (ii)
corporations, cooperatives or
(b) Shall take an oath or affirmation to
associations wholly-owned and
uphold and defend the Constitution [sec.
managed by Filipino citizens
5(1)]
(7) Advertising Industry [sec. 11]
(c) May not be appointed or designated to
a civilian position in the government (a) Can only be engaged in by (i) Filipino
including GOCCs or their subsidiaries citizens or (ii) corporations or
[sec. 5(4)] associations at least 70% of which is
owned by Filipino citizens
(d) Laws on retirement of military officers
shall not allow extension of their (b) Participation of foreign investors is
service [sec. 5(5)] limited to their proportionate share in
the capital
(e) Recruited proportionately from all
provinces and cities as far as practicable (c) Managing officers must be Filipino
[sec.5(6)] citizens

PAGE 8 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 POLITICAL LAW

(3) Treaty of 12 January 1930 between the


II. General Considerations United States and Great Britain: Ceding the
Turtle and Mangsee Islands. [BERNAS (2003),
cited in Justice Velasco’s concurring opinion n
A. NATIONAL TERRITORY
Magallona v. Ermita (2011)].

Q: What comprises the national territory? What


does it consist of? Straight baseline method – consists of drawing
A: The national territory is comprised of – straight lines connecting appropriate points on
the coast without departing to any appreciable
(1) Philippine archipelago, with all the islands extent from the general direction of the coast, in
and waters embraced therein; Internal order to delineate the internal waters from the
waters – waters around, between, and territorial waters of an archipelago. [NOTE:
connecting the islands of the archipelago, This is the method prescribed under the
regardless of breadth and dimension; and UNCLOS]
(2) All other territories over which the See R.A. No. 9522–amended R.A. No. 3046,
Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction entitled "An Act to Define the Baselines of the
It consists of – Territorial Sea of the Philippines;" specified that
baselines of Kalayaan Group of Islands and
(1) Territorial sea, seabed, subsoil, insular Bajo de Masinloc (Scarborough Shoal) shall be
shelves, and other submarine areas determined as “Regime of Islands” under the
(2) Terrestrial, fluvial, and aerial domains Republic of the Philippines, consistent with the
UNCLOS.
R.A. No. 9522 is not unconstitutional: (1) it is a
A.1. ARCHIPELAGIC DOCTRINE statutory tool to demarcate the maritime zone
Statement of doctrine- A body of water studded and continental shelf of the Philippines under
with islands, or the islands surrounded with UNCLOS III, and does not alter the national
water, is viewed as a unity of islands and waters territory. (2) While UNCLOS III does not bind
together forming one integrated unit. [N.B. the Philippines to pass a baselines law, Congress
Embodied in Art. II, specifically by the mention may do so. (3) The law also does not abandon
of the “Philippine archipelago” and the the country’s claim to Sabah, as it does not
specification on “internal waters.”] expressly repeal the entirety of R.A. No. 5446.
[Magallona v. Ermita, G.R. No. 187167, 16 July
2011]
Treaty limits of the Philippine archipelago
(1) Treaty of Paris of 10 December 1898: “Spain B. STATE IMMUNITY
cedes to the United States the archipelago
known as the Philippines Islands, and
comprehending the islands lying within the B.1. – SUMMARY OF RULE
following line” xxx
General rule – The State cannot be sued.
Article 3 defines the metes and bounds of the
archipelago by longitude and latitude, degrees Exception – the State consents to be sued; How
and seconds. Technical descriptions are made consent is given –
of the scope of the archipelago as this may be (1) Express consent –
found on the surface of the earth.
(a) General law; or
(b) Special law
(2) Treaty of Washington of 7 November 1900
between the United States and Spain: Ceding (2) Implied consent –
Cagayan, Sibuto and Sulu. (a) When the State commences litigation, it
becomes vulnerable to a counterclaim;
PAGE 9 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 POLITICAL LAW

(b) State enters into a business contract (it (2) Sociological Theory - If the State is
is exercising proprietary functions); amenable to suits, all its time would be
spent defending itself from suits and this
(c) When it would be inequitable for the
would prevent it from performing its other
State to invoke immunity;
functions. [Republic vs. Villasor (1973]
(d) In eminent domain cases.

B.3. SUITS AGAINST THE STATE


B.2 CONCEPTS
When against the state
i. State
A suit is against the State regardless of who is
A community of persons, more or less numerous, named the defendant if:
permanently occupying a definite portion of
(1) It produces adverse consequences to the
territory, independent of external control, and
public treasury in terms of disbursement of
possessing a government to which a great body
public funds and loss of government
of the inhabitants render habitual obedience; a
property.
politically organized sovereign community
independent of outside control bound by ties of (2) It cannot prosper unless the State has given
nationhood, legally supreme within its territory, its consent.
acting through a government functioning under
When not against the state
a regime of law. [Collector of Internal Revenue
v. Campos Rueda, G.R. No. 13250, October 29, It was held that the suit is not against the State:
1971] (1) When the purpose of the suit is to compel an
officer charged with the duty of making
payments pursuant to an appropriation
The state as a person of international law should
made by law in favor of the plaintiff to make
possess the following qualifications: (a) a
such payment, since the suit is intended to
permanent population; (b) a defined territory;
compel performance of a ministerial duty.
(c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into
[Begoso v. PVA (1970)]
relations with the other states [Article 1,
Montevideo Convention] (2) When from the allegations in the complaint,
it is clear that the respondent is a public
officer sued in a private capacity;
ii. Bases
(3) When the action is not in personam with the
Constitutional (Textual) Basis: Const. Art. XVI government as the named defendant, but an
action in rem that does not name the
Sec. 3.The State may not be sued without its
government in particular.
consent.

Express consent
International Law Basis:
Effected only by the will of the legislature
“Par in parem non habet imperium”
through the medium of a duly enacted statute;
may be embodied either in a general law or a
special law:
Jurisprudential Basis:
(1) Positivist Theory - There can be no legal
right as against the authority that makes the General Law
laws on which the right depends. Also
Authorizes any person who meets the
called the doctrine of Royal Prerogative of
conditions stated in the law to sue the
Dishonesty. [Department of Agriculture v
government in accordance with the procedure in
NLRC, GR 104269, 11 November 1993]
the law; e.g.

PAGE 10 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 POLITICAL LAW

(1) Money claims arising from contract express property. [Section 24, LGC]
or implied
Special Agent - One who receives a definite and
fixed order or commission, foreign to the
Act No. 3083
exercise of the duties of his office if he is a
An Act Defining the Conditions under which special official. [Merritt v. Gov’t of the
the Government of the Philippines may be Sued. Philippine Islands, (1916)] One who performs
his regular functions, even if he is called a
Sec. 1. Subject to the provisions of this Act,
“special agent”, is not a special agent within the
the Government of the Philippines hereby
context of Government liability [USA v Guinto,
consents and submits to be sued upon any
GR 76607, 26 February 1990]
moneyed claim involving liability arising
from contract, express or implied, which Special Law - may come in the form of a private
could serve as a basis of civil action between bill authorizing a named individual to bring suit
private parties. on a special claim
Sec. 2. A person desiring to avail himself of
the privilege herein conferred must show that
Implied consent [E-P-I-C]
he has presented his claim to the Commission
on Audit and that the latter did not decide the (1) In instances when the State takes private
same within two months from the date of its property for public use or purpose (eminent
presentation. xxx domain)
Sec. 5. When the Government of the (2) When the State enters into a business
Philippines is plaintiff in an action instituted contract (in jure gestionis or proprietary
in any court of original jurisdiction, the functions)
defendant shall have the right to assert (3) When it would be inequitable for the State
therein, by way of set-off or counterclaim in to invoke its immunity.
a similar action between private parties. xxx
(4) If the government files a complaint,
defendant may file a counterclaim against it.
(2) Torts When the state files a complaint, suability
will result only where the government is
(a) Liability of local government units
claiming affirmative relief from the
Provinces, cities and municipalities defendant.
shall be liable for damages for the death
or injuries suffered by any person by
reason of the defective conditions of B.4. SPECIFIC RULES
zroads, streets, public buildings and Suits against Government Agencies – Depends
other public works under their control on whether the agency is incorporated (i.e. there
and supervision. [Art. 2189, CC] is a separate charter) or unincorporated (i.e. no
(b) Vicarious liability for special agents separate personality).
[Art. 2180(6), CC] (1) Incorporated– If the charter provides that the
The Government is only liable for the agency can sue, then the suit will lie. The
acts of its agents, officers and provision in the charter constitutes express
employees, when they act as special consent. [See SSS v. Court of Appeals, 120
agents within the meaning of the SCRA 707 (1983)]
provision. (2) Unincorporated – There must be an inquiry
(c) Liability under the Local Government unto the principal functions of government.
Code (a) If governmental:NO suit without
Local government units and their consent. [Bureau of Printing v. Bureau
officials are not exempt fromliability for of Printing Employees Association
death or injury to persons or damage to (1961)]
PAGE 11 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 POLITICAL LAW

(b) If proprietary: Suit will lie, because (4) To secure a judgment that the officer
when the state engages in principally impleaded may satisfy by himself without
proprietary functions, it descends to the the State having to do a positive act to assist
level of a private individual, and may, him;
therefore be vulnerable to suit. [Civil
(5) Where the government itself has violated its
Aeronautics Administration v. Court of
own laws. [Sanders v. Veridiano II, G.R.
Appeals (1988)]. State may only be
No. L-46930(1988)]
liable for proprietary acts (jure
gestionis) and not for sovereign acts
(jure imperii). B.7. SCOPE OF CONSENT
Consent to be sued is not concession of liability:
Type Function Rule Suability depends on the consent of the state to
be sued, and liability on the applicable law and
Incorpo- Governmental CAN be sued
the established facts. The circumstance that a
rated or proprietary IF charter
allows
state is suable does not necessarily mean that it
is liable, but it can never be held liable if it does
Unincorpo- Governmental CANNOT be not first consent to be sued. When the state does
rated sued unless waive its sovereign immunity, it is only giving
consent is the plaintiff the chance to prove that it is liable.
given [United States of America v. Guinto, 182 SCRA
Proprietary CAN be sued 644 (1990)]

B.5. SUITS AGAINST PUBLIC OFFICERS C. GENERAL PRINCIPLES AND


POLICIES
General Rule – The doctrine of state immunity
also applies to complaints filed against officials
of the State for acts performed by them in the [ART. II – DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES
discharge of their duties within the scope of AND STATE POLICIES]
their authority.
Exception: The doctrine of immunity from suit
will not apply and may not be invoked where the Principles [sec.1-6]: Binding rules which must
public official is being sued in his (1) private be observed in the conduct of government
and personal capacity as an ordinary citizen, for [Bernas]
(2) acts without authority or in excess of the
powers vested in him. [Lansang vs CA (2000)]
(1) The Philippines is a democratic and
Note: Acts done without authority are not acts republican state [Sec. 1]
of the State
Sec. 1. The Philippines is a democratic and
B.6. EXCEPTIONS TO PRIOR CONSENT republican State. Sovereignty resides in the
RULE people and all government authority
Case law provides that the following are well- emanates from them.
recognized exceptions when the state/public
The Philippines, under the Const., is not just a
officer MAY be sued without prior consent:
representative government but also shares some
(1) To compel him to do an act required by law; aspects of direct democracy such, for instance,
as the “initiative and referendum” under Art. VI,
(2) To restrain him from enforcing an act
Sec. 32 [Bernas]
claimed to be unconstitutional;
(3) To compel the payment of damages from an
already appropriated assurance fund or to (2) Renunciation of war [Sec. 2]
refund tax over-payments from a fund
already available for the purpose;
PAGE 12 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 POLITICAL LAW

Sec. 2. The Philippines renounces war as an (e) the established, widespread, and
instrument of national policy, adopts the consistent practice on the part of States;
generally accepted principles of international and
law as part of the law of the land and adheres (f) a psychological element known as the
to the policy of peace, equality, justice, opinion juris sive necessitates (opinion
freedom, cooperation, and amity with all as to law or necessity) [Mijares v.
nations. Rañada, G.R. No. 139325 (2005)].
Only refers to wars of aggression, not defensive International customary rules are accepted as
war binding as a result from the combination of
two elements:
(3) Adoption of generally-accepted principles of (i) the established, widespread, and
international law [Sec. 2, supra] consistent practice on the part of
States; and
Under the 1987 Constitution, international
law can become part of the sphere of (ii) a psychological element known as
domestic law either by transformation or the opinion juris sive necessitates
incorporation. (opinion as to law or necessity).
Transformation - requires that an [Poe-Llamanzares v. COMELEC, G.R. No.
international law be transformed into a 221697 (2016).]
domestic law through a constitutional (4) Adherence to a policy of peace, freedom,
mechanism such as local legislation. and amity with all nations [Sec. 2, supra]
Incorporation - when, by mere constitutional
declaration, international law is deemed to
have the force of domestic law. (5) Civilian supremacy [Sec. 3]
[Pharmaceutical and Health Care Assoc. of Sec. 3. Civilian authority is, at all times,
the Philippines v. Duque III, G.R. No. supreme over the military. The Armed Forces
173034 (2007)] of the Philippines is the protector of the
people and the State. Its goal is to secure the
Generally accepted principles of sovereignty of the State and the integrity of
international law, by virtue of the the national territory.
incorporation clause of the Constitution,
form part of the laws of the land even if they Civilian authority (Section 3, Article II) is not
do not derive from treaty obligations. defeated in a joint task force between the PNP
and Marines for the enforcement of law and
"Generally accepted principles of
order in Metro Manila as long as control is left
international law" - norms of general or
to the PNP. [IBP v. Zamora (2000)]
customary international law which are
binding on all states, i.e,
(a) renunciation of war as an instrument of (6) Role of the armed forces [Sec. 3, supra]
national policy, (a) Protector of the people and the State
(b) the principle of sovereign immunity, (b) Secure the sovereignty of the State and
(c) a person's right to life, liberty and due the integrity of the national territory
process, and
(d) pacta sunt servanda (international (7) Compulsory military and civil service [Sec.
agreements must be performed in good 4]
faith)
Sec. 4. The prime duty of the Government is
The classical formulation in international
to serve and protect the people. The
law sees those customary rules accepted as
Government may call upon the people to
binding result from the combination of two
defend the State and, in the fulfillment
elements:
PAGE 13 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 POLITICAL LAW

thereof, all citizens may be required, under Sec. 9. The State shall promote a just and
conditions provided by law, to render dynamic social order that will ensure the
personal, military or civil service. prosperity and independence of the nation
and free the people from poverty through
N.B. Under conditions provided by law
policies that provide adequate social services,
promote full employment, a rising standard
of living, and an improved quality of life for
(8) Maintenance of peace and order, promotion
all.
of general welfare [Sec. 5]
Sec. 5. The maintenance of peace and order,
the protection of life, liberty, and property, (4) Promote social justice in all phases of
and promotion of the general welfare are national development [Sec. 10]
essential for the enjoyment by all the people
Sec. 10. The State shall promote social justice
of the blessings of democracy.
in all phases of national development.

(9) Recognition of hierarchy of rights [Bernas;


(5) Personal dignity and human rights [Sec. 11]
Sec. 5, supra]
Sec. 11. The State values the dignity of every
(a) Life
human person and guarantees full respect for
(b) Liberty human rights.
(c) Property (6) Family as basic social institution [Sec. 12]
and natural and primary right and duty of
parents in the rearing of the youth [Id.]
(10) Separation of Church and State [Sec. 6]
Sec. 12. The State recognizes the sanctity of
Sec. 6. The separation of Church and State family life and shall protect and strengthen
shall be inviolable. the family as a basic autonomous social
institution. It shall equally protect the life of
the mother and the life of the unborn from
Policies [sec. 7-28]: Guidelines for the conception. The natural and primary right and
orientation of the state [Bernas] duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for
civic efficiency and the development of
moral character shall receive the support of
(1) Independent foreign policy [Sec. 7] the Government.
Sec. 7. The State shall pursue an independent
foreign policy. In its relations with other The right and duty referred to here is primary,
states, the paramount consideration shall be not exclusive. The State as parens patriae has an
national sovereignty, territorial integrity, inherent right to aid parents in the moral
national interest, and the right to self- development of the youth. Hence, the provision
determination. in the RH Law mandating the teaching of age-
and development-appropriate reproductive
health education is not per se unconstitutional;
(2) Freedom from nuclear weapons [Sec. 8] a ruling on its constitutionality would be
premature absent an actual curriculum
Sec. 8. The Philippines, consistent with the formulated by the Dept. of Education. [Imbong
national interest, adopts and pursues a policy v. Ochoa, G.R. No. 204819, Apr. 8, 2014, on the
of freedom from nuclear weapons in its constitutionality of the RH Law]
territory.

(7) Protection of the life of the mother and the


(3) Promote a just and dynamic social order life of the unborn from conception [Sec. 12,
[Sec.9] supra]
PAGE 14 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 POLITICAL LAW

The question of when life begins is a scientific promote total human liberation and
and medical issue that should not be decided [in development.
the RH petitions] without proper hearing and
evidence. [Imbong v. Ochoa, supra]
(14) Labor as a primary social economic force
[Sec.18]
(8) Vital role of youth in nation-building [Sec.
13] Sec. 18. The State affirms labor as a primary
social economic force. It shall protect the
Sec. 13. The State recognizes the vital role of rights of workers and promote their welfare.
the youth in nation-building and shall
promote and protect their physical, moral,
spiritual, intellectual, and social well-being. (15) Self-reliant and independent national
It shall inculcate in the youth patriotism and economy [Sec.19]
nationalism, and encourage their
involvement in public and civic affairs. Sec. 19. The State shall develop a self-reliant
and independent national economy
effectively controlled by Filipinos.
(9) Role of women in nation-building [Sec. 14]
Sec. 14. The State recognizes the role of
women in nation-building, and shall ensure
(16) Role of private sector [Sec. 20]
the fundamental equality before the law of
women and men. Sec. 20. The State recognizes the
indispensable role of the private sector,
encourages private enterprise, and provides
(10) Fundamental equality before the law of incentives to needed investments.
women and men [Sec. 14, supra]

(17) Comprehensive rural development and


(11) Right to health [Sec. 15, Imbong v. Ochoa, agrarian reform [Sec. 21]
supra]
Sec. 21. The State shall promote
Sec. 15. The State shall protect and promote comprehensive rural development and
the right to health of the people and instill agrarian reform.
health consciousness among them.

(18) Recognition and promotion of rights of


(12) Right to a balanced and healthful ecology indigenous cultural communities [Sec. 22]
[Sec.16, Oposa v. Factoran]
Sec. 22. The State recognizes and promotes
Sec. 16. The State shall protect and advance the rights of indigenous cultural communities
the right of the people to a balanced and within the framework of national unity and
healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm development.
and harmony of nature.

(19) Community-based, sectoral organizations


(13) Priority to education, science and [Sec.23]
technology, arts, culture, and sports [Sec. 17]
Sec. 23. The State shall encourage non-
Sec. 17. The State shall give priority to governmental, community-based, or sectoral
education, science and technology, arts, organizations that promote the welfare of the
culture, and sports to foster patriotism and nation.
nationalism, accelerate social progress, and

PAGE 15 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 POLITICAL LAW

(20) Role of communication and information in the judicial [Angara v. Electoral Commission,
nation-building [Sec.24] G.R. No. 45081. July 15, 1936].
Sec. 24. The State recognizes the vital role of Separation of powers is not expressly provided
communication and information in nation- for in the Constitution. But it obtains from
building. actual division [found in Sec. 1 of Articles VI,
VII, and VIII]. Each department has exclusive
cognizance of matters within its jurisdiction,
(21) Autonomy of local governments [Sec. 25] and is supreme within its own sphere. [Angara
v. Electoral Commission, supra]
Sec. 25. The State shall ensure the autonomy
of local governments. Separation of powers is founded on the belief
that, by establishing equilibrium among the
three power holders, harmony will result, power
(22) Equal access for public service and will not be concentrated and thus tyranny will
prohibition of political dynasties [Sec. 26] be avoided [Bernas].
Sec. 26. The State shall guarantee equal The separation of powers is a fundamental
access to opportunities for public service and principle in our system of government. Any
prohibit political dynasties as may be defined system that is violative of this principle is
by law. unconstitutional and void. [See Belgica v.
Ochoa, G.R. No. 208566, Nov. 19, 2013, on the
The state policy against political dynasties is not unconstitutionality of the PDAF]
self-executing. It does not provide a judicially
enforceable constitutional right but merely The Pork Barrel System violates the separation
specifies a guideline for legislative or executive of powers because it is a form of post-enactment
action. [Belgica v. Ochoa, G.R. No. 208566, authority in the implementation or enforcement
Nov. 19, 2013] of the budget.
(1) By giving individual legislators the (a)
power to determine projects after the
(23) Honesty and integrity in public service [Sec. General Appropriations Act (GAA) is
27] passed, and, (b) through congressional
Sec. 27. The State shall maintain honesty and committees, authority in the areas of fund
integrity in the public service and take release and realignment, the system
positive and effective measures against graft encroaches on the Executive’s power to
and corruption. implement the law.
(2) Furthermore, identification of a project by a
legislator being a mandatory requirement
(24) Policy of full public disclosure [Sec. 28] before his PDAF can be tapped as a source
Sec. 28. Subject to reasonable conditions of funds, his act becomes indispensable in
prescribed by law, the State adopts and the entire budget execution process.
implements a policy of full public disclosure [Belgica, supra]
of all its transactions involving public
interest.
E. CHECKS AND BALANCES
See discussion, vis-à-vis the right to information It does not follow from the fact that the three
(Art. III, Sec. 7) in the Constitutional Law II powers are to be kept separate and distinct that
reviewer. the Constitution intended them to be absolutely
unrestrained and independent of each other. The
Constitution has provided for an elaborate
D. SEPARATION OF POWERS system of checks and balances to secure
The government established by the Constitution coordination in the workings of the various
follows fundamentally the theory of separation departments of the government. [Angara v.
of powers into the legislative, the executive and Electoral Commission]
PAGE 16 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 POLITICAL LAW

Congressional oversightis not per se violative, Section 8(2) of RA No. 6770, providing that the
but is integral, to separation of powers. President may remove a Deputy Ombudsman, is
However, for a post-enactment congressional unconstitutional. Subjecting the Deputy
measure to be valid, it must be limited to: Ombudsman to discipline and removal by the
President, whose own alter egos and officials in
(1) Scrutiny - Congress’ power of
the Executive department are subject to the
appropriation, i.e. budget hearings, and
Ombudsman’s disciplinary authority, cannot
power of confirmation
but seriously place at risk the independence of
(2) Investigation and monitoring of the Office of the Ombudsman itself. Section
implementation of laws – using its power to 8(2) of R.A. No. 6770 intruded upon the
conduct inquiries in aid of legislation. constitutionally-granted independence of the
[Abakada Guro Partylist v. Purisima, G.R. Office of the Ombudsman. By so doing, the law
No. 166715, August 14, 2008] directly collided not only with the independence
A legislative veto, i.e. statutory provision that the Constitution guarantees to the Office of
(which may take the form of a congressional the Ombudsman, but inevitably with the
oversight committee) that requires the President principle of checks and balances that the
or an agency to submit the proposed creation of an Ombudsman office seeks to
implementing rules and regulations of a law to revitalize. What is true for the Ombudsman
Congress for approval, is unconstitutional. It must equally and necessarily be true for her
encroaches on: Deputies who act as agents of the Ombudsman
in the performance of their duties. The
(1) The executive - it allows Congress to take a Ombudsman can hardly be expected to place her
direct role in the enforcement of its laws; complete trust in her subordinate officials who
(2) The judiciary - administrative issuances are not as independent as she is, if only because
enjoy a presumption of validity, and only they are subject to pressures and controls
the courts may decide whether or not they external to her Office. [Gonzales III v. Office of
conform to statutes or the Constitution. the President, G.R. No. 196231, Jan. 28, 2014]
[Abakada Guro Partylist v. Purisima, G.R.
No. 166715, August 14, 2008]
F. DELEGATION OF POWERS

The Pork Barrel system is unconstitutional,


among others, because it violates the system of F.1. RULE OF NON-DELEGATION OF
checks and balances. LEGISLATIVE POWER
(1) It deprives the president of his item-veto Principle: Delegata potestas non potest delegari
power.As lump-sum appropriations, the – What has been delegated can no longer be
actual projects under each congressman’s delegated.
PDAF are determined (by the congressman) Rationale: Since the powers of the government
only after the GAA is passed. The president, have been delegated to them by the people, who
then, would not be able to discern whether possess original sovereignty, these powers
or not he should veto the appropriation. cannot be further delegated by the different
(2) It has a detrimental effect on Congressional government departments to some other branch
Oversight. Because legislators effectively or instrumentality of the government.
intervene in project implementation, it
becomes difficult for them to exercise their
(valid) post-enactment role of scrutinizing, General Rule:Only Congress (as a body) may
investigating, or monitoring the exercise legislative power
implementation of the law, when they are Exceptions:
no longer disinterested observers. [Belgica,
supra] (1) Delegated legislative power to local
governments – Local governments, as an
PAGE 17 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 POLITICAL LAW

immemorial practice, may be allowed to agencies


legislate on purely local matters. [See Rubi v.
(5) Power reserved to people for initiative and
Provincial Board (1919), cited in Belgica,
referendum
supra. See also Const., Art. IX, Sec. 9, explicitly
mentioning “legislative bodies of local
governments;” and Sec. 20 providing for the F.2. TESTS FOR VALID DELEGATION
coverage of legislative powers delegated to
autonomous regions via the latter’s organic Rule – There is a valid delegation of legislative
acts.] power when:
(1) Completeness test– The law sets forth the
policy to be executed, carried out, or
(2) Constitutionally-grafted Excep-tions implemented by the delegate (Abakada,
(a) Emergency power delegated to the Executive supra), such that there is nothing left for the
during State of War or National Emergency delegate to do but to enforce the law [Pelaez
[Const., art. VI, sec.23(2)] v.Auditor General (1965)]; AND
(b) Certain taxing powers of the President (2) Sufficient standard test– The standard is
[Const., art. VI, sec.28(2)]. The Congress may sufficient if it defines legislative policy,
authorize the President to fix, within specified marks its limits, maps out its boundaries and
limits, and subject to such limitations and specifies the public agency to apply it. It
restrictions as it may impose, tariff rates, import indicates the circumstances under which the
and export quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues, legislative command is to be effected. [Edu
and other duties or imposts within the v. Ericta, 35 SCRA 481 (1970)]
framework of the national development N.B.: Acts which are purely legislative in
program of the Government. character (e.g. making of laws) cannot be
(3) The extent reserved to the people by the delegated to an administrative body (in contrast
provision oninitiative and referendum [Const. to the ascertainment of facts or the filing in of
Art. VI, Sec. 1] details which can be delegated to administrative
agencies).
N.B. Subordinate legislation made by
administrative agencies – The principle of non-
delegability should notbe confused with G. FORMS OF GOVERNMENT
thedelegated rule-making authorityof
implementing agencies. [Belgica, supra] G.1. DEFINITION
Strictly speaking, what is delegate is not “law- “Government of the Philippines” is defined as:
making” power, but rule-making power, limited
to (a) filling up the details of the law or (b) The corporate governmental entity through
ascertaining facts to bring the law into actual which the functions of government are
operation. exercised throughout the Philippines, including
the various arms through which political
authority is made effective in the Philippines,
whether pertaining to:
Traditional/Simplified Formulation: Who may
exercise legislative powers: (a) the autonomous regions,
General Rule: Congress only (b) the provincial, city, municipal, or barangay
subdivisions, or
Exceptions:
(c) other forms of local government. [Sec. 2(1),
(1) Delegated power to local governments
Bk. I, Administrative Code]
(2) Delegated emergency powers of the
president
“Government” is that institution or aggregate of
(3) Delegated taxing powers of the president
institutions by which an independent society
(4) Subordinate legislation of administrative makes and carries out those rules of action

PAGE 18 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 POLITICAL LAW

which are necessary to enable men to live in a Bermudez (1986) citing Lawyers League for a
social state or which are imposed upon the Better Philippines v. Aquino (1986)]
people forming that society by those who
EDSA I vs. EDSA II
possess the power or authority of prescribing
them. [US v. Dorr (1903)] In fine, the legal distinction between EDSA
People Power I and EDSA People Power II is
clear. EDSA I involves the exercise of the
G.2. AS TO THE EXISTENCE OR ABSENCE people power of revolution which overthrew the
OF CONTROL whole government. EDSA II is an exercise of
people power of freedom of speech and freedom
i. De jure
of assembly to petition the government for
(1) Has rightful title; redress of grievances which only affected the
(2) But has no power or control, either because office of the President. EDSA I is extra-
this has been withdrawn from it, or because constitutional and the legitimacy of the new
it has not yet actually entered into the government that resulted from it cannot be the
exercise thereof. [In re Letter of Associate subject of judicial review, while EDSA II is
Justice Puno, (1992)] intra-constitutional and the resignation of the
sitting President that it caused and the
ii. De facto succession of the Vice President as President
Government of fact, that is, it actually exercises are subject to judicial review. EDSA I presented
power or control without legal title. [Co Kim a political question; EDSA II involved legal
Cham v. Valdes, (1945)] questions.

(1) DE FACTO PROPER– The government Even if the petitioner can prove that he did not
that gets possession and control of, or resign, still, he cannot successfully claim that he
usurps, by force or by the voice of the is a President on leave on the ground that he is
majority, the rightful legal gov’t and merely unable to govern temporarily. That
maintains itself against the will of the latter. claim has been laid to rest by Congress and the
decision that respondent Arroyo is the de jure
(2) INDEPENDENT GOVERNMENT– That president, made by a co-equal branch of
established as an independent gov’t by the government, cannot be reviewed by this Court.
inhabitants of a country who rise in [Estrada v. Desierto / Estrada v. Arroyo (2001)]
insurrection against the parent state.
G.3. AS TO CONCENTRATION OF
(3) That which is established and maintained by POWERS
military forces who invade and occupy a
territory of the enemy in the course of war, i. Presidential – there is separation of
and which is denominated as a gov’t of executive and legislative branches of
paramount force, like the Second Republic government
established by the Japanese belligerent. ii. Parliamentary – There is a fusion of
The legitimacy of the Aquino government is not executive and legislative powers in the
a justiciable matter. It belongs to the realm of Parliament, although the actual exercise of
politics where only the people of the Philippines the executive powers is vested on the Prime
are the judge. And the people have made the Minister. (De Leon)
judgment; they have accepted the government G.4. AS TO CENTRALIZATION
of President Corazon C. Aquino which is in
effective control of the entire country so that it i. Unitary – One in which the control of the
is not merely a de facto government but in fact national and local affairs is exercised by the
and law a de jure government. Moreover the national and local government
community of nations has recognized the ii. Federal – one in which the powers of the
legitimacy of the present government. All the government are divided between two sets of
eleven members of this Court as reorganized organs, one for national affairs and one for
have sworn to uphold the fundamental law of local affairs. [DE LEON]
the Republic under her government. (In re
PAGE 19 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 POLITICAL LAW

Region Not less than X


III. Legislative registered voters
Department Autonomous regions 2,000
Provinces 1,000

A. WHO MAY EXERCISE Municipalities 100


LEGISLATIVE POWER Barangays 50

Legislative power is the authority to make laws


and to alter and repeal them. Where to file – Regional Assembly, local
legislative body, as the case may be. (Sec. 13,
RA 6735)
A.1. CONGRESS
ii. Limitations on local initiative
Legislative power is vested in the Congress,
which consists of a Senate and a House of Cannot be exercised more than once a year;
Representatives. (Art. VI, Sec. 1) Grant of extends only to subjects or matters which are
legislative power to Congress is plenary. within the legal powers of the local legislative
Congress may legislate on any subject matter bodies to enact; and if at any time before the
provided that constitutional limitations are initiative is held, the local legislative body
observed. should adopt in toto the proposition presented,
the initiative shall be cancelled. (Sec. 15, RA
6735)
A.2. REGIONAL/LOCAL LEGISLATIVE
POWER
Referendum – the power of the electorate to
N.B. A regional assembly exists for the ARMM approve or reject legislation through an election
called for that purpose (Sec. 3c, RA 6735)
Referendum: Classes
A.3. PEOPLE’S INITIATIVE ON
STATUTES (1) Referendum on statutes – petition to
approve or reject an act or law, or part
Legislative power is also vested in the people by thereof, passed by Congress;
the system of initiative and referendum.(Art. VI,
Sec. 1) The power of initiative and referendum (2) Referendum on local laws – legal process
is the power of the people directly to “propose whereby the registered voters of the LGUs
and enact laws or approve or reject any act or may approve, amend, or reject any
law or part thereof passed by the Congress or ordinance enacted by the Sanggunian (Sec.
local legislative body.” (Art. VI, Sec.32); The 126, LGC)
provision is not self-executing [Santiago v. Q: Is the power of to hold a referendum
COMELEC, 270 SCRA 106 (1997)]; plenary?
A: No, the following cannot be the subject of an
RA 6735 – “An Act Providing for a System of initiative or referendum petition –
Initiative and Referendum and Appropriating (1) No petition embracing more than one
Funds Therefore” – valid for (a) laws, (b) subject shall be submitted to the electorate;
ordinances, and (c) resolutions, but NOT
amendments to the Constitution [Santiago, (2) Statutes involving emergency measures, the
supra] enactment of which is specifically vested in
Congress by the Constitution, cannot be
subject to referendum until 90 days after
Initiative their effectivity. (Sec. 10, RA 6735)
i. Local initiative; voter requirements

PAGE 20 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 POLITICAL LAW

A.4. THE PRESIDENT UNDER House of


Senate
MARTIAL LAW OR IN A Representatives
REVOLUTIONARY GOVERNMENT (art. VI, sec. 2-4)
(art. VI, sec. 5-8)
Sec. 23. (1) The Congress, by a vote of two- citizen citizens
thirds of both Houses in joint session assembled,
voting separately, shall have the sole power to (2) At least 35 years (2) At least 25 years
declare the existence of a state of war. old on the day of old on the day of
the election the election
(2) In times of war or other national emergency,
the Congress may, by law, authorize the (3) Able to read and (3) Able to read and
President, for a limited period and subject to write write
such restrictions as it may prescribe, to exercise (4) A registered voter (4) Registered voter
powers necessary and proper to carry out a in the district he
(5) Resident of the
declared national policy. Unless sooner seeks to
Philippines for at
withdrawn by resolution of the Congress, such represent
least 2 years
powers shall cease upon the next adjournment
immediately (5) A resident of the
thereof.
preceding the day said district for
Congress may delegate legislative powers to the of the election at least 1 year
president in times of war or in other national immediately
emergency. [David vs. Macapagal-Arroyo, GR preceding the
No. 171396 (2006)] day of the
election
Term of Office
B. HOUSES OF CONGRESS
6 years 3 years

B.1. SENATE Term Limits

See comparison below 2 consecutive terms 3 consecutive terms

B.2. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ii. District representatives and questions of


apportionment
i. Composition, qualifications, term of office
District Representatives - Elected from
House of
Senate legislative districts apportioned among the
Representatives
provinces, cities, and Metro Manila area.
(art. VI, sec. 2-4)
(art. VI, sec. 5-8)
Composition
24 senators elected Not more than 250
at large members, unless
otherwise provided
by law, consisting
of:
(1) District
Representatives
(2)Party-List
Representatives
Qualifications
(1) Natural-born (1) Natural-born

PAGE 21 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 POLITICAL LAW

Rules on Apportionment of Legislative the party-list seats shall be allotted to sectoral


Districts: representatives to be chosen by appointment or
election, as may be provided by law. Until a law
(1) Apportionment of legislative districts must
is passed, they are appointed by the President
be by law which could be a:
from a list of nominees by the respective sectors.
(a) General Apportionment Law; or [Art. XVIII, Sec. 7]
(b) Special Law (i.e. creation of new N.B. The party-list system is not synonymous
provinces) with sectoral representation. [Atong Paglaum v.
Note: The power to apportion legislative COMELEC, G.R. No. 203766, Apr. 3, 2013,
districts is textually committed to Congress by citing 1986 Constitutional Commission
the Constitution. Thus, it cannot be validly Records]
delegated to the ARMM Regional Assembly
[Sema v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 177597, July 16,
Atong Paglaum Guidelines
2008]. Under the Constitution and the Local
Gov. Code, apportionment and reapportionment (1) Three different parties or organizations may
do not require a plebiscite. [Bagabuyo v. participate in the party-list system:
COMELEC, 576 SCRA 290 (2008)]
(a) national;
(2) Proportional representation based on
(b) regional;
number of inhabitants
(c) or sectoral;
(a) Each city with a population of at least
250,000 shall have at least 1 (2) National and regional parties or orgs do not
representative. need to (a) organize along sectoral lines, or
(b) represent any “marginalized or
(b) Each province, irrespective of the
underrepresented” sector;
number of inhabitants, shall have at least
1 representative. (3) Political parties may participate in the
party-list system provided:
(3) Each legislative district shall comprise, as
far as practicable, contiguous, compact, and (a) they register under the party-list
adjacent territory. (N.B. Anti- system;
gerrymandering provision) (b) they do not field candidates in
(4) Re-apportionment by Congress within 3 legislative district elections.
years after the return of each census. (i) A party that participates in the
N.B. – “Apportionment”:The determination of legislative district elections may
the number of representatives which a State, still participate in the party-list
county, or other subdivision may send to a through a sectoral wing.
legislative body; compare with (ii) The sectoral wing can be part of the
“reapportionment”, i.e., Realignment or political party’s coalition, but the
change in legislative districts brought about by former must be registered
changes in population and mandated by the independently in the party-list
constitutional requirement of equality of system.
representation. (Bagabuyo v COMELEC);
(4) Sectoral parties or orgs may either be (a)
iii. Party-list system “marginalized or underrepresented” (e.g.
Party-List Representatives – shall constitute labor, peasant, fisherfolk); or (b) “lacking in
20% of the total number of representatives, well-defined political constituencies” (e.g.
elected through a party-list system of registered professionals, women, elderly, youth)
national, regional, and sectoral parties or (5) The nominees of sectoral parties or orgs, of
organizations either type, must (a) belong to their
See Sectoral Representatives - For 3 respective sectors, or (b) have a track
consecutive terms from 2 February 1987, 1/2 of record of advocacy for their respective
PAGE 22 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 POLITICAL LAW

sectors. Majority of the members of a Qualified Sectors:


sectoral party, of either type, must belong to
N.B. This qualification applies only to sectoral
the sector they represent.
parties. Participating national or regional parties
(6) National, regional, or sectoral parties or need not fall under any of these sectors. [See
orgs shall not be disqualified if some of Atong Paglaum, supra]
their nominees are disqualified, provided
(1) Labor
they have at least 1 nominee who remains
qualified. [Atong Paglaum, supra] (2) Peasant
(3) Fisherfolk
Disqualifications and Qualifications (4) Urban Poor
See R.A. 7941, An Act Providing For The (5) Indigenous Cultural Communities
Election Of Party-List Representatives Through (6) Elderly
The Party-List System, And Appropriating
Funds Therefor (7) Handicapped
(8) Women
Disqualified Parties: (9) Youth
(1) Religious Sects (10) Veterans
(2) Foreign Organizations (11) Overseas Workers
(3) Advocating Violence or Unlawful Means (12) Professionals
(4) Receiving support from any foreign
government, foreign political party, Four parameters of the party-list system:
foundation, organization, whether directly
or through any of its officers or members or (1) 20% Allocation:20% of the total number of
indirectly through third parties for partisan the membership of the House of
election purposes. Representatives is the maximum number of
seats available to party-list organizations.
(5) Violates or fails to comply with laws, rules
or regulations relating to elections; (2) 2% Threshold: Garnering 2% of the total
votes cast in the party-list elections
(6) Declares untruthful statements in its guarantees a party-list organization one (1)
petition; seat.
(7) Ceased to exist for at least one (1) year; or (3) Additional Seats:The additional seats, that
(8) Fails to participate in the last two (2) is, the remaining seats after allocation of the
preceding elections or fails to obtain at least guaranteed seats, shall be distributed to the
2 per centum of the votes cast under the party-list organizations including those that
party-list system in the two (2) preceding received less than two percent of the total
elections for the constituency in which it has votes. This distribution will continue until
registered. all the seats have been filled.
N.B. The continued operation of the 2%
threshold to the allocation of the additional
seats is unconstitutional because this
threshold mathematically and physically
prevents the filling up of the available party-
list seats.
(4) 3-Seat Cap:The three-seat cap is
constitutional.

PAGE 23 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 POLITICAL LAW

N.B. It is intended by the Legislature to C. LEGISLATIVE PRIVILEGES,


prevent any party from dominating the INHIBITIONS, DISQUALIFICATIONS
party-list system. There is no violation of
the Constitution because the 1987
Constitution does not require absolute C.1. PRIVILEGES
proportionality for the party-list system.
[BANAT v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 179271,
Jul. 8, 2009 Resolution on the Motion for i. Salaries
Clarificatory Judgment]
The salaries of Senators and Representatives
shall be determined by law; no increase in said
Rules on Computation of Seats:Two-Round compensation shall take effect until after the
Allocation expiration of the full term of all the Members of
the Senate and the House of Representatives
Step 1: Compute total number of seats allocated approving such increase. [Art. VI, Sec. 10].
for party-list representatives
“expiration of the full termof all Members of
Step 2: Rank all party-list candidates from the Senate and the house of representatives” is
highest to lowest based on the number of votes singular and means that the increase may only
they garnered take effect upon the expiration of the terms of
Step 3: Compute for each party-list candidate’s both houses who passed the law increasing said
percentage of votes garnered in relation to the salary. This means that even if the house of
total number of votes cast for party-list representatives term has already expired but the
candidates. senate has not, the salary increase cacnnot yet
take effect even if the increase is different for
Step 4: Round 1 – Allocate one (1) seat each for each house [PHICONSa v. Mathay, (1966) 18
party-list that garnered at least 2% of the total SCRA 300]
number of votes.
This prohibition alsp applies to the benefits a
Step 5: Round 2– Assign additional seats from member of congress will attain upon retirement.
the balance (i.e. total number of party-list seats Thus, a member of congress may not compute
minus Round 1 allocations) by: his retirement benefits based on the salary
(a) Allocating one (1) seat for every whole increase which he was not able to reach because
integer (e.g. if a party garners 2.73% of the his term has already exprired before said
vote, assign it two [2] more seats; if 1.80%, increase took effect [Ligot v. Mathay, (1974) 56
assign it one [1] more seat); then SCRA 823]

(b) Allocating the remaining seats (i.e. total


seats minus Round 1 and Round 2a ii. Freedom from arrest
allocations) to those next in rank until all
seats are completely distributed. Sec. 11. A Senator or Member of the House of
Representatives shall, in all offenses punishable
Step 6: Apply the 3-Seat Cap, if necessary. [See by not more than six years imprisonment, be
BANAT v. COMELEC, supra] privileged from arrest while the Congress is in
session. […]
Preventive suspension is not a penalty. Order of
suspension under R.A. 3019 (Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act) is distinct from the
power of Congress to discipline its own
members, and did not exclude members of
Congress from its operation. [Defensor-
Santiago v. Sandiganbayan (2001)]
In People v. Jalosjos, G.R. No. 132875,
February 3, 2000, the SC denied the request of
PAGE 24 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 POLITICAL LAW

Cong. Jalosjos that he be allowed to attend The provision refers to an Incompatible


legislative sessions. The denial was premised on Office. Forfeiture of the seat in Congress
the following: (a) membership in Congress does shall be automatic upon the member’s
not exempt an accused from statutes and rules assumption of such office deemed
which apply to validly incarcerated persons; (b) incompatible. Thus when a governor elect
one rationale behind confinement is public self- ran for the Batasang Pambansa and won, he
defense; (c) it would amount to creation of a cannot hold both offices. [Adaza v. Pacana,
privileged class, without justification in reason; 135 SCRA 431 (1985)].
and (d) he was provided with an office in the
The office of the Philippine National Red
New Bilibid Prison.
Cross (PNRC) Chairman is not a government
office or an office in a government-owned or
controlled corporation for purposes of the
iii. Speech and debate clause
prohibition in Section 13, Article VI. [Liban
Sec. 11. […] No Member shall be questioned v. Gordon, G.R. No. 175352 (2009)] (N.B.
nor be held liable in any other place for any The structure of the PNRC is sui generis
speech or debate in the Congress or in any being neither strictly private nor public in
committee thereof. nature. [Liban v. Gordon, G.R. No. 175352
(2011)]
To come under the guarantee the speech or
debate" must be one made "in Congress or in
any committee thereof." Publication of an
allegedly libelous letter is not covered by the
privilege. [Jimenez v. Cabangbang (1966)]; (2) May not be appointed to any office created
or whose emoluments were increased during
While the immunity of a member of congress is the term for which he was elected. [Art. VI,
absolute and thus the even the Supreme Court Sec. 13]
cannot discipline a lawyer-senator for remarks
made against the court, it does not shield said The provision refers to a Forbidden Office.
member from the authority of Congress to He cannot validly take the office even if he
discipline its own members. [Defensor- is willing to give up his seat.
Santiago v. Pobre, AC 7399, 25 August 2009)] (3) Shall not be financially interested, directly
or indirectly, in any contract with, or
franchise or special privilege granted by the
Q: What speech is covered under this provision? government during his term of office. [Art.
A: Generally anything a member of Congress VI, Sec. 14]
says in line with his legislative function. (4) Shall not intervene in any matter before any
(Jimenez v Cabangbang). In particular: office of the government when it is for his
(1) speeches made, pecuniary benefit or where he may be called
upon to act on account of his office. [Art. VI,
(2)utterances, Sec. 14]
(3) bills signed, and The Pork Barrel System “runs afoul” of Art.
(4) votes passed. VI, Sec. 14 because in “allowing legislators
to intervene in the various phases of project
implementation – a matter before another
office of government – [the Pork Barrel]
C.2. INHIBITIONS AND renders them susceptible to taking undue
DISQUALIFICATIONS advantage of their own office.” [Belgica,
supra]
(1) May not hold any other office or (5) Cannot personally appear as counsel before
employment in the government during his any court, electoral tribunal, quasi-judicial
term without forfeiting his seat. [Art. VI, Sec. and administrative bodies during his term of
13] office. [Art. VI, Sec. 14]
PAGE 25 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 POLITICAL LAW

This prohibition is absolute. Thus when an C.3. DUTY TO DISCLOSE


assemblyman acting as counsel for one group in
an internal dispute in a company was denied (1) SALN: Art. XI, Sec. 17
leave to intervene, the court held that his action Sec. 17. A public officer or employee shall,
of buying 10 stocks in order to be able to upon assumption of office and as often
intervene in the company’s dispute as a stock thereafter as may be required by law, submit
holder was an indirect violation of this rule and a declaration under oath of his assets,
still unconstitutional. [Puyat v. De Guzman Jr. liabilities, and net worth. In the case of the
(1982) 113 SCRA 31] President, the Vice-President, the Members
of the Cabinet, the Congress, the Supreme
Court, the Constitutional Commissions and
N.B. Distinguish ineligible office (for other constitutional offices, and officers of
elective officials) where the appointment is the armed forces with general or flag rank, the
invalid since it is contrary to the declaration shall be disclosed to the public in
Constitution, regardless if the official the manner provided by law.
resigns or not (Sec 7, Art IX – B), and
anincompatible office (for members of
Congress and the Senate) where the What: Declaration under oath of assets,
appointment is valid and the official may liabilities, and net worth
hold the appointed office provided that
he/she resigns his/her current office. When:
(a) Upon assumption of office
(b) As often as may be required by law
Who must declare:
(a) President
(c) Vice-President
(d) Members of the Cabinet
(e) Members of Congress
(f) Members of the Supreme Court
(g) Members of the Constitutional
Commissions and other constitutional
offices
(h) Officers of the Armed Forces with general
or flag rank [Art. XI, Sec. 17]

(2) Financial and business interests: Members


must make full disclosure upon assumption of
office [Art. VI, Sec. 12]
Sec. 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.

PAGE 26 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 POLITICAL LAW

(3) Potential conflicts of interest: Members Doctrine of Shifting Majority – For each House
must notify House, if conflict arises from the of Congress to pass a bill, only the votes of the
filing of a proposed legislation which they majority of those present in the session, there
authored. [Id.] being a quorum, is required.
Exceptions to Doctrine of Shifting Majority:
(4) Amounts paid to/expenses incurred by each (1) Votes where requirement is based on “ALL
member: To be reported annually by the COA. THE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS” –
[Art. VI, Sec. 20] requirement is based on the entire
composition of a House or Congress (in its
Sec. 20. The records and books of accounts
entirety), regardless of the number of
of the Congress shall be preserved and be
Members present or absent
open to the public in accordance with law,
and such books shall be audited by the
Commission on Audit which shall publish Vote
annually an itemized list of amounts paid to Required Houses
and expenses for each Member. Action Basis
(all voting
members)
Override 2/3 Separately Art.
D. QUORUM AND VOTING presidential (House VI,
MAJORITIES veto where bill Sec.
originated 27(1)
votes first)
D.1. QUORUM
Grant of tax Majority (Silent) Art.
Majority of each House shall constitute a exemptions VI,
quorum, although a smaller number may Sec.
adjourn from day to day and may compel the 27(4)
attendance of absent members. Elect Majority Separately Art.
In computing a quorum, members who are President in VII,
case of tie Sec.
outside the country, thus outside of each 4, par.
House’s coercive jurisdiction, are not included. 5
“Majority” refers to the number of members Confirm Majority Separately Art.
within the “jurisdiction” of the Congress (those appoint- VII,
it can order arrested for the purpose of ment of VP Sec. 9
questioning). In this case, one Senator was out
Revoke or Majority Jointly Art.
of the Philippines which is not within the
extend (a) VII,
“jurisdiction” of the Senate, so that the working Martial Law Sec.
majority was 23 Senators. or (b) 18
suspension
of writ of
There is a difference between a majority of "all Habeas
members of the House" and a majority of "the Corpus
House", the latter requiring less number than the Confirm Majority (Silent) Art.
first. Therefore, an absolute majority (12) of all amnesty VII,
members of the Senate less one (23) constitutes grant Sec.
constitutional majority of the Senate for the 19,
purpose of the quorum. [Avelino v. Cuenco, par. 2
(1949)] Majority (Silent) Art.
Submit
question of XVII,
calling a Sec. 3
D.2. VOTING MAJORITIES Const.
Convention

PAGE 27 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 POLITICAL LAW

to the Prevailing The determination of congress when it comes to


electorate view: by disciplining its members is respected by the
default, court. As such, the Supreme court does not have
Call for 2/3 Art.
houses the power to compel congress to re-instate a
Const. vote XVII,
Convention Sec. 3 member who has been expelled by it.
separately
(because
[Alejandrino v. Quezon, (1924) 46 Phil 83]
Propose 3/4 Art.
amend- Congress is XVII, The immunity for speech given to a member of
ments as bicameral) Sec. congress is not a bar to the power of congress to
Const. 1(1) discipline its members [Osmena v. Pendatun,
Assembly (1960) 109 Phil 863]

F. ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL AND THE


(2) Other Special Cases, i.e. NOT out of all COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS
members
Action Vote Required Basis
ELECTORAL TRIBUNALS
Determine 2/3 of both Houses, Art. VII,
President’s voting separately Sec. 11, Art., VI, Sec. 17. The Senate and the House of
disability par. 4 Representatives shall each have an Electoral
Declaring 2/3 of both Houses (in Art. VI, Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of all
a State of joint session), voting Sec. contests relating to the election, returns, and
War separately 23(1) qualifications of their respective Members.
Each Electoral Tribunal shall be composed of
nine Members, three of whom shall be Justices
E. DISCIPLINE OF MEMBERS of the Supreme Court to be designated by the
Chief Justice, and the remaining six shall be
Each house may punish its members for Members of the Senate or the House of
disorderly behavior, and with the concurrence Representatives, as the case may be, who shall
of 2/3 of ALL its members, with: be chosen on the basis of proportional
(1) Suspension (shall not exceed 60 days) representation from the political parties and the
parties or organizations registered under the
(2) Expulsion
party-list system represented therein. The senior
Justice in the Electoral Tribunal shall be its
Chairman.
Other disciplinary measures:
(1) Deletion of unparliamentary remarks from Two Types
the record (1) Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET)
(2) Fine (2) House Electoral Tribunal (HRET)
(3) Imprisonment N.B. There is a Presidential Electoral Tribunal
(4) Censure (PET), but it is governed by different provisions.
The tribunals which have jurisdiction over the
question of the qualifications of the President,
The suspension contemplated in the the Vice-President, Senators and the Members
Constitution is different from the suspension of the House of Representatives was made clear
prescribed in the Anti-Graft and Corrupt by the Constitution. There is no such provision
Practices Act (RA 3019). The former is punitive for candidates for these positions. [Poe-
in nature while the latter is preventive. Llamanzares v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 221697
[Defensor-Santiago v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. (2016)]
118364, August 10, 1995].

PAGE 28 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 POLITICAL LAW

Composition But see Ongsiako-Reyes v. COMELEC (G.R.


No. 207264, Jun. 25, 2013) where the Court
(1) 3 Supreme Court justices, designated by
held that an Electoral Tribunal acquires
Chief Justice; Senior Justice in the Electoral
jurisdiction only after (1) a petition is filed
Tribunal shall be its Chairman
before it, and (2) a candidate is already
(2) 6 members of the Senate or House, as the considered a member of the House.
case may be, chosen on the basis of
To be considered a member, in turn, there must
proportional representation from parties
be a concurrence of the following: (1) a valid
Composition Rules proclamation; (2) a proper oath (a) before the
(1) The ET shall be constituted within 30 days Speaker and (b) in open session; and (3)
after the Senate and the House shall have assumption of office. [Id.]
been organized with the election of the The Court in Ongsiako-Reyes clarified that the
President and the Speaker. [Sec. 19] doctrine that “once a proclamation has been
(2) Members chosen enjoy security of tenure made, COMELEC’s jurisdiction is already lost
and cannot be removed by mere temporary […] and the HRET’s own jurisdiction begins”
change of party affiliation. (Bondoc v. only applies in the context of a candidate who
Pineda, 201 SCRA 793). has not only been proclaimed and sworn in, but
has also assumed office. [Id.]
Valid grounds/just cause for termination of
membership to the tribunal: Election Contest- one where a defeated
candidate challenges the qualification and
(1) Expiration of Congressional term of office; claims for himself the seat of a proclaimed
(2) Death or permanent disability; winner.

(3) Resignation from political party which one Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the
represents in the tribunal; Electoral Commission for the purpose of
determining the character, scope and extent of
(4) Removal from office for other valid reasons. the constitutional grant to the Electoral
Note: Disloyalty to party and breach of party Commission as "the sole judge of all contests
discipline are not valid grounds for the relating to the election, returns and
expulsion of a member of the tribunal. [Bondoc, qualifications of the members of the National
supra] Assembly." [Angara v. Electoral Commission
(1936)]
N.B.: Constitution mandates that the HRET
F.1. NATURE “shall be the sole judge of all contests relating
Jurisdiction:sole judge of all contests relating to to the election, returns and qualifications” of its
the election, returns, and qualifications of their members. By employing the word “sole,” the
respective members. Constitution is emphatic that the jurisdiction of
the HRET in the adjudication of election
When does it acquire jurisdiction: contests involving its members is exclusive and
Traditional formulation: ET has jurisdiction exhaustive. Its exercise of power is intended to
only (1) when there is an election contest, and be its own — full, complete and unimpaired.
(2) only after the proclamation of a candidate. [Duenas Jr. v. HRET, G.R. No. 185401, (2009)]
[Lazatin v. HRET(1988)]
In the absence of election contest, and before Independence of the Electoral Tribunals
proclamation, jurisdiction remains with
COMELEC. [Id.] But the proclamation of a Since the ET’s are independent constitutional
congressional candidate following the election bodies, independent even of the respective
divests the COMELEC of jurisdiction over […] House, neither Congress nor the Courts may
the proclaimed representative in favor of the interfere with procedural matters relating to the
HRET. [Tañada v. COMELEC, G.R. No. functions of the ET’s. [Macalintal v.
207199, Oct. 22, 2013]
PAGE 29 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 POLITICAL LAW

Presidential Electoral Tribunal, G.R. No. Commission shall not vote, except in case of a
191618, Nov. 23, 2010] tie. The Commission shall act on all
appointments submitted to it within thirty
The HRET was created to function as a
session days of the Congress from their
nonpartisan court although two-thirds of its
submission. The Commission shall rule by a
members are politicians.
majority vote of all the Members.
To be able to exercise exclusive jurisdiction, the
House Electoral Tribunal must be independent. Composition
Its jurisdiction to hear and decide congressional (1) Senate President as ex-officio chairman
election contests is not to be shared by it with (shall not vote except in case of a tie)
the Legislature nor with the courts. "The
Electoral Commission is a body separate from (2) 12 Senators
and independent of the legislature and though (3) 12 Members of the HOR
not a power in the tripartite scheme of
The CA shall be constituted within 30 days after
government, it is to all intents and purposes,
the Senate and the House of Representative
when acting within the limits of its authority, an
shall have been organized with the election of
independent organ; while composed of a
the President and the Speaker. [Sec. 19]
majority of members of the legislature it is a
body separate from and independent of the The CA shall act on all appointments within 30
legislature. [Bondoc v. Pineda, (1991)] session days from their submission to Congress.
The CA shall rule by a majority vote of all its
members.
F.2. POWERS
It is NOT mandatory to elect 12 Senators to the
As constitutional creations invested with
Commission before it can discharge its
necessary power, the Electoral Tribunals are, in
functions. What the Constitution requires is at
the exercise of their functions independent
least a majority of the membership. [Guingona
organs — independent of Congress and the
v. Gonzales, 214 SCRA 789 (1992)].
Supreme Court. The power granted to HRET by
the Constitution is intended to be as complete The power to approve or disapprove
and unimpaired as if it had remained originally appointments is conferred on the CA as a body
in the legislature [Co v. HRET (1991) citing and not on the individual members. [Pacete v.
Angara vs. Electoral Commission (1936)]. Secretary (1971)]
Judicial Review of Decisions of Electoral
Tribunals
Rule on Proportional Representation – The 12
With the Supreme Court only insofar as the Senators and 12 Representatives are elected on
decision or resolution was rendered: the basis of proportional representation from the
political parties and party-list organizations.
(1) Without or in excess of jurisdiction; or
HOR has authority to change its representation
(2) With grave abuse of discretion tantamount
in the Commission on Appointments to reflect
to denial of due process.
at any time the changes that may transpire in the
political alignments of its membership. It is
Commission on appointments understood that such changes in membership
must be permanent and do not include the
Art. VI, Sec. 18. There shall be a Commission temporary alliances or factional divisions not
on Appointments consisting of the President of involving severance of political loyalties or
the Senate, as ex officio Chairman, twelve formal disaffiliation and permanent shifts of
Senators, and twelve Members of the House of allegiance from one political party to another.
Representatives, elected by each House on the [Daza v. SIngson (1989)]
basis of proportional representation from the
political parties and parties or organizations The provision of Section 18 on proportional
registered under the party-list system representation is mandatory in character and
represented therein. The chairman of the does not leave any discretion to the majority
PAGE 30 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 POLITICAL LAW

party in the Senate to disobey or disregard the not in session (ad-interim appointments) shall
rule on proportional representation. only be effective:
By requiring a proportional representation in the (1) Until disapproval by the Commission on
Commission on Appointments, sec. 18 in effect Appointments; OR
works as a check on the majority party in the
(2) Until the next adjournment of Congress.
Senate and helps to maintain the balance of
power. No party can claim more than what it is
entitled to under such rule. [Guingona v. G. POWERS OF CONGRESS
Gonzales (1993)]

G.1. INHERENT POWERS


Meetings These are inherent powers of the State which are
(1) CA shall meet only while Congress is in reposed in Congress.
session. (1) Police Power
(2) Meetings are held either (a) at the call of the (a) Make, ordain, and establish all manner
Chairman or (b) by a majority of all its of wholesome and reasonable laws,
members. statutes and ordinances as they shall
Note: Since the Commission on Appointments judge for the good and welfare of the
is also an independent constitutional body, its constituents.
rules of procedure are also outside the scope of (b) Includes maintenance of peace and
congressional powers as well as that of the order, protection of life, liberty and
judiciary. property and the promotion of general
welfare.
Jurisdiction (2) Power of Taxation
(1) CA shall confirm the appointments by the (3) Power of Eminent Domain
President with respect to the following (4) Contempt power
positions:
(a) Heads of Executive departments
(except if it is the Vice-President who is G.2. LEGISLATIVE
appointed to a cabinet position, as this (1) Appropriation
needs no confirmation);
(2) Taxation
(b) Ambassadors, other public ministers or
consuls; (3) Expropriation
(c) Officers of the AFP from the rank of (4) Authority to make, frame, enact, amend,
Colonel or Naval Captain; and repeal laws
(d) Other officers whose appointments are (5) Ancillary powers (e.g. conduct inquiry and
vested in him by the Constitution (e.g. punish for contempt [See Arnault v.
members of constitutional Nazareno, 87 Phil. 29 (1950)]
commissions); [Sarmiento v. Mison
(1987)]
i. Legislative inquiries and the oversight
(2) Congress cannot require that the functions
appointment of a person to an office created
by law shall be subject to CA confirmation. Requisites of Legislative Inquiries:
[Calderon v. Carale, G.R. No. 91636 (1) Must be in aid of legislation
(1992)]
(2) In accordance with duly published rules of
Appointments extended by the President to the procedure
above-mentioned positions while Congress is
PAGE 31 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 POLITICAL LAW

(3) Right of persons appearing in or affected by recommendations or pass resolutions for


such inquiries shall be respected [Bengson consideration of the agency involved.
v. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee, G.R.
(2) Congressional investigation: More intense
No.89914, (1991)]
digging of facts, compared to scrutiny.
Power of investigation recognized by art. VI,
sec. 21.
Comparison between Legislative Inquiries and
Question Hour [See also Senate v. Ermita (3) Legislative supervision (Legislative Veto):
(2006)] Most encompassing form. Connotes a
continuing and informed awareness on the
Legislative Inquiries Question Hour
part of a congressional committee regarding
Constitutional Provision executive operations in a given
administrative area. Allows Congress to
Art. VI, Sec. 21 Art. VI, Sec. 22
scrutinize the exercise of delegated law-
Topic making authority, and permits Congress to
retain part of that delegated authority.
In aid of legislation On any matter
Through this, Congress exercises
pertaining to the
supervision over the executive agencies.
subject’s department
N.B. Legislative supervision is NOT allowed
Persons Subjected
under the Constitution. (Abakada Guro
Any person upon Heads of Partylist v. Purisima, G.R. No. 166715, August
subpoena departments only 14, 2008) See also discussion in Checks and
Balances, above.
Appearance of Exec. Officials
Appearance of Appearance of
executive officials executive officials ii. Bicameral conference committee
generally mandatory Ways of passing bills:
(1) via request
(2) Upon executive (1) Jointly - in a joint session; required by the
official’s Constitution in special and specific cases
volition with the (2) Separately - each house takes up the bill on
consent of the its own
President
(a) Simultaneously - houses take up a bill
at the same time
The mere filing of a criminal or an (b) Sequentially - bill originates from one
administrative complaint before a court or house and, upon proper passage, is
quasi-judicial body should not automatically bar transmitted to the other house for the
the conduct of legislative inquiry. (Standard latter’s own passage. In case of conflict
Chartered Bank v. Senate Committee on Banks, between the two houses’ versions, a
G.R. No. 167173, December 27, 2007) bicameral conference committee is
organized.
Additional limitation: Executive Privilege
Categories of congressional oversight functions Bicameral Conference Committee (BCC):
(1) Scrutiny: Passive inquiry, the primary (1) Composed of equal number of members
purpose of which is to determine economy from the Senate and the HOR
and efficiency of the operation of (2) Makes recommendations to houses on how
government activities. In the exercise of to reconcile conflicting provisions/versions
legislative scrutiny, Congress may request
information and report from the other (3) BCC members are usually granted blanket
branches of government. It can give authority to negotiate/reconcile the bills.
PAGE 32 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 POLITICAL LAW

(4) At the end of the process, the BCC comes Exception: President certifies to the necessity of
up with a Conference Committee Report, its immediate enactment to meet a public
which is then submitted to the respective calamity or emergency
chambers for approval. Upon approval, the
Presidential certification dispenses with the (1)
bill may be engrossed.
printing requirement and (2) readings on
The Bicam report need not pass through three separate days requirement [Kida v Senate, G.R.
readings. The Bicam may also include entirely No. 196271, Oct. 11, 2011, citing Tolentino v.
new provisions and substitutions. [See Secretary of Finance]
Tolentino v. Sec. of Finance (1994), Phil.
Judges Association v. Prado (1993)]
Substantive Limitations
Circumscribe both the exercise of the power
Enrolled bill doctrine –The (a) signing of a bill
itself and the allowable subject of legislation
by the Speaker of the House and the President
of the Senate, and the (b) certification by the
secretaries of both Houses of Congress that it Express limitations:
was passed, are conclusive of its due enactment.
(1) On general powers - Bill of Rights [Art. III]
Note:While Tolentino v. Sec. of Finance does
NOT hold that the enrolled bill embodies a (2) On taxation [Secs. 28 and 29(3), Art. VII]
conclusive presumption, “where there is no (3) On appropriation [Secs. 25 and 29(1) and
evidence to the contrary, the Court will respect (2), Art VI]
the certification of the presiding officers of both
Houses that a bill has been duly passed.” (4) On appellate jurisdiction of the SC [Sec. 30,
[Arroyo v. De Venecia, 277 SCRA 278 (1997)] Art. VI]
(5) No law granting title of royalty or nobility
shall be passed [Sec. 31, Art. VI]
iii. Limitations on legislative power

Implied Limitations:
Formal/Procedural Limitations
(1) No power to pass irrepealable law
Prescribes manner of passing bills and form
they should take. (2) Non-encroachment on powers of other
departments
(1) Rider clause: every bill passed by the
Congress shall embrace only one subject (3) Non-delegation of powers
which shall be expressed in the title. [Art. VI,
Sec. 26(1)]
Limitations on revenue, appropriations, and
The title is not required to be an index of the tariff measures
contents of the bill. It is sufficient
compliance if the title expresses: (1) the Appropriations
general subject and (2) all the provisions of General Limitations:
the statute are germane to that subject. [Tio
v. Videogram Regulatory Commission, 151 (1) Appropriations must be for a public purpose.
SCRA 208 (1987)] (2) The appropriation must be by law.
(2) No bill passed by either house shall become (3) Cannot appropriate public funds or property,
law unless it has passed 3 readings on directly or indirectly, in favor of
separate days. [Art. VI, Sec. 26(2)]
(a) Any sect, church, denomination, or
(3) Printed copies in its final form must have sectarian institution or system of
been distributed to its members 3 days religion or
before the passage of the bill. (Art. VI, Sec.
26[2])
PAGE 33 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 POLITICAL LAW

(b) Any priest, preacher, minister, or other


religious teacher or dignitary as such.
Principles in ascertaining the meaning of
Exception: if the priest etc. is assigned to: savings
(a) The Armed Forces; (1) Congress wields the power of the purse.
(b) Any penal institution; (2) The Executiveis expected to faithfully
execute the GAA and to spend the budget in
(c) Government orphanage;
accordance with the provisions of the GAA.
(d) Leprosarium.
(3) Congress does not allow the Executive to
NB: Government is not prohibited from override its authority over the purse as to let
appropriating money for a valid secular the Executive exceed its delegated authority.
purpose, even if it incidentally benefits a
(4) Savings should be actual:real or substantial,
religion, e.g. appropriations for a national
or something that exists presently in fact,
police force is valid even if the police also
not merely theoretical, possible, potential or
protects the safety of clergymen. Also, the
hypothetical. [Araullo v. Aquino, G.R. No.
temporary use of public property for
209287 (2014)]
religious purposes is valid, as long as the
property is available for all religions. So long as there is an item in the GAA for which
Congress had set aside a specified amount of
Specific Limitations
public fund, savings may be transferred thereto
For General Appropriations Bills[Sec. 25(1)- for augmentation purposes. [Araullo v. Aquino,
(5)] G.R. No. 209287 (2015)]
(1) Congress may not increase the To be valid, an appropriation must indicate a
appropriations recommended by the specific amount and a specific purpose.
President for the operation of the However, the purpose may be specific even if it
Government as specified in the budget. is broken down into different related sub-
(2) Form, content and manner of preparation of categories of the same nature (e.g. “conduct
the budget shall be prescribed by law. elections” covers regular, special, or recall
elections) [Goh v. Bayron, G.R. No. 212584
(3) No provision or enactment shall be (2014).]
embraced in the general appropriations bill
unless it relates specifically to some
particular appropriation therein. Guidelines for disbursement of discretionary
(4) Procedure in approving appropriations for funds appropriated for particular officials:[Sec.
the congress shall strictly follow the 25(6)]
procedure for approving appropriations for (1) For public purposes
other departments and agencies.
(2) To be supported by appropriate vouchers
(5) No law shall be passed authorizing any
(3) Subject to such guidelines as may be
transfer of appropriations. However, the
prescribed by law
following may, by law, be authorized to
augment any item in the general If Congress fails to pass the general
appropriations law for their respective appropriations bill by the end of any fiscal year:
offices from savings in other items of their [Sec. 25(7)]
respective appropriations:
(1) The general appropriations bill for the
(a) President previous year is deemed reenacted
(b) Senate President (2) It shall remain in force and effect until the
general appropriations bill is passed by
(c) Speaker of the HOR
Congress.
(d) Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
(e) Chairs of Constitutional Commissions
PAGE 34 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 POLITICAL LAW

For Special Appropriations Bills Limitations


(1) Shall specify the purpose for which it is (1) Public purpose – Power to tax should be
intended exercised only for a public purpose.
(2) Shall be supported by funds (2) Uniform and equitable
(a) actually available as certified by the (a) Operates with the same force and effect
National Treasurer; or in every place where the subject of it is
found
(b) to be raised by corresponding revenue
proposal therein (b) Classification for the purpose of
taxation is not prohibited per se, BUT it
must comply with the Test of Valid
Limitation on Use of Public Funds [Sec. 29] Classification [See Ormoc Sugar
(1) No money shall be paid out of the National Central v. Ormoc City [1968], on equal
Treasury except in pursuance of an protection and local taxes]
appropriation made by law.
(2) However, this rule does not prohibit Test of Valid Classification
continuing appropriations, e.g. for debt
servicing, for the reason that this rule does (1) Based on substantial distinctions which
not require yearly or annual appropriation. make real differences
[See Guingona v. Carague (1991)] (2) Germane to the purpose of law
(3) Applies to present and future conditions
substantially identical to those of the
Four phases of Government’s budgeting
present
process:
(1) Budget preparation (4) Applies equally to those who belong to
the same class
(2) Legislative authorization
(3) Budget execution
Progressive
(4) Budget accountability
The rate increases as the tax base increases
Tax burden is based on the taxpayers’ capacity
Taxation[Sec. 28] to pay
Nature of provision Suited to the social conditions of the people
Sec. 28 is a listing of the limits on the inherent Reflects aim of the Convention that legislature
and otherwise unlimited power following social justice command should use
Purposes of taxation taxation as an instrument for more equitable
distribution of wealth
(1) Pay debts and provide for the common
defense and general warfare; Progressive taxation is a directive to Congress
and is not a judicially enforceable right
(2) Raise revenue; [Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance, supra]
(3) Instrument of national and social policy;
(4) Instrument for extermination of undesirable Constitutional Tax Exemptions:
acts and enterprises;
(1) Charitable institutions, churches and
(5) Tool for regulation; parsonages or convents appurtenant thereto,
(6) Imposition of tariffs designed to encourage mosques, non-profit cemeteries, and all
and protect locally produced goods against lands, buildings, and improvements actually,
competition for imports. directly, and exclusively used for religious,

PAGE 35 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 POLITICAL LAW

charitable, or educational purposes shall be (2) Doctrine of Inappropriate Provisions


exempt from taxation [Art. VI, Sec. 28(3)]
Item veto
(2) All revenues and assets of non-stock, non-
The President may veto particular items in an
profit educational institutions are exempt
appropriation, revenue or tariff bill. The whole
from taxes and duties PROVIDED that such
item (and not just a portion) must be vetoed.
revenues and assets are actually, directly
[Bengzon v. Drilon (1992)]
and exclusively used for educational
purposes [Art. XIV, Sec. 4(3)] Item – in a bill, refers to the particulars, the
details, the distinct and severable parts; an
(3) Grants, endowments, donations or
indivisible sum of money dedicated to a stated
contributions used actually, directly and
purpose; in itself, a specific appropriation of
exclusively for educational purposes shall
money, not some general provision of law,
be exempt from tax, subject to conditions
which happens to be in an appropriation bill.
prescribed by law [Art. XIV, sec. 4(4)]
The president cannot veto unavoidable
obligations, i.e. already vested by another law
Special Funds
(e.g. payment of pensions, see Bengzon, supra).
(1) Money collected on a tax levied for a
This veto will not affect items to which he does
special purpose shall be treated as a special
not object.
fund and paid out for such purpose only.
(2) Once the special purpose is fulfilled or
abandoned, any balance shall be transferred Veto of a Rider
to the general funds of the Government A rideris a provision which does not relate to a
particular appropriation stated in the bill.
Presidential veto and congressional override Since it is an invalid provision under Art. VI,
Submission to the President; President’s Veto Sec. 25(2), the President may veto it as an item.
power [Sec 27, Art VI] The executive's veto power does not carry with
Rule on Presentment: Every bill, in order to it the power to strike out conditions or
become a law, must be presented to and signed restrictions. If the veto is unconstitutional, it
by the President. follows that the same produced no effect
whatsoever, and the restriction imposed by the
If the President does not approve of the bill, he appropriation bill, therefore, remains. (Bolinao
shall veto the same and return it with his
Electronics Corp v. Valencia [1964])
objections to the house from which it originated.
The House shall enter the objections in the
journal and proceed to reconsider it. Doctrine of Inappropriate Provisions
The President must communicate his decision to A provision that is constitutionally
veto within 30 days from the date of receipt inappropriate for an appropriation bill may be
thereof. Otherwise, the bill shall become a law singled out for veto (i.e. treated as an item) even
as if he signed it. (“Lapsed into law”) if it is not an appropriation or revenue item.
To override the veto, at least 2/3 of ALL the [Gonzales v. Macaraig (1990)]
members of each house must agree to pass the
bill. In such case, the veto is overridden and
becomes a law without need of presidential G.3. NON-LEGISLATIVE
approval. i. Informing function
General Rule:Partial veto is invalid Via legislative inquiries: Conduct of legislative
Exceptions: inquiries is intended to benefit not only
Congress but the citizenry, who are equally
(1) Veto of particular items of an appropriation, concerned with the proceedings. [Sabio v.
tariff, or revenue bill Gordon (2006)]
PAGE 36 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 POLITICAL LAW

ii. Power of impeachment Notes on Initiation:


The HOR shall have the exclusive power to [Gutierrez v. HOR Committee on Justice, G.R.
initiate all cases of impeachment. [Sec. 3(1)] No. 193459, Feb. 15, 2011 and Mar. 8, 2011I]
Basic limitation:No impeachment proceeding
shall be initiated against the same official more
Initiation
than once within a period of one year [Art. XI,
REGULAR PROCEDURE: [SEC. 3(2)(3)] Sec. 2(5)]
FILING by (a) any member of the HOR or (b) Initiationmeans filing coupled with referral to
any citizen upon endorsement by a member of the Committee on Justice.
the HOR; followed by REFERRAL to the Court cannot make a determination of what
proper HOR committee constitutes an impeachable offense; it is a purely
political question [citing Francisco v. House of
Representatives (2003)]

COMMITTEE REPORT by proper


On motion to inhibit:Impeachment is a political
committee (i.e. HOR Committee on Justice), exercise. The Court cannot apply (to
which either favorably or unfavorably Congressmen) the stringent standards it asks of
resolves the complaint justices and judges when it comes to inhibition
from hearing cases.

Above resolution AFFIRMED (if favorable)


or OVERRIDDEN (if unfavorable) by vote Constitutional requirement that HOR shall
of 1/3 of all the members of the HOR promulgate its rules on impeachment [Art. XI,
Sec. 3(8)]is different from the
publicationrequirement in Tañada v. Tuvera. (In
the Gutierrez case, promulgation was found to
be sufficient.)
Verified complaint or resolution[Sec. 3(4)]
FILED by 1/3 of all the members of the HOR;
trial by Senate forthwith proceeds Trial
The SENATE shall have the sole power to try
and decide all cases of impeachment. [Sec. 3(6)]
By virtue of the expanded judicial review (art.
VIII, sec. 1[2]), the Court’s power of judicial
review extends over justiciable issues arising in
impeachment proceedings. [Francisco v. HOR
(2003)]
BUT the question of whether or not Senate
Impeachment Rules were followed is a political
question. [Corona v. Senate, G.R. No. 200242,
Jul. 17, 2012]

PAGE 37 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 POLITICAL LAW

iii. Other non-legislative powers


IV. Executive Department
(1) Power to canvass the presidential elections;
(2) Declare the existence of war;
THE PRESIDENT
(3) Give concurrence to treaties and amnesties;
Qualifications:
(4) Propose constitutional amendments;
(1) Natural-born citizen of the Philippines;
(5) Implied powers such as the power to punish
contempt in legislative investigations. (2) A registered voter;
(3) Able to read and write;
G.4. SPECIFIC POWERS (4) At least 40 years of age on the day of the
election; and
(1) Constituent power, or the power to propose
amendements to the Constitution (5) A resident of the Philippines for at least 10
years immediately preceding such election.
(2) Legislative Inquiries [Art. VII, Sec. 2]
(3) Appropriation Election:
(4) Taxation (1) Regular Election – Second Monday of May
(5) Concurrence in treaties and international (2) National Board of Canvassers (President
agreements and Vice-President) – Congress
(6) War powers and delegation power (a) Returns shall be transmitted to
Congress, directed to the Senate
President
(b) Joint public session – not later than 30
days after election date; returns to be
opened in the presence of the Senate
and HOR in joint session
Jurisprudence on Canvassing:
Congress may validly delegate the initial
determination of the authenticity and due
execution of the certificates of canvass to a Joint
Congressional Committee, composed of
members of both houses. [Lopez v. Senate, G.R.
No. 163556, June 8, 2004]
Even after Congress has adjourned its regular
session, it may continue to perform this
constitutional duty of canvassing the
presidential and vice-presidential election
results without need of any call for a special
session by the President. […] Only when the
board of canvassers has completed its functions
is it rendered functus officio. [Pimentel, Jr. v.
Joint Committee of Congress, G.R. No. 163783,
June 22, 2004].
If the COMELEC is proscribed from
conducting an official canvass of the votes cast
for the President and Vice-President, it is, with
more reason, prohibited from making an

PAGE 38 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 POLITICAL LAW

“unofficial” canvass of said votes. [Brillantes v. the privilege and submit to the court's
COMELEC, G.R. No. 163193, June 15, 2004] jurisdiction. [Soliven v. Makasiar (1988);
Beltran v. Makasiar (1988)].
The Supreme Court as Presidential Electoral
Tribunal: The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, BUT presidential decisions may be questioned
shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to before the courts where there is grave abuse of
the election, returns and qualifications of the discretion or that the President acted without or
President or Vice-President, and may in excess of jurisdiction.[Gloria v. Court of
promulgate its rules for the purpose. Appeals, G.R. No. 119903, Aug. 15, 2000]
Term of Office: 6 years, which shall begin at Immunity co-extensive with tenure and covers
noon on the 30th day of June next following the only official duties.After tenure, the Chief
day of the election and shall end at noon of the Executive cannot invoke immunity from suit for
same day 6 years thereafter. [Art. VII, Sec. 4] civil damages arising out of acts done by him
while he was President which were not
The PRESIDENT is not eligible for re-election.
performed in the exercise of official duties.
Note: No person who has succeeded as [Estrada v. Desierto, G.R. Nos. 146710-15,
President and has served for more than 4 years March 2, 2001]
shall be qualified for election to the same office
Cannot be invoked by a non-sitting president.
for any length of time. [Art. VII, Sec. 4]
This presidential privilege of immunity cannot
be invoked by a non-sitting president even for
A. PRIVILEGES, INHIBITIONS, acts committed during his or her tenure. Courts
look with disfavor upon the presidential
DISQUALIFICATIONS
privilege of immunity, especially when it
impedes the search for truth or impairs the
A.1. PRESIDENTIAL PRIVILEGES vindication of a right. [Saez v. Macapagal-
Arroyo, 681 SCRA 678 (2012), on an Amparo
petition.]
President
Exception:The president may be sued if the act
Official residence is one not arising from official conduct. [See
Estrada v. Desierto, 353 SCRA 452, 523 (2001)]
The president shall have an official residence.
[Sec. 6]
Salary Presidential Privilege
Determined by law. Shall not be decreased The power of the government to withhold
during tenure. No increase shall take effect until information from the public, the courts, and the
after the expiration of the term of the incumbent Congress. [Schwart]
during which such increase was approved. [Sec.
It is "the right of the President and high-level
6]
executive branch officers to withhold
Presidential Immunity information from Congress, the courts, and
ultimately the public." [Rozell]
The President as such cannot be sued, enjoying
as he does immunity from suit N.B. Case law uses the term presidential
privilege to refer to either (1) immunity from suit
But the validity of his acts can be tested by an
(i.e. immunity from judicial processes, see Neri
action against other executive officials. [Carillo
v. Senate, infra; accord. Saez v. Macapagal-
vs. Marcos (1981)]
Arroyo, supra); or (2) executive privilege (see
The privilege may be invoked ONLY by the Akbayan v. Aquino (2008), as discussed below.
President. — Immunity from suit pertains to the
President by virtue of the office and may be
invoked only by the holder of the office; not by A.2. The Vice-President
any other person in the President's behalf. The
Qualifications, election and term of office and
President may waive the protection afforded by
removal are same as the President, except that
PAGE 39 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 POLITICAL LAW

no Vice-President shall serve for more than 2 (5) May not appoint (a) spouse or (b) relatives
successive terms. by consanguinity or affinity within the
fourth civil degree as members of
The Vice-President may be appointed as
Constitutional Commissions, or the Office
member of the Cabinet; such requires no
of the Ombudsman, or as Secretaries,
confirmation by the Commission of
Undersecretaries, chairmen or heads of
Appointments.
bureaus or offices, including government-
owned or controlled corporation and their
A.3. PROHIBITIONS ON THE EXECUTIVE subsidiaries.
DEPARTMENT The stricter prohibition applied to the President
The following prohibitions apply to: and his official family under Art. VII, Sec. 13,
as compared to the prohibition applicable to
(1) President appointive officials in general under Art. IX-B,
(2) Vice-President, Sec. 7, par. 2, which is proof of the intent of the
1987 Constitution to treat them as a class by
(3) The members of the Cabinet, and their itself and to impose upon said class stricter
deputies or assistants prohibitions. [Civil Liberties Union v. Executive
Prohibited Acts Secretary (1991)]

(1) Shall not receive any other emoluments


from the government or any other source. Exceptions to rule prohibiting executive
[For President and Vice-President, Sec. 6] officials from holding additional positions:
(2) Unless otherwise provided in the President
constitution, shall not hold any other office
or employment. [Sec. 13] (1) The President can assume any or all Cabinet
posts (because the departments are mere
(a) The prohibition does not include posts extensions of his personality, according to
occupied by executive officials without the Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency,
additional compensation in an ex- so no objection can be validly raised based
officio capacity, as provided by law or on Art. VII, Sec. 13.)
as required by the primary functions of
the said official’s office. (2) The President can assume ex officio
positions. (e.g. The President is the
(b) The ex-officio position being actually Chairman of NEDA. [Art. XII, Sec. 9])
(i.e. merely additional duty) and in legal
contemplation part of the principal Vice-President
office, it follows that the official
concerned has no right to receive “xxx The Vice-President may be appointed as
additional compensation for his member of the Cabinet. Such appointment
services in said position. (National requires no confirmation” [Art. VII, Sec. 3]
Amnesty Commission v. COA, G.R. No.
156982, September 8, 2004)
Cabinet
(3) Shall not directly or indirectly (a) practice
any other profession; (b) participate in any Art. VII, Sec. 13. The President, Vice-President,
business; or (c) be financially interested in the Members of the Cabinet, and their deputies
any contract with, or in any franchise or or assistants shall not, unless otherwise
special privilege granted by the government provided in this Constitution, hold any other
or any subdivision, agency, or office or employment during their tenure. […]
instrumentality thereof, including Art. IX-B, Sec. 7. No elective official shall be
government-owned or controlled eligible for appointment or designation in any
corporations or their subsidiaries. [Sec. 13] capacity to any public office or position during
(4) Strictly avoid conflict of interest in the his tenure.
conduct of their office [Sec. 13]
PAGE 40 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 POLITICAL LAW

Unless otherwise allowed by law or by the The President’s power to conduct investigations
primary functions of his position, no to aid him in ensuring the faithful execution of
appointive official shall hold any other office or laws – in this case, fundamental laws on public
employment in the Government or any accountability and transparency – is inherent in
subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, the President’s powers as the Chief Executive
including Government-owned or controlled […] [T]he purpose of allowing ad hoc
corporations or their subsidiaries. investigating bodies to exist is to allow an
inquiry into matters which the President is
"[U]nless otherwise provided by the entitled to know so that he can be properly
Constitution." [Art. VII, Sec. 13] Only cases advised and guided in the performance of his
contemplated are: duties relative to the execution and enforcement
(1) The Vice-President being appointed as of the laws of the land. [Biraogo v. Philippine
member of the cabinet. Truth Commission (2010)]
(2) The Vice-President acting as president One Executive:This power is exercised by the
when one has not yet been chosen or President. [Art. VII, Sec. 1]
qualified. [Art. VII, Sec. 7(2),(3)] As administrative head of the government, the
(3) The Secretary of Justice sitting as ex-officio President is vested with the power to execute,
member of the Judicial and Bar Council. administer and carry out laws into practical
[Art. VIII, Sec. 8(1)]; [Civil Liberties Union, operation. [National Electrification
supra] Commission vs. CA (1997)]
Thus, the Constitution allows a Cabinet member Presidential Powers (Summary)
to hold another office provided: (1) Executive Power - Power to enforce and
(a) It is in an ex-officio capacity and without administer laws;
additional compensation; (2) Power of Appointment - Legislative can
(b) Such is necessitated by the primary create office, but only executive can fill
functions of his position (e.g. Secretary of it; Congress cannot circumvent this by
Trade and Industry as Chairman of NDC; setting very narrow qualifications, such
Secretary of Agrarian Reform as Chairman that only one person is qualified to hold
of the Land Bank); AND office (See Flores v. Drilon, G.R. No.
104732, Jun. 22, 1993)
(c) Such is allowed by law. [Civil Liberties
Union, supra] (3) Power of Control – (a) Nullify, modify
judgments of subordinates [See Art. VII,
N.B. Art. IX-B, Sec. 7 is the general rule for Sec. 17]; (b) undo or redo actions of
appointed officials. It is not an exception to Art. subordinates; and (c) lay down rules for
VII, Sec. 13, which is a specific rule for the performance of subordinates’ duties;
members of the Cabinet, their deputies and
assistants inter alia. [See Civil Liberties Union, (4) Power of Supervision - Oversight
supra] function; see to it that rules, which they
did not make, are followed;

B. POWERS (5) Commander-in-Chief Powers [Art. VII,


Sec. 18]
(a) Call Out Power - Armed forces to
B.1. EXECUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE suppress lawless violence;
POWERS IN GENERAL
(b) Suspension of Writ of Habeas
Executive power Corpus- Only (a) in times of
The power to enforce, implement, and rebellion or invasion AND (b) when
administer laws. The president shall ensure that required by public safety
the laws be faithfully executed. [Art. VII, Sec. (c) Martial Law – N.B. Does not suspend
17] Constitution
PAGE 41 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 POLITICAL LAW

(6) Power over Legislation armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval
captain, and other officers whose appointments
(a) Veto Power
are vested in him in this Constitution. He shall
(b) Power to Declare Emergency - also appoint all other officers of the
Declaration only; exercise of Government whose appointments are not
emergency power is vested in otherwise provided for by law, and those whom
Congress, but may be delegated by it he may be authorized by law to appoint. The
to the President. Congress may, by law, vest the appointment of
(c) Integrative Power - Powers shared other officers lower in rank in the President
with legislative (e.g. appointments alone, in the courts, or in the heads of
requiring confirmation, rule- departments, agencies, commissions, or boards.
making); legislation during times of […]
emergency Definition: The selection, by the authority
(7) Diplomatic Powers - Including Power to vested with the power, of an individual who is
Enter into Treaties to exercise the functions of a given office.

(8) Residual Power - To protect the general


welfare of people; founded on duty of Appointment is distinguished from:
President as steward of the people;
includes powers unrelated to execution of (1) Designation – Imposition of additional
any provision of law [See Marcos v. duties, usually by law, on a person already
Manglapus] in the public service.

(9) Other Powers (2) Commission – Written evidence of the


appointment.
(a) Power to Pardon - Reprieve,
commute, pardon, remit fines and
forfeitures after final judgment [Art. Elements for a valid appointment:
VII, Sec. 19(1)]
(3) Authority to appoint and evidence of the
(b) Power to Grant Amnesty - With exercise of the authority;
concurrence of majority of all
members of Congress (4) Transmittal of the appointment paper and
evidence of the transmittal (preferably
(c) Borrowing Power - Contract or through the Malacañang Records Office);
guarantee foreign loans with
concurrence of Monetary Board [Art. (3) Vacant position at the time of appointment;
VII, Sec. 20] and

(d) Budgetary Power - Submit to (4) Receipt of the appointment paper and
congress budget of bills and acceptance of the appointment by the
expenditures [Art. VII, Sec. 22] appointee who possesses all the
qualifications and none of the
(e) Informing Power – Address disqualifications.
Congress during opening of session,
or at any other time [Art. VII, Sec. 23] All these elements should always apply,
regardless of when the appointment is made,
whether outside, just before, or during the
B.2. POWER OF APPOINTMENT appointment ban. [Velicaria-Garafil v. Office of
the President, G.R. No. 203372 (2015)] (N.B.
In General Outside of the bar coverage)
Sec. 16. The President shall nominate and, with
the consent of the Commission on
Classification of Power of Appointment:
Appointments, appoint the heads of the
executive departments, ambassadors, other There are four groups of officers whom the
public ministers and consuls, or officers of the President may appoint:
PAGE 42 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 POLITICAL LAW

(1) Heads of the Executive Department, (4) Other officers whose appointments are
ambassadors, other public ministers and vested in the President by the Constitution:
consuls, officers of the armed forces from
(a) Chairman and Commissioners of the
the rank of colonel or naval captain and
Constitutional Commissions (Art. IX)
other officers whose appointments are
vested in him; (b) Regular members of the Judicial and
Bar Council (Art. VII, Sec. 8[2])
Note: Heads of bureaus were
deliberately removed from this group (c) Sectoral Congressional reps. (Art. XVIII,
and effectively transferred to the fourth Sec 7) (N.B. Provision no longer in
group. [Sarmiento v. Mison (1987)] force)
(2) All other officers of the government whose
appointments are not otherwise provided by When confirmation is not required:
law;
(1) When the President appoints other
(3) Those whom the President may be government officers whose appointments
authorized by law to appoint; are not otherwise provided for by law;
(4) Officers lower in rank whose appointments (2) Those officers whom he may be authorized
Congress may by law vest in the President by law to appoint (e.g. Chairman and
alone. Members of the Commission on Human
Only the first group of appointees need the Rights);
confirmation of the Commission on (3) When Congress creates inferior offices but
Appointments. omits to provide for appointment thereto, or
provides in an unconstitutional manner for
such appointments (See Sarmiento v. Mison,
Appointments Needing the Commission on
supra)
Appointments’ Confirmation
(4) Appointment of the Vice-President as
From the rulings in Sarmiento III v. Mison
member of the Cabinet (Art. VII, Sec. 3)
(1987), Bautista v. Salonga (1989), and Deles v.
Constitutional Commission (1989), these (5) Appointments upon recommendation of the
doctrines are deducible: Judicial and Bar Council – see below
Confirmation by the Commission on (6) Appointments solely by the President– see
Appointments is required only for presidential below
appointees as mentioned in the first sentence of
Art. VII, Sec. 16, including those officers whose
appointments are expressly vested by the Appointments solely by the President [Art. VII,
Constitution itself in the President: sec. 16]
(1) Heads of the executive departments (1) Those vested by the Constitution on the
President alone (e.g. appointment of Vice-
(2) Ambassadors, other public ministers and President to the Cabinet) [Art. VII, Sec.
consuls 3(2)]
(3) Officers of the Armed Forces of the (2) Those whose appointments are not
Philippines with the rank of colonel or naval otherwise provided by law.
captain (Rationale: These are officers of a
sizeable command enough to stage a coup) (3) Those whom he may be authorized by law
to appoint.
N.B.Appointments to the Philippine
Coast Guard, which is no longer under (4) Those other officers lower in rank whose
the AFP, need not undergo appointment is vested by law in the
confirmation [Soriano v. Lista, G.R. President.
No. 153881 (2003)]

PAGE 43 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 POLITICAL LAW

Appointments upon Recommendation of the Steps in the appointing process:


Judicial and Bar Council
Nomination by the President
Do not require confirmation by the Commission
on Appointments.
(1) Members of the Supreme Court and all Confirmation by the Commission on Appointments
other courts [Art. VII, Sec. 9]

Issuance of the Commission

For the Supreme Court, the appointment


must be made 90 days from when the Acceptance by the appointee
vacancy occurs [Art VIII, Sec. 4(1)]
Notes:
For lower courts, appointment shall be
issued within 90 days from submission of In the case of ad interim appointments, steps 1,
the list 3 and 4 precede step 2.
(2) Ombudsman and his 5 deputies (for Luzon,
Visayas, Mindanao, general and military) An appointment is deemed complete only upon
[Art. XI, Sec. 9] acceptance. [Lacson v. Romero, 84 Phil. 740
All vacancies shall be filled within 3 months (1949)]
after they occur. Appointment is essentially a discretionary
power, the only condition being that the
appointee, if issued a permanent appointment,
Sarmiento v. Mison (1987): should possess the minimum qualification
Const. Text: "The Congress may, by law, vest in requirements, including the Civil Service
the appointment of other officers lower in rank eligibility prescribed by law for the position.
in the President alone". This meant that until a This discretion also includes the determination
law is passed giving such appointing power to of the nature or character of the appointment.
the President alone, then such appointment has
to be confirmed.
Regular and recess (ad interim) appointments
Held:The inclusion of the word "alone" was an
oversight. Thus, the Constitution should read 2 Kinds of Appointments Requiring
"The Congress may, by law, vest the Confirmation:
appointment of other officers lower in rank in (3) Regular: if the CA (Congress) is in session;
the President." and
(4) Ad Interim: during the recess of Congress
(because the CA shall meet only while
Congress is in session [Art. VI, Sec. 19])

Regular appointment
(1) Made by the President while Congress is in
session
(2) Takes effect only after confirmation by the
Commission on Appointments (CA)
(3) Once approved, continues until the end of
the term. Note: The mere filing of a motion
for reconsideration of the confirmation of

PAGE 44 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 POLITICAL LAW

an appointment cannot have the effect of In no case shall a temporary designation exceed
recalling or setting aside said appointment. one (1) year. [Admin Code of 1987, Bk., III Sec.
The Constitution is clear – there must either 17]
be a rejection by the Commission on
Congress cannot impose on the president the
Appointments or non-action on its part for
obligation to appoint an incumbent
the confirmation to be recalled.
Undersecretary as [the President’s] Acting
Secretary. The President shall have the freedom
to choose who shall be his temporary alter ego.
Ad interim appointment
[Pimentel v. Ermita, G.R. No. 164978, Oct. 13,
(1) Made by the President while Congress is not 2005] (Asked in the 2013 Bar Exams)
in session
(2) Takes effect immediately, BUT ceases to be
Ad Interim and Acting Appointments,
valid (1) if disapproved by the CA or (2)
Distinguished
upon the next adjournment of Congress.
[Art. VII, Sec. 16, par. 2] Ad Interim (Recess) Acting
(3) Ad interim appointments are permanent Effective upon acceptance
appointments. Ad Interim appointments to
Extended only when May be extended
the Constitutional Commissions (e.g. Congress is in recess even if Congress is in
COMELEC) are permanent as these take session
effect immediately and can no longer be
withdrawn by the President once the Submitted to the CA Not submitted to the
appointee has qualified into office. The fact for confirmation CA for confirmation
that it is subject to the confirmation of the Permanent Way of temporary
CA does not alter its permanent character. appointments filling up vacancies
[Matibag v. Benipayo (2002)]

Limitations on appointing power of the


Acting/Temporary appointment President
Can be withdrawn or revoked at the pleasure of (1) Art. VII, Sec. 13, par. 2 - The spouse and
the appointing power. The appointee does not relatives by consanguinity or affinity within
enjoy security of tenure. the 4th civil degree of the President shall not,
Limitation:President constitutionally prohibited during his "tenure", be appointed as:
from making such appointments to the (a) Members of the Constitutional
Constitutional Commissions (in order to Commissions;
preserve the latter’s independence).
(b) Member of the Office of Ombudsman;
(c) Secretaries;
Temporary Designations
(d) Undersecretaries;
The President may designate an officer already
in the gov’t service or any other competent (e) Chairmen or heads of bureaus or offices,
person to perform the functions of any office in including government-owned or
the executive branch, appointment to which is controlled corporations and their
vested in him by law, when: subsidiaries.

(1) The officer regularly appointed to the office (3) Recess (Ad Interim) appointments: The
is unable to perform his duties by reason of President shall have the power to make
illness, absence or any other cause; or appointments during the recess of the
Congress, whether voluntary or compulsory,
but such appointments shall be effective
(2) There exists a vacancy; only until disapproval by the Commission
on Appointments or until the next

PAGE 45 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 POLITICAL LAW

adjournment of the Congress. (art. VII, sec. (1) Appointments extended by an Acting
16[2]) President shall remain effective unless
revoked by the elected President within
ninety days from his assumption or re-
Midnight Appointments Ban assumption of office. [Art. VII, Sec. 14]
General Rule: Two months immediately before (2) Midnight appointments ban applies to the
the next presidential elections (2nd Monday of acting president.
March), and up to the end of his "term" (June
30), a President (or Acting President) shall not
make appointments. (Art. VII, Sec. 15) Power of Removal
Exception: Temporary appointments to General Rule: The power of removal may be
executive positions, when continued vacancies implied from the power of appointment.
will: (a) prejudice public service; or (b) Exception: The President cannot remove
endanger public safety. officials appointed by him where the
Constitution prescribes certain methods for
separation of such officers from public service,
Limited to Executive Department- The e.g. Chairmen and Commissioners of
prohibition against midnight appointment Constitutional Commissions who can be
applies only to positions in the executive removed only by impeachment, or judges who
department. [De Castro v. JBC, G. R. No. are subject to the disciplinary authority of the
191002, Mar. 17, 2010] Supreme Court.
N.B. In re: Valenzuela [A.M. No. 98-5-01-SC, Career Civil Service: Members of the career
November 9, 1998], which extended the civil service of the Civil Service who are
prohibition for midnight appointments to the appointed by the President may be directly
judiciary, was effectively overturned. disciplined by him (Villaluz v. Zaldivar, 15
SCRA 710)
Limited to Caretaker Capacity- While Serve at the pleasure of the president: Cabinet
"midnight appointments" (i.e. made by outgoing members and such officers whose continuity in
President near the end of his term) are not illegal, office depends upon the pleasure of the
they should be made in the capacity of a president may be replaced at any time, but
"caretaker" [a new president being elected], legally speaking, their separation is effected not
doubly careful and prudent in making the by removal but by expiration of their term of the
selection, so as not to defeat the policies of the appointee.
incoming administration. Hence, the issuance
of 350 appointments in one night and the
planned induction of almost all of them a few
hours before the inauguration of the new
President may be regarded as abuse of
presidential prerogatives. [Aytona v. Castillo
(1962)] (N.B. The 1935 Const. did not contain
an explicit prohibition on midnight
appointments)
Applies only to President- Ban does not extend
to appointments made by local elective officials.
There is no law that prohibits local elective
officials from making appointments during the
last days of his or her tenure. [De Rama v. CA
(2001)]
Appointing power of the ACTING
PRESIDENT
PAGE 46 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 POLITICAL LAW

Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency


B.3. POWER OF CONTROL AND (Alter Ego Principle)
SUPERVISION
All the different executive and administrative
Supervision and Control, Distinguished organizations are mere adjuncts of the
Executive Department. This is an adjunct of the
Supervision Control
Doctrine of One Executive.
Overseeing or the Power of an officer to
The heads of the various executive departments
power or authority of alter, modify, nullify
the officer to see that or set aside what a are assistants and agents of the Chief Executive.
subordinate officers subordinate officer [Villena v. Sec. of Interior (1939)]
perform their duties, had done and to In the regular course of business, acts of exec.
and if the latter fail or substitute the departments, unless disapproved or reprobated
neglect to fulfill them, judgment of the by the Chief Executive, are presumptively acts
then the former may former for that of the of the Chief Executive. [Free Telephone
take such action or latter. Workers Union vs. Minister of Labor and
steps as prescribed by Employment (1981)]
law to make them
perform these duties. General Rule: The multifarious executive and
administrative functions of the Chief Executive
are performed by and through the executive
This does not include departments.
the power to overrule
their acts, if these acts Exceptions:
are within their (1) Cases where the Chief Executive is required
discretion. by the Constitution or by the law to act in
person; or
Control of Executive Departments (2) The exigencies of the situation demand that
he act personally.
[Art. VII, Sec. 17]

Power to Abolish Offices


Control
Generally, power to abolish a public office is
Control is essentially the power to [a] alter or legislative. BUT, as far as bureaus, offices, or
modify or nullify or set aside what a subordinate agencies of the executive dep’t are concerned,
officer had done in the performance of his duties power of control may justify him to inactivate
and to [b] substitute the judgment of the former functions of a particular office. (See Buklod ng
with that of the latter. [Biraogo v Philippine Kawaning EIIB v. Zamora, 360 SCRA 718
Truth Commission (2010)] [2001], where the President effectively
The President may, by executive or abolished the Economic Intelligence Bureau by
administrative order, direct the reorganization “deactivating” it, transferring its functions to
of government entities under the Executive other agencies.)
Department. This is also sanctioned under the In establishing an executive department, bureau
Constitution, as well as other statutes [e.g. or office, the legislature necessarily ordains an
Admin. Code]. This recognizes the recurring executive agency’s position in the scheme of
need of every President to reorganize his or her administrative structure. Such determination is
office “to achieve simplicity, economy and primary, but subject to the President’s
efficiency,” in the manner the Chief Executive continuing authority to reorganize the
deems fit to carry out presidential directives and administrative structure. [Anak Mindanao v.
policies. [Tondo Medical Employees v CA Executive Secretary (2007)]
[2007]]

PAGE 47 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 POLITICAL LAW

General Supervision over Local Government sanctioned under civilian law. [Gudani v. Senga,
Units and the Autonomous Regions G.R. No. 170165, August 15, 2006]
The President shall exercise general supervision
over local governments. [Art. X, Sec. 4]
Graduated Powers – Art. VII, sec. 18 grants
The President shall exercise general supervision the President, as Commander-in-Chief, a
over autonomous regions to ensure that laws are “sequence” of “graduated power[s].” From
faithfully executed. [Art. X, Sec. 16] the most to the least benign, these are: (1) the
calling out power, (2) the power to suspend
The President may suspend or remove local
the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, and
officials by virtue of the power delegated to him
the (3) power to declare martial law. In the
by Congress through the Local Government
exercise of the latter two powers, the
Code. The Constitution also places local
Constitution requires the concurrence of two
governments under the general supervision of
conditions, namely, an actual invasion or
the president [supra], and also allows Congress
rebellion, and that public safety requires the
to include in the local government code
exercise of such power. However, as we
provisions for removal of local officials (see Art.
observed in Integrated Bar of the Philippines
X, Sec. 3). [See Ganzon v. CA (1991)]
v. Zamora, “these conditions are not required
in the exercise of the calling out power. The
B.4. MILITARY POWERS only criterion is that ‘whenever it becomes
necessary,’ the President may call the armed
Commander-in-chief powers[Art. VII, Sec. 18] forces ‘to prevent or suppress lawless
(1) He may call out such armed forces to violence, invasion or rebellion.’ [Sanlakas v.
prevent or suppress lawless violence, Executive Secretary (2004)]
invasion or rebellion.
(2) He may suspend the privilege of the writ of Call out the AFP to prevent lawless violence
habeas corpus, or
This is merely a police measure meant to quell
(3) He may proclaim martial law over the entire disorder. As such, the Constitution does not
Philippines or any part thereof. regulate its exercise radically.

The President shall be the Commander-in-chief State of Rebellion


of all armed forces of the Philippines
While the Court may examine whether the
The ability of the President to require a military power was exercised within constitutional limits
official to secure prior consent before appearing or in a manner constituting grave abuse of
before Congress pertains to a wholly different discretion, none of the petitioners here have, by
and independent specie of presidential way of proof, supported their assertion that the
authority—the commander-in-chief powers of President acted without factual basis. The
the President. By tradition and jurisprudence, President, in declaring a state of rebellion and in
the commander-in-chief powers of the President calling out the armed forces, was merely
are not encumbered by the same degree of exercising a wedding of her Chief Executive
restriction as that which may attach to executive and Commander-in-Chief powers. These are
privilege or executive control. purely executive powers, vested on the President
Outside explicit constitutional limitations, the by Sections 1 and 18, Article VII, as opposed to
commander-in-chief clause vests in the the delegated legislative powers contemplated
President, as commander-in-chief, absolute by Section 23 (2), Article VI. [Sanlakas v.
authority over the persons and actions of the Executive Secretary (2004)]
members of the armed forces. Such authority
includes the ability of the President to restrict
the travel, movement and speech of military Exercise of Emergency Powers
officers, activities which may otherwise be

PAGE 48 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 POLITICAL LAW

Background:Presidential Proclamation 1017 (1) The suspension of the privilege of the writ
(Declaring a State of National Emergency) is applies only to persons "judicially charged"
different from the law in Sanlakas as this for rebellion or offenses inherent in or
proclamation was woven out of the “calling directly connected with invasion [Art. VII,
out” and “take care” powers of the President Sec. 18(5)].
joined with the “temporary takeover”
(a) Such persons suspected of the above
provision under Art. XII, section 17. PP1017
crimes can be arrested and detained
purports to grant the President, without
without a warrant of arrest.
authority or delegation from Congress, to
take over or direct the operation of any (b) The suspension of the privilege does not
privately-owned public utility or business make the arrest without warrant legal.
affected with public interest. But the military is, in effect, enabled to
make the arrest anyway since, with the
While the President could validly declare the
suspension of the privilege, there is no
existence of a state of national emergency even
remedy available against such unlawful
in the absence of a Congressional enactment, the
arrest (arbitrary detention).
exercise of the emergency powers, such as the
taking over of privately-owned public utility or (c) The arrest without warrant is justified
business affected with public interest, requires by the emergency situation and the
a delegation from Congress which is the difficulty in applying for a warrant
repository of emergency powers.[David considering the time and the number of
v.Macapagal- Arroyo (2006)] persons to be arrested.
(d) The crime for which he is arrested must
be one related to rebellion or invasion.
Suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas
As to others, the suspension of the
corpus
privilege does not apply.
"Writ of habeas corpus"
(2) During the suspension of the privilege of the
Is an order from the court commanding a writ, any person thus arrested or detained
detaining officer to inform the court: shall be judicially charged within 3 days, or
otherwise he shall be released. [Art. VII, sec.
(1) If he has the person in custody; and
18(6)]]
(2) His basis in detaining that person
(a) The effect therefore is only to extend
the periods during which he can be
"Privilege of the writ" detained without a warrant. When the
privilege is suspended, the period is
Is that portion of the writ requiring the detaining extended to 72 hours.
officer to show cause why he should not be
tested. Note that it is the privilege that is (b) What happens if he is not judicially
suspended, not the writ itself. charged nor released after 72 hours?
The public officer becomes liable under
Requisites for Suspension of the Privilege of the RPC Art. 125 for "delay in the delivery
Writ: of detained persons."
(1) There must be actual invasion or rebellion; (3) The right to bail shall not be impaired even
and when the privilege of the writ of habeas
(2) The public safety requires the suspension. corpus is suspended. [Art. III, Sec. 13]
The suspension of the privilege does not destroy
petitioners' right and cause of action for
Duration of the suspension of the writ and of
damages for illegal arrest and detention and
Martial Law: Not to exceed 60 days unless
other violations of their constitutional rights.
extended by Congress.
The suspension does not render valid an
Effects of the Suspension of the Privilege: otherwise illegal arrest or detention. What is

PAGE 49 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 POLITICAL LAW

suspended is merely the speedy means of with its rules without need of a call within
obtaining his liberty. [Aberca v. Ver (1988)] 24 hours following the proclamation or
suspension.
(3) Within 48 hours from the proclamation or
Proclaim Martial Law
the suspension, the President shall submit a
The requisites in proclaiming Martial Law are: report, in person or in writing, to the
Congress (meeting in joint session of the
(1) There must be an invasion or rebellion, and action he has taken).
(4) The Congress shall then vote jointly, by a
(2) Public safety requires the proclamation of majority of all its members. It has two
martial law all over the Philippines or any options:
part thereof. (a) To revoke such proclamation or
suspension. When it so revoked, the
President cannot set aside (or veto) the
The following cannot be done by a proclamation revocation as he normally would do in
of Martial Law [Art. VII, Sec. 18]: the case of bills.
(1) Suspend the operation of the Constitution. (b) To extend it beyond the 60-day period
(2) Supplant the functioning of the civil courts of its validity.
and the legislative assemblies. Congress can only so extend the proclamation
(3) Confer jurisdiction upon military courts and or suspension upon the initiative of the
agencies over civilians, where civil courts President.
are able to function. The period need not be 60 days; it could be more,
"Open Court" Doctrine:Civilians cannot be tried as Congress would determine, based on the
by military courts if the civil courts are open and persistence of the emergency.
functioning. If the civil courts are not Note: If Congress fails to act before the measure
functioning, then civilians can be tried by the expires, it can no longer extend it until the
military courts. Martial law usually President again re-declares the measure.
contemplates a case where the courts are already
closed and the civil institutions have already If Congress extends the measure, but before the
crumbled, i.e. a "theater of war." If the courts period of extension lapses the requirements for
are still open, the President can just suspend the the proclamation or suspension no longer exist,
privilege and achieve the same effect. [Olaguer Congress can lift the extension, since the power
v. Military Commission No. 34, 150 SCRA 144 to confer implies the power to take back.
(1987)]
(4) Automatically suspend the privilege of the The Role of the Supreme Court[See Art. VII, Sec.
writ of habeas corpus. The President must 18, par. 3]
expressly suspend the privilege.
(1) The Supreme Court may review, in an
appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen,
The Role of Congress[See Art. VII, Sec. 18, par. the sufficiency of the factual basis of:
1, 2] (a) the proclamation of martial law or the
(1) Congress may revoke the proclamation of suspension of the privilege of the writ,
martial law or suspension of the privilege of or
the writ of habeas corpus before the lapse of (b) the extension thereof. It must promul-
60 days from the date of suspension or gate its decision thereon within 30 days
proclamation. from its filing.
(2) Upon such proclamation or suspension, An “appropriate proceeding” does not refer to a
Congress shall convene at once. If it is not certiorari petition since a petition for certiorari
in session, it shall convene in accordance does not contemplate what is required under the
PAGE 50 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 POLITICAL LAW

Consititution: a review of the factual basis of the (4) Limit on Calling out Power. —Test of
Constitution. [Lagman v. Medialdea, G.R. Arbitrariness: The question is not whether
231658, (2017) NB: Outside Bar Coverage] the President or Congress acted correctly,
but whether he acted arbitrarily in that the
Note: Calling-out power is purely discretionary
action had no basis in fact. [IBP v. Zamora,
on the President; the Constitution does not
(2000)]. This amounts to a determination of
explicitly provide for a judicial review of its
whether or not there was grave abuse of
factual basis. (IBP v. Zamora [2001])
discretion amounting to lack or excess of
(2) The jurisdiction of the SC may be invoked jurisdiction.
in a proper case.
Although the Constitution reserves to
There are 4 ways, then, for the proclamation or
the Supreme Court the power to
suspension to be lifted:
review the sufficiency of the factual
basis of the proclamation or (1) Lifting by the President himself
suspension in a proper suit, it is
(2) Revocation by Congress
implicit that the Court must allow
Congress to exercise its own review (3) Nullification by the Supreme Court
powers, which is automatic rather (4) By operation of law, after 60 days
than initiated. Only when Congress
defaults in its express duty to defend Cf. RA 7055 (1991) "An Act Strengthening
the Constitution through such review Civilian Supremacy over the Military by
should the Supreme Court step in as Returning to the Civil Courts the Jurisdiction
its final rampart. The constitutional over Certain Offenses involving Members of the
validity of the President’s Armed Forces of the Philippines, other Persons
proclamation of martial law or Subject to Military Law, and the Members of the
suspension of the writ of habeas Philippine National Police, Repealing for the
corpus is first a political question in Purpose Certain Presidential Decrees"
the hands of Congress before it RA 7055 effectively placed upon the civil courts
becomes a justiciable one in the the jurisdiction over certain offenses involving
hands of the Court. members of the AFP and other members subject
If the Congress procrastinates or to military law.
altogether fails to fulfill its duty RA 7055 provides that when these individuals
respecting the proclamation or commit crimes or offenses penalized under the
suspension within the short time RPC, other special penal laws, or local
expected of it, then the Court can step government ordinances, regardless of whether
in, hear the petitions challenging the civilians are co-accused, victims, or offended
President’s action, and ascertain if it parties which may be natural or juridical
has a factual basis. [Fortun v. persons, they shall be tried by the proper civil
Macapagal-Arroyo, G.R. No. court, except when the offense, as determined
190293, Mar. 20, 2012] before arraignment by the civil court, is service-
(3) Petition for habeas corpus connected in which case it shall be tried by
court-martial.
(a) When a person is arrested without a
warrant for complicity in the rebellion The assertion of military authority over civilians
or invasion, he or someone else in his cannot rest on the President's power as
behalf has the standing to question the Commander in Chief or on any theory of martial
validity of the proclamation or law. As long as civil courts remain open and are
suspension. regularly functioning, military tribunals cannot
try and exercise jurisdiction over civilians for
(b) Before the SC can decide on the legality offenses committed by them and which are
of his detention, it must first pass upon properly cognizable by civil courts. To hold
the validity of the proclamation or otherwise is a violation of the right to due
suspension.
PAGE 51 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 POLITICAL LAW

process. [Olaguer v. Military Commission No. (2) Commutations - Reduction of sentence.


34 (1987)] [Black’s Law Dictionary]. It is a remission
of a part of the punishment; a substitution of
a less penalty for the one originally imposed.
Q: Do Letters of Instruction (LOI) and [Vera, supra]
Presidential Decrees issued by the President
(3) Amnesty - a sovereign act of oblivion for
under the 1973 Constitution during Martial Law
past acts, granted by government generally
form part of the laws of the land?
to a class of persons who have been guilty
A: LOIs are presumed to be mere administrative usually of political offenses and who are
issuances except when the conditions set out in subject to trial but have not yet been con-
Garcia-Padilla v. Enrile exist. To form part of victed, and often conditioned upon their
the law of the land, the decree, order or LOI return to obedience and duty within a
must be (1) issued by the President in the prescribed time. [Black’s; Brown v. Walker,
exercise of his extraordinary power of 161 US 602].
legislation as contemplated in Section 6 of the
(4) Requires concurrence of majority of all
1976 Amendments to the Constitution, (2)(a)
members of Congress [Art. VII, Sec. 19]
whenever in his judgment there exists a grave
emergency or a threat or imminence thereof, or (5) Remit fines and forfeitures, after conviction
(b) whenever the interim Batasang Pambansa or by final judgment
the regular National Assembly fails or is unable
(6) Pardons - Permanent cancellation of
to act adequately on any matter for any reason
sentence. [Black’s]It is an act of grace
that in his judgment requires immediate action.
proceeding from the power entrusted with
LOIs that are mere administrative issuances
the execution of the laws, which exempts the
may be repealed, altered, or modified by way of
individual on whom it is bestowed, from the
an executive order. (PASEI v Torres [1993])
punishment the law inflicts for the crime he
has committed. It is a remission of guilt, a
B.5. PARDONING POWERS forgiveness of the offense. [Vera, supra]
Nature of Pardoning Power Plenary or partial
Sec. 19. Except in cases of impeachment, or as (a) Plenary - Extinguishes all the penalties
otherwise provided in this Constitution, the imposed upon the offender, including
President may grant reprieves, commutations, accessory disabilities.
and pardons, and remit fines and forfeitures, (b) Partial – Does not extinguish all
after conviction by final judgment. [Art. VII, penalties imposed
Sec. 19, par. 1]
Conditional or absolute
(a) Conditional- The offender has the right
He shall also have the power to grant amnesty to reject the same since he may feel that
with the concurrence of a majority of all the the condition imposed is more onerous
Members of the Congress than the penalty sought to be remitted.
The determination of whether the
Forms of executive clemencies conditions had been breached rests
exclusively in the sound judgment of
(1) Reprieves - a temporary relief from or the Chief Executive. Such
postponement of execution of criminal determination would not be
penalty or sentence or a stay of execution. reviewed by the courts. A judicial
[Black’s Law Dictionary]It is the pronouncement stating that the
withholding of a sentence for an interval of conditionally pardoned offender has
time, a postponement of execution, a committed a crime is not necessary
temporary suspension of execution. [People before the pardon may be revoked.
v. Vera (1937)] [Torres v. Gonzales (1987)].

PAGE 52 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 POLITICAL LAW

said offices. [Monsanto v. Factoran


(1989)]
(b) Absolute pardon - Pardonee has no
option at all and must accept it whether The right to seek public elective office is
he likes it or not. In this sense, an unequivocally considered as a political
absolute pardon is similar to right. Hence, upon acceptance of the
commutation, w/c is also not subject to pardon, the pardonee regained his full civil
acceptance by the offender. and political rights – including the right to
seek elective office, even though that right
is not expressly mentioned as provided
General Exceptions to Executive Clemencies under Article 36 of the Revised Penal Code
(a) In cases of impeachment, and [Risos-Vidal v. COMELEC, G.R. No.
206666 (2015)].
(b) As otherwise provided in this Constitution
e.g. For election offenses No pardon,
amnesty, parole or suspension of sentence
for violation of election laws, rules, and
regulations shall be grander by the Pardon Amnesty
President without the favorable Infractions of peace Addressed to
recommendation by the Commission on of the state Political Offenses
Election[Art. IX, sec. 5]
Granted to To classes of persons
individuals
Limitations on PARDON Exercised solely by Requires
(a) Cannot be granted for impeachment.[Art. the executive concurrence of
VII, Sec. 19) Congress
(b) Cannot be granted in cases of violation of Private act which Public act which the
election laws without the favorable must be pleaded and courts could take
recommendation of the COMELEC. [Art. proved judicial notice
IX-C, Sec. 5]
Looks forward and Looks backward and
(c) Can be granted only after convictionby relieves the pardonee puts into oblivion the
final judgment [People v. Salle, 250 SCRA of the consequences offense itself.
581] of the offense
Sec. 19, Art. VII prohibits the grant of Extended after final May be extended at
pardon, whether full or conditional, to an judgment any stage
accused during the pendency of his appeal
from his conviction by the trial court. Any
application therefor should not be acted Differentiated from
upon or the process toward its grant should
not be begun unless the appeal is (a) Probation- Disposition where a defendant
withdrawn. Agencies concerned must after conviction and sentence is released
require proof from the accused that he has subject to (1) conditions imposed by the
not appealed from his conviction or that he court and (2) supervision of a probation
has withdrawn his appeal. [People v. officer. (PD No. 968, Sec. 3(a)]
Bacang (1996)] (b) Parole- Suspension of the sentence of a
(d) Cannot absolve the convict of civil liability. convict granted by a Parole Board after
[People v. Nacional (1995)] serving the minimum term of the inde-
terminate sentence penalty, without
(e) Cannot be granted to cases of legislative granting a pardon, prescribing the terms
contempt or civil contempt. upon which the sentence shall be
(f) Cannot restore public offices forfeited, suspended. [Reyes]
even if pardon restores the eligibility for
PAGE 53 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 POLITICAL LAW

Application of Pardoning Powers to Admin. government groups. [Macagaan v. People


Cases (1987)]
(1) If the President can grant reprieves, [Respondents] may avail of the tax amnesty
commutations and pardons, and remit fines even if they have pending tax assessments. A
and forfeitures in criminal cases, with much tax amnesty, being a general pardon or
more reason can she grant executive intentional overlooking by the State of its
clemency in administrative cases, which are authority to impose penalties on persons
clearly less serious than criminal offenses. otherwise guilty of evasion or violation of a
revenue or tax law, partakes of an absolute
(2) However, the power of the President to grant
forgiveness or waiver by the Government of its
executive clemency in administrative cases
right to collect what otherwise would be due it.
refers only toadministrative cases in the
[Republic v. IAC (1991)]
Executive branch. [Llamas v. Executive
Secretary (1991)]
Removal of Administrative Penalties or B.6. DIPLOMATIC POWER
Disabilities
Scope of Diplomatic Power
In meritorious cases and upon recommendation The President, being the head of state, is
of the (Civil Service) Commission, the regarded as the sole organ and authority in
President may commute or remove external relations and is the country’s sole
administrative penalties or disabilities imposed representative with foreign nations. As the chief
upon officers or employees in disciplinary cases, architect of foreign policy, the President acts as
subject to such terms and conditions as he may the country’s mouthpiece with respect to
impose in the interest of the service. [Sec. 53, international affairs.
Chapter 7, Subtitle A, Title I, Book V,
Administrative Code of 1987] The President is vested with the authority to:
(1) Deal with foreign states and governments;

Who may avail of amnesty? (2) Extend or withhold recognition;

Generally: Individuals who form part of the (3) Maintain diplomatic relations;
class of persons covered by an amnesty (4) Enter into treaties; and
proclamation whose acts constitute the political
offenses covered by the same. (5) Transact the business of foreign relations.
[Pimentel v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No.
(Asked 5 times in the Bar; answers from case 158088, July 6, 2005]
law)
Amnesty Proclamation No. 76 applies even to
Hukbalahaps already undergoing sentence upon Treaty-making power
the date of its promulgation. The majority of the No treaty or international agreement shall be
Court believes that by its context and pervading valid and effective unless concurred in by at
spirit the proclamation extends to all members least two-thirds of all the members of the Senate.
of the Hukbalahap. [Tolentino v. Catoy (1948)] [Art. VII, Sec. 21]

The SC agreed with the Sandiganbayan that in Treaty -As defined by the Vienna Convention
fact the petitioners were expressly disqualified on the Law of Treaties, “an international
from amnesty. The acts for which they were instrument concluded between States in written
convicted were ordinary crimes without any form and governed by international law,
political complexion and consisting only of whether embodied in a single instrument or in
diversion of public funds to private profit. The two or more related instruments, and whatever
amnesty proclamation covered only acts in the its particular designation.” [Bayan v. Executive
furtherance of resistance to duly constituted Secretary, G.R. No. 138570, Oct. 10, 2000]
authorities of the Republic and applies only to Other terms for a treaty: act, protocol,
members of the MNLF, or other anti- agreement, compromis d’ arbitrage, concordat,
PAGE 54 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 POLITICAL LAW

convention, declaration, exchange of notes, pact, is simply an implementing agreement to the


statute, charter and modus vivendi. main RP-US Military Defense Treaty. The VFA
is therefore valid for it is a presence “allowed
Note: It is the President who RATIFIES a treaty
under” the RP-US Mutual Defense Treaty.
(not the Senate), the Senate merely CONCURS.
Since the RP-US Mutual Defense Treaty itself
[Bayan v. Executive Secretary, supra]Thus, the
has been ratified and concurred in by both the
President cannot be compelled to submit a treaty
Philippine Senate and the US Senate, there is no
to the Senate for concurrence; she has the sole
violation of the Constitutional provision
power to submit it to the Senate and/or to ratify
resulting from such presence. [Nicolas v.
it. [Bayan Muna v. Romulo (2011)]
Romulo (2009)]

Military Bases Treaty


Executive Agreements
Art. XVIII, Sec. 25. After the expiration in 1991 of (1) Entered into by the President
the Agreement between the Philippines and the
United States of America concerning Military (2) May be entered into without the concurrence
Bases, foreign military bases, troops, or facilities of the Senate.
shall not be allowed in the Philippines except (3) Distinguished from treaties- International
under a treaty duly concurred in by the Senate and, agreements involving political issues or
when the Congress so requires, ratified by a changes in national policy and those
majority of the votes cast by the people in a involving international agreements of
national referendum held for that purpose, and
permanent character usually take the form of
recognized as a treaty by the other contracting
TREATIES. But the international
State.
agreements involving adjustments in detail
The President, however, may enter into an carrying out well-established national
executive agreement on foreign military bases, policies and traditions and those involving a
troops, or facilities, if: more or less temporary character usually
take the form of EXECUTIVE
(a) it is not the instrument that allows the
AGREEMENTS. [Commissioner of
presence of foreign military bases,
Customs vs. Eastern Sea Trading (1961)]
troops, or facilities; or
However, From the point of view of
(b) it merely aims to implement an existing
international law, there is no difference
law or treaty
between treaties and executive
Sec. 25 refers solely to the initial entry of the agreements in their binding effect upon
foreign military bases, troops, or facilities. states concerned as long as the nego-
tiating functionaries have remained
To determine whether a military base or facility
within their powers. The distinction
in the Philippines, which houses or is accessed
between an executive agreement and a
by foreign military troops, is foreign or remains
treaty is purely a constitutional one and
a Philippine military base or facility, the legal
has no international legal significance.
standards are:
[USAFFE Veterans Assn. v. Treasurer
(a) independence from foreign control; (1959)]
(b) sovereignty and applicable law; and NOTE: An executive agreement that does not
(c) national security and territorial integrity. require the concurrence of the Senate for its
ratification may not be used to amend a treaty
[Saguisag v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. that, under the Constitution, is the product of the
212426 (2016)] (N.B. Outside of the bar ratifying acts of the Executive and the Senate.
coverage) [Bayan Muna v. Romulo (2011)]
Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA)
The VFA, which is the instrument agreed upon Two Classes of Executive Agreements
to provide for the joint RP-US military exercises,

PAGE 55 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 POLITICAL LAW

(1) Agreements made purely as executive acts in Sec. 37 of the Immigration Law. The
affecting external relations and independent Board has jurisdiction to investigate the
of or without legislative authorization, which alien even if he had not been convicted yet.
may be termed as presidential agreements;
(2) The President’s power to deport aliens and
and
to investigate them subject to deportation
(2) Agreements entered into in pursuance of acts are provided in [now, Chapter 3, Book III,
of Congress, or Congressional-Executive of the Admin. Code of 1987].
Agreements.
(3) The State has inherent power to deport
undesirable aliens. This power is exercised
by the President.
Although the President may, under the
American constitutional system enter into (4) There is no legal or constitutional provision
executive agreements without previous defining the power to deport aliens because
legislative authority, he may not, by executive the intention of the law is to grant the Chief
agreement, enter into a transaction which is Executive the full discretion to determine
prohibited by statutes enacted prior thereto. He whether an alien’s residence in the country
may not defeat legislative enactments that have is so undesirable as to affect the security,
acquired the status of law by indirectly welfare or interest of the state.
repealing the same through an executive
(5) The Chief Executive is the sole and
agreement providing for the performance of the
exclusive judge of the existence of facts
very act prohibited by said laws. [Gonzales v.
which would warrant the deportation of
Hechanova (1963)]
aliens. [Go Tek v. Deportation Board
Once the Senate performs the power to concur (1977)]
with treaties or exercise its prerogative within
the boundaries prescribed by the Constitution,
the concurrence cannot be viewed as an abuse B.7. POWERS RELATIVE TO
of power, much less a grave abuse of discretion. APPROPRIATION MEASURES
[Bayan v. Executive Secretary, supra, on the Contracting and guaranteeing foreign loans
constitutionality of the Visiting Forces
Agreement] Requisites for contracting and guaranteeing
foreign loans:
(1) With the concurrence of the monetary board
Deportation of Undesirable Aliens [Art. VII, Sec. 20]
The President may deport only according to (2) Subject to limitations as may be provided by
grounds enumerated by law, otherwise it would law [Art. XII, Sec. 2]
be unreasonable and undemocratic. [Qua Chee
Gan v. Deportation Board (1963)] (3) Information on foreign loans obtained or
guaranteed shall be made available to the
public [Art. XII, Sec. 2]
2 Ways of Deporting an Undesirable Alien
(1) By order of the President after due Cf. Republic Act 4860
investigation, pursuant to [now Ch. 3, Bk.
III of the Admin. Code of 1987]; An Act Authorizing The President Of The
Philippines To Obtain Such Foreign Loans And
(2) By the Commissioner of Immigration under Credits, Or To Incur Such Foreign Indebtedness,
Section 37 of the Immigration Law [Qua As May Be Necessary To Finance Approved
Chee Gan v. Deportation Board, supra] Economic Development Purposes Or Projects,
And To Guarantee, In Behalf Of The Republic
Of The Philippines, Foreign Loans Obtained Or
Scope of the power
Bonds Issued By Corporations Owned Or
(1) The Deportation Board can entertain Controlled By The Government Of The
deportation based on grounds not specified Philippines For Economic Development
PAGE 56 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 POLITICAL LAW

Purposes Including Those Incurred For COA (2015); Section 34, Chapter 5, Book VI of
Purposes Of Re-Lending To The Private Sector, the Administrative Code]
Appropriating The Necessary Funds Therefor,
Fixing of tariff rates[Art. VI, Sec. 28]
And For Other Purposes (Approved, September
8, 1966.) The Congress may, by law, authorize the
President to fix (1) within specified limits, and
(2) subject to such limitations and restrictions as
Role of Congress in such foreign loans it may impose:
The President does not need prior approval by (a) Tariff rates;
the Congress
(b) Import and export quotas;
(1) Because the Constitution places the power to
(c) Tonnage and wharfage dues;
check the President’s power on the Monetary
Board; (d) Other duties or imposts within the
framework of the national development
(2) BUT Congress may provide guidelines and
program of the Government.
have them enforced through the Monetary
Board Rationale for delegation: Highly technical
nature of international commerce, and the need
The Philippine Debt Negotiating Team,
to constantly and with relative ease adapt the
composed of the Secretary of Finance,
rates to prevailing commercial standards.
Governor of Central Bank, and the National
Treasurer, may contract and guarantee foreign
loans under the Doctrine of Qualified Political B.8. DELEGATED POWERS
Agency. However, the President may repudiate
the very acts performed in this regard by the Principle: The President, under martial rule or
alter ego. [Constantino v. Cuisia (2005)] in a revolutionary government, may exercise
delegated legislative powers. [See Art. VI, Sec.
Preparing and Submitting the Budget 23[2]] Congress may delegate legislative
Art. VII, Sec. 22. The President shall submit to powers to the president in times of war or in
Congress within thirty days from the opening of other national emergency. [BERNAS]
every regular session, as the basis of the general
Emergency powers [Art. VI, Sec. 23.]
appropriations bill, a budget of expenditures and
sources of financing, including receipts from (1) In times of war or other national
existing and proposed revenue measures. emergency, the Congress, may, by law,
authorize the President, for a limited period,
The budget is the plan indicating: and subject to such restrictions as it may
(1) Expenditures of the government, prescribe, to exercise powers necessary and
proper to carry out a declared national
(2) Sources of financing, and
policy
(3) Receipts from revenue-raising measures.
(2) Unless sooner withdrawn by resolution of
The budget is the upper limit of the the Congress, such powers shall cease upon
appropriations bill to be passed by Congress. the next adjournment thereof
Through the budget, therefore, the President
Different from the Commander-in-Chief clause:
reveals the priorities of the government.
(1) When the President acts under the
Program of Expenditure
Commander-in-Chief clause, he acts under a
Even upon the enactment of the General constitutional grant of military power,
Appropriations Act, the release of funds from which may include the law-making power.
the Treasury is still subject to a Program of
(2) When the President acts under the
Expenditure, proposed by the Secretary of
emergency power, he acts under a
Budject, to be approved by the President, and
Congressional delegation of law-making
such approved program of expenditure is to be
power.
the basis for the release of funds. [TESDA vs.
PAGE 57 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 POLITICAL LAW

Meaning of “power necessary and proper” - (2) Cases tell us that the emergency powers
Power to issue rules and regulations shall cease upon resumption of session.
This power is: (3) Reconciling the two: it would not be
enough for Congress to just resume session
(1) For a limited period; and
in order that the emergency powers shall
(2) Subject to such restrictions as Congress may cease. It has to pass a resolution
provide. withdrawing such emergency powers,
When Emergency Powers Cease otherwise such powers shall cease upon the
next adjournment of Congress.
(1) According to the text of the Constitution -
The power ceases: B.9. VETO POWER

(a) Upon being withdrawn by resolution of “Every bill passed by the Congress shall, before it
the Congress; or becomes a law, be presented to the President. If he
approves the same, he shall sign it; otherwise, he
(b) If Congress fails to adopt such
shall veto it and return the same with his objections
resolution, upon the next (voluntary)
adjournment of Congress. to the House where it originated…The President shall
communicate his veto of any bill to the House where
(2) According to Cases
it originated within thirty days after the date of receipt
(a) The fact that Congress is able to meet in thereof; otherwise, it shall become a law as if he had
session uninterruptedly and adjourn of signed it.” [Art. VI, Sec. 27(1)]
its own will prove that the emergency
no longer exists to justify the delegation. “The President shall have the power to veto any
[See Araneta v. Dinglasan (1949)], on particular item or items in an appropriation, revenue,
Congress’ grant of emergency powers or tariff bill, but the veto shall not affect the item or
under C.A. 671; Court held that C.A. items to which he does not object.” [Art. VI, Sec.
671, being temporary, need not be 27(2)]
expressly repealed by a law)
(b) This rule or the termination of the grant General rule: All bills must be approved by the
of emergency powers is based on President before they become law.
decided cases, which in turn became Art.
VII, Sec. 15 of the 1973 Constitution. Exceptions:
(c) The specific power to continue in force (1) The veto of the President is overridden by
laws and appropriations which would 2/3 vote of all the Members of the House
lapse or otherwise become inoperative where it originated;
is a limitation on the general power to (2) The bill lapsed into law because of the
exercise such other powers as the President’s failure to act on the bill within
executive may deem necessary to thirty (30) days; and
enable the government to fulfill its
responsibilities and to maintain and (3) The bill passed is the special law to elect
enforce its authority. [Rodriguez v the President and Vice-President.
Gella (1953)] Limitations to the Veto Power:
The President may only veto bills as a whole.
Inconsistency between the Constitution and the (See Legislative Power of Congress)
cases: [Barlongay] Exception: In appropriation, revenue, or tariff
(1) The Constitution states that the emergency bills, the President may veto particular items.
powers shall cease upon the next It is true that the Constitution provides a
adjournment of Congress unless sooner mechanism for overriding a veto [Art. VI, Sec.
withdrawn by resolution of Congress 27(1)]. Said remedy, however, is available only
when the presidential veto is based on policy or
PAGE 58 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 POLITICAL LAW

political considerations but not when the veto is (2) Informer’s privilege - the privilege of the
claimed to be ultra vires. In the latter case, it Government not to disclose the identity of
becomes the duty of the Court to draw the persons who furnish information of
dividing line where the exercise of executive violations of law to officers charged with
power ends and the bounds of legislative the enforcement of that law.
jurisdiction begin. [PHILCONSA v. Enriquez
(3) Generic privilege for internal deliberations
(1994)]
- has been said to attach to
B.10. RESIDUAL POWERS intragovernmental documents reflecting
advisory opinions, recommendations and
General doctrine:The President has unstated
deliberations comprising part of a process
residual powers, which are implied from the
by which governmental decisions and
grant of executive power necessary for her to
policies are formulated. [Senate v. Ermita,
comply with her Constitutional duties, such as
G.R. No. 163783, Jun. 22, 2004]
to safeguard and protect the general welfare. It
includes powers unrelated to the execution of
any provision of law. [See Marcos v. Manglapus
Scope: This jurisdiction recognizes the common
(1988)]
law holding that there is a "governmental
In Marcos v. Manglapus, supra, the Court held privilege against public disclosure with respect
that then-President Corazon Aquino had the to state secrets regarding military, diplomatic
power to prevent the Marcoses from returning and other national security matters." Closed-
to the Philippines on account of the volatile door Cabinet meetings are also a recognized
national security situation. This was limited limitation on the right to information.
only by two standards: (1) there must be a
Note: Executive privilege is properly invoked in
factual basis for the impairment of the Marcoses’
relation to specific categories of information
right to return (as distinguished from their right
and not to categories of persons—it attaches to
to travel, which is a constitutional right); and (2)
the information and not the person. Only the [1]
the impairment must not be arbitrary.
President (and the [2] Executive Secretary, by
N.B. The decision was pro hac vice. order of the President) can invoke the privilege.
(Senate v. Ermita, supra).
Synthesis of Jurisprudential Doctrines
B.11. EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE
The following are the requisites for invoking
2 Kinds of Executive Privilege in Neri v. Senate
presidential privilege:
(2008)
(1) Formal claim of privilege:For the privilege
(1) Presidential Communications Privilege
to apply there must be a formal claim of the
(President): communications are
privilege. Only the President or the
presumptively privileged; president must be
Executive Secretary (by authority of the
given freedom to explore alternatives in
President) can invoke the privilege; and
policy-making.
(2) Specificity requirement:A formal and
(2) Deliberative Process Privilege (Executive
proper claim of executive privilege requires
Officials): refer to materials that comprise
a specific designation and description of the
part of a process by which governmental
documents within its scope as well as
decisions and policies are formulated. This
precise and certain reasons for preserving
includes diplomatic processes. [See
confidentiality. Without this specificity, it is
Akbayan v. Aquino (2008)]
impossible for a court to analyze the claim
Varieties of Executive Privilege (US): short of disclosure of the very thing sought
(1) State secrets privilege - invoked by U.S. to be protected. [Senate v. Ermita, supra]
Presidents, beginning with Washington, on Once properly invoked, a presumption arises
the ground that the information is of such that it is privileged. If what is involved is the
nature that its disclosure would subvert presumptive privilege of presidential
crucial military or diplomatic objectives. communications when invoked by the President
PAGE 59 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 POLITICAL LAW

on a matter clearly within the domain of the such that the information sought “likely
Executive, the said presumption dictates that the contains important evidence,” and by the
same be recognized and be given preference or unavailability of the information elsewhere
priority, in the absence of proof of a compelling by an appropriate investigating authority.
or critical need for disclosure by the one [Neri v. Senate, supra. See Akbayan v.
assailing such presumption. [Neri v. Senate, G.R. Aquino (2008) for application of this
No. 180843, Mar. 25, 2008] principle.]
Diplomatic Negotiations Privilege
Requisites for validity of claim of privilege: While the final text of the Japan-Philippines
Economic Partnership Agreement (JPEPA) may
(1) Quintessential and non-delegable
not be kept perpetually confidential, the offers
presidential power:Power subject of the
exchanged by the parties during the negotiations
legislative inquiry must be expressly
continue to be privileged even after the JPEPA
granted by the Constitution to the President,
is published. The Japanese representatives
e.g commander-in-chief, appointing,
submitted their offers with the understanding
pardoning, and diplomatic powers;
that “historic confidentiality” would govern the
(2) Operational Proximity Test: It must be same. Disclosing these offers could impair the
authored, solicited, and received by a close ability of the Philippines to deal not only with
advisor of the President or the President Japan but with other foreign governments in
himself. The judicial test is that an advisor future negotiations. The objective of the
must be in “operational proximity” with the privilege is to enhance the quality of agency
President (i.e. officials who stand proximate decisions. In assessing claim of privilege for
to the President, not only by reason of their diplomatic negotiations, the test is whether the
function, but also by reason of their privilege being claimed is indeed supported by
positions in the Executive’s organizational public policy. This privilege may be overcome
structure); upon “sufficient showing of need”. [Akbayan v.
(3) No adequate need:The privilege may be Aquino (2008)]
overcome by a showing of adequate need,

PAGE 60 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 POLITICAL LAW

C. RULES ON SUCCESSION
C.1. PRESIDENT
Death or permanent disability of Vice-President-elect shall
the President-elect become President
President-elect fails to qualify Vice-President-elect shall act as
President until the President-elect
shall have qualified
President shall not have been Vice-President-elect shall act as
Vacancy chosen President until a President shall
at the have been chosen and qualified.
Beginning
of the No President and Vice-President Senate President or, in case of In the event of inability of
term chosen nor shall have qualified, his inability, Speaker of the the SP and Speaker,
or both shall have died or become House of Representatives, shall Congress shall, by law,
permanently disabled act as President until a President provide for the manner in
or a Vice-President shall have which one who is to act as
been chosen and qualified. President shall be selected
until a President or Vice-
President shall have
qualified.
Death, permanent disability, Vice-President shall become
removal from office, or President
resignation of the President
Death, permanent disability, Senate President or, in case of Congress shall, by law,
removal from office, or his inability, the Speaker of the provide who shall serve as
Vacancy resignation of President AND House of Representatives, shall Presidentin case of death,
during Vice-President act as President until a President permanent disability, or
the term or Vice-President shall be elected resignation of the Acting
and qualified. President. He shall serve
until the President or the
Vice-President shall have
been elected and qualified.
When President transmits to the Such powers and duties shall be
Senate President and the Speaker discharged by the Vice-President
of the House his written as Acting President, until the
Temporary declaration that he is unable to President transmits to them a
disability discharge the powers and duties written declaration to the
of his office contrary
When a Majority of all the The Vice-President shall
members of the Cabinet transmit immediately assume the powers
to the Senate President and the and duties of the office as Acting
Speaker their written declaration President until the President
that the President is unable to transmits to the Senate President
discharge the powers and duties and Speaker his written
of his office declaration that no inability
exists.
If after the President transmits his Congress determines by a 2/3 Congress shall convene, if
declaration of his ability to vote of both houses, voting not in session, within 48
discharge his office, and a separately, that the President is hours. And if within 10 days
majority of members of the unable to discharge the powers from receipt of the last
Cabinet transmit within 5 days to and duties of his office, the Vice- written declaration or, if not
the Senate President and Speaker President shall act as President; in session, within 12 days
their written declaration that the otherwise, the President shall after it is required to
President is unable to discharge assemble.

PAGE 61 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 POLITICAL LAW

the powers and duties of his continue exercising the powers


office, Congress shall decide the and duties of his office
issue.

C.2. CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY OF CONGRESS IN CASE OF VACANCY IN THE OFFICES OF THE


PRESIDENT AND VICE-PRESIDENT

[Art. VII, Sec. 10] – The Congress shall, at 10AM of the 3rd day after the vacancy in the offices of the President and
Vice-President occurs:
the offices of the President and Vice-President occurs:
(1) Convene in accordance with its rules without need of a call; and
(2) Within seven days, enact a law calling for a special election to elect a President and a Vice-President to be held not
earlier than forty-five days nor later than sixty days from the time of such call.
The bill calling such special election shall be deemed certified under paragraph 2, Section 26, Article VI of this
Constitution and shall become law upon its approval on third reading by the Congress. Appropriations for the special
election shall be charged against any current appropriations and shall be exempt from the requirements of paragraph 4,
Section 25, Article V1 of this Constitution. The convening of the Congress cannot be suspended nor the special election
postponed. No special election shall be called if the vacancy occurs within eighteen months before the date of the next
presidential election.

C.3. VACANCY IN THE OFFICE OF THE VICE-PRESIDENT

[Art. VII, Sec. 9.] The President shall nominate a Vice-President from among the members of the Senate and the House
of Representatives who shall assume office upon confirmation by a majority vote of all the members of both houses of
Congress voting separately.

PAGE 62 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 POLITICAL LAW

Judicial Power Judicial Review


V. Judicial Department jurisdiction on the
part of any branch or
A. CONCEPTS instrumentality of
the Government
[Art. VIII,Sec. 1,
A.1. JUDICIAL POWER par. 2]
Requisites for exercise
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of
justice to: Jurisdiction – Power (1) Actual case or
to decide and hear a controversy
(1) Settle actual controversies involving rights case and execute a (2) Locus Standi
which are legally demandable and decision thereof (3) Question raised at the
enforceable; and earliest opportunity
(4) Lis mota of the case
(2) To determine whether or not there has been Judicial Supremacy
a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
When the judiciary mediates to allocate constitutional
or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any
branch or instrumentality of the Government. boundaries, it does not assert any superiority over the
other departments; it does not in reality nullify or
The second clause effectively limits the doctrine
invalidate an act of the legislature, but only asserts
of “political question.” [See Francisco v. House
of Rep. G.R. No. 16021 (2003)] the solemn and sacred obligation assigned to it by
the Constitution to determine conflicting claims of
Vested in: (a) Supreme Court and (b) such lower
authority under the Constitution and to establish for
courts as may be established by law.
the parties in an actual controversy the rights which
that instrument secures and guarantees to them. This
A.2. JUDICIAL REVIEW
is in truth all that is involved in what is termed "judicial
If a law be in opposition to the constitution: if both the supremacy" which properly is the power of judicial
law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so review under the Constitution. [Angara v. Electoral
that the court must either decide that case Commission, G.R. No. L-45081 (1936)]
conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution;
or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the Functions of Judicial Review
law: the court must determine which of these Checking
conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very Legitimating
essence of judicial duty. [Marbury v Madison, 5 U.S. Symbolic
137 (1803)]
Essential Requisites for Judicial Review
Judicial Power Judicial Review Actual case or controversy
Where vested This means that there must be a genuine conflict of
Supreme Court Supreme Court legal rights and interests which can be resolved
Lower courts Lower courts through judicial determination. [John Hay v. Lim
Definition (2003)]
Duty to settle actual Power of the courts to This precludes the courts from entertaining the
controversies test the validity of following:
involving rights executive and legislative
which are legally acts in light of their Request for an advisory opinion [Guingona v. CA
demandable and conformity with the (1998)]
enforceable, and to Constitution [Angara v. Cases that are or have become moot and academic,
determine whether Electoral
i.e. cease to present a justiciable controversy due to
or not there has been CommissionG.R. No. L-
a grave abuse of 45081 (1936)] supervening events [David v. Macapagal-Arroyo
discretion amounting (2006)].
to lack or excess of
PAGE 63 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 POLITICAL LAW

Locus standi the Protected Seascape Tanon Strait v. Reyes, G.R.


Legal standing or locus standi refers to a party’s No. 180771 (2015)]
personal and substantial interest in a case, arising
from the direct injury it has sustained or will sustain Special Rules on Standing (Requisites)
as a result of the challenged governmental action.
(1) Appropriation;
Legal standing calls for more than just a generalized Taxpayer
grievance. The term “interest” means a material (2) Disbursement
interest, an interest in issue affected by the (1) Direct injury,
governmental action, as distinguished from mere (2) Public right; OR Art. VII,
interest in the question involved, or a mere incidental Sec. 18 (on the sufficiency of
interest. Unless a person’s constitutional rights are Citizen the factual basis for martial
adversely affected by a statute or governmental law or suspension of the
privilege of the writ of
action, he has no legal standing to challenge the
Habeas Corpus)
statute or governmental action. [CREBA v. Energy
Regulatory Commission, G.R. No. 174696 (2010)] Voter Right of suffrage is involved
A proper party is one who has sustained or is in (1) Authorized;
imminent danger of sustaining a direct injury as a (2) Affects legislative
Legislator
result of the act complained of[IBP v. Zamora, GR prerogatives (i.e. a derivative
No. 141284 (2000)]. The alleged injury must also be suit)
capable of being redressed by a favorable judgment (1) Litigants must have
[Tolentino v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 148334 (2004)]. injury-in-fact;
Requires partial consideration of the merits of the (2) Litigants must have close
case in view of its constitutional and public policy relation to the third-party;
underpinnings [Kilosbayan vs Morato, GR No. Third-Party and
118910(1995)] Standing (3) There is an existing
hindrance to the third party’s
May be brushed aside by the court as a mere
ability to protect its own
procedural technicality in view of transcendental interest. [White Light v. City
importance of the issues involved [Kilosbayan v. of Manila , G.R. No.
Guingona G.R. No. 113375 (1994)]; Tatad v. DOE, 122846(2009)]
G.R. No. 114222, (1995)]. (1) Any Filipino citizen;
Who are proper parties?
(2) In representation of
Taxpayers, when public funds are involved. Enforcement others, including minors or
[Tolentino v. Comelec, G.R. No. 148334(2004)] of generations yet unborn
Government of the Philippines, when questioning the Environmental [Resident Marine Mammals
Laws of the Protected Seascape
validity of its own laws. [People v. Vera, G.R. No. L-
Tanon Strait v. Reyes,G.R.
45685 (1937)]
No. 180771 (2015)]
Legislators, when the powers of Congress are being
impaired. [PHILCONSA v. Enriquez, GR No. 113105
(1994)] Constitutional question must be raised at the
Citizens, when the enforcement of a public right is earliest possible opportunity
involved. [Tañada vs Tuvera, GR No. L-63915 Exceptions:
(1985)] In criminal cases, at the discretion of the court;
Any Filipino citizen in representation of others, In civil cases, if necessary for the determination
including minors or generations yet unborn, may file of the case itself; and
an action to enforce rights or obligations under When the jurisdiction of the court is involved
environmental laws [Resident Marine Mammals of N.B. The reckoning point is the first competent
court. The question must be raised at the first court
PAGE 64 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 POLITICAL LAW

with judicial review powers. Hence, the failure to ceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue
raise the constitutional question before the NLRC is of supervening events, so that a declaration thereon
not fatal to the case. (See Serrano v. Gallant Maritime would be of no practical use or value. [Quizon v
Services, G.R. No. 167614, Mar. 24, 2009) COMELEC, G.R. No. 177927(2008)]

Lis Mota Ripeness of the controversy: The issue must be


The decision on the constitutional question must be raised not too early that it is conjectural or
determinative of the case itself. anticipatory, nor too late that it becomes moot.
The reason for this is the doctrine of separation of General Rule: Courts will not decide questions
powers which requires that due respect be given to that have become moot and academic.
the co-equal branches, and because of the grave Exception: Courts will still decide if:
consequences of a declaration of unconstitutionality. There is a grave violation of the Constitution;
[De la Llana v. Alba, G.R. No. 57883 (1982)] The situation is of exceptional character and
The constitutionality of an act of the legislature will paramount public interest is involved;
not be determined by the courts unless that question [Symbolic Function] The constitutional issue
is properly raised and presented inappropriate cases raised requires formulation of controlling
and is necessary to a determination of the case; i.e., principles to guide the bench, the bar and the
the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis public; and
mota presented. The case is capable of repetition yet evading
review. [David vs. Macapagal-Arroyo, 2006]
Operative fact doctrine
General Rule: The interpretation (or declaration) of Political question doctrine
unconstitutionality is retroactive in that it applies from The term “political question” refers to: (1)
the law’s effectivity matters to be exercised by the people in their
Exception: Operative fact doctrine primary political capacity; or (2) those
Subsequent declaration of unconstitutionality does specifically delegated to some other department
not nullify all acts exercised in line with [the law]. The or particular office of the government, with
past cannot always be erased by a new judicial discretionary power to act. It is concerned with
declaration. [Municipality of Malabang v. Benito, G.R. issues dependent upon the wisdom, not legality,
No. L-28113, (1969), citing Chicot County] of a particular measure. [Tañada v. Cuenco, G.R.
Effect of a Declaration of Unconstitutionality No. 10520 (1957)]
Orthodox view - An unconstitu-tional act is not a law; In recent years, the Court has set aside this
it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no doctrine and assumed jurisdiction whenever it
protection; it creates no office; it is inoperative, as if it found constitutionally-imposed limits on the
had not been passed at all. exercise of powers conferred upon the
Modern view - Certain legal effects of the statute prior Legislative and Executive branches [BERNAS].
to its declaration of unconstitutionality may be
recognized. Political Justiciable
Moot questions Question Controversy
A case becomes moot and academic when there is Alejandrino v. Avelino v. Cuenco,
no more actual controversy between the parties or no Quezon (1924): (1949): election of Senate
useful purpose can be served in passing upon the The legislature’s President was done
exercise of without the required
merits [Quino vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 197466
disciplinary power quorum
(2012)] over its member is
When a case is moot, it becomes non-justiciable. not to be interfered
[Pormento v Estrada, G.R. No. 191988 (2010)] It with by the Court.

PAGE 65 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 POLITICAL LAW

Political Justiciable manner of its meetings be changed by mere


Question Controversy legislation. [Art. VIII, Sec. 4]
Vera v. Avelino, Tañada v. Cuenco, (2) The members of the judiciary are not
(1946): inherent (1957): The selection of subject to confirmation by the CA.
right of the the members of the
legislature to Senate Electoral Tribunal (3) The members of the SC may not be
determine who is subject to removed except by impeachment. [Art. IX,
shall be admitted constitutional limitations. Sec. 2]
to its membership
(4) The SC may not be deprived of its
Severino v. Cunanan v. Tan, Jr., minimum original and appellate
Governor-General (1962): The Commission jurisdiction as prescribed in Art. X, Sec. 5
(1910): Mandamus on Appointments is a
and injunction constitutional creation
of the Constitution. [Art. VIII, Sec. 2]
could not lie to and does not derive its (5) The appellate jurisdiction of the SC may
enforce or restrain power from Congress. not be increased by law without its advice
a duty which is and concurrence. [Art. VI, Sec. 30; Fabian
discretionary
v. Desierto , G.R. No. 129742(1988)]
(calling a special
local election). (6) The SC has administrative supervision
Manalang v. Lansang v. Garcia over all lower courts and their personnel.
Quitoriano, (1971): Suspension of the (art. VIII, sec. 6.)
(1954): President’s privilege of the writ of The rule prohibiting the institution of
appointing power habeas corpus is not a disbarment proceedings against an
is not to be political question.
interfered with by
impeachable officer who is required by the
the Court. Constitution to be a member of the bar as a
qualification in office applies only during
Javellana v. Executive his or her tenure and does not create
Secretary (1973): WON immunity from liability for possibly
the 1973 Constitution
criminal acts or for alleged violations of the
had been ratified in
accordance with the
Code of Judicial Conduct or other
1935 Constitution is supposed violations. Once the said
justiciable. impeachable officer is no longer in office
because of his removal, resignation,
HOWEVER, the people retirement or permanent disability, the
may be deemed to have
cast their favorable votes
Court may proceed against him or her and
in the belief that in doing impose the corresponding sanctions for
so they did the part misconduct committed during his tenure,
required of them by pursuant to the Court’s power of
Article XV, hence, it administrative supervision over members
may be said that in its of the bar.[In Re Biraogo (2009)]
political aspect, which is
what counts most, after (7) The SC has exclusive power to discipline
all, said Article has been judges of lower courts. [Art. VIII, Sec. 11]
substantially complied The Ombudsman is duty bound to refer to
with, and, in effect, the
the SC all cases against judges and court
1973 Constitution has
been constitutionally personnel, so SC can determine first
ratified. whether an administrative aspect is
involved.
B. SAFEGUARDS OF JUDICIAL
The Ombudsman cannot bind the Court
INDEPENDENCE
that a case before it does or does not have
administrative implications. [Caoibes v.
(1) The SC is a constitutional body. It cannot Ombudsman, G.R. No. 132177, Jul. 19,
be abolished nor may its membership or the 2001]
PAGE 66 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 POLITICAL LAW

(8) The members of the SC and all lower and 1973 Constitutions, which empowered
courts have security of tenure, w/c cannot Congress to repeal, alter or supplement the
be undermined by a law reorganizing the rules of the Supreme Court concerning
judiciary. [Id.] pleading, practice and procedure, the 1987
Constitution removed this power from
(9) They shall not be designated to any agency
Congress. Hence, the Supreme Court now
performing quasi-judicial or administrative
has the sole authority to promulgate rules
functions. [Art. VIII, Sec. 12]
concerning pleading, practice and
Administrative functions are those that procedure in all courts. [GSIS v. Caballero
involve regulation of conduct of (2010)]
individuals or promulgation of rules to
(12) The SC alone may initiate rules of court.
carry out legislative policy. Judges should
[Art. VIII, Sec. 5(5)]
render assistance to a provincial committee
of justice (which is under DOJ supervision) (13) Only the SC may order the temporary
only when it is reasonably incidental to detail of judges. [Art. VIII, Sec. 5(3)]
their duties. [In Re Manzano, A.M. No. 8-
(14) The SC can appoint all officials and
7-1861-RTC, Oct. 5, 1988]
employees of the judiciary.[Art. VIII, Sec.
(10) The salaries of judges may not be 5(6)]
reduced during their continuance in office.
[Art. VIII, Sec. 10]
C. JUDICIAL RESTRAINT
(11) The judiciary shall enjoy fiscal
autonomy. [Art. VIII, Sec. 3] The judiciary will not interfere with its co-equal
Fiscal autonomy means freedom from branches when:
outside control. As the Court explained in There is no showing of grave abuse of discretion
Bengzon v. Drilon: As envisioned in the PPA v. Court of Appeals: If there is no showing of
Constitution, the fiscal autonomy enjoyed grave abuse of discretion on the part of a branch or
by the Judiciary, the Civil Service instrumentality of the government, the court will
Commission and the Commission on Audit, decline exercising its power of judicial review.
the Commission on Elections, and the
Chavez v. COMELEC: Judicial review shall involve
Office of the Ombudsman contemplates a
guarantee of full flexibility to allocate and only those resulting in grave abuse of discretion by
utilize their resources with the wisdom and virtue of an agency’s quasi-judicial powers, and not
dispatch that their needs require. It those arising from its administrative functions.
recognizes the power and authority to levy, The issue is a political question.
assess and collect fees, fix rates of Even when all requisites for justiciability have been
compensation not exceeding the highest met, judicial review will not be exercised when the
rates authorized by law for compensation
issue involves a political question.
and pay plans of the government and
allocate and disburse such sums as may be But see Francisco v. House of Representatives
provided by law or prescribed by them in (2001). At the same time, the Court has the duty to
the course of the discharge of their determine whether or not there has been grave
functions. [In re: Clarifying and abuse of discretion by any instrumentality of
Strengthening the Organizational government under its expanded judicial review
Structure and Set-up of the Philippine powers. (This allowed the SC to interfere in a
Judicial Academy, A.M. No. 01-1-04-SC]
traditionally purely political process, i.e.
The provision in the Charter of the GSIS, impeachment, when questions on compliance with
i.e., Section 39 of Republic Act No. 8291, Constitutional processes were involved.)
which exempts it from “all taxes,
assessments, fees, charges or duties of all
kinds,” cannot operate to exempt it from Guidelines for determining whether a question
the payment of legal fees. Unlike the 1935 is political or not:[Baker v. Carr (369 US 186), as

PAGE 67 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 POLITICAL LAW

cited in Estrada v. Desierto, GR Nos. 146710-15 D. APPOINTMENTS TO THE


(2001)]: JUDICIARY
There is a textually demonstrable constitutional MTC/
commitment of the issue to a political department; Justices of SC RTC Judge MCTC
Lack of judicially discoverable and manageable and Collegiate (B.P. 129, Judge (B.P.
Courts 129, Sec.
standards for resolving it; Sec. 15)
26)
The impossibility of deciding without an initial policy
determination of a kind clearly for non-judicial Citizenship
discretion; Natural-born Filipino
Impossibility of a court’s undertaking independent Age
resolution without expressing lack of the respect due
At least 40 years At least 35 At least 30
coordinate branches of government; old years old years old
An unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a
Experience
political decision already made;
Potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious 15 years or more (a) Has been engaged for at
as a judge of a least 5 years in the practice
pronouncements by various departments on one
lower court or of law* in the PHL; OR (b)
question has been has held public office in the
engaged in the PHL requiring admission to
practice of law the practice of law as an
in the PHL for indispensable requisite
the same period

Tenure [Art. VIII, Sec. 11]


Hold office during good behavior until they
reach the age of 70 or
become incapacitated to discharge their duties
Character [Art. VIII, Sec. 7(3)]
Person of proven competence, integrity, probity
and independence
*“Practice of law” is not confined to litigation. It
means any activity in and out of court, which
requires the application of law, legal procedure,
knowledge, training and experience. [Cayetano v.
Monsod (1991)]

D.1. CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS


Supreme Court Justice
(1) Natural born citizens
(2) At least 40 years of age
(3) Engaged in the practice of law or a judge
of 15 years or more
(4) Must be of proven competence, integrity,
probity and independence.
Lower Collegiate Courts
PAGE 68 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 POLITICAL LAW

(1) Natural born citizen to Section 12 of Republic Act No. 296, or the
(2) Member of the Philippine Bar Judiciary Act of 1948. [Famela Dulay v.
Judicial and Bar Council, GR No. 202143
(3) Must be of proven competence, integrity,
(2012)]
probity and independence
(4) Such additional requirements provided by Appointment, Tenure, Salary of JBC Members
law.
Ex-officio members - None apply since the position in
Lower Courts the Council is good only while the person is the
(1) Filipino citizens (Rules of the Judicial and occupant of the office.
Bar Council, Nov. 2000, Rule 2. Note the Only ONE representative from Congress - Former
conflict between the Rules and B.P. 129; practices of giving ½ vote or (more recently) 1 full
the Rules cite the Constitutional vote each for the Chairmen of the House and Senate
requirement, but disregarded the first Committees on Justice is invalid. Any member of
clause of Art. VIII, Sec. 7(2), i.e. “The
Congress shall prescribe the qualifications Congress, whether from the upper or lower house, is
of judges of lower courts […]”) constitutionally empowered to represent the entire
Congress.
(2) Member of the Philippine Bar
The framers intended the JBC to be composed of 7
(3) Must be of proven competence, integrity, members only. Intent is for each co-equal branch of
probity and independence. gov’t to have one representative. There is no
(4) Such additional requirements provided by dichotomy between Senate and HOR when
law. Congress interacts with other branches. But the SC
Note: In the case of judges of the lower courts, is not in a position to say who should sit. The lone
the Congress may prescribe other qualifications. representative from Congress is entitled to one full
(art.VIII, sec. 7[3]. vote. [Chavez v. JBC, G.R. No. 202242, Jul. 17,
2012]
Regular members [Art. VIII, Sec. 8(2)] - The regular
D.2. JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL
members shall be appointed by the President with the
consent of the Commission on Appointments. The
Composition term of the regular members is 4 years.
Ex-officio members [Art. VIII, Sec. 8(1)] But the term of those initially appointed shall be
Chief Justice as ex-officio Chairman staggered in the following way so as to create
Secretary of Justice continuity in the council:
One representative of Congress IBP representative - 4 years
Regular members [Art. VIII, Sec. 8(1)] Law professor - 3 years
Representative of the Integrated Bar Retired justice - 2 years
Professor of Law Private sector - 1 year
Retired member of the SC
Representative of private sector Primary function: Recommend appointees to the
Secretary ex-officio [Art. VIII, Sec. 8(3)] – Clerk judiciary; may exercise such other functions and
of Court of the SC, who shall keep a record of duties as the SC may assign to it. [Art. VIII, Sec. 8(5)]
its proceedings; not a member of the JBC. Note: Judges may not be appointed in any acting or
In the absence of the Chief Justice because of temporary capacity as this would undermine the
his impeachment, the most Senior Justice of the independence of the judiciary.
Supreme Court,who is not an applicant for Chief
Justice, should participate in the deliberations
Supervisory authority of SC over JBC
for the selection of nominees for the said vacant
post and preside over the proceedings, pursuant
PAGE 69 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 POLITICAL LAW

Art. VIII, Sec. 8 provides: “A Judicial and Bar E. SUPREME COURT


Council is hereby created under the supervision
of the Supreme Court.” The supervisory
authority of the Court over the JBC covers the E.1. COMPOSITION
overseeing of compliance with its rules. (1) Chief Justice and 14 Associate Justices
[Jardeleza v. Judicial and Bar Council, G.R. No.
213181 (2014)] (2) May sit en banc or in divisions of three,
five, or seven Members
(3) Vacancy shall be filled within 90 days from
D.3. PROCEDURE OF APPOINTMENT the occurrence thereof
The JBC shall submit a list of three nominees
for every vacancy to the President. (Art. VIII,
sec. 9) E.2. EN BANC AND DIVISION CASES
En banc– Cases decided with the concurrence
of a majority of the Members who actually took
part in the deliberations and voted.
Any vacancy in the Supreme Court shall be
filed within ninety (90) days from the
occurrence thereof. [Art. VIII, Sec. 4(1)] INSTANCES WHEN THE SC SITS EN BANC:

For lower courts, the President shall issue the


(1) Those involving the Constitutionality,
application, or operation of:
appointment within ninety (90) days from
the submission by the JBC of such list. [Art. (a) Treaty
VIII, Sec. 9]
(b) Orders
(c) International or executive agreement
The prohibition against midnight appointments (d) Law
does not apply to the judiciary. See De Castro v.
JBC, (G.R. No. 191002, Mar. 17, 2010), (e) Presidential decrees
discussed above. (f) Instructions
(g) Proclamations
D.4. DISQUALIFICATION FROM OTHER (h) Ordinances
POSITIONS OR OFFICES
(i) Other regulations
Art. VIII, Sec. 12. The Members of the
Supreme Court and of other courts (2) Exercise of the power to Discipline judges
established by law shall not be designated to of lower courts, or order their dismissal
any agency performing quasi-judicial or [Art. VIII, Sec. 11]
administrative functions. (3) Discipline of judges can be done by a
The SC and its members should not and cannot division, BUT En Banc decides cases for
be required to exercise any power or to perform dismissal, disbarment, suspension for more
any trust or to assume any duty not pertaining to than 1 year, or fine of more than P10,000.
or connected w/ the administering of judicial [People v. Gacott, G.R. No. 116049, Jul. 13,
functions. [Meralco v. Pasay Transportation Co. 1995]
G.R. No. L-37838 (1932)] (4) Cases or matters heard by a Division where
the required number of votes to decide or
resolve (the majority of those who took
A judge in the CFI shall not be detailed with the part in the deliberations on the issues in the
Department of Justice to perform administrative case and voted thereon, and in no case less
functions as this contravenes the doctrine of than 3 members) is not met. [Art. VIII, Sec.
separation of powers. [Garcia v. Macaraig, A.M. 4(3)]
No. 198-J (1972)]
PAGE 70 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 POLITICAL LAW

(5) Modifying or reversing a doctrine or notwithstanding it works in divisions. Although


principle of law laid down by the court in a it may have two divisions, it is but a single
decision rendered en banc or in division court. Actions considered in any one of these
[Art. VIII, Sec. 4(3)] divisions and decisions rendered therein
are, in effect, by the same Tribunal. The two
(6) Actions instituted by citizen to test the
divisions of this court are not to be considered
validity of a proclamation of Martial law or
as two separate and distinct courts but as
suspension of the privilege of the writ [Art.
divisions of one and the same court. [US v
VIII, Sec. 18]
Limsiongco, G. R. No. 16217 (1920)]
(7) When sitting as Presidential Electoral
Tribunal [Art. VIII, Sec. 4, par. 7]
E.3. PROCEDURAL RULE-MAKING
(8) All Other cases which under the Rules of
Court are required to be heard by the SC en Art. VIII, Sec. 5. The Supreme Court shall have
banc. [Art. VIII, Sec. 4(2)] the following powers: […]
(5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection
Requirement and Procedures in Divisions and enforcement of constitutional rights,
pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts,
(1) Cases decided with the concurrence of
the admission to the practice of law, the
a majority of the Members who actually
integrated bar, and legal assistance to the under-
took part in the deliberations and voted
privileged.
(2) In no case without the concurrence of at
least three of such Members The 1987 Constitution took away the power of
Congress to repeal, alter, or supplement rules
(3) When required number is not obtained, concerning pleading, practice and procedure.
the case shall be decided en banc. The power to promulgate rules of pleading,
(a) Cases v. Matters. Only cases are practice and procedure is no longer shared by
referred to En Banc for decision this Court with Congress, more so with the
when required votes are not Executive. [Echegaray v. Secretary of Justice
obtained. G.R. No. 132601(1991)]

(b) Cases are of first instance; Because of Art. VIII, Sec. 5, Congress may no
mattersare those after the first longer grant legislative exemptions from
instance, e.g. MRs and post-decision payment of court fees. [Baguio Market Vendors
motions. Multi-Purpose Cooperative v. Cabato-Cortes,
G.R. No. 165922 (2010)]
(c) Failure to resolve a motion because
of a tie does not leave case Limitations:
undecided. MR is merely lost. [See (1) Shall provide a simplified and inexpensive
Fortrich v. Corona, G.R. No. procedure for speedy disposition of cases
131457; Aug. 19, 1999]
(2) Uniform for all courts in the same grade
The SC En Banc is not an appellate court vis-à-
vis its Divisions. The only constraint is that any (3) Shall not diminish, increase or modify
doctrine or principle of law laid down by the substantive rights
Court, either rendered en banc or in division,
may be overturned or reversed only by the Court
E.4. ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERVISION
sitting en banc.[PUP v Firestone Ceramics,
G.R. No. 143513(2001)] OVER LOWER COURTS
Administrative Powers of the Supreme Court

There is but one Supreme Court of the (1) Assign temporarily judges of lower
Philippine Islands. It is the jurisdiction of this courts to other stations as public interest
may require;
Supreme Court, which cannot be
diminished. The Supreme Court remains a unit
PAGE 71 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 POLITICAL LAW

Shall not exceed 6 months without the Even when there is delay and no decision or
consent of the judge concerned resolution is made within the prescribed period,
there is no automatic affirmance of the appealed
Order a change of venue or place of trial
decision. [Sesbreño v CA , G.R. No. 161390
to avoid a miscarriage of justice;
(2008)]
(2) Appoint all officials and employees of the
The Sandiganbayan, while of the same level as
Judiciary in accordance with the Civil
the Court of Appeals, functions as a trial court.
Service Law;
Therefore the period for deciding cases which
(3) Supervision over all courts and the applies to the Sandiganbayan is the three (3)
personnel thereof; month period, not the twelve (12) month period.
(4) Discipline judges of lower courts, or [In Re Problems of Delays in Cases before the
order their dismissal. Sandiganbayan, A. M. No. 00-8-05-SC (2001)]

Note: The qualifications of judges of lower courts as


stated by the Constitution are minimum requirements.
The JBC may determine or add more qualifications
when such policies are necessary and incidental to
the function conferred nu the Constitution to the JBC.
[Villanueva v JBC, G.R. No. 211833 (2015)]

Period for Deciding Cases [Art. VIII, Sec. 15(1)]


Supreme Lower Other Lower
Court Collegiate Courts
Courts
24 12 months, 3 months, unless
months unless reduced reduced by the
by the SC SC
Notes:
(1) Period counted from date of submission.
(2) Case deemed submitted upon filing of
the last pleading, brief or memorandum required
by the Rules or the court. [Sec. 15(2)]
Upon expiration of the period, the Chief Justice
or presiding judge shall issue a certification
stating why the decision or resolution has not
been rendered within the period. [Sec. 15(3)]
This provision is merely directory and failure to
decide on time would not deprive the
corresponding courts of jurisdiction or render
their decisions invalid. [De Roma v. CA, G.R.
No. L-46903 (1987)]
The failure to decide cases within 90-day period
required by law constitutes a ground for
administrative liability against the defaulting
judge. But it does not make the judgment a
nullity. The judgment is valid. [People v.
Mendoza, G.R. No. 143702(2001)]

PAGE 72 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 POLITICAL LAW

E.5. ORIGINAL AND APPELLATE


JURISDICTION
F. JUDICIAL PRIVILEGE
Jurisdiction is the authority to hear and determine a
cause. [US v Limsiongco, G. R. No. 16217 (1920)]
See SC Resolution dated February 14, 2012, “In
Re: Production of Court Records and
Original Jurisdiction [Art. VIII, sec. 5[1]] Documents and the Attendance of Court
Cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers officials and employees as witnesses under the
and consuls subpoenas of February 10, 2012 and the various
Petition for certiorari letters for the Impeachment Prosecution Panel
Petition for prohibition dated January 19 and 25, 2012.”
Petition for mandamus Background: The Senate Impeachment Court
Petition for quo warranto (during the Impeachment Trial of Chief Justice
Petition for habeas corpus Corona), issued a subpoena ad testificandum et
duces tecum for certain documents relating to
the FASAP cases, the League of Cities cases,
Note: Original jurisdiction also extends to writs of
and Gutierrez v. House Committee on Justice,
amparo, habeas data, and the environmental writ of as well as the attendance of certain court
kalikasan officials. The Supreme Court refused, invoking
Appellate Jurisdiction[Art. VIII, Sec. 5(2)]– on appeal judicial privilege.
or certiorari (as the Rules of Court provide), SC may
review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm final
judgments and orders of lower courts in: Judicial Privilege
Cases involving the constitutionality or validity of any A form of deliberative process privilege; Court
treaty, international or executive agreement, law, records which are pre-decisional and
presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, deliberative in nature are thus protected and
cannot be the subject of a subpoena
ordinance, or regulation, except in circumstances
where the Court believes that resolving the issue of A document is predecisionalif it precedes, in
constitutionality of a law or regulation at the first temporal sequence, the decision to which it
relates.
instance is of paramount importance and
immediately affects the social, economic and moral A material is deliberative on the other hand, if it
well being of the people [Moldex Realty v HLURB, reflects the give-and-take of the consultative
process. The key question is whether disclosure
G.R. No. 149719 (2007)]
of the information would discourage candid
discussion within the agency.
Cases involving the legality of any tax, impost,
assessment, or toll, or any penalty imposed in Judicial Privilege is an exception to the general
rule of transparency as regards access to court
relation thereto
records.
Cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in
issue Court deliberations are traditionally considered
privileged communication.
Criminal cases where the penalty imposed is
reclusion perpetua or higher.
Cases where only a question of law is involved. Summary of Rules
Note: A party who has not appealed from a decision
The following are privileged documents or
may not obtain any affirmative relief from the communications, and are not subject to
appellate court other than what he had obtained from disclosure:
the lower court, if any, whose decision is brought up
(1) Court actions such as the result of the raffle
on appeal. [Daabay v Coca-Cola Bottlers, G.R. No. of cases and the actions taken by the Court
199890 (2013)] on each case included in the agenda of the
PAGE 73 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 POLITICAL LAW

Court’s session on acts done material to retired justice or judge, not even the Chief
pending cases, except where a party litigant Justice, may claim exception without the
requests information on the result of the consent of the Court.
raffle of the case, pursuant to Rule 7,
Section 3 of the Internal Rules of the
Supreme Court (IRSC); G. REQUIREMENTS FOR DECISIONS
(2) Court deliberations or the deliberations of
AND RESOLUTIONS
the Members in court sessions on cases and Art. VIII, Sec. 13.The conclusions of the Supreme
matters pending before the Court; Court in any case submitted to it for decision en
(3) Court records which are “pre-decisional” banc or in division shall be reached in consultation
and “deliberative” in nature, in particular, before the case is assigned to a Member for the
documents and other communications writing of the opinion of the Court. A certification
which are part of or related to the to this effect signed by the Chief Justice shall be
deliberative process, i.e., notes, drafts, issued and a copy thereof attached to the record of
research papers, internal discussions, the case and served upon the parties. Any Members
internal memoranda, records of internal who took no part, or dissented, or abstained from a
deliberations, and similar papers. decision or resolution, must state the reason
therefor. The same requirements shall be observed
by all lower collegiate courts.
Additional Rules:
(1) Confidential Information secured by Art. VIII, Sec. 14.No decision shall be rendered by
justices, judges, court officials and any court without expressing therein clearly and
employees in the course of their official distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based.
functions, mentioned in (2) and (3) above,
is privileged even after their term of office.
(2) Records of cases that are still pending for No petition for review or motion for reconsideration
decision are privileged materials that of a decision of the court shall be refused due course
cannot be disclosed, except only for or denied without stating the legal basis therefore.
pleadings, orders and resolutions that have
been made available by the court to the
general public.
(3) The principle of comity or inter-
A "Resolution" is not a "Decision" within the
departmental courtesy demands that the
meaning of Art. VIII, Sec. 14. This mandate
highest officials of each department be
applies only in cases "submitted for decision,"
exempt from the compulsory processes of
i.e., given due course and after the filing of
the other departments.
Briefs or Memoranda and/or other pleadings, as
(4) These privileges belong to the Supreme the case may be. It does not apply to an Order or
Court as an institution, not to any justice or Resolution refusing due course to a Petition for
judge in his or her individual capacity. Certiorari. [Nunal v. COA, G.R. No. 78648
Since the Court is higher than the (1989)]
individual justices or judges, no sitting or
VI. Constitutional
Commissions
Constitutional Commissions:

PAGE 74 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 POLITICAL LAW

(1) The Commission on Elections, (2) A.1 PROMOTIONAL APPOINTMENT OF


Commission on Audit, and (3) Civil Service COMMISSIONER TO CHAIRMAN
Commission
[Funa v. Commission on Audit (2012)]
Article IX-D, Sec. 1(2) does not prohibit a
The grant of a constitutional commission’s rule- promotional appointment from commissioner to
making power is untouchable by Congress, chairman as long as:
absent a constitutional amendment or revision.
(a) The commissioner has not served the full
term of 7 years; and
The laws that the Commission interprets and (b) The appointment to any vacancy shall be
enforces fall within the prerogative of Congress. only for the unexpired portion of the term
As an administrative agency, its quasi- of the predecessor. [Sec. 1(2), Article IX-
legislative power is subject to the same D]
limitations applicable to other administrative
(c) The promotional appointment must
bodies
conform to the rotational plan or the
[Trade and Investment Development staggering of terms in the commission
Corporation of the Philippines v. Civil Service membership.
Commission, G.R. No. 182249 (2013)]
Court’s Rulings on Sec. 1(2), Art. IX-D:
(1) The appointment of members of any of the
A. CONSTITUTIONAL SAFEGUARDS three constitutional commissions, after the
TO ENSURE INDEPENDENCE OF expiration of the uneven terms of office of
COMMISSIONS the first set of commissioners, shall always
(1) They are constitutionally created, hence be for a fixed term of seven (7) years; an
may not be abolished by statute. appointment for a lesser period is void and
unconstitutional.
(2) Each commission is vested with powers
and functions which cannot be reduced by The appointing authority cannot validly
statute. shorten the full term of seven (7) years in
case of the expiration of the term as this
(3) Independent constitutional bodies. will result in the distortion of the rotational
(4) The Chairmen and members cannot be systemprescribed by the Constitution.
removed except by impeachment. (2) Appointments to vacancies resulting from
(5) Fixed term of office of 7 years. certain causes (death, resignation,
disability or impeachment) shall only be
(6) The Chairmen and members may not be for the unexpired portion of the term of the
appointed in an acting capacity. predecessor; such appointments cannot be
(7) The salaries of the Chairmen and members less than the unexpired portion [as it will
may not be decreasedduring their tenure. disrupt the staggering].

(8) The Commissions enjoy fiscal autonomy. (3) Members of the Commission who were
appointed for a full term of seven years and
(9) Each Commission may promulgate its own who served the entire period, are barred
procedural rules, provided they do not from reappointment to any position in the
diminish, increase or modify substantive Commission. The first appointees in the
rights [though subject to disapproval by the Commission under the Constitution are
Supreme Court]. also covered by the prohibition against
(10) The Commission may appoint their reappointment.
own officials and employees in accordance (4) A commissioner who resigns after serving
with Civil Service Law. in the Commission for less than seven
years is eligible for an appointment as
Chairman for the unexpired portion of the
PAGE 75 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 POLITICAL LAW

term of the departing chairman. Such adopt measures to promote morale, efficiency,
appointment is not covered by the ban on integrity, responsiveness, progressiveness, and
reappointment, provided that the aggregate courtesy in the civil service. It shall strengthen the
period of the length of service will not merit and rewards system, integrateall human
exceed seven (7) years and provided resources development programsfor all levels
further that the vacancy in the position of and ranks, and institutionalize a management
Chairman resulted from death, resignation, climate conducive to public accountability. It
disability or removal by impeachment.This shall submit to the President and the Congress an
is not a reappointment, but effectively a annual report on its personnel programs.
new appointment
(5) Any member of the Commission cannot be Functions:
appointed or designated in a temporary or (1) In the exercise of its powers to
acting capacity. implement R.A. 6850 (granting civil
service eligibility to employees under
provisional or temporary status who
A.2 TERM OF OFFICE OF EACH have rendered seven years of efficient
COMMISSION MEMBER service), the CSC enjoys a wide latitude
of discretion, and may not be compelled
[Gaminde v. Commission on Audit, G. R. No.
by mandamus.[Torregoza v. Civil
140335 (2000)]
Service Commission, G.R. No. 101526
The terms of the first Chairmen and (1992)]
Commissioners of the Constitutional
(2) Under the Administrative Code of 1987,
Commissions under the 1987 Constitution must
the Civil Service Commission has the
start on a common date, irrespective of the
power to hear and decide administrative
variations in the dates of appointments and
cases instituted before it directly or on
qualifications of the appointees, in order that the
appeal, including contested
expiration of the first terms of seven, five and
appointments.
three years should lead to the regular recurrence
of the two-year interval between the expiration (3) The Commission has original
of the terms. This common appropriate starting jurisdiction to hear and decide a
point must be on February 02, 1987, the date of complaint for cheating in the Civil
the adoption of the 1987 Constitution. Service examinations committed by
government employees. [Cruz v. CSC,
Term – the time during which the officer may
G.R. No. 144464, (2001)]
claim to hold office as of right, and fixes the
interval after which the several incumbents shall (4) It is the intent of the Civil Service Law,
succeed one another. in requiring the establishment of a
grievance procedure, that decisions of
Tenure – term during which the incumbent
lower level officials (in cases involving
actually holds the office.
personnel actions) be appealed to the
The term of office is not affected by the hold- agency head, then to the Civil Service
over. The tenure may be shorter than the term Commission. [Olanda v. Bugayong,
for reasons within or beyond the power of the G.R. No. 140917 (2003)]
incumbent.

Scope of the Civil Service


B. POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF Embraces all branches, subdivisions,
EACH COMMISSION instrumentalities and agencies of the
B.1. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION Government, including GOCCs with original
charters. [Sec. 2(1), Art. IX-B].
Art. IX—B, Sec. 3. The Civil Service Commission,
as the central personnel agency of the The University of the Philippines, having an
Government, shall establish a career serviceand original charter, is clearly part of the CSC. [UP
v. Regino, G.R. No. 88167 (1993)]
PAGE 76 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 POLITICAL LAW

The Civil Service does not include government- (e) Positions in the AFP although governed
owned or controlled corporations which are by a different merit system
organized as subsidiaries of government-owned
(f) Personnel of GOCCs with original
or controlled corporations under the general
charters
corporation law. [National Service Corp. vs.
NLRC, GR No. L-69870 (1988)] (g) Permanent laborers, whether skilled,
semi-skilled or unskilled
(2) Non-career Service – Characterized by
Composition:
entrance on bases other than those of
A Chairman and 2 Commissioners the usual tests utilized for the career
service; tenure limited to a period
specified by law, or which is co-
Qualifications:[Art. IX-B, Sec. 1(1)] terminus with that of the appointing
(1) Natural-born citizens of the authority or subject to his pleasure, or
Philippines; which is limited to the duration

(2) At the time of their appointment, at least (a) Elective officials, and their personal
35 years of age; and confidential staff;

(3) With proven capacity for public (b) Department heads and officials of
administration; and Cabinet rank who hold office at the
pleasure of the President, and their
(4) Must not have been candidates for any personal and confidential staff;
elective position in the election
immediately preceding their (c) Chairmen and members of
appointment. commissions and bureaus with fixed
terms;
(d) Contractual personnel;
Classes of Service: [CSC vs. Sojor, GR No.
168766 (2008)] (e) Emergency and seasonal personnel.

(1) Career Service – Characterized by


entrance (a) based on merit and fitness Note: Except as otherwise provided by the
to be determined, as far as practicable, Constitution or by law, the Civil Service
by competitive examinations, OR (b) Commission shall have the final authority to
based on highly technical pass upon the removal, separation and
qualifications; with opportunity for suspension of all officers and employees in the
advancement to higher career positions civil service and upon all matters relating to the
and security of tenure. conduct, discipline and efficiency of such
(a) Open career positions – Where prior officers and employees. [CSC vs. Sojor, GR No.
qualification in an appropriate 168766 (2008)]
examination is required.
(b) Closed career positions – e.g. scientific Employees in the civil service may not resort to
or highly technical in nature; strikes, walkouts and other temporary work
(c) Career Executive Service – e.g. stoppages, like workers in the private sector, to
undersecretaries, bureau directors pressure the Government to accede to their
demands [SSS Employees Association vs. CA,
(d) Career Officers – Other than those GR No. 85279 (1989)]
belonging to the Career Executive
Service who are appointed by the Those who enter government service are
President, e.g. those in the foreign subjected to a different degree of limitation on
service their freedom to speak their mind; however, it is
not tantamount to the relinquishment of their
constitutional right of expression otherwise
PAGE 77 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 POLITICAL LAW

enjoyed by citizens just by reason of their (2) No elective official shall be eligible for
employment. Hence, a concerted activity or appointment or designation in any
mass action done outside of government office capacity to any public office or position
hours shall not be deemed a prohibited during his tenure. [Art. IX-B, Sec. 7[1]]
concerted activity or mass action within the
(3) Unless otherwise allowed by law OR by
contemplation of this omnibus rules provided
the primary functions of his position, no
the same shall not occasion or result in the
appointive official shall hold any other
disruption of work or service. [Davao City
office or employment in the
Water District vs. Aranjuez, G. R. No. 194192
Government or any subdivision, agency
(2015)]
or instrumentality thereof including
GOCCs or their subsidiaries. [Art. IX-B,
Sec. 7(2)]
Appointments in the Civil Service
(4) No officer or employee in the civil
General Rule: Made only according to merit and
service shall engage directly or
fitness to be determined, as far as practicable, by
indirectly, in any electioneering or
competitive examination
partisan political activity. [Art. IX-B,
sec. 2(4)]
Exceptions: B.2. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
(1) Policy determining – Where the officer Functions and Powers
lays down principal or fundamental
(1) Enforce all laws relating to the conduct
guidelines or rules; or formulates a
of election, plebiscite, initiative,
method of action for government or any
referendum and recall.
of its subdivisions; e.g. department
head. Initiative– The power of the people to propose
amendments to the Constitution or to propose
(2) Primarily confidential – Denoting not
and enact legislation through an election called
only confidence in the aptitude of the
for that purpose. There are 3 systems of
appointee for the duties of the office but
initiative: Initiative on the Constitution,
primarily close intimacy which ensures
initiative on statutes, and initiative on local
freedom of intercoursewithout
legislation. [R.A. 6735, Sec. 2(a)]
embarrassment or freedom from
misgivings or betrayals on confidential Referendum – The power of the electorate to
matters of state [De los Santos v. approve or reject legislation through an election
Mallare, G.R. No. L-3881 (1950)]; OR called for that purpose. There are 2 classes:
one declared to be so by the President referendum on statutes or referendum on local
of the Philippines upon the laws. [R.A. 6735, Sec. 2(c)].
recommendation of the CSC, subject to
Recall – The termination of official relationship
judicial review [Salazar v. Mathay, G.R.
of a local elective official for loss of confidence
No. L-44061 (1976)]
prior to the expiration of his term through the
(3) Highly technical– Requires possession will of the electorate.
of technical skill or training in supreme
Plebiscite – The submission of constitutional
degree.[De los Santos v. Mallare,
amendments or important legislative measures
supra]
to the people for ratification.
(2) Recommend to the Congress effective
Disqualifications: measures to minimize election
spending, and to prevent and penalize
(1) No candidate who has lost in any
all forms of election frauds, offenses,
election shall within 1 year after such
malpractices, and nuisance candidacies.
election, be appointed to any office in
the Government or any GOCC or in any (3) Submit to the President and the
of its subsidiaries. [Art. IX-B, Sec. 6] Congress, a comprehensive report on
PAGE 78 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 POLITICAL LAW

the conduct of each election, plebiscite, access to mass media of the candidates
initiative, referendum, or recall. themselves. The limitation however,
bears a clear and reasonable connection
(4) Decide administrative questions
with the objective set out in the
pertaining to election except the right to
Constitution. For it is precisely in the
vote(the jurisdiction of which is with
unlimited purchase of print space and
the judiciary).
radio and television time that the
Power to declare failure of election – The resources of the financially affluent
COMELEC may exercise such power motu candidates are likely to make a crucial
proprio or upon a verified petition, and the difference. The purpose is to ensure
hearing of the case shall be summary in "equal opportunity, time, and space,
nature. [Sison v. COMELEC, G.R. No. and the right to reply," as well as
134096, March 3, 1999] uniform and reasonable rates of charges
(5) File petitions in court for inclusion or for the use of such media facilities, in
exclusion of voters. connection with "public information
campaigns and forums among
(6) Investigate and prosecute cases of candidates." [National Press Club v.
violations of election laws. Comelec, G.R. No. 102653(1992)]
Note: This power may be exercised only over
The COMELEC has exclusive jurisdiction the media, not over practitioners of media. Thus,
to investigate and prosecute cases for violations a COMELEC resolution prohibiting radio and
of election laws. [De Jesus v. People, G.R. No. TV commentators and newspaper columnists
L-61998 (1983)] from commenting on the issues involved in the
forthcoming plebiscite for the ratification of the
Thus, the trial court was in error when it organic law establishing the CAR was held
dismissed an information filed by the Election invalid. [Sanidad v. COMELEC, G.R. No. L-
Supervisor because the latter failed to comply 44640 (1976)]
with the order of the Court to secure the
concurrence of the Prosecutor. [People v. Inting, (12) Decide election cases
G.R. No. 88919 (1990)]. However, the The Commission on Elections may sit en banc
COMELEC may validly delegate this power to or in two divisions, and shall promulgate its
the Provincial Fiscal. [People v. Judge Basilia, rules of procedure in order to expedite
G.R. No. 83938-40 (1989)]. disposition of election cases, including pre-
(7) Recommend pardon, amnesty, parole or proclamation controversies. All such election
suspension of sentence of election law cases shall be heard and decided in division,
violators. provided that motions for reconsideration of
decisions shall be decided by the Commission
(8) Deputize law enforcement agencies and en banc.[Art. IX—C, Sec. 3]
instrumentalities of the Government for
the exclusive purpose of ensuring free,
orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible Cases which must be heard by division
elections.
(1) All election cases, including pre-
(9) Recommend to the President the proclamation contests originally
removal of any officer or employee it cognizable by the Commission in the
has deputized for violation or disregard exercise of its powers under Sec. 2(2),
of, or disobedience to its directive. Art IX-C.
(10) Registration of political parties, (2) Jurisdiction over a petition to cancel a
organizations and coalitions and certificate of candidacy.
accreditation of citizens’ arms.
(3) Even cases appealed from the RTC or
(11) Regulation of public utilities MTC have to be heard and decided in
and media of information. The law
limits the right of free speech and of
PAGE 79 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 POLITICAL LAW

division before they may be heard en institution to submit such audit as a


banc. condition of subsidy or equity.
Complementing the constitutional power of the
COA to audit accounts of “non–governmental
If the COMELEC exercises its quasi-judicial
entities receiving subsidy or equity xxx from or
functions then the case must be heard through a
through the government” is Section 14(1), Book
division. Upon motion for reconsideration of a
V of the Administrative Code, which authorizes
decision, the case is heard en banc. [Manzala v.
the COA to audit accounts of non–
COMELEC, G.R. No. 176211(2007)]
governmental entities “required to pay xxx or
If the COMELEC exercises its administrative have government share” but only with respect to
functions then it must act en banc. [Bautista v. “funds xxx coming from or through the
COMELEC, G.R. No. 15496-97 (2003)] government.”
Despite its non–governmental character, the
Composition: A Chairman and 6 Manila Economic and Cultural Office handles
Commissioners. government funds in the form of the
“verification fees” it collects on behalf of the
Qualifications: DOLE and the “consular fees” it collects under
(1) Must be natural-born citizens; Section 2(6) of EO No. 15, s. 2001. Hence, the
accounts of the MECO pertaining to its
(2) At least 35 years of age; collection of such “verification fees” and
(3) Holders of a college degree; “consular fees” should be audited by the COA.
[Funa v. Manila Economic and Cultural Office,
(4) Have not been candidates in the G.R. No. 193462 (2014)]
immediately preceding election;
COA does not have the exclusive power to
(5) Majority, including the Chairman, must examine and audit government agencies. The
be members of the Philippine Bar who framers of the Constitution were fully aware of
have been engaged in the practice of the need to allow independent private audit of
law for at least 10 years. [Art. IX-C, Sec. certain government agencies in addition to the
1] COA audit [DBP v. COA, G.R. No. 88435
(2002)]
B.3. COMMISSION ON AUDIT (2) Exclusive Authority to
Powers and Functions (a) Define the scope of its audit and
examination;
(1) Examine, audit, and settle accounts
pertaining to government funds or (b) Establish techniques and methods
property: its revenue, receipts, required ;
expenditures, and uses (c) Promulgate accounting and auditing
Post-audit basis: rules and regulations.
(a) Constitutional bodies, commissions and The Constitution grants the COA the exclusive
offices; authority to define the scope of its audit and
examination, and establish the techniques and
(b) Autonomous state colleges and
methods therefor. This includes giving the COA
universities;
Assistant Commissioner and General Counsel
(c) GOCCs with no original charters and the authority to deputize a special audit team.
their subsidiaries; [The Special Audit Team, Commission on Audit
v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 174788 (2013)].
(d) Non-governmental entities receiving
subsidy or equity, directly or indirectly,
from or through the Government, which
Note: Art. IX-D, Sec. 3. No law shall be passed
are required by law or the granting
exempting any entity of the Government or its

PAGE 80 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 POLITICAL LAW

subsidiaries in any guise whatever, or any D.1. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION


investment of public funds, from the jurisdiction
The CSC has been granted by the Constitution
of the Commission on Audit.
and the Administrative Code jurisdiction over
Composition: A Chairman and 2 all civil service positions in the government
Commissioners service, whether career or non-career. The
specific jurisdiction, as spelled out in the CSC
Qualifications:
Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases
(1) Natural born Filipino citizens in the Civil Service, did not depart from the
(2) At least 35 years of age general jurisdiction granted to it by law. [Civil
Service Commission v. Sojor, G.R. No. 168766
(3) CPAs with not less than 10 years of (2008)]; see CSC Resolution No. 991936
auditing experience OR members of the detailing the disciplinary and non-disciplinary
Philippine bar with at least 10 years jurisdiction]
practice of law
The Board of Regents (BOR) of a state
Note: At no time shall all members belong to the university has the sole power of administration
same profession. over the university. But although the BOR of
NORSU is given the specific power under its
charter to discipline its employees and officials,
C. PROHIBITED OFFICES AND there is no showing that such power is exclusive.
INTERESTS The CSC has concurrent jurisdiction over a
president of a state university. [CSC v. Sojor,
No member of the Constitutional Commissions
supra]
shall, during their tenure:
(1) Hold any other office or employment.
This is similar to the prohibition against Appellate Jurisdiction
executive officers. It applies to both
The appellate power of the CSC will only apply
public and private offices and
when the subject of the administrative cases
employment.
filed against erring employees is in connection
(2) Engage in the practice of any profession. with the duties and functions of their office, and
not in cases where the acts of complainant arose
(3) Engage in the active managementor
from cheating in the civil service
control of any business which in any
examinations.[Cruz v. CSC, G.R. No. 144464,
way may be affected by the functions of
(2001)]
his office.
(4) Be financially interested, directly or
indirectly, in any contract with, or in D.2. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
any franchise or privilege granted by,
The Constitution vested upon the COMELEC
the Government, its subdivisions,
judicial powers to decide all contests relating to
agencies or instrumentalities, including
elective local officialsas therein provided.
GOCCs or their subsidiaries. [Art. IX-A,
[Garcia v. De Jesus, G.R. No. 97108-09 (1992)]
Sec. 2]
Exclusive: All contests relating to the elections,
The CSC Chairman cannot be a member of a
returns and qualifications of all elective regional,
government entity that is under the control of
provincial, and city officials.
the President without impairing the
independence vested in the CSC by the 1987
Constitution [Funa v. Civil Service Commission, Jurisdiction over intra-party disputes: The
G.R. No. 191672 (2014)]. COMELEC has jurisdiction over cases
pertaining to party leadership and the
nomination of party-list representatives. The
D. JURISDICTION COMELEC’s powers and functions under the
Constitution, "include the ascertainment of the
PAGE 81 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 POLITICAL LAW

identity of the political party and its legitimate The Boy Scouts of the Philippines (BSP) is a
officers responsible for its acts." The power to public corporation and its funds are subject
register political parties necessarily involves the to the COA’s audit jurisdiction. (Boy Scouts
determination of the persons who must act on its of the Philippines v. COA, GR No. 177131
behalf. Thus, the COMELEC may resolve an (2011])
intra-party leadership dispute, in a proper case
(d) Such non-governmental entities
brought before it, as an incident of its power to
receiving subsidy or equity, directly
register political parties. [Lokin v. COMELEC,
or indirectly, from or through the
GR No. 193808 (2012)]
government, which are required by
Appellate: All contests involving elected law or the granting institution to
municipal officialsdecided by trial courts of submit to such audit as a condition of
general jurisdiction, or involving elective subsidy or equity. [Phil. Society for
barangay officials decided by a court of limited the Prevention of Cruelty of Animals
jurisdiction. [Garcia, supra] v. COA, G.R. 169752, (2007)]
Jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari: The The Constitution formally embodies the long
COMELEC may issue a writ of certiorari in aid established rule that private entities who
of its appellate jurisdiction. Interpreting the handle government funds or subsidies in trust
phrase "in aid of its appellate jurisdiction,” if a may be examined or audited in their handling
case may be appealed to a particular court or of said funds by government auditors. [Blue
judicial tribunal or body, then said court or Bar Coconut Philippines, Inc. v. Tantuico,
judicial tribunal or body has jurisdiction to issue G.R. No. L-47051(1988)]
the extraordinary writ of certiorari, in aid of its
Primary Jurisdiction over Money Claims
appellate jurisdiction. [Bulilis v. Nuez, G.R. No.
195953 (2011)] Limited to liquidated claims: The COA has
primary jurisdiction to pass upon a private
D.3. COMMISSION ON AUDIT
entity’s money claims against a provincial gov’t.
Art. IX-D, Sec. 1. The Commission on Audit However, the scope of the COA’s authority to
shall have the power, authority, and duty to take cognizance of claims is circumscribed by
examine, audit, and settle all accounts cases holding statutes of similar import to mean
pertaining to the revenue and receipts of, and only liquidated claims, or those determined or
expenditures or uses of funds and property, readily determinable from vouchers, invoices,
owned or held in trust by, or pertaining to the and such other papers within reach of
Government, or any of its subdivisions, accounting officers. [Euro-Med Laboratories,
agencies, or instrumentalities, including Phil. Inc. v. Province of Batangas, G.R. No.
government-owned and controlled 148106 (2006)]
corporations with original charters, and on a
No jurisdiction over their validity or
post-audit basis:
constitutionality: The jurisdiction of the COA
(a) Constitutional bodies, commissions over money claims against the government does
and officers that have been granted not include the power to rule on the
fiscal autonomy under the constitutionality or validity of laws. [Parreño v
Constitution; COA, G.R. No. 162224 (2007)]
LGUs, though granted local fiscal autonomy,
are still within the audit jurisdiction of the E. REVIEW OF FINAL ORDERS,
COA. [Veloso v. COA, GR No. 193677 RESOLUTIONS, AND DECISIONS
(2011)]
(b) Autonomous state colleges and
E.1. RENDERED IN EXERCISE OF QUASI-
universities;
JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS
(c) Other government-owned or
Art. IX-A, Sec. 7. Each Commission shall decide
controlled corporations and their
by a majority vote of all its Members, any case
subsidiaries; and
or matter brought before it within sixty days
PAGE 82 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 POLITICAL LAW

from the date of its submission for decision or (1) Decisions, order or ruling of the
resolution. A case or matter is deemed Commissions in the exercise of their
submitted for decision or resolution upon the quasi-judicial functionsmay be
filing of the last pleading, brief, or reviewed by the Supreme Court.
memorandum required by the rules of the
(2) The mode of review is a petition for
Commission or by the Commission itself.
certiorari under Rule 64(not Rule 65).
Unless otherwise provided by this Constitution
or by law, any decision, order, or ruling of each (3) Exception: The Rules of Civil
Commission may be brought to the Supreme Procedure, however, provides for a
Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within different legal route in the case of the
thirty days from receipt of a copy thereof. Civil Service Commission. In the case
of CSC, Rule 43 will be applied, and the
case will be brought to the Court of
Decisions Appeals.
Each Commission shall decide by a majority
vote of all its members (NOT only those who
E.2. RENDERED IN THE EXERCISE OF
participated in the deliberations) any case or
ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIONS
matter brought before it within 60 days from the
date of its submission for decision or resolution. Each Commission shall appoint its own officials
[Art. IX-A, Sec. 7] in accordance with law [Art. IX-A, Sec. 4]
Any decision, order or ruling of each Each Commission En Banc may promulgate its
Commission may be brought to the SC on own rules concerning pleadings and practices
certiorari by the aggrieved party within 30 days before it [Art. IX-A, Sec.6]
from receipt of the copy thereof. But these rules shall not diminish, increase or
In resolving cases brought before it on appeal, modify substantive rights
respondent COA is not required to limit its Each Commission shall perform such other
review only to the grounds relied upon by a functions as may be provided by law [Art. IX-A,
government agency’s auditor with respect to Sec. 8]
disallowing certain disbursements of public
funds. Such would render COA’s vital NB: In the exercise of its adjudicatory or quasi-
constitutional power unduly limited and thereby judicial powers, the Constitution mandates the
useless and ineffective. [Yap v COA, G.R. No COMELEC to hear and decide cases first by
158562(2010)] division and upon motion for reconsideration,
by the COMELEC en banc [Bautista v.
COMELEC, 414 SCRA 299 (2003)]
Certiorari jurisdiction of the Supreme Court:
Limitedto decisions rendered in actions or
proceedings taken cognizance of by the VI. CITIZENSHIP
Commissions in the exercise of their quasi-
A. WHO ARE FILIPINO CITIZENS
judicial powers.
Who are citizens? (Const., Art. IV, Sec. 1)
The Court exercises extraordinary jurisdiction,
thus, the proceeding is limited only to issues (a) Citizens of the Philippines at the time of the
involving grave abuse of discretion resulting in adoption of this Constitution;
lack or excess of jurisdiction, and does not (b) Those whose fathers OR mothers are citizens of
ordinarily empower the Court to review the the Philippines;
factual findings of the Commission.[Aratuc v. (c) Those who elected to be citizens. This is available
COMELEC, G.R. No. L-49705-09(1999)] only to:
(1) those born before Jan 17, 1973;
Synthesis on the Rules of Modes of Review (2) to Filipino mothers; AND

PAGE 83 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 POLITICAL LAW

(3) elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age (2) Natives of the Spanish Peninsula who resided in
of majority the Philippines on April 11, 1899, and who did not
(d) Those naturalized in accordance with law. declare their intention of preserving their Spanish
Art. IV, Section 1 (3), Constitution is also applicable nationality between that date and October 11, 1900,
to those who are born to Filipino mothers and elected unless they had lost their Philippine citizenship on or
Philippine citizenship before February 2, 1987.This is before May 14, 1935.
to correct the anomalous situation where one born of (3) Naturalized citizens of Spain who resided in the
a Filipino father and an alien mother was Philippines on April 11, 1899, and did not declare
automatically granted the status of a naturalborn their intention to preserve their Spanish nationality
citizen, while one born of a Filipino mother and an within the prescribed period (up to October 11, 1900).
alien father would still have to elect Philippine (4) Children born of (1), (2) and (3) subsequent to
citizenship. [Co v. House Electoral Tribunal (1991)] April 11, 1899, unless they lost their Philippine
Q: Who were the citizens of the Philippines at the citizenship on or before May 14, 1935.
time of the adoption of the 1987 Constitution? (5) Persons who became naturalized citizens of the
A.1. CITIZENS UNDER THE 1973 Philippines in accordance with naturalization law
CONSTITUTION since its enactment on March 26, 1920
(1) Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the
time of the adoption of this Constitution; Q: Are foundlings natural-born citizens?
(2) Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of A: Yes. As a matter of law, foundlings are, as a class,
the Philippines; natural-born citizens. While the 1935 Constitution’s
(3) Those who elect Philippine citizenship pursuant to enumeration is silent as to foundlings, there is no
the provisions of the Constitution of 1935; and restrictive language which would definitely exclude
(4) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law. foundlings either. No such intent or language permits
[Const. (1973), Art. III, Sec.1(1)] discrimination against foundlings. On the contrary, all
three Constitutions (1935, 1973, 1987) guarantee the
A.2. CITIZENS UNDER THE 1935 basic right to equal protection of the laws. All exhort
CONSTITUTION the State to render social justice. [Poe-Llamanzares
(1) Those who are citizens at the time of the adoption v COMELEC, G.R. No. 221697 (2016)]
of this Constitution;
(2) Those born in the Philippine Islands of foreign B. MODES OF ACQUIRING
parents who, before the adoption of this Constitution, CITIZENSHIP
had been elected to public office in the Philippine Generally, two modes of acquiring citizenship:
Islands; (1) By Birth
(3) Those whose mothers are citizens of the (a) Jus Soli - “right of soil;” person’s nationality is
Philippines and, upon reaching the age of majority, based on place of birth; formerly effective in the
elect Philippine citizenship; Philippines, see Roa v. Collector of Customs (1912)
(4) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law. (b) Jus Sanguinis – “right of blood;” person’s
[Art. IV, Sec. 1] nationality follows that of his natural parents. The
Philippines currently adheres to this principle.
The following persons were citizens of the (2) By Naturalization
Philippines on May 14, 1935 – the date of the
adoption of the 1935 Constitution: B.1. NATURALIZATION
(1) Persons born in the Philippine Islands who Concept
resided therein on April 11, 1899 and were Spanish Process by which a foreigner is adopted by the
subjects on that date, unless they had lost their country and clothed with the privileges of a native-
Philippine citizenship on or before May 14, 1935. born citizen. The applicant must prove that he has all
PAGE 84 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 POLITICAL LAW

of the qualifications and none of the disqualifications (2) Persons defending or teaching the necessity or
for citizenship. propriety of violence, personal assault, or
Qualifications [C.A. 473, Sec. 2] assassination for the success of their ideas;
(1) Not less than twenty-one years of age on the day (3) Polygamists or believers in polygamy;
of the hearing of the petition; (4) Persons convicted of crimes involving moral
(2) Resided in the Philippines for a continuous period turpitude;
of 10 years or more; (5) Persons suffering from mental alienation or
(3) Of good moral character; believes in the principles incurable contagious diseases;
underlying the Philippine Constitution; conducted (6) Persons who during the period of their stay, have
himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during not mingled socially with the Filipinos, or who have
the entire period of his residence towards the not evinced a sincere desire to learn and embrace
government and community the customs, traditions, and ideals of the Filipinos;
(4) Must own real estate in the Philippines worth (7) Citizens or subjects of nations with whom the
P5,000 or more OR must have lucrative trade, Philippines is at war
profession, or lawful occupation; 8) Citizens or subjects of a foreign country other than
(5) Able to speak or write English or Spanish or the United States, whose laws do not grant Filipinos
anyone of the principal languages; the right to become naturalized citizens or subject
(6) Enrolled his minor children of school age in any of thereof;
the recognized schools where Philippine history,
government and civics are taught or prescribed as Burden of Proof
part of the school curriculum, during the entire period The applicant must comply with the jurisdictional
of the residence in the Philippines required of him; requirements, establish his or her possession of the
qualifications and none of the disqualifications
Special Qualifications [C.A. 473, Sec. 3] – ANY will enumerated under the law, and present at least two
result to reduction of 10-year period to 5 years (2) character witnesses to support his allegations.
(1) Having honorably held office under the [Go v Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. 202809
Government of the Philippines or under that of any of (2014)]
the provinces, cities, municipalities, or political
subdivisions thereof; B.2. DENATURALIZATION
(2) Established a new industry or introduced a useful
Concept
invention in the Philippines;
Process by which grant of citizenship is revoked.
(3) Married to a Filipino woman;
(4) Engaged as a teacher in the Philippines in a public
Grounds [C.A. 473, Sec. 18] – upon the proper
or recognized private school not established for the
motion of the Sol. Gen. or the provincial fiscal,
exclusive instruction of children of persons of a
naturalization may be cancelled when
particular nationality or race, in any of the branches
(1) Naturalization certificate was fraudulently or
of education or industry for a period of 2 years or
illegally obtained [See Po Soon Tek v. Republic, 60
more;
SCRA 98 (1974)]
(5) Born in the Philippines.
(2) If, within the five years next following the issuance,
he shall return to his native country or to some foreign
Disqualifications [C.A. 473, Sec. 4]
country and establish his permanent residence there
(1) Persons opposed to organized government or
(3) Remaining for more than one year in his native
affiliated with groups who uphold and teach doctrines
country or the country of his former nationality, or two
opposing all organized governments;
years in any other foreign country, shall be
considered as prima facie evidence of his intention of
taking up his permanent residence in the same;
PAGE 85 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 POLITICAL LAW

(4) Petition was made on an invalid declaration of citizens who maintain their allegiance to their
intention; countries of origin even after their naturalization.
(5) Minor children of the person naturalized failed to Hence, the phrase “dual citizenship” in R.A. No. 7160,
graduate from the schools mentioned in sec. 2, sec. 40(d) and in R.A. No. 7854, sec. 20 must be
through the fault of their parents, either by neglecting understood as referring to “dual allegiance.”
to support them or by transferring them to another Consequently, persons with mere dual citizenship do
school or schools. not fall under this disqualification. For candidates with
(6) If he has allowed himself to be used as a dummy dual citizenship, it should suffice if, upon the filing of
in violation of the Constitutional or legal provision their certificates of candidacy, they elect Philippine
requiring Philippine citizenship as a requisite for the citizenship to terminate their status as persons with
exercise, use or enjoyment of a right, franchise or dual citizenship considering that their condition is the
privilege. unavoidable consequence of conflicting laws of
different states.
Naturalization is never final and may be revoked if
one commits acts of moral turpitude. [Republic v. Guy D. LOSS AND RE-ACQUISITION
(1982)]
E.1. GROUNDS
Judgment directing the issuance of a certificate of
naturalization is a mere grant of a political privilege (1) Naturalization in a foreign country [C.A. 63,
and that neither estoppel nor res judicata may be sec.1(1)];
invoked to bar the State from initiating an action for (2) Express renunciation or expatriation [Sec.1(2),
the cancellation or nullification of the certificate of CA 63];
naturalization thus issued. [Yao Mun Tek v. Republic (3) Taking an oath of allegiance to another country
(1971)] upon reaching the age of majority;
(4) Marriage by a Filipino woman to an alien, if by the
laws of her husband’s country, she becomes a citizen
C. DUAL CITIZENSHIP AND DUAL
ALLEGIANCE thereof.
(5) Accepting a commission and serving in the armed
C.1. DUAL CITIZENSHIP forces of another country, unless there is an
Allows a person who acquires foreign citizenship to offensive/ defensive pact with the country, or it
simultaneously enjoy the rights he previously held as maintains armed forces in RP with RP’s consent;
a Filipino citizen. (6) Denaturalization;
(7) Being found by final judgment to be a deserter of
C.2. DUAL ALLEGIANCE the AFP;
(1) Aliens who are naturalized as Filipinos but remain General Rule: expatriation is a constitutional right.
loyal to their country of origin; No one can be compelled to remain a Filipino if he
(2) Public officers who, while serving the government, does not want to. [Go Gullian v. Government]
seek citizenship in another country. Exception: A Filipino may not divest himself of
“Dual citizens” are disqualified from running for any Philippine citizenship in any manner while the
elective local position. [Local Government Code, Sec. Republic of the Philippines is at war with any country.
40(d)]; this should be read as referring to “dual [C.A. 63, sec. 1(3)]
allegiance” Loss of Philippine citizenship cannot be presumed.
Once a candidate files his candidacy, he is deemed Considering the fact that admittedly, Osmeña was
to have renounced his foreign citizenship in case of both a Filipino and an American, the mere fact that
dual citizenship. [Mercado v. Manzano (1999)] he has a certificate stating that he is an American
Clearly, in including sec. 5 in Article IV on citizenship, does not mean that he is not still a Filipino, since
the concern of the Constitutional Commission was there has been NO
not with dual citizens per se but with naturalized
PAGE 86 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 POLITICAL LAW

EXPRESS renunciation of his Philippine citizenship. Sec. 4 Derivative Citizenship. — The unmarried child,
[Aznar v. COMELEC (1995)] whether legitimate, illegitimate or adopted, below
eighteen (18) years of age, of those who re-acquire
E.2. REACQUISITION Philippine citizenship upon effectivity of this Act shall
(1) Naturalization [C.A. 63 and C.A. 473] Now an be deemed citizens of the Philippines.
abbreviated process, no need to wait for 3 years (1 Sec. 5. Civil and Political Rights and Liabilities. —
year for declaration of intent, and 2 years for the Those who retain or re-acquire Philippine citizenship
judgment to become executory) under this Act shall enjoy full civil and political rights
Requirements: [21/6 GD] and be subject to all attendant liabilities and
(a) be 21 years of age responsibilities under existing laws of the Philippines
(b) be a resident for 6 months and the following conditions:
(c) have good moral character (1) Those intending to exercise their right of suffrage
(d) have no disqualification must meet the requirements under Sec. 1, Art. V of
(2) Repatriation the Constitution, RA 9189, otherwise known as "The
Repatriation results in the recovery of the original Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003" and other
nationality. Therefore, if he is a natural-born citizen existing laws;
before he lost his citizenship, he will be restored to (2) Those seeking elective public office in the
his former status as a natural-born Filipino. [Bengson Philippines shall meet the qualifications for holding
III v. HRET (2001)] such public office as required by the Constitution and
Mere filing of certificate of candidacy is not a existing laws and, at the time of the filing of the
sufficient act of repatriation. Repatriation requires an certificate of candidacy, make a personal and sworn
express and equivocal act. [Frivaldo v. COMELEC renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before
(1989)] any public officer authorized to administer an oath;
In the absence of any official action or approval by (3) Those appointed to any public office shall
proper authorities, a mere application for repatriation subscribe and swear to an oath of allegiance to the
does not, and cannot, amount to an automatic Republic of the Philippines and its duly constituted
reacquisition of the applicant’s Philippine citizenship. authorities prior to their assumption of office:
[Labo v. COMELEC (1989)] provided, that they renounce their oath of allegiance
(3) Legislative Act - Both a mode of acquiring and to the country where they took that oath;
reacquiring citizenship (4) Those intending to practice their profession in the
Philippines shall apply with the proper authority for a
RA 9225 (citizenship retention and reacquisition license or permit to engage in such practice; and
act of 2003) (5) That right to vote or be elected or appointed to any
public office in the Philippines cannot be exercised
by, or extended to, those who:
Sec. 3. Retention of Philippine Citizenship. — Any
(a) are candidates for or are occupying any public
provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding,
office in the country of which they are naturalized
natural-born citizens of the Philippines who have lost
citizens; and/or
their Philippine citizenship by reason of their
(b) are in active service as commissioned or non-
naturalization as citizens of a foreign country are
commissioned officers in the armed forces of the
hereby deemed to have re-acquired Philippine
country which they are naturalized citizens.
citizenship upon taking the following oath of
allegiance to the Republic: xxx
Natural-born citizens of the Philippines who, after the
effectivity of this Act, become citizens of a foreign F. NATURAL-BORN CITIZENS AND
country shall retain their Philippine citizenship upon PUBLIC OFFICE
taking the aforesaid oath. F.1 NATURAL-BORN CITIZENS
PAGE 87 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 POLITICAL LAW

(1) Citizens of the Philippines from birth without (2) Sustained increase in amount of goods and
having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their services produced by the nation for the benefit of the
Philippine citizenship; and people
(2) Those who elect Philippine citizenship in (3) Expanding production as the key to raising the
accordance with [Art. IV, Sec. 1(3)] quality of life for all, especially the underprivileged.
The term "natural-born citizens," is defined to include
"those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth A. REGALIAN DOCTRINE
without having to perform any act to acquire or
Art. XII, Sec. 2. All lands of the public domain, waters,
perfect their Philippine citizenship." [Tecson v.
minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all
COMELEC (2004)]
forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber,
A person who renounces all foreign citizenship under
wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources
Sec. 5(2) of RA 9225 recants this renunciation by
are owned by the State. With the exception of
using his foreign passport afterwards (Maquiling v
agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not
COMELEC, G.R. No. 195649 (2013)].
be alienated.
The classification of public lands is an exclusive
F.2. WHO MUST BE NATURAL-BORN?
prerogative of the Executive Department through the
(1) President [Art. VII, Sec. 2] Office of the President. [Republic v. Register of
(2) Vice-President [Art. VII, Sec. 3] Deeds of Quezon (1994)]
(3) Members of Congress [Sec. 3 and 6, Art. VI]
(4) Justices of SC and lower collegiate courts [Sec. A.1. DOCTRINE OF NATIVE TITLE
7(1), Art. VIII]
Ownership over native land is already vested on
(5) Ombudsman and his deputies [Sec. 8, Art. XI]
natives even if they do not have formal titles [Cariño
(6) Members of Constitutional Commissions
v. Insular Government, 212 U.S. 449 (1909)]
(7) CSC [Art. IX-B, Sec. 1(1)]
(8) COMELEC [Art. IX-C, Sec.1]
NATIONALIST AND CITIZENSHIP REQUIREMENT
(9) COA [Art. IX-D, Sec. 1(1)]
PROVISIONS
(10) Members of the central monetary authority [Art.
Filipino Filipino Filipino
XII, Sec. 20] Citizens, or Citizens, or 60- Citizens, or 70-
(11) Members of the Commission on Human Rights 100% Filipino 40 Filipino 30 Filipino
[Art. XIII, Sec. 17(2)] Corporations Corporations Corporations
The Constitutional provision (i.e. “whose fathers are Use and Co-production, Engagement in
enjoyment of Joint venture, advertising
citizens”) does not distinguish between “legitimate” or marine wealth, and Production Industry [Art.
“illegitimate” paternity. Civil Code provisions on exclusive to sharing XVI, Sec. 11]
illegitimacy govern private and personal relations, not Filipino citizens agreements
one’s political status. [Tecson v. COMELEC, supra, [Art. XII, Sec. 2, over natural
par. 2] resources [Art.
on the petition for disqualification against presidential XII, Sec. 2(1)]
candidate FPJ] Agreements
shall not exceed
a period of 25
VIII. National Economy years
renewable for
another 25
and Patrimony years
Goals Rules on Educational
(1) More equitable distribution of opportunities, agricultural Institutions [Art.
lands (Art. XII, XIV, Sec. 4(2)]
income and wealth Sec. 3) Congress may
(1) Citizens may increase Filipino
lease only < 500
PAGE 88 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 POLITICAL LAW

ha. (2) Citizens equity Interpretation in line with Constitution’s intent to


may acquire by participation. ensure a “self-reliant and independent national
purchase,
homestead or economy effectively-controlled by Filipinos.”(See
grant only < 12 Gamboa v. Teves, supra, June 28, 2011)
ha. In the original decision, only the voting stocks were
Practice of Areas of subject to the 60% requirement. [Id.]
professions, Investment as
save in cases Congress may
provided by law prescribe There is some controversy in the interpretation of the
[Art. XII, Sec. (Congress may resolution on the motion for reconsideration.
14(2)] prescribe a (a) There is the question of whether the grandfather
higher
percentage) rule should be applied.
[Art. XII, Sec. (b)The dispositive merely denied the MRs, but did not
10] reiterate the newer interpretation.
Small-scale Operation of In any case, the released SEC guidelines comply with
utilization of public utilities
natural [Art. XII, Sec. the strictest interpretation of Gamboa v. Teves.
resources, as 11] o Cannot be
may be for longer period B.1. FILIPINO FIRST
provided by law than 50 years o
[Art. XII, Sec. Executive and Art. XII, Sec. 10. In the grant of rights, privileges, and
2(3)] managing concessions covering the national economy and
officers must be
patrimony, the State shall give preference to qualified
Filipino
Filipinos. The State shall regulate and exercise
authority over foreign investments within its national
jurisdiction and in accordance with its national goals
N.B. The Const. holds that private corporations or
and priorities.
associations may not hold alienable lands of the
The term “patrimony” pertains to heritage, and given
public domain except by lease, for a period not
the history of the Manila Hotel, it has become a part
exceeding 25 years, renewable for not more than 25
of our national economy and patrimony. Thus, the
years, and not to exceed 1000 ha. in area, [Art. XII,
Filipino First policy provision of the Constitution is
Sec. 3] but the Const. does not specify the capital
applicable. Such provision is per se enforceable, and
requirements for such corporations.
requires no further guidelines or implementing rules
A public utility is a business or service engaged in
or laws for its operation. [Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS,
regularly supplying the public with some commodity
(1990)]
or service of public consequence. A joint venture falls
The Constitution does not impose a policy of Filipino
within the purview of an “association” pursuant to Sec.
monopoly of the economic environment. It does not
11, Art. XII and must comply with the 60%-40%
rule out the entry of foreign investments, goods, and
Filipino foreign capitalization requirement. [JG
services. While it does not encourage their unlimited
Summit Holdings v. CA (2001)]
entry into the country, it does not prohibit them either.
What “capital” is covered- the 60% requirement
In fact, it allows an exchange on the basis of equality
applies to both the voting control and the beneficial
and reciprocity, frowning only on foreign competition
ownership of the public utility. Therefore, it shall apply
that is unfair. The key, as in all economies in the
uniformly, separately, and across the board to all
world, is to strike a balance between protecting local
classes of shares, regardless of nomenclature or
businesses and allowing the entry of foreign
category, comprising the capital of the corporation.
investments and services. [Tañada v. Angara (1997)]
(e.g. 60% of common stock, 60% of preferred voting
Art. XII, Sec. 12. The State shall promote the
stock, and 60% of preferred non-voting stock.)
preferential use of Filipino labor, domestic materials
[Gamboa v. Teves, G.R. No. 176579, October 9,
2012]
PAGE 89 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 POLITICAL LAW

and locally produced goods, and adopt measures obligations, and


that help make them competitive. assumes all
exploration risks
EXPLORATION, DEVELOPMENT, AND NATURAL RESOURCES COVERED
UTILIZATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES Minerals, petroleum Virtually the entire
and other mineral oils range of the country’s
Art. XII, Sec. 2, par. 4. The President may enter into
natural resources
agreements with foreign-owned corporations SCOPE OF AGREEMENTS
involving either technical or financial assistance for
Involving either Contractor provides
large-scale exploration, development, and utilization financial or technical financial or technical
of minerals, petroleum, and other mineral oils assistance resources, undertakes
according to the general terms and conditions the exploitation or
provided by law, based on real contributions to the production of a given
economic growth and general welfare of the country. resource,or directly
manages the
In such agreements, the State shall promote the
productive enterprise,
development and use of local scientific and technical operations of the
resources. exploration and
The State, being the owner of the natural resources, exploitation of the
is accorded the primary power and responsibility in resources or the
the exploration, development and utilization thereof. disposition of marketing
As such it may undertake these activities through four or resources
modes:
(1) The State may directly undertake such activities; Service Contracts not prohibited.
(2) The State may enter into co-production, joint Even if supposing FTAAs are service contracts, the
venture or production-sharing agreements with latter are not prohibited under the Constitution.
Filipino citizens or qualified corporations; [Justification: A verba legis interpretation does not
(3) Congress may, by law, allow small-scale support an intended prohibition. The members of the
utilization of natural resources by Filipino citizens; or CONCOM used the terms “service contracts” and
(4) For the large-scale exploration, development and “financial and technical assistance” interchangeably.]
utilization of minerals, petroleum and other mineral [La Bugal-B’laan Tribal Assn. v. Ramos, (Dec. 2004)]
oils, the President may enter into agreements with The following are valid:
foreign-owned corporations involving technical or (1) Financial and Technical Assistance Agreements
financial assistance. [La Bugal B’Laan Tribal Assn. v. (FTAA) – not a prohibited agreement in the
Ramos (Jan. 2004)] contemplation of the Constitution
FTAA (1987 Service Contract (1973 (2) Philippine Mining Law (RA 7942)
Constitution) Constitution) (3) Its Implementing Rules and Regulations, insofar
PARTIES as they relate to financial and technical agreements
Only the President (in A Filipino citizen, [La Bugal-B’laan Tribal Assn. v. Ramos (Dec. 2004)]
behalf of the State), and corporation or The Constitution should be construed to grant the
only with corporations association with a President and Congress sufficient discretion and
“foreign person or reasonable leeway to enable them to attract foreign
entity” investments and expertise, as well as to secure for
SIZE OF ACTIVITIES
our people and our posterity the blessings of
Only large-scale Contractor provides all
prosperity and peace.
exploration, necessary services
development and and technology and It is not unconstitutional to allow a wide degree of
utilization the requisite financing, discretion to the Chief Executive, given the nature
performs the and complexity of such agreements, the humongous
exploration work amounts of capital and financing required for large-
PAGE 90 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 POLITICAL LAW

scale mining operations, the complicated technology operating an air transport business, franchise is
needed, and the intricacies of international trade, required.
coupled with the State’s need to maintain flexibility in
its dealings, in order to preserve and enhance our E. ACQUISITION, OWNERSHIP, AND
country’s competitiveness in world markets.[La TRANSFER OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE
Bugal-B’laan Tribal Assn. v. Ramos] LANDS
Lands of the Public Domain are classified into:
Requisites for a valid service contract under the (1) Agricultural Lands
Constitution (2) Forest or Timber Lands
A general law that will set standards or uniform terms, (3) Mineral Lands
conditions, and requirements (4) National Park [Art. XII, Sec. 3]
The president shall be the signatory for the Note: The classification of public lands is a function
government of the executive branch, specifically the Director of
Within thirty days of the executed agreement, the the Land Management Bureau (formerly Director of
President shall report it to Congress .[La Bugal- Lands). The decision of the Director, when approved
B’laan Tribal Assn. v. Ramos, G.R. No. 127882 by the Secretary of the DENR, as to questions of fact,
(2004)] is conclusive upon the courts. [Republic v. Imperial,
D. FRANCHISES, AUTHORITY AND G.R. No. 130906, February 11, 1999].
CERTIFICATES FOR PUBLIC
UTILITIES Alienable lands of the public domain shall be limited
Franchise, certificate or any other form of to agricultural lands. [Art. XII, Sec. 3]
authorization for the operation of public utilities – To prove that the land subject of an application for
ONLY to citizens of the Philippines, or corporations registration is alienable, an applicant must
at least 60% of whose capital is Filipino-owned. [Art. conclusively establish the existence of a positive act
VII, Sec. 11] of the government such as a presidential
proclamation or an executive order or a legislative act
D.1. NATURE OF A FRANCHISE or statute. [Republic v. Candymaker, Inc. G.R. No.
(1) It is a privilege not a right 163766, June 22, 2006]
(2) Shall NOT be exclusive;
(3) Shall NOT be for a period of more than 50 years; Foreshore land is that part of the land which is
(4) Shall be subject to amendment, alteration or between the high and low water, and left dry by the
repeal by Congress. [Id.] flux and reflux of the tides. It is part of the alienable
land of the public domain and may be disposed of
Jurisprudence: only by lease and not otherwise. [Republic v. Imperial,
(1) Congress does not have the exclusive power to supra]
issue franchises. Administrative bodies (i.e. LTFRB, Private corporations or associations may not hold
Energy Regulatory Board) may be empowered by law such alienable lands of public domain except by
to do so. [Albano v. Reyes, 175 SCRA 264] lease, for a period not exceeding 25 years, and not to
(2) What constitutes a public utility is not the exceed 1000 hectares in area.
ownership but the use to the public. The Constitution
requires a franchise for the operation of public utilities. Citizens of the Philippines may lease not more than
However, it does not require a franchise before one 500 ha., or acquire not more than 12 hectares thereof
can own the facilities needed to operate a public by purchase, homestead, or grant. [Art. XII, Sec. 3]
utility so long as it does not operate them to serve the
public. [Tatad v. Garcia] E.g. X Company may own Private lands
an airline without the need of a franchise. But in
PAGE 91 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 POLITICAL LAW

General Rule: No private lands shall be transferred Like the legal profession, the practice of medicine is
or conveyed except to individuals, corporations, or not a right but a privilege burdened with conditions as
associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of the it directly involves the very lives of the people. A
public domain. [Art. XII, Sec. 7] fortiori, this power includes the power of Congress to
Exceptions: prescribe the qualifications for the practice of
(1) Hereditary succession (art. XII, sec. 7) professions or trades which affect the public welfare,
(2) A natural-born citizen of the Philippines who has the public health, the public morals, and the public
lost his Philippine citizenship may be a transferee of safety; and to regulate or control such professions or
private lands, subject to limitations provided by law. trades, even to the point of revoking such right
(art. XII, sec. 8) altogether. [Imbong v. Ochoa, supra]
Consequence of sale to non-citizens: Any sale or
transfer in violation of the prohibition is null and void. G. ORGANIZATION AND
(Ong Ching Po. V. CA) When a disqualified foreigner REGULATION OF CORPORATIONS,
later sells it to a qualified owner (e.g. Filipino citizen), PRIVATE AND PUBLIC
the defect is cured. The qualified buyer owns the (STEWARDSHIP CONCEPT)
land.(See Halili v. CA, G.R. No. 113538, March 12, Art. XII, Sec. 6. The use of property bears a social
1998) function, and all economic agents shall contribute to
the common good. Individuals and private groups,
Q: Can a former owner file an action to recover including corporations, cooperatives, and similar
the property? collective organizations, shall have the right to own,
A: Yes. The Court in Philippine Banking Corp. v. Lui establish, and operate economic enterprises, subject
She, (21 SCRA 52) abandoned the application of the to the duty of the State to promote distributive justice
principle of in pari delicto. Thus, the action will lie. and to intervene when the common good so
HOWEVER, land sold to an alien which was later demands.
transferred to a Filipino citizen OR when the alien Art. XIII, Sec. 6The State shall apply the principles of
later becomes a Filipino citizen can no longer be agrarian reform or stewardship, whenever applicable
recovered by the vendor, because there is no longer in accordance with law, in the disposition or utilization
any public policy involved. [Republic v. IAC, 175 of other natural resources, including lands of the
SCRA 398] public domain under lease or concession suitable to
Foreigners are allowed to own condominium units agriculture, subject to prior rights, homestead rights
and shares in condominium corporations up to not of small settlers, and the rights of indigenous
more than 40% of the total and outstanding capital communities to their ancestral lands.
stock of a Filipino-owned or controlled corporation.
Under this set up, the ownership of the land is legally H. MONOPOLIES, RESTRAINT OF
separated from the unit itself. The land is owned by a TRADE AND UNFAIR COMPETITION
Condominium Corporation and the unit owner is
H.1. MONOPOLIES
simply a member in this Condominium Corporation.
As long as 60% of the members of this Condominium The State shall regulate or prohibit monopolies when
Corporation are Filipinos, the remaining members the public interest so requires. No combinations in
can be foreigners. [Hulst v. PR Builders (2008)] restraint of trade or unfair competition shall be
allowed. [Art. XII, Sec. 19]
F. PRACTICE OF PROFESSIONS Although the Constitution enshrines free enterprise
as a policy, it nevertheless reserves to the
Art. XII, Sec. 14The practice of all profession in the
Government the power to intervene whenever
Philippines shall be limited to Filipino citizens, save in
necessary for the promotion of the general welfare.
the case prescribed by law.
[Philippine Coconut Dessicators v. PCA (1998)]

PAGE 92 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 POLITICAL LAW

Monopolies are not per se prohibited by the Currently, the central monetary authority is the
Constitution but may be permitted to exist to aid the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas.
government in carrying on an enterprise or to aid in
the performance of various services and functions in
the interest of the public. Nonetheless, a
determination must first be made as to whether public IX. Social Justice and
interest requires a monopoly. As monopolies are
subject to abuses that can inflict severe prejudice to
Human Rights
the public, they are subject to a higher level of State A. CONCEPT OF SOCIAL JUSTICE
regulation than an ordinary business undertaking. Art. II, Sec. 10. The State shall promote social justice
[Agan, Jr. v. PIATCO (2003)] in all phases of national development.
An “exclusivity clause” in contracts is allowed. An Art. XIII, Sec. 1. The Congress shall give highest
“exclusivity clause” is defined as agreements which priority to the enactment of measures that protect and
prohibit the obligor from engaging in "business" in enhance the right of all the people to human dignity,
competition with the obligee. reduce social, economic, and political inequalities,
Contracts requiring exclusivity are not per se void. and remove cultural inequities by equitably diffusing
Each contract must be viewed vis-à-vis all the wealth and political power for the common good.
circumstances surrounding such agreement in To this end, the State shall regulate the acquisition,
deciding whether a restrictive practice should be ownership, use, and disposition of property and its
prohibited as imposing an unreasonable restraint on increments.
competition. Restrictions upon trade may be upheld Art. XIII, Sec. 2. The promotion of social justice shall
when not contrary to public welfare and not greater include the commitment to create economic
than is necessary to afford a fair and reasonable opportunities based on freedom of initiative and self-
protection to the party in whose favor it is imposed. reliance.
[Avon v. Luna (2006)] Social justice is "neither communism, nor despotism,
nor atomism, nor anarchy," but the humanization of
H.2. CENTRAL MONETARY AUTHORITY laws and the equalization of social and economic
[ART. XII, SEC. 20] forces by the State so that justice in its rational and
Functions: objectively secular conception may at least be
(1) Provide policy directions in the areas of money, approximated. Social justice means the promotion of
banking, and credit; the welfare of all the people, the adoption by the
(2) Supervise the operations of banks; Government of measures calculated to insure
(3) Exercise such regulatory powers as may be economic stability of all the competent elements of
provided by law over the operations of finance society, through the maintenance of a proper
companies and other institutions performing similar economic and social equilibrium in the interrelations
functions of the members of the community, constitutionally,
Qualifications of the Governors: through the adoption of measures legally justifiable,
(1) Natural-born Filipino; or extraconstitutionally, through the exercise of
(2) Known probity, integrity and patriotism; powers underlying the existence of all governments
(3) Majority shall come from the private sector on the time-honored principle of salus populi est
Subject to such other qualifications and disabilities as suprema lex. Social justice, therefore, must be
may be provided by law founded on the recognition of the necessity of
Until the Congress otherwise provides, the Central interdependence among divers and diverse units of a
Bank of the Philippines operating under existing laws, society and of the protection that should be equally
shall function as the central monetary authority. and evenly extended to all groups as a combined
force in our social and economic life, consistent with

PAGE 93 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 POLITICAL LAW

the fundamental and paramount objective of the state (4) Exercise visitorial powers over jails, prisons, or
of promoting the health, comfort, and quiet of all detention facilities;
persons, and of bringing about "the greatest good to (5) Establish a continuing program of research,
the greatest number." [Calalang v. Williams, G.R. education, and information to enhance respect for the
47800, December 2, 1940] primacy of human rights;
Social Justice, as the term suggests, should be used (6) Recommend to Congress effective measures to
only to correct an injustice. Magkalas cannot take promote human rights and to provide for
solace in this provision, considering that the NHA’s compensation to victims of violations of human rights,
order of relocating petitioner to her assigned lot and or their families;
demolishing her property on account of her refusal to (7) Monitor the Philippine Government's compliance
vacate was consistent with the Urban Development with international treaty obligations on human rights;
and Housing Act’s fundamental objective of (8) Grant immunity from prosecution to any person
promoting social justice in the manner that will inure whose testimony or whose possession of documents
to the common good. [Magkalas v. NHA (2008)] or other evidence is necessary or convenient to
determine the truth in any investigation conducted by
B. COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS it or under its authority;
Art. XIII, Sec. 17. There is hereby created an (9) Request the assistance of any department,
independent office called the Commission on Human bureau, office, or agency in the performance of its
Rights. functions;
The Commission shall be composed of a Chairman (10) Appoint its officers and employees in
and four Members who must be natural-born citizens accordance with law; and
of the Philippines and a majority of whom shall be (11) Perform such other duties and functions as may
members of the Bar. The term of office and other be provided by law. [Art. XIII, Sec. 18]
qualifications and disabilities of the Members of the As should at once be observed, only the first of the
Commission shall be provided by law. enumerated powers and functions bears any
Until this Commission is constituted, the existing resemblance to adjudication or adjudgment. The
Presidential Committee on Human Rights shall Constitution clearly and categorically grants to the
continue to exercise its present functions and powers. Commission the power to investigate all forms of
The approved annual appropriations of the human rights violations involving civil and political
Commission shall be automatically and regularly rights. But it cannot try and decide cases (or hear and
released. determine causes) as courts of justice, or even quasi-
judicial bodies do. To investigate is not to adjudicate
Powers and functions or adjudge. Whether in the popular or the technical
(1) Investigate, on its own or on complaint by any sense, these terms have well understood and quite
party, all forms of human rights violations involving distinct meanings. [Cariño v. CHR, G.R. No. 96681,
civil and political rights; December 2, 1991]
(2) Adopt its operational guidelines and rules of
procedure, and cite for contempt for violations thereof X. Education, Science,
in accordance with the Rules of Court;
(3) Provide appropriate legal measures for the Technology, Arts,
protection of human rights of all persons within the
Philippines, as well as Filipinos residing abroad, and Culture and Sports
provide for preventive measures and legal aid A. RIGHT TO EDUCATION
services to the under-privileged whose human rights PROVISIONS [ART. XIV]
have been violated or need protection;
Sec. 1. The State shall protect and promote the right
of all citizens to quality education at all levels, and
PAGE 94 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 POLITICAL LAW

shall take appropriate steps to make such education subject to the established academic and disciplinary
accessible to all. Sec. 2. The State shall: standards laid down by the academic institution.
(1) Establish, maintain, and support a complete, [DLSU Inc., v. CA, G.R. No. 127980, December 19,
adequate, and integrated system of education 2007]
relevant to the needs of the people and society;
(2) Establish and maintain, a system of free public The PMA, as the primary training and educational
education in the elementary and high school levels. institution of the AFP, has the right to invoke
Without limiting the natural rights of parents to rear academic freedom in the enforcement of its internal
their children, elementary education is compulsory rules and regulations, which are the Honor Code and
for all children of school age; the Honor System in particular. [Cudia v. PMA
(3) Establish and maintain a system of scholarship Superintendent, G.R. No. 211362, (2015)]
grants, student loan programs, subsidies, and other
incentives which shall be available to deserving
students in both public and private schools, Highest budgetary priority to education
especially to the under-privileged;
(4) Encourage non-formal, informal, and indigenous The State shall assign the highest budgetary priority
learning systems, as well as self-learning, to education and ensure that teaching will attract and
independent, and out-of-school study programs retain its rightful share of the best available talents
particularly those that respond to community needs; through adequate remuneration and other means of
and job satisfaction and fulfillment. [Art. XIV, Sec. 5 (5)]
(5) Provide adult citizens, the disabled, and out-of- Allocation of larger share to debt service vis-àvis
school youth with training in civics, vocational education is not unconstitutional. –The DECS
efficiency, and other skills. already has the highest budgetary allocation among
all department budgets. Congress can exercise its
B. ACADEMIC FREEDOM judgment and power to appropriate enough funds to
reasonably service debt. Art. XIV, Sec. 5(5) is
Art. XIV, Sec. 5 (2). Academic freedom shall be
directive. [Guingona v. Carague (1991)]
enjoyed in all institutions of higher learning.
Four essential freedoms of a university:
(1) Who may teach
(2) What may be taught
(3) How it shall teach
(4) Who may be admitted to study [Garcia v. Faculty
Admission Committee, 68 SCRA 277 (1975) citing J.
Frankfurter, concurring in Sweezy v. New Hampshire,
354 US 232 (1937)]
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.
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
PAGE 95 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 POLITICAL LAW

POLITICAL LAW
CONSTITUTIONAL
LAW 2

PAGE 96 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 POLITICAL LAW

Eminent domain may be used as an implement to


I. Fundamental Powers of attain the police objective. [Association of Small
Landowners v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform (1989)]
the State
Specific Coverage
A. CONCEPT, APPLICATION AND (1) Public Health
LIMITS (2) Public Morals
(3) Public Safety
A.1 POLICE POWER (4) Public Welfare
Definition
It is the inherent and plenary power of the state which
enables it to prohibit all that is hurtful to the comfort, Test of Reasonability (Means-Purpose Test)
safety and welfare of society. [Ermita-Malate Hotel (1) Lawful means: The means employed are
and Motel Operators Association, Inc. v. Mayor of reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of
Manila (1967)] the purpose and not unduly oppressive upon
individuals. [Planters Products v. Fertiphil Corp.
(2008)]
Scope and Limitations (2) Lawful purpose: The interests of the public,
General Coverage generally, as distinguished from those of a
“The state, in order to promote the general welfare, particular class, require such interference;
may interfere with personal liberty, with property, and
with business and occupations. Persons may be The limit to police power is reasonability. The Court
subjected to all kinds of restraints and burdens, in looks at the test of reasonability to decide whether it
order to secure the general comfort, health and encroaches on the right of an individual. So long as
prosperity of the state and to this fundamental aim of legitimate means can reasonably lead to create that
our Government, the rights of the individual are end, it is reasonable. [Morfe v. Mutuc (1968)]
subordinated.” [Ortigas and Co., Limited Partnership v. Legislature’s determination “as to what is a proper
Feati Bank and Trust Co. (1979)] exercise of its police powers is not final or conclusive,
“Police power, while incapable of an exact definition, but is subject to the supervision of the court.” [US v.
has been purposely veiled in general terms to Toribio (1910)]
underscore its comprehensiveness to meet all However, courts cannot delimit beforehand the extent
exigencies and provide enough room for an efficient or scope of the police power, since they cannot
and flexible response as the conditions warrant.” foresee the needs and demands of public interest and
[White Light Corporation v. City of Manila (2009)] welfare. “So it is that Constitutions do not define the
Police Power cannot be bargained away through scope or extent of the police power of the State; what
treaty or contract. [Ichong v. Hernandez (1957)] they do is to set forth the limitations thereof. The most
important of these are the due process clause and the
Despite the impairment clause, a contract valid at the equal protection clause.”[Ichong v. Hernandez (1957)]
time of its execution may be legally modified or even
The Court will not inquire into the motives of the
completely invalidated by a subsequent law. If the law
is a proper exercise of the police power, it will prevail Legislature, nor pass upon matters of legislative
over the contract. [PNB v. Office of the President judgment. It may not annul the legislation if not
(1996)] palpably in excess of legislative power.[Ichong v.
Hernandez (1957)]
Taxation, Eminent Domain as Implements of
Police Power The SC upheld the validity of Administrative Orders
(issued by the DENR Sec.) which converted existing
Taxation may be used as an implement of police mine leases and other mining agreements into
power. [Lutz v. Araneta (1955)] production-sharing agreements within one year from
effectivity. The subject sought to be governed by the
AOs are germane to the object and purpose of E.O.

PAGE 97 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 POLITICAL LAW

279 (passed under the Freedom Constitution) and that immune from such imputation of nullity resting purely
mining leases or agreements granted by the State are on conjecture and unsupported by anything of
subject to alterations through a reasonable exercise of substance.
police power of the State. [Miners Association of the
Where the liberty curtailed affects at the most rights of
Philippines v. Factoran (1995)]
property, the permissible scope of regulatory measure
is wider. [Ermita-Malate Motel and Motel Operators
Assn. v. City Mayor of Manila (1967)]
Illustrations on the Exercise of Police Power
However, when legitimate sexual behavior, which is
General Welfare v Property rights – RA 9257, the
constitutionally protected [by the right to privacy], and
Expanded Senior Citizens Act of 2003, is a legitimate
other legitimate activities, most of which are grounded
exercise of police power. Administrative Order No. 177
on the convenience of having a place to stay during
issued by the Department of Health, providing that the
the short intervals between travels [in motels], will be
20% discount privilege of senior citizens shall not be
unduly curtailed by the ordinance, the same ordinance
limited to the purchase of unbranded generic medicine
is invalid. [See White Light Corp. v. City of Manila
but shall extend to both prescription and non-
(2009)]
prescription medicine, whether branded or generic, is
valid. [Carlos Superdrug Corporation v. DSWC et al.
(2007)] Limitations when police power is delegated:
National Security v Property Rights – SC upheld
(1) Express grant by law [e.g. Secs. 16, 391, 447, 458
the constitutionality of RA 1180 (An Act to Regulate
and 468, R.A. 7160, for LGUs]
the Retail Business) which sought to nationalize the
retail trade business by prohibiting aliens in general (2) Limited within its territorial jurisdiction [for local
from engaging directly or indirectly in the retail trade. government units]
The law was to “remedy a real actual threat and (3) Must not be contrary to law.
danger to national economy posed by alien
dominance and control of the retail business; the
enactment clearly falls within the scope of the police
power of the State, thru which and by which it protects
its own personality and insures its security and future.”
[Ichong v. Hernandez (1957)]
Public Safety – Police power is a dynamic agency,
suitably vague and far from being precisely defined;
the principle is the Constitution did not intend to enable
an individual citizen or a group of citizens to
unreasonably obstruct the enactment of measures
calculated to communal peace, safety, good order,
and welfare. A heavy burden lies in the hands of a
petitioner who questions the state’s police power if it
was clearly intended to promote public safety. [Agustin
v. Edu, (1979), on an LOI requiring early warning
devices for all motor vehicle owners]
Police Power, Property Rights v Fundamental
Rights - Hotel and motel operators’ association
assailed the constitutionality of Ordinance No. 4760
(regulating motels through fees, restrictions on minors,
open inspection, logbooks, etc.). Court held: The
mantle of protection associated with the due process
guaranty does not cover petitioners. This particular
manifestation of a police power measure being
specifically aimed to safeguard public morals is

PAGE 98 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 POLITICAL LAW

A.2 EMINENT DOMAIN and even private enterprises performing public


services [See Tenorio v. Manila Railroad (1912)]
Definition and Scope
The power of eminent domain is the inherent right of
the State to condemn private property to public use Application
upon payment of just compensation.
When is there taking in the constitutional case?
It is well settled that eminent domain is an inherent
(1) Diminution in value;
power of the State that need not be granted even by
the fundamental law. Sec. 9, Art. III merely imposes a (2) Prevention of ordinary use; and
limit on the government’s exercise of this power. (3) Deprivation of beneficial use.
[Republic v.Tagle (1998)]
(4) Regulatory takings
The repository of eminent domain powers is
legislature, i.e. exercised through the enactment of In Didipio Earth Savers Multipurpose Association
laws. But power may be delegated to LGUs and other (DESAMA) v. Gozun (2006), examples were (a)
government entities (via charter); still, the delegation trespass without actual eviction; (b) material
must be by law. [Manapat v. CA (2007)] impairment of the value; (c) prevention of the ordinary
uses (e.g. easement).
Butanything taken by virtue of police power is not
How is just compensation determined? compensable(e.g. abatement of a nuisance), as
First and foremost, just compensation is defined as the usually property condemned under police power is
full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its noxious [DESAMA v. Gozun (2006)]
owner by the expropriator. The measure is not the
taker’s gain but the owner’s loss. Without just
compensation, expropriation is not consummated. How is Eminent Domain different from Regulatory
[Agpalo Commentary] Taking?
(1) Eminent domain is an inherent power of the state
GENERAL RULE: Computed at the time of the filing based on the Constitution. Just compensation
of the complaint for expropriation (Sec. 4, Rule 67, must be paid.
ROC)
(2) Regulatory taking is the exercise of the state of its
EXCEPTION: At the time of taking, when taking police power. In this case, just compensation
precedes filing of the complaint. need not be paid.

It is also important to note that inflation will not be Examples from Jurisprudence:
considered in determining what the value is
[Nepomuceno v CA (2008)] (1) The imposition of an aerial easement of right-of-
way was held to be taking. The exercise of the
power of eminent domain does not always result
When is the value of just in the taking or appropriation of title to the
compensationdetermined? expropriated property; it may also result in the
imposition of a burden upon the owner of the
The general rule is that the value of just compensation condemned property, without loss of title or
is determined at the time of the filing of the complaint possession. [NPC v. Gutierrez (1991)]
for expropriation [Sec 4, Rule 64, ROC].
(2) A municipal ordinance prohibiting a building which
would impair the view of the plaza from the
Who may exercise the power? highway was likewise considered taking. [People
(1) Congress; v. Fajardo (1958)]
(2) By delegation, the President and administrative (3) A regulatory taking occurs where a regulation
bodies [through the Admin. Code], local places limitations on land that fall short of
government units [through the Loc. Gov. Code], eliminating all economically beneficial use, a
taking nonetheless may have occurred,

PAGE 99 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 POLITICAL LAW

depending on a complex of factors including the of property, the Court will invalidate it. But
regulation's economic effect on the landowner, invalidating a tax measure must be exercised with
the extent to which the regulation interferes with utmost caution, otherwise, the State’s power to
reasonable investment-backed expectations, and legislate for the public welfare might be seriously
the character of the government action. curtailed
[Armstrong v. United States, 364 U.S. 40 (1960)]
(4) Taxes should be uniform and equitable [Sec.
28(1), Art. VI]
When the State exercises the power of eminent
domain in the implementation of its agrarian reform
Judicial review for unconscionable and unjust tax
program, the constitutional provision which governs is
amounting to confiscation of property
Section 4, Article XIII of the Constitution. Notably, this
provision also imposes upon the State the obligation The legislature has discretion to determine the nature,
of paying the landowner compensation for the land object, extent, coverage, and situs of taxation. But
taken, even if it is for the government’s agrarian reform where a tax measure becomes so unconscionable and
purposes. [Land Bank of the Philippines v. unjust as to amount to confiscation of property, courts
Honeycomb Farms Corporation (2012)] will not hesitate to strike it down; the power to tax
cannot override constitutional prescriptions. [Tan v.
del Rosario, (1994)]
A.3 TAXATION
Definition and Scope
Specific Limitations
It is the power by which the State raises revenue to
(1) Uniformity of taxation
defray the necessary expenses of the Government. It
is the enforced proportional contributions from General Rule: Simply geographical uniformity,
persons and property, levied by the State by virtue of meaning it operates with the same force and
its sovereignty, for the support of the government and effect in every place where the subject of it is
for all public needs. found
It is as broad as the purpose for which it is given. Exception: Rule does not prohibit classification
for purposes of taxation, provided the requisites
for valid classification are met. [Ormoc Sugar v.
Purpose: Treasurer of Ormoc (1968)]
(1) To raise revenue (2) Tax Exemptions
(2) Tool for regulation No law granting any tax exemption shall be
passed without the concurrence of a majority of
(3) Protection/power to keep alive
all the Members of Congress [Sec. 28 (4), Art. VI]
Tax for special purpose
There is no vested right in a tax exemption. Being
Treated as a special fund and paid out for such a mere statutory privilege, a tax exemption may
purpose only; when purpose is fulfilled, the balance, if be modified or withdrawn at will by the granting
any shall be transferred to the general funds of the authority. [Republic v. Caguioa (2009)]
Government. [Sec. 29 (3), Art. VI]

Exemptions may either be constitutional or


Scope and Limitation statutory.
General Limitations (1) If statutory, it has to have been passed by majority
(1) Power to tax exists for the general welfare; should of all the members of Congress [Sec. 28 (4), Art.
be exercised only for a public purpose VI]
(2) Might be justified as for public purpose even if the (2) Constitutional exemptions[Sec. 28(3), Art. VI]
immediate beneficiaries are private individuals Requisite: Exclusive Use
(3) Tax should not be confiscatory: If a tax measure
is so unconscionable as to amount to confiscation B. REQUISITES FOR VALID EXERCISE
PAGE 100 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 POLITICAL LAW

(1) Inherent in the State (Exercised even without


need of express constitutional grant)
B.1 POLICE POWER
(2) Necessary and indispensable (State cannot be
Tests for Validity of Exercise of Police Power
effective without them)
i. Lawful Subject: Interest of the general public (as
(3) Method by which state interferes with private
distinguished from a particular class required
property
exercise). This means that the activity or property
sought to be regulated affects the general welfare. (4) Presuppose some equivalent compensation
ii. Lawful Means: Means employed are reasonably (5) Exercised primarily by the legislature
necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose,
and are not unduly oppressive. [Planters Products
v. Fertiphil Corp. (2008)]

B.2 EMINENT DOMAIN


Requisites:
(a) Private property
(b) Genuine necessity - inherent/presumed in
legislation, but when the power is delegated (e.g.
local government units), necessity must be
proven.
(c) For public use - Court has adopted a broad
definition of “public use,” following the U.S. trend
(d) Payment of just compensation
(e) Due process [Manapat v. CA (2007)]

B.3 TAXATION
Equal protection clause: Taxes should be (a)
uniform (persons or things belonging to the same class
shall be taxed at the same rate) and (b) equitable
(taxes should be apportioned among the people
according to their ability to pay)
Progressive system of taxation: The rate increases
as the tax base increases, with social justice as basis.
(Taxation here is an instrument for a more equitable
distribution of wealth.)
Delegated tax legislation: Congress may delegate
law-making authority when the Constitution itself
specifically authorizes it.

C. SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES

Similarities[Nachura]

PAGE 101 OF 404


UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 POLITICAL LAW

Differences If regulation is the primary purpose, the fact that


Eminent revenue is incidentally raised does not make the
Police Power Taxation
Domain imposition a tax. [Gerochi v. Department of Energy
Compensation (2007)]
None Just compen- None
(The altruistic sation (The protection
feeling that one (Full and fair given and public License Fee (under police power) versus Tax
has contributed equivalent of the improvements
to the public property taken) instituted by the License Fee Tax
good State because of Basis
[Nachura]) these taxes
[Nachura]) Police Power: to Taxation Power: to raise
Use of Property regulate revenue
Not Appropriated for Use taxing power Limitation
appropriated public use as an implement
for public use for the Amount is limited to: (a) Rate or amount to be
attainment of a cost of permit and (b) collected is unlimited,
legitimate police reasonable police provided not
objective—to regulation confiscatory
regulate a
business or trade
Exception: When the
license fee is imposed on
Objective a non-useful/beneficial
Property taken Earn revenue for occupation, such as the
for public use; it the government practice of hygienic and
is not aesthetic massage, the
necessarily fee may be large without
noxious being a tax. [Physical
Coverage Therapy Organization v.
Liberty and Property rights Property rights Municipal Board of
Property only only Manila (1957)]
Primary Purpose Object
To regulate; to To devote To raise revenue
promote property to Paid for the privilege of Persons or property
general public use doing something and
comfort, health may be revoked when
and prosperity public interest so
Exercise of Power requires
Only by the May be Only by the Effect of Non-Payment
government exercised by government
private entities Business becomes illegal Business or activity does
when right is not become illegal
conferred by law
Basis
Self- Life Blood
preservation Theory D. DELEGATION
and self-
protection
Note:In the exercise of police power, the deprivation
D.1 POLICE POWER
of the use of the property may be total, but it will not
constitute compensable taking if nobody else acquires Legislature
use of the property or any interest therein. [Dipidio Police power is lodged primarily in the national
Earth-Savers Multipurpose Association v. Gozun, G.R. legislature.
No. 157882, March 30, 2006]
Executive

PAGE 102 OF 404


UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 POLITICAL LAW

By virtue of a valid delegation of legislative power, it As Exercised By As Exercised By


may also be exercised by the president, administrative Congress Delegates
bodies, and lawmaking bodies of LGUs. [Sec. 16, R.A. Pervasive and all- Can only be as broad as
7160] encompassing the enabling law and the
conferring authorities
[T]his power is limited only by the Acts of Congress want it to be
and those fundamentals principles which lie at the
Question of Necessity
foundation of all republican forms of government. An
Act of the Legislature which is obviously and Political question Justiciable question.
undoubtedly foreign to any of the purposes of the RTC has to determine
whether there is a
police power and interferes with the ordinary
genuine necessity for its
enjoyment of property would, without doubt, be held to
exercise, as well as what
be invalid. [Churchill and Tait v. Rafferty (1915)] the property’s value is.
Rep. Act No. 7924 does not grant the MMDA with
police power, let alone legislative power, and all its If not justiciable, there is
functions are administrative in nature. [MMDA v. Bel- grant of special authority
Air Village Association (2000)] for special purpose

But when there is an existing law or ordinance which Re: Private Property
provides for such a duty,the MMDA is duty-bound to
Delegate cannot
confiscate/suspend or revoke drivers’ licenses in the
expropriate private
exercise of its mandate of transport and traffic
property already devoted
management, as well as the administration and to public use
implementation of all traffic enforcement operations,
traffic engineering services and traffic education D.3 TAXATION
programs. [MMDA v. Garin (2005); Sec. 3(b), Rep. Act
No. 7924] Power may be exercised by:
(1) Legislature (primarily)
D.2 EMINENT DOMAIN (2) Local legislative bodies [Sec. 5, Art. X]
The power of the legislature to confer, upon municipal (3) President (to a limited extent, when granted
corporations and other entities within the State, delegated tariff powers under Sec. 28 (2) Art. VI)
general authority to exercise the right of eminent
domain cannot be questioned by the courts, but that
general authority of municipalities or entities must not
be confused with the right to exercise it in particular
instances.
The moment the municipal corporation or entity
attempts to exercise the authority conferred, it must
comply with the conditions accompanying the
authority. The necessity for conferring the authority
upon a municipal corporation to exercise the right of
eminent domain is admittedly within the power of the
legislature.
A statute or charter or a general law may confer the
right of eminent domain upon a private entity. [Tenorio
v. Manila Railroad Co. (1912)]

As Exercised By As Exercised By
Congress Delegates
Extent of Power

PAGE 103 OF 404


UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 POLITICAL LAW

Bases and Purpose


II. Private Acts and the
Bases:
Bill Of Rights (1) Importance accorded to the dignity and worth of
the individual.
(2) Protection against arbitrary actions of government
The Bill of Rights, In General
and other members of society
It is a declaration and enumeration of a person's
fundamental civil and political rights. It also Purpose:
imposessafeguards against violations by the (1) To preserve democratic ideals
government, by individuals, or by groups of individuals. (2) To safeguard fundamental rights
“The Bill of Rights governs the relationship between (3) To promote the happiness of an individual
the individual and the state. Its concern is not the The Bill of Rights is designed to preserve the ideals of
relation between individuals, between a private liberty, equality and security "against the assaults of
individual and other individuals. What the Bill of Rights opportunism, the expediency of the passing hour, the
does is to declare some forbidden zones in the private erosion of small encroachments, and the scorn and
sphere inaccessible to any power holder.” [People v. derision of those who have no patience with general
Marti (1991)] principles.” [Philippine Blooming Mills Employees
It is self-executing. [See Gamboa v. Teves (2011)] Organization v. Philippine Blooming Mills Co., Inc.
Article III contains the chief protection for human rights (1973)]
but the body of the Constitution guarantees other The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to withdraw "certain
rights as well. subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy,
(1) Civil rights– rights that belong to an individual to place them beyond the reach of majorities and
by virtue of his citizenship in a state or community officials, and to establish them as legal principles to be
(e.g. rights to property, marriage, freedom to applied by the courts. One's rights to life, liberty and
contract, equal protection, etc.) property, to free speech, or free press, freedom of
worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights
(2) Political rights– rights that pertain to an may not be submitted to a vote; they depend on the
individual’s citizenship vis-à-vis the management outcome of no elections." [West Virginia State Board
of the government (e.g. right of suffrage, right to of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 638]
petition government for redress, right to hold
public office, etc.)
(3) Social and economic rights – rights which are Accountability
intended to insure the well-being and economic Rule: The Bill of Rights cannot be invoked against
security of the individual acts of private individuals. The equal protection erects
no shield against private conduct, however
(4) Rights of the accused – civil rights intended for discriminatory or wrongful. [Yrasuegui v. PAL (2008)]
the protection of a person accused of any crime
Constitutional protection applies to government action
and is meant as a restraint against sovereign authority.
Human rights have a primacy over property rights. The The Bill of Rights is not meant to be invoked against
rights of free expression and of assembly occupy a private individuals, and governs relations between
preferred position as they are essential to the individuals and the state. [People v. Marti (1991)]
preservation and vitality of civil institutions. [PBMEO v.
Philippine Blooming Mills, Co. (1973)]

Important Notes:
(1) See Zulueta v. CA (1996), where the Bill of Rights
was invoked and applied by the Court against a
private party: The constitutional injunction
declaring the privacy of communication and
PAGE 104 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 POLITICAL LAW

correspondence to be inviolable is no less


applicable simply because it is the wife who is the III. Due Process
party against whom the constitutional provision is
to be enforced. The intimacies between husband
and wife do not justify any one of them in breaking Art. III, Sec. 1.No person shall be deprived of life,
the drawers and cabinets of the other and in liberty or property without due process of law, nor
ransacking them for any telltale evidence of shall any person be denied the equal protection of
marital infidelity. A person, by contracting the laws.
marriage, does not shed his/her integrity or his
right to privacy as an individual and the
constitutional protection is ever available to him or Art. XIII, Sec. 1.The Congress shall give highest
to her. [Zulueta v. CA (1996)] priority to the enactment of measures that protect
and enhance the right of all the people to human
(2) Contrastwith statutory due process, which may be dignity, reduce social, economic, and political
invoked against private individuals. [See, inequalities and remove cultural inequities by
generally, labor cases on illegal termination.] This equitably diffusing wealth and political power for the
does not form part of the Bill of Rights. common good.
To this end, the State shall regulate the acquisition,
ownership, use, and disposition of property and its
increments.

In General
Due process of law simply states that “[i]t is part of
the sporting idea of fair play to hear "the other side"
before an opinion is formed or a decision is made by
those who sit in judgment.” [Ynot v. IAC (1987)]
It covers any governmental action which constitutes a
deprivation of some person's life, liberty, or property.

Definition
Due process furnishes a standard to which the
governmental action should conform in order that
deprivation of life, liberty or property, in each
appropriate case, be valid. xxx It is responsiveness to
the supremacy of reason, obedience to the dictates of
justice. Negatively pit, arbitrariness is ruled out and
unfairness avoided. xxx Correctly it has been identified
as freedom from arbitrariness. It is the embodiment of
the sporting idea of fair play. [Ichong v. Hernandez
(1957)]
A law hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon
inquiry and renders judgment only after trial.
[Darthmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheaton 518]

Life is also the right to a good life. [Bernas] It includes


the right of an individual to his body in its
completeness, free from dismemberment, and
extends to the use of God-given faculties which make
life enjoyable. [Malcolm]
PAGE 105 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 POLITICAL LAW

Understood to include ―quality of life – which is nuisance per se, like a mad dog on the loose,
entitlement to a life lived with assurance that which may be killed at sight because of the
government he established and consented to will immediate danger it poses to the safety and lives
protect the security of person means [1] freedom from of the people.
fear; [2] guarantee of bodily and psychological integrity,
(3) Pornographic materials, contaminated meat and
and [3] guarantee of protection of one‘s rights by the
narcotic drugs areinherently pernicious and
government [Secretary of National Defense v Manalo].
may be summarily destroyed.
(4) The passport of a person sought for a criminal
Liberty“includes the right to exist and the right to be offensemay be cancelled without hearing, to
free from arbitrary personal restraint or servitude. [It] compel his return to the country he has fled.
includes the right of the citizen to be free to use his
(5) Filthy restaurants may be summarily padlocked in
faculties in all lawful ways[.]” [Rubi v. Provincial Board]
the interest of the public health and bawdy
Property is anything that can come under the right of houses to protect the public morals. [Ynot v.
ownership and be the subject of contract. It represents IAC (1987)]
more than the things a person owns; it includes the
In such instances,previous judicial hearing may be
right to secure, use and dispose of them. [Torraco v.
omitted without violation of due process in view
Thompson, 263 US 197]
of: 1) the nature of the property involved; or 2) the
urgency of the need to protect the general welfare from
Scope and limitations a clear and present danger.

Universal in application to all persons without regard


to any difference in race, color or nationality. A. RELATIVITY OF DUE PROCESS
Artificial persons are covered by the protection but
only insofar as their property is concerned [Smith Bell
and Co. v. Natividad, 40 Phil. 163] The concept of due process is flexible for not all
situations calling for procedural safeguards call for the
The guarantee extends to aliens and includes the same kind of procedure. [Secretary of Justice v.
means of livelihood. [Villegas v. HiuChiong, 86 SCRA Lantion (2000)]
275]
Consideration of what procedures due process may
The due process clause has to do with the legislation require under any given set of circumstances must
enacted in pursuance of the police power. xxx The begin with a determination of the precise nature of the
guaranty of due process, as has often been held, government function involved as well as of the private
demands only that the law shall not be unreasonable, interest that has been affected by governmental
arbitrary or capricious, and that the means selected action.” [Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers Union v.
shall have a real and substantial relation to the subject McElroy (1961)]
sought to be attained. [Ichong v. Hernandez (1957)]
To say that the concept of due process is flexible does
not mean that judges are at large to apply it to any and
all relationships. Its flexibility is in its scope once it has
been determined that some process is due; it is a
recognition that not all situations calling for procedural
Noted exceptions to due process safeguards call for the same kind of procedure.
[Morrissey v. Brewer (1972)]
(1) Aconclusive presumption, bars the admission
of contrary evidence as long as such presumption
is based on human experience or there is a B. PROCEDURAL AND SUBSTANTIVE
rational connection between the fact proved and DUE PROCESS
the fact ultimately presumed there from.
(2) There are instances when the need for
expeditious actionwill justify omission of these B.1 SCOPE
requisites—e.g. in the summary abatement of a

PAGE 106 OF 404


UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 POLITICAL LAW

Procedural Due Process – that aspect of due (2) Jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over the
process which serves as a restriction on actions of person of the defendant and over the property
judicial and quasi-judicial agencies of the government. subject matter of the proceeding [Banco Español
It refers to the method or manner by which a law is v. Palanca (1918)]
enforced. Note:Noticeis an essential element of due
Concerned with government action on established process, otherwise the Court will not acquire
process when it makes intrusion into the private jurisdiction and its judgment will not bind the
sphere. defendant.
To be meaningful, it must be both as to time and
place.
B.2 SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS
Service of summons is not only required to give
Substantive due process, asks whether the the court jurisdiction over the person of the
government has an adequate reason for taking away defendant but also to afford the latter the
a person’s life, liberty, or property.[City of Manila v. opportunity to be heard on the claim made against
Laguio (2005)] him. Thus, compliance with the rules regarding
In other words, substantive due process looks to the service of summons is as much an issue of
whether there is a sufficient justification for the due process as of jurisdiction. [Sarmiento v. Raon
government’s action. (2002)]
Substantive due process is an aspect of due process (3) The defendant must be given an opportunity to
which serves as a restriction on the law-making and be heard
rule-making power of the government. Due process is satisfied as long as the party is
The law itself, not merely the procedures by which the accorded the opportunity to be heard. If it is not
law would be enforced, should be fair, reasonable, and availed of, it is deemed waived or forfeited without
just. violating the constitutional guarantee. [Bautista v.
Court of Appeals (2004)]
It guarantees against the arbitrary power even when
exercised according to proper forms and procedure. The SC reiterated that the right to appeal is not a
natural right nor part of due process; it is merely a
Requisites: statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in
Due process of law means simply that the manner and in accordance with the provisions
(1) There shall be a law prescribed in harmony with of law. [Alba v. Nitorreda, 254 SCRA 753]
the general powers of the legislative department (4) Judgment must be rendered upon lawful hearing
of the Government; and must clearly explain its factual and legal
(2) This law shall be reasonable in its operation; bases. [Sec. 14, Art. VIII; Banco Español-Filipino
v. Palanca (1918)]
(3) It shall be enforced according to the regular
methods of procedure prescribed; and Note : The allowance or denial of motions for
extension rests principally on the sound discretion
(4) It shall be applicable alike to all the citizens of the of the court to which it is addressed, but such
state or to all of a class. [Rubi v. Provincial Board discretion must be exercised wisely and prudently,
of Mindoro (1919)] with a view to substantial justice. Poverty is
recognized as a sufficient ground for extending
existing period for filing. The right to appeal is part
B.3 PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS of due process of law. [Reyes v. CA (1977)]
In Civil Proceedings
Requisites:
In Administrative Proceedings
(1) An impartial court of tribunal clothed with The AngTibay Rules:
judicial power to hear and determine the matter
before it. (1) Right to a hearing to present own case and submit
evidence in support thereof.
(2) Tribunal must consider the evidence presented.
PAGE 107 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 POLITICAL LAW

(3) Decision rendered must have support. (5) The evidence must be duly considered by the
investigating committee or official designated by
(4) Evidence which supports the finding or conclusion
the school authorities to hear and decide the case
is substantial (such relevant evidence as a
[Non v. Dames (1990)]
reasonable mind accept as adequate to support a
conclusion).
(5) The decision must be rendered on the evidence In Labor Cases
presented at the hearing, or at least contained in
The Labor Code requires twin requirements of notice
the record and disclosed to the parties affected.
and hearing for a valid dismissal.
(6) The tribunal or any of its judges, must act on its or
However, the Court in Serrano v. NLRC clarified that
his own independent consideration of the law and
this “procedural due process” requirement is not
facts of the controversy, and not simply accept the
constitutional but merely statutory, hence, a violation
views of a subordinate in arriving at a decision.
of such requirement does not render the dismissal void.
(7) The tribunal should, in all controversial questions,
There are three reasons why violation by the employer
render its decision in such a manner that the
of the notice requirement cannot be considered a
parties to the proceeding can know the various
denial of due process resulting in the nullity of the
issues involved, and the reasons for the decision
employee's dismissal or layoff:
rendered. [AngTibay v. CIR (1940)]
(1) The Due Process Clause of the Constitution is a
In administrative proceedings, the essence of due
limitation on governmental powers. It does not
process is to explain one’s side. An actual hearing is
apply to the exercise of private power, such as the
not always an indispensable aspect of due process as
termination of employment under the Labor Code.
long as the party was given the opportunity to defend
his interests in due course. [Lumiqued v. Estrada (2) Notice and hearing are required under the Due
(1997)] Process Clause before the power of organized
society are brought to bear upon the individual.
This is obviously not the case of termination of
In Criminal Proceedings employment under Art. 283.
See Rights of the Accused, Topic 1 Criminal Due (3) The employer cannot really be expected to be
Process entirely an impartial judge of his own cause.
In the conduct of the criminal proceedings, it cannot be [Serrano v. NLRC (2000)]
said that the State has been denied due process
unless there is an indication that the special
prosecutor deliberately and willfully failed to present C. SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS
available evidence or that other evidence could be
secured. [People v. Sandiganbayan(2012)]
Laws which interfere with life, liberty or property satisfy
substantive due process when there is:
In Academic Disciplinary Proceedings (1) Lawful object i.e. the interests of the public in
Requisites: general (as distinguished from those of a
(1) The students must be informed in writing of the particular class) require the intervention of the
nature and cause of any accusation against them; State, and
(2) They shall have the right to answer the charges (2) Lawful means i.e. means employed are
against them, with the assistance of counsel, if reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of
desired; the purpose and not unduly oppressive on
individuals. [US v. Toribio (1910)]
(3) They shall be informed of the evidence against
them;
(4) They shall have the right to adduce evidence in Publication of laws is part of substantive due process.
their own behalf; It is a rule of law that before a person may be bound
by law, he must be officially and specifically informed
of its contents. For the publication requirement, “laws”
PAGE 108 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 POLITICAL LAW

refer to all statutes, including those of local application Purpose: Protects employees from being unjustly
and private laws. This does not cover internal terminated without just cause after notice and hearing.
regulations issued by administrative agencies, which
are governed by the Local Government Code.
Effect of breach: Does not void action; the law
Publication must be full, or there is none at all. [Tañada
provides for other remedies (e.g. damages,
v. Tuvera (1986)]
reinstatement).
Constitutional due process protects the individual from
Governmental functions are classified into: the government and assures him of his right in criminal,
(1) Constituent – constitute the very bonds of civil, or administrative proceedings; while statutory
due process found in the Labor Code and
society and are compulsory in nature (i.e. public
Implementing rules protects employees from being
order, administration of justice and foreign
unjustly terminated without just cause and hearing.
relations)
[Agabon v. NLRC (2004)]
(2) Ministrant – undertaken only by way of
advancing the general interests of society, and
are merely optional on the part of the State (i.e. E. HIERARCHY OF RIGHTS
public education, public charity and regulations of
trade and industry) [Concurring Opinion of Justice
Fernando in ACCFA v. CUGCO (1969)] When the Bill of Rights also protects property rights,
the primacy of human rights over property rights is
recognized. Because these freedoms are “delicate
D. CONSTITUTIONAL AND and vulnerable, as well as supremely precious in our
STATUTORY DUE PROCESS society” and the “threat of sanctions may deter their
exercise almost as potently as the actual application
of sanctions,” they “need breathing space to survive,”
D.1 CONSTITUTIONAL DUE PROCESS permitting government regulation only “with narrow
specificity.” [Philippine Blooming Mills Employees
[Agabon v. NLRC (2004)] Organization v. Philippine Blooming Mills Co., Inc.
Basis: Constitution (1973)]
Requirements: Procedural and Substantive If the liberty involved were freedom of the mind or the
person, the standard for the validity of governmental
Purpose:
acts is much more rigorous and exacting, but where
(1) Protects individual against government; and the liberty curtailed affects at the most rights of
property, the permissible scope of regulatory measure
(2) Assures him of his rights in criminal, civil and
is wider. [Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators
administrative proceedings
Association, Inc. v. City Mayor of Manila (1967)]
Effect of breach: government action void
Running through various provisions of the Constitution
are various provisions to protect property—but always
with the explicit or implicit reminder that property has
D.2. STATUTORY DUE PROCESS
a social dimension and that the right to property is
Basis: Statute. Cases where due process is statutory weighted with a social obligation. [BERNAS]
notably include (1) labor termination cases, and (2) the
right to appeal, .e.g. Termination in Labor Cases.
Basis: Labor Code F. JUDICIAL STANDARDS OF REVIEW

Requirements:
(1) Procedural (the manner of dismissal, i.e. after F.1. “RATIONAL BASIS TEST”
Labor Code requirements are satisfied) There is an evil at hand for correction and the
(2) Substantive (valid and authorized causes of particular legislative measure was a rational way to
employment termination) correct it. [Williamson v. Lee Optical (1955)]

PAGE 109 OF 404


UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 POLITICAL LAW

This test is applicable for economic, property, White Light. The requirements of due process that
commercial legislation. [White Light Corporation v. must concur (as held in the case) are:
City of Manila (2009)]
(1) Interest of the public generally, as opposed to a
class;
(2) Means must be reasonably necessary for the
accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly
F.2. “STRICT SCRUTINY TEST”
oppressive of private rights
This test is triggered when a fundamental
(3) No other alternative less intrusive of private rights
constitutional right is limited by a law, (i.e. freedom of
the mind and curtailment of political process). (4) Reasonable relation must exist between the
purposes of the measure and the means
This requires the government to show an overriding or
employed for its accomplishment. [White Light
compelling government interest so great that it justifies
Corporation v. City of Manila (2009)]
the limitation of fundamental constitutional rights. The
courts make the decision of whether or not the
purpose of the law makes the classification necessary.
F.3. “INTERMEDIATE SCRUTINY TEST”
There is compelling state interest when:
A third standard, denominated as heightened or
(1) The state have a compelling reason/interest to immediate scrutiny, was later adopted by the U.S.
reach into such legislation infringing into the Supreme Court for evaluating classifications based on
private domain; and gender and legitimacy. While the test may have first
been articulated in equal protection analysis, it has in
(2) There is no other alternative
the United States since been applied in all substantive
Strict scrutiny was applied in determining whether the due process cases as well. [White Light Corporation v.
requirements of substantive due process were met in City of Manila (2009)]
an ordinance challenged in as unconstitutional in

Summary of White Light Levels of Scrutiny

Level of Scrutiny Rights Involved Requisites for Validity


Rational Basis Economic, property, commercial (a) Legitimate government interest
legislation (b) Purpose and means
correspondence
Intermediate/Heightened Gender, illegitimacy (a) Substantial government interest
Scrutiny (b) Availability of less restrictive means
Strict Scrutiny  Freedom of the mind, restriction (a) Compelling state interest
on political process (b) Absence of less restrictive means
 Fundamental rights: freedom of
expression, speech, suffrage
 (U.S.) Judicial access, interstate
commerce

G. VOID-FOR-VAGUENESS DOCTRINE of ordinary intelligence can understand what conduct


is prohibited by the statute. A statute or act may be
Void for Vagueness
said to be vague when it lacks comprehensible
An act is vague when it lacks comprehensible standards that men of common intelligence must
standards that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ in its
necessarily guess at its common meaning and differ application. The statute is repugnant to the
as to its application. Constitution in tworespects:
A statute establishing a criminal offense must define
the offense with sufficient definiteness that persons
PAGE 110 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 POLITICAL LAW

(1) It violates due process for failure to accord (2) The statute involves free speech (Rationale:
persons, especially the parties targeted by it, fair Statute may be facially challenged in order to
notice of what conduct to avoid; counter the “chilling effect” of the same.) [Disini
v. Sec. of Justice (2014), on the constitutionality
(2) It leaves law enforcers an unbridled discretion in
of the Cybercrime Law]
carrying out its provisions and becomes an
arbitrary flexing of the government muscle.
[Southern Hemisphere v. Anti-Terrorism Council
Note: As-applied v. Facial Challenges
(2010)]
Distinguished from an as-applied challenge which
An accused is denied the right to be informed of the
considers only extant facts affecting real litigants, a
charge against him and to due process where the
facial invalidation is an examination of the entire
statute itself is couched in such indefinite language
law, pinpointing its flaws and defects, not only on the
that it is not possible for men of ordinary intelligence
basis of its actual operation to the parties, but also on
to determine therefrom what acts/omissions are
the assumption or prediction that its very existence
punished. [People v. Nazario (1988)]
may cause others not before the court to refrain from
[This doctrine] can only be invoked against that constitutionally protected speech or activities. [Disini,
species of legislation that is utterly vague on its face, supra]
i.e., that which cannot be clarified either by a saving
clause or by construction. The test in determining
whether a criminal statute is void for uncertainty is
whether the language conveys a sufficiently definite
warning as to the proscribed conduct. It must be
stressed, however, that the vagueness doctrine
merely requires a reasonable degree of certainty for
the statute to be upheld – not absolute precision or
mathematical exactitude. [Estrada v.
Sandiganbayan]

Comparison with Overbreadth Doctrine


The overbreadth doctrine decrees that "a
governmental purpose may not be achieved by
means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and
thereby invade the area of protected freedoms."
[Southern Hemisphere, supra]
The void-for-vagueness doctrine is subject to the
same principles governing overbreadth doctrine. For
one, it is also an analytical tool for a “facial” challenge
of statutes in free speech cases. Like overbreadth, it
is said that a litigant may challenge a statute on its
face only if it is vague in all its possible applications.

General rule: Void-for-vagueness and overbreadth


are inapplicable to penal statutes. (Rationale:
statutes have a general in terroremeffect, which is to
discourage citizens from committing the prohibited
acts.)
Exception: Said doctrines apply to penal statutes
when
(1) The statute is challenged as applied; or

PAGE 111 OF 404


UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 POLITICAL LAW

B. REQUISITES FOR VALID


IV. Equal Protection CLASSIFICATION

A. CONCEPT
(1) It must rest on substantial distinctions which
make for real differences;
Definition (2) It must be germaneto the purpose of the law;
Equal protection requires that all persons or things (3) It must not be limited to existing conditions
similarly situated should be treated alike, both as to only.
rights conferred and responsibilities imposed.
An ordinance was declared void because it taxes
Similar subjects, in other words, should not be only centrifugal sugar produced and exported by
treated differently, so as to give undue favor to some the Ormoc Sugar Company and none other,
and unjustly discriminate against others. such that if a new sugar central is established in
Ormoc, it would not be subject to the ordinance.
It does not demand absolute equality among
[Ormoc Sugar Co. v. Treasurer of Ormoc City
residents; it merely requires that all persons shall be
(1968)]
treated alike, under like circumstances and
conditions both as to privileges conferred and (4) Apply equally to all members of the same
liabilities enforced. The guarantee means that no class. [People v. Cayat (1939)]
person or class of persons shall be denied the same
protection of laws which is enjoyed by other persons
or other classes in like circumstances. [Ichong v. Presumption of Validity
Hernandez (1957)] All classifications made by law are generally
presumed to be valid unless shown otherwise by
petitioner.[Lacson v. Executive Secretary (1999)]
Scope
Natural and juridical persons (the equal protection
clause extends to artificial persons but only insofar as Aliens
their property is concerned.) General Rule:The general rule is that a legislative
(1) A corporation as an artificial person is protected act may not validly classify the citizens of the State
under the Bill of Rights against denial of due on the basis of their origin, race or parentage.
process, and it enjoys the equal protection of the Exceptions:
law. [Smith, Bell and Co., v. Natividad (1919)]
(1) In times of great and imminent danger, such as
(2) A corporation is also protected against
a threatened invasion or war, such a
unreasonable searches and seizures. [See
classification is permitted by the Constitution
Stonehill v. Diokno (1967)]
when the facts so warrant (e.g. discriminatory
(3) It can only be proceeded against by due process legislation against Japanese citizens during
of law, and is protected against unlawful WWII).
discrimination. [Bache and Co. v. Ruiz (1971)]
(2) The political rights of aliens do not enjoy the
same protection as that of citizens.
(3) Statutes may validly limit to citizens exclusively
the enjoyment of rights or privileges connected
with the public domain, the public works, or the
natural resources of the State.The rights and
interests of the state in these things are not
simply political but also proprietary in nature; and
so the citizens may lawfully be given preference
over aliens in their use or enjoyment.

PAGE 112 OF 404


UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 POLITICAL LAW

B.1 EXAMPLES OF VALID prosecutory agencies of government because those


CLASSIFICATION subject to its jurisdiction are public officials who,
through official pressure and influence, can quash,
delay or dismiss investigations against them.
Alien v. National [Almonte v. Vasquez (1995)]
The Court upheld the Retail Trade Nationalization
Law despite the objection that it violated the Equal
Print v. Broadcast Media
Protection clause, because there exists real and
actual, positive and fundamental differences There are substantial distinctions between the two to
between an alien and a national. [Ichong v. warrant their different treatment under BP 881.
Hernandez (1957)] [Telecommunications and Broadcast Attorneys of the
Phil v. COMELEC (1998)]

Filipino Female Domestics WorkingAbroad


They are a class by themselves because of the C. STANDARDS FOR JUDICIAL
special risks to which their class was exposed. [Phil REVIEW
Association of Service Exporters v. Drilon (1988)]
Serrano v. Gallant Maritime (2009) introduced a
Land-Based v. Sea-Based Filipino Overseas modification in equal protection jurisprudence by
Workers using the three-level review used in due process
cases.In effect, the level of review when it comes to
There is dissimilarity as to work environment, safety, equal protection challenges may follow the following
danger to life and limb, and accessibility to social, civil format:
and spiritual activities. [Conference of Maritime
Manning Agencies v. POEA (1995)] (1) Whether the State was justified in making a
classification at all. (three-level scrutiny)
(a) Rational Basis Test – The classification
Qualification for Elective Office should bear a reasonable relation to the
Disqualification from running in the same elective government’s purpose or legitimate state
office from which he retired of a retired elective interest
provincial/municipal official who has received Notes: Important when there is no plausible
payment of retirement benefits and who shall have difference between the disadvantaged class
been 65 years old at the commencement of the term and those not disadvantaged.
of office to which he seeks to be elected is valid.
[Dumlao v. Comelec (1980)] Also important when the government
attaches a morally irrelevant and negative
significance to a difference between the
Election Officials v. Other Municipal Officials advantaged and the disadvantaged.
RA 8189 (Voters’ Registration Act) prohibits election (b) Strict Scrutiny Test – A legislative
officers from holding office in a particular city or classification which impermissibly interferes
municipality for more than four (4) years. The with the exercise of a fundamental right or
classification is germane to the law since the risk operates to the peculiar disadvantage of a
sought to be addressed is cheating during elections. suspect class is presumed unconstitutional.
[De Guzman v. COMELEC (2000)] The burden is upon the government to
prove that the classification is necessary to
achieve a compelling state interest and that
Office of the Ombudsman it is the least restrictive means to protect
such interest. It is applied when the
Allowing the Ombudsman to start an investigation classification has a “suspect basis”.
based on an anonymous letter does not violate the
equal protection clause. The Office of the Suspect classes – A classification that
Ombudsman is different from other investigatory and violates a fundamental right, or prejudices a
PAGE 113 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 POLITICAL LAW

person accorded special protection by the standards, by gauging the extent to which
Constitution [Serrano v. Gallant]. May constitutionally guaranteed rights depend
therefore include a classification based on upon the affected individual interest.
income. Government must show that the challenged
classification serves an important state
(Compare to theUS definition: classes
interest and that the classification is at
subject to such a history of purposeful
leastsubstantially related to serving that
unequal treatment or relegated to such a
interest. Applicable to certain sensitive but
position of political powerlessness as to
not suspect classes; certain important but
command extraordinary protection from the
not fundamental interest.
majoritarian political process. Income
classification will not trigger strict scrutiny.) (2) Whether the classification was valid. (4-pronged
test of valid classification in People v. Cayat)
This test is usually applied to cases
involving classifications based on race, Alternative thought: In Serrano v. Gallant
national origin, religion, alienage, denial of Maritime, the Court seems to imply that the Test
the right to vote, migration, access to courts, of Valid Classification is to be applied under the
and other rights recognized as fundamental Rational Basis standard. (Note that in Serrano,
where the Court applied Strict Scrutiny, the Test
(c) Intermediate Scrutiny Test – Court
of Valid Classification was mentioned but not
accepts the articulated purpose of the
applied.) Serrano does not appear to have been
legislation, but it closely scrutinizes the
reapplied (except in separate opinions), hence
relationship between the classification and
its application remains unclear.
the purpose based on a spectrum of

Summary of Serrano v. Gallant Levels of Scrutiny


Level of Scrutiny Classification Made Requisites for Validity

Rational Basis Classifications, in general Test of valid classification


(a) Substantial distinction;
(b) Germane to the purpose of the law;
(c) Not limited to existing conditions
only;
(d) Must apply equally to all within the
class

Intermediate/Heightened Scrutiny Gender, illegitimacy (a) Substantial government interest


(b) Availability of less restrictive means

Strict Scrutiny Affects fundamental rights; or suspect (a) Compelling state interest
classification
(b) Absence of less restrictive means

Suspect classification:
 PHL: A class given special protection
by the Constitution
 US: Race

PAGE 114 OF 404


UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 POLITICAL LAW

consideration of the circumstances involved.


V. Searches and Seizures [Valmonte v. De Villa, (1989)]

A. CONCEPT Scope
(4) Natural Persons
The right of the people to be secure in their It protects all persons including aliens [Qua Chee
persons, houses, papers, and effects against Gan v. Deportation Board (1963)]
unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever
nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and (5) Artificial Persons
no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue
Artificial persons (e.g. corporations) are protected to
except upon probable cause to be determined
personally by the judge after examination under a limited extent. [Bache and Co. Inc. v. Ruiz (1971)]
oath or affirmation of the complainant and the The opening of their account books is not protected,
witnesses he may produce, and particularly by virtue of police and taxing powers of the State.
describing the place to be searched and the
persons or things to be seized. [Art. III, Sec. 2]
B. WARRANT REQUIREMENT
Definition
Nature
(1) Search Warrant – an order in writing, issued in
(1) Personal – It may be invoked only by the person the name of the People of the Philippines, signed
entitled to it. [Stonehill v. Diokno (1967)] by a judge and directed to a peace officer,
It may be waived expressly or impliedly only by commanding him to search for personal property
the person whose right is invaded, not by one described therein and bring it before the court
who is not duly authorized to effect such waiver. [Rule 126, Sec. 1, Rules of Criminal Procedure,
[People v. Damaso (1992)] Rules of Court]

This right is a personal right invocable by those (2) Warrant of Arrest – a written order issued and
whose rights have been infringed or threatened signed by a magistrate (judge in our jurisdiction)
to be infringed. [Valmonte v. De Villa (1989)] directed to a peace officer or some other person
specially named, commanding him to arrest the
(2) Directed Against the Government and Its body of a person named in it, who is accused of
Agencies (State Action Requirement) an offense [Brown v. State, 109 Ala. 70, 20
The right cannot be set up against acts South 103]
committed by private individuals. The right
applies as a restraint directed only against the
government and its agencies tasked with the Purpose
enforcement of the law. The protection cannot (3) Search Warrant – to gain evidence to convict
extend to acts committed by private individuals
so as to bring them within the ambit of alleged (4) Warrant of Arrest – to acquire jurisdiction over
unlawful intrusion by the government. Warrant is the person of the accused
needed if the government requests for the The warrant must refer to one specific offense.
search and seizure: but, if at behest of a private [Castro v. Pabalan (1976)]
person or establishment for its own private
purposes the right against unreasonable The Dangerous Drugs Act is a special law that deals
searches and seizures cannot be invoked. specifically with dangerous drugs which are
[People v. Marti (1991); see also Yrasuegui v. subsumed into “prohibited” and “regulated” drugs,
Philippine Airlines (2008)] and defines and penalizes categories of offenses
which are closely related or which belong to the same
What constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable class or species; thus, one search warrant may be
search and seizure in any particular case is validly issued for several violations thereof. [People v.
purely a judicial question, determinable from a Dichoso (1993)]

PAGE 115 OF 404


UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 POLITICAL LAW

Requisites (Search Warrant): or pro-forma, if the claimed probable cause


is to be established. [Nala v. Barroso, Jr.]
(a) Existence of probable cause
There must be a conduct of own inquiry
Probable cause – such facts and circumstances
regarding intent and justification of the
which would lead a reasonably discreet and
application
prudent man to believe that (a) an offense has
been committed and that (b) the objects sought  The examining magistrate must not simply
in connection with the offense are in the place rehash the contents of the affidavit but must
sought to be searched. [Burgos v. Chief of Staff make his own inquiry on the intent and
(1984)] justification of the application. [Roan v.
Cf. for Warrant of Arrest – such facts and Gonzales (1984)]
circumstances that would lead a reasonably Oath – any form of attestation that he is bound
discreet and prudent man to believe that (a) a in conscience to perform an act faithfully or
crime has been committed and (b) the person to truthfully; an outward pledge given by the person
be arrested is probably guilty thereof. [Allado v. taking it that his attestation or promise is made
Diokno (1994)] under an immediate sense of his responsibility to
(b) Personal determination of probable cause by the God
judge. Requisites:
On determining probable cause:The (1) Must refer to facts
magistrate must make an exhaustive and
(2) Such facts are of personal knowledge of the
probing examination of witnesses and applicant
petitioner or applicant or witnesses. Not
and not merely routine or pro forma examination
hearsay.
[Nala v. Barroso, Jr. (2003)]
Test of sufficiency of an oath
The determination of probable cause calls for an
exercise of judgment after a judicial appraisal of “Whether or not it was drawn in a manner that
the facts and should not be allowed to be perjury could be charged against the affiant and
delegated in the absence of any rule to the he be held liable for damages.”
contrary.
(d) On the basis of their personal knowledge of the
(c) After personal examination under oath or facts they are testifying to. [Nala v. Barroso, Jr.
affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses (2003); Burgos v. AFP (1984); Roan v. Gonzales
he may produce. (1986); People v. Malmstead (1991)]
How it is done: In the form of searching The purpose of having personal knowledge by
questions and answers, in writing and under oath the complainant and witnesses and the
[Rule 126, Sec. 6, ROC] sufficiency of the warrant is to convince the
magistrate seeking the issuance of the warrant
 Mere affidavits of the complainant and his
that there is probable cause.
witnesses are thus not sufficient.
Personal knowledge is not the same as personal
 The examining Judge has to take belief. [Nala v. Barroso, Jr.]
depositions in writing of the complainant
and the witnesses he may produce and The testimony must be based on the own
attach them to the record. personal knowledge of othe complainant and of
the witnesses, not mere heresay or information
 Such written deposition is necessary in from a “reliable source”. [Alvarez v. CFI]
order that the Judge may be able to properly
determine the existence or non-existence of (e) The warrant must describe particularly the place
the probable cause, to hold liable for perjury to be searched and the persons or things to be
the person giving it if it will be found later seized.
that his declarations are false. Requirement is primarily meant to enable the law
 It is axiomatic that the examination must be enforcers serving the warrant to (1) readily
probing and exhaustive, not merely routine identify the properties to be seized and thus
prevent them from seizing the wrong items; and
PAGE 116 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 POLITICAL LAW

(2) leave said peace officers with no discretion Search warrant is valid despite the mistake in the
regarding the articles to be seized and thus name of the persons to be searched. The authorities
prevent unreasonable searches and seizures. conducted surveillance and test-buy operations
[People v. Tee (2003)] before obtaining the search warrant and
subsequently implementing it. They had personal
knowledge of the identity of the persons and the
Place to Be Searched place to be searched, although they did not
The search warrant issued to search petitioner’s specifically know the names of the accused. [People
compound for unlicensed firearms was held invalid v. Tiu Won Chua (2003)]
for failing to describe the place with particularity, A John Doe search warrant is valid. There is nothing
considering that the compound was made up of 200 to prevent issue and service of warrant against a
buildings, 15 plants, 84 staff houses, one airstrip etc. party whose name is unknown. [People v. Veloso
spread out over 155 hectares. [PICOP v. Asuncion (1925)]
(1999)]

General Warrant– one that:


Description of Place/Things
(1) Does not describe with particularity the things
The description of the property to be seized need not subject of the search and seizure; or
be technically accurate or precise. Its nature will vary
(2) Where probable cause has not been properly
according to whether the identity of the property is a
established.
matter of concern. The description is required to be
specific only insofar as the circumstances will allow. Effects: It is a void warrant. [Nolasco v. Paño (1985)]
[Kho v. Judge Makalintal (1999)]
Any evidence obtained in violation [of this or the
A search warrant may be said to particularly describe preceding section] shall be inadmissible for any
the things to be seized when the (a) description purpose in any proceding. [Art. III, Sec. 3]
therein is as specific as the circumstances will
The unconstitutionality of the search and the seizure
ordinarily allow [People v. Rubio, 57 Phil 384]; or (b)
or the use of a void search warrant, renders the items
when the description expresses a conclusion of fact,
seized inadmissible in evidence. Exclusion is the
not of law, by which the warrant officer may be guided
only practical way of enforcing the constitutional
in making the search and seizure; or (c) when the
privelage. [Stonehill v. Diokno]
tings described are limited to those which bear direct
relation to the offense for which the warrant is being Exception to General Warrants: General
issued. [Bache and Co. v. Ruiz, 37 SCRA 823] descriptions will not invalidate the entire warrant if
other items have been particularly described. [Uy v.
An error in the name of the person in the search
BIR (2000)]
warrant does not invalidate the warrant, as long as it
contains a description personae [including
additional descriptions] that will enable the officer to Conduct of the Search [Sec. 7, Rule 126, ROC]
identify the accused without difficulty. [Nala v.
Barroso, Jr.] (1) In the presence of a lawful occupant thereof or
any member of his family, OR
General Rule: the warrant must indicate the
particular place to be searched and person or thing (2) If occupant or members of the family are absent,
to be seized. in the presence of 2 witnesses of sufficient age
and discretion, residing in the same locality.
Exception: If the nature of the goods to be seized
cannot be particularly determined. Failure to comply with Sec. 7 Rule 126 invalidates the
search. [People v. Gesmundo (1993)]
 the nature of the thing is general in description
When Forcible Entry Justified
 the thing is not required of a very technical
description [Alvarez v. CFI (1937)] Force may be used in entering a dwelling if justified
by Rule 126 ROC. e.g. Occupants of the house
refused to open the door despite the fact that the
Description of Persons Searched searching party knocked several times, and the
PAGE 117 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 POLITICAL LAW

agents saw suspicious movements of the people recognized as an exception to the warrant
inside the house. [People v. Salanguit (2001)] requirement by Aniag v. COMELEC (1994) and
Valmonte v. De Villa (1989, 1990)
Unlawful Search
C.2. SEARCH INCIDENT TO A LAWFUL
Police officers arrived at appellant’s residence and ARREST
“side-swiped” appellant’s car (which was parked
outside) to gain entry into the house. Appellant’s son, A person lawfully arrested may be searched
who is the only one present in the house, opened the for dangerous weapons or anything which may
door and was immediately handcuffed to a chair after be used as proof of the commission of an
being informed that they are policemen with a warrant offense, without a search warrant. [Sec. 12,
to search the premises. [People v. Benny Go (2003)] Rule 126, Rules of Court]
The provision is declaratory in the sense that it
is confined to the search, without a search
C. WARRANTLESS SEARCHES warrant, of a person who had been arrested.
It is also a general rule that, as an incident of an
General rule: Probable cause required. arrest, the place or premises where the arrest
was made can also be searched without a
“The essential requisite of probable cause must still search warrant. In this case, the extent and
be satisfied before a warrantless search and seizure reasonableness of the search must be decided
can be lawfully conducted.” In these cases, probable on its own facts and circumstances.
cause (warrantless searches) must be “based on
reasonable ground of suspicion or belief that a crime What must be considered is the balancing of the
has been committed or is about to be committed.” individual’s right to privacy and the public’s
[People v. Aruta (1998)] interest in the prevention of crime and the
apprehension of criminals. [Nolasco v. Pano
N.B. InAruta, the standards for probable cause are (1985)]
different from those required for the issuance of
warrants. Arutaimplies that the reasonableness of a
warrantless search is determined by the (1)
informationreceived and used as a basis for the Test for validity
search, and (2) additional factors and circumstances. (1) Item to be searched was within the
The two, taken together, constitute the probable arrester’s custody;
cause which justifies warrantless searches and
seizures. [Aruta, supra] (2) Search was contemporaneous with the
arrest
Under the Rules of Court, a person charged with
C.1. WARRANTLESS SEARCHES an offense may be searched for dangerous
RECOGNIZED BY JURISPRUDENCE weapons or anything which may be used as
Summary [People v. Aruta, supra] proof of the commission of the offense. As an
incident of an arrest, the premises where the
(6) Search incidental to a lawful arrest (ROC Rule arrest was made can also be searched without
113, Sec. 5) search warrant. [Nolasco v. Cruz Paño (1985)]
(7) Plain view doctrine
An “arrest being incipiently illegal, it logically
(8) Search of a moving vehicle follows that the subsequent search was similarly
(9) Consented warrantless search (waiver of right illegal.” [People v. Aruta, supra]
against unreasonable searches and seizures)
(10) Customs search
(11) Stop and frisk Arresting officer may search: [Chimel v.
California (1969)]
(12) Exigent and emergency circumstances
(13) Visual search at checkpoints – not among those (1) The arrestee’s person to:
enumerated in People v. Aruta, but also (a) discover or weapons and
PAGE 118 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 POLITICAL LAW

(b) Seize evidence to prevent concealment brought to NARCOM office. The Olongapo RTC
or destruction; and convicted her for violating the Dangerous Drugs
Act.Th Supreme Court ruled that it was NOT a
(2) The area within the immediate control of the
reasonable search because there was no probable
arrestee, i.e. area from which he might gain
cause for a search incidental to a lawful arrest.
possession of a weapon or destructible
evidence.
Immediate control – immediate area to the Why the Aruta case does not fall under the other
defendant’s person where there are nearby categories of valid warrantless search:
weapons he could grab to attack the officer or
(1) Not plain view; the confiscated item was
what he has in his pocket.
inside the bag.
It will be reasonable for officer to confiscate
(2) Not moving vehicle; she was in the middle
whatever may be used to threaten his life or limb.
of the street descending a parked bus.
(3) Not stop and frisk; there was no way her
actions could arouse suspicion that she was
doing something illegal.
People v. Aruta (1998)
(4) Not exigent or emergency circumstance;
Short facts: P/Lt. Abello was tipped off by an
unlike People v. De Gracia, there is no
informant that a certain Aling Rosa Aruta will arrive
general prevailing chaos that would render
from Baguio with a large volume of marijuana with her
the courts inactive.
via a bus which the informant identified. Aruta
descended from the bus, the informant points his (5) No waiver of right or consented search.
finger at her, and police asked if they could open her Silence does not constitute waiver. Waiver
bag and check its contents. They found it contained of an unreasonable search and seizure is
dried marijuana leaves and a bus ticket. These were not presumed.

Comparison of Aruta to other cases


Aruta (without
Other cases (held that search was valid because there was probable cause)
probable cause)
 Aruta was not acting People v. Tangiliban
suspiciously  Conducted surveillance of Victory Bus Liner
 Narcom had prior  Person was acting suspiciously
knowledge  Bag was asked to be opened
 On the spot tip was allowed
 Not suspicious People v. Malmstedt
 There was reasonable  Acted suspiciously
time to get warrant  No reasonable time to get warrant
 She was just crossing  He was aboard moving vehicle
the street
 Crossing the street, People v. Bagista
She was no longer in a  Described exact appearance and when searched, it fitted the description
moving vehicle  Moving vehicle and checkpoint
 Aruta was merely Manalili v. CA
carrying a barong,  Surveillance of Kalookan Cemetery because druggies roam about
which by itself, would  Chanced upon a person who appeared, based on officers’ experience, were high on
not have raised any drugs
suspicion

PAGE 119 OF 404


UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 POLITICAL LAW

C.3. PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE where the occupants are not subjected to physical or
body search. On the other hand, when the vehicle is
Things seized are within plain view of a searching
stopped and subjected to an extensive search, it
party.
would be constitutionally permissible only if the
Requisites: officers conducting the search had reasonable or
(1) Prior valid intrusion based on valid warrantless probable cause to believe, before the search that
arrest in which the police are legally present in either the motorist is a law offender or they will find
the pursuit of their official duties the instrumentality or evidence pertaining to a crime
in the vehicle to be searched. [Caballes v. Court of
(2) Evidence was inadvertently discovered by the Appeals (2002); People v. Libnao (2003)]
police who had the right to be where they are
(3) Evidence must be immediately apparent
C.5. VALID EXPRESS WAIVER MADE
(4) “Plain view” justified mere seizure of evidence VOLUNTARILY AND INTELLIGENTLY
without further search [People v. Aruta, supra;
Requisites:
N.B. substantially the same as Nala v. Barroso
requirements] (1) Must appear that right exists;
An object is in “plain view” if the object itself is (2) Person involved had actual or constructive
plainly exposed to sight. Where the seized object knowledge of the existence of such right;
is inside a closed package, the object is not in
(3) Said person had an actual intentto relinquish the
plain view and, therefore, cannot be seized
right. [Aruta, supra]
without a warrant. However, if the package
proclaims its contents, whether by its distinctive In this case, mere failure to object to the search and
configuration, its transparency, or if its contents seizure does not constitute a waiver.
are obvious to an observer, then the content are
Right to be secure from unreasonable search may be
in plain view, and may be seized. [Caballes v.
waived. Waiver may be express or implied. When
Court of Appeals (2002)]
one voluntarily submits to a search or consents to
If the package is such that it contains prohibited have it made of his person/premises, he is precluded
articles, then the article is deemed in plain view. from later complaining. [People v. KaguiMalasugui
[People v. Nuevasm (2007)] (1936)]
There is presumption against waiver by the courts. It
is the State that has the burden of proving, by clear
C.4. SEARCH OF MOVING VEHICLES
and convincing evidence, that the necessary consent
Securing a search warrant is not practicable since the was obtained and that it was voluntarily and freely
vehicle can be quickly moved out of the locality or given. [Caballes v. Court of Appeals (2002)]
jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought.
When accused checked in his luggage as passenger
[Papa v. Mago (1968)]
of a plane, he agreed to the inspection of his luggage
“Stop and search” without a warrant at military or in accordance with customs laws and regulations,
police checkpoints has been declared not to be illegal and thus waived any objection to a warrantless
per se so long as it is required by exigencies of public search. [People v. Gatward, 267 SCRA 785]
order and conducted in a way least intrusive to
Mere passive conformity is not consent or a valid
motorists. [Valmonte v. de Villa (1989)]
waiver under the constitutional guaranty. [Anaig v.
For a mere routine inspection, the search is normally COMELEC]
permissible when it is limited to a mere visual search,

PAGE 120 OF 405


UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 POLITICAL LAW

C.6. CUSTOMS SEARCH Guidelines of Stop and Frisk


The police are allowed to conduct warrantless
(1) When police officer observes unusual conduct;
searches in behalf of the Department of Customs.
They are authorized to examine, open any box, trunk, (2) This conduct leads him to believe, also in light
or other containers where he has reasonable cause of his experience, that criminal activity may be
to believe that such items were hidden from customs afoot
search. [People v. Mago (1968)]
Sec. 219 of the Customs Modernization and Tariff (3) The persons with whom he is dealing may be
Actstates that no warrant is required for police or armed and presently dangerous
authorized persons to pass, enter, search any land,
enclosure, building, warehouse, vessels, aircrafts, (4) Also, in the course of investigating his behavior
vehicles but not dwelling. of the man, after identifying himself as a police
Purpose of customs search: To verify whether or officer – the man is entitled to a limited search
not Custom duties and taxes were paid for their of outer clothing because:
importation.
(a) Fear of his own safety
C.7. STOP AND FRISK SEARCHES
There should be a genuine reason to “stop-and-frisk (b) Fear of public’s safety that a crime might
in the light of the police officer’s experience and ensue
surrounding conditions to warrant a belief that the [Manalili v. CA, 1997]
person detained has weapons concealed. [Malacat v.
CA (1997), citing Terry v. Ohio] The police officer should properly introduce himself
and make initial inquiries, approach and restrain a
Police officer has a right to stop a citizen on street person who manifests unusual and suspicious
and pat him for a weapon in the interest of protecting conduct, in order to check the latter’s outer clothing
himself from the person with whom he was dealing for possibly concealed weapons. The apprehending
by making sure that he is not armed. police officer must have a genuine reason,
The right of an agent, to protect himself and others, inaccordance with the police officer’s experience and
to conduct a carefully limited search of outer clothing the surrounding conditions, to warrant the belief that
of such persons as listed below in an attempt to the person to be held has weapons or contraband
discover weapons which might be used to assault concealed about him[People v. Sy Chua (2003)].
him. Such search is reasonable under the 4th Summary of Test for validity of a stop-and-
amendment: fristk search:
(1) Where a police officer observes unusual conduct (1) There must be a specific and articulable facts
which leads him reasonably to conclude in light which, taken together with rational inferences,
of his experience that criminal activity may be reasonably warrant the intrusion.
afoot and that the person with whom he is (2) The officer must identify himself and make
dealing may be armed and presently dangerous; reasonable inquiries.
(2) Where in the course of the investigation of this (3) The “frisk” is permitted to search for weapons for
behavior he identifies himself as a policeman the protection of the police officer, where he has
and makes reasonable inquiries; and reason to believe that he is dealing with an
(3) Where nothing in the initial stages of the armed and dangerous individual, regardless of
encounter serves to dispel his reasonable fear probable cause for a crime.
for his own or other’s safety. [Terry v. Ohio, (4) The scope of the search is limited to the outer
1968] surface of the subject’s clothing.
Test: WON a reasonably prudent man in the
circumstances would be warranted in the belief that
C.8. EXIGENT AND EMERGENCY
his safety or that of others was in danger [Terry v. CIRCUMSTANCES
Ohio (1968)].
PAGE 121 OF 405
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 POLITICAL LAW

The raid and seizure of firearms and ammunition at


the height of the 1989 coup d’état, was held valid,
considering the exigent and emergency situation.
The military operatives had reasonable ground to
believe that a crime was being committed, and they
had no opportunity to apply for a search warrant from
the courts because the latter were closed. Under
such urgency and exigency, a search warrant could
be validly dispensed with. [People v. de Gracia, 233
SCRA 716]

C.9. VISUAL SEARCHES AT


CHECKPOINTS
Not among those enumerated in People v. Arutabut
also recognized as an exception to the requirement
of a search warrant are visual searches at
checkpoints, as the establishment of such is a valid
exercise of police power to ensure security and safety.
Routine checkpoints are valid if:
(1) Vehicle is neither searched, nor its
occupants subjected to a body search;
and
(2) Inspection is merely limited to a visual
search of the vehicle.

PAGE 122 OF 404


UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 POLITICAL LAW

Summary of Requisites for Warrantless Searches

Type Requisites
Incident to a Lawful Arrest Arresting officer may search
[Chimel v. CA] (a) The arrestee’s person to
(i) Discover or remove weapons and
(ii) Seize evidence to prevent concealment or destruction; and
(b) The area “within the immediate control” of the arrestee, i.e. area from
which he might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence.

Plain View (a) Prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest in which the
[People v. Aruta] police are legally present in the pursuit of their official duties
(b) Evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who had the right to
be where they are
(c) Evidence must be immediately apparent
(d) “Plain view” justified mere seizure of evidence without further search

Vehicle Checkpoint (a) Vehicle is neither searched; nor its occupants subjected to a body search;
[Valmonte v. de Villa] and
(b) Inspection of the vehicle is merely limited to a visual search.
Search of a Moving Vehicle Extensive search without a warrant valid only if the officers had reasonable or
[Aniag v. COMELEC] probable cause to believe before the search that
(a) The motorist was a law offender; or
(b) They would find the evidence of a crime in the vehicle.

Consented Search (Requisites are those for Waiver of a Constitutional Right)


(a) Right to be waived existed;
(b) Person waiving it had actual or constructive knowledge of said right;
(c) He had an actual intention to relinquish the right.
Stop and Frisk (a) Police officer observes an unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to
[Terry v. Ohio, as cited in Manalili v. conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot and
CA] that the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently
dangerous;
(b) In the course of investigating this behavior, he identified himself as a
policeman and makes reasonable inquiries; and
(c) Nothing in the initial stages of the encounter serves to dispel his
reasonable fear for his own or other’s safety xxx

PAGE 123 OF 405


UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 POLITICAL LAW

Properties Subject to Seizure


General Rule: Only the articles particularly D. WARRANTLESS ARRESTS
described in the warrant may be seized.
(1) Property subject of an offense
Requisites for Issuance of a Valid Arrest Warrant
(2) Stolen or embezzled property and other
proceeds or fruits of an offense What the Constitution underscores is the exclusive
(3) Used or intended to be used as a means of and personal responsibility of the issuing judge to
satisfy himself of the existence of probable cause.
committing an offense [Sec. 2 Rule 126, ROC]
Where the warrant authorized only the seizure of In satisfying himself of the existence of probable
shabu, and not marijuana, the seizure of the latter cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest, the
was held unlawful. [People v. Salanguit] judge is not required to personally examine the
complainant and his witnesses.
It is not necessary that the property to be searched
or seized should be owned by the person against Following established doctrine and procedure, he
whom the warrant is issued; it is sufficient that the shall:
property is within his control or possession. [Burgos (1) Personally evaluate the report and the
v. Chief of Staff (1984)] supporting documents submitted by the fiscal
regarding the existence of probable cause and,
on the basis thereof, issue a warrant of arrest; or
Comparison of Procedures in Obtaining Search
Warrants and Arrest Warrants (2) If he finds no probable cause, he may disregard
the fiscal's report and require the submission of
supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid him in
Rule 112, Sec. 6. When warrant of arrest may arriving at a conclusion as to the existence of
issue – (a) By the Regional Trial Court – Within ten probable cause.[Beltran v. Makasiar (1988)].
(10) days from the filing of the complaint or
information, the judge shall personally evaluate the
resolution of the prosecutor and its supporting Requisites for a Valid Arrest Warrant:
evidence. He may immediately dismiss the case if (1) Existence of Probable cause;
the evidence on record clearly fails to establish
probable cause. If he finds probable cause, he shall (2) Personal determination of probablye cause by a
issue a warrant of arrest, or a commitment order if judge;
the accused has already been arrested pursuant to
(3) Complainant and witnesses testify on facts
a warrant issued by the judge who conducted the
preliminary investigation or when the complaint or
personally known to them; and
information was filed pursuant to section 7 of this (4) Particular description of the person/s to be
Rule. In case of doubt on the existence of probable arrested and of the crime/s
cause, the judge may order the prosecutor to present
additional evidence (Note:This is not found in the
procedure for a search warrant) within five (5) days Existence of Probable Cause: Such facts and
from notice and the issue must be resolved by the circumstances which would lead a reasonably
court within thirty (30) days from the filing of the discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense
complaint of information. has been committed by the person sought to be
Rule 126, Sec. 4. Requisites for issuing search arrested. [Webb v. De Leon (1995)]
warrant – A search warrant shall not issue except
Determination of probable cause personally by the
upon probable cause in connection with one specific
judge as to warrant of arrest:
offense to be determined personally by the judge
after examination under oath or affirmation of the (1) On the basis of the witnesses’ personal
complainant and the witness he may produce, and knowledge of the facts they are testifying to.
particularly describing the place to be searched and
the things to be seized which may be anywhere in (2) The arrest warrant must describe particularly the
the Philippines. person to be seized.

PAGE 124 OF 404


UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 POLITICAL LAW

(a) By stating the name of the person to be Though kidnapping with serious illegal detention
arrested. is deemed a continuing crime, it can be
considered as such only when the deprivation of
(b) If not known, then a “John Doe warrant” may
liberty is persistent and continuing from one
be issued, with some descriptio personae
place to another. [Parulan v. Dir. of Prisons
that will enable the officer to identify the
(1968)]
accused.
Buy-Bust: A buy-bust operation is a valid in
flagrante arrest. The subsequent search of the
Personal determination by a Judge: Search person arrested and the premises within his
Warrant v. Arrest Warrant immediate control is valid as an incident to a
The judge need not personally examine the lawful arrest. [People v. Hindoy (2001)]
complainant and the witnesses in an arrest warrant. When not proper buy-bust: Instead of
The Prosecutor can perform the same functions as arresting the suspect after the sale in a buy-bust
the commissioner for the taking of the evidence; and op, the officer returned to the police
the documents supporting the Fiscal’s bare headquarters and filed his report. It was only in
certification must be presented to the judge. The the evening that he, without warrant, arrested
requirement is satisfied if the judge personally the suspect at his house where dried marijuana
goes over the records and determines probable leaves were found and seized. This is unlawful
cause. [Lim v. Felix] arrest. [People v. Rodrigueza (1992)]
John Doe Warrant:Warrants issued against 50
John Does, none of whom the witnesses could
(2) Hot Pursuit: When an offense has just been
identify, were considered as “general warrants” and
committed and he has probable cause to believe
thus void. [Pangandaman v. Casar (1988)]
based on personal knowledge of facts or
circumstances that the person to be arrested has
Effect of a VOID Arrest Warrant: committed it
Requisites:
A void arrest warrant would render the arrest invalid
and illegal. (a) Offense had just been committed;
The illegality of an arrest does not bar the state from The person must be immediately arrested
the prosecution of the accused. Despite illegality of after the commission of the offense. [People
both search and arrest thus inadmissibility of v. Manlulu (1994)]
evidence acquired, guilt may still be established
(b) Person making the arrest has probable
through eyewitness testimony. [People v. Manlulu]
cause to believe based on personal
knowledge.
Requisites of a Valid Warrantless Arrest Note: There must be a large measure of
[Rule 113, Sec. 5, Rules on Criminal Procedure] immediacy between the time the offense is
committed and the time of the arrest. If there was
(1) In flagrante delicto: When in his presence, the an appreciable lapse of time between arrest and
person to be arrested has committed, is actually commission of crime, warrant of arrest must be
committing, or is attempting to commit an secured. [Nachura]
offense
Warrantless arrest of accused for selling
The person must be arrested after the offense marijuana 2 days after he escaped is invalid.
has been committed and in the presence of a [People v. Kimura (2004)]
police officer. [People v. Mengote (1992)]
The warrantless arrest only 3 hours after the
Rebellion is a continuing offense. Therefore a killing was held valid since personal knowledge
rebel may be arrested without a warrant at any was established as to the fact of death and facts
time of the day or the night as he is deemed to indicating that the accused killed the victim.
be in the act of committing rebellion. [Umil v. [People v. Gerente (1993)]
Ramos (1991)]
PAGE 125 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 POLITICAL LAW

Personal Knowledge: Experience of an officer


which gives the idea that there is probable cause
General Rule: Only the judge has the power to issue
that the person caught is responsible. It has
a warrant after the proper procedure has been duly
been ruled that “personal knowledge of facts” in
taken.
arrests without a warrant must be based on
probable cause, which means an actual belief or Exceptions:
reasonable grounds of suspicion. [Cadua v. (1) In cases of deportation of illegal and undesirable
Court of Appeals (1999)] aliens, whom the President or the Commissioner
There is no personal knowledge when the of Immigration may order arrested, following a
commission of a crime and identity of the final order of deportation, for the purpose of
accused were merely furnished by an informant, deportation.[Salazar v. Achacoso (1990)]
or when the location of the firearm was given by (2) For deportation proceedings, a warrant of arrest
the wife of the accused. It is not enough that may be issued by administrative authorities only
there is reasonable ground to believe that the for the purpose of carrying out a final finding of a
person to be arrested has committed a crime. violation of law and not for the sole purpose of
That a crime has actually been committed is an investigation or prosecution. It may be issued
essential precondition. [People v. Burgos (1986)] only after the proceeding has taken place as
when there is already a final decision of the
administrative authorities.
(3) Escaped Prisoners:When the person to be
arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a
penal establishment or place where he is serving
F. DRUG, ALCOHOL AND BLOOD
final judgment or is temporarily confined while
his case is pending, or has escaped while being TESTS
transferred from one confinement to another
The Court held that Randomized Drug Testing (RDT)
Additional Exceptions (Not in the Rules): for students and employees does not violate the right
to privacy in the Constitution. Students do not have
rational expectation of privacy since they are minors
(4) When the right is voluntarily waived and the school is in loco parentis. Employees and
(estoppel). students in universities, on the other hand, voluntarily
subject themselves to the intrusion because of their
Appellant is estopped from questioning the contractual relation to the company or university.
illegality of the arrest when he voluntarily
submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court But it is unconstitutional to subject criminals to RDT.
by entering a plea of not guilty and by Subjecting criminals to RDT would violate their right
participating in the trial. [People v. Salvatierra against self-incrimination.
(1997)] It is also unconstitutional to subject public officials
Failure to raise the question of admissibility whose qualifications are provided for in the
during the trial is waiver of the right to assert Constitution (e.g. members of Congress) to RDT.
inadmissibility on appeal. [Manalili v. CA (1997)] Subjecting them to RDT would amount to imposing
an additional qualification not provided for in the
Scope of Waiver: Waiver is limited to the illegal Constitution. [SJS v. Dangerous Drugs Board (2008)]
arrest. It does not extend to the search made as
an incident thereto, or the subsequent seizure of
evidence allegedly found during the search.
[People v. Peralta (2004)]

(5) Violent insanity

E. ADMINISTRATIVE ARRESTS
PAGE 126 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 POLITICAL LAW

Universal Declaration on Human Rights which


VI. Privacy mandates that, "no one shall be subjected to arbitrary
Art. III, Sec. 3: interference with his privacy" and "everyone has the
right to the protection of the law against such
(1) the privacy of communication and
interference or attacks."
correspondence shall be inviolable except upon
lawful order of the court, or when public safety or The Constitution does not have a specific provision
order requires otherwise as prescribed by law. protecting the right to privacy. It is a penumbral right
(2) any evidence obtained in violation of this shall be formed from the shadows created by several
inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. constitutional provisions. That is to say, the right to
privacy is located within the zones created by various
provisions of the Constitution and various statutes
Basis which protect aspects of privacy. [Ople v. Torres]
The right to privacy, or the right to be let alone, was Ople v. Torres (1998) has enumerated several
institutionalized in the 1987 Constitution as a facet of provisions of the Bill of Rights where the right of
the right protected by the guarantee against privacy is enshrined (penumbras):
unreasonable search and seizures. (But the Court
acknowledged its existence as early as 1968 in Morfe (1) Sec. 3 – Privacy of communication
v. Mutuc.) (2) Sec. 1 – Life, liberty, and property
The right to privacy exists independently of its (3) Sec. 2 – Unreasonable searches and seizures
identification with liberty; it is in itself fully deserving
of constitutional protection. [Disini v. Secretary of (4) Sec. 6 – Liberty of abode
Justice (2014)] (5) Sec. 8 – Right to form associations
(6) Sec. 17 – Right against self-incrimination
The right to privacy is bifurcated into two aspects:
(1) Decisional privacy — Liberty in the constitutional It has also indicated that zones of privacy are
sense must mean more than freedom from unlawful recognized and protected in our laws:
governmental restraint; it must include privacy as
well, if it is to be a repository of freedom. The right to (1) Civil Code
be let alone is indeed the beginning of all (2) RPC
freedom…The concept of liberty would be
emasculated if it does not likewise compel respect for (3) Anti-Wiretapping Law
his personality as a unique individual whose claim to (4) Security of Bank Deposits Act
privacy and interference demands respect. [Morfe v.
Mutuc 22 SCRA 424 (1968)] (5) Intellectual Property Code

(2) Informational privacy — the right of an individual Privacy of Communications and


not to have private information about himself Correspondence
disclosed; and the right of an individual to live freely (1) The privacy of communication and
without surveillanceand intrusion. [Whalen v. Roe correspondence shall be inviolable except
429 US 589, (1977)] upon lawful order of the court, or when public
safety or order requires otherwise, as
prescribed by law.
Concept
(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or
Zones of privacy are recognized and protected in
the preceding section shall be inadmissible
our laws. Within these zones, any form of intrusion is
for any purpose in any proceeding. [Art. III,
impermissible unless excused by law and in
Sec. 3]
accordance with customary legal process. The
meticulous regard we accord to these zones arises
not only from our conviction that the right to privacy
is a "constitutional right" and "the right most valued A. PRIVATE AND PUBLIC
by civilized men," but also from our adherence to the COMMUNICATIONS

PAGE 127 OF 404


UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 POLITICAL LAW

invaders, insurrectionist and rebels. [1971


Constitutional Convention, Session of November 25,
Requisites of Existence of Privacy Right (Test
1972]
of Reasonable Expectation Of Privacy)
(1) Subjective:A person has exhibited an actual
expectation of privacy; and Right of Privacy v. Freedom of Speech and
Communication
(2) Objective:The expectation be one that society
is prepared to recognize as reasonable. [Pollo v. Because of the preferred character of the
Constantino-David (2011)] constitutional rights of the freedom of speech and of
expression, a weighty presumption of invalidity
vitiates measures of prior restraint upon the exercise
B. INTRUSION, WHEN ALLOWED of such freedoms. [Ayer v. Capulong, supra]
Right of privacy of a public figure is necessarily
narrower than that of an ordinary citizen. [Ayer v.
(1) By lawful order of the court
Capulong, supra]
Probable cause in Sec. 2, Art. III should be
followed for the court to allow intrusion.
Particularity of description is needed for written Public Figure – a person who, by his
correspondence, but if the intrusion is done accomplishments, fame, or mode of living, or by
through wire-taps and the like, there is no need adopting a profession or calling which gives the
to describe the content. However, identity of the public a legitimate interest in his doing, his affairs and
person or persons whose communication is to his character, has become public personage. Why?
be intercepted, and the offense or offenses
 They had sought publicity and consented to it, so
sought to be prevented, and the period of the
they could not complain.
authorization given shouldbe specified.
or  Their personalities and their affairs had already
become public and could no longer be regarded as
(2) When public safety or public order requires their own private business.
otherwise, as may be provided by law.
 The press had a privilege, under the constitution,
to inform the public about those that have become
In Ayer Productions Pty. Ltd. v. Capulong (1988) legitimate matters of public interest.
(hint: Enrilecase), the right to be let alone is not an But as held in Lagunzad v. Soto (1979), being a
absolute right. A limited intrusion to a person’s public figure does not automatically destroy in toto a
privacy has long been regarded as permissible where person’s right to privacy. In the case at bar, while it is
that person is a public figure and the information true that the producer exerted efforts to present a
sought to be elicited from him or to be published true-to-life story of Moises Padilla, he admits that he
about him constitute matters of public character. The induced a little romance in the film.
interest sought to be protected by the right to privacy
is the right to be free from unwarranted publicity, from
the wrongful publicizing of the private affairs and Right of Privacy v. Freedom of Access to
activities of an individual which are outside the realm Information
of legitimate public concern.
Kilusang Mayo Uno v. Director-General,
Intrusion has to be based upon a non-judicial NEDA(2006) stated that personal matters are exempt
government official’s assessment that public safety or outside the coverage of the people’s right to
and order demands such intrusion, limited to the information on matters of public concern. The data
provisions of law. To hold otherwise would be to opt treated as “strictly confidential” under EO 420 being
for a government of men, and not of laws. matters of public concern, these data cannot be
released to the public or the press.

Public order and safety– the security of human As compared with Ople v. Torres (1998), where the
lives, liberty and property against the activities of Court ruled that no constitutional infirmity on the right
of privacy was shown by EO 420 which streamlines
PAGE 128 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 POLITICAL LAW

and harmonizes the existing ID system within each communication, to secretly record such
government agency. According to the Court, it even communications by means of a tape recorder. The
narrowly limits the data that can be collected, law does not make any distinction. [Ramirez v. Court
recorded, and shown as compared to AO 308 of Appeals, 248 SCRA 590]
(National ID System) which was not narrowly drawn.
An extension telephone is not among the devices
enumerated in Sec.1 of RA 4200. There must be
Two-part test to determine the reasonableness either a physical interruption through a wiretap or the
of person’s expectation of privacy deliberate installation of a device or arrangement in
order to overhear, intercept, or record the spoken
(1) Whether by his conduct, the individual has words. The telephone extension in this case was not
exhibited an expectation of privacy installed for that purpose. It just happened to be there
(2) Whether his expectation is one that society for ordinary office use. [Ganaan v. IAC (1986)]
recognizes as reasonable E.O. 424 (s. 2005), adopting a unified multi-purpose
Note that factual circumstances of the case ID system for government, does not violate the right
determine the reasonableness of the expectation. to privacy because it (1) narrowly limits the data that
However, other factors such as customs, physical can be collected, recorded, and released compared
surroundings and practices of a particular activity, to existingID systems, and (2) provides safeguards to
may serve to create or diminish this expectation. protect the confidentiality of the data collected. [KMU
[Ople v. Torres, supra] v. Director-General, (2006)]

Forms of Correspondence Covered: An intrusion into the privacy of workplaces is valid if


it conforms to the standard of reasonableness.
(1) Letters Under this standard, both inception and scope of
(2) Messages intrusion must be reasonable.
(3) Telephone calls (1) Justified at inception: if there are reasonable
grounds for suspecting that it will turn up evidence
(4) Telegrams, and the like [Bernas] that the employee is guilty of work-related
misconduct.
Valid and Invalid Enroachments on the Right to (2) Scope of intrusion is reasonable: if measures
Privacy: used in the search are reasonable related to the
search’s objectives, and it is not highly intrusive.
The general rule is that an encroachment on the right [Pollo, supra]
to privacy is invalid when:
Right may be invoked against the wife who went to
(1) There is a reasonable expectation of privacy, the clinic of her husband and there took documents
and consisting of private communications between her
husband and his alleged paramour. [Zulueta v. Court
(2) If there is no compelling state interest. of Appeals(1996)]
N.B. While Zuluetaseems to be an exception to the
Effects of Valid Intrusions State Action Requirement, Zulueta’s application of
(1) Section 3(2) Article III aka the Exclusionary rule the exclusionary rule has only been cited once but to
a state action.
(2) Generally applicable against government
intrusions See also: R.A. No. 10173, Data Privacy Act (2012)
(3) Zulueta v. CA (jurisprudence that applied the
Exclusionary rule against private citizens) Exclusionary rule
Any evidence obtained in violation of Article III,
Other imports from Jurisprudence: Section 3 (right to privacy of communications and
correspondence) or Section 2 (right against unlawful
Anti-Wire Tapping Act (RA 4200), clearly and
search and seizures) shall be inadmissible for any
unequivocally makes it illegal for any person, not purpose in any proceeding. This applies not only to
authorized by all the parties to any private
PAGE 129 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 POLITICAL LAW

testimonial evidence but also to documentary and his/her integrity or his right to privacy as an
object evidence. individual and the constitutional protection is ever
available to him or to her.Thelaw insures absolute
Q: Can the exclusionaryrule be applied as
freedom of communication between the spouses by
against private individuals who violate the right
making it privileged. Neither husband nor wife may
to privacy?
testify for or against the other without the consent
A: Yes. Although generally, the Bill of Rights can only of the affected spouse while the marriage subsists.
be invoked against violations of the government, the Neither may be examined without theconsent of
Court has recognized an instance where it may also the other as to any communication received in
be applied as against a private individual. confidence by one from the other during the
Thus, in a legal separation case [Zulueta v CA] where marriage, save for specified exceptions. But one
the wife took her husband‘s private documents and thing is freedom of communication; quite another is a
papers to be used as evidence in the case, without compulsion for each one to share what one knows
his knowledge and consent, the Court held that with the other. And this has nothing to do with the
the intimacies between husband and wife do not duty of fidelity that each owes to the other.
justify any one of them in breaking the drawers
and cabinets of the other and in ransacking them
for any telltale evidence of marital infidelity. A
person, by contracting marriage, does not shed

PAGE 130 OF 404


UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 POLITICAL LAW

C. WRIT OF HABEAS DATA


Query Habeas Data
What is the writ of habeas (1) Remedy
data? (2) Available to any person
(3) Whose right to life, liberty, and security has been violated or is threatened with
violation
(4) By an unlawful act or omission
(5) Of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity
(6) Engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing of data or information regarding
the person, family, home and correspondence of the aggrieved party.
What is its function? To inquire into all manner of involuntary restraint as distinguished from voluntary
and to relieve a person if such restraint is illegal.
When available? (1) In cases of illegal detention or restraint;
(2) In custody cases (even for a corpse)
Primary requisite for its availability is actual deprivation of right of custody
What rule governs petitions The Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data (A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC), which was approved
for and the issuance of a writ by the SC on 22 January 2008. That Rule shall not diminish, increase or modify
of habeas data? substantive rights.
What is the SC’s basis in Constitution, Art. VIII, Sec. 5[5]
issuing the Rule?
When does the Rule take The Rule takes effect on 2 February 2008, following its publication in three (3)
effect? newspapers of general circulation.
Who may file a petition for (1) The aggrieved party.
the issuance of a writ of (2) However, in cases of extralegal killings and enforced disappearances, the
habeas data? petition may be filed by
(a) Any member of the immediate family of the aggrieved party, namely: the
spouse, children and parents; or
(b) Any ascendant, descendant or collateral relative of the aggrieved party
within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity, in default of those
mentioned in the preceding paragraph.
Where can the petition be (1) Regional Trial Court
filed? (a) Where the petitioner or respondent resides, or
(b) That which has jurisdiction over the place where the data or information is
gathered, collected or stored, at the option of the petitioner.
(2) Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan – whenthe action concerns
public data files of government offices.
Instead of having the hearing Yes. It can be done when the respondent invokes the defense that the release of
in open court, can it be done the data or information in question shall compromise national security or state
in chambers? secrets, or when the data or information cannot be divulged to the public due to its
nature or privileged character.

The right to informational privacy, as a specific component of the right to privacy, may yield to an overriding legitimate state
interest. [Gamboa v. Chan (2012)]

PAGE 131 OF 404


UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 POLITICAL LAW

VII. Freedom of But the right is not absolute and may include certain
Expression exceptions such as pornography, false or misleading
advertisement, advocacy of imminent lawless action
and danger to national security
A. NATURE AND SCOPE
Basis
The primacy and high esteem accorded freedom of Art. III, Sec. 4. No law shall be passed abridging
expression is a fundamental postulate of our the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the
constitutional system. This right was elevated to
press, or the right of the people peaceably to
constitutional status […] reflecting our own lesson of
history, both political and legal, that freedom of assemble and petition the government for redress
speech is an indispensable condition for nearly every of grievances.
other form of freedom.
The scope of freedom of expression is so broad that
it extends protection to nearly all forms of Art. III, Sec. 18(1). No person shall be detained
communication. It protects speech, print and solely by reason of his political beliefs and
assembly regarding secular as well as political aspirations.
causes, and is not confined to any particular field of
human interest. The protection covers myriad
matters of public interest or concern embracing all All are indispensable to the “uninhibited, robust and
issues, about which information is needed or wide-open debate in the free marketplace of ideas.”
appropriate, so as to enable members of society to [Abrams v. US (1919)]
cope with the exigencies of their period. [Chavez v. While indeed, the news item subject of the present
Gonzales (2008)] case might have ruffled the sensitivities of plaintiff,
this Court however believes that the alleged
defamatory articles fall within the purview of a
Speech, expression, and press include: qualifiedly privileged matter, and that therefore, it
(1) Written or spoken words (recorded or not) cannot be presumed to be malicious. The onus of
proving malice is accordingly shifted to the plaintiff,
(2) Symbolic speech (e.g. wearing armbands as that is, that he must prove that the defendants were
symbol of protest) actuated by ill-will in what they caused to be printed
Butviolation of the Hotel’s Grooming Standards and published, with a design to carelessly or
by labor union members constitutes illegal strike wantonly injure the plaintiff. [U.S. v. Bustos (1909)]
and therefore an unprotected speech. A.1 PRIOR RESTRAINT
[NUWHRAIN-APL-IUF Dusit Hotel Nikko
Chapter v. CA (2008)] Prior restraint – refers to official governmental
restrictions on the press or other forms of expression
(3) Movies in advance of actual publication or
Any and all modes of protection are embraced in the dissemination.Freedom from prior restraint is largely
guaranty. It is reinforced by Sec. 18(1), Art. 3. freedom from government censorship of publications,
whatever the form of censorship, and regardless of
J. Holmes: It is freedom for the thought that we hate, whether it is wielded by the executive, legislative or
no less than for the thought that agrees with us. judicial branch of the government. They carry a
Scope of Right heavy presumption of unconstitutionality but not all
prior restraints are invalid. [Newsounds Broadcasting
Speech, expression, and press include every form of Network v. Dy (2009)]
expression, whether oral, written, tape or disc
recorded. It also includes movies as well as what is Examples: Censorship, Permits, Business Closure
referred to as symbolic speech such as the wearing
of an armband as a symbol of protest.
PAGE 132 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 POLITICAL LAW

Censorship conditions the exercise of freedom of or air time for campaign or other political
expression upon the prior approval of the purposes except to the COMELEC. Ratio: police
government. The censor serves therefore as the power of State to regulate media for purpose of
political, moral, social and artistic arbiter for the ensuring equal opportunity, time and space for
people, usually applying only his own subjective political campaigns. [National Press Club v.
standards in determining what is good and what is COMELEC (1992); Osmeña v. COMELEC]
not.
(3) Movie censorship: The power of the MTCRB can
General rules: be exercised only for purposes of reasonable
(1) Any system of prior restraints of expression classification, not censorship. [Nachura,
comes to the Court bearing a heavy citingGonzalez v. Katigbak (1985) and Ayer v.
presumption against its constitutionality, Judge Capulong]
giving the government a heavy burden to show (4) Near v. Minnesota, (1931):
justification for the imposition of such restraint.
[New York v. United States 1971] (a) When a nation is at war, many things that
might be said in time of peace are such a
(2) There need not be total suppression. Even hindrance to its effort that their utterance will
restriction of circulation constitutes censorship. not be endured so long as men fight and that
[Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 US 233] no court could regard them as protected by
any constitutional right
Examples of Unconstitutional Prior Restraint (b) Actual obstruction to the government’s
(1) COMELEC prohibition against radio recruiting service or the publication of the
commentators or newspaper columnists from sailing dates of transports or the number
commenting on the issues involved in a and location of troops
scheduled plebiscite [Sanidad v. COMELEC (c) Obscene publications
(1990)]
(d) Incitements to acts of violence and the
(2) Arbitrary closure of a radio station [Eastern overthrow by force of orderly government
Broadcasting v. Dans (1985)]; or even when
there is a legal justification, such as lack of
mayor’s permit [Newsounds Broadcasting A.2 SUBSEQUENT PUNISHMENT
Network Inc. v. Dy (2009)]
Freedom of speech includes freedom after speech.
(3) COMELEC resolution prohibiting the posting of Without this assurance, the citizen would hesitate to
decals and stickers in mobile units like cars and speak for fear he might be provoking the vengeance
other moving vehicles [Adiong v. COMELEC of the officials he has criticized (chilling effect).
(1992)]
If criticism is not to be conditioned on the
(4) Search, padlocking and sealing of the offices of government’s consent, then neither should it be
newspaper publishers (We Forum) by military subject to the government’s subsequent
authorities [Burgos v. Chief of Staff, supra] chastisement.
(5) An announcement of a public figure to prohibit Examples of Valid Subsequent Restraints:
the media to issue a specific kind of statement (1) Libel. Every defamatory imputation is presumed
[Chavez v. Gonzales (2006)] to be malicious. [Alonzo v. CA (1995)]
Exceptions:
Examples of Constitutional Prior Restraint: (a) Private communication in the performance
(1) Law which prohibits, except during the of any legal, moral or social duty
prescribed election period, the making of
speeches, announcements or commentaries for (b) Fair and true report of any judicial,
or against the election of any candidate for office legislative or other official proceedings
[Gonzales v. COMELEC (1969)] (2) Obscenity. The determination of what is obscene
(2) Prohibition on any person making use of the is a judicial function. [Pita v. CA (1989)]
media to sell or to give free of charge print space
PAGE 133 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 POLITICAL LAW

(3) Contempt for criticism/publications tending to


impede, obstruct, embarrass or influence the
courts in administering justice in a pending suit
or proceeding (sub judice) [People v. Alarcon
(1939)]
(4) Imputation of irregularities in the judiciary must
strike a balance between the right to free press
and the reputation of judges. A reporter is
prohibited from recklessly disregarding a private
reputation without any bona fide effort to
ascertain the truth thereof [In Re: Jurado (1995)]
(5) Right of students to free speech in school
premises must not infringe on the school’s right
to discipline its students [Miriam College
Foundation v. CA (2000)]
Exceptions:
(a) Fair comment on matters of public interest.
Fair comment is that which is true or, if
false, expresses the real opinion of the
author based upon reasonable degree of
care and on reasonable grounds.
(b) Criticism of official conduct is given the
widest latitude. [US v. Bustos(1918)]

Unprotected Speech
Slander or libel, lewd and obscene speech, as well
as “fighting words” are not entitled to constitutional
protection and may be penalized. [Chavez v.
Gonzales (2008)]

Obscenity
Obscenity is a class of speech that is not under the
protection of the freedom of expression. It is of
slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit
that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed
by the social interest in order and morality
[Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568,
1942].

PAGE 134 OF 404


UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 POLITICAL LAW

Test to Determine Obscenity:


Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure vs
Roth vs US Miller vs California
Atty. Gen. of Massachusetts
The question is, whether A work is obscene if: A work is obscene if:
to the average person, (1) The dominant theme of the (1) Whether the average person,
applying contemporary material taken as a whole applying
community standard, appeals to prurient interest in contemporary community
the dominant theme of sex; standards, would find that the
(2) Material is patently offensive
the work taken as a because it affronts work, taken as a whole,
whole appeals to contemporary community appeals to the prurient interest;
PRURIENT INTRESTS. standards relating to the (2) Whether the work depicts or
description or representation of describes, in an offensive way,
sexual matters; sexual conduct or excretory
(3) Material is utterly without functions, specifically defined
redeeming social value
by applicable state law; and
(3) Whether the work, taken as a
whole, lacks serious literary,
artistic, political, or scientific
value
Note: The Memoirs test was abandoned because it was nearly impossible to prove that a work was utterly without
redeeming social value [Miller v. California].

Pictures depicting native inhabitants in their native


dresses as they appear and live in their native
homelands are not obscene or indecent. The pictures
in question merely depict persons as they actually
live, without attempted presentation of persons in
unusual postures or dress. The aggregate judgment
of the Philippine community, the moral sense of all
the people in the Philippines, would not be shocked
by photographs of this type. [People v. Kottinger
(1923)]

A hula-hula dance portraying a life of a widow who


lost her guerrilla husband cannot be considered
protected speech if the audience, about a hundred
customers, were howling and shouting, “sigemuna,
sigenakakalibog” (go ahead first, go ahead, it is
erotic), during the performance. [People v. Aparici
(Court of Appeals 1955)]

PAGE 135 OF 404


UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 POLITICAL LAW

B. Content-based and Content-neutral National community standard as basis of what


Regulations is defamatory
Not belonging to a royal house does not constitute
libel. In a community like ours which is both
Content-Based Content-Neutral republican and egalitarian, such an ascription,
whether correct or not, cannot be defamatory. It is to
Definition Regulation of the Regulations of
the standards of the national community, not to those
subject matter of the incidents of
of the region that a court must refer especially where
the utterance or speech – time,
a newspaper is national in reach and coverage.
speech place and
[Bulletin Publishing v. Noel (1988)]
manner

Standard of Strictest scrutiny Intermediate


Review approach Where the defamation is alleged to have been
directed at a group/class, it is essential that the
statement must be so sweeping or all-embracing as
B.1 CONTENT-BASED RESTRICTIONS to apply to every individual in that group or class, or
sufficiently specific so that each individual in the class
The regulation is based on the subject matter of the or group can prove that the defamatory statement
utterance or speech. It merely controls time, place, or specifically pointed to him, so that he can bring the
manner, under well-defined standards. [Newsounds action separately, if need be. [Newsweek v. IAC
Broadcasting v. Dy (2009)] (1986)]
A governmental action that restricts freedom of
speech or of the press based on content is given
the strictest scrutiny in light of its inherent and Group Libel
invasive impact. [Chavez v. Gonzales (2008)] As the size of these groups increases, the chances
for members of such groups to recover damages on
tortious libel become elusive. This principle is said to
Test to be applied: Clear and Present Danger Test embrace two important public policies:
(discussed infra).
(1) Where the group referred to is large, the courts
presume that no reasonable reader would take
Freedom of Expression and National Security the statements as so literally applying to each
Where a fictitious suicide photo and letter were individual member; and
published in newspapers of general circulation (2) The limitation on liability would satisfactorily
expressing disappointments of the Roxas safeguard freedom of speech and expression,
administration and instructing fictitious wife to teach as well as of the press, effecting a sound
their children to burn pictures of the President, SC compromise between the conflicting
held that such act constitutes inciting to sedition. fundamental interests involved in libel cases.
It suggests or incites rebellious conspiracies or riots [MVRS v. Islamic Da’Wah Council of the Phil
and tends to stir up the people against the constituted (2003)]
authorities, or to provoke violence from opposition
groups who may seek to silence the writer, which is
the sum and substance of the offense under Actual Malice Standard for Public Officials and
consideration. [Espuelas v. People (1951)] Matters of Public Interest

Freedom of Expression and Libel Even if the defamatory statement is false, no liability
can attach if it relates to official conduct, unless the
Libel is not a constitutionally protected speech and
public official concerned proves that the statement
that the government has an obligation to protect was made with actual malice — that is, with
private individuals from defamation. [Disini v. Sec. of knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard
Justice (2014)] of whether it was false or not. [Vasquez v. CA (1999)
citing New York Times v. Sullivan (1964)]

PAGE 136 OF 404


UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 POLITICAL LAW

SC Administrative Circular No. 08-2008 implements of the Constitution and laws, from which the former
a rule of preference for the imposition of fine only receives its prerogative and the latter its jurisdiction
rather than imprisonment in libel suits. [In Re Macasaet, A.M. No. 07-09-13-SC, 8 August
False reports about a public official or other person 2008].
are not shielded by the cardinal right to free speech
enshrined in the Constitution. Making knowingly The Court in People vs Godoy [312 Phil. 977, 1995]
false statements made with reckless disregard of has also said that obstructing, by means of the
the truth does not enjoy constitutional protection. spoken or written word, the administration of justice
The guaranty of free speech cannot be considered as by the courts has been described as an abuse of the
according protection to the disclosure of lies, gossip liberty of the speech or the press such as will subject
or rumor [In Re Jurado, A.M. No. 93-2-037-SC, 6 the abuser to punishment for contempt of court.
April 1995].
In the case of Cabansag v Fernandez, due to the
delay in the disposition of his original case,
Therefore, an injured person must prove that the Cabansag asked for help from the President through
alleged statements are either: a letter addressed to the Presidential Complaints and
Actions Commission (PCAC). He was charged for
(1) Knowingly false
contempt because such complaint should have been
(2) Made with reckless disregard of the truth/ raised to the Secretary of Justice or SC instead.
based on suppositions SC ruled that for his act to be contemptuous, the
danger must cause a serious imminent threat to the
Freedom of Expression and the Right to Privacy administration of justice. It cannot be inferred that
Being a public figure does not automatically destroy such act has "a dangerous tendency" to belittle the
in toto a person’s right to privacy. The right to invade court or undermine the administration of justice for
a person’s privacy to disseminate public info does not the writer merely exercised his constitutional right to
extend to a fictional representation of a person, no petition the government for redress of a legitimate
matter how public a figure he/she may be. [Lagunzad grievance. [Cabansag v. Fernandez (1957)]
v. Soto (1979)]
Freedom of speech and expression includes freedom Q: What criticisms are allowed by the court?
to film and produce motion pictures and to exhibit
them. The fact that such film production is a
commercial activity is not a disqualification for A: Criticisms made in good faith. Courts and
availing of freedom of speech and expression. judges are not sacrosanct. They should and expect
critical evaluation of their performance. For like the
The right to privacy cannot be invoked to resist
publication and dissemination of matter of public executive and the legislative branches, the judiciary
interest. The intrusion is no more than necessary to is rooted in the soil of democratic society, nourished
keep the film a truthful historical account. Enrile is a by the periodic appraisal of the citizen whom it is
public figure because of his participation as a expected to serve.
principal actor in the culminating events of the EDSA
revolution. [Ayer Productions v. Capulong (1988)]
But it is the cardinal condition of all such criticism that
it shall be bona fide, and shall not spill over the walls
of decency and propriety. A wide chasm exists
Freedom of Expression and the Administration
between fair criticism, on the one hand, and abuse
of Justice
and slander of courts and the judges thereof, on the
The administration of justice and the freedom of the other [In Re Almacen, G.R. No. 27654, 18 February
press, though separate and distinct, are equally 1970].
sacred, and neither should be violated by the other.
The press and the courts have correlative rights and
Freedom of Expression and Obscenity
duties and should cooperate to uphold the principles
PAGE 137 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 POLITICAL LAW

Determination: Community standard The right to freedom of speech and to peaceably


Pictures depicting native inhabitants in their native assemble, and petition the government for redress of
dresses as they appear and live in their native grievances are fundamental personal rights of the
homelands are not obscene or indecent. The pictures people guaranteed by the constitutions of democratic
in question merely depict persons as they actually countries. City or town mayors are not conferred the
live, without attempted presentation of persons in power to refuse to grant the permit, but only the
unusual postures or dress. The aggregate judgment discretion in issuing the permit to determine or
of the Philippine community, the moral sense of all specify the streets or public places where the parade
the people in the Philippines, would not be shocked may pass or the meeting may be held. [Primicias v.
by photographs of this type. [People v. Kottinger Fugoso (1948)]
(1923)] The right to peaceably assemble and petition for
A hula-hula dance portraying a life of a widow who redress of grievances is, together with freedom of
lost her guerrilla husband cannot be considered speech, of expression, and of the press, a right that
protected speech if the audience, about a hundred enjoys primacy in the realm of constitutional
customers, were howling and shouting, “sigemuna, protection. For these rights constitute the very basis
sigenakakalibog” (go ahead first, go ahead, it is of a functional democratic polity, without which all the
erotic), during the performance. [People v. Aparici other rights would be meaningless and unprotected
(Court of Appeals 1955)] [Bayan vsErmita, G.R. Nos. 158786, etc.,19
October 2007].

B.2 CONTENT-NEUTRAL RESTRICTIONS Absent any clear and present danger of a substantive
evil, peaceable assembly in public places like streets
Regulations on the incidents of speech — time, place or parks cannot be denied. [J.B.L. Reyes v.
and manner — under well-defined standards. Bagatsing (1983)]
[Newsounds, supra]
The Calibrated Pre-emptive Response (CPR),
When the speech restraints take the form of insofar as it would purport to differ from or be in lieu
a content-neutral regulation, only a substantial of maximum tolerance, is null and void. CPR serves
governmental interest is required for its no valid purpose if it means the same thing as
validity. Because regulations of this type are not maximum tolerance [Sec. 3 [c] of B.P. 880], and is
designed to suppress any particular message, they illegal if it means something else. Accordingly, what
are not subject to the strictest form of judicial scrutiny is to be followed is and should be that mandated by
but an intermediate approach— somewhere the law itself, namely, maximum tolerance. [Bayan v.
between the mere rationality that is required of any Ermita (2007)]
other law and the compelling interest standard
applied to content-based restrictions. [Chavez v.
Gonzales (2008)] B.P. 880 not unconstitutional
B.P. No. 880 is not an absolute ban of public
Content-Neutral (US v. O’Brien) test – A assemblies but a restriction that simply regulates the
time, place and manner of the assemblies. The law is
government regulation is sufficiently justified if:
not vague or overbroad. There is, likewise, no prior
(1) It is within the constitutional power; restraint, since the content of the speech is not
(2) It furthers an important or substantial relevant to the regulation. A fair and impartial reading
government interest; of B.P. No. 880 thus readily shows that it refers to all
kinds of public assemblies that would use public
(3) The government interest is unrelated to the places. [Bayan v. Ermita, supra]
suppression of free expression;
(4) The incident restriction is no greater than
essential to the furtherance of that interest. Freedom Parks
B.P. 880 provides that every city and municipality
must set aside a freedom park within six months from
Freedom of Assembly the law’s effectivity in 1985. Section 15 of the law
provides for an alternative forum through the creation
PAGE 138 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 POLITICAL LAW

of freedom parks where no prior permit is needed for C.1 FACIAL CHALLENGES
peaceful assembly and petition at any time. Without
A facial challenge is allowed to be made to a vague
such alternative forum, to deny the permit would in
statute and to one which is overbroad because of
effect be to deny the right to peaceably assemble.
possible “chilling effect” upon protected speech. The
[Bayan v. Ermita, supra]
theory is that “[w]hen statutes regulate or proscribe
speech and no readily apparent construction
suggests itself as a vehicle for rehabilitating the
Permit Application
statutes in a single prosecution, the transcendent
City or town mayors are not conferred the power to value to all society of constitutionally protected
refuse to grant the permit, but only the discretion in expression is deemed to justify allowing attacks on
issuing the permit to determine or specify the streets overly broad statutes with no requirement that the
or public places where the parade may pass or the person making the attack demonstrate that his own
meeting may be held. [Primicias v. Fugoso (1948)] conduct could not be regulated by a statute drawn
In the case of Bayan vs Ermita (supra), the Court with narrow specificity.”
invalidated the Calibrated Pre-emptive Response The possible harm to society in permitting some
(CPR), insofar as it would purport to differ from or be unprotected speech to go unpunished is outweighed
in lieu of maximum tolerance. CPR serves no valid by the possibility that the protected speech of others
purpose if it means the same thing as maximum may be deterred and perceived grievances left to
tolerance as provided for in [Sec. 3 [c] of B.P. 880], fester because of possible inhibitory effects of overly
broad statutes.
and is illegal if it means something else. Accordingly,
what is to be followed is and should be that mandated This rationale does not apply to penal statutes
by the law itself, namely, maximum tolerance (without a free-speech aspect). Criminal statutes
have general in terrorem effect resulting from their
There is a need to address the situation adverted to
very existence, and, if facial challenge is allowed for
by petitioners where mayors do not act on
this reason alone, the State may well be prevented
applications for a permit and when the police demand
from enacting laws against socially harmful conduct.
a permit and the rallyists could not produce one, the
In the area of criminal law, the law cannot take
rally is immediately dispersed. [Bayan v. Ermita,
chances as in the area of free speech. [Southern
supra]
Hemisphere, supra]
In such a situation, as a necessary consequence and
However, said doctrines apply to penal statutes when
part of maximum tolerance, rallyists who can show
the police an application duly filed on a given date (1) The statute is challenged as applied; or
can, after two (2) days from said date, rally in
(2) The statute involves free speech [Disini v. Sec.
accordance with their application without the need to
of Justice (2014)]
show a permit, the grant of the permit being then
presumed under the law, and it will be the burden of
the authorities to show that there has been a denial C.2 OVERBREADTH DOCTRINE
of the application, in which case the rally may be
peacefully dispersed following the procedure of A governmental purpose may not be achieved by
maximum tolerance prescribed by the law. [Bayan v. means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and
Ermita, supra] thereby invade the area of protected freedoms.
A plain reading of PP 1017 shows that it is not
C. FACIAL CHALLENGES AND THE primarily directed to speech, rather it covers a
spectrum of conduct. It is a call upon the AFP to
OVERBREADTH DOCTRINE
prevent or suppress all forms of lawless violence.
General Rule: A party can question the validity of a Facial challenge on the ground of overbreadth is a
statute only if, as applied to him, it is unconstitutional. very strong medicine. Petitioners did not show that
[Southern Hemisphere v. Anti-Terrorism Council there is no instance when PP1017 may be valid.
(2010)] [David vs. Arroyo (2006)]
Exception: Facial Challenges

PAGE 139 OF 404


UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 POLITICAL LAW

D. TESTS

Test Definition
Dangerous Limitations on speech are permissible once a rational connection has been established
Tendency Doctrine between the speech restrained and the dangercontemplated.
Balancing of When particular conduct is regulated for public order, and the regulation results in an indirect
Interests Test abridgment of speech, the court must determine which of the two conflicting interestsdemand
[Soriano v. Laguardia] greater protection.

Factors to consider:
(1) Social value of the freedom restricted;
(2) Specific thrust of the restriction, i.e. direct or indirect, affects many or few;
(3) Value of the public interest sought to be secured by the regulation;
(4) Whether the restriction is reasonably appropriate and necessary for the protection of the
public interest;
(5) Whether the necessary safeguarding of the public interest may be achieved by a measure
less restrictive of the protected freedom.
Clear and Present Speech may be restrained because there is a substantial danger that the speech will likely
Danger Rule lead to an evil the government has a right to prevent. Requires that the evil consequences
sought to be prevented must be substantive, “extremely serious and the degree of imminence
extremely high.”

PAGE 140 OF 404


UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 POLITICAL LAW

D.1 DANGEROUS TENDENCY TEST protection. [American Communications Assoc. v.


Douds, 339 US 282]
Under this test, the question is whether the words
will create a dangerous tendency that the state has The test is applied when two legitimate values not
a right to prevent. It looks at the probabilitythat a involving national security crimes compete.
substantive evil will result, and it is not necessary [Gonzales v. COMELEC (1969)]
that some definite or immediate acts of force,
violence, or unlawfulness be advocated.
[Cabansagvs Fernandez, G.R. No. 8974, 18 October D.4 DIRECT INCITEMENT TEST
1957] The constitutional guarantees of free speech and free
press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe
advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except
It is sufficient if the natural tendency and the probable
where such advocacy is directed to inciting or
effect of the utterance were to bring about the
producing imminent lawless action and is likely to
substantive evil that the legislative body seeks to
incite or produce such action. [Brandenburg v. Ohio
prevent. [People v. Perez (1956)]
(395 U.S. 444)]
It is incumbent on the court to make clear in some
D.2 CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TEST fashion that the advocacy must be of action and not
merely of abstract doctrine. [Yates v. US (1957)]
The question in every case is whether the words used
are used in such circumstances and are of such a Political discussion even among those opposed to
nature as to create a clear and present danger that the present administration is within the protective
they will bring about the substantive evils that clause of freedom of speech and expression. The
Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of same cannot be construed as subversive activities
proximity and degree. [Schenck v. United States per se or as evidence of membership in a subversive
(1919)] organization. [Salonga v. Cruz Paño(1986)]

It is a showing of a substantive and imminent evil, D.5 INTERMEDIATE REVIEW


and not hypothetical fears. Only when the Applied to content-neutral regulations, the test has
challenged act has overcome the clear and present been formulated in this manner: A governmental
danger rule will it pass constitutional muster, with the regulation is sufficiently justified [See O’Brien Test,
government having the burden of overcoming the supra]
presumed unconstitutionality [Chavez vs
Gonzales, 2008]. D.6 GRAVE-BUT-IMPROBABLE DANGER
TEST
This rule also requires that “the danger created must The Grave but Improbable Danger Test was meant
not only be clear and present but also traceable to to supplant the clear and present danger test and
the ideas expressed”. [Gonzales v. COMELEC determines whether the gravity of the evil, less its
(1969)]
improbability to happen, can justify the suppression
Note: This test has been adopted by the Philippine of the right in order to avoid the danger [Dennis v US,
SC lock, stock and barrel and is the test most applied 341 US 494]. It has not seen much application in
to cases re: freedom of expression.
Philippine jurisprudence and the Clear and Present
Danger remains to be the dominant test in abridging
D.3 BALANCING OF INTEREST TEST the Freedom of Expression.
When a particular conduct is regulated in the interest
of public order, and the regulation results in an To determine the clear and present danger of the
indirect, conditional and partial abridgement of utterances bringing about the evil which that
speech, the duty of the courts is to determine which legislature has the power to punish, "In each case
of the two conflicting interests demands greater [courts] must ask whether the gravity of the 'evil,'

PAGE 141 OF 404


UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 POLITICAL LAW

discounted by its improbability, justifies such invasion E. STATE REGULATION OF DIFFERENT


of free speech as is necessary to avoid the danger." TYPES OF MASS MEDIA
In this case, an attempt to overthrow the Government
by force is a sufficient evil for Congress to prevent. It
is the existence of the conspiracy which creates the Art. XVI, Sec. 11(1). The ownership and
danger. [Dennis v. US (1951)] management of mass media shall be limited to
citizens of the Philippines, or to corporations,
cooperatives or associations, wholly-owned and
D.7 MILLER TEST managed by such citizens.
To determine obscenity: The Congress shall regulate or prohibit
(1) Whether the average person, applying monopolies in commercial mass media when the
contemporary community standards would find public interest so requires. No combinations in
that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to restraint of trade or unfair competition therein shall
prurient interest be allowed.
(2) Whether the work depicts or describes in a The advertising industry is impressed with public
patently offensive way, sexual conduct interest, and shall be regulated by law for the
specifically defined by the applicable state law protection of consumers and the promotion of the
general welfare.
(3) Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks
serious, literary, artistic, political, or scientific Only Filipino citizens or corporations or
value [Miller v. CA (1973) also applied in associations at least seventy per centum of the
Fernando v. CA (2006)] capital of which is owned by such citizens shall be
allowed to engage in the advertising industry.
The participation of foreign investors in the
D.8 TEST FOR CONTENT-NEUTRAL governing body of entities in such industry shall be
REGULATION limited to their proportionate share in the capital
COMELEC banned the publication of surveys 15 and thereof, and all the executive and managing
7 days prior to election concerning national and local officers of such entities must be citizens of the
candidates, respectively. The SC held that this Philippines.
regulation is content-based because applying the
third prong of the O-Brien Test, it actually suppresses
a whole class of expression, while allowing the The Court pronounced that the freedom of broadcast
expression of opinion concerning the same subject media is lesser in scope than the press because of
matter by other opinion takers. The prohibition may their pervasive presence in the lives of people and
be for a limited time, but the curtailment of the right because of their accessibility to children.
of expression is direct, absolute, and substantial.
[SWS v. COMELEC (2001)]
J. Malcolm: The interest of society and the
maintenance of good government demand a full
discussion of public affairs. Complete liberty to
comment on the conduct of public men is a scalpel in
the case of free speech. The sharp incision of its
probe relieves the abscesses of officialdom. Men in
public life may suffer under a hostile and unjust
accusation; the wound can be assuaged with the
balm of clear conscience [US vs Bustos, 37 Phil. 731,
1918].

The Four Aspects of Freedom of the Press


[Chavez v. Gonzales, 2008]
PAGE 142 OF 404
UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 POLITICAL LAW

(1) freedom from prior restraint; (2) Also, there must be reasonable apprehension
about its imminence. It does not suffice that the
(2) freedom from punishment subsequent to
danger is only probable. [Gonzales v. Kalaw-
publication;
Katigbak (1985)]
(3) freedom of access to information; and
Limited intrusion into a person’s privacy is
(4) freedom of circulation permissible when that person is a public figure and
the information sought to be published is of a public
character.
Print vs Broadcast Media
What is protected is the right to be free from
unwarranted publicity, from the wrongful publicizing
While all forms of communication are entitled to the of the private affairs of an individual which are outside
broad protection of freedom of expression clause, the realm of public concern. [Ayer Productions
the freedom of film, television and radio v.Capulong, supra]
broadcasting is somewhat lesser in scope than
the freedom accorded to newspapers and other
Television Censorship
print media [Chavez vs Gonzales, supra].
P.D. 1986 gave MTRCB the power to screen, review
Radio and TV enjoy a narrower scope of protection and examine all television programs.
because of the ff reasons: By the clear terms of the law, the Board ha