Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 58



Q: According to the Supreme Court in is the liability the inviting officer.

the case of People v. Judge Ayson
citing Miranda v. Arizona, custodial G: What are the right of a person under
investigation means any questioning custodial investigation according to the
Supreme Court in the case of People v.
initiated by law enforcement officer
after a person has been taken into
custody or otherwise deprived of his A: 1.Right to remain silent and to have
freedom of movement in any competent and independent counsel
significant way preferably of his own choice
2)Right to be informed of his
INVESTIGATION BEGIN? 3)Not to be subjected to violence,
force, threat or intimidation or any
A: from the moment the person is taken
means which vitiates the free will shall
into custody, custodial investigation be used against him. Secret detention
begins even if no questioning is yet places, solitary in communicado, or
elicited from him. other similar forms of detention are
So custodial investigation begins when a 4)To have evidence obtained in
person is taken into custody and the law the violation of these rights excluded as
enforcement officer starts to ask evidence. ( The right not to admit any
question in relation to a crime of which evidence in violation of his
the person being interrogated is a constitutional rights)
suspect so custodial investigation begins
when the questioning ceases to be a Q: Under the Constitution are the
general inquiry in an unsolved crime, rights of a person under custodial
and starts to focus on a particular investigation waivable?
individual as a suspect. A: Right to remain silent. After the
warnings have been given, such
Q: And under Republic Act 7438 what opportunity afforded him, the
is included in the custodial individual may knowingly and
investigation intelligently waive these rights and
agree to answer or make a statement.
A: under that it includes the practice of
issuing invitation to a person who is Q:While the constitution expressly
investigated in connection with a provides that these rights can not be
offense on which is a suspect, of which waived except in writing and signed in
is suspected that committed the crime it the presence of a counsel this


constitutional provision does not apply was being offered in evidence during
to all rights of a person under custodial the trial but the opposing counsel did
investigation. What rights under not object to the presentation of that
custodial investigation may be waived extrajudicial confession. Will that
as long as it is in writing and signed in constitute an implied waiver of the
the presence of a counsel? rights during the custodial
A: : extrajudicial confession.. A: Even if the defense counsel failed to
object to the presentation of an
Q: Extrajudicial confessions obtained extrajudicial confession. it can not
during custodial investigation may be constitute as an implied waiver. Because
admitted in evidence if there is a valid in People vs Andan it is incumbent
waiver. The rights of a person under upon the prosection to prove that the
custodial investigation that may be rights in the custodial investigation
waived which may result in the were respected and duly complied with.
inadmissibility of evidence obtained In default of the eveidence showing
including the extrajudicial confession that this extrajudicial confession were
during the custodial investigation are? obtained in accordance with the
A: The right to remain silent, the right to constitution the court may disregard the
counsel evidence even if the defense did not
Q: How about the right to be informed
Q: Custodial Investigation begins
A: Can not be waived when the investigation ceases to be a
general inquiry in an unsolved crime
Q: Rights against to violence, force, and starts to focus on a particular
threat or intimidation or any means individual as a suspect. Is police line
which vitiates the free will up part of the custodial investigation.
A: Can not be waived A: it depends.if there is no investigation
on the part of the police line up, the
Q: The right to have evidence obtained police line up is not considered part of
in the violation of these rights the custodial investigation.
excluded as evidence.
A: It cannot be waived G: This is in reference of People vs
Macam and Gamboa vs Cruz. Gamboa
Q: Supposing during custodial vs cruz, the Supreme Court said the
investigation the person subjected to police line up in that case is not yet
this proceedings was tortured which part of the custodial investigation.
resulted in his confession and the While in the case of people vs macam
extrajudicial confession of the accused


the supreme court said the Q: so public prosecutors are law

uncounseled identification in the enforcement officers who can conduct
hospital constitute part of the custodial a custodial investigation?
investigation. So therefore, any A: they are the PNP, police
identification without being accorded
of these rights under section 12 will be Q: Under RA 7438, who are the people
rendered inadmissible in evidence considered as investigating officers
which is synonymous with a law
G: How about audit investigation of enforcement officer within the context
state reports, are these part of custodial of section 12 art 3
investigation A:police
A: it was held by the Supreme Court
that Audit investigation is not part of G: yes, for example police NBI, who are
Custodial Investigation because it does the investigating officers under the law
not involve law enforcers and he is not or considered as investigating officers
yet taken in custody under an who are the law enforcement officers
administrative proceeding. who may conduct custodial
A: A person under normal audit investigation
investigation is not under custodial G: Public officers who have the power
investigation, because an audit and duty to arrest, investigate any
examiner can hardly be deemed to be violation of law
the law enforcement officer
contemplated in the rule [Navallo v. G: Under the constitution any
Sandiganbayan, 234 SCRA 175]. Because confession or admission obtained
the Court Administrator is not a law during custodial investigation it is
enforcement officer, an investigation required that the rights of a person
conducted by him does not constitute under custodial investigation have
custodial investigation within the been complied with but under RA7438
contemplation of the constitutional there are additional requirements for
guarantee [Office of the Court the inadmissibility of extrajudicial
Administrator v. Sumilang, 271 SCRA confession or admissions during
316]. custodial investigation. Would it not
be an unconstitutional law because it
Q: who is a law enforcement officer expands the coverage of section 12
under the context of section 12 article article 3?
3? A:it is not unconstitutional because it is
A: People who has the power to favorable to the accused
Q: So the imposition of additional
impositions does not violate the


constitution. What are the additional admission obtained during custodial

conditions under RA7438 for the investigation has to be in writing
admissibility of confessions obtained A: it must be in writing
during custodial investigation. Because
under the constitution any confessions Q: Custodial investigation must be in
obtained under custodial investigation writing, the extrajudicial confession or
are admissible as long as the accused is admission obtained from CI must be
informed of his right to remain silent in writing and signed by the person
and to have counsel, he is not subjected to CI and assisted Any a
subjected to torture or violence or counsel. If the person waived his right
intimidation, and any violation to a counsel before whom should he
obtained in violation of these right are sign his extrajudicial confession?
inadmissible as evidence. But under A: Any of the parents, brothers and
the law those are not enough for the sisters, spouse, municipal mayor,
admissibility of confessions obtained municipal judge, school district
under custodial investigation because supervisor, the priest or minister trusted
the law provides if any of the and chosen by him.
requisites under the law are not
complied with even if the rights under LAWYERS DISQUALIFIED TO ACT AS
the constitution were followed, the ASSISTING COUNSEL DURING CI and
confession or admission remain ADMINISTRATIVE INVESTIGATION
inadmissible as evidence. Does the law
require that the investigation report Q: under the law who may be
should be in writing appointed as assisting counsel
S:yes A: any lawyer except those who are
Q: yes. So this means that if the interested in the outcome of the case.
custodial investigation report is not in For example if the complainant is a
writing, any confession or admission lawyer he cannot be appointed as an
obtained during custodial investigation assisting counsel during the
is inadmissible in evidence. investigation

G: does the law require that the Q: may a public prosecutor be

extrajudial confession itself shall be in appointed as an assisting counsel?
writing? A: No. because he is a lawyer who is
A: No. charge with the obligation of the
conduct of preliminary investigation
Q: which means all confession or
and prosecution of offenses
admission during CI is inadmissible
in evidence? Because it is not required
under the law that the confession or


G: why does the constitution afford Q: how did the Supreme court address
these rights to a person under CI? the issue of high risk of using
A: In people vs Andan the objective of compulsion, moral ascendancy,
the rights under Sec.12 Art. 3 is to influence by employers on the
preclude or prohibit in comminicado employee in order to extract
interrogation of individuals in a police confession. It is true that admin
dominated atmosphere where proceedings are not proceedings
potentiality for compulsion, physical or conducted by law enforcement officers
psychological, is apparent. because the Lawyer in an
administrative investigation is not a
G: In a custodial investigation a law law enforcement officer but the
enforcement officer is not an interested supreme court recognized the legality
party so in a custodial investigation the that during the administrative
law enforcement officer is just investigation the employer will
performing his official function which overbear on the employee and employ
means he is not personally interested coercion, moral ascendancy in order to
in the outcome of the investigation extract confession. So how does the
legality addressed in the constitution?
G: In an investigation between an
employer and employee the A:any confession or admission during
investigator is the lawyer and administrative investigation obatained
definitely the employer is very much by coercion or moral ascendancy or
interested in the outcome of the influence maybe considered as
investigation so which means that if
inadmissible not because of violation of
there is a risk during CI that the law
enforcement officer while Sec 12 Art3 of the constitution because
disinterested may employ compulsion, the said section does not apply to this
coercion the risks are greater when it type of proceedings but under the
comes to administrative investigation general principles of the Civil Law ,
because now the investigator is Vitiated Consent. So the supreme court
financially interested in the outcome of
the investigation said in Peple vs Judge Ayson that
vitiated consent can not produce any
Q: because of that can we extend the evidence
rights under sec 12 art 3to persons
facing administrative investigations? EXCLUSIONARY RULE, DERIVATIVE
A: NO. the bill of rights does not apply
in the said proceedings


Q: Supposing the rights in the of People vs. Alicando cited Justice

constitution were violated, under the Frankfurter in the case of US vs
constitution any confession or Cardone, not only the admission or
admission obtained during custodial
confession obtained in violation of the
investigation will be inadmissible in
evidence for any purpose. In the case constitution be considered as null and
of People vs Alicando, the Supreme void and inadmissible in evidence but
Court said that not only admission or all derivative evidence however far
confession obtained during the removed from the primary source. The
custodial investigation be considered
fruit of poisonous tree does not only
as inadmissible in evidence, what else
is declared inadmissible in evidence? deal with the fruit because when we say
fruit, fruit is a derivative evidence once
A: any derivative evidence obtained removed from a primary source because
from the illegally tainted confession or the primary source, the confession or
admission are also considered as admission is the tree and the fruit which
inadmissible in evidence. So the
is the secondary evidence is once
confession or admission obtained
during custodial investigation in removed from the primary source but
violation of the constitutional rights of the fruit of poisonous tree extends to all
the person under custodial investigation evidence however removed from the
are declared inadmissible in evidence primary source. Which means that if the
under the exclusionary rule particularly confession or admission of the accused
uner the 3rd paragraph of section 12 resulted in the discovery of a secondary
article 3 and par.2 section3 article 3
evidence, that secondary evidence is
Q: how about the derivative or inadmissible in evidence. If the
secondary evidence obtained from this discovery of the secondary evidence
confession or admission, what is the leads to another derivative evidence
legal basis for declaring this derivative that derivative evidence is still
evidence inadmissible in evidence
considered inadmissible in evidence.
A: they are inadmissible under the
concept of the fruit of the poisonous tree
Q: what is this all about? Q: can we now say that whenever the
A: Anything that is obtained from an rights of a person under CI have been
illegal source is also inadmissible in violated the accused is entitled to no
evidence. The supreme court in the case less than an acquittal?


evidence the uncounselled confession

A: No.even if the rights of the person of the accused to the mayor in Andan
were violated during CI resulting to the who is also a law enforcement officer,
inadmissibility of evidence of any and to the police officer in duty in the
confession or admission or any case of people vs dy. So why did the
derivative evidence if the prosecution SC admit these in evidence
wwas able to present independent A: the accused admitted or made those
evidence that may establish the guilt of confession spontaneously and
the accused beyond reasonable doubt voluntarily not solicited through
the accused may still be convicted. This questioning, without any influence of
is shown in the case of Ho Wai Pang vs the police or of the investigating officer.
People. In Ho wai Pang vs People, the In the case where the accused admitted
Chinese accused were not accorded the to the mayor , he admitted it when he is
right under sec 12 art 3, there was no in a private room or office of the police
interpreter and there was no counsel chief. He was not forced and the mayor
during the investigation but the SC did not ask if he was involved in the
considered independent evidence, crime. In people vs andan the sc said the
independent from confession or rights of sec 12 art 3 are guaranteed to
admission, like the testimony of the preclude the slightest use of coercion of
immigration officer who has searched the state as to result in him admitting
the luggage of the accused. Similarly in something is false but not to prevent
the case of people vs macam again the him from freely and voluntarily telling
identification of the hospital was the truth.
considered as inadmissible in evidence
but the SC said that during trial the In Ppl vs DY, the inadmissibility of
witnesses were able to identify them in evidence passed to form test. The first
court so which means that there are form is the determination whether the
other independent evidence that were confession is part of the investigation.
presented by the prosecution to The SC said that it is not part of the CI
establish the guilt of the accused beyond because no questioning was elicited
reasonable doubt from the accused so it is a voluntary
sponateous act it is not part of the CI.
Q: in the case of people vs Dy and The second form is in order to hurdle
People vs Andan the SC admitted in the rule against hearsay. Off course the


accused admit his guilt but the mayor or A: Bail is a security given for the release
PO did not know the truth of his of a person in custody of law, furnished
confession so therefore under the by him or a bondsman, to guarantee his
hearsay rule they are disqualified even appearance before any court as required
though dy admitted he killed a tourist under the conditions hereinafter
the Police officer in duty was not there, specified. Bail may be given in the form
he does not know, he has no personal of corporate surety, property bond,
knowledge of the fact of the incident. cash deposit, or recognizance. (Sec 21
Generally under the hearsay rule the rule 114)
testimony of the police in duty can not
be offered in evidence Q: what is the purpose of bail based on
manotoc vs CA?
Q: did the SC allowed the testimony of A: to temporarily release the person.in
the mayor and of the police officer on Basco vs Rapatalo a person is detained
duty despite the fact that they do not by the state so that in order to ensure
have personal knowledge as to the that he appears before the proper court
incident being the subject matter of the at the scheduled time and place to
controversy answer the charges brought against him
A: Yes under the principle of res gestae. and her. The accused has interest in the
It may in a sense be also regarded as presence of the accused in the trial even
part of the res gestae. The rule is that, though the accused has an interest to be
any person, otherwise competent as a provisionally free during the pendency
witness, who heard the confession, is of the trial. So there are two conflicting
competent to testify as to the substance interest. Bail is the moderating
of what he heard if he heard and mechanism in order to balance the
understood all of it. An oral confession interest of the state, to ensure that the
need not be repeated verbatim, but in accused will appear during the trial and
such a case it must be given in the interest of the accused, to be at
substance. This is an exception of the liberty during the pendency of the trial
hearsay rule. while his guilt is not yet established
beyond reasonable doubt.
BAIL Section 13 In Manotoc vs CA, the objective of bail
Q: What is bail? is to relieve the accused from
imprisonment and on the state to the


burden of keeping him and as well as to shall remain in force at all stages of the
maintain the jurisdiction of the court case until promulgation of the judgment
over the accused as if he is in custody of of the RTC, irrespective of whether the
the proper officer of the court to receive case was originally filed in or appealed
any lawful order may be given to him to it;
Second, The accused shall appear before
Q:Generally bail is only allowed or the proper court whenever required
required in criminal cases and in favor Third,The failure of the accused to
of the accused. May bail be required appear at the trial without justification
from a person who is not a party to a and despite due process shall be
case? deemed a waiver of his right to be
A: Yes.bail may be required to material present thereat. In such case, the trail
witness under rule 119. It is required in may proceed in absentia.
order to guarantee that the material Fourth,Bondsman shall surrender the
witness will appear in the trial and if the accused to the court for execution for
material witness does not post bail he final judgment
will be detained prior to or while
waiting for the trial in the case Q: what happen if the accused failed to
appear despite duty and without just
Q: what are the different kinds of bail? cause
A: Bail as matter of right and Bail as a A: His right during trial is waived and
matter of discretion the case will be tried in trial trial in
Q: What are the 4 forms of bail
A: Cash deposits, Recognizance, G: under sec 4 rule 114, when is bail a
property bond and corporate surety( matter of right
bonding company that guarantees the A: All persons in custody shall be
appearance of an acussed) admitted to bail as a matter of right,
with sufficient sureties, or released on
Q: what are the four mandatory recognizance as prescribed by law or
conditions in the all kinds of bail this Rule;
A: a)Before or after conviction by the MTC
First, Undertaking shall be effective (offenses punishable 6 years or below)
upon approval, and unless cancelled,


b)Before conviction of the RTC of an discretion to determine the weight of

offense not punishable by death, evidence of guilt. If the evidence of guilt
reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment. is strong, the discretion ceases, the court
need to deny it. Its its not a matter of
Q: is there any circumstance that bail is right nor discretion. Similarly,after
a matter of right? hearing and the court exercise its
A: offense not punishable by death, discretion, the court determines that the
reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment evidence of guilt is weak the discretion
when evidence of guilt is not strong cease. The court has no choice but to
grant it because bails becomes a matter
Q:when is bail matter of discretion of right
A: Upon conviction by the Regional
Trial Court of an offense not Q:In the case of Basco vs Rapatalo,
punishable by death, reclusion what are the four fold application of
perpetua, or life imprisonment, the court whenever the application of
admission to bail is discretionary. bail is filed before the court
The application for bail may be filed A: In Basco v. Rapatalo, the Supreme
and acted upon by the trial court Court laid down the four fold duties of
despite the filing of a notice of the court;
appeal, provided it has not 1)Notify the prosecutor of the hearing of
transmitted the original record to the the application for bail or require him to
appellate court. However, if the submit his recommendation
decision of the trial court conviction 2)Conduct a hearing for the application
the accused changed the nature of the for bail regardless of whether or not the
offense from non-bailable to bailable, prosecution refuses to present evidence
the application for bail can only be filed to show that the guilt of the accused is
with and resolved by the appellate strong for the purpose of enabling the
court. (Section 5 Rule 114) court to exercise its sound discretion
3)Decide whether the evidence of the
Q: is there other instance when bail is guilt of the accused is strong based on
matterof discretion the summary of evidence of the
A:when the offense charged is prosecution.
punishable by RP, Life imprisonment or 4)If the guilt of the accused is not strong,
death . the court will exercise its discharge the accused upon the


approval of the bail bond otherwise b)Nature and circumstances of the

deny the application for bail. offense
c)Penalty for the offense charged
Q:Are these applicable onle to bail as d)Character and reputation of the
matter of discretion? accused
A: yes. The four fold application does e)Age and health of the accused
not apply when bail is matter of right. f)Weight of the evidence against the
But there is a need to conduct a hearing accused
when bail is matter of right and if the g)Probability of the accused appearing
purpose of conducting a hearing is to at the trial
determine the evidence of guilt and h)Forfeiture of the bail
proper amount of bail i)The fact that the accused was a fugitive
from justice when arrested
G: in bail as a right, the purpose of j)Pendency of other cases where the
hearing is accused is on bail
A: to know the reasonable amount of these factors are not exclusive, other
bail. that is the only issue in a hearing factors may be considered by the court
when bail is a matter of right. But in
practice upon the issuance of a warrant G:in determining the nature of bail
of arrest there is already a whether it is a matter of right or
recommended amount of bail. The discretion what is the penalty
accused may file a motion in order to determinative of the nature of bail
reduce the amount of bail, and that is
time when a hearing for the A: First, all persons are entitled to bail
determination of the reasonable amount except when the offense is punishable
of bail shall be established by the court. by RP, LI or death
Second , bail becomes a matter of
G: What are the factors that the court discretion when offense charged is
should consider in determining the punishable by RP, LI, or death when the
amount of bail under sec9 rule 114? penalty imposed is imprisonment
A: exceeding six years provided that the
a)Financial ability of the accused to give following circumstances are present.
bail Which means if any of those
circumstances mentioned in par 2 of sec


5 rule 114 is present bail is neither a (d) That the circumstances of his case
matter of right or discretion indicate the probability of flight if
Iit is inappropriate to say bailable or non released on bail; or
bailable offenses because all offenses a (e) That there is undue risk that he may
re bailabale, what is non bailable is the commit another crime during the
accused because if the accused is pendency of the appeal.
charged with rp, li or death and if the
evidence of guilt is strong he cant be Q: in the case of Rapatalo, bail is
admitted to bail matter of right or discretion, and the
nature of bail is determined by the
G: As stated in Sec. 5 rule 114 of the penalty for the offense charged. At
rules of Court, bail is a matter of what time should the penalty for the
discretion when the penalty for the offense should be determined in order
crime charged is less than reclusion to establish whether bail is a matter of
perpetua but the penalty imposed by right or discretion
the trial court is imprisonment A:Deterrmined by the law providing for
exceeding six (6) years, the accused the penalty for the offense charged at
shall be denied bail, or his bail shall be the time of the application or pendency
cancelled upon a showing by the for the application of bail.
prosecution, with notice to the accused,
of the following or other similar Q: In Ppl vs Judge Donato, at the time
circumstances? of the commission of the offense
A: charged the penalty provided by law is
(a) That he is a recidivist, quasi- RP to Death. During the pendency for
recidivist, or habitual delinquent, or has the application for bail was reduced to
committed the crime aggravated by the prision mayor so what is now the
circumstance of reiteration; character of bail?
(b) That he has previously escaped from A: Upon the issuance of the executive
legal confinement, evaded sentence, or order, bail becomes a matter of right
violated the conditions of his bail because the nature of bail shall be
without valid justification; determined by the nature of the offense
(c) That he committed the offense while charged at the time of pendency for the
under probation, parole, or conditional application for bail


Q: supposing that at the time of the reveals distorted notion as to the true
commission of the offense charged the nature and conditions does violence to
penalty is PM. At the time for the the well established rule of law that bail
pendency for the application for bail it is not a matter of right and requires
was increased to RP. So now it hearing where the accused is charged
becomes a matter of discretion because
the applicable penalty the penalty Q: what are the substantive basis of
provided for by the law at the time of this?
pendency of the application for bail. In A: right to be heard. Right of the
the example given, bail becomes a prosecution the opportunity to prepare
matter of discretion? in order to establish the weight of
A:it is the lower penalty. The penalty evidence.
for the offense charged at the time for
application for bail is the applicable law Q: do members of afp can exercise the
because it is the lower penalty. right to bail?
A: No, in the case of Commendador v.
Q:is right to bail a waivable right? De Villa the right to speedy trial is given
A: yes more emphasis in the military where the
right to bail does not exist because of the
Q: should it be in writing and signed unique structure of the military should
in the presence of a counsel? be enough reason to exempt military
A: no required formality mean from the constitutional coverage
on the right to bail. Right to bail to
Q:are motions for application for bail members of AFP are not accorded to
required to comply with 3 day motion them because of their pecuniary
structure, they carry firearms and
A: Yes. In Baylon v. Judge Sison the
operate within the government
Supreme court ruled that the reason
therefore they cannot demand for the
given by the respondent judge that the
same right as any private citizen entitled
non observance of the three day motion
rule is justified because of the urgent
In Commendador v. De Villa, the
motion for the petition for bail and time
accused herein are under court martial
is of the essence is untenable. Such
proceedings. Right to bail are not
raciconation, which espouses and
entitled if the offense is administrative


or under court martial but when it is a 2)The requesting State will accord due
criminal in nature they can post bail. process to the accused
3)The proceedings are sui generis
Q: PNP has the right to bail and carry 4)Compliance shall be in good faith
also firearms. is there a reasonable 5)There is underlying risk of flight
distinction between AFP and PNP?
A: PNP are compared to civilians Q: What are the issues in an
extrajudicial proceedings
Q: are members of AFP not entitled to A: 1.whether the request complies with
bail the general rule? the extradition treaty
A: no it’s the exception. Members of afp 2. whether the person is extraditable
like any other person are entitled to bail
except when they are charged before Q: What does speedy trial mean?
general court of martial. Because they
A: Means a trial conducted according to
are not criminal and judicial
the law of criminal procedure and the
proceedings but executive proceedings.
rules and regulations, free from
It is not appealble before general court
vexatious, capricious and oppressive
but to the president
delays. (People v. Tee)
Q: the right to bail may may be denied Q: What are the factors to be weighed
depending on the penalty of the by the court as to determine whether
offense charged and evidence of guilt, the right has been violated? (LRCEP)
is the right to bail available in non People v. Tee
criminal proceedings like extradition?
A: No. The extradition proceedings do A: 1)Length of the delay
not determine the guilt or innocence of
2)Reason for the delay Failure to
the accused. The court only determines
present the material witness in the trial
if there is an extradition treaty or the
case is extraditable. 3)The conduct of prosecution and
accused The prosecution exerted all
Q: What are the 5 postulates of efforts to produce the witness. Defense
extradition proceedings did not make any move to invoke the
A:1)Extradition is a major instrument constitutional right of the accused to a
for suppression of crime speedy trial


4)Efforts exerted by the A: 1)The proceedings are attended

defendant to assert his right by vexatious, capricious and oppressive
5)Prejudice and damage caused
to the accused 2)When unjustified
postponements are asked for and
Q: Applying these factors, can we say
that there was a violation to right to
speedy trial in People v. Tee? 3)When without cause or
justifiable motive of long period of time
A: No. The Supreme Court ruled that
is allowed to elapse without the party
although the absences of prosecution
having his case tried (People v. Tee)
witness Abratique totaled to 20 hearing
days, there is no showing whatsoever Q: In order for these 3 to constitute
that prosecution capriciously caused violation, what is the qualifier?
Abratique’s absences as to vex or
A: The delay must be attributable to the
oppress appellant and deny him his
rights. Under the rules, appellant could
have moved the trial court to require the Q: What is the remedy if there is
witness to post bail to ensure that the violation of his right to speedy trial?
latter would testify when required.
Appellant could have moved to have A: petition for certiorari/mandamus;
Abratique found in contempt and duly writ of habeas corpus if he is detained
sanctioned. Appellant did neither. It is a Q: Why does the constitution
bit too late in the day for the appellant guarantee that the accused should be
to invoke now his right to speedy trial. tried for the least amount of time?

A: so that the accused if he be innocent

be released from anxiety

Q: Are appeals covered under the right

Q: Speedy trial is a relative concept
to speedy trial?
and the right to speedy trial can be
violated when? A: Proceedings anterior to trial and trial


Q: Right under Sec.14 is the right to Q: What does impartial trial mean?
speedy trial. Can we say that this right
A: Hearing before an impartial and
is only applicable during trial?
disinterested tribunal and that every
A: No. The Supreme Court in the case of litigant is entitled nothing less than the
Flores v. People citing Justice Laurel, cold neutrality of an impartial judge.
“An accused is entitled to a trial at the
Q: In Mateo Jr. v. Villaluz, described a
earliest opportunity. He cannot be
cold, neutral and impartial judge. Who
oppressed by delaying the
is an impartial judge?
commencement of trial for an
unreasonable length of time. If the A: A cerebral man deliberately holds in
proceedings pending trial are deferred, check the tag and pull of purely
the trial itself is necessarily delayed. personal preferences and prejudices
which he shares with the rest of his
Q: How about on appeal?
fellow mortals.
A: No. Right to speedy trial applies to
Q: Judge has two obligations in
the proceedings anterior to the trial.
promulgating judgement?
Delay in the appeal is covered by a
different constitutional guarantee A: (1)Duty to render just decision and
covered by Sec.16 Art.3. (2) must do it free from any suspicion of
partiality/ prejudice. Judge must be
Q: In the case of Conde v. Rivera, for a
impartial and appear impartial.
period of one year she was required to
a dance attendance to the Court. Why? Q: is it enough that the trial judge
impartial? Supposing the judge is
A: She is required to attend at the trial
indeed impartial and renders decision
whether the trial is postponed. The
based on evidence. Is that enough?
Supreme Court dismissed the case
What if he is seen socializing with one
because of the violation of the right to
of the party in a case he is handling
speedy trial of the accused.
after work?
Q: In this case the accused was made to
A: No it is not enough. The judge or
dance attendance in court?
justice of Courts must appear to be
A: Like cha-cha made back and forth in impartial. Even if they penned their
attending court hearings decision based on evidence they must


have semblance of impartiality. They Mere possibility of influence is not

cannot just associate with any parties in enough, the accused must show
the case because it will bring a probable cause that judgment is
semblance of partiality. impaired.

Q: In our judicial system, are trial court Q: Mateo Jr. v. Vilalauz, the
judges required to leap lie hermits respondent judge is the one who
detached with world? Because in the attested to the affidavit of one of the
case of People v. Teehankee, the witnesses. But when the witness is
accused contends that his right to presented, he reacted and said that he
impartial trial is violated because of was forced to sign the affidavit. After
the pervasive publicity of the case. the claim made by the witness, the
defendant immediately filed for an
A: In People v. Teehankee, the
inhibition of the respondent judge.
Supreme Court ruled that pervasive According the defense they cannot
publicity is not per se prejudicial to the longer expect an impartial and cold
right of an accused to fair trial. The mere neutrality on the presiding judge.
fact that the trial of appellant was given Why?
a day to day, gavel to gavel, coverage
does not by itself prove that the A: The Supreme Court ruled that
publicity so permeated the mind of a having the extrajudicial statement was
trial judge and impaired his attested before him, such repudiation
impartiality. Our idea of a fair and was hardly flattering to the judge. His
impartial judge is not that of a hermit sense of fairness under the
who is out of touch with the world. We circumstances could easily be blunted.
have not installed the jury system The absence of the requisite of due
whose members are overly protected process element is thus noticeable.
from publicity lest they lose their
impartiality. Our judges are learned in
law and trained to disregard off court
evidence and on camera performances
Q: What is the purpose of this
of parties in litigation. Their mere
constitutional guarantee of public trial
exposure to publications and publicity
according to the case of Garcia v.
stunts do not per se fatally infect their


A: Justice Laurel: Trial should be in is no showing that the public was

public in order to offset any danger of excluded. It is to be admitted that the
conducting it in an illegal or unjust size of the room allotted by the Judge
manner. would reduce the number of those who
could be present. Such a fact though is
Atty. Gabriel: Necessary to prevent
not indicative of any transgression of
abuses that may be committed by the
this right. Courtrooms are not of
court to the prejudice of the defendant.
uniform dimensions. Some are smaller
Q: In the case of Garcia v. Domingo, than others. Moreover as what Justice
this right to due process in order to Black opined, it suffices to satisfy the
offset any danger of conducting it in an requirement of a trial being public if the
illegal or unjust manner. The right to accused could have his friends, relatives
public trial in order to ship the accused and counsel present, no matter what
form the arbitrariness of the judge, offense he may be charged.
how can it protect the accused form
Q: Is trial by publicity the same as
A: Based on experience. Public officers
public trial?
are more prudent when the trial is
witnessed by the public. A: No. Aquino case-absolute ban on
recording, trial is not for entertainment.
Q: Right to public trial is a right that
belongs to the accused. Can an accused Estrada case-was allowed for
waive it? Meaning can he exclude the documentation ONLY
public from the witnessing his trial?
Ampatuan case- pro hac vice,
A: Prosecution can invoke the right to allowed live video streaming by reason
public trial by the virtue of the due of extraordinary circumstance of the
process clause. case.
Q: Would the proceedings in the Atty. Gabriel: In the case of In re:
chamber of the judge considered as Petition for radio and television
public trial?
coverage of multiple murder case
A: No. The Supreme Court in the case against Maguindanao Governor Zaldy
of Garcia v. Domingo, ruled that there Ampatuan, the Supreme Court


discussed the evolution on the right of evidence to be produced during the trial
impartial trial on the one hand and right is offensive to decency or public morals.
to information on the other hand. From He may also, on motion of the accused,
the outright denial in the case of Aquino exclude the public from the trial, except
to the filming for the purposes of court personnel and the counsel of the
recording in the case of Estrada and to a parties
restricted and to regulated public airing
Q: What is right to confrontation?
in the case of Maguindanao massacre,
but note as well in the decision of the SC A: Right of the accused to see the
in the case of In re: Petition for radio witness face to face
and television coverage of multiple
murder case against Maguindanao Q: What are the two reasons as
Governor Zaldy Ampatuan was mentioned in the case of US v. Javier
why the courts cannot allow the
modified in its resolution because in its
affidavit of a deceased who is not cross
decision it allowed the TV and radio
examined as admissible in evidence?
coverage of the trial under restrictive
and more prohibitive procedure. But in A: 1)To allow the accused to exercise
its resolution modified its , by denying his right to cross examination of the
live TV and radio coverage and witness
allowing only live streaming from an
extension in the premises of the court 2)A tribunal may have before it
because of the balancing interest of the the deportment and appearance of the
accused and the people. Note as well witness while testifying
and the resolution and decision of the Q: Substantively these are the two
SC in the Maguindanao case is a pro hac reasons why the affidavit cannot be
vice case meaning it cannot be admitted without presenting the
considered as judicial precedent under affiant as a witness. Procedurally, what
the doctrine of stare decisis. Applicable is the basis of the exclusion? An ex
in that particular case only. parte cannot be presented as evidence
Atty. Gabriel : Waiver of public trial
Section 21. Exclusion of the public. — A: Intended to prevent the conviction of
The judge may, motu proprio, exclude the accused upon deposition or ex parte
the public from the courtroom if the affidavits.


Q: Supposing the accused are tried A: (1) The admissibility of “dying

separately on the same criminal declarations;” and (2) trial in absentia
information on the same acts or under Section 14(2)
omissions. Supposing A B C tried on
the same criminal information may the Q: Supposing A was presented a s a
testimony of a witness in the case of A witness during his testimony he
who was a exhaustively cross produced the affidavit of B in order to
examined by the accused can be used prove that he is telling the truth. Can
as a witness to other cases without the defense object to that evidence?
presenting the witness in the other A: Yes. The affidavit would be
case. D was presented as a witness in considered as a hearsay evidence. Atty.
the case of A can D be presented as a
Gabriel: Procedurally, ex parte affidavits
witness in the case of B and C without
cannot be admitted because on the rule
presenting as witness in B and C’s
of hearsay evidence.
Q: What are the two compulsory
Atty. Gabriel: No. It would deprive the
processes available to the accused?
court to observe the deportment of the
Section 14, Article 3
witness during the trial. If we say
automatically that the second court will A: 1)Subpoena ad testificandum
admit the evidence of the witness who is Person is required by the court to testify
presented in another case would not
2)Subpoena duces tecum
that be a deprivation of the right of the
Required by the court for the
second court to determine whether the
production of books, records, things or
witness is lying or telling the truth?
documents therein specified
Even if the parties are the same if the
court trying the parties are not the same Q: May a subpoena ad testificandum
the right to confrontation requires that be issued by the court without issuing
the witness presented in one case be subpoena duces tecum?
presented in the other case.
A: Yes. Subpoena duces tecum cannot
be issued by the court without subpoena
ad testificandum but subpoena ad
Q: Is there an exemption to the rule in
testificandum can be issued without
Talino v. Sandiganbayan
Subpoena duces tecum. It is not enough


that the documents which is the subject testificandum would serve no purpose
of subpoena duces tecum to just bring it but to further the delay of the
before the court. It must be testified and proceedings in pending criminal cases.
authenticated by the custodian. In that It is not relevant since it is only used for
regard, the complete term for subpoena fishing expediton.
duces tecum ad testificandum
2)Such books must be reasonably
Atty. Gabriel: did not pass because it described by the parties to be readily
cannot be used as to determine the guilt identified (Test of definiteness) In Roco
or innocence of the accused. The v. Contreras, the Supreme Court ruled
petitioner used this only to fish for that the books and documents that the
evidence. petitioner requested to be subpoenaed
are designated and described in his
Q: What are the two tests in order to
request with definiteness and readily
determine the propriety of the issuance
of subpoena duces tecum?
Q: Sec. 14 Art.3 enumerates the rights
A: 1)The books and documents or
of the accused expect for one which is?
other things required must appear
prima facie relevant to the issue subject A: The provision on trial by absentia.
of the controversy (Test of relevancy) This right favors the prosecution so that
When are they relevant? An evidence is the trial won’t be delayed.
relevant when it establishes the guilt or
Q: What are the three requirements so
innocence of the accused.
that trial in absentia may proceed?
Like in the case of Roco v. Contreras (BP
A: 1) There has been an arraignment
22 case), the Supreme Court ruled that
the production of book of account, 2) That the accused had been
ledgers and documents requested by the notified
petitioner are not indispensable to prove
his defense of payment. We do not find 3) That he fails to appear and his
any justifiable reason and petitioner has failure to do so is unjustified
not shown any, why this court must
have to disbelieve the factual findings of
the appellate court. Thus the issuance of
subpoena duces tecum subpoena ad


bail after he had been arraigned just

before the retaking of evidence
Q: What is the consequence of trial in
commenced, one who jumps bail can
never offer a justifiable reason for his
A: The accused waived his right to non appearance during trial.
appear in the trial. He cannot present Accordingly, after the trial in absentia,
evidence. He cannot be present in the court can render judgment in the
person or in counsel. He loses his legal case and the promulgation may be made
standing. by simply recording the judgment in the
criminal docket with a copy thereof
Q: The presence of the accused is served upon his counsel provided that
needed during arraignment the
the notice requiring him to be present at
presence of the accused is mandatory
the promulgation is served through his
during trial and during the
bondsmen or warden and counsel.
promulgation. Does that mean that the
court cannot during trial during trial in Atty. Gabriel: Only during the
absentia if the purpose of the trial is to arraignment, the presence of the
identify the accused? accused is not waivable but only to the
two instances it is waivable.
A: During trial, the accused can
expressly waive his appearance through Q: When is the Presence of the Accused
his counsel by making a manifestation, Mandatory
that whenever a witness is to be
presented to identify the accused, the A: 1. During arraignment and plea
defense is admitting that the accused (Rules of Court, Rule 116, Sec. 1).
will be identified by the witness. In that 2. During trial, for identification,
regard to be dispense with the unless the accused has already
appearance of the accused in stipulated on his identity during the
identification purposes. On the third pre-trial and that he is the one who will
instance, during the promulgation of the be identified by the witnesses as the
judgment, it is the issue in the case of accused in the criminal case; or
People v. Valeriano, whether the court
can promulgate a decision when the 3. During promulgation of
accused flee from justice. The Supreme sentence, unless for a light offense
Court ruled that the accused jumped (Rules of Court, Rule 120, Sec. 6). Upon


the termination of a trial in absentia, the of the person's liberty, used as a

court has the duty to rule upon the protection against illegal imprisonment.
evidence presented in court. The court
Q: May the writ of habeas corpus be
need not wait for the time until the
suspended? The writ itself?
accused who escaped from custody
finally decides to appear in court to A: Only the privilege only.
present his evidence and cross-examine
the witnesses against him. To allow the Q: What is the difference on the
suspension of the privilege writ of
delay of proceedings for this purpose is
habeas corpus and writ of habeas
to render ineffective the constitutional
provision on trial in absentia (People v.
Mapalao) A: Writ of Habeas Corpus- application
for habeas corpus is filed and the court
Q: May an accused tried in absentia be
finds the petition in proper form, it will
convicted in absentia likewise appeal
issue the writ as a matter of course,
in absentia?
ordering the production of the person
A: This is one the issue in the case of allegedly detained and requiring the
People v. Mapalao, the Supreme court respondent to justify the detention. A
ruled that the accused while at large, high prerogative writ, a writ of inquiry-
cannot seek relief from the court as he is seeks to determine the validity or
deemed to have waived his right and legality of the detention.
has no standing in court. Upon
promulgation of the judgment, he failed Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus-
to appear without justifiable cause where the return of the respondent
although his bondsmen and counsel shows that the person in custody is
were given notice, he is therefore being held for a crime covered by the
waived his right to appeal. proclamation suspending the privilege
and in a place where it is effective will
Q: What is Habeas Corpus (“you have the court dismiss the petition. Is the
the body”) Section 15, article 3? order for the release of the person.

A: An order requiring a person to be Q: Only the privilege of the writ of

brought before a judge or court, habeas corpus may be suspended and
especially for investigation of a restraint not the writ. Who may suspend the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus?


What are the valid grounds of the Q: How can you question the
suspension? suspension of the privilege of the writ
of habeas corpus? Lansang case
A: The president and the grounds are in
cases of invasion when public safety A: in an appropriate proceeding, sub
requires it and in cases of rebellion judice.
when public safety requires it.
Q: When does it promulgate its
Encompasses the meaning under the decision challenging such suspension?
revised penal code? Statutorily defined
A: 30 days after questioning
offenses - Lagman case
Q: Quantum of evidence?
Q: How about imminent threat of
rebellion or invasion? Is this a valid A: probable cause.
ground of suspension?
Q: Does it consider the subsequent
A: Yes, in the case of Lansang v. Garcia events in determining the sufficiency
interpreting the 1935 Constitution. of factual basis for the suspension of
Under 1987 Constitution, mere threat of privilege of writ of habeas corpus and
rebellion is not a valid ground. proclamation of martial law?

Q: What are the two instances wherein A: Courts of justice can only limit its
writ of habeas corpus can be issued or factual gaze at the time of actual
available? proclamation

A: 1) In cases of illegal detention in In contrast with power of Congress

order to test the validity of detention. power to revoke or extend, it may
Reckoning period: as of the filing for the consider any evidence before or after
petition of the writ of habeas corpus at such proclamation.
the earliest time and if there are
Q: Can the courts defer any action
supervening events that will supersede
challenging such petition until the
the petition of the writ of habeas corpus
congress acted according to the
and bar his release from custody.
constitution? Should the court wait on
2) Speedy trial the action of congress to revoke or
extend before it assumes jurisdiction?


A: No remedies are separate and A: Rebellion or offenses inherent in or

independent. directly connected with invasion.

Q: What are the constitutional Q: Under Sec. 15 art.3 constitution

limitations in the suspension of the provides that the privilege of writ
privilege of the writ? habeas corpus shall not be suspended
except in cases of invasion or rebellion
A: He may for a period not exceeding
when the public safety requires it. The
sixty days suspend to privilege and only use of term invasion and rebellion are
the Congress can extend it. Upon the they taken within the context of
suspension of the privilege his duty is to criminal law?
submit a report within 48 hours from
the suspension in person or in writing. A: Yes new ruling in Lagman

Q: Prior to the 1987 Constitution, Q: For how long a person may be

whether the Supreme Court can review suspected to have committed an
the sufficiency of the factual offense of rebellion or offenses
circumstances in the suspension. Can inherent in or directly connected with
the Supreme Court review? invasion be detained?

A: In the case of Lansang v. Garcia, the A: Person thus arrested or detained

Supreme Court ruled that Art. 7 vest the shall be judicially charged within 3 days
executive the power to suspend, but not of otherwise he shall be released.
absolute, it goes hand in hand with the
Atty. Gabriel: Supposing A was
system of checks and balances under
arrested for being a suspected rebel at
which the Executive is supreme as
the time that he was arrested the
regards to the suspension of the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus
privilege but only if and when he acts
was suspended. On the 3rd day of his
within the sphere allotted to him by the
arrest, police officers who arrested him
Basic law, authority to determine
filed a criminal complaint before a
whether he has so acted is vested in the
public prosecutor for preliminary
Judicial Department. Check only and
investigation, would that suffice to bar
not to supplant.
the 3 day period in order to be said that
Q: What are the offenses covered by the detention of A is justified?
the suspension of the privilege?


A: A must be judicially charged. Mere most benign to the least benign. (Can
filing criminal complaint before a public be used although not in succession)
prosecutor for preliminary investigation
A: 1)Calling out power
is not sufficient to bar the running of the
3 day period. It can only be interrupted 2)Suspension of the privilege of
by filing criminal information before the the writ Habeas Corpus
3)Declaration of martial law Sec.
Q: Consequence in the petition for bail 18 only enumerates the power
of a person who filed a petition for wherein the President may call
habeas corpus? martial law or suspend the
privilege in invasion when public
A: This is the issue in the case of
safety requires it and in cases of
Jackson v. Macalino, wherein the
rebellion when public safety
Supreme Court ruled that by offering of
requires it.
the petitioner to post bail bond, the
petitioner thereby admitted that he was Can the President exercise or proclaim
under custody of CID and voluntarily martial law without the presence of
accepted the jurisdiction of CID. rebellion, invasion or lawless violence?
Q: Can the court continue to hear the A: Even if there is no actual rebellion,
petition of writ of habeas corpus after invasion or lawless violence the
the petitioner filed for bail? President may exercise his calling out
A: If the accused applied for bail, it is an power in order to avert or to stop it
expressed admission or recognition of from happening.
the validity of his detention and would Q: What happens to the person who
render the petition for habeas corpus post bail in suspension of the privilege
moot and academic. of habeas corpus? Can he still exercise
the right to bail? What is the purpose
Q: Sec.18 Art. 7 enumerate the powers
for the suspension?
of the President. Supreme Court in the
Sanlakas case said that the A: The purpose is to quash or stop
enumeration in Sec.18 Art.7 was rebellion or invasion.
deliberately made from an order, to the


Atty. Gabriel: Let’s assume that the the accused and ultimately retain the
penalty for rebellion is reclusion liberty of the person. Aside from the
temporal. Supposing after the President writ of habeas corpus there are other
suspended the privilege, all the high prerogative writ that produce the
members of a group were arrested being same effect like writ of amparo. Five
suspected rebels. Supposing there are types of writ of amparo as enumerated
100 rebels can they post bail? As we said in the case of Secretary of defense v.
earlier right to bail is a matter of right if Manalo
the penalty of the offense is lower than A: 1)amparo libertad for the
reclusion perpetua regardless of the protection of personal freedom,
weight of the evidence of guilt? equivalent to the habeas corpus writ;
Remember, right to post bail shall not be
impaired in the suspension of the (2) amparo contra leyesfor the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. judicial review of the constitutionality of
A: This is the issue in the case of In re:
The issuance of the writ of habeas (3) amparo casacion for the
corpus for Dr. Aurora Parong, et.al. judicial review of the
Ponce Enrile, wherein the Supreme constitutionality and legality of a
Court ruled that transcends in the judicial decision;
importance that if these person would
(4) amparo administrativo for the
be given the right to bail, after they are
judicial review of administrative
released, they may rejoin the rebels and
actions; and
continue their furtherance of invasion or
rebellious activities. The constitutional (5) amparo agrario for the
guarantee provided in Sec.13, does not protection of peasants’ rights derived
apply in offenses of rebellion or offenses from the agrarian reform process
inherent or directly connected with
invasion. They cannot post bail as a *Out of these amparo cases one is
matter of right, regardless of the penalty equivalent to habeas corpus and it is
and the weight of evidence of guilt. amparo libertad.

Q: We said earlier that the purpose of Q: Supposing that the privilege was
the writ of habeas corpus is to test the suspended by the President can it be
validity of the arrest and detention of


vailidly obtained through this writ of vexatious, capricious and oppressive

amparo? delays caused by prosecution the
accused may claim the right to speedy
A: No. although the constitution
trial. If the right claimed is speedy
provides only for the suspension of the
disposition of cases, the only objective is
writ of habeas corpus, all similar writs
to expedite the disposition the case.
are also suspended because if it is
allowed then the provision in the Q: Supposing the trial is attended with
constitution would be useless. vexatious, capricious and oppressive
delays at the instance of the accused.
Q: Speedy disposition of cases covers
What right may be invoked by the
proceedings previous to trial or those
after trial?
A: Sec. 16. Right to speedy trial and
A: speedy disposition applies to all
speedy disposition operates during the
stages of the trial.
trial but the person invoking should be
Q:Which means that there are two different.
rights operating during the trial stage,
Q: What is right against self
the right to speedy trial and right to
speedy disposition of cases. Both of
which prohibits any unreasonable A: No person shall be compelled to be a
delay. How can we identify which witness against himself
Q: What is the common law basis of
A: Right to speedy trial applies to trial this right?
proper and proceedings anterior to the
trial. Right to speedy disposition applies A: nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare (no
to all stages of the criminal proceedings. man is bound to accuse himself) It is
The latter covers criminal considered as a revolt against as a
administrative, civil, quasi judicial thumbscrew and a rock (inquisitorial
proceedings while the former covers devices applied in order to extract a
only criminal proceedings. Prosecution confession in the defendant)
is not entitled in speedy trial while in Q: According to the Supreme Court in
speedy disposition the prosecution and the case of Chavez v. Court of Appeals,
the accused. If the trial is attended by this constitutional guarantee is


founded upon the broad basis of accused to kill the victim. Can the
public policy and humanity. Why? prosecution compel the accused to
produce as such?
A: Public policy because the witness is
placed in the strongest temptation to A: No. It means that the constitutional
commit perjury and humanity because guarantee does not cover only
to extract a confession of truth by a kind testimonial evidence but also object and
of duress every species and degree of documentary evidence.
which the law abhors.
Q: What are the documentary evidence
Q: So this constitutional guarantee that the accused must produce even
according to Supreme Court in the case against his will? Supposing the person
of Chavez v. Court of Appeals is not is charged with tax evasion can he be
only intended to protect the guilty and compelled to produce income tax
imprudent but the innocent and return?
foresighted. What does it mean?
A: Even if he will be incriminated he is
A: required to produce such documents.
This are reportorial documents which
Q: Substance of this guarantee?
are required for every tax payers
A: Stated in the case of US v. Tan Teng therefore this documents are needed to
citing Justice Holmes, the prohibition of be filed to government agencies are not
the use of physical or moral compulsion covered by constitutional guarantee of
to extort communications from him, not right against self incrimination.
an exclusion of his body as evidence,
Q: Can the Court compel the accused to
when it may be material.
write the fiscal’s dictation for the
Q: Does that mean an accused may be purpose of comparison allowed?
compelled under pain of contempt tom
A: No. Writing is something more than
produce evidence as long as it is not
moving the body, or the hands, or the
testimonial in character without
fingers; writing is not purely a
violating the constitutional guarantee
mechanical act, because it requires the
on right against self incrimination?
application of intelligence and attention.
Supposing the accused is charged with
In Beltran v. Samson, the Supreme
homicide. The prosecution moved for
Court rule that privilege is not limited to
the production of the knife used by the


testimony, but extends to all giving or A: A witness can be compelled to testify

furnishing of evidence. The against his will and can invoke only
constitutional inhibition is directed not such right when an incriminating
merely to giving of oral testimony but question is asked.
embraces as well as the furnishing of
Q: Is the right against self
evidence by other means than by the
incrimination available during
word of mouth, the divulging in short of
preliminary investigation before the
any fact which the accused has a right to
public prosecutor?
hold secret.
A: Yes. In Beltran v. Samson the
Q: In the case of Chavez v. Court of
Supreme Court ruled that if the
Appeals prosecution believes that they
prosecutor will be allowed to compel
can call the accused as witness and the
the respondent to produce incriminating
court believes the prosecution. Did the
evidence which later on be introduced
Supreme Court agree?
as evidence in trial proper itself, then
A: No. The Supreme Court ruled that this constitutional guarantee will be a
the court may not extract from a meaningless protection. Q: How about
defendant’s own lips and against his in administrative proceedings? Is this
will an admission of his guilt. Nor a constitutional guarantee available?
court as much as resort to compulsory
A: Yes. In the case of Pascual v. Board
disclosure, directly or indirectly of facts
of Medical Examiners , the Supreme
usable against him as confession of the
Court ruled this right does not apply to
crime or the tendency of which is to
all administrative proceedings and
prove the commission of a crime.
similar proceedings. Applies to
Because it is his right to forego
Administrative and civil proceedings
testimony, to remain silent, unless he
but with qualification, constitutional
chooses to take the witness stand with
guarantee applies with administrative
undiluted, unfettered exercise of his free
and civil proceedings which are penal in
genuine will.
character or where there is an attached
Q: What is the extent of the penalty. *Constitutional guarantee does
constitutional protection as to the not apply in all proceedings. Rule 25,
witness? rules of court (Modes of discovery)


Q: In cases where a constitutional issue because it restricts the full liberty an

is involved it is always a balancing of individual. In order to attain his belief,
interest of the state and an individual. he is urging people to arms against
Insofar as issues involving right government. Can that person be
against self incrimination it is a prosecuted to inciting rebellion?
conflicting interest of the state to
A: If such belief would be allowed then
penalize the violation of laws. It is the
interest of the accused to keep to it would disturb the peace and would be
himself an information that may detrimental to the public and to the
incriminate him. Does that meaning State.
given this conflicting interest, there is Q: What are two aspects of involuntary
no way the state can compel a person to servitude?
incriminate himself?
A: 1)Compulsion to perform or
A: No, by granting immunity of the work in consideration of debt against
State to the person. his will
Q: What are the two kinds of immunity
2)concept of slavery
statutes granted to a witness?
A: Like in the case of Caunca v. Salazar
A: 1)Transactional immunity – a
it is a case wherein a habeas corpus was
witness can no longer be prosecuted for
filed by a house helper who was being
any offense whatsoever arising out of
detained and required to render
the act or transaction
domestic services in payment for the
2)Used and derivative use money advanced for her transportation
immunity – A witness is only assured from the province. Is this allowed?
that his or her particular testimony and
A: No. A person cannot be compelled to
evidence derived from it will not be
work against his will in payment of a
used against him or her in a subsequent
Q: Under the constitution, this right is
Q: Under Sec. 18 Art. 3 is a
not absolute. The exceptions are?
constitutional guarantee is more
specific in political beliefs and A: 1)punishment of a crime whereof
aspirations. Supposing a person the party shall have been duly convicted
believes that all governments are evil


2)render service to defend the recommendation that the imprisonment

state imposed be lowered.

3)Return to work order in Q: Is death penalty or death by lethal

assumption jurisdiction cases injection a cruel punishment?

4)Naval enlistment A: No. The Supreme Court ruled in the

case of Echagaray v. Secretary of Justice
5)Posse comitatus – command to
is that the cruelty against which the
help them find some criminals
Constitution protects a convicted man is
6)Patria potestas cruelty inherent in the method of
punishment not necessary the suffering
Q: What are the prohibited involved in any method employed to
punishments? extinguish life humanely.
A: Excessive fines, cruel, degrading, Q: Does the constitution prohibit
inhuman punishment unusual punishment?
Q: Does the constitution prohibit A: No. It may impose new punishment
excessive punishment? as long as long it is not cruel, degrading,
A: This is the issue in the case of People inhuman.
v. Estoista, wherein the Supreme Court Q: Does the 1987 constitution prohibit
ruled that the excessiveness of the death penalty?
penalty shall not refer to the duration
but to the method or mechanism of A: Only a limitation on the imposition of
imposing the penalty. Not the term but death penalty
the method. Excessive penalty is not

Q: What is the obligation of the court

whenever the court feels that the
penalty imposed by law is excessive?
Q: In the cases of People v. Valeriano
A: The Court can give the copy of the and People v. Mapalo, we have learned
decision be furnished to the President, that a person who without justifiable
thru the Secretary of Justice, with the reason fails to appear during trial may


be tried in absentia. What if the of financial violence and violation of

accused is convicted of a crime with a this law can make the person
penalty of death? Does it mean that he imprisoned. Is the law
waived his right to appeal? unconstitutional?

A: No it is not waivable. The Supreme A: No. In the case of Lozano v.

Court will have an automatic review of Martinez, the Supreme Court ruled that
the judgment. the debt intended to be covered by the
constitutional guarantee are liabilities
Atty. Gabriel : The role of the trial court
arising from ex contractu. Since this is
only acts as a commissioner and all
an obligation arising from law, the
judgment of trial court are merely
failure of the father to pay financial
recommendations. Which needs the
obligation may result in imprisonment.
approval of the Supreme court in order
to attain the character of finality.

Q: Why does the constitution protects a

faulting debtor by guaranteeing him
that he will not be subjected to
imprisonment? Q: In the case of Lozano v. Martinez
A: This provision is one of the social petitioner contends that B.P.22 is
unconstitutional because it imposes
justice provisions. The inability of the
the penalty of imprisonment of the
person to pay is due to his dismal
failure of the drawer to pay the face
contractual condition. In short the
value of the check. Did the Supreme
Constitution presumes good faith in
Court agree?
part of the debtor.
A: No. The Supreme Court ruled that it
Q: What does debt mean?
is not the non payment of an obligation
A: Civil obligation arising from contract, which the law punishes. The law is not
expressed or implied. intended or designed to coerce a debtor
to pay his debt. The thrust of the law is
Q: Under R.A. 9262, a man is under to
to prohibit, under pain of penal
support his wife and children. If he
sanctions, the making of worthless
fails to provide support to his family,
checks and putting them in circulation
the man can be convicted for violation
the law punishes the act not as an


offense against property but an offense from same obligation which is the
against public order. contract?

Q: Supposing A is the drawer and B is A: It is already an obligation arising

the payee. A issued a check in payment from law which is BP 22. Supposing A
for services rendered by B. At the time and B again, A is expecting a money
a issued the check, he already knows from a business partner and issued the
that his checking account is closed and check expecting that it will be funded
when B will present the check for when it becomes due. Unfortunately,
encashment, A knows that it will the money did not arrive. So when B
bounce or dishonored. B deposited the deposited the check, it was dishonored.
check; the drawee bank dishonored the At the time A receives the notice of
check. Under BP22 the payee has the dishonor; he exhausted all efforts to
obligation to notify the drawer that his make the face value of the check but
check bounce and the drawer is given 5 unfortunately failed to produce as such.
days to make good of the face value of Is he criminally liable?
the check, otherwise he becomes
criminally liable. So in the example A: Yes. The obligation now is arising
given, supposing b notified A that his from law, which is not protected by this
check bounced, and A pays the check constitutional guarantee.
within 5 days, is he criminally liable?
Q: What is a poll tax?
A: If A does not issue a check he may
A: it is the specific sum levied upon any
not be criminally liable under an
person belonging to a certain class
obligation based on contract. Since he
without regard to property or
issues the check, he is subjected to the
rules of bp 22, he has to make sure that
it is sufficiently funded on the date of Who are citizens of the Philippines?
due otherwise he runs the risk of being
imprisoned. ❖ Those who are citizens of the
Philippines at the time of the
Q: Under the law, the drawer has 5 adoption of the 1987 constitution
days form notice of dishonor to pay the ❖ Those whose fathers or mothers
check. Is the obligation of the drawer are citizens of the Philippines
to pay the face value of the check arises ❖ Those born before January 17,
1973, of Filipino mothers, who


elect Philippine citizenship upon type of acquiring citizenship which is by

reaching the age of majority. repatriation but this is available only to
❖ Those who are naturalized in specific individuals, to those filipino
accordance with law citizens who have lost their Filipino
The first group of Filipino citizens under citizenship.
Art. 4 refers to those who have been
By birth
considered by competent authority as
citizens of the Philippines before the Principles of acquiring citizenship by
adoption of the 1987 constitution. This is birth
a recognition of the doctrine of res
❖ Jus soli – citizenship of the place
judicata under the 1987 constitution
of burth will be conferred upon
because once a person has been declared the person born in that
and considered as Filipino citizen before jurisdiction
the adoption of the 1987 constitution, ❖ Jus sanguinis – citizenship of the
under the first group of Art. 4 sec 1 they parent is transmitted to the child
are considered as citizens of the
What principle was applied under the
Philippines. So under the 1973, 1943,
1987 constitution?
1935 and even the organic laws before
the 1935 constitution they are Jus sanguinis.
considered citizens of the Philippines.
Is that absolute or is there any exception
There are three traditional modes of to that?
acquiring citizenship. What are these?
Yes. Foundlings. This is just establishes
❖ By birth a presumptive citizenship.
❖ Naturalization
❖ By marriage (derivative According to the case of Poe
naturalization) llamansares vs comelec as well as David
vs. Senate electoral tribunal, under
Under sec. 15 of CA 473 the wife of the
international code particularly under
naturalized Filipino or an alien woman
the international covenant on civil and
who is married to a Filipino citizen who
political rights and under the
herself maybe lawfully naturalized is
international covenant on human rights,
considered as a Filipino citizen. Also
children whose parents are known shall
under CA 473 we have included another
be considered as citizen of the place


where they are born or found. But this is According to some legal scholars, April
just a presumptive conferment of 11, 1899 and July 1902. April 11, 1899 is
citizenship which means that the cutoff to be considered as a filipino
notwithstanding the fact that the citizen. To be considered as a filipino
parents are unknown, may still be citizen the person must be a Spanish
considered as an alien if the child has subject as of that date.
the features of alien. The only reason
What is the status of the child born
why the SC recognized the citizenship
after April 11, 1899 until July 1902
of Senator Poe is because of the
which is the effectivity of the
concurrence of several factors, one was
Philippine bill 1902?
the fact that she was found in the
Philippines, and based on statistical Jus soli was applicable. Any child born
records, it is almost an absolute from April 11, 1899 until July 1902
certainty that a child born in the regardless of alien parentage is a
Philippines at the time of the Filipino citizen.
presumptive birth of Senator Poe is of
How about under the 1935
Filipino parents 99.899999. The fact of
constitution? Was the Jus soli principle
being a 1) foundling in the Philippines,
2) statistical data and more importantly
the 3) physical features which are Yes. Under the second group of the 1935
consistent with the features of Filipino constitution, children born in the
citizen. So in order to confer Filipino Philippines of alien parents who before
citizenship whose parents are unknown the adoption of the constitution has
and who are presumptively born in the been elected to public office. Which
Philippines the three conditions must means that this is a modified jus soli
concur. But again this is an exception principle because for a person to be
rather than the general rule. The general considered as citizen of the Philippines,
rule is citizenship by birth can only be he must be born in the Philippines but
conferred under the 1987 constitution by there is also a qualification he must have
birth. been elected to public office before the
adoption of the 1935 constitution. which
Under the previous constitutions have
means place of birth and the election to
we ever applied the Jus soli principle
public office determines the citizenship
in the Philippines?
of the Philippines.


How do we call this principle on can transmit their Filipino citizenship

Second paragraph of section 4 of the without any qualification
1935 constitution?
We go to the third group, in the case of
Caram principle Tecson vs Comlec the SC discuss the
evolution of children belonging to the
Why caram principle?
third group. What is the difference of
Because Caram is a delegate of the 1935 the treatment of this group of children
constitution representing Iloilo. He was under the 1935, 1973 and 1987
born in the Philippines. His parents are constitution? (Filipino mother + Alien
Syrians who are subject to persecution father)
and in order to evade persecution they
1935: Children born of Filipino mother
migrated to the Philippines where Dr.
of legitimate issue are considered as not
Caram, was born. During the 1935
Filipino citizen. A child must elect
constitutional convention, he ran and he
Filipino citizenship upon reaching the
was elected.
age of majority (21)
Why do the constitutional convention
1973: Children born of Filipino mother
need to provide for specific provision in
regardless of filiation legitimate or
order to accommodate one person?
illegitimate will automatically become a
Because it was intended to cure the filipino citizen at birth
anomaly at that time. Because there
1987: The 1987 treats the child the same
would be an anomaly where the
as 1973 but it does not only confer
constitution which is the fundamental
Filipino citizenship over a child of
law of the land was written by the
filipino mother but it also bent
convention with the member who is not
backward by making those who elect
a Filipino citizen.
Filipino citizenship during the 1935
Under the second group of Filipino constitution as natural-born Filipino
citizen for a child to become a Filipino citizen. In order to equalize the playing
citizen, is it required that both parents field.
are Filipino citizens?
Supposing the child was born on
No because the provision use the word January 16, 1973 his mother is filipino
“or” which means either of the parents citizen, the father is Chinese citizen.


What is the status of the child during Supposing the child was born of Filipino
his minority? This is before the 1973 Father, the mother was American. The
constitution. child was born during the 1935
constitution and the child was
Not Filipino citizen. He can only
illegitimate. Under that example, the
become Filipino citizen when he elects
child is American because the mother is
Filipino citizenship at the time he reach
an American and the child is
the age of majority.
illegitimate. FPJ is an American?
Are all children born before January
FPJ is a Filipino citizen we cannot apply
17, 1973 of Filipino mothers alien
the principle in Republic vs Lim because
fathers require to elect filipino
under the 1935 constitution there is no
citizenship upon reaching the age of
qualification as to children born of
majority in order to become Filipino
citizens? Filipino mother the constitution only
say of “Filipino mother” nothing more.
No under Republic vs Lim, children The constitution always presumes that
born of Filipino mothers, Alien Fathers the term Filipino mother, the
during the 1935 constitution who are presumption is of legitimate issue. In
illegitimate, are Filipino Citizens at birth the case of FPJ the SC said there is no
hence they do not need to elect Filipino qualification legitimate or illegitimate.
citizenship. Which means that only This only shows how are constitutions is
legitimate children of Filipino mothers, so accommodating.
Alien Fathers during the 1935
constitution need to elect Filipino Is there a procedure in electing Filipino
citizenship to become Filipino.
CA 625 which provides three conditions
What is wisdom behind this principle?
for a valid election of Filipino
Because the illegitimate child is under citizenship
the exclusive parental authority of the
mother and the presumption is it is the ❖ Made in writing and Sworn
before the officer authorized to
mother who will provide for the
administer oaths
support of the child. They are Filipino
❖ Register in the nearest civil
citizens from birth.


❖ Oath of allegiance to support and is no need to comply with formal

defend the laws of the election.
Formal election is required to those who
Is there any other way of electing are not yet citizen of the Philippines,
Philippine citizenship?
petitioner Ching was never a Filipino
In the case of Ong vs HRET there is citizenship.
informal election of citizenship such as
Respondent Ong was only exempted to
what Ong did the performance of comply with the formal requirements
deliberate activities which indicate but there is still a need to elect
election of filipino citizenship which is although informally. Why? Why did
no less binding than that of the formal the SC still need to determine whether
requirements hence no need to comply respondent Ong has informally elected
with CA 625. Filipino citizenship when he was
already a Filipino citizen when he was
But in the case of In re: Ching the facts
still a minor?
are almost the same as that of Ong vs
HRET, he performed deliberate If respondent Ong did not informally
activities such as passing the bar, run elect Filipino citizenship, the status of
for office and wa in fact elected. the child is only naturalized citizen, the
However the SC said that Respondent informal election of the respondent Ong
Ching is not a filipino citizens because was needed in order to convert his
he belatedly file his affidavit. Can we status as a natural born citizen. Because
not say that Petitioner ching should be
under par. 3 sec. 1 of Art. 4 those who
considered also as filipino citizen as
elect Philippine citizenship are natural
that of Ong? Why the difference?
born citizens.
Because the father of respondent Ong
When should the election be made
was naturalized while Ong was still 9
during the 1935 constitution? when the
years old and under sec 15 of CA 473
mother is Filipino and the father is
respondent Ong who was residing at
the Philippines at the time of the
naturalization of the father, Ong is Within reasonable time upon reaching
considered as Filipino citizenship by the age of 21.
derivative naturalization. Hence there


How did the SC interpret reasonable Who may be naturalized Filipino

time? Is 7 years in the case of Cuenco vs citizens under CA 473?
Sec of justice reasonable?
• Resided in the Ph for a period of
No it is unreasonable more so in the not less than 10 years
case of Ching 14 years. - Supposing A is a Chinese
citizen who has been residing
Supposing the child was born of in the Philippines for 9 years
filipino mother Chinese father under and 15 days. On his 9th year
the 1935 constitution and upon and 16th day, he went to
reaching the age of 21 the person china. When he return to the
declared that he is electing filipino Ph can he complete the
citizenship, he subscribed oath of remaining 15 days in order to
allegiance but he only registered the be qualified to apply for
documents 30 years after attaining the naturalization? Residence
age 21, is that still a valid election? should be interpreted to mean
Because if 7 and 14 years is not domicile which means a
reasonable, more so 30 years? person must have domicile in
the Ph. Hence, he may still
In Cabiling vs Fernandez the petitioner continue the9th yr and 16th
was allowed to complete the process day when he returned here in
eventhough the third condition, the the Philippines.
registration of the affidavit, was not
complied with. Registration is not the A. The period of not less than
operative fact for the election and 10 years can be shorten to 5
because in the meantime, the petitioner years when a person has have
performed activities which are established a new industry or
constitutive of notice that they are must introduce an invention
electing Filipino citizenship. in the Philippines
B. Must be honorably held
We go to Sec. 3 of Art. 4 what are the office
modes of acquiring Philippine C. Having been born in the
citizenship other than birth? Philippines
D. Supposing the wife is a
• Naturalization
citizen of the Philippines
• Direct act of congress


E. When he is a teacher atleast ❖ Convicted of a crime

3 years involving moral turpitude
❖ Own real estate in the Philippines ❖ Suffering from mental
worth not less than 5,000 pesos or alienation or incurable
must have some known lucrative contagious disease
trade, profession or lawful ❖ Who during the period of
occupation their residence in the
❖ Not less than 21 years of age on Philippines have not mingled
the date of the hearing of the socially with the Filipinos or
petition who have not evinced a
❖ Good moral character; believes in sincere desire to learn and
the principles underlying the embrace the customs,
constitution traditions and ideals of the
❖ Enrolled his minor children of Filipinos
school age in any of the public or ❖ Citizens or subjects of nation
private schools recognized by the of whom the Philippines is at
government was during the period of
❖ Speak and write English or such war
Spanish and any principal ❖ Citizens or subjects of a
languages foreign country whose laws
do not grant Filipinos the
Disqualifications right to become naturalized
❖ Those opposed to organized citizens or subject thereof
government or affiliated with It is not required that the citizen does
any associations or group of not possess all the qualifications so long
persons who uphold and as he does not labor in any of the
teach doctrines opposing all
organized governments
❖ Defending or teaching the Before the filing of the petition is there
necessity or propriety of a process mandated to allow the filing
violence, personal assault or of petition?
assassination for the success
or predominance of their 1 year before the filing of the actual
ideas petition the petitioner must file a
❖ Polygamist or believers of declaration or manifestation of his


intention to become a Filipino citizen ❖ Not been convicted of any

before the OSG offense or violation of rules
❖ Not committed an act prejudicial
to the interest of the nation or
contrary to government-
Did the SC agree in People vs Dela
announced policies
Rosa that the requirements under CA
473 are just procedural matters and Born in the Philippines and have
therefore can be relaxed? received their primary and secondary
education in public
No because this requirements are
jurisdictional which divest the court of What is the condition for the wife and
any jurisdiction in the absence of the minor children of the naturalized
compliance with the requirements citizen may also be deemed a Filipino
including the required allegations citizen without performing any act?
provided for by law This is the issue in the case of Moy Ya
Lim Yao
When does the decision granting the
decree of naturalization final? The phrase who might herself be
lawfully naturalized does not require
The date of finality is after 30 days from that the wife to possess all the
receipt of the OSG granting the decree. qualification the only important
The 2 year period refers to executory condition is that the wife does not suffer
manner of the order of naturalization. It any of the disqualification.
is counted from the time the decision
became final. What is the rule on the minor children
born in the Philippines at the time of
Why does the law required 2 years the naturalization of the father?
before the decree of naturalization may
be executed? They shall be deemed citizens of the
❖ The court must satisfy that the
petitioner did not leave the Minor children born outside the
Philippines Philippines, residing outside the
❖ Dedicated himself continuously Philippines?
to a noble profession or calling


Citizen of the Philippines provided they Philippine armed forces in time

start residing in the Philippines during of war
their minority What is the effect of RA 9225 to the
Supposing during the minority they mode of losing citizenship? Did it
started to reside in the Philippines? repealed CA 63?

Citizens of the Philippines It did not. It only modified CA 63 to the

extent that only naturalized Filipino
Minor children born after the citizen may lose its Filipino citizenship
naturalization of the father who is upon naturalization to the foreign
residing outside the Philippines country. Because natural born citizens
will not lose their Filipino citizenship by
Filipino citizen provided upon reaching
subsequent naturalization in the foreign
the age of majority he must register in
country as long as they comply with the
the consulate office where he is residing
requirement of RA 9225.
otherwise he will lose his status as
Filipino citizen. What is the condition under RA 9225
for a natural born citizen who is
What are the modes of losing Filipino
naturalized in a foreign country may
be acquired or retain his Filipino
❖ By naturalization in the foreign citizenship?
By taking the oath of allegiance and
❖ By accepting commission in or
rendering services to the armed have that oath of allegiance registered in
forces of the foreign state the civil registry or consulate office of
provided that there is consent by the Philippines where he is residing.
the Philippines
Don’t be confused with RA 8725 which
❖ By express renunciation of
was applied in the Frivaldo case. This is
❖ Subscribing to an oath of another repatriation law
allegiance There are two operative acts under RA
❖ By cancellation of the certificate
9225. Retention and Reacquisition.
of naturalization
When does it apply?
❖ By having declared by competent
authority a deserter of the


Retention, Filipino citizenship never What is the character of repatriation

lost their citizenship. Which means it laws according to the case of Altajeros
will be applied to those who are vs Comelec?
naturalized in the foreign country after
Remedial in character. Retroactive in
the effectivity of RA 9225
Reacquisition, applies to those who
In the case of Frivaldo the SC said once
were naturalized in the foreign country
citizenship was lost it cannot easily be
before the effectivity of RA 9225.
acquired. The person must show that he
Because before the effectivity of RA
has complied with any of the modes of
9225, a natural born citizen who is
reacquiring Filipino citizenship. Either
naturalized in the foreign country will
by repatriation under CA 63, by
automatically lose his Filipino
naturalization/ direct act of congress, or
citizenship. In order to reacquire it they
by repatriation. The automatic exercise
have to subscribe to oath and register it
of activities reserved for the Filipino
and then they have considered to have
citizens does not automatically revert or
reacquired it.
result in the reacquisition of Filipino
Supposing A is a natural born citizen, citizenship.
in January 2010 he was naturalized in
In Labo vs Comelec, the SC said the
the US and in January 2016 he
subsequent declaration of nullity of his
subscribed to oath of allegiance to
marriage does not automatically revert
support and defend the Philippines
him back to his Filipino citizenship.
and he had it registered. What is the
status of A from January 2010, to Once it was lost even if the basis for
December 2015 before he subscribed to losing it was considered as null and
the oath of allegiance? Supposing in void, by the adopting state, that does
January 2013 A purchase a real not concern the Philippines. He has to
property in the Philippines, is that a reacquire Filipino citizenship either by
valid purchase? naturalization, direct act of congress of
The oath of allegiance that he subscribed
will retroact from the time that he was The application of res judicata does not
naturalized in the US as if he never lost apply to naturalization cases.
it. Citizenship of the Filipinos is always
open to attack. Res judicata in


citizenship may only be applied when It reverts back to the status of the
the latter is the 1) lis morta of the Filipino citizen.
controversy,2) when the case is with the
Supposing a law disqualifies dual
active participation of the OSG or when
citizen. Is that law constitutional? This
3) the citizenship was approved by the
was the issue in Manzano vs Mercado
The SC said dual citizen under the Local
In Yu vs Defensor Santiago, the
government code means dual
petitioner was naturalized in the
philippines after which he used his
portugese passport. So what is the effect The SC said dual citizenship is possible
of the use of it to his naturalized Filipino in two scenarios
citizen status? While renunciation is a
mode for losing citizenship must be 1. When a child is born to a Filipino
categorical and express, the acts of the parent in a country which applies
Jus Soli
petitioner, taken together constitute a
2. When a Filipino woman is
renunciation of Filipino citizenship.
married to an alien whose laws
Does that mean use of foreign passport made the Filipino woman only a
constitute loss of Filipino citizenship? In citizen of the husband state
the case of Maquiling this was the issue. 3. When a child is born to a Filipino
mother alien father whose laws
The SC said that does not affect his
make the child also a Filipino
Filipino citizenship, the use of US
passport is only deemed a withdrawal
of his affidavit of renunciation of his In an electoral protest A challenges B
American citizenship. The use of US and present B’s American passport to
passport only means he regains his prove B is not a Filipino citizen. This the
american citizenship in the eyes of the case of Aznar vs Comelec. SC said that
ph law. So at that time he again resume proof that respondent Osmena is an
as a dual citizen. But it did not result to American citizen does not mean that he
loss of Filipino citizenship. is not a Filipino citizen. Particularly
because he is born of Filipino parents.
What is the effect of the repatriation?
This was ruled in the case of Tecson vs The final act for naturalization is the
HRET? taking of the oath of allegiance. Under


RA 9225 a natural born citizen who is separation of power does not obtain
naturalized in a foreign state may retain from constitutional provision but it
or reacquire his Philippine citizenship flows from the specific distribution of
provided he take his oath of allegiance powers. Once the powers of the
to the Philippines. Remember when a constitution are distributed, the
Filipino became naturalized in America corollary effect is separation.
he take his oath of allegiance. When he
Judicial supremacy is not an arrogation
reacquire his Filipino citizenship under
of the supremacy of the SC but the
RA 9225 he also take an oath of
supremacy of the constitution. The
allegiance in the Philippines. Dual
constitution however cannot assume
Allegiance? 9225 unconstitutional?
jurisdiction at all time. There must be a
It is not unconstitutional. In the eyes of justiciable controversy.
the ph law, the most recent oath of
In the case of Casibang vs Aquino,
allegiance is the only recognized
during the pendency of the electoral
allegiance that is why a natural born
protest, the 1973 constitution became
citizen who is naturalized in the foreign
effective. Under the 1973 constitution all
state is required to take an oath of
incumbent public officer shall remain in
allegiance for his Filipino citizenship
office so theory of the respondent is that
because otherwise the only allegiance
since the constitution says that all shall
that the philippines will recognize is the
remain in office and he is the incumbent
foreign allegiance.
of an office, the electoral protest now
Separation of Powers becomes a political question. SC said no,
what was affected was the term to hold
What is separation of powers
office and not the right to hold office. In
In Angara vs Electoral commission order that a public officer may be
under this principle each department entitled to that indefinite term of office
has exclusive cognizance of matter he must first show that he has a right to
within its own jurisdiction. hold that office.

Is there any specific constitutional In the case of Tanada vs Cuenco, Daza

provision that requires the adoption of vs Singson what was in issue in this
this fundamental principle? The SC said cases is the discretion of the congress in
in Angara vs Electoral tribunal that: the appointing members to the electoral


tribunal and the commission on discretion which must be so gross and

appointments. Is this purely political so patent.
question? Not all because in the case of
There are two instances when
Pimentel the SC said that the power to
Separation of powers is violated said the
choose and elect members of the
SC in the case of Ochoa
commission on appointments or the
electoral commission representing the 1. When one department unduly
house rest on the house itself not on the interferes with the exercise of the
political party. The political parties can powers belonging to the other
only nominate members of the electoral department
tribunal or commission on 2. When one department assumes
appointments and the appointing the power belonging to another
authority still rest in the house. Is that a department
purely political question? No. if the Delegation of Powers
controversy involves the legality of the
act, that remains to be a justiciable The constitution allows delegation of
controversy. executive, legislative and judicial power

What is the effect of the expanded Delegation to administrative agencies

jurisdiction of the SC to the political What may be delegated is how the law
question concept? Did it do away with should be applied. The rule making
the doctrine of political question? power of the administrative agencies are
Because under the expanded considered as subordinate legislation.
jurisdiction of the SC the courts also
have the jurisdiction to determine Two test for valid delegation of
whether there is grave abuse of legislative power according to the case
discretion. No it did not totally abrogate of Eastern Shipping
the concept of political question because ❖ Completeness test the law must
in exercising its expanded judicial be complete in all its terms and
power, the SC will not determine conditions when it leaves the
whether the other 2 agencies have congress so that when it reaches
discretion, the courts will determined the delegate, the delegate has
whether they have abused their nothing to do but to implement


it. (Us. Vs Ang Tang Ho, Pelaez These are only applicable to delegation
vs Auditor General) to administrative agencies. They do not
❖ Sufficient standard test the law apply to other delegation of legislative
delegating the legislative power. So if the delegation is emergency
authority to administrative power, we do not apply the tests, we
agency must provide for
apply Sec. 23. If the delegation is tariff
limitations and guidelines to
power, we apply sec. 28. If what is
prevent the delegation from
delegated is initiative and referendum,
running riot or to contain it from
we apply Sec. 32. For local governments
the banks to prevent it from
overflowing. (Ynot vs IAC) apply Art. 10.

SC said in Pelaez vs Auditor that the Tariff powers

delegation must comply with both.
There must be a law passed by the
What are policies and standards that congress delegating the authority.
may be considered as sufficient
The congress authorizes the president to
according to the SC in the case of
increase the VAT from 10-12% upon the
Eastern Shipping?
determination of the president of the
There are several. Public interest, public existences of several factual
convenience and public welfare, circumstances. In the case of ABAKADA
national security, simplicity, efficiency, guro vs Ermita the petitioner contends
economy. what the law allows to delegate is the
tariff powers, VAT is not a Trariff power
Can we nowvsay that in some future
it is a revenue tax. Is that an
laws, when this are the same standards,
impermissible delegation? There are
can we say that the future law has
two kinds of rulemaking power that
complied with the sufficient standard
may be exercised by the delegate.
1. Supplementary rules- those that
The SC said in Eastern Shipping, no.
fill in the gaps and those which
The sufficiency of the standard can only provides for implementing detail
be determined within the factual 2. Contingent regulation- the
circumstances of the law. We cannot determination or power to
apply the principle of stare decisis. determine the existence of


emergency in accordance with industries. So according to the petitioner

which the law may be applied that is not a valid exercise of the
In the case of ABAKADA guro what delegated tariff powers because it did
was delegated to the president is not the not inure to the benefit of the local
power to fix the tax but the power to industries. So the SC said, that tariff is
determine whether the standards essentially a tax, tariff is a tax on
enumerated are existing in order that imported products. So since tariff is
the tax may be increased from 10-12%. essentially a tax, the purpose of a tax is
This is the contingent power. not only limited to regulation. Mainly,
taxes like tariff are imposed in order to
Atty. Gabriel: we have not yet discussed raised revenue. So which means, that
Garcia vs. executive secretary, anyway the president can also exercise the
the only issue in this case is they stand delegated tariff powers in order to raise
the powers of the president under the revenue, not only to protect local
tariffs and customs code. So remember industries. And the SC noted, that uh
that we said earlier that for the tariff there are 2 formal agencies of the
code to be validly delegated to the government whose main task is to
president, there must be a law perform or raise revenue, these are
delegating that authority and uh, there BOC, which exercise tariff powers and
is currently a law that allows the mainly the BIR which implements
President to fix tariff rates, and this is revenue taxes. So since the BOC is under
the customs and tariffs code. But the the executive department and exercises
problem in this case was that the delegated tariff as well or not tariff
petitioner contends that the authority of powers but implements rather, the
the president to exercise tariff powers is tariffs enacted by the Congress, the
only limited to protect local industries, president can also exercise this
so the petitioner contends that the delegated power to raise revenue.
president cannot exercise tariff powers
for other reason aside from protecting So we go to emergency powers, under
local industry. So remember in this case sec 23 of art 6, the constitution
what the president did was to increase authorizes the congress to delegate
the tariff rates for petroleum products, emergency powers. And there are only 2
so definitely the increase of tariff rate, or grounds for valid delegation of
petroleum products would affect local emergency powers. The 2 grounds are:


in times of war, 2nd in times of national national emergceny. So what are the
emergency. So again the congress limitations for the valid delegations of
cannot delegate emergency powers to emergceny powers: there must be a law
the president for any other reason authorizing the president to exercise the
except for existence of war and in emergceny power, 2nd the delegation
instance of national emergency. Under must be for a limited period. The
the 1st par. Of sec 23 the constitution delegation must provide limitations for
provides for the requirement in order the exercise of these powers and the
that the Congress can delegate power must be only to carry out powers
emergency powers to the president in necessary to declared national policy. So
times of war, one is that a congress must these are the conditions, these are the
declare the existence of a state of war, requirements for a valid exercise of
and what is the voting requirement for emergency powers to the president.
the congress to declare for the existence Under the 1935 constitution, the
of a state of war, 2/3 of the members of delegation of emergency powers of the
both houses in joint session assembled president is not as specific as the 1987
voting separately. Supposing threre is constitution, but notwithstanding this
indeed a war but the congress failed to specific limitation, on the delegation of
mustered the required 2/3 vote, can the emergceny powers under the 1935
congress still delegate emergency constitution as early as in the case of
powers because of war, although it araneta vs dinglasan, Rodriguez vs
failed to declare, the existence of the gella, the SC has already ruled that
state of war, answer is: YES, because delegation of emergency powers to the
war is also a national emergency. So president is only for a limited period. SC
again, in the case of Rodriguez ve gella, likewise ruled that delegation of
the SC said may include manmade and emerfceny powers to the president even
natural disaster. So it may include under the 1935 constitution, is a self
rebellion. With more reason that it limiting power, is like the tape in
includes war. So even if the congress mission impossible that ethan hope
failed to declare a state of war because always receives this and it self destructs
of the deficiency in number, he can still in a specific time. So that’s the same
use war as a basis for declaration or principle or concept of the delegation of
delegation of the national emergceny, emergency powers. Upon the
and the congress will treat war as a happening of an event, the delegated


emergency power is automatically president can now continue the

deemed extinguished. Under the 1935 emergency power, so the position of the
constitution, the SC said in araneta vs respondent was while the congress was
dinglasan, it looks to the extent of the still in session the emergency powers
emergency powers under CA 671 or suspended, when the congress adjourns,
emergency powers act, so remember reactivated. The SC said, NO. it
that CA 671 was passed by the congress specified the event that extinguishes the
upon the request of president quezon delegated emergency power. SC said,
and the reason why president quezon once the congress deems in regular
requested emergency powers was session, the delegated emergency
because manila was already attacked by powers are automatically extinguished.
the Japanese and there was already an So this is the event that dissolves the
anticipated inability on the part of the emergceny powers, note that this is
congress to meet in regular session in under the 1935 constitution. The SC
January 1942, so that’s the reason why explained why regular why not special
the congress paseed CA 671 authorizing session because before the congress met
the president to exercise the emergency in regular session on may 25, 1956, there
powers during the existence of war. The were already previous special sessions.
question is, up to what time can the So the SC said regular session should
president exercises emergency powers. mark the end of the delegated
So remember that president quezon and emergency powers because in special
the successors still continued to session, the congress is not fully
discharge emergceny powers. 1st the discharging its legislative power. It is
president who exercise emergency only addressing the specific subject
powers after quezon said that it was matter referred to it by the President. So
withdrawn by the congress by the when the congress meets in regular
enactment of law, the emergency session, it is already in its full discharge
powers shall subsist. The previous of legislative power, therefore the
president likewise contends that, delegated emergency powers
assuming for the sake of argument that automatically cease. Now we stand
during the regular session of congress, it behind this is the SC, as said araneta, to
can now discharge legislative power, avoid a situation that there are 2
once the congress recesses or holds functioning legislative bodies. One the
recess mandatory adjournment, the congress the other contradicting each


other, So the SC said this is not far fetch emergency powers are deemed
because in several occasions in araneta, withdrawn under the 1987 constitution?
the SC noted that the president vetoed a Answer: NO. Because now the
bill passed by the congress and while constitution specifically identifies the
the congress is in adjournment, the event which will terminate
president issues an EO of the same automatically the delegation of
subject matter which is different from emergency powers. The constitution
the bill of the congress. So the SC said, says in the last par. Of 2nd par of section
in order to avoid a situation where we 23, unless sooner withdrawn by
have 2 existing legislative bodies, once resolution of the Congress, such powers
the congress resumes its regular session, shall cease upon the next adjournment
the delegated emergency powers are thereof. Which means that it is not the
deemed withrdrawn. So this is an convening of the regular session that
implication, again we are discussing extinguishes the delegated powers but
araneta under the 1935 constitution. The the adjournment. Which implies that
ruling here impliedly limits the even the congress is in regular session, it
authority of the congress the delegated can delegate emergency powers. Only
emergency powers if the congress that, once it adjourns, that delegated
cannot meet in regular session, necause powers is deemed automatically
that is the wisdom. The SC said that withdrawn. That is now under the 1987
when the congress is in its full discharge constitution. Can we say that delegation
of its legislative power, automatically of powers is co-extensive with the
the delegated emergency powers are existence of war which is the basis of the
deemed withdrawn. Which means that delegation of powers or national
when the congress are in regular emergency, so can we say that
session, the implication of that ruling is delegation in so far as the period in
that the congress cannot delegate exercise of the emergency power is co-
emergency powers because the congress extensive with the existence of war or
are in its full exercise of its legislative national emergency? Answer? So can
power, that is the implication, and that we say that the president may exercise
is under the 1935 constitution. So can we the delegated emergency powers as long
still apply the principle in araneta vs as there is war? As long as there is
dinglasan that once the congress meets national emergency? So inversely, can
in regular session, the delegated we say that once there is no more war


there is no more delegated emergency specific delegation is for a specific

power? Supposing the war subsist for 10 period, like in the example given, 6
yrs, does that mean that the president months but on the 3rd month there is no
can exercise delegated emergency more national emergency, the president
powers for the period of 10 yrs and on can still exercise the remaining period.
the other hand, supposing the One good example, although this is also
delegation was for specific period, say an emergency power but not flowing
for example, 6 months, but on the 3rd under section 23 but under section 18 of
month, the president was already able art 7 is the martial law power of the
to address the national emergency, president. Remember that the congress
which is the purpose of the delegation. extends the power of the president to
Does that mean that the president can exercise his military powers in
no longer exercise the remaining period Mindanao until dec 31, 2017 there is no
of that delegation? Answer? So is the more insurgency, can the president still
exercise of delegated powers co- exercise his martial law power in
extensive with the national emergency marawi? YES he can. Even if there is no
or war? Answer: NO. War or national more insurgency, because the delegation
emergency does not create delegated is for specific period the president can
emergency power. The immolator is the exercise that delegated power even if
war even if there is national emergency, there is no more contingency. SAME
the congress may opt not to delegate PRINCIPLE in emergency powers, even
emergency powers. The congress may if there is no more national emergency
opt to directly discharge legislative as long as the delegation is specific, the
powers including emergency powers. delegation says 6 months, then the
Which means that once the congress President can exercise it for 6 months.
delegate emergency powers, that Unless the congress withdraws it before
delegation is limited, is not co-extensive the 6month. So there are 2 modes of
with the national emergency or war extinguishing the delegation emergency
because if the congress delegate powers, by express resolution of
emergency powers even if there is still congress OR upon the next adjournment
war, once the congress adjourns, that of congress. So under the 1987
delegated emergency powers are constitution, can the congress delegate
deemed withdrawn. Even if the national emergency powers for more than 1 yr?
emergency on the other hand if the can the congress delegate emergency


powers to the president for a period public officer, and that power can be
longer that 1 yr? answer: NO. Because recovered without the consent of the
under sec. 15 of article 6, the congress is delegate. Which means that if it cannot
mandated by the constitution to adjourn be withdrawn, without the consent of
on a year to year basis; it is required to the delegate, it amounts to an
adjourn 30 days before the opening of abdication. The SC also compared
its regular session. Which means that deleagation of emergency powers under
even if the delegation is for a period of 2 the constitution to the president to the
years, once the congress adjourns for a civil law concept of agency. How these 2
period on a year to year basis, that arrangement similar, the SC said that in
delegation is deemed withdrawn creating an agency, the agent is not
automatically. Which means, less than 1 compelled to accept the authority.
yr. so, is it required that there must be a Which means that in order to create an
law in order to expressly withdraw the agency, the agent must consent.
delegated emergency powers? NO. law Similarly, delegation of emergency
is not required. Even in the 1935 powers to the president is like the
constitution even if there is no specific agency, the president cannot be
constitutional provision, the SC is in the compelled to accept because the
position that mere resolution of delegation needs the approval of the
congress is enough to withdraw the president because it can only be made
delegated emergency power. Because by the enactment of a law. If the
the SC in araneta vs dinglasan, as well president approves that law, then that is
as in Rodriguez vs gella, distinguished an acceptance of the delegation.
delegation from abdication. SC said Similarly, in a civil law concept of
congress can only delegate, congress agency, the principal is not required to
cannot abdicate legislative powers. remain in the agency perpetually. The
What is the distinction bet. Delegation principal at anytime can dissolve the
and abdication? SC said that there is agency, even without the consent of the
only a thin line between delegation and agent. Similarly, in the delegation of
abdication, both allows the conferment emergency of powers while the congress
of authority to another person. But what needs the president to create the agency,
distinguishes, SC said in araneta citing the congress does not need the president
corwill that there can only be delegation to dissolve it. So that is the similarity
if a power can be conferred to another between agency and emergency powers


to the president. National emergency power), anything which is inherently

means that the magnitude of the legislative, anything which is
emergency is such that it will affect the necessarily implied the grant of
country as a whole. And grant of legislative power to the president, may
emergency powers can be localized. An be exercised by the congress even if
emergency power to the president is a there is no express constitutional
justiciable question. provision confirming this power.

Is it true that the legislative power of

the congress is without limit because in
Article 6, legislative power – is the
the case of govt. vs. springer, pimintel
power to enact, to make, to amend, to
vs comelec the SC noted a statement,
revise, and to repeal laws. To whom it is
they said someone has said that the
conferred? Upon the congress of the
powers to the legislative dept of govt,
Philippines and under sec 1 of art 6 the
like the boundaries of the ocean are
congress of the Philippines is divided
unlimited. But the SC said, in
into 2 houses, this is the basis of the
constitutional govts however as well as
bicameral system of congress. Since it is
govts acting under a delegated
the constitution that directs the congress
authority, the powers of each of the
to be divided into 2 houses, the congress
department are limited and confined
cannot just convert it into 1 by mere
within the 4 walls or corners of the
legislative action. There must be
constitution or charter. And each
revision of the constitution in order to
department can only exercise powers
confer the congress into a unicameral
which are necessarily implied from the
congress. Does that mean that the
given power. Then the SC concluded by
congress can only exercise powers
saying that the Constitution therefore is
which are expressly conferred under the
the shore of the legislative authority
Constitution? Answer: NO. apply the
against which the waves of legislative
principle in the case of marcos vs
enactments may dash but over which it
manglapuz, the residual powers to the
cannot leap. So it is the constitution
president. The grant of the legislative
itself that provides for the limitation
powers to the president under the
both substantive and procedural. So the
Constitution carries with it ex rae
limitations and the exercise of legislative
necesitae (all other powers which are
powers of the congress are provided for
necessary, implied from the given


under sections 23, 24, 25, 26 up to qualification of voters not to the

section 32. So these are the limitations composition and manner of election. So
on the exercise of legislative power of it cannot be modified by mere
legislative act. It can only be modified
by a change to the constitution, a formal
Section 2, composition of the senate, change of the constitution.
how many senators? 24. Manner of
election? At large. By whom? Qualified Section3 provides for the qualifications
voters. Sec 2 tells us 3 things: of the senators, No person shall be a
composition of the senate; the manner of Senator unless he is a natural-born
election; and who may vote for the citizen of the Philippines and, on the
senators. Remember that you have day of the election, is at least thirty-five
learned in your statcon that if a sentence years of age, able to read and write, a
is divided into several parts, separated registered voter, and a resident of the
by commas and one of the parts of this Philippines for not less than two years
sentence is qualifier, the qualifier will immediately preceding the day of the
apply to the phrase preceding or election. Age qualification must be
immediately subsequent to it. Section 2 possessed day before the election.
of art 6 is divided only into 2 parts and Residence requirement must be possess
the 2 parts are separated by a comma, at the day before the election. How
the consti says: The Senate shall be about citizenship qualification? Because
composed of twenty-four Senators who under constitution, the senator must be
shall be elected at large by the qualified a natural born Filipino citizen. When
voters of the Philippines, as may be should the person possess that
provided by law. The qualifier is “as qualification to be qualified as senator?
may be provided by law” does that Upon birth? But is it possible that a
mean that it applies to the entire phrase person is a natural born Filipino citizen
before it? So may a law be passed at one time and then at a subsequent
providing for a different composition? time he is not a natural born citizen and
Say for example 30, may a law be passed then at some other future time he again
for a different manner of election, say becomes a natural born Filipino citizen.
for example regional? May a law be So its possible, right? Through
passed providing for the qualification of repatriation as we discussed earlier.
voters? To all the question, YES to the Which means that A who is a natural
last, NO to the previous. Which means born Filipino citizen may not be a
that this is one of the instance a rule of natural born at this year but in another
statcon will yield to the spirit or year may again becomes a natural born
substance of the law. So the as may be Filipino citizen. This was answered by
provided by law can only apply to the the SC in the 1996 frivaldo vc comelec,


because note in the qualification, except the case of citizenship, as long as the
for age and residencey requirement natural born Filipino citizen status was
qualifications, there is no specific regained by a candidate at noon 30th of
provision under section 3 and 6 of art 6 june, next following their election, he is
when the person should possess the qualified to become a senator.
other qualifications. Citizenship; Can the congress enact a law providing
literacy; registered voter. So SC said in for another or adding a qualifications
the case of frivaldo, that if the under section 3 as well as section of
constitution does not provide for the article 6? SC said in Pimentel, NO. the
time period when the qualification enumeration of qualifications under sec
should be posess, that qualification 3 and 6 of article 6 is exclusive. Which
should be possessed at the start of the means the congress cannot expand, it
term of office of the public officer. Again cannot restrict the qualification. Because
in the 1996 frivaldo case, the application remember in Pimentel vs COMELEC,
for repatriation was filed before the year what was being assailed was the
of election. Which means that when additional qualification for the public
filed the COC, he is not yet repatriated. officer under RA 9165 which requires
And when he was elected and that before assuming public office, he
proclaimed. He was not yet repatriated must submit a certificate of drug non-
and on the day itself at the start of the dependence. So he must show that he is
term of office of the petitioner, as not a drug dependent. SC said that this
elected governor, the application was is an additional qualification since it
approved. SC said petitioner is qualified expands the qualifications of senators
because he possesses the qualification and members of the House of
on the day he is upon to discharge the Representatives, this is unconstitutional.
functions of the office. Secondly, SC said Under the constitution, to become a
that the repatriation retroacted to the senator, a person must be able to read
day on the filing of the application. and write, is there a degree of literacy to
Again do not be confused as to the the constitution? NO. it does not require
frivaldo vs COMELEC as to the a certain degree. Meaning, college
retroactivity date of repatriation because graduate, HS or elementary graduate.
the repatriation applied in this case is As long as the person is able to read and
PD 725. 9225 the repatriation law would write, he is qualified to be a senator.
retroact to the event that may have Supposing the person can only read and
produced the cause for the losing of the write in Chinese, is he qualified? NO.
Filipino citizenship. So in the example the qualification has purposes for a
earlier given, it will retroact to the day specific objective. It means that ABLE to
that the natural born Filipino citizen READ and WRITE in the official
was naturalized in a foreign country. In language used in the Philippines.


Otherwise, that qualification would continuity for the service of the full term
become absurd. It would become for which he was elected, only means
useless. Because the public officer voluntary renunciation among others.
cannot discharge the official function. Which means that the enumeration is
Term of office? 12 years. Term limit? 2 not exclusive. The statement voluntary
consecutive terms. Which means that a renunciation does not exclude
senator can as many terms as he selected involuntary renunciation. It is as if the
as long as it is not beyond 2 consecutive constitution is just saying, including
terms. Supposing the term of office of among other. Because it would be
senate and HOR start at noon 30th day of absurd if we interpret it otherwise. -
June. Can it be moved to a different 40:09
date? YES. Because constitution says,
otherwise may be provided for by law,
which means that a l aw may be passed
providing for a different date of
commencement. Supposing on the
second term of senator A, he resign.
Would he be allow to run for the
immediately succeeding election
because he was not able to complete 2
successive terms? Answer: NO. because
the constitution says, voluntary
renunciation will not interrupt the
continuity of the service of the full term
for which he was elect. Which means
that even if a senator resigns on his
second term, he will still be disqualified
in the next succeeding election. He was
to wait for another 3 yrs. Supposing the
senator on his 2nd term did not resigned
but was expelled? Does that mean that
since the constitution only says
voluntary renunciation, definitely
expulsion is not a voluntary
renunciation, it will not interrupt the
running of the 2 successive term limit?
Answer: NO. because the provision in
the constitution which says voluntary
renunciation shall not interrupt