Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
2. There is no allegation in the petition in the present case that Leonard Wood, as 4. No one department can claim that it has a monopoly of these benign purposes of
Governor-General, has unlawfully neglected the performance of an act which the law the government. Each department has an exclusive field within which it can perform
specially enjoins as a duty upon him resulting from his office, trust, or station. The its part within certain discretionary limits. No other department can claim a right to
only allegation in the complaint relating to the duty or the neglected duty on the part enter these discretionary limits and assume to act there. No presumption of an abuse
of Leonard Wood as Governor-General is, "that the original of said vouchers are in of these discretionary powers by one department will be considered or entertained by
possession another. Such conduct on the part of one department, instead of tending to conserve
The failure of sufficient allegations in the complaint might therefore be the government and the rights of the people, would directly tend to destroy the
sufficient reason for denying the right prayed for. And even though the allegations of confidence of the people in the government
the petition were sufficient, is without authority or jurisdiction to grant the remedy. The reason why the courts will not entertain jurisdiction to control or direct the
***DONE NA DITO Yung nasa baba, in case tanungin lang, kasi yun yung under sa action of the executive or legislative departments of the government, is not that either
syllabus*** of said departments or the officers thereof are above the law, but because the people,
the organization of their government, deemed it wise to impose such duties upon
[RE: Separation of Powers, Kahit read lang to. Basic Polsci lang. Baka lang kasi those departments. If the courts should take jurisdiction for the purpose of
tanungin] controlling the acts of the executive and legislative departments of the government,
3. The question whether or not the courts have jurisdiction to control the official acts then the courts might become the ruling and directing power of the government and
of the executive and legislative departments of the Government has come before the deprive those departments of their legal functions, contrary to the very fundamental
courts a great many times. The courts in the United States have not always been idea of a republican form of government.
uniform in their conclusion. The court exercise no functions of sovereignty. The courts can only pronounce what
Among the numerous cases brought before the courts involving this issue, the case the law is, and what the rights of the parties are. When the courts pronounce an act of
found best-reasoned is that of Sutherland vs. Governor: the executive or legislative department of the government illegal and contrary to the
“There is no very clear and palpable line of distinction between those fundamental laws of the land, it is because the act of the executive department of the
duties of the governor which are political, and those which are to be considered government or the law adopted by the legislative department of the government, falls
miniterial merely; and if we should undertake to draw one, and to declare that in within some of the inhibitions of the fundamental law of the state. The wisdom or
all cases falling on one side the line the governor was subject to judicial process, advisability of a particular statute, is not a question for the courts to determine
we will open the doors to an endless train of litigation, and the cases would (THE PETITION IN THIS CASE IS MERELY A POLITICAL QUESTION)
be numerous in which neither the governor nor the parties would be able to
determine whether his conclusion was, under the law, to be final.
RULING:
Under the form of government established by the United States in the The Court has no jurisdiction over the case. The petition is denied.
Philippine Islands, one department of the government has no power or authority to
inquire into the acts of another, which acts are performed within the discretion of the
other department.
By the organic law of the Philippine Islands the Governor-General is invested
with certain important political powers, in the exercise of which he is to use his own
discretion and is accountable only to his country in his political character and to his
own conscience. The judicial and executive departments of the government are
Case 3 FACTS:
Cruz vs Pahati (PAO) - Northern Motors, inc. sold an automobile to a china man. Said
April 13, 1956 | Bautista Angelo | The Hybrid System china man then sold it to Belizo. Belizo is a dealer in a secondhand
PETITIONER: Jose R. Cruz cars. Belizo then sold the automobile to Cruz.
RESPONDENTS: Reynaldo Pahati, et al. - Belizo made an offer to Cruz that he would sell the car.
Summary: However, the car registration was missing.
- Cruz then gave Belizo an authorization letter in order to allow
Northern Motors, inc. sold an automobile to a china man. The china man sold
him to sell the automobile.
the same to Belizo. Belizo is involved in a secondhand car business. Thus, he
- Belizo then sold it to Bulahan.
sold it to Cruz. Belizo then offered Cruz that he would sell the car. Since the
- Pahati bought the automobile from Bulahan via check with the
car certificate was missing, Cruz issued an authorization letter for Belizo
amount of P4, 900.
without knowing that Belizo falsified the said document and made an absolute
- The Manila Police Department impounded said automobile,
sale when Belizo sold it to Bulahan. Bulahan sold the automobile to Pahati.
Pahati cancelled the sale and stopped the payment of the check.
This prompted Cruz to file an action for replevin.
- As a result he returned the automobile to Bulahan who in turned
RTC: Bulahan is entitled to the automobile in question , ordered Cruz to return surrended the check for cancellation. He set up a counterclaim for
it. the sum of P2,000 as attorney's fees.
- Bulahan claimed he bought the automobile from Belizo, the
SC: Cruz is entitled to the automobile in question.
former didn’t have any knowledge of any defect in the title. Cruz
has acquired by purchase from Belizo. Cruz delivered the
automobile to Belizo for resale. In effect, he gave Belizo apparent
Laws involved:
ownership or authority to sell.
ART. 559. The possession of movable property acquired in good faith is- Cruz is estopped to deny this ownership. Bulahan claims that
equivalent to a title. Nevertheless, one who has lost any movable or has been between two innocent parties, he who gave occasion, through his
unlawfully deprived thereof, may recover it from the person in possession of conduct, to the falsification committed by Belizo, should be the
the same. one to suffer the loss and this one is the plaintiff. Bulahan also set
up a counterclaim for P17,000 as damages and attorney's fees.
Art 1505. Where goods are sold by a person who is not the owner thereof, and
- Cruz then filed an action for replevin.
who does not sell them under authority or with the consent of the owner, the
buyer acquires no better title to the goods than the seller had, unless the owner
of the goods is by his conduct precluded from denying the seller's authority to
ISSUES:
sell.
- WON Cruz is entitled to the automobile. YES
HELD: The Court declares plaintiff to be entitled to recover the car in
question
Ratio:
- Art 559 applied to the facts show that it was Cruz who was
unlawfully deprived thus he may recover it from the person of
possession.
- Art 1505 also shows that when goods are sold by a person who is
not the owner, and also who does not have the authority or consent
of the actual owner, the buyer acquires no better title to the goods
than the seller.
- t is a fundamental principle of our law of personal property that
no man can be divested of it without his own consent;
consequently, even an honest purchaser, under a defective title,
cannot resist the claim of the true owner. The maxim that 'No man
can transfer a better title than he has himself "obtain in the civil as
well as in the common law."
CASE 4 elections, but not of politicians who helped in the passage of the RH Law
but were not candidates for that election.
Diocese of Bacolod v. COMELEC (2015) • February 22, 2013 - Respondent Atty. Mavil V. Majarucon, in her
capacity as Election Officer of Bacolod City, issued a Notice to Remove
Campaign Materials addressed to petitioner Most Rev. Bishop Vicente M.
FACTS: Navarra.
o The election officer ordered the tarpaulin’s removal within three
• February 21, 2013 - Petitioners posted two (2) tarpaulins within a (3) days from receipt for being oversized.
private compound housing the San Sebastian Cathedral of Bacolod. o COMELEC Resolution No. 9615 provides for the size requirement
• Each tarpaulin was approximately six feet (6’) by ten feet (10’) in of two feet (2’) by three feet (3’).
size. (They were posted on the front walls of the cathedral within public • February 25, 2013 - Petitioners replied requesting, among others,
view.) o The first tarpaulin contains the message “IBASURA RH Law” that o (1) petitioner Bishop be given a definite ruling by COMELEC
referring to the Reproductive Health Law of 2012 or Republic Act No. Law Department regarding the tarpaulin; and o (2) pending this
10354. opinion and the availment of legal remedies, the tarpaulin be allowed to
o The second tarpaulin is the subject of the present case. remain.
§ This tarpaulin contains the heading “Conscience Vote” and lists • February 27, 2013 - COMELEC Law Department issued a letter
candidates as either “(Anti-RH) Team Buhay” with a check mark, or ordering the immediate removal of the tarpaulin; otherwise, it will be
“(Pro-RH) Team Patay” with an “X” mark. constrained to file an election offense against petitioners.
§ The electoral candidates were classified according to their vote on o The letter of COMELEC Law Department was silent on the
the adoption of Republic Act No. 10354, otherwise known as the RH Law. remedies available to petitioners. The letter provides as follows:
§ Those who voted for the passing of the law were classified by
petitioners as comprising “Team Patay,” while those who voted against it Dear Bishop Navarra:
form “Team Buhay”:7 It has reached this Office that our Election Officer for this City, Atty. Mavil
Majarucon, had already given you notice on February 22, 2013 as regards
TEAM BUHAY TEAM PATAY the election propaganda material posted on the church vicinity promoting
Estrada, JV Angara, Juan Edgardo for or against the candidates and party list groups with the following names
Honasan, Gregorio Casiño, Teddy and messages, particularly described as follows:
Magsaysay, Mitos Cayetano, Alan Peter
Pimentel, Koko Enrile, Jackie
Trillanes, Antonio Escudero, Francis The three (3)-day notice expired on February 25, 2013.
Villar, Cynthia Hontiveros, Risa
Party List Buhay Legarda, Loren Considering that the above mentioned material is found to be in violation of
Party List Ang Pamilya Party List Gabriela Comelec Resolution No. 9615 promulgated on January 15, 2013 particularly
Party List Akbayan on the size (even with the subsequent division of the said tarpaulin into
Party List Bayan Muna two), as the lawful size for election propaganda material is only two feet
Party List Anak Pawis (2’) by three feet (3’), please order/cause the immediate removal of said
election propaganda material, otherwise, we shall be constrained to file an
• During oral arguments, respondents conceded that the tarpaulin election offense case against you.
was neither sponsored nor paid for by any candidate. o Petitioners also
conceded that the tarpaulin contains names of candidates for the 2013 We pray that the Catholic Church will be the first institution to help the
Commission on Elections in ensuring the conduct of peaceful, orderly, Article IX-C, Section 2(3) of the Constitution.
honest and credible elections. Thank you and God Bless! [signed] • The use of the word “affecting” in this provision cannot be
ATTY. ESMERALDA AMORA-LADRA interpreted to mean that COMELEC has the exclusive power to decide any
Director IV and all questions that arise during elections. COMELEC’s constitutional
• Concerned about the imminent threat of prosecution for their competencies during elections should not operate to divest this court of its
exercise of free speech, petitioners initiated this case through this petition own jurisdiction.
for certiorari and prohibition with application for preliminary injunction and • The more relevant provision for jurisdiction in this case is Article
temporary restraining order. VIII, Section 5(1) of the Constitution. o This provision provides for
• They question respondents’ notice dated February 22, 2013 and this court’s original jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari and prohibition.
letter issued on February 27, 2013. o They pray that: o This should be read alongside the expanded jurisdiction of the
o (1) the petition be given due course; court in Article VIII, Section 1 of the Constitution.
o (2) a temporary restraining order (TRO) and/or a writ of • Certainly, a breach of the fundamental right of expression by
preliminary injunction be issued restraining respondents from further COMELEC is grave abuse of discretion. Thus, the constitutionality of the
proceeding in enforcing their orders for the removal of the Team Patay notice and letter coming from COMELEC is within this court’s power to
tarpaulin; and review.
o (3) after notice and hearing, a decision be rendered declaring the • During elections, we have the power and the duty to correct any
questioned orders of respondents as unconstitutional and void, and grave abuse of discretion or any act tainted with unconstitutionality on the
permanently restraining respondents from enforcing them or any other part of any government branch or instrumentality. This includes actions by
similar order. the COMELEC.
• After due deliberation, this court, on March 5, 2013, issued a o Furthermore, it is this court’s constitutional mandate to protect the
temporary restraining order enjoining respondents from enforcing the people against government’s infringement of their fundamental rights.
assailed notice and letter, and set oral arguments on March 19, 2013. o This constitutional mandate outweighs the jurisdiction vested with
• March 13, 2013 - Respondents filed their commentarguing that o the COMELEC.
(1) a petition for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of • It will, thus, be manifest injustice if the court does not take
Court filed before this court is not the proper remedy to question the notice jurisdiction over this case.
and letter of respondents; and Did the petitioners violate the principle of exhaustion of administrative
o (2) the tarpaulin is an election propaganda subject to regulation by remedies as the case was not brought first before the COMELEC En Banc
COMELEC pursuant to its mandate under Article IX-C, Section 4 of the or any if its divisions? NO.
Constitution. • The Court held that the argument on exhaustion of administrative
o Hence, respondents claim that the issuances ordering its removal remedies is not proper in this case.
for being oversized are valid and constitutional. • Despite the alleged non-exhaustion of administrative remedies, it is
clear that the controversy is already ripe for adjudication.
ISSUE/ HELD: o Ripeness is the “prerequisite that something had by then been
accomplished or performed by either branch or in this case, organ of
Does the COMELEC have any jurisdiction with its acts threatening government before a court may come into the picture.”
imminent criminal action effectively abridging meaningful political speech? • Petitioners’ exercise of their right to speech, given the message and
NO. their medium, had understandable relevance especially during the elections.
o COMELEC’s letter threatening the filing of the election offense
• It is clear that the subject matter of the controversy is the effect of against petitioners is already an actionable infringement of this right.
COMELEC’s notice and letter on free speech. This does not fall under o The impending threat of criminal litigation is enough to curtail
petitioners’ speech. on the subject matter of the utterance or speech.” o In contrast,
• In the context of this case, exhaustion of their administrative content-neutral regulation includes controls merely on the incidents of the
remedies as COMELEC suggested in their pleadings prolongs the violation speech such as time, place, or manner of the speech.
of their freedom of speech. • The Court held that the regulation involved at bar is content-based.
Does the COMELEC have the competence to limit expressions made by the The tarpaulin content is not easily divorced from the size of its medium.
citizens — who are not candidates — during elections?NO, COMELEC had • Content-based regulation bears a heavy presumption of invalidity,
no legal basis to regulate expressions made by private citizens and this court has used the clear and present danger rule as measure.
o Under this rule, “the evil consequences sought to be prevented
• Respondents cite the Constitution, laws, and jurisprudence to must be substantive, ‘extremely serious and the degree of imminence
support their position that they had the power to regulate the tarpaulin. extremely high.’”
However, all of these provisions pertain to candidates and political parties. o “Only when the challenged act has overcome the clear and present
o Petitioners are not candidates. Neither do they belong to any danger rule will it pass constitutional muster, with the government having
political party. COMELEC does not have the authority to regulate the the burden of overcoming the presumed unconstitutionality.”
enjoyment of the preferred right to freedom of expression exercised by a • Even with the clear and present danger test, respondents failed to
noncandidate in this case. justify the regulation.
Did the assailed notice and letter for the removal of the tarpaulin violated o There is no compelling and substantial state interest endangered
petitioners’ fundamental right to freedom of expression? YES. by the posting of the tarpaulin as to justify curtailment of the right
• The Court held that every citizen’s expression with political of freedom of expression.
consequences enjoys a high degree of protection. o There is no reason for the state to minimize the right of
• Moreover, the respondent’s argument that the tarpaulin is election non-candidate petitioners to post the tarpaulin in their private
propaganda, being petitioners’ way of endorsing candidates who voted property.
against the RH Law and rejecting those who voted for it, holds no water. o The size of the tarpaulin does not affect anyone else’s
• he Court held that while the tarpaulin may influence the success or constitutional rights.
failure of the named candidates and political parties, this does not Was there a violation of petitioners’ right to property. YES.
necessarily mean it is election propaganda. The tarpaulin was not paid for or • The Court held that even though the tarpaulin is readily
posted “in return for consideration” by any candidate, political party, or seen by the public, the tarpaulin remains the private property of
party-list group. petitioners.
• By interpreting the law, it is clear that personal opinions are not • Their right to use their property is likewise protected by
included, while sponsored messages are covered. the Constitution.
• The content of the tarpaulin is a political speech o Political o Any regulation, therefore, which operates as an effective
speech refers to speech “both intended and received as a contribution to confiscation of private property or constitutes an arbitrary or
public deliberation about some issue,” “fostering informed and civic minded unreasonable infringement of property rights is void, because it is
deliberation.” repugnant to the constitutional guaranties of due process and equal
o On the other hand, commercial speech has been defined as speech protection of the laws.
that does “no more than propose a commercial transaction.” o The Are the tarpaulin and its message considered religious speech? NO.
expression resulting from the content of the tarpaulin is, however, definitely • The Court held that the church doctrines relied upon by
political speech. petitioners are not binding upon this court.
Was the order for removal of the tarpaulin is a content-based or • The position of the Catholic religion in the Philippines as
content-neutral regulation? Content-based regulation regards the RH Law does not suffice to qualify the posting by one
• Content-based restraint or censorship refers to restrictions “based of its members of a tarpaulin as religious speech solely on such
Law” referring to the Reproductive Health Law of 2012 or • February 22, 2013 - Respondent Atty. Mavil V. Majarucon, in her
Republic Act No. 10354. capacity as Election Officer of Bacolod City, issued a Notice to
o The second tarpaulin is the subject of the present case. Remove Campaign Materials8 addressed to petitioner Most Rev. Bishop
§ This tarpaulin contains the heading “Conscience Vote” Vicente M. Navarra.
and lists candidates as either “(Anti-RH) Team o The election officer ordered the tarpaulin’s removal within
Buhay” with a check mark, or “(Pro-RH) Team three (3) days from receipt for being oversized.
Patay” with an “X” mark. o COMELEC Resolution No. 9615 provides for the size
§ The electoral candidates were classified according to requirement of two feet (2’) by three feet (3’).
their vote on the adoption of Republic Act No. • February 25, 2013 - Petitioners replied requesting, among others, that
10354, otherwise known as the RH Law. O (1) petitioner Bishop be given a definite ruling by COMELEC
§ Those who voted for the passing of the law were Law Department regarding the tarpaulin; and
classified by petitioners as comprising “Team Patay,” o (2) pending this opinion and the availment of legal remedies,
while those who voted against it form “Team the tarpaulin be allowed to remain.
Buhay”:7 • February 27, 2013 - COMELEC Law Department issued a letter
ordering the immediate removal of the tarpaulin; otherwise, it will be
TEAM BUHAY TEAM PATAY constrained to file an election offense against petitioners.
o The letter of COMELEC Law Department was silent on the
Estrada, JV Angara, Juan Edgardo remedies available to petitioners. The letter provides as
Honasan, Gregorio Casino, Teddy follows:
Magsaysay. Mitos Cayetano, Alan Peter
Dear Bishop Navarra:
Pimentel, Koko Enrile, Jackie
It has reached this Office that our Election Officer for this
Trillanes, Antonio Escudero, Francis City, Atty. Mavil Majarucon, had already given you notice on
Villar, Cynthia Hontiveros, Risa February 22, 2013 as regards the election propaganda material
Party List Buhay Legarda, Loren posted on the church vicinity promoting for or against the
candidates and party list groups with the following names and
Party List Ang Pamilya Part List Gabriela
messages, particularly described as follows:
Party List Akbayan
Party List Bayan Muna
Part List Anakpawis The three (3)-day notice expired on February 25, 2013.
ISSUE/ HELD:
• The Court held that the argument on exhaustion of administrative
remedies is not proper in this case.
• Despite the alleged non-exhaustion of administrative remedies, it is against the RH Law and rejecting those who voted for it, holds no
clear that the controversy is already ripe for adjudication. water.
o Ripeness is the “prerequisite that something had by then been • he Court held that while the tarpaulin may influence the success or
accomplished or performed by either branch or in this case, failure of the named candidates and political parties, this does not
organ of government before a court may come into the necessarily mean it is election propaganda. The tarpaulin was not paid
picture.” for or posted “in return for consideration” by any candidate, political
• Petitioners’ exercise of their right to speech, given the message and party, or party-list group.
their medium, had understandable relevance especially during the • By interpreting the law, it is clear that personal opinions are not
elections. included, while sponsored messages are covered.
o COMELEC’s letter threatening the filing of the election • The content of the tarpaulin is a political speech
offense against petitioners is already an actionable o Political speech refers to speech “both intended and
infringement of this right. received as a contribution to public deliberation about some
o The impending threat of criminal litigation is enough to curtail issue,” “fostering informed and civic minded deliberation.”
petitioners’ speech. o On the other hand, commercial speech has been defined as
• In the context of this case, exhaustion of their administrative remedies speech that does “no more than propose a commercial
as COMELEC suggested in their pleadings prolongs the violation of transaction.” o The expression resulting from the content of
their freedom of speech. the tarpaulin is, however, definitely political speech.
Does the COMELEC have the competence to limit expressions made by the Was the order for removal of the tarpaulin is a content-based or content-neutral
citizens — who are not candidates — during e lections?NO, COMELEC had no regulation? Content-based regulation
legal basis to regulate expressions made by private citizens
• Content-based restraint or censorship refers to restrictions “based on
• Respondents cite the Constitution, laws, and jurisprudence to support the subject matter of the utterance or speech.”
their position that they had the power to regulate the tarpaulin. o In contrast, content-neutral regulation includes controls merely
However, all of these provisions pertain to candidates and political on the incidents of the speech such as time, place, or manner
parties. of the speech.
o Petitioners are not candidates. Neither do they belong to any • The Court held that the regulation involved at bar is content-based.
political party. COMELEC does not have the authority to The tarpaulin content is not easily divorced from the size of its
regulate the enjoyment of the preferred right to freedom of medium.
expression exercised by a noncandidate in this case. • Content-based regulation bears a heavy presumption of invalidity, and
this court has used the clear and present danger rule as measure.
Did the assailed notice and letter for the removal of the tarpaulin violated o Under this rule, “the evil consequences sought to be prevented
petitioners’ fundamental right to freedom of e xpression? YES. must be substantive, ‘extremely serious and the degree of
imminence extremely high.’”
• The Court held that every citizen’s expression with political o “Only when the challenged act has overcome the clear and
consequences enjoys a high degree of protection. present danger rule will it pass constitutional muster, with the
• Moreover, the respondent’s argument that the tarpaulin is election government having the burden of overcoming the presumed
propaganda, being petitioners’ way of endorsing candidates who voted unconstitutionality.”
• Even with the clear and present danger test, respondents failed to
justify the regulation.
o There is no compelling and substantial state interest endangered
by the posting of the tarpaulin as to justify curtailment of the
right of freedom of expression. Article 1
o There is no reason for the state to minimize the right of
non-candidate petitioners to post the tarpaulin in their private Historical Evolution of Philippine Law – An overview
property. Various periods of political development the Philippines has experienced:
o The size of the tarpaulin does not affect anyone else’s - The Pre-Spanish Era
constitutional rights. Refers to the time before Ferdinand Magellan (1480-1521) which was the
discovery of the Philippines to the western world. Before the Christian era,
Was there a violation of petitioners’ right to property. YES. Indonesian and Malay migrants came to the Philippines to set up barangays.
Each of this Barangay was independent and self-sustaining political unit. The
• The Court held that even though the tarpaulin is readily seen by the barangays were headed by a datu. Barangay groupings were headed by a higher
public, the tarpaulin remains the private property of petitioners. chief named a Rajah and would consult lesser chiefs for laws. These laws were
• Their right to use their property is likewise protected by the handed down to the next generation by word of mouth. Only the Code of
Constitution. Kalantiaw and the Maragtas Code are the only pre-Spanish written laws that
are now relics. Cases were settled through mediation and compromise. If the
o Any regulation, therefore, which operates as an effective parties could not agree, a public hearing was held. The dispute settlement was
confiscation of private property or constitutes an arbitrary or coursed through a mechanism called Katarungang Pambarangay (RA 7160)
unreasonable infringement of property rights is void, because which compels residents of the barangay to enter first into conciliation before
it is repugnant to the constitutional guaranties of due process the Lupong Tagapamayapa prior to filing of an action in court.
and equal protection of the laws.
- The Spanish Regime
Are the tarpaulin and its message considered religious speech? NO.
Spain ruled the Philippines through the Council of Indies in Spain. The King of
Spain exercised legislative powers over the colonies. Laws with general
• The Court held that the church doctrines relied upon by petitioners are
application affect the PH (e.g. Fuero Jusgo). Spain also extended the application
not binding upon this court.
of new codes and statutes such as the Civil Code (1889) and Penal Code (1888).
• The position of the Catholic religion in the Philippines as regards the
On 1583, the Royal Audienca. During the fight for PH independence against the
RH Law does not suffice to qualify the posting by one of its members
Spain, the Malolos Constitution established the short-lived PH republic.
of a tarpaulin as religious speech solely on such basis.
• The enumeration of candidates on the face of the tarpaulin precludes
- American Period
any doubt as to its nature as speech with political consequences and
Started with the cession of the PH by the Spanish Crown to the United
not religious speech.
States through the Treaty of Paris. The United States Constitution was
not extended to the PH. These acts that defined PH government were:
Instruction of Pres. McKinley to the PH Commission, The Philippine
Bill, The Philippine Autonomy Act, and the Philippine Independent
Act.
· Military Government (Military governor exercised all the
powers)
· Civil Government (Transferring the executive power to the
Chairman of the Philippine Commission)
· Commonwealth Government (Tydings-McDuffie Law was a
ten-year transition period for independence)
- Japanese Occupation (Three-year military rule, a constitution was drafted in
1943 which led to a Japanese-sponsored republic)
In short:
• Before, each House of the legislature was the sole judge of the ERQ of its
members.
o Sec. 4, Art. VI, repealed both Sec. 18 of the Jones Law and Sec. 478 of Act No.
3387, which gave each House of the legislature, the power to be the sole judge of the
ERQ of its members and prescribed the manner of filing of contests.
• The 1935 Constitution transferred this authority to the ElecCom. o The ElecCom is
an independent constitutional creation with specific powers and functions, and is the
sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of
members
o That such transfer of power from the legislature to the ElecCom was: § Full, clear
and complete, and § Carried with it ex necesitate rei the implied power to prescribe
the rules and regulations as to the time and manner of filing protests.
• The avowed purpose in creating the ElecCom was to have an independent
constitutional organ pass upon all contests relating to the ERQ of the National
Assembly devoid of partisan influence or consideration.
o This object would be frustrated if the National Assembly were to retain the power
to prescribe rules and regulations regarding the manner of conducting said contests.
• Moreover, confirmation by the National Assembly of the election, contested or not,
is not essential before such member-elect may discharge the duties and enjoy the
privileges of a member of the National Assembly. Jaigest – PoliRev - 54
o Thus, things like Resolution 8 are unnecessary.
• Therefore, confirmation by the National Assembly of the election of any member
against whom no protest had been filed prior to said confirmation, does not and
cannot deprive the ElecCom of its incidental power to prescribe the time within
which protests against the election of any member of the National Assembly should
be filed.
\
ARTICLE 3
Summary of Abstract:
- Robert Frost – “Poetry is what gets lost in translation.”
- In the world of advocacy, persuation is what gets lost in translation
- Article examines the distinctions in common law and civil law methods of
reasoning
- Analyzes why, in form and in substance, traditional common law oral 6. From this arose the doctrine of “stare decisis et quieta non movere” (to stand by
argument methods are neither effective nor persuasive when presented in a civil things decided and not disturb settled law)
law jurisdiction 7. Stare decisis commands judges to apply the law as it has been set out in a prior
- Although they share similar objectives, arguing based on stare decisis i s case when a higher, or sometimes equal, court made the prior decision
incompatible in civil law courts 8. It requires that the new case be the same or substantially the same as the
- Article explores how to transfer common law advocacy skills to create an precedent
effective civil law oral argument 9. To determine if it is the same or substantially the same, court must consider the
Introduction context of the facts and issues in the prior decision
- Students and practitioners trained in common law systems often present oral 10. If they are essentially different, doctrine will not apply
arguments in identical fashion in both common and civil law courts because: 11. Present day common law relies on stare decisis to maintain consistency when
o Most law students learn solely common law legal reasoning judges are filling in the gaps of law
[“case book method”]: 12. Ambiguity may be cleared up when a case is decided on a similar issue
o [They] are expected to brief cases, discuss judicial opinions, 13. Common law allows a court to exercise great deal of flexibility when deciding
and deduce governing legal norms w/c earlier cases are sufficiently similar w/ the case before it
- Statutory interpretation and precedent are central to the very meaning and 14. Common law has grown and developed in the hands of judges, who reason
concept of the law in the common law legal system solely from case to case and thereby build a body of law binding subsequent
- On the other hand, the language of the Code and writing of scholars comprise judges
the core of civil law system 15. When a court interprets or applies a statute to a dispute, the court’s decision
- Similar social objectives: individualism, liberalism and personal rights becomes part of the body of law on the topic the statute addresses
- Common law theory of precedent are incompatible with the legal method 16. To understand what the statute means, a lawyer must read precedent that has
used to decide cases in civil law courts interpreted and applied such statutory provision
- Thus, traditional common law advocacy style is not suitable for a civil law
argument II. Civil Law Origins
- Article examines the distinctions between the two methods of legal reasoning - Originated in Roman Law
and addresses why the form and substance is neither effective nor persuasive - Codified in the Corpus Juris Civilis of Emperor Justinian, subsequently
when presented in a civil law jurisdiction developing on continental Europe
- 19th Century – principal states of Western Europe adopted civil codes
I. Common Law Origins - Today, it is the dominant legal tradition in the world
1. Evolved in England beginning 11th Century and traveled through conquests and - Exclusive sources of civil law: written constitutions, codes, specific statutes
colonization to US, Australia, Canada and countries in Africa and Asia or decrees, and international treaties.
2. “Precedent” – means a prior decision, or a consistent group of decisions which - Civil law is highly systematized and structured
represent a model to be followed by subsequent decisions; refers to the binding - relies on declarations of broad, general principles and often ignores details
decisions of higher courts of the same jurisdiction - There are five basic codes typically found in a civil law jurisdiction:
3. In US – hierarchical relationship exists among the court which along w/ other o the civil code
features, created the basis for precedent and its binding value o the commercial code,
4. Common law – formally bound by prior reported rulings on specific disputes o the code of civil procedure, the penal code, and
decided by US SC/ higher courts w/in the state or federal jurisdiction o the code of criminal procedure
5. As the common law system grew, it needed legitimacy and predictability in - Civil codes provide the core of the law
decision-making. - General principles are systematically and exhaustively exposed in the codes
while particular statutes complete them
- However, civil law statutes do not provide specific definitions; instead, they - In theory, even if the highest court has already spoken on a question and
state principles in broad, general phrases (not explained precisely). indicated a clear view of its proper resolution, the lowest court in the jurisdiction
- This structure is in part the result of a desire for a legal system that was can decide differently
simple, nontechnical, and straightforward–one in which the professionalism and - This power held by the lower court demonstrates there is no concept similar
the tendency towards technicality and complication commonly blamed on to binding precedent or stare decisis in civil law
lawyers would/could be avoided - Prior decisions, however, are not without any respect in the civil law system;
- One way to accomplish this was by stating the law clearly and in a the decisions may have persuasive value to later courts
straightforward fashion so ordinary citizens could read it and understand their - Doctrine of jurisprudence constant - a series of decisions forming a constant
rights and obligations without having to consult lawyers or go to court stream of uniform and homogenous rulings that have the same reasoning, the
- civil law judge applies the law; he does not create it due to the function of a doctrine affords the cases considerable persuasive authority and justifies,
civil law judge as a civil servant without requiring, the court in abstaining from new inquiry because of its faith
- The legal scholars are the real protagonist of the civil law tradition as they are in the prior decisions
the creative force behind the law, by publishing commentaries on the status of - Civil law courts long and continuous use and influence of cases indicates the
the law and how it should be interpreted and applied current decision is in harmony with the code; deviation from a series of cases as
- Scholarly texts - not a primary source of law, but they are doctrinally opposed to a single case would impair the values protected by those earlier
definitive and indispensable to the systematic and comprehensive understanding cases.
of the code; they mold the civil law tradition by using the formal sources of the - However, this repetition of interpretation does not create or change the law
law to create a model of the legal system through books and articles but merely reinforces the rationale of the earlier decisions
- Legislators and judges accept their ideas and use the concepts developed. As a
result, the doctrine they establish carries immense authority III. Advocacy
- Role of judges - to apply the applicable Code provisions to the case before - the process of trying to convince your audience through the technique of
them persuasion
- As such, a civil law judge may sometimes find himself in a position where he - Oral advocacy - an interactive effort that requires a well-organized
is required to resort to a rulemaking method in order to perform his duty to presentation of an advocate’s case as well as spontaneous responses to the
decide the case judge’s questions
o Ex. judge may be required to formulate concepts in cases - Oral argument - presents a valuable opportunity to convince the courts of the
where the Code refers the judge to use his judgment: “fault,” merits of your case and to dispel any doubts a judge may have after reading the
“good faith,” “public order,” or “public policy.” briefs.
- The judge renders a decision where he would propose if he were a legislator - In both common and civil law jurisdictions, advocates should reduce their
by using his assessment of social, economic and moral factors following the cases to the bare essence
guiding ideas or values pervading the Code and the legal system as a whole - They should have a central theme that will approach from different angles:
- Thus, he “creates” a law only to the extent that the judge makes concrete what facts, law, intent and policy
was a general and abstract rule in the code - Traditional oral argument structure is divided into four component parts:
- The judge's decision, however, does not become a source of law, nor do other o Opening statement
judges have to follow that decision. o Road map
- In civil law, judicial decisions are not a source of law for it would violate the o Body of the argument
convention against judicial lawmaking if decisions of courts were binding on o Conclusion
subsequent courts - opening statement - the advocate should cordially greet the judges, and
- Orthodox view - no court is bound by the decision of any other court. introduce him or herself as counsel as well as co-counsel where appropriate;
advocate should briefly set forth the procedural posture of the case; what the
advocate is asking the court to do; affirm, reverse, remand; an advocate should driven home by showing how close their facts are to those of the case presently
ask if the court would like a brief statement of the facts before the court.
- Road map - advocate should give the court a concise outline or road map of - Precedents play a central role in the body of common-law argument
the issues she will argue to support her position; lets the judges know the order - Judges endeavor to fit a case into the body of precedent by taking into account
in which the advocate has organized the issues; advocate should state the points the rationale behind the rules
of her road map in an affirmative and persuasive manner. - Process involves 3 steps of judicial reasoning:
- always well-advised to present her strongest points first in the argument. This o (1) recognition of a similarity between cases;
will not only attract the court’s attention, but also ensure that these points are not o (2) interpretation of a rule fashioned from the material facts
omitted if time runs out of the first case; and
- Body of argument – advocate should anticipate questions, and should directly o (3) application of the rule to the second case.
respond to the questions asked; if evasive, may provoke the judge to repeat the - Appeal to precedent – often persuasive; ratio: like cases must be treated alike
questions or badger the advocate if a legal system is to be even minimally fair; essentially reasoning by analogy;
- Rebuttal – when appropriate, advocate should not reserve more than 3 urges that the court give weight to a particular prior result regardless of whether
minutes, perhaps even less for sur-rebuttal; not the time to raise points he that court believes it to be correct or believes it valuable in any way to rely on
neglected to make in her main argument; advocate should use the time in that prior result
response to the most injurious points of the opponent’s argument - If a court decides to overrule a precedent, it will generally only do so for good
- Conclusion - should briefly summarize the important points of the advocate’s reasons that outweigh the policies of certainty, predictability, and fairness
argument in light of the theme she set forth at the beginning of the argument; underlying stare decisis
where appropriate, the advocate should ask the court if it has any further
questions before thanking the judges and sitting down. B. Oral Advocacy in Civil Law Jurisdiction – The Body of the Argument
- In the civil law the dominant style of reasoning is deductive: courts apply
A. Oral Advocacy in Common Law Jurisdiction – The Body of the Argument general legal principals to specific situations by reasoning with guidance from
- In common law, dominant style of reasoning is inductive: scholars.
o Courts interpret and synthesize earlier court decisions to - civil law advocate must build the body of her argument around legal
create general legal principles and then apply those principles principles tracing their history, identify their function, determining their domain
to the facts of the case before them of application, and explaining their effects in terms of rights and obligations.
o common law advocate must focus on fact patterns - Civil law requires the judge to search for legal concepts in the Civil Code
o she must analyze cases presenting similar but not identical delineating a pattern of competing interests closely resembling the interests
facts. She must, from those cases, extract the specific rules, pressing for recognition in the instant case.
and then through deduction, determine the often narrow scope - Where an advocate, arguing in a civil law jurisdiction, argues in the form of
of each rule, and sometimes proposes new rules to cover facts an appeal to precedent, she is asking the civil law judge to do the exact opposite
that have not yet presented themselves. of what he is bound to do – adhere as closely as possible to the code.
- Body of argument - must be organized with appropriate attention to the facts - no legal precept in the Code upon which the judge may fashion a rule to apply
and the law. Otherwise, he runs the risk of an adverse decision to the advocate’s case, the advocate should still refrain from using an appeal to
- Advocate must fashion the argument from a close study of prior cases precedent
- It is usually enough for an advocate referencing a particular case to make a - Doing so would essentially be requesting the creation of amorphous case law,
general statement of what the case holds and why the court should apply its a concept which is inconsistent with the guiding values of the Civil Code and,
reasoning to the present case, or in the alternative decline to do so. In some therefore, incompatible with the civil law.
instances, however, controlling cases and those particularly on point should be
IV. Transferring Common Law Advocacy Skills to Create - In the civil law, legal scholars are the creative force behind the law. Although
an Effective Civil Law Argument scholarly texts are not a primary source of law, they are doctrinally definitive
- Transferring common law advocacy skills to create an effective civil law and indispensable to the systematic and comprehensive understanding of the
argument requires: code
o (1) an understanding of the purpose of the oral argument, as - because scholars’ commentaries are fundamental as to the status of the law
well as the governing rules of the court or tribunal hearing the and how it should be interpreted and applied, an advocate must, in structuring
argument; her argument, use these scholarly doctrines, not merely as research tools, but as
o (2) an appreciation for the role of the judge hearing the sources which provide support for her argument
argument; - a civil law advocate should weave doctrine into her argument to persuade the
o (3) a broader grasp of what the common law considers court that a proper application of the governing Code section mandates a ruling
secondary authority; and in her favor
o (4) an awareness of the applicability of non-binding
precedent. Conclusion
- An advocate appearing before a court or tribunal in a civil law jurisdiction
needs to shift her focus to make the applicable code and treaty provisions central - An advocate, trained in a common law jurisdiction, cannot present her
to the body of her argument. argument in form and substance, in an identical fashion in both common law and
- While the advocate is not wholly precluded from making reference to the civil law courts
decisions of other courts she must understand that the court is not bound by the - Although the common law and civil law legal traditions share similar social
prior ruling. objectives, the common law corner stone of stare decisis and theory of
- Argument must also find support in scholarly doctrines and notions of precedent, are incompatible with the Code based method applied by civil law
customary international law, consisting “of rules of law derived from the courts.
consistent conduct of States acting out of the belief that the law required them to - Accordingly, an advocate cannot structure the body of her argument as an
act that way. appeal to precedent. Rather, she must begin with a strong understanding of the
- the advocate should respond to the question in a way that allows the court to substance and structure that comprise a common law argument and then transfer
adhere to existing jurisprudence, legal science, and scholarly developed doctrine those skills to create a persuasive civil law argument
and in so doing apply the relevant Code provisions to the case before it. - Through an appreciation for the role of the judge hearing the argument, and
- In a civil law system, judicial decisions are not a source of law through an appreciation for the role of scholars in the civil law system, an
- a civil law judge applies the law; he does not create it. advocate will be able to effectively craft a persuasive civil law argument.
- A civil law judge applies general legal principals to specific situations by
reasoning with guidance from scholars.
- An advocate appearing before a civil law judge must present an argument that
requires the application of the law, as contrasted from an argument that requires
interpretation or creation of new law.
- As a result, the civil law advocate must build the body of her argument CASE NUMBER 9
around legal principles tracing their history, identify their function, determining
their domain of application, and explaining their effects in terms of rights and
obligations
- An advocate, appearing before a civil law court, must appreciate the role
scholarship, what at common law is considered a secondary source, will play in
her argument.
SUMMARY:
Binay, Jr. was charged with administrative and criminal cases in connection
with the allegation that he is involved in anomalous activities attending the
procurement and construction phases of the Makati Parking Building
project, committed during his previous and present terms as City Mayor of
Makati. Binay, Jr. argued that he could not be held administratively liable
since Phases I and II were undertaken before he was elected Mayor of
Makati and Phases III to V transpired during his first term. His re-election
as mayor for a second term effectively condoned his administrative liability
therefor, if any, thus rendering the administrative cases against him moot
and academic. The Ombudsman issued an order placing Binay, et al. under
preventive suspension. The CA granted Binay’s prayer for TRO enjoining
the implementation of the preventive suspension order.
Whether or not the CA gravely abused its discretion in issuing the TRO and
the WPI enjoining the implementation of the preventive suspension order
against Binay, Jr. based on the condonation doctrine? The Court held No,
the CA’s resolutions were all hinged on cases enunciating the condonation
doctrine. By merely following settled precedents on the condonation
doctrine, which at that time, unwittingly remained “good law”, it cannot be
concluded that the CA committed a grave abuse of discretion based on its
legal attribution. However, the condonation doctrine is simply inconsistent
and permissible under the auspices of the present Constitution which
explicitly mandates that public office is a public trust and that public
officials shall be accountable to the people at all times. Election is not a
mode of condoning an administrative offense.
The second paragraph of Section 14, RA 6770 limits the remedy against "decision or
findings" of the Ombudsman to a Rule 45 appeal - similar to the fourth paragraph of
Section 27, RA 6770 - and thus attempts to effectively increase the Supreme Court's
● His Duncano filed for a motion to dismiss stating that he is not in the
CASE 10 purview or jurisdiction of of the Office of the Ombudsman since he is
DANILO A. DUNCANO and HON. SANDIGANBAYAN (JAO) classified to have a Salary Grade of 26, despite being a Regional director.
July 15, 2015| PERALTA, J. | Sandiganbayan - Jurisdiction ● The OSP’s contention was fact that the position of Regional Director was
PETITIONER: DANILO A. DUNCANO specifically mentioned without indication as to its salary grade signifies the
RESPONDENTS: HON. SANDIGANBAYAN (2nd DIVISION), and HON. lawmakers’ intention that officials occupying such position, regardless of
OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL PROSECUTON salary grade, fall within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan.
Pertinent Law: ● The CA denies the motion to dismiss and its MR
"SEC. 4. Jurisdiction.– The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive original ●
jurisdiction in all cases involving: Issue: WoN Duncano is within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan
Held and Ratio: No. the Supreme Court held that the phrase "otherwise classified
"A. Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, otherwise known as the as Grade ‘27’ and higher" qualifies "regional director and higher" is apparent from
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Republic Act No. 1379, and Chapter II, the Sponsorship Speech of Senator Raul S. Roco on Senate Bill Nos. 1353and 844,
Section 2, Title VII, Book II of the Revised Penal Code, where one or more of which eventually became R.A. Nos. 7975 and 8249
the accused are officials occupying the following positions in the government, ● To speed up trial in the Sandiganbayan, Republic Act No. 7975 was enacted
whether in a permanent, acting or interim capacity, at the time of the commission for that Court to concentrate on the "larger fish" and leave the "small fry" to
of the offense: the lower courts.
○ It divested the Sandiganbayan of jurisdiction over public officials
"(1) Officials of the executive branch occupying the positions of regional whose salary grades were at Grade "26" or lower, devolving
director and higher, otherwise classified as Grade ‘27’ and higher, of the thereby these cases to the lower courts, and retaining the
Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989: jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan only over public officials whose
salary grades were at Grade "27" or higher and over other specific
public officials holding important positions in government
Facts:
regardless of salary grade
● Petitioner Danilo A. Duncano is, at the time material to the case, the
● Those that are classified as Salary Grade 26 and below may still fall within
Regional Director of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) with Salary
the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, provided that they hold the positions
Grade 26 as classified under Compensation and Position Classification Act
enumerated by the law
of 1989.
● Duncano is not an executive official with Salary Grade 27 or higher.
○ On March 24, 2009, the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP),
Neither does he hold any position particularly enumerated in Section 4 (A)
Office of the Ombudsman, filed a criminal case against him for
(1) (a) to (g). As he correctly argues, his case is, in fact, on all fours with
violation of Section 8, in relation to Section 11 of Code of Conduct
Cuyco (stare decisis).
and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees
Dispositive:
■ Filed because of the non-filling his SALN in 2002
■ Disclosing his financial and business interests/connection
WHEREFORE, the foregoing considered, the instant petition for certiorari is
in Documail Provides Corporation and Don Plus Trading
GRANTED. The August 18, 2009 Resolution and February 8, 2010 Order of the
of which he and his family are the registered owners,
Sandiganbayan Second Division, which denied petitioner's Motion to Dismiss on
■ And indicating 1993 Nissan Patrol motor vehicle
the ground of lack of jurisdiction, are REVERSED AND SET ASIDE.
Legal systems- to an operating set of legal institutions, Procedures and rules. It
could also include unwritten practices, beliefs and attitudes of those invovled one
way or the other with the law.
Law - the center of the legal system
● General sense - mass of obligatory rules for the purpose of governing the
relations of the persons in society.
● Specific sense - rules of conduct, just obligatory promulgated by legitimate
authority, and of common observance and benefit
● Types of law
○ 1987 consti
○ Statutes
○ Admin regu
○ Customs, if authorized by law
○ Judicial Decisions
○ Legal institutions
● Philippine legal system is mixture of civil law and common law regimes.
This was the inevitable result of successive colonization of the country by
Spain and the United States
○ Is a mixture of of common law, civil law and indigenous
customary law and contemporary law as a result of the spanish,
american and japanese colonization.
Originated in Roman Law, 450 B.C. Traces its officials begging to ad 1066
when the normans won at hasting and
conquered England