Page | 1

ARTICLE II for a public office is inconsistent with the development and utilization be equitably
• DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES & STATE nature and essence of the Republican system accessible to the present as well as future
ordained in the Constitution and the principle generations. Every generation has a
POLICIES • of social justice underlying the same. responsibility to the next to preserve that
rhythm and harmony for the full enjoyment of
SEC. 1 Republicanism is premised upon the tenet a balanced and healthful ecology.
ACCFA V. CONFEDERATION – Functions such as that sovereignty resides in the people and all
those relating to the maintenance of peace government authority emanates from them, While the right to a balanced and healthful
and the prevention of crime, those regulating and this, in turn implies necessarily that the ecology is to be found under the Declaration
property and property rights, those relating to right to vote and to be voted for shall not be of Principles and State Policies and not under
the administration of justice and the dependent upon the wealth of the individual the Bill of Rights, it does not follow that it is
determination of political duties of citizens, concerned, whereas social justice less important than any of the civil and
and those relating to national defense and presupposes equal opportunity for all, rich and political rights enumerated in the Bill of
foreign relations are traditionally called poor alike, and that accordingly, no person Rights. This right carries with it the correlative
constituent functions. These are exercised by shall, by reason of poverty, be denied the duty to refrain from impairing the
the State as attributes of sovereignty, and not chance to be elected to public office. environment.
merely to promote the welfare, progress and
prosperity of the people which are ministrant SEC. 12 Timber licenses may be revoked or rescinded
functions. PIERCE V. SOCIETY OF SISTERS – The fundamental by executive action. It is not a contract,
theory of liberty upon which all governments property or a property right protected by the
However, the growing complexities of modern in this Union repose excludes any general due process clause. It is merely a permit or a
society have rendered this traditional power of the State to standardize its children privilege.
classification of the functions of government by forcing them to accept instruction from
quite unrealistic, not to say obsolete. The public teachers only. The child is not the mere ARTICLE VI
areas which used to be left to private creature of the State. Those who nurture him
enterprise continue to lose their well-defined and direct his destiny have the right, coupled
• LEGISLATIVE •
boundaries and to be absorbed within with the high duty, to recognize and prepare
activities that the government must him for additional obligations. SEC. 1
undertake in its sovereign capacity if wants to ABAKADA V. PURISIMA – Two tests determine the
meet the increasing social challenges of the validity of delegation of legislative power: (1)
times.
SEC. 16 the completeness test and (2) the sufficient
OPOSA V. FACTORAN – Minors can, for standard test. A law is complete when it sets
REPUBLIC V. CFI OF RIZAL – Governmental themselves, for others of their generation and forth therein the policy to be executed, carried
agencies are exempt from paying legal fees for other succeeding generations, file a class out or implemented by the delegate. It lays
and posting an appeal bond. The mercantile suit. Their personality to sue in behalf of the down a sufficient standard when it provides
activity of a government agency (i.e. buying succeeding generations can only be based on adequate guidelines or limitations in the law
and selling of palay, rice, and corn) is only the concept of intergenerational responsibility to map out the boundaries of the delegate’s
incident to its primary governmental function insofar as the right to a balanced and authority and prevent the delegation from
which is to carry out some government policy healthful ecology is concerned. running riot.
to serve the well being of the people (i.e.
policy of subsidizing and stabilizing the price The right to a balanced and healthful ecology The Supreme Court has recognized the
of palay, rice and corn in order to make it well considers the “rhythm and harmony of following as sufficient standards: public
within the reach of average consumers). nature” which includes the judicious interest; justice and equity; public
disposition, utilization, management, renewal convenience and welfare; simplicity; economy
MAQUERA V. BORRA – Imposing property and conservation of the country’s natural and welfare. The optimization of the revenue-
qualifications in order that a person could run resources to the end that their exploration,
POLITICAL LAW REVIEW DOCTRINES | ATTY. JACK JIMENEZ | MARK JOREL O. CALIDA
 Page | 2
generation capability and collection of the BIR programs consistent with national goals for Women, Handicapped, Youth, Fisherfolk,
and BOC is infused with public interest. acceleration socio-economic development and Indigenous, Veterans, Elderly, Peasants,
to improve the service in the transaction of OFWs, Profesionals, Urban poor, Laborers.
PEOPLE V. ROSENTHAL – Public interest is a public business” is a sufficient standard. Nevertheless, this enumeration is not
sufficient standard. The criterion may be exclusive.
found in the purpose of the act, the RUBI V. PROVINCIAL BOARD – The legislature may
requirements imposed and the context of the delegate legislative powers to LGUs. Who else It is not enough for a candidate to claim
provisions itself. The protection of the public but these officers, as the official representation among those enumerated
against speculative schemes is a sufficient representatives of the province are better groups because it is easy to claim and feign.
standard. qualified to judge when such a course is Party list groups must factually and truly
deemed necessary in the interest of law and represent the marginalized and
AGUSTIN V. EDU – In order to avoid the taint of order. underrepresented.
unlawful delegation, there must be a standard
set by the legislature itself which determines PEOPLE V. VERA – A law which grants boards Guidelines to determine qualifications of
matters of principle and lays down roving commission which enables them to political parties to join party-list elections
fundamental policy. The standard may be exercise arbitrary discretion is invalid. (CODE: DIRRT Nom Nom Nom)
expressed or implied and does not have to be Congress may not leave the entire matter to (1) Must not be Disqualified under RA7941
spelled out specifically. It could be implied boards to determine. (*NOTE)
from the policy and purpose of the act (2) Must be Independent from the government
considered as a whole. YNOT V. IAC – There is invalid delegation of (not adjunct, funded or assisted)
legislative powers when there is unlimited (3) Religious sector may not be represented,
A standard: (1) defines legislative policy; (2) discretion in the distribution of the properties but a religious leader may be a nominee
marks its limits and maps out its boundaries; arbitrarily taken. A law may not grant a roving (4) Major political parties allowed but they
(3) specifies the public agency to apply it; (4) commission or a wide sweeping authority, a must still Represent the marginalized
indicates the circumstances under which the sufficient standard must be provided. (5) Political parties must Truly represent the
legislative command it to be effected; (5) is marginalized and underrepresented sectors
the criterion by which legislative purpose may U.S. V. PANLILIO – There can be no delegation (6) Nominees must be themselves qualified
be carried out. of power to criminalize when the law itself (**NOTE)
does not define a crime nor provided a (7) Nominees must belong to the
CHIONGBIAN V. ORBOS – A legislative standard penalty. marginalized
need not be expressed, it may be implied. It (8) Nominees must be able to contribute to
need not be found in the law challenged SEC. 5 appropriate legislation
because it may be embodied in other statutes ANG BAGONG BAYANI V. COMELEC – Political
on the same subject matter as that of the parties, even the major ones, may participate * NOTE: Disqualified groups under §6 of the
challenged legislation. in the party-list elections. They cannot be Party List Law:
disqualified from the party-list election merely (CODE: V2 For2 CUPS)
While the power to merge regions is not on the ground that they are political parties. (1) Violates or fails to comply with election
expressly provided for in the Constitution, it is The Constitution provides that the members law, rules and regulations
a power traditionally lodged with the of the House may be elected through a party (2) Advocates Violence or unlawful means to
President, in view of the power of general list system of registered national, regional and seek its goal
supervision over local governments. There is sectoral parties or organization. (3) A Foreign party or organization
no abdication by Congress of its legislative (4) Receives support from a Foreign
powers in conferring on the President the RA7941 or the Party List Law enumerates government, political party, foundation or
power to merge administrative regions. “To those sectors which are marginalized and organization
promote simplicity, economy and efficiency in underrepresented (CODE: WHY FIVE POPUL): (5) Ceased to exist for at least 1 year
the government, to enable it to pursue
POLITICAL LAW REVIEW DOCTRINES | ATTY. JACK JIMENEZ | MARK JOREL O. CALIDA
 Page | 3
(6) Declares Untruthful statements in its “additional seats” are the maximum seats
petition reserved less the guaranteed seats. SEC. 11
(7) Fails to Participate in the last 2 preceding JIMENEZ V. CABANGBANG – The Constitution
elections or fails to obtain at least 2% of the * Procedure in allocating seats for party-lists: protects utterances made by Congressmen in
votes cast in the 2 preceding elections STEP 1: Rank the parties from the highest to the performance of: (1) their official functions,
(8) Religious Sect or association organized for the lowest based on the number of votes they such as speeches delivered, statements
religious purposes garnered during the elections. made, or votes cast in the halls of Congress
and while the same is in session; (2) bills
** NOTE: Qualifications of party-list nominees STEP 2: Determine the total # of seats introduced in Congress, whether or not in
under §9 of the Party List Law: available to the party-list system. session; (3) other acts performed by
(1) Natural-born citizen Congressmen whether or not in its premises in
(2) Able to read and write # of seats available to # of the official discharge of their duties.
(3) At least 25 years old on the day of the seats reserved
election legislative districts X (0.20) = for To be protected, the utterance must be made
(Youth sector: at least 25 but not more than party list in the performance of an official duty, either
30 years old on the day of the election) (0.80) as a member of congress or a member or any
(4) Registered voter committee thereof.
(5) Resident of the Philippines for a period of STEP 3: Apply the 2% threshold – the parties
not less than 1 year immediately preceding receiving at least 2% of the total votes cast POBRE V. DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO – Generally
the day of the election for the party-list system shall be entitled to 1 speaking, a lawyer holding a government
(6) Bona fide member of the party for at least guaranteed seat each. office may not be disciplined as a member of
90 days preceding the day of the election the Bar for misconduct committed while in the
STEP 4: Determine the additional seats discharge of official duties, unless said
BANAT V. COMELEC – Excluding the major bearing in mind that each party may not get misconduct also constitutes also a violation of
political parties in party-list elections is more than 3 seats. his oath as a lawyer. Parliamentary non-
against the Constitution and the Party List accountability granted to members of
Law. Major political parties are allowed to # of seats reserved for party list Congress is not to protect them against
establish, or form coalitions with, sectoral ― # of guaranteed seats prosecutions for their own benefit, but to
organizations for electoral or political = Additional seats enable them, as the people’s representatives,
purposes. to perform the functions of their office without
Ratio = # of votes of party list concerned fear of being made responsible before the
The operation of the 2% threshold for the total # of votes in party list system courts or other forums outside the
allocation of additional seats is congressional hall.
unconstitutional for frustrating the attainment Ratio
of the permissive ceiling that 20% of the X Additional seats SEC. 14
members of the lower house shall constitute = Additional seats of party list PUYAT V. DE GUZMAN – Acquiring a mere P200
party-list representatives. It prevents the concerned worth of stock of only 10 shares is an obvious
attainment of the broadest possible circumvention of the rule prohibiting the
representation of party, sectoral or group STEP 5: Even if you did not get 2%, you can appearance of a member of congress before
interests in the lower house. still get a seat depending on the number of an administrative body. There was an indirect
votes you garnered – assign 1 seat to each of appearance. What the Constitution directly
In computing the additional seats, the the parties next in rank until all available prohibits may not be done by indirection. The
guaranteed seats shall no longer be included seats are completely distributed. acquisition of minimal participation in the
because they have already been allocated, at “interest” of the client and then the act of
one seat each, to every two-percenter. Thus STEP 6: No rounding off. Fractional seats are
the remaining available seats for allocation as disregarded.
POLITICAL LAW REVIEW DOCTRINES | ATTY. JACK JIMENEZ | MARK JOREL O. CALIDA
 Page | 4
“intervening” in the proceedings makes the SEC. 16 (2) member thereof. The House is the sole judge
constitutional prohibition ineffective. PEOPLE V. JALOSJOS – The privilege to be free of what constitutes disorderly behaviour.
from arrest applies only if the offense is
SEC. 16 (1) punishable by less than 6 years of SANTIAGO V. SANDIGANBAYAN – Suspension under
AVELINO V. CUENCO – A minority of 10 senators imprisonment. Members of Congress cannot Art. VI § 16(3) is punitive and a penalty.
may not, by leaving the session hall, prevent compel absent members to attend sessions if Preventive suspension under RA3019 is
the majority of 12 other senators from passing the reason for the absence is a legitimate one. preliminary and not a penalty.
a resolution with their unanimous consent. The performance of legitimate and even
There is a difference between a majority of essential duties of a public officer has never Preventive suspension applies to all persons
ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE, and a been an excuse to free a person validly in indicted upon a valid information, whether
majority of THE HOUSE. “The house” does not prison. appointive or elective, permanent or
mean all the members; a majority of the Election does not free the accused from the temporary, career or non-career. It is not a
members constitute “the house.” For common restraints of general law. The voters penalty because it is not imposed as a result
example, there are 23 senators present and 1 were fully aware of the limitations of his of judicial proceedings.
absent for a surgery in the U.S., an absolute freedom of action. They voted him with the
majority of all the members of the Senate is knowledge that he could discharge his RA3019 does not state that the public officer
12. If there are 12 senators there is quorum to legislative functions within the confines of concerned must be suspended only in the
do business. prison only. office where he is alleged to have committed
the acts. The word “office” applies to any
SANTIAGO V. GUINGONA – Majority is defined as SEC. 16 (3) office which the officer charged may be
the number greater than half or more than ARROYO V. DE VENECIA – The Constitution holding, not only the particular office under
half of any total. The Constitution does not empowers each house to determine its rules which he stands accused.
delineate who shall comprise the majority, of proceedings. It is a continuous power
much less the minority. While the Constitution beyond the challenge of any other body. The SEC. 16 (4)
provides the manner of electing the Senate failure to regard the rule is not a subject U.S. V. PONS – Courts can take judicial notice
President, it does not however provide that matter of judicial inquiry. of legislative journals. Records of the judiciary
the members who will not vote for him shall are as important as those of the judiciary, and
ipso facto constitute the minority. No law or The rules adopted by deliberative bodies are to inquire into the veracity of the journals of
regulation states that the losing candidate subject to revocation, modification, or waiver legislature, when they are already clear and
shall be the minority leader. by the body adopting them. Parliamentary explicit, would be to violate the doctrine of
rules are merely procedural, and with their separation of powers. They are conclusive
History indicates that “majority” refers to the observance, the court has no concern. Mere evidence as to the date of adjournment.
political party to which the most number of failure to conform to parliamentary usage will Extraneous evidence cannot be admitted.
lawmakers belonged, while “minority” refers not invalidate the action, when the requisite
to a party with a lesser number of members. number of members has agreed to a CASCO V. GIMENEZ – The enrolled bill is
There could also be several minority parties, particular measure. conclusive upon the courts as regards the
one of which has to be identified as the tenor of the measure passed by Congress, and
“dominant minority.” OSMENA V. PENDATUN – Parliamentary immunity approved by the President. If there was any
guarantees the legislator complete freedom of mistake in the printing of the bill, the remedy
The rules of Senate do not provide for the expression before the courts or any other is by amendment or curative legislation, not
positions of majority/minority leaders. In the forum. But this is only outside the judicial legislation.
absence of any specific rule, the Court has no congressional halls. It does not protect him
basis upon which to determine the legality of from responsibility before the legislative body ASTORGA V. VILLEGAS – The enrolled bill doctrine
the acts of the Senate. itself whenever his words and conduct are is based mainly on the respect due to the co-
considered disorderly or unbecoming a equal and independent departments, which

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW DOCTRINES | ATTY. JACK JIMENEZ | MARK JOREL O. CALIDA

requires the judicial department to accept as
having passed by Congress, all bills
authenticated in the manner stated. If the
attestation is absent and the same is not
required for the validity of the statute, the
courts may resort to the journals and other
records of the Congress for proof of its due
enactment.
The law making process ends when the bill is
approved by both Houses, and the
certification does not add to the validity of the
bill or cure any defect already present upon
its passage. The approval by congress, and
not the signatures of the presiding officers, is
essential.
When the Senate President declares his
signature on the bill to be invalid, and issued
a subsequent certification that the invalidation
of his signature meant that the bill he had
earlier signed had never been approved by
the Senate. This declaration has more weight
than the attestation which it invalidated.
Absent such attestation and there being no
enrolled bill, the Courts may examine the
journal to determine whether or not the bill is
duly enacted.
PHILIPPINE JUDGES V. PRADO – The Court may not
inquire beyond the certification of the
approved bill from the presiding officers of
Congress.
ABAKADA V. ERMITA – If a change is desired in
the practice of the Bicameral Conference
Committee, it must be sought in Congress
since it refers to an internal rule of Congress.
It is incorrect to conclude that there is no
difference in the bills of each house merely
because such provision exists in the House
version while it is absent in the Senate
version. It is precisely the absence of such
provision in the Senate bill and the presence
thereof in the House bill that causes the
POLITICAL LAW REVIEW DOCTRINES | ATTY. JACK JIMENEZ | MARK JOREL O. CALIDA
Page | 5
conflict. The absence of the provision shows House has the authority to change its
the disagreement in the intention. representation to reflect at any time, the
changes that may transpire in the political
SEC. 17 alignments of its membership. Such changes
VERA V. AVELINO – An election contest relates must be permanent and do not include the
only to statutory contests in which the temporary alliances or factional divisions not
contestant seeks not only to out the intruder, involving severance of political loyalties or
but also to have himself inducted into the formal disaffiliation.
office. The power to defer oath taking belongs
to Congress, and not the electoral tribunal. It COSETENG V. MITRA – A lone member of a party
is an inherent power of Congress as a is not entitled to one of the twelve seats in the
measure of self-preservation. Congress also Commission on Appointments. The
has the power to inquire into the credentials endorsement of other congressmen is
of any of its members. inconsequential if they do not belong to the
endorsee’s political party.
ABBAS V. SET – In providing for the SET to be
staffed by both SC Justices and Senators, the GUNGONA V. GONZALES – By adding together two
Constitution intended that both those judicial halves to make a whole is a breach of the rule
and legislative components commonly share on proportional representation. The
the duty and authority of deciding all electoral Constitution does not contemplate that the
contests. The legislative component cannot be Commission on Appointments must always
totally excluded from participation. include twelve senators and twelve
Nevertheless, a senator-member may inhibit congressmen. What the Constitution requires
or disqualify himself from sitting in the SET is that there be at least a majority of the
when he sincerely feels that his personal entire membership.
interests or biases would stand in the way of
objective and impartial judgment. SEC. 21
ARNAULT V. NAZARENO – The power of inquiry is
BONDOC V. PINEDA – Electoral tribunals are essential and auxiliary to the legislative
bodies separate and independent of the function. Legislature cannot legislate wisely
legislature. They were created to function as and effectively in the absence of information
nonpartisan even if 2/3 of its members are about the conditions which the legislation is
politicians. Political parties cannot use the intended to affect or change. When the
electoral tribunal as a tool for the legislative body does not itself possess the
aggrandizement of the party in power. requisite information, recourse must be had to
Disloyalty to the party is not a valid ground for others who do possess it.
the expulsion of a member of the electoral Once inquiry is established to be within the
tribunal. Members enjoy security of tenure; jurisdiction of a legislative body, the
membership may not be terminated except investigating committee has the power to
for just cause. require a witness to answer a question
pertinent to that inquiry, subject to the
SEC. 18 constitutional right against self-incrimination.
DAZA V. SINGZON – The manner of filling up the The question must be material to the subject
Commission on Appointments as prescribed in of the inquiry or investigation. The test of
the Constitution is not a political question. The materiality is the direct relation to the subject
 Page | 6
matter of inquiry and not by indirect relation Noticeably absent is any recognition that
to any proposed or possible legislation. Congress has the right to know why the executive officials are exempt from the duty
executive considers the requested information to disclose information by the mere fact of
The fact that the Constitution expressly gives privileged. If the executive branch withholds being executive officials. Indeed, the
Congress the power to punish members does such information on the ground that it is extraordinary character of the exemptions
not imply exclusion of the power to punish privileged, it must so assert it and state the indicates that the presumption inclines heavily
non-members for contempt. Nevertheless, no reason therefor and why it must be respected. against executive secrecy and in favor of
person can be punished unless the testimony disclosure.
is required in a matter over which Congress NERI V. SENATE – Elements of presidential
had jurisdiction to inquire. communications privilege: (1) the The fact that a power is subject to the
communication protected must relate to a concurrence of another entity does not make
SABIO V. GORDON – The Constitution explicitly quintessential and non-delegable presidential such power less executive. “Quintessential” is
recognizes the power of investigation not just power; (2) operational proximity, the defined as the most perfect embodiment of
of Congress but also of “any of its communication must be authored or received something, the concentrated essence of
committees.” Congress’ power of inquiry, by a close adviser of the President or the substance. “Non-delegable” means that a
being broad, encompasses everything that President himself; (3) information sought power or duty cannot be delegated to another
concerns the administration of existing laws likely contains important evidence or, even if delegated, the responsibility
as well as proposed or possibly needed remains with the obligor.
statutes. It even extends to government For the claim to be properly invoked there
agencies created by Congress and officers must be a formal claim of privilege requiring a A member of the Cabinet is properly within
whose positions are within the power of precise and certain reason for preserving the term “advisor” of the President. The
Congress to regulate or even abolish. An confidentiality. Pursuant to the doctrine of operational proximity test is not conclusive in
executive order exempting members and staff separation of powers, Congress may not every case. The main consideration is to limit
of an agency from the Congress’ power of require the executive to state the reasons for the availability of executive privilege only to
inquiry cannot be countenanced. the claim with such particularity as to compel officials who stand proximate to the President
disclosure of the information which the not only by reason of their function but also
SENATE V. ERMITA – An exemption to the power privilege is meant to protect. by reason of their position in the Executive’s
of inquiry of Congress is executive privilege. It organizational structure. Diplomatic and
is recognized only in relation to certain types NERI V. SENATE – There are certain types of economic relations with another sovereign
of information of a sensitive character. The information which the government may nation may be the basis of presidential
validity of a claim thereof depends on the withhold from the public, that there is a communications privilege.
ground invoked and the context in which it is governmental privilege against public
made. Executive officials are not exempt from disclosure with respect to state secrets SEC. 24
the duty to disclose information by the mere regarding military, diplomatic and other TOLENTINO V. SOF – The power of the Senate to
fact of being executive officials. national security matters and that the right to propose amendments must be understood to
information does not extend to matters be full, plenary and complete. Thus, because
The requirement to secure presidential recognized as privileged information under revenue bills are required to originate
consent is valid with respect to appearances the separation of powers, by which the court exclusively in the House, the Senate cannot
in the question hour, the appearance of the meant presidential conversations, enact revenue measures of its own without
department heads in the question hour is correspondences, and discussion in closed- such bills. After a revenue bill is passed and
discretionary on their part. However, it is door cabinet meetings. sent over to it by the House, however, the
invalid to appearances of department heads in Senate certainly can pass its own version on
inquiries in aid of legislation unless a valid While executive privilege is a constitutional the same subject matter. The power of the
claim of privilege is subsequently made, either concept, a claim thereof may be valid or not Senate to propose or concur with
by the President or by the Executive depending on the ground invoked to justify it amendments is apparently without restriction.
Secretary. and the context in which it is made.
POLITICAL LAW REVIEW DOCTRINES | ATTY. JACK JIMENEZ | MARK JOREL O. CALIDA
 Page | 7
It would seem that by virtue of this power, the Actual savings is a sine qua non to a valid people, there is sufficient compliance with the
Senate can practically rewrite a bill required transfer of funds from one government constitutional requirement. The withdrawal of
to come from the House and leave only a agency to another. The word “actual” denotes the franking privilege is germane to the
trace of the original bill. that something is real or substantial, or exists accomplishment of the principal objective of
presently in fact. Savings may generally be law creating a more efficient and effective
A committee to which a bill is referred may do determined at the end of the year, or earlier in postal service system.
any of the following: (1) endorse the bill case of completion, discontinuance or
without changes; (2) to make changes in the abandonment of the work for which the SEC. 26 (2)
bill omitting or adding sections or altering its appropriation was authorized but not as early TOLENTINO V. SOF – The presidential
language; (3) make and endorse an entirely as January 31. It is even more ridiculous to certification dispenses with the requirement
new bill as substitute. claim that savings may be presumed from the not only of printing but also that of the
SEC. 25 (2) mere transfer of funds. reading of the bill on separate days.
GARCIA V. MATA – A provision referring to a
fundamental governmental policy of calling to Augmentation denotes that an appropriation The purpose for which three readings on
active duty and the reversion of inactive was determined to be deficient after the separate days is required is two-fold: (1) to
status of reserve officers in the AFP in an implementation of the project or activity for inform the members of Congress of what they
appropriation law is a rider which is prohibited which an appropriation was made or after an must vote on; and (2) to give them notice that
by the constitution. evaluation of the needed resources. a measure is progressing through the
SEC. 26 (1) enacting process thus enabling them and
SEC. 25 (5) PHILCONSA V. GIMENEZ – The purpose of the others interested in the measure to prepare
PHILCONSA V. ENRIQUEZ – Members of Congress requirement that the subject of an act should their positions.
are given the power to determine the be expressed in its title are: (1) to prevent
necessity of realignment of the savings in the surprise, fraud upon the legislature; (2) to
allotment for their operating expenses. They fairly appraise the people through such SEC. 27 (2)
are in the best position to do so because they publication of legislation; (3) to prevent a law GONZALES V. MACARAIG – The power given to the
are the ones who know whether there are with several subject matter. president to disapprove any item in an
savings, or deficiencies in appropriation. appropriations bill does not grant the
However, only the Senate President and the The requirement is satisfied when all parts of authority to veto a part of an item and to
Speaker of the House are allowed to approve the law relate to the subject expressed in the approve the remaining portion of the same
the realignment. title. It is not necessary that the title be a item.
complete index of the content. There is
These conditions must also be met: (1) the sufficient compliance if the title expresses the An item refers to the particulars, details, the
funds to be realigned are actually savings; (2) general subject but the provisions of the distinct and severable parts of the bill. It is the
the transfer is for the purpose of augmenting statute are germane to the general subject. indivisible sum of money dedicated to a stated
the items of expenditures to which said purpose. It in itself is a specific appropriation
transfer is to be made. INSULAR LUMBER V. CTA – A law increasing funds of money, not some general provision of law.
which grants a partial exemption does not
SANCHEZ V. COA – The power to transfer deviate from the general subject of the law. A distinct and severable part of a bill may be
savings pertains exclusively to the President, The purpose of the constitutional provision is subject of a separate veto. Any provision in
Senate President, House Speaker, Chief to prohibit duplicity in legislation. the general in the general appropriations bill
Justice and the heads of constitutional shall relate specifically to some particular
commissions and no other. The Deputy PHILIPPINE JUDGES V. PRADO – If the title fairly provision therein, and that any such provision
Executive secretary is not authorized to indicates the general subject, and reasonably shall be limited in its operation to the
transfer funds. covers all the provisions of the act and is not appropriation to which it relates. Even
calculated to mislead the legislature or the assuming that provisions are beyond veto

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW DOCTRINES | ATTY. JACK JIMENEZ | MARK JOREL O. CALIDA
 Page | 8
powers, a provision may still be vetoed residence for director and president, but not period and necessities are incapable of
following the doctrine of inappropriate commercial purposes). determination in advance.
provisions
SEC. 29 (1) ARTICLE VII
BENGZON V. DRILON – The general rule is that the PASCUAL V. PUBLIC WORKS – The right to • EXECUTIVE •
president must veto the bill in its entirety. appropriate funds is correlative to the right to
Item vetoes are allowed to avoid riders being tax. Since taxing powers must be exercised
attached to appropriation measures but only a
SEC. 1
for public purposes only, then money raised PHILCONSA V. ENRIQUEZ – The Countrywide
particular item (meaning the particulars, by taxation can be expended only for public
details, the distinct and severable parts) may Development Fund is explicit that it shall be
purposes as well. Legislature is without power used “for infrastructure, purchase of
be vetoed. to appropriate public funds for anything but a ambulances and computers and other priority
public purpose. projects and activities and credit facilities to
PHILCONSA V. ENRIQUEZ – The repeal of a law
should be done in a separate law, not in the qualified beneficiaries.” It was Congress itself
It is the essential character of the direct object that determined the purposes for the
appropriations law. The scope of item veto of the expenditure which must determine its
should be any provision which: (1) does not appropriation. Executive function under the
validity and not the magnitude of interest to said fund involves implementation of the
relate to any particular item; (2) extends the be affected. Incidental benefit or advantage to
operation beyond the item of appropriation; priority projects specified in the law.
the public does not justify the use of public
(3) an unconstitutional provision intended to money. The test of constitutionality is whether
amend other laws. WEBB V. DE LEON – The prosecution of crimes
the statute is designed to promote public pertains to the executive department, whose
interests, as opposed to the furtherance of the principal power and responsibility is to see to
SEC. 28 (1) advantage of individuals, even if each it that our laws are faithfully executed. A
CIR V. LINGAYEN GULF – A tax is uniform when it advantage to individuals incidentally serves necessary component of this power to
operates with the same force and effect in the public. execute our laws is the right to prosecute
every place where the subject of it is found. their violators.
Uniformity means that all property belonging PLANTERS V. FERTIPHIL – An inherent limitation on
to the same class shall be taxed alike. the power of taxation is public purpose. They
cannot be used for purely private purposes or
SEC. 8
TOLENTINO V. SOF – Regressivity is not a for the exclusive benefit of private persons. ESTRADA V. DESIERTO – For there to be
negative standard for courts to enforce. What resignation, there must be intent to resign
the Constitution requires is to evolve a GUINGONA V. CARAGUE – The amounts in and the intent must be coupled by acts of
progressive system of taxation. This is a automatic appropriation for debt servicing are relinquishment. A proposal for a snap election
directive to Congress and was placed in the made certain by legislative parameters. There where the president would not be a candidate
Constitution as moral incentives to legislation, is no unlimited discretion as to the amounts to is indicia of intent to resign.
not judicially enforceable rights. be disbursed for debt servicing. The mandate
is to pay only the principal, interest, taxes and SEC. 13
SEC. 28 (3) other normal banking charges, and as when CIVIL LIBERTIES V. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY – There is a
ABRA VALLEY V. AQUINO – The test for exemption they shall become due. sweeping, all-embracing prohibition imposed
from taxation is the use of the property for Automatic appropriation provides the on the President, members of Cabinet, which
purposes mentioned in the Constitution. flexibility for the effective execution of debt prohibitions are not similarly imposed on other
Reasonable emphasis has always been made management policies. Also, the amount public officials. The prohibition against holding
that the exemption extends to facilities which needed to cover the payment of principal, dual or multiple offices must not be construed
are incidental to or reasonably necessary for interests and taxes should be made available as applying to posts occupied by executive
the accomplishment of the main purpose (e.g. as they fall due, without necessity of periodic officials: (1) without additional compensation;
enactments of separate laws, since both the (2) in an ex-officio capacity; (3) as provided

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW DOCTRINES | ATTY. JACK JIMENEZ | MARK JOREL O. CALIDA
 Page | 9
for by law and (4)as required by the primary
functions of said official’s office. The Valenzuela ruling did not firmly rest on SARMIENTO V. MISON – The Constitution provides
the deliberations of the Constitutional for four groups whom the president shall
Additional duties must not only be closely Commission. Also, the use of the word “shall” appoint:
related to, but must be required by the imposes a duty which should not be (1) Head of executive departments,
official’s primary functions. If the functions disregarded. Thereby, §4(1) imposes on the ambassadors, consuls, officers of the AFP with
required to be performed are merely President the imperative duty to make an rank of colonel or naval captain and above,
incidental, remotely related, inconsistent appointment of a Member of the Supreme other officers whose appointment are vested
incompatible, or alien to the primary function, Court within 90 days from the occurrence of in him in this Constitution (members of the
then it would prohibited. the vacancy. JBC, chairman and commissioners or CSC,
COMELEC, COA and members of regular
SEC. 15 §15 doesn’t apply as well to all other consultative commissions) – Requires consent
IN RE: APPOINTMENT OF VALENZUELA – Art. 8, §4(1) appointments in the Judiciary. The of the Commission on Appointment
provides that the vacancy shall be filled within establishment of the Judicial and Bar Council (2) All other officers of Government whose
90 days contrasts with the prohibition under and their subjecting the nomination and appointments are not otherwise provided by
Art. 7, §15 is couched in stronger negative screening of candidates for judicial positions law – No confirmation
language that the president shall not make to the unhurried and deliberate prior process (3) Those whom the President may be
appointments. ensures that there would no longer be authorized by law to appoint – No confirmation
midnight appointments to the Judiciary. The (4) Officers lower in rank whose appointments
§15 is directed against appointments for creation of the JBC was to depoliticize the the Congress may vest in the President alone
buying votes (within 2 months prior to Judiciary by doing away with the intervention (in the courts, or in the heads of departments,
election) and those made for partisan of the Commission on Appointments. agencies, commissions, or boards) – No
considerations (midnight appointments). The confirmation
narrow exception to this rule is temporary SEC. 16
appointments to executive positions when RAFAEL V. EMBROIDERY BOARD – For the chairman CALDERON V. CARALE – The appointment of the
continued vacancies would prejudice public and board members to qualify, they need only Chairman and Commissioners of the NLRC
service or endanger public safety. be designate by their respective department need not be confirmed by the Commission on
heads. They all sit ex-officio, in order to be Appointments. A law requiring the
The filling of vacancies in the judiciary is designation they must already be holding confirmation of the said officials is
undoubtedly in the public interest, there is no positions in the office mentioned in the law. unconstitutional because it amends by
showing of any compelling reason to justify No new appointments are necessary and legislation §16 by adding thereto
the making of the appointment during the there is no attempt to deprive the President of appointments requiring confirmation. It also
period of the ban. In fact, there is a strong his power to make appointments. amends by legislation the second sentence by
public policy against appointments made imposing the confirmation on appointments
within the ban period. BERMUDEZ V. TORRES – Appointment necessarily which are otherwise entrusted only to the
calls for an exercise of discretion on the part President.
DE CASTRO V. JBC – The prohibition under §15 of the appointing power. It is the prerogative
does not apply to appointments to fill a of the appointing power; the right of choice is RUFINO V. ENDRIGA – With respect to “(2) All
vacancy in the Supreme Court or to other the heart of the power to appoint. other officers of Government whose
appointments in the judiciary. The records of appointments are not otherwise provided by
the deliberations of the framers reveal that The recommendation of the SOJ for the law” which does not require confirmation, this
the arrangement of the allocation of powers appointment of prosecutors should be applies when the law is silent on who is the
among the three departments is a true interpreted as essentially persuasive in appointing power, or if the law authorizing the
recognition of the principle of separation of character, not binding, nor obligatory, upon head of a department, agency, commission, or
powers. the President. board to appoint is declared unconstitutional.

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW DOCTRINES | ATTY. JACK JIMENEZ | MARK JOREL O. CALIDA

The grant of power to appoint to the heads of
departments, agencies, commissions, or
boards is a matter of legislative grace.
Congress has the discretion to grant to, or
withhold from, the heads the power to appoint
lower-ranked officers. If it so grants, Congress
may impose certain conditions for the
exercise of such legislative delegation. This is
in contrast to the President’s power to appoint
which is a self-executing power and thus not
subject to legislative limitations or conditions.
The officers whom the heads of departments,
agencies, commissions, or boards may
appoint must be of lower rank than those
vested by law with the power to appoint. Also,
the power to appoint can only be vested in the
heads or chairpersons of the commissions or
boards and not to their members.
SEC. 17
ANG-ANGCO V. CASTILLO – The President does
not have blanket authority to remove any
officer or employee of the government, but
that power must still be subject to the law that
may be passed such as the Civil Service Act.
The power of control is defined as the power
of an officer to alter or modify or nullify or set
aside what a subordinate officer had done in
the performance of his duties and to
substitute the judgement of the officer for that
of the subordinate. The President’s control
over the executive department refers only to
matters of general policy or any definite
course or method adopted and followed by a
government or body. The removal of an officer
cannot be said to come within the meaning of
control over a specific policy of government.
The power of control of the President may
extend to the power to investigate, suspend
or remove officers who belong to the
executive, under the principle that the power
to remove is inherent in the power to appoint.
However, this applies only if they are
POLITICAL LAW REVIEW DOCTRINES | ATTY. JACK JIMENEZ | MARK JOREL O. CALIDA
P a g e | 10
presidential appointees. As to those officers factual bases in order to determine the
who belong to the classified service that constitutionality thereof.
power cannot be exercised.
Under the Constitution the President also has
NAMARCO V. ARCA – A GOCC partakes the three options: (1) to call out the Armed
nature of government bureau which is Forces; (2) to suspend the privilege of the writ
administratively supervised by the of habeas corpus and (3) to place the
Administrator of the Office of Economic Philippines, in its entirety or only partly, under
Coordination, whose rank is equivalent to a martial law.
head of an Executive Department, and is
responsible to the President under whose ABERCA V. VER – The suspension of the privilege
control his functions shall be exercised. The does not destroy a person’s right and cause of
right to appeal to the President reposes upon action for damages for illegal arrest or
the President the power of control over detention. What is suspended is merely the
executive departments. right of the individual to seek release from
detention through the writ of habeas corpus
All executive and administrative organizations as a speedier means of obtaining his liberty.
are adjuncts of the Executive Department,
whereby the heads are agents of the Chief DAVID V. ARROYO – Judicial inquiry can go no
Executive. further than to satisfy the Court, not that the
President’s decision is correct, but that the
ANGELES V. GAITE – The declaration of martial President did not act arbitrarily. The standard
law, the suspension of the writ of habeas is arbitrariness, not correctness.
corpus, the exercise of pardoning power
demands the exclusive exercise by the PP1017 is an exercise of the President’s
President of the constitutionally vested power. calling out power and not a declaration of
The list is not exclusive, but there must be a martial law. The President may summon the
showing that the executive power in question armed forces to aid him in suppressing
is of similar gravitas and exceptional import. lawless violence, invasion and rebellion.
The power of the President to review the PP1017 is unconstitutional insofar as it grants
decision of the SOJ dealing with the the President the authority to promulgate
preliminary investigation of cases cannot be decrees. Under the Constitution, neither
considered as falling within the same martial law, nor a state of rebellion, nor a
exceptional class which cannot be delegated. state of emergency can justify the President’s
exercise of legislative power by issuing
SEC. 18 decrees.
LANSANG V. GARCIA – Two conditions must occur
for the valid exercise of authority to suspend The President cannot call the military to
the privilege of writ of habeas corpus: (1) the enforce or implement certain laws (i.e.
existence of invasion, insurrection, and customs, family and property relations,
rebellion; (2) public safety requires such obligations and contracts). The President can
suspension. Nevertheless, the Court has the only order the military to enforce laws
authority to inquire into the existence of the pertinent to its duty to suppress lawless
violence.

Generally, Congress is the repository of
emergency powers. The framers of the
Constitution deemed it wise to allow Congress
to grant emergency powers to the President,
subject to certain conditions: (1) there is a war
or emergency; (2) the delegation is for a
limited period only; (3) the delegation must be
subject to such restrictions as the Congress
may prescribe; (4) the emergency powers
must be exercised to carry out a national
policy declared by Congress.
Absent such delegation of emergency powers,
the President cannot take over or direct the
operation of any privately owned public utility
or business affected with public interest
without authority from Congress. The
President also has no power to point out the
types of businesses affected with public
interest that should be taken over.
SEC. 19
DRILON V. CA – A person’s sentence which has
already been commuted can no longer be
reinvestigated. The commutation of sentence
need not be in a specific form. It is sufficient
when a person is voluntarily released with no
terms or conditions, except that he should
remain in house arrest. House arrest cannot
be considered as a continuation of his
sentence, because in no way is arrest a
penalty, but rather a mere means of taking a
person into custody.
CRISTOBAL V. LABRADOR – There are three
limitations on the exercise of pardoning
power: (1) power must be exercised after
conviction; (2) cannot be extended to
impeachment cases; (3) in election cases, it
may not be granted without the favourable
recommendation of the COMELEC. The
pardoning power cannot be restricted or
controlled by legislative action. It can only be
subject to constitutional limitations. An
absolute pardon erases not only the crime
POLITICAL LAW REVIEW DOCTRINES | ATTY. JACK JIMENEZ | MARK JOREL O. CALIDA
P a g e | 11
committed but also removes all disabilities of the power of supervision and control, the
resulting from conviction. Thus it extends to President may reverse or modify a ruling
accessory and resultant disabilities. issued by subordinate against an erring public
official.
TORRES V. GONZALES – The grant of pardon and
determination of the terms and conditions of SEC. 21
the pardon are purely executive acts, and are GONZALES V. HECHANOVA – Although the President
not subject to judicial review. The may enter into executive agreements without
determination of the breach of conditional previous legislative authority, he may not, by
pardon may either be: (1) purely executive act executive agreement, enter into a transaction
under the Revised Administrative Code – not which is prohibited by statues enacted prior
subject to judicial review and does not require thereto. He many not defeat legislative
conviction by final judgment; (2) a judicial act enactments by indirectly repealing the same
for violating the Revised Penal Code – consists through an executive agreement providing for
of trial and conviction of conditional pardon. the performance of the very act prohibited by
the said laws. The Constitution authorizes the
MONSANTO V. FACTORAN – Pardon implies guilt nullification of an executive agreement, not
and looks into the future. While it relieves the only when it conflicts with the fundamental
party from all the punitive consequences of law, but also when it runs counter to the act of
his criminal act, it relieves him from nothing Congress.
more. It does not erase the fact of commission
of crime and the conviction thereof. It does USAFFE V. TREASURER – Executive agreements
not wash out the moral stain, it involves are of two classes: (1) agreement made
forgiveness and not forgetfulness. purely as executive acts affecting external
relations and independent of or needs no
Even if a person was pardoned, he is not legislative authorization (presidential
entitled to backpay for lost earnings. There is agreements) and (2) agreement entered into
also no automatic reinstatement because in pursuance of acts of congress
pardon does not ipso facto restore a convicted (congressional-executive agreements).
felon to public office which was forfeited by
reason of the conviction. Pardon merely ARTICLE VIII
restores eligibility for appointment to that
office. He must reapply and undergo the usual
• JUDICIARY •
procedure for a new appointment.
SEC. 1
LLAMAS V. ORBOS – Except for cases of SANTIAGO V. BAUTISTA – It is necessary that there
impeachment, the Constitution does not be a law that gives rise to some specific rights
distinguish between which cases executive of persons or property under which adverse
clemency may be exercised by the President. claims to such rights are made. The judiciary
If those adjudged guilty criminally may be will not interfere in literary contests, beauty
pardoned there is no reason why the same contests, and similar competitions.
benefit may not be extended to those
adjudged guilty administratively. The A judicial function is an act performed by
President can grant executive clemency in virtue of judicial powers. The test to
administrative cases, which are clearly less determine whether a tribunal or board
serious than criminal offenses. Also by virtue exercises judicial functions: (1) there must be

specific controversy involving rights of
persons brought before a tribunal for hearing
and determination; (2) that the tribunal must
have the power and authority to pronounce
judgment and render a decision; (3) the
tribunal must pertain to that branch of the
sovereign which belongs to the judiciary.
NOBLEJAS V. TEEHANKEE – There is no inherent
power in the executive or legislative to charge
the judiciary with administrative functions
except when reasonably incidental to the
fulfilment of judicial duties. A law cannot
charge the Supreme Court with an
administrative function of supervisory control
over executive officials, which simultaneously
reduces the control of the president over such
officials, without violating the doctrine of
separation of powers.
DIRECTOR OF PRISONS V. ANG CHO KIO – The
matter of whether an alien who violated the
law may remain or be deported is a political
question that should be left entirely to the
President, under the principle of separation of
powers. It is not within the province of the
judiciary to express an opinion, or a
suggestion that would reflect on the wisdom
or propriety of an action by the President,
which are purely political in nature. Courts are
not concerned with the wisdom or morality of
laws, but only in the interpretation and
application of the law.
IN RE: LAURETA – The court must act to preserve
its honor and dignity and to safeguard the
morals and ethics of the legal profession.
Supreme Court resolutions are beyond the
investigation from other departments of the
government because of the doctrine of
separation of powers. The correctness of a
Supreme Court decision is conclusive upon the
other branches of government.
ECHEGARAY V. SOJ – The power of the president
to grant reprieves cannot be interpreted as
POLITICAL LAW REVIEW DOCTRINES | ATTY. JACK JIMENEZ | MARK JOREL O. CALIDA
P a g e | 12
denying the power of the courts to control the No interest as registered voters if the case
enforcement of their decisions after their does not concern their right to suffrage. No
finality. The suspension of death sentence is interest as taxpayers if it does not involve the
an exercise of judicial power and is essential exercise by Congress of its taxing or spending
to jurisdiction. An accused who has been power. A party suing as a taxpayer must
convicted by final judgment still possesses specifically show that he has sufficient
collateral rights, and there is no higher right interest in preventing the illegal expenditure
than the right to life. of money raised by taxation and that he will
sustain direct injury as a result of the
enforcement. No standing as corporate entity
if the substantial relation to the third party is
SEC. 5 (2) not shown or that the third party can assert
LINA V. PURISIMA – It is for the Court rather than his constitutional right.
the Executive to determine whether or not it
should take cognizance of any given case KILOSBAYAN V. MORATO – The “law of the case” is
involving the validity of the acts of the not applicable if the case is not a continuation
Executive purportedly under the authority of of the previous case. A prior case wherein
martial law proclamations. Marcos has publicly petitioners had standing to challenge a
acknowledged that even if there was martial contract does not preclude their
law, it is still subject to the authority and determination of their standing in the present
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. suit. Legal standing has constitutional
underpinnings. It requires partial
TAN V. MACAPAGAL – Any person who impugns consideration of the merits, as well as broader
the validity of the statute must have a public policy concerns. The question is
personal and substantial interest in the case whether such parties have alleged such a
such that he has sustained, or will sustain personal stake in the outcome of the
direct injury as a result of its enforcement. controversy as to assure that concrete
Taxpayers can nullify laws upon the theory of adverseness which sharpen the presentation
misapplication of public funds. So long as any of issues the court depends in difficult
proposed amendment is still unacted, there is constitutional questions.
no room for judicial oversight. It is a pre-
requisite that something had by then been It is different from questions relating to
accomplished or performed before the court whether a party is the real party in interest or
may inquire. the party who would be benefited or injured
by the judgment, or the party entitled to the
TELEBAP V. COMELEC – A citizen will be avails of the suit. In an action for annulment of
allowed to raise a constitutional question only contracts, the real parties in interest are those
when: (1) he can show that he has personally who parties to the contract.
suffered or threatened injury as a result of the
allegedly illegal conduct of government; (2) Requisites of transcendental importance: (1)
that the injury is fairly traceable to the Public funds are involved; (2) Utter disregard
challenged action; (3) the injury is likely to be for the constitution; (3) lack of party who can
redressed by a favourable action. bring a suit.
FRANCISCO V. HR – Judicial power is not only a
power; it is also a duty which cannot be

abdicated by the mere spectre of the political
question doctrine. There are two species of
political questions: (1) “truly political
questions” and (2) those which “are not truly
political questions.” The determination of a
truly political question from a non-justiciable
political question lies in the answer to the
question of whether there are constitutionally
imposed limits on power or function conferred
upon political bodies. If there are, the courts
are duty-bound to examine whether the
government properly acted within such limits.
The possibility of the occurrence of a
constitutional crisis, embarrassing conflicts
between the congress and the judiciary and
political stability are not reasons for the
Supreme Court to refrain from upholding the
Constitution in all impeachment cases.
Justices cannot abandon their constitutional
duties just because their action may start, if
not precipitate, a crisis.
PACU V. SECRETARY OF EDUCATION – Mere
apprehension that the Secretary might under
the law withdraw the permit of the petitioners
does not constitute justiciable controversy. An
action must be brought for a positive purpose,
to obtain actual and positive relief. Courts do
not sit to adjudicate mere academic questions
to satisfy scholarly interest, no matter how
intellectually solid the problem may be.
DAVID V. ARROYO – The “moot and academic”
principle is not a magical formula that can
automatically dissuade the courts in resolving
a case. Courts will decided cases, otherwise
moot and academic, if: (1) there is a grave
violation of the Constitution; (2) paramount
public interest is involved; (3) when the
constitutional issue raised requires
formulation of controlling principles to guide
the bench, the bar, and the public; and (4) the
case is capable of repetition yet evading
review.
POLITICAL LAW REVIEW DOCTRINES | ATTY. JACK JIMENEZ | MARK JOREL O. CALIDA
P a g e | 13
DE AGBAYANI V. PNB – The general rule is that proceed against the estate would deprive him
an unconstitutional act because it suffers from of these substantive rights under the Civil
infirmity cannot be a source of legal rights or Code. Substantive law cannot be amended by
duties. However, prior the declaration of procedural law.
nullity, it must have been in force and had to
be complied with. The existence of a statute SANTERO V. CFI – Since the provision of the
prior to its being adjudged void is an operative Civil Code, a substantive law, gives the
fact to which legal consequences are surviving spouse and the children the right to
attached. receive support during the liquidation of the
estate of the deceased, such right cannot be
PEOPLE V. MATEO – The Constitution is not impaired by the Rules of Court which is a
preclusive in character and does not procedural rule.
necessarily prevent the Supreme Court, in the
exercise of its rule-making power, from adding DAMASCO V. LAGUI – Prescription of a crime is
an intermediate appeal or review in favor of the loss or waiver by the State of its right to
the accused, a procedural matter. If only to prosecute an act prohibited by law. While it is
ensure utmost circumspection before the a rule that an accused who fails to move to
penalty of death, reclusion perpetua or life quash the information before pleading is
imprisonment is imposed, the Court now deemed to waive all objections, it does not
deems it wise and compelling to provide in apply to the defense of prescription, a
these cases a review by the Court of Appeals substantive right under the RPC which
before the case is elevated to the Supreme extinguishes criminal liability.
Court. A prior determination by the Court of
Appeals on, particularly, the factual issues, PEOPLE V. LACSON – Requirements to the
would minimize the possibility of an error of application of the time-bar of Rule 17: (1) the
judgment. prosecution with the express conformity of the
accused, or the accused, or both moves for a
SEC. 5 (4) provisional dismissal of the case; (2) offended
PEOPLE V. GUTIERREZ – The Secretary of Justice party is notified of the motion; (3) court issues
has no power to assign cases to be heard, it an order granting the motion and dismissing
violates the separation of the Executive and the case provisionally; (4) the public
Judiciary. One of the incidental and inherent prosecutor is served with a copy of the order
powers of the courts is that of transferring the of provisional dismissal.
trial of cases from one court to another of
equal rank, whenever the imperative of The time-bar rule should be applied
securing a fair and impartial trial, or of prospectively and not retroactively. A
preventing a miscarriage of justice so retroactive application would violate the right
demands. of the people to due process and unduly
impair the State’s substantive right to
SEC. 5 (5) prosecute the accused. It does not reduce the
PNB V. ASUNCION – Under the Civil Code, the periods under Article 90 of the RPC, a
creditor has the right to proceed against substantive law. It is but a limitation of the
anyone of the solidary debtors or some or all right of the State to revive a criminal case
of them simultaneously. The choice is left to against the accused after the information had
the creditor. To require the creditor to been filed but subsequently provisionally
dismissed.
 P a g e | 14
below the amount appropriated for them for
A procedural law may not be applied SEC. 11 the previous year.
retroactively if to do so would work injustice or VARGAS V. RILLORAZA – Congress may not pass a
would involve intricate problems of due law adding disqualifications to those adopted SEC. 7
process or impart the independence of the in the Constitution. The phrase “unless FILIPINAS ENGINEERING V. FERRER – COMELEC’s
Court. otherwise provided by law” does not authorize powers may be classified as administrative in
any legislation that would alter the character and pertaining to adjudicatory or
ST. MARTIN FUNERAL V. NLRC – Ever since composition of the Supreme Court, no matter quasi-judicial functions. Awarding a contract
appeals from the NLRC to the Supreme Court how brief a time it may be imagined. A does not come within the purview of final
were eliminated, the legislative intendment “temporary member” is a misnomer not order which is exclusively and directly
was that the special civil action of certiorari contemplated by the Constitution. It is clear appealable to the Supreme Court. Being non-
was and still is the proper vehicle for judicial that the chief justice and the justices have to judicial in character, no direct and exclusive
review of decisions of the NLRC. There is an be appointed by the president and confirmed appeal to the Supreme Court may lie. Any
underlying power of the courts to scrutinize by the Commission on Appointments. Mere question arising from said order may well be
the acts of such agencies on questions of law designation does not satisfy this requirement. taken in an ordinary civil action before trial
and jurisdiction even though no right of review courts.
is given by statute. The purpose of judicial ARTICLE IX-A
review is to keep the administrative agency SALIGUMBA V. CA – The power of the Supreme
within its jurisdiction and protect the
• COMMON PROVISIONS •
Court to review COA decisions refers to money
substantial rights of the parties. matters and not to administrative cases
SEC. 5 involving the discipline of its personnel. Even
SEC. 6 CSC V. DBM – The “no report, no release” assuming that the Supreme Court had
MACEDA V. VASQUEZ – In the absence of any policy may not be validly enforced against jurisdiction to review the administrative
administrative action taken against a judge or offices vested with fiscal autonomy. Their matter, the Supreme Court cannot do so on
court employee, the investigation being approved appropriations shall be factual issues because the Supreme Court’s
conducted by the Ombudsman encroaches automatically and regularly released. By power is limited to legal issues only.
into the Court’s power of administrative parity of construction, “automatic release” of
supervision over all courts and its personnel, approved annual appropriations to the CSC,
should be construed to mean that no
ARTICLE IX-B
in violation of the doctrine of separation of • CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION •
powers. Where a criminal complaint arises condition to fund releases to it may be
from their administrative duties, the imposed. Shortfall of revenues does not justify
Ombudsman must defer action on said non-compliance with the mandate. SEC. 2 (1)
complaint and refer the same to the Supreme NASECO V. NLRC – GOCCs which are
Court for determination whether the said Agencies which the Constitution has vested organized as subsidiaries under the General
judge or court employee has acted within the with fiscal autonomy should thus be given Corporation Law will not be covered by the
scope of their administrative duties. priority in the release of their approved Civil Service Law.
appropriations over all other agencies not
similarly vested when there is a revenue MWSS V. HERNANDEZ – Both regular and
SEC. 10 shortfall. Even assuming that there was a contractual employees are covered by the
NITAFAN V. CIR – The clear intent of the revenue shortfall, it could not withhold full Civil Service Law. The NLRC has no jurisdiction
constitutional commissioners is to delete an release of the CSC’s funds without violating over money claims of contractual employees
express grant of exemption from payment of the Constitution. of the government. They are still governed by
income tax to members of judiciary. Salaries the Civil Service Law and not the Labor Code.
of justices and judges are properly subject to Congress is not prohibited from reducing the
the general income tax law. appropriations of the CSC, COA and COMELEC CSC V. SOJOR – A university president with a
fixed term of office appointed by the
POLITICAL LAW REVIEW DOCTRINES | ATTY. JACK JIMENEZ | MARK JOREL O. CALIDA
 P a g e | 15
governing board of trustees of the university a position to be such (upon CSC character. The loss of such trust and
is a non-career civil service officer who is recommendation); (2) when by the nature of confidence could easily result in the
under the jurisdiction of the CSC. the functions of office, there exists a close termination of services of the employee. A
intimacy between the appointee and the body could not be expected to function freely
SEC. 2 (2) appointing power, which insures freedom of with a suspicious officer in its midst.
DE LOS SANTOS V. MALLARE – The phrase “for intercourse without embarrassment or
cause” means for reasons which the law and freedom from misgivings of betrayals of GRINO V. CSC – A city legal officer and a
sound public policy recognized as sufficient personal trust, or confidential matters of the provincial attorney are both primarily
warrant for removal. Not merely causes which state. confidential positions. They serve as legal
the appoint power in the exercise of discretion adviser and legal officer for the civil cases of
may deem sufficient. The cause must relate to A law specifying the nature of the position is the province and the city that they work for.
and affect the administration of the office, and merely an initial determination that is not
must be restricted to something or a conclusive in case of conflict. It is the nature However, their legal assistants and
substantial nature directly affecting the rights of the position which finally determines subordinates are employed due to their
and interests of the public. whether a position is primarily confidential, technical qualifications. Thus, the positions
policy determining or highly technical. The are permanent and they enjoy security of
Positions which are policy-determining, Supreme Court has the final say. tenure. There is no need to extend the
primarily confidential and highly technical are professional relationship to the legal staff and
excluded from the merit system and dismissal According to the Proximity Rule, a position is subordinates which assist the confidential
at pleasure of officers and employees deemed not confidential where the position of employee.
appointed therein is allowed by the the appointee is remote from that of the
Constitution. appointing authority since the element of trust
between them is no longer predominant.
Every appointment implies confidence, but SEC. 2 (3)
much more than ordinary confidence is CSC V. JAVIER – Career positions are BRIONES V. OSMENA – While the abolition of the
reposed in the occupant of a position that is characterized by: (1) entrance based on merit office does not imply the removal of the
primarily confidential. It denotes not only and fitness to be determined as far as incumbent, the rule is true only when the
confidence in the aptitude of the appointee for practicable by competitive examinations or abolition is made in good faith, that the right
the duties of the office but primarily close based on highly technical qualifications; (2) to abolish cannot be used to discharge
intimacy which insures freedom of intercourse opportunity for advancement to higher career employees in violation of civil service laws nor
without embarrassment or freedom from positions; (3) security of tenure. can it be exercised for personal or political
misgivings of betrayals of personal trust or reasons. The merit system will be ineffective if
confidential matters of state. Non-career positions are characterized by: (1) no safeguards are placed around the
entrance on bases other than those of the separation and removal of public employees.
A position is policy-determining if he usual tests of merit and fitness utilized for the The removal shall be made only for cause in
formulates a method of action for the career service; (2) tenure is limited to a period the manner provided for by law. This means
government or any of its subdivisions. specified by law; or which is co-terminous with there should be bona fide reasons and they
that of the appointing authority or subject to must be given fair hearing. This is to afford
A position is highly technical if the appointee his pleasure, or which is limited to the public employees security of tenure.
is required to possess technical skill or duration of a particular project for which
training in the supreme or superior degree. purpose employment was made; (3) no ABAKADA V. PURISIMA – The guarantee of
security of tenure. security of tenure only means that an
CSC V. SALAS – There are two instances when employee cannot be dismissed from the
a position may be considered primarily In classifying a position as primarily service for cause other than those provided by
confidential: (1) when the President, declares confidential, its functions must not be law and only after due process is accorded the
routinary, ordinary and day to day in
POLITICAL LAW REVIEW DOCTRINES | ATTY. JACK JIMENEZ | MARK JOREL O. CALIDA

employee. A law that lays down a reasonable
yardstick for removal (i.e. when the revenue
collection falls short of the target by at least
7.5%) with due consideration of all relevant
factors affecting the level of collection is a
standard analogous to inefficiency and
incompetence of official duties, a ground for
disciplinary action under civil service laws.
CSC V. SOJOR – While the Board of Regents has
the sole power of administration over the
university, this power is not exclusive in the
matter of disciplining and removing its
employees and officials. The CSC has
concurrent jurisdiction over a president of a
state university. While the law bestows upon a
government body the jurisdiction to hear and
decide cases involving specific matters, it is to
be presumed that such jurisdiction is
exclusive unless it be proved that another
body is likewise vested with the same
jurisdiction, in which case, both bodies have
concurrent jurisdiction over the matter.
All members of the civil service are under the
jurisdiction of the CSC, unless otherwise
provided by law. Being a non-career civil
servant does not remove him from the ambit
of the CSC.
SEC. 2 (4)
SANTOS V. YATCO – The position of Secretary of
National Defense and other heads of
executive departments is not embraced and
included within the terms “officers and
employees in the civil service.” The question
of the impropriety as distinct from illegality of
such campaign is not justiciable.
SEC. 2 (5)
DELA CRUZ V. CA – Public school teachers must
exercise their constitutional right to assembly
within reasonable limits. They may not
commit acts prejudicial to the best interests of
their service by staging mass protests on
POLITICAL LAW REVIEW DOCTRINES | ATTY. JACK JIMENEZ | MARK JOREL O. CALIDA
P a g e | 16
regular school days, abandoning their classes his functions entrusted to him, but that should
and refusing to go back to work even after not be the overriding consideration. Thus, an
they have been order to do so. These produce officer or employee of the government may
adverse effects upon the students for whose receive only such compensation as may be
education they were responsible. provided by law. The Constitution also
prohibits additional, double and indirect
SEC. 7 compensation. Bonuses intended by way of
FLORES V. DRILON – §7 expresses the policy incentive to spur him to more diligent efforts
against the concentration of several public partake the nature of additional
positions in one person, so that a public officer compensation.
or employee may serve full time with
dedication and thus be efficient in the delivery *NOTE: Additional compensation – When for
of public services. one and the same office for which
compensation has been fixed there is added
While ¶2 authorizes the multiple offices by an to such fixed compensation an extra reward in
appointive official, when allowed by law or by the form, for instance, of a bonus. This is not
the primary functions of his position, ¶1 allowed in the absence of a law specifically
appears to be more stringent by not providing authorizing such extra reward.
any exception to the rule against the
appointment of an elective official to other **NOTE: Double compensation – This more
government posts. properly refers to two sets of compensation
for two different offices held concurrently by
The only exceptions recognized by the one officer. In the instances when holding a
Constitution for elective officials are: (1) second office is allowed when an officer
President – head of the economic and accepts a second office, he can draw the
planning agency; (2) Vice-President – member salary attached to such second office only
of cabinet; (3) member of congress – ex-officio when he is specifically authorized by law to
member of the JBC. receive double compensation.
An incumbent elective official, who has been ARTICLE IX-C
appointed to another government post does • COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS •
not automatically forfeit his elective office. His
appointment is invalid since he is ineligible. SEC. 1 (1)
He can still be appointed to that office, CAYETANO V. MONSOD – The practice of law is not
provided he first resigns from his elective limited to the conduct of cases in court.
office. On the other hand, incumbent national Practice of law means any activity, in or out of
legislators (senators and representatives) willcourt, which requires the application of law,
automatically forfeit their elective post afterlegal procedure, knowledge, training and
they have been appointed to another experience. To engage in the practice of law is
government office. to give notice or render any kind of service
which requires the use in any degree of legal
SEC. 8 knowledge or skill. As long as the work done
PERALTA V. MATHAY – Public office is a public involves the determination by the trained
trust, he is there to render service. He is legal mind of the legal effect of facts and
entitled to be rewarded for the performance of conditions, then it is a practice of law.
 P a g e | 17
Experience as a lawyer-economist, lawyer- confirmed by the Commission on COA. Hence, such decision is void ab initio.
manager, etc. more than satisfy the Appointments, whether or not such person That power is lodged in the COA as a collegial
constitutional requirement. completes his term of office. body composed of a Chairman and two
commissioners. Ratification cannot validate an
SEC. 1 (2) The prohibition on reappointment, common to act void ab initio because it was done
MATIBAG V. BENIPAYO – An ad interim the three constitutional commissions, was absolutely without authority.
appointment is a permanent appointment intended by the framers to: (1) prevent a
because it takes effect immediately and can second appointment for those who have been
no longer be withdrawn by the President once previously appointed and confirmed, even if
the appointee has qualified into office. The they served for less than seven years; (2) SEC. 2 (1)
fact that it is subject to confirmation by the insure that the members of the three PHILIPPINE OPERATIONS V. AUDITOR – The Auditor
Commission on Appointments does not alter constitutional commissions do not serve General has no jurisdiction for unliquidated
its permanent character. The Constitution beyond the fixed term of seven years. claims. An account is something which may be
itself makes an ad interim appointment adjusted or liquidated by arithmetic process.
permanent in character by making it effective SEC. 2 Treasury officials cannot pass upon accounts
until disapproved by the Commission on PANGILINAN V. COMELEC – The COMELEC has where the amount is not the result of a
Appointments or until the next adjournment of exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests numerical computation.
Congress. relating to the election, returns, and
qualifications of all elective regional, Claims for unliquidated damages require for
A by-passed appointment is one that has not provincial, and city officials. It has no their settlement the application of judgement
been finally acted upon on the merits by the jurisdiction over contests relating to the and discretion sustained by extraneous proof.
Commission on Appointments at the close of election, returns and qualifications of In such cases, it is not merely an account
the session of congress. Absent such decision, Members of the House, it is the HRET who is which is determined by arithmetic process.
the President is free to renew the ad interim the sole judge of all such contests. Pre- When the liability or non-liability of the
appointment by a by-passed appointee. He proclamation controversies should be government is put in issue, the question
can be considered again if the President construed as referring only to those falling involves judicial determination. The Auditor
renews the appointment. within the exclusive and original jurisdiction of General, an executive officer, cannot assume
COMELEC. this jurisdiction.
The prohibition on reappointment does not
apply to disapproved nor by-passed ad SEC. 3 EURO-MED V. BATANGAS – The scope of the COA’s
interim appointments. A disapproved ad SARMIENTO V. COMELEC – Election cases authority to take cognizance of claims refers
interim appointment cannot be revived by included pre-proclamation controversies, and only to liquidated claims, or those determined
another ad interim appointment because the all such cases must first be heard and decided or readily determinable from vouchers,
disapproval is final. However, a by-passed ad- by a Division of the COMELEC. The COMELEC invoices, and such other papers within reach
interim appointment can be revived by a new en banc does not have authority to hear and of accounting officers. When parties agree
ad-interim appointment because there is no decide the same at the first instance. that the transactions are governed by
final disapproval. implementing rules and regulations
promulgated by the COA, such matters are
ARTICLE IX-D
An ad interim appointment that has lapsed by not within the usual area of expertise of most
inaction of the Commission on Appointments • C OMMISSION ON AUDIT • judges but are within the special competence
does not constitute a term of office. The of COA.
period is neither a fixed term nor an SEC. 1 (1)
unexpired term. The phrase “without MISON V. COA – A Manager of the Technical RAMOS V. AQUINO – Congress itself is not in a
reappointment” applies only to one who has Services of the COA does not have the power position to oversee and supervise the actual
been appointed by the President and to render or promulgate a decision for the release of each and every appropriation made

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW DOCTRINES | ATTY. JACK JIMENEZ | MARK JOREL O. CALIDA

by law. It is the responsibility of the Auditor the implementation of the objectives and
General to exact obedience to any law that mission of the agency; (3) incurrence of
allows the expenditure of public funds. He expenditure not dictated by the demands of
serves as the necessary check to make good government; (4) not essential or that
certain that no department of the government which can be dispensed with without loss or
exceeds the statutory limits of the damage to property.
appropriation. That is the purpose for the
creation of such office, certainly not the ARTICLE X
enforcement of criminal statutes. • LOCAL GOVERNMENT •
Nowhere in the law does it appear that such a
statutory grant of authority of the Auditor
SEC. 4
GANZON V. COA – The Constitution did not
General to open revised accounts (in case of
fraud, collusion, error of calculation, new and intend to deprive the legislature of all
authority over municipal corporations,
material evidence) carries with it the power to
determine who may be constituted in the particularly discipline. Congress, through the
Local Government Code, has delegated to the
event that in the preparation thereof a crime
has been committed. President the exercise of the power of
removal.
BLUE BAR V. TANTUICO – The Constitution
provides that the COA shall have the power on Supervision is not incompatible with
disciplinary authority. Supervision is
post-audit basis over non-governmental
entities receiving subsidy or equity, directly or overseeing or the power of an officer to see
that subordinate officers perform their duties.
indirectly, from the government or the
granting institution to submit to such audit as Investigating is not inconsistent with
overseeing, although it is a lesser power than
a condition of subsidy or equity. Private
entities who handle government funds or altering.
subsidies in trust may be examined or audited
in their handling of said funds by government Local autonomy means a more responsive and
accountable local government structure
auditors.
instituted through a system of
decentralization. It does not usher a regime of
NHA V. COA – The COA has the power to
promulgate rules and regulations for the federalism.
prevention and disallowance of irregular,
unnecessary, excessive, extravagant, or Decentralization of administration –
unconscionable expenditures, or uses of Delegation by the central government of
government funds and properties. Since the administrative powers to political subdivisions,
COA is responsible for the enforcement of the it relieves the central government the burden
rules and regulations, failure to comply with of managing local affairs. The President
them is a ground for disapproving the exercises general supervision over them, but
payment of the proposed expenditure. only to ensure that local affairs are
administered according to law. The President
According to a COA Circular, unnecessary has no power of control and cannot substitute
expenditures are those: (1) which could not his own judgment.
pass the test of prudence or the diligence of a
good father of a family; (2) not supportive of
POLITICAL LAW REVIEW DOCTRINES | ATTY. JACK JIMENEZ | MARK JOREL O. CALIDA
P a g e | 18
Decentralization of power – Abdication or
handing over of political power in favor of
LGUs declared to be autonomous. The
autonomous government is free to chart its
own destiny and shape its future with
minimum intervention from central
authorities.
SEC. 8
BORJA V. COMELEC – The purpose of this
provision is to prevent a circumvention of the
limitation on the number of terms an elective
local official may serve. If he is not serving a
term for which he was elected (i.e. continues
the service of the official by succession), such
official cannot be considered to have fully
served the term.
Nevertheless, there is a difference between
the case of a vice mayor and a member of the
house. The vice mayor succeeds by operation
of law. It is not enough that an individual has
served three consecutive terms; he must also
have been elected to the same position for
the same number of times before the
disqualification can set it. On the other hand,
a representative is elected to fill the vacancy
and in a real sense serves a term for which he
was elected. That is why his service of an
unexpired term is correctly counted as his first
term.
SOCRATES V. COMELEC – The prohibited
election refers only to the next regular
election for the same office. A recall election
(even if subsequent to the third term), is not
covered by the prohibition. The prohibited
election refers only to an immediate re-
election, not to a subsequent one.
A recall election is an interruption in the
continuity of service, not because of voluntary
renunciation, but because of legal prohibition.
The term is not a seamless continuation of the
three previous terms. An involuntary

interruption occurred which broke the
continuity of service. The Constitution does
not require that the interruption should be a
full term of three years. The clear intent is
that any interruption for any length of time, as
long as the cause is involuntary, is sufficient
to break the continuity of service.
MONTEBON V. COMELEC – Succession in local
government offices is by operation of law. The
Local Government Code provides that if a
permanent vacancy occurs in the office of the
vice mayor, the high ranking Sanggunian
member shall become vice mayor. The
assumption of a councilor as vice mayor can
in no way be considered a voluntary
renunciation of office because it was by
operation of law.
ALDOVINO V. COMELEC – Preventive suspension
involves protection of the service and of the
people being served, and prevents the office
holder from temporarily exercising the power
of his office. It is a temporary incapacity to
render service during an unbroken term. Term
limitation is triggered after an elective official
has served his three terms in office without
any break. Interruption of service occurs after
there has been a break in the term.
A preventive suspension is not a term
interruption since the suspended official
continues to stay in office although barred
from exercising the functions of the office
within the period. The best indicator of the
suspended official’s continuity in office is the
absence of a permanent replacement and the
lack of the authority to appoint one since no
vacancy exists.
Preventive suspension, because it is imposed
by operation of law, does not involve a
voluntary act on the part of the suspended
official, except in the indirect sense that he
may have voluntarily committed the act that
became the basis of the charge against him.
POLITICAL LAW REVIEW DOCTRINES | ATTY. JACK JIMENEZ | MARK JOREL O. CALIDA
P a g e | 19
From this perspective, preventive suspension “just share” of LGUs in national taxes. The
does not have the element of voluntariness criteria in creating LGUs must be uniform and
that voluntary renunciation embodies. non-discriminatory; otherwise, there can be no
Preventive suspension, by its very nature is fair and just distribution of the national taxes.
the exact opposite of voluntary renunciation;
it is involuntary and temporary, and involves SEMA V. COMELEC – The creation of any of the
only the actual delivery of service, not the title
four LGUs (province, city, municipality,
to the office. barangay) must comply with the following
conditions: (1) the creation must follow the
SEC. 10 criteria fixed under the Local Government
TAN V. COMELEC – The remaining portion of Code; (2) such creation must not conflict with
the parent province is as much an area the Constitution; (3) there must be a
affected. The substantial alteration on the plebiscite for the units affected.
boundaries of the parent province and the
adverse economic effects it might suffer There is no provision in the Constitution that
justify the participation of the inhabitants of conflicts with the delegation to regional
the parent province in the plebiscite. It is legislative bodies of the power to create
inaccurate to state that where an existing municipalities and barangays. However, the
political unit is divided or its boundary creation of provinces and cities is another
substantially altered, only some and not all matter since the power to create a province or
the voters in the whole unit suffers city inherently involves the power to create a
dismemberment or substantial alteration of its legislative district.
boundary affected.
The allowable number of membership of the
In the absence of factual and legal basis for House of Representatives can be increased
the creation of such new province, there is no and new districts can be created only through
justification for holding another plebiscite. a national law passed by Congress. A regional
or local legislative body cannot create or
LEAGUE OF CITIES V. COMELEC – The reapportion legislative districts for a national
Constitution requires Congress to stipulate in legislature like Congress. The creation of
the Local Government Code all the criteria ARMM and the grant of legislative powers to
necessary for the creation of a city. Congress its Regional Assembly did not divest Congress
cannot write such criteria in any other law. of its exclusive authority to create legislative
The intention of the Constitution is to insure districts. The Regional Assembly’s power
that the creation of political subdivisions extends only to its regional territory. To allow
follow the same uniform, non-discriminatory the Regional Assembly to create a national
criteria found solely in the Local Government office is to allow its legislative powers to
Code which does not contain any exemption operate outside its territorial jurisdiction.
from the income requirement. To be valid,
such exemption must be written in the Local PROVINCE OF NORTH COTABATO V. GOP – The
Government Code and not in any other law. concept of association is not recognized under
the Constitution. No province, city, or
The criteria (land area, population and municipality, not even the ARMM, is
income) must be strictly followed because recognized under our laws as having an
such criteria are material in determining the “associative” relationship with the national
government. The concept implies powers that
 P a g e | 20
go beyond anything ever granted by the of the Batasan since with such number of (3) Forwarding of the resolution to the house
Constitution to any local or regional votes, it is obvious that the 2/3 vote necessary for further processing (whatever the action of
government. for conviction can no longer be obtained. the committee)
(4) Similar processing of the complaint by the
It also implies the recognition of the Also, the provision in the Constitution whole House which either affirms or overrides
Bangsamoro Juridical entity as a state. The providing that an impeachment complaint the decision of the Committee, by a vote of
entity is a state in all but name as it meets the may be initiated by a vote of 1/5 of the 1/3 of all the members (if at least 1/3 of the
criteria of a state laid down in the Montevideo members is not violated by the provision in members upholds the complaint, the Articles
Convention (government, capacity to enter the Rules of Procedure authorizing the of Impeachment are prepared and transmitted
into relations with other states, defined dismissal of to the Senate)
territory and permanent population). The
Constitution does not contemplate any state IN RE: GONZALES – A public officer who under the The impeachment proceeding is not initiated:
in this jurisdiction other than the Philippine Constitution is required to be a member of the (1) When the complaint is transmitted to the
state, much less does it provide for a Philippine Bar as a qualification for the office Senate for trial because that is the end of the
transitory status that aims to prepare any part held by him cannot be charged with House proceeding and the beginning of
of the Philippine territory for independence. disbarment during his incumbency. He cannot another proceeding which is the trial. (2)
be changed criminally before the When the House deliberates on the resolution
Assuming arguendo that the Bangsamoro Sandiganbayan, or are other court, with any on to it by the Committee because something
Juridical Entity may be regarded as an offense which carries with it the penalty of prior to that has already been done.
autonomous region, the MOA-AD would removal from office. Members of the Supreme The proceeding is initiated or begins when a
require an amendment that would expand Art. Court are removed only by impeachment. verified complaint is filed and referred to the
X, §20. The mere passage of a new law They are not entitled to immunity from Committee on Justice for action. The one year
pursuant to §20 ¶9 would not suffice, since liability. They must first be removed, via the ban simply means that no second verified
any new law that might vest in the said entity constitutional route of impeachment, and then complaint may be accepted or referred to the
the powers found in the MOA-AD must comply only may he be held liable either criminally or Committee on Justice for action more than
with the other provisions of the Constitution administratively (including disbarment), for once within the period of one year.
(i.e. a law may not be passed granting the any wrong.
entity treaty-making powers since only the ESTRADA V. DESIERTO – When impeachment
President has that power). FRANCISCO V. HR – The House has exclusive proceedings have become moot and academic
power to initiate all cases of impeachment, no due to the resignation of the President, the
ARTICLE XI other body can do it. However, before a proper criminal cases may now be filed
• ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS • decision is made to initiate a case in the against him. Since the impeachment court
Senate, a proceeding must be followed to was now functus officio, it would be
arrive at a conclusion. unreasonable to demand that he be first
SEC. 3 impeached then convicted before he may be
ROMULO V. YNIGUEZ – The dismissal by the The impeachment proceeding takes place not criminally prosecuted. The judgment in an
Batasan of the impeachment complaint is an in the Senate but in the House, and consists of impeachment case extends only to the
exercise of legislative powers. Neither can the several steps: removal from office and disqualification to
Supreme Court cannot compel the Batasan to (1) Filing of a verified complaint by either hold any other office. A conviction in the
conduct impeachment proceedings. Member of the House, or by a private citizen impeachment court is not a condition sine qua
(endorsed by any Member of the House) non for criminal prosecution. Presidents are
The provision in the Constitution requiring the (2) Processing of the complaint by the proper immune from suit during their period of
concurrence of at least 2/3 votes of all committee of Justice (may reject or uphold the incumbency and tenure, but not beyond.
members for conviction is not violated by the complaint)
provision in the Rules of Procedure authorizing
the dismissal of the petition by a majority vote SEC. 7
POLITICAL LAW REVIEW DOCTRINES | ATTY. JACK JIMENEZ | MARK JOREL O. CALIDA
 P a g e | 21
ZALDIVAR V. SANDIGANBAYAN – It is the interchangeably. They were going to permit CRUZ V. SENR – Ancestral lands and ancestral
Ombudsman that has the duty to investigate service contracts with foreign corporations as domains are considered as private land, and
on its own or on complaint by any person, any contractors, but with safety measures to never to have been part of the public domain.
act or omission of a public official when such prevent abuses, as an exception to the The Regalian Theory does not negate native
appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or general norm established which reserves or title to lands held in private ownership since
inefficient. The Special Prosecutor (formerly limits to Filipino citizens and corporations at time immemorial, it will be presumed to have
Tanodbayan) is without authority to conduct least 60% owned by such citizens the been held in the same way from before the
preliminary investigations and to direct the exploration, development and the utilization Spanish conquest, and never to have been
filing of the criminal cases before the of mineral or petroleum resources (Art. XII §2 public land.
Sandiganbayan. The Special Prosecutor is ¶1).
merely a subordinate of the Ombudsman, and A distinction must be made between
can investigate and prosecute cases only Such new service contracts are between ownership of land under native title and
upon the Ombudsman’s authority and foreign corporations acting as contractors ownership of land by acquisitive prescription
instruction. (providing capital, technology and technical against the State. Ownership by virtue of
know-how and managerial expertise in the native title presupposes that the land has
MACALINO V. SANDIGANBAYAN – The only instance creation and operation of the large-scale been held by its possessor and his
when the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over mining/extractive enterprise) and the predecessors-in-interest in the concept of
a private individual is when the complaint government as principal or owner (actively owner since time immemorial. It is not
charges him either as co-principal,
exercising full control and supervision). acquired from the State, there has been no
accomplice, or accessory of a public officer transfer of title from the State as the land has
who has been charged with a crime that is “Full control and supervision” does not mean been regarded as private in character as far
within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. that the State controls and supervises back as memory goes. Ownership by
everything down to the smallest details and acquisitive prescription involves a conversion
makes all required actions, since this would of the character of the property from alienable
render impossible the legitimate exercise of public land to private land, which presupposes
ARTICLE XII the contractor of a reasonable degree of a transfer of title from State to a private
• NATIONAL ECONOMY & PATRIMONY • management prerogative in authority. Control person.
must be taken to mean a degree of control
sufficient to enable the State to regulate the “Private but community property” is merely
SEC. 2 conduct of affairs and restrain activities descriptive of the indigenous people’s concept
LA BUGAL V. RAMOS – Agreements “involving deemed not desirable or beneficial. of ownership. It does not ipso facto convert
either technical or financial assistance” does the character of such natural resources as
not indicate the intent to exclude other modes The Constitution did not intend to fix an iron- private property of the indigenous.
of assistance. There is no hint of desire in the clad rule of 60% share, applicable to all
Constitution to prohibit foreign involvement in situations, regardless of circumstances. To In addition to the means of exploration,
the management or operation of mining avoid compromising the State’s full control development and utilization of the country’s
activities, or to eradicate service contracts. By and supervision over the exploitation of natural resources in Art. XII §2 ¶1, the
specifying such agreements involving mineral resources, there must be no attempt Constitution itself states in ¶3 that Congress
assistance, the framers necessarily gave to impose a “minimum 60%” rule. It is may, by law, allow small-scale utilization of
implied assent to everything that these sufficient that the State has the power and natural resources by its citizens. Through the
agreements entailed or that could reasonably means, should it so decide, to get a 60% imposition of certain requirement and
be deemed necessary to make them tenable share (or greater) and it is not necessary that conditions for the exploration, development
and effective. the State does so in every case. and utilization of the natural resources under
The framers discussed agreements involving existing laws, the State retains full control
technical or financial assistance in the same over such activities, whether done on small-
sense as service contracts and used the terms
SEC. 5
scale basis or otherwise.
POLITICAL LAW REVIEW DOCTRINES | ATTY. JACK JIMENEZ | MARK JOREL O. CALIDA
 P a g e | 22
same time, it recognizes the need for business restraint of trade and unfair competition, as
SEC. 10 exchange with the rest of the world on the well as the regulation of unmitigated
MANILA PRINCE HOTEL V. GSIS – §10 is self bases of equality and reciprocity and limits monopolies. In a competitive economy, the
executing, it is a mandatory, positive protection of Filipino enterprises only against market system relies on the consumer to
command which is complete in itself and foreign competition and trade practices that decide what and how much shall be produced,
which needs no further guidelines or are unfair. In other words, the Constitution did and on competition, among procedures to
implementing laws for its enforcement. When not intend to pursue an isolationist policy. determine who will manufacture it. It requires
the Constitution mandates that the grant of While the Constitution does not encourage the the presence of not one, not just a few, but
rights, privileges and concessions covering unlimited entry of foreign goods, services and several players.
national economy and patrimony, the Sate investments into the country, it does not ARTICLE XVII
shall give preference to Filipinos, it just simply prohibit them either. In fact, it allows an • AMENDMENTS OR REVISIONS •
means that qualified Filipinos shall be exchange on the basis of equality and
preferred. reciprocity.
SEC. 1
The GATT itself has provided build-in LAMBINO V. COMELEC – The two essential
The patrimony of the nation that should be elements of an initiative are: (1) the people
conserved and developed refers not only to protection from unfair foreign competition and
trade practices including anti-dumping must sign the entire proposal and (2) the
natural resources but also the cultural proposal must be embodied in a petition.
heritage of our race. measures, countervailing measures and
safeguards against import surges. Where local These essential elements are present only if
the full text of the proposed amendments is
§10 embodies the so-called Filipino First businesses are jeopardized by unfair foreign first shown to the people who express their
Policy. That means that Filipinos should be competition, the Philippines can avail of these assent by signing such proposal in a petition.
given preference in the grant of concessions, measures.
privileges, and rights covering national An initiative to change the Constitution
patrimony. SEC. 16 applies only to an amendment and not to
LIBAN V. GORDON – The essential elements of a revision. Revision broadly implies a change
SEC. 11 GOCC are ownership and control by the that alters a basic principle in the
TELEBAP V. COMELEC – All broadcasting government. A law creating a private Constitution, like altering the principle of
whether by radio or by television stations is corporation with a special charter is separation of powers or the system of checks
licensed by the government. A franchise or unconstitutional. Private corporations may and balance.
any right granted shall be subject to exist only under a general law.
amendment, alteration, repeal by Congress
A GOCC must be owned by the government,
SEC. 4
when the common good so requires. The GONZALES V. COMELEC – The power to amend
amendment of a franchise is not a taking of and in the case of a stock corporation, at least
the Constitution or to propose amendments
a majority of its capital stock must be owned
property without just compensation. thereto is not included in the general grant of
Broadcasting companies do not own the by the government. In the case of a non-stock
legislative powers to Congress. When
corporation, by analogy at least a majority of
airwaves and frequencies; they are merely exercising the same, Senators and
given the temporary privilege of using them. the members must be government officials
Representatives act, not as members of
holding such membership by appointment or
As a privilege, it may be reasonably burdened Congress, but as component elements of a
with the performance by the grantee of some designation by the government. It will not
suffice that the GOCC was created by aconstituent assembly. When acting as such,
public service. the members of Congress derive their
special law.
authority from the Constitution. The power to
SEC. 12 amend the Constitution or to propose
TAÑADA v. Angara – While the Constitution
SEC. 19 amendments thereto is part of the inherent
indeed mandates a bias in favor of Filipino TATAD V. SOE – The desirability of competition powers of the people as the repository of
goods, services, labor and enterprises, at the is the reason for the prohibition against sovereignty in a republican state. They are the
POLITICAL LAW REVIEW DOCTRINES | ATTY. JACK JIMENEZ | MARK JOREL O. CALIDA
 P a g e | 23
very source of all powers of government, be no multiple or piecemeal plebiscites, but
including the Constitution itself. only “an election.”

There is nothing in the Constitution indicating

that amendments thereto must be ratified in a
special election. The circumstance that three
previous amendments to the Constitution had
been submitted to the people for ratification
in special elections merely shows that
Congress deemed it best to do so under the
circumstances then obtaining. It does not
negate its authority to submit proposed
amendments for ratification in general
elections.

TOLENTINO V. COMELEC – The Courts may

review the validity of an act of the
Constitutional Convention, proposing a
particular amendment to the Constitution.
Once convened, the Constitutional Convention
became endowed with extraordinary powers
generally beyond the control of any
department of the existing government.
Nevertheless, such powers are coextensive
only with the purpose for which the
convention was called for and that the
amendments it may propose cannot have any
effect as part of the Constitution until the
same are duly ratified by the people. It
necessarily follows that the acts of the
convention, its officers and members are not
immune from attack on constitutional
grounds.

The Constitution states “such amendments

shall be valid as part of this Constitution when
approved by a majority of the votes cast at an
election at which the amendments are
submitted to the people for their ratification.”
Either Congress sitting as a constituent
assembly or a convention called for the
purposes may propose amendments to the
Constitution, thus there is no limit as to the
number of amendments that Congress or the
Convention may propose. However, there can

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW DOCTRINES | ATTY. JACK JIMENEZ | MARK JOREL O. CALIDA