Political Law Areas in the 2019 Bar
Atty. Genesis M. Auza - #auzalawreview - 09207025338
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
CONSTITUTION
That body of rules and maxims in accordance with
which the powers of sovereignty are habitually
exercised (Cooley)
Interpretation of the Constitution: (Francisco vs.
House of Representatives, GR No. 160261, Nov. 10,
2003)
1. Verba Legis – whenever possible, the words of the
constitution must be given their ordinary meaning,
except when technical terms are employed.
2. Ratio legis est anima – when there is ambiguity, the
words of the constitution should be interpreted in
accordance with the intent of the framers.
As we [the SC] have held in League of Cities of the
Philippines v. Commission on Elections—
Ratio legis est anima. The spirit rather than the letter of
the law. A statute must be read according to its spirit or
intent, for what is within the spirit is within the statute
although it is not within its letter, and that which is within
the letter but not within the spirit is not within the statute.
Put a bit differently, that which is within the intent of the
lawmaker is as much within the statute as if within the
letter, and that which is within the letter of the statute is
not within the statute unless within the intent of the
lawmakers. Withal, courts ought not to interpret and
should not accept an interpretation that would defeat the
intent of the law and its legislators (cited in Navarro vs.
Executive Secretary, GR No. 180050, April 12, 2011).
3. Ut magis valeat quam pereat – the constitution has
to be interpreted as a whole. Sections bearing on a
particular subject should be considered and interpreted
together as to effectuate the whole purpose of the
constitution and one section is not to be allowed to
defeat another, if by any reasonable construction, the
two can be made to stand together (Civil Liberties Union
vs. Executive Secretary, 194 SCRA 317).
Doctrine of Constitutional Supremacy
Under the doctrine of constitutional supremacy, if a law
or contract violates any norm of the Constitution, that law
or contract, whether promulgated by the legislative or by
the executive branch or entered into by private persons
for private purposes, is null and void and without any
force and effect. Thus, since the Constitution is the
fundamental, paramount and supreme law of the nation,
it is deemed written in every statue and contract (Manila
Prince Hotel vs. GSIS, 267 SCRA 408 [1997]).
"People power" as a concept recognized in the
Constitution
Article III, Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution
guarantees the right of the people peaceable to
assemble and petition the government for redress of
grievances.
Article VI, Section 32 of the 1987 Constitution
requires Congress to pass a law allowing the people
to directly propose and enact laws through initiative
and to approve or reject any act or law or part of it
passed by Congress or a local legislative body.
Article XIII, Section 16 of the 1987 Constitution
provides that the right of the people and their
organizations to participate at all levels of social,
political, and economic decision-making shall not be
abridged and that the State shall, by law, facilitate the
establishment of adequate consultation mechanisms.
Article XVII, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution
provides that subject to the enactment of an
implementing law, the people may directly propose
amendments to the Constitution through initiative.
Presidential vs. Parliamentary
In presidential government, there is separation of powers
between the executive and legislative departments. In
parliamentary, there is fusion of both executive and
legislative powers in Parliament, although the actual
exercise of executive powers is vested in a Prime
Minister who is chosen by and accountable to the
Parliament.
DOCTRINE OF AUTO-LIMITATION
The adherence of the Philippines to principles of
international law as a limitation to the exercise of its
sovereignty. It means that any state may, by its consent,
express or implied, submit to a restriction of its sovereign
rights (Reagan vs. CIR, No. L-26379, Dec. 27, 1969)
NATIONAL TERRITORY
The ARCHIPELAGIC DOCTRINE emphasizes the unity
of land and waters by defining an archipelago either as a
group of islands surrounded by waters or a body of
waters studded with islands. For this purpose, it requires
that baselines be drawn by connecting the appropriate
points of the "outermost islands to encircle the islands
within the archipelago. The waters on the landward side
of the baselines regardless of breadth or dimensions are
merely internal waters.
The Archipelagic Doctrine is reflected in the 1987
Constitution. Article I, Section 1 provides that the
national territory of the Philippines includes the
Philippine archipelago, with all the islands and waters
embraced therein; and the waters around, between, and
connecting the islands of the archipelago, regardless of
their breadth and dimensions, form part of the internal
waters of the Philippines.
CONTIGUOUS ZONE is a zone contiguous to the
territorial sea and extends up to 12 nautical miles
from the territorial sea and over which the coastal
state may exercise control necessary to prevent
infringement of its customs, fiscal, immigration or
sanitary laws and regulations within its territory or
territorial sea. (Article 33 of the Convention on the
Law of the Sea.)
The EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE is a zone
extending up to 200 nautical miles from the baselines
of a state over which the coastal state has sovereign
rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting,
conserving and managing the natural resources,
whether living or nonliving, of the waters superjacent
to the seabed and of the seabed and subsoil, and with
Page 1 of 25
Political Law Areas in the 2019 Bar
Atty. Genesis M. Auza - #auzalawreview - 09207025338
regard to other activities for the economic exploitation
and exploration of the zone. (Articles 56 and 57 of the
Convention on the Law of the Sea.)
Constitution reserves to Filipino citizens the use and
enjoyment of the exclusive economic zone of the
Philippines.
Section 2. Article XII of the Constitution provides:
“The State shall protect the nation's marine part in its
archipelagic waters, territorial sea, and exclusive
economic zone, and reserve its use and enjoyment to
Filipino citizens." Section 7, Article XIII of the
Constitution provides: "The State shall protect the
rights of subsistence fishermen, especially of local
communities, to the preferential use of the communal
marine and fishing resources, both inland and
offshore. It shall provide support to such fishermen
through appropriate technology and research,
adequate financial, production, and marketing
assistance, and other services. The State shall also
protect, develop, and conserve such resources. The
protection shall extend to offshore fishing grounds of
subsistence fishermen against foreign intrusion.
Fishworkers shall receive a just share from their labor
in the utilization of marine and fishing resources.
DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND STATE
POLICIES
STATE IMMUNITY FROM SUIT
The State may not be sued without its consent (sec. 3,
Art. XVI). Basis: There can be no legal right against the
authority which makes the law on which the right
depends (republic vs. Villasor, 54 SCRA 83).
Test to determine if suit is against the State:
On the assumption that decision is rendered against the
public officer or agency impleaded, will the enforcement
thereof require an affirmative act from the State, such as
the appropriation of the needed amount to satisfy the
judgment? If so, then it is a suit against the State.
CONSENT TO BE SUED
Express Consent – express consent may be given by
the act of Congress in a general or a special law.
a. General Law like CA 327, as amended which
requires that all money claims against
the government must first be filed with the COA.
But in Amigable vs. Cuenca, 43, SCRA 360, an
action for recovery of the value of the property taken by
the government was allowed despite failure of the owner
to file his claim with the COA. The state immunity from
suit cannot be used to perpetrate an injustice.
An action for revocation of donation for failure of
the defendant to comply with the stipulated conditions
was allowed. The action did not involve a money claim
(Santiago vs. Republic, 87 SCRA 294).
b. Special law – this form of consent must be
embodied in a statute and cannot be given by a mere
counsel (Republic vs. Purisima, 78 SCRA 470).
PD 1620 – Immunity of IRRI may be waived by
its Director General.
Implied Consent
a. When the state commences a litigation, it
becomes vulnerable to a counterclaim (Froilan vs.
Pan Oriental Shipping, GR No. L-6060, Sept. 30, 1950).
• Intervention of the State would constitute
commencement of litigation if the State asks for
affirmative reliefs other than resisting the claims
against
b. When the State enters into a business contract.
Thus, contract bidded out for barbershop facilities in
Clark Field US Air Force was deemed commercial (US
vs. Guinto, 182 SCRA 644).
• But when the contract is in pursuit of a sovereign
activity [construction of wharves for national
defense], there is no waiver of immunity (US vs.
Ruiz, 136 SCRA 487).
• i. Contracts entered into for the maintenance of
a Diplomatic mission for the upkeep of air
conditioning units, generator sets, etc., in the
embassy is a governmental contract (Republic of
Indonesia vs. Vinzon, GR No. 154705, June 26,
2003). A provision in the contract containing a
statement that all legal controversies shall be
settled according to Philippine laws does not
necessarily mean waiver of immunity.
• ii. The exercise of the power of eminent domain
is an act juri emperii but without prejudice to
Amigable vs. Cuenca.
When public officers may be sued without prior
consent of the state (Sanders vs. Veridiano, 162 SCRA
88):
a) To compel him to do an act required by law;
b) To restrain him from enforcing an act claimed
to be unconstitutional;
c) To compel the payment of damages from
already appropriated assurance fund;
d) To refund tax over-payments from fund
already available for the purpose;
e) When the judgment will not require any
affirmative act on the part of the State [sued in his
personal capacity];
f) Where the government itself has violated its
own laws;
▪The unauthorized acts of government officials are not
acts of the state, thus the public officer may be sued and
held personally liable in damages.
▪Where the public officer committed an ultra vires act,
or where there is showing of bad faith, malice or gross
negligence, the officer can be held personally
accountable even if such acts are claimed to have been
performed in connection with official duties (Wylie vs.
Rarang, 209 SCRA 357).
SUIT AGAINST GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
A. Incorporated – just look at the charter, if the
charter provides that it can sue and be sued, then suit
will lie.
Samples:
1) National Irrigation Administration;
2) Municipal Corporations;
3) Department of Agriculture (Act No. 3038)
B. Unincorporated – inquire into the principal
functions of the agency.
Page 2 of 25
Political Law Areas in the 2019 Bar
Atty. Genesis M. Auza - #auzalawreview - 09207025338
1) If governmental; NO suit without consent.
Samples:
a. Bureau of Printing;
b. Bureau of Customs;
Note: even in the exercise of proprietary functions
incidental to its primary governmental function, an
unincorporated agency still cannot be sued without its
consent (Bureau of Printing vs. BPEA, 1 SCRA 3400.
2) If proprietary; suit will lie.
When the state engages in principally proprietary functions,
then it descends to the level of a private individual (NAC vs.
Teodoro, 91 Phil. 207)
RESTRICTIVE STATE IMMUNITY
A state cannot invoke state immunity from suit when it
enters into a purely commercial contract.
Two Ways of Making IL Part of the Philippine Law:
DOCTRINE OF INCORPORATION
By virtue of this clause, our courts have applied the rules
of international law in a number of cases even if such
rules had not been previously been subject of statutory
enactments, because these GAPIL are deemed
automatically part of the law of the land (Kuroda vs.
Jalandoni, 42 OG 4282).
DOCTRINE OF TRANSFORMATION
Requires the enactment by the legislative body of such
international law principles as are sought to be part of
municipal law. (sample – RA 9851, punishing Genocide,
War Crimes, and Crimes against Humanity).
RULES IN CASE OF CONFLICT BETWEEN
INTERNATIONAL LAW AND MUNICIPAL LAW
A. International Court/Body deciding –
International Law should prevail.
B. Domestic Court deciding – efforts should
first be exerted to harmonize the seemingly conflicting
laws. As a rule, municipal law prevails. Ratio: Police
power cannot be bargained away through a medium of a
treaty or contract (Ichong vs. Hernandez, 101 Phil. 115.
Above is, however, subject to the following modifications
– (Review Lecture)
a) Conflict between Constitution and jus cogens
norm – jus cogens prevails. No derogation is allowed.
b) Conflict between Constitution and jus
dispositivum - Constitution prevails.
c) Conflict between Constitution and Treaty
based on jus dispositivum – Constitution prevails.
d) Statute and Norm of International law –
i. Statue vs. jus cogens norm – jus cogens
prevails.
ii. Statute vs. jus dispositivum – apply the rule on
lex posterior derogat priori and the general and special
law rule. That is, the later law governs and that special
law prevails over general law dealing on the same
subject matter.
Note: Civilian supremacy is ensured by the following
provisions:
a) Installation of the President (a civilian) as the
Commander-in-Chief of the AFP (sec. 18, Art. VII); and
b) Requiring the members of the AFP to swear
to uphold and defend the Constitution (sec. 5 [1], Art.
XVI).
The separation of the Church and the State shall be
inviolable. This is reinforced by the following
provisions:
a) Freedom of religion clause (sec. 5, Art. III);
b) Non-registration of religious sect as political
party (sec. 2 [5], Art. IX-C);
c) No religious sectoral representative (sec. 5
[2], Art. VI);
d) No appropriation for sectarian benefit (sec. 29
[2], Art. VI).
Exceptions:
a) Exemption from taxation (sec. 28 [3], Art. VI);
b) Allowing appropriation for priest, etc.
assigned to the AF or to any penal institution or
government orphanage or leprosarium (sec. 29 [2], Art.
VI);
c) Optional religious instruction for public
elementary and high school students (sec. 3 [3], Art.
XIV);
d) Educational institutions established by
religious groups and mission boards (sec. 4 [2], Art.
XIV).
TRANSPARENCY
The following are the constitutional provisions
reflecting the State policy on transparency in matters
of public interest:
1. "Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by
law, the State adopts and Implements a policy of full
public disclosure of all its transactions involving public
interest."(Section 28, Article II)
2. The right of the people to information on matters of
public concern shall be recognized. Access to official
records, and to documents, and papers pertaining to
official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to
government research data used as basis for policy
development, shall be afforded to citizen, subject to
such limitations as may be provided by law." (Section
7, Article III)
3. The records and books of accounts of the
Congress shall be preserved and be open to the
public in accordance with law, and such books shall
be audited by the Commission on Audit which shall
publish annually an itemized list of amounts paid to
and expenses incurred for each Member." (Section
20. Article VI)
4. The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the
following powers, functions, and duties:XXX XXX (6)
Publicize matters covered by its investigation when
circumstances so warrant and with due prudence,"
(Section 12, Article XI)
5. "A public officer or employee shall, upon
assumption of office, and as often as thereafter may
be required by law, submit a declaration under oath of
his assets, liabilities, and net worth. In the case of the
President, the Vice President, the Members of the
Cabinet, the Congress, the Supreme Court, the
Page 3 of 25
Political Law Areas in the 2019 Bar
Atty. Genesis M. Auza - #auzalawreview - 09207025338
Constitutional Commissions and other constitutional
offices, and officers of the armed forces with general
or flag rank, the declaration shall be disclosed to the
public in the manner provided by law." (Section 17,
Article XI)
POLICE POWERS
The power of promoting public welfare by restraining and
regulating the use of liberty and property. [The law of
overruling necessity]
(Tests for Valid Exercise of Police Power
a) Lawful Subject – the interests of the public in
general, as distinguished from those of a particular
class, require the exercise of the power. The activity or
property sought to be regulated must affect general
welfare.
The ordinary requirements of procedural due process
yield to the necessities of protecting vital public interests
through the exercise of police power. Thus, the Pollution
Adjudication Board is permitted by law and regulations to
issue ex parte cease and desist orders (PAD vs. CA,
195 SCRA 112).
b) Lawful Means – the means employed are
reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the
purpose, and not unduly oppressive on individuals.
Note: Both must concur (Ynot vs. IAC, GR No. 74457,
March 20, 1987)
It cannot be bargained away through the medium of a
treaty or a contract (Ichong vs. Hernandez, 101 Phil.
1155).
Taxing power may be used as an implement of police
power (Lutz vs. Araneta, 98 Phil. 148).
Eminent domain may be used as an implement to attain
police objective (ASLP vs. Sec. of Agrarian, 175 SCRA
343 [1989]).
Non-impairment contracts or vested rights clauses will
have to yield to the superior and legitimate exercise of
police power (Ortigas and Co. vs. CA, GR No. 126102,
Dec. 4, 2000).
POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN
Jurisdiction is with the RTC. The primary issue to resolve
is the right to expropriate. Determination of value of the
property is merely incidental [secondary] (Barangay San
Roque vs. Heirs of Francisco Pastor, GR No. 138896,
June 20, 2000) Expropriation proceedings is incapable
of pecuniary estimation.
Requisites:
a) Necessity – the necessity must be genuine
and of public character.
b) Private property – generally, all property
capable of ownership may be expropriated; may include
public utility [service] (Republic vs. PLDT, L-18841, Jan.
27, 1969).
c) Taking in the constitutional sense –
imports a physical dispossession of the owner. However,
in law, the term has broader connotation as it may
include trespass without actual eviction of the owner,
material impairment of the value of the property or
prevention [easements and servitudes] of the ordinary
uses for which the property was intended (Cruz, 2007).
d) Public use – the general concept of meeting
public need of public exigency. The term “public use”
has now been held to be synonymous with public
interest, public benefit, public welfare and public
convenience (Reyes vs. NHA, GR No. 147511, Jan. 20,
2003).
Note: Right to Claim Just Compensation Does Not
Prescribe:
Where the private property is taken for public use
without first acquiring title thereto either through
expropriation or negotiated sale, the owner’s action to
recover the land or the value thereof does not prescribe
(NPC vs. Campos, Jr. GR No. 143643, June 27, 2003).
2 Stages of Eminent Domain Cases:
i i. Determination of the authority of the plaintiff to
exercise the power and the propriety of its exercise in
the context of the facts of the case;
ii ii. Determination of just compensation by the
court.
POWER OF TAXATION
It is the power by which the sovereign, through its law-
making body, raises revenue to defray the necessary
expenses of government. It is a way of apportioning the costs
of government among those who in some measure are
privileged to enjoy its benefits and must bear its burdens.
LIMITATIONS:
A. Inherent Limitations –
1. Public purpose;
2. Non-delegability of the power;
3. Territoriality or situs of taxation;
4. Exemption of government;
5. International comity.
B. Constitutional Limitations -
1. Due process of law - tax should not be confiscatory;
2. Equal protection clause;
3. Public purpose – tax for special purpose, treated as a
special fund and paid for such purpose only; when such
purpose is fulfilled, the balance, if any shall be
transferred to the general funds;
4. Double taxation – additional taxes are laid on the
same subject by the same taxing authority during the
same taxing period and for the same purpose;
Despite absence of specific constitutional prohibition,
double taxation will not be allowed if the same will result
in a violation of the equal protection clause.
5. Tax exemptions;
Where the tax exemption is granted gratuitously, it may
be revoked at will; but not if granted for a valuable
consideration (MCIAA vs. Marcos, 261 SCRA 667)
Majority votes of ALL the members of Congress required
in granting tax exemptions.
6. Non-imprisonment for non-payment of poll tax;
7. ART bills originating in the House of Representatives;
8. Non-impairment of contracts;
9. Non-impairment of SC jurisdiction over tax cases
TAX LICENSE FEE
Page 4 of 25
Political Law Areas in the 2019 Bar
Atty. Genesis M. Auza - #auzalawreview - 09207025338

To raise revenue – To regulate – a police A law which hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon
revenue measure measure inquiry and renders judgment only after trial.
Rate or amount to be Amount is limited to EXTENT/SCOPE OF PROTECTION
collected is unlimited cost of issuing the Universal in application without regard to any difference
provided not license and the in race, color or nationality. Applies also to artificial
confiscatory necessary inspection persons in so far as their property is concerned.
or police surveillance, 1. Life;
except when imposed 2. Liberty; and;
on non-useful 3. Property.
occupations
Imposed on persons or Paid for privileged of Note: Public office is not a property right but
property doing something but nevertheless a protected right (Bince vs. COMELEC,
the privilege is 218 SCRA 782).
revocable
In case of non- In case of non- • Mandatory suspension from public office
payment, business or payment, business pending criminal prosecution for violation of RA 3019 is
activity does not becomes illegal not deprivation of property without due process of law
become illegal (Libanan vs. Sandiganbayan, 233 SCRA 163).
One’s employment, profession or trade or calling is a
property right but is subject to reasonable regulation
pursuant to the police power (Crespo vs. Provincial
NON-IMPAIRMENT OF CONTRACTS Board, 160 SCRA 66).
Anything that diminishes the efficacy of the contract. There is
substantial impairment when the law changes the terms of a A mining license, being a mere privilege, may be
legal contract between the parties, either in the time or mode revoked, when public interest so requires (Republic vs.
of performance, or imposes new conditions, or dispenses Rosemoor Mining, GR No. 149927, March 30, 2004).
with those expressed, or authorizes for its satisfaction
something different from that provided in its terms (Clements SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS REQUISITES
vs. Nolting, 42 Phil. 702). Requisites:
1. The interest of the public, in general, as distinguished
from those of a particular class, require the intervention
• The change must not only impair the obligation
of the State [Lawful Subject];
of the existing contract, but the impairment must be
2. The means employed are reasonably necessary for
substantial and effect a change in the rights of the
the accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly
parties with reference to each other, and not with respect
oppressive on individuals [lawful means].
to non-parties (Phil. Rural Electric Coop. vs. Secretary of
DILG, GR No. 143076, June 10, 2003).
• An ordinance requiring all laundry
LIMITATIONS
establishments to issue receipts in English and Spanish
a• a) Police power – public welfare is superior to
was held valid (Kwong Sing vs. City of Manila, 41 Phil.
private rights.
103).
• But a law prohibiting traders from keeping their
Municipal zoning ordinance is a police measure and
books accounts in a language other than English,
prevails over a restriction contained in the title to
Spanish or any local dialect was held unconstitutional
property (Ortigas vs. Feati Bank, 94 SCRA 533).
(Yu Eng Cong vs. Trinidad, 271 US 500).
Regulation of rentals of dwelling units is an exercise
• A provision which provides that the surviving
of police power and an exception to the non-impairment
spouse has no right to survivorship pension benefits if
clause (Canleon vs. Agus Dev. Corp., 207 SCRA 748).
the surviving spouse contracted marriage with the
An AO probiting the assignment of salaries of
pensioner within three years before the pensioner
teachers to their creditors was not violative of the
qualified for pension benefit [sec 18, PD 1146] was
gurantee (Tiro vs. Hontanosas, 125 SCRA 697).
declared invalid (GSIS vs. Montesclaros, 434 SCRA 41).
Existing share tenancy contracts conversion to
leasehold tenancy through the exercise of police power
PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS REQUISITES
(Ilusorio vs. CAR, 17 SCRA 25).
Requisites:
But the substitution of a mortgage with a security
1. An impartial court/tribunal clothed with judicial power
bond for the payment of a loan violates non-impairment
to hear and decide the matter before it.
clause (Ganzon vs. Inserto, 123 SCRA 713).

a• b) Eminent Domain - 2. Jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over the

b• c) Taxation – person of the defendant and over the property which
is the subject matter of the proceeding. Otherwise,
• For both, see appropriate topics elsewhere. decision is void.

NOTE: Franchises, privileges, licenses, etc., do not 3. The defendant must be given an opportunity to be
come within the context of the guarantee. heard.

• If it is not availed of, it is deemed waived without

BILL OF RIGHTS violating the constitutional guarantee (Bautista vs. CA,
GR No. 157219, May 28, 2004).
DUE PROCESS OF LAW
Page 5 of 25
Political Law Areas in the 2019 Bar
Atty. Genesis M. Auza - #auzalawreview - 09207025338

• Unreasonable delay in the termination of the
preliminary investigation by the Tanodbayan is violative
of due process (Tatad vs. Sandiganbayan).
• When the petitioner was not given the chance to
present evidence, there is violation of due process, and
the Arbitrator’s decision is null and void (Unicraft
Industries vs. CA, GR No. 134309, March 26, 2001).
• Not all cases require trial-type hearing.
Submission of position papers may be enough [in
administrative proceedings], Mariveles vs. CA, GR No.
144134, Nov. 11, 2003).
• To be heard may also by means of pleadings
and not merely verbal arguments in court (Torres vs.
Gonzales, 152 SCRA 272).
• The respondent is not entitled to notice and
hearing during the evaluation stage of the extradition
process. It is to accommodate the more compelling state
Interest to prevent the escape of potential extraditee
(Sec. of Justice vs. Judge Lantion, GR No. 139465, Oct.
17, 2000).
• The right of a party to cross-examine the witness
against him in civil cases is an indispensable part of due
process.
• The filing of a MR cures the defect of absence of
a hearing (Chua vs. CA, 287 SCRA 33).
requirements upon Baclaran Credit Cooperative violated
equal protection clause (Olivarez vs. Sandiganbayan,
248 SCRA 700).
Equal protection clause is not violated by an
executive order issued pursuant to law, granting tax and
duty incentives only to businesses an residents within
the “secured area” of the Subic Special Economic Zone
and denying the same to those who live within the Zone
but outside the “fenced-in” territory (Tiu vs. CA, GR No.
127410, Jan. 20, 1999).
A compromise agreement between the PCGG and
the Marcoses providing that the assets to be retained by
Marcos family are exempt from all taxes violates equal
protection clause (Chavez vs. PCGG, GR No. 130716,
Dec. 9, 1998).
An ordinance imposing a tax on a named taxpayer
[Ormoc Sugar Company], and none other, was held
invalid because it will not apply in case a new sugar
central will be established It does not apply to present
and future condition and is limited to existing condition
only. (Ormoc Sugar Co. vs. Treasurer of Ormoc City (22
SCRA 603).

ADMINISTRATIVE DUE PROCESS (Ang Tibay vs. CIR,

69 Phil. 635) THREE TEST TO DETERMINE COMPLIANCE WITH
1. The right to a hearing, which includes the right to EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW
present one’s case and submit evidence in support
thereof; Rational Strict Intermediate
2. The tribunal must consider the evidence presented; Basis Scrutiny Scrutiny
3. The decision must have something to support itself; Applicability
4. The evidence must be substantial; Legislative Legislative Legislative
5. The decision must be rendered on the evidence classification classification classifications
presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the in general, affecting based on
record and disclosed to the parties; such as fundamental gender or
6. The tribunal or any of its judges must act on its own pertaining to rights or illegitimacy
independent consideration of the facts and the law of the economic or suspect
controversy and not simply accept the views of a social classes
subordinated in arriving at a decision; and legislation
7. The board or body should, in controversial questions, Legislative Purpose
render its decision in such a manner that the parties to Must be Must be Must be
the proceeding will know the various issues involved, legitimate compelling important
and the reasons for the decision. Relation of the classification to the purpose
Classification Classification Classification
must be is the least must be
EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS rationally restrictive substantially
VALID CLASSIFICATION related to the means to related to the
Persons or things ostensibly similarly situated may, legislative protect the legislative
nonetheless, be treated differently if there is a basis for valid purpose compelling purpose
classification. State interest
REQUISITES (B-A-G-A)
1. Based on substantial distinctions which make EX POST FACTO LAW
real differences An act which when committed was not a crime, cannot
2. Applies to present and future conditions be made so by statute without violating the constitutional
3. Germaine to the purpose of the law inhibition as to ex post facto laws. An ex post facto law is
4. Applies equally to all members of the same one which: [US vs. Diaz-Conde, GR No. 18208, Feb. 14,
class 1922]
1. Makes criminal an act done before the passage of
the law which was innocent when done;
The withdrawal of franking privileges formerly granted to
2. Aggravates a crime, or makes greater than it was,
the judiciary but remain in the executive and legislative
when committed;
branch was declared unconstitutional because the 3
3. Changes the punishment and inflicts a greater
branches are similarly situated [sec. 35, RA 7354] (Phil.
punishment than the law annexed to the crime when
Judges Ass. vs. Prado, 227 SCRA 703).
committed;
The act of the mayor in granting permit in favor of
unidentified vendors while imposing numerous
Page 6 of 25
Political Law Areas in the 2019 Bar
Atty. Genesis M. Auza - #auzalawreview - 09207025338
4. Alters the legal rules of evidence, and authorizes
conviction upon less or different testimony than the law
required at the time of the commission of the offense;
5. Assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies only,
but in effect imposing a penalty or deprivation of a right
for something which when done was lawful; and
6. Deprives a person accused of a crime of some
lawful protection to which he has
become entitled, such as protection of a former
conviction or acquittal, or a proclamation of amnesty.
CHARACTERISTICS:
a) Refers to criminal matters [not mere
procedural laws];
b) It is retroactive in application;
c) It works to the prejudice to the accused.
The judge cannot motu proprio, initiate and subsequently
dismiss a criminal information without ay motion to that
effect being filed by the accused based on the alleged
violation of the latter’s right against ex post facto law and
double jeopardy (P. vs. Judge Nitafan, GR No. 107964-
66, Feb. 1, 1999).
• Note: A law can never be an ex post facto as
long as it operates prospectively since its strictures
would cover only offenses committed after and not
before its enactment.
BILL OF ATTAINDER
It is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without trial. In
history, it is an act of the Parliament in England declaring that
the blood of certain person/s has/have been attainted (with
evil) and lacks heritable character.
CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION
Section 12, Article III of the 1987 Constitution states that
any person under investigation for the commission of an
offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to
remain silent and to have a competent and independent
counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person
cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be
provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except
in writing and in the presence of counsel.
DOUBLE JEOPARDY
Requisites:[DJ for the same offense]
1) Valid complaint or information –
• No DJ in Preliminary Investigation (Icasiano vs.
Sandiganbayan, 209 SCRA 377).
2) Filed before a competent court –
Subsequent filing of the case with a court of proper
jurisdiction, after it was erroneously filed with a court,
without territorial jurisdiction over the place where the
crime was committed, will not constitute DJ ((P. vs.
Puno,208 SCRA 550).
Where the criminal case was dismissed by the RTC so
that the appropriate information may be filed with the
Sandiganbayan which had jurisdiction, the defense of DJ
is not available (Cunanan vs. Arceo, 242 SCRA 88).
3) To which the defendant had pleaded –
The grant of motion to quash may be appealed by the
prosecution, without placing the accused under DJ,
because the accused has not been placed in [first]
jeopardy as there was yet been arraigned (sec. 9, Rule
117, ROC).
4) Defendant was previously acquitted or convicted,
or the case dismissed or otherwise terminated
without his express consent –
▪The mere filing of two informations or complaints
charging the same offense does not yet afford the
accused in those cases the occasion to complain that he
is being placed in jeopardy for the same offense, for the
simple reason that the primary basis of the defense of
DJ is that the accused has already been convicted or
acquitted in the first case, or the same has been
terminated without his consent (P. vs. Miraflores, 115
SCRA 586).
DOCTRINE OF SUPERVENING EVENT
The accused may still be prosecuted for another offense
if a subsequent development changes the character of
the first indictment under which he may have already
been charged or convicted. (see sec. 7, Rule 117, ROC).
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION, FREEDOM OF THE
PRESS
No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech,
of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people
peaceably to assemble and petition the government for
redress of grievances.
Limitation: Freedom of expression is NOT absolute. it is
always subject to the police power of the State. This is
premised on the need to protect society from injurious
exercise of said freedom and the need to promote or
protect public welfare, public safety, public morals and
national security (Suarez, 2008).
FREEDOM FROM PRIOR RESTRAINT OR
CENSORSHIP
 The arbitrary closure of a radio station DYRE was
held violative of freedom of expression (Eastern
Broadcasting vs. Dans, 137 SCRA 647).
Prohibition against the use of taped jingles in mobile
units used in election campaign was in the nature of
censorship (Mutuc vs. COMELEC, 36 SCRA).
Prohibition against radio commentators or
columnists from commenting on the issues involved in
the scheduled plebiscite on the organic law creating the
CAR was unconstitutional (Sanidad vs. COMELEC, 181
SCRA 529).
Prohibition of posting of decals and stickers in
mobile units like cars and other moving vehicles was
declared unconstitutional for infringement of freedom of
expression (Adiong vs. COMELEC, 207 SCRA 712).
OVERBREATH DOCTRINE
A prohibition on the government from achieving its
purpose by “means unnecessarily broad, reaching
constitutionally protected as well as unprotected activity.
The essence is that the government has gone too far.
GR: The established rule is that a party can question the
validity of a statute only if, as applied to him, it is
unconstitutional.
Exception: “FACIAL CHALLENGE”
Page 7 of 25
Political Law Areas in the 2019 Bar
Atty. Genesis M. Auza - #auzalawreview - 09207025338
The Overbreath Doctrine permits a party to challenge
the validity of a statute even though, as applied to him, it
is not unconstitutional, but it might be applied to others,
not before the Court, whose activities are constitutionally
protected. Invalidation of the statute “on its face” rather
than “as applied”, is permitted in the interest of
preventing a “chilling effect” on freedom of expression
(Cruz vs. Mendoza, Justice Mendoza, Concurring
opinion, GR No. 135385, Dec. 6, 2000).
Note: A facial challenge is the most difficult challenge to
mount successfully since the challenge must establish that no
set of circumstances exists under which the act would be
valid (Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan, GR No. 148560, Nov. 19,
2001).
Doctrine of Fair Comment - [as a valid defense in an
action for libel or slander]:
Fair commentaries on matters of public interest are privileged
and constitute a valid defense in an action for libel or slander.
The doctrine means that while in general every discreditable
imputation publicly made is deemed false, because every
man is presumed innocent until his guilt is judicially proved,
and every false imputation is deemed malicious,
nevertheless, when the discreditable imputation is directed
against a public person in his public (official) capacity, it is not
necessarily actionable.
TESTS OF VALID GOVERNMENTAL INTERFERENCE
a) Clear and Present Danger Rule – whether the words
are used in such circumstances and of such a nature as
to create a clear and present danger that will bring about
the substantive evils that the State has the right to
prevent (Schenck vs. US, 249 US 97).
Note: “Clear” indicates causal connection with the
danger of the substantive evil from the utterance in
question while “present” indicates time element,
identified with imminent and immediate danger; the
danger must not only be probable but very likely
inevitable (Gonzales vs. COMELEC, No. L-27833, April
18, 1969).
• It seems that there is more inclination to apply
the clear and present danger rule.
b) Dangerous Tendency Rule – the words uttered
create a dangerous tendency of an evil which the State
has the right to prevent. It is sufficient if the natural
tendency and the probable effect of the utterance were
to bring about the substantive evil that the legislative
body seeks to prevent (Cabansag vs. Fernandez, 102
Phil. 152).
c) Balancing of Interests Test – when particular
conduct is regulated in the interest of public order, and
the regulation results in an indirect, conditional, or partial
abridgment of speech, the duty of the courts is to
determine which of the two conflicting interests demands
the greater protection under the circumstances
presented (American Communication Ass. vs. Douds,
339 US 282).
FREEDOM TO ASSEMBLY
The right to assemble is not subject to prior restraint. It
may not be conditioned upon the prior issuance of a
permit or authorization. However, the right must be
exercised in such a way as well not prejudice public
welfare.
Thus, if the assembly is to be held in a public place, a
permit for the use of such place, and NOT for the
assembly itself. The power of local officials is merely one
of regulation (Primicias vs. Fugoso, 80 Phil. 71).
Or where the right is exercised by public school teachers
during regular school days instead of during free time,
the teachers committed acts prejudicial to the best
interest of the service (De la Cruz vs. CA, GR Nos.
126183 & 129221, March 25, 1999).
NO PERMIT IS REQUIRED (Public Assembly Act)
1) Meeting is to be held in a private place; or
2) In the campus of a government-owned or operated
educational institution; or
3) In freedom parks.
FREEDOM OF RELIGION
NON-ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE
This means that the State cannot set up a church, nor pass
laws which aid one religion, aid all religion, or prefer one
religion over another, nor force nor influence a person to go
or remain away from church against his will or force him to
profess a belief or disbelief in any religion (Everson vs. Board
of Education, 30 US 1).
FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE
Aspects of Freedom of Religious Profession and
Worship:
1) Right to believe [which includes the right NOT to
believe] – absolute.
2) Right to act on one’s beliefs – this is subject to
regulation pursuant to the police power.
The Court upheld the right of the petitioners to
refuse to salute the Philippine flag on account of their
religious scruples (Ebralinag vs. Division
Superintendent, 219 SCRA 256 [1993]).
The SC upheld the constitutionality of RA 3350,
exempting members of religious from being compelled to
join a labor union (Victoriano vs. Elizalde Rope Workers,
59 SCRA 54).
The SC recognized the right to proselytize as part of
religious freedom, and invalidated the application of a
city ordinance imposing license fees on the sale of
religious merchandize (American Bible Society vs. City
of Manila, 101 Phil. 386).
THE COMPELLING STATE INTEREST TEST
Benevolent neutrality recognizes that government must
pursue its secular goals and interests, but at the same time,
strive to uphold religious liberty to the greatest extent
possible within the flexible constitutional limits. Thus,
although the morality contemplated by law is secular,
benevolent neutrality could allow for accommodation of
morality based on religion, provided that it does not offend
compelling state interest (Estrada vs. Escritor, AM No. P-02-
1651, Aug. 4, 2003).
PRIVACY OF CORRESPONDENCE
Page 8 of 25
Political Law Areas in the 2019 Bar
Atty. Genesis M. Auza - #auzalawreview - 09207025338
The privacy of communication and
correspondence shall be inviolable except upon
lawful order of the court, or when public safety or
order requires otherwise, as prescribed by law.
Any evidence obtained in violation of this shall be
inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
LIBERTY OF ABODE AND RIGHT TO TRAVEL
Limitation on the liberty of abode: Lawful order of the court
within the limits prescribed by law.
Limitation on the right to travel: interest of national
security, public safety or public health, as may be
provided by law.
An administrative order suspending the deployment
of female domestic helpers abroad was upheld (PASE
vs. Drilon, supra).
The SC sustained the refusal of the government to
allow the petitioner’s return to the country on the ground
that it would endanger national security (Marcos cs.
Manglapus, 178 SCRA 760).
Note: A lawful order of the court is also a valid restriction on
the right to travel. The court may validly refuse to grant the
accused permission to travel abroad, even if he is out on bail
(Manotoc vs. CA, 142 SCRA 149).
RIGHT OF THE ACCUSED
CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS (Mejia vs. Pamaran, 160
SCRA 457):
1) The accused has been heard in a court of
competent jurisdiction;
2) The accused is proceeded against the orderly
process of law;
3) The accused has been given notice and the
opportunity to be heard; and
4) The judgment rendered was within the
authority of a constitutional law.
The unreasonable delay in resolving a complaint by
the Ombudsman violates due process and speedy trial
(Roque vs. Ombudsman, GR No. 129978, May 12,
1999).
Also unreasonable delay in the termination of
preliminary investigation violates due process (Tatad vs.
Sandiganbayan, 159 SCRA 70).
However, when the delay is due to complexity of the
issues, or the petitioner’s own acts, there is no violation
of due process and speedy trial (Santiago vs.
Garchitorena, 228 SCRA 214).
PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE
Every circumstance favoring the innocence of the
accused must be taken into account. The proof against
him must survive the test of reason; the strongest
suspicion must not be permitted to sway judgment (P.
vs. Austria, 195 SCRA 700).
RIGHT TO BE HEARD BY HIMSELF AND
COUNSEL
The right to counsel during trial is not subject to waiver
because “even the most intelligent or educated man may
have no skill in the science of law, particularly in the
rules of procedure, and without counsel, he may be
convicted not because he is guilty but because he does
not know how to establish his innocence (P. vs.
Holgado, 86 Phil. 752).
RIGHT TO BE INFORMED OF THE NATURE AND
CAUSE OF THE ACCUSATION AGAINST HIM
To arraign an accused while he is in a state of insanity will
violate the right of the accused to be informed of the nature
and cause of the accusation against him (P. vs. Alcalde, GR
No. 139225-26, May 29, 2002).
VOID FOR VAGUENESS RULE
Where the statute itself is couched is such indefinite
language that it is not possible for men of ordinary
intelligence to determine therefrom what acts or
omissions are punished, there is violation of the right to
be informed of the nature and cause of accusation and
due process (Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan, GR No. 148560, Nov.
19, 2001).
RIGHT TO SPEEDY, IMPARTIAL AND PUBLIC TRIAL.
A trial free from vexatious, capricious and oppressive
delays. But justice and fairness, not speed, are the
objectives. (Acevedo vs. Sarmiento, 36 SCRA 247).
RIGHT TO FACE THE WITNESS FACE TO FACE.
[aka the Right of Confrontation]
1. To afford the accused an opportunity to test the
testimony of the witness by cross-examination; and
2. To allow the judge to observe the deportment of the
witness (US vs. Javier, GR No. 12990, Jan. 21, 1918).
THE RIGHT TO COMPULSORY PROCESS TO
SECURE THE ATTENDANCE OF WITNESSES AND
PRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE.
TRIAL IN ABSENTIA
Whenever the accused has been arraigned, notified of
date/s of hearing, and his absence is unjustified, trial
shall proceed despite the absence of the accused.
Purpose: To speed up the disposition of criminal cases,
trial of which could, in the past, be indefinitely deferred,
and many times completely abandoned, because of the
defendant’s escape (P. vs. Agbulos, 222 SCRA 196).
Note: Presence of the accused is mandatory:
1) During arraignment;
2) During trial for identification;
3) During promulgation of sentence, except for light
offenses;
An accused who jumps bail, escapes from confinement,
or flees to a foreign country, loses standing in court, and
unless he surrenders or submits himself to the
jurisdiction of the court, he is deemed to have waived his
right to seek relief from the court, including the right to
appeal his conviction (P vs. Mapalao, 197 SCRA 79).
THE RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION
(Availability)
Available not only in criminal prosecutions but also in all
other government proceedings, including civil actions
and administrative or legislative investigations. It is
available not only to the accused but also any witness to
whom a question calling for an incriminating answer is
addressed.
Page 9 of 25
Political Law Areas in the 2019 Bar
Atty. Genesis M. Auza - #auzalawreview - 09207025338
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (Amparo Libertad)
It is a writ directed to the person detaining another and
commanding him to produce the body of the prisoner at
a certain time and place, with the day and the cause of
his caption and detention, to do, to submit to, and
receive whatsoever the court or judge awarding the writ
shall consider in his behalf.
Writ of Amparo [AM No. 07-9-12-SC]
Is a remedy available to any person whose right to life,
liberty and security is violated or threatened with
violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public
official or employee, or of a private individual or entity.
The writ shall cover extralegal killings and enforced
disappearances or threats thereof.
The Writ of Habeas Data [AM No. 08-1-16-SC]
The writ of habeas data is a remedy available to any
person whose right to privacy in life, liberty or security
is violated or threatened by an unlawful act or omission
of a public official or employee, or of a private individual
or entity engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing
of data or information regarding the person, family,
home and correspondence of the aggrieved party.
SEARCHES AND SEIZURES
The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable
searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any
purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or
warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable
cause to be determined personally by the judge after
examination under oath or affirmation of the
complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and
particularly describing the place to be searched and
the persons or things to be seized. (MEMORIZE)
WARRANTLESS SEARCHES AND SEIZURES
1. Right voluntarily waived;
The consent must be voluntary, unequivocal, specific and
intelligently given, uncontaminated by any duress or
coercion. It cannot be lightly inferred but must be proved
by clear and convincing evidence. The burden of proof is
upon the State (Caballes vs. CA, GR NO. 136292, Jan. 15,
2002).
2. Routine airport security procedure as allowed
under RA 6235.
Strip search in the ladies’ room was held valid under the
circumstance (P. vs. Canton, GR No. 148825, Dec. 27,
2002)
3. When there is valid reason to “stop and frisk”.
The right of a police officer to stop a citizen on the street,
interrogate him and pat him for weapons whenever he
observes unusual conduct which leads him to conclude
that criminal activity may be a foot [Terry Search] (Terry
vs. Ohio).
Requisite: The apprehending officer must have
a genuine reason, in accordance with the police
officer’s experience and the surrounding conditions,
to warrant a belief that the person to be held has
weapons or contraband concealed about him. The
search must precede the arrest.
A suspicion because the petitioner’s “eyes were moving
fast” does not justify a search under this rule (Malacat vs.
CA, GR No. 123595, Dec. 12, 1997).
4. Where the search is an incident to a lawful
arrest.
Requisites:
i. It is necessary that the apprehending officer must have
been spurred by probable cause in effecting the arrest
which could be considered as on in cadence with the
instances of permissible arrests enumerated in sec. 5,
Rule 113, ROC;
ii. Search is contemporaneous with the arrest;
Thus, where the officers, after conducting a buy-
bust, reported to the office and subsequently return to
the place of sale to conduct a search, such search is
invalid.
iii. Made within the permissible area of search – includes
the premises or surroundings under his immediate
control.
Thus, the search inside the house where the buy-
bust operation was conducted outside the house is
invalid (Espano vs. CA, 288 SCRA 558).
Note: Under this exception, the valid arrest must
precede the search. The process cannot be reversed (P.
vs. Chua Ho San, GR NO. 128222, June 17, 1999).
5. Search in vessels and aircrafts
6. Search in moving vehicles (Extensive if there is
probable cause. Visual search if otherwise.)
7. Inspection of buildings and other premises for
the enforcement of fire, sanitary and building
regulations.
8. When prohibited articles are in plain view
Requisites: (P. vs. Aruta, GR No. 120515, April 13,
1998).
i. Prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless
arrest in which the police are legally present in the
pursuit of their official duties;
• Valid intrusion includes being present in the
place by reason of a warrantless arrest, search with a
search warrant for other object sought, search incidental
to lawful arrest and other legitimate reasons
unconnected with a search directed against the accused
(United Lab. vs. Isip, GR No. 163858, June 28, 2005).
ii. The evidence is inadvertently discovered;
iii. Evidence is immediately apparent without any
further search;
iv. Illegality of the evidence must be apparent.
The apparent illegality does not require unduly high
degree of certainty as to the incriminating character of
the evidence. What is required is merely a probable
cause to associate the property with a criminal activity
(United Lab. vs. Isip, supra).
Note: An object is in plain view if the object itself is
plainly exposed to sight. Where the object is in a closed
package, the object is not in plain view.
Exception: when the package proclaims its
contents, whether by its distinctive configuration,
Page 10 of 25
Political Law Areas in the 2019 Bar
Atty. Genesis M. Auza - #auzalawreview - 09207025338
its transparency, or if its contents are obvious to
the observer (Caballes vs. CA, supra).
9. Search and seizure under emergency;
10. Search and seizure by private individual;
11. Search in open field;
12. Search of an office computer assigned to a
government employee;
Search of an office computer assigned to a
government employee.
The search of office computer, where personal files
were stored and used by the government employer
as evidence against the respondent in an
administrative case (misconduct), was held
reasonable by SC under the circumstances. There
was no violation of the constitutional right to privacy
as guaranteed by section 2, Article III of the
Constitution. (Pollo vs. Constantino-David, GR No.
181881, Oct. 18, 2011, En Banc).
WARRANTLESS ARREST
1. When the person to be arrested has committed, is
committing, or is attempting to commit an offense in
his presence. [in flagrante delictu].
2. When the offense had just been committed and
there is probable cause to believe, based on his
personal knowledge of facts or of other
circumstances, that the person to be arrested has
committed the offense. [Hot Pursuit].
3. When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who
has escaped from a penal establishment or place
where he is serving final judgment or temporarily
confined while his case is pending, or has escaped
while being transferred from one confinement to
another.
4. Right voluntarily waived
No person shall be imprisoned for debt or non-
payment of a poll tax.
The trial court’s order for the arrest of the defendant for
failure, owing to his insolvency, to pay past and present
support was held invalid by the SC (Sura vs. Martin, 26
SCRA 286).
A warrant of arrest on the strength of a criminal
complaint charging the accused with “willful non-
payment of debt” was annulled by the SC (Serafin vs.
Lindayag, 67 SCRA 166).
CITIZENSHIP
The following are citizens of the Philippines:
(1)Those who are citizens of the Philippines at
the time of the adoption of this Constitution;
(2)Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of
the Philippines;
(3)Those born before January 17, 1973, of
Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine Citizenship
upon reaching the age of majority; and
(4)Those who are naturalized in the accordance
with law.
DUAL ALLEGIANCE VS DUAL CITIZENSHIP
An individual may have 2 or more citizenship but
owe allegiance to one State. Taking for example
RA no. 9225 providing for retention of Philippine
citizenship among natural born Filipino citizens.
Dual citizenship arises when, as a result of the
concurrent application of the different laws of two
or more states, a person is simultaneously
considered a national by those states and is
involuntary. Dual allegiance refers to the
situation in which a person simultaneously owes
by some positive and voluntary act, loyalty to
two or more states (Mercado vs. Manzano, 307
SCRA 630 [1999]).
NATURAL BORN FILIPINO
Natural-born citizens are those who are citizens of the
Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to
acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship. Those who
elect Philippine citizenship in accordance with paragraph (3),
Section 1 hereof shall be deemed natural-born citizens.
Offices which may only be occupied by natural-born
Filipino citizens:
a. Elective Office –
i. President;
ii. Vice-President;
iii. Senators;
iv. Members of the House of Representatives.
b. Appointive Offices –
i. Chief Justice and Members of the SC or any
lower collegiate court;
ii. Chairman and Members of Constitutional
Commissions;
iii. Ombudsman and the Deputy Ombudsman;
iv. Member of the governing board of the
Monetary Board;
v. Chairman and members of the CHR.
WAYS OF REACQUIRING CITIZENSHIP
a) Taking the oath of allegiance under RA 9225;
b) Naturalization;
c) Repatriation of women under RA 8171;
d) Repatriation of deserters of the armed forces;
See PD 725.
When Repatriation Takes Effect:
It retroacts to the date of filing of the application (Frivaldo
vs. COMELEC, 257 SCRA 727).
Effect of Repatriation:
Return to his original status before he lost his Philippine
citizenship. Thus, a former natural born Filipino citizen is
deemed to have recovered his natural-born status
through repatriation (Bengzon vs. HRET, GR No.
142840, May 7, 2001).
See RA 8171.
e) By direct act of congress.
Page 11 of 25
Political Law Areas in the 2019 Bar
Atty. Genesis M. Auza - #auzalawreview - 09207025338
REPATRIATION
Under the ruling in Bengson v. House of
Representatives Electoral Tribunal. 357 SCRA 545
[2001], by virtue of repatriation, a personis restored to
his original status as a natural-born Filipino citizen.
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
LEGISLATIVE POWER
The power to propose, enact, amend and repeal laws.
Nature of Legislative Power
The authority to make laws and to alter and repeal them
and vested in Congress, except to the extent reserved to
the people by the provisions on initiative and
referendum.
APPROPRIATION OF PUBLIC FUNDS
All appropriation, revenue or tariff bills, bills authorizing
increase of the public debt, bills of local application, and
private bills, shall originate exclusively in the House of
Representatives, but the Senate may propose or concur with
amendments. (A-P-R-I-L)
The President shall have the power to veto any particular
item or items in an appropriation, revenue, or tariff bill, but
the veto shall not affect the item or items to which he does
not object. (A-R-T)
POWER OF AUGMENTATION
REQUISITES
a. There must be surplus at the end of the fiscal year
b. There must be a law allowing the exercise of
augmentation
c. The project for which needs to be augmented with
funds is an item found in the General Appropriations
act
d. The augmentation must not be a cross-border
transfer of funds. Limited to each province of the
three great branches of the government.
COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENT
Composition –
i i. Senate President, as ex oficio chairman;
ii ii. 12 Senators, and 12, Representatives, elected
based on proportional representation.
▪Note: It is not mandatory to elect 12 senators to the
Commission, what the Constitution requires is that there
must be at least a majority of the entire membership
(Guingona vs. Gonzales, 214 SCRA 789).
▪For the Senate, a political party must have at least 2
members to be entitled to one seat in the Commission.
Rounding off is not allowed (Ibid).
▪The Commission on Appointments is independent of
the two Houses of Congress; its employees are not
technically employees of Congress. It has the power to
promulgate its own rules of procedure.
MODES OF REMOVAL
In accordance with Art. III, section 16(3), of the
Constitution, Senators and Congressmen may be
removed by their EXPULSION for disorderly
behavior, with the concurrence of at least two-thirds
of all the members of the House to which they
belong. In addition, they may also be removed in
consequence of an election contest filed with the
Senate or House of Representatives Electoral
Tribunal.
QUALIFICATION OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
QUALIFICATIONS: [Senator]
1) Natural-born citizen;
2) At least 35 years old, on the election day;
The age qualification must be possessed on the election
day, that is, when the polls are opened and the votes are
cast and not on the day of the proclamation.
3) Able to read and write;
4) Registered voter;
5) Resident of the Philippines for at least 2 years
immediately preceding Election Day.
QUALIFICATIONS: regular member of House of
Representative
1) Natural-born citizen;
2) At least 25 years old, on the day of election;
3) Able to read and write;
4) Registered voter in the district in which he shall be
elected, except for party-list representatives;
5) A resident in the district for not less than 1 year
immediately preceding the election day.
DISQUALIFICATIONS:
a) Incompatible office (1st part) –
Forfeiture of the seat in Congress shall be automatic
upon the member’s assumption of such other office
deemed incompatible with his seat in Congress (Adaza
vs. Pacana, 135 SCRA 431).
The rule does not apply where the office is only in an ex
oficio capacity. It is deemed part of the function of his
principal office.
b) Forbidden office (2nd part) –
The ban against appointment to the office created or
emoluments thereof increased shall, however, last only
for the duration of the term for which the member was
elected.
Qualifications: [party-list representative]
1) natural-born citizen;
2) a registered voter;
3) a resident of the Philippines for a period of not less
that one year immediately preceding the day of the
election;
4) able to read and write;
5) bona fide member of the party or organization which
he seeks to represent for at least 90 days preceding the
day of the election; and
6) at least 25 years of age on the day of the election. In
case of the youth sector, he must at least be 25 but not
more than 30 years old on the day of the election (sec.
9, RA 7941).
(Section2(5), Article IX-C of the Constitution). Under
the law, the following are grounds for
disqualification for registration in the party-list
system:
Page 12 of 25
Political Law Areas in the 2019 Bar
Atty. Genesis M. Auza - #auzalawreview - 09207025338

1. It is a religious sect or denomination, organization i i. It must be in aid of legislation (Bengzon vs.

or association organized for religious purposes;
2. It advocates violence or unlawful means to seek
its goal;
3. It is a foreign party or organization;
4. It is receiving support from any foreign
government, foreign political party, foundation,
organization, whether directly or through any of its
officers or members or indirectly through
third parties for partisan election purposes;
5. It violates or fails to comply with laws, rules or
regulations relating to elections;
6. It declares untruthful statements in its petition;
7. It has ceased to exist for at least one (1) year;
Senate Blue Ribbon, 203 SCRA 767);
ii ii. In accordance with duly published rules of
procedure;
iii As the Senate of each Congress acts separately
and independently of the Senate of the Congress before
it, the same is required to republish the Rules in order to
comply with sec. 21 (Neri vs. Senate, GR No. 180643,
Sept. 4, 2008).
iv iii. Right of persons appearing, in, or affected by
such inquiry, shall be respected;
Thus, right against self-incrimination is available even in
legislative investigations in aid of legislation.

Four Inviolable Principles under RA 7941 and the Sec. 21 Legislative Sec. 22 Oversight
Constitution: (Veterans Federation Party vs. Investigation Function
COMEMLEC, GR No. 136781, Oct. 6, 2000) As to persons who may appear
Any person Only a department
a) The 20% allocation. The combined number of all the head
party-list congressmen shall not exceed 20% of the total As to who conducts investigation
membership of the House of Representatives; Committees Entire body
b) The 2% threshold. Only those parties garnering a As to subject matter
minimum of 2% of the total votes cast for the party-list Any matter for the Matters related to the
system are qualified to have a seat in the House; purpose of legislation department only
c) The 3 seat limit. Each qualified party, regardless of As to purpose
the number of votes it actually obtained, is entitled to a In aid of legislation, the The objective of which
maximum of 3 seats; aim to which is to elicit is to obtain information
d) Proportional representation. The additional seats information that may be in pursuit of oversight
which a qualified party is entitled to shall be computed used for legislation function
“in proportion to their total number of votes”. As to attendance
Compulsory Discretionary hence it
The continued operation of the 2% threshold as it
is valid for the
applies to the allocation of the additional seat is now
President to require
unconstitutional because this threshold mathematically
that the consent be
prevents the filling-up of the available party-list seats.
required first before her
The additional seats shall be distributed to the parties in
subordinates appear
a second round of seat allocation (Barangay Ass. for
As to compelling power of Congress
National Advancement [BANAT] vs. COMELEC, GR No.
Can compel the Congress cannot
179271, April 21, 2009).
attendance of compel appearance of
executive officials, executive officials if no
except the President consent is given.
ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL
POWER: The SET and HRET shall be the sole judge of
all contests relating to the election, returns and DELEGATION OF POWERS
qualifications of their respective members. The Rule is that what has been delegated cannot be re-
Electoral Tribunal may assume jurisdiction only after the delegated (Potestas delegata non potest delegare). The
winning candidate shall have been duly proclaimed, has delegated power constitutes not only a right but a duty to
taken his oath of office and assumed the functions of the be performed by the delegate through the instrumentality
office, because it is only then that he is said to be a of his own judgment and not thorough the intervening
member of Congress (Aquino vs. COMELEC, 248 SCRA mind of another.
400).
REVIEW OF DECISIONS EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT
Its decisions may be reviewed by the SC only upon
showing of grave abuse of discretion in a petition for
certiorari filed under Rule 65 (Pena vs. HRET, GR No. QUALIFICATIONS
123037, March 21, 1997). [President and V-President]
i. Natural-born citizen;
ii. Registered voter;
SEPARATION OF POWER iii. Able to read and write;
The Power of Legislative Investigation iv. At least 40 years old on the election day;
May refer to the implementation or re-examination of any v. Resident of the Philippines for at least 10 years
law or appropriation, or in connection with any proposed immediately preceding such election.
legislation or for the formulation of or in connection with
future legislation, or will aid in the review or formulation POWERS
of a new legislative policy or enactment (Senate Rules
Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation). Executive Power – (sec. 1, art. VII)
Limitations:

Page 13 of 25
Political Law Areas in the 2019 Bar
Atty. Genesis M. Auza - #auzalawreview - 09207025338
i. The power of carrying out the law into practical
operation and enforcing their due observance. It is the
power to execute and to administer the laws.
ii. Power to reorganize the Office of the President;
The President has the continuing authority to reorganize
the national government, which includes the power to
group, consolidate bureaus and agencies, to abolish
offices, to transfer functions, to create and classify
functions, services and activities and to standardize
salaries and materials; it is effected in good faith if it is
for the purpose of economy or to make bureaucracy
more efficient (MEWAP vs. Executive Sec., GR No.
160093, July 31, 2007).
Residual Powers: It is the power borne by the
President’s duty to preserve and defend the Constitution.
It may also be viewed as a power implicit in the
President’s duty to take care that the laws are faithfully
executed.
Faithful Execution Clause
Faithful execution of the laws requires that the President
desist from implementing the law if doing so would
prejudice public interest. An example given is when
through efficient and prudent management of a project,
substantial savings are made. In such a case, it is sheer
folly to expect the President to spend the entire amount
appropriated in the law (PHILCONSA vs. Enriquez, 235
SCRA 506, Aug. 9, 1994).
The Doctrine of Executive Immunity:
The doctrine means that the executive will be protected
from personal liability for damages not only when he acts
within his authority, but also when he is without authority,
provided that he actually used discretion and judgment,
that is, the judicial faculty in determining whether he had
authority to act or not.
Executive Privilege – right of the President and high-
level executive officials to withhold information from
Congress, the courts and ultimately, the public.
APPOINTING POWER
APPOINTMENT WHICH REQUIRES CONSENT FROM
COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENT
Under Section 16, Article VII of the Constitution
1. Head of executive departments;
2. Ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;
3. Officers of the armed forces from the rank of
colonel or naval captain;
4. Other officers whose appointments are vested in
him by the Constitution;
OTHER APPOINTMENT WITHOUT NEED OF CA CONSENT
1. All other officers of the government whose
appointments are not otherwise provided by
law; and
2. Those whom he may be authorized by law to
appoint.
AD INTERIM APPOINTMENT; ACTING VS
PERMANENT
Permanent – are those extended to persons
possessing the requisite eligibility and are thus protected
by the constitutional guarantee of security of tenure.
b) Temporary – are those given to persons
without eligibility, revocable at will and without necessity
of just cause or a valid investigation; made on the
understanding that the appointing power has not yet
decided on a permanent appointee and that the
temporary appointee may be replaced at any time a
permanent choice is made.
• Note: temporary appointment and a designation
are not subject to confirmation by the Commission on
Appointments., even if given erroneously, it will not make
the appointment permanent (Valencia vss. Peralta, 8
SCRA 692).
a• c) Regular – one made by the President while
Congress is in session, takes effect only after
confirmation by the Commission on Appointments, and
once approved, continues until the end of the term of the
appointee.
a• d) Ad interim – one made while the Congress is
not in session, takes effect immediately, but ceases to
be valid if disapproved by the Commission on
Appointments, or upon the next adjournment of
Congress.
TREATY AND EXECUTIVE AGREEMENT
No treaty or international agreement shall be valid and
effective unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the
Members of the Senate.
The power to ratify is vested in the President, subject to the
concurrence of the Senate. The role of the Senate, however,
is limited only to giving or withholding its consent, or
concurrence to the ratification.
Distinguish treaty from an executive agreement.
a. A treaty is an international agreement involving
political issues or changes of national policy. It is of a
permanent character. An executive agreement embodies
adjustments of detail carrying out well-established
national policies and traditions and those involving
arrangements of a more or less temporary nature.
b. A treaty is a more formal document. An executive
agreement is a less formal document such as exchange
of notes, agreements and protocol.
c. A treaty may pertain to subjects such as military
alliance, extradition, etc. An executive agreement covers
such subjects as commercial and consular relations,
most favored nation rights, patent rights, trademark and
copyright protection, postal and navigational
arrangements and the settlement of claims.
d. A treaty requires ratification by at least 2/3 of all
members of the Senate. An executive agreement does
not require such ratification. (Commissioner of Customs
vs. Eastern Sea Trading, 3 SCRA 351).
Requisites for Validity of Treaty
a) Treaty-making capacity.
Every State possesses the capacity to conclude treaties,
as an attribute of sovereignty. International
organizations, also possess treating capacity, although
may be limited by the purpose and the constitution of
such organizations.
Page 14 of 25
Political Law Areas in the 2019 Bar
Atty. Genesis M. Auza - #auzalawreview - 09207025338

b) Competence of the representative/organ Pardon is granted only Can be granted generally

concluding the treaty. after final conviction at any time even before
prosecution is
Generally, the Head of State exercises the treaty-making commenced or after
power. In our country, it is the President who exercises conviction
the power, subject to the concurrence of 2/3 of all the
members of the Senate. Generally available to any Generally granted to
c) Consent freely given. class of crimes persons who are guilty of
political offenses
The consent may be expressed by signature, exchange
of instruments constituting a treaty, ratification, approval
or accession, or by other means manifesting consent.
Where consent is given in error or induced through Pardon looks forward and Looks backwards and
fraud, the treaty is voidable. relieves the offender from abolishes and puts into
Doctrine of Unequal Treaties: Treaties which have the imposition of the oblivion the offense itself
been imposed, through coercion or duress, by a State of penalty but does not work and the person stands
unequal character, are VOID. for the restoration of the before the law as though
d) Lawful subject/object. rights to hold public office, he had committed no
or the right of suffrage, crime
It must be within the commerce of nations and in and other vestiges of the Hence, the accused is not
conformity with international law. crime (like moral considered a recidivist
However, the object is deemed illegal only when it turpitude) unless (US vs. Francisco, 10
contravenes or departs from an absolute or imperative expressly remitted in the Phil. 185).
rule or prohibition of international law. pardon)
e) Ratification in accordance with
Constitutional processes of the parties.
Section 21, Art. VII, 1987 Const. No JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
treaty or international agreement shall be valid
and effective unless concurred in by at least two-
thirds of all the Members of the Senate. POLITICAL QUESTIONS
POLITICAL QUESTION
It means, in ordinary parlance, namely a question of
MARTIAL LAW AND SUSPENSION OF PRIVILEGE policy. It is concerned with issues dependent on wisdom,
OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS not legality, of a given measure. It refers to either –
i. Grounds: invasion or rebellion, when public safety a. Under the Constitution, are to be decided by
requires it. the people in their sovereign capacity; or
ii. Duration: not to exceed 60 days, following which it b. In regard to which, full discretionary authority
shall be lifted, unless extended by Congress. has been delegated to the executive or legislative
iii. Duty to report to Congress: within 48 hours, branch of the government.
personally or in writing.
JUDICIAL REVIEW OF APPOINTMENTS
iv. Congress’ power: may revoke or extend, on request
An appointment is generally a political question so long
of the President, the effectivity of the proclamation by a
as the appointee fulfills the minimum qualification
majority of all its members in a joint session, voting
requirements prescribed by law. Where the validity of the
jointly.
appointment is not challenged in appropriate
v. Supreme Court’s power of review – in an appropriate
proceedings, the question of the competence of the
proceeding filed by any citizen to determine the
public officer is beyond the pale judicial inquiry (Tañada
sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation, within
vs. Philippine Atomic Energy Commission).
30 days from filing.
vi. Right to bail: Not impaired.
vii. Applicability: Only to persons judicially charged for JUDICIAL REVIEW
rebellion or offense inherent in or necessarily connected The power of the courts to test the validity of executive
with invasion. and legislative acts in light of their conformity with the
viii. Period of detention: 3 days, otherwise, he shall be Constitution. This is not an assertion of superiority by the
released. courts over the other departments, but merely an
expression of the supremacy of the Constitution (Angara
vs. Electoral Commission, 63 Phil. 139).
PARDON AND AMNESTY
PARDON AMNESTY REQUISITES OF JUDICIAL REVIEW/INQUIRY
Pardon is granted by the Proclamation by the Chief 1. Actual case or controversy – A conflict of legal
Chief Executive Executive and rights, an assertion of opposite legal claims susceptible
concurrence of Congress of judicial determination.
a. The controversy must be definite and concrete
Must be pleaded and Need not be alleged and
involving a real clash of adverse interests.
proved (private proved (public
b. A request for advisory opinion is not actual case.
act of the president) act which the courts can
c. The issues raised must not be conjectural or
take judicial notice)
anticipatory.
d. The issues raises must not be moot and academic.

Page 15 of 25
Political Law Areas in the 2019 Bar
Atty. Genesis M. Auza - #auzalawreview - 09207025338
Exceptions to the mootness rule:
I. There is grave violation of the Constitution.
II. Paramount public interest because of exceptional
circumstances.
III. Court exercises symbolic function.
IV. Issues raised are capable of repetition yet evading
review.
Requisites:
1) The life of the controversy is too short to be fully
litigated prior to its termination.
2) There is reasonable expectation that the same
problem would arise again.
2. Raised by the proper party.
REAL PARTY IN INTEREST
Party who is ought to be benefited or injured by the
judgment in a suit raised by the person entitled to the
avails of the suit.
A party who has sustained or is in imminent danger of
sustaining an injury as a result of the act complained of.
Samples:
a) Province has personality to question
provisions of the GAA relative to projects funded
by IRA (Province of Batangas vs. Romulo, 429
SCRA 736).
b) Legislator [senator] has standing to bring suit
for usurpation of legislative powers (Ople vs.
Torres, 293 SCRA 141).
c) Passengers of buses, trains and jeepneys in
questioning DOTC memo authorizing operators to
increase/decrease fares (KMU vs. Garcia, 239
SCRA 386).
d) Registered voters in cases involving the right
of suffrage.
e) Taxpayers in cases involving taxing or
spending powers of Congress.
Requisites:
1) Public funds are disbursed by a political subdivision or
instrumentality;
2) A law is violated or some irregularity is committed by
allegedly ultra vires act (AGLP vs. CA, 260 SCRA 250).
f) The government is a proper party to question the
validity of its own laws (P. vs. Vera, 65 Phil. 56).
NOTE: A party’s standing in court is a procedural
technicality which may be set aside by the court in view
of the importance of the issues involved.
• Issues of paramount interest (Kilosbayan vs.
Guingona, 232 SCRA 110).
• Issues of transcendental importance (ITF vs.
Comelec, GR No. 159139, Jan. 13, 2004).
“FACIAL CHALLENGE”
A facial challenge to a legislative act is the most difficult
challenge to mount successfully since the challenge
must establish that no set of circumstances exits under
which the act would be valid (Estrada vs.
Sandiganbayan, GR No. 148560, Nov. 19, 2001).
• This challenge operates properly in the realm of
freedom of expression.
• Take note that legislative act infringing upon
freedom of expression comes to court with a heavy
presumption of unconstitutionality.
3. The question must be raised at the earliest
possible opportunity.
As a rule it must be raised in the pleadings, however –
a• a) In criminal cases – the question can be raised
at any time at the discretion of the court.
b• b) In civil cases – at any stage if necessary for
the determination of the case itself.
c• c) At any stage – if the issue involves jurisdiction
of the court, except when there is estoppel.
NOTE: The question of unconstitutionality may not
necessarily be raised in the pleadings if the tribunal
where the case is initially filed or pending has no
jurisdiction to resolve question of unconstitutionality.
4. The decision on the question must be the very lis
mota of the case.
Ratio: separation of powers demands proper respect be
accorded the other departments. The Court stressed that
it will not pass upon a question of constitutionality if the
case can be disposed of on some other ground (Mirasol
vs. CA).
Every law has in its favor the presumption of
constitutionality, and to justify its nullification, there must
be a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution,
and not one that is doubtful, speculative or
argumentative (Arceta vs. Mangrobang, GR No. 152895,
June 15, 2004).
DOCTRINE OF OPERATIVE FACTS – The general rule
is that an unconstitutional law is void. It produces no
rights, imposes no duties and affords no protection.
However, the doctrine of operative fact is an exception to
the general rule and it only applies as a matter of equity
and fair play. Under the doctrine of operative fact, the
unconstitutional law remains unconstitutional, but the
effects of the unconstitutional law, prior to its judicial
declaration of nullity, may be left undisturbed as a matter
of equity and fair play. It can never be invoked to
validate as constitutional an unconstitutional act.
JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL
The Judicial and Bar Council has the principal
function of recommending appointees to the Judiciary.
It may exercise such other functions and duties as the
Supreme Court may assign to it. (Art. VIII, sec. 8(5)).
The JBC is composed of the Chief Justice as ex
officio Chairman, the Secretary of Justice and a
representative of the Congress as ex officio Members,
a representative of the Integrated Bar, a professor of
law, a retired Member of the Supreme Court, and a
representative of the private sector. (Art. VIII,
sec. 8(1)).
The Supreme Court supervises the JBC andprovides
in the annual budget of the Court the appropriations of
the JBC. (Art. VIII, sec. 8(4)).
SEPARATION OF POWER
Note: The Ombudsman may not initiate or investigate a
criminal or administrative complaint before his office
against a judge; he must first indorse the case to the SC
for appropriate action (Fuentes vs. Office of the
Ombudsman, GR No. 124295, Oct. 23, 2001).
Page 16 of 25
Political Law Areas in the 2019 Bar
Atty. Genesis M. Auza - #auzalawreview - 09207025338
The investigation conducted by the Ombudsman
encroaches into the SC’s power of administrative
supervision over all courts and its personnel, in violation
of the doctrine of separation of powers (Maceda vs.
Vasquez, 221 SCRA 469).
CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS
RATIONAL SCHEME
The rational scheme of appointments in the COMELEC
refers to the appointment of the Commissioner and 5 of
its members not simultaneously but by intervals of every
after 2 years upon expiration of their term of office.
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
CAREER SERVICE
Career Service – Characterized by:
i. entrance based on merit and fitness to be
determined, as far as practicable by competitive
examinations, or based on highly technical qualifications;
ii. opportunity for advancement to higher career
positions; and
iii. Security of tenure.
Note: The mere fact that the position belongs to the
Career Executive Service does not automatically confer
security of tenure. Such right will have to depend on the
nature of appointment which, in turn, depends on his
eligibility or lack of it. A person who does not have the
required qualifications may be appointed only in an
acting capacity, in the absence of appropriate eligibles.
The appointment cannot be regarded as permanent,
even if it is so designated (De Leon vs. CA, GR No.
127182, Jan. 22, 2001).
GOCC WITH ORIGINAL CHARTER VS GOCC
WITHOUT ORIGINAL CHARTER
1. Section 13. Article VII of the Constitution,
which prohibits the President from appointing his
spouse and relatives within the fourth degree of
consanguinity or affinity does not distinguish between
government corporations with original charters
and their subsidiaries, because the prohibition applies
to both.
2. Section 13, Article VII of the Constitution, which
prohibits Members of Congress from holding any
other office during their term without forfeiting their
seat, does not distinguish between government
corporations with original charters and their
subsidiaries, because the prohibition applies to both.
3. Section 2, Article IX-A of the Constitution, which
prohibits Members of the Constitutional Commissions
from being financially interested in any contract with
or any franchise or privilege granted by the
Government, does not distinguish between
government corporations with original charters and
their subsidiaries, because the prohibition applies to
both.
4. Section 2(1), Article IX-D of the Constitution which
provides for post audit by the Commission on audit of
government corporations, does not distinguish
between government corporations with original
charters and their subsidiaries, because the
provision applies to both.
5. Section 5, Article IX-B of the Constitution, which
provides for the standardization of the compensation
of government officials and employees, distinguishes
between government corporations and their
subsidiaries, for the provision applies only to
government corporations with original charters.
REMOVAL FROM OFFICE OF OFFICERS AND
EMPLOYEES IN CIVIL SERVICE
Under Art. IX-B. Sec. 2(3) of the Constitution, officers
and employees in the Civil Service may only be
removed for cause as provided by law and after
observance of due process. Their removal must be
effected by the appropriate disciplinary authority in
accordance with Ch. 7 secs. 47-48 of Book V of the
Administrative Code of 1987 and the Civil Rules and
Regulations.
SECURITY OF TENURE
There is no such thing as an absolute right to hold office.
Except those who hold constitutional offices which
provide for special immunity as regards salary and
tenure, no one can be said to have vested right to office
or salary. When loss of public position or office is due to
the exercise of the power of the President to regorganize
the executive department, then such is valid and there is
no violation of security of tenure. (Banda v. Ermita, GR.
166620 April 20, 2010)
COMELEC
GRANT OF PARDON
The Constitution requires recommendation from the
COMELEC before the President may grant executive
clemency for offenses violating election laws.
JURISDICTION
Jurisdiction to entertain petition to declare failure of
election: The COMELEC, sitting en banc, motu proprio
or upon a verified petition, and with a hearing summary
in nature.
A law granting the COMELEC jurisdiction over
inclusion and exclusion cases is unconstitutional.
Under Section 2(3), Article IXC of the Constitution, the
COMELEC cannot decide the right to vote, which
refers to the inclusion and exclusion of voters. Under
Section 2(6), Article IX-C of the Constitution, it can
only file petitions in court for inclusion or exclusion of
voters.
The COMELEC shall have exclusive jurisdiction over all
–pre-proclamation controversies [sec. 242, BP 881]. The
possibility of conflict of jurisdiction between the
COMELEC and the HRET and SET regarding contests
involving congressional elections has been foreclosed by
sec. 15, RA 7166, which prohibits pre-proclamation
controversies in national offices, except of questions
involving the composition and proceedings of the Board
of Canvassers. Besides, see Aquino vs. COMELEC,
supra, which delineated the jurisdictional boundaries
between COMELEC and the Electoral Tribunals.
▪However, the COMELEC is without authority to
partially or totally annul a proclamation or to suspend the
effects of a proclamation without notice and hearing, as
Page 17 of 25
Political Law Areas in the 2019 Bar
Atty. Genesis M. Auza - #auzalawreview - 09207025338
this would violate due process clause (Bince vs.
COMELEC, 218 SCRA 782).
▪In the exercise of its exclusive appellate jurisdiction,
the COMELEC has the power to issue writs of
prohibition, mandamus and certiorari because of the last
part of sec. 50, BP 697, and not had not been repealed
by BP 881 (Relampagos vs. Cumba, 243 SCRA 690).
EXCLUSIVE APPELLATE JURISDICTION
RA 6679, in so far as its grants appellate jurisdiction to
the RTC over decisions of MTCs and/or MeTCs in
electoral cases involving elective barangay officials is
unconstitutional (Flores vs. COMELEC, 184 SCRA 484).
Note: Under the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, the
mere filing of the notice of appeal is not enough; it
should be accompanied by payment of the correct
amount of appeal fee, in order that the appeal may be
deemed perfected. However, the rule is merely
permissive. The COMELEC may refuse to take action
until the docket fees are paid or outrightly dismissed the
case (Sunga vs. COMELEC, 288 SCRA 76).
JUDICIAL REVIEW OF DECISIONS
Only decisions of the COMELEC en banc may be
brought to the SC on certiorari.
▪Only decisions of the COMELEC made in the
exercise of adjudicatory or quasi-judicial power may be
brought to the SC. Indeed, determinations made by the
COMELEC which are merely administrative in character,
may be challenged in an ordinary action before trial
courts (Filipinas Engineering vs. Ferrer, 135 SCRA 25).
ELECTION LAWS
SECOND PLACER RULE
A distinction should be delineated as to when the finality
of judgment disqualifying the candidate took effect. If the
disqualification is already final and executory before the
day of the election, the Doctrine of Rejection of the
Second Placer will not apply. The candidate obtaining
the 2nd highest number of votes shall be proclaimed the
winner. The votes cast for the winning bitdisqualified
candidate shall be considered stray votes.
However, if the disqualification is not yet final and executory
on the day of the election, the candidate obtaining the 2 nd
highest number of votes cannot be declared as the winner. To
do so would be to disenfranchise the will of the electorate.
The rules on succession to vacancy in elective office will apply
instead.
GROUNDS FOR DISQUALIFICATIONS
DISQUALIFICATIONS:
A. Under the OEC [BP 881, sec. 12] –
1) Declared as incompetent or insane by competent
authority.
2) Sentenced by final judgment for subversion (no more
crime of subversion- already repealed), insurrection,
rebellion or any offense for which he has been
sentenced to a penalty of more than 18 months of
imprisonment.
3) Sentenced by final judgment for a crime involving
moral turpitude.
• Violation of BP 22 (Villaber vs. COMELEC, GR
No. 148326, Nov. 15, 2001).
• Violation of Anti-Fencing Law (De la Torre vs.
COEMLEC, 258 SCRA 483).
4) A person who is a permanent resident of or an
immigrant to a foreign country.
• The “green card” is an ample proof that the
holder thereof is a permanent resident of, or an
immigrant of to the US (Caasi vs. COMELEC, 191 SCRA
229).
B. Under the LGC -
Section 40. Disqualifications. - The following
persons are disqualified from running for any
elective local position:
(a) Those sentenced by final judgment for
an offense involving moral turpitude or for
an offense punishable by one (1) year or
more of imprisonment, within two (2) years
after serving sentence;
• Note: Even if the candidate is under probation,
the disqualification still subsists, because the effect of
the probation is only to suspend the implementation of
the sentence [not the fact of being convicted with an
offense involving moral turpitude] (De La Torre,
COMELEC, supra.)
• However: Those who have not served their
sentence by reason of the grant of probation which
should not be equated with service of sentence, should
not likewise be disqualified from running for a local
elective office because the 2-year period of ineligibility
does not even begin to run [during the period of
probation] (Moreno vs. COMELEC, GR No. 168550,
Aug. 10, 2006).
•
(b) Those removed from office as a result of
an administrative case;
• Note: an elective local official who was removed
from office as a result of an administrative case prior to
Jan. 1, 1992 [the effectivity of LGC], is not disqualified
from running for an elective local public office because
the sec. 40 cannot be given retroactive effect (Grego vs.
COEMELEC, GR No. 125955, June 19, 1997).
• A municipal mayor who had been ordered
removed from office by the SP, was disqualified despite
his allegation that the decision is not yet final [and
executory] because he had not received a copy of the
decision, inasmuch as it is shown that he merely refused
to accept delivery of the copy of the decision (Reyes vs.
COMELEC, 254 SCRA 514).
(c) Those convicted by final judgment for
violating the oath of allegiance to the
Republic;
(d) Those with dual citizenship;
• Note: Just connect to topic on citizenship and
see Mercado vs. Manzano, 307 SCRA 630).
• In the absence of any official action or approval
by the proper authorities, a mere application for
Page 18 of 25
Political Law Areas in the 2019 Bar
Atty. Genesis M. Auza - #auzalawreview - 09207025338
repatriation, does not, and cannot amount to an
automatic reacquisition of applicant’s Philippine
citizenship (Labo vs. COMELEC, GR No. 105111, July
3, 1992).
• The “oath of allegiance” contained in the COC,
which is substantially similar to the one contained in sec.
3, of RA 9225 [The Citizenship Retention and
Reacquisition Act], does not constitute the personal and
sworn renunciation sought under sec. 5[2], RA 9225.
The renunciation of foreign citizenship is an additional
requisite only for those retained or reacquired Philippine
citizenship under RA 9225 and who seek elective public
posts, considering their special circumstance of having
one citizenship (De Guzman vs. COMELEC, GR No.
180048, June 19, 2009).
(e) Fugitives from justice in criminal or non-
political cases here or abroad;
• Note: Fugitives from justice “includes not only
those who flee after conviction to avoid punishment, but
likewise those, who after being charged, flee to avoid
prosecution”. Because the arrival in the Philippines from
the US preceded the filing of felony complaint in LA
Court by almost 5 months, Rodriguez cannot be
considered a fugitive from justice (Rodriguez vs.
COMELEC, GR No. 120099, July 24, 1996).
(f) Permanent residents in a foreign country or
those who have acquired the right to reside
abroad and continue to avail of the same right
after the effectivity of this Code; and
• Note: see Caasi vs. COMELEC, supra.
(g) The insane or feeble-minded.
EFFECT OF FILING CERTIFICATE OF CANDIDACY
APPOINTIVE AND ELECTIVE OFFICE
Section 66, BP 881. Candidates holding appointive office or
positions. - Any person holding a public appointive office or
position, including active members of the Armed Forces of
the Philippines, and officers and employees in government-
owned or controlled corporations, shall be considered ipso
facto resigned from his office upon the filing of his certificate
of candidacy.
ELECTION PROTEST
Jurisdiction Over Election Contests:
A. Original and Exclusive –
1) President/Vice-President – Supreme Court en
banc acting as Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET)
2) Senator –Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET).
3) Representative – House of Representatives
Electoral Tribunal (HRET).
4) Regional/Provincial/City – COMELEC.
5) Municipal – RTC.
6) Barangay – MTC, MeTC, MCTC
7) Sangguniang Kabataan - .DILG (Alunan vs.
Mirasol, GR No. 108399, July 31, 1997).
• In the absence of any express provision in the
governing law, it is the RTC, which has jurisdiction over
controversies involving election of members of the SK
(Mercado vs. Board of Election Inspectors, GR No.
109713, April 6, 1995).
B. Appellate Jurisdiction –
1) From RTC/MTC – appeal shall be made
exclusively to the COMELEC, whose decision shall be
final and unappeasable.
▪Period to Appeal: 5 days from promulgation or receipt
of a copy of the decision.
▪The filing of a MR is a prohibited pleading and does
not interrupt the running of the 5-day period (Veloria vs.
Garcia, 211 SCRA 907).
▪The RTC/MTC has the competence to order
execution of its decision pending appeal, it being a
judicial prerogative and there being no law dis-
authorizing the same (Garcia vs. De Jesus, 206 SCRA
779).
▪In the exercise of its exclusive appellate jurisdiction,
the COMELEC has the power to issue writs of certiorari,
prohibition and mandamus under sec. 50 of BP 697, it
being not amended by BP 881 (Relampagos vs. Cumba,
243 SCRA 502).
▪The provision of RA 6679, granting appellate
jurisdiction to the RTC over decisions of MTC in electoral
cases involving barangay officials is
unconstitutional (Flores vs. COMELC, 184 SCRA 484).
▪Galang Doctrine [Galang vs. Geronimo]
A petition for certiorari questioning an interlocutory order
of a trial court in an electoral protest is within the
appellate jurisdiction of the COMELEC (Ceriaco Bulilis
vs. Victorino Nuez, GR No. 195953, Aug. 9, 2011).
▪The fact that decisions, final orders or rulings of the
COMELEC in appealed cases involving municipal and
barangay officials are final [and executory] and
unappealable does not preclude a recourse to the SC by
way of a special civil action for certiorari (Galido vs.
COMELEC, 193 SCRA 78).
2) Decisions, rulings of the COMELEC division are
subject to Motion for Reconsideration to be resolved by
the COMELEC en banc.
3) Decisions, ruling, final orders of the COMELEC en
banc is reviewable via Petition for CPM within 30 days
from notice of the decision, etc (see Rule 64, Rules of
Court in Remedial Law Reviewer.
4) Decisions of the Electoral Tribunals, except the PET,
are not appealable but may be subject of review by the
SC via Rule 65 (petition for CPM).
PRE-PROCLAMATION CONTEST
A pre-proclamation controversy refers to any
question pertaining to or affecting the
proceedings of the board of canvassers which
may be raised by any candidate or by any
registered political party or coalition of political
parties before the board or directly with the
Commission, or any matter raised under Sections
233, 234, 235 and 236 in relation to the
preparation, transmission, receipt, custody and
appreciation of the election returns.
PURPOSE: To prevent the nefarious practice known as
“grab the proclamation, prolong the protest.”
Page 19 of 25
Political Law Areas in the 2019 Bar
Atty. Genesis M. Auza - #auzalawreview - 09207025338
COMELEC Rules of Procedure on Disputes in
Automated Election System (Resolution No. 8804,
March 22, 2010)
Shall apply to election disputes under the AES using the
PCOS and shall cover pre-proclamation controversies
and election protests.
Application of the Rules of Court, and other related
rules: The COMELEC Rules of Procedure, the Rules of
Court, and the Rules on Electronic Evidence shall apply
by analogy, or in suppletory character, and whenever
necessary, practicable and convenient (sec. 3, Rule 1).
Issues that may be raised under sec. 1, COMELEC
Resolution No. 8804:
1. Illegal Composition of the BOC.
▪Exists when, among other similar circumstances, any
of the members do not possess legal qualifications and
appointments. The information technology capable
person required to assist the BOC by RA 9369 shall be
included as among those whose lack of qualifications
may be questioned (sec. 1, Rule 4).
2. Illegal proceedings of the BOC
▪It exists when the canvassing is a sham or a mere
ceremony, the results of which are pre-determined and
manipulated as when any of the following circumstances
are present –
a) precipitate canvassing;
b) terrorism;
c) lack of sufficient notice to the members of the BOCs;
or
d) Improper venue (sec. 2, Rule 4).
Note: The basis of the canvass shall be the
electronically transmitted results.
No pre-proclamation cases in election of national officials
RECALL
Termination of official relationship for loss of confidence prior
to the expiration of his term through the will of the people.
THREE-TERM LIMIT
As held in Borja vs. COMELEC, 295 SCRA157(1996),
in computing the three-term limitation imposed upon
elective local officials, only the term for which he was
elected to should be considered. The term which he
served as a result of succession should not be
included. It is not enough that the official has served
three consecutive terms. He must have been elected
to the same position three consecutive times.
Three-term limit applies when same territorial
jurisdiction is involved but there is change from
classification like a municipality change to city.
The 1987 Constitution specifically included an
exception to the people's freedom to choose those
who will govern them in order to avoid the evil of a
single person accumulating excessive power over a
particular territorial jurisdiction as a result of a
prolonged stay in the same office. (Latasa v.
COMELEC, G.R. No. 154829, December 10,
2003)
COMMISSION ON AUDIT
JURISDICTION
Jurisdiction over GOCCs:
The Constitution vets in the COA audit jurisdiction over
government owned and controlled corporations
{GOCCs] with original charters as well as GOCCs
without original charters. GOCCs with original charters
are subject to COA pre-audit while GOCCs without
original charters are subject to COA post-audit. GOCCs
without original charters refer to corporations created
under the Corporation Code but are owned or controlled
by the government. The nature or purpose of the
corporation is not material in determining COA’s audit
jurisdiction. Neither is the manner of creation of a
corporation, whether under a general or special law. The
determining factor of COA’s audit jurisdiction is
government ownership or control of the corporation
(Feleciano vs. COA, GR No. 147402, Jan. 14, 2004).
Note: The Court already ruled in several cases that a
water district is a GOCC with a special charter since it is
created under a special law, PD 198. Thus, water
districts are subject to the jurisdiction of the COA GR No.
149154, June 10, 2003).
• The PAL, having ceased to be a GOCC, is no
longer under the audit jurisdiction of the COA (Philippine
Airlines vs. COA, 245 SCRA 39).
Jurisdiction Over LGUs
LGUs, though granted local fiscal autonomy, are still
within the audit jurisdiction of the COA, (Veloso vs. COA,
GR No. 193677, Sept. 6, 2011).
Jurisdiction Over Coconut Levy Funds
Following the mandate of the COA and the parameters
set forth by the foregoing provisions, it is clear that it has
jurisdiction over coconut levy funds, being special public
funds. Conversely, the COA has the power, authority
and duty to examine, audit and settle all accounts
pertaining to the coconut levy funds and consequently,
to the UCPB shares purchased using said funds.
However, declaring the said funds as partaking the
nature of private funds, ergo subject to private
appropriation, removes them from the coffer of the public
funds of the government, and consequently renders
them impervious to the COA audit jurisdiction. Clearly,
the pertinent provisions of PD Nos. 961 and 1468 divest
the COA of its constitutionally mandated function and
undermine its constitutional independence. Accordingly,
article III, sec. 5 of both PD Nos. 961 and 1468 must be
struch down for being unconstitutional (Philippine
Coconut Producers Federation vs. Republic, GR Nos.
177857-58 & 178193, Jan. 24, 2012).
MONEY CLAIM
Under Section 2(1) IX-D of the Constitution, the
Commission on Audit has the authority to settle all
accounts pertaining to expenditure of public funds.
ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS
PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION
Under sec. 24, RA 6770, the Ombudsman or his deputy
is authorized to preventively suspend any officer or
employee under his authority pending an investigation
irrespective of whether such officer or employee is
employed in the office of the Ombudsman or in any other
government agency (Buenaseda vs. Flavier, 226 SCRA
645).
Page 20 of 25
Political Law Areas in the 2019 Bar
Atty. Genesis M. Auza - #auzalawreview - 09207025338

Requisites: GROUNDS [exclusive]

i i. The charge against the officer or employee i. Culpable violation of the Constitution;
should involve dishonesty, oppression or grave ii. Treason;
misconduct or neglect in the performance of duty; iii. Bribery;
ii ii. That the charge/s should warrant removal iv. Graft and corruption;
from the service; v. Betrayal of public trust; and
iii iii. The respondent’s continued stay in office vi. Other high crimes.
would prejudice the case filed against him.
Note: An impeachable officer who is a member of the
Duration: [Not to exceed] 6 months. Bar cannot be disbarred without first being impeached
(Jarque vs. Desierto, 250 SCRA 11).
Under secs. 11 and 15, RA 6770, the Ombudsman is
clothed with the authority to conduct PI and to prosecute
all criminal cases involving public officers and NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY
employees, not only those within the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan, but those within the jurisdiction of the
ACQUISITION OF LAND: CITIZENSHIP ISSUE
regular courts as well (Uy vs. Sandiganbayan, GR No.
LEASE OF PUBLIC LAND
105965-70, March 20, 2001).
Alienable lands of the public domain shall be limited to
agricultural lands. Private corporations or associations
Two Kinds of Preventive Suspension in Relation to
may not hold such alienable lands of the public domain
the Right to Salary:
except by lease, for a period not exceeding twenty-five
a) Preventive suspension pending investigation.
years, renewable for not more than twenty-five years,
Not entitled to salary, even if he is exonerated, because
and not to exceed one thousand hectares in area.
in order to be entitled to payment of back salaries, it is
not enough that an employee be exonerated, in addition,
GR: No private land shall be transferred or conveyed
it must be shown that his suspension is unjustified. But
except to individuals, corporations or associations
under the CSL, preventive suspension of civil service
qualified to acquire or hold lands of public domain.
employees charged with dishonesty, oppression, grave
Exceptions:
misconduct or neglect of duty, is authorized. Thus, even
a. Hereditary succession. – Foreigners who
if the charges are dismissed later, the suspension is not
inherent through intestate succession.
unjustified (sec. 51, Book V, Title I, Subtitle A,
Administrative Code of 1987).
Refers only to intestate succession (Ramirez vs. Vda.
De Ramirez, 111 SCRA 704).
b) Preventive suspension pending appeal. When
b. Former natural-born citizens (sec. 8, Art. XII)–
the penalty imposed by the disciplining authority is
suspension, or dismissal, and after review, the
Under BP 185, as amended by RA 8179,
respondent is exonerated, he is entitled not only to
i. 5,000 sqm. for urban land –
reinstatement but also to back salaries for the period of
ii. 3 hectares for rural land.
preventive suspension pending appeal [sec 47, Ibid.]
(Gloria vs. CA, supra).
• The land may be used for business and for any
other purposes like residential, etc.
DE FACTO OFFICERS
a• c. Americans [under the Parity Amendment]
One who has the reputation of being the officer that he
holding valid title as against private persons.
assumes to be, and yet is not good officer in point of law. He
must have acted as an officer for such length of time, under Thus, although an American cannot acquire private
color of title and under such circumstances of reputation or lands [as the Amendment refers only to agricultural,
acquiescence of the public and public authorities, as to afford mineral and timber lands of the public domain and
a presumption of election or appointment, and induce natural resources] under the Parity Amendment, a
people, without inquiry, and relying on the supposition that previous owner may no longer recover from an American
he is the officer he assumes to be. buyer who succeeded in obtaining title over the land. It is
only the State through the institution of escheat
IMPEACHMENT proceedings or through an action for reversion (Republic
A national inquest into the conduct of public men. A vs. Quasha, 46 SCRA 160).
method by which persons holding government positions a• d. Ownership in condominium units to certain
of high authority, prestige and dignity and with definite allowable participation of aliens.
tenure may be removed from office for causes closely
related to their conduct as public officials. a• e. Those with dual citizenship under RA 9225.

IMPEACHABLE OFFICERS [exclusive] ENGAGEMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSION

i. President; Art. XII, Sec. 14 provides that the practice of all
ii. Vice-President; professions in the Philippines shall be limited to
iii. Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Filipino citizens, save in cases prescribed by law.
Court; Here the treaty has the force of law.
iv. Chairmen and members of Constitutional
Commissions; EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF NATURAL
v. The Ombudsman. RESOURCES (MINERALS)

Page 21 of 25
Political Law Areas in the 2019 Bar
Atty. Genesis M. Auza - #auzalawreview - 09207025338
The President may enter into agreements with
foreign-owned corporations involving either
technical or financial assistance for large-scale
exploration, development, and utilization of
minerals, petroleum, and other mineral oils
according to the general terms and conditions
provided by law, based on real contributions to
the economic growth and general welfare of the
country. In such agreements, the State shall
promote the development and use of local
scientific and technical resources.
The President shall notify the Congress of every
contract entered into
EEZ RESERVED EXCLUSIVELY TO FILIPINO
CITIZEN
The State shall protect the nation’s marine wealth in its
archipelagic waters, territorial sea, and Exclusive
Economic Zone, and reserve its use and enjoyment
exclusively to Filipino citizens.
OWNERSHIP PUBLIC UTILITIES (60-40 RULE)
MASS MEDIA (100%)
ADVERTISING (70%)
SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS
SOCIAL JUSTICE
Social justice is neither communism, nor despotism, nor
atomism nor anarchy, but the humanization of laws and
the equalization of social and economic forces by the
State so that justice in its rational and objectively secular
conception may at least be approximated.
Social justice means the promotion of the welfare of all
people, the adoption by the government of measures
calculated to ensure economic stability of all component
elements of the society through the maintenance of
proper economic and social equilibrium in the
interrelations of the members of the community,
constitutionally, through the adoption of measures legally
justifiable, or extra constitutionally, through the exercise
of powers underlying the existence of all governments,
on the time honored principle of salus populi est
suprema lex (Calalang vs. Williams, GR No. 47800, Dec.
2, 1940)
COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
• The CHR has no jurisdiction or adjudicatory
powers over certain specific types of cases, like alleged
human rights violations involving civil and political rights.
(Cariño vs. CHR, GR No. 96681, Dec. 2, 1991).
• Having merely the power to investigate, the
CHR cannot and should not try and resolve on the merits
the matters involved in striking teachers case.
CHR HAS NO POWER TO ISSUE TRO
In Simon vs. Commission on Human Rights, 229
SCRA 117. the Court held that the Commission on
Human Rights has no power to issue a restraining
order or a writ of injunction and has no power to cite
for contempt for violation of the restraining order or a
writ of preliminary injunction.
RIGHTS OF LABORER: STRIKE
Art. XIII. sec. 3 of the Constitution guarantees the
right of all workers to engage in peaceful concerted
activities, including the right to strike in accordance
with law.
EDUCATION, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,
ARTS
ACADEMIC FREEDOM: FLAG SALUTE; FREEDOM
OF RELIGION
From the standpoint of the educational institution: The
freedom of the university to determine –
i. Who may teach;
ii. What may be taught;
iii. How shall it be thought; and
iv. Who may be admitted to the study.
According to Reyes v. Court of Appeals, 194 SCRA
402, academic freedom is the freedom of a faculty
member to pursue his studies in his particular
specialty and thereafter to make known or publish the
result of his endeavors without fear that retribution
would be visited on him in the event that his
conclusions are found distasteful or objectionable by
the powers that be, whether in the political, economic,
or academic establishments.
As held in Ebralinag v. The Division Superintendent
of Schools of Cebu. 219 SCRA 256 [1993], to compel
students to take part in the flag ceremony when it is
against their religious beliefs will violate their religious
freedom. Their expulsion also violates the duty of the
State under Article XIV, Section 1 of the Constitution
to protect and promote the right of all citizens to
quality education and make such education
accessible to all.
Under Section 3(3), Article XIV of the Constitution, at
the option expressed in writing by the parents or
guardians, religion shall be allowed to be taught to
their children or wards in public elementary and high
schools within the regular class hours by instructors
designated or approved by the religious authorities to
which the children or wards belong, without additional
cost to the Government.
RIGHT TO CHOOSE PROFESSION
Under Section 5(3), Article XIV of the Constitution,
the right to choose a profession is subject to fair,
reasonable and equitable admission and academic
requirements. The rule does not violate equal
protection. As held in Department of Education,
Culture and Sports v. San Diego,180 SCRA 533
(1989), the five-strike rule is a valid exercise of police
power to ensure that those admitted to the medical
profession are qualified.
ACADEMIC REQUIREMENTS must always be
scrutinized under Equal Protection Clause and
Police power of the state
AMENDMENT AND REVISION
Page 22 of 25
Political Law Areas in the 2019 Bar
Atty. Genesis M. Auza - #auzalawreview - 09207025338
AMENDMENT VS REVISION
Amendment Revision
Broadly refers to a Broadly implies a
change that adds, change that alters a
reduces, deleted, basic principle in the
without altering the Constitution. There is
basic principle involved also revision if the
change alters the
substantial entirety of
the Constitution
Generally affects only Generally affects
the specific provision several provisions of
being amended the Constitution
Tests applied to determine whether the proposal
was a revision of amendment:
a. Quantitative Test – whether the proposed
change is so extensive in its provisions as to change
directly the “substance entirety” of the Constitution by
the deletion or alteration of numerous provisions. The
Court examines only the number of provisions and not
the degree of change.
b. Qualitative Test – whether change will
accomplish such far-reaching changes in the nature of
our basic governmental plan as to amount to a revision.
Note: Revision of the Constitution cannot be effected
through initiative and referendum.
Reason: Formulation of provisions revising the Constitution
requires both cooperation and debate which can only be
done through a collegial body (Bernas, 2011).
INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM
Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly
proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition of
at least twelve per centum of the total number of registered
voters, of which every legislative district must be represented
by at least three per centum of the registered voters therein.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE
FOR THE POLICE POWER, EMINENT DOMAIN AND
LOCAL TAXATION, refer discussion supra
VALIDITY OF ORDINANCE
Requisites for a valid ordinance (Magtajas vs. Pryce,
GR No. 111097, July 20, 1994) –
i. Must not contravene the Constitution or any statute;
ii. Must not be unfair or oppressive;
iii. Must not be partial or discriminatory;
iv. Must not prohibit, but may regulate trade;
v. Must not be unreasonable;
vi. Must be general in application and consistent with the
public policy.
BOUNDARY DISPUTE
Section 118. Jurisdictional Responsibility for
Settlement of Boundary Dispute. - Boundary
disputes between and among local government
units shall, as much as possible, be settled
amicably. To this end:
(a) Boundary disputes involving two (2) or more
barangays in the same city or municipality shall
be referred for settlement to the sangguniang
panlungsod or sangguniang bayan concerned.
(b) Boundary disputes involving two (2) or more
municipalities within the same province shall be
referred for settlement to the sangguniang
panlalawigan concerned.
Note: The power of the SP to settle boundary disputes is
limited to implementing the law creating the municipality,
and any alteration of boundaries not in accordance with
the law would exceed this authority (Municipality of
Jimenez vs. Borja, 265 SCRA 182).
(c) Boundary disputes involving municipalities or
component cities of different provinces shall be
jointly referred for settlement to the sanggunians
of the province concerned.
(d) Boundary disputes involving a component city
or municipality on the one hand and a highly
urbanized city on the other, or two (2) or more
highly urbanized cities, shall be jointly referred
for settlement to the respective sanggunians of
the parties.
(e) In the event the sanggunian fails to effect an
amicable settlement within sixty (60) days from
the date the dispute was referred thereto, it shall
issue a certification to that effect. Thereafter, the
dispute shall be formally tried by the sanggunian
concerned which shall decide the issue within
sixty (60) days from the date of the certification
referred to above.
PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW
DEPLOMATIC IMMUNITY
Duration of Immunities/Privileges:
The privileges are enjoyed from the moment he enters
the territory of the receiving state and shall cease only
the moment he leaves the country, or on expiry of a
reasonable time in which to do so; although with respect
to official acts, immunity shall continue indefinitely.
These privileges are available even in transit, when
traveling through a third State on way to or from the
receiving state.
Waiver of Immunities
Diplomatic privileges may be waived, but as a rule, the waiver
cannot be made by the individual concerned since such
immunities are not personal to him. Waiver may be made
only by the government of the sending State if it concerns
immunities of the head of the mission; in other cases, the
waiver may be made either by the government or by the chief
of the mission.
EXECUTIVE AGREEMENTS (supra)
TREATIES (supra)
EXTRADITION VS DEPORTATION
EXTRADITION
Is the surrender of a person by one State to another State
where he is wanted for prosecution, or if already convicted,
for punishment.
Fundamental Principles:
a. Based on consent, as expressed in a treaty
or manifested as an act of goodwill.
b. Principle of Specialty – A fugitive who is
extradited may be tried only for the crime specified in the
request for extradition and is included in the list of
offenses in the extradition treaty.
Page 23 of 25
Political Law Areas in the 2019 Bar
Atty. Genesis M. Auza - #auzalawreview - 09207025338

Non-list type extradition treaties: Offenses punishable under

the law of both States by imprisonment of one year or more
are included among the extraditable offenses.
c. Political and religious offenders are generally
not subject to extradition.
Attentat Clause: The murder of the head of State or any
member of his family is not to be regarded as a political
offense, neither is genocide.
d. The offense must have been committed within
the territory or against the interest of the demanding
State.
MUNICIPAL LAW VS. INTERNATIONAL LAW
RULES IN CASE OF CONFLICT BETWEEN
INTERNATIONAL LAW AND MUNICIPAL LAW
A. International Court/Body deciding –
International Law should prevail.
B. Domestic Court deciding – efforts should
first be exerted to harmonize the seemingly conflicting
laws. As a rule, municipal law prevails. Ratio: Police
power cannot be bargained away through a medium of a
treaty or contract (Ichong vs. Hernandez, 101 Phil. 115.

e. The Double Criminality Rule: The act for Above is, however, subject to the following modifications
which the extradition is sought must be punishable in – (Review Lecture)
both the requesting and the requested State. a) Conflict between Constitution and jus cogens
norm – jus cogens prevails. No derogation is allowed.
EXPULSION or DEPORTATION – may be predicated on the b) Conflict between Constitution and jus
dispositivum - Constitution prevails.
ground that the stay of the alien constitutes a menace to the
c) Conflict between Constitution and Treaty
security of the State or that his entry was illegal, or that the
based on jus dispositivum – Constitution prevails.
permission to stay has expired, or that he has violated any
d) Statute and Norm of International law –
limitation or condition prescribed for his admission and
i. Statue vs. jus cogens norm – jus cogens
continued stay. prevails.
EXTRADITION DEPORTATION ii. Statute vs. jus dispositivum – apply the rule on
Is the surrender of a Is the expulsion of an lex posterior derogat priori and the general and special
person by one State to alien considered law rule.
another State where he is undesirable by the local
wanted for prosecution, or State That is, the later law governs and that special law
if already convicted, for prevails over general law dealing on the same subject
punishment. matter.
The Surrender is Deportation is a
generally at the request of unilateral act of the SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY OF STATES (supra)
the State where he is local State
wanted for prosecution or PRINCIPLE OF NON-INTERVENTION
punishment Each state is sovereign and equal. It is a generally accepted
At the instance of the At the instance of the principle not to intervene with the affairs of other co-equal
requesting State for its local State made
states.
interest in bringing pursuant to its own
someone to justice interest
SELF-DEFENSE
Generally exists only by An inherent right of the
Treaty stipulation State as a sovereign International law on self-defense cannot assume the
The alien is brought only He may be brought, not nature of war. War requires "a declaration of war
to the requesting State necessarily to his own giving reasons" under the Hague Convention II of
State, but to any State 1907. Waging was as an instrument of national law is
willing to accept him. prohibited by the Pact of Paris of 1928.

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE: DOCTRINE OF AUTO-LIMITATION (supra)

JURISDICTION DOCTRINE OF INCORPORATION (supra)

International Criminal International Court of

Court [ICC] Justice [ICJ]
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
As to Nature of jurisdiction EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
Has criminal jurisdiction to Does not have criminal Whenever there is an available administrative remedy
prosecute individuals jurisdiction to provided by law, no judicial recourse can be made until all
prosecute individuals such remedies have been availed of and exhausted.
As to Parties
To prosecute individuals It is a civil tribunal that Note: The Doctrine, however, applies only when the
for genocide, Crimes deals primarily with administrative agency renders a decision or order in the
against humanity, war disputes between exercise of adjudicatory function (APCD vs. PCA, GR
crimes and the crime of Sates No. 110526, Feb. 10, 1998).
aggression
As to Independence from UN ▪Thus, where the assailed is the validity of a rule or
The ICC is independent of The ICJ is a principal regulation is in the performance of quasi-legislative
the UN judicial organ of the function, regular courts [RTC, in an action for declaratory
UN relief] have jurisdiction to pass upon the same (Smart
As to Nature of the Tribunal Tel. vs. NTC, GR No. 151908, Aug 12, 2003).
Criminal tribunal Civil tribunal Exceptions to the Doctrine Exhaustion of
Administrative Remedies
Page 24 of 25
Political Law Areas in the 2019 Bar
Atty. Genesis M. Auza - #auzalawreview - 09207025338

1. Doctrine of qualified political agency;

2. Where the administrative remedy is fruitless – like suit
for recovery of title to office must be instituted within one
year from illegal ouster, otherwise the action prescribes.
3. Where the issue involved is purely legal question;
4. Where the administrative action is patently illegal,
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction;
5. Where there is unreasonable delay or official inaction;
6. When there is estoppel on the part of the
administrative agency;
7. When there is irreparable injury or threat thereof;
8. In land cases, where the subject matter is a private
land;
9. Where the law does not make exhaustion a condition
precedent to judicial recourse;
10. Where the observance of the doctrine will result in
the nullification of the claim;
11. Where there are special reasons or circumstances
demanding immediate court action;
12. When there is violation of due process of law;
13. When the rule does not provide a plain, speedy and
adequate remedy.
DOCTRINE OF PRIOR RESORT [aka Doctrine of
Primary Jurisdiction]
Where there is competence or jurisdiction vested upon
an administrative body to act upon a matter, no resort to
the courts may be made before such administrative body
shall have acted upon the matter.
The courts cannot and will not resolve a controversy
involving a question which is within the jurisdiction of an
administrative tribunal, where the question demands the
exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring
special knowledge, experience and services of the
administrative tribunal to determine technical and
intricate matters.
ADMINISTRATIVE DUE PROCESS
ADMINISTRATIVE DUE PROCESS (Ang Tibay vs. CIR,
69 Phil. 635)
1. The right to a hearing, which includes the right to
present one’s case and submit evidence in support
thereof;
2. The tribunal must consider the evidence presented;
3. The decision must have something to support itself;
4. The evidence must be substantial;
5. The decision must be rendered on the evidence
presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the
record and disclosed to the parties;
6. The tribunal or any of its judges must act on its own
independent consideration of the facts and the law of the
controversy and not simply accept the views of a
subordinated in arriving at a decision; and
7. The board or body should, in controversial questions,
render its decision in such a manner that the parties to
the proceeding will know the various issues involved,
and the reasons for the decision.
Requisites for a Valid Appointment
1) The appointing authority must be vested with the
power to appoint at the time appointment is made;
2) The appointee should possess all the qualifications
including appropriate civil service eligibility and none of
the disqualifications;
3) The position is vacant;
4) The appointment has been approved by the CSC [or
confirmed by the Commission on Appointments, when
required];
5) The appointee accepts the appointment by taking the
oath and entering into discharge of duty (Garces vs. CA,
GR No. 114795, July 17, 1996).

JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION

BASES FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
1. The Constitution – like sec. 7, Art. IX-A.
2. Statutes – BP 129, in relation to Rule 43, ROC. “Believe that all your dreams will come
3. General principles of law.
true. You will be rewarded of your
There is an underlying power in the Courts to scrutinize the hardwork and devotion by the will of the
acts of administrative agencies on questions of law and
jurisdiction although no right of review is given by statute. It
Greatest, the Supreme and Divine.”
is designed to keep the administrative agency within its
jurisdiction and to protect substantial rights of parties -Atty. Genesis M. Auza
affected by its decisions. It is part of the system of checks and
balances (San Miguel Corporation, vs. Sec. of Labor, 1975).

What Court Has Jurisdiction:

The Court of Appeals
• See Rule 43, Rules of Court.
• But Rule 43 applies only when the
administrative body is exercising in its quasi-judicial
power and not purely executive.

Note: When the law provides for an appeal to the SC or to

the CA, it means that such bodies are co-equal with the RTC,
in terms of rank and stature, and logically, beyond the control
of the latter. It bears stressing that this doctrine of non-
interference by trial courts with co-equal administrative
bodies is intended to ensure judicial stability in the
administration of justice whereby the judgment of a court of
competent jurisdiction may not be opened, modified, or
vacated by any court of concurrent jurisdiction.

Page 25 of 25