Political Law MB2023DB

University of Santo Tomas
Faculty of Civil Law
POLITICAL LAW
REVIEWER
MOCK BAR 2023
BATCH 2024
POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER
University of Santo Tomas | Faculty of Civil Law | Professor Victoria V. Loanzon
4. Checking functions regarding abuse

of discretion
POLITICAL LAW
June 26, 2023 5. Instructional and symbolic function
where the Supreme Court under the
expanded power of Judicial Review
Reminders:
may take cognizance of cases
1. You have to have a firm
whether they have political
understanding of what is the
implications or when they become
Constitution and its supremacy.
moot and academic
2. The concept of Separation of
Powers and the Twin concept of
Constitutional Commissions
Check and Balances
1. Civil Service Commission - central
3. The concept of lending powers
personnel agency of the government
2. Commission on Elections - to
THREE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT
ensure that our sovereignty is
I. Legislative
properly manifested through our
Primary Responsibility of the Legislative
exercise of our right of suffrage
Branch: (P-E-A-R-L)
3. Commission on Audit - checking
1. Power to Propose
function as an independent unit,
2. Power to Enact
whether or not the government
3. Power to Amend
agencies spent the items in the
4. Power to Repeal Laws
General appropriations act within the
Oversight Functions:
limits of congressional powers
1. Legislative Inquiry
granted to the agencies.
2. Question Hour
Bodies of the Legislative Branch:
Take note of the respective powers of the
1. Electoral Tribunals
commissions and Remember the
2. Commission on Appointments
compositions of the Constitutional
3. Role that they play in the Judicial
Commissions
Bar Council (JBC)
1. For COA and CSC - three members
2. For COMELEC - seven members
II. Executive
Powers of the President
National Economy and Patrimony
1. Power of Control - the president can
1. Regalian Doctrine
hire and fire and revoke, amend,
2. Need for Nationalization of certain
adopt actions of his subordinate
industries
under the concept of qualified
Social Justice and Human Rights
political agency or your alter ego
1. (Simon v. CHR case)
doctrine
2. Academic freedom
2. Power of supervision - strictly
connected with his relationship with
your Local Government Units Simon vs. CHR
3. Commander in Chief Powers Section 18, Article XIII, of the 1987
4. Appointing powers Constitution empowered the CHR to
5. Diplomatic powers investigate all forms of human rights
violations involving civil and political rights.
III. Judicial The demolition of stalls, sari-sari stores and
1. Composition of the Supreme Court carenderia cannot fall within the
2. The powers of the Supreme Court compartment of "human rights violations
(particularly Section 5, Article VIII) involving civil and political rights".Human
3. Elements of the power of Judicial rights are the basic rights which inhere in
review man by virtue of his humanity and are the
same in all parts of the world. Human rights
include civil rights (right to life, liberty and words of the Constiution should eb
property; freedom of speech, ofthe press, of interpreted in accordance witht the
religion, academic freedom; rights of the intent of the framers.
accused to due process of law), political
rights (right to elect public officials, to be 3. Ut magis valeat quam pereat
elected to public office, and to form (totality rule) - The Constitution is to
political associations and engage in be interpreted as a whole.
politics), social rights (right to education,
employment and social services.Human In the landmark case of Nicholas vs.
rights are entitlements that inhere in the Comelec, the Comelec issued a circular
individual person from the sheer fact of his requiring all citizens of the Philippines living
humanity...Because they are inherent, abroad to be able to exercise their right of
human rights are not granted by the State suffrage after the have registered as voters
but can only be recognized and to go back to the Philippines and stay at the
protected by it.Human rights includes all Philippines for a period of one year. But the
the civil, political, economic, social and Supreme Court applied the third way to
cultural rights defined in the Universal intepret the Constitution as a whole
Declaration of Human Rights. Human because what Comelec did was to stop at
rights are rights that pertain to man simply Section 1 of Article V of the 1987
because he is human. They are part of his Constitution and did not read Section 2 of
natural birth, right, innate, and inalienable. the same Article.
CIVIL RIGHTS -are those that belong to

every citizen and are not connected with the
Republic v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.
organization or administration of the
196252, December 7, 2023
government.
In the absence of a constitution, the Court
POLITICAL RIGHTS -are rights to may apply the generally accepted
participate, directly or indirectly, in the principles of international law. The Court
establishment or administration of the invoked the U.N. Declaration of Human
government. Rights and the International Convention
on Civil and Political Rights to grant the
prayer of the private respondents to the
PRELIMINARIES protection against unreasonable searches
Constitution is the body of Rules and and seizures as well as the right to due
maxims in accordance within which the process.
powers of sovereignty are habitually
exercised (Thomas Cooley, LL.D)
Tickler: Kabit Case
Discussion:
Three parts of the Constitution
General Ramas challenged the seizure of
1. Constitution of Government
certain objects which were found from the
2. Constitution of Liberty
mansion of her alleged mistress, Teresita
3. Constitution of Sovereignty
Dimaano. The challenged the seizure of
cash both dollar and peso, pieces of jewelry,
Three ways to interpret the Constitution:
land titles which were not included in the
1. Verba Legis (plain meaning rule) -
search warrant in Sandiganbayan. The
wherever possible, the words used
question was: We are under a revolutionary
in the Constitution must be given
government, President Corazon Aquino said
their ordinary meaning except where
that no Constitution was in effect, she did
technical words are employed
not restore the 1935 Constitution, she
abolished the 1973 Constitution. There was
2. Ration Legis est Anima (intention
a vacuum that the Supreme Court had to fil
rule) - where there is ambiguity the
in. The Supreme court said that President MIPTI. At the time, the country was under a
Aquino did not renege on previous revolutionary government with no Congress
accession of prior president to international in place. MIPTI had obtained its
agreement. You go back to Section of congressional franchise during the Martial
Article II of the Constitution. Law period, and President Marcos had
extended this franchise to operate seaports.
However, the Philippine Ports Authority
Sec 2, Article II of the 1987 Constitution.
The Philippines renounces war as an recommended to President Aquino that the
instrument of national policy, adopts the franchise be revoked due to contractual
generally accepted principles of lapses. It is important to note that there was
international law as part of the law of no Constitution in place at this time, and
the land and adheres to the policy of President Aquino had vested herself with
peace, equality, justice, freedom, legislative powers similar to how President
cooperation, and amity with all nations.
Marcos had enacted laws during the Martial
Law period.
*With this accession of her predecessors,
this agreement still binds the Philippine
In this context, the question arose as to
government.
whether the President had the authority to
revoke the franchise. The answer, according
Two Instruments that the SC Applied:
to the court, was YES. This was because
1. UN Declaration of Human Rights -
President Aquino had empowered herself to
this entitles every individual in every
exercise all legislative powers, given the
country to the protection of right to
absence of a Constitution.
due process
2. International Convention on Civil
However, it is worth reiterating that the
and Political Rights
revocation of the franchise was deemed to
be a grave abuse of discretion by the
In these two aspects, the SC said that the
Supreme Court. This was because
Court will provide the reliefs the petitioners
President Aquino did not afford MIPTI the
are asking for because these two
opportunity to address the allegations put
agreements are still binding on the PH
forth by the Philippine Ports Authority,
government. So, the SC ordered the
thereby violating the right to due process.
exclusion of all evidence gathered in abuse
of the discretion of the searching elements
of the Philippine enforcement agency that Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS, G.R. No.
served the search warrant. 122156. February 3, 1997
The Filipino First Policy embodied in

Manila International Port Terminal, Inc Section 10 of Article XII of the
v. Philippine Ports Authority, G.R. No. Constitution is supreme over the public
196252, December 7, 2021. bidding rules for the sale of the shares of
the Manila Hotel Corporation.
During the martial law period, the
President can grant franchise to private Discussion: The Constitutional protection
companies. During the revolutionary of the Filipino First Policy must prevail over
government, President Corazon Aquino the bidding rules of the GSIS, despite the
may revoke a franchise granted by her fact that a Malaysian consortium placed the
predecessor, but this must be done by highest bid on the shares of stock of Manila
respecting the right to due process of the Hotel.
grantee
Discussion:
The issue at hand in this case was the
revocation of the franchise awarded to
the framers of the Constituion would be

INTERPRETATION OF THE concerned.
CONSTITUTION
According to the SC, the initiation
involves two-pronged process:
1. Mechanical act of filing
Francisco v. House of Representatives,
G.R. No. 160261, Nov 10, 2003 2. The action taken by the members of
the House of Representatives on the
The filing of a second complaint against instituted complaint
Chief Justice Davide on the 4th month
after the dismissal of the first complaint
violates the one-year ban under Section Belgica v. Ochoa, G.R. Nos. 208566,
2(5) of Article XI of the Constitution 208493 and 209251, November 13, 2013
The Court cannot rule on the issue of

Discussion: Here, the SC ruled in favor of violation of political dynasty because
Atty. Francisco, upholding his petition and there is a need for an enabling law to
stating that the second impeachment define political dynasty under Section 26,
complaint filed against Chief Justice Davide Article II of the Constitution.
was in violation of the 1-year ban on
impeachment. Discussion: Here, the SC said we cannot
resolve the issue on political dynasty
The SC's decision was based on a literal because Congress has not defined what is
interpretation of the law, specifically the a political dynasty.
Rules of Evidence. According to the
principle of judicial notice, certain facts are
considered common knowledge and do not CONSTITUTION OF SOVEREIGNTY
require additional proof. In this case, the SC
took notice of the fact that 12 months
constitute one year.
ARTICLE XVII
Amendments or Revisions
Therefore, when the second impeachment
complaint was filed within the fourth month SECTION 1. Any amendment to, or
after the first complaint, it fell within the revision of, this Constitution may be
12-month period prohibited by the proposed by:
impeachment rule. The SC said literal
(1) The Congress, upon a vote of
application of the law. three-fourths of all its Members; or
Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez v. (2) A constitutional convention.

House of Representatives Committee
on Justice, G.R. No. 193459, March 08, SECTION 2. Amendments to this
2011 Constitution may likewise be directly
proposed by the people through initiative
The interpretation of initiation of an upon a petition of at least twelve per
impeachment complaint must follow the centum of the total number of registered
twin process of filing then the voters, of which every legislative district
determination of sufficiency in form and must be represented by at least three per
substance and the subsequent action of centum of the registered voters therein.
referral to the plenary body for action No amendment under this section shall be
under Section 3(1) to (4), of Article XI of authorized within five years following the
the Constitution. ratification of this Constitution nor oftener
than once every five years thereafter.
Discussion: Here, the SC had to deal with The Congress shall provide for the
the intent, i.e., what does initiation of an implementation of the exercise of this
impeachment complaint mean in so far as right.
2. Through Constitutional
Convention by 2/3 vote of all its
I. Amendment of the Constitution members, the Congress may call for
a constitutional convention or by a
Amendment, defined majority vote of all its members,
● An isolated or piecemeal change by submit to the electorate the question
adding, deleting, or reducing without of calling such convention (Section
altering the basic principles involved 1, Article XVII).
● Much simpler compared to revision ● Here, kasama tayo. Because
● Test to apply: Quantitative Test we elect our delegates.
● By quantitative, this means we only ● Here, only ⅔ votes are
deal with numbers. Let’s say you needed.
want to change Article 1, yun lang ● If ⅔ votes cannot be
intent mo, to redefine the National achieved, majority vote lang
Territory of the Philippines to include to submit the electorate and
the Scarborough Shoal, Kalayaan find out “do you want to
Group of Islands, etc. So, amend the constitution by
amendment lang yun kasi you are way of Constitutional
only amending one article. So you Convention?”
apply the quantitative test. ● Remember: Similar to the
case of a Constituent
THREE (3) MODES OF AMENDING THE Assembly, the Congress
CONSTITUTION must also vote SEPARATELY
in case of Constitutional
1. Through Constituent Assembly, Convention.
which is the Congress itself upon a
vote of three-fourths of all its 3. Through People’s Initiative upon a
members (Section 1, Article XVII). petition of at least twelve per centum
● Here, you put together the of the total number of registered
Senate and the House of voters, of which every legislative
Representatives as a district must be represented by at
Constituent Assembly. least three per centum of the
● Take note: This is the highest registered voters therein (Section 2,
number of votes required Art. XVII).
under the Constitution. ● This is the more difficult part
● ¾ of ALL members. That’s because it requires so much
75% vote, specifically 12 per
● Bakit kelangan 75% of ¾? centum of the total registered
Because they are assuming voters.
an additional function. Take ● Let us assume we have 60
note that the mandate of the Million. Ilang signatures ang
Congress is a direct dapat kunin? 7.2 Million
command coming from their signatures.
constituents. ● Basta pipirma lang ba? No,
● Remember (2014 Bar kelangan iche-check pa na
Question): Here, the ang bawat pipirma will
Congress has to vote represent 3 per centum of
SEPARATELY. Because ma the registered voters of each
di-dilute yung votes ng congressional district.
Senate kasi 24 lang sila as ● Mahaba itong process ito.
against 300+ members of the ● There are two stages here:
HOR
1. Proposal - output; Ratifying the Constitution –

ano ba yung mga Requisites for a valid ratification:
chinange nila sa 1. Ratification must be carried out
constitution by way of through a plebiscite conducted
the number of under Section 4 of Article XVII of
provisions they the Constitution.
changed. 2. Plebiscite must be supervised
2. Ratification - the by COMELEC; and
submission to the 3. Only registered voters could
people. participate in the plebiscite.
Any amendment to, or revision of, the
II. Revision of the Constitution Constitution under Section 1 of Article XVII
shall be valid when ratified by a majority of
Revision, defined the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be
● A revamp or rewriitng of the whole held not earlier than sixty days nor later
instrument, altering the substantial ninety days after the approval of such
entirety of the Constituion. amendment.
● Mas mabigat kesa sa amendment. Any amendment under Section 2 of Article
● Test to apply: Qualitative Test XVII shall be valid when ratified by a
● By qualitative test, this means yung majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite
fundamentals of how the 3 branches which shall be held not earlier than sixty
will operation will be seriously days nor later than ninety days after the
affected. Example, the change of certification by the Commission on Elections
Presidential to a Parliamentary form of the sufficiency of the petition (Section 4,
of government will constitute a Art. XVII).
revision.
Atty. Loanzon:
Revising the Constitution – Q: Why do we need the COMELEC (in
ratifying the revision)?
The modes of revising the Constitution A: Kasi you need to shield the ratification
are: process from any kind of political
1. Through Constituent Assembly. maneuvering.
which is the Congress itself upon
a vote of three-fourths of all its 2 Point to remember, whether it is revision
members (Section 1, Article or amendment, it will call for a 60-day,
XVII). 90-day period.
2. Through Constitutional It should not be earlier than 60 days when
Convention by 2/3 vote of all its the approval was effected by the body or
members, the Congress may call tribunal, and not later than 90 days.
for a constitutional convention or
by a majority vote of all its Q: Bakit kailangan yung period na to?
members, submit to the A: Because you need a campaign period,
electorate the question of calling because we live in a democracy. So that
such convention (Section 1, those who propose the changes will have a
Article XVII). platform to convince the people that the
Test to apply – Qualitative Test changes are good for them and you have
Stages: also the opposition to say which provisions
1. Proposal should not be accepted by the people
2. Ratification because it might be detrimental to their
welfare.
E.g. change from presidential to a
parliamentary form of government. Landmark cases for Amending, Revising
and Ratifying the Constitution:
Q: Do we need a special election, or is it

Defensor-Santiago v. COMELEC – possible to have the draft, amendment,
There is a need for an enabling law for or revised constitution be included in a
the conduct of People’s Initiative and the general election process?
provisions of R.A. 6735 on referendum
and initiative do not include any A: the SC says it does not matter. So
procedure to implement People’s Initiative pwedeng isama under a general election,
in amending the Constitution. pwede din in a special election specifically
called only for that purpose.
Lambino v. COMELEC – In both the 1973 and 1987 Constitution, ang

discusses the difference between inapply ay special election. Kasi the SC has
amendment and revision and the two this obiter, kapag isinama yan sa general
tests to be applied. election, ang mga tao mas ang attention nila
The distinction between an mas on personalities. So baka marelegate
amendment and a revision can be yung importance ng amendment or revision
determined with the application of the of the Constitution.
quantitative test and the qualitative
test. Tolentino v. COMELEC –
People’s Initiative is not possible to A piece-meal approval of amendments is
revise the constitution since by not allowed since the constitution must be
applying the qualitative test, the interpreted as whole. By resorting to a
proposal to adopt a parliamentary form one-time submission, all inconsistencies are
of government will substantially affect resolved during the ratification process.
the principles which presently govern The electorate must be given an adequate
the three branches of the government period of time to review the amendments.
under a presidential form of
government. Q: pwede ba na piece-meal ang
amendment or revision?
Lambino’s petition must fail as a people’s
initiative because it calls for a shift from a A: the answer is No, because the
presidential to a parliamentary form of Constitution must be interpreted as a whole.
government. And since it is a revision, Kasi baka pag piece-meal tapos na-approve
People’s initiative is limited only to na to, later on yung further amendments
amendment. might conflict with the ones already
approved, eh ireresubmit mo ulit. So hindi
pwede.
Rationale: there is no law that implements
the provision on people’s initiative. De Leon v. Esguerra –
(Teehankee, J, concurring) – The exercise
Some Rules on Ratification: of the power of sovereignty is best
manifested in the ratification of the
Gonzales v. COMELEC – constitution. The effectivity of the new
The Supreme Court held that the proposed constitution takes place on the date the
amendments may be ratified by the people people cast their vote. The declaration of
either through a general election or a the result of the plebiscite is only a
special election called for the purpose. It ministerial duty of the President and does
was observed that calling for a special not operate as to the date of the effectivity
election might be better because the of the constitution.
people’s attention is more focused on the
amendments or revisions and not on the Q: Kelan mag tetake effect yung
candidates for elective officials. amended constitution or revised
constitution? Is it on the day the results However, this is not possible under the
were pronounced? present constitution because BJE is not
among those enumerated as the territorial
A: it will be on the day the people cast their and political subdivisions under Section 1of
vote. Because. Sovereignty resides in the Article X. This associative relationship is
people. only possible under a federal form of
government and not under the present
system of government obtaining in the 1987
THE PHILIPPINES AS A STATE Constitution
Four Elements: The Bangsamoro Juridical Entity cannot

- people, be created under this agreement
- territory, because the Constitution limits our local
- government, and government units only into provinces,
- sovereignty cities, municipalities, and barangays.
Walang juridical entity because juridical
The elements of a state are people, territory, entity is within the concept of an
government, and sovereignty. associative state.
Sovereignty – NATIONAL TERRITORY

includes the capacity to enter into relations Art. 1
with other states. (Power Of Legation) The national territory comprises the
- Internal self-determination is Philippine archipelago, with all the islands
the right of the people of a state and waters embraced therein, and all other
to govern themselves without territories over which the Philippines has
outside interference. sovereignty or jurisdiction, consisting of
- On the other hand, external its terrestrial, fluvial and aerial domains,
self-determination is the right of including its territorial sea, the seabed,
peoples to determine their own the subsoil, the insular shelves, and
political status and to be free of other submarine areas. The waters
alien domination, including around, between, and connecting the
formation of their own islands of the archipelago, regardless of
independent state their breadth and dimensions, form part of
the internal waters of the Philippines.
Note: Power of legation was asked on the
2017 BAR examination Note: In bold letters are the three
components of national territory.
When the US government granted us our Because the Philippines is also a signatory
independence, nagkaroon tayo ng liberty to to UNCLOS, the underlined above is the
rule as a nation. From having external Concept of Archipelagic water.
self-determination, nagkaroon tayo ng
internal self-determination. Arigo v. Swift (2014) –
The maritime zones of the Philippines are
Case: covered by the definition of its national
territory. The United States of America must
Province of North Cotabato v. GRP compensate the Philippine government for
Peace Negotiating Panel- the damages sustained by the Tubbataha
Reef under Article 31 of UNCLOS.
The right to external self-determination is
possible in a relationship of an associative On the Public International Law side, Swift
state like the proposed Bangsamoro and the other American respondents, being
Juridical Entity and the central government.
agents of the USA, are beyond the the Camago-Malampaya Natural Gas
jurisdiction of domestic courts. Project was denied since the plant is
located 80 kilometers away from the
Being agents performing their governmental territory of the province. Thus, it is
duties as the officers of the USS Guardian, considered part of the national waters of the
they are beyond the reach of our domestic Philippine territory.
courts.
Moving on to the Declaration of state
Dealing with UNCLOS, the Court said that Policies
the Maritime zone of the PH are covered by
the concept of the National territory. So,
even if the US is not a signatory of the Declaration of Principles and State
UNCLOS, the SC cited a particular Policies (under Basic Concepts under the
provision in UNCLOS that would make US 1987 Constitution)
responsible to pay damages but has nothing
De Leon v. Esguerra (1987)
to do with the court. So dapat administrative
- Sovereignty resides in the people.
or diplomatic way of resolving the amount of - effectivity of the 1987 Const will be
damages in the Tubbataha Reef. Feb 2 1987 when we cast our vote
Nagkaroon dito ng settlement where the PH Cudia v. PMA Superintendent (2015)

government was represented by the DENR. The SC speaking thru CJ Peralta, said that
It was properly negotiated and the pH the Armed forces of the pH is the protector
government was compensated by the of the people and the PMA is the training
ground for the future officers of the AFP.
damage received by the Tubbataha Reef
The AFP is the protector of the people.
because of the grounding of the US
guardian. Garcia v. Drilon (2013)
The Constitution guarantees the equality of
Republic v. Province of Palawan (2020) – men and women. The SC also said that
The claim of the Province of Palawan to under the concept of parens patriae, it is the
have a share in the revenue derived from responsible of the state to protect the
weaker members of the society and based
the Camago-Malampaya Natural Gas
on empirical date, woman and children are
Project was denied since the plant is victims of not only physical violence form
located 80 kilometers away from the men but also economic and psych violence
territory of the province. Thus, it is form men
considered part of the national waters of the
Philippine territory. The protection of women and children is the
focal point of the VAWC Law under the
principle of parens patriae.
This has not been asked in any bar
question, simple question here: Imbong v. Ochoa (2014)
The Constitution recognizes the family as
Q: whether or not the Province of Plawan is the basic unit of society. In fact, Art. 15 is
entitled to the share of the revenue derived dedicated only to the protection of the family
by the pH government in the operation of as the basic unit of society and that the
constitution guarantees the right to life of
Camago-Malampaya Natural Gas Project
not only the mother but as well as of the
unborn child.
A: The SC held in the negative. No,
because the plant itself is found in the The state guarantees the protection of the
national waters of the PH and not within the mother and life of the unborn from the time
municipal waters as set forth in the charter of conception.
of the province of palawan.
SPARK V. Ochoa (2017)
The SC held that while the constitution
The claim of the Province of Palawan to mandates the primary responsible of child
have a share in the revenue derived from rearing in the parents, the constitution again
under the concept of parens patriae will step is the expanded concept of the
in to fulfill a complementary role to be able “intergenerational responsibility”
to ensure the welfare of the youth.
Public Trust doctrine dictates that it is not
Here, the SC upheld the ordinance of QC only the responsibility of the government to
which provided for curfew hours and certain protect the natural resources.
restrictions on how to deal with liberty of
movement of our youth. But it struck down Segovia v. The Climate Change
the 2 ordinances of the City of MNL and Commission (2017)
Navotas. This Road Sharing Principle, lahat na
andaming propaganda – meron bicycle
The state may perform complementary role lane, motorcycle lane like road sharing
in the primary role of parents in child talaga (sarcastic) pero meron ba talaga tong
rearing. covered ng writ of mandamus? Sabi ng SC
Maynilad v. DENR Secretary (2022) hindi, because this is only a principle it has
(Never been asked in any bar question.) not been legislated. So doon lang sa areas
The SC is speaking thru J. Hernando, na meron na ordinance, like sa San Juan
developed a concept that will complement City, QC define dyung bicycle lanes. So sabi
the intergenerational concept which has ng SC hindi mo to pwede i-issue via writ of
been thought under Oposa v. Factoran mandamus and require everyone to
(write this down and a possible BQ) implement it because there is no national
“Public Trust Doctrine” – this means, wh law.
hold in trust all the natural resources of the
PH? It is the government. The Road Sharing Principle remains a
simple principle without any enabling law.
Q: Can the government carry out the
function by itself?
A: No, that is why under the Regalian Zabal v. Duterte (2019)
Doctrine, government seeks out the help of Here again in keeping with two provisons na
the private sector. Kaya nag-aaward ang applied in Oposa and Maynilad:
government ng “mining permits, timber 1. Right to good health
licensing agreements, joint venture 2. Right to balanced Ecology
exploration agreement” dahil incapacitated
ang government, it does not have the SC said that basically the president enjoys
necessary technology and all the financial absolute immunity from suit. Pero sabi ni
resources. Pero yung responsibility rest not SC because Zabal and the other 2
only on the State but also on the partners. petitioners raised matters of
Kaya here, si Maynilad, MNL waters and “Transcendental importance” (another basic
even MWSS were held accountable to pay concept in Poli law to remember) doctrine.
the fine for not being able to comply with
section 8 of the Clean Water Act to make Why this doctrine? Kasi sabi nila Zabal,
sure that the quality of the water of the MNL party siya eh and his freedom of expression
Bay is improved. para guma ng sand structures sa shores of
Bora and yung isa businessman, di siya
Ididkit ko lang dito, kaya meron tayo maka-travel freely so yung freedom niya to
dolomite beach kasi because of the travel is restricted; yung driver affected daw
continuing mandamus issued by the Court income niya, he said they have taken my
in the case of NBA v. Concerned residents life, my source of income – so sa
of Manila Bay. Kaya sabi ng SC in the Transcendental importance Doctrine kahit si
discharge of its (admin law) “Rule making president and his immunity form suit, the SC
functions and adjudicatory Functions” in can take cognizance of the case. But the
implementing the clean water act and SC here, upheld the police power of Duterte
pursuant to writ of continuing mandamus to shut down Boracay Island for a period of
issued by the Court – the SC upheld the 6 months to fulfill two constitutional
fines imposed by the DENR secretary under mandates.
the Public trust doctrine.
Here. Apply niyo according to Atty. Loanzon
Bakit need iprotect yung natural resources yung concept of Balancing of Interest – ano
natin? Not only for the present generation mas matimbang interest nung 3 individuals
but also for the future generation – kaya this or yung 2 constitutional protection (right to
good health and balanced ecology) for more Energy and Department of Justice which
ppl. So the the SC tilted the favor under has the sole power and authority to monitor,
sections 15 and 16 of article 2 of the investigate, and endorse the filing of
Constitution. complaints regarding cartelization, if
necessary, against oil companies. The trial
Proclamation No. 475 is a valid exercise of court cannot create a new body.
police power to ensure the right to good
health as well as the right to a balanced Tignan natin kung honorable ba itong judge
ecology of the people. na ito sa RTC Manila to, this is not the first
time he was rebuked by the Supreme Court.
Belgica v. Ochoa (2013)
Here sabi natin walang political dynasty kasi
Anyway, yung Social Justice Society filed a
sino mag-define nun? Edi yung members ng
congress and senate, gagawin ba nila yun? case before the RTC of Manila calling the
Syempre hindi. attention of the court. Ano yung pinaresolve
nila sa RTC? Alleged violation of the oil
So now, in the spirit under the constitution downstream law.
re the right to Information transparency.
Kasi under ppl power, antagal natin under Sinasabi nitong petitioners sa RTC. Ano po
the period of martial law – too many secrets
yan eh, may cartel. Yang Caltex, Petron,
unrevealed to the public – hence, we have
the case of Tañada v. Tuvera: SC said that Sherry ang big cream e. Cartel po yan eh.
there is a constitutional guarantee for the Nagkakasundo sila, pinahihirapan nila yung
right to information pero meron limitations publiko. Mahal na lagi ang presyo ng oil
yan. Di pwede na yung details ng kaso products.
while discussion will be revealed to public,
di pakasi final yun eh. Remember under Art.
Sabi ni Judge Pampilo, okay, I'll take
8 – all decisions of the SC will become only
public upon promulgation (requirement cognizance of the case.
under promulgation [baka BQ]: sa So binasa naman ni Judge yung ano *cut*
promulgation dapat primado and certified by Nag-report ang DOJ at DOE, wala kong
the Chief Justice) until di certified by the CJ violation ang big three.
di pa pwede ilabas ang copy ng decision.
So, anong sabi ng judge? Naku, walang
The issue on political dynasty was not
violation. Kawawa naman kayo. Dapat
resolved in the absence of an enabling law
defining it. However, the principle of local i-apply ko dito yung parens patriae,
autonomy was violated since projects under protection of the consumers. Ano sabi ni
PDAF were implemented without prior judge? Nagbigay ng order mandamus.
clearance with the concerned LGUs. COA, tignan yung book account ng Shell,
ng Caltex, ng Petron. BIR, tignan nyo kung
En Banc Resolution, February 14, 2012, tama ang mga taxes na binayaran itong
In Re: Production of Court Records and
tatlong big three na to. Bureau of Customs,
Documents and Attendance of Court
Officials and Employees as Witnesses tignan yung import nila at export files nila.
for the Prosecution Panel Tignan niyo yung journals nila,
The information is covered by judicial nag-command ng ganun si Judge Pampilo.
privilege and cannot be shared to the public. At siyempre tumakyat ang mga government
agencies before the Supreme Court directly
Separation of powers without following the order of the judge.
They raised the issue. Tama ba itong
One of the biggest cases to be discussed
ginawa ni judge?
today is the case of COA v. Hon. Pampilo.
Tignan natin Honorable ba talaga tong Unang-unang anong sabi ng COA, wala po
judge na to sa RTC ng Manila which it was kaming jurisdiction dahil wala naman po
not the first time he was rebuked by the SC. government funds natanggap yung tatlong
agencies na yan. Baliktarin man and
COA v. Hon Pampilo (2020) Constitution, wala ko kaming power to do
The Supreme Court reiterated that it is the that. So beyond the power ng COA yan.
Joint Task Force of the Department of
No. 2, BIR. Bakit po may allegation ba kung Representatives, it is a plenary body. So

may violation na nandukot ng taxes itong anong sabihin ng plenary body? Collective
tatlo na to? ang action. They cannot act individually.
Wala din po. Collegial body kasi sila. So sabi ko sa inyo
ang twin concept na separation of power will
Customs, nagsmuggle ba po? Wala din be checks and balances. So separation of
ganung allegation. O anong tawag niyo powers, defined ang powers ng 3 branches
diyan? Abuse of discretion on the part of the of government, pero naki-exercise din sila
judge. So napagalitan siya si judge. ng check.
Under the separation of powers, the primary So dito, under normal circumstances, the
function of judicial review is only to apply president can exercise veto powers, tama
the law and interpret the law. It cannot go ba? Tingan natin sa Section 27 (2), basta
beyond the law. Otherwise, what is that? Appropriations Act, the President may
Ultra vires. In this case, nagresult pa yata exercise what we call line veto objection.
sa judicial legislation si judge. Pero it will not affect the whole general
appropriations act, specific lang ang
objection or veto niya to a particular
Abakada vs Prisima
provision. Pero dito hindi siya pwede
Simple lang, the Supreme Court said that
mako-object. Bakit? E, sabi in the words of
the creation of a Congressional Oversight
Justice, I think Perlas Bernabe, the
Committee in the law which includes
decision, there was a collusion. Kung baga
members of the Senate and the Congress is
sa salitang Tagalog, nagkunchaba si
violative of the principle of separation of
President Pinoy at yung Speaker of the
powers. Why? Because after a law is
House, si Belmonte, which would have
enacted, wala nang post-enactment
violated the principle of checks and
participation and this is what we call is
balances. So, hindi pwedeng mag-call din
legislative veto. Congress cannot exercise
ang Congressional Inquiry on how the
legislative veto. Ano ibig sabi ma'am na
PDAF was spent by the Office of the
legislative veto? Kasi under the principle of
President. Bakit? E sila din kasi yung nang
delegation of powers, they have left it to the
ihingi ng pera kay President. So how can
administrative agencies to formulate their
they check themselves? So yun yung ano
own implementing rules and regulations.
natin dyan, no?
E anong ginagawa dito? Bakit may
oversight committee? Re-reviewhin nila
yung implementing rules and regulations. State immunity
Sabi ng Supreme Court, no such thing as
legislative veto. So yung state immunity, this is another
concept sa ating political law. Makikita niyo
Bellica vs. Ochoa ito sa napakalayo, nasa Article 16. Tignan
yung PDAF funds, inallow ni President niyo Article 16 of our Constitution,
Aquino to be parked sa Office of the Paragraph 3, section 3, that says the state
President. Tama ba yun? The answer is no. may not be sued without its consent.
Kasi it resulted to individual legislation. Sir Paki-encircle niyo yung word may kasi hindi
gusto ko magpagawa ng farm-to-market mandatory. Ibig sabihin, there will be
road sa aking distrito. Sir gusto ko circumstances when government may be
magpagawa ng hospital. Sir gusto ko sued by way of provision of law, in fact the
magpagawa ng state college. Pupondohan constitution allows it. Saan naman ma'am?
natin yan sa PDAF na nakalagay sa Office Tignan kaya natin sa Section 3 sa Bill of
of the President. That's not allowed. Rights. Ma'am, parang wala kami
natatandaan na may waiver meron po sa
Dapat kasi ang tawag natin sa Congress, Section 9.
whether the Senate or House of Tignan niyo yung Section 9, Article 3, that
says private property shall not be taken for
public use without just compensation. That's kanilang obligation. So again, it is invoking
a waiver of state immunity. Bakit? Hindi ba immunity from suit when the contractor
i-exercise ng government ang power of instituted a complaint for collection of
eminent domain without instituting an action money. So the defense was we are immune
in court, di ba? from suit. The Supreme Court said, no.
Yung contract na inano niyo has nothing to
In fact, in one case, the case of Yujico vs. do with its strengthening of the fabric
Mayor Atienza, nag-institute ng industry of the Philippines. But rather, it was
expropriation proceedings ang Manila to what? A proprietary function. Yung
acquire the parcel of land of the Yijuco rehabilitation works noong electrical
family. Nagtayo ng public school ang City of facilities niyo has nothing to do with
Manila, kulang ang bayad. So si Yujico, research and protection, as I said, of the
nagsulat ng letter of demand kay Mayor textile industry of the Philippines. So the
Atienza. Sabi niya, Mayor hindi pa fully Supreme Court made it liable because it is
compensated. Ito po ang order ng court, exercising a proprietary function.
hindi niyo pa po nababayaran. Ano sabi ni
Atienza kaya nadala yung case before the Ito yung most recent case in state immunity.
Supreme Court? I'm invoking state BPI v. Central Bank of the Philippines
immunity. You cannot sue the local So CBP pa noon ang Central Bank of the
government. Ano sabi ng Supreme Court? Philippines. Anyway, nagkaroon ng clearing
Gago ka ba eh ikaw nag-institute ng P7M which resulted to the loss sa BPI.
expropriation proceeding? Liable ka by way
of decision of the court. BPI Laoag cleared several checks na
ni-negotiate dito sa Greenhills branch ng
The government may waive its right based international bank. Na-clear all P7M. So
on constitutional provision or by provision of nag-claim ang BPI sa Central Bank (CB) of
law. I want you to remember that, yan yung the Philippines. For some reason, ni-restore
expressed. Ngayon pwede ding implied. ng Central Bank and BPI up to the extent of
Kailan implied? By acts or if the government P3.5M. Pero yung BPI insisted that CB
itself agrees to be sued, makikita natin yan restore everything, hindi lang 50%. CB has
eh, diba? When government exercises to restore kasi dumaan ito sa clearing
proprietary function. Ano ibig sabi ng operations ng CB, but the latter refused. So
proprietary function? Government reduces hanggang nadala yung case before the SC.
itself to the rank of an ordinary person
when it enters into commercial SC held that BPI is NOT entitled to further
contracts. restitution to the amount of P3.5M because
while the clearing operations was a function
PTRI v. CA and EA Ramos Construction, undertaken by the CB, it was a
Inc. governmental function. It was meant to
So yung PTRI is a government agency, protect the banking industry as a whole.
Philippine Textile and Research Institute. So Walang kinikita, it is not a revenue raising
dedicated lang siguro sila yung sa mga source insofar as the operation of CB is
preservation ng mga woven products from concerned.
the North and the South. Besides, you cannot say that our
So yung siguro yung kanilang primary bookkeeper and our janitor are agents of
concern and the protection basically of the the CB because 1) they are regular
textile industry in the Philippines. So here, employees.
they entered into a contract to improve its
buildings, not only in the main office but In State Immunity, agents may be classified
other offices nila, pati yung kuryente nila, as:
lahat ng supply pina-improve nila. So ano a) regular
nangyari? Hindi nakabayad PTRI sa b) special
(2019): The K-12 Law meets the two tests

Regular employees sila. Yung ginawa nila
of valid delegation of powers. Under the
na pilferage of P7M is NOT part of their
first test, the law must be complete in all
official duties. The agents of the
its terms and conditions when it leaves
government can only claim immunity in the
the legislature such that when it reaches
performance of their official duties. Pag
the delegate, the only thing he will have to
hindi official duties, personal yung liability
do is to enforce it. The sufficient standard
nila.
test, on the other hand, mandates
adequate guidelines or limitations in the
U.P. v. Hon. Dizon (2012) – Being an law to determine the boundaries of the
instrumentality of the national delegate's authority. The policy behind
government, the funds of the University of the K-12 Law was clear in its
the Philippines is beyond the reach of the preambular clauses. Access to quality
courts. education is for all and not only to a
select class.
*landmark case
SC held that all government funds and The K to 12 Law met the 2 standards of
properties are beyond the reach of court. tests:
Kaya ni-quash ng SC yung garnishment ng
P14M which the court ordered. Pina-restore 1) Completeness test
ng SC ulet. Ibalik ulet sa Landbank of the Congress defined the purpose of the law.
Philippines and the Development Bank of We have to make our graduates globally
the Philippines all the garnished funds competitive. Kasi tayo kulang ng 2 years
because public funds and government funds kaya yung mga engineers natin na
are beyond the reach of the courts dini-deploy overseas, naa-outrank sila ng
mga Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis sa
promotion. Kasi kapag ni-review yung
Sec. 29 (1), Art. 6, 1987 Constitution
qualifications nila kulang sila ng 2 years sa
No money shall be paid out of the
secondary education. Basically it was also
Treasury except in pursuance of an
intended to protect our overseas workers
appropriation made by law.u
and also to provide for the reality that not
every Filipino will be able to go to tertiary
Pag ginarnish mo, you have violated the education. So the supplemental 2 years
General Appropriations Act because that would prepare them to acquire necessary
money is not intended for garnishment. It is knowledge or even skills kaya TESDA is
intended to pay the salaries, to pay Meralco, involved to get them employed because we
PLDT services of UP, so bawal. have to accept the reality na hindi lahat ng
tao kaya mag-complete ng college degree.
Q: Let’s say PGH, pwede mo bang Government well defined these objectives
i-garnish yung hospital?
A: Hindi pwede. Hindi mo pwedeng i-levy. 2) Sufficient Standard Test
Kawawa yung mga tao. It identified the important government
Heart Center- hindi pwede. They are agencies including the Department of Labor,
performing governmental functions or public TESDA, DepEd and CHED to put their
services. heads together to have a smooth transition
DELEGATION OF POWERS
Bayan Muna v. Ermita (2006) – By
adopting the Calibrated Pre-emptive
Council of Teachers and Staff of Response, the Office of the President
Colleges and Universities of the violated the sufficient standard test. The
Philippines v. Secretary of Education
standard prescribed under the Public

Power to Tax
Assembly was Maximum Tolerance.
It is a mandatory imposition/exaction of an
amount of money either based on income or
The adoption of the Calibrated Preemptive regulated transaction
Response would be violative of the
sufficient standard test required of the POLICE POWER
Public Assembly Act which only requires
maximum tolerance.
Council of Teachers and Staff of
Colleges and Universities of the
Edu v. Hon. Ericta (1970) – The Philippines v. Secretary of Education
Reflector Law is constitutional. It was well (2019): The K-12 Law is a valid exercise
within the power of the LTO chief to fill in of police power. It meets the mandate of
the details in the implementation of the quality education for all.
law. The requirement to have Early
Warning Device complied with the
sufficient standard test. The imposition of the K-12 program,
although those who were affected violently
objected to its implementation because they
The requirement to ensure public safety by were so scared that they were going to lose
making sure that every car owner would their jobs, but the SC said that this was a
have an early warning device in their car valid exercise of police power.
was a function fully delegated to the LTO
chief, because Congress cannot discuss all
the details in the implementation of the laws Oscar Pimentel v. LEB (2019) – The
so that it delegates to the administrative Court ruled that the creation of the Legal
agencies the filling out of details Education Board as constitutional.
However, it struck down Sec. 9 of LEBMO
FUNDAMENTAL POWERS OF No. 7, Series of 2016, as void and
GOVERNMENT unconstitutional for intruding into the
academic freedom of law schools.
The fundamental powers of the state are: *landmark case

1. Police Power
2. Power to Expropriate SC held that the creation of the Legal
3. Power to Tax Education Board was a valid exercise of
police power to look into the welfare of law
schools but more importantly to look into the
Q: What’s the common thread that binds welfare of the students who would like to
these three state or government powers? pursue a legal degree.
A: Public function - governmental duty POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN

Each power when exercised meets a public
duty. It addresses a specific concerns of the PNOC Alternative Fuels Corporation v.
people of the Philippines National Grid Corporation of the
Philippines (2019) - The NGCP can
Police Power elements: expropriate a property owned by another
1) lawful purpose GOCC like the PAFC if the property is
2) lawful means patrimonial in nature. As a patrimonial
property, it is considered private property.
Power to Expropriate
1) forcible taking of private property
2) for public purpose or public use
3) payment of just compensation
Q: Take a look at the title of the case, 2 The SC said that the trial court may include
GOCCs. Pwede bang mag-expropriate in its judgment the responsibility of paying
ang isang GOCC over a GOCC property? the capital gains tax and the transfer taxes
to the government in addition to the just
A: The SC held in the affirmative. compensation. Why? SC said, when you
If that property owned by the GOCC is examine the National Internal Revenue
being used in its patrimonial nature, then it Code you will see that the sale is not
is considered a private property. mutual. Sabi sa NIRC, kaya liable ang seller
So dahil yung PNOC pinali-lease out nila sa kasi gusto niya ibenta yung transfer taxes,
mga petrochemicals companies yung kasi gusto din nila ibenta nila lahat. Pero
portions of land, hindi nila binebenta. The dito sa Expropriation, there is forced sale,
SC said patrimonial yun kasi may revenue. so it cannot be covered by the same
So dahil patrimonial, it can be an object of provision. Therefore, SC said that it is just
expropriation. and equitable. Walang basis ang SC for
making the government liable for the
payment of the capital gains tax and
MORE Power Corporation v. Panay
transfer taxes. This was decided on
Electric Company - Sections 10 and 17
equitable grounds because the principle is
of Republic Act No. 11212 are
there was forceable taking.
constitutional. The Court affirmed the
grant of the congressional franchise as
well as the delegated power to
expropriate to the petitioner. MERALCO v. City of Muntinlupa (2021)
– The Local Government Code does not
allow a municipality to impose a local
This MORE Power company is owned by franchise tax. Only provinces and cities
the Aboitiz group. They supply power. are allowed to collect local franchise tax.
Nakakuha sila ng congressional franchise The Court ruled the ordinance enacted by
under RA 11212. Tapos yung franchise Muntinlupa is invalid since it is an ultra
holder, dahil hindi na na-renew yung vires act.
franchise parang ABS-CBN kinuha nila
Villar yung franchise sa TV. The extent of power of our LGUs to impose
Q: Can congress delegate the power to franchise taxes. LGC does not allow
expropriate? Muntinlupa as a municipality to impose
franchise taxes. So, limited lang ang
A: The SC answered in the affirmative. collection of franchise taxes under the LGC
Pwedeng i-delegate ng Congress ang to cities and provinces. Umabot ng Sc ang
power of eminent domain to a private case na ito because Muntinlupa insisted
agency exercising public duty. Public with the upgrading, kasi na-reclassify na sila
service yung pag-supply ng kuryente. as a city and pwede na sila ngayon
mag-collect, kaya Meralco magbayad. SC
RATIONALE: Si Panay Electric Company, said a void ordinance cannot be corrected
wala naman franchise/business, ibenta mo anymore, it remains to be void. When you
na kay MOREPOWER by way of enacted it, you [Muntinlupa] are still a
expropriation lahat ng sales. municipality, you are not allowed to collect
franchise taxes as a municipality.
Power of Taxation
Republic v. Spouses Bunsay (2019) -

The burden of payment of the capital
gains tax is shifted to the government
since expropriation is a forced sale.
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
Ang LadLad v. COMELEC (2010) – The
Court recognized the right of the LGBTQ+
Legislative power
community to be accredited as a party
list.
Scope and limitations – Congress has the
power to propose, enact, amend and repeal
The SC properly applied the party list law
law. Laws may be restricted by:
which does not prohibit individuals who
have different sexual orientation to become
a) Substantive limitations involve the
a participant under the party list system.
exercise of the power itself and the
allowable subjects of legislation; and
Oposa v. Factoran (1993) – The Court
b) Procedural limitations specify the manner held that the grant of Timber Licensing
of passing laws. Agreements is a prerogative of the
government under the regalian doctrine.
Atty. Loanzon: Tandaan yung Procedural TLA is not a right but only a privilege.
Aspect. We have the three-reading rule, no
rider, and proper submission to the Thus, may be revoked.
President.
Jinggoy Ejercito v. Sandiganbayan
No Rider Principle - one title, one subject.
(2018) – The amendments in the
Anti-Money Laundering Act do not partake
e.g. Sa General Appropriations Act bawal
of ex post facto law.
mag-lagay ng provision creating a new
agency. That is a rider. You only appropriate
funds to existing agencies.
Substantive limitations:
Three-Reading Rule
Peralta v. Philpost (2019) – The printing
GR: 3 readings on 3 separate days. On the of postal stamps to commemorate the
last day, 3 days before the final reading centennial founding anniversary of the
dapat mabigay yung third reading version. INC does not violate the
non-establishment clause.
XPN: When the President certifies it as
urgent. First reading (morning), second
reading (after lunch), and third reading (after SC discussed the fact that during the
dinner). Hindi na-vaviolate ang provision. celebration of the centennial founding
e.g. Maharlika Fund. Within one day, anniversary of Islam as religion in the
na-approved ng madaling araw. Philippines, the PH Postal Incorporation
also printed stamps. Also on several
Bayan Muna v. Ermita (2003) – The occasions, such as Papal Visits, nagpiprint
Calibrated Pre-emptive Response ng stamps without violating the
intrudes into the right to peaceably non-establishment clause because this is
assemble. allowed under the Benevolent Neutrality
Doctrine.
SC said unconstitutional ang ginawa ng Araullo v. Pres. Aquino (2015) – The
executive branch. cross-border transfers of the savings of the
Executive Department to augment the
appropriations of other offices outside the
executive department are unconstitutional
as they violate Section 25(5) of Article VI of
the Constitution.
That destroys the very independence of yun. SC said pag in-allow ang petition na
both COMELEC and Civil Service ito, that would be a fourth reading already.
Commission.
Principle of Non-delegability: Powers
reserved by the Constitution to Congress
Demetria v. Alba (1987) The prohibition to
cannot be delegated except for the
transfer an appropriation for one item to
following:
another was explicit and categorical under
the 1973 Constitution. However, to afford 1. Delegation to the people at large
the heads of the different branches of the under the system of initiative and
government and those of the constitutional referendum under Sections 1 and 32
commissions considerable flexibility in the of the Constitution.
use of public funds and resources, the 2. Requirement of plebiscite in the
constitution allowed the enactment of a law creation, division, merger, and
authorizing the transfer of funds for the abolition of LGUs under Section 10
purpose of augmenting an item from of Article X of the Constitution.
savings in another item in the appropriation 3. Grant of legislative powers to the
of the government branch on constitutional President for a limited period of time
body concerned. under Section 23(2) of Article VI of
the Constitution.
SC said that 1973 Constitution also 4. Grant of tariff flexibility to the
prohibits cross-border transfer of funds and President under Section 28(2) of
the President cannot amend, even Martial Article VI.
Law, the General Appropriations Act
enacted by the BP.
Bayanihan Heal as One Act (2020) -
Procedural Limitations The Congress considered the COVID-19
pandemis as a national emergency and
Arroyo v. De Venecia (1997) – To give allowed the President to exercise
due course to the petition of Arroyo would legislative powers to address issues
violate doctrine on separation of powers. related to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The prayer to allow further deliberation
would likewise violate the three-reading
rule. Legislative powers sa president, you will
see that under Section 23, par 2. In times of
SC: war, Congress cannot convene, and so the
president can do that, pagkatapos, in times
1. The approval of the Sin Taxes Law was in of national emergency. A recent situation is
accordance of the rules of the House of the Bayanihan Heal as One Act where the
Representatives and the SC cannot Congress said that the COVID-19 is a
intervene in rules of procedure because that pandemic where it cannot convene every
would be violative of doctrine on separation now and then because of the lockdown and
of powers. all other existing restrictions, which allowed
then President Duterte to enact measures in
2. To reopen the Sin Taxes Law, another the nature of legislative powers to be able to
deliberation, would be violative of the respond to the needs of the people during
constitutional prohibition. After the third this period.
reading, the nays and yays are entered into
the journal. Ire-reflect yung number of votes
kasi may mga provisions na, 2/3 votes or
3/4 votes or 1/4 votes ang kailangan. After
the third reading and nag-vote na, tapos na
ang itanong sa inyo, 2/3 vote, 3/4 vote, 1/3

David v. Arroyo (2007) - To take over the vote, lagi kapag Senate ang tinatanong, 2/3,
operations of private utility companies in 3/4, 1/3, kailangan niyo ay 24 ang divisor.
times of national emergency under Majority, laging 24 ang divisor, basta
Section 17 of Article XII, the President sinasabi “of all members”, majority of all
must first be authorized by Congress in members, 2/3 of all members, 3/4 of all
conformity with Section 23(2) of Article VI. members, the divisor is always 24.
Sa house of representatives, fluctuating ang

number kasi depende sa numbers— fixed
ATTY: President Arroyo, as
yung numbers ng congressional districts.
commander-in-chief, had a proclamation
Wala tayong argument about that. Nagiiba
which allowed the government to take over
lang sila sa party-list members. Pero dahil
certain operations of private businesses.
naka-fix naman ang congressional districts,
Under Section 17 of Article XII, the
nakalagay rin naman sa Constitution ang
President cannot do that alone because the
maximum members ng party list should be
provision says “in times of emergency”, and
20%.
in conformity with Section 23(2) of Article VI.
So kailangan iauthorize muna ang President Apportionment of districts
ng ating Congress. Here, the Supreme
Court said the act of then President Arroyo Consider the number of inhabitants. With
is unconstitutional. 250,000 inhabitants, a city is entitled to one
congressional district and a province is
Section 17, Article XII - In times of entitled to one congressional district as well.
national emergency, when public interest Apportionment must be based on uniform
so requires, the State may, during the and progressive ratio. Each legislative
emergency and under reasonable terms district shall comprise, as far as practical, a
prescribed by it, temporarily take over or contiguous, compact, and adjacent territory.
direct the operation of any
privately-owned public utility or business It is the power of the Congress in
affected with public interest. compliance with Republicanism. The more
people you have, dahil hindi nag iincrease
yung size ng congressional district, or ng
Houses of Congress
city, or ng province, pero nagkaroon ng
growth in population, they have to have
Senate House of more for this. That is in keeping with the
Representatives concept of Republicanism.
24 members, voted Congressional
at large for a term. district
of six years and representatives Aquino and Robredo v. COMELEC
seek for a second voted by (2010) - The reapportionment of the
term; qualifications constituents of their districts of Camarines Sur is
respective districts constitutional. The law did not create a
and a maximum of
new district in Naga City as argued by the
20% consisting of
party list members petitioners.
voted at large for a
term of three years
for a maximum of Ang premise ni Aquino and Robredo at that
three terms; time was that the reapportionment was
qualifications.
adding an additional congressional district in
Naga City. That premise was very wrong.
There are two chambers, the Senate, The Supreme Court said that according to
naka-fix ang number. You must remember, the principles of Statutory Construction, it is
24 is the permanent divisor. Kahit ano pa
very clear in the title that it was Dapat yung sa first counting, ang qualifying
reapportionment of congressional districts in vote will be 2% of the votes cast in the
the province of Camarines Sur. It was not party-list tapos maximum three seats. Bakit
about Naga City. The Supreme Court kaya maximum three seats eh kung marami
upheld the validity of the bill, and in fact it naman silang nakuhang boto? That is again
was submitted to a plebiscite and was in keeping with the principle with
approved by the people of the province of Republicanism. Hindi sila pwedeng
Camarines Sur. And as fate would have it, overrepresented.
that additional congressional district was the
very district where former Vice President
Robredo ran. Banat v. COMELEC (2009) - The Court
clarified the threshold parameters to be
observed in the allocation of seats of
Aldaba v. COMELEC (2010) - The party-list members.
creation of an additional congressional
district in Malolos City is not
constitutional.
The Supreme Court struck down as Atong Paglaum v. COMELEC (2013) -

unconstitutional the creation of an additional The COMELEC excluded from
congressional district in Malolos City participating in the May 13 2013 party-list
because the population was certified by the elections those that did not satisfy these
regional director of the then NSO. The law two criteria: (1) all national, regional, and
says that it should be certified by the Chief sectoral groups or organizations must
Statistician of the Philippines who should be represent the “marginalized and
the head of the PSA. underrepresented” sectors, and (2) all
nominees must belong to the
Party-list System “marginalized and underrerpresented”
sector they represent. The disqualification
1. Twenty percent allocation - The
of petitioners, and their nominees under
combined number of all party-list
such circumstances is contrary to the
representatives shall not exceed
1987 Constitution and R.A. N. 7941.
20% of the total membership of the
HOR, including those elected under
party-list. (Section 5(3), Article VI)
Sinasabi sa Constitution sino lang ang
2. Two percent threshold - Parties
pwedeng magparticipate dito sa ating
garnering a minimum of two percent
party-list system: (1) registered national,
of the total valid votes cast for the
regional, sectoral representatives. Ano yung
party-list system is “qualified” to
susunod? If a national party should
have a seat in the HOR. (Section
participate under the party-list system, they
11(b), R.A. No. 7941)
cannot field candidates from the
3. Three-seat limit - Each qualified
congressional districts. Bakit nanaman hindi
party, regardless of the number of
pwede? Again, that will violate the principle
votes obtained, is entitled to a
of Republicanism. Dito sa Atong Paglaum,
maximum of three seats; that is, one
hindi ka naman kailangan to be really part of
qualifying and two additional seats.
the sector. Pwede lang you believe in the
(Section 11(b), R.A. No. 7941)
advocacy of the sector.
Basically the maximum ceiling is 20%.
Illustration: The son of former President
Kailangan ba lahat 20%? Not necessarily
Arroyo, Mikey Arroyo who represented the
kasi kung hindi naman talaga kayang
Security Guards, hindi naman siya Security
abutin, pero maximum, that is the ceiling.
Guard. It is sufficient that you support the
advocacy of the members of the party-list. crime for which you are being held liable.
So walang requirement ng track record. Kasi ang freedom of the offense, dapat ang
penalty ay should be not more than six
Legislative privileges, inhibitions, and years of imprisonment. Kaya lang hindi
disqualifications nagkaroon ng judgment against Trillanes
because President Arroyo gave them
1. Freedom from arrest under Section amnesty.
11, Article VI:
2. Privilege of speech and debate: To be
To avail of the privilege Congress protected, the utterances must be made
must be in session and offense while the legislature or the legislative
committed is punishable by not more committee is in session; and they must be
than six years imprisonment. made in connection with the discharge of
official duties.
People v. Jalosjos (2000): The

conviction of Jalosjos for statutory rape on Pobre v. Defensor-Santiago (2009): The
two counts and acts of lasciviousness on Supreme Court did not sanction the
six counts does not deserve merit for him respondent since her speech was
to fulfill his duties as representative of the delivered during the plenary session of
First District of Zamboanga del Norte. the Senate.
With his conviction, he is precluded from
being released from prison.
Despite the fact that Defensor-Santiago
referred to the Supreme Court as a court of
Q: Can Jalosjos attend to his idiots, she was not sanctioned because she
congressional dutie after his conviction? was covered by parliamentary privilege of
speech
A: The answer is no. He needs to serve the
consequences of his criminal action. In fact
in this decision, the justice who penned it
Trillanes v. Hon. Marigomen (2018):
said that “you cannot be a superhuman”.
Trilanes cannot avail of the privilege of
You have to be confined because that is the
speech and debate because the
essence of criminal due process. You have
utterances were made during the
to suffer the consequences of your criminal
interview with the media and not during
liabilities.
the conduct of a committee hearing.
Trillanes v. Hon. Pimentel (2008): The

The Court said that Trillanes is not entitled
crime of coup d'etat is a non-bailable
to the privilege the way that
offense. The denial of bail justifies the
Defensor-Santiago was entitled to the
detention of the accused as a valid
privilege because he made his utterances
curtailment of his right to provisional
not in the performance of his duty as a
liberty.
senator or during the conduct of his
congressional inquiry, he made it during a
public interview.
Trillanes argued that “dapat po ibahin niyo
ako kay Jalosjos kasi siya po ay convicted Incompatible and Forbidden Office
na eh, ako po ay undergoing trial pa lang,
so dapat po ay iallow niyo pa rin ako to
attend to my duties in the senate. Ano sabi The following are the disqualifications and
ng Supreme Court? No you cannot invoke inhibitions imposed upon the members of
that because non-bailable offense yung Congress:
1) Incompatible Office – No
She ran for the senate, was validly
Senator or Member of the House
proclaimed, and assumed office as member
of Representatives may hold any
of the senate. Hence, it would be
other office or employment in the
incompatible for her to work as a senator
Government, or any subdivision,
and at the same time be the VP of the PH.
agency, or instrumentality thereof,
including government-owned or
controlled corporations or their
Quorum and voting majorities
subsidiaries, during his term
without forfeiting his seat (Sec. 13,
Art. VI, 1987 Constitution). A majority of each House shall constitute
a quorum to do business, but a smaller
2) Forbidden Office – Neither shall number may adjourn from day to day and
he be appointed to any office may compel the attendance of absent
which may have been created or Members in such manner, and under such
the emoluments thereof increased penalties, as such House may provide
during the term for which he was (Sec. 16(2), Art . VI, 1987 Constitution).
elected (Sec. 13, Art. VI, 1987
Constitution).
Avelino v. Cuenco (1949)
The Senate President is an office
Liban v. Gordon (Resolution, 2011) essentially dependent exclusively upon
The office of the Chairman of the the will of the majority of the senators.
Philippine National Red Cross is not a The Court may interfere with the rules
government-owned or controlled adopted by the Senate. When 12
corporation for purposes of the prohibition senators approved the resolution and
in Sec. 13, Art. VI of the 1987 elected a new Senate President, [they
Constitution. could ratify all their acts and thereby place
them] beyond the shadow of doubt.
The Court likewise recognized the
country’s adherence to the Geneva
Physical presence is required. If the
Convention and respect the unique status
question is to be asked because of the
of the PNRC in consonance with its treaty
pandemic, pursue the answer, “if the rules
obligations. The Geneva Convention has
will allow zoom.” Limit the answer based on
the force and effect of law. The structure
the rules.
of the PNRC is sui generis, being neither
strictly private nor public in nature. RA
Here in Avelino, there was yet no pandemic.
N.o. 95 remains valid and constitutional in
Hence, SC required actual physical
its entirety.
presence. If you are sick or abroad, you
can’t vote via a call.
Gordon did not violate the principle of
separation of powers because the Red
Baguilat v. Speaker Alvarez (2017)
Cross is not part of the executive branch, it
The Court upheld the election of
is sui generis, created pursuant to the
Representative Danilo Suarez as the
Geneva Convention.
Minority Speaker of the House. The Court
may not interfere in the internal rules of
Legarda v. De Castro (2005) the House of Representatives.
When Legarda assumed her office as a
Senator, she was deemed to have
Under the principle of separation of powers,
abandoned her protest against Vice
the Court may not look into the adopted
President Noli de Castro.
rules on how to vote for a minority floor
leader. In effect, the Court could not give

Congressman Osmeña, in a privilege
due course to the petition because the
speech delivered before the House, made
Congress adopted new rule which is beyond
the serious imputations of bribery against
the scope of scrutiny of the Supreme Court.
the President which are quoted in
Resolution No. 59. He refused to produce
Voting Majorities
before the House committee created for
GR: A majority of members consisting of the purpose , evidence to substantiate
a quorum may pass a bill. such imputations. By resolution of the
House, suspended from office for a period
XPN: Specific provisions of the of 15 months, for serious disorderly
Constitution may require prescribed behavior. The House has exclusive power
voting majorities (concurrence to a treaty, to discipline its members. The courts have
override a veto, to call for a constitutional no jurisdiction to interfere.
convention, to grant tax amnesty, etc.)
He was suspended for 18 months. Now the
Constitution is reasonable already–
Discipline of Members suspension is merely for 60 days. Hence,
he seeks to have writ of mandamus to be
(3) Each House may determine the rules
issued for him to be reinstated.
of its proceedings, punish its Members for
disorderly behavior, and, with the
SC: You cannot do that. Under the principle
concurrence of two-thirds of all its
of separation of powers, you will be
Members, suspend or expel a Member. A
controlled by the rules on discipline of
penalty of suspension, when imposed,
members of Congress.
shall not exceed 60 days (Sec. 16(3), Art.
VI, 1987 Constitution).
Current events: Suspension of
Representative Teves/prolonged absence
Enrolled bill vs. Journal Entry after the lapse of 60-day suspension.
COTESCUP Case This is a question which has not been

The published version of PNoy is different resolved as no one has filed a case before
from the version of 3rd reading in the journal the court to challenge it.
entry of the Senate.
Process of Law-Making (Secs. 16 & 27,
SC: There is such a rule known as an Art VI)
enrolled bill. The Senate and HoR do not
Every bill goes through three separate
hold a joint session so the copy in the
readings on three different days unless
journal of the HoR will differ from the journal
certified urgent by the President.
of the Senate. Hence, there is a Bicameral
Conference Committee which harmonizes
A bill is approved in accordance with
the two versions of the bill, which results in
the rules of procedure of Congress
an enrolled bill.
where the votes of the Congress are
properly recorded in their respective
It is controlling as it is certified by the
journals.
Senate President, Speaker of the House ,
authenticated by the Secretary of the
Every bill is presented to the President for
Senate and the Secretary General of the
approval.
House, unlike a journal entry which is not
signed.
The President may veto a bill but the
Congress may override the same initially
Osmeña v. Pendatun (1960) by a vote of 2/3 of all the members of the
House where it originated and if the same
is likewise reconsidered by the other prevails over the 3rd reading version
House by a vote of 2/3 of its members, it found in the journals of the 2 chambers.
shall become a law. The output of the Bicameral Committee
which harmonizes both versions is the
The inaction of the President within 30 version submitted to the President.
days results in the automatic enactment
of the bill into law.
Tolentino v. Sec. of Finance (1995)
While all revenue measures must
Current events: President Duterte did not
originate from the HoR, the Senate is not
act on 41 enrolled bills when he stepped
precluded from proposing amendments to
down.
revenue bills.
Consider the date given to the president

because the 30-day period is controlling. Can the Senate version overrule a
For example, if it was given to Duterte on revenue measure?
June 15 and Marcos assumed office on YES. Under the Constitution, the Senate
June 30, Marcos can still veto. However, may introduce amendments to all revenue
once the 30-day period has lapsed, it is bills introduced by the HoR.
considered enacted because inaction on the
part of the president would transpose a bill Tañada v. Angara (1997)
into a law. The Senate, after deliberation and voting,
voluntarily and overwhelmingly gave its
3 Actions of the President consent to the WTO Agreement thereby
1) Approve a bill into a law making it “a part of the law of the land” is
● Congress merely proposes, it a legitimate exercise of its sovereign duty
is the President who signs a and power.
bill into law.
● Rationale: He is the one to
implement the law so he A law becomes binding upon publication.
should be made aware.
Ang Nars Party List v. Executive
2) Veto which may be overridden by Secretary (2019)
2/3 vote A joint resolution of congress cannot
validly amend a law. Therefore, the
3) Inaction within 30 days which would issuance of an executive order
result in automatic enactment downgrading the pay grade scale of the
government houses is not null and void.
Arroyo v. De Venecia (1997)
The Sin Tax Law was validly passed in Can a resolution be passed by both
accordance with the constitutional houses to delegate the power to amend a
requirements and the internal rules of law to the President?
procedure of Congress. The remedy of NO. (Remember PEARL – power to
Representative Arroyo is to seek propose, enact, amend, and repeal laws) –
amendment of the law upon its effectivity. Only the Congress can amend a law.
Here, it was delegated to GMA who

CotesCup v. DepEd (2018) downgraded the pay.
The 3rd reading version of the K-12 Law
published in the Journal of the Senate is SC: The act of delegation by the Congress,
not controlling. Under enrolled bill theory, as well as the act of downgrading of pay
the copy submitted to the President scale of nurses by President GMA are
unconstitutional.
1) Termination of congressional
Appropriations and Realignment hearings and submission of
Sec. 5 (5) of Art. IV: No law shall be passed congressional report; and
authorizing any transfer of appropriations; 2) When Congress adjourns its
however, the President, the President of the session.
Senate, the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, the Chief Justice of the
Romero II v. Senator Estrada (2009)
Supreme Court, and the heads of
A Senate Committee hearing may
Constitutional Commissions may, by law, be
proceed independently of a pending civil
authorized to augment any item in the
case involving the same subject.
general appropriations law for their
respective offices from savings in other
items of their respective appropriations. Can a person summoned by Congress
be excused by saying there is a pending
case to be investigated by congress on
Araullo v. Pres. Aquino (2015)
the same subject matter?
While the Disbursement Acceleration
NO. A judicial proceeding is different from a
Program is constitutional, the
congressional inquiry.
cross-border transfers of savings of the
Executive Department to augment the
appropriations of other offices outside the
executive department are unconstitutional
as they violate Sec 25(5) of Art. VI. Sabio v. Senate (2006)
Section 4(b) of E.O. No. 1 creating the
PCGG ("No member or staff of the
Legislative Inquiries and Oversight
Commission shall be required to testify or
Functions
produce evidence in any judicial,
legislative or administrative proceeding
Neri v. Senate (2008) concerning matters within its official
The witness to a congressional inquiry cognizance.") was declared REPEALED
can invoke executive privilege. by the 1987 Constitution. Thus, PCGG
Publication of the rules of procedure in Commissioners may be required to attend
legislative inquiries is mandatory. congressional inquiries.
The alterego of the president may invoke Can Sabio excuse himself, citing the
executive privilege and be relieved from the provision creating the PCGG that would
responsibility of answering questions from excuse his attendance?
the Senate. NO. That was effectively repealed by the
1987 Constitution.
Balag v. Senate (2018)
Power of Impeachment
The Senate cannot indefinitely detain a
person cited in contempt. A person may Members of the House of
be released upon completion of the Representatives determine the sufficiency
Committee Report and its submission for in form and substance of an impeachment
the action of the chamber. A person may complaint duly endorsed by at least one
likewise be released when the Congress member. However, if one third of the
adjourns its session. members endorse the complaint, it
becomes the Articles of Impeachment.
Abrogated the ruling in Arnault v. Nazareno.
The Senate acts as the impeachment
Now, persons cited in contempt may be
tribunal. By a vote of 2/3 of all its
released under 2 conditions:
members, the impeachable officer is
removed from office. If the President is

Qualifications – citizenship, age, residence
under trial, the Chief Justice presides.
Piccio v. HRET (2021)

Francisco v. House of Representatives The issue of citizenship is a matter which
(2003) the HRET may resolve.
A second impeachment complaint filed
four months after the dismissal of the first
There is no need to go to RTC under
complainant violates the one-year
remedial law rules. As it goes into
prohibition.
qualifications (citizenship), HRET may take
cognizance.
Ombudsman Gutierrez v. House of
Representatives (2011) For an electoral tribunal to take jurisdiction
The simultaneous referral of two there must be: (1) valid proclamation; (2)
impeachment complaints is valid as it is in valid oath taking; and (3) valid assumption
accordance with the rules of of office.
impeachment adopted by the House of
Representatives. Such rules do not Issues for resolution:
require publication since the mandate is 1. Election
to effectively carry out the purpose of the ● No election took place
impeachment process. maybe due to terrorism or
force majeure.
2. Returns
Letter of Mrs. Corona says,“since ● Will be the question of votes
impeachment has the effect of removal, actually credited to the
Chief Justice Corona is deemed candidates.
involuntarily separated and did not retire. 3. Qualifications
Therefore he is entitled to all benefits of ● Citizenship, age, residence
retirement.”
Piccio vs HRET
Electoral Tribunals The issue of citizenship is a matter which
1. Senate Electoral Tribunal the HRET may resolve.
2. House of Representative Electoral
Tribunal Atty: Hindi kailangan dalhin sa RTC, under
the remedial law rules, but rather,
Composition: 9 members (3 Associate citizenship is a qualification therefore, HRET
Justices of the SC and 6 members) may take cognizance of the case.
Requisites to acquire jurisdiction:

David vs. SET
1. Valid proclamation
The issue of citizenship is a matter which
2. Valid oath taking
the SET may resolve.
3. Assumption of office
Reyes vs. HRET

Issues for resolution:
The rule that requires the presence of a
1. Election
justice of the Supreme Court is mandatory
2. Returns
in all proceedings before the HRET fulfills
3. Qualifications
the intent of the framers of the Constitution
to shield any election contest from any
Election – no election took place, maybe political bias.
due to an act of terrorism, force majeure
Returns – question of votes

Atty: One, the CoC of Reyes was now void

because she was still an American citizen Acting appointments may be issued by the
when she filed her CoC to become the sole president for the department heads, but not
representative of the province of in the case of the CSC, COMELEC and
Marinduque. Two, her oath taking was not COA.
also valid because she took her oath in the
house of Del Monte because under the Brillantes vs. Yorac
Rules of the House of Representatives, she The president cannot issue appoint Haydee
should have taken her oath in the plenary Yorac as acting chairman of the COMELEC.
hall of Congress. This violates the Constitution.
Assumption of office was erroneous Matibag vs. Benipayo et. al.

because again, she was not qualified and The president may validly issue ad interim
there was wrongful assumption of office. appointments when Congress is not in
session. Such ad interim appointment is one
Velasco vs. Speaker Belmonte in the nature of permanent appointments,
The Supreme Court issued the writ of unless withdrawn by the president or
mandamus to unseat Reyes because Reyes rejected by the Commission on
was never qualified to assume the Appointments.
representation of the Province of
Marinduque. Sarmiento II vs Mison
Section 16 of Article VII of the 1987
The Commission of Appointments Constitution requiring confirmation by the
Commission on Appointments of certain
Atty: When will the senate president vote? appointments issued by the President
contemplates a system of checks and
A: The senate president will vote only when balances between the executive and
there is a tie, because you have twelve (12) legislative brances of government. The
representatives coming from the House of appointment of Salvador Mison as
Representatives, twelve (12) Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs
representatives coming from the Senate. In without the need of submitting a prior
case of a tie, the senate president, as nomination to the Commission on
presiding officer, will be allowed to vote. Appointments and securing its confirmation
is valid and in accordance with the
It has jurisdiction over the nominees of the President's constitutional authority to
president: appoint officers of the Government.
1. Heads of departments (excluding
executive secretary) Manalo vs. Sistoza et. al.
2. Ambassadors, consuls and public The police force is different from and
ministers independent of the armed forces. The ranks
3. Officers of the AFP from the rank of in the military are not similar to those in the
colonel and naval captain Philippine National Police. Thus, directors
4. All members of the CSC, COMELEC and chief superintendents of the PNP do not
and COA fall under the first category of presidential
5. The four regular members of the appointees requiring the confirmation by the
Judicial and Bar council Commission on Appointments.
Ad interim appointments are permanent Defensor-Santiago vs. COMELEC

appointments. They are done when Wala pa tayong batas on the people's
Congress is in recess because the initiative to amend the Constitution but the
Commissioner on Appointments cannot Supreme Court affirmed that we have RA
convene. They are in the nature of
permanent appointments.
No. 8794 as a valid law which would 3. Those whom the President may be
implememtn Secs. 1 and 32 of Artcle VI. authorized by law to appoint
4. Officers lower in rank whose
appointments the Congress may by
law vest in the President alone.
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT Pimentel vs Executive Secretary Ermita

(2005)
Inhibitions and disqualifications The President may issue acting
appointments to department secretaries
1. Cannot practice profession until such time, he/she decides to issue as
ad interim appointment to the Commission
Atty: Di ba si president Duterte and VP on Appointments.
Robredo were both lawyers, but they never
engaged in the practice of law for six years. Atty: Ang bawal lang ang acting
appointments, sa consitutional
2. Cannot have any financial interest in any commissions.
government contract, franchise and special
government permits Confirmation and by-passed appointment
(Sec. 16, Art. VII)
3. Cannot issue appointments up to the Midnight appointment (Sec. 15, Art. VII) and
fourth civil degree of cosanguinity or affinity Ad interim appointments (Sec. 16, Art. VII)
as members of the constitutional
commissions, or the Office of the
De Castro vs. JBC (2017)
Ombudsman, or as Secretaries,
Appointments in the judiciary are not
Undersecretaries, chairman or heads of
covered by the midnight appointment rule.
bureaus or offices, including GOCCs and
their subsidiaries.
Velicaria-Garafil Vs. Office of the
President (2015)
Atty: The list is exclusive. Tignan niyo lang,
All appointments made by the president
appointments in the judiciary hindi kasama
during the election ban period are null and
sa enumeration. So president Duterte could
void.
have appointed his son-in-law or Sarah in
the judiciary.
Atty: Itong Sec. 15 will only apply during
presidential elections. Sa 2025,
POWERS OF THE PRESIDENT
magkakaroon tayo ng elections, pwede
1. General executive and administrative
bang mag-issue ng appointments si BBM
powers
during the midnight appointment rule? The
2. Power of appointment
answer is yes, ang bawal lang sa 2028.
Classification of public officers who may
POWER OF REMOVAL
be appointed by the President:
1. The heads of the executive
departments, ambassadors, other Domingo vs. Ochoa (2019)
public ministers and consuls, officers The president may strip CESO-rank officers
of the armed forces from the rank of of their rank. The power of appointment
colonel or naval captain, and other includes the power to remove.
officers whose appointments are
vested in him in the Constitution POWER OF CONTROL AND
2. All other officers of the Government SUPERVISION
whose appointments are not 1. Doctrine of qualified agency
otherwise provided for by law 2. Control of executive departments
and offices
3. Supervision over local government Atty: This will be given only to individuals,
units hindi to pwede sa group.
EMERGENCY POWERS under Sec. 23 (2), 2. The president can only grant amnesty
Art. VII with the concurrence of majority of all
members of Congress.
MILITARY POWERS under Sec. 18, Art. VII 3. The president cannot grant pardon to an
1. Calling out powers impeached officer.
2. Declaration of martial law 4. The president cannot grant pardon to a
3. Suspension of privilege of writ of person convicted of a crime involving an
habeas corpus election offense without the favorable
recommendation of the COMELEC.
Lagman vs. Medildea
Determination of factual basis of martial law Risos-Vidal vs. COMELEC (2015)
The president granted former president
Atty: the Supreme Court has the power to Estrada absolute pardon which restored him
look into the factual basis in the declaration to his full civil and political rights.
of martial law.
Tiu vs. Hon. Dizon (2016)
To be entitled to the pardon granted by the
Padilla vs. Congress
president, the beneficiary must show actual
It is only the revocation of the proclamation
proof of the grant and his acceptance of the
of martial law and the suspension of
terms of pardon.
privilege of writ of habeas corpus that
requires the Senate and HOR shall meet
jointly. Atty: There must be a proof that the
president has signed the pardon, and that
Tiu has accepted the conditions of the
Atty: The Congress may only meet jointly
pardon. Without those two, the Supreme
as a constituent body to revoke the the
Court said Tiu cannot ask for a writ of
proclamation of martial law and the
habeas corpus allegedly because he was
suspension of privilege of writ of habeas
already granted an act of executive
corpus.
clemency by way of commutation of
sentence by president Arroyo.
Lagman vs. Pimentel
The period of extension of martial law and
Tanada v. Angara
the privilege of writ of habeas corpus is a
The membership was properly done by way
prerogative of Congress.
of a law. This was asked in the recent Bar.
The approval of a treaty or an executive
Atty: As to the extension, kasi yung initial
agreement is by way of a resolution. But this
period nakalagay sa Constitution 60 days,
resolution undergoes three readings. This is
yun bang extension 60 days din? The
because every treaty, every international
answer is no, it is the prerogative of the
agreement, by virtue of the theory of
Congress.
transformation becomes a law of the
Philippines. You need ⅔ of all members
EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY
vote of the Senate.
Forms - repreives, commutations, pardon

Vinuya v. Executive Secretary Romulo
and remittal of fines and forfeitures.
The President cannot be commanded by
the Supreme Court to submit the Rome
Restrictions:
Statute which would call for a validation of
1. The acts of clemency can only be done
our membership in the ICC because that is
after final conviction.
the prerogative of the President when to It has something to do with the diplomatic
submit it to the Senate for approval. powers of the President.
This will be the Writ of Mandamus also to Can the President be compelled to
require the President to require the publicly declare how to protect the
Japanese government to apologize to our interests of the Philippines insofar as the
comfort women. West Philippine Sea is concerned?
Pangilinan v. Cayetano That is something that is left to the political
This would be the validity of our withdrawal branch of the government to answer.
from the ICC. The Supreme Court affirmed
the action of the President as valid because
Nepomuceno v. Pres. Duterte (2021)
the Senate did not provide for any
Can the President be commanded to
conditions for the withdrawal.
completely rely on the rules of the Food and
Drug Administration on the acquisition of the
Can the Senate provide for restrictions necessary vaccines and materials to
for withdrawal? address the pandemic? No. The SC said: 1)
Remember in Sec. 29, what is required only the President is immune from suit so he
is for validity and effectivity. But in should be dropped; and 2) members of the
withdrawal, there is no mention in the executive branch should be held
Constitution. responsible for the compliance of the FDA
rules.
The answer is YES, under that ???
(2:05:12) rule in Public International Law,
Can the President be made respondent
the Senate may provide for restrictions for
for the Writ of Amparo case?
withdrawal. But in this case, it is not
Generally, the President is immune from
required because it was not provided by the
suit, unless there is an allegation that the
rules.
President had personal knowledge or
personally commanded for the detention or
Appropriation
arrest of that person who is now subject of
1. Veto powers
the Writ of Amparo.
2. Submission of budget
3. Augmentation of budget items from
De Lima v. Pres. Duterte (2019)
savings in the GAA
Whether or not De Lima can ask for a Writ
4. Budget execution
of Habeas Data, the answer is no because
the President enjoys absolute immunity
from suit.
Rules of succession
If the President should die or resign (e.g.,
Estrada v. Desierto (2001)
Erap deemed constructive resignation), it is
The SC that President Estrada is no longer
the Vice-President who will assume the
the president of the Philippines, therefore,
powers.
he can be subjected to criminal prosecution
for the crime of plunder. In fact, he was
De Leon v. Pres. Duterte (2020)
convicted for it.
The President is not under obligation to
disclose his health status. The Constitution
Soliven v. Hon. Makasiar of RTC Manila
does not require him nor is there any law
The SC said that the privilege of immunity
enacted by Congress that would require the
from suit is personal to the President so that
declaration of the actual health status of the
the accused–because Soliven were
President.
accused by Pres. Aquino of libel so they
moved to dismiss the case on the ground
Zabal v. Pres. Duterte (2019) and Esmero
that the President is immune from suit.
v. Pres. Duterte (2021)
The SC said that they cannot do that. They Falcis v. Civil Registrar General (2019) –
cannot ask for dismissal because it was the The petition was dismissed because Falcis
President who personally waived his right to has no standing sue because he failed to
be sued. show any injury he sustained and there was
no law upon which the Court may rule on
the issue he raised on same sex marriage.
Sabio v. Sandiganbayan (2019)

Political question doctrine
Sabio was convicted of violation of RA 3019
The Court may exercise judicial restraint if
and is now invoking the alter ego doctrine.
the issue raised is a matter reserved to the
He claimed to be the alter ego of the
people in its sovereign power to decide or
President and is immune also from suit. The
on matters reserved by the Constitution to
SC said that the immunity from suit is
the other branches of government.
personal to the President.
Moot questions
Resident Marine Mammals v. Sec. Reyes
As an exception to the rule on mootness,
Marine Mammals have no legal standing.
courts will decide a question otherwise moot
Sec. Reyes cannot also invoke the alter ego
if it is capable of repetition yet evading
doctrine to sign a document which is
review.
reserved only to the President under Par. 4,
Sec. 2 of Art. XII.
Operative fact doctrine
A law declared unconstitutional may
IDEALS v. PSALM (2021)
produce legal effects.
Note: This was asked once in the Bar. Can
Note: Most likely to be asked because this
the alter ego doctrine be claimed by a
was best illustrated in the case of Aquino v.
collegial body–in this case, a board of
Arroyo.
directors? No. Individual kasi yung alter ego
doctrine qualified by political agents.
Appointments to the judiciary
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT Qualifications – proven of proven

competence, integrity, probity and
Judicial power rests with the Supreme independence
Court and the lower courts, as established
by law (Art. VIII, sec. 1 of the 1987 Role of the Judicial and Bar Council
Constitution). Its duty is to settle actual (composition and powers)
controversies involving rights which are
legally demandable and enforceable to
Aguinaldo v. JBC (2017)
determine whether there has been grave
The JBC cannot impinge on the appointing
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in
powers of the President by resorting to
excess of jurisdiction on the part of any
clustering of nominees. The Constitution
branch or instrumentality of the government.
does not require clustering. The SC affirmed
the appointments made by the President,
Judicial review
ignoring the clusters provided by the JBC.
Requisites
a. There must be an actual case or
Villanueva v. JBC (2020)
controversy;
The 5-year-qualification being assailed by
b. The party must have legal standing.
the petitioner is constitutional since as
c. The constitutional question must be
stated in the Sect. 8 (5), Art. VIII, the JBC is
raised at the earliest possible
mandated to recommend appointees to the
opportunity; and
judiciary. However, the JBC rule on this
d. The question of constitutionality is
requirement is not considered an internal
the very lis mota of the case.
rule and it should be published. The JBC

should publish all the applicants. Aguinaldo v. JBC, Villanueva v. JBC -
already discussed.
In Re Letter of Mrs. Crisitna
Roco-Corona (2021) Jardeleza v. Sereno and JBC (2014)
Removal from office by way of He was denied due process and the SC
impeachment is considered involuntary said that is not correct because every
separation from government service. person must be accorded the right to due
Therefore, Mrs. Corona is entitled to the full process.
retirements benefits of Chief Justice
Corona. Rule-making powers of the Supreme
Court
Republic v. Sereno (2018)
Impeachment and quo warranto have a Estipona v. Lobrigo (2017) – The provision
different cause of action. In impeachment, on plea bargaining under the
the grounds are defined. In this case, Comprehensive Drugs Act is an
infirmity in the appointment. Sereno did not encroachment of the rule-making powers of
have the integrity, prescribed by the the Supreme Court.
Constitution.
(The SC said congress encroach the power
Four requirements: of the congress when it provided for a
1. A person of proven competence plea-bargaining provision)
2. Integrity
3. Probity People v. Lascano (2021) - Plea
4. Independence bargaining in criminal cases is a process
where the accused and the prosecution
Sereno did not meet the character of work out a mutually satisfactory disposition
integrity for failure to file her SALN for 8 of the case subject to court approval. It
years. usually involves the defendant pleading
guilty to a lesser offense or to only one or
some of the counts of a multi-count
indictment in return for a lighter sentence
Chavez v. JBC (2012) than that for the graver charge.
Congress is only entitled one representative
in the JBC. (Related to the case of Lobrigo, the SC said
they must also obtain the consent of the
Umali v. JBC (2017) prosecution to a plea-bargaining measure.)
The vote of Representative Umali cannot be
counted because it was the turn of the People v. Villarama, Jr. (1992) - The Court
Senate in the JBC meeting he attended. already clarified that the acceptance of an
Congress is entitled only to one offer to plead guilty to a lesser offense is
representative in every JBC proceeding. not demandable by the accused as a
matter of right but is a matter that is
The SC dismissed the petition of Cong. addressed entirely to the trial court's
Umalis because he was asking why his vote sound discretion.
was not counted when he voted during the
proceedings. The SC said that it cannot be Sayre v. Xenos (2020) – In this case, the
counted kasi dapat isang representative Court emphasized that a plea bargain still
lang. requires mutual agreement of the parties
and remains subject to the approval of
De Castro v. JBC (2010) the court. The acceptance of an offer to
All appointments in the judiciary are not plead guilty to a lesser offense is not
covered by the midnight appointment rule. demandable by the accused as a matter of
right but is a matter addressed entirely to 1. Section 6 – Each commission may

the sound discretion of the trial court. promulgate its without diminishing,
increasing or modifying substantive rights.
Judge Oscar Pimentel v. Legal Education
Board (2019) – The Clinical Legal Aid 2. Section 7 – Each commission shall
Program is an integral part of the decide by a majority vote of all its members
rule-making power of the Supreme Court. any case or matter before it.
(The SC said the Clinical Legal Aid program DFA v. COA (2020) - The filing fee of
should not be under the provision of the P10,000 for reconsideration of a Notice of
LEB it is part of the rule-making power of Disallowance is within the rule-making
the SC) power of the COA. The decision of two
Commissioners of COA is a valid act of
Echegaray v. Department of Justice
COA en banc and may be a subject of a
(1999) - The Constitution under Section
Petition for Certiorari to the SC en banc.
5(5) of Article VIII grants the Supreme Court
to promulgate rules concerning pleading, (The SC affirmed the rule-making powers of
practice and procedure which, among COA to have prescribed the 10,000 peso
others, spelled out the rules on execution of filing fee, the SC ruled that it is
judgments. These rules are all predicated constitutional and that two members of COA
on the assumption that courts have the would be considered as an EN BANC
inherent, necessary and incidental power to decision or resolution, not necessarily three
control and supervise the process of (3) because the constitution says majority.
execution of their decisions.
CSC v. DBM (2005) - Section 5 of Article IX
(The postponement of the Death Sentence, provides - The Commission shall enjoy
the SC said it was well within the power of fiscal autonomy. Their approved annual
the SC as part of its authority to render appropriations shall be automatically and
conviction and provide a penalty for the regularly released. With this constitutional
accused.) guarantee, the DBM cannot put any
restriction on the release of the funds of the
In Re: Cunanan (1954)- The Court struck
CSC once its appropriation is approved by
down the Bar Flunkers Act of 1953 as
Congress.
unconstitutional. The law is considered as a
passing grade, the average of 70% in the (The SC said that the DBM cannot
bar examinations after July 4, 1946, up to prescribed any restriction on the release of
August 1951 and 71% in the 1952 bar funds of these constitutional commissions,
examinations. The Court said that the because the constitution guarantees fees on
disputed law is not a legislation; it is a this fiscal autonomies)
judgment. It held the admission to the
practice of law is exclusive to the Supreme Powers, functions and jurisdiction
Court.
San Felix v. CSC (2019) – The Court held
(The SC said that the power to admit
that San Felix cannot justify his dishonest
lawyers is the sole prerogative of congress)
act on the fact that the CSC already lost its
authority to administer examinations for
police officers because he cannot be
considered to have acted in good faith.
Constitutional Commissions
Petitioner's act of passing off in his PDS that
Common Provisions- A. of Article IX he has hurled successfully the Police Officer
I examinations constituted malice on his
Rule-making functions part thereby negating any assertion of good
faith. Neither can petitioner argue that his
appointment was a permanent one which
entitled him to security of tenure. A perusal court ordered the return of the excess
of his appointment showed that the same allowances.)
was subject to the verification of his civil
service eligibility which in this case, he PADPAO v. COMELEC (2017): The power
evidently has none. of the COMELEC to promulgate rules and
regulations to enforce and implement
(The patrol man of PNP wanted to be elections laws is enshrined in the
exonerated, but the SC said no, you cannot Constitution. The Constitution and the laws
benefit from your own fraudulent act. grant the COMELEC with the power, first
because here Felix claims that Civil Service, and foremost, to "enforce and administer all
no longer have jurisdiction as to the laws and regulations relative to the conduct
promotion, admission of the PNP officers, of an election," and second, to "promulgate
and that it was already tested by law in the rules and regulations."
NAPOLCOM, but the SC said that you
forgot that Civil Service Commission is a (Ruling of the Comelec in the Gun
central management authority by the restriction rule, what PADPAO claims is that
Constitution) the nature of their business is to secure,
that’s why all the security guards carried a
COA v. Hon Pamfilo (2020) – There was gun, that’s why they should have not made
grave abuse of discretion on the part of the them comply to have individual permits for
trial court when it ordered COA, BIR and each security guards to carry guns during
BOC to examine the books of accounts of the election period. The SC said that you
Petron, Shell and Caltex. The said are not an excuse, as the COMELEC
companies are beyond the audit jurisdiction provides that all guns during the election
of these three (3) agencies for the purposes period must be duly allowed by them.)
of enforcing the anti-cartel provisions of the
Downstream Oil Industry Deregulation Act. Madera v. COA (2020): The Court deemed
The law provides that the Task Force it equitable to the government whose
consisting of the DOJ and DOE are interest is safeguarded by the COA, on the
responsible to investigate any violation of its one hand, and to the government
provisions. employees who approved, certified, and
received the disallowed benefits, on the
Lumauan v. COA (2020) – The Supreme other.
Court held COLA is already included in the
standardized salary rates. It resolved that (Good Faith defense that they received
the non-publication of DBM Circular No. 10 additional compensation, they don’t have
did not render ineffective the validity of the obligation to return, the SC said that if
Section 12 of RA No. 6758 because the there is a full receipt of money from the
provision of the law is self-executing. The government then the excess shall be
grant of accrued COLA for CYs 1992 to returned via salary reduction.
1997 was correctly disallowed since the
payment of COLA was deemed already Constitutional Commissions – Madera
integrated in the compensation of Ruling
government employees under Section 12 of
RA 6758. 1. If a Notice of Disallowance is set
aside by the Court, no return shall
(The SC said that Lumauan, exceeded what be required from any of the persons
was authorized by Law that he should be held liable therein.
receiving, the court ordered him to return 2. If a Notice of Disallowance is upheld,
the excess payment as the cost of living the rules on return are as follows:
allowance was already included in the 1. Approving and certifying
salary standardization law but she was officers who acted in good
allowed to claim it for several years so the faith, in regular performance
of official functions, and with
the diligence of a good father withdrawn by the President once the

of the family are not civilly appointee has qualified into office. The fact
liable to return consistent that it is subject to confirmation by the
with Section 38 of the Commission on Appointments does not alter
Administrative Code of 1987. its permanent character. The Constitution
2. Approving and certifying itself makes an ad interim appointment
officers who are clearly permanent in character by making it
shown to have acted in bad effective until disapproved by the
faith, malice, or gross Commission on Appointments or until the
negligence are, pursuant to next adjournment of Congress.
Section 43 of the
Administrative Code of 1987, Funa v. Villar (2012)- Should the vacancy
solidarily liable to return arise out of the expiration of the term of the
only the net disallowed incumbent, then there is technically no
amount, which excludes unexpired portion to speak of. The vacancy
amounts excused under is for a new and complete seven-year term
these rules. and, ergo, the appointment thereto shall in
3. Recipients, whether all instances be for a maximum seven (7)
approving or certifying years.
officers or mere passive
recipients, are liable to (Promotions allowed? Yes, the question now
return the disallowed is that is the person entitled to fresh
amounts respectively appointment after seven years then the
received by them, unless answer is no, it shall be continuous
they are able to show that consumption of the term from the date of
the amount they received appointment)
were genuinely given in
Funa v. CSC Chairman Duque (2014) –
consideration of services
President Arroyo cannot designate the CSC
rendered.
Chairperson Duque in other offices under
4. The Court may likewise
the full control of the President as this would
excuse the return of
violate the independence of the CSC.
recipients based on undue
prejudice, social justice
Bill of Rights
considerations, and other
bona fide exceptions as it Primacy of our rights, order of the protection
may determine on a case to of rights then it is the right to life, right to
case basis. liberty and the right to property.
Composition and Qualifications of Privacy and autonomy: The Constitution has
Members shielded specific rights against the intrusion
of the state. The Bill of Rights governs the
Brillantes v. Yorac (1990) - The relationship between the state and private
Constitution prohibits the appointment in individuals.
acting capacity of the members of the
constitutional commissions. Relation to human rights: The
constitutionally protected rights cover the
Matibag v. Benipayo et al (2002) -The ad basic rights under the Universal Declaration
interim appointments of Benipayo, Borra of Human Rights.
and Tuason for confirmation of the
Commission on Appointments are valid. An Reminder:
ad interim appointment is a permanent
appointment because it takes effect The Human Securities Act is deemed
immediately and can no longer be abandoned.
Anti-Terrorism Law replaced the Human actions, no matter how egregious, cannot
Securities Act. violate the equal protection guarantee.
People v. Tudtud, 458 Phil. 752-802 (involves a case of an overweight flight

(2003): The Court said that "the Bill of attendant of a Philippine Airlines who was
Rights is the bedrock of constitutional dismissed because of failure to observed
government. If people are stripped naked of standard weight required under the terms of
their rights as human beings, democracy employment, 160 lbs. of a male flight
cannot survive, and government becomes attendant but he exceeded up, and for 8
meaningless. This explains why the Bill of years there was an ongoing situation where
Rights, contained as it is in Article III of the PAL will put him on ground duty if he meet
Constitution, occupies a position of primacy the 160 lbs unit, however this was on going
in the fundamental law way above the for several years, until PAL decided to
articles on governmental power." dismissed him. He filed a case for illegal
dismissal because he was not allowed the
People v. Marti, G.R. No. 81561 January constitutional protection of the equal
18, 1991 -In the absence of governmental protection clause. He claims that other
interference, the liberties guaranteed by the employees of PAL were similarly situated
Constitution cannot be invoked against the but he was kicked out. The SC said that you
State. The constitutional proscription cannot invoke the bill of rights against
against unlawful searches and seizures private entities. But the exception to the rule
applies as a restraint directed only against would be Zulueta v. C.A.)
the government and its agencies tasked
with the enforcement of the law. Thus, it Zulueta v. C.A. G.R. No. 107383 February
could only be invoked against the State to 20, 1996 - The intimacies between husband
whom the restraint against arbitrary and and wife do not justify any one of them in
unreasonable exercise of power is imposed. breaking the drawers and cabinets of the
other and in ransacking them for any telltale
(The SC affirmed the conviction of Marti, he evidence of marital infidelity. A person, by
was found to engaged in the illegal contracting marriage, does not shed his/her
transportation of illegal substance. It was integrity or his right to privacy as an
not the NBI that conducted the search but individual and the constitutional protection is
rather it was Mr. Reyes the private courier ever available to him or her.
which surrenders the parcels which Marti,
wanted the common carrier to deliver to (The SC said that by virtue of marriage, the
Switzerland, because he did not have a husband cannot be said to have given up
technical capacity to determine the content his right to privacy therefore the SC allowed
of the cargo, he sought the help of the NBI, the exclusion of 157 pieces of evidence
the government did not participate in the against him which the wife took when he
search on the parcels of Marti that he was not in the clinic.)
wanted to be dispatched.)
White Light Corporation v. City of Manila,
Yrasuegui v. NLRC, G.R. No. 168081, G.R. No. 122846, January 20, 2009 - The
October 17, 2008 - The Bill of Rights is not challenged ordinance prohibits two specific
meant to be invoked against acts of private and distinct business practices, namely
individuals. Indeed, the United States wash rate admissions and renting out a
Supreme Court, in interpreting the room more than twice a day. The ban is
Fourteenth Amendment, which is the source evidently sought to be rooted in the police
of the equal protection guarantee under the power as conferred on local government
Philippine Constitution, is consistent in units by the Local Government Code
saying that the equal protection clause through such implements as the general
erects no shield against private conduct, welfare clause.
however discriminatory or wrongful. Private
A government measure must appear to

Disciplinary Tribunal.
uphold the interests of the public generally,
as distinguished from those of a particular
class, require an interference with private Atty: Here, Ante was a member of the
rights and the means must be reasonably Sigma Rho Fraternity, together with his 13
necessary for the accomplishment of the fraternity brothers were under the
purpose and not unduly oppressive of investigation for the death of one of their
private rights. It must also be evident that no neophytes. Ante was the only one who
other alternative for the accomplishment of challenged the proceeding before the UP
the purpose less intrusive of private rights Student Disciplinary Tribunal.
can work. More importantly, a reasonable The SC held that he was never denied due
relation must exist between the purposes of process and the proceedings before the
the measure and the means employed for student tribunal was basically a fact-finding
its accomplishment, for even under the activity, and then did not yet raise the
guise of protecting the public interest, possibility of sanction. It was only limited to
personal rights and those pertaining to fact-finding on whether they violated the
private property will not be permitted to be rules imposed by the University on
arbitrarily invaded. The ordinance failed to accreditation and the subsequent activities
meet the reasonable means test. that fraternities may undertake.
(The SC upheld the petition of white light

UNIVERSITY OF CORDILLERAS V.
that the ordinance that prohibited a washed
LACANARIA (2022). - While there were
up rate or the short time use of their lodging
basis to dismiss Lacanaria for his
facilities was violative of their constitutional
misbehavior, the University of Cordilleras
right of their property, that their business
failed to observe due process.
has been operating for so long and that they
have proven their vested right in this kind of
business the SC said that there are many In this case, the SC affirmed the dismissal
other kind of means by which the local of a professor for inappropriate conduct. SC
government may regulate the crimes of held that such behavior was a grave
fornication, illegal drug trade or some other misbehavior for a professor for insulting his
immoral or illegal activities but not by way of student, but also held that the University
oppressing other parties.) failed to dismiss him by complying with the
prescribed rules of the University.
DUE PROCESS
1. Procedural and substantive due The professor was dismissed but was
process - Technical rules must yield awarded damages.
to substantive due process.
MANILA INTERNATIONAL PORT
DFA v. COA (2020). The requirement of TERMINAL, INC. v. PPA (2022) - The
payment of filing fees before the COA revocation of a franchise must observe
Resident Auditor takes cognizance of the the fundamental requisites of due
appeals does not violate the due process process.
clause nor did it derogate substantive
rights. It was held that there was grave abuse of
discretion for President Corazon Aquino to
have revoked its franchise without giving it
ANTE v. U.P. STUDENT DISCIPLINARY
the opportunity to defend itself.
TRIBUNAL (2022) - Ante was not denied
due process. All members of his fraternity
were allowed to be heard during the CUDIA V. PMA SUPERINDENDENT
proceedings before the U.P. Student (2015). - Chambering is not denial of a
Estrada was saying that the Plunder Law

right to due process.
was vague or was overbreadth, while the
SC disagreed. The SC held “The Plunder
The SC held in the above case that there Law, indeed, is a living testament to the will
was no denial of due process when Cudia of the legislature to ultimately eradicate this
was dismissed by PMA when it secured the scourge and thus secure society against the
unanimous vote of all the members of the avarice and other venalities in public office.”
honors committee.
Because in PMA, there is a need for a
DISINI V. DOJ SECRETARY (2014): The
unanimous decision/votes.
void-for-vagueness doctrine cannot be
In the first voting, there was one dissent,
used to impugn the validity of a criminal
which made Cudia confident to not be
statute using “facial challenge” but it may
expelled from the PMA and he would be
be used to invalidate a criminal statute “as
allowed to graduate in two weeks.
applied” to a particular defendant.
However, he was asked to leave the hearing
room and said that the honors committee
would then cast another vote, so when the This is an exception to the general rule
second vote was casted, unfortunately it which states that: Penal laws are not
was a unanimous decision, thus, making subject to facial challenges.
Cudia cry for due process. The exception to the above general
rule is that, under the applied doctrine, it
2. Void for Vagueness can be challenged.
You will always hear void for vagueness, Judicial and Administrative Due Process
overbreadth doctrine, standards of review,
rational basis test, intermediate or scrutiny In judicial determination of probable cause,
test. it was held that there was no such thing as
only the executive branch can determine
probable cause.
DAVID V. MACAPAGAL - ARROYO
(2008): The doctrine holds a low is facially
The right to counsel in administrative
invalid if men of common intelligence
proceedings may vary, it is not demandable
must necessarily guess of its meaning
in administrative proceedings. But, if an
and differ as to its application.
investigation may give rise to criminal
liability, it may be demanded.
The SC held in this case that the law is void
if a man of common understanding cannot
LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES V.
understand it fully.
SPOUSES JOSE AMAGAN AND
Pag binasa nya, iba yung intindi nya, pero
AURORA AMAGAN AND JOHN DOE
pag inapply nya, iba din.
(2016). The right of representation in
So there is disparity on what is said by the
judicial proceedings may be delegated by
law and what is applied by the person.
the Office of the General Counsel to the
Legal Department of the Land Bank of the
ESTRADA V. SANDIGANBAYAN (2001): Philippines.
The Supreme Court held that the doctrine
cannot apply to the Plunder Law because
it can nonly be invoked against that CUDIA V. PMA SUPERINTENDENT
species of legislation that is utterly vague (2015). While desirable, the right to
on its face. Thus, it cannot be clarified counsel is not mandatory in administrative
either by a saving clause or by proceedings. Administrative proceedings
construction. do not require trial type of hearings.
1. Requisites for a valid warrant

PASCUAL V. BOARD OF MEDICINE
under Section 2, Bill of Rights
(1969). The right against self-incrimination
A warrant that justifies the intrusion,
may be invoked in administrative
to be valid, must satisfy the following
proceedings. Respondent Board of
requirements:
Medical Examiners cannot, consistent
a. It must be issued upon
with the self-incrimination clause, compel
“probable cause”
the person proceeded against to take the
b. Probable cause must be
witness stand without his consent.
determined personally by the
judge;
In this case, since it was the medical license c. Such judge must examine
of the petition which was involved, the under oath or affirmation the
Supreme Court allowed Pascual to have the complainant and the
right to counsel. witnesses he may produce;
and
EQUAL PROTECTION d. The warrant must particularly
1. Requisites for valid classification describe the place to be
a. The classification rests on searched and the persons or
substantial distinctions things to be seized.
b. It is germane to the purpose
of the law
People v. Tudtud, 458 Phil, 752 - 802
c. It is not limited to existing
(2003): The Court said that the recent
conditions only; and
jurisprudence holds that the arrest must
d. It applies equally to all
precede the search; the process cannot
members of the same class
be reversed. While the power to search
2. Tests to determine the
and seizure may at times be necessary to
reasonableness of valid
the public welfare, still it may be exercise
classification
and the law enforced without
a. Under the rational basis
transgressing the constitutional rights of
test, the person challenging
the citizens, for the enforcement of no
must prove either: the
statute is of sufficient importance to justify
government has no
indifference to the basic principles of
legitimate interest in the law
government.
or policy; or, There is no
reasonable, rational link
between that interest and the GENERAL RULE: There must first be a an
challenged law. arrest before a warrantless search may be
b. To pass intermediate done.
scrutiny, law must: Serve an EXCEPTIONS:
important government 1. In flagrante delicto
objective and be substantially 2. In hot pursuit
related to achieving the 3. When the person involved is an
objective escapee
c. Strict scrutiny requires the
government to prove that:
People v. Gabiosa, Sr. (2020): The
There is a compelling state
purpose of the examination is to satisfy
interest behind the
the judge that probable cause exists.
challenged policy, and The
Hence, it is immaterial in the grander
law or regulation is narrowly
scheme of things whether the judge
tailored to achieve its result.
examined the complainant only, or the
witness only, and not both the
ARRESTS, SEARCHES AND SEIZURES
complainant and the witness/es. The
primordial consideration here is that the 21 of RA 9165 requires the apprehending

judge is convinced that there is probable officers to immediately conduct the
cause to disturb the particular individual’s marking, physical inventory and
privacy. Therefore, to the mind of the photograph of the seized drugs. The
Supreme Courut, the CA erred in placing procedure laid down in RA 9165 is
undue importance on the Constitution’s considered substantive law and not
use of the word “and” instead of “or” or merely a procedural technicality. It
“and/or” requires that the police authorities
implementing RA 9165 strictly comply
with the chain of custody procedure,
SC held that the word “the complainant and
although failure to strictly do so does not,
the witnesses may produce” is not
ipso facto, render the seizure and custody
conjunctive.
over the illegal drugs as void and invalid
It may be “or” or in the alternative.
if:
It may be the complainant himself or only
a. There is justifiable ground for such
the witnesses which can apply.
non-compliance; and
b. The integrity and evidentiary value
It is not to interpret literally “the complainant
of the seized evidence were
and the witnesses”. It should be treated as
preserved.
“and/or”.
Chain of custody was observed in this case.

Diaz v. People (2020). - The Court found
Take note of the new rule in chain of
that the omission of the warrant to:
custody:
(a) Indicate that the place to be
- The old rule necessitates the strict
searched contained five rooms
compliance of three witnesses.
which were separately occupied
- However, the SC recently held that
by petitioner and her siblings; and
the said three witnesses rule may be
(b) Confine the search to petitioner’s
forego as long as the searching/law
unit is inconsequential and
officers can justify why the said
therefore, does not affect the
requirement was not observed.
warrant’s validity.
Why?
Dahil ang daming rason ng mga law
In this case, the validity of the search officers on why they cannot get
warrant is the topic tackled. The police drew witnesses.
and described where the search would be
held to which the judge approved. When Warrantless arrests and detention -
Diaz was convicted however, he was a. In flagrante arest
claiming that the warrant was broad. b. Hot pursuit arrest
The SC held that it was not a broad warrant c. Arrest of an escapee
and the structure itself was known by the
police. Warrantless searches
What is only needed in order to apply for a
People v. Sapla (2020): Peace officers in
search warrant is that the police knows that
warantless search and seizure of moving
it is your house, and that you are engaged
vehicles are limited to “routine checks
in drug pushing. The police need not to
where the examination of the vehicle is
know the exact structure of your house or
limited to visual inspections”
whether how many rooms are there in your
Extensive search of a vehicle is
house. The SC then affirmed the conviction.
permissible only when “the officers made
it upon probable cause”.
Uy v. People (2020) - The Rule on Chain In situations involving warrantless
of Custody was not complied with Section searches and seizures, “law enforcers
In this case, police officers did not comply

cannot act solely on the basis of
with the change of custody rule, and Donato
confidential or tipped information”.
was acquitted because of this.
A tip is still hearsay no matter how reliable
it may be, it is not sufficient to constitute
probable cause in the absence of any Privacy of communication and
other circumstance that will arouse correspondence
suspicion. 1. Private and public
communications - Public
Hearsay cannot be a basis for the issuance communications are meant to be
of a search warrant. In this case, it was only shared to the general public, but a
text messages, phone calls were the private communication is intended to
sources of the tips which could not be be share to the recipient alone.
identified. 2. Intrusion, when allowed - Article III
The SC held that exclusion of the evidence provides:
must be allowed and Sapla was acquitted Section 3. (1) The privacy of
because hearsay evidence cannot be a communication and correspondence
basis for a conviction. shall be inviolable except upon
lawful order of the court, or when
Exclusionary Rule public safety or order requires
otherwise, as prescribed by law.
3. Exclusionary Rule - Section 2,
People v. Sapla (2020): Since the
Article III
seizure violated Sapla’s constitutional
(2) Any evidence obtained in
right, the evidence seized from him during
violation of this or the preceding
the search of a moving vehicle, the same
section shall be inadmissible for any
must be included.
purpose in any proceeding.
With the exclusion of the evidence, the
Court acquitted Sapla.
Navarro v. People (1999) - The voice
recording made by Jalbuena established:
People v. Donato Hernandez - The 1. That there was a headed
police officers did not strictly comply with exchange between petitioner
the chain of custody rule. Navarra and Lingan on the placing
The first link in the chain of custody - the in the police blotter of an entry
seizure and marking of the dangerous against him and Jalbuena, and
drugs recovered from him, was not 2. That some form of violence
established because PO1 Villarina occured involving petitioner
marked the seized drugs without Navarro and Lingan, with the latter
iundicating the date, time and place getting the worst of it.
where the items were seized. The Court affirmed the conviction of
Navarra.
The prpsecution failed to prove that the
seized items were indeed turned over to
The basis of the conviction of Officer
the assigned investigation. Finally, Donato
Navarro was affirmed by the Supreme Court
bewaits the absence of specific details on
as admissible evidence because the
the handling of the specimens in the
recording was done by media reporters.
forensic laboratory, and the
post-examination custody in the stipulated
Kasama sa trabaho ng media reporters is to
testimony of PCI Huelgas.
record public events, kaya sabi ni Navarro,
The Supreme Court acquitted Donato
naviolate yung right ko to privacy of
Hernandez for non-compliance of the
communication.
PNP to observe the chain of custody rule.
Zulueta v. Court of Appeals (1996). - facial challenge is allowed to be made to

The Court allowed the exclusion of vague statute and to one which is
evidence obtained by Zulueta inside the overbroad because of possible chilling
clinic of her husband. It said that marriage effect upon protected speech.
does not forego with the right of privacy of
spouses.
Calleja v. Executive Secretary (2021) -
The Court upheld the constitutionality of
Freedom of Speech and expression
the Anti-Terrorism Law but it held certain
1. Prior restraint and subsequent
provisions unconstitutional.
punishment
2. Content-based and
content-neutral regulations SC held that the Anti-Terrorism Law is
constitutional but it held certain provisions
as unconstitutional such as:
Peopel v. Macasaet (2018) - A journalist
- Arrest without warrant
may be subject to a libel suit for a
- Concept of terrorism was not
published opinion under the
well-defined
content-based regulation.
ARTICLE XVI: General Provisions
The eight libel cases against Macasaert
were all dismissed by the Supreme Court SECTION 11. (1) The ownership and
because it took more than 8 years for the management of mass media shall be limited
prosecution to determine probable cause. to citizens of the Philippines, or to
Thus, SC affirmed the right of the corporations, cooperatives or associations,
journalist’s right. However, a journalist may wholly-owned and managed by such
still be held liable for libel. citizens.
The Congress shall regulate or prohibit

SWS v. COMELEC (2001) - The survey
monopolies in commercial mass media
results published seven days prior to the
when the public interest so requires. No
actual date of election should be allowed
combinations in restraint of trade or unfair
under content-neutral regulation.
competition therein shall be allowed.
What is content-neutral? (2) The advertising industry is impressed

- Who, what, when, where with public interest, and shall be regulated
by law for the protection of consumers and
What is content-based? the promotion of the general welfare.
- This has opinion; thus gives rise to
libel or cyberlibel, as the case may Only Filipino citizens or corporations or
be. associations at least seventy per centum of
the capital of which is owned by such
3. Facial challenges and citizens shall be allowed to engage in the
overbreadth doctrine advertising industry.
Estrada v. Sandiganbayan (2001). The participation of foreign investors in the

Overbreadth doctrine decrees that governing body of entities in such industry
governmental purpose may not be shall be limited to their proportionate share
achieved by means which sweep in the capital thereof, and all the executive
unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade and managing officers of such entities must
the area of protected freedoms. be citizens of the Philippines.
Doctrine of strict scrutiny holds that a
There is no radio, television, movie or Valmores v. Achacoso (2017)

publication censorship.
The Mindanao State University may be
Unprotected Speech compelled to respect the free exercise
clause of a medical student under CHED
Unprotected speech means speech that is
Memorandum 10. Religious duties take
subjected to regulations issued by the
precedence over his academic
government. It means speech that is
completely prohibited subject to responsibilities, consonant with the
governmental regulations. Unprotected constitutional guarantee of free exercise
speech can be classified into obscenity, and enjoyment of religious worship.
fighting words, fraudulent
misrepresentation, advocacy of imminent
lawless behavior, and defamation. Deals with two types of rights by the
individual and by the church. In this case,
Heckler’s Veto Valmores is a med student who has an
A heckler's veto is a situation in which a exam on Saturday. Valmores practices a
party who disagrees with a speaker's religion that does not allow work on sunset
message is able to unilaterally trigger of Friday to Sunset of Saturday. Valmores
events that result in the speaker being was not allowed a special examination. He
silenced. brought upto the SC on the ground of
freedom of belief. The SC allowed Valmores
In the legal sense, a heckler's veto occurs a special examination.
when the speaker's right is curtailed or
restricted by the government in order to Pasay City Alliance Church v. Fe
prevent a reacting party's behavior. The Benito
common example is the termination of a
speech or demonstration in the interest of
The Court held that the termination of a
maintaining the public peace based on the
religious minister’s engagement at a local
anticipated negative reaction of someone
church due to administrative lapses, when
opposed to that speech or demonstration.
it relates to the perceived effectivity of a
Bayan Muna v. Ermita (2006) minister as a charismatic leader of a
congregation, is a prerogative best left to
The employment of the Calibrated the church affected by such choice. If a
Preemptive Response violates the religious association enacts guidelines
sufficient standard test. B.P. No. 880 that reserve the right to transfer or
prescribes maximum tolerance to reassign its licensed ministers according
disperse a demonstration. There is no to what it deems best for a particular
need to seek approval of the mayor to use congregation, ministry or undertaking in
designated freedom parks. pursuit of its mission, then the State
cannot validly interfere.
Note: Hasn’t been asked in the bar for a In this case, the issue is can the
long time. government intervene in the dismissal of a
minster of a church. SC said No. Under the
Freedom of Religion None Establishment Clause and The
Separation of Church and State, the case
Non- Establishment Clause and Free- cannot be a subject matter within the
Exercise Clause jurisdiction of the church. It subject matter of
the internal rules of the church.
Imbong v. Ochoa (2014):
The plea of conscientious objectors for

exemption from the RH Law deserves no
less than strict scrutiny.
In applying the test, the first inquiry is
whether a conscientious objector's right to
religious freedom has been burdened. As
in Escritor, there is no doubt that an
intense tug-of-war plagues a
conscientious objector. One side coaxes
him into obedience to the law and the
Benevolent neutrality and conscientious abandonment of his religious beliefs,
objectors while the other entices him to a clean
conscience yet under the pain of penalty.
Peralta v. Philippine Postal The scenario is an illustration of the
Corporation (2018) predicament of medical practitioners
whose religious beliefs are incongruent
Benevolent neutrality recognizes the with what the RH Law promotes. The
religious nature of the Filipino people and Court is of the view that the obligation to
the elevating influence of religion in refer imposed by the RH Law violates the
society; at the same time, it religious belief and conviction of a
acknowledges that government must conscientious objector.
pursue its secular goals. In pursuing
these goals, however, government might Freedom of Religion
adopt laws or actions of general
applicability which inadvertently burden Lemon Test
religious exercise. Benevolent neutrality
gives room for accommodation of these Tests to determine the validity of
religious exercises as required by the governmental regulation
Free Exercise Clause. It allows these
breaches in the wall of separation to The Lemon test is a three-pronged formula
used to decide whether or not a government
uphold religious liberty, which after all is
action violates the establishment clause.
the integral purpose of the religion
1. The first part requires that the
clauses. The case at bar involves this first
government action have a secular
type of accommodation where an purpose;
exemption is sought from a law of general 2. the second part demands that the
applicability that inadvertently burdens action neither advance nor inhibit
religious exercise. religion as its primary effect; and
3. the final part dictates that the act not
cause an excessive entanglement
between the church and the state
Liberty of abode and the right to travel
Scope and limitation – Section 6 of Article

III provides: “The liberty of abode and of
changing the same within the limits
prescribed by law shall not be impaired
except upon lawful order of the court.
Neither shall the right to travel be impaired effectiveness of its jurisdiction over the
except in the interest of national security, case and the person of the accused.
public safety, or public health, as may be
provided by law.” The power to issue HDO is an exercise of
the court's inherent power of the court to
Watch-list and hold departure orders preserve and to maintain the effectiveness
of its jurisdiction over the case and the
Genuino v. De Lima (2018): person of the accused.
The exceptions to the right to travel are In this case, Gov. Garcia challenge the HDO
limited to those stated in Section 6, Article issued against as it violated her right to
III of the Constitution. DOJ Circular No. 41 travel. SC reiterated that HDO is an inherent
is unconstitutional. The DOJ may not power to maintain the jurisdiction over the
promulgate rules that have a negative accused.
impact on constitutionally-protected rights
Right to information
without the authority of a valid law. Even
with the predicament of preventing the
Scope and limitations
proliferation of crimes and evasion of Section 7, Article III provides: “The right of
criminal responsibility, it may not overstep the people to information on matters of
constitutional boundaries and skirt the public concern shall be recognized. Access
prescribed legal processes. to official records, and to documents and
papers pertaining to official acts,
DOJ has the right to withhold the travel of transactions, or decisions, as well as to
an individual undergoing preliminary government research data used as basis for
investigation. The Hold – Departure Order policy development, shall be afforded the
may only be issued upon institution of a citizen, subject to such limitations as may
criminal complaint before the court. Then be provided by law.”
the prosecution may file for a request for a
hold – departure order. Such order is not an Note: No question will probably be asked
executive power to withhold the right of regarding the topic.
travel.
Chavez v. PCGG (1998):
Note: Important Case
The General and Supplemental
Gwendolyn Garcia v. Sandiganbayan Agreements dated December 28, 1993,
(2018): which PCGG and the Marcos heirs
The rationale for the issuance of SC executed are null and void for being
Circular No. 39-97 was "to avoid the contrary to law and the Constitution.
indiscriminate issuance of HDO resulting Considering the intent of the framers of
in inconvenience to the parties affected, the Constitution, it is incumbent upon the
the same being tantamount to an PCGG and its officers to disclose
infringement of the right and liberty of an sufficient public information on any
individual to travel." It is in view of the proposed settlement they have decided to
perceived unnecessary impairment on the take up with the ostensible owners and
right to travel in certain instances that the holders of ill-gotten wealth, subject to
guidelines for the issuance of HDOs were some of the following recognized
issued. The power to issue HDO is an restrictions: (1) national security matters
exercise of the court's inherent power to and intelligence information, (2) trade
preserve and to maintain the secrets and banking transactions, (3)
criminal matters, and (4) other confidential 9. Right to seek just compensation may be
information. done through inverse condemnation.
10. Unjust enrichment is not a valid defense
It involves public interest, SC said on the part of the government.
agreement must be disclosed after it has 11. Recommendation of Board of
been signed. Commissioners is not binding to the trial
court.
Chavez v. PEA and AMARI Coastal 12. When there is disagreement in the value
of land under CARP, the Special Agrarian
Development Corporation (2003):
Court will determine the just compensation.
The Court affirmed its earlier 2002 ruling

Eminent Domain
which ruled that the JVA between PEA
and Amari is void. To allow vast areas of Concept: The power of eminent domain is
reclaimed lands of the public domain to an inherent right of the government to take
be transferred to PEA as private lands will public property for public use upon payment
sanction a gross violation of the of just compensation.
constitutional ban on private corporations
from acquiring any kind of alienable land Chinese Community v. City of Manila
of the public domain. This scheme will (1919)
effectively nullify the constitutional ban in
Section 3, Article XII of the 1987 A private property already dedicated to a
Constitution which was intended to diffuse public purpose can no longer be subject
equitably the ownership of alienable lands to expropriation.
of the public domain among Filipinos.
Spouses Arrastia v. National Power
The contract between the government and Corp., 555 Phil. 263, 273 (2007)
PEA is proprietary in nature. As the contract
is proprietary in nature it must be disclosed. The expropriation of property consists of
two stages. The first stage is concerned
Matters to consider in expropriation: with "the determination of the authority of
the plaintiff to exercise the power of
1. Genuine necessity is the burden that
eminent domain and the propriety of its
government bears to rationalize the
exercise in the context of the facts
exercise of the power of eminent domain.
involved in the suit." The second stage is
2. Prior formal offer is a prerequisite before
expropriation is instituted. concerned with "the determination by the
3. Law authorizing power to expropriate is court of 'the just compensation for the
the first issue the trial court must determine property sought to be taken'. This is done
before taking jurisdiction over the case. by the court with the assistance of not
4. Right to due process is the right of more than three (3) commissioners.
property owner to oppose the expropriation.
5. Vicarious benefit is the increment gained Just compensation is purely a judicial
by the improvement introduced. function.
6. Consequential damages represent 50%
of the zonal value of the property. Republic v. Heirs of Borbon (2015)
7. Forbearance is a penalty when
government incurs delay in payment of just
Government may withdraw an
compensation.
expropriation case if it has abandoned its
8. Right of way standards are purely
public purpose use.
persuasive and not binding to the courts.
Republic v. Heirs of Gamir-Diaz MORE Power Corporation v. Panay

Association Inc.(2018) Electric Power Company, Inc. (2021) –
A Deed of Absolute will control the The Court affirmed that expropriation
payment of the acquired property. The under Sections 10 and 17 of R.A. No.
property owner may not ask for just 11212 serves the distinct emergency
compensation when it executed a Deed of public purpose of ensuring the continuous
Sale with the government. and uninterrupted supply of electricity in
Iloilo City, as the city transitions from the
Dead of Absolute Sale is not a form of old franchise holder to the new franchise
eminent domain. holder. R.A. No. 9136, otherwise known
as the "Electric Power Industry Reform
Republic v. Spouses Alejandre, G.R. Act of 2001" (EPIRA) delegated to public
No. 217336, October 17, 2018 – utilities like MORE the power of eminent
domain to enable them to exercise their
The Civil Code classifies property of public function.
private ownership into three categories:
(1) patrimonial property of the State under Republic v. Spouses Bunsay (2019):
Articles 421 and 422 of the Civil Code; (2)
patrimonial property of Local Government While the award of consequential
Units under Article 424; and (3) property damages equivalent to the value of CGT
belonging to private individuals under and transfer taxes must be struck down
Article 425. Only lands which are for being erroneous, the Court deems it
classified as agricultural may be just and equitable to direct the Republic to
alienated. shoulder such taxes to preserve the
compensation awarded to Spouses
SC clarified that only agricultural lands can Bunsay as a consequence of the
be subject of expropriation.
expropriation. To stress, compensation, to
be just, must be of such value as to fully
PNOC Alternative Fuels Corporation v.
rehabilitate the affected owner; it must be
National Grid Corporation of the
sufficient to make the affected owner
Philippines (2019) -
whole.
The NGCP can expropriate a property

CGT and Transfer Taxes will be shouldered
owned by another GOCC like the PAEFC
by the government.
if the subject property is classified as a
patrimonial property. A patrimonial Lozada v. MCIAA (2010) –
property of government is considered a
private property. The property owners have the right to
pray for reconveyance of title to their
properties if government abandons the
purpose for which the properties were
acquired. The property owner must return
just compensation.
Heirs of Macabangkit Sangkay v. City of Manila v. Roces- Prieto (2019)

NAPOCOR (2011) –
Through Section 19 of the LGC, the
When there is ostensible taking, the national legislature delegated the power
property owner may resort to inverse of eminent domain to the local
condemnation to recover just government units. To exercise this power
compensation. several requisites must concur before a
local government unit can exercise the
When there is unjust taking of property, power of eminent domain, to wit:
property owner may invoke inverse (1) an ordinance is enacted by the
condemnation. local legislative council authorizing
the local chief executive, on behalf
DPWH v. Spouses Tecson (2013) – of the local government unit, to
exercise the power of eminent
The valuation of land will be reckoned domain or pursue expropriation
with in 1940 when government took over proceedings over a particular
the property without the necessary private property;
expropriation proceedings and used for
the construction of the MacArthur (2) the power of eminent domain is
exercised for public use, purpose
Highway
or welfare, or for the benefit of the
poor and the landless;
SC clarified that just compensation will be
(3) there is payment of just compensation,
reckoned from the time of the taking of the
as required under Section 9, Article III of
land. Property owners were awarded 70c
the Constitution, and other pertinent laws;
per sq.m.
and
Expropriation by LGU
(4) a valid and definite offer has been
Requirements: previously made to the owner of the
property sought to be expropriated, but
said offer was not accepted.
Very important that there is an ordinance,

the priority should be government property.
Last option should be private property.
In this case, SC dismissed the petition of

the City of Manila as it did not observe the
hierarchy of properties. Public properties
should be first looked upon in expropriation.
Right to Association
Scope and limitations – Section 8 of

Article III provides: “The right of the people,
including those employed in the public and
private sectors, to form unions,
associations, or societies for purposes not
contrary to law shall not be abridged.”
Note: Will probably be asked in labor law.
Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2010):

Rubio v. Basada (2017):
Boy Scouts of America may exclude gay
To require the court interpreter to scoutmasters. The US Supreme Court
relinquish his post as President of the acknowledged that the government could
homeowners' association would override a group’s associational rights in
effectively deprive him of his freedom of order to promote a compelling state
association guaranteed by Article III (Bill interest but held that courts should defer
of Rights), Section 8 of the 1987 to a private group’s view of what might
Constitution. interfere with its constitutionally protected
expression.
SC clarified that a court employee can be a
president of a home association, as it is a This is a US case. The Supreme Court held
distinct position not part of his job as a court that the Boy Scouts of America has the right
employee. to exclude Dale, an LGBT scoutmaster. His
homosexuality was not aligned with the
Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope Workers rules of conservative Boy Scouts of America
Union (1974) – and therefore Dale was excluded as to not
encourage his behavior in the boy scouting
environment.
The freedom clause shall prevail over the
Labor Code and the Collective Bargaining Non-impairment clause
Agreement between the company and the
labor union. Note: Not expected to appear under
Political Law but more likely to appear in
INC members cannot join labor unions, Commercial Law. Take note of the
however, they automatically get the benefits distinction between juridical borrower and
as the supremacy of the constitution and of individual borrower. Individual borrowers,
the freedom clause shall prevail. who usually borrow to expand their
business operations, have a longer period
because their money is very limited in
Manila Public School Teachers
comparison with juridical entities like banks,
Association (MPTSA) v. Sec of
have a shorter period, they should hold not
Education (1991):
only assets and should be able to liquidate
in the soonest possible time.
While the Constitution guarantees the
freedom of government employees to Concepts and limitations – Section 10 of
associate, the activities of the employees Article III provides “No law impairing the
should not interfere with their duties to obligation of contracts shall be passed.”
serve.
Supreme Court held that Public School Goldenway Merchandising Corporation

Teachers are allowed to form organizations, v. Equitable – PCI Bank Corporation
however with limitations. The delivery of (2013):
public service should foremost not be
The purpose of the non-impairment
disrupted.
clause of the Constitution is to safeguard
the integrity of contracts against
Ang Ladlad v. COMELEC (2010): unwarranted interference by the State. As
a rule, contracts should not be tampered
One’s sexual orientation cannot be a with by subsequent laws that would
basis for aggrupation of individuals. change or modify the rights and
obligations of the parties. There is an
impairment if a subsequent law changes be a lien on any judgment favorable to

the terms of a contract between the them unless the court directs otherwise.
parties, imposes new conditions,
dispenses with those agreed upon or
withdraws remedies for the enforcement
of the rights of the parties. The Supreme Court remanded the case to
the RTC of Quezon City and allowed the
heirs of Lactao that they are indigents and
cannot afford the assessed docket fees of
P60 million pesos. SC held that the case
should not be immediately dismissed and
Zomer Development Corp. v. C.A. the amount could be included as a condition
(2020): should the party win the case, the court can
collect the P60 million pesos from the heirs
Section 47 of R.A. 8791 did not divest of Lactao.
juridical persons of the right to redeem
their foreclosed properties but only
modified the time for the exercise of such
BCDA v. CIR (2018):
right by reducing the one-year period
originally provided in Act No. 3135. The BCDA is neither a stock nor a nonstock
new redemption period commences from corporation. BCDA is a government
the date of foreclosure sale and expires instrumentality vested with corporate
upon registration of the certificate of sale powers. Under Section 21, Rule 141 of
or three months after foreclosure, the Rules of Court, agencies and
whichever is earlier. instrumentalities of the Republic of the
Philippines are exempt from paying legal
fees or docket fees. Hence, BCDA is
Free Access to the Courts and adequate exempt from the payment of docket fees.
legal assistance
Section 11 of Acticle III provides: “Free

On the exception granted to government
access to the courts and quasi-judicial
entities exercising in governmental function.
bodies and adequate legal assistance shall
BIR assessed a huge tax on the joint
not be denied to any person by reason of
venture of Ayala and BCDA. BCDA
poverty.”
appealed the decision of the CIR however,
CTA refused to take on the appeal. CTA
held that BCDA should first pay the docket
fees however, Supreme Court held that
Ayala Land, Inc. v. Alleged Heirs of BCDA is exempted from paying the docket
Lactao (2018): fees and the case was litigated before the
CTA.
Access to justice by the impoverished is
held sacrosanct under Article III, Section
11 of the 1987 Constitution. The idea of
paying docket fees of P39,172,020.00, as Rights under custodial investigation
alleged by respondents, or
P62,903,240.00, as computed by Note: Under Miranda Rights, there is one
petitioner, is enough to give anyone thing that should be remembered. It is all
pause. The respondents should be given oral testimony only. There is no
a chance to establish their indigence. demonstration, no reenactment, no
Should the authority to litigate as indigent extraction of blood/urine/follicle of hair/or
parties be granted, the legal fees will still saliva. Custodial investigation limits itself to
oral testimony only.
Meaning of custodial investigation – is 5. It must be given by the person with free

any questioning by law enforcement after a will.
person has been taken into custody or
otherwise deprived of his freedom of action 6. It must be corroborated by evidence of
in any significant way. It refers to the the actual commission of the crime.
investigation conducted by law enforcement
immediately after arrest for the commission
of an offense. Bansilan v. People (2020):
Rights of a person under custodial It has been held that the constitutional
investigation procedure on custodial investigation does
not apply to spontaneous statement not
During custodial investigation, suspects elicited through questioning by the
have the rights, among others, (1) to remain authorities but given in an ordinary
silent, (2) to have an independent and manner whereby the accused orally
competent counsel, (3) to be provided with admitted having committed the crime. The
such counsel, if unable to secure one, (4) to spontaneous and voluntary verbal
be assisted by one in case of waiver, which confession given to an ordinary individual
should be in writing, of the foregoing; and was correctly admitted in evidence
(5) to be informed of all such rights and of because it is not covered by the requisites
the fact that anything he says can and will of Section 12 (1) and (3) of Article III of
be used against him the Constitution.
Requisites of a valid waiver

The SC held that it does not apply to
a. The right must exist;
spontaneous statements. A good example
b. The person waiving must know that of this case is on the suspects handpicked
such right exists; from Dumaguete from the ambush of
Governor Degamo. They were brought to
c. There must be an intention, whether NBI and as they walked into the NBI
express or implied, to abandon the right; compound they were interviewed by the
and media and gave all kinds of information. It is
admissible as evidence since it is the media
d. It must be done in writing and in the reporters who held the interview and not
presence of counsel. NBI agents.
Admissibility of Extrajudicial Confession

People v. Mulueta (1999):
According to the Supreme Court of the
Philippines, an extrajudicial confession must An extra-judicial confession extracted in
satisfy the following requirements to be violation of constitutionally enshrined
admissible in court. rights is inadmissible in evidence. Where
the remaining pieces of evidence are
1. It should be made voluntarily and
insufficient to determine guilt with moral
truthfully.
certainty, the appellant is entitled to an
acquittal. A conviction must rest on the
2. It should be competent.
strength of the admissible evidence of the
3. It should be supported by a chain of prosecution, not on the weakness or
cogent circumstances and corroborated by insufficiency of the defense. The illegality
other prosecution evidence. of the alleged confession is further
demonstrated by the fact that appellant
4. It should not suffer from any material exercised no satisfactory waiver of his
discrepancies and inherent improbabilities. rights. He was not assisted by a lawyer
when the waiver was made. Therefore, of the crime or offense for which the
there was no valid waiver to speak of. arrest is being made during custodial
investigation.
He was not assisted by a lawyer when the

waiver was made and therefore acquitted by An entrapment operation was conducted for
the court. De la Cruz accepting money (extortion). De
la Cruz invoked the custodial investigation
clause but was eventually forced to provide
People v. Dacanay (2018): his urine sample. He was not only convicted
for extortion but also for the violation of
Admissions made before a Barangay Comprehensive Drug Law. De la Cruz
Kagawad and subsequent admissions to appealed and the court ruled that as he is
two media reporters were deemed under custodial investigation, his urine
admissible. They were freely made by should be excluded. For that, he was
Dacanay acquitted for the violation of the
Comprehensive Drug Law.
Voluntary admissions were admitted as Rights of the Accused:

evidence since it was a confession to the
two media reporters and the Kagawad Criminal due process
neither interrogated nor put Dacanay under
custodial investigation.
Villanueva v. People, G.R. N. 218652,
Exclusionary rule under Section 12(3) and (February 23, 2022):
Section 17 of Article III provides: “Any
confession or admission obtained in In this case, the Supreme Court affirmed
violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be the inclusion of Villanueva in the criminal
inadmissible in evidence against him.” information before the Sandiganbayan
even if he is private individual. The Court
Section 17, Article III provides: “No person held the commission of the crime could
shall be compelled to be a witness against not have been plausible without his active
himself.” participation. As the sole beneficiary of
the award to supply medicines for the
entire Province of Iloilo was put in an
De la Cruz v. People (2014): advantageous position to the prejudice of
the beneficiaries of the government’s
An entrapment was organized against De national health program.
la Cruz allegedly asked for P100,000,
later lowered to P40,000, in exchange for
the release of a certain Ariel. De la Cruz The Supreme Court held that any coelution
was assigned in the PNP Security Service done by a public officer with a private entity,
Group of the Cebu City Police Office. that private person may be subject to
After the successful entrapment criminal liability as well.
operation. He was found positive for the
use of “Shabu.” RTC found the accused
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Radaza v. People, G.R. No. 201380,
violating Section 15, Article II of R.A. August 4, 2021:
9165. The Court of Appeals affirmed the
conviction. The Supreme Court acquitted When Radaza filed a petition to be
De la Cruz as it cannot condone drug allowed to travel and submitted himself to
testing of all arrested persons regardless a conditional arraignment without the final
circumstances an accused may obtain bail

determination of the probable cause, he
pending appeal, then, is a delicate balance
voluntarily submitted himself to the
between the interests of society and those
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. He
of the accused.
could belatedly claim that he was denied
due process when an information for a
graver offense was filed after he agreed (Atty. Loanzon: Dito sa Leviste v. People,
to a conditional statement. sabi ng SC, kaya tayo may bail, to ensure
that the person will be present when his
presence ios required. Sa criminal
This is a conditional arraignment. This is procedure, arraignment-mandatory, when
Procedural Law under Criminal Procedure. the identity of the accused is required-that’s
A conditional arraignment is voluntary on in the crime of rape, tapos finally sa
the part of the accused. The Supreme Court promulgation of judgment. May isang
held that Radaza cannot complain why lumabas na na bar question, ang tanong,
graver offense was filed with the can the court require conditions like to
information. SC held that Radaza agreed to report to the mayor while the trial is ongoing
a conditional arraignment and was therefore aside from the bail bond e magrereport kay
bound. mayor…the SC ruled in the affirmative so
pwede yun.)
Bill of Rights Presumption of innocence
Rights of the Accused: CICL v. People, G.R. No. 230964, March

02, 2022- Being minors, XXX and YYY
Right to Bail should be exempt from criminal liability,
especially when the Informations did not
GR: Right is available to all accused. specifically allege that they acted with
XPN: When the offense charged is discernment. The prosecution failed to
punishable by reclusion perpetua and the prove that they were apprehended in
evidence of guilt is strong. flagrante delicto given that the police
officers merely peeped through the partially
Enrile v. Sandiganbayan (2015)- The open door. Thus, any item seized pursuant
Court held that the Sandiganbayan to such arrest is inadmissible for being a
arbitrarily ignored the objective of bail to fruit of the poisonous tree. Moreover, even if
ensure the appearance of the accused the XXX and YYY did not contest the
during the trial; and unwarrantedly legality of their arrest, such would not
disregarded the clear showing of the fragile equate to a waiver of the inadmissibility of
health and advanced age of Enrile. The trial evidence seized during the illegal
may consider the personal circumstances of warrantless arrest.
the accused in the grant of bail. For failure to prove their guilt beyond
reasonable doubt, all the accused were
Leviste v. People (2010)- Society has a acquitted.
compelling interest in protecting itself by
swiftly incarcerating an individual who is (Atty. Loanzon: Sa Las Pinas RTC ito, sabi
found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of a ng SC, dapat nalaman naman ng
crime serious enough to warrant prison prosecution exempted from criminal liability
time. Other recognized societal interests in ang minors. The items seized from them
the denial of bail pending appeal include the were products of an illegal search-fruit of
prevention of the accused's flight from court the poisonous tree, so the court ordered the
custody, the protection of the community dismissal of the case)
from potential danger and the avoidance of
delay in punishment. Under what
Horca v. People, GR No. 224316, cases, courts must step in and accord relief
November 10, 2021 The Court acquitted to a party litigant.
Horca for failure of the prosecution to prove
Horca’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. I t is (Atty Loanzon: Sabi ng SC, dapat the right
essential that the evidence for the to competent and independent counsel.
prosecution must stand or fall on its own Hindi pwede yung basta inappoint or
weight and cannot be allowed to draw someone na biased. Dapat independent
strength from the weakness of the defense. yung counsel.)
This burden of proof placed upon the
prosecution is anchored on the presumption Right to be informed of the nature and
of innocence granted in favor of the cause of the accusation
accused, which no less than our
Constitution has guaranteed. Pulido v People (2021) -An accused
Since the prosecution failed to prove the indicted for bigamy can be exculpated on
crucial element of intent to gain, Horca was the basis of the judicial declaration of nullity
acquitted but was ordered to pay t he of his first or second marriage.
private complainant the sum of
P915,626.50, subject to interest at the rate Radaza v People (2021) -A person
of six percent (6%) per annum from the date criminally charged before the
of finality of this judgment until fully paid. Sandiganbayan may be permitted to travel
outside the Philippines, subject to certain
(Atty. Loanzon: While the SC acquitted conditions set by the above provision
Horca.. Nagdispalko si Horca ng pera ng Paragraph (thereof is of particular relevance
mga madre to buy plane tickets. Once he to the case at hand an accused
was acquitted, the court made her civilly conditionally arraigned under the first
liable kasi tinanggap nya yung pera. Sabi ng Information will not lose the right to question
court, wala kang conviction pero you have in a motion to quash the amended or new
to pay whatever amount of money you Information filed after the conditional
received kasi you admitted that, that’s your arraignment.
civil liability.)
Right to speedy, impartial and public trial
Right to Counsel
People v Macasaet (2018) -The libel
Calangan v People, 2006- In view of the charges should be dismissed The
circumstances of this case, outright prosecution took 8 years and four months to
deprivation of liberty will be the determine probable cause This clearly
consequence of petitioner's criminal violates the right of the accused to a
conviction based solely on the evidence for speedy, impartial and public trial.
the prosecution Thus, to prevent a
miscarriage of justice and to give meaning Perez-Zaldivar v Sandiganbayan- The 6
to the due process clause of the year period to determine probable cause
Constitution, the Court deems it wise to denied the petitioner of her right to speedy
allow petitioner to present evidence in her disposition of cases.
defense
The rule that the negligence of counsel
(Atty Loanzon: What are the factors to
binds the client admits of exceptions The
consider if a person was denied the right to
recognized exceptions are 1 where reckless
speedy disposition of cases? LRAP
or gross negligence of counsel deprives the
1. Length of delay
client of due process of law, 2 when its
2. Reason or the delay
application will result in outright deprivation
3. Assertion or non-assertion of the
of the client's liberty or property or 3 where
right to the constitutional protection
the interests of justice so require In such
4. Prejudice produced by the delay
prosecution of the accused for the same

Dito, definitely yung 6 years na unsettled offense Double jeopardy has set in.
yung min ni Gov. Zaldivar was a factor that
the court considered.) Ivler v. Hon. San Pedro (2010) -Reckless
imprudence is a single crime which may
Right to confrontation have multiple effects. The filing of two
separate criminal complaints may allow the
People v Sergio -The accused were never accused to invoke double jeopardy after
denied the right to confront Mary Jane prosecution for the first information.
Veloso under the rule of modes of
discovery. People v. Hon. Relova (1987) -An accused
cannot be tried twice under an ordinance
and under a national law.
Right to compulsory processes
People v. Lejano (2011) -Only the state

Trial in absentia
may appeal an acquittal on a Petition for
Certiorari . Victim or relatives are witnesses
(Atty Loanzon: Pag hindi naexplain ng
only by the state. (Atty Loanzon: Mr
accised yung absence nya in the
Vizconde appealed the acquittal after 14
promulgation of judgment, the conviction will
years. SC said he has no personality to
stay)
appeal because it is only the State that has
the right to appeal the acquittal. Because
Senit v People (2016) -The Court affirmed
the crime is committed against the people of
the conviction of Senit for Reckless
the Philippines.)
Imprudence resulting to Multiple Serious
Physical Injuries and Damage to Property
EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE ON DOUBLE
His absence during the trial was not
JEOPARDY
justified.
(1) Where there has been deprivation of due
process and where there is a finding of a
Jaylo v Sandiganbayan -The Court held
mistrial, or
that all accused and their counsel were
(2) Where there has been a grave abuse of
notified of the promulgation of judgment but
discretion under exceptional circumstances.
chose to be absent Thus, their conviction
was affirmed.
President Macapagal Arroyo v.
Sandiganbayan (2017) -A demurrer to
Right against double jeopardy
evidence is a ruling on the merits and will
therefore bar a subsequent prosecution for
Wu v People 2022 -Double jeopardy has
the same acts. (Atty Loanzon: Demurrer has
not set in because the accused were not yet
an effect of a ruling in the merits, therefore,
arraigned under the first information. (Atty
double jeopardy will set in.)
Loanzon: Walang information na na-file
Right against involuntary servitude
under the first preliminary investigation.
Double jeopardy never set in.)
Miguel v Director of the Bureau of
People v Domingo 2017 -The prosecution Prisons 2021 -A writ of habeas corpus will
can no longer reopen a criminal case after it only lie when there is illegal deprivation of
was dismissed for its failure to present liberty Miguel was convicted of the crime of
evidence after four settings. Such failure murder so his detention is justified The
and the resulting dismissal of the case is crime of murder is considered as a heinous
deemed an acquittal of the accused even if crime under the Good Conduct Time
it is the accused who moved for the Allowance Law, so Miguel is precluded from
dismissal of the case This will bar another obtaining any benefit from it.
Right against excessive fines, and cruel annexed to the crime when it was
and inhuman punishments committed or
(4) alters the legal rules of evidence,
Non imprisonment for debts and authorizes conviction upon less
or different testimony than the law
Lozano v Martinez -BP No 22 is a special required at the time of the
law which punishes the act of issuing commission of the offense or
worthless checks, or checks drawn against (5) assumes to regulate civil rights and
closed accounts. remedies only, but in effect imposes
a penalty or deprivation of a right for
an act that was lawful when done or
Ex post facto laws and bills of attainder
(6) deprives a person accused of a
crime of some lawful protection to
Estrada v Sandiganbayan 2018 -The
which he has become entitled, such
AMLC's inquiry and examination into bank
as the protection of a former
accounts are not undertaken whimsically
conviction or acquittal, or a
based on its investigative discretion The
proclamation of amnesty.
AMLC and the CA are respectively required
to ascertain the existence of probable cause
Writs of habeas corpus, Kalikasan,
before any bank inquiry order is issued
habeas data and amparo
Section 11 of R A 9160 even with the
allowance of an ex parte application
Victoria Segovia et al v The Climate
therefor, cannot be categorized as
Change Commission et al 2017- Failure to
authorizing the issuance of a general
show any violation on the part of the
warrant This is because a search warrant or
Climate Change Commission of their
warrant of arrest contemplates a direct
constitutional right to a balanced ecology
object but the bank inquiry order does not
Similarly, the writ of continuing mandamus
involve the seizure of persons or property.
cannot issue for the following reasons First,
the petitioners failed to prove direct or
Lastly, the holder of a bank account subject
personal injury arising from acts attributable
of a bank inquiry order issued ex parte is
to the Climate Change Commission to be
not without recourse He has the opportunity
entitled to the writ Second, the Road
to question the issuance of the bank inquiry
Sharing Principle is merely a principle There
order after a freeze order is issued against
is no law which applies the principle.
the account He can then assail not only the
finding of probable cause for the issuance of
De Lima v Duterte -The writ of habeas date
the freeze order, but also the finding of
will not lie because the President enjoys
probable cause for the issuance of the bank
absolute immunity from suit.
inquiry order.
Morada v Rias -The writ of amparo will not

lie when the agents of the government
An ex post facto law is a law that either
cooperated with Morada on the inquiry of
her missing son.
(1) Makes criminal an act done before
the passage of the law that was
Miguel v Director of the Bureau of
innocent when done, and punishes
Prisons 2021 -A writ of habeas corpus will
such act or
only lie when there is illegal deprivation of
(2) aggravates a crime, or makes the
liberty Miguel was convicted of the crime of
crime greater than it was when
murder so his detention is justified.
committed or
(3) changes the punishment and inflicts
West Tower Corporation v First
a greater punishment than the law
Philippine Industrial Corp 2015 -The
Court held the Precautionary Principle is the whose genuineness and authenticity was
basis for the issuance of the TEPO. also not disputed by the OSG, stated the
citizenship of Adelaida as "Fil". Lastly, the
CITIZENSHIP testimony of Adelaida regarding her
illegitimacy and the citizenship of her
Who are Filipino citizens mother, Teodora Guinto, was never
SECTION 1 of Article V provides: “The questioned by the prosecutor.
following are citizens of the Philippines
(1) Those who are citizens of the Philippines Republic v. Sagun (2012): Sagun sought a
at the time of the adoption of this judicial declaration of her election of
Constitution; Philippine citizenship averring that she was
(2) Those whose fathers or mothers are raised as a Filipino and she is a registered
citizens of the Philippines; voter. The petition was d ismissed because
(3) Those born before January 17, 1973, of there can be no action or proceeding for the
Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine judicial declaration of the citizenship of an
citizenship upon reaching the age of individual. The mere exercise of suffrage,
majority; and continuous and uninterrupted stay in the
(4) Those who are naturalized in Philippines, and other similar acts showing
accordance with law.” exercise of Philippine citizenship cannot
take the place of election of Philippine
Modes of acquiring citizenship citizenship.
1. By birth
2. By marriage Re: Application For Admission to the
3. By judicial proceedings Philippine Bar. Vicente D. Ching, Bar
4. By administrative proceedings Matter No. 914 (1999): The prescribed
5. By congressional act procedure in electing Philippine citizenship
only requires of the elector is to execute an
Loss and re acquisition of Philippine affidavit of election of Philippine citizenship
citizenship and, thereafter, file the same with the
nearest civil registry.
Loss
1. Renunciation Uy-Bellasar v. Republic, si Uy-Bellasar
2. Naturalization wanted to correct an entry in her birth
3. Denaturalization certificate. Kasi yung nakalagay sa kanyang
BC ay nanay niya Chinese pero sabi niya
Reacquisition dapat po ma correct ito filipino po ang
R A 9225 nanay ko eh. Pinakita niya yung passport ng
Dual citizenship and dual allegiance nanay niya, comelec ID, eh hindi naman
Dual allegiance is strictly prohibited nag oobject ang republic. Pero ano pinka
importante dito, was the constitutional
provision under the 1935 constitution, pag
CITIZENSHIP AND CLAIM OF PHILIPPINE legitimate yung kasal ng isang chinese at
CITIZENSHIP filipino yung child nila born out of their
marriage will have to choose philippine
Uy-Belleza v. Republic (2021): Uy Belleza citizenship upon reaching the age of 21. at
was able to establish the right to correct the that time the age of majority was 21. Dito,
entry in her record of birth through the illegitimate yung nanay, pag illegitimate
following evidence: First, Adelaida was considered filipino citizen from birth. So sabi
issued a Philippine passport, the ng SC tama yung prayer ni UY-Bellasar i
genuineness and authenticity of which was correct yang entry nyang mother niya.
not disputed at all by the OSG. Second, the
certificate of live birth of petitioner's brother,
Republic v. Sagum- di to tatanungin, there is mitigating circumstance of 33 years of

no proceeding to declare one to become a service. The answer is, No. because there
filipino citizen. was gross negligence on his part as a public
officer and dismissal is an indivisible
Tapos yung vicente ching sa legal penalty.
profession naman to 34yrs old siya nung
pinili niya yung citizenship niya pilipino. Dominador Marzan v. People of the
Under the 1935 consti dapat upon 3-4 yrs Philippines- dito naman kinonsider ang yrs
upon reaching the age of 21. SC you are of service. Tsaka laging maganda ang
not admitted to the practice of law. performance rating niya as a warden. SC:
we will reduce his sentence based on the
Piccio v. HRET and Maquiling v. recommendation of his supervisor.
COMELEC - yung citizenship will be a
continuing requirement for one to enter Macatangay v. CSC- si Macatangay ay
public office. employee ng DFA, nasa passport section.
Kaya lang yung wife nitong asawa niya
Law on public officers charged her and her present husband with
bigamy. So na convict sila ng RTC, and
based on that conviction, binigay sa CSC
Civil Service Commission v. Beray- Arias
and the CSC ordered her dismissal.
Doctrine, superfluity yung pag pirma ng
Macatangay appealed to SC, ano naman po
supervisor. So ito yung iniinvoke ni Beray,
ako, long years of service, di naman po
superfluity na po yung pirma ko dito sa mga
nainvolve aking personal life in the
repairs na rinerequire sa aking district sa
discharge of my functions as a public officer.
DPWH. SC: Hindi applicable sayo ang arias
SC: we will never appreciate the mitigating
doctrine. Kasi ang responsibility mo is to
circumstance of long years of service.
ensure that your subordinates comply with
Because he was convicted of a crime
the law, eh ikaw mismo eh maliwanag sa
involving moral turpitude.
authority mo from the secretary of public
works na ang maximum amount mo na
Condonation doctrine, Motion for
pipirmahan na voucher ay 200k lang pero
Reconsideration, April 12 2016, will apply
ang dami mong pinirmahan beyond 200k
only to public officers.
what is your justification? So SC affirmed
his dismissal.
Walang jurisdiction ang RTC to review the
actions of the ombudsman, only the CA may
Minao v. Ombudsman (Mindanao) - ano
review in the exercise of its jurisdiction.
naman ang defense ni Minao? Ay bago lang
po kasi yung mga rules ng bidding so hindi
Two aspects are investigated by the
ko po nasunod. SC: hindi excuse yung
ombudsman
unfamiliarity with the law. Lack of knowledge
1. Administrative liability
from the law does not excuse you from
2. Determination of probable cause
compliance. Dismissal is still a valid penalty.
Banko Sentral ng Pilipinas v. Nelson

Basta pag yung finding administrative lang
Bool- eto yung nagkamali na naging Arrovo
you go to the court of appeals for the review
instead na Arroyo ang pangalan ni president
of the decision or the action of the office of
Arroyo. Ano sabi ni Nelson Bool, dapat po
the ombudsman. Pero pag probable cause,
siguro i appreciate ang 33 years of service
criminal liability, diretsyo kayo sa supreme
in Banko Sentral, dedicated public servant
court. Eto yung nangyari sa case ni
po ako, except for 1 misdemeanor dito po
gatchalian. So dinismiss ng CA sabi wala
sa pag priprint ng Philippine Peso, na hindi
kaming jurisdiction.
ko po nakita na Arrovo ang nilagay instead
of Arroyo. Did the SC appreciate the
Disini v. Republic- Disini was found guilty of first exhaust administrative remedies and
getting commission dun sa bataan nuclear that the HLURB has primary jurisdiction.
power project. Magkano yung pinarerestore
sakanya ng sandigan bayan, 50M US ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
dollars. Kwinestyon ni Disini sa SC, sabi Exhaustion and administrative remedies
niya bakit ako magiging liable for 50M US
dollars, eh both witnesses testified to a Philippine Health Insurance
document which was never settled in court
Corporation v. Urdaneta Sacred Heart
or nor was it authenticated; that was exhibit
Hospital (2021) –
9a? SC: Tama si Disini, the prosecution
failed to prove the existence or the
authentication of the document. Pero libre The trial court and the appellate court also
ba siya? The SC said no, the court may correctly considered USHH's Complaint
grant nominal damages without any proof of as an exception to the application of the
evidence. Discretion ng court. Disini was doctrine on exhaustion of administrative
made liable for 1 Billion Pesos by way of remedies on the basis of strong public
damages. interest.
Administrative Law Here, Philhealth moved for the dismissal

of the case since they lost in RTC Pasig.
Sec. 1 Public office is a public trust
They argued that Urdaneta did not
exhaust administrative remedies. SC held
1. All administrative agencies are
created by congress. that Urdaneta is exempt from that
2. They are created to perform specific principle because they went directly to the
functions. (so hindi pwede dito na court because the BOD of Philhealth
ang DOH ang magawa ng mga already decided to disallow their claim. It
kalsada) was proper to seek judicial intervention. It
3. The concept of primary jurisdiction. was also allowed because of strong public
Even the courts are excluded until interest symbol – health.
after our agencies have decided the
cases.
Note: While the SC allowed jurisdiction of
4. Exhaustion of administrative
the RTC, it did not allowed
remedies
reimbursement. The reason of not
5. Judicial review of decisions
allowing Urdaneta Sacred Heart Hospital
Time and again papasok yung concept natin is that they actively solicit cases for
ng delegation of powers. cataract surgeries which is not allowed.
Professional Regulation Commission

v. Alo (2022) –
The Board, by virtue of the power vested

JAKA Investments Corporation v.
in it by the provision above, clearly
Urdaneta Village Association, INc. and
exercised its quasi-judicial functions when
Ayaala Land, Inc. (2019) –
it investigated the case, held a hearing,
and issued a decision. The appeal should
Yes, we classified this and sold as
have been raised before the PRC first and
residential lot. JAKA was still insisting an
not directly with the CA. Thus, under the
order mandamus from the RTC. The court
doctrine of exhaustion of administrative
held it was premature since they should
remedies, her appeal before the CA must publish their adjusted new schedule of
be dismissed for lack of cause of action. filing fees and so was not deemed binding
to GMA Network.
The general rule is that before a party
may seek the intervention of the court, he Judge Villanueva v. JBC (2015) –
should first avail of all the means afforded
him by administrative processes. The All rules and policies affecting applicants
issues which administrative agencies are and nominees in the judiciary must be
authorized to decide should not be published.
summarily taken from them and submitted
to a court without first giving such Here, JBC did not publish the rule on the
administrative agency the opportunity to need for a 5-year tenure before a first
dispose of the same after due level court judge is promoted.
deliberation.
b. Requisites for validity for exercise of
Here, Alo submitted a fake tissue powers – completeness test and
certification saying that he is a member of sufficient standard test
IT and so is exempted to apply for a civil
2. Quasi-legislative power
service qualification. Based on that, he
was accredited as a public school
a. Administrative due process
teacher. PRC conducted a hearing and
b. Administrative appeal and review
rendered a decision that Alo is not entitled c. Administrative res judicata
to the benefit because she did not
submitted. Similar to San Felix – fictitious 3. Fact-finding, investigative, licensing and
acquisition of eligibility. rate-fixing powers
Powers of administrative agencies Ante v. UP Student Disciplinary

Tribunal –
1. Quasi-legislative power
There is due process when the party is
a. Kinds of administrative rules and accorded the right to present evidence to
regulations
repudiate the allegations against him.
Implementing rules and regulations
Interpretation of rules
University of Cordilleras v. Lacanario –
Internal rules
Tanada v. Tuvera (1986) – The removal of Lacanario did not comply

with the rules of procedure but his
Publication of laws is mandatory. removal is justified.
GMA Network v. SEC (1998) – Labay v. Sandiganbayan –
SEC cannot impose its new schedule of Labay was denied due process when the
fees without publication in the Official Ombudsman failed to give him notice of
National Administrative Register of the UP the preliminary investigation.
Law Center.
Here, Labay found out in the news that he
All implementing rules and regulations are was a respondent in one Sandiganbayan
published in ONAT. Here, SEC failed to case for graft and corruption without even
given the chance to be a part of Case of Lucy Torres and Richard

preliminary investigation. And so he Gomez –
moved for quashal of the information
because of denial of due process. The Here, the first that filed a COC in Ormoc
Ombudsman was directed to re-open the was Richard Gomez of which was
preliminary investigation. This was an challenged. It was argued that they
administrative remedy. actually live in Greenhills and so Richard
could not run for office in Ormoc. The
Pete Javier v. Sandiganbayan (2020) – opponents even got a certification that
Richard does not live in Ormoc. So
The determination of probable cause is instead, Lucy substituted. It was however
part and parcel of the fact-finding function held to be an invalid substitution. The rule
of the Office of the Ombudsman. is to only have one conjugal residence for
spouses.
ELECTION LAW
Another question that the examiner may ask
you under Election Law is the below case –
Here, he ran twice as senate candidate.
First time, the raised ground against him

was that he did not have money. The SC
held that money is not a requirement to
run for the senate. He was allowed to run.
Unfortunately, the SC decided only when
NOTE: Remember COMELEC Non the election was done.
constante. So to ensure clean and honest
election. Second time, he sought to run but the
raised ground is that he was not a known
The only leading case on registration is –
candidate nationwide. In a decision
decided by Justice Javier, the SC held
Sps. Romualdez v. COMELEC –
that it was not a requirement to be a
well-known personality to launch a
Here, the SC held that the law is very
campaign. He was allowed to run.
clear. It is a criminal offense to have to
simultaneous registrations. What
happened in this case is that the spouses
were living in Santolan and were likewise
registered there as voters. But Mr.
Romualdez wanted to seek a public office
in Leyte and so they likewise asked to be
registered there. Until their opponent in
Leyte found out that they have multiple
registrations.
Note: On nuisance candidates, that person
makes a mockery of the law. There is a rule
on whether his votes will be counted –
● Where position is just one such as in

the case of the opponent of Allan
Peter Cayetano. They found a Mandanas and Garcia v. Executive

candidate from Davao named Peter Secretary (835 Phil. 97, 2018) –
Cayetano. He was asked to file for
COC except there was a The share in the national income of the
disqualification only after the voting.
LGUs is not limited to the revenue under
Here, the votes cast against the
the NIRC.
nuisance candidate was credited
and were not considered as stray
votes. It is a penalty for a person to Note that this can be a possible question
file and confuse the public. now. Because of this case, the SC
● Where position is with multiple expanded the share of LGUs. It is no
candidates. Such as where there are longer limited to the collections of the
two similarly named candidates, only NIRC. Now includes collections of the
one vote will be counted. But say if BOC, ARMM Government, DENRS – so
in the ballot what was indicated is long as revenue is of national character, it
Cayetano, Peter is placed, that will will be part of the share of the LGUs.
be counted in favor of Cayetano,
Allan Peter.
Republic v. Province of Palawan
(2020)–
Note: Memorize Rule 68 and Rule 78. The
rule in Election Law is that if the
disqualification falls under Rule 68, the The Camago-Malampaya Natural Gas
substitution is allowed. But if it falls in Project is found in the national waters of
Section 78, substitution is not allowed. the Philippines and not part of the territory
Under Section 78, COC is considered null of the Province of Palawan based on its
and void. Remember the three grounds charter. Therefore, the province does not
under Section 68: Death, Disqualification have a share in the revenue derived in teh
and Withdrawal. operation of the subject plant.
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
Pimentel v Executive Secretary (2012)–
The Conditional Cash Transfer of the

national government does not violate the
principle of local autonomy.
Mandanas v. Executive Secretary (GR

No 152774, May 27, 2004) –
The office of the president cannot impose

conditions on the appropriations of the
LGUs.
This is a similar ruling in the case of CSC

vs. DBM.
Batangas v. Pilipinas Shell Petroleum objectives and priorities. Section 78 of the

Corproation and Shell Philippines LGC likewise allows LGUs design and
Exploration B.V. (2017) – implement its own organizational structure
and staffing pattern taking into
The LGU cannot enact a law that would consideration its service requirements
and financial capability. Finally, Section
encroach on the powers of a national
454 of the LGC authorizes a city to
agency under the Water Code. An
create such other offices as may be
ordinance must conform with national necessary to carry out the purposes of the
laws. city government.
For an ordinance to be valid, it must meet Atty. Loanzon: This is a new case. This
the following substantive requirement: talks about creation of plantilla positions
which is within the power of the local
1. Must not contravene the government.
Constituton or any statute;
2. Must not be unfair or oppressive; Kung itatanong sa inyo yung Municipality of
Tupi vs. Atty. Faustino (G.R. No. 231896,
3. Must not be partial or
August 20, 2019), the SC said that the law
discriminatory;
regulating the speed limit of municipal roads
4. Must not prohibit but may regulate
of the municipality of Tupi did not fulfill the
trade; two requirements:
5. Must be general and consistent 1. Compliance with the National
with public policy; and Law (RA No. 4136)
6. Must not be unreasonable. 2. Publication
Here, the SC held that the primary So, hindi inallow ng SC yung effectivity of
jurisdiction under the Water Code is the ordinance. The SC said that the
vested with LUWA not in the LGU. ordinance cannot be given effect because it
was void from the beginning.
Bernardez, Jr. v.. City Government of

Corporate powers of a local
Baguio
government unit as a separate juridical
(G.R. No. 197559, March 21, 2022,
entity
Second Division, Hernando, J.)
People of the Philippines v. Hon.

The creation of the City Building and
Sandiganbayan, the Governor of
Architecture Office (“CBAO”) is a valid
Bataan et al (2020)
legislation. The newly-created position did
not encroach on the powers of Bernardez,
The LGU has the power to enter into a
Jr. as the Baguio City’s Building official.
compromise agreement to settle a matter
pending before the trial court.
While Section 477 of the LGC states that
the City Engineer shall also act as the
Building Official, the appointment of a City of Tanauan v. Millonte
separate Building Official, vis-a-vis the G.R. No. 219292, June 28, 2021
creation of the CBAO in this case, is not
without legal basis. Section 8 of Title One The LGU could have not acquired a valid
of the Local Government Code empowers title over the property when the parties
a local government unit to establish an who executed the Deed of Absolute Sale
organization that shall be responsible for were already dead at the time of sale.
the efficient and effective implementation
of their development plans, program
Atty. Loanzon: The SC said that the City Cerilles v. Civil Service Commission
cannot acquire a valid title to a property (2017)
kung yung nag-execute ng deed of sale ay
patay na. The reorganization undertaken by Gov.
Cerilles violated the CSC guidelines for
Province of Bataan v. Acting undermining the security of tenure of
Ombudsman Casimiro dismissed employees.
G.R. Nos. 197510-11and 201347, April
18, 2022 Liability of Local Government Units
The liability of the public officers Municipality of Corella, represented by

employed by the Province is personal to Mayor Jose Nicanor D. Tocmo v.
them Philkonstrak Development Corporation
and Vito Rapal, G.R. No. 218663,
February 28, 2022, Second Division,
Atty. Loanzon: Inappeal niya yung Hernando, J
probable cause finding of criminal liability of
its public officers. Sabi ng SC, you have no The requisites for a local government to
personality to appeal, dahil individual ang legally bind itself to carry out an
criminal liability. What if guilty lahat ang infrastructure project are: (1) that the local
officers - mapapakulong ba ang buong chief executive who enters into the
Province of Bataan? contract be authorized by the sanggunian
to do so; (2) that the authorization be
Discipline of Employees through an prior and separate
ordinance/resolution, unless the project is
Atty. Loanzon: 2 cases ng powers of the sufficiently and specifically provided for in
mayor to discipline public servants or an appropriations ordinance in which case
leaders: such ordinance would constitute the
authorization; and (3) and that the
Mayor Gatchalian v. Urrutia authority be granted by a majority vote of
G.R. No. 223595. March 16, 2022 ALL members of the sanggunian, whether
or not present, being the vote requirement
The Mayor is empowered under the LGC for ordinances and resolutions directing
to call for an investigation of a complaint payment of money or creating a liability.
for sexual harassment in the workplace.
Atty. Loanzon: Dito inallow ng SC ang
payment based on Quantum Meruit.
Mayor Pamintuan v. Dr. Villaroman Pinaalala lang ng SC – anytime a local
853 Phil. 366, June 10, 2019 government will enter into a contract, dapat
may ordinance, authority, appropriation.
The Mayor has the authority to drop from
the Roll of Employees, an officer of the Settlement of Boundary Disputes
LGU on the ground of insubordination for under Section 118 of the Local
failure to report to his new work station. Government Code
Parties to Tribunal
Ultra Vires Acts Boundary
Dispute
Two (2) or Sangguniang
more Panlungsod
Barangays in
the same city
Two (2) or Sangguniang voluntarily resigns, or is otherwise

more Bayan permanently incapacitated to discharge
Barangays in the functions of his office. (Emphases
the same ours.)
municipality
Two (2) or Sangguniang
more Panlalawigan Temporary vacancy – A temporary
municipalities incapacity arises when a local elective
within the same public official is temporarily incapacitated
province to perform his duties for physical or legal
reasons such as, but not limited to, leave
Municipalities Jointly by the of absence, travel abroad, and
or component Sangguniang suspension from office.
cities of Panlalawigan
different of the different Atty. Loanzon: Kapag namatay si
provinces provinces Mayor, Vice Mayor will assume. Ang
magiging Vice Mayor is the councilor
A component Jointly by the with the highest number of votes.
city or Sangguniang
municipality on Panlungsod Cases - Settlement of Boundary
the one hand and the Disputes
and a highly Sangguniang
urbanized city Bayan Municipality of Kananga v. Hon.
Madrona and City of Ormoc (2003)
Two (2) or Jointly by the
more highly Sangguniang Since there is no legal provision
urbanized cities Panlungsod of specifically governing jurisdiction over
the two boundary disputes between a municipality
different and an independent component city, it
highly follows that regional trial courts have the
urbanized power and the authority to hear and
cities determine such controversy. The Court
affirmed the jurisdiction of the RTC to
Atty. Loanzon: Kapag nalito kayo sa bar, settle the boundary dispute between the
just invoke the general jurisdiction of the municipality of Kananga and the
RTC to resolve. component city of Ormoc.
Vacancies and Succession

Pasig City v. COMELEC and
SECTION 44. Permanent Vacancies in Municipality of Cainta (1999)
the Offices of the Governor,
Vice-Governor, Mayor, and Vice-Mayor. The Court affirmed the jurisdiction of
– If a permanent vacancy occurs in the RTC-Antipolo to settle the boundary
office of the xxx mayor, the x x x dispute between the Municipality of
vice-mayor concerned shall become the x Cainta and Pasig City. The Court enjoined
x x mayor. the holding of the plebiscite on the
creation of additional barangays in Pasig
For purposes of this Chapter, a City until the resolution of the case by the
permanent vacancy arises when an trial court.
elective local official fills a higher vacant
office, refuses to assume office, fails to
qualify or is removed from office,
Municipality of Cainta v. Spouses the area in dispute. The Regional Trial

Brena (2020) Court shall decide the appeal within one
(1) year from the filing thereof. Pending
The Court reversed the decision of final resolution of the disputed area prior to
RTC-Pasig City directing the Spouses the dispute shall be maintained and
Brena to pay real property taxes to Pasig continued for all legal purposes.
City. The Municipality of Cainta sought to
enjoin the execution of the Pasig City LOCAL TAXATION
considering that the boundary dispute
between it and Pasig City has not been 1. Fundamental principles of local
resolved by the RTC of Antipolo. The and real property taxation – (GSIS
Court ruled in favor of the Municipality of v. Treasurer of Manila, MWSS v.
Cainta. There would be suspension of Quezon City, MWSS v. CBAA
payment of real property taxes until the and Pasay City: liability of
boundary dispute is settled. lessees under beneficial use
doctrine; and non-liability for
properties used for governmental
Permanent vacancy arises under the functions)
following circumstances – 2. Common limitations on taxing
(1) when an elective local official fills up a power of the LGU
higher elective office 3. Requirements for a valid tax
(2) when an elective local official refuses ordinance
to assume his post 4. Procedure for approval and
(3) when an elective local official fails to effectivity of tax ordinances
qualify 5. Exemptions from real property
(4) when an elective local official dies taxes (Government entities
(5) when an elective local official is considered as instrumentalities of
removed from office the national government are
(6) when an elective local official exempt from RPT)
voluntarily resigns
(7) when an elective local official is Manila Electric Company v. City of
otherwise permanently incapacitated to Muntinlupa and Nelia A. Barlis, G.R.
discharge the functions of his office. No. 198529, February 9, 2021, En Banc,
Hernando, J. – A municipality cannot
impose a local franchise tax.
Settlement of boundary disputes

Atty. Loanzon: Basta yung government
In the event the Sanggunian fails to effect property is used for public service. Hindi
an amicable settlement within sixty (60) pwede magcollect ng taxes - dapat
days from the date the dispute was referred ma-prove ng local government that it is
thereto, it shall issue a certification to that being used to generate income. In which
effect. Thereafter, the dispute shall be case, it is not even the government entity
formally tried by the Sanggunian that will pay the taxes, but it will be under
concerned which shall decide the issue the beneficial use concept.
within sixty (60) days from the date of the
certification referred to above.
National Economy and Patrimony
SECTION 119. Appeal. - Within the time

Atty. Loanzon: Yung public trust doctrine
and manner prescribed by the Rules of
lang ang tatandaan natin dyan.
Court, any party may elevate the decision of
the Sanggunian concerned to the proper
Regional Trial Court having jurisdiction over
Regalian doctrine – Section 12, Article XII: Republic v. National Commission on

“All lands of the public domain, waters, Indigenous Peoples, G.R. No. 208480,
minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral September 25, 2019
oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries,
forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, The Court held that the NCIP has no
and other natural resources are owned by jurisdiction to issue CALTs over lands
the State.” within Baguio City and the Baguio
Townsite Reservation, outside of those
Exploration, development and utilization over which prior land rights and titles
of natural resources - Section 12, Article have been earlier recognized by judicial,
XII: “With the exception of agricultural lands, administrative, or other processes before
all other natural resources shall not be the effectivity of the IPRA. Section 78 of
alienated. The exploration, development, RA 8371 provides that "[t]he City of
and utilization of natural resources shall be Baguio shall remain to be governed by its
under the full control and supervision of the Charter and all lands proclaimed as part
State. The State may directly undertake of its townsite reservation shall remain as
such activities, or it may enter into such until otherwise reclassified by
co-production, joint venture, or appropriate legislation.
production-sharing agreements with Filipino
citizens, or corporations or associations at
least sixty per centum of whose capital is Talabis v. People, G.R. No. 214647,
owned by such citizens. Such agreements August 6, 2019
may be for a period not exceeding
twenty-five years, renewable for not more Talabis sought reversal of his conviction
than twenty-five years, and under such arguing that under PD 705 is the
terms and conditions as may be provided by government, the complaint against
law. In cases of water rights for irrigation, petitioner and Arsebino should have been
water supply fisheries, or industrial uses filed by a DENR official, and not by
other than the development of water power, Leonora and Rhoda who are merely
beneficial use may be the measure and limit private individuals. Under Section 80 of
of the grant.” PD 705 two situations – the violation is
committed in the presence of a forest
Maynilad v. DENR Secretary, G.R. No. officer or committed in the presence of
202897 (August 6, 2019) private persons who reports the violation
through a complaint.
While the regalian doctrine is state
ownership over natural resources, police
power is state regulation through Republic v. PNP, G.R. No. 198277,
legislation, and parens patriae is the February 08, 2021
default state responsibility to look after the
defenseless, there remains a limbo on a A land classified as a miliary reservation
flexible state policy bringing these is beyond the commerce of men and not
doctrines into a cohesive whole, capable of registration.
enshrining the objects of public interest,
and backing the security of the people,
rights, and resources from general
neglect, private greed, and even from the
own excesses of the State. The Public
Trust Doctrine will fill in the gap.
Republic v. Caraig, G.R. No. 197389, Franchises, Authority and Certificates of

October 12, 2020 Public Utilities
No less than the Constitution prescribes Roy v. Herbosa (2017)

under the Regalian Doctrine that all lands
which do not appear to be within private For purposes of determining compliance
ownership are public domain and hence [with the constitutional or statutory
presumed to belong to the State.39 As ownership], the required percentage of
such, a person applying for registration Filipino ownership shall be applied to
has the burden of proof that the land BOTH (a) the total number of outstanding
sought to be registered is alienable or shares of stock entitled to vote in the
disposable. He must present election of directors; AND (b) the total
incontrovertible evidence that the land number of outstanding shares of stock,
subject of the application has been whether or not entitled to vote xxx.”
reclassified or released as alienable
agricultural land, or alienated to a private
person by the State and no longer Acquisition, Ownerships and Transfer of
remains a part of the inalienable public Public Lands
domain. The government failed to
overturn the evidence presented by the Republic v. Heirs of Bernabe(2020)
applicant.
The BCDA's status as a mere trustee of
the CAB lands is made obvious by the
fact that under the law creating it, its
Republic v. Tapay, G.R. No. 157719, executive head cannot even sign the
March 2, 2022 deed of conveyance on behalf of the
Republic and only the President of the
The Court believes that the higher interest Philippines is authorized to sign such
of justice will be better served by granting deed of conveyance. This is a clear
respondents' prayer for a registration recognition that the property being
decree. Almost 40 years had passed disposed of belongs to the Republic
since the trial court determined that pursuant to Section 48, Chapter 12, Book
respondents are entitled to a registration I of the Administrative Code. Therefore,
decree. no other person has come the case should not be dismissed
forward to dispute their claim. because the Republic is the real party in
interest and not the BCDA.
Republic v. Abellanosa, G.R. No.

205817, October 06, 2021
Practice of Profession
The purpose of the reconstitution is to
enable, after observing the procedures Practice of Profession – Section 14,
prescribed by law, the reproduction of the Article XII provides: ”xxx The practice of all
lost or destroyed Torrens certificate in the professions in the Philippines shall be
same form and in exactly the same way it limited to Filipino citizens, save in cases
was at the time of the loss or destruction. prescribed by law. x x x”
Board of Medicine v. Ota (2008) private corporations. Government-owned or

controlled corporations may be created or
To be granted the privilege to practice established by special charters in the
medicine, the applicant must show that he interest of the common good and subject to
possesses all the qualifications and none the test of economic viability.”
of the disqualifications. It must also
appear that he has fully complied with all Monopolies, restraint of trade and unfair
the conditions and requirements imposed competition: Section 19 of Article XII
by the law and the licensing authority. provides: “The State shall regulate or
Respondent showed that there is prohibit monopolies when the public interest
reciprocity between the laws of Japan and so requires. No combinations in restraint of
the Philippines in admitting foreigners into trade or unfair competition shall be allowed.”
the practice of medicine. He should be
therefore be admitted to practice medicine Gio -Samar v. DOTr and CAAP (2019)
in the Philippines.
The petitioner challenged the award to
Atty. Loazon: Based on reciprocity, he was only one contractor the various contracts
allowed to practice medicine. for the repair, upgrading and maintenance
of selected major airports in country under
PCAB v. Manila Water Company, G.R. Bundle 1amounting to P50.66 Billion and
No. 217590, March 10, 2020 Bundle 2 amounting for P59.66 Billion for
violating the constitutional prohibiting
Being a licensed contractor does not monopolies. The Supreme Court
automatically qualify within the ambit of dismissed the petition for failure of the
the Constitution as a "profession" per se. petitioner to the observe the rule on
Section 14 of Article XII refers to practice hierarchy of courts. The observation of
of profession by a natural person. Rule 3, the hierarchy of courts is a constitutional
Section 3.1 (a) paragraph 2, Section 3.1 imperative.
(b) subparagraph (bb), and Rule 12,
Section 12.7 of the Revised Rules and
Regulations Governing Licensing and Atty. Loanzon: Dito yung accusation ng
Accreditation of Constructors, monopoly. Sabi ng SC, we cannot take
implementing Republic Act No. 4566, cognizance of the case because it will
otherwise known as the Contractors' involve reception of evidence. We have to
License Law in the Philippines, requiring observe the hierarchy of courts.
citizenship of a contractor are hereby
declared VOID. SOCIAL JUSTICE
Concept of Social Justice
Atty. Loanzon: Yung practice of profession Calalang v. Williams (1940)

is an individual right. Kaya sabi ng SC, mali
yung PCAB. Yung award ng contract ng Social justice is "neither communism, nor
Manila Water was to a juridical entity. So despotism, nor atomism, nor anarchy," but
sabi ng SC, maliwanag sa interpretation – the humanization of laws and the
ang practice of profession is left to an equalization of social and economic forces
individual, and will not cover a juridical by the State so that justice in its rational and
entity. objectively secular conception may at least
be approximated. Social justice means the
Organization and regulation of promotion of the welfare of ill the people,
corporations, private and public: Section the adoption by the Government of
16, Article XII provides: “The Congress shall measures calculated to insure economic
not, except by general law, provide for the stability of all the competent elements of
formation, organization, or regulation of society, through the maintenance of a
proper economic and social equilibrium in

the interrelations of the members of the (4) Subject to conditions prescribed by law,
community, constitutionally, through the all grants, endowments, donations, or
adoption of measures legally justifiable, or contributions used actually, directly, and
extra-constitutionally, through the exercise exclusively for educational purposes shall
of rowers underlying the existence of all be exempt from
governments on th$ time-honored principle
of salus populi est suprema lex. PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW
Economic, social and cultural rights Concepts – (Atty. Loanzon: needs to be

memorized)
Commission on Human Rights
1. Jus cogens (or ius cogens) is a latin
Simon v. CHR (1994) phrase that literally means “compelling
law.” It designates norms from which no
The CHR’s power is limited to fact-finding. derogation is permitted by way of
It has neither contempt powers nor does it particular agreements. It stems from the
have any prosecutory power. idea already known in Roman law that
certain legal rules cannot be contracted
out, given the fundamental values they
EDUCATION, SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, uphold.
ARTS, CULTURE AND SPORTS
2. Obligations erga omnes is a Latin
Academic Freedom phrase which means "towards all" or
"towards everyone". In legal
Oscar Pimentel v. LEB (2019/2021) terminology, erga omnes rights or
obligations are owed toward all. For
The imposition of the PhilSat qualifying instance, a property right is an erga
examination for admission to any law omnes entitlement, and therefore
school violates the academic freedom of enforceable against anybody infringing
institutions of higher learning. that right.
3. Ex aequo et bono ( Latin for

Constitutional tax exemptions for certain
"according to the right and good" or
educational institutions
"from equity and conscience") is a Latin
phrase that is used as a legal term of
Section 4 (3) of Article XIV provides: “All
art. In the context of arbitration, it refers
revenues and assets of non-stock,
to the power of arbitrators to dispense
non-profit educational institutions used
with consideration of the law but
actually, directly, and exclusively for
consider solely what they consider to be
educational purposes shall be exempt from
fair and equitable in the case at hand.
taxes and duties. Upon the dissolution or
cessation of the corporate existence of such
Relationship between international law
institutions, their assets shall be disposed of
and national law
in the manner provided by law.
International law is primarily concerned with

Proprietary educational institutions,
state relations, although it is not exclusively
including those cooperatively owned, may
so. Municipal legislation regulates the
likewise be entitled to such exemptions
interactions of individuals within the state.
subject to the limitations provided by law
Where a conflict exists, municipal or
including restrictions on dividends and
national law would prevail over international
provisions for reinvestment.
law. Sources of obligations in international international crimes. So, every

law State has the jurisdiction to take
action against such offenders
Sources of international law include irrespective of their territory and
treaties, international customs, general nationality. Hence such offenses
widely recognized principles of law, the are known as universal offences
decisions of national and lower courts, and and offender of such crimes are
scholarly writings. known as universal offender.
Subjects of international law– e. Passive Personality Principle:

1. States The passive personality principle
2. International organizations can be claimed by a State of
3. Individuals victim when the offender
committed wrong having different
Requisites of statehood nationality and also residing in
1. People any other territory.
2. Territory
Jurisdiction of States- Exemptions from
3. Government
jurisdiction
4. Sovereignty
State immunity from suit - State immunity,
Jurisdiction of States: Basis of or sovereign immunity as it is often referred
jurisdiction to, is a principle of international law that has
become part of the national law of many
Atty. Loanzon: This is a matter of states. It derives from the theory of the
memorization. But always remember that sovereign equality of states, as a
the domestic courts does not have the consequence of which one state has no
power to acquire jurisdiction of an agent or right to judge the actions of another by the
even a foreign individual. standards of its national law. It protects an
entity in two ways: by conferring immunity
a. Territorial Jurisdiction: from adjudication (also known as immunity
Jurisdiction of a State over its from suit) and by conferring immunity from
territory is called territorial enforcement and execution.
jurisdiction.
There are two conflicting concepts of
b. Nationality principle: A State sovereign immunity, according to the
has the right to extend the Philippines Supreme Court: (a) Classical or
application of its laws to its absolute theory — a sovereign cannot,
nationals even in respect of without its consent, be made a respondent
events occurring entirely abroad. in the courts of another sovereign; and (b)
Restrictive theory — the immunity of the
sovereign is recognized only with regard to
c. Protective Principle: When public acts or acts jure imperii of a state, but
state extend its jurisdiction not with regard to private acts or acts jure
outside the territory in order to gestionis.
protect its national interest from
any foreign invasion.
Arigo v. Swift (2014):
d. Universality Principle: Some
If the judgement against such officials
crimes or offensive are so
will require the state itself to perform an
destructive and directly attack on
affirmative act to satisfy the same, the
the international legal system
suit must be regarded as against the
which are considered as
state itself although it has not been
formally impleaded. While the doctrine of The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic

state immunity prohibits only suits against Relations, which was ratified on 18 April
the state without its consent, it is also 1961, is a codification of centuries-old
applicable to complaints filed against customary law affording protection to
officials of the state for acts allegedly foreign diplomats. The Convention lists the
performed by them in the discharge of their classes of heads of diplomatic missions to
duties. The grounding incident took place include (a) ambassadors or nuncios
while they were performing official military accredited to the heads of state, (b) envoys,
duties. Thus, the principle of state immunity ministers or internuncios accredited to the
bars the exercise of jurisdiction by the Court heads of states; and (c) charges d’ affairs
over the American respondents. accredited to the ministers of foreign affairs.
Comprising the “staff of the (diplomatic)
Holy See v. Hon. Rosario (1994): mission” are the diplomatic staff, the
administrative staff and the technical and
The privilege of sovereign immunity in service staff.
this case was sufficiently established
by the Memorandum and Certification International organizations and its
of the Department of Foreign Affairs. It officers - The objective for the grant of
formally intervened in the case and immunity from local jurisdiction is to avoid
officially certified that the Embassy of the the danger of partiality and interference by
Holy See is a duly accredited diplomatic the host country in the internal workings of
mission to the Republic of the Philippines these international organizations or
exempt from local jurisdiction and agencies. It is intended to shield the
entitled to all the rights, privileges and organization from political pressure or
immunities of a diplomatic mission or control by the host country to the prejudice
embassy in this country. The of member States of the organization, and
determination of the executive arm of to ensure the unhampered performance of
government that a state or instrumentality their functions.
is entitled to sovereign or diplomatic
immunity is a political question that is General principles of treaty law
conclusive upon the courts. The rules concerning treaties between
states are contained in the Vienna
Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969),
Atty. Loanzon: When the Holy See sold a and those between states and international
parcel of land in Paranaque, it was not organizations appear in the Vienna
performing a proprietary function but rather Convention on the Law of Treaties Between
a sovereign function. Therefore, Hon. Judge States and International Organizations or
Rosario cannot take cognizance over the Between International Organizations (1986).
case.
Saguisag v. Ochoa (2016)
Act of State doctrine - The Act of State
doctrine says that a nation is sovereign The President may generally enter into
within its own borders, and its domestic executive agreements subject to
actions may not be questioned in the courts limitations defined by the Constitution and
of another nation. may be in furtherance of a treaty already
concurred in by the Senate. EDCA is
Diplomatic immunity - Diplomatic consistent with the content, purpose, and
immunity, in international law, refers to the framework of the MDT and the VFA.
immunities enjoyed by foreign states or EDCA is an executive agreement which
international organizations and their official deals with adjustments in the
representatives from the jurisdiction of the implementation of two existing treaties.
country in which they are present.
Atty. Loanzon: This case talks about the Si Nicolas, recanted her charges of rape.
distinction of a treaty and executive Kaya si Daniel Smith was allowed to leave
agreement. the PH kasi her recantation amounted to his
acquittal.
Atty. Loanzon: According to SC, as a
general rule, some of the executive Meanwhile in the case of Pemberton, he
agreements are intended to perform or to withdrew his appeal of his conviction which
meet certain provisions in an existing treaty. made it possible for Pres. Duterte to grant
him pardon. Kasi naging final and executory
According to SC, minsan, yung executive yung kanyang conviction, kaya he was
agreements, it may cover other matters for given absolute pardon kaya nakatakas siya.
a limited purposes. For example, an So, may preferential treatment, dahil hindi
executive agreement which provides sila (Americans) ittreat na ordinary
hosting APEC in Manila – that’s for a limited detainees na isasama sila sa City Jail. Kaya
purpose, and hindi na kailangan dumaan sa talagang kailangan yung confinement nila
Senate. will be under the control of the PH
Government.
Nicolas v. Romulo (2009)
Doctrine of state responsibility -
The VFA is valid. It was duly concurred in Traditionally, the term "state responsibility"
by the Philippine Senate and has been referred only to state responsibility for
recognized as a treaty by the United injuries to aliens. Any act or omission that
States as attested and certified by the violates an international obligation
duly authorized representative of the attributable to the State triggers state
United States government. The fact that responsibility.
the VFA was not submitted for advice
and consent of the United States Refugees – International agreements
Senate does not detract from its status governing treatment of refugees
as a binding international agreement
or treaty recognized by the said State. 1. The Universal Declaration of
However, the Romulo-Kenney Agreement Human Rights provides that
is not valid because it is not in accord with everyone the right to seek and
the VFA. Thus, transferring Smith from a enjoy in other countries asylum
Philippine jail to the US embassy is not from persecution.
within “detention by Philippine authorities 2.
of United States personnel.” 3. The Convention of the Status of
Refugees provides that states
shall as far as possible facilitate
Atty. Loanzon: Dito yung concept ng Auto the assimilation and
Limitations. Sa Auto Limitations, certain naturalization of refugees. They
aspect of sovereignty are given up when the shall in particular make every
government enters into a treaty. effort to expedite naturalization.
Dito kasi ang sabi ni Nicolas, “binigyan nyo Republic v. Karbasi (2015)
ng preferential treatment si Daniel Smith.
Kinulong niyo sa US Embassy. According to Under the Convention of the Status of
SC, Nicolas is correct kasi hindi naman Refugees, contracting states shall as far
doon dapat cinonfine although may as possible facilitate the assimilation and
preferential treatment ang Americans naturalization of refugees. They shall in
undergoing criminal proceedings. Dapat ang particular make every effort to expedite
place of confinement would be under the naturalization proceedings and to reduce as
control of the Philippine Government. far as possible the charges and costs of
such proceedings.
The Court affirmed the naturalization of municipal law and are accordingly bound by
Karbazi. it in all circumstances (citations omitted).
Atty. Loanzon: Primary concern ng world Atty. Loanzon: In extradition, remember

community ang status ng refugees. the phrase “double criminality”. Yung crime
Refugees in the PH is allowed. Because the dapat existing in two contracting parties.
PH is a signatory to the convention of status Tapos yung relationship between
of refugees. international law and domestic law, the SC
said it must tilt in favor of the right of our PH
In the case of Karbazi, it is our obligation to citizens.
the international community wherein when
we accept refugees, they should be Basic Principles of International Human
assimilated in the PH and may become PH Rights Law - Human rights are universal
citizens. and inalienable; indivisible; interdependent
and interrelated. They are universal
Extradition - Extradition is an action because everyone is born with and
wherein one jurisdiction delivers a person possesses the same rights, regardless of
accused or convicted of committing a crime where they live, their gender or race, or their
in another jurisdiction, over to the other's religious, cultural or ethnic background.
law enforcement. It is a cooperative law Inalienable because people’s rights can
enforcement procedure between the two never be taken away. Indivisible and
jurisdictions and depends on the interdependent because all rights – political,
arrangements made between the civil, social, cultural and economic – are
contracting parties. A common list of crimes equal in importance and none can be fully
is included in the terms of the extradition enjoyed without the others.
treaty.
Basic Principles on International
Drilon v. Hon. Lantion (2000) Humanitarian Law - International
humanitarian law is based upon the
The human rights of person, whether citizen following principles:
or alien , and the rights of the accused • the distinction between civilians
guaranteed in Constitution should take and combatants
precedence over treaty rights claimed by • the prohibition of attacks against
a contracting state. The duties of the those out of combat – or: hors de
government to the individual deserve combat
preferential consideration when they collide • the prohibition on the infliction of
with its treaty obligations to the government unnecessary suffering
of another state. The doctrine of • the principle of necessity
incorporation is applied whenever municipal • the principle of proportionality
tribunals are confronted with situation in
which there appears to be a conflict Law of the sea
between a rule of international law and the 1. Baselines
provision of the constitution or statute of the 2. Archipelagic states
local state. 3. Internal waters
4. Territorial sea – 12 nautical miles
In a situation, however, where the conflict from the baselines
is irreconcilable and a choice has to be 5. Contiguous zone – 12 nautical miles
made between a rule of international law from the baselines
and municipal law, jurisprudence 6. Exclusive economic zone – 200
dictates that municipal law should be nautical miles from the baselines
upheld by the municipal courts for the
7. Continental shelf and extended
reason that such courts are organs of
continental shelf – 150 nautical miles
from the EEZ or 350 nautical miles

from the baselines
8. International Tribunal for the Law of
the Sea
Atty. Loanzon: very prominent in the case

of Magallona vs Ermita.
Basic principles of Environmental Law

Precautionary Principle is now part of the
Rules of Procedure in Environmental Cases
Precautionary Principle is now part of

the Rules of Procedure in Environmental
Cases
International Service for the Acquisition

of Agri-Biotech Applications, Inc. v.
Greenpeace Southeast Asia (Philippines)
(2016)
In December 2015, the Supreme Court held

that the precautionary principle should
be applied in the case since the risk of
harm from the field trials of BT Talong
remains uncertain and there exists a
possibility of serious and irreversible
harm. The Court observed that eggplants
are a staple vegetable in the country that is
mostly grown by small-scale farmers who
are poor and marginalized; thus, given the
country’s rich biodiversity, the
consequences of contamination and genetic
pollution would be disastrous and
irreversible.
On a motion for reconsideration, the

petitioner asked that the Court reverse its
holding because the issue had become
moot and academic. The Supreme Court
said can still pass upon the case on the
grounds that (a) the exceptional
character of the situation and the
paramount public interest is involved;
and (b) the case is capable of repetition
yet evading review. However, both factors
were no longer present, so the Court
reversed its earlier ruling.
University of Santo Tomas
Faculty of Civil Law
MOCK BAR
2023
UNIVERSAL GOOD
KARMA EDITION
BATCH 2024

Political Law MB2023DB

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Political Law MB2023DB

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Political Law MB2023DB

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

University of Santo Tomas

Faculty of Civil Law

4. Checking functions regarding abuse

CIVIL RIGHTS -are those that belong to

The Filipino First Policy embodied in

the framers of the Constituion would be

The Court cannot rule on the issue of

Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez v. (2) A constitutional convention.

1. Proposal - output; Ratifying the Constitution –

Q: Do we need a special election, or is it

Lambino v. COMELEC – In both the 1973 and 1987 Constitution, ang

Four Elements: The Bangsamoro Juridical Entity cannot

Sovereignty – NATIONAL TERRITORY

Nagkaroon dito ng settlement where the PH Cudia v. PMA Superintendent (2015)

No. 2, BIR. Bakit po may allegation ba kung Representatives, it is a plenary body. So

(2019): The K-12 Law meets the two tests

standard prescribed under the Public

The fundamental powers of the state are: *landmark case

A: Public function - governmental duty POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN

Republic v. Spouses Bunsay (2019) -

ang itanong sa inyo, 2/3 vote, 3/4 vote, 1/3

Sa house of representatives, fluctuating ang

The Supreme Court struck down as Atong Paglaum v. COMELEC (2013) -

People v. Jalosjos (2000): The

Trillanes v. Hon. Pimentel (2008): The

leader. In effect, the Court could not give

COTESCUP Case This is a question which has not been

Consider the date given to the president

Here, it was delegated to GMA who

removed from office. If the President is

Piccio v. HRET (2021)

Requisites to acquire jurisdiction:

Reyes vs. HRET

Returns – question of votes

Atty: One, the CoC of Reyes was now void

Assumption of office was erroneous Matibag vs. Benipayo et. al.

Ad interim appointments are permanent Defensor-Santiago vs. COMELEC

EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT Pimentel vs Executive Secretary Ermita

Forms - repreives, commutations, pardon

Sabio v. Sandiganbayan (2019)

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT Qualifications – proven of proven

rule and it should be published. The JBC

right but is a matter addressed entirely to 1. Section 6 – Each commission may

the diligence of a good father withdrawn by the President once the

People v. Tudtud, 458 Phil. 752-802 (involves a case of an overweight flight

A government measure must appear to

(The SC upheld the petition of white light

Estrada was saying that the Plunder Law

1. Requisites for a valid warrant

primordial consideration here is that the 21 of RA 9165 requires the apprehending

Chain of custody was observed in this case.

In this case, police officers did not comply

Zulueta v. Court of Appeals (1996). - facial challenge is allowed to be made to

The Congress shall regulate or prohibit

What is content-neutral? (2) The advertising industry is impressed

Estrada v. Sandiganbayan (2001). The participation of foreign investors in the

There is no radio, television, movie or Valmores v. Achacoso (2017)

Imbong v. Ochoa (2014):

The plea of conscientious objectors for

Liberty of abode and the right to travel