Armed Forces of the Philippines does not fall under the category of a
national law enforcement agency, to which the National Police
Commission (NAPOLCOM) and its departments belong. There was
no evidence or even an allegation on record that the local police
forces were inadequate to cope with the situation or apprehend the
violators. If they were inadequate, the recourse of the provincial
governor was to ask the assistance of the Secretary of Interior and
Local Government, or such other authorized officials, for the
assistance of national law enforcement agencies.
Provincial governor is not authorized to convene Civilian
Emergency Force
Pursuant to the national policy to establish one police force, the
organization of private citizen armies is proscribed.
Section 24 of Article XVIII of the Constitution mandates that:
Private armies and other armed groups not recognized by duly
constituted authority shall be dismantled. All paramilitary forces
including Civilian Home Defense Forces (CHDF) not consistent with
the citizen armed force established in this Constitution, shall be
dissolved or, where appropriate, converted into the regular force.
Additionally, Section 21of Article XI states that, The preservation of
peace and order within the regions shall be the responsibility of the
local police agencies which shall be organized, maintained,
supervised, and utilized in accordance with applicable laws. The
defense and security of the regions shall be the responsibility of the
National Government.
only the Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines but also
to personally renounce foreign citizenship in order to qualify as a
candidate for public office.
Arnado was solely and exclusively a Filipino citizen only for a period
of eleven days, or from 3 April 2009 until 14 April 2009, on which date
he first used his American passport after renouncing his American
citizenship.
Qualifications for public office are continuing requirements and must
be possessed not only at the time of appointment or election or
assumption of office but during the officer's entire tenure. Once any of
the required qualifications is lost, his title may be seasonably
challenged
The citizenship requirement for elective public office is a continuing
one. It must be possessed not just at the time of the renunciation of
the foreign citizenship but continuously. Any act which violates the
oath of renunciation opens the citizenship issue to attack.
The popular vote does not cure the ineligibility of a candidate.
When the law requires certain qualifications to be possessed or that
certain disqualifications be not possessed by persons desiring to
serve as elective public officials, those qualifications must be met
before one even becomes a candidate. When a person who is not
qualified is voted for and eventually garners the highest number of
votes, even the will of the electorate expressed through the ballot
cannot cure the defect in the qualifications of the candidate.
(Quizon v. COMELEC and Saya-ang v. COMELEC):
The Old Ruling that: While provisions relating to certificates of
candidacy are mandatory in terms, it is an established rule of
interpretation as regards election laws, that mandatory provisions
requiring certain steps before elections will be construed as directory
after the elections, to give effect to the will of the people HAS BEEN
ABANDONED. For one, such blanket/unqualified reading may
provide a way around the law that effectively negates election
requirements aimed at providing the electorate with the basic
information to make an informed choice about a candidates eligibility
and fitness for office.
To allow the sovereign voice spoken through the ballot to trump
constitutional and statutory provisions on qualifications and
disqualifications of candidates is not democracy or republicanism.
It is electoral anarchy.
Maquiling is not a second-placer as he obtained the highest
number of votes from among the qualified candidates.
With Arnados disqualification, Maquiling then becomes the winner in
the election as he obtained the highest number of votes from among
the qualified candidate
a void COC cannot produce any legal effect. the votes cast in favor of
the ineligible candidate are not considered at all in determining the
winner of an election.
The votes cast in favor of an ineligible candidate do not constitute the
sole and total expression of the sovereign voice. The votes cast in
favor of eligible and legitimate candidates form part of that voice and
must also be respected.
There is no need to apply the rule cited in Labo v. COMELEC that
when the voters are well aware within the realm of notoriety of a
candidates disqualification and still cast their votes in favor said
candidate, then the eligible candidate obtaining the next higher
number of votes may be deemed elected. That rule is also a mere
Not stop and frisk rule. While the rule normally applies when a
police officer observes suspicious or unusual conduct, which may
lead him to believe that a criminal act may be afoot, the stop and frisk
is merely a limited protective search of outer clothing for weapons.
That the disqualified candidate has already been proclaimed and has
assumed office is of no moment. The subsequent disqualification
based on a substantive ground that existed prior to the filing of the
certificate of candidacy voids not only the COC but also the
proclamation.
The disqualifying circumstance surrounding Arnados candidacy
involves his citizenship. It does not involve the commission of election
offenses as provided for in the first sentence of Section 68 of the
Omnibus Election Code, the effect of which is to disqualify the
individual from continuing as a candidate, or if he has already been
elected, from holding the office.
With Arnado being barred from even becoming a candidate, his
certificate of candidacy is thus rendered void from the
beginning. Arnado being a non-candidate, the votes cast in his favor
should not have been counted. This leaves Maquiling as the qualified
candidate who obtained the highest number of votes. Therefore, the
rule on succession under the Local Government Code will not apply.
LUZ VS. PEOPLE 2012
there was no valid arrest of petitioner.
NOT AN ARREST - When he was flagged down for committing a
traffic violation, he was not, ipso facto and solely for this reason,
arrested. Arrest is the taking of a person into custody in order that he
or she may be bound to answer for the commission of an offense.
Under R.A. 4136, or the Land Transportation and Traffic Code, the
general procedure for dealing with a traffic violation is not the arrest
of the offender, but the confiscation of the drivers license of the latter.
detention of a motorist pursuant to a traffic stop is presumptively
temporary and brief.
the usual traffic stop is more analogous to a so-called Terry stop,
see Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1 (1968), than to a formal arrest.
This ruling does not imply that there can be no arrest for a traffic
violation. Certainly, when there is an intent on the part of the police
officer to deprive the motorist of liberty, or to take the latter into
custody, the former may be deemed to have arrested the motorist. In
this case, however, the officers issuance (or intent to issue) a traffic
citation ticket negates the possibility of an arrest for the same
violation.
Even if one were to work under the assumption that petitioner was
deemed arrested upon being flagged down for a traffic violation and
while awaiting the issuance of his ticket, then the requirements for a
valid arrest were not complied with.
there being no valid arrest, the warrantless search that resulted from
it was likewise illegal.
It must be noted that the evidence seized, although alleged to be
inadvertently discovered, was not in plain view. It was actually
concealed inside a metal container inside petitioners pocket. Clearly,
the evidence was not immediately apparent.
This is not to say that the concern for officer safety is absent in the
case of a routine traffic stop. But while the concern for officer safety
in this context may justify the minimal additional intrusion of ordering
a driver and passengers out of the car, it does not by itself justify the
often considerably greater intrusion attending a full fieldtype search .
Even without the search authority, officers have other, independent
bases to search for weapons and protect themselves from danger.
Examples:
A non-sitting President does not enjoy immunity from suit, even for
acts committed during the latters tenure.
Whether the doctrine of command responsibility can be used in
amparo and habeas data cases. YES.
command responsibility pertains to the "responsibility of commanders
for crimes committed by subordinate members of the armed forces or
other persons subject to their control in international wars or domestic
conflict.
command responsibility doctrine has also found application in civil
cases for human rights abuses.
it is our view that command responsibility may likewise find
application in proceedings seeking the privilege of the writ of amparo.
Command responsibility may be loosely applied in amparo cases in
order to identify those accountable individuals that have the power to
effectively implement whatever processes an amparo court would
issue. In such application, the amparo court does not impute criminal
responsibility but merely pinpoint the superiors it considers to be in
the best position to protect the rights of the aggrieved party.
Whether the president, as commander-in-chief of the military,
can be held responsible or accountable for extrajudicial killings
and enforced disappearances. YES
To hold someone liable under the doctrine of command responsibility,
the following elements must obtain:
a. the existence of a superior-subordinate relationship between the
accused as superior and the perpetrator of the crime as his
subordinate;
b. the superior knew or had reason to know that the crime was about
to be or had been committed; and
c. the superior failed to take the necessary and reasonable measures
to prevent the criminal acts or punish the perpetrators thereof.
The president, being the commander-in-chief of all armed forces,
necessarily possesses control over the military that qualifies him as a
superior within the purview of the command responsibility doctrine.
In the Philippines, a more liberal view is adopted an superiors may be
charged with constructive knowledge.
Executive Order No. 226 (Institutionalization of the Doctrine of
Command Responsibility in all Government Offices), particularly at
all Levels of Command in the Philippine National Police and other
Law Enforcement Agencies: a government official may be held liable
for neglect of duty under the doctrine of command responsibility if he
has knowledge that a crime or offense shall be committed, is being
committed, or has been committed by his subordinates, or by others
within his area of responsibility and, despite such knowledge, he did
not take preventive or corrective action either before, during, or
immediately after its commission. Knowledge of the commission of
irregularities, crimes or offenses is presumed when (a) the acts are
widespread within the government officials area of jurisdiction; (b)
the acts have been repeatedly or regularly committed within his area
of responsibility; or (c) members of his immediate staff or office
personnel are involved.
Priority activities that will promote the economic wellbeing of the nation, including food production, agrarian
reform, energy development, disaster relief, and
rehabilitation.
the P5,000,000. During the year, a strong typhoon hit Quezon and
destroyed its only school. Reconstruction entailed P10,000,000. The
Department of Education only had P5,000,000. It had a deficit of
P5,000,000. Under the Constitution, the President can augment or
cover the DepEd P5,000,000-deficit to make it P10,000,000 by
transferring the savings of P5,000,000 of the Department of Finance.
Obligations were incurred during that year to repair a government
infrastructure, (school) damaged by natural calamities. Undoubtedly
schools for children are a priority projects. Pursuant to the 1987
Adminstrative Code, disbursement was allowed by the Secretary of
Budget. This was done because the reconstruction of the school was
an activity which will promote disaster relief and rehabilitation.
Nothing wrong. All activities were within the bounds of the constitution
and the law.
DAP therefore is nothing else but the disbursement of funds
sourced from savings of a particular item to fund a deficit in
another item for the purpose of immediately accomplishing a
priority activity.
The only transfer that cannot be made in this process is a
transfer of saved-funds from one great government department
to another. But within the executive branch which is composed of so
many departments, the President may do so pursuant to the
Constitution and the Administrative Code.
RH LAW
What Are The Constitutional Bases For The Enactment Of A
Reproductive Health Law?
a. Art. XIII, 11The State shall adopt an integrated and
comprehensive approach to health development
b. Art. II, 9The State shall xxx free the people from poverty
through policies that provide adequate social services, xxx, a rising
standard of living, and an improved quality of life for all.
c. Art. II, 15The State shall protect and promote the right to health
of the people and instillhealth consciousness among them.