Pointers in Political Law

2015 BAR EXAMS

By Professor Victoria V. Loanzon
With the assistance of Atty. Clemente L. Reyes IV
(Admitted to the Bar on 24 April 2015)

1. What is the nature of the Philippine Constitution?

Nicolas v. Romulo, 578 SCRA: The 1987 Constitution just like the 1935 Constitution is rigid.
Both Constitutions require the ratification of the Senate of any treaty executed by the
President but Executive Agreements need not be ratified. Supplemental instruments or
agreements which seek to implement a treaty need not be ratified.
Francisco v. House of Representatives (2003): The Court gave the following rules in the
interpretation of the Constitution:
Verba legis: whenever possible, the words in the Constitution must be given their ordinary
meaning except when technical terms are employed.
Ratio legis et anima: the words in the Constitution should be interpreted in accordance with
the intent of the framers.
Ut magis valeat quam pereat: the Constitution must be interpreted as a whole.
2. What is the concept of the supremacy of the Constitution?
In Manila Prince Hotel v. Government Service Insurance System, the Court held:A
constitution is a system of fundamental laws for the governance and administration of a
nation. It is supreme, imperious, absolute and unalterable except by the authority from which
it emanates. It has been defined as the fundamental and paramount law of the nation. It
prescribes the permanent framework of a system of government, assigns to the different
departments their respective powers and duties, and establishes certain fixed principles on
which government is founded. The fundamental conception in other words is that it is a
supreme law to which all other laws must conform and in accordance with which all private
rights must be determined and all public authority administered. Under the doctrine of
constitutional supremacy, if a law or contract violates any norm of the constitution that
law or contract whether promulgated by the legislative or by the executive branch or
entered into by private persons for private purposes is null and void and without any
force and effect. Thus, since the Constitution is the fundamental, paramount and supreme
law of the nation, it is deemed written in every statute and contract.
3. What are the three basic parts of the 1987 Constitution?
Constitution of Liberty: Bill of Rights
Constitution of Government: Government Organization and Functions
Constitution of Sovereignty: Method of Amendment
4. A majority of the incumbent members of the Senate and the House of
Representatives want to introduce changes in the Constitution. What options are
available to them?
a. Congress, Art. XVII, Sec. 1: By Congress as a constituent assembly upon a vote of of
all its members. The constituent assembly may introduce revisions to the constitution.
Gonzales v. COMELEC (1967): The congress has legislative power which is plenary in
nature but the power to amend the Constitution is not included. It is within the constituent
power of the people which has been duly delegated to Congress when it convenes itself as a
constituent assembly. Congress continues to exercise its legislative body even it has already
been convened as a constituent assembly.
b. Constitutional Convention, Art. XVII, Sec. 3: By 2/3 vote of all members of Congress call
a constitutional convention or by a majority vote of all its members, submit to the electorate
the question of calling such convention. The constitutional convention may likewise
introduce revisions to the constitution.
Imbong v. COMELEC (1970): The Court upheld the power of Congress to enact the
implementing details of the constitutional convention provided the same do not clash with
any specific provision of the Constitution sought to be amended.
5. Disgruntled by the persistent scheme of the members of Congress to insert pork
barrel funds in the General Appropriations Act, a number of civic minded citizens
rallied the electorate to introduce amendment to the Constitution to address this
concern. What is appropriate method to introduce such amendment?
The people through initiative, Art. XVII, Sec. 2: Upon petition of at least 12% of the total
number of registered voters, of which every district must be represented by at least 3% of the
voters therein. This may only be done once every 5 years (Sec. 2, Art. XVII).
6. How are amendments and revisions to the Constitution ratified?
In case of amendments proposed by Congress or a Convention, Art. XVII, Sec. 4,
paragraph 1: Ratification by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite conducted by
COMELEC which shall be held not earlier than 60 days nor 90 days after the approval of the
amendment or revision.
In case of amendments proposed through initiative, Art. XVII, Sec. 4, paragraph 2:
Ratification by a majority of votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not later than 60
days nor later than 90 days after certification by COMELEC of the sufficiency of the
petition.
7. Is judicial review available in the amending process?
Yes. Lambino v. COMELEC, 505 SCRA 160: The S.C. may exercise judicial review over any
matter relative to the process of amending or revising the Constitution. Revision of the
Constitution cannot be carried out through Peoples Initiative.
8. In the event the Bangsamoro Basic Law is enacted into law, may the Philippine flag
be changed?
Yes but not by mere law but by amendment or revision of the Constitution. (Art. XVI, Sec.
1)
9. Is the Bangsamoro Juridical Entity considered a political subdivision?
No. Consolidated Petitions: Province of Cotabato v. G.R.P., G.R. No. 208566, October 14,
2008. The Bangsamoro Juridical Entity is not a political subdivision within the
contemplation of the Constitution. It is more in the nature of an associative state under
public international law and it can eventually gain statehood. The Court held that no
province, city, or municipality, not even the ARMM, is recognized under our laws as having
an associative relationship with the national government. Indeed, the concept implies powers
that go beyond anything ever granted by the Constitution to any local or regional
government. It also implies the recognition of the associated entity as a state. The
Constitution, however, does not contemplate any state in this jurisdiction other than the
Philippine State, much less does it provide for a transitory status that aims to prepare any part
of Philippine territory for independence.
Power of expanded judicial review:
On the issue of withdrawal of MOA by the Government of the Republic of the Philippines:
In the exercise of its power of judicial review, the Court rendered judgement on the MOAD
despite the fact that the same has become moot and academic. It said that: For a court to
exercise its power of adjudication, there must be an actual case or controversy one which
involves a conflict of legal rights, an assertion of opposite legal claims susceptible of judicial
resolution; the case must not be moot or academic or based on extra-legal or other similar
considerations not cognizable by a court of justice. A case becomes moot and academic
when its purpose has become stale. An action is considered moot when it no longer
presents a justiciable controversy because the issues involved have become academic or
dead or when the matter in dispute has already been resolved and hence, one is not entitled
to judicial intervention unless the issue is likely to be raised again between the
parties. Simply stated, there is nothing for the court to resolve as the determination thereof
has been overtaken by subsequent events xxx
In David v. Macapagal-Arroyo(2006), this Court held that the moot and academic principle
not being a magical formula that automatically dissuades courts in resolving a case, it will
decide cases, otherwise moot and academic, if it finds that (a) there is a grave violation of
the Constitution;[ (b) the situation is of exceptional character and paramount public interest
is involved; (c) the constitutional issue raised requires formulation of controlling principles
to guide the bench, the bar, and the public; and (d) the case is capable of repetition yet
evading review.
The Supreme Court justified the review in the MOA AD case using the third exception.
10. Can the newly-elected President propose to change the countrys name, national
anthem and government seal?
Yes. The countrys name, national anthem and government seal may be changed by law
provided the same is submitted to the people for ratification (Art. XVI, Sec. 2).
11. May the President be held liable for the death of police officers in an encounter with
the National Peoples Army under the principle of command responsibility?
No. The principle of command responsibility/ chain of command will only apply when the
President acts as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (Art. XVI,
Sec. 4, Art. XVI, Sec. 5, Art. XVIII, Sec. 24). The Philippine National Police is not part of
the Armed Forces of the Philippines.
12. In view of the growth of cable television industry in the country, some foreign-
owned broadcast media would like to engage business in the Philippines and register
under Philippine laws with the hope that it can compete with local companies. Is this
legally possible?
No. The Constitution provides that ownership and management of mass media shall be
100% Filipino owned (Art. XVI, Sec. 11(1)).
13. Adorable Advertising Company is a company owned by Mexican nationals. Can it
be allowed to engage in advertising business in the Philippines?
No. The Constitution provides that ownership of advertising companies shall be 70%
Filipino owned (Art. XVI, Sec. 11(1), Art. XVIII, Sec. 23).
14. Only independent states may become subjects of public international law.
Characterize an independent state.
Collector of Internal Revenue v. Campos Rueda, 42 SCRA 23 (1971): The existence of a
state is a function of recognition in a community of nations. The Court said that a state is
required in line with Pound's formulation that it be a politically organized sovereign
community independent of outside control bound by penalties of nationhood, legally supreme
within its territory, acting through a government functioning under a regime of law.
(Elements: people, territory, government and sovereignty).
15. May citizens belatedly ask that treaty provisions be reviewed since the same
overlooked the damages they sustained?
No. Relations between nations may be jus gentium (governed by the law of nations) and jus
inter gentis (agreement between nations).
Vinuya v. Executive Secretary (G.R. No. 162230, April 25, 2010 and August 13, 2014: The Supreme
Court adopted ICJs ruling in Barcelona Traction that within the limits prescribed by international
law, a State may exercise diplomatic protection by whatever means and to whatever extent it
thinks fit, for it is its own right that the State is asserting. Should the natural or legal person on
whose behalf it is acting consider that their rights are not adequately protected, they have no
remedy in international law. The Court concluded that the State is the sole judge to decide
whether its protection will be granted, to what extent it is granted, and when will it cease.
Since the Constitution has entrusted to the Executive Department the conduct of foreign
relations for the Philippines. Whether or not to espouse petitioners' claim against the
Government of Japan is left to the exclusive determination and judgment of the Executive
Department. The Court cannot interfere with or question the wisdom of the conduct of
foreign relations by the Executive Department. The Court held that a mandatory injunction
will not lie since it requires the performance of a particular act. Hence, it is an extreme
remedy to be granted only if the following requisites are attendant, namely:
(a) The applicant has a clear and unmistakable right, that is, a right in esse;
(b) There is a material and substantial invasion of such right; and
(c) There is an urgent need for the writ to prevent irreparable injury to the applicant;
and no other ordinary, speedy, and adequate remedy exists to prevent the infliction of
irreparable injury.
16. What are the three distinct legal disciplines in international law?
Three distinct legal disciplines in international law: public international law (treaty law,
law of the seas, international criminal law, human rights law, international humanitarian
law, law on war); conflict of laws (question of which entity would have jurisdiction; and
what law will be applied in the issues to be resolved); and supranational law (regional
agreements which may render inapplicable domestic law if it conflicts with the supernational
legal system).
17. May private individuals bring a suit against a warship of the United States of
America for its grounding, salvaging and post-salvaging operations which cause and
continue to cause environmental damage to the marine resources of the Philippines in
violation of environmental laws of the country?
Bishop Arigo et al v. Scott H. Swift et al: The Court held that the liberalization of standing
first enunciated in Oposa, insofar as it refers to minors and generations yet unborn, is now
enshrined in the Rules which allows the filing of a citizen suit in environmental cases. The
provision on citizen suits in the Rules collapses the traditional rule on personal and direct
interest, on the principle that humans are stewards of nature.
The Court reiterated its ruling in the case of Minucher v. Court of Appeals, we further
expounded on the immunity of foreign states from the jurisdiction of local courts, as follows:
The precept that a State cannot be sued in the courts of a foreign state is a long-standing
rule of customary international law then closely identified with the personal immunity of a
foreign sovereign from suit and, with the emergence of democratic states, made to attach not
just to the person of the head of state, or his representative, but also distinctly to the state
itself in its sovereign capacity. If the acts giving rise to a suit are those of a foreign
government done by its foreign agent, although not necessarily a diplomatic personage,
but acting in his official capacity, the complaint could be barred by the immunity of the
foreign sovereign from suit without its consent. Suing a representative of a state is
believed to be, in effect, suing the state itself. The proscription is not accorded for the benefit
of an individual but for the State, in whose service he is, under the maxim - par in parem,
non habet imperium that all states are sovereign equals and cannot assert jurisdiction over
one another. The implication, in broad terms, is that if the judgment against an official would
require the state itself to perform an affirmative act to satisfy the award, such as the
appropriation of the amount needed to pay the damages decreed against him, the suit must be
regarded as being against the state itself, although it has not been formally
impleaded.(Emphasis supplied.)
18. John Williams is a member of the U.S. Armed Forces participating the Balikatan
exercises under the Visiting Forces Agreement. Peeved by the attitude of Pedro Reyes, a
Filipino waiter, in a local bar in Olongapo City, he hit him and Reyes fell on the ground
which accidentally caused his death. Can John Williams be criminally held under
Philippine laws?
Yes. In Nicolas v. Romulo, Daniel Smith was tried and convicted of rape under the Revised
Penal Code. As held in BAYAN (Bagong Alyansang Makabayan) v. Exec. Sec. Zamora, the
VFA was duly concurred in by the Philippine Senate and has been recognized as a treaty by
the United States as attested and certified by the duly authorized representative of the United
States government.
The VFA is an agreement which defines the treatment of United States troops and personnel
visiting the Philippines to promote common security interests between the US and the
Philippines in the region. It provides for the guidelines to govern such visits of military
personnel, and further defines the rights of the United States and the Philippine government
in the matter of criminal jurisdiction, movement of vessel and aircraft, importation and
exportation of equipment, materials and supplies.
19. Two consular officers of China were fatally shot in a restaurant in Cebu City. The
two assailants were also identified as consular officers of China as well. May the two
assailants be held liable under the provisions of the Revised Penal Code of the
Philippines?
Considering the victims are also members of the diplomatic corps of China, the government
of China may invoke diplomatic immunity from the domestic laws of the receiving state. The
sending state may take custody of the two assailants and it will be responsible for their
repatriation and eventual prosecution under the sending states domestic laws.
20. If an ambassador of a foreign country is found liable under Philippine laws, how
will he be tried?
The Supreme Court shall exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors.
(Sec.5 (1), Art. VIII)
Please take that in this instance, the Supreme Court is a trier of facts. The same
provision also allows the Court to receive evidence over petitions for certiorari,
prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto and habeas corpus.
Petitions for issuance of the writs of amparo, habeas data and Kalikasan also
necessitate reception of evidence before the Court.
The Court is also a trier of facts when a suit is filed to determine the factual basis of the
declaration of martial law and the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus and must
decide the same within a period of 30 days from the date of filing which is an exception
to the general rule that it has 24 months to decide on cases. (Sec. 18, Art. VII)
The Court en banc also receives evidence when it convenes the Presidential Electoral
Tribunal. (Sec.4, Art. VII)
21. What will be the effect on an action filed before the Supreme Court if the Court did
not meet the required majority vote?
Isagani Cruz v. Sec. of DENR, G. R. No. 135385, December 6, 2000: The Court said it in
this wise: As the votes were equally divided (7 to 7) and the necessary majority was not
obtained, the case was redeliberated upon. However, after redeliberation, the voting remained
the same. Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 56, Section 7 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the
petition is DISMISSED.
Therefore, the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act remains in effect. The rights of the indigenous
peoples remain protected. Equally, the state shall continue enjoy the right to govern and the
right to own properties and may regulate the exploitation, development and utilization of its
natural resources as it may deem fit in exercise of the general welfare clause.
22. May a taxpayer file a suit to compel Congress to enact a law making the use of
marijuana for medical reasons legal?
No. The writ of mandamus will not lie because this violates the principle of separation of
powers. It is discretionary on the part of Congress to consider bills which its judgment will
serve the public. Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual
controversies involving rights that are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine
whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of government. (Sec.1, Art. VII).
There is no legally demandable right to compel Congress to make such law.
23. May the tarsiers of Loboc, Bohol bring an action in court to nullify a service
contract signed by the President?
Yes, in Resident marine mammals of Tanon Strait joined in and represented herein by human
beings Gloria Estenzo Ramos and Rose-Liza Eisma-Osorio, in their capacity as legal guardians
and as responsible stewards of God's creations v. Secretary Angelo Reyes et al(G.R. No. 180771,
April 21, 2015), the Court allowed the resident mammals of Tanon Strait as petitioners
provided that the action is brought in the nature of a citizen suit with natural persons acting
as their legal guardians and as friends for being stewards of creation. Under the Rules of
Procedure in Environmental Cases. A citizen suit is encouraged for the protection of the
environment. This provision liberalizes standing for all cases filed enforcing environmental
laws and collapses the traditional rule on personal and direct interest, on the principle that
humans are stewards of nature. The terminology of the text reflects the doctrine first
enunciated in Oposa v. Factoran, insofar as it refers to minors and generations yet unborn.
24. In the action filed by the stewards of the Bohol tarsiers, can the respondents claim
that their approval of service contracts, which require presidential approval, amounts
to approval of the president under the doctrine of qualified political agency?
No. The Court reiterated its ruling in Joson v. Torres. In this case, the Court explained the
concept of the alter ego principle or the doctrine of qualified political agency and its limit in
this wise: Under this doctrine, which recognizes the establishment of a single executive, all
executive and administrative organizations are adjuncts of the Executive Department, the
heads of the various executive departments are assistants and agents of the Chief Executive,
and, except in cases where the Chief Executive is required by the Constitution or law to
act in person or the exigencies of the situation demand that he act personally, the
multifarious executive and administrative functions of the Chief Executive are performed by
and through the executive departments, and the acts of the Secretaries of such departments,
performed and promulgated in the regular course of business, are, unless disapproved or
reprobated by the Chief Executive presumptively the acts of the Chief Executive.
The Court further reiterated: As this Court has held in La Bugal, our Constitution requires
that the President himself be the signatory of service agreements with foreign-owned
corporations involving the exploration, development, and utilization of our minerals,
petroleum, and other mineral oils. This power cannot be taken lightly. xxx it must be shown
that the government agency or subordinate official has been authorized by the President to
enter into such service contract for the government. Otherwise, it should be at least shown
that the President subsequently approved of such contract explicitly. None of these
circumstances is evident in the case at bar.
25. The President granted Mr. Estrada pardon. Mr. Estrada was elected Mayor of
Manila. Alicia, a registered voter of Manila questioned the grant of pardon alleging the
text of the pardon appears to be conditional and therefore, Mr. Estrada is not qualified
to hold the post of Mayor. Is the position of the registered voter tenable?
No. The 1987 Constitution, specifically Section 19 of Article VII and Section 5 of Article IX-
C, provides that the President of the Philippines possesses the power to grant pardons, along
with other acts of executive clemency, to wit: Section 19. Except in cases of impeachment,
or as otherwise provided in this Constitution, the President may grant reprieves,
commutations, and pardons, and remit fines and forfeitures, after conviction by final
judgment. There can be no other conclusion but to say that the pardon granted to Mr.
Estrada was absolute in the absence of a clear, unequivocal and concrete factual basis upon
which to anchor or support the Presidential intent to grant a limited pardon. He was granted
an absolute pardon that fully restored all his civil and political rights, which naturally
includes the right to seek public elective office, the focal point of this controversy. The
wording of the pardon extended to former Mr. Estrada is complete, unambiguous, and
unqualified.
Please note that the only instances in which the President may not extend pardon remain to
be in: (1) impeachment cases; (2) cases that have not yet resulted in a final conviction; and
(3) cases involving violations of election laws, rules and regulations in which there was no
favorable recommendation coming from the COMELEC. Congress cannot in any way
delimit the pardoning powers of the President. Grant of amnesty requires the consent of
Congress.
26. May a former Filipino citizen seek to be elected into public office?
Yes. Frivaldo v. COMELEC, 257 SCRA 727: The right to govern by virtue of a mandate
from the people is not absolute. The Court held that the will of the people as expressed
through the ballot cannot cure the vice of ineligibility, especially if they mistakenly believed,
as in this case, that the candidate was qualified. Obviously, this rule requires strict
application when the deficiency is lack of citizenship. If a person seeks to serve in the
Republic of the Philippines, he must owe his total loyalty to this country only, abjuring and
renouncing all fealty and fidelity to any other state.
Macquiling v. COMELEC, July 2, 2013: A candidate for a political position who
repatriated himself as a Filipino citizen but who continues to use his American passport is
deemed not qualified to run for an elective position. The passport is indicative of ones
citizenship.
Arnado vs. COMELEC and Captain, G.R. No. 210164, August 18, 2015, the Court rule:
"Under Section 4(d) of the Local Government Code, a person with "dual citizenship" is
disqualified from running for any elective local position. In Mercado v. Manzano, it was
clarified that the phrase "dual citizenship" in said Section 4(d) must be understood as
referring to "dual allegiance." Subsequently, Congress enacted RA 9225 allowing natural
born citizens of the Philippines who have lost their Philippine citizenship by reason of their
naturalization abroad to reacquire Philippine citizenship and to enjoy full civil and political
rights upon compliance with the requirements of the law. They may now run for public office
in the Philippines provided that they: (1) meet the qualifications for holding such public
office as required by the Constitution and existing laws; and, (2) make a personal and sworn
renunciation of any and all foreign citizenships before any public officer authorized to
administer an oath prior to or at the time of filing of their COC."
27. What is the rule on a claim of Philippine citizenship?
A person claiming Philippine citizenship has the burden of proof to establish such claim. In
the case of In re: Vicente Ching, the Court held that Philippine citizenship can never be
treated like a commodity that can be claimed when needed and suppressed when convenient.
One who is privileged to elect Philippine citizenship has only an inchoate right to such
citizenship. As such, he should avail of the right with fervor, enthusiasm and promptitude.
28. What defines the Philippine territory?
Article I, 1987 Constitution: The National Territory
Treaty limits: Treaty of Paris, Art. III
Treaty between Spain and U.S. concluded at Washington on November 7, 1900 and
that between U.S. and Great Britain on January 2, 1930
Method of determining baselines under R.A. No. 3046, June 17, 1961, R.A.
No.5446, September 8, 1968; and R.A. No. 9522( Philippine Archipelagic Baselines
Law) , March 10, 2009, using the straight line approach
Other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction
P.D. No. 1596, June 11, 1978
Two Hundred-Mile Exclusive Economic Zone under P.D. No. 1599, June 11, 1978
29. As a signatory of UNCLOS, may the Philippines seek legal relief on its claim as a
coastal state against another signatory to the agreement?
Yes. The Philippines filed an arbitration case-The Republic of the Philippines v. The
Peoples Republic of China-to challenge Chinas nine-dash line claim in the South China
Sea.
On October 29, 2015, the Permanent Court of Arbitration has ruled that it has jurisdiction on
the Philippines case questioning the legality of Chinas enormous claims in the South China
Sea.
The Philippines case is anchored on the 1982 convention which allows coastal states the
right to manage, explore and exploit areas within its 200-nautical mile exclusive economic
zone.
It also tackles the status of certain maritime features in the South China Sea (which the
Philippines calls the West Philippine Sea) and the maritime entitlements they are capable of
generating, and the lawfulness of certain actions by China in the South China Sea that are
alleged by the Philippines to violate the UNCLOS.
The Philippines said Chinas assertion of having indisputable and historical claims that
extends beyond what is allowed by the UNCLOS infringes on the countrys maritime
jurisdiction and prevents it from exercising its right under the convention.
Please note the following relevant provisions of the U.N. Convention on the Law of the
Seas, April 30, 1982:
Internal waters of the Philippines consist of waters around, between and connecting the
islands of the Philippine Archipelago, regardless of their breadth and dimensions, including
the waters in bays, rivers and lakes. No right of innocent passage for foreign vessels exists in
the case of internal waters. (Harris, Cases and Materials on International Law, 5th ed., 1998,
p. 407).
Under UNCLOS, however, warships enjoy a right of innocent passage when a portion of
the territorial water of the coastal state is used for international navigation.
Article 42(2) of UNCLOS provides that there shall be no suspension of innocent passage
through straits used for international navigation. The right of the coastal state to suspend the
same requires that the coastal nation must publish the same and without any publication, it
cannot insist to suspend the use of such body of water. A claim that suspension of innocent
passage is necessary for national security may be cited by the coastal state. Upon the other
hand, if a war ship delayed its right of innocence, the same may justified under Article 18(2)
of UNCLOS if the delay was caused by rendering assistance to persons or ship in distress.
Contiguous zone is the zone contiguous to the territorial sea and extends up to twelve
nautical miles from the territorial sea and over which the coastal state may exercise control
necessary to prevent infringement of its customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and
regulations within the territory or territorial sea. (Article 33 of UNCLOS)
Exclusive Economic Zone is the zone extending up to 200 nautical miles from the baselines
of a state over which the coastal state has sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring
and exploiting, conserving and managing its natural resources, whether living or non-
living, of the waters super adjacent to the seabed and of the seabed and subsoil and with
regard to other activities for the economic exploitation and exploration of the zone. (Articles
56 and 57, UNCLOS)
Flag state means a ship has the nationality of the flag of the state it flies, but there must be a
genuine link between the state and the ship. (Article 91, UNCLOS)
Flag of convenience refers to a state with which a vessel is registered for various reasons
such as low or non-existent taxation or low-operating costs although the ship has no genuine
link with that state. (Harris, ibid. p.425)
29. Can a private party make a government entity liable on a contract which that
private party executed with another private party?
No. Under the principle that the state cannot be sued without its consent, a third party cannot
hold a government entity liable. The government entity is a stranger to the contract.
Dept. of Agriculture v. NLRC, 227 SCRA: The state cannot be sued without its consent. The
assets of the government cannot be held liable for liabilities of a private person. Such assets
cannot be subject to levy and garnishment for to allow such actions would impair
government operations and delay delivery of vital public services.
30. Can a local government unit excuse itself from paying the balance of just
compensation?
Yujuico. Atienza, 472 SCRA 463. The City of Manila cannot be excused from paying the
property owner the balance of just compensation because it was the city which initiated the
expropriation proceedings.
Please note that the rule on torts committed by special agents under the Civil Code, Art.
2180 (Consent to be sued includes actions for tort this is an express consent to be sued)

Teotico v. City of Manila: The City of Manila was held liable under the provision of the Civil
Code which mandates it to maintain and ensure the safety of the public in all public places
like roads (even national roads) in its territorial jurisdiction.
By law, GOCCs have the right to sue and be sued.
Government is not immune from suit due to implied consent: When the Government enters
into business contracts; and when it would be inequitable for the Government to claim
immunity
31. Can a government counsel be personally held for damages through a counterclaim
while defending the interest of the state?
No. Chavez v. Sandiganbayan, 193 SCRA 282: A public officer may not be held liable for
the counterclaim by one of the accused when he performs his duties in good faith.
32. Assume a situation where there is a seeming conflict as to availment of rights of a
Filipino citizen under an international agreement and a Philippine law, which would
prevail, the domestic law or the international agreement?
Secretary of Justice v. Judge Lantion, 343 SCRA 377. Speaking through Justice Melo, the
Court said that the individual citizen is but a speck of particle or molecule vis--vis the vast
and overwhelming powers of government. His only guarantee against oppression and
tyranny are his fundamental liberties under the Bill of Rights which shield him in times of
need. In dismissing the petition, the Court upheld a citizen's basic due process rights
against the government's ironclad duties under a treaty. The constitutional issue in the
case at bar does not even call for "justice outside legality," since private respondent's due
process rights, although not guaranteed by statute or by treaty, are protected by
constitutional guarantees. It chose not to favor the strict construction over guarantees
against the deprivation of liberty because that would not be in keeping with the principles of
democracy enshrined in the Constitution.
33. Can the President of the Philippines declare a state of war?
No. The Constitution provides that only Congress may declare the existence of a state of war.
*Note that Congress cannot even declare a state of war but can only recognize its existence
under the Constitution Please relate with the renunciation of war as an instrument of national
policy.
The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy: In the field of public
international law, the law of war has two dimensions: justifications to engage in war(jus ad
bellum) and the limits to acceptable wartime conduct (jus in bello or International
humanitarian law). As a humanitarian concern, the laws of war address declarations of war,
acceptance of surrender and the treatment of prisoners of war; military necessity (use of an
attack or action intended to help the military objective and use of proportional and excessive
force to endanger civilians(, along with distinction (careful assessment as to who are
combatants and the civilians) and proportionality( the legal use of force whereby belligerents
must make sure that harm caused to civilians or civilian property is not excessive in relation
to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated attack anticipated by an attack on
military objective; and the prohibition of certain weapons that may cause unnecessary
suffering.
The laws of war should mitigate the consequences of war by:
Shielding both combatants and non-combatants from unnecessary suffering;
Ensuring that certain fundamental human rights of persons who fall into the hands of the
enemy, particularly prisoners of war, the wounded and sick, and civilians, are protected; and
endeavoring that peace is restored.
34. The Philippine Constitution has several provisions on respect for human dignity and
human rights (Art. II, Sec. 11, Art. III, Sections 17-19, and Art. XVI, Sec. 5(2)). Is the
Philippine government a signatory to any international agreement on human rights?
Yes. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a declaration adopted by
the United Nations General Assembly as an offshoot of the aftermath of World War II.
The International Bill of Human Rights consists of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and its two Optional Protocols. In a
strict sense, the Declaration is not treaty but it has been considered as a constitutive
document for the purpose of defining fundamental freedoms and human rights.
35. A number of Filipinos are considered economic migrants. What efforts has the
government done to ensure the protection of Overseas Filipino Workers?
The Philippines is a signatory to the International Convention on the Protection of the
Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families. This instrument is
multilateral treaty governing the protection of migrant workers and families. Concluded on
18 December 1990, the Convention entered into force on 1 July 2003 after the threshold of
20 ratifying States was reached in March 2003. The Committee on Migrant Workers (CMW)
monitors implementation of the convention, and is one of the seven UN-linked human rights
treaty bodies.
36. What other rights do Overseas Filipino Workers enjoy?
In Nicolas-Lewis v. COMELEC, the Court held that the holding of the 2004 elections had,
as the OSG pointed out, indeed rendered the petition moot and academic, but insofar only as
petitioners participation in such political exercise is concerned. The broader and
transcendental issue tendered or subsumed in the petition, i.e., the propriety of allowing
duals to participate and vote as absentee voter in future elections, however, remains
unresolved. Observing the petitioners and the COMELECs respective formulations of the
issues, the same may be reduced into the question of whether or not petitioners and others
who might have meanwhile retained and/or reacquired Philippine citizenship pursuant to
R.A. 9225 may vote as absentee voter under R.A. 9189.The Court resolved the poser in the
affirmative. The Court held that those who retain or re-acquire Philippine citizenship under
Republic Act No. 9225, the Citizenship Retention and Re- Acquisition Act of 2003, may
exercise the right to vote under the system of absentee voting in Republic Act No. 9189, the
Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003 pursuant to Sec 2 of Article V of the Constitution
which mandates that Congress shall provide a system for absentee voting by qualified
Filipinos abroad.
37. The Constitution has enshrined the family as a basic autonomous social institution
under Sections 12 and 13, Art. II and Art. XV- The Family. May Congress intrude into
this basic social institution?
The Court has recognized that under Art. 52 of the Civil Code, marriage is not a mere
contract but an inviolable social institution.
Imbong v. Ochoa (April 8, 2014): The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the RH
Bill as a valid exercise of police power.
Issue on Right to Privacy: Section 23(a) (2) (i) of the RH Law intrudes into martial
privacy and autonomy and goes against the constitutional safeguards for the family as
the basic social institution. Particularly, Section 3, Article XV of the Constitution mandates
the State to defend: (a) the right of spouses to found a family in accordance with their
religious convictions and the demands of responsible parenthood and (b) the right of families
or family associations to participate in the planning and implementation of policies and
programs that affect them. The RH Law cannot infringe upon this mutual decision-making,
and endanger the institutions of marriage and the family.
Issue on violation of Freedom of Religion: The provision which obliges a hospital or
medical practitioner to immediately refer a person seeking health care and services under the
law to another accessible healthcare provider despite their conscientious objections based on
religious or ethical beliefs violate the religious belief and conviction of a conscientious
objector. They are contrary to Section 29(2), Article VI of the Constitution or the Free
Exercise Clause, whose basis is the respect for the inviolability of the human conscience.
Issue on violation of Equal Protection Clause: Excluding public health officers from being
conscientious objectors (under Sec. 5.24 of the IRR) also violates the equal protection clause.
There is no perceptible distinction between public health officers and their private
counterparts. In addition, the freedom to believe is intrinsic in every individual and the
protection of this freedom remains even if he/she is employed in the government.
Issue on Right of the State to impose Penalties: Using the compelling state interest test,
there is no compelling state interest to limit the free exercise of conscientious objectors.
There is no immediate danger to the life or health of an individual in the perceived
scenario. While penalties may be imposed by law to ensure compliance to it,
a constitutionally-protected right must prevail over the effective implementation of the
law.
38. One of the salient features of the Constitution is the recognition of the autonomy of
local governments under Section 25 and Art. X. What are the political subdivisions
under Section1 of Article X?
Provinces, cities, municipalities and barangays as well as the autonomous regions of ARMM
and CAR.
39. What are the mandatory requirements to create a local government unit?
Factors to be considered in the creation of local government unit: (PILA)
Population to be authenticated by the National Statistics Office (now Philippine Statistics
Authority); population must be actual and certification can only be issued by the Chief
Statistician (Aldaba v. COMELEC, 2010);
Income: Average of two-year of the local government unit to be certified by the Department
of Finance. Note that all treasurers of all local government units are appointed by the
Secretary of Finance.
The share of the local government in the IRA is included in the computation of income.
(Alvarez v. Guingona, 1996)
Land Area: Area must be contiguous except for provinces comprising of islands. The land
area must be authenticated by the Land Management Bureau of the DENR. (Navarro v.
Ermita,
2011), where the Court ruled in favor of the constitutionality of Dinagat as a province despite
the fact that it did not meet the prescribed 2,000 square meter area. It is impossible to achieve
the minimum area requirement since the province of Dinagat is composed of islands and
cannot be contiguous.
Rule on creation of local government units and additional congressional districts: a
plebiscite is required in the creation of local government units but not in the creation of
additional congressional districts.
Sema v. COMELEC: The ARMM Legislative Assembly cannot create provinces and the
grant of such power under the ARMM Organic Act is deemed unconstitutional. It is not a
valid delegation of power. The creation of local government units in provinces, cities,
municipalities, and other political subdivision is a congressional/legislative prerogative while
the creation of barangays shall be done by local ordinances in cities and provinces (for
component cities and municipalities) through the Sangguniang Panglungsod and
Sangguniang Panlalawigan as the case may be.
League of Cities of the Philippines v. COMELEC (2010). In upholding the legality of the
creation of additional 16 cities, the Court held that Congress may apply the revised
requirements in a new law during the pendency of the approval of all the bills creating such
new local government units.
40. How are boundary disputes among local government units resolved?
Jurisdiction of boundary disputes:
Regional trial courts exercise original jurisdiction over boundary disputes in involving a
MUNICIPALITY and an independent component city.
Sangguniang Panlalawigan exercises original jurisdiction over boundary disputes involving
two municipalities of the same province.
Joint Sangguniang Panlalawigan exercises original jurisdiction over boundary disputes
involving two municipalities of the different provinces.
Sangguniang Panlungsod exercises original jurisdiction over boundary disputes involving
two barangays of the same city.
Joint Sangguniang Panlungsod exercises original jurisdiction over boundary disputes
involving two barangays of two different cities.
The regional trial court exercises APPELLATE jurisdiction over boundary disputes among
local government units.
41. May a barangay order the closure of streets in a private subdivision?
Yes. In the case of Sun Valley Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. Sanggguniang Barangay of Sun
Valley (July 2011), Petitioner wants the Court to recognize the rights and interests of the residents
of Sun Valley Subdivision but it miserably failed to establish the legal basis, such as its ownership of
the subject roads. Section 21 of the Local Government Code requires the passage of an
ordinance by a local government unit to effect the opening of a local road. The Court held
that the subject provision can have no applicability to the instant case since the subdivision
road lots sought to be opened to decongest traffic in the area - namely Rosemallow and Aster
Streets - have already been donated by the Sun Valley Subdivision to, and the titles thereto
already issued in the name of, the City Government of Paranaque since the year 1964. The
Court also noted that the action of the Petitioner was premature for failure to exhaust
administrative remedies because the issues presented before which could have been resolved
by the Mayors office.
Barangay Sindalan, San Fernando, Pampanga v. C.A. (2007): The Court also held that no
public funds may be used to construct an access road which would benefit solely the
residents of a newly-developed subdivision.
City of Manila v. Chinese Community (1919): A local government may not takeover a
property for expansion of a public street when such property (cemetery) already serves a
public purpose.
MMDA v. Bel-Air Village Homeowners Assn., Inc.: MMDA cannot require the opening of
certain streets inside a private subdivision since it cannot make an ordinance because it has
no rule-making powers. The opening of a street is a way of regulating use of property.
Therefore, MMDA cannot also validly exercise police power.
Sanggalang v. IAC (176 SCRA 716): Through the enactment of an ordinance which has
reclassified Jupiter St., Bel Air Village, the local government may allow the use of former
residential lots along the street for commercial purposes.
Albon v. Mayor Fernando: No public funds may be spent for the upgrading of private
subdivision roads unless they are turned over to the local government unit.
42. May a local government unit reclassify the use of land which would violate the
provisions of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law?
The local government has authority to reclassify lands but not when such reclassification
violates the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law. The exception to this general rule is when
the local government unit had already reclassified the subject land before the effectivity of
the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law.
Buklod ng Magbubukid sa Lupaing Ramos, Inc. v. E.MM. Ramos, Inc. (2011): The
ordinance reclassifying the land in question shall prevail over the opposition of the Petitioner.
The Court held Section 3(c), Chapter I of the CARL further narrows down the definition of
agricultural land that is subject to CARP to "land devoted to agricultural activity as defined
in this Act and not classified otherwise.
The CARL took effect on June 15, 1988. To be exempt from the CARP, the subject property
should have already been reclassified as residential prior to said date. The ordinance was
enacted prior to the effectivity of CARL.
Davao New Town Development Corp. v. Spouses Espino et al (2013): The Court held that
the subject property had been reclassified as non-agricultural prior to June 15, 1988; hence, they are
no longer covered by R.A. No. 6657.
43. May a zoning ordinance prevail over a restriction in the Transfer Certificate of Title
which the Ayala Alabang Homeowners Association seeks to impose on the property
owner?
No. The annotation at the back of TCT No. 149166 covering the subject property provides:
PE-222/T-134042 - RESTRICTIONS - The property cannot be subdivided for a period of
fifty (50) years from the date of sale. The property shall be used exclusively for the
establishment and maintenance thereon of a preparatory (nursery and kindergarten)
school which may include such installations as an office for school administration,
playground and garage for school vehicles. x x.
The Court held that the above restriction limits the use of the subject property for preparatory
(nursery and kindergarten) school, without regard to the number of classrooms. The Court
affirmed the judgement of the Court of Appeals which ordered the Petitioner to cease and
desist from the operation of the Learning Child School beyond nursery and kindergarten
classes with a maximum of two classrooms with the MODIFICATION that (1) the two-
classroom restriction is deleted, and (2) the current students of the School of the Holy Cross,
the Learning Child School's grade school department, be allowed to finish their elementary
studies in said school up to their graduation in their Grade 7. The enrollment of new students
to the grade school shall no longer be permitted.
On the issue of estoppel. The Court held that the Petitioner cannot invoke estoppel on
the part of the respondents. It said: Estoppel by deed is "a bar which precludes one party
from asserting as against the other party and his privies any right or title in derogation of the
deed, or from denying the truth of any material facts asserted in it. It said that estoppel has
been characterized as harsh or odious, and not favored in law. When misapplied, estoppel
becomes a most effective weapon to establish an injustice, inasmuch as it shuts a man's
mouth from speaking the truth and debars the truth in a particular case. Estoppel cannot be
sustained by mere argument or doubtful inference; it must be clearly proved in all its
essential elements by clear, convincing and satisfactory evidence. x x x.
44. What is social justice?
Calalang v. Williams, 70 Phil. 726 (1940). In this case the Court defined social justice in this
wise: Social justice is "neither communism, nor despotism, nor atomism, nor anarchy," but
the humanization of laws and the equalization of social and economic forces by the State so
that justice in its rational and objectively secular conception may at least be approximated.
Social justice means the promotion of the welfare of all the people, the adoption by the
Government of measures calculated to insure economic stability of all the competent
elements of society, through the maintenance of a proper economic and social equilibrium in
the interrelations of the members of the community, constitutionally, through the adoption of
measures legally justifiable, or extra-constitutionally, through the exercise of powers
underlying the existence of all governments on the time-honored principle of salus populi est
suprema lex.
Note: The precept of social justice is interlinked with the exercise of police power. In the same
case, the Court further said that: Social justice, therefore, must be founded on the recognition
of the necessity of interdependence among divers and diverse units of a society and of the
protection that should be equally and evenly extended to all groups as a combined force in our
social and economic life, consistent with the fundamental and paramount objective of the state
of promoting the health, comfort, and quiet of all persons, and of bringing about the greatest
good to the greatest number.
45. What powers may academic institutions exercise to ensure the right to quality education
under Sections 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of Article XIV?
Viveres and Suzara v. St. Theresas College-Cebu City: The writ of habeas data will not lie since the
respondent school is not in the business of collecting data. The Court upheld the right of the school
not to allow its students to graduate for violating the standing policy of the school on wearing
immodest apparel and having their photographs posted in social media.
Miriam College v. CA, 348SCRA 215: The school has the power to suspend students for use of vulgar
language in the schools official organ. The Court upheld the right of a school to prescribe rules
governing discipline of students.
University of San Agustin v. CA 270 SCRA 761: The Court held that their students are governed by
the rules set forth in the student handbook. The failure of students to meet the academic standards set
in the Student Handbook is a ground for disciplinary action.
Ateneo v. Capulong 222 SCRA 643. The Court upheld the authority of the school to suspend students
who were alleged to have participated in a hazing activity which resulted to the death of one of its
students. In this case, the Court took the occasion to say that it is the national government that shall
provide the overall policy on education to meet national goals. The discipline of students pursuing
legal career is a matter which exacts rigid scrutiny.
46. May a proclaimed candidate in a congressional seat ask the Court to enjoin the election
protest filed against him before the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal?
No. This violates the doctrine of separation of powers. The doctrine of separation of powers is a
principle of government under which three separate branches of government are empowered to
carry out functions without interference or encroachment from another branch.
Angara v. Electoral Tribunal, 63 Phil. 139, 158 (1936): The Court cannot interfere with an
independent body like the Electoral Tribunal under the principle of separation of powers. It is
premature for the Court to exercise its power of judicial review until after the tribunal has terminated
its proceedings.
How principle is violated: interference and assumption to another branchs functions
often referred to as encroachment
47. When can the House of Representative Electoral Tribunal take jurisdiction over an election
contest?
The HRET may take cognizance of any matter raised by a losing candidate related to the
election, returns and qualifications (ERQ) as soon as the COMELEC proclaims the winning
candidate and the latter shall have taken his oath as a member of the House of Representatives.
Please take note of the following rulings on the three electoral tribunals enshrined in the
Constitution:
Reyes v. COMELEC and Tan, G.R. No. 207264, June 25, 2013: To be considered a member
of Congress, there must be concurrence of the following requisites: a valid proclamation; a
proper oath; and assumption to duty. Absent any of the foregoing, the COMELEC retains
jurisdiction over said contest.
Duenas v. HRET, 593 SCRA 3166: HRET has the competence to examine questioned
ballots; a resolution signed by the majority of the members is sufficient.
Vinzons-Chato v. HRET and Panotes, G.R. No. 199149, January 22, 2013: digital images
are functional equivalent of the paper ballots
Martinez v. HRET, G.R. No. 189034, January 11, 2010: nuisance candidates; mockery of
election process
Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET): composed of 3 Justices of the Supreme Court to be
designated by the Chief Justice and 6 members of the Senate based on proportional
representation; the Senior Justice acts as the Chairman.
House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET): composed of 3 Justices of the
Supreme Court to be designated by the Chief Justice and 6 members of the House of
Representatives based on proportional representation; the Senior Justice acts as the
Chairman.
Jurisdiction of Electoral Contests before the SET and the HRET: All matters pertaining
to the election, returns and qualifications of a member, including issues involving
citizenship and appreciation of ballots.
Pimentel v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 178413, March 13, 2008: Once COMELEC has
proclaimed the winner, it loses jurisdiction on all issues involving the election, returns and
qualifications of a member of the Senate; the losing party must file the protest before the
SET.
Legarda v. de Castro: Petitioner can no longer pursue her election protest because she run
for the Senate during the pendency of the case and after having been proclaimed winner in
the senatorial race, she took her oath. To allow her to pursue the case will result to
absurdity. She cannot be Vice President (executive branch) and be Senator (legislative
branch) at the same time. This will result into incompatibility of offices.
Note: As members of the PET, the justices of the Supreme Court are triers of facts and law
and parties may seek relief to the Supreme Court if they are not satisfied with the findings
of the SET.
48. If members of the Senate and party list members of the House of Representatives are
proclaimed by the COMELEC, what body undertakes the canvass of votes and proclamation of
the President and the Vice President?
Congress acts as the Board of Canvassers in presidential election.
Pimentel v. Joint Committee of Congress, G.R. No. 163783, June 22, 2004. The Congress is
a continuing body and must fulfil its constitutional mandate to conduct the presidential
canvass of votes even it if is in recess. The Senate shall convene in joint session during any
voluntary or compulsory recess to canvass the votes for President and Vice-President not
later than thirty days after the day of the elections in accordance with Section 4, Article VII
of the Constitution.
Lopez v. Senate, G.R. No. 163556, June 8, 2004: Senate is a continuing body only on this
matter and committee hearings and not to consider bills.
49. Can a losing candidate as kagawad of a barangay file an election protest?
Yes. The Municipal Trial Courts have jurisdiction over election contests involving elective
positions at the barangay level. A party not satisfied with the ruling of the trial court, may file
an appeal before the COMELEC. A division of the COMELEC is assigned to review the
appeal. If parties are not satisfied with the ruling of the Division, they can file an appeal
before COMELEC en banc and parties may ask the Supreme Court en banc to review the
decision of the COMELEC en banc.
Please note that all decisions of the Civil Service Commission, the Commission on
Elections and the Commission on Audit may be reviewed by the Supreme Court en
banc.
50. The newly-elected directors of the Philippine National Red Cross (PNRC) requested the
Commission of Audit to conduct an audit of the accounts of the organization. A former director
sought to enjoin the conduct of the audit. Will the objection of the former director of the PNRC
prosper?
No. BOY SCOUTS OF THE PHILIPPINES v. COA (G.R. No. 177131, 2011) The BSP is a
public corporation or a government agency or instrumentality with juridical personality
which does not fall within the Constitutional prohibition in Art. XII, Section 16. Not all
corporations, which are not government owned or controlled, are ipso facto to be
considered private corporations as there exists another distinct class of corporations or
chartered institutions which are otherwise known as public corporations. These
corporations are treated by law as agencies or instrumentalities of the government which
are not subject to the tests of ownership or control and economic viability but to different
criteria relating to their public purposes/interests or constitutional policies and objectives
and their administrative relationship to the government or any of its departments or offices.
51. Can a public officer claim reimbursement for medical expenses and other travelling
costs?
No. RAMON R. YAP v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT (G.R. No. 158562, 2010). COA may
disallow expenses which do not pass the public purpose test (claims for executive check-
up, basic monthly allowances, reimbursement for gasoline allowance, etc.)
Any disbursement of public funds, which includes payment of salaries and benefits to
government employees and officials, must (a) be authorized by law, and (b) serve a public
purpose. As understood in the traditional sense, public purpose or public use means any
purpose or use directly available to the general public as a matter of right. The public
servant has the burden to proof to establish that use of public funds is related to the
discharge of his official functions.
52. Twelve new positions were created by a local government but no ordinance was
enacted to fund the newly-created positions. Subsequently, the Mayor sought approval
of an ordinance which would allow the persons occupying the newly-appointed
positions to draw their salaries. A taxpayer filed an action against the Mayor before the
Office of the Ombudsman. Will the case prosper?
No. TOLENTINO v. Mayor LOYOLA et. al. (G.R. No. 153809, 2011).Whatever defect there
may have been in the approval of unappropriated positions was cured subsequently by the
creation of said position and the revalidation of respondents appointment. That appointment
was ultimately approved by the Civil Service Commission thus giving it finality. The Court
reiterated that elementary is the rule that the findings of fact of the Office of the Ombudsman
are conclusive when supported by substantial evidence and are accorded due respect and
weight, especially when they are affirmed by the CA. It is only when there is grave abuse of
discretion by the Ombudsman that a review of factual findings may aptly be made.
Note: NATIONAL ARTIST VIRGILIO ALMARIO v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY (G.R.
No. 189028, January 16, 2013). There is grave abuse of discretion when an act is:
1) done contrary to the Constitution, the law or jurisprudence or
2) executed whimsically, capriciously or arbitrarily, out of malice, ill will or personal bias.
53. Congress enacted the General Appropriations Act (GAA) which included a
provision allowing the President to distribute a lump sum amount to all members of the
legislative branch. The GAA allowed the President to prescribe the criteria for the
distribution of such amounts needed by the members of Congress. Special requirements
were allowed at the congressional district level. May Pedro Reyes and other taxpayers
question the constitutionality of the subject provision of the GAA?
Yes. The provision violates the principle of checks and balances. This principle in
constitutional law where there is a system-based regulation that allows one branch to limit
actions of another branch in keeping with the doctrine of separation of powers.
Consolidated Petitions: Belgica et. al. v. Executive Secretary et. al., G.R.No. 208566,
Alcantara et. al. v. Drilon et. al. G.R. No. 208493, and Nepomuceno et. al. v. Pres. Aquino
et. al., G.R. No.209251, Nov. 19, 2013: The Court resolved issues related to procedural
matters and substantive matters.
Procedural Matters:
Is the case subject to judicial review? Yes, there is a question raised on the constitutionality
of the provision of PDAF in the General Appropriations Act. This is a justiciable issue.
Do the petitioners have legal standing to sue? Yes, as taxpayers there are qualified to raise
the issue of the constitutionality of PDAF. As taxpayers they stand to suffer material injury
because the funds covered under the General Appropriations Act come from revenues
collected from taxpayers.
Substantial Matters:
Is there a violation of the principle of separation of powers? Yes, the executive branch
encroached upon the power of the legislative branch when it determined how the PDAF will
be distributed. The legislative branch also exercised the power of implementation when it
identified priority projects in their jurisdiction.
Is there a violation of the principle of checks and balances in the implementation of the
projects under PDAF? Yes, it deprives the President of his item veto power under the constitution
Section 27(2), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution because the appropriations are general (lump sum)
instead of being itemized.
Is there violation of the principle of non-delegability of legislative power? Yes, the
legislative branch allowed the executive branch to define the parameters as to how the
PDAF can be availed of by the members of Congress. The Department of Budget and
Management provided for a menu where the funds may be spent.
Is there a violation of the constitutional provision on political dynasty? While portions of
the PDAF were meant to enhance the continued stay in power of incumbent politicians, the
constitutional provision prohibiting political dynasty, the same is not self-executing. To date,
Congress has not enacted a law to put the provision into effect. Thus, there is no violation of
the constitutional provision.
Is there a violation of the principle of local autonomy? Yes, when the incumbent members
of Congress dictated which projects would be implemented at the local level without the
participation of the local government units, it violated the essence of local autonomy under
Article X of the Constitution.
54. Congress enacted a law which created the Fair Competition Commission (FCC)
under the supervision of the Secretary of Finance. Without awaiting the appointments
of the Chairman and the four Associate Commissioners of the FCC, the Secretary of
Finance published the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the FCC. Is the act of the
Secretary of Finance proper?
No. The act of the Secretary of Finance violated the principle of separation of powers. He
should have first allowed the President to appoint all the five members of FCC.
Two tests of valid delegation: Completeness test and sufficient standard test
How law-making power is delegated: suppletory rule-making (filling in details to ensure
enforcement of the law) and contingent rule-making (ascertaining the facts to bring the
law into operation)
55. The President reorganized the Office of the Press Secretary. In the process some of
the employees were given new assignments. The affected employees questioned the
reorganization arguing that it violated their security of tenure. Is the legal argument of
the affected employees tenable?
No. EIIB v. Zamora (July 10, 2001). The Court held: It having been duly established that
the President has the authority to carry out reorganization in any branch or agency of the
executive department, what is then left for us to resolve is whether or not the reorganization
is valid. In this jurisdiction, reorganizations have been regarded as valid provided they are
pursued in good faith. Reorganization is carried out in good faith if it is for the purpose of
economy or to make bureaucracy more efficient. Pertinently, Republic Act No. 6656 provides
for the circumstances which may be considered as evidence of bad faith in the removal of
civil service employees made as a result of reorganization, to wit: (a) where there is a
significant increase in the number of positions in the new staffing pattern of the department
or agency concerned; (b) where an office is abolished and another performing substantially
the same functions is created; (c) where incumbents are replaced by those less qualified in
terms of status of appointment, performance and merit; (d) where there is a classification of
offices in the department or agency concerned and the reclassified offices perform
substantially the same functions as the original offices, and (e) where the removal violates
the order of separation.
56. The local government of Manila enacted an ordinance which granted ABC
Corporation to operate a jai alai in the City of Manila. The newly-elected Mayor
refused to grant a business permit to ABC Corporation on the ground that the
ordinance cannot prevail over a Presidential Decree which required that the grant of
franchise to operate jai alai is invested in the Games and Amusement Board. ABC
Corporation asked the Manila RTC to issue a writ of mandamus ordering the newly-
elected Mayor to issue the business permit to ABC Corporation. As judge, will you issue
the writ?
No. Lim v. Pacquing, 240 SCRA 649: Former Chief Justice Puno in his Dissenting Opinion
in this 1995 case said that the exercise of police power is not without limit. He said that
while it is the prerogative of the State to promote the general welfare of the people thru
the use of police power; on the opposite end is the right of an entity to have its property
protected against unreasonable impairment by the State. Courts accord the State wide
latitude in the exercise of its police power to bring about the greatest good of the greatest
number. But when its purpose is putrefied by private interest, the use of police power
becomes a farce and must be struck down just as every arbitrary exercise of government
power should be stamped out.
When exercise of police power may be questioned
MMDA v. Bel-Air Village Assn. 328 SCRA 836: Where is there is no explicit grant of power,
a government agency cannot exercise police power. The Court said: Clearly, the MMDA
is not a political unit of government. The power delegated to the MMDA is that given to the
Metro Manila Council to promulgate administrative rules and regulations in the
implementation of the MMDAs functions. There is no grant of authority to enact
ordinances and regulations for the general welfare of the inhabitants of the metropolis.-p
57. The municipality of Teresa, Rizal enacted an ordinance which sought the
expropriation of a property upon which it will build an evacuation center as part of its
Disaster Preparedness Program. The Sangguniang Panlalawigan disapproved the
ordinance. May the municipality still exercise the power of eminent domain?
Yes. The exercise of the power of eminent domain is a power delegated by Congress to
political subdivisions.
Moday v. C. A. 268 SCRA 586: The Court reiterated the limitations on the power of eminent
domain are that the use must be public, compensation must be made and due process of law
must be observed. The Supreme Court, taking cognizance of such issues as the adequacy of
compensation, necessity of the taking and the public use character or the purpose of the
taking, has ruled that the necessity of exercising eminent domain must be genuine and of a
public character. Government may not capriciously choose what private property should be
taken.
Land Bank of the Philippines v. Yatco Agricultural Enterprises, G.R. No. 172551, January
15, 2014.The determination of just compensation is fundamentally a judicial function. In the
exercise of the Courts essentially judicial function of determining just compensation, the
RTC-SACs are not granted unlimited discretion and must consider and apply the enumerated
factors in R.A. No. 6657 and the DAR formula (in AO 5-98) that reflect these factors. Courts
may, in the exercise of their discretion, relax the formulas application to fit the factual
situations before them. They must, however, clearly explain the reason for any deviation from
the factors and formula that the law and the rules have provided.
The time of taking refers to that time when the State deprived the landowner of the use
and benefit of his property, as when the State acquires title to the property or as of the filing
of the complaint, per Section 4, Rule 67 of the Rules of Court.
58. Iloilo City initiated expropriation proceedings against Spouses Espinosa. During the
pendency of the case, the city government and the property owner agreed to settle the
case through a compromise agreement. The Court approved the compromise agreement
between the parties. Before fully paying for the property, the city government
questioned the compromise agreement arguing that it was not the court which fixed the
just compensation. Is the argument of the city government valid?
No. A compromise agreement is valid since it has the effect of a ruling on the merit. The city
government is also precluded to question such ruling of the trial court because it voluntary
submitted itself to the jurisdiction of the court. (City of Manila v. Alegar Corporation et. al.
June 25, 2012)
Public Purpose
Housing for the poor: Ortega v. City of Cebu, 602 SCRA 601 (2009)
Taking for a cultural/historical purpose: Manosca v C.A., G.R. No. 106440, January 29, 1996
Taking is not justified when a similar facility within the vicinity already serves the same
purpose: Masikip v. Pasig City, 497 SCRA 391(2006)
Just Compensation
Principal criterion to determine just compensation will be the character and use of the land at
the time of taking: Tinio et al. v. NAPOCOR, G.R. 160923, January 24, 2011
Compensation based on R.A. 6657 is required in the determination of just compensation if
the property is covered by CARP: LBP v. Ferrer et al., G.R. No. 172230, February 2, 2011
Recognition of Fair Market Value will form part of the basis of just compensation: EPZA v.
Estate of Salud Jimenez, et al., G.R. No. 188995, August 24, 2011
Interest rate on just compensation is 6% per annum: Apo Fruits Corp. et al. v LBP, G.R. No.
164, October 12, 2010
Reconveyance
If government does not use the property for an unreasonable period of time for the public
purpose it acquired the property, the property owner can ask for reconveyance of the same.
If there is unreasonable delay (5 years) of payment of just compensation, the property owner
can ask for possession of property until just compensation is fully settled.
59. An American company sought to avail of benefits under a tax treaty between the
Philippines and the Federal Government of Germany. The Commissioner of Internal
Revenue did not allow it to enjoy such benefits. The American company refused to pay
the assessment of the BIR and instituted an action before the Court of Tax Appeals. As
justice of the CTA, how will rule on the case?
I will rule in favor of the BIR and deny the petition of the American Company. Being a
stranger to the treaty, it cannot avail of the benefits of the tax treaty between the government
of the Philippines and Germany.
Com. of Internal Revenue v. S. C. Johnson & Son, Inc., 309 SCRA 87. In negotiating tax
treaties, the underlying rationale for reducing the tax rate is that the Philippines will give up a
part of the tax in the expectation that the tax given up for this particular investment is not taxed by
the other country. In order to eliminate double taxation, a tax treaty resorts to several methods.
First, it sets out the respective rights to tax of the state of source or situs and of the state of residence
with regard to certain classes of income or capital. The second method for the elimination of double
taxation applies whenever the state of source is given a full or limited right to tax together with the
state of residence. In this case, the treaties make it incumbent upon the state of residence to allow
relief in order to avoid double taxation.
Power of Taxation: rule on taxation: must be uniform and equitable; Congress to evolve a
progressive system of taxation- The Constitution does not really prohibit the imposition of indirect
taxes which, like the VAT, are regressive. What it simply provides is that Congress shall "evolve a
progressive system of taxation." The constitutional provision has been interpreted to mean simply that
"direct taxes are . . . to be preferred [and] as much as possible, indirect taxes should be minimized."
(E. FERNANDO, THE CONSTITUTION OF THE PHILIPPINES 221 (Second ed. (1977)
(Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance, 1995).
60. Aahon Party List sought to be accredited as a party list. The members of Aahon are males
and females which have different sexual preferences. The COMELEC denied their
accreditation based on biblical passages. Is the denial of COMELEC proper?
No. Ang Ladlad v. COMELEC, G. R. No, 190852, April 8, 2010: Accreditation is done
solely by COMELEC. The Court said that under the countrys system of laws, every group
has the right to promote its agenda and attempt to persuade society of the validity of its
position through normal democratic means. It is in the public square that deeply held
convictions and differing opinions should be distilled and deliberated upon. The OSG argues
that since there has been neither prior restraint nor subsequent punishment imposed on Ang
Ladlad, and its members have not been deprived of their right to voluntarily associate, then
there has been no restriction on their freedom of expression or association. The Court said
that the moral objection offered by the COMELEC was not a limitation imposed by
law. Thus it held: To the extent, therefore, that the petitioner has been precluded, because of
COMELECs action, from publicly expressing its views as a political party and participating
on an equal basis in the political process with other equally-qualified party-list candidates,
we find that there has, indeed, been a transgression of petitioners fundamental rights.
Other rulings on party list system:
BANAT V. COMELEC, 592 SCRA 294: The Constitution provides that Congress shall not
have more than 250 members unless Congress provides otherwise and out of the total
number of incumbent members not more than 20% shall come from the party list. Of the
party list members, each party list shall be entitled to a maximum of three seats.
Paglaum v. COMELEC, 694 SCRA 477 (2013): sectoral representation need not be limited
to the poor or marginalized group; extent of national membership; performance in party list
election process
PGBI v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 190529, April 29, 2010. The COMELEC has the power to
delist a party list on two grounds under Section6 (8) of R.A. 7941.
Magdalo v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 190793, June 19, 2012. The registration of political
parties does not involve administrative liability as it is only limited to the evaluation of
qualifications for registration
61. A group of public school teachers instituted an action before the Supreme Court to
question the veracity of the entries to the congressional journal regarding the passage of
the law on grant of additional allowances of public school teachers for poll duty in the
forthcoming May 2016 elections. They alleged that the law signed the President
reflected a lesser amount that what has been reported in the media. Will the action of
the public school teachers prosper?
No. U.S. v. Pons, 34 Phil., 729-735 (1916): The courts may not go behind the legislative
journals to contradict their veracity.
Journal Entry Rule vs. Enrolled Bill Theory
Morales v. Subido, 27 SCRA 131 (1969): An omission at the time of enactment, whether
careless or calculated, cannot be judicially supplied however much later wisdom may
recomment the inclusion.
Astorga v. Villegas, 56 SCRA 714 (1974): The Court held that that the enrolled bill theory
is based mainly on "the respect due to coequal and independent departments," which
requires the judicial department "to accept, as having passed Congress, all bills
authenticated in the manner stated." Thus it has also been stated in other cases that if the
attestation is absent and the same is not required for the validity of a statute, the courts may
resort to the journals and other records of Congress for proof of its due enactment.
62. What are the three functions of judicial review?
Functions of Judicial Review: Checking looks into possible abuses of each branch of
government; review of decisions of lower courts; Legitimizing looks into constitutionality
of laws and its application; and Symbolic looks into issues although they have become
moot and academic.
REMEMBER THE EXPANDED POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE S.C.
Under normal circumstances, S.C. will not disturb the findings of facts of
administrative tribunals and the trial courts. However, S.C. may review findings of facts
the lower courts under recognized exceptions: when the conclusion is a finding grounded
entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; when inference made is manifestly
mistaken, absurd or impossible; where there is abuse of discretion; when judgment is based
on misapprehension of facts, when the findings of facts are conflicting; when the Court of
Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary
to those of the trial court; when findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific
evidence on which they are based; when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the
petitioners main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents; and when the findings
of fact of the C.A. are premised on supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by
evidence on record.
General Rule: All courts can exercise judicial review
Effect of Declaration of Unconstitutionality
Under Civil Code, Art. 7, Statute is void when declared unconstitutional
Statute is not always void but may produce legal effects
b) Moot Questions
General Rule: A matter is moot if further legal proceedings with regard to it can have no
effect, or events have placed it beyond the reach of the law. Normally, courts will defer to
acting on a matter that has become moot and academic.
Exception: Where matters of transcendental importance arise, the Court render a resolution to
give guideposts to the bench and bar if a similar matter should arise in the future.
Concept of expanded power of judicial review: resolve matters of transcendental
importance/ address matters which have been rendered moot and academic
c) Political Question Doctrine
Baker v. Carr: What is the political question doctrine: "Prominent on the surface of any
case held to involve a political question is found:
(1) a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate
political department;
(2) or a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it;
(3) or the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly
for non-judicial discretion;
(4) or the impossibility of a court's undertaking independent resolution without expressing
lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government;
(5) or an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made;
(6) or the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various
departments on one question.
The political question doctrine could be read narrowly or more broadly. Read narrowly,
the political question doctrine should be invoked only when the issue presented to the
Court is one that "has been textually committed to another branch of government." That
is, if the framers of the Constitution made clear their intention that the judiciary not
resolve a particular question of constitutional interpretation, that determination must
be respected.
More broadly, the political question doctrine might be invoked when there is a lack of
judicially manageable standards to decide the case on the merits, when judicial
intervention might show insufficient respect for other branches of government, or when a
judicial decision might threaten the integrity of the judicial branch. (Baker v. Carr,
1962)
Marcos et al. v. Manglapus et al. G.R. No. 88211 September 15, 1989: When political
questions are involved, the Constitution limits the determination to whether or not there has
been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of
the official whose action is being questioned. If grave abuse is not established, the Court will
not substitute its judgment for that of the official concerned and decide a matter which by its
nature or by law is for the latter alone to decide.
63. A newly-elected member of the Senate proposed a tax measure which would
effectively reduce the tax impositions on salaried employees. Is the proposal valid?
No. Demetria v. Alba, G. R. No. L-45129, March 6, 1987. All appropriations bill must
emanate from the House of Representatives and the executive branch has no power to
transfer one budget for another purpose for which it was originally intended.
Tax laws (Art. VI, Sec. 28, Art. XIV, Sec. 4(3)). All tax, tariff and other revenue bills must
originate in the House of Representatives but the Senate may introduce amendments.
Demetria v. Alba, G.R. No. L-45129, March 6, 1987: no cross border transfer of funds; all
appropriations bill must emanate from the House of Representatives and the executive branch
has no power to transfer one budget for another purpose for which it was originally intended.
Belgica v. Ochoa, G.R. No. 208493, November 19, 2013: limitations on the power to enact
appropriation bills
YMCA v. Collector of Internal Revenue, 33 Phil. 217(1916): taxpayer has burden of proof
to claim tax exemption
Quezon City v. ABS-CBN, G.R. No. 166408, Oct. 6, 2008: LGUs have power to collect
local franchise tax
Del Mar v. PAGCOR, 346 SCRA 484 (2000): only Congress has the power to grant
franchise
Tanada v. Tuvera, 136 SCRA 27(1985): effectivity of laws
64. Two members of the House of Representatives figured in a brawl during the heated
deliberation on the passage of the bill legalizing marijuana. The incident was a subject
of media coverage. Delfin Rosario, a taxpayer, asked the Ethics Committee of the House
of Representatives to discipline two members of Congress. Will his action prosper?
Yes. Each house may determine the rules of proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly
behavior, and with the concurrence of two-thirds of all its members, suspend or expel a
member.
A penalty of suspension, when imposed, shall not exceed sixty days.
65. May the President restrict the attendance of the members of the Cabinet in
congressional hearings?
No. This will violate the principle of checks and balances.
Senate of the Philippines v. Ermita, 488 SCRA 1: The President cannot clip the powers of
the legislative branch by restricting the attendance of officers and other officials of the
executive branch from appearing in congressional hearings in the exercise of the
constitutionally-mandated power to conduct inquiries.(referring to Section 21 of Art. VII)
Neri v. Senate Committees. The executive branch may invoke executive privilege in matters
covered by a legislative hearing and may even decline attendance or responding to queries if
the same is not carried out in aid of legislation.
66. May the House of Representatives consider simultaneously for inclusion in the
Articles of Impeachment?
Yes. Gutierrez v. House of Representatives, G. R. No. Feb. 15, 2011. Congress may look into
separate complaints against an impeachable officer and consider the inclusion of matters
raised therein in the adoption of the Articles of Impeachment to be forwarded to the Senate
as the impeachment tribunal. The Court has repeatedly held that: Impeachment is the most
difficult and cumbersome mode of removing a public officer from office. It is, by nature,
a sui generis politico-legal process that signals the need for a judicious and careful handling
as shown by the process required to initiate the proceeding; the one-year limitation or bar
for its initiation; the limited grounds for impeachment; the defined instrumentality given the
power to try impeachment cases; and the number of votes required for a finding of guilt.
(Francisco v. House of Representatives, on one year rule)
Votes in impeachment proceedings
A majority vote of the members of the Committee on Justice of HOR is
necessary for consideration of its report in a plenary session. (Sec. 3(2), Art. XI)
A vote of at least 1/3 of all members of the HOR is necessary to either affirm a
favorable resolution with the Articles of Impeachment or override its contrary
resolution.
A verified complaint or resolution of impeachment filed by 1/3 of all members of
the HOR shall constitute the Articles of Impeachment.
Two thirds vote of all members of the Senate is necessary to convict the
impeached public officer.
Gutierrez v. HOR, Feb. 15, 2011: consideration of two complaints as basis
Francisco v. HOR, 415 SCRA 44: initiation of a complaint for impeachment
Chief Justice Corona v. Senate of the Philippines et al., G.R. No.200242, July 17,
2012: The power of judicial review includes the power of review justiciable issues
in impeachment proceedings.
67. Considering that the positions of the Deputy Ombudsman and the Special
Prosecutor are provided in the Constitution. May the President relying solely on his
judgment remove them from office?
Yes. Gonzales III v. Office of the President at al/ Bareras Sulit v. Ochoa et al (2014).The
Court held that the Office of the President has the power to discipline and even dismiss the
overall deputy Ombudsman and the other deputies provided under the Constitution as well
as the Special Prosecutor. The Court said that the Ombudsman is vested with broad
investigative and disciplinary powers. These powers include the scrutiny of all acts of
malfeasance, misfeasance, and nonfeasance of all public officials, including Members of the
Cabinet and key Executive officers, during their tenure. Under Section 12, Article XI of the
1987 Constitution, the Office of the Ombudsman is envisioned to be the protector of the
people against the inept, abusive, and corrupt in the government, to function essentially
as a complaints and action bureau. This constitutional vision of a Philippine Ombudsman
practically intends to make the Ombudsman an authority to directly check and guard against
the ills, abuses, and excesses of the bureaucracy. As the Ombudsman is expected to be an
activist watchman, the Court has upheld its actions, although not squarely falling under the
broad powers granted it by the Constitution and by R.A. No. 6770, if these actions are
reasonably in line with its official function and consistent with the law and the Constitution.
68. A Supreme Court Associate Justice will retire on February 14, 2016. May President
Aquino appoint his replacement when an election ban is in effect?
Yes. Midnight appointments: The outgoing President refrain from filling vacancies to give
the new President opportunity to consider names in the light of his new policies especially so
when he ran on a platform approved by the electorate.( Art. VII, Sec.15)
De Castro v. JBC, G.R. No. 191002, March 17, 2010: This case questioned the power of the
President to appoint the Chief Justice during the prohibitive period. The S.C. held that the
appointment of the members of the judiciary is not covered by the prohibition on midnight
appointments.
Power of Removal: For appointees who serve at the pleasure of the President, they may
also be removed if there is loss of trust and confidence in them. Other public servants may be
removed for cause provided for by law.
69. May the representative of the Committee of Justice of the Senate and the House of
Representatives simultaneously represent the Congress in the Judicial and Bar
Council?
No. Chavez v. JBC: The Congress is entitled only to one representative in the JBC and not
one for each from the House of Representatives and the Senate.
Recent rulings related to the JBC:
Villanueva v. JBC (2015): A first level trial court must await a 5-year period before he can
be promoted as RTC judge. The Court sustained the power of the JBC to prescribe rules in
the screening of qualified candidates to the judiciary to ensure that only men of proven
competence, integrity, probity and independence will be appointed to the bench.
Jardeleza vs. Chief Justice Sereno and JBC (2015): Having been denied due process,
Jardeleza should be included in the list of nominees to be appointed as justice of the Supreme
Court. An issue about his integrity was raised in the selection process but Jardeleza was never
given the opportunity to be heard to overturn the allegation against him.
70. With the recently SAF 44 incident, a newly-elected member of the House of
Representatives proposed that Congress amend the Philippine National Police to
include for confirmation the Chief PNP by the Commission on Appointments. Is the
proposal valid?
No. Article VII, Section 16 of the 1987 Constitution reads: "The President shall nominate
and, with the consent of the Commission on Appointments, appoint the heads of the
executive departments, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, or officers of the
armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain, and other officers whose
appointments are vested in him in this Constitution. He shall also appoint all other officers of
the Government whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by law, and those whom
he may be authorized by law to appoint. The Congress may, by law, vest the appointment of
other officers lower in rank in the President alone, in the courts, or in the heads of
departments, agencies, commissions, or boards.
Sarmiento v. Mison, 156 SCRA 549 (1987): Appointment of Bureau of Customs
Commissioner does not need confirmation of the Commission on Appointments.
Tatad v. Commission on Appointments, G.R. No. 183171, August 11, 2008: With the
resignation of the nominee, there is no longer an actually justiciable controversy.
71. Gregorio, a police officer, was charged for violation of the VAWC law and an
administrative complaint was likewise filed against him before the Peoples Law
Enforcement Board. Can Gregorio move for the dismissal of the criminal case against
him due to the pendency of his administrative complaint before the PLEB?
No. Acuzar v. Jarolan and Apresa PLEB, G.R. No. 177878, April 7, 2010: In administrative
proceedings, procedural due process has been recognized to include the following: (1) the
right to actual or constructive notice of the institution of proceedings which may affect a
respondents legal rights; (2) a real opportunity to be heard personally or with the assistance
of counsel, to present witnesses and evidence in ones favor, and to defend ones rights; (3) a
tribunal vested with competent jurisdiction and so constituted as to afford a person charged
administratively a reasonable guarantee of honesty as well as impartiality; and (4) a finding
by said tribunal which is supported by substantial evidence submitted for consideration
during the hearing or contained in the records or made known to the parties affected.
72. Lolita is a flight attendant who has exceeded the prescribed weight of the airline
company. Despite repeated warnings, she failed to meet the prescribed weight and was
accordingly dismissed by the airline company. She filed an action before the NLRC for
illegal dismissal because she was denied the equal protection of the law. Will the action
prosper?
No. Ysaregui v. NLRC and PAL: The claim of denial of the equal protection clause may only
be invoked against the state.
Garcia v. Hon. Drilon et al., G.R. No. 179267, June 25, 2013. R.A. 9262 does not violate the
equal protection clause for the following reasons: the classification rests on substantial
distinctions; the classification is germane to the purpose of the law; and the classification is
not limited to existing conditions only and apply equally to all members.
Biraogo v. The Philippine Truth Commission of 2010 et al., G.R.Nos.192935 and 193036,
December 7, 2010: E.O. is unconstitutional for singling out President Arroyos
administration only.
Standards of Review
Prevailing standard used: Deferential or Rational Basis Scrutiny which establishes a
rational connection to serve legitimate state interest.
Middle Tier or Intermediate Scrutiny: Challenged classification serves important an important
state interest.
Strict Judicial Scrutiny: Burden is on the state to prove that classification achieves a
compelling state interest.
73. As counsel of a complainant, how will ensure that you can obtain a valid search
warrant?
HPS Software and Communication Corp. and Yap v. PLDT, et al., G.R. No. 170217,
170694, December 10, 2012: The Supreme Court has consistently held that the validity of the
issuance of a search warrant rests upon the following factors: (1) it must be issued upon
probable cause; (2) the probable cause must be determined by the judge himself and not by
the applicant or any other person; (3) in the determination of probable cause, the judge must
examine, under oath or affirmation, the complainant and such witnesses as the latter may
produce; and (4) the warrant issued must particularly describe the place to be searched and
persons and things to be seized.
People v. Belocura, G.R. No. 173474, August 29, 2012: The credibility of the evidence of the
corpus delicti in a prosecution for illegal possession of marij11ana under Republic Act No.
6425, as amended, depends on the integrity of the chain of custody of the marijuana from the
time of its seizure until the time of its presentation as evidence in court. Short of that, the
accused is entitled to an acquittal because the State fails to establish the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt.
Chain of Custody doctrine: People v. Ronaldo de Guzman, G.R. No. 186498, March 26,
2010: The law enforcers have the duty to preserve the chain of custody over the seized drugs.
This guaranty of integrity of evidence to be used against the accused goes to the very heart
of his fundamental rights.
Confiscation of seized items despite acquittal under P.D. 969: Nogales v. People, G.R.
191080, November 21, 2011
Probable Cause: HPS Software and Communication Corp. and Yap v. PLDT, et al., G.R.
No. 170217, 170694, December 10, 2012: Probable cause, as a condition for the issuance of
a search warrant, is such reasons supported by facts and circumstances as will warrant a
cautious man to believe that his action and the means taken in prosecuting it are legally just
and proper. It requires facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonably prudent man to
believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in connection with
that offense are in the place to be searched.
Loss of protection of right: Sales v. People, G.R. No. 191023, February 6, 2013: The search
of the contents of petitioners short pants pockets being a valid search pursuant to routine
airport security procedure, the illegal substance (marijuana) seized from him was therefore
admissible in evidence. Petitioners reluctance to show the contents of his short pants pocket
after the friskers hand felt the rolled papers containing marijuana, and his nervous
demeanor aroused the suspicion of the arresting officers that he was indeed carrying an item
or material subject to confiscation by the said authorities.
Yao v. People: personal knowledge is mandatory in issuance of a warrant and not reliable
information.
74. While serving the search warrant, the law enforcers sensed that more unclicensed
firearms were kept in the locked cabinets. They forced open the cabinets and true
enough several high powered firearms were seized but were not covered by the
warrant. Can the accused move for the exclusion of the seizure of the firearms not
covered by the search warrant?
Yes. People v. Nunez: the seizure of items not particularly described in the search warrant
for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 must be returned to the accused unless
they are illegal and will be destroyed by the state.
UNILAB v. Isip: Plain view doctrine will not apply when the following cannot be
proved: prior intrusion must be legal; officer must discover the incriminating
evidence inadvertently; and the object must be immediately apparent.
Exceptions: search incident to a lawful arrest (in flagrante delicto, hot pursuit and
escaped prisoners), search of moving vehicles, plain view doctrine and airport
searches; and all circumstances set forth in the Rules in Criminal Procedure.

75. Cite instances when the freedom of movement may be restricted.

Gudani v. Senga: the power of the President as Commander in Chief was sustained in
restraining officers from testifying before the Senate.
Fr. Roberto P. Reyes v. Gonzalez: Writ of Amparo will not lie to overcome a Hold Departure
Order. The Writ of Amparo was intended to address the intractable problem of
extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances.
OCA v. Judge Ignacio B. Macarine, A.M. No. MTJ-10-1770, July 18, 2012. The Court may
impose travel restrictions on judges.
Marcos v. Sandiganbayan: humanitarian a persons right to travel is subject to the usual
constraints imposed by the very necessity of safeguarding the system of justice. In such
cases, whether the accused should be permitted to leave the jurisdiction for reasons is a
matter of the courts sound discretion.
Other relevant rulings on: Freedom of Abode and Freedom of Movement: the right to
choose ones domicile; right to travel.
Marcos v. COMELEC: the surviving spouse has the right to choose her residence other than
the conjugal home.
Aquino v. COMELEC: a lease contract is not conclusive proof of length of residence to meet
the requirements to run for public office.
Villavicencio v. Lukban: the Mayors order that some 170 individuals be put in custody and
be dispatched to Davao City for work is a valid subject of a writ of habeas corpus. Freedom
of abode is guaranteed for ours is a government of laws and not of men.
76. Are professors of law claim that their allegations against a justice of the Supreme
Court for plagiarism protected by free speech?
No. RE: LETTER OF THE UP LAW FACULTY ENTITLED RESTORING
INTEGRITY: A STATEMENT BY THE FACULTY OF THE COLLEGE OF LAW ON
THE ALLEGATIONS OF PLAGIARISM AND MISREPRESENTATION IN THE
SUPREME COURT (A.M. No. 10-10-4- SC, 2010): The Court has held that the right to
criticize the courts and judicial officers must be balanced against the equally primordial
concern that the independence of the Judiciary be protected from due influence or
interference. In cases where the critics are not only citizens but members of the Bar,
jurisprudence has repeatedly affirmed the authority of this Court to discipline lawyers
whose statements regarding the courts and fellow lawyers, whether judicial or
extrajudicial, have exceeded the limits of fair comment and common decency. The
accusatory and vilifying nature of certain portions of the Statement exceeded the limits
of fair comment and cannot be deemed as protected free speech.
THE DIOCESE OF BACOLOD v. COMELEC (G.R. No. 205728, January 21, 2015)
In upholding the Petition, the Court relied on a the definition of the right as elucidated
by a prominent political theorist -
T]he theory of freedom of expression involves more than a technique for arriving at
better social judgments through democratic procedures. It comprehends a vision of
society, a faith and a whole way of life. The theory grew out of an age that was
awakened and invigorated by the idea of new society in which man's mind was free,
his fate determined by his own powers of reason, and his prospects of creating a
rational and enlightened civilization virtually unlimited. It is put forward as a
prescription for attaining a creative, progressive, exciting and intellectually robust
community. It contemplates a mode of life that, through encouraging toleration,
skepticism, reason and initiative, will allow man to realize his full potentialities. It
spurns the alternative of a society that is tyrannical, conformist, irrational and
stagnant.

OBrien Test on Content-Neutral Restrictions: Social Weather Station v. COMELEC, 357

SCRA 504 (2001) (simple public disclosure of survey results)
Miller Test on Indecent Speech:Soriano v. Laguardia, 587 SCRA 79 (safeguard community
values and morals)
Roth Test on Obscenity: Gonzales v. Kalaw- Katigbak, 137 SCRA 717 (Movie Classification)
Clear and Present Danger Test (Do not use the Dangerous Tendency Test)
A limitation on the freedom of expression may be justified only by a danger of
such substantive character that the state has a right to prevent. Unlike in the "dangerous
tendency" doctrine, the danger must not only be clear but also present. "Present" refers to the
time element; the danger must not only be probable but very likely to be inevitable. The evil
sought to be avoided must be so substantive as to justify a clamp over one's mouth or a
restraint of a writing instrument.

77. May a person who voluntarily surrendered invoke the Miranda rights?
When will Miranda Rights apply
1. One must be in the custody of law enforcers;
2. One must be under investigation for a commission of an offense; and
3. The information sought is testimonial in nature.

Ho Wai Ping v. People, G.R. No. 176229, October 19, 2011: Infraction of the rights of an
accused during custodial investigation or the so-called Miranda Rights render inadmissible
only the extrajudicial confession or admission made during such investigation. "The
admissibility of other evidence, provided they are relevant to the issue and is not otherwise
excluded by law or rules, is not affected even if obtained or taken in the course of custodial
investigation."
78. What is transactional immunity?
Disini v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 180564, June 22, 2010: Government may enter into an
agreement to grant immunity provided grantee will become a state witness.
Transactional Immunity - two kinds of statutory criminal immunity available to a witness:
transactional immunity and the use-and-derivative-use immunity. Transactional
immunity is broader in the scope of its protection. By its grant, a witness can no longer be
prosecuted for any offense whatsoever arising out of the act or transaction to which the
testimony relates. In contrast, by the grant of use-and-derivative-use immunity, a witness is
only assured that his or her particular testimony and evidence derived from it will not be
used against him or her in a subsequent prosecution. (Tanchanco v. Sandiganbayan, 476
SCRA 202, 2005)

79. If one has been convicted for violation of an ordinance, may be held accountable
again under a national law?
No. Requisites of Double Jeopardy (Ivler v. San Pedro, G.R. No. 172716, November 17,
2010):
1. Identity of the elements of the crime committed as set forth in the
information.
2. Accused has entered his plea.
3. Prosecution and the defense have presented evidence.
4. The court has ruled on the merits.
5. The decision has become final and executory.

People v. Dante Tan G.R. No. 167526, July 26, 2010: In People v. Sandiganbayan, the
Supreme Court explained the general rule that the grant of a demurrer to evidence operates as
an acquittal and is, thus, final and unappealable. The demurrer to evidence in criminal cases
is "filed after the prosecution had rested its case," and when the same is granted, it calls "for
an appreciation of the evidence adduced by the prosecution and its sufficiency to warrant
conviction beyond reasonable doubt, resulting in a dismissal of the case on the merits,
tantamount to an acquittal of the accused.

Bangayan, Jr., v. Bangayan, G.R. No. 172777, October 19, 2011: It is well-settled that in
criminal cases where the offended party is the State, the interest of the private complainant or
the private offended party is limited to the civil liability. Thus, in the prosecution of the
offense, the complainant's role is limited to that of a witness for the prosecution. If a criminal
case is dismissed by the trial court or if there is an acquittal, only the OSG, and not the
private offended party, has the authority to question the order granting the demurrer to
evidence in a criminal case.
It has been consistently held that in criminal cases, the acquittal of the accused or the
dismissal of the case against him can only be appealed by the Solicitor General, acting on
behalf of the State. The private complainant or the offended party may question such
acquittal or dismissal only insofar as the civil liability of the accused is concerned.
The exception where the acquittal may be questioned based on denial of the State's right to
due process can be found in Galman v. Sandiganbayan (1986)

Exception, when invoked: Lejano v. People, G.R. Nos. 176389 and 176864, January 18,
2011: To reconsider a judgment of acquittal places the accused twice in jeopardy of
being punished for the crime of which he has already been absolved. There is reason for
this provision of the Constitution. In criminal cases, the full power of the State is ranged
against the accused.

80. Can a person accused of plunder be entitled to bail?

Yes. In JUAN PONCE ENRILE v. SANDIGANBAYAN (THIRD DIVISION), AND
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, the Court granted Senator Enrile the right to bail.
The Court elucidated that purpose of bail is to guarantee the appearance of the accused at
 the trial, or whenever so required by the trial court. The amount of bail should be high
enough to assure the presence of the accused when so required, but it should be no
higher than is reasonably calculated to fulfill this purpose. Thus, bail acts as a
reconciling mechanism to accommodate both the accuseds interest in his provisional
liberty before or during the trial, and the societys interest in assuring the accuseds
presence at trial. It further said that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be
presumed innocent until the contrary is proved. The presumption of innocence is rooted
in the guarantee of due process, and is safeguarded by the constitutional right to be
released on bail and further binds the court to wait until after trial to impose any
punishment on the accused.
The Court is further mindful of the Philippines responsibility in the international community
arising from the national commitment under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to:
x x x uphold the fundamental human rights as well as value the worth and dignity of every
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibra

person. This commitment is enshrined in Section II, Article II of our Constitution which
provides: The State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for
human rights. The Philippines, therefore, has the responsibility of protecting and
promoting the right of every person to liberty and due process, ensuring that those
detained or arrested can participate in the proceedings before a court, to enable it to
decide without delay on the legality of the detention and order their release if justified.
In other words, the Philippine authorities are under obligation to make available to
every person under detention such remedies which safeguard their fundamental right to
liberty. These remedies include the right to be admitted to bail.