ARTICLE VIII JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT Section 1.

The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law. Supreme Court is the only court which is created by the Constitution. Lower Courts: CA, RTC, MTC, MCTC, METC, SB, CTA, Sharia Courts, Sharia Circuit Court. Quasi-judicial courts are special courts for they perform similar judicial functions. Traditional Concept of judicial power Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, Expanded power of judicial review 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 the Government. Q. What are the difference, if any, between the scope of judicial power under the 1987 constitution on one hand, and the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions on the other? A: The scope of judicial power under the 1987 Constitution is broader than its scope under the 1935 and 1973 Constitution because of the second paragraph of Section 1, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution, which states that it includes the duty 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 the Government. This provision limits resort to the political question doctrine and broadens the scope of juridical inquiry into areas which the courts under the 1935 and the 1973 Constitutions would normally have left to the political departments to decide. Political Question-are questions of policy, they involve the wisdom of an act, or the efficacy or necessity of a particular measure: Sprung from the Doctrine of Separation of Powers. 1. Those questions which are to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity; E.g. Recall = is a mode of removing a local official even before the end of his term on the sole ground of loss of confidence (Verdone vs. Comelec); Lawyers League for a Better Philippines vs. Pres. Aquino and Estrada vs. Desierto The legitimacy of the Aquino government is not a justiciable matter. It belongs to the realm of politics where only the people of the Philippines are the judge. And the people have made the judgment, they have accepted the government of President Corazon C. Aquino, which is in effective control of the entire country so that it is not merely a de facto government but in fact and in law a de jure government. Moreover, the community of nations has recognized the legitimacy of the present government. The legitimacy of the Arroyo government is a justiciable matter. The principal issues for

resolution require the proper interpretation of certain provisions in the 1987 Constitution, thus the respondents invocation of the doctrine of PQ is but a foray in the dark. EDSA I Political Question Extra-constitutional = the legitimacy of the new govt that resulted from a successful revolution cannot be subject to judicial review, for it orbited out of the Constitutional loop Exercise of the people power of revolution EDSA II Legal Question Intra-Constitutional= the resignation of the sitting president and the succession by the VP are subject to judicial review

Exercise of people power of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly to petition the govt for redress to grievances that only affected the office of the President.

2. Those, in regard to which, full discretionary authority has been delegated by the Constitution to the executive or legislative branch. (Tanada vs. Cuenco) E.g. Calling-out Power (IBP vs. Zamora) Art. VII Section 18. The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. In here the President necessarily exercise a power solely vested in his wisdom; unless the petitioner can show that the exercise of such discretion was gravely abused, the Presidents exercise of judgment deserves to be accorded respect from this Court. Q. How about the other powers to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law as provided in Art. VII, Secs 18, is it a political question? A. No, such powers involve a curtailment of rights, thus it is bound by great limitations. The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or the extension thereof, and must promulgate its decision thereon within thirty days from its filing. (Art. VII, Sec 18, par. 3) David vs. GMA Under the calling-out power, the President may summon the armed forces to aid him in suppressing lawless violence, invasion and rebellion. He cannot invoke a greater power when he wishes to act under a lesser power. There lies the wisdom of our Constitution, the greater the power, the greater are the limitations. Justice Mendoza also stated that PP 1017 is not a declaration of Martial Law. It is no more than a call by the President to the armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence. As such, it cannot be used to justify acts that only under a valid declaration of Martial Law can be done. Its use for any other purpose is a perversion of its nature and scope, and any act done contrary to its command is ultra vires. 1

Justice Mendoza further stated that specifically, (a) arrests and seizures without judicial warrants; (b) ban on public assemblies; (c) take-over of news media and agencies and press censorship; and (d) issuance of Presidential Decrees, are powers which can be exercised by the President as Commander-inChief only where there is a valid declaration of Martial Law or suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. Based on the above disquisition, it is clear that PP 1017 is not a declaration of Martial Law. It is merely an exercise of President Arroyos calling-out power for the armed forces to assist her in preventing or suppressing lawless violence. Following requisites must be present for the exercise of the power of judicial review: a.) There must be an actual case or controversy involving a conflict of legal rights susceptible of judicial determination. Q. What is an "actual case or controversy"? A. An "actual case or controversy" means an existing case or controversy which is both ripe for resolution and susceptible of judicial determination, and that which is not conjectural or anticipatory, or that which seeks to resolve hypothetical or feigned constitutional problems. (IBP vs. Zamora) ICJ can render an advisory opinion on legal questions and settle in accordance with international law the legal disputes submitted to it by the states. A moot and academic case is one that ceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events, so that a declaration thereon would be of no practical use or value Exceptions: 1. Grave violation of the Constitution; 2. exceptional character of the situation and the paramount public interest involve; 3. when constitutional issue raised requires the formulation of controlling principles to guide the bench, the bar and the public; 4. the case is capable of repetition yet evading review. b.) The constitutional question must be raised by the proper party. A proper party is one who has sustained or is in imminent danger of sustaining an injury as a result of the act complained of. Locus standi is defined as a right of appearance in a court of justice on a given question. The mere invocation by the IBP of its duty to preserve the rule of law and nothing more, while undoubtedly true, is not sufficient to clothe it with standing in this case. This is too general an interest which is shared by other groups and the whole citizenry Having stated the foregoing, it must be emphasized that this Court has the discretion to take cognizance of a suit which does not satisfy the requirement of legal standing when paramount interest is involved. In not a few cases, the Court has adopted a liberal attitude on the locus standi of a petitioner where the petitioner is able to craft an issue of

transcendental significance to the people. (IBP vs. Zamora) Taxpayers Suit: 1. Public funds are disbursed by a political subdivision or instrumentality; 2. In doing so, a law is law is violated or some irregularity is committed, and that the petitioner is directly affected. c.) The constitutional question must be raised at the earliest opportunity. Raised it in a pleading before a competent court that can resolve the same, such that if not raised in the pleadings, it cannot be considered on appeal. Court may determine, in the exercise of sound discretion, the time when a constitutional issue may be passed upon. (Mailbag vs. Benipayo) d.) The decision of the constitutional question must be necessary to the determination of the case itself. Moreover, the legality of petitioners reassignment hinges on the constitutionality of Benipayos ad interim appointment and assumption of office. Unless the constitutionality of Benipayos ad interim appointment and assumption of office is resolved, the legality of petitioners reassignment from the EID to the Law Department cannot be determined. Clearly, the lis mota of this case is the very constitutional issue raised by petitioner. 3 Important Functions of Court: 1. Checking= when courts declares an act by the executive or legislative as unconstitutional; 2. Legitimizing= when the court sustains the act of the President or the Congress; 3. Symbolizing= even if it is already moot and academic, court may still resolve the costs on their merits. ARTICLE XVII AMENDMENTS OR REVISIONS Constitution of Sovereignty Amendments are piece meal change or addition that would not drastically affect the fundamental laws. E.g. Change in the voting requirement. Revisions are substantial changes or an overhaul of the fundamental laws. E.g. A change from Presidential to Parliamentary, since it would result to combination of legislative and executive. Section 1. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be proposed by: (1) The Congress, upon a vote of threefourths of all its Members; or (2) A constitutional convention. Section 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition of at least twelve per centum of the total number of registered voters, of which every legislative district must be represented by at least three per centum of the registered voters therein. No amendment under this section shall be authorized within five years following the ratification of this Constitution nor oftener than once every five years thereafter. 2

The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of this right. Test adopted to determine whether the amendment or revision will be right. Quantitative = on how many provisions will be changed; Qualitative = kind of change sought to be effected. Two stages in Amendments or Revisions: 1. Proposal; 3 Methods of Proposal: 1. Constitutional Assembly = votes of all its members in a CONASS, which is a nonlegislative functions; 2. Constitutional Convention = Sec 1, par 2 and Sec 2, Article XVII 2/3 votes of all its members calls for CONCON; by a majority vote of all its members and submission to the electorate by means of plebiscite; 3. Through peoples initiative (plebiscite) = a petition of at least 12% of the total registered voters, represented by at least 3% of all legislative districts. Only limited to proposing amendments and not revisions, unlike the first two. It is a non self-executing provision, as provided by par 2, Sec 2, Article XVII, despite the enactment of RA 6735. RA 6735 is inadequate to cover the system of initiative to amend the constitution because while Sec 3 mentions initiative on the Constitution and Sec 5 restates the constitutional requirements as to the percentage of registered voters needed for a proposal, the law does not provide for the contents of a petition for initiative on the Constitution; while there are subtitles for national and local initiatives, there is no subtitle for the initiative on the Constitution; thus, the law is incomplete, and this inadequacy cannot be cured by empowering the COMELEC to promulgate implementing rules and regulations. A revision cannot be done by initiative which, by express provision of Section 2 of Article XVII of the Constitution, is limited to amendments. (Santiago vs. Comelec) 2. Ratification made through a plebiscite called for that purpose. Sec 4, Art XVII Section 4. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution under Section 1 hereof shall be valid when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than sixty days nor later than ninety days after the approval of such amendment or revision. Any amendment under Section 2 hereof shall be valid when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than sixty days nor later than ninety days after the certification by the Commission on Elections of the sufficiency of the petition. Also Sec 32, Article VI, provides for the creation of a system of initiative and referendum, which is RA 6735 DOCTRINE OF STATE IMMUNITY The State may not be sued without its consent. Article XVI Section 3

Even without the above section, still the doctrine applies, by virtue of Sec 2, Article 2, which is the Doctrine of Incorporation. Under this doctrine,, such principles are deemed incorporated in the law of every civilized state as a condition and consequence of its membership in the society of nations. Sovereign Equality of States = par in parem, non habet imperium. The royal prerogative of dishonesty, for it grants privilege to a state to defeat any legitimate claim against it by simply invoking its non-suability. Only when foreign states expressly waives such, will the suit prosper. There can be no legal right as against the authority that makes the law on which the right depends (Justice Holmes) Gen Rule: State cannot be sued. Except: There is consent; Waiver Kinds of waiver: EXPRESS WAIVER Only the Congress can waive immunity from suit through enactment of a general or special law, since it is a derogation of sovereignty. a. General Laws: Act No 3083=money claims arising from express or implied contracts with the govt CA No 327 = General Auditing Law as amended by PD 1445, which requires that all money claims against the govt must first be filed with COA before the suit is instituted in court. The ground of lack of cause of action for not having exhausted administrative remedies will come to play if suit is not filed first to COA If refused payment by COA, go to SC with a petition for certiorari. b. Special Laws Article 2180, par 6 of the NCC = special agents The State is responsible in like manner when it acts through a special agent; but not when the damage has been caused by the official to whom the task done properly pertains; in which case what is provided in Article 2176 shall be applicable. Article 2189 of the NCC = LGUs defective maintenance of public works Provinces, cities and municipalities shall be liable for damages for the death of, or injuries suffered by, any person by reason of the defective condition of roads, streets, bridges, public buildings, and other public works under their control or supervision. Ownership is immaterial for what is determinative is who has control or supervision of such road. City of Dagupan Case Sec 4 of RA 409 refers to liability arising from negligence in general, regardless of the object thereof, whereas, Article 2189 of the NCC governs liability due to defective streets in particular, even if such is a general law. City of Manila vs. Teotico Sec 24, RA 7160 = LGUs liability for damage to property. Liability for Damages. Local government units and their officials are not exempt from liability for death or injury to persons or damage to property. 3

IMPLIED WAIVER a. when the State commences litigation, thus opening itself to counterclaim; b. When it enters to a contract with a private individuals Old rule: State is deemed to have waived immunity, for he descends to the level of a private individual; New rule: Distinctions has to be made. (Restrictive Doctrine of State Immunity) Government Acts (acta jure imperii) = only in this act, where immunity from suit can be availed by the State. The transaction involves the improvement of the wharves in the naval installation as Subic Bay. As this was a government function, the contract did not divest the US of its sovereign immunity from suit. US vs. Ruiz The ruling was unfair, but because the issue has become one of international law, state immunity applies. The remedy of the private individual is to convince the DFA to take up the case against the govt. A driver of a municipality engaged in the performance of governmental function, is exempt from liability. (damnum absque injuria) Municipality of San Fernando La Union vs Judge Firma. Private, Commercial and Proprietary Acts (acta jure gestionis) The restaurant services offered at the John Hay Station partake the nature of a business enterprise undertaken by the US govt in its proprietary function, for it is open not only to the member of the US Armed Forces but to the public, thus undoubtedly, it is operated for profit as a commercial entity. US vs. Guinto A celebration of town fiesta is not a govt function but a proprietary one, thus, the municipality may be held liable for the injury suffered by one of the workers who fell while constructing the same. The mere fact that the celebration, as claimed was not to secure profit or gain but merely to provide entertainment to the town inhabitants is not a conclusive test. Torio vs. Fontanilla SUABILITY vs. LIABILITY OF THE STATE Suability refers to the right of the state to sue and be sued, while Liability merely gives the opportunity for the govt to be sued but may be held not liable, when it proposes positive defenses to absolve it. Municipal corporations exist in a dual capacity, and their functions are two-fold. In one, they exercise the right springing from sovereignty, and while in the performance of the duties pertaining thereto, their acts are political and governmental. Their agents and officers in such capacity though elected and appointed by them are nevertheless public functionaries performing a public service. In the other capacity, they exercise a proprietary, private or corporate rights arising from their existence as private person and not as public agencies. In the case of Municipality of San Fernando vs. Judge Firme, the driver is exercising a governmental function, which is that he is on his way to get a load of sand and gravel for the repair of the San Fernando municipal streets.

Q. What if the dump truck was carrying a lumber for the repair of a public market? A. Public Market is a business enterprise of a LGU and is engaged in commercial and proprietary functions. Q. After trial, judgment was rendered against the government, may the government funds in the PNB be garnished or may the property of the government be levied? A. The waiver does not extend to the execution of judgment, for another waiver is required. Otherwise the government will be paralyzed in the performance of its functions. REMEDY: To make necessary representation to the Congress to enact appropriation measures to satisfy the judgment. If still the government refuses to enact the appropriate measure. MANDAMUS will lie, for there is already a final judgment, and the state should be the first the one to respect the courts ruling. Municipality of Makati vs. CA Generally the duty to appropriate is discretionary, however if there is already a final judgment, it now becomes a ministerial duty. Rule 67(Expropriation of Eminent Domain) Government entered the property without undergoing the expropriation procedure and proceeded to level out the property of petitioner, it is deemed an implied waiver because the State opened itself to litigation whereby the petitioner may file counterclaims for the failure of the govt to expropriate the said property. Thus, where the govt violated its own rules, the Doctrine of immunity cannot be invoked to perpetrate injustice. Amigable vs. Cuenca DFA intervened certifying that the Holy See is immune from the local jurisdiction. This became binding with the Courts rendering Holy See immune from suit, thereby the case was dismissed. Holy See vs. Rosario Suits against government agency: Incorporated = has a separate personality distinct from the government. Look at the charter, whether it can be sued or not; E.g. GSIS, SSS Unincorporated = has no separate personality. Look for waiver of such agency. E.g. BIR, DOH, Customs Suits against public officers: Gen rule: Doctrine of state immunity applies when the public officers acts are in the performance of their duties Except: When the acts of the public officer in his official capacity are unlawful and injurious to the rights of others; Also acts committed in bad faith; Lastly, it does not apply where the officer is being charged in his personal capacity. Amado J. Lansang vs. CA ARTICLE IV CITIZENSHIP Section 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines: [1] Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of this Constitution; (February 2, 1987)

[2] Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines; The Philippine law on citizenship adheres to the principle of jus sanguinis. Thereunder, a child follows the nationality or citizenship of the parents regardless of the place of his/her birth, as opposed to the doctrine of jus soli which determines nationality or citizenship on the basis of place of birth. [3] Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority; and Exception to Sec 2. Upon election of Philippine citizenship, he/she is natural born. Q. Can a legitimate child born under the 1935 Constitution of a Filipino mother and an alien father validly elect Philippine citizenship fourteen (14) years after he has reached the age of majority? A. Those born of Filipino mothers and alien fathers before the effectivity of the 1935 Constitution provides that they should elect Phil. Citizenship at a reasonable time, which is within 3 years upon reaching the age of majority. However if the child was illegitimate, the child will follow the citizenship of the mother, which is Filipino. Re: Application for Admission to the Philippine Bar, Vicente D. Ching, Bar Matter No. 914 The 1935 was the governing law, where it provided that those whose fathers are citizens of the Philippines, whether they be legitimate or not are citizens of the Philippines. Any conclusion on the Filipino citizenship of Lorenzo Pou could only be drawn from the presumption that having died in 1954 at 84 years old, Lorenzo would have been born sometime in the year 1870, when the Philippines was under Spanish rule, and that San Carlos, Pangasinan, his place of residence upon his death in 1954, in the absence of any other evidence, could have well been his place of residence before death, such that Lorenzo Pou would have benefited from the en masse Filipinization that the Philippine Bill had effected in 1902. That citizenship (of Lorenzo Pou), if acquired, would thereby extend to his son, Allan F. Poe, father of respondent FPJ. The 1935 Constitution, during which regime respondent FPJ has seen first light, confers citizenship to all persons whose fathers are Filipino citizens regardless of whether such children are legitimate or illegitimate. Tecson vs. Comelec [4] Those who are naturalized in accordance with law. Naturalized citizens are those who have become Filipino citizens through naturalization, generally under CA No. 473, otherwise known as the Revised Naturalization Law, which repealed the former Naturalization Law (Act No. 2927), and by RA No. 530. To be naturalized, an applicant has to prove that he possesses all the qualifications and none of the disqualification provided by law to become a Filipino citizen. The decision granting Philippine citizenship becomes executory only after two (2) years from its promulgation when the court is satisfied that during the intervening period, the applicant has (1) not left the Philippines; (2) has dedicated himself to a lawful calling or

profession; (3) has not been convicted of any offense or violation of Government promulgated rules; or (4) committed any act prejudicial to the interest of the nation or contrary to any Government announced policies. Section 2. Natural-born citizens are those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship. Those who elect Philippine citizenship in accordance with paragraph (3), Section 1 hereof shall be deemed natural-born citizens. 2 ways of acquiring citizenship: (1) by birth, and (2) by naturalization. 2 kinds of citizen: Bengson III vs. HRET Natural Born = are those citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect his Philippine citizenship. Except, those under Art 1, 3, who needs to elect Philippine citizenship. Sec 2 Naturalized = are those who have become Filipino citizens through naturalization, generally under CA No. 473, otherwise known as the Revised Naturalization Law, which repealed the former Naturalization Law (Act No. 2927), and by RA No. 530. (Sec 1, no 4) Section 3. Philippine citizenship may be lost or reacquired in the manner provided by law. Filipino citizens who have lost their citizenship may reacquire the same in the manner provided by law. CA No. 63 enumerates the three modes by which Philippine citizenship may be reacquired by a former citizen: (1) by naturalization; A mode for both acquisition and reacquisition of Philippine citizenship. As a mode of initially acquiring Philippine citizenship, naturalization is governed by CA No. 473, as amended. On the other hand, naturalization as a mode for reacquiring Philippine citizenship is governed by CA No. 63 (An Act Providing for the Ways in Which Philippine Citizenship May Be Lost or Reacquired [1936]). Under this law, a former Filipino citizen who wishes to reacquire Philippine citizenship must possess certain qualifications and none of the disqualifications mentioned in Section 4 of C.A. 473. (2) by repatriation; and May be had under various statutes by those who lost their citizenship due to: (1) desertion of the armed forces (Section 4, C.A. No. 63); (2) service in the armed forces of the allied forces in World War II (Section 1, RA No. 965 [1953]); (3) service in the Armed Forces of the United States at any other time (Sec. 1, RA No. 2630 [1960]); (4) marriage of a Filipino woman to an alien (Sec. 1, RA No. 8171= must be applied to Special Committee on Naturalization. [1995]); and (5) political and economic necessity (Ibid). As distinguished from the lengthy process of naturalization, repatriation simply consists of the taking of an oath of allegiance to 5

the Republic of the Philippines and registering said oath in the Local Civil Registry of the place where the person concerned resides or last resided. Repatriation results in the recovery of the original nationality. This means that a naturalized Filipino who lost his citizenship will be restored to his prior status as a naturalized Filipino citizen. On the other hand, if he was originally a natural-born citizen before he lost his Philippine citizenship, he will be restored to his former status as a natural-born Filipino. Antonio Bengson III vs. HRET (3) by direct act of Congress. Requires: Take an oath of allegiance; Registering in the Office of Civil Registrar where he resides. Section 4. Citizens of the Philippines who marry aliens shall retain their citizenship, unless by their act or omission, they are deemed, under the law, to have renounced it. It is now applicable not only to Filipino women, as provided by the 1973 Constitution, but to citizens, which include Filipino men. In order that citizenship may be lost by renunciation, such renunciation must be express. In the case of Aznar v. COMELEC, the Court ruled that the mere fact that he is an American did not mean that he is no longer a Filipino, and that an application for an alien certificate of registration was not tantamount to renunciation of his Philippine citizenship. And, in Mercado v. Manzano and COMELEC, it was held that the fact that respondent Manzano was registered as an American citizen in the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation and was holding an American passport on April 22, 1997, only a year before he filed a certificate of candidacy for vice-mayor of Makati, were just assertions of his American nationality before the termination of his American citizenship. Congressman Ong was born before January 17, 1973 of Filipino mother and Chinese father, who later became naturalized Filipino, thus petitioner by Derivative Citizenship followed his father. Co vs. HRET Section 5. Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt with by law. Non-self executing provision. Dual allegiance, on the other hand, refers to a situation in which a person simultaneously owes, by some positive act, loyalty to two or more states. While dual citizenship is involuntary, dual allegiance is the result of an individuals volition. Hence, the phrase dual citizenship in R.A. No. 7160, Section 40(d) (Local Government Code) must be understood as referring to dual allegiance. Consequently, persons with mere dual citizenship do not fall under this disqualification. Unlike those with dual allegiance, who must be subject to strict process with respect to the termination of their status, for candidates with dual citizenship, it should suffice if, upon the filing of their certificate of candidacy, they elect Philippine citizenship to terminate their status as persons with dual

citizenship considering that their condition is the unavoidable consequence of conflicting laws of different states. Mercado vs. Manzano Instances when a citizen of the Philippines may possess dual citizenship: 1) Those born of Filipino fathers and/or mothers in foreign countries which follow the principle of jus soli; 2) Those born in the Philippines of Filipino mothers and alien fathers if by the laws of their fathers country such children are citizens of that country; 3) Those who marry aliens if by the laws of the latters country the former are considered citizens, unless by their act or omission they are deemed to have renounced Philippine citizenship. Requisites for application of res judicata doctrine in cases of citizenship: 1) a persons citizenship be raised as a material issue in a controversy where said person is a party; 2) the Solicitor General or his authorized representative took active part in the resolution thereof, and 3) the finding on citizenship is affirmed by this Court. Burca vs. Republic RA 9225 = Citizenship Reacquisition Act of 2003 Retention and

2 situations: Retention and Reacquisition = there must be taking an oath of allegiance on either. Section 4. Derivative Citizenship - The unmarried child, whether legitimate, illegitimate or adopted, below eighteen (18) years of age, of those who re-acquire Philippine citizenship upon effectivity of this Act shall be deemed citizenship of the Philippines. STRUCTURE OF GOVERNMENT Executive = power to implement the law (power of the sword) Sec 1, Article VI Legislative = power to enact, alter, amend or repeal the law. (Power of the purse) Sec 1, Article VII Judicial = power to interpret the law. (Power of judicial review) Sec 1, Article VIII Doctrine of Separation of Powers = purpose is to secure action, forestall over-action, to prevent despotism and to obtain efficiency. Principle of Checks and Balances = objective is to avoid the concentration of powers into one branch only. It is a system of counteraction by means of which one department is allowed to resist enforcement upon its prerogatives or to rectify the mistakes or excesses committed by any of its co-equal departments. Potestas delegate non delegari potesta= What has been delegated cannot be delegated: Except: PETAL Delegation to people through initiative and referendum; Article VI, Sec 32, Enactment of the implementing law of RA 6735 Delegation to the president of emergency powers; Sec 23, par 2 Art. VI Requisites: 1. In times of war or other national emergency; 6

2. For a limited period; 3. Subject to such restrictions as Congress may prescribe; 4. To exercise powers necessary and proper to carry out a declared national policy. Last paragraph provides that there is no need for another enactment of the law to withdraw such powers for it hall cease upon the next adjournment of Congress. Delegation of tariff powers to the president; Sec 28, par 2 Art. VI Authorized by law enacted by Congress. Delegation to administrative bodies; Delegation to LGU. Test for Valid Permissible Delegation: Completeness Test = law must be complete on all its essential terms and conditions when enacted, so that there shall be nothing left to do when it reaches the delegate but just to enforce it; Sufficient Standard Test = limits of the law are sufficiently determinable and determined to which the delegate must conform in the performance of his functions. The legislative standard need not be expressed, for it can be found in other repealed statutes or it may be simply gathered or implied. Chiongbian vs. Orbos ARTICLE VI LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT Section 1. The legislative power shall be vested in the Congress of the Philippines which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives, except to the extent reserved to the people by the provision on initiative and referendum. To be read in correlation with Sec 32, where legislative must enact a law for peoples initiative and referendum, which is RA 6735. Q: this reservation of the people to directly enact laws, is this self executing? A: NO. Sec. 32 of Article VI provides that the congress shall as early as possible, provide for a system of initiative and referendum thus the congress is mandated to enact that so called initiative and referendum law. Which the congress has complied with the mandate by enacting R.A. 6735 the Initiative and Referendum Law. Non-legislative function: When the Congress acts as Constituent Assembly; Investigative power in aid of legislation; Sec 21 Article VI Impeachment Court; National Board of Canvassers in Presidential and Vice-presidential elections; Amnesty proclamations; Declaration of State of War; Sec 23(1) Article VI Determination of the Incapacity of the President to discharge his functions; Sec 11, last par Article VII Emergency power delegated through enactment of law; Sec 23(2) Article VI Electoral tribunal; Treaty concurrence; Sec 19, par 2 Article VII INITIATIVE Power of the people TO PROPOSE or AMEND a law

REFERENDUM Power of the people TO DECIDE whether or not an act or measure passed by a legislative body should become a law. Composition of Congress: 1. 24 Senators (Sec 2, Article VI) 2. Number of members of House of Representatives, have undergone changes, by reason of Article VI Sec 5(4). (Power of reapportionment of legislative districts) Within three years following the return of every census, the Congress shall make a reapportionment of legislative districts based on the standards provided in this section. Bicameral Conference Committee Sec 27, Article VI The mechanism for compromising differences between the Senate and the House. Q. Discuss the nature of its function and its jurisdiction? A conference committee may deal generally with the subject matter or it may be limited to resolving the precise differences between the two houses. Even where the conference committee is not by rule limited in its jurisdiction, legislative custom severely limits the freedom with which new subject matter can be inserted into the conference bill. But occasionally a conference committee produces unexpected results, results beyond its mandate. These excursions occur even where the rules impose strict limitations on conference committee jurisdiction. This is symptomatic of the authoritarian power of conference committee. Philippine Judges Association vs. Prado Kinds of Congressman: District representatives = 80% Party-list representative = 20% (Article VI Sec 5, par. 2. The party-list representatives shall constitute twenty per centum of the total number of representatives including those under the party list The party-list system is a social justice tool designed not only to give more law to the great masses of our people who have less in life, but also to enable them to become veritable lawmakers themselves, empowered to participate directly in the enactment of laws designed to benefit them. It intends to make the marginalized and the underrepresented not merely passive recipients of the States benevolence, but active participants in the mainstream of representative democracy. The party-list system is not open to all, for there is qualifications to be complied with, for it would create a mirage and not hope to the marginalized and unrepresented. Ang Bagong Bayani OFW Labor Party vs. Comelec Inviolable parameters of party-list election: Constitution and Republic Act No. 7941 Copied from the German Model Party list System. First, the twenty percent allocation the combined number of all party-list congressmen shall not exceed twenty percent of 7

the total membership of the House of Representatives, including those elected under the party list. Formula: # of DR x 20 = # of PLR 80 E.g 320 x 20 = 80 party-list representative 80 If answer fractional representation, like 80.25, it will be 80 party-list representative. For if it will be rounded-off, it will be 81, thus exceeding the 20% allocation. (GUIGONA vs. GONZALES) Second, the two percent threshold only those garnering a minimum of two percent of the total valid votes cast for the party-list system are "qualified" to have a seat in the House of Representatives. Formula: Total # of party list votes x .02 = votes needed for a qualifying party list seat E.g 5M voted for party-list. 5,000,000 x .02 = 100,000 votes Third, the three seat limit - each qualified party, regardless of the number of votes it actually obtained, is entitled to a maximum of three seats; that is, one "qualifying" and two additional seats. Purpose is to avoid monopoly and to avoid a situation where on party-list may cover the whole 20% allocation. Formula: Votes needed for qualifying seat x 3 = 3 party list seat. E.g. 200,000 votes is for 1 qualifying seat Multiplied by 3, the party list needs at least 600,000 or have 6% threshold votes to have 2 additional seats. Fourth, proportional representation the additional seats which a qualified party is entitled to shall be computed "in proportion to their total number of votes." E.g. 200,000 votes is the 2% threshold limit. An additional 200,000 will give 1 additional seat and so thus another 200,000 will give another last additional seat. Q. 123 party-lists joined the 1998 elections, where there were 208 district Congressmen, thereby 52 seats were allocated for party-list representatives. Only 12 qualified for the 2% threshold limit, and 1 obtained an additional seat. The Comelec distributed the remaining 38 seats to the non-qualifying party-list, for reasons that social justice will be served if more party-list were elected. Is it proper? A. No, the act of Comelec is already a violation of the Doctrine of Separation of powers, for the Legislature had already provided RA 7941, which is the law that provided the four inviolable parameters. With regard to the remaining seats, nothing can be done. It should not be allocated to anyone because Sec 5(2) Article VI is not mandatory, for it merely provides a ceiling for the party-list in Congress. Veterans Federation Party vs. Comelec

Q. What is to be done on votes tallied in favor of a party-list who did not qualify, should it be deducted? A. The doctrines laid down in Labo and Grego is to be reviewed. In the Labo case, the votes cast for an ineligible candidate cannot be considered as stray votes; otherwise the voters will be disenfranchised. However if the voters voted in favor of the candidate fully knowing that he is disqualified, such votes are stray. Despite such, party list does not involve a single elective post as held in Labo and Grego. RA 7941, Sec 10, provides that a vote cast for a party, sectoral organization, or coalition not entitled to be voted for shall not be counted. Parliamentary Immunities: Article VI, Sec 11 Privileged from arrest = A Senator or Member of the House of Representatives shall, in all offenses punishable by not more than six years imprisonment, be privileged from arrest while the Congress is in session. Session means from the adjournment of session. opening to the

Two kinds: Regular = Sec 15, Article VI Section 15. The Congress shall convene once every year on the fourth Monday of July for its regular session, unless a different date is fixed by law, and shall continue to be in session for such number of days as it may determine until thirty days before the opening of its next regular session, exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays. Q. What if after 15 days from the fourth Monday of July, the Congress adjourned. Is it valid? A. Yes. Article VI, Sec 15 provides that the determination of the number of days is determined by Congress, for as long as such is 30 days before opening if regular session. (Compulsory Adjournment Session) Special =Article VI, Sec 15 last sentence; The President may call a special session at any time. Instances where Congress may meet in special session without call by president: Declaration of State of War; Sec 23(1) Article VI Determination of the Incapacity of the President to discharge his functions; Sec 11, last par Article VII Revocation of the proclamation of martial law or suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus; Sec 18 Article VII In case of vacancy of both Pres and VP positions, Congress enact a law calling for a special election; Sec 10 Article VII Impeachment Cases; In the matter of canvassing the elections of Pres and VP; Q. May Congressman Jalosjos invoke the privilege from arrest? A. No. Jalosjos has not given any reason why he should be exempted from the operation of the immunity. The Congress cannot compel absent person members to attend sessions if the reason for their absence is a legitimate one. 8

The performance of legitimate and even essential duties by public officers has never been an excuse to free a person validly in prison. The importance of a function depends on the need for its exercise. The duty of a mother to nurse her infant is most compelling under the law of nature. A doctor with unique skills has the duty to save the lives of those with a particular affliction. An elective governor has to serve provincial constituents. A police officer must maintain peace and order. Never has the call of a particular duty lifted a prisoner into a different classification from those others who are validly restrained by law. Q. Is he entitled to post bail? A. The fact that he is already convicted in the RTC is an indication that evidence of his guilt is strong. Hence he is not entitled to bail. Doctrine of Condonation or Forgiveness: The court should never remove an elective public officer for acts done prior to his present term of office. When the people have elected a man to office, it must be assumed that they did this with the knowledge of his life and character, and that they disregarded or forgave his fault or misconduct, if he had been guilty of any. It is not for the Court, by reason of such fault or misconduct, to practically overrule the will of the people. (Aguinaldo vs. Santos) Applies only in administrative cases not to criminal cases. Disenfranchising the electorate. Election is the expression of the sovereign power of the people. In the exercise of suffrage, a free people expect to achieve the continuity of government and the perpetuation of its benefits. However, in spite of its importance, the privileges and rights arising from having been elected may be enlarged or restricted by law When the voters of his district elected the accused-appellant to Congress, they did so with full awareness of the limitations on his freedom of action. They did so with the knowledge that he could achieve only such legislative results which he could accomplish within the confines of prison. To give a more drastic illustration, if voters elect a person with full knowledge that he is suffering from a terminal illness, they do so knowing that at any time, he may no longer serve his full term in office. Freedom of speech and debate = No Member shall be questioned nor be held liable in any other place for any speech or debate in the Congress or in any committee thereof. Q. Senator X delivered a speech, where he maligned Mr. Y. Will an action for oral defamation or slander filed against Senator X prosper? A. No. Section 15, Article VI provides for any speech or debate in Congress, the Senators or Members of the House of Representatives shall not be questioned in any other place. Nevertheless they can be questioned in Congress itself. Q. What if Senator X was expelled from Senate because he delivered a speech that maligned the President? Is it a valid expulsion?

A. Yes. Privilege of speech and debate guarantees the legislator complete freedom of expression without fear of being made responsible in any other forum outside the Congressional Hall. But it does not protect him from responsibility before the legislative body itself when his words and conduct are considered by the latter disorderly or unbecoming a member thereof. Osmena vs. Pendatun. Q. Is the right to post bail a matter of right or matter of discretion? A. Under Article III Section 13 All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released on recognizance as may be provided by law. The right to bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required. Matter of right = before conviction and when the offense charged is with a penalty less than reclusion perpetua; Matter of discretion = offender is charged with a crime the penalty of which is reclusion perpetua and the evidence of guilt is strong. Q. What if the charge is homicide and the evidence of guilt is strong? A. The accused is entitled to post bail even if the evidence is strong, for the penalty for homicide is reclusion temporal. Rules of Court: On MTC = matter of right before or after conviction; On RTC = only matter of right before conviction unless such is punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment
Rule 114 Sec. 4. Bail, a matter of right; exception. All persons in custody shall be admitted to bail as a matter of right, with sufficient sureties, or released on recognizance as prescribed by law or this Rule (a) before or after conviction by the Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, or Municipal Circuit Trial Court, and (b) before conviction by the Regional Trial court of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment. Rule 114 Sec. 5. Bail, when discretionary. Upon conviction by the Regional Trial Court of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, admission to bail is discretionary. If the penalty imposed by the trial court is imprisonment exceeding six (6) years, the accused shall be denied bail, or his bail shall be cancelled upon a showing by the prosecution, with notice to the accused, of the following or other similar circumstances: (a) That he is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist, or habitual delinquent, or has committed the crime aggravated by the circumstance of reiteration; (b) That he has previously escaped from legal confinement, evaded sentence, or violated the conditions of his bail without valid justification; That he committed the offense while under probation, parole, or conditional pardon; (d) That the circumstances of his case indicate the probability of flight if released on bail; or (e) That there is undue risk that he may commit another crime during the pendency of the appeal.

Power of the Congress Principal function and prerogative of the Congress to enact, ordain, alter, amend or abrogate existing laws. LAW MAKING PROCESS 9

GEN. RULE: The Bill may be introduced either from Senate or the House of Representatives.
Section 24. All appropriation, revenue or tariff bills, bills authorizing increase of the public debt, bills of local application, and private bills, shall originate exclusively in the House of Representatives, but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments.

After three readings it will be sent to the other house wherein it will undergo the same cumbersome process. Q. What constitute a public calamity? A. Depends on the discretion of the President. It is a political question and not subject to judicial review. Bicameral Conference Committee: Cannot be found in the constitution but it can be inferred from Section 16 (3) Art. VI power of each house to determine/promulgate its Rules of Proceedings. Not only does it provide a mechanism for compromising differences between the Senate and the HR, for legislative custom limits the freedom with which the new subject matter can be inserted into the conference bill. But occasionally a conference committee produces unexpected results which are beyond its mandate. (Philippine Judges vs. Prado) NATURE OF THE FUNCTIONS OF THE BCC A mechanism for reconciling differences between the Senate and the House. Members shall come from both houses. From the Bicameral the consolidated version will sent back to both houses of congress, there it will be subjected to votation, thereafter; it shall be sent to the President for his signature. When the nays overcome yeas, there would be another Bicameral Conference until such time they all have agreed. ENROLLED BILL DOCTRINE: Once it becomes an enrolled bill, it becomes CONCLUSIVE upon the courts as to its due enactment and execution, thus they can no longer inquire into the process of its enactment for the reason of the Doctrine of Separation of Powers. CONFLICT BETWEEN THE ENROLLED BILL AND THE JOURNAL: GENERAL RULE: Enrolled Bill Prevails EXCEPTION: With respect as to the matters which are required by the constitution to be entered into journal, the journal is regarded as conclusive. 1. the yeas and nays in the final reading 2. yeas and nays in any questions at the request of 1/5th of the members present 3. the yeas and nays upon re-passing a bill that was already vetoed by the President 4. the Presidents objection to a bill he had vetoed. OPTION OF THE PRESIDENT WHEN A BILL IS SUBMITTED FOR HIS SIGNATURE: 1. He may SIGN it into law 2. VETO the bill 3. INACTION 30 days after receipt of the bill, if he does not act, it automatically becomes a law. POCKET VETO There is none in the Philippines but this is recognized in the U.S. where the inaction of the bill does not make it into bill. Instances where a Bill may become a law even without the signature of the President:\ 1. Inaction

EXCEPTIONS: (APRIL) bills which shall originate exclusively in the House of Representative: 1. Appropriation Bill 2. Private Bills 3. Revenue Bills 4. Increasing Public Debts 5. Local Application It is the Bill which shall originate exclusively with the House of Representative and not the Law, BUT Senate may concur with amendments. The SC ruled that there was no violation of this section, provided that the bill originates from the HR and not the law itself. Senate can propose its own version even with respect to bills which are required by the Constitution to originate in the House. (Tolentino vs. Secretary of Finance)
Section 26. (1) Every bill passed by the Congress shall embrace only one subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof.

One-subject One title Rule Objectives: 1. To prevent hodge-podge or log-rolling 2. To avoid surprises or fraud 3. To fairly appraise the people of the existence of the bill. It is the subject which is required to be expressed in the title and NOT its EFFECT SC ruled, with respect to Sec.26 par. 1, that the title of the bill need not be an index of the contents thereof. There is a substantial compliance as long as the various provisions are germane to the subject matter which must be the one express in the title. The Supreme Court has adopted a liberal interpretation. Liberal Interpretation Rule: Constitution is sufficiently complied with where the title is comprehensive enough to embrace the general objective it seeks to achieve, and if all the parts of the statute are related and germane to the matter embodied in the title. (De Guzman vs. COMELEC)
(2) No bill passed by either House shall become a law unless it has passed three readings on separate days, and printed copies thereof in its final form have been distributed to its Members three days before its passage, except when the President certifies to the necessity of its immediate enactment to meet a public calamity or emergency. Upon the last reading of a bill, no amendment thereto shall be allowed, and the vote thereon shall be taken immediately thereafter, and the yeas and nays entered in the Journal.

3 Readings on Separate Days Rule: GR: 3 separate readings by either house and printed final form has been distributed 3 days before its passage to the members Except: The President certifies to the necessity of its immediate enactment to meet a public calamity or emergency Therefore the bill will undergo a total of 6 readings. 3 from HR and another 3 from Senate

10

2. the Bill was presented to the President, vetoed it and the congress was able to override the veto by 2/3 vote. Instances where an ordinance becomes valid without the signature of the local Chief Executives: 1. When the Sanggunian sent the ordinance to the local chief executive and the latter failed to act. Governor: failed to act within 15 days Mayor: failed to act within 10 days 2. It is vetoed by the local chief executive but when sent back to sanggunian, it was override. VETO POWER OF THE PRESIDENT
Section 27. (1) Every bill passed by the Congress shall, before it becomes a law, be presented to the President. If he approves the same he shall sign it; otherwise, he shall veto it and return the same with his objections to the House where it originated, which shall enter the objections at large in its Journal and proceed to reconsider it. If, after such reconsideration, two-thirds of all the Members of such House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two-thirds of all the Members of that House, it shall become a law. In all such cases, the votes of each House shall be determined by yeas or nays, and the names of the Members voting for or against shall be entered in its Journal. The President shall communicate his veto of any bill to the House where it originated within thirty days after the date of receipt thereof, otherwise, it shall become a law as if he had signed it.

3. When the President certifies the urgency of the bill to meet Public Calamity or Emergency (Sec. 26, par 2 Art. VI NOTE: As a general rule: before a bill becomes a law, it should undergo 3 readings EXCEPTION: When the President certifies the urgency of the bill 4. The President signs a bill that becomes a law (Sec. 27, Art. VI) 5. The President prepares the budget which is the basis of the General appropriation. (Sec.22 Art. VII) BODIES ATTACHED TO CONGRESS 1. Commission on Appointments 2. Electoral Tribunal a. House of Rep. Electoral Tribunal. b. Senate Electoral Tribunal ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL
Section 17. The Senate and the House of Representatives shall each have an Electoral Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of their respective Members. Each Electoral Tribunal shall be composed of nine Members, three of whom shall be Justices of the Supreme Court to be designated by the Chief Justice, and the remaining six shall be Members of the Senate or the House of Representatives, as the case may be, who shall be chosen on the basis of proportional representation from the political parties and the parties or organizations registered under the party-list system represented therein. The senior Justice in the Electoral Tribunal shall be its Chairman.

General Veto of the President ALL or NOTHING The President vetoes the bill in its ENTIRETY and the bill does not become a law. Exception inappropriate provisions are treated as an item veto.
(2) The President shall have the power to veto any particular item or items in an appropriation, revenue, or tariff bill, but the veto shall not affect the item or items to which he does not object.

ITEM OR LINE VETO

It is an exception to the general rule that the President cannot veto a bill without vetoing the entire bill. It applies only to 3 kinds of Bill (ART) 1. Appropriation Bills 2. Revenue Bills 3. Tariff Bills Doctrine of Inappropriate Provisions Sec 25(2) Article VI
No provision or enactment shall be embraced in the general appropriations bill unless it relates specifically to some particular appropriation therein. Any such provision or enactment shall be limited in its operation to the appropriation to which it relates.

MEMBERS: Each Electoral Tribunal shall be composed of 9 members: HRET/ SET JUDICIAL COMPONENT: 3 Justices of the Supreme Court, the CHAIRMAN is the most senior among the three LEGISLATIVE COMPONENT: 6 Congressmen or senators as the case may be, chosen on the basis of proportional representation from political parties having membership in the House or Senate. REMEMBER: Electoral Tribunal may meet when Congress is NOT in session, they shall meet in accordance with their rules regardless of whether the Congress is in session, BUT COA CANNOT meet when Congress is not in session as mandated by Sec. 19, thats why there are ad interim appointment. From the Decision of the Electoral Tribunal there can be NO APPEAL. The Electoral Tribunal is the SOLE JUDGE of all contests relating to election, returns and qualifications of their respective members hence No appeal from their decision. REMEDY: CERTIORARI under RULE 65 based on grave abuse of discretion. To be filed to the SUPREME COURT, the composition itself of the E.T. is composed of 3 Justices of the Supreme Court. It is but proper that the Supreme Court will review their acts and not the Court of Appeals. No appeal is allowed in the decisions of HRET and SET, for being the sole judge and since it is merely a statutory right. Remedy is to file a petition under Rule 65, for grave abuse of discretion. Sec. 6 of RA 6646, provides that if for any reason the candidate sought to be disqualified before the election and who later on won, the 11

It must relate specifically to some particular appropriation therein, otherwise it becomes an inappropriate provisions. POWER OF IMPOUNDMENT It is the refusal of the President to use the fund appropriated by Congress. In effect it becomes another kind of veto power of the President not found in the Constitution. Instances where the President participate in the law making-process: 1. When the President exercises his Veto power (Sec. 27, Art. VI) 2. When the president calls for Special Session (Sec. 15, Art. VI)

COMELEC and not the HRET has a continuous jurisdiction over such disqualification since she is not yet elected. (Imelda vs. Comelec) Once a winning candidate has been proclaimed, taken his oath and assumed office as a member of the HR, the COMELECs jurisdiction over election contest relating to his election, returns and qualification ends and the HRETs jurisdiction has begun. (Farinas vs. COMELEC) Members of the HRET/SET shall have security of tenure to insure their impartiality and independence. (Bondoc vs. Pineda) COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS
Section 18. There shall be a Commission on Appointments consisting of the President of the Senate, as ex officio Chairman, twelve Senators, and twelve Members of the House of Representatives, elected by each House on the basis of proportional representation from the political parties and parties or organizations registered under the party-list system represented therein. The chairman of the Commission shall not vote, except in case of a tie. The Commission shall act on all appointments submitted to it within thirty session days of the Congress from their submission. The Commission shall rule by a majority vote of all the Members.

Section 21. The Senate or the House of Representatives or any of its respective committees may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure. The rights of persons appearing in, or affected by, such inquiries shall be respected.

Congress has the Power to Conduct inquires in aid of Legislation Non legislative power for investigation Legislative Contempt Where a person did not cooperate with the said inquiry when summoned by the House of Representatives or by the Senate, he may be declared in contempt and the President cannot pardon it, may be sent to jail for such time that he wants to cooperate. (Arnault vs. Nazareno) No pardon for it will violate the Doctrine of Separation of Powers. Gen. Rule: Power of Contempt is judicial in character (inherent in the court) Except: Congress or any of its committee when conducting inquires in aid of legislation Not a political question thus can be subject to judicial review. Not absolute: In aid of legislation; In accordance with its duly published rules of procedure; Rights of the persons appearing or affected by such inquiries shall be respected. The Oversight Functions of Congress or legislative veto over subordinate legislations or the rules and regulations promulgated by administrative agencies of the government is an indispensable power of the Congress for the discharge of such broad power to legislate. Embraces all activities undertaken by the Congress to enhance its understanding of and influence over the implementation of legislation it has enacted. It has been held that such power of oversight is intrinsic in the grant of legislative power itself and integral to the checks and balances inherent in a democratic system of government. Oversight concerns post-enactment measures undertaken by Congress: To monitor bureaucratic compliance with program objectives; To determine whether agencies are properly administered; To eliminate executive waste and dishonesty; To prevent executive usurpation of legislative authority; To assess executive conformity with the congressional perception of public interest. The oversight power has also been used to insure the accountability of regulatory commissions. (Macalintal vs. Comelec) Categories of Congressional Oversight Functions: a. strict scrutiny It implies a lesser intensity and continuity of relations to administrative operations. Its primary purpose is to determine economy and efficiency of the operation of government activities. It is based primarily on the power of appropriation of Congress. In the exercise of this legislative scrutiny, Congress may:

25 MEMBERS: 1 Senate Pres. Ex-officio Chairman 12 Senators 12 Congressmen Congressmen and Senators are chosen on the basis on proportional representation from the political parties having membership in the House or Senate. MAIN FUNCTION: To act on Presidential appointment. Created to limit the power of the President, for they confirm the nomination of the President. Only meet when Congress is in session, thereby ad-interim appointments are made. Formula for both COA and HRET/SET: No of members/party x No of seats available Total no of Senators/Congressmen E.g. 10 x 12 = 5 24 E.g.
Political party PPC LAMP LAKAS LDP Total No. of Members 10 8 4 2 24 Seats allocated 5 4 2 1 12

12 seats are not mandatory, so long as there is a quorum Fractional representation is not allowed.
Section 19. The Electoral Tribunals and the Commission on Appointments shall be constituted within thirty days after the Senate and the House of Representatives shall have been organized with the election of the President and the Speaker. The Commission on Appointments shall meet only while the Congress is in session, at the call of its Chairman or a majority of all its Members, to discharge such powers and functions as are herein conferred upon it. Section 20. The records and books of accounts of the Congress shall be preserved and be open to the public in accordance with law, and such books shall be audited by the Commission on Audit which shall publish annually an itemized list of amounts paid to and expenses incurred for each Member.

12

1. May request information and report from the other branches of the government; 2. It can give recommendations or pass resolutions for the consideration of the agency involved; 3. Exercise scrutiny through its power of confirmation by sharing in the appointing power of the President. b. Investigation This power involves more intense digging of facts. This is recognized by the 1987 Constitution under Section 21, Article VI, but nevertheless even without such, congressional investigation has been held to be an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function. It has limitations: It must be in aid of legislative functions; It must be conducted in accordance with duly published rules of procedure; The persons appearing therein are afforded the constitutional rights. c. supervision Connotes a continuing and informed awareness on the part of the congressional committee regarding executive operations in a given administrative area. Unlike the first two categories, which involves past actions, in here Congress scrutinize the exercise of delegated law-making authority and permits Congress to retain part of this delegated authority. Congress exercises its supervision over the executive agencies through its veto power. Section 13 Art. VI
No Senator or Member of the House Rep. may hold any other office or employment in the Govt. or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including GOCC or their subsidiaries during their term without forfeiting his seat.

A: NO. It was created during the term in which he was elected. Even if he is willing to resign, he cannot still be appointed because it is forbidden office. ARTICLE VII EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT
Section 1. The executive power shall be vested in the President of the Philippines.

Correlate Execution

with

Doctrine

of

Faithful

Section 17. The President shall have control of all the executive departments, bureaus, and offices. He shall ensure that the laws be faithfully executed.

Executive Power includes the power to execute, administer the law. Any power that is neither legislative nor judicial. Case: Marcos vs. Manlapus Return of Marcos from exile. The Supreme Court held that the President, aside from the powers which he may exercise granted to him by the Constitution, he also has the unstated RESIDUAL POWERS, powers which are not found in the constitution but he may validly exercise.
Section 2. No person may be elected President unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, a registered voter, able to read and write, at least forty years of age on the day of the election, and a resident of the Philippines for at least ten years immediately preceding such election.

Qualifications: 1. Natural-born Citizen of the Philippines 2. Registered Voter 3. Able to read and write 4. At least 40 years of age on the day of the election 5. Resident of the Philippines for at least 10 years immediately preceding the election
Section 3. There shall be a Vice-President who shall have the same qualifications and term of office and be elected with, and in the same manner, as the President. He may be removed from office in the same manner as the President. The Vice-President may be appointed as a Member of the Cabinet. Such appointment requires no confirmation.

INCOMPATIBLE OFFICE

Neither shall he be appointed to any office which he may have been created or the emoluments thereof increased during the term for which he was elected

FORBIDDEN OFFICE

Incompatible Office One which may not be held by a member during his TERM of office WITHOUT FORFEITING HIS SEAT A member may validly appointed but he forfeits his seats Q: is it necessary for him to resign before he accepts that other office? A: NO need to resign, it is automatic More of an inhibition

Forbidden Office One which is FORBIDDEN by law even if he is willing to forfeit his seat. He may not be validly appointed

Example of appointment by President where COA has no confirmation.

the

More of a prohibition

Q: Congressman X was appointed as Sec. of DENR. Can he validly accept the appointment? A: Yes No need to resign BUT he cannot go back in his former position. Q: Congress created a new office, Urban Poor Commission. It appropriated 20 M. Congressman X resigned and applied for that position. Can he be validly appointed?

Section 4. The President and the Vice-President shall be elected by direct vote of the people for a term of six years which shall begin at noon on the thirtieth day of June next following the day of the election and shall end at noon of the same date, six years thereafter. The President shall not be eligible for any re-election. No person who has succeeded as President and has served as such for more than four years shall be qualified for election to the same office at any time. No Vice-President shall serve for more than two successive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of the service for the full term for which he was elected. Unless otherwise provided by law, the regular election for President and Vice-President shall be held on the second Monday of May. The returns of every election for President and VicePresident, duly certified by the board of canvassers of each province or city, shall be transmitted to the Congress, directed to the President of the Senate. Upon receipt of the certificates of canvass, the President of the Senate shall, not later than thirty days after the day of the election, open all the certificates in the presence of the Senate and the House of Representatives in joint public session, and the Congress, upon determination of the authenticity and due execution thereof in the manner provided by law, canvass the votes. The person having the highest number of votes shall be proclaimed elected, but in case two or more shall have an equal and highest number of votes, one of them shall forthwith be chosen by the vote of a majority of all the

13

Members of both Houses of the Congress, voting separately. The Congress shall promulgate its rules for the canvassing of the certificates. The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the President or Vice-President, and may promulgate its rules for the purpose.

with, or in any franchise, or special privilege granted by the Government or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries. They shall strictly avoid conflict of interest in the conduct of their office.

Nepotic Appointments
The spouse and relatives by consanguinity or affinity within the fourth civil degree of the President shall not, during his tenure, be appointed as Members of the Constitutional Commissions, or the Office of the Ombudsman, or as Secretaries, Undersecretaries, chairmen or heads of bureaus or offices, including government-owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries.

Terms: 6 years (shall begin at noon of 30th day of June next following the day of the election and shall end at noon of the same date 6 years thereafter) Limitations: President shall not be eligible for any re-election. Case of Estrada Not eligible for reelection, for he has served as President, unlike PGMA, where she succeeded to the Presidency, thereby not elected as President, thus can run for presidency.
Section 5. Before they enter on the execution of their office, the President, the Vice-President, or the Acting President shall take the following oath or affirmation: I do solemnly swear [or affirm] that I will faithfully and conscientiously fulfill my duties as President [or Vice-President or Acting President] of the Philippines, preserve and defend its Constitution, execute its laws, do justice to every man, and consecrate myself to the service of the Nation. So help me God. [In case of affirmation, last sentence will be omitted].

Section 14. Appointments extended by an Acting President shall remain effective, unless revoked by the elected President, within ninety days from his assumption or reassumption of office. Section 15. Two months immediately before the next presidential elections and up to the end of his term, a President or Acting President shall not make appointments, except temporary appointments to executive positions when continued vacancies therein will prejudice public service or endanger public safety. SPECIFIC POWERS OF THE PRESIDENT: 1. Section 16, Art 7 Appointing Power of the President carries with it the power of removal (implied from his appointing power) 2. Section 17, Art 7 Power of Control of all executive departments, bureaus and offices. With respect to LGU, merely a General Supervision (Section 4, Art. X) 3. Section 18, Art 7 _ Military Power 4. Section 19 Pardoning power 5. Section 20 Borrowing Power 6. Section 21 Treaty-making power Section 16. 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. The President shall have the power to make appointments during the recess of the Congress, whether voluntary or compulsory, but such appointments shall be effective only until disapproved by the Commission on Appointments or until the next adjournment of the Congress. Appointing Power Not all appointments made by the President shall be made a subject of confirmation by the COA There were only several groups which require confirmation by the COA: o Heads of the Departments or Cabinet secretaries

Valid Causes for Permanent Vacancy in the Presidency

Section 8. In case of death, permanent disability, removal from office, or resignation of the President, the Vice-President shall become the President to serve the unexpired term. In case of death, permanent disability, removal from office, or resignation of both the President and Vice-President, the President of the Senate or, in case of his inability, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, shall then act as President until the President or Vice-President shall have been elected and qualified. The Congress shall, by law, provide who shall serve as President in case of death, permanent disability, or resignation of the Acting President. He shall serve until the President or the Vice-President shall have been elected and qualified, and be subject to the same restrictions of powers and disqualifications as the Acting President.

1. 2. 3. 4.

Death Permanent Disability Removal from office by way of impeachment Resignation

Estrada vs. Desierto The Supreme Court ruled that Erap resigned by applying the Totality Test a. intent to resign b. coupled by an action of relinquishment , not covered by any requirement as to form of resignation, may be oral or written, express or implied. Totality of prior, contemporaneous and posterior facts and circumstantial evidence bearing a material relevance to the issue.
Section 9. Whenever there is a vacancy in the Office of the Vice-President during the term for which he was elected, the President shall nominate a Vice-President from among the Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives who shall assume office upon confirmation by a majority vote of all the Members of both Houses of the Congress, voting separately.

In case of vacancy in the Vice-Pres, The President may nominate among the members of BOTH houses voting separately.
Section 13. The President, Vice-President, the Members of the Cabinet, and their deputies or assistants shall not, unless otherwise provided in this Constitution, hold any other office or employment during their tenure. They shall not, during said tenure, directly or indirectly, practice any other profession, participate in any business, or be financially interested in any contract

14

EXCEPT: Vice-Pres. He/she does not need to be confirmed by the Comm. Of Appointments when appointed as a cabinet secretary (Sec. 3 Art VII) o Ambassadors and other Public ministers and consuls o AFP officers from the rank of Colonel or Naval Captain o Other officers whose appointments are vested in him in the Constitution REMEMBER The list is EXCLUSIVE, thus Congress cannot enact a law altering the officers which require confirmation of the COA under Sec. 16 Art 7 by way of reduction or addition. AD-INTERIM APPOINTMENTS An appointment made by the President when Congress is not in session whether the appointment is voluntary or compulsory. NATURE: The appointment is permanent and takes effect immediately. The one appointed thereto can immediately assume office. The President actually appoints and does not merely nominate. REGULAR APPOINTMENT Appointments made when Congress is in session. NATURE: Appointment does not take effect immediately. It takes effect only after his appointment has been confirmed by the Comm. Of Appointment, he cannot immediately assume office. The President merely nominates the appointee. Unlike an ad-interim appointment, if later on his appointment is not confirmed, he still maintain his former position, meantime, if his appointment was disapproved or by-passed, he does not lose his former office. REAL DISTINCTION EFFECTIVITY LIES IN THE

These refers to those appointments made within the 2 months preceding a presidential election and are similar to those which are declared election offenses in the omnibus election code. 2. Appointments made for the purpose of partisan considerations Consist of the so-called midnight appointments 2 months --- election --- end of term(noon of June 30) The underlined are the periods where no appointment is to be made except temporary appointments. In re: Valenzuela vs. Vallarta In this case RTC judges were appointed on March 30, 1998, the election was May 11, 1998, the Supreme Court held that in falls within the prohibited period, considered as Midnight appointment by way appointing them for buying votes or influencing the result of the election De Rama vs. C.A. In this case she was a municipal mayor, before she vacated her position; she filled up all the positions. When her successor sits, no more vacancy. The new mayor nullified all the nullified all the appointments an said that it was a midnight appointment. The Supreme Court held that Section 15 of Art. VII applies ONLY to the Presidential or acting Presidential appointment, there is no law prohibiting local elective officials from appointing during his last day of terms Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency or the Alter Ego Doctrine
Section 17. The President shall have control of all the executive departments, bureaus, and offices. He shall ensure that the laws be faithfully executed.

IN AD-INTERIM APPOINMENT AUTOMATIC, the appointee can immediately assume office. There is a risk involved, runs the risk of losing both offices. IN REGULAR APPOINTMENT cannot immediately assume office, does not take effect immediately. Wait until affirmed by the Comm. Of Appointment. LIMITATIONS ON THE APPOINMENT POWER OF THE PRESIDENT: 1. Sec. 13 (2nd par) 2. Sec. 14 3. Sec 15 .exception temporary appointments to executive positions when continued vacancies shall prejudice public service or public safety.
Section 15. Two months immediately before the next presidential elections and up to the end of his term, a President or Acting President shall not make appointments, except temporary appointments to executive positions when continued vacancies therein will prejudice public service or endanger public safety.

The acts or decision of members of the executive departments, bureaus and other office are deemed to be the acts/ decisions of the President himself if it involves the regular conduct of the business unless disapprove by him. (Correlate with the local governments and their officials sec. 4 of ART X and Sec. 2 of Art. X ) GENERAL SUPERVISION the Presidents power over the LGUs since they enjoy local autonomy. The power to generally oversee that LGUs perform their powers and functions in accordance with law. Commander in Chief Provision
Section 18. The President shall be the Commander-inChief of all armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. In case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it, he may, for a period not exceeding sixty days, suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law. Within forty-eight hours from the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, the President shall submit a report in person or in writing to the Congress. The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of all its Members in regular or special session, may revoke such proclamation or suspension, which revocation shall not be set aside by the President. Upon the initiative of the President, the Congress may, in the same manner, extend such proclamation or suspension for a period to be determined by the Congress, if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and public safety requires it.

Directed against 2 types of appointments: 1. Appointments made for the purpose of buying votes or influencing the result of the election.

15

The Congress, if not in session, shall, within twenty-four hours following such proclamation or suspension, convene in accordance with its rules without need of a call. The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or the extension thereof, and must promulgate its decision thereon within thirty days from its filing. A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of the Constitution, nor supplant the functioning of the civil courts or legislative assemblies, nor authorize the conferment of jurisdiction on military courts and agencies over civilians where civil courts are able to function, nor automatically suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. The suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall apply only to persons judicially charged for rebellion or offenses inherent in, or directly connected with, invasion. During the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, any person thus arrested or detained shall be judicially charged within three days, otherwise he shall be released.

CONDITIONAL PARDON Is in the nature of a contract between the (convicted criminal) and the chief executive. Not subject to judicial review since it is solely within the judgment of the chief executive which grant such conditional pardon. Limitations (pardon) 1. N/A to legislative contempt 2. N/A to impeachment cases 3. Conviction by Final Judgment 4. N/A violation of election laws without the favorable recommendation of the COMELEC (Art. 9-c sec. 5) Borrowing Power
Section 20. The President may contract or guarantee foreign loans on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines with the prior concurrence of the Monetary Board, and subject to such limitations as may be provided by law. The Monetary Board shall, within thirty days from the end of every quarter of the calendar year, submit to the Congress a complete report of its decision on applications for loans to be contracted or guaranteed by the Government or government-owned and controlled corporations which would have the effect of increasing the foreign debt, and containing other matters as may be provided by law.

A. Calling-out Power (IBP vs. Zamora) B. Martial Law C. Power to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas Corpus Pardoning Power
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. He shall also have the power to grant amnesty with the concurrence of a majority of all the Members of the Congress.

The President may contract or guarantee foreign laws on behalf of the Rep. of the Phil. With prior concurrence of the Monetary Board and subject to limitations provided by laws Treaty- Making Power
Section 21. No treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate.

1. Reprieve suspension of the execution of the death sentence 2. Commutation reduction of the penalty one degree lower 3. Pardon Private act of the President that erases the effects of the crime 4. Remit Fines and Forfeitures 5. Amnesty requires the majority vote of all the members of Congress; erases both the effect of the crime and the conviction. Reprieve, commutation and pardon require that there be a conviction of final judgment while the amnesty does not require such. Reprieve, commutation, pardon and remittance of fines and forfeitures cannot be granted in cases of IMPEACHMENT since such proceedings are not judicial or criminal in nature No pardon can be granted fro the violation of Election laws without the favorable recommendation of the COMELEC. No pardon can be granted to persons convicted of legislative contempt or civil contempt. NOTE Pardon is available not only to those guilty of criminal offense but also those found guilty of ADMINISTRATIVE offense (Llamas vs. Orbos) REASONS: 1, Sec. 19 Art. VII makes no distinction between criminal and administrative offense except with respect to impeachment. 2. if persons convicted of heinous crime where evidence of guilt is beyond reasonable doubt are entitled to pardon, why do we have to deny the same to those convicted of administrative offenses where only substantial evidence is required.

There must be concurrence of 2/3 votes of all the members of the Senate. Mere executive agreement NO NEED for the 2/3 concurrence of the senate The power to ratify the treaties is vested in the President and NOT IN the legislature. The role of the senate is the giving or withholding of consent to concur to the ratification. Budgetary Power

Section 22. The President shall submit to the Congress, within thirty days from the opening of every regular session as the basis of the general appropriations bill, a budget of expenditures and sources of financing, including receipts from existing and proposed revenue measures.

Informing power
Section 23. The President shall address the Congress at the opening of its regular session. He may also appear before it at any other time.

16

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Q&A 1. F, was on his way home after some rounds of drinks with friends at night, while on board a taxi, was stopped at a checkpoint, established by the COMELEC and the PNP along Espana, Manila to implement the gun ban law during the campaign period. Found inside his attach case was a gram of shabu and some pornographic DVD materials. At the police station where he was brought, upon questioning by some media reporters, he admitted the ownership of both the shabu and the pornographic DVD materials. a. Were the gram of shabu and some pornographic DVD materials be admissible in evidence? The things found are not admissible as evidence. Checkpoints are only limited to visual search of the moving vehicles. The search of his attach case, amounts to an illegal search, thus the results are said to be fruits of the poisonous tree. b. Was his confession before media men at the police station be admissible in evidence? Yes, such admissions are admissible in evidence. Confessions given in response to a question of the media men, not police men are admissible. Where the suspect gave spontaneous answers to questions of the media men, such answers are deemed to be voluntary and admissible. (People vs. Andan) The SC further ruled that appellants verbal confessions to the newsmen are not covered by Section 12(1) and (3) of Article III of the Constitution and, therefore, admissible in evidence. c. What is a stop-and-frisk search? In the landmark case of Terry vs. Ohio, a stop-and-frisk was defined as the vernacular designation of the right of a police officer to stop a citizen on the street, interrogate him, and pat him for weapons. Were a police officer observes an unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot and that the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous, where in the course of investigating this behavior he identified himself as a policeman and make reasonable inquiries, and where nothing in the initial stages of the encounter serves to dispel his reasonable fear for his own or others safety, he is entitled for the protection of himself or others in the area to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault him. 2. Apprehended for carrying a caliber .38 pistol tucked in his waist at a checkpoint established by the PNP elements to implement the gun ban law during the campaign period, Serafin was brought to the police station. While at the police station, when queried by the news reporters present, he admitted ownership of the firearm and showed his license to carry firearm duly issued by the Firearms and Explosive Unit.

Charged and prosecuted for violation of the gun ban law, during the trial, his counsel was objecting to the introduction in evidence of the testimony of the news reporters who interviewed him at the police station wherein he admitted ownership of the firearm contending that he was not represented by counsel then. a. Was the arrest of Serafin valid? Explain. The arrest was valid, for it was the result of a warrantless search, such as inflagrante delicto and also searches in checkpoints. The law provides that the COMELEC can impose checkpoint so as to implement the gun ban law. b. Is the caliber .38 pistol seized from Serafin at the checkpoint admissible in evidence? Clarify. Yes. Warrantless search are allowed in checkpoints. Therefore the results of such search will be admissible evidence as against the person possessing such. c. Was the establishment of checkpoint to implement the gun ban law justified? Explain The checkpoint herein conducted was in pursuance of the gun ban enforced by the COMELEC. The COMELEC would be hard put to implement the ban if its deputized agents were limited to a visual search of pedestrians. It would also defeat the purpose for which such ban was instituted. Those who intend to bring a gun during said period would know that they only need a car to be able to easily perpetrate their malicious designs. 3. A pre-taped program of the INC upon review by the MTRCB was found to be attacking another religious group and was correspondingly classified as Rated X. In a petition before the court, the INC contended that its religious freedom is per se beyond review by the MTRCB and that it was grave abuse of discretion on the part of the MTRCB to classify its pre-taped program as Rated X simply because it attacked another religion. Rule on the 2 contentions of the INC The right to religious profession and worship has a two-fold aspect, viz., freedom to believe and freedom to act on one's belief. The first is absolute as long as the belief is confined within the realm of thought. The second is subject to regulation where the belief is translated into external acts that affect the public welfare. 1st contention The INC's postulate that its religious freedom is per se beyond review by the MTRCB should be rejected. Its public broadcast on TV of its religious programs brings it out of the bosom of internal belief. Television is a medium that reaches even the eyes and ears of children. The exercise of religious freedom can be regulated by the State when it will bring about the clear and present danger of a substantive evil which the State is duty-bound to prevent, i.e., serious detriment to the more overriding interest of public health, public morals, or public welfare. A laissez faire policy on the exercise of religion can be seductive to the liberal mind but history counsels the Court 17

against its blind adoption as religion is and continues to be a volatile area of concern in our society today. "For sure, we shall continue to subject any act pinching the space for the free exercise of religion to a heightened scrutiny but we shall not leave its rational exercise to the irrationality of man. For when religion divides and its exercise destroys, the State should not stand still." (Iglesia Ni Cristo vs. CA) 2nd Contention: The MTRCB may disagree with the criticisms of other religions by the INC but that gives it no excuse to interdict such criticisms, however unclean they may be. Under our constitutional scheme, it is not the task of the State to favor any religion by protecting it against an attack by another religion. Religious dogma and beliefs are often at war and to preserve peace among their followers, especially the fanatics, the establishment clause of freedom of religion prohibits the State from leaning towards any religion. Vis--vis religious differences, the State enjoys no banquet of options. Neutrality alone is its fixed and immovable stance. In fine, the MTRCB cannot squelch the speech of the INC simply because it attacks another religion. In a State where there ought to be no difference between the appearance and the reality of freedom of religion, the remedy against bad theology is better theology. The bedrock of freedom of religion is freedom of thought and it is best served by encouraging the marketplace of dueling ideas. When the luxury of time permits, the marketplace of ideas demands that speech should be met by more speech for it is the spark of opposite speech, the heat of colliding ideas that can fan the embers of truth. (Iglesia Ni Cristo vs. CA) 4. Is there a constitutional right to privacy? Explain. What are the zones of privacy recognized and protected in our laws. Yes. The essence of privacy is the right to be let alone. In the 1965 case of Griswold vs. Connecticut, the US SC gave more substance to the right of privacy when it ruled that the right has a constitutional foundation. We adopted the Griswold ruling that there is a constitutional right to privacy. The SC clarified that the right of privacy is recognized and enshrined in several provisions of our Constitution. It is expressly recognized in Section 3(1) of the Bill of Rights. Other facets of the right to privacy are protected in various provisions of the Bill of Rights, i.e., Sections. 1, 2, 6, 8, and 17. (Ople vs. Torres). The zones of privacy recognized and protected in our laws. The Civil Code provides that every person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind of his neighbors and other persons and punishes as actionable torts several acts by a person of meddling and prying into the privacy of another. It also holds a public officer or employee or any private individual liable for damages for any violation of the rights and liberties of another person, and recognizes the privacy of letters and other private communications. The Revised Penal Code makes a crime the violation of secrets by an officer, the revelation of trade and industrial secrets, and

trespass to dwelling. Invasion of privacy is an offense in special laws like the Anti-Wiretapping Law (R.A. 4200), the Secrecy of Bank Deposits (R.A. 1405) and the Intellectual Property Code (R.A. 8293). The Rules of Court on privileged communication likewise recognize the privacy of certain information (Section 24, Rule 130[c], Revised Rules on Evidence). (Ople vs. Torres) 5. In his petition to post bail, the judge conditioned the grant of bail to P on his arraignment ratiocinating that if he is granted bail without having been arraigned first, he might jump bail and therefore, trial in absentia may not proceed. What constitutional rights of P will be violated by such condition imposed by the judge on the grant of bail to him? Explain. To condition the grant of bail to an accused on his arraignment would be to place him in a position where he has to choose between (1) filing a motion to quash and thus delay his release on bail because until his motion to quash can be resolved, his arraignment cannot be held, and (2) foregoing the filing of a motion to quash so that he can be arraigned at once and thereafter be released on bail. These scenarios certainly undermine the accuseds constitutional right not to be put on trial except upon valid complaint or information sufficient to charge him with a crime and his right to bail. (Lavides vs. CA) 6. Discuss the various jurisdictions in election cases and quo warranto proceedings, including appeals.
Position Pres & VP Election Protest 30 days after proclamation Quo Warranto 10 days after proclamation Jurisdiction PET, SC sitting en banc. Sole judge = no appeal Art. 7, Sec 4, par 7 SET/HRET, sole judge = no appeal. Only certiorari to the SC Art. 6, Sec 17 No appeal = only certiorari to SC Art IX-C Sec 2, par 2 Appeal to COMELEC Certiorari to SC Appeal to COMELEC = final executory not appealable Certiorari to SC

Members of Congress

15 days after proclamation = SET 10 days after proclamation = HRET Within 10 days after proclamation COMELEC Within 10 days after proclamation RTC Within 10 days after proclamation MTC

15 days after proclamation = SET 10 days after proclamation = HRET Within 10 days after proclamation COMELEC Within 10 days after proclamation RTC Within 10 days after proclamation MTC

Regional, Provincial, City, Component City Officials Municipal Officials Barangay Officials

ELECTION PROTEST - filed within 10 days from proclamation of results of election by any candidate who has filed a certificate of candidacy and has been voted upon for the same officer on the grounds of: Fraud; Terrorism; Irregularities, or;

18

Illegal acts, committed before, during or after casting and counting of votes QUO WARRANTO - filed within 10 days from proclamation of results by any registered voter in the constituency on the grounds of: Ineligibility, or; Disloyalty to the Republic 7. Pandong Panday filed his certificate of candidacy for VP on the last day of filing certificate of candidacy. A petition for disqualification was filed by his opponent in the COMELEC asserting that he committed a material misrepresentation when he claimed in his certificate of candidacy that he is a natural-born citizen when in truth and in fact is that he is not a Filipino citizen. The petition was filed on the 25th day from the last day of filing certificate of candidacy. A group of lawyers subsequently filed a petition in the SC challenging his citizenship qualification and questioned the assumption of jurisdiction by the COMELEC contending that the latter committed grave abuse of discretion when it assumed jurisdiction because jurisdiction is with the SC pursuant to Sec. 4, par. 7 Art VII of the Constitution which provides that the SC en banc shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the elections; returns, and qualifications of the President and VP. a. Should the petition be dismissed by the COMELEC on the ground that it was file out of time? Explain. The Election Law provides that petition seeking to deny due course or cancel a COC exclusively on the ground of material misrepresentation should be filed at any time not later than 25 days from the time of filing of the COC. Such period is mandatory and jurisdictional. In the case at bar Pandong Panday filed his COC on the last day of filing, thereby the 25 days period starts from that date, which makes the case prosper. b. Do the lawyers have sufficient locus standi to question his citizenship qualification under the given facts? Discuss. Yes. In a quo warranto proceedings, the issue is based on the eligibility of the candidate which entails his/ her qualifications, which can be filed by any registered voter. Locus standi is defined as the personal and substantial interest in the case such that the party has sustained or will sustain a direct injury as a result of the governmental act that is being challenged. The lawyers are registered voters. c. Will you agree with the contention of the lawyers that the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion when it assumed jurisdiction over the case because jurisdiction should have been with the SC en banc? Clarify. Yes, the law is explicit. Sec. 4, par. 7 Art VII of the Constitution which provides that the SC en banc shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the elections; returns, and qualifications of the President and VP. Being the sole judge the COMELEC is not vested with jurisdictions, the qualification issue is lodged to the SC en banc acting as PET.

8. A group of unarmed demonstrators, numbering about 10,000 made up of urban poor slum dwellers, students, senior citizens, and several religious personalities marched along Mendiola on their way to Malacanang. They were carrying banners and streamers very critical of the Arroyo administration. Their leaders were delivering fiery speeches, exhorting them to be very vigilant in the protection of basic constitutional rights which, they claimed, are significantly trampled upon and reduced to a myth by the present dispensation. After crossing Mendiola Bridge, they were dispersed by police and military personnel assigned to secure the Palace grounds with truncheons, water cannons and tear gases, causing injuries to several of them. a. Applying the Dangerous Tendency Rule was the violent dispersal of the demonstration and the subsequent arrest, detention and prosecution of the leaders justified? Discuss. The dispersal is valid. Under the Dangerous Tendency Rule, a mere tendency to create a substantive evil is enough for a subsequent arrest, detention and prosecution of a person even if the evil expected does not result. In the case at bar, it is plain that there is a tendency that those demonstrators would create a substantive evil. Thus, the presence of such substantive evil would suffice to justify the dispersal and the subsequent arrest, detention and prosecution of the leaders justified. b. What about if the Clear and Present Danger Rule was applied? NO, under the Clear and Present Danger Rule, the existence of a substantive evil must be of a clear and present danger type. This test is more liberal. Hence, unless there is a clear showing that a substantive evil exist in the instant case, the violent dispersal is not justified. It is crystal clear that the demonstrators are only exercising their right. c. Distinguish content-based restriction on free speech from content-neutral restrictions, and explain the significant of knowing the distinction? Content-based restrictions are imposed because of the content of the speech and are therefore subject to the clear and Present Danger test. An example is plebiscite to ratify creation of Autonomous Region of Cordillera Content-neutral - It is directed restrictions are not concerned with the time, place of speech. An example is the posting of campaign materials 9. While on board a jeepney in Quiapo, Manila, Kumander Lawin, an obscure leader of the NPA, was spotted by police and military authorities upon identification by one of his former comrades who is now a government agent. He was arrested without warrant. The authorities immediately proceeded to his residence in Bustillos, Sampaloc Manila, and searched the apartment dwelling where he resides without warrant. Taken from his residence was a caliber .45 pistol with several rounds of ammunition and assorted rebel propaganda materials. At the police station where he was 19

brought, upon questioning by some media reporters, he admitted ownership of the caliber .45 pistol with several rounds of ammunition, as well as the assorted rebel propaganda materials a. Was his arrest valid? The arrest is not valid. The case at bar does not fall to any of the Instances in the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure particularly Sec 5 Rule 113, where an arrest can be made without a warrant. In the instant case, there was no crime committed by Kumander Lawin, nor there was probable cause to believe that a crime was committed by Lawin under the facts and circumstances of the person arresting him. What led to the arrest was a mere tip and the arrest was made when a person is just riding a jeepney which would not create a suspicion at all of his supposed identity. b. Were the caliber .45 pistol with several rounds of ammunition as well as the assorted rebel propaganda materials admissible in evidence against him? Clarify. No, the caliber pistol and the assorted NBA propagandas are not admissible as evidences. As the law provides that in violation of a valid search warrant, such products are fruits of a poisonous tree. 10. Mang Nardo solicited the repair of their community chapel. He knocked on the house of a judge and he was asked whether he had a permit to solicit from DSWD. He had none. He was charged for violation of PD 1564(The Solicitation Law) which makes it criminal offense if one solicits for charitable and public welfare purposes without permit from DSWD. He was convicted by the trial court. a. Explain why his conviction should be reversed on appeal? PD 1564, prohibits solicitation for charitable or public welfare purpose but not for a religious purpose. Solicitation of contributions for the construction of a church is not solicitation for "charitable or public welfare purpose" but for a religious purpose, and a religious purpose is not necessarily a charitable or public welfare purpose. Fund campaign for the construction or repair of a church calls upon the virtue of faith and not charity. Since Mang Nardo, solicited the repair of their community chapel and merely exercised his right to religion, there is no way he did violate PD 1564. b. What are the 2 aspects of freedom of religion? Briefly discuss each. The right to religious profession and worship has a two-fold aspect, viz., freedom to believe and freedom to act on ones belief. The first is absolute as long as the belief is confined within the realm of thought. The second is subject to regulation where the belief is translated into external acts that affect the public welfare c. Comment on the constitutionality of PD 1564. PD 1564 is constitutional. The purpose of the Decree is to protect the public against fraud in view of the proliferation of fund campaigns for charity and other civic

projects. Since religious fund drives are usually conducted among those belonging to the same religion, the need for public protection against fraudulent solicitations does not exist in as great a degree as does the need for protection with respect to solicitations for charity or civic projects as to justify state regulation. Further more, to require a government permit before solicitation for religious purpose may be allowed is to lay a prior restraint on the free exercise of religion. Such restraint, if allowed, may well justify requiring a permit before a church can make Sunday collections or enforce tithing. To read the Decree, therefore, as including within its reach solicitations for religious purposes would be to construe it in a manner that it violates the Free Exercise of Religion Clause of the Constitution. 11. Explain the void-for-vagueness doctrine, as well as the doctrine of over breadth, and how they relate to due process. The void-for-vagueness doctrine states that a statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application, it violates the first essential of due process of law. On the other hand, the overbreadth doctrine decrees that a governmental purpose may not be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of protected freedoms. 12. The US Government pursuant to the provisions of the RP-US Extradition Treaty officially requested the Philippine Government to extradite MJ to the US to face several criminal charges filed against him when he was still in the US. The request was transmitted to the DFA to the DOJ for evaluation pursuant to PD 1069 (The RP Extradition Law). MJ requested the DOJ to furnish him copies of the request and the supporting documents and evidences so that he can prepare his defense. Meanwhile, he ran for Congressman and won. a. Will it constitute denial of MJs right to due process if the DOJ will deny his request? No, MJ is not yet entitled to those documents or evidence relying on the Balance Of Interest Test at its evaluation Stage. AN extraditees right to know is momentarily withheld during the evaluation stage of the extradition proceedings to accommodate the more compelling interest of the State to prevent the escape which can be precipitated by premature information of the basis of the request for his extradition. This is but a softrestraint on his right to due process which would not deprive him of fundamental fairness should he decide to resist the request for his extradition to the US. There is no denial of due process as long as fundamental fairness is assured a party. b. Assuming that the petition for his extradition is filed by the DOJ in the RTC, before the judge issues a warrant for his arrest as mandated by PD 1069, is prior notice and hearing required? NO, On the Basis of the Extradition Law 20

It is significant to note that Section 6 of PD 1069, our Extradition Law, uses the word immediate to qualify the arrest of the accused. This qualification would be rendered nugatory by setting for hearing the issuance of the arrest warrant. Hearing entails sending notices to the opposing parties, receiving facts and arguments from them, and giving them time to prepare and present such facts and arguments. Arrest subsequent to a hearing can no longer be considered immediate. On the Basis of the Constitution Even Section 2 of Article III of our Constitution does not require a notice or a hearing before the issuance of a warrant of arrest. To determine probable cause for the issuance of arrest warrants, the Constitution itself requires only the examination under oath or affirmation of complainants and the witnesses they may produce. There is no requirement to notify and hear the accused before the issuance of warrants of arrest. No it is not necessary. If the accused were allowed to be heard and necessarily to present evidence during the prima facie determination for the issuance of a warrant of arrest, what would stop him from presenting his entire plethora of defense at this stage, if he so desires in his effort to negate a prima facie finding. Such a procedure could convert the determination of a prima facie case to a full blown trial of the main case superfluous. This scenario is also anathema to the summary nature of extraditions. c. Should MJ be allowed to post bail during pendency of extradition case considering that he enjoys the presumption of innocence? Reason. As suggested by the use of the word conviction, the constitutional provision on bail, as well as Section 4 of Rule 114 of the Rules of Court, applies only when a person has been arrested and detained for violation of Philippine criminal laws. It does not apply to extradition proceedings, because extradition courts do not render judgments of conviction or acquittal. It follows that the constitutional provision on bail will not apply to a case like extradition, where the presumption of innocence is not an issue. d. During the pendency of the extradition proceeding in the RTC, should he be allowed to post bail so that he can represent his constituents who elected him as Congressman? NO, bail may be applied for and granted as an exception, only upon a clear and convincing showing: (1) that, once granted bail, the applicant will not be a flight risk or a danger to the community; and (2) that there exist special, humanitarian and compelling circumstances including, as a matter of reciprocity, those cited by the highest court in the requesting state when it grants provisional liberty in extradition cases therein. e. Disenfranchisement argument. It must be noted that even before private respondent ran for and won a congressional seat in Manila, it was already of public knowledge that the US was requesting his extradition. Hence, his constituents were or should have been prepared for the

consequences of the extradition case against their representative, including his detention pending the final resolution of the case. Premises considered and in line with Jalosjos, we are constrained to rule against his claim that his election to public office is by itself a compelling reason to grant him bail. f. Exceptions to grant of bail Bail may be applied for and granted as an exception, only upon a clear and convincing showing: (1) that, once granted bail, the applicant will not be a flight risk or a danger to the community; and (2) that there exist special, humanitarian and compelling circumstances including, as a matter of reciprocity, those cited by the highest court in the requesting state when it grants provisional liberty in extradition cases therein. 13. What are the provisions of the Bill of Rights governed by the exclusionary rule on evidence? Briefly discuss each. Secs 1, 2, 3, 12, and 17. Due process clause; Equal Protection Clause; Unreasonable Searches and Arrests; In-custodial Investigation; Rights against self incrimination. Evidence obtained from such are considered as fruit of the poisonous tree, which means that such not voluntarily given and were done in violation of the law. Such are incompetent evidence and thus excluded by the rules. 14. What is International Humanitarian Law and how it is distinguish with Human Rights Law? International humanitarian law is a set of rules which seek, for humanitarian reasons, to limit the effects of armed conflict. It protects persons who are not or are no longer participating in the hostilities and restricts the means and methods of warfare. International humanitarian law is also known as the law of war or the law of armed conflict. International humanitarian law is part of international law, which is the body of rules governing relations between States. International law is contained in agreements between States treaties or conventions , in customary rules, which consist of State practise considered by them as legally binding, and in general principles. Human Rights law is those provided in Article III, and is compound only by the government to its citizens. 15. M was a governor in one of the provinces in Luzon. An anti-graft case was filed against him in the Ombudsman in connection with certain contracts he entered into on behalf of the province. While the Ombudsman was investigating, there came the election and he ran for Congressman. He was elected as Congressman. The Ombudsman later filed the anti-graft case against him before the SB. The SB, pursuant to Section 13, RA 3019, as amended, issued the suspension order against him addressed to the Speaker of the House of Representatives for enforcement. M questioned the regularity of the issuance of such suspension order against him, contending that first, the offense was alleged to have been committed by him while he was 21

still governor, a different office from that which he now occupies and second, the suspension order encroaches on the power of the House of Representatives to punish its members for disorderly behavior and suspend or expel a member pursuant to Section 16 (3), Article VII of the Constitution and therefore, violates the doctrine of separation of powers. Rule on the two contentions of M. 1st contention: His contention is not valid. Section 13 of RA 3019 provides that any public officer against whom any criminal prosecution under a valid information under this Act or under the provisions of the Revised Penal Code on bribery is pending in court, shall be suspended from office. Even if he is now a Congressman, still the case will prosper. The suspension from office, means any office, which he is holding. 2nd Contention: Such suspension does not encroach on the power of the House of Representatives to punish its members for disorderly behavior and suspend or expel a member, for the suspension is base on a pending case of violation of RA 3019. As stated in the Constitution, the suspension power of the Congress is limited to violation of any member of its own rules of proceedings. Rule on the contention that his election serves as a Condonation by the people of whatever infraction/offense he may have committed during his prior term as governor A public official could not be removed for misconduct committed during a prior term and that his reelection operated as a condonation of the officers previous misconduct to the extent of cutting-off the right to remove him therefore. But that was because in that case, before the petition questioning the validity of the administrative decision removing petitioner could be decided, the term of office during which the alleged misconduct was committed expired. Removal cannot extend beyond the term during which the alleged misconduct was committed. If a public official is not removed before his term of office expires, he can no longer be removed if he is thereafter reelected for another term. 16. Arnold Santos filed his COC for Mayor, notwithstanding that he had already served as Mayor for 3 consecutive terms. A disqualification case was filed against him in the COMELEC by his opponent before the election. The COMELEC ruled that indeed Arnold Santos is now disqualified from running again for Mayor, since he had already served as such for 3 consecutive terms, and cancelled his COC. Immediately thereafter, Larry Santos, his son, filed his COC as substitute candidate to his father upon nomination of their political party. The opponent questioned the substitution in another petition filed before the COMELEC. The COMELEC, however, was not immediately able to resolve the petition before the election. Larry Santos won in the a.

election and was proclaimed Mayor and assumed office ad Mayor. a. May the COMELEC still continue to resolve the petition (questioning the substitution) after Larry Santos was elected as Mayor and assumed office as such? Explain. Yes, as provided under Section 6 of the Electoral Reform Law of 1987, the COMELEC shall continue to exercise jurisdiction over disqualification cases not decided after the elections. b. Should the COMELEC rule in favor of the petitioner (that indeed there was no valid substitution) Yes, even if the substitute candidate possess the qualification as required by law, such as nominated by the political party and he belongs to such, still he cannot qualify as a substitute candidate. The law mandates that for a candidate to be validly substituted he must first be a candidate, where his COC was cancelled; he is not a candidate and therefore cannot be validly substituted. c. If indeed the substitution is not valid, should the votes cast in favor of Larry Santos be considered stray votes thereby allowing the proclamation of the opponent as duly elected Mayor? Elaborate. No, the votes cast should not be considered as stray votes. Section 12 of RA 9006 provides that in cases of valid substitution after the official ballots have been printed, the votes cast for the substituted candidates shall be considered as stray votes but shall not invalidate the whole ballot. This rule shall not apply if the substitute candidate is of the same family name. 17. What is the constitutional Writ of Amparo, and state the constitutional basis of its promulgation by the SC. The SC adopted the writ of amparo in order to effectively shield a person against the violation of human rights by arbitrary authorities. Justice Azcuna defined amparo as a special constitutional writ to protect or enforce a constitutional right (other than physical liberty which is already covered by the writ of habeas corpus), in consonance with the power of the Supreme Court to adopt rules to protect or enforce constitutional rights. Art. 8, section 5, par.5, 1987 constitution provides for the rule making power of the SC: - Promulgate rules concerning the protection and the enforcement of constitutional rights, pleadings, practice and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to the underprivileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasijudicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court. 18. Mariano, an employee of the PCSO, filed his COC for VM of Puerto Princesa, a component city of the Province of Palawan. He lost in the election but he learned that 22

his opponent engaged in massive vote-buying during the elections. a. What remedy may he avail and where should he file it, including appeal if the action is decided against him? File an election protest within 10 days after the proclamation of the winner to the COMELEC. If it was decided against him, he should file a petition for certiorari alleging grave abuse of discretion to the SC. NO appeal for they exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over such cases. Remedy is to file a petition for certiorari to the SC. b. Will it make any difference if instead, he ran for VM of the Municipality of San Juan, Metro Manila? Yes, for a municipal official position, the remedy is to file an election protest within 10 days after the proclamation of the winner to the RTC. If it was decided against him, he should appeal to the COMELEC. Decisions, final orders or rulings of the COMELEC are final, executory and not appealable in this case, so remedy is to file a petition for certiorari to the SC. c. What is the effect of his filing of COC with respect to his employment at the PCSO? Can he still reassume his position at the PCSO? Discuss. He is deemed ipso facto resigned from office as provided in Sec 66 of the OEC. He cannot reassume his position at the PCSO. 19. Assuming that Marcial is a candidate and he lost in the elections. Feeling that he was cheated, discuss the appropriate remedy he should take and before what body should he commence the action if the office he aspired for is that of: a. Member of the Sangguniang Barangay of his barangay in a HUC; File an election protest within 10 days after the proclamation of the winner to the MTC. . If it was decided against him, he should appeal to the COMELEC. Decisions, final orders or rulings of the COMELEC are final, executory and not appealable in this case, so remedy is to file a petition for certiorari to the SC. b. VM of a Municipality; File an election protest within 10 days after the proclamation of the winner to the RTC. If it was decided against him, he should appeal to the COMELEC. Decisions, final orders or rulings of the COMELEC are final, executory and not appealable in this case, so remedy is to file a petition for certiorari to the SC. c. Mayor of an ICC; File an election protest within 10 days after the proclamation of the winner to the COMELEC. The COMELEC has original and exclusive jurisdiction over them thus the remedy is to file a petition for certiorari to the SC. d. Congressman of a lone congressional district; File an election protest within 10 days after the proclamation of the winner to the HRET. If it was decided against him, he should file a petition for certiorari alleging grave abuse of discretion to the SC. NO appeal for the HRET for it is the sole judge of all contests relating to

election, returns Congressman.

and

qualifications

of

the

e. VP of the Republic; File an election protest within 30 days after the proclamation of the winner to the PET, where the SC decides such en banc. NO appeal for the PET for it is the sole judge of all contests relating to election, returns and qualifications of the P and VP. 20. Marc was elected VG in May 1992. In March 1993, the duly elected Governor died, and then Marc succeeded Governor. In the May 1995 election, he ran for Governor and won. In the May 1998 election ran again for Governor and won. In the May 2001 election, he again file his COC for governor but his opponent questioned the candidacy before the COMELEC contending that since he has already served 3 consecutive terms as governor, he is no longer entitled to run. The COMELEC however, failed to resolve the disqualification case and in the election, he lost. Marc seasonably filed an election protest and in January 2002, he won in the election protest and was proclaimed and assumed office as governor. In connection with the May 2004 election, he consulted you whether he can still run for governor again. a. Give your advice, citing reasons. Conditions for three-term rule to apply: Elected for 3 consecutive terms; Fully served the 3 consecutive terms. Considering that he has served the Mayorship for only two terms, the 1995-1998 and 1998-2001. And that there is an involuntary act, where he did not serve as Mayor, that is when he lost to the election contest filed. Thus he can run for mayor in 2004. b. Discuss the 2 policies enunciated in the constitutional provisions (Sec. 8, Art. X) prohibiting local elective officials from serving for more than 3 consecutive terms in the same elective office. Prevent Political Dynasty = so that the place will not be at the realm of a political power vested in one family. Enhancing freedom of choice = so that there can be another candidate which the voters can vote upon. 21. What are the 2 kinds of preventive suspension under CSL? When is a public officer subjected to preventive suspension entitled to payment of backwages? There are two kinds of preventive suspension of civil service employees who are charged with offenses punishable by removal or suspension: (1)Preventive suspension pending investigation is not a penalty. It is a measure intended to enable the disciplining authority to investigate charges against respondent by preventing the latter from intimidating or in any way influencing witnesses against him. If the investigation is not finished and a decision is not rendered within that period, the suspension will be lifted and the respondent will automatically be reinstated. If after investigation respondent is found innocent of the charges and is exonerated, he should be 23

reinstated. However, no compensation was due for the period of preventive suspension pending investigation; (2) Preventive suspension pending appeal is actually punitive although it is in effect subsequently considered illegal if respondent is exonerated and the administrative decision finding him guilty is reversed. Hence, he should be reinstated with full pay for the period of the suspension. (Gloria v. CA, G.R. No. 131012, April 21, 1999, En Banc [Mendoza]) 22. Dennis Puzoy, a utility worker in a certain government office, filed his COC for Senator in connection with the forthcoming elections. He does not belong to any political party and had no political machinery to launch a nationwide campaign for Senator. It was learned that there was a pending administrative case against him before his office for grave misconduct and he was in fact placed under preventive suspension for 90 days. During the campaign, the administrative case was decided and he was not found guilty. 5 days before the election, a petition to disqualify him was filed before the COMELEC on the ground that he was a nuisance candidate. a. Will the petition to disqualify him on the ground that he is a nuisance candidate prosper? Nuisance candidates who have no bonafide intention to run for the office for which the certificate of candidacy has been filed and would thus prevent a faithful election There should be a showing that: the certificate of candidacy has been filed to put the election process in mockery/dispute; the intent for filing is to cause confusion among the voters by the similarity of the names of the registered candidates; or there are other circumstances which clearly demonstrates that the candidate has no bona fide intention to run for the office. In the case at bar, there is no political machinery to launch a nationwide campaign for Senatorship, thus leading to put the election into a mockery. b. Is he entitled to be reinstated to his former position considering his exoneration? Yes. The law provides that a favorable decision will bring him back to his position. c. Can he validly demand for the payment of his back salaries equivalent to the period of his preventive suspension? NO. The preventive suspension happened pending investigation, thus such was a measure to enable the disciplining authority to investigate charges effectively. If the employee is found to be innocent afterwards, he cannot claim backwages. 23. On her way to check-in at the predeparture area in NIAA, Ms. L. Johnson, an American tourist was frisked by the lady guard when the metal detector sounded an alarm as she passed through. The lady guard felt something hard and bulging in her abdominal area, the lady guard asked what it was. She alleged that it was an additional

panty girdle as she just had an ectopic pregnancy. The guard unsatisfied by her answer reported the matter to her police superior. The officer directed that Ms. Johnson be brought to the nearby ladies restroom to determine what the bulging was. In the course of the search, where she was directed to undress, white crystalline substances contained in 2 transparent plastic bags were found neatly tied on her tummy. The substances were later found to be shabu when subjected to examination by forensic experts at the NBI crime lab. During the trial for violation of RA 6425, she questioned the admissibility of the shabu introduced in evidence against her by the prosecution for being the fruit of the poisonous tree as they were against unreasonable searches and seizures guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. a. May the search be considered a search incidental to lawful arrest? Clarify? The packs of methamphetamine hydrochloride having thus been obtained through a valid warrantless search, they are admissible in evidence against the accusedappellant herein. Corollarily, her subsequent arrest, although likewise without warrant, was justified since it was effected upon the discovery and recovery of shabu in her person in flagrante delicto. (People vs. Leila Johnson) b. Was her warrantless arrest justified under the circumstances? Explain. Yes the arrest is valid. Since the search was valid and because of the fact that the officers found shabu, such arrest was valid. The officers had that probable cause and knowledge that an unlawful act is happening in their presence. Persons may lose the protection of the search and seizure clause by exposure of their persons or property to the public in a manner reflecting a lack of subjective expectation of privacy, which expectation society is prepared to recognize as reasonable. Such recognition is implicit in airport security procedures. With increased concern over airplane hijacking and terrorism has come increased security at the nations airports. c. Rule on the admissibility in evidence of the shabu? It is admissible in evidence. Ms. L. Johnson cannot invoke the evidence as being the fruit of the poisonous tree, for the search conducted was a valid. Ordinary constitutional protections against warrantless searches and seizures do not apply to routine airport procedures. 24. Mayor G of Olongapo City was appointed by the President as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the SBMA pursuant to the provision in the SBMA Charter which substantially provides that the SBMA shall be headed by a Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, provided that during the 1st year of its operation, the President shall appoint the Mayor of Olongapo City as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. a. Cite and discuss 2 constitutional grounds to nullify his appointment as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the SBMA? Encroachment on the power of the President to appoint. 24

The legislature cannot provide that only the Mayor of Olongapo will be appointed as Chief Executive Officer, for to do so will mean only to encroach or share the power of appointment of the president. Such will be a violation of the Doctrine of Separation of Powers, for such power is executive in nature. Prohibition on the holding of two offices The Constitution provides that an elective official cannot be eligible for appointment or designation in any capacity to nay public office or position during his term. Art IX B Sec 7. b. Assuming that the SC later declare his appointment unconstitutional, should he be made to reimburse the government whatever salaries and emoluments he received as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer? I submit that it cannot be reimbursed anymore, having served such function, it is but right to be paid the salaries for such position, even if declared not a valid one. Q: Who is a de facto officer? A. A de facto officer is one who is in possession of an office and who openly exercises its functions under color of an appointment or election, even though such appointment or election may be irregular. Q. Is the de facto officer entitled to receive emoluments for actual services rendered? A. Yes. The Court has allowed a de facto officer to receive emoluments for actual services rendered but only when there is no de jure officer, thus: in cases where there is no de jure officer, a de facto officer who, in good faith, has had possession of the office and has discharged the duties pertaining thereto, is legally entitled to the emoluments of the office, and may in appropriate action recover the salary, fees and other compensations attached to the office. (Civil Liberties Union vs. Executive Secretary) In fine, the rule is that where there is a de jure officer, a de facto officer, during his wrongful incumbency, is not entitled to the emoluments attached to the office, even if he occupied the office in good faith. (General Manager vs. Monserate, April 17, 2002) Q. May the de jure officer recover from a de facto officer the salary received by the latter during the time of his wrongful tenure, even though he (the de facto officer) occupied the office in good faith and under color of title? A. Yes. A de facto officer, not having a good title, takes the salaries at his risk and must, therefore, account to the de jure officer for whatever salary he received during the period of his wrongful tenure.
De jure Lawful title to office, even though deprived of title to office No need of actual possession Valid acts De Facto Color of title to an office which is imperfect. There is actual possession Valid only to third parties who relies on such acts Not to benefit from it, unless assumption is in good faith and if there is no de jure officer that gets the salary. Ripens to de jure if not questioned in quo warranto

proceeding within 1 year upon assumption of office.

25.

Define and discuss the following: a. Doctrine of Effective Nationality; This principle is expressed in Article 5 of the Hague Convention of 1930 on the Conflict of Nationality Laws as follows: Art. 5. Within a third State a person having more than one nationality shall be treated as if he had only one. Without prejudice to the application of its law in matters of personal status and of any convention in force, a third State shall, of the nationalities which any such person possesses, recognize exclusively in its territory either the nationality of the country in which he is habitually and principally resident or the nationality of the country with which in the circumstances he appears to be in fact most closely connected. (Frivaldo vs. COMELEC) b. Ecclesiastical Affair Involves the relationship between the church and its members and relates to the matters of faith, religious doctrines, worship and governance of congregation: Involves the following: Proceedings of excommunications; Ordinations of religious ministers; Other activities with attached agencies. c. Proximity Rule Under the proximity rule, the occupant of a particular position could be considered a confidential employee if the predominant reason why he was chosen by the appointing authority was the latters belief that he can share a close intimate relationship with the occupant which ensures freedom of discussion without fear or embarrassment or misgivings of possible betrayal of personal trust or confidential matters of state. Withal, where the position occupied is more remote from that of the appointing authority, the element of trust between them is no longer predominant. (CSC v. Salas, 274 SCRA 414, June 19, 1997) d. Arrest in hot pursuit When an offense has just been committed and the peace officer or a private person has a probable cause to believe based on the personal facts and circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it. e. In Flagrante Delicto When in the presence of the peace officer or a private person, the person to be arrested is committing, or is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense. f. Doctrine of qualified political agency The acts or decisions of members of the executive department, bureaus and other offices are deemed to be the acts of the President Himself if it involves the regular conduct of business unless disapproved by him. g. Rights in Custodial Investigation Section 12. of Article III provides: (1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be 25

waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel. (2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiate the free will shall be used against him. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are prohibited. (3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him. (4) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations of this section as well as compensation to the rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices, and their families. h. Doctrine of Fair Comment The doctrine of fair comment means that while in general every discreditable imputation publicly made is deemed false, because every man is presumed innocent until his guilt is judicially proved, and every false imputation is deemed malicious, nevertheless, when the discreditable imputation is directed against a public person in his public capacity, it is not necessarily actionable. In order that such discreditable imputation to a public official may be actionable, it must either be a false allegation of fact or a comment based on a false supposition. If the comment is an expression of opinion, based on established facts, then it is immaterial that the opinion happens to be mistaken, as long as it might reasonably be inferred from the facts. (Borjal vs. CA) Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies Before a party is allowed to seek the intervention of the court, it is a condition that he should have availed of all the means of administrative processes afforded him. Doctrine of Condonation or Forgiveness The Court should never remove an elective public officer for acts prior to his present term or office. To do otherwise would be to deprive the people of their right to elect their officers; when the people have elected a man to office, it must be assumed that they did this with the knowledge of his life and character, and that they disregard or forgave his fault or misconduct. Applies only to administrative cases and not to criminal Cases. 26. Discuss the 2 kinds of involuntary extra-judicial confession under Sec. 12. Art. III? Two kinds of involuntary or coerced confessions treated in this constitutional provision: (1) those which are the product of third degree methods such as torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, which are dealt with in paragraph 2 of Section 12, and; (2) those which are given without the benefit of Miranda warnings, which are the subject of paragraph 1 of the same Section 12. Extrajudicial confessions are presumed voluntary, and, in the absence of conclusive evidence showing the declarants consent in executing the same has been vitiated, such confession will be sustained. Numerous decisions of this Court rule that for an extrajudicial confession to be admissible, it must be: 1) voluntary; 2) made with the assistance of competent and j. i.

independent counsel; 3) express; and 4) in writing. Preventive Suspension: Imposed during the pendency of an administrative investigation, preventive suspension is not a penalty in itself. It is merely a measure of precaution so that the employee who is charged may be separated, for obvious reasons, from the scene of his alleged misfeasance while the same is being investigated. Thus preventive suspension is distinct from the administrative penalty of removal from office such as the one mentioned in Sec. 8(d) of P.D. No. 807. While the former may be imposed on a respondent during the investigation of the charges against him, the latter is the penalty which may only be meted upon him at the termination of the investigation or the final disposition of the case. (Beja, Sr. vs. CA) Next in rank Rule: One who is next-in-rank is entitled to preferential consideration for promotion to the higher vacancy, created by promotion, but it does not necessarily follow that he and no one else can be appointed. The rule neither grants a vested right to the holder nor imposes a ministerial duty on the appointing authority to promote such person to the next higher position Transactional immunity vs. use-andderivative-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. In contrast, by the grant of use-andderivative-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. Effects of Filing Certificate of Candidacy: Candidates holding appointive office or positions shall be considered ipso facto resigned from his office. (Sec 66, OEC) Candidates holding elective office shall not be considered resigned from his office (Sec 14, RA 9006) Q: A is an alien. State whether in the Philippines he is entitled to the right against illegal searches and seizures and against illegal arrests. A: Aliens are entitled to the right against illegal searches and seizures and illegal arrests. As applied in People v. Chua Ho San, these rights are available to all persons, including aliens. Q: What are the cardinal primary rights which must be respected even in proceedings of this character? A: (1) The first of these rights is the right to a hearing; (2) Not only must the party be given an opportunity to present his case and to adduce evidence tending to establish the rights which he asserts but the tribunal must consider the evidence presented. (3) "While the duty to deliberate does not impose the obligation to decide right, it does imply a 26

necessity which cannot be disregarded, namely, that of having something to support its decision. (4) Not only must there be some evidence to support a finding or conclusion, but the evidence must be "substantial. (5) The decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected. (6) The Court of Industrial Relations or any of its judges, therefore, must act on its or his own independent consideration of the law and facts of the controversy, and not simply accept the views of a subordinate in arriving at a decision. (7) The Court of Industrial Relations should, in all controversial questions, render its decision in such a manner that the parties to the proceeding can know the various issues involved, and the reasons for the decisions rendered. Fundamental principles concerning treaties: 1. Pacta sunt servanda it means that treaties must be observed in good faith despite hardship on the contracting state, such as conflicts between the treaty and its constitution or prejudice to the national interest as a result of the operation of the treaty. As a general rule, a party must comply with the provisions of a treaty and cannot ignore or modify it without the consent of the other signatory. Willful disregard or violation of treaties without just cause is frowned upon by the society of nations. 2. Rebus sic stantibus according to Jessup, would justify non-performance of a treaty obligation if the conditions in relation to which the parties contracted have changed so materially and so unexpectedly as to create a situation in which the exaction of performance would be unreasonable. Five Postulates of Extradition: 1. Extradition Is a Major Instrument for the Suppression of Crime. First, extradition treaties are entered into for the purpose of suppressing crime by facilitating the arrest and custodial transfer of a fugitive from one state to the other. 2. The Requesting State Will Accord Due Process to the Accused. An extradition treaty presupposes that both parties thereto have examined, and that both accept and trust, each others legal system and judicial process 3. The Proceedings Are Sui Generis. Extradition proceedings are not criminal in nature. In criminal proceedings, the constitutional rights of the accused are at fore; in extradition which is sui generis in a class by itself they are not. 4. Compliance Shall Be in Good Faith. Verily, we are bound by pacta sunt servanda to comply in good faith with our obligations under the Treaty. This principle requires that we deliver the accused to the requesting country if the conditions precedent to extradition, as set forth in the Treaty, are satisfied. 5. There Is an Underlying Risk of Flight. Persons to be extradited are presumed to be flight risks. This prima facie presumption finds reinforcement in the experience of the executive branch: nothing short of confinement can ensure that the accused will not flee the

jurisdiction of the requested state in order to thwart their extradition to the requesting state. Q: What are the situations covered by the law on nepotism? A: Under the definition of nepotism, one is guilty of nepotism if an appointment is issued in favor of a relative within the third civil degree of consanguinity or affinity of any of the following: appointing authority; recommending authority; chief of the bureau or office; and person exercising immediate supervision over the appointee. Clearly, there are four situations covered. In the last two mentioned situations, it is immaterial who the appointing or recommending authority is. To constitute a violation of the law, it suffices that an appointment is extended or issued in favor of a relative within the third civil degree of consanguinity or affinity of the chief of the bureau or office, or the person exercising immediate supervision over the appointee. Q: The "equal protection clause" permits a valid classification under the following conditions: The classification must rest on substantial distinction; The classification must be germane to the purpose of the law; The classification must not be limited to existing conditions only; and The classification must apply equally to all members of the same class. Q: What are some of the recognized restrictions to the right of the people to information on matters of public concern? A: National security matters and intelligence information; Trade or industrial secrets and banking transactions; Criminal matters, such as those relating to the apprehension, the prosecution and the detention of criminals, which courts may not inquire into prior to such arrest, detention and prosecution; Other confidential information. The Ethical Standards Act (R.A. No. 6713, enacted on February 20, 1989) further prohibits public officials and employees from using or divulging confidential or classified information officially known to them by reason of their office and not made available to the public. Q: Discuss the two kinds of double jeopardy. The first sentence of Clause 20, Section 1, Article III of the Constitution ordains that no person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. The second sentence of said clause provides that if an act is punishable by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act. Thus, the first sentence prohibits double jeopardy of punishment for the same offense whereas, the second contemplates double jeopardy of punishment for the same act. Under the first sentence, one may be twice put in jeopardy of punishment of the same act, provided that he is charged with different 27

offenses, or the offense charged in one case is not included in, or does not include, the crime charged in the other case. The second sentence applies, even if the offense charged are not the same, owing to the fact that one constitutes a violation of an ordinance and the other a violation of statute. If the two charges are based on one and the same act, conviction or acquittal under either the law or the ordinance shall bar a prosecution under the other. Incidentally, such conviction or acquittal is not indispensable to sustain the plea of double jeopardy of punishment or the same offense. So long as jeopardy has been attached under one of the informations charging said offense, the defense may be availed of in the other case involving the same offense, even if there has been neither conviction nor acquittal in either case. Q: The International School Alliance of Educators (ISAE) questioned the point-of hire classification employed by International School, Inc. to justify distinction in salary rates between foreign hires and local hires, i.e., salary rates of foreign hires are higher by 25% than their local counterparts, as discriminatory and, therefore, violates the equal protection clause. The International School contended that this is necessary in order to entice foreign hires to leave their domicile and work here. Resolve. In this case, we find the point-of-hire classification employed by respondent School to justify the distinction in the salary rates of foreign-hires and local hires to be an invalid classification. There is no reasonable distinction between the services rendered by foreign-hires and local-hires. The practice of the School of according higher salaries to foreign-hires contravenes public policy and, certainly, does not deserve the sympathy of this Court.(International School Alliance of Educators vs. Quisumbing)

28