Pointers in Political Law Bar Exams 2014 by Professor Victoria V.

Loanzon
Always remember that the essence of Political Law focus on the rights of the citizens (in the
exercise of its sovereign power and protected rights), with the state (in the exercise of its
inherent powers), the interplay of the three branches of government, the role of administrative
agencies, the autonomy of local government units and relationship of the Philippines with other
nations.
IN CASE OF DOUBT, resolve the protection of rights in favor of the citizens, resolve any issue
in favor of autonomy of local governments, observe the fundamental requisites of due process.
I. Preliminaries:
A. Parts of the Constitution
1. Constitution of Liberty: Bill of Rights
2. Constitution of Government: Government Organization and Functions
3. Constitution of Sovereignty: Method of Amendment
The Amending Process
1. How amendment is instituted
a. Congress, Art. XVII, Sec. 1: By Congress as a constituent assembly upon a vote of !
of all its members
b. Constitutional Convention, Art. XVII, Sec. 3: By 2/3 vote of all members of Congress
call a constitutional convention or by a majority vote of all its members, submit to the
electorate the question of calling such convention.
c. The people through initiative, Art. XVII, Sec. 2: Upon petition of at least 12% of the
total number of registered voters, of which every district must be represented by at least
3% of the voters therein.
2. How revision is instituted
See a and b above: Con Ass and Con Con only
3. How ratified:
In case of amendments proposed by Congress or a Convention, Art. XVII, Sec. 4, paragraph
1: Ratification by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite conducted by COMELEC which
shall be held not earlier than 60 days nor 90 days after the approval of the amendment or
revision.
In case of amendments proposed through initiative, Art. XVII, Sec. 4, paragraph 2:
Ratification by a majority of votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not later than 60 days
nor later than 90 days after certification by COMELEC of the sufficiency of the petition.
4. Frequency of amendment/ratification under Peoples Initiative: once every 5 years (Sec.
2, Art. XVII)
5. Judicial review of the amending process, Art. VIII, Sec. 1, paragraph 1
Lambino v. COMELEC, 505 SCRA 160: The S.C. may exercise judicial review over any matter
relative to the process of amending or revising the Constitution. Revision of the Constitution
cannot be carried out through Peoples Initiative.


B. Three Branches of Government: The Legislative Department (Article VI); the Executive
Department (Article VII); and the Judicial Department (Article VIII)

C. Doctrine of Separation of Powers
The doctrine of separation of powers is a principle of government under which three
separate branches of government are empowered to carry out functions without
interference or encroachment from another branch.
Angara v. Electoral Tribunal, 63 Phil. 139, 158 (1936). The Court cannot interfere with an
independent body like the Electoral Tribunal under the principle of separation of powers. It is
premature for the Court to exercise its power of judicial review until after the tribunal has
terminated its proceedings.
Pimentel v. Joint Committee of Congress, G.R. No. 163783, June 22, 2004. The Congress is a
continuing body and must fulfil its constitutional mandate to conduct the presidential canvass of
votes even it if is in recess. The Senate shall convene in joint session during any voluntary
or compulsory recess to canvass the votes for President and Vice-President not later than thirty
days after the day of the elections in accordance with Section 4, Article VII of the Constitution.
How principle is violated: interference and assumption to another branchs functions
D. The Principle of Checks and Balances
This principle in constitutional law where there is a system-based regulation that allows
one branch to limit actions of another branch in keeping with the doctrine of separation of
powers.
Consolidated Petitions: Belgica et. al. v. Executive Secretary et. al. G.R.No. 208566,
Alcantara et. al. v. Drilon et. al. G.R. No. 208493, and Nepomuceno et. al. v. Pres. Aquino et.
al., G.R. No.209251, Nov. 19, 2013: The Court resolved issues related to procedural matters
and substantive matters. Please see below the gist of the ruling:
Procedural Matters:
Is the case subject to judicial review? Yes, there is a question raised on the constitutionality of
the provision of PDAF in the General Appropriations Act. This is a justiciable issue.
Functions of Judicial Review: Checking looks into possible abuses of each branch of
government; review of decisions of lower courts; Legitimizing looks into constitutionality of
laws and its application; and Symbolic looks into issues although they have become moot and
academic. REMEMBER THE EXPANDED POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE
S.C. Under normal circumstances, S.C. will not disturb the findings of facts of
administrative tribunals and the trial courts. However, S.C. may review findings of facts the
lower courts under recognized exceptions: when the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on
speculation, surmises or conjectures; when inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or
impossible; where there is abuse of discretion; when judgment is based on misapprehension of
facts, when the findings of facts are conflicting; when the Court of Appeals, in making its
findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to those of the trial court;
when findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are
based; when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioners main and reply briefs
are not disputed by the respondents; and when the findings of fact of the C.A. are premised on
supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by evidence on record.

Do the petitioners have legal standing to sue? Yes, as taxpayers there are qualified to raise the
issue of the constitutionality of PDAF. As taxpayers they stand to suffer material injury because
the funds covered under the General Appropriations Act come from revenues collected from
taxpayers.

Substantial Matters:
Is there a violation of the principle of separation of powers? Yes, the executive branch
encroached upon the power of the legislative branch when it determined how the PDAF will be
distributed. The legislative branch also exercised the power of implementation when it identified
priority projects in their jurisdiction.
Is there a violation of the principle of checks and "#$#%&'( "# $%& "'()&'&#$*$"+# +, $%&
(-+.&/$0 1#2&- 34567
Is there violation of the principle of non-delegability of legislative power? Yes, the legislative
branch allowed the executive branch to define the parameters as to how the PDAF can be
availed of by the members of Congress. The Department of Budget and Management provided
for a men where the funds may be spent.

Delegation of Powers
Two tests of valid delegation: Completeness test and sufficient standard test
How law-making power is delegated: suppletory rule-making (filling in details to ensure
enforcement of the law) and contingent rule-making(ascertaining the facts to bring the law
into operation)

Is there a violation of the constitutional provisiono and political dyanasty? While portions of
the PDAF were meant to enhance the continued stay in power of incumbent politicians, the
constitutional provision prohibiting political dynasty, the same is not self-executing . Todate,
Congress has not enacted a law to put the provision into effect. Thus, there is no violation of the
constitutional provision.
Is there a violation of the principle of local autonomy? Yes, when the incumbent members of
Congress dictated which projects would be implemented at the local level without the
participation of the local government units, it violated the essence of local autonomy under
Article X of the Constitution.
E. National Territory/Sovereignty/ State Immunity
Territory The Archipelago Concept, Article I
Territory The PhilippineArchipelago
Treaty limits: Treaty of Paris, Art. III
Treaty between Spain and U.S. concluded at Washington on November 7, 1900 and that
between U.S. and Great Britain on January 2, 1930
Method of determining baselines under R.A. No. 3046, June 17, 1961, R.A.
No.5446, September 8, 1968; and R.A. No. 9522( Philippine Archipelagic
Baselines Law) , March 10, 2009, using the straight line approach
Other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction
P.D. No. 1596, June 11, 1978
! Two Hundred-Mile Exclusive Economic Zone under the following:
P.D. No. 1599, June 11, 1978
Relevant provisions of the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Seas, April 30, 1982:
Internal waters of the Philippines consist of waters around, between and connecting the islands
of the Philippine Archipelago, regardless of their breadth and dimensions, including the waters in
bays, rivers and lakes. No right of innocence passage for foreign vessels exists in the case of
internal waters. (Harris, Cases and Materials on International Law, 5
th
ed., 1998, p. 407).
Under UNCLOS, however, warships enjoy a right of innocence passage when a portion of
the territorial water of the coastal state is used for international navigation.
Article 42(2) of UNCLOS provides that there shall be no suspension of innocent passage through
straits used for international navigation. The right of the coastal state to suspend the same
requires that the coastal nation must publish the same and without any publication, it cannot
insist to suspend the use of such body of water. A claim that suspension of innocence passage is
necessary for national security may be cited by the coastal state. Upon the other hand, if a war
ship delayed its right of innocence, the same may justified under Article 18(2) of UNCLOS if the
delay was caused by rendering assistance to persons or ship in distress.
Contiguous zone is the zone contiguous to the territorial sea and extends up to twelve nautical
miles from the territorial sea and over which the coastal state may exercise control necessary to
prevent infringement of its customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations
within the territory or territorial sea. (Article 33 of UNCLOS)
Exclusive Economic Zone is the zone extending up to 200 nautical miles from the baselines of a
state over which the coastal state has sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and
exploiting, conserving and managing its natural resources, whether living or non-living, of
the waters super adjacent to the seabed and of the seabed and subsoil and with regard to other
activities for the economic exploitation and exploration of the zone. (Articles 56 and 57,
UNCLOS)
Flag state means a ship has the nationality of the flag of the state it flies, but there must be a
genuine link between the state and the ship. (Article 91, UNCLOS)
Flag of convenience refers to a state with which a vessel is registered for various reasons such as
low or non-existent taxation or low-operating costs although the ship has no genuine link with
that state. (Harris, ibid., p.425)

)*+','-.%/01 2*3-%-*% #%4 536',-738 4-(/-%.7-(9'4
5(#.#%- :,7; +< )'&< *= 2>?@8 97 :7 ;+7 <=>=?>8 4&/7 @8 ABBBC D%& 0$*$& %*0 $%& -"E%$ $+ E+F&-#
*#2 $%& -"E%$ $+ +G# (-+(&-$"&0 *#2 '*H -&E1)*$& $%& &I()+"$*$"+#8 2&F&)+('&#$ *#2 1$")"J*$"+#
+, "$0 #*$1-*) -&0+1-/&0 *0 "$ '*H 2&&' ,"$ "# &I&-/"0& +, $%& E&#&-*) G&),*-& /)*10&7
A,-+#$4* +< :BC>D>:8 A>K LM:5 KAKC D%& -"E%$ $+ E+F&-# NH F"-$1& +, * '*#2*$& ,-+' $%&
(&+()& "0 #+$ *N0+)1$&7 D%& M+1-$ %&)2 $%*$O $%& G")) +, $%& (&+()& *0 &I(-&00&2 $%-+1E% $%&
N*))+$ /*##+$ /1-& $%& F"/& +, "#&)"E"N")"$H8 &0(&/"*))H ", $%&H '"0$*P&#)H N&)"&F&28 *0 "# $%"0 /*0&8
$%*$ $%& /*#2"2*$& G*0 Q1*)","&27 RNF"+10)H8 $%"0 -1)& -&Q1"-&0 0$-"/$ *(()"/*$"+# G%&# $%&
2&,"/"&#/H "0 )*/P +, /"$"J&#0%"(7 S, * (&-0+# 0&&P0 $+ 0&-F& "# $%& :&(1N)"/ +, $%& 3%")"(("#&08 %&
'10$ +G& %"0 $+$*) )+H*)$H $+ $%"0 /+1#$-H +#)H8 *N.1-"#E *#2 -&#+1#/"#E *)) ,&*)$H *#2 ,"2&)"$H $+
*#H +$%&- 0$*$&7O

Basis of State Immunity, Art. XVI, Sec. 3. The state cannot be sued without its consent.
Dept. of Agriculture v. NLRC, 227 SCRA: The state cannot be sued without its consent. The
assets of the government cannot be held liable for liabilities of a private person.
2. When a suit is against the state and when it is not
Consent; Manner by which consent is given
Express consent: by provision of law; when government exercises its proprietary function;;
when government initiates a suit.
Yujuico. Atienza, 472 SCRA 463. The City of Manila cannot be excused from paying the
property owner the balance of just compensation because it was the city which initiated the
expropriation proceedings.
Torts committed by special agents under the Civil Code, Art. 2180 (Consent to be sued
includes actions for tort)
Teotico v. City of Manila: The city of Manila was held liable under the provision of the Civil
Code which mandate it to maintain and ensure the safety of the public in all public places like
roads in its territorial jurisdiction.
Incorporation of government owned or controlled corporations (GOCCs): By law, GOCCs have
the right to sue and be sued.
Implied consent:
When the Government enters into business contracts
When it would be inequitable for the Government to claim immunity
4. Scope of Consent
Chavez v. Sandiganbayan, 193 SCRA 282: A public officer may not be held liable for the
counterclaim by one of the accused when he performs his duties in good faith.
F. Fundamental Powers of Government
1. Police Power
History of Police Power, Dissenting Opinion of Chief Justice Puno in
Lim v. Pacquing, 240 SCRA 649: Former Chief Justice Puno in his Dissenting Opinion in this
1995 case said that the exercise of police power is not without limit. He said that while it is the
prerogative of the State to promote the general welfare of the people thru the use of police
power; on the opposite end is the right of an entity to have its property protected against
unreasonable impairment by the State. Courts accord the State wide latitude in the exercise of its
police power to bring about the greatest good of the greatest number. But when its purpose is
putrefied by private interest, the use of police power becomes a farce and must be struck down
just as every arbitrary exercise of government power should be stamped out.
When exercise of police power may be questioned
MMDA v. Bel-Air Village Assn. 328 SCRA 836: Where is there is explicit grant of power, a
government agency cannot exercise police power. The Court said: Clearly, the MMDA is not
a political unit of government. The power delegated to the MMDA is that given to the Metro
Manila Council to promulgate administrative rules and regulations in the implementation of the
MMDAs functions. There is no grant of authority to enact ordinances and regulations for the
general welfare of the inhabitants of the metropolis.Ed-p
2. Power of Eminent Domain
Moday v. C. A. 268 SCRA 586: The Court reiterated the limitations on the power of eminent
domain are that the use must be public, compensation must be made and due process of law
must be observed. The Supreme Court, taking cognizance of such issues as the adequacy of
compensation, necessity of the taking and the public use character or the purpose of the taking,
has ruled that the necessity of exercising eminent domain must be genuine and of a public
character. Government may not capriciously choose what private property should be taken.
Land Bank of the Philippines v. Yatco Agricultural Enterprises, G.R. No. 172551, January 15,
2014.The determination of just compensation is fundamentally a judicial function. In the
exercise of the Courts essentially judicial function of determining just compensation, the RTC-
SACs are not granted unlimited discretion and must consider and apply the enumerated factors
in R.A. No. 6657 and the DAR formula (in AO 5-98) that reflect these factors. Courts may, in the
exercise of their discretion, relax the formulas application to fit the factual situations before
them. They must, however, clearly explain the reason for any deviation from the factors and
formula that the law and the rules have provided.
The time of taking refers to that time when the State deprived the landowner of the use and
benefit of his property, as when the State acquires title to the property or as of the filing of the
complaint, per Section 4, Rule 67 of the Rules of Court.

NOTE that: Expropriation is one of the harshest proceedings which the state has against a
private party because it deprives the party of perpetual use of his property; requisites, how just
compensation is determined; relate to the Bill of Rights.
(1). The size of the property and the seeming limited sector would benefit out of the
expropriation proceeding will not overcome the PUBLIC PURPOSE for which the private
property is being acquired. (On the acquisition of the 492 square meter property in Taguig
where the founder of the INC was born.)
(2). The private property owner may file a suit for reconveyance of property if government does
not use the property expropriated for a substantial period of time. (On the failure of the
government agency to implement the expansion of the Cebu airport after a lapse of more than 10
years.)
(3). Where the subject property sought to be acquired is covered by CARP, just compensation is
based at the time of taking. (On the determination at what price Land Bank would pay the
landowner)
(4)The determination of just compensation is left to the sound discretion of the Court and it will
not be bound by the Commissioners it appointed to assess the property and recommend just
compensation.

3. Power of Taxation: rule on taxation: must be uniform and equitable; Congress to enact a
progressive system of taxation
Com. of Internal Revenue v. S. C. Johnson & Son, Inc., 309 SCRA 87. In negotiating tax
treaties, the underlying rationale for reducing the tax rate is that the Philippines will give up a
part of the tax in the expectation that the tax given up for this particular investment is not taxed
by the other country.
In order to eliminate double taxation, a tax treaty resorts to several methods. First, it sets out the
respective rights to tax of the state of source or situs and of the state of residence with regard to certain
classes of income or capital.
The second method for the elimination of double taxation applies whenever the state of source is
given a full or limited right to tax together with the state of residence. In this case, the treaties
make it incumbent upon the state of residence to allow relief in order to avoid double taxation.

II. LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
A. Who may exercise law-making powers?
1. Congress
2. Local Legislative Bodies under the principle of delegation of powers
3. Electorate (peoples initiative on statutes, initiative and referendum)
4. Emergency powers exercised by the President under Martial Law Rule or in a
Revolutionary Government
B. Composition of Congress, Qualifications of Members, and Term of Office
1. Senate (Art. VI, Sections 2-4)
2. House of Representatives (Art. VI, Sections 5-8)
District representatives and apportionment
Party list system
Ang Ladlad v. COMELEC, G.R.No. 190582, April 8, 2010: While accreditation of party list is
the prerogative of COMELEC , the Court when called upon in proper cases, may scrutinize the
basis why a party was not accredited.
3. Salaries, Privileges and Disqualifications/Inhibitions
Salaries (Art.VI, Sec. 10 and Art. XVIII, Sec. 17)
Freedom from Arrest (Art. VI, Sec. 11, Rev. Penal Code, Art. 145): remember
that penalty must not excees 6 years so this is the very reason why three
incumbent senators have been arrested and denied bail for the crime of
plunder)
Speech and Debate Clause (Art. VI, Sec. 11): when immunity may be invoked
(Pobre v. Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago: even she called the Supreme Court
as a court of idiots, she was not subjected to any disciplinary action as she
delivered her utterances in the Senate Session Hall )
Disqualifications/Inhibitions
Incompatible and Forbidden Offices (Art. VI, Sec. 13)
Other Prohibitions (Art. VI, Sec. 3)
Duty to Disclose (Art. XI, Sec. 17, Art. VI, Sec. 12, Sec. 20): Duty does not
include divestment.
4. Matters to be entered in the Journal
Yeas and nays on third and final reading of a bill (Art. VI, Sec. 26[2])
Veto message of the President (Art. VI, Sec. 27[1])
Yeas and nays on the repassing of a bill vetoed by the President (Art. VI, Sec. 27[1])
Yeas and nays on any question at the request of 1/5 of members present (Art. VI,
Sec.16(4))
5. Legislative Process
Requirements as to bills
(1) As to titles of bills (Art. VI, Sec. 26(1))
(2) Requirements as to certain laws
Appropriations laws, Art. VI, Sec. 25 & 29 and Art. VII, Sec. 22
Demetria v. Alba, G. R. No. L-45129, March 6, 1987. All appropriations bill must emanate from
the House of Representatives and the executive branch has no power to transfer one budget for
another purpose for which it was originally intended.
Tax laws (Art. VI, Sec. 28, Art. XIV, Sec. 4(3)). All tax, tariff and other revenue bills must
originate in the House of Representatives but the Senate may introduce amendments.
Grant of Franchise: Congress has the sole prerogative to grant franchise on specific
matters like grant power to Meralco, broadcast companies, telecoms providers
a. Procedure for the passage of bills (Art. VI, Sec. 26 (b))
b. Effectivity of laws (Civil Code, Art. 2)
C. Powers of Congress
1. General plenary powers (Art. VI, Sec. 1)
Limitations on exercise of legislative powers
2. Substantive limitations
a. Express substantive limitations (Art. III under the Bill of Rights, Art. VI, Sections 25 and 28,
Art. XIV, Sec. 4(3), Art. VI, Sections 29, 30 and 31))
b. Implied substantive limitations
Prohibition against delegation of legislative powers
Prohibition against passage of irrepealable laws
Exemptions to Non-delegation Doctrine
- Delegation to the President: Art VI, Sec. 23(2) and Sec.28(2)
- Delegation to the people (Art. VI, Sec. 32): referendum and initiative
3. Procedural limitations (Art. VI, Sec. 32)
a. Legislative VETO or approval of extension of suspension of privilege of habeas corpus or
declaration of martial law (Art. VII, Sec. 18)
b. Approval of Presidential Amnesties (Art. VII, Sec. 19)
c. Concur in Treaties (Art. VII, Sec. 21)
d. Declaration of war and delegation of emergency powers (Art. VI, Sec. 23)
e. Power with regard to utilization of natural resources (Art. XII, Sec. 2)
f. Amendment of the Constitution (Art. XVII, Section 12)

4. Non-legislative powers
a. Question Hour: (Art. VI, Sec. 22)
b. Legislative investigation (Art. VI, Sec.21)
Senate of the Philippines v. Ermita, 488 SCRA 1: The President cannot clip the powers of the
legislative branch by restricting the attendance of officers and other officials of the executive
branch from appearing in congressional hearings in the exercise of the constitutionally-mandated
power to conduct inquiries.
Neri v. Senate Committees. The executive branch may invoke executive privilege in matters
covered by a legislative hearing and may even decline attendance or responding to queries if the
same is not carried out in aid of legislation.
c. Act as board of canvassers for presidential election (Art. VII, Sec. 4, par.4)
Lopez v. Senate of the Philippines, G.R.No. 163556, June 8, 2004. The Court sustained the
power of Congress to convene in joint session to canvass the votes in a presidential election.
d. Power of Impeachment
Who are subject to impeachment (Art. XI, Sec. 2)
Grounds for impeachment (Art. XI, Sec. 2)
Procedure for impeachment (Art. XI, Sec. 3(1)-(6))
Consequence of impeachment (Art. XI, Sec. 3(7))
Gutierrez v. House of Representatives, G. R. No. Feb. 15, 2011. Congress may look into
separate complaints against an impeachable officer and consider the inclusion of matters raised
therein in the adoption of the Articles of Impeachment.
This case of Gonzales and Wendell Sulit is very important:
Gonzales III v. Office of the President at al/ Bareras Sulit v. Ochoa et al (2014).The Court
that: Impeachment is the most difficult and cumbersome mode of removing a public
officer from office. It is, by nature, a sui generis politico-legal process that signals the need for a
judicious and careful handling as shown by the process required to initiate the proceeding; the
one-year limitation or bar for its initiation; the limited grounds for impeachment; the defined
instrumentality given the power to try impeachment cases; and the number of votes required for
a finding of guilt.
5. Powers under Special Constitutional Bodies/MEMORIZE COMPOSITION and
JURISDICTION
Electoral Tribunals (SET and HRET Art. VI, Sections 17 and 19)
Commission on Appointments (Art. VI, Sections 18-19)
Judicial and Bar Council
Chavez v. JBC: The Congress is entitled only to one representative in the JBC and not one for
each from the House of Representatives and the Senate.

6. Discipline of Members (Art. VI, Sec. 16(3)). The Committee on Ethics conducts the
investigation of a member and will submit in plenary its recommendation. A member of
Congress may be suspended or expelled by two thirds vote of all its members.
III. EXECUTIVE BRANCH
A. The President
1. Qualifications, election, term and oath, (Art. VII, Sections 2, 4 and 5)
2. Privileges and salary (Art. VII, Sec. 6)
3. Prohibitions (Art. VII, Sec. 13)
Compare prohibition against other officials (Art. VI, Sec. 13, Art. IX, A, Sec. 2 and Art.
IX, B, Sec. 7)
Exceptions to rule prohibiting executive officials from holding another office;
Vice President as member of the cabinet (Art. VIII, Sec. 3, par.2)
Secretary of Justice as member of Judicial and Bar Council (Art. VIII, Sec. 8 (1))
1. Powers and Functions of the President
>Executive power, (Art. VII, Sections 1 and 17)
>Control of executive department (Art. VII, Sec. 17)
Ople v. Torres, 293 SCRA 141(1998): In the exercise of power of control, the President may
substitute his own judgment over a decision of his subordinate; he may amend, affirm, alter or
revoke any issuance of his subordinates.
Concept of Qualified Political Agency
Fortich v. Corona, 298 SCRA 678(1998). In striking down, the action of the President, the
Court invoking a jurisprudence held:Since the decisions of both the Civil Service Commission
and the Office of the President had long become final and executory, the same can no longer be
reviewed by the courts. It is well-established in our jurisprudence that the decisions and orders
of administrative agencies, rendered pursuant to their quasi-judicial authority, have upon their
finality, the force and binding effect of a final judgment within the purview of the doctrine of res
judicata [Brillantes v. Castro, 99 Phil. 497 (1956), Ipekdijna Merchandizing Co., Inc. v. Court of
Tax Appeals, G.R. No. L-15430, September 30, 1963, 9 SCRA 72.] The rule of res judicata which
forbids the reopening of a matter once judicially determined by competent authority applies as
well to the judicial and quasi-judicial acts of public, executive or administrative officers and
boards acting within their jurisdiction as to the judgments of courts having general judicial
powers [Brillantes v. Castro, supra at 503].
The court said that the orderly administration of justice requires that the judgments/resolutions
of a court or quasi-judicial body must reach a point of finality set by the law, rules and
regulations. The noble purpose is to write finis to disputes once and for all. This is a
fundamental principle in our justice system, without which there would be no end to
litigations. Utmost respect and adherence to this principle must always be maintained by those
who wield the power of adjudication. Any act which violates such principle must immediately be
struck down.

General supervision of local government and autonomous regions (Art. X, Sec. 4 and
Sec.16)
Joson v. Executive Secretary, 290 SCRA 279(1998): The Presidents power over local
governments is only supervision and not control. Thus, the primary concern is to ensure that
local government officials comply with the law when implementing the same.
Power of appointment
With consent of Commission on Appointments (please commit to memory):
Heads of departments (Art. VII, Sec. 16)
Ambassadors, public ministers, and consuls (Art. VII, Sec. 16)
Officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel and naval captain (Art. VII, Sec.16)
Chairman and members of Constitutional Commissions (Art. IX, B, Sec. 1(2), C, Sec.
1(2), and D, Sec. 1(2))
Members of the Judicial and Bar Council (Art. VIII, Sec.8(2))
Upon recommendation of the Judicial and Bar Council
Members of the Supreme Court and all lower courts, (Art. VIII, Sec. 9)
Tanodbayan and Deputies (Art. XI, Sec. 9)
Limitations on appointing power of the President(Art. VII, Sections 13 and 15)
Interim or recess appointments, (Art.VI, Sec. 19 and Art. VII, Sec. 16, par. 2)
Limitation on appointing power of Acting President (Art. VII, Sections 14-15)
De Castro v. JBC, G.R. No. 191002, March 17, 2010: This case questioned the power of the
President to appoint the Chief Justice during the prohibitive period.
Executive clemencies, (Art. VII, Sec. 19, Art. IX, C, Sec. 5)
Pardon distinguished from probation
People v. Vera, 65 Phil. 56 (1937): Under the law on probation, the convicted party does not
serve his sentence in jail while in pardon, the convicted party serves his sentence and upon good
grounds, he may be granted pardon.
Pardon distinguished from parole
Tesoro v. Director of Prisons, 68 Phil. 154 (1939): Parole is granted to a convicted person upon
showing of good behavior but the party is required to report regularly to the Parole Board to
ensure that fulfills the conditions of his parole.
Pardon distinguished from amnesty
Tolentino v. Catoy, 82 Phil. 300 (1948): Pardon is left to the personal discretion of the
President while amnesty requires the imprimatur of Congress. Pardon is normally extended to
an individual while amnesty is extended to group of individuals.
Barrioquinto v. Fernandez, 82 Phil. 642 (1949): The right to the benefits of amnesty, once
established by the evidence presented either by the complainant or prosecution, or by the
defense, cannot be waived, because it is of public interest that a person who is regarded by the
Amnesty Proclamation which has the force of a law, not only as innocent, for he stands in the
eyes of the law as if he had never committed any punishable offense because of the amnesty,
Effect of Pardon
Cristobal v. Labrador, 71 Phil. 34 (1940): If it is absolute pardon, one is restored to his full civil
and political rights.
Pelobello v. Palatino, 72 Phil. 441 (1941): In the pardon is conditional, the party cannot avail of
the privilege of habeas corpus as he will be incarcerated at once if he violates the condition of his
pardon.
Revocation of Pardon
In Re: Wilfredo S. Torres, 2 SCRA 109: Since pardon is a an act of grace, the same may be
revoked if the party shows that he does not deserve the same because he has not reformed
himself.

Powers as Commander-in-Chief (Art. VII, Sec.18, Art. III, Sec. 15, Art. VIII, Sec. 1, par.2)
Emergency powers (Art. VI, Sec. 23(2))
Contracting and guaranteeing foreign loans (Art. VII, Sec. 20, Art. XII, Sec. 21, R. A. No.
4860)
Power over foreign affairs
Treaty making power (Art. VII, Sec. 21)
Treaty distinguished from executive agreements
Arthur Lim et al v. Executive Secretary GR No. 131445, April 11, 2002: A party who does not
any any legal standing cannot question the constitutionality of the Visiting Forces Agreement.
Please note that the Court has, in a prior case, has made a distinction between an Executive
Agreement and a Treaty. A treaty requires the ratification of the Senate while an Executive
Agreement does not. The VFA is considered supplemental to the Mutual Defense Treaty
executed by the Philippine government and the U.S. government and ratified by both the U.S.
Senate and the Philippine Senate prior to the adoption of the 1987 Constitution.
Deportation of undesirable aliens
Harvey et al v. Defensor-Santiago, 162 SCRA 1988: Under the theory of delegation of powers,
the Commissioner of Immigration, after due hearing, may exclude an alien and the aliens liberty
may be restrained by virtue of a Mission Order signed by the Commissioner.
Power over legislation
Address Congress (Art. VII, Sec.23)
Preparation and submission of the budget (Art. VII)
Veto power (Art. VII, sec. 27)
Emergency power (Art. VI, Sec. 23(2))
Fixing of tariff rates (Art. VI, Sec.28(2))
Presidents Immunity from suit
Rationale for the rule
B. The Vice President
1. Qualifications, election, term and oath (Art. VII, Sections 3, 4, and 5)
2. Privileges and salary (Art. VII, Sec. 6)
3. Prohibitions (Art. VII, Sec 13, Sec. 3, par. 2)
C. Succession (Art. VII, Sec.9)
1. In case of vacancy at the beginning of term (Art. VII, Sec. 7 and Sec. 10)
2. In case of vacancy during term (Art. VII, Sec. 8 and Sec. 10)
3. In case of temporary disability (Art. VII, Sections 11-12)
D. Removal (Art. XI, Sections 2-3)
Read provisions on the process of impeachment

V. THE JUDICIARY
A. The Supreme Court
1. Composition (Art. VIII, Sec. 4): there is only one Supreme Court, all other courts
are created by law; congress also defines the jurisdiction of courts created by law.
2. Appointment and qualifications (Art. VIII, Sec. 7, Sec.8 (5), Sec.9)
QUALITIES: proven Competence, Indepedence, Probity and Integrity (CIPI)
3. Salary, (Art. VIII, sec. 10, Art. XVIII, Sec. 17)
4. Tenure (Art VIII, Sec. 11, Sec. 1, Sec. 2, par. 2): all public officers retire at 65 years
old but members of the judiciary retire at 70 years old.
5. Removal (Art. XI, Sec. 2): by impeachment
6. Jurisdiction (Art. VIII, Sec. 1, Sec. 2, par. 2, Sec. 5, Art. VI, Sec. 30, Art. VII, Sec. 18)
7. Report on the judiciary (Art. VIII, Sec. 16)
8. Manner of sitting and votes required (Art. VIII, Sec. 4)
Rule: Divisions of the Supreme Court do not diminish its authority
9. Requirements as to decision (Art. VIII, Sections 13-14)
10. Periods for deciding cases (Art. VIII, Sec. 15, Art. VII, Sec. 18, par. 3, Art. XVIII,
Sections 12-14)
B. Theory and Justification of Judicial Review
Consolidated Petitions (Belgica and others) supra
De los Santos v. COA, G.R. No.198457, August 13,2013 : S.C. may overturn the appreciation of
facts of the trial court when the such findings are patently illegal or when there was no
jurisdiction for the court to resolve the issues.
C. Conditions for the Exercise of Judicial Review
D. Functions of Judicial Review: Checking, Legitimating and Symbolic
General Rule: All courts can exercise judicial review
Effect of Declaration of Unconstitutionality
Under Civil Code, Art. 7, Statute is void when declared unconstitutional
Statute is not always void but may produce legal effects
E. The Supreme Court as Presidential Electoral Tribunal, (Art. VII, Sec. 4, par. 4)
Legarda v. De Castro 542 SCRA, 125: The justices of the Supreme Court are triers of facts
when they participate in the conduct of an election contest involving candidates for president
and vice president. This allows the party in the election contest to raise any other issue within
the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court because in this case, the Court now exercises it
power of judicial review.
G. Administrative powers (more on judicial ethics)
1. Supervision of lower courts (Art. VIII, Sec.6)
2. Discipline of Judges (Art. VIII, Sec. 11)
3. Appointment of officials and employees of entire judiciary (Art. VIII, Sec. 5(6))
H. Lower courts (more on judicial ethics)
1. Qualifications and appointment (Art. VIII, Sec. 7(1)(2), Sec. 8(5), Sec.9)
2. Salary (Art. VIII, Sec. 10)
3. Tenure (Art. VIII, Sec. 11, Sec. 1, Sec. 2, par. 2)
4. Removal (Art. VIII, Sec. 11)
5. Jurisdiction (Art. VIII, Sec. 1)
6. Requirements as to preparation of decisions (Art. VIII, Sec.14)
7. Period for deciding (Art. VIII, Sec. 15 and Art. XVIII, Sections 12-14)
8. No non-judicial work for judges (Art. VIII, Sec. 12)
I. The Judicial and Bar Council (Art. VIII, Sec. 8); Memorize composition but it will be more
an appropriate topic in judicial ethics.
J. Disqualifications, inhibition and remittal of disqualification of judges (may be part of
judicial ethics)
1. Prohibition on practice of profession: No member of the judiciary may practice their
profession during their incumbency.
2. Prescriptive Duty to resolve pending matters
All matters pending with the Supreme Court must be resolved with 24 months;
Twelve (12) months for all collegiate appellate courts; and
Three (3) months for all other lower courts. (Section 15(1), 1987 Constitution)
3. Disqualification and Inhibition of Judges: may be voluntary or involuntary: There are
two rules governing the qualification and voluntary inhibition of judges: Section 1, Rule
137 of the Rules of Court; and Rule 3. 12 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the
Philippine Judiciary. Section 1, Rule 137 of the Rules of Court provides:
Disqualification of judges. No judge or judicial officer shall sit in any case in which he,
or his wife or child, is pecuniarily interested as heir, legatee, creditor or otherwise , or in
which he is related to either party within the sixth degree of consanguior affinity, or to
counsel within the fourth degree, computed according to the rules of the civil law, or in
which he has been executor, administrator, guardian, trustee or counsel, or in which he
has presided in any inferior court when his ruling or decision is the subject of review,
without the written consent of all parties in interest, signed by them and entered upon the
record.

A judge may, in the exercise of his sound discretion, disqualify himself from sitting in
case, for just or valid reasons other than those mentioned above. (example: judge is
wedding sponsor to one of the litigants, litigant is a kasambay of the judge)

VI. THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS

Emilio A. Gonzales III v. Office of the President, etc., et al./Wendell Bareras-Sulit v. Atty.
Paquito N. Ochoa, Jr., et al., G.R. No. 196231/G.R. No. 196232, January 28, 2014. The
Supreme Court held that the independence enjoyed by the Office of the Ombudsman and by the
Constitutional Commissions shares certain characteristics they do not owe their existence to
any act of Congress, but are created by the Constitution itself. They also enjoy fiscal
autonomy. In general terms, the framers of the Constitution intended that these independent
bodies be insulated from political pressure to the extent that the absence of independence
would result in the impairment of their core functions.

READ the common qualifications, disqualifications and tenure of office
A. Civil Service Commission with LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS
1. Composition and qualification of Commissions (Art. IX, B, Sec. 1(1), Art.
VII, Sec. 13, par. 2)
2. Appointment and term of office of Commission (Art. IX, B, Sec. 1(2))
3. Appointment of personnel of CSC (Art. IX, A, Sec. 4)
4. Salary (Art.IX, A, Sec. 3 and Art. XVIII, Sec. 17)
5. Disqualification (Art. IX, A, Sec. 2)
6. Removal by Impeachment (Art. XI, Sec. 2)
7. Functions of the CSC (Art. IX, B, Sec.3, Art. IX, A, Sections 7 and 8)
8. Scope of the civil service (Art. IX, B, Sec. 2(1))
9. Terms and conditions of employment in the civil service
(1) Oath of allegiance to the Constitution (Art. IX, B, sec. 4 and Art. XI,
Sec. 18)
(2) Merit system
(a) Appointment of lameducks(Art. IX, B, Sec. 6)
(b) Appointment or designed of elective and appointive officials (Art.
IX, B, Sec. 7. Art. VII, Sec. 13 and Art. VI, Sec. 13)
(3) Standardization of pay and ban on double compensation(Art. IX, B,
Sec. 5, Sec. 8)
(4) Ban on partisan political activities (Art. IX, B, Sec.2(4))
(5) Removal or suspension only for cause (Art. IX, B, Sec. (3))
(6) Summary removal
(7) Right of self-organization (Art, III, Sec. 8, Art. IX, Sec.2(5)
10. Review of decision of the CSC (Art. IX, A, Sec. 7)
11. Fiscal independence (Art. IX, A, Sec. 5)
Types of public officers: appointive (except for confidential appointees, must comply with CSC
standard qualifications); and elective (derives position by direct mandate of the people.
QUALITIES (RILE) must serve with utmost RESPONSIBILITY, INTEGRITY, LOYALTY
and EFFICIENCY.;act with patriotism and justice and lead modest life.
General Rule: A public servant may only be removed for cause. Every appointment is based on
merit and fitness.
Other pertinent rules governing public officers:
Midnight Appointments: A President or Acting President is prohibited from making
appointments two months immediately before the next presidential elections and up to the
end of his term. (Art. VII, Sec. 15, Constitution)
Exception: Temporary appointments to executive positions when continued vacancies
therein will prejudice public service or endanger public safety.
Three fold liability of a public officer: civil liability, criminal liability and administrative
liability
Preventive suspension is not a penalty but is mean to safeguard the integrity of the
administrative investigation. There is no compensation given during this period of
suspension.
When a public officer is suspended pending appeal, he is entitled to compensation for the
period of suspension if he is found innocent.

If a public officer is illegally removed, he may be reinstated. If there was bad faith or
malice, the superior who caused such illegal removal will be held personally accountable
for the back salaries of subject employee.

The award of backwages is limited to a maximum period of five years. (David v. Gania,
2003)

Official immunity is not absolute; serves to protect the public officer in the discharge of his
responsibilities; serves as a protective aegis for public officials from tort liability for
damages on account of his responsibilities.

De jure and de facto officers, distinguished: elements of in determining is one is a de facto
officer:
1. There must be a de jure office\
2. Color of right or general acquiescence by the public
3. Actual physical possession of the office in good faith
Quo Warranto normally brought in cases involving public officers, both elective and
appointive, as to which party has a right or title to the office.
Sandiganbayan (Art. XI, Sec. 4)
Ombudsman
Emilio A. Gonzales III v. Office of the President, etc., et al./Wendell Bareras-Sulit v. Atty.
Paquito N. Ochoa, Jr., et al., G.R. No. 196231/G.R. No. 196232, January 28, 2014.
The Court said that the Ombudsman is vested with broad investigative and disciplinary powers.
These powers include the scrutiny of all acts of malfeasance, misfeasance, and nonfeasance of all
public officials, including Members of the Cabinet and key Executive officers, during their
tenure. Under Section 12, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution, the Office of the Ombudsman is
envisioned to be the protector of the people against the inept, abusive, and corrupt in the
government, to function essentially as a complaints and action bureau. This constitutional vision
of a Philippine Ombudsman practically intends to make the Ombudsman an authority to directly
check and guard against the ills, abuses, and excesses of the bureaucracy. As the Ombudsman is
expected to be an activist watchman, the Court has upheld its actions, although not squarely
falling under the broad powers granted it by the Constitution and by R.A. No. 6770, if these
actions are reasonably in line with its official function and consistent with the law and the
Constitution.

1. Composition (Art. XI, Sec. 5)
2. Qualification (Art. XI, Sec. 8)
3. Appointment and term (Art. XI, Sections 8 and 11)
4. Rank and Salary(Art. XI, Sec. 10)
5. Disqualifications(Art.XI, Sec. 8, Art. IX, A, Sec. 2)
6. Jurisdiction(Art. XI, Sec. 12)
(102) Office of the Ombudsman v. CSC 451 SCRA 570
7. Powers and functions(Art. XI, Sec. 13)
8. Fiscal autonomy (Art. XI, Sec. 14)
9. Appointment of personnel (Art. XI, Sec. 6)
Emilio A. Gonzales III v. Office of the President, etc., et al./Wendell Bareras-Sulit v. Atty.
Paquito N. Ochoa, Jr., et al., G.R. No. 196231/G.R. No. 196232, January 28, 2014. The Court
reiterated the consistent definition of gross negligence as that degree of negligence characterized
by the want of even the slightest care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty
to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally, with a conscious indifference to
consequences insofar as other persons may be affected. It said that in case of public officials,
there is gross negligence when a breach of duty is flagrant and palpable. Thus, it held the Deputy
Ombudsman cannot be guilty of gross neglect of duty and/or inefficiency since he acted on the
case forwarded to him within nine days. The S.C. struck down the ruling of the Office of the
President that Gonzales had been grossly negligent for taking nine days, instead of five days as
required for Hearing Officers, is totally baseless.

Office of the Special Prosecutor (Art. XI, Sec. 7)
Emilio A. Gonzales III v. Office of the President, etc., et al./Wendell Bareras-Sulit v. Atty.
Paquito N. Ochoa, Jr., et al., G.R. No. 196231/G.R. No. 196232, January 28, 2014.In
recognition of the importance of the office of the Special Prosecutor as a necessary adjunct of the
Ombudsman, aside from his or her deputies, Congress made the Office of the Special Prosecutor
as an organic component of the Office of the Ombudsman. It also granted the Ombudsman
control and supervision over that office. This power of control and supervision includes vesting
the Office of the Ombudsman with the power to assign duties to the Special Prosecutor as he or
she may deem fit. Even if the Office of the Special Prosecutor is not expressly made part of the
composition of the Office of the Ombudsman, the role it performs as an organic component of
that Office militates against a differential treatment between the Ombudsmans Deputies, on one
hand, and the Special Prosecutor himself, on the other. What is true for the Ombudsman must be
equally true, not only for her Deputies but, also for other lesser officials of that Office who act
directly as agents of the Ombudsman herself in the performance of her duties.

B. Commission on Elections WITH ELECTION LAW
1. Composition and qualification of Commissioners (Art. IX,C, Sec.1 (1), Art. VII, Sec.
13, par. 2)
2. Appointment and term of office of Commissioners (Art. IX, C, Sec. 1(2))
3. Appointment of personnel (Art. IX, A, Sec. 4)
4. Salary (Art. IX, A, Sec. 3, Art. XVIII, Sec. 17)
5. Disqualifications (Art. IX, A, Sec. 2)
6. Removal by Impeachment (Art. XI, Sec. 2)
7. Powers and Functions of the COMELEC (Art. IX, C, Sec.2)
Enforce election laws(Art. IX, C, Sec.2(1), Sec. 10)
Decide administrative question pertaining to elections, except the right to
vote(Art. IX, sec. 2(3))
File Petition for inclusion or exclusion of voters(Art. IX, C, Sec. 2(6))
Prosecute election law violators(Art. IX, C. Sec. 2(6))
Recommend pardon, parole or suspension of sentence of election, except the right
to vote (Art. IX, C, Sec. 5)
Deputize law enforcement agents and recommend their removal (Art. IX, C, Sec.
2(4), Sec. 2(8))
REGISTRATION of political parties, organizations, and coalitions and
ACCREDITATION of citizens arms(Art. XI, C, Sec. 2(5))
Registration under the party-list system (Art.IX, C, Sections 6, 7 and 8 and
Art.VI, Sec. 5(2), Art. XVIII, Sec. 7)
BANAT V. COMELEC, 592 SCRA 294: The Constitution provides that Congress shall not have
more than 250 members unless Congress provides otherwise and out of the total number of
incumbent members not more than 20% shall come from the party list. Of the party list members,
each party list shall be entitled to a maximum of three seats.

Ang Ladlad v. COMELEC, G. R. No, 190852, April 8, 2010: Accreditation is done solely by
COMELEC. The Court said that under the countrys system of laws, every group has the right to
promote its agenda and attempt to persuade society of the validity of its position through normal
democratic means. It is in the public square that deeply held convictions and differing opinions
should be distilled and deliberated upon.The OSG argues that since there has been neither prior
restraint nor subsequent punishment imposed on Ang Ladlad, and its members have not been
deprived of their right to voluntarily associate, then there has been no restriction on their freedom
of expression or association. The Court said that the moral objection offered by the
COMELEC was not a limitation imposed by law. Thus it held: To the extent, therefore, that
the petitioner has been precluded, because of COMELECs action, from publicly expressing its
views as a political party and participating on an equal basis in the political process with other
equally-qualified party-list candidates, we find that there has, indeed, been a transgression of
petitioners fundamental rights.
Note: In a later decision penned by Chief Justice Sereno, the Court qualified who may
accredited as a party list in the sense the same is no longer limited to the marginalized sector;
and a party list which does not meet the 10% vote will lose its accredidation.
Regulation of Public utilities and media of information(Art. IX, C, Sec. 4, Sec. 9)
Decide election contests and cases(Art. IX, C, Sec. 2(2) Sec. 3)
Rule-making(Art. IX, A, Sec. 6)
Other functions(Art. IX, A, Sec. 8)
Act as National Board of Canvassers for Senators
Review of COMELEC decisions,orders, and resolutions(Art. IX, A, Sec.7)
Fiscal autonomy(Art. IX, A, Sec. 5)
Macquiling v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 195649, July 2, 2013: This case overturned the
jurisprudence that a second placer in an election contest is always a second placer. The Court
held that the ballot cannot override the constitutional and statutory requirements for
qualifications and disqualifications of candidates. When the law requires certain qualifications
to be possessed or that certain disqualifications be not possessed by persons desiring to serve as
elective public officials, those qualifications must be met before one even becomes a candidate.
When a person who is not qualified is voted for and eventually garners the highest number of
votes, even the will of the electorate expressed through the ballot cannot cure the defect in the
qualifications of the candidate. To rule otherwise is to trample upon and rent asunder
C. Commission on Audit WITH PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY IN SO FAR AS
PUBLIC FUNDS ARE CONCERNED
1. Composition and qualification(Art. IX, D, Sec. 1(1), Art. VII, Sec. 13,
par. 2)
2. Appointment and term of Commissioners(Art. IX, D, Sec. 1(2))
3. Appointment of COA personnel(Art. IX, A, Sec. 4)
B. Salary(Art. IX, A, Sec. 3, Art.XVIII, Sec. 1)
4. Disqualifications(Art. IX, A, Sec. 2)
5. Removal by Impeachment(Art. XI, Sec. 2, Art. IX, A, Sec. 6)
6. Power and functions(Art. IX, D, Sec. 2, Sec. 3, Art. VI, Sec. 20)
7. Rulemaking(Art. IX, A, Sec. 6)
8. Other functions(Art. IX A, Sec. 8)
9. Review of decisions of the COA (Art. IX, A, Sec. 7)
10. Fiscal autonomy, Art. IX, A, sec. 5
DBP v. COA, 373 SCRA 356: A government entity may engage the services of a private auditing
firm if the said government entitys funds consist of loan proceeds from an international funding
agency like the World Bank. Such loan agreement shall be governed by the terms and conditions
agreed upon by the parties and that may include the audit of funds by an external auditor other
the COA. (You may relate this also to the provision on adoption of generally accepted principles
in International Law).
Ramon R. Yap vs. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 158562, April 23, 2010. COA is the
guardian of public funds. The Constitution vested it with broad powers over all accounts
pertaining to government revenue and expenditures and the uses of public funds and property
including the exclusive authority to define the scope of its audit and examination, establish the
techniques and methods for such review, and promulgate accounting and auditing rules and
regulations. The Court said that it has consistently declared that COA is endowed with enough
latitude to determine, prevent and disallow irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant or
unconscionable expenditures of government funds.
Based on the foregoing discussion and due to the lack or absence of any law or jurisprudence
saying otherwise, we rule that, in resolving cases brought before it on appeal, respondent COA is
not required to limit its review only to the grounds relied upon by a government agencys auditor
with respect to disallowing certain disbursements of public funds. In consonance with its general
audit power, respondent COA is not merely legally permitted, but is also duty-bound to make
its own assessment of the merits of the disallowed disbursement and not simply restrict
itself to reviewing the validity of the ground relied upon by the auditor of the government
agency concerned. To hold otherwise would render COAs vital constitutional power
unduly limited and thereby useless and ineffective.

Resolutions/ actions of CSC, COA and COMELEC are reviewed by S.C. en banc because the
Constitution provides for this. Rule 65 is normally applied.
Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus: distinguish one from the other, requisites for issuance
of the writs; certiorari normally invoked where there is no other speedy remedy available
particularly where there is abuse of discretion on the part of the respondent-party and to correct
errors of jurisdiction; prohibition prevents/enjoins the party from acting on a matter presented
the court; and mandamus will be issued only when there is particular law which
commands the party to perform an act and will not to compel the performance of a
discretionary duty (ex. issuance of a passport or visa).

VII. The Bill of Rights:

PLEASE FOCUS ON UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEARCHES/WARRANTLESS
ARREST/RIGHTS OF UNDER CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION TOGETHER WITH RIGHTS
OF THE ACCUSED/ FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION IN RELATION TO THE RIGHT TO
INFORMATION
A. Definition and Purpose of the Bill of Rights: protection of guaranteed rights to liberty, property and
other freedoms. (Section 1, Article III, Constitution)
Who are protected by the rights: all citizens, natural-born and naturalized citizens; aliens within the
jurisdiction of the Philippines; both natural and juridical persons.
B. Doctrines governing interpretation of laws affecting guaranteed rights:
Void for Vagueness doctrine
Overbreadth doctrine
C. Due Process Clause (Section1, Article III)
Types of due process: Procedural Due Process and Substantive Due Process
Procedural due process distinguished from substantive due process
>Substantive due process deals with rights vested under legal enactments.
>Procedural due process refers to guarantees of fairness in determining any impairment
of a right.
1. Notice of rules by publication as a prerequisite/ Notice to Party
2. Procedural Due Process
a. Due process in administrative proceedings; Requisites
Effect when due process is not observed:
Winston F. Garcia v. Molina and Velasco, G.R. No. 157383, August 10, 2010: The punitive action
against GSIS employees without due notice and hearing cannot be condoned. The Court corrected the
abuse on the part of the leadership of GSIS. The Court struck down the punitive action of GSIS upon its
employees.
Effect of waiver/estoppel: The Heirs of Jolly Bugarin v. Republic, G.R. No. 174431, August 6, 2012
Right to Counsel:
Carbonel v. CSC, G.R. No. 187689, September 7, 2010: Where a proceeding may result to criminal
liability, party may avail of counsel.
b. Due process in judicial proceedings:
Velasco v. Sandiganbayan and the People of the Philippines, G. R. No. 169253, February 20, 2013.
Proceedings in the Sandiganbayan are criminal in nature. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is required to
convict and accused must be represented by counsel who will ensure compliance with the rules of
procedure.
c. Due process in academic and disciplinary proceedings:
Instances when no notice and hearing are required: voluntary appearance and active participation
in previously scheduled proceedings bar the parties from raising the issue of lack of notice.
3. Substantive Due Process

D. Equal Protection Clause
1. Definition, Article III, Section1, Constitution
2. Conditions for a valid classification
3. Basis for classification: age, gender, religion, economic class, ethnicity, race, sexual
orientation, economic class, residence, disability, date of filing/ effectivity of the law
4. Standards of Review
Prevailing standard used: Deferential or Rational Basis Scrutiny which
establishes a rational connection to serve legitimate state interest.
Middle Tier or Intermediate Scrutiny: challenged classification serves important
state interest.
Strict Judicial Scrutiny: burden is on the state to prove that classification
achieves a compelling state interest.
Law non-discriminatory on its face but discriminatory in its application:
Biraogo v. The Philippine Truth Commission of 2010 et al., G.R.Nos.192935 and 193036,
December 7, 2010: E.O. is unconstitutional for singling out President Arroyos administration
only.
Law in relation to other laws: Nicolas v. Romulo, 578 SCRA 438 (2009)
5. Economic Equality
Filipino First Policy: classification based on alienage
6. Political Equality
Dilution of voting rights based on residence.
Exclusion based on sexual orientation
7. Social Equality
Forced resettlement based on ethnicity
Privilege based on ethnicity
E. SEARCHES AND SEIZURES
1. Right against unreasonable searches and seizures, Article III, Sections 1, 2 and 3,
Constitution
Exclusion of Evidence: Stonehill v. Diokno, 20 SCRA 388 (1967)
People v. Belocura, G.R. No. 173474, August 29, 2012
Chain of Custody doctrine: People v. Ronaldo de Guzman, G.R. No. 186498, March 26,
2010
Confiscation of seized items despite acquittal under P.D. 969: Nogales v. People, G.R.
191080, November 21, 2011
Probable Cause: HPS Software and Communication Corp. and Yap v. PLDT, et al., G.R.
No. 170217, 170694, December 10, 2012
Loss of protection of right: Sales v. People, G.R.No. 191023, February 6, 2013
2. Requisites for a valid search warrant and warrant of arrest
3. Instances of valid warrantless arrest (Review relevant provisions of the Rules on Criminal
Procedure)
4. Valid warrantless searches
> Search incident to a valid arrest: People v. Ngik Bun, Kwok Wai Cheng et al., G.R. No.
180452, January 10, 2011; Buy Bust Operation People v. Buenaventura G.R. No. 184807,
November 23, 2011
> The Plain View Doctrine: Fajardo v. People, G.R. no. 190889, January 10, 2011
United Laboratories, Inc. v. Isip, 461 SCRA 574 (2005)
> Checkpoints: Valmonte v. De Villa, 178 SCRA 211 (1989)
> Stop and Frisk: People v. Dequina et al., G.R. no. 177570, January 19, 2011
> Airport Search: People v. Johnson, 348 SCRA (2000)
> Moving Vehicle Search: People v. Macarios, G.R. no. 188611, June 16, 2010
> Consented Search
> Searches by Private Entities: People v. Marti, 193 SCRA 57 (1991)
> Administrative Searches: buildings, vessels, aircrafts
Pollo v. Chairperson Constantino-David, et al., G.R. No. 181881, October 18, 2011
F. FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION (SPEECH AND THE PRESS)
1. Definition (Section 4, Article III, Constitution)
2. Bases for Protection: Promotion of Truth, Enhance Principles of Democracy, Expression of
Self- Fulfillment of Citizens.
3. Why State Restricts and Imposes Limitations on Freedom of Expression: Maintenance of Peace,
Promotion of Community Morals, Protection of Individual Dignity.
4. Scope of Freedom of Speech: Verbal Speech (print and broadcast media) and Non-verbal
(symbols)
5. Unprotected Speech/Expression and Protected Speech/Expression, distinguished:
a. Unprotected Speech/Expression: General Guidelines, Obscenity, and Incitement to
National Security, False or Misleading Advertisement, Libelous Speech, Hate Speech and
Contumacious Speech.
In re: Macasaet, 561 SCRA 395 Contumacious Speech
b. Protected Speech/Expression: all those excluded from unprotected expression may
include utterances critical of public conduct, ordinary commercial speech, satirical
speech/parody.
Flor v. People, 454 SCRA 440(2005) Misuse of Public Funds
Vasquez v. Court of Appeals, 314 SCRA 460 Misconduct of a Public Official
PHCAP v. Duque III, supra, - Ordinary Commercial Speech
c. How Government Restricts Freedom of Expression
Content Based Restrictions distinguished from Content Neutral Restrictions as gleaned
from Justice Carpios concurring opinion in Chavez v. Gonzalez, summarized below:
a. Any content-based prior restraint on PROTECTED expression is
unconstitutional.
b. Only unprotected expression is subject to prior restraint.
c. Prior restraint presumes that the expression is unconstitutional.
d. Government has the burden of proof every time it exercises censorship.
d. Standards of Review
OBrien Test on Content-Neutral Restrictions
Social Weather Station v. COMELEC, 357 SCRA 504 (2001)
Miller Test on Indecent Speech
Soriano v. Laguardia, 587 SCRA 79
Roth Test on Obscenity
Gonzales v. Kalaw- Katigbak, 137 SCRA 717
Clear and Present Danger Test
David v. Macapagal-Arroyo, 489 SCRA 160 (2006)
Doctrines of strict scrutiny, overbreadth and vagueness
Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network, Inc., v. Anti-Terrorism Council, et al.,
G.R. No. 178552, October 5, 2010
e. Libel as a Criminal Offense (Article 354, Revised Penal Code)
GMA Network, Inc. v. Bustos, 504 SCRA 638 (2006) Libelous Statement
Binay v. Secretary of Justice, 501 SCRA 312 (2006) - Defamatory Statement
G. FREEDOM OF RELIGION
1. Separation of Church and State, Article II, Section 6, Constitution
2. Non Establishment of Religion Clause/ Free Exercise Clause/No Religious Test,
Art.III, Sec.5, Constitution
3. Separation of Powers, Article VI, Sec.5 (2), and Article IX C, Section 2(5),
Constitution
4. Two Aspects of Freedom of Religion: Freedom to Believe and Freedom to Act on
Ones Beliefs
H. FREEDOM OF ABODE, FREEDOM TO CHANGE ABODE AND RIGHT TO
TRAVEL
1. Constitutional Guarantee under Section 6, Article III, Constitution
OCA v. Judge Ignacio B. Macarine, A.M. No. MTJ-10-1770, July 18, 2012
2. Limitations
Gudani v. Senga, 498 SCRA 671 (2006)
Fr. Roberto P. Reyes v. Sec. Gonzales, G. R. No. 182161, December 31, 2009
I. RIGHT TO INFORMATION
1. Right to Information, Article III, Section 7, Constitution
2. Access to Public Records / Transparency in the Government, Article II, Section 28,
Constitution
3. Limitations
CENPEG v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 189546, September 21, 2010
Senate of the Philippines v. Ermita, 488 SCRA 1 (2006)
Neri v. Senate Committees 549 SCRA 77 (2008)
Antolin v. Abelardo R. Domondon, et al., G.R. No. 165036. July 5, 2010
J. RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION/RIGHT TO ASSEMBLE AND TO SEEK REDRESS OF
GRIEVANCES FROM GOVERNMENT
Bayan Muna v. Ermita, 488 SCRA 226 (2006)
IBP v. Mayor Atienza, G.R. No.175241, Feb. 24, 2010
GSIS and Garcia v. Villaviza et al., G. R. No. 180291, July 27, 2010

1. Right to Strike and the Right to Unionize, Article III, Section 8, Constitution
2. Right of Private Sector Employees and Government Employees, Article III, Section 8,
Constitution
K. CONTRACT CLAUSE / NON-IMPAIRMENT CLAUSE
1. Concept of Mutual Obligation (Section 10, Article III, Constitution)
2. Concept of Vested Right
3. Waiver of Right
L. FREE ACCESS TO COURTS
1. Representation before the Courts, Article III, Section 11, Constitution
2. Costs of Litigation
M. RIGHTS OF SUSPECTS
1. Custodial Investigation, Article III, Section 12, Constitution
2. When Miranda Rule applies (Information given while in custody and information is
testimonial in nature)
3. When Miranda Rule will not apply (Information gathered in non-custodial setting
and information given is non-testimonial in nature)
. 4. Right to Independent Counsel and Scope of Waiver, Article III, Section 12(1),
Constitution
5. Effect of Involuntary Confessions, Article III, Section 12 (2), (3) and (4), Constitution
People v. Lucero, G.R. No. 188705, March 2, 2011
Ho Wai Ping v. People, G.R. No. 176229, October 19, 2011
People v. Lauga, G.R. No. 186228, 15 March 2010
Read also The Anti-Torture Act of 2009 [R.A. No. 9745]
Distinguish between custodial investigation and preliminary investigation: In the former,
one is under restraint by law enforcers; the prosecutor does not abdicate upon himself the rights,
obligations or liabilities of parties since his power is purely inquisitorial in nature; A complainant
does not have a vested right to file a Reply in preliminary investigation because under Sec. 3(d),
rule 112, the prosecutor may resolve the complaint even without a counter-affidavit.
N. RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
1. Basis of Right to Bail, Article III, Section 13, Constitution
When Bail is allowed
When Bail is a matter of right (Rules on Criminal Procedure, Rule 114, Section 4) or
a matter of discretion on the part of the court (Rule on Criminal Procedure, Rule 114, Section 5)
Right to Bail - Sec. 9, Rule 114 provides for guidelines for the court to consider in fixing
the amount of bail. The court may still require the prosecutor to answer questions in order to
ascertain not only the strength of the states evidence but also the amount of bail. The grant of
bail where allowed by law is left to the sound judgment of the court.
. 2. Nature of Criminal Due Process
Jurisdiction over Criminal Offenses
Criminal Immunity: Disini v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 180564, June 22, 2010
Rights involved in Criminal Proceedings, Article III, Section 14(1) and (4)
Right to Substantive and Procedural Due Process
Presumption of Innocence
Right to be heard by Himself and Counsel
To be informed of the Nature and Cause of Accusation against Him
Right to Have a Speedy, Impartial and Public Trial
Right to Meet the Witnesses Face to Face
To Have Compulsory Process to Secure the Attendance of Witnesses and the
Production of Evidence in his behalf
3. Speedy Trial v. Speedy Disposition of Cases, Article III, Section16, Constitution

Acquittal/Recantation The extinction of penal action does not carry with it the extinction of
civil liability where the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt as only preponderance of evidence
is required in civil cases; Recantation or desistance does not necessarily result in the dismissal of
the case if there is independent proof to still establish the guilt of the accused.
Demurrer to evidence Motion must be filed within the non-extendible period of 5 days after
the prosecution rests its case stating specifically upon what ground(s) the motion is filed. This
period runs only after the trial court has ruled on the formal offer of evidence of the prosecution.
The grant of the motion is tantamount to an acquittal and may no longer be appealed because
double jeopardy will set in.
O. WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, WRIT OF AMPARO, WRIT OF HABEAS DATA
1. Writ of Habeas Corpus Article III, Sections 13 and 15, 1987 Constitution
2. Function of the Writ of Habeas Corpus

3. Suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus, Article III, Section 18, 1987 Constitution
4. Function of the Writs of Amparo [A.M. No.07-9-9-12-SC] and Habeas Data [A.M.
No.08-1-16-SC]
Validity of Arrest/ Action to Suppress: The accused is stopped from assailing the validity of
his arrest if he fails to raise the issue or to move for quashal of the information against him based
on this ground, before arraignment; Warrantless arrest may be effected under circumstances
allowed under Rule 113, Sec.5(a) of the Rules of Court; When the search warrant did not target
the residence or premises of the offices of the movant, the latter may file a motion to suppress
the use of the seized items as evidence against it for failure of the party requesting for issuance of
the search warrant to comply with the constitutional requirements.
P. THE RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION
1. When Right may be invoked: in all Criminal Cases, Administrative Cases and
Impeachment
2. Transactional Immunity
3. Aspects covered by the Witness Protection Program and Criminal Procedure
Q. CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS
1. No Detention for Political Beliefs or Aspirations, Article III, Section 18 (1),
Constitution
2. Exceptions to Involuntary Servitude, Article III, Section 18 (2), Constitution
3. Rational behind the Imposition of Death Penalty, Article III, Section19 (1),
Constitution
4. Non-imposition of Excessive Fines, Article III, Section 19 (1), Constitution
5. Prohibition against Cruel and Degrading Punishment, Article III, Section 19(1) and
(2), Constitution
6. Non-Imprisonment for Debt or Poll Tax, Article III, Section 20, Constitution
R. PROTECTION AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY
1. Nature of Double Jeopardy, Article III, Section 21, Constitution
Nature of right: People v. Dante Tanm G.R. No. 167526, July 26, 2010
When right will not apply: Braza v. Sandiganbayan, G. R. No. 1950, February 20, 2013
Exception, when invoked: Lejano v. People, G.R. Nos. 176389 and 176864, Januray 18,
2011
Mistrial as ground for exception: People v. C.A.., G.R. No. 198589, July 25, 2012
2. Situations Covered: Identity of the Act and Identity of Offenses
3. Requisites of Double Jeopardy
4. Effect of Acquittal based on Demurrer to Evidence
Bangayan, Jr., v. Bangayan, G.R. no. 172777, October 19, 2011
S. BAN ON EX POST FACTO LAW AND BILL OF ATTAINDER
1. Characteristics of an Ex Post Facto Law, Article III, Section 22, Constitution
Sufficiency of Information: People v. Balao, et al., G.R. 176819, January 26, 2011
2. When Retroactivity of the Law is allowed

VIII. Citizenship
A. Different meanings of words people:
a.People as inhabitants, Art.XIII, Sec. 1; Art. III, Sec. 2
Qua Chee Gan v. Deportation Board, 9 SCRA 27 (1963): The state has the right to exclude
aliens in its territory. The President of the Philippines is given the discretion to deport aliens
who are considered undesirable.
b. People as citizens, Preamble, Art.II, Sections 1 and 4; Art. III, Sec. 7
c. People as source of sovereignty, Art. VII, Sec. 4

B. Citizenship under Art. IV
1. Natural-born citizens Art. IV, Sec. 2
Public Officers who must be natural born citizens: (Please commit to memory.)
-President Art. VII, Sec. 2
- Vice President
- Members of Congress Art. VI, Sections 3 and 6
- Justices of the Supreme Court and lower collegiate courts, Art. VIII, Sec. 7 (1)
- Ombudsman and his deputies, Art. XI, Sec. 8
- Members of the Constitutional Commission, Art. IX, B, Sec. 1 (1); C, Sec. (1);
and D, Sec. 1(1)
-Members of the Central Monetary Authority, Art. XII, Sec. 20
- Members of Commission on Human Rights Art. XIII, sec. 17 (2)
Former natural born citizens as transferees of private lands, Art. XII, Sec.8

B. Naturalized citizens under Com. Act No. 473
Who are qualified to be naturalized? Sec. 2
When is the 10-year residence requirement reduced to 5 years? Sec. 3
Who are disqualified to be naturalized? Sec. 4
Declaration of Intention, Sec. 5
Procedure, Sections 7-8
When decision is executed, Sec. 1
Effect on wife and minor children, Sec. 15
Denaturalization, Sec. 18
C. Citizenship by legislative act
D. Loss and Reacquisition of Citizenship. Art. IV, Sec. 3, Sec. 2
E. Dual Citizenship: R.A. No. 9139 The Administrative Naturalization Law of 2000
R.A. No. 9225 Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act of 2003,
R. A. No. 9189 Overseas Voting Law
Nicolas- Lewis v. COMELEC , 497 SCRA 649: Overseas Filipinos qualified to vote under the
R.A. 9189 need not have one year actual physical residence in the Philippines to exercise their
right of suffrage.

IX. Other Constitutional Bodies
A. Commission on Human Rights
Purely investigative powers and no prosecutor powers
B. Central Monetary Authority
1. Composition and qualification of members(Art. XII, Sec. 20)
2. Functions (Art. XII, Sections 20-21)
C. Economic and Planning Agency(Art. XII, Sections 9-10)
1. Goal(Art. XII, Sec.1)
2. Natural Resources
Oposa v. Factoran, 224 SCRA 792: concept of intergenerational responsibility
MMDA v. Concerned Citizens of Manila Bay: issuance of the writ of continuing mandamus to
ensure the quality of water in Manila in compliance with the constitutional mandate under
Section 16, Article II of the Constitution.
Rules governing (EDU): Exploration, Development and Utilization of Natural Resources
Citizenship requirement, Art. XII, sec. 2, Art. XII, sec. 7Classification, size and conditions for
grant of public lands (Art. XII, Sec. 3)
a. Conservation of forest lands and national parks(Art. XII, Sec. 4)
b. Protection of ancestral lands of indigenous cultural communities (Art. XII,
Sec. 5)
3. Private lands
a. Citizenship requirements (Art. XII, Sec. 7)
b. Exception(Art. XII, Sec. 8)
c. Agrarian reform(Art. XIII, Sections 4-8)
d. Urban land reform and housing(Art. XIII, Sections 9-10)
4. Regulation of economic activities
a. Rationale(Art. XII, Sec. 6, Sec. 12, Sec. 13)
(107) Republic v. MERALCO, 391 SCRA 700(2002)
b. The NEDA and development program(Art. XII, Sections 9-10)
c. Organization and regulation of private corporation(Art. XII, Sec. 16)
d. Operation of public utilities(Art. XII, Sec. 11, Sec. 17)
e. Practice of professions(Art. XII, Sec. 14)
f. State operation of private enterprises (Art. XII, Sections17 and 18)
g. Monopolies, combination, and unfair competition(Art. XII, Sec. 19)
Money, banking and credit(Art. XII, Sec. 20)
X. Administrative Law

A. Doctrine of primary jurisdiction court will yield to an administrative agency which prior
cognizance of the case; when resort to court, there must be respect for hierarchy of courts;
recognition of jurisdiction of co-equal courts
B. Doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies court will defer to the administrative
agency before taking cognizance of the case unless the case falls within the exceptions.
C. Doctrine of adherence of jurisdiction the law defining jurisdiction must be strictly
followed.
D. Res judicata elements of res judicata; doctrine is viewed from two concepts bar by former
judgment and conclusiveness of judgment; requisites former judgment is final, it is rendered by
a competent court; judgment was based on the merits and there is identity of subject matter,
causes of action and parties; exceptions to the observation of the rule on res judicata; distinction
between res judicata in civil actions and criminal cases
E. Declaratory reliefs may be filed where a party wishes to be clarified whether a law or any
instrument would affect his right but must be filed before the law or instrument takes effect.
F. Writ of Habeas Corpus when available, in cases of deportation proceedings, aliens
normally file a petition for writ of habeas data; custody cases, the writ is also available; review
the constitutional guarantees related to criminal law and the emergency powers of the President.
G. Emilio A. Gonzales III v. Office of the President, etc., et al./Wendell Bareras-Sulit v. Atty.
Paquito N. Ochoa, Jr., et al., G.R. No. 196231/G.R. No. 196232, January 28, 2014.
The omission of the filing of a motion for reconsideration poses no obstacle for the Courts
review of its ruling on the whole case since a serious constitutional question has been raised and
is one of the underlying bases for the validity or invalidity of the presidential action. If the
President does not have any constitutional authority to discipline a Deputy Ombudsman and/or
a Special Prosecutor in the first place, then any ruling on the legal correctness of the OPs
decision on the merits will be an empty one. In other words, since the validity of the OPs
decision on the merits of the dismissal is inextricably anchored on the final and correct ruling on
the constitutional issue, the whole case including the constitutional issue remains alive for
the Courts consideration on motion for reconsideration

XI. Social Justice, Human Rights and other Guaranteed Rights
1. Social Justice defined, Art. XIII, Sec. 1, Sec. 2.
Calalang v. Williams, 70 Phil. 726 (1940). In this case the Court defined social justice in this
wise: Social justice is "neither communism, nor despotism, nor atomism, nor anarchy," but the
humanization of laws and the equalization of social and economic forces by the State so that
justice in its rational and objectively secular conception may at least be approximated. Social
justice means the promotion of the welfare of all the people, the adoption by the Government of
measures calculated to insure economic stability of all the competent elements of society,
through the maintenance of a proper economic and social equilibrium in the interrelations of the
members of the community, constitutionally, through the adoption of measures legally
justifiable, or extra-constitutionally, through the exercise of powers underlying the existence of
all governments on the time-honored principle of salus populi est suprema lex.
Note: The precept of social justice is interlinked with the exercise of police power. In the
same case, the Court further said that: Social justice, therefore, must be founded on the
recognition of the necessity of interdependence among divers and diverse units of a society
and of the protection that should be equally and evenly extended to all groups as a
combined force in our social and economic life, consistent with the fundamental and
paramount objective of the state of promoting the health, comfort, and quiet of all persons,
and of bringing about the greatest good to the greatest number.
2. Aspects of social justice:Labor, Art. XIII, Sec. 3;Agrarian and natural resources reform, Art.
XIII, Sections 4-8
3. Urban land reform and housing, Art. XIII, Sections 9-10
4. Health, Art. XIII, Sections 11-13, Special Role of Women in national building and maternal
function, Art. XIII, Sec. 14
5. Peoples organizations, Art. XIII, Sec. 15
6. Education
Right to quality education, Art. XIV, Sec. 1
Miriam College v. CA, 348SCRA 215. Right of a school to prescribe rules governing discipline
of students.
Educational mandate of the state, Art. XIV, Sec. 2, Sec. 5
University of San Agustin v. CA 270 SCRA 761. Students are governed bythe rules set forth in
the student handbook.
The educational system, Art. XIV, Sec. 3, Sec. 4
Ateneo v. Capulong 222 SCRA 643. It is the national government shall will provide the over all
policy on education to meet national goals.
7. Language, Art. XIV, Sections 6-9
National Language: Filipino
Official Language: Filipino and English
Auxiliary official languages: regional languages
Voluntary and optional languages: Spanish and Arabic
8. Science and technology, Art. XIV, Sections 10-13
9. Arts and Culture, Art. XIV, Sections 14-18
10. Sports, Art. XIV, Sec. 19
11. The Family, Art. XV
Imbong et. al. v. Ochoa et. al. (Consolidated Petitions) G.R. No. 204819, April 8, 2013. In
ruling that the RH bill is constitutional, the Court reiterated that the family is the basic unit of
society.

XII. Autonomy of Local Governments (Art. II, Sec. 25, Art. X (Local Government))
Factors to be considered in the creation of local government unit: (PILA)
1 .Population to be authenticated by the National Statistics Office (now Philippine Statistics
Authority); population must be actual and certification can only be issued by the Chief
Statistician (Aldaba v. COMELEC, 2010);
2. Income: Average of two-year of the local government unit to be certified by the Department
of Finance. Note that all treasurers of all local government units are appointed by the
Secretary of Finance.
The share of the local government in the IRA is included in the computation of income.
(Alvarez v. Guingona, 1996)
3. Land Area: Area must be contiguous except for provinces comprising of islands. The land
area must be authenticated by the Land Management Bureau of the DENR. (Navarro v. Ermita,
2011, where the Court ruled in favour of the constitutionality of Dinagat as a province despite
the fact that it did not meet the prescribed 2,000 square meter area.
Rule on creation of local government units and additional congressional districts: a
plebiscite is required in the creation of local government units but not in the creation of
additional congressional districts.
The creation of local government units in provinces, cities, municipalities, and other
political subdivision is a congressional/legislative prerogative while the creation of
barangays shall be done by local ordinances in cities and provinces (for component cities
and municipalities) through the Sangguniang Panglungsod and Sangguniang Panlalawigan
as the case may be.
League of Cities of the Philippines v. COMELEC (2011). In upholding the legality of the
conversion of several cities, the Court held that Congress need not apply the revised
requirements in the new law during the pendency of the approval of all the bills creating such
new local government units since they are compliant prior to the adoption of the new
requirements.
Navarro v. Ermita (2011). When a local government is upgraded to become a province and it is
comprised of several islands and cannot meet the 2,000 square meter contiguous land area, the
same is deemed exempted from complying with the said minimum land area requirement.
Jurisdiction of boundary disputes:
MUNICIPALITY and an independent component city.
2. Sangguniang Panlalawigan exercises original jurisdiction over boundary disputes
involving two municipalities of the same province.
3. Joint Sangguniang Panlalawigan exercises original jurisdiction over boundary disputes
involving two municipalities of the different provinces.
4. Sangguniang Panglungsod exercises original jurisdiction over boundary disputes
involving two barangays of the same city.
5. Joint Sangguniang Panlungsod exercises original jurisdiction over boundary disputes
involving two barangays of two different cities.
6. The regional trial court exercises APPELLATE jurisdiction over boundary disputes
among local government units.

XIII. Public International Law
A. Primary Sources of International Law:
1. international conventions, whether general or particular, establishing rules expressly
recognized by the contesting states;
2. international custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law; and
3. the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations.
Secondary Sources of International Law:
1. judicial decisions; and
2. the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations, as subsidiary
means for the determination of rules of law.

B. Independent foreign policy and a nuclear-free Philippines (Art. II, Sections 7-8 and Art.
XVIII, Sections 4 and 25). This pertains to use of nuclear weapons and not nuclear source
of energy.
B. Respect for human dignity and human rights (Art. II, Sec. 11, Art. III, Sections 17-19, and Art.
XVI, Sec. 5(2)) The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a declaration adopted by
the United Nations General Assembly as an offshoot of the aftermath of World War II. The International Bill of
Human Rights consists of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and its
two Optional Protocols7
In a strict sense, the Declaration is not treaty but it has been considered as a constitutive
document for the purpose of defining fundamental freedoms and human rights.

C. Adherence to International Law (Preamble, Art. II, Sec. 2, Sections 7-8)/ Extradition
Secretary of Justice v. Judge Lantion, 343 SCRA 377. Speaking through Justice Melo, the Court
said that the individual citizen is but a speck of particle or molecule vis--vis the vast and
overwhelming powers of government. His only guarantee against oppression and tyranny are his
fundamental liberties under the Bill of Rights which shield him in times of need. In dismissing
the petition, the Court upheld a citizen's basic due process rights against the government's
ironclad duties under a treaty. The constitutional issue in the case at bar does not even call for
"justice outside legality," since private respondent's due process rights, although not guaranteed
by statute or by treaty, are protected by constitutional guarantees. It chose not to favor the strict
construction over guarantees against the deprivation of liberty because that would not be in
keeping with the principles of democracy enshrined in the Constitution.
Concepts:
In an obiter dictum in its 1970 judgment in the Barcelona Traction case, the International Court
of Justice identified a category of international obligations called erga omnes, namely
obligations owed by states to the international community as a whole, intended to protect and
promote the basic values and common interests of all.
Examples of erga omnes norms include piracy, genocide, slavery, torture, and racial
discrimination. The concept was recognized in the International Court of Justice's decision in
theBarcelona Traction case [(Belgium v Spain) (Second Phase) ICJ Rep 1970 3 at paragraph
33]:
" an essential distinction should be drawn between the obligations of a State towards
the international community as a whole, and those arising vis--vis another State in the
field of diplomatic protection. By their very nature, the former are the concern of all
States. In view of the importance of the rights involved, all States can be held to have a
legal interest in their protection; they are obligations erga omnes. [at 34] Such obligations
derive, for example, in contemporary international law, from the outlawing of acts of
aggression, and of genocide, as also from the principles and rules concerning the basic
rights of the human person, including protection from slavery and racial discrimination.
Some of the corresponding rights of protection have entered into the body of general
international law . . . others are conferred by international instruments of a universal or
quasi-universal character."
Jus Cogens:
that body of peremptory principles or norms from which no derogation is permitted; those norms
recognized by the international communityas a whole as being fundamental to the maintenance
of an international legal order. They also comprise elementary rules that concern the
safeguarding of peace and notably those that prohibit recourse to force or threat of force.
Jus cogens may, therefore, operate to invalidate a treaty or agreement between states to the
extent of the inconsistency with any such principle. As a peremptory norm, jus cogens is a
fundamental principle of international law that is accepted by the international community
of states as a norm from which no derogation is permitted. Under Article 53 of the Vienna
Convention on the Law of Treaties, any treaty that conflicts with a peremptory norm is void.
Generally included are prohibitions on waging aggressive war, crimes against humanity, war
crimes, maritime piracy, genocide, apartheid, slavery, torture. As an example, international
tribunals have held that it is impermissible for a state to acquire territory through war.
Ex aequo et bono (Latin for "according to the right and good" or "from equity and
conscience"). In the context of arbitration, it refers to the power of the arbitrators to dispense
with consideration of the law and consider solely what they consider to be fair and equitable in
the case at hand.
Article 38(2) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) provides that the court may
decide cases ex aequo et bono, but only where the parties agree thereto. Article 33 of the United
Nations Commission on International Trade Law's Arbitration Rules (1976) provides that the
arbitrators shall consider only the applicable law, unless the arbitral agreement allows the
arbitrators to consider ex aequo et bono, or amiable compositeur.

D. The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy
In the field of public international law, the law of war has two dimensions: justifications to
engage in war(jus ad bellum) and the limits to acceptable wartime conduct (jus in
bello or International humanitarian law). As a humanitarian concern, the laws of war
address declarations of war, acceptance of surrender and the treatment of prisoners of
war; military necessity (use of an attack or action intended to help the military objective and use
of proportional and excessive force to endanger civilians(, along with distinction (careful
assessment as to who are combatants and the civilians) and proportionality( the legal use of
force whereby belligerents must make sure that harm caused to civilians or civilian property is
not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated attack
anticipated by an attack on military objective; and the prohibition of certain weapons that may
cause unnecessary suffering.
The laws of war should mitigate the consequences of war by:
1. Shielding both combatants and non-combatants from unnecessary suffering;
2. Ensuring that certain fundamental human rights of persons who fall into the hands of
the enemy, particularly prisoners of war, the wounded and sick, and civilians, are
protected; and
3. Endeavouring that peace is restored.
E. The International Criminal Court (ICC), an intergovernmental
organization and international tribunal, has the jurisdiction to prosecute individuals for
the international crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. It sits in The
Hague in the Netherlands. The ICC is intended to complement existing national judicial systems
and it may therefore only exercise its jurisdiction when certain conditions are met, such as when
national courts are unwilling or unable to prosecute criminals or when the United Nations
Security Council or individual states refer investigations to the Court. The ICC began
functioning on 1 July 2002, the date that the Rome Statute entered into force. The Philippines is
a signatory to the Rome Statute.
The ICC has four principal organs: the Presidency, the Judicial Divisions, the Office of the
Prosecutor, and the Registry. The President is the most senior judge chosen by his or her peers in
the Judicial Division, which hears cases before the Court. The Office of the Prosecutor is headed
by the Prosecutor who investigates crimes and initiates proceedings before the Judicial Division.
The Registry is headed by the Registrar and is charged with managing all the administrative
functions of the ICC, including the headquarters, detention union, and public defense office.
F. Protection of Migrant Workers
The Philippines is a signatory to the International Convention on the Protection of the
Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families. This instrument is
multilateral treaty governing the protection of migrant workers and families. Concludedon
18 December 1990. it entered into force on 1 July 2003 after the threshold of
20 ratifying States was reached in March 2003. The Committee on Migrant Workers (CMW)
monitors implementation of the convention, and is one of the seven UN-linked human rights
treaty bodies.