POLITICAL LAW 1

By: Prof. Rolando A. Suarez

Constitution with Particular Reference to
the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines.
It is a written instrument enacted by the direct action of
the people by which the fundamental powers of the
government are established, limited and defined, and by
which those powers are distributed among the several
departments for their safe and useful exercise and for
the benefit of the body politic. (Malcolm and Laurel, Phil.
Constitutional Law 6)
Constitution under the Social Contract of
Doctrine
In Marcos v. Manglapus (177 SCRA 668, Sept. 15, 1989),
the Supreme Court had an occasion to articulate the
meaning of a Constitution and refers to it as a law for
rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and
covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men
at all times, and under all circumstances. This is
referred to as the Social Contract Doctrine
Amendment. Revision. How? (pg7)
Lambino vs. Commission on Election (pg8)
G.R. No. 1741563, Oct. 25, 2006
Revision:
a) By Congress, upon vote of of all its members; or
b) By Constitutional Convention
Amendment may be effected:
a) By Congress, upon a vote of the of all its members;
b) By Constitutional Convention;
c) By Peoples initiative

Elements of a valid petition for a peoples

initiative (pg9)
1. There must be a written petition
2. The petition must have at least 12% of the total
number of registered voters as signatories;
3. Of the 12% total registered voters, at least every
legislative district must be represented by 3% of the
registered voter therein; and
4. The draft of the proposed amendment must be
embodied in the petition (Lambino v. Commission on
Elections)
State (pg25)
(a legal or political concept)
it is a community of persons, more or less numerous,
permanently occupying a fixed territory, possessing an
organized government, free from external control, to
which a great body of inhabitants render habitual
obedience.
Nation
(a racial or ethnical concept)
A political group having a government and people
distinct from all others, organized for the purpose of
procuring mutual safety and advantage (Philippine Legal
Encyclopedia, Jose Agaton R. Sibal).
Elements of a State. Discuss each briefly (pg26)

1. People
Refers to the entire body of those citizens
of a state or nation who are invested with political
power for political purposes. They must be numerous
enough to be self-sufficient and to defend themselves
and small enough to be easily administered.
2. Territory It is a fixed area or surface of the earth
where the inhabitants of a State live and where they
maintain a government of their own. It must neither
be too big as to be difficult to administer or defend
nor too small as to be unable to provide for the needs
of the population.
3. Government
It is that institution or aggregate
of institutions by which an independent society
makes and carries out those rules of action which are
necessary to enable men to live in a social state.
4. Sovereignty
It is the supreme power in a State
by which that State is governed, or the supreme, the
absolute, uncontrollable power by which any State is
governed

Right of the People to Self Determination (pg26)

Right to Internal Self Determination
They freely determine their political rights and freely
pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
This right, however, should not be understood as
extending to a unilateral right of secession. This means
that the pursuit of the people of the aforementioned
should be within the framework of an existing state.
Right to External Self Determination
The establishment of a sovereign and independent state,
the free association or integration with an independent
state or the emergence into any other political status
freely determined by the people, arises in only the most
extreme cases and even then, under carefully defined
circumstances.

De Jure Government. De Facto Government (pg28)

De Jure government is an organized government of a
State which has the general support of its people
De Facto government is characterized by the fact that
it is not founded upon the existing constitutional law of
the state
Cory Aquino Government Initially, the government
was de facto because there was no constitutional basis
of its creation, the same not having been sanctioned
either under the 1935 or the 1973 Constitution.
However, the de facto govt at the start acquired a de
jure status when it obtained the continuous public
acceptance and support of the people and the
recognition of practically all foreign governments.
GMA Government The government under Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo that was established after the ouster
of President Joseph Estrada is a de jure government
because: President Estradas claim of inability has
already been laid to rest by Congress and the decision
that Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo is the de jure President
made by a co-equal branch of government cannot be
reviewed by the Court. (Joseph Estrada v. Aniano
Desierto, et al., G.R. Nos. 146710-15, March 2, 2001)

If the Philippines is invaded by a superior military

force belonging to another country, what will be
its effects: (pg33)
In our political laws immediately cease to have
effect, except insofar as they are continued in force by
the express
consent of the new sovereign
In our municipal laws which are not in conflict with
the laws of the new sovereign may continue in force with
the
express consent of the new sovereign
In judicial decisions are valid during the occupation
and even beyond, except those of a political complexion
which are automatically annulled as soon as the
legitimate authority is restored
Callado vs. IRRI (pg35)
G.R. No. 106483, May 22, 1995
International Rice Research Institute Inc., enjoys
immunity
from
penal,
civil
and
administrative
proceedings.
Presidential Decree No. 1620, Article 3, provides:
Article 3. Immunity from Legal Process. The Institute
shall enjoy immunity from any penal, civil and
administrative proceedings, except insofar as that
immunity has been expressly waived by the DirectorGeneral
of
the
Institute
or
his
authorized
representatives.

World Health Organization vs. Aquino

48 SCRA 242 [1972]
It is a recognized principle of international law and under
our system of separation of powers that diplomatic
immunity is essentially a political question and courts
should refuse to look beyond a determination by the
executive branch of the government, and where the plea
of diplomatic immunity is recognized and affirmed by the
executive branch of the government. Hence, in
adherence to the settled principle that courts may not so
exercise their jurisdiction by seizure and detention of
property, as to embarrass the executive arm of the
government in conducting foreign relations

PREAMBLE

It is not part of the 1987 Constitution. It is not a

source of rights & obligations.
It is merely a formal expression of the ideals and
sentiments of the Filipino people and of the purpose
and objectives of the government.
It is merely an aid in ascertaining the meaning of the
ambiguous provisions of the constitution.

National Territory (pg.48)

Our national territory comprises the Philippine
archipelago with all the islands and waters embraced
therein, and all other territories over which the
Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction consisting of
its terrestrial, fluvial, and aerial domains, including its
territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the insular
shelves and other submarine areas. The waters around,
between and connecting the islands of the archipelago
shall form part of the internal waters of the Philippines.

Archipelagic Doctrine (pg.50)

Under this doctrine, the Philippine is considered as one
integrated unit instead of being divided into more than
7,200 islands. With the application of the straight
baseline method wherein, the outermost points of our
archipelago are connected using straight baselines and
all waters inside the baselines are considered as internal
waters.

The MO AD cannot be reconciled with our

present constitution & laws (pg.66)
Not only its specific provisions but the very
concept underlying them, namely, the associative
relationship envisioned between the GRP and the BJE,
are unconstitutional, for this concept presupposes that
the associated entity is a state and implies that the
same is on its way to independence. Besides, our 1987
Constitution does not contemplate any State in its
jurisdiction other than the Philippine State.
The Constitution does not contemplate a State in
this jurisdiction other than the Philippine State
(pg.67)

UNCLOS
The final stand of the Philippine Government when it
signed the UNCLOS was based on and controlled by the
national territory clause, as clearly provided in the 1987
Constitution and even in our previous Constitutions.
(Quote to provision)
Our Reservations
1. The signing of the Convention by the Government of
the Republic of the Philippines shall not in any
manner impair or prejudice the sovereign rights of the
Republic of the Philippines under and arising from the
Constitution of the Philippines;
2. Signing shall not in any manner affect the sovereign
rights of the Republic of the Philippines as successor
of the United States of America, under and arising out
of the treaty of Paris between Spain and the United
States of America of December 10, 1898, and the
Treat of Washington between the United States of
America and Great Britain of January 2, 1930;
3. Such signing shall not diminish or in any manner
affect the rights and obligations of the contracting
parties under the Mutual Defense Treaty Between the
Philippines and the United States of America of
August 30, 1951, and its related interpretative
instrument; nor those under any other pertinent
bilateral or multilateral treaty of agreement to which
the Philippines is a party;
4. Such signing shall not in any manner impair or
prejudice the sovereign rights of the Republic of the
Philippines over any territory over which sovereign
authority, such as the Kalayaan Islands, and the
waters appurtenant thereto;
5. The Convention shall not be construed as amending
in any manner the pertinent laws and Presidential
decrees or Proclamations of the Republic of the
Philippines; the Government of the Republic of the
Philippines maintains and reserves the right and
authority to make any amendments to such laws,
decrees or proclamations pursuant to the provisions
of the Philippines Constitution;

6. The provisions of the Convention on archipelagic

passage through sea lanes do not nullify or impair the
sovereignty of the Philippines as an archipelagic state
over the sea lands and do not deprive it of authority
to enact legislation to protect its sovereignty,
independence, and security;
7. The concept of archipelagic waters is similar to the
concept of internal waters under the Constitution of
the Philippines, and removes straits connecting these
waters with the economic zone or high sea from the
rights of foreign vessels to transit passage for
international navigation;
8. The Agreement of the Republic of the Philippines to
the submission for peaceful resolution, under any of
the procedures provided in the Convention, of
disputes under Article 298 shall not be considered as
a derogation of Philippines sovereignty.

The three navigable rivers

There are three (3) divisions of the water of the earth,
thus:
INLAND OR INTERNAL WATERS. They are within the
land territory (i.e. Rivers,, bays and gulfs, straits, lakes,
canals)
TERRITORIAL SEA (This is also known as the maritime
belt). It is that portion of the sea adjacent to the coast of
a State which is under its jurisdictional control.
NOTE: Breadth or width of the territorial sea, as already
discussed.
HIGH SEAS OR OPEN SEAS. They are part of the sea
which is not included in the territorial sea or in the
internal waters of any State.
To have a clearer understanding of jurisdiction of
the navigable waters, take note of the following:
Internal waters and Territorial sea - Together, they
comprise what is generally known as the territorial
waters of a State.
Q Who has the jurisdiction over these waters?
A A State exercises sovereignty over these waters to
the same extent as its land territory but foreign vessels
have the right of innocent passage (Art. II of the
Convention of the Law of the Sea)
Q Can ship or ships enjoy the right of innocent
passage on the internal waters?
A Foreign vessels have no right of innocent passage
through the internal waters.
High Seas or Open Seas They are international
waters.
Q Are they subject to the sovereignty of any
State?
A They are not subject to the sovereignty of any state.
As I said earlier, it is the common highway of all,
appropriated to the use of all; and no one can arrogate
to himself a superior or exclusive prerogative there.
Every ship sails there with an unquestionable right or
pursuing her own lawful business without interruption.
AT A GLANCE
BASELINES LAW
(RA 9522)

I. NEW CASE. IMPORTANT.

KIG (Kalayaan Island Group) Bajo De Masinloc , also
known as Scarborough Shoal
II. If they are treated as regime of island under
the Republic of the Philippines, what is the basis
of the Philippine claim to the KIG (also known as
the Spratley Islands and Scarborough Shoal)
Are not included in the islands enclosed by the Philippine
Archepelagic Baselines. Instead they are treated as
Regime of Islands under the Republic of the
Philippines.
Our basis is Art. I of the 1987 Constitution which states
that our national territory includes all other territories
over which the Philippines has sovereignty and
jurisdiction.
III. Is the use of the framework of Regime of
Islands in RA 9522 to determine the maritime
zones of the KIG and the Scarborough Shoal
inconsistent
with
the
Philippine
claim
of
sovereignty over these areas?
A: No. Reasons:
1. The decision of Congress to classify KIG and the
Scarborough Shoal as Regime of Islands under the
RP is consistent with Art. 121 of the UNCLOS III.
2. It manifests the Philippine States responsible
observance of its Pacta Sunt Servanda obligation
under UNCLOS III.
3. Under Art. 121, any naturally formed area of land,
surrounded by water, which is above water at high
tide, like the KIG, qualifies under the category of
regime of islands whose lands generate their own
applicable maritime zones. (Magallona vs. Ermita,
G.R. No. 187167, August 16, 2011)
IV.
Does the Baselines Law abandon the
Philippine claim over Sabah under RA 5446?
No. Reason: The definition of the baselines of the
territorial sea of the Philippine Archipelago, is without
prejudice to the delineation of the baselines of the
territorial sea around the territory of Sabah, situated in
North Borneo, over which the Philippines has acquired
dominion and sovereignty. (Sec. 2, RA 556)
V.
In this connection, remember my lecture
regarding the disagreement of legal luminaries
(Tolentino, Nolledo, Rev. Fr. Bernas) on this
question:
The words historic or legal title found in the 1973
Constitution were deleted. Have we abandoned our claim
over Sabah on account of the said deleted words?
Three (3) legal luminaries have these opinions:
Former Senator Arturo M. Tolentino claims that on
account of the said deletion, we have dropped our claim
over Sabah and our right to our territorial waters
covering 90 million hectares of water under the Treaty of
Paris and related treaties.
Professor Jose N. Nolledo, a delegate to the 1986
Constitutional Commission, disagreed with the said
observation and said that the definition of our territory,
territorial and internal waters including the 200-mile
economic zone as well as the islands over which we have
historic right or legal title is provided for and duly
protected under Republic Act 3046 as amended by
Republic Act 5446, Presidential Decree No. 1596 and
Presidential Decree No. 1559, all of which, pursuant to

Section 3, Article XVII of this Constitution, shall continue

to be valid and effective until amended or repealed.
Rev. Fr. Joaquin Bernas, who is also a delegate to the
1986 Constitutional Commission, said that the words all
other territories over which the Philippines has
sovereignty or jurisdiction do not include Sabah but do
not exclude it either because of our adherence to the
generally accepted principles of international law which
enables the nation to acquire territory by cession,
purchase and so forth. He added that if at some future
time the Philippine government exercises jurisdiction
over Sabah, it will be part of our territory. (Volume 1, pp.
229-321,
Records
of
the
1986
Constitutional
Commission)
Rolando Suarez, It is respectfully submitted that the
deletion of the words all other territories belonging to
the Philippines by historic right or legal title does not
mean that we have abandoned or dropped our claim
over Sabah. If at all, they merely erased reference to the
old treaties like the Treaty of Paris. We are not precluded
to pursue our claim over Sabah despite the said deleted
phrase. The absence of express or implied reference to
the Treaty of Paris and other treaties that support our
territorial boundaries, will not nullify the said treaties nor
the Convention on the Law of the Sea and related rules.
Separation of Powers (pg.82)
It operates to maintain the legislative powers to the
legislative department, executive powers to the
executive department, and those which are judicial in
character to the judiciary. Through this allocation of
powers, the person entrusted with power in any of the
departments of government shall not be permitted to
encroach upon the power confided to the others, but
that each shall, by the law of its creation, be limited to
the exercise of the powers appropriate to its own
department and no other. There must be independence
and equality of the several departments. The
completeness of their separation and their mutual
independence, does not, however, extend to the point
that those in authority in one department can ignore and
treat the acts of those in authority in the other, done
pursuant to the authority vested in them, as nugatory
and not binding in every other department. (Kilbourn v.
Thomson, 103 U.S. 168, 190, 25 L. ed. 377, 386; Abueva
v. Wood, 45 Phil. 612)

sharing of powers, that is why we have (CAB) checks

and balances. In effect when one department exceeds
its constitutional power and authority, then the
departments so aggrieved can file a complaint against
the other. That is why we have an impeachment.

Political and Justiciable Question

POLITICAL QUESTION It is a question of policy. It
refers to those questions which under the Constitution,
are to be decided by the people in their sovereign
authority, or in regard to which full discretionary
authority has been delegated to the legislative or
executive branch of government. (Tanada v. Cuenco, 100
Phil. 1101) Political questions are neatly associated with
the wisdom, not the legality of a particular measure.
(Sanidadv. Commission on Elections, 73 SCRA 333)
JUSTICIABLE QUESTION Where the vortex of the
controversy refers to the legality or validity of the
contested act, that matter is definitely justiciable or nonpolitical.
Q Can legislative powers be delegated?
A As a rule, legislative powers may not be delegated.
However, they may be delegated in the following cases:
1. When authorized by the Constitution such as in
the following cases:
The Congress may by law grant emergency powers to be
President. (Section 23[2], Article VI)
Congress may by law grant tariff powers to the
President. (Section 28[2], Article VI)
2. Legislative powers may be delegated to local
governments:
Police power has been expressly delegated by the
legislature to the local law-making bodies;
Eminent Domain.
3.Legislative powers may be delegated to the
people at large:
Referendum a method of submitting an important
legislative measure to a direct vote of the whole people;
Plebiscite a devise to obtain a direct popular vote on
a matter of political importance.
4.
Legislative powers may be delegated to
administrative bodies (e.g. POEA, LTFRB, CAB,
OWWA, BOI, BMI, etc.)

Checks and Balances (pg.83)

Under the system of checks and balances, one
department is given certain powers by which it may
definitely
restrain
the
others
from
exceeding
constitutional authority. It may object or resist any
ncroachment upon its authority, or it may question, if
necessary, any act or acts which unlawfully interfere
with its sphere of jurisdiction and authority.

Blending of Powers (pg.84)

(SOP) It operates to maintain the legislative powers to
the legislative department, the executive powers to the
executive department, and those judicial in character to
the judiciary. But there is no such thing as absolute
separation of power. The better principle is (BOP)

Greco Antonious Beda b. Belgica, et.Al.

vs.
Hon. Exec. Sec. Paquito N. Ochoa Jr., Et. Al.
G.R. No. 208566
November 19, 2013 (pg.91)
The Pork Barrel System violates (pg.92)
1. The pork barrel system violated the principle of
separation of powers Insofar as it has conferred unto
legislators the power of appropriation by giving them
personal, discretionary funds from which they are able to
fund specific projects which they themselves determine.
2. The principle of non-delegability of legislative
power is violated.
Reason: Because legislators are allowed to individually
exercise the power to appropriate. How?

The legislators have been accorded post enactment

authority to identify projects they desire to be funded
from the pork barrel allocations.
Legislators have also been accorded post enactment
authority in the areas of fund release and
realignment.
All requests or release of funds are required to be
supported by the prescribed documents and formally
endorsed by the House Committee on Appropriations
and Senate Committee on Finance.
Any realignment of funds must be submitted to the
House Committee of Appropriations and the Senate
Committee on Finance for favorable endorsement.

3. The principles of local autonomy is violated.

Reason: Because the pork barrel system allows the
national officers to substitute their projects in utilizing
public funds for local development.
Three (3) Important Terms
Operative Fact Doctrine exhorts the recognition that
until the judiciary, in an appropriate case, declares the
invalidity of a certain legislative or executive act, such
act is presumed constitutional and thus, entitled to
obedience and respect and should be properly enforced
and complied with.
Void for Vagueness Doctrine - When a statute forbids
or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that
men of common intelligence must necessarily guess as
to its meaning and differ as to its application, that law is
deemed void. Such kind of statute violates the first
essential of due process of law because it denies the
accused the right to be informed of the charge against
him. (Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148560,
November 19, 2001)
Overbreadth Doctrine Under this doctrine, a
governmental purpose may not be achieved by means
which sweep unnecessarily and broadly and thereby
invade the area of protected freedoms. (Estrada vs.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148560, November 19, 2001)

PROCLAMATION OF MARTIAL LAW OR SUSPENSION

OF THE PRIVELEGE OF HABEAS CORPUS ( + 1)
(Sec. 18, Art. VII, 1987 Constitution) x x x 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 x x x. The said majority apparently refers
to the majority vote of all the members of each House,
voting jointly. This means one-half plus one of the total
membership.
QUORUM OF EACH HOUSE (Sec. 16[2]. Art. VI, 1987
Constitution) A majority of each House shall constitute
a quorum to do business, but a smaller number may
adjourn from day to day x x x. the said majority also
refers to the majority vote of all members of each house.
SUSPENSION OR EXPULSION OF A MEMBER (2/3)
(Sec. 16[3]. Art. VI, 1987 Constitution) Each House may
determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its
members for disorderly behavior, and with the
concurrence of two-thirds of all its members, suspend or
expel a member x x x. This refers to two-thirds of all the
members of each House.
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A TREATY, INTERNATIONAL
OR EXECUTIVE AGREEMENT OR LAW (Fluctuating
Majority) Refers to the majority of members who took
part during the deliberations on the issues in the case
and voted thereon.
A MAJORITY OF ONE
A dissenting vote of one Sandiganbayan Justice will
prevent a decision of the two other members of the
division as a unanimous vote is equired for such
decision. In that sense, the lone dissenting vote is
considered as a MAJORITY OF ONE.

SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE (OLD and

NEW)
Old (Justice Isagani Cruz)

What is the Operative Fact referred to by the

Supreme Court?
The actual existence of a statute prior to such a
determination of unconstitutionality, is an operative fact
and may have consequences which cannot justly be
ignored.

The state shall not interfere with the affairs of the

Church and the Church should not meddle also in the
affairs of the Government. Strong fences make good
neighbors
It is the delineation of boundaries between two
institution and thus avoid encroachments by one against
the other because of misunderstanding of the limits of
their respective, exclusive jurisdictions.

RULE OF MAJORITY (pg.97)

It is the will of the greater number of people, whether if
it is in respect to the election of public officials or the
election of ordinary officers. However, with respect to
the election of the President, the Vice-President,
Senators, members of Congress and other public
officials, the winners are those who may have received
the highest number of votes, but this may not
necessarily be a majority of the total votes cast. If at all,
this vote may only be a plurality because the votes were
divided among many competitors.

DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS

New explanation
Verily, the principle of separation of Church and State is
based on mutual respect. Generally, the State cannot
meddle in the internal affairs of the church, much less
question its faith and dogmas or dictate upon it. It
cannot favor one religion and discriminate against
another. On the other hand, the church cannot impose its
beliefs and convictions on the State and the rest of the
citizenry. It cannot demand that the nation follow its
beliefs, even if it sincerely believes that they are good
for the country. (James M. Imbong, etc. v. Hon. Paquito
N. Ochoa, Jr., et al.) Consistent with the principle that
not any one religion should ever be preffered over
another, the Constitution in the above-cited provision
utilizes the term church in its generic sense, which

refers to a temple, a mosque, an iglesia, or any other

house of God which metaphorically symbolizes a
religious organization. Thus, the Church means the
religious congregations collectively
Q: One day, the bomber planes of Red China attacked
Mindanao and destroyed the war vessels deployed by
the Philippine Navy in the area, particularly in the areas
adjacent or near the Spratly Islands. Congress declared
the existence of a state of war, and thereafter, our
soldiers fought the Red Chinese soldiers scattered in the
whole of Mindanao. Is this not a violation of Section 2 to
the effect that we renounce war as an instrument of
national policy?
A: No. We are merely defending our territory; hence, it is
a defensive war. What we renounce is an aggressive war,
not a defensive war.

Q: Can a person refuse to register for military

training as required by the national Defense Act?
Explain (pg.101)
A: No. Reason:
1. What justifies compulsory military service is the
defense of the state
2. The duty of the govt to defend the state cannot be
performed except through an army
3. The right of the govt to require military service is a
consequence of its duty to defend the State and to
protect the liberty and property of the citizens.
By virtue of Sec.4, Art. 2 of the Constitution which states
that: The prime duty of the govt is serve and protect the
people. The govt may call upon the people to defend
the state and, in the fulfillment thereof, all citizens may
be required under conditions provided by law, to render
personal, military or civil service

methods of conception, including pills and intra-uterine

devices. Because of the said order, poor women in the
said city lost their access in affordable planning
programs. Much as they like to go to private clinics which
continue to render family planning counsel and devices,
they cannot do so because the private clinics extend
their professional services for a fee which entails
additional or higher costs/expenses.
Q: What, if any, is your objection to the issuance
of the said executive order? Explain.
A: First, the Mayor cannot issue the said order without
an underlying ordinance. Second, the poor women of
said City lost their access to affordable and free family
planning programs. Under the 1987 Constitution, it is the
responsibility of the State to defend the right of spouses
to establish a family in accordance with their religious
convictions and the demands of responsible parenthood.
Third, it is also a violation of the responsibility of the
State to promote a just and dynamic social order that
will help the people free from poverty through policies
that provide adequate social services.

SOCIAL JUSTICE
Old Concept
(Calalang v. Williams)The decision was written by Justice
Laurel as his greatest contribution to the legal literature
of the Philippines even in the whole world as it was used
in Harvard and in Yale.

Q:
What is the ruling of the Supreme Court
regarding the contention of petitioner that the RH
Law admits the use of abortifacients/abortive and
it therefore allows abortion?

It is neither communism, nor atomism, nor anarchy, but

the humanization of laws and equalization of the social
economic forces of the state so that justice in its most
rational and objectively secular conception may at least
be approximated.
In two ways, either Legally through the adoption of
measures calculated to promote the common good and
Extra legally to the exercise of the time honored
principle of SALUS POPULI EST SUPREMA LEX. (The
welfare of the people is the supreme law)

A: The RH Law admits the use of contraceptives but it

does not sanction abortion.

New Concept

Q: What is the ruling of the Supreme Court

regarding the contention of petitioner that the RH
Law violates the equal protection clause as it
discriminates against the poor because it makes
them the primary target of the government
program that promotes contraceptive use?
A: 1.
Sec. 7 of the RH Law prioritizes poor and
marginalized couples who are suffering from fertility
issue and desire to have children.
2. The RH Law does not promote on the number of
children a couple may have and does not impose
conditions on couples who intend to have children.
3. What the Law seeks to do is to simply provide
priority to the poor in the implementation of government
programs to promote basic reproductive health care.
Mayor X of Kalokohan City believes in responsible
parenthood and natural family planning. Through an
Executive Order, he prohibited the use of artificial

Social justice now includes all phases of national

development including diffusion of wealth and political
Power.
Reason:
Because precisely R.A. 6657 (CARP LAW) was declared
Constitutional. Meaning, if you own more than 1,000 ha
of land before, the government will not interfere, now
the government can take it back, retaining only 5 ha for
the owner and 3 ha for each child and therefore there is
diffusion of wealth.
Before, a President can only have a term of 4 years with
a re-election of another 4 years. Now a President can
only have a term of 6 years, therefore there is diffusion
of Political Power.

Three (3) responsibilities of the State in

connection with the constitutional guarantee
recognizing the sanctity of family life?

1. It shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic

autonomous social institution.
2. It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the
life of the unborn from conception.
3. The natural and primary right and duty of parents in
the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the
development of moral character shall receive the aid
and support of the government. (Section 12, Article II,
of the 1987 Constitution).

or equality of economic status; what it and the

Constitution do guarantee are equality of opportunity,
equality of political rights, equality before the law,
equality between the values given and received,
equitable sharing of the social and material goods on the
basis of the efforts exerted in their production. It is a
command to devise social measures; but it cannot be
used to trample upon the rights of the others. (124
Guido vs. Rural Progress Administration, G. R. No. L2089, October 31, 1949)

When does life begin?

HONESTY AND INTEGRITY IN PUBLIC SERVICE

The Supreme Court, in the case of James M. Imbong, et.

al. vs. Hon Paquito N. Ochoa, Jr., G.R. No. 204819, April
8, 2014, said: Whether it be taken from a plain
meaning, or understood under medical parlance, and
more importantly, following the intention of the Framers
of the Constitution, the undeniable conclusion is that a
zygote is a human organism and that the life of a new
human being commences at a specifically well-defined
moment of conception, that is upon fertilization.

(Section 27. The State shall maintain honesty and

integrity in the public service and take positive and
effective measures against graft and corruption)

The RH Law does not sanction abortion

The Court said: xxx in as much as it affords protection
to the fertilized ovum, the RH Law does not sanction
abortion. To repeat, it is the Courts position that life
begins at fertilization. When a fertilized ovum is
implanted in the uterine wall, its viability is sustained but
that instance of implantation is not the point of
beginning of life. It started earlier. And as defined by the
RH Law, any drug or device that induces abortion, that
is, which kills or destroys the fertilized ovum or prevents
the fertilized ovum to reach and be implanted in the
mothers womb, is an abortifacient.

Taking contemplated under Republic Act. 6657

The taking contemplated is not a mere limitation of the
use of the land. What is required is the surrender of the
land and the physical possession of the land in excess of
the retention limit and all the beneficial rights accruing
to the owner in favor of the farmer beneficiary. This is
within the power of the State to take and regulate
private property for which payment of just compensation
is provided.
Ancestral Land of each indigenous cultural community
shall include, but not be limited to, lands in the actual,
continuous and open possession and occupation of the
community and its members; provided, that the Torrens
System shall be respected. (Sec. 9, paragraph 2,
Republic Act 6657)

Does our Constitution guarantee equality of all the

citizens of the Republic of the Philippines?
Our Constitution does not guarantee equality of all the
citizens of the Republic. What our Constitution
guarantees is only equality of opportunity. It is true that
Section 10, Article II, of the 1987 Constitution, provides
that the State shall promote social justice in all phases
of national development. Be it remembered, however,
that social justice does not champion division of property

Three basic principles emphasized by Section 27

and 28, Article II, of the 1987 Constitution
1. Public office is a public trust: Under this principle,
public officials in all the ladders of our government
should always remember that they were merely
entrusted by the people to perform the duties and
responsibilities of their offices for a fixed period of time.
They were chosen to serve the people, not to cheat
them. Their offices are not their own, nor can they be
treated as private properties which they can manage or
dispose of at their whim and caprice.
2. Our government is a government of laws and
not of men: The law should be applied equally without
fear or favor. No one in this Republic, not even the
President of the Philippines, is above the law.
3.Transparency in public service: Because public
officials are mere trustees of the people, they should
observe loyalty and fidelity to the people who have
entrusted to them specific duties for a specific tenure.
The lessons that we have learned during the twenty
years of martial rule teach us that graft and corruption,
abuse of power and authority, and oppression of the
rights of the people, can cause chaos and revolution.
Until now, the after effects of the massive graft in the
last thirty years continue to be the subject of bitter
accusations and litigations, and at the rate they are
going on, they may expose in due time the crimes that
have been committed by those in power and their
cronies who, as many people say, have looted our
government and our country pervasively. It can even be
said that, if proven to be true, the public officials who
were involved in this grand deception and conspiracy
should deserve the highest penalty allowed by our laws,
in order to deter others from committing the same
crimes they have committed. The recent conviction of
President Joseph Estrada for plunder is another example.
After almost seven (7) years of trial, he was convicted for
the said crime by proof beyond reasonable doubt, the
first in the history of our republic. And yet, he was
granted pardon by President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo,
another first in the history of our republic. My comments
on this matter are discussed in connection with the topic
of pardon, Article VII of the Constitution. The recent
development about the Pork Barrel Scam which,
according to initial evidence, is perpetrated by Janet Lim
Napoles, through the conspiracy of bogus NGOs and
some prominent politicians, are expected to reveal more
and more graft and corruption and irregularities in the
handling and use of Pork Barrel Funds.

LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
(Section 1 to 32)
P-ower (Legislative Power) (pg.451)
C-omposition (Senator and HR)
Q-ualifications (Senator and HR)
S-alaries (Senator and HR)
T-erm (Senator/HR)
I-mmunities (of Senator/HR)
In all offenses punishable by not more than 6 years
imprisonment, a Senator has the following immunities, to
wit:
A) A Senator shall be privileged from arrest while the
Congress is in session
B) A Senator may not be held liable in any other place
for any speech or debate in the Congress or in any
committee thereof
Full Disclosure (of their financial and business interest
upon assumption of office)
Incompatible and Forbidden Offices (they cannot
hold any other office or employment in the govt., or in
any
subdivision, instrumentality, including govt.
owned or controlled corp., or their subsidiaries, during
their term of office without forfeiting their seats)
Inhibitions and Disqualifications (of Senator/HR)
Prohibition to appear as counsel; Prohibition from being
financially interested in any contract prejudicial to public
interest; Prohibition not to intervene in any matter before
any government office for his pecuniary benefit
Session (every 4th Monday of July) (Regular, Special,
Sine Die)
Quorum
Punishment for disorderly behavior
Journal and enrolled bill
ET-Electoral Tribunal (Senate/HR) (9 members3
embers designated by the Chief Justice and 6 members
(Senate/HR)
CA-Commission on Appointment (12
Senators,
12 HR, with the Senate President as ex-officio chairman)
Constitution of ET and CA- to be constituted within 30
days after organization of Senate and HR
Records books of accounts of Congress- shall be
preserved and open to the public.

Sec.21 & Sec.22 DISTINCTION

Sec.21
(Right to Conduct Inquiry in aid of Legislation)
1. To elicit info that may be used for legislation
2. Attendance is compulsory.
3. Congress can compel attendance of executive
officials.
.
Sec.22
(Power of Congress to conduct a question hour)
1. To obtain info in pursuit of Congress oversight
functions.

2. Attendance is discretionary. The Pres. may require that

her consent be required first.
3. Congress cannot compel appearance if the required
consent is not obtained first and if consent is not given.
(Sec.23) Sole power to declare the existence of a
state of war (Congress by vote of 2/3 of both houses in
joint session assembled, voting separately; shall have
power to declare the existence of a state of war)
(Sec.24) Answers the question - Can a member of
Congress (Senate and HR) introduce any kind of bill or
law?
(Sec.25-32) to simplify these long provisions, I suggest
that the students should memorize/understand the
following:
1. PROHIBITIONS CODE: E B I T A T
E x post facto law
B ill of attainder
I mpairment of the obligation of contract
T itle of royalty or nobility
A ppellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
T ax exemption
2. PROCEDURAL LIMITATIONS imposed by the 1987
Constitution. (pp.512-513)
Note the following simplifications:

Appropriation- no money shall be paid out of Treasury

except in pursuance of appropriation made by law.
No
public
money
or
property
shall
be
appropriated/applied/used or employed, directly or
indirectly, for the benefit of any sect, church,
domination or system of religion or of my
priest/preacher/religious minister.
All money collected levied on any tax levied for a
special purpose shall be treated as special fund and
paid for such purpose only.
Rule of taxation shall be uniform and equitable.
All revenue bills etc. shall originate exclusively in the
HR but the Senate may propose or concur with
amendments.
Congress may not increase the appropriation
recommended by the President.
Charitable institutions shall be exempt from taxation.
Tax exemption needs concurrence of a majority of
members of Congress.
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT
(Section 1 to 23)

(Sec.1)
P- (Executive Power; Presidential Power of
Control & Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency; Residual
Power)
(Sec.2&3) Q-ualifications of President/ Vice-President
(Sec.4)
T-erm (6 yrs from noon of June 30) No reelection, VP shall not serve for more 2 successive terms).
SC is the sole judge of all contests relative to election,
returns, qualifications of P/VP and may promulgate rules
for the purpose.

(Sec.5)

O-ath or affirmation

(Sec.6)
ORS (official residence and salaries)
P300,000.00 annually.
(Sec7&8) PS (Presidential Succession)

MM ilitary Power/Martial Law Power

D iplomatic Power
A ppoinment Power
B orrowing Power
P ardoning Power
E xecutive Power
C ontrol Power

(Sec.9)
Vacancy in the Office of VP (The President
shall nominate a VP from among the Senators/HR)
(Sec.10) Special Election if there is vacancy in the office
of P/VP
(Sec.11) If President submits written declamation that he
is unable to discharge the powers/duties of his office.
(Sec.12) In case of serious illness of President the
public shall be informed
by his health. Cabinet
members/Chief of Staff of AFP should not be denied
access to the President during his illness.
(Sec.13) Inhibitions of President (shall not hold any
other office during his term; shall not directly/indirectly
practice profession, participate in any business or enter
into any contract with any franchise, special privilege
granted by the govt. etc, strictly avoid conflict of
interest,
cannot
appoint
relatives
by
consanguinity/affinity within the 4th civil degree. Does
the President enjoy immunity from suit?
(Sec.14)
Appointments
extended
by
Acting
President shall remain unless revoked by the elected
President within 90 days from his assumption or reassumption.
(Sec.15) Two months immediately before the next
pres. election and up to the end of his term, a P/VP
shall not make appts., except temporary appointments
to exec. positions when continued vacancies therein will
prejudice public service or endange public safety.
(Sec.16) Scope of Presidents appointing power
(The President shall nominate, and with consent of the
CA appoint HAO-OAA.
(Sec.17) President shall have control of all the
executive depts.,
bureaus, and offices. He shall
ensure that laws be faithfully executed.
(Sec.18) Two Powers: (a) Call out such armed forces to
prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or
rebellion; (b) To suspend the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part
thereof under martial rule, in case of invasion or
rebellion when public safety requires it.

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
(Section 1 to 16)
(Sec.1) P-ower (Judicial power vested in one SC and in
such lower courts as may be established by law. (1.Old
meaning; 2.New meaning; 3. Manila Prince Hotel vs.
GSIS, Manila Hotel Corp.; 4. Constitutional safeguards
that guarantee independence of SC)
(Sec.2) C-ongress (may define, prescribe, and apportion
the jurisdiction of the various courts BUT MAY NOT
DEPRIVE THE SC of its JURISDICTION enumerated in
Sec.5). No law shall be passed reorganizing the judiciary
when it undermines the security of tenure of its
members.
(Sec.3) F-iscal Autonomy (the judiciary enjoys FA.
Appropriation for the judiciary may not be reduced by
the legislature below the amount appropriated for the
previous year. After its approval the appropriation shall
be automatically and regularly released. (1. JUDICIAL
PRIVILEGE (SC upheld the principle of INTER
Departmental Courtesy and ruled in favor of judicial
privilege.; 2. Each dept. is considered separate, coequal, coordinate and supreme within its our sphere.
While a senator may invoke legislative privilege when he
is questioned outside of the Senate information brought
out during the executive session of the Senate, a justice
of the SC may likewise invoke judicial privilege.)
(Sec4.1) C-omposition of SC- 14 justices and 1 Chief
Justice. It may sit en banc or in divisions of five, or
seven members.
(Sec4.2)Cases heard by SC en banc- TIEL. Cases
which ,under the Rules of Court are required to be heard
en banc. Cases involving the constitutionality /
application / operation of presidential decrees,
proclamations, orders, instructions, ordinances and other
regulations.
(Sec.4.3)Cases/matters heard by a division- resolved
with the concurrence of a majority of the members who
actually took part in the deliberation on the issues in the
cases and voted thereon.
(Sec.5) J-urisdiction of SC over cases- original and
appellate

(Sec.19) Executive Clemency

(Sec.20) Power
of
President
contracts/guarantee foreign loans

(Sec.6) A-uxiliary Administrative Powers of the SC

to

(Sec.21) Diplomatic Power

(Sec.22) Budgetary Power
(Sec.23)SONA
Powers of the President

enter

into

(Sec.7) Qualifications of SC Justice and lower Court

Judges Congress may not alter the statutory
qualifications of judges and justices of lower courts. Kilos
bayan Foundation vs. Ermita- Factional assertions
tending to prove changes in nationalities of his assertors
have still to be thresed out in judicial proceedings in
order to correct the existing records in his birth and
citizenship. Until this is done, Justice Ong cannot accept
an approntant in the SC because it will violate the
Constitution.

Qualifications of Justices:
A natural-born citizen of the Philippines.
At least forty years of age and
Must have been for fifteen years or more a judge of a
lower court or engage in the practice of law.
In addition a member of the judiciary must be a person
of
proven
competence,
integrity,
probity
and
independence.
Qualifications of Lower Court Judges:
The same but they need not be natural born citizens of
the Philippines
(Sec.8) JBC- supervised by SC. JBC members shall be
appointed by the President with the consent of CA.
Rotational SchemeMember just appt. - the Rep. of IBP shall serve for
4 yrs.
Professor of Law- 3yrs
Retired Justice- 2yrs
Rep. of Private Sector- 1yr
Chavez vs. JBC- The scheme of splitting the vote
into halves between two representatives of Congress is
disallowed.
(Sec.9) SC members shall be appointed by the
President and lower court from a list of 3 nominees
prepared by
judges
JBC for every vacancy.
Such appts. need no confirmation.
(Sec.10) Salaries of CJ
Fixed by law. The same
cannot be and associates decreased during their
continuance in
justices Office.
(Sec.11) Security of SC justicesTenure Judges and lower courts-

When there is a grave violation of the Constitution.

When the situation is of exceptional character and
paramount public interest is involved.
When the case is capable of repetition yet evading
review.
When the constitutional issue requires formulation of
controlling principles to guide the bench, the bar and
the public.
When there is a voluntary cassation of activity
complained of by the dependant or doer. (i.e. The suit
is filed and the doer voluntarily ceases the challenge
or act, the tribunal can hear and determine the case
and does not render the case moot)

SIMPLE QUESTIONS
A, a taxpayer, filed a petition to the Supreme Court to
declare a law unconstitutional on the ground that it
involves the illegal or provident disbursement amount of
public funds.. Is A a proper party? Reason.
Answer: Yes. Reason: He has sufficient interest to
prevent illegal expenditure of money.

A law has been in force for three (3) years and has been
relied upon by public officials for the performance of
official acts.
Can the government question the
validity of said law? Reason.
Answer: Yes. Reason: The fact that it was not
questioned before does not mean that the government
cannot question it later if the government has a valid
reason to question it.

(Sec.12) SC justices shall not be designated to any

agency and other courts performing quasi- judicial or
administrative.

Can the question of constitutionality be raised for the

first time on appeal? Yes or No. Explain.

(Sec.13) Conclusionsshall be reached in consultation

before of SC the case is assigned to a member for the
writing of the opinion of the court.

(Sec.15) SC Decision shall state the facts and the

law on which it is based.

1. In criminal cases, the question of constitutionality

may be raised at any stage of the proceedings subject to
the discretion of the court;
2. In civil cases, where the issue of constitutionality is
indispensable to the adjudication of the main case itself;
and
3. In every case, where the constitutional question to be
resolved is the jurisdiction of the courts. (People vs.
Munar, 53 SCRA 278, October 222, 1973)

(Sec.16) SC shall submit An annual report on the

operations annual report
and
activities of the
Judiciary within
to Pres. and 30 days from
opening of regular session Congress of Congress.

Are the final pronouncements of the Supreme

Court subject to further review by any other
department?

(Sec.14) (Period within which cases should be

decided or resolved)

Requisites of Judicial review or Judicial inquiry

1. There must be an actual case or controversy.
2. The questions of constitutionality must be raised by
the proper party.
3. The constitutional question must be raised at the
earliest possible opportunity.
4. The decision of the constitutional question must be
necessary to the determination of the case itself.
Moot and Academic Principle- Can courts decide
cases otherwise moot and academic? Yes, on the
following instances:

Answer: Yes, such as in the following cases:

Answer: No. To subject final pronouncements of the

Supreme Court to further review is a gross violation of
the doctrine of separation of powers.

The Local Government Code of 1991 provides that locally

elected officials may be removed from office through the
recall system on ground of loss of confidence. May a
locally elected official who is ousted on such
ground seek judicial intervention?
Answer: No. Loss of confidence as a ground for recall is
a political question. It belongs to the realm of politics.

(Garcia vs. Commission on Election, 227 SCRA 100,

October 5, 1993 citing Evardone vs. Comelec, supra)

OTHER IMPORTANT POINTS/QUESTIONS

Judicial Power The traditional concept of judicial
power, as above-mentioned, including now the duty of
the courts of justice to determine whether or not there
has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
or excess of jurisdiction on any part of any branch or
instrumentality of the Government, constitutes the
totality of the judicial power which is now vested by our
Constitution in one Supreme Court and in such lower
courts as may be established by law.
Fiscal Autonomy Appropriations for the Judiciary may
not be reduced by the legislature below the amount
appropriated for the previous year and, after approval,
shall be automatically and regularly released.
Judicial Review or Judicial Supremacy It is the
assertion of the solemn and sacred obligation assigned
to the Judiciary by the Constitution to determine
conflicting claims of authority under the Constitution and
to establish for the parties in an actual controversy the
right which that instrument secures and guarantees to
them. (Angara vs. Elec. Com., 63 Phil. 139)
Principle of Inter-departmental Courtesy interdepartmental courtesy demands that the check and
balance that the highest levels of each department be
exempt from the compulsory processes of the other
departments on matters related to the functions and
duties of their office.
Writ of Habeas Data A remedy available to any
person whose right to privacy in life, liberty or security is
violated or threatened by an unlawful act or omission of
a public official or employee, or of a person/entity
engaged in gathering, collecting or storing of data or
information regarding the person, family, house and
correspondence of the aggrieved party.
Writ of Kalikasan A legal remedy under Philippine
law which provides for the protection of ones right to a
balance and healthful ecology in accord with rhythm and
harmony of nature.
Enforced Disappearance of Persons means the
arrest, detention or abduction of persons by, or with the
authorization, support, or acquiescence of a State or a
political organization, followed by a refusal to
acknowledge that deprivation of freedom or to give
information on the fate or whereabouts of those persons,
with the intention of removing them from the protection
of the law for a prolonged period of time.

A law was passed and approved by Congress and the

President. It was, however, declared unconstitutional by
the Supreme Court. QUESTION: What, if any, are the
effects of said law?
ANSWER: Under this orthodox view, an unconstitutional
act, whether legislative or executive, is not a law,
confers no rights, imposes no duties and affords no
protection.

Prior to the said declaration of unconstitutionality, the

same was already challenged by many citizens and in
broadcast and print media but it took time for the
Supreme Court to finally declare that the same is
unconstitutional. One such example is the Pork Barrel
System. Considering the many acts and rights that may
have been created before the said law was declared
unconstitutional, is it just to maintain that the said
law and whatever rights that were created by the
same should be totally ignored? Reason.
ANSWER: It is now an accepted doctrine that prior to
the nullification of a law, or prior to the declaration
unconstitutionality, its existence as a fact must be
reckoned with. It may be true that the judiciary has the
final say on whether a proposed law in valid or not but a
period of time may have elapsed before the said
unconstitutionality is declared. It would be to deprive the
law of the quality of farmers and justice if there is no
recognition of what had transpired prior to such
adjudication.

In 1970, Mary was born out of wedlock. His father is an

American and her mother is a naturalized Filipino citizen.
After finishing law in San Beda College with honors and
after successful law practice for twenty (20) years, Mary
was appointed justice of the Supreme Court. Atty. Y
questioned the appointment of Mary on the ground that
she is not a natural born citizen. Is the objection of Y
valid? Reason.
ANSWER: Ys objection is not valid. Reason: Mary is a
natural born citizen. She followed the citizenship of her
mother.

What is the composition of the JBC?

ANSWER: It is composed of the following:
1. Chief Justice as ex officio Chairman.
2. Secretary of Justice as ex officio member
3. Representative of Congress as ex officio member.
4. Representative of the Integrated Bar
5. A Professor of Law
6. A Retired Member of the Supreme Court
7. Representative of the Private Sector (Section
8[1], Article VIII)
Senator X was chosen by the Senate as its
representative in the JBC. Congressman Y was chosen by
the House of Representative as its representative in the
JBC. Atty. Kontra objected to the designations of X and Y
on the ground that there should only be one
representative who will represent Congress in the JBC.
Senator X and Congressman Y said there is no such
prohibition. DECIDE
ANSWER: In Chavez vs. JBC, the Supreme Court held
that only one representative of Congress is entitled to
one full vote. The scheme of splitting the vote into
halves between two representatives of Congress is
disallowed.

What, if any, is the difference between the

security of tenure of justices of the Supreme Court
and the security of tenure of judges of lower
courts?
ANSWER:

Security of Tenure of Justices of the Supreme

Court Section 11 states that the members of the
Supreme Court and judges of lower courts shall hold
office during good behavior until they reach the age of
seventy (70) years or become incapacitated to discharge
the duties of their office.
The phrase shall hold office during good behavior until
they reach the age of seventy (70) years or become
incapacitated to discharge the duties of their office
means that justices of the Supreme Court shall continue
in office for as long as they are not held guilty of any
offense
which
is
a
constitutional
ground
for
impeachment, or until they reach the age of seventy (70)
years.
Security of Tenure of Judges of Lower Courts
Judges of lower courts also enjoy security of tenure by
express provision of Section 11 and they shall hold
office during good behavior until they reach the age of
seventy (70) years or become incapacitated to discharge
the duties of their office. This time, however, the
Supreme Court en banc shall have the power to
discipline judges of lower courts, or order their dismissal
by a vote of a majority of the members who actually took
part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and
voted thereon.
Disciplinary action that may be taken by the Supreme
Court against judges of lower courts may either be
dismissal, or any disciplinary action lower or lesser than
dismissal.
How may justices of the Supreme Court be
removed?
ANSWER: They can only be removed by impeachment.
How may judges of the lower court be removed?
ANSWER: Judges of inferior courts are removable only
by the Supreme Court en banc. (The Supreme Court en
banc shall have the power to discipline judges of lower
courts, or order their dismissal by a vote of a majority of
the members who actually took part in the deliberations
on the issues in the case and voted thereon.)

What is a Writ of Amparo?

ANSWER: It is a remedy available to any person whose
right to life, liberty and security has been violated or is
threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission
of a public official or employee, or of a private individual
or entity.
The rule will provide the victims of extralegal killings
and enforced disappearances the protection they need
and the promise of vindication for their rights. The rule
also empowers our courts to issue reliefs that may be
granted through judicial orders of protection, production,
inspection, and other relief to safeguard ones life and
liberty. (Statement of Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno on
September 25, 2007).
WHERE AND WHEN A PETITION FOR ISSUANCE OF
A WRIT OF AMPARO MAY BE FILED. Just check the
correct answer.
o It may be filed only in the Supreme Court on any
day, from Monday to Friday.
o It may be filed with the Regional Trial Court,
where the alleged threat, act or omission was

committed, or any of its elements occurred, on

any day from Monday to Friday
It may be filed with the Court of Appeals of the
place where the threat, act or omission was
committed or any of its elements occurred, from
Monday to Friday.
It may be filed in any of the above-mentioned
courts or in any justice of said courts, on any day
at anytime.

X filed said petition against B. Upon receipt by B of said

petition, he filed an answer and said he has no
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth and correctness of the same and denies the
charges filed against him. X insisted that the interim
reliefs he prayed for be issued. DECIDE.
ANSWER: A general denial of the allegations in the
petition is not allowed and interim reliefs may be
granted such as the following:
(1) TPO (Temporary protection order)
(2) IO (Inspection Order)
(3) PO (Protection Order)
(4) WPO (Witness Protection Order)
(5) Contempt Order (Contempt may be issued against a
respondent who refuses to make a return or who makes
a false return, or any person who otherwise disobeys or
resists a lawful process or order.) (Sec. 14, 15, 16)
NATURAL BORN FILIPINO CITIZEN
One who is a citizen of the Philippines from birth without
having to perform any act to acquire or perfect his/her
Philippine citizenship. (Sec. 2, Art IV, First Sentence)
NOTE that the second sentence of Sec. 2, Art. IV
provides that those who elect Philippine citizenship in
accordance with paragraph 3, Sec. 1, Art. IV shall be
deemed natural born citizens.
Q: Who are referred to as those who elect Philippine
citizenship in accordance with paragraph 3, Sec. 1, Art IV
who are deemed natural born citizens?
A: They are those born before Jan. 17, 1973, of Filipino
mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching
the age of majority. (Sec. 2, Art. IV)
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NATIVE BORN FILIPINO
CITIZEN AND NATURAL BORN FILIPINO CITIZEN.
A native born Filipino citizen is one whose parents are
both Filipino citizens and he was born in the Philippines.
If he was not born in the Philippines (in the US, for
instance), he/she is a natural born Filipino citizen
because he/she followed the citizenship of his/her
parents. He/she is, in the eyes of American Law and
under the JUS SOLI doctrine, a U.S citizen.
CITIZENSHIP OF FOUNDLINGS
Q: What is the legal basis in international law that
governs the citizenship of foundlings?
A: They are the following:
1. The 1961 Convention on the Reduction of
Statelessness which says that a foundling found in
the territory of the contracting state shall in the
absence of proof to the contrary, be considered to
have been born in the territory of parents possessing
the nationality of the State.
2. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
3. The 1973 Hague Convention on the conflict of
nationality laws

Q: What is the basis for saying that said

international laws become part of our laws and
should be observed in the Philippines?
A: Under this doctrine, a State is, by reason of its
membership in the family of nations, bound by the
generally accepted principles of international law, the
same being considered as part of its own laws.
In consonance with this doctrine, the Philippines is bound
by any resolution which is duly approved by the United
Nations General Assembly or by any treaty,
commitment, or agreement, reached in an international
convention, especially when the Philippines is a party or
a signatory to the said agreement or treaty. But even if it
is not a signatory, the Philippine is bound by the Hague
Convention because it embodied the generally accepted
principles of international law binding upon all States.
Q: A, who is barely a week old and a handsome baby
boy, is a foundling found inside the church of Taal,
Batangas on July 5, 1970, by spouses Ronald and
Noralyn Suanez, both residents of said town and natural
born Filipinos. Said spouses who are childless took care
of A, and have him baptized as Ronald A. Suanez. From
then on and until he finished his studies in elementary,
High School and College, the name that appears in all his
school records is Ronald Suanez. What is the
citizenship of Ronald Suanez?
A: Ronald Suanez is a natural born Filipino citizen
because his presumed parents are both natural Filipino
born citizens.
Q: What is the legal basis of the foregoing
answer?
A: The legal basis is the international law that governs
the citizenship of foundlings, to wit: (a) The 1961
Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness which says
that a foundling found in the territory of the contracting
state shall in the absence of proof to the contrary, be
considered to have been born in the territory of parents
possessing the nationality of the State. In the said
example spouses Ronald and Noralyn Suanez are both
natural born Filipino citizens.; (b) The Universal
Declaration of Human Rights; (c) The 1973 Hague
Convention on the conflict of nationality laws.
Q: Suppose Ronald Suanez became a Senator, and later
on, he became a candidate for President of the
Philippines. Seven (7) months before the scheduled
election, a certain American by the name of Abe Klinton
appeared and claims that he is the father of Ronald
Suanez and he revealed that the latters mother is Rona
Cruz, a Filipino citizen, his lived-in partner in the U.S. for
a long time but she died in the U.S. after Ronald was
born. Is Ronald Suanez still a natural born Filipino
citizen despite of the appearance of his biological
father, an American?
A: Yes, because even assuming that the representation
of Abe Klinton is true, Ronald Suanez, in that example,
follows the citizenship of her mother.
CONFLICTING OPINIONS ABOUT THE CITIZENSHIP
OF SENATOR GRACE POE
According to former Chief Justice Artemio V.
Panganiban
Q: Is Grace Poe a natural born citizen?
A: Yes. REASON: Because under Article 2 of the 1961
Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, Senator
Grace Poe, a foundling who was found in Iloilo,

Philippines, is deemed to have a Filipino parents.

Perforce, she is a natural born since her presumed
parents, specifically, his father, are accorded Philippine
citizenship.
Q: Is she not a naturalized Filipino?
A: No, it was her parents who acquired Philippine
citizenship. She derived her citizenship from her
presumed Filipino father, thus, she is a citizen from birth
without having to do anything to acquire or perfect her
Philippine citizenship.
Q: On the issue that she got married and moved to the
U.S., how did she reacquire her natural born
citizenship?
A: By taking an oath of allegiance to the Philippines
pursuant to the Dual Citizenship Law (Republic Act No.
9225) and by renouncing her American citizenship
pursuant to American law.
Q: Aside from invoking the interaction between our
Constitution and customary international law, may
Senator Poe prove her natural born citizenship by
other methods?
A: Yes, by undergoing DNA test showing that her
biological father is a Filipino.
Q: What tribunals are authorized to pass judgment on
her citizenship?
A: The Senate Electoral Tribunal has jurisdiction over
cases questioning her qualifications as a Senator. The
Commission on Elections has jurisdiction likewise to hear
and decide petitions challenging her qualifications for
president but only after she has filed her Certificate of
Candidacy for the post. The decisions of these tribunals
may be elevated to the Supreme Court later.
Q: What provision of the 1961 Convention on the
Reduction of Statelessness is relevant to Senator Poe?
A: Article 2 which states A foundling found in the
territory of a Contracting State shall, in the absence of
proof to the contrary, be considered to have been born in
the territory of parents possessing the nationality of the
State.
Q: The Philippines is not a signatory to the said 1961
Convention, why are we bound by its provisions?
A: Because they have become generally accepted
principles of international law which, as earlier stated,
are as binding as statutes passed by Congress. (COLUMN
OF FORMER CHIEF JUSTICE ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN,
PHILIPPINE DAILY INQUIRER, September 27, 2015)
For the guidance of students, Justice Antonio
Carpio
had a dissenting opinion on the decision of the
Supreme Court on March 3, 2004, which declared
that Fernando Poe Jr. is a natural born Filipino
citizen.
Justice Antonio Carpio, together with other four (4) other
justices (Former Chief Justice Renato Corona and
associates justice Conchita Carpio Morales, Leonardo
Quizambing, and Dante Tinga) dissented to the majority
ruling of Former Chief Justice Hilario Dande, Jr. and
associate justices Jose Vitug, the one who penned the
decision, Angelina Sandoval Gutierez, Alicia Austrich
Martinez, Romeo Callejo, Sr., Adalf Ascurra and former
Chief Justice Renato Puno).

Justice Carpio held that Fernando Poe, Jr. was actually not
a Filipino citizen.
REASONS:
He was an illegitimate child of his father, Fernando Poe,
Sr., and American mother, Bessie Kelly;
Being an illegitimate child, Fernando Poe, Jr. took the
citizenship of his American mother.
There is no showing that his alleged Filipino father, Allan
F. Poe, acknowledged him at birth.
Our Constitution defines a natural born citizen as a
Philippine citizen from birth without having to perform
any act to acquire or perfect his Philippine citizenship.
Justice Carpio said that Fernando Poe, Jr. did not meet
this citizenship qualification.
Q: Who has the burden of proving ones
citizenship?
A: The individual claiming to be a citizen of the
Philippines has the burden of proving his citizenship. In
this connection, he said that any person who claims to
be qualified to run for President because he is, among
others, a natural Filipino citizen has the burden of
proving that he is a natural born citizen.
Any doubt whether he is a natural born citizen should be
resolved against him. REASON: The constitutional
requirement of a natural born citizen being an express
qualification as President, must be complied with and
strictly.
Q: What was the argument, among others, why
Justice Jose Vitug (the one who penned the
decision) ruled that Fernando Poe, Jr., is a natural
born Filipino citizen?
A: Justice Vitug said that while Fernando Poe, Jr. was
born out of wedlock, his father, Lorenzo, Albeit a
Spanish subject, was not shown to have declared his
allegiance to Spain by virtue of the Treaty of Paris and
the Philippine Bill of 1902.
MY OPINION ON THIS MATTER
Former Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban took the
position that Senator Grace Poe is a natural born Filipino
citizen because under Article 2 of the 1961 Convention
on the Reduction of Statelessness, she, a foundling who
was found in Iloilo, Philippines, is deemed to have Filipino
parents. Perforce, she is natural born since her presumed
parents, specifically her father, are accorded Philippine
citizenship. He admitted that the Philippines is not a
signatory to the said 1961 Convention, but he said that
we are bound by its provisions because they have
become generally accepted principles of international
law which are as binding as statutes passed by
Congress.
I have some reservations about the said arguments:
First, under the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of
Statelessness, the States maintain their right to
elaborate their nationality laws but obliged a contracting
party to grant its nationality to persons born in its
territory who would otherwise be stateless. The problem
is that the Philippine is not a Contracting Party to the
said 1961 Convention and therefore not bound by the
Convention.
Second, under Article 7 of the 1989 Convention on the
Rights of the Child, state Parties shall ensure the
implementation of these rights in accordance with their
national law and their obligations under the relevant
international instruments in their field, particularly where

the child would otherwise be stateless. This shows

therefore that the Convention of the Rights of the Child
still requires a need for legislation in order for the child
to acquire the nationality of the Contracting Party.
Without therefore an implementing legislation, a child
could be stateless.
Third, not being a contracting party to the convention,
and there being no legislation yet that is passed by our
Congress, there can be no legal basis upon which a
foundling could acquire Philippine citizenship.
Fourth, our present constitution, including the 1935 and
1973 Constitutions, contain no provisions granting
Filipino citizenship to foundlings.
I subscribe to the principle that every child shall have a
right to acquire a nationality, but ultimately, a State has
a sovereign right to determine who will be or who are its
citizens and the right to specify the conditions on how to
acquire Philippine citizenship. This is precisely the reason
why an implementing law is necessary.
MISCELLANEOUS TOPICS
JALOSJOS VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
G.R. NO. 191970, APRIL 24, 2012
Jalosjos migrated to Australia when he was eight (8)
years old, and he lived in that country for 26 years. He
was born in Quezon City.
He returned to the Philippines sometime in November,
2008 and reacquired Philippine citizenship when he
reached 35 years old. He stayed in his brothers house in
Ipil, Zamboanga, Sibugay; he registered as a voter and
ran for Governor of the province.
The Comelec ruled that Jalosjos had not adequately
proven that he had established Zamboanga, Sibugay, as
his domicile.
What is the domicile of Jalosjos?
HELD: When Jalosjos came back to the Philippines in
November, 2008, lived with his brother in Zamboanga,
Sibugay, and registered as a voter, it is evident that he
did so with intent to change his domicile for good.
Besides, when he left Australia, and gave up his
Australian citizenship, and renounced his allegiance to
the said country, and thereafter, reacquired his old
citizenship and took his allegiance to the Republic of the
Philippines, he, by his acts, forfeited his legal right to live
in Australia, and gave up his domicile in Australia. In
fact, he was issued a Certificate of Acquisition of
Philippine Citizenship by the Bureau of Immigration.
The fact that Jalosjos merely stayed in the house of his
brother is of no moment. x x x A candidate is not
required to have a house in a community to establish his
residence or domicile in a particular place. It is sufficient
that he should live there even if it be a rented house or
in the house of a friend or relative. To insist that the
candidate owns the house where he lives would make
property a qualification for public office.
PUBLIC INTEREST CENTER, INC. VS.
ELMA AND ZAMORA,
G.R NO. 138965, June 30, 2006
FACTS:
While serving as chairman of PCGG, respondent Elma
was also appointed as Chief Presidential Counsel. After
his appointment, he took his oath of office but waived

any remuneration that he may receive as CPLC. The

concurrent appointment was assailed as a violation of
Sec. 13, Art. VIII and Sec. 7 Art. IX-B of the 1987
Constitution.
2. Petitioner also claims that respondent Elma was
holding incompatible offices.
Contention of Respondents: They contend that Sec. 7,
Par 2, art. IX-B, would allow a public officer to hold
multiple positions:
(a) IF the law allows the concurrent appointment of the
said official; and
(b) IF the primary functions of either position allows such
concurrent appointment.
The respondents also contend that there is a close
relation between the two positions and there is no
compatibility between them, and that the primary
functions of either position would allow respondent
Elmas concurrent appointments to both positions.
Moreover, the appointment of CPLC among incumbent
public officials in an accepted practice.
HELD: 1. The PCLC Chair cannot serve as CPLC at the
same
time.
The
concurrent
appointment
is
unconstitutional.
REASON: Article IX-B, Sec. 7 of the Constitution prohibits
the concurrent appointments of Elma as PCGG Chairman
and CPLC because they are incompatible offices.
2. The crucial test in determining whether incompatibility
exists between two offices is: Whether one office is
subordinate to the other in the sense that one office has
the right to interfere with the other.
3. Incompatibility exists between the positions of the
PCGG Chairman and PCLC.
REASON: The CPLC gives independent and
impartial legal advice on the actions of the various
departments
heads
and
agencies;
reviews
investigations of said department heads and other
presidential appointees. For this reason, the
actions of the PCGG Chairman are subject to
review of the CPLC.
METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS.
DANTE O. GARIN
G.R. NO. 130230, APRIL 15, 2005
FACTS:
Atty. Dante Garin parked his vehicle illegally along
Gandara Street, Binondo, Manila.
Atty. Garin sent a letter to Prospero Oreta, then the
MMDA Chairman with these requests: (a) that his drivers
license be returned to him. On the same date, he
expressed his preference that his case be filed in court.
HELD: The power therefore to confiscate and suspend or
revoke drivers license without the need of legislative
enactment is an unauthorized exercise of police power.
GEN. FRANCISCO GUDANI VS. LT. GEN. GENEROSO
SENGA, G.R. NO. 170165, AUGUST 15, 2006
FACTS: Gen. Gudani and Balutan were invited to appear
before the Senate Committee on Defense and Security in
connection with inquiry regarding alleged cheating
during the 2004 Elections. A day before they testified,
Gen. Senga ordered them per instruction of the President
to the effect that No AFP personel shall appear before
any congressional or senate hearing without the
Presidents approval. Gudani and Balutan appeared at
the hearing and testified on the conduct of the 2004

elections. Subsequently, they were charged with

violating Articles of War 65 and 97.
Gudani and Balutan sought to annul the said directive of
the President, contending that it is unconstitutional. It
interferes with the power of Congress to investigate in
aid of legislation, and asked the Court to stop the AFP
from continuing the court martial proceedings against
them.
ISSUE: Can the President prevent a member of the AFP
from testifying before a legislative inquiry.
HELD: The President, as Commander-in-Chief of the AFP
has the right to require military personnel to obtain prior
consent before testifying on a legislative inquiry.
Congress has adequate remedies to compel attendance
of a military official. Any military official whom Congress
summons to testify before it may be compelled to do so
by the President. If the President is not so inclined, the
President may be commanded by judicial order to
compel the attendance of the military officer.
FUNA VS. AGRA, 691 SCRA 196
Can Atty. A be concurrently appointed as Acting
Solicitor General and Acting Secretary of Justice?
No. It is a violation of Sec. 13, Art. VII of the Constitution.
Will the answer be the same if the designation was
merely
a
temporary
one?
It is of no moment that the designation was in a
temporary capacity. The Constitution makes no reference
to the nature of the designation.
Q:How can our Constitution be changed?
A: It can be changed either by amendment or revision.
This is referred to as formal amendment. A change may
also be effected when our courts of justice interpret
ambiguously worded provisions of the Constitution to
make it conform with realities. This being not in
accordance with the formal process of amendment, as
called for, it is understood that in so doing, the Supreme
Court is merely modifying its interpretation of the
ambiguously worded constitutional provision involved
and it does so in accordance with the principle that it has
the last word in the construction of any law and even of
the Constitution itself.
DUAL CITIZENSHIP & DUAL ALLEGIANCE
DUAL CITIZENSHIP
This is involuntary . ( i.e This happens when a child
whose parents are Filipinos, was born in the U.S. When
this happens, said child is Filipino because of the jus
sanguinis rule, but he is also an American because of the
jus soli rule ( because he was born in the U.S.)
DUAL ALLEGIANCE
This refers to a situation in which a person
simultaneously owes, by some positive act, loyalty to
two (2) or more States. This is inimical to national
interest.
TREATY & EXECUTIVE AGREEMENT
TREATY
A treaty is concluded by the President with the
advice and consent of the Senate (No treaty or
international agreement shall be valid and effective

unless concerned on by at least 2/3 of all the

members of the Senate.)
International agreements which involve political
issues or changes or national policy and those
international agreements of a permanent character
take the form of a treaty.
Formal documents require ratification.

EXECUTIVE AGREEMENT
An executive agreement is concluded by the
President based on the authority granted by

Congress or based on the inherent authority granted

the President by the Constitution.
International agreements involving adjustment of
details carrying out well-established national
policies and traditions and involving arrangements
of a more or less temporary character take the form
of executive agencies.
Executive agreements become binding through
executive action.