Professional Documents
Culture Documents
to hold a hearing on the basis of which his decision will be between those favored, which may or may not need it at
made can be delegated and is not offensive to due all, and the judiciary, which needs it.
process. The court noted that: AS long as a party is not
deprived of his right to present his own case and submit Q. X was sentenced to a penalty of 1 year and 5
evidence in support thereof, and the decision is supported months of prision correccional and to pay a fine of
by the evidence in record, there is no question that the P8,000.00, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of
requirements of due process and fair trial are fully met. In solvency. After serving his prison term, X asked the
short, there is no abrogation of responsibility on the part of Director of Prisons whether he could already be
the officer concerned as the actual decision remains with released. X was asked to pay the fine of P5,000.00
and is made by said officer. It is however, required that to and he said he could not afford it, being an indigent.
give the substance of a hearing, which is for the purpose The Director informed him he has to an additional
of making determinations upon evidence the officer who prison term at the rate of one day per eight pesos in
makes the determinations must consider and appraise the accordance with Article 39 of the Revised Penal Code.
evidence which justifies them. The lawyer of X filed a petition for habeas corpus
2) No, Stevie was not denied due process simply contending that the further incarceration of his client
because the complainants, the prosecutor, and the for unpaid fines violates the equal protection clause of
hearing officers were all sunbordinates of the the Constitution. Decide.(Bar Question)
Commissioner of the Bureau of Immigration and
Deportation. In accordance with the ruling in Erlanger & Alternative Answers:
Galinger, Inc VS Court of Industrial Relations, 110 Phil 1) The petition should be granted, because
470,the findings of the subordinates are not conclusive article 39 of the RPC is unconstitutional. In
upon the Commissioners, who have the discretion to Tate V Short, 401 US 395, the United
accept or reject them. What is important is that Stevie was States Supreme Court held that imposition of
not deprived of his right to present his own case and subsidiary imprisonment upon a convict who
submit evidence in support thereof, the decision is is too poor to pay a fine violates equal
supported by substantial evidence, and the protection, because economic status cannot
Commissioners acted on their own independent serve as a valid basis for distinguishing the
consideration of the law and facts of the case, and did not duration of the imprisonment between a
simply accept the views of their subordinates in arriving at convict who is able to pay the fine and a
a decision. convict who is unable to pay it.
2) On the other hand, in United States ex rel.
Privitera VS Kross, 239 F Supp 118, it was
EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE held that the imposition of subsidiary
imprisonment for inability to pay a fine does
Q. Sec. 89, RA 6975 creating the PNP provides for not violate equal protection, because the
compulsory retirement at the age of 56. It provides punishment should be tailored to fit the
however, that the members of the INP who were individual, and equal protection does not
absorbed by the PNP shall retire at the age of 60 compel the eradication of every
during the 4-year transitory period. Some members of disadvantage caused by indigence. The
the PC who were absorbed by the PNP and who decision was affirmed by the US Circuit
reached 56 received notices of retirement. They Court of Appeals in 345 F2d 533, and the US
challenged Sec. 89 as violative of the equal protection Suprme Court denied the petition for
clause since it applies only to the PNP. Decide. certiorari in 382 US 911. This ruling was
adopted by the Illinois SC in People V
A.The contention is not correct because there is a Williams.
substantial distinction between them and the members of
the INP. Under the laws enforced before RA 6975,
members of the PC were already retirable at the age of SEARCHES AND SEIZURES
60. The transitory period of 4 years is intended to give
them (INP members) a breathing space to enable them to Q. Some police operatives, acting under a lawfully
plan for their retirement, which would be earlier than what issued warrant for the purpose of searching for
was provided by the old law. (Napolcom VS De Guzman, firearms in the House of X located at No. 10 Shaw
48 SCAD 205, February 9, 1994) Boulevard, Pasig, Metro Manila, found, instead of
firearms, ten kilograms of cocaine.
Q. RA 7354, otherwise known as the Philippine Postal 1) May the said police operatives lawfully
Corporation withdrew the franking privilege of the seize the cocaine? Explain your answer.
Courts, while retaining the same insofar as the 2) May X successfully challenge the legality
Executive and Legislative Branches were concerned. of the search on the ground that the
It was questioned as violative of the equal protection peace officers did not inform him about
clause. Is the contention correct? Why? his right to remain silent and his right to
counsel? Explain your answer.
A. Yes. In Philippine Judges Association VS Prado, 46 3) Suppose the peace officers were able to
SCAD 225, Nov. 11, 1993, it was said that the judiciary find unlicensed firearms in the house in
needs the franking privilege. And it cannot be understood an adjacent lot, that is, No. 12 Shaw
why, of all the departments of the government, it is the Boulevard, which is also owned by X.
judiciary that has been denied the franking privilege while May they lawfully seize the said
extending it to others less deserving. The argument that unlicensed firearms? Explain your
the franking privilege of the judiciary must be withdrawn answer. (Bar Question)
because of the considerable volume of mail from it is self-
defeating. If the problem is the loss of revenues from the A. 1) Yes, the police operatives may lawfully seize the
franking privilege, the remedy, it seems is to withdraw it cocaine, because it is an item whose possession is
altogether from all agencies of the government, including prohibited by law, it was in plainview and it was only
those who do not need it. The problem is not solved by inadvertently discovered in the course of a lawful search.
retaining it for some and withdrawing it from others, The possession of cocaine is prohibited by Sec. 8 of the
especially where there is no substantial distinction Dangerous Drugs Act. As held Magoncia V Palacio, 80
Prepared by the POLITICAL LAW SECTION Chief MARILOU LINDA Assistant Chief CATHY AQUINO Members MAY AQUINO, ERRIZA
BUCU, MARICAR DELA CRUZ, KATHREEN GUNAYON, GRACIELA LEYGO, MARY GRACE MANZANO, RUTCHIE MARANON, and
DINAH MARTINEZ. All Rights Reserved by the SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW BAR OPERATIONS 2003.
POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER
3 SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY BAR OPERATIONS
Phil 770, an article whose possession is prohibited by law The twenty sticks of marijuana are
may be seized without the need of any search warrant if it admissible in evidence and the trial courts finding that the
was discovered during a lawful search. The additional appellant is guilty of possession is correct. (People VS
requirement laid down in Roan VS Gonzales, 145 SCRA Ramos June 4, 1990)
687 that the discovery of the article must have been made
inadvertently was also satisfied in this case. Q. In an application for a search warrant, it was
2) No, X cannot successfully challenge the legality of the admitted that the questions propounded in the
searcvh simply because the peace officers did not inform supposed to be searching questions were pre-typed,
him about his right to remain silent and his right to that the only participation of the applicant for search
counsel. Sec. 12(1), Art. III of the 1987 Constitution warrant was to subscribe before the judge.
provides: Rule on the validity of the search warrant.
Any person under investigation for the
commission of an offense shall have the right to be A. The search warrant is void because the rule that the
informed of his right to remain silent and to have judge must conduct searching questions and answers
competent and independent counsel preferably of his own before the issuance of the warrants were not complied
choice. with. (Peudon VS CA, Nov. 16, 1990). In fact, in Roan VS
As held in People VS Dy, 158 SCRA 111, for this Gonzales, Nov. 25, 1986, it was said that the depositions
provision to apply, a suspect must be under investigation. must be taken and attached to the record.
There was no investigation involved in this case.
Q. Mayor Antonio Sanchez was arrested 46 days after
3) The unlicensed firearms stored at 12 Shaw Boulevard the commission of the alleged rape, etc. against Mary
may lawfully be seized their possession is illegal. As held Eileen Sarmenta and the killing of Allan Gomez and
in Magoncia V Palacio, 80 Phil 770, when an individual Sarmenta. He was arrested before warrants were
possesses contraband (unlicensed firearms belong to this issued. Rule on the validity of his arrest.
category), he is committing a crime and he can be
arrested without a warrant and the contraband can be A. The arrest is illegal because the police officers who
seized. arrested him were not present when he allegedly
participated in the rape and killing. They had no personal
Alternative Answer: knowledge of the alleged criminal liability of Mayor
In accordance with the rulings in Uy Keytin V Sanchez but merely relied on the sworn statements of two
Villareal, 42 Phil 886 and People V Sy Juco, 64 Phil witnesses. Since he was arrested 46 days after the
667, the unlicensed firearms found in the house at 12 commissions of the crimes in question, it could not be said
Shaw Boulevard may not be lawfully seized, since they that he had just committed a crime at the time of the
were not included in the description of the articles to be arrest. (Sanchez VS Demetriou Nov. 19, 1993)
seized by virtue of the search warrant. The search warrant
described the articles to be seized as firearms in the Q. Cong. Francisco Aniag, Jr. was one of those who
house of X located at 10 Shaw Boulevard. were issued firearms by the House of
Representatives. Pursuant to the Gun Ban issued by
COMELEC, the Sergeant-at-arms of the House wrote
Q. An informant apprised Sgts. Sudiacal and Ahamad him a letter requesting the return of the guns. So he
of the presence of a drug pusher at the corner of 3 rd immediately instructed his driver to get the guns from
St, and Rizal Avenue, Olongapo City. Responding to his house at Valle Verde and return the same. He
the information, they, together with Capt. Castillo, complied, but immediately, a checkpoint was
gave the informant marked money to but marijuana. established outside of the Batasan Complex some 20
The informant now turned poseur-buyer, returned with meters away from the entrance. When the driver
two sticks of marijuana. Capt. Castillo again gave said approached the checkpoint, the car was searched and
informant marked money to purchase marijuana. The the police found the guns at the compartment, placed
informant poseur-buyer thereafter returned with in a bag. He was apprehended. He was charged before
another two sticks of marijuana. The police officers the Quezon City Prosecutors Office, but it was
then proceeded to the corner of 3rd St. and Rizal dismissed. The Law Department of the COMELEC,
Avenue and effected the arrest of the appellant which however, recommended the prosecution of the driver
was questioned as unconstitutional. Rule on the and Aniag for violation of the Omnibus Election Code.
contention. They questioned the manner by which the search was
conducted, as it was without any warrant. Decide.
A.The arrest was legal because the arresting officers had
personal knowledge of the facts implicating the appellant A. The search was not valid. There was no evidence to
with the sale of the marijuana to the informant-poseur show that the policemen were impelled to put up the
buyer. The arrest therefore, was legal and the consequent checkpoint because of a confidential report leading them
search which yielded 20 sticks of marijuana was lawful for to reasonably believe that certain motorists were engaged
being incident to a valid arrest. in gunrunning, etc. There was no indication from the
The fact that the prosecution failed to package or behavior of Aniags driver that could have
prove the sale of marijuana beyond reasonable doubt triggered the suspicion of the policemen, hence, the
does not undermine the legality of the appellants arrest. search was not valid and the firearms obtained cannot be
It is not necessary that the crime should admitted for any purpose in any proceeding. (Aniag VS
have been established as fact in order to regard the COMELEC Oct. 7, 1994)
detention as legal. The legality of detention does not
depend upon the actual commission of the crime, but upon Q. Pursuing reports that great quantities of prohibited
the nature of the deed when such characterization may drugs are being smuggled at nighttime through the
reasonably be inferred by the officer or functionary to shores of Cavite, the Southern Luzon Command set
whom the law at the moment leaves the decision on the up checkpoints at the end of the Cavite coastal road
urgent purpose of suspending the liberty of the citizen. to search passing motor vehicles. A 19 year old boy,
The obligation to make an arrest by who finished fifth grade, while driving, was stopped
reason of a crime does not presuppose as a necessary by the authorities at the checkpoint. Without any
requisite for the fulfillment thereof, the indubitable objection from him, his car was inspected, and the
existence of a crime. search yielded marijuana leaves hidden in the trunk
Prepared by the POLITICAL LAW SECTION Chief MARILOU LINDA Assistant Chief CATHY AQUINO Members MAY AQUINO, ERRIZA
BUCU, MARICAR DELA CRUZ, KATHREEN GUNAYON, GRACIELA LEYGO, MARY GRACE MANZANO, RUTCHIE MARANON, and
DINAH MARTINEZ. All Rights Reserved by the SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW BAR OPERATIONS 2003.
POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER
4 SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY BAR OPERATIONS
compartment of the car. The prohibited drug was and seizures do not apply to routine airport procedures.
promptly and the boy was brought to the police (People VS Leila Johnson, December 18, 2000)
station for questioning.
1) Was the search without warrant legal?
2) Before interrogation, the policeman on Q. X was arrested for and charged with Robbery. X
duty informed the boy in English that he posted bail in order to be released temporarily. During
does have a right to remain silent and trial and before entering his plea, X raised objections
the right to counsel. However, there was regarding the legality of his arrest for robbery. The
no counsel available as it was midnight. prosecution, however, claims that the posting of the
He declared orally that he did not need bail bond was tantamount to an effective waiver of the
any lawyer as he was innocent, since he latters right to question the legality of the arrest.
was only bringing the marijuana leaves to a. Did the posting of the bail bond by X
his employer in Quezon City and was not amount to a waiver of the right to
a drug user. He was charged with illegal question the legality of his arrest?
possession of prohibited drugs. Is his b. Was there a waiver of the right to
waiver of the right to counsel valid? (Bar question the legality of the arrest if the
Question) same was made after entering a plea.
A.No. Persons may lose the protection of the search and A.Yes. Section 1 of RA 4200 clearly and unequivocally
seizure clause by exposure of their persons or property to prohibits any person, not authorized by all the parties to
the public in a manner reflecting a lack of subjective any private conversation, to secretly tape record any
expectation of privacy, which expectation society is communication by means of a tape recorder.
prepared to recognize as reasonable. Such recognition is Congressional records support the view that the intention
implicit in airport security procedures. Passengers of the lawmakers in enacting RA 4200 is to make illegal
attempting to board an aircraft routinely pass through any unauthorized tape recording of private conversation or
metal detectors; their carry on baggage as well as communication taken by either of the parties themselves
checked luggage are routinely subjected to x-ray scans. or third persons. (Ramirez VS CA 248 SCRA 590)
Should these procedures suggest the presence of
suspicious objects, physical searches are conducted to Q. The police had suspicions that Juan Samson,
determine what the objects are. Travelers are often member of the subversive New Proletarian Army, was
notified through airport public address systems, signs and using the mail for propaganda purposes in gaining
notices in their airline tickets that they are subject to new adherents to its cause. The Chief of Police of
search and, if any prohibited materials or substances are Bantolan, Lano Del Sur ordered the Postmaster of the
found, such would be subject to seizure. These town to intercept and open all mail addressed to and
announcements place passengers on notice that ordinary coming from Juan Samson in the interest of the
constitutional protections against warrantless searches
Prepared by the POLITICAL LAW SECTION Chief MARILOU LINDA Assistant Chief CATHY AQUINO Members MAY AQUINO, ERRIZA
BUCU, MARICAR DELA CRUZ, KATHREEN GUNAYON, GRACIELA LEYGO, MARY GRACE MANZANO, RUTCHIE MARANON, and
DINAH MARTINEZ. All Rights Reserved by the SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW BAR OPERATIONS 2003.
POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER
5 SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY BAR OPERATIONS
national security. Was the order of the Chief of police area of publication known as Comelec Space to
valid? (Bar Question) enable the candidates to make their qualifications and
other information relatives to the candidates. Is such a
Suggested Answer: resolution valid? Explain.
No, the order of the Chief of Police is not valid B. Would your answer be the same if the
because there is no law which authorizes him to order the resolution required broadcast media to give
Postmaster to open the letters addressed to and coming free airtime for the same purpose? Explain.
from Juan Samson. An official in the Executive
Department cannot interfere with the privacy of A.
correspondence and communication in the absence of a A. The resolution is invalid because the COMELEC
law authorizing him to do so or a lawful order of the court. cannot procure print space without paying just
compensation therefore. (Philippine Press Institute
VS Comelec, 244 SCRA 272)
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION B. No. The resolution this time is constitutional, even as
it provides that airtime may be procured by the
Q. The Iglesia Ni Cristo (INC) was required by the COMELEC free of charge, the same being an
MTRCB to submit to it for review the video tapes for exercise of the plenary police power of the State to
its programs. The MTRCB disapproved the tapes on promote general welfare. In truth, radio and television
the ground that they attacked the Catholic religion. broadcasting companies, which are given franchises,
The INC contended that requiring it to submit do not own the airwaves and frequencies through
videotapes for review by the Board violated freedom which they transmit their broadcast signals and
of speech and freedom of religion. Whom would you images. They are merely given the temporary
sustain, the MTRCB or the INC. privilege of using them. Since a franchise is a mere
privilege, the exercise of the privilege may reasonably
A. The MTRCB. The video tapes can be submitted for be burdened with the performance by the grantee of
review. The right to act on ones belief can be subject to some form of public service. Such regulation of the
regulation. The public broadcast involve the realm of use and ownership of telecommunications systems
action. Television reaches even children. However, the is in the exercise of the plenary police power of the
showing of the video tapes cannot be prohibited. There is state for the general welfare.
no clear and present danger of a substantial evil which the It is a fallacy that broadcast media are entitled to
state has a right to prevent. (Iglesia Ni Cristo VS CA, 259 the same treatment under the free speech guarantee of
SCRA 529) the Constitution as the print media. There are important
differences in the characteristics of the two media which
Q. Distinguish content-based restrictions on free justify their differential treatment for free speech purposes.
speech from content-neutral restrictions, and give Because of the unique and pervasive influence of the
example of each. broadcast media, the freedom of television and radio
broadcasting is somewhat lesser in scope than the
A.Content-based restrictions are imposed because of the freedom accorded to newspaper and print media.
content of the speech and are, therefore, subject to the (TELEBAP VS Comelec, April 21, 1998)
clear-and-present danger test. For example, a rule such
as that involved in Sanidad VS Comelec (181 SCRA Q. The Comelec issued an order prohibiting the
529), prohibiting columnists, commentators and conduct of exit poll survey by mass media by
announcers from campaigning either for or against an confidentiality asking randomly selected voters whom
issue in a scrutiny. These restrictions are censorial and they have voted for immediately after they have cast
therefore they bear a heavy presumption of constitutional their ballot, as the same violates the principle of ballot
invalidity. In addition, they will be tested for possible secrecy. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp. questioned the
overbreadth and vagueness. validity of the Comelec Order on constitutional
Content-neutral restrictions on the other hand, like Sec. grounds. Decide.
11(b) of RA No. 6646, which prohibits the sale or donation
of print space and air time to political candidates during A. The reason behind the principle of ballot secrecy is to
the campaign period are not concerned with the content of avoid vote buying through voter identification. This result
the speech. These regulations need only a substantial cannot, however, be achieved merely through voters
government interest to support them. A deferential verbal and confidential disclosure to a pollsters of whom
standard for review will suffice to test their validity. The they have voted for. In exit polls, the contents of the official
clear-and-present danger rule is inappropriate as a test for ballot are not actually exposed. Furthermore, the
determining the constitutional validity of laws, like Sec. 11 revelation of whom an elector has voted for is not
(b) of RA No. 6646, which are not concerned with the compulsory but voluntary. Voters may choose not to reveal
content of the political ads but only with their incidents. To their identities.
apply the clear-and-present danger test to such regulatory An absolute prohibition would be unreasonably
measure would be like using a sledgehammer to drive a restrictive, because it effectively prevents the use of exit
nail when regular hammer is all that is needed. The poll data not only for election day projections, but also for
Supreme Court applied the OBrien Test in the case of long term research. The Comelec concern with the
SWS VS Comelec, May 5, 2001. possible non-communicative effect of exit polls-disorder
The test for this difference in the level of and confusion in the voting centers does not justify a total
justification for the restriction of speech is that content- ban on them. The holding of exit polls and the
based restrictions distort public debate, have improper dissemination of their results through mass media
motivation, and are usually imposed because of fear of constitute an essential part of freedom of speech and of
how people will react to a particular speech. No such the press. (ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp. VS Comelec,
reasons underlie content-neural regulations, like regulation 323 SCRA 811)
of time, place and manner of holding public assemblies
under BP Blg. 880, the Public Assembly Act of 1985. Q. Congress passes a law prohibiting television
stations from airing any commercial advertisements
which promotes tobacco or in any way glamorizes the
Q. A. The Comelec promulgated a resolution requiring consumption of tobacco products.
all newspaper to give free print space within their
Prepared by the POLITICAL LAW SECTION Chief MARILOU LINDA Assistant Chief CATHY AQUINO Members MAY AQUINO, ERRIZA
BUCU, MARICAR DELA CRUZ, KATHREEN GUNAYON, GRACIELA LEYGO, MARY GRACE MANZANO, RUTCHIE MARANON, and
DINAH MARTINEZ. All Rights Reserved by the SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW BAR OPERATIONS 2003.
POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER
6 SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY BAR OPERATIONS
Alternative Answer:
Since ABN has a franchise, it may be considered
an agent of the government by complying with the law and
refusing to air the advertisement, it alined itself with the
government. Thus it rendered itself liable for a lawsuit
which is based on abridgement of the freedom of speech.
Under Art. 32 of the Civil Code, even private parties may
be liable for damages for impairment of the freedom of
speech.
A.No. The right guaranteed in Art. III, Sec. 8 is subject to FREEDOM OF RELIGION
the condition that its exercise should be for purposes
not contrary to law. There is a rational basis for Q. X, a court stenographer, a member of the Seventh
prohibiting managerial employees from forming or Day Adventists, requested for exemption from work
joining labor organization. Because if these managerial on Saturday because she has to accommodate her
employees would belong to or be affiliated with a Union, religious needs. If you were the judge, would you
the latter might not be assured of their loyalty to the grant it? Why?
Union in view of evident conflict of interest. The union
can also become company-dominated with the A. Yes, because that is part of the exercise of the
presence of managerial employee in the Union freedom of religion, subject to the condition that she
membership. (UPSU VS Laguesma, March 25, 1998) should make up. (Adm. Matter No. 88-2-5546-RTC,
Exemption from Duty on Rotation on Saturday, June 2,
Q. Under the Barangay Election Act (BP222) political 1988)
parties were prohibited from participating in the
barangay elections. It was challenged on the ground 1. A religious organization has a weekly
of violation of the right to form associations not television program. The program presents
contrary to law. Was the contention proper? Why? and propogates its religious, doctrines, and
compares their practices with those of
A. No, because the right to form associations is not other religions.
absolute or illimitable, as it is subject to the most As the Movie and Television Review and
pervasive and dominant police power. It can be Classification Board (MTRCB) found as
regulated to serve appropriate and important public offensive several episodes of the program
interest. The law was designed to insulate the barangay which attacked other religions, the MTRCB
from the divisive effects of partisan political campaign required the organization to submit its
and the danger of disenabling the barangay officials tapes for review prior to airing.
from efficiently performing their duties as agents of a The religious organizations brought the
neutral community. (Oceania VS Comelec, 127 SCRA case to court on the ground that the action
404) of the MTRCB suppresses its freedom of
speech and interferes with its right to free
Q. In their vain efforts to obtain benefits they were exercise of religion. Decide. (Bar Question)
demanding, the teachers staged a series of
demonstrations before the DECS and Congress. Suggested Answer:
Administrative charges were filed. Several of them The religious organization cannot invoke
were dismissed due to their failure to obey the freedom of speech and freedom of religion as grounds
return-to-work order from the DECS. Can the for refusing to submit the tapes to the Movie and
teachers stage mass walk-outs or strike? Why? Television Review and Classification Board for Review
prior to airing. When the religious organization started
A. No. In MPSTA, et al. VS Laguio, GR No. 95445; presenting its program over television, it went into the
Alliance of Concerned Teachers VS Carino GR No. realm of action. The right to act on ones religious belief
95590, the Supreme Court said that employees in the is not absolute and is subject to police power for the
public service, unlike those in the private sector do not protection of the general welfare. Hence the tapes may
have the right to strike, although guaranteed the right to be required to be reviewed prior to airing.
self-organization, to petition the Congress for better
employment terms and conditions and to negotiate with In Iglesia ni Cristo V Court of Appeals, 259
appropriate government agencies for the improvement SCRA 529, the Supreme Court Held:
of such working conditions as are to be fixed by law. We thus reject petitioners postulate that its
In Samahang Manggagawa ng Rizal religious program is per se beyond review by the
Park, VS NLRC GR No. 94372, it was said that respondent board. Its public broadcast on TV of its
although the NPDC employees are allowed under the religious program brings it out of the bosom of internal
1987 Constitution to organize and join unions of their belief. Television is a medium, that reaches even the
choice, there is as yet no law allowing them to strike. In eyes and ears of children. The court reiterates the rule
Prepared by the POLITICAL LAW SECTION Chief MARILOU LINDA Assistant Chief CATHY AQUINO Members MAY AQUINO, ERRIZA
BUCU, MARICAR DELA CRUZ, KATHREEN GUNAYON, GRACIELA LEYGO, MARY GRACE MANZANO, RUTCHIE MARANON, and
DINAH MARTINEZ. All Rights Reserved by the SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW BAR OPERATIONS 2003.
POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER
8 SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY BAR OPERATIONS
that the exercise of religious freedom can be regulated have been different had the Director of Prisons
by the State when it will bring about the clear and prohibited meatless diets in the penal institution.
present danger of some substantive evil which the State
is duty bound to prevent, i.e.. serious detriment to the
mere overriding interest of public healyh, public morals LIBERTY OF ABODE
or public welfare.
Q. PCGG sequestered two government firms on the
However, the MTRCB cannot ban the tapes on basis of the claim that the Marcoses owned 60% of
the ground that they attacked other religions. In Iglesia the shares of stocks. It also issued an order
ni Cristo VS C.A, the SC held: prohibiting the petitioners from leaving the country
Even a sideglance at Section 3 of PD No. as they were preventing or obstructing the
1986 will reveal that it is not among the grounds to operation of the company. Was the order proper?
justify an order prohibiting the broadcast of petitioners Why?
television program.
Moreover, the broadcast do not give rise to a A. The petitioners right to travel has been impaired.
clear and present danger of a substantive evil. In this Since PCGG has already taken over the companies,
case, it held that prior restraint on speech, including the their operation can no longer be obstructed. If
religious speech, cannot be justified by hypothetical petitioners were obstructing the operations of the
fears but only by the showing of a substantive and companies, it would be better that they be out of the
imminent evil which has taken the reality already on the country. The right to travel is guaranteed to all residents
ground. irrespective of nationality. (Kant Kwong VS PCGG,
Dec. 7, 1987)
Q. X is serving his prison sentence in
Muntinglupa. He belongs to a religious sect that Q. Juan Casanova contracted Hansens disease
prohibits the eating of meat. He asked the Director (leprosy) with open lesions. A law requires that
of Prisons that he be served with meatless diet. The lepers be isolated upon petition of the City Health
Director refused and X sued the director for Officer. The wife of Juan Casanova wrote a letter to
damages for violating his religious freedom. Decide. the City Health Officer to have her formerly
(Bar Question) philandering husband confined in some isolated
leprosarium. Juan Casanova challenged the
A. Yes, the Director of Prison is liable under Art. 32 of constitutionality of the law as violating his liberty of
the Civil Code for violating the religious freedom of X. abode. Will the suit prosper? (Bar Question)
according to the decision of the US Supreme Court in
the case of OLone V Estate of Shabazz, convicted Suggested Answer:
prisoners retain their right to free exercise of religion. At No, the suit will not prosper.
the same time, lawful incarceration brings about Section 6, Article III of the Constitution
necessary limitations of many privileges and rights provides:
justified by the considerations underlying the penal The liberty of abode and of changing the same
system. In considering the appropriate balance between within the limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired
these two factors, reasonableness should be the test. except upon lawful order of the court.
Accommodation to religious freedom can be made if it The liberty of abode is subject to the police
will not involve sacrificing the interest of security and it power of the State. Requiring the segregation of lepers
will have no impact on the allocation of the resources of is a valid exercise of police power. In Lorenzo V
the penitentiary. In this case, providing X with a Director of Health 50 Phil 595, the SC held:
meatless diet will not create a security problem or Judicial notice will be taken of the fact that
unduly increase the cost of food being served to the leprosy is commonly believed to be an infectious
prisoners. In fact, in the case of Olone, it was noted that disease tending to cause one afflicted with it to be
the Moslem prisoners were being given a different meal shunned and excluded from society, and that
whenever pork would be served. compulsory segregation of lepers as a means of
preventing the spread of the disease is supported by
Alternative Answer: high scientific authority.
The suit should be dismissed. The free
exercise clause of the Constitution is essentially a
restraint on governmental interference with the right of Q. The military commander in charge of the
individuals to worship as they please. It is not a operation against rebel groups directed the
mandate to the state to take positive, affirmative action inhabitants of the island which would be the target
to enable the individual to enjoy his freedom. It would of attack by government forces to evacuate the area
and offered the residents temporary military hamlet.
Prepared by the POLITICAL LAW SECTION Chief MARILOU LINDA Assistant Chief CATHY AQUINO Members MAY AQUINO, ERRIZA
BUCU, MARICAR DELA CRUZ, KATHREEN GUNAYON, GRACIELA LEYGO, MARY GRACE MANZANO, RUTCHIE MARANON, and
DINAH MARTINEZ. All Rights Reserved by the SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW BAR OPERATIONS 2003.
POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER
9 SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY BAR OPERATIONS
Can the military commander force the connected with invasion. Any person arrested or
residents to transfer their places of abode without a detained should be judicially charged within three days.
court order? Explain. (Bar Question) Otherwise, he should be released. Moreover, under
Section 13, Art. III of the Constitution, the right to bail
A. No, the military commander cannot compel the shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ
residents to transfer their places of abode without a of habeas corpus is suspended.
court order. Under Sec. 6, Art. III of the Constitution, a
lawful order of the court is required before the liberty of
abode and of changing the same can be impaired. Q. Is the suspension of the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus a political or justiciable
Suggested Answer: controversy? Why?
Yes, the military commander can compel the
residents to transfer their places of abode without a A. It is a justiciable controversy. The Constitution
court order. If there is no reasonable time to get a court authorizes the courts to review on the basis of an
order and the change of abode is merely temporary, appropriate action, the factual basis for the suspension
because of the exigency, this exercise of police power of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.
may be justified.
Q. A while serving imprisonment for estafa, upon
Q. Mr. Esteban Krony, a Filipino citizen, is arrested recommendation of the Board of Pardons and
for the crime of smuggling. He posts bail for his Parole, was granted pardon by the President on
release. Subsequently, he jumps bail and is about to condition that he should not against violate any
leave the country when the Department of Foreign penal law of the land. Later, the board of Pardons
Affairs cancels his passport. He sues the DFA, and Parole recommended to the President the
claiming violation of his freedom to travel citing the cancellation of the Pardon granted him because A
new provision in the Bill of Rights of the 1987 had been charged with estafa on 20 counts and was
Constitution, to wit: Neither shall the right to travel convicted of the offense charged although he took
be impaired except in the interest of national an appeal therefrom which was still pending. As
security, public safety or public health, as may be recommended, the President canceled the pardon
provided by law. he had granted to A. A was thus arrested and
Decide the Case. (Bar Question) imprisoned to serve the balance of his sentence in
the first case. A claimed in his petition for habeas
A. The case should be dismissed. Any person under an corpus filed in court that his detention was illegal
order of arrest is under restraint and therefore he can because he had not yet been convicted by final
not claim the right to travel. If he is admitted to bail his judgment and was not given a chance to be heard
freedom of movement is confined within the country. before he was recommitted to prison.
Therefore, if he subsequently jumps bail, he cannot Is As argument valid? (Bar Question)
demand passport which in effect will facilitate his
escape from the country, he is in fact liable to be A. The argument of A is not valid. As held in Torres V
arrested anytime. Indeed, the right to travel under the Gonzales, 152 SCRA 272, a judicial pronouncement
Constitution presupposes that the individual is under no that a convict who was granted a pardon subject to the
restraint such as that which would follow from the fact condition that he should not again violate any penal law
that one has a pending criminal case and has been is not necessary before he can be declared to have
placed under arrest. violated the condition of his pardon. Moreover, a hearing
is not necessary before A can be recommitted to prison.
HABEAS CORPUS By accepting the conditional pardon, A agreed that the
determination by the President that he violated the
Q.A) When may the privilege of the writ of habeas condition of his pardon shall be conclusive upon him
corpus be suspended? and an order for his arrest should at once issue.
B) If validly declared, what would be the full
consequences of such suspension? (Bar Question) Q. Joy, an RTC stenographer, retired at the age of
A.A)Under Section 18, Art. VII of the Constitution, the 65. She left unfinished the transcription of her notes
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus may be in a criminal case which was on appeal. The Court
suspended when there is an invasion of rebellion and of Appeals ordered Joy to transcribe her notes. She
public safety require it. refused to comply with the order reasoning that she
B)According to Sec. 18, Art. VII of the was no longer in the government service. The CA
Constitution, the suspension of the privilege of the writ declared Joy in contempt of court and she was
of habeas corpus shall apply only to persons judicially incarcerated. Joy filed a petition for habeas corpus
charged with rebellion or offenses inherent in or directly arguing that her incarceration is tantamount to
Prepared by the POLITICAL LAW SECTION Chief MARILOU LINDA Assistant Chief CATHY AQUINO Members MAY AQUINO, ERRIZA
BUCU, MARICAR DELA CRUZ, KATHREEN GUNAYON, GRACIELA LEYGO, MARY GRACE MANZANO, RUTCHIE MARANON, and
DINAH MARTINEZ. All Rights Reserved by the SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW BAR OPERATIONS 2003.
POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER
10 SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY BAR OPERATIONS
illegal detention and to require her to work sans are existing laws read into contracts in order to fix the
compensation would be involuntary servitude. obligations as between parties, but the reservation of
Decide. (Bar Question) essential attributes of sovereign power is also read into
contracts as a basic postulate of the legal order.
A. Joy can be incarcerated for contempt of court for
refusing to transcribe her stenographic notes. As held in Q. A government circular prohibits the paymasters
Aclaracion Vs Gatmaitan 64 SCRA 132, her from giving the salaries of teachers to other
incarceration does not constitute illegal detention. It is persons than the payees. It was questioned on the
lawful, because it is the consequence of her ground of violation of the non-impairment clause. Is
disobedience of the court order. Neither can she claim the contention proper? Why?
that to require her to work without compensation is
tantamount to involuntary servitude. Since courts have A. No, because the creditors can still collect through
the inherent power to issue such orders as are other means. Salary which is not yet delivered to a
necessary for the administration of justice, the Court of teacher is still government money and cannot be
Appeals may order her to transcribe her stenographic assigned without the consent of the State.
notes even if she is no longer in the government
service. Q. X is indebted to the PNB. He is a holder of
backpay certificate by virtue of RA No. 897. He
offered to pay it to the PNB which refused to accept,
RIGHT TO INFORMATION claiming impairment of contract as he agreed to pay
in cash. Is the contention proper? Why?
Q. May the Executive Secretary, upon petition of a
citizen, be ordered to give access to the names of A. No, PNB cannot refuse, RA No. 897 makes it an
executive officials holding multiple positions in obligation for all government entities to accept the
government, copies of their appoinments, and a list backpay certificate for the payment of obligations. There
of the recipient of luxury vehicles seized by the is no impairment of obligations of contracts.
Bureau of Customs and turned over to Malacanang? However, for non-governmental
agencies, they cannot be compelled to accept,
A. Yes. The limitation on the right to information on otherwise, there would be impairment of obligations of
matters of public concern are embodied in the Code of contracts. (Florentino Vs PNB, April 28, 1956)
Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and
Employees (RA 6713). It provides that in the Q. Respondent filed an action to prohibit petitioner
performance of their duties, all public officials and from foreclosing a mortgage upon his property.
employees are obliged to respond to letters sent by the Upon his motion, the court authorized him to post a
public within 15 working days from receipt thereof and to bond and in fact, ordered the cancellation of the
ensure the accessibility of all public documents for mortgage. Is the order proper? Why?
inspection by the public within reasonable working
hours, subject to the reasonable claims of A. No, because it violates the constitutional prohibition
confidentiality. (Gonzalez VS Narvasa, August 14, against impairment of contracts. The substitution of the
2000) mortgage with a surety bond would effect a change of
the terms and conditions of mortgage. (Ganzon VS
Inserto 123 SCRA 713)
NON-IMPAIRMENT CLAUSE
Q. Does the imposition of the VAT upon sales and RIGHTS WHILE UNDER INVESTIGATION
leases of real estate entered into before the
effectivity of the E-VAT Law violate the rule against Q. X, Y, Z were charged with murder. The evidence
non-impairment of contracts? Why? was their extra-judicial confession to the mayor
when they visited him. They even showed the car of
A. No, because the law did not impair or effect a change the victim which they sliced off from his head. Is the
in the rights of the parties with respect to each other. A evidence admissible? Why?
tax measure which affects the relationship between one
of the parties to the contracts as taxpayers and the A. Yes, the extra-judicial confession is admissible
government does not impair the obligation of contracts. because they were not under investigation. They were
In Tolentino VS Sec. Of Finance, it was said that it is merely bragging which was indicative of voluntariness.
enough to say that the parties to a contract cannot, Since the confession was verbally made, the only way
through the exercise of prophetic discernment, fetter the to prove it is by the testimony of the person who heard
exercise of the taxing power of the State. For not only it.
Prepared by the POLITICAL LAW SECTION Chief MARILOU LINDA Assistant Chief CATHY AQUINO Members MAY AQUINO, ERRIZA
BUCU, MARICAR DELA CRUZ, KATHREEN GUNAYON, GRACIELA LEYGO, MARY GRACE MANZANO, RUTCHIE MARANON, and
DINAH MARTINEZ. All Rights Reserved by the SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW BAR OPERATIONS 2003.
POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER
11 SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY BAR OPERATIONS
Q. At what stage of the police line-up does the Q. X posted bail, but he jumped bail. What is its
suspect need the assistance of a counsel? Why? effect? Why?
A. The moment there is a move or urge to investigate to A. An accused who jumped bail waived his right to be
elicit admission or confession, or even plain information, present. He cannot offer a justifiable reason for his non-
which may appear innocent or innocuous at the time appearance during the trial. Hence, after trial in
from the suspect, he should be assisted by counsel absentia, the court can render judgment in the case and
unless there is a written waiver aided by counsel. promulgation may be made by simply recording the
judgment in the criminal docket with a copy served on
Q. A was suspected of having killed B. Is A entitled the counsel, provided that notice requiring him to be
to his rights under RA No. 7438 and the constitution present at the promulgation is served on the bondsman,
if he is invited to shed light on the offense? Why? or warden and counsel.
Prepared by the POLITICAL LAW SECTION Chief MARILOU LINDA Assistant Chief CATHY AQUINO Members MAY AQUINO, ERRIZA
BUCU, MARICAR DELA CRUZ, KATHREEN GUNAYON, GRACIELA LEYGO, MARY GRACE MANZANO, RUTCHIE MARANON, and
DINAH MARTINEZ. All Rights Reserved by the SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW BAR OPERATIONS 2003.
POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER
12 SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY BAR OPERATIONS
Prepared by the POLITICAL LAW SECTION Chief MARILOU LINDA Assistant Chief CATHY AQUINO Members MAY AQUINO, ERRIZA
BUCU, MARICAR DELA CRUZ, KATHREEN GUNAYON, GRACIELA LEYGO, MARY GRACE MANZANO, RUTCHIE MARANON, and
DINAH MARTINEZ. All Rights Reserved by the SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW BAR OPERATIONS 2003.
POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER
13 SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY BAR OPERATIONS
confession. In People Vs Compil, 244 SCRA 135, the The other accused claimed that he was deprived of
Supreme Court held that the accused must be assisted his right to be present (the one who jumped bail). Is
by counsel during the actual questioning and the the contention correct? Why?
belated assistance of counsel before he signed the
confession does not cure the defect. A. No, it is devoid of merit. The right referred to is
personal to the accused who jumped bail. In fact, he has
Alternative Answer: already testified, hence, trial proceeded without violating
Yes, the statements of A can be presented in his right to be present.
court as his confession. As held in People Vs Rous,
242 SCRA 732, even if the accused was not assisted by Q. A was presented as a witness. Substantially, the
counsel during the questioning, his confession is witnesses had already been cross-examined. The
admissible if he was able to consult a lawyer before he cross-examination was not completed, say, because
signed. A died. Should the testimony be deleted from the
record? Why?
2) a) Yes, the trial court can order the dispersal of the
rally under pain of being cited for contempt. The A. No, for as long as it has already covered the material
purpose of the rally is to attempt to influence the points touched upon in the direct examination, the
administration of justice. As stated in People Vs Flores, testimony should be allowed to remain. If the failure to
239 SCRA 83, any conduct by any party which tends to cross-examine is without his fault, the testimony can be
directly or indirectly impede, obstruct or degrade the stricken off the record. If it is attributable to him, it is
administration of justice is subject to the contempt waived.
powers of the court.
b) No, the trial court cannot punish for contempt the
fans of the victim who wrote letters to the newspaper COMPULSORY PROCESS
editors asking for the conviction of the accused. Since
the letters were not addressed to the judge and to the Q. Due to the failure of the witness to appear
publication of the letters occurred outside the court, the despite notice, the judge ordered the waiver of the
fans cannot be punished in the absence of a clear and testimony. Was the act of the Judge proper? Why?
present danger rule to the administration of justice. In
Cabansag VS Fernandez, 102 Phil 152, it was held A. No, because he should have taken effective measure
that a party who wrote to the Presidential complaints like the arrest of the witness in order to compel his
and Action Committee to complain about the delay in appearance.
the disposition of his case could not be punished for
contempt in the absence of a clear and present danger TRIAL IN ABSENTIA
to the fair administration of justice.
Q. Suppose the accused could not be located and
the information was published in a newspaper of a
SPEEDY, IMPARTIAL AND PUBLIC TRIAL general circulation and thereafter arraigned in
absentia, did the court act correctly? Why?
Q. A and B were charged with libel. On October 18,
1988, they filed a motion to quash. The prosecution A. No, arraignment in absentia is not proper because it
was given 15 days to file an oppositions, but failed needs the personal appearance of the accused.
to do so despite extensions. On August 30, 1991, Arraignment is the indispensable means of bringing the
the trial court dismissed the case on the ground of accused in court. Failure to arraign is violative of the
delay in the prosecution of the case which violated due process of law clause and the right to be informed
the right to speedy trial. Is the action of the court of the nature of the accusation against him.
proper? Why?
Q. What are the effects of the waiver of the right to
A. Yes. The failure of the prosecution to file its appear by the accused?
opposition for more than two years violated the right of
the accused to speedy trial. (Bangas VS RTC of Pasig, A. The effects are:
October 1, 1993) 1. there is a waiver of the right to present evidence
2. the prosecution can present evidence if accused
fails to appear
RIGHT TO CONFRONTATION 3. the court can decide without accuseds evidence
Prepared by the POLITICAL LAW SECTION Chief MARILOU LINDA Assistant Chief CATHY AQUINO Members MAY AQUINO, ERRIZA
BUCU, MARICAR DELA CRUZ, KATHREEN GUNAYON, GRACIELA LEYGO, MARY GRACE MANZANO, RUTCHIE MARANON, and
DINAH MARTINEZ. All Rights Reserved by the SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW BAR OPERATIONS 2003.
POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER
14 SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY BAR OPERATIONS
Prepared by the POLITICAL LAW SECTION Chief MARILOU LINDA Assistant Chief CATHY AQUINO Members MAY AQUINO, ERRIZA
BUCU, MARICAR DELA CRUZ, KATHREEN GUNAYON, GRACIELA LEYGO, MARY GRACE MANZANO, RUTCHIE MARANON, and
DINAH MARTINEZ. All Rights Reserved by the SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW BAR OPERATIONS 2003.
POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER
15 SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY BAR OPERATIONS
of the prison in order to enforce security and order in pending a post- suspension hearing, but there must
prison. It is a valid exercise of police power. be a provision for a post-suspension hearing.
Thus, to save the proposed law from
unconstitutionality on the ground of denial of due
Q: A driver was caught violating traffic regulations and process it should provide for an immediate
appears to be drunk. Can he be compelled by the hearing upon suspension of the drivers license.
police to take a breathalyzer test? The proposed law violates the right against
unreasonable search and seizures. It will
A: Yes. The prohibition against self-incrimination is a authorized police authorities to stop any driver
prohibition against physical or moral compulsion to and ask him to take the breathalyzer test even in
extort communications from him, and not an exclusion the absent of the probable cause.
of body as evidence. The breathalyzer test does not
compel the driver to produce testimonial evidence.
IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION
Q. Congress is considering a law against drunken
driving. Under the legislation, police authorities may Q: Discuss the types of Immunity Statutes.
ask any driver to take a breathalyzer test, wherein
the driver exhales several times into a device which A: Immunity statutes may be generally classified into
can determines whether he was driving under the two: one, which grants use of fruit immunity; and the
influence of alcohol. The result of the test can be other, which grants what is known as transactional
used in any legal proceedings against him . immunity.The distinction between the two is as
Furthermore, declaring that the issuance of the follows:Use immunity prohibits use of witness
drivers license gives rise only to a privilege to drive compelled testimony and its fruits in any manner in
a motor vehicles on public roads, the law provides connection with the criminal prosecution of the
that a driver who refuses to take the test shall be witness. On the other hand, transactional immunity
automatically subjected to a 90 days suspension of grants immunity to the witness from prosecution for an
his drivers license. offense to which his compelled testimony relates.
(Galman v. Pamaran, 138 SCRA 274 [1985]) An
Cite 2 possible constitutional objections to example of transactional immunity is Art. XIII, Section
this law. Resolve the objections and explain 18(8) which refers to immunity that may be granted by
whether any such infirmities can be cured. (Bar the Commission on Human Rights to any person
Question) whose testimony or whose possession of documents
or other evidence is necessary or convenient to
A. Possible objections to the law are that requiring a determine the truth in any investigation conducted by it
driver to take a breathalyzer test will violate his or under its authority, which makes the witness
rights against self-incrimination, that providing for immune from criminal prosecution for an offense to
the suspension of his drivers license without any which his compelled testimony relates.
hearing violates due process, and that the
proposed law will violate the rights against
unreasonable searches and seizures, because it
allows police authorities to require a driver to take
the breathalyzer test even if there is no probable INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE
cause.
Q: Asian Transmission Corp. is an export oriented
Requiring a driver to take a breathalyzer company employing 350 workers. The workers
test does not violate his right against self- declared a strike. After the case was certified to the
incrimination, because he is not being compelled NLRC, the latter issued a return-to-work order under
to give testimonial evidence. He is merely being pain of separation. The workers contended that the
asked to submit to a physical test. This is not order was violative of the no involuntary servitude
covered by the constitutional guaranty against clause of the Constitution. Rule on the contention of
self-incrimination. Thus, in South Dakota VS the workers and explain.
Neville 459 US 553, it was held for this reason that
requiring a driver to take a blood-alcohol test is valid.
A: The order of the NLRC is not violative of the no
As held in Mackey VS Montryn, 443 US 1, involuntary servitude clause because it is anchored
because of compelling government interest and safety on its authority to assume jurisdiction over cases
along the street, the license of a driver who refuses to which affect national interest like export oriented
take the breathalyzer may be suspended immediately industries. The return-to-work order not so much
Prepared by the POLITICAL LAW SECTION Chief MARILOU LINDA Assistant Chief CATHY AQUINO Members MAY AQUINO, ERRIZA
BUCU, MARICAR DELA CRUZ, KATHREEN GUNAYON, GRACIELA LEYGO, MARY GRACE MANZANO, RUTCHIE MARANON, and
DINAH MARTINEZ. All Rights Reserved by the SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW BAR OPERATIONS 2003.
POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER
16 SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY BAR OPERATIONS
confers a right as it imposes a duty; while as a right it betrayal of the public trust, the penalty imposed is not
may be waived, it must be discharged as a duty even so disproportionate to the crime committed as to shock
against the workers will. Returning to work is not a the moral sense. (People vs. Agbanlog, 41 SCAD 704,
matter of option or involuntariness but of obligation. G.R. No. 105907, May 24, 1993; Agbanlog vs. People,
The worker must return to his job together with his co- 41 SCAD 704)
workers so the operations of the company can be
resumed and it can continue serving the public and
promoting its interests. That is the real reason such DOUBLE JEOPARDY
return can be compelled. It is not violative of the right
against involuntary servitude. (Sarmiento vs. Tuico, Q. A Pajero driven by Joe sideswiped a motorcycle
162 SCRA 676 (1988) citing Kaisahan ng mga driven by Nelson resulting in damage to a
Manggagawa ng Kahoy vs. Gotamco Sawmills, 80 motorcycle and injuries to Nelson. Joe sped on
Phil. 521). without giving assistance to Nelson. The Fiscal
filed two informations against Joe, to wit: (1)
reckless imprudence resulting in damage to
Q: State the concept of cruel or unusual property with physical injuries under Art. 365 of
punishment. RPC, and (2) abandonment of ones victim under
paragraph 2, Art. 275 before the MTC.
A: A punishment is not cruel or unusual or Joe was arraigned, tried and convicted for
disproportionate to the nature of the offense unless abandonment of ones victim in the MTC. He
it is a barbarous one unknown to law or wholly appealed to the RTC. It was only a year later that
disproportionate to the nature of the offense as to he was arraigned in the reck;less imprudence
shock the moral sense of the community. (Legarda charge before the RTC. He pleaded not guilty.
vs. Valdez, 1 Phil.146). That the penalty is out of Subsequently, the RTC affirmed the
proportion to the crime does not warrant the decision of the MTC relative to the abandonment
declaration of unconstitutionality of the law on the of ones victim charge. Joe filed a petition for
ground that it is cruel or unusual. The fact that the review before the Court of Appeals, invoking his
punishment authorized by the statute is severe rights against double jeopardy, contending that the
does not make it cruel or unusual. In People vs. prosecution under Art. 275 of the RPC is a bar to
Dela Cruz, 92 Phil. 900, it was said that it is the the prosecution for negligence under Art. 365 of
form of punishment as fixed in antiquity and not the the same code. Decide. (Bar Question)
severity of the same that makes it cruel and
unusual penalty. Likewise, in People vs. Padua, A. Joe cannot claim that his conviction for the
133 SCRA 1, it was said that punishment is cruel abandoning his victim in violation of Art. 275 of the
when it involves torture or lingering death. (See RPC is a bar to his prosecution for negligence under
also People vs. Camano, 115 SCRA 688. ) Art. 365 of the RPC. As held in Lamera VS CA, 198
SCRA 186, there is no double jeopardy because these
Q: X was charged with malversation for two offenses are not identical. Reckless imprudence is
misappropriating P21,940.70 and sentenced to a crime falling under the chapter on criminal
suffer an imprisonment of eleven years and one negligence, while abandonment of ones victim is a
day to sixteen years and one day. He argued that crime falling under crime against security. The former
the penalty is oppressive since the same was estimated by means of culpa, while the latter is
based on the amount misappropriated and the committed by means of dolo. Failure to help ones
value of the money has greatly depreciated since victim is not an offense by itself nor an element of
1932. Is the contention correct? Why? reckless imprudence. It merely increases the penalty
by one degree.
A: No. Assuming arguendo that inflation has in effect Q: When will dismissal give rise to double jeopardy?
made more severe the penalty for malversing
P21,940.70, the remedy cannot come from the court
but from Congress. The court can intervene and strike A: (1) Where the dismissal is based on a demurrer to
down a penalty as cruel, degrading, or inhuman only evidence filed by the accused after the prosecution
when it has become so flagrantly oppressive and so has rested; or based on insufficiency of evidence.
wholly disaproportionate to the nature of the offense (People v. City Court of Silay)
as to shock the moral senses.( People vs. Dionisico, (2) Where the dismissal is made, also on motion of
22 SCRA 1299; People vs. Estoista, 93 Phil. 647; U.S. the accused, because of the denial of his right to
vs. Borromeo, 23 Phil. 297). Considering that speedy trial which is in effect a failure to prosecute.
malversation of public funds by a public officer is a ( Esmena v. Pogoy)
Prepared by the POLITICAL LAW SECTION Chief MARILOU LINDA Assistant Chief CATHY AQUINO Members MAY AQUINO, ERRIZA
BUCU, MARICAR DELA CRUZ, KATHREEN GUNAYON, GRACIELA LEYGO, MARY GRACE MANZANO, RUTCHIE MARANON, and
DINAH MARTINEZ. All Rights Reserved by the SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW BAR OPERATIONS 2003.
POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER
17 SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY BAR OPERATIONS
Prepared by the POLITICAL LAW SECTION Chief MARILOU LINDA Assistant Chief CATHY AQUINO Members MAY AQUINO, ERRIZA
BUCU, MARICAR DELA CRUZ, KATHREEN GUNAYON, GRACIELA LEYGO, MARY GRACE MANZANO, RUTCHIE MARANON, and
DINAH MARTINEZ. All Rights Reserved by the SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW BAR OPERATIONS 2003.
POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER
18 SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY BAR OPERATIONS
vs. Albano, supra; Saldana vs. CA, 190 SCRA 396 In People vs. Bocar, 138 SCRA 166(1985), it
[1990]). was said that the prosecution was denied due
process as it never had the chance to offer its
Q: A was charged with an offense. Upon his evidence formally in accordance with the Rules of
motion, the case was dismissed. Can he invoke Court in view of the trial courts order of dismissal.
double jeopardy in case he is charged with the The trial court was thereby ousted from its
same case?Why? jurisdiction when it violated the right of the
prosecution to due process by aborting its right to
A: No.As a rule, he cannot invoke double jeopardy complete the presentation of its evidence and,
because when he moved for the dismissal, he waived therefore, the first jeopardy had not been
the right to interpose it. He prevented the State from terminated. (Paulin, et al. vs. Hon. Celso M.
presenting evidence and the court from pronouncing Gimenez, et al., G.R. No. 103323, Jan. 21, 1993;
his guilt or innocence. 9People vs. Tagle, 105 Phil. citing People vs. Albano, 163 SCRA 511 [1988]).
126; People vs. Gines, et al., G.R. No. 83463, May 27,
1991). Q: Cannot the accused in the above-entitled
case contend that since the case was governed
Q: Suppose in the question above, the accuse by the Rules on Summary Procedure and all the
invoked the right to speedy trial, can he invoke affidavits have already been submitted, the
double jeopardy in case he is charged again? dismissal amounted to acquittal after
Why? consideration of the merits of the prosecutions
evidence?Explain.
A: Yes, by way of exception to the rule. (People vs.
Robles, 105 SCRA 1016). A:No. Submission of affidavits to the court does not
warrant the inference that the prosecution had
Q: A case of grave threats was filed against Dr. and already finished presenting its evidence because
Mrs. Paulin. Charges for grave threats and oral the affiants are still required to testify and affirm the
defamation were filed against Barangay Captain contents thereof, otherwise, these affidavits cannot
Mabuyo, before the Municipal Court of Talisay, Cebu. serve as competent evidence for the prosecution. In
The cases were jointly tried and on June 13, 1990, the fact, under Sec. 14 of the Rules on Summary
Court dismissed the case filed by Mabuyo on motion of Procedure, the witness who sybmitted affidavits
the accused Paulin. The dismissal was due to may be subjected to cross-examination. Should the
procedural ground that the proper charge was not filed affiants fail to testify, their affidavits shall not be
which should have been disturbance of public considered as competent evidence for the party
performance under Art. 153, RPC. A motion for presenting the affidavit. (Paulin, et al. vs. Gimenez,
reconsideration was filed which was granted. Accused et al., G.R. No. 103323, Jan. 21, 1993).
invoked the principle of double jeopardy, contending
that the granting of the motion for reconsideration put Q: If the case has been unduly prolonged and if the
him in double jeopardy. Is the contention correct? accused moves to dismiss on the ground of violation of
Why? his right to speedy trial, there would be double
jeopardy. Is the rule absolute?Why?
A: No, because the dismissal of the case was with
the express consent of the accused. 9People vs. A: No, because there are exceptions to the said rule,
Gines, 197 SCRA 481 [1991]). Where the dismissal as:
was ordered upon motion or with the express
consent of the accused, he is deemed to have (1) when the delay was caused by the accused. It
waived his protection against double jeopardy. would be a mockery of justice to allow him to
(Paulin, et al. vs. Hon. Celso Gimenez, et al., G.R. benefit out his wrongdoing or tactical
No. 103323, Jan. 21, 1993). maneuvers. (People vs. Jardin, 124 SCRA
167).
The dismissal in this case was made at a time (2) When he agreed to a provisional dismissal
when the prosecution still had to present several even if he invoked speedy trial. (People vs.
witnesses, where the order of dismissal was issued Gines, May 27, 1991).
at a time when the case was not ready for trial and
adjudication, the order is null and void. (People vs.
Pamitan, 30 SCRA 98 [1969]). Q: Four (4) criminal cases were filed against the
accused. During the trial on January 24, 1966, or after
eleven (11) years, accused was ready. There was no
appearance for the prosecution, hence, on motion of
Prepared by the POLITICAL LAW SECTION Chief MARILOU LINDA Assistant Chief CATHY AQUINO Members MAY AQUINO, ERRIZA
BUCU, MARICAR DELA CRUZ, KATHREEN GUNAYON, GRACIELA LEYGO, MARY GRACE MANZANO, RUTCHIE MARANON, and
DINAH MARTINEZ. All Rights Reserved by the SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW BAR OPERATIONS 2003.
POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER
19 SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY BAR OPERATIONS
the accused, the cases were dismissed provisionally. negatious delay. (People vs. Gines, et al., G.R. No.
On motion for reconsideration, the cases were 83463, May 27, 1991).
reinstated. Accused moved to reconsider on the
ground of double jeopardy. It was denied, hence, a
petition for certiorari before the SC was filed. Rule on Q: X was charged with the crime of homicide. Upon
the petition. arraignment, he pleaded guilty. He was allowed
however, to present evidence to show mitigating
circumstances. When he testified, he interposed self-
A: The petition will prosper. There is double defense because there was strangling. He also
jeopardy even if the dismissal was provisional in invoked voluntary surrender. He was acquitted, hence,
character and even upon motion of the accused if the prosecution appealed. The accused invoked that
he invokes the right to speedy trial. Dismissal after the appeal would place him in double jeopardy. Is the
eleven years is equivalent to acquittal. There was contention valid? Why?
unreasonable delay. (People vs. Baldjay, 113 SCRA
284).
A: No, because the acquittal was void. A plea of
guilt is an unconditional admission of guilt. It
Q: Can the accused invoke double jeopardy in case forecloses the right to defend himself. The court
the information is dismissed on the ground of lack of has no other alternative except to impose the
jurisdiction?Explain. penalty fixed by law. The testimony to prove
mitigating circumstances could not be taken to
determine the guilt or innocence of the accused.
A: No, the dismissal on the ground of lack of Due to the assertion of self-defense, the trial court
jurisdiction is not equialent to acquittal. (People should have taken his plea anew and proceede to
vs. Galano, 75 SCRA 193; People vs. Eduarte, G.R. trial. In deciding on the merits, the court erred in
No. 88232, Feb. 26, 1990). He was never put to the procedure and deprived the prosecution of its
jeopardy. day in court. His testimony on self-defense vacted
his former plea of guilty and yet, a valid plea is a
condition for double jeopardy to exist. (People vs.
Q: A case for libel was dismissed for the failure of the Balisacan, G.R. No. L-26376, august 31, 1966).
complainant to prosecute, due to his failure to appear.
It was shown however that he was in Manila
recuperating from the second eye operation after his Q: The accused requested the judge to wait for his
left eye was removed. The motion for reconsideration lawyer when asked to present evidence. The judge
asking that the case be reinstated was denied on the considered it an assault on the dignity of the court,
ground of double jeopardy. Is the denial proper? hence, he dismissed the case. Was the dismissal
valid? Why?
Prepared by the POLITICAL LAW SECTION Chief MARILOU LINDA Assistant Chief CATHY AQUINO Members MAY AQUINO, ERRIZA
BUCU, MARICAR DELA CRUZ, KATHREEN GUNAYON, GRACIELA LEYGO, MARY GRACE MANZANO, RUTCHIE MARANON, and
DINAH MARTINEZ. All Rights Reserved by the SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW BAR OPERATIONS 2003.
POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER
20 SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY BAR OPERATIONS
A: No, the re-opening of the case did not amount against double jeopardy for he prevented the court
to double jeopardy because the Sandiganbayan from rendering a judgment of acquittal or
proceeding was sham and a mock trial. The State conviction. The dismissal was not based on the
was denied due process and double jeopardy merits. (Ceniza vs. People, 159 SCRA 16; Milo vs.
cannot be invoked in criminal cases where there Salanga, 152 SCRA 113).
was denial of due process. (Galman vs. SB, 144
SCRA 43).
Q: After having pleaded not guilty to a case of grave
coercion, the accused was ready to be tried. The
Q: In a criminal case where A was charged, the same prosecution asked for postponements thrice. The
was dismissed. Can the State appeal? Are there accused moved to dismiss and it was granted. Twenty-
exceptions? one days later, the prosecutor moved for revival, It was
granted. Accused invoked double jeopardy. Was the
revival a situation where accused was placed in
A: No, because the appeal would palce the double jeopardy?Why?
accused in double jeopardy.
Prepared by the POLITICAL LAW SECTION Chief MARILOU LINDA Assistant Chief CATHY AQUINO Members MAY AQUINO, ERRIZA
BUCU, MARICAR DELA CRUZ, KATHREEN GUNAYON, GRACIELA LEYGO, MARY GRACE MANZANO, RUTCHIE MARANON, and
DINAH MARTINEZ. All Rights Reserved by the SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW BAR OPERATIONS 2003.
POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER
21 SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY BAR OPERATIONS
Leonardo Bolima. Later, he was charged with the Q: What is meant by the same offense for purposes
crime of murder for the killing of Leonardo Bolima. In of double jeopardy?
his defense, he interposed his constitutional right
against double jeopardy. Is the defense valid? Why?
A: Same offense means:
A: No, because the killing of a person with the use (1) the very same offense; or
of an unlicensed firearm may give rise to separate (2) attempt or frustration of an offense; or
prosecution for (a) violation of Section 1 of P.D. (3) that which necessarily includes or is included
No. 1866 and (b) violation of either Art. 248 or Art in the offense charged in the former complaint
249 of the Revised Penal Code. The accused or information.
cannot plead one as a bar to the other. The rule Q: What is the test in determining whether the former
against double jeopardy cannot be invoked complaint or information charges the same offense?
because the first is punished by a special law,
while the second, homicide or murder, is punished
by the Revised Penal Code. It is a cardinal rule that A: The test is whether the evidence to prove the
the protection against double jeopardy may be same or the two are the same. Or, if the elements
invoked only if the second prosecution is for the or ingredients in the former constitute the latter or
same offense or identical offenses. (People vs. vice versa.
Ticzon, 198 SCRA 368; People vs. Deunida, 49
SCAD 859, G.R. Nos. 105199-200, March 28, 1994;
People vs. Fernandez, 57 SCAD 481, G.R. No. Q: X was charged with frustrated homicide. He
113474, Dec. 13, 1994). pleaded not guilty. Victim died later, hence, he was
charged again with homicide. He pleaded in a motion
to quash, double jeopardy. Is the contention correct?
Q: Eliseo Soriano issued a postdated check which was Why?
dishonored when presented for payment. He was
charged with two(2) separate offenses for violation of
B.P. 22 and estafa. The charge under B.P. 22 was A: No, because the second offense was not yet
dismissed for being fatally defective. He was, however existing at the time of the first prosecution. There
convicted of estafa. On appeal, he was acquitted. The was no possibility for him to be convicted for a
State appealed by way of a petition for certiorari and non-existing crime as it merely supervened after
mandamus. The alleged defect in the information his indictment for the offense of frustrated
under B.P. 22 was the failure to state that the accused, homicide. (People vs. Melo).
as drawer of the check at the time of issue, knew of
the insufficiency of funds in the bank for payment upon
its presentation. Is the court correct? Why? Q: A was charged with slight physical injuries. He
pleaded not guilty. Can he invoke double jeopardy if he
is charged with serious physical injuries?Why?
A: No. The interpretation is erroneous, the makers
knowledge of insufficiency of his funds is legally
presumed from the dishonor of his check for A: No, because the deformity did not exist and
insufficiency of funds. could not have existed at the same time of the first
information. (People vs. Adil, 76 SCRA 462).
Although its decision is erroneous, that Q: Mr. Y was charged with less serious physical
decision may not be annulled or set aside because injuries. He was convicted, but later on, he was
it amounted to a judgment of acquittal. The State charged with serious physical injuries. Can he invoke
may not appeal that decision for it would place the double jeopardy? Why?
accused twice in double jeopardy for punishment
for the same offense in violation of his
constitutional right against double jeopardy. A: Yes, because there was no new supervening
(People vs. Hon. Laggui, et al., G.R. Nos. 76262-63, event. The deformity was already existing at the
March 16, 1989). time of his conviction for less serious physical
injuries. With proper medical examination, the
deformity could have been detected. (People vs.
Yorac, 42 SCRA 230).
Prepared by the POLITICAL LAW SECTION Chief MARILOU LINDA Assistant Chief CATHY AQUINO Members MAY AQUINO, ERRIZA
BUCU, MARICAR DELA CRUZ, KATHREEN GUNAYON, GRACIELA LEYGO, MARY GRACE MANZANO, RUTCHIE MARANON, and
DINAH MARTINEZ. All Rights Reserved by the SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW BAR OPERATIONS 2003.
POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER
22 SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY BAR OPERATIONS
Q: Two informations were filed against Mr. G for (1) for which legal jeopardy in one may be invoked in
Violation of Section 7 of R.A. No. 3060, punishing a the other. The evidence required to prove one
person who exhibits any motion picture in a theater, offense is not the same evidence required to prove
public place without such picture being duly passed by the other.
the Board of Motion Pictures (Criminal Case No.
147347 Case No. 1 for easy reference); (2) Violation
of Art. 201 (3) of the Revised Penal Code punishing Emphasizing the absence of double
those who in theaters, fairs, cinematographs or any jeopardy, the SC said: It is a cardinal rule that the
other place open to public view, shall exhibit indecent protection against double jeopardy may be invoked
or immoral plays, acts, or shows. (Criminal Case No. only for the same offenses. Any single act may
143748 Case No. 2 for easy reference.) offend against two (or more) entirely distinct and
unrelated provisions of law, and if one provision
requires proof of an additional fact or element which
When arraigned, he pleaded not guilty to both the other does not, an acquittal or conviction or a
cases on May 31, 1972, and November 15, 1972. dismissal of the information under one does not bar
Later, he moved for leave to withdraw his plea of not prosecution under the other. x x x Phrased
guilty in Criminal Case No. 2, without substituting or elsewhere, where two different laws define two
entering another plea. On December 27, 1972, he crimes, prior jeopardy as to one of them is no
moved to quash the information in Case No. 2 on the obstacle to a prosecution of the other, although
ground of double jeopardy due to the pendency of both offenses arise from the same facts, each crime
Case No. 1 containing the same allegations. involves some important act which is not an
essential element of the other. (People vs. City
Court of Manila, 154 SCRA 175 [1987]).
On Jan. 20, 1973, the judge dismissed Case
No. 2 over the objections of the Fiscal.
Prepared by the POLITICAL LAW SECTION Chief MARILOU LINDA Assistant Chief CATHY AQUINO Members MAY AQUINO, ERRIZA
BUCU, MARICAR DELA CRUZ, KATHREEN GUNAYON, GRACIELA LEYGO, MARY GRACE MANZANO, RUTCHIE MARANON, and
DINAH MARTINEZ. All Rights Reserved by the SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW BAR OPERATIONS 2003.
POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER
23 SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY BAR OPERATIONS
Q: X was charged with illegal recruitment before the Q. What are the instances when a citizen of the
effectivity of P.D. 2018 penalizing illegal recruitment on Philippines may possess dual citizenship considering
a large scale. Can this Decree be used to penalize X? the citizenship clause (Article IV) of the Constitution?
Why?
Prepared by the POLITICAL LAW SECTION Chief MARILOU LINDA Assistant Chief CATHY AQUINO Members MAY AQUINO, ERRIZA
BUCU, MARICAR DELA CRUZ, KATHREEN GUNAYON, GRACIELA LEYGO, MARY GRACE MANZANO, RUTCHIE MARANON, and
DINAH MARTINEZ. All Rights Reserved by the SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW BAR OPERATIONS 2003.
POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER
24 SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY BAR OPERATIONS
fathers country such children are citizens of that all contests relating to the election returns and
country. qualifications of their respective members.
(3) Those who marry aliens if by the laws of the (2) Yes, Y is a Filipino citizen. More than that he is a
latters country the former are considered citizens, natural born citizen of the Philippines qualified to
unless by their act or omission they are deemed to become a Senator. Since Y is an illegitimate child of a
have renounced Philippine Citizenship. (Mercado Filipino mother, he follows the citizenship of his mother.
Vs Manzano, 307 SCRA 630) He need not elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching
the age of majority as held In re Mallare, 59 SCRA 45.
In Osias V Antonio, Electoral case No. 11, August 6,
Q. B, an Indian national, was naturalized as a Filipino 1971, the Senate Electoral Tribunal held that the
citizen in accordance with CA 473, as amended. As an illegitimate child of an alien father and a Filipino
effect of Bs naturalization, his wife and minor children mother is a Filipino citizen and is qualified to be a
were derivatively naturalized. Three years after his Senator.
naturalization, B returned to his native India and
established residence there. Bs wife and children
were left in the Philippines. Under the law, Bs Q. (1) Lily Teh arrived in Manila on one of her regular
establishing a residence in any foreign country within 5 tours to the Philippines from Taipeh. She met Peter
years is a ground for denaturalization. Would Bs wife Go, a naturalized Filipino citizen. After a whirlwind
and minor children also lose their Filipino Citizenship? courtship, Lily and Peter were married at the San
Agustin Church. A week after the wedding, Lily The
petitioned in administrative proceedings before
A. No. it is only when the ground for immigration authorities to declare her a Filipino citizen
denaturalization affects the intrinsic validity of the stating that she had none of the disqualifications
proceedings does it divest the wife and children of provided in the Revised Naturalization Law. The jilted
their derivative naturalization. Under the law, these Filipino girlfriend of Peter Go opposed the petition
are when (1) the naturalization certificate was claiming that Lily Teh was still a minor who had not
obtained fraudulently or illegally, and (2) even celebrated her 21st birthday, who never
naturalization was obtained through invalid resided in the Philippines except during her one-
declaration of intention. week visit as tourist from Taipeh during the
Chinese New Year, who spoke only Chinese, and
who had radical ideas like advocating unification
If the ground is personal to the person
of Taiwan with mainland China. Lily Teh , however,
naturalized, such as in this case, the wife and children
swore that she was renouncing her Chinese
shall retain their Filipino citizenship.
allegiance and while she knew no Filipino customs
and traditions as yet, she evinced a sincere desire
Q. Y was elected Senator in the May 1987 national to learn and embrace them. Would Lily The
election. He was born out of wedlock in 1949 of an succeed in becoming a Filipino Citizens through
American father and a naturalized Filipina mother. Y her marriage to Peter Go? Explain.
never elected Philippine citizenship upon reaching the
age of majority.
(2) A child was born to a Japanese father and a
Filipina mother. Would he be eligible to run for the
(1) Before what body should T, the losing candidate position of member of the House of Representative
question the election of Y? State the reasons for upon reaching the age of 25 years old? (Bar
your answer. Question)
Prepared by the POLITICAL LAW SECTION Chief MARILOU LINDA Assistant Chief CATHY AQUINO Members MAY AQUINO, ERRIZA
BUCU, MARICAR DELA CRUZ, KATHREEN GUNAYON, GRACIELA LEYGO, MARY GRACE MANZANO, RUTCHIE MARANON, and
DINAH MARTINEZ. All Rights Reserved by the SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW BAR OPERATIONS 2003.
POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER
25 SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY BAR OPERATIONS
the qualifications prescribed in Sec. 2 of the issued by one country is not inconsistent with his
Revised Naturalization Law provided she citizenship in the other country.
possesses none of the disqualifications set forth
in Sec. 4 of the same law. All of the grounds
invoked by the former girlfriend of Peter Go for Q. Julian Hortal was born of Filipino parents. Upon
opposing the petition of Lily, except for the last reaching the age of majority, he became a naturalized
one, are qualifications, which Lily need not citizen in the other country. Later, he reacquired
possess. The fact that Lily is advocating the Philippine Citizenship. Could Hortal regain his status
unification of Taiwan with mainland China is not a as natural born Filipino Citizen? Would your answer
ground for disqualification under Sec. 4 of the be the same whether he reacquires his Filipino
Revised Naturalization Law. Citizenship by repatriation or by act of Congress?
(2) The child can run for the House of Explain. (1999 Bar Question)
Representatives provided upon reaching the age
of majority he elected Philippine Citizenship.
Under sec. 6, Art. VI of the 1987 Constitution, to A. First Alternative Answer:
qualify to be a member of the House of Julian Hortal can regain his status as a
Representative one must be a natural born natural born citizen by repatriating. Since
Philippine Citizen. According to Sec. 1(3), Art. IV of repatriation involves restoration of a person to
the Constitution, children born before January 17, citizenship previously lost by expatriation and
1973 of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine Julian Hortal was previously a natural born citizen,
Citizenship upon reaching the age of majority are in case he repatriates he will be restored to his
Philippine Citizens. status as a natural born citizen. If he acquired his
citizenship by an act of Congress, Julian Hortal
will not be a natural born citizen, since he acquired
Q. X, was born in the US of a Filipino father and a his citizenship by legislative naturalization.
Mexican mother, he returned to the Philippines when
he was 26 years old carrying an American passport
and he was registered as an alien with the Bureau of Second Alternative Answer:
Immigration. Was X qualified to run for membership in
the House of representatives in the 1995 elections? Julian Hortal cannot regain his status as a
Explain. (1996 Bar Question) natural born citizen by repatriating. He had to
perform an acts to acquire his citizenship, i.e.,
repatriation. Under Sec. 2, Art. IV of the
A. Depends in the circumstances. Constitution, natural born citizens are those
citizens from birth without having to perform an
If X was an illegitimate child, he is not qualified act to acquire or perfect their citizenship. If he
to run for the House of Representatives. According to reacquired his citizenship by an act of Congress,
the case In Re Mallare, 59 SCRA 45, an illegitimate Julian Hortal will not be a natural born citizen
child follows the citizenship of the mother. Since since he reacquired his citizenship by legislative
the mother of X is a Mexican, he will be a Mexican naturalization.
citizen, if he is an illegitimate child even if his
father is a Filipino.
If X is a legitimate child, he is a Filipino citizen. Q. What are the effects of marriages of:
Under Sec. 2(2), Art. IV of the Constitution, those 1. A citizen to an alien
whose fathers are citizens of the Philippines are 2. an alien to a citizen on their spouses and
Filipino Citizens. Since X was born in the US, which children? Discuss. (1999 Bar Question)
follows jus soli, X also is an American citizen. In
accordance with Aznar VS COMELEC, 185 SCRA
703, the mere fact a person with dual citizenship A. 1. According to Sec. 4, Art. IV of the
registered as an alien with the Commission on Constitution, Filipino Citizens who marry aliens
Immigration and Deportation does not necessarily retain their citizenship unless by their act or
mean that he is renouncing his Philippine Citizenship. omissions they are deemed to have renounced it
Likewise, the mere fact that X used an American under the law.
passport did not result in the lose of his Philippine
2. According to Moya Lim VS Commissioner of
citizenship. As held in Kawakita VS US, since a
Immigration, under Sec. 15 of the Revised
person with dual citizenship has the rights of
Naturalization Law, a foreign woman who marries a
citizenship in both countries, the use of a passport
Prepared by the POLITICAL LAW SECTION Chief MARILOU LINDA Assistant Chief CATHY AQUINO Members MAY AQUINO, ERRIZA
BUCU, MARICAR DELA CRUZ, KATHREEN GUNAYON, GRACIELA LEYGO, MARY GRACE MANZANO, RUTCHIE MARANON, and
DINAH MARTINEZ. All Rights Reserved by the SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW BAR OPERATIONS 2003.
POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER
26 SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY BAR OPERATIONS
Prepared by the POLITICAL LAW SECTION Chief MARILOU LINDA Assistant Chief CATHY AQUINO Members MAY AQUINO, ERRIZA
BUCU, MARICAR DELA CRUZ, KATHREEN GUNAYON, GRACIELA LEYGO, MARY GRACE MANZANO, RUTCHIE MARANON, and
DINAH MARTINEZ. All Rights Reserved by the SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW BAR OPERATIONS 2003.