LEGAL TECHNIQUE AND LOGIC F.

VALIDITY AND TRUTH

Validity
BASIC LEGAL CONCEPTS o Relation between propositions
o Does not apply to single propositions
o When argument is valid, and its premises are true, it is SOUND.
A. LOGIC
The study of methods and principles used to DISTINGUISH CORRECT from INCORRECT Truth and Falsity
reasoning. o Attributes of individual propositions
Sorting GOOD ARGUMENTS from BAD ARGUMENTS o Single statement that serves as a premise might be true but the statement that serves the
conclusion might be false
B. PROPOSITIONS o Does not apply to arguments because an argument may be valid even if one or two of its
Building block of arguments premises is not true.
Can be ASSERTED or DENIED
G. REASONING
Can be TRUE or FALSE (do not apply to questions, commands, or exclamations)
Retrograde analysis is the reasoning that seeks to explain how thins must have developed from
what went before.
C. ANALYZING ARGUMENTS
In a certain flight crew, the positions of pilot, copilot, and flight engineer are held by three persons,
Two Common Techniques:
Allen, Brown and Carr, though not necessarily in that order.
o Paraphrasing
Archimedes will be remembered when Aeschylus is forgotten, because language die The Copilot, who is an only child, earns the least.
and mathematical ideas do not. Languages die. The great plays of Aeschylus are in a Carr, who married Browns sister, earns more than the pilot
language. So the work of Aeschylus will eventually dies. What position does each of the three persons hold?
o Diagram
Answer:
D. RECOGNIZING ARGUMENTS Carr flight engineer, earns more than pilot, co-pilot earns the least.
Conclusion and Premise Indicators Brown pilot, Carr is flight engineer, co-pilot is only child Brown has sister
o Conclusion Indicators Allen co-pilot
o Premise Indicators
Arguments in Context Alonzo, Kurt, Rudolf and Willard are four creative artists of great talent. One is a dancer, one is a
Premises not in Declarative form painter, one is a singer, and one is a writer, though not in necessarily in that order.
o Rhetorical Question - interrogative even though its meaning is declarative
o Imperative/Command (1) Alonzo and Rudolf were in the audience the night the singer made his debut on the concert stage.
(2) Both Kurt and the writer have had their portraits painted from life by the painter.
Unstated Proposition
(3) The writer, whose bibliography of Willard was a best-seller, is planning to write a biography of Alonzo.
o Enthymes are propositions that are left unstated but it would be understood.
(4) Alonzo has never heard of Rudolf.
Arguments vs. Explanation
o In determining difference, deciding factor is the INTENTION of the author. What is each mans artistic field?

E. CLASSES OF ARGUMENTS Alonzo dancer

Deductive Kurt singer
o Conclusion is supported by premises conclusive. Rudolf writer
Are either VALID or INVALID - no additional premises could possibly add to the Willard painter
strength of that argument
If all humans are mortal, and if Socrates is human, then Socrates is mortal FALLACIES
o Techniques used: Modern Symbolic Logic & Classical Logic
Inductive
o Premises provide some support for its conclusion. A. GENERAL CLASSIFICATION
Formal Fallacy: a pattern of mistake that appears in deductive arguments of a certain specifiable
The higher the LEVEL OF PROBABILITY, the greater the merit of the argument.
form
But even when the premises are all true and provide very strong support for the
Informal Fallacy: more common, mistakes made in the everyday uses of language arising from
conclusion, the CONCLUSION IS NEVER CERTAIN.
o Always possible that additional information will strengthen or weaken it. confusions concerning the content of the language used
Most corporation lawyers are conservatives. Angela Reyes is a corporation lawyer.
B. CLASSIFICATION OF FALLACIES
Therefore Angela Reyes is probably a conservative. Suppose that Angela Reyes is an
FALLACIES OF RELEVANCE are the most commonly encountered in everyday language wherein
office of the ACLU. We can also add that Most officers of the ACLU are not
the premises of the argument are simply irrelevant to the conclusion. Premises may be
conservatives. This additional information weakened the original inductive argument.
psychologically relevant in that they invoke attitudes that may cause acceptance of the conclusion.

Atty. Christopher Lao

2016-2017
1
 o Argument Ad Hominem - A fallacious attack not against a conclusion, but AGAINST A
PERSON WHO ASSERTS OR DEFENDS IT.
Abusive - AGAINST THE CHARACTER of the opponent, denying their intelligence
or reasonableness, questioning their integrity. Variations: genetic fallacy, unfair
accusation, guilt by association
Circumstantial - CIRCUMSTANCES OF ONE WHO MAKES OR REJECTS SOME
CLAIM have no bearing on the truth of that claim. Circumstances: his
employment, nationality, political affiliation. Tu quoque.
o Appeal to the Populace (argument ad populum) -The passions of the speaker are used
to convince listeners that some beliefs are true, as the speaker plays with the emotions of
the listeners.
Example: Commercial Advertising, Political Nature of Speeches
o Appeal to Pity (ad misericordiam) - Premises of an argument boil down to no more than
an appeal to feelings as premises. The emotions appealed to are that of generosity and
mercy.
Example: The story of a youth who killed his parents and when confronted with
overwhelming proof of guilt, his attorney pleads for leniency on the grounds that
he is now an orphan.
o Red Herring (topic not related) - Attention is drawn to some observation or claim that may
be associated with the TOPIC BUT IS NOT NECESSARILY RELATED TO THE ORIGINAL
ARGUMENT
Example 1: Economic inequality tempered with the argument that most members
of the community are well off, which does not disprove the argument of the huge
gap between the social classes.
Example 2: The original topic is legislation to compel corporations to protect the
pensions of their employees, but a senator deflects the discussion on the topic of
providing advice to retired persons for the investment of their pensions.
Example 3: In a rape case, when a publication supporting the prosecutor diverted
the topic to poverty.
o Straw Man (absolute view) - Position of the opponent is depicted as being more extreme
or unreasonable than what was asserted. A strategy used against another which
SUPPOSES THAT THE POSITION UNDER ATTACK IS TAKING THE ABSOLUTE VIEW
(always wrong, always justified)
Example: Attacks on RH bill presupposing that it supports killing of all unborn
children.
o The Appeal to Force (argument ad baculum) - Use or THREAT OF STRONG-ARM
METHODS TO COERCE OPPONENTS as a last resort when evidence or rational methods
fail. Total abandonment of reason
o Irrelevant Conclusion (ignoratio elenchi, non sequitur) - Committed when an argument
purporting to establish a particular conclusion is instead directed to proving a different
conclusion. Premises MISS THE POINT Non Sequitur
Example 1: Arguments in social legislation. A program, designed to achieve a
national objective, is supported by premises that provide reasons to share the
larger end, but tells nothing relevant about the program
Example 2: Tax reforms defended by an emphasis on the need to reduce budget
deficits-- when the real issue is the fairness of yield of the specific tax measure
proposed
FALLACIES OF PRESUMPTION exhibit a special kind of mistake: the tacit supposition of what has
not been given support and may even be insupportable.
o Complex Question (rhetorical question) - Asking a question in such a way as to
presuppose the truth of some conclusion buried in that question
Likely to be a RHETORICAL QUESTION, no answer being genuinely sought
o False Clause (post hoc ergo propter hoc, after the thing, therefore because of the
thing) - Presuming the reality of a causal connection that does not really exist is a
Atty. Christopher Lao
2016-2017
2
common mistake
Example 1: Unusual weather conditions are blamed on some unrelated celestial
phenomenon that happened to precede them.
Example 2: Infection really caused by a virus is thought to be caused by a chill
wind or wet feet
Death penalty in the United States has given us the highest crime rate and
greatest number of prisoners per 100,000 population in the industrialized world.
(from New York Times).
o Begging the Question (petitio principia) - Assume the truth of what one seeks to prove, in
the effort to prove it. Technically valid - but always worthless
o Accident and Converse Accident - Accidents which arise as a result of the careless, or
deliberately deceptive, use of generalizations.
Fallacy of accident: presume the applicability of a GENERALIZATION TO
INDIVIDUAL CASES that it does not properly govern. from generalization
Fallacy of converse accident: presume that what is TRUE OF A PARTICULAR
CASE IS TRUE OF THE GREAT RUN OF CASES. to generalization
FALLACIES OF AMBIGUITY meaning of words or phrases may shift as a result of inattention, or may be deliberately
manipulated within the course of an argument.
o Equivocation (confuse meaning) - Confuse the several meanings of a word or phrase-
accidentally or deliberately in an argument.
o Amphiboly (grammatical construction) -Formulations are ambiguous because of their
grammatical construction. A words meaning is indeterminate because of the loose or
awkward way in which its words are combined.
o Accent (emphasis) - Premise relies for its apparent meaning on one possible emphasis,
but a conclusion is drawn from it that relies on the meaning of the same words accented
differently.
o Composition (attribute of part to whole) - Applied to both of two closely related types of
invalid argument:
Reasoning fallaciously from the attributes of the parts of a whole to the attributes
of the whole itself
Reasoning fallaciously from the attributes of the individual elements or members
of a collection to attributes of the collection or totality of those elements.
o Division (attribute of whole to parts) - Arguing fallaciously that what is true of a whole
must also be true of its parts. Arguing from the attributes of a collection of elements to the
attributes of the elements themselves
Example 1: A certain corporation is important; Mr. Doe is an official of that
corporation. Therefore, Mr. Doe is important.
Example: A student must have a large room because it is located in a large
dormitory
CASE LAW AND PRECEDENT
A. COURT DECISIONS
These decisions are law by their own right
o SC decisions: Binding as precedent because of doctrine of stare decisis. They should
be definitive and authoritative, binding on those occupying the lower ranks in the
judicial hierarchy. GENERAL RULE: All lower courts are bound by SC decisions
EXCEPT: if case cannot be decided if decision subject to MFR.
o Stare decisis: Lower courts should adhere to doctrinal rules established by the SC in
its final decisions. SC explained: (1) the decisions of higher courts bind lower courts (2)
Courts of coordinate authority do not bind each other (3) One highest court does not
 bind itself.
Becomes part of law as of the date that the law was originally passed
B. STARE DECISES Doctrine of Precedent (Stare Decises et non quieta movare)
Judge-made law: Like cases should be decided alike
Works as a bar only against issues litigated in a previous case which are non-procedural
(substantial)
Enjoys adherence by the lower courts to doctrinal rules established by the Supreme Court
o Once a question of law has been examined, it should be deemed settled and closed to
further argument
Encourages private settlement of disputes because it discourages individuals from forum and
judge shopping.
Stare decisis is not an inexorable command but a principle of policy and not a mechanical formula
of adherence to the latest decision
o Abandoning stare decisis must be based on STRONG and COMPELLING reasons
o The court may be guided but it is not controlled by precedent
Bowers v. Hardwick Only SC can overturn SC decision. Ruling overturned by Lawrence v. Texas.
Gerona v. Secretary of Education - Court sanctioned the expulsion of the students. In 1993, the
Court, in Ebralinag v. Division of Superintendent of Schools of Cebu, took the opposite position. SC
overturned SC decision.
Maliksi v. Comelec - Sometimes, a doctrine may be abandoned because Congress amended the
pertinent law that was the basis of a SC decision. A doctrine, if found contrary to law, must be
abandoned because the principle of stare decisis does not and should not apply when there is
conflict between the precedent and the law.
De Mesa v. Pepsi Cola Products Philippines Number Fever. Despite the difference in the parties
involved, the legal rights & relations of the parties, facts, applicable laws, causes of action, issues,
and evidence are the same, thats why the SC dismissed the third complaint on the basis of the
previous dismissal of the first two. The SC was bound by finality of judgements.
Villena v. Spouses Chavez - A conclusion reached in one case should be applied to those that
follow if the facts are substantially the same, even though the parties may be different. SC held this
case was similar to a case previously settled by the CA. Thus, the SC ruled the proper action was
not unlawful detainer but rescission of contract or specific performance. The earlier ruling should
apply by way of stare decisis.
Olaguer v. Military Commission No. 34 - Olaguer asked the SC to revisit the issue of whether
military commissions or tribunals had jurisdiction to try civilians for offenses allegedly committed
during martial law when civil courts were functioning. SC overturned Aquino Jr. v. Military
Commission No. 2 and six other decisions and ruled that the creation of Military Commission No.
34 to try civilians was unconstitutional. All its proceedings were deemed null and void. Precedent is
not upheld just because the SC has already ruled on the issue. Precedence cant prevail when
constitutionalism & public interest demand it.
C. RES JUDICATA
REQUISITES
o The former judgment or order must be final
o the judgment of order must be on the merits
o It must have been rendered by the court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and
the parties
o There must be, between the first and second actions, identity of parties, of subject
matter, and cause of action.
1. Identity of parties Representing same interests in both parties
2. Identity of rights Belief being founded on the same facts
3. Identity in two particulars Any judgment which may be rendered in another will,
regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata in consideration
A matter adjudged; a thing judicially acted upon or decided; a thing or matter settled by judgment.
Atty. Christopher Lao
2016-2017
3
o Applies only to judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings, not administrative.
o Interlocutory order does not result to res judicata
Rests on the principle that parties should not be permitted to litigate the same issue more than
once; that when a right or fact has been judicially tried and determined by a court of competent
jurisdiction, so long as it remains unreversed, it should be conclusive upon the parties and those in
privity with them in law or estate
o There should be an end to litigation by the same parties over a subject once fully and fairly
adjudicated
Res judicata vs. Stare decisis - the focal point of res judicata is the judgement but for stare
decisis, it is the doctrine created.
D. LAW OF THE CASE
Effect of judgment or final orders: (Paragraph 2) In any other litigation between the same parties or
their successors in interest, that only is deemed to have been adjudged in a former judgment or
final order which appears upon its face to have been so adjudged or which was actually and
necessarily included therein or necessary thereto. (Sec. 47, Rule 39, ROC)
Whatever is once irrevocably established as the controlling legal principle of the decision continues
to be the law of the case BETWEEN THE TWO PARTIES IN THE SAME CASE, as long as the
facts of the case remain the same.
Law of the case v. Stare decisis:
o A decision on a prior appeal of the same case usually refers to the law of the case while
stare decisis may pertain to other cases with similar nature.
o Stare decisis forecloses parties or privies in one case by what has been done in another
case.
o law of the case deals entirely with questions of law while stare decisis is generally
concerned with the effect of adjudication in a wholly independent proceeding.
E. INCONSISTENSIES
Sweetheart defense in rape cases which suggests that the existence of a romantic relationship
precludes the possibility of rape.
o The court said that even if the relationship really existed, the fact that they are sweethearts
does not negate the crime of rape. Love is not a license for love. But what really destroyed
the sweetheart defense was the declaration of AAA that she did not love him.
o From the aforementioned case, it seems that evidence can be shown to prove that there is
actually a romantic relationship. If the existence of a relationship does not preclude the
existence of rape, then why allow the admission of such evidence?
o Sweetheart defense rashly derides the intelligence of the Court and sorely tests its
patience. It may be true that the defendant and the plaintiff were lovers, there was no
license for accused-appellant to force himself upon her.
Judicial flip-flopping is another form of inconsistency in SC decisions involving a single case
which the SC justices cannot seem to agree on what the correct interpretation of the law should be.
o League of Cities of the Philippines v. COMELEC - SC reversed itself three times and it did
so in a span of three years.
o Indecision on the part of the Court creates little confidence in the Judiciary. It suggests that
the law is nothing more than the Justices whims, especially when the members of the Court
shift sides in the dispute. This particular case became of the grounds for the impeachment
case of Chief Justice Renato Corona in December 2011.
RATIO DECIDENDI & OBITER DICTUM
A. RATIO DECIDENDI
Binding precedent
 Ultimate issue directly before the court, expressly decided in the consideration of the case, so that apply only to the specific case for which the request was made
any resolution thereon must be considered as authoritative precedent.

B. OBITER DICTUM JUDICIAL POWER

Not a binding precedent. It cannot be cited as a doctrinal declaration of the SC and is not safe
from judicial examination. Section 1. The judicial power is vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law.
A matter that was not raised expressly and therefore, it was required for the disposition of the case.
SC has ruled that a remark made by a judge in a decision upon a cause, and not directly upon the Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights that are legally
question before the court. demandable and enforceable and to determine whether or not there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to
Oposa v. Factoran - Cited as a case that recognizes the standing of future generations to sue on lack or excess or jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of Government. (Art.VIII, Sec. 1,
behalf of the environment. A careful analysis of the case will show that Secretary Factoran never Constitution)
challenged petitioner's standing to sue. The pronouncement on standing is obiter dictum as, in this
case, it touched upon a matter that was not raised expressly by the petitioner, and therefore, it was A. SUPREME COURT POWERS
not a prerequisite in disposing of the case. Of course, the Philippine Supreme Court has also held Original: Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers
that dictum is generally not binding as authority or precedent within the stare decisis rule, but may and consuls, and over petitions for certiorari (grave abuse of discretion), prohibition, mandamus,
be followed if sufficiently persuasive. quo warranto, and habeas corpus. (Art. VIII, Sec. 5, par. 1. Const.)
Mercado v People of the Philippines - Marvin Mercado was convicted by the Regional Trial Court Appellate: Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law or the
(RTC) for car napping and was sentenced to prison term of twelve years and one day as a Rules of Court may provide, final judgments and orders of lower courts in:
minimum to seventeen years and four months as maximum. In that decision, the Court of Appeals o All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of and treaty, international or executive
relied on a footnote in the case of People v Omotoy to affirm the conviction of Mercado. In essence, agreement, law, executive order, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction,
the footnote explained the direct appeal to the Supreme Court from the RTC by reason of ordinance, or regulation is in question
imposition of reclusion perpetua and avoidance of delaying the disposition of the case. The Court o All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or toll, or any penalty
pronounced that while this footnote was not the ratio decidendi of the case, it still constituted an imposed in relation thereto
important part of the decision since it enunciated a fundamental procedural rule in the conduct of o All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue
appeals. o All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher
Villanueva v. Court of Appeal - Villadores was charged with the offense of falsification of public o All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved (Art VIII, Sec. 5, par. 2,
documents for falsifying a surety bond in an appeal against Villanueva, Jr. In the course of the Const.)
proceedings, a second amended information was accepted by the trial court wherein Villanueva
was added as an offended party. On the strength of the pronouncement of the Court of Appeals that B. DIVISIONS
Villanueva is not an offended party, Villadores filed a Motion to Disqualify Villanuevas counsel. The Court sits in division of three, five and seven. The SC only sits En Banc on the following
Villanueva argued that the pronouncement of the Court of Appeals was mere obiter dictum and it matters and cases:
lacks the force of adjudication. The Court ruled that the pronouncement of the Court of Appeals was o Cases in which the constitutionality or validity of and treaty, international or executive
not an obiter dictum because it touched upon the issue of Villanuevas inclusion as an offended agreement, law, executive order, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction,
party, a matter clearly raised by Villadores in his petition. It stated that as a rule: It has been held ordinance, or regulation is in question;
that an adjudication on any point within the issues presented by the case cannot be considered as o Criminal cases in which the appealed decision imposes the death penalty or reclusion
obiter dictum, and this rule applied to all pertinent questions, although only incidentally involved perpetua
which are presented and decided in the regular course of the consideration of the case, and led up o Cases raises the novel questions of law
to the final conclusion, and to any statement as to matter on which the decision is predicated.
o Cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls
C. RULINGS PRO HAC VICE o Cases involving decisions, resolutions, and order of the Civil Service Commission, the
A ruling expressly qualified as pro hac vice cannot be relied upon as a precedent to govern other Commission on Elections, and the Commission on Audit
o (p. 27-29 of Philippine History and the Legal System Book)
cases. Decisions qualified as pro hac vice are made only when there are extremely peculiar
circumstance in a case. SC En Banc not an appellate court for decisions of divisions. The only constraint is any doctrine
Citizens Battle against Corruption v. COMELEC - SC was asked to determine whether the or principle of law laid down by the Court, either rendered en banc or in division, may be
COMELEC gravely abused its discretion when it denied CIBAC an additional seat in the HoR under overturned or reversed only by the Court sitting en banc.
the party-list system. the COMELEC adopted a simplified formula of one additional seat per
additional 2% limiting CIBAC to a single seat. The COMELEC defended its decision by citing a SC C. JUDICIAL HEIRARCHY
Resolution. In the said Resolution, the SC granted BUHAYs Motion for Reconsideration, entitling it
Exercises the power to settle actual
to one additional seat for having garnered more than 4% of the total number of votes cast for the controversies involving rights that are
party-list system. However, when the Court granted BUHAY an additional seat, it meant to apply it legally demandable and enforceable and to
on that specific case alone, not being a precedent- pro hac vice. Thus, that Resolution could not be determine whether or not there has been
applied as a precedent to future case. 4TH LEVEL Supreme Court (SC) grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
or excess or jurisdiction on the part of any
Decisions pro hac vice are applied to admin matters such as requests for the audio branch or instrumentality of Government.
coverage of oral arguments before the SC. In the case questioning the constitutionality of the
PDAF, the SC approved the request of pro hac vice of Atty. Te, Chief of the Public Information The Court of last resort
Office, to livestream the audio component of the oral arguments. The approval was meant to 3RD LEVEL Court of Appeals (CA) Exercises power, functions, and duties

Atty. Christopher Lao

2016-2017
4
 through twenty-three divisions of three When to relax rule for mootness: (1) there is grave violation of the
members each.
Constitution (2) the situation has an exceptional character and the paramount
Assigned to review cases elevated to it from public interest is involved (3) constitutional issue raised requires formulation of
the RTCs as well as quasi-judicial agencies. controlling principles to guide the bench, the bar, and the public (4) case is
Anti-Graft court that tries public officers capable of repetition but has evaded review
charged with criminal cases involving graft, The person challenging the stand must have locus standi (legal standing)
Sandiganbayan
corrupt practices and corresponding civil
cases for recovery of civil liability. o A personal and substantial interest in the case such that the party has sustained or
Exclusive jurisdiction to review on appeal will sustain direct injury as a result of the governmental act that is being
decisions in cases involving disputed challenged
assessments, refunds of internal revenue
Court of Tax Appeals taxes, fees, or other charges, penalties in
o Must have suffered come actual or threatened injury
relation thereto, or other matters arising o EXCEPTIONS:
under the National Internal Revenue Code Case involves constitutional issues
or Tariff and Customs Code.
Taxpayers must be a claim of illegal disbursement or public funds, or tax
Exercise original jurisdiction over petitions
for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, measure is unconstitutional
habeas corpus, and other auxiliary writs and Voters must be a showing of obvious interest in the validity of election law in
Sharia Appellate Court processes in aid of its appellate jurisdiction, question
(SAC) and to exercise exclusive appe;ate
jurisdiction over all cases tried in the SDCs. Concerned citizens must be a showing that issues raised are of
transcendental importance which must be settled early
Legislators claim that official actions complained of infringes upon their
Established in thirteen regions of the prerogatives as legislators
Philippines and exercise appellate Question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity
Regional Trial Courts
jurisdiction over decisions of 1st Level courts
2ND LEVEL
(RTCs)
(MeTC, MTCC, MTC, MCTC) in their o The question of unconstitutionality must have been raised in the proceedings in the
respective jurisdiction. court below
Sharia District Courts Can appeal to Sharia Appellate Courts o But court, in the exercise of sound discretion, can take cognizance of the constitutional
(SDC)
issue raised by the parties.
Metropolitan Trial Courts Created in each metropolitan area
(MeTCs) established by law Issue of constitutionality must be the lis mota of the case
Municipal Trial Courts in Created in every city which does not form o Rooted in the principle of separation of powers and arises from the presumption of
Cities (MTCCs) part of the metropolitan area validity accorded to executive and legislative acts of our co-equal branches of the
Municipal Trial Courts Established in each of the other cities or
(MTCs) municipalities
government
1ST LEVEL o Legislative act has presumed validity, therefore the burden is on the petitioner to
Created in each circuit composing such
Municipal Circuit Trial
Courts (MCTCs)
cities and/or municipalities as grouped by prove that the case cannot be resolved unless the constitutional issue he raised is
law determined by the court.
Established in Islamic regions and
Sharia Circuit Courts
provinces to interpret and apply the Code of
(SCC)
Muslim Personal Laws (P.D. 1083) B. POLITICAL QUESTIONS
Those question which, under the Constitution, are to be decided by the people in their sovereign
capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislative or
JUDICIAL REVIEW executive branch of the government.
o Marcos regime what the Courts did SC hid behind the political question doctrine as
Section 4. (2) All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty, international or executive agreement,, or law, which an excuse not to question the acts of the administration.
shall be heard by the Supreme Court en banc, and all other cases which under the Rules of Court are required to be Never precludes judicial review when the act of a constitutional organ infringes upon a fundamental
heard en banc, including those involving the constitutionality, application, or operation of presidential decrees, individual or collective right.
proclamations, orders, instructions, ordinances, and other regulations, shall be decided with the concurrence of a
majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon. (Art. C. EFFECT OF DECLARATION OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY
VIII, Sec. 4, par 2. Const.) GENERAL RULE: An unconstitutional act is not a law. Iit confers no rights, it imposes no duties, it
affords no protection, it creates no office, it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had
whether or not there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess or jurisdiction on the part of never been passed.
any branch or instrumentality of Government. (Art.VIII, Sec. 1, Constitution) = Expanded certiorari jurisdiction OPERATIVE FACT DOCTRINE: A law or executive issuance must first be invalidated by the Court.
o The doctrine is concerned with the consequences with the acts performed under the
A. REQUISITES unconstitutional law.
Actual case or controversy calling for the exercise of judicial power o The SC applies the doctrine when a declaration of unconstitutionality will impose an
o There must be a case that is ripe and existing for determination. undue burden on those who have relied on the invalid law.
o No case or controversy when as issue becomes moot (when it ceases to present a o No rule that automatically applies the operative fact doctrine where law is found to be
justiciable controversy because of supervening events, so that the determination of the unconstitutional.
issue would have no practical use) o The courts may also require that certain acts can be undone if they were performed
under an unconstitutional law.

Atty. Christopher Lao

2016-2017
5
 Planters Products Inc. V. Fertiphil Corporation: The court refused to apply the
doctrine and explained that they do not find anything iniquitous in ordering PPI
to refund the amounts paid by Fertiphil under LOI No. 1465. PPI unduly
benefited from the levy. Quite the reverse, it would be inequitable and unjust not
to order a refund. To do so would unjustly enrich PPI at the expense of Fertiphil.
The court cannot allow PPI to profit from an unconstitutional law. Justice
and equity dictate that PPI must refund the amounts paid by Fertiphil.
o Araullo v Aquino III (DAP Case) - the doctrine may only apply to program, projects and
activities that can no longer be undone and whose beneficiaries relied in good faith on
the validity of the DAP. The doctrine cannot be applied to authors, proponents and
implementers of DAP unless concrete findings of good faith in their favor.
D. PARTIAL UNCONSTITUTIONALITY; THE SEPARABILITY CLAUSE
Partial unconstitutionality - when a statute is declared unconstitutional in part and it is possible to
only disregard the unconstitutional part without affecting the valid part, only the unconstitutional part
of the statute will be discarded.
Separability Clause - creates the presumption that Congress intended separability rather than
complete nullity of the statute.
o However, a statute may still be declared unconstitutional as a whole despite the presence
of a separability clause:
o Tatad v Secretary of DOE - Separability clause only creates a presumption, it is an aid in
statutory construction, and not a command. It also cannot be applied if it will create an
Atty. Christopher Lao
2016-2017
6
absurd result. The separability clause cannot be invoked if it will defeat the intent of the
legislature.
E. WHEN JUDICIAL REVIEW IS NOT EXERCISED
Power of judicial review can only be exercised in connection with a bona fide case or controversy which involves
the statute sought to be reviewed.
o Montesclaros v. COMELEC - Petitioners challenge the constitutionality of a proposed
bill postponing the SK elections to a later date, thereby rendering such petitioners
ineligible for participation as a function of the age requirement. Court ruled it cannot
exercise the power of judicial review over a proposed bill because there was no actual
controversy. The bill was not passed into law yet and intervention from the judiciary would
amount to giving advisory opinions on an act of Congress (against principle of co-equal
branches of government).
o In re Supreme Court Judicial Independence v. Judiciary Development Fund - A bill
produces no legal effects until passed into law. The judiciary cannot rule on mere
speculations or issues that are not ripe for judicial determination. Ergo, SC cannot stop
Congress from passing laws that will abolish JDF.