Bar 2017 - Last Minute Tips
In contrast,
01. Attendat Clause - Extradition
Case
a. It is a provision in an
extradition treaty which
provides that the
assassination of the head of
a foreign government or
members of his family should
not be considered a political
offense, hence extraditable.
02. Rule on succession in election -
3-term limit rule (see UP Pre-
week) and focus on interruption
03. Absentee Voting - Macalintal
a. The qualified Filipino abroad
who executed an affidavit is
deemed to have retained his
domicile in the Philippines
and presumed not to have
lost his domicile by physical
absence from the country so
long as he executed an
affidavit stating his intent to
return and that he has not
applied for citizenship in
another country. There can
be no absentee voting if the
law will require absentee
voters to reside in the
Philippines for the same
period as non-absentee
voters. In election laws,
domicile and resident are
interchangeably used.
04. Jurisdiction of the Presidential
Electoral Tribunal - Poe v.
COMELEC
a. Article IX-C, Sec 2 of the
Constitution provides for the
powers and functions of the
COMELEC, and deciding on
the qualifications or lack
thereof of a candidate is not
one among them.
the Constitution provides
that only the SET and HRET
tribunals have sole
jurisdiction over the election
contests, returns, and
qualifications of their
respective members,
whereas over the President
and Vice President, only the
SC en banc has sole
jurisdiction. As for the
qualifications of candidates
for such positions, the
Constitution is silent. There
is simply no authorized
proceeding in determining
the ineligibility of candidates
before elections. Such lack
of provision cannot be
supplied by a mere rule, and
for the COMELEC to
assimilate grounds for
ineligibility into grounds for
disqualification in Rule 25 in
its rules of procedures would
be contrary to the intent of
the Constitution.
05. Unconstitutionality of Local
Ordinance - Mosqueda v. Pilipino
Banana Growers (Penned by
Bersamin)
a. An ordinance which banned
aerial spraying as an
agricultural practice was
declared unconstitutional for
being violative of equal
protection and due process
clauses. It violated due
process because the city
acted whimsically, arbitrarily,
and despotically by providing
for an impossible timeframe
to shift from aerial to truck
 mounted spraying. The equal
protection was violated since
the ordinance made no
substantial distinctions when
it prohibited aerial spraying
per se regardless of the
substance or the level of
concentration of the
chemicals to be applied, and
when it imposed the 30-
meter buffer zone in all
agricultural lands in Davao
City regardless of the size of
landholdings.
06. Marital zones and rights of
coastal states to their maritime
zones (See UP Law reviewer or
pre-week, table below does not
include definition or rights)
08. Araullo v. Aquino (DAP case,
penned by J. Bersamin)
a. How is savings defined by
07. Legislative veto and post-
enactment identification of project
a. Congress may exercise its
oversight function, but its
role must be confined to
such. Post-enactment
measures allowing legislator
participation would be
tantamount to impermissible
b. Is the cross-border transfer
interference or assumption of
executive functions.
b. Non-Delegability of
Legislative Power Articles
which allow the legislator to
identify the projects to which
PDAF money should be
allocated is a violation on the
rule of non-delegability of
legislative power.
Appropriation involves 1)
setting apart by law of a
certain sum 2) for a specified
purpose. Legislators have
been conferred the power to
legislate under the 2013
PDAF Article, which is not
allowed under the
Constitution. The 2013 PDAF
Article as well as all other
forms of Congressional Pork
Barrel which contain the
similar legislative
identification feature as
UNCONSTITUTIONAL
the Court - Savings, strictly
speaking, is the money left
over from GAA-authorized
items which are authorized
was completed, finally
discontinued, or abandoned;
or because the policy targets
were reached at lower cost
due to increased efficiencies;
or because of vacant
government positions or
leaves-of-absence without
pay. It does not include
money that budgeted/allotted
but not yet used (unobligated
allotments)
of funds allowed? - Cross-
border transfers of cross-
border augmentations are
 transfers from one office to 3. The purpose
another office in the guise of of the
augmentation of items. It is transfer is to
impermissible because Sec. augment an
35(5) of Art. VI only item in the
authorizes the listed officials general
to augment items in their appropriation
respective offices. s law for their
c. Sec. 25(5), Article VI allows respective
for transfer of funds offices.
provided the ff. Requisites ii. Augmentation is
are present: only allowed for
1. There is a existent projects,
law when funding is
authorizing deficient. -
the President, Augmentation implies
the President the existence in this
of the Senate, Act of a program,
the Speaker of activity, or project
the House of with an appropriation,
Representativ which upon
es, the Chief implementation, or
Justice of the subsequent
Supreme evaluation of needed
Court, and the resources, is
heads of the determined to be
Constitutional deficient. In no case
Commissions shall a non-existent
(list is program, activity, or
exclusive) to project, be funded by
transfer funds augmentation from
within their savings or by the use
respective of appropriations
offices. otherwise authorized
2. The funds to in this Act.
be 09. What is betrayal of public trust -
transferred Gonzales v Office of the President
are savings a. Betrayal of public trust to
generated refer to "acts which are just
from the short of being criminal but
appropriations constitute gross faithlessness
of their against public trust,
respective tyrannical abuse of power,
offices; and inexcusable negligence of
 duty, favoritism, and gross a. Condonation doctrine is now
exercise of discretionary abandoned
powers." In other words, acts b. Provision in RA 6770 saying
that should constitute only SC can entertain cases
betrayal of public trust as to against the Ombudsman
warrant removal from office deemed unconstitutional as
may be less than criminal but the Congress removed a
must be attended by bad procedural remedy made
faith and of such gravity and available by the SC in the
seriousness as the other Rules of Court, in violation of
grounds for impeachment. separation of powers.
b. Deputy Ombudsmen and c. Requisites of Preventive
Special Prosecutors are not Suspension by
impeachable officers, but in Ombudsman
the statutory act of providing i. The evidence of
that they be removed on the guilt is strong; and
same grounds as ii. Either of the
impeachment, the Congress following
could not have intended to circumstances co-
apply the same grounds less exist with the first
stringently, betrayal of public
requirement:chanR
trust could not suddenly
oblesvirtualLawlibr
"overreach" to cover acts that
ary
are not vicious or malevolent
(a)The charge
on the same level as the
involves
other grounds for
impeachment. dishonesty,
c. Concept of independence of oppression or
Ombudsman covers three grave misconduct
things: creation by or neglect in the
Constitution, fiscal autonomy, performance of
and insulation from executive duty;cralawlawlibr
supervision and control. The ary
last entails that Deputy (b) The charge
Ombudsman may not be would warrant
disciplined by the President, removal from the
provision declaring that DO service; or
may be removed by (c) The
President declared respondent's
unconstitutional.
continued stay in
10. Morales v. CA - authority of CA to
office may
entertain certiorari proceedings
prejudice the case
against the Ombudsman
filed against him.
11. Revisions v. Amendments -
Lambino v. CA
a. Revision broadly implies a
change that alters a basic
principle in the constitution,
like altering the principle of
separation of powers or the
system of checks-and-balances.
There is also revision if the
change alters the substantial
entirety of the constitution, as
when the change affects
substantial provisions of the
constitution. On the other
hand, amendment broadly
refers to a change that adds,
reduces, or deletes without
altering the basic principle
involved. Revision generally
affects several provisions of the
constitution, while amendment
generally affects only the
specific provision being
amended.