Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Ad Interim vs Regular
Ad Interim - Power of the President to make appointments during the recess of Congress, but such
appointments shall be effective only until disapproval by the Commission on Appointments or until the
next adjournment of the Congress
Regular – one made by the President while Congress is in session, which takes effect only after
confirmation by the Commission on Appointment and, once approved, continues until the end of the
term of the appointee.
Sectoral Representative
Sectoral parties or organizations may either be “marginalized and underrepresented” or lacking in “well-
defined political constituencies.” It is enough that their principal advocacy pertains to the special
interests and concerns of their sector.
NOTE: Those “marginalized and underrepresented” include labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor,
indigenous cultural communities, handicapped, veterans, and overseas workers. (LUV-OF-HIP)
Those lacking in “well-defined political constituencies” include professionals, the elderly, women, and
the youth. (PEWY)
JBC Appointments
Need not to be confirmed
Applies only to the Chief Justice, Secretary of Justice and the Rep. of Congress
Promotional Appointment
Allowed provided that the total years in office do not exceed 7 years.
Allowed only in the case of death, permanent incapacity, resignation or removal of the
predecessor
Qualification of Commissioners
Not a candidate in a preceding election
Double Jeopardy
XPN:
Demurrer of Evidence w/ consent of the accused
Violation of the right to speedy trial
>Crimes Covered
Variance Rule
Crimes Necessarily Included
Crimes Necessarily Includes
Due Process
Pp vs Marciales – convicted of homicide instead of the murder charge
Provisional Dismissal
Always with the consent of the accused.
Plea Bargaining
If no Signature of the Accused
Election Laws
Rule on Succession
Abundo Case (Jan. 8, 2013)
Note:
COMELEC has jurisdiction on both petition
Electoral Tribunal
Congress
Has validly proclaimed, taken oath, assume office
Palparan Case
HRET
All members of the house, party list or regular
Ombudsman (Jurisdiction)
GOCC w/ original charter
Morales vs Binay
Abolished Doctrine of Condonation
CA can stop execution of judgment of Ombudsman
Issue TRO or Injunction
Preventive Suspension
Total Exoneration Entitled to back salary
Garcia vs Molina
Preventive Suspension pending investigation No back wages
PIL
Combatant vs Non-Combatant
Militia or Volunteer = as Prisoners of War (Req.)
1. they form part of such armed forces of the State
2. they fulfill the following conditions:
a. under the command of a leader
b. has insignia
c. openly take arms
d. engage in accordance with the rules of war
China vs Philippines
9 Dash Line has no historical basis because it is not compatible with the EEZ
Spratly Islands cannot generate extended maritime zones
China’s action is unlawful because it violated Phil. sovereign rights over its EEZ
China’s land reclamation and construction of artificial island caused harm to marine
environment
China aggravated the dispute because it inflicted irreparable harm
Citizenship
Natural Born
Naturalized
Naturalization
Judicial Any person who wants to be naturalized.
Administrative not available to an alien who was not born and raised in the Philippines. He
must avail of judicial naturalization.
Repatriation
Applies to natural born by taking oath of allegiance
2 Grounds
a. Political Persecution
b. Economic Reason
His/Her children cannot avail, only the one who goes abroad
Freedom of Expression
Cross Dresser vs School Regulation Right prevails
Bill of Right
Not applicable to private
Right to Privacy
Husband & Wife applicable if the office is exclusive to 1 party. If the government is a party to
the case and the evidence was gathered by a private person, right to unlawful searches and
seizure does not apply.
If common not applicable
Nuisance per se
No need of notice and hearing
Right to Abode
XPN: Lawful Order
Right to Travel
XPN: Interest of National Security, Public Safety, Public Health
Eminent Domain
Congress public purpose = political question
LGU public purpose = judicial question
o prior offer to buy and refusal to sell
o 15% deposit to acquire possession
(4) the property must be devoted to public use or otherwise informally appropriated or
injuriously affected;
(5) the utilization of the property for public use must be in such a way as to oust the owner
and deprive him of beneficial enjoyment of the property.
COA
Money claim against Govt file petition before COA
COA decides within 30 days
o if no decision WAIT for the decision
When UN can intervene in Local Affairs breach of Int’l Peace and Security
Refugee
Requisites:
1. Those who are outside the country of his nationality or if stateless, outside the country of his habitual
residence; lack national protection
2. Lacks national protection
3. Has a well-founded fear of persecution by reason of race, religion, nationality, membership of a
particular group or political opinion
Non-Refoulment – prohibit a state to return or expel a refugee to the territory where he escaped
because his life or freedom, is threatened. The state is under obligation to grant temporary asylum
Art 6. Sec. 22
Heads of Dept
Question Hour
Heads of Dept. no need consent from Pres.
Gudani vs Senga
May the President prevent a member of the armed forces from testifying before a legislative
inquiry? We hold that the President has constitutional authority to do so, by virtue of her
power as commander-in-chief, and that as a consequence a military officer who defies such
injunction is liable under military justice. At the same time, we also hold that any chamber of
Congress which seeks the appearance before it of a military officer against the consent of the
President has adequate remedies under law to compel such attendance. Any military official
whom Congress summons to testify before it may be compelled to do so by the President. If
the President is not so inclined, the President may be commanded by judicial order to compel
the attendance of the military officer. Final judicial orders have the force of the law of the
land which the President has the duty to faithfully execute.
Judicial Review
Elements:
a. Actual Case or Controversy
b. Proper Party
c. Filed at earliest possible time
d. Lis mota – constitutionality is the main issue
Facial Challenge
Can be invoke only in freedom of expression
Overbreadth Doctrine
A person generally can argue that a statute is unconstitutional as it is applied to him or her;
the individual cannot argue that a statute is unconstitutional as it is applied to third parties
not before the court. For example, a defendant in a criminal trial can challenge the
constitutionality of the law that is the basis for the prosecution solely on the claim that the
statute unconstitutionally abridges his or her constitutional rights. The overbreadth doctrine
is an exception to the prohibition against third-party standing. It permits a person to challenge
a statute on the ground that it violates the First Amendment (free speech) rights of third
parties not before the court, even though the law is constitutional as applied to that
defendant. In other words, the overbreadth doctrine provides that: Given a case or
controversy, a litigant whose own activities are unprotected may nevertheless challenge a
statute by showing that it substantially abridges the First Amendment rights of other parties
not before the court.
Transcendental Importance
Oposa vs Factoran
XPN to Moot and Academic:
1. Capable of repetitive application
2. Transcendental Importance
3. Gross violation of Constitution
4. Guidelines for bench and bar
5. Paramount public interest
Impeachment
Limitation 1 year
If 1st complaint is referred and acted upon 2nd complaint is barred
XPN:
If dismiss in COJ bypass by 1/3 vote of Congress
Habeas Corpus
Ground for Suspension: rebellion or invasion
Steps:
1. Pres. reports to congress within 48 hours
2. Congress (both house)will convene within 24 hours
State of Emergency
Discretionary of the Pres.
Emergency Power
Needs delegation of Congress
Bail
When Matter of Right
MTC before/after conviction
RTC before conviction, not punishable rec. perp. or life imprisonment
When Discretionary after conviction, not punishable rec. perp. or life imprisonment
Summary hearing is mandatory
Recognizance
Applies to minor
Needs resolution of Municipal/City Council if adult
Extradition
Avail Bail rights of the accused (discretionary)
Treatment of Alien
If the insurgent succeed in taking over the Govt., can they be liable invoking State Responsibility for
damages?
Variance Doctrine – right to be informed of the crime imputed against the accused
Creation of Cities
Pelaez Case
Only the seat of government may be changed by the President when public welfare so
requires and NOT the creation of municipality.
Expropriation of LGU
Public Use for Worship park
-violation of non-establishment clause
-additional requisite, offer and refusal
IBP vs Atienza
Clear and Present Danger Rule (Art. 3 Sec. 4)
Issuance of permit by mayor
Atienza granted a permit to rally in a venue other than the one applied for by the IBP.
The Court ruled that Atienza committed grave abuse of discretion.
It is an indispensable condition to such refusal or modification that the clear and present
danger test be the standard for the decision reached. If he is of the view that there is such an
imminent and grave danger of a substantive evil, the applicants must be heard on the matter.
Notably, respondent failed to indicate in his Comment any basis or explanation for his action.
It smacks of whim and caprice for respondent to just impose a change of venue for an
assembly that was slated for a specific public place. It is thus reversible error for the appellate
court not to have found such grave abuse of discretion and, under specific statutory provision,
not to have modified the permit "in terms satisfactory to the applicant."
Austria vs NLRC
Dismissal of employee based on law is valid, not on purely ecclesiastical affair (Art. 3 Sec. 5)
Examples of so-called ecclesiastical affairs to which the State cannot meddle are proceedings
for excommunication, ordinations of religious ministers, and administration of sacraments.
While the matter at hand relates to the church and its religious minister, it does not give the
case a religious significance. What is involved is the relationship of the church as an employer
and the minister as an employee. It is purely secular and has no relation whatsoever with the
practice of faith, worship or doctrines of the church. Pastor Austria was not excommunicated
or expelled from the membership of the SDA but was terminated from employment. As
pointed out by the OSG in its memorandum, the grounds invoked for Austria’s dismissal are all
based on Article 282 of the Labor Code which enumerates the just causes for termination of
employment. It is palpable by this alone that the reason for Austria’s dismissal from the
service is not religious in nature.
Custodial Investigation
Spontaneous Statement is admissible
Marquez vs Desierto
Inspection of Account by the Ombudsman
Req.
1. Pending case where the account is involved
2. Account is specifically mentioned
3. Date & Time of Inspection
4. Branch Manager and Account Holder must be present in the inspection
5. Inspection is limited to the account
Equal Protection
Appropriate Funds for the probation law by a municipality or province, while others do not Violation
of Equal Protection
Anti-Graft
Sandiganbayan Jurisdiction
Malaya vs Sandiganbayan
Art 2. Section 28
Voting Slips
Incompatible Office
JBC – ex offcio
Creation of Cities
Creation of Legislative District
Congress only has the power
Municipal of North Cotobato vs GRP
The MOA-AD is inconsistent with the Constitution and laws.
The MOA-AD uses the word associative with regard to its relationship with the state.
What is an association in international law?
o [A]n association is formed when two STATES of unequal power voluntarily establish
durable links. In the basic model, one state, the associate, delegates certain
responsibilities to the other, the principal, while maintaining its international status as
a state. Free associations represent a middle ground between integration and
independence.
These provisions of the MOA indicate, among other things, that the Parties aimed to vest in
the BJE the status of an associated state or, at any rate, a status closely approximating it.
The concept of association is not recognized under the present Constitution
No province, city, or municipality, not even the ARMM, is recognized under our laws as having
an associative relationship with the national government. Indeed, the concept implies powers
that go beyond anything ever granted by the Constitution to any local or regional government.
It also implies the recognition of the associated entity as a state.
Article II, Section 22 of the Constitution must also be amended if the scheme envisioned in the
MOA-AD is to be effected. That constitutional provision states: The State recognizes and
promotes the rights of indigenous cultural communities within the framework of national
unity and development. (Underscoring supplied) An associative arrangement does not uphold
national unity. While there may be a semblance of unity because of the associative ties
between the BJE and the national government, the act of placing a portion of Philippine
territory in a status which, in international practice, has generally been a preparation for
independence, is certainly not conducive to national unity.
SEMA vs COMELEC
Whether the delegation to the ARMM Regional Assembly of the power to create provinces,
cities, municipalities and barangays conflicts with any provision of the Constitution.
There is no provision in the Constitution that conflicts with the delegation to regional
legislative bodies of the power to create municipalities and barangays, provided Section 10,
Article X of the Constitution is followed. However, the creation of provinces and cities is
another matter. Section 5 (3), Article VI of the Constitution provides, Each city with a
population of at least two hundred fifty thousand, or each province, shall have at least one
representative in the House of Representatives. Similarly, Section 3 of the Ordinance
appended to the Constitution provides, Any province that may hereafter be created, or any
city whose population may hereafter increase to more than two hundred fifty thousand shall
be entitled in the immediately following election to at least one Member x x x.
Clearly, a province cannot be created without a legislative district because it will violate
Section 5 (3), Article VI of the Constitution as well as Section 3 of the Ordinance appended to
the Constitution. For the same reason, a city with a population of 250,000 or more cannot also
be created without a legislative district. Thus, the power to create a province, or a city with a
population of 250,000 or more, requires also the power to create a legislative district. Even
the creation of a city with a population of less than 250,000 involves the power to create a
legislative district because once the citys population reaches 250,000, the city automatically
becomes entitled to one representative under Section 5 (3), Article VI of the Constitution and
Section 3 of the Ordinance appended to the Constitution. Thus, the power to create a province
or city inherently involves the power to create a legislative district.
The threshold issue then is, can Congress validly delegate to the ARMM Regional Assembly the
power to create legislative districts for the House of Representatives? The answer is in the
negative.
Under the present Constitution, as well as in past Constitutions, the power to increase the
allowable membership in the House of Representatives, and to reapportion legislative
districts, is vested exclusively in Congress under Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution.
Congress exercises these powers through a law that Congress itself enacts, and not through a
law that regional or local legislative bodies enact. The allowable membership of the House of
Representatives can be increased, and new legislative districts of Congress can be created,
only through a national law passed by Congress.
HRET Jurisdiction
Req.
1. Proclaimed
2. Took his oath
3. Assume Office
Palparan vs HRET
Facts:
o Palparan countered that the HRET had no jurisdiction over his person since it was
actually the party-list Bantay, not he, that was elected to and assumed membership in
the House of Representatives. Palparan claimed that he was just Bantays nominee.
Consequently, any question involving his eligibility as first nominee was an internal
concern of Bantay. Such question must be brought, he said, before that party-list
group, not before the HRET.
Issue:
o Whether or not respondent HRET has jurisdiction over the question of qualifications of
petitioners Abayon and Palparan as nominees of Aangat Tayo and Bantay party-list
organizations, respectively, who took the seats at the House of Representatives that
such organizations won in the 2007 elections.
Ruling:
o Although it is the party-list organization that is voted for in the elections, it is not the
organization that sits as and becomes a member of the House of Representatives. (
Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution)
o Once elected, both the district representatives and the party-list representatives are
treated in like manner. They have the same deliberative rights, salaries, and
emoluments. They can participate in the making of laws that will directly benefit their
legislative districts or sectors. They are also subject to the same term limitation of
three years for a maximum of three consecutive terms.
o In the cases before the Court, those who challenged the qualifications of petitioners
Abayon and Palparan claim that the two do not belong to the marginalized and
underrepresented sectors that they ought to represent. The Party-List System Act
provides that a nominee must be a bona fide member of the party or organization
which he seeks to represent.
o What is inevitable is that Section 17, Article VI of the Constitution provides that the
HRET shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to, among other things, the
qualifications of the members of the House of Representatives. Since, as pointed out
above, party-list nominees are ELECTED MEMBERS of the House of Representatives no
less than the district representatives are, the HRET has jurisdiction to hear and pass
upon their qualifications. By analogy with the cases of district representatives, once
the party or organization of the party-list nominee has been proclaimed and the
nominee has taken his oath and assumed office as member of the House of
Representatives, the COMELECs jurisdiction over election contests relating to his
qualifications ends and the HRETs own jurisdiction begins.
o The Court holds that respondent HRET did not gravely abuse its discretion when it
dismissed the petitions for quo warranto against Aangat Tayo party-list and Bantay
party-list but upheld its jurisdiction over the question of the qualifications of
petitioners Abayon and Palparan.
Art. 6 Sec. 14
Personal Appearance of Representative
Junior Associate who appear
Not the Representative
Does not prohibit practice and Profession
Parliamentary Immunity
Pobre vs Santiago
Partial Veto
Veto Powers
Riders
Art. 16 Sec. 3
GOCC – Sue-Sue
Art. 6 Sec. 2
Immunity from arrest of Members of Congress punishable by 6 yrs below even during recess
Jurisdiction of SC
Grave abuse of Discretion
Violation of 2/3 Votes
Double jeopardy
1. Valid Complaint or Information
2. Filed in a court of competent jurisdiction
3. To which the accused had pleaded or was validly arraigned
4. And that the accused was convicted or acquitted or the case against him was dismissed or
otherwise terminated without his express consent.
Self-Incrimination
Personally invoke
Right not to take the witness stand
Presumption of Innocence
Custom Searches
Naturalization Cancellation
Effect to Family no effect
Right to Self-Incrimination
Hair Strands purely mechanical
Admissibility of Evidence
Warrantless Search
Outside Immediate Control
No Waiver
inadmissible
Double Jeopardy
w/o the express consent of the accused DJ is attached
Cross Examination
Right to Appeal
Statutory Right
Variance Doctrine
Situations under such doctrine