Professional Documents
Culture Documents
4- MANRESA
1
EDITED BY: Raia TRANSCRIBED BY: Brunx, Rhoda, Ces, Aning, Yna, Kye, Bon, Sid, James, Rjay, Justin,
Bryan
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 REVIEW 2015
4- MANRESA
office under the 1987 Constitution means that denied an equal protection of the laws. Our
you have to be a domiciliary or a legal resident understanding in Philippine context is that liberty
of that place. But the constitution still uses the refers to lack or freedom from physical restraint.
word “residence” or “residency”. But the intent Life- you can be executed provided with due
there is it must be your legal residence or process; your property can be taken from you
domicile and not actual or physical residence. provided there’s due process.
Conversely, the use of the word or phrase in The US Supreme Court has ruled that liberty
your "bill of rights for right to bail, the threshold includes the right of same-sex couples to get
when right to bail is a matter of right or discretion married because the right to marry is part of the
is the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The term fundamental right of liberty. It expanded it not
reclusion perpetua is not in its technical meaning only to include physical restraint but the right to
because that is not the Revised Penal Code. It marry also. So measure of a good constitution is
does not carry any accessory penalty because words and phrases are capable of being
the Constitution does not provide for penalties. construed to adapt to the present demands.
And so, when that provision in the Bill of Rights OBERGEFELL vs. HODGES:
talks about reclusion perpetua, it is supposed to Facts:
be understood in its loose meaning to include The case is based on 3 consolidated cases.
life imprisonment. So if the person is charged Obergefell here is a man who married another
with a crime punishable by life imprisonment at man in another state because it is not legal in
least or higher, then bail becomes a matter of Ohio. Hodges is the director of the Department
discretion. of Health in the State of Ohio. The marriage was
Writ of habeas Corpus, is that in its ordinary or in another state where same-sex marriage was
technical meaning? There can be no other allowed; almost in articulo mortis. After his
meaning because there is only a technical partner died, Obergefell brought his body to
meaning if it is mentioned in Article III or under Ohio and registered his death in the department
Article VII, Section 18 when the President of health and he wanted himself to be placed as
suspends the privilege of the writ of habeas his surviving spouse. Hodges refused because
corpus. There is no dictionary meaning for that. same-sex marriage is not allowed in Ohio.
It’s only technical meaning. The other case involved 2 females in Michigan
4. CONSTITUTIIONAL PROVISIONS who were adopting children with neonatal
CONSIDERED DYNAMIC problems because they were working in the
The last rule used in construing Constitutional neonatal department of a hospital, and Michigan
Provisions is the rule that the does not allow adoption if it’s not by a married
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS MUST BE couple or by a single individual. They want
CONSIDERED AS DYNAMIC. It must be themselves to be the adopting parents, both of
construed not only to meet the issues or them, which Michigan doesn’t allow. Their
questions of the day but must be appropriate for contention is that if one of them is placed as the
the unfolding events of the indefinite future. In adoptive parent and that adoptive parent would
Datu Michael Abas Kida vs. Senate, the die, what would happen to these children when
unfolding events of an indefinite nature, because there is another one who could very readily act
it is said that the measure of a good constitution as the adoptive parent.
is that the words and phrases are capable of The other one is the case of an army man from
construction not only to answer the issues of the New York who, before deployment in Pakistan,
case of today but those questions or issues that married his male partner. Same-sex marriage is
may be raised in the future. allowed in NY. When he came back from
Perhaps, a good example for you is the case of Pakistan, he was assigned to Tennessee and
Obergefell vs. Hodges of the US Supreme every time he crossed State lines, he would be
Court, the same sex marriage. [#LoveWins, married in NY and single in Tennessee. So he
Rainbows all over Facebook] wanted to be married anywhere. So he raised
That is a 14th amendment case. 14th amendment that issue also. Why does their civil status
of the US Constitution is Due Process and Equal change just because they cross the state lines?
Protection. And the word like “liberty”, that No Ruling: The decision was all 50 states are now
one shall be denied of his life, liberty or property considered banned from passing any legislation;
without due process nor shall any person be all existing legislation are deemed
2
EDITED BY: Raia TRANSCRIBED BY: Brunx, Rhoda, Ces, Aning, Yna, Kye, Bon, Sid, James, Rjay, Justin,
Bryan
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 REVIEW 2015
4- MANRESA
unconstitutional. All other states that do not have created by Congress. So an electoral
legislation can no longer legislate to define as commission fixed the made a deadline for filing
prohibited act same-sex marriage. of protest in all protest cases and Congress also
THEORY OF JUDICIAL REVIEW made its own deadline for filing of protests. The
Judicial Review is a common question in your question is who has the power to fix the date or
bar exams. The question actually requires you to deadline for filing of protests. Is it the Congress
show your understanding of the conditions for or is it the Electoral Commission created by
judicial review. As you know, there are only four. Congress specifically to hear and decide
1) There must be actual case or election protests? If traditionally, it is exercised
controversy. by this, there may seemingly be a problem. But
2) It must be raised at the earliest if one is exercised by another, like the electoral
opportunity. tribunal now, which the electoral commission
3) It must have to be raised by the before, then a problem may arise, because it
proper party. has not been traditionally granted to that office
4) The constitutional question must be or entity or officer in our system of the
the very lis mota of the case. Constitution.
To declare the law as unconstitutional is not the When that question comes, the court is now
intent of the bar examiner. It is for the examiner actually exercising its power but is exercising a
to know whether you know the requisites or duty based on several other principles like
concepts for judicial review. Because if you separation of powers. Its constitutional obligation
understand the concepts or requisites, if one or to exercise review powers when it is necessary.
all of the requisites are missing, you should So, it is also dependent upon some other
dismiss the petition. Do not ever attempt to principles like presumptions of constitutionality.
resolve a constitutional question because you When a law, an act, or action of an officer is
are not yet the Supreme Court. You just look for raised before the courts on seemingly
all of these four (referring to conditions). If one, constitutional questions, there is always a
some or all are missing, you must have to presumption of constitutionality. Unless it is
dismiss the petition. The exception is if the clear that the four conditions are present and are
Supreme Court has already decided a case met, it is the only time the court would have to
similar to what was presented. And that is where exercise its duty, not the power, of judicial
the problem lies. If you haven’t read the case, review.
then you would not know. [!!!] Judicial review, prior to the 1987 Constitution, is
The four conditions generally must be present. a discussion, a concept, and a theory. It has
The Supreme Court has been very strict in been incorporated in the 1987 Constitution
requiring the presence of the 4. under Section 1, Article VIII. The definition of
Judicial Review is an exception. It is not a power judicial power has been expanded to include in
exactly by the court but it is a duty of the court its second phrase what we know then as judicial
when there is encroachment into the review. So, if there is grave abuse of discretion
constitutional allocation of powers. There is no amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on
problem seemingly when one branch or officer any branch or instrumentality of the government,
of the government exercises power and the court can exercise judicial power as well. But
authority within the limitations. But if one has correctly understood, that should be JUDICIAL
encroached into the other or the power is not REVIEW POWERS and not JUDICIAL POWER
traditionally granted to that entity, office, or PER SE. Judicial power per se involves only the
officer, but exercised by another, then there rights of the court to settle legal conflicts which
would be some issues on who has the authority. are justiciable and legally determinable and
If you remember the old case of Angara vs. enforceable, being a justiciable question.
Electoral Commission, this all started the Judicial review power is the extraordinary power
Theory of Judicial Review. This was Congress of the courts to look into the acts of coordinate
creating an electoral commission which was branches of government or officers as part of its
similar to an electoral tribunal now. The electoral duty.
tribunal in the present is in the Constitution. The RULE OF THUMB: When the question is
electoral commission before under the 1935 presented, go and look for ALL the conditions.
Const. was not in the constitution. It was just Missing one, some, or all, the petition shall be
3
EDITED BY: Raia TRANSCRIBED BY: Brunx, Rhoda, Ces, Aning, Yna, Kye, Bon, Sid, James, Rjay, Justin,
Bryan
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 REVIEW 2015
4- MANRESA
dismissed. Do not attempt to declare the law in prohibition filed under Rule 65. They question
question as unconstitutional. The exception the jurisdiction by the President to implement the
again is if there is a case already decided by the DAP and to prohibit the president from
court. Even if you know that there are implementing the DAP. (also raises issue of
exceptions to the rule. ripeness)
1. Appropriate Case or Controversy Funa vs. MECO – This is your case involving
When is there an appropriate case or Manila Exchange and Cultural Office in Taiwan.
controversy? Since we do not have formal and official
Concepts: diplomatic relations with Taiwan because of the
Issue of Ripeness One-China policy, all our “consular needs” in
Earliest Opportunity Taiwan such as OFWs are taken care of this
Candari vs. Nolasco (2012) – Supreme Court MECO. And what was filed here is a petition for
describes an actual case or controversy as one mandamus to compel the COA to audit all the
involving a conflict of legal rights and assertion funds received by MECO because employers
of opposite legal claims, susceptible to judicial are supposed to pay to the Philippine
resolution. Government for every Filipino worker employed
Manila Memorial Park vs. DSWD – This and all visa applications of visiting tourists. So
involves the citizens’ discount. [Appropriate Funa wanted COA to audit that.
case] is a characterization of assertion of Is the petition for mandamus proper?
opposite legal claims susceptible to judicial Supreme Court did not dismiss the petition and
resolution. found it to be proper because it is a question to
By the way, WHAT ARE APPROPRIATE compel a ministerial act on the part of COA to
PETITIONS? You have come across all the conduct an audit on all government funds
readings, first year to now, which are considered regardless of wherever it may be found.
to be proper petitions to raise constitutional Imbong vs. Ochoa – This involves the RH law,
questions. You all have your petitions under whether the question in RH law is ripe for
Rule 65. Normally, it is certiorari under Rule 65 adjudication.
because it is a jurisdictional question. The officer EARLIEST OPPORTUNITY is the next
or office or department acted without jurisdiction. condition. We said earlier, petitions for Rule 65
It may also include mandamus or prohibition. are the normal petitions to raise constitutional
Kalipunan Ng Mahihirap vs. Robredo (730 questions. But the conditional requisite of
SCRA) – Supreme Court found petitions for earliest opportunity will also tell you that if you
certiorari and mandamus to be inappropriate are charged criminally and your defense is that
petitions because of the nature of the the law is unconstitutional, you can raise it as a
controversy, subject of those petitions. defense because you have to raise it at the
But in almost all cases, where there is a earliest opportunity and that is when you are
question of constitutionality, it is by certiorari and charged at the Court of First Instance. That it is
prohibition or prohibition and mandamus. unconstitutional, either as applied or under the
Included in case of actual controversy is the overbreadth doctrine if it involves your free
ISSUE OF RIPENESS. speech rights and freedom of religion. Raising it
LAMP vs. Sec Of DBM– This involves the as a defense is a requisite. Otherwise, you will
PDAF before. Supreme Court mentioned that in not be allowed to raise it later even if you file a
the Philippines, the issue of ripeness is generally petition for certiorari because you have not
treated in terms of actual injury to the plaintiff. raised it at the earliest opportunity. Again, the
Meaning, if there is no injury to the plaintiff that question of Constitutionality must have to be
is impending, the issue is not ripe for judicial raised at the earliest opportunity.
determination. You cannot file a petition seeking
declaration of unconstitutionality because it is July 22, 2015- Kye
not yet ripe. So it is dependent upon the injury *First few seconds were corrupted.
suffered by the party or person seeking its *last year’s tsn was incorporated on topics not
declaration of unconstitutionality. elaborated
Araullo vs. Aquino – This is the DAP case. (from last year’s tsn) The 2nd requirement is that
Question there is the appropriateness of the it must be raised at the earliest opportunity. In
petition filed because they filed certiorari and relation to that, the concept of RIPENESS states
4
EDITED BY: Raia TRANSCRIBED BY: Brunx, Rhoda, Ces, Aning, Yna, Kye, Bon, Sid, James, Rjay, Justin,
Bryan
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 REVIEW 2015
4- MANRESA
5
EDITED BY: Raia TRANSCRIBED BY: Brunx, Rhoda, Ces, Aning, Yna, Kye, Bon, Sid, James, Rjay, Justin,
Bryan
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 REVIEW 2015
4- MANRESA
6
EDITED BY: Raia TRANSCRIBED BY: Brunx, Rhoda, Ces, Aning, Yna, Kye, Bon, Sid, James, Rjay, Justin,
Bryan
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 REVIEW 2015
4- MANRESA
This case of Kalipunan also mentions that in If a similar petition is filed later where all the
this case, prohibition and mandamus are not requirements are present or existing, the court
proper petitions. While we mentioned earlier in should resolve the constitutional question. When
the case of Araullo, petitions under Rule 65 are the court dismissed the petition without ruling on
generally appropriate petition to raise the constitutional issue, there still hangs the
constitutional questions, but here the petitions question of whether or not that law violates the
for prohibition and mandamus have not been Constitution. But when the SC finally resolves
considered appropriate petitions since what was and declares the law in question as not
sought to be questioned and to be enjoined do inconsistent with the constitution in the exercise
not fall within category of the decisions or of its positive or legitimating function, at least for
orders or actions subject to petitions for the moment, the question of constitutionality is
prohibition or mandamus. settled.
We made mention of “at least or for the moment”
CONCEPTS OF JUDICIAL REVIEW because there is this concept of RELATIVE
CONSTITUTIONALITY.
3 THEORIES OR FUNCTIONS OF JUDICIAL Central Bank Employees vs. BSP, when BSP
REVIEW was created by a law, there is a provision there
1. NEGATIVE OR CHECKING FUNCTION which states that those employees of the BSP
When the court exercises the Checking with salary grade over 19 shall be exempt from
Functions, we understand that the court the application of the salary standardization law
declares the act Or law as (SSL). If the salary is SG 19 and below, it shall
Unconstitutional. It behaves in a be subjected to the provisions of the SSL.
negative function where there is a Through the years, government financing
declaration that the law is inconsistent institutions (GFIS) have all been exempt from
with the Constitution. the coverage of SSL. When this case was finally
brought to the SC in 2004, only the employees
of the Central Bank falling in the category of
2. SYMBOLIC OR TEACHING FUNCTION GFIs “whose salary grade is 19 and below” have
been covered by the SSL. All the rest (of the
Symbolic Function has always been related to GFIs) have been receiving salary outside the
mootness and the exceptions when the court will salary grade.
decide a case even when it has already become In this case, there is a question of WON the
moot. It is because of the need for the court to provision in the CB is unconstitutional. The
formulate principles to serve as guide for both of respondent said that there was no declaration of
the bench and the bar or generally the public. unconstitutionality before so it should remain to
7
EDITED BY: Raia TRANSCRIBED BY: Brunx, Rhoda, Ces, Aning, Yna, Kye, Bon, Sid, James, Rjay, Justin,
Bryan
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 REVIEW 2015
4- MANRESA
8
EDITED BY: Raia TRANSCRIBED BY: Brunx, Rhoda, Ces, Aning, Yna, Kye, Bon, Sid, James, Rjay, Justin,
Bryan
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 REVIEW 2015
4- MANRESA
9
EDITED BY: Raia TRANSCRIBED BY: Brunx, Rhoda, Ces, Aning, Yna, Kye, Bon, Sid, James, Rjay, Justin,
Bryan
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 REVIEW 2015
4- MANRESA
Congress decides to enact a law, there can be measure the 200-mile exclusive economic zone
no court ruling compelling them to do otherwise. (EEZ). That is where most of the conflict comes
So, though diminished, Political Question about. The first 12 NM is still Philippine territory.
Doctrine still exists in our system despite the Most questions are asked regarding activities
inclusion in the judicial review definition in the done within the 12 NM. If there is a crime there,
Judicial Power provision of the1987 Constitution. then it shall be cognizable by the Philippine
courts. Outside the 12 NM, what is reserved to
PHILIPPINES AS A STATE the State would be exclusive economic
Basic discussion here would remain with our exploitation, exploration, or similar related
territorial sea, based on our concept of activities. Any activity not covered by that are
archipelago. UNCLOS has defined allowed: flight, overflight. No permission is
ARCHIPELAGO as “group of islands required from the state to which it pertains
surrounded by waters”. The subsection in the because that is not technically part of our
UNCLOS pertaining to the baseline that, “all the territory. That is outside of the first 12 NM.
waters surrounding the baseline, connecting the Outside of the first 12, you are no longer within
islands, regardless of the breadth and the Philippine territory.
dimension, shall be considered as internal
waters of the archipelago”. Waters within the July 24, 2015- James
baseline are considered internal waters
regardless of breadth and dimension. The CITIZENSHIP
modern understanding of archipelago is based The most asked in the bar exams would be on
on the body of water and not on the islands. citizenship, most especially 2016 when it is an
The only question that is probably and has been election year because of that concept of natural-
asked in the bar about territory is about what born citizens.
constitutes Philippine territory normally related to WHO ARE CITIZENS OF THE PHILIPPINES?
criminal jurisdiction. Problem is given like, 12 The first law which provided for the definition of
fishermen are arrested as reported in the news who are citizens of the Philippines would be
and they were convicted for having poached in Philippine Bill of 1902 when the Philippines was
the Tubattaha Reef. So question is if they were sold by Spain to the US under the Treaty of
caught poaching from a certain number of miles, Paris in 1898. There was no concept of who the
can they be charged in Philippine Courts under Filipino citizens are, so the Americans came up
the fisheries code. So mostly, the question on with a Philippine Bill of 1902 and they defined
territory will be on whether the principle in who are the citizens of the Philippines.
criminal law on territoriality. “Can they be Those who were native
charged under our criminal law?” So if you are inhabitants;
within the 12 nautical miles, even if it is still part All inhabitants of the Philippine
of the EEZ, you are technically within Philippine Islands from April 11, 1899, who
territory. Outside of that, Philippine laws do not resided in the Islands and who
apply. What apply would be the rights and opted not to preserve their
obligations claimable under the UNCLOS on allegiance to the crown of Spain;
“rightful ownership” or “claim of EEZ”. In the and
UNCLOS, there are no penal sanctions, of Their children born subsequent
course. thereto, were considered citizens
The outline mentions of 3 laws on baselines. 2 of the Philippine Islands.
laws on base points, one of these on straight It therefore includes what we know as Insulares
baseline method. From a certain point based on or Spanish-born insulars in the countries
the lowest watermark or base points and all colonized by Spain like the Philippines or those
base points surrounding archipelago shall be Spanish citizens whom we refer to as
connected by a straight base line and all the Peninsulares having been born in Spain, Spain
waters inside the baseline are internal waters. being part of the Aegean peninsula. If they are in
From the baseline, there shall be 12 nautical the Philippines as of April 11, 1891 up to the cut-
miles of the Territorial sea. This is an off date of 1899, they are all considered as
improvement from what we know before as the citizens of the Philippines.
cannon shot rule. From the same baseline we While we adhere to the mode of acquiring
10
EDITED BY: Raia TRANSCRIBED BY: Brunx, Rhoda, Ces, Aning, Yna, Kye, Bon, Sid, James, Rjay, Justin,
Bryan
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 REVIEW 2015
4- MANRESA
citizenship based on blood relations or jus the Philippines, it included those who are
sanguinis, for that period of time up to 1899, SC Spanish citizens who at the time of the adoption
decisions have been rendered applying the law of the 1935 Constitution were already elected to
on jus soli or acquiring citizenship by place of public office. So, if you are a Spanish subject or
birth because of the definition of who are Spanish national but you were, at the time of the
citizens of the Philippines under the Philippine adoption of the ‘35 Constitution, already
Bill of 1902. So, for a limited period of time, even occupying elective positions, you are considered
if you are a foreign national, being Spanish by to be citizens of the Philippines.
citizenship at birth, but if you are here, you are Those whose fathers are citizens of the
covered by the definition under Phil. Bill of 1902, Philippines and those whose mothers are
you are considered a citizen of the Philippines citizens of the Philippines but fathers are
based on place of birth. foreigners who elected Filipino citizenship upon
Citizens of the Philippines under the 1935 reaching the age of majority shall be considered
Constitution: citizens of the Philippines. And the last category
1. Those who are citizens of the would be those who are naturalized in
Philippines at the time of the adoption of accordance with law, which brings in the
this Constitution; concept that there are only two types of
2. Those born in the Philippines of foreign citizenship in the Philippines—either you are
parents who, before the adoption of this natural-born or naturalized.
Constitution, had been elected to public The problem there is with respect to children
office in the Philippines; born before or under the 1935 but before the
3. Those whose fathers are citizens of the 1973 constitution of a Filipino mother married to
Philippines; a foreigner father. There is no problem if the
4. Those whose mothers are citizens of the parents are not married to each other. If the
Philippines and, upon reaching the age child is illegitimate and the father is a Filipino
of majority, elect Philippine citizenship; and the mother a foreigner, the child is
and automatically a Filipino because under the ‘35, if
5. Those who are naturalized in the father is a Filipino, regardless of whether the
accordance with law. Filipino father/husband is married to a foreigner
1973 Constitution: mother/wife, automatically the child is Filipino. If
1. Those who are citizens of the the mother is Filipino and she is not married to
Philippines at the time of the adoption of the foreigner father/husband, the child is also
this Constitution; considered Filipino because of the intent to grant
2. Those whose fathers or mothers are the child the benefit of becoming a Filipino
citizens of the Philippines; citizen. Anyway, as provided in the Civil Code,
3. Those who elect Philippine citizenship the status, residence and even the custody and
pursuant to the provisions of the 1935 parental authority of an illegitimate child will
Constitution; always be with or that of the mother. In which
4. Those who are naturalized in case, if there is no marriage between the Filipino
accordance with law. mother and the foreigner father, the child will be
1987 Constitution: considered as a Filipino citizen. The problem is,
1. Those who are citizens of the when the Filipino mother and foreigner father
Philippines at the time of the adoption of are married. So, if they are married, under the
this Constitution; ‘35 constitution, the child must have to elect
2. Those whose fathers or mothers are Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of
citizens of the Philippines; majority. There are basic questions when or how
3. Those born before January 17,1973, of the mother’s citizenship is affected by the
Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine marriage to the foreigner husband. There are
citizenship upon reaching the age of two modes by which the Filipino mother will
majority; and become that of the foreigner husband’s
4. Those who are naturalized in citizenship:
accordance with law. 1. By operation of law; and
That is why in the 1935 Constitution where the 2. By the mother applying for naturalization
first listing of who are considered as citizens of in the foreign country.
11
EDITED BY: Raia TRANSCRIBED BY: Brunx, Rhoda, Ces, Aning, Yna, Kye, Bon, Sid, James, Rjay, Justin,
Bryan
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 REVIEW 2015
4- MANRESA
If the mother is deemed to have acquired the citizenship of the mother, which is the
citizenship of the foreigner husband, child born permanent thing. What the registration does is
of that marriage will always have the right to merely a confirmation of such substantial acts of
choose or elect Philippine citizenship upon election and the fact that there was failure to
reaching the age of majority because the fact of register, which was untraceable to them, should
losing her citizenship to become a foreigner is not deny them of that right. And more so, it
by operation of law, the mere fact of marriage. cannot erase the fact that their mother is a
But if the mother has applied for naturalization in Filipino citizen.
the country of the foreigner husband, the In Re: Ching- mentions the idea of what
question to be asked is: is there a Filipino constitutes reasonable time. And based on the
mother when the child was conceived? And 1958 opinion of the DOJ, reasonable time to
moreover, if there is still a Filipino mother when elect must fall within 3 years. In that case,
the child was at least conceived, even if the child another previous case was mentioned where the
was born when there is no more Filipino mother person has elected after 7 years and the SC
to talk about because she has been naturalized, said that should not fall within reasonable time.
the child will still have the right to elect or In the case of Ching, it took him 14 years before
choose Philippine citizenship upon reaching the he elected Phil. Citizenship. SC said there was
age of majority. Thus, if the mother, at the time no valid election within a reasonable time.
of conception, has already been naturalized fully Vilando vs. HRET- the issue was whether
in the country of the foreigner husband, there is Jocelyn Limkaichong should have elected upon
no more Filipino mother to talk about and the reaching the age of majority. One of the very
child born of that marriage will not fall into the first cases that were decided involving the same
category of a child born of a Filipino mother and issue as that of Limkaichong was the case of
a foreigner in which case, the child cannot elect Ong vs HRET. This was the first case decided
Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of under the ‘87 Constitution when the issue of
majority. qualification as a natural-born was first raised. In
Now, assuming that the child can elect under that case of Ong, as in the case of Limkaichong,
that category, your law on election is Ong was born of a Filipino mother married to a
Commonwealth Act No. 625. There are basically Chinese father. When he was 9 years of age, his
three simple things or acts that the child must father was granted naturalized status. The father
have to do upon reaching the age of majority or applied for naturalization and eventually granted
within a reasonable time therefrom to have a and it was fully granted when he was 9. So,
valid election: when he reached 21 years of age, Mr. Ong
1. The execution of a sworn statement or never filed any election or oath of allegiance.
affidavit of the fact of election; The question is, had he validly elected Filipino
2. The execution or signing of the oath of citizenship? The SC said there was no need
allegiance to the Philippine Constitution; because he was already a Filipino citizen when
and he reached the age of majority. Same thing with
3. The subsequent registration of these Limkaichong in the case of Vilando. Jocelyn
documents with the local civil registry, Limkaichong was born sometime in November
where the birth of the child, technically, 1959. After her Chinese father was granted
has been first registered. naturalized status in September 1959. So, at the
Ma vs. Fernandez- That case lacks the time she was born, she was born of a Filipino
registration of the two documents required, and father. The SC made a statement there,
the SC said that the children are still considered “regardless of how the father obtained Filipino
to have validly elected Filipino citizenship citizenship (either naturalized or natural-born),
despite the lack of registration because they the fact is that she was born of a Filipino father
have actually, substantially complied with the so, there was no need for her to elect Filipino
two formalities which is the sworn election and citizenship upon reaching the age of majority
the oath of allegiance; and the fact that there because if you are born under the ‘35
was no registration does not erase the fact that constitution of a Filipino father, automatically you
they have validly elected to choose Phil. would become a Filipino citizen.
Citizenship. The SC distinguished the basis for The problem with that proposition is that it does
election, and the basis for the election is the not admit of the effects of naturalization, which
12
EDITED BY: Raia TRANSCRIBED BY: Brunx, Rhoda, Ces, Aning, Yna, Kye, Bon, Sid, James, Rjay, Justin,
Bryan
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 REVIEW 2015
4- MANRESA
we will discuss later on. Hold that thought for a act of electing Filipino citizenship. Thus, we
moment and we will go back to that when we have mentioned that in the ‘87 constitution, that
reach the matter on naturalization. was clarified that even those children born of
Now, the matter is compounded because the ‘87 that circumstance in the ‘35 constitution are still
constitution requires, as qualification to national considered natural-born under the expanded
offices, natural-born citizenship. Your outline definition of the 1987 constitution on who are
lists down who are required to be natural-born. considered natural-born.
There are 8: So, the phrase “from birth” should refer to the
1. President (Art. VII, Sec. 2) fact of citizenship. Although in the case of those
2. Vice President (Art. VII, Sec. 3) children born of Filipino mothers and foreigner
3. Members of Congress (Art. VI, Secs. 3 fathers who are legally married to each other, do
& 6) not have full Filipino citizenship during minority
4. Justices of the SC and Lower Collegiate because they take the foreign citizenship of their
Courts (Art. VIII, Sec. 8) father. But if they elect Philippine citizenship
5. Ombudsman and Deputies (Art. XI, Sec. upon reaching the age of majority, the law
8) considers them to be Filipino citizens and
6. Constitutional Commission Members therefore, they are considered natural-born.
(Art. IX-B, C, D, Sec. 1(1)) Republic vs. Sagun mentions of the lack of any
7. Central Monetary Authority Members proceedings in our Rules of Court in our
(Art. XII, Sec. 20) jurisdiction for a declaration of your citizenship
8. Commission on Human Rights Members independent of a case filed to question your
(Art. XIII, Sec. 17(2)) citizenship. Differently stated, you can’t go to
The first definition of who are natural-born was court to file a petition to declare you a Filipino
first provided in the 1973 Constitution. It simply citizen, unless you file for naturalization. So if
states that, “those who are natural-born are your status has not been placed on issue, you
those who are citizens from birth WITHOUT cannot voluntary file a petition for you to be
performing an act to perfect or acquire their declared a Filipino citizen.
citizenship.” There are two operative phrases NATURALIZED CITIZENS
there: Who are naturalized Filipinos? Your outline
1. The fact of birth and the fact of mentions of your law there:
citizenship; and 1. Judicial naturalization under
2. The non-performance of an act to Commonwealth Act No. 473; and
perfect or acquire Filipino citizenship. 2. Administrative naturalization under
The first phrase mentions “from birth”. Does that Republic Act 9139.
phrase refer to the fact of citizenship or to the In judicial naturalization, you remember that the
fact that the person must not perform an act to substantive requirements would be ARC-PEN
perfect or acquire citizenship? That is asked (age, residency, character, property, education
because in the ‘73 Constitution, there was no and not otherwise disqualified by law). That is
mention of those born of Filipino mothers and the same requirement in administrative
foreigner fathers under the ‘35 who elect naturalization. The difference would be in the
Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of age.
majority. If a person is born under that CA 473 SUBSTANTIVE REQUIREMENTS:
circumstance in the ‘35, but has elected Filipino 1. Age- the original age requirement is 21
citizenship because he has reached the age of but it was reduced to 18.
majority, still under the ‘35 constitution, there 2. Residency- the requirement is that you
would be no question that he would fall as must have been a resident of the
natural-born simply because there was no Philippines for at least 10 years, which
definition of who are natural-born when he can be lowered to 5 years under special
elected under the ‘35. But the same type of kid circumstances. A foreigner male, if
or child who elected under the ‘73 constitution married to a Filipino woman, is
may have to face the difficult task of falling into automatically qualified to avail of the 5-
that definition because he may be considered a year residency.
natural-born having to perform an act to perfect If a foreigner woman is married to a
or acquire citizenship. And what is that act? The Filipino male, what should happen? The
13
EDITED BY: Raia TRANSCRIBED BY: Brunx, Rhoda, Ces, Aning, Yna, Kye, Bon, Sid, James, Rjay, Justin,
Bryan
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 REVIEW 2015
4- MANRESA
foreigner woman automatically becomes criminal case pending against them, but
a Filipino citizen without need of any they must have to prove that they are
judicial proceedings. Our legislators responsible members of society. That
then who were mostly males would want for the period of time of residency of
the likes of Katy Perry to come, but they petitioner-applicant that they have
do not want the likes of Brad Pitt. known the latter to be of such good
That is exactly the case of Republic v. moral character. The testimonies of the
Batuigas. The respondent here was vouching witnesses are important for the
married, is a Chinese citizen born in the court to determine whether they have
Philippines of Chinese parents. She good moral character.
married a Filipino citizen by the family 4. Property- since this is an old law, the
name of Batuigas. And so, she applied requirement is P5,000 worth of property.
to become a Filipino citizen based on 5. Education- requires that your minor
CA 473 where the law says that all you children, for the period of residency
have to do if you’re a foreigner woman here, must have been enrolled in
is to prove that you are not disqualified. schools which are not exclusive to
You do not have to prove that you are foreigners and they are, among others,
qualified. Only two things: teaching the subjects of Philippine
That you are married to a government, constitution, history and
Filipino male; and the like.
You are not disqualified under 6. Not otherwise disqualified by law- you
the law. have plenty there:
But the DOJ did not grant it for lack of Persons opposed to organize
proof that she was really married to a government or affiliated with any
Filipino male and then the husband association or group of persons
died. So, she filed a “petition for who uphold and teach doctrines
naturalization” under CA 473 to be opposing all organized
declared a Filipino citizen—she being a governments;
foreigner and having been married to a Persons defending or teaching
Filipino male and under the law is not the necessity or propriety of
disqualified. While the petition should violence, personal assault, or
not have been proper, the SC said it is assassination for the success
proper in this case because she had no and predominance of their
other option under the law. She should ideas;
not have gone through a naturalization Polygamists or believers in the
proceeding, but because the state did practice of polygamy;
not grant her what the law ought to have Persons convicted of crimes
granted her, this petition is proper to involving moral turpitude;
declare her as a Filipino citizen. Persons suffering from mental
3. Character- you must prove that you are alienation or incurable
of a good moral character, you have contagious diseases;
embraced Filipino values, customs and Persons who, during the period
traditions and that you have mingled of their residence in the
socially with Filipinos. In the case of Go Philippines, have NOT mingled
vs. Republic, the SC said that in socially with the Filipinos, or
naturalization proceedings, the who have not evinced a sincere
witnesses required to prove that the desire to learn and embrace the
applicant petitioner is of good moral customs, traditions, and ideals
character must also be credible of the Filipinos;
witnesses and they are referred to as Citizens or subjects of nations
vouching witnesses. SC made mention with whom the Philippines is at
that to be credible witnesses, they must war, during the period of such
have only proved that they do not have war; and
any criminal record, they don’t have any Citizens or subjects of a foreign
14
EDITED BY: Raia TRANSCRIBED BY: Brunx, Rhoda, Ces, Aning, Yna, Kye, Bon, Sid, James, Rjay, Justin,
Bryan
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 REVIEW 2015
4- MANRESA
15
EDITED BY: Raia TRANSCRIBED BY: Brunx, Rhoda, Ces, Aning, Yna, Kye, Bon, Sid, James, Rjay, Justin,
Bryan
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 REVIEW 2015
4- MANRESA
father/husband/applicant, which is that of a citizens from birth. So, only children belonging to
naturalized Filipino. So, the question is, is the the fourth category are natural born.
mother naturalized or natural born? Since the So imagine if Lebron James and wife would
mother is a foreigner, she is naturalized. What come over, decide to live in the Philippines and
about the minor children? Children of majority apply for naturalization, they have minor
age are not affected. But minor children, there’s children, would their children be considered
a difference in treatment: natural born? Their children would never be
1. If the minor children are born in the considered natural born because they are not
Philippines and are here during the citizens from birth. People have this
grant of naturalization, the children misconception or wrong notion that if a child is a
automatically becomes a Filipino. Is the minor and acquires or derives the citizenship of
child naturalized or natural born? the father foreigner that the child becomes
2. If the child is born outside the natural born because he did not perform an act
Philippines but at the time of the grant, to acquire or perfect his or her citizenship.
the child is residing in the Philippines, Again, the phrase “from birth” emphasizes the
the child becomes a Filipino. Is the child fact of citizenship, not the non-performance of
naturalized or natural born? act to perfect or acquire citizenship because as
3. Those children born outside and are you all know, under the most recent law, RA
outside of the country when the 9225, if you’re natural born and lost it by
father/husband/applicant was naturalization in a foreign country, you re-
naturalized. Those children will only acquire it under 9225, what would you be after
become Filipino citizens when they the acquisition? Would you be naturalized or
reach the age of majority if they reside natural born? You would still be natural born
in the Philippines. because what you re-acquired is your former
4. Children born AFTER the grant of status of citizenship. If you were formerly natural
naturalization to the father, they are born, you have lost it, you did an act to re-
considered Filipino citizens because acquire it, even if you performed an act, the law
they are now born of a Filipino father. considers you to have re-acquired your original
Question: Are these children natural born or status which is natural born.
naturalized? In RA 9139, this applies only to those who were
I asked you to hold the thought before on the born in the country as foreigners.
other case because if a child is born of SUBSTANTIVE REQUIREMENTS:
naturalized parents after they have become 1. Age- applicant must be of legal age.
naturalized, then they are natural-born citizens 2. Residency- the difference here is there
because they are from birth they are citizens. is no declaration of intention required
But if the father is a foreigner, the mother is a because the residency requirement
foreigner, the father has been naturalized, the must be SINCE BIRTH. You must have
mother derives it, and the child, also a foreigner been born here and you must have
originally, becomes a Filipino. The question is, is been residing here since birth.
the child considered natural born? Because the 3. Character- good moral character.
definition again is that natural born are those 4. Property- P5,000 worth of property,
citizens from birth without having to perform an except if you are engaged in some form
act to perfect or acquire citizenship. Yes, the first of gainful livelihood.
three categories of children have not performed 5. Education- this would be different also
an act to perform or acquire because it is only because it is applicable to you, the
their father who applied for naturalization. They applicant and your minor children. In
were minors, they were not doing anything to other words, from birth, you must have
acquire or perfect their citizenship. But are they studied in Philippine schools and these
natural born? The answer is they are NOT schools must have to teach Phil.
NATURAL BORN because they are NOT Government, history and constitution. In
citizens from birth. Only those children born of 473 (judicial naturalization), only the
those originally foreigner parents who were born minor children because the presumption
after the grant of naturalization would be of law when you came here, either you
considered natural born because they are have already studied or too old to study.
16
EDITED BY: Raia TRANSCRIBED BY: Brunx, Rhoda, Ces, Aning, Yna, Kye, Bon, Sid, James, Rjay, Justin,
Bryan
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 REVIEW 2015
4- MANRESA
17
EDITED BY: Raia TRANSCRIBED BY: Brunx, Rhoda, Ces, Aning, Yna, Kye, Bon, Sid, James, Rjay, Justin,
Bryan
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 REVIEW 2015
4- MANRESA
18
EDITED BY: Raia TRANSCRIBED BY: Brunx, Rhoda, Ces, Aning, Yna, Kye, Bon, Sid, James, Rjay, Justin,
Bryan
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 REVIEW 2015
4- MANRESA
laws making him a citizen of the Philippines and 9225, he must have to execute a sworn
that of another country. renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship. In
If you remember, in the 1960 Convention on that context, the dual citizenship provision in the
Nationality, the basic premise is that, it is for LGC is to be interpreted to mean DUAL
each state to determine who are its citizens. So CITIZENSHIP literally, and not dual allegiance
in the context of Philippine law, the question to as in the case of Valles and Mercado.
be answered is that: is a person a citizen of the
Philippines or not? It is not for our laws or the Allegiance is voluntary on the part of the person
courts to determine: if he is not Filipino, what is while citizenship may be involuntary as in those
his nationality. Because we only apply Philippine 3 situations. So a person may be a Filipino
laws as to the issue or question of the citizen solely but may have allegiances other
citizenship of a person. So that by reason of the than in the Philippines. And it does not mean
application of two laws due to mixed marriages; that if a person has dual citizenship, that he has
for example, a Filipino woman married to a dual allegiances also because like in the cases
foreigner and by the laws of the country of the of Mercado and Valles, involuntarily, a Filipino
foreigner spouse, the Filipino becomes a citizen may also be considered a citizen of another
of a foreign country, or a child born of that country even if he does not owe allegiance to
marriage, or a child born of that marriage or that foreign country.
even of Filipino couple but in a country which
follows the rule on jus soli. Involuntarily, those SOVEREIGNTY
individuals become dual citizens. They are
citizens of the Philippines as well as that of the SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY
foreign country without applying for BAR: What is the Royal Prerogative of
naturalization. Dishonesty? It is a state immunity of a foreign
So that in the former ruling, which are still good state claiming immunity in the Philippines. It was
law today, if that kind of person runs for public used by the Phils SC in the case where the US
office, and in the same COC (which is sworn), govt was sued in the Phils and it claimed
declares that he owes allegiance only to the immunity from suit. The SC used the phrase
Philippines, that is considered to be an express Royal Prerogative of Dishonesty.
renunciation of his foreign allegiances which
under Sec 5 of Art. IV, is inimical if he has dual State immunity is not provided for in the
allegiance. Constitution. The phrase under Art 16 Sec 3
That's why in those two cases (Valles and (The State may not be sued without its consent),
Mercado), the SC said that the dual citizenship is a limitation on State Immunity. As long as the
disqualification in the LGC does not apply to State exists, it automatically is immune from suit
them because it should be dual allegiance. for two reasons:
Sworn renunciation in the COC is sufficient to
make him only owing allegiance to the Phils. a. Positivist theory: There can be no legal right
Again, because of the fact that he is dual citizen against the state or the authority that
is involuntary on his part. makes the laws on which all rights
depend. Holmes in
Unlike in 9225, as in the case of Jacot v Dal, Kawananakoa v Polyblank. The state is
Lopez v COMELEC, the SC said that because not suable for practical consideration
of 9225, there is now a specific requirement that and based on the theory that there is no
there must have to be a separate sworn violation of right against the state which
renunciation of foreign citizenship. So that the makes the laws for which the rights
sworn renunciation that is found in the COC will commenced.
not be sufficient because that is renunciation of b. Sociological theory: If the State is amenable
foreign allegiances. RA 9225 applies specifically to suits, all its time would be spent
to situations where a natural-born Filipino has defending itself from suits and this
lost his Filipino citizenship because of would prevent it from performing its
naturalization abroad and has reacquired it other functions. Republic v Villasor, 54
under 9225, he is considered dual citizen even SCRA 8. For practical considerations,
under Phil laws. And so under Sec 5 (par 2) of the state will have to be immune from
19
EDITED BY: Raia TRANSCRIBED BY: Brunx, Rhoda, Ces, Aning, Yna, Kye, Bon, Sid, James, Rjay, Justin,
Bryan
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 REVIEW 2015
4- MANRESA
suit for it not to be bombarded with and therefore it can only be given away by
cases. congress through a statute.
The practical consideration there is, if the state
is not immune from suit, at the slightest ACT 3083 (still a good law) - it is an act
provocation, people will sue anybody providing for consent for the state to be sued on
including the state and the state may any money claim arising from contract, express
have to spend all its rights and or implied. So if your claim against the
resources to defend itself. In which government is a money claim arising from
case, public service and governance will contract (express or implied), you can sue via
be affected. ACT 3083.
The Constitution grants a limitation that if there
is consent, the state can be sued. State Incorporation of GOCCs - because of the
immunity can only be availed of when it is clearly incorporation of that entity, it takes that away
a suit against the state. from the concept of a state in state immunity. It
will also take away the funds of the GOCC from
When is a Suit against the state? 3 the concept of public funds in the public
situations: treasury. Yes, their moneys are public funds but
they are not in the national treasury. They are
. a) When the republic is sued by name (Ex. deposited in GFIs as required by law and they
Juan v RP) are not subject to appropriation whenever they
. b) When an UNincorporated government are taken. They are just withdrawn, and need
entity is sued not go through the appropriations in congress.
. -because if incorporated, it totally takes that
away from the concept of State Implied consent - when the govt enters into a
immunity because it becomes an entity business contract. In US v. Ginto and
on its own. Ex. GOCCS (with or without companion cases, these were cases involving
original charter), if it is INcorporated, US officers in the US facilities here in the Phils.,
state immunity does not apply. sued by Filipinos over some acts. One was for
. c) If a public officer is sued in his official employment contract over a cook who was fired
capacity. for pouring urine in the soup stock, so he filed
- If a public officer is sued due to abuse of for illegal dismissal with the NLRC. The US
authority, acting without jurisdiction, or if there officer, as a public officer, claimed immunity by
was malice on his part, it will no longer be the saying that the US government has not
responsibility of the State. Liability pertains to consented. The SC mentioned here the Royal
the public officer. Prerogative of Dishonesty, why a foreign
government can claim immunity from here. As
The common denominator of these three types you remember, when foreign government or
of cases would be that in case of an adverse state claims immunity in the Phils, it is not about
ruling, it would mean that there would be the general concept of state immunity, as used
financial liability on the part of the state, by the Phils as a state. It is used by a foreign
requiring it to appropriate sums of money from state claiming exception from jurisdiction in the
the public treasury. If there is no requirement on Phils. because of the doctrine of incorporation. It
the state to appropriate money from the is not section 3 of Art XVI because that refers to
treasury, that case may not fall under the the Phil state. Under Art 2 on the Doctrine of
concept of state immunity. Incorporation, generally accepted principles of
international law are deemed incorporated as
Consent can either be express or implied. forming part of the law of the land. Equality
Express consent is only through a statute; there among sovereigns is a generally accepted
can be no other way. It cannot be by contract, principle in international law. One sovereign
express declaration of a president. No amount of cannot be placed under the jurisdiction of
public declaration, even by a President, can another sovereign and vice-versa, otherwise it
result to express consent. And so, it is only by will result into vexing the peace among nations.
the act of congress, because waiver of immunity With that, foreign states can also claim
is actually a diminution of the state's authority immunity from here, based from those 3
20
EDITED BY: Raia TRANSCRIBED BY: Brunx, Rhoda, Ces, Aning, Yna, Kye, Bon, Sid, James, Rjay, Justin,
Bryan
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 REVIEW 2015
4- MANRESA
21
EDITED BY: Raia TRANSCRIBED BY: Brunx, Rhoda, Ces, Aning, Yna, Kye, Bon, Sid, James, Rjay, Justin,
Bryan
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 REVIEW 2015
4- MANRESA
nature of the relief which the state seeks state liability because the public officer is sued
in the litigation. If the state enters into by reason of his malicious conduct acting in
litigation which seeks dismissal under grave abuse of power without authority, then it is
immunity, it is not open to counterclaim his personal liability, it is not the State’s liability,
because it is not a waiver. But if the thereby taking it away from the concept of state
state seeks affirmative relief against immunity.
another party, the other party can now
ask a claim against the state and that In relation to that, there are some immunities
maybe in a form of counterclaim which other officers of the Philippines enjoy and
because the state is deemed to have are categorized under what is commonly known
descended into the level of an ordinary as impeachable officers. You remember,
party-claimant to a case opening itself to impeachable officers are your President, Vice
any counterclaim. President, members of the SC, members of the
Now, consent to be sued is only Constitutional Commission and the
necessary if it is a suit against the state Ombudsman. There are five officers, there are
in order for the party claimant to six grounds. By reason of the fact that they are
proceed with and prosecute the case. impeachable officers, we understand that they
The liability is not dependent upon enjoy some form of immunity for any and all
consent because liability is always types of cases which may effectively remove
dependent on the evidence on hand and them from office before impeachment. Except
the applicable laws on a given set of for the President who is immune absolutely
facts. So rule is if it is a suit against the during his term of office, all other four other
state, there is no consent, obviously you impeachable officers enjoy relative immunity
cannot prove liability on the part of the from all cases which may effectively remove
state. If it is a suit against the state, them from office. So for example, a SC justice
there is consent (express or implied), it cannot be subjected to what seemingly is
is not automatic that the state is liable. administrative case for disbarment before
You are given the chance to prove that impeachment because membership in the bar is
the state is liable based on evidence a qualification to the SC. You must impeach him
and based on the applicable rules, but if first before he can be subject to disbarment. The
there is no consent, there is no way to same thing with all the rest, which has the
prove liability on the part of the state. special qualification of being a member of the
Now the consent is valid from bar. They enjoy that kind of immunity.
the initiation of the action up to the They are not immune because they are public
rendition of decision. It is not good post- officers under the concept of state immunity, and
rendition of decision. The decision it should not be understood that their immunity is
favorable to a plaintiff- claimant cannot that of the State. The President is immune
be executed like ordinary writs under absolutely during his term, regardless of when
Rule 39 because you will have to submit the cause of action exists even before or prior
to COA, and COA has to file it to the to, as opposed to the president of the US, the
DBM. If the DBM has no money for it, it sitting President of the US is immune from suit
is supposed to be incorporated in the where the cause of actions exists during his
budget proposal for the government term. But he is not immune for causes of action
entity which was the defendant-debtor which exists prior to his term. He can be sued
maybe, or it may be funded by even during his term.
Congress, during the deliberations
during the next year’s General Diplomatic Immunity
Appropriations Act. It is not implemented
by mere execution under ordinary In relation to immunities of public officers, there
execution rules in Rule 39. are two conventions in Vienna: the 1961
Now, in relation to immunity, because of the Convention on Diplomatic Relations; and the
concept of public officers sued in their official 1963 Convention on Consular Relations.
capacity, we have made mention that if it is With respect to the 1961 Convention, the
personal, it is taken away from the concept of officers mentioned enjoy absolute immunity from
22
EDITED BY: Raia TRANSCRIBED BY: Brunx, Rhoda, Ces, Aning, Yna, Kye, Bon, Sid, James, Rjay, Justin,
Bryan
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 REVIEW 2015
4- MANRESA
the application of the laws of the host country. Pope, the Vatican as a State. It’s like an
They refer to the heads of mission, independent State which has a diplomatic
ambassadors, nuncios inter nuncios and relation with us and the Holy See cannot be
chargés d’affaires. In the 1963 Consular sued and cannot be placed under the jurisdiction
Convention, they only refer to the curricular of our courts and no law is technically applicable
and consular duties of the consuls and the just like a foreign sovereign.
officers there. Relative immunity for official For other international inter-governmental
duties. And they are immune from the organization or nongovernmental international
application of the laws of the host country. organizations, these organizations are normally
In the 2014 bar exams, this was asked, because established by several members or contracting
a rare case happened in the Philippines. An states and there is a common provision there
Italian ambassador with an ambassador status that they cannot be subjected to certain laws,
in another country went to the Philippines for not all the laws, of the member country which
vacation. And he went to one of the resorts in they may be found. If you remember the case of
the Philippines and he decided to pick up some Liang of the Asian Development Bank (Liang
boys because he had a liking for boys. And so vs. People, March 26, 2001), there is an
he was arrested for pedophilia. So there was agreement with respect to the presence of the
that question whether he is immune from the ADB here as to what it is exempt from and as to
application of the Philippine laws because he is what it is not exempt from. The ADB is not
an Italian ambassador or with an ambassador exempt from the application of Philippine laws
status but not to the Philippines. The Philippines with respect to banking practice. But other than
was not the host country. It only applies to the that, like in a labor case, it is not subject to the
host country. If you are elsewhere, then you jurisdiction of the NLRC.
do not enjoy diplomatic immunity. So in the What about Congress? We have the President,
host country they are immune from all kinds of members of the Supreme Court. Do members of
laws: criminal, civil, or administrative. That’s Congress enjoy immunity? At most you can give
absolute immunity. The only remedy of the host them that immunity under the speech and
country is to compel the departure of that person debate clause. They may, in any expression,
with immunity is to refer him as a persona non utterances that they have made in Congress,
grata and his diplomatic papers will be revoked they shall not be liable in any other place except
or returned and he will have no right to be in Congress. That’s why in the news if you might
received by the host country. have read, the Makabayan group has protested
As to other international organization, the UN inside the Congress in joint session when the
and its attached agencies are absolutely President was deliberating the SONA. Some
immune from the applicability of the laws of the would say they should have not done that being
State where it may be found. Because this was models of decorum, but you see it is Congress.
based on the establishment of the UN that it will And Congress is the term used for a collective
not be subject to the jurisdiction or authority of group of baboons. So it is not surprising.
any of the member States. So you have many
cases here in your outline decided by the SC. July 29, 2015- Brunx
The World Health Organization, International *stories about the budget*
Labor Organization. They rent office spaces
here and if they do not pay, you cannot even CONGRESS
sue them because they are beyond the Now we are starting with Congress.
application of our laws and beyond the
jurisdiction of our courts. Of course, those are
previous cases. I think now they will pay the
rents if they are sued for payment. But in case it
happens they are really immune from the
application of our laws and beyond the
jurisdiction of our courts.
The same is true with the Holy See. You have
come across the case of Holy See, there’s a
judge, the Holy See is the representative of the
23
EDITED BY: Raia TRANSCRIBED BY: Brunx, Rhoda, Ces, Aning, Yna, Kye, Bon, Sid, James, Rjay, Justin,
Bryan
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 REVIEW 2015
4- MANRESA
Section 4. The term of office of the Senators In the old case of Romualdez vs. Comelec, the
shall be six years and shall commence, unless fact that Ms. Romualdez moved to Manila to
otherwise provided by law, at noon on the marry Marcos and stayed there for most of their
thirtieth day of June next following their election. adult life, that doesn’t mean she has abandoned
No Senator shall serve for more than two her domicile of origin simply because she has
consecutive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the married and established residence in
office for any length of time shall not be Malacanang. A married woman or man can
considered as an interruption in the continuity of maintain his domicile of origin even if he has
his service for the full term of which he was established a family home elsewhere.
elected.
The Domicile of Origin may be changed based
on 3 basic requirements:
House of Representatives: 1. There must have been a bona fide
intention of establishing a new domicile
Section 6. No person shall be a Member of the 2. There must be an actual uprooting or
House of Representatives unless he is a natural- removal of one’s self from the domicile
born citizen of the Philippines and, on the day of of origin to the domicile of choice
the election, is at least twenty-five years of age, 3. Performance of acts which are
able to read and write, and, except the party-list constitutive of the good faith intention of
representatives, a registered voter in the district changing a domicile.
in which he shall be elected, and a resident
thereof for a period of not less than one year In your outline, there are several cases there.
immediately preceding the day of the election. The case of Sabili vs. Comelec, it was in part
reiterated in Mitra vs. Comelec. The
THE OBLIGATIONS FOR MEMBERS OF performance of acts constitutive of the good faith
CONGRESS intention of transferring your domicile need not
be accomplished in 1 single act. There can be
There’s not much discussion there except for such a thing as incremental process – you can
residence, because that’s where most of the transfer now like in the case of Mitra, transfer to
cases are: 1 place from Puerto Prinsesa to Aragolan? on a
For the house of senate, there’s the 2 leased premises and eventually bought a
year requirement residence, establishing his business, it can be
For the house of representatives, 1 year accomplished overtime to show there was good
in the district faith intention of establishing a residence.
For party-list representatives only 1 year There’s no need of uprooting yourself and your
in the Philippines because they are not concerns at one period of time.
elected by district.
In the case of Talaga vs. Comelec, it was also
Now speaking of residency, it has been in the reiterative of that ruling, although the issue there
24
EDITED BY: Raia TRANSCRIBED BY: Brunx, Rhoda, Ces, Aning, Yna, Kye, Bon, Sid, James, Rjay, Justin,
Bryan
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 REVIEW 2015
4- MANRESA
25
EDITED BY: Raia TRANSCRIBED BY: Brunx, Rhoda, Ces, Aning, Yna, Kye, Bon, Sid, James, Rjay, Justin,
Bryan
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 REVIEW 2015
4- MANRESA
26
EDITED BY: Raia TRANSCRIBED BY: Brunx, Rhoda, Ces, Aning, Yna, Kye, Bon, Sid, James, Rjay, Justin,
Bryan
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 REVIEW 2015
4- MANRESA
Then in the case of Aquino vs. Comelec, this So should it apply to provinces?
was the issue on the creation of additional The SC said based on the deliberations
27
EDITED BY: Raia TRANSCRIBED BY: Brunx, Rhoda, Ces, Aning, Yna, Kye, Bon, Sid, James, Rjay, Justin,
Bryan
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 REVIEW 2015
4- MANRESA
28
EDITED BY: Raia TRANSCRIBED BY: Brunx, Rhoda, Ces, Aning, Yna, Kye, Bon, Sid, James, Rjay, Justin,
Bryan
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 REVIEW 2015
4- MANRESA
have a track record of advocacy for their account of the rule on reapportionment.
respective sectors. [this is what is referred to as 3. After that, those parties which have
an ideological requirement. You may not be one garnered at least 2% of the total number
of the poor, you need only to have a track record of votes cast for the party list is entitled
of doing things for the poor.] The nominees of to 1 seat. SC referred to that as the
national and regional parties or organizations guaranteed seat.
must be bona-fide members of such parties or 4. The number of guaranteed seats shall
organizations. be deducted then to the number of seats
to be allocated for the party list [20%].
6. National, regional, and sectoral parties or 5. The difference will be considered as the
organizations shall not be disqualified if some of remaining seats. Now who shall be
their nominees are disqualified, provided that entitled to the remaining seats? Now,
they have at least one nominee who remains the parties from top to bottom, there will
qualified.” be a determination on how many
number of seats of the remaining seats
And that was part of the ruling in Abang shall the party or the parties will be
Lingkod v. COMELEC 2013 ruling as well, entitled to. The parties’ votes shall be
where the SC reiterated that the nominees need divided by the total number of votes
not belong to the sector, they only need to have cast. The percentage result will then be
a track record and the nominees are required to multiplied with the remaining seats and
submit that they accepted the nomination and the product will be number of seats the
submission of the list nominees cannot be party will get from the remaining seats.
changed subject to those 2 exceptions under RA 6. Until the 20% is filled up.
7941. 7. There shall be no rounding off of
fractions unless its .9. Lower than that, it
ALLOCATION OF SEATS FOR PARTY LIST will not be rounded off.
8. And no party shall be entitled to more
This has also been substantially changed than 3 seats – because that’s the
because of the ruling in 2009 Banat v. threshold for maximum number of
COMELEC. Before the Banat ruling, there was allowed seats.
the Veterans vs. Comelec case where the 2%
threshold is required for a party to be allocated a TERM LIMITATIONS
seat. In the Banat ruling, the SC re-evaluated
the provision and the Constitution says the 20% Now, all the members of congress, HOR or
of the seats of the lower house shall be Senate, follow the 3-term limitation rule.
allocated for the party list, that is a mandatory
requirement so that there will be representation One the very first cases in the 3-term limitation
under the party list system in Congress or Lower rule discussed would be the cases of Aldovino
House – that 20% must be filled up. v. COMELEC. It involved a preventive
suspension while in Congress. Should that
So even if the party does not reach the 2% period of time during his preventive suspension
threshold in the previous ruling, this time now, be deducted for purposes of 3 term limitation?
the number of seats must be filled up regardless Because the rule on 3-term limitations provide
of the fact of whether the party has reached the that voluntary renunciation shall not be
threshold. So what is to be done today is to: considered as interruption of the term.
1. Rank all the parties based on votes
garnered from top to bottom For the house of senate, you have 2 consecutive
2. Then the 20% of the total number of terms. For the house of representatives, you
seats for the lower house must have to have 3 consecutive terms. Now the rationale
be determined to determine the number behind the term limitations is to avoid over-
of seats to be allocated for the party list. concentration of power in 1 person if he is made
This 20% has been turning every to serve more than what the law allows. And it’s
election simply because the number also to infuse newer blood into politics.
districts would necessarily increase on
29
EDITED BY: Raia TRANSCRIBED BY: Brunx, Rhoda, Ces, Aning, Yna, Kye, Bon, Sid, James, Rjay, Justin,
Bryan
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 REVIEW 2015
4- MANRESA
This case of Abundo vs. Comelec qualified all mayor, he participated in the recall
the rules on 3 term limitation. This is in local election.]
government, but the principle applies in position
where we follow term limitations. The Abundo 4. Conversion of LGU: “The abolition of an
ruling mentions of 8 rules there: [I did not elective local office due to the
transcribe what sir said explicitly, refer to ruling conversion of a municipality to a city
of Court as outlined by Sir below and his does not, by itself, work to interrupt the
comments after] incumbent official’s continuity of service
(Latasa).” [because the evil sought to be
1. Rule on succession: “When a avoided by reason of term limitation still
permanent vacancy occurs in an exists, it is the same territory, it is the
elective position and the official merely same constituency.]
assumed the position pursuant to the
rules on succession under the LGC, 5. Preventive suspension: Preventive
then his service for the unexpired suspension is not a term-interrupting
portion of the term of the replaced event as the elective officer’s continued
official cannot be treated as one full stay and entitlement to the office remain
term as contemplated under the subject unaffected during the period of
constitutional and statutory provision suspension, although he is barred from
that service cannot be counted in the exercising the functions of his office
application of any term limit (Borja, Jr.).” during this period (Aldovino, Jr.). [it is
considered as not to affect the term,
2. The 2nd rule is the reverse: “If the official meaning it is counted as a term]
runs again for the same position he held
prior to his assumption of the higher 6. When a candidate is proclaimed as
office, then his succession to said winner for an elective position and
position is by operation of law and is assumes office, his term is interrupted
considered an involuntary severance or when he loses in an election protest and
interruption (Montebon).” [because we is ousted from office, thus disenabling
always follow the elected-and-served him from serving what would otherwise
rule. So if you have not been elected to be the unexpired portion of his term of
Congress but you served, it is not a term office had the protest been dismissed
counted for it even if you have served (Lonzanida and Dizon).
that office but you have not been
elected to that office, that will also not Example ni Sir: Candidate A was
be counted as a term for purposes of proclaimed but a protest was filed
term limitation] against him but before the end of his
term he loses in the protest case, so he
3. Recall Elections: “An elective official, was removed from office. Is that term
who has served for three consecutive counted against him? No, because it
terms and who did not seek the elective has not been served. Again we follow
position for what could be his fourth the elected-and-served rule. Even if he
term, but later won in a recall election, has been elected and serving for 2
had an interruption in the continuity of years and 10 months, but he was
the official’s service. For, he had removed for the last 2 months, that will
become in the interim, i.e., from the end not be considered as his term because
of the 3rd term up to the recall election, he has not fully served the term.
a private citizen (Adormeo and
Socrates).” [He can run in the recall 7. Example ni Sir: If an officer has been
election because there is a voluntary elected, he has won, served, despite
interruption after the prohibited fact that he has lost in the election
consecutive term. This was the case of protest, but the decision to oust him
the Mayor of Puerto Prinsesa, he served came AFTER the term has been duly
for 3 terms, he rested, there was a served, [in the Philippines, election
30
EDITED BY: Raia TRANSCRIBED BY: Brunx, Rhoda, Ces, Aning, Yna, Kye, Bon, Sid, James, Rjay, Justin,
Bryan
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 REVIEW 2015
4- MANRESA
happens every 3 years, protests cannot COMELEC and eventually, petition for protest
be decided within the 3 year period] will with the HRET. You may have remembered in
the term be counted to him even if he 2010, Rep. Singson of Ilocos was arrested in
was not legally elected to that position Hongkong International Airport for carrying 6.7
having lost in the election protest? SC grams of cocaine. After plea bargaining, he
said yes, because technically has pleaded guilty and was sentenced to over 1 year
already fully served and the fact that he imprisonment. Having served in the election
has been disqualified [meaning not duly after the sentence was laid down with finality,
elected] came after full service of the Baterina and Singson ran for the 2013 elections.
term. The petition for disqualification and petition to
deny due course to the COC was denied by the
8. Sir: In the case of Abundo is that you COMELEC and eventually, Singson won. The
are the protestee. Election, you lost, you matter was referred to the HRET. The HRET
filed a protest, before the end of the dismissed the protest on the ground that the
term the protestee won the protest and conviction of possession of drugs is not a
therefore he was proclaimed the winner ground for disqualification. The disqualification
and made to serve. Will that term be here was not based on the provisions of the
counted for him? No, because while he Constitution, with respect to qualifications. As it
has been declared the winner, and is, you should remember the case of SJS v
therefore elected, he has not fully Dangerous Drugs Board (570 SCRA 410). When
served the term. the Constitution provides for qualifications of
office, that cannot be amended by law. So when
NOTE: These are parts of the ruling of the case that law (RA 9165) required mandatory drug
where Sir Montejo did not mention. For 7 and 8 testing for national officers whose qualifications
above, he only mentioned examples. Please are provided in the Constitution, that portion of
take note: the law was declared unconstitutional because
no law can amend the Constitution. So, no
“The break or interruption need not be for a full wonder a lot of drug users and addicts are in
term of three years or for the major part of the 3- Congress.
year term; an interruption for any length of time,
provided the cause is involuntary, is sufficient to This was based on Sec. 12 of the Omnibus
break the continuity of service (Socrates, citing Elections Code, where conviction of a crime by
Lonzanida). final judgment – among others – including moral
turpitude, is a ground for disqualification. That
When an official is defeated in an election was the basis for disqualification. It was not
protest and said decision becomes final after because of the constitutional requirements of
said official had served the full term for said qualification. The SC eventually dismissed the
office, then his loss in the election contest does petition filed against the HRET and said that the
not constitute an interruption since he has COMELEC and HRET did not commit grave
managed to serve the term from start to finish. abuse of discretion. There were 3 grounds
His full service, despite the defeat, should be mentioned:
counted in the application of term limits because 1) Technicality, because the petition with
the nullification of his proclamation came after the SC was filed outside the 30-day
the expiration of the term (Ong and Rivera).” reglamentary period. As you all know,
decisions from the HRET are reviewable
So those are the rules of counting of term of under Article IX-A, Sec. 9 to the SC via
office or applicability in successive terms under Rule 64, in relation to Rule 65. It was
term limitations. filed outside the 30-day period.
2) On the substantial discussions, the
Aug. 4, 2015-Yna petitioner Baterina needed to prove the
The item on qualifications. You may have read existence of the foreign judgment of
the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of conviction, which also goes to your
Baterina v Singson. This has something to do knowledge of Civil Procedure. How do
with the petition for disqualification with the you prove the existence of a foreign
31
EDITED BY: Raia TRANSCRIBED BY: Brunx, Rhoda, Ces, Aning, Yna, Kye, Bon, Sid, James, Rjay, Justin,
Bryan
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 REVIEW 2015
4- MANRESA
judgment? What was presented here until after the expiration of the full term of all the
was a downloaded and printed copy Members of the Senate and the House of
from the internet. Is that, under Representatives approving such increase.
Electronic Evidence, admissible ARTICLE XVIII, SECTION 17. Until the
evidence? Congress provides otherwise, the President
3) On the issue of moral turpitude, which is shall receive an annual salary of three hundred
on the qualification aspect, SC said that thousand pesos; the Vice-President, the
drug possession does not involve moral President of the Senate, the Speaker of the
turpitude. Drug possession and use, not House of Representatives, and the Chief Justice
sale and trafficking, does not involve of the Supreme Court, two hundred forty
moral turpitude. So let’s do drugs, thousand pesos each; the Senators, the
provided we don’t sell. Members of the House of Representatives, the
The SC said that what defines moral turpitude is Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, and
the character or kind of public act. It is not only the Chairmen of the Constitutional
that it is mala prohibita, but it must be inherently Commissions, two hundred four thousand pesos
immoral. And the doing of the act itself, not the each; and the Members of the Constitutional
statute fixing penalties, characterizes or defines Commissions, one hundred eighty thousand
it as one involving moral turpitude. pesos each.
ARTICLE VI, SECTION 11. A Senator or
2. ELECTION Member of the House of Representatives shall,
A. REGULAR ELECTION in all offenses punishable by not more than six
ARTICLE VI, SECTION 8. Unless otherwise years imprisonment, be privileged from arrest
provided by law, the regular election of the while the Congress is in session. No Member
Senators and the Members of the House of shall be questioned nor be held liable in any
Representatives shall be held on the second other place for any speech or debate in the
Monday of May. Congress or in any committee thereof.
Because of the synchronization of election, 12 With salaries, the discussion there is with
senators are elected every 3 years. respect to the increase. What is to be made
clear is that there is no prohibition on a law
B. SPECIAL ELECTION being passes, increasing the salary. There is
ARTICLE VI, SECTION 9. In case of vacancy in only a prohibition on the increase taking effect
the Senate or in the House of Representatives, before their term ends. So that even if the
a special election may be called to fill such present Congress will enact a law increasing the
vacancy in the manner prescribed by law, but salary of its members, that is allowable. What is
the Senator or Member of the House of not allowable is for that law to take effect during
Representatives thus elected shall serve only for such term. The Constitution uses the singular
the unexpired term. word “term” to indicate the terms of office of all
the members of Congress that approved the
law, regardless of whether the member has
There is a specification on the period of voted in the negative. This should not have been
prohibition where there could be no special a problem, except for the fact that there are 12
election. The vacancy should be filled up in the senators sitting at any given time. So it must be
next regular elections. considered, what is the term or end of office of
the 12 senators? There is an overlapping of
3. SALARIES, PRIVILEGES, AND terms because of the synchronization of election
DISQUALIFICATIONS laws on the matter.
A. SALARIES
This provision on increase is based on the old
policy that this is the only bar that can prevent
ARTICLE VI, SECTION 10. The salaries of
them from enacting a law that will increase their
Senators and Members of the House of
salary. As you may have noticed, the usual
Representatives shall be determined by law. No
legislation of Congress is the annual budget.
increase in said compensation shall take effect
32
EDITED BY: Raia TRANSCRIBED BY: Brunx, Rhoda, Ces, Aning, Yna, Kye, Bon, Sid, James, Rjay, Justin,
Bryan
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 REVIEW 2015
4- MANRESA
That’s the only thing that they are worrying This is also based on the principle of continued
about, every year. What’s the latest law that you democratic representation. This is to allow
know of that has been passed by Congress and members of Congress to publicly discharge their
signed by the President into law? You don’t duties and the public’s trust in them that they will
know anything? Okay. Did you know that the be able to perform what is incumbent upon
age of majority has already been lowered to 18? them. This is one of the most abused privileges
Of course. Probably you have come to know because the speech and debate clause makes
that, about a month ago, we have a new them immune from any liability, for any action
_______ law. And there is an amendment to the outside Congress for such speech or utterance
monopolies that the President has signed last made. They can only be held accountable in
July. Congress by their own peers, which they
themselves will consider as _______(12:10).
B. FREEDOM FROM ARREST Other than that, they are free from liability,
whether criminal or civil.
33
EDITED BY: Raia TRANSCRIBED BY: Brunx, Rhoda, Ces, Aning, Yna, Kye, Bon, Sid, James, Rjay, Justin,
Bryan
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 REVIEW 2015
4- MANRESA
member of Congress is paid his principal salary accordance with law, and such books shall be
as such , any additional task is deemed paid as audited by the Commission on Audit which shall
well. So regardless of any other appointment, for publish annually an itemized list of amounts paid
so long as there is no additional remuneration or to and expenses incurred for each Member.
compensation, that can be considered as ex- ARTICLE XVII, SECTION 17. A public officer or
officio. What is avoided is that members of employee shall, upon assumption of office and
Congress will enrich themselves by taking other as often thereafter as may be required by law,
positions while sitting in Congress. submit a declaration under oath of his assets,
liabilities, and net worth. In the case of the
2. OTHER PROHIBITIONS President, the Vice-President, the Members of
ARTICLE VI, SECTION 14. No Senator or the Cabinet, the Congress, the Supreme Court,
Member of the House of Representatives may the Constitutional Commissions and other
personally appear as counsel before any court constitutional offices, and officers of the armed
of justice or before the Electoral Tribunals, or forces with general or flag rank, the declaration
quasi-judicial and other administrative bodies. shall be disclosed to the public in the manner
Neither shall he, directly or indirectly, be provided by law.
interested financially in any contract with, or in
any franchise or special privilege granted by the 4. INTERNAL GOVERNMENT OF CONGRESS
Government, or any subdivision, agency, or A. ELECTION OF OFFICERS
instrumentality thereof, including any ARTICLE VI, SECTION 16. (1) The Senate shall
government-owned or controlled corporation, or elect its President and the House of
its subsidiary, during his term of office. He shall Representatives its Speaker, by a majority vote
not intervene in any matter before any office of of all its respective Members.
the Government for his pecuniary benefit or Each House shall choose such other officers as
where he may be called upon to act on account it may deem necessary.
of his office.
The other prohibition there would be financial B. QUORUM
interest or intervention in any pecuniary interest. ARTICLE VI, SECTION 16. (2) A majority of
The prohibition on members of Congress who each House shall constitute a quorum to do
are lawyers is that they cannot appear as business, but a smaller number may adjourn
counsel. That is the only limitation on the from day to day and may compel the attendance
practice of profession. Technically, members of of absent Members in such manner, and under
Congress are not constitutionally prohibited to such penalties, as such House may provide.
exercise their respective professions. Only Quorum is the number needed for a house to do
lawyers are prohibited from making personal business. So what is quorum? It is majority.
appearances. The recent discussion here is Majority is ordinary. That old case of Santiago v
whether it is appearance in paper or in person. Guingona (298 SCRA 756) speaks of the term
Because the Constitution simply states “shall not “majority” in different contexts. In you talk about
appear as counsel”. When a member of elections, where the winner is by mere plurality,
Congress/lawyer signs a pleading and files it in it is the most numerous. Most freshmen students
court, is that covered by the prohibition? would say that majority is 50% + 1. That is not
the case at hand. In multi-party elections, it’s the
E. DUTY TO DISCLOSE person who garner the most number of votes,
ARTICLE VI, SECTION 12. All Members of the even if that number is not 50% +1. And unless it
Senate and the House of Representatives shall, is qualified majority, it is more than half
upon assumption of office, make a full disclosure ordinarily. So in the old case of Avelino v
of their financial and business interests. They Cuenco (83 PHIL. 17), where only 23 members
shall notify the House concerned of a potential of Senate were accounted for, 12 was
conflict of interest that may arise from the filing considered by the SC as majority because 12
of a proposed legislation of which they are was more than half of 23. What if there are only
authors. 10 present, what is the majority for purposes of
ARTICLE VI, SECTION 20. The records and determining quorum? My answer is there would
books of accounts of the Congress shall be be no session. The Senate President would not
preserved and be open to the public in call a session when there are only 10 members
34
EDITED BY: Raia TRANSCRIBED BY: Brunx, Rhoda, Ces, Aning, Yna, Kye, Bon, Sid, James, Rjay, Justin,
Bryan
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 REVIEW 2015
4- MANRESA
35
EDITED BY: Raia TRANSCRIBED BY: Brunx, Rhoda, Ces, Aning, Yna, Kye, Bon, Sid, James, Rjay, Justin,
Bryan
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 REVIEW 2015
4- MANRESA
Members for disorderly behavior, and, with the good law. Sec. 13 of RA 3019 provides that
concurrence of two-thirds of all its Members, once an Information is filed with the appropriate
suspend or expel a Member. A penalty of court, Sandiganbayan included, the public
suspension, when imposed, shall not exceed officer/accused can be placed under preventive
sixty days. suspension. This case was filed because this
originated when Santiago was still the
We made mention of the power of each house to Commissioner of Immigration and Deportation.
discipline its own members. There is no When the Information was eventually filed, she
constitutional definition on what would constitute was already a member of Congress. Question:
congressional violations or infractions. Even the can the SB impose the preventive suspension
term “disorderly behavior” has not been defined, under Sec. 13 of RA 3019 on her? Santiago
so it is up to each house to determine in its argued that only her peers can suspend her. SB
rules, what those acts are. The only other said that she can be suspended as a member of
discussion here is, can the SC review the Congress under Sec. 13, regardless where the
findings of a House when it finds a member case originated from. Since she was charged as
guilty for such conduct and orders him BID Commissioner, it does not mean that she
suspended/expelled? It’s easy to understand cannot be suspended from her current position.
because in the greater scheme of things, what is Sec. 13 is clear in stating that once an
sought to be protected is the dignity of the Information is filed, the public respondent shall
house. If a member, for disorderly behavior, has be suspended from his/her public office. SC said
been penalized with reprimand or fine, the that the difference lies in the fact that the
dignity or the tarnished image of the house is suspension in the power of Congress to
restored and the member has been made to suspend its member is a final determination; it is
learn his lesson. Importantly, in both cases, the a penalty. The suspension under Sec. 13 of RA
constituents are not deprived of representation. 3019 is preventive. It is not an imposition of a
penalty. Yes, only Congress can discipline its
In expulsion, what acts constituting “disorderly members but Sec. 13 does not provide a
behavior” would justify an expulsion? Can that penalty; it provides for preventive suspension.
determination of Congress be subject to review
by SC? This is not an ordinary judicial E. JOURNAL AND CONGRESSIONAL
determination of disorderly behavior, most of this RECORDS
are also with political considerations. In any ARTICLE VI, SECTION 16. (4) Each House
case, with expulsion, the dignity of the house will shall keep a Journal of its proceedings, and from
be restored. The member may be expelled and time to time publish the same, excepting such
there may be denial of representation in the parts as may, in its judgment, affect national
meantime. But there is a chance to fill that up security; and the yeas and nays on any question
and therefore, the deprivation will only be shall, at the request of one-fifth of the Members
temporary. present, be entered in the Journal.
This is discussed because we have come
In suspension, there is another consideration across a lot of cases where 1) the SC has gone
there. The Constitution does not allow that the through congressional deliberations to
suspension shall exceed more than 60 days. determine what the intent is, to give meaning to
The reason for that is that suspension is like a a law in question; 2) we have also come across
qualified expulsion. The member is still a cases where there is a question of what was the
member, but he cannot represent his intent of Congress based on the clear provision
constituents. So in effect, the constituents are of a law. When a bill becomes a law [meaning, it
denied of representation in office. For him to be has passed 3 readings in both houses as
allowed to go beyond 60 days would not really required for the passage of a bill and the final
be in issue of the member, but of the need of the draft has been signed by the responsible officers
constituents to have representation in office. of both houses (Senate President & Speaker of
That is why there’s a limitation of 60 days. the House), it has been certified (enrollment)
and submitted to the President, therefore
In the case of Santiago v Sandiganbayan (356 eventually becoming a law] and there is a
SCRA 636), there is an old law which is still a question on what was the intent of Congress
36
EDITED BY: Raia TRANSCRIBED BY: Brunx, Rhoda, Ces, Aning, Yna, Kye, Bon, Sid, James, Rjay, Justin,
Bryan
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 REVIEW 2015
4- MANRESA
based on a reading of the provisions, the (a) Yeas and nays on third and final
question is asked: which shall prevail, the reading of a bill
provisions of the law or the deliberations in ARTICLE VI, SECTION 26. (2) No bill passed by
Congress? either House shall become a law unless it has
passed three readings on separate days, and
The Constitution provides for 2 congressional printed copies thereof in its final form have been
records: 1) the journal; and 2) the records. The distributed to its Members three days before its
records are literally the transcription of what has passage, except when the President certifies to
transpired in Congress while the journal is the the necessity of its immediate enactment to
summary. When you read the journal, you will meet a public calamity or emergency. Upon the
see roll calls, agenda for the day, discussions. last reading of a bill, no amendment thereto shall
There are portions there on what bill has been be allowed, and the vote thereon shall be taken
passed today, what resolution has been immediately thereafter, and the yeas and nays
discussed/passed. In some cases that we have entered in the Journal.
come across where SC goes to the records or
the journals, these are in instances where there (b) Veto message of the President
is difficulty in determining what the ARTICLE VI, SECTION 27. (1) Every bill passed
congressional intention was, based on a mere by the Congress shall, before it becomes a law,
reading of what the law is. But if the words and be presented to the President. If he approves
phrases in the law is clear, SC will never go to the same, he shall sign it; otherwise, he shall
congressional records/journals. So when the veto it and return the same with his objections to
question is asked on which shall prevail between the House where it originated, which shall enter
the journal entry or the enrolled bill, we must ask the objections at large in its Journal and proceed
ourselves a question because both have to reconsider it. If, after such reconsideration,
probative value, even conclusive ______ (34:15) two-thirds of all the Members of such House
simply because they are official documents. shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent,
When a bill is enrolled, it is certified as the together with the objections, to the other House
official bill coming from both houses. SC cannot by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if
go beyond the enrollment of the bill approved by two-thirds of all the Members of
____________ (34:35) they should not have that House, it shall become a law. In all such
enrolled nor certified that to be the final copy. cases, the votes of each House shall be
That is beyond the courts. Same thing with the determined by yeas or nays, and the names of
journal entries. Since what appears in the the Members voting for or against shall be
journals are initial recording/initial proceedings, entered in its Journal. The President shall
those are conclusive upon the courts. That’s communicate his veto of any bill to the House
why in the old case of US v Pons (34 Phil. 729), where it originated within thirty days after the
the journal entry read that the session ended date of receipt thereof; otherwise, it shall
Feb. 28 but in reality, March 1 sila natapos. But become a law as if he had signed it.
the journal entry read “The session ended 12MN
of February 28”. So, which shall prevail?
Testimonies of witnesses who stated that the
(c) Yeas and nays on the repassing of
session went beyond? Because if that was
a bill vetoed by the President
passed beyond February 28, that law could not
(d) Yeas and nays on any question at
have been valid because it was a special
the request of 1/5 of members present
session. It would have passed more than the
period allowed for special sessions. The SC said ARTICLE VI, SECTION 16. (4) Each House
that if the journal says that it was passed before shall keep a Journal of its proceedings, and from
the adjournment of the special session, such is time to time publish the same, excepting such
conclusive upon the courts. The courts cannot parts as may, in its judgment, affect national
go beyond it because it is an official document security; and the yeas and nays on any question
and the courts must respect it. shall, at the request of one-fifth of the Members
present, be entered in the Journal.
(3)MATTERS REQUIRED TO BE ENTERED IN
THE JOURNAL
(e) Summary of Proceedings
37
EDITED BY: Raia TRANSCRIBED BY: Brunx, Rhoda, Ces, Aning, Yna, Kye, Bon, Sid, James, Rjay, Justin,
Bryan
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 REVIEW 2015
4- MANRESA
38
EDITED BY: Raia TRANSCRIBED BY: Brunx, Rhoda, Ces, Aning, Yna, Kye, Bon, Sid, James, Rjay, Justin,
Bryan
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 REVIEW 2015
4- MANRESA
President of the Senate and to the Speaker of vote of the people for a term of six years which
the House of Representatives his written shall begin at noon on the thirtieth day of June
declaration that no inability exists, he shall next following the day of the election and shall
reassume the powers and duties of his office. end at noon of the same date six years
Meanwhile, should a majority of all the Members thereafter. The President shall not be eligible for
of the Cabinet transmit within five days to the any reelection. No person who has succeeded
President of the Senate and to the Speaker of as President and has served as such for more
the House of Representatives their written than four years shall be qualified for election to
declaration that the President is unable to the same office at any time.
discharge the powers and duties of his office, No Vice-President shall serve for more than two
the Congress shall decide the issue. For that consecutive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the
purpose, the Congress shall convene, if it is not office for any length of time shall not be
in session, within forty-eight hours, in considered as an interruption in the continuity of
accordance with its rules and without need of the service for the full term for which he was
call. elected.
If the Congress, within ten days after receipt of Unless otherwise provided by law, the regular
the last written declaration, or, if not in session, election for President and Vice-President shall
within twelve days after it is required to be held on the second Monday of May.
assemble, determines by a two-thirds vote of The returns of every election for President and
both Houses, voting separately, that the Vice-President, duly certified by the board of
President is unable to discharge the powers and canvassers of each province or city, shall be
duties of his office, the Vice-President shall act transmitted to the Congress, directed to the
as the President; otherwise, the President shall President of the Senate. Upon receipt of the
continue exercising the powers and duties of his certificates of canvass, the President of the
office. Senate shall, not later than thirty days after the
day of the election, open all certificates in the
The Constitution says that the President may presence of the Senate and the House of
call a special session at any time. But this is not Representatives in joint public session, and the
literally anytime because if Congress is in Congress, upon determination of the authenticity
regular session, the President cannot call any and due execution thereof in the manner
special session within the regular session. If the provided by law, canvass the votes.
President should need Congress to attend to a
matter upon its request while Congress is in The person having the highest number of votes
regular session, the President should certify a shall be proclaimed elected, but in case two or
bill as urgent or send his representative. There more shall have an equal and highest number of
is actually an executive liaison for the legislative votes, one of them shall forthwith be chosen by
branch of government. the vote of a majority of all the Members of both
Houses of the Congress, voting separately.
------END----------
The Congress shall promulgate its rules for the
(3) JOINT SESSIONS canvassing of the certificates.
(a) Voting separately
Art. VII, Sec. 4 (Choosing the The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the
President) sole judge of all contests relating to the election,
returns, and qualifications of the President or
ARTICLE VII, SECTION 18. (3) The Supreme Vice- President, and may promulgate its rules
Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding for the purpose.
filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the factual
basis of the proclamation of martial law or the SECTION 5. Before they enter on the execution
suspension of the privilege of the writ or the of their office, the President, the Vice-President,
extension thereof, and must promulgate its or the Acting President shall take the following
decision thereon within thirty days from its filing. oath or affirmation:
ARTICLE VII, SECTION 4. The President and
the Vice-President shall be elected by direct “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will
39
EDITED BY: Raia TRANSCRIBED BY: Brunx, Rhoda, Ces, Aning, Yna, Kye, Bon, Sid, James, Rjay, Justin,
Bryan
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 REVIEW 2015
4- MANRESA
faithfully and conscientiously fulfill my duties as prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion
President (or Vice-President or Acting President) or rebellion. In case of invasion or rebellion,
of the Philippines, preserve and defend its when the public safety requires it, he may, for a
Constitution, execute its laws, do justice to every period not exceeding sixty days, suspend the
man, and consecrate myself to the service of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place
Nation. So help me God.” (In case of affirmation, the Philippines or any part thereof under martial
last sentence will be omitted.) law. Within forty-eight hours from the
proclamation of martial law or the suspension of
Id. Sec. 11, Par. 4 (Determining the the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, the
President’s temporary disability) President shall submit a report in person or in
ARTICLE VI, SECTION 16. (4) Each House writing to the Congress. The Congress, voting
shall keep a Journal of its proceedings, and from jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of all its
time to time publish the same, excepting such Members in regular or special session, may
parts as may, in its judgment, affect national revoke such proclamation or suspension, which
security; and the yeas and nays on any question revocation shall not be set aside by the
shall, at the request of one-fifth of the Members President. Upon the initiative of the President,
present, be entered in the Journal. the Congress may, in the same manner, extend
such proclamation or suspension for a period to
Id., Sec. 9 (Confirming the be determined by the Congress, if the invasion
nomination of a Vice-President) or rebellion shall persist and public safety
requires it.
ARTICLE VII, SECTION 9. Whenever there is a
The Congress, if not in session, shall, within
vacancy in the Office of the Vice-President
twenty-four hours following such proclamation or
during the term for which he was elected, the
suspension, convene in accordance with its
President shall nominate a Vice-President from
rules without any need of a call.
among the Members of the Senate and the
The Supreme Court may review, in an
House of Representatives who shall assume
appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen, the
office upon confirmation by a majority vote of all
sufficiency of the factual basis of the
the Members of both Houses of the Congress,
proclamation of martial law or the suspension of
voting separately.
the privilege of the writ or the extension thereof,
and must promulgate its decision thereon within
Art. VI, Sec. 23(1) (Declaring a state of war) thirty days from its filing.
ARTICLE VII, SECTION 23. The President shall A state of martial law does not suspend the
address the Congress at the opening of its operation of the Constitution, nor supplant the
regular session. He may also appear before it at functioning of the civil courts or legislative
any other time. assemblies, nor authorize the conferment of
jurisdiction on military courts and agencies over
Art. XVII, Sec. 1(1) (Amending the civilians where civil courts are able to function,
Constitution) nor automatically suspend the privilege of the
ARTICLE XVII, SECTION 1. Any amendment to, writ.
or revision of, this Constitution may be proposed The suspension of the privilege of the writ shall
by: apply only to persons judicially charged for
(1) The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths rebellion or offenses inherent in or directly
of all its Members; or connected with the invasion.
(2) A constitutional convention During the suspension of the privilege of the
writ, any person thus arrested or detained shall
(b) VOTING JOINTLY be judicially charged within three days,
Art. VII, Sec. 18 (to revoke or extend martial otherwise he shall be released.
law or suspension of privilege of habeas
corpus)
ARTICLE VII, SECTION 18. The President shall Aug. 5, 2015- Aning
be the Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces
of the Philippines and whenever it becomes ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL
necessary, he may call out such armed forces to
40
EDITED BY: Raia TRANSCRIBED BY: Brunx, Rhoda, Ces, Aning, Yna, Kye, Bon, Sid, James, Rjay, Justin,
Bryan
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 REVIEW 2015
4- MANRESA
Art. VI Section 17. The Senate and the House "returns" refers to the canvass of the returns and
of Representatives shall each have an Electoral the proclamation of the winners, including
Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of all questions concerning the composition of the
contests relating to the election, returns, and board of canvassers and the authenticity of the
qualifications of their respective Members. Each election returns; “
Electoral Tribunal shall be composed of nine Of course this is largely amended by
Members, three of whom shall be Justices of the the automated election. Remember that we no
Supreme Court to be designated by the Chief longer have election returns, canvassing of
Justice, and the remaining six shall be Members votes because once the PCOS machine is
of the Senate or the House of Representatives, closed and the procedure for the counting and
as the case may be, who shall be chosen on the transmittal is commenced. The issue will only
basis of proportional representation from the perhaps be from the proclamation of the winner.
political parties and the parties or organizations “and "qualifications" refers to matters
registered under the party-list system that could be raised in a quo warranto
represented therein. The senior Justice in the proceeding against the proclaimed winner, such
Electoral Tribunal shall be its Chairman. as his disloyalty or ineligibility or the inadequacy
of his CoC.”
Section 19. The Electoral Tribunals and the So any questions relating to those with
Commission on Appointments shall be respect to a member of congress shall be within
constituted within thirty days after the Senate the sole jurisdiction of the Electoral Tribunal.
and the House of Representatives shall have
been organized with the election of the NATURE OF FUNCTION
President and the Speaker. The Commission on Now the nature of the function of the
Appointments shall meet only while the Electoral Tribunal is found in the provision under
Congress is in session, at the call of its Article VI in the Legislative department. It is not
Chairman or a majority of all its Members, to legislative in character even if there are more
discharge such powers and functions as are members of Congress than members of the
herein conferred upon it. court, it is acting as a judge.
In relation to that the SC had the
Angara vs. Electoral Commission 63 PHIL occasion in the previous cases to characterize
139 (1946) - The electoral tribunal was first part the nature of its function in relation to its
of the decision in this old case where under the independence. That being the sole judge, the
1935 constitution the electoral tribunal now members enjoy security of tenure. While
which was electoral commission before was not members of the ET sit there by reason of the
part of the constitution. In the 1987 constitution, nomination or appointment of their respective
specifically it is provided that each house shall parties, considering that it is by proportional
have an electoral tribunal which shall be representation, they do not own loyalty to the
composed of 3 justices. The SC has 6 members party when it comes to deciding the cases.
of the house which 6 positions shall be filled up As sole judges, they shall decide issues
based on proportional representation. before it based from the evidences presented by
As it was in the case of ANGARA, the the parties. They are not bound by the rules of
issue on the authority and jurisdiction of the the parties and they can only be removed for
commission, the present Constitution makes the valid reasons of and from the party nominating
electoral tribunal the sole judge of all issues or appointing them. Of course party disloyalty is
relating to elections, return, and qualifications of a valid ground for removal. But that party
members of Congress. disloyalty must not include the person’s refusal
Now in the 2005 case which is part of to vote or decide the case based on the
the rule – was reiterated in the 2013 case of demands of the parties. The legal basis for party
Tanada vs. COMELEC 103 PHIL 1051 (1957), disloyalty as basis for removal could be anything
the SC held that based from the Constitution and by-laws of the
“the term "election" refers to the party other than that voting against the interest
conduct of the polls, including the listing of of the/ a party or of a party-mate.
voters, the holding of the electoral campaign, The jurisdiction of the ET is almost
and the casting and counting of the votes; always attached to the issue on the jurisdiction
41
EDITED BY: Raia TRANSCRIBED BY: Brunx, Rhoda, Ces, Aning, Yna, Kye, Bon, Sid, James, Rjay, Justin,
Bryan
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 REVIEW 2015
4- MANRESA
of the Comelec because the Comelec has, So there was no valid proclamation to begin
under the same Constitution, the jurisdiction with.
over the issue including the issue of Has she validly taken her oath? They made
qualifications of candidates who would mention of that rule in the HOR that members
eventually become members of the Congress. shall take their oath – either collectively or
individually before the Speaker in an open
When is a person considered a member of session.
Congress so that the ET will have So you technically have an oath before a
jurisdiction over the case and will divest the barangay captain like what the president did. For
Comelec of the jurisdiction? members of congress, it must be before the
speaker in open session. So the oath taking that
Romualdez vs. Comelec (1995), the SC simply you must have been aware of certain members
placed it that the person has been elected, has of congress taken before a Brgy captain. These
been proclaimed, the person has taken his oath are only for show.
and that he has assumed his office. And the 3rd question is asked, Has the term of
Subsequent decisions in the case of Vinzons- office has started? The SC said, the petition was
Chato vs. Comelec 689 SCRA 107 and Limkat filed on June 7, when the term of office has yet
Chiong vs. COMELEC , Gonzalez vs to begin because the term of office begins on
Comelec, somehow modified the last by saying noon of June 30. So Comelec has still
that the term of office has begun which is jurisdiction and not the ET.
normally per Constitution, noon of June 30 Jalosjos vs. Comelec 674 SCRA 530 (2012) -
following the election. So even if technically he The issue is whether the HRET has jurisdiction?
has not assumed his office but the term of office The SC said that YES because in the meantime
has begun or the candidate has won, or has the petitioner has taken his oath and his term of
been proclaimed, the Comelec is ousted of office has commenced.
jurisdiction.
Now in 2002 we have the case of Codilla vs. De Tanada vs. Comelec 708 SCRA 188, this
Venecia which was more pronounced in the involves an issue in declaring a candidate as
2013 case of Reyes vs. Comelec 708 SCRA nuisance by the Comelec but the despite the
197 because this involves a son of a sitting SC decision of the Comelec to declare the
justice, Justice Velasco, where the SC as early candidate as nuisance candidate, his name was
in the case of CODILLA made mention that the not taken off from the ballot. And so there were
proclamation must be valid. So elected, won, still votes cast in his favor. Eventually, Tanada
validly proclaimed and the term of office has lost. He wanted the votes for a certain Alvin
commenced. That was not new, but then again John Tanada be counted for him. So he filed a
in the 2013 case of REYES because it involved petition for protest before the HRET:
the son of a sitting justice, generally the public 1. To annul the proclamation of the winning
has taken exemptions to it. Kaya nanalo yan candidate.
kasi anak ni Justice Velasco. 2. And to have the votes cast in favor of the
But again we have the case in 2002 as nuisance candidate be counted for him.
compared in the 2013 case, the proclamation The SC said that it can no longer do it
must have to be valid. But in the case of maintained in the Comelec. It should be with the
CODILLA where the proclamation was HRET.
questioned before the Comelec before the term
of office has begun, the SC said there was no JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE DECISIONS OF
valid proclamation and so the issue remains with ELECTORAL TRIBUNALS
the Comelec even if the term of office has The final item with respect to the HRET
begun. is to the issue of judicial review. As always, the
So the question in the case of REYES were decisions of any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial
these: body including the ET, if promulgated and
Was he validly proclaimed? The SC said that issued in its limited authority or jurisdiction
NO because the Comelec En Banc had already provided for by law, that would be beyond the
decided the case that a winner who has review of the Courts.
“proclaimed” lacked residency and citizenship. And as always as an exception, if there
42
EDITED BY: Raia TRANSCRIBED BY: Brunx, Rhoda, Ces, Aning, Yna, Kye, Bon, Sid, James, Rjay, Justin,
Bryan
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 REVIEW 2015
4- MANRESA
43
EDITED BY: Raia TRANSCRIBED BY: Brunx, Rhoda, Ces, Aning, Yna, Kye, Bon, Sid, James, Rjay, Justin,
Bryan
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 REVIEW 2015
4- MANRESA
been the object since Cory became the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the
president. In any case, lower than the heads of Constitutional Commissions may, by
ambassador position, you are in the Foreign law, be authorized to augment any item in the
Service, you must have passed the foreign general appropriations law for their respective
service exam. You cannot be appointed to a offices from savings in other items of their
Foreign Service position through confirmation respective appropriations.
with rank without passing the exam. Otherwise, ‘6. Discretionary funds appropriated for
if they confirm you, that would be grave abuse of particular officials shall be disbursed only for
discretion. Again, other than a legally required public purposes to be supported by appropriate
qualification the CA’s confirmation is beyond vouchers and subject to such guidelines as may
judicial review. be prescribed by law.
‘7. If, by the end of any fiscal year, the Congress
POWER OF CONGRESS shall have failed to pass the general
Art. VI Section 1. The legislative power shall be appropriations bill for the ensuing fiscal year, the
vested in the Congress of the Philippines which general appropriations law for the preceding
shall consist of a Senate and a House of fiscal year shall be deemed re-enacted and shall
Representatives, except to the extent reserved remain in force and effect until the general
to the people by the provision on initiative and appropriations bill is passed by the Congress.
referendum. Section 28.
‘1. The rule of taxation shall be uniform and
LIMITATIONS ON THE LEGISLATIVE POWER equitable. The Congress shall evolve a
Substantive limitations progressive system of taxation.
o Express subtantive limitations ‘2. The Congress may, by law, authorize the
Art III (Bill of Rights) President to fix within specified limits, and
Art VI Secs 25 & 28 subject to such limitations and restrictions as it
Art. XIV Sec. 4(3) may impose, tariff rates, import and export
Art. VI Sec 29-31 quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues, and other
duties or imposts within the framework of the
Art VI Section 25. national development program of the
‘1. The Congress may not increase the Government.
appropriations recommended by the President ‘3. Charitable institutions, churches and
for the operation of the Government as specified personages or convents appurtenant thereto,
in the budget. The form, content, and manner of mosques, non-profit cemeteries, and all lands,
preparation of the budget shall be prescribed by buildings, and improvements, actually, directly,
law. and exclusively used for religious, charitable, or
‘2. No provision or enactment shall be embraced educational purposes shall be exempt from
in the general appropriations bill unless it relates taxation.
specifically to some particular appropriation ‘4. No law granting any tax exemption shall be
therein. Any such provision or enactment shall passed without the concurrence of a majority of
be limited in its operation to the appropriation to all the Members of the Congress.
which it relates. Section 29.
‘3. The procedure in approving appropriations ‘1. No money shall be paid out of the Treasury
for the Congress shall strictly follow the except in pursuance of an appropriation made
procedure for approving appropriations for other by law.
departments and agencies. ‘2. No public money or property shall be
‘4. A special appropriations bill shall specify the appropriated, applied, paid, or employed,
purpose for which it is intended, and shall be directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or
supported by funds actually available as certified support of any sect, church, denomination,
by the National Treasurer, or to be raised by a sectarian institution, or system of religion, or of
corresponding revenue proposal therein. any priest, preacher, minister, other religious
‘5. No law shall be passed authorizing any teacher, or dignitary as such, except when such
transfer of appropriations; however, the priest, preacher, minister, or dignitary is
President, the President of the Senate, the assigned to the armed forces, or to any penal
Speaker of the House of Representatives, the institution, or government orphanage or
44
EDITED BY: Raia TRANSCRIBED BY: Brunx, Rhoda, Ces, Aning, Yna, Kye, Bon, Sid, James, Rjay, Justin,
Bryan
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 REVIEW 2015
4- MANRESA
45
EDITED BY: Raia TRANSCRIBED BY: Brunx, Rhoda, Ces, Aning, Yna, Kye, Bon, Sid, James, Rjay, Justin,
Bryan
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 REVIEW 2015
4- MANRESA
because what the executive did was to appropriated within the Executive department.
pool the “savings” and then transfer They were not actually transferred from the
them to wherever. Ilo-ilo Convention Executive to the Judiciary.
Center is one of them; funded by the Aug. 11, 2015- Rjay
DAP by the executive to the Congress. SUBSTANTIVE LIMITATIONS
In the time when the case was before
the SC, there were news reports that the LIMITATIONS ON THE LEGISLATIVE POWER
judiciary was also a recipient of the (1) SUBSTANTIVE LIMITATIONS
cross border transfers. (a) EXPRESS SUBSTANTIVE LIMITATIONS
The news report was not accurate. To Recap: We have discussed in part the case of
be accurate about it, when the judiciary needs Araullo vs Aquino III 728 SCRA 1 (2014) with
infrastructures, these are high valued properties, respect to Art. VI Section 25 in relation to
they are not placed in any budget or paragraphs 2 and 5 on cross boarder transfers
appropriations for the judiciary. and the constitutional definition of what a
Let us say we have 5 million budget for provision in an appropriations bill should be and
the court houses for the judiciary. That cannot that has paved way to what the Supreme court
be placed in the judiciary. Why? Because of the as referred to as the doctrine of inappropriate
constitutional limitation that the appropriations provision.
for the judiciary cannot be diminished.
If you put that 5 million in the judiciary Art. VI, Section 29 (1) No money shall be paid
this year for the halls of justice nationwide, that 5 out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an
million cannot be taken out next year even if all appropriation made by law.
the halls of justice were already constructed and
completed. All the halls of justices are funded in Case in point: Belgica vs Ochoa 710 SCRA 1
other departments. DOJ this is common or the (2013) regarding PDAF-
DPWH because again if it is included in the Six reasons why PDAF has been declared as
judiciary, that cannot be taken out. unconstitutional one of which was the so-called
Remember the issue of the JDF- SYSTEM OF INTERMEDIATE
Judiciary Development Fund. Every time you APPROPRIATIONS - when the PDAF
file a case, you pay a portion to the JDF. The provisions in its previous form or previous
JDF goes to the judiciary; and the SC, especially General Appropriations Act (GAA), are in the
the Chief Justice will have the discretion how or form of lump sum appropriations, the practice of
where to spend it for. There was this issue that allowing individual members of congress to
some of these funds were used to refurbish the identify the specific appropriations out of the
SC house in Baguio. They needed new furniture lump sum, the project beneficiary and the project
and air conditioning. Some sectors would want fund or amount that created the system of
to look into the JDF. The problem is the JDF intermediate appropriations. The Supreme Court
forms part of the appropriations for the Judiciary. held that it violates Section 29 (1), because it
Can that be taken by law? allows individual members of Congress to
The answer is NO, it cannot be taken. exercise power of appropriation which is not
So they were saying that they will pass a law granted to them individually. It should be
taking the JDF away. Can they do that? The SC Congress and that when Congress had allowed
is saying that NO you cannot do that because the allocation of that sum of money, the
that is our appropriation. allocation must have to relate to a specific
So there is really cross border transfer appropriation of sum of money as required
because it would seem to the ordinary person under Section 25 (2).
that the executive is funding court houses. But
accurately, that is part of the appropriations of Art. VI, Section 29 (2) No public money or
the executive department. It has not been property shall be appropriated, applied, paid, or
transferred to the judiciary. And the SC did not employed, directly or indirectly, for the use,
respond to it because it will only show the benefit, or support of any sect, church,
ignorance of the lawyers of the palace of what denomination, sectarian institution, or system of
cross border transfer is all about. Yes, it was for religion, or of any priest, preacher, minister, or
the benefit of the judiciary but they were other religious teacher, or dignitary as such,
46
EDITED BY: Raia TRANSCRIBED BY: Brunx, Rhoda, Ces, Aning, Yna, Kye, Bon, Sid, James, Rjay, Justin,
Bryan
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 REVIEW 2015
4- MANRESA
except when such priest, preacher, minister, or execution of the laws. It has nothing to do with
dignitary is assigned to the armed forces, or to judicial power as defined in Section 1 of Article
any penal institution, or government orphanage VIII.
or leprosarium.
Query: Whether several practices like mediation
BQ: No public money shall be paid out for priest, procedure or the Alternative Dispute Resolution
minister, or other religious teacher except if they (ADR) which are done outside of court are
have been employed in those government delegated exercise of judicial power.
institutions. Answer: No, because judicial power strictly
construed is exercised only by A SUPREME
SECTION 30. No law shall be passed increasing COURT AND SUCH OTHER LOWER COURTS
the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court AS MAY BE PROVIDED FOR BY LAW (Section
as provided in this Constitution without its advice 1, Article VIII)
and concurrence.
In the executive branch, the delegation is in
This provision is the appellate jurisdiction of the what we know as Doctrine of Qualified Political
Supreme Court – it cannot be increased without Agency because executive power is lodged
its concurrence. That has been the subject of an solely in what person - the President. The
earlier case involving RA 6770 (The law creating system allows the president to delegate
the Office of the Ombudsman) which provided executive exercise of executive power to his so-
for an appellate jurisdiction with the Supreme called alter egos and these are members of the
Court which was enacted by the Congress cabinet. In fact the Supreme Court decided in
without the prior concurrence or approval. The several cases that the President can exercise or
Supreme Court held that it is an unconstitutional delegate almost all except few powers which
provision. include the power to declare Martial Law or
Suspend the writ of Habeas Corpus and of those
Sec. 31- there’s nothing much to it. of similar import or importance. All the rest, even
the signing of an enrolled bill into a law can be
(b) IMPLIED SUBSTANTIVE LIMITATIONS delegated to the executive secretary because
(1) PROHIBITION AGAINST DELEGATION OF the president is not expected to exercise all that
LEGISLATIVE POWER is covered by what we know as executive power.
Correctly understood, must not to relate to all
the powers of government. We all understand In legislative power, the rule has always been
that the present set-up of our government, the the power to make, amend, or determine what
three branches are already exercising the law is, is always cannot be delegated. It is
delegating authority from the people which is the non-delegable in the language of several cases.
source of sovereign authority. Because of the What cannot be delegated is the authority to
difficulty in everybody exercising such powers make the laws and to alter or repeal them.
we have, under our system delegated it to these However, congress can define what job must be
three branches. The reason why it is most done, who is to do it, and what is the scope of
discussed in legislative power is because it is this authority so for so long as there is sufficient
where of the most of the cases have been filed standards by which the delegate may be able to
and decided. exercise discretion in the execution or
implementation of the delegated authority, then
In the Judiciary there is not much discussion on the delegation may be allowed.
delegated authority because only our courts
exercise at least in the constitution, judicial In delegation, there are two tests that have
power. What the other tribunals exercise is what repeatedly been mentioned by the courts:
we know as the quasi-judicial power which are in i) sufficiency standards test
relation to the power to execute and implement ii) completeness of statute test
the law. In the limited authority of these tribunals
to determine which has a better right in case It is almost always in the most cases are
there is a conflict in relation to a law, it is just in discussed this sufficiency of standards test
connection with their implementation or because while completeness of statute test is
47
EDITED BY: Raia TRANSCRIBED BY: Brunx, Rhoda, Ces, Aning, Yna, Kye, Bon, Sid, James, Rjay, Justin,
Bryan
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 REVIEW 2015
4- MANRESA
the ideal, what congress has done at least in delegation of legislative power. The intermediate
more recent history is to delegate it under appropriations has been used again and this
sufficiency set of standards. time in the context of added valid delegation.
When congress has appropriated that lump sum
Completeness of statute has been characterized amount or the PDAF, it granted delegated
as from the statute enacted by congress, it is authority to the individual members of the
complete in all its details. There is nothing much congress to actually determine the project
the delegate can do but to implement is. But beneficiary and the project fund, which
because of modernization of life, the complex is according to the Supreme Court is an invalid
brought about by certain acts or activities which delegation. Congress cannot delegate the
may be covered by legislation that congress implementation of the appropriated amount to
cannot cope with, it has somehow delegated, the members of the congress. In the said case, it
the determination to specialize administrative cited the case of ABAKADA vs Purisima 562
agencies as to filling up the details, and so they SCRA 251 (2008) where it made mention of the
delegate the power and allow the delegate to fill doctrine of INWARD TURNING LEGISLATION.
in the details of implementation provided that
scope or range of the authority is limited and this Inward turning legislation has been asked in the
cause the sufficiency of standards test. bar and the question involves the power of
congress on what is known as oversight
While ideally, the standards must have to be in functions. Congress has this oversight functions:
one law, the classic example there covered by (i) Power of scrutiny which is the
the case is the amendment of the Labor Code to budget hearings the question hour
terminate minimum wages. Before it was by law (ii) Congressional investigations and
through the president under the power of the inquiries in aid of legislation
president to legislate but it has been somehow (iii) Legislative supervision
very difficult to come up with minimum wage
orders from that annual basis. That is why the In budget hearings, they will call the heads of
Labor Code has been amended to allow the the departments and ask them why the
Regional Wage Board (RWB) to determine. The department is asking for so much budget. You
Article in the Labor Code now which grants the may have been hearing in the news that the
RWB the power is an example of a legislation 3trillion budget for next year has now been
which provided for all the standards by which the subjected to several budget hearings and it will
delegate can fix the minimum wages per region. continue until the end of the year for it to be
But that cannot be done in all legislations. You passed before the year's end and that is part of
know how congress is, and you don’t expect legislative scrutiny.
them to cover all the details of the
implementation. In question hour, it allows members of the
congress by committee to call heads of the
It is possible that the standards of the delegate departments to determine and ask questions on
are met and are considered sufficient if there is how the department is practically performing.
an examination of several laws on the same
subject matter which would necessarily limit the Legislative supervision, there are two ways by
delegated authority. Otherwise stated, it need which the congress can do that:
not be in one law. There can be several laws (i) First is the allowable one. You may
provided for some or several standards on the have come across certain legislation
same delegated authority which if they can all which creates the so-called
together will be considered as sufficient to have congressional oversight committee.
limited the power of the delegate to exercise Congressional oversight is normally
what has been delegated. had when there is a need for
congress to ensure that the law it
Cases in point: Belgica vs Ochoa 710 SCRA 1 has passed is properly
(2013) The Supreme Court used as one of the implemented. Perhaps one of the
basis of six reasons why PDAF is more common or known law to you
unconstitutional is it violated the doctrine of non- which has a congressional oversight
48
EDITED BY: Raia TRANSCRIBED BY: Brunx, Rhoda, Ces, Aning, Yna, Kye, Bon, Sid, James, Rjay, Justin,
Bryan
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 REVIEW 2015
4- MANRESA
49
EDITED BY: Raia TRANSCRIBED BY: Brunx, Rhoda, Ces, Aning, Yna, Kye, Bon, Sid, James, Rjay, Justin,
Bryan
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 REVIEW 2015
4- MANRESA
been given to congress to make? In Umali vs COMELEC 723 SCRA 170 (2014),
Because sovereign power emanates at point is Art 10, Section 10 on the creation of a
from them and when the constitution highly urbanized city. Catanduanes city was
delegated the power to congress to subjected to a plebiscite to be considered as a
legislate, there is a limitation or at highly urbanized city to be taken out from the
least non-full delegation to congress province of Nueva Ecija. There was question
because part of that has been raised on who should vote on the plebiscite -
reserved by the people in their should it be only those in the Cabanatuan City or
sovereign capacity. But because should it be the entire voting population of
Section 32 has required congress to Nueva Ecija. Part of the discussion was on the
enact an enabling law, meaning, delegation of the power to declare a city as
without any enabling law, the power highly urbanized because Section 10, Article X
to legislative under initiative and reads:
referendum cannot be exercisable; it
is in that sense that it this a Section 10. No province, city, municipality, or
delegated authority. But correctly barangay may be created, divided, merged,
understood in the understanding of abolished, or its boundary substantially altered,
sovereign power, this is power except in accordance with the criteria
reserved by the people to established in the local government code and
themselves. The entire scope of subject to approval by a majority of the votes
legislative powers have been cast in a plebiscite in the political units directly
delegated to congress but because affected.
it also authorizes congress to enact
a law for them to exercise it, it is in So the question boils down to what are those
that context that this is supposed to political unit or units directly affected. The
be considered as delegated Supreme Court took notice that the local
authority. government code provisions provide as follows:
That Section 453 mandates that it is the duty of
DELEGATION TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS the president to declare a city as highly
Even before the local government code was urbanized after it has met the minimum
enacted, it has been an accepted principle or requirements prescribed in Section 452 of the
rule that the power of local government to local government code. Also, under Section 10
legislate has been granted to them by time of the local government code, there shall be a
immemorial practice. The reason is simple, it is plebiscite in order that the creation, division,
because of the fact that legislative assemblies or merger, abolition, or substantial alteration of
councils are in the best position to determine boundaries shall be effective. So Supreme Court
what is needed for local legislation that congress mentioned that the power to declare a city as
in the national scape of things will not be able to highly urbanized based on Section 453 in
determine what the local demands are in terms relation to Section 10 of the Local Government
of legislation. It has been allowed ever since that Code has been delegated to the President under
local councils or assemblies have been Section 10, Article 10 of the Constitution. The
extended the power or given the power or answer as to who are to vote, it is the entire
allowed to exercise the power of legislation. voting population of the province because they
Under RA 7160, under the general welfare are also affected. When a city is to be converted
clause (Section 16) grants two powers to local into a highly urbanized city, there will be some
government units: economic and political changes in the province.
(i) Specific powers that congress may If it will be taken out from the authority of the
delegate to it every so often province with respect to taxation, political
(ii) General grant of power to local boundaries, residents of highly urbanized cities
assemblies to promulgate do not vote in the province.
ordinances for the promotion and
protection of general welfare of its (2) PROHIBITION AGAINST PASSAGE OF
constituencies. IRREPEALABLE LAWS
The Congress or the current legislative body
50
EDITED BY: Raia TRANSCRIBED BY: Brunx, Rhoda, Ces, Aning, Yna, Kye, Bon, Sid, James, Rjay, Justin,
Bryan
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 REVIEW 2015
4- MANRESA
must have the power to amend, alter, and repeal house and the principal authors of the bill
existing laws. Previous or prior congresses coming from both houses. Their primary task is
therefor cannot pass a law which cannot be to come up with a harmonized version of the
repealed or amended because the general conflicting versions of the bill in the hope that it
legislative power or plenary legislative power will be certified and enrolled. For practice, what
includes not only the power to make or pass is done is they will redraft the bill which will be
laws, but also to amend, repeal, or supersede acceptable to both houses and they will come up
existing laws. with the final version of the bill which is referred
to as the BICAMERAL CONFERENCE
(2) PROCEDURAL LIMITATION COMMITTEE REPORT. The report which is
You know already the 3-3-3 Rule: Three (3) actually the final draft of the bill will then be
readings on Three (3) separate days, furnishing subjected to voting by both houses. The voting,
of printed copies at least Three (3) days before however, will not follow regular rule on voting.
the third and final reading. The only exception is We have made mention on that with respect to
when there is a certification of urgency where the journal entry that the yays and the nays on
the Supreme Court has ruled that the passage the third and final reading of the bill will have to
need not strictly comply with the 3-3-3 Rule. Of be entered to the journal. In this cases where
course there would be 3 separate readings but the approval of the bicameral conference
they not necessarily on separate days. There committee report was raised, they were voted
can be reading now, reading of the title and the not with the usual name calling of the roll for the
second reading thereafter where they will individual casting of votes, and they are just of
discuss the provisions, argue on it, debate and the conference committee report to just be
eventually go to the 3rd and final reading then submitted if there are any other objections or
there will be voting which can be had in one otherwise.
setting or one day.
In Arroyo vs. De Venecia 291 SCRA 433
Query: Whether they can do away with the (1998), Arroyo questioned it because it did not
furnishing of printed copies. comply with the constitutional requirements. The
Answer: Yes, the furnishing of printed copies Supreme Court said, while the bicameral
which is required to be there 3 days before the conference committee is not provided for in the
third and final reading can be dispensed with but constitution, the issue of constitutionality always
the printed copy, the document itself, cannot be asked is whether or not the provisions on the
because what is there to certify and enroll for Constitution on procedural on passage of bills
submission to the president for his signature. have been violated. Since it has not been
While in one case, there seems to be an opinion violated then there is no constitutional question
coming from the Court, though it is obiter, that because both houses have processed the bills in
he can do away even with the printed copies, I accordance with the rules as provided for in the
don't think that can be done away with because Constitution and the holding of the third and final
what is there again to certify, you cannot submit reading of each house of their respective
to the president an oral approved bill and the versions have been entered in the journal. To
president will also orally approve it and what is process the bill thereafter, by tradition and
orally approved will be published :). What can be practice, in the bicameral conference committee
published if it is orally submitted and orally has been an accepted practice. Has that
approved. So it must be printed at the very least. practice violated any constitutional provision?
The answer is NO because that has not been
Matter in point: Third House of Congress - this prohibited. By doing that, they have not also
has something to do with what we know as violated existing constitutional limitation as to
practice and policy by tradition on the creation of procedural passage.
bicameral congress committee. When the two
versions of the bill coming from both Houses are B. QUESTION HOUR
not reconciled or could not be harmonized, there Question hour is normally discussed in relation
may be a need to constitute a bicameral to inquiries in aid of legislation. We mentioned
conference committee which is normally that both are parts of what we know as
composed of the respective heads of each congressional oversight functions. Point to
51
EDITED BY: Raia TRANSCRIBED BY: Brunx, Rhoda, Ces, Aning, Yna, Kye, Bon, Sid, James, Rjay, Justin,
Bryan
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 REVIEW 2015
4- MANRESA
52
EDITED BY: Raia TRANSCRIBED BY: Brunx, Rhoda, Ces, Aning, Yna, Kye, Bon, Sid, James, Rjay, Justin,
Bryan
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 REVIEW 2015
4- MANRESA
national security or interest, it covers all along subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof,
the line of what we know now as part of including government-owned or controlled
presidential communication. corporations or their subsidiaries. They shall
In the case of NERI v. SENATE COMMITTEE strictly avoid conflict of interest in the conduct of
549 S 77(2008), 564 S 52 (2008), involving the their office.
claim of executive privilege, the Supreme Court The spouse and relatives by consanguinity or
discussed such privilege of the president which affinity within the fourth civil degree of the
is rooted from the case of US v. Nixon, the President shall not, during his tenure, be
Supreme Court quoting the case of Nixon said appointed as Members of the Constitutional
that the president must have an expectation of Commissions, or the Office of the Ombudsman,
confidentiality in his conversations, or as Secretaries, Undersecretaries, chairmen or
correspondence likened to confidentiality of heads of bureaus or offices, including
judicial deliberations. The president and those government-owned or controlled corporations
who assist him must be free to explore in the and their subsidiaries.
process of shaping policies and making The first paragraph is the prohibition on
decisions and to do so and obey, many would appointments while the second paragraph is the
be unwilling to express, except privity. prohibition to appoint. First paragraph refers to
These are the considerations justifying the the members of the executive body holding
presumptive privilege of presidential some other office or position. Second
communications. So it is not expressly provided, paragraph pertains to the prohibition on the
it is presumed because of the fact the executive power of the president to make appointments of
power is solely exercised by the president, but certain individuals to certain officers. The 2nd
you cannot expect him to come up with a paragraph speaks of the spouse, relatives up to
decision without any deliberations with the fourth civil degree either by consanguinity or
person who assist him. In the case of Nixon, to affinity cannot be appointed to Constitutional
commit a felony is not part of the presidential Commissions, the Ombudsman, Secretary,
privilege. But in the present, do you think the act Undersecretary, Chairpersons, Heads of
of attacking or invading another country is not a Bureaus including GOCCS. With respect to sec.
crime? 13 par. 1, you review the cases on the outline,
This presidential communication privilege admits PUBLIC INTEREST v ELMA (2006, 2007) and
of proximity rule or rule of opportunity, any FUNA vs AGRA 691 S 196(2013).
person who in relations to the discussions and There was first tested during the time of Cory
deliberations coming up with a policy or Aquino when she appointed Heads of GOCCS,
decision, near or nearer to the president, they because in sec. 13 it is worded unless otherwise
cannot be coerced either by congress or by the provided in the Constitution, so how should this
courts to make public such information, rule on phrase be construed? The court said that
proximity. Are those waiters serving food during considering the history of this during the time of
cabinet meetings covered by the presidential Marcos, where in several members of the
privilege rule? UNANSWERED. cabinet holding several positions, elective, at
one point at that. This provision was made or
included in the 1987 Constitution to ensure that
PROHIBITIONS they only owe loyalty to the executive branch of
Okay, section 13, art.7 has 2 components. the government. This is called trafficking of
office where they will be performing several task
Section 13. The President, Vice-President, the outside the primary function of his office to which
Members of the Cabinet, and their deputies or they are appointed. So the phrase in sec. 13
assistants shall not, unless otherwise provided “unless otherwise provided in this Constitution”
in this Constitution, hold any other office or has also been interpreted in relation to sec. 7,
employment during their tenure. They shall not, par. 2 of article 9B which is according to the SC
during said tenure, directly or indirectly, practice to be applied as a general rule to all other
any other profession, participate in any appointive officials, but with respect to the so
business, or be financially interested in any called executive mandate the phrase must have
contract with, or in any franchise, or special to be literally construed and understood,
privilege granted by the Government or any meaning the Constitution must have to provide
53
EDITED BY: Raia TRANSCRIBED BY: Brunx, Rhoda, Ces, Aning, Yna, Kye, Bon, Sid, James, Rjay, Justin,
Bryan
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 REVIEW 2015
4- MANRESA
for that other positions. Looking into the concept of residual powers as it
There are 2 known exceptions, the first is said is applied to our branches of gov’t, whatever the
to be the Vice President as a member of the constitution has provided in relation to a
cabinet provided under article 7, and it does not particular power of the president, that is not
require CA confirmation, or under article 8 where supposed to be a grant of power of a limitation
the Secretary of justice sits in the JBC, here of the exercise of such power. The same is true
there are specific provision allowing member of with the judiciary and legislative. If you go by the
the executive to sit or hold other office. The section 1 of all articles 6,7,8, the constitution
second would be the so called Ex Officio says “Judicial power is vested in the SC and
position, it is a position which does not require such other Courts a provided for by law”, it does
permanent appointment, holding additional not grant the SC and such lower courts a judicial
designation of task or work and more importantly power as we understand it. The judicial power is
there is no additional remuneration because there exercisable, but it can ONLY be exercised
they are considered to be part of the principal by the Supreme Court and such lower courts. It
office to which they are appointed. is not a grant per se but a limitation. Same thing
So this case of FUNA v. AGRA 691 S 196(2013) in the exercise of executive power, sec. 1 of
was the appointment of AGRA as acting Sec. of article 7 states that it is lodged in the president.
Justice and acting Sol. Gen. So as a member of It is not a grant of executive power but merely a
the cabinet , he cannot hold other position like limitation that executive power is only
that of a Solicitor General. The respondent here exercisable by the president alone.
contended that the 1st par of sec. 13 should not The import of the ruling, even if the Constitution
apply to him because his appointment in the 2 provides for provisions which are suppose to be
positions are all in an acting capacity. The SC the limit of executive power, when the issue
clarified that sec.13 does not make any refers to implementation , execution or
distinction whether the appointment be acting, administration of the law are all within the
temporary or permanent appointment because concept of executive powers. The question as to
the evil sought to be avoided is still existing even interpretation of the laws would have to be in the
if the appointments are in the acting capacity. judicial power and with respect to congress, the
One must owe loyalty only to one position. This general plenary(inaudible). The specific
is overconcentration of power to the executive provisions providing for the exercise of powers
branch by allowing executive family members to are not grant but limitations on the exercise of
hold any other office if not allowed in the such power. Whatever may not have been
constitution. provided are still part because they are
QUALIFIED POLITICAL AGENCY considered as residual powers.
Question: can the president hold any other CONTROL OF THE EXECUTIVE
office? HE is allowed to become the secretary of DEPARTMENT
all departments. Under the doctrine of qualified The discussion here is the distinction between
political agency, the president is allowed to Control and Supervision. When you say control
appoint them as his alter egos, but it does not it is the power of a person having control over
prevent him from becoming the secretary of the another to revise, review, reverse, modify or
departments. It might not have been provided in affirm the judgments or actions of the actor and
the constitution like that of the Vice President, may even act on it himself.
the President can even without such provision in Supervision has nothing to do with the actor, it
the Constitution be allowed to become has something to do with the power to exercise
secretary of any or all departments. oversight over subordinate officers or body, but
does not have authority over such subordinate
SUCCESSION, there not much there. persons or body. Supervising officer merely see
REMOVAL is by impeachment. Okay to it that the rules are followed to the letter but
cannot modify or reverse the action of such
POWER AND FUNCTIONS OF THE officer or body.
PRESIDENT The other discussion here is whether or not the
The only discussion with respect to the power power of supervision includes the power to
and functions of the president you need to discipline the subordinates if the latter does not
remember is the concept of residual powers. follow the rules to the letter. Part of the
54
EDITED BY: Raia TRANSCRIBED BY: Brunx, Rhoda, Ces, Aning, Yna, Kye, Bon, Sid, James, Rjay, Justin,
Bryan
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 REVIEW 2015
4- MANRESA
discussion of control is the doctrine of qualified power of discipline of the president over the
political agency. The members of the cabinet LGUS and their head is given, but under the set
can perform any and all tasks that the president up in the Local Gov’t Code, which among the
may himself personally do except for a few. 1.) LGU officers are subject to the powers of the
declaration of martial law 2.) suspension of the president to discipline? Governors of Provinces
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus 3.) and Mayors of Highly Urbanized cities. This
pardoning powers of the president, and those of means the power of supervision also entails
similar imports. Outside of these, anything can power to discipline the subordinate officers or
be done by the subordinates. body.
In the case of MANALANG v. TIDCORP 692 S
359 (2013), some GOCCs or almost all of them, POWER OF APPOINTMENT
if created under a special law requires a The first set of the discussions there is or would
government representative in the board simply be those officers which the president must
because it is a GOCC. In most, there are appoint with respect to the requirement of
members of the cabinet sitting as members of confirmation of the Commission on
the board in that corporation. Is that allowed by Appointments. The power of appointment is
law, in cases SC says this is allowed by law basically PURELY EXECUTIVE function even if
because they represent government interest. it were to be made by the Supreme Court, Does
This does not involve additional remuneration as the Supreme Court have the power to appoint
it is considered as ex officio position. When the any of its employees? Yes, except judges. All
cabinet members sit as member of the GOCC court personnel are to be appointed by the
boar, he does not act as an alter ego of the Supreme Court except judges, from the clerk of
president under the qualified political agency, court down to the last employee, they are to be
but as a representative of the government. In appointed by the Supreme Court. So that is an
this case of MANALANG, the question was can executive function of the Supreme Court,
a decision of a board having 9 members who because power to appoint is essentially
are cabinet members be subject to the control of executive.
the president because he has control over them Section 7. No elective official shall be eligible
as members of the cabinet, the SC said the for appointment or designation in any capacity to
President has no control. As members of the any public office or position during his tenure.
board of the GOCC, they do not act for the Unless otherwise allowed by law or by the
interest of the president but for the interest of the primary functions of his position, no appointive
republic. Therefore their decisions as member of official shall hold any other office or employment
the board is the decision of the board and not in the Government or any subdivision, agency or
decision made by them as members of the instrumentality thereof, including Government-
cabinet. owned or controlled corporations or their
GENERAL SUPERVISION OF LOCAL subsidiaries.
GOVERNMENTS AND AUTONOMOUS
REGIONS Second characteristic of power to appoint is that
A simple reading of Art. X, sec. 4 it is DISCRETIONARY. Includes the grant of
Section 4. The President of the Philippines shall discretion on the appointing authority whom to
exercise general supervision over local appoint. Yes, congress can legislate
governments. Provinces with respect to qualifications to public office but congress
component cities and municipalities, and cities cannot make those qualification very stringent
and municipalities with respect to component that only one person will be qualified because
barangays, shall ensure that the acts of their that will take away the discretionary character of
component units are within the scope of their the power to appoint. You remember the case of
prescribed powers and functions. FLORES v DRILLON where the first chairperson
of the SBMA shall be the Mayor of Olonggapo
tells you that president has general supervision City, the SC said it is unconstitutional being
over all local governmet units. Province with violative of par. 2, Sec. 7, Art. 9B, and also it
respect to component cities and municipalities, destroys the character of the power to appoint
and municipalities and cities with respect to as being discretionary. The appointing authority
baranggays. What does this exactly mean? The must exercise discretion on whom to appoint
55
EDITED BY: Raia TRANSCRIBED BY: Brunx, Rhoda, Ces, Aning, Yna, Kye, Bon, Sid, James, Rjay, Justin,
Bryan
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 REVIEW 2015
4- MANRESA
despite the fact that there are qualifications. submitted to the CA for action. What is acted
Section 16. The President shall nominate and, upon by the CA is the nomination for that
with the consent of the Commission on position and we also know that there is a
Appointments, appoint the heads of the discussion with respect to ad interim or recess
executive departments, ambassadors, other appointments. The use of that word or term
public ministers and consuls, or officers of the referred to those appointments requiring CA
armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval confirmation which are made when Congress is
captain, and other officers whose appointments not in session. Still differently, if the appointment
are vested in him in this Constitution. He shall does not require CA confirmation and it is made
also appoint all other officers of the Government when Congress is not in session, that is not an
whose appointments are not otherwise provided ad interim or recess appointment. The reason
for by law, and those whom he may be why it is referred to as ad interim or recess
authorized by law to appoint. The Congress because the CA is not functioning when the
may, by law, vest the appointment of other Congress is not in session. In the meantime, it is
officers lower in rank in the President alone, in automatically effective until acted upon by the
the courts, or in the heads of departments, CA or Congress resume session or without any
agencies, commissions, or boards. action from the CA when Congress re-adjourns
The President shall have the power to make after it has resume session. Reaching to the
appointments during the recess of the Congress, point of bypassing an appointment or
whether voluntary or compulsory, but such nomination but when the appointment or
appointments shall be effective only until nomination is submitted to the CA, the CA can
disapproved by the Commission on either act on it by confirming it or by rejecting it.
Appointments or until the next adjournment of But in some occasion, I think they have a rule 20
the Congress. there. If one invokes that rule 20 they can refuse
to act on it and it will just be bypassed. There is
Those with the consent of the Commission on no limit as to the number of times(inaudible-
Appointments, as we all know these are the 29.19)an appointment or nomination is
officer listed under the 1st par. , sec. 16 of art. 7, bypassed by the CA. The President can
first sentence, heads of executive departments, reappoint/renominate ad interim. The only time
ambassadors, other public ministers and the President cannot make a reappointment or
consuls, those in the arm forces from the rank of renomination is when that nomination has been
colonel to naval captain, and those literally finally rejected by the Commission on
appointed by him as required under the Appointments. But as we have discussed, under
constitution. Who are these literally appointed by the item of CA that rejection will only be for that
him as required by the Constitution? The list is position. The same person can be appointed to
exclusive, it cannot be expanded by legislation. another position requiring CA confirmation and
You’ve read in several cases where a law was that will not be covered or barred by the rule if
passed requiring confirmation for example of an that person has already been rejected and that
NLRC Commissioner, the SC said that it is the appointment or nomination of the person has
unconstitutional because NLRC commissioner already been rejected.
does not fall under the exclusive enumeration. AD INTERIM versus ACTING
You’ve also read case involving officers of the APPOINTMENTS
PNP with the corresponding rank of colonel, it is That’s just been the subject in the case of
unconstitutional as well because PNP is not part Matibag vs. Benipayo 380 S 49. It’s an old case
of the Armed Forces of the Phil. SO mere but because of the distinction made of the acting
legislation cannot add to the enumeration of the appointment or temporary appointments ad
constitution requiring confirmation of the interim. This is still good law. When the
Commission on Appointments. President makes an appointment to a position
With respect to those requiring CA confirmation, requiring CA confirmation those falling under the
the procedure is that the President makes a first sentence under section 16, does it have to
nomination, submits the nomination to the CA, be permanent all the time? Meaning, permanent
the CA then will act upon the nomination and appointments submitted to the CA for action or
confirm. But of course the media will always say that nomination submitted to the CA for action
‘he has been appointed’ and the appointment is Supreme Court says in this case, it is not
56
EDITED BY: Raia TRANSCRIBED BY: Brunx, Rhoda, Ces, Aning, Yna, Kye, Bon, Sid, James, Rjay, Justin,
Bryan
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 REVIEW 2015
4- MANRESA
57
EDITED BY: Raia TRANSCRIBED BY: Brunx, Rhoda, Ces, Aning, Yna, Kye, Bon, Sid, James, Rjay, Justin,
Bryan
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 REVIEW 2015
4- MANRESA
know the judiciary is not covered by the the De Castro Ruling that was the central issue.
prohibition on…There were several issues Appointments of the judiciary…are not covered
raised there and the main case was just to by midnight appointment.
overturn this Valenzuela Ruling that the..was to There was one interesting question raised there.
be awaited which was the bases for the And that issue was when should the JBC let the
Valenzuela ruling is not exactly present applicants to Supreme Court because this was
considering that in the provisions of the the impending retirement of Chief Justice Puno.
constitution the filling-up of the vacancy in the The Supreme Court said, ‘the JBC and even
judiciary is somewhat mandatory while in the their applicants before the vacancy occurs if the
lower courts this 90 days of submission of the vacancy is due to a……,(di jud siya maklaro)
list of the…..President. With respect to the The JBC will make now the applicants to the
Supreme Court, the 90 days shall commence vacancy due to the impending death…of the
from the time vacancy…it’s not on the executive justice, pero retirement it is certain to
submission of the list. It is more compelling in come. So they should.because the 90-day
Supreme Court than in the lower tribunals. So, period is mandatory. Supreme Court is
which is to be followed? The Supreme Court suggesting the JBC cannot submit it on 60th day
said, ‘The language of the constitution is because it will shorten the period that the
mandatory. It must have the…of the ruling President should choose who to appoint among
appointments of the judiciary if not covered may those. One question was raised but it was never
have to depend on the outcome of the election. answered. When the person is not outsider in
Rightfully so, if you look at it in the local level the judiciary apply, he is supposed to be
because in the election laws if there’s a petition (filtered)by the JBC. Ma-aaply siya, meron
for inclusion or exclusion of voters where do you siyang mga exams, may mga neuro-psychiatric
file it? Where? Does the COMELEC have pa yan sila tingala ka nganu ..buang sa judiciary,
jurisdiction over it? Or is it in the regular courts? siguro gibayaran ra to’g..anyway. But what
If there’s an issue in the election contest for is….in the Supreme Court like you have Senior
example, disqualification. Before the …in the Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, if he wants to
COMELEC. After election proclamation term of be chief justice, why should he undergo the
office begin in the…tribunals, does it go to the same process? You are already in the SC, if you
courts? Eventually, it will. From the electoral are coming from outside of the SC, no problem.
tribunal of the senate and the House of Now when you are a sitting justice and you just
Representatives, it goes to the Supreme want to be Chief Justice, why should you go
Court…The Supreme Court is the through JBC? There is a possibility that he will
Presidential…so the evil that was discussed in never become a Chief Justice if the JBC will not
the earlier ruling which is…appointees to..yet the include him in the short list. Look what Justice
possibility, yet little of that possibility that the Antonio Carpio is doing, he is defending the
appointees of the judiciary with the side of the claim in the West Philippine Sea, kay dili na man
case in favor of the appointing authority…and I siya ma Chief Justice jud, kay paka n man si
think that is too far-fetched because if you are Sereno, so abogado na lang siya sa gawas.
an outgoing President already, how could the The other limitation on allowable appointment
appointment affect…But if it is true, look at how the president may extent would be temporary
Pnoy has fared with the Supreme Court. How designations. The president may designate in a
many justices of the Supreme Court has Pnoy temporary capacity other persons in the
appointed so far? How many? Five. Has he executive branch or the officer appointed was
won? Wa pa gyud.ever. DAP,PDAF, Truth unable or order declaring (vacancy).
Commission. So, while it may eventually be Aug. 14, 2015- Bryan
beneficial to the appointing authority, you don’t APPOINTIVE POWERS OF THE PRESIDENT
say that his magistrates will be swayed in their
decisions simply because the person bow before Gonzales vs. Office- The 2012 decision has
them pleading before them like the former been reconsidered and this time around, in
president will owe some loyalty to him. Members 2014, the SC had reversed its earlier ruling,
of the court have tenure they do not have a where the sec. 8 (2) of RA 6770 granting the
term. They’re there until 70 unless they die by president power to discipline the deputy OMB
natural or unnatural causes. So because of this and the special prosecutor. If you remember, a
58
EDITED BY: Raia TRANSCRIBED BY: Brunx, Rhoda, Ces, Aning, Yna, Kye, Bon, Sid, James, Rjay, Justin,
Bryan
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 REVIEW 2015
4- MANRESA
reading of RA 6770 gives you 5 deputies: overall This is essentially executive in character and
deputy, deputies for Luzon, Visayas, Mindanao, discretionary. For as long as the Constitutional
and the fifth one is the special prosecutor. limitations have been complied with, the grant is
Issue: WON the office of the president has the final and unappealable. The only time that there
power to discipline the deputy OMB or special can be a review is when there is a Constitutional
prosecutor. violation or an executive clemency to be
In the 2012 decision, SC said the president has, granted. So for so long as the conviction is by
but maintained that since the grounds provided final judgment, then any executive clemency can
for are the same grounds as that of be granted. It is final when there is no appeal,
impeachment, then the determination of the OP when the accused begins to serve his sentence
to dismiss a deputy OMB must be in the same or the application for probation, and there is no
characterization as that of the ground for waiver of the right to appeal.
impeachment. With respect to convictions in relation to
In 2014, that was reversed and SC said that election-related offenses, there must have to be
while Congress has the power to enact a law a recommendation by the Comelec.
providing for the power to discipline, it must not
be contrary to the intent of the Constitution. SC GRANT OF AMNESTY
said the OMB is not a statutory creation because
of RA 6770, but it is mandated to be created by With respect to the grant of amnesty, there must
the Constitution. In which sense, it has to have be a majority vote of Congress because
the so-called independence, and it must be amnesty is not a presidential grant solely. It is a
beyond the control of the President. The same is waiver of state power to prosecute offenders. So
true with the OMB because the Constitution it is an act of the state, it must be with the
makes the OMB an impeachable officer. But concurrence of Congress. The only case that is
with respect to the deputies, SC interpreted it by new there is Magdalo vs. Comelec- registration
saying that the deputies must have the same and accreditation to join the partylist system for
independence as that of the OMB although they the 2010 elections of the Magdalo Para sa
are not impeachable officers, but by reason of Bayan party. The application was filed in Aug.
the functions of their office, they must have to be 2009 and because of the 2003 Oakwood Mutiny,
independent as well, free from the disciplining the Comelec denied the petition for registration.
authority of the president. So they can be The MR was likewise denied in October 2009.
disciplined by the OMB, but the Special However, in November of 2010, President
Prosecutor, because he is not subject to the issued Proclamation No. 75 granting general
authority of the OMB with respect of the power amnesty to the participants, whether active or
to prosecute, then it remains with the Office of former members of the PNP in the Oakwood
the President to discipline. Mutiny.
Is there a limitation in the period of WON the denial of the Comelec of the
“temporary appointments” for it not to be registration and of the MR in January 2010 was
abused? with grave abuse of discretion considering that
Temporary appointments, in relation to the case there was a proclamation granting amnesty back
of Benipayo, there is no limitation as to the in November 2009.
period for so long as it is not abused to avoid the SC said there was no grave abuse of discretion.
confirmatory function of the CA, there has been There was basis for the Comelec to deny the
no period given. The one year period is for registration for application because of the DQ for
temporary designations. This is provided for those who espouse violence or change of
under Sec. 17 Bk III of the Administrative Code government. But because of the grant of the
of 1987. So, in no case shall a temporary amnesty later, the SC said the grant of the
designation exceed more than one year. amnesty is that it looks backwards meaning it
abolishes the offense itself, so that if a person is
EXECUTIVE CLEMENCIES extended the benefit of amnesty, such person
has not suffered from any DQ by reason of the
POWER OF THE PRESIDENT TO GRANT offense committed. And it is important to them
CLEMENCIES OR PARDONING POWERS because some of them or most of them have not
yet been convicted.
59
EDITED BY: Raia TRANSCRIBED BY: Brunx, Rhoda, Ces, Aning, Yna, Kye, Bon, Sid, James, Rjay, Justin,
Bryan
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 REVIEW 2015
4- MANRESA
In relation to the grant of amnesty, the question writing to the Congress. The Congress, voting
is asked: who shall be entitled to amnesty? It will jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of all its
be any person, whether charged or not charged, Members in regular or special session, may
arrested, detained, or convicted by final revoke such proclamation or suspension, which
judgment and serving sentence, provided that revocation shall not be set aside by the
person is covered by the amnesty proclamation. President. Upon the initiative of the President,
He must have to enjoy its benefits and it erases the Congress may, in the same manner, extend
or abolishes the fact of commission. such proclamation or suspension for a period to
be determined by the Congress, if the invasion
GRANT OF PARDON or rebellion shall persist and public safety
It is different in a grant of pardon. Because of requires it.
the change in our political history on the effects
of pardon, prior to the 1973 Constitution, we The Congress, if not in session, shall, within
followed the American experience, that pardon twenty-four hours following such proclamation or
can be granted even if there is no conviction. suspension, convene in accordance with its
The original draft of the ’73, there was a rules without need of a call.
requirement of conviction by final judgmenet. In
the ’81 amendments, there was no need for a The Supreme Court may review, in an
final judgment conviction, only conviction. So appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen, the
even if you conviction is on appeal, you could be sufficiency of the factual basis of the
granted pardon. proclamation of martial law or the suspension of
the privilege of the writ or the extension thereof,
In 1987, Conviction by Final Judgment was and must promulgate its decision thereon within
returned, so there must be no pending appeal thirty days from its filing.
for a pardon to be granted. When pardon is to
be granted. The fact of conviction can never be A state of martial law does not suspend the
abolished or deleted. The person has been operation of the Constitution, nor supplant the
convicted. What he is free from is the effect of functioning of the civil courts or legislative
conviction. So if the conviction carries with it the assemblies, nor authorize the conferment of
penalty of perpetual disqualification, then that jurisdiction on military courts and agencies over
person is no longer perpetually disqualified to civilians where civil courts are able to function,
hold office. but there could be no order for him, nor automatically suspend the privilege of the
for example, to be reinstated to a former writ.
position, if the reason for the severance from
employment is the fact of conviction, because The suspension of the privilege of the writ shall
the fact of commission and the fact of conviction apply only to persons judicially charged for
cannot be deleted as in a grant of amnesty. rebellion or offenses inherent in or directly
connected with invasion.
COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF POWERS
During the suspension of the privilege of the
Section 18. The President shall be the writ, any person thus arrested or detained shall
Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the be judicially charged within three days,
Philippines and whenever it becomes otherwise he shall be released.
necessary, he may call out such armed forces to
prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion The President has 3 powers that he may do
or rebellion. In case of invasion or rebellion, under Sec. 3 powers that he may do under Sec.
when the public safety requires it, he may, for a 18.
period not exceeding sixty days, suspend the 1. To call out the armed forces to
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place prevent or suppress lawless
the Philippines or any part thereof under martial violence, invasion or rebellion. It
law. Within forty-eight hours from the doesn’t necessarily require that if there
proclamation of martial law or the suspension of is violence, invasion, or rebellion, that
the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, the martial law shall be declared and the
President shall submit a report in person or in writ of habeas corpus privilege shall be
60
EDITED BY: Raia TRANSCRIBED BY: Brunx, Rhoda, Ces, Aning, Yna, Kye, Bon, Sid, James, Rjay, Justin,
Bryan
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 REVIEW 2015
4- MANRESA
suspended. From the words of Sec. 18, case. It was the first time that there was
this would give the character as a part of a martial law declaration in the present
police measures, because the President constituent. So while Congress may
will just have to call out the armed have all the rules of proceeding; i.e.
forces. impeachment. BTW, impeachment rules
2. With respect to invasion or rebellion, are there because of Estrada. Before
because public safety requires it, this is Estrada, there were no impeachment
in the ordinary understanding, simply an rules of procedure because all
ordinary exercise of police power by the impeachment proceedings during the
president, not by the state technically. time of Marcos were all killed even
Because this is to prevent the invasion before they reached the Committee
or rebellion from breaching public head. So it was only in the time of the
safety. With respect to martial law Estrada impeachment when Congress
declaration and suspension of the has to both provide for impeachment
privilege of the writ, same proceeding rules in the House and
requirements- invasion or rebellion and Senate for trial.
public safety must require them to be But with respect to the provision for
called. martial law, while the provision has been
Fortun vs. GMA- regarding the there all along since 1987, there were
declaration of martial law in no rules for Congress how they will go
Maguindanao. SC had the occasion to about any review of a declarion of
describe and characterize the interplay martial law. So they to make it. So in
of power by the President, Congress, that Maguindanao declaration, they had
and SC. SC said that the power of the to call joint session and they had to let
President and Congress with respect to individual members of Congress to ask
the declaration is invalid. They are only questions in the given limited time.
sequentially done, but in the sense, Senators had longer periods because
jointly done. Because while the they were only 24.
President has the power to call it, only SC said, the fear of J. Carpio may not
Congress has the power to maintain it. be real because:
The President does not have the power 1. the president shall make a
to maintain the validity of the declaration report within 48 hours;
for the suspension because Congress 2. Congress must have to convene
can revoke it. within 24 hours from such
With respect to the power of the SC, it declaration.
said that it is implicit that the power of So that’s only 3 days and suggesting
the SC must allow Congress to exercise that Congress might be able to finish its review
its own review powers before the SC even before the 30-day period lapses, assuming
can exercise its powers to review and it that the petition to question the sufficiency of
characterizes the declaration of martial facts and basis is filed a day after the
law or suspension of the privilege of the declaration. And besides, even if it goes beyond
writ as a political question. First, that it the 30 days, SC does not lose jurisdiction over it
should become a justiciable question based on the fundamental principle that once
when it reaches the court. On the matter jurisdiction is acquired, it is not lost until the case
of the 30-day period for the Supreme is finally resolved.
Court to resolve issues or petitions In that Maguindanao declaration, after 8
involving the sufficiency of the factual days, the declaration was lifted, so Congress
basis, J. Carpio said in this case that the had no time to rule on the declaration whether it
SC might not be able to resolve it in 30 should be revoked or maintained. And the rules
days or in 30 days, Congress might not have not yet been tested.
yet be able to go over the declaration
because it has the initial power to 3. With respect to the writ of habeas
review. corpus, what is suspended is the
Remember the factual settings in this privilege. We know that the writ can be
61
EDITED BY: Raia TRANSCRIBED BY: Brunx, Rhoda, Ces, Aning, Yna, Kye, Bon, Sid, James, Rjay, Justin,
Bryan
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 REVIEW 2015
4- MANRESA
issued if it is properly filed in form and in the great scheme of things, if there’s actual
substance even if there is a declaration declaration of martial law in an actual or
for suspension. What the declaration threatened war, you don’t expect civilian courts
does, solely, is not to deny the courts of or legislative assemblies to function. If there’s a
jurisdiction to issue the writ, but to allow declaration, member of Congress and the
the military or the law enforcement judiciary will run away. So will perform these
agencies, if the person arrested or functions? The executive. Question is: will the
detained for having been suspected of Constitution prevail over the actual acts of
committing either acts of rebellion or the President during that time? Sec. 18 is not
those inherent or in relation to an from imagination but from experience. The
invasion. ConCom wanted to include everything here as if
Reference it to the normal periods under the president who declares martial law will follow
the Article under the RPC on arbitrary the Constitution. But in the Constitutional
detention for 12, 18, and 36 hours. context, these are appropriate to limit the
Because the Constitution says that powers of the president.
these persons arrested and detained The declaration of the suspension of the
under a suspended privilege of the writ privilege will no longer have any effect if the
must have to be charged within 72 President lifts it himself, Congress revokes it,
hours. Otherwise, they must have to be SC nullifies it, or by operation of law. A
released. So from the usual hours, it has declaration of martial law or suspension of
just been extended to 72 hours. And privilege cannot go beyond how many days, but
while a declaration of martial law is any extension is not limited to that for so long as
effective in a certain territory to cover all it is needed, martial law or suspension of
persons, the suspension of the privilege privilege can be maintained in the entire country
of the writ, though covering a certain or in the covered territory. Nobody would want
territory, does not apply to all persons this to happen, but those are the limitations in
arrested. It is only applicable to persons the Constitution.
arrested for having been suspected of
committing rebellion or acts inherent or POWER OVER FOREIGN AFFAIRS
in relation to an invasion. It does not With respect to aliens, that’s an accepted
apply to persons arrested in the ordinary exemption under Art. III Sec. 2 with respect to
case. So if you’re arrested for robbery, issuance of warrants of arrest. When the
rape, the suspension of the privilege of President directs the arrest of an undesirable
the writ does not apply to you. The 12, alien for his immediate deportation, that order of
18, and 36 hours will still be applied. arrest can be issued by the President and that is
Finally, even if there’s a suspension or a not covered by the rule on judicial warrants.
declaration, the right to bail shall not be There are 2 things that must concur:
suspended as well. a. there is already a declaration of
So a declaration of martial law, while it undesirability. That the executive has
technically grants in the traditional political law determined that the stay of the foreigner
discussion, the power to the president, the here is a privilege and not a right is no
ordinary powers of legislation of judicial longer desirable and that he must have
determination, our Constitution mentions the to be arrested and deported.
limitations to it. It says: b. What is issued is not a warrant of arrest
(a) the President cannot suspend the but an ORDER OF ARREST. That’s to
operation of the Constitution; distinguish it from a judicially issued
(b) cannot supplant the function of the warrant of arrest.
civilian courts and assemblies;
(c) cannot confer jurisdiction in the military TREATY MAKING
courts and agencies over civilians where Pimentel vs. Office- this is the Rome Statute
civil courts are able to function; it does involving the ICC where the Philippines is a
not automatically suspend the privilege signatory. After the Philippines signed through
of the writ of habeas corpus. the Philippine Diplomatic Officer in NY, Pimentel
These are Constitutional limitations because in wanted it to be submitted to the Senate for
62
EDITED BY: Raia TRANSCRIBED BY: Brunx, Rhoda, Ces, Aning, Yna, Kye, Bon, Sid, James, Rjay, Justin,
Bryan
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 REVIEW 2015
4- MANRESA
63
EDITED BY: Raia TRANSCRIBED BY: Brunx, Rhoda, Ces, Aning, Yna, Kye, Bon, Sid, James, Rjay, Justin,
Bryan
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 REVIEW 2015
4- MANRESA
responsible or accountable, he must have sole judge of all contests relating to the election,
constructive knowledge of the acts of the returns, and qualifications of the President or
subordinate officers. If the President actually has Vice-President, and may promulgate its rules for
no knowledge, he can’t be made responsible or the purpose.
accountable for loss or disappearance or the The task of the Congress acting as the board of
extra-legal killing of the person subject of the canvassers, the usual issues before which is to
writ. determine the authenticity of the certificates of
Aug. 25, 2015- Sid canvass, is easy now because of the automated
CONGRESS ACTING AS BOARD OF elections.
CANVASSERS FOR THE PRES AND V-PRES After the counting begins in the precinct level, it
ELECTIONS is just forwarded to them or transmitted for which
ART. VII the task of congress has been substantially is
Section 4. The President and the Vice- reduced to a mere proclamation. However, the
President shall be elected by direct vote of the other discussions would be to the issues
people for a term of six years which shall begin respecting the election returns and the
at noon on the thirtieth day of June next qualifications of the pres and the vpres. It is not
following the day of the election and shall end at with congress but with the supreme court acting
noon of the same date, six years thereafter. The as the electoral tribunal.
President shall not be eligible for any re-election. SPECIAL ELECTIONS/ CALL FOR SPECIAL
No person who has succeeded as President and ELECTIONS WHEN BOTH PRES AND VPRES
has served as such for more than four years IS VACANT
shall be qualified for election to the same office ART. VII
at any time. Section 10. The Congress shall, at ten o'clock in
No Vice-President shall serve for more than two the morning of the third day after the vacancy in
successive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the the offices of the President and Vice-President
office for any length of time shall not be occurs, convene in accordance with its rules
considered as an interruption in the continuity of without need of a call and within seven days,
the service for the full term for which he was enact a law calling for a special election to elect
elected. a President and a Vice-President to be held not
Unless otherwise provided by law, the regular earlier than forty-five days nor later than sixty
election for President and Vice-President shall days from the time of such call. The bill calling
be held on the second Monday of May. such special election shall be deemed certified
The returns of every election for President and under paragraph 2, Section 26, Article V1 of this
Vice-President, duly certified by the board of Constitution and shall become law upon its
canvassers of each province or city, shall be approval on third reading by the Congress.
transmitted to the Congress, directed to the Appropriations for the special election shall be
President of the Senate. Upon receipt of the charged against any current appropriations and
certificates of canvass, the President of the shall be exempt from the requirements of
Senate shall, not later than thirty days after the paragraph 4, Section 25, Article V1 of this
day of the election, open all the certificates in Constitution. The convening of the Congress
the presence of the Senate and the House of cannot be suspended nor the special election
Representatives in joint public session, and the postponed. No special election shall be called if
Congress, upon determination of the authenticity the vacancy occurs within eighteen months
and due execution thereof in the manner before the date of the next presidential election.
provided by law, canvass the votes. The things to remember here:
The person having the highest number of votes Considering that there is a need to call for
shall be proclaimed elected, but in case two or special elections, congress would have to
more shall have an equal and highest number of convene without need of call and they are
votes, one of them shall forthwith be chosen by supposed to enact a law calling for a special
the vote of a majority of all the Members of both election.
Houses of the Congress, voting separately. That bill is considered:
The Congress shall promulgate its rules for the to be certified as urgent and
canvassing of the certificates. that bill is coupled already with
The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the availability of funds
64
EDITED BY: Raia TRANSCRIBED BY: Brunx, Rhoda, Ces, Aning, Yna, Kye, Bon, Sid, James, Rjay, Justin,
Bryan
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 REVIEW 2015
4- MANRESA
65
EDITED BY: Raia TRANSCRIBED BY: Brunx, Rhoda, Ces, Aning, Yna, Kye, Bon, Sid, James, Rjay, Justin,
Bryan
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 REVIEW 2015
4- MANRESA
confirmation by a majority vote of all the by at least two-thirds of all the Members of the
Members of both Houses of the Congress, Senate.
voting separately. PIMENTEL v. OFFICE OF THE PRES (2005) –
Section 16. The President shall nominate and, which was a petition for mandamus. You very
with the consent of the Commission on well remember that even if the pres has already
Appointments, appoint the heads of the signed the treaty with the foreign state, the
executive departments, ambassadors, other senate cannot compel the office of the pres to
public ministers and consuls, or officers of the submit a signed treaty for concurrence of the
armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval senate because the mere fact that the pres has
captain, and other officers whose appointments signed it, does not give the senate power or
are vested in him in this Constitution. He shall jurisdiction over it.
also appoint all other officers of the Government The concurring power of the senate or thru the
whose appointments are not otherwise provided senate will only begin or commence when the
for by law, and those whom he may be signed treaty is submitted to it, before it, the pres
authorized by law to appoint. The Congress cannot be compelled because it does not follow
may, by law, vest the appointment of other that if the pres has signed the treaty that
officers lower in rank in the President alone, in automatically, he should submit it (to the
the courts, or in the heads of departments, Senate) and it should be concurred and that it
agencies, commissions, or boards. would be effective between both countries or
The President shall have the power to make states.
appointments during the recess of the Congress, DECLARATION OF WAR AND DELEGATION
whether voluntary or compulsory, but such OF EMERGENCY POWERS
appointments shall be effective only until ART. VI
disapproved by the Commission on Section 23.
Appointments or until the next adjournment of
1. The Congress, by a vote of two-
the Congress.
thirds of both Houses in joint
We will discuss that in the appointing powers of session assembled, voting
the pres. separately, shall have the sole
CONCURRING TREATIES power to declare the existence
ART. XVIII of a state of war.
Section 25. After the expiration in 1991 of the 2. In times of war or other national
Agreement between the Republic of the emergency, the Congress may,
Philippines and the United States of America by law, authorize the President,
concerning military bases, foreign military bases, for a limited period and subject
troops, or facilities shall not be allowed in the to such restrictions as it may
Philippines except under a treaty duly concurred prescribe, to exercise powers
in by the Senate and, when the Congress so necessary and proper to carry
requires, ratified by a majority of the votes cast out a declared national policy.
by the people in a national referendum held for Unless sooner withdrawn by
that purpose, and recognized as a treaty by the resolution of the Congress, such
other contracting State. powers shall cease upon the
It is a new provision in the consti. New in the next adjournment thereof.
sense that when it comes to the presence of That’s one of the allowable delegated authority
foreign military troops, bases and facilities, it can under the constitution to the pres, where there is
now question, can be thrown to the electorate a war or national emergency, congress may, by
whether they agree or concur to the treaty law, delegate such limited authority to the pres
allowing their presence here. and within limited period, in order for the pres to
While, all other treaties are to be processed exercise powers necessary and proper to carry
under sec. 21 through the senate, with respect out declared policies.
to such kind of treaties, it can be thru the In recent history, this has been used by Pres.
electorate. Ramos in the power crisis which paved the way
ART. VII to public-private partnership in the current or
Section 21. No treaty or international agreement electric industry. This has resulted to the
shall be valid and effective unless concurred in passage of electric power industry reform
66
EDITED BY: Raia TRANSCRIBED BY: Brunx, Rhoda, Ces, Aning, Yna, Kye, Bon, Sid, James, Rjay, Justin,
Bryan
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 REVIEW 2015
4- MANRESA
act. Before, the generation, transmission and where the state of the physical or fitness of the
distribution of power were largely undertaken by pres was kept private and during the remaining
the state. Today, except for the Angus-Tulangi 7 years of the presidency, there were even rumors
complex in Mindanao, all others are private. that the first lady and Fabian Ver were running
That is why we pay very high rates for power. the country, in order to prevent that those
BE THE JUDGE OF THE PRESIDENT’S circumstances be no longer possible, the 87
PHYSICAL FITNESS OR CAPACITY consti, the members of the cabinet are allowed
ART. VII to declare that the pres physically unfit to
Section 11. Whenever the President transmits discharge the function of the pres.
to the President of the Senate and the Speaker But of course, the pres is given the first
of the House of Representatives his written discretion to declare himself as incapacitated.
declaration that he is unable to discharge the But who would ever? In the last sona, his
powers and duties of his office, and until he speech was interrupted more by his coughing
transmits to them a written declaration to the than by the applauses. It was 2 hours and 5
contrary, such powers and duties shall be minutes and I think the coughing there was more
discharged by the Vice-President as Acting than 30 mins. Was he physically incapacitate?
President. Of course not because he was there. But that
Whenever a majority of all the Members of the was just an example that when the pres is
Cabinet transmit to the President of the Senate physically incapacitated, he can declare himself
and to the Speaker of the House of as unfit and if he doesn’t want to; the majority
Representatives their written declaration that the of the members of cabinet can.
President is unable to discharge the powers and If the pres accepts that, it would settle the issue.
duties of his office, the Vice-President shall But if the pres contests that, then the pres must
immediately assume the powers and duties of contest that within 5 days, cabinet may accept or
the office as Acting President. reject that.
Thereafter, when the President transmits to the If cabinet accepts the contest by the pres then
President of the Senate and to the Speaker of that is the issue. But if the cabinet would insist,
the House of Representatives his written there will be a 2nd declaration, that is where the
declaration that no inability exists, he shall congress will exercise its power and they have
reassume the powers and duties of his office. to reach the qualified majority, 2/3 votes of the
Meanwhile, should a majority of all the Members congress, to determine whether the pres is
of the Cabinet transmit within five days to the incapacitated or not.
President of the Senate and to the Speaker of In the time of pres Ramos, when you were
the House of Representatives, their written playing videogames because you were that
declaration that the President is unable to young, he was supposed to be placed in
discharge the powers and duties of his office, surgery, so there was a question raised: whether
the Congress shall decide the issue. For that he should declare himself as physically
purpose, the Congress shall convene, if it is not incapacitated or during the period of time that he
in session, within forty-eight hours, in would be under anesthesia and during surgery
accordance with its rules and without need of and after surgery, under the effects of
call. anesthesia is off. But the problem was, the
If the Congress, within ten days after receipt of surgery happened on a Sunday. So he was
the last written declaration, or, if not in session, probably placed under surgery during Saturday
within twelve days after it is required to evening. And you know in the Philippines, it
assemble, determines by a two-thirds vote of would seem that every Saturday evening,
both Houses, voting separately, that the nothing will happen, politically or otherwise
President is unable to discharge the powers and (HAHA), and the news there, everybody was like
duties of his office, the Vice-President shall act supposed to party and there was nothing really
as President; otherwise, the President shall that was news worthy. So by Monday morning,
continue exercising the powers and duties of his the pres was already up and about, so the issue
office. was raised before the court, whether that is an
This has not been used or tested. This has been example of a pres being physically unfit or
incorporated here because of the experience incapacitated to discharge the functions of his
during the martial law or the Marcos years office.
67
EDITED BY: Raia TRANSCRIBED BY: Brunx, Rhoda, Ces, Aning, Yna, Kye, Bon, Sid, James, Rjay, Justin,
Bryan
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 REVIEW 2015
4- MANRESA
Perhaps, the nearest to that, when the pres 4. Culpable violation of the constitution
leaves the country, in the age where there is no 5. Other high crimes
mobile phones and we cannot be reached by 6. Betrayal of trust
technology, then there is a question of whether Last 3 has not yet been defined by legislative
the pres should make the vp, acting pres, when law. Perhaps in some cases, the SC has tried to
he is absent or away from the country. But as characterize them, and in the case of
you have seen, even if the pres is out of the GONZALES, the SC has made mention of the
country, the vp does not necessarily become the seriousness or character of the 3 other grounds,
acting pres. He would just be one of those, in must have to be as serious as those 3 already
the pres line who would bid the pres goodbye, defined under the existing laws.
because the pres can still exercise power even if For procedure, the house of rep. will initiate it
he is outside because of modern technology. and submit articles of impeachment to the
The vp remains as vp. senate. The senate committee will be the one
POWER OF IMPEACHMENT trying it and the CJ will sit but will not vote. He
WHO ARE SUBJECT TO IMPEACHMENT? will preside if the pres is on trial.
ART. XI The other discussion here would be the so-
Section 2. The President, the Vice-President, called one year ban, for the filing for another
the Members of the Supreme Court, the impeachment complaint against the same public
Members of the Constitutional Commissions, officer and again for the same ground. The
and the Ombudsman may be removed from decisions of the SC, the rule now is:
office on impeachment for, and conviction of, The one year is supposed to be counted
culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, from the filing and referral rule. It is not
bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, literally on the date of the filing but
or betrayal of public trust. All other public officers eventually on the date the complaint is
and employees may be removed from office as referred by the plenary to the appropriate
provided by law, but not by impeachment. committee. The committee is supposed to be
The basic rule to remember here is: when there the committee on good governance and
is 5 officers, 6 grounds. justice.
GONZALES v. OFFICE OF THE PRES (678 The reason why it is from the referral: it is when
SCRA 514 [2012] and 714 SCRA 611 [2014]) – the house of representative acted as a body on
there was an issue as to whether or not the the impeachment complaint.
deputy chairpersons should be removed (note: If you noticed during the time of Pres Arroyo,
they are not impeachable officers) thru court just to abuse this so-called one year ban, they
with the grounds for impeachment. will file petitions for or articles or complaints for
The list of officers is exclusive. impeachment against her. Each name shall use
The list of the grounds is also exclusive. the name of Atty. Oliver Lozano. He was the first
GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT one to file every time there was an issue against
ART. XI GMA, which he thinks is impeachable.
Section 2. The President, the Vice-President,
the Members of the Supreme Court, the ART. XI
Members of the Constitutional Commissions, Section 3.
and the Ombudsman may be removed from 1. The House of Representatives shall
office on impeachment for, and conviction of, have the exclusive power to initiate
culpable violation of the Constitution, all cases of impeachment.
treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other 2. A verified complaint for
high crimes, or betrayal of public trust. All impeachment may be filed by any
other public officers and employees may be Member of the House of
removed from office as provided by law, but not Representatives or by any citizen
by impeachment. upon a resolution or endorsement
The problem with the grounds is the only 3 there by any Member thereof, which shall
are defined under existing laws: be included in the Order of Business
1. Treason within ten session days, and
2. Bribery referred to the proper Committee
3. Graft and corruption within three session days thereafter.
68
EDITED BY: Raia TRANSCRIBED BY: Brunx, Rhoda, Ces, Aning, Yna, Kye, Bon, Sid, James, Rjay, Justin,
Bryan
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 REVIEW 2015
4- MANRESA
69
EDITED BY: Raia TRANSCRIBED BY: Brunx, Rhoda, Ces, Aning, Yna, Kye, Bon, Sid, James, Rjay, Justin,
Bryan
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 REVIEW 2015
4- MANRESA
whom were his colleagues when he was still CJ. petitioners the subject of legislation
Probably, he did not want to place them in a is actually to control population
difficult situation of deciding against him, growth in the Philippines. I don’t
because we all know that is was a difficult time know if you have read the news
even with the courts, even the SC. Come to article yesterday that we have
think of it, who were the members of the senate reached the 100 Million mark
who found him guilty? Mas dautan pa silang already. Grabe na jud diay.
dako kay sa sa iyaha (Corona). Again, it is a #iyotpamore (HAHAHAHA) 101
political question and they found him liable on Million, can you imagine that?
the grounds of culpable violation, for failure to
file an accurate SALN. The SC agreed with the petitioners
LEGISLATIVE PROCESS that the real objective of RH law is
TITLES OF BILL really a law to control the population
ART. VI growth in the country.
Section 26. 1. Every bill passed by the
Congress shall embrace only one subject which But the question is: IS THE TITLE
shall be expressed in the title thereof. (RESPONSIBLE PARENTHOOD
No bill passed by either House shall become a AND REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH
law unless it has passed three readings on ACT OF 2012) VIOLATIVE OF
separate days, and printed copies thereof in its THAT BY FAILING TO INDICATE
final form have been distributed to its Members THAT THIS IS ACTUALLY A
three days before its passage, except when the POPULATION GROWTH
President certifies to the necessity of its CONTROL MEASURE.
immediate enactment to meet a public calamity
or emergency. Upon the last reading of a bill, no The SC took notice of the prenatal
amendment thereto shall be allowed, and the and post natal care provisions and
vote thereon shall be taken immediately the dissemination of information…
thereafter, and the yeas and nays entered in the
Journal. So upon the question, the SC made
The reason why a bill must be on one subject, mention on the one title one subject
which subject must be indicated in the title, is rule does not require the congress
there are 3 basic reasons: employ language of such precision
1. To prevent log rolling legislation to mirror or fully index the minute
2. To avoid misrepresentation or surprises details of the legislation. The rule is
on part of members of congress who are sufficient or sufficiently complied
to tackle the legislation – it’s like they if the title is comprehensive
have to know the subject of the enough to include the general
legislation by simply looking at the title. object which the statute seeks to
Perhaps taking judicial notice of the fact effect, where as in this case,
that they don’t actually read the rest of there is a finding that the textual
the bill (HAHAHA). analysis of the various provisions
3. To apprise the public of what the object showed that both reproductive
or subject of the legislation is, in order health and responsible
for them to be heard on account of due parenthood are interrelated and
process. germane to the overriding
The case of IMBANG v. OCHOA (721 SCRA objective to control population
146 [2014]), this is a case involving the RH Law, growth. So the title does not violate
RA 10354, which is entitled the responsible sec. 26 because there is a
parenthood and reproductive health act of 2012. connection of the title of the goal of
One of the issues raised there is that it violates achieving a sustainable human
sec. 26(1) of Art. VI. development. So if there are few
Because: Filipinos, there will be better
1. The title does not indicate the REAL development of the country. Daghan
subject of legislation – accdg to man gud kaayo ta gud. Mao nay
70
EDITED BY: Raia TRANSCRIBED BY: Brunx, Rhoda, Ces, Aning, Yna, Kye, Bon, Sid, James, Rjay, Justin,
Bryan
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 REVIEW 2015
4- MANRESA
71
EDITED BY: Raia TRANSCRIBED BY: Brunx, Rhoda, Ces, Aning, Yna, Kye, Bon, Sid, James, Rjay, Justin,
Bryan
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 REVIEW 2015
4- MANRESA
72
EDITED BY: Raia TRANSCRIBED BY: Brunx, Rhoda, Ces, Aning, Yna, Kye, Bon, Sid, James, Rjay, Justin,
Bryan
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 REVIEW 2015
4- MANRESA
73
EDITED BY: Raia TRANSCRIBED BY: Brunx, Rhoda, Ces, Aning, Yna, Kye, Bon, Sid, James, Rjay, Justin,
Bryan
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 REVIEW 2015
4- MANRESA
74
EDITED BY: Raia TRANSCRIBED BY: Brunx, Rhoda, Ces, Aning, Yna, Kye, Bon, Sid, James, Rjay, Justin,
Bryan
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 REVIEW 2015
4- MANRESA
75
EDITED BY: Raia TRANSCRIBED BY: Brunx, Rhoda, Ces, Aning, Yna, Kye, Bon, Sid, James, Rjay, Justin,
Bryan
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 REVIEW 2015
4- MANRESA
76
EDITED BY: Raia TRANSCRIBED BY: Brunx, Rhoda, Ces, Aning, Yna, Kye, Bon, Sid, James, Rjay, Justin,
Bryan
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 REVIEW 2015
4- MANRESA
second and third batches of the PDAF (Priority president who will therefore name their
Development Assistance Fund) cases, will not replacements. Justices are expected to be
be finally resolved by June 30, 2016. independent of the appointing authority.
What will happen to all these daang matuwid However, a president always appoints
cases? On a broader scale, what is the future of magistrates to propel his/her vision of
the straight path? Where will it lead to? Quo governance.
vadis daang matuwid? So, a new president who is passionate in
My answer: Daang matuwid’s future will rest on pursuing, nay, in accelerating and improving the
the new president to be elected on May 9, 2016. anticorruption campaign will naturally name
Though the Office of the Ombudsman and the magistrates who would be as passionate in
Supreme Court are deeply involved in these ridding society of graft.
cases, their investigation, prosecution and Justices are given wide discretion to determine
speedy resolution will depend largely on the new the existence of probable cause, or of strong
president. Why? evidence, or of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Let me count the reasons. First, the new This is why justices often disagree in
president will appoint a new secretary of justice appreciating evidence and in interpreting laws.
and a new solicitor general. As we have seen, Even in the United States, the appointment of
the daang matuwid cases were initiated, new justices is dependent on their ideological
investigated, and subsequently filed by the compatibility with the president. Republican
justice secretary in the Ombudsman or in the presidents appoint “conservatives,” while
courts. Democrats choose “liberals.” (See my July 12
The justice secretary gathered and preserved and 19, 2015 columns for the ideology of
the evidence, and granted immunity to key American jurists.)
witnesses under the Witness Protection Retirees in 2016-2022. Who are the 11 retiring
Program. If the new justice secretary will not justices? In 2016, they are Martin S. Villarama
tend to the cases diligently, they will probably Jr. (April 14), Jose P. Perez (Dec. 14) and Arturo
wither and die. The solicitor general, on the D. Brion (Dec. 29); in 2017, Bienvenido L. Reyes
other hand, is the counsel of the Department of (July 6) and Jose C. Mendoza (Aug. 13); in
Justice and the Ombudsman when the cases 2018, Presbitero J. Velasco Jr. (Aug. 8) and
reach the appellate courts. A lackadaisical Teresita J. Leonardo-de Castro (Oct. 8); and in
solicitor general will also mean death for these 2019, Mariano C. del Castillo (July 29), Francis
cases. H. Jardeleza (Sept. 26), Lucas P. Bersamin
Second, Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales (Oct. 18) and Antonio T. Carpio (Oct. 26).
will end her term of seven years on July 28, Only Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno,
2018. The Constitution bars a reappointment. Justices Diosdado M. Peralta, Estela M. Perlas-
Being solely responsible for filing and Bernabe and Marvic M.V.F. Leonen will not be
prosecuting graft cases against top public replaced by the new president.
officials, the new appointee’s courage, Peralta will retire on March 27, 2022, and
independence, diligence and probity will be Bernabe on May 14, 2022, within the last few
crucial in any anticorruption program. months of the new president’s term. However,
By the time Morales retires, the cases she the Constitution bars any appointment “two
nurtured will probably not yet mature to final months immediately before the next presidential
judgment. Her successor will need big feet to fit elections up to the end of (the president’s) term.”
into the big shoes she would leave. Their compulsory retirement falls within this
Recall that the Special Division of the prohibited period.
Sandiganbayan took six years of continuous trial The same bar on “midnight appointments”
before it could judge the plunder case of former precludes P-Noy from naming the successor of
president Joseph Estrada. Had he appealed his Villarama who is due to retire on April 14, 2016,
conviction to the Supreme Court instead of within the two-month prohibition period. Of
accepting a pardon, the case would have course, Villarama can retire voluntarily ahead of
dragged on a few more years. this period, in which case, P-Noy could appoint
Third, 11 of the 15 incumbent Supreme Court his successor.
justices will reach the compulsory retirement age Clearly, with the prudent use of his/her
of 70 during the six-year term of the new appointing power, the new president could
77
EDITED BY: Raia TRANSCRIBED BY: Brunx, Rhoda, Ces, Aning, Yna, Kye, Bon, Sid, James, Rjay, Justin,
Bryan
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 REVIEW 2015
4- MANRESA
change the face of the Supreme Court, which in interesting questions there. While it may not
turn could effect sweeping reforms in our justice have been resolved by the Supreme Court, it
system. Indeed, it takes both people and system was nevertheless raised by some justices and
to neutralize the “ACID” problems that corrode even mentioned in ** decision although as
justice: 1) access to justice by the poor, 2) obiter. One of which is the procedure for ** an
corruption, 3) incompetence of some judges and applicant for the Judiciary. The JBC will get
4) delay in the delivery of quality justice. applicants for the judiciary and all applicants
Like the economy, judicial reforms need time must go through the procedure. And the 7
and effort to mature, bear fruit and become truly members of the JBC will have to *** 3 with
inclusive. * * * respect to the votes are considered. The
Appointments to the Judiciary shall be problem or the question raised was, if a sitting
made by the President from a list of at least justice in the Supreme Court, associate justice
three nominees to be submitted by the Judicial will apply for the position of chief justice, Will his
and Bar Council . And constitutionally only the application be processed by the JBC? Is there a
Supreme Court qualifications are all provided for ** because of the constitutional theory that
by the constitution as to age, natural-born clearly states that all appointments to the
citizenship be proven ** integrity, probity, judiciary must have to pass through the JBC.
independence while rest of the lower courts, But if you are already a sitting justice in the,
they can be subject to qualifications as provided Supreme Court, will your application for that
for by Congress. The requirement of natural position of chief Justice be processed like you
born citizenship is not provided in the are an outsider?
Constitution with respect to collegiate court
justices and lower court judges but if you have No problem with those who are not yet members
read the case of Justice Ong. Before he was of the Supreme Court because even if you are
dismissed from Sandiganbayan Justice Ong lower court judge or a justice in Sandiganbayan
applied from the Supreme Court, but there was or justice of Court of Appeals or Court of tax
a question on his citizenship because there was Appeals, because the Supreme Court is not
no proof that he is a natural born or there is a different court then your application must have
question on whether he is a natural born citizen. to be processed. But if we say you are a senior
While it is provided for in the Constitution that associate justice, should your application be
Supreme Court Justices must be natural born processed? Because what if the JBC will not
citizen, what about the lower court judges or consider your application.
justices of collegiate court . The qualifications for
lower court judges and the justices of lower The second question raised there, although not
collegiate court are all provided in the Judiciary actually answered is the fact that, The President
Reorganization Act of 1980, BP 129. All their is supposed to chose from among the three
qualifications are there and it is provided that all nominees submitted in the list submitted by JBC
judges from the lower courts up to the appellate as to who to appoint for a position including that
court (also known as intermediate appellate of the Chief justice. The question is "can the
court and later court of appeals), they must be President, not request but direct the JBC to
natural born ciizens. So in the case of Justice submit more names because he does not like
Ong, he was never appointed in Supreme Court the 3 names submitted by the JBC. There were
because his application was never considered discussions like the President is limited as to his
because of the question of his citizenship. choices as to who among the nominees who
Section 7. Qualifications. – The Presiding were included in the JBC list. The appointing
Justice and the Associate Justice shall have the authority of the President is limited to such list
same qualifications as those provided in and could never direct the JBC to actually
Constitution for Justice of the Supreme Court. submit more names other than those names in
the list. Again, these are questions.
And with respect to appointments in lower
collegiate courts and lower court judges, the 90- The other matter which was substantially
day is reckoned at the time the JBC has discussed in the matter of Judiciary with respect
submitted the list of its 3-nominees. In the case to Supreme Court is that if the vacancy is
of De Castro vs JBC, there were some anticipatory because of a retirement, the JBC is
78
EDITED BY: Raia TRANSCRIBED BY: Brunx, Rhoda, Ces, Aning, Yna, Kye, Bon, Sid, James, Rjay, Justin,
Bryan
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 REVIEW 2015
4- MANRESA
not precluded from processing applications even were reacting because they were saying that
before the retirement day comes. And the SC the Cross border transfers made by the
made mentioned that it should be before and not President to other branches are not
after because the 90-day period will be constitutional and yet the SC was also the
unnecessarily shorten. So that if the reason for recipient of the Cross border transfers.
the vacancy is anticipated retirement, the JBC
can now process all the applications for the What most people do not know is
position or slot in the Supreme Court because that because of the prohibition of non diminution
the 90-day period where the Constitution is of appropriations of the Judiciary, the Congress
mandatory. But then again, it goes without can only maintain what has been appropriated
saying that, even if the appointment is made last year or the current year or increase it but
outside the 90-day period, it will nevertheless be never diminished what has been appropriated
valid and will not be considered unconstitutional. for previous year as to this year on
This was discussed in relation to the prohibition the infrastructure appropriations for the Judiciary
on midnight appointments to such appointment are not placed in the Judiciary. That is why
like, I think yesterday the President finally made almost all the court houses here are under the
an appointment to the Civil Service Commission department of Justice, for the simple reason
chairperson. Meaning if there is a vacancy even that. for example this one-billion fund for all the
if the Constitution says it must have to be **, the court houses in the Philippines to be budgeted
appointment to the position, it will not in fact say in 2015. In 2016, you ** out of the budget
render the appointment invalid or because the Constitution prohibits it. That is why
unconstitutional. the infrastructure, it is never in the judiciary. You
cannot find that in the appropriated funds for the
SALARY, FISCAL AUTONOMY AND NON judiciary. And a lot of people do
DIMINUTION OF APPROPRIATIONS OF THE not understand that. Why it is so that the SC will
JUDICIARY AS WELL AS THE AUTOMATIC ask from the executive thru the DBM that
RELEASE OF THE APPROPRIATIONS AS these infrastructure project be funded. Again, it
APPROVED BY THE CONGRESS are all part of is because of the part of the safeguard of
the safeguards on Judicial Independence. These Judicial independence that appropriations for
4 are constitutionally imposed limitations of Congress cannot be diminished. It can only be
dispute to assure that the Judiciary will continue maintained or it can be increased.
be independent from the Political branches of
the government.
And another thing that came about which was in
With respect to Salaries, their salary cannot be the news was on the supposed investigation by
diminished during their tenure although they can Congress on the news for that Judiciary
be increased. Development Fund. Part of all the payments
every time a case is filed in the court goes to the
The provision on Fiscal Autonomy and part of JDF. And the JDF is supposed to be part of
the authority or part of the benefit of this Fiscal the appropriations for the additional benefits of
Autonomy is that, the Supreme Court is not the members of the Judiciary. And Sen.
subject to pre-audit procedure by COA. It is Pimentel was saying he will conduct of
subject to post-audit procedures. investigation to see how the JDF had been
spent and whether, because this was by
With respect to Non-diminutions of law, whether there is a need to amend the law
appropriations, when the DAF came about in the so that Congress can have control over JDF. It
news, you may have read that, there were goes again to the Non-diminutions of
insinuations that SC or the Judiciary were also a appropriations because all the funds taken
beneficiary of unconstitutional Cross border under the JDF are automatically part of the
transfers(?). Because apparently there were appropriated funds of the Judiciary. The
request to the SC ** the chief justice to fund question is, can Congress touch that? Can
certain projects in the judiciary. Most of them are congress take that from the judiciary, because it
court houses or court buildings whether might be so that it is a violation of Non-
constructed or renovated and a lot of people diminutions of appropriations. So after that, it
79
EDITED BY: Raia TRANSCRIBED BY: Brunx, Rhoda, Ces, Aning, Yna, Kye, Bon, Sid, James, Rjay, Justin,
Bryan
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 REVIEW 2015
4- MANRESA
was never again seen in any space of money funded and so there may be a short or all
newspaper because there is a view that that appropriations may not be funded at the same
cannot be done. It cannot be undone as it is time. If that happens, all government offices
done because it is already part of the suffer but because of the provision on non
appropriated funds of the Judiciary. diminution. The appropriated amount of
Judiciary shall be released regualrly, it means
It goes even further in one case, the case of In that they should not be subjected to any
Re COA Opinion 678 S 1 (2012) that the SC precondition before release. While others will
discussed the entire so called division of have to request for release, special allotment,
dependence in relation to fiscal autonomy. The release order, SARO(?) if you have come across
SC can even use its own previously COA that term, the judiciary will not be required to do
approved formula for putting a value on a that. All appropriations for judiciary should
property in which it would sell. Because this be released. If there is a revenue shortfall, well,
case involves certain properties, cars included, the judiciary will also suffer. The SC said the
to be sold to the retiree justices. **When they judiciary must have preference in the list. So
retire, most of them will get part of the funds again while the revenue shortfall will result into
**. The JDF was use to fully furnish their most appropriated items not funded if there is a
summer house in Baguio. So there was a fund, the judciary shall have the preference and
question on whether the use of that fund or part the other will just follow because of the so called
of the fund to buy new furniture, new curtains to Fiscal Autonomy.
fully furnish the summer house was consistent
with the objective or purpose of the JDF. SC And finally the SECURITY OF TENURE.
said, these are Judiciary Funds, and for so long Members of judiciary shall serve until retirement
as they are not spent in violation of COA- age 70, for so long as they are in so called good
existing rules and regulations, included the behavior. And as we all know they are
evaluation of the cars also. Here in the impeachable officers so they cannot be removed
Philippines, cars are supposed to be without cause until they are impeached. Can a
deteriorating or diminishing value of 20% per member of SC be charged of a case, criminal or
year so at the end of the 5 years, the book value civil? The answer will have to be related to
of the car is only 1Php. So it is sold to the justice whether it will effectively remove(?) him from his
for a couple of thousands, based on the COA office, in case it will not effectively remove? him
approved valuation formula and that is SC's from his office, the case will prosper because
discretion, and COA cannot touched that they do not enjoy the immunity of the President.
because that is part of fiscal autonomy in But if the case will effectively removed(?) them
relation to judicial independence. from office, the case will not prosper in the
meantime.
The other matter there in relation to judicial
independence is Automatic release of But with respect to other judges of lower court
Appropriations and that was the ruling in the and lower collegiate court justices, they are
case of ******( Sorry, di jud nako madunggan subject to the Power of the SC to discipline. This
ang kaso :( ) which was applied in the Judiciary REMOVAL is always undiscussed in relation to
as well. We all know that the executive prepares SC administration, the last reorganization was
the budget and Congress approves it, all the held in 1988 or 1981 by reason of law that was
moneys there are not fully funded. while your the last Reorganization Act. And there was a
Article 6, Section 25 par 3, states that "A special question whether the "Reorganization Result" **
appropriations bill shall specify the purpose for because again ordinary judges or justices of
which it is intended, and shall be supported by collegiate court can only be removed with cause.
funds actually available as certified by the The SC had the occasion to discuss the
National Treasurer, or to be raised by a difference between removal and reorganization.
corresponding revenue proposal therein." But
with respect to the General's appropriations bill, When the judge is removed, the position
that is not required. So while, let's say the remains. So there is vacancy that is the reason
budget next year is 1.3 Trillion, not all of that are for severance of service that reason must have
funded. Government would still have to get to be based on just and valid cause.
80
EDITED BY: Raia TRANSCRIBED BY: Brunx, Rhoda, Ces, Aning, Yna, Kye, Bon, Sid, James, Rjay, Justin,
Bryan
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 REVIEW 2015
4- MANRESA
81
EDITED BY: Raia TRANSCRIBED BY: Brunx, Rhoda, Ces, Aning, Yna, Kye, Bon, Sid, James, Rjay, Justin,
Bryan
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 REVIEW 2015
4- MANRESA
jurisdiction to SC in some cases as mentioned in nor automatically suspend the privilege of the
one of the provisions there was unconstitutional. writ.
It cannot be passed by the Congress without the The suspension of the privilege of the writ shall
concurrence of the SC. apply only to persons judicially charged for
rebellion or offenses inherent in or directly
Other than that the cases which the SC has connected with invasion.
jurisdiction as provided for in Constitution, en During the suspension of the privilege of the
banc and division cases. En banc, we have writ, any person thus arrested or detained shall
constitutional issues were cases when the SC be judicially charged within three days,
reviews the exercise of the President as otherwise he shall be released.
Commander-in-chief under Article 7, section 18.
Under section 4, when the division vote is not
Section 18. The President shall be the met and in the same section when there is a
Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the reversal of the doctrine previously issued by the
Philippines and whenever it becomes Supreme Court. When the SC acts as the
necessary, he may call out such armed forces to Presidential Electoral Tribunal en banc, and in
prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion disciplinary cases where the penalties are
or rebellion. In case of invasion or rebellion, dismissal, disbarment or suspension of more
when the public safety requires it, he may, for a than one year or a fine of more that 10,000 or
period not exceeding sixty days, suspend the both.
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place Section 4. The President and the Vice-
the Philippines or any part thereof under martial President shall be elected by direct vote of the
law. Within forty-eight hours from the people for a term of six years which shall begin
proclamation of martial law or the suspension of at noon on the thirtieth day of June next
the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, the following the day of the election and shall end at
President shall submit a report in person or in noon of the same date, six years thereafter. The
writing to the Congress. The Congress, voting President shall not be eligible for any re-election.
jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of all its No person who has succeeded as President and
Members in regular or special session, may has served as such for more than four years
revoke such proclamation or suspension, which shall be qualified for election to the same office
revocation shall not be set aside by the at any time.
President. Upon the initiative of the President, No Vice-President shall serve for more than two
the Congress may, in the same manner, extend successive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the
such proclamation or suspension for a period to office for any length of time shall not be
be determined by the Congress, if the invasion considered as an interruption in the continuity of
or rebellion shall persist and public safety the service for the full term for which he was
requires it. elected.
The Congress, if not in session, shall, within Unless otherwise provided by law, the regular
twenty-four hours following such proclamation or election for President and Vice-President shall
suspension, convene in accordance with its be held on the second Monday of May.
rules without need of a call. The returns of every election for President and
The Supreme Court may review, in an Vice-President, duly certified by the board of
appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen, the canvassers of each province or city, shall be
sufficiency of the factual basis of the transmitted to the Congress, directed to the
proclamation of martial law or the suspension of President of the Senate. Upon receipt of the
the privilege of the writ or the extension thereof, certificates of canvass, the President of the
and must promulgate its decision thereon within Senate shall, not later than thirty days after the
thirty days from its filing. day of the election, open all the certificates in
A state of martial law does not suspend the the presence of the Senate and the House of
operation of the Constitution, nor supplant the Representatives in joint public session, and the
functioning of the civil courts or legislative Congress, upon determination of the authenticity
assemblies, nor authorize the conferment of and due execution thereof in the manner
jurisdiction on military courts and agencies over provided by law, canvass the votes.
civilians where civil courts are able to function, The person having the highest number of votes
82
EDITED BY: Raia TRANSCRIBED BY: Brunx, Rhoda, Ces, Aning, Yna, Kye, Bon, Sid, James, Rjay, Justin,
Bryan
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 REVIEW 2015
4- MANRESA
shall be proclaimed elected, but in case two or simple means that when the case involves the
more shall have an equal and highest number of correct application or interpretation of a law on
votes, one of them shall forthwith be chosen by an admitted or undisputed settled facts, then
the vote of a majority of all the Members of both that is a case involving a question of law.
Houses of the Congress, voting separately. Meaning, when the facts are admitted or not
The Congress shall promulgate its rules for the disputed and the only issue is what law to be
canvassing of the certificates. applied in those given set of facts, then you can
The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the go directly to the SC on a pure question of law.
sole judge of all contests relating to the election,
returns, and qualifications of the President or Another issue in the case of Rep vs Ortigas is
Vice-President, and may promulgate its rules for the manner of appeal. I just found it interesting,
the purpose. can an order denying a motion for
And in relation to its appellate powers, the SC reconsideration be appealed? Of course you
under Section 5(2), there are listing down there. know that in your remedial law that ordinarily, it
Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the cannot be appealed, because it is an
following powers: interlocutory order. However in the denial of the
motion for reconsideration adjudicating on the
1. XXXX
merits, you can appeal that. Because not all
2. Review, revise, reverse, modify, or
orders denying the MR is an interlocutory order.
affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law
So for example, you file a complaint, the
or the Rules of Court may provide, final
defendant filed a motion to dismiss, and the
judgments and orders of lower courts in:
court granted the motion to dismiss. You filed a
a. All cases in which the motion for Reconsideration on the plaintiff, the
constitutionality or validity of any court denied your MR, can you appeal that order
treaty, international or executive denying your MR? The answer is yes because it
agreement, law, presidential is an adjudication on the merits, your complaint
decree, proclamation, order, has been dismissed. Where do you go from
instruction, ordinance, or there? You have to appeal that for denying the
regulation is in question. MR. Of course the order granting the dismissal.
b. All cases involving the legality of
any tax, impost, assessment, or REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,
toll, or any penalty imposed in represented by the DEPARTMENT OF
relation thereto. PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS
c. All cases in which the (DPWH), Petitioner, vs. ORTIGAS AND
jurisdiction of any lower court is COMPANY LIMITED
in issue. PARTNERSHIP, Respondents. G.R.
d. All criminal cases in which the No.171496 March 3, 2014
penalty imposed is reclusion There is a question of law when the appellant
perpetua or higher. raises an issue as to what law shall be applied
All cases in which only an error or question of on a given set of facts.39 Questions of law do
law is involved "not involve an examination of the probative
In the case of Republic vs Ortigas, 717 S 601 value of the evidence presented."40 Its resolution
(2014), is a matter on the questions of law. In rests solely on the application of a law given the
legal practice, it has always been risky for the circumstances.41 There is a question of fact
opposition to go directly to the SC. But when the court is required to examine the truth
sometimes, there are cases which involved only or falsity of the facts presented.42 A question of
question of law. But in the ordinary course of fact "invites a review of the evidence."43
procedure, it has to go through the CA before The sole issue raised by petitioner Republic of
going to SC because once it goes to SC and the Philippines to the Court of Appeals is
your petition is dismissed, then you are finished. whether respondent Ortigas’ property should be
You can no longer seek for another review or conveyed to it only by donation, in accordance
plea. So when is a question said to be involving with Section 50 of Presidential Decree No. 1529.
a mere question of law, it shall be directly This question involves the interpretation and
appealed to the SC. In your cases there, it application of the provision. It does not require
83
EDITED BY: Raia TRANSCRIBED BY: Brunx, Rhoda, Ces, Aning, Yna, Kye, Bon, Sid, James, Rjay, Justin,
Bryan
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 REVIEW 2015
4- MANRESA
the Court of Appeals to examine the truth or SC? This is asked because in the 1935
falsity of the facts presented. Neither does it Constitution, the Constitution provides
invite a review of the evidence. The issue raised that Congress shall have the power to repeal,
before the Court of Appeals was, therefore, a alter or supplement the rules concerning blah
question purely of law. The proper mode of blah. In 1973, it is provided which however may
appeal is through a petition for review under be repealed, altered or supplemented by the
Rule 45. Hence, the Court of Appeals did not err Batasang Pambansa, meaning the Rules
in dismissing the appeal on this ground. promulgated by the SC can be repealed, altered
or supplemented. That is not found in the 1987
In relation to section 5, par 5 is your procedural Constitution. The question is can the Congress
making powers. enact a law affecting this Rules? Meaning
5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection repealing them, amending them? You have your
and enforcement of constitutional rights, case of Echegaray vs Sec 301 S 96 (1999)
pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, where the SC categorically stated that Congress
the admission to the practice of law, the have no longer have power. The 9187
integrated bar, and legal assistance to the Constitution expanded the rule-making power of
under-privileged. Such rules shall provide a the SC and took away the power of Congress on
simplified and inexpensive procedure for the such Rules. Before the Echegaray ruling, there
speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for are 2 points view or schools of thought:
all courts of the same grade, and shall not 1. It is no longer with Congress because the
diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. 1987 Constitution omitted it
Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi- 2. It need not be there because again,
judicial bodies shall remain effective unless the Constitution is not a question of what has
disapproved by the Supreme Court. been provided, the Constitution is a question of
what has been limited. So if the Constitution
There is nothing much there, it has not changed does not limited it, meaning it can be exercised.
so far except that you may notice, and I have But Echegaray clarified it by saying the
because of some friends, that the ruling now of Congress had no longer that power. Rightfully
SC includes admission to the practice of law. If so because under the 1935 Constitution and in
you read the Rules of Court after Rule 137, 1971, in what is so called "bar- flunkers case"
(gicheck nako kay Rule 138 ang Admission to was decided by the SC because the Congress
the Bar). And supposedly, the grade to be opted to lower the passing grade, the SC said
admitted in the Bar is, you must get an average Congress cannot enact a law lowering the
of 75 and you must not get a grade lower that passing grade of bar exam because as that is
50, that is supposed to be the qualifying mark. part of the rule-making power of the SC. Now
Even if your grade is 90+, but then you have a the SC has been lowering it.
grade of 49 then are supposed to be
disqualified. In recent years, it must not been ADMINISTRATIVE POWER OF SUPREME
unknown to you, the SC has lowered the grade COURT
for passing the Bar, there is nothing to take Just a rundown of it, on section 6 supervision of
away against those who passed on a lower lower courts.
grade or who passed it, just to be clear of that, Section 6. The Supreme Court shall have
but what about those who in the past did not administrative supervision over all courts and
passed because the passing grade is 75 (di ko the personnel thereof.
sure if tama akong pagkadungog ani). I have a
classmate before who got a grade of 74.89, he All these cases here would just tell us that when
didn't make it because the SC did not lower it. there is case that is filed in relation to the
So can the SC ** against its own rules by ADMINISTRATIVE LIABILITY, let's be clear on
lowering the passing grade of bar? This is a that, of all lower court judges, lower collegiate
SC(hahahaha) court judges and all court personnel, it cannot be
under the jurisdiction of Ombudsman for
The more important question is, can the investigation before the SC has exercised its
congress enact a law affecting any of the primary jurisdiction. The power of Supervision,
matters part of the rule-making powers of the remember we discussed this in the power of **
84
EDITED BY: Raia TRANSCRIBED BY: Brunx, Rhoda, Ces, Aning, Yna, Kye, Bon, Sid, James, Rjay, Justin,
Bryan
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 REVIEW 2015
4- MANRESA
85
EDITED BY: Raia TRANSCRIBED BY: Brunx, Rhoda, Ces, Aning, Yna, Kye, Bon, Sid, James, Rjay, Justin,
Bryan
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 REVIEW 2015
4- MANRESA
ninety days from the occurrence thereof. shall be reversed and the accused acquitted.
(3a)
All cases involving the constitutionality of a
treaty, international or executive agreement,
or law, which shall be heard by the Supreme The concept of shifting majority for purposes of
Court en banc, and all other cases which determining whether the court has validly
under the Rules of Court are required to be rendered the decision… Under the previous
heard en banc, including those involving the Constitutions, there was an exact number of
constitutionality, application, or operation of votes required for a decision of the Supreme
presidential decrees, proclamations, orders, Court to be valid. At present, the court, the
instructions, ordinances, and other majority of the members who actually took part
regulations, shall be decided with the in the deliberations on the issues on the case
concurrence of a majority of the Members voted thereon shall be the majority required.
who actually took part in the deliberations on
the issues in the case and voted thereon. There has to be a quorum first to determine
whether or not the court can validly conduct
Cases or matters heard by a division shall be business. The majority of the quorum will
decided or resolved with the concurrence of resolve the decision. For so long as there is a
a majority of the Members who actually took quorum, the majority will shift depending on the
part in the deliberations on the issues in the number of justices who actually took part and
case and voted thereon, and in no case deliberated on the issues.
without the concurrence of at least three of
such Members. When the required number is It is also required that the dissenting opinions of
not obtained, the case shall be decided en decisions must have to be appended to the
banc: Provided, that no doctrine or principle decision. The dissenters are required to make
of law laid down by the court in a decision their dissenting opinions, although we have seen
rendered en banc or in division may be in the cases that some justices will just concur
modified or reversed except by the court with the dissenting opinion of another justice.
sitting en banc.
Those who did not take part or those who
Rule 56, Sec 7 (1997 Rules on Civil abstained, or those who have inhibited
Procedure) themselves must state the reasons for the
Section 7. Procedure if opinion is inhibition. The question is: are those who have
equally divided. — Where the court en banc abstained or inhibited, should their number be
is equally divided in opinion, or the considered for the purpose of determining
necessary majority cannot be had, the case quorum? Those who have abstained, they are
shall again be deliberated on, and if after considered to be included. But those who did not
such deliberation no decision is reached, the actually take part because they have inhibited
original action commenced in the court shall themselves, they shall not be considered.
be dismissed, in appealed cases, the
judgment or order appealed from shall stand A special requirement for decisions of the SC in
affirmed; and on all incidental matters, the division is that if they are sitting in divisions, in
petition or motion shall be denied. no case shall there be a vote of less than 3. So
at present since the division is of 5 members, 3
Rule 125, Sec 3 (2000 Rules on Criminal is required for a valid vote because that is
Procedure) quorum, and all 3 must have to vote similarly for
Section 3. Decision if opinion is equally there to be a valid decision.
divided. — When the Supreme Court en banc
is equally divided in opinion or the And in relation to the Rules of Court, Rule 56,
necessary majority cannot be had on Sec 7, in division cases and the division has
whether to acquit the appellant, the case failed to reach a decision, they would have to
shall again be deliberated upon and if no refer it to the Court en banc. And if the court en
decision is reached after re-deliberation, the banc has failed to reach a decision, in civil cases
judgment of conviction of the lower court there will have to be deliberation similar in
86
EDITED BY: Raia TRANSCRIBED BY: Brunx, Rhoda, Ces, Aning, Yna, Kye, Bon, Sid, James, Rjay, Justin,
Bryan
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 REVIEW 2015
4- MANRESA
criminal cases under Rule 125 and it may that ponente in the decision of the SC granting bail
the court will come up with a vote already. But if (to Enrile) has filed an administrative complaint
the court still fails to come up with a vote in civil against Leonen… Because he wrote a
cases, original decisions will be dismissed. If it is dissenting opinion and he included possibly
an appealed case, the appealed decision shall what took part on the deliberations.
be affirmed, all incidental matters, like motions
for reconsideration, are to be denied. Dissenting opinions are supposed to be included
so that the public and the parties, especially we
In criminal cases after the hearing, the SC en know, how the court has voted on the issues
banc has still failed to come up with a decision and to see whether there’s a point to the
or a vote, the judgment of conviction shall be dissenting opinion. As we all know, a dissenting
resolved into an acquittal. opinion is not part of our legal system. But in
some instances, the dissenting opinion may
In 1935, the vote was 2/3 and that does not shift. thereafter the rule of the majority. So, when
In the 1973 Constitution, there is a required Justice Marvic Leonen somehow discussed
number of 8 and constitutional issues, there was what were deliberated upon during the required
a minimum number of 5. That was the reason consultation because part of the procedure for
why in the case of Javellana v. Secretary, the granting a decision under the Constitution is that
SC has not declared the proclamation, simply decisions must have to be reached upon
because there was failure on the part of the consultation with the members of the court, and
court to reach the required number of votes. this applies to the lower collegiate courts. And it
is only assigned to the writer when there is a
decision already reached. And apparently,
REQUIREMENTS AS TO DECISIONS according to Marvic Leonen, the first draft was
not the one actually circulated for the signing of
Section 13. The conclusions of the Supreme the decision by the SC. Have you read the Enrile
Court in any case submitted to it for the bail case?
decision en banc or in division shall be
reached in consultation before the case the In the news, it will seem that there is now a…
case assigned to a Member for the writing of that the SC apparently granted bail because the
the opinion of the Court. A certification to evidence of guilt is not strong. I think that the
this effect signed by the Chief Justice shall reporters made a report that in the
be issued and a copy thereof attached to the Sandiganbayan meeting, there were actually no
record of the case and served upon the evidence against Enrile accepting any of the
parties. Any Member who took no part, or PDAF in the Napoles hearings.
dissented, or abstained from a decision or
resolution must state the reason therefor. In the decision of the SC, the main decision
The same requirements shall be observed by granting bail to Enrile on 2 grounds. First,
all lower collegiate court. because of the so-called social standing of
Enrile and because of that social standing, there
Section 14. No decision shall be rendered by is less probability of ___?? And 2 of the justices
any court without expressing therein clearly who joined in the majority signed in the notation
and distinctly the facts and the law on which for humanitarian reasons. Probably they did not
it is based. concur on the reasoning of the court. Because it
may lead to a different understanding or
No petition for review or motion for perspective that bail can be granted even if the
reconsideration of a decision of the court evidence of guilt is strong because of the social
shall be refused due course or denied standing of the accused. The news reports have
without stating the legal basis therefor. it that the evidence of guilt is not strong.
Actually, that was not part of the decision
because that was never discussed. What was
Now the other requirements for decisions, under discussed there was: what is the nature of bail?
Sections 13 and 14, only this has been the We will discuss that again when we reach the
subject of several commentaries. In fact, the item on bail. But that has somehow given the
87
EDITED BY: Raia TRANSCRIBED BY: Brunx, Rhoda, Ces, Aning, Yna, Kye, Bon, Sid, James, Rjay, Justin,
Bryan
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 REVIEW 2015
4- MANRESA
public how the SC arrived its decision because reconsiders that decision, therefore has to make
previous to this, and previous to the time during a new decision, it has to explain why it has taken
the Corona impeachment… Before that, the back all its findings before and must have to
public has not been aware of how the SC has therefore state what the facts are now and what
actually reached its decisions. It has only been the laws are applying now and the MR was
guided on what the Constitution has provided granted. But if it was denied, there is no need for
that decisions are reached upon prior restating them. And only the legal basis or the
consultation and there has to be a certification to decision.
the effect that there has been consultation to
that effect. However, that of any certification did I have personally filed a… in your e-filing in the
not render a decision, because there is a SC in your remedial law, you know that when
presumption of regularity in the performance of you file a petition with the original jurisdiction of
what is constitutionally required of them. the SC, you are required to file also electronic
copies in pdf form, either in a CD or in a USB.
Under Section 14, decisions must clearly and There is also a special requirement for
distinctly show the facts and the law upon which certification that the lawyer who filed a petition
is based. This is discussed in relation to your 7 certified under his oath as a lawyer, that the pdf
cardinal primary rights in administrative cases or form is the same as the hard copy. Without the
administrative procedure on due process. pdf form in the USB or CD, your petition will be
Because the number 7 there is that the decision denied because for failure to comply with the
of administrative bodies must state the facts and Rules.
the law on which the decision is based so that
the parties may know of the conclusion of the I have received a decision filed by the adverse
administrative agency. party, filed before the SC. It so happened that
the lawyer… he did not know that under Rule
So the question is: is Section 14 Art VIII 65. What do you do next if you are the
applicable to admin bodies? The answer is no, respondent? If you receive a copy of the petition,
because it refers to decisions of the court. But if what does the respondent do? You have to wait.
the question is phrased differently: is the The court will order you to comment within 10
requirement that decisions must state the facts days. Until the order is received, you just wait.
and the law also required in admin cases? The But what we did was we filed a comment with a
answer is yes, because that is part of admin motion to dismiss saying that he did not know
procedural due process. the Rules. And the SC dismissed it on that
ground. So if the SC dismissed your petition, the
The second paragraph there: or motion for second paragraph only requires that the legal
reconsideration of a decision of the court shall basis for the dismissal be stated. So that was
be refused due course or denied without stating exactly the dismissal that the SC stated: for
the legal basis therefore…. What is required is failure to comply with the SC circular number so
not to restate the facts and the law from which and so, dated so and so… the petition is hereby
the denial or the decision is based. Only the dismissed. And so that’s the end of it. So no
legal reason for such denial, and it is only when need for stating the factual and legal reasons for
a motion for reconsideration is granted and a that dismissal.
decision is rendered, which is based on the old
case of Mangelen v. CA, a decision was
rendered by the court, a motion for MANDATORY PERIOD FOR DECIDING
reconsideration was filed. The court granted the CASES
MR. The question is: should the order granting
the MR of a decision earlier rendered, does it Art VIII, Section 15.
need to state the facts and the law on which the All cases or matters filed after the effectivity
order is based? The SC said yes. When the of this Constitution must be decided or
court issued the first decision subject of the resolved within twenty-four months from
motion, it has stated what the facts are, and date of submission for the Supreme Court,
what the applicable laws are for which the court and, unless reduced by the Supreme Court,
has reached its conclusion. When the court twelve months for all lower collegiate courts,
88
EDITED BY: Raia TRANSCRIBED BY: Brunx, Rhoda, Ces, Aning, Yna, Kye, Bon, Sid, James, Rjay, Justin,
Bryan
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 REVIEW 2015
4- MANRESA
and three months for all other lower courts. determined by the Supreme Court as soon as
practicable.
A case or matter shall be deemed submitted
for decision or resolution upon the filing of Section 14. The provisions of paragraphs (3)
the last pleading, brief, or memorandum and (4), Section 15 of Article VIII of this
required by the Rules of Court or by the Constitution shall apply to cases or matters
court itself. filed before the ratification of this
Constitution, when the applicable period
Upon the expiration of the corresponding lapses after such ratification.
period, a certification to this effect signed by
the Chief Justice or the presiding judge shall
forthwith be issued and a copy thereof The Constitution says there is 3 months for
attached to the record of the case or matter, lower courts, 12 months for lower collegiate
and served upon the parties. The courts, 24 months for the SC. Those are both
certification shall state why a decision or mandatory and directory. It is directory with
resolution has not been rendered or issued respect to the validity of the decision or
within said period. resolution, whether you are outside of the
periods. Stated differently, if the decision or
Despite the expiration of the applicable resolution is issued or promulgated after the said
mandatory period, the court, without periods, these are still valid decisions, provided
prejudice to such responsibility as may have that they comply with all the other requirements.
been incurred in consequence thereof, shall But with respect to the justices or judges
decide or resolve the case or matter required to render decisions within said periods,
submitted thereto for determination, without they are mandatory. And from all the cases you
further delay. have read regarding these periods, there has
been imposition of fines, some have been
suspended for failing to comply with these
Art VII, Sec 18 , Par 3: Rules. That should make it mandatory. Sadly,
The Supreme Court may review, in an there has been no SC justice who has been
appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen, found liable for failure to comply with the 24-
the sufficiency of the factual basis of the month rule. What about the CA? SB? There has
proclamation of martial law or the been. But SC has not imposed upon any of its
suspension of the privilege of the writ or the members for failing to comply with the 24-month
extension thereof, and must promulgate its rule for rendering decisions. That is the nature of
decision thereon within thirty days from its it being mandatory for them.
filing.
89
EDITED BY: Raia TRANSCRIBED BY: Brunx, Rhoda, Ces, Aning, Yna, Kye, Bon, Sid, James, Rjay, Justin,
Bryan
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 REVIEW 2015
4- MANRESA
Appointments. Of the Members first between the House of Senate and House of
appointed, the representative of the Representatives, which is required when they
Integrated Bar shall serve for four years, the perform legislative functions. But here, it is just
professor of law for three years, the retired to give them a vote as one body representing
Justice for two years, and the representative the legislative branch of government. And no
of the private sector for one year. amount of arrangement, like what they have
done before, 1 member from Senate and 1
The Clerk of the Supreme Court shall be the member from the House of Representatives,
Secretary ex officio of the Council and shall would have a vote, because the SC said that
keep a record of its proceedings. there should only be 7 members with one vote
each. The reason why this has been the subject
The regular Members of the Council shall is perhaps the JBC is primarily recommends
receive such emoluments as may be appointees to the judiciary. That includes the
determined by the Supreme Court. The Chief Justice of the SC. Of course that includes
Supreme Court shall provide in its annual the Office of the Ombudsman and other
budget the appropriations for the Council. functions that the SC may direct.
The Council shall have the principal function In an old case involving the elections of the IBP,
of recommending appointees to the and it has always been the position of IBP
judiciary. It may exercise such other President is the most coveted, not because of
functions and duties as the Supreme Court anything else, but because of his or her
may assign to it. participation in the JBC. And because of that,
there were a few elections in the past which
have been declared invalid because of violation
Judicial and Bar Council, there’s nothing much of the rules that there shall be no election. And it
to remember here aside from what we have is because of the power of the member of the
discussed earlier with respect to the appointing JBC to make such recommendations to the
power. Appointments to the judiciary, we only judiciary.
have the matter which probably has to be
remembered… the first JBC case with respect to So that will take care of your Judicial
the opposition of the Judicial and Bar Council. Department. Constitutional commissions
(ConstiCom), just start with… there’s nothing
The JBC is composed of 7 members, they are much in the composition… The only discussion
ex-officio Chief Justice, Secretary of Justice, and there with respect to qualifications probably
a member of Congress. The Clerk of Court of would be the concept of extended
the SC shall be the secretary of the JBC. And disqualification.
there shall be 4 other members who are
appointed for a fixed term of 4 years with the No candidate who has lost in any election shall,
confirmation of the COA, a representative of the within 1 year after such election, be appointed to
IBP, a retired member of the SC, and a any public office, GOCC or subsidiary.
professional of law and the representative of the
private sector. That is applicable to other government positions,
but not to the commissions. Because in the
In this case of Chavez v. JBC, the term, commissions, there is a special disqualification
“Congress” there does not pertain to Congress that they must not have been candidates for any
acting as a legislative body exercising legislative elective position in the elections immediately
powers. This is part of the intent of the preceding their appointment. So since the
Constitution to create a JBC which is elections in the Philippines is every 3 years, if
representative of the 3 branches of government you have run for example in 2013 or 2010, you
as well as the private sector, with all 7 members cannot be appointed even if you resign from
having equal weight in their vote of one each. your elective office until the 2013 elections has
But the SC tried to go over the records and ruled been conducted because it extends beyond the
that when the term Congress was used in the 1 year because you must not have been a
composition of the JBC, there is no liaison candidate in the immediately preceding
90
EDITED BY: Raia TRANSCRIBED BY: Brunx, Rhoda, Ces, Aning, Yna, Kye, Bon, Sid, James, Rjay, Justin,
Bryan
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 REVIEW 2015
4- MANRESA
91
EDITED BY: Raia TRANSCRIBED BY: Brunx, Rhoda, Ces, Aning, Yna, Kye, Bon, Sid, James, Rjay, Justin,
Bryan
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 REVIEW 2015
4- MANRESA
Example, COMELEC. The COMELEC’s task is a lot of laymen do not understand why
to handle all elections which Is done every 3 the government was able to investigate
years. During an election year, we expect the PDAF scam when it should not have
appropriation to COMELEC be increased. In a been because the beneficiaries were
non-elec year, obviously they do not need the non-government. Whenever there is
same amount of money. The same is tru for all public fund, whoever the beneficiary
other commissions. may be including the so called NGOs
they can be examined and audited by
5. Prohibition on temporary appointments in COA.
the commission. All appointments to be made
by president must be permanent. FUNA vs MANILA ECONOMICS AND
CULTURAL CONGRESS (MECCO)
In the old case of Brillantes vs Yorac, that even MECCO was established because of the one
the designation of an OIC chairperson is not china policy after the war in china, there were
given to the President. If the chairperson’s two states that resulted to the cessation of the
position is vacant, it is the duty of the war i.e. China and Taiwan. Philippines and all
commissioners to appoint who shall be the OIC other states have had diplomatic relations with
chair until the president makes a permanent both states until the UN resolution based on
appointment; It is only by permanent China’s representation to follow the one china
appointment which the commissioner can be policy. Therefore, all states who had diplomatic
secure in his position, thereby maintaining relations with Taiwan had to cut it. That included
independence. Otherwise he will not be able to the Philippines. But because the Philippines
discharge his functions owing to the fact that the have “diplomatic ties” with Taiwan, it has
president may not make any permanent maintained what they call as ______ diplomacy.
appointments. They established in Manila MECCO office to
handle two things: one, the matter of OFWs in
POWERS Taiwan; second, matters with respect to Visa
Applications.
All commissions have quasi-judicial and
administrative power. MECCO was established as an ordinary
corporation but it was tasked by the Philippine
A. CSC. Include all __ government. Only government to collect funds relating to OFW and
GOCCs with an original charters are Visa applications. FUNA (the same Funa who
under CSC. Those established under filed the other cases, namatay na man si chavez
the Corporation Code are covered by so siya nasad), he filed a petition for mandamus
ordinary labor code provisions such as requiring COA to conduct audit on the funds.
matter on the wages, salaries benefits While the petition for mandamus could have
as well as the right to strike. been declared as moot since COA ordered
requiring the conduct of audit, SC decided on
B. COMELEC. Enforce and administer all the substantial issues just to expound the power
laws and regulations relative to the of COA. SC said with respect to the money
conduct of an election, plebiscite, received by MECCO involving those two
initiative, referendum and recall. aspects, they are subject to COA audit; all other
funds held are not subject to such examination.
C. COA. While the Consti lists down the These (the two aspects) are public funds held in
entities over which the COA has the trust by a private entity.
power to exercise, audit examination
and settlement of accounts, the rule of CSC. Barcelona vs Lim. This is an admin case
thumb is whenever there is public fund over the public officer, with respect to
or money it is subject to the audit jurisdiction, SC said the power of CSC to amend
powers of COA. This is regardless who its rules as it may deem fit. There is no prior
the beneficiary is as long as there is requirement of legislation before CSC can
public fund or money received by that amend its rules. It can amend as often as it
person or entity. That is the reason why wants to because it may be required under the
92
EDITED BY: Raia TRANSCRIBED BY: Brunx, Rhoda, Ces, Aning, Yna, Kye, Bon, Sid, James, Rjay, Justin,
Bryan
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 REVIEW 2015
4- MANRESA
93
EDITED BY: Raia TRANSCRIBED BY: Brunx, Rhoda, Ces, Aning, Yna, Kye, Bon, Sid, James, Rjay, Justin,
Bryan
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 REVIEW 2015
4- MANRESA
94
EDITED BY: Raia TRANSCRIBED BY: Brunx, Rhoda, Ces, Aning, Yna, Kye, Bon, Sid, James, Rjay, Justin,
Bryan