UC Political-Law PDF

In CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
Prepared by: Atty. Larry D. Gacayan
PART I
POLITICAL LAW 4. What are the requisites

for the valid exercise of
1. Define Political Law “people’s initiative” to propose
amendments to the
It is that branch of public law Constitution?
which deals with the organization
and operations of the It is provided under Section 2,
governmental organs of the State Art. XVII of the Constitution which
and defines the relations of the provides that “Amendments to this
State with the inhabitants of its Constitution may likewise be directly
territory. (PEOPLE VS. proposed by the people through
PERFECTO, 43 Phil. 887) initiative upon a petition of at least
12% of the total number of
2. What are included in Political registered voters, of which every
Law? legislative district must be
represented by at least 3% of the
 Constitutional Law; registered voter therein.” The
 Administrative Law Congress shall provide for the
 Law of Public Officers implementation of the exercise of
 Law on Public Corporation this right---which means that there
 Election Law must be complete and adequate law
for the said purpose.
3. What is the doctrine
of constitutional 5. Is there a law which
supremacy? would provide for the
mechanism for the people to
Under the doctrine of propose amendments to the
constitutional supremacy, if Constitution by people’s
a law or contract violates any initiative?
norm of the constitution that
law or contract whether While Congress had enacted
promulgated by the RA 6735 purportedly to provide the
legislative or by the mechanisms for the people’s
executive branch or entered exercise the power to amend the
into by private persons for Constitution by people’s initiative,
private purposes is null and the Supreme Court in MIRIAM
void and without any force DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO, et al. Vs.
and effect. Thus, since the COMELEC, G.R. No. 127325,
Constitution is the March 19, 1997 & June 10, 1997,
fundamental, paramount and the Supreme Court held that RA
supreme law of the nation, it 6735 is incomplete, inadequate
is deemed written in every or wanting in essential terms
statute and contract. (Manila and conditions insofar as
Prince Hotel Corporation Case) initiative on amendments to the
I press toward
BAR OPERATIONS 2013 the mark for the
prize of the high calling of God
in Christ Jesus. - Philippians
3:14
BARRISTERS’ CLUB Page 1 of 99

Constitution is concerned. Its people in a plebiscite approve the

lacunae on this substantive same?;
matter are fatal and cannot be
cured by “empowering” the 2. Changing the form of
COMELEC to promulgate such government from presidential to
rules and regulations as may be parliamentary is an act of REVISING
necessary to carry the purposes the Constitution which is not allowed
of this act. under Art. XVII, Section 2. People’s
initiative may only be allowed to
However, in LAMBINO VS. propose amendments to the
COMELEC, the Supreme Court Constitution, not revision.
on November 21, 2006, in the
Minute Resolution of the 6. What are the requisites
petitioner’s Motion for before an amendment to the
Reconsideration, held that RA Constitution by “people’s
No. 6735 is adequate and initiative” is sufficient in form
complete for the purpose of and in substance?
proposing amendments to the
Constitution through people’s In the case of RAUL L.
initiative by a vote of 10 LAMBINO and ERICO B.
members as per Certification of AUMENTADO , together with
the En Banc’s Clerk of Court. 6,327,952 registered voters vs.
THE COMMISSION ON
5-a. May the question “Do ELECTIONS, G.R. No. 174153,
you approve the amendment of October 25, 2006, 505 SCRA 160,
Articles VI and VII of the 1987 the following requisites must be
Philippine Constitution changing present:
the form of government from
Presidential-Bicameral to 1. The people must author
Parliamentary-Unicameral” be and must sign the entire
allowed to be submitted to the proposal. No agent or
people for their ratification or representative can sign for and
rejection as a means of on their behalf;
amending the Constitution by 2. As an initiative upon a
people’s initiative if the petition, THE PROPOSAL MUST BE
requisite number of signatories EMBODIED IN THE PETITION
(12% nationwide and at least 3% ITSELF.
for every legislative district) are
met? These essential elements
are present only if the full text
No, for two (2) reasons. of the proposed amendments is
first shown to the people who
1. The said “proposal” did not will express their assent by
indicate which provisions of Articles signing such complete proposal
VI and VII are actually being in a petition. Thus, an amendment
amended which is a must under is “DIRECTLY PROPOSED BY THE
Section 2, Art. XVII. Otherwise, who PEOPLE THROUGH INITIATIVE UPON A
shall make the amendments if the PETIITON “ ONLY IF THE PEOPLE SIGN
ON A PETITION THAT CONTAINS THE
I press toward
3:14

FULL TEXT OF THE PROPOSED 8. May Congress propose

AMENDMENTS. amendments to the Constitution
while at the same time enacting
7. Distinguish “Revision” a law calling for a Constitutional
from “amendment” of the Convention to propose
Constitution. amendments to the
Constitution?
“Revision” is the alterations
of the different portions of the Yes, there is no
entire document [Constitution]. It prohibition for Congress to propose
may result in the rewriting amendments to the Constitution and
whether the whole constitution, at the same time call for the
or the greater portion of it, or convening of a Constitutional
perhaps some of its important Convention to amend the
provisions. But whatever results Constitution. The word “or” in the
the revision may produce, the provision “…Congress, upon a vote
factor that characterizes it as an of ¾ of all its members; OR [2] A
act of revision is the original constitutional Convention” under
intention and plan authorized to Section 1, Art. XVII also means
be carried out. That intention and “AND”. (GONZALES VS. COMELEC,
plan must contemplate a 21 SCRA 774). IN SHORT, IT
consideration of all the provisions APPEARS THAT THERE IS NO
of the Constitution to determine PROHIBITION FOR CONGRESS, A
which one should be altered or CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION
suppressed or whether the whole AND THE PEOPLE MAKING A
document should be replaced PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE
with an entirely new one. CONSTITUTION AT THE SAME
TIME SINCE THIS IS A POWER
“Amendment” of the SEPARATELY GRANTED TO THEM
Constitution, on the other hand, BY THE CONSTITUTION UNDER
envisages a change or only a few ART. XVII OF THE 1987
specific provisions. The intention CONSTITUTION.
of an act to amend is not to
consider the advisability of 9. What is the “Doctrine of
changing the entire constitution Proper Submission” in
or of considering that possibility. connection with proposed
The intention rather is to improve amendments to the
specific parts of the existing Constitution?
constitution or to add to it
provisions deemed essential on “Doctrine of Proper
account of changed conditions or Submission” means all the proposed
to suppress portions of it that amendments to the Constitution
seem obsolete, or dangerous, or shall be presented to the people for
misleading in their effect. their ratification or rejection at the
(SINCO, Vicente, PHILIPPINE same time, not piecemeal.
POLITICAL LAW, as cited in (TOLENTINO VS. COMELEC, 41
Santiago vs. COMELEC & SCRA 702)
LAMBINO VS. COMELEC)
I press toward
3:14

10. What is the 13. What kind of

archipelagic doctrine or government was the “Aquino
archipelago theory? Government” after former
President Marcos left
It is the 2nd sentence of Malacanang for Hawaii due to
Section 1, Art. I of the Constitution the EDSA Revolution in February
which states that “the waters 1986.
around, between and connecting
the islands of the archipelago, As held in In Re: SATURNINO
regardless of their breadth and BERMUDEZ, 145 SCRA 160, the
dimensions, form part of the same is de jure. A government
internal waters of the formed as a result of a people’s
Philippines.” revolution, is considered de jure if it
is already accepted by the family of
11. What are the elements nations or other countries like the
of a “state”? United States, Great Britain,
Germany, Japan, and others.
As held in COLLECTOR VS.
CAMPOS RUEDA, 42 SCRA 23, the 14. What are the three (3)
elements of a state are. kinds of de facto government?
1. people
2. territory As held in CO KIM CHAM VS.
3. sovereignty VALDEZ TAN KEH, 75 Phil. 113,
4. government the three (3) kinds of de facto
governments are:
12. Are the two-fold
function of government as a. The first, or
enumerated by the Supreme government de facto in a
Court in BACANI VS. NACOCO, proper legal sense, is that
100 Phil. 468 (Ministrant [merely government that gets
directory] and Constituent possession and control of, or
[Mandatory] Functions) still usurps, by force or by the
applicable today? voice of the majority, the
rightful legal governments
No more as held in ACCFA and maintains itself against
VS. CUGCO, 30 SCRA 649. This is the will of the latter, such as
due to complexities of the changing the government of England
society, the two-fold function of the under the Commonwealth,
government as classified by first by Parliament and later
President Wilson is no longer by Cromwell as Protector.
relevant as a result of the changing
society wherein what are considered b. The second is that
merely ministrant functions of the which is established and
State before are now considered maintained by military forces
constituent , or vice versa. who invade and occupy a
territory of the enemy in the
course of war, and which is
denominated a government of
paramount force, as the cases
I press toward
3:14

of Castine, in Maine, which 15. What is the postliminy

was reduced to British theory or jus postliminium?
possession in the war of 1812,
and Tampico, Mexico, When a foreign power
occupied during the war with occupies a state and exercises the
Mexico, by the troops of the powers of government, the political
United States. laws of the said state are deemed
automatically suspended but the
c. And the third is that former government automatically
established as an independent comes to life and will be in force and
government by the in effect again upon the re-
inhabitants of a country who establishment of the former
rise in insurrection against the government. (Taylor, International
parent state of such as the Law, p. 615.)
government of the Southern
Confederacy in revolt not
concerned in the present case 16. What is the doctrine of
with the first kind, but only sovereignty as “auto
with the second and third limitation”?
kinds of de facto
governments. In the succinct language of
Jellinek, it "is the property of a state-
"But there is another force due to which it has the
description of government, exclusive capacity of legal self-
called also by publicists a determination and self-restriction." A
government de facto, but state then, if it chooses to, may
which might, perhaps, be refrain from the exercise of what
more aptly denominated a otherwise is illimitable
government of paramount competence." The opinion was at
force. Its distinguishing pains to point out though that even
characteristics are then, there is at the most diminution
of jurisdictional rights, not its
(1), that its existence is disappearance. (Cited in Reagan vs.
maintained by active military Commissioner, PEOPLE VS. GOZO,
power with the territories, and 53 SCRA 476 and
against the rightful authority COMMISSIONER VS. ROBERTSON,
of an established and lawful 143 SCRA 397)
government; and
(2), that while it exists it 17. What is the
necessarily be obeyed in civil “incorporation theory” or the
matters by private citizens “Incorporation Clause” of the
who, by acts of obedience Constitution?
rendered in submission to
such force, do not become It is the principle embodied in
responsible, or wrongdoers, Section 2, Article II of the
for those acts, though not Constitution which states that “The
warranted by the laws of the Philippines adopts the
rightful government. generally accepted principles of
international law as part of the
I press toward
3:14

law of the land”. (MEJOFF VS.

DIRECTOR OF PRISONS, 90 Phil. 20. Is the “separation of
70, KURODA VS. JALANDONI, 83 church and state” a myth or a
Phil 171, and AGUSTIN VS. EDU, reality?
88 SCRA 195).
It is a reality as shown by
18. In case of conflict the following provisions of the
between a constitutional right of Constitution.
a citizen and a generally
accepted principle of 1. ART. III, Sec. 5. No law shall
international law, which shall be made respecting an
prevail? establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise
In the case of 4) thereof. The free exercise and
AGUSTIN VS. EDU, 88 SCRA enjoyment of religious
195 profession and worship,
REYES VS. BAGATSING,125 without discrimination or
SCRA 553, the Supreme Court preference, shall forever be
held that the constitutional right allowed. NO RELIGIOUS TEST
shall prevail. Though Article 22 of SHALL BE REQUIRED FOR THE
the Vienna Convention on EXERCISE OF CIVIL OR
Diplomatic Relations prohibits POLITICAL RIGHTS.
rallies within 500 feet of any
foreign embassy, the same shall 2. ART. VI, Sec. 28 (3).
give way to the constitutional Charitable institutions,
right of the citizens to churches, mosques, non-profit
“peaceably assemble and to cemeteries…actually, directly
petition the government for and exclusively used for
redress of their grievances”. religious, charitable, or
educational purposes shall be
19. May a citizen refuse to exempt from taxation.
render personal military
service/training because he does 3. ART. VI, Sec. 29 .(2). No
not have military inclination or public money or property shall
he does not want to kill or be be appropriated, applied, paid,
killed? for the benefit, directly or
indirectly, for the use, benefit,
No as held in PEOPLE VS. or support of any sect, church,
LAGMAN, 66 Phil. 13. “The denomination or religion,
appellant’s argument that he except when such priest,
does not want to join the armed minister.. is assigned to the
forces because “he does not want armed forces, or to any penal
to kill or be killed” and that “he institution, or government
has no military inclination” is not orphanage or leprosarium.
acceptable because it is his
obligation to join the armed forces 4. ART. IX, C, 2(5). Religious
in connection with the “defense of denominations and sects shall
the State” provision of the not be registered…as political
Constitution. parties. (NOTE: Religious
I press toward
3:14

organizations are also Father Bernas opines that the

prohibited ion connection with provision of the Constitution (Section
sectoral representatives under 12, Art. III) which provides in part
Art. VI) that the “State shall strengthen the
family” does not take a stand on
divorce though it appears that a
5. ART. XIV, Sec. 3(3). At the
divorce law would “break” the family
option in writing by parents,
instead of “strengthening” it. As
religion shall be allowed to be
such, a Divorce Law to be passed by
taught to their children in
Congress may or may not be
elementary and high schools
unconstitutional.
within the regular class hours
by instructors designated or
23. Is abortion allowed in
approved by religious
the Philippines?
authorities to which said
children belong, without
Section 12, Art. II prohibits all
additional cost to the
forms of abortion except
government.
“therapeutic abortion” or when the
life of the mother is in danger. (Note:
21. What are the factors to
In the United States, abortion is
be considered by the Philippines
allowed but only up to the 2 nd
in dealing with other nations?
trimester of the pregnancy [ROE vs.
WADE])
As provided in Section 7 of Art.
II, The Philippines shall pursue an
24. Is a law prohibiting the
independent foreign policy. In its
sale of “girlie (bold)
relations with other states the
magazines” to minors violates
paramount consideration shall be [1]
the right of parents in rearing
national sovereignty, [2]
their children for civic
territorial integrity, [3] national
efficiency?
interest, and [4] the right to
self-determination,
No, as held in the case of
22. Is there absolute GINSBERG VS. NEW YORK, 390
prohibition for the Philippines to US 629 (1969), a law prohibiting
be equipped with nuclear the sale of “girlie magazines” [bold?)
weapons? is constitutional and does not violate
the above provision. This is so
No, as stated in Section 8, Art. because parents could buy said
II, “the Philippines, consistent with magazines for their children if they
the national interest, adopts and believe the same is already suitable
pursues a policy of freedom from to the understanding of their child.
nuclear weapons in its territory.” As This is in accordance with this
such, if it is consistent with national provision which states that the
interest, the same is not prohibited. parents have the “natural and
primary right in rearing their
23. Is “divorce” child for civic efficiency…”
prohibited by the 1987
Philippine Constitution?
:
I press toward
3:14

The said doctrine was reiterated in

25. May the State prohibit PHILIPPINE COCONUT
the teaching of a particular DESICCATORS VS. PHILIPPINE
language in any school? COCONUT AUTHORITY, 286 SCRA
109 where it was held that the
No as held in MEYER VS. Philippine Constitutions, starting
NEBRASKA, 260 US 260 (1922) from the 1935 document, HAVE
because the child is not a mere REPUDIATED laissez faire (or the
creature of the State and the parents doctrine of free enterprise) as an
have the natural right and duty of economic principle, and although the
rearing their children for civic present Constitution enshrines free
efficiency. enterprise as a policy, it
nevertheless reserves to the
26. May the State require government the power to intervene
parents to enroll their small whenever necessary to promote the
children only to public schools general welfare. As such, free
valid? enterprise does not call for the
removal of “protective regulations”
As held in PIERCE VS. for the benefit of the general public.
SOCIETY OF SISTERS, 268 US This is so because under Art. XII,
510 (1925), a law requiring small Sections 6 and 9, it is very clear that
kids to be enrolled in public schools the government reserves the power
only is unconstitutional since it to intervene whenever necessary to
interferes with the right of parents in promote the general welfare and
rearing their children. They have the when the public interest so requires.
right to choose which school is best
suited for the development of their
children without interference from 27-a. Is the Trade
the State. THIS IS SO BECAUSE THE Liberalization Act of 2000, RA No.
CHILDREN ARE NOT MERE 8762 which allows foreigners to
CREATURES OF THE STATE. engage in retail trade in the
Philippines violative of Secs. 9, 19
27. Do we practice the and 20 , At. II of the Constitution
free enterprise system in the which mandates that the national
Philippines or is it the welfare economy shall be effectively
state concept? Distinguish the controlled by Filipinos?
two. No, said law is
constitutional. As held by the
As held in ACCFA VS. Supreme Court in REP. GERARDO
CUGCO, 30 SCRA 649 “the ESPINA ET AL VS. EXEC. SEC.
Philippines never practiced the free RONALDO ZAMORA, G.R. No.
enterprise system. It is the welfare- 143855, September 21, 2010 (The
state concept which is being Trade Liberalization Act of 2000,
followed as shown by the RA No. 8762) which allows
constitutional provision on agrarian foreigners to engage in retail
reform, housing, protection to trade in 4 categories is not
labor… (NOTE, however, that the unconstitutional for alleged
1987 Constitution have provisions violation of Secs. 9, 19 and 20 of
which provide for “free enterprise). Art. II which mandates that the
I press toward
3:14

national economy shall be nugatory the power of Congress

effectively controlled by under Section 21, Art. VI. IN
Filipinos. The constitutional FACT, GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS
provisions does not prohibit HAVE ONLY A LIMITED RIGHT TO
foreign investments BUT ONLY PRIVACY. (SABIO VS. GORDON,
TO REGULATE THE SAME. As 504 SCRA 704)
such, the claim that as a result
28. What Are the
of the law, WALMART and KMART
limitations to the Congress
retailers could come to the
power to exercise legislative
Philippines and would KILL
power?
Filipino retailers has no basis
because foreign participation in
The limitations are:
retail business is limited.
1. it cannot pass irrepealable
laws
2. principle of separation of
powers
3. non-delegability of legislative
powers
27-b. May the PCGG

Commissioners refuse to appear
before a Senate Committee
conducting alleged irregularities
committed by them while sitting
in the Board of PHILCOMSAT, a 29. What are the
private firm sequestered by the constitutionally allowed
government on account of “delegation of legislative
Executive Order No. 1 providing power” by Congress?
that they should not be the
subject of any investigation in
The permissible delegation of
connection with their acts in
legislative power are.
connection with the
performance of their duties as
such? 1) Sec. 23 (2) of Article VI
(Emergency powers to the President
in case of war or other national
No. Such act would violate emergency, for a limited period and
Section 28, Art. II of the subject to such restrictions as
Constitution mandating Congress may provide, to exercise
disclosure of all public powers necessary and proper to
transactions involving the public carry out a declared national policy.
interest. Such act would also Unless sooner withdrawn by
violate the “right to information Resolution of Congress, such powers
on matters of public concern” as shall cease upon the next
well as the “public adjournment thereof.
accountability of public officials”
as embodied in Section 1, Art. XI 2) Sec. 28 (2) of Article VI.
of the 1987 Constitution, not to The Congress may by law, authorize
mention that such would render the President to fix within specified
I press toward
3:14

limits, and subject to such limitations (b) Sufficiency of

and restrictions as it may impose, Standards Test simply requires
tariff rates, import and export Congress to fix a standard, the limits
quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues, of which are sufficiently determinate
and other duties or imposts within or determinable to which the
the framework of the national delegate must conform in the
development program of the performance of his functions. Some
government. of the standards to guide the
delegate are general welfare, public
3) Delegation to local interest, etc.
governments
31. Is it constitutional for
4) Delegation of Rule-making the COMELEC to require
power to administrative bodies candidates for all elective
offices, including those for
5) Delegation to the People President, VP, Senators and
(Section 2, Art. XVII of the members of the House of
Constitution and Section 32, Article Representatives to submit a
VI---The Congress shall, as early as Certification from a government-
possible, provide for a system of accredited drug-testing centers
initiative and referendum, and the that they are free from
exceptions therefrom, whereby the prohibited drugs before their
people can directly propose and Certificate of Candidacy is
enact laws or approve or reject any admitted?
act or law or part thereof passed by
the Congress of local legislative body No, the COMELEC Resolution is
after the registration of a petition unconstitutional. It adds additional
thereof signed by at least 10% of the qualifications to those provided for
total number of registered voters, of by the Constitution for the President,
which every legislative district must VP, Senators and Members of the
be represented by at least 3% of the House of Representatives.
registered voters thereof. (PIMENTEL VS. COMELEC, G.R.
No. 161658, November 3, 2008)
30. What is the
completeness test? The 31-a. Is a Filipino citizen
sufficiency of standard test? who became a member of the US
Armed Forces and therefore at
As held in PELAEZ VS. one time a US Citizen considered
AUDITOR GENERAL, 15 SCRA “natural born” for purposes of
569: complying with the
qualifications of a member of
(a) Completeness Test the House of Representatives?
simply means that the law must be
complete in itself when it left Yes as held in ANTONIO
Congress. It must set forth therein BENGSON III VS. HOUSE OF
the policy to be executed, carried out REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL
or implemented by the delegate TRIBUNAL and TEODORO CRUZ,
which is not given any discretion; 357 SCRA 545 because Rep. Act No.
and 2630 provides that “Any person who
I press toward
3:14

had lost his Philippine Citizenship by VENECIA. Hence, when a

rendering service to, or accepting candidate has not been
commission in, the Armed Forces of disqualified by final judgment
the United States, or after separation and on election day he
from the Armed Forces of the United obtained the highest number
states, acquired US citizenship, MAY of votes, the votes cast in his
REACQUIRE PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP favor cannot be declared
BY TAKING AN OATH OF ALLEGIANCE stray. To do so would amount
TO THE REPUBLIC OF THE to disenfranchising the
PHILIPPINES AND REGISTERING THE electorate in whom
SAME WITH THE LOCAL CIVIL sovereignty resides. The
REGISTRY IN THE PLACE WHERE HE reason behind this is that the
RESIDES OR LAST RESIDED IN THE people voted for him bona fide
PHILIPPINES. The said Oath of and in the honest belief that
allegiance shall contain a the candidate was then
renunciation of any other qualified to be the person to
citizenship.” And he shall still be whom they would entrust the
considered “natural born” Filipino exercise of the powers of
citizen. government.
2. The disqualification of a
32. If the candidate for candidate who obtained the
Congressman is subsequently highest number of votes
disqualified for non-compliance AFTER THE ELECTION does
of the residence requirement not entitle the second placer
under Art. VI, may the 2nd placer to be declared the winner. The
be declared the winner in his said principle was laid down as
place? When may the 2 nd placer early as 1912 in TOPACIO
be allowed to be declared the VS. PAREDES and reiterated
winner? in the cases of LABO VS.
COMELEC, ABELLA VS.
COMELEC and DOMINO VS.
It depends. As held in
COMELEC.
OCAMPO VS. HOUSE ELECTORAL
TRIBUNAL and MARIO CRESPO,
32-a. In order to validly
a.k.a. MARK JIMENEZ, June 15,
create an aditional district for
2004.
Cagayan de Oro City, must
the law creating it be first
1. There must be a final submitted to the people
judgment disqualifying a therein in a plebiscite in
candidate in order that the accordance with Section 10,
votes of a disqualified Art. X of the 1987
candidate can be considered Constitution?
“stray”. This final judgment
must be rendered BEFORE No, because the creation of
THE ELECTION. (FR. NARDO another district when the same is
CAYAT VS. COMELEC, warranted as when there is an
2007). This was the ruling in increase of population justifying
the case of CODILLA VS. DE the creation of a new district does
not create a new or divide a local
I press toward
3:14

government unit. What is since the National Statistics

applicable is Section 5, Art. VI of Office had projected that it
the Constitution, not Section 10, will have a population of
Art. X. (BAGABUYO VS. 254,030 by ”the year 2010”?
COMELEC, December 8, 2008)
No, there must be 250,000
population on or before the May
10, 2010 elections. In this case, it
was not clear that it has complied
with the population requirement
on election day. 2010 is up to
December of said year. (ALDABA
32-b. Is the creation of a fifth VS. COMELEC, G.R. No.
district in Camarines Sur by 188078, January 25, 2010)
dividing the existing 1st
District into two (2) valid
even though it will only have
177,000 plus population
which is short of 250,000 as
required under Section 5 [3], 32-d. In the computation of
Art. VI of the Constitution? party-list representatives, is
the Veterans Federation Party
No. The 250,000 vs. COMELEC Formula or the
population requirement Panganiban Formula still
applies only to make a city applicable?
entitled to one legislative
district or in the creation of a No more because it results in
new province, NOT IN THE a mathematical impossiblity. To
CREATION OF A NEW DISTRICT strictly comply with it requiring at
IN AN EXISTING PROVINCE. least 2% for every sectoral
(BENIGNO AQUINO III VS. representative to obtain in order
COMELEC, April 7, 2010) to garner 1 seat would require
[Dissenting Opinion of Justice 116% in order that there will be
Carpio: If the majority ruling 58 sectoral representatives [in
is to be followed, as long as 20130 based on the number of
the new district or districts legislative districts at present.
will be carved out from an Also, the 20% party-list
existing province, then, even membership in the House of
an area with only 200 Representatives shall be fully
inhabitants are allowed to filled up, not just 20, 21, 22, or 23
constitute a new district? It when the Panganiban Formula
violates the requirement of was used.
proportional representation
as well as based on “uniform 32-e. Is Dan Fernandez
and progressive ratio”] qualified to run for
Congressman of the First
32-c. Is the law creating the District of Laguna since he is
new legislative district for renting an apartment in Sta.
Malolos City constitutional Rosa, Laguna, even though
I press toward
3:14

his residential house is at would be no candidate to be

Pagsanjan, Laguna which is a substituted.
part of the 5th district where
he was residing before It is different for a candidate
though he resided in that disqualified under Section 68 of
rented apartment for more the OEC. He could be substituted
than 1 year before the 2007 because he has all the
elections? qualifications but was disqualified
due to an election offense like
Yes. Ownership of a real vote-buying, terrorism, etc.
property in the place where one (TAGOLINO VS. HOUSE OF
runs for Congressman is not REPRESENTATIVES
required by Section 6, Art. VI of ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL AND
the Constitution. (DAN LUCY TORRES-GOMEZ, March
FERNANDEZ VS. HRET, 19, 2013)
December 21, 2009)
33. In case of vacancy in
32-f. If a candidate for the House the Senate or in the House
of Representatives, actor Richard of Representatives under
Gomez, was disqualified by the Section 9 of Article VII, is
COMELEC based on Section 78 of it automatic for the
the Omnibus Election Code COMELEC to hold a special
because “he was not a resident of election?
Ormoc City” at least one (1) year
before the May 10, 2010 No, there must be a law
elections, may he be substituted passed by Congress appropriating
by his wife Lucy Torres? Assuming the funds for the said purpose.
Lucy wins, may she validly be ( LOZADA vs. COMELEC, 120
declared the representative for SCRA 337)
said District?
No, a candidate disqualified

under Section 78 of the Omnibus
Election Code cannot be
substituted because the
Certificate of Candidacy of of 34. While a Member of
Richard is not valid for lack of the Congress is not allowed to
qualification mandated by the appear as counsel for any party
Constitution. A valid COC is a in court or before administrative
condition sine qua non for a valid bodies, may he do so as a
candidate substitution. Thewre “stockholder”?
was “material representation” in
the COC of Richard when he No as held in PUYAT vs.
claimed he is a resident of Ormoc DE GUZMAN, 113 SCRA 31. What
City when he was not. As such, could not be done directly could
Richard was not considered a not likewise be done indirectly.
“candidate” or there was no So a member of Congress who is a
candidate to speak of so there stockholder of the corporation
involved in a case is not allowed to
I press toward
3:14

appear under the guise that he is As held in U.S. vs. PONS, 34

appearing as such, not as counsel for Phil. 729, the journal
the corporation. prevails over extraneous
evidence like accounts of
(Note: Was the Supreme newspaper journalists and
Court correct in allowing Senator reporters as to what the
Joker Arroyo to argue before the proceedings all about.
Supreme Court as COUNSEL for the
Senate of the Philippines in the cases 37. In case of conflict
(Drilon vs. Ermita, NERI vs. Blue between the journal and the
Ribbon Committee, etc.) where enrolled bill, which shall prevail?
the Senate was a respondent therein
despite Section 14, Art VI which In CASCO PHIL. VS.
provides that “No Senator or GIMENEZ, 7 SCRA 347, it
Member of the House of was held by the Supreme
Representatives may personally Court that The enrolled bill
appear as counsel before any court prevails over the journal. If
of justice…”? the enrolled bill provides
that it is urea formaldehyde
35. May a court suspend a is the one exempt from tax,
member of Congress when and not urea and
Section 16 [3], Article VI formaldehyde which
appears to give such exclusive appears in the journal which
power to each House only for was really approved, the
disorderly behavior, and with former prevails and only
the concurrence of 2/3 of all its CURATIVE LEGISLATION
members, suspend or expel a COULD CHANGE THE SAME,
Member. A penalty of NOT JUDICIAL LEGISLATION.
suspension, when imposed, shall However, if the President of
mot exceed sixty days? the Philippines, Senate
President and the Speaker
Yes, this was the rulings of the of the House of
Supreme Court in the cases of Representatives withdraw
MIRIAM DEFENSOR and REP. their signatures as a result
PAREDES VS. SANDIGANBAYAN. of an anomaly surrounding
RA 3019 applies to all the printing of the final copy
government officers and of the bill, then, the journal
employees. will prevail since what is left
is no longer considered an
“enrolled bill.”
(NOTE, however, that

36. In case of conflict the journal prevails over the
between the entries in a journal enrolled bill on all matters
of both Houses of Congress and required to be entered in the
extraneous evidence like journals, like yeas and nays on
affidavits of witnesses, which the final reading of a bill or on
shall prevail? any question at the request of
I press toward
3:14

1/5 of the members present. in the twelve “marginalized

[Justice Isagani Cruz]) groups” enumerated by the
Supreme Court in ANG
38. May the COMELEC BAGONG BAYANI VS.
continue to decide a COMELEC?
pending disqualification
petition against a Yes because the
candidate for the House of enumerated sectors therein, i.e.,
Representatives after said labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban
candidate has been poor, indigenous cultural
proclaimed and already communities, elderly,
discharging his duties as handicapped, women, youth,
such? veterans, overseas workers, and
professionals, “is not exclusive”.
No more. Only the House of
Representatives Electoral
Tribunal (HRET) has the 38-c. May an individual who
jurisdiction to do that being does not belong to a particular
“the sole judge of all contests marginalized group validly
relating to the election, returns become the nominee of said
and qualifications” of said sector?
Member in accordance with
Section 17, Art. VI of the Yes provided he must have a
Constitution. [LIMKAICHONG track record of advocacy for their
VS. COMELEC, April 1, respective sectors. (ATONG
2009] PAGLAUM, INC VS. COMELEC,
G.R. No. 203766, and companion
38-a. How about members cases, February 26, 2013).
of the House of
Representative 38-d. May national parties
representing the party-list qualified to join the party-list
groups? elections?
All questions regarding While the Supreme Court

the qualifications of members answered the same in the negative
of the different party-list in the cases of Ang Bagong Bayani
groups are within the exclusive and BANAT, they were allowed in
jurisdiction of the HRET after ATONG PAGLAUM, INC VS.
their proclamation as such and COMELEC, G.R. No. 203766,
that the COMELEC may no and companion cases, February
longer continue to decide it. 26, 2013.
(ABAYON & PALPARAN VS.
HRET, February 11, 2010) 38-e. May Congress change
the existing membership of
38-b. May Lesbians, Gays, the Commission on
Bisexuals and Transgenders Appointments or Electoral
marginalized or under- Tribunals as a result of the
represented considering changes of membership of
that they are not included
I press toward
3:14

the different political members of the tribunal] and

parties? replace him with another who
has no participation therein,
Yes If the changes in except only to vote for a party-
the political party affiliations of mate who is involved in the
the members of Congress is protest. Such would be a
substantial and at the same travesty of justice. (BONDOC
time permanent so as to VS. PINEDA, September 26,
dramatically increase the 1991)
membership of one party while
significantly reducing the 39. May a committee of
other, the number of Congress cite a person for
representatives of the different contempt of court for refusing
parties in the Commission on to answer its questions during
Appointments may also be investigations in aid of
changed in proportion to their legislation? How long may it
actual memberships. [DAZA imprison such witness?
VS. SINGSON, December
21, 1989] (NOTE: In As held in ARNAULT vs.
Cunanan vs. Tan, the NAZARENO, 87 Phil. 29, “A witness
membership of the who refuses to answer a query
Senators was only by the Committee may be
“temporary” so as not to detained during the term of the
result in the change of members imposing said penalty
membership in the but the detention should not be
Commission on Appointments) too long as to violate the
witness’ right to due process of
38-f. May a political party law.”
(LDP) replace its
representative in the
House of Representatives
Electoral Commission who, 40. May the President
in a preliminary voting in a validly prohibit members of the
protest case against an Cabinet and those of the
LDP Member, voted in favor executive department from
of the other party and appearing before any Committee
against the candidate of of Congress without her
his very own party? consent?
While as a rule the It depends. If the appearance

different political parties may is due to the power of Congress to
change their representatives in investigate in aid of legislation under
the Electoral Tribunal or Section 21, Art. VI, such act of the
Commission on Appointments, President is unconstitutional for it
it may not change a Member would violate the oversight powers
who completely heard and of Congress and because the
participated in a particular appearance of said executive officers
case [and has already is MANDATORY. It would also violate
indicated his vote to the the right to information on the part
I press toward
3:14

of the citizens. However, if the Apparently, the presumption is

invitation to appear is based on founded on the “President’s
Section 22, Art. VI or during the generalized interest in
“question hour”, then the President confidentiality.” The privilege is
may validly demand that they must said to be necessary to guarantee
get her consent first because such the candor of presidential advisors
appearance is DISCRETIONARY. and to provide “the President and
(SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, those who assist him… with
represented by SENATE freedom to explore alternatives
PRESIDENT FRANKLIN DRILON, in the process of shaping
ET AL., VS. EXEC. SEC. EDUARDO policies and making decisions
ERMITA, ET AL., G.R. No. 16977, and to do so in a way many
April 20, 2006 , 488 SCRA 1) would be unwilling to express
except privately.”
40-a. While a Member of
the Cabinet may be compelled to In In Re: Sealed Case, the U.S.
appear before Congress under Court of Appeals delved deeper. It
Section 21, Art. VI of the ruled that there are two (2) kinds of
Constitution, may he be executive privilege; one is the
compelled to answer questions presidential communications
regarding his conversations with privilege and, the other is the
the President on matters subject deliberative process privilege.
of the investigation/inquiry in The former pertains to
aid of legislation? “communications, documents or
other materials that reflect
NO IF THE CONVERSATIONS ARE presidential decision-making
COVERED BY THE “EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE”. and deliberations and that the
President believes should
40-B. EXPLAIN THE “EXECUTIVE
remain confidential.” The latter
PRIVILEGE” DOCTRINE. DISTINGUISH
includes ‘advisory opinions,
THE “PRESIDENTIAL COMMUNICATIONS
recommendations and
PRIVILEGE” AND THE “DELIBERATIVE
deliberations comprising part of
PROCESS PRIVILEGE” WHICH COMPRISE
a process by which
SAID “EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE”. WHO
governmental decisions and
ARE COVERED BY THIS RULE?
policies are formulated.”
The Nixon and post-Watergate
Accordingly, they are
cases established the broad
characterized by marked
contours of the presidential
distinctions. Presidential
communications privilege . In
communications privilege
United States v. Nixon , the U.S.
applies to decision-making of the
Court recognized a great public
President while, the deliberative
interest in preserving “the
process privilege, to decision-
confidentiality of conversations
making of executive officials.
that take place in the
The first is rooted in the
President’s performance of his
constitutional principle of separation
official duties.” It thus considered
of power and the President’s unique
presidential communications as
constitutional role; the
“presumptively privileged.”
second on common law
I press toward
3:14

privilege. Unlike the deliberative performing a task directly related to

process the President’s pardon power, but
privilege, the presidential concluded that an organizational test
communications privilege applies was more appropriate for confining
to documents in their entirety, the potentially broad sweep that
and covers final and post- would result from the In Re: Sealed
decisional materials as well as Case’s functional test. The majority
pre-deliberative ones . As a concluded that, the lesser
consequence, congressional or protections of the deliberative
judicial negation of the presidential process privilege would suffice. That
communications privilege is privilege was, however, found
always subject to greater scrutiny insufficient to justify the
than denial of the deliberative confidentiality of the 4,341 withheld
process privilege. documents.
Turning on who are the The above cases, especially,

officials covered by the presidential Nixon, In Re Sealed Case and Judicial
communications privilege, In Re: Watch, somehow provide the
Sealed Case confines the privilege elements of presidential
only to White House Staff that has communications privilege, to wit:
“operational proximity” to direct
presidential decision-making. Thus, 1) The protected
the privilege is meant to encompass communication must
only those functions that form the relate to a
core of presidential authority, “quintessential and non-
involving what the court delegable presidential
characterized as “quintessential and power.”
non-delegable Presidential power,”
such as commander-in-chief power, The communication must be
appointment and removal power, authored or “solicited
the power to grant pardons and and received” by a close
reprieves, the sole-authority to advisor of the President
receive ambassadors and other or the President himself.
public officers, the power to The judicial test is that
negotiate treaties, etc . an advisor must be in
“operational proximity”
The situation in Judicial Watch, with the President.
Inc. v. Department of Justice , tested
the In Re: Sealed Case principles. The presidential
There, while the presidential decision communications
involved is the exercise of the privilege remains a
President’s pardon power, a non- qualified privilege that
delegable, core-presidential function, may be overcome by a
the Deputy Attorney General and the showing of adequate
Pardon Attorney were deemed to be need, such that the
too remote from the President and information sought
his senior White House advisors to “likely contains
be protected. The Court conceded important evidence” and
that functionally those officials were by the unavailability of
I press toward
3:14

the information
elsewhere by an We see no dispute on this. It
appropriate investigating is settled in United States v. Nixon ,
authority . that “demonstrated, specific need
for evidence in pending criminal
Simply put, the bases are trial” outweighs the President’s
presidential communications “generalized interest in
privilege and executive privilege on confidentiality.” However, the
matters relating to diplomacy or present case’s distinction with the
foreign relations. Nixon case is very evident. In
Nixon, there is a pending criminal
Using the above elements, we proceeding where the information
are convinced that, indeed, the is requested and it is the demands of
communications elicited by the three due process of law and the fair
(3) questions are covered by the administration of criminal justice
presidential communications that the information be disclosed.
privilege. First, the This is the reason why the U.S. Court
communications relate to a was quick to “limit the scope of
“quintessential and non-delegable its decision.” It stressed that it is
power” of the President, i.e. the “not concerned here with the
power to enter into an executive balance between the President’s
agreement with other countries. This generalized interest in
authority of the President to enter confidentiality x x x and
into executive agreements without congressional demands for
the concurrence of the Legislature information.” Unlike in Nixon, the
has traditionally been recognized in information here is elicited, not in a
Philippine jurisprudence . Second, criminal proceeding, but in a
the communications are “received” legislative inquiry. In this regard,
by a close advisor of the President. Senate v. Ermita stressed that the
Under the “operational proximity” validity of the claim of executive
test, petitioner can be considered a privilege depends not only on the
close advisor, being a member of ground invoked but, also, on the
President Arroyo’s cabinet. And procedural setting or the context
third, there is no adequate showing in which the claim is made.
of a compelling need that would Furthermore, in Nixon, the President
justify the limitation of the privilege did not interpose any claim of need
and of the unavailability of the to protect military, diplomatic or
information elsewhere by an sensitive national security secrets. In
appropriate investigating authority. the present case, Executive
(NOTE: In Nixon, the US Secretary Ermita categorically claims
Supreme Court held executive privilege on the grounds of
that invocation of presidential communications
“executive privilege” privilege in relation to her executive
is unavailing if it and policy decision-making process
involves the and diplomatic secrets.
commission of a
crime and there is 41. May a person validly
already a pending refuse to honor an invitation to
criminal case.) appear before the Senate Blue
I press toward
3:14

Ribbon Committee in connection 41-a. May the PCGG

with its alleged investigation “in Chairman and commissioners
aid of legislation”? refuse to attend inquiries in ad
of legislation being done by the
Senate because Executive Order
Yes. In Bengzon, Jr. vs.
No. 1 provides that they should
Senate Blue Ribbon Committee, Nov.
not be questioned regarding
20, 1991, it was held that “the
their activities as such?
power of both houses of
Congress to conduct inquiries in
No, the provision of Exec.
aid of legislation is not, absolute
Order No. 1 regarding their privilege
or unlimited. "The rights of
not to attend such hearings is
persons appearing in or affected
unconstitutional. It violates Section
by such inquiries shall be
28, Art. II, The right to information
respected." It follows then that
under Art. III, Section 21, Art. VI and
the rights of persons under the
Section 1, Art. XI or the
Bill of Rights must be respected,
accountability of public officers.
including the right to due
process and the right not to be
41-b. May local legislative
compelled to testify against
bodies validly cite a person in
one's self. But broad as is this
contempt of court (as what
power of inquiry, it is not
Congress could do) for refusing
unlimited. There is no general
to appear therein or to answer
authority to expose the private
the questions of the members
affairs of individuals without
thereof?
justification in terms of the
functions of Congress. Nor is
No. In NEGROS ORIENTAL II
the Congress a law enforcement
ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE VS.
or trial agency. These are
SANGGUNIANG PANGLUNGSOD OF
functions of the executive and
DUMAGUETE CITY, G.R. No. 72492,
judicial departments of
Nov. 5, 1987, 155 SCRA 421, the
government. No inquiry is an
Supreme Court held that such power
end in itself; it must be related
was not delegated by Congress to
to and in furtherance of a
local government units.
legitimate task of Congress.
Investigations conducted solely
for the personal aggrandizement
of the investigators or to
"punish" those investigated are
indefensible. As such, if the
person invited is already an
accused before the 41-c. May the Senate
Sandiganbayan or facing a case Committee on Foreign Affairs
in the Ombudsman in connection conduct an investigation of an
with a subject matter related to incident involving ranking
the House or Senate inquiry, members of the PNP that took
then he could validly refuse to place in Moscow, Russia?
attend to said hearing.
I press toward
3:14

Yes. It has the authority to respective offices from savings in

investigate on “all matters relating other items of their respective
to the relations of the Philippines appropriations.”
with all other nations”. (DE LA PAZ
VS. SENATE COMMITTEE ON 44. What is the so-called
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, February 13, “executive impoundment”?
2009)
It means that although an
42. What are the bills that item of appropriation is not vetoed
must exclusively originate from by the President, he however refuses
the House of Representatives? for whatever reason, to spend funds
made possible by Congress. It is the
Under Section 24, Art. VI, All failure to spend or obligate budget
appropriations, revenue or tariff authority of any type. Proponents of
bills, bills authorizing increase of impoundment have invoked at least
the public debt, bills of local three (3) principal sources of
application, and private bills shall authority of the President. [1]
originate exclusively in the House authority to impound given to him by
of Representatives, but the Senate Congress, either expressly or
may propose or concur with impliedly; [2] the executive power
amendments. (NOTE: In Tolentino vs. drawn from his power as
Secretary of Finance, the Supreme Commander-in-chief; and [3] the
Court held that the E-VAT Law is Faithful execution clause of the
constitutional even if the same was the Constitution. Note that in this case
VERSION which came from the Senate, the SC held that the Countryside
not from the House of Representatives. Development Fund (CDF) or “Pork
This is so because the Senate is allowed Barrel” of Congressmen and
to “propose amendments” to bills which Senators is CONSTITUTIONAL
must exclusively originate from the because the same is “set aside for
House of Representatives.) ‘infrastructure, purchase of
ambulances and computers and
other priority projects and activities,
43. When is transfer of and credit facilities to qualified
appropriations allowed by the beneficiaries as proposed and
Constitution? identified by said Senators and
Congressmen. (PHILCONSA VS.
ENRIQUEZ, 235 SCRA 506)
Only those covered by Section
25 [5] which provides that “No law 45. May the President
shall be passed authorizing any refuse to enforce a law on the
transfer of appropriations; however, ground that in his opinion it is
the President, the President of the unconstitutional?
Senate, the Speaker of the house of
Representatives, the Chief justice of No. Otherwise, he will be
the Supreme Court, and the heads of violating the doctrine of separation
the constitutional commissions may, of powers because by doing so, he
by law, be authorized to augment will be arrogating unto himself the
any item in the general power to interpret the law, not
appropriations law for their
I press toward
3:14

merely to implement it. (L.S. MOON law and carrying out the legislative
& CO. VS. HARRISON, 43 Phil.38) policy. The subject of AO 308
therefore is beyond the power of the
President to issue and it is a
usurpation of legislative power.
46. The President of the

Philippines, by Administrative Order,
mandates the “ADOPTION OF A
NATIONAL COMPUTERIZED
IDENTIFICATION REFERENCE
SYSTEM” and appropriating funds
therefore?Is this within his 47. What is the “totality test”
“executive power”? used by the Supreme Court in
holding that former President
Joseph Estrada resigned as
No as held by the Supreme President on January 20, 2007?
Court in BLAS OPLE VS. RUBEN
TORRES, ET AL., G.R. No. 127685, THIS IS THE TOTALITY TEST,
July 23, 1998, the AO establishes a THE TOTALITY OF PRIOR,
system of identification that is all- CONTEMPORANEOUS AND
encompassing in scope, affects the POSTERIOR FACTS AND
life and liberty of every Filipino CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
citizens and foreign residents and BEARING MATERIAL RELEVANCE TO
therefore, it is supposed to be a law THE ISSUE.
passed by Congress that implements
it, not by an Administrative Order 48. Is President Gloria
issued by the President. Macapagal Arroyo a de jure or a
Administrative Power, which is de facto President when she
supposed to be exercised by the took over President Joseph
President, is concerned with the work Estrada in January 2001? If de
of applying policies and enforcing jure, how did she succeed?
orders as determined by proper Resignation or permanent
governmental organs. It enables the disability of former President
President to fix a uniform standard of Estrada?
administrative efficiency and check
the official conduct of his agents. Since both Houses of Congress
Prescinding from the foregoing had recognized that Arroyo is the
precepts, AO 308 involves a subject President when they passed
that is not appropriate to be covered Resolution “expressing their support
by an Administrative Order. An to the administration of Her
administrative order is an ordinance Excellency Gloria Macapagal Arroyo,
issued by the President which relates President of the Philippines” which
to specific aspects in the was passed on January 24, 2001;
administrative operation of the another resolution dated January 24,
government. It must be in harmony 2001 “expressing full support to the
with the law and should be for the assumption into office by VP Arroyo
sole purpose of implementing the as President of the Philippines”; and
I press toward
3:14

the Resolution dated February 7, the Supreme Court or to other

2001 “confirming President Arroyo’s appointments to the Judiciary”.
nomination of Senator Teopisto
Guingona, Jr. as Vice President of the Note, however, that while nine
Philippines”, her government is de (9) justices voted to allow the
jure. President to appoint the Chief
Justice during the prohibited
period, only five (5) justices voted
to reverse IN RE VALENZUELA & IN
RE: JUDGE VALLARTA. As such, the
President is not allowed to make
any other appointments in the
judiciary during said period,
except the Chief Justice. IS THE
APPOINTMENT OF THE CHIEF
49. May the President JUSTICE MADE AS AN EXCEPTION
makes appointment to vacancies IN SECTION 15, ART. VII?
in the judiciary within two
months immediately before the
next presidential election and up
to the end of his term” in order
to comply with the requirement
of Sections 4 and 8, Art. VIII for
him to fill up vacancies in the 50. What appointments made by
judiciary within 90 days from the the President shall be the
submission of the list of subject of confirmation by the
nominees by the Judicial and Bar Commission on Appointments?
Council?
Only those covered by the 1 st
No. Section 15, Article VII sentence of Section 16, Art. VII
applies only to temporary which are “the heads of the
appointments to executive positions executive departments,
when continued vacancies therein ambassadors, other public
will prejudice public service or ministers and consuls, or
endanger public safety and not to officers of the armed forces from
the judiciary. (IN RE VALENZUELA & the rank of colonel or naval
IN RE: JUDGE VALLARTA. captain, and other officers are
November, 1998) vested in him in this
Constitution”.
However, in the case of
ARTURO DE CASTRO VS. 51. May the President
JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL, G.R. make temporary appointments
No. 191032, March 17, 2010 , a involving the members of the
divided Supreme Court allowed Cabinet while Congress in
President Arroyo to appoint a new session or not in session?
Chief Justice within the prohibited Distinguish ad interim
period by holding that “the appointment and appointment in
prohibition under Section 15, an acting capacity.
Article VII does not apply to
appointments to fill a vacancy in
I press toward
3:14

Yes provided the temporary may be extended any time that

appointments of cabinet members there is a vacancy. Moreover, ad
do not exceed one (1) year. (SEN. interim appointments are
AQUILINO PIMENTEL, et al., vs. submitted to the Commission on
EXEC. SECRETARY EDUARDO Appointments for confirmation or
ERMITA, et al., 472 SCRA 587) rejection; acting appointments
are not submitted to the
1. The temporary Commission on appointments.
appointments are valid. The Acting appointments are a way of
power to appoint is essentially temporarily circumventing the
executive in nature and the need of confirmation by the
legislature may not interfere with Commission on Appointments.
the exercise of this executive
power except in those instances 51-a. May the President
when the Constitution expressly appoint a Chief Justice within
allows it to interfere. The essence the prohibited period under
of an appointment in an acting Section 15, Art. VII of the
capacity is its temporary nature. Constitution?
It is a stop-gap measure intended
to fill an office for a limited time Yes because the prohibition
until the appointment of a applies only to the Executive
permanent occupant to the Department. (ARTURO DE
office. In case of vacancy in an CASTRO VS. JBC, MARCH 17,
office occupied by an alter ego of 2010 & APRIL 20, 2010 ON THE
the President, such as the office MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION.
of a department secretary, the [Note, however, that only five
President must necessarily justices voted on the issue on
appoint an alter ego of her choice whether the President could appoint
as acting secretary before the justices and judges lower than the
permanent appointee of her Chief Justice. Therefore, the doctrine
choice could assume office. in IN RE VALENZUELA & IN RE
Congress, through a law cannot VALLARTA, 298 SCRA 408 is still
impose on the President the applicable]
obligation of automatically
appointing the Undersecretary as
her alter ego. He must be of the
51-b. Must the
President’s confidence and
Commissioner of Customs be
provided that the temporary
subjected to confirmation by the
appointment does not exceed
Commission on Appointments
one (1) year.
considering the importance of
his position?
There is a need to distinguish
ad interim appointments and
No because he does not fall
appointments in an acting
under the 1st sentence of Section 16,
capacity. While both are effective
Art. VII of the Constitution.
upon acceptance, ad interim
(SARMIENTO VS. MISON, 156
appointments are extended only
SCRA 549)
during the recess of Congress,
whereas acting appointments
I press toward
3:14

51-c. Shall the new Bangko faithfully executed (RANDY

Sentral Governor be required to DAVID VS. ARROYO, G.R. No.
be confirmed by the Commission 171396, May 3, 2006).
on Appointments as the law
creating it requires? 53. What is the power of
control of the President.
No. Congress could not add to Distinguish it from power of
the list of officials subject of supervision.
confirmation by the Commission on
Appointments under the 1 st sentence "Control" has been defined
of Section 16, Art. VII of the as "the power of an officer to alter or
Constitution. (TARROSA VS. modify or nullify or set aside what a
SINGSON, May 25, 1994; subordinate officer had done in the
CALDERON VS. CARALE, April 23, performance of his duties and to
1992). Congress may not add the substitute the judgment of the
officials subject of confirmation former for test of the latter."
by the Commission on "Supervision" on the other hand
Appointments in Section 16 means "overseeing or the power or
[First Sentence], Art. VII of the authority of an officer to see that
Constitution. subordinate officers perform their
duties. (MONDANO VS. SILVOSA)
52-d. May the President
validly appoint the DOTC 54. May the President
Assistant Secretary Maria Elena validly require all officers and
Bautista as Acting Manager of employees under the executive
MARINA which is under DOTC? department to maintain an ID
system and have ID cards?
No. The same falls under the
prohibition on multiple positions of Yes in accordance with her
officials in the executive department power of control under Section 17,
under Section 13, Art. VII of the Art. VII of the Constitution.
Constitution. (DENNIS FUNA VS. (KILUSANG MAYO UNO VS.
ERMITA & MARIA ELENA EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
BAUTISTA, February 11, 2010) EDUARDO ERMITA, ET AL., April
19, 2006 & June 20, 2006) But not
for a national ID system which
includes civilians as held in Ople vs.
Torres, supra.
52. What is the “take care 55. What is the doctrine of

power” of the President of the qualified political agency?
Philippines?
It simply means that “the
It is the power of the President President is not expected to
under Section 17, Art. VII which perform in person an the
provides that The President shall multifarious executive and
have control of all the executive administrative functions. The
departments , bureaus and offices. Office of the Executive
He shall ensure that the laws be Secretary is an auxillary unit
I press toward
3:14

which assists the President. and the previous

Under our constitutional set- Constitutions?
up, the Executive Secretary
acts for and in behalf of the Under the 1987 Philippine
President: and by authority of Constitution, such acts of the
the President, he has President may be reviewed not
undisputed jurisdiction to only by the Supreme Court but
affirm, modify, or even reverse also the Congress of the
any order of the Secretary of Philippines. Previously, such
Natural Resources and other would be considered “political
Cabinet Secretaries. Where the question” which is beyond the
Executive Secretary acts "by review powers of the courts.
authority of the President" his Likewise, there is a definite period
decision is that of the President. for the said suspension unlike
(Lacson-Magallanes Co., Inc. before and more importantly, the
vs. Pano, 21 SCRA 895). grounds are only invasion and
rebellion WHEN THE PUBLIC
55.a. What is the power of SAFETY REQUIRES IT. The
executive impoundment? Supreme Court may review, in an
appropriate proceeding filed by
It means that although an any citizen, the sufficiency of the
item of appropriation is not factual basis of the proclamation
vetoed by the President, he, of martial law or suspension of
however, refuses for whatever the privilege of the writ or the
reason, to spend funds made extension thereof, and must
possible by Congress. It is the promulgate its decision thereon
failure to spend or obligate within 30 days from its filing.
budget authority of any type.
Proponents of impoundment have A state of martial law does not
invoked at least three (3) suspend the operation of the
principal sources of the authority Constitution, nor supplant the
of the President on this matter. functioning of the civil courts or
[1] authority to impound given by legislative assemblies, nor authorize
Congress, either expressly or the conferment of jurisdiction on
impliedly; [2] the executive power military courts and agencies over
drawn from his power as the civilians where civil courts are able
commander-in-chief; and [3] the to function, nor automatically
faithful execution clause of the suspend the privilege of the writ.
Constitution under Section 17,
Art. VII of the Constitution. The suspension of the
(PHILCONSA VS. ENRIQUEZ, privilege of the writ shall apply only
235 SCRA 506) to persons judicially charged for
rebellion or offenses inherent in or
56. What are the differences directly connected with invasion.
between the power of the
President to declare martial During the suspension of the
law or suspend the privilege privilege of the writ, any person thus
of the writ of habeas corpus arrested or detained shall be
under the 1987 Constitution
I press toward
3:14

judicially charged within 3 days, Philippines which shall consist of a

otherwise, he shall be released. Senate and a House of
Representatives.” To be sure,
neither Martial Law nor a state of
rebellion nor a state of emergency
can justify President Arroyo’s
exercise of legislative power by
issuing decrees.
Likewise, the exercise of
emergency powers, such as the
57. May the President taking over of privately owned public
under the 1987 Constitution utility or business affected with
validly issue decrees “which public interest, is also
shall form part of the laws of the unconstitutional. This requires a
land” after declaring a state of delegation from Congress which shall
national emergency but did not enumerate the said “business
declare martial law. May she affected with national interest”.
direct the take-over of business
57-a. May the President
affected with national interest
validly declare a State of
by reason of the “emergency”
National Emergency in the
which she herself proclaimed?
Province of Maguindanao
without a law enacted by
I n t h e c a s e o f
Congress in accordance with
PROF. RANDOLF S. DAVID, et Al
Section 23 [2], Art. VI of the
VS. GLORIA MACAPAGAL-
Constitution?
ARROYO, AS PRESIDENT AND
COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF, et al.,
Yes because the calling out
G.R. No. 171396, May 3, 2006, it
the armed forces is within the
was held that in declaring a state of
President’s power under the 1st
national emergency, President
Section of Section 18, Art. VII of the
Arroyo did not only rely on Section
Constitution. (ZALDY AMPATUAN
18, Article VII of the Constitution, a
VS. PUNO, June 7, 2011)
provision calling on the AFP to
prevent or suppress lawless violence, 58. What are the
invasion or rebellion. She also relied requisites of judicial review?
on Section 17, Article XII, a provision
on the State’s extraordinary power Courts may exercise the
to take over privately-owned public power of judicial review only when
utility and business affected with the following requisites are present:
public interest. The Supreme Court first, there must be an actual case or
ruled that the assailed PP 1017 is controversy; second, petitioners
unconstitutional insofar as it grants have to raise a question of
President Arroyo the authority to unconstitutionality; third, the
promulgate “decrees.” Legislative constitutional question must be
power is peculiarly within the raised at the earliest opportunity;
province of the Legislature. Section and fourth, the decision of the
1, Article VI categorically states that constitutional question must be
“[t]he legislative power shall be
vested in the Congress of the
I press toward
3:14

necessary to the determination of Acop v. Guingona, Jr., G.R. No.

the case itself. 134855, July 2, 2002, 383
SCRA 577, Sanlakas v.
59. When may the courts Executive Secretary, G.R.
still validly decide moot and No. 159085, February 3, 2004,
academic cases? 421 SCRA 656. )
A moot and academic case is 60. Define locus standi.

one that ceases to present a
justiciable controversy by virtue of Locus standi is defined as “a
supervening events, so that a right of appearance in a court of
declaration thereon would be of no justice on a given question.” In
practical use or value. Generally, private suits, standing is governed
courts decline jurisdiction over such by the “real-parties-in interest” rule
case or dismiss it on ground of as contained in Section 2, Rule 3 of
mootness. The “moot and the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as
academic” principle is not a magical amended. It provides that “every
formula that can automatically action must be prosecuted or
dissuade the courts in resolving a defended in the name of the real
case. Courts will decide cases, party in interest.” Accordingly, the
otherwise moot and academic, if: “real-party-in interest” is “the party
who stands to be benefited or
first, there is a grave violation injured by the judgment in the
suit or the party entitled to the
of the Constitution (Province of
avails of the suit.” Succinctly put,
Batangas vs. Romulo, .R. No. the plaintiff’s standing is based on
152774, May 27, 2004, 429 his own right to the relief sought.
SCRA 736).
second, the exceptional
character of the situation and the
paramount public interest is
involved (Lacson vs. Perez,
61. What are the tests of
G.R. No. 147780, May 10,
locus standi in the Philippines?
2001, 357 SCRA 756);
The original was: [1] If the act

third, when constitutional
involves the disbursement of public
issue raised requires formulation
funds, mere taxpayer has the
of controlling principles to guide
capacity to sue and question such
the bench, the bar, and the public
act. [2] If it does not involve
(Province of Batangas vs.
disbursement of public funds, only
Romulo); and
those who are “directly injured” by
the said law or contract entered into
fourth, the case is capable by the government.
of repetition yet evading review
(Albaña v. Commission on
Case law in most jurisdictions
Elections, G.R. No. 163302,
now allows both “citizen” and
July 23, 2004, 435 SCRA 98,
“taxpayer” standing in public
I press toward
3:14

actions. The distinction was first Public Works and Anti-Chinese

laid down in Beauchamp v. Silk, League of the Philippines v. Felix.
where it was held that the plaintiff in
a taxpayer’s suit is in a different However, being a mere
category from the plaintiff in a procedural technicality, the
citizen’s suit. In the former, the requirement of locus standi may be
plaintiff is affected by the waived by the Court in the exercise
expenditure of public funds, of its discretion. This was done in the
while in the latter, he is but the 1949 Emergency Powers Cases,
mere instrument of the public Araneta v. Dinglasan, where the
concern “transcendental importance” of
the cases prompted the Court to act
However, to prevent just liberally. Such liberality was neither
about any person from seeking a rarity nor accidental. In Aquino v.
judicial interference in any official Comelec, this Court resolved to
policy or act with which he disagreed pass upon the issues raised due to
with, and thus hinders the activities the “far-reaching implications” of
of governmental agencies engaged the petition notwithstanding its
in public service, the United State categorical statement that petitioner
Supreme Court laid down the more therein had no personality to file the
stringent “direct injury” test in Ex suit. Indeed, there is a chain of
Parte Levitt, later reaffirmed in cases where this liberal policy has
Tileston v. Ullman. The same Court been observed, allowing ordinary
ruled that for a private individual to citizens, members of Congress, and
invoke the judicial power to civic organizations to prosecute
determine the validity of an actions involving the constitutionality
executive or legislative action, he or validity of laws, regulations and
must show that he has sustained rulings.
a direct injury as a result of that
action, and it is not sufficient Thus, the Court has adopted a
that he has a general interest rule that even where the petitioners
common to all members of the have failed to show direct injury,
public. they have been allowed to sue under
the principle of “transcendental
This Court adopted the importance.” Pertinent are the
“direct injury” test in our following cases:
jurisdiction. In People v. Vera, it
(1) Chavez v. Public
held that the person who impugns
Estates Authority, where the
the validity of a statute must have
Court ruled that the
“a personal and substantial
enforcement of the
interest in the case such that he
constitutional right to
has sustained, or will sustain
information and the
direct injury as a result.” The
equitable diffusion of natural
Vera doctrine was upheld in a litany
resources are matters of
of cases, such as, Custodio v.
transcendental importance
President of the Senate, Manila Race
which clothe the petitioner
Horse Trainers’ Association v. De la
with locus standi;
Fuente, Pascual v. Secretary of
I press toward
3:14

the validity of the election law

(2) Bagong Alyansang in question;
Makabayan v. Zamora, wherein
the Court held that “given the 4 for concerned citizens, there
transcendental importance of must be a showing that the
the issues involved, the Court issues raised are of
may relax the standing transcendental importance
requirements and allow the which must be settled early;
suit to prosper despite the lack and
of direct injury to the parties
seeking judicial review” of the 5 for legislators, there must
Visiting Forces Agreement; be a claim that the official
action complained of infringes
upon their prerogatives as
(3) Lim v. Executive legislators.
Secretary, while the Court noted
that the petitioners may not file
suit in their capacity as taxpayers Significantly, recent decisions
absent a showing that “Balikatan show a certain toughening in the
02-01” involves the exercise of Court’s attitude toward legal
Congress’ taxing or spending standing.
powers, it reiterated its
ruling in Bagong Alyansang In Kilosbayan, Inc. v. Morato,
Makabayan v. Zamora, that in the Court ruled that the status of
cases of transcendental Kilosbayan as a people’s
importance, the cases must be organization does not give it the
settled promptly and definitely requisite personality to question the
and standing requirements validity of the on-line lottery
may be relaxed. contract, more so where it does not
raise any issue of constitutionality.
By way of summary, the Moreover, it cannot sue as a
following rules may be culled from taxpayer absent any allegation that
the cases decided by this Court. public funds are being misused. Nor
Taxpayers, voters, concerned can it sue as a concerned citizen as
citizens, and legislators may be it does not allege any specific injury
accorded standing to sue, provided it has suffered.
that the following requirements are
met: In Telecommunications and
Broadcast Attorneys of the
1 the cases involve Philippines, Inc. v. Comelec, the
constitutional issues; Court reiterated the “direct injury”
test with respect to concerned
2 for taxpayers, there must be citizens’ cases involving
a claim of illegal disbursement constitutional issues. It held that
of public funds or that the tax “there must be a showing that the
measure is unconstitutional; citizen personally suffered some
actual or threatened injury arising
3 for voters, there must be a from the alleged illegal official act.”
showing of obvious interest in
I press toward
3:14

In Lacson v. Perez, the Court utility or business affected with

ruled that one of the petitioners, public interest. The President cannot
Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino decide whether exceptional
(LDP), is not a real party-in-interest circumstances exist warranting the
as it had not demonstrated any take over of privately-owned
injury to itself or to its leaders, public utility or business affected
members or supporters. with public interest. Nor can he
determine when such exceptional
In Sanlakas v. Executive circumstances have ceased.
Secretary, the Court ruled that only Likewise, without legislation, the
the petitioners who are members of President has no power to point out
Congress have standing to sue, as the types of businesses affected with
they claim that the President’s public interest that should be taken
declaration of a state of rebellion is over. In short, the President has no
a usurpation of the emergency absolute authority to exercise all the
powers of Congress, thus powers of the State under Section
impairing their legislative 17, Article VII in the absence of an
powers. As to petitioners Sanlakas, emergency powers act passed by
Partido Manggagawa, and Social Congress.
Justice Society, the Court declared
them to be devoid of standing,
equating them with the LDP in
Lacson.
63. What are the
62. What is the “take limitations of the President’s
over” provision of the power of executive clemency?
Constitution. May the President
validly exercise the same? The same is not available in
cases of impeachment as well as
This is Section 17, Article XII , violation of election laws, rules and
which reads: regulations without the favorable
recommendation of the Commission
Sec. 17. In times of national on Elections. (Section 19, Art. VII
emergency, when the public and Section 5, Art. IX-C))
interest so requires, the State
may, during the emergency and 64. Distinguish pardon
under reasonable terms from amnesty.
prescribed by it, temporarily take
over or direct the operation of As held in BARRIOQUINTO
any privately-owned public utility VS. FERNANDEZ, 82 Phil. 642,
or business affected with public the distinctions are as follows:
interest.
[1] Pardon is granted by
While the President alone the Chief Executive and as such it
can declare a state of national is a private act which must be
emergency, however, without pleaded and proved by the
legislation, he has no power to person pardoned, because the
take over privately-owned public courts take no notice thereof;
while amnesty by Proclamation of
I press toward
3:14

the Chief Executive with the 267; 271; 236 U.S., 79; 59
concurrence of Congress, and it is Law. ed., 476.)
a public act of which the courts
should take judicial notice. [4] Pardon is complete with
[2] Pardon is granted to the act of the President while
one after conviction (of ordinary Amnesty is valid only with the
crimes) ; while amnesty is concurrence of the majority of
granted to classes of persons or the members of all the members
communities who may be guilty of Congress.
of political offenses, generally
before or after the institution of 65. Is it required for the
the criminal prosecution and person applying for amnesty to
sometimes after conviction. admit his guilt before his
amnesty application can be
[3] Pardon looks forward considered?
and relieves the offender from
the consequences of an offense Yes as held in VERA VS.
of which he has been convicted, PEOPLE, 7 SCRA 152. Before
that is, it abolished or forgives one may validly apply for
the punishment, and for that executive clemency (pardon or
reason it does ""nor work the amnesty) he MUST ADMIT
restoration of the rights to hold HAVING COMMITTED THE ACTS
public office, or the right of WHICH RESULTED IN HIS
suffrage, unless such rights be IMPRISONMENT. This rule
expressly restored by the terms abandoned the contrary ruling
of the pardon," and it "in no case in Barrioquinto vs. Fernandez.
exempts the culprit from the
payment of the civil indemnity 66. May a public officer,
imposed upon him by the who has been granted an
sentence" article 36, Revised absolute pardon by the Chief
Penal Code). while amnesty looks Executive, entitled to automatic
backward and abolishes and puts reinstatement to her former
into oblivion the offense itself, it position without need of a New
so overlooks and obliterates the appointment?
offense with which he is charged
that the person released by No. As held in MONSANTO VS.
amnesty stands before the law FACTORAN,February, 1989, a
precisely as though he had pardon looks to the future. It is
committed no offense. (section not retrospective. It makes no
10[6], Article VII, Philippine amends for the past. It affords no
Constitution; State vs. relief for what has been suffered
Blalock, 62 N.C., 242, 247; In by the offender. It does not
re Briggs, 135 N.C., 118; 47 impose upon the government any
S.E. 402., 403; Ex parte Law, obligation to make reparation for
35 GA., 285, 296; State ex rel what has been suffered. "Since
AnheuserBusch Brewing the offense has been established
Ass'n. vs. Eby, 170 Mo., 497; by judicial proceedings, that
71 S.W 52, 61; Burdick vs which has been done or suffered
United States, N.Y., 35 S. Ct., while they were in force is
I press toward
3:14

presumed to have been rightfully in accepting the terms under which

done and justly suffered, and no the parole had been granted, Tesoro
satisfaction for it can be had in effect agreed that the
required." This would explain Governor-General's determination
why petitioner, though (rather than that of the regular
pardoned, cannot be entitled courts of law) that he had breached
to reinstatement, unless one of the conditions of his parole by
appointed again by the committing adultery while he was
appointing authority, as well conditionally at liberty, was binding
as to receive backpay for lost and conclusive upon him.
earnings and benefits.
69. What are the
67. May the power of requisites before the
executive clemency applied to President or his
administrative cases like the representatives may
suspension of a Provincial validly contract or
Governor? guarantee foreign loans?
Yes. This was the ruling of Under Section 20, Art. VII, the
the Supreme Court in Llamas vs. President may contract or guarantee
Exec. Sec. Orbos, Oct. 15, 1991. foreign loans on behalf of the
The word “conviction in Section Republic of the Philippines subject to
19, Art. VII of the Constitution the following conditions:
may be used either in a criminal a. there must be prior
case or in an administrative case. concurrence of the Monetary Board;
b. subject to such limitations
68. Is the mere filing of a as may be provided for by law.
criminal case against a recipient
of a conditional pardon with the Further, the Monetary Board
condition "not again violate any shall, within 30 days from the end of
of the penal laws of the every quarter of the calendar year,
Philippines and this condition submit to the Congress a complete
be violated, he will be report of its decisions on applications
proceeded against in the for loans to be contracted or
manner prescribed by law" guaranteed by the government or
sufficient to revoke such government owned and controlled
conditional pardon without first corporations which would have the
securing conviction against the effect of increasing the foreign debt,
grantee? and containing other matters as may
be provided for by law.
Yes. As held in TORRES VS.
GONZALES, 152 SCRA 272, the 70. What is judicial power?
determination of whether the
conditions of a convict’s pardon had Judicial power includes the
been breached rests exclusively in duty of the courts of justice to settle
the sound judgment of the President actual controversies involving rights
and that such determination would which are legally demandable and
not be reviewed by the courts. As enforceable, and to determine
held in Tesoro vs. Director of Prisons, whether or not there has been a
I press toward
3:14

grave abuse of discretion amounting in regard to which full discretionary

to lack or in excess of jurisdiction on authority is vested to the executive
the part of any branch or or legislative branch of the
instrumentality of the government. government.
(Section 1, 2nd paragraph, Art. VIII of
the Constitution) Or in Gonzales vs.
71. May judicial power be COMELEC, 21 SCRA 774 , when
exercised by the Supreme Court the crux of the problem deals with
in cases involving the decisions the wisdom of an act, it is political).
of the House of Representatives
Electoral Tribunal since Section
16, Art. VI of the Constitution
provides that the HRET is the 73. What is the extent of the
“sole judge” of all contests fiscal autonomy granted to the
involving the election, returns judiciary under the 1987
and qualifications of the Constitution?
members of the House of
Representatives? As provided under
Section 3, At. VIII, the judiciary shall
Yes if there is allegation of enjoy fiscal autonomy and as such
grave abuse of discretion amounting appropriations for the judiciary may
to lack or in excess of jurisdiction on not be reduced by the legislature
the part of the HRET (BONDOC VS. below the amount appropriated for
HRET & PINEDA) the previous year and, after approval,
shall be automatically and regularly
72. What is a political released.
question?
74. What are the cases to be
In ALMARIO VS. ALBA, decided by the Supreme Court en
127 SCRA 6, it was defined as a banc?
question which deals with the
necessity, expediency and wisdom of All cases involving the
a particuar act, the same is political constitutionality of a treaty,
and not justiciable international or executive
agreement, or law, which shall be
heard by the Supreme Court en
In Sanidad vs. Comelec, 73
banc, including those involving
SCRA 333, political questions was
the constitutionality, application,
defined as questions which are
or operation of presidential
neatly associated with the wisdom,
decrees, proclamations, orders,
not the legality of a particular act.
instructions, ordinances, and
Where the vortex of the controversy
other regulations, shall be
refers to the legality or validity of
decided with the concurrence of
the contested act, the matter is
a majority of the members who
definitely justiciable or non-political.
actually took part in the
deliberations on the issues in the
In Tanada vs. Cuenco, 103
case and voted thereon. Also, no
Phil., political question was defined
doctrine or principle of law laid
as questions to be answered by the
down by the court en banc or in
people in their sovereign capacity or
I press toward
3:14

division may be modified or executive agreement,

reversed except by the court law, presidential
sitting en banc. decree, proclamation,
order, instruction,
ordinance, or regulation
Also if two (2) divisions of is in question;
the Supreme Court have (b)All cases involving the
conflicting decisions, the same legality of any tax,
shall be resolved by the Supreme impost, assessment, or
Court en banc. Cases referred to toll, or any penalty
by the division to the banc imposed in relation
involving novel questions of law , thereto;
the same shall be decided by the (c) All cases in which the
en banc accepted by the latter. jurisdiction of any lower
Finally, dismissal of judges and court is in issue;
disbarment of lawyers are also (d)All criminal cases in
decided by the Supreme Court en which the penalty
banc. imposed is reclusion
perpetua or higher;
(e)All cases in which only
75. What are the powers of the an error or question of
Supreme Court? law is involved.
(3)Assign temporarily judges

As enumerated in Art. VIII, of lower courts to other
Section 5, t he Supreme Court stations as public interest
shall have the following powers: may require. Such
temporary assignment
shall not exceed 6 months
(1)Exercise original without the consent of the
jurisdiction over cases judge concerned.
affecting ambassadors, (4)Order a change of venue or
other public ministers and place of trial to avoid a
consuls, and over petitions miscarriage of justice.
for certiorari, prohibition, (5)Promulgate rules
mandamus, quo warranto, concerning the protection
and habeas corpus. and enforcement of
(2)Review, revise, reverse, constitutional rights,
modify, or affirm on appeal pleading , practice , and
or certiorari as the law or procedure in all courts, the
the Rules of Court may admission to the practice
provide, final judgments of law, the Integrated Bar,
and orders of lower courts and legal assistance to the
in: underprivileged. Such
rules shall provide a
(a)All cases in which the simplified and inexpensive
constitutionality or procedure for the speedy
validity of any treaty, disposition of cases, shall
international or be uniform for all courts
I press toward
3:14

of the same grade, and Yes because the power of

shall not diminish, increase judicial review is just a part of
or modify substantive judicial power which is available to
rights. Rules of procedure all courts (Section 1, Art. VIII).
of special courts and Likewise, as shown by Section 5 [2]
quasi-judicial bodies shall (a), the decision of lower courts
remain effective unless declaring a law unconstitutional is
disapproved by the subject to review by the Supreme
Supreme Court. Court. (YNOT VS. IAC, March 20,
(6) Appoint all officials and 1987)
employees of the judiciary
in accordance with the civil 78. What is the “operative
service law. fact doctrine”?
76. What are the 3-fold It simply means that the

Functions of Judicial Review? declaration of unconstitutionality of a
law, treaty, etc., is prospective. As
These are the: such, all acts done in connection
1) legitimizing function with the said law before its
or to declare the law declaration of unconstitutionality
valid and shall be considered legal, valid and
constitutional; binding. It is only the declaration of
2) checking function or unconstitutionality which is the
to declare the law “operative fact” which would stop
unconstitutional; the people from complying with its
3) symbolic or provisions. (DE AGBAYANI VS.
educational function PNB, 38 SCRA 429)
or when the
supreme court 79. “A”, an employee of the
decide a case even if Sandiganbayan, was found
it is moot and guilty of dishonesty by the Civil
academic to educate Service Commission and ordered
the lower courts and dismissed from the government
other government service because it was shown
officials. that another person took the
Civil Service Examination for him
that is why he passed. He was
77. May inferior courts given the opportunity to answer
also exercise the power of said charge but failed to do so.
judicial review (declaring a law, Decide.
treaty, etc. unconstitutional) in
the light of the requirements of The Decision of the Civil
Section 4(2) of Article VIII that Service Commission is not valid.
not even any of the Supreme Only the Supreme Court has the
Court’s three (3) divisions, power remove officials and
sitting separately could not employees in the judiciary under its
declare a law, treaty, etc., power enunciated in Section 6, Art.
unconstitutional? VIII of the Constitution. (CSC VS.
ANDAL, December 16, 2009)
I press toward
3:14

82. Up to when are

80. What are the qualities of one members of the judiciary
aspiring to become a member of entitled to hold on to their
the judiciary aside from the positions?
citizenship and age
qualifications? Section 11, Art. VIII provides
that the Members of the Supreme
A member of the Court and judges of the lower court
judiciary must be a person of shall hold office [1] during good
proven competence, integrity, behavior until they reach the age of
probity and independence. 70 years or [2] become
incapacitated to discharge the duties
81. Under the 1987 of their office. The Supreme Court en
Constitution, may the salaries of banc shall have the power to
the members of the judiciary be discipline judges of lower courts, or
taxed without violating Section order their dismissal by a vote of
10, Article VIII which would have majority of the members who
the effect of decreasing the actually took part in the
same? deliberations on the issues in the
case and voted thereon.
No. This was the ruling in
NITAFAN VS. COMMISSIONER, 83. May an RTC Judge be
152 SCRA 284 which abandoned appointed as a member of the
the contrary rulings in the cases of Provincial Peace and Order
PERFECTO VS. MEER, 85 Phil. 552 Council of the place where he
and ENDENCIA VS. DAVID, 93 Phil. holds office?
696
No. The members of the
81-a. May the Congress of Supreme Court and other courts
the Philippines be represented established by law shall not be
by a Member of the House of designated to any agency
Representatives and a member performing quasi-judicial or
of the Senate in the Judicial and administrative functions. (IN RE:
Bar Council separately? JUDGE RODOLFO MANZANO, October
5, 1988)
No. Under Section 8, Art. VIII
of the Constitution, the Judicial and 84. Are the different
Bar Council shall have seven (7) administrative and quasi-judicial
members only and the Congress of bodies (COMELEC, NLRC,
the Philippines is entitled to only one NAPOLCOM, MILITARY
(1) member. As such, the House of COMMISSIONS) bound by the
Representatives shall send only one requirement of Section 14, Art.
(1) member in the Judicial and Bar VIII that “No decision shall be
Council. (FRANCISCO CHAVEZ VS. rendered by any court without
JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL, July expressing therein clearly and
18, 2012 and April 13, 2013) distinctly the facts and the law
on which it is based”?
I press toward
3:14

No. It applies only to the is so because it is “impossible” for

courts as defined or included by the Supreme Court to comply with
Section 1, Art. VIII. (AIR FRANCE such provision considering the
VS. CARRASCOSO, 18 SCRA 155, volume of cases filed before it.
VDA DE ESPIRITU VS. CFI, 47 SCRA (CORPUS VS. CA 98 SCRA 424 ,
354, BUSCAYNO VS. ENRILE, 102 MALACORA VS. CA, 117 SCRA
SCRA 7, MANGCA VS. COMELEC, 112 435, MARCELINO VS. CRUZ, 121
SCRA 273, VALLADOLID VS. SCRA 51 and DE ROMA VS. CA,
INCIONG, 121 SCRA 205, 152 SCRA 205)
NAPOLCOM VS. LOOD, 127 SCRA 75,
NUNAL VS. CA, 169 SCRA 356 and 87. What are covered by
Mangelen vs. CA, 215 SCRA 230) the powers of the Civil Service
Commission?
85. What are the periods
given to the different courts to Under Section 2, Article IX-B of
decide cases before them? the Constitution, the civil service
embraces all branches, subdivisions,
Under Section 15, Art. VIII, instrumentalities, and agencies of
all cases or matters filed after the the government, including
effectivity of this Constitution must government owned and controlled
be decided or resolved within 24 corporations WITH ORIGINAL
months from date of submission for CHARTERS.
the Supreme Court, and unless
reduced by the Supreme Court, 12 88. What are the
months for all lower collegiate requirements before one may be
courts, and 3 months for all other appointed in the civil service?
lower courts. A case shall be deemed Exceptions?
submitted for decision or resolution
upon the filing of the last pleading, Appointments in the CS shall
brief or memorandum required by be made only according to merit and
the Rules of Court or by the court fitness to be determined as far as
itself. practicable, and except as to
positions which are policy
Under Section 18, Art. VII, determining, primarily
however, a case questioning the confidential or highly technical,
validity of the declaration of by competitive examination.
martial law or suspension of the
writ of habeas corpus must be
decided within 30 days from the 89. Define the three (3) exceptions
date of filing. to the rule that the appointee must
be chosen based on merit and
86. Is the requirement fitness to be determined by
under Section 15, Art. VIII competitive examination?
mandatory or merely directory?
Policy determining is one charged
Section 15, Art. VIII is with laying down of principal or
mandatory in all courts except the fundamental guidelines or rules,
Supreme Court where said provision such as that head of a department.
is considered merely directory. This
I press toward
3:14

Primarily confidential position is Our Constitution, in using the

one denoting not only confidence in expressions “all workers” and “no
the aptitude of the appointee for the officer or employee,” puts no
duties of the office but primarily distinction between a probationary and
close intimacy which ensures a permanent or regular employee
freedom of intercourse without which means that both probationary
embarrassment or freedom from and permanent employees enjoy
misgivings or betrayals of the security of tenure. Probationary
personal trust on confidential employees enjoy security of tenure in
the sense that during their
matters of the state (Example: Chief
probationary employment, they cannot
Legal Counsel of the PNB, Besa vs.
be dismissed except for cause or for
PNB, 33 SCRA 330)
failure to qualify as regular employees .
(CSC vs. Magnaye, April 23, 2010)
Highly technical position requires
the appointee thereto to possess
90. Is the position of City
technical skill or training in the
Engineer of Baguio City a
supreme or superior degree.
“highly technical” position?
89-a. May a government
employee under “probationary
No. The position of City
period” entitled to security of
Engineer of Baguio City is technical
tenure? May he be dismissed without
“but not highly so.” (DE LOS SANTOS
just cause and due process?
VS. MALLARE, 87 Phil. 289)
No. The CSC position that a
91. Is there such a thing as
civil service employee does not enjoy
“next-in-rank” or seniority rule
security of tenure during his 6-month
probationary period is contrary to the in filling up vacancies in the
Constitution and the Civil Service Law classified civil service?
itself. Section 3 (2) Article 13 of the
Constitution guarantees the rights of No. As held in Medenilla vs.
all workers not just in terms of self- CSC, February 19, 1991, there is
organization, collective bargaining, no need “to wait for the deadwoods
peaceful concerted activities, the to retire” before one may be
right to strike with qualifications, promoted to fill-up a vacancy as a
humane conditions of work and a result of the presence of other
living wage but also to security of employees with longer years of
tenure, and Section 2(3), Article IX-B service or “next-in-rank”. What is
is emphatic in saying that, "no officer important is that the appointee
or employee of the civil service meets all the qualifications for the
shall be removed or suspended said position.
except for cause as provided by
law." 92. What is the extent of
the powers of the CSC in
Consistently, Section 46 (a) of appointment cases?
the Civil Service Law provides that
“no officer or employee in the It has only the power to
Civil Service shall be suspended approve the appointment if the
or dismissed except for cause as appointee meets all the
provided by law after due
qualifications and the power to deny
process.”
I press toward
3:14

the appointment if the appointee government reorganization.” There

does not meet the qualifications. IT must be full compliance of the due
DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER TO process requirement. It must be
SUBSTITUTE THE APPOINTEE based on just cause and with due
CHOSEN BY THE APPOINTING process.( DARIO VS. MISON,
AUTHORITY WITH ANOTHER WHICH August 8, 1989, FLOREZA VS.
IT BELIEVES TO BE MORE QUALIFIED. ONGPIN, February 26, 1990,
(BARROZO VS. CSC & VALENTINO MENDOZA VS. QUISUMBING,
JULIAN) June 4, 1990, DOTC vs. CSC,
October 3, 1991, Romualdez vs.
93. Is the position of City CSC, August 12, 1993 and Torio
or Provincial Legal Officer a vs. CSC, 209 SCRA 677)
primarily confidential position?
96. May a person be
Yes, as held in CADIENTE VS. appointed in a temporary
SANTOS, 142 SCRA 280, the capacity as a Commissioner of
Provincial Legal Officer is a the Commission on Elections?
primarily confidential office, but
not his assistant. The same was No, Section 1, Art. IX-C
reiterated in SAMSON VS. CA, 145 provides that “In no case shall any
SCRA where it was held that The member be appointed or
City Legal officer is a primarily designated in a temporary or
confidential officer. acting capacity. “(Brillantes vs.
94. May gov't. employees Yorac, Dec. 18, 1991)
form unions for purposes of
collective bargaining and to 97. What are the more
strike against the government? important powers of the
COMELEC?
As held in ALLIANCE OF
GOVT. WORKERS VS. MOLE, 124 Under Section 2, Art. IX-C,
SCRA and Executive Order No. its powers are to enforce and
180 , June 1, 1987, government administer all laws relative to the
employees may form unions but not conduct of election, plebiscite,
authorized to strike or demand for initiative, referendum and
collective bargaining agreement with recall….original jurisdiction over all
the government. contests relating to the elections,
authorizing govt. employees to form returns, and qualifications of all
unions. elective regional, provincial and city
officials and appellate jurisdiction
95. May government over all contests involving elective
employees be removed without municipal officials decided by courts
cause as a result of a of general jurisdiction and elective
government reorganization? barangay officials decided by trial
courts of limited jurisdiction. Also, it
No. This is clear from RA has the power to:
6656, June 10, 1988 , which is “An
act to protect the security of tenure a. Deputize law enforcement
of civil service officers and agencies, including the AFP..
employees in the implementation of
I press toward
3:14

b. Register political parties, ERIGUEL VS. COMELEC, February

except religious groups 26, 2010)
c. File complaints for violation
of election laws
d. Regulate the enjoyment or
utilization of all franchises
100. Does the President
for the operation of
have discretion on the release of
transportation and other
the Internal Revenue Allotment
public utilities, media of
(IRA) for the Local Government
communication..
Service Equalization Fund
(LGSEF) and may she validly
98. Which court has
impose conditions for the
jurisdiction over election cases
release thereof?
involving municipal and
barangay officials?
No, local governments have
fiscal autonomy under Art. X of the
Election cases involving
1987 Constitution. As held by the
municipal official shall be filed before
Supreme Court in the case of
the RTC whose decision may be
PROVINCE OF BATANGAS VS.
appealed to the COMELEC. Those
HON. ALBERTO ROMULO, ET AL.,
involving barangay officials shall be
May 27, 2004, automatic release
filed with the MTC whose decision is
of funds of Local Government Units,
likewise subject to appeal to the
particularly the IRA, is mandated
COMELEC whose decision in both
with no conditions imposed for its
instances is final and not appealable.
release. To allow the President to
99. Where must election impose conditions for the release of
cases involving city and the IRA amounts to control to local
provincial officials be filed? government units when the
President’s power over local
It must be filed with the government units is confined to
COMELEC, not with the courts. general supervision, not power of
control as enunciated in Drilon vs.
99-a. May the COMELEC EN Lim, 235 SCRA 135.
BANC decide on Appeal the
Decision of RTC Agoo, La Union, 100-A. May the Secretary
regarding the election protest of Environment and Natural
involving candidates for Resources validly reverse and
Municipal mayor because the set aside the “small-scale
Division where the appeal was mining permit” issued by a
raffled could not decide it due to Provincial Governor without
the inhibition of its members violating Section 4, Art. X of the
resulting in no quorum therein? Constitution which provides that
the President shall have general
No. The COMELEC en banc supervision only, not control,
could only decide Motions for over local governments?
Reconsideration from a Decision of a
Division of the COMELEC.(SANDRA Yes. Paragraph 1 of Section
2, Article XII (National Economy
and Patrimony) of the Constitution
I press toward
3:14

provides that “[t]he exploration, No, the 3-term limit applies

development and utilization of natural only if the official was DULY ELECTED
resources shall be under the full to the said position for three (3)
control and supervision of the State “. consecutive terms, not by
Moreover, paragraph 3 of Section succession. (BENJAMIN BORJA VS.
2, Article XII of the Constitution COMELEC, and JOSE T. CAPCO, JR.,
provides that “[t]he Congress G.R. No. 133495, September 3, 1998,
may, by law, allow small-scale 295 SCRA 157)
utilization of natural resources by
Filipino citizens x x x.” Pursuant to
Section 2, Article XII of the 102-a. Montebon was
Constitution, R.A. No. 7076 or the elected Municipal Councilor of
People's Small-Scale Mining Act of Tuburan, Cebu during the 1998,
1991, was enacted, establishing under 2001 and 2004 elections. He was
Section 4 thereof a People's Small- number councilor in the election
Scale Mining Program to be of 2004. In 2005, the Vice Mayor
implemented by the DENR Secretary in died and he took over the said
coordination with other concerned position by way of succession in
government agencies. (LEAGUE OF accordance with the Local
PROVINCES OF THE PHILIPPINES Government Code. May he
vs. DEPARTMENT OF validly run again for Municipal
ENVIRONMENT and NATURAL Councilor during the May, 2007
RESOURCES and HON. ANGELO T.
elections?
REYES, in his capacity as
Secretary of DENR, GR. No.
175368, APRIL 11, 2013)
Yes, because there was
“INVOLUNTARY RENUNCIATION” of
101. What are the his 3rd terms. It was not voluntary
requirements for a valid change which could have resulted in the
of residence for purposes of the counting of his election in 2004 as
requirement on “residence” his 3rd term. He was forced by law to
under the Local Government vacate his position as Municipal
Code? Councilor. (MONTEBON VS.
COMELEC, April 8, 2008)
In the case of DUMPIT-
MICHELENA VS. COMELEC, 475 102-b. Nicasio Bolos, Jr.
SCRA 290, it was held that to validly was elected Barangay Captain of
effect a change of residence, there Barangay Biking, Dauis, Bohol
must be animus manendi coupled during the 1994, 1997 and 2002
with animus non revertendi. The Barangay elections. Without
intent to remain in the new domicile having completed his 3rd term,
of choice must be for an indefinite he ran for Municipal Councilor of
period of time, must be voluntary Dauis, Bohol during the 2004
and the residence at the new National and Local Elections and
domicile must be actual. won. His term ended on June 30,
2007. Is he qualified to run for
102. Is the 3-term limit of Barangay Captain of his
elected local officials applicable to a barangay during the barangay
term acquired through succession? elections of October, 2007?
I press toward
3:14

No more because he who, in due time, performed the

was elected to three consecutive functions of the office of mayor.
terms. His non-completion of his 3 rd Abundo protested Torres’ election
term WAS VOLUNTARY when her run and proclamation. Abundo was
for Municipal Councilor. (BOLOS, JR. eventually declared the winner of
VS. COMELEC, March 17, 2009) the 2004 mayoralty electoral
contest, paving the way for his
102-c. Hagedorn was assumption of office starting May
elected and served for three (3) 9, 2006 until the end of the 2004-
2007 term on June 30, 2007, or for
consecutive terms as Mayor of
a period of a little over one year
Puerto Princesa City but did not
and one month. May he validly run
run during his supposed 4th
for the same position in the May,
term. However, after just a year 2010 elections?
in office of his successor, a recall
election was held. May Yes. He has not served 3-
Hagedorn run in the recall consecutive terms. The
elections without violating the consecutiveness of what otherwise
3-consecutive rule provision of would have been Abundo’s three
the Constitution? successive, continuous mayorship was
effectively broken during the 2004-
No. An elective official, who has 2007 term when he was initially
served for three consecutive terms deprived of title to, and was veritably
and who did not seek the elective disallowed to serve and occupy, an
position for what could be his fourth office to which he, after due
term, but later won in a recall election, proceedings, was eventually declared
had an interruption in the continuity of to have been the rightful choice of the
the official’s service. For, he had electorate.
become in the interim, i.e., from the
end of the 3rd term up to the recall The three-term limit rule for
election, a private citizen (Adormeo elective local officials, a
vs. COMELEC, February 4, 2002 disqualification rule, is found in
and Socrates vs. COMELEC and Section 8, Article X of the 1987
Edward Hagedorn, , November 12, Constitution, which provides:
2002).
Sec. 8. The term of office of
102-D. For four (4) elective local officials, except
successive regular elections, barangay officials, which shall be
namely, the 2001, 2004, 2007 and determined by law, shall be three
2010 national and local elections, years and no such official shall
Abundo vied for the position of serve for more than three
municipal mayor of Viga, consecutive terms.
Catanduanes. In both the 2001
and 2007 runs, he emerged and Voluntary renunciation of
was proclaimed as the winning the office for any length of time
mayoralty candidate and fully shall not be considered as an
served the corresponding terms interruption in the continuity of his
as mayor. In the 2004 elections, service for the fullterm for which he
however, the Viga municipal board was elected. (Emphasis supplied.)
of canvassers initially proclaimed
as winner one Jose Torres (Torres),
I press toward
3:14

To constitute a disqualification during this period (Aldovino, Jr. vs.

to run for an elective local office COMELEC, December 23, 2009).
pursuant to the aforequoted
constitutional and statutory provisions, 102-g. A candidate for
the following requisites must concur. mayor was elected to 3-
consecutive terms. In one of his
(1) that the official concerned has terms 3 terms, however, he was
been elected for three proclaimed winner but he was
consecutive ousted from office due to an
terms in the same local election protest several months
government post; and before the end of his term. May
he run again for a “supposed” 4 th
(2) that he has fully served term?
three consecutive terms.
(MAYOR ABELARDO ABUNDO., Yes. When a candidate is
SR. VS. COMELEC & ERNESTO proclaimed as winner for an elective
VEGA, G.R. No. 201716, position and assumes office, his term
JANUARY 08, 2013) is interrupted when he loses in an
election protest and is ousted from
102-e. He was elected for 3- office, thus disenabling him from
consecutive terms as Municipal serving what would otherwise be the
Mayor of Digos, Davao del Sur. Her unexpired portion of his term of office
served 9 years as such. Before the had the protest been dismissed. The
end of his 3rd term, Digos was break or interruption need not be for a
converted into a component city. full term of three years or for the
May he run again for City Mayor? major part of the 3-year term; an
interruption for any length of time,
No. The abolition of an elective provided the cause is involuntary, is
local office due to the conversion of a sufficient to break the continuity of
municipality to a city does not, by service. (Lonzanida vs. COMELEC,
itself, work to interrupt the incumbent 311 SCRA 602 and Dizon vs.
official’s continuity of service. He is COMELEC )
barred by the 3-consecutive rule.
(Latasa vs. COMELEC, December 102-h. Mayor Morales was
10, 2003). elected for 3 consecutive terms
and had FULLY SERVED said 3
102-f. He was elected for 3- terms. However, in one of said
consecutive terms but was the terms, his opponent protested
subject of a preventive and was declared the real winner,
suspension by the Ombudsman not Morales. Unfortunately, said
for several months during one of decision removing Morales from
his terms. Is he qualified for a 4th office became final only after he
term? had fully served the same. May he
run again for a “4th term”?
No. Preventive suspension is not a
term-interrupting event as the elective No more. The case of
officer’s continued stay and Lonzanida is not applicable because he
entitlement to the office remain was not able to serve the full term and
unaffected during the period of his opponent took over the rest of one
suspension, although he is barred from of his terms thus “disenabling” him to
exercising the functions of his office full serve 3 consecutive terms. When
I press toward
3:14

an official is defeated in an election JOURNALISM (PCIJ( FOR THE

protest and said decision becomes 2008 STATEMENT OF ASSETS
final after said official had served the AND LIABILITIES AND NET
full term for said office, then his loss in WORTH (SALN) AND PERSONAL
the election contest does not DATA SHEETS OF THE SUPREME
constitute an interruption since he has COURT AND COURT OF APPEALS
managed to serve the term from start JUSTICES, A.M. No. 0908-07-CA,
to finish. His full service, despite the June 13, 2012, the Supreme Court
defeat, should be counted in the held that they could be given to
application of term limits because the
requesting parties subject to the
nullification of his proclamation came
limitations and prohibitions provided
after the expiration of the term (Ong
in R.A. No. 6713, its implementing
vs. COMELEC, January 23, 2006
and Rivera vs. COMELEC & rules and regulations, and the
MARINO “BOKING “ MORALES, following guidelines:
May 9, 2008).
103. In the creation of a 1. All requests shall be filed with

new province, city, municipality the Office of the Clerk of Court of
or barangay or when it will be the Supreme Court, the Court of
divided, merged or abolished, or Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the
its boundary substantially Court of Tax Appeals; for the
altered, who shall vote in the lower courts, with the Office of
plebiscite to be conducted? the Court Administrator; and for
attached agencies, with their
All the residents of the respective heads of offices.
political units affected, i.e., former
and new local government unit to be 2. Requests shall cover only
formed, must participate in the copies of the latest SALN, PDS
plebiscite. (TAN VS. COMELEC, and CV of the members, officials
142 SCRA 727 and Padilla vs. and employees of the Judiciary,
COMELEC, 214 SCRA 735 and may cover only previous
records if so specifically
Please take note of the requested and considered as
contrary rulings in PAREDES VS. justified, as determined by the
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, 128 officials mentioned in par. 1
SCRA 6 and LOPEZ VS. METRO above, under the terms of these
MANILA COMMISSION, 136 SCRA guidelines and the Implementing
633) Rules and Regulations of R.A. No.
6713.
104. Are the statement of
assets and liabilities and , 3. In the case of requests for
Personal Data Sheet of Justices copies of SALN of the Justices of
and Judges confidential and the Supreme Court, the Court of
shall not be released to the Appeals, the Sandiganbayan and
public? the Court of Tax Appeals, the
authority to disclose shall be
No. In the case of IN RE: made by the Court En Banc.
REQUEST OF THE PHILIPPINE
CENTER FOR INVESTIGATIVE
I press toward
3:14

4. Every request shall explain the provided in R.A. No. 6713 and its
requesting party’s specific implementing rules and regulations,
purpose and their individual and in accordance with the
interests sought to be served; aforecited guidelines. Thereafter, the
shall state the commitment that Clerk of Court shall refer the matter
the request shall only be for the pertaining to Justices to the Court En
stated purpose; and shall be Banc for final determination.
submitted in a duly accomplished
request form secured from the SC This is in accordance with the
website. The use of the constitutional provision on public
information secured shall only be accountability and transparency
for the stated purpose. under Section 1, Art. XI and Section
7, Art. III or the right to information
5. In the case of requesting on matters of public concern as well
individuals other than members as access to official records…
of the media, their interests
should go beyond pure or mere
curiosity.
104-a. What are the
6. In the case of the members of grounds for impeachment?
the media, the request shall
additionally be supported by Only for “Culpable
proof under oath of their media violation of the constitution,
affiliation and by a similar
treason, bribery, graft and
certification of the accreditation
of their respective organizations corruption, other high crimes, or
as legitimate media practitioners. betrayal of public trust”.
7. The requesting party, whether

105. What is the extent of
as individuals or as members of
a judgment in impeachment
the media, must have no
cases?
derogatory record of having
misused any requested
Judgment in cases of
information previously furnished
to them. impeachment shall not extend
further than removal from office
The requesting parties shall and disqualification to hold any
complete their requests in other office under the Republic
accordance with these of the Philippines but shall
guidelines. The custodians of these
nevertheless be liable to
documents (the respective Clerks of
Court of the Supreme Court, Court of prosecution, trial and
Appeals, Sandiganbayan, and Court punishment according to law.
of Tax Appeals for the Justices; and
the Court Administrator for the
Judges of various trial courts) shall 106. When is an
preliminarily determine if the impeachment complaint deemed
requests are not covered by “initiated” to bar another
the limitations and prohibitions
I press toward
3:14

complaint within a period of one wherein only the COMELEC has

year? the power to investigate and to
file the appropriate information
As held in FRANCISCO VS. in court. (Corpuz vs. Tanodbayan,
SPEAKER JOSE DE VENECIA, ET 149 SCRA 281)
AL, 415 SCRA 44, November 10,
2003, an impeachment complaint 108. What is covered by
deemed “initiated” to be a bar to the the “academic freedom”
filing of another complaint within a provision of the 1987
1-year period upon its [a] filing; and Constitution?
[b] COUPLED WITH CONGRESS
TAKING INITIAL ACTION OF SAID It covers not only academic
COMPLAINT.” freedom on the part of the school
but also those of the teachers,
107. Does the prohibition professors and the students because
under Section 3 [5] of Art. XI the provision states that “Academic
applies when the 1st freedom shall be enjoyed in all
impeachment complaint was institutions of higher learning” while
filed on July 22, 2010 and the 2 nd under the 1973 Constitution, only
on July 27, 2010 against the institutions of higher learning enjoy
same impeachable officer academic freedom because the
though both complaints were provision then states that “all
referred to the appropriate institutions of higher learning
committee on the same day? shall enjoy academic freedom
(Art. XV, Section 8 [1], 1973
No. What is prohibited is Constitution.”
having more than one impeachment
proceedings within a period of one 109. What is the extent of
(1) year. Even if there are several academic freedom on the part of
cases filed on different dates but schools?
simultaneously tried against the said
impeachable officer, there is no It includes the power to
prohibition to Section 3 [5] of Art. XI. determine:
(GUTIERREZ VS. HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE a. who may teach,
ON JUSTICE, ET AL., February 15, b. what may be taught,
2011) c. how it shall be taught,
and
107. Who investigates and d. who may be admitted to
prosecutes public officials for study"' (Emphasis
crimes committed in the supplied; citing Sinco,
performance of their official Philippine Political Law,
duties? Exception 491, (1962) and the
concurring opinion of
It is the Office of the Justice Frankfurter in
Ombudsman and the Office of the Sweezy v. New Hampshire
Special Prosecutor except if the (354 US 234 [1957],
offense is in violation of election GARCIA VS. FACULTY
laws, rules and regulations ADMISSION, 68 SCRA 277).
I press toward
3:14

EXCLUSION, meaning, they are not

110. Does academic allowed to enroll at the De La Salle
freedom on the part of the but they should be given transfer
school carries with it the power credentials so that they may enroll
to revoke a degree or honor it in another school.
has bestowed to its students?
111-a. Are students entitled to
Yes. As held in UP BOARD OF cross-examine the witnesses against
REGENTS VS. CA, August 31, them in an administrative case to
1999, “academic Freedom satisfy their right to due process?
includes the power of a
University to REVOKE a degree No. What is important is that
or honor it has conferred to a they were given the opportunity to
student after it was found out be heard. DE LA SALLE
that the student’s graduation UNIVERSITY VS. CA (December,
was obtained through fraud. 2008).
Academic freedom is given a
wide sphere of authority. If an 112. What are the
institution of higher learning underlying principles behind the
can decide on who can and constitutional proscription that
cannot study in it, it certainly the State may not be sued
can also determine on whom it without its consent?
can confer the honor and
distinction of being its By reason of public policy (if
graduates. every citizen is allowed to sue the
government, it will be distracted
111. May a school punish from performing its functions to
its students for illegal acts serve the people and it will be left
committed outside the school just answering cases in court), by
premises and beyond school reason of sovereignty (the people
hours but within the semester shall not be allowed to sue the very
where they are enrolled? entity that gives it said right;) and by
reason of consent (when the people
Yes because they still carry ratified the Constitution which
the name of the school and their includes the provision that the State
actuations affect the reputation of cannot be sued without its consent,
the school. ( ANGELES VS. SISON, it has consented or waived said right
112 SCRA 26) This rule was to sue).
reiterated in the cased of DE LA
SALLE UNIVERSITY VS. CA (2008) 113. How may the State
where a rumble between members gives its consent to be sued?
of two fraternities took place
outside the school campus but the Expressly when there is a law
students involved were EXPELLED by allowing it and impliedly when it
the school. The Supreme Court, enters into a contract with an
however, while conceding the power individual because in the latter, it
of the school over its students held descended to the level of an
that the penalty of expulsion is too individual making it susceptible to
harsh a penalty. It should be counterclaims or suits.
I press toward
3:14

Yes, a town fiesta is a business or

114. May the government proprietary function, not
be sued in the exercise of its governmental, since no law requires
governmental functions? any town, city, province or barangay
to hold an annual fiesta. (TORIO VS.
Yes if the government agency FONTANILLA, 85 SCRA 599)
has a charter which allows it to be
sued. (RAYO VS. CFI OF BULACAN, 118. May a local
110 SCRA 456). Also, the government validly invoke state
government is not allowed to invoke immunity from suit in a case
its immunity from suit if by doing so, where there is a contract
it will be causing an injustice to its entered into with a private
citizens. (MINISTERIO VS. CFI of corporation for the delivery of
Cebu, 40 SCRA and SANTIAGO VS. trucks to the said municipality?
REPUBLIC, 87 SCRA 294) May the court trying the same
validly issue a writ of
115. Is the US Government preliminary attachment against
also immune from suit in the the municipality?
Philippines in connection with
the exercise of its governmental The municipality may not
functions? validly invoke its immunity from suit
in a case where it entered into a
Yes. This was the ruling in contract with a private corporation
U.S. VS. RUIZ, 136 SCRA where it since it is deemed to have waived
was held that even if there is a state immunity from suit. However,
contract entered into by the US unlike in cases of ordinary
Government but the same involves defendants, the Trial Court may not
its “jusre imperii” functions validly issue a writ of preliminary
(governmental functions”, it cannot attachment against the properties of
be sued. It is only when the contract the municipality even if the grounds
involves its “jus gestiones” or under Section 1, Rule 57 of the 1997
business or proprietary functions Rules of Civil Procedure are present.
that it may be sued. Suability is different from liability.
(MUNICIPALITY OF HAGONOY,
116. Are local governments BULACAN VS. JUDGE DUMDUM,
also entitled to invoke immunity JR., RTC 7, CEBU CITY, March 22,
from suit? 2010)
Yes. 119. May the government

still be held liable to a private
117. May a municipality be individual if the contract it
held liable for damages as a entered into is void but the
result of the death of a person other party had already
arising from the collapse of a complied with his obligations
stage constructed by the local under said agreement?
government in connection with
its town fiesta? Yes, because the government
shall not enrich itself at the expense
of its citizens. (DEPARTMENT OF
I press toward
3:14

HEALTH VS. C.V. CANCHELA, et SCRA 195; TAXICAB OPERATORS

al., 475 SCRA 218) Also, the said VS. JUINIO, 119 SCRA 897 )
immunity from suit defense is not d. to maintain and safeguard
applicable if to do so would cause an peace and order; (GUAZON VS.
injustice to a citizen (MINISTERIO DE VILLA)
VS. CFI OF CEBU, 40 SCRA) It does e. to protect public morals; (DE LA
not also apply if it was the CRUZ VS. PARAS, 123 SCRA 569;
government which violated its ERMITA MALATE HOTEL VS. CITY
contract with its citizen (SANTIAGO MAYOR, July 31, 1967; JMM
VS. REPUBLIC, 87 SCRA 294) PROMOTIONS VS. CA, 260 SCRA
319; VELASCO VS. VILLEGAS,
PART II February 13, 1983)
f. to promote the economic
security of the people. (ICHONG
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
VS. HERNANDEZ, 101 Phil.
11155)
1. Define police power.
2-a. May an Ordinance of the
It is the power vested in the City of Manila validly require
legislature by the Constitution to people/couples checking in the
make, ordain, establish all manner of different motels in the city to [1]
wholesome and reasonable laws for register at the motel’s desk
the good and welfare of the State facing a public street; and [2]
and its people. (ERMITA MALATE show their identification card,
HOTEL VS. CITY MAYOR, July 31, etc.?
1967)
A. Yes. It is a valid exercise of
2. What are the basic police power to promote public
purposes/aspects of police morals, i.e., curb prostitution or illicit
power: relationships. ERMITA MALATE
HOTEL VS. CITY MAYOR, July 31,
a. to promote the general welfare, 1967)
comfort and convenience of the
people; (ASSOCIATION OF 2-b. May the City of Manila
SMALL LANDOWNERS VS. validly prohibit the operation of
SECRETARY, 175 SCRA 343; US night clubs, sauna parlors,
VS. TORIBIO, 15 Phil. 85 massage parlors, karaoke bars,
beerhouses, and similar
b. to promote and preserve public establishments in the Ermita-
health; (VILLANUEVA VS. Malate Area and gives the
CASTANEDA, September 21, existing establishments three
1987; DECS VS. SAN DIEGO, (3) months to transfer to any
180 SCRA 533 [NMAT]; place outside said area under
LORENZO VS. DIRECTOR OF pain of imprisonment of up to 1
HEALTH, 50 Phil. 595— year and fine of P5,000.00 or
apprehend and confine lepers in change the nature of their
a leprosarium) business to gift shops,
c. to promote and protect public restaurants, etc. ?
safety; (AGUSTIN VS. EDU, 88
I press toward
3:14

A. The Ordinance is
unconstitutional. It violates the due The distinctions are:
process clause by depriving the
owners of said establishments of 1 The power of eminent domain is
their legitimate businesses. It the inherent right of the State to
likewise violates the equal protection condemn or to take private
clause. There is no logic in allowing property for public use upon
said establishments in other parts of payment of just compensation
the City of Manila but not in the while police power is the power of
Ermita-Malate area. Finally, even the state to promote public
assuming that the said Ordinance is welfare by restraining and
intended to promote public morals, regulating the use of liberty and
the means employed is property without compensation;
constitutionally infirm and not a valid 2 In the exercise of police power,
exercise of police power. (CITY OF enjoyment of a property is
MANILA, represented by Mayor restricted because the continued
Alfredo Lim VS. JUDGE PERFECTO use thereof would be injurious to
LAGUIO, JR. and MALATE public welfare. In such case, there
TOURIST DEVELOPMENT is no compensable taking
CORPORATION, G.R. No. 118127, provided none of the property
April 12, 2008) interests is appropriated for the
use or for the benefit of the
2-c. May the City of Manila public. Otherwise, there should
validly prohibit hotels and be compensable taking if it would
motels, etc., at the Ermita- result to public use.
Malate area, to offer “short 3 Properties condemned under
time” admission therein? police power are usually noxious
or intended for noxious purpose;
A. The Ordinance is hence , no compensation shall be
unconstitutional and is not a valid paid. Likewise, in the exercise of
exercise of police power. There is police power, property rights of
nothing immoral in staying in a private individuals are subjected
motel or hotel for a period of three to restraints and burdens in order
(3) hours only because a person’s to secure the general comfort,
stay therein could be for purposes health and prosperity of the state.
other than having sex or using illegal (DIDIPIO EARTH SAVERS MULTI
drugs. Further, there is nothing that PURPOSE ASSOCIATION VS. DENR
would prevent people engaged in SEC. ELISEA GOZU, ET AL., 485
illicit relationships to check in in said SCRA 586)
motels by paying 12 hours or more
though they will just stay there for 3 4. What are the tests for a
hours. (WHITE LIGHT valid exercise of police power
CORPORATION VS. CITY OF
MANILA, represented by MAYOR a. the interests of the public, not
ALFREDO LIM, G.R. No. 122846, mere particular class, require
January 20, 2009.) the exercise of police power;
(LAWFUL SUBJECT)
3. Distinguish police power with b. the means employed is
power of eminent domain. reasonably necessary for the
I press toward
3:14

accomplishment of the purpose defendant or over the property

and not unduly oppressive to subject of the proceedings;
individuals. (LAWFUL MEANS). 3. The defendant must be given
In short, the end does not justify the opportunity to be heard;
the means. 4. Judgment must be rendered
only after lawful hearing.
5. Define due process.
8. What are the requisites
Due process is a law which of due process before
hears before it condemns, which administrative bodies?
proceeds upon inquiry and renders
judgment only after trial (Per Daniel As held in TIBAY VS. CIR, 69 Phil.
Webster in the DARTMOUTH 635, the requisites are:
COLLEGE CASE)
a. the right to a hearing which
6. What are the Kinds of includes the right to present
Due Process? evidence;
b. the tribunal must consider the
a. substantive due process--- evidence presented;
requires the intrinsic c. the decision must have
validity of the law in something to support itself;
interfering with the rights d. the evidence must be
of the person to life, liberty substantial;
or property. In short, it is to e. the decision must be based on
determine whether it has a the evidence presented during
valid governmental the hearing;
objective like for the f. the tribunal or body must act on
interest of the public as its own independent
against mere particular consideration of the law or
class. facts;
b. Procedural due process--- g. the board or body shall in all
one which hears before it controversial questions, render
condemns, or the its decision in such a manner
procedure as pointed out that the parties to the
by Daniel Webster. proceedings can know the
various issues involved.
7. What are the requisites
of “judicial due process”? 9. If an accused was
represented by a non-lawyer
As held in BANCO ESPANOL during the trial of his criminal
VS. PALANCA, 37 Phil. 921. The case, what right of the said
requisites are: accused was violated? Is he
entitled to a new trial?
1. There must be an impartial
court or tribunal clothed with If an accused was represented
judicial power to hear and by a non-lawyer during the
decide the matter before it; entire trial (though she
2. Jurisdiction must be lawfully thought that he was a lawyer),
acquired over the person of the his right to due process was
I press toward
3:14

violated and therefore, he copying and printing” of the

entitled to a new trial. ballot images.
(DELGADO VS. CA,
November 10, 1986). Yes, his right to due process
was violated. HE WAS NOT
9-a. Consulta was INFORMED OF THE DATES WHEN THE
represented by one “Atty. “decryption, copying and printing” of
Jocelyn Reyes” from arraignment the ballot images took place.
up to the time that the
prosecution rested its case. He 10. What are the
was represented by another requisites of procedural due
lawyer when he presented his process in disciplinary actions
evidence. It turned out that against students?
“Atty. Reyes” was not a member
of the Bar. May he validly claim As held in GUZMAN VS. NU,
violation of his right to due 142 SCRA 706, the requisites
process and have a new trial like are:
in “Delgado”?
1. the students must be
No more. Even if he was not informed in writing of the
represented by a non-lawyer at nature and cause of any
the start of the criminal trial, accusation against them;
particularly when the prosecution
presented its evidence, but was 2. they shall have the
represented by a lawyer when he right to answer the charges
presented his evidence, there is against them, with the
no violation of his right to due assistance of counsel;
process or right to counsel. All 3. they shall be informed
the requisites of judicial due of the evidence against them;
process are present.
(CONSULTA VS. PEOPLE, G.R. 4. they shall have the
No. 179642, February 12, right to adduce evidence in
2009) their own behalf;
5. the evidence must be
9-b. Mayor Maliksi was duly considered by the
furnished copies of the investigating committee or
Resolutions of the COMELEC official designated by the
directing his opponent, who school authorities to hear and
appealed the decision of the RTC decide the case.
against him, to deposit amounts
for the decrypting, copying and 11. What are the
printing of the ballot images requisites of due process before
from CF Cards. Thereafter, the a private employee may be
COMELEC unseated Mayor dismissed from his work?
Maliksi. He went to the Supreme
Court and claimed violation of The requisites of Due Process
his right t to due process before the NLRC are:
because he was not informed of
the dates when the “decryption, 1. Notice; and
I press toward
3:14

2. Hearing A. No. The right to due process on

the part of a student is not
12. Is due process violated even if he was not
satisfied in administrative allowed to cross-examine the
proceedings if the respondent other party or his witnesses. Due
was not assisted by counsel? process is served if he was given
the chance to present his
There is no law, whether the evidence. (DE LA SALLE
Civil Service Act or the UNIVERSITY VS. JUDGE
Administrative Code of 1987, which WILFREDO REYES, RTC 36,
provides that a respondent in an Manila, G.R. No, 127980,
administrative case should be December 19, 2007)
assisted by counsel in order that the
proceedings therein is considered
valid. Not only, that, petitioner 12-c. Is there a violation of the
herein was given the opportunity right to due process if members
several times to engage the services of a faction of the Liberal Party
of a lawyer to assist him but he were expelled from said party in
confidently informed the a meeting where they were not
investigators that he could protect even notified nor given the
himself. (LUMIQUED VS. EXENEA, chance to be heard?
282 SCRA 125)
No. Due process could be invoked
12-a. Is there a violation of only before tribunals created by
a person’s right to due process the State through which
before an administrative body governmental acts or functions are
like the Civil Service Commission performed. The right to due
if a party was not allowed to process guards against
cross-examine the witnesses unwarranted encroachment by the
against him despite his request? State into fundamental rights and
cannot be invoked in private
No. The right to due process is controversies involving private
not violated even if a party to an rights. (ATIENZA VS. COMELEC &
administrative case was not MANUEL ROXAS III, ET AL.,
allowed to cross-examine the February 16, 2010)
other party or his witnesses.
What he is entitled to is the right 13. What are the
to be heard. (ATTY. ROMEO requisites for a valid
ERECE VS. LYN MACALINGAY, classification?
ET AL., G.R. No. 166809, April
22, 2008) As held in People vs. Cayat, 68
Phil. 12, the requisites are:
12-b. How about in
investigations involving a. There must be real and
disciplinary actions against substantial distinctions;
students, are the latter entitled b. It must be germane tot he
to cross-examine the purposes of the law;
complainant and his witnesses? c. It must not be limited to
existing conditions only; and
I press toward
3:14

d. It must apply equally to all 14-b. Is there violation of

members of the same class. the equal protection clause if
policemen and soldiers are given
14. Is there violation of the allowances in the General
equal protection clause if Appropriations Act while other
policemen who are charged of a government workers are not
criminal offense punishable for since the allowances of all
more than six (6) years will government workers were
remain suspended until after the incorporated already in their
his acquittal unlike other public salaries under the Compensation
officers whose maximum and Position Classification Act of
suspension even when facing 1989?
graft and corrupt charges is only
three (3) months? No. There is real and substantial
distinction. Policemen and
No there is o violation. In soldiers are in charge of the
HIMAGAN VS. PEOPLE, the defense of the country and could
Supreme Court held that the fact be transferred to virtually
that policemen charged with a anywhere in the country. Since
criminal offense punishable by their basic pay does not vary on
more than 6 years are to be location, the continued grant of
suspended during the entire COLA to them is intended to help
duration of the case unlike other them offset the effects of living in
government employees is valid higher cost areas. (GUTIERREZ
since it rests on valid classification VS. DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET
because policemen carry weapons AND MANAGEMENT, March 18,
and the badge of the law which 2010)
can be used to harass or
intimidate witnesses against
them.
14-c. Is Executive Order No.
14-a. Is there a violation of 1, Series of 2010 creating the
the right to equal protection of Philippine Truth Commission
the laws of appointed of 2010 to investigate
government officials who are “officers and employees of
deemed automatically resigned the previous administration
upon the filing of their for graft and corruption”
certificate of candidacy while constitutional?
elected officials are not?
It is unconstitutional for violation
No, there is real and of the equal protection clause. It
substantial distinction. Most singles out the officials of the
elected officials have a fixed previous administration only even
term under the Constitution though there are also alleged
and said term could not be graft and corruption in other
shortened by means of a law. administrations before that of
(QUINTO VS. COMELEC, President Arroyo. (BIRAOGO VS.
February 22, 2010) PHILIPPINE TRUTH
I press toward
3:14

COMMISSION, December 7, more than one (1) specific offense

2010) and that in the implementation of a
14-d. Is there a violation of search warrant when the respondent
the equal protection clause if is not present, witnesses are
appointed government required. Finally, a Circular issued by
officials are deemed the Supreme Court requires that no
automatically resigned upon warrant or warrant of arrest shall be
the filing of their certificates implemented during the night, week-
of candidacy while elected ends or holidays, except in
officials may continue exceptional cases.
discharging the duties of
their office despite the filing
of their COC’s? 15-a. What are the two (2)
kinds of probable cause?
No violation of their
right to equal protection because
there is real and substantial The two (2) kinds of probable
distinctions. Note that the term of cause are:
office of Members of Congress,
President and Vice President are
mandated by the Constitution [1] The executive
which is up to noon of June 30, 3 determination of probable
years or 6 years after their cause by the Prosecutor where
election and as such, Congress he determines whether to file
could not shorten their term by a criminal case in court or not;
providing that they are deemed and
resigned upon the filing of their
COC’s..
[2] Judicial determination of
15. What are the probable cause to be done by
requisites of a valid search the judge for the purpose of
warrant or warrant of arrest? issuing a warrant of arrest
against the accused.
No search warrant or warrant (LEVISTE VS. JUDGE
of arrest shall issue except upon ALAMEDA, August 3, 2010)
probable cause to be determined
personally by the judge after 15-b. May the Anti-Terrorism
examination under oath or Council issue a warrant of
affirmation of the complainant and detention against terrorists or
the witnesses he may produce, and suspected terrorists without
particularly describing the place to violating Section 2, Art. III of
be searched and the persons or the Constitution which allows
things to be seized. (Section 2, Art. only “judges” to issue
III) warrants?
In addition, Rule 126 of the

Rules on Criminal Procedure requires
that no warrant shall be issued for
I press toward
3:14

In the cases of [1] JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES,

SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE DELIVER SAID CHARGED OR
ENGAGEMENT NETWORK, INC., SUSPECTED PERSON TO THE
on behalf of the South-South PROPER JUDICIAL AUTHORITY
Network (SSN) for Non-State WITHIN A PERIOD OF THREE
Armed Group Engagement, (3) DAYS counted from the
and ATTY. SOLIMAN M. moment said charged or
SANTOS, JR., [2] KILUSANG suspected person has been
MAYO UNO (KMU; [3] apprehended or arrested,
BAGONG ALYANSANG detained, and taken into
MAKABAYAN (BAYAN), custody by the said police, or
[4] KARAPATAN, ALLIANCE law enforcement personnel:
FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF Provided, That the arrest of
PEOPLE’S RIGHTS, [5] THE those suspected of the crime
INTEGRATED BAR OF THE of terrorism or conspiracy to
PHILIPPINES (IBP), vs. THE commit terrorism must result
ANTI-TERRORISM COUNCIL, ET from the surveillance under
AL., G.R. No. 178552, Section 7 and examination of
October 5, 2010 , the bank deposits under Section
Supreme Court failed to 27 pf this Act.
decide on the constitutionality
of the said law because the Section 19.
petitioners were held to have Period of Detention in the
no legal standing or event of an actual or imminent
personality to sue. terrorist attack.- In the vent of
an actual or imminent terrorist
Please note of the attack,, suspects may not be
questionable provisions of the said detained for more than three
law: days without the written
approval of a municipal, city,
Sec. 18. Period of detention provincial or regional official of
without judicial warrant of a Human Rights Commission,
arrest.- The provisions of or judge of the municipal,
Article 125 of the Revised regional trial court, the
Penal Code, notwithstanding, Sandiganbayan or a justice of
any police or law enforcement the Court of Appeals nearest
personnel, who, having the place of arrest. If the
been duly authorized in arrest is made during
writing by the Anti- Saturdays, Sundays or
Terrorism Council has taken holidays, or after office hours,
custody of a person charged the arresting police of law
with or suspected of the crime enforcement personnel shall
of terrorism or the crime of bring the person thus arrested
conspiracy to commit to the residence of any of the
terrorism shall, WITHOUT officials mentioned above that
INCURRING ANY CRIMINAL is nearest the place where the
LIABILITY FOR DELAY IN THE accused was arrested. The
DELIVERY OF DETAINED approval in writing of any of
PERSONS TO THE PROPER the said officials shall be
I press toward
3:14

secured by the police or law THEIR THOUGHTS, OR HAD

enforcement personnel REPRESENTED IN THE PROOFS THEY
concerned within five days SUBMITTED TO THE COURT ISSUING
after the date of the detention THE WARRANT.
of the persons concerned;
Provided, however, That within 17. What are the different
three days after the detention instances when a warrantless
the suspects whose search and seizure is allowed
connection with the terror under our existing
attack or threat is not jurisprudence?
established, shall be released
immediately. Warrantless search is allowed
in the following instances:
(NOTE: Under the Human
1. customs searches;
Security Act/Anti-Terrorism
2. searches of moving
Law, Republic Act No. 9372,
vehicle;
Approved on March 6, 2007
3. seizure of evidence in plain
and effective on July 15, 2007
view;
(This Law shall be
4. consented searches;
automatically suspended one
5. search incidental to a
(1) month before and two (2)
lawful arrest; and
months after the holding of
6. stop and frisk measures.
any election) a person may be
(PEOPLE VS. ARUTA, 288
taken into custody by the
SCRA 626)
police if there is a written
authorization by the Anti-
Terrorism Council and such 18. May a judge deputize
detention may be extended his Clerk of Court to take the
upon written approval of the deposition of the applicant for a
Commission of Human Rights search warrant subject to
in case of actual or imminent clarificatory questions after his
terrorist attack..) hearing in other cases?
16. In case the place to be No. As held in Bache vs.

searched as indicated in the Ruiz, 37 SCRA 823, the
search warrant is erroneous examination of the complainant ant
because it is different from the the witnesses he may produce must
place mentioned by the be done personally by the judge.
applicants who searched the Otherwise, the warrant shall be void.
place indicated by them in their As such, the SC held in PENDON VS.
affidavit, are the things seized CA, November 16, 1990 that when
admissible in evidence? the questions asked to the applicant
for a search warrant was pre-typed,
No. As held in PEOPLE VS. the same is not valid since there
CA, 291 SCRA 400, WHAT IS could have been no searching
MATERIAL IN DETERMINING THE questions.
VALIDITY OF A SEARCH IS THE PLACE
STATED IN THE WARRANT ITSELF, 19. May a single search
NOT WHAT THE APPLICANTS HAD IN warrant be issued for the crimes
I press toward
3:14

of estafa, falsification, tax Constitution to issue warrants to

evasion and insurance fraud? other respondent officers as to may
be authorized by law does not
No, such would be a “general require the judge to personally
warrant” and violates the rule that a examine the complainant and his
warrant shall be issued for one (1) witness in his determination of
specific offense. (Asian Surety vs. probable cause for the issuance of a
Herrera, 54 SCRA 312) warrant of arrest.What the
Constitution underscores is the
20. What is a “scatter-shot exclusive and personal responsibility
warrant”? of the issuing judge to satisfy himself
It is a search warrant of the existence of probable cause.
issued for more than one (1) Following established doctrine and
specific offense like a search procedures, he shall:
warrant issued for more than
one specific offense like one (1) personally
for estafa, robbery, theft and evaluate the reports and the
qualified theft”. (TAMBASEN supporting documents submitted
VS. PEOPLE, July 14, 1995; by the fiscal regarding the
PEOPLE VS. CA, 216 SCRA existence of probable cause and,
101) on the basis thereof, issue a
warrant of arrest;
(2) If on the basis

thereof he finds no probable
cause, he may disregard the
fiscal's report and require the
21. May a judge validly submission of supporting
issue a warrant of arrest based affidavits of witnesses to aid him
only from the Information and in arriving at a conclusion as to
the Resolution of the Prosecutor the existence of probable cause.
finding probable cause against
the accused? The case of People vs.
Honorable Enrique B. Inting
No. There will be no basis for reiterates the following doctrines:
the issuance since the Prosecutor is
neither the complainant nor the (1) The
witness to the case. He could not determination of probable cause
have determined probable cause is a function of the judge. It is not
based from the said documents. for the Provincial Fiscal or
(VICENTE LIM,SR. AND MAYOR Prosecutor nor for the Election
SUSANA LIM VS.HON. N. FELIX , Supervisor to ascertain. Only the
G.R. NO. 99054-57). As held in the judge alone makes this
case of Soliven vs. Makasiar, decided determination.
under the 1987 Constitution, the
Court noted that the addition of the (2) The preliminary
word personally after the word inquiry made by the prosecutor
determined and the deletion of the does not bind the judge. It merely
grant of authority by the 1973 assist him to make the
I press toward
3:14

determination of probable cause. arrest but the exclusive responsibility

The judge does not have to follow on the part of said judge to satisfy
what the prosecutor's present to himself of the existence of probable
him. By itself, the prosecutor's cause. As such, there is no need to
certification of probable cause is examine the complainant and his
ineffectual. It is the report, the witnesses face to face. It is sufficient
affidavits, the transcripts of if the judge is convinced of the
stenographic notes, and all other existence of probable cause upon
supporting documents behind the reading the affidavits or deposition
prosecutor's certification which of the complainant and his
are material in assisting the judge witnesses. SOLIVEN VS.
to make his determination. MAKASIAR, 167 SCRA 393
(3) Preliminary 23. Is the judge bound by

inquiry should be distinguished the findings of existence of
from the preliminary investigation “probable cause” by the
proper. While the former seeks to Prosecutor as indicated in his
determine probable cause for the Certification in the information
issuance of warrant of arrest, the so that the issuance of a
latter ascertains whether the warrant of arrest is only
offender should be held for trial ministerial on his part? If not
or be released. satisfied of the existence of
probable cause, may the judge
22. As to the requirement require the Prosecutor to submit
that the judge must additional evidence?
“personally” determine probable
cause, must he examine the The judge is not bound by the
complainant and his witnesses findings of the Prosecutor because
face to face in order to comply the said finding is only “probable
with the said constitutional cause” that a crime was committed.
provision? Probable cause to justify the
issuance of a warrant of arrest is a
It depends. judicial function vested only in the
judge. In fact, he can require the
[1]. In connection with the Prosecutor to submit additional
issuance of a SEARCH WARRANT, he evidence if he is not convinced of the
must personally examine the existence of probable for the
complainant and the witnesses, with issuance of a warrant of arrest. (P.
searching questions, face to face. vs. Villanueva, 110 SCRA 465;
(Bache vs. Judge Ruiz, supra) Placer vs. Villanueva, 126 SCRA
463).
[2]. In connection with the
issuance of a warrant of arrest, 24. Is "Operation Kapkap"
however, the word “personally” being done by the police
after the word determined does not because the suspect has
necessarily mean that the judge something bulging in his waist
should examine the complainant and and keeps on touching his
his witnesses personally or face to abdomen as if touching a gun
face before issuing the warrant of valid?
I press toward
3:14

The search was declared valid by the

As held in PEOPLE VS. Supreme Court. Note, however, that
MENGOTE, G.R. No. 87059, June, in MALACAT VS. CA, 283 SCRA 159,
1992, 210 SCRA 174, “OPERATION the SC held that mere suspicions not
KAPKAP” or warrantless search sufficient to validate warrantless
without probable cause is arrest.
unconstitutional. Such search is valid
only if covered by Section 5, Article
113 of the Rules of Court which
provides:
25. May the Iloilo Police
arrest or makes a search
Sec. 5. Arrest without
without warrant the person
warrant; when lawful.- A peace
disembarking from a ship
officer or private person may,
based solely on an information
without warrant, arrest a person:
relayed to them by an informant
that the suspect’s bag contains
(a) When, in his
marijuana?
presence, the person to be
arrested has committed, is
No. As held in PEOPLE vs.
actually committing, or is
AMMINUIDIN, 163 SCRA 402 a
attempting to commit an
warrantless arrest of the accused
offense;
was unconstitutional. This was
effected while he was coming down
(b) When an offense
the vessel, to all appearances no
has in fact just been
less innocent than the other
committed, and he has
disembarking passengers. He had
personal knowledge of facts
not committed nor was actually
indicating that the person to
committing or attempting to commit
be arrested has committed it;
an offense in the presence of the
and
arresting officers. He was not even
acting suspiciously. In short, there
(c) When the person to
was no probable cause that, as the
be arrested is a prisoner who
prosecution incorrectly suggested,
has escaped from a penal
dispensed with the constitutional
establishment or place where
requirement of a warrant.
he is serving final judgment or
temporarily confined while his
26. In arrests without
case is pending, or has
warrant based on the fact that a
escaped while being
crime has just been committed,
transferred from one
what kind of knowledge is
confinement to another.
required on the part of the
arresting officer?
Compare this case to
MANALILI VS. PEOPLE, October 9,
In PEOPLE VS. GALVEZ, 355
1997. The policemen saw several
SCRA 246, the Supreme Court
suspicious looking men at dawn who
held that the policeman arrested
ran when they went near them. As
the accused-appellant on the basis
the policemen ran after them, an
solely of what Reynaldo Castro had
unlicensed firearm was confiscated.
I press toward
3:14

told him and not because he saw the Yes since the constitutional
accused-appellant commit the crime provision is not applicable to him.
charged against him. Indeed, the (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS.
prosecution admitted that there was ANDRE MARTI, G.R. NO. 81561,
no warrant of arrest issued against January 18, 1991; SILAHIS
accused-appellant when the latter INTERNATIONAL HOTEL, INC. VS.
was taken into custody. Considering ROGELIO SOLUTA, ET AL., 482
that the accused-appellant was not SCRA 660)
committing a crime at the time he
was arrested nor did the arresting 29. What are the
officer have any personal knowledge requisites of a valid search
of facts indicating that accused- incidental to a valid arrest?
appellant committed a crime, his
arrest without a warrant cannot be As held in NOLASCO VS.
justified. PANO, 139 SCRA 541, a search
incidental to a valid arrest must be
27. What is the effect on done at the place where the accused
the illegality of the arrest by the is arrested or its immediate vicinity
subsequent act of the accused in or on the person of the accused. As
posting bond for his provisional such, if accused was arrested while
liberty and entering a plea inside a jeepney, there is no valid
during his arraignment? search incidental to a valid arrest if
she will be brought to her residence
By entering a plea of not and thereafter search the said place.
guilty during the arraignment, the Or as held in ESPANO VS. CA, 288
accused-appellant waived his right to SCRA 588, if the accused was
raise the issue of illegality of his arrested in the street during a buy-
arrest. IT IS NOW SETTLED THAT bust operation, the search of his
OBJECTION TO A WARRANT OF house nearby is not a valid search
ARREST OR THE PROCEDURE BY incidental to a valid arrest.
WHICH A COURT ACQUIRES
JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON OF 30. If the accused was
AN ACCUSED MUST BE MADE validly arrested without warrant
BEFORE HE ENTERS HIS PLEA, inside a night club for illegal
OTHERWISE, THE OBJECTION IS possession of firearm, may the
DEEMED WAIVED. THE FACT THAT arresting officers validly search
THE ARREST WAS ILLEGAL DOES NOT his car parked several meters
RENDER THE SUBSEQUENT from the place of arrest based
PROCEEDINGS VOID AND DEPRIVE on “search incidental to a valid
THE STATE OF ITS RIGHT TO arrest”?
CONVICT THE GUILTY WHEN ALL THE
FACTS POINT TO THE CULPABILITY OF Where the gun tucked in a
THE ACCUSED. (PEOPLE VS. person’s waist is plainly visible to the
GALVEZ, 355 SCRA 246) police, no search warrant is
necessary and in the absence of any
28. Is a warrantless search license for said firearm, he may be
and seizure by a private arrested at once as he is in effect
individual valid? committing a crime in the presence
of the police officers. No warrant is
I press toward
3:14

necessary in such a situation, it turned out that she was just a

being one of the recognized “manicurist” of the suspect . In order
exceptions under the Rules. As a that there is a valid consent to a
consequence of the accused’s valid warrantless search, the consent
warrantless arrest inside the must come from the person directly
nightclub, he may be lawfully affected by said warrantless search.
searched for dangerous weapons or
anything which may be used as proof 32. What is the “plain view
of the commission of an offense, doctrine” in connection with
without a search warrant in warrantless search and seizure?
accordance with Section 12, Rule
126. This is a valid search incidental As held in PEOPLE VS.
to a lawful arrest. VALDEZ, 341 SCRA 25, the “plain
In fact, the subsequent view” doctrine, which may justify a
discovery in his car (which was search without warrant, APPLIES
parked in a distant place from where ONLY WHERE THE POLICE OFFICER IS
the illegal possession of firearm was NOT SEARCHING FOR EVIDENCE
committed [after he requested that AGAINST THE ACCUSED, BUT
he will bring his car to the Police INADVERTENTLY COMES ACROSS AN
Station after his warrantless arrest--- INCRIMINATING OBJECT. As such,
with a policeman escorting him]) , of “plain view doctrine could not be
a drug paraphernalia and shabu, used to justify the seizure of an
CANNOT BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN unlicensed firearm in People vs.
MADE DURING AN ILLEGAL SEARCH Damaso, supra, which was seen on
because of his consent, not due to top of a table after the opening of his
search incidental to a valid arrest. As apartment’s door without a warrant
such, the items do not fall under the nor consent of the occupant therein.
exclusionary rule and the unlicensed
firearms, drug paraphernalia and the 32-a. The police received
shabu, can be used as evidence an information that accused’s
against the accused. (PEOPLE VS. house is surrounded by fully
GO, 354 SCRA 338) grown marijuana. Thereafter,
the police went to the place of
31. May the police the accused and it turned out
authorities validly search the that the information was
rented apartment of a suspect correct. The accused was
without a search warrant or arrested and the police took his
without the consent of the said pictures infront of his marijuana
person BUT WITH THE CONSENT plants and other pictures with
OF THE OWNER OF THE him after uprooting the same. Is
APARTMENT? the seizure of the marijuana
plants justified under the “plain
No. PEOPLE VS. DAMASO, view doctrine”?
212 SCRA 547 abandoned the
ruling in Lopez vs. Commissioner No, the seizure is not valid.
where the alleged “wife” could give a Nor can it be justified under the plain
valid consent for the search of the view doctrine. In order that the plain
hotel room of her husband as held by view doctrine could be validly
the Supreme Court---even though it applied, the marijuana plants must
I press toward
3:14

have been INADVERTENTLY FOUND. ABELARDO M. DAYRIT, RTC 33,

In this case, the policement went Manila & People of the Philippines,
there specifically to look for it. GR No. 82870, December 14, 1989)
(PEOPLE VS. VALDEZ, 341 SCRA
25) 35. May the police and
military authorities validly
33. Define probable cause search the citizens without
in connection with the issuance warrant in checkpoints set up
of a search warrant. by them? What is the extent of
the search that they may
The "probable cause" for a conduct?
valid search warrant, has been
defined "as such facts and In RICARDO VALMONTE VS.
circumstances which would lead a GEN RENATO DE VILLA, GR No.
reasonably discreet and prudent 83988, September 29, 1989, the
man to believe that an offense has Supreme Court held that warrantless
been committed, and that the searches and seizures in military
objects sought in connection with the and police checkpoints are not illegal
offense are in the place sought to be as these measures to protect the
searched". (Quintero vs. NBI, June government and safeguards the lives
23, 1988). This probable cause must of the people. The checkpoints are
be shown to be within the personal legal as where the survival of the
knowledge of the complainant or the organized government is on the
witnesses he may produce and not balance, or where the lives and
based on mere hearsay. (P. VS. SY safety of the people are in grave
JUCO, 64 PHIL. 667; ALVAREZ VS. CFI, peril. However, the Supreme Court
64 PHIL. 33; US VS. ADDISON, 28 clarified that the military officers
PHIL. 566). manning the checkpoints may
conduct VISUAL SEARCH ONLY, NOT
34. What is the BODILY SEARCH.
“sufficiency test” in connection
with applications for a search 36. Is an unlicensed
warrant? firearm seized in the house of
the accused without warrant by
"The true test of sufficiency of the military authorities, after
a deposition or affidavit to warrant they were given consent by the
issuance of a search warrant is said owner of the house for
whether it was drawn in a manner them to search for rebel
that perjury could be charged soldiers, admissible in
thereon and the affiant be held evidence?
liable for damage caused. The
oath required must refer to the truth No. In VEROY VS. LAYAGUE,
of the facts within the personal 210 SCRA 97, the Supreme Court
knowledge of the applicant of a held that the owner of the house
search warrant and/or his witnesses, allowed the policemen to enter his
not of the facts merely reported by a house because they will be searching
person whom one considers to be for rebel soldiers but when inside the
reliable." (DR. NEMESIO PRUDENTE house, they instead seized an
VS. THE HON. EXECUTIVE JUDGE unlicensed firearm. As such, there
I press toward
3:14

was no consent to search for fact, when the statements in the

firearms and as a consequence, the affidavits of witnesses are mere
firearm is not admissible as generalities, mere conclusions of
evidence. law, and not positive statements of
particular acts, the warrant issued by
37. If the judge finds that virtue thereof is not valid. Ponsica
there's probable cause, must he vs. Ignalaga, July 31,1987)
issue a warrant of arrest as a
matter of course?
39. In the seizure of
It depends:
alleged pirated tapes, what
must the applicant submit to the
1. SAMULDE VS. SALVANI,
court in order that the search
SEPTEMBER 26, 1988 (No
warrant to be issued shall be
because a warrant is issued in
valid?
order to have jurisdiction of the
court over the person of an
In Century Fox vs. CA, 164
accused and to assure the court
SCRA 655 and COLUMBIA
of his presence whenever his
PICTURES VS. CA, 261 SCRA 144,
case is called in court. As such,
it was held that the master copy of
if the court believes that the
the allegedly pirated tape should be
presence of the accused could
presented before the judge in order
be had even without a warrant
to convince him of the existence of
of arrest, then he may not issue
probable cause)
said warrant. Note: This case
involves a minor offense)
40. What is the effect on
the evidence obtained in
2. GOZO VS. TAC-AN, 300 SCRA
violation of Sections 2 and 3 of
265. If the offense committed
Article III?
is a serious one like that
obtaining in this case for
Any evidence obtained in
murder, the Judge must issue a
violation of Sections 2 and 3 of
warrant of arrest after
Article III shall be inadmissible for
determining the existence of
any purpose in any proceeding.
probable cause)
41. Under the Human
38. If the applicant for a
Security Act/Anti-Terrorism Law,
search warrant testifies that his
Republic Act No. 9372, Approved
knowledge of the facts and
on March 6, 2007 and effective
circumstances was derived from
on July 15, 2007, may police
a “highly reliable informant”,
authorities the listen to,
would such fact sufficient to
intercept and record, with the
convince the court of the
use of any mode, form or kind or
existence of “probable cause”?
type of electronic or other
surveillance equipment or
No, knowledge based on
intercepting and tracking
hearsay information does not justify
devices, or with the use of any
the existence of probable cause.
other suitable ways or means for
(Prudente vs. Dayrit, supra.) In
I press toward
3:14

that purpose, any business correspondence shall

communication, message, not be authorized.
conversation, discussion, or
spoken or written words of a 42. Under the Human
person without violating the Security Act/Anti-Terrorism Law,
right to privacy? Republic Act No. 9372, Approved
on March 6, 2007 and effective
Yes under Sections 7 and 8 of the on July 15, 2007, may police
law which provides: authorities examine the bank
accounts of individuals without
Section 7. Surveillance of violating their right to privacy?
suspects and interception and
recording of communications. Yes under Sections 27 and 28
The provisions of RA 4200 of the said law. It provides:
(Anti-Wiretapping Law) to the
contrary notwithstanding, a Section 27. Judicial
police or law enforcement authorization required to examine
official and the members of bank deposits, accounts and records.
his team may, upon a written The justices of CA designated
order of the Court of Appeals, as special court to handle anti-
listen to, intercept and record, terrorism cases after satisfying
with the use of any mode, themselves of the existence of
form or kind or type of probable cause in a hearing called
electronic or other for that purpose that:
surveillance equipment or
intercepting and tracking A person charged with or
devices, or with the use of any suspected of the crime of
other suitable ways or means terrorism or conspiracy to
for that purpose, any commit terrorism;
communication, message, Of a judicially declared and
conversation, discussion, or outlawed terrorist organization
spoken or written words or group of persons;
between members of a Of a member of such judicially
judicially declared and declared and outlawed
outlawed terrorist organization, association or
organization, association, or group of persons, may authorize
group of persons or of any in writing any police or law
person charged with or enforcement officer and the
suspected of the crime of members of his team duly
terrorism or conspiracy to authorized in writing by the
commit terrorism. anti-terrorism council to:
examine or cause the examination
Provided, That surveillance, of, the deposits, placements,
interception and recording of trust accounts, assets, and
communications between records in a bank or financial
lawyers and clients, doctors institution; and
and patients, journalists and gather or cause the gathering of
their sources and confidential any relevant information about
such deposits, placements, trust
I press toward
3:14

accounts, assets, and records Of A person charged with or

from a bank or financial suspected of the crime of
institution. The bank or financial terrorism or conspiracy to
institution shall not refuse to commit terrorism;
allow such examination or to Of a judicially declared and
provide the desired information, outlawed terrorist organization
when so ordered by and served or group of persons;
with the written order of the Of a member of such judicially
Court of Appeals. declared and outlawed
organization, association or
Sec. 28. Application to group of persons.
examine deposits, accounts and
records. 43. May a wife validly
seize the diaries, checks and
The written order of the CA greeting cards of the alleged
authorizing the examination of bank paramours of her husband in the
deposits, placements, trust accounts, latter’s clinic and use the same
assets and records: as evidence in a legal separation
case between them?
A person charged with or
suspected of the crime of As held in ZULUETA VS. CA,
terrorism or conspiracy to February 10, 1996, the evidence
commit terrorism; obtained by the wife who forcibly
Of a judicially declared and opened the drawers at the clinic of
outlawed terrorist organization her doctor-husband and took diaries,
or group of persons; checks and greeting cards of his
Of a member of such judicially alleged paramours is inadmissible as
declared and outlawed evidence. This is so because the
organization, association or intimacies of husband and wife does
group of persons, in a bank or not justify the breaking of cabinets to
financial institution- determine marital infidelity.
43. Is the freedom of
-SHALL ONLY BE GRANTED BY speech and expression affected
THE AUTHORIZING DIVISION OF THE by the Human Security Act?
CA UPON AN EX-PARTE APPLICATION
TO THAT EFFECT OF A POLICE OR Yes, under Section 26 of the
LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL who law, it provides that persons who
has been duly authorized by the Anti- have been charged with terrorism or
Terrorism Council to file such ex- conspiracy to commit terrorism---
parte application and upon even if they have been granted bail
examination under oath or because evidence of guilt is not
affirmation of the applicant and his strong—can be: “Prohibited from
witnesses he may produce to using any cellular phones,
establish the facts that will justify computers, or other means of
the need and urgency of examining communications with people
and freezing the bank deposits, outside their residence.”
placements, trust accounts, assets
and records:
I press toward
3:14

44. What is the rule on inconvenience of private persons

criticisms on the acts of public whose conduct may be involved,
officers? and occasional injury to the
reputations of individuals must
A public official should not be yield to the public welfare,
too onion-skinned with reference to although at times such injury
comments upon his official acts. The may be great. The public benefit
interest of the government and the from publicity is so great and
society demands full discussion of the chance of injury to private
public affairs. (US vs. Bustos, 37 character so small, that such
Phil. 731) discussion must be privileged. “
Clearly, the questioned
45. May the above rule
articles constitute fair comment
applicable to private individuals
on a matter of public interest as
who are public figures or private
it dealt with the character of the
individuals who are candidates
private respondent who was
for public office?
running for the top elective post
in Baguio City at that time.
As held by the Supreme Court
in the case of BAGUIO MIDLAND 46. May the COMELEC
COURIER & CECILLE AFABLE VS. validly prohibit columnists, radio
COURT OF APPEALS & RAMON announcers and TV
LABO, JR., 444 SCRA 28 commentator for commenting
[November 25, 2004 , the article for or against any issue during
involving a private individual running the plebiscite period since they
for Mayor of Baguio City is still within can air their views in a program
the mantle of protection guaranteed sponsored by the COMELEC
by the freedom of expression itself?
provided in the Constitution since it
is the public’s right to be informed of No, such would be an undue
the mental, moral and physical interference on the freedom of
fitness of candidates for public office. expression. IT IS STILL A
This was recognized as early as the RESTRICTION ON THE COLUMNIST,
case of US VS. SEDANO, 14 Phil. 338 ANNOUNCER OR COMMENTATOR’S
[1909] and the case of NEW YORK CHOICE OF THE FORUM WHERE HE
TIMES VS. SULLIVAN, 376 U.S. 254 MAY EXPRESS HIS VIEW. Plebiscite
where the US Supreme Court held: issues are matters of public concern
and importance. The people's right
to be informed and to be able to
“…it is of the utmost
freely and intelligently make a
consequence that the people
decision would be better served by
should discuss the character and
access to an unabridged discussion
qualifications of candidates for
of the issues, INCLUDING THE
their suffrages. The importance
FORUM. The people affected by the
to the State and to society of
issues presented in a plebiscite
such discussions is so vast, and
should not be unduly burdened by
the advantages derived so great,
restrictions on the forum where the
that they more than
right to expression may be
counterbalance the
exercised. (PABLITO V. SANIDAD
I press toward
3:14

VS. COMELEC, G.R. NO. 90878, No. (Pita vs. CA, 178 SCRA
January 29, 1990) 362). A City Mayor may not order the
warrantless seizure of magazines
47. What are the which he believes to be obscene;
requisites that a newspaper otherwise, he will become the
must comply in order that its complainant, prosecutor and judge
news item on an ongoing trial in at the same time. He should obtain a
court will not be actionable for search warrant from a judge by
being libelous? following the procedure laid down by
the Rules on how to secure a search
In Elizalde vs. Gutierrez,76 warrant.
SCRA 448, it was held that in order
that any news item relating to a 50. May public school
judicial proceeding will not be teachers validly file mass
actionable, the same must be [a] a leaves, instead of going on
true and fair report of the actual strike, after their demand to the
proceedings; [b] must be done in government was not met”
good faith; and [c] no comments nor
remarks shall be made by the
In GESITE et al. vs. COURT OF
writer}
APPEALS, 444 SCRA 51 held that
“these mass actions were to all
48. What are the tests of
intents and purposes a strike; they
obscenity?
constituted a concerted and
unauthorized stoppage of, or
The three (3) tests as held in absence from, work which it was the
Miller vs. California, 37 L. Ed. 2d teachers’ duty to perform,
419 are: undertaken for essentially economic
reasons.” It is undisputed fact that
1. Whether the average person there was a work stoppage and that
applying to contemporary petitioners’ purpose was to realize
community standards would their demands by withholding their
find the work appeals to services. The fact that the
prurient interest; conventional term “strike” was not
2. Whether the work depicts or used by the striking employees to
describes a patently offensive describe their common course of
sexual conduct; action is inconsequential, SINCE THE
3. Whether the work as a whole SUBSTANCE OF THE SITUATION, AND
lacks serious literary , NOT ITS APPEARANCE, WILL BE
artistic, political or scientific DEEMED CONTROLLING.
value.
The right of government
49. May the City Mayor employees to organize IS LIMITED TO
order the confiscation without a THE FORMATIONS OF UNIONS OR
search warrant magazines which ASSOCIATIONS ONLY, WITHOUT
he believes to be obscene? What INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO STRIKE.
is the correct procedure for him (Bangalisan vs. CA, 276 SCRA
to follow? 619)
I press toward
3:14

51. What is the procedure application for a rally permit, or

to be followed in the application to change the venue thereof, if
of rally permits before the City he finds evidence of clear and
or Municipal Mayor in present danger in accordance
accordance with BP Bilang 880? with the JBL Reyes vs. Mayor
Bagatsing doctrine?
The applicants for a permit to
hold an assembly should inform the Compliance with the Reyes vs.
licensing authority of the date, the Bagatsing doctrine is no longer
public place where and the time enough. Under the Public Assemble
when it will take place. If it were a Act, if the Mayor believes in the
private place, only the consent of the existence of clear and present
owner or the one entitled to its legal danger, HE MUST FIRST INFORM THE
possession is required. Such APPLICANT OF THE SAID EVIDENCE
application should be filed well AND GIVE HIIM THE CHANCE TO
ahead in time to enable the public SUBMIT CONTROVERTING EVIDENCE
official concerned to appraise BEFORE HE COULD DENY THE SAID
whether there may be valid APPLICATION FOR A RALLY PERMIT.
objections to the grant of the permit (INTEGRATED BAR OF THE
or to its grant but at another public PHILIPPINES VS. MAYOR JOSE
place. It is an indispensable ATIENZA, JR., February 24, 2010)
condition to such refusal or
modification that the clear and 52. Is BP 880
present danger test be the standard unconstitutional for being vague
for the decision reached. If he is of (Void for Vagueness Doctrine)
the view that there is such an and overbroad (Overbreadth
imminent and grave danger of a Doctrine)?
substantive evil, the applicants must
be heard on the matter. Thereafter, No. It is very clear that it deals
his decision, whether favorable or only on public assemblies that
adverse, must be transmitted to deals with rallies, mass actions and
them at the earliest opportunity. similar acts and not all kinds of
Thus if so minded, they can have public assemblies. As such, it is not
recourse to the proper judicial vague.
authority. (BAYAN, KARAPATAN, Neither is the law overbroad.
KILUSANG MAGBUBUKID NG It regulates the exercise of the right
PILIPINAS (KMP), and GABRIELA to peaceful assembly and petition
vs. EDUARDO ERMITA, in his only to the extent needed to avoid a
capacity as Executive Secretary, clear and present danger of the
Manila City Mayor LITO ATIENZA, substantive evils Congress has the
Chief of the Philippine National right to prevent.
Police, Gen. ARTURO M. LOMIBAO,
NCRPO Chief Maj. Gen. VIDAL 53. Is the Calibrated Pre-
QUEROL, and Western Police District emptive Response (CPR) of the
Chief Gen. PEDRO BULAONG, G.R. Arroyo Administration towards
No. 169848, May, 2006) rallyists constitutional?
51-a. May the City Mayor The Court reiterates its basic
of Manila validly deny the policy of upholding the fundamental
I press toward
3:14

rights of our people, especially Yes as “subsequent

freedom of expression and freedom punishment”. In fact, it is a
of assembly. For this reason, the so- valid “prior restraint”
called calibrated preemptive measure on the part of the
response policy, the policy of MTRCB (SORIANO VS.
dispersing rallyists through water LAGUARDIA, April 29, 2009)
cannons, has no place in our legal [Dissenting Opinion: The
firmament and must be struck down suspension of the program is
as a darkness that shrouds freedom. illegal. It constitutes “prior
It merely confuses our people and is restraint”. He is prevented
used by some police agents to justify from hosting the program
abuses. On the other hand, B.P. No. during the succeeding days
880 cannot be condemned as even if he will just say the
unconstitutional; it does not curtail “Lord’s Prayer” or to greet
or unduly restrict freedoms; it merely “good morning” to his
regulates the use of public places as viewers. Per Justice Antonio
to the time, place and manner of Carpio]
assemblies. Far from being
54-a. May the City of
insidious, “maximum tolerance” is
Cauayan, Isabela, validly close the
for the benefit of rallyists, not the
Bombo Radio Stations therein on the
government. The delegation to the
ground that their building was
mayors of the power to issue rally
constructed on an “agricultural land”
“permits” is valid because it is
[that is why the City did not issue
subject to the constitutionally-sound
business permit for it to operate]
“clear and present danger” standard.
which has not been converted to
(BAYAN, KARAPATAN, KILUSANG
“commercial land” by the DAR
MAGBUBUKID NG PILIPINAS
despite the fact that it has been
(KMP), and GABRIELA vs.
there for so many years and was
EDUARDO ERMITA, in his capacity
questioned only when the said
as Executive Secretary, Manila City
station was critical of the Dy’s in
Mayor LITO ATIENZA, Chief of the
Isabela who own the only other radio
Philippine National Police, Gen.
station therein?
ARTURO M. LOMIBAO, NCRPO
Chief Maj. Gen. VIDAL QUEROL,
and Western Police District Chief A. The act of the City of
Gen. PEDRO BULAONG, G.R. No. Cauayan, Isabela constitutes prior
169848, May, 2006) restraint. It shall pay P10M in
damages for the losses suffered by
54. May the MTRCB suspend Bombo Radyo as a result of the
for three (3) months the airing of the illegal closure. (NEWSOUNDS
program Ang Dating Daan of Brother BROADCASTING NETWORK INC.
Eliseo Soriano as a result of vulgar and CONSOLIDATED
and uncouth language he uttered BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC. vs.
against the host of the program Ang HON. CEASAR G. DY, FELICISIMO
Tamang Daan of the Iglesia Ni G. MEER, BAGNOS MAXIMO,
Kristo? RACMA FERNANDEZ-GARCIA and
THE CITY OF CAUAYAN, G.R. Nos.
170270 &179411, April 2, 2009)
I press toward
3:14

PRODUCTION VS. JUDGE CAPULONG,

54-b. Distinguish “clear JUAN PONCE ENRILE, ET AL., 160
and present danger”, SCRA 861)
“dangerous tendency rule” and
“balancing of interest test”. 56. May the mother of a
murdered Mayor stop the filming
Clear and present danger and of the life story of her son which
dangerous tendency rule (whether would include his alleged love
the words used in such affairs which would blacken his
circumstances and are of such a memory?
nature as to create a clear and
present danger that they will bring Yes. As between the right to
about the substantive evils that the privacy invoked by the mother and
State has the right to prevent) the freedom of expression invoked
by the movie producer, the state
Dangerous tendency rule (If shall balance their respective
the words uttered create a interests. Since the movie producer
dangerous tendency which the State is primarily after profits only, the
has the right to prevent, then such right to privacy shall prevail.
words are punishable) (Lagunzad vs. Gonzales).
The balancing-of-interest test 57. What are the two (2)

(When a particular conduct is aspects of the RIGHT TO
regulated in the interest of the public RELIGIOUS PROFESSION AND
order, and the regulation results in WORSHIP ? Distinguish each.
an indirect, conditional, partial
abridgment of speech, the duty of a. Freedom to believe; and
the courts is to determine which of b. Freedom to act.
the 2 conflicting interests demand
greater protection under the IN the first, such freedom is
circumstances presented.) absolute. He may indulge in his own
theories about life and death;
55. May Senator Juan worship any god he chooses, or none
Ponce Enrile prevent the movie at all. He may not be punished even
producer of the EDSA I if he cannot prove what he believes.
Revolution movie from including
his participation during the In the second, if the individual
uprising since it violates his externalizes what he believes, his
right to privacy? freedom to do so becomes subject to
the authority of the State. This is so
No, as between Enrile’s right because religious freedom can be
to privacy and the freedom of exercised only with due regard to the
expression on the part of the movie rights of others. Example: “Go forth
producer, the latter’s right prevail and multiply---cannot marry several
because Enrile’s part in the movie times just to comply.
deals solely on his acts as a public
officer then. To exclude him as 58. May a Jehovah’s
integral part of the revolution would Witnesses Member who is the
be a distortion of history. (AYER Court Interpreter of RTC Branch
I press toward
3:14

253, Las Pinas City, be held National Anthem; recite the

liable for “grossly immoral Patriotic Pledge; and Salute the
conduct” for living with a Flag under pain of being
married man while her very own expelled for non-compliance?
marriage was still subsisting?
No since such is in violation of
No. As held in ESTRADA VS. their religious beliefs. (ROEL
SOLEDAD ESCRITOR, 492 SCRA 1 EBRALINAG, ET AL VS. THE DIVISION
(Resolution of the Motion for SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS OF
Reconsideration), 408 SCRA 1, CEBU, March 1, 1993). Religious
the Supreme Court held that she freedom is superior to the statute
is not liable for grossly immoral requiring the pupils to sing the
conduct because: National Anthem; recite the Patriotic
Pledge; and Salute the Flag. The
1. She is a member of the Jehovah’s doctrine laid down in Gerona vs.
Witnesses and the Watch Tower Secretary of Education was
Society; reversed.
2. That the conjugal arrangement
was in conformity with their 59-a. May LGBT Party of
religious beliefs; lesbians, gays bisexuals and
3. That the conjugal arrangement transgenders be denied
with Quilapio has the approval of accreditation as a party-list
her congregation. group because it allegedly
espouses an obscene doctrine of
Escritor likewise claimed that [4] “same sex marriage” which is
she had executed a “DECLARATION allegedly contrary to the
OF PLEDGING FAITHFULNESS” in teachings of the Bible and the
accordance with her religion which Koran?
allows members of the Jehovah’s
witnesses who have been
abandoned by their spouses to enter Our Constitution provides in
into marital relations. The Article III, Section 5 that “[n]o law
Declaration thus makes the resulting shall be made respecting an
union moral and binding within the establishment of religion, or
congregation all over the world prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
except in countries where divorce is At bottom, what our non-
allowed. Escritor’s conjugal establishment clause calls for is
arrangement cannot be penalized as “government neutrality in religious
she has made out a case for matters.” Clearly, “governmental
exemption from the law based on her reliance on religious justification is
fundamental right to religion. inconsistent with this policy of
However, this mode of living with neutrality.” We thus find that it was
another other than his or her spouse grave violation of the non-
by a married person does not apply establishment clause for the
in places where divorce is allowed. COMELEC to utilize the Bible and the
Koran to justify the exclusion of Ang
59. May children of Ladlad. (ANG LADLAD LGBT PARTY
Jehovah’s Witnesses in public VS. COMELEC, G.R. No. 190582, April
schools be forced to sing the 7, 2010 )
I press toward
3:14

60. How may the right to

travel be impaired? 62. May Former President
Marcos validly compel the
The liberty of abode and of government to issue him his
changing the same within the limits travel papers in order that he
prescribed by law shall not be could return to the Philippines
impaired except upon lawful order of from his US exile in accordance
the court. Neither shall the right to with his constitutional right to
travel be impaired except in the travel?
interest of national security, public
safety, or public health, as may be No. (FERDINAND MARCOS,
provided by law. ET AL. VS. HON. RAUL
MANGLAPUS, ET AL., G.R. NO.
61. Is the right to travel 88211, September 15, 1989 and
affected by the Human Security the Resolution of the Motion for
Act? Reconsideration dated October
27, 1989). What is provided by the
Yes, Section 26 provides that Philippine Constitution is the right to
persons who have been charged with travel and not the right to return.
terrorism or conspiracy to commit These two (2) rights are different
terrorism---even if they have been under the Universal Declaration of
granted bail because evidence of Human Rights and International
guilt is not strong—can be: Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights. THE RIGHT TO RETURN TO
 Detained under house arrest; ONE'S COUNTRY IS NOT AMONG THE
 Restricted from traveling; RIGHTS SPECIFICALLY GUARANTEED
and/or BY THE BILL OF RIGHTS, WHICH
TREATS ONLY OF THE LIBERTY OF
Upon application of the ABODE AND THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL,
prosecutor, the suspect’s right to BUT IT IS OUR WELL-CONSIDERED
travel shall be limited to the VIEW THAT THE RIGHT TO RETURN
municipality or city where he MAY BE CONSIDERED AS A
resides or where the case is GENERALLY ACCEPTED PRINCIPLE OF
pending, in the interest of INTERNATIONAL LAW, UNDER OUR
national security and public CONSTITUTION, IS PART OF THE LAW
safety. Travel outside of said OF THE LAND.
municipality or city, without the
authorization of the court, shall 63. What is the “residual
be deemed a violation of the power” of the President?
terms and conditions of the bail
which shall then be forfeited as It is the power of the President
provided in the Rules of Court. in balancing the general welfare
and the common good against the
These restrictions shall be exercise of rights of certain
terminated upon acquittal of the individuals. The power involved is
accused; or the dismissal of the the President's RESIDUAL POWER to
case filed against him; or earlier protect the general welfare of the
upon the discretion of the court people.
or upon motion of the prosecutor.
I press toward
3:14

64. May a person out on (BANTAY REPUBLIC VS. COMELEC,

bail be validly allowed to travel MAY 4, 2007)
abroad?
67. May the President
Yes, subject to the following validly prohibit members of her
requisites ( Manotoc vs. CA, 142 Cabinet as well as other officers
SCRA 149): in the executive department
from attending investigations in
He must however [1] aid of legislation by Congress?
convince the courts of the urgency of
his travel, [2] the duration thereof, No. Such would violate the
and [3] that his sureties are willing to right of the people to information on
undertake the responsibility of matters of public concern. It is only
allowing him to travel. through said investigations that the
people will be informed of the
65. Is the right to workings of the different
information on matters of public departments of the government.
concern absolute? (SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
represented by SENATE
No. While the right of the PRESIDENT FRANKLIN DRILON,
people to information on matters of ET AL., VS. EXEC. SEC. EDUARDO
public concern shall be recognized ERMITA, ET AL., G.R. No. 16977,
and access to official records…shall April 20, 2006 )
be afforded the citizen, it must be
subject to such limitations as may be 68. May a Barangay validly
provided by law as well as exercise the power of eminent
reasonable conditions imposed by domain?
public officials in custody of said
records like the payment of the Yes, subject to the approval by
expenses of reproduction of public the President.( Barangay Matictic vs.
documents; the request must be Elbinias, 148 SCRA 83)
done during office hours, etc.
69. What are the
66. May the COMELEC be requisites before an
compelled to publish the names expropriator may validly obtain
of the nominees of the different a writ of possession to take
party-list groups for the May 14, over possession of the
2007 elections despite the expropriated property?
prohibition on such publication
as embodied by the Party-List It depends:
Act?
1. If the expropriation is for a
YES, the COMELEC “National government
must publish the same despite projects” or “national
the prohibition in the law. Such infrastructure projects”,
prohibition violates the right to like those covered by the
information on matters of public “Build-Operate-Transfer”, RA
concern on the part of the citizen. 8974 shall be followed. This
means that there must be a
I press toward
3:14

[a] Complaint for expropriation is sufficient in form and

which is sufficient in form and substance; and
in substance; and [2] the 2. the expropriator must
100% of the market value of deposit the amount
the property sought to be equivalent to 15% of
expropriated must first be the fair market value of
paid to the owner of the the property to be
property. (REPUBLIC OF THE expropriated based on
PHILIPPINES VS. JUDGE its current tax
GINGOYON, 478 SCRA 474) declaration.
2. In ordinary expropriation 70. Who determines the

cases, the rule is that in the just compensation in
case of BIGLANG-AWA VS. expropriation cases? What are
JUDGE BACALLA, 354 SCRA the factors to be considered in
562. It provides: determining the same?
PURSUANT TO SECTION 2, Determination of just

RULE 67 OF THE 1997 RULES OF compensation is a judicial function
CIVIL PROCEDURE AND THE with the assistance or
DOCTRINE LAID DOWN IN THE recommendation of the court-
ROBERN DEVELOPMENT CASE, THE appointed commissioners. (Manotok
ONLY REQUISITES FOR THE vs. CA, May 21,1987)
IMMEDIATE ENTRY BY THE
GOVERNMENT IN EXPROPRIATION The factors to be considered
CASES ARE: in determining the just
compensation/market value are:
the filing of a complaint for
expropriation sufficient in 1. cost of acquisition;
form and substance; and 2. the current value of like
the making of a deposit properties;
equivalent to the 3. its actual or potential uses;
ASSESSED VALUE OF THE 4. particular case of lands;
PROPERTY SUBJECT TO 5. their size, shape,
EXPROPRIATION. location; and
6. the tax declarations
3. If the expropriation is being thereon.
done by a Local Government
Unit, the Supreme Court Finally, note that as held in
decision in the case of THE the case of Republic vs. Santos, 141
CITY OF ILOILO VS. JUDGE SCRA 30, the market value as
LEGASPI, RTC 22, ILOILO recommended by the board of
CITY, 444 SCRA 269, shall commissioners appointed by the
be complied with: court were at best only ADVISORY
AND PERSUASIVE AND BY NO
MEANS FINAL OR BINDING.
1. the complaint for (BERKENKOTTER, INC. VS. COURT
expropriation filed in court OF APPEALS AND REPUBLIC OF
I press toward
3:14

THE PHILIPPINES, December 14, 3. pay the necessary expenses

1992). incurred by the government in
maintaining the lot; and
71. What are the 4. pay the pecuniary value of the
requisites of “taking” in services in managing it to the extent
expropriation cases? that the landowner will be benefited
thereby. (MACTAN CEBU
The Requisites of taking are: INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
AUTHORITY VS. LOZADA,
a. the expropriator must February 25, 2010)
enter the property;
b. the entrance must not be 73. What are the rights of
for just a momentary a person under custodial
period; investigation under the
c. the entry must be under “Mahinay Doctrine” or the
warrant of color or title; “Expanded Miranda Doctrine”?
d. the property must be
devoted for public use; and The rights are:
e. the owner must be ousted
from beneficial use of his 1. The person arrested,
land. (Rep. vs. Castellvi, detained, invited or under
58 SCRA 336) custodial investigation must be
informed in a language known
72. May a private property to and understood by him of the
already used as a private reason for the arrest and he
cemetery be expropriated for must be shown a copy of the
another public purpose? warrant of arrest, if any; Every
other warnings, information or
No, a private property which is communication must be in a
already devoted to public use may language known to and
not be expropriated for another understood by said person;
public purpose. (City of Manila vs.
Chinese Community, 40 2. He must be warned that he
Phil. 349). has the right to remain silent
and that any statement he
72-a. In case the makes may be used as evidence
government will not be able to against him;
use the land expropriated for
the purpose for which it was 3. He must be informed that
intended, may the landowner he has the right to be assisted
ask for its reversion to him? at all times and have the
presence of an independent and
Yes, provided he complies with competent lawyer, preferably of
the following: his own choice;
1.Return the just compensation paid 4. He must be informed that if

by the government; he has no lawyer or cannot
2. pay the legal interest; afford the services of a lawyer,
one will be provided for him;
I press toward
3:14

and that a lawyer may also be otherwise, he must be warned

engaged by any person in his that the waiver is void even if
behalf, or may be appointed by he insist on his waiver and
the court upon petition of the chooses to speak;
person arrested or one acting in
his behalf; 9. That the person arrested
must be informed that he may
5. That whether or not the indicate in any manner at any
person arrested has a lawyer, , time or state of the process that
he must be informed that no he does not wish to be
custodial investigation in any questioned with the warning
form shall be conducted except that once he makes such
in the presence of his counsel or indication, the police may not
after a valid waiver has been interrogate him if the same had
made; not yet commenced, or the
interrogation has begun;
6. The person arrested must
be informed that, at any time, 10. The person arrested must
he has the right to be informed that his initial
communicate or confer by the waiver of his right to remain
most expedient means--- silent, the right to counsel or
telephone, radio, letter or any of his rights does not bar
messenger---with his lawyer him from invoking it at any
(either retained or appointed), other time during the process,
any member of his immediate regardless of whether he may
family; or any medical doctor, have answered some questions
priest or minister chosen by him or volunteered some
or by any one from his information or statements;
immediate family or by his
counsel, or be visited by/confer 11. He must be informed that
with duly accredited national or any statement OR EVIDENCE, as
international non-governmental the case may be, obtained in
organization. IT SHALL BE THE violation of any of the
RESPONSIBILITY OF THE foregoing, whether inculpatory
OFFICER TO ENSURE THAT THIS or exculpatory, in whole or in
IS ACCOMPLISHED; part, SHALL BE INADMISSIBLE IN
EVIDENCE.
7. He must be informed that
he has the right to waive any of
said rights provided it is made
voluntarily, knowingly and
intelligently and ensure that he
understood the same; 74. What are the rights of
a person under “custodial
8. In addition, if the person detention” or for one suspected
arrested waives his right to a or arrested as a terrorist under
lawyer, he must be informed the Human Security Act?
that it must be done in writing
AND in the presence of counsel,
I press toward
3:14

The rights of an accused confer with them at any time

under the Anti-Terrorism Act are without restriction;
embodied under Section 21 thereof 4. allowed to communicate freely
which states: and privately without
restrictions with the members
Section 21. Rights of a of his family or with his
person under custodial nearest relatives and be
detention.- The moment a visited by them; and
person charged with or 5. allowed freely to avail of the
suspected of the crime of services of a physician or
terrorism or the crime of physicians of choice.
conspiracy to commit
terrorism is apprehended or 75. Are the above rights
arrested and detained, he available to a suspect if he is
shall forthwith be informed by under investigation by a private
the arresting police or law person?
enforcement officers to whose
custody the person concerned No. (THE PEOPLE OF THE
is brought, of his or her right: PHILIPPINES VS. JOSE TING LAN UY,
JR., et al., 475 SCRA 248). The claim
1. to be informed of the nature that his affidavit is inadmissible in
and cause of his arrest, to evidence in accordance with section
remain silent and to have 12 [1] of the Bill of Rights is not
competent and independent tenable. The “investigation” under
counsel preferably of his own said provision refers to “custodial
choice. If the person cannot investigation where a suspect has
afford the services of counsel already been taken into police
of his or her choice, the police custody and that the investigating
or law enforcement officers officers begin to ask questions to
concerned shall immediately elicit information and confessions or
contact the free legal admissions from the suspect.
assistance unit of the IBP or Succinctly stated, custodial
the Public attorney’s office investigation refers to the critical
(PAO). It shall be the duty of pre-trial stage when the
the free legal assistance unit investigation ceases to be a general
of the IBP or the PAO’s thus inquiry into an unsolved crime but
contacted to immediately visit has began to focus on a particular
the person detained and person as a suspect (People vs.
provide him with legal Duenas, Jr., 426 SCRA 666). Clearly,
assistance. These rights therefore, the rights
cannot be waived except in enumerated by the accused are
writing and in the presence of not available BEFORE
the counsel of choice; GOVERNMENT INVESTIGATORS
2. informed of the cause or ENTER THE PICTURE. The
causes of his detention in the protective mantle of section 12,
presence of his legal counsel; article III does not apply:
3. allowed to communicate freely
with his legal counsel and to
I press toward
3:14

[1] to administrative questions regarding the

investigations (People vs. Judge commission of a crime where he
Ayson, 175 SCRA 216); is the suspect?
[2] confession to a private Custodial investigation begins

individual (Kimpo vs. CA, 232 SCRA when it is no longer a general inquiry
53); into an unsolved crime but starts to
focus on a particular person as a
[3] verbal admission made to suspect, i.e., when the police
a radio announcer who was not a investigator starts interrogating or
part of the investigation (People vs. exacting confession from the suspect
Ordono, 334 SCRA 673); in connection with an alleged
offense.
[4] or even to a Mayor
approached as a personal confidante THE PLACE OF
and not in his official capacity INTERROGATION IS NOT
(People vs. Zuela, 323 SCRA 589). DETERMINATIVE OF THE
EXISTENCE OR ABSENCE OF
[5] In fact, even a videotaped CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION BUT
interview where the accused willingly THE TONE AND MANNER OF
admit his guilt in the presence of QUESTIONING BY THE POLICE
newsmen is not covered by the said AUTHORITIES. Thus, there was
provision though the trial courts custodial investigation when the
were warned by the supreme Court police authorities, upon their arrest
to take extreme caution in admitting of some of the accused, immediately
similar confessions because of the asked them regarding their
distinct possibility that the police, participation in the commission of
with the connivance of unscrupulous the crime , even while they were still
media practitioners, may attempt to walking along the highway on their
legitimize coerced extrajudicial way to the police station. (PEOPLE
confessions and place them beyond VS. BARIQUIT, 341 SCRA 600)
the exclusionary rule by having an
accused admit an offense on 77. Are spontaneous
television (People vs. Endino, 353 admissions made before a
SCRA 307). person could be informed of his
rights during custodial
76. When is custodial investigation admissible as
investigation deemed to have evidence?
started so as to entitle the
suspect to be informed of his Yes. Spontaneous
rights under the “Mahinay statements voluntarily given,
Doctrine” or the “Expanded as where appellant orally
Miranda Doctrine”? How about if admitted killing the victim
the suspect is walking towards before the barangay captain
the police station with the (who is neither a police officer
policemen who invited him to nor a law enforcement agent),
the police station, is he entitled do not fall under custodial
to be informed of his rights investigation. Such admission,
already if the latter will ask him even without the assistance of
I press toward
3:14

a lawyer, does not violate when taken without the

appellant’s constitutional assistance of counsel, without a
rights AND THEREFORE valid waiver of such assistance,
ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE. regardless of the absence of
(PEOPLE VS. DANO, G.R. coercion or the fact that it had
NO. 117690, 339 SCRA 515, been voluntarily given, is
SEPT. 1, 2000; PEOPLE VS. inadmissible in evidence, even if
MAYORGA, G.R. NO. appellant’s confession were
135405, 346 SCRA 458, gospel truth.
NOVEMBER 29, 2000).
79. Is the presence of a
78. What are the lawyer to assist the suspect
requisites before an during custodial investigation
extrajudicial confession is sufficient to comply with the
admissible? requirements of the
Constitution?
To be admissible in evidence,
an extrajudicial confession must No. As held in PEOPLE
be: (i) voluntary; (ii) made with the VS. PATUNGAN, 354 SCRA 413, the
assistance of competent and mere presence of a lawyer is not
independent counsel; (iii) express; sufficient compliance with the
and (iv) in writing. constitutional requirement of
assistance of counsel. Assistance of
A suspect’s confession, counsel must be effective, vigilant
whether verbal or non-verbal, when and independent. A lawyer who
taken without the assistance of could just hear the investigation
counsel, without a valid waiver of going on while working on another
such assistance, regardless of the case hardly satisfies the minimum
absence of coercion or the fact that requirements of effective assistance
it had been voluntarily given, is of counsel. Not only was the accused
inadmissible in evidence, even if subjected to custodial investigation
appellant’s confession were gospel without counsel, he was likewise
truth. (PEOPLE VS. DANO, G.R. denied effective assistance of
NO. 117690, 339 SCRA 515, counsel during the taking of his
SEPT. 1, 2000; PEOPLE VS. extra-judicial confession.
SAMOLDE, G.R. NO. 128551,
336 SCRA 632, JUL. 31, 2000). 80. From what time must
the counsel assist the suspect
during custodial investigation?
To be admissible in Who must select such counsel?
evidence, an extrajudicial
confession must be: (i) In PEOPLE V. JIMENEZ, G.R.
voluntary; (ii) made with the No. 82604. December 12, 1991, it
assistance of competent and was held that the counsel must be
independent counsel; (iii) present from the inception of the
express; and (iv) in writing. custodial investigation not at any
time thereafter. Also, the lawyer who
A suspect’s confession, assists the suspect under custodial
whether verbal or non-verbal, interrogation should be of the latter's
I press toward
3:14

own choice, not one foisted on him of a competent and

by the police investigators or other independent counsel;
parties. In this case, the former c. the confession must be
judge whose assistance was express; and
requested by the police was d. the confession must be in
evidently not of Marcos Jimenez' own writing.
choice; she was the police officers'
own choice; she did not ask Marcos if
The above requirements,
he was willing to have her represent
however, are not applicable when
him. This is not the mode of
the suspect makes an spontaneous
solicitation of legal assistance
statement, not elicited through
contemplated by the Constitution.
questioning by the authorities, BUT
Furthermore, the former judge was
GIVEN IN AN ORDINARY MANNER
not present when Marcos was being
WHEREBY THE ACCUSED ORALLY
interrogated by the police. While she
ADMITTED HAVING COMMITTED THE
asked him if he had voluntarily given
CRIME. This was the decision of the
the statements contained in the
Supreme Court in the case of
typewritten document, this is far
PEOPLE VS. ANDAN, March 3,
from being substantial compliance
1997 when the accused made a
with the constitutional duty of police
voluntary and verbal confession to
investigators during custodial
the Municipal Mayor that he
interrogation.
committed the crime imputed to
him. As such, his uncounselled
81. Is the extrajudicial
confession is admissible in evidence.
confession of a suspect obtained
without the assistance of a
82. What are the two (2)
lawyer, but speaks of gospel
kinds of coerced or involuntary
truth, admissible in evidence?
confessions under Section 12,
Art. III of the Constitution?
No. In PEOPLE VS. GALIT, 135
SCRA 465, PEOPLE VS. PANFILO
The two (2) kinds of
CABILES, 284 SCRA 199; and PEOPLE
involuntary or coerced confessions
VS. TAN, 286 SCRA 207, it was held
under Art. III, Section 12 of the
that even if the confession of the
Constitution. These are:
accused speaks the truth, if it was
made without the assistance of
a. confession which are the
counsel, it is inadmissible in
product of third degree
evidence regardless of the absence
methods such as torture,
of coercion or even if it was
force, violence, threat,
voluntarily given.
intimidation; and
In order that a confession b. those which are given
is admissible, the following without the benefit of
requisites must be present: Miranda Warnings. PEOPLE
VS. OBRERO, 332 SCRA
a. the confession must be 190
voluntary;
b. the confession must be
made with the assistance
I press toward
3:14

83. What is the status of make any testimony or statement

coerced confessions as evidence during the police line-up, then he is
in court? not under custodial investigation and
therefore, there is no need for him to
Coerced or involuntary be assisted by a lawyer. ( P vs.
confessions are inadmissible as Usman Hassan, 157 SCRA 261;
evidence being the “fruit of the Gamboa vs. Judge Cruz, 162
poisoned tree.” SCRA 642; DE LA TORRE VS. CA,
294 SCRA 196 and PEOPLE VS.
84. Is the right to counsel HATTON)
satisfied if the suspect was
assisted by the Station 86. Is there a valid
Commander of the Western custodial investigation if the
Police District while he was lawyer who assisted him during
being investigated by the custodial investigation is a
policemen of the same station? public attorney who was not
How about if the investigation is chosen by the accused himself
being conducted by the NBI and but given to him free of charge?
the suspect was ordered Could the Fiscal also represent
assisted by a lawyer-applicant the accused during custodial
therein? investigation to satisfy the
requirement of the Constitution
There is no compliance of the that the accused is assisted by
constitutional requirement of counsel?
competent and independent counsel
to assist an accused during custodial The counsel must be the
investigation when the accused was choice of the accused or suspect. (P.
assisted by the Station Commander vs. Alegria, September 28, 1990)
of the WPD, Atty. De los Reyes, while Also, the Fiscal could not have
being investigated by other protected the rights of the suspect,
policemen of the same police station even if they are known to each
because the interest of the police is other, since the Fiscal is there for the
naturally adverse to the accused. In private complainant. (P. vs. Matos-
fact, the SC in the case of PEOPLE Viduaya, September 11, 1990)
VS. JANUARIO, 267 SCRA 608 held
that a lawyer applying for a position 86-a. The appellants were
in the NBI could not validly assist an arrested by the PAOCTF for
accused being investigated then by Kidnapping and Murder of two
the NBI. (PEOPLE VS. OBRERO, 332 (2) minor children of a
SCRA 190) businessman from Bulacan.
While under custodial
85. Is the right to counsel investigation by Col. Cesar
available to a suspect during a Mancao, the lawyers given to
police line-up? assist them tare the lawyers of
PAOCTF. Was the confessions
The Supreme Court had obtained during the custodial
conflicting decisions on this aspect investigation admissible in
but ended up with the rule that since evidence?
the accused will not be made to
I press toward
3:14

Yes. As held in the case of (2) where they failed to

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. complain to the officers who
DOMINGO REYES, ET AL., G.R. administered the oaths;
No. 178300, March 17, 2009, the (3) where they did not
Supreme Court held that since the institute any criminal or
evidence shows that the lawyers of administrative action against
PAOCTF assisted them from the start their alleged intimidators for
up to the end of their custodial maltreatment;
investigation and that their rights (4) where there appeared
were protected, the same is to be no marks of violence on
admissible as evidence especially so their bodies; and
that there is no evidence of (5) where they did not
compulsion. have themselves examined by a
reputable physician to buttress
their claim.
86-b. What are the It should also be noted that

evidence of voluntariness in the the extra-judicial confessions of
suspect’s extrajudicial appellants Arnaldo and Flores are
confession making it admissible replete with details on the manner in
in evidence? May such which the kidnapping was
confession be used against a co- committed, thereby ruling out the
accused? Up to what extent? possibility that these were
involuntarily made. Their extra-
In People vs. Pia, 229 Phil. judicial confessions clearly state how
577 and PEOPLE VS. REYES, G.R. appellants and their cohorts planned
No. 178300, March 17, 2009, the the kidnapping as well as the
Supreme Court enumerated the sequence of events before, during
following as evidence of and after its occurrence. The
voluntariness in the extrajudicial voluntariness of a confession may be
confession of a suspect: inferred from its language if, upon its
face, the confession exhibits no
Their physical examination suspicious circumstances tending to
reports certify that no external signs cast doubt upon its integrity, it being
of physical injury or any form of replete with details which could only
trauma were noted during their be supplied by the accused.
examination In People v. Pia, we
held that the following factors With respect to appellant
indicate voluntariness of an extra- Reyes’s claim that the extra-judicial
judicial confession: confessions of appellants Arnaldo
and Flores cannot be used in
(1) where the accused evidence against him, we have ruled
failed to present credible that although an extra-judicial
evidence of compulsion or confession is admissible only against
duress or violence on their the confessant, jurisprudence makes
persons; it admissible as corroborative
evidence of other facts that tend to
establish the guilt of his co-accused .
I press toward
3:14

In People v. Alvarez , we ruled that be acquitted as a matter of

where the confession is used as right?
circumstantial evidence to show the
probability of participation by the co- If there is no other evidence
conspirator, that confession is aside from the extrajudicial
receivable as evidence against a co- confession, yes, as held by the
accused Supreme Court in People vs. Galit,
supra. However, if there are other
86-c. If a lawyer applying for a evidence to prove his guilt beyond
position in the NBI will be the one to reasonable doubt, no. In PEOPLE
assist during the custodial VS. ROLANDO FELIXMINIA y
investigation of a person arrested by CAMACHO, GR No. 125333,
the NBI, is his confession admissible March 20, 2002, the Supreme
in evidence? Court held that though the
extrajudicial confession of the
No. There is violation of the accused was declared inadmissible
constitutional right to a competent for violation of his right to counsel, if
and independent counsel of his own there are evidence sufficient to
choice. (PEOPLE VS. JUANERIO, prove his guilt beyond reasonable
267 SCRA 608) doubt, like circumstantial
evidence, then he can still be
86-d. Is the right to convicted of the crime charged. This
counsel during custodial is so because [1] the
investigation carries with it the compromising circumstances
obligation of preventing the were duly proven which were
suspect from admitting the consistent with each other and
commission of a crime or which lead with moral certainty
incriminating himself? to the conclusion that he was
guilty of the crime charged; and
No. The presence of a lawyer [2] the totality of such
during custodial investigation is not circumstances eliminated
intended to stop an accused from beyond doubt the possibility of
saying anything which might his innocence. In People vs.
incriminate him; but rather, it was Mahinay, it was held that conviction
adopted in our Constitution to may be had on circumstantial
preclude the slightest coercion on evidence provided the following
the accused to admit something requisites are present: [a] there is
else. THE COUNSEL SHOULD NEVER more than one circumstance; [b]
PREVENT AN ACCUSED FROM FREELY the facts from which the
AND VOLUNTARILY TELLING THE inferences are derived are
TRUTH. (PEOPLE VS. BASE, 385 proven; and [c] the combination
Phil. 803 (2000) and reiterated of all circumstances is such as to
in People vs. Domingo Reyes. produce a conviction beyond
reasonable doubt.
87. If the extrajudicial
admission or confession of the
accused is declared inadmissible
as evidence, must the accused
I press toward
3:14

88. May a convicted 90. May an accused

person be released from jail charged of a capital offense and
through recognizance? the evidence of guilt is strong
be granted bail?
No. In ATTY. JULIANA
ADALIM-WHITE VS. JUDGE Yes. It is a matter of discretion
ARNULFO BUGTAS, RTC 2 on the part of the court. The purpose
BORONGAN, SAMAR, 475 SCRA of the bond is to assure the court of
175, it was held that respondent the presence of the accused during
Judge is guilty of gross ignorance of the trial of his case. If the probability
the law for ordering the release of of “flight” is nil, then the accused
Bagaporo pending the approval of may be allowed to post bail.
his application for parole and before (BELTRAN VS. THE SECRETARY OF
the completion of the minimum JUSTICE, April, 2007)
period of the sentence imposed upon
him. It is patently erroneous to 91. May a person subject
release a convict on recognizance. of extradition from another
Section 24, Rule 114 provides that country and where the cases
there shall no bail for a convict after against him in said country are
final judgment. The only exception is bailable, be allowed to post bail
when the convict applies for pending the extradition
Probation before he commences to hearings?
serve his sentence and that the
offense and the penalty for the No. As held in UNITED
offense is within the purview of the STATES VS. JUDGE PURUGGANAN
Probation Law. & MARK JIMENEZ, 389 SCRA 623
. through former Chief justice
Sections 5 and 16 of Rule 114 Panganiban, the Supreme Court held
of the Rules of Court (on the that a person facing extradition
different kinds of bail) APPLIES ONLY proceedings is not entitled to bail
TO AN ACCUSED UNDERGOING even if the crime he was charged of
PREVENTIVE IMPRISONMENT DURING in a foreign country is bailable. This
TRIAL OR ON APPEAL. THEY DO NOT is so because the constitutional
APPLY TO A PERSON CONVICTED BY provision on the right to bail under
FINAL JUDGMENT AND ALREADY Art. III of the 1987 Constitution
SERVING SENTENCE. applies only to criminal cases,
not in extradition proceedings.
89. May a judge require (EDUARDO RODRIGUEZ VS. THE
“cash bond” only? PRESIDING JUDGE, RTC 17,
MANILA, 483 SCRA 290). This is
No. The Rules provide for four so because of the possibility of
(4) ways of posting bond (cash, flight.
property, surety and recognizance)
and it is grave abuse of discretion on BUT IN THE CASE OF
the part of the judge to require cash GOVERNMENT OF HONGKONG
bond only. (Almeda vs. Villaluz, 66 VS. OLALIA, 521 SCRA 470, it was
SCRA 38). held that the potential extraditee
may be granted bail if :
I press toward
3:14

[1] he can prove by clear 93. What is the

and convincing evidence that he “EQUIPOISE RULE”?
is not a flight risk; and
If the evidence in a criminal
[2] will abide with all the case is evenly balanced, the
orders and processes of the constitutional presumption of
extradition court. “Clear and innocence tilts the scale of justice in
convincing evidence” is an favor of the accused and he should
evidence with a standard lower be acquitted from the crime charged.
than proof beyond reasonable Where the inculpatory facts and
doubt but more than circumstances are capable of two or
preponderance of evidence. more interpretations one of which is
consistent with the innocence of the
accused and the other consistent
with his guilt, then the evidence
92. In extradition cases, is does not fulfill the test of moral
the respondent therein certainty and is not sufficient to
entitled to notice and hearing support a conviction because of the
before the issuance of a accused’s constitutional presumption
warrant of arrest against him? of innocence.(PEOPLE VS. DE LOS
SANTOS, 355 SCRA 415)
No. In SECRETARY OF JUSTICE
VS. JUDGE LANTION, 322 SCRA 160
(The Mark Jimenez Case) , the 94. May the court reverse
Supreme Court on a 9-6 vote held the order of trial in a criminal
that the extraditee is entitled to case?
notice and hearing when a request
for extradition by another country is No. such would violate the
still being evaluated. However, on right of the accused to presumption
Motion for Reconsideration in the of innocence. To be required to
same case, in a 9-6 decision, the present his evidence first would be
Supreme Court held that the making him prove his innocence and
prospective extraditee is not entitled not the State proving his guilt.
to notice and hearing while his case (Alejandro vs. Pepito, 96 SCRA 322)
is still under evaluation because this However, if the accused does not
would defeat the purpose of the object to such a procedure, then a
arrest warrant since it could give reverse order of trial is allowed by
warning that respondents would be the Rules. (Sacay vs.
arrested and even encourage them Sandiganbayan, July 10,l986) In fact
to flee but entitled to notice and it should be noted that under the
hearing if the case is already filed in newly adopted 1985 Rules of
court. However, if bail was granted Criminal Procedure (Sec. 3e), Rule
to an extradite, the same may not be 119)the said procedure is now
cancelled without notice and expressly sanctioned. Thus:
hearing. Otherwise, his right to due
process will be violated. (EDUARDO "However, when the
RODRIGUEZ VS. THE PRESIDING accused admits the act or
JUDGE, RTC 17, MANILA, 483 omission charged in the
SCRA 290) complaint or information but
I press toward
3:14

interposes a lawful defense, must be present. However, he can

the order of trial may be validly waive his presence after
modified accordingly." arraignment when he state in open
court or in an affidavit that whenever
95. What is the extent of a witness mentions his name during
the obligation of a counsel de the presentation of the prosecution’s
oficio for an accused in a evidence, he admits that he is the
criminal case? one being referred to. (Aquino vs.
Military Commission, 63 SCRA
While an accused may be 546; P vs. Judge, 125 SCRA 269)
given a counsel de oficio which is not
a lawyer of his own choice because 96-a. May a Judge direct
he could not afford the services of a the witnesses for the
de parte lawyer, only the faithful prosecution to appear before
performance by counsel of his duty him and examined them anew
towards his client can give meaning regarding their testimonies in a
and substance to the accused’s right Homicide case, without notice to
to due process and to be presumed the prosecution and the counsel
innocent until proven otherwise. for the accused, and after the
Hence, a lawyer’s duty, especially latter had already filed a
that of a defense counsel, must not Demurrer to Evidence with leave
be taken lightly. It must be of court by the previous judge?
performed with all the zeal and vigor
at his command to protect and No. The judge committed
safeguard the accused’s gross ignorance of the law. It is
fundamental rights. The cavalier also violative of the right to
attitude of Atty. Manolo Brotonel of impartial trial on the part of the
the PAO cannot go unnoticed. It is accused. (GACAYAN VS. JUDGE
discernible in [a] his refusal to cross- PAMINTUAN, September 17,
examine Oleby Nadera (the 1999)
complainant for RAPE); [b] the
manner in which he conducted 97. When may “speedy
Maricris Nadera’s cross-examination; trial” be raised by the accused
and [c] his failure not only to present to cause the dismissal of his
evidence for the accused but to case? What kind of delays must
inform the accused of his right to do occur before the same could be
so, if he desires. (PEOPLE VS. invoked?
NADERA, JR., 324 SCRA 490)
In JAIME BERNAT VS.
96. If the accused SANDIGANBAYAN, May 20, 2004, it
has the right to be present was held that the right to speedy
during the trial of his case, can trial is violated only if the
he also refuse to appear during proceedings were attended by
the hearings of his case? vexatious, capricious and
oppressive delays. The
No. During arraignment, determination of whether the delays
promulgation of the decision and are of said nature is relative and
when he is to be identified by the cannot be based on mere
witnesses for the prosecution, he mathematical reckoning of time.
I press toward
3:14

Particular regard to the facts and and days. Although it took about 8
circumstances of the case. As held in years before the trial of this case
the case of DE LA PENA VS. was resumed, such delay did not
SANDIGANBAYAN, certain factors amount to violation of petitioner’s
shall be considered and balanced to right to speedy trial considering that
determine if there is delay, as such delay was not attributable to
follows: the prosecution.
Length of the delay; The factors to consider in

Reasons for the delay; determining whether or not such
Assertion or failure to assert such right has been violated:
right by the accused; and
Prejudiced caused by the delay. 1. length of
delay,
There is no violation of the 2. reasons for
right to speedy disposition of his such delay, and
case because petitioner failed to 3. assertion or
assert his constitutional right to a failure to assert such rights by
speedy disposition of his case. the accused and the prejudice
During the 8-year period prior to caused by the delay.
April 19, 2002, petitioner did not
complain about the long delay in (ii) Speedy Trial Act of
deciding his case. 1998. The authority of the
Secretary of Justice to review
98. May the right to resolutions of his subordinates
speedy disposition of cases be even after an information has
invoked for the dismissal of already been filed in court does
cases pending before quasi- not present an irreconcilable
judicial bodies like the Office of conflict with the 30-day period
the Ombudsman? prescribed in Sec. 7 of the
Speedy Trial Act of 1998.
Yes, unreasonable delays like (SUMBANG VS. GEN. COURT
failure to decide a complaint against MARTIAL, G.R. NO. 140188,
the respondent for more than three 337 SCRA 227, AUG. 3, 2000;
(3) years from the time all the BLANCO VS.
pleadings were filed violates the SANDIGANBAYAN, G.R. NOS.
respondent’s right to a speedy 136757 – 58, 346 SCRA 108,
disposition of his case and the case NOV. 27, 2000; SOLAR TEAM
must be dismissed. (DUTERTE VS. ENTERTAINMENT, INC. HON.
SANDIGANBAYAN, 289 SCRA 721; HOW, G.R. NO. 140863, 338
ANGCHANGCO VS. OMBUDSMAN, SCRA 51, AUG. 22, 2000).
269 SCRA 301)
99. Was the failure of the
The determination of whether court to have a “sign language
an accused had been denied the expert” to inform the accused
right to speedy trial depends on the who is a deaf-mute of the
surrounding circumstances of each contents of the criminal
case, not a mathematical information fatal to the validity
computation of the years, months of the proceedings which
I press toward
3:14

resulted in the conviction of the but the body of the Information

said accused? alleges “treachery” or “evident
premeditation” and the same was
Yes because the accused was read to the accused, he could be
denied of the right to be informed of convicted of Murder. This is so
the nature and cause of the because it is the body of the
accusation against him. As such, the Information that is binding, not the
entire proceedings is null and void caption thereof and therefore, the
and another trial be conducted in the accused was duly informed of the
presence of a sign language expert nature and cause of accusation
to inform the accused of the against him. (P vs. Resavaga, 159
proceedings. (Sales vs. CA, 164 SCRA 426)
SCRA 717; P vs. Crisologo, 150
SCRA 653) 100-b. May an accused for
alleged “sale” of marijuana be
100. In an Information for convicted of “possession” of
“RAPE”, is there violation of the marijuana without violating his
right to be informed of the right to informed of the nature
nature and cause of accusation and cause of accusation against
against the accused if the him?
alleged rape took place
“sometime from January 1990 No. While no conviction for the
up to December 6, 1998” or a unlawful sale of prohibited drugs may
period of almost nine (9) years, be had under the present
without specifying the exact circumstances, the established
date when the alleged rape took principle is that possession of
place? marijuana is absorbed in the sale
thereof, except where the seller is
None. The accused should further apprehended in
have filed a Motion for a Bill of possession of another quantity of
Particular or a Motion to Quash. the prohibited drugs not covered
When he failed to do any of the two by or included in the sale and
(2), he is deemed to have waived which are probably intended for
some future dealings or use by
the defect in the information.
the seller. (PEOPLE OF THE
Clearly, he slumbered on his rights
PHILIPPINES vs. CHAD
and awakened too late. Finally, the
MANANANSALA, G.R. No. 175939,
date is not an element in rape cases.
April 3, 2013) The rule is that when
(PEOPLE VS. JERRY NAZARENO, there is a variance between the
April 8, 2008) offense charged in the complaint or
information, and that proved or
100-a. May an accused in a established by the evidence, and the
“Homicide” case be convicted of offense as charged necessarily
“Murder” without violating his includes the offense proved, the
right to be informed of the accused shall be convicted of the
nature and cause of accusation offense proved included in that which
against him? is charged. According to Section 5,
Rule 120, Rules of Court (1985), the
Yes. Even if the Information rule then applicable, an offense
was captioned “For: Homicide” only charged necessarily includes that
I press toward
3:14

which is proved, when some of the treatment of the accused?

essential elements or ingredients of Would the failure of said witness
the former, as this is alleged in the to appear and testify for the
complaint or information, constitute accused violates his right to
the latter. subpoena witnesses and the
production of evidence in his
101. What is the effect of favor?
the testimony of a witness who
did not return to court for his No. Such witness is beyond
cross examination? How about if the jurisdiction of the Philippine
there is only partial cross- Courts. Further, his right to subpoena
examination? witnesses and the production of
evidence will not be violated since
A witness who did not return the hospital could produce said
to court for his cross-examination records and another physician could
would render his entire testimony testify on the contents thereof.
inadmissible for being hearsay. It (Cavili vs. Hon. Florendo, 154 SCRA
likewise violated the right of 610; Fajardo vs. Garcia, 98 SCRA
confrontation on the part of the 514)
accused. (Ortigas, JR. vs. Lufthansa,
64 SCRA 610; DELA CRUZ VS. 104. May the accused be
PAPA, December 8, 2010) If the presented by the prosecution as
witness was partially examined, only the latter’s witness?
the portion of his direct testimony
where he was cross-examined shall No. Such would violate the
be admissible as evidence.( P vs. right of the accused against self-
Seneris, 99 SCRA 92). incrimination and if such happened,
the proceedings shall be null and
102. What are the void. (Chavez vs. CA, 24 SCRA 663)
requisites of a valid trial in
absentia? May an accused who 105. Generally, to what
jumped bail after arraignment kind of evidence does the right
be validly convicted by the trial against self-incrimination
court? applies?
The requisites of a valid trial in Generally, it applies

absentia are the following: only to “testimonial compulsion.” As
such, forcing a person to give a
The accused was duly arraigned; sample of his urine to determine
The accused was notified of the whether a woman is pregnant
hearing; and (Villaflor vs. Summers, 41 Phil. 62);
The accused’s absence [during whether a person is suffering from
the trial] is unjustifiable. sexually transmitted disease (US vs.
Tang Teng, 23 Phil. 145) or under the
103. May an accused influence of prohibited drugs
compel the trial court to issue (PEOPLE VS. BANIHIT, G.R. NO.
subpoena to a Physician who is 132045, 339 SCRA 86, AUG. 25,
already working in the United 2000; PEOPLE VS. CONTINENTE, G.R.
States to testify on his NOS. 100801- 02, 339 SCRA 1, AUG.
I press toward
3:14

25, 2000) does not violate the taken. (Aclaracion vs. Gatmaitan, 64
person’s right against self- SCRA 131)
incrimination. Likewise forcing one to
try a pair of shoes, pants or shirt 109. Is the Death Penalty
does not fall under the above already abolished by the 1987
proscription. Constitution?
106. How about forcing a While the Supreme Court

person to give a sample of his answered the same in the affirmative
handwriting?. in the cases of P vs. Gavarra, 155
SCRa 327; P vs. Masangkay, 155
Though the same does not SCRA 113; P vs. Atencio, 156 SCRA
require testimonial compulsion, the 242; P vs. Intino, September 26,
right against self-incrimination will 1988 it held in People vs. Munoz, 170
be violated by said act. This is so SCRA 107, that it was merely
because it involves the use of the suspended.
intelligence of the person. (Beltran
vs. Samson, 50 Phil. 570) 110. Is death as a penalty
a cruel or unuasual
107. Does the right punishment?
against self-incrimination
applicable to civil and No. (P vs. Estoista, 93 Phil.
administrative cases also? 647). It is only when the punishment
is shocking to the conscience of the
Yes but unlike in criminal community and disproportionate to
cases where the accused could not the offense charged that the penalty
be presented by the prosecution and becomes cruel and unusual. In fact,
his right not to take the witness the Supreme Court held in
stand is absolute, an adverse party ECHEGARAY VS. SECRETARY OF
in a civil or administrative cases may JUSTICE that death through Lethal
be presented by the other party but Injection is the most humane way of
could refuse to answer only if the implementing the death penalty.
question propounded calls for an
incriminatory answer. 111. What are the
requisites before an accused
108. May a court may validly invoke double
stenographer who had resigned jeopardy?
from the government be
compelled to transcribe her There is double jeopardy when
notes under pain of contempt there is:
without violating her right
against involuntary servitude? [1] valid complaint of
information;
Yes. This is so because the [2] filed in a court of
testimony was taken while she was competent jurisdiction;
still in the government and as such, [3] the accused was validly
it was her obligation to transcribe arraigned; and
the same, having received her salary [4] the accused was convicted
for the day when the testimony was or acquitted, or the case was
I press toward
3:14

dismissed or otherwise terminated 112-a. The accused was

without the express consent of the arrested with an unlicensed
accused. (PEOPLE VS. ALMARIO, 355 firearm in Mabalacat,
SCRA 1) Pampanga. He was charged for
112. If the dismissal was violation of PD 1866 with the
with the express consent of the RTC of Pampanga in an
accused, may the dismissal Information signed by the City
result in double jeopardy? Prosecutor of Angeles City. At
the middle of the trial, the Judge
Yes in two (2) instances. dismissed the case without the
consent of the accused. When
As a general rule, if the another information for the
dismissal is through the instance of same offense was filed by the
the accused or with his express Provincial prosecutor of
consent, there is no double Pampanga, the accused moved
jeopardy. However, this rule admits for the dismissal of the 2nd case
of two (2) exceptions: based on double jeopardy.
Decide.
1) the motion to dismiss is
based on insufficiency of Double jeopardy has not set in
evidence or Demurrer to because the first requisite of valid
Evidence; and complaint or information is not
2) the motion to dismiss is present. The City Prosecutor of
based on the denial of the Angeles City has no jurisdiction to
accused’s right to speedy trial. file an information for an offense that
(PEOPLE VS. ALMARIO, 355 took place in Mabalacat, Pampanga.
SCRA 1) (CUDIA VS. CA, 284 SCRA 173)
-double jeopardy has set in. In 113. The accused was

these two (2) instances, the correct charged of theft of electricity
description of what happened is that based on the City Ordinance of
the accused was “acquitted” and Batangas City. After
not “the case was dismissed with his arraignment, the case was
consent”. dismissed because it was found
out that the same has
It must be pointed out, prescribed because it was filed
however, that in PEOPLE VS. after more than 60 days. The
TAMPAL, 244 SCRA 202 and Fiscal filed another information
PEOPLE VS. LEVISTE, 255 SCRA based on the Revised Penal
238, the SC reversed the dismissal Code. Has double jeopardy set
of the criminal case by the trial in?
court based on “speedy trial” since
the same was not predicated “on the Yes. If the accused was
clear right of the accused to speedy charged of “theft of electricity”
trial.” It is only when there is a clear based on the City Ordinance of
violation of the accused’s right to Batangas and not based on the
speedy trial that the dismissal Revised Penal Code and later on the
results in double jeopardy. case is dismissed by the judge due
to the fact that the crime has
I press toward
3:14

prescribed, the government can no jeopardy if the Prosecutor

longer charge the accused of the moves for the reinstatement of
same crime under the Revised Penal the case for him to present the
Code since double jeopardy has set evidence of the prosecution?
in. If an act is punished by law and
an ordinance, acquittal or conviction No because one of the
in one shall bar prosecution from the requisites of double jeopardy is
other. (PEOPLE VS. RELOVA, 148 missing. There was no valid
SCRA 292) arraignment. This is so because his
plea was one of guilty and yet, he
114. The accused was was acquitted. In this case, he has to
charged of grave coercion be re-arraigned for him to enter a
before the MTC and was duly plea of “not guilty” in order that he
arraigned. The Judge dismissed could be validly acquitted.(PEOPLE
it without any motion form the VS. BALISACAN, 17 SCRA 1119)
accused because the case is
allegedly outside the MTC’s 116. The accused was
jurisdiction. Another information convicted of frustrated murder.
for the same offense was filed Within 15 days from
with the RTC which was likewise promulgation, he filed a Motion
dismissed because of lack of for New Trial based on a “newly-
jurisdiction. As such, the Fiscal discovered evidence” which was
filed a 3rd information for grave granted by the court. After the
coercion before the MTC. The presentation of the alleged
accused pleaded double “newly-discovered evidence”,
jeopardy. Is he correct? the accused was acquitted. May
the prosecution appeal the
Yes. Since the accused was acquittal since the evidence
already arraigned in the 1 st presented was not really a
information before the MTC which newly-discovered evidence but a
has jurisdiction over the same and forgotten one and that even
the case was subsequently assuming that the same is a
dismissed without his express newly-discovered evidence, it
consent, then double jeopardy has was insufficient to overturn the
set in. evidence of guilt as proven by
the prosecution.
115. The accused was
arraigned of homicide and In the case of P vs. Judge
entered a plea of guilty but Hernando, 108 SCRA 121, the
prayed that he be given the Supreme Court held that indeed, the
chance to prove incomplete self- evidence presented was not “newly-
defense which the court discovered evidence” and that
granted. After presenting his assuming it to be so, it was not
evidence to prove “incomplete sufficient to overturn the evidence of
self-defense”, the court guilt as shown by the prosecution’s
acquitted him because what was evidence. However, though the
allegedly proven by him was decision was erroneous, double
complete self-defense. May the jeopardy has set in and the
accused validly invoke double government could no longer appeal
I press toward
3:14

the decision. So even if the court HOMORABLE COURT OF

obviously erred in the appreciation of APPEALS, et al., G.R. No.
the evidence resulting in a decision 154954, February 1, 2012; [3]
of acquittal instead of conviction, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS.
appeal would put the accused in SANDIGANBAYAN, IMELDA
double jeopardy. (Mazo vs. Mun. MARCOS, JOSE CONRADO
Court, 113 SCRA 217) BENITEZ and GILBERT DULAY,
G.R. No. 153304-05, February 7,
117. May the government 2012; and [4] YSIDORO VS. HON.
appeal a judgment of acquittal TERESITA CASTRO, February 6,
or for the increase of the 2012, the Supreme Court held that a
penalty imposed? PETITION FOR CERTIORARI UNDER
RULE 65 IS ALLOWED IF THERE IS
As a general rule, No since GRAV E ABUSE OF DISCRETION ON
double jeopardy has set in. (PEOPLE THE PART OF THE LOWER COURT IN
VS. HON. VELASCO, G.R. NO. DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL CASE OR
127444, 340 SCRA 207, SEPT. 13, IN IMPOSING A LOWER PENALTY.
2000). As mandated by the
Constitution, statutes and cognate 118-a. May the
jurisprudence, an acquittal is final government , by way of Petition
and unappealable on the ground of for Certiorari under Rule 65,
double jeopardy, whether it happens question the Decision of
at the trial court of a judgment of Acquittal by the trial court, or
acquittal brought before the for the increase of the penalty
Supreme Court on certiorari cannot imposed by the trial court?
be had unless there is a finding of
mistrial, as in Galman vs. Yes. In cases of: [1] in a
Sandiganbayan. judgment of acquittal rendered with
grave abuse of discretion amounting
However, if the accused was to lack or in excess of jurisdiction
the one who appealed the decision [PEOPLE VS. SANDIGANBAYAN,
of the CFI convicting him of homicide 491 SCRA 185, June 16, 2000];
(though he was charged of murder), and [2] where the prosecution had
the appellate court may convict him been deprived of due process due to
of murder if the evidence warrants misfeasance of the prosecutor.
and that the lower court mis- [MERCIALES VS. COURT OF
appreciated the evidence. This is so APPEALS, 379 SCRA 345; PEOPLE
because if the accused appeals the VS. VELASCO, 340 SCRA 207,
decision, the same will be subject to September 13, 2000], cited
a complete re-examination of the PEOPLE VS. SANDIGANBAYAN &
evidence on record. (PEOPLE VS. IMELDA MARCOS, ET AL.,
DOMINGO, March 2, 2009) February 7, 2012; VILLAREAL VS.
PEOPLE, February 1, 2012;
Please take note, however, YSIDORO VS. HON. TERESITA
that in the case of [1] ARTEMIO CASTRO, February 6, 2012.
VILLAREAL VS. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 151258, Likewise if the penalty was
February 1, 2012 ; [2] PEOPLE wrong like imposing slight physical
OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. THE injuries to some accused and
I press toward
3:14

Homicide for the others when all of of the Supreme Court

them participated in inflicting ACQUITTING Hubert Webb and
injuries resulting into the death of company of Rape with Homicide
Lenny during his initiation rites , the and Murder without violating
defense of double jeopardy is the rule on double jeopardy?
unavailing and the Supreme Court
increased the penalties for those No. The acquittal of Hubert
earlier sentenced to slight physical Webb and his co-accused by the
injuries only. (VILLAREAL VS. Supreme Court in the Vizconde
PEOPLE, February 1, 2012) Rape/Murder cases is final. Double
jeopardy has set in. (LEJANO VS.
118-b. Jason Ivler was PEOPLE & PEOPLE VS. HUBERT
charged of: [1] Reckless WEB ET AL., January 18, 2011)
imprudence resulting to slight
physical injuries; and [2] 118-d. Sharon Cuneta filed
Reckless imprudence resulting two (2) cases of Libel against the
to Homicide and Damage to editors and columnist of the tabloid
Property as a result of his single Bandera. After the prosecution
negligent act of bumping the rested its case, the accused filed a
vehicle of the victims. He Demurrer to Evidence which the trial
entered a plea of guilty in the court granted. Sharon questioned
first case and was sentenced to the dismissal before the Court of
CENSURE. When he was about to Appeals on Certiorari under Rule 65
be arraigned in the second case, which was granted by the latter and
he invoked double jeopardy and ordered the trial court shall proceed
prayed for the dismissal of the to receive the evidence of the
said 2nd case. Decide. accused. The editors went to the
Supreme Court alleging that their
Yes, double jeopardy has set right against double jeopardy was
in. He could not be tried again for violated.
the 2nd case. A single negligent act
could not be the subject of two (2) Yes, the right of said accused
criminal informations. [IVLER VS. against double jeopardy will be
JUDGE PEDRO, G.R. No. 172716, violated by remanding the case for
November 17, 2010] (NOTE: Very the reception of evidence for the
important in your Criminal Law. said accused. Dismissal of a criminal
Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code case based on demurrer to evidence
allows complexing a crime if it amounts to acquittal and as such,
involves grave and less grave double jeopardy has set in.
felonies but the Ivler case does not
involve grave or less grave felonies. Finally, the Court of Appeals
The Supreme Court held that Art. 48 should not have entertained
does not apply to negligence cases Sharon’s petition because only the
and should be complexed regardless Solicitor General could file such a
of the kind of felonies involved) petition questioning the decision of
the lower court in criminal cases
118-c. May the private before the CA or SC, not the private
complainant validly file a Motion complainant. (BAUTISTA VS.
for Reconsideration of a Decision
I press toward
3:14

Sharon Cuneta-Pangilinan, character. (PANFILO M. LACSON

October 24, 2012) VS. THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY,
THE SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.,
118-e. What is the ROMEO ACOP & FRANCISCO
"Supervening Fact ZUBIA, JR., G.R. No. 128096,
Doctrine." January 20, 1999)
It simply provides that an 120. What are the

accused’s conviction shall not be a different forms of ex-post facto
bar to another prosecution for an law?
offense which necessarily includes
the offense charged in the former In order that a law is an ex
complaint or information when the post facto law, the same must be
graver offense developed due to one—
supervening facts arising from the
same act or omission constituting a. which makes an act
the former charge or that the facts done criminal before the passing
constituting the graver charge of the law and which was
became known only or were innocent when committed, and
discovered after a plea was entered punishes such action;
in the former complaint or b. which aggravates a
information. (Section 7, Rule 117, crime or makes it greater than
2000 Rules of Criminal when it was committed;
Procedure; P vs. Tarok, 73 Phil. c. which changes the
260; P vs. Villasis, 46 O.G. 268; punishment and inflicts a greater
Melo vs. People, 85 Phil. 766; P punishment than the law annexed
vs. Buling, 107 Phil. 712; P vs. to the crime when it was
Adil, 76 SCRA 462; P. vs. Tac-an, committed;
182 SCRA 601; and P vs. City d. which alters the
Court of Manila, 121 SCRA 637 legal rules of evidence and
receives less or different
119. When may the “ex- testimony than the law required a
post facto law” rule be the time of the commission of the
invoked? offense in order to convict the
defendant;
Only if the law sought to be e. every law which, in
applied is a “[1] criminal law or relation to the offense or its
penal in nature; [2] it is applied consequences, alters the
retroactively; and that [3] it is situation of a person to his
prejudicial to the accused”. disadvantage;
Otherwise, the same may not be f. that which assumes
invoked as when the questioned to regulate civil rights and
law involves the jurisdiction of the remedies but in effect imposes a
Sandiganbayan which is not a penalty or deprivation of a right
penal law. Ex post facto law which when done was lawful;
prohibits the retrospectivity of g. deprives a person
penal laws. RA 8249 is not a penal accused of a crime of some lawful
law. It is a substantive law on protection to which he has
jurisdiction which is not penal in become entitled, such as the
I press toward
3:14

protection of a former conviction PAMARAN, 160 SCRA 457; TAN

or acquittal, or a proclamation of VS. BARRIOS, 190 SCRA 686;
amnesty (KAY VILLEGAS KAMI, PEOPLE VS. SANDIGANBAYAN,
35 SCRA 429; MEJIA VS. 211 SCRA 241).
I press toward
3:14

THE BARRISTERS’ CLUB
OFFICERS
Chancellor: ABBYGAILE T. GONZALES
Vice Chancellor: ROMEL L. BASILAN
Secretary: JESSA ALYSSA G. REYES
Treasurer: MILDRED P. AMBROS
PRO: ROBYN B. DELA PENA
PRO: AARON JAMES E. CO
Business Manager: RUDDY ALLEN N. YEE
Business Manager: LESLIE D. RAGUINDIN
SSG
ANNE LUCILLE B. RUIZ
Representative:
Ex-Officio: RONA B. ESTRADA
Adviser: ATTY. ISAGANI G. CALDERON
Dean, College of ATTY. REYNALDO U.
Law: AGRANZAMENDEZ

UC Political-Law PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

UC Political-Law PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

In CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

Prepared by: Atty. Larry D. Gacayan

POLITICAL LAW 4. What are the requisites

BARRISTERS’ CLUB Page 1 of 99

Prepared by: Atty. Larry D. Gacayan

Constitution is concerned. Its people in a plebiscite approve the

BARRISTERS’ CLUB Page 2 of 99

Prepared by: Atty. Larry D. Gacayan

FULL TEXT OF THE PROPOSED 8. May Congress propose

BARRISTERS’ CLUB Page 3 of 99

Prepared by: Atty. Larry D. Gacayan

10. What is the 13. What kind of

BARRISTERS’ CLUB Page 4 of 99

Prepared by: Atty. Larry D. Gacayan

of Castine, in Maine, which 15. What is the postliminy

BARRISTERS’ CLUB Page 5 of 99

Prepared by: Atty. Larry D. Gacayan

law of the land”. (MEJOFF VS.

BARRISTERS’ CLUB Page 6 of 99

Prepared by: Atty. Larry D. Gacayan

organizations are also Father Bernas opines that the

BARRISTERS’ CLUB Page 7 of 99

Prepared by: Atty. Larry D. Gacayan

The said doctrine was reiterated in

BARRISTERS’ CLUB Page 8 of 99

Prepared by: Atty. Larry D. Gacayan

national economy shall be nugatory the power of Congress

27-b. May the PCGG

BARRISTERS’ CLUB Page 9 of 99

Prepared by: Atty. Larry D. Gacayan

limits, and subject to such limitations (b) Sufficiency of

BARRISTERS’ CLUB Page 10 of 99

Prepared by: Atty. Larry D. Gacayan

had lost his Philippine Citizenship by VENECIA. Hence, when a

BARRISTERS’ CLUB Page 11 of 99

Prepared by: Atty. Larry D. Gacayan

government unit. What is since the National Statistics

BARRISTERS’ CLUB Page 12 of 99

Prepared by: Atty. Larry D. Gacayan

his residential house is at would be no candidate to be

No, a candidate disqualified

BARRISTERS’ CLUB Page 13 of 99

Prepared by: Atty. Larry D. Gacayan

appear under the guise that he is As held in U.S. vs. PONS, 34

(NOTE, however, that

BARRISTERS’ CLUB Page 14 of 99

Prepared by: Atty. Larry D. Gacayan

1/5 of the members present. in the twelve “marginalized

All questions regarding While the Supreme Court

BARRISTERS’ CLUB Page 15 of 99

Prepared by: Atty. Larry D. Gacayan

the different political members of the tribunal] and

While as a rule the It depends. If the appearance

BARRISTERS’ CLUB Page 16 of 99

Prepared by: Atty. Larry D. Gacayan

of the citizens. However, if the Apparently, the presumption is

BARRISTERS’ CLUB Page 17 of 99

Prepared by: Atty. Larry D. Gacayan

privilege. Unlike the deliberative performing a task directly related to

Turning on who are the The above cases, especially,

BARRISTERS’ CLUB Page 18 of 99

Prepared by: Atty. Larry D. Gacayan

BARRISTERS’ CLUB Page 19 of 99