Political Preweek 2017

University of Santo Tomas Faculty of Civil Law

POLITICAL LAW Pre-week Notes 2017 ACADEMICS COMMITTEE SECRETARY GENERAL: CAMILLE ANGELICA B. GONZALES EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE: EMNIE VALERIE B. DURAN, IRVIN L. PALANCA, MARIELLA A. MARASIGAN , LARA NICOLE T. GONZALES

POLITICAL L AW COMMITTEE COMMITTEE HEAD: JERREMIAH KRIZIA B. BATALLER SUBJECT HEADS: NESTOR T.C. SIAZON, MAYLEN C. PAGTALUNAN, VALENTIN V. PURA, ROSE ANNE C. DONA, KRISTIANETTE KARYLL B. REMIGIO, RENUEL S. NAPIERE MEMBERS : KAIRA MARIE B. CARLOS, CHARMAINE FHAYE C. CASQUEJO, KARL DERRICK S. GUEVARRA, JOSE CHRISTIAN ANTHONY I. PINZON, WINONA AUDREY S. ALMOGELA, LYODYCHIE Q. CAMARAO, ELLIZE P. GONZALES , JAMES ROSS D.L. TAN, JEANNE PAULINE J. DUMAUAL, ZANDRA JANE J. DEL ROSARIO , CLARA LOUISSE J. YUMANG, AIRA R. DE LEON, NICOLE MARIE A. CORTES, LORENA Q. TUPAS, SYDRICK F. AVELIS, LOVERLY A. BARQUEZ, PIERRE KENRIC U. NADRES

ATTY . AL CONRAD B. ESPALDON ADVISER

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.















UST LAW PRE-WEEK LAW PRE-WEEK NOTES 2017 POLITICAL LAW

Distinguish between Amendment and Revision. Amendment is the isolated or piecemeal change in the Constitution by mere adding, deleting, or reducing without altering the basic principles involved. Revision is the revamp or rewriting of the whole instrument altering the substantial entirety of the Constitution.

What are the two (2) tests in determining whether a proposed change is an amendment or a revision? Discuss briefly. The two tests are the: 1) quantitative test and 2) qualitative test. The first asks whether the proposed change is so extensive in its provisions as to change directly the ‘substantial entirety’ of the Constitution by the deletion or alteration of numerous existing provisions. One examines only the number of provisions affected and does not consider the degree of the change. The second asks whether the change will accomplish such far reaching changes in the nature of our basic governmental plan as to amount to a revision.

What are the two (2) stages of amendment or revisi on? The two stages of amendment or revisions are proposal and ratification. Proposal is the adoption of the change of the Constitution either by the constituent assembly, constitutional convention, or people’s initiative. Ratification is the submission to the people of the proposed amendment through a plebiscite which should be held not earlier than 60 days nor later than 90 days after the approval of such amendment.

Are all the methods applicable to both amendment and revision? NO. Constituent NO. Constituent Assembly and Constitutional Convention covers both amendment and revision. People’s Initiative only covers amendment.

Can an amendment through People’s Initiative be allowed at any time? NO. Amendment through such manner shall be authorized within five years following the ratification of this Constitution nor oftener than once every five years thereafter (1987 Constitution, Art. XVII, Sec. 2). SELF-EXECUTING AND NON-SELF-EXECUTING PROVISIONS

When is a provision self-executing? A provision is self-executing when it is complete by itself and becomes operative without the aid of supplementary or enabling legislation, or that which supplies sufficient rule by means of which the right it g rants may be enjoyed or protected. The nature and extent of the right conferred and the liabilities imposed are fixed by the Constitution itself and there is no language indicating that the subject is referred to the legislature for action.

general principles of law, such as Art. II: "Declaration of Principles and State Policies", Art. XIII: "Soci al Justice and Human Rights", and Art. XIV: "Education, Science and Technology, Arts, Culture, and Sports”. However, Sec. 16, Art. II or the Right to a balanced and healthful ecology (Oposa v. Factoran, G.R. No. 101083, July 30, 1993) and the Right to information in Art. III, and Filipino First Policy (Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS, G.R. No. 122156, Feb. 3, 1997) are held by jurisprudence as self-executing provisions.

In case of doubt, how are the provisions of the Constitution construed? The provisions of the Constitution are construed as selfexecuting; mandatory rather than directory; and prospective rather than retroactive. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

Can the President propose to change the country’s name, national anthem and national seal? YES. The country’s name, national anthem and national seal may be changed by law provided the same is submitted to the people for ratification. (1987 (1987 Constitution, Art. XVI, Sec. 2 )

May the President be held liable for the death of police officers in an encounter with the National People’s Army under the principle of command responsibility? NO. NO. The principle of command responsibility or chain of command will only apply when the President acts as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. The Philippine National Police is not part of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. NATIONAL TERRITORY

What do you understand by the archipelagic doctrine? Is this reflected in the 1987 Constitution? (1989, 2016 BAR) The archipelagic doctrine emphasizes the unity of land and waters by defining an archipelago either as a group of islands surrounded by waters or a body of waters studded with islands. For this purpose, it requires that baselines be drawn by connecting the appropriate points of the outermost islands to encircle the islands within the archipelago. The waters on the landward side of the baselines regardless of breadth or dimensions are me rely internal waters. Yes, the archipelagic doctrine is reflected in the 1987 Constitution. Article I, Section 1 provides that the national territory of the Philippines includes the Philippine archipelago, with all the islands and waters embraced therein; and the waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago, regardless of their breadth and dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the Philippines. STATE IMMUNITY

















POLITICAL LAW 16, 2014)

When is a suit against the State? A suit is against the State regardless of who is named the defendant if: (1) it produces adverse consequences to the public treasury in terms of disbursement of public funds and loss of government property; or (2) it cannot it cannot prosper unless the State has given its consent. A suit is not against the State: a.

b.

c.

When the purpose of the suit is to compel an officer charged with the duty of making payments pursuant to an appropriation made by law in favor of the plaintiff to make such payment, since the suit is intended to compel performance of a ministerial duty; or When from the allegations in the complaint, i t is clear that the respondent is a public officer sued in a private capacity; or When from the allegations in the complaint, i t is clear that the respondent is a public officer sued in a private capacity.

Can a private party make a government entity liable on a contract which that private party executed with another private party? NO. NO. Under the principle that the state cannot be sued without its consent, a third party cannot hold a government entity liable. The government entity is a stranger to the contract. The assets of the government cannot be held liable for liabilities of a private person. Such assets cannot be subject to levy and garnishment for to allow such actions would impair government operations and delay delivery of vital public services. (Dept. of Agriculture vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 104269, Nov. 11, 1993) 1993)

When is the State deemed to have given its consent to be sued? Does such consent make the State liable? A State is deemed to have given its consent to be sued when it commences in litigation, as it becomes vulnerable to a counterclaim, or when it enters into a business contract where the contract is in pursuit of a soverign activity. No, waiver of immunity by the State does not mean a concession of its liability. When When the State gives its consent to be sued, all it does is to give the other party an opportunity to show that the State is liable. The State does not necessarily admit that it is liable.

Spouses Ramos discovered that a portion of their land in Baguio City was being used as part of the runway and running shoulder of the Loakan Airport being operated by Air Transportation Office. They agreed to convey the affected portion by deed of sale to the Airport Transportation Office (ATO) in consideration of the amount of P778, 150.00. However, ATO failed to pay. Spouses Ramos filed an action for the collection of money against ATO. May ATO be sued without the

function is governmental. ATO is an agency of the government not performing a purely governmental or sovereign function but was instead involved in the management and maintenance of the Loakan Airport, an activity that was not exclusive prerogative of the State in its sovereign capacity hence, the ATO had no claim to the State immunity from suit. ( Air Transportation Office v. Spouses Ramos, G.R. No. 159402, 23 February 2011) 2011 )

Oppa Khan and his wife donated a parcel of land to the donee, Bureau of Plant Industry, on the condition that the latter would install lighting facilities, water system, and would build an office building and parking lot on the property on or before Dec. 7, 1974. The donee failed to comply with the said conditions. Oppa Khan filed a complaint for the revocation of the donation due to the donee’s breach of the condition. The trial court dismissed the case based on the non-suability of the State. Is the trial court correct? NO. The government has waived its immunity and such waiver is implied by virtue of the terms provided in the deed of donation. The government is a beneficiary of the terms of the donation. It would be manifestly unfair for the government, as donee, alleged to have violated the conditions under which it received gratuitously certain property, thereafter to put as a barrier the concept of non-suitability. (Santiago (Santiago v. The Government of the Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. L-48214, Dec. 19, 1978) GENERAL PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES

What Constitutional provisions institutionalize the principle of civilian supremacy? (2006 BAR) The provisions of the Constitution which institutionalized the principle of civilian supremacy are Article II, Section 3, which makes civilian authority supreme at all times over the military, and Article VII, Section 18, which makes the President the commanderin-chief of the armed forces of the Philippines.

A law was passed dividing the Philippines into three regions (Luzon. Visayas, and Mindanao), each constituting an Independent state except on matters of foreign relations, national defense and national taxation, which are vested in the Central government. Is the law valid? Explain. (1996 Bar) NO, the NO, the law is unconstitutional. First, it violates Article I, which guarantees the integrity of the national territory of the Philippines because it divided the Philippines into three states. Second, it violates Section 1, Article II of the Constitution, which provides for the establishment of democratic and republic States by replacing it with three States organized as a confederation. Third, it violates Section 22, Article II of the Constitution, which, while recognizing and promoting the rights of indigenous cultural communities, provides for national unity and development. Fourth, it violates Section 15, Article X of the Constitution, which provides for autonomous regions in Muslim Mindanao and in the Cordilleras within the framework of national sovereignty as well as territorial integrity of the Republic of the Philippines. Fifth, it

















UST LAW PRE-WEEK LAW PRE-WEEK NOTES 2017 military exercise in the Subic Bay area. A group of concerned citizens sought to enjoin the entry of foreign troops as violative of the 1987 Constitution that prohibited the stationing of foreign troops and the use by them, of local facilities. As the Judge, decide the case. Explain. (1996 BAR) I will rule in favor of the concerned citizens. Article XVII, Section 25, of the Constitution prohibits in the absence of a treaty the stationing of troops and facilities of foreign countries in the Philippines. The Supreme Court has already ruled that the provision in Article XVIII, Section 25 of the Constitution requires a treaty even for the mere temporary presence of foreign troops in the Philippines (Bayan v. Zamora, G.R. No. 138570, October 10, 2000) 2000 )

Article II, Section 3, of the 1987 Constitution expresses, in part, that the “Armed Forces of the Philippines is the protector of the people and (of) the State." Describe briefly what this provision means. Is the Philippine National Police covered by the same mandate? (2003 BAR) Article II, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution means that the Armed Forces of the Philippines should not serve the interest of the President but of the people and should not commit abuses against the people. (Record (Record of the Constitutional Commission, Vol. V, p. 133.) This provision is specifically addressed to the Armed Forces of the Philippines and not to the Philippine National Police, because the latter is separate and distinct from the former. (Record (Record of the Constitutional Commission, Vol. V, p. 296; Manalo v. Sistoza. 312 SCRA 239) 239)

The Philippine Government is negotiating a new security treaty with the United States which could involve engagement in joint military operations of the two countries’ armed forces. A loose organization of Filipinos, the Kabataan at Matatandang Makabansa (KMM) wrote the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) and the Department of National Defense (DND) demanding disclosure of the details of the negotiations, as well as copies of the minutes of the meetings. The DFA and the DND refused, contending that premature disclosure of the offers and counteroffers between the parties could jeopardize on-going negotiations with another country. KMM filed suit to compel disclosure of the negotiation details, and be granted access to to the records of the meetings, invoking the constitutional right of the people to information on matters of public concern. Decide with reasons. (2009 BAR) The petition of KMM must be denied. Diplomatic negotiations are privileged in order to encourage a frank exchange of exploratory ideas between the parties by shielding the negotiations from public view. ( Akbayan Citizens Action Party vs. Aquino, 558 SCRA 468 [2008]) [2008] )

Will your answer be the same if the information sought by KMM pertains to contracts entered into by the Government in its proprietary or commercial

and are not privileged. (1987 (1987 Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 7 ; 7 ; Valmonte vs. Belmonte, 170 SCRA 256 [1989]) [1989 ])

Several concerned residents of the areas fronting Manila Bay, among them a group of students who are minors, filed a suit against MMDA and a number of other executive agencies, asking the court to order them to perform their duties relating to the cleanup, rehabilitation and protection of Manila Bay. The complain alleges that the continued neglect by defendants and their failure to prevent and abat pollution in Manila Bay constitute a violation of the petitioners’ constitutional right to life, health and a balanced ecology. If the defendants assert that the students/petitioners who are minors do not have locus stanti to file the action, is the assertion correct? Explain your answer. (2016 BAR) The assertion that the students/petitioners who are minors have no locus standi is erroneous. Pursuant to the obligation of the State under Section 16, Article II of the Constitution to protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature, minors have standing to sue based on the concept of intergenerational responsibility (Oposa (Oposa v. Factoran, 224 SCRA 792, 1993). SEPARATION OF POWERS

When is there a violation of the principle of s eparation of powers? There is a violation of the principle when there is impermissible (a) interference with and/or (b) assumption of another department's functions. (Belgica, et al., v. Ochoa, et al., G.R. No. 208566, November 19, 2013)

May a taxpayer file a suit to compel Congress to enact a law making the use of marijuana for medical reasons legal? NO. A NO. A writ of mandamus will not lie because this violates the principle of separation of powers. It is discretionary on the part of Congress to consider bills which in its judgment will serve the public. Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights that are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of government. There is no legally demandable right to compel the Congress to make such law.

Senator Fleur De Lis is charged with plunder before the Sandiganbayan. After finding the existence of probable cause, the court issues a warrant for the Senator's arrest. The prosecution filed a motion to suspend the Senator relying on Section 5 of the Plunder Plunder Law. According to the prosecution, the suspension should last until the termination of the case. Senator Lis vigorously opposes the motion contending that only the Senate can discipline its members; and that to

















POLITICAL LAW The power of each House of Congress to “punish its Members for disorderly behavior,” and “suspend or expel a Member” by a vote of two -thirds of all its Members subject to the qualification that the penalty of suspension, when imposed, should not exceed sixty days” under Article VI, Section 6 (3) of the Constitution is “distinct” from the suspension under the Plunder Law, “which is not a penalty but a preliminary, preventive measure, prescinding from the fact that the latter is not being imposed on petitioner for misbehavior as a Member of the House of Representatives.” (Ceferino Paredes, Jr.vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. 118364, August 8, 1995, cited in Santiago v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 128055, April 18, 2001) 2001) DELEGATION OF POWERS

The two accepted tests to determine whether or not there is a valid delegation of legislative power are the Completeness Test and the Sufficient Standard Test. Explain each. (2005 BAR) The Completeness Test provides that law must be complete in all essential terms and conditions when it leaves the legislature so that there will be nothing left for the delegate to do when it reaches him except to enforce it. The Sufficient Standard fixes a standard, the limits of which are sufficiently determinate or at least determinable to which the delegate must conform in the performance of his functions. (Santiago v. COMELEC, March 19, 1997)

Section 8 of P.D. No. 910, entitled “Creating an Energy Development Board, defining its powers and functions, providing funds therefor and for other purposes,” provides that: “All fees, revenues and receipts of the Board from any and all sources x x x shall form part of a Special Fund to be used to finance energy resource development and exploitation programs and projects of the government and for such other purposes as may be hereafter directed by the President.” The Malampaya NGO contends that the provision constitutes an undue delegation of legislative power since the phrase “and for such other purposes other purposes as may be hereafter directed by the President” gives the President unbridled discretion to determine the purpose for which the fund s will be used. On the other hand, the government urges the application of ejusdem generis. Does the assailed portion of Section 8 of PD 910 hurdle the completeness and sufficient standard tests? NO. The phrase “and for such other purposes as may be hereafter directed by the President” gives the President unbridled discretion to determine the purpose for which the funds will be used. An infrastructure is any basic facility needed by society. The power to determine what kind of infrastructure to prioritize and fund is a power to determine the purpose of appropriation and is an undue delegation of the power to appropriate. The assailed provision does not fall under the principle of ejusdem generis. First, the phrase “energy resource

The principle, when translated, means that what has been delegated can no longer be delegated. Sinc e the powers of the government have been delegated to them by the people, who possess original sovereignty, these powers cannot be further delegated by the different government departments to some other branch or instrumentality of the government.

State the exceptions to the rule of non-delegation of powers. The following are the exceptions to the rule of nondelegation of powers: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Delegation to the People through initiative and referendum (1987 Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. 1); Emergency powers delegated by Congress to the President [Art. [Art. VI, (Sec. 23(2)]; Congress may delegate Tariff powers to the President [Art. VI, Sec. 28 (2)]; Delegation of quasi-legislative powers to administrative bodies; Delegation of local legislative power to Local Governments. FORMS OF GOVERNMENT

Distinguish between a De jure government and a De facto government. A De jure government has a rightful title but no power or control, either because this has been withdrawn from it, or because it has not yet actually entered i nto the exercise thereof. A De facto government is without legal title but actually exercises power or control.

What are the kinds of a de facto government? Briefly discuss each. The kinds of de facto government are: 1) De 1) De facto proper; 2) 2) Government of paramount force; and 3) Independent 3) Independent government. A De facto proper government gets possession and control of, or usurps, by force or by the voice of the majority, the rightful legal government and maintains itself against the will of the latter. A Government of paramount force is established and maintained by military forces who invade and occupy a territory of the enemy in the course of war. An Independent government is established by the inhabitants of the country who rise in insurrection against the parent State (Co Kim Cham v. Valdez Tan Keh, G.R. No. L- 5, Sept. 17, 1945). LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT Classes of legislative power 1. Original - Possessed by the people in their sovereign capacity i.e. initiative and referendum 2. Delegated - Possessed by Congress and other legislative bodies by virtue of the Constitution. 3. Constituent - The power to amend or revise the Constitution.

















UST LAW PRE-WEEK LAW PRE-WEEK NOTES 2017 2. 3. 4.

Procedural - limitations on the manner of passing laws. Congress cannot pass irrepealable laws. Congress, as a general rule, cannot delegate its legislative power.

How are legislative districts apportioned? Legislative districts are apportioned among the provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan Manila area. They are apportioned in accordance with the number of their respect inhabitants and on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio (1987 Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. 5).

May reapportionment of legislative districts be effected thru a special law? YES. YES. As thus worded, the Constitution did not preclude Congress from increasing its membership by passing a law, other than a general reapportionment of the law. Moreover, to hold that reapportionment can only be made through a general apportionment law, with a review of all the legislative districts allotted to each local government unit nationwide, would create an inequitable situation where a new city or province created by Congress will be denied legislative representation for an indeterminate period of time. (Mariano, Jr. v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 118577, March 7, 1995)

A bill, upon filing by a Senator or a Member of the House of Representatives, goes through specified steps before it leaves the Senate or the House of Representatives, as the case may be. After leaving the legislature, please name the three methods by which said bill may become a law. (1988 BAR)

is not its principal purpose and the appropriation is only incidental to some other objective. 2. NO. The NO. The Senate cannot delegate this function to such a commission, because under Section 21, Article VII of the Constitution, the concurrence of at least two-thirds of the Senate itself is required for the ratification of treaties. HOUSES OF CONGRESS

What are the qualifications to be eligible for the Senate? A person must be: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

What are the qualifications to be eligible for the House of Representatives? A person must be: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

A bill passed by Congress may become a law in any of the following cases: 1. 2.

3.

If it is signed into law by the President; or If it is re-passed over the President’s veto power by the vote of two-thirds of all the members of the Senate and of the House of Representatives; or If the President fails to veto it within thirty days after receipt thereof and communicate the veto to the House from which it originated.

Are the following bills filed in Congress constitutional? Explain. (1996 BAR) 1. A bill originating from the Senate, which provides for the creation of the Public Utility Commission to regulate public service companies and appropriating the initial funds needed to establish the same. 2. A bill creating a joint legislative-executive commission to give, on behalf of the Senate, its advice, consent and concurrence to treaties entered into by the President. The bill contains the guidelines to be followed by the commission in the discharge of its functions. 1. YES. YES. A bill providing for the creation of the Public Utility Commission to regulate public service companies

Natural-born citizen of the Philippines; At least 35 years of age on the day of election Able to read and write; A registered voter Resident of the Philippines for not less than 2 years immediately preceding the day of election.

Natural-born citizen of the Philippines; Except youth party-list representatives, at least 25 years of age on the day of election; Able to read and write; Except the party-list representatives, a registered voter in the district in which he shall be elected; Resident thereof for a period not less than 1 year immediately preceding the day of election. PARTY-LIST SYSTEM

Limitations on party list representation 1.

2.

3.

4.

Only 20% of the total number of the membership of the House of Representatives is the maximum number of seats available to party-list organizations. A party list must garner at least 2% of the total votes cast in the party-list elections to be ensured of one (1) seat. The additional seats of the remaining seats after allocation of the guaranteed seats shall be distributed to the party-list organizations including those that received less than two percent of the total votes. Each party list can only have a maximum of three seats immaterial of the number of votes garnered.

Is it necessary for a party-list nominee to actually belong to the marginalized sector that he seeks to represent? NO. A nominee who does not actually possess the marginalized and underrepresented status presented by the party-list group but proves to be a genuine advocate of the interest and concern of the marginalized and underrepresented sector represented is still qualified to



















POLITICAL LAW KABAKA's operations consist of empowering fisherfolk leaders through livelihood projects and trainings on good governance. The Dutch Foundation for Global Initiatives, a private organization registered in The Netherlands, receives a huge subsidy from the Dutch Foreign Ministry, which, in turn is allocated worldwide to the Foundation's partners like KABAKA. Rudy seeks to register KABAKA as a party-list with himself as a nominee of the coalition'. Will KABAKA and Rudy be qualified as a party-list and a nominee, respectively? Decide with reasons. (2009 BAR) KABAKA and Ruby are not qualified as a party-list and as nominee, respectively, since KABAKA is receiving a subsidy from the Dutch Foreign Ministry. Under Section 2(5), Article IX-C of the Constitution, a political party which is supported by any foreign government cannot be registered with the Commission on Elections. LEGISLATIVE PRIVILEGES, INHIBITIONS AND DISQUALIFICATIONS

State the rule making it incompatible in compatible for members of Congress to hold offices or employment in the government. (BAR 1998) Section 13, Article VII of the Constitution, which prohibi ts Members of Congress from holding any other office during their term without forfeiting their seat, does not distinguish between government corporations with original charters and their subsidiaries, because the prohibition applies to both.

PGMA appointed Agra as Acting Secretary of Justice upon the resignation of Sec. Devanadera. Four (4) days after such appointment, Agra was also appointed as Acting Solicitor General. General. Did the designation of Agra as the Acting Secretary of Justice, concurrently with his position of Acting Solicitor General, violate the constitutional prohibition against dual or multiple offices for the Members of the Cabinet and their deputies and assistants?

the recess was the 30-day compulsory recess, Congress is not in session, pursuant to Sec. 15, Art. VI of the 1987 Constitution.

Congresswoman A is a co-owner of an indus trial estate in Sta. Rosa, Laguna which she had declared in her Statement of Assets and Liabilities. A member of her political party authored a bill which would provide a 5-year development plan for all industrial estates in the Southern Tagalog Region to attract investors. The plan included an appropriation of 2 billion pesos for construction of roads around the estates. When the bill finally became law, a civil society watchdog questioned the constitutionality of the law as it obviously benefitted Congresswoman A's industrial estate. Decide with reasons. (2009 BAR) The law is constitutional. Section 12, Article VI of the Constitution does not prohibit the enactment of a law which will benefit the business interests of a member of the Senate or the House of Representatives. It only requires that if the member of Congress whose business interests will be benefited by the law is the one who will file the bill, he should notify the House concerned of the potential conflict of interest. QUORUM AND VOTING MAJORITIES Voting requirements in Impeachment Proceedings 1.

2.

3.

4. YES, YES, the designation is unconstitutional and void in violation of Art. VII, Sec. 13 of the Constitution. Section 7, Article IX-B is meant to lay down the general rule applicable to all elective and appointive public officials and employees, while Section 13, Article VII is meant to be the exception applicable only to the President, the Vice-President, Members of the Cabinet, their deputies and assistants. Agra was covered by Sec. 13, Art. VII, and “unless otherwise provided by the Constitution,” he cannot hold other ex officio positions not expressly

A majority vote of the members of the Committee on Justice of the House of Representatives is necessary for consideration of its report in a plenary session. [Sec. 3(2), Art. XI ] A vote of at least 1/3 of all members of the House of Representatives is necessary to either affirm a favorable resolution with the Articles of Impeachment or override its contrary resolution. A verified complaint or resolution of impeachment filed by 1/3 of all members of the House of Representatives shall constitute the Articles of Impeachment. Two thirds vote of all members of the Senate is necessary to convict the impeached public officer.

Can the Congress compel the attendance of an absent member who is in confinement? NO. The NO. The members of the Congress cannot compel absent members to attend sessions if the reason of absence is a legitimate one. The confinement of a Congressman charged with a non-bailable offense is certainly authorized by law and has constitutional foundations.



















UST LAW PRE-WEEK LAW PRE-WEEK NOTES 2017 prosecution. It is incidental to the criminal proceedings before the court. ELECTORAL TRIBUNALS

What is the function of the Senate Electoral Tribunal and the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal? (2006 BAR) The function of the Senate Electoral Tribunal and the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal is to be the sole judge of judge of all contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of Senators and Congressmen, respectively. (1987 (1987 Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. 17 ) 17 )

What is the composition of each? (2006 BAR) The Senate Electoral Tribunal and the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal are composed of nine members, three of whom are Justices of the Supreme Court designated by the Chief Justice, and the remaining six members are Senators and Congressmen, respectively chosen on the basis of proportional representation from the political parties as well as the parties registered under the party-list system represented in the House of Representatives, in the case of the latter. The senior justice acts as the Chairman.

AVE ran for Congressman of QU province. However, However, his opponent, BART, was the one proclaimed and seated as the winner of the election by the COMELEC. AVE filed seasonably a protest before HRET (House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal). After two years, HRET reversed the COMELEC's decision and AVE was proclaimed finally as the duly elected Congressman. Thus, he had only one year to serve in Congress. 1.

Can AVE collect salaries and allowances from the government for the first firs t two years of his h is term as Congressman? 2. Should BART refund to the government the salaries and allowances he had received as Congressman? 3. What will happen to the bills that BART alone authored and were approved by the House of Representatives while he was seated as Congressman? Reason and explain briefly. (2004 BAR) 1.

AVE cannot collect salaries and allowances from the government for the first two years of his term,

COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS

What are the rules on voting in the Commission on Appointments? 1. 2. 3.

The CA shall rule by a majority vote of all the members. The chairman shall only vote in case of tie. The CA shall act on all appointments within 30 session days from their submission to Congress. (1987 Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. 18)

State the limitations appointment. 1.

2.

in

the

confirmation

of

Congress cannot by law prescribe that the appointment of a person to an office created by such law be subject to confirmation by the Commission. Appointments extended by the President to the above-mentioned positions while Congress is not in session shall only be effective until disapproval by the Commission or until the next adjournment of Congress. (Sarmiento III, v. Mison, G.R. No. L-79974, Dec. 17, 1987) POWERS OF CONGRESS LEGISLATIVE

Discuss the Doctrine of Shifting Majority The Doctrine of Shifting Majority provides that for each House of Congress to pass a bill, only the votes of the majority of those present in the session, there being a quorum, is required. An exception is in votes where requirement is based on “all the members of Congress”, the requirement is based on the entire composition of a House or Congress, regardless of the number of members present or absent. LEGISLATIVE INQUIRIES AND OVERSIGHT FUNCTIONS Limitations on legislative investigation 1. 2.

The persons appearing in or affected by such legislative inquiries shall be respected. The Rules of procedures to be followed in such inquiries shall be published for the guidance of those who will be summoned. This must be strictly followed so that the inquiries are confined only to the legislative purpose and to avoid abuses.



















POLITICAL LAW What measures can the Bicameral Conference Committee take to reconcile or harmonize disagreeing provisions in a bill? 1. 2.

3.

Adopt the specific provisions of either the House bill or Senate bill; Decide that neither provisions in the House bill or the provisions in the Senate bill would be carried into the final form of the bill; Try to arrive at a compromise between the disagreeing provisions. LIMITATIONS ON APPROPRIATION, REVENUE, AND TARIFF TARIFF MEASURES

What is the Doctrine of Augmentation? (1996, 1998 BAR) The Doctrine of Augmentation provides that no law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriations; however, the President, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Chief Justic e of the Supreme Court, and the heads of Constitutional Commissions may, by law, be authorized to augment any item in the general appropriations law for their respective offices from savings in other items of their respective appropriations. (1987 Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. 25[5]; Demetria Demetria v. Alba, Alba, G.R. No. 71977, February 27, 1987)

Daraga Press filed with COA a money claim for the payment of textbooks it allegedly delivered to DepEd ARMM. COA denied the money claim because it found no appropriation for the purchase of said textbooks. Is COA’s denial correct? YES. There was no appropriation for the purchase of the subject textbooks as the Special Allotment Release Order (SARO) in the amount of P63, 638, 750.00, upon which Daraga Press anchors its claim, pertains to the payment of personal services or salaries of the teachers, not for the purchase of textbooks. Since there was no appropriation for the purchase of the subject textbooks, the respondent COA had reason to deny the money claim as Section 29(1), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution provides that: "No money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law" (Daraga Press, Inc. v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 201042, June 16, 2015). PRESIDENTIAL VETO AND CONGRESSIONAL OVERRIDE

Distinguish between “pocket veto” and “item veto.” (2009 BAR) A pocket veto is when the President is considered to have rejected a bill submitted to him for his approval when Congress adjourns during the period given to the President to approve or reject a bill. On the other hand, an item veto, or partial veto, is the power of a President to nullify or cancel specific provisions of a bill, usually a budget appropriations bill, without vetoing the entire legislative package.

Is Pocket veto is applicable in the Philippines ? NO. NO. Inaction by the President for 30 days never produces a veto even if Congress is in recess. The President must still act to veto the bill and communicate his veto to Congress without need of returning the vetoed bill with his veto message. NON-LEGISLATIVE POWERS Non-legislative functions of Congress 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Power to canvass the presidential elections Declare the existence of war Give concurrence to treaties and amnesties Propose constitutional amendments Initiate impeachment cases POWER OF IMPEACHMENT

Enumerate the grounds for impeachment. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Culpable violation of the Constitution Treason Bribery Graft and Corruption Other high crimes Betrayal of public trust (1987 Constitution, Art. XI, Sec. 2)

Discuss briefly the one-year bar rule on impeachment cases. (2014 BAR) Once an impeachment complaint has been initiated in the foregoing manner, another may not be filed against the same official within a one-year period (Gutierrez v. HoR Committee on Justice, G.R. No. 193459, Feb. 15, 2011). It refers to the element of time, and not the number of complaints. The impeachable officer should defend



















UST LAW PRE-WEEK LAW PRE-WEEK NOTES 2017 1. 2. 3.

4.

5.

The President is immune from suit during his tenure. (In re: Bermudez, G.R. No. 76180, Oct. 24, 1986) An impeachment complaint may be filed against him during his tenure. (Art. XI) The President may not be prevented from instituting suit. (Soliven v. Makasiar, G.R. No. 82585, Nov. 14, 1988) There is nothing in our laws that would prevent the President from waiving the privilege. He may shed the protection afforded by the privilege. (Ibid.) Heads of departments cannot invoke the President’s immunity. (Gloria v. CA, G.R. No. 119903, Aug. 15, 2000)

AFTER tenure: Once out of office, even before the end of the 6-year term, immunity for non-official acts is lost. Immunity cannot be claimed to shield a non-sitting President from prosecution for alleged criminal acts done while sitting in office (Estrada v. Desierto, G.R. Nos. 146710-15, March 2, 2001).

What is Presidential or Executive Privilege? It is the power of the President and high-level executive branch officers to withhold certain types of information from Congress, the courts, and ultimately the public.

Distinguish "presidential communications privilege" from "deliberative process privilege." (2010 BAR) Presidential communications privilege applies to decision-making of the President. The deliberative process privilege applies to decision-making of executive officials. Unlike the "deliberative process privilege," "the presidential communications privilege" applies to documents in their entirety and covers final and post decisional matters, as well as pre deliberative ones. The deliberative process privilege includes advisory opinions, recommendations and deliberations comprising part of a process by which governmental decisions and policies are formulated. (Neri v. Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations, 549 SCRA77 [2008]) EXECUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE POWERS IN GENERAL

What is the faithful execution clause? The power to take care that the laws be faithfully executed makes the President a dominant figure in the

efficient. (MEWAP v. Exec. Sec., G.R. No. 160093, July 31, 2007)

Pursuant to the intent of the President to bury the former President Marcos at the Libingan Ng Mga Bayani (LNMB), the Secretary of National Defense issued a Memorandum to Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) regarding the interment of Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani (LNMB) to undertake all the preparations to facilitate for its ceremonial and security requirements and the transport of the late former President's remains from Ilocos Norte to the LNMB. Citizens, human rights violations victims, legislators, members of the Bar and taxpayers filed their respective petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus. They argue that the burial of Marcos at the LNMB should not be allowed because it has the effect of not just rewriting history as to the Filipino people's act of revolting against an authoritarian ruler but also condoning the abuses committed during the Martial Law, thereby violating the letter and spirit of the 1987 Constitution, which is a "post-dictatorship charter" and a "human rights constitution." Does the issuance and implementation of the assailed memorandum and directive violate the Constitution? NO. While NO. While the Constitution is a product of our collective history as a people, its entirety should not be interpreted as providing guiding principles to just about anything remotely related to the Martial Law period such as the proposed Marcos burial at the LNMB. The President's decision to bury Marcos at the LNMB is in accordance with the Constitution, the law or jurisprudence. There is grave abuse of discretion when an act is (l) done contra ry to the Constitution, the law or jurisprudence or (2) executed whimsically, capriciously or arbitrarily, out of malice, ill will or personal bias. None is present in this case. (Ocampo, et al. vs. Enriquez, et al., G.R. No. 225973, November 8, 2016)

Can the Court direct the Executive Department to conduct foreign relations with Japan based on international laws? NO. NO. The Constitution has entrusted to the Executive Department the conduct of foreign relations for the Philippines. Whether or not to espouse petitioners' claim against the Government of Japan is left to the exclusive determination and judgment of the Executive Department. The Court cannot interfere with or question the wisdom of the conduct of foreign relations by the Executive Department. Accordingly, we cannot direct the



















POLITICAL LAW While Congress was in session, the President appointed eight acting Secretaries. A group of Senators from the minority bloc questioned the validity of the appointments in a petition before the Supreme Court on the ground that while Congress is in session, no appointment that requires confirmation by the Commission on Appointments can be made without the latter’s consent and that an undersecretary should instead be designated as Acting Secretary. Should the petition be granted? (2013 BAR) NO, NO, the petition should not be granted. The Department Head is an alter ego of the president and must enjoy his confidence even if the appointment will be merely temporary. The Senators cannot require the President to designate an Undersecretary to be the temporary alter ego of the president. (Pimentel (Pimentel Jr. v. Ermita, 472 SCRA 587 )

done so. They could not have ignored the meticulous ordering of the provisions. They would have easily and surely written the prohibition made explicit in Section 15, Article VII as being equally applicable to the appointment of Members of the Supreme Court in Article VIII itself, most likely in Section 4 (1), Article VIII. That such specification was not done only reveals that the prohibition against the President or Acting President making appointments within two months before the next presidential elections and up to the end of the Presidents or Acting Presidents term does not refer to the Members of the Supreme Court. (De (De Castro v. Judicial And Bar Council, G.R. No. 191002, 17 March 2010) 2010 ) POWER OF REMOVAL

Is the President vested with disciplinary authority over the Ombudsman?

COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS CONFIRMATION

Name the category or categories of officials whose appointments need confirmation by the Commission on Appointments? (1999 BAR) The only officers whose appointments need confirmation by the Commission on Appointments are the head of executive departments, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain, and other officials whose appointments are vested in the President by the Constitution. (Sarmiento (Sarmiento v. Mison, 156 SCRA 549) 549 ) MIDNIGHT APPOINTMENTS

Does the prohibition on midnight appointments apply to all kinds of appointments? NO. NO. The prohibition on midnight appointments only applies to presidential appointments. It does not apply to appointments made by local chief executives. Nevertheless, the Civil Service Commission has the power to promulgate rules and regulations to professionalize the civil service. It may issue rules and regulations prohibiting local chief executives from making appointments during the last days of their tenure. Appointments of local chief executives must conform to these civil service rules and regulations in order to be valid (Provincial Government of Aurora v. Marco, G.R. No. 202331, April 22, 2015).

Does the prohibition on midnight appointments apply to the Judiciary?

NO. Sec. NO. Sec. 8(2) of RA 6770 vesting disciplinary authority on the President over the Deputy Ombudsman violates the independence of the Office of the Ombudsman and is, thus, unconstitutional. Subjecting the Deputy Ombudsman to discipline and removal by the President, whose own alter egos and officials in the Executive Department are subject to the Ombudsman's disciplinary authority, cannot but seriously place at risk the independence of the Office of the Ombudsman itself. The law directly collided not only with the independence that the Constitution guarantees to the Office of the Ombudsman, but inevitably with the principle of checks and balances that the creation of an Ombudsman office seeks to revitalize. What is true for the Ombudsman must be equally and necessarily true for her Deputies who act as agents of the Ombudsman in the performance of their duties. (Gonzales III v. Ochoa, G.R. No. 196231; BarrerasSulit v. Ochoa, G.R. No.196232; Feb.26, 2014) POWER OF CONTROL AND SUPERVISION

Emmanuel sued PGA Cars before the DTI pursuant to the Consumer Act (R.A. 7394) due to the defect in the BMW he bought from the latter. DTI sided with Emmanuel. PGA Cars appealed before the Office of the President (OP) which reversed the DTI’s decision. Emmanuel elevated the matter before the CA through Rule 65 and argued that the OP had no appellate jurisdiction over DTI’s decision. The The OP countered countered that it has an appellate jurisdiction over DTI on the ground that the President’s power of control over the executive department grants him the power to amend, modify, alter or repeal decisions of the department secretaries. Decide.





















UST LAW PRE-WEEK LAW PRE-WEEK NOTES 2017 rulemaking power. The Rules of Procedure was issued by the Court pursuant to Section 5, Article VIII of the Constitution, which expressly empowers the Supreme Court to promulgate rules concerning the procedure in all courts. Parenthetically, Administrative Order (A.O.) No. 18 expressly recognizes an exception to the remedy of appeal to the Office of the President from the decisions of executive departments and agencies. Under Section 1 thereof, a decision or order issued by a department or agency need not be appealed to the Office of the President when there is a special law that provides for a different mode of appeal. In this case, a special law, RA 7394, expressly provided for immediate judicial relief from decisions of the DTI Secretary by filing a petition for certiorari with the "proper court." Hence, private respondent should have elevated the case directly to the CA through a petition for certiorari. (Moran v. Office of the President, G.R. No. 192957, Sept. 29, 2014)

Pres. Benigno Aquino III signed E.O. No. 1 establishing Philippine Truth Commission (PTC) a special body to investigate reported cases of graft and corruption allegedly committed during the previous administration. Biraogo asked the Court to declare it unconstitutional and enjoin PTC from performing its functions. As E.O. No. 1 violate separation of powers as it arrogates the power of the Congress to create an entirely new public office and appropriate funds for its operation. Is E.O. No. 1 constitutional? NO. The NO. The President has no power to create a public office, which may be created only through any of the following modes, namely: by the Constitution; or by statute enacted by Congress; or by authority of law (through a valid delegation of power). The power to create a public office is essentially legislative, and, therefore, it belongs to Congress. It is not shared by Congress with the President, until and unless Congress enacts legislation that delegates a part of the power to the President, or any other officer or agency. The creation of the Truth

Stage 2 of the South Metro Manila Skyway. The DOTC Secretary then approved the ASTOA. Risa Hontiveros assailed the DOTC Secretary’s approval on the ground that it could not take the place of the presidential approval required under P.D. 1113 and P.D. 1894 concerning the franchise granted to PNCC. Is Risa Correct? NO. The doctrine of qualified political agency declares that, save in matters on which the Constitution or the circumstances require the President to act personally, executive and administrative functions are exercised through executive departments headed by cabinet secretaries, whose acts are presumptively the acts of the President unless disapproved by the latter. There can be no question that the act of the secretary is the act of the President, unless repudiated by the latter. In this case, approval of the ASTOA by the DOTC Secretary had the same effect as approval by the President. The same would be true even without the issuance of E.O. 497, in which the President, on 24 January 2006, specifically delegated to the DOTC Secretary the authority to approve contracts entered into by the TRB. Risa’s reliance on P.D. 1113 and P.D. 1894 is misplaced. When we say that the approval by the DOTC Secretary in this case was approval by the President, it was not in connection with the franchise of PNCC, as required under P.D. 1113 and P.D. 1894. Rather, the approval was in connection with the powers of the TRB to enter into contracts on behalf of the government as provided under Section 3(a) of P.D. 1112 (HontiverosBaraquel v. Toll Regulatory Board, G.R. No. 181293, Feb. 23, 2015). MILITARY POWERS Limitations on the suspension of the privilege of writ of habeas corpus 1.

2.

Applies only to persons judicially charged for rebellion or offenses inherent in or directly connected with invasion; invasion; Anyone arrested or detained during suspension must





















POLITICAL LAW the writ need not even be a taxpayer. (Fortun (Fortun v. Pres. Macapagal Arroyo, March 20, 2012) 2012 ) PARDONING POWER

What are the constitutional limitations on thepardoning power of the President? (1999, 2015 BAR) The following are the limitations on the pardoning power of the President: a. b.

c. d.

e.

It cannot be granted in cases of impeachment; Reprieves, commutations, pardon, and remission of fines and forfeitures can be granted only after conviction by final judgment. Amnesty requires the concurrence of the majority of all members of Congress; The favorable recommendation of the COMELEC is required for violation of election laws, rules and regulations. The President cannot pardon members and employees of the Judiciary found guilty by the Supreme Court in administrative cases.

f. Distinguish between pardon and amnesty. (1999 BAR) The following are the distinctions between pardon and amnesty: a.

b.

c. d. e.

Pardon is a private act and must be pleaded and proved by the person pardoned; while amnesty is a public act of which courts take judicial notice; Pardon does not require the concurrence of Congress, while amnesty requires the concurrence of Congress; Pardon is granted to individuals, while amnesty is granted to classes of persons or communities; Pardon may be granted for any offense, while amnesty is granted for political offenses; Pardon is granted after final conviction, while amnesty may be granted at any time; and

Sec. 14, 2nd par. of the Ombudsman Act (R.A. 6770) provides: “No court shall hear any appeal or application for remedy against the decision or findings of the Ombudsman, except the Supreme Court, on pure question of law.” Decide on the constitutionality of this provision. Since the 2nd par. of Sec. 14, R.A. 6770 limits the remedy against “decision or findings” of the Ombudsman to a Rule 45 appeal and thus – similar to the 4th par. of Sec. 27, RA 6770 – attempts to effectively increase the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction without its advice and concurrence, therefore, the former provision is also unconstitutional and invalid. (Carpio-Morales v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 217126-27, Nov. 10, 2015) JUDICIAL REVIEW SAFEGUARDS OF JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE

What is the Deliberative Process Privilege? The Deliberative Process Privilege is a privilege against disclosure of information or communications that formed the process of judicial decisions. This applies to confidential matters, matters , which refer to information not yet publicized by the Court like (1) raffle of cases, (2) actions taken in each case in the Court’s agenda, and (3) deliberations of the Members in court sessions on case matters pending before it. This privilege, however, isnot is not exclusive exclusive to the Judiciary and it extends to the other branches of government due to our adherence to the principle of separation of powers. (In Re: Production of Court Records and Documents and the Attendance of Court Officials and Employees as Witnesses under the Subpoenas of Feb. 10, 2012 and the Various Letters of Impeachment Prosecution Panel dated Jan. 19 and 25, 2012, Feb. 14, 2012)

What do you understand by the mandate of the Constitution that the judiciary shall enjoy fiscal autonomy? Cite the constitutional provisions





















UST LAW PRE-WEEK LAW PRE-WEEK NOTES 2017 resort. (Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148560, Nov. 19, 2001) MENTS JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL

the guidelines for the bar and bench for their selection, the manner a trial by jury shall operate, and the procedures to be followed. Is the law constitutional? (2013 BAR)

Instead of having only seven (7) members, an eighth (8th) member was added to the composition of the JBC as two (2) representatives from Congress began sitting in the JBC – one from the House of Representatives and one from the Senate, with each having one-half (1/2) of a vote. Is such practice constitutional?

The law providing for trial by jury is unconstitutional because of the omission in Article VIII, Section 5 (5) of the 1987 Constitution of the provisions in Article VIII, Section 13 of the 1935 Constitution and Article X, Section 5(5) 1973 Constitution, which both authorized the Legislature to repeal, alter or supplement the rules of procedure promulgated by the Supreme Court. Congress can no longer enact any law governing rules of procedure for the courts (Echegaray (Echegaray v. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 132601, October 12, 1998, 301 SCRA 96). 96 ).

NO. The word “Congress” used in Sec. 8(1), Art. VIII is used in its generic sense. Only a singular representative may be allowed to sit in the JBC from either the Senate or HoR. The seven-member composition of the JBC serves a practical purpose, that is, to provide a solution should there be a stalemate in voting. It is evident that the definition of “Congress” as a bicameral body refers to its primary function in government – to legislate. In the passage of laws, the Constitution is explicit in the distinction of the role of each house in the process. The same holds true in Congress’ non-legislative powers. An inter-play between the two houses is necessary in the realization of these powers causing a vivid dichotomy that the Court cannot simply discount. This, however, cannot be said in the case of JBC representation because no liaison between the two houses exists in the workings of the JBC. Hence, the term “Congress” must be taken to mean the entire legislative department. The Constitution mandates that the JBC be composed of seven (7) members only. (Chavez v. JBC, G.R. No. 202242, July 17, 2012)

Who will replace the Chief Justice in the JBC in case of his/her absence? In the absence of the Chief Justice because of his impeachment, the most Senior Justice of the Supreme Court, who is not an applicant for Chief Justice, should participate in the deliberations for the selection of

Section 23 of R.A. No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 provides that "any person charged under any provision of this Act regardless of the imposable penalty shall not be allowed to avail of the provision on plea-bargaining." Patricio, a user who was charged with alleged sale of shabu but who wants to enter a plea of guilt to a charge of possession, questions the constitutionality of Sec. 23 on the ground that Congress encroached on the rule-making power of the Supreme Court under Sec. 5, Article VIII. He argues that plea-bargaining is procedural in nature and is within the exclusive constitutional power of the Court. Is Patricio correct? Explain your answer. (2016 BAR) Patricio is not correct. Defining the penalty for a criminal offense involved the exercise of legislative power (People ( People v. Dacuycuy, 173 SCRA 90, 1989). 1989). When sec. 23 of the R.A. No. 9165 prohibitied plea-bargaining, Congress defines what should be the penalty for the criminal offense. The power of the Supreme Court to promulgate rules of procedure is subject to the limitation that it should not modify substantive rights. ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERVISION OVER LOWER COURTS





















POLITICAL LAW 7.

Salaries of chairmen and members are relatively high and may not be decreased during continuance in office. (1987 Constitution, Art. IX-A, Sec. 3; Art. XVIII, Sec. 17) 8. Commissions enjoy fiscal autonomy. (1987 Constitution, Art. IX-A, Sec. 5) 9. Each commission may promulgate its own procedural rules. (1987 Constitution, Art. IX-A, Sec. 7) 10. Chairmen and members are subject to certain disqualifications and inhibitions calculated to strengthen their integrity. (1987 Constitution, Art. IX A, Sec. 2) 11. Commissions may appoint their own officials and employees in accordance with Civil Service Law. (1987 Constitution, Art. IX-A, Sec. 4)

Duque was appointed by PGMA as Chairman of CSC. Later, President Arroyo issued Executive Order No. 864 designating Duque as a member of the Board of Directors or Trustees in an ex officio capacity of GSIS, PHIC, ECC and HDMF. Funa, in his capacity as taxpayer, concerned citizen and lawyer, filed a petition challenging the constitutionality of the designation of Duque as a member of the Board of Dir ectors for being clear violations of Section 1 and Section 2, Article IX-A of the 1987 Constitution. Does the designation of Duque as a member of the Board of Directors impair the independence of the CSC and violate the constitutional prohibition against the holding of dual or multiple offices for the Members of the Constitutional Commissions? YES. The YES. The designation of Duque in an ex officio capacity as a member of the Board of Directors or Trustees of the GSIS, PHILHEALTH, ECC and HDMF is unconstitutional. Section 1, Article IX-A of the 1987 Constitution expressly describes all the Constitutional Commissions as “independent.” Although their respective functions are essentially executive in nature, they are not under the control of the President of the Philippines in the discharge of such functions. Each of the Constitutional Commissions conducts its own proceedings under the

What is the meaning and guarantee of security of tenure? (1999 BAR) According to Palmera v. Civil Service Commission, 235 SCRA 87, Security of Tenure means that no officer or employee in the Civil Service shall be suspended or dismissed except for cause as provided by law and after due process. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS Constitutional powers and functions of the COMELEC 1. Enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum, and recall. 2. Exercise: Exercise: a. Exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of all elective: i. National ii. Regional iii. Provincial iv. City officials b. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all contests involving: i. Elective municipal officials decided by trial courts of general jurisdiction. ii. Elective barangay officials officials decided by courts of limited jurisdiction. c. Contempt powers i. COMELEC can exercise this power only in relation to its adjudicatory or quasi-judicial functions. It cannot exercise this in connection with its purely executive or ministerial functions. ii. If it is a pre-proclamation controversy, the COMELEC exercises quasi-judicial/ administrative powers. iii. Its jurisdiction over contests (after proclamation), is in exercise of its judicial functions.





















UST LAW PRE-WEEK LAW PRE-WEEK NOTES 2017 a. COMELEC has exclusive jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute cases for violations of election laws. b. COMELEC can deputize prosecutors for this purpose. The actions of the prosecutors are the actions of the COMELEC. NOTE: NOTE: Preliminary investigations conducted by the COMELEC are valid. 7. Recommend to the Congress effective measures to minimize election spending, including limitation of places where propaganda materials shall be posted, and to prevent and penalize all forms of election frauds, offenses, malpractices, and nuisance candidacies. 8. Recommend to the President the removal of any officer or employee it has deputized, or the imposition of any other disciplinary action, for violation or disregard of, or disobedience to its directive, order, or decision. 9. Submit to the President and the Congress a comprehensive report on the conduct of each election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum, or recall. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

What are powers and duties of the COA? 1.

2. 3.

4.

Examine, audit and settle all accounts pertaining to revenue and receipts of, and expenditures or uses of funds and property owned or held in trust or pertaining to government. Keep general accounts of government and preserve vouchers and supporting papers. Authority to define the scope of its audit and examination, establish techniques and methods required therefore. Promulgate accounting and auditing rules and regulations, including those for prevention and disallowance (1987 Constitution, Art. IX-D, Sec. 2). PROHIBITED OFFICES & INTERESTS

JURISDICTION OF EACH CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION

Upon request of a group of overseas contract workers in Brunei, Rev. Father Juan de la Cruz, a Roman Catholic priest, was sent to that country by the President of the Philippines to minister to their spiritual needs. The travel expenses, perdiems, clothing allowance and monthly stipend of P5, 000.00 were ordered charged against the President’s discretionary fund. Upon post audit of the vouchers therefor, the Commission on Audit refused approval thereof claiming that the expenditures were in violation of the Constitution. Was the Commission on Audit correct is disallowing disallowin g the vouchers in question? (1997 BAR) YES, YES, the Commission on Audit was correct in disallowing the expenditures. Section 29(2), Article VI of the Constitution prohibits the expenditure of public funds for the use, benefit, or support of any priest. The only exception is when the priest is assigned to the armed forces, or to any penal institution, or government orphanage or leprosarium. The sending of a priest to minister to the spiritual needs of overseas contract workers does not fall within the scope of any of the exceptions.

In an election protest involving the position of Governor of the Province of Laguna between "A", the protestee, and "B" the protestant, the First Division Divis ion of the Commission on Elections rendered a decision upholding B's protest. Can "A" file a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, from the decision of the COMELEC First Division? If yes, Why? If not what procedural ste p must he undertake first? (2001 BAR) "A" cannot file a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, since it cannot review the decisions or resolutions of a division of the Commission on Elections. "A" should first file a motion for reconsideration with the























POLITICAL LAW Compen -sation

Intangible altruistic feeling that one has contributed to the public good/ general welfare

Protection and public improve -ments

Fair market value of the property expro -priated

Who exercises of the fundamental powers of the state? As a general rule, the inherent powers of the state is exercised by the legislature. However, such powers may be delegated to: (PALQ) the President, Administrative Administrative Agencies, Local Government Units, and Quasi-Public Corporations. In the case of quasi-public corporations, only the power of Eminent Domain may be delegated. POLICE POWER

Define the Police Power of the State. Police power is the power of the state to promote public welfare by restraining and regulating the use of liberty and property. It is the most pervasive, the least limitable, and the most demanding of the three fundamental powers of the State. The justification is found in the Latin maxims salus populi est suprema lex (the welfare of the people is the supreme law) and sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas laedas (so use your property as not to injure the

permits would definitely be oppressive as to constitute abuse of police power. (Mosqueda et. al. vs. PGBEA, G.R. nos. 189185 & 189305, 16 August 2016)

Hermano Company owned a parcel of land located at the right side of the Sta. Rita Exit of the NLEX. The parcel of land was bounded by an access fence along the NLEX. Hermano requested that the Toll Regulatory Board (TRB) grant an easement of right of way, contending that it had been totally deprived of the enjoyment and possession of its property by the access fence that had barred barr ed its entry into and exit from the NLEX. However, the TRB denied the Hermano’s request. Does Hermano have the right to demand access to NLEX by way of an easement of right of way? NO. The NO. The putting up of the access fence on the petit ioner’s property was in the valid exercise of police power, assailable only upon proof that such putting up unduly violated constitutional limitations like due process and equal protection of the law. In Mirasol v. Department of Public Works and Highways, Highways , the Court has further noted that: A toll way is not an ordinary road. As a facility designed to promote the fastest access to certain destinations, its use, operation, and maintenance require close regulation. Public interest and safety require the imposition of certain restrictions on toll ways that do not apply to ordinary roads. As a special kind of road, it is but reasonable that not all forms of transport could use it. Clearly, therefore, the access fence was a reasonable restriction on the petitioner’ s property given the location























UST LAW PRE-WEEK LAW PRE-WEEK NOTES 2017 4. Property must be devoted to public use or otherwise informally appropriated or injuriously affected 5. Utilization of property must be in such a way as to oust the owner and deprive him of beneficial enjoyment of the property. (Republic (Republic v. vda. De Castellvi, G.R. No. L 20620, Aug. 15, 1974) Nature of property taken GR: All GR: All private property capable of ownership, including services, can be taken. XPN: a. Money b. Choses Choses in action - personal right not reduced in possession but recoverable by a suit at law such as right to receive, demand or recover debt, demand or damages on a cause of action ex contractu or contractu or for a tort or omission of duty NOTE: A NOTE: A chose in chose in action is a property right in something intangible, or which is not in one’s possession but enforceable through legal or court action. Ex. cash, a right of action in tort or breach of contract, an entitlement to cash refund, checks, money, salaries, insurance claims.

What is considered “Public Use”? Public use does not necessarily mean “use by the public at large.” Whatever may be beneficially employed for the

domain. (Republic of the Philippines v. Heirs of Saturnino Q. Borbon, G.R. No. 165354, Jan. 12, 2015)

The lands of Limkaichoing were placed within the coverage of RA 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law). Limkaichoing rejected the valuation of her lands because it was too low. The DARAB conducted summary administrative proceedings for the determination of just compensation for her lands and issued its order affirming the valuation of the lands. Limkaichong filed a complaint for the fixing of just compensation for her lands, claiming to want the fair market value of her lands. Does the Court have the power to determine the just compensation? YES, the YES, the Court has the power to determine to determine the proper just compensation of the properties that are subject to eminent domain. It is a judicial function, and under Sec. 57 of RA 6657 giving special jurisdiction to the courts to have original and exclusive jurisdiction over all petitions for the determination of just compensation to landowners. The Rules of Court shall apply to all proceedings before the Special Agrarian Courts. The determination of just compensation for the taking of lands under the CARL was a power vested in the courts and not in administrative agencies and it clarified that the jurisdiction of the SAC was not appellate but original and exclusive. (Limkaichong (Limkaichong v. Landbank of the Philippines, GR No. 158464, 2 August 2016) 2016)

When is payment of consequential damages proper?























POLITICAL LAW YES. YES. With respect to the element of public use, the expropriator should commit to use the property for the purpose stated in the petition. If not, it is incumbent upon it to return the property to the owner, if the owner desires to reacquire it. Otherwise, the judgment of expropriation will lack the element of public use. The owner will be denied due process and the judgment will violate his right to justice. (Mactan-Cebu (Mactan-Cebu Airport Authority v. Lozada, Sr., 613 SCRA 618, 2010) 2010 )

Is the State required to pay interest? YES. The State’s taking of the property is not based on trust or contract, but is founded on its inherent power to appropriate private property for public use. It is also for this reason – to compensate the property owner for the deprivation of his right to enjoy the ordinary use of his property until the naked title to the property passed to the State – that the State pays interest from the time of the taking of the property until full payment of just compensation.

Its primary purpose is to generate revenue, and regulation is merely incidental

only be of sufficient amount to include expenses in issuing a license; cost of necessary inspection or police surveillance, etc. If regulation is the primary purpose, the fact that incidental revenue is also obtained does not make the imposition a tax

NOTE: Ordinarily, license fees are in the nature of the exercise of police power because they are in the form of regulation by the State and considered as a manner of paying off administration costs. However, if the license fee is higher than the cost of regulating, then it becomes a form of taxation. (Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Assoc., Inc. v. City Mayor of Manila, G.R. No. L 24693, Oct. 23, 1967) PRIVATE ACTS AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS

The Sangguniang Panglungsod of Mandaluyong City adopted Resolution No. 552 to authorize the City Mayor for the expropriation of the land of the Antonio for the purpose of developing it for low cost housing for the less privileged but deserving city inhabitants. Antonio then then filed a petition praying for the annulment of Resolution No. 552 due to its being unconstitutional, confiscatory, improper, and without force and effect. The City countered that the resolution was a mere

May the Bill of Rights be invoked against private individuals? NO, the NO, the Bill of Rights cannot be invoked against private individuals. In the absence of governmental interference, the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be invoked. Put differently, the Bill of Rights is not meant to be invoked against acts of private individuals. (Yrasegui























UST LAW PRE-WEEK LAW PRE-WEEK NOTES 2017 drug testing is as important as enhancing efficient enforcement. Random drug testing of officers and employees of public and private offices is justifiable. Their expectation of privacy in office is reduced. The drug tests and results are kept confidential. Random drug testing is an effective way of deterring drug use and is reasonable. Public officials and employees are required by the Constitution to be accountable at all times to the people and to serve them with utmost responsibility and efficiency. The mandatory testing of all persons charged before the prosecutor’s office of a criminal offense punishable with imprisonment of at least six years and one day is void. They are not randomly picked and are not beyond suspicious. They do not consent to the procedure or waive their right to privacy. (Social (Social Justice Society v. Dangerous Drugs Board, 570, SCRA 410 )

by a saving clause or by construction. (Estrada (Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148560, Nov. 19, 2001 )

May the void-for-vagueness doctrine be invoked against a criminal statute? YES . The test in determining whether a criminal statute is void for uncertainty is whether the language conveys a sufficiently definite warning as to the proscribed conduct when measured by common understanding and practice. However, the void-for-vagueness doctrine cannot be used to impugn the validity of a criminal statute using “facial challenge” but it may be used to invalidate a criminal statute “as applied” to a particular defendant.

Explain due process in academic and disciplinary proceedings.

DUE PROCESS

Distinguish between Procedural and Substantive due process

Purpose

SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS This serves as a restriction on the government’s law and rule-making powers. 1. The

interests of

PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS Serves as a restriction on actions of judicial and quasi-judicial agencies of the government. 1. Impartial court or

In academic and disciplinary proceedings, parties are bound by the rules governing academic requirements and standards of behavior prescribed by the educational institutions. Resort to courts is available to parties. (Vivares and Suzara vs. St. Theresa’s College, G .R. No. 202666, Sept. 29, 2014) Due process in disciplinary cases involving students does not entail proceedings and hearings similar to those prescribed for actions and proceedings in courts of justice; the proceedings may be summary; cross-examination is not an essential part of the investigation or hearing; and the required proof in a student disciplinary action, which is an administrative case, is neither proof beyond reasonable doubt nor























POLITICAL LAW rejected on the ground that he had already been given sufficient opportunity to confront, hear and answer the charges against him during the administrative inquiry. A subsequently received a letter informing him that he was being dismissed from service. The CSC ruled that PAGCOR violated A’s right to due process. Is A’s right to due process violated? NO. NO. As applied in administrative proceedings, the essence of due process is to be heard, this means a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain one’s side or opportunity to seek reconsideration of the action or ruling complained. “Due process as a constitutional precept, does not always and in all situations require a trial-type proceeding. Due process is satisfied when a person is notified of the charge against him and given an opportunity to explain or defend himself.” In the case at bar, the petitioner could not dispute the observance of his right to due process. (Vivo vs. PAGCOR, G.R. No. 187854, November 12, 2013)

In the 2010 Elections, the Municipal Board of Canvassers proclaimed Saquilavan the Mayor of Imus, Cavite. Maliksi, the candidate that garnered the second highest number of votes, brought an election protest, alleging that there were irregularities in the counting of votes. The RTC of Imus, Cavite held a revision of votes and declared Maliksi as the duly elected Major of Imus. The RTC granted Maliksi’s motion for execution pending appeal, and Maliksi was then installed as Mayor. The COMELEC, without giving notice to the

the law; (3) not limited to existing conditions only; and (4) applies equally to all members of the same class. (People v. Cayat, GR. No. L-45987, May 5, 1939)

The Quezon City government passed an ordinance imposing garbage collection fees. The fee imposed for a condominium unit occupant is higher than that of a residential lot owner. Does this violate the equal protection clause? YES. YES. For the purpose of garbage collection, there is, in fact, no substantial distinction between an occupant of a lot, on one hand, and an occupant of a unit in a condominium, socialized housing project or apartment, on the other hand. Most likely, garbage output produced by these types of occupants is uniform and does not vary to a large degree; thus, a similar schedule of fee is both just and equitable. The rates being charged by the ordinance are unjust and inequitable: a resident of a 200 sq. m. unit in a condominium or socialized housing project has to pay twice the amount than a resident of a lot similar in size; unlike unit occupants, all occupants of a lot with an area of 200 sq. m. and less have to pay a fi xed rate of Php100.00; and the same amount of garbage fee is imposed regardless of whether the resident is from a condominium or from a socialized housing project. (Ferrer v. Bautista, G.R. No. 210551, June 30, 2015)

What are the tests in determining com pliance with the equal protection clause? (2015 Bar)

























UST LAW PRE-WEEK LAW PRE-WEEK NOTES 2017 governmental interest brought to justify the regulation of fundamental freedoms. Strict scrutiny is used today to test the validity of laws dealing with the regulation of speech, gender, or race as well as other fundamental rights as expansion from its earlier applications to equal protection. (White (White Light Corporation vs. City City of Manila, G.R. No. 122846, Jan. 20, 2009) 2009) 4. Intensified Means Test or the Balancing of Interest/Equality test – Test which does not look solely into the government’s purpose in classifying persons or things (as done in Rational Basis Test) nor into the existence of an overriding or compelling government interest so great to justify limitations of fundamental rights (Strict Scrutiny Test) but closely scrutinizes the relationship between the classification and the purpose, based on spectrum of standards, by gauging the extent to which constitutionally guaranteed rights depend upon the

Requisites of a valid search warrant and warrant of arrest 1. 2. 3.

4.

It must be issued upon probable cause; The probable cause must be determined by the judge himself and not by the applicant or any other person; In the determination of probable cause, the judge must examine, under oath or affirmation, the complainant and such witnesses as the latter may produce; and The warrant issued must particularly describe the place to be searched and persons and things to be seized. (HPS (HPS Software and Communication Corporation and Yap vs. PLDT, G.R. Nos. 170217 and 170694, Dec. 10, 2012)

NOTE: General NOTE: General warrant is not allowed. It must be issued pursuant to specific offense. (Stonehill ( Stonehill vs. Diokno, L19550, June 19, 1967)

























POLITICAL LAW was seized in the course of an illegal search is the “fruit of poisonous tree” and is inadmissible in evidence. As a consequence thereof, the arrest made was likewise illegal. Is Ernesto’s argument correct? (BAR 2016) YES. YES. The warrantless search of motor vehicles at checkpoints should be limited to a visual search. Its ocupants should not be subjected toa body search. ( Aniag, Jr. v. COMELEC, 237 SCRA 42 4, 1994) 1994) The “stop and frisk” rule applies when a police officer observes suspicious activity or unusual activity which may lead him to believe that a criminal act may be afoot. The “stop and frisk” is merely a limited protective search of outer clothing for weapons. Since there was no valid warrantless search, the warrantless search was also illegal. The unlicensed .22 caliber pistol is inadmissible in evidence evidence (Luz v. People, 667 SCRA 421, 2012).

What is the “Plain View Doctrine”?

2. Public safety or public order as prescribed by law NOTE: Any evidence in violation of this right or the right against unreasonable searches and seizures shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceedings.

Explain the Reasonable expectation of privacy test This test determines whether a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and whether the expectation has been violated. The reasonableness of a person’s expectation of privacy depends on a two-part test: first, whether, by his conduct, the individual has exhibited an expectation of privacy; and second, whether this expectation is one that society recognizes as reasonable. Customs, community norms, and practices may, therefore, limit or extend an individual’s “reasonable expectation of privacy.” Hence, the reasonableness of a person’s expectation of privacy must be determined on a case-to-case basis since it depends on the factual

























UST LAW PRE-WEEK LAW PRE-WEEK NOTES 2017 control of respondents. (Vivares (Vivares vs. St. Theresa’s College, G.R. No. 202666, Sept. 29, 2014)

crimes when done “for favor” in cyberspace. Is the argument of the petitioners valid?

When is the writ of habeas data not applicable?

NO. The deliberations of the Bicameral Committee of Congress on Sec.4(c)(i) of the law show a lack of i ntent to penalize a private showing between and among two private persons although that may be a form of obscenity to some. The understanding of those who drew up the cybercrime law is that the element of “engaging in a business” is necessary to consti tute the crime of illegal cybersex. The Act actually seeks to punish cyber prostitution, white slave trade, and pornography for favor and consideration. This includes interactive prostitution and pornography, e.g., by e.g., by webcam. (Disini webcam. (Disini v. Secretary of Justice G.R. No. 203335 Feb. 11, 2014)

A writ of habeas data may data may not be issued to protect purely property and commercial concerns nor when the grounds invoked in support of the petitions therefore are vague or doubtful.

Who may file a petition for the writ of habeas data? Any person whose right to privacy in life, liberty or security is violated or threatened by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing of data or information regarding the person, family, home and correspondence of the aggrieved party (Sec. 1, The Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data, A. M. No. 081-16-SC, Jan. 22, 2008).

FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION Limitations on freedom of expression

























POLITICAL LAW society. (Diocese society. (Diocese of Bacolod v. COMELEC, G. R. No. 205728, Jan. 21, 2015)

COMELEC commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing said resolution?

Social Weather Station (SWS) questions COMELEC Resolution 9674 requiring them to disclose the names of commissioners and/or payors of election surveys on the ground that it is a curtailment of free speech. Decide.

YES. The assailed rule on “aggregate-based” airtime limits is unreasonable and arbitrary as it unduly restricts and constrains the ability of candidates and political parties to reach out and communicate with the people. Here, the adverted reason for imposing the “aggregate based” airtime limits – leveling the playing field – does not constitute a compelling state interest which would justify such a substantial restriction on the freedom of candidates and political parties to communicate their ideas, philosophies, platforms and programs of government. And, this is specially so in the absence of a clear-cut basis for the imposition of such a prohibitive measure. In this particular instance, what the COMELEC has done is analogous to letting a bird fly after one has clipped its wings.

SWS is wrong. The names of those who commission or pay for election surveys, including subscribers of survey firms, must be disclosed pursuant to Section 5.2(a) of the Fair Election Act . This requirement is a valid regulation in the exercise of police power and effects the constitutional policy of guaranteeing equal access to opportunities for public service. Section 5.2(a)’s requ irement of disclosing subscribers neither curtails petitioners’ free speech rights nor violates the constitutional proscription against the impairment of contracts. Concededly, what are involved here are not election propaganda per se.

It is also particularly unreasonable and whimsical to

























UST LAW PRE-WEEK LAW PRE-WEEK NOTES 2017 than as applied, is permitted in the interest of preventing a chilling effect on freedom of expression expression (Separate opinion of Justice Mendoza in Cruz v. Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources, GR. 135385, Dec. 6, 2000). An As-applied Challenge, on the other hand, considers only extant facts affecting real litigants. litigants. (Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network, Inc. v. AntiTerrorism Council, G.R. No. 178552, Oct. 5, 2010)

What is the “Overbreadth Doctrine”? (BAR 2010, 2014) The Overbreadth Doctrine permits a party to challenge the validity of a statute even though as applied to him it is not unconstitutional but it might be if applied to others not before the Court whose activities are constitutionally protected (Separate (Separate opinion of Justice Mendoza in Cruz v. Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources, GR. 135385, Dec. 6, 2000). It is a type of facial challenge that prohibits the government from achieving its purpose by means that “sweep unnecessarily broadly, reaching

beginning of the F un un Run during the DCWD’s anniversary celebration. These employees have likewise been staging pickets in front of the DCWD Office during their lunch breaks to air their grievances about the non-payment of their Collective Negotiation Agreement (CNA) incentives and their opposition to DCWD's privatization. Consequently, their General Manager sent them a Memo requiring them to explain the reasons for the attire they wore during the anniversary celebration/fun run. The employees countered that the inscriptions were but manifestations of their constitutional rights of free speech and freedom of expression. Is the employees’ contention correct? YES. YES. It is clear that the collective activity of joining the fun run in t-shirts with inscriptions on CNA incentives was not to effect work stoppage or disrupt the service. As pointed out by the respondents, they followed the advice of GM Gamboa “to be there” at the fun run. Respondents



























POLITICAL LAW members of a religious sect that allows members of the congregation who have been abandoned by their respective spouses to enter marital relations under a "Declaration of Pledging Faithfulness." Having made such Declaration, she argues that she cannot be charged with committing immoral conduct for she is entitled to free exercise of religion under the Constitution. Is Amelia administratively liable? State your reasons briefly. (2016 BAR)

of Philippines as a tourist destination was the primary objective. ( Aglipay v. Ruiz, G.R. No. L-45459, March 13, 1937)

What is the Lemon test? The Lemon test is a test to determine whether an act of the government violates the non-establishment clause. To pass the Lemon test, a government act or policy must:



























UST LAW PRE-WEEK LAW PRE-WEEK NOTES 2017 4.

Conscientious Objector Test

Who is a Conscientious objector? A Conscientious objector is an individual who has claimed the right to refuse to perform military service on the grounds of freedom of thought, conscience, and/or religion. (International (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Art. 18) 18)

Bureau of Immigration and Deportation. However, administrative authorities, such as passport-officers, may likewise curtail such right.

Is the right to return to one’s country a constitutionally protected right? NO. The right to return to one’s country is not among the rights specifically guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, which



























POLITICAL LAW the candidates' qualifications and track record, platforms and programs, and their answers to significant issues of national concern." The political nature of the national debates and the public's interest in the wide availability of the information for the voters' education certainly justify allowing the debates to be shown or streamed in other websites for wider dissemination. (Rappler, Inc. v. Bautista, G.R. No. 222702, April 5, 2016)

The assailed JBC policy need not be filed in the ONAR because the publication requirement in the ONAR (University of the Philippines Law Center Office of the National Administrative Register) is confined to issuances of administrative agencies under the Executive branch of the government. Since the JBC is a body under the supervision of the Supreme Court, it is not covered b y the publication requirements of the Administrative Code.



























UST LAW PRE-WEEK LAW PRE-WEEK NOTES 2017 RIGHTS OF SUSPECTS Miranda rights (1990, 1991, 1993, 1994, 2000, 2001, 2005, 2009, 2012 BAR)

What are the rights to which a person under custodial investigation is entitled? 1.

Right to remain silent (2013 BAR)

charged with qualified theft together with suspects. Paulyn claims her rights under the Constitution and pertinent laws were blatantly violated. The police explained that they were just gathering evidence when Paulyn was invited for a conference and she was not a suspect at that time. Rule on her defense. (2016 BAR) NO, NO, the defense of Paulyn is not valid. When she was invite for questioning by the Makati City Police



























POLITICAL LAW rather to enable them to stay out of jail until a trial with all the safeguards has found and adjudged them guilty. Unless permitted this conditional privilege, the individuals wrongly accused could be punished by the period or imprisonment they undergo while awaiting trial, and even handicap them in consulting counsel, searching for evidence and witnesses, and preparing a defense. Hence, bail acts as a reconciling mechanism to accommodate both the accused's interest in pretrial

now assign error in the proceedings conducted by the trial court for the fact remains that they were appointed with counsel in full compliance with the law. In much the same way, appellants had every opportunity to secure the services of a Chinese interpreter with such competence at par with their standards. As pointed out by the CA, the trial court gave appellants the authorization to seek, through their counsel, the Chinese





























UST LAW PRE-WEEK LAW PRE-WEEK NOTES 2017





























POLITICAL LAW


























































POLITICAL LAW








































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































Political Preweek 2017

Recommend Documents