Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1 Political Law 1 USC
1 Political Law 1 USC
COL L EGE OF L AW
BAR OPERATIONS
WARRIORS NOTES
POLITICAL
LAW
2018
Researchers:
Prepared by: Bea Veronica Lee
Political Law Warrior Notes Team
Stephanie Marie Abigail Olea
Christian Kong
Senior Adviser:
Atty. Daryl Bretch Largo
Layout:
Junior Adviser: Christia Sandee Suan
Atty. Vincent Joseph Cesista
Karol Grace G. Oroceo
WARRIOR NOTES POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER INVICTUS (2018)
Table of Contents
I. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS .......................................................................................... 2
1
WARRIOR NOTES POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER INVICTUS (2018)
Will not the enactment of baseline law (RA Yes. DOH is an unincorporated agency which
performs sovereign or governmental functions.
9522) result to waiver of certain parts of our
An unincorporated government agency without
territory? any separate juridical personality of its own
No, it will not. UNCLOS III and its ancillary enjoys immunity from suit because it is invested
baselines laws play no role in the acquisition, with an inherent power of sovereignty.
enlargement or, as petitioners claim, diminution Accordingly, a claim for damages against the
of territory. Under traditional international law agency cannot prosper; otherwise, the doctrine
typology, States acquire (or conversely, lose) of sovereign immunity is violated. However, the
territory through occupation, accretion, cession need to distinguish between an unincorporated
and prescription, not by executing multilateral government agency performing governmental
treaties on the regulations of sea-use rights or function and one performing proprietary
enacting statutes to comply with the treaty's functions has arisen. The immunity has been
terms to delimit maritime zones and continental upheld in favor of the former because its
shelves. It cannot be over-emphasized enough function is governmental or incidental to such
that RA 9522 is a baseline law enacted to function; it has not been upheld in favor of the
implement the 1982 LOSC, which in turn seeks latter whose function was not in pursuit of a
to regulate and establish an orderly sea use necessary function of government but was
rights over maritime zones. The baseline law essentially a business. Moreover, it is settled
aims to mark-out specific base points along the that if a Complaint seeks to "impose a charge or
Philippine coast from which baselines are financial liability against the state," the defense
drawn to serve as starting points to measure of non-suability may be properly invoked.
the breadth of the territorial sea and maritime Undoubtedly, in the event that PPI succeeds in
zones. And let it be noted that under UNCLOS its suit, the government or the state through the
III, it is recognized that countries can have DOH would become vulnerable to an imposition
territories outside their baselines. (MAGALLONA or financial charge in the form of damages. This
V. ERMITA, G.R. NO. 187167, [AUGUST 16, 2011])
would require an appropriation from the national
treasury which is precisely the situation which
the doctrine of state immunity aims to protect
the state from. (DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH V. PHIL
What is the doctrine of official immunity? PHARMAWEALTH, INC., G.R. NO. 182358,
Public officers should not be hampered in the [FEBRUARY 20, 2013], DEL CASTILLO)
performance of their duties or in making
decisions for fear of personal liability for
damages due to honest mistake. Whatever
damage they may have caused as a result of
such an erroneous interpretation, if any at all, is
in the nature of a damnum absque injuria.
Mistakes concededly committed by public
officers are not actionable absent any clear
showing that they were motivated by malice or
gross negligence amounting to bad faith.
(FAROLAN V. SOLMAC MARKETING CORP., G.R.
NO. 83589, [MARCH 13, 1991])
2
WARRIOR NOTES POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER INVICTUS (2018)
In its petition (certiorari) to the supreme BANANA GROWERS & EXPORTERS ASSOCIATION,
court after the RTC denies its petition for INC., G.R. NOS. 189185 & 189305, [AUGUST 16,
cancellation of ECC of a corporation, may 2016])
the petitioner NGO include the resident
Who can exercise eminent domain?
marine species of a body of water as
petitioners? Will these marine species be Congress and, by delegation, the President,
acknowledged by the supreme court to have administrative bodies, local government units,
and even private enterprises performing public
locus standi?
services.
No. The Supreme Court ruled that there is no
need to give resident marine species legal
Local government units have no inherent power
standing as our rules already allow any Filipino
of eminent domain. Sec. 19 of the Local
citizen, as a steward of nature, to bring a suit to
Government Code confers such power to local
enforce our environmental laws. It is worth
governments, but the power is not absolute; it is
noting here that the NGO is joined as real
subject to statutory requirements [MASIKIP
parties in the petition and not just in
V.CITY OF PASIG, G.R. NO. 136349, JANUARY 23,
representation of the marine species. Thus,
2006; LAGCAO V. JUDGE LABRA, G.R. NO.
there is no need to acknowledge the legal
155746, OCTOBER 3, 2004].
standing of the marine species. (RESIDENT
MARINE MAMMALS OF THE PROTECTED SEASCAPE
TAÑON STRAIT V. REYES, G.R. NOS. 180771 & When the power is exercised by the
181527, [APRIL 21, 2015]) Legislature, the question of necessity is
generally a political question [MUNICIPALITY OF
Who can exercise police power? MEYCAUAYAN, BULACAN V. INTERMEDIATE
APPELLATE COURT, 157 SCRA 640]; but when
The power is inherently vested in the exercised by a delegate such as a local
Legislature. However, Congress may validly government unit, the determination of whether
delegate this power to the President, to there is genuine necessity for the exercise is a
administrative bodies and to lawmaking bodies justiciable question [REPUBLIC V. LA ORDEN DE
of local government units. Local government PO. BENEDICTINOS, 1 SCRA 649].
units exercise the power under the general
welfare clause [Sec. 16,R.A. 7160], and under
Secs. 391, 447, 458 and 468, R.A. 7160.
When is the reckoning point of market value
How may an LGU exercise police power? of the property?
A valid ordinance must not only be enacted Compensation is determined as of the date of
within the corporate powers of the local the filing of the complaint for eminent domain,
government and passed according to the but where the filing of the complaint occurs after
procedure prescribed by law. In order to declare the actual taking of the property and the owner
it as a valid piece of local legislation, it must would be given undue incremental advantages
also comply with the following substantive arising from the use to which the government
requirements, namely: (1) must not contravene devotes the property expropriated, just
the Constitution or any statute; (2) it must be compensation is determined as of the date of
fair, not oppressive; (3) it must not be partial or the taking [NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION V.
discriminatory; (4) it must not prohibit but may COURT OF APPEALS, 254 SCRA 577]
regulate trade; (5) it must be general and
consistent with public policy; and (6) it must not
be unreasonable. (MOSQUEDA V. PILIPINO
3
WARRIOR NOTES POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER INVICTUS (2018)
Is payment of just compensation required In cases falling under paragraph (a) and (b)
when the government takes over privately above, the person arrested without a warrant
owned public utility or business affected shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police
station or jail and shall be proceeded against in
with public interest in cases of emergency?
accordance with section 7 of Rule 112
The temporary takeover by the government
extends only to the operation of the business Is drug testing required for public officials?
and not to the ownership thereof. As such, the
The Supreme Court declared as
government is not required to compensate the
unconstitutional the provisions of RA 9165
private entity-owner of the said business as
requiring mandatory drug testing of candidates
there is no transfer of ownership, whether
for public office and persons accused of crimes.
permanent or temporary. The private entity-
However, the Supreme Court upheld the
owner affected by the temporary takeover
constitutionality of the said RA insofar as
cannot, likewise, claim just compensation for
random drug testing for secondary and tertiary
the use of said business and its properties, as
school students, as well as for officials and
the temporary takeover by the government is in
employees of public and private offices is
exercise of the police power and not the power
concerned. The need for drug testing to at least
of eminent domain. (AGAN, JR. V. PHILIPPINE
minimize illegal drug use is substantial enough
INTERNATIONAL AIR TERMINALS CO., INC., G.R.
to override the individual’s privacy interest
NOS. 155001, 155547 & 155661, [MAY 5, 2003])
under the premise. (SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY V.
DANGEROUS DRUGS BOARD, G.R. NOS. 157870,
158633 &161658, [NOVEMBER 3, 2008])
II. BILL OF RIGHTS
Is there a reasonable expectation of privacy
What are the valid warrantless arrests? for posts posted in facebook?
Rule 113, Section 5, Rules of Criminal Petitioners have no reasonable expectation of
Procedure privacy that would warrant the issuance of a
Section 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. writ of habeas data when their daughters
— A peace officer or a private person may, shared the incriminating pictures with their
without a warrant, arrest a person: Facebook friends. Before one can have an
expectation of privacy in his or her Online
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be
Social Network activity, it is necessary that the
arrested has committed, is actually
user in this case, the sanctioned students,
committing, or is attempting to commit an
should manifest the intention to keep certain
offense;
posts private, through the employment of
(b) When an offense has just been committed, measures to prevent access thereto or limit its
and he has probable cause to believe visibility. (VIVARES V. ST. THERESA'S COLLEGE,
based on personal knowledge of facts or G.R. NO. 202666, [SEPTEMBER 29, 2014])
circumstances that the person to be
arrested has committed it; and Does the right to privacy extend to business
(c) When the person to be arrested is a offices? May privacy be violated by a private
prisoner who has escaped from a penal individual, not the state?
establishment or place where he is serving
final judgment or is temporarily confined Yes on both questions. An individual’s right to
while his case is pending, or has escaped privacy under Article 26(1) of the Civil Code
while being transferred from one should not be confined to his house or
confinement to another. residence as it may extend to places where he
has the right to exclude the public or deny them
4
WARRIOR NOTES POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER INVICTUS (2018)
access. The phrase “prying into the privacy of Discuss diplomatic negotiation privilege v.
another’s residence,” therefore, covers places, Deliberative process privilege.
locations, or even situations which an individual
considers as private. And as long as his right is The privileged character of diplomatic
recognized by society, other individuals may not negotiations has been recognized in this
infringe on his right to privacy. (SPOUSES HING jurisdiction. Deliberative process covers
V. CHOACHUY, SR., G.R. NO. 179736, [JUNE 26, documents reflecting advisory opinions,
2013], DEL CASTILLO) recommendations comprising part of a process
by which governmental decisions and policies
What is the test used to determine whether are formulated. The privileged status of such
there is infringement of the right to privacy? documents rests, not on the need of national
What are its requisites? security, but on the realization that officials will
not communicate candidly among themselves if
In ascertaining whether there is a violation of each remark is a potential item of discovery and
the right to privacy, courts use the “reasonable front page news, the objective of the privilege
expectation of privacy” test. The Supreme Court being to enhance the quality of agency
enunciated that “the reasonableness of a decisions. While the JPEPA may not be kept
person’s expectation of privacy depends on a perpetually confidential, the offers exchanged
two-part test: by the parties during the negotiations continue
(1) whether, by his conduct, the individual has to be privileged even after the JPEPA is
exhibited an expectation of privacy; and published. (AKBAYAN CITIZENS ACTION PARTY V.
AQUINO, G.R. NO. 170516, [JULY 16, 2008])
(2) this expectation is one that society
recognizes as reasonable.” (SPOUSES HING What is the O’brien test?
V. CHOACHUY, SR., G.R. NO. 179736, [JUNE
26, 2013], DEL CASTILLO) The United States Supreme Court, through
Chief Justice Warren, held in United States v.
What is the regulation based on captive- O'Brien: [A] government regulation is sufficiently
audience doctrine? justified
(1) if it is within the constitutional power of the
A regulation based on the captive-audience
Government;
doctrine is in the guise of censorship, which
undertakes selectively to shield the public from (2) if it furthers an important or substantial
some kinds of speech on the ground that they governmental interest;
are more offensive than others. A government (3) if the governmental interest is unrelated to
regulation based on the captive-audience the suppression of free expression; and
doctrine may not be justified if the supposed (4) if the incidental restriction on alleged First
“captive audience” may avoid exposure to the Amendment freedoms [of speech,
otherwise intrusive speech. The commuters are expression and press] is no greater than is
not forced or compelled to read the election essential to the furtherance of that interest.
campaign materials posted on PUV’s and
transport terminals. Nor are they incapable of This is so far the most influential test for
declining to receive the messages contained in distinguishing content-based from content-
the posted election campaign materials since neutral regulations and is said to have "become
they may simply avert their eyes if they find the canonical in the review of such laws." It is
same unbearably intrusive. (1-UNITED noteworthy that the O'Brien test has been
TRANSPORT KOALISYON V. COMMISSION ON applied by this Court in at least two cases.
ELECTIONS, G.R. NO. 206020, [APRIL 14, 2015]) Under this test, even if a law furthers an
important or substantial governmental interest,
it should be invalidated if such governmental
5
WARRIOR NOTES POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER INVICTUS (2018)
interest is "not unrelated to the suppression of necessary to achieve the legitimate goal of the
free expression." Moreover, even if the purpose state? (ESTRADA V. ESCRITOR, A.M. NO. P-02-
is unrelated to the suppression of free speech, 1651 (FORMERLY OCA I.P.I. NO. 00-1021-P),
the law should nevertheless be invalidated if the [AUGUST 4, 2003])
restriction on freedom of expression is greater
than is necessary to achieve the governmental How must the state weigh the right of a
purpose in question. (SOCIAL WEATHER conscientious objector vis a vis a
STATIONS, INC. V. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, governmental interest?
G.R. NO. 147571, [MAY 5, 2001])
In a situation where the free exercise of religion
What is heckler’s veto? is allegedly burdened by government legislation
or practice, the compelling state interest test in
Heckler’s veto — an attempt to limit unpopular line with the Court's espousal of the Doctrine of
speech. A heckler's veto occurs when an acting Benevolent Neutrality in Escritor, finds
party's right to freedom of speech is curtailed or application. In this case, the conscientious
restricted by the government in order to prevent objector's claim to religious freedom would
a reacting party's behavior. The common warrant an exemption from obligations under
example is that of demonstrators (reacting the RH Law, unless the government succeeds
party) causing a speech (given by the acting in demonstrating a more compelling state
party) to be terminated in order to preserve the interest in the accomplishment of an important
peace. secular objective. Necessarily so, the plea of
conscientious objectors for exemption from the
What is the distinction between strict RH Law deserves no less than strict scrutiny.
neutrality and benevolent neutrality? In applying the test, the first inquiry is whether a
Strict Neutrality protects the principle of church- conscientious objector's right to religious
state separation with a rigid reading of the freedom has been burdened. As in Escritor,
principle while the benevolent neutrality there is no doubt that an intense tug-of-war
protects religious realities, traditions and plagues a conscientious objector. One side
established practice with a flexible reading of coaxes him into obedience to the law and the
the principle. Benevolent neutrality allows abandonment of his religious beliefs, while the
accommodation of religion under certain other entices him to a clean conscience yet
circumstances. Accommodations are under the pain of penalty. The scenario is an
government policies that take religion illustration of the predicament of medical
specifically into account not to promote the practitioners whose religious beliefs are
governments favored form of religion, but to incongruent with what the RH Law promotes.
allow individuals and groups to exercise their The Court is of the view that the obligation to
religion without hindrance. refer imposed by the RH Law violates the
religious belief and conviction of a
conscientious objector. Once the medical
A three-step process is followed in weighing the practitioner, against his will, refers a patient
states interest and religious freedom when seeking information on modern reproductive
these collide. First, has a statute or government health products, services, procedures and
action created a burden on the free exercise of methods, his conscience is immediately
religion? Second, is there a sufficiently burdened as he has been compelled to perform
compelling state interest to justify this an act against his beliefs. As Commissioner
infringement of religious liberty? Third, has the Joaquin A. Bernas (Commissioner Bernas) has
state in achieving its legitimate purposes used written, "at the basis of the free exercise clause
the least intrusive means possible so that the is the respect for the inviolability of the human
free exercise is not infringed any more than
6
WARRIOR NOTES POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER INVICTUS (2018)
conscience. (SPOUSES IMBONG V. OCHOA, JR., What happens when the accused jumps
G.R. NOS. 204819, [APRIL 8, 2014]) bail?
May the DOJ issue a hold departure order The Constitutions authorizes trial in absentia of
(JDO), watchlist order (WLO) and allow the accused in case of his non-appearance
after arraignment despite due notice simply
departure order (ADO) without court order?
because he thereby waives his right to meet the
No. The DOJ has no inherent power to issue witnesses face to face among others. An
HDO, WLO and ADO. It is not its business to do express waiver of appearance after
so. As such, it is a compulsory requirement that arraignment, is of the same effect. However,
there be an existing law, complete and such waiver of appearance and trial in absentia
sufficient in itself, conferring the expressed does not mean that the prosecution is thereby
authority to the concerned agency to deprived of its right to require the presence of
promulgate rules. On its own, the DOJ cannot the accused for purposes of identification by its
make rules, its authority being confined to witness which is vital for the conviction of the
execution of laws. The DOJ cannot justify the accused. (CARREDO V. PEOPLE, G.R. NO. 77542,
restraint in the liberty of movement on the [MARCH 19, 1990])
ground that it is necessary to ensure presence
and attendance in the preliminary investigation
The trial court has the duty to rule on the
of the complaints. There is also no authority of
evidence presented by the prosecution against
law granting it the power to compel the
all the accused and to render its judgment
attendance of the subjects of a preliminary
accordingly. It should not wait for the fugitives’
investigation, pursuant to its investigatory
re-appearance or re-arrest. They are deemed to
powers under E.O No. 292. Its investigatory
have waived their right to present evidence on
power is simply inquisitorial and unfortunately,
their own behalf and to confront and cross-
not broad enough to embrace the imposition of
examine the witnesses who testified against
restraint on the liberty of movement. (GENUINO
them. (GIMENEZ V. NAZARENO, G.R. NO. L-
V. DE LIMA, G.R. NOS. 197930 [APRIL 17, 2018])
37933, [APRIL 15, 1988])
May the court allow bail on the basis of
humanitarian grounds?
Do ordinary citizens have legal standing to
Bail for the provisional liberty of the accused, file a case for enforcement of environmental
regardless of the crime charged, should be rights? May the us be held liable for
allowed independently of the merits of the violation of UNCLOS even if it is not a
charge, provided his continued incarceration is
signatory thereto?
clearly shown to be injurious to his health or to
endanger his life. Denying him bail despite Yes. Firstly, an ordinary individual had the
imperiling his health and life would not serve standing to file a case referencing the landmark
the true objective of preventive incarceration case of Oposa v. Factoran, where the court has
during the trial (ENRILE V. SANDIGANBAYAN, G.R. recognized the “public right” of citizens to a
NO. 213847 , [AUGUST 18, 2015]) “balanced and healthful ecology.” Ordinary
citizens have the legal standing to sue for the
enforcement of environmental rights. Secondly,
a foreign warship’s unauthorized entry into our
internal waters with resulting damage to marine
resources is one situation in which Articles 30
and 31 may apply. Even if the US is a non-
member of the UNCLOS, it does not mean it
7
WARRIOR NOTES POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER INVICTUS (2018)
No. He was not even listed as an employee or 1. Congress may revoke the proclamation or
included in the payroll of his family’s zipper suspension, which revocation shall not be
business. Even assuming that he was set aside by the President
employed, his non-inclusion in the payroll 2. Congress may take into consideration not
suggests an intent to evade taxes or to conceal only data available prior to, but likewise
the true nature of his employment and the events supervening the declaration.
amount of his salary of income. It is the 3. Congress' review mechanism is automatic
concealment of truth; an attempt to circumvent in the sense that it may be activated by
with impunity the tax laws, labor laws relative to Congress itself at any time after the
the employment of aliens, and other law that proclamation or suspension was made.
would otherwise regulate respondent’s actions (LAGMAN V. MEDIALDEA, G.R. NO. 231658
during his stay in the country. (REPUBLIC V. [JULY 4, 2017], DEL CASTILLO)
HUANG TE FU, G.R. NO. 200983, [MARCH 18,
2015, DEL CASTILLO])
What is the informing power of congress?
Based on jurisprudence, the qualification of
some known lucrative trade, profession, or When the Congress investigates, it is not simply
lawful occupation means not only that the in aid of legislation or by way of oversight, it is
person having the employment gets enough for performing an equally important and
his ordinary necessities in life. It must be shown fundamental power and duty --- the informing
that the employment gives one an income such function by way of investigating for the purpose
that there is an appreciable margin of his of enlightening the electorate.
income over his expenses as to be able to Arthur M. Schlesinger, in THE IMPERIAL
provide for an adequate support in the event of PRESIDENCY, aptly quotes Wilson on
unemployment, sickness, or disability to work CONGRESSIONAL GOVERNMENT on this
and thus avoid ones becoming the object of power:
charity or a public charge. His income should Congress’s “only whip,” Wilson said, “is
permit him and the members of his family to live investigation,” and that “the chief purpose of
with reasonable comfort, in accordance with the investigation, even more than the direction of
prevailing standard of living, and consistently affairs, was the enlightenment of the electorate.
with the demands of human dignity, at this The inquisitiveness of such bodies as Congress
stage of our civilization. (REPUBLIC V. ONG, G.R. is the best conceivable source of information….
NO. 175430, [JUNE 18, 2012], DEL CASTILLO) The informing function of Congress should be
preferred even to its legislative function.” For
“the only really self-governing people is that
people which discusses and interrogates its
administration.” (J. AZCUNA’S DISSENT IN
AKBAYAN CITIZENS ACTION PARTY V. AQUINO,
G.R. NO. 170516, [JULY 16, 2008])
9
WARRIOR NOTES POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER INVICTUS (2018)
amnesty by Proclamation of the Chief Executive Are local chief executives empowered to call
with the concurrence of Congress, and it is a on the armed forces to suppress allegations
public act of which the courts should take of terrorist attacks?
judicial notice. Pardon is granted to one after
conviction; while amnesty is granted to classes No. A local chief executive is not endowed with
of persons or communities who may be guilty of the power to call upon the armed forces at his
political offenses, generally before or after the own bidding. In issuing the assailed
institution of the criminal prosecution and proclamation, Governor Tan exceeded his
sometimes after conviction. Pardon looks authority when he declared a state of
forward and relieves the offender from the emergency and called upon the Armed Forces,
consequences of an offense of which he has the police, and his own Civilian Emergency
been convicted, that is, it abolished or forgives Force. The calling-out powers contemplated
the punishment, and for that reason it does "nor under the Constitution is exclusive to the
work the restoration of the rights to hold public President. (KULAYAN V. TAN, G.R. NO. 187298,
office, or the right of suffrage, unless such [JULY 3, 2012])
rights be expressly restored by the terms of the
pardon," and it "in no case exempts the culprit Does the president have the power to create
from the payment of the civil indemnity imposed new offices?
upon him by the sentence" while amnesty looks
backward and abolishes and puts into oblivion No. The creation of a new office remains a
the offense itself, it so overlooks and obliterates legislative function. However, the President’s
the offense with which he is charged that the has the power to reorganize “already existing”
person released by amnesty stands before the offices within the Office of the President Proper
law precisely as though he had committed no (OPP). Further, the President has the power to
offense. (BARRIOQUINTO V. FERNANDEZ, G.R. create an Ad hoc Office/Committee, which can
NO. L-1278, [JANUARY 21, 1949]) only be justified under faithful execution clause
and power to investigate, and not under power
of control. (BIRAOGO V. PHILIPPINE TRUTH
Are cross-border augmentations from COMMISSION OF 2010, G.R. NO. 192935
[DECEMBER 7, 2010])
savings in one department to another
allowed under the constitution?
No. By providing that the President, the VI. JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
President of the Senate, the Speaker of the
House of Representatives, the Chief Justice of Must the JBC vote unanimously when the
the Supreme Court, and the Heads of the integrity of the candidate in the judiciary is
Constitutional Commissions may be authorized
put in question?
to augment any item in the GAA “for their
respective offices,” Section 25(5), supra, has Yes. When an integrity question arises, the
delineated borders between their offices, such voting requirement for his or her inclusion as a
that funds appropriated for one office are nominee to a judicial post becomes
prohibited from crossing over to another office "unanimous" instead of the "majority vote.
even in the guise of augmentation of a deficient Considering that the JBC rule employs the term
item or items. Thus, we call such transfers of "integrity" as an essential qualification for
funds cross-border transfers or cross-border appointment, and its doubtful existence in a
augmentations. (ARAULLO V. AQUINO III, G.R. person merits a higher hurdle to surpass, that
NO. 209287 [JULY 1, 2014]) is, the unanimous vote of all the members of
the JBC, the Court is of the safe conclusion that
"integrity" as used in the rules must be
11
WARRIOR NOTES POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER INVICTUS (2018)
interpreted uniformly. Hence, this unanimity rule otherwise. (REPUBLIC V. SERENO, G.R. NO.
envisions only a situation where an applicant's 237428, [MAY 11, 2018])
moral fitness is challenged. It follows then that
the "unanimity rule" only comes into operation Is it enough for proof of disappearance to be
when the moral character of a person is put in alleged for a petition for a writ of amparo to
issue. It finds no application where the question prosper?
is essentially unrelated to an applicant's moral
uprightness. (JARDELEZA V. SERENO, G.R. NO. No. For the protective writ of amparo to issue in
213181, [AUGUST 19, 2014]) enforced disappearance cases, allegation and
proof that the persons subject thereof are
missing are not enough. It must also be shown
NB: Justice Jardeleza is in the Supreme Court
by the required quantum of proof that their
right now because the SC in the above-cited
disappearance was carried out by, or with the
case ruled that the allegation against Jardeleza
authorization, support or acquiescence of, [the
(ie different legal strategy in handling of the
government] or a political organization, followed
arbitration case does not related to the moral
by a refusal to acknowledge [the same or] give
character of the nominee and thus, not a
information on the fate or whereabouts of [said
question of integrity where unanimous vote is
missing] persons. (NAVIA V. PARDICO, G.R. NO.
required.
184467, [JUNE 19, 2012], DEL CASTILLO)
What is the demarcation when quo warranto
may be used as a remedy to oust a public
officer (member of the supreme court) from
office?
VII. CONSTITUTIONAL
For the guidance of the bench and the bar, and
to obliviate confusion in the future as to when COMMISSIONS
quo warranto as a remedy to oust an ineligible
public official may be availed of, and in keeping Does the COMELEC have jurisdiction over a
with the Court's function of harmonizing the quo warranto case against a presidential
laws and the rules with the Constitution, the candidate for not meeting the residency and
Court herein demarcates that an act or
citizenship requirement?
omission committed prior to or at the time of
appointment or election relating to an official's Insofar as the qualification of a presidential
qualifications to hold office as to render such candidate is concerned, no rule expressly
appointment or election invalid is properly the authorizes or vests COMELEC of jurisdiction to
subject of a quo warranto petition, provided that determine the qualification of a presidential
the requisites for the commencement thereof candidate. The facts of qualification must
are present. Contrariwise, acts or omissions, beforehand be established in a prior proceeding
even if it relates to the qualification of integrity, before an authority properly vested with
being a continuing requirement but nonetheless jurisdiction. The prior determination of
committed during the incumbency of a validly qualification may be by statute, by executive
appointed and/or validly elected official, cannot order or by a judgment of a competent court or
be the subject of a quo warranto proceeding, tribunal.
but of something else, which may either be
impeachment if the public official concerned is
impeachable and the act or omission If a candidate cannot be disqualified without a
constitutes an impeachable offense, or prior finding that he or she is suffering from a
disciplinary, administrative or criminal action, if disqualification "provided by law or the
Constitution," neither can the certificate of
12
WARRIOR NOTES POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER INVICTUS (2018)
candidacy be cancelled or denied due course Broadcasters argued that the right to reply
on grounds of false representations regarding provision burdens their exclusive right over
his or her qualifications, without a prior airwaves. Is their contention tenable?
authoritative finding that he or she is not
qualified, such prior authority being the No. Respondent likewise sees no merit in
necessary measure by which the falsity of the petitioners' claim that the Resolutions amount to
representation can be found. (POE- taking of private property without just
LLAMANZARES V. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, compensation. Respondent emphasizes that
G.R. NOS. 221697 & 221698-700, [MARCH 8, radio and television broadcasting companies do
2016]) not own the airwaves and frequencies through
which they transmit broadcast signals; they are
merely given the temporary privilege to use the
The COMELEC issued a resolution that same. Since they are merely enjoying a
reads: “right to reply. - all registered privilege, the same may be reasonably
burdened with some form of public service, in
political parties, party-list groups or
this case, to provide candidates with the
coalitions and bona fide candidates shall opportunity to reply to charges aired against
have the right to reply to charges published, them. (GMA NETWORK V. COMELEC, G.R. NO.
or aired against them. The reply shall be 205357, [SEPTEMBER 2, 2014])
given publicity, or aired against them. The
reply shall be given publicity by the
newspaper, television, and/or radio station Does the Civil Service Commission have
which first printed or aired the charges with jurisdiction over an administrative case
the same prominence or in the same page or against an erring member of the Philippine
section or in the same time slot as the first national police?
statement.” Is the resolution valid? Yes. Uniformed members of the Philippine
Yes. When it comes to election and the National Police (PNP) are considered
exercise of freedom of speech, of expression employees of the National Government, and all
and of the press, the latter must be properly personnel of the PNP are subject to civil service
viewed in context as being necessarily made to laws and regulations. Petitioner cannot evade
accommodate the imperatives of fairness by liability under the pretense that another agency
giving teeth and substance to the right to reply has primary jurisdiction over him. Settled is the
requirement. The Constitution itself provides as rule that jurisdiction is conferred only by the
part of the means to ensure free, orderly, Constitution or the law. The CSC, as the central
honest, fair and credible elections, a task personnel agency of the Government, is
addressed to the COMELEC to provide for a mandated to establish a career service, to
right to reply. Given that express constitutional strengthen the merit and rewards system, and
mandate, it could be seen that the Fundamental to adopt measures to promote morale,
Law itself has weighed in on the balance to be efficiency and integrity in the civil service. The
struck between the freedom of the press and civil service embraces all branches,
the right to reply. Accordingly, one is not merely subdivisions, instrumentalities, and agencies of
to see the equation as purely between the the government, including government-owned
press and the right to reply. (GMA NETWORK V. or controlled corporations with original charters.
COMELEC, G.R. NO. 205357, [SEPTEMBER 2, Specifically, Section 91 of RA 6975 (1990) or
2014]) the DILG Act of 1990 provides that the "Civil
Service Law and its implementing rules and
regulations shall apply to all personnel of the
Department", to which herein petitioner
13
WARRIOR NOTES POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER INVICTUS (2018)
belongs. (CAPABLANCA V. CIVIL SERVICE the required appointment from the CSC, or the
COMMISSION, G.R. NO. 179370, [NOVEMBER 18, membership of an employee in the SSS or in
2009], DEL CASTILLO) the GSIS that determine the status of the
position of an employee.
No, the Ombudsman has the power to dismiss Heads of offices cannot be convicted of a
erring public officials and employees. It is conspiracy charge just because they did not
already well-settled that "the power of the personally examine every single detail before
Ombudsman to determine and impose they, as the final approving authorities, affixed
administrative liability is not merely their signatures to certain documents. In the
recommendatory but actually mandatory." As words of the Supreme Court --- We would be
we have explained in Ledesma v. CA, the fact setting a bad precedent if a head of office
"[t]hat the refusal, without just cause, of any plagued by all too common problems —
officer to comply with [the] order of the dishonest or negligent subordinates, overwork,
Ombudsman to penalize an erring officer or multiple assignments or positions, or plain
employee is a ground for disciplinary action incompetence — is suddenly swept into a
[under Section 15 (3) of RA 6770] is a strong conspiracy conviction simply because he did
indication that the Ombudsman's not personally examine every single detail,
'recommendation' is not merely advisory in painstakingly trace every step from inception,
nature but is actually mandatory within the and investigate the motives of every person
bounds of law." (Fajardo v. Office of the involved in a transaction before affixing his
Ombudsman, G.R. No. 173268, [August 23, signature as the final approving authority.
2012], Del Castillo) (ARIAS V. SANDIGANBAYAN, G.R. NOS. 81563 &
82512, [DECEMBER 19, 1989])
VIII. LAW ON
When is the arias doctrine inapplicable?
PUBLIC OFFICERS
The doctrine is inapplicable when conspiracy is
What are the modes of acquiring title to adequately proven, such that a unity of purpose
and unity in the execution of an unlawful
public office?
objective are sufficiently established. Further,
(1) Appointment the doctrine is inapplicable when, by virtue of
the duty given by law as well as by rules and
(2) Designation and
regulations, the public official had the
(3) Pag lumingon ka, akin ka. [joke lang ni responsibility to examine certain documents to
guys ha. Pawa lang sa kulba :D] ascertain whether it was proper to sign it.
(BACASMAS V. SANDIGANBAYAN, G.R. NO.
189343 [JULY 10, 2013])
office and has done so in good faith, while a Can an administrative offense be condoned
usurper has neither lawful title nor color of right by election or re-election?
or title to the office; (2) the act of a de facto
officer is valid as if it was done by a de jure No. Election is not a mode of condoning an
officer but that of a usurper is absolutely null administrative offense, and there is simply no
and void; (3) a de facto may be removed constitutional or statutory basis in our
through a direct proceeding only. jurisdiction to support the notion that an official
elected for a different term is fully absolved of
any administrative liability arising from an
What is the effect of a disapproval by the offense done during a prior term. The concept
of public office is a public trust and the corollary
CSC of a public officer’s appointment? requirement of accountability to the people at all
If the basis for disapproval is not “violation of times, as mandated under the 1987
civil service law”, the appointee is entitled to a Constitution, is plainly inconsistent with the idea
salary. Otherwise, the appointing authority shall that an elective local official's administrative
be personally held liable for the salary of the liability for a misconduct committed during a
appointee. (NAZARENO V. CITY OF DUMAGUETE, prior term can be wiped off by the fact that he
G.R. NO. 181559, [OCTOBER 2, 2009], DEL was elected to a second term of office, or even
CASTILLO) another elective post. (CARPIO-MORALES V.
COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. NOS. 217126-27,
To warrant dismissal, does dishonesty have [NOVEMBER 10, 2015])
to be committed in the course of duty?
Should the abandonment of the
No. Dishonesty, in order to warrant dismissal, Aguinaldo/Condonation Doctrine in
need not be committed in the course of the Ombudsman vs. CA be applied
performance of duty by the public officer, for it prospectively?
inevitably reflects on the fitness of the officer or
employee to continue in office and the discipline Yes. Judicial decisions applying or interpreting
and morale of the service. (BALASBAS V. the laws or the Constitution, until reversed, shall
MONAYAO, G.R. NO. 190524, [FEBRUARY 17, form part of the legal system of the Philippines.
2014], DEL CASTILLO) While the future may ultimately uncover a
doctrine's error, it should be, as a general rule,
recognized as "good law" prior to its
In cases involving public official, when does abandonment. (CARPIO-MORALES V. COURT OF
APPEALS, G.R. NOS. 217126-27, [NOVEMBER 10,
a breach of duty constitute gross
2015 CITING PEOPLE V. JABINAL, 1974)
negligence?
There is gross negligence when a breach of
duty is flagrant and palpable. (RE: REPORT ON With the abandonment of the
THE PRELIMINARY RESULTS OF THE SPOT AUDIT Aguinaldo/Condonation Doctrine, does it
IN THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 170,
then become impossible to condone an
MALABON CITY, A.M. NO. 16-05-142-RTC,
administrative offense?
[SEPTEMBER 5, 2017], DEL CASTILLO)
No. Liability arising from administrative offenses
may be condoned by the President in light of
Section 19, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution.
If the President can grant reprieves,
commutations and pardons, and remit fines and
forfeitures in criminal cases, with much more
15
WARRIOR NOTES POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER INVICTUS (2018)
reason can she grant executive clemency in OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE PHILS., G.R.
administrative cases, which are clearly less NOS. 196231 & 196232, [SEPTEMBER 4, 2012])
serious than criminal offenses. (CARPIO-
MORALES V. COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. NOS.
217126-27, [NOVEMBER 10, 2015] CITING Under what conditions should the
LLAMAS V. ORBOS, 1991)
ombudsman defer a matter to the
Does the ombudsman have jurisdiction over President?
GOCCS without original charters? Where the Office of the President was the first
to initiate a case, prudence should prompt the
No. The Ombudsman exercises jurisdiction only
Ombudsman to desist from proceeding
over public officials/employees of GOCCs with separately, and to defer instead to the
original charters. Even if the government later President's assumption of authority, especially
on acquires controlling interest, as in the case
when the administrative charge involves
of PAL, the fact remains that the latter did not
"demanding and soliciting a sum of money"
have an “original charter”. (CARANDANG V.
which constitutes either graft and corruption or
CARANDANG, G.R. NO. 148076 [JANUARY 12,
bribery, both of which are grounds reserved for
2011])
the President's exercise of his authority to
remove a Deputy Ombudsman. (GONZALES III V.
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE PHILS., G.R.
May the Ombudsman exercise jurisdiction NOS. 196231 & 196232, [SEPTEMBER 4, 2012])
over the investigation of cases under other
investigating agencies of the government?
Petitioner contends that the Sandiganbayan
Yes. the Ombudsman, in the exercise of its
primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by does not have jurisdiction over her as she
the Sandiganbayan, may take over, at any does not receive any salary or remuneration
stage, from any investigating agency of the as a up student regent. She further
government, the investigation of such cases. contends that she is not a public officer with
(BUSUEGO V. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, G.R. salary grade 27; and is, in fact, a regular
NO. 196842, [OCTOBER 9, 2013]) tuition fee-paying student. Is petitioner
correct?
Is the Ombudsman’s administrative No. It is not only the salary grade that
disciplinary power over a deputy determines the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan. While the first part of Section 4
ombudsman and special prosecutor
(A) of P.D. No. 1606 covers only officials with
exclusive? Salary Grade 27 and higher, its second part
No. Such power is shared with the President as specifically includes other executive officials
the appointing authority. Unquestionably, the whose positions may not be of Salary Grade 27
Ombudsman is possessed of jurisdiction to and higher but who are by express provision of
discipline his own people and mete out law placed under the jurisdiction of the said
administrative sanctions upon them, including court. P.D. No. 1606 explicitly vested the
the extreme penalty of dismissal from the Sandiganbayan with jurisdiction over
service. However, it is equally without question Presidents, directors or trustees, or managers
that the President has concurrent authority with of government-owned or controlled
respect to removal from office of the Deputy corporations, state universities or educational
Ombudsman and Special Prosecutor, albeit institutions or foundations. Petitioner falls under
under specified conditions. (GONZALES III V.
16
WARRIOR NOTES POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER INVICTUS (2018)
this category. (SERANA V. SANDIGANBAYAN, G.R. term, but later won in a recall election, had an
NO. 162059, [JANUARY 22, 2008]) interruption in the continuity of the official's
service. Therefore, he was in the interim, i.e.,
from the end of the third term up to the recall
Remittances from sequestered corporations election, a private citizen. The break or
interruption need not be for a full term of three
and proceeds from the sale of corporation
years or for the major part of the 3-year term;
shares, which formed part of Marcos’ ill- an interruption for any length of time, provided
gotten wealth, were converted by petitioner the cause is involuntary, is sufficient to break
as his cash advances. Can petitioner be the continuity of service. (SOCRATES V.
held liable for failing to remit the COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, G.R. NO. 154512
remittances and proceeds? [NOVEMBER 12, 2002])
The constitution prohibits congress from the opportunity to decide a matter within its
creating private corporations to prevent the jurisdiction before an action is brought before
granting of special privileges to certain the courts. Failure to exhaust administrative
remedies is a ground for dismissal of the action.
individuals, families, or groups.
(UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS V. SANCHEZ, G.R.
Consequently, was the creation of the NO. 165569, [JULY 29, 2010] DEL CASTILLO)
Philippine national red cross (PNRC)
through RA 95 invalid?
No. The PNRC Charter does not come within What is demotion? When is there demotion?
the spirit of the constitutional provision, as it There is demotion when an employee is
does not grant special privileges to a particular appointed to a position resulting to a diminution
individual, family, or group, but creates an entity in duties, responsibilities, status or rank which
that strives to serve the common good. A closer may or may not involve a reduction in salary.
look at the nature of the PNRC would show that Where an employee is appointed to a position
there is none like it not just in terms of structure, with the same duties and responsibilities but a
but also in terms of history, public service and rank and salary higher than those enjoyed in his
official status accorded to it by the State and previous position, there is no demotion and the
the international community. PNRC’s structure appointment is valid. While this principle and its
is, therefore, sui generis. Notably, the Republic corollary are plain, it is through the use of
of the Philippines, adhering to the Geneva misleading premises that a semblance of
Conventions, established the PNRC as a demotion was attempted to be passed off in this
voluntary organization. (LIBAN V. GORDON, G.R. case. (BAUTISTA V. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION,
NO. 175352, [JANUARY 18, 2011]) G.R. NO. 185215, [JULY 22, 2010], DEL
CASTILLO)
When conducting preliminary investigation,
does a public prosecutor exercise What is the standard to determine that a
adjudicatory powers? reorganization was validly done? How may
No. The public prosecutor exercises one be removed pursuant to a valid
investigative powers to determine whether, reorganization?
based on the evidence presented to him, he
In this jurisdiction, a reorganization is valid
should take further action by filing a criminal
provided that it is done in good faith. As a
complaint in court. In doing so, he does not
general rule, the test of good faith lies in
adjudicate upon the rights, obligations or
whether the purpose of the reorganization is for
liabilities of the parties before him. (MANILA
economy or to make the bureaucracy more
ELECTRIC CO. V. ATILANO, G.R. NO. 166758,
efficient. Removal from office as a result of
[JUNE 27, 2012])
reorganization must, thus, pass the test of good
faith. A demotion in office, i.e., the movement
from one position to another involving the
issuance of an appointment with diminution in
What is the doctrine of exhaustion of duties, responsibilities, status or rank which
administrative remedies? What is the effect may or may not involve a reduction in salary, is
tantamount to removal, if no cause is shown for
if it is not observed?
it. Consequently, before a demotion may be
The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative effected pursuant to a reorganization, the
remedies requires that where a remedy before observance of the rules on bona fide abolition
an administrative agency is provided, the of public office is essential. (BAUTISTA V. CIVIL
administrative agency concerned must be given
18
WARRIOR NOTES POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER INVICTUS (2018)
SERVICE COMMISSION, G.R. NO. 185215, [JULY It is also significant to point out that in MACEDA
22, 2010], DEL CASTILLO) V. MACARAIG the Court stated that "[t]he NPC is
a government instrumentality with the
enormous task of undertaking development of
X. LOCAL GOVERNMENTS hydroelectric generation of power and
production of electricity from other sources, as
well as the transmission of electric power on a
What is devolution? nationwide basis, to improve the quality of life of
Devolution refers to the act by which the the people pursuant to the State policy
national government confers power and embodied in Section [9], Article II of the
authority upon various LGUs including “the Constitution. (REPUBLIC V. RAMBUYONG, G.R.
transfer of records, equipment, and other NO. 167810, [OCTOBER 4, 2010], DEL CASTILLO)
assets and personnel of national agencies and
offices corresponding to the devolved powers,
functions and responsibilities.” (REPUBLIC V. XI. ELECTION LAW
DACLAN, G.R. NOS. 197115 & 197267, [MARCH
23, 2015], DEL CASTILLO) Can COMELEC refuse to registration on the
basis of religious and public morals
A parcel of land was donated to the Bureau
grounds?
of Animal Industry (BAI). Upon enactment of
the LGU, the functions of BAI were devolved No. Governmental reliance on religious
to the LGUs. Is it proper to demand for the justification is inconsistent with this policy of
return of the donated parcel? neutrality. Government action, including its
proscription of immorality must have a secular
No. Devolution cannot have any effect on the purpose. That is, the government proscribes
donations made to the Republic. (REPUBLIC V. this conduct because it is “detrimental to those
DACLAN, G.R. NOS. 197115 & 197267, [MARCH conditions upon which depend the existence
23, 2015], DEL CASTILLO) and progress of human society” and not
because the conduct is proscribed by the
beliefs of one religion or the other. Moreover,
May a vice mayor appear in behalf of a client moral disapproval, WITHOUT MORE, is not a
sufficient governmental interest to justify
claiming damages against national power
exclusion of homosexuals from participation in
corporation? the party-list system. (ANG LADLAD LGBT PARTY
V. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, G.R. NO. 190582,
No. NPC is considered a government
instrumentality. Section 2 of the Administrative [APRIL 8, 2010], DEL CASTILLO)
Code is clear and unambiguous. It categorically
provides that the term "instrumentality" includes
government-owned or controlled corporations.
Hence there is no room for construction. All that After the execution of an affidavit of
has to be done is to apply the law as called for renunciation, can the continued use of a
by the circumstances of the case. It is not
disputed that the NPC is a government-owned foreign passport amount to disqualification?
or controlled corporation. Therefore following Yes. The use of a foreign passport amounts to
Section 2 of the Administrative Code the NPC is repudiation or recantation of the oath of
clearly an instrumentality of the government. renunciation by a natural-born Filipino citizen
who was naturalized abroad and who
subsequently availed of the privileges under
19
WARRIOR NOTES POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER INVICTUS (2018)
R.A. 9225. Matters dealing with qualifications which appear regular and authentic on their
and eligibility for public elective office must be face. (SAÑO, JR. V. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,
strictly complied with. (ARNADO V. COMMISSION G.R. NO. 182221, [FEBRUARY 3, 2010], DEL
ON ELECTIONS, G.R. NO. 210164, [AUGUST 18, CASTILLO)
2015], DEL CASTILLO)
XII. PUBLIC
INTERNATIONAL LAW
What is the meaning of ex aequo et bono?
Ex Aequo et Bono appears in Article 38 of the
Statute of the International Court of Justice
which states: This provision shall not prejudice
the power the Court to decide a case ex aequo
et bono, if both of
the parties agree thereto. Ex
Aequo et Bono literally means that the ICJ will
decide the case before it on the basis of what is
just and fair according to equity and good
conscience. To be clear, Ex Aequo et Bono
may be invoked if there is no rule in
international law which may be applied to the
present controversy. Nonetheless, consent of
both parties is still required.
21