(FINALS) CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

The BJE is not merely an expanded version of the

MODULE 5: PHILIPPINES AS A STATE ARMM but it is a State in view of the criteria set in
Article 1, Montevideo
Convention. It has its own definite territory
What is a State? under the MOA-AD, its own people, its own
government, and it has the capacity to
enter into relations with other states
Collector of Internal Revenue v. Rueda,
independent of the central government of the
G.R. No. L-13250, 29 OCTOBER 1971
Philippines.
“It is a community of persons, more or less
The conclusion that it is a State is bolstered by the
numerous, permanently occupying a definite
fact that its relationship with the central
portion of territory, independent of external
government is that of “association”, wherein
control, and possessing a government to
two states - usually, one weaker and one more
which a great body of inhabitants render
powerful State - enters into an agreement of
habitual obedience.“
varying degrees of rights and obligations.
“The stress is on its being a nation, (1) its people
occupying a (2) definite territory, politically A State within a State is contrary to the
organized, exercising by means of its Constitution as it recognizes only one State - the
(3) government its (4) sovereign will over the Republic of the Philippines, nothing else. It clearly
individuals within it and maintaining its separate runs counter to the national sovereignty and
international personality. [It is] a territorial society territorial integrity of the Republic of the
divided into government and subjects, claiming Philippines. (Province of North Cotabato v. GRP,
within its allotted area a supremacy over all G.R. No. 183591, 14 October 14 2008).
other institutions.
I. TERRITORY

Definition and Elements of a State

Article I, 1987 Constitution:

Article 1, Montevideo Convention: The national territory comprises the Philippine

archipelago, with all the islands and waters
1. Defined Territory embraced therein and all other territories over
2. Permanent Population of People which the Philippines has sovereignty or
3. Sovereignty and Capacity to Enter jurisdiction, consisting of its terrestrial,
into Relations with Other States fluvial, and aerial domains, including its
4. Government territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the insular
shelves, and other submarine areas.

Province of North Cotabato v. GRP- Peace

Panel Territory: Terrestrial and Fluvial Domain
GR. No. 183591, 14 October 2008
Is Bangsamoro Juridical Entity a State? If yes, The Philippines is an archipelago of over 7,000
why? If no, why not? thousand islands. As such, its terrestrial domain is
governed by the Archipelagic Doctrine, which
Bangsamoro Juridical Entity (BJE) = State treats as one several islands, and parts thereof,
within a State including interconnecting waters and other natural
features which are closely interrelated
 (FINALS) CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

to form an intrinsic geographical, economic, within the territorial sea and contiguous zone using
and political entity of which historically have the straight baseline method, the Philippines has by
been regarded as such. no means waived its claim of sovereignty over them.
(Magallona v. Ermita, G.R. No. 187167, August 16,
Territory: Maritime Domain 2011)

Maritime Domain is divided into several spheres and II. PEOPLE

zones in accordance with international law. The
Philippines, being a signatory to the United Nations
Convention of the Laws of the Sea (UNCLOS III), it People as a Requirement
subscribes to the following zones: (1) internal
waters, (2) territorial sea, (3) contiguous Traditionally, it is opined that in order for people to
zone, (4) exclusive economic zone, and (5) be an element of Statehood, it must be adequate for
high seas. self - sufficiency and defense.

In 2020, the latest census, the Philippines has a total

HOW TO DETERMINE THESE ZONES? population of 109 million.

These zones are determined by first determining the DIFFERENT CONCEPTS OF “PEOPLE”
starting point. In the Philippines, this is done through
the Straight Baseline Method. Under the Constitution, “people” are used in the
following senses:
STRAIGHT BASELINE METHOD:
1. Inhabitants (Section 2, Article III; Section 1,
1. Plots Imaginary Straight Lines Article XIII);
2. Joining the Outermost points of the 2. Electors (Section 4, Article VII); and
Outermost Islands of the Archipelago 3. Citizens (Preamble; Article II; Section 7,
3. Enclosing an Area Article III)
4. Shall not depart to any appreciable extent to
the general configuration of the archipelago. IMPORTANCE OF CITIZENSHIP

From the Straight Baseline, the zones are plotted. By its nature, citizenship is the basis of conferring
12NM from it would be the territorial sea. 24NM rights on a person. Without which, a person will have
from it would be the contiguous zone. 200NM from - save for fundamental human rights under
it would be the continental shelf. international law - no rights in a particular
jurisdiction.

HOW DOES THE PHILIPPINES IMPLEMENT CITIZENSHIP

THE STRAIGHT BASELINE METHOD?
“Citizenship is a priceless possession…it is
man’s basic right for it is nothing less than
Note: Straight Baseline Method is implemented
to have rights.’’
through Republic Act. 9522. It must be noted,
however, that RA 9522 merely implements the
(Tabasa v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 125793,
commitments of the Philippines in UNCLOS, which
August 29, 2006)
in turn, has nothing to do with the acquisition
or loss of territory. Meaning, even though the
Case Illustrations:
Kalayaan Group of Islands are not
 (FINALS) CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

shows that the Philippines adheres to jus

● Lee v. Director of Lands, G.R. No. sanguinis and rejects jus soli.
128195, October 3, 2001
● Kilosbayan v. Gregory Ong, G.R. No.
Go, Sr. v. Ramos, G.R. No. 167569, et. seq., 4
177721, July 3, 2007
September 2009
● In re:Ching, B.M. 914, October 1, 1999
“The doctrine of jus soli was for a time the
RULES ON CITIZENSHIP prevailing rule in the acquisition of one’s
citizenship. However, the Supreme Court
1. Acquisition abandoned the principle of jus soli in the case of
2. Reacquisition Tan Chong v. Secretary of Labor. Since then, said
3. Loss doctrine only benefited those who were
individually declared to be citizens of the
Philippines by a final court decision on the
ACQUISITION (Modes)
mistaken application of jus soli.”

A. By Naturalization
B. Rules on Acquisition of Citizenship by CASE STUDY:
Birth (Jus Soli v. Jus Sanguinis)
C. Philippine Application: Jus Sanguinis or Jus Valles v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 137000,
Soli? August 9, 2000
D. Difficulty in Applying Jus Sanguinis

Jus Soli Jus Sanguinis

Law of the Soil Law of the Blood

WHICH OF THE TWO IS ADHERED TO IN

THE PHILIPPINES?

For a brief period, the concept of “jus soli” was “The Philippine law on citizenship adheres to the
applied in the Philippines, upon a mistaken principle of jus sanguinis. Thereunder, a child
assumption that the rule, being used in the US - is follows the nationality or citizenship of the
also extended to the Philippines. parents regardless of the place of his/her,
as opposed to the citrine of jus soli which
Thus, in Roa v. Collector of Customs, and determines nationality or citizenship on the basis of
accompanying cases, the principle of jus soli was place of birth.”
applied by the courts. However, those declared as
citizens by the courts are considered as citizens not
because of jus soli but because of res judicata WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF THE
(finality and unalterability of court decisions) AUSTRALIAN CITIZENSHIP LAWS WHICH
ADHERE TO JUS SOLI TO HER PHILIPPINE
The matter was, however, put to rest upon the CITIZENSHIP?
adoption of the 1935 Constitution which clearly
NO EFFECT on her Philippine Citizenship at all. The
Court says:
 (FINALS) CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

difference in treatment between a person whose

“Thus, the herein private respondent, Rosalind father is a Filipino and a person whose mother is a
Ybasco Lopez, is a Filipino citizen, having been born Filipino.
to a Filipino father. The fact of her being born in
Australia is not tantamount to her losing her
CASE STUDY:
Philippine citizenship. If Australia follows the
principle of jus soli, then at most, private respondent
Tecson v. COMELEC, G,R, No. 161434,
can also claim Australian citizenship resulting to her
March 3, 2004
possession of dual citizenship.”
(Jus Sanguinis - Father Edition)

THE PHILIPPINE APPLICATION: JUS

SANGUINIS

The rules on citizenship adhering to jus sanguinis can

formally be traced to the 1935 Constitution.

ARTICLE IV. CITIZENSHIP

Section 1. The following are citizens of the

Philippines: Why was there a need for the Court to trace
back the citizenship of FPJ’s grandfather?
(1) Those who are citizens of the Philippine
Islands at the time of the adoption of this There was a need, because he was born 20 August
Constitution 1939, under the 1935 Constitution, which states
(2) Those born in the Philippine Islands of that a person is a Filipino if his Father is a Filipino.
foreign parents who, before the adoption In turn, FPJs father is a Filipino, only if FPJs
of this Constitution, had been elected to grandfather is a Filipino.
public office in the Philippine Islands.
(3) Those whose fathers are citizens of
the Philippines.
(4) Those whose mothers are citizens
of the Philippines and, upon
reaching the age of majority, elect
Philippine citizenship.
(5) Those who are naturalized in accordance
with law.
What was the finding of the Court?

The Court considered all the available pieces of

evidence in the case. The death certificate of
Lorenzo would indicate that he died in 1954 at age
THE PHILIPPINE APPLICATION: JUS
84, which means that he was born sometime in
SANGUINIS
1870.

Insofar as the jus sanguinis rule is concerned in the

1935 Constitution, there is, unfortunately, a
 (FINALS) CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

b. True with Qualifications

Moreover, he died in Pangasinan. In the absence of
c. False with Qualifications
evidence to the contrary, he is presumed to have
d. False
stayed there all his life.

As such, in 1890, Lorenzo would have benefitted In Re: Vicente D. Ching, B.M No. 914
from the “en masse Filipinization” done under (Resolution), 1 October 1999
Philippine Bill 1902, which provided that all
inhabitants of the islands of the Philippines who did Jus Sanguinis - Mother Edition
not declare their intention of preserving their
Spanish nationality between
11 April 1899 and 11 October 1900 are considered
Filipinos, including their children born after 11
April 1899.

Is Ching automatically a Filipino?

No. As he is a child of an alien father and a Filipino

mother, there is no automatic transmission of
citizenship. He must first elect Filipino citizenship
in order to become a Filipino citizen. Pending
election, he is an alien and his right to be a Filipino
Automatic Transmission of Citizenship if it citizen is still an inchoate right.
is the father who is the Filipino under the 1935
Constitution. Note: The requirement of election is applicable
only to LEGITIMATE children of Filipino women.
Consequently, if a child is ILLEGITIMATE, then
WHAT ABOUT IF THE MOTHER IS
he or she is not required to comply with the
FILIPINO?
election requirements, because the child
automatically follows the citizenship of the mother.
There is no automatic transmission of citizenship.
The 1935 Constitution clearly states that “those
whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines and,
upon reaching the age of majority, elect Philippine
citizenship” acquire Philippine citizenship. Question #2: As a rule, how much time does the child
have to elect Filipino citizenship?
In other words, there is a need for an
ELECTION OF PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP a. 3 years from reaching age of majority
upon reaching the age of majority. pursuant to express provisions of the
Constitution
b. 3 years from reaching age of reason
pursuant to express provisions of
Question #1: A child whose mother is a Filipino
Constitution
citizen is automatically a Filipino.
c. 3 years from reaching age of reason
pursuant to jurisprudence.
a. True
 (FINALS) CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

d. 3 years from reaching age of majority

pursuant to jurisprudence.

A child must elect to elect within a “reasonable time”

after attaining the age of majority. The Constitution
does not specify a specific time frame.

As a rule, however, “reasonable time” was construed

to mean 3 years after reaching the age of majority.
The period is based on the Opinion of the
Secretary of Justice, as adopted by the Supreme Exception:
Court.
Under special circumstances, as when the minor child
Question 3: Is the 3-year period absolute? of a Filipina mother and an alien father becomes a
Filipino by virtue of the subsequent naturalization of
a. Yes the alien father, informal acts of election such as
b. No participating in the electoral process, being a
candidate for public office, are enough. (Co v.
No, the period may be extended under certain Electoral Tribunal, G.R. No. 921191-92, 30 July
circumstances, as when the person concerned has 1991)
always considered himself a Filipino or there are
justifiable reasons for the delay in electing.

Was Ching able to elect Philippine

citizenship within a reasonable time?

No. The span of 14 years that lapsed from the time

he reached the age of majority until he finally
expressed his intention to elect Philippine citizenship
is clearly way beyond the contemplation of the
requirement of electing upon reaching the age of
majority. Moreover, Ching has offered no reason Question 5: In case the child is required to execute an
for the delay. Affidavit of Election, what does he need to do
afterwards?
Question 4: Electing Filipino citizenship may be done
through informal but indicative acts. a. Register the Affidavit with the nearest
Local Civil Registrar
a. True as a rule b. Keep the Affidavit
b. False as a rule c. File the Affidavit with the nearest
c. False as an exception Municipal Trial Court.
d. True as an exception d. Register the Affidavit in the nearest
Regional Trial Court.
General Rule: Execute an Affidavit of
Election (In re: Vicente Ching) The child must register the affidavit with the proper
Civil Registrar. After registration, the child will take
the oath of allegiance to the Republic of the
Philippines.
 (FINALS) CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

CASE STUDY in fact been done and documented within the

constitutional and statutory timeframe, the
Cabiling, et. al. v. Comm. Fernandez, Jr., registration of the documents of election beyond
[Link]., the frame should be allowed if in the meanwhile
G.R. No. 183133, 26 July 2010 positive acts of citizenship have publicly,
consistently, and continuously been done. The
actual exercise of Philippine citizenship, for over
half a century by the herein petitioners, is actual
notice to the Philippine public which is equivalent
to formal registration of the election of Philippine
citizenship.”

IMPORTANT!

The discrimination by the rules on citizenship was

abolished already in the 1973 and 1987
Constitution. However, the abolition did not have a
retroactive application, provisions as to election
under 1935 Constitution (“born before 17 January
1973”) were incorporated in the Constitution.

Those born AFTER 17 January 1973 (the date of

ratification of the 1973 Constitution) onwards from
a Filipino parent - regardless if mother or father - is
considered as Filipino.

WHAT ABOUT THOSE WHOSE PARENTS

ARE UNKNOWN?

Is he allowed to complete his election of Foundlings:

Philippine citizenship? A pivotal case for foundlings, the case of Poe-
Llamanzares v. COMELEC (G.R. No. 221697, 8
Yes. In the case of Cabiling v. Fernandez, the March 2016) holds that foundlings whose parentage
Supreme Court said that, as long as the election is are unknown, are Filipino citizens. The 1935, 1973,
within the 3-year period, the registration even and 1987 Constitutions are silent on foundlings but
beyond the said time frame should be allowed IF their silence does not preclude foundlings from
IN THE MEANWHILE positive acts of citizenship enjoying citizenship in the Philippines. Domestic
have been publicly, consistently, and laws and even international law support on conferring
continuously done by the child. Besides, citizenship on foundlings.
registration is just a formality to confirm the
existence of fact. Question 6: Those who acquire citizenship by birth
are considered natural-born citizens.
“What we now say is that where, as in petitioners’
case, the election of citizenship has a. True, absolutely.
 (FINALS) CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

b. False, because there are those who, even a. Derivative Naturalization of

acquire citizenship by birth, are not Minor Children
considered as natural-born citizens. b. Derivative Naturalization of
c. False, absolutely. Spouses
d. True, except those who still have to elect, as
they are required to do a positive act to
acquire citizenship. DIRECT NATURALIZATION

In summary, those who acquire citizenship by Direct naturalization may be availed of through the
birth are considered as NATURAL-BORN following means:
CITIZENS, as they acquire their citizenship without
performing a positive act to acquire or perfect their (1) Judicial Naturalization
Philippine citizenship. Even those who are still (2) Administrative Naturalization
required to elect Philippine citizenship are (3) Direct Act of Congress
considered as natural - born citizens by express
provision of the Constitution. JUDICIAL NATURALIZATION

In contrast, those who need to perform a positive act The governing law for judicial naturalization
to acquire citizenship are not natural-born citizens, Commonwealth Act No. 475.
but NATURALIZED CITIZENS.
Qualifications:
II. BY NATURALIZATION
1. Petitioner must at least be 21 years old.
2. Must have resided in the Philippines for at
Naturalization, Meaning. least 10 years.

On the part of the State, it is the act of formally Residence of 5 years may be sufficient if the
adopting a foreigner into the political body of a foreigner has established a new industry or
nation by clothing him or her with the privileges of a introduced a useful invention in the Philippines,
citizen. On the part of the foreigner, it is a process by or married to a Filipino woman, or worked as a
which he or she acquires citizenship of another State teacher in the Philippines.
voluntarily or by operation of law.
3. Of Good Moral Character
Question 7: Which of the following is not a mode of 4. Must have some known Lucrative Trade,
direct naturalization? Profession or Occupation
5. Speaks and writes English or Spanish AND
a. Judicial any of the principal languages of the
b. Administrative Philippines; and
c. Legislative 6. If any, his or her minor children of school
d. Constitutional age are enrolled in a school recognized by
the Government and teaching Philippine
OUTLINE OF NATURALIZATION history, government and civics.

A. Direct Disqualifications:
a. Judicial Naturalization
b. Administrative Naturalization
c. Direct Act of Congress
B. Derivative
 (FINALS) CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

1. Those opposed to organized governments or

affiliated with groups opposed to organized
governments.
2. Defending or teaching the necessity of
violence, personal assault or assassination to
propagate ideas;
3. Polygamists or believers in polygamy
4. Those convicted of a crime involving moral
turpitude

5. Suffering from mental alienation or IMPORTANT!

incurable contagious disease;
6. Those who have not mingled socially with Publication is a jurisdictional requirement. Non-
Filipinos compliance is fatal for it impairs the very jurisdiction
7. Citizens of countries at war with Philippines of the court over the case. Whatever proceedings
8. Citizens of countries that do not allow conducted, the decision rendered, and the oath of
Filipinos to be naturalized in their allegiance, are void for failure to comply with the
jurisdiction. publication and posting requirements. (Republic v.
dela Rosa, G.R. No. 104654, 6 June 1994)
IMPORTANT!
Question 8: Administrative Naturalization applies to
In the process of judicial naturalization, the petitioner all foreigners as an alternative to judicial
must show that he or she possesses ALL the naturalization.
QUALIFICATIONS and that he or she possesses
NONE of the DISQUALIFICATIONS. a. True, absolutely.
b. False, with qualifications on length of
PROCEDURES stay.
c. False, absolutely.
1. File a Declaration of Intent with the Office d. True, with qualification on length of stay.
of the Solicitor General 1 year prior the
filing of Petition (with exceptions) ADMINISTRATIVE NATURALIZATION
2. Filing of the Petition
3. Publication
4. Hearing/ Presentation of Evidence Administrative Naturalization is governed by the
5. Promulgation of Decision provisions of Republic Act. No. 9139. It applies to
6. Confirmatory Hearing (2 years after aliens who were born and are residing in the
Decision) Philippines. This is a distinct law with limited
7. Oath-taking and Issuance of Certificate of application, that is, only those native-born aliens who
Naturalization have lived and resided in the Philippines all their
lives. (So v. Republic, G.R. no. 170603, 29 January
2007)

QUALIFICATIONS:

1. Petitioner must be born in the Philippines

and residing therein since birth.
2. Petitioner must be at least 18 years old at the
time of filing of petition
 (FINALS) CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

3. Of good moral character

4. Received primary and secondary education a. True, with qualification that the spouse
in a school recognized by the Government should be female.
and teaching Philippine history, b. False, the female spouse should prove that
government, and civics. she suffers none of the disqualifications.
5. Have a known trade or business or c. False, the female spouse should prove that
profession, except if college degree holder she has all the qualifications.
but unable to practice profession because of d. True without qualification as to the gender
citizenship; of the spouse.
6. Able to speak Filipino, or any other dialect
in the Philippines;
7. Have mingled with Filipinos and evince a
sincere desire to learn and embrace the RULES ON DERIVATIVE NATURALIZATION
customs and traditions and ideals of the
Filipino people.
The rules on derivative naturalization vary between
the minor child and the spouse.
PROCEDURES:

For minor children, they are likewise naturalized if

1. Petition to the Special Committee on
they are dwelling in the Philippines at the time of
Naturalization
the naturalization of their parent. Those not
2. Publication for 3 consecutive weeks
dwelling in the Philippines at the time of
3. Report of Agencies on Derogatory
naturalization shall be considered
Records
naturalized only when they move to the
4. Review of Petition
Philippines while they are still minor. If they
5. Decision
move to the Philippines after having reached the
6. If approved, pay Fees (100,000). If
age of majority, there is no more derivative
denied, can appeal
naturalization.
7. Oath of Allegiance and Issuance of
Certificate
For spouses, only wives are granted the privilege of
derivative naturalization under Commonwealth Act
No. 473. The law specified “a woman who is now
or may hereafter be married to a citizen of the
Philippines.”

Wives may be given the benefit of derivative

naturalization ipso facto upon the naturalization of
their husbands, provided that she must not suffer
from any of the DISQUALIFICATIONS under the
law. No need to prove her qualifications.

(Moya Lim Yao v. Commissioner, L-21289, 4

October 1971)
DIRECT ACT OF CONGRESS

Question 9: Derivative Naturalization automatically

vests Filipino citizenship on both minor children and
spouse.
 (FINALS) CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

Question 10: An alien later on naturalized as a c. Denaturalization, in all cases.

Filipino must return to his or her country of origin d. Being declared as a deserter.
first and go back as a citizen.
Citizenship may be lost: (Based on Commonwealth
a. True. This is to formalize the process of Act No. 63 and 473)
naturalization.
b. False, while a former alien needs to go 1. By naturalization in or subscribing to an
outside the country, he or she is not oath of allegiance of another country.
necessarily required to go back to the 2. By express renunciation
country of origin. 3. Rendering service to or accepting
c. False, no need to go back and return. commission from armed forces of a foreign
Naturalization gives him or her the right to country, EXCEPT:
stay. a. It is with the consent of the
d. True. Otherwise, the former alien would be Philippines
deported. b. The foreign country has a defensive
or offensive pact
A naturalized alien - after having complied with all c. The foreign country maintains
the requirements of law becomes entitled to all the forces in the Philippines with the
rights that are accorded to a citizen, including the consent of the Philippines.
right to stay in the country without restrictions. 4. By denaturalization or cancellation of
certificate of naturalization
Moya Lim Yao v. Commissioner of 5. By having been declared competent as a
Immigration deserter of the Philippine armed forces in
G.R. No. L-21289, 4 October 1971 time of war, unless granted plenary pardon
or amnesty subsequently.
[..] We cannot see any reason why an alien who
has been here as a temporary visitor but who has in
the meanwhile become a Filipino should be By naturalization in or subscribing to an oath
required to still leave the Philippines for a of allegiance of another country
foreign country, only to apply thereat for a
re-entry here and undergo the process of BEFORE Republic Act No. 9225, which took effect
showing that he is entitled to come back, on 17 September 2003, naturalization in or
when after all, such right has become subscribing to an oath of allegiance will result into
incontestable as a necessary concomitant of his
loss of citizenship.
assumption of our nationality by whatever legal
means this had been conferred upon him.
However, upon the effectivity of RA 9225, this will
not anymore be a ground, as Filipinos who are
naturalized in other countries are considered to have
retained their Filipino citizenship.

LOSS EXPRESS RENUNCIATION

Question 11: Which of the following is not a mode of

losing citizenship? It is a settled rule that renunciation must be expressly
done. Renunciation cannot be found by implication
a. Express Renunciation, in all cases or inference. It must have been distinctly and
b. Rendering Service to a Foreign Army, in all explicitly.
cases.
 (FINALS) CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

That means, holding an Australian passport and alien If the ground is on the validity of the proceedings, the
certificate of registration do not constitute effective minor children and wife are likewise denaturalized.
renunciation. (Valles v. COMELEC). This is,
however, different from the rule on eligibility to hold However, if the ground is personal to the
public office under RA 9225. denaturalized Filipino, the wife and children retain
their Philippine citizenship. (See Commonwealth Act
Rendering service to or accepting commission from No. 473)
armed forces of a foreign country.

As a rule, rendering such service will result into the

loss of citizenship EXCEPT if: (a) It is with the DESERTERS
consent of the Philippines; (b) the foreign country has
a defensive or offensive pact; (c) the foreign country Deserters, as declared judicially, will also lose
maintains forces in the Philippines with the consent citizenship, unless they were pardoned or given
of the Philippines. amnesty, in which case, they are automatically
restored their citizenship.
Question 12: When a naturalized Filipino loses his or
her citizenship by denaturalization, is there an effect Question 13: The following are modes of
to the derivative naturalization to the wife and minor reacquiring Filipino Citizenship, except:
children? a. Oath of Allegiance by Naturalized Citizen
b. Repatriation
a. Yes. Derivatives are likewise c. Direct Act of Congress
automatically denaturalized. d. Naturalization
b. None. Only the concerned person is
denaturalized.
c. None, provided that they were not REACQUISITION
impleaded in the denaturalization case.
d. Yes, but it would depend on the ground of The following are the recognized modes of
denaturalization. reacquiring citizenship:

DENATURALIZATION 1. Naturalization
2. Repatriation
3. Direct Act of Congress
Just because a foreigner has been naturalized, it does
4. Taking Oath of Allegiance under RA
not automatically mean that the Philippines cannot
9225
withdraw its grant of citizenship thereafter. In fact, if
naturalization is obtained fraudulently, or if
within 5 years from naturalization he returns to his
native country or established residence in another
country, naturalization may be revoked resulting into
the loss of citizenship. NATURALIZATION

EFFECT OF DENATURALIZATION TO A former citizen may re-acquire citizenship by

DERIVATIVES naturalization, provided that he or she has all the
qualifications and suffers none of the
disqualifications.
 (FINALS) CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

REPATRIATION
Question 15: Repatriation takes effect:
a. On the date of approval of the petition.
There are two laws that govern repatriation: PD 725 b. Upon approval but retroacts to the date of
and RA 8171. These are different laws and apply to filing of the application.
different sets of people. c. Upon filing of the approval but retroactive
on the date of birth.
PD 725 applies to former natural-born Filipinos who d. On the date of filing of the application.
lost Filipino citizenship. PD 725 was not repealed by
President Aquino's Memorandum in 1986 and still IMPORTANT!
effective. (Frivaldo v. COMELEC)
Repatriation takes effect only upon approval of the
Only children who are minors at the time of the petition, but the effectivity retroacts to the date of
filing of the petition for repatriation are benefitted by application. (Frivaldo v. COMELEC)
the provisions of the law. (Tabasa v. Court of
Appeals) Question 16: In order for a former natural-born
Filipino to re-acquire Filipino citizenship by reason
The second law, RA 8171, is more specific in of naturalization in other countries under RA 9225,
application. It applies only to: he must:
1. Filipino women who lost their Philippine a. Take an Oath of Allegiance to the Republic
citizenship by marriage to aliens; and of the Philippine and execute acts of
2. Natural-born Filipinos including their minor citizenship.
children who lost their Philippine citizenship b. Execute acts of citizenship, such as filing a
on account of political or economic certificate of candidacy. No need to take an
necessity. oath.
c. Execute acts of citizenship and then file a
Question 14: A natural-born Filipino who acquired petition for naturalization.
citizenship by repatriation is: d. Take an Oath of Allegiance to the Republic
a. A naturalized Filipino because he or she of the Philippines
already did a positive act to acquire
citizenship.
b. A naturalized Filipino because he or she REACQUISITION UNDER RA 9225
became a foreigner adopted back to the
Philippines. Reacquisition of citizenship under RA 9225 requires
c. A natural-born Filipino because his/her that the former natural-born citizen take an oath of
parents are still Filipino. allegiance to the Philippines. Mere filing of a
d. A natural-born Filipino because he or she is certificate of candidacy is not sufficient. (Lopez v.
restored to his or her own original status COMELEC)
before losing Filipino Citizenship.
Question 17: Dual citizens are not allowed to hold
EFFECT OF REPATRIATION public office.
a. True, this is inimical to the interest of the
state.
A repatriated natural-born Filipino is still considered b. False, dual citizens may be allowed to hold
as a natural-born Filipino because the act of public office provided they comply with
repatriation allows the person to recover, or return to, requirements of law.
his original status before he lost his Philippine
citizenship. (Bengzon III v. HRET)
 (FINALS) CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

c. False, dual citizens may be allowed to hold

public office as long as they become Naturalization Does not Apply to Dual
naturalized. Citizens by Birth — SC
d. True, they are considered traitors and must
not be entrusted with governmental The Supreme Court has held that Filipinos born to
authority. one Filipino parent and one foreign parent are
considered dual citizens by birth and not by
DUAL CITIZENSHIP V. DUAL ALLEGIANCE naturalization, regardless of subsequent acts
performed to confirm the foreign citizenship. In a
decision penned by Justice Ricardo R. Rosario, the
Dual Citizenship is different from dual allegiance. Supreme Court En Banc granted the Petition for
The former arises because of the concurrent Certiorari and Prohibition filed by Mariz Lindsey Tan
application of different laws (jus soli and jus Villegas Gana-Carait and annulled and set aside the
sanguinis) of two or more states, resulting into Commission on Elections (COMELEC) En Banc
simultaneous recognition of citizenship. Resolution dated September 23, 2021 which denied
Gana-Carait’s Motion for Reconsideration of the
Dual allegiance arises when a person COMELEC First Division’s Resolution dated
simultaneously owes, by some positive act, loyalty to February 27, 2019. The said COMELEC resolutions
two or more states. Meaning it results out of one's denied the petition to disqualify Gana-Carait as a
own volition. (Mercado v. Manzano) candidate for Member of the Sangguniang
Panlungsod of the Lone District of Biñan, Laguna for
In both cases, however, the person - in order to hold the May 2019 elections, but granted the petition to
public office must renounce foreign citizenship. The deny due course to or cancel her certificate of
modes of renunciation will differ between dual candidacy (CoC).
citizenship and dual allegiance.
In ruling to set aside COMELEC’s cancellation of
For dual citizens because of the simultaneous Gana-Carait’s COC, the Court held that Gana- Carait,
application of laws, the filing of certificate of who was born to a Filipino father and an American
candidacy may be considered as renunciation of other mother, is a dual citizen by birth, and not by
citizenship and may be sufficient for purposes of naturalization.
running for public office.
The Court also found that the subsequent positive acts
For person with dual allegiance, however, such as made by Gana-Carait’s mother to request
those who have re-acquired Filipino citizenship under confirmation from the United States Consular Service
RA 9225, they must categorically renounce their of Gana-Carait’s US citizenship is not considered a
foreign citizenship and then take an oath of naturalization process but a mere presentation of
allegiance to the Philippines. documentary evidence to establish the fact that Gana-
Carait is an American citizen by birth.
Note, however, that even though such persons have
already renounced foreign citizenship, when they The Court held that since Gana-Carait is a dual
represent themselves as foreigners (such as citizen by birth and not by naturalization, as she is
using passports) subsequently, they will voluntarily not covered by the provisions of the Citizenship
and effectively revert to their status as persons Retention and Re-acquisition Act requiring
with dual allegiance. Another renunciation and oath candidates who are dual citizens by naturalization to
will be required for them to be eligible to run for take an oath of allegiance to the Republic of the
public office. Philippines and to renounce their foreign
 (FINALS) CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

citizenships in order to become eligible for elective The government is separate and distinct from the
office. As a dual citizen by birth, Gana- Carait is thus State. The government is the agent of the State, the
considered a Filipino qualified to run for public office. principal, through which the will of the State is
Hence, she could not be said to have made a false formulated, expressed, and realized. It is, in the
representation in her COC, ruled the Court. abstract sense, the existing political system, and in
the concrete sense, the actual organisms of the
organized system. (U.S. v. Dorr)
SOVEREIGNTY DE FACTO AND DE JURE GOVERNMENTS

As a consequence of sovereignty, the Philippines has

supreme authority exercised over its entire domain. A de jure government is one which has legal
Its decrees are supreme and its commands paramount basis in its existence and succession.
within its jurisdiction, both territorial and personal. It
is also exclusive, not subject to control by anyone. A de facto government is one which has no legal
source but only exercises governmental authority in
Externally, sovereignty means that it is not subject to fact. It may be one which:
restrictions unless, by the States consent, express or 1. Usurps governmental power by force;
implied, the State's sovereignty is curtailed. But only 2. Is established by the inhabitants of a
as the same is always subject to its own consent. This territory who rise in insurrections against the
is the principle of auto-limitation. (Reagan v. CIR; parent state; and
Tanada v. Angara) 3. Is established by invading forces of an
enemy.

CHANGE OF SOVEREIGNTY

Sovereignty may change by annexation, cession, or

some other forms recognized under international law.
In case of change of sovereignty, political laws are
abrogated (those which regulate the relationship
between the citizens and the State) but all the other
laws remain in force.

Question 18: The State and the Government are one

and the same.

a. False
b. True, but the Government is the
expression and realization of the State.
c. True, but the Government is the MODULE 6: STATE IMMUNITY FROM SUIT
Principal, while the State is the agent.
d. False the Government is the Agent and the Question 19: State Immunity from Suits is enjoyed
Principal is the State. by foreign States on the basis that there can be no
right against which makes the law on which the right
depends.
 (FINALS) CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

a. True. This is the theoretical justification of Question 20: State immunity is enjoyed from by the
State Immunity from suit. State alone. True or False?
b. False. Foreign States enjoy immunity from
suits on the basis of equality. a. True. The name clearly suggests that
c. False. Foreign States do not enjoy immunity immunity applies only to States.
from suits in this jurisdiction. b. False. Immunity may be enjoyed directly
d. True. Although it must be pointed out that and indirectly as long as requirements of law
the more practical reason is that the State and jurisprudence are met.
must not be inconvenienced by c. False. Immunity may be enjoyed directly by
indiscriminate suits. the State, and indirectly by others as long as
they have a juridical relationship with the
Section 3, Art. XVI: " The state may not be State.
sued without its consent." d. True. Immunity springs from the State being
the “Leviathan” and is unparalleled.

IMMUNITY OF DOMESTIC STATE WHO ENJOYS STATE IMMUNITY?

As a consequence of sovereignty, States enjoy

State Immunity can be enjoyed directly by the state
immunity from suits. “Immunity” implies that states
and indirectly by others provided that certain
cannot be sued in court.
requirements are complied with.
For the domestic State (the State of the Republic of
Domestically, the State of the Republic of the
the Philippines, that is) the justifications are the
Philippines enjoys immunity directly. Indirectly, the
following:
following also enjoy immunity:
(1) There can be no right against the authority which
1. Government Agencies
makes the law on which the rights depend.
2. Public Officers
(2) As against the inconvenience that may be caused
Question 21: Which of the following statements is
by private parties, the loss of governmental efficiency
not false?
and the obstacle to the performance of its
multifarious functions is far greater. The loss of time
a. All government agencies, regardless of their
and energy to defend against lawsuits hamper the
acts.
performance of the State’s governmental functions.
b. All government agencies, regardless of their
(Republic v. Villasor)
acts, only enjoy immunity from suit, if they
are unincorporated.
IMMUNITY OF FOREIGN STATE c. Some government agencies enjoy immunity
from suit when they are unincorporated and
The justification for immunity of a foreign State, doing governmental functions.
however, is different. Foreign States are immune d. Some government agencies enjoy immunity
from suits in our jurisdiction because of the principle from suit when they are incorporated and
of equality, expressed in the maxim “par in parem, doing proprietary functions.
non habet imperium”. All states being equal, no one
can assert jurisdiction over another rin its local
courts. (Arigo v. Swift)
 (FINALS) CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

GOVERNMENT AGENCIES: Governmental Functions are those which involve

INCORPORATED the exercise of sovereignty and are necessarily
performed by the State in a mandatory character,
like maintenance of peace and order, regulation of
Under established jurisprudence, government
property, administration of justice, etc. In such
agencies’ enjoyment of immunity will depend on its
cases, the unincorporated agency enjoys immunity
character: whether it is incorporated and
from suit.
unincorporated.

Proprietary function is that which involves merely

Incorporated Government Agencies - those
the exercise of functions not exclusively belonging
agencies with their own charter (special law
to the State, but is exercised by it nonetheless, such
creating them) - have a separate and distinct
as engaging in business.
personality. Whether or not it enjoys immunity from
suit depends on its charter. If the charter says that it
Note, however,that even though the function is
can be sued, then it is not immune. If it says that it
proprietary in nature, if such is incidental to the
cannot be sued, then it enjoys immunity.
governmental function (such as selling ID cards to
trainees), the agency still enjoys immunity. In such
WHAT ABOUT IF THE CHARTER IS SILENT cases where the proprietary function is completely
ON THE SUABILITY? independent of a governmental function, the
unincorporated government agency does not enjoy
immunity
When the Charter is silent, jurisprudence
distinguishes between an incorporated government
The reason is that the State, through the
agency which performs governmental functions and
unincorporated agency, in engaging in such
proprietary functions, such that, if the incorporated
functions independently of its governmental
government agency is performing proprietary
functions, descends to the position of a private
functions, then it does not enjoy immunity. If
person.
performing government functions, it is immune. (See
Philippine National Railways v. Intermediate
(Professional Video, Inc. v. TESDA, G.R. No.
Appellate Court, G.R. No. 70547, 22 January 1993)
155504, 26 June 2009)

GOVERNMENT AGENCIES:
UNINCORPORATED Question 22: When a private corporation enters into a
contract with the Republic of the Philippines, does
the private corporation become an agent of the State
If the government agency is unincorporated - and therefore enjoy immunity?
meaning it has no separate and distinct juridical
personality from the State - like TESDA, a. No, a contract between the Republic and the
Department of Education, etc., then there private corporation does not make the latter
should be a distinction whether the agency is an agent of the former.
performing governmental or proprietary b. Yes, immunity extends to such a corporation
functions. for efficient performance of its duties which
ultimately will benefit the State.
c. Yes, immunity extends to such a corporation
because the contract is the
 (FINALS) CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

juridical tie between the State and the scope of their authority. This is because, when they
corporation. act within the scope of their authority, it as if the
d. No, a contract, without a stipulation, per se State itself did their acts. (Lansang v. Court of
does not extend immunity to the private Appeals, G.R. No. 102667, 23 February 2000)
corporation. There must be full control and
supervision by the State in order to extend Necessarily, when public officers are sued for their
immunity. personal acts, or for their ultra vires acts, acts outside
the scope of their authority), or for acts tainted with
Contract Alone Does not Make a bad faith, malice, or gross negligence, they do not
Corporation an Agent of the State enjoy immunity.

MORE EXCEPTIONS FOR IMMUNITY OF

In a contract of agency, a person binds himself to
PUBLIC OFFICIALS
render some service or to do something in
representation or on behalf of another, with the
Jurisprudence and pertinent rules recognize
consent or authority of the principal. As such, a mere
more exceptions to the immunity of public
contract which does not constitute a corporation as
officials such as:
agent that can represent the Republic to third persons
cannot make the private corporation an Agent of the 1. When the suit compels a public officer to do
State and cannot enjoy immunity. If it is only a an act required by law (Mandamus);
service provider or a contractor, it is not an agent, 2. When the suit restrains him from enforcing
and therefore, not entitled to immunity. (Shell an act assailed to be unconstitutional
Philippines v. Jalos, et al.) (Injunction):
3. To compel payment of damages arising from
Question 23: Public Officers, while occupying public
an already appropriated assurance fund
office, enjoy immunity from suit. True or False?
(Assurance Fund Law under PD 1529)
4. In cases where the public officer may satisfy
a. False, because as a rule public officers only
by himself without a positive act from the
enjoy immunity from suit when they are
State; and
performing government functions.
5. When the public officer violates the laws he
b. False, because public officers only enjoy
or she is supposed to enforce.
immunity when they are high-ranking
officials and with management functions. NOTE:
c. False, because public officers only enjoy
immunity when they are occupying public The rules on indirect immunity for public officers are
office by reason of election. different from the rules on the immunity from suits of
d. False, because officers only enjoy immunity the President and Members of Legislature.
when they perform functions in the
discharge of their duties within the scope of
Those are special rules and they apply only to
their authority.
specific officials. The rules discussed here are of
general application, applicable to all other public
IMMUNITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS officers.

Question 24: On an International level, only foreign

Public Officers enjoy immunity from suit only in
States enjoy immunity from suit in our jurisdiction.
relation to their performance of duties within the
True or false?
 (FINALS) CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

a. False, because in addition to foreign States,

international organs also enjoy immunity.
b. True. No one else is the same level with IMMUNITY OF AGENTS OF FOREIGN
other States insofar as the laws are STATES
concerned. No other entity is equal to the
State and therefore no one else enjoys In addition to foreign States enjoying immunity,
immunity. agents of such foreign States may also enjoy
c. True. Foreign states exclusively enjoy immunity. In international law, such agents may be
immunity from suits because the Republic classified as: (1) diplomatic and (2) non- diplomatic.
owes respect only to foreign States.
d. False, because international organs and Immunity of diplomatic agents are governed by
agents, provided the requisites are present, International law, a separate set of rules outlined by
of foreign States also enjoy immunity. the Vienna Convention on the Diplomatic Relations
(VCDR) and Vienna Convention on Consular
IMMUNITY IN THE INTERNATIONAL LEVEL Relations (VCCR).

For non-diplomatic agents, however, jurisprudence

Foreign States enjoy immunity from suits in our local dictates that they enjoy immunity only when they are
courts by virtue of the principle of equality of States. acting in their official capacity and within the
However, in such regard, there are two conflicting directive of the sending foreign State. In this context,
views. (1) the absolute view and (2) the restrictive it is as if the foreign State (or through its government
view. agencies such as the USDEA) committed the acts.
Outside thereof, the agent does not enjoy immunity
The absolute view maintains that immunity of foreign from suit. (Minucher v. Court of Appeals)
States apply in all cases. The restrictive view,
however, maintains that foreign States only enjoy In addition, International Organizations likewise
immunity for sovereign or governmental activities enjoy immunity. In international law, immunity of
(jus imperii) and not for commercial, private, and international organizations, such as the United
proprietary acts (jure gestionis). Nations as well as its organs and specialized agencies
enjoy immunity.
In the Philippines, it appears that the restrictive view
is adopted. In USA v. Ruiz, the court made use of In our jurisprudence, recognition of immunity of such
such a distinction is ascertaining whether the United international organizations is based on their
States enjoyed immunity from suits in the local international character and on the policy of avoiding
courts. interference, political pressure of control, by the host
country on the operations of such international
It emphasized that mere entering into a contract with organizations to ensure their unhampered
third persons does not make an act proprietary. If performance of their functions.
entering into a contract relates to the exercise of
sovereign functions such as when the contract is on Question 25: In determining immunity of
projects that are integral to the upkeep of the naval international organizations and entities, it is the
base. courts which have primary and exclusive jurisdiction.
True or False?
 (FINALS) CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

a. True. This is strictly a judicial prerogative as

it involves adjudication of factual
controversies. WHAT CONSTITUTES A SUIT AGAINST
b. False. It is the executive, through the THE STATE?
Department of Foreign Affairs, which has
jurisdiction because it involves foreigners. Ask the question: if the decision is rendered
c. False. It is the executive, through the against the State, the government agency, or the
Department of Foreign Affairs, which has public officer, will the enforcement thereof require an
jurisdiction because vesting immunity is a affirmative act from the State to satisfy the decision,
prerogative of the executive branch. such as the appropriation of the needed amount?
d. True, the courts have primary and exclusive
jurisdiction over questions of immunity on If yes, it is a suit against the State.
the basis of separation of power. If not, it is not.

NOTE: Question 27: State Immunity from Suit is absolute.

True or False?
It is the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) which
has the exclusive prerogative of determining a. No, because there are instances where the
immunity from suit. Such determination, being doctrine is not applicable and there are
political in nature may be considered as conclusive instances where it is waived even if
upon the courts in order not to embarrass a political applicable.
department of the government, subject to the b. No, because there are instances where it is
presence of grave abuse of discretion amounting to not applicable.
lack or excess of jurisdiction. c. No, because there are instances when the
doctrine is waived.
Question 26: Can the courts dismiss a case filed d. No, because there are instances where the
against the branch or instrumentality against the doctrine is applicable but unenforceable.
government for unconstitutional acts on the basis of
state? Example when the Doctrine is Not Applicable

a. No, because the State’s immunity from suit There are instances specifically held by the Supreme
is waived by the unconstitutional act. Court where the doctrine is not applicable. In the
b. No, because this is not a suit against the cases of Amigable v. Cuenca (G.R. No. L-26400, 29
State. February 1972) and of Ministerio v. Cebu City (G.R.
c. No, because while it is a suit against the No. L-31635, 1971) the court held that when the
State, the State must be held accountable for government takes private property without just
its actions repugnant to the Constitution. compensation, state immunity does not apply because
d. No, the greater interest of maintaining the the doctrine cannot be used to perpetrate an injustice
supremacy of the Constitution should upon the citizens.
prevail.
This is not a waiver. Rather, it is one where the
doctrine simply does not apply.
Sec. 3, Article XVI: The State may not be
sued without its consent”
 (FINALS) CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

WAIVER OF IMMUNITY Question 27: When the State consents to be sued, it

automatically consents to be liable. True or False?

Assuming the doctrine is applicable, such a. False. Consent to be sued is not automatic
immunity may be waived by consent. Such that, even consent to be liable because some forms of
when the State enjoys immunity, the same will be consent do not necessarily amount to
waived if the State consents to be sued. Consent may consent being liable.
be express or implied. b. False. Consent to be sued does not
necessarily mean consent to be liable. They
EXPRESS CONSENT are different.
c. False. Consent to be sued is not automatic as
liability comes only if the President consents
Express Consent is done either through a general law
thereto.
or special law.
d. False. Consent to be sued is not automatic
because there is no more need for consent to
One example of general law: Commonwealth Act no.
be liable. The courts will determine that.
327, as amended, which directs that all money claims
against the government must first be filed with the
Commission on Audit before suit is instituted in SUABILITY V. LIABILITY
court.
Suability only means that the State consents that it be
Special laws may be enacted to specifically give sued with the courts. It does not imply consent to be
consent to sue a person such as in the case of Merritt liable. Liability implies that the State must do a
v. Government of the Philippine Islands, positive act to satisfy a judgment.
G.R. No. 1154, 21 March 1916)
So that, when found by the courts to be liable, the
IMPLIED CONSENT funds of the State - being public funds - may not be
seized under execution, attachment, or garnishment.
As a rule, there must first be an appropriation before
Aside from express consent, implied consent can also public funds can be disbursed.
waive immunity from suit. Implied consent is present
when: SPECIAL RULE

1. The State voluntarily gives consent to a In such cases, however, where the government
Deed of Donation in an action to revoke the agency found liable has a special charter which gives
donation (DepEd v. Onate, G.R. No 161758, it the capacity to sue and be sued, their properties
8 June 2007) must be distinguished:
2. The State enters into a business contract
independently of its governmental functions. 1. Held for Public Use and Governmental
It descends to the level of private citizens Function- not subject to levy, execution, or
and sheds the mantle of immunity thereby. attachment.
(US v. Guinto) 2. Held for Proprietary Purpose - subject to
3. When the government sues (Republic v. Levy, execution, or attachment. (UP v.
Sandiganbayan) or intervenes in a case Dizon)
(Froilan v. Pan Oriental Shipping)
 (FINALS) CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

In such cases, however, where the government

agency found liable has a special charter which gives
it the capacity to sue and be sued, involving those
properties subject to execution, levy, or attachment,
prior filing of a claim for payment of the judgment
award with the Commission on Audit is necessary.
(Lockheed v. UP, G.R. No. 185918, 18 April 2012)

MODULE 7: DECLARATION OF
PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES

SOVEREIGNTY OF THE PEOPLE AND

REPUBLICANISM

PREAMBLE

The preamble is not a source of substantive rights. It

does not, in any way, create legally binding rights
and obligations. It is only for introduction of the
Constitution.
 (FINALS) CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

It is couched in the first person (“We”) to emphasize

Domestic Law International Law
that it is not the framers, or the public officials, or any
other person, who wrote the constitution. Ultimately, State-Citizen State State
the Constitution is authored by the people
themselves. Citizen-Citizen State- International
Organization

PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES State- State International

Organs Community

Principles: Fundamental Truth or Law upon which State - State

others are based. Agents

Policies: Plan to be pursued for purposes of

Carrying out a Principle. “Vertical- Democratic states = People [we are
sovereign] but we cannot govern ourselves at
Distinction between the two, however, are not so the same time. So, there is a need to elect a
significant because as a general rule, both principles representative to create a law, adjudicating
and policies are interpreted to be not self- controversies.
executing. Meaning, generally, they are not a
source of enforceable rights without an enabling International law does not follow vertical
law. They generally serve as mere guides for structure. It works in a horizontal manner,
carrying out governmental plans, formulating and because of the notion of sovereign equality.
interpreting legislation, and in interpreting self- “External Sovereignty” if a state enjoys it then it
executing provisions of the Constitution. does not subject to anything or anybody else
and it can only be bound when it consents to
certain rules. (Autolimitation)”

PRINCIPLES INTERNATIONAL LAW TO DOMESTIC LAW

The following are Principles contained in the 1987 Rules and laws forming part of international law
Constitution: cross and be recognized as law in the domestic
1. Philippine as a Democratic and sphere. However, the mode by which they cross
Republican state toward the domestic sphere varies depending on their
2. Renunciation of War; Doctrine of sources.
Incorporation; International Amity
3. Civilian Supremacy
4. Government as a protector of People and How can it be incorporated?
The people as protector of the state
5. Essential thing for the enjoyment of
Democracy
6. Separation of Church and State.

ADHERENCE TO INTERNATIONAL LAW

DOCTRINE OF INCORPORATION
 (FINALS) CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

principles of equity (clean hands doctrine, estoppel),

general principles of fairness and genreal principles
Section 21, Article VII against discrimination (For example: non-
discrimination against foundlings).
No treaty or international agreement shall be valid
and effective unless concurred in by at least two- NOTE:
thirds of all the members of the Senate.
The determination whether a rule is considered as a
generally accepted principle of international law is
within the exclusive power and prerogative of
Thus, treaties or conventional international law must judicial power. This requires judicial scholarship
go through a process prescribed by the Constitution and must be established by available literature and
for it to be transformed into municipal law that can pieces of evidence.
be applied to domestic conflicts.

INCORPORATION

If an international rule is established to be a generally

accepted principle of international law, it becomes
part of the law of the land by virtue of the Doctrine of
Incorporation.

The doctrine regards an international rule, if

generally accepted, automatically as part of the
domestic laws. Consequently, the courts are
What constitutes as Generally Accepted permitted to resolve disputes involving domestic
Principles of International Law? parties using said international rules.

TRANSFORMATION
In Poe-Llamanzares v. COMELEC, the SEC
clarified that the generally accepted principles of
International law include customary International In addition to incorporation, International rules
law and general principles of law recognized (regardless of whether GAPIL or not) can be part of
by civilized nations. the domestic sphere through transformation.

A rule is considered as Customary International Transformation is done by the legislature making

Law (CIL) if the following are present: the international rules a law. Meaning, the
1. Established, Widespread, and Consistent international rules are “transformed” into a domestic
Practice of states (State Practice) and law. Example, Executive Order No. 51 in 1986 or
2. The Opinion of the states in practicing the “the Milk Code of the Philippines” as a
rule as binging law. (Opinio Juris Sive transformation of the International Code on
Necessitates) Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes”.

NOTE:

General Principles of Law as Recognized by the

Incorporation Transformation
Civilized Nations are principles which are basic to
legal systems in general, such as general GAPIL only GAPIL or not
 (FINALS) CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

hamper the free exercise of religion (Bill of Rights, Section 5 Article 3 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution)
Judicial in nature Legislative in nature

FREE EXERCISE

As part of the separation of Church and State, the

State cannot also prohibit the free exercise and
enjoyment of religious profession and worship. The
State cannot discriminate or prefer any religion over
the others. As a consequence, no religious tests shall
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE be required for the exercise of civil and political
rights.

What does “separation” between Church POLICIES

and State mean?

The following are Principles contained in

Art. 3, Section 6 of the Constitution: The the 1987 Constitution:
separation of Church and state shall be inviolable
1. Independent Foreign Policy
2. Freedom from Nuclear Weapons
Separation of Church and State when the constitution 3. Social Justice and Human Rights
said that the separation of church and state is 4. Equality of Men and Women
inviolable, it pertains only to these two: 5. Priority of Education, Science,
Technology, Arts, Culture & Sports
1. Non-establishment of religion 6. Urban Land Reform and Housing
2. Free exercise of religion 7. Reform in Agriculture and Other
Natural Resources
8. Protection to Labor
NON - ESTABLISHMENT 9. Independent People’s Organization
10. Sanctity of Family Life
Known as the “non-establishment” clause, the 11. Self-Reliant & Independent Economic
Republic of the Philippines cannot set up or Order
“establish” a State Religion. So, the Republic cannot, 12. Communication and Information
through law or some governmental issuance, 13. Autonomy of Local Governments
proclaim Catholicism, or Islam, or the religion of 14. Rights of Indigenous Cultural
Quiboloy, as a State Religion. Communities
15. Honest Public Service and Full
What church means: It is a religion of any kind, not Disclosure
just Catholic church.

It does not mean that members of such church are not RIGHTS
allowed to participate in political affairs / disqualified
from talking from political affairs, it only means that
Although Article II is supposed to be a declaration of
the state should not establish a state religion and
principles of policies, and therefore not a source of
that the state should not
rights, the SC has recognized some
 (FINALS) CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

provisions as exceptions to this characterization.

Because these provisions, being self-executory, are INDEPENDENT FOREIGN POLICY
not merely principles. They confer rights and are
judicially demandable even without an enabling law.
SOVEREIGNTY OF THE PEOPLE AND
REPUBLICANISM
SECTION 15 on the right to health is a self-
executing provision, as it confers right on the
SOCIAL JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS
people that is an essential component to the
right to life. (Imbong v. Ochoa)
BALANCED AND HEALTHFUL; ECOLOGY
According to Imbong Vs. Ochoa, it is a self-
executing provision, it confers rights to the people
because this right to health is an essential SANCTITY OF FAMILY LAW
component to right to life. Court said, there need
not be an RH law in order to protect our sexual SELF-RELIANT & INDEPENDENT
health- it has to be demandable to the state. ECONOMIC ORDER

MODULE 8: PRINCIPLE OF SEPARATION

Section 16. The State shall protect and advance
OF POWERS
the right of the people to a balanced and healthful
ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of
nature. “The separation of powers is a fundamental principle
in our system of government. It obtains not
through express provision but by actual
Section 16, article 2, is also self-executory, division in our Constitution. Each department of
as it is a right-conferring provision. The right the government has exclusive cognizance of matters
to a balanced and healthful ecology exists even within its jurisdiction, and is supreme within its own
without a provision in the Constitution. It exists from sphere.” Angara v. Electoral Commission, G.R.
the very inception of mankind and need not even No. 45081, 15 July 1936
be written in the Constitution. This has the
correlative duty of the State to refrain from “But it does not follow from the fact that the three
impairing the environment. (Oposa v. Factoran, G.R. powers are to be kept separate and distinct that the
No. 101083, 30 July 1993) Constitution intended them to be absolutely
unrestrained and independent of each other.
In Oposa vs. Factoran, a very pivotal case The Constitution has provided for an elaborate
declaring this section as self- executory, it system of checks and balances to secure coordination
shouldn’t even be written in the constitution for it in the workings of the various departments of the
be demandable, there will be an implicit or
government.” Angara v. Electoral Commission,
assumed right to a balance and a healthful
G.R. No. 45081, 15 July 1936
ecology because this right proceeds from the
very inception of mankind. Without the right to
a balanced and healthful ecology, human beings PURPOSE
as a species will be instinct according to the
court, there will be no environment that will be The theory of the separation of powers is designed by
left to our subsequent generation. This section is its originators to secure action and
a right, not a mere principle, therefore- self
executory.
 (FINALS) CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

at the same time to forestall over action

2. Delegation of emergency powers to the
which necessarily results from undue
President under Section 23 (2) of Article
concentration of powers, and thereby obtain
VI of the Constitution
efficiency and prevent despotism. Thereby,
3. Delegation to the people at large;
“the rule of law” was established which narrows the
4. Delegation to local governments;
range of governmental action and makes it subject to
5. Delegation to administrative bodies
control by certain legal devices. (Pangasinan
Trans. Co., Inc. v. Public Service Commission,
G.R. No. 47065)
PROHIBITION ON DELEGATION OF DELEGATION
POWERS TO ADMINISTRATIVE
In order BODIES: REQUIREMENTS
for the delegation of powers to
Corollary to the principle of separation of powers is administrative bodies to be valid, the following tests
the prohibition on delegation of powers. Because the must be followed:
powers are meant to be separate, there should be no
delegation which blurs the separation of powers. 1. Completeness Test - the law must be
complete in all its terms and conditions
This is based on the ethical principle that such when it leaves the legislature such that when
delegated power constitutes not only a right but a it reaches the delegate, the only thing he will
duty to be performed by the delegate through the have to do is to enforce it.
instrumentality of his own judgment and not through
the intervening mind of another. 2. Sufficient Standard Test - adequate
guidelines or limitations in the law to
(Gerochi v. Department of Energy, G.R. No. determine the boundaries of the delegate’s
159796, 17 July 2007) authority and prevent the delegation from
running riot.
However, due to growing complexities of human
society, which force the Legislature to rely on the NOTE:
expertise of certain agencies to cope with the myriad
of problems that require its attention, delegation of In case of delegation to administrative agencies, there
powers by the Legislature have been recognized as must always be a law. Without a law, there can be no
valid in certain limited instances. valid delegation. Consequently, an entity which does
not have a law-creating power cannot delegate its
powers under a specific law. Thus, PAGCOR cannot
EXCEPTIONS
delegate its authority to conduct gambling activities
to other entities. (Jaworski v. PAGCOR, G.R.
No. 144463, 14
Thus, delegation of powers by the Legislature is
January)
allowed in the following instances:

Case Study: Echegaray v. Secretary of

1. Delegation of tariff powers to the President
Justice, G.R. No. 132601, October 12, 1998
under Section 28 (2) of Article VI of the
Constitution;
Because delegation of powers is brought about by
practical considerations, not by the whims and
caprices of Congress, courts bend as far back as
possible to sustain the constitutionality of laws
 (FINALS) CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

which are assailed as unduly delegating legislative

powers. (Tatad v. Secretary of the Department of
Energy, G.R. No. 124360, et. seq., 5 November
1997)

In other words, the courts adopt a liberal stance in

favor of constitutionality when a law is assailed as
unconstitutional based on undue delegation of
powers.

For easy recall, remember this:

Legislative Powers = To determine WHAT the

law should be
Quasi - Legislative Powers = To determine
HOW the law should be executed.

MODULE 9: THE LEGISLATIVE

DEPARTMENT: STRUCTURE AND
COMPOSITION

The Legislative Structure Context

Note:

In case of delegation to administrative agencies, there

must always be a law. Without a law, there can be no
valid delegations. Consequently, an entity which does
not have a law-creating power cannot delegate its
authority to conduct gambling activities to other
entities. (Jaworski v. PAGCOR, G.R No.144463)

The Legislative Department

(Article VI, 1987 Constitution)

Section 1: The legislative power shall be vested

in the Congress of the Philippines which shall
consist of a Senate and a House of
Representatives except to the extent to the
people by the provision on initiative and
referendum.

Congress: Bicameral Structure

 (FINALS) CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

Specifically, it was discussed that imposing such additional requirements for all candidates including
senators, HoR, President, Vice- President, is unconstitutional since these qualifications are already
BI CAMERA -AL
embedded in the Constitution. They cannot be modified simply by adding a law.
English Latin word English
prefix meaning suffix Note:
meaning “Chamber” denoting an
“two” adjective
The Upper House/Chamber: The Senate These qualifications, aside from being exclusive, are
also continuing in character. This means that the
The Lower House/Chamber: The House of person holding office must possess all these
Representatives qualifications during their entire tenure.
(Limkaichong v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 179120)
Both houses are equally important
Continuing - must not only be present at the time
THE SENATE of the election. All of these requirements must
be present from the time of the election until the
SECTION 2. The Senate shall be composed of end of the term.
twenty-four Senators who shall be elected at large
by the qualified voters of the Philippines, as may Renunciation of citizenship = loss of citizenship
be provided by law.
THE SENATORS: TERM
The Senators Qualifications (SECTION 3,
ART. 6, 1987 Constitution): The senators’ term is for SIX YEARS commencing
at noon on the 30th day of June next following their
1. He is a natural-born citizen of the election.
Philippines
2. On the day of the election, is at least Term Limit: No Senator shall serve for more than
thirty-five years of age TWO CONSECUTIVE TERMS. Voluntary
3. Able to read and write, a registered voter, renunciation of the office for any length of time shall
an; not be considered as an interruption in the continuity
4. Resident of the Philippines for not less of his service for the full term for which he was
than two years immediately preceding the elected. (SEC. 4, ART.6, 1987 CONSTITUTION)
day of the election.
Note:

IMPORTANT!
As a rule, in determining whether an elective official
has reached his or her term limit, what should be
These are exclusive constitutional
counted are the uninterrupted terms. However,
qualifications which cannot be modified, deleted,
the Constitution qualifies that voluntary renunciation
or added to by law, such as an imposition of a
(resignation) does not legally constitute an
requirement of a prior drug test. (Social Justice
interruption. Thus, even if the tenure is cut short by
Society v. Dangerous Drugs Board, G.R No. 157870)
resignation, the full term is still considered for
purposes of determining term limit.
 (FINALS) CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

The House of Representatives No Member of the House of Representatives

shall serve for more than THREE
Sections 5. (1) The House of Representatives CONSECUTIVE TERMS. Voluntary
shall be composed of not more than two hundred renunciation of the office for any length of time
and fifty members, unless otherwise fixed by shall not be considered as an interruption in the
law, who shall be elected from legislative continuity of his service for the full term for which
districts apportioned among the provinces, cities, he was elected.
and the Metropolitan Manila area in accordance
with the number of their respective inhabitants, and Senators: Not more than 2 consecutive terms
on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio, and
those who, as provided by law, shall be elected
through a party-list system of registered national, LEGISLATIVE DISTRICTS
regional, and sectoral parties or organizations.
Legislative Districts arise from ANY of the
1. Members who are elected by the following:
legislative districts 1. A group of municipalities and cities
2. Members who are elected by the party list through apportionment;
system 2. A city with a population of at least 250, 000
or
3. A province

LEGISLATIVE DISTRICTS: GROUP OF

Legislative District Representatives
MUNICIPALITIES AND CITIES
Qualifications (Sec.6 , Art. 6, 1987 Consti):
GROUP OF MUNICIPALITIES AND CITIES:
No person shall be a Member of the House
REQUIREMENT
of Representatives unless:
1. He is a natural-born citizen of the
Philippines and, on the day of the election, Section 5 (3). Each legislative district shall
2. At least twenty-five years of age comprise, as far as practicable, contiguous,
3. Able to read and write compact and adjacent territory. Each city
4. A registered voter in the district in with a population of at least two hundred fifty
which he shall be elected thousand, or each province, shall have at least one
5. A resident thereof for a period of not less representative.
than one year immediately
preceding the day of the election.
Navarro v. Ermita (G.R No. 180050, 10
February 2010)

According to the petitioners, the law does not

Section 7: The members of the House of
abide by the basic requirements embedded in
Representatives shall be elected for a term of
the constitution on how to create a province. The
THREE YEARS which shall begin, unless
law creating the province of Dinagat Islands on
otherwise provided by law, at noon on the thirtieth
the basis of non-compliance with law (compact
day of June next following their election.
and adjacent territory).
 (FINALS) CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

The reason behind the requirement of a

Section 5 (3) [...] Each city with a population of at
practicable, contiguous, compact and adjacent
least two hundred fifty thousand [...] shall have at
territory is gerrymandering.
least one representative.

Does the provision mean that a city is entitled

GERRYMANDERING to 1 representative for every 250,000
inhabitants?

It is a term employed to describe an apportionment of

representative districts so contrived as to give an
unfair advantage to the party in power. Fr. Joaquin G.
Aquino III v. COMELEC (G.R. No. 189793, 7
Bernas, a member of the1986 Constitutional
April 2010)
Commission. Defined “gerrymandering” as the
formation of one legislative district out of
No, the 250,000 inhabitants requirement is to be
separate territories for the purpose of
construed only as a minimum requirement for the
favoring a candidate or a party.
city to be entitled to one legislative district.
However, it is not a requirement for
The Constitution prescribes gerrymandering, as it
additional legislative districts therein,
mandates each legislative district to comprise, as far
which will be under the sole discretion of
as practicable, a contiguous, compact and adjacent
Congress to determine. What the Constitution
territory.
envisions is a minimum number of constituents to
be entitled representation in Congress, not a
The requirement of contiguous, compact and adjacent
mathematical exactitude or rigid equality. (Aquino
territories prevents the controlling party of
III v. COMELEC G.R. No. 189793, 7 April 2010)
lawmakers from gerrymandering to favor their party
in the future.

APPORTIONMENT THROUGH LAW NOTE!

A city whose population has increased to 250,000 is

Municipalities and cities can be grouped together to entitled to have an initial legislative district only in
form a legislative district only through appointment the “immediately following election” after attainment
laws. In fact, the Congress shall make a of the 250,000 population without need of a
reapportionment of legislative districts within three reapportionment law.
years following the return of every census (Section
5(4), Art. 6, The 1987 Constitution) Example:

CITY CREATED THROUGH A LAW Talisay City has 240,000+ inhabitants in the 2015
census. If in 2019, it reaches 250,000, Talisay City
A city can only be created through a law. It is a will have its own legislative district in the 2022
municipal corporation, with a separate elections, without need of a law.

ADDITIONAL NOTE:

By “population”, the law means the number of

inhabitants, not the number of registered voters
therein.
 (FINALS) CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

a party-list system of registered national, regional,

(Herrera v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 131499, and sectoral parties of organizations.
November 17, 1999)
(2) The party-list representatives shall constitute
twenty per centum of the total number of
representatives including those under the party - list.
[..]
LEGISLATIVE DISTRICTS: PROVINCE

Law for Party List System

Sec. 5, Par. 3 Each city with a population of at least
two hundred fifty thousand, or each province shall
have at least one representative. The Constitution leaves to Congress, through a law,
to spell out the details of the partylist system. On 3
The provision draws a plain and clear March 1995, Congress passed a law providing for
distinction between the entitlement of a city to a said details, R.A 7941.
district on one hand, and the entitlement of a province
to a district on the other. For while, a province is
TWO CONCERNS FOR PARTY- LIST
entitled to at least a representative, with nothing
SYSTEM
mentioned about population, a city must first meet a
population minimum of 250,000 in order to be
There are two concerns: (1) Seat Allocation and
similarly entitled.
(2) Party-List and Nominee Qualification

The use by the subject provision of a comma to

separate the phrase “each city with a population of at
least two hundred fifty thousand” from the phrase “or PROBLEM
each province” points to no other conclusion
than that the 250,000 minimum population is Suppose that the current available seats in Congress
only required for a city, but not for a are as follows: district representatives- 48; party-list
province. representatives, 12.

Plainly read, Section 5(3) of the Constitution requires In the 2019 elections, suppose only the following
a 250,000 minimum population only for a city to be party-lists participated with their corresponding
entitled to a representative, but not so for a province. votes:

Aquino III v. COMELEC (G.R. No. 189793, 7

April 2010)

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: PARTY-

LIST

Party-List Representation

Section 5 (1) The House of Representatives shall be

composed of not more than two hundred and fifty
members, unless otherwise fixed by law, who (..) as
provided by law, shall be elected through
 (FINALS) CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

FOUR PARAMETERS IN PARTY-LIST

SYSTEM SEAT ALLOCATION

20% Allocation 2% Threshold

Proportional Three-Seat Limit

Representation

20% ALLOCATION

Section 5 (1) The House of Representatives shall 2%

be composed of not more than two hundred and
fifty members, unless otherwise fixed by law, who Sec. 11 [..]
[..], as provided by law, shall be elected through a
party-list system of registered national, regional, In determining the allocation of seats for the
and sectoral parties of organization. second vote, the following procedure shall be
observed:
(2) The party-list representatives shall constitute
twenty per centum of the total number of [...]
representatives including those under the party -
list. [..] (b) The parties, organizations, and coalitions
receiving at least two percent (2%) of the total
(Article VI, 1987 Constitution) votes cast for the party-list system shall be
entitled to one seat each: Provided, that those
garnering more than two percent (2%) of the votes
In Veterans Party v. COMELEC (G.R. No. 136781, 6 shall be entitled to additional seats in proportion to
October 2000), the 20% allocation is considered as a their total number ofTHRESHOLD
votes: Provided, finally, That
mere ceiling. Meaning all seats allocated for party- each party, organization, or coalition shall be
list representation need not be filled. entitled to not more than three (3) seats.

However, in BANAT v. COMELEC (G.R. No

(Republic Act 7941)
179271, 21 April 2009), the Supreme Court
abandoned its ruling in the Veterans case. It ruled
In Veterans cases the Supreme Court ruled that the
that the 20% allocation under the Constitution is
2% threshold is the qualification of a party- list to
mandatory and, therefore, all 20% ceilings must be
get a seat in the House. Thus, if a party-list fails to
filled up.
get 2% of all votes cast for party list in the
election, it cannot get a seat. Remember, under
Formula for SEATS:
Veteran, the 20% threshold is a mere ceiling. So, no
need to distribute all seats.

However, in the BANAT case, 20% was declared as

mandatory. As such, the 2% threshold as
qualification was abandoned. Instead the Court said
that reaching 2% of entities the party-listed a
guaranteed seat instead. The remaining seats
 (FINALS) CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

must, therefore, be apportioned next to those parties How do we apportion seats?

that did not get at least 2% votes.
1. Rank the participating Party-Lists from
As a result, the Supreme Court also declared the highest to lowest
disqualification of “failure to obtain 2% in the two 2. Assign ONE GUARANTEED SEAT to
preceding elections’ have been construed to mean those who garnered at least 2%
“failure to qualify for a seat in the two 3. From partylist garnering the highest votes,
preceding elections. assign ADDITIONAL SEATS down until
all the remaining seats shall have been
(Philippine Guardians Brotherhood, Inc. v. distributed
COMELEC, G.R. No. 190529, 29 April 2010) 4. In no case should one party-list be entitled to
more than 3 SEATS.
PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION
DISTRIBUTION: GUARANTEED SEATS

Sec. 11 [..]

In determining the allocation of seats for the second

vote, the following procedure shall be observed:

[...]

(b) The parties, organizations, and coalitions

receiving at least two percent (2%) of the total votes
cast for the party-list system shall be entitled to one PARTY LIST AND NOMINEE
seat each: Provided, that those garnering more QUALIFICATION
than two percent (2%) of the votes shall be
entitled to additional seats in proportion to
their total number of votes: Provided, finally, Who may be a Party-List Group?
That each party, organization, or coalition shall be
entitled to not more than three
(3) seats. The party-list system is composed of three different
groups: (1) national political parties or
(Republic Act 7941) organizations; (2) regional political parties or
organizations; and (3) sectoral parties or
organizations.
THREE SEAT LIMIT
National and regional parties or organizations are
Lastly, a party-list cannot exceed three seats no different from sectoral parties or organizations.
matter how much votes it gets. Hence, there are only, National and regional parties or organizations need
at most, three rounds for distribution of seats in the not be organized along sectoral lines and need not
House of Representatives. represent any particular sector. (Atong Paglaum, Inc.
vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 203766,
2 April 2013)

SUMMARY
IMPORTANT!

Sectoral parties or organizations may either

“marginalized and underrepresented” or
 (FINALS) CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

lacking in “well-defined political

constituencies.” It is enough that their principal
advocacy pertains to the special interest and
ILLUSTRATION
concerns of their sector. The sectors that are
In itself, and even without a sectoral wing, it can
“marginalized and underrepresented” include labor,
participate in the party-list system provided:
peasants, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural
communities, handicapped, veterans, and overseas
1. It registers as a party-list; and
workers. The sectors that lack “well-defined political
2. It does not field any candidate in the
constituencies” include professionals, the elderly,
district representative elections.
women and the youth.

(Atong Paglaum, Inc. vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. However, if it fields candidates—
203766, 2 April 2013)

IMPORTANT! Who may be a Nominee in the Party-List

Group?
Majority of the members of the sectoral party must
belong to the sector they are representing. Section 9. Qualifications of Party-List
Nominees. No person shall be nominated as party-
(Atong Paglaum, Inc. vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. list representative unless he is a natural born citizen
203766, 2 April 2013) of the Philippines, a registered voter, a resident of the
Philippines for a period of not less than one (1) year
IMPORTANT! immediately preceding the day of the election, able to
read and write, a bona fide member of the party
The enumeration of sectors that are considered as or organization which he seeks to represent
marginalized and underrepresented or lacking well- for at least ninety
defined political constituencies is not exclusive. (90) days preceding the day of the election,
and is at least twenty-five (25) years of age on the
(Ang Ladlad LGBT Party v. COMELEC, G.R. No. day of the election.
190582, 08 April 2010)
(Republic Act No. 7941)
IMPORTANT!
What does “bona fide member” mean?
National and regional political parties can participate
in party-list elections provided they register
under the party-list system and do not field Initially, the Court explained that the persons
candidates in legislative district elections. A nominated by the party-list candidate- organization
political party, whether major or not, that fields must be “Filipino citizens belonging to marginalized
candidates in legislative district elections can and underrepresented sectors, organizations and
participate in party-list elections only through its parties. (Ang Bagong Bayani- OFW v. COMELEC)
sectoral wing that can separately register under the
party-list system. The sectoral wing is by itself Later on, the Court clarified that “bona fide member”
an Independent sectoral party, and is linked means that the nominees of the sectoral party
to a political party through a coalition. (Atong must either belong to the sector, or must
Paglaum, Inc. vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 203766, 2 have a track record of advocacy for the
April 2013) sector represented. The Court explained that for
a person to be a member of the marginalized and
underrepresented, one
 (FINALS) CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

need not “wallow in poverty, destitution or infirmity. permanent residence to which, when absent,
(Atong Paglaum, Inc. vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. one has the intention of returning.
203766, 2 April 2013)
One may have several “residences”, or places of
Section 9 [...] In case of a nominee of the youth abode, but one can only have one “domicile”.
sector, he must be at least twenty-five (25) but
not more than thirty years of age on the day Under Political Law, specifically election laws,
of the election. Any youth sectoral representative residence and domicile are synonymous when
who attains the age of thirty (3) during his term shall viewed as a requirement of holding office.
be allowed to continue in office until the expiration (Macalintant v. COMELEC)
of his term.

IMPORTANT Module 9-B: Powers of the Legislative

Department
The names of the nominees must be disclosed to the
public. The ideal of a representative government by
General Plenary Powers
blind voting, as veritably advocated in the assailed
resolution of the Comelec. The court frowns upon
any interpretation of the law or rules that would
hinder in any way the free and intelligent casting of Summary of Powers
the votes in an election.
1. General Plenary Powers
So it must be here for still other reasons articulate 2. Impeachment Powers
earlier. Respondent COMELEC has a constitutional 3. Other powers
duty to disclose and release the names of the 4. Investigation and Scrutiny Powers
nominees of the party-list groups named in herein 5. Appropriation Powers
petitions. (Cinco v. COMELEC)
“Legislative power is peculiarly within the
IMPORTANT province of the Legislature. Section 1, Article VI
categorically states that "t]he legislative power
National, regional, and sectoral parties or shall be vested in the Congress of the
organizations shall not be disqualified if some of Philippines which shall consist of a Senate and a
their nominees are disqualified, provided that they House of Representatives." To be sure, neither
have at least one nominee who remains qualified. Martial Law nor a state of rebellion nor a state of
emergency can justify President Arroyo's
Atong Paglaum, Inc. vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. exercise of legislative power by issuing
203766, 2 April 2013 decrees.” (David v. Arroyo, G.R. No. 171396)

General Plenary Powers

RESIDENCY = DOMICILE?

Semantically, there is a difference between residence

and domicile. “Residence” denotes place of abode,
temporarily or permanently. “Domicile”, on the
other hand, denotes fixed
Subject Matter Limitations

(Power exercised) (General and Specific)

1. Police Power
 (FINALS) CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

2. Taxation
(Gerochi v. Department of Energy G.R. No.
3. Eminent Domain
159796, 17 July 2007)

Nature: malleable
Ex. E-sports
Police Power: Basis Public Welfare- is a adapting/ malleable to the
times
Legislative Powers entail the power to prescribe rules
of action for the citizenry which may involve
What does public welfare mean?
regulation of some people’s liberty or property for
the common good. In effect, legislative powers entail
police power. PUBLIC WELFARE: BROAD AND INCLUSIVE

Section 1 Article 6 vests this plenary power primarily The concept of public welfare is broad and
on the Legislative Branch of the Government. inclusive. [..] The values it represents are spiritual
as well as physical, aesthetic as well as monetary. It
Police Power, defined is within the power of the legislature to determine
that the community should be beautiful as well as
“Police Power, while incapable of an exact definition, healthy, spacious as well as clean, well-balanced as
has been purposely veiled in general terms to well as carefully patrolled. In the present case, the
underscore its comprehensiveness to meet all Congress and its authorized agencies have made
exigencies and provide enough room for an efficient determinations that take into account a wide variety
and flexible response as the conditions warrant.” of values.

(White Light Corp v. City of Manila, G.R No. (Manosca v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 106440, 29
122846, 20 january 2009) January 1996)

“The police power is the power of promoting the Public Welfare: Almost Boundless
public welfare [scope] by restraining and regulating
[character] the use of liberty and property.” Especially is it so under a modern democratic
framework where the demands of society and of
“Promotes public welfare for public welfare” nations have multiplied to almost unimaginable
“Regulates liberty and/or property” proportions; the field and scope of police power has
become almost boundless, just as the fields of
(Gerochi v. Department of Energy G.R. No. public interest and public welfare have
159796, 17 July 2007) become almost all-embracing and have
transcended human foresight.
POLICE POWER: SCOPE
(Ichong v. Hernandez, GR No. L-7995)

“The police power is the power of promoting the

public welfare [scope] by restraining and regulating Q: If it is broad, boundless, and inclusive, how do
[character] the use of liberty and property.” we define it?
 (FINALS) CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

It has been negatively put forth by justice Malcolm as

DEFINITION BY EXAMPLE (directly affecting
“that inherent and plenary power in the state which
only a portion of the population such as the
enables it to prohibit all things hurtful to the comfort,
farmers on agrarian reform but indirectly
safety, and welfare of society.
affecting the rest of the population)

(Morfe v. Mutuc, G.R. No. L-20387, 31 JANUARY

“Public Welfare” Example: Video Industry 1968)

Being a relatively new industry (video industry), DEFINITION VIA NEGATIVA

the need for its regulation was apparent (..) there is
no question that public welfare is at bottom of its
enactment, considering “the unfair competition Public welfare that is not part of public welfare
posed by rampant film piracy; the erosion of the
It is public welfare, not just individual welfare, or the
moral fiber of the viewing public brought about by
welfare of a particular class, or of a particular group
the availability of unclassified and unreviewed
of people, which requires interference.
video tapes containing pornographic films and
films with brutally violent sequences; and losses in
[See United States v. Toribio, G.R. No. L-5060, 26
government revenues due to the drop in theatrical
January 1910]
attendance, not to mention the fact that the
activities of video establishments are virtually
Police power requires Public welfare
untaxed since mere payment of Mayor's permit and
+
municipal license fees are required to engage in
Public Welfare = Broad, Boundless, and Inclusive
business.”

(TIO v. Videogram Regulatory Board, G.R No. Police Power = Broad, Boundless, Inclusive
L-75697, 18 June 1987)
POLICE POWER: AWESOME SCOPE

Police power has been used as justification for

Other subjects considered as “public numerous and varied actions by the State. These
welfare” range from the regulation of dance halls, movie
theaters,gas stations and cockpits.
Police power has been used as justification for
numerous and varied actions by the State. These The awesome scope of police power is best
range from regulation of dance halls, movie theaters, demonstrated by the fact that in its hundred or so
gas stations and cockpits. The awesome scope of years of presence in our nation's legal system, its use
police power is best demonstrated by the fact that in has rarely been denied.
its hundred or so years of presence in our nation;s
legal system, its use has rarely been denied. (White Light Corp v. City of Manila, G.R No.
122846, 20 january 2009)
(White Light Corp v. City of Manila, G.R No.
122846, 20 january 2009) BROAD SCOPE: IMPLICATIONS

There is a reaffirmation of its nature and scope as (1) The proper authorities to exercise police
embracing the power to prescribe regulations to power have a wide margin of discretion to
promote the health, morals, education, good order, choose and assess whether a specific
safety, or the general welfare of the people. problem falls within the nation of public
 (FINALS) CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

welfare, subject of course to applicable good or to serve some important government interest.
limitations and review by the judiciary.
(2) The judiciary, in reviewing whether a (Manila Memorial Park, Inc. v .Secretary of
claimed exercise of police power concerns Social Welfare and Development, G.R. No.
public welfare, must respect this wide 175356, 3 December 2013)
margin of discretion. It must, therefore,
assess the existence of public welfare on a Reason #2 (intention to succeed as a
case to case basis and in light of the Republic of the Philippines)
circumstances surrounding the governmental
action, because “public welfare “ is an Police power is a power not emanating from or
evolving concept. conferred by the constitution, but inherent in the
state, plenary, suitably vague and far from precisely
POLICE POWER: CHARACTER designed, (because) it is rooted in the conception that
man, organizing the State and imposing upon the
(1) It is the most positive and active of all government limitations to safeguard constitutional
governmental processes, (2) the most rights, did not intent thereby to enable individual
essential, insistent and illimitable. (3) It citizens or a group of citizens to obstruct
derives its existence from the existence of unreasonable the enactment of such salutary
the State itself. (4) It is co-extensive with measures to ensure communal peace, safety, good
self-protection and survival of the state. order and welfare."

When there is a state, there is police power. POLICE POWER: THE MOST SUPERIOR
Without police power, the state cannot control its AMONG THE FUNDAMENTAL POWERS
citizens, hence, the state and police power are
co-extensive. Consequently, as it is the most pervasive of all the
fundamental powers, it is also deemed as the most
(Ichong v. Hernandez, G.R No. L-7995, 31 May supreme of the three, such that the other fundamental
1957) powers may be used simultaneously with
police power as its implement.
Creation of the State = Creation of Police Power
ILLUSTRATIONS
Dissolution of the State = Dissolution of Police
Power
Why is it coextensive with the State? I. TAXATION AS AN IMPLEMENT OF
POLICE POWER

Reason #1 (When you create a state, we all TAX TO STABILIZE THE SUGAR INDUSTRY
come together into a social contract)
The tax collected is not a pure exercise of the taxing
It is a basic postulate of our democratic system of power. It is levied for a regulatory purpose, it
government that the constitution is a social contract provides means for the stabilization of the sugar
whereby the people have surrendered their sovereign industry. The levy is primarily in the exercise of the
powers to the State for the common good. All police power of the state.
persons may be burdened by regulatory measures
intended for the common (Gaston v. Republic Planters Bank, 158 SCRA
626, 1988)
 (FINALS) CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

property rights, though sheltered by due process,

must yield to general welfare.
II. EMINENT DOMAIN AS IMPLEMENT
OF POLICE POWER
St. Luke’s Medical Center Employees
Association - AFW v. National Labor
Compulsory Acquisition of Land for Agrarian Relations Commission, G.R. No. 162053, 7
Reform March 2007:

Recent trends, however, would indicate not a Police Power > Right to Security of Tenure
polarization but a mingling of the police
power of eminent domain, with the latter, being While the right of workers to security of tenure is
used as an implement of the former like the power of guaranteed by the Constitution, its exercise may be
taxation. The employment of the taxing power to reasonably regulated pursuant to the police power of
achieve a police purpose has long been accepted. the State to safeguard health, morals, peace,
education, order, safety, and the general welfare of
(Association of Small Landowners in the the people. Consequently, persons who desire to
Philippines Inc. v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, engage in the learned professions requiring scientific
G. R. No. 78742, 14 July 1989) or technical knowledge may be required to take an
examination as a prerequisite to engaging in their
POLICE POWER INVOLVES RESTRAINT AND chosen careers. The most concrete example of this
REGULATION would be in the field of medicine, the practice of
which in all its branches has been closely regulated
By character, police power involves restraint and by the State.
regulation of the use of liberty and property. It is the
most pervasive, the least limitable and the most Professional Regulation Commission v. De
demanding. Guzman G.R. No. 144681, 21 June 2004:

(See Constitutional Law, Cruz and Cruz, 2015 Police Power > Right to Choose a Profession
Edition, p. 85)
It is true that this court has upheld the constitutional
POLICE POWER: SUPREME OVER RIGHTS right of every citizen to select a profession or course
AND LIBERTIES of study subject to a fair, reasonable, and equitable
admission and academic requirements. But like all
As it involves restraint and regulation on liberty and rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Charter, their
property, a valid exercise of police power is, by exercise may be so regulated pursuant to the police
characters characters, supreme over rights and power of the State to safeguard health, morals, peace,
liberties even those that are guaranteed under the education, order, safety, and general welfare of the
Constitution. people. Thus, persons who desire to engage in the
learned professions requiring scientific or technical
Carlos Superdrug Corporation v. DSWD G.r. knowledge may be required to take an examination as
No. 166494, 29 June 2007: a prerequisite to engaging in their chosen careers.

Police Power > Property Rights

When the conditions are so demanding as to be

determined by the legislature, property rights must
bow to the primacy of police power because
 (FINALS) CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

Despite the impairment clause, a contract valid at the

Rights - time of its execution may be legally modified or even
Legally completely invalidated by a subsequent law. If the
Demand
law is a proper exercise of the police power, it
will prevail over the contract. Into each contract are
Privileg read the provisions of existing law and, always, a
e-
Given reservation of the police power as long as the
by
State. agreement deals with a matter, affecting the public
Not welfare. Such a contract, it has been held, suffers a
Deman
dable congenital infirmity, and this is its susceptibility to
change by the legislature as a postulate of the legal
order.
Rights and Privileges bow down to police power
(PNB v Office of the President, G.R. No. 104528, 18
And when police power can topple pre-existing rights
January 1996)
and liberties, with all the more reason can it topple
privileges, such as in case of the following:
Proper exercise of Police power:
1. The privilege to carry firearms (Chavez v. REQUIREMENTS
Romulo, G.R No,. 157036, 9 June 2004)
2. The privilege of utilizing natural resources
Authority + Limitations
(Southeast Mindanao Goldmining Corp v.
Balite Portal Mining,
Firstly, there was no effort (and apparently no
G.R No. 134190, 3 April 2002)
inclination on the part of Comelec) to show that the
3. 3. The privilege of operating a motor
police power, essentially a power of legislation, has
vehicle. (Metropolitan Manila
been constitutionally delegated to the respondent
Development Authority v. Garin, G.R No.
Commission. Secondly, while private property may
13020) - not a right, but a privilege
indeed be validly taken in the legitimate exercise of
4.
the police power of the state, there was no attempt to
If it is so pervasive and limitless, how then can it show compliance in the instant case with the
be present in a legal framework where rights of the requisites of a lawful taking under the police power.
citizens exist?
(Philippine Press Institute v. COMELEC, G.R. No. L-
LIMITATIONS OF POLICE POWER: 119694)

Notwithstanding its extensive sweep, police power is Q: Who has AUTHORITY to exercise Police
not without its own limitations. For all its awesome Power?
consequences, it may not be exercised arbitrarily or
unreasonably. Otherwise, in that event, it defeats the
purpose for which it is exercised, that is to advance POLICE POWER: EXERCISING
public good. AUTHORITY

(Philippine Association of Service Exporters, Inc.

v Drilon, G.R No. 81958, 30 June 1988)
 (FINALS) CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

The President
purposes eg. jeepneys which are
over 20 years old) but, in
The Legislature Local Government OR fact, useful

Their existence or use is 1. Taking of

Administrative
contrary to general private
comfort, health, and property
Primary Authority of prosperity of the state 2. Genuine
Delegated Authority
Exercising Police
of Exercising Police
necessity to
Power take to take
Power
the private
property
Not all laws involve police power. 3. Must be for
public use
Police power is the power inherent in a government 4. With just
compensation
to enact laws, within constitutional limits, to promote
the order, safety, health, morals, and general welfare
of society. It is lodged primarily in the
legislature.
Property condemned under police power is usually
noxious or intended for a noxious purpose; hence, no
(Camarines Norte Electric Cooperative v. Torres)
compensation shall be paid. Likewise, in the exercise of
police power, property rights of private individuals are
Eminent Domain subjected to restraints and burdens in order to secure the
general comfort, health and prosperity of the
State Powers [are affected of Police Power] state[…..]If, however, in the regulations of the use of
the property, somebody else acquires the use or interest
1. Liberty to Travel thereof , such restriction constitutes compensable
2. Right to Choose Profession taking.
3. Academic Freedom
4. Privilege to Use Firearms (Dipidio Earth-Savers’ Multipurpose Association, Inc.
5. Property Rights v. Gozun, G.R No. 157882)
- Is the inference of property rights based on
police power of eminent domain?
- In eminent domain, all cases involve CHARACTER OF INFERENCE OF PRIVATE
property rights. Since it involves taking PROPERTY
private property.
6. Privilege to Use Motor Vehicle Police Power Eminent Domain

Destruction of noxious Property ‘s use is

PROPERTY RIGHTS property of object converted to private
to public.
OR
CHARACTER OF PROPERTY INVOLVED May be in the Form of
Regulation of the use an acquisition or the
of the imposition of a
Police Power Eminent Domain compensable burden

Property involved is Property involved is “Condemned public

usually noxious or not noxious (wide use”
intended for noxious latitude of discretion
 (FINALS) CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

limit on the state’s exercise of this power and

Where a property interest is merely restricted because provides a measure of protection to the individual’s
the continued use thereof would be injurious to right to property.
public welfare, or where property is destroyed
because its continued existence would be injurious to - Protects the rights of the people
public interest, there is no compensable taking.
However, when a property interest is appropriated (Republic v. Tagle, G.R. No. 129079, 2 December
and applied to some public purpose, there is 1998)
compensable taking.
Without section 9, it is the citizens who will be at
(Dipidio Earth-Savers’ Multipurpose Association, the disadvantage. There will be no protection for
Inc. v. Gozun, G.R No. 157882) us. Even if our private properties are taken, we
will be given just compensation.
“Includes Imposition of Compensable
Burden”
Since the two powers are very different,
does that mean that they are mutually
Normally, of course, the power of eminent domain
exclusive?
results in the taking, or appropriation if title to, and
possession of, the expropriated property; but no
cogent reason appears why said power may NOTE: Police power can coexist with other
not be availed of to impose only a burden powers
upon the owner of condemned property,
without loss of title and possession. It is While there are traditional distinctions between the
unquestionable that real property may, through police power and the power of eminent domain that
expropriation, be subjected to an easement of right- logically preclude the application of both powers at
of-way. the same time on the same subject [..] recent trends
[..] would indicate not a polarization but a mingling
(Camarines Norte Electric Cooperation v. Court of of the police power and the power of eminent
Appeal, G.R No. 109338 ) domain, with the latter being used as an implement of
the former like the power of taxation.
CONSEQUENCE OF INTERFERENCE
(Association of Small Landowners in the
Philippines Inc. v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform,
Police Power Eminent Domain G. R. No. 78742, 14 July 1989)
No compensation is Just Compensation is
required required

Section 9, Article III

Private property shall not be taken for public use

without just compensation.

Section 9: Mere Limitation, not a Grant

To the extent that the measures under challenge
Section 9 Article II of the Constitution, mandating merely prescribe retention limits for landowners,
that private property shall not be taken for public use there is an exercise of the police power for the
without just compensation, merely imposes a
 (FINALS) CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

regulation of private property in accordance with the or property in order to promote the general welfare,
Constitution. But where, to carry out such regulation, while the power of taxation is the power to levy taxes
it becomes necessary to deprive such owners of to be used for public purpose. The main purpose
whatever lands they may own in excess of the of police power is the regulation of a
maximum area allowed, there is definitely a taking behavior or conduct, while taxation is
under the power of eminent domain for which revenue generation. The "lawful subjects" and
payment of just compensation is imperative. The "lawful means" tests are used to determine the
taking contemplated is not a mere limitation of the validity of a law enacted under the police power. The
use of the land. What is required is the surrender of power of taxation, on the other hand, is circumscribed
the title to and the physical possession of the said by inherent and constitutional limitations.
excess and all beneficial rights accruing to the owner
in favor of the farmer-beneficiary. This is definitely Perspectives in the Power of Taxation
an exercise not of the police power but of the power
of eminent domain.
Nature and Nature and
Character of the Character of the
(Association of Small Landowners in the Power to Tax Payment of
Philippines Inc. v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform,
G. R. No. 78742, 14 July 1989)
Nature and Character of the Power to Tax
Primary authority of Eminent Domain: The
legislature, Basis: General Plenary Power of the POWER TO TAX: ATTRIBUTE OF
Congress (Section 1, Art, 6) SOVEREIGNTY

Taxation: Nature and Characteristics The power to tax is “a principal attribute of

sovereignty.”
Taxation is the lifeblood of the government. Revenue
of the state. (Manila Memorial Park, Inc. v .Secretary of
Social Welfare and Development, G.R. No.
Taxation: Exaction to Raise Revenue 175356, 3 December 2013)

While it is true that the power of taxation can be used

POWER TO TAX: BASED ON SOCIAL
as an implement of police power, the primary
CONTRACT
purpose of the levy is revenue generation. If the
purpose is primarily revenue, or if revenue is, at least,
one of the real and substantial purposes, then the A principal attribute of sovereignty, the exercise of
exaction is properly called a tax. taxing power derives its sources from the very
existence of the state whose social contract with its
Planters Products, Inc. v. Fertiphil Corp., G.R. No. citizens obliges it to promote public interest and
166006, 14 March 2008) common good. The theory behind the exercise of its
power to tax emanates from necessity; without taxes,
Police power and the power of taxation are inherent the government cannot fulfill its mandate of
powers of the State. These powers are distinct and promoting the general welfare and well-bebing of the
have different tests for validity. Police power is the people.
power of the State to enact legislation that may
interfere with personal liberty (National Power Corporation v. City of Cabanatuan,
G.R. No. 149110, 9 April 2003)
 (FINALS) CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

and judicial branches of government without running

afoul to the theory of separation of powers. It,
POWER TO TAX: BASED ALSO ON
however, can be delegated to municipal corporations,
NECESSITY
consistent with the principle that legislative powers
may be delegated to local governments in respect of
A principal attribute of sovereignty, the exercise of matters of local concern.
taxing power derives its sources from the very
existence of the state whose social contract with its Nature and Character of the Payment of Tax
citizens obliges it to promote public interest and
common good. The theory behind the exercise of its PAYMENT OF TAX: DUTY
power to tax emanates from necessity; without taxes,
the government cannot fulfill its mandate of The obligation to pay tax [..] is a duty imposed upon
promoting the general welfare and well-bebing of the the individual by the mere fact of his membership in
people the body politic, and his enjoyment of the benefits
available from such membership.
(National Power Corporation v. City of Cabanatuan,
G.R. No. 149110, 9 April 2003) (Secretary of finance v. Oro, G.R. No. 156946)

POWER TO TAX: PRIMARILY LEGISLATIVE PAYMENT OF TAX: LIFEBLOOD OF THE

GOVERNMENT

The power of taxation, being an essential and Taxes are the lifeblood of this government. Without
inherent attribute of sovereignty, belongs, as a matter taxes, the government can neither exist nor endure.
of right, to every independent government, and needs
no express conferment by the people before it can be (Chamber of Real Estate and Builders’ Association,
exercised. It is purely legislative and, thus, cannot be Inc. v. Romulo)
delegated to the executive and judicial branches of
government without running afoul to the theory of TAXATION POWERS: EXERCISING
separation of powers. It, however, can be delegated to AUTHORITY
municipal corporations, consistent with the principle
that legislative powers may be delegated to local
Legislature Local President
governments in respect of matters of local concern.
Government
Units
(Film Development Council of the Phils v. Colon
Heritage Realty Corp., G.R. No. 203754 & 204418, Inherent Constitutionally- Statutorily-
Authority Delegated Delegated
16 June 2015) Authority Authority

POWER TO TAX: BUT DELEGABLE INHERENT AUTHORITY: LEGISLATURE

(Film Development Council of the Phils v. Colon

The power of taxation, being an essential and
Heritage Realty Corp., G.R. No. 203754 & 204418,
inherent attribute of sovereignty, belongs, as a matter
16 June 2015)
of right, to every independent government, and needs
no express conferment by the people before it can be
It is purely legislative and, thus, cannot be
exercised. It is purely legislative and, thus, cannot be
delegated to the executive and judicial branches
delegated to the executive
 (FINALS) CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

of government without running afoul to the theory of Charitable institutions, churches and parsonages, or
separation of powers. It, however, can be delegated to convents appurtenant thereto, mosques, non-profit
municipal corporations, consistent with the principle cemeteries, and all lands, buildings, and
that legislative powers may be delegated to local improvements, actually, directly, and exclusively
governments in respect of matters of local concern. used for religious charitable, or educational purposes
shall be exempt from taxation.
(Film Development Council of the Phils v. Colon
Heritage Realty Corp., G.R. No. 203754 & 204418, (Section 28[3] Article VI, 1987 Constitution)
16 June 2015)
Lands and buildings are separate, they are
TAX EXEMPTIONS taxed separately.

Note: TAX EXEMPTIONS Requirements for it to

be valid: CONCURRENCE OF AT LEAST THE TAXATION POWERS: LIMITATIONS
MAJORITY OF ALL THE MEMBERS OF
CONGRESS While the power to tax is so potent, it is not without
limitations. Thus, the proper and valid exercise of the
EXEMPTION: IMPLIED IN AUTHORITY TO power to tax must: (1) comply with due process of
TAX law; (2) be uniform; (3) be equitable; (4)
progressive; and (5) for public purpose.
Impliedly necessary, in the authority to impose taxes,
is the authority to provide for exemption which are in PUBLIC PURPOSE
the nature of “waiver” on the part of the authority to
tax a particular object. To sustain a tax, it is necessary to show that the
proceeds are devoted to a public purpose.
Exemption: Exception to the Rule
(Planters Products, Inc. v. Fertiphil Corporation, G.R
It should first be stressed that taxation is the rule and No. 16006)
exemption is the exception. The burden of proof rests
upon the party claiming exemption to prove that it is, PROGRESSIVE
in fact, covered by the exemption so claimed.
The Congress shall evolve a progressive system of
(National Power Corporation v. Province of Isabela, taxation.
G.R No. 165827)
(Section 28 [1], Article V1, 1987 Constitution) Insert
CONSTITUTIONAL RULES ON EXEMPTIONS
Picture* Progressive Tax System
No law granting any tax exemption shall be passed
without the concurrence of a majority of all the REGRESSIVE TAX
Members of Congress.
Regardless of the nature, of the capacity to pay, of
(Section 28[4] Article VI, 1987 Constitution) the earning of the individual- the tax remains the
same
EXEMPTION FROM REALTY TAXES [Exam
Question!!! Remember] (Check the Does the Constitution mandate progressive
institutions it involves)
 (FINALS) CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

The Constitution does not really prohibit the General Plenary Powers: Substantive
imposition of indirect taxes which, like VA, are Constitutional Limitations
regressive. What it simply provides is that Congress
shall “evolve a progressive system of taxation.” The Substantive Constitutional Limitations may be
constitution provision has been interpreted to mean express or implied. Express limitations are those
simply that “direct taxes are...to be preferred and as found among others, in the Bill of Rights (Art. III) in
much as possible, indirect taxes should be minimized. Prohibition of Increasing Appellate Jurisdiction of
Indeed, the mandate to Congress is not to prescribe, the Supreme Court without its concurrence (Sec.
but to evolve, a progressive tax system. 30, Article VI), in prohibition of royalty and nobility
laws (Section 31, Art. VI)
(Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance, G.R No. 115455,
October 30, 1995) “There is appellate jurisdiction if both of the
parties are not satisfied with the decision of the
“No, it does not necessarily mean that the court, they can appeal… when the court gives
constitution prohibits progressive tax system. The consent then there is no problem”
mandate is not to prescribe a progressive or
regressive but to evolve a progressive tax Implied substantive limitations involve the general
system..” prohibition on delegation of powers, with recognized
exceptions, and passage of irrepealable.
Regressivity is not a negative standard for
courts to enforce. What Congress is required by It is the basic precept that among the implied
the Constitution to do is to “evolve a progressive substantive limitations on the legislative powers is
system of taxation.” This is a directive to Congress, the prohibition against the passage of irrepealable
just like the directive to give priority to the enactment laws. Irrepealable laws deprive succeeding
of laws for the enhancement of human dignity and legislatures of the fundamental best senses
the reduction of social, economic, and political carte blanche in crafting laws appropriate to
inequities [...] These provisions are put in the the operative milieu. Their allowance promotes an
Constitution as moral incentives to legislation, not as unhealthy stasis in the legislative front and dissuades
judicially enforceable. dynamix democratic impetus that may be responsive
to the times. As senior associate justice Reynato S.
(British American Tobacco v. Camacho, G.R No. Puno once observed “to be sure, there are no
163583, 15 April 2009) irrepealable laws just as there are no irreparable
constitutions. Change is the predicate of progress and
GENERAL PLENARY POWERS we should not fear change.
(City of davao v. RTC, Br. XII, Davao City, G.R No.
Subject Matter Limitations (General 127383, 18 August 2005)
(Power Exercised) and Specific)
General Plenary Powers: Procedural
General Plenary Powers: Limitations Constitutional Limitations

One - Title Subject Three reading

However, no matter how wide this general plenary Rule requirement
power wielded by Congress is, it is subject to
constitutional limitations, both as to substance Section 26. Every bill Section 26. No bill
and as to process. passed by the Congress passed shall become a
shall law unless it has
 (FINALS) CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

completely unrelated and not germane to the subject matter of the bill is called a “rider”.
embrace only one subject passed 3 readings on
which shall be expressed SEPARATE DAYS,
in the title thereof. (Farinas v. The Executive Secretary et al.,G.R
and printed copies
No.1473870)
thereof in its final form
have been distributed to
THREE- READING REQUIREMENT
its Members three days
before its passage,
Section 26. No bill passed shall become a law unless
except when the
it has passed 3 readings on SEPARATE DAYS, and
President certifies to the
printed copies thereof in its final form have been
necessity of this
distributed to its Members three days before its
immediate enactment to
passage, except when the President certifies to
meet a public calamity
the necessity of this immediate enactment to
or
meet a public calamity or emergency.
emergency.
ONE-TITLE, ONE-SUBJECT RULE
The “unless” clause must be read in relation to the
except clause, because the two are really coordinate
The rule does not require the title to be a complete
clauses of the same sentence. To construe the except
index of the contents of the bill. It is sufficient
clause as simply dispensing with the second
compliance if the title expresses the general subject,
requirement in the unless clause (i.e printing and
and all the provisions of the statute are germane to
distribution three days before final approval) would
that subject.
not violate the rules of grammar. It would also negate
the very premise of the “except” clause; the necessity
(Philconsa v. Gimenez, G.R No. L-23326, 18,
of securing the immediate enactment of a bill which
December 1965)
is certified in order to meet a public calamity or
emergency.
One Title, One-Subject Rule does not mean one
operation in one law. You need to check the
(Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance, 115455, 25,
subjects of the title and the provisions of the bill.
August 1994)
The provisions that are not germane to the
subject of the law are called rider.
SUPREME COURT'S INTERPRETATION:

Two things:
Presidential certification does not result in dispensing
with reading requirements. Bills must still be read
1. Don’t just check the title for compliance.
three times as a matter of due process.
Check the provisions; check if there are
rider provisions
What it dispenses with is the reading on separate days
2. Don’t require the title to be the index of
and the printing requirements.
all the provisions. You can involve all
the aspects of the subjects.
For it is only the printing that is dispensed with by
presidential certification, the time saved would be so
The rule limits the legislative power of Congress in a
negligible as to be of any use in insuring immediate
way that the Legislature cannot insert provisions in
enactment. It may well be doubted whether doing
the law completely unrelated to the general subject
away with the necessity of printing
thereof. A provision that is
 (FINALS) CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

and distributing copies of the bill three days before it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by
the third reading would insure speedy enactment of a two-thirds of all the Members of that House, it shall
law in the face of an emergency requiring the calling become a law. In all such cases, the votes of each
of a special election for President and Vice-President. House shall be determined by yeas or nays, and the
names of the Members voting for or against shall be
(Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance, G.R No.) entered in its Journal. The President shall
communicate his veto of any bill to the House where
FROM WHICH HOUSE MUST A BILL it originated within thirty days after the date of
ORIGINATE? receipt thereof; otherwise, it shall become a law as if
he had signed it.

As a general rule, bills can originate in either or both

GR: Veto must be on the entire bill. Exceptions:
Houses. However, the following bills must, in all
if the bill falls under the TAR - tariff,
cases, originate from the House of Representatives.
appropriation, revenue, then the President can
do a line veto or an item veto. E.g Duterte
1. Appropriate Bill
vetoes 5 Train provisions.
2. Revenue or Tariff Bill
3. Bill Authorizing Increase of Public
VETO AS A WHOLE, EXCEPTION
Debt
4. Bills of Local Application - applicable The plain text of Section 27 (1), Art. VI shows that
only to a particular locality, comes from the veto must be on the whole bill. Even if the
the Congress, not similar with local President’s issue is only one line thereof, he must
legislation but is only limited to the
veto the whole bill. However, the President may
locality eg. bill creating a city, bill
partially veto particular items in case of:
declaring a heritage site,
5. Private Bills - bills that affect just a
1. A tariff bill
particular person eg. granting philippine
2. An appropriation bill
citizenship
3. A Revenue bill

(Section 24, Article VI.)

If the President approves, he shall sign it.
Otherwise, the President shall veto it and revert
LEGISLATIVE PROCESS (insert image)
back to where it originated.

RULE ON PRESENTMENT; VETO POWERS

Question: If a question involves a tariff bill, where
will it originate? = HOR, tariff bill was vetoed, can a
SECTION 27. (1) Every bill passed by the Congress
president do that? Yes. What's the reason? Because
shall, before it becomes a law, be presented to the
it's part of the exceptions of TAR.
President. If he approves the same, he shall sign it;
otherwise, he shall veto it and return the same with
When the president vetoes the tariff bill, where shall
his objections to the House where it originated, which
he communicate his objections? = to the HoR
shall enter the objections at large in its Journal and
because it was where it originated
proceed to reconsider it. If, after such
reconsideration, two- thirds of all the Members of
The bill is originated to the HoR
such House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be
sent, together with the objections, to the other House
When the bill has lapsed into law, that means
by which
the President did not act on it as if he had
signed it.

EFFECT OF NO ACTION
 (FINALS) CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

improvements, actually, directly, and

SECTION 27. (1) Every bill passed by the Congress exclusively used for religious, charitable, or
shall, before it becomes a law, be presented to the educational purposes (Section 28 [3])
President. If he approves the same, he shall sign it; 3. Exemption of revenues and assets of non-
otherwise, he shall veto it and return the same with stock, non-profit education institutions used
his objections to the House where it originated, which actually, directly, and exclusively for
shall enter the objections at large in its Journal and educational purposes (Section 4(3) Art.
proceed to reconsider it. If, after such XIV)
reconsideration, two- thirds of all the Members of 4. Laws granting tax exemptions shall be
such House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be passed only with the concurrence of the
sent, together with the objections, to the other House majority of all the members of congress
by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if (Sec. 29 (4), Art. VI)
approved by two-thirds of all the Members of that
House, it shall become a law. In all such cases, the NOTE: Tariff and revenue bills must originate
votes of each House shall be determined by yeas or exclusively in the HoR, but the Senate may propose
nays, and the names of the Members voting for or or concur with amendments.
against shall be entered in its Journal. The President
shall communicate his veto of any bill to the House (Section 24, Art. VI)
where it originated within thirty days after the date of
receipt thereof; otherwise, it shall become a law as if
Module 10-A: The Executive Department
he had signed it.

VETO OVERRIDE (Exam Question: Where Section 1. The executive power shall be
should the bill be revert? To the originate vested in the President of the Philippines
House)
QUALIFICATIONS
Section 27. If, after such reconsideration, two-
thirds of all the Members of such House shall agree Who qualifies to be the President of
to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the the Philippines?
objections, to the other House by which it shall
likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two- Section 2. No person shall be elected
thirds of all the Members of that House, it shall President, unless he is:
become a law. 1. Natural-born citizen
2. Registered voter
The congress will still retain the final say = the 3. Able to read and write
congress can override the veto. 4. At least 40 years of age on the day of
election
TAXATION POWERS 5. Resident of the Philippines for at least 10
years immediately preceding such election.
In addition to the limitations concerning laws in
general, the Legislature’s power is subject to the
following additional limitations: “SPARE TIRE”

1. Uniformity and Equitability (Section 28 Section 3. There shall be a Vice-President who

[1]) shall have the same qualifications and term of office
2. Exemptions from taxation of charitable and be elected with and in the same manner as the
institutions, and all lands, buildings, and President. He may be removed from office in the
same manner as the President.
 (FINALS) CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

concrete, real or substantial controversy that touches

VICE PRESIDENT AS CABINET MEMBER on the legal relations of parties having adverse legal
interests. No specific relief may conclusively be
SECTION 3. There shall be a Vice-President who decreed upon by this Court in this case that will
shall have the same qualifications and term of office benefit any of the parties herein. As such, one of the
and be elected with and in the same manner as the essential requisites for the exercise of the power of
President. He may be removed from office in the judicial review, the existence of an actual case or
same manner as the President. controversy, is sorely lacking in this case.”

The Vice-President may be appointed as a Member SECTION 4. The President and the Vice- President
of the Cabinet. Such appointment requires no shall be elected by direct vote of the people for a term
confirmation. of six years which shall begin at noon on the thirtieth
day of June next following the day of the election and
Note: In case the VP is appointed as a member shall end at noon of the same date six years
of the Congress, her appointment will no longer thereafter. The President shall not be eligible for any
require confirmation from the Commission on reelection. No person who has succeeded as
Appointment on Congress. President and has served as such for more
than four years shall be qualified for election
ELECTION, TERM, AND OATH: PRESIDENT to the same office at any time.

Section 4. The President and the Vice President Gloria succeeded the Presidency in 2001, less than 3
shall be elected by direct vote of the people for a years remaining in the term of Pres. Estrada. Thus,
term of six years which shall begin at noon she was eligible to run for President—
on the thirtieth day of June next following the
day of the election and shall end at noon of VICE PRESIDENT - TERM LIMIT
the same date six years thereafter. The
president shall not be eligible for any re
election. No person who has succeeded as president No Vice-President shall serve for more than two
and has served as such for more than four years shall consecutive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the
be qualified for election to the same office at any office for any length of time shall not be considered
time. as an interruption in the continuity of the service for
the full term for which he was elected.
PROHIBITED - re-election to the presidency
Unless otherwise provided by law, the regular
The president shall not be eligible for any re- election for President and Vice-President shall be
election. held on the second Monday of May.

Pormento v. Estrada, G.R No. 191988, 31 Aug NOTE: The regular election for President and VP is
2010 held on the second Monday of May, unless otherwise
provided by law.
“Private respondent was not elected
President the second time he ran. Since the CONGRESS AS CANVASSERS
issue on the proper interpretation of the phrase "any
reelection" will be premised on a person’s second
(whether immediate or not) election as President,
there is no case or controversy to be resolved in this
case. No live conflict of legal rights exists. There is
in this case no definite,
 (FINALS) CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

In the elections for President and Vice President, the contests, through the PET, is actually a derivative
Congress shall act as the Board of Canvassers, and it of the exercise of the prerogative conferred
shall have the power to proclaim the candidate by the afore-quoted constitutional provision.
having the highest votes as President and Vice- Thus, the subsequent directive in the provision for the
President. SC to ‘promulgate its rules for the purpose.

It shall also have the power to choose the President (Romulo Macalintal v. PET G.R No. 191618, 23
and Vice President in case two or more candidates Nov 2010)
thereof obtained equal and highest votes.
Oath or Affirmation
THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully
Section 4. The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, and conscientiously fulfill my duties as President (or
shall be the sole judge of all contests relating Vice- President or Acting President) of the
to the election, returns, and qualifications of Philippines, preserve and defend its Constitution,
the President or Vice-President, and may execute its laws, do justice to every man, and
promulgate its rules for the purpose consecrate myself to the service of the Natiion. So
help me God.
Question: The Constitution states “The
Supreme Court”, not the “Presidential The President and the Vice-President shall take the
Electoral Tribunal– oath or affirmation before they enter on the execution
of their office.
NOT A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ENTITY
RULES ON SUCCESSION
“By the same token, the PET is not a separate and
distinct entity from the Supreme Court, albeit it Vacancy
has functions peculiar only to the Tribunal. It is
obvious that the PET was constituted in Occurs when the person entitled to hold office suffers
implementation of Section 4, Article VII of the from inability, or otherwise incapacity to qualify, or
Constitution, and it faithfully complies – not when there is no person chosen for the position
unlawfully defies – the constitutional directive. The notwithstanding the conduct of an election.
adoption of a separate seal, as well as the change in
the nomenclature of the Chief Justice and the TWO PHASES
Associate Justices into Chairman and Members of the
Tribunal, respectively, was designed simply to Vacancy can occur in either of two phases: (1)
highlight the singularity and exclusivity of vacancy at the time beginning of the term; and (2)
the Tribunal’s functions as a special electoral vacancy during the term.
court.”
RULES IN CASE OF VACANCY AT THE
BEGINNING OF THE TERM OF THE
JUDICIAL POWER, NOT QUASI-JUDICIAL PRESIDENT

It is also beyond cavil that when the SC, as PET, Though elected, a person does not automatically
resolves presidential or vice-presidential election assume the office of the Presidency. His assumption
contest, it performs what is essentially a judicial into office starts when his/her term. Between the date
review [..] The SC’s method of deciding presidential of proclamation and the start of
and vice-presidential election
 (FINALS) CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

the term, a person is considered as a President - elect.

NOTE
RULE IN CASE OF PERMANENT VACANCY
IN THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT The person designated to act as president shall
continue to act as such until a President OR a Vice
In case of permanent vacancy, the Vice- President President shall have been chosen and qualified.
shall become the President, If the President-elect
dies or suffers from permanent disability (brain When the Vice President is chosen and qualified,
dead, for example), the Vice- President elect without the President, the person designated by law
shall become the President. Meaning, while he or will cease to act as President, because it is now the
she has been proclaimed as Vice-President, he or she Vice-President who shall act as President, until the
will assume the presidency by noon of 30th of June. President is chosen and qualified, because it is as if
there is a temporary vacancy in the office of the
RULE IN CASE OF TEMPORARY VACANCY President.
IN THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
NOTE
In contrast, in case of temporary vacancy, such as
when the President-elect fails to qualify (not yet There is no rule of succession if a temporary vacancy
taken his or her oath, for example) or when the occurs (fails to qualify or no vice president is chosen)
President shall not have been chosen (failure of at the beginning of the term of the Vice President.
election, incomplete canvassing, etc.), the Vice- The state can afford to have no Vice President at the
President-elect shall only act as President beginning of the term of office
- until the President qualifies or a President shall have
been chosen. But if vacancy of the Vice President occurs during
the term, the President shall nominate a Vice
Note: What is temporary vacancy vs. permanent President from among the members of Senate and
vacancy, in both positions of the President and House of Representatives who shall assume office
Vice -President? upon confirmation but a majority vote of all the
members of both houses of congress voting
WHAT IF THERE IS VACANCY, WHETHER separately.
PERMANENT OR TEMPORARY, IN BOTH
POSITIONS OF THE PRESIDENT AND VICE – VACANCY DURING THE TERM
PRESIDENT AT THE SAME TIME?
But if vacancy of the Vice President occurs
If both the President and the Vice-President have not during the term, the President shall nominate a
been chosen or qualified, or have died, or become Vice President from among the members of
permanently disabled, the Senate President, or in his Senate and House of Representatives who shall
disability, the Speaker of the House shall act as assume office upon confirmation but a majority
President, until a President and VP shall have been vote of all the members of both houses of
chosen and qualified. congress voting separately.

In the event of the inability of the said officials, PERMANENT VACANCY

Congress shall, by law, provide for the manner in
which one who is to act as President shall be selected, Death, permanent, disability, removal from office, or
until a President or a Vice-President shall have been resignation of the President, the Vice- President shall
chosen and qualified. become the President.
 (FINALS) CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

duties of his office, the Vice President shall assume

“RESIGNATION” the powers as Acting President.

There is resignation when (1) there is intent to resign, But when the President transmits to the Senate
and (2) act of relinquishment. In the case of Estrada, President and Speaker his written declaration that no
both are present as held in the case of Estrada v. inability exists—
Arroyo, G.R No. 146738, 2 March 2001)
Meanwhile, should a majority of the Members of the
If permanent vacancy occurs, by reason of death, Cabinet transmit within 5 days to the Senate
permanent disability, removal from office, or President and the Speaker a written declaration that
resignation of the President and Vice-President, the the President is unable to discharge the powers and
Senate President, or in case of his inability, the duties of his office, Congress shall decide the issue.
Speaker of the House of Representatives shall act as
President until a President or Vice- President shall be For this purpose, Congress shall convene, if not in
elected. session, within 48 hours and determine by a ⅔ votes
of all the Members of the Congress, voting separately
RELATE TO SECTION 10, ARTICLE VII, 1987 that the president is unable discharge the powers and
CONSTITUTION duties of his office, the Vice- Preisdent shall act as
President; otherwise, the President shall continue
When there is vacancy in both the Offices of the exercising the powers and duties of his office.
President and Vice-President, during their term,
Congress is always and automatically duty bound to SERIOUS ILLNESS: NOT AUTOMATIC
convene in the morning of the third day after the INABILITY
vacancy occurs without need of call, to enact a law,
within seven days from the date Congress convened, SECTION 12. In case of serious illness of the
calling for a special election to be held not earlier President, the public shall be informed of the state of
than 45 days nor later than 60 days from the time the his health. The Members of the Cabinet in charge of
special elections were called. national security and foreign relations and the Chief of
Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, shall
TEMPORARY DISABILITY: AT THE INSTANCE not be denied access to the President during such
OF THE PRESIDENT illness.

When the President transmits to the Senate President

PRIVILEGES AND SALARIES
and Speaker his written declaration that he is unable
to discharge the powers and duties of his offices, and
until he transmits to them a written declaration to the SECTION 6. The President shall have an official
contrary, the powers and duties of the President shall residence. The salaries of the President and Vice-
be discharged by the Vice-President as Acting President shall be determined by law and shall not be
President. decreased during their tenure. No increase in said
compensation shall take effect until after the
TEMPORARY DISABILITY: AT THE INSTANCE expiration of the term of the incumbent during which
OF THE CABINET such increase was approved. They shall not
receive during their tenure any other
When a majority of all the members of the Cabinet emolument from the Government or any
transmit to the Senate President and the Speaker their other source.
written declaration that the President is unable to
discharge the powers and
 (FINALS) CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

EXECUTIVE IMMUNITY Presidential immunity cannot be invoked by a non-

sitting president even for acts committed during his
or her term .
Executive Immunity from suit is not based on an
express provision of law or the Constitution, but it is (Lozada v. Arroyo, G.R. No. 184379)
recognized by jurisprudence.
NOTE:
Settled in the doctrine that the president during his
tenure of office or actual incumbency, may not be Presidential immunity cannot be invoked by a
sued in any civil or criminal case, and there is no president in a case for a writ of amparo and writ of
need to provide in the constitution or law. It habeas data, because these writs, by nature, do not
will degrade the dignity of the high office of the determine administrative, civil, or criminal liability
President, the Head of State, if he can be dragged into but to seek the truth and the vindication of their
court litigation while serving as such. Furthermore, it rights, i.e., right to life (writ of amparo) and right to
is important that he be freed from any form of privacy (writ of habeas data), to enforce
harassment, hindrance or distraction to enable him to responsibility or accountability of the public officials.
fully attend to the performance of his official duties
and functions. Courts look with disfavor upon the presidential
privilege of immunity, especially when it impedes the
(Rubrico v. Arroyo, G.R. No. 183871, 18 February search for truth or impairs the vindication of a writ.
2010)
(Rodriquez v. Macapagal-Arroyo, G.R No.
Unlike the legislative and judicial branch, only one 191805, 15 November 2011)
constitutes the executive branch and
anything which impairs his usefulness in the NOTE:
discharge of the many great important duties imposed
upon him by the Constitution necessarily impairs Specifically, in a writ of amparo, the President, as the
the operation of the Government. commander-in-chief of the armed forces, who
necessarily possesses control over the military, can be
(Rubrico v. Arroyo, G.R No. 183871, 18 impleaded under the Doctrine Command
February 2010) Responsibility.

NOTE: (Rodriquez v. Macapagal-Arroyo, G.R No.

191805, 15 November 2011)
Presidential immunity is enjoyed only during the
tenure of the sitting president. Once, the person COMMAND RESPONSIBILITY
steps down as the president, immunity is also
divested because it exists only in concurrence with To hold someone liable under the doctrine of
the president’s incumbency. command responsibility, the following elements must
obtain:
(Rodriquez v. Macapagal-Arroyo, G.R No.
191805, 15 November 2011) a. The existence superior-subordinate
relationship between the accused as
IMPORTANT: superior and the perpetrator of the crime as
his subordinate;
 (FINALS) CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

b. The superior knew or had reason to ● Information between inter-government

know that the crime was about to be or had agencies prior to the conclusion of treaties
been committed; and and executive agreements.

c. The superior failed to take necessary CONVERSATIONS AND

and reasonable measures to prevent CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE
the criminal acts or punish the perpetrators PRESIDENT AND THE PUBLIC OFFICIAL
thereof.
Who may invoke?
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE
Conversations and correspondence between the
President and the public official are categorized as
Though not expressly conferred by the Constitution,
the Presidential Communications Privilege.
it is a special privilege of the President that has been
invariably acknowledged as essential to his or her As it is communications between the President and a
exercise of powers as the Chief Executive, consistent public official, the President himself or herself can
with the principle of separation of powers.
invoke it without condition. Additionally, his or
her Executive Secretary can invoke it, but the
(Almonte, et al. v. Vasquez, G.R No. 95367, 23
Executive Secretary must state that the invocation is
May 1997
“By the Order of the President”.

It is the power of the government to withhold

Moreover, other officials than the President and
information to the public, courts,and the Congress.
Executive Secretary may invoke it if the ff conditions
concur:
(Senate v. Ermita, G.R No. 169777, )
1. The communication must relate to a
“quintessential and non delegable
SCORE OF THE PRIVILEGE
presidential power;
2. The communication must be authored or
Executive Privilege covers all presidential
solicited and received by a close advisor of
communications.
the President; and
3. There is no showing of adequate need for the
(Akbayan v. Aquino, G.R. No. 170516, 16 July 2008)
disclosure, such as the information sought
likely contains important evidence and that is
SPECIFICALLY, IT COVERS:
unavailable elsewhere
● Conversations and correspondence between
Case Study:
the President and the public official
● Military, diplomatic, and other national
(Neri v. Senate Committee)
security matters, which in the interest of
G.R. No. 180643, 25 March 2008
national security should not be divulged
● Matters affecting national security
Can Sec. Romulo Neri, a Cabinet Member,
● Discussion in close-door Cabinet meetings.
validly invoke executive privilege?

Yes. He can invoke validly executive privilege as so

far as those 3 questions are concerned because of the
3 elements which are present in the case:
 (FINALS) CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

1. The questions involved matters concerning (Marcos, v. Manglapus, G.R No. 88211, 27 October
the power to enter into executive agreement, 1989)
which is a quintessential and non-delegable
presidential power. The Final decision in the No matter how broad the executive power can be, it
exercise of the said executive power is still is still limited by the express provision of the
lodged in the Office of the President. constitution as well as the implied principles
therein, most importantly, the principle of separation
2. By virtue of the doctrine of “operational of power.
proximity”, the person who authored,
solicited or received the information is a
close advisor. A member of the Cabinet
properly falls within the term “advisor”.
Note, however,

3. Respondent senate committee failed to show

an adequate need to overcome this privilege,
such that it failed to show that the testimony
covered by the privilege likely contains
important evidence (or material for
legislation) or that it is unavailable
elsewhere.

Module 10-B: The Powers and Functions

of the President

Section 1. The executive power shall be vested in

the President of the Philippines.

Section 17. [...] He shall insure that the laws be

SUMMARY OF ENUMERATED POWERS
faithfully executed.
● Power of control and supervision
Executive power: Execution of law, not the ● Diplomatic Powers
creation of laws. It is stated in Section 17,
● Military Powers
however, it does fully define the executive
● Appointment Powers
power.
● Other powers
● Pardoning Powers
Executive power is the power to enforce and
administer laws. It is broad and is more than the
MILITARY POWERS
sum of the specific powers enumerated in the
conti. It cannot be limited to specific powers
enumerated, as the president has residual powers
which are implied from the grant of executive power
and which are necessary for her to comply with her
duties under the constitution.
 (FINALS) CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

CALLING OUTPOWERS: MEANING

Calling out the armed forces simply means calling

the armed forces for aid in suppressing lawless
violence, invasion, or rebellion. It involves
ordinary police action. It does not, therefore,
grant the President the power to issue “decree”,
because legislative power is peculiarly within the
powers of Congress, which is not delegated even
when there is exercised of calling-out power.

(David v. Arroyo, G.R No. 171396, 3 May 2006)

ORDINARY COMMAND
NOTE:
AS COMMANDER- IN-
When the president calls out the armed forces, the
CHIEF
president is exercising her discretion solely vested in
her wisdom. The only criterion is that calling out
As a commander-in-chief, the president may
powers must be done “whenever it becomes
prohibit a military office from testifying in a
necessary”. As such, the courts cannot overrule this
legislative inquiry even without invocation of
exercise of discretionary power, except when there is
executive privilege, It is not subject to the same
showing of grave abuse of discretion amounting to
degree of restriction as that which may attach to
lack or excess of jurisdiction.
executive privilege or executive control.

Calling out powers involve the armed forces. It does

It is justified by the requirements of military
not involve the police. Thus, when the president calls
discipline. Lawful orders, such as lawfully
out the armed forces, the constitutional provision
promulgated prohibition, must be followed without
applies (requires lawless violence, invasion, or
question and rules must be faithfully complied with,
rebellion). But when he calls out the police, the
irrespective of a soldier's personal view.
constitutional provision does not apply because the
President does so pursuant to the power of executive
(Gudani v. Senga, G.R No. 170165, 15 August
control.
2006)

(IBP v. Zamora, G.R No. 141284, 15 August

2000)
MILITARY POWERS: CALLING OUT
NOTE:
SECTION 18. The President shall be the
Calling out powers pertain only to the prescient. A
Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the
provincial governor has no power to call out the
Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary, he
armed forces. The exercise thereof nu another
may call out such armed forces to prevent or
official, even if he is the local chief executive, is ultra
suppress lawless violence, invasion or
vires and not sanctioned by the constitution or by law
rebellion. In case of invasion or rebellion, when the
(specifically, the Local Government Code)
public safety requires it, he may, for a period not
exceeding sixty days, suspend the privilege of the
writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any
part thereof under martial law. [...]
 (FINALS) CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

(Jamar Kulayan v. Gov. Tan, G.R No. 187298, 3

July 2012) EXAMPLE: FACTS

MILITARY POWERS: SUSPENSION The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is

OF PRIVILEGE OF HABEAS CORPUS suspended in Maguindanao for rebellion by virtue of
an executive order. Mr. A was arrested in
SECTION 18. The President shall be the Maguindanao for rebellion.
Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the
Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary, he EXAMPLE: EFFECTS
may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress
lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. In case When Mr. A, files an application for writ of habeas
of invasion or rebellion, when the public corpus, the courts will take cognizance of the case
safety requires it, he may, for a period not and, if found sufficient in form and in substance, still
exceeding sixty days, suspend the privilege of issue the writ to the government officials concerned
the writ of habeas corpus or place the to produce his person in court and to explain the
Philippines or any part thereof under martial law. cause of his custody. If the court sees that his
detention is because of rebellion, a crime mentioned
[REMEMBER THIS!!! MIGHT COME OUT IN in the executive order, the court will suspend the
THE EXAM] proceeddings thereafter, not dismiss the case.

WHAT IS HABEAS CORPUS? Limitations:

A writ of habeas corpus is a speedy and effectual a. Grounds must be (1) Rebellion or (2)
remedy to relieve persons from unlawful restraint and invasion ; when public safety requires it in
is the best and efficient defense of personal freedom. either instance
b. Duration: not to exceed 60 days, unless
(Feria v. Court of Appeals, G.R No. 122954, 15 extended by congress.
February 2000) c. Duty of president to report to congress:
within 48 hours, personally or in writing.
HABEAS CORPUS = PRODUCE THE BODY d. Suspension of privilege does not impair the
right to bail
When the privilege of writ of habeas corpus e. Applies only to persons judicially charged
is suspended, does it mean that the writ for rebellion or offenses connected with
cannot be issued by the courts? invasion
f. Person arrested during the suspension must
No. Suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas be judicially charged within 3 days from
corpus does not suspend the writ itself, but only the arrest. Otherwise, they shall be released.
privilege. This means that, when the court receives an
application for a writ of habeas corpus, it will still
SUSPENSION OF WRIT OF HABEAS
issue the writ commanding the production of the
CORPUS: REVIEW
person before the court. However, if it sees that the
person was apprehended and detained in areas where The suspension is subject to review under the
the privilege of the writ is suspended or for crimes Constitution, and the suspension is reviewable in the
covered by such proclamation, the court will suspend same manner as the declaration of Martial law.
further proceedings.
 (FINALS) CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

Section 18. The President shall be the Commander- military power is intensified, and presence of military
in-Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines and people is more felt.
whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out such
armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, (David v. Arroyo, G.R No. 171396, 3 May 2006)
invasion or rebellion. In case of invasion or
rebellion when the public safety requires it LIMITATIONS
the president may also in a period not exceeding 60
days place the Philippines or any part thereof a) Grounds must be rebellion invasion
under martial law. b) Duration not to exceed 60 days (unless
extended by Congress)
c) Duty of the president to report to congress within
MILITARY POWERS: MARTIAL LAW 48 hours personally or in writing
d) Does not automatically result into the suspension
Section 18. The President shall be the Commander- of the privilege of writ of habeas corpus Limitations
in-Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines and
whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out such MARTIAL LAW EFFECTS
armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence,
invasion or rebellion. In case of invasion or Section 18 “A state of martial law does not
rebellion when the public safety requires it suspend the operation of the Constitution,
the president may also in a period not exceeding 60 nor supplant the functioning of the civil
days place the Philippines or any part thereof courts or legislative assemblies, nor
under martial law. authorize conferment of jurisdiction military
courts and agencies over civilians where
MARTIAL LAW: MEANING civil courts are able to function, nor
automatically suspend the privilege of writ”.
The declaration of martial law has no further legal
effect than to warn the citizens that the military He must declare both and not just one because
powers have been called upon by the declaration of martial law does not automatically
executive the executive to assist him in the mean the suspension of the writ.
maintenance of law and that while the
emergency lasts, they must, upon pain of arrest and
punishment, not commit any act which will in
anyway render difficult the restoration of order and MARTIAL LAW: REVIEW
the enforcement of law. According to the court, it is
more of calling out powers because it involves the Section 18. Within forty-eight hours from the
power of the military to control civilians, but only for proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the
the restoration and maintenance of law and order. It privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, the President
is more calling out powers because it is more shall submit a report in person or in writing to the
concentrated as a military power. But even if it is Congress. The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of
more concentrated or more potent, it is just a warning at least a majority of all its Members in regular or
to the people. The relation of the citizens to their state special session, may revoke such proclamation or
is unchanged – does not impair political rights or suspension, which revocation shall not be set aside by
change civil rights, the relationship is still the same the President. [...]
because the state is still the same only that
TWO PRONGED REVIEW
 (FINALS) CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

In Declaration of Martial Law or committed or is being committed.” To require

Suspension of Privilege of Habeas Corpus him to satisfy a higher standard of proof would
restrict the exercise of his emergency powers.”
Review of the Review of the
Congress: Supreme The court need not delve into the accuracy of
Revoke or not Court: Fatual the reports upon which the president's
basis decision is based or the correctness of his
decision to declare martial law or suspend
THE FIRST PRONG OF REVIEW: CONGRESS the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, for
this is an executive function. This threshold or level
The Congress, if not in session, shall, within twenty- (degree) of sufficiency is, after all, an executive call.
four hours following such proclamation or The President, who is running the government and to
suspension, convene in accordance with its rules whom the executive power is vested, is the one
without need of a call. tasked or mandated to assess and make the judgment
call which was not exercised arbitrarily.
Due to the abuses during the Marcos regime,
the 1987 constitution has established a two- In finding sufficiency of the factual basis the court
pronged review of the power of the president to must give due regard to the military police reports
declare martial law. The first Prong (due to the
which are not palpably false, contrived and
immediate time element) is by Congress, which
untrue; Consider the full complement or totality of
will either revoke it or not. The basis of
the reports submitted and not make a piecemeal or
revocation of non- revocation is actually within
individual appreciation of the facts and incidents
the sole discretion of congress.
reported.

FIRST PRONG OF REVIEW: NATURE

(Lagman v. Medialdea, G.R No. 243522,243677,
243745 & 243979 [19 February, 2019])
Because the first prong of review is vested in
Congress, a political branch of the government, the
NOTE
first prong is also essentially political in nature.
Congress exercises discretion whether to revoke the
The two layers are INDEPENDENT OF EACH
declaration or not.
OTHER. A case may be filed with the Supreme
Court even though Congress has not yet decided on
THE SECOND PRONG OF REVIEW:
whether to revoke it or not.
SUPREME COURT
Political Recourse v Judicial Recourse
Section 18 [...]
Political Recourse - is when the constituents do
The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate
not agree with Martial Law and so the
proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of
representative would also not agree.
the factual basis [controversy] of the proclamation
Judicial recourse - the constitution can review
of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of
whether there is a factual basis in the
the writ or the extension thereof, and must declaration of Martial law
promulgate its decision thereon within thirty days
from its filing. MARTIAL LAW: EXTENSION

“In determining the existence of rebellion, the Section 18: “Upon the initiative of the President, the
president only needs to convince himself that Congress may, in the same manner, extend
there is probable cause or evidence showing
that more likely than not a rebellion was
 (FINALS) CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

such proclamation or suspension for a period to be

determined by the Congress, if the invasion or Yes, the institution itself must exude
rebellion shall persist and public safety requires it. independence, but more importantly, the judge
and justices must also demonstrate
Congress has the prerogative to extend the independence or at least the appearance of
declaration of Martial Law. The only limitations impartiality.
to the exercise of the congressional authority to
extend such proclamation or suspension: (a) the SAFEGUARD TO INDEPENDENCE: FISCAL
extension should be upon the President’s initiative; AUTONOMY
(b) it should be grounded on the persistence of the
invasion or rebellion and the demands of public Sec. 3 The Judiciary shall enjoy fiscal autonomy.
safety; (c) it is subject to the court’s review of the Appropriations for the Judiciary may not be reduced
sufficiency of its factual basis upon the petition of by the Legislature below the amount appropriated for
any citizen. the previous year and, after approval, shall be
automatically and regularly released.
Thus, the decision of Congress to extend martial law
is beyond the reach of judicial review. Even when Fiscal autonomy - Pertains to money matters
there are allegations of human rights involving the court.
violations, the same are not sufficient basis
for the nullification of extension. Human Rights SAFEGUARD TO INDEPENDENCE: NO
violations must be brought to the courts through DECREASE OF SALARY
separate proceedings.

(Lagman v. Medialdea, G.R No. 243522,243677,

243745 & 243979 [19 February, 2019]) Sec. 10. The salary of the Chief Justice and of the
Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, and of the
Module 11: The Judiciary judges of lower courts shall be fixed by law during
their continuance in office, their salary shall
not be decreased.
I. PRELIMINARIES
II. THE SUPREME COURT: THE SUPREME COURT: CONSTITUTIONAL
ORGANIZATION BODY
III. THE JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL
IV. THE SUPREME COURT: POWERS The supreme court as a constitutional body, cannot be
AND JURISDICTION abolished by law. The only way to abolish it is by
effecting changes in the constitution pursuant to
PRELIMINARIES recognized modes therein. .

THE SUPREME COURT: INDEPENDENT AND

The only way to abolish the SC is to
IMPARTIAL
amend/abolish the Constitution

The Supreme Court, as the last bulwark of

DECREASE OF CONSTITUTIONAL
constitutional boundaries, rights, and liberties must
JURISDICTION: NOT ALLOWED
be independent and impartial. Justices and judges in
the Judiciary must likewise be independent and As a constitutional body, its jurisdiction is also
impartial, or at the very least, appear impartial.
provided by the Constitution. Congress cannot
 (FINALS) CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

therefore, deprive the Supreme Court of the IN CASE OF TIE OR FAILURE TO OBTAIN
minimum jurisdiction provided by the MAJORITY
Constitution.
Where the court en banc is equally divided in
(Sec 2, Article VIII, 1987 Constitution) opinion, or the necessary majority cannot be had, the
case shall again be deliberated on, and if after such
deliberation no decision is reached, the original
INCREASE OF JURISDICTION: ALLOWED action commenced in the court shall be dismissed, in
BUT QUALIFIED appealed cases, the judgment or order appealed from
shall stand affirmed; and on all incidental matters, the
No law shall be passed increasing the appellate petition or motion shall be denied.
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as provided in this
Constitution without its advice and (Section 7, Rule 56, Rules of Court)
concurrence.
As the votes were equally divided (7 to 7) and the
(Section 30, Article VI, 1987 Constitution.) necessary majority was not obtained, the case was
redeliberated upon. However, after deliberation, the
Subject - appellate jurisdiction voting remained the same. Accordingly, pursuant to
Rule 56, Section 7 of the Rules of Civil Procedure,
THE SUPREME COURT: ORGANIZATION the petition is DISMISSED.

Section 4 (1) The Supreme Court shall be composed (Cruz v. Sec. of Environment and Natural
of a Chief Justice and fourteen Associate Resources, G.R No. 135385, 6 December 2000)
Justices. It may sit en banc or, in its discretion, in
divisions of three, five, or seven members. Any MANDATORY EN BANC DECISIONS
vacancy shall be filled within ninety days from the
occurrence thereof. Section 4. (3) [..] no doctrine or principle of law laid
down by the court in a decision rendered en banc or
MANDATORY EN BANC DECISIONS in division may be modified or reversed except
by the court sitting en banc.
Section 4 (2) All cases involving the
constitutionality of a treaty, international or Section 4 [...]
executive agreement, or law, which shall be
heard by the Supreme Court en banc, and all other The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the sole
cases which under the Rules of Court are required to judge of all contests relating to the election, returns,
be heard en banc, including those involving the and qualifications of the President or Vice-President,
constitutionality, application, or operation of and may promulgate its rules for the purpose.
presidential decrees, proclamations, orders,
instructions, ordinances, and other SUPREME COURT: DIVISIONS
regulations, shall be decided with the concurrence
of a majority of the Members who actually Section 4 (1). The Supreme Court shall be composed
took part in the deliberations on the issues in of a Chief Justice and fourteen Associate Justices. It
the case and voted thereon. may sit en banc or, in its discretion, in
division of three, five, or seven
WHAT HAPPENS IF THERE IS A TIE OR THE
MAJORITY CANNOT BE HAD?
 (FINALS) CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

Members. Any vacancy shall be filled within ninety

days from the occurrence thereof. “Simply, it is a qualification of being honest,
truthful, and having steadfast adherence to
DIVISIONS moral and ethical principles. Integrity connotes
being consistent - doing the right thing in accordance
Section 4. (3) Cases or matters heard by a division with the law and ethical standards every time. Hence,
shall be decided or resolved with the concurrence of a every judicial officer in any society is
majority of the Members who actually took part in required to comply, not only with the laws
the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted and legislations, but with codes and canons
thereon, and in no case, without the concurrence of at of conduct and ethical standards as well,
least three of such Members. When the required without derogation.”
number is not obtained, the case shall be decided en
banc: Provided that no doctrine or principle of law The SALN requirement is imposed no less than by
laid down by the court in a decision rendered en banc the Constitution and made more emphatic by its
or in division may be modified or reversed except by accompanying laws and its implementing rules and
the court sitting en banc. regulations. In other words, one who fails to file
his or her SALN violates the Constitution and
QUALIFICATIONS the laws; and one who violates the
Constitution and the laws cannot rightfully
Section 7. (1) No person shall be appointed Member claim to be a person of integrity as such an
of the Supreme Court or any lower collegiate court equation is theoretically and practically antithetical.
unless he is a natural-born citizen of the
Philippines. A Member of the Supreme Court must Further, the failure to file a truthful SALN not only
be at least forty years of age, and must have been puts in doubt the integrity of the officer, but such
for fifteen years or more a judge of a lower failure to file a truthful, complete and accurate SALN
court or engaged in the practice of law. would likewise amount to dishonesty if the same is
attended by malicious intent to conceal the truth or to
Section 7 (3) A member of the Judiciary must be a make false statements.
person of proven competence, integrity, probity, and
independence. Therefore, as Chief Justice Sereno failed to file the
required SALN, she is without proven integrity and,
CASE STUDY consequently, without qualification to hold office as a
Member of the Judiciary.
Republic v. Sereno
(G.R No. 237428, 11 March, 2018) CAN MEMBERS OF THE SUPREME COURT
BE DISBARRED?
“Integrity has, at all times, been stressed to be one of
the required qualifications of a judge. It is not a Members of the SC must , under Article VII (7)
new concept in the vocation of administering and (1) of the Constitution, be members of the
dispensing justice. In the early l 600's, Francis Bacon, Philippine Bar and may be removed from
a philosopher, statesman, and jurist, in his "Essay L office only by impeachment (Article XI (2)
VI: Of Judicature" said Constitution). To grant for disbarment of a Member
- "'above all things, integrity is the Judge's portion of the Court during the Members incumbency would
and proper virtue." Neither is integrity a in effect be to circumvent and hence to run afoul of
complex concept necessitating esoteric the constitutional mandate that members of the court
philosophical disquisitions to be understood.” may be removed from the office only by
impeachment for and conviction
 (FINALS) CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

of certain offenses listed in Article XI (2) of the

Constitution. Sec. 13 The conclusions of the Supreme Court in
any case submitted to it for decision en banc or in
(Cuenco v. Fernandez, A.C 3135, 15 April 1988 ) division shall be reached in consultation before the
case is assigned to a Member for the writing of the
WHY IS A QUO WARRANTO PROCEEDING opinion of the Court. A certification to this effect
ALLOWED, WHILE A DISBARMENT signed by the Chief Justice shall be issued and a copy
PROCEEDING IS NOT? thereof attached to the record of the case and served
upon the parties. Any Member who took no part,
“The principle laid down in said cases is to the effect or dissented, or abstained from a decision or
that during their incumbency, impeachable officers resolution must state the reason therefore.
cannot be criminally prosecuted for an offense that The same requirements shall be observed by all lower
carries with it the penalty of removal, and if they are collegiate courts.
required to be members of the Philippine Bar to
qualify for their positions, they cannot be charged DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE
with disbarment. The proscription does not
extend to actions assailing the public The privilege against disclosure of these kinds of
officer's title or right to the office he or she information/communication is known as deliberative
occupies. The ruling therefore cannot serve as process privilege, involving as it does the deliberative
authority to hold that a quo warranto action can never process of reaching a decision. “Written advice from
be filed against an impeachable officer.” a variety of individuals is an important element of the
government’s decision- making process and that the
Republic v. Sereno (G.R No. 237428, 11 interchange of advice could be stifled if courts forced
March, 2018) the government to disclose those recommendations;”
the privilege is intended to prevent the killing of
CAN THE OMBUDSMAN TAKE COGNIZANCE deliberative communication.”
OF A CASE AGAINST A MEMBER OF THE
SUPREME COURT? (In re: Production of Court Records and Documents
and the Attendance of court Officials & Employees,
No, the Tanodbayan (now the Ombudsman) is Notice, 14 Feb, 2012)
without authority to conduct an investigation on
charges against a member of the Supreme Court with DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE:
the end in view of filing a criminal information COVERAGE
against him with the Sandiganbayan.
This is so, because if convicted on the criminal case, To summarize these rules, the following are
the Justice would be removed and such removal privileged documents or communications, and are not
would violate his security of tenure. subject to disclosure:

NOTE (1) Court actions such as the result of the

raffle of cases and the actions aken by the
No person may be appointed judge thereof unless he Court on each case included in the agenda of
is a citizen of the Philippines and a member of the the Court’s session on acts done material to
Philippine Bar. pending cases, except where a party litigant
requests information on the result of the
(Section 7 (2), Article VIII, 1987 Constitution) raffle of the case, pursuant to Rule 7,
Section 3 of the IRSC;
DELIBERATIVE PROCESS
 (FINALS) CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

(2) Court deliberations or the deliberations of

the Members in court sessions on cases and
matters pending before the Court;
(3) Court records which are pre decisional
and deliberative in nature, in particular,
documents and other communications which
are part of or related to the deliberative
process, i.e., notes, drafts, research papers,
internal discussions, internal memoranda,
records of internal deliberations, and similar
papers.
(4) Confidential information secured by
justices, judges, court officials and
employees in the course of their official
functions, mentioned in (2) and (3) above,
are privileged even after their term of office.
(5) Records of cases that are still pending for
decision are privileged material that cannot
be disclosed, except only for pleadings,
orders and resolutions that have been made
available by the court to the general public.

(6) The principle of comity or inter-departmental JUDICIAL POWER

courtesy demands that the highest officials of each
department be exempt from the compulsory JUDICIAL POWER: MEANING AND
processes of the other departments. INCLUSION

(7) These privileges belong to the Supreme Court as Section 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one
an institution, not to any justice or judge in his or her Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be
individual capacity. Since the Court is higher than the established by law.
individual justices or judges, no sitting or retired
justice or judge, not even the Chief Justice, Judicial power includes the duty of the
may claim exception without the consent of courts of justice to settle actual
the Court. controversies involving rights which are
legally demandable and enforceable,
(TRADITIONAL JUDICIAL POWER) and to
determine whether or not there has been a grave
HIERARCHY OF COURTS abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the Government.

Section 4. (2) All cases involving the

constitutionality (JUDICIAL REVIEW) of a
treaty, international or executive agreement, or law,
which shall be heard by the Supreme Court en banc,
and all other cases which under the Rules of Court
are required to be heard en banc, including those
involving the constitutionality, application, or
operation of presidential decrees, proclamations,
orders, instructions, ordinances,
 (FINALS) CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

and other regulations, shall be decided with the

concurrence of a majority of the Members who
actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in
the case and voted thereon.

Section 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one

Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be
established by law.

Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of

justice to settle actual controversies involving rights
which 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 the Government.
(EXPANDED CERTIORARI JURISDICTION)