Anticipated Scope of Topics in

Political and Public International Law

2022 Bar Examinations

Atty. Victoria V. Loanzon

Declaration of Principles and State Policies

Rights of Indigenous Peoples
Tawahig v. City Prosecutor Lapinid: The Philippine legal system's framework for the
protection of indigenous peoples was never intended and will not operate to deprive courts of
jurisdiction over criminal offenses. Individuals belonging to indigenous cultural communities
who are charged with criminal offenses cannot invoke Republic Act No. 8371, or the
Indigenous Peoples' Rights Act of 1997, to evade prosecution and liability under courts of law.
Grant of Incentives to Foreign Investors
National Federation of Hog Farmers, Inc. v. Board of Investments - Nationalism is not a
mindless ideal. It should not unreasonably exclude people of a different citizenship from
participating in our economy. If it were so, nationalism will not foster social justice;
rather, it will sponsor a kind of racism quite like what our ancestors had suffered from in
our colonial past.
The Constitution has empowered Congress to determine which areas of investment to
reserve to Filipinos and which areas may be opened to foreign investors.
Maintain honesty and integrity in the public service and take positive and effective measures
against graft and corruption
Garcia - Diaz v. Sandiganbayan - Co-conspirators are liable collectively and equally for the
common design of their criminal acts. When a contract that is grossly and manifestly
disadvantageous to the government is entered into, the persons involved—whether public
officers or private persons—may be charged for violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act and suffer the same penalty if found guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
Right to balanced ecology
Cordillera Global Network v. Sec. Paje - The depth, quality, and complexity of our forests'
biodiversity is a marker of humanity's enlightenment. Every tree saved from being
sacrificed in the name of profits matters.
Shortcuts in the processes prescribed by law to protect the endowments of nature should
never be countenanced.
SM Investments Corporation must apply for a new Environmental Compliance for its SM
Pines Resort Project and DENR should not just amend the first ECC it issued to the
company.
State Immunity
Restrictive and absolute state immunity
WHO v. Aquino: Officials of WHO stationed in Manila are exempt from import taxes on their
personal belongings.
Liang v. People: An accredited diplomat can only claim immunity in the discharge of his
official duties.
Holy See v. Hon. Del Rosario: The sale of a real property owned by the Holy See is an act of
sovereignty.

Page | 1
 In transitu doctrine allows a diplomat to claim immunity until he arrives at his designated
post.
COA may settle government obligations when funds of the concerned entity allows it since a
government may be sued but its bank deposit is beyond the reach of the court to settle its
liability. (U.P. v. Hon. Dizon)
Rule on payment of government liability under a compromise agreement beyond
P100.000.00: The COA cannot settle the amount beyond P100,000 under a compromise
agreement. The President must recommend to Congress the payment of the amount in the
compromise agreement which is beyond P100,000. (Binga Hydroelectric Plant Company
v. COA and NAPOCOR)

Monopolies, Restraint of Trade and Unfair Competition

Agan, Jr. v. PIATCO: monopolies are not per se prohibited but may be permitted to allow the
government in carrying on an enterprise or to aid in the performance of various services and
functions in the interest of the public.
Gios-Samar v. DOTr: Petitioner failed to show that the constitutional issue of monopoly it
raised falls under the transcendental importance doctrine. Petitioner failed to observe the
doctrine of hierarchy of courts.

Restrictions on Operation of Private Corporations

Mass media companies: 100% Filipino owned
Advertising companies: 70% Filipino owned

Grant of Franchises, Authority and Certificates for Public Utilities

Nature of Utility Corporation (provision of service is not confined to privileged individuals but
open to an indefinite public)
60% Filipino owned capital may be required in the grant of certain public utilities.

Cases -
1. Metropolitan Cebu Water District Company v. Adala – no grant of exclusive franchise
2. Maynilad v. Sec. of the DENR – public trust doctrine

National Economy and Patrimony

Regalian Doctrine
Filipino First Policy
Classification of lands of public domain:
1. Agricultural
2. Forest/Timber Lands
3. Mineral Lands and
4. National Park

Nationality and Citizenship Requirement

Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS: Filipino First Policy entitles the petitioner to the award of
the bid of the shares held by GSIS in Manila Hotel.
Tanada v. Angara: Membership of the Philippines in the World Trade Organization does
not violate the Filipino First Policy.
Gamboa v. Teves: Control in a public utility company refers to shares of stocks with
voting shares and not to preferred shares which have no voting rights.
Roy v. SEC Chairman Herbosa: The SEC circular is valid as it conforms with the Gamboa
v. Teves ruling.

Page | 2
Executive Department
A. Executive Power in General – Section 17, Article VII
Liban v. Gordon - The President exercises control over all government offices in the Executive
branch. If an office is legally not under the control of the President, then such office is not part
of the Executive branch.
There can be no instance under the Constitution where an officer of the Executive branch is
outside the control of the President. The Executive branch is unitary since there is only one
President vested with executive power exercising control over the entire Executive branch. Any
office in the Executive branch that is not under the control of the President is a lost command
whose existence is without any legal or constitutional basis.

B. Treaty-making powers of the President (Section 21, Article VII)

1. Pimentel, Jr. v. Executive Secretary Ochoa –The submission of the Rome Statute to the
Senate is the sole prerogative of the President.
2. Vinuya v. Executive Secretary - The Executive Department has determined that taking up
petitioners’ cause would be inimical to our country’s foreign policy interests, and could disrupt
our relations with Japan, thereby creating serious implications for stability in this region.
3. Saguisag v. Ochoa – EDCA is not a treaty and does not require concurrence of the Senate.

C. Commander-in-Chief powers of the President (Section 18, Article VII)

1. Kulayan v. Gov. Tan – A governor cannot exercise the calling out powers.
2. Padilla v. Speaker Cayetano – Joint session is only required to revoke the declaration of
martial law.
3. Lagman v. Medialdea (2 cases) – A petition for certiorari to challenge the declaration of
martial law is not an appropriate proceeding.

4. Ocampo v. Deputy Chief of Staff Enriquez – The implementation of an election campaign

promise to have the remains of the late former President Ferdinand E. Marcos be interred at
the Libingan ng mga Bayani involves a political question that is not a justiciable controversy.

D. Pardoning powers of the President (Section 19, Article VII) –

1. Tiu v. Dizon - The person granted pardon must accept the conditions to be valid. The grant
can only be done after final conviction.
2. Risos-Vidal v. COMELEC – The grant of absolute pardon to President Estrada restored him
to his full civil and political rights
3. Llamas v. Orbos – The President can grant pardon in administrative cases.
4. Romeo G. Jalosjos v. COMELEC – The grant of commutation does not remove the
perpetual disqualification to seek public office.

Reconcile the following provisions -

1. Article 30, RPC - Effects of the penalties of perpetual or temporary absolute
disqualification
2. Section 40, LGC - Disqualifications. – The following are disqualified from running for any
elective position: (a) Those sentenced by final judgment for an offense involving moral
turpitude or for an offense punishable by one (1) year or more of imprisonment, within two
(2) years after serving sentence; x x x.
3. Section 41, RPC - Reclusion perpetua and reclusion temporal. – Their accessory penalties.
–”that of perpetual absolute disqualification which the offender shall suffer even through

Page | 3
 pardoned as to the principal penalty, unless the same shall have been expressly remitted in
the pardon.”

E. Health Status of the President (Section12,

Article VII)
De Leon v. President Duterte – The President cannot be compelled to publicly declare his
health status.
E. Immunity from Suit
De Lima v. President Duterte – The President enjoys absolute immunity from suit, whether it
is a civil suit or a criminal case.

Legislative Department
A. Legislative Powers (Section 1, Article VI) -
Power to enact, amend, and repeal laws
1. No rider in bills (Section 26 (1), Article VII) - DOTr et al v. Philippine Petroleum Sea
Transportation Association - Oil Pollution Management Fund is not a proscribed rider. It is
clear that RA 9483 was enacted merely to implement the provisions of the 1992 Civil Liability
and the 1992 Fund Conventions.

2. Enrolled Bill (Section 16(4) and Section 27 (1), Article VI – CotesCUP v. DepEd Secretary -
The signing of a bill by the Speaker of the House and the Senate President and the certification
of the Secretaries of both Houses of Congress that it was passed is conclusive not only as to its
provisions but also as to its due enactment. The enrolled bill prevails over the copy found in
the Journal of Proceedings.

B. Congressional Inquiry (Section 21)

1. Arnault v. Nazareno – In the conduct of congressional inquiry, the Senate can exercise its
inherent power of contempt.
2. Balag v. Senate Committee – The Senate cannot indefinitely detain a person cited in
contempt.
3. Neri v. Senate Committees – The scope of a congressional inquiry cannot cover executive
privilege.
4. Agcaoli v. Farinas - Far compelling than the question of mootness is that the element of
illegal deprivation of freedom of movement or illegal restraint is jurisdictional in petitions
for habeas corpus. Consequently, in the absence of confinement and custody, the courts lack
the power to act on the petition for habeas corpus and the issuance of a writ thereof must be
refused.

C. Non-delegability of Legislative Powers (Section 1, Article VI)

1. Defensor -Santiago v. COMELEC - People’s Initiative is covered by Section 2, Article XVII
and was not included under R.A. 6735 refers only to referendum and initiative both at the
national and local levels.
2. Lambino v. COMELEC – There is no need to revisit the Defensor -Santiago v. COMELEC.

E. Prohibition against post-enactment participation

1. ABAKADA Party List v. Secretary of Finance Purisima - Any post-enactment measures
undertaken by the legislative branch should be limited to scrutiny and investigation since any
measure beyond that would undermine the separation of powers guaranteed by the
Constitution.

Page | 4
 2. Belgica v. Ochoa – The inclusion of PDAF in the GAA allowed post-enactment legislator
participation not only in the areas of fund release but was broadened to include the
realignment to the area of project identification.
It allowed individual legislation when members of Congress approved their own projects out of
the PDAF.

F. Privileges, Inhibitions and Disqualifications

1. Trillanes v. Hon. Marigomen – Parliamentary immunity cannot be invoked when
utterances were made to the media during the break in a committee hearing.
2. People v. Jalosjos - A member of congress is not a superhuman and cannot be above the
rule of law. He has to suffer the consequences of his criminal acts.

F. Privileges, Inhibitions and Disqualifications

1. Trillanes v. Hon. Marigomen – Parliamentary immunity cannot be invoked when
utterances were to the media during the break in a committee hearing.
2. People v. Jalosjos - A member of congress is not a superhuman and cannot be above the
rule of law. He has to suffer the consequences of his criminal acts. He cannot be allowed to
attend congressional sessions and other committee meetings while serving his sentence.

G. Appropriation and augmentation of funds out of savings (Section 29(1) and Section 25 (5),
Article VI –
1. Nazareth v. Villar – Where Congress did not appropriate funds for the Magna Carta for
Scientists, Engineers, Researchers, and other Science and Technology Personnel in the
Government, the DOST cannot re-allign its budget to pay the benefits of individuals under the
subject law. This violates Section 29(1) of Article VI and is contrary to Section 25(5) of Article
VI.
2. Araullo v. Aquino - DAP contravened Section 29(1) of Article VI by allowing the executive
department to allocate public money pooled from programmed and unprogrammed funds of
its various agencies in the guise of the President exercising his constitutional authority under
Section 25(5) of the 1987 Constitution. The authority to transfer funds out of savings to
augment the appropriations of offices is limited within the Executive Branch of the
Government.

Judicial Department
1. Requisites of judicial review are
a. There must be an actual case or justiciable controversy before the court;
b. The issue of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunity ;
c. The person challenging the act must be a proper party (locus standi); and
d. The issue is the very lis mota of the case.

Doctrines –
1. There is no judicial legislation.
2. There is no judicial supremacy.
3. The Court may waive legal standing of the petitioners or take cognizance of a case at first
instance under the principle of transcendental importance.
4. The doctrine of hierarchy of courts is a constitutional imperative.
5. The operative fact doctrine provides that a law may declared unconstitutional but it may
produce legal effects.

Page | 5
 6. Every challenged law enjoys the presumption of constitutionality.
7. The fallo of a decision is controlling over the ratio decidendi.
8. As a general rule, the Supreme Court is a trier of laws.
9. The determination of the factual basis of martial law and the suspension of the privilege of
the writ of habeas cropus is resolved in an appropriate proceeding.
10. Promulgation of S.C. decisions must be certified by the Chief Justice.

Administrative Law
A. Nature of an administrative agency
1. Orlondo et al v. COA – The Corregidor Foundation, Inc., while incorporated with the SEC, is
considered a government-owned and controlled corporation since its capitalization was
funded by the government. Thus, the grant of honoraria to employees of the Philippine
Tourism Authority constitutes double compensation.
2. Bayani Fernando v. COA – The funds received by the Metro Manila Film Council are
subject to audit of COA since such are received in trust to undertake public activity.
3. MECO v. COA – While MECO is not part of the executive branch, the funds received for
processing of consular documents and other requirements of overseas Filipino workers
deployed in Taiwan are subject to audit of the COA. The MECO was created because the
Philippines acceded to the One China Policy.

B. Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction

Jaka Investments Corporation v. Urdaneta Village Association - Under the doctrine of
primary administrative jurisdiction, courts cannot or will not determine a controversy where
the issues for resolution demand the exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring the
special knowledge, experience, and services of the administrative tribunal to determine
technical and intricate matters of fact. Jaka’s institution of a civil suit before the regional trial
court was thus considered premature.

C. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

Cudia v. PMA Superintendent - The rationale behind the doctrine of exhaustion of
administrative remedies is that "courts, for reasons of law, comity, and convenience, should
not entertain suits unless the available administrative remedies have first been resorted to and
the proper authorities, who are competent to act upon the matter complained of, have been
given the appropriate opportunity to act and correct their alleged errors, if any, committed in
the administrative forum."

Law on Public Officers

A. Public office is a public trust (Section 1, Article XI) -
1. Ombudsman v. C.A. , Mayor Binay et al. -
The condonation doctrine is deemed abandoned as of November 10, 2015. The condonation
doctrine benefits an elective official of his administrative liability if he is reelected to the same
or new position.
2. Gov. Lazaro v. COA – The public officers were found liable for procurement of medical
items where: (1) no public bidding had been conducted; (2) purchase requests had made
reference to brand names without prior justification; and (3) there had been splitting of
purchase requests and purchase order to avoid compliance with the rules on public bidding.

Page | 6
 B. Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan over a private person
Diaz Garcia v. Sandiganbayan: Co-conspirators, both public officers and private individuals,
are liable collectively and equally for the common design of their criminal acts. When a
contract that is grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to the government is entered into, the
persons involved—whether public officers or private persons—may be charged for violating the
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and suffer the same penalty if found guilty beyond
reasonable doubt.

C. Powers of the Ombudsman

Cagang v. Sandiganbayan - Every accused has the rights to due process and to speedy
disposition of cases. Inordinate delay in the resolution and termination of a preliminary
investigation will result in the dismissal of the case against the accused. Delay, however, is not
determined through mere mathematical reckoning but through the examination of the facts
and circumstances surrounding each case.

Factors to consider if there is delay in the filing of the information by the Ombudsman are –
(LRAP) (Cagang v. Sandiganbayan)
(1) Length of time
(2) Reason for the delay
(3) Assertion to the right of speedy disposition of cases
(4) Prejudice which the accused suffered on account of the delay
Note: The reckoning period of the delay is now reckoned with the termination of the fact-
finding investigation of the Office of the Ombudsman particularly when there are several
persons under investigation and there are voluminous documents.

D. Removal from office of an impeachable officer –

Republic v. Sereno - By its tenor, Section 2, Article XI of the Constitution allows the institution
of a quo warranto action against an impeachable officer. A quo warranto petition is
predicated on grounds distinct from those of impeachment. A quo warranto proceeding
questions the validity of a public officer's appointment while an impeachment proceeding
indicts him for the so-called impeachable offenses without questioning his title to the office he
holds.

Election Law
A. Nuisance Candidate
1. Zapanta v. COMELEC - In a multi-slot office, all votes cast in favor of the nuisance
candidate whose name is confusingly similar to a bona fide candidate shall not be
automatically credited in the latter's favor.
Rules in appreciation of votes:
(1) If the ballot contains one (1) vote for the nuisance candidate and no vote for the bona
fide candidate, that vote will be counted in the latter's favor.
(2) If the nuisance candidate and the bona fide candidate each gets a vote, only one (1)
vote will be counted in the latter's favor.
2. Tanada v. HRET: HRET has no jurisdiction to declare Alvin John Tanada as a nuisance
candidate because HRET has no jurisdiction over him. Based on Section 17, Article VI of the
1987 Constitution and Rule 15 of the 2011 HRET Rules, HRET’s power to judge election
contests is limited to Members of the House of Representatives. Alvin John, admittedly, is not a
Member of the House of Representatives. The power to declare one a nuisance candidate is
vested in the COMELEC.

Page | 7
 B. Jurisdiction of the HRET –
Ongsiako- Reyes v. HRET : Rule 6(a) of the 2015 HRET Rules does not make the Justices
indispensable members to constitute a quorum but ensures that representatives from both the
judicial and legislative departments are present to constitute a quorum. Members from both
the judicial and legislative departments become indispensable to constitute a quorum.

Requisites to be considered a member of the House of Representatives are -

(1) Valid proclamation
(2) Valid oath-taking
(3) Assumption of office
Issues for resolution in an election contest are -
(1) Election (specific allegations must be cited to support a claim of fraud)
(2) Returns (the images imprinted under the automated election system are accepted as
evidence to determine votes cast)
(3) Qualifications (including those related to a candidate’s citizenship)

C. 45-Day Election Ban under Section 261 (w)(b) of Batas Pambansa Bilang 881
“(w) Prohibition against construction of public works, delivery of materials for public works
and issuance of treasury warrants and similar devices. -During the period of forty-five
days preceding a regular election and thirty days before a special election, any
person who (a) undertakes the construction of any public works, except for projects or works
exempted in the preceding paragraph; or (b) issues, uses or avails of treasury
warrants or any device undertaking future delivery of money, goods or other
things of value chargeable against public funds.”(Emphasis supplied.)
1. People v. Ting - For as long as the device is issued, used, or availed of within the prohibited
period to undertake the future delivery of money chargeable against public funds, an election
offense is committed. However, since the trial court granted the demurrer to
evidence, double jeopardy has set in.
Thus, despite the fact that a treasury warrant for P8.6M and title passed on from Almazan to
Tuguegarao City, Ting and the city treasurer were not held accountable.
2. Velez v. People – Silay City Mayor Velez and his co-accused were found liable for violation
of Section 261(v)(2) of the Omnibus Election Code (OEC) for releasing loan proceeds to three
organizations for the implementation of the city's livelihood development program within 45
days before the 1998 elections.
Social welfare and development projects, which include the grant of loan
assistance as part of a livelihood program, undertaken by the LGUs are covered
by the prohibition against the release, disbursement and expenditure of public
funds during the election ban period.

Bill of Rights
Right to life, liberty or property (Section 1, Article III)
Elements of the equal protection clause
1. Classification is substantial;
2. Classification is germane to the purpose of the law;
3. Classification does not only apply to existing conditions; and
4. The law must apply to all members of the same class.

Page | 8
 Concepts related to constitutional of laws under the Bill of Rights -
1. Void for vagueness
2. Overbreadth doctrine
Rights covered –
1. Individual rights or personal right
2. Public rights or collective rights (the right to peaceably assemble, the right to information
and the right to associate)

Judicial Review Tests –

A judicial review test is what courts use to determine the constitutionality of a statute or
ordinance.
1. Rational basis test - To pass the rational basis test, the statute or ordinance must have a
legitimate state interest, and there must be a rational connection between the
statute's/ordinance's means and goals.
2. Intermediate scrutiny test - Intermediate review requires an important government interest.
Here, it would suffice if government is able to demonstrate substantial connection between its
interest and the means it employs. In accordance with White Light, "the availability of less
restrictive measures [must have been] considered.” This demands a conscientious effort at
devising the least restrictive means for attaining its avowed interest. It is enough that the
means employed is conceptually the least restrictive mechanism that the government may
apply.
3. Strict scrutiny test applies when what is at stake are fundamental freedoms or what is
involved are suspect classifications. It requires that there be a compelling state interest and
that the means employed to effect it are narrowly-tailored, actually-not only conceptually-
being the least restrictive means for effecting the invoked interest. Here, it does not suffice
that the government contemplated on the means available to it. Rather, it must show an active
effort at demonstrating the inefficacy of all possible alternatives. It is required to not only
explore all possible avenues but to even debunk the viability of alternatives so as to ensure that
its chosen course of action is the sole effective means. To the extent practicable, this must be
supported by sound data gathering mechanisms.

Warrantless searches and seizures – Section 2, Article III

Terry Search - For a "stop and frisk" search to be valid, the totality of suspicious
circumstances, as personally observed by the arresting officer, must lead to a genuine
reason to suspect that a person is committing an illicit act. Consequently, a warrantless arrest
not based on this constitutes an infringement of a person's basic right to privacy.

Warrantless searches and seizures – Section 2, Article III

1. Manibog v. People (3/20/2019, Leonen, J.) - The combination of the police asset's tip and
the arresting officers' observation of a gun-shaped object under petitioner's shirt already
suffices as a genuine reason for the arresting officers to conduct a stop and frisk search on
petitioner. Hence, the trial court correctly upheld the reasonableness of the warrantless search
on Manibog.
2. People v. Tudtud - To justify a warrantless arrest, it is not enough that the police officers
were armed with reliable information. Such reliable information must be combined with an
accused's overt act indicating that he or she has committed, is committing, or is about to
commit a crime.
Because a warrantless search is in derogation of a constitutional right, peace officers who
conduct it cannot invoke regularity in the performance of official functions and shift to the
accused the burden of proving that the search was unconsented.

Page | 9
 Doctrines under unreasonable searches and seizures include the following –
1. Exclusionary rule
2. Terry search
3. Fruit of the poisonous tree
4. Chain of custody
5. Plain view doctrine
6. Buy-bust operations
7. Knock and Announce Principle
8. Valid warrantless arrest must precede a warrantless search to be valid.
9. Waiver of the right must show that the person knew that the right against unreasonable
search and seizure exist.

Recognized instances of reasonable warrantless searches and seizures

1. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest recognized under Section 12, Rule 126 of
the Rules of Court and by prevailing jurisprudence;
2. Seizure of evidence in "plain view," the elements of which are:
(a) a prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest in which the police are
legally present in the pursuit of their official duties;
(b) the evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who had the right to be
where they are;
(c) the evidence must be immediately apparent; and
(d) "plain view" justified mere seizure of evidence without further search.
3. Search of a moving vehicle. Highly regulated by the government, the vehicle's inherent
mobility reduces expectation of privacy especially when its transit in public thoroughfares
furnishes a highly reasonable suspicion amounting to probable cause that the occupant
committed a criminal activity;
4. Consented warrantless search;
5. Customs search;
6. Stop and Frisk; and
7. Exigent and Emergency Circumstances

Freedom of Speech (Section 4, Article III)

Concepts/Doctrines
1. There is no prior restraint.
2. There is no subsequent punishment.
Regulations applied –
1. Content neutral regulation (purely factual information)
2. Content based regulation (gave give rise to libel or cybercrime)

State Regulation of Freedom of Expression

The issue in private and government speech would apply to public officers. A limited
intrusion into a person's privacy has long been regarded as permissible where
that person is a public figure and the information sought to be elicited from him
or to be published about him constitute of a public character. Succinctly put, the
right of privacy cannot be invoked to resist publication and dissemination of matters of public
interest. (Ayer Productions Pty. Ltd. v. Hon. Capulong, 160 SCRA 861[1999])

Page | 10
 Freedom of Religion (Section 5, Article)
Components
1. Free exercise clause
a. freedom to believe
b. freedom to profess one’s faith
2. Non-establishment clause
a. doctrine of benevolent neutrality
b. conscientious objector’s doctrine

Application of the Lemon Test to freedom of religion cases – Peralta v. Philippine Postal
Corporation
A. A law must have a secular purpose.
B. A law should not have any close entanglement between the church and the state.
C. A law should neither favor nor prejudice a particular religion.

Freedom of abode, liberty of movement and freedom to travel (Section 6, Article III)
1. Gov. Gwendolyn Garcia v. Sandiganbayan – The issuance of HDO is inherent to the trial
courts upon motion of the prosecution.
2. Genuino v. Sec. De Lima – The issuance of the Watch List Order and Allow Travel Order by
the Secretary of Justice has no legal basis.
The right to travel may be impaired only in the interest of national security, public safety, or
public health, as may be provided by law.

Custodial Investigation (Section 11, Article III)

Miranda rights
1. The right to be silent;
2. The right to a competent and independent counsel, preferably of his own choice;
3. If he cannot afford counsel, he will be provided with one; and
4. The right to counsel may be waived provided that it is done in writing and in the presence of
counsel.

Concepts/Doctrines –
1. Waiver of right
2. Nature of police line-up (Concha and Managuelod v. People)
3. Custodial investigation is limited to oral testimony (De la Cruz v. People)
4. Admissibility of admission to media reporters and other persons who are not charged to
conduct preliminary investigation

Right to bail (Section 13, Article III)

Right against self-incrimination (Section 17, Article III)
Enrile v. Sandiganbayan – grant of bail is discretionary to the court
Right to speedy trial in criminal cases (Section 14, Article III)
1. Republic v. Sandiganbayan and Gov. Roman: Gov. Roman should have raised the issue of
delay during the two-year period before the institution of the case against him.
2. Villa v. Stanley Fernandez et al: The undue delay of the trial court merits the acquittal of all
the accused.

Page | 11
 Right to speedy disposition of cases before administrative, quasi-judicial and judicial
bodies (Section 16, Article III)
Cagang v. Sandiganbayan: The delay is not a mere mechanical computation of time but must
include the appreciation of the number of the accused and the volume of documents under
review.

Right against double jeopardy (Section 21, Article III)

1. Ivler v. Hon. San Pedro- Reckless imprudence as a crime produces several consequences
(death, physical injuries, damage to property).
2. People v. Ting- A demurrer to evidence is a ruling on the merits.
3. People v. Hon. Relosa – There are two types of double jeopardy.
4. People v. Webb – Only the state can appeal an acquittal. The victim or the family of the
victim is only a state witness.

Ex post facto and Bill of Attainder (Section 22, Article III)

Jose “Jinggoy” Estrada v. Sandiganbayan -R.A. No. 10167 does not violate the constitutional
rights to privacy and to due process; that R.A. No. 10167 is not an ex post facto law; that the
Congress has the power to enact R.A. No. 10167; and that the Inquiry Report did not emanate
from a fishing expedition, and, as such, the Inquiry Report and the testimony of Atty.
Negradas of the Anti-Money Laundering Council were admissible as evidence against Estrada.

Public Corporations
Authority to raise revenues (Section 5, Article X)
Cagayan de Oro City v. CEPALCO – Regulatory fees partake of police power and are not
intended to raise revenues of the city.
Share in national income (Section 6, Article X)
Mandanas v. Executive Secretary – The share in the national income has been expanded to
include other revenues collected by the national government.
Share in national wealth (Section 7, Article X)
Republic v. Province of Palawan – The share in the national wealth only encompasses natural
resources within the territory of a local government unit.

Upgrading of LGU
1. Halili v. COMELEC and Morales: A mayor who already served three terms is prohibited to
seek another term if the municipality is upgraded into a city.
2. Umali v. COMELEC: The plebiscite involving the upgrading of a component city into a
highly-urbanized city must include all qualified voters of the province.

Authority to terminate an employee; nepotism; and co-terminus positions under the LGC -
1.Mayor of Angeles City v. Civil Service Commission: The mayor has the authority to drop
from the Roll of Employees a veterinarian who failed to report for work to his designated
station for a period of 30 days.
2. Dator v. Ombudsman: A mayor cannot appoint his own sister in any capacity (whether as a
permanent employee or as consultant) as this is covered by the rule on nepotism.
2. Province of Camarines Norte v. Gonzales: Under the LGC, the position of Provincial
Administrator is co-terminus with the term of the Governor.

Page | 12
 Recall election – This is a mechanism installed under Article X of the Constitution which
allows the electorate to remove an elective public officer for loss of trust and confidence.
1. Sandoval v. COMELEC: A recall election is considered a special election. The three-term
limit rule applies only in regular elections.
2. Goh v. Bayron: A recall election is supported a petition and the COMELEC is charged with
the responsibility of carrying out the process. Every recall election must be funded out of
appropriations approved by Congress.

Amendments and Revisions

Three ways to amend the Constitution:
1. Constituent Assembly by a vote of 3/4 of all members of Congress voting separately
2. Constitutional Convention by a vote of 2/3 of all its members or a majority vote and refer
the matter to the electorate
3. People’s Initiative with 12% of the total electorate signing the petition represented by 3% of
the voters in each congressional district.
Note: Only one option must be undertaken to either amend or revise the
constitution.
Two ways to revise the Constitution:
1. Constituent Assembly by a vote of 3/4 of all members of Congress voting separately
2. Constitutional Convention by a vote of 2/3 of all its members or a majority vote and refer
the matter to the electorate.
Two tests:
1.Quantitative test applies to amendment.
2.Qualitative test applies to revision as it substantially change the basic tenets which govern
the structure of the government.
Two stages –
1.Proposal – draft of the amended or revised constitution
2.Ratification – referral of the amended or revised constitution for approval
Note: Piecemeal approval of the amendments or revisions is not allowed.
Cases:
1. Defensor -Santiago v. COMELEC - People’s Initiative is covered by Section 2, Article XVII
and was not included under R.A. 6735 refers only to referendum and initiative both at the
national and local levels.
2. Lambino v. COMELEC – There is no need to revisit the Defensor -Santiago v. COMELEC.
R.A. 6735 is not an enabling law to implement People’s Initiative to amend the constitution.

Public International Law

Concepts
1. Obligation Erga Omnes refers to obligations of a state towards the international
community as a whole, where all states have legal interest in the protection of these
obligations.
Examples of erga omnes norms:
a. outlawing acts of aggression
b. outlawing acts of genocide
c. the basic rights of the human person,
including protection from slavery and
racial discrimination
2. According to Article 38 (2) of the Statute of ICJ, jus cogens is the customary international
law that refers to certain fundamental, overriding principles of international law, from which no
derogation is ever permitted.

Page | 13
 Examples or norms with jus cogens character:
a. The prohibition against the use of force under the UN Charter
b. The law on genocide
c. The principle of self-determination
d. Crimes against humanity
e. Prohibition against slavery and slave trade
f. Piracy
g. Principle of racial non-discrimination

Principles governing jurisdiction

1. Under the Territoriality Principle, the fundamental source of jurisdiction is sovereignty over
territory. A state has absolute, but not necessarily exclusive, power to prescribe, adjudicate
and enforce rules for conduct that occurs within its territory.
2. The Nationality Principle provides that every state has jurisdiction over its nationals even
when those nationals are outside the state. Stateless persons are those who do not have a
nationality. They are either de jure or de facto stateless.
Stateless persons may either be -
a. De jure stateless persons are those who have lost their nationality, if they had one, and have
not acquired a new one.
b. De facto stateless persons are those who have a nationality but to whom protection is denied by their
state when out of the state.
3. The Protective Principle provides that a state may exercise jurisdiction over conduct outside its
territory that threatens its security, as long as that conduct is generally recognized as criminal by states
in the international community.
4. The Universality Principle recognizes that certain activities, universally dangerous to states and their
subjects, require authority in all community members to punish such acts wherever they may occur,
even absent a link between the state and the parties or the acts in question.
5. The Passive Personality Principle asserts that a state may apply law — particularly criminal law — to
an act committed outside its territory by a person not its national where the victim of the act was its
national. The principle has not been ordinarily accepted for ordinary torts or crimes, but it is
increasingly accepted as applied to terrorists and other organized attacks on a state’s nationals by reason
of their nationality, or to assassination of a state’s diplomatic representatives or other officials.

Jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice: The International Court of Justice acts as a world
court. The Court’s jurisdiction is twofold: it decides, in accordance with international law, disputes of a
legal nature that are submitted to it by States (jurisdiction in contentious cases); and it gives advisory
opinions on legal questions at the request of the organs of the United Nations, specialized agencies or
one related organization authorized to make such a request (advisory jurisdiction).

Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court: The International Criminal Court is a

permanent international court. established to investigate, prosecute and try individuals accused of
committing the most serious. crimes of concern to the international community as a whole, namely the
crime of genocide, crimes. against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression.

International Humanitarian Law: International humanitarian law (IHL), also referred to as the laws of
armed conflict, is the law that regulates the conduct of war (jus in bello). It is a branch of international
law which seeks to limit the effects of armed conflict by protecting persons who are not participating in
hostilities, and by restricting and regulating the means and methods of warfare available to combatants.

Page | 14