v. Jalandoni, G.R. No. L-2662, Mar.

26,
The scope and distribution of questions will be 1949).
as follows:
3. The Vienna Convention on Road Signs and
A. The Law Pertaining To The State And Signals (Agustin v. Edu, G.R. No. L-49112,
Its Relationship With Its Citizens - 18 Feb. 2, 1979).
Questions
4. Duty to protect the premises of embassies
a. Constitutional Law - 11 questions and legations (Reyes v. Bagatsing, G.R. No.
i. Basic principles of political law (e.g., L-65366, Nov. 9, 1983).
separation of powers, sovereignty,
judicial review, fundamental powers 5. Pacta sunt servanda – international
of the State, i.e., police power, agreements must be performed in good
eminent domain, and taxation) faith (Tañada v. Angara, G.R. No. 118295,
May 2, 1997).
A. DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND
STATE POLICIES
The Philippines renounces aggressive war as
Principles an instrument of national policy, but allows for
a defensive war.
Binding rules which must be observed in the
conduct of government

Civilian Authority
Policies
Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution states
Guidelines for the orientation of the state that “[c]ivilian authority is, at all times, supreme
over the military. The Armed Forces of the
Philippines is the protector of the People and
Generally Accepted Principles of International
the State. Its goal is to secure the sovereignty
Law
of the State and the integrity of the national
territory.”
Principles based on natural justice common to
most national systems of law
Civilian Authority - The head of the armed
forces
Examples:
is a civilian president and the primary purpose
of AFP is to serve and protect the people.
1. The right of an alien to be released on bail
while awaiting deportation when his failure
Mark of Sovereignty - Positively, the military is
to leave the country is due to the fact that
the guardian of the people and of the integrity
no country will accept him (Mejoff v.
of the national territory and therefore ultimately
Director of Prisons, G.R. No. L-4254, Sept.
of the majesty of the law. Negatively, it is an
26, 1951).
expression against military abuses.

2. The right of a country to establish military

commissions to try war criminals (Kuroda Freedom from Nuclear Weapons
PROHIBITS unborn is placed exactly on the same level of
the
DOES NOT life of the mother. Hence, when it is necessary
PROHIBIT to
save the life of the mother, the lie of the unborn
Possession, control may
and manufacture of be sacrificed.
nuclear weapons;
nuclear arms tests

Peaceful use of The Roe v. Wade doctrine allowing abortion up

nuclear energy
Exception to policy against nuclear weapons
may
be made by political departments, but must be
justified by demands of national interest.
to
the 6th month of pregnancy cannot be adopted
in
the Philippines human lives are sacred from
the
moment of conception, and that destroying
those
new lives is never licit, no matter what the
purported good outcome would be. (Imbong
vs.
Ochoa, G.R. No. 204819, April 8, 2014)

Social Justice
The State shall promote social justice in all
phases
of national development.
Social Justice has been defined as the
humanization of laws and the equalization of
social
and economic forces by the State so that
justice in
its rational and objectively secular conception
may
at least be approximated (Calalang v. Williams,
G.R. No. 47800, Dec. 2, 1940).
Protection of the Life of the Unborn
It is not an assertion that the unborn is a legal
person. It is not an assertion that the life of the
Right to a Balance and Healthful Ecology
The right to a balanced and healthful ecology is
not
less important than any of the civil and political
rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. The
right to
a balanced and healthful ecology carries with it
an
intergenerational responsibility to care for and
protect the environment (Oposa v. Factoran,
G.R.
No. 101083, Jul. 30, 1993).
In environmental cases, the precautionary
principle is used when there is a lack of full
scientific certainty in establishing a causal link
between human activity and environmental
effect.
The precautionary principle, as a principle of
last
resort, shifts the burden of evidence of harm Reyes, G.R. No. 180771, Apr. 21, 2015)
away
from those likely to suffer harm and onto those
desiring to change the status quo.
(International Requisites for the Issuance of Writ of Kalikasan
Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech v. (CPE)
Greenpeace, G.R. No. 209271, Dec. 8, 2015)

Elements for the Application of Precautionary

Principle: (UPP)

• Uncertainty
• Possibility of irreversible harm
• Possibility of serious harm

(International Service for the Acquisition of

Agri-
Biotech v. Greenpeace, G.R. No. 209271, Dec.
8,
2015)

Standing to file an action for violation of

environmental laws

The enactment of the Rules of Procedure for

Environmental Cases enabled litigants
enforcing
environmental rights to file their cases as
citizen
suits. It liberalized standing for all cases filed
enforcing environmental laws and collapses
the
traditional rule on personal and direct interest,
based on the principle that humans are
stewards of
nature. The need to give animals legal standing
in
environmental cases has been eliminated by
the
Rules since any Filipino citizen, as a steward of
nature, is allowed to bring a suit to enforce
environmental laws. (Resident Marine
Mammals v.
1. There is an actual or threatened violation Outline Reviewer in Political Law, 2015)
of the Constitutional right to a balance and
healthful ecology;
2. The actual or threatened violation arises
from an unlawful act or omission of a Two types of Sovereignty
Public official or employee, or private
individual or entity; 1. Political Sovereignty - the supreme
3. The actual or threatened violation involves power to make laws
or will lead to an Environmental damage of 2. Legal Sovereignty - the sum total of all
such magnitude as to prejudice the life, the influences in a state, legal and non-
health or property of inhabitants in two or legal, which determine the course of law.
more cities of provinces. (LNL Archipelago
Minerals Inc v. Agham Party List, GR
209165, Apr. 12, 2016) (Bernas, The 1987 Constitution of the Republic
of
the Philippines: A commentary, 2009 )
B. SOVEREIGNTY

Elements of a State (GSPoT)

Auto-Limitation

• Government - institution or aggregate of

“It is to be admitted that any state may, by its
institutions by which an independent
consent, express or implied, submit to a
society makes and carries out those rules
restriction
of action which are necessary to enable
of its sovereign rights. There may thus be a
men to live in a social state, or which are
curtailment of what otherwise is a power
imposed upon the people forming that
plenary in
society by those who possess the power or
character. That is the concept of sovereignty
authority of prescribing them
as
• Sovereignty - power of the State to
auto-limitation, which, in the succinct language
regulate matters within its own territory
of
• Population - community of persons
Jellinek, "is the property of a state-force due to
sufficient in number and capable of
which it has the exclusive capacity of legal self-
maintaining the continued existence of the
determination and self-restriction." A state
community and held together by a
then, if it
common bond of law.
chooses to, may refrain from the exercise of
• Territory - a definite area over which the
what
State exercises sovereign jurisdiction
otherwise is illimitable competence.” (People v.
Gozo, G.R. No. L-36409, Oct. 26, 1973)

Definition of Sovereignty
Note: Even though the country allows a foreign
power to participate in the exercise of
The supreme and uncontrollable power
jurisdictional
inherent in
right over certain portions of its territory, such
a State by which that State is governed.
areas
(Nachura,
do not become impressed with alien character courts must decline to hear cases against
but foreign
rather, it retains its status as native soil. (Id)

Limited by International Law and Treaties

“By their inherent nature, treaties really limit or

restrict the absoluteness of sovereignty. By
their
voluntary act, nations may surrender some
aspects
of their state power in exchange for greater
benefits
granted by or derived from a convention or
pact.”
(Tanada v. Angara, G.R. 118295, May 2, 1997).

C. STATE IMMUNITY

BASIS: Art. XVI, Sec. 3: “The state may not be

sued without its consent.” This is based on the
principle of equality of states — par in parem
non
habet imperium.

Doctrine of State Immunity

It refers to a principle by which a state, its

agents,
and property are immune from the jurisdiction
of
another state (MAGALLONA).

Principle of Equality of States

This principle is premised on the juridical

equality
of states, according to which a state may not
impose its authority or extend its jurisdiction to
another state without the consent of the latter
through a waiver of immunity. Thus, domestic
sovereigns out of deference to their role as
sovereigns.
Kinds of Immunity
Absolute sovereign immunity - where a state
cannot be sued in a foreign court no matter
what
the act it is sued for;
Restrictive sovereign immunity - where a state
is immune from suits involving governmental
actions (jure imperii), but not from those
arising
from commercial or non-governmental activity
(jure
gestionis).
Summary
General rule – The State cannot be sued.
Exception – The State consents to be sued.
How a State gives its consent
1. Express consent
a. General Law
b. Special Law
2. Implied consent
a. When the State commences
litigation, it becomes vulnerable to
a counterclaim; (US v. Guinto,
G.R. No. 76590, Feb. 26, 1990)
b. State enters into a business
contract (thus exercising
proprietary functions); (Id.)
c. When it would be inequitable for
the State to invoke immunity;
d. In eminent domain cases.
State's Business Contracts
A State’s commercial activity is a descent to
the
level of individuals and there is a form of tacit
consent to be sued when it enters into
business
contracts with others.
However, not every contract entered into is a
form
of tacit consent to be sued. It depends upon
whether the foreign state is engaged in the
activity
in the regular course of business. If not, or if it
is in
pursuit of a sovereign activity, it falls within the
exemption of acts jure imperii especially when
not
intended for gain or profit.
A party who feels transgressed by anyone
claiming
immunity may ask his own government to
espouse
his cause through diplomatic channels.
Extent of Immunity
Immunity from jurisdiction is enjoyed by both
the
head of State and by the State itself. The
State's JURE GESTIONIS
diplomatic agents, including consuls to a
certain JURE IMPERII
extent, are also exempt from the jurisdiction of
local By right of economic or
courts and administrative tribunals. business relation

By right of sovereign
power, in the exercise
Restrictive Application of State Immunity of sovereign functions

This traditional rule of State immunity which May be sued

exempts a State from being sued in the courts
of May not be sued
another State without the former's consent or
waiver has evolved into a restrictive doctrine
which
distinguishes sovereign and governmental acts
(Jure imperii) from private, commercial and
proprietary acts (Jure gestionis). Under the Two Conflicting Concepts of Sovereign
restrictive rule of State immunity, State Immunity:
immunity
extends only to acts jure imperii. The restrictive 1. Classical or absolute theory – sovereign
application of State immunity is proper only cannot, without its consent, be made a
when respondent in the courts of another
the proceedings arise out of commercial sovereign.
transactions of the foreign sovereign, its
commercial activities or economic affairs
(Arigo v.
Swift, G.R. No. 206510, Sept. 16, 2014).

Scope of State Immunity

Jure Imperii - Immunity is granted only with

respect to their governmental acts

Jure Gestionis - Immunity is not granted with

respect to their commercial acts

Difference between Jure Gestionis and Jure

Imperii
2. Newer or restrictive theory – the
immunity of the sovereign is recognized
only with regard to public acts or acts jure
imperii of a state but not with regard to
private acts or acts jure gestionis.
A certification executed by the Economic
Commercial Office of the Embassy of the
People’s
Republic of China stating that a project is in
pursuit
of a sovereign activity is not the kind of
certification
that can establish entitlement to immunity
from suit.
It unequivocally refers to the determination of
the
Foreign Office of the state where it is used
(China
National Machinery Equipment v. Santa Maria,
G.R. No. 185572, Feb. 7, 2012).
When Suit is Considered against the State:
(NUO)
• The Republic is sued by Name
• Suits against an Unincorporated
government agency
• Suit is against a government Official, but is
such that ultimate liability shall devolve on
the government
It produces adverse consequences to the
public
treasury in terms of disbursement of public
funds
and loss of government property.
It cannot prosper unless the State has given its
consent.
When Not against the State
It was held that the suit is not against the
State:
1. When the purpose of the suit is to compel an
officer charged with the duty of making
payments pursuant to an appropriation made
by law in favor of the plaintiff to make such
payment, since the suit is intended to compel
performance of a ministerial duty (Begosa v.
PVA, G.R. No. L-25916, Apr. 30, 1970);
2. When from the allegations in the complaint,
it
is clear that the respondent is a public officer
sued in a private capacity;
3. When the action is not in personam with the
government as the named defendant, but an
action in rem that does not name the
government in particular
Test to Determine if Suit is against the State
Will the enforcement thereof (decisions
rendered
against the public officer or agency impleaded)
require an affirmative act from the State, such
as
the appropriation of the needed amount to
satisfy
the judgment? If so, then it is a suit against the
State. (Sanders v Verdiano, G.R. No. L-46930,
June 10, 1988)
Duration of Immunity of Head of State
Immunity of head of state for private acts lasts
while a person is still in office; for public acts, a. When State Commences Litigation
even
after office.
Exception: When the State intervenes not for
the purpose of asking for any affirmative relief,
but only for the purpose of resisting the claim
Consent to be Sued is Given by the State either precisely because of immunity from suit (Lim
EXPRESSLY or IMPLIEDLY v Brownell, GR No. L-8587, Mar 24 1960)

EXPRESS

The law expressly grants the authority to sue

the
State or any of its agencies.

a. General Law: Authorizes any person who

meets the conditions stated in the law to sue
the government in accordance with the
procedure in the law (e.g. money claims
arising from contract express or implied,
liability of local government units for torts)
b. Special Law: may come in the form of a
private bill authorizing a named individual to
bring a suit on a special claim.

IMPLIED (C BIP)

a. When the State Commences litigation, it

becomes vulnerable to counterclaim
b. When the State enters into a Business
contract (in jure gestionis or proprietary
functions)
c. When it would be Inequitable for the State
to invoke its immunity
d. In instances when the State takes private
property for Public use or purpose
(Eminent Domain)

Specific Rules

b. When State enters a Business Contract
Types of Capacity of the State in entering into
contracts:
1. Acta jure gestionis - by right of economic
or business relations; commercial or
proprietary acts. The State may be sued
(US v. Guinto, GR. No. 76607, Feb. 26,
1990)
2. Acta jure imperii - by right of sovereign
power and in the exercise of sovereign
functions; there is no implied consent to be
sued (US v. Ruiz, GR No. 35645, May 22,
1985)
c. When State Executes and Enters Private
Contracts
● General Rule: The State may be sued if a
private contract is entered into by the proper
office and within the scope of his authority.
● Exception: When the private contract is
incidental to the performance of a
government function
Suits against Public Officers
General Rule: The doctrine of state immunity
also
applies to complaints filed against officials of
the
State for acts performed by them in the
discharge
of their duties within the scope of their
authority.
Exception: The doctrine of immunity from suit
will
not apply and may not be invoked where the
public
official is being sued in his:
1. private and personal capacity as an
ordinary citizen
2. for acts without authority or in excess of the
powers vested in him. (Lansang v. CA,
G.R. 102667, Feb. 23, 2000)
Rule on Liability of Public Officers (SGU)
1. Acting beyond Scope of Authority: When
a public officer acts in bad faith, or beyond
the scope of his authority, he can be held
personally liable for damages.
2. Acting in Good Faith: If a public officer
acted pursuant to his official duties, without
malice, negligence, or bad faith, he is not
personally liable, and the suit is really one
against the State
3. Ultra Vires Act: Where a public officer has
committed an ultra vires act, or where there
is showing of bad faith, malice, or gross
negligence, the officer can be held
personally accountable even if such acts
were claimed to have been performed in
connection with official duties (Wylie v.
Rarang, G.R. No. 74135, May 28, 1992).
Suits against Government Agencies
1. Incorporated: If the charter provides that the
agency can sue and be sued, then suit will
lie, including one for tort. The provision in the
charter constitutes express consent on the
party of the State to be sued (PNB v. CIR,
G.R. No. L-32667, Jan 31, 1978)
2. Unincorporated:
a. Performs governmental functions: Cannot
be without State consent even if
performing proprietary function
incidentally. Thus, even in the exercise of
proprietary functions, an unincorporated
agency still cannot be sued without its
consent
b. Performs proprietary functions: Can be
sued except when the proprietary
functions are indispensable in the
discharge of its governmental functions
(Mobil PHL Exploration v. Customs
Arrastre Service, GR No. 23139, Dec 17,
1966)

Case Law Exceptions when State/Public

Officer
May Be Sued without Prior Consent (RUPJuG)

1. To compel him to do an act Required by law;

2. To restrain him from enforcing an act
claimed
to be Unconstitutional
3. To compel the Payment of damages from an
already appropriated assurance fund or to
refund tax overpayments from a fund already
available for the purpose;
4. To secure a Judgement that the officer
impleaded may satisfy by himself without the
State having to do a positive act to assist
him;
5. Where the Government itself has violated its
own laws.

(Sanders v Verdiano, G.R. No. L-46930, Jun 10,

1988)

Rules regarding Garnishment of Government
Funds
General Rule: Garnishment of government
funds
is not allowed. Whether the money is deposited
by
way of general or special deposit, they remain
government funds and are not subject to
garnishment.
authorize the claimant to elevate the matter to
the
Supreme Court on certiorari and in effect, sue
the
State thereby (Department of Agriculture v
NLRC,
G.R. No 104269, Nov. 11, 1993; PD 1445, § 49-
50)
Consent to be Sued is Not Equivalent to
Consent to Liability

- The fact that the State consented to being

Exceptions:
1. Where a law or ordinance has been enacted
appropriating a specific amount to pay a valid
government obligation, then the money can
be garnished
2. If the funds belong to a public corporation or
a GOCC which is clothed with a personality
of its own, then the funds are not exempt
from garnishment (NHA v. Guivelando, G.R.
No. 154411, Jun 19, 2003)
sued does not mean that the State will
ultimately be held liable (US v. Guinto, G.R.
76607, Feb. 26, 1990)
- Even if the case is decided against the State,
an award cannot be satisfied by writs of
execution or garnishment against public
funds. No money shall be paid out of the
public treasury unless pursuant to an
appropriation made by law

Payment of interest by the Government in

Money Judgment Against it:
To enforce monetary decisions against the
Government, a person may file a claim with the General Rule: Government cannot be made to
Commission on Audit. It is settled pay
jurisprudence interests
that upon determination of State liability, the
prosecution, enforcement, or satisfaction
thereof
must still be pursued in accordance with the Exceptions (EEG):
rules
and procedures laid down in P.D. No 1445 1. Eminent domain
(Government Auditing Code of the Philippines). 2. Erroneous collection of tax
All 3. Government agrees to pay interest pursuant
money claims against the Government must to law
first be
filed with the Commission on Audit, which
must act
upon it within 60 days. Rejection of the claim
will Immunity from Jurisdiction

General rule: The jurisdiction of a state within
its
territory is complete and absolute
Exceptions (SDH):
1. Sovereign immunity
2. Diplomatic immunity
3. Hostis Humanis Generis - enemy of all
mankind or crimes justiciable by any state
anywhere e.g. piracy (Filartiga v. Pena-Irala,
630 F.2d 876, 1980)
government. Just as raising the specter of
political
issues cannot sustain dismissal under the
political
question doctrine, neither does a general
invocation of international law or foreign
relations
mean that an act of state is an essential
element of
a claim. It cannot be thought that every case
touching foreign relations lies beyond judicial
cognizance. (Provincial Government of
Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc G.R. No. 07-
1630,
2009)

Acts of State Immunity

Every state is bound to respect the

independence
of every other sovereign state, and the courts
of
one country will not sit in judgment on the acts
of
the government of another, done within its own
territory. Redress of grievances by reason of
such
acts must be obtained through the means open
to
be availed of by sovereign powers as between
themselves

This immunity is for the benefit of the State.

Thus,
only the state may waive it.

Nothing in the complaint would require a court

to
pass judgment on any official act of the
Philippine
The commission of a crime by a state official, has no bearing.
which
is an international crime against humanity and
jus
cogens, is NOT an act done in an official Note:
capacity
on behalf of the state. As a matter of general A state is not deprived of immunity by reason
customary international law, a head of state of the
will fact that it is accused of serious violations of
PERSONALLY be liable to account if there is international human rights law or the
sufficient evidence that he authorized or international
perpetrated serious international crimes. law of armed conflict. The court distinguished
Individuals who commit international crimes between immunity and substantive jus cogens
are rules of international law and held that a
internationally accountable for them. finding of
immunity does not equal a finding that a state
did
not owe reparations (Jurisdictional Immunities
General Rule: Any person who in performing an of
act of the state, commits a criminal offense is the State: Germany v. Italy, 2012).
immune from prosecution. This applies not
only to D. SEPARATION OF POWERS
ex-heads of state and ex-ambassadors but to
all An allocation of the three great powers of
state officials who have been involved in government in the following manner:
carrying legislation to
out the functions of the state (Immunity Congress, execution of laws to the Executive,
Ratione and
Materiae/Functional Immunity - “Immunity of settlement of legal controversies to the
the Judiciary. It
official”) is also an implicit limitation on their powers,
preventing one from invading the domain of
the
Exception: Functional Immunity of state others, but the separation is not total.
officials of
the foreing state could no longer be invoked in
cases of international crimes (Regina v. Bartle
and The principle of separation of powers ordains
the Commissioner of Police, “Pinochet Case”) that
each of the three great government branches
has
exclusive cognizance of and is supreme in
Exception to the Exception: When the case is concerns falling within its own constitutionally
brought against the State itself for liability to allocated sphere; e.g., the judiciary as Justice
damages (e.g. civil proceedings against a Laurel emphatically asserted “will neither direct
state), nor
the rationale for the judgment in the Pinochet restrain executive [or legislative] action”
case (Republic
v. Bayao, G.R. No. 179492, Jun 5, 2013). 1. Delegation to the People – To the extent
reserved to the people by the provision on
E. CHECKS AND BALANCES initiative and referendum.

A system operating between and among the

three
branches of government the net effect of
which is
that no one department is able to act without
the
cooperation of at least one of the other
departments.

Examples:

- Legislation in the form of an enrolled bill

needs final approval from the President to
become a law;
- President must obtain the concurrence of
Congress to complete certain acts (e.g.
granting of amnesty);
- Money can be released from the Treasury
only by authority of Congress;
- Appropriation, revenue, tariff, increases in
public debt and private bills originate in House
of Representatives;
- SC can declare acts of Congress or the
Executive unconstitutional.

F. DELEGATION OF POWERS

General Rule: Legislative power is vested in

Congress which consists of the Senate and the
House of Representatives by the sovereign
Filipino
people. Congress cannot delegate its
legislative
power under the maxim delegata potestas non
potest delegari (delegated power may not be
delegated).

Exceptions: (PLATE)
2. Delegation to Local Government Units –
Local legislative bodies are allowed by our
Constitution to legislate on purely public
matters. Since what was given to local
legislative bodies are not power to make rules
and regulations but legislative power, the rules
on valid delegation do not apply. However,
when what is given to local legislative body is
executive power, the rules applicable to the
empowerment of administrative agencies also
become applicable (Rubi v. Provincial Board,
G.R. No. L-14078, March 7, 1919).
- The BPO issued by the Punong Barangay
is not an undue delegation of legislative
power for it merely orders the perpetrator
to desist from (a) causing physical harm to
the woman or her child; and (2) threatening
to cause the woman or her child physical
harm. Such function of the Punong
Barangay is purely executive in nature, in
pursuance of his duty under the LGC to
“enforce all laws and ordinances,” and to
“maintain public order in the barangay.”
(Garcia v. Drilon, G.R. No. 179267, June
25, 2013)
3. Delegation of Rule-Making Power to
Administrative Bodies – power to issue
supplementing rules and regulations provided
that the delegation must be complete and must
prescribe sufficient standards. It also includes
the determination of the presence of the
conditions for the law to take effect.
- Rationale:
o Increasing complexity of the task of
government
o Lack of technical competence on the part
of Congress to provide for specific
details of implementation
o Administrative agencies may fill up
details of the statute for implementation
o Legislature may pass “contingent
legislation “which leaves to another
body the business of ascertaining facts
necessary to bring the law into action
(ABAKADA v. Ermita, G.R. No. 168056,
Sept 1, 2005).
- If there was a valid delegation,
administrative rules and regulations are
just binding as if it was written in the law.
- Administrative agencies may not issue
regulations that contravene the law
(Solicitor General v. Metro Manila
Authority, G.R. No. 102782, Dec 11, 1991)
nor may they add to the standards set by
law (Tatad v. Secretary of Energy, G.R.
No. 124360, Nov. 5, 1997).
- Administrative rules and regulations may
be penal in nature provided that:
- such a violation is made a crime by
the delegating law;
- penalty of such is provided in the
statutes
- the regulation is published.
- Powers of Congress which are not to be
delegated are those that are strictly or
inherently legislative. Purely legislative
power is the authority to make a complete
law - complete as to the time it shall take
effect or to whom it shall be applicable and
to determine the expediency of the
enactment
4. Tariff Powers

- Art. VI, § 28(2) authorizes Congress to

delegate to the President the power to fix
tariff rates, import and export quotas,
tonnage, wharfage dues, and other duties
and impost.

5. Emergency Powers

- Art. VI, § 23(2) authorizes Congress to give

the President the power necessary and
proper to carry out a declared national
policy in times of war or other national
emergency pursuant to law.

Test of Valid Delegation

1. Completeness Test — The law must state

the
policy that must be carried out or implemented
and leave no room for the delegate to legislate;
nor allow discretion on their part to say what
the law is; there must be nothing left for the
delegate to do but to enforce the law.
2. Sufficiency of Standard — The limits are
sufficiently determinate and determinable to
which the delegate must conform in the
performance of his actions.
Examples:
i. Public interest (People v. Rosenthal,
G.R. Nos. L-46076 and L-46077, Jun.
12, 1939).
ii. Fair and equitable employment practices
(Eastern Shipping Lines v. POEA, supra)
iii. Justice and equity
iv. Public convenience and welfare
v. Simplicity, economy, and efficiency.
Note:
Standards may be expressed or implied from
the
law taken as a whole (Edu v. Ericta, G.R. No. L-
32096, Oct. 24, 1970). They can even be
gathered
in another statute of the same subject matter
(Chongbian v. Orbos, G.R. No. 96754, June 6,
1995).
A law allowing a judge to inflict punishment of
imprisonment in its discretion without any
designated limits is invalid. (People
Dacuycoy,
G.R. No. L-45127, May 5, 1989).
Section 8 of PD 910 regarding the Malampaya
funds provides: “all fees, revenues and
receipt…under the Petroleum Act of 1949; as
well
as the government share…shall form part of a
special fund to be used to finance energy
resource
development and exploitation programs and
projects of the government and for such other
purposes as may be hereafter provided by the
President.” This is not a valid delegation of
legislative power. The provision constitutes an
undue delegation of legislative power insofar
as it
does not lay down a sufficient standard to
adequately determine the limits of the
President‘s
authority (Belgica v. Ochoa, G.R. No. 208566,
Nov.
19, 2013).
Congress can only delegate, usually to
administrative agencies, rule-making power or
law execution. This involves either of two tasks
for
the administrative agencies:
- Subordinate Legislation: Filling up the
details of an otherwise complete statute; or
- Contingent Legislation: Ascertaining the
fact necessary to bring a “contingent” law
or provision into actual operation.
Any post-enactment congressional measure
should be limited to scrutiny and investigation.
In
particular, congressional oversight must be
v. confined to the following: (SAHM)
· Scrutiny based primarily on Congress’
power of appropriation and the budget
hearings conducted in connection with it
· Its power to ask heads of departments to Concept, Application, and Limits
Appear before and be Heard by either of its
Houses on any matter pertaining to their
departments and its power of confirmation
and investigation

· Monitoring of the implementation of laws

pursuant to the power of Congress to
conduct inquiries in aid of legislation

Any action or step beyond that will undermine

the
separation of powers guaranteed by the
Constitution. Legislative vetoes fall in this
class
(Abakada v. Purisima, G.R. No. 166715, Aug.
14,
2008).

Reorganization “involves the reduction of

personnel, consolidation of offices, or abolition
thereof by reason of economy or redundancy
of
functions.” The general rule has always been
that
the power to abolish a public office is lodged
with
the legislature. The exception, however, is that
as
far as bureaus, agencies or offices in the
executive
department are concerned, the President’s
power
of control may justify him to inactivate the
functions
of a particular office, or certain laws may grant
him
the broad authority to carry out reorganization
measures (Malaria Employees v. Romulo, G.R.
160093, Jul 31, 2007).

G. FUNDAMENTAL POWERS OF THE

STATE
The totality of governmental power is the general
contained in welfare,
three great powers: police power, power of hence it is
eminent not
domain and power of taxation. These belong to compensable
the
very essence of government, without which no The property
government can exist. A constitution does not (generally in
grant the form of
such powers to government; a constitution can money) is
only taken for the
define and delimit them and allocate their support of
exercise government
among various government agencies. (Bernas,
The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the The property
Philippines, 2009) is “taken” for
public benefit,
hence, it must
be
POLICE compensated.
POWER
Persons affected
TAXATION
Usually
EMINENT operates
DOMAIN upon a
community
Authority which exercises the power of a class of
entities or
May be exercised only by the individuals
government or its political
subdivisions -

May be Operates on
granted to an entity or an
public service individual as
companies or the owner of a
public utilities particular
property
Purpose

The use of
the property
is “regulated”
for the
purpose of
Effect
promoting
There is no society and
transfer of is often
title. At most, referred to as
there is a damnum
restraint on absque
the injurious injuria i.e.
“damage
The money without
contributed in injury”
the concept of
taxes Person
becomes part affected
receives the
There is a equivalent of
transfer of the the tax in the
right to form of
property protection,
whether it be public
ownership or improvements,
and benefits
he receives
from the
use of the government as
property such.
Therefore,
of the public taxation may
funds be used as an
implementation of police
to a lesser power (Lutz v.
right (e.g. Araneta, 1955)
possession)
The person
Benefit affected
receives the
The person full and fair
affected market value
receives no of the
direct and property
immediate taken from
benefit but him
only such as
may arise Imposition
from the
maintenance The amount
of a healthy imposed
economic should not
standard of be more than
sufficient to
cover the
cost of the
license and
the
necessary
expense of
police
surveillance
and
inspection,
examination,
or regulation
as nearly as
can be
estimated

There is
generally no
limit to the
amount that
may be
imposed

There is no
amount
imposed but
rather the
owner is paid
the market
value of the
property
taken

Extent
Regulates
both liberty
and property
Affect only property rights
1. POLICE POWER
Police Power in General
- Based on public necessity and the right of the
State and of the public to self-protection. For
this reason, its scope expands and contracts
with changing needs. (Baseco v. PCGG, G.R.
No. 75885, May 27, 1987)
- It is the power of the State to enacts
regulations to promote the health, morals,
peace and order, and welfare of the society
(Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators v.
City of Manila, G.R. No. L-24693, Oct. 23,
1967). These fall under “public necessity”
- Police power has been properly characterized
as the most essential, insistent and the least
limitable of powers, extending as it does to all
great public needs. (Id.)
Requisites
1. Reasonable Subject - The subject of the
measure is within the scope of police, i.e.
that the activity or property sought to be
regulated affects the public welfare. The
interest of the public, generally as
compared to a particular class requires
interference by the state.
2. Reasonable Means - The means
employed are reasonably necessary for
the accomplishment of the purpose, and
not unduly oppressive on individuals. Both
the end and the means must be legitimate
(US v. Toribio, G.R. No. L-5060, Jan. 1,
1910)
Nature
Legislative but may be delegated to the
following:
- President
- Administrative Bodies
- Legislative Bodies of Local Government
Units
2. EMINENT DOMAIN
The purpose of the taking must be public use.
Just
compensation must be given to the private
owner.
(Bernas, The 1987 Constitution of the Republic
of
the Philippines, 2009)
The State has a paramount interest in
exercising
its power of eminent domain for the general
welfare
and that the superior right of the State to
expropriate private property always takes
precedence over the interest of private owners,
provided that:
• the expropriation is for public use
• the exercise of the right to eminent domain
complies with the guarantees of due
process (Estate of JBL Reyes v. City of
Manila, G.R. Nos 132431 & 137146, Feb.
13, 2004).
The matter is legislative, however, “once
authority
is given to exercise the power, the matter public welfare. The scope of the power of
ceases eminent domain has become as broad as the
to be wholly legislative. The executive
authorities
may then decide whether the power will be
invoked
and to what extent (Republic v. Juan, G.R. No.
L-
24740, Jul 30, 1979).

It may be delegated to LGUs, other public

entities
and public utilities. The scope is narrower and
may
be exercised only when authorized by
Congress,
subject to its control and restraints imposed
through the law conferring the power or in
other
legislations. Thus, the power of eminent
domain
delegated to an LGU is in reality not eminent
but
“inferior.” The national legislature is still the
principal of the LGUs, the latter cannot go
beyond
the principal’s will or modify the same (Beluso
v.
Municipality of Panay, G.R. 153974, Aug. 7,
2006).

Requisites

1. Public Use — It means public usefulness,

utility, or advantage or what is productive of
general benefit, so that any appropriation of
private property by the state under its right of
eminent domain, for purposes of great
advantage to the community, is a taking for
public use. (Bernas, The 1987 Constitution of
the Republic of the Philippines, 2009 citing
Gohl Realty Co. v. Hartford, 104 A.2d 365,
368-9 Conn,. 1954). What has emerged is a
concept of public use which is as broad as
expansive and ever expanding scope of
police power itself (Bernas, The 1987
Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines,
2009) The legislature is free to select the subjects of
2. “Taking” requires: EPAP-D taxation and it may determine within
a. Expropriator must Enter the private reasonable
property bounds what is necessary for its protection
b. Entrance must not be for a momentary and
period, must be Permanent expedients for its promotion (Lutz v. Araneta,
c. Entry must be under warrant or color of G.R.
legal Authority No. L -7859, Dec. 22, 1955).
d. Property must be devoted to a Pubic use
e. Utilization of property must Deprive owner
of all beneficial enjoyment of the property
General Rule: The power to tax is purely
(Republic v. Vda Castellvi, G.R. No. L-
legislative and it cannot be delegated
20620, Aug. 15, 1974)
3. Just Compensation — This includes not only
Exceptions:
the determination of the amount to be paid
(market value) to the owner of the land but
I. As to the President — Congress may, by
also the payment of the and within a
law, authorize the President to fix within
reasonable period of time from its taking
specific limits, and subject to such
(Municipality of Makati v. Court of Appeals,
limitations and restrictions as it may
G.R. No. 89898-99, Oct. 1, 1990). It also
impose, tariff rates, import and export
includes interest in case of delay. (Republic v.
quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues, and
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 146587, Jul 2,
other duties or imposts within the
2002).
framework of the national development
program of the Government. (PHIL.
CONST., art. VI, § 28, ¶ 2. )
3.TAXATION

The power of taxation is essentially a

legislative
function. Taxation is an attribute of
II. As to Local Government — Under the
sovereignty. It
present Constitution, each local
is the strongest of all powers of the
government unit is now expressly given the
government.
power to create its own sources of revenue
There is a presumption in favor of legislative
and to levy taxes, subject to such
determination. Public policy decrees that since
guidelines and limitations as the Congress
upon the prompt collection of revenue depends
may provide, consistent with the basic
the
policy of local autonomy (PHIL. CONST., art.
very existence of government itself, whatever
X, § 5.)
determination shall be arrived at by the
A. A municipal corporation has no
legislature
inherent right to impose taxes Its
should not be interfered with, unless there be a
power to tax must always yield to
clear violation of some constitutional inhibition
a legislative act which is superior
(Sarasola v. Trinidad, G.R. No. 14595, Oct. 11,
having been passed by the State
1919).
itself which has the inherent power
 to tax (Basco v. PAGCOR, G.R. xii. Amendment and revision of the
No. 91649, May 14, 1991). Constitution (Article XVII)
C. AMENDMENTS AND REVISIONS (PHIL
CONST., ART. XVII.)

Amendment

• An alteration of one or a few specific

separable provisions of the Constitution.
The changes brought about by
amendments will not affect the other
III. As to Administrative Agencies —
provisions of the Constitution (Bernas,
1987 Philippine Constitution: A
Commentary, 1345, 2009).
When the delegation relates merely to
• An addition or change within the lines of
administrative implementation which may
the original constitution as will effect an
call for some degree of discretionary
improvement, or better carry out the
powers under a set of sufficient standards
purpose for which it was framed; a change
expressed by law (Maceda v. Macaraig,
that adds, reduces or deletes without
G.R. No. 88291, May 31, 1993)
altering the basic principles involved;
affects only the specific provision being
amended. (Lambino v. COMELEC, G.R.
ii. Bill of Rights (due process, equal protection,
No. 174153, Oct. 25, 2006)
freedom of expression, rights during
expropriation, searches and seizures)
iii. Composition and powers of the government
organs
iv. Judicial review Examples:
v. Supervision of courts
vi. Powers of the Supreme Court • a change reducing the voting age from 18
vii. Qualifications, disqualifications, and years to 15 years;
selection of the president, senators, • a change reducing Filipino ownership of
members of the House of Representatives, mass media companies from 100% to
justices and judges, the ombudsman, and 60%; a change requiring a college degree
constitutional commissioners
viii. Immunity of the president, privileges of
senators and members of the House of
Representatives
ix. Structure of government (composition,
functions, powers and privileges, separation
of powers, and system of checks and
balances)
x. Process of legislation
xi. Natural resources (nationalization principle
for natural resources and economic
activities)
as an additional qualification for election to
the Presidency (Lambino v. COMELEC,
G.R. No. 174153, Oct. 25, 2006).
Revision
• A re-examination of the entire
Constitution or of provisions which have
over-all implications for the entire
Constitution to determine how and to what
extent it should be altered. A revision
implies substantive change, affecting the
Constitution as a whole (Bernas, 1987
Philippine Constitution: A Commentary,
1345, 2009).
• A change that alters a basic principle in the
constitution, like altering the principle of
separation of powers or the system of
checks-and-balances; alters the
substantial entirety of the constitution, as
when the change affects substantial
provisions of the constitution.
Examples:
• altering the principle of separation of
powers or the system of checks-and-
balances;
• a switch from the presidential system to a
parliamentary system;
• a switch from a bicameral system to a
unicameral system (Lambino v.
COMELEC, G.R. No. 174153, Oct. 25,
2006).
Two-part test in determining whether a
proposal involves an amendment or revision.
1. Quantitative test — The court examines
only the number of provisions affected and
does not consider the degree of the
change. Whether the proposed change is
so extensive in its provision as to change
directly the “substance entirety” of the
Constitution by the deletion or alteration of
numerous provisions.
2. Qualitative test — Inquires into the
qualitative effects of the proposed change
in the Constitution. The main inquiry is
whether the change will “accomplish such
far-reaching changes in the nature of our
basic governmental plan as to amount to a
revision” (Lambino v. COMELEC, G.R. No.
174153, Oct. 25, 2006).
Necessary Steps to Give Effect to
Amendments
or Revisions (PSR)
1. Proposal of amendments or revisions by
the proper constituent assembly
2. Submission of the proposed amendments
or revisions to the people
3. Ratification
Ways of Proposing Amendments (CCP)
1. Constituent Assembly (ConAss)
• Acting as a Constituent Assembly, the
Congress by itself may propose
amendments by 3/4 vote of all its
members.
Notes:
• The power of Congress to propose
amendments is NOT part of its ordinary
legislative power. Congress possesses
constituent power only because it has
been specifically given that power by and
under the conditions of Article XVII
(Bernas, The 1987 Philippine Constitution:
A Comprehensive Reviewer, 544, 2011,
citing Gonzales v. COMELEC, G.R. No. L-
28196, Nov. 9, 1967).
• Each House may separately formulate
amendments by a vote of 3/4 of all its
members, and then pass it on to the other
house for similar process. Nothing is said
about joint sessions (Bernas, The 1987
Philippine Constitution: A Comprehensive
Reviewer, 544, 2011).
• Even in a joint session, they must still vote
separately because Congress is
bicameral.

2. Constitutional Convention (ConCon)

• Congress may call a ConCon by a 2/3 vote

of all its members, or
• By a majority vote of all its members,
Congress may submit to the electorate the
question of calling a ConCon.

Notes:
• The choice of either a ConAss or ConCon
for the purpose of initiating amendments or
revisions is left to the discretion of
Congress. In other words, it is a political
question.
• The manner of calling a ConCon is subject
to judicial review, because the Constitution
has provided for voting requirements.
• If Congress, acting as a ConAss, calls for
a ConCon but does not provide the details
for the calling of such ConCon, Congress
— exercising its ordinary legislative power
— may supply such details. But in so
doing, Congress (as legislature) should not
transgress the resolution of Congress
acting as a constituent assembly (Bernas,
The 1987 Philippine Constitution: A
Comprehensive Reviewer, 544-545,
2011).
• Congress, as a ConAss and the ConCon,
has no power to appropriate money for
their expenses. Money may be spent from
the treasury only pursuant to an
appropriation made by law. However, the
constitutional convention is free to dispose
the funds appropriated by Congress for the
Convention’s operation (Bernas, The 1987
Philippine Constitution: A Comprehensive
Reviewer, 545, 2011).
3. People’s Initiative
For a valid People’s Initiative, there must be:
1. Petition to propose such amendments
must be signed by at least 12% of all
registered voters.
2. Every legislative district must be
represented by at least 3% of the
registered voters therein.
• While the substance of the proposals
made by each type of ConAss is not
subject to judicial review, the manner the
proposals were made is subject to judicial
review.
• Since a ConAss owes their existence to
the Constitution, the courts may determine
whether the assembly has acted in
accordance with the Constitution, for
example:
o Whether a proposal was approved
by the required number of votes in
Congress (acting as a constituent
assembly).
o Whether the approved proposals
were properly submitted to the
people for ratification.
Notes:
• The electorate can propose through
initiative ONLY amendments, since it
would be practically impossible to have an
over-all review of the Constitution through
action by the entire electoral population.
• No amendment through a People’s
Initiative shall be authorized within 5 years
following the ratification of the 1987
Constitution (Feb. 2, 1987) nor more often
than once every 5 years. Congress shall
provide for the implementation of the
exercise of this right. (Art. XVII, Sec.2)
• Revision of the Constitution cannot be
effected through initiative and referendum.
Formulation of provisions revising the
Constitution requires both cooperation and
debate which can only be done through a
collegial body. (BERNAS)
Ways of Proposing Revisions

1. By Congress, upon a vote of 3/4 of its

members
2. By a Constitutional Convention

Doctrine of Proper Submission

A plebiscite may be held on the same day as a

regular election (Gonzales v. COMELEC, G.R.
No.
L-28196, Nov. 9, 1967). The entire Constitution
must be submitted for ratification at one
plebiscite
only. The people must have a proper “frame of
reference”. (Tolentino v. COMELEC, G.R. No. L-
34150, Oct. 16, 1971). No “piecemeal
submission,”
e.g. submission of age amendment ahead of
other
proposed amendments. (Lambino v.
COMELEC,
G.R. No.174153, Oct. 25, 2006)
 N.B. The process of revision is the same in all g. Crimes against property
respects except that it cannot be proposed via h. Crimes against liberty
a People’s Initiative. [Id.] i. Crimes against public interest
j. Republic Act No. 9262 (Anti-Violence
b. International Law - 1 question Against Women and Their Children Act of
i. Sources of international law 2004)
ii. Relationship with domestic law

A Summary on
c. Labor Law - 3 questions
i. Basic principles Expanded Violence
ii. Existence of employer-employee

iii.
relationship; tests
Termination of employment
Against Women
iv. Requirements
contracting
for valid labor-only
and Children
v. Rights of employees and of labor
organizations; membership in unions “Expanded” Violence Against Women and Children
vi. Management prerogative  
vii. Illegal recruitment of overseas Filipino Under Republic Act No. 9262, otherwise known as
workers the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their
viii. Remedies (labor standards violations) Children Act of 2004 (“VAWC”), the concept of
“violence” against women and children includes not
d. Taxation Law - 3 questions
just physical violence, but also sexual violence,
i. Basic principles of taxation in the
psychological violence, and economic abuse,
Constitution
ii. Income tax including threats of such acts, battery, assault,
iii. Value-added tax coercion, harassment, or arbitrary deprivation of
iv. Donor's tax liberty.[1] The law penalizes any act or a series of
v. Remedies (jurisdiction of courts, acts “committed by any person against a woman
prescription, remedies against assessment who is his wife, former wife, or against a woman
notices) with whom the person has or had a sexual or
dating relationship, or with whom he has a
common child, or against her child whether
legitimate or illegitimate, within or without the

B. Criminal Law - 15 questions family abode.”

 
a. Basic principles (e.g., territoriality, actus In the 15 years since the enactment of the VAWC,
reus, mens rea) some in Congress have perceived the need to
b. Justifying, exempting. mitigating, expand the law to specifically include acts of
aggravating, and alternate circumstances violence that utilize electronic communications and
c. Application of the Indeterminate Sentence
social media platforms to inflict psychological
Law
violence. One such expression of this urge to
d. Service of sentence
modernize the law is embodied by House Bill No.
e. Effect of death of the accused
f. Crimes against persons 8655, which seeks to enact the “Expanded” Anti-
Violence Against Women and Their Children Act”. It
should not escape notice though that Republic Act
No. 10175, or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of
2012, had effectively updated the VAWC by
criminalizing as cyber-crimes those criminal acts
under the VAWC that are committed through the
use of information and communications
technologies. ¶
Addressing the gaps on cybercrime against
women and children
 
As a response to the recent and emerging threats
to the welfare of women and children, the House of
Representatives last December approved on final
reading a bill that will help victims, law enforcers,
prosecutors, and the court to punish violators and
abusers who utilize electronic communication and
social media platforms to inflict psychological
violence through intimidation, harassment, stalking,
public ridicule or humiliation, repeated verbal abuse,
and marital infidelity against women and children.
[2]
 
House Bill 8655 or the Expanded Anti-Violence
Against Women and Their Children [Act of 2004] (E-
VAWC) Bill[3] seeks to amend Republic Act No.
9262 by penalizing psychological violence through
the use of information and communications
technology (ICT) devices. The bill aims to expand
the scope of protection afforded to women and
children by including psychological violence
committed through the use of electronic devices or
ICT.
 
Cybercrime and other laws on ICT-related violence
against women and children
 
Section 3 (a) of the E-VAWC Bill states that
Electronic or ICT-related violence refers to any act
or omission involving the use or exploitation of data
or any form of ICT which cause or is likely to cause
mental, emotional, or psychological distress or
suffering to the women and her children. The E-
VAWC Bill more specifically aims to provide an
added layer of protection to a rather vulnerable
sector by including acts that were not previously
defined or understood. Some of these prohibited
acts have recently caught the attention of the
public due to apparent ill usage of technology.[4]
It should be noted though that under existing laws,
certain acts of violence against women and
children involving the use of ICT technologies are
already penalized as crimes. Perhaps the most
significant of these laws is the Cybercrime
Prevention Act of 2012, Section 6 of which
imposes a higher penalty for crimes already
defined and penalized by existing penal laws and
are committed through and with the use of
information and communications technologies.
Among these existing laws would be the present
VAWC.
 
The Anti-Child Pornography Act, enacted in 2009,
defines “child pornography” broadly as to include
electronic, mechanical, digital, optical, magnetic or
any other means, of any representation, whether
visual, audio, or written combination thereof of child
pornography. Another existing law, the Anti-Photo
and Video Voyeurism Act or Republic Act No.
9995[5], prohibits recording videos or taking photos
of a sexual act, the male or female genitalia, and of
the female breast, among others, without consent
of the persons featured in the material. R.A. No.
9995 was crafted to serve as a deterrent against
the increasing reproduction, distribution, and
publication of the material regardless of whether or
not the persons featured consented to the
recording.[6]
 
There could very well be some overlap between
acts already penalized under current laws, and
those sought to be punished under the E-VAWC Bill.
Some of the acts included in ICT-related violence in
E-VAWC are unauthorized recording, reproduction,
distribution, use, sharing or uploading or any
photograph, video, or other form of electronic
and/or artistic presentation showing or depicting in
any form or manner the genitalia of a women and
those of her children, any sexually-related verbal or
nonverbal expression or gesture of the woman and
her children which may be construed as lewd,
indecent, or obscene, any purported violent or
errant behavior of the woman and her children or
the use of intoxicating or prohibited substance or
drugs, and any similar recording, reproduction,
distribution, use, sharing or uploading of any audio
presentation and data, including sound clips of the
same nature previously mentioned.[7]
 
Similar to the punishable acts in R.A. No. 9995,
provisions on E-VAWC include prohibition on any
unauthorized use of a photograph, video, voice
recording, name or any mark, reference or
character identifiable with a woman and her
children and suggestive of a wrongdoing, conduct,
or attribute that tends to besmirch the reputation of
the woman and her children.
 
Expanding existing laws on VAWC
 
Nonetheless, the E-VAWC Bill lays particular stress
on the elements of harassment, intimidation,
coercion, threat, or vilification of the woman and her
children through any form, as well as any form of
stalking including hacking of personal accounts on
social media and the use of location data from
electronic devices, fabrication of fake information
or news through text messages or other cyber,
electronic, or multimedia technology. Another
newly-defined act of electronic violence that the E-
VAWC Bill has introduced is the penalty against
abusers who create fake social media accounts
using an alias or a different personal information
will ill intent and malice to sow intrigue and inflict
harm.[8]
 
This particular emphasis of the E-VAWC Bill is
timely in an era where social media has become
increasingly powerful in terms of scope, real-time
effect, and the irreparable damage it can cause to
the welfare of women and children. The E-VAWC
Bill and the attempt to expand what VAWC means,
are emerging responses to current and relevant
issues that women and children face.
 
k. Republic Act No. 7610 (Special Protection
of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation, and
Discrimination Act)
l. Republic Act No. 11313 (Safe Spaces Act)
m. Republic Act No. 10173 (Data Privacy Act of
2012)
C. The Law Pertaining to Private Personal and
Commercial Relations - 18 questions
a. Civil Law - 12 questions
i. Legal personality, capacity to act
ii. Marital relationships
iii. Property (concept of property, ownership,
co-ownership, right of accession, casement,
nuisance)
iv. Obligations
v. Contracts (in general, loans and mortgages,
interest)
vi. Torts, Quasi-delicts
vii. Damages
b. Commercial Law - 6 questions
i. Corporations (kinds of corporations,
including corporations sole; composition
of / membership in board of directors;
powers,duties and prerogatives of boards
of directors and stockholders; and articles
of incorporation and by-laws)
ii. Intra -corporate dispute (concept)
iii. Intellectual property (copyright, including
fair use principle and moral rights)
 iv. Insurance (what can be insured, claims for ● Bar examinees are advised to review Bar
life insurance) Bulletin No. 25, s. 2021 to be guided on
v. Republic Act No. 10173 (Data Privacy Act of the Bar Chairperson's instructions to
2012) examiners for the types of questions to
be asked and how answers will be
checked. Examines must also
familiarize themselves v Bar Bulletin No.
30, s. 2021 to know what to expect
during the Bar Examinations proper.
● To emphasize, only the basic concepts
of the areas mentioned in this Bar
Bulletin will be covered by the
examinations.

D. Procedure and Professional Ethics - 18

questions

a. Remedial Law - 12 questions

i. Civil Procedure
ii. Criminal Procedure
iii. Appeal (Rules 41, 45)
iv. Original Cases (Rule 46)
v. Small Claims
vi. Evidence
vii. Special civil actions (expropriation,
certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo
warranto)
viii. Special proceedings (habeas corpus,
habeas data, writ of amparo, Rules of
Procedure for Environmental Cases)

b. Ethics - 4 questions
i. Qualifications for new lawyers (includes
those who reacquire citizenship)
ii. Code of Professional Responsibility
(including duties incorporated in the
Lawyer's Oath)
iii. Disqualifications/inhibitions for judges
iv. Direct and indirect contempt

c. Practical Exercises - 2 questions

i. Parts of conveyancing, affidavits
ii. Parts of pleadings, motions

NOTES: