4B 2020-2021

Notes for Poli Rev

enabling acts from Congress to be operative.

SEPTEMBER 17, 2020 Whilst the Constitution takes effect, they
RORY GILMORE & PEPPER become operative. That’s why self-executing
yang mga yan. The moment the Constitution
takes effect, they become operative.
Exam Coverage:
I. The 1987 Constitution Examples:
II. Basic Concepts Those provisions found in the Bill of
III. National Territory Rights like:
IV. Citizenship − Right to due process
V. Legislative Department − Right to equal protection
VI. Executive Department − Right against unreasonable
VII. Judicial Department searches and seizures
− Freedom of expression

I. THE 1987 CONSTITUTION 2. Non-self-executing provisions

Q: Pang-ilang constitution na ito?
A: 4th
1. The 1935 Constitution
2. The 1973 Constitution
3. The 1975 Constitution
4. The 1987 Constitution
Sir: In barely 85 years, we already had 4
constitutions. We keep on changing our
constitution. When you compare this in US,
would you believe that the Constitution that
continues to govern the American people
today that was still the Freedom Constitution
that was crafted by the founding fathers of the
American union. When was that? 1787. From
1787 to date, that’s more than 2 centuries ago.
The Americans never change their
Constitution, they merely amend it to adapt
to the changing times. In our case, apat na
yung constitution natin, baka mag-lima pa.
Anyway, a little of history ah.
Our Constitution has 2 kinds of provisions:
1. Self-executing provisions
2. Non-self-executing provisions
1. Self-executing provisions – these are
provisions that will no longer require
Examples:
a. Those provisions found in Art. 2 of
the Constitution (Declaration of
Principles and State Policies)
b. Those provisions found in Art. 12 of
the Constitution (National Economy
and Patrimony)
Many of the provisions there are not self-
executing because they are broad principles
and policies that will require enabling act
from Congress to be operative.
Q: What is the presumption now? Are
provisions of the Constitution self-
executing or non-self-executing?
A:
MANILA PRINCE HOTEL VS. GSIS
G.R. NO. 122156
Unless it is expressly provided that a
legislative act is necessary to enforce a
constitutional mandate, the presumption
now is that all provisions are self-
executing. If the constitutional provisions are
treated as requiring legislation instead of self-
executing, then legislature would have the

Page 1 of 55
 4B 2020-2021
Notes for Poli Rev

power to ignore and practically nullify the government. So, will that involve an
mandate of the fundamental law. This can be amendment or a revision?
cataclysmic.
Applying the quantitative test, how many
provisions will be affected? Ang dami. More
ARTICLE XVII than hundred sections. That’s why applying
AMENDMENTS OR REVISIONS the quantitative test, sabi ng Supreme Court,
changing the form of the government to
parliamentary to presidential obviously,
AMENDMENT REVISION that’s not a mere amendment but a revision.
An isolated or A revamp or
Applying the qualitative test, what kind of
piecemeal change rewriting of the change is ought to be effected? Sabi ng
by adding, deleting, whole instrument, Supreme Court, remember in a presidential
or reducing without altering the form of government, there is the observance
altering the basic substantial entirety of the doctrine of separation of powers. Eh in
principles involved. of the Constitution. parliamentary, you have there the union of
the executive and the legislative departments.
That’s why applying the qualitative test, sabi
LAMBINO VS. COMELEC ng Supreme Court, a proposal to change the
G.R. NO. 174153 form of the government from presidential to
parliamentary obviously, that’s not a mere
amendment but a revision.
In this case, the Supreme Court adopted the
two tests to determine whether a proposed An amendment or revision of the
change is an amendment or a revision. Constitution actually involves a PROCESS.
1. Quantitative test – asks whether the
Q: How many stages are there in the
proposed change is so extensive in its
process?
provisions as to change directly the
A: There are 2 stages.
‘substantial entirety’ of the
Constitution by the deletion or
1. Proposal stage
alteration of numerous existing
2. Ratification stage
provisions.
Q: How is ratification done?
2. Qualitative test – Asks whether the
A: It is done through a plebiscite.
change will accomplish such far
reaching changes in the nature of our
Any proposed amendment or revision of the
basic governmental plan as to amount
constitution will have to be voted for in a
to a revision.
plebiscite. To be ratified by majority of the
people. Actually, nasa section 4, Art. 17 yan
Remember what was involved in Lambino
eh.
case, there was a proposal to change the form
of government from presidential to
Q: As you go over Art. 17, there are how
parliamentary. Remember what we have in
many ways of proposing an amendment or
the Philippines is a presidential form of
revision?

Page 2 of 55

A: There are 3 ways.
1. Constituent Assembly
2. Constitutional Convention
3. People’s Initiative
1. Constituent Assembly
By the way, when Congress meets in order to
propose an amendment or a revision of the
constitution, Congress will not be acting as a
legislative body, in what capacity will it be
acting then?
A: When Congress meets in order to propose
an amendment or a revision, Congress will be
acting as Constituent Assembly (ConAss).
Anyway, it [ConAss] is applicable naman di
ba?
Q: How many votes is required here?
A: 3/4 of all its members
As you read section 1, par. 1 of Art. 17, ang
problema may gray area yan eh. Since we
have a bicameral congress consisting of a
Senate and House of Representatives, in such
a case how will the Congress vote? Jointly
or separately?
A: Unclear yan. That is a whole gray area.
Eventually, who will interpret the
Constitution? It’s not me. It’s not you. It will
be the Supreme Court. Wag niyong
pangunahan ang Supreme Court. So, do not
say separately because that’s a gray area.
Unclear.
2. Constitutional Convention
Constitutional Convention is a body separate
and distinct from that of the Congress itself
whose members are to be elected by the
people of their respective districts.
Again ha, historically, our 1st constitution,
the 1935 Constitution was actually proposed
by a ConCon whose members were elected
by the people of their respective districts at
that time. Likewise, yung 2nd Constitution
natin, yung 1973 Constitution, it was also
drafted and proposed by a ConCon whose
Page 3 of 55
4B 2020-2021
Notes for Poli Rev
members were also elected by the people of
their respective districts at that time. In 1987
Constitution, was drafted and proposed by
the Constitutional Commission (ConCom)
whose members were appointed by then
President Cory Aquino.
However, you go over the whole of Art. 17 of
the 1987 Constitution, you will never find
there the term “ConCom”. Walang
Constitutional Commission dyan. So, a
ConCom is not a way of proposing an
amendment or revision simply because it is
nowhere to be found in the 1987
Constitution. Instead, what you find there is
Constitutional Convention (ConCon). You
have to know your Constitutional history.
When you go over sec. 3, Art. 17 of the
1987 Constitution, there are two ways on
how ConCon may be conveyed:
1. Congress itself may directly convey
a Constitutional Convention.
Q: In this case, what is the vote
requirement?
A: 2/3 vote
2. Congress may indirectly call for a
ConCon by submitting to the
Electorate the question of calling a
ConCon.
Q: In which case, what is the vote
requirement?
A: Mere majority votes
But then again, let me invite your attention,
meron ding gray area dyan eh with respect to
the vote requirement. It is not clear whether
the Congress should vote jointly or
separately.
3. People’s Initiative – Sec. 2, Art. 17

This has been clarified by the Supreme Court
in the cases of Santiago vs. COMELEC and
Lambino vs. COMELEC.
According to the Supreme Court in those
cases, People’s Initiative under sec. 2, Art.
17 is only limited to an amendment of the
Constitution, not a revision. Be mindful of
that.
Q: How is people’s initiative done?
A: It is done through a petition, 12% of the
total number of registered voters, of which
every legislative district must be represented
by 3% of the registered voters.
People’s Initiative under sec. 2 is not self-
executing because you have that 2nd
paragraph in section 2 which says that
Congress shall provide for the
implementation to exercise this right. So in
short, people’s initiative under section 2 will
require a legislative act. It is not self-
executing.
Q: Has Congress already enacted that
law?
A: Yes. RA 6735 - The Initiative and
Referendum Law
SECTION 4. Any amendment to, or
revision of, this Constitution under Section
1 hereof shall be valid when ratified by a
majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite
which shall be held not earlier than sixty
days nor later than ninety days after the
approval of such amendment or revision.
You know very well that it is the plan of
President Duterte and his administration to
change our form of government. May it be
done through People’s Initiative?
A: No, it cannot be done through People’s
Initiative because unang una, the Supreme
Court already clarified that People’s
Initiative is only limited to amendment not a
Page 4 of 55
4B 2020-2021
Notes for Poli Rev
revision. In changing our government to a
federal government, that will involve a
revision. So either of the 2 lang yan, ConAss
or ConCon.
Now, assuming that it succeeded whether
through ConAss or ConCon. Remember,
section 4 of Art 17 (Ratification), any
proposed amendment or revision of the
Constitution will have to be submitted to the
people in a plebiscite. So eventually, sino ang
magd-desisyon? Sila? Hindi ba tayo? If in the
plebiscite majority of us vote yes, that is the
only time that we can change the form of our
government, if majority will say no, then
there’s no such thing.
II. BASIC CONCEPTS
ARTICLE II
DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND
STATE POLICIES
SECTION 25. The State shall ensure the
autonomy of local governments.
Q: Are LGUs under the control of the
President?
A: No. They are not under the control of the
President for them to enjoy local autonomy.
SECTION 26. The State shall guarantee
equal access to opportunities for public
service, and prohibit political dynasties as
may be defined by law.
This is the provision against political
dynasties. Kaya lang hindi yan self-
executing. Sad to say until now, Congress has
not yet enacted a law.
Principles - first 6 provisions
Policies – from section 7 to section 28
 4B 2020-2021
Notes for Poli Rev

like sa speakership ‘di ba?

However, there seems to be no clear Ano ba yan? ‘Di ba
distinction between what are “principles” and contract yan? Now, what
what are “policies”. is the subject matter of
that contract? ‘Di ba
SECTION 1. The Philippines is a speakership? Speakership
democratic and republican State. is a public office. So,
Sovereignty resides in the people and all remember public is
government authority emanates from outside the commerce of
them. man. Kaya yang “term-
sharing agreement” na
yan unenforceable-
Now you must have noticed that our
enforced yan eh.
Constitution prescribes the kind of
3. It is not a vested right – it is not
government that we shall have—our
protected by the due process clause.
government ought to be DEMOCRATIC
Example:
and REPUBLICAN. It cannot be otherwise,
You are holding a
and because of this provision, there is no way
public office and later on the
by which you can justify the establishment in
Congress decided to abolish
the Philippines of a dictatorship or any other
your office, can you
kind of government. Unless, of course, you
complain your right to due
wanted to do away with this Constitution.
process? Of course, no.
That is an important policy.
Remember the nature that the
power to create office
In the 2nd sentence of section 1 it states that,
belongs to the Congress and
in a democratic country, sovereign resides in
the power of the Congress to
the people all government authority emanates
create public office carries
from them. Correlate this with Art. 11
with it the power to abolish
(Accountability of Public Officers) section 1
the same office. The only
of which states that public office is a public
limitation is that the abolition
trust. It is not a privilege, there must always
is done in good faith.
be a sense of public accountability at all
4. It is not inherited
times.
NOTE: You have to distinguish between
Q: What are the characteristics of a public
abolition of an office from the removal of an
office?
officer. These are two distinct modes of
A:
terminating official relationship with the
1. It is a public trust
government.
2. It is not a property and is outside the
commerce of man.
Abolition of an office – it is the office itself.
- It cannot be a subject to a
There is nothing to return to.
valid contract.
Removal of an officer – the office remains,
- Why is it relevant today?
only the occupant is removed. That’s why it
Naririnig niyo naman
is very clear that the occupant of an office
yung tinatawag na “term-
may validly complain that their right to
sharing agreement”
security of tenure was violated because under
among public officers,

Page 5 of 55

the Constitution and Civil Service Law,
before one may be lawfully removed from an
office, it must be for causes provided by law.
ARTICLE XI
ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS
Remember that impeachment is about
accountability of public officer, that’s why it
is found in Art. 11.
SECTION 2. The President, the Vice-
President, the Members of the Supreme
Court, the Members of the Constitutional
Commissions, and the Ombudsman may
be removed from office, on impeachment
for, and conviction of, culpable violation
of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft
and corruption, other high crimes, or
betrayal of public trust. All other public
officers and employees may be removed
from office as provided by law, but not by
impeachment.
Q: Who are the impeachable officers?
A:
1. President
2. Vice president
3. Members of the Supreme Court
4. Members of the Constitutional
Commissions
5. Ombudsman
So, if you analyze, who are they? The first
two: they are the highest elective officials of
the land. Whereas, the last 3: they are the
highest appointive officials. Wag niyo
isasama dyan yung senate president.
Look at the 2nd sentence of sec. 2, all other
public officers and employees may be
removed from office as provided by law, but
not by impeachment. Meaning to say, this list
of impeachable officers is EXCLUSIVE.
Page 6 of 55
4B 2020-2021
Notes for Poli Rev
Q: What are the grounds for
impeachment?
A:
1. Culpable violation of the Constitution
2. Treason
3. Bribery
4. Graft and corruption
5. Other high crimes
6. Betrayal of public trust
NOTE: You better master the impeachable
officers and the grounds ah.
Q: Who shall initiate the impeachment
case?
A:
SECTION 3. (1) The House of
Representatives shall have the exclusive
power to initiate all cases of impeachment.
Q: Who shall try the impeachment case?
A:
SECTION 3. (6) The Senate shall have the
sole power to try and decide all cases of
impeachment. When sitting for that
purpose, the Senators shall be on oath or
affirmation. When the President of the
Philippines is on trial, the Chief Justice of
the Supreme Court shall preside, but shall
not vote. No person shall be convicted
without the concurrence of two-thirds of
all the Members of the Senate.
You analyze par. 6, when sitting for that
purpose, the Senators shall be on oath or
affirmation. In other words, they have to take
another oath because at this time, they will
not act as senators. They will be acting as
judges.
That’s why if you observed the impeachment
of the former CJ Corona, the senators were
wearing judicial robes, and they are
addressed as, for example, “The Honorable

Senator Judge Lito Lapid” because they are
sitting for a purpose of an impeachment
court. The senators will be acting as judges,
not as senators.
The one who will initiate the prosecution of
impeachment case will be the House of
Representatives, but the one who tries the
impeachment case shall be the Senate.
If the subject matter of the impeachment case
is the President, the Chief Justice presides
over the impeachment trial, but he will
merely preside. He will have no vote. The
senators will decide.
PENALTIES FOR IMPEACHMENT (Section III,
Paragraph 7)
1. Removal from office
2. Perpetual disqualification to hold
office
SECTION 3, PARAGRAPH 7, ARTICLE XI,
1987 CONSTITUTION:
Judgment in cases of impeachment shall
not extend further than removal from
office and disqualification to hold any
office under the Republic of the
Philippines, but the party convicted shall
nevertheless be liable and subject to
prosecution, trial, and punishment,
according to law.
This must be correlated with Section 19,
Article 7.
Page 7 of 55
4B 2020-2021
Notes for Poli Rev
SECTION 19, ARTICLE 7, 1987
CONSTITUTION. Except in cases of
impeachment, or as otherwise provided in
this Constitution, the President may grant
reprieves, commutations, and pardons, and
remit fines and forfeitures, after conviction
by final judgment.
He shall also have the power to grant
amnesty with the concurrence of a majority
of all the Members of the Congress.
This is one important limitation on the
pardoning power of the President. The
pardoning power of the President will not
apply in case of impeachment.
The provisions on impeachment are found in
Article 11, which speaks of Accountability of
Public Officers. After all, what is
impeachment all about? Impeachment is all
about Public Accountability.
These are the more important matters to
consider [at least for purposes of a review]
when you talk of Section 1, Article 2. This is
correlated with Article 11, Accountability of
Public Officers, particularly public office is a
public trust.
CHARACTERISTICS OF A PUBLIC OFFICE IN
A DEMOCRATIC REPUBLICAN STATE
1. Public office is a public trust
• There must always be a sense
of public accountability at all
times.
2. Public office may not be inherited
• It is not a heritable possession
 4B 2020-2021
Notes for Poli Rev

• The issue on political dynasty Member of the House of

is relevant here Representatives or by any citizen
3. Public office is outside the commerce upon a resolution or endorsement by
of man. any Member thereof, which shall be
• Therefore, it may not be the included in the Order of Business
subject of a contract. within ten session days, and referred
• A term-sharing agreement is to the proper Committee within three
unenforceable in court session days thereafter. The
because the subject matter of Committee, after hearing, and by a
this agreement is public office majority vote of all its Members, shall
and public office is outside the submit its report to the House within
commerce of man. sixty session days from such referral,
4. Public office is not a property together with the corresponding
• Therefore, it is not protected resolution. The resolution shall be
not guaranteed by the due calendared for consideration by the
process clause House within ten session days from
receipt thereof.
WHO ARE THE IMPEACHABLE OFFICERS 3. A vote of at least one-third of all the
(SECTION 2, ARTICLE 11) Members of the House shall be
1. President necessary either to affirm a favorable
2. Vice-President resolution with the Articles of
3. Members of the Supreme Court Impeachment of the Committee, or
4. Members of the Constitutional override its contrary resolution. The
Commissions vote of each Member shall be
5. Ombudsman for, and conviction of: recorded.
a. Culpable violation of the 4. In case the verified complaint or
Constitution resolution of impeachment is filed by
b. Treason at least one-third of all the Members
c. Bribery of the House, the same shall
d. Graft and corruption constitute the Articles of
e. Other high crimes Impeachment, and trial by the Senate
f. Betrayal of public trust. shall forthwith proceed.
5. No impeachment proceedings shall
THE PROCESS OF IMPEACHMENT (SECTION be initiated against the same official
3, ARTICLE 11) more than once within a period of one
1. The House of Representatives shall year.
have the exclusive power to initiate 6. The Senate shall have the sole power
all cases of impeachment. to try and decide all cases of
2. A verified complaint for impeachment. When sitting for that
impeachment may be filed by any purpose, the Senators shall be on oath

Page 8 of 55

or affirmation. When the President of
the Philippines is on trial, the Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court shall
preside, but shall not vote. No person
shall be convicted without the
concurrence of two-thirds of all the
Members of the Senate.
7. Judgment in cases of impeachment
shall not extend further than removal
from office and disqualification to
hold any office under the Republic of
the Philippines, but the party
convicted shall nevertheless be liable
and subject to prosecution, trial, and
punishment, according to law.
8. The Congress shall promulgate its
rules on impeachment to effectively
carry out the purpose of this section.
SECTION 2, ARTICLE 2
There are two important phrases that must be
focused on in Section 2, Article 11:
1. “The Philippines renounces war as an
instrument of national policy.”
2. “The Philippines adopts the generally
accepted principles of international
law as part of the law of the land.”
“The Philippines renounces war as an
instrument of national policy.”
This is consistent with the membership with
the UN. This has been taken up under Public
International Law. Among the fundamental
principles governing the establishment of the
United Nations is the renunciation of war as
an instrument of national policy. The world
can no longer afford another war of such
magnitude as the First World War or the
Second World War. If that happens, that
Page 9 of 55
4B 2020-2021
Notes for Poli Rev
would mean the entire obliteration of the
entire planet earth, especially today with the
advances in science, technology and modern
weaponry. That is why, among the
fundamental principles governing the
establishment of the United Nations is the
renunciation of war as a national policy.
Consistent with the membership in the
United Nations, the Constitution also
renounces war as an instrument of national
policy.
Q: Who has the power to declare war?
A: You must notice that, under the
Constitution, the power to declare war has
been withheld. It has not been vested to any
branch or department. Why? Because we
already renounced war as an instrument of
national policy. How else can one declare war
when war has already been renounced in
advance? That is why the power to declare
war has been withheld under the
Constitution. In fact the only power that is
vested by the Constitution on the Congress is
the sole power to declare the existence of
state of war, nothing more.
To say that the Congress has the power to
declare war is a common mistake.
SECTION 23, PARAGRAPH 1, ARTICLE 6.
The Congress, by a vote of two-thirds of
both Houses in joint session assembled,
voting separately, shall have the sole
power to declare the existence of a state of
war.
This refers to the sole power of the Congress
to declare the existence of a state of war,

NOT the power to declare war. There is a big
difference!
Q: When we are attacked, are we now
precluding from engaging the defense of
war?
A: No. That is why we have Section 23,
Paragraph 1, Article 6. The Congress have
the sole power to declare the existence of
war. Meaning to say we are already being
attacked. So, Congress shall now meet to
declare the existence of the state of war. In
other words, although we have renounced
war as an instrument of national policy, when
we are being attacked, we are not precluded
from engaging in the defense of war. Why?
That is precisely one of the rights of the State
in international law.
Q: In PIL, what are the fundamental
rights of the State in International Law?
A: (SPEED)
1. Right to Sovereignty and
Independence
2. Right to Property and Jurisdiction
3. Right of Existence and Self-Defense
4. Right to Equality
5. Right to Diplomatic Intercourse
Among them is the Right of Existence and
Self-Defense. That is why, although we
renounce war as an instrument of national
policy, when we are attacked we are not
precluded from engaging in self-defense of
war. That is one of our rights as a state in
international law.
That is why this sole power to declare the
existence of state of war is vested on the
Congress.
Page 10 of 55
4B 2020-2021
Notes for Poli Rev
Taking these provisions together, the kind of
war that is renounced by the Constitution is
an offensive or aggressive war. But when
attacked, we are not precluded from engaging
in the defense of war.
It is in this context that the first phrase of
Section 2, Article 2.
“The Philippines adopts the generally
accepted principles of international law as
part of the law of the land.”
This is an affirmation of our adherence to the
doctrine of incorporation.
In the study of International Law, when we
talk of the relation between international and
municipal law, there are two doctrines to
consider:
1. Doctrine of Incorporation
With respect to states that subscribe
to the doctrine of incorporation, the
generally accepted principles of
international law automatically
become part of the laws. They no
longer require enabling act from
Congress adopting them as part of the
laws. Once it is established that that is
a generally accepted principle of
international law, automatically, it
becomes part of the laws.
2. Doctrine of Transformation
With respect to the states that
subscribe to this doctrine, generally
accepted principles of international
law do not automatically become part

of their laws. An enabling act is still
required from the legislative body
adopting them as part of their laws,
thus the term “transformation”, since
there is still a need to transform these
principles into laws.
There are states that subscribe to the doctrine
of incorporation, while there are those which
subscribe to the doctrine of transformation.
The Philippines subscribe to the doctrine of
incorporation under Section 2, Article 2.
Q: Give an example of a generally
accepted principle which, by the doctrine
of incorporation, automatically becomes
part of our laws.
A: The doctrine of the state immunity from
suit. In the cases of USA vs Guinto, Bishop
Arigo vs Admiral Swift, the Supreme Court
said that even it is not expressly provided in
Section 3, Article 16 that the State may not be
sued without its consent, we are still bound
by the doctrine of the state immunity from
suit because that is a generally accepted
principle of international law. Therefore, by
the doctrine of incorporation, automatically,
it becomes part of the laws.
Another example is the doctrine of
sovereign equality of all states, expressed in
the Latin maxim par in parem non habet
imperium, which literally means “all states
are sovereign equals; an equal cannot assume
jurisdiction over another equal.” This is also
a generally accepted principle of
international law, and by doctrine of
incorporation, becomes part of our laws.
Page 11 of 55
4B 2020-2021
Notes for Poli Rev
Another principle is pacta sunt servanda. In
the case of Tañada vs Angara, in which the
SC said that, among the oldest principles of
international law, which, by the doctrine of
incorporation, is incorporated is our laws, is
pacta sunt servanda. “Treaties must be
observed in good faith” [literal meaning].
Q: The so-called Yogyakarta Principles,
have they become binding upon the
Philippines? What are these?
A: This is a set of principles for the
Application of International Human Rights
Law in Relation to Sexual Orientation and
Gender Identity adopted in Indonesia.
In the case of Ang Ladlad LGBT Party vs
COMELEC, it was argued that these
Yogyakarta Principles has become binding
upon the Philippines. However, the Supreme
Court said:
“At this time, we are not prepared to
declare that these Yogyakarta
Principles contain norms that are
obligatory on the Philippines. There
are declarations and obligations
outlined in said Principles which are
not reflective of the current state of
international law, and do not find basis
in any of the sources of international
law enumerated under Article 38(1) of
the Statute of the International Court
of Justice. X x x”
“Elaborating, the Supreme Court further said:
Using even the most liberal of lenses,
these Yogyakarta Principles,
consisting of a declaration formulated
by various international law
professors, are – at best – de lege
 4B 2020-2021
Notes for Poli Rev

refenda – and do not constitute 1. Limitations imposed by the very

binding obligations on the nature of membership in the family of
Philippines. X x x” nations; and
2. Limitations imposed by treaty
stipulations.
SOVEREIGNTY

Remember, when we joined the family of

Q: What are the elements of the State? nations, the U.N., or when we enter into a
1. People treaty, it is understood that we have to
2. Territory voluntarily surrender some aspects of our
3. Government state power in exchange for greater benefits
4. Sovereignty that we may derive by joining the family of
nations, especially in view of pact sunt
Q: What are the characteristics of servanda. Otherwise, we suffer isolation, just
sovereignty? like what is happening now in North Korea,
A: Sovereignty is: the only state so far that has not joined the
1. Permanent family of nations.
2. Absolute
3. Indivisible Under pacta sunt servanda:
4. Imprescriptible 1. A state that has entered into a treaty
5. Inalienable with other states, that state may not
6. Comprehensive advance the provisions of its own
7. Exclusive Constitution, as well as that of its own
laws, in order not to comply with its
The case of Tañada vs Angara involves our obligations under a treaty
ratification of the GATT (General Agreement 2. A state is supposed to make the
on Tariff and Trade) Treaty. It is this treaty necessary modifications in its laws in
that created the World Trade Organization order to comply with its obligations
(WTO). We are a party to the GATT Treaty, under a treaty.
which we ratified. In this case, a question was
asked: Is sovereignty really absolute? This is now known as the concept of auto-
limitation. Auto means “self” – when we
The Supreme Court said that in the domestic joined the family of nations, when we enter
sphere, sovereignty is really absolute, into treaties with other states, it is understood
permanent, indivisible, imprescriptible, that we have to voluntarily surrender some
comprehensive, all-encompassing, etc. aspects of our sovereign power in exchange
However, this might not be true in the field of for greater benefits that we may derive by
international relations because, actually, joining the family of nations especially in
there may be limitations imposed there. view of pacta sunt servanda.

What are these limitations?

Page 12 of 55

Correlation by Atty. Sandoval*
1. In the domestic scheme, no doubt
about it, sovereignty is really
absolute, indivisible. There can be no
two sovereigns in one state, there can
be only one sovereign. BUT that is
only in the domestic level.
In the domestic level, the relationship
is vertical. That is why sovereignty is
absolute. In one state, there can be no
two sovereigns.
2. In the field of International relations
it is different. There may be
limitations of sovereignty imposed.
In international law, the relationship
is horizontal. We say that one state is
sovereign vis-à-vis, or in relation,
with other states.
(Tañada vs Angara)
STATE IMMUNITY
SECTION 3, ARTICLE 16. The State may
not be sued without its consent.
This is known as the doctrine of state
immunity from suit.
In USA vs Guinto, and Bishop Arigo vs
Admiral Swift, even if it is not expressly
provided under Section 3, Article 16 that the
State may not be sued without its consent, we,
the Philippines, will be bound by that. Why?
Because that is a generally accepted principle
of international law, and because of our
Page 13 of 55
4B 2020-2021
Notes for Poli Rev
adherence to the doctrine of incorporation, as
expressed in this provision, we are bound by
that.
Q: What is the ethical basis of this
doctrine, that the State may not be sued
without its consent, as explained by Justice
Holmes?
A: That there can be no legal right as against
the authority that makes the law on which the
right depends.
Because of this formulation by Justice
Holmes, sometimes, this has been derisively
referred to as the royal prerogative of
dishonesty [POLIREV-Notes-Sandoval:
because it grants the state the prerogative to
defeat any legitimate claim against it by
simply invoking its non-suability. We have
had occasion to explain in its defense,
however, that a continued adherence to the
doctrine of non-suability cannot be deplored,
for the loss of governmental efficiency and
the obstacle to the performance of its
multifarious functions would be far greater in
severity than the inconvenience that may be
caused private parties, if such fundamental
principle is to be abandoned and the
availability of judicial remedy is not to be
accordingly restricted.]
Q: Does this doctrine, that the State may
not be sued without its consent, apply to
foreign states or foreign countries? In
other words, can you sue a foreign country
before our courts?
A: No, because of the doctrine of sovereign
equality of all states, as expressed in the
Latin maxim par in parem non habet
imperium, which literally means “all states
are sovereign equals, an equal may not

assume jurisdiction over another equal,”
otherwise, it will unduly vex the peach of
nations.
GR: a foreign state cannot be sued before our
courts.
XPN: As long as the state gives its consent to
be sued, it waives that immunity from suit.
Q: How is immunity from suit be waived?
How does the state give its consent?
A: The state immunity from suit may be
waived either:
1. Expressly
Through:
a. a general law or
b. a special law.
In the case of Republic vs Purisima,
the SC said a mere lawyer of the
government, like the SolGen, mean
not validly waive the immunity from
suit of the state.
Only Congress may waive the
immunity from suit of the state. This
is among the plenary powers of the
Congress: the power to waive
immunity from suit. It is not even the
President.
2. Impliedly
Two ways by which the state waives
immunity impliedly:
a. When it commences litigation
against a private party thereby
opening itself to a possible
counterclaim.
For example when the state files a
claim for damages against a person
for whatever cause of action it may
have against him, the plaintiff is the
Page 14 of 55
4B 2020-2021
Notes for Poli Rev
government and the defendant is that
private individual. In a civil case as
you already learned in remedial law,
when you are sued, you file an answer
with a counterclaim. The government
files a motion to dismiss the counter
claim on the ground of state
immunity. Should the motion be
granted or denied?
Denied. When the State commences
the litigation against a private party, it
opens itself to a possible
counterclaim. Otherwise that will be
the height of unfairness, when the
government sues you and you can’t
even file a counterclaim against it.
b. When the state enters into a contract
with a private party.
This is an implied waiver of state
immunity on the theory that when
the government enters into a contract
with a private party it is deemed to
have gone down to the level of the
private party therefore it is deemed
to have waived state immunity.
However, there has been a
development on this topic.
The old rule was that
whenever the state enters into
a contract with a private party
it is deemed to have gone
down the level of a private
party. Therefore it is deemed
to have waived its immunity

from suit. This rule, however,
is no longer valid.
Beginning with the case of
USA vs Ruiz, our Supreme
Court began to qualify. Here
the Supreme Court said that
not every contract entered into
by the state is deemed to be a
waiver of its immunity from
suit. They have to be
distinguished
1) acta jure impeii - If the
contract was entered into
by the in its sovereign or
governmental capacity.
Here there is no waiver of
state immunity from suit.
2) acta jure gestionis - If the
contract was entered into
by the state in its
commercial or proprietary
capacity, then there is
waiver of immunity from
suit.
One important ramification of this doctrine
of immunity from suit is with respect to
suits against public officials.
SUITS AGAINST PUBLIC OFFICIALS
In Lansang vs Court of Appeals, the Supreme
Court said that the doctrine of state immunity
from suit applies to complaints filed against
public officials in the performance of their
duties. Such suit shall be dismissed invoking
state immunity from suit. In this case, the
public official merely acts as the agent of the
Page 15 of 55
4B 2020-2021
Notes for Poli Rev
State. Remember, in the principle of agency,
the acts of the agent are deemed to be the acts
of the principal. When you sue a public
official in the performance of his duties, then
you are deemed to have sued the State itself,
which is why such suit should be dismissed
invoking state immunity from suit.
However, in the same case, the Court said
that this rule will not apply where a public
official is sued in his official capacity for acts
that are unlawful and injurious to the rights of
others. Remember public officials are not
exempt, in their personal capacity, from
liability arising from acts committed in bad
faith.
Republic vs Sandoval: During the time of
President Cory Aquino there is this group
of farmers led by Jaime Tadeo. They
marched along Mendiola on their way to
Malacañang. Along the way, the rally
became unruly. It was dispersed violently
by the police officials. Several
demonstrators were killed. So many others
were wounded. That is why this incident is
known as the Mendiola Massacre. What
President Cory Aquino did was create a
task force to investigate the causes of the
so-called Mendiola Massacre. After
investigation, the task force found that,
although initially, the police officials
assigned performed their powers and
functions in accordance with the law,
during the course of the dispersal
operations, they drained their guns directly
to the demonstrators, thereby causing the
deaths and injuries. They exceeded their
authority. They are alone should be held
personally liable. This is not really a suit
 4B 2020-2021
Notes for Poli Rev

against the state without its consent. This
is really a suit against the individual police
officials who have exceeded their
authority.
Still in Lansang vs Court of Appeals, the
Supreme Court said that this rule will not also
apply where the public official is being sued
not in his official capacity but in his personal
capacity, although the acts complained of
may have been committed while he occupied
a public position.
personal capacity, although the act
complained of was committed while
he occupies his public position.
In Amigable vs Cuenca and in Ministerio vs
CFI of Cebu, the SC said that the doctrine of
state immunity from suit cannot serve as an
instrument for perpetrating an injustice on a
citizen. It is just as important, if not more so,
that there be fidelity to legal norms on the
part of officialdom if the rule of law were to
be maintained.

Example: Sexual harassment suits filed

against public officials. Here, the public
official is not being sued in his official
capacity, but in his personal capacity because
the act complained of – to sexually harass the
female employees – is not part of his official
function, although such act is committed
while he is occupying his public position.

Summary of the rules with respect to suits

against public officials:

GENERAL RULE: The doctrine of state

immunity from suit applies to complaints
filed against public officials in the
performance of their duties.

However, this rule will not apply where:

1. The public official is sued in his
official capacity for acts that are
unlawful or injurious to the rights of
others. Public official are not exempt,
in their personal capacity, from
liability arising from acts committed
in bad faith.
2. The public official is being sued, not
in his official capacity, but in his

Page 16 of 55

SEPTEMBER 24, 2020
PETER PARKER
STATE IMMUNITY
General Rule:
According to the court,the doctrine of state
immunity from suit applies to complaints
filed against public officials in the
performance of their duties. There is such a
case where the public official merely acts as
an agent of the state. Unless there is waiver
from immunity from suit
This will not apply if the public official is
sued in his official capacity where acts that
are unlawful or injurious to the rights of
others. The rule will not also apply where the
public official is sued in his personal capacity
even though he occupies public position.
ARIGO VS. SWIFT
FACTS:
While transiting the Sulu Sea, the USS
Guardian, a US Navy ship, ran aground on
the South Shoal of Tubbataha Reefs, a
restricted and marine protected area. The US
Government provided compensation for the
damaged caused and undertook salvage
operations to remove the grounded ship from
the coral reef. Petition: issuance of a Writ of
Kalikasan with prayer for the issuance of a
Temporary Environmental Protection Order
(TEPO) under Rule 7 of A.M. No. 09-6-8-
SC, otherwise known as the Rules of
Procedure for Environmental Cases (Rules),
involving violations of environmental laws
Page 17 of 55
4B 2020-2021
Notes for Poli Rev
and regulations in relation to the grounding
of the US military ship USS Guardian over
the Tubbataha Reefs .
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the Court has
jurisdiction over the US respondents
who did not submit any pleading or
manifestation in the case.
2. Whether or not there is a waiver of
immunity from suit in the Visiting
Forces Agreement (VFA) that would
make the US respondents liable.
RULING:
1. Immunity of foreign states from the
jurisdiction of local courts
The inhibition to implead a foreign state in a
local jurisdiction is expressed in the maxim
par in parem, non habet imperium. That is, all
states are sovereign equals and cannot assert
jurisdiction over one another. This is also
applicable to complaints filed against
officials of the state for acts allegedly
performed by them in the discharge of their
duties. The rule is that if the judgment against
such officials will require the state itself to
perform an affirmative act to satisfy the same,
such as the appropriation of the amount
needed to pay the damages awarded against
them, the suit must be regarded as against the
state itself although it has not been formally
impleaded.
The alleged act or omission resulting in the
unfortunate grounding of the USS Guardian
on the TRNP was committed while the US
 4B 2020-2021
Notes for Poli Rev

respondents were performing official thus improper considering that it is the VF A

military duties and working as commanding which governs disputes involving US
officers of the US Navy who had control and military ships and crew navigating Philippine
supervision over the USS Guardian and its waters in pursuance of the objectives of the
crew. The suit is deemed to be one against the agreement.
US itself as the satisfaction of a judgment
against said officials will require remedial Q: If foreign government is involved can
actions and appropriation of funds by the US you invoke express waiver of state
government. Therefore, the principle of State immunity?
immunity bars the exercise of jurisdiction by A: Yes, if the foreign government gave an
this Court over the persons of respondents implied waiver. Two kinds of implied waiver
Swift, Rice and Robling. 1. If the state commences litigation
2. If the contract was entered in his
2. The waiver of state immunity under proprietary capacity
the VFA pertains only to criminal
jurisdiction and not to special civil
DOCTRINE OF SEPARATION OF
actions such as the present petition for POWERS
issuance of a writ of Kalikasan. A
CHECKS AND BALANCES
ruling on the application or non-
application of criminal jurisdiction NON DELEGATION OF POWERS
provisions of the VFA to US
personnel who may be found In a presidential form of government, there is
responsible for the grounding of the adherence to the Doctrine of Separation of
USS Guardian, would be premature Power
and beyond the province of a petition
for a writ of Kalikasan. Under that doctrine, the three important
powers of the State are:
The VFA is an agreement which defines the 1. Legislative power/The power
treatment of United States troops and to enact laws
personnel visiting the Philippines to promote 2. Executive Power/Power to
“common security interests” between the US implement law
and the Philippines in the region. It provides 3. Judicial power/ power to
for the guidelines to govern such visits of interpret the law
military personnel, and further defines the
rights of the United States and the Philippine These powers have been distributed to three
government in the matter of criminal Departments. Each of the three is supposed to
jurisdiction, movement of vessel and aircraft, check on the other two
importation and exportation of equipment,
materials and supplies. The invocation of US The Congress is to check on the President and
federal tort laws and even common law is the Courts. The President is supposed to

Page 18 of 55

check the Congress and the Courts,. The
Court is supposed to check on the Congress
and the President. The idea is that power will
not be concentrated in one branch. If there is
concentration, it will be prone to abuse and
corruption and evetually tyranny.
Another principle to observe is non
delegation of powers. The maxim Potestas
Delegatas Non Delegari Potes. It means what
has been delegated can no longer be
delegated. However there are instance where
permissible delgation of powers is allowed.
By way of exception to the general
rule:(PETAL)
1. Delegation to the People under systems of
initiative and referendum
2. Delegation to the President of Emergency
powers
3. Delegation to the President of Tariff
powers
4. Delegtion to the Adminitrative Bodies
5. Delegation to the Local governments
Q: May the president exercise emergency
power motu poprio
A: No, the president cannot do it motu
poprio. It should be delegated by the
Congress.(Sec 23,Par 2,Art 6)
In times of war or other national emergency,
the Congress may, by law, authorize the
President, for a limited period and subject to
such restrictions as it may prescribe, to
exercise powers necessary and proper to
carry out a declared national policy. Unless
sooner withdrawn by resolution of the
Congress, such powers shall cease upon the
next adjournment thereof.
Requisites:
Page 19 of 55
4B 2020-2021
Notes for Poli Rev
1. There should be war
2. For a limited period
3. Subject to restrictions
4. Pursuant to a declared national policy
Q: What if congress would like to revoke
the delegation, is another law required?
A: No, Unless sooner withdrawn by
resolution of the Congress, such powers shall
cease upon the next adjournment thereof.
Mere resolution will do
Q: What powers delegated to
administrative bodies?
A: The power to promulgate rules and
regulation to implement a given law or
legislative policy. The rule making power or
power of subordinate legislation or quasi
legislative power. It may not exercise such
power unless delegated.
Q: When administrative bodies exercise
quasi legislative power, what does it
exactly do?
A: It promulgate administrative regulation
for the implementation of laws or IRR.
Example: The secretary of Labor
promulgated rules and regulation of the
Labor law.In what capacity did he act?
Quasi-legislative capacity
Q: This local government, how are they
referred by the Constitution?
A: The territorial and political subdivisions
of the Republic of the Philippines are the
provinces, cities, municipalities, and
barangays. There shall be autonomous
regions in Muslim Mindanao and the
Cordilleras as hereinafter provided.(Sec. 1,
Art 10)
Q: This Local Governments,do they have
inherent powers?
A: No, they are mere creation of Congress.
The power they enjoy are delegated by the
Congress.Only the State have inherent
power.

Test of Valid delegation of power:
1. Completeness test - the law delegating the
power must be complete in all essential terms
and conditions so that when it reaches the
delegate they have nothing to do but
implement it.
2. Sufficient Standard test - the standard
must specify the limits of the delegate‘s
authority, announce the legislative policy,
and identify the conditions under which it is
to be implemented.
Q: Why do we need this test?
A: It is to prevent undue delegation of power
and prevent the delegation from running riot.
III. NATIONAL TERRITORY
There can be no state without territory
State vs. Nation
A state need territory to exist while there can
be a nation with no territory.
Q: What comprises the National
Territory?
A: The national territory comprises the
Philippine archipelago, with all the islands
and waters embraced therein, and all other
territories over which the Philippines has
sovereignty or jurisdiction.
Q: When we talk of Philippine
archipelago, historically and legally we
refer to what territories?
A: We refer to those territories that have been
ceded from Spain to US by virtue of treaty of
Paris. You also have the Treaty of
Washington and Treaty of Great Britain.
Those waters around, between and
connecting are internal waters. They
form part of the land domain of the state.
Page 20 of 55
4B 2020-2021
Notes for Poli Rev
Q: May international vessels enter your
ports and harbors invoking the right to
innocent passage?
A: No, it may be invoke only when
traversing the territorial sea of the state. Ports
and harbors are internal waters and form part
of the land domain of the state.
MAGALLONA vs. ERMITA
FACTS:
In 1961, Congress passed R.A. 3046
demarcating the maritime baselines of the
Philippines as an Archepelagic State pursuant
to UNCLOS I of 9158, codifying the
sovereignty of State parties over their
territorial sea. Then in 1968, it was amended
by R.A. 5446, correcting some errors in R.A.
3046 reserving the drawing of baselines
around Sabah. In 2009, it was again amended
by R.A. 9522, to be compliant with the
UNCLOS III of 1984. The requirements
complied with are: to shorten one baseline, to
optimize the location of some basepoints and
classify KIG and Scarborough Shoal as
‘regime of islands’. Petitioner now assails the
constitutionality of the law for three main
reasons: 1. it reduces the Philippine maritime
territory under Article 1; 2. it opens the
country’s waters to innocent and sea lanes
passages hence undermining our sovereignty
and security; and 3. treating KIG and
Scarborough as ‘regime of islands’ would
weaken our claim over those territories.
ISSUE:
Whether R.A. 9522 is constitutional?
RULING:
1. UNCLOS III has nothing to do with
acquisition or loss of territory. it is just a
codified norm that regulates conduct of
States. On the other hand, RA 9522 is a
baseline law to mark out basepoints along
coasts, serving as geographic starting points
to measure. it merely notices the international

community of the scope of our maritime
space.
2. If passages is the issue, domestically, the
legislature can enact legislation designating
routes within the archipelagic waters to
regulate innocent and sea lanes passages. but
in the absence of such, international law
norms operate. the fact that for archipelagic
states, their waters are subject to both
passages does not place them in lesser footing
vis a vis continental coastal states. Moreover,
RIOP is a customary international law, no
modern state can invoke its sovereignty to
forbid such passage.
3. On the kalayaan group of islands issue, RA
9522 merely followed the basepoints mapped
by RA 3046 and in fact, it increased the
Phils.’ total maritime space. Moreover, the
itself commits the Phils.’ continues claim of
sovereignty and jurisdiction over KIG. If not,
it would be a breach to 2 provisions of the
UNCLOS III:
Art. 47 (3): ‘drawing of basepoints shall not
depart to any appreciable extent from the
general configuration of the archipelago’.
Art 47 (2): the length of baselines shall not
exceed 100 mm. Kalayaan group of islands
and Scarborough Shoal are far from our
baselines, if we draw to include them, we’ll
breach the rules: that it should follow the
natural configuration of the archipelago.
Q: What is the standpoint of RA 9522 in
international law?
A: It constitutes as a notice of our baselines
which the international community must
respect. It provides for the measurement of
territorial sea, contagious zone, EEZ and
continental shelf. Baseline is the starting
point of this measurement. If Congress did
not demarcate then we cannot measure
territorial sea, contagious zone, EEZ and
continental shelf.
Page 21 of 55
4B 2020-2021
Notes for Poli Rev
Q: what is the extent of territorial sea
under the UNCLOS?
A: 12 nautical miles from the baseline
Q: What about contagious zone?
A: 24 Nautical miles from the baseline
Q:What about EEZ?
A: 200 nautical miles from the baseline
Q: What about continental shelf?
A: Same as EEZ
Q: Under the UNCLOS, what right does
the state has over its territorial sea?
A: The state has sovereignty over its
territorial sea
Q: What about its contagious zone?
A: The State has jurisdiction to enforce its
customs,fiscal,immigration and sanitary
laws.
Q: What about in EEZ and Continental
shelf?
A: A state has sovereign right to exploit
resources there.
Q: In international law, what are the
modes of acquiring or diminishing
territory
A:
1. Discovery and occupation of a territory
that is Terra Nullius
2. Cession by treaty
3. Prescription
4. Accretion
5. Subjugation

OCTOBER 1, 2020
CHRISTINA YANG
IV. CITIZENSHIP
Q: Who are citizens of the Philippines?
A: (1) Those who are citizens of the
Philippines at the time of the adoption of this
Constitution; (Sec. 1 (1) Art. 4 of the
Constitution.)
Q: When was this constitution Adopted
A: February 2, 1987
It is important that you know when our
constitution took effect. A person’s
citizenship is covered by the prevailing
constitution upon his birth. You might be
invoking a wrong constitution when you
answer a question.
Q: When did the 1987 constitution take
effect?
A: January 17, 1973. Before January 17,
1973 obviously the 1935 constitution
covered.
In the case of the late Fernando Poe Jr., when
he ran for president, his citizenship was
challenged. The point is, when was Fernando
Poe Jr. born? He was born in August 1939 so
obviously the 1935 constitution covered him.
Same with his daughter, when she ran for
president, her Citizenship was questioned as
you know very well she is a foundling. She
was born in 1968, so her birth was covered by
the 1935 constitution. That’s why in that
Page 22 of 55
4B 2020-2021
Notes for Poli Rev
case, to determine whether she is a natural
born citizen, the SC had to go back to the
provision of the 1935 constitution on
citizenship. Unfortunately, the 1935
constitution was silent as to the citizenship of
a foundling. In fact even the present
constitution is silent as to the citizenship of a
foundling.
Before the present constitution took effect,
the 1973 constitution governed. The 1973
constitution took effect on January 17, 1973.
Before that, the 1935 constitution governed.
ARTICLE 4. Sec. 1
(2) Those whose fathers or mothers are
citizens of the Philippines;
It says fathers OR mothers, so for as long as
either of your parents are Filipino Citizens,
regardless of where you are born then you are
a Filipino Citizen.
Actually, according to the court in one case,
this provision is an affirmation of our
adherence to the Jus Sanguinis Principle on
Citizenship. Citizenship by blood
relationship.
Q: This can lead to some complications,
like for example X was born in California
but his parents were Filipinos. Is X a
Filipino Citizen?
A: Yes. Under Philippine Laws, he is a
Filipino Citizen. But then you have to
remember that in the US they adhere to the
Jus Soli Principle. So in this case, He is also
an American Citizenship. In short he possess
dual citizenship.

Q: So where is the possible legal
complications?
A: In Sec. 5. Dual allegiance of citizens is
inimical to the national interest and shall be
dealt with by law. But im just inviting your
attention to that. We will go through it later.
ARTICLE 4. Sec. 1
(3) THOSE BORN BEFORE JANUARY 17,
1973, OF FILIPINO MOTHERS, WHO ELECT
PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP UPON REACHING
THE AGE OF MAJORITY ; AND
In fact if you read sec. 2 second sentence, it
says there “Those who elect Philippine
citizenship in accordance with paragraph (3),
Section 1 hereof shall be deemed natural-
born citizens.”
They are not only considered Filipino
citizens, they are deemed natural born under
sec. 2.
Q: Who are they?
A: Those born before January 17, 1973 of
Filipino mothers, who upon reaching the age
of majority, elect Philippine citizenship.
They are natural born Filipinos and not just
Filipino Citizens.
Q: What is the significance of that date?
A: That was the date of the effectivity of the
1973 constitution.
Art. 4 Sec. 1(3) has a connection with Sec. 4.
We will establish the connection with the
effect of marriage under Sec. 4.
Page 23 of 55
4B 2020-2021
Notes for Poli Rev
ARTICLE 4. Sec. 1
(4) Those who are naturalized in
accordance with law.
In the case of Bengzon vs HRET, the SC
clarified that in general there are only two
types on Filipino Citizens which are natural
born and naturalized, there is no third
category. That if one did not undergo the
cumbersome process of naturalization, that
simply means that he is natural born.
You have that new law. RA 9139, providing
the administrative naturalization of an alien.
In the case of Edison So vs Republic, the SC
said that under current and existing laws,
there are now three ways by which an alien
may become a Filipino Citizen by
naturalization.
1. Administrative naturalization pursuant
to RA 9139;
2. Judicial naturalization pursuant to C.A.
No. 473, as amended;
3. Legislative naturalization in the form of
a law enacted by Congress bestowing
Philippine citizenship to an alien.
EDISON SO VS REPUBLIC
Under current and existing laws, there are
three ways by which an alien may become a
citizen by naturalization: (a) administrative
naturalization pursuant to R.A. No. 9139; (b)
judicial naturalization pursuant to C.A. No.
473, as amended; and (c) legislative
naturalization in the form of a law enacted by
Congress bestowing Philippine citizenship to
an alien.

ARTICLE 4.
SECTION 2. Natural-born citizens are
those who are citizens of the Philippines
from birth without having to perform
any act to acquire or perfect their
Philippine citizenship. Those who elect
Philippine citizenship in accordance
with paragraph (3), Section 1 hereof
shall be deemed natural-born citizens.
There are two types of natural born citizens.
As a general rule:
Those who are citizens of the Philippines
from birth without having to perform any act
to acquire or perfect their Philippine.
XPN:
Those who elect Philippine citizenship in
accordance with paragraph (3), Section 1
hereof shall be deemed natural-born citizens.
The second sentence comes off as an
exception because they need to perform a
certain act to be a Filipino Citizen.
ARTICLE 4.
SECTION 3. Philippine citizenship may
be lost or reacquired in the manner
provided by law.
Let us focus on reacquisition of Philippine
Citizenship.
In the case of Frivaldo vs Comelec, it was
there where the court clarified that there are
actually three ways upon which Philippine
citizenship may be reacquired.
(1) by naturalization;
Page 24 of 55
4B 2020-2021
Notes for Poli Rev
(2) by repatriation; and
(3) by direct act of Congress.
Q: In case of Bengzon vs HRET. What is
the effect of repatriation? *He said he will
ask this in the exam.*
A: This was the case involving congressman
Cruz. He was originally a natural born citizen
but later on he served in the armed forces of
the US and became an American citizen. So
he is no longer a Filipino Citizen. But later
on, still, he was able to reacquire his
Philippine Citizenship through repatriation
under RA 2630. Under this Act, for one to be
able to reacquire Philippine citizenship there
are two requirements:
(1) one must take his oath of allegiance to the
Republic of the Philippines;
(2) He must register that fact in the office of
the civil registry in the place where he lives.
Q: Thereafter, he ran for congressman.
That’s when his citizenship was
questioned. To be a congressman one must
be natural born. So was he qualified to run
for congressman?
A: The court held that he is qualified because
repatriation results in the recovery of the
original nationality. Since he was a natural
born then he is qualified.
That is because in general there are only two
kinds of Filipino Citizens, natural born and
naturalized. If one did not have to undergo
the cumbersome process of naturalization
then he is a natural born citizen. In the case
of Congressman Cruz, he did not undergo the
cumbersome process of naturalization, then
that simply means that he is a natural born
citizen.

Following that ruling, the effect of
naturalization is the recovery of the
original nationality.
Q: What it the definition of a natural
born?
A: Those who are citizens of the Philippines
from birth without having to perform any act
to acquire or perfect their Philippine.
Q: In the case of Cong. didn’t he take his
oath of allegiance to the republic of the
Philippines. And then he registered that
fact in the civil registrar in the place where
he resides. Are those not “acts”? Did this
Ruling of the SC amended the definition of
who is a natural born citizen?
A: No. The acts that Cong. Cruz performed
were not acts to acquire his Philippine
citizenship. Those acts were to reacquire his
citizenship. There lies the big difference.
ARTICLE 4.
SECTION 4. Citizens of the Philippines
who marry aliens shall retain their
citizenship, unless by their act or
omission, they are deemed, under the
law, to have renounced it.
Q: What is the effect if you are a Filipino
citizen and you marry a foreigner?
A: You will retain your Philippine
citizenship, unless by your act or omission,
you are deemed, under the law, to have
renounced it.
History of the provision
Article 4, Section 4 is a carry over or a similar
provision from the 1973 Constitution.
Page 25 of 55
4B 2020-2021
Notes for Poli Rev
However, as worded in 1973 Constitution, a
Filipina who marries an alien retains her
citizenship. As worded now, it says, citizens
of the Philippines who marry aliens shall
retain Philippine citizenship.
In the 1935 Constitution, there was no similar
provision which says that a female Filipino
who marries an alien retains Philippine
citizenship. As a result of that, our Filipino
women were actually prejudiced.
Q: How were they prejudiced?
A: Since there was no provision in the 1935
Constitution, if you were a Filipino woman
born under the 1935 Constitution and you
marry a foreigner, you have to follow the
rules of international law. What is the law
under international law? The wife follows the
citizenship of the husband. Because of that, a
Filipino woman born under 1935
Constitution, loses her Philippine citizenship
when she marries a foreigner. Why? Because
she follows the citizenship of her foreign
husband.
Q: Now, tell me, what will be the
citizenship of the children?
A: Remember, minor children follow the
citizenship of the parents. That is why there
was also a provision in the 1935 Constitution
which says that, “those born of Filipino
mothers are required to elect Philippine
citizenship upon reaching the age of
majority” before they will be considered
Filipino citizens. If upon reaching the age of
majority, they did not elect Philippine
citizenship, they will never become Filipino
citizens. They will only become Filipino

citizens if upon reaching the age of majority,
they elect Philippine citizenship.
On the other hand, instead of marrying your
foreign lover, you just maintain a common
law relationship with him and you will not
lose your Philippine citizenship. See the
absurdity?
Q: Now tell me, what will be the status of
your children?
A: Illegitimate because they were born out of
wedlock.
Q: Now tell me, whose citizenship will they
follow?
A: By jurisprudence, they will have to follow
the citizenship of their mother. Their mother
remains to be a Filipino citizen. Hence, they
are not required to elect Philippine
citizenship upon reaching the age of majority.
How can a Filipino citizen still elect
Philippine citizenship?
You get the point? That is another absurdity.
You have an absurd situation where an
illegitimate child, in effect, was placed in a
better situation than a legitimate one. In the
case of the legitimate one, he has to elect
Filipino citizenship upon reaching the age of
majority but in the case of illegitimate child,
he is not required to elect Philippine
citizenship.
IN RE: APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION TO
THE PHILIPPINE BAR VS. VICENTE
CHING
Q: In 1963, Vicente Ching was born in the
Philippines. His father was a Chinese and
Page 26 of 55
4B 2020-2021
Notes for Poli Rev
his mother was a Filipino. He grew up in
the Philippines. He took up accountancy
and passed the CPA board exam. He
practiced his profession in the Philippines.
Later on, he ran for public office and he
was elected as member of the sanggunian.
Meanwhile, he decided to take up law. He
took the bar exams and he passed it but he
was not allowed to take his lawyer’s oath
because the Supreme Court found out that
he elected Philippine citizenship only after
14 years upon reaching the age of
majority. Is Ching a Filipino citizen?
A: No. Since Ching was born in 1963, the
1935 Constitution governs him. Under the
1935 Constitution, “those born of Filipino
mothers are required to elect Filipino
citizenship upon reaching the age of
majority.” To implement that provision under
the 1935 Constitution, Congress enacted
Commonwealth Act No. 625. Under
Commonwealth Act No. 625, those born of
Filipino mothers are required to elect
Philippine citizenship within a reasonable
time upon reaching the age of majority. So
what is that reasonable time of electing? As
held by the court in this case, within 3
years only. In the case of Vicente Ching?
When did he elect Philippine citizenship?
After 14 years upon reaching the age of
majority. So the Supreme Court said that it is
not allowed. One who is privileged to elect
Philippine citizenship has only an inchoate
right to such citizenship—as such, he
should avail of the right with fervor,
enthusiasm and promptitude.
Q: Will it make any difference in this case
if the parents of Vicente Ching were not
legally married?
A: Yes. If the parents of Vicente Ching were
not married, then he would become an
illegitimate child. As such, he would follow
the citizenship of his mother. His mother

retains her Philippine citizenship. Hence, he
will not be required to elect Philippine
citizenship upon reaching the age of majority.
TECSON VS. COMELEC
Q: Fernando Poe Jr. was born in August 4,
1939. His father is a Filipino citizen while
her mother is an American citizen. His
parents were legally married in September
1940. When Fernando Poe ran for
president in the May 2004 elections, his
citizenship was questioned. Is Fernando
Poe Jr. a Filipino citizen?
A: Yes, Fernando Poe Jr. is a Filipino citizen.
Q: At the time of his birth, what was his
status?
A: Illegitimate.
Q: Whose citizenship will he follow?
A: The citizenship of his father. That is not
exactly correct that an illegitimate child will
follow the citizenship of his mother. What is
important here is the governing Constitution
at the time of his birth. So when was he born?
1939. So obviously, he was covered by the
1935 Constitution. So the court when back to
the provisions of the 1935 Constitution.
There were two relevant provisions that were
taken into consideration by the Supreme
Court. First, “among those who are citizens
of the Philippines are those whose fathers are
citizens of the Philippines.” The other one
provision says, “those born of Filipino
mothers, have to elect Philippine citizenship
upon reaching the age of majority.”
According to Supreme Court, you must have
noticed that under the 1935 Constitution,
with respect to those born of Filipino fathers,
they are Filipino citizens. The 1935
Constitution did not distinguish between
legitimate and illegitimate children with
respect to those born of Filipino fathers.
The 1935 Constitution only made a
Page 27 of 55
4B 2020-2021
Notes for Poli Rev
distinction between legitimate and
illegitimate children with respect to those
born of Filipino mothers. In the case at bar,
Fernando Poe Jr. was born of a Filipino
father, so obviously, whether he is legitimate
or illegitimate, he is a Filipino citizen
because the 1935 Constitution clearly
provides that among those citizens of the
Philippines are those whose fathers are
Filipino citizens.
SIGNIFICANT LESSONS TO
REMEMBER HERE:
With respect to those born under the 1935
Constitution, of a Filipino father, regardless
of whether he is legitimate or illegitimate, is
a Filipino citizen because the 1935
Constitution clearly provides that among
those citizens of the Philippines are those
whose fathers are Filipino citizens.
The 1935 Constitution only made a
distinction between legitimate and
illegitimate children with respect to those
who were born of Filipino mothers. If they
are legitimate, before they are considered
Filipino citizens, they are required to elect
Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age
of majority. On the other hand, if they are
illegitimate, they need not elect citizenship
because by jurisprudence, they have to follow
the citizenship of their mother. Their mother
remained to be Filipinos.
Q: What happens now to those born under
the 1935 Constitution of Filipino mothers
who elect Philippine citizenship upon
reaching the age of majority? What will be
their citizenship now?
A: They are Filipino citizens. Under Section
1 paragraph 3, “those born before January 17,
 4B 2020-2021
Notes for Poli Rev

1973, of Filipino mothers, who elect AZNAR VS. COMELEC

Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age
of majority” are citizens of the Philippines. In
fact under Section 2, they are deemed natural- Section 5 is not self-executing that will
born. require an implementing law. It says “shall be
dealt with by law”. The word employed by
ARTICLE 4. Section 5 is “shall”. The law referred to by
SECTION 5. Dual allegiance of citizens Section 5 is a future law.
is inimical to the national interest and
shall be dealt with by law. SECTION 40 OF R.A. 7160 (THE
LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE)
What is really prohibited by Section 5 is dual
SECTION 40. Disqualifications. - The
allegiance.
following persons are disqualified from
running for any elective local position:
Q: Is dual allegiance the same as dual
(d) Those with dual citizenship;
citizenship?
A: No.
MERCADO VS. MANZANO
Dual Citizenship Dual Allegiance
Q: Edu Manzano was born in the US. His
arises when, as a refers to a situation in parents are Filipino. He studied in the
Philippines. He practiced his profession
result of the which a person
here. Since he was born in the US, under
concurrent simultaneously owes, American law which subscribes to the jus
application of the by some positive act, soli principle, he is an American citizen.
different laws of loyalty to two or However, under Philippine laws which
two or more states, more states. subscribes to jus sanguinis principle, he is
a person is a Filipino citizen. In May 1998, he ran for
simultaneously vice-mayor of Makati. His qualification
was challenged alleging that RA 7160, Sec.
considered a
40 (d) disqualifies those with dual
national by the said citizenship from running for local elective
states. office. Is he qualified to run in the May
involuntary voluntary 1988 election?

Q: Is Article 4, Section 5 self-executing? A: Yes, Edu Manzano is qualified. It is a

A: No. It says “shall be dealt with by law”. It
means a future law.
fundamental principle in statutory
construction that in case of apparent conflict
between the provision of the Constitution and
the provision of the law, the first thing to do
is try to harmonize and reconcile the two.
After all, the Congress is presumed to know

Page 28 of 55

the Constitution when it enacted a law. Now,
if you read Section 40 (d) of the LGC and
Article 4, Section 5 of the Constitution,
apparently there is conflict. What is really
prohibited in Section 5 is dual allegiance.
However, the LGC expressly provides “those
with dual citizenship”, so apparently, there is
a conflict. So as much as possible, try to
harmonize the two. It is only if despite effort
of reconciliation that the two cannot be
reconciled that you resort to that
interpretation that the provision of the
Constitution must prevail over the provision
of law, under the doctrine of constitutional
supremacy.
That was precisely what the court did here.
So how did the Supreme Court harmonize the
two? First of all, the SC said that what is
really prohibited in Article 4, Section 5 is
dual allegiance. However, that provision is
not self-executing. Now, Section 40 (d) of
LGC is supposed to be an implementing law
of Article 4, Section 5. Since what is really
prohibited by Article 4, Section 5 is dual
allegiance, it follows, therefore, that what the
LGC would like to prohibit is dual allegiance.
Hence, the phrase "dual citizenship" in
Section 40 (d) of Local Government Code
must be understood as referring to "dual
allegiance." Consequently, persons with
mere dual citizenship do not fall under this
disqualification. Unlike those with dual
allegiance, who must, therefore, be subject
to strict process with respect to the
termination of their status, for candidates
with dual citizenship, it should suffice if,
upon the filing of their certificates of
candidacy, they elect Philippine
Page 29 of 55
4B 2020-2021
Notes for Poli Rev
citizenship to terminate their status as
persons with dual citizenship considering
that their condition is the unavoidable
consequence of conflicting laws of
different states.
In the case of Edu Manzano, the Supreme
Court considered the fact that he voted in the
previous election. Moreover, the SC
considered the fact that when he filed his
COC, he tore his American passport.
According to the SC, those acts are
considered as symbolic acts of electing
Philippine citizenship.
RA 9225
"Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition
Act of 2003." Which is sometimes referred
to as Dual Citizenship Law. This was enacted
in 2003, after the ruling in Mercado vs
Manzano.
Citizenship Re-acquisition
Q: To whom will this law apply?
A: This will apply to former natural born
citizens of the Philippines who become a
naturalized citizen of a foreign country. Here
they are given the opportunity to re-acquire
Philippine citizenship.
Q: What will they do?
A: Take an oath of allegiance to the Republic
of the Philippines before any officer
authorized to administer an oath. By taking
an oath of allegiance, they are deemed to
have re-acquired their Philippine citizenship.

With respect to those who were able to re-
acquire their citizenship under this law, it will
redound to the benefit of their minor
children below 18 years of age, unmarried,
whether legitimate, illegitimate or adopted by
derivative citizenship.
Citizenship Retention
For example, at present we are Filipino
citizen, natural born, then later on we decided
to migrate to some foreign country and
applied for naturalization there like the US.
Tapos granted. Under this law, we shall retain
our Philippine citizenship.
Q: What shall we do?
A: Take an oath of allegiance to the Republic
of the Philippines before any officer
authorized to administer an oath.
In either case, whether you re-acquire or
retain your Philippine citizenship you will
now possess dual citizenship.
Section 5. Civil and Political Rights and
Liabilities - Those who retain or re-acquire
Philippine citizenship under this Act shall
enjoy full civil and political rights and be
subject to all attendant liabilities and
responsibilities under existing laws of the
Philippines and the following conditions:
(2) Those seeking elective public in the
Philippines shall meet the qualification for
holding such public office as required by
the Constitution and existing laws and, at
the time of the filing of the certificate of
candidacy, make a personal and sworn
renunciation of any and all foreign
citizenship before any public officer
authorized to administer an oath;
Page 30 of 55
4B 2020-2021
Notes for Poli Rev
Q: If that is the case, will you be qualified
to run for any public elective office in the
Philippines?
A: Yes. But there are 2 requirements under
Sec 5 par 2 of 9225 for one to validly run for
public office. First, you must possess all the
qualifications for holding a particular public
office. Second, you have to renounce foreign
citizenship.
Q: When should you renounce it?
A: at the time of the filing of the certificate of
candidacy.
Section 5.
(3) Those appointed to any public office
shall subscribe and swear to an oath of
allegiance to the Republic of the
Philippines and its duly constituted
authorities prior to their assumption of
office: Provided, That they renounce their
oath of allegiance to the country where
they took that oath;
Q: Will you be qualified to be appointed in
a public office?
A: Yes. There are 2 requirements. First, you
have to take an oath of allegiance to the
Republic of the Philippines and its duly
constituted authorities. Second, you have to
renounce foreign citizenship.
Q: When should you renounce it?
A: prior to their assumption of office.
Yan yung nangyare kay Perfecto Yasay.
Inappoint as secretary of Foreign affairs pero
di natuloy kasi di nya pa na re-acquire yung
Philippine citizenship nya. Nag assume na

sya kaya lang dual citizen pa sya. Kaya di na
confirm ng COA.
MAQUILING VS. COMELEC
Si Arnado, originally natural born citizen sya,
kaya lang matagal na syang nag migrate sa
America. He already became an American
citizen. When Congress enacted RA 9225, he
availed the benefits of this law. By taking his
oath of allegiance to the Republic of the
Philippines before an officer authorized to
administer an oath. Na re-acquire nya
ngayon. He now has dual citizenship. In the
May,2010 election, he run for Mayor of his
place in Lanao del Norte. He renounced his
American citizenship in compliance with
the requirements of RA 9225. After
renouncing his American citizenship, it was
established that he travelled several times to
US using his American passport. Yun ang
problema.
Q: What is the effect of that?
A: In this case, we won as mayor. He took his
oath and assumed office but because of that,
he was ordered removed as Mayor by the
SC.
Q: Why was he ordered removed as
Mayor?
A: According to the SC, when after
renouncing his American citizenship it was
established that he travelled several times to
US using his American passport. By using
his US passport after renouncing his
American citizenship, that is an effective
recantation of his renunciation of his
American citizenship. In effect, he reverted
to his prior status as a person having dual
citizenship. Therefore, he falls under the
disqualification under Section 40 par d of the
Page 31 of 55
4B 2020-2021
Notes for Poli Rev
Local Gov’t Code. Dual citizens are
disqualified to run in any elective local
position.
Q: Did his travel to the US using his
American passport have any effect in the
re-acquisition of his Philippine
Citizenship?
A: No effect.
The effect is as if he did not renounce his
American citizenship. Kaya bumalik sya sa
prior status as a person having dual
citizenship.
Q: Bakit yung kay Edu Mazano, di ba dual
citizen din sya? Pero sabi ng SC qualified
siya to run? Bakit kay Arnado di sya
qualified under same provision Section 40
par. d of the Local Government Code?
How do you reconcile these apparently
conflicting rulings? Are they not similarly
situated? Was there no violation of the
equal protection clause here?
A: In the case of Edu Manzano, his
acquisition of dual citizenship is not a
product of his own volition. It so happen
that he was born in America but his parents
are Filipinos. Under American law, he is a
citizen, under PH law, he is also a citizen. It
was involuntary.
In the case of Arnado, his acquisition of dual
citizenship is a product of his own volition.
Originally a natural born Filipino sya e. But
on his own volition, he became an American
citizen. When Congress enacted RA 9225,
again on his own volition, he was able to re-
acquire his Philippine citizenship.
 4B 2020-2021
Notes for Poli Rev

No violation of the equal protection clause. choice of the electorate. The crown of victory
Although they appear to be similarly situated, cannot be transferred from the disqualified
in reality they are not. winner to the second placer.

Q: Arnado’s qualification was questioned

before the election but he won. In fact
matatapos na yung term niya. But despite
that, the SC said teka disqualified ka. So
he was ordered removed as Mayor by the
SC. Arnado argued that whatever the
defect might be in his COC was deemed
cured by his election. Invoking Vox Populi,
Vox Dei (the voice of the people is the voice
of God.) How do you address that kind of
argument?

A: The SC said that if we accede to that kind

of argument then we might as well abolish all
these laws prescribing qualifications of
public office. Hindi pwede ang ganyan.
Precisely yan yung purpose of these laws, to
ensure that the one holding a public office
possess all the qualifications. It is a
continuing requirement.

Q: The SC ordered that Arnado be

removed as Mayor. Sabi ni Maquiling
(second placer), since Arnado was
disqualified so ako dapat maging Mayor.
Sabi naman ng Vice Mayor, hindi. Talo ka
eh. You have to follow the law on
succession under Section 44 of the LGC.
Sino dapat maging mayor? Si Maquiling o
yung vicemayor?

A: SC ruled that MAQUILING should be the

Mayor of Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte.
The Doctrine of the rejection of the second
placer is supposedly a well-established
doctrine in the election laws. It was applied
to so many cases already. Under this doctrine,
the second placer is just like that, a second
placer. He lost the election. He was not the

Page 32 of 55

OCTOBER 08,2020
ENOLA HOLMES &
BLACK SHEEP
IV. CITIZENSHIP
The Doctrine of the Rejection of Second
Placer
Under the said doctrine, the wreath of victory
cannot be transferred from the disqualified
winner to the second placer because second
placer is just like that of a second placer. He
lost the elections. He is not the choice of the
electorate.
CASAN MACODE MAQUILING v.
COMELEC
FACTS: There are 3 candidates for mayor.
Arnado won and Maquiling was a second
placer. Although Arnado won as mayor and
already served as mayor for more than a year
already, but he was ordered removed by the
Supreme Court because of him having dual
citizenship. According to Maquiling, since
Arnado is disqualified from running for
mayor in the first place, I should be the one
proclaimed as mayor. Sabi ng Vice-Mayor,
hindi pwede. Talo ka. In effect, the Doctrine
of the Rejection of Second Placer was
invoked. Second placer ka lang, you lost in
the elections
ISSUE: Whether Macquiling should be
proclaimed a mayor.
Page 33 of 55
4B 2020-2021
Notes for Poli Rev
RULING: Yes. Since Arnado is disqualified
from running for mayor in the first place,
having dual citizenship, the votes cast in his
favor should not have been counted.
Maquiling here is not actually a second
placer. In fact, he was first among the
remaining qualified candidates. Remember
there were 3 candidates
An ineligible candidate who receives the
highest number of votes is a wrongful
winner. By express legal mandate, he could
not even have been a candidate in the first
place, but by virtue of the lack of material
time or any other intervening circumstances,
his ineligibility might not have been passed
upon prior to election date. Consequently, he
may have had the opportunity to hold himself
out to the electorate as a legitimate and duly
qualified candidate. However,
notwithstanding the outcome of the elections,
his ineligibility as a candidate remains
unchanged. Ineligibility does not only pertain
to his qualifications as a candidate but
necessarily affects his right to hold public
office. The number of ballots cast in his favor
cannot cure the defect of failure to qualify
with the substantive legal requirements of
eligibility to run for public office.
With Arnado‟s disqualification, Maquiling
then became the winner in the election as he
obtained the highest number of votes from
among the qualified candidates. We have
ruled in the recent cases of Aratea v.
COMELEC and Jalosjos v. COMELEC that a
void COC cannot produce any legal effect.
Thus, the votes cast in favor of the ineligible

candidate are not considered at all in
determining the winner of an election.
Even when the votes for the ineligible
candidate are disregarded, the will of the
electorate is still respected, and even more so.
The votes cast in favor of an ineligible
candidate do not constitute the sole and total
expression of the sovereign voice. The votes
cast in favor of eligible and legitimate
candidates form part of that voice and must
also be respected.
As in any contest, elections are governed by
rules that determine the qualifications and
disqualifications of those who are allowed to
participate as players. When there are
participants who turn out to be ineligible,
their victory is voided and the laurel is
awarded to the next in rank who does not
possess any of the disqualifications nor lacks
any of the qualifications set in the rules to be
eligible as candidates.
The disqualifying circumstance surrounding
Arnado‟s candidacy involves his citizenship.
It does not involve the commission of
election offenses as provided for in the first
sentence of Section 68 of the Omnibus
Election Code, the effect of which is to
disqualify the individual from continuing as
a candidate, or if has already been elected,
from holding the office.
The disqualifying circumstance affecting
Arnado is his citizenship. X x x Arnado was
both a Filipino and an American citizen when
he filed his certificate of candidacy. He was a
dual citizen disqualified to run for public
office based on Section 40(d) of the Local
Government Code.
Page 34 of 55
4B 2020-2021
Notes for Poli Rev
With Arnado being barred from even
becoming a candidate, his certificate of
candidacy is thus rendered void from the
beginning. It could not have produced any
other legal effect
To hold that such proclamation is valid is to
negate the prohibitory character of the
disqualification which Arnado possessed
even prior to the filing of the certificate of
candidacy. The affirmation of Arnado‟s
disqualification, although made long after the
elections, reaches back to the filing of the
certificate of candidacy. Arnado is declared
to be not a candidate at all in the May 2010
elections.
Arnado being not a candidate, the votes cast
in his favor should not have been counted.
This leaves Maquiling as the qualified
candidate who obtained the highest number
of votes therefore, the rule on succession
under the Local Government Code will not
apply.
❖ Q: What happens now to the
Doctrine of Rejection of Second
Placer? Why did the Court not
apply it in this case?
A: The Doctrine of Rejection of
Second Placer is supposed to be a
well established doctrine In fact this
has been applied by the Supreme
Court in so many earlier cases.
The Doctrine began in the 1912 case
of Topacio v. Paredes. When the
Court analyzed the facts of Topacio v.
Paredes, the Court found out that it
was a mere Obiter Dictum only.
 4B 2020-2021
Notes for Poli Rev

Obiter Dictum is an opinion of the be removed. There’s now permanent

Court to an issue in the case other than vacancy in the office of the governor,
the main issue. The Doctrine was not in which case, we have to apply the
the ratio decidendi of the case. law on succession. Under the Local
Nagulat ang Supreme Court bakit Government Code, the vice governor
ginamit ng ginamit ang doctrine na becomes the governor.
yan, eh obiter dictum lang naman. In
fact illogical pa nga. This was also Nagkatalo yan sa appreciation ng
used in Labo v. Comelec. According votes in favor of disqualified
to the Court, even Labo was illogical. candidates.
That is why the Court did not apply it
in the case of Maquiling. This
doctrine is no longer being applied Q: What is a foundling?
because of the ruling in Maquiling.
A: A foundling is a person with no known
❖ Q: Remember in the May 2013 parents. Usually an abandoned children
election in Laguna , Ejercito won
and was proclaimed as Governor. MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD S. POE-
Later on, he was ordered to be LLAMANZARES V. COMELEC
removed as Governor for
overspending, which is an election
FACTS: Sen. Grace Poe ran first as a senator
offense. If you apply the maquiling
in the 2013 Elections and then she ran in the
ruling, dapat yung kalaban ni
2016 elections for President. Allegedly she
Ejercito and papalit. But in this
was a foundling. She was born in 1968. The
case, the Vice-Governor assumed
1935 Constitution governs her birth.
the position following the law on
Unfortunately, 1935 Constitution is silent as
succession. So how do you explain
to the citizenship of a foundling. In fact, even
that now? Bakit hindi ginamit and
the present Constitution is silent.
ruling kay Macquiling?
ISSUE: Is a foundling a natural born citizen
A: Since Arnado was disqualified to
and therefore she is qualified to run first as a
run for mayor in the first place, him
senator then as President.
having dual citizenship, the votes cast
for him should not have been counted.
RULING: Yes. The Court relied heavily on
In the case of Governor Ejercito, no
the deliberations of the framers of the
question about it. He was qualified to
Constitution. Although it was silent, there
run for Governor. In fact he won.
was actually an intent on the part of the
That’s why the votes cast for him are
framers of the 1935 Constitution to really
valid votes. But since he committed
confer citizenship on a foundling. Kaya lang
an election offense, he was ordered to
the measure was not carried out. One of the

Page 35 of 55

delegates there was Rafols. It was Rafols
who filed a motion to confer citizenship to a
foundling but the only reason why it was not
carried out was that the view of the framers
was that the possibility that there may be
foundling are too few and too far in between
that it need not to be expressly provided
there. There was also no restrictive language
prohibiting foundling from being a natural
born citizen.
Principles of International law were also
applied. Remember that International Law
frowns upon statelessness. The rule in
international law is that a foundling must be
a citizen of a country where he/she was
found. Foundling ka na magiging stateless ka
pa. Discriminatory na yan. In the first place
being a foundling is misfortune not to their
own making tapos you make her suffer
because of her misfortune. Masyadong
discriminatory yan sabi ng Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court also used circumstantial
evidence.
One of the most important arguments is equal
protection. Remember being a foundling is
not of her own make. It’s a misfortune.
Domestic Laws on adoption in support of
confering citizenship to the foundling was
also cited. Aside from International Law, our
domestic law favored that kind of
interpretation that a foundling is a citizen of
the country where she/he was found.
❖ Q: What are the circumstantial
evidence used by the Supreme
Court?
Page 36 of 55
4B 2020-2021
Notes for Poli Rev
A: First, where was she found?
Iloilo. At that time, the possibility
that her parents might have been
aliens is less than 1% because ang
population ng Iloilo at that time
more than 99% are Filipinos. The
possibility that the parents of the
foundling are aliens is almost
negligible.
Second, physical features. She
really looks like a Filipina.
NOTE: This is a very controversial ruling
because less than a majority voted in her
favor. Ang botohan kasi 7 against 5 and 3
abstained. Questionable yan. Why? There are
15 members of the Supreme Court. What is
the majority? Di ba 8. Dito 7 lang voted in her
favor because there were 3 abstentions. Ang
sabi 7 majority pa rin because of there were 3
abstentions. Pero very controversial yun.
NATURALIZATION
Naturalization signifies the act of formally
adopting a foreigner into the political body of
a nation by clothing him or her with the
privileges of a citizen.
Remember if you read Sec.1 Par.4 of Article
4, among those who are citizens of the
Philippines are those who are naturalized in
accordance with law. There is a development
here in the case of Edison So v. Republic
Under current and existing laws there are 3
ways by which an alien may become a
citizen by naturalization:

1. Administrative naturalization
pursuant to R.A. No. 9139;
2. Judicial naturalization pursuant to
C.A. No. 473, as amended; and
3. Legislative naturalization in the form
of a law enacted by Congress
bestowing Philippine citizenship to
an alien
Before 2 lang yan, yung Judicial at
Legislative Naturalization. But under current
and existing laws there are 3 ways.
CA No. 473, as amended, is the
naturalization law that we know of. This
judicial process is very cumbersome, very
costly, very long, and very tedious. Because
of that, Congress enacted RA 9139 providing
for administrative naturalization of an alien.
As the term suggest, ang process dito,
administrative lang hindi judicial. This is a
significant development.
Take note that RA 9139 is not available to all
aliens.
Q: Who can avail benefits of RA 9139?
A: R.A. No. 9139 may be availed of only by
native-born aliens who lived here in the
Philippines all their lives, who never saw
any other country and all along thought
that they were Filipinos; who have
demonstrated love and loyalty to the
Philippines and affinity to the customs and
traditions of the Filipino people.
EDISON SO V. REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES
FACTS: Edison So was a UST medical
student. Dito pinanganak, dito lumaki, dito
nagaral. Kaya lang ang parents niya aliens, so
natural siya alien din. He wanted to become a
Page 37 of 55
4B 2020-2021
Notes for Poli Rev
Filipino Citizen. Ang problema dito
nagkamali. He filed for naturalization
pursuant to, CA No. 473, which is ang
process judicial but he was invoking the
provisions of RA 9139.
RULING: SC said you filed an application
under CA No. 473, as amended. You have to
undergo the process provided therein. You
cannot invoke RA 9139.
R.A. No. 9139 was enacted as a remedial
measure intended to make the process of
acquiring Philippine citizenship less tedious,
less technical and more encouraging. It
likewise addresses the concerns of degree
holders who, by reason of lack of citizenship
requirement, cannot practice their profession,
thus promoting “brain gain” for the
Philippines.
NOTE: Practice of profession here in the
Philippines is reserved only for Filipinos.
STRUCTURE OF THE
GOVERNMENT
Q: What form of government we have?
A: Presidential. Under the presidential form
of government, there is adherence to the
doctrine of separation of powers. That is why
under the doctrine of three most important
power the government: the legislative power,
the executive power and the judicial power.
These three have been distributed among
three great branches of the government. As
you read Section 1 of Article VI, 1987
Constitution, you will read: The legislative
power shall be vested in the Congress of the

Philippines; Section, Article VII: The
executive power shall be vested in the
President of the Philippines; and Section 1,
Paragraph 1, Article VIII: The judicial power
shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in
such lower courts. That is the doctrine of the
separation of powers.
The main distinction between a
presidential form of government and a
parliamentary form of government
In a presidential form of government, there is
the observance of the doctrine of separation
of powers; in a parliamentary government,
instead of separation of powers, there is the
union of the executive and legislative
branches. In a presidential form of
government, the President is elected by the
people at large; in a parliamentary
government, the Prime Minister is elected not
by the people at large but by members of
Parliament.
Tests of a Valid Delegation of Power
In order to determine whether there is undue
delegation of legislative power, the Court has
adopted two tests: the completeness test and
the sufficient standard test. Under the first
test, the law must be complete in all its terms
and conditions when it leaves the legislature
such that when it reaches the delegate, the
only thing he will have to do is to enforce it.
The second test mandates adequate
guidelines or limitations in the law to
determine the boundaries of the delegate’s
authority and prevent the delegation from
running riot. (Jose Jesus M. Disini, Jr., et al.
v. The Secretary of Justice, et al., G.R. No,.
203335, Feb. 11, 2014, En Banc [Abad])
Page 38 of 55
4B 2020-2021
Notes for Poli Rev
V. LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
ON CURRENT EVENTS:
Q: What is the subject of the term-sharing
agreement between Speaker Cayetano and
Congressman Velasco?
A: Speakership. This is a public office. One
of the characteristics of a public office is
outside the commerce of men, hence it may
not be subject of a valid contract. The term-
sharing agreement between the two
Congressmen is not enforceable in court.
GRECO ANTONIOUS BEDA BELGICA V.
HONORABLE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
PAQUITO N. OCHOA JR.
FACTS: Considering petitioners’
submission and in reference to its local
concept and legal history, the Court defines
the Pork Barrel System as the collective body
of rules and practices that govern the manner
by which lump-sum, discretionary funds,
primarily intended for local projects, are
utilized through the respective participations
of the Legislative and Executive branches of
government, including its members.
Pork Barrel refers to lumpsum discretionary
fund. The Pork Barrel System involves two
(2) kinds of lump-sum, discretionary funds:
First, there is the Congressional Pork Barrel
which is herein defined as a kind of lump-
sum, discretionary fund wherein legislators,
either individually or collectively organized
into committees, are able to effectively
control certain aspects of the fund’s
utilization through various post-enactment

measures and/or practices. This is known as
the Priority Development Assistance Fund
(PDAF), which was integrated in the General
Appropriations Act; and
Second, there is the Presidential Pork Barrel
which is herein defined as a kind of lump-
sum, discretionary fund which allows the
President to determine the manner of its
utilization. This is sourced from:
(a) Malampaya Funds - from the Malampaya
Gas Project, this has been around since 1976
(b) Presidential social Fund - derived from
the earnings of PAGCOR, this has been
around since 1983.
HELD: “Pork Barrel” System declared
unconstitutional.
The Court renders this Decision to rectify an
error which has persisted in the chronicles of
our history. In the final analysis, the Court
must strike down the Pork Barrel System as
unconstitutional in view of the inherent
defects in the rules within which it operates.
A. PDAF is unconstitutional because:
(1) The system has violated the principle of
separation of powers
- insofar as it has allowed legislators to wield,
in varying gradations, non-oversight, post-
enactment authority in vital areas of budget
execution
The work of congress ends upon the
enactment of the budget because when it
comes to the implementation of the budget,
the function properly belongs to the
executive branch. The function, now, of the
Congress is limited only to monitoring or
overseeing whether the budget is properly
being implemented by the officials in the
Page 39 of 55
4B 2020-2021
Notes for Poli Rev
executive department - this is the oversight
function.
Under the PDAF, the individual senators and
congressmen identifies the projects where the
money is spent, the implementing agencies,
and the beneficiaries. In effect, the individual
senators and congressmen are the ones
implementing the budget. The SC, therefore,
concluded that this violates the doctrine of
separation of powers.
(2) The system has violated the principle of
non-delegability of legislative power
- it has conferred unto legislators the power
of appropriation by giving them personal,
discretionary funds from which they are able
to fund specific projects which they
themselves determine
- insofar as it has conferred to the President
the power to appropriate funds intended by
law for energy-related purposes only to other
purposes he may deem fit as well as other
public funds under the broad classification of
“priority infrastructure development
projects,” it has once more transgressed the
principle of non-delegability.
Potestas delegata non delegari potest. What
has been delegated can no longer be
delegated. The power of appropriation was
delegated by the Constitution to the
Congressional body, that power may no
longer be delegated to individual members of
the Congress. Now, under the PDAF, there is
a further delegation of the power of
appropriation to individual members of the
Congress because the amount was lumpsum,
not itemized.

(3) The system has violated the President's
power to veto items
- insofar as it has created a system of
budgeting wherein items are not textualized
into the appropriations bill, it has flouted the
prescribed procedure of presentment and, in
the process, denied the President the power to
veto items.
The item veto power of the President is found
in Section 27, Article VI of the Constitution.
Under said provision, there are two kinds of
Presidential Veto:
1. Paragraph 1: general veto of the
President
2. Paragraph 2: item or line veto of the
President
SECTION 27, ARTICLE VI, 1987
CONSTITUTION.
(1) Every bill passed by the Congress shall,
before it becomes a law, be presented to
the President. If he approves the same, he
shall sign it; otherwise, he shall veto it and
return the same with his objections to the
House where it originated, which shall
enter the objections at large in its Journal
and proceed to reconsider it. If, after such
reconsideration, two-thirds of all the
Members of such House shall agree to pass
the bill, it shall be sent, together with the
objections, to the other House by which it
shall likewise be reconsidered, and if
approved by two-thirds of all the Members
of that House, it shall become a law. In all
such cases, the votes of each House shall
be determined by yeas or nays, and the
names of the Members voting for or
against shall be entered in its Journal. The
President shall communicate his veto of
any bill to the House where it originated
within thirty days after the date of receipt
Page 40 of 55
4B 2020-2021
Notes for Poli Rev
thereof; otherwise, it shall become a law as
if he had signed it.
(2) The President shall have the power to
veto any particular item or items in an
appropriation, revenue, or tariff bill, but
the veto shall not affect the item or items
to which he does not object.
According to the ruling of the Supreme Court
in Bengzon v. Drilon, the Executive must
veto the bill in its entirety or not at all. He/she
cannot act like an editor, crossing out specific
lines, provisions or paragraphs in a bill that
he/she dislikes. In the exercise of the veto
power, it is generally all or nothing. Once a
bill is presented to the President, either he
signs it in toto and it becomes a law, or vetoes
it in toto and it does not become a law.
Selective veto is not allow. (This is a very
important rule. Remember this!)
In Paragraph 2, Section 27, selective veto is
allowed. This is an exception to the general
rule. The President is expressly allowed to
veto an item/s in appropriation, tariff,
revenue bill but the veto will not affect the
item/s to which he does not object. However,
the item or line veto applies only to three
kinds of bills: (ART)
1. Appropriation
2. Revenue
3. Tariff
The PDAF was integrated in the GAA, which
is an appropriation bill. So, how can the
President exercise his veto power if the pork
barrel is in lumpsum, Php 200M per senator
and Php70M per representative? This is why
the PDAF violates the President's item veto.

(4) The system has equally impaired public
accountability
- insofar as it has diluted the effectiveness of
congressional oversight by giving legislators
a stake in the affairs of budget execution, an
aspect of governance which they may be
called to monitor and scrutinize.
Once the budget has been enacted, the
function of the Congress is limited to
monitoring or overseeing. Under the PDAF,
the individual senators and congressmen
identifies the projects where the money is
spent, the implementing agencies, and the
beneficiaries. How do you expect the
Congress, as a body, to monitor or to oversee
whether its individual members are properly
implementing the PDAF? Of course, you
cannot expect the Congress to do that. Hence,
the Supreme Court, in its decision, stated that
the PDAF impaired public accountability.
(5) The system has subverted genuine local
autonomy, instead of promoting it
- insofar as it has authorized legislators, who
are national officers, to intervene in affairs of
purely local nature, despite the existence of
capable local institutions
In Section 25, Article II of the Constitution,
you have there the basic policy on local
autonomy.
SECTION 25, ARTICLE II, 1987
CONSTITUTION. The State shall ensure the
autonomy of local governments.
To implement or to bolster/strengthen this
principle of local autonomy, in the LGC, RA
Page 41 of 55
4B 2020-2021
Notes for Poli Rev
7160, at every level of LG, a local
development council is created -- Barangay
Development Council, Municipal/City
Development Council, Provincial
Development Council and Autonomous
Region Development Council. These local
development councils identify and prioritize
the projects that have to be implemented in
their respective localities. The local
development councils are composed of: local
elective officials, representatives of private
sectors, civil society groups, and other non-
government organizations.
Under the PDAF, the individual senators and
congressmen identify what projects to be
implemented. They are not local officials,
they are national officials. Hence, instead of
promoting and strengthening local autonomy,
the PDAF system promotes patronage
politics. Kapag ikaw ay local official at may
gusto kang project para sa locality mo, ano
gagawin mo? Syempre magpapalakas o
didikit ka kay congressman o kay senator. E
kung kalaban mo si congressman o si
senator, makakakuha ka ba ng project?
Syempre hindi.
B. Presidential Pork Barrel is
unconstitutional because there was undue
delegation of the power to the president,
applying the sufficient standard test of a valid
delegation.
The sources of the Presidential Pork Barrel
are:
1. Malampaya Fund
2. Presidential Social Fund
On Malampaya Fund:

The income generated from the production of
oil in Malampaya Gas Project consists the
Malampaya Fund. Under the law creating the
Malampaya Fund, such fund is to be used by
the President for "energy-related purposes
only and such other purposes as may be
hereafter directed by the President". The
phrase "for energy-related purposes," there is
a sufficient standard limiting the President's
authority with respect to the purpose for
which the Malampaya Fund is used.
However, the phrase "and such other
purposes as may be hereafter directed by the
President" provided no standard that may
limit the authority President.
Under the sufficient standard test of a valid
delegation, it provides that for as long as
there are standards that will limit the
authority of the President or that will guide
the President in the exercise of the delegated
power, which standards must be determinate
or at least determinable, such delegation
becomes valid.
On Presidential Social Fund:
These are derived from the earnings of
PAGCOR in operating gambling business all
over the country. The law creating PAGCOR
states that its earnings from operating
gambling business all over the country, shall
be used by the President, in lumpsum, in
priority infrastructure development projects.
The Supreme Courtvheld that the phrase
"priority infrastructure development
projects" is a very broad phrase that
practically anything can be justified
thereunder, basta sinabi ng Presidente na
priority infrastructure development projects
yan.
Page 42 of 55
4B 2020-2021
Notes for Poli Rev
TO SUMMARIZE:
If we say Pork Barrel, we mean lumpsum,
discretionary fund. There are 2 kinds of pork
barrel: (1) the Congressional Pork Barrel,
which is represented by the PDAF, and (2)
the Presidential Pork Barrel, which is sourced
from the Malampaya Fund and the
Presidential Social Fund. At any rate, both
pork barrels, in this case, was declared
unconstitutional but for entirely different
reasons. As for the Congressional Pork
Barrels, the reasons were (1) PDAF violated
the principle of separation of powers, (2) it
violates the principle of non-delegability of
legislative power, (3) it denied the President
of his item veto, (4) it impaired public
accountability, and finally, (5) it subverted
genuine local autonomy, instead of
promoting it. On the other hand, with respect
to Presidential Pork Barrel, the reason why it
was declared unconstitutional was there was
undue delegation of power to the president,
applying the sufficient standard test of a valid
delegation.
MARIA CAROLINA P. ARAULLO, ET AL.
V. BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO III
FACTS: This is the case involving
Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP),
Araullo v. President Aquino. When Pres.
Aquino was elected as President in the May
2010 election, first year of his term
nagwithhold on public spending. That
adversely affected the growth of the economy
because you know very well that the
government is the number one spender.
Nagwithhold on money spending, so the
money circulated in the market is less.
Naapektuhan ang buong economy. Second
year of his term, to spur the growth of the
economy, nagbuhos na ng pera. Inadopt ng

Aquino Administration yung tinatawagn na
Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP),
allegedly to spur the growth of the economy.
As you know very well, natulungan niyan
ang growth ng economy, no question about
that.
However, the constitutionality of DAP was
questioned. According to petitioners, DAP
violated the Constitution, particularly,
Section 25, ¶5, of Art. VI.
SECTION 25, ¶5, ARTICLE VI, 1987
CONSTITUTION. No law shall be passed
authorizing any transfer of appropriations;
however, the President, the President of the
Senate, the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, the Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court, and the heads of
Constitutional Commissions may, by law,
be authorized to augment any item in the
general appropriations law for their
respective offices from savings in other
items of their respective appropriations.
The moment that the budget has been
enacted, no laws shall be passed authorizing
the transfer of appropriations. That is the
general rule. However, there is an exception
to the General Rule.
Q: What is the exception to the general
rule that no law shall be passed
authorizing any transfer of
appropriations?
A: Power Augmentation. That is the
exception to the rule that once the budget has
been enacted, no law shall be passed
authorizing any transfer of appropriations.
Q: However, as you read Sec. 25 (5), who
has the power of augmentation?
Page 43 of 55
4B 2020-2021
Notes for Poli Rev
A:
1. President
2. President of the Senate
3. Speaker of the House of
Representatives
4. Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
5. Heads of the 3 Constitutional
Commissions
NOTE: Huwag niyo isasali Vice President.
Walang Vice President diyan.
Q: What are the 3 requirements for them
to validly exercise the power of
augmentation?
A:
1. There must be a law authorizing
them;
2. The funds to be used to augment must
come from savings in their respective
departments; and
3. There shall be no cross border
transfer of funds following the
Doctrine separation of powers.
Q: What do you mean by cross border
transfer of funds?
A: For example, yung savings ng Executive
Branch you cannot use that to augment the
funds of Congress, whether Senate or House
of Representatives.
ISSUE: Whether DAP is Constitutional.
RULING: Unconstitutional. In the case of
DAP, the 3 requirements were not complied
with.
1. Court found that there was no law
authorizing President Noynoy
Aquino to exercise power of
augmentation. Although in this case,
PNOY tried to cite a provision of
Revised Administrative Code but that
was not the law referred to.

2. The funds used to augment were not
actually savings. The funds of slow
moving projects were converted into
savings. That’s not allowed. And
worst, yung unappropriated amount,
ginawang savings, which is also not
allowed. Kapag unappropriated
amount, kailangan ng appropriations
law.
3. There was cross border transfer of
funds. Savings of the executive
department ginamit to augment the
funds of the Senate and the
Constitutional Commissions.
That’s why although DAP yielded positive
results in the growth of the economy, the
Court has to declare it unconstitutional.
NOTE: Instances when savings may only be
realized:
a) Upon completion of the project –pag
may sobrang pera.
b) At the end of the Fiscal year.
Q: Since DAP was declared
unconstitutional, what will happen to the
projects funded by DAP? Should we
demolish or destroy them?
NOTE: As a rule, a legislative or executive
act that is declared void for being
unconstitutional cannot give rise to any right
or obligation.
A: No, do not demolish them. SC used the
Doctrine of Operative Fact Doctrine, which
is an exception to the rule that a legislative or
executive act that is declared void for being
unconstitutional cannot give rise to any right
or obligation.
The doctrine of operative fact recognizes
the existence of the law or executive act prior
to the determination of its unconstitutionality
as an operative fact that produced
Page 44 of 55
4B 2020-2021
Notes for Poli Rev
consequences that cannot always be erased,
ignored or disregarded.
In short, it nullifies the void law or executive
act but sustains its effects. It provides an
exception to the general rule that a void or
unconstitutional law produces no effect. But
its use must be subjected to great scrutiny and
circumspection, and it cannot be invoked to
validate an unconstitutional law or executive
act, but is resorted to only as a matter of
equity and fair play. It applies only to cases
where extraordinary circumstances exist, and
only when the extraordinary circumstances
have met the stringent conditions that will
permit its application.
The Court finds the doctrine of operative fact
applicable to the adoption and
implementation of the DAP. Its application to
the DAP proceeds from equity and fair play.
The consequences resulting from the DAP
and its related issuances could not be ignored
or could no longer be undone.
As already mentioned, the implementation of
the DAP resulted into the use of savings
pooled by the Executive to finance the PAPs
that were not covered in the GAA, or that did
not have proper appropriation covers, as well
as to augment items pertaining to other
departments of the Government in clear
violation of the Constitution. To declare the
implementation of the DAP unconstitutional
without recognizing that its prior
implementation constituted an operative fact
that produced consequences in the real as
well as juristic worlds of the Government and
the Nation is to be impractical and unfair.
Unless the doctrine is held to apply, the
Executive as the disburser and the offices
under it and elsewhere as the recipients could
be required to undo everything that they had
implemented in good faith under the DAP.
That scenario would be enormously

burdensome for the Government. Equity
alleviates such burden.
The other side of the coin is that it has been
adequately shown as to be beyond debate that
the implementation of the DAP yielded
undeniably positive results that enhanced the
economic welfare of the country. To count
the positive results may be impossible, but
the visible ones, like public infrastructure,
could easily include roads, bridges, homes
for the homeless, hospitals, classrooms and
the like. Not to apply the doctrine of
operative fact to the DAP could literally
cause the physical undoing of such worthy
results by destruction, and would result in
most undesirable wastefulness.
PARDONING POWER OF THE
PRESIDENT
SECTION 19, ARTICLE XVII, 1987
CONSTITUTION. Except in cases of
impeachment, or as otherwise provided in
this Constitution, the President may grant
reprieves, commutations and pardons, and
remit fines and forfeitures, after conviction
by final judgment.
He shall also have the power to grant
amnesty with the concurrence of a majority
of all the Members of the Congress.
ATTY. ALICIA RISOS-VIDAL V.
COMELEC
FACTS: This was the case involving former
President Erap Estrada. The Sandiganbayan
convicted him for Plunder. The penalty for
which is Reclusion Perpetua. However, he
was granted Pardon by President Arroyo. In
Page 45 of 55
4B 2020-2021
Notes for Poli Rev
the May 2013 election, he ran for mayor in
City of Manila. Atty. Alicia Risos-Vidal
questioned his candidacy. According to Atty.
Risos-Vidal, he’s not qualified to run for
mayor because the pardon granted to him was
not an absolute pardon. In fact, it was merely
a conditional pardon. The condition was for
him not to run for any elective public office.
That was the basic theory – he is not qualified
to run because the pardon granted to him by
President Arroyo was not an absolute pardon;
it was merely a conditional pardon.
Included in the numerous whereas clauses in
PGMA's proclamation granting Erap's
pardon is "whereas he has signified his
intention not to run for any elective office." In
the body of the proclamation, there stated,
"IN VIEW HEREOF and pursuant to the
authority conferred upon me by the
Constitution, I hereby grant executive
clemency to JOSEPH EJERCITO
ESTRADA, convicted by the Sandiganbayan
of Plunder and imposed a penalty of
Reclusion Perpetua. He is hereby restored to
his civil and political rights." This was signed
by GMA, President of the Philippines.
Hence, Atty. Risos-Vidal contended that, as
can be seen in the Proclamation, the pardon
was merely conditional, conditioned on him
not running to any elective office.
Another argument of Atty. Risos-Vidal was,
assuming that the pardon was absolute, the
pardon was merely for the main penalty of
reclusion perpetua. Not included in the
pardon were the accessory penalties of civil
interdiction and perpetual disqualification to
hold public office, as provided in Articles 36
and 41 of the Revised Penal Code. Under the
RPC, the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua
carries with it the accessory penalties of civil
interdiction and perpetual absolute
disqualification to hold public office.

HELD: The Supreme Court held that the
pardon was absolute.
Former President Estrada was granted an
absolute pardon that fully restored all his civil
and political rights, which naturally includes
the right to seek public office. The wording
of the pardon extended to former President
Estrada is complete, unambiguous, and
unqualified. It is likewise unfettered by
Articles 36 and 41 of the Revised Penal Code.
The only reasonable, objective, and
constitutional interpretation of the language
of the pardon is that the same in fact
conforms to Articles 36 and 41 of the Revised
Penal Code.
The 1987 Constitution specifically Section
19 of Article VII and Section 5 of Article IX-
C, provides that the President of the
Philippines possesses the power to grant
pardons, along with other acts of executive
clemency.
It is apparent that the only instances in which
the President may not extend pardon remain
to be: (1) impeachment cases; (2) cases that
have not yet resulted in a final conviction;
and (3) cases involving violations of election
laws, rules and regulations in which there
was no favorable recommendation coming
from the COMELEC. Therefore, it can be
argued that any act of Congress by way of
statute cannot operate to delimit the
pardoning power of the President.
It is unmistakably the long-standing position
of this Court that the exercise of the
pardoning power is discretionary in the
President and may not be interfered with by
Congress or the Court, except only when it
exceeds the limits provided for by the
Constitution.
This doctrine of non-diminution or non-
impairment of the President’s power of
pardon by acts of Congress, specifically
Page 46 of 55
4B 2020-2021
Notes for Poli Rev
through legislation, was strongly adhered to
by an overwhelming majority of the framers
of the 1987 Constitution when they finally
rejected a proposal to carve out an exception
from the pardoning power of the President in
the form of “offenses involving graft and
corruption” that would be enumerated and
defined by Congress through the enactment
of a law.
The foregoing pronouncements solidify the
thesis that Articles 36 and 41 of the Revised
Penal Code cannot, in any way, serve to
abridge or diminish the exclusive power and
prerogative of the President to pardon
persons convicted of violating penal laws.
Xxx
A rigid and inflexible reading of the above
provisions of law is unwarranted, especially
so if it will defeat or unduly restrict the power
of the President to grant executive clemency.
It is well-entrenched in this jurisdiction that
where the words of a statute are clear, plain,
and free from ambiguity, it must be given its
literal meaning and applied without
attempted interpretation. Verba legis non est
recedendum. From the words of a statute
there should be no departure. It is this
Court’s firm view that the phrase in the
presidential pardon at issue which declares
that former President Estrada “is hereby
restored to his civil and political rights”
substantially complies with the requirement
of express restoration. And among the civil
and political rights is the right to run for
public office.
Xxx
For this reason, Articles 36 and 41 of the
Revised Penal Code should be construed in a
way that will give full effect to the executive
clemency granted by the President, instead of

indulging in an overly strict interpretation
that may serve to impair or diminish the
import of the pardon which emanated from
the Office of the President and duly signed by
the Chief Executive himself/herself. The said
codal provisions must be construed to
harmonize the power of Congress to define
crimes and prescribe penalties for such
crimes and the power of the President to grant
executive clemency. All that said provisions
impart is that the pardon of the principal
penalty does not carry with it the remission of
the accessory penalties unless the President
expressly includes said accessory penalties in
the pardon. It still recognizes the Presidential
prerogative to grant executive clemency and,
specifically, to decide to pardon the principal
penalty while excluding its accessory
penalties or to pardon both. Thus, Articles 36
and 41 only clarify the effect of the pardon so
decided upon by the President on the
penalties imposed in accordance with law.
A close scrutiny of the text of the pardon to
former President Estrada shows that both the
principal penalty of reclusion perpetua and its
accessory penalties are included in the
pardon. The first sentence refers to the
executive clemency extended to former
President Estrada who was convicted by the
Sandiganbayan of plunder and imposed a
penalty of reclusion perpetua. The latter is
the principal penalty pardoned which
relieved him of imprisonment. The sentence
that followed, which states that “(h)e is
hereby restored to his civil and political
rights,” expressly remitted the accessory
penalties that attached to the principal
penalty of reclusion perpetua. Hence, even if
we apply Articles 36 and 41 of the Revised
Penal Code, it is indubitable from the text of
the pardon that the accessory penalties of
civil interdiction and perpetual absolute
disqualification were expressly remitted
together with the principal penalty of
reclusion perpetua.
Page 47 of 55
4B 2020-2021
Notes for Poli Rev
In this jurisdiction, the right to seek public
elective office is recognized by law as falling
under the whole gamut of civil and political
rights.
Xxx
No less than the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights, to which the
Philippines is a signatory, acknowledges the
existence of said rights.
Xxx
Recently, in Sobejana-Condon v.
Commission on Elections (G.R. No. 198742,
August 10, 2012, 678 SCRA 267, 292), the
Court unequivocally referred to the right to
seek public elective office as a political right
x x x.
Thus, from both law and jurisprudence, the
right to seek public elective office is
unequivocally considered as a political right.
Hence, the Court reiterates its earlier
statement that the pardon granted to former
President Estrada admits no other
interpretation other than to mean that, upon
acceptance of the pardon granted to him, he
regained his FULL civil and political rights –
including the right to seek elective office.
Contrary to Risos-Vidal’s declaration, the
third preambular clause of the pardon, i.e.,
“[w]hereas, Joseph Ejercito Estrada has
publicly committed to no longer seek any
elective position or office,” neither makes the
pardon conditional, nor militates against the
conclusion that former President Estrada’s
rights to suffrage and to seek public elective
office have been restored. This is especially
true as the pardon itself does not explicitly
impose a condition or limitation, considering
the unqualified use of the term “civil and
political rights” as being restored.

Jurisprudence educates that a preamble is
not an essential part of an act as it is an
introduction or preparatory clause that
explains the reasons for the enactment,
usually introduced by the word “whereas.”
Whereas clauses do not form part of a
statute because, strictly speaking, they are
not part of the operative language of the
statute. In this case, the whereas clause at
issue is not an integral part of the decree of
the pardon, and therefore, does not by itself
alone operate to make the pardon
conditional or to make its effectivity
contingent upon the fulfillment of the
aforementioned commitment nor to limit the
scope of the pardon.
TO SUMMARIZE:
The SC held that:
1. The pardon granted by PGMA to Erap was
absolute
2. What was pardoned was not only the main
penalty of reclusion perpetua. Included in the
pardon were the accessory penalties of civil
interdiction and the perpetual disqualification
to hold public office because it is clearly
stated in the proclamation that he is hereby
restored to his civil and political rights, and
included in the civil and political rights is the
right to run for public office.
Limitations on the Pardoning Power of the
President
SECTION 19, ARTICLE XVII, 1987
CONSTITUTION. Except in cases of
impeachment, or as otherwise provided in
this Constitution, the President may grant
reprieves, commutations and pardons, and
remit fines and forfeitures, after conviction
by final judgment.
Page 48 of 55
4B 2020-2021
Notes for Poli Rev
He shall also have the power to grant
amnesty with the concurrence of a majority
of all the Members of the Congress.
1. The pardoning power will not apply in
cases of impeachment.
2. There must first be a conviction by final
judgment before one may be granted pardon.
This is an important requirement.
Q: If your case is pending appeal and you
want to avail of pardon, what should you do?
A: Withdraw your appeal. Because the
moment you withdraw your appeal, the
judgment of conviction by the lower courts
reach finality. That makes pardon available to
you. During appeal, there is yet no conviction
by final judgment.
NOTE: In amnesty, conviction by final
judgment is not a requirement or requisite.
Hence, even if your case is pending appeal,
the President may already grant you with
amnesty. However, in reprieves,
commutations and pardons, conviction by
final judgment is a requirement.
3. Section 5 Article 9(C), 1987 Constitution.
SECTION 5, ARTICLE IX-C, 1987
CONSTITUTION. No pardon, amnesty,
parole, or suspension of sentence for
violation of election laws, rules, and
regulations shall be granted by the
President without the favorable
recommendation of the Commission.
4. Pardoning power of the President does not
apply in cases of legislative contempt, in line
with the doctrine of separation of powers.

OCTOBER 15, 2020
GANDA & ELEANOR SHELLSTROP
SENATE INQUIRY IN AID OF
LEGISLATION
2 KINDS OF CONGRESSIONAL
INVESTIGATIONS
Inquiry in Aid of Legislation - Sec. 21,
Article VI
In case of Arnold vs. Nazareno, the Court
clarified that the inquiry in aid of legislation
is intrinsic in the grant of legislative power
set to Congress granted by the Constitution.
The Court said that you cannot expect
Congress to enact good laws if you will deny
it the power to investigate. In other words,
even if it is not expressly found in Section 21,
Art. VI, yet you cannot deny Congress that
power because that is intrinsic in grant of
legislative power.
BENGZON VS. SENATE BLUE
RIBBON COMMITTEE
FACTS: This happened during the time of
President Aquino. Senator Enrile delivered a
privileged speech in the Senate wherein he
alleged that there were certain properties of
alleged loyalists of Marcos which were
subject of pending cases in the
Sandiganbayan but somehow they landed in
the hands of some of the relatives of President
Aquino. Enrile urged the Senate Blue Ribbon
committee to conduct an inquiry to determine
Page 49 of 55
4B 2020-2021
Notes for Poli Rev
whether there was violation of PH criminal
laws.
ISSUE: WON the inquiry is an inquiry in aid
of legislation?
RULING: NO. The purpose was to
determine whether there was violation of
criminal laws. It was an encroachment on
judicial prerogative. The power to determine
whether or not there was a violation of
criminal laws belongs to the Court. The Court
also said that if you will allow the Senate
Blue Ribbon Committee to proceed with its
own inquiry, and then later on it will arrive at
a conclusion different from that which will be
arrived at from the Sandiganbayan, then you
are inviting a constitutional crisis. Hence the
Court granted the petition for certiorari and
ordered the committee not to proceed with its
investigation.
❖ Q: Is this power of Congress to
conduct inquiries in aid of
legislation absolute or are there
limitations?
A: NO. mere reading of Section 21
would show that this power is not absolute.
3 IMPORTANT LIMITATIONS ON
POWER OF CONGRESS TO CONDUCT
INQUIRIES IN AID OF LEGISLATION
provided under Section 21 of Article VI:
1. The inquiry must always be in aid of
legislation - whether in connection to the
pending bill in Congress or in connection
to the bill that is expected to file in
Congress.
2. It must be conducted in accordance with
the duly published rules of procedure by
 4B 2020-2021
Notes for Poli Rev

House of Congress conducting that PH. There were local investors who alleged
inquiry. that they were defrauded by some of the
3. The rights of persons appearing in or malpractices of the Standard Chartered Bank.
affected by such inquiries shall be They asked for help of Enrile. Enrile
respected. delivered a privileged speech wherein he
alleged the malpractices of the Standard
Note: The right against self-incrimination Chartered Bank resulting to defraudation of
and the right to privacy may be invoked local investors. Enrile urged the Senate
during the inquiry. Committee on Banks to conduct an inquiry to
determine whether there are loopholes in our
Q: Is this subject to judicial review or is laws on a matter of allowing foreign banks to
this not a political question? do business in the PH so that remedial
A: According to the SC, since it has already legislation may be enacted to address those
been shown that this power is not absolute, in loopholes and to protect local investors from
fact there are three important limitations, it fraudulent bank practices.
follows therefore that this is NOT a political
question. This is subject to judicial review ISSUE: WON the inquiry is in aid of
especially in view of the expanded power of legislation
Court to determine whether or not there has
been a grave abuse of discretion amounting RULING: Yes. The purpose of the inquiry is
to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of to determine whether there are loopholes in
any branch or instrument of the government. our laws in allowing foreign banks to do
business in the PH so that remedial
For instance, the Court may validly inquire legislation may be enacted to address the
into whether the inquiry was really in aid of loopholes.
legislation or not. The Court may validly
inquire into whether the inquiry was CASE OF CASE OF
conducted in accordance with the duly BENGZON STANDARD
published rules of the House of Congress CHARTERED
conducting that inquiry. Finally, the Court BANK
may validly inquire into whether the rights of
the purpose of the the purpose of the
persons appearing in or affected by such
inquiry is to inquiry is to
inquiry are respected.
determine whether determine whether
there are violations there are loopholes
of PH criminal in our laws on a
STANDARD CHARTERED BANK VS. laws. It is an matter of allowing
SENATE COMMITTEE ON BANKS encroachment on foreign banks to do
judicial business in the PH
FACTS: Standard Chartered Bank was a prerogatives. so that remedial
foreign bank allowed to do business in the legislation may be

Page 50 of 55

enacted to address
those loopholes and
to protect local
investors from
fraudulent bank
practices.
LEGISLATIVE CONTEMPT
GR: The nature of the power to contempt is
judicial
XPN: Inquiry in aid of legislation/
Legislative Contempt
When a House of Congress conducts inquiry
in aid of legislation, and they summon
someone to appear before the body but he/she
did not appear, or refused to cooperate,
he/she might be cited in contempt.
In case of Standard Chartered, the Court
said that according to the case of Nazareno,
intrinsic in the grant of legislative power of
Congress is the power to conduct inquiries in
aid of legislation with the process to enforce
it. Contempt is a process.
You might be sent to prison.
Q: Until when? How long?
A: In case of Nazareno (Old case), the Court
said that you hold the key to your freedom.
Until you cooperate. Indefinite.
However, in case of Balag vs. Senate
(latest), the Court said until inquiry is
terminated.
Q: When is the inquiry terminated?
Page 51 of 55
4B 2020-2021
Notes for Poli Rev
A: 2 instances:
Upon the approval or disapproval of the
Committee report
Upon the last adjournment of Congress
QUESTION HOUR
Question Hour - Section 22, Article VI
Under this provision, the head of a
department may, upon their own initiative
with the consent of the President or upon the
request of either House in accordance with
the Rules it shall provide, appear before and
be heard by such House on any matter
pertaining to their department.
Question Hour is not a regular feature of a
Presidential government. This is merely an
imported concept from a parliamentary
government. It forms part of the workings
and dynamics of a parliamentary
government. In a parliamentary government,
the Prime Minister is not elected by the
people at large; He is elected by members of
the Parliament. In short, he is directly
accountable to the Parliament - he must
appear and explain before the Parliament.
SENATE V. ERMITA
During the time of the Former Pres. GMA,
she promulgated E.O. 464.
- Prohibiting members of the cabinet
and other Top Level Executive
Branch Officers including officers of
PNP from appearing during
Congressional Inquiries without her
consent.

It was challenged in the SC, and the SC made
an important Distinctions between Inquiry in
aid of Legislation under Article 6, Section 21
and Question Hour under Article 6, Section
22. see the table in page 2
According to the, if what is involved is
Inquiry in Aid of Legislation, the members
of the cabinet and other Top Level Executive
Branch Officers including officers of PNP
may not validly refuse to appear invoking
E.O. 464. Otherwise, their non-appearance
and non-cooperation during such inquiry,
they may be cited in contempt, legislative
contempt.
According to the Court, their non-appearance
during inquiry in aid of legislation will impair
the work of Congress. Moreover, it will
violates people right to information on
matters of public concern under Section 7 of
the Bill of Rights. You have to remember that
the members of Congress, according to the
Court, they are the duly elected
representatives of the people.
How do you expect Congress to enact good
laws, if you will deny information it needs.
Q: Where that information come from:
A: Logically, the information must come
from the officials of Executive Branch
Q: Sino lang pwede mag refuse to appear
during inquiries in aid of legislation, aside
from the SC itself?
A: Only the President OR Executive
Secretaries acting by authority of the
President
Page 52 of 55
4B 2020-2021
Notes for Poli Rev
However, according to the Court in this case,
for the President OR Executive Secretaries
acting by authority of the President to refuse
to appear during inquiries in aid of
legislation, they have to invoke, assert, claim
what is now known as Executive Privilege.
Q: What is an Executive Privilege?
A: The right of the President and other Top
Level Executive Branch Officers to withhold
information from the Congress, the Courts
and ultimately the public.
VARIETIES OF EXECUTIVE
PRIVILEGES
1. State Secrets Privilege
2. Informers Privilege
3. Generic Privilege for Internal
Deliberations
However, among these varieties the one often
invoke by the President on the ground that the
information is of such nature that its
disclosure was subvert crucial military,
diplomatic objective, is the State Secrets
Privilege.
The Court further clarified that, the
Executive Privilege must be claimed,
asserted, invoked by the President OR
Executive Secretaries acting by authority of
the President, it cannot be implied.
Q: Why?
A: According to the Court, we are
Democratic Republican State and in
Democratic Republican State:
General rule is disclosure of information not
secrecy. Especially in view of the important
 4B 2020-2021
Notes for Poli Rev

right under Section 7 of the Bill of Rights (the Inquiry in Aid of Question Hour
right of the people to information on matters Legislation
of public concern) and in view of an The members of the The members of the
important State Policy under Article 2 cabinet and other cabinet and other
Section 28 (Policy on Transparency). Top Level Top Level
Executive Branch Executive Branch
XPN: Executive Privilege, that is why it must Officers including Officers may
be claimed, asserted, invoked. It cannot be officers of PNP may validly refuse to
implied. not validly refuse toappear without the
appear invoking consent of the
Furthermore, according to the SC, there shall E.O. 464. President invoking
be no blanket invocation of an Executive E.O. 464
Privilege. The Executive Privilege attaches Presidential Parliamentary
not to the person in the office. It attaches to a Government Government
kind of information that is being ask by the Appearance is Appearance is not
Congress. mandatory, mandatory
Xpn: Executive
However, if what is involved is the Question Privilege
Hour under Article 6, Section 22, then
members of the cabinet and other Top Level
INITIATIVE AND REFERANDUM
Executive Branch Officers may validly
refuse to appear without the consent of the
President invoking E.O. 464. Section 1. The legislative power shall be
Reason: vested in the Congress of the Philippines
This Question Hour is merely a borrowed which shall consist of a Senate and a
concept from a Parliamentary Government. It House of Representatives, except to the
does not form part of the working and extent reserved to the people by the
dynamics of the Presidential Government. provision on initiative and referendum.
That is why appearance in the Question Hour
is not really mandatory. The Power to enact laws are no longer
exclusive in the Congress because there is
reservation there (except to the extent
reserved to the people by the provision on
initiative and referendum).Unlike in the 1935
Constitution, legislative power is exclusively
vested in the Congress.

However, this reservation is not self-

executing. You have to consider Article 6
Section 32.

Page 53 of 55

Section 32. The Congress shall, as early as
possible, provide for a system of initiative
and referendum, and the exceptions
therefrom, whereby the people can directly
propose and enact laws or approve or
reject any act or law or part thereof passed
by the Congress or local legislative body
after the registration of a petition therefor
signed by at least ten per centum of the
total number of registered voters, of which
every legislative district must be
represented by at least three per centum of
the registered voters thereof.
Congress is mandated by the Constitution to
enact that so called initiative and referendum
law. This is the RA No. 6735.
KINDS OF INITIATIVES
1. Initiative in the Constitution
2. Initiative on Statutes
3. Initiative on Local Legislation
The second kind of initiative under R.A. No.
6735, Initiative on Statutes, those are the
implementing provisions of the reservation
made by the people under Article 6, Section
1.
Q: If we, the people, would like to enact,
repeal or amend laws, can we do that?
A: YES. You only have to do is to refer to on
the provisions of R.A. No. 6735 dealing on
initiatives on statutes and there you will find
the mechanisms of the law.
BICAMERAL CONGRESS
Page 54 of 55
4B 2020-2021
Notes for Poli Rev
Section 1. The legislative power shall be
vested in the Congress of the Philippines
which shall consist of a Senate and a
House of Representatives, except to the
extent reserved to the people by the
provision on initiative and referendum.
BICAMERAL CONGRESS
1. Senate
2. House of Representatives
Bicameral Conference Committee
- Is a mechanism for compromising
differences between the Senate and
House of Representatives.
- The members are come from both the
Senate and House of Representatives.
Q: Let us assume that you are the
Congressman, representing your district
in the HOR and then you filed a bill in the
HOR but then it so happened that there is
a similar bill that has been filed in the
Senate. How do you expect Congress to
reconcile the two versions and come up
with a version that is acceptable to both
parties?
A: It will be referred to the Bicameral
Conference Committee.
By the nature of its function, a Bicameral
Conference Committee is capable of
producing unexpected results. Results may
sometimes even go beyond its own mandate.
(Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance)
Q: From the Bicameral Conference
Committee where will the bill now go?
 4B 2020-2021
Notes for Poli Rev

A: From the Bicameral Conference

Committee the Bill will now be sent back to
both houses and it will be subject to votation.

If during the votation in each Houses and

Yeas prevail over the Nays, then it will be
signed by the Senate President and Speaker
of the House, certified by the Secretaries of
both Houses and then send to the President
for approval/signature.

However, if during the votation in each

Houses and Nays prevail over the Yeas, it is
about time that another Bicameral
Conference Committee conveyed. Until it
will able to craft a version that is acceptable
to both Houses.

ARTICLE 6, SECTION 24

Section 24. All appropriation, revenue or

tariff bills, bills authorizing increase of the
public debt, bills of local application, and
private bills, shall originate exclusively in
the House of Representatives, but the
Senate may propose or concur with
amendments.

There are certain bills that are required to

originate exclusively in the HOR.
A – Appropriation bill
P – Private bill
R – Revenue or tariff bill

- END -

Page 55 of 55