PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW

Table of Contents

I. 1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION ................................................................................ 1

A. Definition, Nature, and Concepts of the Constitution ......................................................... 1
1. Declaration of Principles ............................................................................................... 3
a. Democracy and Republicanism ............................................................................ 3
b. Renunciation of War ........................................................................................... 4
c. Supremacy of Civilian Authority over Military ........................................................ 5
2. State Policies ............................................................................................................... 6
a. Independent Foreign Policy ................................................................................. 6
b. Social Justice ...................................................................................................... 6
c. Sanctity of Family and Vital Role of Youth in Nation-Building ................................. 6
B. Amendment and Revision ................................................................................................ 7
C. National Territory ...........................................................................................................11
D. Separation of Powers, and Checks and Balances..............................................................14
E. State Immunity ..............................................................................................................17
F. Delegation of Powers ......................................................................................................23
G. Fundamental Powers of the State – Police Power, Eminent Domain and Taxation..............24

II. LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT ....................................................................................... 35

A. Congress: Senate and House of Representatives .............................................................35
1. Compositions and Qualifications ..................................................................................35
2. Privileges and Inhibitions ............................................................................................46
3. Quorum and Voting Majorities, and Discipline of Members ............................................50
B. Law-Making Process .......................................................................................................54
C. Appropriation .................................................................................................................58
D. Legislative Inquiries and Oversight Functions ..................................................................62
E. Declaration of Existence of State of War ..........................................................................67
F. Power to Revoke/Extend the Suspension of the Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus and
Declaration of Martial Law ..................................................................................................67
G. Power of Impeachment ..................................................................................................69
H. Electoral Tribunals .........................................................................................................73
I. Commission on Appointments ..........................................................................................76

AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION i

 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW

III. EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT ......................................................................................... 79

A. President and Vice President ...........................................................................................79
1. Term, Qualifications, and Election................................................................................79
2. Privileges, Inhibitions, and Disqualifications .................................................................81
B. Executive and Administrative Powers ..............................................................................86
C. Power of Appointment ....................................................................................................89
1. Regular and Ad Interim ...............................................................................................91
2. With or without COA Confirmation ...............................................................................92
3. Midnight Appointments ...............................................................................................93
4. Removal from Office ...................................................................................................95
D. Power of Control and Supervision ...................................................................................96
1. Executive Departments and Offices; Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency .....................97
2. Local Government Units ..............................................................................................99
E. Military Powers...............................................................................................................99
F. Pardoning Power and Executive Clemency ..................................................................... 103
G. Diplomatic Power ......................................................................................................... 106
H. Power relative to Appropriation Measures...................................................................... 108
I. Veto Power ................................................................................................................... 111
J. Residual Power ............................................................................................................. 112
K. Removal from Office..................................................................................................... 113
L. Rules of Succession ...................................................................................................... 114

IV. JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT ........................................................................................... 116

A. Definition of Judicial Power ........................................................................................... 116
B. Judicial Review............................................................................................................. 118
1. Requisites ................................................................................................................ 118
a. Actual Case or Controversy ....................................................................... 118
b. Proper Party ............................................................................................. 118
c. Raised at the Earliest Possible Opportunity ................................................. 120
d. Necessary to the Determination of the Case Itself ...................................... 121
2. Exceptions................................................................................................................ 121
a. Political Questions ..................................................................................... 121
b. Moot Questions ........................................................................................ 122
c. Advisory Opinions ..................................................................................... 123
3. Operative Fact Doctrine ............................................................................................ 124
C. Fiscal Autonomy ........................................................................................................... 125

AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION ii

 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW

D. Appointments to the Judiciary ...................................................................................... 126

1. Qualifications............................................................................................................ 126
2. Judicial and Bar Council ............................................................................................ 127
E. Supreme Court of the Philippines .................................................................................. 128
1. Composition ............................................................................................................. 128
2. Procedural Rule-Making Power .................................................................................. 128
3. Disciplinary Powers ................................................................................................... 129
4. Administrative Supervision ........................................................................................ 130
5. Jurisdiction ............................................................................................................... 130

V. CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS............................................................................ 133

A. Powers, Functions, and Jurisdiction ............................................................................... 133
B. Composition and Qualifications of Members ................................................................... 138
C. Prohibited Offices and Interests .................................................................................... 139
D. Review of Final Orders, Resolutions and Decisions ......................................................... 139
1. Rendered in the Exercise of Quasi-Judicial Functions .................................................. 139
2. Rendered in the Exercise of Administrative Functions ................................................. 139

VI. BILL OF RIGHTS ........................................................................................................ 141

A. Due Process Clause; Procedural and Substantive Requirements ...................................... 141
1. Void-for-Vagueness Rule ........................................................................................... 145
2. Judicial and Administrative Due Process ..................................................................... 146
B. Equal Protection Clause ................................................................................................ 148
1. Requisites for Valid Classification ............................................................................... 148
2. Standards of Review ................................................................................................. 148
C. Arrest, Search and Seizure; Requisites; Exclusionary Rule .............................................. 149
D. Privacy of Communication and Correspondence; Exclusionary Rule ................................ 158
E. Freedom of Speech and Expression ............................................................................... 164
1. Prior Restraint and Subsequent Punishment ............................................................... 165
2. Content-Based and Content-Neutral Regulations ........................................................ 166
3. Facial Challenges and Overbreadth Doctrine .............................................................. 167
4. Tests for Valid Government Interference.................................................................... 168
5. Doctrine of Privileged Communication ........................................................................ 171
F. Freedom of Religion ..................................................................................................... 173
1. Non-Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses ............................................................ 173
2. Tests for Valid Government Interference.................................................................... 174

AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION iii

 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW

3. Separation of Church and State ................................................................................. 176

G. Liberty of Abode and Right to Travel; Limitations .......................................................... 176
H. Right to Information; Limitations .................................................................................. 178
I. Right to Association ...................................................................................................... 180
J. Non-Impairment of Contracts ........................................................................................ 181
K. Free Access to Courts and Adequate Legal Assistance .................................................... 184
L. Rights under Custodial Investigation.............................................................................. 185
1. Requisites of a Valid Waiver ...................................................................................... 186
2. Exclusionary Rule ..................................................................................................... 187
M. Rights of the Accused .................................................................................................. 187
N. Right against Involuntary Servitude .............................................................................. 196
O. Right against Excessive Fines, and Cruel and Inhumane Punishments ............................ 197
P. Non-imprisonment for Debts ......................................................................................... 199

VII. CITIZENSHIP ........................................................................................................... 200

A. Filipino Citizens ............................................................................................................ 200
B. Acquisition and Loss of Citizenship ................................................................................ 203
C. Retention and Re-acquisition of Citizenship ................................................................... 204
D. Naturalization .............................................................................................................. 206

VIII. LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS................................................................................... 210

A. Public Officers; De Facto and De Jure............................................................................ 210
B. Civil Service; Scope, Appointments, Personnel Actions, and Removal .............................. 214
1. Preventive Suspension and Dismissal from Service ..................................................... 220
2. Illegal Dismissal, Reinstatement, and Back Salaries .................................................... 222
C. Accountability of Public Officers; Ombudsman ............................................................... 222

IX. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW ............................................................................................ 231

A. General Principles......................................................................................................... 231
B. Administrative Agencies; Definition, Types, and Manner of Creation ............................... 232
C. Powers of Administrative Agencies ................................................................................ 234
D. Primary Administrative Jurisdiction ................................................................................ 240
E. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies ......................................................................... 241

X. ELECTION LAW ........................................................................................................... 242

A. Suffrage; Qualification and Disqualification of Voters ..................................................... 242

AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION iv

 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW

B. Registration of Voters; Inclusion and Exclusion Proceedings ........................................... 246

1. Overseas Absentee Voting......................................................................................... 249
2. Local Absentee Voting............................................................................................... 252
3. Persons Deprived of Liberty Voting ............................................................................ 253
C. Political Parties and the Party-List System of Representation .......................................... 254
1. Registration .............................................................................................................. 255
a. Grounds for Refusal or Cancellation of Registration .................................... 257
D. Candidacy.................................................................................................................... 257
1. Certificate of Candidacy ............................................................................................ 257
2. Ministerial Duty of Comelec to Receive Certificates of Candidacy ................................. 258
3. Effect of Filing of Certificate of Candidacy .................................................................. 259
4. Eligibility and Material Misrepresentation .................................................................... 259
5. Withdrawal of Certificates of Candidacy ..................................................................... 263
6. Effects of Denial and Cancellation of Certificate of Candidacy due to Material
Misrepresentation ......................................................................................................... 263
7. Substitution of Candidates ........................................................................................ 263
8. Nuisance Candidates and Effects of Declaration of Nuisance Candidacy ....................... 264
9. Disqualification of Candidates; Effects........................................................................ 266
E. Campaign .................................................................................................................... 267
1. Limitations on Expenses and Prohibited Contributions ................................................ 267
2. Lawful Election Propaganda ...................................................................................... 269
3. Statement of Contributions and Expenses .................................................................. 270
F. Remedies ..................................................................................................................... 271
1. Pre-election .............................................................................................................. 271
a. Petition for Disqualification ........................................................................ 271
b. Petition Not to Give Due Course or Cancel Certificates of Candidacy ............ 272
c. Petition to Declare a Nuisance Candidate ................................................... 273
2. During election ......................................................................................................... 274
a. Petition to Postpone Elections.................................................................... 274
b. Petition to Declare Failure of Elections ....................................................... 274
3. Pre-Proclamation Controversy ................................................................................... 275
4. Post-Proclamation ..................................................................................................... 277
a. Election Contest ........................................................................................ 277
i. Election Protest .............................................................................. 277
ii. Quo warranto ................................................................................ 278
iii. Jurisdiction ................................................................................... 279
G. Prosecution of Election Offenses ................................................................................... 280

AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION v

 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW

XI. LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ............................................................................................. 285

A. Principles of Local Autonomy ........................................................................................ 285
B. Local Government Units................................................................................................ 287
1. Powers of Local Government Units ............................................................................ 287
a. Police Power and General Welfare Clause................................................... 287
b. Eminent Domain and Taxation................................................................... 289
c. Requisites of a Valid Ordinance; Local Initiative and Referendum ................ 291
d. Corporate Powers ..................................................................................... 293
2. Local Elective and Appointive Officials........................................................................ 295
3. Rules of Succession .................................................................................................. 300
4. Term Limitations and Recall ...................................................................................... 303

XII. PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW............................................................................... 308

A. Doctrine of Incorporation and Transformation ............................................................... 308
B. Sources of Obligations in International Law ................................................................... 309
C. Subjects of International Law ....................................................................................... 313
D. Diplomatic and Consular Law ........................................................................................ 317
E. Treaties; Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties ....................................................... 324
F. Nationality and Statelessness ........................................................................................ 327
G. Jurisdiction of States .................................................................................................... 332
1. Territoriality Principle ................................................................................................ 332
2. Nationality Principle .................................................................................................. 333
3. Protective Principle ................................................................................................... 334
4. Universality Principle ................................................................................................. 335
5. Passive Personality Principle ...................................................................................... 335
6. Conflicts of Jurisdiction ............................................................................................. 336
H. Treatment of Aliens; Extradition and Deportation .......................................................... 337
I. International Human Rights Law .................................................................................... 344
J. International Humanitarian Law..................................................................................... 345
1. War Crimes, Genocide, and Other Crimes against Humanity ....................................... 345
2. Jurisdiction and Double Jeopardy .............................................................................. 347
3. Irrelevance of Official Capacity .................................................................................. 347
4. Responsibility of Superiors ........................................................................................ 348
5. Nonprescription ........................................................................................................ 348

AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION vi

 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
I. 1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION
A. Definition, Nature, and Concepts of
the Constitution
NATURE OF A CONSTITUTION
POLITICAL LAW – the branch of public law
which deals with the organization and
operations of the governmental organs of the
State and defines the relations of the State
with the inhabitants of its territory. (People v.
Perfecto, G.R. No. L-18463, Oct. 4, 1922)
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – that branch of
law which treats the nature of constitutions,
their establishment, construction and
interpretation and of the validity of legal
enactments as tested by the criterion of
conformity to the fundamental law. (Black,
Constitutional Law, 1969)
CONSTITUTION – a body of rules and
maxims in accordance with which the powers
of sovereignty are habitually exercised.
(Cooley, Constitutional Limitations, 1868 p.
4)
CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF
THE PHILIPPINES – the document which
serves as the fundamental law of the state;
that written instrument enacted by direct
action of the people by which the
fundamental powers of the government are
established, limited and defined, and by
which those powers are distributed among
the several departments for their safe and
useful exercise, for the benefit of the body
politic. (Malcolm, Philippine Constitutional
Law, 1926)
Date of Effectivity of the 1987
Constitution: February 2, 1987, the date of
the plebiscite, and not on the date its
ratification was proclaimed. (De Leon vs
Esguerra, G.R. No. 78059, August 31, 1987)
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Purpose or Function of a Constitution:
To prescribe the permanent framework of a
system of government; to assign to the
several departments of the government their
responsibilities, powers and duties, and to
establish certain fixed principles on which the
government is founded. (Manila Prince Hotel
vs. GSIS, G.R. No. 122156, February 3, 1997)
Classifications of a Constitution:
1. Written vs. Unwritten
A written constitution’s precepts are
embodied in one document or set of
documents. An unwritten constitution
consists of rules which have not been
integrated into a single, concrete form but
are scattered in various sources, such as
statutes of fundamental character, judicial
decisions, commentaries of publicists,
customs and traditions. (Cruz, Constitutional
Law, 1981)
2. Enacted (Conventional) vs. Evolved
(Cumulative)
A conventional constitution is enacted
formally at a definite time and place following
a conscious or deliberate effort taken by a
constituent body or ruler while cumulative
body is the result of political evolution, not
inaugurated at any specific time but changing
by accretion rather than by any systematic
method. (Cruz, Constitutional Law, 1981)
3. Rigid and Flexible
A rigid constitution is when it may not be
amended except through a special process
distinct from and more involved than the
method of changing ordinary laws while a
flexible constitution is when it may be
changed in the same manner and through
the same body that enacts ordinary
legislation. The Philippine Constitution is
1
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
written, enacted and rigid. (Cruz,
Constitutional Law, 1981)
1. PARTS
Constitution of Liberty (Bill of Rights) – a
series of prescriptions setting forth the
fundamental civil and political rights of the
citizens and imposing certain limitations on
the power of the government as a means of
securing the employment of these rights, e.g.
Art. III.
Constitution of Government
(Governmental Organization and Functions)
– relates to a series of prescriptions outlining
the framework or organization of the
government, enumerating its powers, laying
down certain rules relative to administration
and defining the electorate, e.g. Arts. VI, VII,
VIII, IX.
Constitution of Sovereignty (Method of
Amendment) – provisions pointing out the
mode of procedure by which formal changes
in the fundamental law may be brought
about, e.g. Art. XVII. (Nachura, Outline
Review on Political Law, 2016)
2. MANNER OF INTERPRETATION
1. Verba legis – whenever possible, the
words used in the Constitution must be given
their ordinary meaning except where
technical terms are employed;
2. Ratio legis est anima – words of the
Constitution should be interpreted in
accordance with the intent of the framers;
NOTE: While it is permissible to consult the
debates and proceedings of the constitutional
convention in order to arrive at the reason
and purpose of the resulting Constitution,
resort thereto may be had only when other
guides fail as . . . when the meaning is clear.
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
(Civil Liberties Union vs. Executive Secretary,
G.R. No. 83896, February 22, 1991)
The proceedings of the Convention are less
conclusive in the proper construction of the
fundamental law than are legislative
proceedings of the proper construction of a
statute, for in the latter case, it is the intent
of the legislature the courts seek, while in the
former, courts seek to arrive at the intent of
the people through deliberations of their
representatives. (Integrated Bar of the
Philippines vs. Hon. Ronaldo Zamora, G.R.
No. 141254, August 15, 2000, Puno, C.J.
separate opinion)
3. Ut magis valeat quam pereat – the
Constitution should be interpreted as a
whole. (Francisco vs. House of
Representatives, G.R. No. 160261, November
10, 2003)
SELF-EXECUTING AND NON-SELF
EXECUTING PROVISIONS
SELF-EXECUTING PROVISION – A
provision which is complete in itself and
becomes operative without the aid of
supplementary or enabling legislation, or that
which supplies a sufficient rule by means of
which the right it grants may be enjoyed or
protected. (Manila Prince Hotel vs.
Government Service Insurance System, G.R.
No. 122156, February 3, 1997)
GENERAL RULE: All provisions of the
constitution are presumed to be self-
executing. (Manila Prince Hotel vs.
Government Service Insurance System, G.R.
No. 122156, February 3, 1997)
EXCEPTION: Statements of general
principles, such as those in Art. II, are usually
not self-executing. Other examples in
jurisprudence: constitutional provisions on
personal dignity, sanctity of family life, vital
2
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
role of the youth in nation-building, values of
education, social justice and human rights,
promotion of general welfare, vital role of the
youth in nation-building, promotion of total
human liberation and development are
merely guidelines for legislation.
EXCEPTION TO THE EXCEPTION: The
right to a balanced and healthful ecology is
self-executing. (Oposa vs. Factoran, G.R. No.
101083, July 30, 1993)
🕮 Sec. 10, second par., Art. XII of the
1987 Constitution is also a mandatory,
positive command which is complete in
itself and which needs no further
guidelines or implementing laws or
rules for its enforcement. From its very
words the provision does not require any
legislation to put it in operation. It is per se
judicially enforceable When our Constitution
mandates that in the grant of rights,
privileges, and concessions covering national
economy and patrimony, the State shall give
preference to qualified Filipinos, it means just
that — qualified Filipinos shall be preferred.
(Manila Prince Hotel vs. GSIS, G.R. No.
122156 February 3, 1997)
NON-SELF-EXECUTING PROVISIONS –
Not judicially enforceable constitutional
rights, and can only provide guidelines for
legislation. (Tondo Medical Center Employees
Association vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
167324, July 17, 2007) These provisions
merely lay down general principles.
(Manila Prince Hotel vs. Government Service
Insurance System, G.R. No. 122156,
February 3, 1997)
DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND
STATE POLICIES
1. DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES
a. Democracy and Republicanism
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
The Philippines is a democratic and
republican State. Sovereignty resides in the
people and all government authority
emanates from them. (Sec. 1, Art. II, 1987
Constitution)
The people are possessors of sovereign
power, and the source of all government
authority. This does not mean, however, that
the new constitution allows direct or pure
democracy where the people directly manage
their affairs. The people should not exercise
the powers of government directly. They can
do it only through the medium of duly elected
and appointed public officials. (Nachura,
Outline Reviewer in Political Law, 2016, p. 5)
Manifestations of Republicanism:
(ORABLS)
1. Ours is a government of laws and not
of men (Villavicencio vs. Lukban, G.R.
No. L-14639, March 25, 1919)
2. Rule of majority;
3. Accountability of public officials;
4. Bill of rights;
5. Legislature cannot pass irrepealable
laws; and
6. Separation of powers. (Nachura,
Outline Reviewer in Political Law,
2016, p. 73)
Rule of Law
Ours is a government of laws and not of men.
It is meant that no man in this country is so
high that he is above the law, that no officer
of the law may set the law at defiance with
impunity, and that all officers of the
government are creatures of the law and are
bound to obey it. (Villavicencio vs. Lukban,
G.R. No. L-14639, March 25, 1919);
Rule of the Majority
In elections, majority is plurality. All that a
candidate has to get is the highest number of
votes in order to be declared the winner
without necessarily getting more than 50%
3
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
of the votes cast. Consequently, the will of
the majority may not be thwarted directly or
indirectly. (Nachura, Outline Reviewer in
Political Law, 2016)
Kinds of Majority
b. Renunciation of War
The Philippines renounces war as an
instrument of national policy, adopts the
generally accepted principles of international
law as part of the law of the land, and
adheres to the policy of peace, equality,
justice, freedom, cooperation, and amity with
all nations. (Sec. 2, Art. II, 1987 Constitution)
As a signatory to the United Nations Charter,
the Philippines adheres to Article 2(4) of the
U.N. Charter which says: "All Members shall
refrain in their international relations from
the threat or use of force against the
territorial integrity or political independence
of any state, or in any other manner
inconsistent with the Purposes of the United
Nations." The kind of war renounced is the
war of aggression normally for territorial
aggrandizement.
EXCEPTION: A war, however, where the
country has to defend its honor and integrity
is allowed. The United Nations allows the use
of arms in cases of individual and collective
self-defense. (Bernas, The 1987 Constitution
of the Philippines A Commentary, 2009, p.
60)
Adoption Of International Law
Doctrine Of Incorporation – The
Philippines adopts the generally accepted
principles of international law and
international jurisprudence as part of the law
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
of the land and adheres to the policy of
peace, cooperation, and amity with all
nations. (Bayan Muna vs. Romulo, G.R. No.
159618, February 11, 2001)
The doctrine of incorporation dictates that
the rule of international law is given equal
standing with, and is not superior, to national
legislative enactment. Accordingly, the
principle of lex posterior derogat priori takes
effect. Nevertheless, following the doctrine of
Constitutional supremacy, both statutes
and treaties may be invalidated if they are in
conflict with the Constitution. (Secretary of
Justice vs. Lantion, G.R. No. 111088, June
13, 1997)
Doctrine Of Auto-Limitation – This
doctrine provides for the “property of a state-
force due to which it has the exclusive
capacity of legal self-determination and
self-restriction."
Accordingly, any state may, by its consent,
express or implied, submit to a restriction of
its sovereign rights. There may thus be a
curtailment of what otherwise is a power
plenary in character. A state then, if it
chooses to, may refrain from the exercise of
what otherwise is illimitable competence.
(Raegan vs. Commissioner of Internal
Revenue, G.R. No. L-26379, December 27,
1969)
Conflict between International and
Municipal law: If there is conflict between
Philippine law and international law, efforts
must be made to harmonize the
conflicting provisions. If the conflict is
irreconcilable, and a choice has to be made
between the two, Philippine Law must be
upheld as police power cannot be bargained
away by the medium of a treaty. (Ichong vs
Hernandez, G.R. No. L-7995, May 31, 1957)
4
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
c. Supremacy of Civilian Authority over
Military
Civilian Authority
Civilian authority is, at all times,
supreme over the military. The Armed
Forces of the Philippines (AFP) is the
protector of the people of the State. Its goal
is to secure the sovereignty of the State.
(Sec. 3, Art. II, 1987 Constitution)
Civilian supremacy is not a guaranteed
supremacy of civilian officers who are in
power but of supremacy of the sovereign
people. The Armed Forces, in this sense, "is
the protector of the people and the State."
(Bernas, The 1987 Constitution of the
Philippines A Commentary, 2009, p. 66)
The intent of the phrase "protector of the
people" was to make it act as corrective to
military abuses experienced during martial
rule. There are two thoughts in the
constitutional provision: disapproval of
military abuses and guardianship of state
sovereignty, which of course means
sovereignty of the people. The military
exercise of political power can be justified as
a last resort — when civilian authority has
lost its legitimacy. (Bernas, The 1987
Constitution of the Philippines A government. (Sec. 5[1], Art. XVI,
Commentary, 2009, p. 65)
The deployment of the Marines does not
constitute a breach of the civilian supremacy
clause nor does it infringe the civilian
character of the police force. The calling of
the Marines in this case constitutes
permissible use of military assets for civilian
law enforcement. The participation of the
Marines in the conduct of joint visibility
patrols is appropriately circumscribed. It is
noteworthy that the local police forces are
the ones in charge of the visibility patrols at
all times, the real authority belonging to the
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
PNP. (Integrated Bar of the Philippines vs.
Zamora, G.R. No. 141284, August 15, 2000)
Rationale: The provision was primarily
intended for the people to develop
confidence in running the affairs of the
government. Likewise, it was meant to allay
fears of military takeover of the civilian
government. The military is the sword of the
Republic. It is an instrument for the
preservation of its own existence and the
enforcement of authority. It should not be
used in any form or manner that may coerce
the consent of the people. Thus, the military
must be under the control at all times by the
elected representatives of the people. (Black,
Constitutional Law, 3rd edition, pp.115-116)
The following provisions also ensure
supremacy of the civilian rule over the
military:
1. The installation of the President, the
highest civilian authority, as the
commander-in-chief of all the armed
forces of the Philippines. (Sec. 18,
Art. VII, 1987 Constitution);
2. The requirement that members of the
AFP swear to uphold and defend the
Constitution which is the
fundamental law of the civil
1987 Constitution);
3. The requirement that members of the
AFP shall have respect for people’s
rights in the performance of their
duty. (Sec. 5[2], Art. XVI, 1987
Constitution);
4. Professionalism in the armed forces.
(Sec. 5[3], Art. XVI, 1987
Constitution);
5. Insulation of the AFP from partisan
politics. (Sec. 5[3], Art. XVI, 1987
Constitution);
6. Prohibition against the appointment
of an AFP member in the active
5
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
service to a civilian position. (Sec.
5[4], Art. XVI, 1987 Constitution);
7. Compulsory retirement of officers
without extension of service. (Sec.
5[5], Art. XVI, 1987 Constitution);
8. Requirement of proportional
recruitment from all provinces and
cities, so as to avoid any regional
clique from forming within the AFP.
(Sec. 5[6], Art. XVI, 1987
Constitution);
9. A 3-year limitation on the tour of duty
of the Chief of Staff, which although
extendible in case of emergency by
the President, depends on
Congressional declaration of
emergency.
10. The establishment of a police force
that is not only civilian in character
but also under the local executives.
(Sec. 6, Art. XVI, 1987 Constitution)
Composition of the AFP
The Armed Forces of the Philippines shall be
composed of a citizen armed force which
shall undergo military training and serve, as
may be provided by law. It shall keep a
regular force necessary for the security of the
State. (Sec. 4, Art. XVI, 1987 Constitution)
2. STATE POLICIES
a. Independent Foreign Policy
The State shall pursue an independent
foreign policy. In its relations with other
states the paramount consideration shall be
national sovereignty, territorial integrity,
national interest, and the right to self-
determination. (Sec. 7, Art. II, 1987
Constitution)
b. Promotion Of Social Justice
The state shall promote social justice in all
phases of national development. (Sec. 10,
Art. II, 1987 Constitution)
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
SOCIAL JUSTICE – It is neither
communism, nor despotism, nor atomism,
nor anarchy, but the humanization of laws
and the equalization of social and economic
forces by the State so that justice in its
rational and objectively secular conception
may at least be approximated.
Social justice means the promotion of the
welfare of all the people, the adoption by the
Government of measures calculated to
ensure economic stability of all the
competent elements of society, through the
maintenance of a proper economic and social
equilibrium in the interrelations of the
members of the community, constitutionally,
through the adoption of measures legally
justifiable, or extra- constitutionally, through
the exercise of powers underlying the
existence of all governments on the time-
honored principles of salus populi est
suprema lex. (Calalang vs. Williams, G.R. No.
47800, December 02, 1940)
c. Sanctity of Family and Vital Role of
Youth in Nation Building
The Family As Basic Autonomous Social
Institution
The State recognizes the sanctity of family
life and shall protect and strengthen the
family as a basic autonomous social
institution. It shall equally protect the life of
the mother and the life of the unborn from
conception. The natural and primary right
and duty of parents in the rearing of the
youth for civic efficiency and the
development of moral character shall receive
the support of the Government. (Sec. 12, Art.
II, 1987 Constitution)
Vital Role of Youth
The State recognizes the vital role of the
youth in nation-building and shall promote
6
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW

and protect their physical, moral, spiritual,
intellectual, and social well-being. It shall
inculcate in the youth patriotism and
nationalism, and encourage their
involvement in public and civic affairs. (Sec.
13, Art. II, 1987 Constitution)
B. AMENDMENT AND REVISION (1987
CONST., Art. XVII, secs. 1-4; R.A. No. 6735)
Salient Provisions
Any amendment to, or revision of, this
Constitution may be proposed by:
(1) The Congress, upon a vote of three-
fourths of all its Members; or
(2) A constitutional convention. (Sec. 1,
Art. XVII, 1987 Constitution)
earlier than sixty days nor later than ninety
days after the approval of such amendment
or revision.
Any amendment under Section 2 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 certification by the
Commission on Elections of the sufficiency of
the petition. (Sec. 4, Art. XVII, 1987
Constitution)
Distinction between Amendment and
Revision
AMENDMENT REVISION

Amendments to this Constitution may An addition or A change that

likewise be directly proposed by the people change within the alters a basic
through initiative upon a petition of at least lines of the principle in the
twelve per centum of the total number of original constitution, like
registered voters, of which every legislative constitution that altering the principle
district must be represented by at least three will affect an of separation of
per centum of the registered voters therein. improvement, or powers or the
No amendment under this section shall be better carry out the system of checks-
authorized within five years following the purpose for which it and-balances;
ratification of this Constitution nor oftener was framed; a alters the
than once every five years thereafter. change that adds, substantial
reduces or deletes entirety of the
The Congress shall provide for the without altering constitution, as
implementation of the exercise of this right. the basic when the change
(Sec. 2, Art. XVII, 1987 Constitution) principles affects substantial
involved; affects provisions of the
The Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of only the specific constitution.
all its Members, call a constitutional provision being (Lambino vs.
convention, or by a majority vote of all its amended. Commission on
Members, submit to the electorate the Elections, G.R. No.
question of calling such a convention. (Sec. 174153, October 25,
3, Art. XVII, 1987 Constitution) 2006)

Any amendment to, or revision of, this 🕮 The framers of the Constitution intended
Constitution under Section 1 hereof shall be and wrote a clear distinction between
valid when ratified by a majority of the votes “amendment” and “revision” of the
cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not Constitution by setting that only Congress or

AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION 7

 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
a constitutional convention may propose
revisions to the Constitution. On the other
hand, a people’s initiative may propose only
amendments to the Constitution. Where the
intent and language of the Constitution
clearly withhold from the people the power to
propose revisions to the Constitution, the
people cannot propose revisions even
as they are empowered to propose
amendments. (Lambino vs. Commission on
Elections, G.R. No. 174153, October 25,
2006)
Legal Tests
Quantitative Test – The Court examines
only the number of provisions affected
and does not consider the degree of the
change. The quantitative test asks whether
the proposed change is so extensive in its
provisions as to change directly the
‘substantial entirety’ of the constitution by
the deletion or alteration of numerous
existing provisions. (Lambino vs. Commission
on Elections, G.R. No. 174153, October 25,
2006)
Qualitative Test – The Court inquired into
the qualitative effects of the proposed
change in the Constitution. The main inquiry
is whether or not the change will
“accomplish such far reaching changes
in the nature of our basic governmental
plan as to amount to a revision.” The
changes include those to the “fundamental
framework or the fundamental powers of its
branches,” and those that “jeopardize the
traditional form of government and the
system of checks and balances.” Whether
there is an alteration in the structure of
government is a proper subject of inquiry.
(Lambino vs. Commission on Elections, G.R.
No. 174153, October 25, 2006)
🕮 CONSTITUENT POWER – power to
formulate a Constitution or to propose
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
amendments to or revision of the
Constitution and to ratify such proposal. The
power is exercised by Congress, by
Constitutional Convention or Commission, by
the people through initiative and referendum,
and ultimately by the sovereign electorate.
This also does not need the approval of the
Chief Executive. (Sanidad vs. Commission on
Elections, G.R. L-44640, October 12, 1976)
Procedure To Amend Or Revise The
Constitution
Steps in Amendatory Process
PROPOSAL (Secs. 1-3, Art. XVII, 1987
Constitution) – The adoption of the
suggested change in the Constitution. A
proposed amendment may come from:
a. Congress, acting as a Constituent
Assembly, by a vote of 3⁄4 of ALL its
members. (Sec. 1, Art. XVII, 1987
Constitution
🕮 Although Section 1, Article XVII of the
Constitution did not expressly provide that
the Senate and the House of Representatives
must vote separately, when the Legislature
consists of two (2) houses, the determination
of one house is to be submitted to the
separate determination of the other house.
(Miller vs. Mardo, G.R. No. L-15138, July 31,
1961)
In other words, what is needed in a
Constituent Assembly is a 3⁄4 vote of ALL
members of the House of Representatives
and ALL members of the Senate, voting
separately.
General Rule: A constituent assembly may
propose any change in the constitution.
Exception: A constituent assembly may not
propose anything that is inconsistent with
8
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
what is known, particularly in international
law, as jus cogens. (Planas vs. Commission
on Elections, G.R. No. L-35925, January 22,
1973)
b. Constitutional Convention, called into
existence by (a) 2/3 of all members of the
Congress, or (b) the electorate, in a
referendum called for by a majority of all
members of Congress. (Sec. 1, Art. XVII,
1987 Constitution)
🕮 The Constitutional Convention is
independent and co-equal to other
departments. (Mabanag vs. Lopez Vito, G.R.
No. L-1123, March 5, 1947)
c. People (through People’s Initiative) – A
petition of at least 12% of the total number
of registered voters, of which every
legislative district must be represented by at
least 3% of the registered voters therein.
(Sec. 5[b], Republic Act No. 6735)
Limitation on Initiative: No amendment
shall be authorized within 5 years following
the ratification of the 1987 Constitution nor
more often than once every 5 years
thereafter. (Sec. 5[b], Republic Act No. 6735)
🕮 Constitutional provision on amendments
via People’s Initiative not self-executory.
(Santiago vs Commission on Elections, G.R.
No. 127325, March 19, 1997)
RATIFICATION – The proposed
amendment shall be submitted to the people
and shall be deemed ratified by the majority
of the votes cast in the plebiscite, held not
earlier than 60 days nor later than 90 days
(a) after approval of the proposal by
Congress of Constitutional Convention; or (b)
after certification of the COMELEC of
sufficiency of petition of the people. (Sec. 4,
Art. XVII, 1987 Constitution)
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
DOCTRINE OF PROPER SUBMISSION –
The entire Constitution must be submitted for
ratification at one plebiscite only. The people
must have a proper “frame of reference.” No
“piecemeal submission,” e.g. submission of
age requirement ahead of other proposed
amendments (Tolentino vs. Commission on
Elections, G.R. No. L-34150, October 16,
1971).
🕮 The process of revision is the same in all
respects, except that it cannot be proposed
via a People’s Initiative. (Lambino vs.
Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 174153,
October 25, 2006)
Matters which may be reviewed by the
court:
1. Whether or not a proposal was
approved by the required number of
votes of Congress;
2. Whether or not the approved
proposals were properly submitted to
the people for ratification. (Tolentino
vs. Commission on Elections, G.R.
No. L-34150, October 16, 1971)
Initiative and Referendum
The power of initiative and referendum may
be exercised by all registered voters of the
country, autonomous regions, provinces,
cities, municipalities and barangays. (Sec. 4,
Republic Act No. 6735)
9
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
Plebiscite
“Plebiscite” is the electoral process by which
an initiative on the Constitution is approved
or rejected by the people. (Sec. 3[e],
Republic Act No. 6735)
Initiative
“Initiative” is the power of the people to
propose amendments to the Constitution or
to propose and enact legislations through an
election called for the purpose. (Sec. 3[a],
Republic Act No. 6735)
3 Systems of Initiative
1. Initiative on the Constitution
which refers to a petition proposing
amendments to the Constitution;
2. Initiative on statutes which refers
to a petition proposing to enact a
national legislation; and
3. Initiative on local legislation
which refers to a petition proposing
to enact a regional, provincial, city,
municipal, or barangay law,
resolution or ordinance. (Sec. 3[a.1-
a.3], Republic Act No. 6735)
Local Initiative
Not less than two thousand (2,000)
registered voters in case of autonomous
regions, one thousand (1,000) in case of
provinces and cities, one hundred (100) in
case of municipalities, and fifty (50) in case
of barangays, may file a petition with the
Regional Assembly or local legislative body,
respectively, proposing the adoption,
enactment, repeal, or amendment, of any
law, ordinance or resolution. (Sec. 13,
Republic Act No. 6735)
Limitations on Local Initiative
(a) The power of local initiative shall not
be exercised more than once a year.
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
(b) Initiative shall extend only to subjects
or matters which are within the legal
powers of the local legislative bodies
to enact.
(c) If at any time before the initiative is
held, the local legislative body shall
adopt in toto the proposition
presented, the initiative shall be
cancelled. However, those against
such action may, if they so desire,
apply for initiative in the manner
herein provided. (Sec. 15, Republic
Act No. 6735)
Limitation on Local Legislative Body
vis-à-vis Local Initiative
Any proposition or ordinance approved
through the system of initiative and
referendum as herein provided shall not be
repealed, modified, or amended by the
sanggunian concerned within six (6) months
from the date of the approval thereof, and
may be amended, modified or repealed by
the sanggunian within three (3) years
thereafter by a vote of three-fourths (3/4) of
all its members: In case of barangays, the
period shall be eighteen (18) months after
the approval thereof. (Sec. 125, Republic Act
No. 7160)
Referendum
“Referendum” is the power of the
electorate to approve or reject a legislation
through an election called for the purpose. It
may be of two classes, namely:
1. Referendum on statutes which refers
to a petition to approve or reject an
act or law, or part thereof, passed by
Congress; and
2. Referendum on local law which refers
to a petition to approve or reject a
law, resolution or ordinance enacted
by regional assemblies and local
10
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
legislative bodies. (Sec. 3[c],
Republic Act No. 6735)
The Power to Hold A Referendum is Not
Plenary
The following cannot be the subject of an
initiative or referendum petition:
(a) No petition embracing more than one
(1) subject shall be submitted to the
electorate; and
(b) Statutes involving emergency
measures, the enactment of which
are specifically vested in Congress by
the Constitution, cannot be subject to
referendum until ninety (90) days
after its effectivity. (Sec. 10, Republic
Act No. 6735)
Initiative vs Referendum
(SBMA vs Comelec, G.R. 125416, September
26, 1996)
In initiative and referendum, the Comelec
exercises administration and supervision of
the process itself, akin to its powers over the
conduct of elections. These law-making
powers belong to the people, hence the
Comelec cannot control or change the
substance or the content of legislation. In the
exercise of its authority, it may (in fact it
should have done so already) issue relevant
and adequate guidelines and rules for the
orderly exercise of these "people-power"
features of our Constitution. (SBMA vs
Comelec, G.R. 125416, September 26, 1996)
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
C. NATIONAL TERRITORY (1987 CONST.,
art. I; UNCLOS, arts 1, 3-8, 33, 46-48, 50 and
55-88)
NATIONAL TERRITORY
The national territory comprises the
Philippine archipelago, with all the islands
and waters embraced therein, and all the
other territories over which the Philippines
has sovereignty or jurisdiction, consisting of
its terrestrial, fluvial, and aerial domains,
including its territorial sea, the seabed, the
subsoil, the insular shelves, and other
submarine areas. The waters around,
between and connecting the islands of the
archipelago, regardless of their breadth and
dimensions, form part of the internal waters
of the Philippines. (Art. I, 1987 Constitution)
Territory
The territory of a State includes not only the
land over which its jurisdiction extends, but
also the rivers, lakes, bays and airspace
above it. The domain of a State therefore
may be described as terrestrial, fluvial or
maritime. (Magsalin, Philippine Political Law,
2017, p. 52)
1. SCOPE (Terrestrial, Aerial, and Fluvial
Domains)
The territorial domain includes properties
of public dominion as well as properties of
private ownership. Properties of public
dominion include those for public use, those
for public service, and those for the
development of the national wealth. (Paras,
International law and world politics, 1994, p.
257)
The aerial domain of the Philippines
includes the air directly above its terrestrial
and fluvial domains. All the air that lies above
our land territory and our water territory
belongs to us, all the way up to outer space
where there is no more air. The aerial domain
11
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
extends up to where outer space begins,
directly over our land and water territories.
(Bernas, The 1987 Constitution of the
Philippines A Commentary, 2009, p. 32)
The maritime or fluvial domain consists
of rivers, lakes, bays, gulfs, straits and
canals. Theoretically, there are two (2) kinds
of waters:
1. The internal or inland national waters
(these are completely within the
territory); and
2. The external or territorial or maritime
waters (those found within the
maritime or territorial zone, along the
coastline). (Paras, International law
and world politics, 1994, p. 258)
TERRITORIAL SEA
The territorial sea is a belt of sea outwards
from the baseline and up to 12 nautical miles
beyond. The width of this territorial belt of
water has been the subject of much
disagreement. The original rule was the
“cannon shot” rule, that is, the width of water
was measured in terms of the range of shore-
based artillery. Later this became the three-
mile rule. The three-mile rule has now been
discarded in favor of the twelve-mile rule now
found in Article 3 of the 1982 Law of the Sea.
(Art. 3, United Nations Convention on the
Law of the Sea)
OUTER LIMIT OF THE TERRITORIAL
SEA
The outer limit of the territorial sea is the line
every point of which is at a distance from the
nearest point of the baseline equal to the
breadth of the territorial sea. (Art. 4, United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea)
NORMAL BASELINE METHOD
Except where otherwise provided in this
Convention, the normal baseline for
measuring the breadth of the territorial sea is
the low-water line along the coast as marked
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
on large-scale charts officially recognized by
the coastal State. (Art. 5, United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea)
REEFS
In the case of islands situated on atolls or of
islands having fringing reefs, the baseline for
measuring the breadth of the territorial sea is
the seaward low-water line of the reef, as
shown by the appropriate symbol on charts
officially recognized by the coastal State.
(Art. 6, United Nations Convention on the
Law of the Sea)
STRAIGHT BASELINE METHOD
Consists of drawing straight lines connecting
appropriate points on the coast without
departing to any appreciable extent from the
general direction of the coast, in order to
delineate the internal waters from the
territorial waters of an archipelago. (Art.
7[3], United Nations Convention on the Law
of the Sea)
INTERNAL WATERS
1. Except as provided in Part IV, waters
on the landward side of the baseline
of the territorial sea form part of the
internal waters of the State.
2. Where the establishment of a straight
baseline in accordance with the
method set forth in Article 7 has the
effect of enclosing as internal waters
areas which had not previously been
considered as such, a right of
innocent passage as provided in this
Convention shall exist in those
waters. (Art. 8, United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea)
CONTIGUOUS ZONE
The contiguous zone is an area of water not
exceeding 24 nautical miles from the
baseline. It thus extends 12 nautical miles
from the edge of the territorial sea. The
coastal state exercises authority over that
12
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
area to the extent necessary to prevent
infringement of its customs, fiscal,
immigration or sanitation authority over its
territorial waters or territory and to punish
such infringement. (Art. 33, United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea)
ARCHIPELAGO AND ARCHIPELAGIC
STATES
(a) "archipelagic State" means a State
constituted wholly by one or more
archipelagos and may include other
islands;
(b) "archipelago" means a group of
islands, including parts of islands,
interconnecting waters and other
natural features which are so closely
interrelated that such islands, waters
and other natural features form an
intrinsic geographical, economic and
political entity, or which historically
have been regarded as such. (Art. 46,
United Nations Convention on the
Law of the Sea)
ARCHIPELAGIC BASELINE
An archipelagic State can establish straight
baselines by connecting the outermost points
of its islands and drying reefs, as long as
these baselines enclose the main islands and
an area with a specific ratio of water to land.
The length of these baselines is generally
limited to 100 nautical miles, with exceptions
for a small percentage that can extend up to
125 nautical miles. The configuration of the
baselines should reflect the overall shape of
the archipelago and should not cut off
another state's territorial sea. If an
archipelagic state's waters lie between two
neighboring states, the rights and interests of
those states in those waters should be
respected. The ratio of water to land includes
areas within fringing reefs and enclosed
oceanic plateaus. These baselines must be
accurately depicted on charts or lists of
geographical coordinates, which must be
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
made publicly available and deposited with
the United Nations Secretary-General. (Art.
47, United Nations Convention on the Law of
the Sea)
EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE
(PATRIMONIAL SEA)
The exclusive economic zone is an area
beyond and adjacent to the territorial sea,
subject to the specific legal regime
established in this Part, under which the
rights and jurisdiction of the coastal State
and the rights and freedoms of other States
are governed by the relevant provisions of
this Convention. (Art. 55, United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea)
RIGHTS, JURISDICTION AND DUTIES
OF THE COASTAL STATE IN THE
EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE
1. In the exclusive economic zone, the
coastal State has:
(a) sovereign rights for the purpose of
exploring and exploiting,
conserving and managing the
natural resources, whether living
or non-living, of the waters
superjacent to the seabed and of the
seabed and its subsoil, and with
regard to other activities for the
economic exploitation and
exploration of the zone, such as the
production of energy from the water,
currents and winds;
(b) jurisdiction with regard to: (i) the
establishment and use of artificial
islands, installations and structures;
(ii) marine scientific research; (iii) the
protection and preservation of the
marine environment;
(c) other rights and duties provided for
in this Convention.
2. In exercising its rights and performing its
duties under this Convention in the exclusive
economic zone, the coastal State shall have
13
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
due regard to the rights and duties of other
States and shall act in a manner compatible
with the provisions of this Convention. (Art.
56, United Nations Convention on the Law of
the Sea)
BREADTH OF THE EXCLUSIVE
ECONOMIC ZONE
The exclusive economic zone shall not extend
beyond 200 nautical miles from the baselines
from which the breadth of the territorial sea
is measured. (Art. 57, United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea)
RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF OTHER STATES
IN THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE
1. In the exclusive economic zone, all
States, whether coastal or land-
locked, enjoy the freedoms referred
to in article 87 of navigation and
overflight and of the laying of
submarine cables and pipelines, and
other internationally lawful uses of
the sea related to these freedoms,
such as those associated with the
operation of ships, aircraft and
submarine cables and pipelines, and
compatible with the other provisions
of this Convention.
2. Articles 88 to 115 and other pertinent
rules of international law apply to the
exclusive economic zone in so far as
they are not incompatible with this
Part.
3. In exercising their rights and
performing their duties under this
Convention in the exclusive economic
zone, States shall have due regard to
the rights and duties of the coastal
State and shall comply with the laws
and regulations adopted by the
coastal State in accordance with the
provisions of this Convention and
other rules of international law in so
far as they are not incompatible with
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
this Part. (Art. 58, United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea)
CONTINENTAL (ARCHIPELAGIC) SHELF
The continental shelf, archipelagic or insular
shelf for archipelagos, refers to:
(a) the seabed and subsoil of the
submarine areas adjacent to the
coastal state but outside the
territorial sea, to a depth of two
hundred meters or, beyond that limit,
to where the depth allows
exploitation; and
(b) the seabed and subsoil of areas
adjacent to islands. (Art. 76, United
Nations Convention on the Law of the
Sea)
Note: The coastal state has the right to
explore and exploit its natural resources, to
erect installations needed, and to erect a
safety zone over its installations with a radius
of 500 meters. The right does not affect the
right of navigation of others. Moreover, the
right does not extend to non-resource
material in the shelf area such as wrecked
ship and their cargoes. (Art. 77, United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea)
D. SEPARATION OF POWERS, AND
CHECKS AND BALANCES
SEPARATION OF POWERS
The separation of powers is a fundamental
principle in our system of government. It
obtains not through express provision
but by actual division in our
Constitution. Each department of the
government has exclusive cognizance of
matters within its jurisdiction, and is supreme
within its own sphere. But it does not follow
from the fact that the three powers are to be
kept separate and distinct that the
Constitution intended them to be absolutely
unrestrained and independent of each other.”
14
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
(Angara vs. Electoral Commission, G.R. No.
L-45081, July 15, 1936)
The 3 co-equal part branches of government
are each supreme and independent within
the limits of its own sphere. Neither one can
interfere with the performance of the duties
of the other. (Forbes vs. Chuoco, G.R. No. L-
6157, July 30, 1979)
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. (Sec. 1, Art. VI,
1987 Constitution)
The executive power shall be vested in the
President of the Philippines. (Sec. 1, Art. VII,
1987 Constitution)
The judicial power shall be vested in one
Supreme Court and in such lower courts as
may be established by law. (Sec. 1, Art. VIII,
1987 Constitution)
Purpose: To prevent concentration of
authority in one person or group of persons
that might lead to an irreversible error or
abuse in its exercise to the detriment of the
republican institutions. (Bernas, The 1987
Constitution of the Republic of the
Philippines: A Commentary, 2009, p.668)
The Constitution has blocked out with
deft strokes and in bold lines, allotment
of power to the executive, the
legislative and the judicial departments
of the government. The overlapping and
interlacing of functions and duties between
the several departments, however,
sometimes makes it hard to say just where
the one leaves off and the other begins. In
times of social disquietude or political
excitement, the great landmarks of the
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Constitution are apt to be forgotten or
marred, if not entirely obliterated.
In cases of conflict, the judicial
department is the only constitutional
organ which can be called upon to
determine the proper allocation of
powers between the several departments
and among the integral or constituent units
thereof. (Angara vs. Electoral Commission,
G.R. No. L-45081, July 15, 1936)
Violation of the Doctrine of Separation
of Powers by the Congressional Pork
Barrel System
The defining feature of all forms of
Congressional Pork Barrel would be the
authority of legislators to participate in the
post enactment phases of project
implementation. At its core, legislators – may
it be through project lists, prior consultations
or program menus – have been consistently
accorded post- enactment authority to
identify the projects they desire to be funded
through various Congressional Pork Barrel
allocations.
Aside from the area of project identification,
legislators have also been accorded post
enactment authority in the areas of fund
release and realignment. Clearly, these
post- enactment measures which
govern the areas of project
identification, fund release and fund
realignment are not related to
functions of congressional oversight.
These constitute impermissible
intervention and/or assumption of
duties that properly belong to the
sphere of budget execution. (Belgica vs.
Ochoa, Jr., G.R. No. 208566, November 19,
2013)
15
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
Violation of the Doctrine of Separation
of Powers by the Disbursement
Acceleration Program
In the funding of current activities, projects,
and programs, the general rule should still be
that the budgetary amount contained in the
appropriations bill is the extent Congress will
determine as sufficient for the budgetary
allocation for the proponent agency. The only
exception is found in Section 25 (5), Article
VI of the Constitution, by which 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 are
authorized to transfer appropriations to
augment any item in the General
Appropriations Act (GAA) for their respective
offices from the savings in other items of
their respective appropriations.
The Disbursement Acceleration Program
violated the doctrine of separation of powers
through the following acts and practices:
a. The withdrawal of unobligated
allotments from the implementing
agencies, and the declaration of the
withdrawn unobligated allotments
and unreleased appropriations as
savings prior to the end of the fiscal
year and without complying with the
statutory definition of savings
contained in the General
Appropriations Acts;
b. The cross-border transfers of the
savings of the Executive to augment
the appropriations of other offices
outside the Executive; and
c. programs that were not covered by
any appropriation in the GAA.
(Araullo vs. Aquino, G.R. No. 209287,
July 1, 2014)
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
CHECKS AND BALANCES IN RELATION
TO SEPARATION OF POWERS
In essence, separation of powers means that
legislation belongs to Congress, execution to
the executive, settlement of legal
controversies to the judiciary. Each is
prevented from invading the domain of the
others. But the separation is not total. The
system allows for "checks and balances" - the
net effect of which being that, in general, no
one department is able to act without
the cooperation of at least one of the
other departments. The purpose of
separation of powers and "checks and
balances" is to prevent concentration of
powers in one department and thereby to
avoid tyranny. (Bernas, The 1987
Constitution of the Republic of the
Philippines: A Commentary, 2009, p.678)
By means of the check and balances, the
officers of the several departments are kept
within their jurisdiction, and if they are
disregarded in any case, and power is
usurped or abused, the remedy is by
impeachment, and not by another
department of the government attempting to
correct the wrong by asserting a superior
authority over that which by the constitution
is its equal. (Alejandrino vs. Quezon, G.R. No.
22041, September 11, 1924)
But it does not follow from the fact that the
three powers are to be kept separate and
distinct that the Constitution intended them
to be absolutely unrestrained and
independent of each other. The Constitution
has provided for an elaborate system of
checks and balances to secure coordination
in the workings of the various departments of
the government.” (Angara vs. Electoral
Commission, G.R. No. L-45081, July 15,
1936)
16
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
Congressional oversight is not per se
violative, but is integral, to separation of
powers. (Abakada Guro Partylist vs. Purisima,
G.R. No. 166715, August 14, 2008)
A legislative veto, i.e. statutory provision
(which may take the form of a congressional
oversight committee) that requires the
President or an agency to submit the
proposed implementing rules and regulations
of a law to Congress for approval, is
unconstitutional. It encroaches on: (1) The
executive - it allows Congress to take a direct
role in the enforcement of its laws; (2) The
judiciary - administrative issuances enjoy a
presumption of validity, and only the courts
may decide whether or not they conform to
statutes or the Constitution. (Abakada Guro
Partylist vs. Purisima, G.R. No. 166715,
August 14, 2008)
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.
To recount, insofar as it has allowed
legislators to wield, in varying gradations,
non-oversight, post-enactment authority in
vital areas of budget execution, the system
has violated the principle of separation of
powers; insofar as 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, it
has similarly violated the principle of non-
delegability of legislative power; 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. (Belgica vs. Executive
Secretary, G.R. Nos. 208566, 208493,
209251, November 19, 2013)
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Section 8(2) of RA No. 6770, providing that
the President may remove a Deputy
Ombudsman, is unconstitutional. Subjecting
the Deputy Ombudsman to discipline and
removal by the President, whose own alter
egos and officials in the Executive
department are subject to the Ombudsman’s
disciplinary authority, cannot but seriously
place at risk the independence of the Office
of the Ombudsman itself. Section 8(2) of R.A.
No. 6770 intruded upon the constitutionally-
granted independence of the Office of the
Ombudsman. By so doing, the law directly
collided not only with the independence that
the Constitution guarantees to the Office of
the Ombudsman, but inevitably with the
principle of checks and balances that the
creation of an Ombudsman office seeks to
revitalize. What is true for the Ombudsman
must equally and necessarily be true for her
Deputies who act as agents of the
Ombudsman in the performance of their
duties. The Ombudsman can hardly be
expected to place her complete trust in her
subordinate officials who are not as
independent as she is, if only because they
are subject to pressures and controls external
to her Office. (Gonzales III vs. Office of the
President, G.R. No. 196231, January 28,
2014)
E. STATE IMMUNITY (1987 CONSTI., art.
XVI, sec. 3; P.D. No. 1445)
STATE – A community of persons, more or
less numerous, permanently occupying a
definite portion of territory, independent of
external control, and possessing an
organized government to which a great body
of the inhabitants render habitual obedience;
a politically organized sovereign community
independent of outside control bound by ties
of nationhood, legally supreme within its
territory, acting through a government
functioning under a regime of law.
(Commission on Internal Revenue vs.
17
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
Campos Rueda, G.R. No. L-13250, October
29, 1971)
DOCTRINE OF ROYAL PREROGATIVE OF
DISHONESTY – There can be no legal right
against the authority that makes the law on
which the rights depend. (Republic of the
Philippines vs. Villasor, G.R. No. L-30671,
November 28, 1973)
Constitutional Basis: The State may not
be sued without its consent. (Sec. 3, Art. XVI,
1987 Constitution)
International Law Basis: Immunity from
jurisdiction is enjoyed by both the head of
state and by the state itself. (Bernas,
Introduction to Public International Law,
2009, p. 192)
Jurisprudential Basis:
Positivist Theory – There can be no legal
right as against the authority that makes the
laws on which the right depends.
(Kawananakoa vs. Polybank, 205 U.S. 349,
1907)
Sociological theory – If the State is
amenable to suits, all its time would be spent
defending itself from suits and this would
prevent it from performing its other
functions. (Republic vs. Villasor, G.R. No. L-
3067, November 28, 1973)
Ratio of the Doctrine of State
Immunity: It is obvious that indiscriminate
suits against the state will result in the
impairment of its dignity, besides being a
challenge to its supposed infallibility. To
Justice Holmes, however, the doctrine of
non-suability is based not on “any formal
conception or obsolete theory but on the
logical and practical ground that there can be
no legal right against the authority which
makes the law on which the right depends.”
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Another justification is the practical
consideration that demands and
inconveniences of litigation will divert the
time and resources of the State from the
more pressing matters, demanding its
attention, to the prejudice of the public
welfare (Cruz and Cruz, Philippine Political
Law, p. 48).
All states are sovereign equals and cannot
assert jurisdiction over one another,
consonant with the public international law
principle of par in parem non habet
imperium. A contrary disposition would
"unduly vex the peace of nations" (Arigo vs.
Swift, G.R. No. 206510, September 16,
2014).
The following are immune from suit
under international law:
1. The Head of State, who is the
personification of the State;
2. The State’s diplomatic agents,
including consuls, to a certain extent;
and
3. A foreign agent, operating within a
territory, as long as it can be
established that he is acting within
the directives of the sending state.
(Minucher vs. Court of Appeals, G.R.
No. 142396, February 11, 2003);
4. The United Nations, as well as its
organs and specialized agencies; and
5. Other international organizations or
international agencies may be
immune from the jurisdiction of local
courts and local administrative
tribunals. (SEAFDEC vs. National
Labor Relations Commission, G.R.
No. 86773, February 14, 1992)
Test if suit is against the State: Whether
the enforcement of a decision, rendered
against the public officer or the agency
impleaded requires an affirmative act from
the State, such as the appropriation of the
18
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
needed amount to satisfy the judgment.
(Sanders vs. Veridiano, G.R. No. L-46930,
June 10, 1988)
HOW STATE’S CONSENT IS GIVEN
A. Express Consent: Effected only by will
of the legislature through the medium of a
duly enacted statute; may be embodied
either in a general law or a specific law.
(Republic vs. Feliciano, G.R. No. 70853,
March 12, 1987)
General Law: Authorizes any person who
meets the conditions stated in the law to sue
the government in accordance with the
procedure in law.
An example of a general law granting consent
is C.A. No. 327, as amended by P.D. No.
1445, which requires that all money claims
against the government must first be filed
with the Commission on Audit before suit is
instituted in court.
The primary jurisdiction to examine, audit
and settle all claims of any sort due from the
Government or any of its subdivisions,
agencies and instrumentalities pertains to the
Commission on Audit (COA) pursuant to
Presidential Decree No. 1445 (Government
Auditing Code of the Philippines). All money
claims against the Government must first be
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
filed with the Commission on Audit which
must act upon it within sixty days. Rejection
of the claim will authorize the claimant to
elevate the matter to the Supreme Court on
certiorari and in effect, sue the State thereby
(P.D. 1445, Sections 49-50). (UP vs. Dizon,
G.R. No. 171182, August 23, 2012)
Special Law: Specific consent is given when
a law is enacted authorizing a particular
person to bring a specified suit against the
government in respect to a particular claim or
cause.
By virtue of P.D. No. 1620, the grant of
immunity to International Rice Research
Institute is clear and unequivocal, and the
express waiver by its Director General is the
only way by which it may relinquish this
immunity. (Callado vs. IRRI, G.R.No. 106483,
May 22, 1995)
B. Implied Consent
a. When the State enters into a business
contract or itself commences litigation;
b. If the government files a complaint,
defendant may file a counterclaim
against it;
c. When the State files complaint,
suability will result only where the
government is claiming affirmative
relief from the defendant;
d. When it would be inequitable for the
State to invoke its immunity;
e. In instances when the State takes
private property for public use or
purpose. (DOTC vs Spouses Abecina,
G.R. No. 206484, June 29, 2016)
🕮 When the State enters into a business
contract, a distinction must be made between
contracts entered into by the State in jure
imperii (sovereign acts) and in jure gestionis
(commercial or proprietary acts). (U.S. vs
Ruiz, G.R. No. L-35645, May 22, 1985)
19
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
🕮 Where the contract is in pursuit of a
sovereign activity, there is no waiver of
immunity, and no implied consent may be
derived therefrom. In U. S. v. Ruiz, it was
held that the contract for the repair of
wharves was a contract in jus imperii,
because the wharves were to be used in
national defense, a governmental function.
(U.S. vs Ruiz, G.R. No. L-35645, May 22,
1985)
In Republic (PCGG) v. Sandiganbayan, 227
shares in Negros Occidental Golf and Country
Club, Inc. owned and registered in the name
of Benedicto were sequestered and taken
over by PCGG fiscal agents. In a suit for
payment of dues of the sequestered shares,
the Supreme Court held that by entering into
a Compromise Agreement with Benedicto,
the Republic thereby stripped itself of its
immunity from suit and placed itself in the
same level of its adversary. When the State
enters into contract, through its officers or
agents, in furtherance of a legitimate aim and
purpose and pursuant to constitutional
legislative authority, whereby mutual or
reciprocal benefits accrue and rights and
obligations arise therefrom, the State may be
sued even without its express consent,
precisely because by entering into a contract
the sovereign descends to the level of the
citizen. Its consent to be sued is implied from
the very act of entering into such contract,
breach of which on its part gives the
corresponding right to the other party to the
agreement. (Republic v. Sandiganbayan,
G.R. No. 129406, March 6, 2006)
Specific Rules
Suits against government agencies
Immunity from suits is determined by the
character of the objects for which the entity
was organized. (Malong vs. Philippine
National Railways, G.R. No. L-49930, August
7, 1985)
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
a. Incorporated: If the charter provides
that the agency can sue and be sued, then
the suit will prosper, including one for tort.
The provision in the charter constitutes
express consent on the part of the State to
be sued. (Metropolitan Transportation
Service vs. Paredes, G.R. No. L-1232
January 12, 1948)
There should be no question on this score
considering that the SSS is a juridical entity
with a personality of its own. It has corporate
powers separate and distinct from the
Government. SSS' own organic act
specifically provides that it can sue and be
sued in Court.
The words "sue and be sued" embrace all civil
process incident to a legal action. So that,
even assuming that the SSS, as it claims,
enjoys immunity from suit as an entity
performing governmental functions, by virtue
of the explicit provision of the enabling law,
the Government must be deemed to have
waived immunity in respect of the SSS,
although it does not thereby concede its
liability. (SSS vs CA, G.R. No. L-41299,
February 21, 1983)
Municipal corporations are agencies of the
State when they are engaged in
governmental functions and therefore should
enjoy the sovereign immunity from suit.
Nevertheless, they are subject to suit even in
the performance of such functions because
their charter provided that they can sue and
be sued. (Municipality Of San Fernando, La
Union vs. Firme, G.R. No. L-52179, April 8,
1991)
b. Unincorporated: Inquire into the
principal functions of the agency:
i. If governmental, NO suit without consent;
ii. If proprietary, suit will prosper because
when the State engages in principally
proprietary functions, then it descends to the
20
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
level of a private individual. (Department of
Health vs. Phil Pharma Wealth, Inc., G.R. No.
182358, February 20, 2013)
Suits against Local Government Units
Every local government unit shall have the
power to sue and be sued. (Sec. 22, Local
Government Code)
Municipal corporations are agencies of the
State when they are engaged in
governmental functions and, therefore,
should enjoy the sovereign immunity from
suit. However, they are subject to suit even
in the performance of such functions because
their respective charters provide that they
can sue and be sued. (San Fernando La
Union vs Judge Firme, G.R. No. 52179, April
8, 1991)
Suits against Public Officers
The doctrine of state immunity extends its
protective mantle also to complaints filed
against state officials for acts done in the
discharge and performance of their duties.
(United States of America vs. Judge Guinto,
G.R. No. 76607, February 26, 1990)
An action at law or suit in equity against a
State officer or the director of a State
department on the ground that, while
claiming to act for the State, he violates or
invades the personal and property rights of
the plaintiff, under an unconstitutional act or
under an assumption of authority which he
does not have, is not a suit against the State
within the constitutional provision that the
State may not be sued without its consent.
The rationale for this ruling is that the
doctrine of state immunity cannot be used as
an instrument for perpetrating an injustice.
(Shauf vs CA, G.R. No. 90314, November 27,
1990)
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
In as much as the State authorizes only legal
acts by its officers, unauthorized acts of
government officials or officers are not acts
of the State, and an action against the
officials or officers by one whose rights have
been invaded or violated by such acts, for the
protection of his rights, is not a suit against
the State within the rule of immunity of the
State from suit. (Director of the Bureau of
Telecommunications vs Aligaen, G.R. No. L-
31135, May 29, 1980)
Suits against Foreign States
In international law, "immunity" is commonly
understood as an exemption of the state and
its organs from the judicial jurisdiction of
another state. This is anchored on the
principle of the sovereign equality of states
under which one state cannot assert
jurisdiction over another in violation of the
maxim par in parem non habet imperium.
(Jusmag PHL vs NLRC, G.R. No. 108813,
December 15, 1994)
Under the Principle of Sovereign Equality of
States, one state cannot assert its jurisdiction
over the other; thus, “a state cannot be sued
in the courts of another state” as this would
unduly vex the peace of nations. (United
States of America vs. Judge Guinto, G.R. No.
76607, February 26, 1990)
Submission by a foreign state to local
jurisdiction must be clear and unequivocal. It
must be given explicitly or by necessary
implication. (The Republic of Indonesia vs
Vinzon, G.R. No. 154705, June 26, 2003)
Suits against international agencies
and their officials
International agencies and their agents enjoy
immunity from suit in the Philippines.
(Convention on the Privileges and Immunities
21
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
of the Specialized Agencies of the United
Nations)
2. Exception to the Principle of State
Immunity: The restrictive application of
State immunity is proper only when the
proceedings arise out of commercial
transactions of the foreign sovereign, its
commercial activities or economic affairs.
(Arigo vs. Swift, G.R. No. 206510
September 16, 2014)
Stated differently, a State may be said to
have descended to the level of an individual
and can thus be deemed to have tacitly given
its consent to be sued only when it enters into
business contracts. It does not apply where
the contract relates to the exercise of its
sovereign functions. (U.S. vs. Ruiz, G.R. No.
L-35645, May 22, 1985)
Distinction between acts jure imperii
and jure gestionis
🕮 In exercising the right of eminent domain,
the Court explained, the State exercised its
jus imperii, as distinguished from its
proprietary rights, or jus gestionis; yet, even
in that area, where private property had been
taken in expropriation without just
compensation being paid, the defense of
immunity from suit could not be set up by the
State against an action for payment by the
owners. (Air Transportation Office vs. Sps.
David, G.R. No. 159402, February 23, 2011)
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Scope of Consent (Suability vs.
Liability)
Consent to be sued is NOT a concession
of liability: Suability depends on the
consent of the State to be sued, and liability
on the applicable law and the established
facts. The circumstance that a state is suable
does not necessarily mean that it is liable; on
the other hand, it can never be held liable if
it does not first consent to be sued. When the
state does waive its sovereign immunity, it is
only giving the plaintiff the chance to prove,
if it can, that the defendant is liable. (United
States of America vs. Judge Guinto, G.R. No.
76607, February 26, 1990)
When the State gives its consent to be sued,
it does not thereby necessarily consent to an
unrestrained execution against it. Tersely
put, when the State waives its immunity, all
it does, in effect, is to give the other party an
opportunity to prove, if it can, that the State
has a liability. (Department of Agriculture vs.
The National Labor Relations Commission,
G.R. No. 104269, November 11, 1993)
The universal rule that where the State gives
its consent to be sued by private parties
either by general law or special law, it may
limit claimant's action "only up to the
completion of proceedings anterior to the
stage of execution" and that the power of the
Courts ends when the judgment is rendered,
since government funds and properties may
not be seized under writs of execution or
garnishment to satisfy such judgments, is
based on obvious considerations of public
policy. Disbursements of public funds must
be covered by the correspondent
appropriation as required by law. The
functions and public services rendered by the
State cannot be allowed to be paralyzed or
disrupted by the diversion of public funds
from their legitimate and specific objects, as
22
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
appropriated by law. (Republic vs NLRC, G.R.
No. 120385 October 17, 1996)
However, funds of government corporations
which can sue or be sued are not exempt
from garnishment. (Philippine National Bank
vs. Pabalan, G.R. No. L-33112, June 15,
1978)
F. DELEGATION OF POWERS (1987
CONST., art. VI, secs. 1, 23(2) and 28(2))
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. (Sec. 1, Art. VI,
1987 Constitution)
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. (Sec. 23[2], Art.
VI, 1987 Constitution)
The Congress may, by law, authorize the
President to fix within specified limits, and
subject to such limitations and restrictions as
it may impose, tariff rates, import and export
quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues, and
other duties or imposts within the framework
of the national development program of the
Government. (Sec. 28[2], Art. VI, 1987
Constitution)
Rationale: Potestas delegata non potest
delegare (what has been delegated cannot
be further delegated). It is based on the
ethical principle that delegated power
constitutes not only a right, but a duty to be
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
performed by the delegate through the
instrumentality of his own judgment and not
through the intervening mind of another.
(The United States vs. Barrias, G.R. No. 4349,
September 24, 1908)
GENERAL RULE: The legislature cannot
delegate its power to make a law, but it can
make a law to delegate a power to determine
some fact or state of things upon which the
law makes, or intends to make, its own action
to depend. (The United States vs. Ang Tang
Ho, G.R. No. 17122, February 27, 1922)
EXCEPTIONS:
1. Subordinate legislation made by
administrative agencies. –
Administrative agencies have the
power to “fill-up the details” of a
statute passed by Congress in the
course of its implementation.
(ABAKADA Guro Partylist vs.
Purisima, G.R. No. 166715, August
14, 2008)
2. Delegated legislative power to local
governments – Local governments
may be allowed to legislate on purely
local matters (Sec. 9, Art. IX, 1987
Constitution)
3. Legislative power reserved to the
people by the provision on initiative
and referendum (Sec. 1, Art. VI, 1987
Constitution)
4. Emergency power delegated to the
Executive during State of War or
National Emergency (Sec. 23[2], Art.
VI, 1987 Constitution)
5. Certain taxing powers of the
President (Sec. 28[2], Art. VI, 1987
Constitution)
Permissible delegation
1. By direct constitutional grant
a. Delegation of tariff powers to the
President (Sec. 28[2], Art. VI, 1987
Constitution);
23
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW

b. Delegation of emergency powers to delegate, announce the legislative policy and

the President (Sec. 23[2], Art. VI, identify the condition under which it is to be
1987 Constitution); implemented (Abakada Guro Party List vs.
c. Delegation to local government units Ermita, G.R. No. 168056, October 18, 2005)
(Sec.5, Art. X, 1987 Constitution);
d. Rule-making power of the Supreme G. FUNDAMENTAL POWERS OF THE
Court (Sec. 5[5], Art. VIII, 1987 STATE – POLICE POWER, EMINENT
Constitution); and DOMAIN AND TAXATION – CONCEPT,
e. Rule-making power of Constitutional APPLICATION, AND LIMITATIONS
Commissions. (Sec. 6, Art. IX-A; Sec. (1987 CONST., art. III, sec. 9; art. VI, sec.
3, Art. IX-C; Sec. 2[2], Art. IX-D, 28; art. XIV, sec. 4(3))
1987 Constitution)
Similarities and Differences
2. By legislative grant: Delegation of
powers to administrative bodies (also Similarities (Cruz, Constitutional Law,
called Subordinate Legislation). 2015, p.84)
a. Inherent in the State;
Tests for Valid Delegation (Pelaez vs. b. Necessary and indispensable;
Auditor General, G.R. No. L – 23825, c. Methods by which State interferes
December 24, 1965) with private property;
d. Presuppose equivalent
1. Completeness Test: The law must be compensation; and
complete in all its essential terms and e. Exercised primarily by the
conditions when it leaves the legislature so Legislature.
that there will be nothing left for the delegate
to do when it reaches him except to enforce Differences (Cruz, Constitutional Law,
it The “completeness test” means that the 2015, p.84)
law sets forth the policy to be executed,
carried out or implemented by the delegate.
(Abakada Guro Party List vs. Ermita, G.R. No.
168056, October 18, 2005)

2. Sufficiency of Standard Test: A

sufficient standard is intended to map out the
boundaries of the delegate’s authority by
defining the legislative policy and indicating
the circumstances under which it is to be
pursued and effected; intended to prevent a
total transference of legislative power from
the legislature to the delegate.
The “sufficient standard test” means that the
law lays down adequate guidelines or
limitations to map out the boundaries of the
authority of the delegate and prevent the
delegate from running riot. The standard
must specify the limits of the authority of the

AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION 24

 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW

Requisites for Valid Exercise of the (2) Law-making bodies of the local
Fundamental Powers of the State government units, public
corporations,
(3) Quasi-public corporations, and
(4) Administrative bodies

NOTE: The grant of the power of

eminent domain to local government
units under Republic Act No. 7160
cannot be understood as equal to the
pervasive and all- encompassing
power vested in the legislative branch
of the government. (City of Cebu vs.
Sps. Apolonio, G.R. No. 142971, May
7, 2002)

c. Power of Taxation: to the

(1) Law-making bodies of the local
government units (Sec. 5, Art. X,
1987 Constitution), and
(2) President (Sec. 28[2], Art. VI, 1987
Constitution)
Limitations on the exercise: Generally, it
is limited by the Bill of Rights. Although in
1. POLICE POWER
some cases, the exercise of the power
The exercise of Police Power involves the
prevails over specific constitutional
state authority to enact legislation that may
guarantees. Subject at all times to the
interfere with personal liberty or property in
limitations and requirements of the
order to promote the general welfare, health,
Constitution and may in proper cases be
morals, and good order. This includes:
annulled by the courts, i.e. when there is
(1) Imposition of restraint on liberty or
grave abuse of discretion. (Nachura, Outline
property
Reviewer in Political Law, 2016)
(2) In order to foster the common good
(Zabal vs. Duterte, G.R. No. 238467,
Delegation
February 12, 2019)
GENERAL RULE: Exercised by the
LAW OF OVERRULING NECESSITY – The
Legislature.
power promoting public welfare by
restraining and regulating the use of liberty
EXCEPTION: When validly delegated:
and property. (Southern Luzon Drug
a. Police Power: to the
Corporation vs DSWD, G.R. No. 199669, April
(1) President,
25, 2017)
(2) administrative bodies, or
(3) law-making bodies of the
Justification:
government units
1. Salus populi est suprema lex (The
b. Power of Eminent Domain: to the
welfare of the people is the supreme
(1) President,
law);

AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION 25

 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
2. Sic utere tuo ut alienum non
laedas (So use your property as not to
injure the property of others).
Power vested by the Constitution in the
legislature to make, ordain and establish all
manner of wholesome and reasonable laws,
statutes and ordinances, either with penalties
or without, not repugnant to the Constitution,
as they shall judge to be for the good and
welfare of the commonwealth, and for the
subject of the same. (MMDA vs. Bel-Air
Village Association, Inc. G.R. No. 135962,
March 27, 2000)
Characteristics
a. Most essential, insistent and the least
limitable of powers, extending as it
does to all the great public needs.
(Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel
Operators Association, Inc. vs. City
Mayor of Manila, No. L-24693, July
31, 1967)
b. Plenary; and its scope vast and
pervasive, reaching and justifying
measures for public health, public
safety, public morals, and the general
welfare. (People of the Philippines vs.
Siton, G.R. No. 169364, September
18, 2009)
c. May not be bargained away through
the medium of a contract or treaty
(Ichong vs. Hernandez, G.R. No. L-
7995, May 31, 1957)
d. Dynamic, not static, and must move
with the moving society it is
supposed to regulate (Osmena vs.
COMELEC, G.R. No. 132231 March
31, 1998)
e. Eminent domain may be used as an
implement for the attainment of a
legitimate police objective.
(Association of Small Landowners in
the Philippines, Inc. vs. Secretary of
Agrarian Reform, G.R. No. 78742,
July 14, 1989)
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Scope
The police power of the State, one court has
said, is a power co-extensive with self-
protection, and is not inaptly termed the law
of overruling necessity. (Rubi vs. Provincial
Board, G.R. No. L-14078 March 7, 1919)
A law enacted in the exercise of police power
to regulate or govern certain activities or
transactions could be given retroactive effect
and may reasonably impair vested rights or
contracts. (Ortigas and Co. vs. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 126102, December 4,
2000)
Police power prevails over contracts.
(Philippine National Bank vs. Office of the
President G.R. No. 104528, January 18,
1996)
Non-impairment of contracts or vested rights
clauses will have to yield to the superior and
legitimate exercise by the State of the police
power. (Ortigas and Co. vs. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 126102, December 4, 2000)
Exercise of Police Power
Lodged primarily in the Legislature
May be validly delegated by the legislature to
the:
a. President;
b. Administrative Board; and
c. Law-Making Bodies on all Municipal
Boards
NOTE: Mandamus cannot be availed of to
coerce the exercise of police power.
Under existing laws, insofar as illegal
constructions are concerned, the mayor can,
after satisfying the requirement of due notice
and hearing, order their closure and
demolition. The Office of the Mayor is given
powers not only relative to its function as the
26
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
executive official of the town; it has also been
endowed with authority to hear issues
involving property rights of individuals and to
come out with an effective order or resolution
therein. (Aquino v. Municipality of Malay,
Aklan, G.R. No. 211356, September 29,
2014)
Requisites of Valid Exercise
(Limitations)
a. Lawful Subject – the interest of the
public generally, as distinguished
from that of a particular class,
requires its exercise; and (Planters
Products Inc, vs. Fertiphil
Corporation, G.R. No. 166006, March
14, 2008)
b. Lawful Means/Method – the
means employed are reasonably
necessary for the accomplishment
of the purpose and not unduly
oppressive upon individuals. (Lucena
Grand Central Terminal, Inc. vs. JAC
Liner, Inc., G.R.No.148339, February
23, 2005; see also United States vs.
Toribio, G.R. No. L-5060, January 26,
1910)
Sec. 2 of COMELEC Resolution No. 2772,
which mandates newspapers of general
circulation in every province or city to provide
free print space of not less than 1⁄2 page as
COMELEC space, was held to be an invalid
exercise of the police power there being no
showing of the existence of a national
emergency or imperious public necessity for
the taking of the print space, nor that the
resolution was the only reasonable and
calibrated response to such necessity.
(Philippine Press Institute vs. COMELEC, 244
SCRA 272, May 22, 1995)
Additional limitations (when exercised by
a delegate)
a. Expressly granted by law
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
GENERAL RULE: Within the
territorial limits (for local government
units)
EXCEPTION: When exercised to
protect water supply. (Wilson vs. City
of Mountain Lake Terraces, 417 P.2d
632, August 18, 1966)
b. Must not be contrary to law
Municipal governments are only
agents of the national government.
Local councils exercise only
delegated legislative powers
conferred on them by Congress as
the national lawmaking body. The
delegate cannot be superior to the
principal or exercise powers higher
than those of the latter. (Magtajas vs.
Pryce Properties, G.R. No. 111097,
July 20, 1994)
By virtue of a valid delegation, the
power may be exercised by the
President and administrative boards
as well as by the lawmaking bodies of
municipal corporations or local
governments under an express
delegation by the Local Government
Code of 1991. (MMDA vs. Viron
Transport Co., Inc., G.R. No. 170656,
August 15, 2007)
Law is a Legitimate Exercise of Police
Power (When) it has General Welfare
for its Object
The State, in promoting the health and
welfare of a special group of citizens, can
impose upon private establishments the
burden of partly subsidizing a government
program. The Senior Citizens Act was
enacted primarily to maximize the
contribution of senior citizens to nation-
building, and to grant benefits and privileges
to them for their improvement and well-being
as the State considers them an integral part
27
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
of our society. (Southern Luzon Drug Corp v.
DSWD, G.R. No. 199669, April 25, 2017)
Constitutional Limitations against
Police Power
a. Due Process Clause
b. Equal Protection Clause
The conflict, therefore, between police power
and the guarantees of due process and equal
protection of the laws is more apparent than
real. Properly related, the power and the
guarantees are supposed to coexist. The
balancing is the essence or, shall it be said,
the indispensable means for the attainment
of legitimate aspirations of any democratic
society. There can be no absolute power,
whoever exercises it, for that would be
tyranny. (Ichong vs. Hernandez, G.R. No. L-
7995, May 31, 1957)
Requisites of a Valid Ordinance (Tatel vs.
Municipality of Virac, G.R. No. 40243, March
11, 1992)
1. Procedural Requirements
a. Must be within the corporate powers
of the local government to enact; and
b. Must be passed according to the
procedure prescribed by law.
2. Substantive Requirements (CUP-
PUG)
a. Must not contravene the constitution
or any statute.
b. Must not be unfair or oppressive.
c. Must not be partial or discriminatory.
d. Must not prohibit, but may regulate
trade.
e. Must not be unreasonable.
f. Must be general in application and
consistent with public policy. (City of
Manila vs. Laguio, Jr., G.R. No.
118127, April 12, 2005)
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
2. EMINENT DOMAIN
Private property shall not be taken for public
use without just compensation (Sec. 9, Art
III, 1987 Constitution)
It is the power of the State that enables it to
forcibly acquire private lands intended for
public use upon payment of just
compensation to the owner. (Association of
Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. vs.
Secretary of Agrarian Reform, G.R. No.
78742, July 14, 1989)
Police Power vs. Power of Eminent
Domain
Police power: a property right is impaired
by regulation, or the use of property is merely
prohibited, regulated or restricted to promote
public welfare. In such cases, there is no
compensable taking, hence, payment of just
compensation is not required. Although the
regulation affects the right of ownership,
none of the bundle of rights which constitute
ownership is appropriated for use by or for
the benefit of the public. (Equitable PCI Bank
vs. South Rich Acres, Inc., G.R. No. 202384,
May 04, 2021)
Power of eminent domain: property
interests are appropriated and applied to
some public purpose which necessitates the
payment of just compensation therefor.
Normally, the title to and possession of the
property are transferred to the expropriating
authority. However, the acquisition of title or
total destruction of the property is not
essential for "taking" under the power of
eminent domain to be present. In these
cases, although the private property owner is
not divested of ownership or possession,
payment of just compensation is warranted
because of the burden placed on the property
for the use or benefit of the public. (Manila
28
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
Memorial Park vs. DSWD, G.R. No. 175356,
December 3, 2013)
Who May Exercise (CELPQ)
(a) Generally, Congress
(b) Delegated Executive, pursuant to
legislation enacted by Congress
(c) Local government units, pursuant
to an ordinance enacted by their
respective legislative bodies (under
LGC)
(d) Public corporations, as may be
delegated by law
(e) Quasi-public corporations e.g.
PNR, PLDT, MERALCO
NOTE: An expropriation suit is
incapable of pecuniary estimation. It
falls within the jurisdiction of the
Regional Trial Courts, regardless of
the value of the subject property.
(Brgy. San Roque, Talisay, Cebu v.
Heirs of Francisco)
Requisites for a valid exercise:
(TaPuComPriD)
A. There is Taking
B. Taking is for Public Use
C. There must be just Compensation
D. Subject property must be Private
property
E. Due process must be observed
PUBLIC USE – the general concept of
meeting public need or public exigency. The
term public use has now been held to be
synonymous with public interest, public
benefit, public welfare and public
convenience. (Reyes vs. National Housing
Authority, G.R. No. 147511, January 20,
2003)
The foundation of the right to exercise
eminent domain is genuine necessity and
that necessity must be of public character.
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
(Lagcao vs. Labra, G.R. No. 155746, October
13, 2004)
The taking to be valid must be for public use.
As long as the purpose of the taking is public,
then the power of eminent domain comes
into play. That only a few would actually
benefit from the expropriation of property
does not necessarily diminish the essence
and character of public use. (Manosca vs CA,
G.R. No. 106440, January 29, 1996)
JUST COMPENSATION – the full and fair
equivalent of the property taken; it is the fair
market value of the property, that is that sum
of money which a person, desirous but not
compelled to buy, and an owner, willing, but
not compelled to sell, would agree on as a
price to be given and received therefor.
(Republic of the Philippines vs. Asia Pacific
Integrated Steel Corporation, G.R. No.
192100, March 12, 2014)
The aforementioned rule is modified where
only a part of a certain property is
expropriated. In such a case the owner is not
restricted to compensation for the portion
actually taken. In addition to the market
value of the portion taken, he is also entitled
to recover for the consequential damage, if
any, to the remaining part of the property. At
the same time, from the total compensation
must be deducted the value of the
consequential benefits. (Napocor vs Sps.
Chiong, G.R. No. 152436, June 20, 2003)
Purpose: not to reward the owner for the
property taken, but to compensate him for
the loss thereof. As such, the true measure
of the property is the market value at the
time of the taking, when the loss resulted.
Indeed, the State is not obliged to pay
premium to the property owner for
appropriating the latter's property; it is only
bound to make good the loss sustained by
the landowner, with due consideration to the
29
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
circumstances availing at the time the
property was taken. (Republic vs.
Macabagdal, G.R. No. 227215, January 30,
2018)
Determination of Just Compensation
The determination of "just
compensation" in eminent domain
cases is a judicial function. The executive
department or the legislature may make the
initial determinations but when a party claims
a violation of the guarantee in the Bill of
Rights that private property may not be taken
for public use without just compensation, no
statute, decree, or executive order can
mandate that its own determination shall
prevail over the court's findings. Much less
can the courts be precluded from looking into
the "justness" of the decreed compensation.
(EPZA vs. Dulay, G.R. No. L-59603, April 29
1987)
The final determination of just compensation
is vested in courts. Courts may deviate from
the basic formula provided by administrative
agencies if it finds, in its discretion, that other
factors must be taken into account in the
determination of just compensation.
Deviation, however, must be grounded on a
reasoned explanation based on the
evidence on record. Absent this, the
deviation will be considered grave abuse of
discretion. (Land Bank of the Philippines v.
Franco, G.R. No. 203424, March 12, 2019)
Measure of just compensation
The measure is not the taker’s gain, but the
owner’s loss. (Association of Small
Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. v.
Secretary of Agrarian Reform, G.R. No.
78742, July 14, 1989)
The value should be taken from the time of
the taking. (City of Cebu vs. Sps. Dedamo,
G.R. No. 142971, May 7, 2002)
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Rule 67 of the Rules of Court provides,
among others, that just compensation is "to
be determined as of the date of the taking of
the property or the filing of the complaint,
whichever came first. (Republic of the
Philippines vs. Villao, G.R. No. 216723, March
9, 2022)
Delay in payment
Just compensation in expropriation cases has
been held to contemplate just and timely
payment, and prompt payment is the
payment in full of the just
compensation as finally determined by
the courts. (Land Bank of the Philippines v.
Santos, G.R. No. 213863, January 27, 2016)
Thus, when property is taken, full
compensation of its value must
immediately be paid to achieve a fair
exchange for the property and the potential
income lost. (National Power Corporation vs.
Manalastas, G.R. No. 196140, January 27,
2016)
Verily, on top of the interest computed to the
market value of the property at the time of
taking, additional compensation by way of
exemplary damages and attorney's fees is
warranted in view of the government's taking
without the benefit of expropriation
proceedings. (Sec. of DPWH and Engr.
Contreras vs. Sps Tecson, G.R. No. 179334,
April 21, 2015)
Right to Recover
While the prevailing doctrine is that "the non-
payment of just compensation does not
entitle the private landowner to recover
possession of the expropriated lots, however,
in cases where the government failed to
pay just compensation within five (5)
years from the finality of the judgment
in the expropriation proceedings, the
owners concerned shall have the right
to recover possession of their property.
30
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
Trial with Commissioners
In an expropriation case where the principal
issue is the determination of just
compensation, a trial before the
Commissioners is indispensable to allow the
parties to present evidence on the issue of
just compensation. The appointment of at
least three (3) competent persons as
commissioners to ascertain just
compensation for the property sought to be
taken is a mandatory requirement in
expropriation cases. While it is true that the
findings of commissioners may be
disregarded and the court may substitute its
own estimate of the value, the latter may
only do so for valid reasons, i.e., where the
Commissioners have applied illegal principles
to the evidence submitted to them or where
they have disregarded a clear preponderance
of evidence, or where the amount allowed is
either grossly inadequate or excessive.
(Meralco vs. Pineda, G.R. No. L-59791,
February 13 1992)
Inverse Condemnation (action to
recover just compensation from the
State) – objective is to recover the value of
property taken in fact by the governmental
defendant, when no formal exercise of
the power of eminent domain has been
attempted by the taking agency. NPC
could have, at any time, validly exercised the
power of eminent domain to acquire the
easement over respondents’ property as this
power encompasses not only the taking or
appropriation of title to and possession of the
expropriated property but likewise covers
even the imposition of a mere burden upon
the owner of the condemned property.
Significantly, though, landowners cannot be
deprived of their right over their land until
expropriation proceedings are instituted in
court. The court must then see to it that the
taking is for public use, that there is payment
of just compensation and that there is due
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
process of law. (Napocor vs. Heirs of
Sangkay, G.R. No. 165828, August 24, 2011)
ACTION TO RECOVER JUST
COMPENSATION v. ACTION FOR
DAMAGES - the former has the objective to
recover the value of the property taken in
fact by the governmental defendant. The
latter seeks to vindicate a legal wrong
through damages, which may be actual,
moral, nominal, temperate, liquidated or
exemplary. (Heirs of Sps. Mariano vs. City of
Naga, G.R. No. 197743, October 18, 2022)
In view of the discontinuance of the
proceedings and the eventual return of the
property to the respondents, there is no need
to pay "just compensation" to them because
their property would not be taken by
NAPOCOR. Instead of full market value of the
property, therefore, NAPOCOR should
compensate the respondents for the
disturbance of their property rights from the
time of entry in March 1993 until the time of
restoration of the possession by paying to
them actual or other compensatory damages.
(Republic v. Heirs of Bourbon, G.R. No.
165354, January 12, 2015)
PRIVATE PROPERTY – property of private
ownership, besides the patrimonial property
of the State, provinces, cities, and
municipalities, consists of all property
belonging to private persons, either
individually or collectively. (Art. 425, New
Civil Code [NCC])
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7160 (The Local
Government Code) required the City to pass
an Ordinance, not adopt a resolution, for the
purpose of initiating an expropriation
proceeding. These are the requisites
before an LGU can exercise eminent
domain:
1. An Ordinance enacted by the local
legislative council authorizing the
31
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
local chief executive, in behalf of
LGU, to exercise the power of
eminent domain.
2. For Public Use, Purpose, or Welfare
or for the benefit of the poor and
landless
3. Payment of Just Compensation
4. Valid and Definite Offer has been
previously made, but said offer is not
accepted.
Property owned by an LGU can be
considered as private property
1. The City of Baguio (Baguio) maintained the
Baguio Waterworks System under a
certificate of public convenience, and
financed by the Baguio general fund and by
the national government. The National
Waterworks and Sewerage Authority
(NAWASA) was created by Republic Act No.
1383 for the purpose of consolidating and
centralizing all waterworks, sewerage and
one control, direction and general
supervision.
Baguio filed a complaint for declaratory relief
against NAWASA. Baguio asserted that RA
1383 does not cover the Baguio Waterworks
System. In the event that it does, RA 1383 is
unconstitutional as it deprives Baguio of the
ownership, control and operation of the
waterworks system without compensation
and due process of law. NAWASA asserted
that RA 1383 is a proper exercise of police
power. In the event that RA 1383 is an act of
expropriation, it is a constitutional exercise of
the power of eminent domain. Further,
Baguio Waterworks System is not private
property, but public works for public service.
The Court held that RA 1383 merely directs
that all waterworks belonging to cities,
municipalities and municipal districts in the
Philippines be transferred to NAWASA for the
purpose of placing them under the control
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
and supervision of one agency with a view to
promoting their efficient management. There
is no confiscation because NAWASA is
directed to pay the districts with an equal
value of the assets of NAWASA.
The Baguio Waterworks System,
however, is a property owned by Baguio
in its proprietary character. A waterworks
system is patrimonial property of the city that
established it. Hence, waterworks cannot be
taken away without observing the safeguards
set by our Constitution for the protection of
private property. Baguio cannot thus be
deprived of its property even if NAWASA
desires to take over the administration of the
waterworks in accordance with RA 1383. RA
1383, insofar as it expropriates waterworks
without providing for an effective payment of
just compensation, violates the Constitution.
(City of Baguio vs NAWASA, G.R. No. L-
12032, August 31, 1959)
2. The classification of properties under Art.
424 is without prejudice to the provisions of
special laws. For the purpose of the aforesaid
article, the principles obtaining under the Law
on Municipal Corporations can be considered
as special laws. Hence, the classification of
municipal property devoted for distinctly
governmental purposes as public should
prevail over the Civil Code classification.
Art. 424. Property for public use, in the
provinces, cities, and municipalities, consist
of the provincial roads, city streets,
municipal streets, the squares, fountains,
public waters, promenades, and public works
for public service paid for by said provinces,
cities, or municipalities.
All other property possessed by any of them
is patrimonial and shall be governed by this
Code, without prejudice to the provisions of
special laws. (Province of Zamboanga del
32
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
Norte vs. City of Zamboanga, G.R. No. L-
24440, March 28, 1968)
Elements Of A Valid Taking (BEAPP)
A. Utilization of the property must be in
such a way as to oust the owner and
deprive him of Beneficial enjoyment
of the property.
B. Expropriator must Enter a private
property;
C. Entry must be under a warrant or color
of Authority;
D. Property must be devoted to public
use or otherwise informally
appropriated or injuriously affected;
and
E. Entrance must be Permanent
(Republic of the Philippines vs. Vda. de
Castellvi, G.R. No. L-20620, August 15, 1974)
No deprival of beneficial use
In the instant case, the entry of the Republic
into the property and its utilization of the
same for public use did not oust Castellvi
and deprive her of all beneficial
enjoyment of the property. Castellvi
remained as owner, and was continuously
recognized as owner by the Republic, as
shown by the renewal of the lease contract
from year to year, and by the provision in the
lease contract whereby the Republic
undertook to return the property to Castellvi
when the lease was terminated. Neither
was Castellvi deprived of all the
beneficial enjoyment of the property,
because the Republic was bound to pay,
and had been paying, Castellvi the
agreed monthly rentals until the time
when it filed the complaint for eminent
domain. (Republic v. Castellvi, G.R. No. L-
20620, August 15, 1974)
Two types of taking:
1. Possessory taking – government
confiscates or physically occupies property.
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
2. Regulatory taking – government’s
regulation leaves no reasonable economically
viable use of the property. (City of Manila vs.
Laguio, G.R. No. 118127, April 12, 2005)
When the owner of real property has been
called upon to sacrifice all economically
beneficial uses in the name of the common
good, that is, to leave his property
economically idle, he has suffered a taking.
(Ibid.)
Examples of taking
● Expropriation is not limited to the
acquisition of real property with a
corresponding transfer of title or
possession. The right-of-way easement
resulting in the restriction or limitation on
property rights over the land traversed by
transmission lines also falls within the
ambit of the term expropriation. The
ownership of the land extends to the
surface as well as to the subsoil under it.
Underground tunnels impose limitations
on the owner’s use of the property for an
indefinite period and deprive them of its
ordinary use. (NPC v. Lucman Ibrahim,
G.R. No. 168732, June 29, 2007)
● There was a full taking of the NPC,
notwithstanding that the owners were
not completely and actually
dispossessed. It is settled that the taking
of private property for public use, to be
compensable, need not be an actual
physical taking or appropriation.
(NAPOCOR v. Heirs of Macabangkit
Sangkay, G.R. No. 165828, Aug. 24,
2011)
● A regulation that deprives any person of
the profitable use of his property
constitutes a taking and entitles him to
compensation, unless the invasion of
rights is so slight as to permit the
33
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
regulation to be justified under police
power. Similarly, a police regulation that
unreasonably restricts the right to use
business property for business purposes
amounts to a taking of private property,
and the owner may recover therefor.
(OSG v. Ayala, G.R. No. 177056, Sept.
18, 2009)
3. TAXATION
Taxation is the power by which the State
raises revenue to defray the necessary
expenses of the Government; the most
effective instrument to raise needed
revenues to finance and support myriad
activities for the delivery of basic services
essential to the promotion of the general
welfare and the enhancement of peace,
progress, and prosperity of the people.
(National Power Corporation vs. City of
Cabanatuan, G.R. No. 149110, April 9, 2003)
Scope: Covers persons, property or
profession or business within the taxing
jurisdiction. The power of taxation is the
most absolute of all powers of the
government. It has the broadest scope of all
powers of the government because in the
absence of limitations, it is considered as
unlimited, plenary, comprehensive and
supreme. (Sison, Jr. vs. Ancheta, G.R. No. L-
59431, July 25, 1984)
Basis: Lifeblood Theory
Taxes are the lifeblood of the government,
for without taxes, the government can
neither exist nor endure. (NPC vs. City of
Cabanatuan, G.R. No. 149110, April 9, 2003)
Who may exercise:
a. Primarily, the legislature
b. Local legislative bodies through
local taxation (Sec. 19, Local
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Government Code of 1991; Sec. 5,
Art. X, 1987 Constitution)
c. To a limited extent, the President
when granted delegated tariff powers
(Sec. 28[2], Art. VI, 1987
Constitution)
REQUISITES OF A VALID TAXATION
(PUJDD)
(1) Must be for a Public Purpose
(2) Must be Uniform and equitable
(3) The person or property taxed is
within the Jurisdiction of the taxing
authority
(4) Complies with Due process
(5) Does not infringe any constitutional
or inherent limitations
Constitutional Exemption Principles
1. Charitable institutions, churches and
parsonages or convents appurtenant thereto,
mosques, non- profit cemeteries, and all
lands, buildings, and improvements,
actually, directly, and exclusively used
for religious, charitable, or educational
purposes shall be exempt from taxation.
(Sec. 28[3], Art. VI, 1987 Constitution)
The exemption in favor of property used
exclusively for charitable or educational
purposes is ‘not limited to property actually
indispensable’ therefor (Cooley on Taxation,
Vol. 2, p. 1430), but extends to facilities
which are incidental to and reasonably
necessary for the accomplishment of said
purposes, such as in the case of hospitals, ‘a
school for training nurses, a nurses’ home,
property use to provide housing facilities for
interns, resident doctors, superintendents,
and other members of the hospital staff, and
recreational facilities for student nurses,
interns, and residents’ (84 CJS 6621), such as
‘athletic fields’ including ‘a firm used for the
inmates of the institution.’ (Abra Valley
34
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
College, Inc. vs. Aquino, 162 SCRA 106, No.
L-39086, June 15, 1988)
2. Non-stock, non-profit educational
institutions used actually, directly and
exclusively for EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES.
(Sec. 4[3], Art. XIV, 1987 Constitution)
NOTE: However, they shall be subject to
internal revenue taxes on income from trade,
business or other activity, the conduct of
which is not related to the exercise or
performance of their educational
purposes or functions. (Dimaampao, Tax
Principles and Remedies, 5th edition, 2015)
3. Donor’s Tax – Art. XIV, Sec. 4(4) which
provides that “all grants, endowments,
donations, or contributions used actually,
directly and exclusively for educational
purposes shall be exempt from tax” is not
self-executing as it requires legislative
enactment providing certain conditions for
exemption. However, since Sec. 101(a)(3) of
NIRC under donor’s tax declared its
exemption, then these donations are tax
exempt. (Dimaampao, Tax Principles and
Remedies, 5th edition, 2015)
Actual, direct, and exclusive use
What is meant by actual, direct and exclusive
use of the property for charitable purposes is
the direct and immediate and actual
application of the property itself to the
purposes for which the charitable institution
is organized. It is not the use of the income
from the real property that is determinative
of whether the property is used for tax-
exempt purposes. (Angeles University
Foundation vs. City of Angeles, G.R. No.
189999, June 27, 2012)
NOTE: The 1987 Constitution does not
distinguish with respect to the source or
origin of the income. The distinction is with
respect to the use which should be actual,
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
direct and exclusive for educational
purposes. Where the Constitution does not
distinguish with respect to source or origin,
the NIRC should not make distinctions.
(Mamalateo, Reviewer in taxation, 2008)
DOUBLE TAXATION - happens when
additional taxes are laid: (STaTpPTjK)
1. On the same Subject
2. By the same Taxing Authority
3. During the same Taxing Period
4. For the same Purpose
5. Within the same Taxing Jurisdiction
6. Of the same Kind or character
Double Taxation becomes obnoxious only
where the taxpayer is taxed twice for the
benefit of the same governmental entity or
by the same jurisdiction for the same
purpose, but not in a case where one tax is
imposed by the State and the other by the
city or municipality. (Pepsi-Cola Bottling
Company v. Municipality of Tanauan, G.R.
No. L-31156, February 27, 1976)
Under the Local Government Code, a
MUNICIPALITY is bereft of authority to levy
and impose franchise tax of franchise holders
within its territorial jurisdiction. That
authority belongs to provinces and cities
only. A franchise tax levied by a municipality
is thus, null and void. The nullity is not cured
by the subsequent conversion of the
municipality into a city. (City of Pasig v.
MERALCO, G.R. No. 181710, March 7, 2018)
II. LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
A. CONGRESS: SENATE AND HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES
1. COMPOSITIONS AND
QUALIFICATIONS – 1987 CONST., art.
VI, secs. 2-14
SENATE
35
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
COMPOSITION: The Senate shall be
composed of twenty-four (24) senators who
shall be elected at large by the qualified
voters of the Philippines, as may be provided
by law. (Sec. 2, Art. VI, 1987 Constitution)
QUALIFICATIONS: No person shall be
Senator UNLESS he is:
a. a natural-born citizen of the
Philippines;
b. On the day of the election, is at least
thirty-five (35) years of age;
c. able to read and write;
d. a registered voter and;
e. a resident of the Philippines for not
less than two years immediately
preceding the day of the election.
(Sec. 3, Art. VI, 1987 Constitution)
TERM OF OFFICE: The term of office of the
Senators shall be six (6) years and shall
commence, unless otherwise provided by
law, at noon on the 30th day of June next
following their election. (Sec. 4, par 1, Art.
VI, 1987 Constitution)
RESTRICTIONS:
a. They must be possessed during the
officer’s entire incumbency;
b. The qualifications prescribed by the
Constitution are exclusive and the
legislature may not make additional
qualifications;
c. Property qualifications are not allowed as
no person may be denied a chance to be
elected to public office by reason of
poverty (Maquera vs. Borra, G.R. No. L-
24761, September 7, 1965); and
d. No religious test shall be required for the
exercise of civil and political rights. (Sec.
5, Art. III, 1987 Constitution)
LIMITATION: No Senator shall serve for
more than two (2) consecutive terms.
Voluntary renunciation of the office for any
length of time shall not be considered as an
interruption in the continuity of his service for
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
the full term for which he was elected. (Sec.
4, par 2, Art. VI, 1987 Constitution)
SENATE AS A CONTINUING BODY:
Unlike the House of Representatives, the
Senate shall not be at any time be completely
dissolved. One-half of the membership is
retained as the other half is replaced or
reelected every three years. (Cruz, Political
Law, p. 222)
The Senate is not dissolved as an entity with
each national election or change in the
composition of its members. However, in the
conduct of its day-to-day business, the
Senate of each Congress acts separately and
independently of the Senate of the Congress
before it. (Garcillano vs. House of
Representatives, G.R. No. 170338, December
23, 2008)
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
COMPOSITION: The House of
Representatives shall be composed of not
more than 250 members, unless
otherwise fixed by law, who shall be
elected from legislative districts apportioned
among the provinces, cities, and the
Metropolitan Manila in accordance with the
number of their respective inhabitants, and
on the basis of a uniform and progressive
ratio, and those who, as provided by law,
shall be elected through a party-list system
of registered national, regional, and sectoral
parties or organizations. (Sec. 5, par 1, Art.
VI, 1987 Constitution)
District Representatives - entitled to 80%
of the seats to be elected from legislative
districts.
Party-list Representatives – entitled to
20% of the total number of representatives,
who are elected through a party-list system
36
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
of registered national, regional, and sectoral
parties or organizations.
QUALIFICATIONS: No person shall be a
Member of the House of Representatives
unless he is:
1. a natural born citizen of the
Philippines and;
2. on the day of the election, is at least
twenty-five years of age;
3. able to read and write and,
4. except the party-list representatives,
a registered voter in the district in
which he shall be elected, and;
5. a resident thereof for a period of not
less than 1 year immediately
preceding the day of election. (Sec.
6, Art. VI, 1987 Constitution)
Domicile: Domicile has been defined as that
place in which a person's habitation is fixed,
without any present intention of removing
therefrom, and that place is properly the
domicile of a person in which he has
voluntarily fixed his abode, or habitation, not
for a mere special or temporary purpose, but
with a present intention of making it his
permanent home. It denotes a fixed
permanent residence to which when absent
for business, or pleasure, or for like reasons
one intends to return, and depends on facts
and circumstances, in the sense that they
disclose intent. (Ong Huan Tin v. Republic,
G.R. No. L-20997, April 27, 1967)
Domicile of choice, and of origin
Domicile is classified into domicile of origin
and domicile of choice. The law attributes to
every individual a domicile of origin, which is
the domicile of his parents, or of the head of
his family, or of the person on whom he is
legally dependent at the time of his birth.
While the domicile of origin is generally the
place where one is born or reared, it maybe
elsewhere.
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Domicile of choice, on the other hand, is the
place which the person has elected and
chosen for himself to displace his previous
domicile; it has for its true basis or foundation
the intention of the person. (Ong Huan Tin v.
Republic, G.R. No. L-20997, April 27, 1967)
Elements of Domicile of Choice
1. residence or bodily presence in the
new locality;
2. an intention to remain there; and
3. an intention to abandon the odd
domicile. (Gallego vs. Vera, G.R. No.
L-48641, November 24, 1941)
Without clear and positive proof of the
concurrence of the three requirements, the
domicile of origin continues. (Pundaodaya vs.
COMELEC, G.R. No. 179313, September 17,
2009)
Domiciliary Requirement
If a person retains his domicile of origin for
purposes of the residence requirement for
representatives, the one-year period is
irrelevant because by legal fiction, wherever
he may be, he is a resident of his domicile of
origin. Domicile imports not only intention to
reside in a fixed place but also personal
presence in that place coupled with conduct
indicative of that intention.
If a person re-establishes a previously
abandoned domicile or acquires a new one,
the one-year requirement must be satisfied.
(Marcos vs. Commission on Elections, G.R.
No. 119976, September 18, 1995)
Special rules on domicile
● A minor follows the domicile of his
parents. (Romualdez-Marcos vs.
Commission on Elections, G.R. No.
119976, September 18, 1995)
● The wife does not automatically gain the
husband’s domicile because the term
“residence” in Civil Law does not mean
37
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
the same in Political Law. (Romualdez-
Marcos vs. Commission on Elections, G.R.
No. 119976, September 18, 1995)
● Immigration to the US by virtue of the
acquisition of a “green card” constitutes
abandonment of domicile in the
Philippines. (Caasi vs. Commission on
Elections, G.R. No. 88831, November 8,
1990).
Residence: It is the place where one
habitually resides and to which, when he is
absent, he has the intention of returning.
(Romualdez-Marcos vs. COMELEC, G.R. no.
119976, September 18, 1995)
RESIDENCE vs. DOMICILE: The essential
distinction between Residence and Domicile
in law is that residence involves the intent to
leave when the purpose for which the
resident has taken up his abode ends. One
may seek a place for purposes such as
pleasure, business, or health. If a person's
intent be to remain, it becomes his domicile;
if his intent is to leave as soon as his purpose
is established it is residence. It is thus, quite
perfectly normal for an individual to have
different residences in various places.
However, a person can only have a single
domicile, unless, for various reasons, he
successfully abandons his domicile in favor of
another domicile of choice. (Romualdez-
Marcos vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 119976,
September 18, 1995)
TERM OF OFFICE: The Members of the
House of Representatives shall be elected for
a term of three years which shall begin,
unless otherwise provided by law, at noon on
the thirtieth day of June next following their
election. (Sec. 7, par 1, Art. VI, 1987
Constitution)
LIMITATIONS: No member of the House of
Representatives shall serve for more than
three consecutive terms. Voluntary
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
renunciation of the office for any length of
time shall not be considered as an
interruption in the continuity of his service for
the full term for which he was elected. (Sec.
7, par 2, Art. VI, 1987 Constitution)
No involuntary interruption of term in
the following cases
● When a permanent vacancy occurs in an
elective position and the official merely
assumed the position pursuant to the
rules on succession under the LGC, then
his service for the unexpired portion of
the term of the replaced official cannot
be treated as one full term as
contemplated under the subject
constitutional and statutory provision
that service cannot be counted in the
application of any term limit. (Borja, Jr.
vs. COMELEC, G.R No. 133495,
September 3, 1998)
● An elective official, who has served for
three consecutive terms and who did not
seek the elective position for what could
be his fourth term, but later won in a
recall election, had an interruption in the
continuity of the official’s service. For, he
had become in the interim, ie., from the
end of the 3rd term up to recall election,
a private citizen. (Adormeo vs. COMELEC,
G.R No. 147927, February 4, 2002)
● The abolition of an elective local office
due to the conversion of a municipality to
a city does not, by itself, work to interrupt
the incumbent official’s continuity of
service. (Latasa vs. COMELEC, G.R. No.
154829, December 10, 2003)
● Preventive suspension is not a term-
interrupting event as the elective officer’s
continued stay and entitlement to the
office remain unaffected during the
period of suspension, although he is
barred from exercising the functions of
his office during this period. (Aldovino vs.
38
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
COMELEC, G.R. No. 184836, December
23, 2009)
● When a candidate is proclaimed as
winner for an elective position and
assumes office, his term is interrupted
when he loses in an election protest and
is ousted from office, thus disenabling
him from serving what would otherwise
be the unexpired portion of his term of
office had the protest been dismissed.
(Lonzanida vs. COMELEC, G.R No.
135150, July 28, 1990)
● When an official is defeated in an election
protest and said decision becomes final
after said official had served the full term
for said office, then his loss in the election
contest does not constitute an
interruption since he has managed to
serve the term from start to finish. his full
service, despite the defeat, should be
counted in the application of term limits
because the nullification of his
proclamation came after the expiration of
the term. (Ong vs. Alegre, G.R No.
163295 & 163354, January 23, 2006)
Application of the three-term limit rule
upon local elective officials in renamed
and/or reapportioned districts:
Lawmakers intended for the old Second
District to be merely renamed to the
current new Third District. It likewise
bears noting that the actual difference in the
population of the old Second District from
that of the current Third District amounts to
less than 10% of the population of the latter.
This numerical fact renders the new Third
District as essentially, although not literally,
the same as the old Second District. Hence,
while petitioner is correct in his argument
that Sanggunian members are elected by
district, it does not alter the fact that the
district which elected him for the third and
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
fourth time is the same one which brought
him to office in 2004 and 2007. (Naval vs
COMELEC, GR. No. 207851, July 8, 2014)
DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVES AND
QUESTIONS OF APPORTIONMENT
Apportionment of Legislative Districts
Each legislative district shall compromise, as
far as practicable, contiguous, compact, and
adjacent territory. Each city with a population
of at least 250,000, or each province, shall
have at least one representative. (Sec. 5. par
3, Art. VI, 1987 Constitution)
The 250,000 minimum population
requirement for the establishment of
legislative districts under Sec. 5(3), Art. VI
applies only to cities. (Aquino III vs
COMELEC, G.R. No. 189793, April 7, 2010)
Reappointment of Legislative Districts
Within 3 years following the return of every
census, the Congress shall make a
reapportionment of legislative district based
on the standards provided in this section.
(Sec. 5, par 4, Art. VI, 1987 Constitution)
Reapportionment of legislative districts may
be made through a special law. To hold that
reapportionment can be made only through
a general law would create an inequitable
situation where a new city or province
created by Congress will be denied legislative
representation for an indeterminate period of
time, which would deprive the people in the
new city of province a particle of their
sovereignty. There would be no need for
such plebiscite where no new territory or no
change in an existing territory is made under
a law, and only a reapportionment or the
creation of an additional legislative district is
done. (Tobias vs Abalos, G.R. No. L-114783,
December 8, 1994)
Legislative districts are created or
reapportioned only by an act of Congress.
39
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
Nothing in Section 20, Article X of the
Constitution authorized autonomous regions,
expressly or impliedly, to create or
reapportion legislative districts for Congress.
The office of a legislative district
representative to Congress is a national
office, and its occupant, a Member of the
House of Representatives, is a national
official. It would be incongruous for a
regional legislative body like the ARMM
Regional Assembly to create a national office
when its legislative powers extend only to its
regional territory. The office of a district
representative is maintained by national
funds and the salary of its occupant is paid
out of national funds. (Sema vs COMELEC,
G.R. No. 177597, July 16, 2008)
Gerrymandering - The arrangement of
districts in such a way as to favor the election
of preferred candidates (usually re-
electionists) through the inclusion therein
only of those areas where they expect to win,
regardless of the resultant shape of such
districts.
The Constitution prohibits Gerrymandering, it
has been described as “an apportionment of
representative districts so contrived as to
give an unfair advantage to the party in
power. (Navaro vs. Ermita, GR No. 180050,
February 10, 2010)
Apportionment vs. Reapportionment
(Bagabuyo vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 176970,
December 8, 2008)
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
PARTY-LIST SYSTEM
The party-list representatives shall constitute
20% of the total number of representatives
including those under the party-list.
For three consecutive terms after the
ratification of this Constitution, one-half of
the seats allocated to a party-list
representatives shall be filled, as provided by
law, by selection or election from the labor,
peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural
communities, women, youth, and such other
sectors as may be provided by law, except
the religious sector. (Sec. 5, par 2, Art. VI,
1987 Constitution)
RA 7941: The State shall promote
proportional representation in the election of
representatives to the House of
Representatives through a party-list system
of registered national, regional and sectoral
parties or organizations or coalitions thereof,
which will enable Filipino citizens belonging
to marginalized and under- represented
sectors, organizations and parties, and who
lack well-defined political constituencies but
who could contribute to the formulation and
enactment of appropriate legislation that will
benefit the nation as a whole, to become
members of the House of Representatives.
Towards this end, the State shall develop and
guarantee a full, free and open party system
in order to attain the broadcast possible
representation of party, sectoral or group
interests in the House of Representatives by
enhancing their chances to compete for and
win seats in the legislature, and shall provide
the simplest scheme possible. (Sec. 2, R.A.
7941)
NOTE: This provision mandates the state
policy of promoting proportional
representation by means of Filipino-style,
40
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW

party-list system. Those Filipino Citizens are: underrepresented constituencies mentioned

1. Who belong to the marginalized and
underrepresented sectors, organizations
and parties; and
2. Who lack well-defined constituencies; but
3. Who could contribute to the formulation
and enactment of appropriate legislation
that will benefit the nation as a whole.
(Ang Bagong Bayani vs. Comelec, GR no.
147598, June 26, 2001)
The Party-List System: it is a mechanism
of proportional representation in the election
of representatives to the House of
Representatives from national, regional and
sectoral parties or organizations or coalitions
thereof registered with the COMELEC.
Component parties or organizations of a
coalition may participate independently,
provided the coalition of which they form part
does not participate in the party-list system.
(Sec. 3(a), R.A. 7941)
in Section 5. Concurrently, the persons
nominated by the party-list candidate
organization must be "Filipino citizens
belonging to marginalized and
underrepresented sectors, organizations and
parties. (Ang Bagong Bayani vs. Comelec,
G.R. No. 147598, June 26, 2001)
Lack of Well-Defined Constituency:
refers to the absence of a traditionally
identifiable electoral group, like voters of a
congressional district or territorial unit of
government. Rather, it points again to those
with disparate interests identified with the
"marginalized or underrepresented. (Ang
Bagong Bayani vs. Comelec, G.R. No.
147598, June 26, 2001)
Political Party vs. National Party vs.
Regional Party

Party: means either a political party or a

sectoral party or coalition of parties. (Sec.
3[b], RA 7941)

Proportional Representation: refers to

the representation of the "marginalized and
underrepresented" as exemplified by the
enumeration in Section 5 of the law; namely,
"labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor,
indigenous cultural communities, elderly,
handicapped, women, youth, veterans,
overseas workers, and professionals. (Ang
Bagong Bayani vs. Comelec, GR no. 147598,
June 26, 2001)
(Sec. 3(c), RA 7941)
Marginalized and Underrepresented: It
is not enough for the candidate to claim Sectoral Party: refers to an organized
representation of the marginalized and group of citizens whose principal advocacy
underrepresented, because representation is pertains to the special interest and concerns
easy to claim and to feign. The party-list of their sector, which belongs to any of the
organization or party must factually and truly following sectors:
represent the marginalized and a. Labor;

AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION 41

 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
b. Peasant;
c. Fisherfolk;
d. Urban poor;
e. Indigenous cultural communities;
f. Elderly;
g. Handicapped;
h. Women;
i. Youth;
j. Veterans;
k. Overseas workers; and
l. Professionals (Sec. 3[d], RA 7941)
Sectoral Organization: refers to a group of
citizens or a coalition of groups of citizens
who share similar physical attributes or
characteristics, employment, interest or
concerns. (Sec. 3[e], RA 7941)
Coalition: refers to an aggrupation of duly
registered national, regional, sectoral, parties
or organizations for political and/or election
purposes. (Sec. 3[f], RA 7491)
Number of Party-List Representatives:
20% of the total number of the members of
the House of Representatives including those
under the party-list. (Sec. 5, Art. VI, 1987
Constitution)
Allocation of Seats: In determining the
allocation of seats for party-list
representatives under Section 11 of R.A. No.
7941, the following procedure shall be
observed:
1. The parties, organizations, and coalitions
shall be ranked from the highest to the
lowest based on the number of votes
they garnered during the elections.
2. The parties, organizations, and coalitions
receiving at least two percent (2%) of the
total votes cast for the party-list system
shall be entitled to one guaranteed seat
each.
3. Those garnering sufficient number of
votes, according to the ranking in (1),
shall be entitled to additional seats in
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
proportion to their total number of votes
until all the additional seats are allocated.
4. Each party, organization, or coalition
shall be entitled to not more than three
(3) seats. (Sec. 11, R.A. 7941)
Additional seats and the 2% Threshold:
In BANAT vs. COMELEC, the Supreme Court
struck down the two percent threshold only
in relation to the distribution of the additional
seats as found in the second clause of Section
11 (b) of R.A. No. 7941. Thus, the additional
seats shall now be determined in (3) above,
i.e., it shall be based on the ranking in (1)
regardless if the party, organization, or
coalition garnered at least two percent (2%)
of the total votes cast for the party- list
system.
Grounds for refusal and/or cancellation
of registration of political parties:
1. Ceased to exist for at least one (1) year;
2. Advocates violence or unlawful means to
seek its goal;
3. Religious sect or denomination,
organization or association, organized for
religious purposes;
4. Receives support from any foreign
government, foreign political party,
foundation, organization, whether
directly or through any of its officers or
members or indirectly through third
parties for partisan election purposes;
5. Violates or fails to comply with laws, rules
or regulations relating to elections;
6. Untruthful statements in its petition;
7. Foreign party or organization;
8. Fails to participate in the last two (2)
preceding election;
9. Fails to obtain at least two per centum
(2%) of the votes cast under the party-
list system in the two (2) preceding
elections for the constituency in which it
has registered. (Sec. 6, RA 7491)
42
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
Parameters in Determining Who are
Qualified to Participate in Party-list
Election:
1. Three different groups may participate in
the party- list system: (1) national parties
or organizations, (2) regional parties or
organizations, and (3) sectoral parties or
organizations; (Sec. 5, RA 7491)
2. National parties or organizations and
regional parties or organizations do not
need to organize along sectoral lines and
do not need to represent any
"marginalized and underrepresented"
sector; (Abang Lingkod Party-list Abang
Lingkod vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 206952,
October 22, 2013)
3. Political parties can participate in party-
list elections provided they register under
the party-list system and do not field
candidates in legislative district elections.
A political party, whether major or not,
that fields candidates in legislative district
elections can participate in party-list
elections only through its sectoral wing
that can separately register under the
party-list system. The sectoral wing is by
itself an independent sectoral party, and
is linked to a political party through a
coalition; (Atong Paglaum vs. COMELEC,
G.R. No. 203766, April 2, 2013)
4. Sectoral parties or organizations may
either be "marginalized and
underrepresented" or lacking in "well-
defined political constituencies." It is
enough that their principal advocacy
pertains to the special interest and
concerns of their sector. The sectors that
are "marginalized and underrepresented"
include labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban
poor, indigenous cultural communities,
handicapped, veterans, and overseas
workers. The sectors that lack "well-
defined political constituencies" include
professionals, the elderly, women, and
the youth; (Atong Paglaum vs. COMELEC,
G.R. No. 203766, April 2, 2013)
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
5. A majority of the members of sectoral
parties or organizations that represent
the "marginalized and underrepresented"
must belong to the "marginalized and
underrepresented" sector they represent.
Similarly, a majority of the members of
sectoral parties or organizations that lack
"well- defined political constituencies"
must belong to the sector they represent.
The nominees of sectoral parties or
organizations that represent the
"marginalized and underrepresented," or
that represent those who lack "well-
defined political constituencies," either
must belong to their respective sectors,
or must have a track record of advocacy
for their respective sectors. The
nominees of national and regional parties
or organizations must be bona-fide
members of such parties or
organizations; (Atong Paglaum vs.
COMELEC, G.R. No. 203766, April 2,
2013)
6. National, regional, and sectoral parties or
organizations shall not be disqualified if
some of their nominees are disqualified,
provided that they have at least one
nominee who remains qualified. (Atong
Paglaum vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 203766,
April 2, 2013)
7. Moral disapproval, without more, is not a
sufficient governmental interest to justify
exclusion of homosexuals from
participation in the party-list system. The
denial of an LGBT party’s registration on
purely moral grounds amounts more to a
statement of dislike and disapproval of
homosexuals, rather than a tool to
further any substantial public interest.
Respondent COMELEC’s blanket
justifications give rise to the inevitable
conclusion that it targets homosexuals
themselves as a class, not because of any
particular morally reprehensible act. It is
this selective targeting that implicates the
equal protection clause. (Ang Ladlad
43
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
LGBT Party vs COMELEC, G.R. No.
190582, April 8, 2010)
ADDITIONAL QUALIFICATIONS MADE
BY CONGRESS: Regardless of the power of
Congress to prescribe the mechanics of the
party-list system and to provide for
qualifications of party-list representatives by
law, the Congress must still yield to the
general limitations on legislation and the
specific limitations on party-list organizations
under the Constitution, particularly the equal
protection clause. (Albano vs COMELEC, G.R.
No. 257610, January 24, 2023)
Formula for seat allocation:
● 20% allocation for total House of
Representatives seats for Party-list
Representatives
● 2% threshold
● Three-seat limit (Veterans Federation
Party vs. Commission on Elections, G.R.
No. 136781, October 6, 2010)
Computation of Additional Seats: In
computing the additional seats, the
guaranteed seats shall no longer be included
because they have already been allocated, at
one seat each, to every two-percenter. Thus,
the remaining available seats for allocation as
“additional seats” are the maximum seats
reserved under the Party- List System less
the guaranteed seats. Fractional seats are
disregarded in the absence of a provision in
RA 7941 allowing for a rounding off of
fractional seats.
MATHEMATICAL COMPUTATION OF
VOTES GARNERED BY PARTY-LIST
CANDIDATES (Veteran and BANAT
Formula)
a. Veteran Federation Party vs.
COMELEC
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
STEP BY STEP FORMULA:
Step One: There is no dispute among the
petitioners, the public and the private
respondents, as well as the members of this
Court, that the initial step is to rank all the
participating parties, organizations and
coalitions from the highest to the lowest
based on the number of votes they each
received.
Then the ratio for each party is computed by
dividing its votes by the total votes cast for
all the parties participating in the system. All
parties with at least two percent of the total
votes are guaranteed one seat each. Only
these parties shall be considered in the
computation of additional seats. The party
receiving the highest number of votes shall
henceforth be referred to as the "first" party.
Step Two: The next step is to determine the
number of seats the first party is entitled to,
in order to be able to compute that for the
other parties. Since the distribution is based
on proportional representation, the number
of seats to be allotted to the other parties
cannot possibly exceed that to which the first
party is entitled by virtue of obtaining the
most number of votes.
Formula for determining additional
seats for other qualified party-list:
- Proportionally, if the first party were to
receive twice the number of votes of the
second party, it should be entitled to
twice the latter's number of seats and so
on. The formula, therefore, for
computing the number of seats to which
the first party is entitled is as follows:
● If the proportion of votes received by the
first party without rounding it off is equal
44
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
to at least six percent of the total valid
votes cast for all the party list groups,
then the first party shall be entitled to
two additional seats or a total of three
seats overall. If the proportion of votes
without a rounding off is equal to or
greater than four percent, but less than
six percent, then the first party shall have
one additional or a total of two seats. And
if the proportion is less than four percent,
then the first party shall not be entitled
to any additional seat.
● The Supreme Court adopted this six
percent bench mark, because the first
party is not always entitled to the
maximum number of additional seats.
Likewise, it would prevent the allotment
of more than the total number of
available seats, such as in an extreme
case wherein 18 or more parties tie for
the highest rank and are thus entitled to
three seats each. In such scenario, the
number of seats to which all the parties
are entitled may exceed the maximum
number of party-list seats reserved in the
House of Representatives.
Step Three: The next step is to solve for the
number of additional seats that the other
qualified parties are entitled to, based on
proportional representation. The formula is
encompassed by the following complex
fraction:
Formula for determining additional
seats for the first party-list:
(Veterans Federation Party vs. Commission
on Elections, G.R. No. 136781, October 6,
2010)
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
b. BANAT vs. COMELEC
● In computing the allocation of additional
seats, the continued operation of the two
percent threshold for the distribution of
the additional seats as found in the
second clause of Section 11(b) of R.A.
No. 7941 is unconstitutional. This Court
finds that the two percent threshold
makes it mathematically impossible to
achieve the maximum number of
available party list seats when the
number of available party list seats
exceeds 50. The continued operation of
the two percent threshold in the
distribution of the additional seats
frustrates the attainment of the
permissive ceiling that 20% of the
members of the House of
Representatives shall consist of party-list
representatives.
● In computing the additional seats, the
guaranteed seats shall no longer be
included because they have already been
allocated, at one seat each, to every two-
percenter. Thus, the remaining available
seats for allocation as "additional seats"
are the maximum seats reserved under
the Party List System less the guaranteed
seats. Fractional seats are disregarded in
the absence of a provision in R.A. No.
7941 allowing for a rounding off of
fractional seats. (Barangay Association
for National Advancement and
Transparency (BANAT) vs. Commission
on Elections, G.R. No. 179271, April 21,
2009)
Nominations of Party-List
Representatives:
● Each registered party, organization or
coalition shall submit to the COMELEC a
list of names, not less than five (5) from
which party-list representatives shall be
chosen in case it obtains the required
number of votes.
45
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
● A person may be nominated in one (1)
list only.
● Only persons who have given their
consent in writing may be named in the
list.
● The list shall not include any:
● candidate for any elective office or
● person who has lost his bid for an elective
office in the immediately preceding
election. (Sec. 8, RA 7941)
NOTE: The Supreme Court declared this
qualification to be invalid and
unconstitutional. The prohibition placed
on losing candidates violates the
constitutional guaranty of substantive
due process as it effectively intrudes on
the right of losing candidates in the
immediately preceding elections from
participating in the present elections.
(Albano vs COMELEC, G.R. No. 257610,
January 24, 2023)
● No change of names or alteration of the
order of nominees shall be allowed after
the same shall have been submitted to
the COMELEC except in cases where the
nominee:
a. dies, or
b. withdraws in writing, his nomination,
c. becomes incapacitated in which case
the name of the substitute’s nominee
shall be placed last in the list. (Sec. 8,
RA 7941)
● Incumbent sectoral representatives in
the House of Representatives who are
nominated in the party-list system shall
not be considered resigned. (Sec. 8, R.A.
No. 7941).
● In case of a nominee of the youth sector,
he must at least be twenty-five (25) but
not more than thirty (30) years of age on
the day of the election. Any youth
sectoral representative who attains the
age of thirty (30) during his term shall be
allowed to continue in office until the
expiration of his term. (Sec. 9, R.A. No.
7941)
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
TERM OF OFFICE:
● Party-list representatives shall be elected
for a term of 3 years;
● No party-list representative shall serve
for more than three (3) consecutive
terms; and
● Voluntary renunciation of the office for
any length of time shall not be considered
as an interruption in the continuity of his
service for the full term for which he was
elected. (Sec. 14, R.A. No. 7941)
VACANCY:
● The vacancy shall be automatically filled
by the next representative from the list
nominees in the order submitted to the
COMELEC by the same party,
organization, or coalition, who shall serve
for the unexpired term. If the list is
exhausted, the party, organization
coalition concerned shall submit
additional nominees (Sec. 16, R.A. No.
7941).
● In case of vacancy in the Senate or House
of Representatives, a special election
may be called to fill such vacancy in the
manner prescribed by law, but the
Senator or Member of the House of
Representatives thus elected shall serve
only for the unexpired term. (Sec. 9, Art.
VI, 1987 Constitution)
SALARIES AND EMOLUMENTS: Party-List
Representatives shall be entitled to the same
salaries and emoluments as regular members
of the House of Representatives (Sec. 17,
R.A. 7941).
ELECTION: Unless otherwise provided by
law, the regular election of the Senators and
the Members of the House of Representatives
shall be held on the Second Monday of May.
(Sec. 8, Art. VI, 1987 Constitution)
2. PRIVILEGES AND INHIBITIONS –
1987 CONST., art. VI, secs. 10, 11 and 13-14
46
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
LEGISLATIVE PRIVILEGES
SALARIES
The salaries of Senators and Members of the
House of Representatives shall be
determined by law. No increase in said
compensation shall take effect until after the
expiration of the full term of all the Members
of the Senate and the House of
Representatives approving such increase.
(Sec. 10, Art. VI, 1987 Constitution)
In establishing a waiting period before the
increased compensation for legislators
becomes fully effective, the constitutional
provision refers to "all the members of the
Senate and of the House of
Representatives" in the same sentence, as
a single unit, without distinction or separation
between them. The fundamental
consideration is that the terms of office of all
members of the Legislature that enacted the
measure (whether Senators or
Representatives) must have expired before
the increase in compensation can become
operative. (Philconsa vs. Mathay, G.R. No. L-
25554, Oct. 1966)
PARLIAMENTARY IMMUNITIES
IMMUNITY FROM ARREST
A Senator or Member of the House of
Representatives shall, in all offenses
punishable by not more than 6 years
imprisonment, be privileged from arrest while
the Congress is in session. (Sec. 11, Art. VI,
1987 Constitution)
Ratio: Intended to ensure representation of
the constituents of the member of the
Congress by preventing attempts to keep him
from attending its sessions.
Violation of Parliamentary Immunity. —
The penalty of prisión mayor shall be
imposed upon any person who shall use
force, intimidation, threats, or fraud to
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
prevent any member of either House of the
Legislature from attending the meetings
thereof, from expressing his opinions or
casting his vote; and the penalty of prisión
correccional shall be imposed upon any
public officer or employee who shall, while
the Legislature is in session, knowingly arrest
or search any member thereof, except in case
such member has committed a crime
punishable under this Code by a penalty
higher than prisión mayor. (Art.145 of the
Revised Penal Code)
The members of Congress cannot compel
absent members to attend sessions if the
reason for the absence is a legitimate one.
The confinement of a Congressman charged
with a crime punishable by imprisonment of
more than six years is not merely authorized
by law, it has constitutional foundations.
(People vs. Jalosjos, G.R. Nos. 132875-76
Feb. 03, 2000)
Applicability:
The immunity applies only while the
Congress is in session. The term “Session”
referred under this section (Sec.10, Art. VI)
refers to the entire period of the Congress
from its initial convening until its final
adjournment.
The provision granting an exemption as a
special privilege cannot be extended beyond
the ordinary meaning of its terms. It may not
be extended by intendment, implication or
equitable considerations. For offenses
punishable by more than six years
imprisonment, there was no immunity from
arrest. (Bernas, 1987 Constitution of the
Philippines, p. 727, 2009)
When Arrested: Membership in Congress
does not exempt an accused from statutes
and rules which apply to validly incarcerated
persons. It would amount to the creation of
a privileged class, without justification in
47
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
reason, if notwithstanding their liability for a
criminal offense, they would be considered
immune from arrest during their attendance
in Congress and in going to and returning
from the same. Moreover, the accused
appellant is provided with an office at the
House of Representatives with a full
complement of staff, as well as an office at
the Administration Building, New Bilibid
Prison, where he attends to his constituents;
he has, therefore, been discharging his
mandate as member of the House of
Representatives. (People vs. Jalosjos, G.R.
Nos. 132875-76 Febuary 3, 2000)
Restrictive Construction of the
Constitutional Provision of “Immunity
from Arrest and Detention”
The immunity from arrest or detention of
Senators and members of the House of
Representatives is a special privilege which
cannot be extended beyond the ordinary
meaning of its terms. It may not be extended
by intendment, implication, or equitable
considerations. The 1973 Constitution – Sec.
9, Art. VIII – broadened the privilege of
immunity as follows:
A Member of the Batasang Pambansa shall,
in all offenses punishable by not more than
six years imprisonment, be privileged from
arrest during his attendance at its sessions
and in going to and returning from the same.
- For offenses punishable by more than six
years imprisonment, there was no immunity
from arrest. The restrictive interpretation of
immunity and the intent to confine it within
carefully defined parameters is illustrated by
the concluding portion of the provision, to
wit:
- xxx but the Batasang Pambansa shall
surrender the member involved to the
custody of the law within twenty-four hours
after its adjournment for a recess or for its
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
next session, otherwise such privilege shall
cease upon its failure to do so.
The present Constitution adheres to the same
restrictive rules minus the obligation of
Congress to surrender the subject
Congressman to the custody of the law. The
requirement that he should be attending
sessions or committee meetings has also
been removed. For relatively minor offenses,
it is enough that Congress is in session.
(People of the Philippines vs. Jalosjos, G.R.
No. 132875, February 3, 2000)
PRIVILEGE OF SPEECH AND DEBATE
No Member shall be questioned nor be held
liable in any other place for any speech or
debate in the Congress or in any committee
thereof. (Sec. 11, Art. VI, 1987 Constitution)
Ratio: The parliamentary non-accountability
granted to members of Congress is not to
protect them against prosecutions for their
own benefit, but to enable them, as the
people’s representatives, to perform the
functions of their office without fear of being
made responsible before the courts or other
forums outside the congressional hall. (Pobre
v. Sen. Santiago, A.C No. 7399, August 25,
2009)
Requirements:
1.) the remarks must be made while the
legislative committee is functioning, that
is, in session; and
2.) that they must be made in connection
with the discharge of official duties.
A lawmaker’s participation in media
interviews is not a legislative act, but is
“political in nature,” outside the ambit of the
immunity conferred under the Speech or
Debate Clause in the 1987 Constitution. The
privilege arises not because the statement is
made by a lawmaker, but because it is
uttered in furtherance of legislation.
48
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
(Trillanes IV vs. Castillo-Marigomen, G.R. No.
223451, March 14, 2018)
Scope: While parliamentary immunity
guarantees the legislator complete freedom
of expression without fear of being made
responsible in criminal or civil actions before
the courts or any other forum outside of the
Congressional Hall, however, it does not
protect him from responsibility before the
legislative body itself whenever his words and
conduct are considered by the latter
disorderly or unbecoming a member thereof.
For unparliamentary conduct, members of
Congress can be censured, committed to
prison, suspended, and even expelled by the
votes of their colleagues. Bernas, 1987
Constitution of the Philippines, p. 728, 2009)
INCOMPATIBLE AND FORBIDDEN
OFFICES
INCOMPATIBLE OFFICE
No Senator or Member of the House of
Representatives may hold any other office or
employment in the Government, or any
subdivision, agency, or instrumentality
thereof, including government-owned or
controlled corporations or their subsidiaries,
during his term without forfeiting his seat.
(Sec. 13, Art. VI, 1987 Constitution)
RATIO: To prevent such member from
owing loyalty to another branch of
government, to the detriment of the
independence of the legislature and the
doctrine of separation of powers
EXCEPTION:
● Forfeiture of the seat in Congress or
cessation of his tenure shall be automatic
upon the member’s assumption of such
other office deemed incompatible with
his seat in Congress.
● However, no forfeiture shall take place if
the member of Congress holds the other
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
government office in an ex officio
capacity
● The purpose of the prohibition is to
prevent him from owing loyalty to
another branch of the government to the
detriment of the independence of the
legislature and the impairment of the
doctrine of separation of powers
● Exempted from this provision is the
holding of a second office which is an
extension of his legislative duties or is in
aid of his legislative position. (Liban vs.
Gordon, G.R. No. 175352, January 18,
2011)
● The office of the Chairman of the Phil.
National Red Cross (PNRC), despite its
having been created by a special law, is
not to be considered a government office
or a GOCC office for purposes of the
prohibition under Sec. 13. The
structure of the PNRC is sui generis,
being neither strictly private nor
public in nature. (Liban vs. Gordon, GR
no. 175352, July 15, 2009)
FORBIDDEN OFFICE
A member of the Congress shall not be
appointed to any office which may have been
created or the emoluments thereof increased
during the term for which he was elected.
(Sec. 13, Art. VI, 1987 Constitution)
The appointment of the member of the
Congress to the forbidden office is not
allowed only during the term for which he
was elected, when such office was created or
its emoluments were increased. After such
term, and even if the legislator is re- elected,
the disqualification no longer applies and he
may, therefore, be appointed to the office.
RATIO: To prevent public trafficking in
public office. Some public legislators who do
not opt out to run again in the public office
might create or improve lucrative
49
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW

government positions, all at the expense of

public good. Therefore, a lawyer-legislator may still
engage in the practice of his profession
INHIBITIONS AND except that when it comes to trials and
DISQUALIFICATIONS hearings before the bodies above-mentioned,
No Senator or Member of the House of appearance may be made not by him but by
Representatives may personally appear as some other member of his law office.
counsel before any court of justice or before
the Electoral Tribunals, or quasi-judicial and 3. QUORUM AND VOTING MAJORITIES,
other administrative bodies. Neither shall he, AND DISCIPLINE OF MEMBERS – 1987
directly or indirectly, be interested financially CONST., art. VI, sec. 16
in any contract with, or in any franchise or
special privilege granted by the Government, QUORUM AND VOTING MAJORITIES
or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality
thereof, including any government-owned or
controlled corporation, or its subsidiary,
during his term of office. He shall not
intervene in any matter before any office of
the Government for his pecuniary benefit or
where he may be called upon to act on
account of his office. (Sec. 14, Art. VI, 1987
Constitution)

Upon assumption of office, legislators must

make a full disclosure of financial and
business interests. They must notify the
House concerned of a potential conflict of
interest that may arise from the filing of a
proposed legislation of which they are
authors. (Sec. 12, Art. VI, 1987 Constitution)

RATIO: To prevent the legislator from

exerting undue influence, deliberately or not,
upon the body where he is appearing.

Appearance as a counsel before an

administrative body is a circumvention of the
Constitutional prohibition. A ruling upholding
the “intervention” would make the
constitutional provision ineffective. All an
Assemblyman need do, if he wants to
influence an administrative body is to acquire
a minimal participation in the “interest” of the
client and then “intervene” in the
proceedings. (Puyat vs. De Guzman Jr, G.R.
No. L-5112, March 25, 1982)

AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION 50

 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
SUMMARY OF VOTING REQUIREMENTS
A majority of each House shall constitute a
quorum to do business, but a smaller number
may adjourn from day to day and may
compel the attendance of absent Members in
such manner, and under such penalties, as
such House may provide. (Sec. 14[2], Art. VI,
1987 Constitution)
The quorum required to conduct business is
a majority (1/2 + 1) of all the members.
SENATE: The basis in determining the
existence of a quorum in the Senate shall be
the total number of Senators who are in the
country and within the coercive jurisdiction of
the Senate. (Avelino vs. Cuenco, G.R. No. L-
2821, March 4, 1949)
HOUSE: It is within the powers of the House
to employ its own particular method of
determining the presence of a continuing
quorum to be able to conduct its affairs,
including the power to resolve any issues
arising therefrom. By virtue of such authority,
it may implement a system whereby once a
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
quorum had been established at the
beginning of the session, certain procedural
barriers must be overcome before any
declaration that the same had been "lost"
during the proceedings may be made. Such
state of quorum thenceforth persists unless
properly challenged, and quorum is
recounted via a roll call.
Any question relating to quorum, which was
raised in the middle of a valid and regular
session, therefore, should be properly
characterized as an internal issue that
must be addressed exclusively by the
House. This is due to the fact that its
resolution is entirely dependent upon the
parameters of its own Internal Rules and
historical practices.
Clearly, the physical absences of these
Members do not militate against their
attendance in a particular session and do not
automatically translate to the fact of quorum
being "lost," especially so when they have
had their presence recorded during the initial
51
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
roll call. (ACT Teachers Party-List vs. Duterte,
G.R. No. 236118, January 24, 2023)
Parliamentary rules are merely procedural,
and with their observance, the courts have
no concern. They may be waived or
disregarded by the legislative body.
Consequently, “mere failure to conform to
parliamentary usage will not invalidate the
action (taken by a deliberative body) when
the requisite number of members have
agreed to a particular measure.” (Arroyo vs.
De Venecia, G.R. No. 127255, August 14,
1997)
The exercise of the power of each house to
determine the rules of its proceedings is
generally exempt from judicial supervision
and interference, except on a clear showing
of such arbitrary and improvident use of the
power as will constitute a denial of due
process. (Spouses Dela Paz vs. Senate
Committee, G.R. No. 184849, February 13,
2009)
DISCIPLINE OF MEMBERS
Each House may determine the rules of its
proceedings, punish its members for
disorderly behavior, and with the
concurrence of two-thirds of all its
Members, suspend or expel a Member. A
penalty of suspension, when imposed, shall
not exceed sixty days. (Sec. 16[3], Art. VI,
1987 Constitution)
● The power to punish and expel a member
of Congress is a necessary and incidental
power of the legislative body to enable it
to perform its high functions and is
necessary to the safety of the State. It is
a power of protection. (Cooley,
Constitutional Limitations, 7th ed. Vol. I,
1868)
● The determination of the acts which
constitute disorderly behavior is within
the full discretionary authority of the
House concerned, and the Court will not
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
review such determination, the same
being apolitical question. (Osmena vs.
Pendatun, G.R. No. L- 17144, October 28,
1960)
● The order of suspension prescribed by
Republic Act No. 3019 is distinct from the
power of Congress to discipline its own
ranks. The situation contemplated in the
Constitution is a punitive measure that is
imposed upon determination by the
Senate of the House of Representatives,
as the case may be, upon an erring
Member. The doctrine of separation of
powers by itself may not be deemed to
have effectively excluded members of
Congress from Republic Act No. 3019 nor
from its sanctions. (Defensor-Santiago
vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 126055,
April 19, 2001)
● A disciplinary action, including
suspension or dismissal, is the exclusive
power of the House of Representatives,
to which the courts have no jurisdiction
to interfere. (Osmeña v. Pendatun, G.R.
No. L-17144, October 28, 1960)
Journal and Congressional Records
Each House shall keep a Journal of its
proceedings, and from time to time publish
the same, excepting such parts as may, in its
judgment, affect national security; and the
yeas and nays on any question shall, at the
request of one-fifth of the Members present,
be entered in the Journal. Each House shall
also keep a Record of its proceedings.”
(Sec.16[4], Art. VI, 1987 Constitution)
JOURNAL: This is a record of what is done
and passed in a legislative assembly. They
are useful not only for authenticating the
proceedings but also for the interpretation of
laws through a study of the debates held
thereon and for informing the people of the
official conduct of their respective legislators.
52
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
Matters Required to be Entered in the
Journal
a. Yeas and nays on third and final
reading of a bill (Sec. 26[2], Art. VI,
1987 Constitution);
b. Veto Message of the President (Sec.
27[1], Art. VI, 1987 Constitution);
c. Yeas and nays on the repassing of a
bill vetoed by the President (Sec.
27[1], Art.VI, 1987 Constitution); and
d. Yeas and nays on any question at the
request of 1/5 of members present
(Sec. 16[4], Art.VI, 1987
Constitution)
RECORD: A record, on the other hand,
contains the verbatim transcript of all
proceedings of the house or its committees.
The Constitution is silent as to what the
record must contain. Note however, in Sec.
3(3) of Art. XI, the Constitution speaks of the
vote of each member of the House either
affirming a favorable or overriding its
contrary resolution of the impeachment
complaint to be "recorded."
Enrolled Bill Theory
Once a Bill has been approved by both
houses, the Bill is enrolled, and this Enrolled
Copy of the Bill bears the certification of the
Presiding Officer of the house (either Senate
President or Speaker of the House) that this
Bill as enrolled is the version passed by each
house. The purpose of the certification is to
prevent attempts at smuggling in “riders”.
The enrolled copy is then sent to the
President for his action.
The Supreme Court, in upholding the enrolled
bill, explained that its basis is the separation
of powers, so that the remedy of an
aggrieved party is not a judicial decree but a
legislative amendment or curative legislation.
(Morales vs. Subido, G.R. No. L-29658,
November 29, 1968)
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Note however the case of Astorga v Villegas
(G.R. No. L23475, April 30, 1974), upon
being informed that the enrolled bill did not
contain the amendment proposed by Senator
Tolentino (regarding the powers of the Vice-
Mayor of Manila) when the house bill was
raised to the Senate, the Senate President,
withdrew his signature and notified the
President of the mistake, who then likewise
withdrew his signature. In short because of
the withdrawal, there was no occasion, then,
to apply the enrolled bill theory.
The SC emphasized that “Our cases manifest
form adherence to the rule that an enrolled
copy of a bill is conclusive not only of its
provisions but also its due enactment. Not
even claims that a proposed constitutional
amendment was invalid because the requisite
votes for its approval had not been obtained
or that certain provisions of a statute had
been “smuggled” in the printing of the bill
have moved or persuaded us to look behind
the proceedings of a co-equal branch of the
government” (Tolentino vs. Secretary of
Finance, G.R. No. 115455, August 25, 1994)
The enrolled bill will prevail if there is a
discrepancy between the enrolled bill and any
other copy of the bill. (Mabanag v Lopez Vito,
G.R. No. L-1123, March 5, 1947)
Journal Entry Rule vs. Enrolled Bill
Theory
In Astorga vs. Villegas, by way of obiter
dictum, the Supreme Court indicated that the
journal might really prevail over the enrolled
bill, since a journal is required by the
Constitution, while the enrollment of a bill is
just a legislative practice that is not even
mentioned in the Constitution.
Further, enrollment does not add to the
validity of the bill, for what makes it valid are
the votes of the members. This ruling
however seems to contradict the ruling in
53
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
Morales v Subido that the enrolled copy
prevails over the journal. Reconciling these
two decisions, as to matters required by the
Constitution to be placed in the journal, the
journal is conclusive. But aside from these
matters, any other matter does not enjoy
such conclusiveness.
Sessions
The Congress shall convene once every year
in the fourth Monday of July for its regular
session, unless a different date is fixed by
law, and shall continue to be in session for
such number of days as it may determine
until thirty (30) days before the opening of its
next regular session, exclusive of Saturdays,
Sundays and legal holidays. The President
may call a special session at any time. (Sec.
15, Art. VI, 1987 Constitution)
Neither House during the sessions of the
Congress shall, without consent of the other,
adjourn for more than three (3) days, nor to
any other place than that in which the two
Houses shall be sitting. (Sec. 16[5], Article
VI, 1987 Constitution)
a. Regular Sessions
● Congress shall convene every fourth
(4th) Monday of July for its regular
session unless a different date is fixed
by law, and shall continue to be in
session for such number of days as it
may determine until thirty (30) days
before the opening of its next regular
session. (Sec. 15, Art. VI, 1987
Constitution)
b. Special Sessions Called by the
President
● May be called at any time by the
President, at his absolute discretion,
to consider such subjects as he may
determine.
● Congress, however, determines the
number of days it needs for such
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
session. (Sec. 15, Art. VI, 1987
Constitution)
c. Special Sessions Called by Congress
without Need of Call
● To pass a bill calling for the holding
of a special election when there is a
vacancy in the office of the President
and Vice President. (Sec. 10, Art. VII,
1987 Constitution)
● To determine by 2/3 vote whether
the President is unable to discharge
the powers and duties of his office.
(Sec. 11, Art. VII, 1987 Constitution)
● To canvass the Presidential elections
(Sec. 4, Art. VII, 1987 Constitution)
● To exercise the power of
impeachment (Sec. 3, Art. XII, 1987
Constitution)
● To extend or revoke the proclamation
of martial law or suspension of the
Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Sec. 18[2],
Art.VII, 1987 Constitution).
B. LAW-MAKING PROCESS (1987
CONST., art. VI, secs. 26-27
Every bill passed by the Congress shall
embrace only one subject which shall be
expressed in the title thereof.
No bill passed by either House shall become
a law unless it has passed three readings on
separate days, and printed copies thereof in
its final form have been distributed to its
Members three days before its passage,
except when the President certifies to the
necessity of its immediate enactment to meet
a public calamity or emergency. Upon the last
reading of a bill, no amendment thereto shall
be allowed, and the vote thereon shall be
taken immediately thereafter, and the yeas
and nays entered in the Journal (Sec. 26, Art.
VI, 1987 Constitution)
Every bill passed by the Congress shall,
before it becomes a law, be presented to the
54
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW

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.
They should not, however, perform functions
that the Congress itself may not do.
Moreover, their proposals need confirmation
by both Houses of Congress. (Ibid.)
Following the US practice, amendments
germane to the purpose of the bill could be
introduced even if these were not in either
original bill. (Tolentino vs. Sec. of Finance,
supra).
The Bicameral Conference Committee is not
required to comply with the ―three (3)
readings on three (3) separate days
requirement, and with the “limitation on no-
amendment on third reading” rule.
(ABAKADA Guro Party List vs. Ermita, G.R.
No. 168056, September 1, 2005)

The President shall communicate his veto of

any bill to the House where it originated
within thirty days after the date of receipt
thereof, otherwise, it shall become a law as if
he had signed it.

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. (Sec. 27, Art. VI,
1987 Constitution)

A.) FUNCTION OF THE BICAMERAL

CONFERENCE COMMITTEE

In a bicameral system, bills are

independently processed by both houses of
Congress. The Conference Committee
consisting of members nominated for both
Houses is an extraconstitutional creation of
Congress whose function is to propose to
Congress ways of reconciling conflicting
provisions found in the Senate version and
House version of the bill. (Bernas,
Commentary, supra at 789).

AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION 55

 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
PROCEDURE IN THE PASSAGE OF BILLS
A.) Origin of Bills
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. (Sec. 24, Art.
VI, 1987 Constitution)
B.) Title of Bills
Every bill passed by the Congress shall
embrace only one subject which shall be
expressed in the title thereof. (Sec. 26(1),
Art. VI, 1987 Constitution)
The SC reiterated its earlier pronouncement
that the rule should be given “a practical
rather than a technical construction” and said
it should suffice if “the title expresses the
general subject and all the provisions are
germane to that general subject.” (Tobias vs.
Abalos, G.R. No. 114783, December
08,1994)
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
C.) Formalities
No bill passed by either House shall become
a law unless it has passed three readings on
separate days, and printed copies thereof in
its final form have been distributed to its
Members three days before its passage,
except when the President certifies to the
necessity of its immediate enactment to meet
a public calamity or emergency. Upon the last
reading of a bill, no amendment thereto shall
be allowed, and the vote thereon shall be
taken immediately thereafter, and the yeas
and nays entered in the Journal. (Sec. 26(2),
Art. VI, 1987 Constitution)
A bill can be passed jointly or separately. The
former is done by a joint session, while the
latter is passed simultaneously (when a bill is
taken up by both Houses separately but at
the same time), or sequentially (when a bill
originates from one house and goes to the
other house). If passed separately, the bill
approved by one house goes to the other
House, which can amend such bill. Once the
other House approves the bill, this is called
the other House’s version of the bill.
D.) Conference Committee
A Conference Committee is then organized,
composed of an equal number of members
from the Senate and the House, to make
recommendations of the bill. The respective
members are usually granted blanket
authority to negotiate and reconcile the bills.
Under the congressional rules of procedure,
conference committees are not expected to
make any material change in the measure at
issue, either by deleting provisions to which
both houses have already agreed or by
inserting new provisions. But this is a difficult
provision to enforce. Note the problem when
one house amends a proposal originating in
either house by striking out everything
following the enacting clause and
substituting provisions which make it an
56
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
entirely new bill. The versions are now
altogether different, permitting a conference
committee to draft essentially a new bill.
At the end of the process, the Committee
comes up with a “Conference Committee
Report” which is then submitted to the
respective Houses for approval.
A conference committee may deal generally
with the subject matter, or it may be limited
to resolving the precise differences between
the two houses. Even where the conference
committee is not by rule limited in its
jurisdiction, legislative custom severely limits
the freedom with which new subject matter
can be inserted into the conference bill. But
occasionally a conference committee
produces unexpected results, results beyond
its mandate. These excursions occur even
where the rules impose strict limitations on
conference committee jurisdiction. This is
symptomatic of the authoritarian power of
the conference committee.” (Philippine
Judges Association vs. Prado, GR No.
105371, November 11, 1993)
The result is a third version, which is
considered an “amendment in the nature of
a substitute,” the only requirement for which
being that the third version be germane to
the subject of the House and Senate bills
(Tolentino vs. Secretary of Finance, G.R. No.
1154545, August 25, 1994)
E.) Approval of Bills
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
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
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
thereof, otherwise, it shall become a law as if
he had signed it. (Sec. 27, Art. VI, 1987
Constitution)
Three Methods by which a Bill may
become a Law:
1.) When the President signs it;
2.) When the President vetoes it but the
veto is overridden by ⅔ vote of all the
members of each House; and
3.) When the President does not act
upon the measure within 30 days
after it shall have been presented to
him. (Sec. 27, Art. VI, 1987
Constitution)
F.) Presidential Veto and Congressional
Override
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. (Sec. 27, Art. VI,
1987 Constitution)
The President may disapprove or veto a
measure upon any ground sufficient for him,
as where he considers it unconstitutional or
merely inefficacious or unwise. In every case,
he should indicate his objections thereto
known as a “veto message” so that the same
can be studied by the members for possible
overriding of his veto. (Sec. 27[1], Art. VI,
1987 Constitution)
57
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
Two-thirds of each House will be
sufficient to invalidate the veto and convert
the bill into law over the President’s
objections. On the other hand, the Congress
may agree with the President’s objections
and decide to revise the measure as he
suggests. (Section 27 [2], Article VI, 1987
Constitution)
Partial Veto
General Rule: The President must approve
entirely or disapprove in toto.
Exception: Appropriation, revenue and tariff
bills, any particular item or items of which
may be disapproved without affecting the
item or items to which he does not object.
(Sec. 27, Art. VI, 1987 Constitution); (Cruz,
Political Law, p. 288)
C. APPROPRIATION (1987 CONST., art.
VI, secs. 24-25 and 29)
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. (Sec. 24, Art.
VI, 1987 Constitution)
1. The Congress may not increase the
appropriations recommended by the
President for the operation of the
Government as specified in the budget.
The form, content, and manner of
preparation of the budget shall be
prescribed by law.
2. No provision or enactment shall be
embraced in the general appropriations
bill unless it relates specifically to some
particular appropriation therein. Any
such provision or enactment shall be
limited in its operation to the
appropriation to which it relates.
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
3. The procedure in approving
appropriations for the Congress shall
strictly follow the procedure for
approving appropriations for other
departments and agencies.
4. A special appropriations bill shall
specify the purpose for which it is
intended, and shall be supported by
funds actually available as certified by
the National Treasurer, or to be raised
by a corresponding revenue proposed
therein.
5. 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.
6. Discretionary funds appropriated for
particular officials shall be disbursed
only for public purposes to be
supported by appropriate vouchers and
subject to such guidelines as may be
prescribed by law.
7. If, by the end of any fiscal year, the
Congress shall have failed to pass the
general appropriations bill for the
ensuing fiscal year, the general
appropriations law for the preceding
fiscal year shall be deemed reenacted
and shall remain in force and effect
until the general appropriations bill is
passed by the Congress. (Sec. 25, Art.
VI, 1987 Constitution)
(1) No money shall be paid out of the
Treasury except in pursuance of an
appropriation made by law.
58
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
(2) No public money or property shall be
appropriated, applied, paid, or employed,
directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or
support of any sect, church, denomination,
sectarian institution, or system of religion, or
of any priest, preacher, minister, or other
religious teacher, or dignitary as such, except
when such priest, preacher, minister, or
dignitary is assigned to the armed forces, or
to any penal institution, or government
orphanage or leprosarium.
(3) All money collected on any tax levied for
a special purpose shall be treated as a special
fund and paid out for such purpose only. If
the purpose for which a special fund was
created has been fulfilled or abandoned, the
balance, if any, shall be transferred to the
general funds of the Government. (Sec. 29,
Art. VI, 1987 Constitution)
APPROPRIATION: A statute the primary
and specific purpose of which is to authorize
the release of public funds from the treasury.
(Nachura, Political Law Outline Reviewer,
2014, p.278)
THE POWER OF APPROPRIATION
No money shall be paid out of the Treasury
except in pursuance of an appropriation
made by law. (Sec. 29[1], Art. VI, 1987
Constitution)
NOTE: The power to appropriate must be
exercised only through legislation.
● The power of appropriation involves the
setting apart by law of a certain sum from
the public revenue for a specified
purpose. Essentially, under the 2013
PDAF Article, individual legislators are
given a personal lump-sum fund from
which they are able to dictate (a) how
much from such fund would go to (b) a
specific project or beneficiary that they
themselves also determine. As these two
acts comprise the exercise of the power
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
of appropriation as described in Bengzon
and given that the 2013 PDAF Article
authorizes individual legislators to
perform the same, undoubtedly, said
legislators have been conferred the
power to legislate which the Constitution
does not, however, allow. (Bengzon vs.
Secretary of Justice and Insular Auditor,
G.R. No. L-42821, January 18, 1936)
● In keeping with the principle of non-
delegability of legislative power, the
Supreme Court hereby declares the 2013
PDAF Article, as well as all other forms of
Congressional Pork Barrel which contain
the similar legislative identification
feature as herein discussed, as
unconstitutional. The power to determine
what kind of infrastructure to prioritize
and fund is a power to determine the
purpose of the appropriation and is an
undue delegation of the power to
appropriate. (Belgica vs. Ochoa, Jr., G.R.
No. 208566, November 19, 2013)
CLASSES OF APPROPRIATION LAW:
a. General Appropriations Law
passed annually, intended to provide for the
financial operations of the entire government
during one fiscal period. (Nachura, Political
Outline Reviewer, 2014, p. 278)
The President shall submit to the Congress,
within thirty (30) days from the opening of
every regular session, as the basis of the
general appropriations bill, a budget of
expenditures and sources of financing,
including receipts from existing and proposed
revenue measures. (Section 22, Article VII,
1987 Constitution)
b. Special Appropriations Law -
Designed for a specific purpose
59
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
A special appropriations bills shall specify the
purpose for which it is intended, and shall be
supported by funds actually available as
certified by the National Treasurer, or to be
raised by a corresponding revenue proposal
therein. (Section 25(4), Article VI, 1987
Constitution)
CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS:
A. On General Appropriations
a. The Congress may not increase the
appropriations recommended by the
President for the operation of the
Government as specified in the budget.
b. The form, content, and manner of
preparation of the budget shall be
prescribed by law.” (Sec. 25(1), Art. VI,
1987 Constitution)
c. No provision or enactment shall be
embraced unless it relates specifically to
some particular appropriation therein.
Any such provision or enactment shall be
limited in its operation to the
appropriation to which it relates.
(Reason: Intended to prevent riders, or
irrelevant provisions included in the bill to
ensure its approval).
d. Procedure for approving appropriations
for Congress shall strictly follow the
procedure for approving appropriations
for other departments and agencies.
B. On Special Appropriations
“A special appropriation bill shall specify the
purpose for which it is intended, and shall be
supported by funds actually available as
certified by the National Treasurer, or to be
raised by a corresponding revenue proposal
therein. (Sec. 25[4], Art. VI, 1987
Constitution)
Rationale: To discontinue the practice of
fictitious appropriations that were frequently
enacted by the Congress even if it knew that
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
no funds were available. (Cruz, Political Law,
p. 358)
C. On Discretionary Funds
“Discretionary funds appropriated for
particular officials shall be disbursed only for
public purposes to be supported by
appropriate vouchers and subject to such
guidelines as may be prescribed by law. (Sec.
25(6), Art. VI, 1987 Constitution)
TRANSFER OF APPROPRIATIONS:
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. (Sec.
25[5], Art. VI, 1987 Constitution)
REASON: This provision prohibits one
department from transferring some of its
funds to another department and thereby
make it beholden to the former to the
detriment of the doctrine of separation of
powers. Such transfers are also unsystematic
and disregard the will of legislature that
enacted the appropriations measure. (Cruz,
Political Law, p. 361)
Requisites for a valid transfer of funds
1. There must be a law authorizing 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
the Constitutional Commissions to
transfer funds within their respective
offices;
2. The funds to be transferred are
savings generated from the
60
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
appropriations for their respective
offices; and
3. The purpose of the transfer is to
augment an existing item in the
general appropriations law for their
respective offices (Araullo vs. Aquino,
G.R. No. 209287, July 1, 2014;
Macalintal vs COMELEC, G.R. No.
263590, June 27, 2023)
Relevant Jurisprudence:
a. The intended transfer of COMELEC funds
by the legislature — no matter how
well-intentioned it might have been —
constitutes an arbitrary and
unconstitutional consideration that
renders RA 11935 unconstitutional. The
COMELEC allocation can only be
constitutionally transferred by the
COMELEC's chairperson, and only
with respect to the COMELEC's
"item, project, or activity with an
appropriation." It cannot be
transferred to another branch or
constitutional body. (Macalintal vs
COMELEC, G.R. No. 263590, June 27,
2023)
b. The provisions of the 2011 and 2012
GAAs were textually unfaithful to the
Constitution for not carrying the phrase
“for their respective offices”; the impact
of said phrase was to authorize only
transfers of funds within their offices.
The provisions carried a different
phrase, and the effect was that the
GAAs thereby literally allowed the
transfer of funds from savings to
augment any item in the GAA even if
the item belonged to an office
outside the Executive. (Araullo vs.
Aquino, G.R. No. 209287, July 1, 2014)
AUTOMATIC RE-APPROPRIATION:
If, by the end of any fiscal year, the Congress
shall have failed to pass the general
appropriations bill for the ensuing fiscal year,
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
the general appropriations law for the
preceding fiscal year shall be deemed
reenacted and shall remain in force and
effect until the general appropriations bill is
passed by the Congress. (Sec. 25 [7], Art. VI,
1987 Constitution)
APPROPRIATIONS FOR SECTARIAN
PURPOSES:
No public money or property shall be
appropriated, applied, paid, or employed,
directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or
support of any sect, church, denomination,
sectarian institution, or system of religion, or
of any priest, preacher, minister, or other
religious teacher, or dignitary as such, except
when such priest, preacher, minister, or
dignitary is assigned to the armed forces, or
to any penal institution, or government
orphanage or leprosarium. (Sec. 29[2], Art.
VI, 1987 Constitution)
● The above prohibition is applicable only
where the appropriation is intended
purposely to benefit a religious
institution. (Re: Letter Of Tony Q.
Valenciano, Holding Of Religious Rituals
At The Hall Of Justice Building In Quezon
City, A.M. No. 10-4-19-SC, March 07,
2017)
● When the Philippine Government
authorized a special stamp issue on the
occasion of the 33rd International
Eucharistic Congress under the
sponsorship of the Catholic Church which
was opposed by the Philippine
Independent Church, the SC held the
validity of the aforesaid stamps because
the purpose of the stamp issue was
evidently focus attention not o the
Eucharistic Congress but on its site, the
idea being to attract tourists to our
country and not primarily to publicize the
religious event. (Aglipay vs. Ruiz, 64 Phil.
201)
61
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
● The purchase of a religious image by the
barangay council with private funds
raised from voluntary contributions did
not violate Sec. 29(2), Art. VI of the
Constitution. (Garces vs. Estenzo, 105
SCRA 510)
SPECIAL FUNDS:
All money collected on any tax levied for a
special purpose shall be treated as a special
fund and paid out for such purpose only. If
the purpose for which a special fund was
created has been fulfilled or abandoned, the
balance, if any, shall be transferred to the
general funds of the Government. (Sec.
29[3], Art. VI, 1987 Constitution)
Appropriation reserves (Sec. 37,
Administrative Code)
The Budget Secretary is authorized to
establish reserves against appropriations to
provide for contingencies and emergencies
which may arise during the year.
This is merely expenditure deferral, not
suspension since the agencies concerned can
still draw on the reserves if the fiscal outlook
improves.
IMPOUNDMENT – the refusal by the
President for whatever reason to spend funds
made available by Congress. It is the failure
to spend or obligate budget authority of any
type. (Philippine Constitution Association vs.
Enriquez, G.R. No. 113105, August 19, 1994)
D. LEGISLATIVE INQUIRIES AND
OVERSIGHT FUNCTIONS (1987 CONST.,
ART. VI, SECS. 21-22)
THE POWER OF LEGISLATIVE INQUIRY
The Senate or the House of Representatives
or any of its respective committees may
conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in
accordance with its duly published rules of
procedure. The rights of persons appearing
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
in, or affected by, such inquiries shall be
respected. (Sec. 21, Art. VI, 1987
Constitution)
Legislative inquiry does not encroach
upon judicial powers vested in courts
The mere filing of a criminal or an
administrative complaint before a court or a
quasi-judicial body, should not automatically
bar the conduct of legislative investigation.
Otherwise, it would be extremely easy to
subvert any intended inquiry by Congress
through the convenient ploy of instituting a
criminal or an administrative complaint.
Surely, the exercise of sovereign legislative
authority, of which the power of legislative
inquiry is an essential component, cannot be
made subordinate to a criminal or an
administrative investigation. (Standard
Charter Bank vs. Senate Committee on
Banks, GR no. 167173, December 27, 2007)
The power of legislative inquiry does
not violate the right to privacy
With respect to the right of privacy which
petitioners claim respondent has violated,
suffice it to state that privacy is not an
absolute right. While it is true that Section 21,
Article VI of the Constitution, guarantees
respect for the rights of persons affected by
the legislative investigation, not every
invocation of the right to privacy should be
allowed to thwart a legitimate congressional
inquiry.
In Sabio v. Gordon, the Supreme Court held
that the right of the people to access
information on matters of public concern
generally prevails over the right to privacy of
ordinary financial transactions. In that case,
we declared that the right to privacy is not
absolute where there is an overriding
compelling state interest. Employing the
rational basis relationship test, as laid down
in Morfe v. Mutuc, there is no infringement of
the individual’s right to privacy as the
62
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
requirement to disclosure information is for a
valid purpose, in this case, to ensure that the
government agencies involved in regulating
banking transactions adequately protect the
public who invest in foreign securities. Suffice
it to state that this purpose constitutes a
reason compelling enough to proceed with
the assailed legislative investigation.
(Standard Charter Bank vs. Senate
Committee on Banks, GR No. 167173,
December 27, 2007)
The president may prevent a member of
the Armed Forces from testifying before
a legislative inquiry
The President, as Commander-in-Chief, may
validly prohibit a general from appearing in a
legislative inquiry, although the legislature
would not be “precluded from seeking judicial
relief to compel his attendance. (Gudani vs.
Senga, GR no. 170165, August 15, 2006)
CONTEMPT AND ARREST POWERS
As the grant of legislative power which
includes the power to conduct inquiries in aid
of legislation is intended to be complete, i.e.,
without need to resort to judicial process in
order that the Legislature may be able to
perform its function, it follows that the
Legislature likewise has the power to resort
to mechanisms to obey its processes. Indeed,
depriving the Senate of this inherent and
necessary power to compel a witness to
appear, give a truthful testimony and
produce documents before it will amount to
a serious handicap to its Constitutional
function to gather information relevant and
material to its legislative inquiries. (Arnault v.
Balagtas, G.R. No. L-6749, July 30, 1955)
As provided in Section 21, Article VI of the
1987 Constitution, however, the power of
legislative investigation is subject to three
limitations: (1) the inquiry must be "in aid of
legislation;" (2) the inquiry must be
conducted in accordance with its duly
published rules of procedure; and (3) "[t]he
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
rights of persons appearing in or affected by
such inquiries shall be respected. " Also,
where there is factual basis for the contempt,
the resource person's detention should only
last until the termination of the legislative
inquiry. (Ong v. Senate, G.R. No. 257401,
March 28, 2023)
REQUIREMENTS FOR VALID CONTEMPT
POWER AND ARREST POWER
A. In aid of legislation
The inquiry, to be within the jurisdiction
of the legislative body to make, must be
material or necessary to the exercise of a
power in it vested by the Constitution,
such as to legislate or to expel a member
(Arnault v. Nazareno, G.R. No. L-3820,
July 18, 1950)
B. In accordance with duly published
rules of procedure
The Senate cannot be allowed to
continue with the conduct of the
questioned legislative inquiry without
duly published rules of procedure, in clear
derogation of the constitutional
requirement.
Publication of the Senate Rules through
the internet cannot be considered as
compliance with this constitutional
requirement. (Garcillano vs. House of
Representatives, G.R. No. 170338,
December 23, 2008)
C. Rights of persons appearing in shall
be respected
Refers to the rights enshrined under the
Bill of Rights, more particularly to the
right to due process and the right against
unreasonable seizures under Sections 1
and 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution.
The purpose of the Committee's
proceedings is to conduct an inquiry or
investigation to aid the Senate in crafting
63
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
relevant legislation, and not to conduct a
trial or make an adjudication. Legislative
inquiries do not share the same goals as
the criminal trial process, and "cannot be
punitive in the sense that they cannot
result in legally binding deprivation of a
person's life, liberty or property." Thus,
punishment for legislative contempt,
albeit sui generis in character, must
similarly observe the minimum
requirements of due process.
Witnesses who are charged by Congress
with "giving false or evasive testimony"
must be accorded stricter due process
requirements, such as the opportunity to
explain one's side before being penalized,
consistent with the due process
safeguards used in criminal proceedings.
Considering the broad definition of
"giving false or evasive testimony," the
witness must, at the very least, given a
chance to explain why his or her
testimony is not false or evasive. (Ong v.
Senate, G.R. No. 257401, March 28,
2023)
Period of imprisonment for contempt
during inquiries in aid of legislation
conducted by the House of
Representatives
Where imprisonment is imposed for
contempt of a legislative body in the United
States, it terminates with the adjournment of
the session of the body in which the
contempt occurred. We emphasize again the
absolute absence of any judicial precedent
which acknowledges the right of a legislative
body to extend punishment for contempt
beyond the adjournment of the session, and
that to go against the unanimous authority to
the contrary, would be to sanction a power
for the Houses of the Philippine Legislature
greater than that which any legislative body
in the United States, including the Houses of
the Congress of the United States, is
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
permitted to exercise. (Lopez vs. Delos
Reyes, GR no. L-34361, November 5, 1930)
Period of imprisonment for contempt
during inquiries in aid of legislation
conducted by the Senate
The period of imprisonment under the
inherent power of contempt by the Senate
during inquiries in aid of legislation should
only last until the termination of the
legislative inquiry under which the said
power is invoked. (Balag vs. Senate of the
Philippines, G.R. No. 234608, July 3, 2018)
Two instances when legislative inquiry
of the Senate is deemed terminated:
a. Upon the approval or disapproval of
the Committee Report:
1. The Senate Committee must begin the
consideration of the Committee
Report within fifteen (15) days from
the conclusion of the inquiry.
2. The Report shall then be approved by
a majority vote of all the Committee
members; otherwise, it is disapproved
3. The Report shall be the subject matter
of the next order of business, and it
shall be acted upon by the Senate.
Evidently, the Committee Report is the
culmination of the legislative inquiry.
Its approval or disapproval signifies
the end of such legislative inquiry and
it is now up to the Senate whether or
not to act upon the said Committee
Report in the succeeding order of
business. At that point, the power of
contempt simultaneously ceases and
the detained witness should be
released. As the legislative inquiry
ends, the basis for the detention of the
recalcitrant witness likewise ends.
(Balag vs. Senate of the Philippines,
G.R. No. 234608, July 3, 2018)
64
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
b. Upon the expiration of one (1)
Congress:
- All pending matters and proceedings,
such as unpassed bills and even
legislative investigations, of the Senate
are considered terminated upon the
expiration of that Congress and it is
merely optional on the Senate of the
succeeding Congress to take up such
unfinished matters, not in the same
status, but as if presented for the first
time. Again, while the Senate is a
continuing institution, its proceedings are
terminated upon the expiration of that
Congress at the final adjournment of its
last session. Hence, as the legislative
inquiry ends upon that expiration, the
imprisonment of the detained witnesses
likewise ends. (Balag vs. Senate of the
Philippines, GR no. 234608, July 3, 2018)
POWER TO CONDUCT QUESTION HOUR
The heads of departments may, upon their
own initiative, with the consent of the
President, or upon the request of either
House, as the rules of each House shall
provide, appear before and be heard by such
House on any matter pertaining to their
departments. Written questions shall be
submitted to the President of the Senate or
the Speaker of the House of Representatives
at least three days before their scheduled
appearance. Interpellations shall not be
limited to written questions, but may cover
matters related thereto. When the security of
the State or the public interest so requires
and the President so states in writ conducted
in executive session. (Sec. 22, Art. VI, 1987
Constitution)
NOTE: The requirement for cabinet
members to secure presidential consent
under Sec. 1 of E.O. 464, which is limited only
to appearances in the question hour, is valid
on its face. Under Sec. 22, Art. VI of the
Constitution, the appearance of department
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
heads in the question hour is discretionary on
their part. Sec. 1, cannot be applied to
appearances of department heads in
inquiries in aid of legislation. Congress is not
bound in such instances to respect the refusal
of the department head to appear in such
inquiry, unless a valid claim of privilege is
subsequently made by the President or by
the Executive Secretary. On the other hand,
other executive officials cannot properly
refuse to testify before congressional
inquiries in aid of legislation. (Senate of the
Philippines, et al., vs. Eduardo Ermita, G.R.
No. 169777, April 20, 2006)
INQUIRY IN AID OF LEGISLATION vs
QUESTION HOUR
NOTE: Secs. 21 and 22, therefore, while
closely related and complementary to each
other, should not be considered as pertaining
to the same power of Congress. (Senate of
the Philippines, et al., vs. Eduardo Ermita,
G.R. No. 169777, April 20, 2006)
THE POWER OF CONGRESSIONAL
OVERSIGHT:
Broadly defined as the power of oversight
embraces all activities undertaken by
Congress to enhance its understanding of
and influence over the implementation of
legislation it has enacted. (Abakada Guro
Party List vs. Purisima, G.R. No. 166715,
August 14, 2008)
65
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
Purpose of Congressional Oversight:
1. To monitor bureaucratic compliance with
program objectives;
2. To determine whether agencies are
properly administered;
3. To eliminate executive waste and
dishonesty;
4. To prevent executive usurpation of
legislative authority; and
5. To assess executive conformity with the
congressional perception of public
interest. (Abakada Guro Party List vs.
Purisima, G.R. No. 166715, August 14,
2008)
Three Categories of Oversight Powers
of Congress:
a. Scrutiny
Congressional scrutiny implies a lesser
intensity and continuity of attention to
administrative operations.
Its primary purpose is to determine the
economy and efficiency of the operation of
government activities.
In the exercise of legislative scrutiny,
Congress may request information and report
from other branches of government. It can
give recommendations or pass resolutions for
consideration of the agency involved.
(Abakada Guro Party List vs. Purisima, G.R.
No. 166715, August 14, 2008)
b. Investigation
Congress investigation involves a more
intense digging of facts.
The power of Congress to conduct
investigation is recognized by the 1987
Constitution under Sec. 21, Art. VI.
c. Supervision
Supervision connotes a continuing and
informed awareness on the part of a
congressional committee regarding executive
operations in a given administrative area.
Congressional supervision allows Congress to
scrutinize the exercise of delegated law-
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
making authority, and permits Congress to
retain part of that delegated authority.
(Abakada Guro Party List vs. Purisima, G.R.
No. 166715, August 14, 2008)
Legislative Veto:
It is a statutory provision requiring the
President or an administrative agency to
present the proposed implementing rules and
regulations of a law to Congress which, by
itself or through a committee formed by it,
retains a “right” or “power” to approve or
disapprove such regulations before they take
effect.
Legislative Veto in the form of a
congressional oversight committee is in the
form of an inward turning delegation
designed to attach a congressional leash.
(Abakada Guro Party List vs. Purisima, G.R.
No. 166715, August 14, 2008)
Constitutionality Of Legislative Veto
Congressional oversight is not
unconstitutional per se, rather, it is an
integral to the checks and balances inherent
in a democratic system of government.
However, to forestall the danger of
congressional encroachment ‘beyond the
legislative sphere,” the Constitution imposes
two (2) basic and related constraints on
Congress:
1. Congress may not vest itself, any of its
committees or its members with either
executive and judicial power; and
2. When it exercises its legislative powers, it
must follow the ‘single, finely wrought
and exhaustively considered procedures’
specified under the Constitution,
including the procedure for enactment of
laws and presentment.
Therefore, any post-enactment congressional
measure should be limited to scrutiny and
investigation. Any action or step beyond that
will undermine the separation of powers
66
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW

guaranteed by the Constitution. Legislative through the intervening mind of another.

Vetoes fall in this class. (Abakada Guro Party (Gerochi vs. Department of Energy, G.R. No.
List vs. Purisima, GR no. 166715, August 14, 159796, July 17, 2007)
2008)
Presidential Power In Times Of War And
LEGISLATIVE INQUIRIES vs National Emergency, Including Martial
OVERSIGHT FUNCTIONS Law And In A Revolutionary Context
Only the congress, by a vote of two-thirds of
both Houses in a joint session assembled,
voting separately, has the sole power to
declare the existence of a state of war.

In times of war or other national emergency,

the Congress may, by law, authorize the
President to exercise powers necessary and
proper to carry out a declared national policy.
(Sec. 23[2], Article VI, 1987 Constitution
(Nachura, Outline Reviewer in Political Law,
2014 pp. 278-279)
Limitation:
1. Period set and restrictions set by
E. DECLARATION OF EXISTENCE OF
congress;
STATE OF WAR (1987 CONST., art. VI, sec.
2. Until withdrawn by congress; or
23)
3. Upon the next adjournment of the
next congress.
The Congress, by a vote of two-thirds of both
Houses in joint session assembled, voting
The President did not proclaim a national
separately, shall have the sole power to
emergency, only a state of emergency in the
declare the existence of a state of war.
three places in ARMM. And she did not act
In times of war or other national emergency,
pursuant to any law enacted by Congress
the Congress may, by law, authorize the
that authorized her to exercise extraordinary
President, for a limited period and subject to
powers. The calling out of the armed forces
such restrictions as it may prescribe, to
to prevent or suppress lawless violence in
exercise powers necessary and proper to
such places is a power that the Constitution
carry out a declared national policy. Unless
directly vests in the President. She did not
sooner withdrawn by resolution of the
need a congressional authority to exercise
Congress, such powers shall cease upon the
the same. (Ampatuan v. Puno, G.R. No.
next adjournment thereof. (Sec. 23, Art. VI,
190259, June 7, 2011)
1987 Constitution)

F. POWER TO REVOKE/EXTEND THE

Exceptions to Non-Delegability
SUSPENSION OF THE PRIVILEGE OF
The rule is delegata potestas non potest
THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND
delagari or what has been delegated cannot
DECLARATION OF MARTIAL LAW (1987
be delegated. The doctrine rests on the
CONST., art. VII, sec. 18)
ethical principle that a delegated power
constitutes not only a right but duty to be
The President shall be the Commander-in-
performed by the delegate by the
Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines
instrumentality of his own judgment and not

AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION 67

 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
and whenever it becomes necessary, he may
call out such armed forces to prevent or
suppress lawless violence, invasion or
rebellion. In case of invasion or rebellion,
when the public safety requires it, he may,
for a period not exceeding sixty days,
suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus or place the Philippines or any part
thereof under martial law.
Within forty-eight hours from the
proclamation of martial law or the suspension
of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus,
the President shall submit a report in person
or in writing to the Congress. The Congress,
voting jointly, by a vote of at least a majority
of all its Members in regular or special
session, may revoke such proclamation or
suspension, which revocation shall not be set
aside by the President. Upon the initiative of
the President, the Congress may, in the same
manner, extend such proclamation or
suspension for a period to be determined by
the Congress, if the invasion or rebellion shall
persist and public safety requires it. (Sec. 18
[1], Article VII, 1987 Constitution).
Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus
The right to have an immediate
determination of the legality of the
deprivation of physical liberty. (Bernas, The
1987 Constitution of the Republic of the
Philippines, 2009)
Requisites
In the exercise of the power to suspend the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or to
impose martial law, two conditions must
concur:
(1) there must be an actual invasion or
rebellion and,
(2) public safety must require it.
These conditions are not required in the case
of the power to call out the armed forces. The
only criterion is that “whenever it becomes
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
necessary,” the President may call the armed
forces “to prevent or suppress lawless
violence, invasion or rebellion.” (Integrated
Bar of the Philippines v. Zamora, G.R. No.
141284, August 15, 2000)
Generally, Congress is the repository of
emergency powers. Certainly, a body cannot
delegate a power not reposed upon it.
However, knowing that during grave
emergencies, it may not be possible or
practicable for Congress to meet and exercise
its powers, the Framers of our Constitution
deemed it wise to allow Congress to grant
emergency powers to the President, subject
to certain conditions, thus:
(1) There must be a war or other
emergency.
(2) The delegation must be for a limited
period only.
(3) The delegation must be subject to
such restrictions as the Congress may
prescribe.
(4) The emergency powers must be
exercised to carry out a national
policy declared by Congress. (David
vs. Arroyo, G.R. No. 171396, May 3,
2006)
Role of Congress when the President
declares martial law or suspends the
privilege of the writ:
a. When the President proclaims martial
law or suspends the privilege of the
writ, such proclamation or
suspension shall be effective for a
period of 60 days, unless sooner
revoked by the Congress.
b. Upon such proclamation or
suspension, Congress shall convene
at once. If it is not in session, it shall
convene in accordance with its rules
without need of a call within 24 hours
following the proclamation or
suspension.
68
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
c. Within 48 hours from the
proclamation or the suspension, the
President shall submit a report, in
person or in writing, to the Congress
(meeting in joint session of the action
he has taken).
d. The Congress shall then vote jointly,
by an absolute majority. Either:
Revoke such proclamation or
suspension. (Sec. 18, Art. VII, 1987
Constitution)
NOTE: When the Congress revokes, the
President cannot set aside (or veto) the
revocation as he normally would do in the
case of bills. If Congress does not do
anything, the measure will expire anyway in
60 days. So, the revocation must be made
before the lapse of 60 days from the date the
measure was taken. (Sec. 18, Art. VII, 1987
Constitution)
Extension beyond the 60-day period of
its validity.
NOTE: Congress can only so extend the
proclamation or suspension upon the
initiative of the President. The period need
not be 60 days; it could be more, as Congress
would determine, based on the persistence of
the emergency. If Congress fails to act before
the measure expires, it can no longer extend
it until the President again re-declares the
measure.
While the Constitution does not specify the
number of times that the Congress is allowed
to approve an extension of martial law or the
suspension of the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus, Section 18, Article VII is clear
that the only limitations to the exercise of the
congressional authority to extend such
proclamation or suspension are that the
extension should be upon the President's
initiative; that it should be grounded on the
persistence of the invasion or rebellion and
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
the demands of public safety; and that it is
subject to the Court's review of the
sufficiency of its factual basis upon the
petition of any citizen. (Lagman vs Pimentel,
G.R. No. 235935, February 06, 2018)
Congress is not constitutionally mandated to
convene in joint session except to vote jointly
to revoke the President's declaration or
suspension. (Padilla vs Congress, G.R. No.
231671, July 25, 2017)
G. POWER OF IMPEACHMENT (1987
CONST., art. XI, secs. 2-3)
Public office is a public trust. Public officers
and employees must, at all times, be
accountable to the people, serve them with
utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and
efficiency; act with patriotism and justice,
and lead modest lives. (Sec. 1, Art. XI, 1987
Constitution)
IMPEACHMENT
It is defined as a method of national inquest
into the conduct of public men. (Cruz,
Philippine Political Law, p. 730, 2014)
It is the power of Congress to remove a
public official for serious crimes or
misconduct as provided in the Constitution.
(Corona vs. Senate, G.R No. 200242, July 17,
2012)
IMPEACHABLE OFFICERS:
1. The President;
2. The Vice President;
3. Members of the Supreme Court;
4. Members of the Constitutional
Commissions; and
5. The Ombudsman. (Section 2, Article
IX, 1987 Constitution)
NOTE: The enumeration in the Constitution
of the impeachable officers is exclusive. The
Ombudsman is only one man, not including
69
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
his Deputies. (Office of the Ombudsman vs.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 146486, March 4,
2005)
FOR AN IMPEACHABLE OFFICER WHO
IS A MEMBER OF THE BAR:
An impeachable officer who is a member of
the Bar cannot be disbarred without first
being impeached. Complainant’s availment of
Section 1 (1) of Article IX-C of the
Constitution to skirt this rule is specious.
It bears emphasis that the provision that
majority of Comelec members should be
lawyers pertains to the desired composition
of the Comelec. While the appointing
authority may follow such constitutional
mandate, the appointment of a full
complement of lawyers in the Comelec
membership is not precluded. At the time the
complaint was filed, respondents and three
other commissioners were all lawyers.
As an impeachable officer who is at the same
time a member of the Bar, respondent Borra
must first be removed from office via the
constitutional route of impeachment before
he may be held to answer administratively for
his supposed errant resolutions and actions.
(Marcoleta vs Borra, A.C. No. 7732, March
09, 2009)
FOR A PUBLIC OFFICER TO BE
IMPEACHED:
A public officer who under the Constitution is
required to be a Member of the Philippine Bar
as a qualification for the office held by him
and who may be removed from office only by
impeachment, cannot be charged with
disbarment during the incumbency of such
public officer. Further, such public officer,
during his incumbency, cannot be charged
criminally before the Sandiganbayan or any
other court with any offence which carries
with it the penalty of removal from office, or
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
any penalty service of which would amount
to removal from office.
It is important to make clear that the Court is
not here saying that its Members or the other
constitutional officers we referred to above
are entitled to immunity from liability for
possibly criminal acts or for alleged violation
of the Canons of Judicial Ethics or other
supposed misbehavior. What the Court is
saying is that there are fundamental
procedural requirements that must be
observed before such liability may be
determined and enforced. A Member of the
Supreme Court must first be removed from
office via the constitutional route of
impeachment under Sections 2 and 3 of
Article XI of the 1987 Constitution. Should
the tenure of the Supreme Court Justice be
thus terminated by impeachment, he may
then be held to answer either criminally or
administratively (by disbarment proceedings)
for any wrong or misbehavior that may be
proven against him in appropriate
proceedings. (In Re: Gonzales, A.M. No.
8845433, April 15, 1998)
GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT:
1. Culpable violation of the
Constitution - wrongful, intentional or
willful disregard or flouting of the
fundamental law. This act must be
deliberate and motivated by bad faith to
constitute as a ground for impeachment.
2. Treason - committed by any person
who, owing allegiance to the government
of the Republic of the Philippines, levies
war against it or adheres to its enemies,
giving them aid and comfort. (Art. 114,
Revised Penal Code)
3. Bribery - committed by any public officer
who shall agree to perform an act,
whether or not constituting a crime, or
refrain from doing an act which he is
officially required to do in connection with
the performance of his official duties, in
70
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
consideration of any offer, promise, gift
or present received by him personally or
through the mediation of another, or who
shall accept gifts offered to him by reason
of his office. (Arts. 210- 211, Revised
Penal code)
4. Other high crimes - refers to those
offenses which, like treason and bribery,
are of so serious and enormous a nature
as to strike at the very life or the orderly
workings of the government. (Bernas,
The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines,
2003 ed., p.1112; Record of the
Constitutional Convention of 1934, pp.
854-855)
5. Graft and corruption - those prohibited
acts under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act. (Bernas, The 1987
Constitution of the Philippines, 2003 ed.,
p.1113)
6. Betrayal of Public Trust - a catch-all
ground to cover all manner of offenses
unbecoming a public functionary but not
punishable by the criminal statutes, like
inexcusable negligence of duty,
tyrannical abuse of authority, breach of
official duty by malfeasance or,
misfeasance, cronyism, favoritism,
obstruction of justice. (Record of the
Constitutional Commission of 1986, p.
272)
PROCEDURE FOR IMPEACHMENT:
1. Initiation:
- The House of Representatives shall
have the exclusive power to initiate
all cases of impeachment. (Sec. 3(1),
Art. XI, 1987 Constitution)
- The term “to initiate” refers to the
filing of the impeachment complaint
coupled with Congress’ taking initial
action of said complaint. (Francisco
vs House of Representatives, G.R.
No. 160261, November 10, 2003)
- The ‘initiation’ takes place by the act
of filing and referral or endorsement
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
of the impeachment complaint to the
House Committee on Justice or, by
the filing by at least one-third of the
members of the House of
Representatives with the Secretary-
General of the House (Gutierrez vs.
House Committee on Justice, G.R.
No. 193459, February 15, 2011)
2. Referral to the proper
Committee
- A verified complaint for impeachment
may be filed by any Member of the
House of Representatives or by any
citizen upon a resolution or
endorsement by any Member
thereof, which shall be included in
the Order of Business within ten
session days and referred to the
proper Committee within three
session days thereafter. (Sec. 3[2],
Art. XI, 1987 Constitution)
3. Hearing by Committee
- The Committee, after hearing, and by
a majority vote of all its Members,
shall submit its report to the House
within sixty session days from such
referral, together with the
corresponding resolution. The
resolution shall be calendared for
consideration by the House within ten
session days from receipt thereof.
(Sec. 3[2], Art. XI, 1987 Constitution)
4. Submission of Report by the
Committee to the House with the
Resolution
- The Committee, after hearing, and by
a majority vote of all its Members,
shall submit its report to the House
within sixty session days from such
referral, together with the
corresponding resolution. The
resolution shall be calendared for
consideration by the House within ten
session days from receipt thereof.
(Sec. 3[2], Art. XI, 1987 Constitution)
71
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
5. Consideration of the the
Resolution by the House
- The Committee, after hearing, and by
a majority vote of all its Members,
shall submit its report to the House
within sixty session days from such
referral, together with the
corresponding resolution. The
resolution shall be calendared for
consideration by the House within ten
session days from receipt thereof.
(Sec. 3[2], Art. XI, 1987 Constitution)
6. Voting by all the Members of the
House
- A vote of at least one-third of all
the Members of the House shall
be necessary either to affirm a
favorable resolution with the Articles
of Impeachment of the Committee,
or override its contrary resolution.
The vote of each Member shall be
recorded. (Sec. 3[3], Art. XI, 1987
Constitution)
7. Trial by the Senate
- 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. (Sec. 3[6], Art. XI, 1987
Constitution)
8. Judgment
- 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
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
punishment, according to law. (Sec.
3[7], Art. XI, 1987 Constitution)
- However, the Courts may annul the
proceedings if there is a showing of a
grave abuse of discretion committed
by the Congress or of noncompliance
with the procedural requirements of
the Constitutions, as where the
charges are instituted without a
verified complaint, or by less than
one-third of all the members of the
House of Representatives, or where
the judgment of conviction is
supported by less than two-thirds
vote in Senate. (Francisco vs House
of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261,
November 10, 2003)
RULES ON IMPEACHMENT:
- The Congress shall promulgate its
rules on impeachment to effectively
carry out the purpose of this section.
(Sec. 3[8], Art. XI, 1987 Constitution)
NOTE: Since the Constitutional Commission
did not restrict "promulgation" to
"publication," the former should be
understood to have been used in its general
sense. It is within the discretion of Congress
to determine on how to promulgate its
Impeachment Rules, in much the same way
that the Judiciary is permitted to determine
that to promulgate a decision means to
deliver the decision to the clerk of court for
filing and publication. It is not for this Court
to tell a co-equal branch of government how
to promulgate when the Constitution itself
has not prescribed a specific method of
promulgation. The Court is in no position to
dictate a mode of promulgation beyond the
dictates of the Constitution. (Gutierrez vs
House of Representatives, G.R. No. 193459,
February 15, 2011)
- Section 3 (8) of Article XI provides that
"The Congress shall promulgate its rules
72
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
on impeachment to effectively carry out
the purpose of this section." Clearly, its
power to promulgate its rules on
impeachment is limited by the phrase "to
effectively carry out the purpose of this
section." Hence, these rules cannot
contravene the very purpose of the
Constitution which said rules were
intended to effectively carry out.
Moreover, Section 3 of Article XI clearly
provides for other specific limitations on
its power to make rules. (Francisco vs
House of Representatives, G.R. No.
160261, November 10, 2003)
H. ELECTORAL TRIBUNALS (1987
CONST., art. VI, sec. 17)
The Senate and the House of Representatives
shall each have an Electoral Tribunal, which
shall be the sole judge of all contests relating
to the election, returns, and qualifications of
their respective Members. Each Electoral
Tribunal shall be composed of nine Members,
three of whom shall be Justices of the
Supreme Court to be designated by the Chief
Justice, and the remaining six shall be
Members of the Senate or the House of
Representatives, as the case may be, who
shall be chosen on the basis of proportional
representation from the political parties and
the parties or organizations registered under
the party-list system represented therein.
The senior Justice in the Electoral Tribunal
shall be its Chairman. (Sec. 17, Art. VI, 1987
Constitution)
Two Types
a. Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET)
b. House Electoral Tribunal (HRET)
(Sec. 17, Art. VI, 1987 Constitution)
Nature
Although the Electoral Tribunals are
predominantly legislative in membership and
the provision creating them is found in Art. VI
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
on the Legislative Department, it is not
correct to say that they are mere adjuncts of
the Congress of the Philippines. In fact, in the
discharge of their constitutional duties, they
are independent of the legislature, and also
of the other departments for that matter.
(Cruz, Philippine Political Law, 2014)
Composition
1. Three (3) Justices of the Supreme
Court designated by the Chief
Justice;
2. The Senior Justice shall be its
Chairman; and
3. Six (6) members of the Senate (SET)
or House of Representatives (HRET)
(Sec. 17, Art. VI, 1987 Constitution)
Reason for Mixed Membership
The presence of the three Justices is meant
to tone down the political nature of the cases
involved and do away with the impression
that party interests play a part in the
decision-making process.
Rule 6(a) of the 2015 HRET Rules requires
the presence of at least one Justice and four
members of the Tribunal to constitute a
quorum. This means that even when all the
Justices are present, at least two members of
the House of Representatives need to be
present to constitute a quorum. Without this
rule, it would be possible for five members of
the House of Representatives to convene and
have a quorum even when no Justice is
present. (Ongsiako Reyes v HRET, G.R. No.
221103, October 16, 2018)
Basis: Proportional representation from
the Political Parties and Party-Lists
Only if the House fails to comply with the
directive of the Constitution on proportional
representation of political parties in the HRET
and Commission on Appointments can the
party-list representatives seek recourse from
the Court through judicial review. Under the
73
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
Doctrine of Primary Administrative
Jurisdiction, prior recourse to the House is
necessary before the case may be brought to
Court. (Pimentel vs. House of
Representatives Electoral Tribunal, G.R. No.
141489, November 29, 2002)
The HRET was created as a non-partisan
court. It must be independent of Congress
and devoid of partisan influence and
consideration. Hence, “disloyalty to the
party” and “breach of party discipline” are not
valid grounds for the expulsion of a member.”
(Bondoc vs. Pineda, G.R. No. 97710,
September 26, 1991)
Independence of the Electoral
Tribunals
Although six members of the Electoral
Tribunals are members of Congress, the
Tribunals themselves are not part of either
House of Congress. They are independent
constitutional creations which have power to
create their own rules and are not under the
supervision or control of Congress. (Bernas,
The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines: A
Commentary, p. 755, 2009)
Similarly, the Electoral Tribunals are
independent of the Commission on Elections.
Hence, cases before the Electoral Tribunal
are governed not by the rules of procedure
for election controversies prescribed by the
Commission on Elections but by the
Tribunal's own rules. (Bernas, The 1987
Constitution of the Philippines: A
Commentary, p. 756, 2009)
Powers
The tribunal has the power to promulgate
rules relating to matters within its
jurisdiction, including a period for filing
election protests. (Lazatin vs. HET, G.R. No.
84297, December 8, 1988)
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Inherent Powers:
a. Preserve and enforce order in its
immediate presence;
b. Enforce order in proceedings before
it or before any of its officials acting
under its authority;
c. Compel obedience to its judgments,
orders, resolutions and processes;
d. Compel the attendance of witnesses
and the production of evidence in any
case or proceeding before it;
e. Administer or cause to be
administered oaths in any case or
proceeding before it, and in all other
cases where it may be necessary in
the exercise of its powers;
f. Control its processes and amend its
resolutions or orders to make them
conform with law and justice;
g. Authorize a copy of a lost or
destroyed pleading or other paper to
be filed and used in lieu of the
original, and restore and supply
deficiencies in its records and
proceedings;
h. Promulgate its own rules of
procedure and amend or revise the
same; and
i. Exercise such other powers as may
be necessary in the performance of
its duties under the Constitution and
existing laws. (Rule 10, 2015 HRET
Rules)
Jurisdiction
The Electoral Tribunals of the Houses of
Congress shall be the sole judge of all
contests relating to the election, returns and
qualifications of their members. (Sec. 17, Art.
VI, 1987 Constitution)
Their decisions on such controversies are not
subject to appeal to the Supreme Court.
(Bernas, The 1987 Constitution of the
Philippines: A Commentary, p. 756, 2009)
74
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
Exception: Under Article VIII, Section 1,
judicial power includes the authority "to
determine whether or not there has been a
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any
branch or instrumentality of the
government."
Judicial review of decisions or final
resolutions of the HRET is possible only in the
exercise of this Court's so-called "extra-
ordinary jurisdiction" upon a determination
that the tribunal's decision or resolution was
rendered without or in excess of its
jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion
or upon a clear showing of such arbitrary and
improvident use by the Tribunal of its power
as constitutes a denial of due process of law,
or upon a demonstration of a very clear
unmitigated error, manifestly constituting
such a grave abuse of discretion that there
has to be a remedy for such abuse. (Morrero
vs. Bocar, 66 Phil. 429, 431; Lazatin vs.
House of Electoral Tribunal, supra; Robles vs.
HRET, supra) Then only where such grave
abuse of discretion is clearly shown that the
Court interferes with the HRET's judgment or
decision. (Lerias vs. House Electoral Tribunal,
202 SCRA 808, 1991)
The jurisdiction of Electoral Tribunals is over
"election contests" in the statutory sense;
they do not have jurisdiction over pre-
proclamation controversies which come
under the jurisdiction of the Commission on
Elections. (Bernas, The 1987 Constitution of
the Philippines: A Commentary, p. 756, 2009)
● The HRET has no jurisdiction over a
proclaimed winner who has not yet taken
a proper oath and assumed office.
● The HRET's jurisdiction is limited to the
election, returns, and qualification of the
"Members" of the House of
Representatives.
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
● The HRET has no jurisdiction over a
proclaimed district representative winner
unless the following requisites concur:
1. a valid proclamation,
2. a proper oath, and
3. assumption of office.
● Consequently, before there is a valid
or official taking of the oath it must
be made —
1. before the Speaker of the House
of Representatives, and
2. in an open session. (Reyes v.
COMELEC, G.R. No. 207264, June
25, 2013)
● The HRET may assume jurisdiction only
after the winning candidate (who is a
party to the election controversy) shall
have been duly proclaimed, has taken his
oath of office, and has assumed the
functions of the office, because it is only
then that he is said to be a member of
the House.” (Aquino vs. Commission on
Elections, G.R. No. 120265, September
18, 1995)
● The proclamation divests the Commission
on Elections of jurisdiction over the
question of disqualifications pending
before it at the time of the proclamation.
Any case pertaining to questions over the
qualifications of a winning candidate
should be raised before the House of
Representative Electoral Tribunal.
(Jalosjos, Jr. vs. Commission on
Elections, G.R. No. 192474, June 26,
2012)
● The power granted to the HRET by Sec.
17, Art XI of the 1987 Constitution is
intended to be as complete and
unimpaired as if it had remained
originally in the legislature. Thus, the
HRET, as the sole judge of all contests
relating to the election, returns and
qualifications of members of the House of
Representatives, may annul election
results if in its determination, fraud,
75
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
terrorism or other electoral irregularities
existed to warrant the annulment.
Because in doing so, it is merely
exercising its constitutional duty to
ascertain who among the candidates
received the majority of the valid votes
cast. (Abayon vs. HRET GR No. 22236,
May 3, 2016)
● The power of HRET does not carry with it
the authority to delve into the legality of
the judgment of the naturalization of
respondent’s father, in the pursuit of
disqualifying Rep. Lim Kaichong. To rule
otherwise would be an impermissible
attack on the citizenship of the
respondent's father. (Vilando vs. House
of Representatives Electoral Tribunal,
G.R. No. 192147, August 23, 2011)
● Party-list nominees are "elected
members" of the House of
Representatives no less than the district
representatives are, the HRET has
jurisdiction to hear and pass upon their
qualifications.
○ By analogy with the cases of
district representatives, once the
party or organization of the
party-list nominee has been
proclaimed and the nominee has
taken his oath and assumed
office as member of the House of
Representatives, the COMELEC’s
jurisdiction over election contests
relating to his qualifications ends
and the HRET’s own jurisdiction
begins (Abayon vs. HRET, G.R.
No. 189466, February 11, 2010)
● Exclusive, original jurisdiction over
contests relating to the election, returns,
and qualifications of the elective officials
falling within the scope of their powers is
vested in electoral tribunals. The review
of these judgments is limited to a
determination of whether there has been
an error in jurisdiction, not an error in
judgment. Here, the SET arrived at
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
conclusions in a manner in keeping with
the degree of proof required in
proceedings before a quasi-judicial body:
not absolute certainty, not proof beyond
reasonable doubt or preponderance of
evidence, but “substantial evidence, or
that amount of relevant evidence which a
reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to justify a conclusion.” (David
vs. Senate Electoral Tribunal, G.R. No.
221538, September 20, 2016)
I. COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS
(1987 CONST., art. VI, sec. 18; art. VII, sec.
16; art. VIII, sec. 8)
There shall be a Commission on
Appointments consisting of the President of
the Senate, as ex officio Chairman, twelve
Senators and twelve Members of the House
of Representatives, elected by each House on
the basis of proportional representation from
the political parties and parties or
organizations registered under the party-list
system represented therein. The Chairman of
the Commission shall not vote, except in case
of a tie. The Commission shall act on all
appointments submitted to it within thirty
session days of the Congress from their
submission. The Commission shall rule by a
majority vote of all the Members. (Sec. 18,
Art. VI, 1987 Constitution)
The function of the Commission on
Appointments is to consent to or confirm
nominations or appointments submitted to it
by the President pursuant to Article VII,
Section 16 which enumerates the
appointments which need action by the
Commission on Appointments. The
Commission is thus intended to serve as an
administrative check on the appointing
authority of the President. (Bernas, The 1987
Constitution of the Philippines: A
Commentary, p. 760, 2009)
76
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
The Commission’s function forms part of the
very delicate mechanism of checks and
balances established by the Constitution to
ensure that the coordinate departments of
the government will function in a way that
will be most conducive to the public welfare.
Nature: Revived in the 1987 Constitution to
limit, once again, the President’s appointing
power. (Sec. 18, Art. VI, 1987 Constitution)
Composition:
a. Senate President as ex-officio
chairman
b. 12 Senators
c. 12 Members of the House of
Representatives
● The 12 Senators and 12 members of the
House of Representatives are elected by
each house on the basis of proportional
representation.
● The Senate President shall not vote
except in case of a tie (Sec. 18, Art. VI,
1987 Constitution).
A political party must have at least two (2)
elected senators for every seat in the
Commission on Appointments. It is not
mandatory to elect 12 Senators to the
Commission. What the Constitution requires
is that there must be at least a majority of
the entire membership. (Guingona vs.
Gonzales, G.R. No. 106971, October 20,
1992)
Commission on Appointments ruling
Majority vote of all the members. (Sec. 18,
Art. VI, 1987 Constitution)
Powers of the Commission
The Commission on Appointments (CA) is
vested by the 1987 Philippine Constitution
with the power to approve or disapprove
appointments made by the President of the
Philippines, the confirmation of which is
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
required under the Constitution. This power
shall be discharged with impartiality, without
partisan consideration, and with only one
impelling motive, which is the harmonious
and efficient functioning of the government.
a. The Commission shall act on all
appointments submitted to it within
30 session days of Congress from
their submission.
b. The Commission shall rule by
majority vote of its members.
c. The Commission shall meet only
while Congress is in session, at the
call of its Chairman or a majority of
all its members.
d. The Commission on Appointments is
independent of the two Houses of
Congress. Its employees are not,
technically, employees of Congress.
It has the power to promulgate its
own rules of proceedings.
e. The powers of the Commission do not
come from Congress, but emanate
directly from the Constitution. Hence,
it is not an agent of Congress. In fact,
the functions of the Commissioner
are purely executive in nature.
(Cunanan vs. Tan, G.R. No. L-19721,
May 10, 1962)
REGULAR APPOINTMENTS – takes place
when the President appoints an officer whose
appointment requires confirmation by the
Commission, while Congress is in session.
(Nachura, Outline Reviewer in Political Law,
2014 pp. 297)
AD INTERIM or RECESS APPOINTMENT
– happens when Congress is not in session.
Unlike regular appointments, an ad-interim
appointment made by the President is
complete in itself and effective at once, even
without confirmation. (Id.)
77
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
The Presidential Appointments subject
to consent of Commission on
Appointments
The President shall nominate and, with the
consent of the Commission on Appointments,
appoint the
a. heads of the executive departments,
b. ambassadors,
c. other public ministers and
d. consuls, or
e. officers of the armed forces from the
rank of colonel or
f. naval captain, and
g. other officers whose appointments
are vested in him in this constitution.
He shall also appoint all other officers of the
Government whose appointments are not
otherwise provided for by the law, and those
whom he may be authorized by law to
appoint.
The Congress may, by law, vest the
appointment of other officers lower in rank in
the President alone, in the courts, or in the
heads of departments, agencies,
commissions, or boards.
The President shall have the power to make
appointments during the recess of Congress,
whether voluntary or compulsory, but such
appointments shall be effective only until
disapproval by the Commission on
Appointments or until the next adjournment
of the Congress. (Sec. 16, Art. VII. 1987
Philippine Constitution)
ROLE OF THE CONGRESS: JUDICIAL
BAR AND COUNCIL
(1) A Judicial and Bar Council is hereby
created under the supervision of the
Supreme Court composed of the Chief Justice
as ex officio Chairman, the Secretary of
Justice, and a representative of the
Congress as ex officio Members, a
representative of the Integrated Bar, a
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
professor of law, a retired Member of the
Supreme Court, and a representative of the
private sector.
(2) The regular Members of the Council shall
be appointed by the President for a term of
four years with the consent of the
Commission on Appointments. Of the
Members first appointed, the representative
of the Integrated Bar shall serve for four
years, the professor of law for three years,
the retired Justice for two years, and the
representative of the private sector for one
year.
(3) The Clerk of the Supreme Court shall be
the Secretary ex officio of the Council and
shall keep a record of its proceedings.
(4) The regular Members of the Council shall
receive such emoluments as may be
determined by the Supreme Court. The
Supreme Court shall provide in its annual
budget the appropriations for the Council.
(5) The Council shall have the principal
function of recommending appointees to the
Judiciary. It may exercise such other
functions and duties as the Supreme Court
may assign to it. (Sec. 8, Art. VIII, 1987
Constitution)
Composition of the JBC
Ex-Officio Members:
1. The Chief Justice (ex-officio
Chairman)
2. The Secretary of Justice
3. A representative of the Congress
Regular Members:
1. A representative of the Integrated
Bar
2. A Professor of Law
3. A retired Member of the Supreme
Court
4. A representative of the Private Sector
78
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
ONLY 1 REPRESENTATIVE FROM
CONGRESS; NOT 1 FROM SENATE AND
1 FROM HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
The use of the singular letter "a" preceding
"representative of Congress" is unequivocal
and leaves no room for any other
construction. It is indicative of what the
members of the Constitutional Commission
had in mind, that is, Congress may designate
only one (1) representative to the JBC. Had it
been the intention that more than one (1)
representative from the legislature would sit
in the JBC, the Framers could have, in no
uncertain terms, so provided.
It is clear, therefore, that the Constitution
mandates that the JBC be composed of seven
(7) members only. Thus, any inclusion of
another member, whether with one whole
vote or half (1/2) of it, goes against that
mandate. Section 8(1), Article VIII of the
Constitution, providing Congress with an
equal voice with other members of the JBC in
recommending appointees to the Judiciary is
explicit. Any circumvention of the
constitutional mandate should not be
countenanced for the Constitution is the
supreme law of the land. (Chavez vs. JBC,
G.R. No. 202242, July 17, 2012)
III. EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT
A. PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT
1. Term, Qualifications, and
Election – 1987 CONST., Art. VII,
secs. 2-4
TERM
The President and the Vice-President shall be
elected by direct vote of the people for a term
of six years which shall begin at noon on the
thirtieth day of June next following the day of
the election and shall end at noon of the
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
same date six years thereafter. (Sec. 4, Art.
VII, 1987 Constitution)
The President shall not be eligible for any
reelection. (Sec. 4, Art. VII, 1987
Constitution)
No person who has succeeded as President
and has served as such for more than four
years shall be qualified for election to the
same office at any time. (Sec. 4, Art. VII,
1987 Constitution)
No Vice-President shall serve for more than 2
consecutive terms. (Sec. 3, par. (2), Art. VII,
1987 Constitution)
QUALIFICATIONS OF THE PRESIDENT
AND THE VICE-PRESIDENT
No person may be elected President unless:
a. Natural-born citizen of the
Philippines;
b. At least 40 years of age on the day of
the election
c. Able to read and write
d. Registered voter; and
e. Resident of the Philippines for at least
10 years immediately preceding such
election. (Sec. 2, Art. VII, 1987
Constitution)
ELECTION
The President and the Vice-President shall be
elected by direct vote of the people.
Voluntary renunciation of the office for any
length of time shall not be considered as an
interruption in the continuity of the service
for the full term for which he was elected.
Unless otherwise provided by law, the regular
election for President and Vice-President shall
be held on the second Monday of May.
79
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
The returns of every election for President
and Vice-President, duly certified by the
board of canvassers of each province or city,
shall be transmitted to the Congress, directed
to the President of the Senate. Upon receipt
of the certificates of canvass, the President of
the Senate shall, not later than thirty days
after the day of the election, open all
certificates in the presence of the Senate and
the House of Representatives in joint public
session, and the Congress, upon
determination of the authenticity and due
execution thereof in the manner provided by
law, canvass the votes.
The person having the highest number of
votes shall be proclaimed elected, but in case
two or more shall have an equal and highest
number of votes, one of them shall forthwith
be chosen by the vote of a majority of all the
Members of both Houses of the Congress,
voting separately.
The Congress shall promulgate its rules for
the canvassing of the certificates.
The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be
the sole judge of all contests relating to the
election, returns, and qualifications of the
President or Vice- President, and may
promulgate its rules for the purpose.
(Sec. 4, Art. VII, 1987 Constitution)
Means:
Elected by direct vote of the people. (Sec. 4,
Art. VII, 1987 Constitution)
Types:
1. Regular Election:
2nd Monday of May, every 6 years (Sec. 4,
Art. VII, 1987 Constitution)
2. Special Election:
The Congress shall, at ten o’clock in the
morning of the third day after the vacancy in
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
the offices of the President and Vice-
President occurs, convene in accordance with
its rule without need of a call and within
seven days enact a law calling for a special
election to elect a President and a Vice-
President to be held not earlier than forty-
five days nor later than sixty days from the
time of such call.
The bill calling such special paragraph 2,
Section 26, Article VI of this Constitution
and shall become law upon its approval on
third reading by the Congress.
Appropriations for the special election shall
be charged against any current
appropriations and shall be exempt from the
requirements of paragraph 4, Section 25,
Article VI of this Constitution.
The convening of the Congress cannot be
suspended nor the special election
postponed. No special election shall be called
if the vacancy occurs within eighteen months
before the date of the next
presidential election. (Sec. 10, Art. VII, 1987
Constitution)
Reasons:
a. Death, permanent disability, removal
from office, or resignation of both the
President and the Vice-President. (Sec. 7,
Art. VII, 1987 Constitution)
b. If the vacancies occur more than 18
months before the next regular
presidential election; and (Sec. 10, Art.
VII, 1987 Constitution)
c. A law passed by Congress calling for a
special election to elect a President and
Vice-President to be held earlier than 45
days not later than 60 days from the time
of such call. (Sec. 10, Art. VII, 1987
Constitution)
80
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
Oath of Office
Before they enter on the execution of their
office, the President, Vice-President or the
Acting President shall take oath or
affirmation. (Sec. 5, Art. VII, 1987
Constitution)
Before they enter on the execution of their
office, the President, the Vice-President, or
the Acting President shall take an oath or
affirmation. (Sec. 5, Art. VII, 1987
Constitution)
Oath - An outward pledge made under an
immediate sense of responsibility to God.
(Cruz, Philippine Political Law, 2014).
The oath is not a source of substantive power
but is merely intended to deepen the sense
of responsibility of the President and ensure
a mere conscientious discharge of his office.
(Cruz, Philippine Political Law, 2014)
Affirmation
A solemn declaration in place of an oath, if
the President, Vice-President or Acting
President does not believe in God. (De Leon,
Textbook on the Philippine Constitution,
2008)
2. Privileges, Inhibitions, and
Disqualifications – 1987 CONST., art.
VII, secs. 6 and 13
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGES
The President shall have an official residence.
The salaries of the President and Vice-
President shall be determined by law and
shall not be decreased during their tenure.
No increase in said compensation shall take
effect until after the expiration of the term of
the incumbent during which such increase
was approved. They shall not receive during
their tenure any other emolument from the
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Government or any other source. (Sec. 6, Art.
VII, 1987 Constitution)
PRIVILEGES AND SALARY
1. Official residence – Malacañang
Palace
2. The salaries of the President and
Vice-President shall be determined by
law and shall not be decreased during
their tenure.
NOTE: This rule is to ensure that the
Legislature would not exercise the
power of the purse to pressure the
Executive Department. (Bernas, The
1987 Constitution of the Republic of
the Philippines, p.611, 2009)
3. No increase in said compensation
shall take effect until after the
expiration of the term of the
incumbent during which such
increase was approved.
4. They shall not receive during their
tenure any other emolument from
the Government or any other source.
(Sec. 6, Art. VII, 1987 Constitution)
UNEXPLAINED WEALTH FROM OTHER
EMOLUMENT IS SUBJECT TO
FORFEITURE
Under the 1973 Constitution, Ferdinand E.
Marcos as President could “not receive during
his tenure any other emolument from the
Government or any other source.” Their only
known lawful income of $304,372.43 can
therefore legally and fairly serve as basis for
determining the existence of a prima facie
case of forfeiture of the Swiss funds. The
Republic did not fail to establish a prima facie
case for the forfeiture of the Swiss deposits.
Section 9 of the PCGG Rules and Regulations
provides that, in determining prima facie
evidence of ill-gotten wealth, the value of the
accumulated assets, properties and other
material possessions of those covered by
81
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
Executive Order Nos. 1 and 2 must be out of
proportion to the known lawful income of
such persons. The respondent Marcos couple
did not file any Statement of Assets and
Liabilities (SAL) from which their net worth
could be determined. Their failure to file their
SAL was in itself a violation of law and to
allow them to successfully assail the Republic
for not presenting their SAL would reward
them for their violation of the law. (Republic
vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 152154, July 15,
2003)
Ill-gotten wealth also encompasses those
derived indirectly from government funds or
properties through the use of power,
influence, or relationship resulting in unjust
enrichment and causing grave damage and
prejudice to the Filipino people and the
Republic.
The alleged subject commissions may not
have been sourced directly from the public
funds but it is beyond cavil that Disini would
not have amassed these commissions had he
not exerted undue influence on President
Marcos. (Disini v. Republic, G.R. No. 205172,
June 15, 2021, J. Hernando)
CONCEPT OF PRESIDENTIAL
IMMUNITY
The President, during the period of his
incumbency and tenure, is immune from suit.
However, the privilege of immunity can only
be invoked by the President by virtue of the
office, not by any other person on behalf of
the President. (De Lima vs Duterte, G.R. No.
227635, 15 Oct. 2019)
Once out of office, even before the end of the
6- year term, immunity for non-official acts is
lost. Immunity cannot be claimed to shield a
non-sitting President from prosecution for
alleged criminal acts done while sitting in
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
office. (Estrada v. Desierto, G.R. Nos.
146710-15, 02 March 2001)
Rationale
It is to assure exercise of presidential duties
and functions free from any hindrance or
distraction considering that it is a job that
requires the Chief Executive’s time as well as
undivided attention. (Soliven vs. Makasiar,
G.R. No. 82585, November 14, 1988)
CONDUCT COVERED
Settled is the doctrine that the President,
during his tenure of office or actual
incumbency, may not be sued in any civil or
criminal case, and there is no need to provide
for it in the Constitution or law. It will
degrade the dignity of the high office of the
President, the head of State, if he can be
dragged into court litigations while serving as
such. Furthermore, it is important that he be
freed from any form of harassment,
hindrance or distraction to enable him to fully
attend to the performance of his official
duties and functions. (David v. Arroyo, GR.
No. 171396, May 3, 2006; De Lima vs.
Duterte GR 227635, October 2019)
WAIVER / EXCEPTIONS
1. Though immune from suit, an
impeachment complaint may be filed against
him during his tenure. (Art. XI, 1987
Constitution)
2. He may also not be prevented from
instituting suit; (Soliven v. Makasiar, G.R. No.
82585, 14 Nov. 1988).
3. There is no law preventing the President
from waiving the privilege.
4. A non-sitting President cannot enjoy
immunity from suit for criminal acts
82
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
committed during his incumbency. (Estrada
vs. Desierto, G.R. Nos. 146710-15, March 2,
2001)
5. Heads of departments, by themselves
alone, cannot invoke the President’s
immunity. (Gloria v. CA, G.R. No. 119903, 15
Aug. 2000)
The immunity of the President from suit is
personal to the President. It may be invoked
only by the President and not by any other
person.
Such privilege pertains to the President by
the virtue of the office and may be invoked
only by the holder of that office, and not by
any other person on his behalf. (Soliven v.
Makasiar)
Presidential decisions may be questioned
before the courts where there is a grave
abuse of discretion or that the President
acted without or in excess of jurisdiction.
(Gloria vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
119903, August 15, 2000)
Principle of Command Responsibility
It is “an omission mode of individual criminal
liability,” whereby the superior is made
responsible for crimes committed by his
subordinates for failing to prevent or punish
the perpetrators (as opposed to crimes he
ordered). (Rubrico v. GMA, G.R. No. 183871,
18 Feb. 2010)
A head of department or a superior officer
shall not be civilly liable for the wrongful acts,
omissions of duty, negligence or misfeasance
of his subordinates, unless he has actually
authorized by written order the specific act or
misconduct complained of. (Sec. 38[3],
Chapter 9, Book 1, Administrative Code of
1987).
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Elements:
● The existence of a superior-subordinate
relationship between the accused as
superior and the perpetrator of the crime
as his subordinate;
● The superior knew or had reason to know
that the crime was about to be or had
been committed; and,
● The superior failed to take the necessary
and reasonable measures to prevent the
criminal acts or punish the perpetrators
thereof. (Rodriguez v. GMA, G.R. Nos.
191805 & 193160, 15 Nov. 2011)
NOTE: Immunity is coextensive with tenure
and covers only official duties.
Unlawful acts of public officials are not acts
of State and the officer who acts illegally is
not acting as such but stands on the same
footing as any other trespasser.
CONCEPT OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE
Definition
Schwartz defines executive privilege as "the
power of the Government to withhold
information from the public, the courts, and
the Congress.” Similarly, Rozell defines it as
"the right of the President and high-level
executive branch officers to withhold
information from Congress, the courts, and
ultimately the public." (Senate vs Ermita GR
169777, April 20, 2006)
The rule of confidentiality based on executive
privilege is fundamental to the operation of
government and rooted in the separation of
powers under the Constitution. (Almonte vs.
Vasquez, G.R. No. 95367, 23 May 1995)
83
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
Executive privilege is properly invoked in
relation to specific categories of information
and not to categories of persons.
Requisites for Validity of Claim of
Executive Privilege
1. Quintessential and non-delegable
presidential power:
power subject of the legislative inquiry must
be expressly granted by the Constitution to
the President, e.g. commander-in-chief,
appointing, pardoning, and diplomatic
powers.
2. Operational Proximity Test:
It must be authored, solicited, and received
by a close advisor of the President or the
President himself. The judicial test is that an
advisor must be in “operational proximity”
with the President (i.e. officials who stand
proximate to the President, not only by
reason of their function but also by reason of
their positions in the Executive’s
organizational structure).
3. No adequate need:
The privilege may be overcome by a showing
of adequate need, such that the information
sought “likely contains important evidence,”
and by the unavailability of the information
elsewhere by an appropriate investigating
authority. (Neri vs. Senate, G.R. No. 180643,
September 4, 2008)
TYPES
Executive privilege covers all confidential or
classified information between the President
and the public officers covered by this
executive order, including:
● Conversations and correspondence
between the President and the public official
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
covered by this executive order ( Almonte vs.
Vasquez, G.R. No. 95367, May 23, 1995;
Chavez vs. Public Estates Authority, G.R. No.
133250, July 9, 2002);
● Military, diplomatic and other national
security matters which in the interest of
national security should not be divulged
(Almonte vs. Vasquez, G.R. No. 95367, May
23, 1995; (Chavez vs. Presidential
Commission on Good Government, G.R. No.
130716, December 9, 1998);
● Information between inter-government
agencies prior to the conclusion of treaties
and executive agreements (Chavez vs.
Presidential Commission on Good
Government, G.R. No. 130716, December 9,
1998);
● Discussion in close-door Cabinet meetings
(Chavez vs. Presidential Commission on Good
Government, G.R. No. 130716, December 9,
1998);
● Matters affecting national security and
public order (Chavez vs. Public Estates
Authority, G.R. No. 133250, July 9, 2002)
WHO MAY INVOKE
In light of this highly exceptional nature of
the privilege, the Court finds it essential to
limit to the President the power to invoke the
privilege. She may of course authorize the
Executive Secretary to invoke the privilege on
her behalf, in which case the Executive
Secretary must state that the authority is "By
order of the President," which means that he
personally consulted with her. The privilege
being an extraordinary power, it must be
wielded only by the highest official in the
executive hierarchy. xxx
Congress must not require the executive to
state the reasons for the claim with such
particularity as to compel disclosure of the
84
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
information which the privilege is meant to
protect. This is a matter of respect to a
coordinate and co-equal department.
(Senate vs. Ermita GR 169777, April 20,
2006)
For the claim to be properly invoked, there
must be a formal claim of privilege, lodged by
the head of the department which has control
over the matter." A formal and proper claim
of executive privilege requires a "precise and
certain reason" for preserving their
confidentiality. (Neri vs Senate Committee on
Accountability GR 180643, March 25, 2008)
EXECUTIVE PROHIBITIONS
The President, Vice-President, the Members
of the Cabinet, and their deputies or
assistants shall not, unless otherwise
provided in this Constitution, hold any other
office or employment during their tenure.
They shall not, during said tenure, directly or
indirectly, practice any other profession,
participate in any business, or be financially
interested in any contract with, or in any
franchise, or special privilege granted by the
Government or any subdivision, agency, or
instrumentality thereof, including
government-owned or controlled
corporations or their subsidiaries. They shall
strictly avoid conflict of interest in the
conduct of their office.
The spouse and relatives by consanguinity or
affinity within the fourth civil degree of the
President shall not during his tenure be
appointed as members of the Constitutional
Commissions, or the Office of the
Ombudsman, or as Secretaries,
Undersecretaries, chairmen or heads of
bureaus or offices, including government-
owned or controlled corporations and their
subsidiaries. (Sec. 6, Art. VII, 1987
Constitution)
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
On the President, Vice President,
Members of the Cabinet, their Deputies
and Assistants:
1. They cannot, unless otherwise
provided in this Constitution, hold
any other office or employment
during their tenure.
2. They shall not directly or indirectly
practice any other profession,
participate in any business, or be
financially interested in any contract
with, or in any franchise, or special
privilege granted by the government
or any of its subdivisions, agencies or
instrumentalities.
3. They shall strictly avoid conflict of
interest in the conduct of their office.
(Sec. 6 par. 1, Art. VII, 1987
Constitution)
On the Spouses and Relatives of the
President
They shall not, during the President’s tenure,
be appointed as Members of the
Constitutional Commissions, or the Office of
the Ombudsman, or as Secretaries,
Undersecretaries, chairmen or heads of
bureaus or offices, including government-
owned or controlled corporations and their
subsidiaries. (Sec. 6 par. 2, Art. VII, 1987
Constitution)
CABINET MEMBER PROHIBITIONS
No elective official shall be eligible for
appointment or designation in any capacity to
any public office or position during his tenure.
Unless otherwise allowed by law or by the
primary functions of his position, no
appointive official shall hold any other office
or employment in the Government or any
subdivision, agency or instrumentality
thereof, including Government-owned or
85
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
controlled corporations or their subsidiaries.
(Sec. 7, Art. IX(B), 1987 Constitution)
Exceptions to Prohibition vs. Other
Positions
1. The Vice-President may be appointed
as a Member of the Cabinet. Such
appointment requires no
confirmation. (Sec. 3 par. 2, Art. VII,
1987 Constitution)
2. A Judicial and Bar Council is hereby
created under the supervision of the
Supreme Court composed of the
Chief Justice as ex officio Chairman,
the Secretary of Justice, and a
representative of the Congress as ex
officio Members, a representative of
the Integrated Bar, a professor of
law, a retired Member of the
Supreme Court, and a representative
of the private sector. (Sec. 8[1], Art.
VIII, 1987 Constitution)
B. EXECUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE
POWERS - 1987 CONST., art. VII, secs. 1
and 17
1. Nature of Executive Power
The executive power shall be vested in the
President of the Philippines. (Sec. 1, Art. VII,
1987 Constitution)
However, it does not define what is meant by
executive power although in the same article
it touches on the exercise of certain powers
by the President:
1. the power of control over all executive
departments, bureaus and offices;
2. the power to execute the laws;
3. the appointing power;
4. the powers under the commander-in-
chief clause;
5. the power to grant reprieves,
commutations and pardons;
6. the power to grant amnesty with the
concurrence of Congress;
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
7. the power to contract or guarantee
foreign loans;
8. the power to enter into treaties or
international agreements;
9. the power to submit the budget to
Congress;
10. the power to address Congress. (Sec. 14-
23, Art VII, 1987 Constitution)
(Marcos vs. Manglapus, G.R. No. 88211,
Sept. 15, 1989)
NOTE: The President's powers are not
limited to those specifically enumerated in
the 1987 Constitution. e.g. residual powers
(Biraogo vs. PTC, G.R. No. 192935, Dec. 07,
2010)
EXPRESS POWERS
The “Faithful Execution”/ Take Care”
Clause
The President shall have control of all the
executive departments, bureaus, and offices.
He shall ensure that the laws be faithfully
executed. (Sec. 17, Art. VII, 1987
Constitution)
The power to take care that the laws be
faithfully executed makes the President a
dominant figure in the administration of the
government. Until and unless a law is
declared unconstitutional, the President has
a duty to execute it regardless of his doubts
on its validity. (Cruz, Philippine Political Law,
p. 419, 2009)
Delegated Powers of the President:
Emergency Powers
In times of war or other national
emergencies, 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
86
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
next adjournment thereof. (Sec. 23[2], Art.
VI, 1987 Constitution)
The Congress may, by law, authorize the
President to fix within specified limits, and
subject to such limitations and restrictions as
it may impose, tariff rates, import and export
quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues, and
other duties or imposts within the framework
of the national development program of the
Government. (Sec. 28[2], Art. VI, 1987
Constitution of the Philippines)
In times of national emergency, when the
public interest so requires, the State may,
during the emergency and under reasonable
terms prescribed by it, temporarily take over
or direct the operation of any privately owned
public utility or business affected with public
interest. (Sec. 17, Art. XII, 1987 Constitution)
The rationale behind such broad emergency
powers of the Executive is the release of the
government from “the paralysis of
constitutional 75 restrains” so that the crisis
may be ended and normal times restored.
(Sanidad vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. L-44640
October 12, 1976)
Emergency powers are self-liquidating unless
sooner withdrawn. They will automatically
cease upon the end of the emergency that
justified their delegation.
Generally, Congress is the repository of
emergency powers. Certainly, a body cannot
delegate a power not reposed upon it.
However, knowing that during grave
emergencies, it may not be possible or
practicable for Congress to meet and exercise
its powers, the Framers of our Constitution
deemed it wise to allow Congress to grant
emergency powers to the President, subject
to certain conditions, thus:
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
(1) There must be a war or other
emergency.
(2) The delegation must be for a limited
period only.
(3) The delegation must be subject to
such restrictions as the Congress may
prescribe.
(4) The emergency powers must be
exercised to carry out a national
policy declared by Congress. (David
vs. Arroyo, G.R. No. 171396, May 3,
2006)
Section 17, Article XII must be understood as
an aspect of the emergency powers clause.
The taking over of private business affected
with public interest is just another facet of
the emergency powers generally reposed
upon Congress. Thus, whether or not the
President may exercise such power is
dependent on whether Congress may
delegate it to him pursuant to a law
prescribing the reasonable terms thereof.
(David vs. Arroyo, supra.)
Can an Executive Department exercise
delegated Emergency Powers?
The doctrine of qualified political agency
entails that a cabinet secretary may only
exercise the authority acting as the
president's alter ego. As such, their actions
related to their official duties and
responsibilities are presumed to be the
president's. These acts are valid and binding
unless the president disapproves or
repudiates them. In addition, their acts are
subject to the subsequent ratification or
rejection of the president; any exercise
contrary to the president's intent or
instructions shall be deemed ultra vires and
an unconstitutional usurpation of executive
power.
If, in the exercise of its delegated authority,
the energy secretary acts in contrast with the
87
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW

president’s intent or instructions, the act will NOTE: Corollarily, the powers of the
be deemed ultra vires and an President cannot be said to be limited only to
unconstitutional usurpation of executive the specific powers enumerated in the
power. Constitution. In other words, executive
power is more than the sum of specific
Moreover, it must first be demonstrated that powers so enumerated. (Biraogo vs. PTC,
the president withheld approval or G.R. No. 192935, December 7, 2010)
repudiated the delegation or the actions of
the delegated authority. (Executive Secretary Power Over Officials
Mendoza v. Pilipinas Shell, G.R. No. 209216, The President shall have control of all the
February 21, 2023) executive departments, bureaus, and offices.
He shall ensure that the laws be faithfully
Examples of other national executed. (Sec. 17, Art. VII, 1987
emergencies Constitution)
1. Rebellion
2. Economic crisis The President of the Philippines shall exercise
3. Pestilence or epidemic general supervision over local governments.
4. Typhoon
Provinces with respect to component cities
5. Flood
6. Other similar catastrophes of nation-wide and municipalities, and cities and
proportions. (Cruz, Philippine Political municipalities with respect to component
Law, p. 163, 2009) barangays shall ensure that the acts of their
component units are within the scope of their
prescribed powers and functions. (Sec. 4, Art.
X, 1987 Constitution)

As the administrative head of the

government, the President is vested with the
power to execute, administer, and carry out
laws into practical operation. xxx While
Congress is vested with the power to enact
laws, the President executes the laws. The
executive power is vested in the President. It
Foreign Relations Power
is generally defined as the power to enforce
● Chief Architect of Foreign Policy;
and administer the laws. It is the power of
● Initiates, maintains, and develops carrying out the laws into practical operation
diplomatic relations with other states
and enforcing their due observance.
and governments;
(National Electrification Administration vs.
● Negotiates and enters into Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 143481, February
international agreements;
15, 2002)
● Promotes trade, investments,
tourism, and other economic
VICE PRESIDENT
relations;
● Settles international disputes with
The Vice President shall have the same
other states; and,
qualifications and term of office as the
● Defense (Commander-in-Chief)
President. He may be removed from office in

AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION 88

 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
the same manner as the President. (Sec. 3,
Art. VII, 1987 Constitution)
The Vice President has essentially no
executive function except as a reserved
President unless he is appointed as a Cabinet
member or given an executive function. His
appointment as Department Head does not
need the consent of the Commission on
Appointments in deference to his office.
In case of vacancy, the President shall
nominate a Vice President from among the
members of the Senate and the House of
Representatives who shall assume office
upon confirmation by a majority vote of all
the Members of both House of Congress
voting separately. (Sec. 9, Art. VII, 1987
Constitution).
The appointment of the Vice President
as Chairman of the Presidential Anti-
Crime Commission was not an
appointment to a Cabinet 81 position
nor to a position constituting an
intimate element of his duties as Vice –
president. But the appointment’s validity
was never challenged. The only possible
explanation for the tolerance of the situation
must be the assumption that the prohibition
is meant to prevent the enhancement of the
powers of one who is already powerful or
busy with other duties. The Vice President,
by nature of his office, is neither powerful nor
busy. (Bernas, The 1987 Constitution of the
Philippines: A Commentary, 2009)
C. POWER OF APPOINTMENT (1987
CONST., art. VII, secs. 13, 15 and 16)
The President, Vice-President, the Members
of the Cabinet, and their deputies or
assistants shall not, unless otherwise
provided in this Constitution, hold any o ther
office or employment during their tenure.
They shall not, during said tenure, directly or
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
indirectly, practice any other profession,
participate in any business, or be financially
interested in any contract with, or in any
franchise, or special privilege granted by the
Government or any subdivision, agency, or
instrumentality thereof, including
government-owned or controlled
corporations or their subsidiaries. They shall
strictly avoid conflict of interest in the
conduct of their office.
The spouse and relatives by consanguinity or
affinity within the fourth civil degree of the
President shall not during his tenure be
appointed as members of the Constitutional
Commissions, or the Office of the
Ombudsman, or as Secretaries,
Undersecretaries, chairmen or heads of
bureaus or offices, including government-
owned or controlled corporations and their
subsidiaries. (Sec. 13, Art. VII, 1987
Constitution)
Two months immediately before the next
presidential elections and up to the end of his
term, a President or Acting President shall not
make appointments, except temporary
appointments to executive positions when
continued vacancies therein will prejudice
public service or endanger public safety.
(Sec. 15, Art. VII, 1987 Constitution)
The President shall nominate and, with the
consent of the Commission on Appointments,
appoint the heads of the executive
departments, ambassadors, other public
ministers and consuls, or officers of the
armed forces from the rank of colonel or
naval captain, and other officers whose
appointments are vested in him in this
Constitution. He shall also appoint all other
officers of the Government whose
appointments are not otherwise provided for
by law, and those whom he may be
authorized by law to appoint. The Congress
may, by law, vest the appointment of other
89
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
officers lower in rank in the President alone,
in the courts, or in the heads of departments,
agencies, commissions, or boards.
The President shall have the power to make
appointments during the recess of the
Congress, whether voluntary or compulsory,
but such appointments shall be effective only
until after disapproval by the Commission on
Appointments or until the next adjournment
of the Congress. (Sec. 16, Art. VII, 1987
Constitution)
NATURE
Appointment is the unequivocal act of
designating or selecting by one having the
authority therefore of an individual to
discharge and perform the duties and
functions of an office or trust. (Bermudez vs.
Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 131429,
August 4, 1999)
The appointing power of the President is
executive in nature. While Congress and the
Constitution in certain cases may prescribe
the qualifications for particular offices, the
determination of who among those who are
qualified will be appointed is the President’s
prerogative. (Pimentel vs. Ermita, G.R. No.
164978, October 13, 2005)
Elements in Making a Valid, Complete,
and Effective Presidential
Appointment:
1. Authority to appoint and evidence of the
exercise of the authority;
2. Transmittal of the appointment paper
signed by the President and evidence of the
transmittal;
3. A Vacant position at the time of
appointment; and,
4. Receipt of the appointment paper and
Acceptance of the appointment by the
appointee who possesses all the
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
qualifications and none of the
disqualifications.
NOTE: At any time, before all four steps have
been complied with, the President can
withdraw the nomination and appointment.
(Lacson vs. Romero, G.R. No. L-3081,
October 14, 1949)
Appointments made solely by the
President:
1. Those vested by the Constitution on
the President alone;
2. Those whose appointments are not
otherwise provided by law;
3. Those whom he may be authorized
by law to appoint; and,
4. Those other officers lower in rank
whose appointment is vested by law
in the President alone. (Sec. 16, Art.
VII, 1987 Constitution)
NOTE: So long as the appointee satisfies the
minimum requirements prescribed by law for
the position, the appointment may not be
subject to judicial review. (Angel Abad vs.
Herminio dela Cruz, G.R. No. 207422, March
18, 2015)
Designation
The imposition of additional duties on a
person already in the public service. It is
considered only as an acting or temporary
appointment, which does not confer security
of tenure on the person named and may be
terminated anytime.
It is said that appointment is essentially
executive while designation is legislative in
nature. (Binamira vs. Garrucho, G.R. No.
92008, July 30, 1990)
90
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
Temporary Designation
The President has the power to temporarily
designate an officer already in government
service or any other competent person to
perform the functions of an office in the
executive branch.
Temporary designation cannot exceed one
year. (Sec. 17(3), Chapter 5, Title I, Book III,
Administrative Code of 1987)
1. REGULAR APPOINTMENT V. AD
INTERIM APPOINTMENT
Regular Appointment – takes place when
the President appoints an officer whose
appointment requires confirmation by the
Commission, while Congress is in session.
(Nachura, Outline Reviewer in Political Law,
p. 297, 2014)
It is made by the President while Congress is
in session; takes effect only after
confirmation by the CA and, once approved,
continues until the end of the term of the
appointee. (General vs. Urro, G.R. No.
191560, March 29, 2011)
Process
1. nomination by the President;
2. confirmation by the Commission on
Appointments;
3. issuance of the commission; and
4. the subsequent acceptance by the
nominee or appointee.
NOTE: A regular appointment takes effect
only after the confirmation by the
Commission on Appointments. Once
approved, such appointment continues until
the end of the term of the appointee
Ad Interim/Recess Appointment –
happens when Congress is not in session.
Unlike regular appointments, an ad-interim
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
appointment made by the President is
complete in itself and effective at once, even
without confirmation. (Id.)
It is made by the President while Congress is
not in session, which takes effect
immediately, but ceases to be valid if:
(General vs. Urro, G.R. No. 191560, March
29, 2011)
a. Disapproved by the CA; or,
b. Upon the next adjournment of
Congress, either in regular or special
session, the CA has not acted upon it.
(Aytona vs. Castillo, et. al., G.R. No.
L-19313, January 19, 1962)
Limitations
● The President may not appoint his spouse
and relatives by consanguinity or affinity
within the fourth civil degree Members of
the Constitutional Commissions, or the
Office of the Ombudsman, or as
Secretaries, Undersecretaries, chairmen
or heads of bureaus or offices, including
government-owned or controlled
corporations and their subsidiaries. (Sec.
13, Art. VII, 1987 Constitution.)
● Appointments extended by an Acting
President shall remain effective, unless
revoked by the elected President, within
ninety days from his assumption or
reassumption of office. (Sec.14, Art. VII,
1987 Constitution.)
● Two months immediately before the next
presidential elections and up to the end
of his term, a President or Acting
President shall not make appointments,
except temporary appointments to
executive positions when continued
vacancies therein will prejudice public
service or endanger public safety. (Sec.
15, Art. VII, 1987 Constitution.)
91
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
2. WITH OR WITHOUT COA
CONFIRMATION
Appointments subject to the
Commission on Appointment’s
confirmation (exclusive):
● Heads of the Executive departments,
except the Vice-President who is
appointed to the post;
● Ambassadors, other public ministers, or
consuls;
● Officers of the AFP from the rank of
Colonel or naval Captain; and,
● Other Officers whose appointments are
vested in him by the Constitution.
○ Chairman and members of 3
Constitutional Commissions;
○ Regular members of the Judicial
and Bar Council; and,
○ Members of the Regional
Consultative Council) (Sec. 16,
Art. VII, 1987 Constitution.)
One that has not been finally acted upon on
the merits by the Commission on
Appointments at the close of the session of
Congress. There is no final decision by the
Commission on Appointments to give or
withhold its consent to the appointment as
required by the Constitution. Absent such
decision, the President is free to renew the
ad interim appointment of a by-passed
appointee. (Matibag vs. Benipayo, G.R. No.
149036, April 2, 2002)
Limitation as to the number of times the
Commission on Appointments can
review the Presidents re-appointment
of By-passed Appointee
A nomination or appointment which has been
bypassed three (3) times shall be reported
out by the standing committee concerned to
the commission for its appropriate action in
the next plenary session, provided that no
member shall be allowed to invoke the
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
suspension of the consideration of the
appointment in this regard. (Sec. 25, The
New Rules of the Commission on
Appointments 2017 as Amended)
For appointments which do not require
confirmations:
● Appointment by the appointing authority;
● Issuance of the Commission;
● Acceptance by the Appointee (Javier vs.
Reyes, G.R. No. L-39451, February 20,
1989);
● Directors and chief superintendents of
the PNP ; and,
● Respondent officers of the PCG, or any
PCG officer from the rank of captain and
higher for that matter.
● The Members of the Supreme Court and
judges of lower courts shall be appointed
by the President from a list of at least
three nominees prepared by the Judicial
and Bar Council for every vacancy. Such
appointments need no confirmation.
(Sec. 9, Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution)
NOTE: Acceptance of the appointee is an
indispensable requirement for an
appointment to be valid.
The Philippine National Police is separate and
distinct from the Armed Forces of the
Philippines. The Constitution, no less, sets
forth the distinction (Sec. 4, Art. XVI; Sec. 6,
Art. XVI, 1987 Constitution).
To so distinguish the police force from the
armed forces, Congress enacted Republic Act
6975 which provides that “No element of the
police force shall be military nor shall any
position thereof be occupied by active
members of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines”. Therefore, the police force is
different from and independent of the armed
forces and the ranks in the military are not
92
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
similar to those in the Philippine National
Police. Thus, directors and chief
superintendents of the PNP, such as the
herein respondent police officers, do not fall
under the first category of presidential
appointees requiring the confirmation by the
Commission on Appointments. (Id.)
Now that the PCG is under the DOTC and no
longer part of the Philippine Navy or the
Armed Forces of the Philippines, the
promotions and appointments of respondent
officers of the PCG, or any PCG officer from
the rank of captain and higher for that
matter, do not require confirmation by the
CA. (Soriano vs. Lista, G.R. No. 153881,
March 24, 2003)
3. MIDNIGHT APPOINTMENTS
Purpose
It is to prevent a President, whose term is
about to end, from preempting his successor
by appointing his own people to sensitive
positions. (Velicaria-Garafil vs. Office of the
President, G.R. No. 203372, June 16, 2015)
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Scope
During the period stated in Sec. 15, Art. VII
of the Constitution, which is two months
immediately before the next presidential
elections and up to the end of his term, the
President is neither required to make
appointments to the courts nor allowed to do
so. (A.M. No. 98-5-01-SC, November 9,
1998)
General Rule: Midnight appointments are
prohibited.
Exceptions:
● They are temporary appointments to
executive positions:
● The continued vacancies will
prejudice public service or endanger
public safety.
The President may appoint to fill vacancies in
the Supreme Court even during appointment
ban, as he is mandated to fill such vacancy
within 90 days from the occurrence. For the
lower courts, the President shall issue the
appointments within 90 days from the
submission of the list. (De Castro vs JBC, G.R.
No. 191002, March 17 2010)
NOTE: the Acting Secretary of Justice as
being concurrently designated as Acting
Solicitor General; therefore, he could not
validly hold any other office or employment
during his tenure as the Acting Solicitor
General, because the Constitution has not
otherwise so provided. (Funa vs. Agra, G.R.
No. 191644, February 19, 2013)
Comparing Sec. 7, Art. IX-B versus Sec.
13, Art. VII
No elective official shall be eligible for
appointment or designation in any capacity to
any public office or position during his tenure.
93
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
Unless otherwise allowed by law or by the
primary functions of his position, no
appointive official shall hold any other office
or employment in the Government or any
subdivision, agency or instrumentality
thereof, including Government-owned or
controlled corporations or their subsidiaries.
(Sec. 7, Art. IX-B, 1987 Constitution)
The President, Vice-President, the Members
of the Cabinet, and their deputies or
assistants shall not, unless otherwise
provided in this Constitution, hold any other
office or employment during their tenure.
They shall not, during said tenure, directly or
indirectly, practice any other profession,
participate in any business, or be financially
interested in any contract with, or in any
franchise, or special privilege granted by the
Government or any subdivision, agency, or
instrumentality thereof, including
government-owned or controlled
corporations or their subsidiaries. They shall
strictly avoid conflict of interest in the
conduct of their office.
The spouse and relatives by consanguinity or
affinity within the fourth civil degree of the
President shall not during his tenure be
appointed as members of the Constitutional
Commissions, or the Office of the
Ombudsman, or as Secretaries,
Undersecretaries, chairmen or heads of
bureaus or offices, including government-
owned or controlled corporations and their
subsidiaries. (Sec. 13, Art. VII, 1987
Constitution)
Sec. 7, Art. IX-B, 1987 Constitution is meant
to lay down the general rule applicable to all
elective and appointive public officials and
employees, while Sec. 13, Art. VII, 1987
Constitution is meant to be the exception
applicable only to the President, the Vice-
President, and Members of the Cabinet, their
deputies and assistants.
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
The phrase "unless otherwise provided in this
Constitution" must be given a literal
interpretation to refer only to those instances
cited in the Constitution itself, to wit:
● The Vice-President being appointed as a
member of the Cabinet under Sec. 3(2),
Art. VII, 1987 Constitution; or acting as
President in those instances provided
under Sec. 7(2) & (3), Art. VII, 1987
Constitution; and,
● The Secretary of Justice being ex-officio
member of the Judicial and Bar Council
by virtue of Sec. 8(1), Art. VIII, 1987
Constitution. (Funa vs. Agra, G.R. No.
191644, February 19, 2013)
The prohibition on Midnight
appointments does not apply to local
chief executives
The prohibition on midnight appointments
only applies to presidential appointments. It
does not apply to appointments made by
local chief executives. Nevertheless, the Civil
Service Commission has the power to
promulgate rules and regulations to
professionalize the civil service. It may issue
rules and regulations prohibiting local chief
executives from making appointments during
the last days of their tenure.
Appointments of local chief executives must
conform to these civil service rules and
regulations in order to be valid. (Provincial
Government of Aurora vs. Marco, G.R. No.
202331, April 22, 2015)
The prohibition on Midnight
appointments does not apply to
members of the Supreme Court
That such specification was not done only
reveals that the prohibition against the
President or Acting President making
appointments within two months before the
94
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
next presidential elections and up to the end
of the President’s or Acting President’s term
does not refer to the Members of the
Supreme Court. (De Castro v. JBC, G.R. No.
191002, April 20, 2010).
4. REMOVAL FROM OFFICE
a. Removal - Refers to the forcible and
permanent separation of the incumbent from
office before the expiration of his term.
(Ingles vs. Mutuc, G.R. No. L-20390,
November 29, 1968)
Removal from office may be express or
implied
Appointment of another officer in the place of
the incumbent operates as a removal in the
latter was notified.
● While a temporary transfer or assignment
of personnel is permissible even without
the employee’s prior consent, it cannot
be done when the transfer is a
preliminary step toward his removal, or is
a scheme to lure him away from his
permanent position, or designed to
indirectly terminate his service, or force
his resignation. Such a transfer would in
effect circumvent the provision which
safeguards the tenure of office of those
who are in the Civil Service (Gloria vs.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119903.
August 15, 2000)
● Demotion to a lower position with a lower
rate of compensation is also equivalent to
removal if no cause is shown for it. (De
Guzman vs. Civil Service Commission,
G.R. No. 101105, March 11, 1994)
● It is the forcible and permanent
separation of the incumbent from the
office before the expiration of his term
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
(Ingles vs. Mutuc, G.R. No. L-20390,
November 29 1968)
Security of Tenure
No officer or employee of the civil service
shall be removed or suspended except for
cause provided by law. (Sec. 2[3], Art. IX-B,
1987 Constitution)
NOTE: Demotions and transfers without just
cause are tantamount to removal.Removal
not for a just cause, or non-compliance with
the prescribed procedure constitutes a
reversible error and entitles the officer or
employee to reinstatement with back salaries
and without loss of seniority rights.
On the other hand, removal or resignation
from office is not a bar to a finding of
administrative liability. (Office of the
President vs. Cataquiz, G.R. No. 183445,
September 14, 2011)
Extent of President’s Removal Power
With respect to non-career officers exercising
purely executive functions whose tenure is
not fixed by law (i.e. members of the
Cabinet), the President may remove them
with or without cause and Congress may not
restrict such power. (Sec. 17, Art. VII, 1987
Constitution)
With respect to officers exercising quasi-
legislative or quasi-judicial functions (i.e.
members of the SEC), they may be removed
only on grounds provided for by law to
protect their independence. (Sec. 2 [3] , Art.
IX-B, 1987 Constitution)
With respect to constitutional officers
removable only by means of impeachment,
and judges of lower courts, they are not
subject to the removal of the President. (Sec.
2, Art. XI, 1987 Constitution)
95
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
The President cannot remove officials
appointed by him where the Constitution
prescribes certain methods for the separation
of such officers from public service (i.e.
Constitutional Commissioners). Members of
the Cabinet and such officers whose
continuity in office depends upon the
pleasure of the President may be replaced at
any time, but legally speaking, their
separation is effected not by removal but by
expiration of term. (Alba vs. Evangelista, G.R.
No. L-10360 & L-10433, January 17, 1957)
D. POWER OF CONTROL AND
SUPERVISION (1987 CONST., art. VII, sec.
17)
The President shall have control of all the
executive departments, bureaus, and offices.
He shall ensure that the laws be faithfully
executed. (Sec. 17, Art. VII, 1987
Constitution)
The Power of Control
The power of an officer to alter or modify or
nullify or to set aside what a subordinate has
done in the performance of his duties and to
substitute one’s own judgment for that of a
subordinate. (Province Of Camarines Sur vs.
The Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 227926,
March 10, 2020)
Limitations
It is not absolute. It may be effectively limited
by the Constitution, by law, or by judicial
decisions. (Moran vs. Office of the President,
G.R. No. 192957, September 29, 2014)
It is exercisable by the President only over
the acts of his subordinates and not
necessarily over the subordinate himself.
(Ang-Angco vs. Castillo, G.R. No. L-17169,
November 30, 1963)
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
NOTE: The President’s power over GOCCs
comes from statute, so it may be taken away
by the same.
Discretion of the officer
The officer in control may, in his discretion,
order the act undone or redone by his
subordinate or he may even decide to do it
himself. (Drilon vs. Lim, G.R. No. 112497
August 4, 1994)
The Power of Supervision
In administrative law, supervision means
overseeing or the power or authority of an
officer to see that subordinate officers
perform their duties. If the latter fail or
neglect to fulfill the former may take such
action or step as prescribed by law to make
them perform their duties. (Office of the
Ombudsman vs. Fetalvero, Jr., G.R. No.
211450, July 23, 2018).
Essentially, the power of supervision means
no more than the power of ensuring that laws
are faithfully executed, or that subordinate
officers act within the law. The supervisor of
superintendent merely sees to it that the
rules are followed, but he does not lay down
the rules, nor does he have discretion to
modify or replace them. (Ambil, Jr., vs
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 175457, July 6,
2011)
Power of the officer
The supervisor does not have the discretion
to modify or replace them. If the rules are not
observed, he may order the work done or
redone but only to conform to the prescribed
rules. (Drilon vs. Lim, G.R. No. 112497
August 4, 1994)
The sitting President CAN NOT issue an
executive order creating a special body
to investigate reported cases of graft
96
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
and corruption allegedly committed
during the last administration
The President has no power to create a public
office. It is not shared by Congress with the
President, until and unless Congress enacts
legislation that delegates a part of the power
to the President, or any other officer or
agency. It is a settled rule that the President’s
power of control can only mean the power of
an officer to alter, modify, or set aside what
a subordinate officer had done in the
performance of his duties, and to substitute
the judgment of the former for that of the
latter.
As such, the creation by the President of a
public office like the Truth Commission,
without either a provision of the Constitution
or a proper law enacted by Congress
authorizing such creation, is not an act that
the power of control includes. (Biraogo vs.
The Philippine Truth Commission, G.R. No.
192935, December 7, 2010, Bersamin, J.
separate opinion)
1. EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND
OFFICES; DOCTRINE OF QUALIFIED
POLITICAL AGENCY
Department Heads
Department Heads may exercise Power of
Control on behalf of the President including
the power to reverse the Judgment of an
Inferior Officer. (Rufino vs. Rufino, G.R. No.
139554, July 21, 2006)
Doctrine of Qualified Political
Agency/Alter Ego Principle
The doctrine of qualified political agency
acknowledges the multifarious executive
responsibilities that demand a president's
attention, such that the delegation of control
power to his or her Cabinet becomes a
necessity. Unless the Constitution or law
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
provides otherwise, Cabinet members have
the president's imprimatur to exercise control
over the offices and departments under their
respective jurisdictions, whose authority
nonetheless remains subject to the
president's disapproval or reversal.
(Philippine Institute for Development Studies
vs. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 212022,
August 20, 2019)
The acts of the secretaries of the Executive
departments performed and promulgated in
the regular course of business are
presumptively the acts of the Chief Executive.
(Villena vs. Sec. of the Interior, G.R. No. L-
46570, April 21, 1939)
It declares that, save in matters on which the
Constitution or the circumstances require the
President to act personally, executive and
administrative functions are exercised
through executive departments headed by
cabinet secretaries, whose acts are
presumptively the acts of the President
unless disapproved by the latter. (Risa
Hontiveros-Baraquel vs. Toll Regulatory
Board, G.R. No. 181293, February 23, 2015)
All executive and administrative
organizations are adjuncts of the Executive
Department, the heads of the various
executive departments are assistants and
agents of the Chief Executive, and, except in
cases where the Chief Executive is required
by the Constitution or law to act in person on
the exigencies of the situation demand that
he act personally, the multifarious executive
and administrative functions of the Chief
Executive are performed by and through the
executive departments, and the acts of the
Secretaries of such departments, performed
and promulgated in the regular course of
business, are, unless disapproved or
reprobated by the Chief Executive
presumptively the acts of the Chief Executive.
(Ibid.)
97
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
This power is limited to the President's
executive secretary and other Cabinet
secretaries. It does not extend to deputy
executive secretaries or assistant deputy
secretaries. (Ibid.)
These acts are valid and binding unless the
president disapproves or repudiates them. In
addition, their acts are subject to the
subsequent ratification or rejection of the
president; any exercise contrary to the
president's intent or instructions shall be
deemed ultra vires and an unconstitutional
usurpation of executive power. (Executive
Secretary Mendoza vs. Pilipinas Shell, G.R.
No. 209216, February 21, 2023)
Examples
● The power of the President to reorganize
the National Government may be validly
delegated to his Cabinet Members
exercising control over a particular
executive department. (DENR vs. DENR
Region XII Employees, G.R. No. 149724,
August 19, 2003)
● Department Heads, like the Executive
Secretary when acting “by authority of
the President”, may reverse the decision
of another department secretary.
(Lacson Magallanes vs. Paño, G.R. No. L-
27811 November 17, 1967)
● The Department of Energy can exercise
emergency takeover power properly
delegated by the Congress by virtue of
the Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency
(Executive Secretary Mendoza vs.
Pilipinas Shell, G.R. No. 209216, February
21, 2023)
Exceptions
● If the acts are disapproved or reprobated
by the President;
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
● If the President is required to act in
person by law or by the Constitution. e.g.
executive clemency; and,
● Acts of cabinet secretaries done in their
capacity as ex-officio board directors of a
GOCC of which they become a member
not by appointment of the President but
by authority of law. (Manalang-Demigillo
vs. Trade and Investment Development
Corporation of the Philippines, G.R. No.
168613, March 5, 2013)
Principle of Blending of Powers
A mingling of powers among the three
branches of government which has become
necessary to properly address the
complexities brought about by a rapidly
developing society and which the traditional
branches of government have difficulty
coping with. (Ople vs. Torres, G.R. No.
127685, July 23, 1998)
Examples
● Power of appointment which can be
exercised by each department and be
rightfully exercised by each department
over its own administrative personnel;
(Concurring and Dissenting Opinion of
Justice Puno, Macalintal vs. COMELEC,
G.R. No. 157013, July 10, 2003)
● General Appropriations Law in which the
President prepares the budget which
serves as the basis of the bill adopted by
Congress; (supra.)
● Amnesty granted by the President
requires the concurrence of the majority
of all the members of the Congress; and
(supra.)
● Power of the COMELEC to deputize law
enforcement agencies and
instrumentalities of the government for
the purpose of ensuring free, orderly,
98
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
honest, peaceful, and credible elections
in accordance with the power granted to
it by the Constitution to enforce and
administer all laws and regulations
relative to the conduct of elections. (Sec.
2[1], Art. IX-C, 1987 Constitution;
supra.)
2. LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS (1987
CONST., art. X, sec. 4)
The President of the Philippines shall exercise
general supervision over local governments.
Provinces with respect to component cities
and municipalities, and cities and
municipalities with respect to component
barangays shall ensure that the acts of their
component units are within the scope of their
prescribed powers and functions. (Sec. 4, Art.
X, 1987 Constitution)
NOTE: The President shall exercise general
supervision over autonomous regions to
ensure that the laws are faithfully executed
(Sec. 16, Art. X, 1987 Constitution)
The President or any of his alter egos cannot
interfere in local affairs as long as the
concerned LGU acts within the parameters of
the law and the Constitution. Any directive,
therefore, by the President or any of his alter
egos seeking to alter the wisdom of a law-
conforming judgment on local affairs of a
LGU is a patent nullity, because it violates
the principle of local autonomy, as well
as the doctrine of separation of powers of the
executive and the legislative departments in
governing municipal corporations. Thus, the
President or any of his alter egos, cannot
interfere in local affairs as long as the
concerned local government units acts within
the parameters of the law and Constitution.
(Dadole v. COA, G.R. No. 125350, December
3, 2002)
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
E. MILITARY POWERS (1987 CONST., art.
VII, sec. 18)
The President shall be the Commander-in-
Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines
and whenever it becomes necessary, he may
call out such armed forces to prevent or
suppress lawless violence, invasion or
rebellion. In case of invasion or rebellion,
when the public safety requires it, he may,
for a period not exceeding sixty days,
suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus or place the Philippines or any part
thereof under martial law. Within forty-eight
hours from the proclamation of martial law or
the suspension of the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus, the President shall submit a
report in person or in writing to the Congress.
The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at
least a majority of all its Members in regular
or special session, may revoke such
proclamation or suspension, which
revocation shall not be set aside by the
President. Upon the initiative of the
President, the Congress may, in the same
manner, extend such proclamation or
suspension for a period to be determined by
the Congress, if the invasion or rebellion shall
persist and public safety requires it.
The Congress, if not in session, shall, within
twenty-four hours following such
proclamation or suspension, convene in
accordance with its rules without any need of
a call.
The Supreme Court may review, in an
appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen,
the sufficiency of the factual basis of the
proclamation of martial law or the suspension
of the privilege of the writ or the extension
thereof, and must promulgate its decision
thereon within thirty days from its filing.
A state of martial law does not suspend the
operation of the Constitution, nor supplant
99
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
the functioning of the civil courts or
legislative assemblies, nor authorize the
conferment of jurisdiction on military courts
and agencies over civilians where civil courts
are able to function, nor automatically
suspend the privilege of the writ.
The suspension of the privilege of the writ
shall apply only to persons judicially charged
for rebellion or offenses inherent in or directly
connected with the invasion.
During the suspension of the privilege of the
writ, any person thus arrested or detained
shall be judicially charged within three days,
otherwise he shall be released. (Sec. 18, Art.
VII, 1987 Constitution)
Powers granted
a. Calling-Out Power
b. Declaration of Martial Law and the
Suspension of the Privilege of the
Writ of Habeas Corpus
c. Extension of Period of Martial Law
and the Suspension of the Writ of
Habeas Corpus (Sec. 18, Art. VII,
1987 Constitution)
The framers of the 1987 Constitution
reformulated the powers of the Commander-
in-Chief by revising the “grounds for the
activation of emergency powers, the manner
of activating them, the scope of the powers,
and review of presidential action.”
Therefore, these powers cannot be resorted
to without complying with the specified
conditions. (Lagman vs. Medialdea, G.R. No.
231658, July 04, 2017).
Limitations on the Military Powers of
the President
1. He may call out the armed forces only
in cases when it becomes necessary
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
to prevent or suppress lawless
violence, invasion or rebellion.
2. The grounds for the suspension of
the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus and the proclamation of
martial law are limited only to
invasion or rebellion when the public
safety requires it.
3. The duration of such suspension or
proclamation shall not exceed 60
days following which it shall be
automatically lifted.
4. Within 48 hours after such
suspension or proclamation, the
President shall personally or in
writing, report his action to Congress.
If not in session, Congress must
convene within 24 hours without
need of a call.
5. The Congress may then, by majority
vote of all its members voting jointly,
revoke the action of the President;
6. The revocation may not be set aside
by the President;
7. By majority vote of all its members
voting jointly, the Congress may,
upon initiative of the President,
extend his suspension of
proclamation for a period to be
determined by Congress in the
invasion or rebellion shall continue
and public safety requires the
extension;
8. The action of the President and the
Congress shall be subject to review
by the Supreme Court which shall
have the authority to determine the
sufficiency of the factual basis of such
action (proclamation of martial law,
suspension of the privilege of the
100
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
writ, or extension thereof). This
matter is no longer considered a
political question and may be raised
in an appropriate proceeding by any
citizen. Moreover, the Supreme Court
must decide the challenge within 30
days from the time it is filed;
9. Martial law does not automatically
suspend the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus or the operation of the
Constitution. The civil courts and the
legislative bodies shall remain open;
Military courts and agencies are not
conferred jurisdiction over civilians.
10. The suspension of the privilege of the
writ of habeas corpus shall apply only
to persons facing charges of rebellion
or offenses inherent in or directly
connected with invasion; and,
11. Any person arrested for such
offenses must be judicially charged
within 3 days. Otherwise, he shall be
released. (Sec. 18, Art. VII, 1987
Constitution)
Calling-Out Power
The calling-out power refers to the power of
the president to call out the Armed Forces of
the Philippines to prevent and suppress
lawless violence, invasion, or rebellion. Every
act that goes beyond this power is considered
as ultra vires and illegal. For this reason, the
President must be careful in the exercise of
this power. The president cannot invoke a
greater power when he/she wishes to act
under a lesser power. (David vs. Macapagal-
Arroyo, G.R. No.171396, May 03, 2006)
It is the most benign of all powers and is
solely discretionary on the part of the
President. Courts may only examine whether
it is exercised within permissible
constitutional limits. Unlike in the powers to
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
suspend the writ or to declare martial law,
there is no provision in the Constitution which
allows Congress to revoke or the Supreme
Court to review the sufficient of the factual
basis thereof. (Integrated Bar of the
Philippines vs. Zamora, G.R. No. 141284,
August 15, 2000)
Declaration of Martial Law and the
Suspension of the Privilege of the Writ
of Habeas Corpus (Including Extension
of Period)
In case of invasion or rebellion, when the
public safety requires it, he may, for a period
not exceeding sixty days, suspend the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place
the Philippines or any part thereof under
martial law. Within forty eight hours from the
proclamation of martial law or the suspension
of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus,
the President shall submit a report in person
or in writing to the Congress. The Congress,
voting jointly, by a vote of at least a majority
of all its Members in regular or special
session, may revoke such proclamation or
suspension, which revocation shall not be set
aside by the President. Upon the initiative of
the President, the Congress may, in the same
manner, extend such proclamation or
suspension for a period to be determined by
the Congress if the invasion or rebellion shall
persist and public safety requires it. (Sec. 18,
Art. VII, 1987 Constitution).
NOTE: Applies only to persons “judicially
charged” for rebellion or offenses inherent in
or directly connected with the invasion or
rebellion. (Sec. 18, Art. VII, 1987
Constitution)
Requisites
In the exercise of the power to suspend the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or to
impose martial law, two conditions must
concur:
101
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
(1) there must be an actual invasion
or rebellion and,
(2) public safety must require it.
These conditions are not required in the case
of the power to call out the armed forces. The
only criterion is that “whenever it becomes
necessary,” the President may call the armed
forces “to prevent or suppress lawless
violence, invasion or rebellion.” (Integrated
Bar of the Philippines vs. Zamora, G.R. No.
141284, August 15, 2000)
Role of Congress when the President
declares martial law or suspends the
privilege of the writ:
a. When the President proclaims martial
law or suspends the privilege of the
writ, such proclamation or
suspension shall be effective for a
period of 60 days, unless sooner
revoked by the Congress.
b. Upon such proclamation or
suspension, Congress shall convene
at once. If it is not in session, it shall
convene in accordance with its rules
without need of a call within 24 hours
following the proclamation or
suspension.
c. Within 48 hours from the
proclamation or the suspension, the
President shall submit a report, in
person or in writing, to the Congress
(meeting in joint session of the action
he has taken).
d. The Congress shall then vote jointly,
by an absolute majority. Either:
i. Revoke such proclamation or
suspension.
NOTE: When it revokes, the
President cannot set aside (or veto)
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
the revocation as he normally
would do in the case of bills. If
Congress does not do anything, the
measure will expire anyway in 60
days. So the revocation must be
made before the lapse of 60 days
from the date the measure was
taken.
ii. Extend it beyond the 60-day
period of its validity.
NOTE: Congress can only so
extend the proclamation or
suspension upon the initiative of
the President. The period need not
be 60 days; it 91 could be more, as
Congress would determine, based
on the persistence of the
emergency. If Congress fails to act
before the measure expires, it can
no longer extend it until the
President again re-declares the
measure.
(Sec. 18, Art. VII, 1987 Constitution)
While the Constitution does not specify the
number of times that the Congress is allowed
to approve an extension of martial law or the
suspension of the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus, Section 18, Article VII is clear
that the only limitations to the exercise of the
congressional authority to extend such
proclamation or suspension are that the
extension should be upon the President's
initiative; that it should be grounded on the
persistence of the invasion or rebellion and
the demands of public safety; and that it is
subject to the Court's review of the
sufficiency of its factual basis upon the
petition of any citizen. (Lagman vs. Pimentel,
G.R. No. 235935, February 06, 2018)
Congress is not constitutionally mandated to
convene in a joint session except to vote
jointly to revoke the President's declaration
102
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
or suspension. (Padilla vs. Congress, G.R. No.
231671, July 25, 2017)
Role of the Supreme Court in
declaration of martial law or
suspension of writ of habeas corpus
The Supreme Court may review, in an
appropriate proceeding filled by any citizen,
the sufficiency of the factual basis of (a) the
proclamation of martial law or the suspension
of the privilege of the writ, or (b) the
extension thereof. It must promulgate its
decision thereon within 30 days from its
filing. (Sec. 18 par. 3, Art. VII, 1987
Constitution)
The constitutional validity of the President's
proclamation of martial law or suspension of
the writ of habeas corpus is first a political
question in the hands of Congress before it
becomes a justiciable one in the hands of the
Court. Only when Congress defaults in its
express duty to defend the Constitution
through such review should the Supreme
Court step in as its final rampart.
However, the Court can simultaneously
exercise its power of review with, and
independently from, the power to revoke by
Congress. Corollary, any perceived inaction,
or default on the part of Congress does not
deprive or deny the Court of its power to
review. (Lagman vs. Medialdea, G.R. No.
231658, July 4, 2017)
Lansang Doctrine
The 1987 Constitution constitutionalized and
reverted to Lansang doctrine.
1971 case of Lansang: the factual basis of the
declaration of Martial Law and the suspension
of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus
is not a political question and is within the
ambit of judicial review.
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
In reviewing the sufficiency of the factual
basis of the proclamation or suspension, the
Court considers only the information and
data available to the President prior to or at
the time of the declaration; it is not allowed
to “undertake an independent investigation
beyond the pleading” because the nature of
Judicial power: can only resolve if there is a
case of actual controversy; can only look at
what is brought before them.
In addition, the Court’s review power is
passive; it is only initiated by the filing of a
petition “in an appropriate proceeding” by a
citizen. (In The Issuance Of The Writ Of
Habeas Corpus For Dr. Aurora Parong vs.
Enrile, G.R. No. L-61388 April 20, 1983)
F. PARDONING POWER AND
EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY (1987 CONST.,
art. VII, sec. 19)
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. (Sec. 19,
Art. VII, 1987 Constitution)
Scope and Limitations
There are certain presidential powers which
arise out of exceptional circumstances, and if
exercised, would involve the suspension of
fundamental freedoms, or at least call for the
supersedence of executive prerogatives over
those exercised by co-equal branches of
government. The declaration of martial law,
the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus,
and the exercise of the pardoning power,
notwithstanding the judicial determination of
guilt of the accused, all fall within this special
103
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
class that demands the exclusive exercise by
the President of the constitutionally vested
power. The list is by no means exclusive, but
there must be a showing that the executive
power in question is of similar gravitas and
exceptional import. (Angeles vs. Gaite, G.R.
No. 176596 March 23, 2011)
The matter of executive clemency is non-
delegable power and must be exercised by
the President personally. (Villena vs.
Secretary of the Interior, G.R. No. L-46570,
April 21, 1939)
Limitations on the Exercise of the
Power of Executive Clemency
a. 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 COMELEC.
(Sec. 5 Art. IX-C, 1987 Constitution)
b. Cannot be granted in cases of
impeachment. (Sec. 19 Art. VII, 1987
Constitution)
c. Can be granted only after conviction
by final judgment. (Sec. 19 Art. VII,
1987 Constitution)
d. Cannot be granted in case of
legislative contempt, or civil
contempt. (Cruz, supra at 445)
e. Cannot absolve the convict of civil
liability. (Id.)
f. Cannot restore public office forfeited.
(Monsanto vs. Factoran, Jr., G.R. No.
78239, February 9, 1989)
g. A grant of amnesty must be made
with the concurrence of a majority of
all the Members of Congress (Sec.
19, Art. VII, 1987 Constitution)
● The constitutional provision granting the
President the power to grant reprieves
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
cannot be interpreted as denying the
power of courts to control the
enforcement of their decisions after their
finality. For instance, a convict who
becomes insane after his final conviction
cannot be executed while in a state of
insanity. The suspension of such a death
sentence is an exercise of judicial power.
● The “conviction by final judgment”
limitation under Sec. 19, Art. VII of the
Constitution prohibits the grant of pardon
whether full or conditional, to an accused
during the pendency of his appeal from
his conviction by the trial court. Any
application therefor, if one is made,
should not be acted upon or the process
toward its grant should not be begun
unless the appeal is withdrawn.
Accordingly, the agencies or
instrumentalities of the Government
concerned must require proof from the
accused that he has not appealed from
his conviction or that he has withdrawn
his appeal. (People of the Philippines vs.
Casido, G.R. No. 116512, March 7, 1997)
Doctrine of Non-Diminution or Non-
Impairment of the President’s Power of
Pardon
Any act of Congress by way of statute cannot
operate to delimit the pardoning power of the
President. (Risos-Vidal vs. COMELEC, G.R.
No. 206666, January 21, 2015)
Forms of Executive Clemency
1. Commutation – reduction or
mitigation of the penalty; remission
of a part of the punishment;
substitution of less penalty than the
one imposed. (People vs. Vera, G.R.
No. 45685 November 16, 1937)
104
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW

2. Amnesty – commonly denotes a Pardon v. Amnesty

general pardon to rebels for their
treason or other high political
offenses, or the forgiveness which
one sovereign grants to the subjects
of another, who have offended, by
some breach, the law of nations.
Amnesty looks backward, and
abolishes and puts into oblivion, the
offense itself; it so overlooks and
obliterates the offense with which he
is charged, that the person released
by amnesty stands before the law
precisely as though he had
committed no offense. (Magdalo vs.
Comelec, G.R. No. 190793, June 19,
2012)
PARDON VS PROBATION
3. Reprieves – withholding of a
sentence for an interval of time; a
postponement of the execution.
(People vs. Vera, G.R. No. 45685,
November 16, 1937)

4. Remission of fines and

forfeitures– prevents the collection
of fines or the confiscation of
forfeited property and it cannot have
the effect of returning properly which
has been vested in third parties or
money in the public treasury.

5. Pardon – an act of grace, Kinds of Pardon

proceeding from the power entrusted
with the execution of the laws, which
exempts the individual on whom it is
bestowed from the punishment the
law inflicts for a crime he has
committed.” (Tiu vs. Dizon, G.R. No.
211269, June 15, 2016)
a. Absolute – one extended without
any strings attached. This may not be
rejected by the pardonee.
b. Conditional – one under which the
convict is required to comply with
certain requirements. The offender
has the right to reject it since the
conditions imposed may be more
onerous than the penalty sought to
be remitted.

AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION 105

 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
c. Plenary – extinguished all the
penalties imposed upon the offender,
including accessory disabilities.
d. Partial – does not extinguish all the
penalties. Note: Jurisprudence
provides that reclusion perpetua
entails imprisonment for at least 30
years after which the convict
becomes eligible for pardon. (Miguel
vs. Director of the Bureau of Prisons,
UDK-15368, September 21, 2021, J.
Hernando)
G. DIPLOMATIC POWER (1987 CONST.,
art. VII, secs. 16 and 21)
The President shall nominate and, with the
consent of the Commission on Appointments,
appoint the heads of the executive
departments, ambassadors, other public
ministers and consuls, or officers of the
armed forces from the rank of colonel or
naval captain, and other officers whose
appointments are vested in his in his
Constitution. (Sec. 16, Art. VII, 1987
Constitution)
The President may contract or guarantee
foreign loans on behalf of the Republic of the
Philippines with the prior concurrence of the
Monetary Board, and subject to such
limitations as may be provided by law. The
Monetary Board shall, within thirty days from
the end of every quarter of the calendar year,
submit to the Congress a complete report of
its decisions on applications for loans to be
contracted or guaranteed by the Government
or government-owned and controlled
corporations which would have the effect of
increasing the foreign debt, and containing
other matters as may be provided by law.
(Sec. 20, Art. VII, 1987 Constitution)
No treaty or international agreement shall be
valid and effective unless concurred in by at
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
least two-thirds (2/3) of all the Members of
the Senate. (Sec. 21, Art. VII, 1987
Constitution)
In the field of external affairs, the President
must be given a larger measure of authority
and wider discretion, subject only to the least
amount of checks and restrictions under the
Constitution. (Saguisag vs. Ochoa, G.R. No.
212426, January 12, 2016).
FOREIGN AFFAIRS POWERS OF THE
PRESIDENT
As the sole organ of our foreign relations and
the constitutionally assigned chief architect of
our foreign policy, the President is vested
with the exclusive power to conduct and
manage the country's interface with other
states and governments. Being the principal
representative of the Philippines, the Chief
Executive:
1. speaks and listens for the nation;
2. initiates, maintains, and develops
diplomatic relations with other states
and governments;
3. negotiates and enters into
international agreements;
4. promotes trade, investments,
tourism and other economic
relations;
5. settles international disputes with
other states;
6. treaty-making
7. power to appoint ambassadors, other
public ministers, and consuls;
8. receive ambassadors and other
public ministers duly accredited to
the Philippines; and
9. deport aliens.
(Esmero vs. Duterte, G.R. No.
256288, June 29, 2021)
106
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
CONSTITUTIONAL RESTRICTIONS TO
THE PRESIDENT'S FOREIGN AFFAIRS
POWERS
a. The policy of freedom from nuclear
weapons within Philippine territory;
b. The fixing of tariff rates, import and
export quotas, tonnage and
wharfage dues, and other duties or
imposts, which must be pursuant to
the authority granted by Congress;
c. The grant of any tax exemption,
which must be pursuant to a law
concurred in by a majority of all the
Members of Congress;
d. The contracting or guaranteeing, on
behalf of the Philippines, of foreign
loans that must be previously
concurred in by the Monetary Board;
e. The authorization of the presence of
foreign military bases, troops, or
facilities in the country must be in the
form of a treaty duly concurred in by
the Senate; and
f. For agreements that do not fall under
paragraph 5, the concurrence of the
Senate is required, should the form of
the government chosen be a treaty.
(Esmero vs. Duterte, G.R. No.
256288, June 29, 2021)
To Contract or Guarantee Foreign Loans
SECTION 20. The President may contract or
guarantee foreign loans on behalf of the
Republic of the Philippines with the prior
concurrence of the Monetary Board, and
subject to such limitations as may be
provided by law. The Monetary Board shall,
within thirty days from the end of every
quarter of the calendar year, submit to the
Congress a complete report of its decisions
on applications for loans to be contracted or
guaranteed by the Government or
government-owned and controlled
corporations which would have the effect of
increasing the foreign debt, and containing
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
other matters as may be provided by law.
(Sec. 20, Art. VII, 1987 Constitution)
Entry into Treaties or International
Agreements
The President can enter into an
executive agreement without the
concurrence of the Senate.
The right of the Executive to enter into
binding agreements without the necessity of
subsequent Congressional approval has been
confirmed by long usage. From the earliest
days of our history, we have entered
executive agreements covering such subjects
as commercial and consular relations, most
favored-nation rights, patent rights,
trademark and copyright protection, postal
and navigation arrangements and the
settlement of claims. The validity of these has
never been seriously questioned by our
courts. (Bayan-Muna Partylist vs. Romulo,
G.R. No. 159618, February 1, 2011)
The President only executes contracts on
behalf of the Republic of the Philippines.
Those contracts on behalf of corporate
agencies and instrumentalities, such as the
JMSU, are executed by their respective
executive heads. The JMSU was not signed
by the President. The JMSU cannot be a
foreign relations instrument if the chief
architect of the country’s foreign policy has
no hand in its execution. (Bayan-Muna Party
List vs. GMA, G.R. No. 182734, June 27,
2023)
Condition
No treaty or international agreement shall be
valid and effective unless concurred in by at
least two-thirds (2/3) of all the Members of
the Senate. (Sec. 21, Art. VII, 1987
Constitution)
107
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
It is limited only to giving or withholding its
consent, or concurrence, to the ratification.
Hence, it is within the authority of the
President to refuse to submit a treaty to the
Senate or, having secured its consent for its
ratification, refuse to ratify it. Although the
refusal of a state to ratify a treaty which has
been signed in its behalf is a serious step that
should not be taken lightly, such decision is
within the competence of the President
alone, which cannot be encroached by this
Court via a writ of mandamus.
This Court has no jurisdiction over
actions seeking to enjoin the President
in the performance of his official duties.
The Court, therefore, cannot issue the writ of
mandamus prayed for by the petitioners as it
is beyond its jurisdiction to compel the
executive branch of the government to
transmit the signed text of Rome Statute to
the Senate. (Pimentel vs. Office of the
Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 158088, July 6,
2005)
The Supreme Court treated the Visiting
Forces Agreement (VFA), an agreement
which defines the treatment of United States
troops and personnel visiting in the
Philippines, as a treaty which required the
concurrence of the Senate. In this respect, as
a treaty, the Philippines was bound to comply
with it in keeping with the principles of
international law. (Bagong Alyansang
Makabayan vs. Zamora, G.R. No. 138570,
October 10, 2000)
Withdrawal
While Senate concurrence is expressly
required to make treaties valid and effective,
no similar express mechanism concerning
withdrawal from treaties or international
agreements is provided in the Constitution or
any statute. Similarly, no constitutional or
statutory provision grants the president the
unilateral power to terminate treaties. Having
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
laid out the parameters and underlying
principles of relevant foreign concepts, and
considering our own historical experience
and prevailing legal system, this Court adopts
the following guidelines as the modality for
evaluating cases concerning the president's
withdrawal from international agreements
1. The president enjoys some leeway in
withdrawing from agreements which
he or she determines to be contrary
to the Constitution or statutes
2. the president cannot unilaterally
withdraw from agreements which
were entered into pursuant to
congressional imprimatur.
3. the President cannot unilaterally
withdraw from international
agreements where the Senate
concurred and expressly declared
that any withdrawal must also be
made with its concurrence.
(Pangilinan vs. Cayetano, G.R. Nos.
238875, 239483, 240954, March 16,
2021)
H. Power relative to Appropriation
Measures (1987 CONST., art. VI, secs.
25(5) and 27(2); art. VII, sec. 20)
The President shall submit to the Congress
within thirty days from the opening of every
regular session, as the basis of the general
appropriations bill, a budget of expenditures
and sources of financing, including receipts
from existing and proposed revenue
measures. (Sec. 22, Art. VII, 1987
Constitution)
The President may propose the budget, but
still the final say on the matter of
appropriations is lodged in the Congress.
(Philippine Constitution Association vs.
Enriquez, G.R. No. 113105, August 19, 1994)
108
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
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. (Sec. 25 [5], Art. VI, 1987
Constitution)
Power of Augmentation
The President, President of the Senate,
Speaker of the House, Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court, 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
appropriation. (Art. VI, Sec. 25, par. (5),
1987 Constitution)
Under the doctrine of qualified political
agencies, power of augmentation could be
well extended to the Cabinet Secretaries as
alter egos. (Nazareth vs. Villar, G.R. No.
188635, January 29, 2013)
Requisites for a valid transfer of funds
1. There must be a law authorizing 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
the Constitutional Commissions to
transfer funds within their respective
offices;
2. The funds to be transferred are
savings generated from the
appropriations for their respective
offices; and
3. The purpose of the transfer is to
augment an existing item in the
general appropriations law for their
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
respective offices (Araullo vs. Aquino,
G.R. No. 209287, July 1, 2014)
Prohibited Cross-Border Augmentation
The GAAs of 2011 and 2012 lacked valid
provisions to authorize fund transfer. The
aforementioned provisions of the 2011 and
2012 GAAs were textually unfaithful to the
Constitution for not carrying the phrase “for
their respective offices” ; the impact of said
phrase was to authorize only transfers of
funds within their offices. The provisions
carried a different phrase, and the effect was
that the GAAs of 2011 and 2012 thereby
literally allowed the transfer of funds from
savings to augment any item in the GAA even
if the item belonged to an office outside the
Executive. The 2011 and 201 GAAs
contravene to the Constitution to that extent.
(Araullo vs. Aquino, G.R. No. 209287, July 1,
2014)
The President Has Power to Veto Items
in Appropriation, Revenue, or Tariff
Bills (ARF)
(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 which
he does not object. (Section 27 (2), Article
VI, 1987 Constitution)
Doctrine of Inappropriate Provisions
The Court reiterated its view that the
President possesses the power to veto
a provision in an appropriation bill even
if it is not an item. This time, however, the
Court argued not from the omitted 1935
provision on item veto but from what it called
"the doctrine of 'inappropriate provisions.'"
As the Constitution is explicit that the
provision which Congress can include in an
appropriations bill must "relate specifically to
some particular appropriation therein" and
109
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
"be limited in its operation to the
appropriation to which it relates," it follows
that any provision which does not relate to
any particular item, or which extends in its
operation beyond an item of appropriation, is
considered "an inappropriate provision"
which can be vetoed separately from an item.
Also to be included in the category of
"inappropriate provisions" are
unconstitutional provisions and provisions
which are intended to amend other laws,
because clearly these kinds of laws have no
place in an appropriation bill. These are
matters of general legislation more
appropriately dealt with in separate
enactments. (Philippine Constitution
Association vs. Enriquez, G.R. No. 113105
August 19, 1994)
Ratio for doctrine of inappropriate
provisions: to prevent the legislature from
forcing the President to veto an entire
appropriation law thereby paralyzing the
government. (Henry vs. Edwards, La., 346
So. 2d 153, 1977)
Executive Impoundment
Another way of exercising executive veto is
through what is called "impoundment."
Impoundment simply means refusal of the
President to spend funds already allocated by
Congress for a specific purpose. (Bernas, The
1987 Constitution: A Commentary, p.798,
2009)
To illustrate executive impoundment:
To the amount appropriated by Congress for
the compensation and separation benefits of
members of CAFGU was attached a provision
that "it shall be used for the compensation of
CAFGUs including the payment of their
separation benefit not exceeding one (1) year
subsistence allowance for the 11,000
members who will be deactivated in 1994."
The President did not veto the provision but
said instead in his veto message that the
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
implementation of the provision would be
subject to his prior approval taking into
consideration the peace and order situation
in the affected localities.
The President on the other hand justified his
impoundment of the provision on the basis of
his Commander-in-Chief power’s and on
the dangerous argument that the duty
to implement the law includes the duty
to desist from implementing it when
implementation would prejudice public
interest.
The Supreme Court said “We do not find
anything in the language used in the
challenged Special Provision that would imply
that Congress intended to deny to the
President the right to defer or reduce
spending, much to deactivate 11,000 CAFGU
members all at once in 1994. But even if such
is the intention, the appropriation law is not
the proper vehicle for such purpose. Such
intention must be embodied and manifested
in another law considering that it abrades the
powers of the Commander-in-Chief and there
are existing laws on the creation of the
CAFGU to be amended. Again we state: a
provision in an appropriation act cannot be
used to repeal or amend other laws.”
Philippine Constitution Association vs.
Enriquez, G.R. No. 113105 August 19, 1994)
The President Has Power to Contract or
Guarantee Foreign Loans
The President may contract or guarantee
foreign loans on behalf of the Republic of the
Philippines with the prior concurrence of the
Monetary Board, and subject to such
limitations as may be provided by law. The
Monetary Board shall, within thirty days from
the end of every quarter of the calendar year,
submit to the Congress a complete report of
its decision on applications for loans to be
contracted or guaranteed by the Government
or government-owned and controlled
110
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
corporations which would have the effect of
increasing the foreign debt, and containing
other matters as may be provided by law.
(Sec. 20, Art. VII, 1987 Constitution)
Limitation of the power to contract or
guarantee foreign loans
The president can no longer contract or
guarantee foreign loans without the
concurrence of the Monetary Board. In
addition, both the President and the
Monetary Board themselves are subject to
such limitations as may be provided by law.
Finally, Article XII, Section 21 says: "Foreign
loans may only be incurred in accordance
with law and the regulation of the monetary
authority. Information on foreign loans
obtained or guaranteed by the
Government shall be made available to
the public.” (Bernas, The 1987 Constitution:
A Commentary, p.934, 2009)
The issuance of bonds and buybacks to
restructure the existing Philippine loans with
foreign creditors are within the power of the
President to contract and guarantee loans.
Prior concurrence of the Monetary Board is
required. Moreover, the doctrine of qualified
political agency, which allows the President
to delegate certain powers to his alter ego, in
this case, the Secretary of Finance. (Spouses
Constantino vs. Cuisia, G.R. No. 106064,
October 13, 2005)
I. Veto Power (1987 CONST., art. VI, sec.
27)
President’s Veto Power on
Appropriation, Revenue or Tariff Bills
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
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
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 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
which he does not object. (Section 27,
Article VI, 1987 Constitution)
Paragraph (1) refers to the general veto
power of the President and if exercised would
result in the veto of the entire bill, as a
general rule. Paragraph (2) is what is referred
to as the item veto power or the line-veto
power. It allows the exercise of the veto over
a particular item or items in an appropriation,
revenue, or tariff bill. As specified, the
President may not veto less than all of an
item of an Appropriations Bill. In other words,
the power given the executive to disapprove
any item or items in an Appropriations Bill
does not grant the authority to veto a part of
an item and to approve the remaining portion
of the same item. (Gonzales vs. Hon.
Macaraig, G.R. No. 87636. November 19,
1990)
111
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
How the President Approves Bills
The bill must be approved by the President.
Approval by the President may be by positive
act or by inaction. (Bernas, The 1987
Constitution: A Commentary, p.788, 2009)
Positive Act
The President is required to communicate his
veto to the House where the bill originated.
"The President shall communicate his veto of
any bill to the House where it originated
within thirty days after the date of receipt
thereof; otherwise, it shall become a law as
if he had signed it." From the discussions of
this provision it is clear that "otherwise"
means "if the President fails to make such
communication within the specified period."
(Bernas, The 1987 Constitution:
Commentary, p.789, 2009)
Effect of President’s Inaction
If the President does not act on the bill within
thirty days after the receipt of the bill, the bill
automatically becomes law. (Bernas, The
1987 Constitution: A Commentary, p.788,
2009)
President’s Veto Can Be Overridden
At least 2/3 of all the members of each house
must agree to pass the bill. Under this
circumstance, the bill becomes a law even
without approval by the president. (Section
27 (1), Art VII, 1987 Constitution.)
J. RESIDUAL POWER (E.O. No. 292, Book
III, Title I, Chapter 7, sec. 20)
Unless Congress provides otherwise, the
President shall exercise such other powers
and functions vested in the President which
are provided for under the laws and which
are not specifically enumerated above, or
which are not delegated by the President in
accordance with law. (Sec. 20, Chapter 7,
Title I, Book III, Administrative Code of 1987)
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
The powers of the President are not limited
to those specific powers under the
Constitution - one of the recognized powers
of the President granted pursuant to this
constitutionally-mandated duty is the power
to create ad hoc committees, a power
which flows from the obvious need to
ascertain facts and determine if laws have
been faithfully executed. (Biraogo v. Phil.
Truth Commission of 2010, G.R. Nos.
192935, 193036, December 7, 2010)
In the exercise of this power, the President
of the Philippines assumes a plenitude of
authority, and the corresponding awesome
responsibility, that makes him, indeed, the
most influential person in the land. (Biraogo
A vs. The Philippine Truth Commission, G.R.
No. 192935, December 7, 2010)
It must be treated as a matter that is
appropriately addressed to those residual
unstated powers of the President which are
implicit in and correlative to the paramount
duty residing in that office to safeguard and
protect general welfare. To the President, the
problem is one of balancing the general
welfare and the common good against the
exercise of rights of certain individuals. The
power involved is the President's residual
power to protect the general welfare of the
people. It is founded on the duty of the
President, as steward of the people. (Marcos
v. Manglapus, G.R. No. 88211, Sept. 15,
1989)
To illustrate the President’s Residual
Powers:
1. The President’s power to deport
undesirable aliens which may be
exercised independently of
constitutional or statutory authority
because it is an “act of state.”
The President has determined that
the destabilization caused by the
112
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
return of the Marcoses would wipe
away the gains achieved during the
past few years and lead to total
economic collapse. Given what is
within our individual and common
knowledge of the state of the
economy, we cannot argue with that
determination. (Marcos vs.
Manglapus, G.R. No. 88211,
September 15, 1989)
2. The President has the authority to
carry out a reorganization of the
Executive Branch under the
Constitution and statutes.
The President shall have control of all
the executive departments, bureaus,
and offices. He shall ensure that the
laws be faithfully executed. (Sec. 17,
Art. VII, 1987 Constitution of the
Philippines)
Presidential Decree No. 1772 which
amended Presidential Decree No.
1416 expressly grant the President of
the Philippines the continuing
authority to reorganize the national
government, which includes the
power to group, consolidate bureaus
and agencies, to abolish offices, to
transfer functions, to create and
classify functions, services and
activities and to standardize salaries
and materials. The validity of these
two decrees are unquestionable.
(Malaria Employees and Workers
Association of the Philippines, Inc. vs.
Honorable Executive Secretary
Alberto Romulo, G.R. No. 160093,
July 31, 2007)
K. REMOVAL FROM OFFICE (1987
CONST., art. XI, sec. 2)
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
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. (Sec. 2, Art. XI, 1987
Constitution)
Removal and disqualification are the only
punishments that can be imposed upon
conviction on impeachment. Criminal and
civil liability can follow after the officer has
been removed by impeachment. Prosecution
after impeachment does not constitute
prohibited double jeopardy. (Bernas, The
1987 Constitution: A Commentary, p.1150,
2009)
The right to be removed only by
impeachment is the Constitution's strongest
guarantee of security of tenure. The
guarantee effectively blocks the use of other
legal ways of ousting an officer. (Bernas, The
1987 Constitution: A Commentary, p.1151,
2009)
It should also be noted that resignation of an
impeachable officer does not place him
beyond the reach of impeachment for
offenses committed during his tenure. This is
because one of the two penalties which may
be imposed by Congress includes
"disqualification to hold any office under the
Republic of the Philippines." Hence, it may be
inferred that when a person has committed
an offense warranting impeachment it may
be to the public interest that such person be
forever banned from holding public office.
(Bernas, The 1987 Constitution: A
Commentary, p.1152, 2009)
113
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
Grounds for impeachment
Conviction of, culpable violation of the
Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and
corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of
public trust. (Sec. 2, Art. XI, 1987
Constitution)
Constructive Dismissal
There is no form of resignation required. As
long as there is an intent to resign and acts
of relinquishment, the resignation should be
given effect. (Estrada vs. Arroyo, G.R. No.
146738, March 2, 2001)
L. RULES OF SUCCESSION (1987 CONST.,
art. VII, secs. 7-12)
1. Vacancy at the beginning of the
term
In case of death or permanent disability
of the President-elect: The Vice President
elect shall become President. (Sec. 8, Art.
VII, 1987 Constitution)
If the President-elect fails to qualify:
The Vice President-elect shall act as President
until a President shall have been chosen and
qualified. (Sec. 7, Art. VII, 1987
Constitution)
If a President shall not have been
chosen: The Vice-President-elect shall act as
President until a President shall have been
chosen and qualified. (Sec. 7, Art. VII, 1987
Constitution)
● If no President and Vice President were
chosen nor shall have qualified, or both
shall have died or become permanently
disabled: The President of the Senate or,
in case of his inability, the Speaker of the
House of Representatives shall act as
President until a President or Vice
President shall have been chosen or
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
qualified. (Sec. 7, Art. VII, 1987
Constitution)
● In the event of inability of the official
mentioned, Congress shall, by law,
provide for the manner in which one
who is to act as President shall be
selected until a President or a Vice
President shall have qualified. (Sec. 7,
Art. VII, 1987 Constitution)
2. Vacancy During the Term
Instances on Presidential Succession
(where the President is not merely
Acting President)
a. Death
b. Permanent Disability
c. Removal from office
d. Resignation
Elements of Resignation
a. There must be intent to resign; and,
b. It must be coupled with acts of
relinquishment (Estrada vs. Desierto,
G.R. Nos. 146710-15, March 2, 2001)
NOTE: The President can only be removed
by means of impeachment (Section 2, Article
XI, 1987 Constitution)
TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES TEST
AND CONSTRUCTIVE RESIGNATION
(Estrada vs. Desierto, G.R. Nos. 146710-15,
March 2, 2001)
Estrada did not write any formal letter of
resignation before leaving Malacañang. His
resignation has to be determined from his
acts and omissions, before, during and after
January 20, 2001, or by the totality of prior
contemporaneous and posterior facts and
circumstantial evidence bearing a material
relevance on the issue. And using the totality
test, the President resigned. It was confirmed
114
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
by his leaving Malacañang. In the press
release containing his final statement:
A. He acknowledged the oath-taking of the
respondent as President of the Republic
albeit with reservation about its legality;
B. He emphasized he was leaving the Palace
the seat of the presidency for the sake of
peace and in order to begin the healing
process of our nation. He did not say he
was leaving the Palace due to any kind
inability and that he was going to re-
assume the presidency as soon as the
disability disappears;
C. He expressed his gratitude to the people
for the opportunity to serve them.
Without doubt, he was referring to the
past opportunity given him to serve the
people as President;
D. He assured that he will not shirk from any
future challenge that may come ahead in
the same service of our country.
Petitioner’s reference is to a future
challenge after occupying the office of
the President which he has given up;
and,
E. He called on his supporters to join him in
the promotion of a constructive national
spirit of reconciliation and solidarity.
Certainly, the national spirit of
conciliation and solidarity could not be
attained if he did not give up the
presidency.
The press release was petitioner’s
valedictory, his final act of farewell. His
presidency is now in the past tense.
Temporary Disability
Ways by which the inability of the President
to discharge functions may be made known
or determined:
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
a. By a written declaration made by the
President himself as to his inability.
(Sec. 11 par. 1, Art. VII, 1987
Constitution)
b. By a written declaration by the
Cabinet that the President is
unable to discharge the
functions of his office. (Sec. 11 par.
2, Art. VII, 1987 Constitution)
c. In the event of disagreement
between the President and the
Cabinet, by a finding of Congress by
2/3 vote that the President is
disabled. (Sec. 11 par. 4, Art. VII,
1987 Constitution)
NOTE: In all these cases, the President takes
a “leave of absence” and the Vice-President
temporarily acts as the President.
Despite receipt of the letter from the
President that he is merely “on leave”, the
House of Representatives passed, on January
24, 2001, House Resolution No. 176 which
expresses support for the assumption into
office of President Gloria Macapagal- Arroyo.
Later both Houses confirmed the nomination
of Teofisto Guingona as Vice- President. Bills
were then sent to the President by Congress
which she had signed. Congress, as a co-
equal branch of government, has recognized
Arroyo as de jure President and not merely
as Acting President. (Estrada vs. Desierto,
G.R. Nos. 146710-15, March 2, 2001)
Serious Illness of the President
In case of serious illness of the President, the
public shall be informed of the state of his
health. The members of the Cabinet in
charge of national security and foreign
relations and the Chief of Staff of the AFP
shall not be denied access to the President
during such illness. (Sec. 12, Art. VII, 1987
Constitution)
115
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
NOTE: Section 12 presumably deals with
serious illness that is not incapacitating
because access to him is kept open for
Cabinet members in charge of the national
security and foreign relations. The obvious
purpose of such access is to allow the
President to make the important decisions in
those areas of government; which suggests
that this contemplates a situation where the
President is still able. (Bernas, The 1987
Constitution: A Commentary, p.862, 2009)
VACANCY in the OFFICE OF THE VICE-
PRESIDENT
Whenever there is a vacancy in the Office of
the Vice-President during the term for which
he was elected, the President shall nominate
a Vice-President from among the Members of
the Senate and the House of Representatives
who shall assume office upon confirmation by
a majority vote of all the Members of both
Houses of the Congress, voting separately.
(Sec. 9, Art. VII, 1987 Constitution)
IV. JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
A. DEFINITION OF JUDICIAL POWER
The judicial power shall be vested in one
Supreme Court and in such lower courts as
may be established by law.
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts
of justice to settle actual controversies
involving rights which are legally demandable
and enforceable, and to determine whether
or not there has been a grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the Government. (Sec. 1,
Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution)
Body vested with Judicial Power
Judicial power is vested in one Supreme
Court and in such lower courts as may be
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
established by law. (Sec. 1, Art. VIII, 1987
Constitution)
Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction is defined as the power and
authority of a court to hear, try, and decide a
case. (Mitsubishi Motors Philippines
Corporations vs. Bureau of Customs, G.R. No.
209830, June 17, 2015)
a. Congress shall have the power to define,
prescribe and apportion the jurisdiction
of the various courts, but may not
deprive the Supreme Court of its
jurisdiction over cases enumerated in
Section 5, Article VIII. No law shall be
passed reorganizing the Judiciary when it
undermines the security of tenure of its
Members. (Sec. 2, Art. VIII, 1987
Constitution).
b. No law shall be passed increasing the
appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court as provided in the Constitution
without its advice and concurrence (Sec.
30, Art. VI, 1987 Constitution).
Thus, Sec 27, R.A 6770, which authorizes an
appeal to the Supreme Court from decisions
of the Ombudsman in administrative
disciplinary cases, was declared
unconstitutional, because the provision was
passed without the advice and consent of the
Supreme Court (Fabian v. Desierto, G.R. No
129742, September 16, 1998; Villavert v.
Desierto, G.R. No. 133715, February 13,
2000). (Nachura, 2015)
Scope of Judicial Power
a. Adjudicatory Powers – To settle actual
controversies involving rights which are
legally demandable and enforceable.
(Sec. 1[2], Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution)
b. Expanded Power of Judicial Review
– To determine whether or not there has
116
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
been a grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the Government. (Sec.
1[2], Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution)
● This second paragraph effectively
limits the “Political Question” area
that, heretofore, was forbidden
territory for the courts. This is an
added provision in the 1987
Constitution which broadens the
scope of judicial power. (Ocampo
vs. Enriquez, G.R. No. 225973,
November 08, 2016)
c. Incidental Powers – those which are
necessary to the effective discharge of
the judicial functions such as: power to
punish persons adjudged in contempt
and power to issue restraining orders or
prohibition and injunction in aid of power
of judicial review.
However, it should be made clear
that any conduct of the media, or any
other party for that matter, which
tends to, directly or indirectly,
impede, obstruct or degrade the
administration of justice, is subject to
the contempt powers of the courts.
The courts should and will not
hesitate to use this power when acts
inimical to the speedy and impartial
dispensation of justice are
committed. (People vs. Flores, G.R.
Nos. 111009-12, December 8, 1994)
Basis of the Court’s Contempt Power
We agree that that courts have the power to
preserve their integrity and maintain their
dignity without which their administration of
justice is bound to falter or fail. This is the
preservative power to punish for contempt
(Rule 64, Rules of Court). This power is
inherent in all courts and essential to their
right of self-preservation. In order that it may
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
conduct its business unhampered by
publications which tends to impair the
impartiality of its decisions or otherwise
obstruct the administration of justice, the
court will not hesitate to exercise it regardless
of who is affected. For, "as important as is
the maintenance of unmuzzled press and the
free exercise of the rights of the citizen is the
maintenance of the independence of the
judiciary. The reason for this is that respect
for the courts guarantees the stability of their
institution. Without such said institution
would be resting on a very shaky
foundation.”
No less important is the ruling on the power
of the court to punish for contempt in relation
to the freedom of speech and press. We
quote;
Freedom of speech and press should not be
impaired through the exercise of the
punishment for contempt of court unless
there is no doubt that the utterances in
question are a serious and imminent threat
to the administration of justice. A judge may
hold in contempt one who ventures to publish
anything that tends to make him unpopular
or to belittle him. The vehemence of the
language used in newspaper publications
concerning a judge's decision is not alone the
measure of the power to punish for
contempt. The fires which it kindles must
constitute an imminent, not merely a likely
threat to the administration of justice.
(Cabansag vs. Fernandez, G.R. No. L-8974,
October 18, 1957)
Constitutional Safeguards to Ensure the
independence of the Judiciary
1. The Supreme Court is a constitutional
body; it may not be abolished by the
legislature.
2. The members of the Supreme Court are
removable only by impeachment.
117
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
3. The Supreme Court may not be deprived
of its minimum original and appellate
jurisdiction; appellate jurisdiction may
not be increased without its advice and
concurrence.
4. The Supreme Court has administrative
supervision over all inferior courts and
personnel.
5. The Supreme Court has the exclusive
power to discipline judges/justices of
inferior courts.
6. The members of the Judiciary have
security of tenure.
7. The members of the Judiciary may not be
designated to any agency performing
quasi-judicial or administrative functions.
8. Salaries of judges may not be reduced;
the Judiciary enjoys fiscal autonomy.
(Nachura, Outline Reviewer in Political
Law, 2015)
B. JUDICIAL REVIEW
It is the power of the courts, ultimately the
Supreme Court, to interpret the Constitution
and to declare any legislative or executive act
invalid because it is in conflict with the
fundamental law. (Biraogo vs. Truth
Commission, G.R. Nos. 192935 and 193036,
December 7, 2010)
Thus, the Court, in exercising its power of
judicial review, is not imposing its own will
upon a co-equal body but rather simply
making sure that any act of government is
done in consonance with the authorities and
rights allocated to it by the Constitution. And,
if after said review, the Court finds no
constitutional violations of any sort, then, it
has no more authority of proscribing the
actions under review. Otherwise, the Court
will not be deterred to pronounce said act as
void and unconstitutional. The Court cannot
just turn a blind eye and simply let it pass. It
will continue to uphold the Constitution and
its enshrined principles. The Constitution
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
must ever remain supreme. All must bow to
the mandate of this law. Expediency must not
be allowed to sap its strength nor greed for
power debase its rectitude. (Biraogo vs.
Truth Commission, G.R. No. 192935,
December 7, 2010)
1. REQUISITES
a. Actual case or controversy;
b. Locus standi;
c. The question of constitutionality must
be raised at the Earliest opportunity;
and
d. The question of constitutionality must
be the lis Mota of the case
THERE MUST BE AN ACTUAL CASE OR
CONTROVERSY CALLING FOR THE
EXERCISE OF JUDICIAL POWER
It involves a conflict of legal rights, assertion
of opposite legal claims susceptible of legal
resolution. It must be both ripe for resolution
and susceptible of judicial determination, and
that which is not conjectural or anticipatory,
or that which seeks to resolve hypothetical or
feigned constitutional problems.
🕮 There can be no justiciable
controversy involving the
constitutionality of a proposed bill.
The Court can exercise its power of
judicial review only after a law is
enacted, not before. (In the Matter
Of: Save The Supreme Court Judicial
Independence And Fiscal Autonomy
Movement vs Abolition Of Judiciary
Development Fund And Reduction Of
Fiscal Autonomy, UDK-15143,
January 21, 2015)
Direct Injury Test: The person
challenging the act must have the
standing to question the validity of the
subject act or issuance. There must be a
proper party who is one who has sustained
or is in immediate danger of sustaining an
118
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
injury as a result of the act complained of.
(People vs. Vera, G.R. No. 45685, November
16, 1937)
LOCUS STANDI (LEGAL STANDING) – a
personal and substantial interest in a case
such that the party has sustained or will
sustain direct injury as a result of the
governmental act that is being challenged.
(Galicto vs. Aquino, et. al., G.R. No, 193978,
February 28, 2012)
Elements
● Petitioner must have suffered some
actual or threatened injury which can be
legal, economic, or environmental;
● The injury is fairly traceable to the
challenged action; and
● The injury is likely to be redressed by a
favorable action (Telecommunications
and Broadcast Attorneys of the
Philippines vs. COMELEC, G.R. No.
132922, April 21, 1998)
Rules on the Liberal Approach on Locus
Standi
● Taxpayer Standing – there must be a
claim of illegal disbursement of public
funds or that the tax measure is
unconstitutional. (Villafuerte vs. SEC,
G.R. No. 208379, March 29, 2022)
● Citizen Standing – the interest must be
direct and personal. The person
complaining must show that he has been
or is about to be denied of some right or
privilege to which he is lawfully entitled.
However, when the proceeding involves
the assertion of a public right, the mere
fact that he is a citizen satisfies the
requirement of personal interest.
(Gonzales vs. Narvasa, G.R. No. 140835,
August 14, 2000)
○ there must be a showing that
the issues raised are of
transcendental importance
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
which must be settled early;
(David vs. Arroyo, G.R. No.
171396, May 3, 2006)
● Legislative Standing - there must be a
claim that the official action complained
of infringes upon their prerogatives as
legislators. (David vs. Arroyo, G.R. No.
171396, May 3, 2006)
As-Applied Challenge – a party can
question the validity of a statute only if, as
applied to him, it is unconstitutional. (Sps.
Romualdez vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 167011,
April 30, 2008)
Facial Challenge – permits a party to
challenge the validity of a statute even
though, as applied to him, it is not
unconstitutional, but it might be if applied to
others not before the court whose activities
are constitutionally protected. Invalidation of
the statute “on its face,” rather than “as
applied,” is permitted in the interest of
preventing a “chilling effect” on freedom of
expression. (Romualdez vs. Sandiganbayan,
G.R. No. 152259, July 29, 2004)
Void-For-Vagueness Doctrine – a statute
or act suffers from the defect of vagueness
when it lacks comprehensible standards that
men of common intelligence must necessarily
guess at its meaning and differ as to its
application. It is repugnant to the
Constitution in two respects: (1) it violates
due process for failure to accord persons,
especially the parties targeted by it, fair
notice of the conduct to avoid; and (2) it
leaves law enforcers unbridled discretion in
carrying out its provisions and becomes an
arbitrary flexing of the Government muscle.
(Samahan Ng Mga Progresibong Kabataan
vs. Quezon City, G.R. No. 225442, August 08,
2017)
Overbreadth Doctrine – decrees that a
governmental purpose to control or prevent
119
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
activities constitutionally subject to state
regulations may not be achieved by means
which sweep unnecessarily broadly and
thereby invade the area of protected
freedoms. As distinguished from the
vagueness doctrine, the overbreadth doctrine
assumes that individuals will understand
what a statute prohibits and will accordingly
refrain from that behavior, even though some
of it is protected. (Disini vs. Secretary of
Justice, G.R. No. 203335, February 11, 2014)
Legal Personality
GENERAL RULE: If there is no actual or
potential injury, the complainant has no legal
personality to raise constitutional questions.
EXCEPTION: If the question is
transcendental importance.
a. The question of constitutionality
must be raised at the earliest
opportunity. The earliest opportunity to
raise a constitutional issue is to raise it in
the pleadings before a competent court
that can resolve the same, such that, if
not raised in the pleadings, it cannot be
considered in trial and, if not considered
in trial, it cannot be considered on
appeal.
● The Ombudsman has no jurisdiction
to entertain questions regarding
constitutionality of laws. Thus, when
the issue of constitutionality of a law
was raised before the Court of
Appeals, which is the competent
court, the constitutional question was
raised at the earliest opportune time.
(Estarija vs. Ranada, G.R.
159314, June 26, 2006)
b. The issue of constitutionality must
be the very lis mota of the case.
(LAMP vs. Secretary of Budget and
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Management, G.R. No. 164987, April 24,
2012)
● The controversy must be justiciable,
definite and concrete, touching on
the legal relations of parties having
adverse legal interests. In other
words, the pleadings must show an
active antagonistic assertion of a
legal right, on the one hand, and a
denial thereof on the other hand; that
is, it must concern a real and not
merely a theoretical question or
issue. There ought to be an actual
and substantial controversy
admitting of specific relief through a
decree conclusive in nature, as
distinguished from an opinion
of advising what the law would be upon
a hypothetical state of facts.
(Information Technology Foundation
of the Philippines vs. Commission on
Elections, G.R. No. 159139, June 15,
2005).
JUDICIAL RESTRAINT
ISSUE RAISED AT THE EARLIEST
OPPORTUNITY: Constitutional question
should be raised at the earliest opportunity,
such that if not raised in pleadings, it may not
be raised at the trial, if not raised in trial
court, it will not be considered on appeal.
(Garcia vs. Drilon, G.R. No. 179267, June 25,
2013)
GENERAL RULE: The question must be
raised at the earliest opportunity.
No. EXCEPTIONS:
a. In criminal cases, the question can be
raised at any time at the discretion of the
court.
b. In civil cases, the question can be raised
at any stage of the proceedings if
120
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW

necessary for the determination of the Cuenco, G.R. No. L-10520, February 28,
case itself. 1957)
c. In every case, except where there is an
estoppel, it can be raised at any stage if Distinction between Justiciable and
it involves the jurisdiction of the court. Political Questions
(People of the Philippines vs. Vera, G.R.
No. L-45685, November 16, 1937)

THE DECISION ON THE

CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION MUST BE
DETERMINATIVE OF THE CASE ITSELF:
Courts will not touch the issue of
constitutionality unless it is truly unavoidable
and is very lis mota or crux of controversy.
(Francisco vs. HOR, G.R. No. 160261,
November 10, 2003)

● The courts indulge the presumption of

constitutionality and go by the maxim
that “to doubt is to sustain.” The theory
is that, as the joint act of the legislative
and executive authorities, a law
supposed to have been carefully studied
Test whether the question is political or
and determined to be constitutional
justiciable: In our jurisdiction, the
before it was finally enacted. (Cordillera
determination of a truly political question
Board Coalition vs. Commission on Audit,
from a non-justiciable political question lies in
G.R. No. 79956, January 29, 1990)
the answer to the question “whether there
● Courts will not pass upon a question of
are constitutionality-imposed limits on
constitutionality, although properly
powers or functions conferred upon political
presented, if the case can be disposed of
bodies.” If there are, then our courts are
on some other ground, such as the
duty-bound to examine whether the branch
application of the statute or the general
or instrumentality of the government
law. (Ty vs. Trampe, G.R. No. 117577,
properly acted within limits. (Francisco Jr. vs.
December 1, 1995)
House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261,
November 10, 2003)
2. EXCEPTIONS

The intrinsic constitutionality of the "Pork

POLITICAL QUESTIONS DOCTRINE
Barrel System" is not an issue dependent
upon the wisdom of the political branches of
Those questions which, under the
government but rather a legal one which the
Constitution, are to be decided by the people
Constitution itself has commanded the Court
in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to
to act upon. Scrutinizing the contours of the
which full discretionary authority has been
system along constitutional lines is a task that
delegated to the legislative or executive
the political branches of government are
branch of the government. (Tañada vs.
incapable of rendering precisely because it is
an exercise of judicial power. More

AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION 121

 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
importantly, the present Constitution has not
only vested the Judiciary the right to exercise
judicial power but essentially makes it a duty
to proceed therewith. Section 1, Article VIII
of the 1987 Constitution cannot be any
clearer. (Belgica et al. vs. Executive
Secretary, G.R. Nos. 208566, 208493, and
209251, November 19, 2013)
It must also be borne in mind that when the
judiciary mediates to allocate
constitutional boundaries, it does not
assert any superiority over the other
departments; does not in reality nullify or
invalidate an act of the legislature or the
executive, but only asserts the solemn and
sacred obligation assigned to it by the
Constitution." But it is by constitutional force
that the Court must faithfully perform its
duty. Ultimately, it is the Court’s avowed
intention that a resolution of these cases
would not arrest or in any manner impede the
endeavors of the two other branches but, in
fact, help ensure that the pillars of change
are erected on firm constitutional grounds.
(Belgica et al. vs. Executive Secretary, G.R.
Nos. 208566, 208493, and 209251,
November 19, 2013)
MOOT QUESTIONS
A case becomes moot and academic when
there is no more actual controversy between
the parties or no useful purposes can be
served in passing upon the merits. (Ocampo
vs. House of Representatives Electoral
Tribunal, et al., GR No. 158466, June 15,
2004)
A case is moot when its purpose has become
stale. It is unnecessary to indulge in
academic discussion of a case presenting a
moot question as a judgment thereon cannot
have any practical legal effect or, in the
nature of things, cannot be enforced.
(Garcillano vs. House of Representatives,
G.R. No. 170338, December 23, 2008)
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
A moot and academic case is one that ceases
to present a justiciable controversy by virtue
of supervening events so that a declaration
thereon would be of no practical use or value.
(Province of Batangas vs. Romulo, G.R. No.
152774, May 27, 2004)
Generally, courts may decline jurisdiction
over such case or dismiss it on ground of
mootness (Royal Cargo Corporation vs. Civil
Aeronautics Board, G.R. No. 10305556,
January 26, 2004; Lacson vs. Perez, G.R. No.
147780, May 10, 2001).
GENERAL RULE: The issues raised in the
case must not be moot and academic, or
because of subsequent developments, have
become moot and academic. (Oclarino vs.
Navarro, G.R. No. 220514, September 25,
2019)
EXCEPTIONS:
a. There is grave violation of the
Constitution.
b. The exceptional character of the
situation and paramount public
interest are involved.
c. Symbolic Function: When
constitutional issue raised requires
formulation of controlling principles
to guide the bench, the bar, and the
public.
d. The question is capable of repetition
and evasive of review (David vs.
Macapagal-Arroyo, G.R. No. 171396,
May 3, 2006)
EXCEPTION TO EXCEPTIONS: While the
case may seemingly present some of the
exceptions, the Court may decline to rule on
the substantive issues not only as an exercise
of judicial restraint, but also because there
are a number of factual questions which
would prevent the Court from rendering an
instructive ruling.
122
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
Given the various interlocking and
overlapping issues that the Court will have to
resolve in order to rule on the substantive
issues, a good number of which would
require findings of fact to wholly and
satisfactorily address, the Court considers
that the interests of the public will not be
adequately served, and neither will the role
of the Court as an institution be exercised
properly by an attempt to rule on the
substantive issues, particularly in a moot case
where no actual relief will be afforded to the
petitioners. (Ranada vs. Office of the
President, G.R. No. 246126, June 27, 2023)
ADVISORY OPINIONS
The expanded jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court under Article VIII, Section 1 does not
provide license to provide advisory opinions.
An advisory opinion is one where the factual
setting is conjectural or hypothetical. In such
cases, the conflict will not have sufficient
concreteness or adversariness so as to
constrain the discretion of this Court.
After all, legal arguments from concretely
lived facts are chosen narrowly by the
parties. Those who bring theoretical cases
will have no such limits. They can argue up
to the level of absurdity. They will bind the
future parties who may have more motives to
choose specific legal arguments. In other
words, for there to be a real conflict between
the parties, there must exist actual facts from
which courts can properly determine whether
there has been a breach of constitutional
text. (Provincial Bus Operators Association of
the Philippines vs. DOLE, G.R. No. 202275,
July 17, 2018)
The Supreme Court does not issue advisory
opinions. The Court does not act to satisfy
academic questions or dabble in thought
experiments. The Court does not decide
hypothetical, feigned, or abstract disputes, or
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
those collusively arranged by parties without
real adverse interests. If the Court were to do
otherwise and jump headlong into ruling on
every matter brought before us, the Court
may close off avenues for opportune, future
litigation. The Court may forestall proper
adjudication for when there are actual,
concrete, adversarial positions, rather than
mere conjectural posturing.
As the Court makes "final and binding
constructions of law,” their opinions cannot
be mere counsel for unreal conflicts conjured
by enterprising minds. Judicial decisions, as
part of the legal system, bind actual persons,
places, and things. Rulings based on
hypothetical situations weaken the immense
power of judicial review. (Falcis III v. Civil
Registrar General, G.R. No. 217910,
September 3, 2019)
The power of judicial review is limited to
actual cases or controversies. Courts
decline to issue advisory opinions or to
resolve hypothetical or feigned
problems, or mere academic questions.
The limitation of the power of judicial review
to actual cases and controversies defines the
role assigned to the judiciary in a tripartite
allocation of power, to assure that the courts
will not intrude into areas committed to the
other branches of government. (Province of
North Cotabato vs. Government of the
Republic of the Philippines Peace Panel on
Ancestral Domain (GRP), 568 SCRA 402, G.R.
No. 183591 October 14, 2008)
The nature of judicial power is also the
foundation of the principle, as old as the
American republic, that it is not the
function of the judiciary to give
advisory opinions. Not to be confused with
advisory opinions is what is known as a
declaratory relief or judgment. (Bernas, The
1987 Constitution: A Commentary, p.954,
2009)
123
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
3. OPERATIVE FACT DOCTRINE
The law is recognized as unconstitutional but
the effects of the unconstitutional law, prior
to its declaration of nullity, may be left
undisturbed as a matter of equity and fair
play. This is a rule of equity. As such, it must
be applied as an exception to the general rule
that an unconstitutional law produces no
effects. It can never be invoked to validate as
constitutional an unconstitutional act. It
affects or modifies only the effects of the
unconstitutional law, not the unconstitutional
law itself. (League of Cities of the Philippines
vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No.
176951, 177499, and 178056, August 24,
2010)
The actual existence of a statute, prior to
such a determination [of unconstitutionality],
is an operative fact and may have
consequences which cannot justly be
ignored. The past cannot always be erased
by a new judicial declaration. The effect of
the subsequent ruling as to invalidity may
have to be considered in various aspects,
with respect to particular relations, individual
and corporate, and particular conduct,
private and official.
The doctrine of operative fact recognizes the
existence of the law or executive act prior to
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
the determination of its unconstitutionality as
an operative fact that produced
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. (Araullo vs. Aquino III,
G.R. No. 209287, July 1, 2014)
EXAMPLES:
a. 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. (Araullo vs. Aquino III,
G.R. No. 209287, July 1, 2014)
b. A refusal to recognize the
consequences and effects of the
existence of RA 11935 prior to its
nullity — and absolutely demand a
return to the status quo as if the law
124
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
had never existed — will lead to an
unnecessary and unwarranted
application of the provisions of RA
11462 beyond the legislative intent.
The previous law explicitly set the
schedule of the BSKE on December 5,
2022 — which date had already
lapsed. Therefore, to strictly adhere
to the provisions of RA 11462 will
lead to an incongruent situation
where the next BSKE will have to be
held in December 2025 or close to
seven years from the date of the last
BSKE (held in May 2018) — a period
unnecessarily longer than "every
three [3]-year period' intended by the
legislature.
Such refusal will result in an
unwarranted infringement on the
right of suffrage. A strict adherence
to the rule will deprive the electorate
of their right to choose a new
representative for an unreasonably
longer period beyond the term which
they agreed under RA 11462 that the
representative will serve. So also, the
electorate's freedom to choose their
representative and to consent to
temporarily surrender a portion of
their sovereignty is effectively forcibly
wrested in favor of individuals who
may no longer truly represent their
interests. (Macalintal vs. COMELEC,
G.R. No. 263590, June 27, 2023)
C. FISCAL AUTONOMY (1987 CONST.,
art. VIII, secs. 3 and 10)
FISCAL AUTONOMY
Appropriations for the Judiciary may not be
reduced by the legislature below the amount
appropriated for the previous year and, after
approval, shall be automatically and regularly
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
released. (Sec. 3, Art. VIII, 1987
Constitution)
The salary of the Chief Justice and of the
Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, and
of judges of lower courts shall be fixed by
law. During their continuance in office, their
salary shall not be decreased. (Sec. 10, Art.
VIII, 1987 Constitution)
The power of the purse is given to the
Congress. Thus, to avoid a situation where
the Congress can control the Supreme Court,
the Constitution granted the latter fiscal
autonomy. (Belgica vs. Ochoa, G.R. No.
208566, November 19, 2013)
Fiscal autonomy is the freedom from outside
control. Pursuant to the Constitutional
mandate, the Judiciary must enjoy freedom
in the disposition of the funds allocated to it
in the appropriations law. It knows its
priorities just as it is aware of the fiscal
restraints. The Chief Justice must be given a
free hand on how to augment appropriations
where augmentation is needed. (Bengzon vs
Drilon, G.R. No. 103524, April 15, 1992)
The fiscal autonomy of the Judiciary
guaranteed by the Constitution recognized
the authority of the Supreme Court to levy,
assess, and collect fees. Congress cannot
amend the rules promulgated by the
Supreme Court for the payment of legal fees
by granting exemptions (In Re: Exemption
from Payment of Court and Sheriff’s Fees of
Duly Registered Cooperatives, A.M. No. 12-2-
03-0, March 12, 2012)
Under the guarantees of the Judiciary’s fiscal
autonomy and its independence, the Chief
Justice and the Court En Banc determine and
decide the who, what, where, when and how
of the privileges and benefits they extend to
justices, judges, court officials and court
personnel within the parameters of the
125
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
Court’s granted power; they determine the
terms, conditions and restrictions of the grant
as grantor. xxx The properties were being
sold to retiring justices and not just to
ordinary citizens – the Supreme Court
considered such sale as benefits. Thus, the
COA cannot interfere. (Re: COA Opinion On
The Computation Of The Appraised Value Of
The Properties Purchased By The Retired
Chief/Associate Justices Of The Supreme
Court, A.M. No. 11-7-10-SC, July 31, 2012)
The subject provision – which requires
retiring government employees to secure a
prior clearance of pendency/non-pendency of
administrative case/s from, among others,
the CSC – should not be made to apply to
employees of the Judiciary. xxx To deem it
otherwise would disregard the Court's
constitutionally-enshrined power of
administrative supervision over its personnel.
(Re: Request For Guidance/Clarification On
Section 7, Rule Iii Of Republic Act No. 10154
Requiring Retiring Government Employees
To Secure A Clearance Of Pendency/Non-
Pendency Of Case/S From The Civil Service
Commission, A.M. No. 13-09-08-SC, October
01, 2013)
D. APPOINTMENTS TO THE JUDICIARY
1. QUALIFICATIONS OF MEMBERS
A member of the Judiciary must be a person
of proven competence, integrity, probity, and
independence (Section 7 (3), Art VIII, 1987
Constitution).
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Tenure of the members of the SC and
judges
Members of the SC and judges of lower
courts can hold office during good behavior
until:
1. The age of seventy (70) years old;
or (Sec. 11, Art. VIII, 1987
Constitution)
2. They become incapacitated to
discharge their duties. (Sec. 11, Art.
VIII, 1987 Constitution)
3. In the case of Supreme Court
Justices, by way of impeachment.
(Sec. 2, Art. XI, 1987
Constitution)
Procedure for Appointment
● Appointed by the President of the
Philippines from among a list of at least
three nominees prepared by the Judicial
and Bar Council for every vacancy.
NOTE: the appointment shall need
no confirmation from the commission
on appointments. (Sec. 9, Art. VIII,
1987 Constitution)
● For lower courts, the President shall issue
the appointment within ninety days from
submission of the list. (Sec. 9, Art.
VIII, 1987 Constitution)
126
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
Prohibition on Midnight Appointments
not Applicable to the Judiciary
A. COMPOSITION
The SC held that the prohibition in Sec. 15,
Art. VII which states that “two months (2)
immediately before the next presidential
elections and up to the end of his term, a
President or Acting President shall not make
appointments, except temporary
appointments to executive positions when
continued vacancies therein will prejudice
public service or endanger public safety”, is
confined to appointments made in the
Executive Department.
The framers did not need to extend the
prohibition to appointments in the Judiciary,
because their establishment of the JBC and
their subjecting the nomination and
screening of candidates for judicial positions
to the unhurried and deliberate prior process
of the JBC ensured that there would no
longer be midnight appointments to the
Judiciary.
Also, the intervention of the JBC eliminates
the danger that appointments to the Judiciary
can be made for the purpose of buying votes
in a coming presidential election, or of
satisfying partisan considerations. The
experience from the time of the
establishment of the JBC shows that even
candidates for judicial positions at any level
backed by people influential with the
President could not always be assured of
being recommended for the consideration of
the President, because they first had to
undergo the vetting of the JBC and pass
muster there. Indeed, the creation of the JBC
was precisely intended to de-politicize the
Judiciary by doing away with the intervention
of the Commission on Appointments. (De
Castro vs. Judicial Bar Council, G. R. No.
191002, March 17, 2010)
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
2. JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL
i. Chief Justice as ex officio Chairman
ii. Secretary of Justice
iii. Representative of the Congress as ex
officio Member
iv. Representative of the Integrated Bar
v. Professor of law
vi. Retired Member of the Supreme Court
vii. Representative of the private sector
(Sec. 8 [1], Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution)
Staggered Terms of JBC Members
The regular members of the Council shall be
appointed by the President for a term of
four years with the consent of the
Commission on Appointments. Of the
Members first appointed, the representative
of the Integrated Bar shall serve for four
years, the professor of law for three years,
the retired Justice for two years, and the
representative of the private sector for one
year. (Sec. 8 [2], Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution)
Regular Members:
1. Chief Justice
2. Secretary of Justice
3. Representative of Congress
Other Members: (4-year term)
4. Representative of the Integrated Bar
5. Professor of law
6. Retired member of the SC
7. Representative of private sector
The Constitution mandates that the JBC be
composed of 7 members only. Thus, any
inclusion of another member, whether with
one whole vote or 1⁄2 of it, goes against that
mandate. Section 8(1), Art. VIII of the
Constitution, providing Congress with an
equal voice with other members of the JBC in
recommending appointees to the Judiciary is
explicit. Any circumvention of the
127
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
constitutional mandate should not be
countenance for the Constitution is the
supreme law of the land. (Chaves v. JBC GR
No 202242, April 16, 2013)
B. Powers and Functions
The JBC shall have the principal function of
recommending appointees to the Judiciary. It
may exercise such other functions and duties
as the Supreme Court may assign to it. (Sec.
8 [5], Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution)
The function of the JBC to select and
recommend nominees for vacant judicial
positions is discretionary, not ministerial.
Moreso, the petitioner cannot claim any legal
right to be included in the list of nominees for
judicial vacancies. Possession of the
constitutional and statutory qualifications for
appointment to the judiciary may not be used
to legally demand that one's name be
included in the list of candidates for a judicial
vacancy. One's inclusion in the list of the
candidates depends on the discretion of the
JBC (Villanueva vs. JBC, G.R. No. 211833
April 7, 2015)
In JBC proceedings, an aspiring judge or
justice justifies his qualifications for the office
when he presents proof of his scholastic
records, work experience and laudable
citations. The JBC then takes every possible
step to verify an applicant's track record for
the purpose of determining whether or not
he is qualified for nomination. It ascertains
the factors which entitle an applicant to
become a part of the roster from which the
President appoints.
The fact that a proceeding is sui generis
and is impressed with discretion,
however, does not automatically
denigrate an applicant’s entitlement to
due process. The Court subscribes to the
view that in cases where an objection to an
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
applicant’s qualifications is raised, the
observance of due process neither negates
nor renders illusory the fulfillment of the duty
of JBC to recommend. (Jardeleza vs. Sereno,
G.R. No. 213181, August 19, 2014)
The supervisory role of the SC over JBC
ensures that the laws and the rules governing
the conduct of a government entity are
observed and complied with. Supervising
officials see to it that rules are followed, but
they themselves do not lay down such rules,
nor do they have the discretion to modify or
replace them. If the rules are not observed,
they may order the work done or redone, but
only to conform to such rules. They may not
prescribe their own manner of execution of
the act. They have no discretion on this
matter except to see to it that the rules are
followed. (Villanueva v. JBC, G.R. No.
211833, April 07, 2015)
E. SUPREME COURT OF THE
PHILIPPINES
1. COMPOSITION – 1987 CONST., art.
VIII, sec. 4
The Supreme Court shall be composed of a
Chief Justice and fourteen Associate Justices.
It may sit en banc or in its discretion, in
divisions of three, five, or seven Members.
Any vacancy shall be filled within ninety days
from the occurrence thereof. (Sec. 4[1], Art.
VIII, 1987 Constitution)
2. PROCEDURAL RULEMAKING – 1987
CONST., art. VIII, sec. 5
RULE-MAKING POWER – promulgates
rules concerning (1) Protection and
enforcement of constitutional rights, (2)
Pleading, practice and procedure in all courts,
(3) Admissions to the practice of law, (4) The
Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and (5)
128
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
Legal assistance to the underprivileged. (Sec.
5(5), Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution)
For the Court's power is not merely to
compile, revise or codify the rules of
procedure existing at the time of the
Constitution's approval. This power is "to
promulgate rules concerning pleading,
practice, and procedure in all courts," which
is a power to adopt a general, complete and
comprehensive system of procedure, adding
new and different rules without regard to
their source and discarding old ones. (People
vs. Teng Moner, G.R. No. 202206, March 5,
2018)
Limitations on rule making power
a. Provide a simplified and inexpensive
procedure for speedy disposition of
cases
b. Uniform for all courts in the same
grade
c. Shall not diminish, increase or modify
substantive rights (Estipona, Jr. vs.
Lobrigo, G.R. No. 226679, August 15,
2017)
3. DISCIPLINARY POWERS – 1987
CONST., art. VIII, sec. 11
The Members of the Supreme Court and
judges of lower courts shall hold office during
good behavior until they reach the age of
seventy years or become incapacitated to
discharge the duties of their office. The
Supreme Court en banc shall have the
power to discipline judges of lower courts,
or order their dismissal by a vote of a
majority of the Members who actually took
part in the deliberations on the issues in the
case and voted thereon. (Sec. 11, Art. VIII,
1987 Constitution)
The Supreme Court, as regulator and
guardian of the legal profession, has plenary
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
disciplinary authority over attorneys. The
authority to discipline lawyers stems from the
Court's constitutional mandate to regulate
admission to the practice of law, which
includes as well authority to regulate the
practice itself of law. Quite apart from this
constitutional mandate, the disciplinary
authority of the Supreme Court over
members of the Bar is an inherent power
incidental to the proper administration of
justice and essential to an orderly discharge
of judicial functions.
Moreover, the Supreme Court has inherent
power to punish for contempt, to control in
the furtherance of justice the conduct of
ministerial officers of the Court including
lawyers and all other persons connected in
any manner with a case before the
Court. The power to punish for contempt is
"necessary for its own protection against an
improper interference with the due
administration of justice," "(it) is not
dependent upon the complaint of any of the
parties litigant. (Zaldivar vs. Sandiganbayan,
G.R. Nos. 79690-707, October 7, 1988)
In People v. Judge Gacott, 246 SCRA 52, it
was held that the first clause in the said
section is a declaration of the grant of the
disciplinary power to, and the determination
of the procedure in the exercise thereof by,
the Court en banc. It did not intend that all
administrative disciplinary cases should be
heard and decided by the whole Court. The
second clause, intentionally separated from
the first by a comma, declares that the Court
en banc may “order their dismissal by a vote
of a majority”. Thus, only cases involving
dismissal of judges of lower courts are
specifically required to be decided by the
Court en banc. (Nachura, Outline Reviewer in
Political Law, 2016)
The Supreme Court does not have
jurisdiction to impose proper disciplinary
129
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
action against members of judiciary acting as
civil registrars. While respondent is
undoubtedly a member of the Judiciary as
Clerk of Court of the Shari'a Circuit Court, a
review of the subject complaint reveals that
respondent is being held liable for registering
the divorce and issuing the CRD pursuant to
his duties as Circuit Registrar of Muslim
divorces. It has been said that the test of
jurisdiction is the nature of the offense and
not the personality of the offender. The fact
that the complaint charges against
respondent for "conduct unbecoming of a
court employee" is of no moment. Well-
settled is the rule that what controls is not
the designation of the offense, but the actual
facts recited in the complaint (Mamiscal vs.
Abdullah, A.M. No. SCC-13-18-J, July 1,
2015)
4. ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERVISION –
1987 CONST., art. VIII, sec. 6
Administrative Supervision – The
Supreme Court shall have administrative
supervision over all courts and the personnel
thereof. (Sec. 6, Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution)
🕮 The Ombudsman may not initiate or
investigate a criminal or
administrative complaint before his
office against a judge, he must first
indorse the case to the Supreme
Court for appropriate action.
(Fuentes vs. Office of the
Ombudsman-Mindanao, G.R. No.
124295, October 23, 2001)
🕮 In the absence of any administrative
action taken against the RTC Judge
by the Supreme Court with regard to
the former’s certificate of service, the
investigation conducted by the
Ombudsman encroaches upon the
Supreme Court’s power of
administrative supervision over all
courts and its personnel, in violation
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
of the doctrine of separation of
powers. (Maceda vs. Vasquez, G.R.
No. 102781, April 22, 1993)
5. JURISDICTION – 1987 CONST., art.
VI, sec. 30; art. VIII, sec. 5
No law shall be passed increasing the
appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as
provided in this Constitution without its
advice and concurrence. (Sec. 30, Art. VI,
1987 Constitution)
EN BANC AND DIVISION CASES
Cases that are heard En Banc (all SC
Justices must sit and hear):
a. Cases involving the constitutionality of a
treaty, international or executive
agreement, executive orders,
presidential decrees, proclamations,
orders, instructions, ordinances, and
other regulations (Sec. 4[2], Art. VIII,
1987 Constitution).
b. Criminal cases in which the appealed
decision imposes the death penalty.
(A.M. No. 10-4-20-SC)
c. Cases raising novel questions of law
(Firestone Ceramics vs. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 27022, June 28, 2000).
d. Cases involving ambassadors, other
public ministers and consuls (Firestone
Ceramics v s. Court of Appeals, supra.)
e. Cases or matters heard by a division
where the required number of votes to
decide or resolve is not met (Sec. 4[3],
Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution).
f. Cases intended to modify or reverse a
doctrine or principle of law laid down by
the court in a decision rendered en banc
or in division (Sec. 4[3], Art. VIII, 1987
Constitution).
g. Administrative disciplinary cases
involving dismissal or judges of lower
courts, officer or employee of the
judiciary, disbarment of a lawyer, or
order the suspension of them for a period
130
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
of more than one (1) year or a fine
exceeding P 10,000 or both (Sec. 11, Art.
VIII, 1987 Constitution).
h. Actions instituted by citizens to test the
validity of a proclamation of martial law
or suspension of the privilege of the writ
(Sec. 18, Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution).
i. Election contests for President or Vice
President. (Sec. 4[7], Art. VII, 1987
Constitution).
j. Cases assigned to a division which in the
opinion of at least three (3) members
thereof merit the attention of the court
sitting en banc and are acceptable to a
majority of the actual membership of the
court sitting en banc (Firestone Ceramics
vs. Court of Appeals, supra.)
k. All other cases as the court en banc by a
majority of its actual membership may
deem of sufficient importance to merit its
attention. (Memorandum Circular No. 10
March 6, 1984)
Powers of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court shall have the following
powers:
a. Exercise original jurisdiction over
cases affecting ambassadors, public
ministers and consuls, petitions for
certiorari, prohibition, mandamus,
quo warranto, and habeas corpus
b. Review, revise, reverse, modify, or
affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the
law or the Rules of Court may
provide, final judgments and orders
of lower courts in:
i. All cases in which the
constitutionality or validity of
any treaty, international or
executive agreement, law,
presidential decree,
proclamation, order, instruction,
ordinance, or regulation is in
question.
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
ii. All cases involving the legality of
any tax, impost, assessment, or
toll, or any penalty imposed in
relation thereto.
iii. All cases in which the jurisdiction
of any lower court is in issue.
iv. All criminal cases in which the
penalty imposed is reclusion
perpetua or higher.
v. All cases in which only an error
or question of law is involved.
c. Assign temporarily judges of lower
courts to other stations as public
interest may require. Such temporary
assignment shall not exceed six
months without the consent of the
judge concerned.
d. Order a change of venue or place of
trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice.
e. Promulgate rules concerning the
protection and enforcement of
constitutional rights, pleading,
practice, and procedure in all courts,
the admission to the practice of law,
the integrated bar, and legal
assistance to the under-privileged.
Such rules shall provide a simplified
and inexpensive procedure for the
speedy disposition of cases, shall be
uniform for all courts of the same
grade, and shall not diminish,
increase, or modify substantive
rights. Rules of procedure of special
courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall
remain effective unless disapproved
by the Supreme Court.
f. Appoint all officials and employees of
the Judiciary in accordance with the
Civil Service Law. (Sec. 5, Art. VIII,
1987 Constitution).
Exclusive Original Jurisdiction (Sec. 5
par. 1, Art. VIII of the 1987 Constitution)
a. CIVIL: Petitions for issuance of writs
of certiorari, prohibition and
mandamus against the following:
131
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
1. Court of Appeals
2. Commission on Elections En
Banc
3. Commission on Audit
4. Sandiganbayan
b. CRIMINAL: Petitions for issuance of
writs of certiorari, prohibition and
mandamus against the following:
1. Court of Appeals
2. Sandiganbayan
Appellate Jurisdiction (Sec. 5 par. 2, Art.
VIII of the 1987 Constitution)
A. CIVIL:
1. Appeal by petition for review on
certiorari:
a. Appeals from the CA;
b. Appeals from the CTA;
c. Appeals from RTC exercising
original jurisdiction
2. If no question of fact is involved and
the case involves:
a. Constitutionality or validity of
treaty, international or
executive agreement, law,
presidential decree,
proclamation, order,
instruction, ordinance or
regulation
b. Legality of tax, impost,
assessments, or toll, or
penalty in relation thereto
c. Cases in which jurisdiction of
lower court is in issue
3. All cases in which only errors or
questions of law are involved.
4. Special civil action of certiorari – filed
within 30 days against the
Commission on Elections or
Commission on Audit.
B. CRIMINAL:
All criminal cases involving offenses from
which the penalty is reclusion perpetua or life
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
imprisonment and those involving other
offenses, which although not so punished
arose out of the same occurrence or which
may have been committed by the accused on
the same occasion.
NOTE: In criminal cases, when the penalty
imposed is life imprisonment or reclusion
perpetua, appeal is automatic to the CA.
(A.M. No. 04-9-05-SC; People vs. Mateo y
Garcia, G.R. No. 147678-87, July 7, 2004)
a. Criminal cases in which the death
penalty is imposed by the
Sandiganbayan
b. Appeals from the CA
c. Appeals from the Sandiganbayan
d. Appeals from RTC in which only
errors or questions of law are
involved
NOTE: Relate this to the Constitutional
Prohibition on increasing the appellate
jurisdiction of the SC without its advice and
concurrence.
🕮 Sec. 27 of Republic Act No. 6770
(Ombudsman Act of 1989) which
authorizes appeal via a petition for
certiorari from decisions of the Office
of the Ombudsman in administrative
disciplinary cases to the Supreme
Court was held to be unconstitutional
for being violative of Section 30,
Article VI of the Constitution which
provides that no law shall be passed
increasing the appellate jurisdiction
of the Supreme Court as provided in
this Constitution without its advice
and concurrence. (Fabian vs.
Desierto, G.R. No. 129742,
September 16, 1998)
🕮 The second paragraph of Sec. 14, RA
6770 which provides that no appeal
or application for remedy may be
heard against the decision or findings
of the Ombudsman, with the
exception of the Supreme Court on
132
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
pure questions of law was also held
to be unconstitutional. Congress
cannot interfere with matters of
procedure; hence, it cannot alter the
scope of a Rule 45 appeal so as to
apply to interlocutory "findings"
issued by the Ombudsman. Since the
second paragraph of Section 14, RA
6770 limits the remedy against
"decision or findings" of the
Ombudsman to a Rule 45 appeal and
thus - similar to the fourth paragraph
of Section 27, RA 6770 - attempts to
effectively increase the Supreme
Court's appellate jurisdiction without
its advice and concurrence, it is
therefore concluded that the former
provision is also unconstitutional and
perforce, invalid. (Morales vs. Court
of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 217126-27,
November 10, 2015).
V. CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS
(1987 CONST., art. IX)
(COMELEC, COA, CSC)
1. Civil Service Commission (CSC)
2. Commission on Elections (COMELEC)
3. Commission on Audit (CoA)
The CSC, COMELEC, and COA are equally
preeminent in their respective spheres.
Neither one may claim dominance over the
others. In case of conflicting rulings, the
judiciary interprets the meaning of the law
and ascertains which view shall prevail. (CSC
vs. Pobre, G.R. No. 160508, September 15,
2004)
COMMON PROVISIONS
a. They are constitutionally created and
may not be abolished by statute.
b. Each is expressly described as
“independent.”
c. Each is conferred certain powers and
functions which cannot be reduced
by statute.
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
d. The Chairmen and members cannot
be removed except by impeachment.
e. The Chairmen and members are
given a fairly long term of office of
seven years.
f. The Chairmen and members may not
be reappointed or appointed in an
acting capacity.
g. The salaries of the Chairmen and
members are relatively high and may
not be decreased during continuance
in office.
h. The Commission enjoys fiscal
autonomy.
i. Its approved annual appropriations
shall be automatically and regularly
released. The Secretary of Budget
and Management cannot make the
release of the appropriations subject
to the submission of reports. (Sec. 5,
Art. IX-A, 1987 Constitution; Civil
Service Commission vs. Department
of Budget and Management, G.R. No.
158791, July 22, 2005)
j. Each Commission may promulgate its
own procedural rules, provided they
do not diminish, increase or modify
substantive rights (though subject to
disapproval by the Supreme Court).
k. The Chairmen and members are
subject to certain disqualifications
calculated to strengthen their
integrity.
l. The Commissions may appoint their
own officials and employees in
accordance with the Civil Service
Law.
A. POWERS, FUNCTIONS, AND
JURISDICTION
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
a. Enforce and administer all laws and
regulations relative to the conduct of
an election, plebiscite, initiative,
referendum, and recall.
133
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
b. Decide, save those involving the right
to vote, all questions affecting
elections, including determination of
the number and location of polling
places, appointment of election
officials and inspectors, and
registration of voters.
c. Deputize, with the concurrence of the
President, law enforcement agencies
and instrumentalities for the
exclusive purpose of ensuring free,
orderly, honest, peaceful and credible
elections.
d. Register, after sufficient publication,
political parties, organizations or
coalitions which must present their
platform or program of government
and accredit citizens’ arms.
e. File, upon a verified complaint, or on
its own initiative, petitions in court for
the inclusion or exclusion of voters,
investigate and, where appropriate,
prosecute cases of violations of
election laws.
f. Recommend to Congress effective
measures to minimize election
spending, including limitation of
places where propaganda materials
shall be posted, and to prevent and
penalize all forms of election frauds,
offenses, malpractice, and nuisance
candidates.
g. Recommend to the President the
removal of any officer or employee it
has deputized, or the imposition of
any other disciplinary action, for
violation or disregard of, or
disobedience to, its directive, order,
or decision.
h. Submit to the President and Congress
a comprehensive report on the
conduct of each election, plebiscite,
initiative, referendum or recall. (Sec.
2, Art. IX-C, 1987 Constitution)
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Pre-proclamation controversies
include:
The following shall be proper issues that may
be raised in a pre-proclamation controversy:
a. Illegal composition or proceedings of
the board of canvassers;
b. The canvassed election returns are
incomplete, contain material defects,
appear to be tampered with or
falsified, or contain discrepancies in
the same returns or in other
authentic copies thereof as
mentioned in Section 233, 234, 235
and 236 of this Code;
c. The election returns were prepared
under duress, threats, coercion, or
intimidation, or they are obviously
manufactured or not authentic; and
d. When substitute or fraudulent
returns in controverted polling places
were canvassed, the results of which
materially affected the standing of
the aggrieved candidate or
candidates. (Sec. 243, Omnibus
Election Code Of The Philippines)
Cases that must first be heard and
decided in division:
a. All election cases, including pre-
proclamation contest under its
original jurisdiction;
b. Petition to cancel a certificate of
candidacy;
c. Cases appealed from the RTC or
MTC; d. Petition for certiorari filed
before the commission from decision
of the RTC or MTC before the same
may be heard en banc. (AM. No. 07-
4-15-SC)
EXCEPTIONS:
a. Petitions for corrections of manifest
error in the tabulation or tallying of
votes; and (Mentang vs. COMELEC,
G.R. No. 110347, February 4, 1994)
134
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
b. Cases of violation of election laws
involving the exercise of
administrative functions. (People vs.
Delgado, G.R. Nos. 93419-32,
September 18, 1990)
JURISDICTION:
a. Original jurisdiction over all contests
relating to the elections, returns, and
qualifications of all elective regional,
provincial, and city officials, and
appellate jurisdiction over all contests
involving elective municipal officials
decided by trial courts of general
jurisdiction, or involving elective
barangay officials decided by trial
courts of limited jurisdiction.
b. Exclusive original jurisdiction over all
contests relating to the election
returns and qualifications of all
elective regional, provincial and city
officials.
c. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over
all contests involving elective
municipal officials decided by the
RTC, or involving elective barangay
officials decided by the MTC.
d. Decisions, final orders, or rulings of
the COMELEC on election contests
involving elective municipal and
barangay offices shall be final,
executory, and not appealable. (Sec.
2[2], Art. IX-C, 1987 Constitution)
COMMISSION ON AUDIT
The 1987 Constitution has made the COA the
guardian of public funds, vesting it with
broad powers over all accounts pertaining to
government revenues and expenditures and
the use of public funds and property,
including the exclusive authority to define the
scope of its audit and examination; to
establish the techniques and methods for the
review; and to promulgate accounting and
auditing rules and regulations. Its exercise of
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
its general audit power is among the
constitutional mechanisms that give life to
the check and balance system inherent in our
form of government. (Dela Llana vs. COA,
G.R. No. 180989, February 7, 2012)
However, in the case of its flawed
procurement transaction, the Supreme Court
said: It is remarkably ironic that COA, the
constitutional watchdog, signed its
imprimatur to a transaction which resulted
from an irreparably flawed bidding process.
The Commission, in this case, has displayed
a lamentable disregard of its mandate as the
sentinel of government resources. It is,
however, paramount that COA be reminded
of its most important role, seemingly
forgotten in this case, in the promotion of
transparency and accountability in public
financial transactions.
a. Examine, audit and settle all accounts
pertaining to the revenue and
receipts of, and expenditures or uses
of funds and property owned or held
in trust or pertaining to, the
Government. The COA conducts
examination or postaudit basis with
regard to Constitutional Commissions
and bodies or offices granted fiscal
autonomy under the Constitution;
autonomous state colleges and
universities; other government-
owned and controlled corporations
and their subsidiaries; and not
governmental entities receiving
subsidy or equity, directly or
indirectly, from or through the
Government.
b. Keep the general accounts of
Government, and preserve vouchers
and supporting papers for such
periods as provided by law.
c. Authority to define the scope of its
audit and examination, establish
techniques and methods required
therefore. (Commission on Audit vs.
135
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
Link Worth International, Inc., G.R.
No. 182559, March 13, 2009)
The power of the Commission to
define the scope of its audit and to
promulgate auditing rules and
regulations and the power to disallow
unnecessary expenditures, is
exclusive, but its power to examine
and audit is not exclusive.
(Development Bank of the Philippine
vs. Commission on Audit, G.R. No.
88435, January 15, 2002)
d. Promulgate account and auditing
rules and regulations, including those
for the prevention and disallowance
of irregular, unnecessary, expensive,
extravagant or unconscionable
expenditures or uses of government
funds or property.
Under our Constitution, the authority of the
Auditor General, in connection with
expenditures of the Government is limited to
the auditing of expenditures of funds or
property pertaining to, or held in trust by the
Government or the provinces or
municipalities thereof. (Sec. 2, Art. XI, 1987
Constitution)
JURISDICTION:
The Commission shall have exclusive
authority, subject to the limitations, to define
the scope of its audit and examination,
establish the techniques and methods
required therefor, and promulgate
accounting and auditing rules and
regulations, including those for the
prevention and disallowance of irregular,
unnecessary, excessive, extravagant, or
unconscionable expenditures or uses of
government funds and properties. (Sec. 2[2],
Art. IX-D, 1987 Philippine Constitution)
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
No law shall be passed exempting any entity
of the government, or any investment of
public funds, from the jurisdiction of the
Commission on Audit (Sec. 3, Art. IX-D, 1987
Constitution)
The COA’s audit jurisdiction extends to the
government, or any of its subdivisions,
agencies, or instrumentalities, including
government owned or controlled
corporations with original charters. Its
jurisdiction likewise covers, albeit on a post-
audit basis, the constitutional bodies,
commissions and offices that have been
granted fiscal autonomy, autonomous state
colleges and controlled corporations and their
subsidiaries, and such non-governmental
entities receiving subsidy or equity from or
through the government. The power of the
COA to examine and audit government
agencies cannot be taken away from it as
Section 3, Article IX-D of the Constitution
mandates that “no law shall be passed
exempting any entity of the Government or
its subsidiary in any guise whatever, or any
investment of public funds, from the
jurisdiction of the COA. (Veloso vs.
Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 193677,
September 6, 2011)
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
The central personnel agency of the
Government:
Establish a career service and adopt
measures to promote morale, efficiency,
integrity, responsiveness and courtesy in the
civil service.
Strengthen the merit and rewards system.
Integrate all human resources development
programs for all levels and ranks.
Institutionalize a management climate
conducive to public accountability (Sec. 3,
Art. IX-B, 1987 Constitution).
136
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
The Civil Service Commission has the power
to hear and decide administrative cases
instituted before it directly or on appeal,
including contested appointments
(Administrative Code of 1987).
The power of the Civil Service Commission
includes the authority to recall an
appointment initially approved in disregard of
applicable provisions of the Civil Service rules
and regulations. (Mathay vs. Civil Service
Commission, G.R. No. 130214, August 9,
1999)
The CSC has the authority and jurisdiction to
investigate anomalies and irregularities in the
civil service examinations and to impose the
necessary and appropriate sanctions. The
Constitution grants to the CSC administration
over the entire civil service. As defined, the
civil service embraces every branch, agency,
subdivision, and instrumentality of the
government, including every government-
owned or controlled corporation.
Despite the fact that the CSC had no
authority to administer entrance and
promotional examinations for police officers,
it cannot deprive the CSC to investigate the
facts by a civil servant. As a central personnel
agency, the CSC has the original disciplinary
jurisdiction in order to protect the integrity of
the civil service system as an integral part of
the CSC’s duty, authority and power provided
for by the 1987 Constitution. (Melvin G. San
Felix v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. no.
198404, October 14, 2019, J. Hernando)
Security of Tenure: No officer or employee
of the civil service shall be removed or
suspended, except for cause provided by law.
(Sec, 2[3], Art. IX-B, 1987 Constitution)
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Career vs. Non-Career Service
CAREER SERVICE – The Career Service shall
be characterized by (1) entrance based on
merit and fitness to be determined as far as
practicable by competitive examinations, or
based on highly technical qualifications; (2)
opportunity for advancement to higher
career positions; and (3) security of tenure.
(Sec. 5, Art. IV, Presidential Decree No. 807)
EXCEPTION:
a. Policy determining
b. Primarily Confidential
c. Highly Technical
CAREER EXECUTIVE SERVICE (CES)
To be a member of the CES and be entitled
to Security of tenure, the following must
concur:
a. Pass the Career Executive Service
Examination
b. Be conferred CES eligibility
c. Comply with the other requirements
prescribed by the CES Board
d. Be appointed to a CES rank by the
President (Revised Rules On The
Career Executive Service (CES)
Eligibility)
Criteria to determine whether a
position belongs to the CES:
a. The position belongs to the career
service of the Civil Service
b. The position is above division chief
c. The position entails performance of
executive or managerial functions.
(Revised Rules On The Career
Executive Service (CES) Eligibility)
NON-CAREER SERVICE – characterized by
entrance others by usual tests and their
tenure is limited by law or coterminous to the
appointing authority or subject to his
pleasure (Presidential Decree No. 807)
137
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW

NOTE: The CSC is empowered under the B. COMPOSITION AND

Administrative Code of 1987 to declare QUALIFICATIONS OF MEMBERS
positions in the civil service as confidential
thus the enumeration of the inclusion in the
non-career service is not an exclusive list.
(Montecilio vs. Civil Service Commission, GR
No. 131954, June 28, 2001)

JURISDICTION:
The civil service embraces all branches,
subdivisions, instrumentalities, and agencies
of the Government, including government-
owned or controlled corporations with
original charters. (Sec. 2[1], Art. IX-B, 1987
Constitution)

The Commission has original jurisdiction to

hear and decide a complaint for cheating in
the Civil Service Examinations committed by
government employees. The fact that the
complaint was filed by the Civil Service
The Chairman and Commissioners shall be
Commission itself does not mean that it
appointed by the President with the consent
cannot be an impartial judge. (Cruz vs. Civil
of the Commission on Appointments for a
Service Commission, G.R. No. 144464,
term of seven years without reappointment.
November 22, 2001)
a. CSC and COA - Of those first
appointed, the Chairman shall hold
The test in determining whether a
office for seven years, a
government-owned or controlled corporation
Commissioner for five years, and
is subject to the creation, such that
another Commissioner for three
government corporations created by special
years, without reappointment. (Sec.
charter(s) are subject to its provisions while
1 [2]. Art. IX-B and Sec. 1 [2]. Art.
those incorporated under the General
IX-B, 1987 Constitution)
Corporation Law are not within its coverage.
b. COMELEC - Of those first appointed,
(Gamogamo vs PNOC Shipping, G.R. No.
three Members shall hold office for
141707, May 7, 2002)
seven years, two Members for five
years, and the last Members for three
years, without reappointment. (Sec.
1 [2]. Art. IX-C, 1987 Constitution)

Appointment to any vacancy shall be only for

the unexpired portion of the term of the
predecessor. In no case shall any Member be
appointed or designated in a temporary or
acting capacity. (Common provisions among
the three)

AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION 138

 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
C. PROHIBITED OFFICES AND
INTERESTS
No member of a Constitutional Commission
shall, during his tenure:
1. Hold any other office or employment;
2. Engage in the practice of any
profession.
3. Engage in the active management
and control of any business which in
any way may be affected by the
function of his office.
4. Be financially interested, directly or
indirectly, in any contract with, or in
any franchise or privilege granted by
the Government, any of its
subdivisions, agencies or
instrumentalities, including GOCCs or
their subsidiaries (Sec. 2, Art. IX 1987
Constitution)
D. REVIEW OF FINAL ORDERS,
RESOLUTIONS, AND DECISIONS
1. RENDERED IN THE EXERCISE OF
QUASI-JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS
Each Commission shall decide by a majority
vote of all its Members any case or matter
brought before it within sixty days from the
date of its submission for decision or
resolution. A case or matter is deemed
submitted for decision or resolution upon the
filing of the last pleading, brief, or
memorandum required by the rules of the
Commission or by the Commission itself.
Unless otherwise provided by this
Constitution or by law, any decision, order, or
ruling of each Commission may be brought to
the Supreme Court on certiorari by the
aggrieved party within thirty days from
receipt of a copy thereof. (Sec. 7, Art. IX-A,
1987 Constitution)
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
In the case of decisions of the CSC,
Administrative Circular 1-95538 which took
effect on June 1, 1995, provides that final
resolutions of the CSC shall be appealable by
certiorari to the CA within 15 days from
receipt of a copy thereof. From the decision
of the CA, the party adversely affected
thereby shall file a petition for review on
certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
Only decisions of COMELEC en banc may be
brought to the Court by certiorari since Art.
IX-C provides that motions for
reconsideration of decisions shall be decided
by the Commission en banc. (Reyes vs.
Mindoro, G.R. No. 108886, May 5, 1995)
COMMISSION ON AUDIT
Judgments or final orders of the Commission
on Audit may be brought by an aggrieved
party to the Supreme Court on certiorari
under Rule 65. Only when COA acts without
or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction, may the SC entertain a
petition for certiorari under Rule 65. (Madera
vs. COA, G.R. No. 244128, September 08,
2020)
2. RENDERED IN THE EXERCISE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIONS
The Constitutional Commissions shall appoint
their officials and employees in accordance
with law. (Sec. 4, Art. IX-A, 1987
Constitution)
Each Commission en banc may promulgate
its own rules concerning pleadings and
practice before it or before any of its offices.
Such rules however shall not diminish,
increase, or modify substantive rights. (Sec.
6, Art. IX-A, 1987 Constitution)
139
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
Under the Administrative Code of 1987, the
CSC has the power to hear and decide
administrative cases instituted before it
directly or on appeal, including contested
appointments.
Certiorari jurisdiction of SC over the
Constitutional Commissions is limited
to issues involving grave abuse of
discretion resulting in lack or excess of
jurisdiction and do not ordinarily empower
the Court to review the factual findings of the
Commissions. (Aratuc vs. COMELEC, G.R. No.
L-49705-09, February 8, 1979)
Where the Constitution or, for that matter, a
statute, has fixed the term of office of a
public official, the appointing authority is
without authority to specify in the
appointment a term shorter or longer than
what the law provides—if the vacancy calls
for a full seven-year appointment, the
President is without discretion to extend a
promotional appointment for more or for less
than seven (7) years. There is no in between.
He or she cannot split terms.
It is not within the power of the appointing
authority to override the positive provision of
the Constitution which dictates that the term
of office of members of constitutional bodies
shall be seven (7) years. A contrary reasoning
“would make the term of office to depend
upon the pleasure or caprice of the
[appointing authority] and not upon the will
[of the framers of the Constitution] of the
legislature as expressed in plain and
undoubted language in the law.” (Funa vs.
Villar, G.R. No. 192791, April 24, 2012)
Section 1, Article IX-A of the 1987
Constitution expressly describes all the
Constitutional Commissions as
“independent.” Although their respective
functions are essentially executive in nature,
they are not under the control of the
President of the Philippines in the discharge
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
of such functions. Each of the Constitutional
Commissions conducts its own proceedings
under the applicable laws and its own rules
and in the exercise of its own discretion. Its
decisions, orders and rulings are subject only
to review on certiorari by the Court as
provided by Section 7, Article IX-A of the
1987 Constitution.
To safeguard the independence of these
Commissions, the 1987 Constitution, among
others, imposes under Section 2, Article IX-A
of the Constitution certain inhibitions and
disqualifications upon the Chairmen and
members to strengthen their integrity, to wit:
1. Holding any other office or employment
during their tenure;
2. Engaging in the practice of any
profession;
3. Engaging in the active management or
control of any business which in any
way may be affected by the functions
of his office; and
4. Being financially interested, directly or
indirectly, in any contract with, or in
any franchise or privilege granted by
the Government, any of its
subdivisions, agencies or
instrumentalities, including
government-owned or controlled
corporations or their subsidiaries.
(Funa vs. Duque III, G.R. No. 191672
November 25, 2014)
Circular No. 89-299 was promulgated by the
COA under its quasi-legislative or rule-
making powers. Hence, Circular No. 89-299
is not reviewable by certiorari. Neither is a
petition for prohibition appropriate in this
case. The conduct of a pre-audit is not a
mandatory duty that this Court may compel
the COA to perform. This discretion on its
part is in line with the constitutional
pronouncement that the COA has the
exclusive authority to define the scope of its
audit and examination. (Dela Llana vs. The
140
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
Chairperson, Commission on Audit, G.R. No.
180989 February 7, 2012)
The appellate power of the CSC will only
apply when the subject of the administrative
cases filed against erring employees is in
connection with the duties and functions of
their office, and not in cases where the acts
of the complainant arose from cheating in the
civil service examinations. Thus: Petitioner’s
invocation of the law is misplaced. The
provision is applicable to instances where
administrative cases are filed against erring
employees in connection with their duties
and functions of the office. This is, however,
not the scenario contemplated in the case at
bar. It must be noted that the acts
complained of arose from cheating caused by
the petitioners in the Civil Service
(Subprofessional) examination. The
examinations were under the direct control
and supervision of the Civil Service
Commission. The culprits are government
employees over whom the Civil Service
Commission undeniably has jurisdiction.
(Capablanca vs. Civil Service Commission,
G.R. No. 179370 November 18, 2009)
VI. BILL OF RIGHTS
Purpose
The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to
withdraw certain subjects from the
vicissitudes of political controversy, to place
them beyond the reach of majorities and
officials, and to establish them as legal
principles to be applied by the courts.
One's right to life, liberty, and property, to
free speech, a free press, freedom of worship
and assembly, and other fundamental rights
may not be submitted to vote; they depend
on the outcome of no elections. (West
Virginia State Board of Education vs.
Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 638, June 14, 1943)
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Private Acts and the Bill of Rights
The Bill of Rights governs the relationship
between the individual and the state. Its
concern is not the relation between
individuals, between a private individual and
other individuals. What the Bill of Rights does
is to declare some forbidden zones in the
private sphere inaccessible to any power
holder. (People of the Philippines vs. Marti,
G.R. No. 81561, January 18, 1991)
The Bill of Rights guarantees the people’s
right to privacy and protects them against the
State’s abuse of power. In this regard, the
State recognizes the right of the people to be
secure in their houses. No one, not even the
State, except "in case of overriding social
need and then only under the stringent
procedural safeguards," can disturb them in
the privacy of their homes. (Spouses Hing vs.
Choachuy, G.R. No. 179736, June 26, 2013)
The Bill of Rights does not govern
relationships between individuals; it cannot
be invoked against the acts of private
individuals. (Libo-on Dela Cruz vs. People of
the Philippines, G.R. No. 209387, January 11,
2016)
The Bill of Rights guarantees citizens the
freedom to act on their individual beliefs and
proscribes government intervention unless
necessary to protect its citizens from injury or
when public safety, peace, comfort, or
convenience requires it. (Almores vs.
Achacoso, G.R. No. 217453, July 19, 2017)
A. DUE PROCESS CLAUSE;
PROCEDURAL AND SUBSTANTIVE
REQUIREMENTS (1987 CONST.,
art. III, sec. 1; art. XIII, sec. 1)
Hierarchy of Rights
No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or
property without due process of law, nor
141
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
shall any person be denied the equal
protection of the laws. (Sec. 1, Art. III, 1987
Constitution)
The Congress shall give highest priority to the
enactment of measures that protect and
enhance the right of all the people to human
dignity, reduce social, economic, and political
inequalities, and remove cultural inequities
by equitably diffusing wealth and political
power for the common good. (Sec. 1, Art.
XIII, 1987 Constitution)
While the Bill of Rights also protects property
rights, the primacy of human rights over
property rights is recognized. Because these
freedoms are "delicate and vulnerable, as
well as supremely precious in our society" x
xx
Property and property rights can be lost thru
prescription; but human rights are
imprescriptible.
The superiority of these freedoms over
property rights is underscored by the fact
that a mere reasonable or rational relation
between the means employed by the law and
its object or purpose — that the law is neither
arbitrary nor discriminatory nor oppressive —
would suffice to validate a law which restricts
or impairs property rights. (Philippine
Blooming Mills Employment Organization vs.
Philippine Blooming Mills Co., Inc., G.R. No.
L-31195, June 5, 1973)
DUE PROCESS CLAUSE
Due Process is a guaranty against any
arbitrariness on the part of the government,
whether committed by the legislature,
executive or judiciary. (Cruz, Constitutional
Law, 2007)
In this jurisdiction, due process has "no
controlling and precise definition" but is "a
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
standard to which governmental action
should conform in order that deprivation of
life, liberty or property, in each appropriate
case, be valid." (Flores-Concepcion vs.
Judge Castaneda, A.M. No. RTJ-15-2438,
September 02, 2020)
🕮 Due process is thus hostile to any
official action marred by lack of
reasonableness.
🕮 Correctly has it been identified as
freedom from arbitrariness.
🕮 It is the embodiment of the sporting
idea of fair play.
🕮 It exacts fealty "to those strivings for
justice" and judges the act of
officialdom of whatever branch "in
the light of reason drawn from
considerations of fairness that reflect
[democratic] traditions of legal and
political thought."
🕮 It is not a narrow or "technical
conception with fixed content
unrelated to time, place and
circumstances," decisions based on
such a clause requiring a "close and
perceptive inquiry into fundamental
principles of our society." (Ermita-
Malate Hotel and Motel Operators
Association, Inc. vs. City Mayor of
Manila, G.R. No. L-24693, July 31,
1967)
CONCEPT OF RIGHT TO LIFE, LIBERTY,
AND PROPERTY
a. Right to Life - While the right to life
under Article III, Section 1
guarantees essentially the right to be
alive - upon which the enjoyment of
all other rights is preconditioned -
the right to security of person is a
guarantee of the secure quality of
this life, viz:
"The life to which each person has a
142
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
right is not a life lived in fear that his
person and property may be
unreasonably violated by a powerful
ruler. Rather, it is a life lived with the
assurance that the government he
established and consented to, will
protect the security of his person
and property. The ideal of security in
life and property... pervades the
whole history of man. It touches
every aspect of man's existence."
In a broad sense, the right to
security of person "emanates in a
person's legal and uninterrupted
enjoyment of his life, his limbs, his
body, his health, and his reputation.
It includes the right to exist, and the
right to enjoyment of life while
existing, and it is invaded not only by
a deprivation of life but also of those
things which are necessary to the
enjoyment of life according to the
nature, temperament, and lawful
desires of the individual." (Secretary
of National Defense vs. Manalo, G.R.
No. 180906, October 7, 2008)
b. Right to Liberty - The right to
liberty guaranteed by the
Constitution includes the right to
exist and the right to be free from
arbitrary personal restraint or
servitude. The term cannot be
dwarfed into mere freedom from
physical restraint of the person of
the citizen, but is deemed to
embrace the right of man to enjoy
the faculties with which he has been
endowed by his Creator, subject only
to such restraints as are necessary
for the common welfare.
In general, it may be said that liberty
means the opportunity to do those
things which are ordinarily done by
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
free men. (Rubi vs. Provincial Board
of Mindoro, G.R. No. L 14078, March
7, 1919)
c. Right to Property - Includes all
kinds of property found in the Civil
Code.
A profession, trade or calling is a
property right within the meaning of
our constitutional guarantees. One
cannot be deprived of the right to
work and the right to make a living
because these rights are property
rights, the arbitrary and
unwarranted deprivation of which
normally constitutes an actionable
wrong. (Executive Secretary vs. CA
and ARCO-PHIL, G.R. No. 131719,
May 25, 2004
🕮 Indeed, no right is absolute, and the
proper regulation of a profession,
calling, business or trade has always
been upheld as a legitimate subject
of a valid exercise of the police
power of the State particularly when
their conduct affects the execution
of legitimate governmental
functions, the preservation of the
State, public health and welfare and
public morals. (Remman Enterprises,
Inc. vs. Professional Regulatory
Board Of Real Estate Service, G.R.
No. 197676, February 4, 2014)
🕮 Property and property rights can be
lost thru prescription; but human
rights are imprescriptible. (Philippine
Blooming Mills Employment
Organization vs. Philippine Blooming
Mills Co., Inc., G.R. No. L-31195,
June 5, 1973)
143
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW

ASPECTS OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW Requisites:

Due process of law has two aspects:
substantive and procedural.
In order that a particular act may not be
impugned as violative of the due process
clause, there must be compliance with both
the substantive and the procedural
requirements thereof. (Alliance for the
Family Foundation, Philippines, Inc. vs.
Garin, G.R. No. 217872, 26 April 2017)
SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS
Substantive due process asks whether the
government has an adequate reason for
taking away a person’s life, liberty, or
property. In other words, substantive due
process looks to whether there is sufficient
justification for the government’s action.
(Legaspi vs. City of Cebu, G.R. No. 159110,
December 10, 2013)
Substantive due process completes the
protection envisioned by the due process
clause. It inquires whether the government
has sufficient justification for depriving a
person of life, liberty, or property. (White
Light Corporation vs. City of Manila, G.R. No.
122846, January 20, 2009)
(1) Presence of compelling,
rather than substantial,
governmental interest.
(2) The absence of less
restrictive means for
achieving that interest.
(White Light Corporation vs.
City of Manila, G.R. No.
122846, January 20, 2009)
2. Rational Basis Test - for economic
legislation.
Courts often apply rational basis test
mainly in analysis of equal protection
challenges. Using the rational basis
examination, laws or ordinances are
upheld if they rationally further a
legitimate governmental interest.
A reasonable relation must exist
between the purposes of the
measure and the means
employed for its
accomplishment, for even under
the guise of protecting the public
interest, personal rights and those
pertaining to private property will
not be permitted to be arbitrarily
invaded.

Tests of the validity of a law, statute or Requisites:

ordinance on substantive due process (1) Lawful Subject - A
grounds (Standards of Review): legitimate governmental
interest.
1. Strict Scrutiny Test - for laws (2) Lawful Means - The means
dealing with freedom of the mind or employed are reasonably
restricting the political process. necessary for the
accomplishment of the
Strict scrutiny is used today to test purpose and not unduly
the validity of laws dealing with the oppressive on individuals.
regulation of speech, gender, or race (White Light Corporation vs.
as well as other fundamental rights City of Manila, G.R. No.
as expansion from its earlier 122846, January 20, 2009)
applications to equal protection.

AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION 144

 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
3. Intermediate Scrutiny Test- A
third standard, denominated as
heightened or immediate scrutiny,
was later adopted by the U.S.
Supreme Court for evaluating
classifications based on gender
and legitimacy. Immediate
scrutiny was adopted by the U.S.
Supreme Court in Craig, after the
Court declined to do so in Reed v.
Reed. While the test may have first
been articulated in equal protection
analysis, it has in the United States
since been applied in all substantive
due process cases as well. (White
Light Corporation vs. City of Manila,
G.R. No. 122846, January 20, 2009)
The intermediate scrutiny test
applies when a classification does
not involve suspect classes or
fundamental rights, but requires
heightened scrutiny, such as in
classifications based on gender
and legitimacy.
Requisites:
(1) Important government
interest;
(2) Availability of less restrictive
means (Samahan Ng Mga
Progresibong Kabataan
(SPARK) vs. Quezon City,
G.R. No. 225442, August 8,
2017)
PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS
Procedural due process consists of the two
basic rights of notice and hearing, as well as
the guarantee of being heard by an impartial
and competent tribunal. (Secretary of Justice
vs. Lantion, G.R. No. 139465, January 18,
2000, citing Cruz, Constitutional Law, 1993
Ed., pp. 102-106)
It is the right of the person affected thereby
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
to be present before the tribunal which
pronounces judgment upon the
question of life, liberty, and property in
its most comprehensive sense; to be heard,
by testimony or otherwise, and to have
the right of controverting, by proof, every
material fact which bears on the question of
the right in the matter involved.” (Medenilla
vs. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 93868,
February 19, 1991)
1. Void-for-Vagueness Rule
A statute which either forbids or requires the
doing of an act in terms so vague that men
of common intelligence must
necessarily guess at its meaning and
differ as to its application, violates the
first essential of due process of law."
(Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.
148560, November 19, 2001)
A vague statute is repugnant to the
constitution in two (2) respects:
(1) It violates due process for failure to
accord persons, especially the
parties targeted by it, fair notice of
what conduct to avoid.
(2) It leaves law enforces unbridled
discretion in carrying out its
provisions and becomes an arbitrary
flexing of the Government muscle.
(Romualdez vs. Sandiganbayan,
G.R. No. 152259, July 29, 2004)
The due process clause, which guarantees
that no person shall be deprived of life,
liberty or property without due process of
law, requires that citizens are given
sufficient notice or warning of what is lawful
and unlawful conduct under a penal statute.
To enforce this guarantee, courts have
developed the void for vagueness doctrine.
The void for vagueness doctrine
expresses the rule that for an act to
145
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
constitute a crime, the law must
expressly and clearly declare such act
a crime. A related doctrine is that penal
statutes are construed strictly against the
state and liberally in favor of the accused.
(Dissenting Opinion of Carpio, J. in Spouses
Romualdez vs. Commission on Election and
Garay, G.R. NO. 16701, April 30, 2008)
2. Judicial and Administrative Due
Process
The requirements of procedural due process
depend on the nature of the action involved.
(Flores-Concepcion vs. Judge Castaneda,
A.M. No. RTJ-15-2438, September 2, 2020)
a. JUDICIAL DUE PROCESS
For judicial proceedings, the following
conditions must be present:
(1) There must be a court or tribunal
clothed with judicial power to hear
and determine the matter before it;
(2) Jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired
over the person of the defendant or
over the property which is the subject
of the proceeding;
(3) The defendant must be given an
opportunity to be heard; and
(4) Judgment must be rendered upon
lawful hearing. (Lorenzana vs.
Cayetano, G.R. No. L-37051 August
3l, 1977)
b. ADMINISTRATIVE DUE
PROCESS
In administrative proceedings, procedural
due process simply means the opportunity to
explain one's side or the opportunity to seek
a reconsideration of the action or ruling
complained of. (Flores-Concepcion vs. Judge
Castaneda, A.M. No. RTJ-15-2438,
September 2, 2020)
"To be heard" does not mean only
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
verbal arguments in court; one may be
heard also through pleadings. Where
opportunity to be heard, either through oral
arguments or pleadings, is accorded, there is
no denial of procedural due process.
(Casimiro vs. Tandog, G.R. No. 146137, June
08, 2005)
Defects in procedural due process may be
cured when the party has been afforded the
opportunity to appeal or to seek
reconsideration of the action or ruling
complained of. (Nestle Philippines, Inc. vs.
Puedan, G.R. No. 220617, January 30, 2017)
Seven cardinal primary rights be
present for the requirements of due
process to be satisfied in administrative
trials and investigations:
(1) The right to a hearing, which includes
the right to present one’s case and
submit evidence in support thereof;
(2) The tribunal must consider the
evidence presented;
(3) The decision must have something to
support itself;
(4) The evidence must be substantial;
(5) The decision must be rendered on
the evidence presented at the
hearing, or at least contained in the
record and disclosed to the parties;
(6) The tribunal or any of its judges must
act on his own independent
consideration of the facts and the law
of the controversy and not simply
accept the views of a subordinate in
arriving at a decision;
(7) The board or body should, in all
controversial questions, render its
decision in such a manner that all the
parties to the proceeding will know
the various issues involved, and the
reasons for the decision. (Ang Tibay
vs. Commissioner of Internal
Revenue, G.R. No. 46496, February
27, 1940)
146
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
Nonetheless, this Court clarified in Gas
Corporation of the Philippines v. Inciong that
the failure to strictly apply the
regulations required by Ang Tibay will
not necessarily result in the denial of
due process, as long as the elements of
fairness are not ignored. (Flores-
Concepcion vs. Judge Castaneda, A.M. No.
RTJ-15-2438, September 02, 2020)
GENERAL RULE: Notice and hearing, as the
fundamental requirements of procedural due
process, are essential only when an
administrative body exercises its quasi-
judicial function.
EXCEPTION: In the performance of its
executive or legislative functions, such as
issuing rules and regulations, an
administrative body need not comply with
the requirements of notice and hearing.
(Corona vs. United Harbor Pilots Association
of the Philippines, G.R. No. 111953,
December 12, 1997)
Due process in disciplinary cases
involving students
There are withal minimum standards which
must be met to satisfy the demands of
procedural due process; and these are, that:
(1) The students must be informed in
writing of the nature and cause of
accusation against them;
(2) They shall have the right to answer
the charges against them, with the
assistance of counsel, if desired;
(3) They shall be informed of the
evidence against them;
(4) They shall have the right to adduce
evidence in their own behalf; and
(5) The evidence must be duly
considered by the investigating
committee or official designated by
the school authorities to hear and
decide the case. (Ante vs. University
of The Philippines Student
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Disciplinary Tribunal, G.R. No.
227911, March 14, 2022)
Due Process in labor cases
Two-fold due process
Substantive due process means that the
dismissal must be for any of the:
(1) just causes provided under Article
297 of the Labor Code or the
company rules and regulations
promulgated by the employer; or
(2) authorized causes under Article 298
and 299 thereof.
Procedural due process requires the
employer to furnish the worker sought to be
dismissed with two written notices before
termination of employment can be legally
effected:
(1) notice which apprises the employee
of the particular acts or omissions for
which his dismissal is sought; and
(2) the subsequent notice which informs
the employee of the employer's
decision to dismiss him.
This “procedural due process” requirement is
not constitutional but merely statutory,
hence, a violation of such requirement does
not render the dismissal void. the employer
must be sanctioned for non-compliance with
the requirements of, or for failure to observe,
due process (Serrano v. NLRC, G.R. No.
117040, January 27, 2000)
Mass Media And Due Process
Due process requires that the accused
receive a trial by an impartial jury free from
outside influences. Given the pervasiveness
of modern communications and the difficulty
of effacing prejudicial publicity from the
minds of the jurors, the trial courts must take
strong measures to ensure that the balance
is never weighed against the accused. And
appellate tribunals have the duty to make an
independent evaluation of the circumstances.
147
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
(Sheppard vs. Maxwell 384 U.S. 333, June 6,
1966)
🕮 We recognize that pervasive and
prejudicial publicity under certain
circumstances can deprive an
accused of his due process right to
fair trial. Thus, we held that to
warrant the finding of prejudicial
publicity, there must be allegation
and proof that the judges have
been unduly influenced, not
simply that they might be, by the
barrage of publicity. (Hubert Webb
vs. Hon. De Leon, G.R. No. 121234,
August 23, 1995)
B. EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE (1987
CONST., art. III, sec. 1)
All persons or things similarly situated should
be treated alike, both as to rights conferred
and responsibilities imposed. (Ichong vs.
Hernandez, G.R. No. L-7995, May 31, 1957)
Substantive equality is not enough. It is also
required that the law be enforced and applied
equally. Equal protection clause does not
require universal application of the law.
What the Constitution requires is
equality among equals. (Villanueva vs.
JBC, G.R. No. 211833, April 07, 2015)
REQUISITES FOR VALID
CLASSIFICATION
a. It must be based upon
substantial distinctions: There
must be real and substantial
differences between the classes
treated differently.
b. It must be germane to the
purpose of the law.
c. It must not be limited to
existing conditions only: The
classification must be enforced not
only for the present, but as long as
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
the problem sought to be corrected
continues to exist.
d. It must apply equally to all
members of the class: The
classification would be regarded as
invalid if all the members of the
class are not treated similarly, both
as to rights conferred and
obligations imposed. (Garcia vs.
Drilon, G.R. No. 179267, June 25,
2013)
STANDARDS OF JUDICIAL REVIEW
a. Rational Basis Test – the
challenged classification needs only
be shown to be rationally related to
serving a legitimate state interest.
b. Strict Scrutiny Test – requires the
government to show that the
challenged classification serves a
compelling state interest and that
the classification is necessary to
serve that interest.
Thus the test is applied when the
challenged statute either:
(a) classifies on the basis of an
inherently suspect
characteristic, or
(b) infringes on fundamental
constitutional rights.
In these situations, the usual
presumption of constitutionality is
reversed, and it falls upon the
government to demonstrate that its
classification has been narrowly
tailored to further compelling
governmental interests; otherwise,
the law shall be declared
unconstitutional for violating the
equal protection clause.
c. Intermediate Scrutiny Test – the
government must show that the
148
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
challenged classification serves an
important state interest and that the
classification is at least substantially
related to serving that interest. The
standard is satisfied if the
classification or distinction is based
on a reasonable foundation or
rational basis and is not palpably
arbitrary. (Garcia vs. Drilon, G.R.
No. 179267, June 25, 2013)
C. ARREST, SEARCH AND SEIZURE;
REQUISITES; EXCLUSIONARY RULE
(1987 CONST., art. III, sec. 2)
ARREST, SEARCH AND SEIZURE
The right of the people to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers, and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures of
whatever nature and for any purpose shall be
inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant
of arrest shall issue except upon probable
cause to be determined personally by the
judge after examination under oath or
affirmation of the complainant and the
witnesses he may produce, and particularly
describing the place to be searched and the
persons or things to be seized. (Sec. 2, Art.
II, 1987 Constitution)
Concept and Purpose
The provision is not only a circumscription of
the power of the state over a person’s home
and possessions, it protects the privacy and
sanctity of the personal himself. . to be
secure in their “persons against unreasonable
searches and seizures . . . a guarantee
against unlawful arrests and other forms of
restraint on the physical liberty of a person.
(Bernas, The 1987 Constitution of the
Philippines: A Commentary, pp. 167-168,
2009).
The constitutional right against unreasonable
searches and seizures is a personal right
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
invocable only by those whose rights have
been infringed or threatened to be infringed.
(Valmonte vs. De Villa, G.R. No. 83988,
September 29, 1989)
The legality of a seizure can be contested
only by the party whose rights have been
impaired thereby. The objection to an
unlawful search is purely personal and cannot
be availed of by third parties. (Stonehill vs.
Diokno, G.R. No. L-19550, June 19, 1967)
Tests of Unreasonableness of Searches
and Seizures
It is purely a judicial question, determinable
from a consideration of the circumstances
involved. Petitioner’s general allegation that
he had been stopped and searched without a
search warrant by the military manning the
checkpoints, without more, i.e., without
stating the details of the incidents which
amount to a violation of his right against
unlawful search and seizure, is not sufficient
to enable the Court to determine whether
there was a violation of his right against
unlawful search and seizure. A reasonable
search is not to be determined by any fixed
formula but is to be resolved according to the
facts of each case. Where, for example, the
officer merely draws aside the curtain of a
vacant vehicle which is parked on the public
fair grounds, or simply looks into a vehicle, or
flashes a light therein, these do not constitute
unreasonable search. (Valmonte vs. De Villa,
G.R. No. 83988, September 29, 1989)
The Constitution provides that no warrant
shall issue except upon probable cause, to be
determined by the judge, and that the
warrant shall particularly describe the things
to be seized. (Stonehill vs. Diokno, No. L-
19550, June 19, 1967)
149
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
1. REQUISITES OF A VALID WARRANT
1. Existence of Probable Cause
2. Probable cause must be personally
determined by the Judge
3. After personal examination under
oath or affirmation of the
complainant and the witnesses he
may produce
4. Based on their personal knowledge of
the facts they are testifying to
5. There must be particular description
of the places to be searched and the
persons or things to be seized
6. The warrant must refer to one
specific offense (People vs. Castillo,
Sr., G.R. No. 204419, November 07,
2016)
a. Determination of Probable Cause
The determination of probable cause needs
only to rest on evidence showing that more
likely than not, a crime has been committed
and there is enough reason to believe that it
was committed by the accused. It need not
be based on clear and convincing evidence of
guilt, neither on evidence establishing
absolute certainty of guilt. What is merely
required is “probability of guilt.” Its
determination, too, does not call for the
application of rules or standards of proof that
a judgment of conviction requires after trial
on the merits. Thus, in concluding that there
is probable cause, it suffices that it is believed
that the act or omission complained of
constitutes the very offense charged.
It is also important to stress that the
determination of probable cause does not
depend on the validity or merits of a party’s
accusation or defense or on the admissibility
or veracity of testimonies presented.
(Relampagos vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.
235480, January 27, 2021)
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
PROBABLE CAUSE FOR ARREST OR
ISSUANCE OF A WARRANT: means such
facts and circumstances which would lead a
reasonably discreet and prudent man to
believe that an offense has been committed
by the person sought to be arrested. (Viudez
II vs. CA, G.R. No. 152889, June 05, 2009)
PROBABLE CAUSE FOR A SEARCH:
means such facts and circumstances which
would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent
man to believe that an offense has been
committed and that the objects sought in
connection with the offense are in the place
sought to be searched. (Webb vs. De Leon,
G.R. No. 121234, August 23, 1995)
It presupposes the introduction of competent
proof that the party against whom it is sought
has performed particular acts, committed
specific omissions, violating a given provision
of our criminal laws. (Stonehill vs. Diokno,
No. L-19550, June 19, 1967)
b. Personal Determination by the
Judge
What the Constitution underscores is the
exclusive and personal responsibility of the
issuing judge to satisfy himself of the
existence of probable cause. But the judge is
not required to personally examine the
complainant and his witnesses. Following
established doctrine and procedure, he shall:
(1) personally evaluate the report and
the supporting documents submitted
[sic] by the prosecutor regarding the
existence of probable cause, and on
the basis thereof, he may already
make a personal determination of the
existence of probable cause; and
(2) if he is not satisfied that probable
cause exists, he may disregard the
prosecutor's report and require the
submission of supporting affidavits of
witnesses to aid him in arriving at a
conclusion as to the existence of
150
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
probable cause. (Leviste vs.
Alameda, G.R. No. 182677, August 3,
2010)
c. Personal Examination Under Oath of
Affirmation of Complainant and
Witnesses
In its broadest sense, an oath includes any
form of attestation by which a party signifies
that he is bound in conscience to perform an
act faithfully and truthfully; and it is
sometimes defined as an outward pledge
given by the person taking it that his
attestation or promise is made under an
immediate sense of his responsibility to God
(Alvarez vs. Court of First Instance of
Tayabas, No. 45358, January 29, 1937)
The true test of sufficiency of an affidavit to
warrant issuance of a search warrant is
whether it has been drawn in such a manner
that perjury could be charged thereon and
affiant be held liable for damages caused.
(Id.)
d. Based on Personal Knowledge of
Facts
The oath required must refer to the truth of
the facts within the personal knowledge of
the petitioner or his witnesses, because the
purpose thereof is to convince the
committing magistrate, not the individual
making the affidavit and seeking the issuance
of the warrant, of the existence of probable
cause. (Id.)
e. Description of Places or Persons or
Things
The affidavit to be presented, which shall
serve as the basis for determining whether
probable cause exists and whether the
warrant should be issued, must contain a
particular description of the place to be
searched and the person or thing to be
seized.
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
These provisions are mandatory and must be
strictly complied with, subject to the
exception that where, by the nature of the
goods to be seized', their description must be
rather general, it is not required that a
technical description be given, as this would
mean that no warrant could issue. (Id.)
The evident purpose and intent of this
requirement is to limit the things to be seized
to those, and only those, particularly
described in the search warrant – to leave the
officers of the law with no discretion
regarding what articles they shall seize, to
the end that unreasonable searches may not
be made, - that abuses may not be
committed. (Bernas, The 1987 Constitution:
A Commentary, p. 182, 2009)
f. One-specific-offense rule
A search warrant shall not issue except upon
probable cause in connection with one
specific offense to be determined personally
by the judge after examination under oath or
affirmation of the complainant and the
witness he may produce, and particularly
describing the place to be searched and the
things to be seized which may be anywhere
in the Philippines. (Sec. 4, Rule 126, Rules of
Court)
One of the constitutional requirements for
the validity of a search warrant is that it must
be issued based on probable cause which,
under the Rules, must be in connection with
one specific offense to prevent the
issuance of a scatter-shot warrant. The
only way to determine whether a warrant
should issue in connection with one specific
offense is to juxtapose the facts and
circumstances presented by the applicant
with the elements of the offense that are
alleged to support the search warrant.
(People of the Philippines vs. Pastrana, G.R.
No. 196045, February 21, 2018)
151
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
2. WARRANTLESS SEARCHES
In Webb, probable cause in warrantless
searches must be based on facts and
circumstances which would give rise to a
reasonable belief that an offense has been
committed and that the objects sought in
connection with the offense are in the place
sought to be searched. (Id)
A search under the strength of a warrant is
required to be witnessed by the lawful
occupant of the premises sought to be
searched. It must be stressed that it is only
upon their absence that their presence may
be replaced by two (2) persons of sufficient
age and discretion residing in the same
locality. x x x a departure from the said
mandatory rule — by preventing the lawful
occupant or a member of his family from
actually witnessing the search and choosing
two (2) other witnesses observe the search
— violates the spirit and letter of the law, and
thus, taints the search with the vice of
unreasonableness, rendering the seized
articles inadmissible due to the application of
the exclusionary rule. (Tabingo vs. People of
the Philippines, G.R. No. 241610, February 1,
2021)
3. EXCEPTIONS TO THE REQUIREMENT
OF WARRANT OR VALID
WARRANTLESS SEARCHES
a. Search incidental to a lawful arrest
An officer making an arrest may take from
the person arrested any money or property
found upon his person which was used in the
commission of the crime or was the fruit of
the crime or which might furnish the prisoner
with the means of committing violence or
escaping, or which may be used in evidence
in the trial of of case. (Manebali vs. People,
G.R. No. 233777, March 20, 2019)
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
The purpose of the exception is two-
fold:
(1) to protect the arresting office against
physical harm from the person being
arrested who might be armed with a
weapon; and
(2) to prevent the person arrested from
destroying evidence within his reach.
(Bernas, The 1987 Constitution: A
Commentary, p. 192, 2009)
The lawful arrest being the sole justification
for the validity of the warrantless search
under the exception, the same must be
limited to and circumscribed by the subject,
time and place of the arrest. As to subject,
the warrantless search is sanctioned only
with respect to the person of the suspect, and
things that may be seized from him are
limited to "dangerous weapons" or
''anything which may be used as proof
of the commission of the offense."
With respect to the time and place of the
warrantless search, it must be
contemporaneous with the lawful arrest.
Stated otherwise, to be valid, the search
must have been conducted at about the time
of the arrest or immediately thereafter and
only at the place where the suspect was
arrested, or the premises or
surroundings under his immediate
control. (People of the Philippines vs. Che
Chun Ting, G.R. Nos. 130568-69, March 21,
2000)
b. Plain View Doctrine
The subject of seizure must be within the
view of an officer (People of the Philippines
vs. Tabar, G.R. No. 101124, May 17, 1993)
and the discovery of which must be
“inadvertent. (People of the Philippines vs.
Musa, G.R. No. 96177, 1993)
152
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
Requisites:
1. Prior valid intrusion based on valid
warrantless arrest in which the police
are legally present in the pursuit of
their official duties;
2. Evidence was inadvertently
discovered by the police who had the
right to be where they are;
3. Evidence must be immediately
apparent;
4. “Plain view” justified mere seizure of
evidence without further search
(People vs. Aruta, G.R. No. 120915,
April 3, 1998)
🕮 When in pursuing an illegal action or
in the commission of a criminal
offense, the . . . police officers should
happen to discover a criminal offense
being committed by any person, they
are not precluded from performing
their duties as police officers for the
apprehension of the guilty person
and the taking of the, corpus delicti.
Objects whose possession are
prohibited by law inadvertently found
in plain view are subject to seizure
even without a warrant. (Padilla vs.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 121917
March 12, 1997)
c. Search of a moving vehicle
The guaranty of freedom from unreasonable
searches and seizures is construed as
recognizing a necessary difference between
a search of a dwelling house or other
structure in respect of which a search
warrant may readily be obtained and a search
of a ship, motorboat, wagon, or automobile
for contraband goods, where it is not
practicable to secure a warrant, because the
vehicle can be quickly moved out of the
locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant
must be sought. (Papa vs. Mago, No. L-
27360, February 28, 1968)
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
In this particular type of search, the
vehicle is the target and not a specific
person.
As explained in Comprado, "to extend to such
breadth the scope of searches on moving
vehicles would open the floodgates to
unbridled warrantless searches which can be
conducted by the mere expedient of waiting
for the target person to ride a motor vehicle,
setting up a checkpoint along the route of
that vehicle, and then stopping such vehicle
when it arrives at the checkpoint in order to
search the target person." (Id.)
CHECKPOINTS - A variant of searching
moving vehicles without a warrant may entail
the setup of military or police checkpoints
which, based on jurisprudence, are not
illegal per se for as long as its necessity
is justified by the exigencies of public
order and conducted in a way least
intrusive to motorists. (People vs.
Espiridion, G.R. No. 239480, September 28,
2022)
Case law further states that routine
inspections in checkpoints are not regarded
as violative of an individual's right against
unreasonable searches, and thus,
permissible, if limited to the following:
(a) where the officer merely draws aside
the curtain of a vacant vehicle which
is parked on the public fair grounds;
(b) simply looks into a vehicle;
(c) flashes a light therein without
opening the car's doors;
(d) where the occupants are not
subjected to a physical or body
search;
(e) where the inspection of the Vehicles
is limited to a visual search or visual
inspection; and
(f) where the routine check is conducted
in a fixed area.
153
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
It is well to clarify, however, that routine
inspections do not give police officers carte
blanche discretion to conduct warrantless
searches in the absence of probable cause.
When a vehicle is stopped and subjected to
an extensive search—as opposed to a mere
routine inspection—such a warrantless
search has been held to be valid only as long
as the officers conducting the search have
reasonable or probable cause to believe
before the search that they will find the
instrumentality or evidence pertaining to a
crime, in the vehicle to be searched. (People
of the Philippines vs. Manago, G.R. No.
212340. August 17, 2016)
d. Consented warrantless search
Consent or waiver to warrantless search may
be made either expressly or impliedly (People
vs. Kagui, G.R. No. L-44335, July 30, 1936)
and can be shown by failure to make any
objection or even mutter a bit of protest. (De
Garcia vs. Locsin, G.R. No. L-45950, June 20,
1938)
The consent must be voluntary in order to
validate an otherwise illegal detention and
search, i.e., the consent is unequivocal,
specific, and intelligently given,
uncontaminated by any duress or
coercion.
Hence, consent to a search is not to be lightly
inferred, but must be shown by clear and
convincing evidence. The question whether a
consent to a search was in fact voluntary is a
question of fact to be determined from the
totality of all the circumstances. (Valdez vs.
People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 170180,
November 23, 2007)
Characteristics of the person giving consent
and the environment in which consent is
given which must be considered by the
courts:
(1) the age of the defendant;
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
(2) whether he was in a public or
secluded location;
(3) whether he objected to the search or
passively looked on;
(4) the education and intelligence of the
defendant;
(5) the presence of coercive police
procedures;
(6) the defendant's belief that no
incriminating evidence will be found;
(7) the nature of the police questioning;
(8) the environment in which the
questioning took place; and
(9) the possibly vulnerable subjective
state of the person consenting.
(People vs. Garcia, G.R. No. 170233
February 22, 2007)
It is the State which has the burden of
proving, by clear and positive testimony, that
the necessary consent was obtained and that
it was freely and voluntarily given. (Ong vs.
People, G.R. No. 197788 February
29, 2012)
Requisites of a valid waiver
In case of consented searches or waiver of
the constitutional guarantee against
obtrusive searches, it is fundamental that to
constitute a waiver, it must first appear that:
(1) the right exists;
(2) that the person involved had
knowledge, either actual or
constructive, of the existence of such
right; and
(3) the said person had an actual
intention to relinquish the right.
The implied acquiescence to the search, if
there was any, could not have been more
than mere passive conformity given under
intimidating or coercive circumstances and is
thus considered no consent at all within the
purview of the constitutional guarantee.
(People of the Philippines vs. Cogaed, G.R.
No. 200334, July 30, 2014)
154
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
e. Enforcement of Customs,
Immigration and Fishing laws
Customs or border officers may search
incoming persons and goods to look for either
goods concealed to avoid duties or other
illegal materials. (Papa vs. Mago, G.R. No. L-
27360, February 28, 1968)
Search and seizure without search warrant of
vessels and aircrafts for violations of customs
laws have been the traditional exception to
the constitutional requirement of a search
warrant. It is rooted on the recognition that
a vessel and an aircraft, like motor vehicles,
can be quickly moved out of the locality or
jurisdiction in which the search warrant must
be sought and secured. Yielding to this
reality, judicial authorities have not required
a search warrant of vessels and aircrafts
before their search and seizure can be
constitutionally effected.
The same exception ought to apply to
seizures of fishing vessels and boats
breaching our fishery laws. These vessels are
normally powered by high-speed motors that
enable them to elude arresting ships of the
Philippine Navy, the Coast Guard and other
government authorities enforcing our fishery
laws. (Hizon vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
119619, December 13, 1996)
While no search warrant had been obtained
for that purpose, when appellant checked in
his bag as his personal luggage as a
passenger of KLM Flight No. 806 he thereby
agreed to the inspection thereof in
accordance with customs rules and
regulations, an international practice of strict
observance, and waived any objection to a
warrantless search. His subsequent arrest,
although likewise without a warrant, was
justified since it was effected upon the
discovery and recovery of the heroin in his
bag, or in flagrante delicto. (People of the
Philippines vs. Gatward, G.R. Nos. 119772-
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
73, February 7, 1997)
f. Stop and Frisk
This rule was taken from the US Supreme
Court decision of Terry vs. Ohio and
adopted in Posadas vs. CA.
"A police officer may in appropriate
circumstances and in an appropriate manner
approach a person for the purpose of
investigating possible criminal behavior even
though there is no probable cause to make
an arrest." In such a situation, it is
reasonable for an officer rather than simply
to shrug his shoulder and allow a crime to
occur, to stop a suspicious individual briefly
in order to determine his identity or maintain
the status quo while obtaining more
information.” (Posadas vs. CA, G.R. No.
89139, August 2, 1990)
The ”Stop-and-Frisk” Rule serves a
two-fold interest:
(1) the general interest of effective crime
prevention and detection; and
(2) the more pressing interest of safety
and self-preservation which permit
the police officer to take steps to
assure himself that the person with
whom he deals is not armed with a
deadly weapon that could
unexpectedly and fatally be used
against the police officer. (Bernas,
The 1987 Constitution: A
Commentary, p. 202, 2009)
While probable cause is not required to
conduct a "stop and frisk," it nevertheless
holds that mere suspicion or a hunch will
not validate a "stop and frisk.” A genuine
reason must exist, in light of the police
officer's experience and surrounding
conditions, to warrant the belief that the
person detained has weapons concealed
about him. (Telen vs. People of the
Philippines, G.R. No. 228107, October 09,
155
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
2019)
A stop and frisk search is allowed only
under specific and limited
circumstances:
(1) it should be allowed only on the basis
of the police officer's reasonable
suspicion, in light of his or her
experience, that criminal activity
may be afoot and that the persons
with whom he/she is dealing may be
armed and presently dangerous;
(2) the search must only be a carefully
limited search of the outer clothing;
and
(3) it must be conducted for the purpose
of discovering weapons which might
be used to assault him/her or other
persons in the area. (Clemente vs.
People of the Philippines, G.R. No.
243159, February 13, 2023)
g. Emergency Circumstances
The acts of the NARCOM officers in requiring
the accused to open his pouch bag and in
opening one of the wrapped objects found
inside said bag (which was discovered to
contain hashish) as well as the two teddy
bears with hashish stuffed inside them, were
prompted by accused's own attempt to hide
his identity by refusing to present his
passport, and by the information received by
the NARCOM that a Caucasian coming from
Sagada had prohibited drugs in his
possession. To deprive the NARCOM agents
of the ability and facility to act accordingly,
including, to search even without warrant, in
the light of such circumstances, would be to
sanction impotence and ineffectiveness in
law enforcement, to the detriment of society.
(People vs. De Gracia, G.R. No. 102009-10,
July 6, 1994)
4. WARRANTLESS ARRESTS AND
DETENTIONS (Rule 113, Sec. 5, Revised
Rules on Criminal Procedure)
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
a. In flagrante delicto
The validity of this warrantless arrest requires
compliance with the overt act test and “two
elements must concur:
(1) the person to be arrested must
execute an overt act indicating that
he [or she] has just committed, is
actually committing, or is attempting
to commit a crime; and
(2) such overt act is done in the presence
or within the view of the arresting
officer.” (Veridiano vs. People, G.R.
No. 200370, June 7, 2017)
In another case, in holding that the
warrantless search was invalid, this Court
observed that Racho was not “committing a
crime in the presence of the police officers”
at the time he was apprehended. Moreover,
Racho’s arrest was solely based on a tip.
Although there are cases stating that reliable
information is sufficient to justify a
warrantless search incidental to a lawful
arrest, they were covered under the other
exceptions to the rule on warrantless
searches. (Id.)
🕮 When a police officer sees the
offense, although at a distance, or
hears the disturbances created
thereby, and proceeds at once to the
scene thereof, he may effect an
arrest without a warrant. The offense
is deemed committed in the presence
of or within the view of the officer.
(People of the Philippines vs. Sucro,
G.R. No. 93239, March 18,1991)
BUY-BUST OPERATION – a form of
entrapment where an officer poses as a
buyer. He, however, neither instigates nor
induces the accused to commit a crime.
(People vs. Bohol, G.R. No. 171729, July 28,
2008)
156
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
🕮 Any objection involving a warrant of
arrest or procedure in the acquisition
by the court of jurisdiction over the
person of the accused: must be made
before he enters his plea, otherwise
the objection is deemed waived.
(Mahipus vs. People of the
Philippines, G.R. No. 210731,
February 13, 2019)
🕮 An accused is estopped from
assailing the illegality of his arrest if
he fails to move for the quashing of
the Information against him before
his arraignment. (People of the
Philippines vs. Torres, G.R. No.
241012, August 28, 2019)
Tests on Entrapment Case (People vs.
Cortez, G.R. No. 183819, July 23, 2009)
i. Objective test - the primary focus is
on the particular conduct of law
enforcement officials or their agents
and the accused’s predisposition
become irrelevant. Whether or not
the conduct of the police officer was
likely to induce a normally law-
abiding person, other than the one
who is ready and willing, to commit
the offense.
ii. Subjective test (Predisposition
Test) - The focus is on the intent or
predisposition of the accused to
commit a crime. It emphasizes the
accused’s propensity to commit the
offense rather than the officer’s
misconduct.
b. Hot Pursuit
When an offense has just been committed
and he has probable cause to believe, based
on his personal knowledge of facts or
circumstances, that the person to be arrested
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
has committed it. (Sec. 5[b], Rule 113,
Revised Rules of Court)
It connotes “immediacy in point of time.”
That a crime was in fact committed does not
automatically bring the case under this rule.
An arrest under this rule entails a time
element from the moment the crime is
committed up to the point of arrest. Law
enforcers need not personally witness the
commission of a crime. However, they must
have personal knowledge of facts and
circumstances indicating that the person
sought to be arrested committed it. (Sapi vs.
People, G.R. No. 200370, June 7, 2017)
c. Escaped Prisoner
Section 5(c), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules
on Criminal Procedure provides, “when the
person to be arrested is a prisoner who has
escaped from a penal establishment or place
where he is serving final judgment or is
temporarily confined while his case is
pending, or has escaped while being
transferred from one confinement to
another.”
Exceptions: (Continuing crimes)
1. Rebellion;
2. Subversion;
3. Conspiracy or proposal to commit
such crimes; and
4. Crimes or offenses committed in
furtherance thereof or in connection
therewith.
🕮 Rebellion is a continuing offense.
Accordingly, a rebel may be arrested
at any time, with or without a
warrant, as he is deemed to be in the
act of committing the offense at any
time of the day or night. (Umil vs.
Ramos, G.R. No. 81567 October 3,
1991)
157
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
d. Abscond Rule
An accused released on bail may be re-
arrested without the necessity of a warrant if
he attempts to depart from the Philippines
without permission of the court where the
case is pending. (Sec. 23[2], Rule 114, Rules
of Court)
EXCLUSIONARY RULE – THE FRUIT OF
THE POISONOUS TREE; Effects
The "fruit of the poisonous tree" principle,
which states that once the primary source
(the "tree") is shown to have been unlawfully
obtained, any secondary or derivative
evidence (the "fruit") derived from it is also
inadmissible. (Ejercito vs. Sandiganbayan,
G.R. Nos. 157294-95, November 30, 2006)
Evidence obtained from unreasonable
searches and seizures shall be inadmissible in
evidence for any purpose in any proceeding.
In other words, evidence obtained and
confiscated on the occasion of such
unreasonable searches and seizures are
deemed tainted and should be excluded for
being the proverbial fruit of a poisonous tree.
(People vs. Acosta, G.R. No. 238865, January
28, 2019)
This rule prohibits the issuance of general
warrants that encourage law enforcers to go
on fishing expeditions. (People of the
Philippines vs. Cogaed, G.R. No. 200334,
July 30, 2014)
🕮 It is also the burden of the
prosecution to show that the
evidence derived from confession is
not tainted as “fruit of the poisonous
tree”. The burden has to be
discharged by clear and convincing
evidence. (People of the Philippines
vs. Alicando, G.R. No. 117487,
December 12, 1995)
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Chain of Custody for Evidence
The chain of custody means the duly
recorded authorized movements and custody
of seized drugs or controlled chemicals from
the time of seizure, to receipt in the forensic
laboratory, to safekeeping, to presentation in
court.
An unbroken chain of custody is necessary in
order to establish before the court that the
prohibited drug confiscated or recovered
from the suspect is the very same substance
offered in court as exhibit; and that the
identity of said drug is established with the
same unwavering exactitude as that required
to make a finding of guilt. (Tañamor vs.
People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 228132,
March 11, 2020)
Section 21 of RA 9165 requires the
apprehending officers to immediately
conduct the marking, physical inventory and
photograph of the seized drugs. Moreover,
the physical inventory and taking of
photographs shall be conducted in the
presence of:
(a) the accused or the persons from
whom such items were confiscated
and/or seized, or his/her
representative or counsel;
(b) a representative from the media;
(c) a representative from the
Department of Justice (DOJ); and
(d) an elected public official, after seizure
and confiscation (Uy vs. People of the
Philippines, G.R. No. 217097,
February 23, 2022)
D. PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATION AND
CORRESPONDENCE; EXCLUSIONARY
RULE (1987 CONST., art. III, sec. 3; R.A.
No. 4200); Informational, Decisional,
Locational Privacy
(1) The privacy of communication and
correspondence shall be inviolable except
158
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
upon lawful order of the court, or when
public safety or order requires otherwise as
prescribed by law.
(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this
or the preceding section shall be
inadmissible for any purpose in any
proceeding. (Sec. 3, Art. III, 1987
Constitution)
PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND
CORRESPONDENCE
Communication: The expression or
exchange of information by speech, writing,
gestures, or conduct; it is the process of
bringing an idea to another’s perception
(Black’s Law Dictionary, 8th edition)
Correspondence: It is the interchange of
written communications. The letters written
by a person and the answers written by the
one to whom they are addressed. (Black’s
Law Dictionary, 2nd edition)
GENERAL RULE: Privacy of
communications and correspondences shall
be inviolable. (Sec. 3, Art. III, 1987
Constitution)
EXCEPTIONS:
(a) Lawful order of the court; or
(b) When public safety or order requires
otherwise as may be provided by
law. (Sec. 3, Art. III, 1987
Constitution)
Forms of Correspondence and
Communication Covered:
1. Letters
2. Messages
3. Telephone Calls
4. Telegrams
5. Other analogous to the foregoing
(Bernas, Reviewer, p. 59, 2011)
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
TESTS OF REASONABLE EXPECTATION
OF PRIVACY:
a. Whether by his conduct, an
individual has exhibited an
expectation of privacy;
b. Whether such expectation is one that
society recognizes as reasonable.
(Ople vs. Torres, G.R. No. 127685,
July 23, 1998)
Government employees have no expectation
of privacy in anything they create, store,
send or receive on the office computers, and
CSC may monitor the use of the computer
resources. (Pollo vs. Constantino-David, G.R.
No. 181881, October 18, 2011)
VALIDITY OF A REGULATION ON
OPENING MAIL/ CORRESPONDENCE
OF DETAINEE: It is valid. As long as the
letters are not confidential communication
between the detainee and his lawyer, the
detention officials may read them. But if the
letters are marked confidential
communication between detainee and
lawyer, the officer must not read them but
only inspect them in the presence of the
detainees. By the very fact of their detention,
they have diminished expectation of the
privacy rights (Alejano vs. Cabuay, G.R. No.
160792, 468 SCRA 188, August 25, 2005)
Three strands of the right to privacy
1. INFORMATIONAL PRIVACY
Informational privacy refers to one's right to
control "the processing—i.e., acquisition,
disclosure and use—of personal information.
It is further explained that it is to a certain
extent requires "limitation on inspection,
observation, and knowledge by others.".
Thus, it has the following aspects:
a. To keep inalienable information to
themselves - a person has the right
159
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
not to be exposed on the internet in
matters involving one's private life,
such as acts having no relation to
public interest or concern.
b. To prevent first disclosure - allowing
individuals to regulate the extent,
time, and manner of disclosure, if at
all, of their information.
c. To prevent further dissemination in
case the information has already
been disclosed - a person does not
lose protection since they have the
right to prevent their further
dissemination.
d. The right to be forgotten, or the right
to prevent the storage of data - also
known as "forced omission" or the
process of making the information
difficult to find on the internet
(Cabias vs. People, G.R. No. 247348,
November 16, 2021).
2. DECISIONAL PRIVACY
Decisional privacy is regarded as the most
controversial among the three, refers to one's
right "to make certain kinds of fundamental
choices with respect to their personal and
reproductive autonomy (Cabias vs. People,
G.R. No. 247348, November 16, 2021).
3. LOCATIONAL PRIVACY
Locational privacy, also known as situational
privacy, pertains to privacy that is felt in a
physical space. It may be violated through an
act of trespass or through an unlawful
search. (Cabias vs. People, G.R. No. 247348,
November 16, 2021).
Messages sent through Facebook
messenger are admissible in evidence
as they are not violation of one's right
to privacy
The photographs and conversations in the
Facebook Messenger account were obtained
and used as evidence against petitioner,
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
which the petitioner considers as fruit of the
poisonous tree, were not obtained through
the efforts of the police officers or any agent
of the State. Rather, by a private individual.
Indeed, the rule governing the admissibility
of an evidence under Article III of the
Constitution must affect only those pieces of
evidence obtained by the State through its
agents. It is these individuals who can flex
government muscles and use government
resources for a possible abuse. However,
where private individuals are involved, for
which their relationship is governed by the
New Civil Code, the admissibility of an
evidence cannot be determined by the
provisions of the Bill of Rights (Cabias vs.
People, G.R. No. 247348, November 16,
2021)
The right to privacy of communication
is not diminished by reason of marriage
A person, by contracting marriage, does not
shed his/her integrity or his right to privacy
as an individual and the constitutional
protection is ever available to him or to her.
The law insures absolute freedom of
communication between the spouses by
making it privileged. Neither husband nor
wife may testify for or against the other
without the consent of the affected spouse
while the marriage subsists. Neither may be
examined without the consent of the other as
to any communication received in confidence
by one from the other during the marriage,
save for specified exceptions (Zulueta vs.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 107383, 20
February 1996).
ANTI-WIRE TAPPING LAW (Republic
Act No. 4200): Provides penalties for
specific violations of private communication.
It shall be unlawful for any person, not being
authorized by all the parties to any private
communication or spoken word, to tap any
wire or cable, or by using any other device or
160
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
arrangement, to secretly overhear, intercept,
or record such communication or spoken
word by using a device commonly known as
a dictaphone or dictagraph or detect a phone
or walkie-talkie or tape recorder, or however
otherwise described.
🕮 R.A. 4200 clearly and unequivocally
makes it illegal for any person, not
authorized by all the parties to any
private communication, to secretly
record such communications by
means of a tape recorder. The law
does not make any distinction.
(Ramirez vs. Court of Appeals, G.R.
No. 93833, September 28, 1995)
🕮 An extension telephone cannot be
placed in the same category as a
dictaphone, dictagraph or the other
devices enumerated in Sec. 1 of RA
No. 4200 as the use thereof cannot
be considered as “tapping” the wire
or cable of a telephone line. (Gaanan
vs. Intermediate Appellate Court,
G.R. No. L-68909, October 16, 1986)
Prohibited Acts under RA No. 4200
1. To tap any wire or cable, or by using
any other device or arrangement, to
secretly overhear, intercept, or
record such communication or
spoken word by using a device
commonly known as a dictaphone or
dictagraph or walkie-talkie or tape
recorder, or however otherwise
described by any person, not being
authorized by all parties to any
private communication or spoken
word;
2. To knowingly possess any tape
record, wire record, disc record, or
any other such record, or copies
thereof, of any communication or
spoken word secured either before or
after the effective date of this Act in
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
the manner prohibited by this law;
3. To replay the same for any other
person or persons;
4. To communicate the contents
thereof, either verbally or in writing;
or
5. To furnish transcriptions thereof,
whether complete or partial, to any
other person (Sec. 1, Republic Act
No. 4200)
Exceptions under RA No. 4200
A peace officer, who is authorized by a
written order of the Court, may execute any
of the acts declared to be unlawful in cases
involving the crimes of:
1. Treason;
2. Espionage;
3. Provoking war and disloyalty in case
of war;
4. Piracy and mutiny in the high seas;
5. Rebellion (including conspiracy and
proposal and inciting to commit);
6. Sedition (including conspiracy and
inciting to commit);
7. Kidnapping; and
8. Violations of CA 616 or Acts Punishing
Espionage and Other Offenses
Against National Security (Sec. 3,
Republic Act No. 4200)
Effect of violation
Communication shall not be admissible in
evidence in any judicial, quasi-judicial,
legislative or administrative hearing or
investigation (Sec. 4, Republic Act No. 4200)
PRIVATE AND PUBLIC
COMMUNICATIONS
In Navarro vs. Court of Appeals (G.R. No.
121087, August 26, 1999), the Court said
that what the law prohibits under the Anti-
Wiretapping Law is the overhearing,
intercepting, or recording of private
communications. Thus, a tape recording of
an altercation or verbal exchange between a
161
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
policeman and a radio reporter at a police
station is admissible in evidence. In Ramirez
vs. Court of Appeals, the Court held that the
phrase “private communication in Section 1
of R.A. 4200, or the Anti-Wiretapping Law, is
deemed to include “private conversations.”
(Gorospe, Constitutional Law Volume 1,
2006)
🕮 The right may be invoked against the
wife who went to the clinic of her
husband and took documents
consisting of private communication as
between her husband and her alleged
paramour. (Zulueta vs. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 107383 February 20,
1996)
🕮 An individual’s right to privacy under
Article 26 (1) of the Civil Code should
not be confined to his house or
residence as it may extend to places
where he has the right to exclude the
public or deny them access. The phrase
“prying into the privacy of another ‘s
residence,” therefore, covers places,
locations, or even situations which an
individual considers as private,
including a business office. Simply put,
a person has a "reasonable expectation
of privacy" in his property, whether he
uses it as a business office or as a
residence and that the installation of
video surveillance cameras directly
facing his property or covering a
significant portion thereof, without his
consent, is a clear violation of their
right to privacy. (Spouses Hing vs.
Choachuy SR., G.R. No. 179736, June
26, 2013)
🕮 Before one can have an expectation of
privacy in his or her Online Social
Network activity, it is first necessary
that said user, in this case the children
of petitioners, manifest the intention to
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
keep certain posts private, through the
employment of measures to prevent
access thereto or to limit its visibility.
And this intention can materialize in
cyberspace through the utilization of
the OSN’s privacy tools.
In other words, utilization of these
privacy tools is the manifestation, in
cyber world, of the user's invocation
of his or her right to informational
privacy. Considering that the default
setting for Facebook posts is “Public,”
it can be surmised that the
photographs in question were
viewable to everyone on Facebook,
absent any proof that petitioners’
children positively limited the
disclosure of the photograph. If such
were the case, they cannot invoke
the protection attached to the right to
informational privacy. (Vivares vs. St.
Theresa’s College, G.R. No. 202666,
September 29, 2014)
Private Communication vs. Private
Conversations
The word “communicate” comes from the
Latin word communicatus, meaning “to share
or to impart.” In its ordinary signification,
communication connotes the act of sharing
or imparting as in conversation, or signifies
the “process by which meanings or thoughts
are shared between individuals through a
common system of symbols (as language
signs or gestures)” hence, definitions are
broad enough to include verbal or non-
verbal, written or expressive communications
of “meanings or thoughts” which are likely to
include the emotionally-charged exchange,
on February 22, 1988, between petitioner
and private respondent, in the privacy of the
latter’s office. Any doubts about the
legislative body’s meaning of the phrase
“private communication” are, furthermore,
162
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
put to rest by the fact that the terms
“conversation” and “communication” were
interchangeably used by Senator Tañada in
his Explanatory Note.
It has been said that innocent people have
nothing to fear from their conversations
being overheard. But this statement ignores
the usual nature of conversations as well the
undeniable fact that most, if not all, civilized
people have some aspects of their lives they
do not wish to expose. Free conversations
are often characterized by exaggerations,
obscenity, agreeable falsehoods, and the
expression of anti-social desires of views not
intended to be taken seriously. The right to
the privacy of communication, among others,
has expressly been assured by our
Constitution. Needless to state here, the
framers of our Constitution must have
recognized the nature of conversations
between individuals and the significance of
man’s spiritual nature, of his feelings and of
his intellect. They must have known that part
of the pleasures and satisfactions of life are
to be found in the unaudited and free
exchange of communication between
individuals – free from every unjustifiable
intrusion by whatever means.” (Ramirez vs.
CA, G.R. No. 93833 September 28, 1995) .
WHEN INTRUSION IS ALLOWED
a. By lawful order of the court; or
b. When public safety or public order
requires otherwise, as may be
provided by law (Sec. 3, Art. III, 1987
Constitution)
The right of privacy or “the right to be let
alone,” like the right of free expression, is not
an absolute right. A limited intrusion into
a person’s privacy has long been
regarded as permissible where that
person is a public figure and the
information sought to be elicited from him or
to be published about him constitute of a
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
public character. Succinctly put, the right of
privacy cannot be invoked to resist
publication and dissemination of
matters of public interest. The interest
sought to be protected by the right of privacy
is the right to be free from unwarranted
publicity, from the wrongful publicizing of the
private affairs and activities of an individual
which are outside the realm of legitimate
public concern. (Ayer vs. Capulong, G.R. No.
82380, April 29, 1988)
EXCLUSIONARY RULE
a. Any evidence obtained in violation of
Article III, Section 3 (right to privacy of
communications and correspondence)
or Section 2 (right against unlawful
search and seizures) shall be
inadmissible for any purpose in any
proceeding. This applies not only to
testimonial evidence but also to documentary
and object evidence. (Cabias vs. People, G.R.
No. 247348, November 16, 2021)
b. Fruits of the poisonous tree doctrine
– according to this rule, once the primary
source (“the tree”) is shown to have been
unlawfully obtained, any secondary or
derivative evidence (“the fruit”) derived from
it is also inadmissible. The rule is based on
the principle that evidence illegally obtained
by the State should not be used to gain other
evidence, because the original illegally
obtained evidence taints all evidence
subsequently obtained. (People vs. Alecarte,
G.R. No. 218805, November 7, 2018)
🕮 The exclusionary rule presupposes a
violation of law on the part of the
agents of the Government, and bars
the admission of evidence obtained in
violation of it. The subjects of the
present inquiry were the messages
sent by her to Judge San Gaspar-
Gito. Regardless of the mode of their
163
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
transmission, the ownership of the
messages pertained to the latter as
the recipient. Considering that it was
the latter who granted access to such
messages, there was no violation of
Judge Yu’s right to privacy. (Office of
the Court Administrator vs. Yu, 809
SCRA 399, A.M. No. MTJ-12-1813,
A.M. No. 12-1-09-METC, A.M. No.
MTJ-13-1836, A.M. No. MTJ-12-1815,
OCA I.P.I. No. 11-2398-MTJ, OCA
I.P.I. No. 11-2399-MTJ, OCA I.P.I.
No. 11- 2378-MTJ, OCA I.P.I. No. 12-
2456-MTJ November 22, 2016)
Waiver of Exclusionary Rule
Failure of the accused to seasonably
object to the offered evidence, the
uncounseled confession may be admitted in
evidence (People vs. Tomas, G.R. No.
205412, September 9, 2015)
E. FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND
EXPRESSION (1987 CONST., art. III,
secs. 4 and 18(1))
FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND
EXPRESSION
No law shall be passed abridging the freedom
of speech, of expression, or of the press, or
the right of the people peaceably to assemble
and petition the government for redress of
grievances. (Sec. 4, Art. III, 1987
Constitution)
No person shall be detained solely by reason
of his political beliefs and aspirations. (Sec.
18(1), Art. III, 1987 Constitution)
Importance of Freedom of Speech and
Expression
Freedom of expression has gained
recognition as a fundamental principle of
every democratic government, and given a
preferred right that stands on a higher level
than substantive economic freedom or other
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
liberties.
In the Philippines, the primacy and high
esteem accorded freedom of expression is a
fundamental postulate of our constitutional
system. (Chavez vs. Gonzales, G.R. No.
168338, February 15, 2008)
Scope
1. Freedom of Speech
2. Freedom of the Press
3. Right to Assembly and to Petition the
Government for Redress of
Grievances
4. Right to form Associations or
Societies not contrary to law
5. Freedom of Religion
6. Right to Access to Information on
Matters of Public Concern (Sec. 4,
Art. III, 1987 Constitution)
The constitutional protection assures the
broadest possible exercise of free speech and
free press for religious, political, economic,
scientific, news, or informational ends,
inasmuch as the Constitution's basic
guarantee of freedom to advocate ideas is
not confined to the expression of ideas that
are conventional or shared by a majority.
(Chavez vs. Gonzales, G.R. No. 168338,
February 15, 2008)
The constitutional protection is not limited to
the exposition of ideas. The protection
afforded free speech extends to speech or
publications that are entertaining as well as
instructive or informative. (Chavez vs.
Gonzales, G.R. No. 168338, February 15,
2008)
Specifically, in Eastern Broadcasting
Corporation (DYRE) v. Dans, this Court stated
that all forms of media, whether print or
broadcast, are entitled to the broad
protection of the clause on freedom of
speech and of expression.
164
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
While all forms of communication are entitled
to the broad protection of freedom of
expression clause, the freedom of film,
television and radio broadcasting is
somewhat lesser in scope than the freedom
accorded to newspapers and other print
media, as will be subsequently discussed.
(Chavez vs. Gonzales, G.R. No. 168338,
February 15, 2008)
Limitations and Restraints
Freedom of expression is not an
absolute, nor is it an "unbridled license that
gives immunity for every possible use of
language and prevents the punishment of
those who abuse this freedom."
Thus, all speech are not treated the
same. Some types of speech may be
subjected to some regulation by the State
under its pervasive police power, in order
that it may not be injurious to the equal right
of others or those of the community or
society. (Chavez vs. Gonzalez, et al., G.R. No.
168338, February 15, 2008)
1. Prior Restraint and Subsequent
Punishment
a. Prior restraint
“Prior restraint” refers to official
governmental restrictions on the press or
other forms of expression in advance of
actual publication or dissemination. (Chavez
vs. Gonzalez, et al., G.R. No. 168338,
February 15, 2008)
🕮 Freedom from prior restraint is
largely freedom from government
censorship of publications, whatever
the form of censorship, and
regardless of whether it is wielded by
the executive, legislative or judicial
branch of the government. (Id.)
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
🕮 Thus, it precludes governmental acts
that required:
(i) approval of a proposal to publish;
(ii) licensing or permits as
prerequisites to publication including
the payment of license taxes for the
privilege to publish;
(iii) and even injunctions against
publication. (Id.)
🕮 Even the closure of the business and
printing offices of certain
newspapers, resulting in the
discontinuation of their printing and
publication, are deemed as previous
restraint or censorship. (Id.)
Any law or official that requires some form
of permission to be had before publication
can be made, commits an infringement of
the constitutional right, and remedy can be
had at the courts.
Generally, thus, prior restraint is understood
to be any form of governmental restriction
on, or interference to any form of expression
in advance of actual expression, or exercise
of the right. (Tordesillas vs. Puno, G.R. No.
210088. October 01, 2018)
Because of the preferred status of the
constitutional rights of speech, expression,
and the press, such a measure is vitiated by
a weighty presumption of invalidity.
Indeed, ‘any system of prior restraints of
expression comes to this Court bearing a
heavy presumption against its constitutional
validity. . . The Government thus carries a
heavy burden of showing justification for the
enforcement of such restraint.’ There is thus
a reversal of the normal presumption of
validity that inheres in every legislation.
(Social Weather Stations, Inc. vs. COMELEC,
G.R. No. 147571, May 5, 2001)
165
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
Burden of proof
Any form of prior restraint bears a
presumption against its constitutional
validity.
The burden is on the censor to justify any
imposition of prior restraint, not on the
censored to put up a defense against it.
In the case of print media, it has been held
that just because press freedom may
sometimes be abused does not mean that the
press does not deserve immunity from prior
restraint. The settled rule is that any such
abuse may be remedied by subsequent
punishment. (Dissenting Opinion of Carpio, J
in Soriano vs. Laguardia, G.R. No. 164785,
March 15, 2010, citing Social Weather
Stations, Inc. v. Commission on Elections,
409 Phil. 571 (2001); Iglesiani Cristo v. Court
of Appeals, G.R. No. 119673, 26 July 1996,
259 SCRA 529 citing Near v. Minnesota, 283
U.S. 697, 1931)
b. Subsequent Punishment
Freedom of speech includes freedom after
the speech. Nevertheless, freedom of
expression is not absolute. It is subject to
police power and may be properly regulated
in the interest of the public. (Cruz,
Constitutional Law, 2015, p.543)
Subsequent punishment is the act of
punishing the purveyor of illegal speech after
it is published.
If a certain expression is subject to prior
restraint, its utterance or publication in
violation of the lawful restraint naturally
subjects the person responsible to
subsequent punishment.
GENERAL RULE: Expression cannot be
subject to subsequent punishment.
EXCEPTIONS: The exceptions start with
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
the four types of expression that may be
subject to prior restraint. Thus, the following
are all punishable under the law:
(1) Acts of pornography,
(2) False or misleading advertisement,
(3) Advocacy of imminent lawless
action, and
(4) Endangering national security.
The two other exceptions are:
(5) Defamation, which includes libel and
slander, and
(6) Tortious speech.
Defamatory and tortious speech, per se, are
not subject to prior restraint because by
definition they do not constitute a clear and
present danger to the State that is grave and
imminent.
Once defamatory or tortuous speech rises to
the level of advocacy of imminent lawless
action, then it may be subject to prior
restraint because it is seditious but not
because it is defamatory or tortious.
Defamation and tortious conduct, however,
may be subject to subsequent punishment,
civilly or criminally.
Fighting words are not subject to
subsequent punishment unless they are
defamatory or tortious. (Soriano vs.
Laguardia, G.R. No. 164785, April 29, 2009)
2. Content-Based and Content-
Neutral Regulations
(Chavez vs. Gonzalez, et al., G.R. No.
166
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
168338, February 15, 2008)
Overview
The nature of the restraint on protected
speech is whether it is (1) content-based or
otherwise, (2) content-neutral.
As explained in Chavez, a content-based
regulation is evaluated using the clear and
present danger rule, while courts will subject
content-neutral restraints to intermediate
scrutiny. (Nicolas-Lewis vs. Commission on
Elections, G.R. No. 223705. August 14,
2019.)
a. Content-Based Regulations
The restriction is based on the subject
matter of the utterance or speech. (Chavez
vs. Gonzalez, et al., G.R. No. 168338,
February 15, 2008)
Test of validity
The government must also show the type of
harm the speech sought to be restrained
would bring about- especially the gravity and
the imminence of the threatened harm -
otherwise the prior restraint will be invalid.
Prior restraint on speech based on its
content cannot be justified by hypothetical
fears, "but only by showing a substantive
and imminent evil that has taken the life of
a reality already on ground." (Nicolas-Lewis
vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 223705, August 14,
2019)
b. Content-Neutral Regulations
It is merely concerned with the incidents of
the speech, or one that merely controls the
time, place or manner, and under well
defined standards. (1-UTAK vs. COMELEC,
G.R. No. 206020, April 14, 2015)
Test of validity
A content-neutral government regulation is
sufficiently justified:
(1) if it is within the constitutional power
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
of the Government;
(2) if it furthers an important or
substantial governmental interest;
(3) if the governmental interest is
unrelated to the suppression of free
expression; and
(4) if the incident restriction on alleged
(freedom of speech & expression] is
no greater than is essential to the
furtherance of that interest. (Diocese
of Bacolod vs. COMELEC, G.R. No.
205728, January 21, 2015)
3. Facial Challenges and
Overbreadth Doctrine
FACIAL CHALLENGE
It is a mode of challenging the
constitutionality of a statute, not a
ground. A facial challenge is allowed to be
made to a vague statute and to one which is
overbroad because of possible "chilling
effect" upon protected speech. (Romualdez
vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 152259, July
29, 2004)
Chilling effect:
There is chilling effect when the right to
freedom of expression is suppressed by fear
of punishment. By all means, violations of
law should be vigorously prosecuted by the
State for they breed their own evil
consequence. But to repeat, the need to
prevent their violation cannot per se trump
the exercise of free speech and free press, a
preferred right whose breach can lead to
greater evils. (Chavez v. Gonzales, G.R. No.
168338, February 15, 2008)
GENERAL RULE: Facial invalidation of
laws is generally disfavored as it results
in entirely striking down the challenged law
or statute on the ground that they may be
applied to parties not before the Court
whose activities are constitutionally
protected. It disregards the case and
167
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
controversy requirement of the Constitution
in judicial review, and permits decisions to
be made without concrete factual settings
and in sterile abstract contexts, deviating,
thus, from the traditional rules governing
constitutional adjudication.
Hence, an on-its-face invalidation of the law
has consistently been considered as a
"manifestly strong medicine" to be used
"sparingly and only as a last resort."
(Nicolas-Lewis vs. COMELEC, G.R. No.
223705, August 14, 2019)
EXCEPTION: The allowance of a review of a
law or statute on its face in free speech cases
is justified, however, by the aim to avert
the "chilling effect" on protected
speech, the exercise of which should
not at all times be abridged.
🕮 The theory is that "[w]hen statutes
regulate or proscribe speech and no
readily apparent construction
suggests itself as a vehicle for
rehabilitating the statutes in a single
prosecution, the transcendent
value to all society of
constitutionally protected
expression is deemed to justify
allowing attacks on overly broad
statutes with no requirement
that the person making the
attack demonstrate that his own
conduct could not be regulated
by a statute drawn with narrow
specificity." (Nicolas-Lewis vs.
COMELEC, G.R. No. 223705. August
14, 2019; Southern Hemisphere
Engagement Network, Inc. vs. Anti-
Terrorism Council, G.R. No. 178552,
October 5, 2010)
OVERBREADTH DOCTRINE
Foremost, a facial review of a law or statute
encroaching upon the freedom of speech on
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
the ground of overbreadth or vagueness is
acceptable in our jurisdiction.
Under the overbreadth doctrine, a proper
governmental purpose,
constitutionally subject to state
regulation, may not be achieved by
means that unnecessarily sweep its
subject broadly, thereby invading the
area of protected freedoms.
Put differently, an overbroad law or statute
needlessly restricts even constitutionally-
protected rights. On the other hand, a law or
statute suffers from vagueness when it lacks
comprehensible standards that men of
common intelligence must necessarily guess
at its meaning and differ as to its application.
(Id.)
Limitations:
a. The only time a facial challenge to a
statute is allowed is when it operates
in the area of freedom of expression.
b. It is not allowed in penal statutes; if
allowed, the State may well be
prevented from enacting laws
against socially harmful conduct.
(Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R.
No. 148560, November 19, 2001)
4. Tests for Valid Government
Interference
Generally, restraints on freedom of speech
and expression are evaluated by either or a
combination of three tests:
a. Clear and Present Danger Rule
This clear and present danger rule requires
that the evil consequences of the comment
or utterance must be "extremely serious and
the degree of imminence extremely high"
before the utterance can be punished.
(Nicolas-Lewis vs. COMELEC, G.R. No.
223705, August 14, 2019)
168
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
The danger to be guarded against is the
"substantive evil" sought to be prevented.
Under this rule, the advocacy of ideas cannot
constitutionally be abridged unless there is a
clear and present danger that such advocacy
will harm the administration of justice.
(Cabansag vs. Fernandez, G.R. No. L-8974,
October 18, 1957)
Clear – causal connection with the danger
of the substantive evil arising from the
utterance questioned; and (Social Weather
Stations, Inc. vs. COMELEC, G.R. No.
147571, May 05, 2001)
Present – time element, identified with
imminent and immediate danger; the danger
must not only be probable, but very likely
inevitable (Gonzales v. COMELEC, No. L-
27833, April 18, 1969).
b. Dangerous Tendency Rule
The dangerous tendency rule permits
limitations on speech once a rational
connection has been established between
the speech restrained and the danger
contemplated (Chavez vs. Gonzalez, et al.,
G.R. No. 168338, February 15, 2008)
A person could be punished for words
uttered or for ideas expressed which create
a dangerous tendency, or which will cause
or bring about a substantive evil which the
State has a right to prevent (Suarez,
Constitutional Law Reviewer, 2011 ed., p.
249).
c. Balancing of Interests Rule
A principle which requires a Court to
consider the circumstances in each particular
case and thereafter, it shall settle the issue
of which right demands greater protection
(Cruz, Constitutional Law, 2007, p.220)
It is used as a standard when courts need to
balance conflicting social values and
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
individual interests, and requires a conscious
and detailed consideration of the interplay of
interests observable in a given situation.
(Chavez vs. Gonzalez, et al., G.R. No.
168338, February 15, 2008)
STATE REGULATION OF DIFFERENT
TYPES OF MEDIA
Movie Censorship
🕮 Motion pictures are important both
as a medium for communication of
ideas and the expression of the
artistic impulse. Their effect on the
perception by our people of issues
and public officials or public figures
as well as the prevailing cultural
traits is considerable. There is no
clear dividing line between what
involves knowledge and what affords
pleasure. (Gonzales vs. Kalaw-
Katigbak, GR No. L-69500, July 22,
1985)
🕮 The Court upholds the primary of
freedom of expression over Sen.
Enrile’s “right to privacy” because
Enrile is a “public figure”, and a
public figure’s right to privacy is
narrower than that of an ordinary
citizen. Besides, the movie “A
Dangerous Life” would not have
been historically faithful without
including the participation of Enrile in
the EDSA Revolution. (Ayer
Productions vs. Capulong and Enrile,
G.R. No. 92380 April 29, 1988)
Television
🕮 Where television is concerned, a less
liberal approach calls for
observance. This is so because
unlike motion pictures where the
patrons have to pay their way,
television reaches every home where
there is a set. Children then will likely
169
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
be among the avid viewers of the
programs there shown. It is hardly
the concern of the law to deal with
the sexual fantasies of the adult
population. It cannot be denied
though that the State as parens
patriae is called upon to manifest an
attitude of caring for the welfare of
the young. (Gonzales vs. Kalaw-
Katigbak, G.R. No. L 69500, July 22,
1985)
🕮 The only exceptions from the
MTRCB’s power of review are those
expressly mentioned in Section 7 of
P. D. No. 1986, such as (1) television
programs imprinted or exhibited by
the Philippine Government and/or its
departments and agencies, and (2)
newsreels. (MTRCB vs. ABS-CBN,
G.R. No. 155282, January 17, 2005)
Newspaper
🕮 When the use of irritating language
centers not on persuading the
readers but on creating disturbance,
the rationale of free speech cannot
apply and the speaker or writer is
removed from the protection of the
constitutional guaranty. (Espuelas
vs. People of the Philippines, G.R.
No. L-2990, December 17, 1951)
🕮 Writings which tend to overthrow or
undermine the security of the
government or to weaken the
confidence of the people in the
government are against public
peace, and are criminal not only
because they tend to incite to a
breach of the peace but because
they are conducive to the
destruction of the very government
itself. (Espuelas vs. People of the
Philippines, G.R. No. L-2990,
December 17, 1951)
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Radio Broadcast
🕮 The test for limitations on freedom
of expression continues to be the
clear and present danger rule – that
words are used in such
circumstances and are of such a
nature as to create a clear and
present danger that they will bring
about the substantive evils that the
lawmaker has a right to prevent.
(Chavez vs. Gonzalez, et al., G.R. No.
168338, February 15, 2008)
🕮 Broadcasting has to be licensed.
Airwave frequencies have to be
allocated among qualified users. A
broadcast corporation cannot simply
appropriate a certain frequency
without regard for government
regulation or for the rights of others.
All forms of communication are
entitled to the broad protection of
the freedom of expression clause.
Necessarily, however, the freedom
of television and radio broadcasting
is somewhat lesser in scope than the
freedom accorded to newspaper and
print media. (Id.)
🕮 The government has a right to be
protected against broadcasts, which
incite the listeners to violently
overthrow it, Radio, and television
may not be used to organize a
rebellion or to signal the start of
widespread uprising. (Eastern
Broadcasting Corp. vs. Dans, Jr.
et.al, G.R. No. L-50329, July 19,
1985)
COMMERCIAL SPEECH
Communication whose sole purpose is to
propose a commercial transaction.
Advertisement of goods or of services is an
example. (Diocese of Bacolod vs. COMELEC,
G.R. No. 205728, January 21, 2015)
170
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
Requirements for the protection of
commercial speech:
a. Speech must not be false or
misleading or proposing an illegal
activity;
b. The governmental interest sought to
be served by the regulation must be
substantial;
c. The regulation must directly advance
the governmental interest; and
d. The regulation must not be
overboard (Central Hudson Gas vs.
Public Service Commission, 447 U.S.
557, 1980)
5. Doctrine of Privileged
Communication
Requirement for publicity
Every defamatory imputation is presumed to
be malicious, even if it be true, if no good
intention and justifiable motive for making it
is shown, except in the following cases:
1. A private communication made by
any person to another in the
performance of any legal, moral or
social duty; and
2. A fair and true report, made in good
faith, without any comments or
remarks, of any judicial, legislative or
other official proceedings which are
not of confidential nature, or of any
statement, report or speech delivered
in said proceedings, or of any other
act performed by public officers in the
exercise of their functions. (Art. 354,
Revised Penal Code)
“Malice” — connotes ill will or spite and
speaks not in response to duty but merely to
injure the reputation of the person defamed,
and implies an intention to do ulterior and
unjustifiable harm. It is present when it is
shown that the author of the libelous
remarks made such remarks with knowledge
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
that it was false or with reckless disregard as
to the truth or falsity thereof. (Philippine
Daily Inquirer, Inc. vs. Enrile, G.R. No.
229440, July 14, 2021)
GENERAL RULE: Every defamatory
imputation is presumed to be malicious.
🕮 This is malice in law; a presumption
of law. It dispenses with the proof of
malice when words that raise the
presumption are shown to have been
uttered. It is also known as
constructive malice, legal malice, or
implied malice. (Yuchengco vs. The
Manila Chronicle Publishing
Corporation, G.R. No. 184315,
November 25, 2009)
EXCEPTION: The presumption of malice,
however, does not exist in the following
instances (QUALIFIED PRIVILEGED
COMMUNICATIONS):
1. A private communication made by
any person to another in the
performance of any legal, moral, or
social duty; and
2. A fair and true report, made in good
faith, without any comments or
remarks, of any judicial, legislative, or
other official proceedings which are
not of confidential nature, or of any
statement, report, or speech delivered
in said proceedings, or of any other
act performed by public officers in the
exercise of their functions. (Manila
Bulletin Publishing Corporation vs.
Domingo, G.R. No. 170341, July 5,
2017)
A privileged communication may be
either:
a. Absolutely privileged
communication
Absolutely privileged
communications are those which are
not actionable even if the author has
171
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
acted in bad faith. (Borjal vs. CA,
G.R. No. 126466 January 14, 1999)
e. g. Sec. 11, Art. VI, of the 1987
Constitution which exempts a
member of Congress from liability for
any speech or debate in the Congress
or in any Committee thereof.
b. Qualifiedly privileged
communication
Qualifiedly privileged
communications containing
defamatory imputations are not
actionable unless found to have been
made without good intention or
justifiable motive. (Nova
Communications Inc. vs. Canoy, G.R.
No. 193276, June 26, 2019)
🕮 The enumeration under Art. 354 is
not an exclusive list of qualifiedly
privileged communications since fair
commentaries on matters of public
interest are likewise privileged. Like
"fair commentaries on matters of
public interest," fair reports on
matters of public interest are also
included in the list of qualifiedly
privileged communications, and are
thus included under the protective
mantle of privileged communications.
(Id.)
🕮 The rule on privileged
communications had its genesis not
in the nation's penal code but in the
Bill of Rights of the Constitution
guaranteeing freedom of speech and
of the press. As early as 1918, in
United States v. Cañete, this Court
ruled that publications which are
privileged for reasons of public policy
are protected by the constitutional
guaranty of freedom of speech. This
constitutional right cannot be
abolished by the mere failure of the
legislature to give it express
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
recognition in the statute punishing
libels. (Borjal vs. CA, G.R. No. 126466
January 14, 1999)
🕮 It needs to be clarified, however, that
qualifiedly privileged communications
are merely exceptions to the general
rule requiring proof of actual malice
in order that a defamatory imputation
may be held actionable. (Philippine
Daily Inquirer, Inc. vs. Enrile, G.R.
No. 229440, July 14, 2021)
🕮 Thus, defamatory imputations
written or uttered during any of
the qualifiedly privileged
communications may still be
considered actionable if actual
malice—-or malice in fact—is
proven. Stated differently, being
considered as qualifiedly privileged
communication "merely prevents the
presumption of malice from attaching
in a defamatory imputation." (Id.)
Doctrine of Fair Comment
To reiterate, fair commentaries on matters
of public interest are privileged and
constitute a valid defense in an action
for libel or slander.
The doctrine of fair comment means that
while in general every discreditable
imputation publicly made is deemed false,
because every man is presumed innocent
until his guilt is judicially proved, and every
false imputation is deemed malicious,
nevertheless, when the discreditable
imputation is directed against a public
person in his public capacity, it is not
necessarily actionable. In order that such
discreditable imputation to a public official
may be actionable, it must either be a false
allegation of fact or a comment based on a
false supposition.
172
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW

If the comment is an expression of opinion, Religious freedom, however, as a

based on established facts, then it is
immaterial that the opinion happens to be
mistaken, as long as it might reasonably be
inferred from the facts. (Borjal vs. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 126466, January 14, 1999
In this case, the defamatory words imputed
to Atty. Canoy cannot be said to be fair
commentaries on matters of public interest.
To be sure, informing the public as to the
rebellion of Col. Noble is a matter of public
interest. However, calling Atty. Canoy as a
veritable mental asylum patient, a madman
and a lunatic is not in furtherance of the
public interest. The defamatory words are
irrelevant to the alleged participation of Atty.
Canoy in the rebellion staged by Col. Noble.
(Nova Communications, Inc., vs. Canoy,
G.R. No. 193276, June 26, 2019
F. FREEDOM OF RELIGION (1987
CONST., art. III, sec. 5)
constitutional mandate is not inhibition of
profound reverence for religion and is not
denial of its influence in human affairs.
Religion as a profession of faith to an active
power that binds and elevates man to his
Creator is recognized. And, in so far as it
instills into the minds the purest principles of
morality, its influence is deeply felt and
highly appreciated.
The government should not be precluded
from pursuing valid objectives secular in
character even if the incidental result would
be favorable to a religion or sect. It has
likewise been held that the statute, in order
to withstand the strictures of constitutional
prohibition, must have a secular legislative
purpose and a primary effect that neither
advances nor inhibits religion. (Aglipay vs.
Ruiz, G.R. No. L-45459 March 13,
1937)

FREEDOM OF RELIGION 1. Non-Establishment and Free

Exercise Clauses
Religious freedom, as a concept.
No law shall be made respecting an NON-ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE
establishment of religion or prohibiting the The non-establishment clause reinforces a
free exercise thereof. The free exercise and state policy enshrined in our Constitution
enjoyment of religious worship without with regard to the separation of the Church
discrimination or preference shall forever be and the state. (In Re: Letter Of Tony Q.
allowed. No religious test shall be required Valenciano, A.M. No. 10-4-19-SC, March 07,
for the exercise of civil and political rights. 2017)
(Sec. 5, Art.III, 1987 Constitution)
The rationale behind this separation was
Religious freedom is a fundamental right pronounced by J. Isagani Cruz:
which is entitled to the highest priority and
the amplest protection among human rights, "Strong fences make good
for it involves the relationship of man to his neighbors." The idea is to delineate
Creator. (Ebralinag vs. The Division the boundaries between the two
Superintendent of Schools of Cebu, G.R. No. institutions and, thus, avoid
95770, March 1, 1993, citing Chief Justice encroachments by one against the
Enrique M. Fernando's separate opinion in other because of a
German vs. Barangan, 135 SCRA 514, 530- misunderstanding of the limits of
531) their respective exclusive

AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION 173

 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
jurisdictions. The demarcation line
calls on the entities to "render
therefore unto Caesar the things that
are Caesar's and unto God the things
that are God's. (Peralta vs. Philippine
Postal Corporation, G.R. No.
223395, December 04, 2018)
FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE
Two-fold aspects of the free exercise
clause.
a. Freedom to believe: is absolute as
long as the belief is confined within
the realm of thought.
b. Freedom to act according to
one’s belief: is subject to
regulation where the belief is
translated into external acts that
affect the public welfare. (J. Cruz,
Constitutional Law, 1991 ed., pp.
176-177)
Freedom of religion means more than just
the freedom to believe. It also means the
freedom to act or not to act according to
what one believes. And this freedom is
violated when one is compelled to act
against one's belief or is prevented from
acting according to one's belief. (Imbong vs.
Ochoa, G.R. No. 204819, April 8, 2014)
The constitutional guarantee of free exercise
of religious freedom and worship carries with
it the right to disseminate religious
information, and any restraint of such right
can be justified only on the ground that
there is a clear and present danger of an evil
which the State has the right to prevent.
(Iglesia ni Cristo vs. Court of Appels, G.R.
No. 119673 July 26, 1996)
Benevolent Neutrality
The benevolent neutrality theory believes
that with respect to these governmental
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
actions, accommodation of religion may be
allowed, not to promote the government’s
favored form of religion, but to allow
individuals and groups to exercise their
religion without hindrance.
The purpose of accommodations is to
remove a burden on, or facilitate the
exercise of, a person’s or institution’s
religion.
As Justice Brennan explained, the
"government [may] take religion into
account…to exempt, when possible, from
generally applicable governmental
regulation individuals whose religious beliefs
and practices would otherwise thereby be
infringed, or to create without state
involvement an atmosphere in which
voluntary religious exercise may flourish."
In the ideal world, the legislature would
recognize the religions and their practices
and would consider them, when practical, in
enacting laws of general application. But
when the legislature fails to do so, religions
that are threatened and burdened may turn
to the courts for protection.
This doctrine believes that with respect to
governmental actions, accommodation of
religion may be allowed, not to promote the
government’s favored form of religion, but to
allow individuals and groups to exercise their
religion without hindrance. (Estrada vs.
Escritor, A.M. No. P-02-1651, June 22, 2006)
2. Tests to determine validity of
the government regulation /
interference
a. Compelling state interest test
The "compelling state interest" test is proper
where conduct is involved for the whole
gamut of human conduct has different
effects on the state's interests: some effects
174
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
may be immediate and short-term while
others delayed and far-reaching. A test that
would protect the interests of the state in
preventing a substantive evil, whether
immediate or delayed, is therefore
necessary.
However, not any interest of the state would
suffice to prevail over the right to religious
freedom as this is a fundamental right that
enjoys a preferred position in the hierarchy
of rights - "the most inalienable and sacred
of all human rights" (In Re: Letter of Tony
Valenciano, A.M. No. 10-4-19-SC, March 07,
2017)
We hold that a similar exemption may be
accorded to the Jehovah's Witnesses with
regard to the observance of the flag
ceremony out of respect for their religious
beliefs, however "bizarre" those beliefs may
seem to others. Nevertheless, their right not
to participate in the flag ceremony does not
give them a right to disrupt such patriotic
exercises. Paraphrasing the warning cited by
this Court in Non vs. Dames II, 185 SCRA
523, 535, while the highest regard must be
afforded their right to the free exercise of
their religion, "this should not be taken to
mean that school authorities are powerless
to discipline them" if they should commit
breaches of the peace by actions that offend
the sensibilities, both religious and patriotic,
of other persons. If they quietly stand at
attention during the flag ceremony
while their classmates and teachers
salute the flag, sing the national
anthem and recite the patriotic pledge,
we do not see how such conduct may
possibly disturb the peace, or pose "a
grave and present danger of a serious
evil to public safety, public morals,
public health or any other legitimate
public interest that the State has a
right (and duty) to prevent. (Ebralinag
vs. The Division Superintendent of Schools
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
of Cebu, G.R. No. 95770, March 1, 1993)
(German vs. Barangan, 135 SCRA 514, 517)
b. Clear and present danger test
Only the prevention of an immediate and
grave danger to the security and welfare of
the community can justify the infringement
of religious freedom.
If the government fails to show the
seriousness and immediacy of the threat,
State intrusion is constitutionally
unacceptable.
In a society with a democratic framework
like ours, the State must minimize its
interference with the affairs of its citizens
and instead allow them to exercise
reasonable freedom of personal and
religious activity. (Islamic Da'wah Council of
the Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 153888, July
9, 2003)
c. Lemon test.
The "Lemon test", which has been
extensively applied by the U. S. Supreme
Court in issues involving the determination
of non-establishment of religion clause
originated from the case of Lemon vs.
Kurtzman.
In that case, the Court used a three-pronged
test to adjudge whether the assailed
governmental act violated the First
Amendment, as follows:
1. The statute must have a secular
legislative purpose;
2. Its principal or primary effect must
be one that neither advances nor
inhibits religion; and,
3. The statute must not foster "an
excessive government entanglement
with religion. (Peralta vs. Philippine
Postal Corporation, G.R. No.
223395, December 04, 2018)
175
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
3. Separation of Church and State
🕮 Means that the State cannot set up
a Church; nor pass laws which aid
one religion, aid all religion, or prefer
one religion over another, nor force,
nor influence a person to go to or
remain away from Church against his
will or force him to profess a belief
or disbelief in any religion. (Everson
vs. Board of Education, 330 US 1
[1947])
🕮 The Roman Catholic Church can
neither impose its beliefs and
convictions on the State and the rest
of the citizenry nor can it demand
that the nation follow its beliefs,
even if it sincerely believes that they
are for the good of the country.
(Republic vs. Manalo, G.R. No.
221029, April 24, 2018)
🕮 Any legislation whose effect or
purpose is to impede the observance
of one or all religions, or to
discriminate invidiously between the
religions, is invalid, even though the
burden may be characterized as
being only indirect. But if the stage
regulates conduct by enacting,
within its power, a general law which
has for its purpose and effect to
advance the state's secular goals,
the statute is valid despite its indirect
burden on religious observance,
unless the state can accomplish its
purpose without imposing such
burden. (Victoriano vs. Elizalde Rope
Workers' Union, G.R. No. L-25246
September 12, 1974)
G. LIBERTY OF ABODE AND RIGHT TO
TRAVEL; LIMITATIONS (1987 CONST.,
art. III, sec. 6)
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
LIBERTY OF ABODE AND RIGHT TO
TRAVEL
The liberty of abode and of changing the
same within the limits prescribed by law shall
not be impaired except upon lawful order of
the court. Neither shall the right to travel be
impaired except in the interest of national
security, public safety or public health, as
may be provided by law. (Sec. 6, Art. III,
1987 Constitution)
Liberty of Abode and Travel Includes
the Rights to:
a. Choose one’s residence;
b. Leave it as he pleases; and
c. Travel wherever he wills
(Genuino vs. De Lima, G.R. No. 197930, April
17, 2018)
1. LIBERTY OF ABODE
Definition
Pertains to the right of a person to have his
home or to maintain or change his home,
dwelling, residence, or habitation in whatever
place he has chosen, within the limits
prescribed by law. (Sec. 6, Art. III, 1987
Constitution)
The executive of a municipality does not have
the right to force citizens of the Philippines to
change their domicile from one locality to
another. (Villavicencio vs. Lukban, G.R. No.
L- 14639, March 25, 1919).
Limitations
May be impaired only upon:
1. Upon lawful order of the court and;
2. Within the limits prescribed by law
such as public safety and security.
(Sec. 6, Art. III, 1987 Constitution)
Examples:
a. Relocation of persons in the
danger zone areas in case of
danger and emergency;
176
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
b. Person suffering from
insanity may be committed to
the National Mental hospital
for appropriate treatment.
This right, pursuant to the Constitution, may
only be impaired by lawful order of the court.
Unless there be important societal
considerations and interests that are
implicated by a person’s decision to stay
anywhere, he should be given complete
freedom of choice as to where he may want
to dwell and set up his abode. (Genuino vs.
De Lima, G.R. No. 197930, April 17, 2019)
2. RIGHT TO TRAVEL
Definition
Pertains to the right of a person to go where
he pleases without interference from anyone.
It does not mean the right to choose any
vehicle in traversing a toll way. The mode by
which one wishes to travel pertains to the
manner of using the tollway, a subject that
can be validly limited by regulation. There
was no absolute right to drive; on the
contrary, this privilege was heavily regulated.
(Mirasol vs. DPWH, G.R. No. 158793, June
08, 2006)
A person’s right to travel is subject to usual
constraints imposed by the very necessity of
safeguarding the system of justice. (Marcos
vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 115132-34,
August 09, 1995)
Limitations
May be impaired only upon:
1. Public safety
2. In the interest if national security
3. Public health (Sec. 6, Art. III, 1987
Constitution)
Liberty of Travel may be impaired even
without a lawful order of the court.
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
While liberty of travel may be impaired even
without Court order, executive officials or
administrative authorities are not armed with
arbitrary discretion to impose limitations.
Such limits may only be imposed on the basis
of “national security, public safety, or public
health” and “as may be provided by law,” a
limitive phrase which did not exist in the 1973
text. (Silverio v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
94284, April 08, 1991, citing Bernas)
Restraint on right to travel of accused on bail
is allowed to avoid the possibility of losing
jurisdiction if accused travels abroad.
(Manotoc vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-
62100, May 30, 1986)
Laws that impair on the right to travel:
🕮 The Human Security Act of 2010
or R.A. No. 9372: The law restricts
the right to travel of an individual
charged with the crime of terrorism
even though such person is out on
bail.
🕮 The Philippine Passport Act of
1996 or R.A. No. 8239: Pursuant
to said law, the Secretary of Foreign
Affairs or his authorized consular
officer may refuse the issuance of,
restrict the use of, or withdraw, a
passport of a Filipino citizen.
🕮 The Anti-Trafficking in Persons
Act of 2003 or R.A. No. 9208: The
Bureau of Immigration, in order to
manage migration and curb
trafficking in persons, issued
Memorandum Order No. 2011-011,
allowing its Travel Control and
Enforcement Unit to 'offload
passengers with fraudulent travel
documents, doubtful purpose of
travel, including possible victims of
human trafficking' from our ports.
177
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
🕮 The Migrant Workers and
Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995 or
R.A. No. 8042, as amended by
R.A. No. 10022: The Philippine
Overseas Employment Administration
(POEA) may refuse to issue
deployment permit[s] to a specific
country that effectively prevents our
migrant workers to enter such
country.
🕮 The Act on Violence Against
Women and Children or R.A. No.
9262: The law restricts movement of
an individual against whom the
protection order is intended.
🕮 Inter-Country Adoption Act of
1995 or R.A. No. 8043: The Inter-
Country Adoption Board may issue
rules restrictive of an adoptee's right
to travel 'to protect the Filipino child
from abuse, exploitation, trafficking
and/or sale or any other practice in
connection with adoption which is
harmful, detrimental, or prejudicial to
the child.’
WATCH-LIST AND HOLD DEPARTURE
ORDERS
Right to travel is not impaired by a hold
departure order. The basic reason for the rule
is that in as much as the jurisdiction of the
courts from which orders and processes were
issued does not extend beyond that of the
Philippines, they would have no binding force
outside of said jurisdiction. (People of the
Philippines vs. Uy Tuising, G.R. Nos. 42118-
42120, April 25, 1935)
WATCH-LIST ORDER – issued against
accused in criminal cases (irrespective of
nationality in Regional Trial Court or below)
any person with pending case in the
Department of Justice. (Genuino vs. De Lima,
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
G.R. No. 197930, April 17, 2018)
Precautionary Hold Departure Order
(PHDO) as per OCA CIRCULAR NO. 198-
2018
It is an order in writing issued by a court,
commanding the Bureau of Immigration to
prevent any attempt by a person suspected
of a crime to depart from the Philippines
which shall be issued ex-parte in cases
involving crimes where the minimum of the
penalty prescribed by law is at least six years
and one day, or when the offender is a
foreigner regardless of the imposable
penalty. (Sec. 1, Rule on Precautionary Hold
Departure Order)
Filed by: Prosecutor
Where to file
General Rule: A PHDO is filed with any RTC
within whose jurisdiction the alleged crime
was committed.
Exception: For compelling reasons, it can be
filed with ANY RTC within the judicial region
where the crime was committed if the place
of the commission of the crime is known.
Conditions for the issuance of a PHDO
1. Probable cause exists as determined by the
judge in whose court the application is filed,
and
2. There is a high probability that the
respondent will depart from the Philippines to
evade arrest and prosecution of crime
against him or her.
H. RIGHT TO INFORMATION;
LIMITATIONS (1987 CONST., art. II,
sec. 28; art. III, sec. 7; art.
XVI, sec. 10)
178
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
RIGHT TO INFORMATION
Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed
by law, the State adopts and implements a
policy of full public disclosure of all its
transactions involving public interest. (Sec.
28, Art. II, 1987 Constitution)
The right of the people to information on
matters of public concern shall be
recognized. Access to official records, and to
documents and papers pertaining to official
acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to
government research data used as basis for
policy development, shall be afforded the
citizen, subject to such limitations as may be
provided by law. (Sec. 7, Art. III, 1987
Constitution)
The State shall provide the policy
environment for the full development of
Filipino capability and the emergence of
communication structures suitable to the
needs and aspirations of the nation and the
balanced flow of information into, out of, and
across the country, in accordance with a
policy that respects the freedom of speech
and of the press. (Sec. 10, Art. XVI, 1987
Constitution)
Scope
Intended as a "splendid symmetry" to the
right to information under the Bill of Rights is
the policy of public disclosure under Section
28, Article II of the Constitution
. requirement will prevent the citizenry
The policy of full public disclosure enunciated
in above-quoted Section 28 complements the
right of access to information on matters of
public concern found in the Bill of Rights. The
right to information guarantees the right of
the people to demand information, while
Section 28 recognizes the duty of officialdom
to give information even if nobody demands.
The policy of public disclosure establishes a
concrete ethical principle for the conduct of
public affairs in a genuinely open democracy,
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
with the people's right to know as the
centerpiece. It is a mandate of the State to
be accountable by following such policy.
These provisions are vital to the exercise of
the freedom of expression and essential to
hold public officials at all times accountable
to the people. (Province of North Cotabato
vs. GRP Peace Panel, G.R. No. 18359,
October 14, 2008)
🕮 The right to information
"contemplates inclusion of
negotiations leading to the
consummation of the transaction."
Certainly, a consummated contract is
not a requirement for the exercise of
the right to information. Otherwise,
the people can never exercise the
right if no contract is consummated,
and if one is consummated, it may be
too late for the public to expose its
defects.
Requiring a consummated contract
will keep the public in the dark until
the contract, which may be grossly
disadvantageous to the government
or even illegal, becomes fait
accompli. This negates the State
policy of full transparency on matters
of public concern, a situation which
the framers of the Constitution could
not have intended. Such a
from participating in the public
discussion of any proposed contract,
effectively truncating a basic right
enshrined in the Bill of Rights. We can
allow neither an emasculation of a
constitutional right, nor a retreat by
the State of its avowed "policy of full
disclosure of all its transactions
involving public interest." (Province
of North Cotabato vs. GRP Peace
Panel, G.R. No. 18359, October 14,
179
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
2008)
🕮 While public officers in the custody or
control of public records have the
discretion to regulate the manner in
which records may be inspected,
examined or copied by interested
persons, such discretion does not
carry with it the authority to prohibit
access, inspection, examination, or
copying of the records. (Re: Request
For Copy Of 2008 Statement Of
Assets, Liabilities And Networth
[Saln] And Personal Data Sheet Or
Curriculum Vitae Of The Justices Of
The Supreme Court And Officers And
Employees Of The Judiciary, A.M. No.
09-8-6-SC, June 13, 2012)
Limitations
a. National security matters: Involves
government privilege against public
disclosure on military, diplomatic and other
national security matters. It covers inter-
government exchanges prior to the
conclusion of treaties and executive
agreement as may be reasonable safeguard
to national interest. (Akbayan v. Aquino,
G.R. No. 170516, July 16, 2008)
Trade or industrial secrets and other
banking transactions:
b. Trade or industrial secrets and other
banking transactions: Pursuant to
Intellectual Property Code and Secrecy of
Banks Deposit Act.
c. Criminal matters: Relating to
apprehension, the prosecution and
detention of criminals which the court may
not inquire prior to arrest, prosecution and
detention. (Balag vs. Senate, G.R. No.
234608, July 3, 2018)
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
d. Other confidential information:
🕮 Ethical Safety Act (R.A. 6713)
prohibits public officials or
employees from divulging classified
or confidential information officially
known to them by reason of their
office and not made available to the
public. (Chavez vs. PCGG, G.R. No.
130716 May 19, 1998)
I. RIGHT TO ASSOCIATION (1987
CONST., art. III, sec. 8; art. XIII, sec.
3; art. IX-B, sec.
2(5))
RIGHT TO ASSOCIATION
The right of the people, including those
employed in the public and private sectors, to
form unions, associations, or societies for
purposes not contrary to law shall not be
abridged. (Sec. 8, Article III, 1987
Constitution)
Scope
Article III, Section 8 not only guarantees the
freedom to associate; it also protects the
freedom not to associate. The provision is not
a basis to compel others to form or join an
association. (PROGUN vs. Philippine National
Police, G.R. No. 211567, October 15, 2019)
MEMBERSHIP IN THE INTEGRATED
BAR
An “Integrated Bar” is a State-organized Bar,
to which every lawyer must belong,as
distinguished from bar associations
organized by individual lawyers themselves,
membership in which is voluntary. (Letter of
Atty. Cecilio Y. Arevalo, Jr., B.M. No. 1370,
May 9, 2005)
Lawyers are, therefore, subject to all the
rules prescribed for the governance of the
Bar, including the requirement of payment of
a reasonable annual fee for the effective
180
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
discharge of the purposes of the Bar. Thus,
when the respondent Edillon entered upon
the legal profession, his practice of law and
his exercise of the said profession, which
affect the society at large, were (and are)
subject to the power of the body politic to
require him to conform to such regulations as
might be established by the proper
authorities for the common good, even to the
extent of interfering with some of his
liberties. (In re Atty. Marcial Edillon, AC-1928,
August 3, 1978)
VALIDITY OF UNION SHOP CLAUSES IN
A CBA
The rationale for upholding the validity of
union shop clauses in a CBA, even if they
impinge upon the individual employee’s right
or freedom of association, is not to protect
the union for the union‘s sake.
Laws and jurisprudence promote unionism
and afford certain protections to the certified
bargaining agent in a unionized company
because a strong and effective union
presumably benefits all employees in the
bargaining unit since such a union would be
in a better position to demand improved
benefits and conditions of work from the
employer. (BPI vs. BPI Union Employees –
Davao Chapter, G.R. No. 164301, August 10,
2010)
RIGHT TO STRIKE IN THE PUBLIC
SECTOR
The ability to strike is not essential to the
right of association. The right of the
sovereign to prohibit strike or work
stoppages by public employees was clearly
recognized at common law. (Bangalisan vs.
CA, G.R. No. 124678 July 31, 1997)
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
While the Constitution and the Labor Code
are silent as to whether or not government
employees may strike, they are prohibited
from striking, by express provision of
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Memorandum Circular No. 6 of 1987 of the
Civil Service Commission and as implied in
E.O. No. 180.
The Court rejected the claim that the right to
strike is not part of the freedom of expression
and the right to peacefully assemble and
petition the government for redress of
grievances, and should thus, be recognized
even in the case of government employees.
(GSIS vs. Kapisanan ng mga Manggagawa ng
GSIS, G.R. No. 170132, December 6, 2006)
MANAGERIAL EMPLOYEES
Art. 245 of the Labor Code which makes
managerial employees ineligible to join,
assist or form a labor union does not violate
Sec. 8, Art III of the Constitution. Those who
qualify as top or middle managers are
executives who receive from their employer’s
information that is not only confidential but
also not generally available to the public, or
to their competitor, or to other employees.
(United Pepsi Cola Supervisory Union vs.
Laguesma, G.R. No. 122226, March 25,
1998)
J. NON-IMPAIRMENT OF CONTRACTS
(1987 CONST., art. III, sec. 10)
NON-IMPAIRMENT OF CONTRACTS
Concept and Limitations
Non-impairment of contracts or vested rights
clauses will have to yield to the superior and
legitimate exercise by the State of the police
power. (Bank of the Philippine Islands vs.
Securities and Exchange Commission, G.R.
No. 164641, December 20, 2007)
Although Section 10, Article III of the present
Constitution prohibits Congress from
enacting laws that impair the obligation of
contracts, such provision is limited by the
exercise of the police power of the State —
181
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
in the interest of public health, safety, morals
and general welfare (Shuley Mine, Inc. vs.
Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, G.R. No. 214923 August 28,
2019)
Contract Clause
No law impairing the obligation of contracts
shall be passed. (Sec. 10, Art. III, 1987
Constitution)
This refers to the non-impairment clause,
which ensures that the integrity of contracts
is protected from any unwarranted State
inference. It ensures that the terms of a
contract mutually agreed upon by the parties
are not tampered with or modified by a
subsequent law (Goldenway Merchandising
Corporation vs. Equitable PCI Bank, GR No.
195540, March 13, 2013)
However, the non-impairment clause yields
to the State's police power. Further property
and contractual rights are not absolute and
may be limited by the exercise of police
power of the State for the common good of
the general public. As contracts, partake of
the nature of property rights (Id.)
IMPAIRMENT – anything that diminishes
the efficacy of the contract. Degree of
diminution is immaterial. As long as the
original rights of either party are changed to
their prejudice, there is already impairment
of the obligation of contract. (Id.)
🕮 To impair, law must retroact so as to
affect existing contracts concluded
before its enactment. (Cruz,
Constitutional Law, 2013, p. 258)
🕮 However, there is no impairment as
long as substantial and efficacious
remedy remains, holds true even if
there’s remedy remaining but it is the
most difficult to employ, the easy
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
ones are withdrawn. (Id.)
The purpose of the non-impairment clause is
to safeguard the integrity of contracts against
unwarranted interference by the State. As a
rule, contracts should not be tampered with
by subsequent laws which would change or
modify the rights and obligations of the
parties. There is impairment if a subsequent
law changes the terms of a contract between
the parties, imposes new conditions,
dispenses with those agreed upon or
withdraws remedies for the enforcement of
the rights of the parties. (Id.)
🕮 To fall within the prohibition, the
change must not only impair the
obligation of the existing contract,
but the impairment must be
substantial. Moreover, the law must
effect a change in the rights of the
parties with reference to each other,
and not with respect to non-parties.
(Philippine Rural Electric
Cooperatives Association vs.
Secretary, DILG, GR No. 143078,
June 10, 2003)
Limitations
a. Police Power: If the law is a proper
exercise of police power, it will prevail over a
contract. Public welfare is superior to private
rights.
🕮 In every contract, there is an implied
reservation that it is subject to the
police power of the State. (Ortigas &
Co. vs. Feati Bank and Trust Co., GR
No. L-24670, December 14, 1979)
The freedom to contract is not
absolute; all contracts and all
rights are subject to the police
power of the State and not only
may regulations which affect
182
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
them be established by the
State, but all such regulations
must be subject to change from
time to time, as the general well-
being of the community may
require, or as the circumstances
may change, or as experience
may demonstrate the necessity.
Settled is the rule that the non-
impairment clause of the Constitution
must yield to the loftier purposes
targeted by the Government. The
right granted by this provision must
submit to the demands and
necessities of the State's power of
regulation (Id.)
🕮 The POEA resolution and
memorandum circular increasing and
adjusting rates of compensation and
other benefits in the POEA Standard
Employment Contracts for Seafarers,
being a valid implementation of
PD957 which was enacted under the
police power of the State, prevail
over the non-impairment clause.
(Conference of Maritime Manning
Agencies vs. POEA, G.R. No. 114714,
April 21, 1995)
b. Congenital infirmity – susceptibility to
change by the legislature as a postulate of
legal order. Franchises, privileges, licenses,
etc., do not come within the context of the
provision. Sec.11, Art. XII provides that
“Neither shall any such franchise or right be
granted except under the condition that it
shall be subject to amendment, alteration or
repeal by the Congress when the common
good so requires.” (Roy III vs. Herbosa, G.R.
No. 207246, November 22, 2016)
🕮 Timber licenses, permits and license
agreements are the principal
instruments by which the State
regulates the utilization and
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
disposition of forest resources to the
end that public welfare is promoted.
They merely evidence a privilege
granted by the State to qualified
entities, and do not vest in the latter
a permanent irrevocable right to the
particular concession area and the
forest products therein. They may be
validly amended, modified, replaced,
or rescinded by the Chief Executive
when national interest so requires.
They are not contracts within the
purview of the due process clause. (C
& M Timber Corporation vs. Alcala,
G.R. No. 111088, June 13, 1997)
Contracts which relate to rights not
considered property, such as a franchise or
permit, are also not protected by the non-
impairment clause. The reason is that the
public right or franchise is always subject to
amendment or repeal by the State, the grant
being a mere privilege. In other words, there
can be no vested right in the continued grant
of a franchise. Additional conditions for the
grant of the franchise may be made and the
grantee cannot claim impairment (Provincial
Bus Operators Association of the Philippines
vs. DOLE, G.R. No. 202275 July 17, 2018).
Contemporary application of the
Contract Clause
CONTRACT – any lawful agreement on the
property rights, whether real or personal
tangible or intangible but does not cover
licenses, marriage contract and public office.
🕮 There is impairment when there is a
change in the terms of a legal
contract between parties, either in
the time or mode of performance, or
imposes new conditions, or dispenses
with those expressed or authorizes
for its satisfaction something
different from that provided in its
183
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
terms. (Clemons vs. Nolting, G.R. No.
17959, January 24, 1922)
EXCEPTIONS
1. Police Power – public welfare is
superior to private rights (Philippine
National Bank vs. Remigio, G.R. No.
78508, March 21, 1994).
2. Power of Eminent Domain
3. Power of Taxation
In every contract, there is an implied
reservation that it is subject to the police
power of the State (Ortigas & Co. vs. Feati
Bank and Trust Co., G.R. No. L-24670,
December 14, 1979)
The autonomy of the will of the parties in
contracts is subject to a limitation provided in
Article 1306 of the Civil Code, which provides,
"The contracting parties may establish such
stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions as
they may deem convenient, provided they
are not contrary to law, morals, good
customs, public order, or public policy"
(Light Rail Transit Authority vs. Joy Mart
Consolidated Inc., G.R. No. 211281, February
15, 2022)
SUBSTANTIAL IMPAIRMENT – A law
which changes the terms of a legal contract
between parties, either in the time or mode
of performance, or imposes new conditions,
or dispenses with those expressed, or
authorizes for its satisfaction something
different from that provided in its terms;
hence, it is null and void. (Clemons vs.
Nolting, G.R. No. L-17959, January 24, 1922)
This limitation is addressed to the exercise of
legislative or quasi-legislative power and not
on the exercise of judicial or quasi-judicial
power. (BOCEA vs. Biazon, G.R. No. 205836,
July 12, 2022)
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Hierarchies
1. With respect to private contracts, the
question about the power to tax is
irrelevant because a tax law does not
alter the relation between the parties.
2. With respect to public contracts, the
answer is NO because just as the
state cannot contract away its police
power so also it cannot contract away
its power to tax.
3. As to freedom of religion, the Court
ruled that the free exercise of religion
is superior to contract rights.
🕮 A mere change in procedural
remedies which does not change the
substance of a contract and which at
the same time still leaves an
efficacious remedy for enforcement
does not impair the obligation of
contracts. (Manila Trading vs. Reyes,
G.R. No. L-43263, October 31, 1935)
K. FREE ACCESS TO COURTS AND
ADEQUATE LEGAL ASSISTANCE (1987
CONST., art. III, sec. 11; R.A. No. 9999)
FREE ACCESS TO COURTS AND
ADEQUATE LEGAL ASSISTANCE
Free Access to Courts
Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial
bodies and adequate legal assistance shall
not be denied to any person by reason of
poverty. (Sec. 11, Art. III, 1987
Constitution)
Further, the Court in another decision
explained the importance of this right and
pronounced:
The importance of the right to free access to
the courts and quasi judicial bodies and to
adequate legal assistance cannot be denied.
A move to remove the provision on free
access from the Constitution on the ground
184
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
that it was already covered by the equal
protection clause was defeated by the desire
to give constitutional stature to such specific
protection of the poor. (In RE Exemption
from Legal and Filing Fees of the Good
Shepherd Foundation, Inc., A.M. No. 09-6-9-
SC, August 19, 2009)
Rule 141, Section 18, Rules of Court.
Indigent litigants exempts from
payment of legal fees. — Indigent
litigants (a) whose gross income and that of
their immediate family do not exceed four
thousand (P4,000.00) pesos a month if
residing in Metro Manila, and three thousand
(P3,000.00) pesos a month if residing
outside Metro Manila, and (b) who do not
own real property with an assessed value of
more than fifty thousand (P50,000.00) pesos
shall be exempt from the payment of legal
fees.
Suppletorily, the Rules of Court
provides who can be a pauper litigant
and the exemptions they can avail of:
Sec. 19. Indigent litigants exempt from
payment of legal fees.– Indigent litigants (a)
whose gross income and that of their
immediate family do not exceed an amount
double the monthly minimum wage of an
employee and (b) who do not own real
property with a fair market value as stated
in the current tax declaration of more than
three hundred thousand (P300,000.00)
pesos shall be exempt from payment of legal
fees.
The legal fees shall be a lien on any
judgment rendered in the case favorable to
the indigent litigant unless the court
otherwise provides.
To be entitled to the exemption herein
provided, the litigant shall execute an
affidavit that he and his immediate family do
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
not earn a gross income above mentioned,
and they do not own any real property with
the fair value aforementioned, supported by
an affidavit of a disinterested person
attesting to the truth of the litigant’s
affidavit. The current tax declaration, if any,
shall be attached to the litigant’s affidavit.
Sec. 21. Indigent party. — A party may be
authorized to litigate his action, claim or
defense as an indigent if the court, upon an
ex parte application and hearing, is satisfied
that the party is one who has no money or
property sufficient and available for food,
shelter and basic necessities for himself and
his family. (In RE Exemption from Legal and
Filing Fees of the Good Shepherd Foundation
Inc.,A. M. No. 09-6-9-SC, August 19, 2009)
RA 9999 (Free Legal Assistance Act of
2010) Section 4. Requirements for
Availment. – For purposes of availing of
the benefits and services as envisioned in
this Act, a lawyer or professional partnership
shall secure a certification from the Public
Attorney’s Office (PAO), the Department of
Justice (DOJ) or accredited association of
the Supreme Court indicating that the said
legal services to be provided are within the
services defined by the Supreme Court, and
that the agencies cannot provide the legal
services to be provided by the private
counsel.
For purpose of determining the number of
hours actually provided by the lawyer and/or
professional firm in the provision of legal
services, the association and/or organization
duly accredited by the Supreme Court shall
issue the necessary certification that said
legal services were actually undertaken.
L. RIGHTS UNDER CUSTODIAL
INVESTIGATION (1987 CONST., art.
III, sec. 12; R.A. No. 7438)
185
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
RIGHTS UNDER CUSTODIAL
INVESTIGATION
Any person under investigation for the
commission of an offense shall have the right
to be informed of his right to remain silent
and to have competent and independent
counsel preferably of his own choice. If the
person cannot afford the services of counsel,
he must be provided with one. These rights
cannot be waived except in writing and in the
presence of counsel.
No torture, force, violence, threat,
intimidation, or any other means which
vitiate the free will shall be used against him.
Secret detention places, solitary,
incommunicado, or other similar forms of
detention are prohibited.
Any confession or admission obtained in
violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be
inadmissible in evidence against him.
The law shall provide for penal and civil
sanctions for violations of this section as well
as compensation to the rehabilitation of
victims of torture or similar practices, and
their families. (Sec. 12, Art. III, 1987
Constitution)
Definition
When the investigation is no longer a general
inquiry unto an unsolved crime but has begun
to focus on a particular suspect, as when the
suspect has been taken into police custody
and the police carries out a process of
interrogation that lends itself to eliciting
incriminating statements (People of the
Philippines vs. Marra, G.R. No. 108494,
September 20, 1994)
Commencement
Custodial investigation commences when a
person is taken into custody and is singled
out as a suspect in the commission of a crime
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
under investigation and the police officers
begin to ask questions on the suspect's
participation therein and which tend to elicit
an admission. (Lopez vs. People of the
Philippines, G.R. No. 212186, June 29, 2019)
Rights of a Person under Custodial
Investigation
1. Right to remain silent;
2. Right to competent and independent
counsel, preferably of his own choice;
3. Right to be reminded that if he
cannot afford the services of counsel,
he would be provided with one
4. Right to be informed of his rights;
5. Right against torture, force, violence,
threat, intimidation or any other
means which vitiate the free will;
6. Right against secret detention places,
solitary, incommunicado, or similar
forms of detention;
7. Right to have confessions or
admissions obtained in violation of
these rights considered inadmissible
in evidence.(Sec. 12, Art. III, 1987
Constitution)
1. Right of a valid waiver
What may be waived
a. The right to remain silent and
b. The right to counsel.
What may not be waived
The right to be given the Miranda warnings.
Requisites for Valid Waiver
1. Made voluntarily, knowingly and
intelligently;
2. In writing; and
3. With the presence of counsel.
(People of the Philippines vs. Galit,
G.R. No. L-51770, March 20 1985)
186
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
Burden of Proving Voluntariness of
Waiver
The presumption is against the waiver. Thus,
the burden of proof lies with the prosecution.
The prosecution must prove with strongly
convincing evidence to the satisfaction of the
Court that indeed the accused:
a. Willingly and voluntarily submitted
his confession, and;
b. Knowingly and deliberately
manifested that he was not
interested in having a lawyer assist
him during the taking of such
confession. (People of the Philippines
vs. Jara, G.R. No. L-61356-57,
September 30, 1986)
2. Exclusionary Rule
Definition
According to this rule, once the primary
source (the tree) is shown to have been
unlawfully obtained, any secondary or
derivative evidence (the fruit) derived from it
is also inadmissible. The fruit of the
poisonous tree is at least once removed from
the illegally seized evidence, but it is equally
inadmissible. The rule is based on the
principle that evidence illegally obtained by
the State should not be used to gain other
evidence because the originally illegally
obtained evidence taints all evidence
subsequently obtained (People of the
Philippines vs. Samontañez, G.R. No. 134530,
December 4, 2000)
Any evidence obtained in violation of this or
the preceding section shall be inadmissible
for any purpose in any proceeding. (Sec.
3(2), Art. III, 1987 Constitution)
Violations of the Miranda rights render
inadmissible only the extrajudicial confession
or admission made during the custodial
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
investigation. The admissibility of other
evidence is not affected even if obtained or
taken in the course of the custodial
investigation (People vs. Malimit, G.R. No.
109775, November 14, 1996)
Extrajudicial Confession by a person
arrested, detained or under custodial
investigation:
1. Shall be in writing; and
2. Signed in the presence of this
counsel, or in the latter’s absence:
a. Upon a valid waiver; and
b. In the presence of any of the
following:
i. Any of the parents
ii. Older brother and sisters
iii. Spouse
iv. Municipal mayor
v. Municipal judge
vi. District school supervisor
vii. Priest or minister of the
gospel as chosen by him.
Otherwise, such extrajudicial confession shall
be inadmissible as evidence in any
proceeding. (Sec. 2[d], R.A. No. 7438)
In the absence of a valid waiver, any
confession obtained from the appellant
during the police custodial investigation
relative to the crime, including any other
evidence secured by virtue of the said
confession is inadmissible in evidence even if
the same was not objected to during the trial
by the counsel of the appellant. (People of
the Philippines vs. Samontañez, supraG.R.
No. 134530, December 4, 2000)
M. RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED (1987
CONST., art. III, secs. 13-17, 21 and
22)
RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
1. Due process; (Sec. 14[1], Art. III,
187
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
1987 Constitution)
2. Be presumed innocent; (Sec. 14[2],
Art. III, 1987 Constitution)
3. Be heard by himself and counsel;
(Sec. 14[2], Art. III, 1987
Constitution)
4. Be informed of the nature and cause
of the accusation against him; (Sec.
14[2], Art. III, 1987 Constitution)
5. A speedy, impartial and public
trial;(Sec. 14[2], Art. III, 1987
Constitution)
6. Have compulsory process to secure
the attendance of witnesses and
production of evidence on his behalf;
(Sec. 14[2], Art. III, 1987
Constitution)
7. Meet the witnesses face to face;(Sec.
14[2], Art. III, 1987 Constitution)
8. Against double jeopardy; and (Sec.
21, Art. III, 1987 Constitution)
9. Bail. (Sec. 13, Art. III, 1987
Constitution)
1. Criminal Due Process
No person shall be held to answer for a
criminal offense without due process of law.
(Sec. 14[1], Art. III, 1987 Constitution)
Due process in criminal proceedings is
satisfied if the accused is “informed as to why
he is proceeded against, and what charge he
shall meet, with his conviction being made to
rest on evidence that is not tainted with
falsity after full opportunity for him to rebut
it and the sentence being implied in
accordance with a valid law. It is assumed, of
course, that the court that rendered the
decision is one of competent jurisdiction
(Mejia vs. Pamaran, G.R. No. L-56741-42,
April 15, 1988)
Requisites
a. Accused is heard by a court of
competent jurisdiction;
b. Accused is proceeded against under
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
the orderly process of law;
c. Accused is given notice and
opportunity to be heard; and
d. Judgment rendered is within the
authority of a constitutional law
(Pacificar vs. CA, G.R. No. L-33277
November 25, 1983)
2. Bail
Bail is the security required by the court and
given by the accused to ensure that the
accused appears before the proper court at
the scheduled time and place to answer the
charges brought against him. It is awarded
to the accused to honor the presumption of
innocence until his guilt is proven beyond
reasonable doubt, and to enable him to
prepare his defense without being subject to
punishment prior to conviction. (Cortes vs.
Catral, A.M. No. RTJ-99-1508, 15 Dec. 1999)
Who may avail
All persons under custody of law may avail of
bail. (Sec. 13, Art. III, 1987 Constitution)
Exceptions
1. Those charged with a capital offense,
or an offense punishable by reclusion
perpetua or life imprisonment when
evidence of guilt is strong, regardless
of the stage of the criminal
prosecution (Rule 114, Sec. 7, Rules
of Court)
2. Military men who participated in
failed coup d’état because of their
threat to national security
(Comendador vs. De Villa, G.R. No.
93177, August 2, 1991)
When to avail
From the very moment of arrest (which may
be before or after the filing of formal charges
in court) up to the time of conviction by final
judgment (which means after appeal).
Arraignment of the accused is not essential
188
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
to the approval of the bail bond. When bail is
authorized, it should be granted before
arraignment. Otherwise the accused may be
precluded from filing a motion to quash. Also,
the court will be assured of the presence of
the accused at the arraignment precisely by
granting bail and ordering his presence at
any stage of the proceeding. (Lavides vs.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 129670, February
1, 2000)
Purpose
To guarantee the appearance of the accused
at the trial, or whenever so required by the
Court. The amount should be high enough to
assure the presence of the accused when
required but no higher than is reasonably
calculated to fulfill this purpose. To fix bail at
an amount equivalent to the civil liability of
which petitioner is charged is to permit the
impression that the amount paid as bail is an
exaction of the civil liability that accused is
charged of; this we cannot allow because bail
is not intended as a punishment, nor as a
satisfaction of civil liability which should
necessarily await the judgment of the
appellate court. (Yap vs. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 141529, June 6, 2001)
Basis of this right
Presumption of Innocence (Sec. 14[2], Art.
III, 1987 Constitution)
Bail as a Matter of Right
All persons, except those charged with
offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua
when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before
conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties,
or be released on recognizance as may be
provided by law. (Sec. 13, Art. III, 1987
Constitution)
To summarize:
🕮 Before or after conviction by the
Metropolitan or Municipal Trial
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Courts; (Rule 114, Sec. 4, Rules of
Court)
🕮 Before conviction by the RTC of an
offense not punishable by death,
reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment; and (Rule 114, Sec. 4,
Rules of Court)
🕮 Before final conviction by all children
in conflict with the law for an offense
not punishable by reclusion perpetua
or life imprisonment. (Sec. 27, A.M.
No. 02-1-18-SC or Rule on Juveniles
in Conflict with the Law)
The right to bail shall not be impaired even
when the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus is suspended. (Sec. 13, Art. III, 1987
Constitution)
Bail as a Matter of Discretion
When the accused has been convicted in the
RTC of an offense not punishable by death,
reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, the
admission to bail becomes discretionary.
(Rule 114, Sec. 5, Rules of Court)
To summarize:
🕮 Upon conviction by the RTC of an
offense not punishable by death,
reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment; (Rule 114, Sec. 5,
Rules of Court)
🕮 Regardless of the stage of the
criminal prosecution, a person
charged with a capital offense, or an
offense punishable by reclusion
perpetua or life imprisonment, when
evidence of guilt is not strong; and
○ The court’s discretion to
grant bail must be exercised
in the light of a summary of
the evidence presented by
the prosecution. Bail must
not then be granted to the
accused during the pendency
of his appeal from the
189
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
judgment of conviction.
(People vs. Nitcha, G.R. No.
113517, January 19, 1995)
🕮 A child in conflict with the law
charged with an offense punishable
by death, reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment when evidence of guilt
is strong. (Sec. 28, A.M. No. 02-1-18-
SC or Rule on Juveniles in Conflict
with the Law)
In the cases where the grant of bail is
discretionary, due process requires that the
prosecution must be given an opportunity to
present, within a reasonable time, all the
evidence that it may desire to introduce
before the court should resolve the motion
for bail. (People of the Philippines vs. Judge
Donato, G.R. No. 79269, June 5, 1991)
The prosecution cannot adduce evidence for
the denial of bail where it is a matter of right.
However, where the grant of bail is
discretionary, the prosecution may show
proof to deny the bail. (Basco vs. Rapatalo,
A.M. No. RTJ-96-1335, March 05, 1997)
Grounds for denial of bail
If the penalty imposed by the trial court is
imprisonment exceeding six (6) years, the
accused shall be denied bail, or his bail shall
be cancelled upon a showing by the
prosecution, with notice to the accused, of
the following or other similar circumstances:
1. That he is a recidivist, quasi-
recidivist, or habitual delinquent, or
has committed the crime aggravated
by the circumstance of reiteration;
2. That he has previously escaped from
legal confinement, evaded sentence,
or violated the conditions of his bail
without valid justification;
3. That he committed the offense while
under probation, parole, or
conditional pardon;
4. That the circumstances of his case
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
indicate the probability of flight if
released on bail; or
5. That there is undue risk that he may
commit another crime during the
pendency of the appeal.
The appellate court may, motu proprio or on
motion of any party, review the resolution of
the RTC after notice to the adverse party in
either case. (Rule 114, Sec. 5, Rules of Court)
Forms of bail:
a. Corporate Surety
b. Property Bond
c. Cash deposit; and
d. Recognizance (Rule 114, Sec. 1,
Rules of Court)
Duties of a trial judge in case an
application for bail is filed (Cortes vs.
Catral, A.M. No. RTJ-97-1387, September 10,
1997)
1. In all cases, whether bail is a matter
of right or of discretion, notify the
prosecutor of the hearing of the
application for bail or require him to
submit his recommendation (Rule
114, Sec. 18, Rules of Court);
2. Where bail is a matter of discretion,
conduct a hearing of the application
for bail regardless of whether or not
the prosecution refuses to present
evidence to show that the guilt of the
accused is strong for the purpose of
enabling the court to exercise its
sound discretion (Rule 114, Secs. 7 &
8, Rules of Court);
3. Decide whether the guilt of the
accused is strong based on the
summary of evidence of the
prosecution; and
4. If the guilt of the accused is not
strong, discharge the accused upon
approval of the bail bond (Rule 114,
Sec. 19, Rules of Court).
190
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
3. Presumption of Innocence
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall
be presumed innocent until the contrary is
proved. (Sec. 14[2], Art. III, 1987
Constitution)
After conviction by the trial court, the
presumption of innocence terminates and,
accordingly, the constitutional right to bail
ends. (Leviste vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
189122, March 17, 2010; Qui vs. People of
the Philippines, G.R. No. 196161, September
26, 2012)
Juridical person
A corporate entity has no personality to
invoke the right to be presumed innocent
which right is available only to an individual
who is an accused in a criminal case. (Feeder
International vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
94262, May 31, 1991)
Burden of proof
The prosecution has the burden to prove the
guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt; (People of the Philippines vs. Colcol.,
Jr., G.R. No. 94554, February 19, 1993)
The requirement of proof beyond reasonable
doubt is a necessary corollary of the
constitutional right to be presumed innocent.
(People of the Philippines vs. Dramayo, G.R.
No. L-21325, October 29, 1971)
The prosecution bears the burden to
overcome such presumption. If the
prosecution fails to discharge this burden, the
accused deserves a judgment of acquittal;
and (Delarivav vs. People of the Philippines,
G.R. No. 212940, September 16, 2015)
Conviction of an accused must be based on
the strength of the prosecution evidence and
not on the weakness or absence of evidence
of the defense. (People of the Philippines vs.
Mirondo, G.R. No. 210841, October 14, 2015)
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt
Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not
mean such a degree of proof, excluding
possibility of error, produces absolute
certainty. Moral certainty only is required, or
that degree of proof which produces
conviction in an unprejudiced mind (Sec. 2,
Rule 133, Rules of Court).
4. Right to Counsel
The right to counsel proceeds from the
fundamental principle of due process which
basically means that a person must be heard
before being condemned. The due process
requirement is part of a person’s basic rights;
it is not a mere formality that may be
dispensed with or performed perfunctorily.
(People of the Philippines vs. Bermas, G.R.
No. 120420, April 21, 1999)
If he opts to be silent where he has a right to
speak, he cannot later be heard to complain
that he was unduly silenced. (Stronghold Ins.
Co. vs. CA, G.R. No. 89020, May 5, 1992)
The right to counsel is absolute and may be
invoked at all times. In an ongoing litigation,
it is a right that must be exercised at every
step of the way, with the lawyer faithfully
keeping his client company. Unless the
accused is represented by a lawyer, there is
great danger that any defense presented in
his behalf will be inadequate considering the
legal perquisites and skills needed in the
court proceedings. This would certainly be a
denial of due process. (Inacay vs People,
G.R. No. 223506, November 28, 2016)
To be present and defend in person and by
counsel at every stage of the proceedings,
from arraignment to promulgation of the
judgment. (Rule 115, Sec. 1[c])
Upon motion, the accused may be allowed to
defend himself in person when it sufficiently
appears to the court that he can properly
191
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
protect his right without the assistance of
counsel. (Ibid.)
5. Right to be Informed of the
Nature and Cause of Accusation
Due process in criminal prosecutions requires
that an accused be "informed of the
nature and cause of the accusation
against him," a right enshrined in our very
Constitution. This constitutional mandate is
reinforced in the procedural rules instated to
safeguard the rights of the accused. (Villarba
vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 227777, June
15, 2020)
An accused cannot be convicted in the courts
of any offense, unless it is charged in the
complaint or information on which he is tried,
or necessarily included therein. He has the
right to be informed as to the nature of the
offense with which he is charged before he is
put on trial, and to convict him of an offense
higher than that charged in the complaint or
information on which he is tried would be an
unauthorized denial of that right. (Canceran
vs. People, G.R. No. 206442, July 01, 2015)
Requisites of valid information
a. States the name of the accused;
b. The designation of the offense given
by the statute;
c. The acts or omissions complained of as
constituting the offence;
d. The name of the offended party;
e. The proximate date of the commission
of the offense;
f. The place where the offense was
committed (Sec. 6, Rule 110, Revised
Rules of Court).
It is not necessary for the information to
allege the date and time of the commission
of the crime with exactitude unless such date
and time are essential ingredients of the
offenses charged. (People of the Philippines
vs. Nuyok, G.R. No. 195424, June 15, 2015)
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Void for Vagueness Rule: The accused is
denied the right to be informed of the charge
against him, and to due process as well,
where the statute itself is couched in such
indefinite language that it is not possible for
men of ordinary intelligence to determine
what acts or omissions are punished. In such
case, the law is deemed void.
Waiver: The right to be informed of the
nature and cause of accusation against him
may not be waived, but the defense may
waive the right to enter a plea and allow the
court to enter the plea of “not guilty” for the
accused.
The right cannot be waived by reasons of
public policy. However, if the accused himself
refused to be informed of the nature and
cause of accusation against him, there is
substantive compliance when the counsel of
the accused received the copy of the
Prosecutor’s resolution sustaining the charge.
Failure to object to the multiple offenses
alleged in the criminal information during
arraignment is deemed a waiver of the right.
(Abalos vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No.
136994, September 17, 2002)
POLITICAL OFFENSE DOCTRINE –
Political crimes are those directly aimed
against the political order, as well as such
common crimes as may be committed to
achieve a political purpose. The decisive
factor is the intent or motive. If a crime
usually regarded as common like homicide, is
perpetrated for the purpose of removing from
the allegiance “to the Government the
territory of the Philippines Islands or any part
thereof,” then said offense becomes stripped
of its “common” complexion, inasmuch as,
being part and parcel of the crime of
rebellion, the former acquires the political
character of the latter. (People of the
Philippines vs. Hernandez, G.R. No. L-6025
192
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
July 18, 1956)
But when the political offense doctrine is
asserted as a defense in the trial court, it
becomes crucial for the court to determine
whether the act of killing was done in
furtherance of a political end, and for the
political motive of the act to be conclusively
demonstrated. (Nachura, Outline Reviewer in
Political Law, 2016)
6. Right to Speedy, Impartial and
Public Trial
The right to speedy trial particularly refers to
criminal prosecutions which are at the trial
stage while the right to speedy disposition of
applies to all cases before judicial, quasi-
judicial or administrative bodies trial. (Sec.
14[2], Art. III, 1987 Constitution; cases Sec.
16, Art. III, 1987 Constitution)
Dismissal based on the denial of the right to
speedy trial amounts to an acquittal.
(Acebedo vs. Sarmiento, G.R. No. L-28025,
December 16, 1970)
When disallowed
The right to speedy trial cannot be invoked
where to sustain the same would result in a
clear denial of due process to the
prosecution. (Spouses Uy vs. Hon. Adriano,
G.R. NO. 159098, October 27, 2006)
When violated
In determining whether the accused's right to
speedy trial was violated, the delay should be
considered in view of the entirety of the
proceedings. The factors to balance are the
following:
(a) length of delay;
(b) reason for the delay;
(c) assertion of the right or failure to
assert it; and
(d) prejudice caused by such
delay(Figueroa vs. Sandiganbayan,
G.R. No. 235965-66, February 15,
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
2022, J. MV Lopez)
The Court has emphasized that "'speedy trial'
is a relative term and necessarily a flexible
concept." Mere mathematical reckoning of
the time involved would not suffice as the
realities of everyday life must be regarded in
judicial proceedings. (Saldariega vs.
Panganiban, G.R. Nos. 211933 & 211960,
April 15, 2015)
IMPARTIAL TRIAL: Accused is entitled to
“cold neutrality of an impartial judge”. Judge
must not only be impartial but must also
appear to be impartial.
PUBLIC TRIAL: To ensure that the accused
is fairly dealt with and would not be unjustly
condemned and that his rights are not
compromised in secret conclaves of long ago.
(In Re: Request for Live TV Coverage of the
Trial of Former 181President Joseph Estrada,
A.M. No. 01-4-03-SC, June 29, 2001)
GENERAL RULE: Publicity of the trial is
necessary to prevent abuses that may be
committed by the court to the prejudice of
the Defendant.
EXCEPTION: The judge may, motu proprio,
exclude the public from the courtroom if the
evidence to be produced during the trial is
offensive to decency or public morals. He
may also, on motion of the accused, exclude
the public from the trial, except court
personnel and the counsel of the parties.
(Rule 119, Sec. 21)
The right to a public trial belongs first and
foremost to accused. Said right require that
proceedings be open to the public to ensure
that the accused is fairly dealt with and not
unjustly condemn. The openness of a trial
safeguards against attempts to employ the
courts as instruments of prosecution since it
induces all the participants therein, e.g.
193
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
judge, lawyers, witness, to perform their
duties conscientiously, and provides the
public with an opportunity to observe the
events therein. However, a public trial is not
to be equated with “publicized trial”, one
characterized by pervasive adverse publicity
that violates the accused’ constitutional right
to due process. (In Re: Request for Live TV
Coverage of the Trial of Former President
Joseph Estrada, A.M. No. 01-4-03-SC, June
29, 2001)
The SC held that there should be an
audiovisual recording of the proceedings. The
recordings will not be for live or real time
broadcast but for documentary purposes.
Only later will they be available for public
showing, after the Sandiganbayan shall have
promulgated its decision in every case to
which the recording pertains. The master film
shall be deposited in the National Museum
and the Records Management and Archives
Office for historical preservation and
exhibition pursuant to law. (Ibid.)
7. Right to Confrontation
Purpose: The right of confrontation, on the
other hand, is held to apply specifically to
criminal proceedings and to have a twofold
purpose:
a. To afford the accused an opportunity
to test the testimony of the witness
by cross-examination.
b. To allow the judge to observe the
deportment of the witness. (Go et. al.
vs. People of the Philippines and
Highdone Company, Ltd., G.R. No.
185527, July 18, 2012)
While the prosecution must provide the
accused every opportunity to take the
deposition of witnesses that are material to
his defense in order to avoid charges of
violating the right of the accused to
compulsory process, the State itself must
resort to deposition-taking sparingly if it is to
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
guard against accusations of violating the
right of the accused to meet the witnesses
against him face to face. Great care must be
observed in the taking and use of depositions
of prosecution witnesses to the end that no
conviction of an accused will rely on ex parte
affidavits and deposition. (Ibid.)
Exceptions to the right of confrontation
1. Dying declarations and all exceptions
to the hearsay rule; (Talino vs.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 75511-14,
March 16, 1987) and
2. Trial in absentia (Sec. 14[2], Art.III,
1987 Constitution).
Denying an accused the right to cross-
examine will render the testimony of the
witness incomplete and inadmissible in
evidence. When cross-examination is not and
cannot be done or completed due to causes
attributable to the party offering the witness,
the uncompleted testimony is thereby
rendered incompetent. (Kim Liong vs.
People, G.R. No. 200630, June 04, 2018)
8. Right to Compulsory Process
The right to compulsory process may be
invoked by the accused to secure the
attendance of witnesses and the production
of witnesses on his behalf. This is a
constitutional right embodied in Section
14(2), Article III of the Bill of Rights.
Various means
1. Subpoena ad testificandum (to
compel a person to testify) and
subpoena duces tecum (to compel
the production of books, records,
things or documents therein
specified)
2. Depositions and other modes of
discovery
3. Perpetuation of testimonies
Well settled is the rule that before a
194
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
subpoena duces may issue, the court must
first be satisfied that the following requisites
are present:
1. The books, documents or other
things requested must appear prima
facie relevant to the issued subject of
the controversy (test of relevance);
2. Such books must be reasonably
described by the parties to be readily
identified (test of definiteness).
(Roco vs. Contreras, GR 158275,
June 28, 2005)
Requirements for the exercise of the
right to secure attendance of witness
1. The witness is really material;
2. The attendance of the witness was
previously obtained;
3. The witness will be available at the
time desired; and
4. No similar evidence could be
obtained.
Effect of failure to obey the processes
a. Punishable as contempt of court
b. Witnesses may be arrested so they can
give the needed evidence
In case of the unjustified failure of the
witness to comply, the court or judge issuing
the subpoena, upon proof of the service of
such subpoena and proof of his failure to
attend, may issue a warrant for his arrest.
(Rule 21, Sec. 8)
9. Trial in Absentia
After arraignment, trial may proceed
notwithstanding the absence of the accused
provided that he has been duly notified and
his failure to appear is unjustifiable. (Sec.
14[2], Art. III, 1987 Constitution)
Requisites of a valid trial in absentia:
1. The accused has already been
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
arraigned;
2. He has been duly notified of the trial;
and
3. His failure to appear is unjustifiable.
(Bernardo vs. People of the
Philippines, G.R. No. 166980, April 3,
2007)
Consequences of the Accused’s Failure
to Appear for Trial
The absence of the accused without any
justifiable cause at the trial on a particular
date of which he had notice shall be
considered a waiver of his right to be present
during that trial. When an accused under
custody had been notified of the date of the
trial and escapes, he shall be deemed to have
waived his right to be present on said date
and on all subsequent trial dates until
custody is regained. (Gimenez vs. Nazareno,
G.R. No. L-37933, April 15, 1988)
Presence of the accused is a duty
a. Arraignment and Plea
The accused must be present at the
arraignment and must personally enter his
plea. (Rule 116, Sec. 1[b])
b. During Trial for Identification
Common reason suggests that the
prosecution must be afforded the right to
identify the accused as the perpetrator of the
offense and the very person named or
described in the complaint or information
because rights during the trial are not
designed to be for the accused alone.
To be present and defend in person and by
counsel at every stage of the proceedings,
from arraignment to promulgation of the
judgment. The accused may, however, waive
his presence at the trial pursuant to the
stipulations set forth in his bail, unless his
presence is specifically ordered by the court
for purposes of identification. (Rule 115, Sec.
195
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
1[c])
c. Promulgation of Sentence,
unless for a light offense
The sentence imposed by the trial court
cannot be served in the absence of the
accused. Hence, all means of notification
must be done to let the absent accused know
of the judgment of the court.
Notice to the accused
a. By giving notice to all persons or the
act of recording or registering the
judgment in the criminal docket
(which Section 6 incidentally
mentions first showing its
importance); and
b. Service of copy thereof upon the
accused at his last known address or
his counsel.
In a scenario where the whereabouts of the
accused are unknown (as when he is at
large), the recording satisfies the
requirement of notifying the accused of the
decision wherever he may be. (Estrada vs.
People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 162371,
August 25, 2005)
N. RIGHT AGAINST INVOLUNTARY
SERVITUDE (1987 CONST., art. III,
sec. 18)
RIGHTS AGAINST INVOLUNTARY
SERVITUDE
No person shall be detained solely by reason
of his political beliefs or aspirations. No
involuntary servitude in any form shall exist
except as punishment for a crime whereof
the party shall have been duly convicted.
(Sec. 18 Art. III, The 1987 Philippine
Constitution)
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE – condition
of one who is compelled by force, coercion,
or imprisonment and against his will to labor
for another, whether or not he is paid.
GENERAL RULE: Involuntary servitude is
prohibited.
EXCEPTIONS:
a. Punishment for a crime for which the
party has been duly convicted (Sec.
18[2], Art. III, 1987 Constitution)
b. Personal military or civil service in
the interest of national defense (Sec.
4, Art. II, 1987 Constitution)
c. Naval (mercantile marine)
enlistment (165 U.S. 275 [1987])
d. Posse comitatus (Power or Force of
the Country) for the apprehension of
criminals (U.S. vs. Pompaya, G.R.
No. L-10255, August 6, 1915): In the
pursuit of persons who violated the
law, such as brigands, the
authorities may command all the
male inhabitants of a certain age to
assist them in the arrest.
e. Striking workers – return to work
order issued by the DOLE Secretary
or the President in industries
affected with public interest (45 O.G.
Supp. No. 9, p. 47)
f. Minors under patria potestas are
obliged to obey their parents (Art.
211, Family Code)
DOMESTIC SERVICES
Domestic services are always to be
remunerated, and no agreement may
subsist in law in which it is stipulated that
any domestic service shall be absolutely
gratuitous. (De los Reyes vs. Alojado, G.R.
196
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
No. L-5671, August 24, 1910)
POLITICAL PRISONERS
If the petitioners are political prisoners
subject to the civil jurisdiction of ordinary
courts of justice if they are to be prosecuted
at all, the army has no jurisdiction, nor
power, nor authority, from all legal
standpoints, to continue holding them in
restraint. They are entitled, as a matter of
fundamental right, to be immediately
released, any allegation as to whether the
war was ended or not. (Raquiz vs. Bradford,
G.R. No. L-44 September 13, 1945)
Examples
a. A former court stenographer may be
compelled under pain of contempt to
transcribe stenographic notes he
had failed to attend to while in
service. (Adoracion vs. Gatamaitan,
G.R. No. L- 3911, May 26, 1975)
b. The requirement under Sec 17 of the
Responsible Parenthood and
Reproductive Health Act of 2012 (RH
Law) for private and non-
government health care service
providers to render 48 hrs. of pro
bono RH services does not amount
to involuntary servitude.
The law only encourages private and
non-government RH service
providers to render pro bono service.
The notion of involuntary servitude
connotes the presence of force,
threats, intimidation or other similar
means of coercion and compulsion.
Except for Philhealth accreditation,
no penalty is imposed should they do
otherwise.
However, it should be emphasized
that conscientious objectors are
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
exempt from this provision as long
as their religious beliefs and
convictions do not allow them to
render reproductive health service,
pro bono or otherwise. (Imbong vs.
Ochoa, G.R. 204819, April 8, 2014)
O. RIGHT AGAINST EXCESSIVE FINES,
AND CRUEL AND INHUMANE
PUNISHMENTS (1987 CONST., ART.
III, SEC. 19)
RIGHTS AGAINST EXCESSIVE FINES,
AND CRUEL AND INHUMANE
PUNISHMENTS
Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor
cruel, degrading, or inhuman punishment
inflicted. Neither shall death penalty be
imposed, unless, for compelling reasons
involving heinous crimes, the Congress
hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty
already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion
perpetua.
The employment of physical, psychological,
or degrading punishment against any
prisoner or detainee or the use of
substandard or inadequate penal facilities
under subhuman conditions shall be dealt
with by law. (Sec. 19, Art. III, 1987
Constitution)
A punishment authorized by statute is not
cruel, degrading or disproportionate to the
nature of the offense unless it is flagrantly
and plainly oppressive and wholly
disproportionate to the nature of the offense
as to shock the moral sense of the
community. It takes more than merely
being harsh, excessive, out of
proportion or severe for a penalty to be
obnoxious to the Constitution. (Maturan
vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No.
227155, March 28, 2017)
The prohibition against cruel and unusual
197
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
punishment is generally aimed at the form
or character of the punishment rather than
its severity in respect of its duration or
amount, and applies to punishments which
never existed in America or which public
sentiment regards as cruel or obsolete.
(Fuertes vs. Senate of the Philippines, G.R.
No. 208162, January 7, 2020)
Cruel, degrading, or inhuman
punishment; excessive fines
Death penalty is neither cruel nor unusual
punishment. It is an exercise of the State’s
power to secure society against the
threatened or actual evil. (People of the
Philippines vs. Echegaray, G.R. No. 117472,
February 7, 1997)
The issue of whether the death penalty
should remain in our penal laws is a question
which should be addressed to the legislature,
because the courts are not the proper venue
for a protracted debate on the morality and
propriety of capital punishment. (People of
the Philippines vs. Baway, G.R. No. 130406,
January 22, 2001)
That the penalty is grossly disproportionate
to the crime is an insufficient basis to declare
the law unconstitutional on the ground that it
is cruel and unusual. The fact that the
punishment authorized by the statute is
severe does not make it cruel or unusual.
(People vs. Judge Dacuycuy, G.R. No. L-
45127, May 5, 1989)
Automatic review for capital
punishment
When an accused pleads guilty to a capital
offense, the stringent constitutional
standards of due process require that the trial
court must conduct a searching inquiry into
the voluntariness of the plea, and the
accused full comprehension of the
consequences thereof. It shall also require
the prosecution to present evidence to prove
the guilt of the accused and the precise
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
degree of his culpability. The accused must
also be asked if he desires to present
evidence, and in the affirmative, allow him to
do so. (People of the Philippines vs. Sta.
Teresa, G.R. No. 130633, March 20, 2001)
Automatic review in death penalty cases shall
proceed even in the absence of the accused,
considering that “nothing less than life is at
stake and any court decision must be as
error-free as possible.” (People of the
Philippines vs. Esparas, G.R. No. 120034,
August 20, 1996)
In the absence of the accused, a decision can
be rendered affirming a death sentence
imposed by the trial court. Consequently, if
such review shows that accused-appellant is
guilty, his conviction must be affirmed either
in toto or with modification, just as his
acquittal must be declared if a review shows
he is innocent. There is no sense in holding
that the automatic review of the decision
must proceed even if the accused has
absconded short of pronouncing his guilt in
the event the evidence warrants affirmation
of the decision of the trial court. Accordingly,
we shall proceed with the disposition of this
appeal. (People of the Philippines vs.
Palabrica, G.R. No. 129285, August 20, 1996)
Capital punishment restored, reviewed,
stopped
In the case of Echegaray, the Court ruled that
the import of the grant of powers to Congress
to restore the death penalty requires:
a. That Congress define or describe what
is meant by heinous crimes;
b. That Congress specify and penalize by
death, only crimes that qualify as
heinous in accordance with the
definition or description set in the death
penalty bill and/or designate crimes
punishable by reclusion perpetua to
death in which latter case, death can
only be imposed upon the attendance
198
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
of circumstances duly proven in court
that characterize the crime to be
heinous crimes in accordance with the
definition or description set in the death
penalty bill;
c. That Congress, in enacting this death
penalty bill, be singularly motivated by
“compelling reasons involving heinous
crimes. (Bernas, 1987 Constitution of
the Republic of the Philippines: A
Commentary, 2009 edition, p. 578)
Abolition of death penalty
The constitutional abolition of the death
penalty immediately took effect upon the
ratification of the Constitution but does not
prevent the legislature from reimposing it at
some future time, subject to the
qualifications cited below. (Bernas, 1987
Constitution of the RP: A Commentary, 2009
edition, p. 576)
Custodial cruelties and inadequate
penal facilities
While persons deprived of liberty (PDLs) do
not enjoy the same latitude of rights as
certain restrictions on their liberty and
property are imposed as a consequence of
their detention or imprisonment, the
foregoing international covenants and our
own Constitution prove that PDLs do not shed
their human rights once they are arrested,
charged, placed under the custody of law,
and subsequently convicted and
incarcerated. (Almonte vs. People, G.R. No.
252117, July 28, 2020)
R.A. 7438, otherwise known as the “Custodial
Investigation Law of 1992,” was created
pursuant to the State policy of valuing the
“dignity of every human being” and
guaranteeing “full respect for human rights.”
It defines the positive rights of all persons
under custodial investigation, and outlines
the concomitant duties of arresting,
detaining, or investigating officers to secure
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
said rights, which include the detained
person’s right to be assisted by counsel. In
addition, R.A. 9745, otherwise known as the
“Anti-Torture Act of 2009” outlaws, foremost,
any act that subjects people held in custody
to any form of physical, psychological or
mental harm, force, violence, threat or
intimidation or any other act which degrades
human dignity. Finally, Article 32 of the New
Civil Code enumerates the rights and liberties
of all persons, several of which pertain to the
rights of the accused and includes the
freedom from excessive fines or cruel and
unusual punishment. Article 32 further
provides that the impeding or impairment of
these rights shall be under pains of damages.
(Ibid.)
P. NON-IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBTS
(1987 CONST., art. III, sec. 20)
NON-IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBTS
No person shall be imprisoned for debt or
non-payment of a poll tax. (Sec. 20, Art. III,
1987 Constitution)
Debt
The cases touching on the subject reveal that
the constitutional prohibition, stated in full,
means this: No person may be imprisoned for
debt in virtue of an order in a civil proceeding,
either as a substitute for satisfaction of a debt
or as a means of compelling satisfaction; but
a person may be imprisoned as a penalty for
a crime arising from a contractual debt and
imposed in a proper criminal proceeding.
(Bernas, The 1987 Philippine Constitution: A
Comprehensive Reviewer, 2011 edition, p.
159)
While the debtor cannot be imprisoned
for failure to pay his debt, he can be
validly punished in a criminal action if
he contracted his debt through fraud, as
his responsibility arises not from the contract
199
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
of loan, but from the commission of a crime.
(Lozano vs. Martinez, G.R. No. L-63419,
December 18, 1986)
Violation of a trust receipt agreement is
punishable as estafa which is not an offense
against property, but against public order.
(People of the Philippines vs. Judge Nitafan,
G.R. No. 75952, October 22, 1992)
Subsidiary Imprisonment
It is not violative because it is part of the
penalty imposed upon the accused for the
crime committed.
A person may be imprisoned as a penalty for
a crime arising from contractual debt and
imposed in a proper criminal proceeding.
Thus, the conversion of a criminal fine into a
prison term does not violate the provision
because in such a case, imprisonment is
imposed for a monetary obligation arising
from crime. (Makapagal vs. Santamaria, G.R.
No. L-34616, December 15, 1930)
GENERAL RULE: Taxes are not considered
debt. It arises from the obligation to
contribute to the maintenance of the
government. Hence, failure to pay the same
can be validly punished with imprisonment.
EXCEPTION: Poll Tax, which is the specific
fixed sum levied upon every person
belonging to a certain class without regard to
his property or occupation. (Cruz, Philippine
Political Law, 2014, p.610)
VII. CITIZENSHIP
CITIZENSHIP - It pertains to a membership
in a political community, which is personal
and more or less permanent in character. It
denotes possession within that particular
political community of full civil and political
rights subject to special disqualifications such
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
as minority. Reciprocally, it imposes the duty
of allegiance to the political community
(Bernas, 1987 Constitution of the Republic of
the Philippines: A Commentary, 2009 edition,
p.629)
CITIZEN – one, who, as a member of the
body politic of state, owes allegiance to, and
may claim reciprocal protection from the
government. (Magsalin, Philippine Political
Law, 2007, p. 80)
A. FILIPINO CITIZENS
a. Those who are citizens of the Philippines
at the time of the adoption of this
Constitution;
b. Those whose fathers or mothers are
citizens of the Philippines;
c. Those born before January 17, 1973, of
Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine
citizenship upon reaching the age of
majority; and
d. Those who are naturalized in accordance
with law. (Sec. 1, Art. IV, 1987
Constitution)
Citizens under the 1935 Constitution
a. Inhabitants as of the adoption of the
Treaty of Paris who continued to reside in
the Philippines as well as their children
born subsequent thereto. (Sec. 4, The
Philippine Bill of 1902)
b. Caram Rule – those born in the
Philippines of foreign parents who, before
the adoption of the Constitution had been
elected to public office. (Sec. 1(2), Art.
IV, 1935 Constitution)
200
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
Citizens under the 1973 Constitution
a. Those who are citizens of the
Philippines at the time of the
adoption of this Constitution.
b. Those whose fathers or mothers are
citizens of the Philippines
c. Those born before January 17, 1973
of Filipino mothers, who elect
Philippine citizenship upon reaching
the age of majority.
d. Those who are naturalized in
accordance with law. (Sec. 1, Art III,
1973 Constitution)
NATURAL BORN CITIZENS – 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 (Sec. 2, Article IV, 1987
Constitution). It includes:
a. Those whose fathers or mothers are
citizens of the Philippines. Under the
jus sanguinis principle, the fact of
being born to a Filipino father or
mother confers natural born status.
(Sec. 1[2], Art. IV, 1987 Constitution)
b. Those who elect Philippine citizenship
upon reaching majority age. Under
the 1987 Constitution, those born
before January 17, 1973 of Filipino
mothers may elect Philippine
citizenship upon reaching the age of
majority. (Sec. 1[3], Art. IV, 1987
Constitution)
c. Those former natural born citizens
who reacquire Philippine citizenship
through repatriation. (Sec. 1,
Republic Act No. 8171)
Natural-born citizenship can be reacquired
even if it had been once lost. COMELEC's
position that natural-born status must be
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
continuous was already rejected in Bengson
III vs. HRET where the phrase "from birth"
was clarified to mean at the time of birth: "A
person who at the time of his birth, is a
citizen of a particular country, is a natural-
born citizen thereof." Neither is
"repatriation" an act to "acquire or
perfect" one's citizenship.
There are only two types of citizens under the
1987 Constitution: natural-born citizens and
naturalized citizens; there is no third category
for repatriated citizens. (Poe-Llamanzares vs.
Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 221697,
March 8, 2016)
NATURALIZED CITIZENS – citizens who
are not natural-born citizens but those which
become such in accordance with law. (Art.
IV, Sec. 1 [4], 197 Constitution)
Purpose of distinguishing citizenship
Only natural born citizens are qualified to
assume the following positions:
a. President (Sec 2, Art. VII, 1987
Constitution)
b. Vice-President (Sec 3, Art. VII, 1987
Constitution)
c. Members of Congress (Secs. 3 & 6, Art.
VI, 1987 Constitution)
d. Justices of the Supreme Court and the
Court of Appeals (Sec 7[1], Art. VIII,
1987 Constitution)
e. Ombudsman and Deputies (Sec 8, Art.
XI, 1987 Constitution)
f. Members of the Constitutional
Commissions (Sec. 1[1]; Art. IX-B, Art.
IX-C, Art. IX-D, 1987 Constitution)
g. Members of the Central Monetary
Authority (Sec. 20, Art. XII, 1987
Constitution)
h. Members of the Commission on Human
rights (Sec. 17[2], Art. XIII, 1987
Constitution)
201
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
The 1935 Constitution, during which regime
respondent FPJ was born, confers citizenship
to all persons whose fathers are Filipino
citizens regardless of whether such children
are legitimate or illegitimate. (Tecson, et. al
vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No.
161434, March 3, 2004)
Dual Citizenship and Dual Allegiance
Private respondent’s declaration in his
certificate of candidacy that he is a Filipino
citizen, that he is not a permanent resident
of another country and that he will defend
and support the Constitution effectively
repudiated his American citizenship. His
oath of allegiance to the Philippines when
considered with the fact that he has spent his
youth and adulthood, received his education,
practiced his profession and taken part in
past elections in this country leaves no doubt
of his election of Philippine citizenship. The
mere filing of a certificate of candidacy
resulted in the renunciation of his American
citizenship effectively removing any
disqualification he may have as a dual citizen.
(Mercado vs. Manzano, G.R. No. 135083.
May 26, 1999)
(Cordora vs COMELEC, G.R. No.176947,
February 19, 2009)
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
FOUNDLING - shall be a deserted or
abandoned child or infant with unknown facts
of birth and parentage. This shall also include
those who have been duly registered as a
foundling during her or his infant childhood,
but have reached the age of majority without
benefitting from adoption procedures upon
the passage of this law. (Sec. 3, RA No.
11767)
1. THE FOUNDLING RECOGNITION AND
PROTECTION ACT (REPUBLIC ACT NO.
11767)
Enacted on May 6, 2022. This law recognizes
the status of foundlings found in the
Philippines and/or in Philippine embassies,
consulates, and territories abroad as natural-
born citizens of the Philippines. As a matter
of right, they are entitled to government
programs and services, including registration,
facilitation of documents for adoption,
education, legal and police protection, proper
nourishment and medical care for survival
and development, and admission to safe and
secure child centers.
Foundlings as natural-born citizens:
As a matter of law, foundlings are, as a class,
natural-born citizens. When the names of the
parents of a foundling cannot be discovered
despite a diligent search, but sufficient
evidence is presented to sustain a reasonable
inference that satisfies the quantum of proof
required to conclude that at least one or both
of his or her parents is Filipino, then this
should be sufficient to establish that he or
she is a natural-born citizen.
While the 1935 Constitution’s enumeration is
silent as to foundlings, there is no restrictive
language which would definitely exclude
foundlings either. No such intent or language
permits discrimination against foundlings. On
the contrary, all three Constitutions (1935,
1973, 1987) guarantee the basic right to
202
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
equal protection of the laws. All exhort the
State to render social justice (Poe
Llamanzares v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 221697,
March 08, 2016).
The assumption should be that foundlings
are natural-born unless there is substantial
evidence to the contrary. This is necessarily
engendered by a complete consideration of
the whole Constitution, not just its provisions
on citizenship. This includes its mandate of
defending the wellbeing of children,
guaranteeing equal protection of the law,
equal access to opportunities for public
service, and respecting human rights, as well
as its reasons for requiring natural-born
status for select public offices. Moreover, this
is a reading validated by contemporaneous
construction that considers related legislative
enactments, executive and administrative
actions, and international instruments.
(David vs. Senate Electoral Tribunal, G.R. No.
221538, September 20, 2016)
B. ACQUISITION AND LOSS OF
CITIZENSHIP
Modes of Acquiring Citizenship
1. By birth
a. Jus Sanguinis (blood relationship): All
inhabitants of the island who were
Spanish subjects on April 11, 1899, and
residing in the islands who did not
declare their intention of preserving
Spanish nationality between said date
and October 11, 1900, were declared
citizens of the Philippines (Sec. 4,
Philippine Bill of 1902).
Illegitimate children generally are under the
parental authority of one [Filipino] mother
and follow her nationality, not one of the
illegitimate [alien] fathers. (Serra vs.
Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. L-4223,
May 12, 1952)
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
b. Jus Soli (place of birth): This principle
was never applied in the Philippines. (Roa
vs. Collector of Customs, G.R. No. L-
7011, October 30, 1912)
The Philippines adheres to the principle of Jus
Sanguinis as applied in Art. IV, Sec. 2(1) of
the 1987 Constitution which declares as
Filipino citizens “Those whose fathers or
mothers are citizens of the Philippines”.
(Valles vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No.
137000, August 9, 2000)
2. By Naturalization
NATURALIZATION - the legal act of
adopting an alien and clothing him with the
rights that belong to a natural born citizen,
except those rights that are specifically
reserved by the Constitution to the latter.
(Villegas vs. Commission on Elections, G.R.
No. 257453, August 9, 2022)
It is also the process by which a foreigner
acquires, voluntarily or by operation of law,
the citizenship of a State (Cruz & Cruz,
Constitutional Law, 2015).
3. By Marriage
Any woman who is now or may hereafter be
married to a citizen of the Philippines, and
who might herself be lawfully naturalized
shall be deemed a citizen of the Philippines.
Minor children of persons naturalized under
this law who have been born in the
Philippines shall be considered citizens
thereof. (Sec. 15, Commonwealth Act No.
473 of 1939)
Loss of Citizenship (NEOS-CD)
a. Naturalization in a foreign country.
(Frivaldo vs. Commission on Elections,
G.R. No. 120295. June 28, 1996)
b. Express renunciation or expatriation.
203
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
c. Taking an oath of allegiance to another
country upon reaching the age of
majority.
d. Accepting a commission and Serving in
the armed forces of another country,
unless there is an offensive or defensive
pact with the country, or it maintains
armed forces in RP with RP’s consent.
e. By Cancellation of the certificate of
naturalization.
f. Being found by final judgment to be a
Deserter of the AFP (Sec. 1,
Commonwealth Act No. 63, as amended)
Immigration to the United States by virtue of
a “green card,” (immigrant visa) which
entitles one to reside permanently in that
country, constitutes abandonment of
domicile in the Philippines. With more reason
then does naturalization in a foreign country
result in an abandonment of domicile in the
Philippines. (Coquilla vs. Commission on
Elections, G.R. No. 151914, July 31, 2002)
Possession of alien registration certificate
unaccompanied by proof of performance of
acts whereby Philippine citizenship had been
lost is not adequate proof of loss of
citizenship. (Aznar vs. Commission on
Elections, G.R. No. 83820, May 25, 1990)
EXPATRIATION – the voluntary
renunciation or abandonment of nationality
and allegiance. (Go Julian vs. The
Government of the Philippine Islands, G.R.
No. L-20809, October 22, 1923)
C. RETENTION AND RE-ACQUISITION
OF CITIZENSHIP
Philippine citizenship may be lost or
reacquired in the manner provided by law
(Sec. 3, Art. IV, 1987 Constitution).
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Retention of Philippine Citizenship
Natural-born citizens, by reason of their
naturalization as citizens of a foreign country
are deemed to have reacquired Philippine
citizenship upon taking an oath of allegiance
to the Republic. Natural born citizens of the
Philippines, who, after the effectivity of the
Act, become citizens of a foreign country,
shall retain their Philippine citizenship upon
taking the oath. (Sec. 3, Republic act No.
9225)
Re-acquisition of Citizenship
a) By naturalization: This mode of
naturalization is governed by
Commonwealth Act No. 63 wherein the
applicant must have the following
qualifications:
1. The applicant must have lost his
original Philippine citizenship by
naturalization in a foreign country or
by express renunciation of his
citizenship.
2. He must be at least 21 years of age
and shall have resided in the
Philippines at least 6 months before
he applies for naturalization.
3. He must have conducted himself in a
proper and irreproachable manner
during the entire period of his
residence, in his relations with the
government and with the community
in which he is living.
4. He subscribes to an oath declaring his
intention to renounce all faith and
allegiance to the foreign authority,
state or sovereignty of which he was
a citizen or subject. (Sec. 3,
Commonwealth Act No. 63)
b. By repatriation due to
1. Desertion of the armed forces (Sec.
4, C.A. 63).
204
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
2. Service in the armed forces of the
Allied Forces in World War II (Sec. 1,
R.A. 965)
3. Service in the Armed Forces of the
United States at any other time (Sec
1, R.A. 2630).
4. Marriage of a Filipino woman to an
alien (Sec. 1, RA 8171).
5. Political and economic necessity.
(Sec. 1, Republic Act No. 8171)
REPATRIATION – recovery of nationality
by individuals who were natural-born citizens
of a state but who had lost their nationality.
(Bengson III vs. House of Representatives
Electoral Tribunal, G.R. No. 142840 May 7,
2001)
Repatriation results in the recovery of the
original nationality. Therefore, if he is a
natural-born citizen before he lost his
citizenship, he will be restored to his former
status as a natural-born Filipino. (Bengson III
vs. House of Representatives Electoral
Tribunal, G.R. No. 142840 May 7, 2001)
In the absence of any official action or
approval by proper authorities, a mere
application for repatriation does not, and
cannot, amount to an automatic reacquisition
of the applicant’s Philippine citizenship. (Labo
vs. Commission on Elections, GR 86564,
August 1, 1989)
A foundling, considered as a natural-born
Filipino citizen, re-acquired natural-born
Filipino citizenship when, following her
naturalization as a citizen of the United
States, she complied with the requisites of
Republic Act No. 9225. (David vs. Senate
Electoral Tribunal, G.R. No. 221538,
September 20, 2016)
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
c. By direct act of Congress
Derivative Citizenship: The unmarried
child, whether legitimate, illegitimate or
adopted, below 18 years of age, of those who
re-acquire Philippine citizenship upon
effectivity of the Act shall be deemed citizens
of the Philippines. (Sec. 4, Republic act No.
9225)
Civil and Political Rights and Liabilities:
Those who retain or re-acquire Philippine
citizenship shall enjoy full civil and political
rights and be subject to all attendant
liabilities and responsibilities under existing
laws of the Philippines, subject to the
following conditions:
a. Those intending to exercise their right of
suffrage must meet the requirements
under Section 1, Article V of the
Constitution, RA No. 9189 (The
Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003)
and other existing laws; Those seeking
elective public office 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 officers
authorized to administer an oath.
Even those who retained their Philippine
citizenship by birth and acquired foreign
citizenship by virtue of marriage to a
foreign spouse are required to renounce
their foreign citizenship (Sobejana-
Condon vs. Commission on Elections,
G.R. No. 198742, August 10, 2012)
b. 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
205
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
certificate of candidacy, make a
personal and sworn renunciation of any
and all foreign citizenship before any
public officer authorized to administer
an oath;
c. 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.
d. Those intending to practice their
profession in the Philippines shall apply
with the proper authority for a license or
permit to engage in such practice.
e. That right to vote or be elected or
appointed to any public office in the
Philippines cannot be exercised by, or
extended to those who:
i. Are candidates for or are occupying
any public office in the country of
which they are naturalized citizens;
and/or
ii. Are in active service as commissioned
or non-commissioned officers in the
armed forces of the country in which
they are naturalized citizens. (Sec. 5,
Republic act No. 9225)
d. Marriage to an alien spouse
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. (Sec. 4, Art. IV,
1987 Constitution)
D. NATURALIZATION
In essence, an applicant for naturalization
must show full and complete compliance with
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
the requirements of the naturalization law;
otherwise, his petition for naturalization will
be denied. This ponente has likewise held
that "[t]he courts must always be mindful
that naturalization proceedings are imbued
with the highest public interest.
Naturalization laws should be rigidly enforced
and strictly construed in favor of the
government and against the applicant. The
burden of proof rests upon the applicant to
show full and complete compliance with the
requirements of law." (Republic of the
Philippines vs. Huang Te Fu, G.R. No.
200983, March 18, 2015)
When an Alien May Acquire Filipino
Citizenship (JAL)
a. Administrative naturalization
pursuant to R.A. No. 9139 (another
mode of acquiring Philippine
citizenship which may be availed of
by native born aliens. The only
implication is that, a native-born alien
has the choice to apply for judicial or
administrative naturalization, subject
to the prescribed qualifications and
disqualification);
b. Judicial naturalization pursuant to
C.A. No. 473, as amended (covers
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); and
c. Legislative naturalization in the
form of a law enacted by Congress
bestowing Philippine citizenship to an
alien. (So vs. Republic of the
Philippines, G.R. No. 170603, January
29, 2007)
206
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
A naturalization proceeding is not a judicial
adversary proceeding, and the decision
rendered therein does not constitute res
judicata. A certificate of naturalization may
be cancelled if it is subsequently discovered
that the applicant obtained it by misleading
the court upon any material fact. Law and
jurisprudence even authorize the cancellation
of a certificate of naturalization upon grounds
or conditions arising subsequent to the
granting of the certificate. If the government
can challenge a final grant of citizenship, with
more reason can it appeal the decision of the
RTC within the reglementary period despite
its failure to oppose the petition before the
lower court. (So vs. Republic of the
Philippines, G.R. No. 170603, January 29,
2007)
Requirements for Naturalization by
Judicial Proceeding (G-R-A-M-A-RLu)
a. Not be less than eighteen (18) years of
Age on the date of hearing of petition (as
amended by R.A. No. 6809)
b. Must have Resided in the Philippines for
at least 10 years. This can be reduced to
5 years in any of the following cases:
i. Honorably held office in the
Philippines;
ii. Established new industry or
introduced a useful invention;
iii. Married to a Filipino woman;
iv. Engaged as teacher in Philippine
public or private school not
established for exclusive
instruction to a particular
nationality or race, or in any
branches of education or industry
for a period of not less than two
(2) years; and
v. Born in the Philippines
c. Possesses Good moral character,
believes in the Constitution and has
conducted himself in an irreproachable
manner during his stay in the Philippines.
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
d. Owns Real estate in the Philippines worth
P5,000.00 or more, or has a LUcrative
trade, profession or occupation.
e. Must be Able to speak and write Filipino
or English and a principal dialect (as
modified by the 1987 Constitution).
f. He must have enrolled his Minor children
in a recognized school in the Philippines
that teaches Philippine History, civics and
government. (Sections 2 and 3,
Commonwealth Act No. 473)
Disqualifications
a. Being opposed to organized government.
b. Believing in violence as a means to
espouse an idea.
c. A polygamist or believing in such.
d. Convicted of a crime involving moral
turpitude.
e. Suffering from an incurable contagious
disease or from mental anguish.
f. Not mingling socially with Filipinos, nor
embracing Filipino culture, ideas and.
customs.
g. Being the citizen of a country with which
the Philippines is at war, during the time
of such war.
h. No reciprocity, that is, his own country
does not grant the same naturalization to
Filipinos. (Sec. 4, Commonwealth Act No.
473)
Effects of Naturalization
a) Minor children of persons naturalized
under this law who have been born in the
Philippines shall be considered citizens
thereof.
b) A foreign-born minor child, if dwelling in
the Philippines at the time of the
naturalization of the parent, shall
automatically become a Philippine citizen,
and a foreign-born minor child, who is
not in the Philippines at the time the
parent is naturalized, shall be deemed a
Philippine citizen only during his minority,
unless he begins to reside permanently in
207
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
the Philippines when still a minor, in
which case, he will continue to be a
Philippine citizen even after becoming of
age.
c) A child born outside of the Philippines
after the naturalization of his parent shall
be considered a Philippine citizen, unless
within one year after reaching the age of
majority, he fails to register himself as a
Philippine citizen at the American
Consulate of the country where he
resides, and to take the necessary oath
of allegiance. (Sec. 15, Commonwealth
Act No. 473)
Grounds for Cancellation of
Naturalization Certificate Issued
a) Naturalization certificate is obtained
fraudulently.
b) If within 5 years he returns to his native
country and establishes a permanent
residence there.
c) Petition was made on an invalid
declaration of intention.
d) Minor children failed to graduate by the
fault of the parent by neglecting them or
transferring them to another school.
e) Applicant is guilty of violating
naturalization laws and the anti-dummy
law in availing privileges available only to
Filipinos. (Sec. 18, Commonwealth Act
No. 473)
Naturalization by Administrative
Proceeding Requirements:
a. Aliens who were born in the Philippines
and have resided here since birth are
qualified to acquire Philippine citizenship.
b. Must at least by 18 years of age.
c. Must be of good moral character.
d. Must believe in the principles underlying
the Constitution.
e. Must have received his primary and
secondary education in a public or private
school recognized by the DECS.
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
f. Must also have a known trade, business,
profession or lawful occupation from
which he derives income enough for him
and his family.
g. Must be able to read, write and speak
Filipino or any local dialect.
h. Must have mingled with Filipinos and
shown a sincere desire to embrace their
customs, traditions and ideals. (Sec. 3,
Republic Act No. 9139; So vs. Republic of
the Philippines, G.R. No. 170603, January
29, 2007)
Not all aliens may avail of this.
Disqualifications
The following are not qualified to be
naturalized as Filipino citizens under this Act:
a. Those opposed to organized government
or affiliated with any association or group
of persons who uphold and teach
doctrines opposing all organized
governments;
b. Those defending or teaching the
necessity of or propriety of violence,
personal assault or assassination for the
success or predominance of their ideas;
c. Polygamists or believers in the practice of
polygamy;
d. Those convicted of crimes involving
moral turpitude;
e. Those suffering from mental alienation or
incurable contagious diseases;
f. Those who, during the period of their
residence in the Philippines, have not
mingled socially with Filipinos, or who
have not evinced a sincere desire to learn
and embrace the customs, traditions and
ideals of the Filipinos;
g. Citizens or subjects with whom the
Philippines is at war, during the period of
such war; and
h. Citizens or subjects of a foreign country
whose laws do not grant Filipinos the
208
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
right to be naturalized citizens or subjects
thereof. (Sec. 4, Republic Act No. 9139)
Availment of tax amnesty does not obliterate
lack of good moral character which is a
ground for denaturalization. Decision
granting citizenship may be cancelled
anytime. (Republic of the Philippines vs. Mo
Ya Lim Yao, G.R. No. L- 21289, October 4,
1971)
A foreign man who marries a Filipino citizen
does not acquire Philippine citizenship but the
residence requirement for naturalization will
be reduced to 5 years. (Sec. 3,
Commonwealth Act No. 473)
Types of Naturalization
a. Direct Naturalization
b. Derivative Naturalization
A child benefits from the naturalization if the
mother will be a Filipino citizen, either by
birth or naturalization, at the time of her
marriage to her alien spouse. Assuming that
the mother lost her Philippine citizenship by
marriage but subsequently reacquired during
the minority of the child, it is still necessary
for the child to elect Philippine citizenship.
(Villahermoso vs. Commissioner of
Immigration, G.R. No. L-1663, March 31,
1948)
Salient feature of A.M. No. 21-07-22-SC
1. This is with due regard to the special and
vulnerable circumstances of refugees and
stateless persons, such that the
alternative modes of publication would
reduce the necessary fees and be less
burdensome for them. Additionally, the
provision on electronic publication is a
step towards the goal of the Supreme
Court to have a technology-driven
Judiciary that is capable of providing
equal access to justice in real time.
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Section 12 of the Rule states: “If the
court is satisfied that the petition is
sufficient in form and substance, it shall
direct the clerk of court to cause the
publication of the petition, excluding its
annexes, for three (3) consecutive weeks
in the Official Gazette or its website and
in one (1) newspaper of general
circulation or its website in the place
where the petitioner resides, OR the
official website of the Supreme Court.”
(A.M. No. 21-07-22-SC, effective
February 15, 2022)
2. It allows an unaccompanied child to file a
petition for naturalization.
Under this Rule, “A petition, in behalf of
the unaccompanied child or a joint
petition involving related unaccompanied
children, may be filed by the Department
of Social Welfare and Development
(DSWD), the appropriate Local Social
Welfare and Development Office
(LSWDO) where the unaccompanied
child resides, or the child-caring agency
having care and custody of the child.”
This is in accordance with the Philippines’
obligation under international
instruments to ensure the right of a child
to acquire a nationality, with the courts
guided by the “best interests of the child”
principle. (A.M. No. 21-07-22-SC,
effective effective February 15, 2022)
This Rule shall apply to petitions for
naturalization under relevant laws filed by
refugees and stateless persons recognized by
the Philippine Government. (Sec. 2, A.M. No.
21-07-22-SC, effective effective February 15,
2022)
Rationale: This expedited procedure shall
simplify and reduce legal and procedural
hurdles in obtaining Philippine citizenship to
facilitate the assimilation and naturalization
209
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
of refugees and stateless persons into
Philippine society, in accordance with the
international obligations of the Philippines
under Article 34 of the 1951 Convention
Relating to the Status of Refugees and its
1967 Protocol, Article 32 of the 1954
Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless
Persons, and other applicable and relevant
international legal instruments, and United
Nations (UN) treaties or conventions to which
the Philippines is a State Party. (Sec. 3, A.M.
No. 21-07-22-SC, effective effective February
15, 2022)
REFUGEES - any person who, owing to a
well-founded fear of being persecuted for
reasons of race, religion, nationality,
membership of a particular social group or
political opinion, is outside the country of his
or her nationality and is unable, or owing to
such fear, is unwilling to avail himself or
herself of the protection of that country; or
who, not having a nationality and being
outside the country of his or her former
habitual residence as a result of such events,
is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling
to return to it. (Sec. 5[a], A.M. No. 21-07-22-
SC, effective effective February 15, 2022)
STATELESS PERSON - a person who is not
considered as a national by any State under
the operation of its law. (Sec. 5[b], A.M. No.
21-07-22-SC, effective effective February 15,
2022)
UNACCOMPANIED CHILD - a child who is
separated from both parents and other
relatives and is not being cared for by an
adult who, by law or custom, has
responsibility to do so. (Sec. 5[d], A.M. No.
21-07-22-SC, effective effective February 15,
2022)
The petition for naturalization may be filed by
the following: (IDI)
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
a. Individual petitioners who are recognized
as refugees or stateless persons;
b. Immediate family members, related
either by consanguinity or affinity
through a joint petition;
c. The Department of Social Welfare and
Development(DSWD), the appropriate
Local Social Welfare and Development
Office (LSWDO) where the
unaccompanied child resides, or the
child-caring agency having care and
custody of the child in behalf of the
unaccompanied child through a petition
or a joint petition involving related
unaccompanied child. (Sec. 6, A.M. No.
21-07-22-SC, effective effective February
15, 2022)
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of the locality
in which the petitioner has resided at least
one (1) year immediately preceding the filing
of the petition shall have exclusive original
jurisdiction to hear the petition. (Sec. 7, A.M.
No. 21-07-22-SC, effective effective February
15, 2022)
VIII. LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS
A. Public Officers; De Facto and De Jure
PUBLIC OFFICE – the right, authority or
duty, created and conferred by law, by which
for a given period, either fixed by law or
enduring at the pleasure of the creating
power, an individual is invested with some
sovereign power of government to be
exercised by him for the benefit of the public.
(Sec. 32, Chapter 9, Revised Administrative
Code 1987)
Public office is a public trust. Public
officers and employees must at all times be
accountable to the people, serve them with
utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and
efficiency, act with patriotism and justice,
210
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
and lead modest lives.” (Sec. 1, Art. XI, 1987
Constitution)
Note: The Court ruled that the nature of
Beray's position requires that he should be
meticulous in the approval of disbursement
of public funds and to be more circumspect
in examining the documents for his approval.
While the amount involved is not humongous
compared to other government transactions,
the fact still remains that taxpayers' money
was spent and at the expense of the
government. Indeed, a "public office is a
public trust and public officers and employees
must at all times be accountable to the
people." Beray was found to be guilty of
gross negligence and was dismissed. (CSC v.
Beray, G.R. Nos. 191946 & 191974,
December 10, 2019)
Elements of a Public Office
1. Enabling law: Created by the
Constitution, a law, or an ordinance
authorized by law.
2. Possess sovereign functions of
government to be exercised for the public
interest.
3. Functions are defined expressly or
implied by law.
4. Functions are to be exercised by an
officer directly under the control of law,
not under that of a superior officer,
UNLESS they are functions conferred by
law upon inferior officers who by law, are
under control of a superior.
5. Permanent or continuous, not temporary
or occasional. (State Ex Rel. Barney vs.
Hawkins, 257 P. 411, Mont. 1927)
CHARACTERISTICS OF PUBLIC OFFICE
Public office is a public trust created in
the interest and for the benefit of the
public.
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
This requires that all government officials and
employees must at all times be accountable
to the people, serve them with utmost
responsibility, integrity, loyalty and
efficiency, act with patriotism and justice,
and lead modest lives. (Lim vs Arce, A.M. No.
P-89-312, January 9, 1992)
As the Constitution expressly states, a public
office is a public trust. (Sec 1, Art. XI, 1987
Constitution)
In Cornejo vs. Gabriel, (GR. No. L-16887
November 17, 1920) the Court already ruled:
a public office is not property within the
constitutional guarantees of due
process. It is a public trust or agency.
Public officers are mere agents and not rulers
of the people, no man has a proprietary or
contractual right to an office. (Commission on
Elections vs. Cruz, G.R. No. 186616,
November 20, 2009)
There is no such thing as vested
interest or an estate in an office or even
an absolute right to hold it. Likewise,
there is no such thing as a vested interest or
an estate in an office, or even an absolute
right to hold office. Except for constitutional
offices which provide for special immunity as
regards salary and tenure, no one can be said
to have any vested right in an office or its
salary. The position which private respondent
Garcia would like to occupy anew was
abolished pursuant to a valid reorganization
measure. There is no vested property right to
be reemployed in a reorganized office.
(National Land Titles and Deeds Registration
Administration vs. CSC, G.R. No. 84301, April
7, 1993)
Public Office is not a property.
Public office is personal to the incumbent or
appointee thereto. Hence, it is NOT
TRANSMISSIBLE to his heirs upon his death.
211
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
(De Castro vs. Commission on Elections, G.R.
No. 125249, February 7, 1997)
GENERAL RULE: Applying the doctrine of
actio personalis moritur cum persona (a
personal right of action dies with the person),
upon the death of the incumbent, no heir of
his may be allowed to continue holding his
office in his place. (De Castro vs. Commission
on Elections G.R. No. 125249, February 7,
1997)
EXCEPTIONS: When public office is
property: In quo warranto proceedings
relating to the question as to which of the two
persons is entitled to a public office; When
the dispute concerns one’s constitutional
right to security of tenure, public office is
deemed analogous to property in a limited
sense. (Lumiqued vs. Exevea, G.R. No.
117565, November 18, 1997)
While the right to a public office is personal
and exclusive to the public officer, an election
protest is not purely personal and exclusive
to the protestant or to the protestee such
that the death of either would oust the court
of all authority to continue the protest
proceedings. Vice Mayor elect has the status
of a real party in interest in the continuation
of the proceedings (Which involves the
Mayor) and is entitled to intervene therein.
For if the protest succeeds and the protestee
is unseated, the Vice-Mayor succeeds to the
office of Mayor that becomes vacant if the
one duly elected cannot assume the post.”
(De Castro vs. Commission on Elections, G.R.
No. 125249, February 7, 1997)
Creation of Public Office
a. By the Constitution (i.e. Office of the
President, the Legislature, the Supreme
Court, the Constitutional Commissions);
b. By a valid statutory enactment (i.e.
Securities and Exchange Commission);
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
c. By authority of law (i.e. Sangguniang
Panglungsod by the Local Government Code
of 1991)
Public officer is an individual vested
with public office
A person who holds public office.
Any person who, by direct provision of law,
popular election or appointment by
competent authority, shall take part in the
performance of public functions in the
Government of the Philippine Islands, or shall
perform in said Government or in any of its
branches, public duties as an employee,
agent or subordinate official, of any rank or
class shall be deemed to be a public officer.
(Art. 203, Revised Penal Code)
Includes elective and appointive officials and
employees, permanent or temporary,
whether in the classified, unclassified or
exempt service, receiving, compensation,
even nominal, from the government (Sec. 2,
R.A. 3019, Anti-graft and Corrupt Practices
Act, 1960)
The most important characteristic which
distinguishes an office from an employment
is that the creation and conferring of an office
involves a delegation to the individual of
some of the sovereign functions of the
government, to be exercised by him for the
benefit of the public, and that the same
portion of the sovereignty of the country,
either legislative, executive or judicial,
attaches, for the time being, to be exercised
for the public benefit. Unless the powers so
conferred are of this nature, the individual is
not a public officer. (Laurel vs. Desierto, G.R.
No. 145368, April 12, 2002)
Classification of Public Officers
a. Executive, legislative, and judicial officer
b. Discretionary or ministerial officers
212
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
c. Civil or military officers (Republic of the
Philippines vs. Sereno, G.R. No. 237428, May
11, 2018)
GENERAL RULE: A person cannot be
compelled to accept public office.
EXCEPTIONS:
a. When citizens are required, under
conditions provided by law, to render
personal military or civil service (Sec. 4,
Art. II, 1987 Constitution);
b. When a person who, having been elected
by popular election to a public office,
refuses without legal motive to be sworn
in or to discharge the duties of said office
(Art. 234, Revised Penal Code; Note: the
penalty shall be either arresto mayor, or
a fine not exceeding P1,000.00, or both)
DE JURE OFFICER is one who is deemed,
in all respects, legally appointed and qualified
and whose term of office has not expired
(Topacio v. Ong, G.R. No. 179895, December
28, 2008)
DE FACTO OFFICER – One who has the
reputation of being the officer that he
assumes to be, and yet is not a good officer
in point of law. (Torres v. Ribo, G.R. No. L-
2051, May 21, 1948)
De Facto Doctrine
This doctrine confers validity to the actions of
an officer having illegitimate title to the
office, as if he or she was acting as a de jure
officer. Its effect is similar to the ratification
of acts done outside the scope of one's
authority. But the same validity conferred on
the official actions of the de facto officer is
not accorded to the individual holding the
office under a color of right or authority, such
that he or she may recover the salaries and
emoluments emanating from the office.
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
This principle was born of necessity, as the
public cannot be expected to investigate the
right of a public official to an office before
transacting with them. Thus, on the basis of
public policy and convenience, the public may
assume that officials are legally qualified and
in office. (Arroyo v. Court of Appeals, G.R.
No. 202860 April 10, 2019)
Elements of De Facto Officership
(Tuanda v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 110544,
October 17, 1995)
1. There must be a validly existing (de
jure) office: The office occupied by the de
facto officer must be legitimate, except that
there is some defect in the title of the officer
holding it.
NOTE: There is no such thing as a de facto
office under Constitutional law. There may be
a de facto officer in a de jure office, but there
cannot be a de facto officer in a de facto
office. If what is defective is not the title to
the office but the office itself, then the
possessor thereof is not a de facto officer.
2. Actual and physical possession of the
office in good faith: The office must be
actually held by the de facto officer if his acts
are to affect the public and third persons.
NOTE: The Court held that good faith is no
longer necessary. The primordial concern
that the doctrine seeks to address remains to
be the protection of the public, who rely on
the acts of a person performing the duties of
an office pursuant to an irregular or defective
authority. Precluding its application to cases
where there was no good faith possession of
the office, despite having a color of authority
or right to the office, would render the
doctrine's purpose nugatory. (Arroyo v. Court
of Appeals, G.R. No. 202860 April 10, 2019)
3. Color of title to the office or general
acquiescence by the public
213
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW

COLOR OF AUTHORITY – an authority EXCEPTION: When there is no de jure

derived from appointment, however irregular
or informal, so that the incumbent be not a
mere volunteer. (Almeda vs. Commission on
Audit, G.R. No. 254394, April 5, 2022)
There is color or title to the office in any
of the following cases:
a. Without a known appointment or election,
but under such circumstances of reputation
or acquiescence as were calculated to induce
people, without inquiry, to submit to or
invoke his action, supposing him to be the
officer he assumes to be;
public officer, de facto officer who is in good
faith has had the possession of the office and
has discharged the duties pertaining thereto,
is legally entitled to the emoluments of the
office, and may, in an appropriate action,
recover the salary, fees, and other
compensation attached to the office (Monroy
vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-23258, July
1, 1967)
Acts of de facto officers are valid insofar as
third parties are concerned. (Luna vs
Rodriguez, G.R. No. L-12647, November 26,
1917)

b. Under color of a known or valid De Jure v. De Facto Officers

appointment or election, where the officer
has failed to conform to some precedent
requirement or conditions, for example, a
failure to take the oath of give a bond or
similar defect;

c. Under color of a known election or

appointment, void because the officer was
not eligible, or because there was a want of
power in the electing or appointing body, or
by reason of some defect or irregularity in its
exercise, such ineligibility, want of power or
defect being unknown to the public; and

d. Under color of an election, or appointment,

by or pursuant to a public unconstitutional
law, before the same is adjudged to be such.
(Almeda vs. Commission on Audit, G.R. No.
254394, April 5, 2022)

Entitlement to Salaries

GENERAL RULE: Rightful incumbent may

recover from de facto officer salary received
by latter during time of wrongful tenure even
though latter is in good faith and under color
of title. (The General Manager, Philippine
Ports Authority vs. Montserrat, G.R. No.
129616, April 17, 2002)
B. Civil Service; Scope, Appointments,
Personnel Actions, and Removal
1. SCOPE
The Civil Service embraces all branches,
subdivisions, instrumentalities, and agencies

AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION 214

 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
of the government, including GOCCs with
original charters. (Sec 2[1], Art. IX-B, 1987
Constitution)
The Civil Service embraces all branches,
subdivisions, instrumentalities, and agencies
of the Government, including GOCCs with
original charters (Laya, Jr., vs. Philippine
Veterans Bank, G.R. No. 205813, January 10,
2018).
Note: The only function of the Civil Service
Commission is to review the appointment in
the light of the requirements of the Civil
Service Law, and when it finds the appointee
to be qualified and all other legal
requirements have been otherwise satisfied,
it has no choice but to attest to the
appointment (Lapinid vs. Civil Service
Commission, G.R. No. 96298, May 14, 1991).
The Court clarified that the Civil Service
Commission’s rulemaking power, albeit
constitutionally granted, is still limited to the
implementation and interpretation of the
laws it is tasked to enforce. As an
administrative agency, the Civil Service
Commission’s quasi-legislative power is
subject to the same limitations applicable to
other administrative bodies. The rules that
the Civil Service Commission formulates must
not override, but must be in harmony with,
the law it seeks to apply and implement.
(Trade and Investment Development
Corporation of the Philippines vs. Civil Service
Commission, G.R. No. 182249, March 5,
2013)
Limitations on the Civil Service
Commission’s Powers
a. It cannot order the replacement of the
appointee simply because it considers
another employee to be better qualified
(Lapinid vs. Civil Service Commission, G.R.
No. 96298, May 14, 1991).
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
b. The Civil Service Commission cannot co-
manage or be a surrogate administrator of
government offices and agencies. (Chang vs.
Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 86791,
November 26, 1990)
c. It cannot change the nature of the
appointment extended by the appointing
officer (Luego vs. Civil Service Commission,
G.R. No. L-69137, August 5, 1986).
2. APPOINTMENTS TO THE CIVIL
SERVICE
GENERAL RULE: Appointments in the civil
service shall be made ONLY according to
merit and fitness. (Sec. 2, Art. IX-B, 1987
Constitution)
EXCEPTIONS: Appointment to the following
positions:
a. Policy Determining Position – one
vested with the power of formulating a
method of action for the government or any
of its subdivisions.
b. Highly Confidential Position– an office
where the duties are not merely clerical. The
performance of which requires skill,
judgment, trust, and confidence; and
involves the responsibility of the other which
he represents.
c. Highly Technical Office – an office
which requires skills or training in the highest
degree. (Quiason, Jr and Agpalo, The Civil
Service Law)
NOTE: Entrance to any of these 3 offices DO
NOT REQUIRE competitive examination or
civil service eligibility. (Agpalo, Law on Public
Officers, 2005 Edition)
CLASSIFICATIONS OF POSITIONS IN
THE CIVIL SERVICE
a. Career Service - shall be characterized
by the following:
1. Entrance based on merit and fitness
to be determined as far as practicable
215
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
by competitive examination, or based
on highly technical qualifications;
2. Opportunity for advancement to
higher career positions; and
3. Security of tenure. (Sec. 7, Chapter
2, Executive Order No. 292)
Positions included in the career service:
1. Open Career Positions – where
prior qualification in an appropriate
examination is required.
2. Close Career Positions (e.g.
scientific or highly technical in
nature)
3. Career Executive Service (e.g.
undersecretaries, bureau directors)
4. Career Officers, other than those
belonging to the Career Executive
Service, who are appointed by the
President, such as those in the
Foreign Office.
5. Positions in the Armed Forces,
although governed by a separate
merit system.
6. Personnel of government-owned
or controlled corporations with
original charters
7. Permanent Laborers, whether
skilled, semi-skilled, or unskilled.
(Sec. 7, Chapter 2, Executive Order
No. 292)
Career service officers enjoy security of
tenure as guaranteed under the 1987
Constitution and the Civil Service Decree of
the Philippines. The right to security of tenure
is not tantamount to immunity from
dismissal. As long as the dismissal was for a
legal cause and the requirements of due
process were met, the law will not prevent
their removal from office. (Lacson vs.
Executive Secretary, G.R. Nos. 165399,
165475, 165404, 165489, May 30, 2011)
b. Non- career service - shall be
characterized by the following:
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
(1) Entrance on bases other than those of the
usual tests of merit and fitness utilized for the
career service; and
(2) Tenure which is limited to a period
specified by law, or which is coterminous with
that of the appointing authority or subject to
his pleasure, or which is limited to the
duration of a particular project for which
purpose employment was made. (Sec. 9,
Chapter 2, Executive Order No. 292)
Positions included in the non-career
service
1. Elective officials and their personal and
confidential staff;
2. Secretaries and other officials of
Cabinet rank who hold their positions at
the pleasure of the President and their
personal or confidential staff(s);
3. Chairmen and members of
commissions and boards with fixed
terms of office, and their personal and
confidential staff;
4. Contractual personnel or those whose
employment in the government is in
accordance with a special contract to
undertake a specific work or job,
requiring special or technical skills not
available in the employing agency, to
be accomplished within a specific
period, which in no case shall exceed
one year, and performs or
accomplishes the specific work or job,
under his own responsibility with a
minimum of direction and supervision
from the hiring agency; and
5. Emergency and seasonal personnel.
(Sec. 9, Chapter 2, Executive Order No.
292)
GENERAL RULE: All officers and employees
in the career and non-career service are
appointive.
216
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
EXCEPTION: Elective officials in the non-
career service. (Agpalo, Law on Public
Officers, 2005 edition)
Requisites of a valid appointment
a. Appointing authority must be vested with
power to make the appointment at the time
the appointment is made;
Note: An appointment extended by one
who has no power to appoint is null and
void. (Niere vs. Court of First Instance of
Negros Occidental, G.R. No. L-30324,
November 29, 1973)
b. Appointee possess all the qualifications
and none of the disqualifications prescribed
by the law for the position: The qualifications
and lack of disqualifying traits must be
reckoned at the time of the appointment and
during the incumbency;
c. The position is vacant. There is vacancy
when there is no person lawfully authorized
to assume and exercise at present the duties
of the office. (Ferrer vs. Hechanova, G.R. No.
L-24418, January 25, 1967)
Note: Where there is no vacancy, no
valid appointment. (Morata vs. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. L-18978, May 25,
1964)
d. An appointment issued in accordance with
pertinent laws and rules shall take effect
immediately on the date it was signed by the
appointing officer/authority. (Sec 17. Rule VI,
2017 Omnibus Rules on Appointments and
other Human Resource Actions)
e. Appointee accepts the appointment by
taking the oath and entering the discharge of
the office.
Absence of any one of the requisites makes
the appointment incomplete or invalid.
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
(Provincial Board of Cebu vs. Presiding Judge
of Cebu, G.R. No. 34695, March 7, 1989)
POWERS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
a. Determine whether or not the proposed
appointee is qualified to hold the position.
b. Determine whether or not the rules
pertinent to the process of appointment are
followed. (Luego vs. Civil Service
Commission, G.R. NO. L-69137, August 5,
1986)
Approval of the CSC = Attestation
Attestation is required merely as a check to
assure compliance with the civil service laws
(Luego vs. Civil Service Commission, G.R.
NO. L- 69137, August 5, 1986)
In the case of Province of Camarines Sur vs.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 103125, May 17,
1993, the Court held that the Civil Service
Commission has no authority to: (a) Revoke
the an appointment simply because it
believes that a protestant is better qualified
to occupy the disputed office; (b) Make the
appointment itself; (c) Direct the appointing
authority to the change the employment
status of an public employee; (d) Inquire into
the right of the appointing officer to hold
office – this is the function of a quo warranto
proceeding. But it may inquire whether the
office itself or the appointing officer
possesses the prerogative to issue the
appointment. (City of Manila vs. Subido, G.R.
No. L-25835, May 20, 1966)
The appointment shall take effect
immediately upon its issuance by the
appointing authority. It shall remain effective
until it is disapproved by the Civil Service
Commission. (Argel vs. Gov. Singson, G.R.
No. 202970, March 25, 2015)
Appointee accepts the appointment by taking
the oath and entering the discharge of the
217
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
office. (Tamondong vs. Executive Secretary
Ochoa, Jr., G.R. No. 212030, June 16, 2015)
The taking of the oath and the entry into the
discharge of the duties of the office amount
to an acceptance of the position. (Garces vs.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 114795, July 17,
1996)
Acceptance is indispensable to complete the
appointment. (Garces vs. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 114795, July 17, 1996)
A public officer or employee who does not
take the oath may be considered only a de
facto officer and he enjoys no guarantee of
security of tenure. (Lecaros vs.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 130872, March 25,
1999)
APPOINTMENTS TO THE CIVIL SERVICE
3. PERSONNEL ACTIONS
Security of Tenure Provision of the
Constitution: No officer or employee in the
civil service shall be suspended to dismissed,
except for cause provided by law and after
due process or after he shall have been given
the opportunity
to defend himself. (Sec. 2[3], Art. IX-
B, 1987 Constitution)
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
“For cause”: Reasons which the law and
sound public policy recognize as sufficient
warrant for suspension or removal. A legal
cause and not merely causes which the
appointing power in the exercise of discretion
may deem sufficient. (Tria vs Sto. Tomas,
G.R. No. 85670, July 31, 1991)
Security of tenure attaches once an
appointment is issued and the completed and
the appointee assumes the position. (Mauna
vs Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 97794,
May 13, 1994)
Personnel Action Amounting to illegal
removal (Agpalo, Law on Public Officers,
2005)
a. Extending Temporary Appointment
As a rule, an acting appointment is temporary
and revocable at the pleasure of the
appointing power. But extending temporary
appointment to a permanently appointed
employee to another position cannot be used
to oust an incumbent. (Gayatao vs. Civil
Service Commission, G.R. No. 93064, June
22, 1992)
The rule is that a permanent employee
remains a permanent employee unless he is
validly removed. Extending to him a
temporary appointment and thereafter
removing him is illegal. (Gabriel vs. Domingo,
G.R. No. 87420, September 17, 1990)
b. Transfer or Re-assignment -
movement from one position to another
which is equivalent in rank, level and salary,
without a break in service.
The law authorizes the re-assignment of an
employee from one organizational unit to
another in the same agency, provided that
the re-assignment shall not involve a
reduction in rank, status, and salary.
218
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
(Fernandez vs. Sto Tomas, G.R. No. 116418,
March 7, 1995)
A transfer that results in promotion or
demotion, advancement or reduction, or a
transfer that aims to lure the employee away
from his permanent position, cannot be done
without the employee’s consent. For that
would constitute removal from office. (Sta.
Maria vs. Lopez, G.R. No. L-30773, February
18, 1970)
What is prohibited are transfers which are
tantamount to illegal removals (i.e. cases of
unconsented transfers) (Bentain vs. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 89452, June 9, 1992)
c. Detail – a temporary assignment of
personnel.
GENERAL RULE: A temporary assignment
of personnel is permissible even without the
employee’s prior consent. (Bentain vs. Court
of Appeals, G.R. No. 89452, June 9, 1992)
Cases when detail is not allowed:
1. Transfer is a preliminary step toward
an employee’s removal
2. It is a scheme to lure him away from
his permanent position
3. Detail was designed to indirectly
terminate his service
4. Detail was designed to indirectly
force his resignation (Bentain vs.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 89452,
June 9, 1992)
A detail or reassignment that is indefinite and
results in the reduction in rank, status, and
salary is, in effect, a constructive dismissal
from service. (Bentain vs. CA, G.R. No.
89452, June 9, 1992)
d. Shortening of term
A law or ordinance shortening the term of
office of a public officer or employee, when
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
at the time of his appointment, he knew he
would hold office during good behavior,
amounts to a plain and simple removal
without cause and hearing. (Tapales vs.
President of the University of the Philippines,
G.R. No. L-17523, March 30, 1963)
e. Control power doesn’t extend to
removal
The power of control of the President over all
officers and employees of the executive
department refers to the power to alter,
modify, or nullify, or set aside what a
subordinate officer has done in the
performance of his duties and to substitute
the judgment of the former for that of the
latter. It does not extend to the power to
remove an officer or employee in the
executive department. (Ang-Sngco vs.
Castillo, G.R. No. L-17169, November 30,
1963)
f. Demotion – the movement from one
position to another involving the issuance of
an appointment with diminution in duties,
responsibilities, status, or rank which may or
may not involve reduction in salary. (Sec. 4,
Rule III, Memorandum Circular No. 40, s.
1998)
g. Denial of optional retirement and
refusal to reinstate
Optional retirement under RA 1616 may be
allowed to any official or employee,
appointive or elective, regardless of age and
employment status, who has rendered at
least 20 years of service - the last 3 years of
which are continuous.
If the application for optional retirement is
denied, the official is entitled to
reinstatement with backwages. The head of
the office may not refuse reinstatement on
the ground that the official has committed
acts of misconduct. (Commission on Human
219
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
Rights vs. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No.
101207, October 1, 1993)
Disciplinary cases involving “personnel
action” affecting employees in the civil
service including “appointment through
certification, promotion, transfer,
reinstatement, reemployment, detail,
reassignment, demotion and separation”, as
well as employment status and qualification
standards, are all within the exclusive
jurisdiction of the CSC. (Mantala vs. Salvador,
G.R. No. 101646, February 13, 1992)
NOTE: This personnel action infringes on the
Constitutional right for security of tenure.
4. REMOVAL
No officer or employee of the civil service
shall be removed or suspended except for
cause as provided by law and after due
process. That a transfer from one position to
another without reduction in rank or salary
shall not be considered disciplinary when
made in the interest of public service (Sec.
32, Art. VII, Republic Act No. 2260)
No complaint against a civil service official or
employee shall be given due course unless
the same is in writing and subscribed and
sworn to by the complainant. The respondent
is entitled to the following:
a. A formal investigation if he so elects;
b. The right to appear and defend himself at
said investigation in person or by
counsel;
c. To confront and cross-examine the
witnesses against him; and
d. To have the attendance of witnesses and
production of documents in his favor by
compulsory process of subpoena or
subpoena duces tecum. (Sec. 32, Art.
VII, Republic Act No. 2260)
The Commissioner may, for dis-sty
oppression, misconduct, neglect of duty,
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
conviction of a crime involving moral
turpitude, notoriously disgraceful or immoral
conduct, improper or unauthorized
solicitation of contributions from subordinate
employees and by teachers or school officials
from school children, violation of the existing
Civil Service law and rules or of reasonable
office regulations, or in the interest of the
service, remove any subordinate officer or
employee from the service, demote him in
rank, suspend him for not more than one
year without pay or fine him in an amount
not exceeding six months' salary. (Sec. 33,
Art. VII, Republic Act No. 2260)
Preventive Suspension and Dismissal
from Service
Kinds of preventive suspension of
government employees charged with
offenses punishable by removal or
suspension
a. Preventive suspension pending
investigation;
b. Preventive suspension pending
appeal. If the penalty imposed by the
disciplining authority is suspension or
dismissal and after review the
respondent is exonerated. (Civil
Service Commission vs. Alfonso, G.R.
No. 179452, June 11, 2009)
Preventive suspension pending
investigation is not a penalty: It is a
measure intended to enable the disciplining
authority to investigate charges against
respondent by preventing the latter from
intimidating or in any way influencing
witnesses against him. If the investigation is
not finished and a decision is not rendered
within that period, the suspension will be
lifted and the respondent will automatically
be reinstated. If after investigation,
respondent is found innocent of the charges
and is exonerated, he should be reinstated
220
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
(Lastimosa vs. Vasquez, G.R. No. 116801,
April 6, 1995)
Periods for preventive suspension
• For local elective officials – 60 days
(maximum) for a single offense
within a single year for several
offenses but not exceeding the term
of office.
• For civil service officers and
employees – 90 days (maximum)
• Office of the Ombudsman – Not more
than 6 months, without pay, except
when the delay in the disposition of
the case by the Office of the
Ombudsman is due to the fault
The proper disciplining authority may
preventively suspend any subordinate officer
under his authority pending an investigation
if the charge against such officer involves
dishonesty, oppression or grave misconduct,
or neglect in the performance of a duty, or if
there are reasons to believe that the
respondent is guilty of the charges which
would warrant removal from the service.
(Sec. 1, Rule IV, CSC Memorandum Circular
No. 46)
If the investigation is not finished and a
decision is not rendered within that period,
the suspension will be lifted and the
respondent will automatically be reinstated.
(The Board of Trustees of the Government
Service Insurance System vs. Velasco, G.R.
No. 170463, February 2, 2011)
Legal basis for an award of back
salaries:
Sec. 47, Book V of the Administrative Code of
1987: “An appeal shall not stop the decision
from being executor, and in case the penalty
is suspension or removal, the respondent
shall be considered as having been under
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
preventive suspension during the pendency
of the appeal in the event he wins an appeal.”
This provision, however, on its face, does not
support a claim for back salaries since it does
not expressly provide for back salaries during
this period; our established rulings hold that
back salaries may not be awarded for the
period of preventive suspension as the law
itself authorizes its imposition so that its
legality is beyond question. To resolve the
seeming conflict, the Court crafted two
conditions before an employee may be
entitled to back salaries:
a. The employee must be found innocent of
the charges; and
b. His suspension must be unjustified. (Civil
Service Commission vs. Cruz, G.R.
187858, August 9, 2011)
The reasoning behind these conditions runs
this way; although an employee is considered
under preventive suspension during the
pendency of a successful appeal, the law
itself only authorizes preventive suspension
for a fixed period is unjustified and must be
compensated. (Civil Service Commission vs.
Cruz, G.R. No. 187858, August 9, 2011)
Dismissal
Republic Act No. 6713 penalizes violations of
its Section 7 with imprisonment and/or a fine,
as well as disqualification to hold public
office:
Section 11. Penalties. (b) Any violation hereof
proven in a proper administrative proceeding
shall be sufficient cause for removal or
dismissal of a public official or employee,
even if no criminal prosecution is instituted
against him.
The same explicitly states that dismissal from
the service may be warranted through an
administrative proceeding, even if the erring
officer is not subjected to criminal
221
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
prosecution. This is in keeping with the three
(3)-fold liability rule in the law on public
officers, "which states that the wrongful acts
or omissions of a public officer may give rise
to civil, criminal and administrative liability.
An action for each can proceed independently
of the others. (Ombudsman vs. Regalado,
G.R. Nos. 208481-82, 2018)
Illegal Dismissal, Reinstatement, and
Back Salaries
An illegally dismissed employee who is later
ordered reinstated is considered as not
having left his/her office and shall be entitled
to payment of backwages and other benefits
that should accrue to him/her by virtue of
his/her office. (Sec. 1, CSC Memorandum
Circular 6, s. 2011, effective March 7, 2011)
The “no-work-no-pay” principle does not
apply where it has been sufficiently shown
that a public official was wrongfully
prevented from entering
the office and carrying out his duties.
Thus, the public official may recover his
salary for the duration that he was prevented
from assuming his post. (Celerian vs. Hon.
Tantuico, Jr., G.R. No. 72427, September 24,
1990)
If the illegal dismissal, including the refusal
to reinstate an employee after a finding of
unlawful termination, is found to have been
made in bad faith or due to personal malice
of the superior officers then they will be held
personally accountable for the employee’s
back salaries; otherwise, the government
disburses funds to answer for such arbitrary
dismissal. (David vs. Gania, G.R. No. 156039,
August 14, 2003)
The Constitution mandates that no employee
of the civil service shall be removed from
office except for cause provided by law.
Corollary to this, any employee illegally
dismissed from office is entitled to
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
reinstatement. Any other employment he or
she obtains while the case challenging his or
her dismissal is pending does not bar his or
her right to be reinstated. Similarly, he or she
is entitled to the payment of his or her
backwages from the time of his or her
dismissal until his or her actual
reinstatement. The Constitutional
requirement of valid cause before an
employee of the civil service may be
dismissed and the twin remedies of
reinstatement and payment of full backwages
encapsulate the essence of security of
tenure. (Campol vs. Balao-as,
G.R. No. 197634, November 28, 2016)
An illegally dismissed government employee
who is later ordered reinstated is entitled to
backwages and other monetary benefits from
the time of her illegal dismissal up to her
reinstatement. This is only fair and just
because an employee who is reinstated after
having been illegally dismissed is considered
as not having left her office and should be
given the corresponding compensation at the
time of her reinstatement. (Civil Service
Commission v. Gentallan, G.R. No. 152833,
May 9, 2005)
C. Accountability Of Public Officers;
Ombudsman (1987 CONST., Art. XI,
Secs. 5- 13; R.A. No. 6770, As Amended;
R.A. No. 6713)
ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC
OFFICERS
Public office is a public trust. Public officers
and employees must at all times be
accountable to the people, serve them with
utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and
efficiency and act with patriotism and justice,
and lead modest lives. (Sec. 1, Art XI, 1987
Constitution)
Public officials and employees shall at all
times be accountable to the people and shall
discharge their duties with utmost
222
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
responsibility, integrity, competence, and
loyalty, act with patriotism and justice, lead
modest lives, and uphold public interest over
personal interest. (Sec. 2, Republic Act No.
6713)
Prohibited Acts and Transactions
In addition to acts and omissions of public
officials and employees now prescribed in the
Constitution and existing laws, the following
shall constitute prohibited acts and
transactions of any public official and
employee and are hereby declared to be
unlawful:
a. Financial and material interest, direct
or indirect;
b. Outside employment and other
activities related;
c. Disclosure and/or misuse of
confidential information; and
d. Solicitation or acceptance of gifts
with reservations on some gifts from
foreign governments. (Sec. 7,
Republic Act No. 6713)
TYPES OF ACCOUNTABILITY.
1. ADMINISTRATIVE
Administrative offenses with corresponding
penalties are classified into grave, less grave
or light, depending on their gravity or
depravity and effects on the government
service. (Sec. 46, Rule 10, Revised Rules on
Administrative Cases in the Civil Service)
The following grave offenses shall be
punishable by dismissal from the service:
1. Serious Dishonesty;
2. Gross Neglect of Duty;
3. Grave Misconduct;
4. Being Notoriously Undesirable;
5. Conviction of a crime involving moral
turpitude;
6. Falsification of official document;
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
7. Physical or mental incapacity or
disability due to immoral or vicious
habits;
8. Receiving for personal use of a gift or
other valuable thing when such gift
or other valuable thing is given by
any person in the hope of receiving a
favor or better treatment or
committing acts punishable under the
anti-graft laws;
9. Contracting loans of money or other
property from persons with whom
the office of the employee has
business relations;
10. Soliciting or accepting directly or
indirectly, any gift, gratuity, favor,
entertainment, loan or anything of
monetary value which in the course
of his/her official duties or in
connection with any operation being
regulated by, or any transaction
which may be affected by the
functions of his/her office;
11. Nepotism; and
12. Disloyalty to the Republic of the
Philippines and to the Filipino people.
(Ibid.)
Grounds for Disciplinary Actions of
Elective Officials
1. Disloyalty to the Republic of the
Philippines;
2. Culpable violation of the
Constitution;
3. Dishonesty, oppression, misconduct
in office, gross negligence, or
dereliction of duty;
4. Commission of offense involving
moral turpitude or offense punishable
by at least prison mayor;
5. Abuse of authority;
6. Unauthorized absence for 15
consecutive working days except for
sanggunian members;
7. Application for, or acquisition of,
foreign citizenship or residence or
223
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
status of an immigrant of another
country; and
8. Such other grounds as may be
provided for in Election Code and
other laws.
An elective local official may be removed
from office on the ground enumerated by
order of the proper court. (Sec. 60, Chapter
IV, R.A. No. 7160)
Administrative Sanctions
Desistance of the complainant does not
preclude the taking of disciplinary action
against the respondent. Neither does it
dissuade the Court from imposing the
appropriate corrective sanction. (Cruz vs.
Dalisay, A.M. No. R-181-P, July 31, 1987)
Considering the ministerial nature of the
sheriff’s duty in enforcing writs of execution,
what is incumbent upon him is to ensure that
only that portion of a decision ordained or
decreed in the dispositive part should be the
subject of execution. The point is that the
respondent is well aware of the rules on
execution of judgments, particularly the
proper procedure in ejectment, and yet he
ignored them. (Cunanan vs. Cruz, A.M. No.
R-89-P, November 24, 1988).
Disciplinary Jurisdiction
The Civil Service Commission shall decide
upon appeal all administrative disciplinary
cases involving the imposition of a penalty of:
a. Suspension for more than thirty days;
b. Fine in an amount exceeding thirty days’
salary;
c. Demotion in rank or salary;
d. Transfer; and
e. Removal or dismissal from office. (Office
of the Ombudsman vs. Gutierrez, G.R.
189100, June 21, 2017)
A complaint may be filed directly with the
Commission by a private citizen against a
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
government official or employee in which
case it may hear and decide the case or it
may deputize any department or agency or
official or group of officials to conduct the
investigation. The results of the investigation
shall be submitted to the Commission with
recommendation as to the penalty to be
imposed or other action to be taken. (Civil
Service Commission vs. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 176162, October 9, 2012)
The Secretaries and heads of agencies
and instrumentalities, provinces, cities
and municipalities shall have jurisdiction
to investigate and decide matters involving
disciplinary action against officers and
employees under their jurisdiction. Their
decisions shall be final in case the penalty
imposed is suspension for not more than
thirty days or fine in an amount not
exceeding thirty days’ salary. In case the
decision rendered by a bureau or office head
is appealable to the Commission, the same
may be initially appealed to the department
and finally to the Commission and pending
appeal, the same shall be executory except
when the penalty is removal, in which case
the same shall be executory only after
confirmation by the Secretary concerned.
(Section 47. The Revised Administrative Code
of 1987 on the Civil Service Commission)
Procedure in Administrative Cases
Against Non-Presidential Appointees
Administrative proceedings may be
commenced against a subordinate officer or
employee by the head of department or
office of equivalent rank, or head of local
government, or chiefs or agencies, regional
directors, or upon sworn, written complaint
of any other persons. (Section 48 (1). The
Revised Administrative Code of 1987 on the
Civil Service Commission)
224
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
Jurisdiction for Elective Officials
Complaints, where filed:
. Provincial, highly urbanized city or
independent component city elective
official, shall be filed before the Office of
the President. (Sec. 3, Rule 3,
Administrative Order No. 23, s. 1992)
It may be noted that the Constitution places
local governments under the supervision of
the Executive. Likewise, the Constitution
allows Congress to include in the Local
Government Code provisions for removal of
local officials, which suggests the Congress
may exercise removal powers. So, the LGC
has done and delegated its exercise to the
President. Note also that legally, supervision
is not incompatible with disciplinary
authority. (Ganzon vs. Court of Appeals, G.R.
No. 93252, August 5, 1991)
b. Elective Municipal Officials shall be
filed before the sangguniang
panlalawigan, whose decision may be
appealed to the Office of the President. (The
Sangguniang Barangay vs. Punong Barangay
Severino Martinez, G.R. No. 170626, March
3, 2008)
c. Elective Barangay Officials shall be
filed before the sangguniang panlungsod
or bayan concerned, whose decision shall be
final and executor. (The Sangguniang
Barangay vs. Punong Barangay Severino
Martinez, G.R. No. 170626, March 3, 2008)
Quantum of Evidence Required
In administrative proceedings, only
substantial evidence is required (National
Bureau of Investigation v. Najera, G.R. No.
237522, June 30, 2020).
The standard of substantial evidence is
satisfied when there is reasonable ground to
believe, based on the evidence submitted,
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
that the respondent is responsible for the
misconduct complained of. The non-
applicability of the strict technical rules of
procedure in administrative or quasi-judicial
bodies is not a license to disregard certain
fundamental evidentiary rules. While
administrative or quasi-judicial bodies are not
bound by the technical rules of procedure,
this rule cannot be taken as a license to
disregard fundamental evidentiary rules
(Mira vs. Vda. De Erederos,G.R. 172532
172544-45, November 20, 2013).
2. CRIMINAL
IMPEACHMENT – a criminal proceeding
against a public officer, before a quasi –
judicial political court, instituted by written
accusation called Articles of Impeachment
(Agpalo, Law on Public Officers, 2005
edition), whose purpose is to protect the
people from official delinquencies or
malfeasances. The penalties attached to
impeachment are merely incidental to the
primary intention of protecting the people as
a body politic. (De Leon, The Law on Public
Officers and Election Law, 2008 edition)
The Senate shall have the sole power to try
and decide all cases of impeachment.
(Section 3, par. 6, Article XI, 1987
Constitution)
Who may be impeached:
1. President;
2. Vice-President;
3. Justices of the Supreme Court;
4. Chairmen and Members of the
Constitutional Commission;
5. Ombudsman. (Sec 2, Art. XI, 1987
Constitution)
Grounds for Impeachment
a. Culpable violation of the Constitution
– the deliberate and wrongful breach of
the Constitution. Violation of the
225
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
Constitution made unintentionally, in good
faith, and mere mistakes in the proper
construction of the Constitution do not
constitute and impeachable offense. (RE:
Letter of Mrs. Corona, A.M. No. 20-07-10-
SC, January 12, 2021)
b. Treason – committed by any person who,
owing allegiance to the Government of the
Philippines, not being a foreigner, levies
war against them or adheres to their
enemies, giving them aid or comfort
within the Philippines or elsewhere. (Art.
114, Revised Penal Code)
c. Bribery
d. Graft and Corruption: This must be
understood in the light of the provisions of
the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
Any violation of the prohibited acts
provided therein constitutes a ground for
impeachment. (Republic Act No. 3019,
effective August 17, 1960)
e. Other high crimes: The exact meaning of
"other high crimes or betrayal of public
trust" as an impeachable offense is still
undefined. The framers of the Constitution
put impeachment into the hands of the
legislative branch and transformed it from
a matter of legal definition to a matter of
political judgment. Hence, the definition of
an impeachable offense depends on
whether the majority of the House of
Representatives considers it to be a given
moment in history. (De Leon, Philippine
Constitutional Law, 1999 edition)
f. Betrayal of Public Trust – a new ground
for impeachment, which covers "any
violation of the oath of office involving loss
of popular support even if the violation
may not amount to a punishable offense."
(De Leon, Philippine Constitutional Law,
1999)
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
The purpose of impeachment is not to punish
but only to remove a public officer to secure
the people against gross political
misdemeanors. (Bernas, The 1987
Constitution of the Philippines, A
Commentary, 2009 edition, p.1150).
Conviction does not prevent further
prosecution and punishment according to law
(Sec. 3[7], Art. XI, 1987 Constitution).
The power of Congress to remove a public
official for serious crimes or misconduct is
provided in the 1987 Constitution.
Effect of Conviction
1. Removal from office;
2. Disqualification to hold any other office
under the Republic of the Philippines;
and
3. Party convicted shall be liable and
subject to prosecution, trial and
punishment according to law. (In the
Matter of the Charges of Plagiarism,
Etc., Against Associate Justice Mariano
C. Del Castillo, A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC,
February 8, 2011)
Limitations on Impeachment Cases: The
House of Representatives shall have the
exclusive power to initiate all cases of
impeachment (Sec 3[1], Art XI, 1987
Constitution). Not more than one
impeachment proceeding shall be initiated
against the same official within a period of
one year.
The term "initiate" means to file the
complaint and take initial action on it. The
initiation starts with the filing of the
complaint which must be accompanied with
an action to set the complaint moving. It
refers to the filing of the impeachment
complaint coupled with Congress’ taking
initial action of said complaint. The initial
action taken by the House on the complaint
226
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
is the referral of the complaint to the
Committee on Justice. Allowing an expansive
construction of the term "initiate" beyond the
act of referral allows the unmitigated influx of
successive complaints, each having their own
respective 60-session-day period of
disposition from referral. (Gutierrez vs.
House Committee on Justice, G.R. 193459,
February 15, 2011).
METHODS OF INITIATING
IMPEACHMENT CASES:
1. A verified complaint for impeachment
may be filed by any Member of the
House of Representatives or by any
citizen upon a resolution or
endorsement by any Member thereof.
2. It shall be included in the Order of
Business within 10 session days, and
referred to the proper Committee
within three session days thereafter.
3. Committee, after hearing, and by a
majority vote of all its Members, shall
submit its report to the House within
sixty session days from such referral,
together with the corresponding
resolution. The resolution shall be
calendared for consideration by the
House within ten session days from
receipt thereof.
4. Majority vote of at least 1/3 of all the
Members of the House shall be
necessary to affirm or override the
said resolution. The vote of each
member shall be recorded.
5. In case the verified complaint or
resolution of impeachment is filed by
at least one third of all the Members
of the House, the same shall
constitute the Articles of
Impeachment, and trial by the Senate
shall forthwith proceed. (Sec 3[1], Art
XI, 1987 Constitution)
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
DISCIPLINE
Grounds in Filing the Complaint
No officer or employee in the Civil Service
shall be suspended or dismissed except for
cause as provided by law and after due
process. The following shall be grounds for
disciplinary action:
1. Dishonesty;
2. Oppression;
3. Neglect of duty;
4. Misconduct;
5. Disgraceful and immoral conduct;
6. Being notoriously undesirable;
7. Discourtesy in the course of official
duties;
8. Inefficiency and incompetence in the
performance of official duties;
9. Receiving for personal use of a fee,
gift or other valuable thing in the
course of official duties or in
connection therewith when such fee,
gift, or other valuable thing is given
by any person in the hope or
expectation of receiving a favor or
better treatment than that accorded
other persons, or committing acts
punishable under the anti-graft
laws;
10. Conviction of a crime involving moral
turpitude;
11. Improper or unauthorized solicitation
of contributions from subordinate
employees and by teachers or school
officials from school children;
12. Violation of existing Civil Service Law
and rules or reasonable office
regulations;
13. Falsification of official document;
14. Frequent unauthorized absences or
tardiness in reporting for duty,
loafing or frequent unauthorized
absences from duty during regular
office hours;
15. Habitual drunkenness;
16. Gambling prohibited by law;
227
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
17. Refusal to perform official duty or
render overtime service;
18. Disgraceful, immoral or dishonest
conduct prior to entering the service;
19. Physical or mental incapacity or
disability due to immoral or vicious
habits;
20. Borrowing money by superior officers
from subordinates or lending by
subordinates to superior officers;
21. Lending money at usurious rates of
interest;
22. Willful failure to pay just debts or
willful failure to pay taxes due to the
government;
23. Contracting loans of money or other
property from persons with whom
the office of the employee concerned
has business relations;
24. Pursuit of private business, vocation
or profession without the permission
required by Civil Service rules and
regulations;
25. Insubordination;
26. Engaging directly or indirectly in
partisan political activities by one
holding a non-political office;
27. Conduct prejudicial to the best
interest of the service;
28. Lobbying for personal interest or gain
in legislative halls or offices without
authority;
29. Promoting the sale of tickets in behalf
of private enterprises that are not
intended for charitable or public
welfare purposes and even in the
latter cases if there is no prior
authority;
30. Nepotism as defined in Section 60 of
this Title. (Sec. 46, Chapter 7, Book
V, Executive Order No. 292)
General Rule: No complaint against a civil
service official or employee shall be given due
course unless the same is in writing and
subscribed and sworn to by the complainant.
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
(Sec. 11, Rule 3, 2017 Rules on
Administrative Cases in the Civil Service)
Exception: when initiated by the proper
disciplining authority. (Ibid.)
In meting out punishment, the same
penalties shall be imposed for similar
offenses and only one penalty shall be
imposed in each case. The disciplining
authority may impose the penalty of removal
from the service, demotion in rank,
suspension for not more than one year
without pay, fine in an amount not exceeding
six months’ salary, or reprimand (Sec. 46[d],
The Revised Administrative Code of 1987 on
the Civil Service Commission).
Penalties
a. Punished with a fine not exceeding one
(1) year, or removal depending on the
gravity of the offense after due notice
and hearing by the appropriate body or
agency, if the violation is punishable by a
heavier penalty under another law, he
shall be prosecuted under the latter
statute;
b. Violations of Sections 7, 8 or 9 of this Act
shall be punishable with imprisonment
not exceeding five (5) years, or a fine not
exceeding five thousand pesos (P5,000),
or both;
c. Any violation hereof proven in a proper
administrative proceeding shall be
sufficient cause for removal or dismissal
of a public official or employee, even if no
criminal prosecution is instituted against
him;
d. Private individuals who participate in
conspiracy as co-principals, accomplices
or accessories, with public officials or
employees, in violation of this Act, shall
be subject to the same penal liabilities as
228
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
the public officials or employees and shall
be tried jointly with them; and
e. The Court in which such action is brought
may assess against such person a penalty
in any amount not to exceed twenty-five
thousand pesos (P25,000.00). If another
sanction hereunder or under any other
law is heavier, the latter shall apply. (Sec.
11, Republic Act No. 6713)
OMBUDSMAN
Appointment
The Ombudsman and his Deputies shall be
appointed by the President from a list of at
least six nominees, prepared by the Judicial
and Bar Council, and from a list of three
nominees for every vacancy thereafter. Such
appointments shall require no confirmation.
All vacancies shall be filled within three
months after they occur [Sec. 9, Art. XI, 1987
Const.].
The Ombudsman and his Deputies, including
the Special Prosecutor, shall be appointed by
the President from a list of at least twenty-
one (21) nominees prepared by the Judicial
and Bar Council, and from a list of three (3)
nominees for each vacancy thereafter, which
shall be filled within three (3) months after it
occurs, each of which list shall be published
in a newspaper of general circulation [Sec. 4,
R.A. No. 6770].
Qualifications
The Ombudsman and his Deputies shall be:
1. Natural-born citizens of the Philippines;
2. At the time of their appointment, at least
forty years old;
3. Of recognized probity and independence;
4. Members of the Philippine Bar;
5. Must not have been candidates for any
elective office in the immediately preceding
election.
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
The Ombudsman must have for ten years or
more been a judge or engaged in the practice
of law in the Philippines [Sec. 8, Art. XI, 1987
Const.].
Disqualifications and Prohibitions
The Ombudsman cannot:
1. Hold any other office or employment
during his tenure;
2. Engage in the practice of any
profession or in the active
management or control of any
business which may be affected by
the functions of his office;
3. Be financially interested, directly or
indirectly, in any contract with or in
any franchise or privilege granted by
the Government, any of its
subdivisions, agencies or
instrumentalities, including GOCCs or
their subsidiaries;
4. Be Allowed to run for any office in the
election immediately following their
cessation from office;
5. Be Allowed to appear or practice
before the Ombudsman for two (2)
years following their cessation from
office;
6. Be part of any conflict of interest in
the conduct of their office. (Sec. 9,
Republic Act No. 6770)
Functions
1. Investigate on its own, or on
complaint by any person, any act or
omission of any public official,
employee, office or agency, when
such act or omission appears to be
illegal, unjust, improper, or
inefficient.
2. Direct, upon complaint or at its own
instance, any public official or
employee of the Government, or any
subdivision, agency or
instrumentality thereof, as well as of
any government-owned or controlled
229
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
corporation with original charter, to
perform and expedite any act or duty
required by law, or to stop, prevent,
and correct any abuse or impropriety
in the performance of duties.
3. Direct the officer concerned to take
appropriate action against a public
official or employee at fault, and
recommend his removal, suspension,
demotion, fine, censure, or
prosecution, and ensure compliance
therewith.
4. Direct the officer concerned, in any
appropriate case, and subject to such
limitations as may be provided by
law, to furnish it with copies of
documents relating to contracts or
transactions entered into by his office
involving the disbursement or use of
public funds or properties, and report
any irregularity to the Commission on
Audit for appropriate action.
5. Request any government agency for
assistance and information necessary
in the discharge of its responsibilities,
and to examine, if necessary,
pertinent records and documents.
6. Publicize matters covered by its
investigation when circumstances so
warrant and with due prudence.
7. Determine the causes of inefficiency,
red tape, mismanagement, fraud,
and corruption in the Government
and make recommendations for their
elimination and the observance of
high standards of ethics and
efficiency.
8. Promulgate its rules of procedure and
exercise such other powers or
perform such functions or duties as
may be provided by law. (Sec. 13,
Art., 1987 Constitution).
Additional Functions
1. Administer oaths, issue subpoena
and subpoena duces tecum, and take
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
testimony in any investigation or
inquiry, including the power to
examine and have access to bank
accounts and records;
2. Punish for contempt in accordance
with the Rules of Court and under the
same procedure and with the same
penalties provided therein;
3. Delegate to the Deputies, or its
investigators or representatives such
authority or duty as shall ensure the
effective exercise or performance of
the powers, functions, and duties
herein or hereinafter provided;
4. Investigate and initiate the proper
action for the recovery of ill-gotten
and/or unexplained wealth amassed
after February 25, 1986 and the
prosecution of the parties involved
therein.
5. The Ombudsman shall give priority to
complaints filed against high-ranking
government officials and/or those
occupying supervisory positions,
complaints involving grave offenses
as well as complaints involving large
sums of money and/or properties
(Section 15, Republic Act. No. 6770)
Fiscal Autonomy
The Office of the Ombudsman shall enjoy
fiscal autonomy. Its approved annual
appropriations shall be automatically and
regularly released. (Sec. 14, Art. XI, 1987
Constitution)
JUDICIAL REVIEW IN
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS
A respondent who is found administratively
liable by the Office of the Ombudsman and is
slapped with a penalty of suspension of more
than one month from service has the right to
file an appeal with the Court of Appeals under
Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure,
as amended. But although a respondent is
given the right to appeal, the act of filing an
230
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
appeal does not stay the execution of the
decision of the Office of the Ombudsman; it
is immediately executory pending appeal”
(Ganaden vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos.
170500 & 170510-11, June 1, 2011)
The Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over
orders, directives and decisions of the Office
of the Ombudsman in administrative
disciplinary cases only. It cannot, therefore,
review the orders, directives or decisions of
the Office of the Ombudsman in criminal or
non-administrative cases. (Golangco vs.
Fung, G.R. No. 147640, October 12, 2006)
An officer or employee under administrative
investigation may be allowed to resign
pending decision of his case but it shall be
without prejudice to the continuation of the
proceeding against him. It shall also be
without prejudice to the filing of any
administrative, criminal case against him for
any act committed while still in the service.
(Office of the Ombudsman vs. Andutan, Jr.
G.R. No. 164679, July 27, 2011)
JUDICIAL REVIEW IN PENAL
PROCEEDINGS
Where the respondent is absolved of the
charge and in case of conviction where the
penalty imposed is public censure or
reprimand, suspension of not more than one
month, or a fine equivalent to one month
salary, the decision shall be final, executory
and unappealable. In all other cases, the
decision may be appealed to the Court of
Appeals on a verified petition for review
under the requirements and conditions set
forth in Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, within
fifteen (15) days from receipt of the written
Notice of the Decision or Order denying the
Motion for Reconsideration (Administrative
Order No. 7, Rules of Procedure of the Office
of the Ombudsman)
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
With respect to criminal charges, the Court
has settled that the remedy of an aggrieved
party from a resolution of the Ombudsman
finding the presence or absence of probable
cause is to file a petition for certiorari under
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court with the
Supreme Court,not the Court of Appeals
(Yatco vs. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R.
No. 244775, July 26, 2020).
IX. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
A. General Principles
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – It is the branch
of modern law under which the executive
department of the government, acting in a
quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial capacity,
interferes with the conduct of the individual
for the purposes of promoting the well-being
of the community. (Cruz, Philippine
Administrative Law, 2016 edition)
That branch of public law which fixes the
organization, and determines the
competence of administrative authorities,
and indicates to the individual remedies for
the violation of his rights. (Nachura, Outline
Reviewer in Political Law, 2015 edition, p.
493)
Administration Distinguished from Law
Law is an impersonal command provided with
sanctions to be applied in case of violation,
while Administration is preventive rather than
punitive and is accepted to be more personal
than law. (Cruz, Philippine Administrative
Law, 2016 edition)
Classification of Administrative Law:
1. As to its source
a. The law that controls
administrative authorities; and
b. The law made by the
administrative authorities
2. As to its purpose
231
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
a. Substantive administrative law;
and
b. Adjective or procedural
administrative law
3. As to its applicability
a. General administrative law; and
b. Special or particular administrative
laws (De Leon, Administrative Law:
Text and Cases, 2016, pp. 8-9)
Administration is Understood in Two
Senses:
As an institution - it refers to the aggregate
of individuals in whose hand the reins of
government are entrusted for the time being;
and
As a function - it is the actual running of the
government by the executive authorities
through the enforcement of laws and
implementation of policies (Cruz, Philippine
Administrative Law, 2016 edition)
Two Aspects of Administration as a
Function:
1. Internal administration - covers those
rules defining the relations of public
functionaries inter se and embraces the
whole range of the law of public officers;
and
2. External administration - defines the
relations of the public office with the
public in general. (Cruz, Philippine
Administrative Law, 2016 edition)
Delegation of Powers to Administrative
Agencies
General Rule: The separation of powers is
a fundamental principle in our system of
government. It obtains not through express
provision but by actual division in the framing
of our Constitution. Each department of the
government has exclusive cognizance of
matters placed within its jurisdiction, and is
supreme within its own sphere. Corollary to
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
the doctrine of separation of powers is the
principle of non-delegation of powers.
(Angara vs. The Electoral Commission, et. al.,
G.R. No. 45081, July 15, 1936)
"The rule is that what has been delegated,
cannot be delegated or as expressed in a
Latin maxim: potestas delegata non delegari
potest." (Echegaray vs. Sec. of Justice, G.R.
No. 132601, October 12, 1998)
Exceptions:
1. Delegation of tariff powers to the
President under Section 28 (2) of Article
VI of the Constitution;
2. Delegation of emergency powers to the
President under Section 23 Paragraph 2
of Article VI of the Constitution;
3. Delegation to the people at large;
4. Delegation to local governments; and
5. Delegation to administrative bodies
(Echegaray vs. Sec. of Justice, G.R. No.
132601, October 12, 1998)
B. Administrative Agencies; Definition,
Types, and Manner of Creation
Administrative Agencies are organs of the
government other than a court and other
than the legislature, which affects the rights
of private parties either through adjudication
or rulemaking (Nachura, Outline Reviewer in
Political Law, 2015 edition, p. 414).
A body endowed with quasi-legislative and
quasi-judicial powers for the purpose of
enabling it to carry out the laws entrusted to
it for enforcement or execution (Cruz,
Philippine Administrative Law, 2010 edition).
A body or agency is administrative where its
function is primarily regulatory even if it
conducts hearings and determines
controversies to carry out its regulatory duty.
On its rule-making authority, it is
administrative when it does not have
232
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
discretion to determine what the law shall be
but merely prescribes details for the
enforcement of the law. (Nachura, Outline
Reviewer in Political Law, 2015 edition, p.
414)
AGENCY - It refers to any of the various
units of the Government, including a
department, bureau, office, instrumentality,
or government-owned or controlled
corporations, or a local government or a
distinct unit therein. (Sec 2[4], Introductory
Provisions, Executive Order No. 292)
DEPARTMENT - It refers to an executive
department created by law. It includes any
instrumentality, as having or assigned the
rank of a department, regardless of its name
or designation. (Sec 2[7], Introductory
Provisions, Executive Order No. 292)
BUREAU - It refers to any principal
subdivision or unit of any department. It
includes any principal subdivision or unit of
any instrumentality given or assigned the
rank of a bureau, regardless of actual name
or designation, as in the case of department-
wide regional offices. (Sec 2[8], Introductory
Provisions, Executive Order No. 292)
OFFICE - It refers, within the framework of
governmental organization, to any major
functional unit of a department or bureau
including regional offices. It may also refer to
any position held or occupied by individual
persons, whose functions are defined by law
or regulation. (Sec 2[9], Introductory
Provisions, Executive Order No. 292)
INSTRUMENTALITY - It refers to any
agency of the National Government, not
integrated within the department framework
vested within special functions or jurisdiction
by law, endowed with some if not all
corporate powers, administering special
funds, and enjoying operational autonomy,
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
usually through a charter. This term includes
regulatory agencies, chartered institutions
and government-owned or controlled
corporations. (Sec 2[10], Introductory
Provisions, Executive Order No. 292)
REGULATORY AGENCY - It refers to any
agency expressly vested with jurisdiction to
regulate, administer or adjudicate matters
affecting substantial rights and interests of
private persons, the principal powers of
which are exercised by a collective body,
such as a commission, board or council. (Sec
2[11], Introductory Provisions, Executive
Order No. 292)
CHARTERED INSTITUTION - It refers to
any agency organized or operating under a
special charter and vested by law with
functions relating to specific constitutional
policies or objectives. This term includes the
state universities and colleges and the
monetary authority of the State. (Sec 2[12],
Introductory Provisions, Executive Order No.
292)
GOVERNMENT OWNED OR
CONTROLLED CORPORATION - It refers
to any agency organized as a stock or non-
stock corporation, vested with functions
relating to public needs whether
governmental or proprietary in nature, and
owned by the Government directly or through
its instrumentalities either wholly, or, where
applicable as in the case of stock
corporations, to the extent of at least fifty-
one (51) per cent of its capital stock. (Sec
2[13], Introductory Provisions, Executive
Order No. 292)
Types of Administrative Agencies
1. Agencies created to function in situations
wherein the government is offering some
gratuity, grant, or special privilege, like
the following:
233
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
a. defunct Philippine Veterans Board;
b. Board on Pensions for Veterans;
c. NARRA; and
d. Philippine Veterans Administration.
2. Agencies set up to function in situations
wherein the government is seeking to carry
on certain government functions, like the
following:
a. Bureau of Immigration;
b. Bureau of Internal Revenue;
c. Board of Special Inquiry and Board of
Commissioners;
d. Civil Service Commission; and
e. Central Bank of the Philippines.
3. Agencies set up to function in situations
wherein the government is performing some
business service for the public, like the
following:
a. Bureau of Postal;
b. Postal Savings Bank;
c. Metropolitan Waterworks &
Sewerage Authority;
d. Philippine National Railways; and
e. the Civil Aeronautics Administration.
4. Agencies set up to function in situations
wherein the government is seeking to
regulate business affected with public
interest, like the following:
a. Fiber Inspections Board;
b. Philippine Patent Office; and
c. Office of the Insurance
Commissioner.
5. Agencies set up to function in situations
wherein the government is seeking under the
police power to regulate private business and
individuals, like the following:
a. Securities & Exchange Commission;
b. Board of Food Inspectors;
c. Board of Review for Moving Pictures;
and
d. Professional Regulation Commission.
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
6. Agencies set up to function in situations
wherein the government is seeking to adjust
individual controversies because of some
strong social policy involved, such as the
following:
a. National Labor Relations
Commission;
b. Court of Agrarian Relations;
c. Regional Offices of the Ministry of
Labor;
d. Social Security Commission;
e. Bureau of Labor Standards; and
f. Women and Minors Bureau. (The
Presidential Anti-Dollar Salting Task
Force vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
83578, March 16, 1989)
GENERAL RULE: The creation of Public
Office is primarily a legislative
function. (Buklod ng Kawaning EIIB vs.
Executive Secretary Zamora, G.R. No.
142801-802, July 10, 2001)
EXCEPTION: Offices created by the
Constitution. (Ibid.)
MANNER OF ORGANIZATION (CARD)
1. Creation
2. Reorganization
3. Abolition
4. Deactivation (Buklod ng Kawaning
EIIB vs. Executive Secretary Zamora,
G.R. No. 142801-802, July 10, 2001)
3 Ways of Creating Administrative
Bodies
1. Constitutional provision;
2. Legislative enactment; or
3. Authority of Law. (Nachura, Outline
Reviewer in Political Law, 2015
edition, p. 494)
C. Powers of Administrative Agencies
The following are the powers of
Administrative Agencies:
1. Quasi-Legislative (or Rule-Making) Power;
234
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
2. Quasi-Judicial (or Adjudicatory) Power;
3. Determinative powers. (Nachura, Outline
Reviewer in Political Law, 2015 edition, p.
495)
1. QUASI-LEGISLATIVE (RULE-
MAKING) POWER
Power of an administrative agency to make
rules and regulations that have the force and
effect of law so long as they are issued within
the confines of the granting statute
(Provincial Bus Operators Association of the
Philippines vs Department of Labor and
Employment, G.R. No. 202275, July 17,
2018).
Intended merely to implement the law and to
carry out the legislative policy and not the
discretion to determine what the law shall be.
Administrative agencies may exercise quasi-
legislative powers only if there exists a law
which delegate these powers to them.
(Republic of the Philippines vs. Drugmakers
Lab. Inc., G.R. No. 190837, March 5, 2014)
Quasi-legislative power is a power exercised
by administrative agencies through the
promulgation of rules and regulations within
the confines of the granting statute and the
doctrine of non-delegation of certain powers
flowing from the separation of the great
branches of the government. (Abella Jr. vs.
Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 152574,
November 17, 2004)
Prior notice and hearing are not essential to
the validity of rules and regulations issued in
the exercise of quasi-legislative powers since
there is no determination of past events or
facts that have to be established or
ascertained. (Ibid.)
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
KINDS OF ADMINISTRATIVE RULES
AND REGULATIONS
1. Legislative Rule – are in the nature of
subordinate legislation and designed to
implement a primary legislation by
providing the details thereof. They
usually implement existing law,
imposing general, extra-statutory
obligations pursuant to authority
properly delegated by Congress and
effect a change in existing law or policy
which affects individual rights and
obligations. (Republic of the Philippines
vs. Drugmaker’s Laboratories, Inc.,
G.R. No. 190837, March 5, 2014)
2. Interpretative Rule – are intended to
interpret, clarify or explain existing
statutory regulations under which the
administrative body operates. Their
purpose or objective is merely to
construe the statute being
administered and purport to do no
more than interpret the statute. Simply,
they try to say what the statute means
and refer to no single person or party
in particular but concern all those
belonging to the same class which may
be covered by the said rules. (Ibid.)
3. Contingent rules – are those issued by
an administrative authority based on
the existence of certain facts or things
upon which the enforcement of the law
depends. (Republic of the Philippines
vs. Drugmaker’s Laboratories, Inc.,
G.R. No. 190837, March 5, 2014)
REQUISITES FOR VALIDITY OF
ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATION
1. Promulgation must be authorized by
the legislature.
2. It must be within the scope of the
authority given by the legislature.
235
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
3. It must be promulgated in accordance
with the prescribed procedure.
4. It must be reasonable. (Executive
Secretary vs. Southwing Heavy
Industries, 482 SCRA 673, February 20,
2006)
To be valid, an administrative issuance must
not be ultra vires or beyond the limits of the
authority conferred. It must not supplant or
modify the Constitution, its enabling statute
and other existing laws, for such is the sole
function of the legislature which the other
branches of the government cannot usurp.
When the application of an administrative
issuance modifies existing laws or exceeds
the intended scope, the issuance becomes
void, not only for being ultra vires but also for
being unreasonable. (Executive Secretary vs.
Southwing Heavy Industries, 482 SCRA 673,
February 20, 2006)
In case there is a discrepancy between the
basic law and an implementing rule or
regulation, it is the former that prevails.
(Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 118712, October 6, 1995)
Requisites for validity of Administrative
Rules and Regulations with Penal
Sanctions
1. The law must itself provide for the
imposition of a penalty for its violation
2. It must fix or define such penalty;
3. The violation for which the rules and
regulations impose a penalty must be
punishable or made a crime under the law
itself; and
4. It must be published in the Official Gazette
(De Leon, Administrative Law: Text and
Cases, 2010 edition)
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Tests of Valid Delegation
a. Completeness Test – the law must be
complete in all its terms and conditions when
it leaves the legislature so that when it
reaches the delegate, it will have nothing to
do but enforce it. (Gerochi vs. DOE, G.R. No.
159796, July 17, 2007)
b. Sufficient Standard Test – The law
must offer a sufficient standard to specify the
limits of the delegate’s authority, announce
the legislative policy, and specify the
conditions under which it is to be
implemented. (ABAKADA GURO Party List,
Formerly AASJS vs. Purisima, in his Capacity
as Secretary of Finance, G.R. No. 166715,
August 14, 2008)
Exceptions to the Sufficient Standard
Test
a. The authority is not exclusively legislative
and has no relation to personal or property
rights; and
b. The authority to regulate is merely a
matter of privilege (Ynot vs. IAC, G.R. No.
74457, March 20, 1987)
2. QUASI-JUDICIAL (ADJUDICATORY)
POWER – the power to hear and determine
questions of fact to which the legislative
policy is to apply and to decide in accordance
with the standards laid down by the law itself
in enforcing and administering the same law
(Globe vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 152063,
August 12, 2003).
The exercise of this power is only incidental
to the main function of administrative
authorities, which is the enforcement of the
law. (C.T. Torres Enterprises, Inc. vs.
Hibionada, G.R. No. 80916, November 9,
1990)
236
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
Determinative Powers
To better enable the administrative body to
exercise its quasi judicial authority, it is also
vested with what is known as determinative
powers and functions.
Professor Freund classifies them generally
into the enabling powers and the directing
powers. The latter includes the dispensing,
the examining, and the summary powers.
The enabling vowers are those that permit
the doing of an act which the law undertakes
to regulate and which would be unlawful with
government approval. (Alliance for the Family
Foundation, Philippines, Inc. vs. Hon. Garin,
G.R. No. 217872, April 26, 2017)
Classification of Determinative Powers
1. Enabling Powers – those that permit
the doing of an act which the law
undertakes to regulate and which would
be unlawful without government
approval (e.g. the issuance of licenses to
engage in a particular business or
occupation).
2. Directing Powers – order the doing or
performance of particular acts to ensure
compliance with the law and are often
exercised for corrective purposes (e.g.
DENR may require factories to use certain
chemicals to protect the environment).
3. Dispensing Powers – allows the
administrative officer to relax the general
obligation of a law or exempt from the
performance of a general duty (e.g. when
residential buildings are permitted by the
zoning board to remain in the area
designated as commercial or industrial).
4. Summary Powers – those involving the
use by administrative authorities of force
upon persons or things without the
necessity of a previous judicial warrant
(e.g. take over by the BSP of
mismanaged banks).
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
5. Examining Powers – enables the
administrative body to inspect the
records and premises, and investigate
the activities of persons or entities
coming under its jurisdiction. (e.g. Allows
DOLE to inspect factories to determine
compliance with occupational health and
safety standards). This will include,
among others, the following powers:
a. Issuance of subpoenas;
b. Swearing in of witnesses;
c. Interrogation of witnesses;
d. Calling for the production of books,
papers, and records;
e. Requiring that books, papers, and
records be made available for
inspection;
f. Inspection of premises;
g. Requiring written answers to
questionnaires;
h. Requiring periodic or special reports;
i. Requiring the filing of statements.
(Cruz, Philippine Administrative Law,
2016 edition, pp. 53-55)
a. ADMINISTRATIVE DUE PROCESS -
The essence of due process in administrative
proceedings is the opportunity to explain
one’s side or seek a reconsideration of the
action or ruling complained of, and to submit
any evidence he may have in support of his
defense. The demands of due process are
sufficiently met when the parties are given
the opportunity to be heard before judgment
is rendered. (Lacson vs Executive Secretary,
GR No. 165399, May 30, 2011)
As a general rule, notice and hearing, as the
fundamental requirements of procedural due
process, are essential only when an
administrative body exercises its quasi-
judicial function. In the performance of its
executive or legislative functions, such as
issuing rules and regulations, an
administrative body need not comply with the
requirements of notice and hearing. (Corona
237
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
vs. United Harbor Pilots Association of the
Philippines, G.R. No. 111953, December 12,
1997)
Previous notice and hearing as elements of
due process, are constitutionally required for
the protection of life or vested property
rights, as well as of liberty, when its limitation
or loss takes place in consequence of a
judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding,
generally dependent upon a past act or event
which has to be established or ascertained. It
is not essential to the validity of general rules
or regulations promulgated to govern future
conduct of a class or persons or enterprises,
unless the law provides otherwise. (Taxicab
Operators of Metro Manila vs. Board of
Transportation, GR No L-59234, September
30, 1982)
Cardinal rights in administrative due
process
a. Right to Hearing;
b. Tribunal must consider the evidence
presented;
c. Decision must have something to support
itself;
d. Evidence must be substantial;
e. Decision must be based on the evidence
presented at the hearing or at least
contained in the record and disclosed to
the parties affected;
f. Board or judge must act on its/his own
independent consideration of the law and
facts of the case, and not simply accept
the views of a subordinate in arriving at
a decision; and
g. Decision must be rendered in such a
manner that the parties to the
controversy can know the various issues
involved and the reason for the decision
rendered. (Ang Tibay vs. Commission on
Internal Revenue, G.R. No. L-46496,
February 27, 1940)
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Thus, a government officer subject of an
administrative action cannot claim that his
right to due process was violated when he
was made aware of the charges against him
and when he was able to file a counter-
affidavit to refute the allegations against him.
Administrative due process is the opportunity
to explain one’s side, or an opportunity to
seek reconsideration of the action or ruling
complained of. (Civil Service Commission vs.
Almojuela, G.R. No. 194368, April 2, 2013)
As long as a party was given the opportunity
to defend his interests in due course, it
cannot be said that he was denied due
process. (Mendoza vs. Commission on Audit,
G.R. No. 195395, September 10, 2013)
Due process is violated when:
1. There is failure to sufficiently explain
the reason for the decision rendered;
or
2. If not supported by substantial
evidence; and
3. Imputation of a violation and
imposition of a fine despite absence
of due notice and hearing. (Globe
Telecom vs. NTC, G.R. No. 143964,
July 26, 2004)
Quantum of proof: Substantial Evidence,
or the amount of relevant evidence which a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
justify a conclusion. (Rule 134, Sec. 5)
The lack or absence of proof beyond
reasonable doubt does not mean an absence
of any evidence whatsoever for there is
another class of evidence which, though
insufficient to establish guilt beyond
reasonable doubt, is adequate in civil cases;
this is preponderance of evidence. Then too,
there is the “substantial evidence” rule in
administrative proceedings which merely
requires such relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
238
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
support a conclusion. The findings and
conclusions in one should not necessarily be
binding on the other. (Ocampo vs. Office of
the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 114683, January
18, 2000)
b. ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL AND
REVIEW – Where provided by law, appeal
from administrative determination may be
made to a higher or superior administrative
officer or body. Unless otherwise provided by
law or executive order, an appeal from a final
decision of the agency may be taken to the
Department head. (Sec. 19, Chap. 4,
Administrative Code, Book VII)
c. ADMINISTRATIVE RES JUDICATA –
the decisions and orders of administrative
agencies, rendered pursuant to their quasi-
judicial authority, have upon their finality, the
force and binding effect of a final judgment
within the purview of the doctrine of res
judicata. (Cruz, Philippine Administrative
Law, 2016 edition)
The orderly administration of justice requires
that the judgments/resolutions of a court or
quasi-judicial body must reach a point of
finality set by the law, rules and regulations;
A resolution which substantially modifies a
decision after it has attained finality, is utterly
void. The noble purpose is to write finis to
disputes once and for all. This is a
fundamental principle in our justice system,
without which there would be no end to
litigations. Utmost respect and adherence to
this principle must always be maintained by
those who wield the power of adjudication.
Any act which violates such principle must
immediately be struck down. (Fortich vs.
Corona, G.R. No. 131457, April 24, 1998)
While it is true that this Court has declared
that the doctrine of res judicata applies only
to judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings, and
not to the exercise of administrative powers.
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
The court have also limited the latter to
proceedings purely administrative in
nature. Therefore, when the administrative
proceedings take on an adversary character,
the doctrine of res judicata which forbids the
reopening of a matter once judicially
determined by competent authority applies
as well to the judicial ad quasi-judicial acts of
public, executive or administrative officers
and boards acting within their jurisdiction as
to the judgments of courts having general
judicial powers. (Heirs of Derla vs. Derla vda.
De Hipolito, G.R. No. 157717, April 13, 2011)
The principle of Res Judicata may not be
invoked in labor relations proceedings
considering that such proceedings are non-
litigious and summary in nature without
regard to legal technicalities. (Razon vs.
Inciong, G.R. No. L-51809, December 19,
1980)
The subsequent reconciliation of the parties
to an administrative proceeding does not
strip the Court of its jurisdiction to hear the
administrative case until its resolution.
Atonement, in administrative cases, merely
obliterates the personal injury of the parties
and does not extend to erase the offense that
may have been committed against the public
service. The subsequent desistance by the
complainant does not free the public officer
from liability, as the purpose of
administrative proceedings is to protect the
public service based on the time-honored
principle that a public office is a public trust.
(Encinas vs. Agustin, G.R. No. 187317, April
11, 2013)
3. DETERMINATIVE POWERS
1. Enabling: to permit or allow something
which the law undertakes to regulate,
e.g. grant or denial of licenses to engage
in a particular business.
239
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
2. Directing: illustrated by the power of
assessment of the BIR or the Bureau of
Customs.
3. Dispensing: to exempt from a general
prohibition, or relieve an individual or
corporation from an affirmative duty, e.g.
authority of zoning boards to vary
provisions of zoning ordinances, or the
authority of the Acceptance Board of the
Philippine Army to relieve certain persons
from military training.
4. Examining: also called the investigatory
power; consists in requiring production of
books, papers, the attendance of
witnesses and compelling their
testimony.
a. Power to compel attendance of
witnesses not inherent in
administrative body; but an
administrative officer authorized to
take testimony or evidence is deemed
authorized to administer oath,
summon witnesses, require
production of documents, etc.
b. Power to punish contempt must be
expressly granted to the
administrative body; and when so
granted, may be exercised only when
administrative body is actually
performing quasi-judicial functions.
5. Summary: power to apply compulsion or
force against persons or property to
effectuate a legal purpose without a judicial
warrant to authorize such action, e.g. in the
fields of health inspections, abatement of
nuisances. (Nachura, Outline Reviewer in
Political Law, 2015 edition, pp. 503-504)
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
D. Primary Administrative Jurisdiction
The doctrine of primary jurisdiction holds that
if a case is such that its determination
requires the expertise, specialized training
and knowledge of the proper administrative
bodies, relief must first be obtained in an
administrative proceeding before a remedy is
supplied by the courts even if the matter may
well be within their proper jurisdiction.
(Commission on Audit vs. Hon. Ferrer, G.R.
No. 218870, November 24, 2020)
It applies where a claim is originally
cognizable in the courts, and comes into play
whenever enforcement of the claim requires
the resolution of issues which, under
regulatory scheme, have been placed within
the special competence of an administrative
agency. In such a case, the court in which
the claim is sought to be enforced may
suspend the judicial process pending referral
of such issues to the administrative body for
its view or, if the parties would not be unfairly
disadvantaged, dismiss the case without
prejudice. (Province of Aklan v Jody King
Construction and Development Corp., GR
Nos. 197592 & 202623, November 27, 2013)
Courts will not interfere in matters which are
addressed to the sound discretion of the
government agency entrusted with the
regulation of activities coming under its
special and technical training and knowledge
and the latter are given wide latitude in the
evaluation of evidence and in the exercise of
their adjudicative functions. (Ayala Land, Inc.
and Capitol Citifarms, Inc. vs. Simeona
Castillo, et al., G.R. No. 178110, June 15,
2011)
Under the doctrine of primary administrative
jurisdiction, if an administrative tribunal has
jurisdiction over a controversy, courts should
not resolve the issue even if it may be within
its proper jurisdiction. This is especially true
240
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
when the question involves its sound
discretion requiring special knowledge,
experience, and services to determine
technical and intricate matters of fact. Thus,
the doctrine of primary administrative
jurisdiction refers to the competence of a
court to take cognizance of a case at first
instance. Unlike the doctrine of exhaustion of
administrative remedies, it cannot be waived.
(Republic of the Philippines v Michelle Gallo,
GR 207074, January 17, 2018)
Under the doctrine of primary administrative
jurisdiction, prior recourse to the House is
necessary before the petitioners may bring
the case to the Supreme Court. (Pimentel vs.
House of Representative Electoral Tribunal,
G.R. No. 141489, 29 Nov. 2002)
E. Exhaustion of Administrative
Remedies
This doctrine requires parties to exhaust all
the remedies in the administrative machinery
before resorting to judicial remedies. The
doctrine of exhaustion presupposes that the
court and the administrative agency have
concurrent jurisdiction to take cognizance of
a matter. However, in deference to the
special and technical expertise of the
administrative agency, courts must yield to
the administrative agency by suspending the
proceedings. As such, parties must exhaust
all the remedies within the administrative
machinery before resort to courts is allowed.
(Provincial Bus Operators Association of the
Philippines vs. Department of Labor and
Employment, G.R. No. 202275, July 17,
2018)
Whenever there is an available administrative
remedy provided by law, no judicial recourse
can be made until all such remedies have
been availed of and exhausted (Teotico vs.
Agda, Sr., G.R. No. 87437,May 29, 1991).
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
An administrative decision must be first
appealed to the administrative superior up to
the highest level before elevating it to the
court of justice for review. (Philippine Health
Insurance Corp. vs. Chinese General Hospital
and Medical Center, G.R. No. 163123, April
15, 2005)
Before a party may seek the intervention of
the court, it is a precondition that he should
first avail of all the means afforded by
administrative processes. A party aggrieved
must not merely initiate the prescribed
administrative procedure to obtain relief, but
must also pursue it to its appropriate
conclusion before seeking judicial
intervention in order to give that
administrative agency an opportunity to
decide the matter by itself correctly and
prevent unnecessary and premature resort to
court. (Smart Communications, Inc. vs.
Aldecoa, G.R. No. 166330, September 11,
2013)
In questioning the validity or constitutionality
of a rule or regulation issued by an
administrative agency, a party need not
exhaust administrative remedies before
going to court. This principle, however,
applies only where the act of the
administrative agency concerned was
performed pursuant to its quasi-judicial
function, and not when the assailed act
pertained to its rule-making or quasi-
legislative power. (Holy Spirit Homeowners
Association, Inc. vs. Defensor, G.R. No.
163980, August 3, 2006)
Exceptions to the Doctrine:
1. Where there is estoppel on the part
of the party invoking the doctrine;
2. Where the challenged administrative
act is patently illegal, amounting to
lack of jurisdiction;
241
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
3. Where there is unreasonable delay or
official inaction that will irretrievably
prejudice the complainant;
4. Where the amount involved is
relatively small so as to make the rule
impractical and oppressive;
5. Where the question involved is purely
legal and will ultimately have to be
decided by the courts of justice;
6. Where judicial intervention is
urgent;
7. When its application may cause great
and irreparable damage;
8. Where the controverted acts violate
due process;
9. When the issue of non-exhaustion of
administrative remedies has been
rendered moot;
10. When there is no other plain, speedy
and adequate remedy;
11. When strong public interest is
involved;
12. In quo warranto proceedings.
(Republic vs. Lacap, G.R. No.
158253, March 2, 2007)
13. When the respondent is a Secs. 9 and 11)
department secretary whose acts as
an alter ego of the President bears
the implied and assumed approval of
the latter;
14. When it would amount to a
nullification of a claim;
15. When the subject matter is a private
land in land case proceedings
(Cabungcal vs. Lorenzo, G.R.
160367, December 18, 2009)
The trial court and the appellate court also
correctly considered USHH's Complaint as an
exception to the application of the doctrine
on exhaustion of administrative remedies on
the basis of strong public interest.
Alternatively, the instant case may also fall
under the following exceptions:
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
a. "when to require exhaustion of
administrative remedies would be
unreasonable" and
b. "when there are circumstances indicating
the urgency of judicial intervention."
(Philippine Health Insurance Corporation
v. Urdaneta Sacred Heart Hospital, G.R.
No. 214485, January 11, 2021)
Effect of Failure to Exhaust
Administrative
The jurisdiction of the court is not
affected; but the complainant is deprived of
a cause of action which is a ground for a
motion to dismiss. However, if no motion
to dismiss filed on this ground, there is
deemed to be a waiver. (Nachura, Outline
Reviewer in Political Law, 2015 edition, p.
518)
X. ELECTION LAW
A. Suffrage; Qualification and
Disqualification of Voters (1987
CONST., Art. V, Sec. 1; R.A. No. 8189,
SUFFRAGE
It is the right to vote in the election of officers
chosen by the people and in the
determination of questions submitted to the
people. It includes within its scope election,
plebiscite, initiative, and referendum.
(Nachura, Outline Reviewer in Political Law,
2015 edition, p. 615)
ELECTION
It is the means by which the people choose
their officials for a definite and fixed period
and to whom they entrust for the time being
the exercise of powers of government. (Ibid.)
Purpose of Election
The purpose of an election is to give the
voters a direct participation in the affairs of
their government, either in determining who
242
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
shall be their public officials or in deciding
some question of public interest; and for that
purpose all of the legal voters should be
permitted, unhampered and unmolested, to
cast their ballot. (Luna vs. Rodriguez, G.R.
No. L-13744, November 29, 1918)
Nature of Suffrage
a. It is a right created by law, not a natural
right, and an expression of the sovereign will
of the people.
b. It is a privilege because its exercise is not
granted to everybody but to the persons or
class of persons as are most likely to exercise
it for the purpose of public good. (De Leon,
Philippine Constitutional Law, Principles and
Cases, 2017, pp. 1107-1108)
Power of Congress to Regulate
Suffrage: Congress has unlimited power to
enact laws relative to the right of suffrage,
and, in the exercise of police power, to
suppress whatever evils may be incident to
the election of public officers. (Sec. 2, Art. V,
1987 Constitution)
KINDS
Regular – one provided by law for the
elections of officers either nationwide or in
certain subdivisions thereof, after the
expiration of the full term of the former
officers. (Nachura, Outline Reviewer in
Political Law, 2015 edition, p. 615)
NOTE: The SK Election is not a regular
election because the latter is participated
in by youth with ages ranging from 15-18
(now 15-30 as per (n) Sec. 3 IRR of RA
10742), some of whom are not qualified
to voters to elect local or national elective
officials. (Paras vs. Commission on
Elections, G.R. No. 123169, November 4,
1996)
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
The age requirement for SK however is now
at least 18 but not more than 24 years old on
the day of the elections. (Sec. 10, R.A. No.
10742)
Special – one held to fill a vacancy in office
before the expiration of the full term for
which the incumbent was elected. (Nachura,
Outline Reviewer in Political Law, 2015
edition, p. 615)
Election Period: Unless otherwise fixed by
the Commission on Elections in special cases,
the election period shall commence 90 days
before the day of the election and shall end
30 days thereafter. (Sec. 9, Art. IX-C, 1987
Constitution)
The campaign period does not include the
day before and the day of the election. The
campaign period in special election is 45
days. (Batas Pambansa Bilang 881, effective
December 3, 1995)
QUALIFICATION AND
DISQUALIFICATION OF VOTERS
QUALIFICATIONS
Suffrage may be exercised by all citizens of
the Philippines not otherwise disqualified by
law, who are at least eighteen years of age,
and who shall have resided in the Philippines
for at least one year and in the place wherein
they propose to vote for at least six months
immediately preceding the election. (Sec. 1,
Art. V, 1987 Constitution)
Congress may impose limitations on the
statutory right of suffrage. The provision
under Sec. 1, Art V, 197 Constitution (that no
literacy property, or other substantive
requirement shall be imposed on the exercise
of suffrage) is merely “geared towards the
elimination of irrelevant standards that are
purely based on socio-economic
considerations that have no bearing on the
243
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
right of a citizen to intelligently cast his vote
to further the public good” (Kabataan
Partylist vs. COMELEC, GR No. 221318,
December 16, 2015)
Biometrics validation requirement is not an
unconstitutional substantive requirement.
Even if failure to comply with the biometrics
validation requirement will result in the
deactivation of the voter’s registration (under
RA. No. 10367 or the Biometrics Law of
2013), it is not unconstitutional. The
requirement is a “mere aspect of the
registration procedure, of which the State
has the right to reasonably regulate” (Ibid.)
QUALIFICATION OF VOTERS IN
GENERAL:
1. CITIZENSHIP: Filipino citizenship by
birth or by naturalization.
It is incumbent upon one who claims
Philippine citizenship to prove to the
satisfaction of the court that he is really a
Filipino. Any doubt regarding citizenship
must be resolved in favor of the State. (Go
vs. Ramos, G.R. No. 167569, September 4,
2009)
2. AGE: At least 18 at the time of the
election. A person may be registered as a
voter although he is less than 18 years at the
time of registration if he will be at least 18 on
the day of the election. (Sec. 9, Republic Act
No. 8189).
3. RESIDENCE
1. At least 1 year in the Philippines; and
2. At least six (6) months where he
proposes to vote immediately preceding
the election. (Sec. 9, Republic Act No.
8189)
NOTE: Any person who temporarily
resides in another city, municipality, or
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
country solely by reason of his
employment in private or public service,
educational activities, work in the military
or naval reservations within the
Philippines, service in the Armed Forces
of the Philippines, Philippine National
Police, or confinement or detention in
government institutions in accordance
with law shall not be deemed to have lost
his original residence. (Sec. 9, Voters’
Registration Act of 1996)
In election cases, the Court treats
domicile and residence as synonymous
terms. Both import not only an intention to
reside in a fixed place but also personal
appearance in that place, coupled with
conduct indicative of such intention. (Jalosjos
vs. Commission on Elections, GR No. 191970,
April 24, 2012)
It is not necessary that a person should have
a house in order to establish his residence or
domicile in a municipality. It is enough that
he should live there, provided that his stay is
accompanied by his intention to reside
therein permanently. (Marcos vs.
Commission on Elections, GR No. 119976,
September 18, 1995)
There are three requisites to acquire a new
domicile:
1. residence or bodily presence in a new
locality;
2. an intention to remain there; and
3. an intention to abandon the old
domicile. (Poe vs. COMELEC, G.R. No.
221697, March 8, 2016)
The evidence of petitioner is overwhelming
and taken together leads to no other
conclusion that she decided to permanently
abandon her U.S. residence (selling the
house, taking the children from U.S. schools,
getting quotes from the freight company,
notifying the U.S. Post Office of the
244
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
abandonment of their address in the U.S.,
donating excess items to the Salvation Army,
her husband resigning from U.S. employment
right after selling the U.S. house) and
permanently relocate to the Philippines and
actually re- established her residence here on
24 May 2005 (securing T.I.N, enrolling her
children in Philippine schools, buying
property here, constructing a residence here,
returning to the Philippines after all trips
abroad, her husband getting employed here).
Indeed, coupled with her eventual
application to reacquire Philippine citizenship
and her family's actual continuous stay in the
Philippines over the years, it is clear that
when petitioner returned on 24 May 2005 it
was for good. (Poe vs. COMELEC, G.R. No.
221697, March 8, 2016)
DISQUALIFICATION OF VOTERS
There are three (3) grounds for
disqualification to register as a voter under
Sec. 11, Voters’ Registration Act of 1996:
(SAI)
a. Sentenced by final judgment -
imprisonment for not <1 year
Exception: granted a plenary pardon or an
amnesty
b. Adjudged by final judgment - any crime
involving disloyalty to the duly constituted
government
Example: rebellion, sedition, violation
of the firearms law; or any crime
against national security
Exception: restored their full civil and
political rights
Both grounds: Reacquire the right to
vote upon the expiration of 5 years
after the service of sentence.
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
c. Insane or incompetent persons as declared
by a competent authority.
Exception: Unless the competent authority
declares the insane and incompetent person
already mentally fit and capable. (Sec. 11,
Republic Act No. 8189)
In order that a qualified elector may vote in
any election, plebiscite or referendum, he
must be registered in the Permanent List of
Voters for the city or municipality in which he
resides. (Sec. 115, Omnibus Election Code)
No literacy, property, or other substantive
requirement shall be imposed on the exercise
of suffrage. (Sec. 1, Art. V, 1987
Constitution)
The Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003
addressed the need for overseas Filipinos to
be able to vote in Philippine elections.
(Republic Act No. 9189, effective February
13, 2003)
CERTIFIED LIST OF VOTERS
LIST OF VOTERS –an enumeration of
names of registered voters in a precinct duly
certified by the Election Registration Board
(ERB) for use in the elections. (Sec. 3[d],
Republic Act No. 8189)
The Board shall prepare and post a certified
list of voters ninety (90) days before a regular
election and sixty (60) days before a special
election and furnish copies thereof. (Sec. 30,
Republic Act No. 8189)
Grounds when list of voters will be
altered (DECANT)
a. Deactivation/Reactivation (Secs. 27-28,
Republic Act No. 8189)
b. Exclusion/Inclusion (Secs. 34-35,
Republic Act No. 8189)
245
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
c. Cancellation of registration in case of
death (Sec. 29, Republic Act No. 8189)
d. New voters (Sec. 6, Republic Act No.
8189)
e. Annulment of book of voters (Sec. 39,
Republic Act No. 8189)
f. Transfer of residence (Sec. 12, Republic
Act No. 8189)
B. Registration of Voters; Inclusion and
Exclusion Proceedings (R.A. No.
8189; R.A. No. 10367)
REGISTRATION – the act of accomplishing
and filing of a sworn application for
registration by a qualified voter before the
election officer of the city or municipality
wherein he resides and including the same in
the book of registered voters upon approval
by the Election Registration Board. (Sec. 3[a],
Republic Act No. 8189)
A qualified voter shall be registered in the
permanent list of voters in a precinct of the
city or municipality wherein he resides to be
able to vote in any election. (Sec. 10,
Republic Act No. 8189)
Registration does not confer the right to vote
but it is a condition precedent to the exercise
of the right. (Yra vs. Abano, GR No. L-30187,
November 15, 1928)
PERIOD OF REGISTRATION: No
registration shall be conducted within:
Regular Election Special Election
120 days before 90 days before
COMELEC Resolution 8585 which set the
deadline for voter registration to Oct. 31,
2009 (election was May 10, 2010 – more than
120 days) was declared null and void because
of Sec. 8 of RA 8189 has determined that the
period of 120 days before a regular election
and 90 days for special election enough time
for the COMELEC to make ALL the necessary
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
preparations with respect to the coming
elections. COMELEC is granted the power
to fix other periods and dates for pre-
election activities only if the same
cannot be reasonably held within the
period provided by law. There is no
ground to hold that the mandate of
continuing voter registration cannot be
reasonably held within the period provided by
Sec. 8 of RA 8189. (Palatino vs. Commission
on Elections, G.R. No. 189868, December
15, 2009)
Petitioner filed their petition with the Court
and sought the conduct of a two-day
registration all within the 120-day prohibitive
period. In this case, both the dates of filing of
the petition and the extension sought are
prior to the 120-day prohibitive period.
(Akbayan-YOUTH vs. Commission
on Elections, G.R. No. 147066, March 26,
2001)
ILLITERATE OR DISABLED VOTERS
Illiterate person: May register with
the assistance of the Election Officer or any
member of the accredited citizen’s arms.
(Sec. 14, Republic Act No. 8189)
Physically disabled person: Application
for registration may be prepared by:
(a) Any relative within the 4th civil degree of
consanguinity or affinity;
(b) By the Election Officer; or
(c) Any member of an accredited citizen’s
arms. (Sec. 14, Republic Act No. 8189)
Disabled voter: A person with impaired
capacity to use the Automated Election
System. (Sec. 2[11], Republic Act No. 9369)
246
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
ELECTION REGISTRATION BOARD
(ERB)
There shall be in each city and municipality
as many ERBs as there are election officers
therein. (Sec. 15, Republic Act No. 8189)
Composition:
Chairman: Election Officer (If disqualified,
COMELEC shall designate an acting Election
Officer)
Members:
a. Public school official of most senior rank;
b. Local civil registrar, or in his absence, the
city or municipal treasurer.
If neither are available, any other appointive
civil service official from the same locality as
designated by the COMELEC. (Sec. 15,
Republic Act No. 8189)
Disqualification: Relation to each other or
to any incumbent city or municipal elective
official within the 4th civil degree of
consanguinity or affinity. (Sec. 15, Republic
Act No. 8189)
CHANGE OF RESIDENCE OR ADDRESS
To another city or municipality: The
registered voter may apply with the Election
Officer of his new residence for the transfer
of his registration records. (Sec. 12, Republic
Act No. 8189)
In the same city or municipality: Voter
shall immediately notify the Election Officer in
writing. (Sec. 13, Republic Act No. 8189)
CHALLENGES TO RIGHT TO REGISTER
(Sec. 18, Republic Act No. 8189)
Who Any voter, candidate or
representative of a
registered political party
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Form In writing, State the
grounds therefor, under
oath, attached to the
application together with
the proof of notice of
hearing to the challenger
and the applicant.
Hearing 3rd Monday of the month
Decision Before the end of the month
VALIDATION
The process of taking the biometrics of
registered voters whose biometrics have not
yet been captured. (Sec. 2[d]. Republic Act
No. 10367)
DEACTIVATION OF REGISTRATION
DEACTIVATION – the process of
deactivating the registration of certain
persons, removing their registration records
from the corresponding precinct book of
voters and placing the same in the inactive
file, properly marked 'deactivated' and dated
in indelible ink.
Causes of deactivation: The board shall
remove the registration records of the
following persons from the corresponding
precinct book of voters and placing the same
in the inactive file:
a. Sentenced by final judgment to suffer
imprisonment for not less than 1 year
(unless granted plenary pardon or
amnesty);
b. Adjudged by final judgment for having
committed any crime involving disloyalty
to the duly constituted government (e.g.
rebellion, sedition, violation of the
firearms law) or any crime against
national security (unless restored to full
civil and political rights in accordance
with law) shall automatically reacquire
247
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW

the right to vote upon the expiration of 5 3. Contains data that are statistically
years after the service of sentence; improbable
c. Insane or incompetent persons as
declared by competent authority; No order, ruling or decision annulling a book
d. Did not vote in the two (2) successive of voters shall be executed within 90 days
preceding regular elections (excluding before an election. (Sec. 39, Republic Act No.
Sangguniang Kabataan elections); 8189)
e. Registration has been ordered excluded
by the Court; and INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION
f. Loss of Filipino citizenship. (Sec. 27, PROCEEDINGS
Republic Act No. 8189)
PETITION PETITION
REACTIVATION OF REGISTRATION: Any FOR FOR
voter whose registration has been INCLUSIO EXCLUSIO
deactivated may file with the Election officer N (Sec. 34, N (Sec.
a sworn application for reactivation of his RA No. 35, RA No.
registration in the form of an affidavit stating 8189) 8189)
that the grounds for the deactivation no
longer exist. (Sec. 28, Republic Act No. 8189) When Any time
to file Any time except
WHEN: Any time not later than 120 days except 105 100 days
before a regular election and 90 days before days before before a
a special election. (Sec. 28, Republic Act No. a regular regular
8189) election or election or
75 days 65 days
The Election officer shall submit said before a before a
application to the ERB and if approved, the special special
Election Officer shall retrieve the registration election. election
record from the inactive file and include the
same in the corresponding precinct book of Who a. Any a. Any
voters. (Ibid.) Local heads or may person registered
representatives of political parties file whose voter in
shall be properly notified on approved application the
applications. (Sec. 28, Republic Act No. 8189) for city or
registration municipalit
ANNULMENT OF BOOK OF VOTERS: The has been y
Commission on Elections shall, upon verified disapprove b.
petition of any voter or election officer or duly d by the Represent
registered political party, and after notice and BEI, or ative of
hearing, annul any book of voters that is: political
1. Not prepared in accordance b. Any party
with RA No. 8189; person c. Election
2. Prepared through fraud, bribery, forgery, whose officer
impersonation, intimidation, force, or any name has
similar irregularity; been

AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION 248

 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
stricken out
from the list
Period Within 15 Within 10
for days after days from
the
its filing its filing
court
to
decide
Jurisd The Municipal and
iction Metropolitan Trial Courts
shall have original and
exclusive jurisdiction.
It is not within the competence of the trial
court, in an exclusion proceeding, to declare
the challenged voter a resident of another
municipality. The jurisdiction of the lower
court over exclusion cases is limited only to
determining the right of the voter to remain
in the list of voters or to declare that the
challenged voter is not qualified to vote in the
precinct in which he is registered, specifying
the ground of the voter's disqualification.
(Domino vs. Commission on Elections, G.R.
No. 134015, July 19, 1999)
Res judicata not applicable
The proceedings for the exclusion or
inclusion of voters in the list of voters are
summary in character. Except for the right to
remain in the list of voters or for being
excluded therefrom for the particular election
in relation to which the proceedings had been
held, a decision in an exclusion or inclusion
proceeding, even if final and unappealable,
does not acquire the nature of res judicata.
It does not operate as a bar to any further
action that a party may take concerning the
subject passed upon in the proceeding. Thus,
a decision in an exclusion proceeding would
neither be conclusive on the voter’s political
status, nor bar subsequent proceedings on
his right to be registered as a voter in any
other election (Domino vs. Commission on
Elections,G.R. No. 134015, July 19, 1999)
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
1. Overseas Absentee Voting – R.A. No.
9189; R.A. No. 10590
ABSENTEE VOTING - refers to the process
by which qualified citizens of the Philippines
abroad exercise their right to vote. (Sec. 3[a],
Republic Act No. 9189)
OVERSEAS ABSENTEE VOTER - refers to
a citizen of the Philippines who is qualified to
register and vote under this Act, not
otherwise disqualified by law, who is abroad
on the day of elections. (Sec. 3[f], Republic
Act No. 9189)
JOINT CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT
COMMITTEE - is composed of the
Chairperson of the Senate Committee on
Constitutional Amendments, Revision of
Codes and Laws, and seven (7) other
Senators designated by the Senate President,
and the Chairperson of the House Committee
on Suffrage and Electoral Reforms, and seven
(7) other Members of the House of
Representatives designated by the Speaker
of the House of Representatives: Provided,
That, of the seven (7) members to be
designated by each House of Congress, four
(4) should come from the majority to include
the chair of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
and the remaining three (3) from the
minority. (Sec. 38, Republic Act No. 10590)
FIELD REGISTRATION - refers to the
conduct of registration of overseas voters at
predetermined locations, either in the
Philippines, as may be determined by the
Commission, or outside the posts, upon the
favorable recommendation of the DFA-OVS,
both being of limited duration and based on
the guidelines prescribed by the Commission
for that exclusive purpose; the government
shall not collect fees for the same. (Sec. 3[e],
Republic Act No. 10590)
249
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW

MOBILE REGISTRATION - refers to the Qualified Overseas Absentee Voters

conduct of registration of overseas voters at
various locations outside the posts, other All
than at field registrations, undertaken as part a.
of the posts’ mobile consular and outreach b.
activities to Filipinos within their jurisdictions. c.
(Sec. 3[f], Republic Act No. 10590)
citizens of the Philippines who are:
Living abroad;
Not disqualified by the law; and
At least eighteen (18) years of age on the
day of elections.

OFFICE FOR OVERSEAS VOTING (OFOV) Overseas Absentee Voters may vote for
- refers to the Office of the Commission president, vice-president, senators and
tasked to oversee and supervise the effective party-list representatives. (Sec. 4, Republic
implementation of the Overseas Voting Act. Act No. 9189)
(Sec. 3[i], Republic Act No. 10590)
Disqualifications from Voting under The
OVERSEAS VOTER - refers to a citizen of Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003
the Philippines who is qualified to register 1. Those who have lost their Filipino
and vote under this Act, not otherwise citizenship in accordance with Philippine
disqualified by law, who is abroad on the day laws;
of elections. (Sec. 3[j], Republic Act No.
10590) 2. Those who have expressly renounced
their Philippine citizenship and who have
PETITION PETITION pledged allegiance to a foreign country;
FOR FOR
INCLUSION EXCLUSION 3. Those who have committed and are
(Sec. 6.7, RA (Sec. 6.6, convicted in a final judgment by a
9189) RA 9189) Philippine court or tribunal of an offense
punishable by imprisonment of not less
than one (1) year, such disability not
having been removed by plenary pardon
or amnesty; and
When 5 days after Any time n
to file receipt of ot Note: That any person disqualified to vote
notice of later than 2 under this subsection shall automatically
disapproval 10 days acquire the right to vote upon the expiration
before the of five (5) years after service of sentence.
day of the
elections 4. Any citizen of the Philippines abroad
previously declared insane or
Applicant or Any
incompetent by competent authority in
Who his authorized interested
the Philippines or abroad, as verified by
may representative person
the Philippine embassies, consulates or
file
foreign service establishments
concerned.
Period 5 days after its 15 days after
to filing its filing
decide Exception: Such competent authority
subsequently certifies that such person is no

AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION 250

 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
longer insane or incompetent. (Sec. 4,
Republic Act No. 10590)
Registration and/or certification as an
overseas voter shall be done in person at any
post abroad or at designated registration
centers outside the post or in the Philippines
approved by the Commission. (Sec. 5,
Republic Act No. 10590)
Requirements for Registration
a. A valid Philippine passport;
In the absence of such, a certification of the
Department of Foreign Affairs that it has
reviewed the appropriate documents
submitted is sufficient or that the applicant is
a holder of a valid passport but is unable to
produce it for a valid reason.
b. Accomplished registration form
prescribed by the Commission; and
c. Applicants who availed themselves of the
‘Citizen Retention and Reacquisition Act’
(Republic Act No. 9225) shall present the
original or certified true copy of the order
of approval of their application to retain
or reacquire their Filipino citizenship
issued by the post or their identification
certificate issued by the Bureau of
Immigration. (Sec. 11, Republic Act No.
10590)
Prohibited Acts
In addition to the prohibited acts provided by
law, it shall be unlawful:
a. For any officer or employee of the
Philippine government to influence or
attempt to influence any person covered
by this Act to vote, or not to vote, for a
particular candidate;
b. For any person to deprive any person of
any right secured in this Act, or to give
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
false information or to conspire with
another person for the purpose of
encouraging the giving of false
information, or, to pay, or offer to pay, or
to accept payment either for application
to vote in absentia or for voting;
c. For any person to steal, conceal, alter,
destroy, mutilate, manipulate, or in any
way tamper with the mail containing the
ballots for overseas voters, the ballot, the
election returns, or any record, document
or paper required for purposes of this
Act;
d. For any deputized agent to refuse
without justifiable ground, to serve or
continue serving, or to comply with one’s
sworn duties after acceptance of the
deputization;
e. For any public officer or employee or
accredited or deputized organization or
association to cause the preparation,
printing, distribution or posting of
information or material, without the prior
approval of the Commission;
f. For any public officer or employee to
cause the transfer, promotion, extension,
recall of any member of the foreign
service corps, including members of the
attached agencies, or otherwise cause
the movement of any such member from
the current post or position one (1) year
before and three (3) months after the day
of elections, without securing the prior
approval of the Commission;
g. For any person who, after being
deputized by the Commission to
undertake activities in connection with
the implementation of this Act, shall
campaign for or assist, in whatever
manner, candidates in the elections;
251
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
h. For any person to engage in partisan
political activity abroad during the thirty
(30)-day overseas voting period; or
i. For any person who is not a citizen of the
Philippines to participate, by word or
deed, directly or indirectly through
qualified organizations/associations, in
any manner and at any stage of the
Philippine political process abroad,
including participation in the campaign
and elections. (Sec. 37, Republic Act No.
10590)
2. Local Absentee Voting – E.O. No. 157,
Series of 1987; R.A. No. 7166, sec. 12;
R.A. No. 10380
LOCAL ABSENTEE VOTING - a system of
voting whereby government officials and
employees, including members of the Armed
Forces of the Philippines (AFP), and the
Philippine National Police (PNP) as well as
members of the media, media practitioners
including their technical and support staff
(media voters) who are duly registered
voters, are allowed to vote for the national
positions in places where they are not
registered voters but where they are
temporarily assigned to perform election
duties on election day.. (Sec. 1[a], COMELEC
Resolution 9637, 13 February 2013)
Government officials and employees who will
be posted abroad to perform election duties
on election day may also avail of local
absentee voting, provided, that they are
registered voters and that they are not
registered overseas absentee voters under
Republic Act No. 9189, otherwise known
as "The Overseas Absentee Voting Act of
2003" (Sec. 2, COMELEC Resolution No.
9637, effective February 13, 2013)
Absentee voting shall apply to the elections
for President, Vice-President and Senators
only and shall be limited to members of the
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Armed Forces of the Philippines and the
Philippine National Police and other
government officers and employees who are
duly registered voters and who, on election
day, may temporarily be assigned in
connection with the performance of election
duties to place where they are not registered
voters. (Sec. 12, Republic Act No. 7166)
The Commission on Elections shall extend the
right to vote under the local absentee voting
system provided under existing laws and
executive orders to members of media,
media practitioners, including the technical
and support staff, who are duly registered
voters and who, on election day, may not be
able to vote due to the performance of their
functions in covering and reporting on the
elections. (Sec. 2, Republic Act No. 10380)
Note: That they shall be allowed to vote only
for the positions of President, Vice President,
Senators and Party-List Representative.
(Ibid.)
Submission of the List of Officers and
Employees
Thirty (30) days before the election, the
appropriate head of office shall submit to the
Commission on Elections a list of officers and
employees of the office who are registered
voters, and who, by reason of their duties
and functions, will be in places other than
their place of registration, and who desire to
exercise their right to vote, with the request
that said officers and employees be provided
with application forms to cast absentee
ballots in their place of assignment. (Sec. 2,
Executive Order No. 157, s. 1987, effective
March 30, 1987)
The voters who cast absentee votes shall
vote one week before election day. (Sec. 8,
Executive Order No. 157, s. 1987, effective
March 30, 1987)
252
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
Inclusion: Any person whose application for
registration has been disapproved by the
Board or whose name has been stricken out
from the list may file with the court a petition
to include his name (with certificate of
disapproval of his application and proof of
notice to the board) in the permanent list of
voters in his precinct at any time.
EXCEPTION: One hundred five (105) days
prior to a regular election or seventy-five (75)
day prior to a special election (Sec. 34, R.A.
No. 8189)
Jurisdiction: The Municipal and
Metropolitan Trial Courts shall have original
and exclusive jurisdiction over all cases of
inclusion and exclusion of voters in their
respective cities or municipalities. (Sec. 33,
R.A. No. 8189)
In connection with the ongoing Voter’s
Validation Program and in anticipation of
numerous petitions for inclusion or exclusion
of voters that may be filed, the salas of
executive judges of metropolitan trial courts
and municipal trial courts in cities, and the
municipal trial courts and municipal circuit
trial courts are hereby designate as special
courts to exclusively hear and decide such
petitions. (SC Administrative Circular 59-
2003)
Appeal: Decisions of the Municipal Trial
Court or Metropolitan Trial Court may be
appealed by the aggrieved party to the RTC
within 5 days from receipt of notice thereof.
No motion for reconsideration shall be
entertained (Sec. 33, R.A. No. 8189)
3. Persons Deprived of Liberty Voting –
COMELEC Resolution No. 9371, as may
be amended
Detainee voting (either through the special
polling place inside jails or escorted voting)
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
may be availed of by any registered detainee
whose registration is not transferred/
deactivated/cancelled/deleted (Sec. 1, Rule
1, COMELEC Resolution No. 9371).
DETAINEE: For purposes of detainee voting,
detainee refers to any person: (Charged,
Serving, Disloyal)
1. Confined in jail, formally charged for any
crime/s and awaiting/undergoing trial; or
2. Serving a sentence of imprisonment for
less than one (1) year; or
3. Whose conviction of a crime involving
disloyalty to the duly constituted government
such as rebellion, sedition, violation of the
firearms laws or any crime against national
security or for any other crime is on appeal
(Sec. 2[a], Rule 1, COMELEC Resolution No.
9371).
SPECIAL POLLING PLACE: Special polling
place shall be established in detention
center/jails with at least fifty (50) registered
detainee voters (Sec. 1, Rule 3, COMELEC
Resolution No. 9371).
DATE AND TIME OF DETAINEE VOTING:
Voting for qualified detainee voters shall take
place on the same date as the national and
local elections are conducted. (Sec. 1, Rule 6,
COMELEC Resolution No. 9371)
ESCORTED DETAINEE VOTERS: The
following shall avail of the escorted voting:
1. Detainee voters who are residents/
registered voters of municipalities/cities
other than the town/city of detention; and
2. Detainee voters in detention centers/ jails
where no special polling places are
established. (Sec. 1, Rule 7, COMELEC
Resolution No. 9371)
Provided: (CLR)
1. That said detainee voters obtained court
orders allowing them to vote in the polling
place where they are registered;
253
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
2. That it is logistically feasible on the part of
the jail/prison administration to escort the
detainee voter to the polling place where he
is registered; and
3. That reasonable measures shall be
undertaken by the jail/prison administration
to secure the safety of detainee voters,
prevent their escape and ensure public safety
(Sec. 1, Rule 7 COMELEC Resolution No.
9371).
C. Political Parties and the Party-List
System of Representation (1987
CONST., art. VI, sec. 5(2); art. IX-C,
sec. 2 (5)); R.A. No. 7941)
PARTY-LIST SYSTEM – a mechanism or
proportional representation in the election of
representatives to the House of
Representatives from national, regional and
sectoral parties or organizations or coalitions
thereof registered with the Commission on
Election (Sec. 3, Republic Act No. 7941).
A free and open party system shall be
allowed to evolve according to the free choice
of the people. (Sec. 2[5], Art. IX-C, 1987
Constitution)
Under this system, a voter elects, apart from
the district representative, a registered party,
organization or coalition that will be entitled
to a maximum of three (3) party-list
representatives in the House of
Representatives, depending on its obtaining
a required percentage of the national vote.
Number of Party-List Representatives:
20% of the total number of the members of
the House of Representatives including those
under the party-list. (Sec. 5[2], Art. VI, 1987
Constitution)
Note: For three consecutive terms after the
ratification of this Constitution, one-half of
the seats allocated to party-list
representatives shall be filled, as provided by
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
law, by selection or election from the labor,
peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural
communities, women, youth, and such other
sectors as may be provided by law, except
the religious sector. (Sec. 5[2], Art. VI, 1987
Constitution)
RULE: The Party-List Representatives shall
have the same rights and be subject to the
same inhibitions and disqualifications as a
District Representative. Any Party-List
Representative who changes his political
party or sectoral application during his term
of office shall forfeit his seat. If the change is
made within six (6) months before an
election, he shall not be eligible for
nomination as a Party-List Representative
under his new party or organization.
(Republic Act No. 7941, Effective March 3,
1995)
Nature Of Party-List System
The party-list system is a social justice tool
designed not only to give more law to the
great masses of our people who have less in
life, but also to enable them to become
veritable lawmakers themselves, empowered
to participate directly in the enactment of
laws designed to benefit them. It intends to
make the marginalized and the
underrepresented not merely passive
recipients of the State’s benevolence, but
active participants in the mainstream of
representative democracy. (Ang Bagong
Bayani OFW Labor Party vs. COMELEC, GR
No. 147589, June 26, 2001)
GROUNDS FOR REFUSAL AND/OR
CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION OF
POLITICAL PARTIES
1. It is a religious sect or denomination,
organization or association, organized
for religious purposes;
2. It advocates violence or unlawful
means to seek its goal;
3. It is a foreign party or organization;
254
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
4. It is receiving support from any foreign
government, foreign political party,
foundation, organization, whether
directly or through any of its officers or
members or indirectly through third
parties for partisan election purposes;
5. It violates or fails to comply with laws,
rules or regulations relating to
elections;
6. It declares untruthful statements in its
petition;
7. It has ceased to exist for at least one
(1) year; or
8. It fails to participate in the last two (2)
preceding elections or fails to obtain at
least two per centum (2%) of the votes
cast under the party-list system in the
two (2) preceding elections for the
constituency in which it has registered.
(Sec. 6, Republic Act No. 7941)
1. Registration – R.A. No. 7941, sec. 5
Registration: Any organized group of
persons may register as a party, organization
or coalition for purposes of the party-list
system by filing with the COMELEC not later
than ninety (90) days before the election a
petition verified by its president or secretary
stating its desire to participate in the party-
list system as a national, regional or sectoral
party or organization or a coalition of such
parties or organizations, attaching thereto its
constitution, by-laws, platform or program of
government, list of officers, coalition
agreement and other relevant information as
the COMELEC may require:
Provided, That the sectors shall include
labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor,
indigenous cultural communities, elderly,
handicapped, women, youth, veterans,
overseas workers, and professionals.
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
The COMELEC shall publish the petition in at
least two (2) national newspapers of general
circulation.
The COMELEC shall, after due notice and
hearing, resolve the petition within fifteen
(15) days from the date it was submitted for
decision but in no case not later than sixty
(60) days before election. (Sec. 5, Republic
Act No. 7941)
Guidelines For Screening Party-List
Candidates
In Ang Bagong Bayani case, the Supreme
Court decided that major political parties may
participate in the party list elections provided
that they are consistent with the purpose of
the party list system as provided in the
Constitution and R.A. No. 7941 which is to
represent the marginalized and
underrepresented sectors of society. (Ang
Bagong Bayani OFW Labor Party vs.
COMELEC, GR No. 147589, June 26, 2001)
In BANAT case, the Supreme Court
categorically declared that major political
parties are not allowed to directly or indirectly
participate in the party list elections. (BANAT
vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 179271, April 21,
2009)
We declare that it would not be in accord with
the 1987 Constitution and R.A. No. 7941 to
apply the criteria in Ang Bagong Bayani and
BANAT in determining who are qualified to
participate in the coming 13 May 2013 party-
list elections. (Atong Paglaum vs.
Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 203776,
April 2, 2013)
In the Atong Paglaum case, the following
guidelines for the determination of eligibility
of a party list to participate in the 13 May
2013 elections are provided as follows:
255
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
a. Three different groups may participate in
the party-list system: (1) national parties
or organizations, (2) regional parties or
sectoral parties or organizations.
b. Political parties can participate in party-
list elections provided they register under
the party-list system and do not field
candidates in legislative district elections.
A political party, whether major or not,
that fields candidates in legislative district
elections can participate in party-list
elections only through its sectoral wing
that can separately register under the
party-list system. The sectoral wing is by
itself an independent sectoral party, and
is linked to a political party through a
coalition.
c. Sectoral parties or organizations may
either be “marginalized and
underrepresented” or lacking in “well-
defined political constituencies.”
d. It is enough that their principal advocacy
pertains to the special interest and
concerns of their sector. The sectors that
are “marginalized and underrepresented”
include labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban
poor, indigenous cultural communities,
handicapped, veterans, and overseas
workers. The sectors that lack “well-
defined political constituencies” include
professionals, the elderly, women, and
the youth.
e. A majority of the members of sectoral
parties or organizations that represent
the “marginalized and underrepresented”
must belong to the “marginalized and
underrepresented” sector they represent.
Similarly, a majority of the members of
sectoral parties or organizations that lack
“well-defined political constituencies”
must belong to the sector they represent.
The nominees of sectoral parties or
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
organizations that represent the
“marginalized and underrepresented,” or
that represent those who lack “well-
defined political constituencies,” either
must belong to their respective sectors, or
must have a track record of advocacy for
their respective sectors. The nominees of
national and regional parties or
organizations must be bona-fide
members of such parties or
organizations.
f. National, regional, and sectoral parties or
organizations shall not be disqualified if
some of their nominees are disqualified,
provided that they have at least one
nominee who remains qualified. (Atong
Paglaum vs. Commission on Elections,
G.R. No. 203776, April 2, 2013)
Nominations of Party-List
Representatives
Each registered party, organization or
coalition shall submit to the COMELEC not
later than forty-five (45) days before the
election a list of names, not less than five (5),
from which party-list representatives shall be
chosen in case it obtains the required number
of votes. (Sec. 8, Republic Act No. 7941)
A person may be nominated in one (1) list
only. Only persons who have given their
consent in writing may be named in the list.
The list shall not include any:
a. candidate for any elective office or
b. person who has lost his bid for an elective
office in the immediately preceding
election. (Ibid.)
No change of names or alteration of the order
of nominees shall be allowed after the same
shall have been submitted to the COMELEC
except in cases where the nominee:
1. dies, or
2. withdraws in writing, his nomination,
256
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
3. becomes incapacitated in which case
the name of the substitute’s nominee
shall be placed last in the list. (Sec. 8,
Republic Act No. 7941)
Incumbent sectoral representatives in
the House of Representatives who are
nominated in the party-list system shall not
be considered resigned. (Ibid.)
Term of Office
Party-list representatives shall be elected for
a term of 3 years. No party-list representative
shall serve for more than three (3)
consecutive terms. Voluntary renunciation of
the office for any length of time shall not be
considered as an interruption in the
continuity of his service for the full term for
which he was elected. (Sec. 14, Republic Act
No. 7941)
Under Sec. 2 of R.A. No. 7941, the nominees
must be Filipino citizens “who belong to
marginalized and underrepresented sectors,
organizations and parties.” Surely, the
interests of the youth cannot be fully
represented by a retiree; neither can those of
the urban poor or the working class, by an
industrialist. To allow otherwise is to betray
the State policy to give genuine
representation to the marginalized and
underrepresented. (Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW
Labor Party vs. Commission on Elections,
G.R. No. 147589, June 26, 2001)
Vacancy: The vacancy shall be automatically
filled by the next representative from the list
of nominees in the order submitted to the
COMELEC by the same party, organization, or
coalition, who shall serve for the unexpired
term. If the list is exhausted, the party,
organization coalition concerned shall submit
additional nominees (Sec. 16, Republic Act
No. 7941).
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Rights: Party-List Representatives shall be
entitled to the same salaries and emoluments
as regular members of the House of
Representatives (Sec. 17, Republic Act No.
7941).
Grounds for Refusal or Cancellation of
Registration – R.A. No. 7941, sec. 6
1. It is a religious sect or denomination,
organization or association,
organized for religious purposes;
2. It advocates violence or unlawful
means to seek its goal;
3. It is a foreign party or organization;
4. It is receiving support from any
foreign government, foreign political
party, foundation, organization,
whether directly or through any of its
officers or members or indirectly
through third parties for partisan
election purposes;
5. It violates or fails to comply with
laws, rules or regulations relating to
elections;
6. It declares untruthful statements in
its petition;
7. It has ceased to exist for at least one
(1) year; or
8. It fails to participate in the last two
(2) preceding elections or fails to
obtain at least two per centum (2%)
of the votes cast under the party-list
system in the two (2) preceding
elections for the constituency in
which it has registered. (Sec. 6,
Republic Act No. 7941)
D. Candidacy
1. Certificate of Candidacy – B.P. Blg.
881, sec. 73
No person shall be eligible for any elective
public office unless he files a sworn certificate
of candidacy within the period fixed herein.
(Sec. 73, Batas Pambansa Blg. 881).
257
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
Certificate of Candidacy
A certificate of candidacy is in the nature of a
formal manifestation to the whole world of
the candidate's political creed or lack of
political creed. It is a statement of a person
seeking to run for a public office certifying
that he announces his candidacy for the
office mentioned and that he is eligible for
the office, the name of the political party to
which he belongs, if he belongs to any, and
his post-office address for all election
purposes being as well stated. (Engle v.
COMELEC, G.R. No. 215995, January 19,
2016)
The certificate of candidacy shall be filed on
any day from the commencement of the
election period but not later than the day
before the beginning of the campaign period:
Provided, that in cases of postponement or
failure of election under, no additional
certificate of candidacy shall be accepted
except in cases of substitution of candidates.
(Sec. 75, Batas Pambansa Blg. 881)
CANDIDATE – any person aspiring for or
seeking an elective public office, who has
filed a certificate of candidacy by himself or
through an accredited political party,
aggroupment, or coalition of parties. (Sec.
79[a], Batas Pambansa Blg. 881)
Thus, the essential elements for violation of
Section 80 of the Omnibus Election Code are:
(1) a person engages in an election campaign
or partisan political activity; (2) the act is
designed to promote the election or defeat of
a particular candidate or candidates; (3) the
act is done outside the campaign period.
The second element requires the existence of
a "candidate." Under Section 79(a), a
candidate is one who "has filed a certificate
of candidacy" to an elective public office.
Unless one has filed his certificate of
candidacy, he is not a "candidate." The third
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
element requires that the campaign period
has not started when the election campaign
or partisan political activity is committed.
(Lanot vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No.
164858, November 16, 2006)
Acts committed by Eusebio prior to his being
a "candidate" on 23 March 2004, even if
constituting election campaigning or partisan
political activities, are not punishable under
Section 80 of the Omnibus Election Code.
Such acts are protected as part of freedom of
expression of a citizen before he becomes a
candidate for elective public office. Acts
committed by Eusebio on or after 24 March
2004, or during the campaign period, are not
covered by Section 80 which punishes only
acts outside the campaign period.” (Lanot vs.
Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 164858,
November 16, 2006)
2. Ministerial Duty of Comelec to
Receive Certificates of Candidacy – B.P.
Blg. 881, sec. 76
The Commission, provincial election
supervisor, election registrar or officer
designated by the Commission or the board
of election inspectors under the succeeding
section shall have the ministerial duty to
receive and acknowledge receipt of the
certificate of candidacy. (Sec. 76, Batas
Pambansa Blg. 881)
GENERAL RULE: The Commission on
Elections shall have the ministerial duty to
receive and acknowledge receipt of the
certificates of candidacy provided said
certificates are under oath and contain all the
required data and in the form prescribed by
the Commission.
The Commission on Elections has no
discretion to give or not to give due course to
a certificate of candidacy filed in due form.
While the Commission on Elections may look
258
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
into patent defects in the certificate, it may
not go into matters not appearing on their
face. (Abcede vs. Imperial, GR No. L-13001,
March 18, 1958)
EXCEPTIONS: The Commission on Elections
may go beyond the face of the certificate of
candidacy: (a) Nuisance candidates; (b)
Petition to deny due course or to cancel a
certificate of candidacy. (Santos vs.
Commission on election, G.R. No. 235058,
September 4, 2018)
3. Effect of Filing of Certificate of
Candidacy – B.P. Blg. 881, sec. 66
Appointive official: Any person holding an
appointive office or position, including active
members of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines, and officers and employees in
GOCCs, shall be considered ipso facto
resigned from his office upon the filing of his
certificate of candidacy.Such resignation is
irrevocable. (Sec. 66, Batas Pambansa Blg.
881)
Applies to employees of GOCCs without an
original charter. (PNOC Energy Development
Corporation vs. National Labor Relations
Commission, G.R. No. 100947, May 31, 1993)
Elective official: Any elective official,
whether national or local, who has filed a
certificate of candidacy for the same or any
other office, shall not be considered resigned
from his office (Sec.26, Implementing Rules
and Regulations of the Fair Election Act)
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Substantial distinctions clearly exist between
elective officials and appointive officials. The
former occupiestheir office by virtue of t
he mandate of the electorate. They are
elected to an office for a definite term and
may be removed therefrom only upon
stringent conditions. On the other hand,
appointive officials hold their office by virtue
of their designation thereto by an appointing
authority. Under EO 292, Appointive officials,
as officers and employees in the civil service,
are strictly prohibited from engaging in any
partisan political activity or take (sic) part in
any election except to vote. Under the same
law, elective officials, or officers or
employees holding political offices, are
obviously expressly allowed to take part in
political and electoral activities. (Quinto vs.
COMELEC, G.R. No. 189698, December 1,
2009)
4. Eligibility and Material
Misrepresentation – B.P. Blg. 881, secs.
74 and 78
Qualifications prescribed by law are
continuing requirements and must be
possessed for the duration of the officer’s
active tenure. Once any of the required
qualifications is lost, his title to the office may
be seasonably challenged. (Frivaldo
vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No.
120295, June 28, 1996; Labo vs. Commission
on Elections, G.R. No. 86564, August 1,
1989)
259
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
The certificate of candidacy shall state the
following:
a. that the person filing it is announcing
his candidacy for the office stated
therein and that he is eligible for said
office;
b. if for Member of the Batasang
Pambansa, the province, including its
component cities, highly urbanized
city or district or sector which he
seeks to represent;
c. the political party to which he
belongs;
d. civil status;
e. his date of birth;
f. residence;
g. his post office address for all election
purposes;
h. his profession or occupation;
i. that he will support and defend the
Constitution of the Philippines and
will maintain true faith and allegiance
thereto;
j. that he will obey the laws, legal
orders, and decrees promulgated by
the duly constituted authorities;
k. that he is not a permanent resident
or immigrant to a foreign country;
l. that the obligation imposed by his
oath is assumed voluntarily, without
mental reservation or purpose of
evasion; and
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
m. that the facts stated in the certificate
of candidacy are true to the best of
his knowledge.
Unless a candidate has officially changed his
name through a court approved proceeding,
a certificate shall use in a certificate of
candidacy the name by which he has been
baptized, or if has not been baptized in any
church or religion, the name registered in the
office of the local civil registrar or any other
name allowed under the provisions of
existing law or, in the case of a Muslim, his
Hadji name after performing the prescribed
religious pilgrimage: Provided, That when
there are two or more candidates for an office
with the same name and surname, each
candidate, upon being made aware or such
fact, shall state his paternal and maternal
surname, except the incumbent who may
continue to use the name and surname
stated in his certificate of candidacy when he
was elected. He may also include one
nickname or stage name by which he is
generally or popularly known in the locality.
(Sec. 74, Batas Pambansa Blg. 881)
Renunciation of Foreign Citizenship
This requirement of renunciation of any and
all foreign citizenship, when read together
with Section 40(d) of the Local Government
260
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
Code which disqualifies those with dual
citizenship from running for any elective local
position, indicates a policy that anyone who
seeks to run for public office must be solely
and exclusively a Filipino citizen. To allow a
former Filipino who reacquires Philippine
citizenship to continue using a foreign
passport – which indicates the recognition of
a foreign state of the individual as its national
– even after the Filipino has renounced his
foreign citizenship, is to allow a complete
disregard of this policy. (Macquiling vs.
Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 195649,
July 2, 2013)
If there is any remaining doubt, it is regarding
the efficacy of Arnado’s renunciation of his
American citizenship when he subsequently
used his U.S. passport. The renunciation of
foreign citizenship must be complete
and unequivocal. The requirement that the
renunciation must be made through an oath
emphasizes the solemn duty of the one
making the oath of renunciation to remain
true to what he has sworn to. Allowing the
subsequent use of a foreign passport
because it is convenient for the person
to do so is rendering the oath a hollow
act. It devalues the act of taking an oath,
reducing it to a mere ceremonial formality.
(Ibid.)
It must be stressed that what is at stake here
is the principle that only those who are
exclusively Filipinos are qualified to run for
public office. If we allow dual citizens who
wish to run for public office to renounce their
foreign citizenship and afterwards continue
using their foreign passports, we are creating
a special privilege for these dual citizens,
thereby effectively junking the prohibition in
Section 40(d) of the Local Government Code.
(Macquiling vs. Commission on Elections,
G.R. No. 195649, July 2, 2013)
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Qualification of Candidates
The term of office of elective local officials,
except barangay officials, which shall be
determined by law, shall be three years and
no such official shall serve for more than
three consecutive terms. Voluntary
renunciation of the office for any length of
time shall not be considered as an
interruption in the continuity of his service for
the full term for which he was elected. (Sec.
8, Art. X, 1987 Constitution)
A provincial board member’s election to the
same position for the third and fourth time,
but now in representation of the renamed
district, is a violation of the three-term limit
rule (Naval vs. Commission on Elections, GR
No. 207851, July 8, 2014).
An involuntary interrupted term, as in the
case of assumption of office only after
winning an election protest, cannot, in the
context of the disqualification rule, be
considered as one term for purposes of
counting the three-term threshold, since prior
to winning, the candidate was not the rightful
holder of the position (Abundo vs.
Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 201716,
January 8, 2013).
We concede that Morales occupied the
position of mayor of Mabalacat for the
following periods: 1 July 1995 to 30 June
1998, 1 July 1998 to 30 June 2001, 1 July
2001 to 30 June 2004, and 1 July 2004 to 16
May 2007. However, because of his
disqualification, Morales was not the duly
elected mayor for the 2004-2007 term.
Neither did Morales hold the position of
mayor of Mabalacat for the full term. Morales
cannot be deemed to have served the full
term of 2004-2007 because he was ordered
to vacate his post before the expiration of the
term. Morales’ occupancy of the position of
mayor of Mabalacat from 1 July 2004 to 16
May 2007 cannot be counted as a term for
purposes of computing the three-term limit.
261
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
Indeed, the period from 17 May 2007 to 30
June 2007 served as a gap for purposes of
the three-term limit rule. Thus, the present 1
July 2007 to 30 June 2010 term is effectively
Morales’ first term for purposes of the three-
term limit rule. (Dizon vs. COMELEC, G.R.
No.182088, January 30, 2009)
PETITION TO DENY DUE COURSE OR
CANCEL A CERTIFICATE OF CANDIDACY
A verified petition seeking to deny due course
or to cancel a certificate of candidacy may be
filed by the person exclusively on the ground
that any material representation contained
therein as required is false. The petition may
be filed at any time not later than 25 days
from the time of the filing of the certificate of
candidacy and shall be decided, after due
notice and hearing, not later than 15 days
before the election. The petition shall be filed
by any registered candidate for the same
Office within 5 days from the last day of filing
of certificates of Candidacy (Sec. 78, Batas
Pambansa Blg. 881).
Who may file: Any person
When to file: Any time not later than 25
days from the time of the filing of the
certificate of candidacy. (Fermin vs.
Commission on elections, G.R. No. 179695,
December 18, 2008)
As to the ground of false representation
in the Certificate of Candidacy (COC) under
Section 78, in order to justify the cancellation
of COC, it is essential that the false
representation mentioned therein pertain to
a material matter for the sanction imposed by
this provision would affect the substantive
rights of a candidate – the right to run for the
elective post for which he filed the certificate
of candidacy. (Engle vs. Commission on
election, G.R. No. 215995, January 19, 2016)
Although the law does not specify what would
be considered as a “material representation”,
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
the Court concluded that this refers to
qualifications for elective office. Citing
previous cases in which the Court interpreted
this phrase, we held that Section 78
contemplates statements regarding age,
residence, and citizenship or non-possession
of natural-born Filipino status. (Gonzales vs.
Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 192856,
March 8, 2011)
Furthermore, aside from the requirement of
materiality, the false representation must
consist of a deliberate attempt to mislead,
misinform, or hide a fact which would
otherwise render a candidate ineligible. In
other words, it must be made with an
intention to deceive the electorate as to one’s
qualification for public office. (Gonzales vs.
Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 192856,
March 8, 2011)
EXCEPTION: The electorate is fully aware in
fact and in law of the candidate’s
disqualification so as to bring such awareness
within the realm of notoriety but would
nonetheless cast their vote in
favor of the ineligible candidate. (Grego
vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No.
125955, June 19, 1997)
Before final judgment: If for any reason a
candidate is not declared by final judgment
before an election to be disqualified and he is
voted for and receives the winning number of
votes in such election the Court or
Commission shall continue with the trial and
hearing of the action, inquiry or protest and,
upon motion of the complainant or any
intervenor, may, during the pendency
thereof, order the suspension of the
proclamation of such candidate whenever the
evidence of guilt is strong. (Ejercito vs.
Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 212398,
November 25, 2014)
262
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
The rule then is that candidates who are
disqualified by final judgment before the
election shall not be voted for, and the votes
cast for them shall not be counted. But those
against whom no final judgment of
disqualification had been rendered may be
voted for and proclaimed, unless, on motion
of the complainant, the Commission on
Elections suspends their proclamation
because the grounds for their disqualification
or cancellation of their certificates of
candidacy are strong.” (Gonzalez vs.
Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 192856,
March 8, 2011)
5. Withdrawal of Certificates of
Candidacy – B.P. Blg. 881, sec. 73
A person who has filed a certificate of
candidacy may, prior to the election,
withdraw the same by submitting to the office
concerned a written declaration under oath.
No person shall be eligible for more than one
office to be filled in the same election, and if
he files his certificate of candidacy for more
than one office, he shall not be eligible for any
of them.
However, before the expiration of the period
for the filing of certificates of candidacy, the
person who was filed more than one
certificate of candidacy may declare under
oath the office for which he desires to be
eligible and cancel the certificate of candidacy
for the other office or offices.
The filing or withdrawal of a certificate of
candidacy shall not affect whatever civil,
criminal or administrative liabilities which a
candidate may have incurred. (Sec. 73, B.P.
Blg. 881)
As to withdrawal of candidacy, the
withdrawing candidate is required to have
duly filed a valid COC in order to allow his
political party to file a substitute candidate in
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
his stead. (Da Silva Serafica vs. COMELEC,
G.R. No. 205136, December 2, 2014)
The withdrawal of the withdrawal, for the
purpose of reviving the certificate of
candidacy, must be made within the period
provided by law for the filing of certificates of
candidacy (Monsale vs Nico, G.R. No. L-2539,
May 28, 1949).
6. Effects of Denial and Cancellation of
Certificate of Candidacy due to Material
Misrepresentation
A cancelled certificate of candidacy may be
declared void ab initio thus, it cannot give rise
to a valid candidacy, and much less to valid
votes. Therefore, it may be concluded that
the material misrepresentation contemplated
by Section 78 of the Code refer to
qualifications for elective office. This
conclusion is strengthened by the fact that
the consequences imposed upon a candidate
guilty of having made a false representation
in his certificate of candidacy are grave to
prevent the candidate from running or, if
elected, from serving, or to prosecute him for
violation of the election laws. It could not
have been the intention of the law to deprive
a person of such a basic and substantive
political right to be voted for a public office
upon just any innocuous mistake. (Aratea vs.
Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 195229,
October 9, 2012)
Substitution is also not allowed when the
original candidate was disqualified on the
ground of material misrepresentation.
(Fermin vs. Commission on Elections, G.R.
No. 179695, December 18, 2008)
7. Substitution of Candidates – B.P. Blg.
881, sec. 77
Grounds: If after the last day for the filing
of certificates of candidacy, an official
263
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
candidate of a registered or accredited
political party:
1. Dies
2. Withdraws; or
3. Disqualified for any cause
Only a person belonging to, and certified by,
the same political party may file a certificate
of candidacy to replace the candidate who
died, withdrew or was disqualified. (Sec. 77,
Batas Pambansa Blg. 881)
When to file: The substitute candidate
nominated by the political party concerned
may file his certificate of candidacy for the
office affected in accordance with the
preceding sections not later than mid-day of
the day of the election. (Ibid.)
If the death, withdrawal or disqualification
should occur between the day before the
election and mid-day of election day, said
certificate may be filed with any board of
election inspectors in the political subdivision
where he is a candidate, or, in the case of
candidates to be voted for by the entire
electorate of the country, with the
Commission. (Sec. 77, Batas Pambansa Blg.
881)
Substitution of candidates should be allowed
even for barangay elections, as it is not
prohibited by law. (Rulloda vs. Commission
on Elections, G.R. No. 154198, January 20,
2003)
Even if the withdrawal was not under oath,
the certificate of the substitute cannot be
annulled after the election. (Villanueva vs.
Commission on Elections, G.R. No. L-
54718, December 4, 1985)
The nomination of a substitute candidate
who won cannot be annulled on the ground
that it lacked the signature of one of the
authorized signatures. (Sinaca vs. Mula, G.R.
No. 135691, September 27, 1999)
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Substitution is not allowed if the certificate of
the candidate to be substituted was
cancelled, because he was running for the
fourth consecutive term (Miranda vs. Abaya,
G.R. No. 136351, July 28, 1999; Ong vs.
Alegre, G.R. No. 163295, January 23, 2006),
or because he failed to meet the one-year
residency requirement (Tagolino vs. House of
Representatives
Electoral Tribunal, G.R. No. 202202, March
19, 2013)
Substitution is also not allowed when the
original candidate was disqualified on the
ground of material misrepresentation.
(Fermin vs. Commission on Elections, G.R.
No. 179695, December 18, 2008)
However, a candidate who commits an
election offense and is disqualified under
Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code, can
be substituted. (Fermin vs. Commission on
Elections, G.R. No. 179695, December 18,
2008)
An independent candidate who joined the
party of a disqualified candidate may be
nominated as his substitute even if he joined
the party only after the disqualification.
(Sinaca vs. Mula, G.R. No. 135691,
September 27, 1999)
8. Nuisance Candidates and Effects of
Declaration of Nuisance Candidacy –
B.P. Blg. 881, sec. 69; R.A. No. 6646,
sec. 5
Nuisance Candidate
A nuisance candidate is one who, based on
the attendant circumstances, has no bona
fide intention to run for the office for
which the certificate of candidacy has been
filed, his sole purpose being the
reduction of the votes of a strong
candidate, upon the expectation that ballots
with only the surname of such candidate will
264
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
be considered stray and not counted for
either of them.” (Martinez vs. House of
Representatives Electoral Tribunal, G.R. No.
189034, January 11, 2010)
The Commission may motu proprio or upon a
verified petition of an interested party, refuse
to give due course to or cancel a certificate
of candidacy if it is shown that said certificate
has been filed to put the election process in
mockery or disrepute or to cause confusion
among the voters by the similarity of
the names of the registered candidates or by
other circumstances or acts which clearly
demonstrate that the candidate has no bona
fide intention to run for the office for which
the certificate of candidacy has been filed and
thus prevent a faithful determination of the
true will of the electorate (Sec. 69, Batas
Pambansa Blg. 881).
By their very nature, proceedings in
cases of nuisance candidates require
prompt disposition. The declaration of a
duly registered candidate as nuisance
candidate results in the cancellation of his
certificate of candidacy. The law mandates
the Commission and the courts to give priority
to cases of disqualification to the end that a
final decision shall be rendered not later than
seven days before the election in which the
disqualification is sought.
Procedure in Cases of Nuisance
Candidates
a. A verified petition to declare a duly
registered candidate as a nuisance
candidate under Sec. 69 of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 881 shall be filed
personally or through duly authorized
representative with the Commission
within five (5) days from the last day for
the filing of certificate of candidacy;
A petition to disqualify a candidate for
councilor for failure to indicate in his
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
certificate of candidacy the precinct number
and the barangay as a registered voter cannot
be considered a petition to disqualify him for
being a nuisance candidate, since his
certificate was not filed to make mockery of
the election or to confuse the voters. (Jurilla
vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No.
105436, June 2, 1994)
b. Within three (3) days from the filing of
the petition, the Commission shall issue
summons to the respondent candidate
together with a copy of the petition and
its enclosures, if any;
c. The respondent shall be given three (3)
days from receipt of the summons within
which to file his verified answer (not a
motion to dismiss) to the petition, serving
copy thereof upon the petitioner.
Grounds for a motion to dismiss may be
raised as affirmative defenses;
d. The Commission may designate any of its
officials who are lawyers to hear the case
and receive evidence, the proceeding is
summary in nature. In lieu of oral
testimonies, the parties may be required
to submit position papers together with
affidavits or counter-affidavits and other
documentary evidence. The hearing
officer shall submit his findings to the
Commission within five (5) days from the
completion and the Commission shall
render decision within 5 days from
receipt;
e. The decision, order, or ruling of the
Commission shall, after five (5) days from
receipt of a copy thereof by the parties,
be final and executory unless stayed by
the Supreme Court; and
f. The Commission shall within twenty-four
hours, through the fastest available
means, disseminate its decision or the
decision of the Supreme Court to the city
or municipal election registrars, boards of
265
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
election inspectors and the general public
in the political subdivision concerned.
(Sec. 5, Republic Act No. 6466)
9. Disqualification of Candidates;
Effects
Under the Omnibus Election Code
1. Declared incompetent or insane b
y a competent authority (In2)
2. Permanent resident of or an immigrant
to a foreign country unless he has waived
such statues (PResI)
3. Sentenced by final judgment for: (FJ SIR
18+)
a. Subversion, insurrection, rebellion;
b. Any offense for which he has been
sentenced to a penalty of more than
18 months imprisonment; or
c. A crime involving moral turpitude
(MoTu)
4. Given money or other material
consideration to influence, induce, or
corrupt voters of public officials
performing electoral functions (MoMa)
5. Committed acts of terrorism to enhance
his candidacy (TeC)
6. Spent in his election campaign
an amount in excess of that allowed
(AmEx)
7. Solicited, received or made prohibi
ted contributions (ProCon)
8. Engaged in election campaign or part
isan political activity outside
the campaign period and not pursuant
to a political party nomination (OutCamP)
9. Removed, destroyed, defaced lawful
election propaganda (ReDesDef EP)
10. Engaged in prohibited forms of elect
ion propaganda (Pro EP)
11. Violated election rules and regulation of
election propaganda
through mass media (EVP MaMe)
12. Coerced, intimidated, or influenced any
of his subordinates, members, or
employees to
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
aid, campaign or vote for or against
any candidate or aspirant for the
nomination or selection of candidates
(CoIntiInflu)
13. Threatened, intimidated, caused,
inflicted or produced any violence, injury,
punishment, damage,
loss or disadvantage upon any person
or of the immediate members of his
14. family, his honor or property, or used
fraud to compel, induce or prevent the
registration of any voter, or the
participation in any campaign, or the
casting of any vote, or any promise of
such registration, campaign, vote, or
omission therefrom (TICIP)
15. Unlawful electioneering (UnElec)
16. Violated the prohibition against rele
ase, disbursement or expenditure of
public funds 45 days before a regular
election or 30 days before a special
election (ReDEx)
17. Solicited votes or
undertook propaganda on election day
for or against any candidate or any
political party within the polling place or
within a 30m radius. (SoVo P) (Batas
Pambansa Blg. 881, Effective December
3, 1985)
Under the Local Government Code
1. Sentenced by final judgment for an offense
punishable by at least 1 year imprisonment
within 2 years after serving sentence;
2. Removed from office as a result of an
administrative case;
Sec. 40 (b) of the Local Government
Code applies only to those removed from
office on or after January 1, 1992. That the
provision of the Code in question does not
qualify the date of a candidate’s removal from
office and that it is couched in the past tense
should not deter us from applying the law
266
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
prospectively. A statute, despite the
generality in its language, must not be so
construed as to overreach acts, events, or
matters which transpired before its passage.
(Grego vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 125955, June
19, 1997)
3. Convicted by final judgment for violating
the oath of his allegiance to the Republic of
the Philippines;
4. Dual citizenship;
Dual citizenship as a disqualification must
refer to citizens with dual allegiance
(Mercado vs. Manzano, G.R. No. 135083, May
26, 1999)
5. Fugitives from justice in criminal and non-
political cases here and abroad;
6. Permanent residents in a foreign country
or those who have acquired the right to
reside abroad and continue to avail of the
same right after the effectivity of this Code;
and
7. Insane or feeble-minded. (Sec. 40, Local
Government Code of 1991)
E. CAMPAIGN
ELECTION CAMPAIGN or PARTISAN
ACTIVITY - refers to an act designed to
promote the election or defeat of a particular
candidate or candidates to a public office
which shall include:
(1) Forming organizations, associations,
clubs, committees or other groups of persons
for the purpose of soliciting votes and/or
undertaking any campaign for or against a
candidate;
(2) Holding political caucuses, conferences,
meetings, rallies, parades, or other similar
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
assemblies, for the purpose of soliciting votes
and/or undertaking any campaign or
propaganda for or against a candidate;
(3) Making speeches, announcements or
commentaries, or holding interviews for or
against the election of any candidate for
public office;
(4) Publishing or distributing campaign
literature or materials designed to support or
oppose the election of any candidate; or
(5) Directly or indirectly soliciting votes,
pledges or support for or against a candidate.
The foregoing enumerated acts if performed
for the purpose of enhancing the chances of
aspirants for nomination for candidacy to a
public office by a political party,
aggroupment, or coalition of parties shall not
be considered as election campaign or
partisan election activity. (Sec. 79[b], Art. X,
Batas Pambansa Blg. 881)
Persons Prohibited from Campaigning
1. Members of the board of election
inspections; (Sec. 173, Batas
Pambansa Blg. 881)
2. Civil service officers or employees;
(Sec. 2 [4], Art. IX-B, 1987
Constitution)
3. Members of the military; (Sec. 5 [3],
Art. XVI, 1987 Constitution)
4. Foreigners, whether juridical or
natural persons. (Sec. 81, Batas
Pambansa Blg. 881)
1. LIMITATIONS ON EXPENSES AND
PROHIBITED CONTRIBUTIONS – R.A.
NO. 7166
The phrase “those incurred or caused to be
incurred by the candidate” is sufficiently
adequate to cover those expenses which are
contributed or donated on the candidate’s
behalf. By virtue of the legal requirement that
a contribution or donation should bear the
267
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
written conformity of the candidate, a
contributor/supporter/donor certainly
qualifies as “any person authorized by such
candidate or treasurer.” (Ejercito vs.
Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 212398,
November 25, 2014)
Authorized Expenses of Candidates and
Political Parties
The aggregate amount that a candidate or
registered political party may spend for
election campaign, for every voter currently
registered in the constituency, shall be as
follows:
1. a. President and Vice President – Ten
pesos (P10.00);
b. Other candidates – Three Pesos
(P3.00);
c. A candidate without any political party
and without support from any political
party - Five Pesos (P5.00). (Sec. 13[a],
Republic Act No. 7166)
2. For political parties — Five pesos (P5.00)
(Sec. 13[b], Republic Act No. 7166)
Note: Any provision of law to the contrary
notwithstanding, any contribution in cash or
in kind to any candidate or political party or
coalition of parties for campaign purposes,
duly reported to the Commission, shall not be
subject to the payment of any gift tax. (Sec.
13, Republic Act No. 7166)
Prohibited Contributions
No contribution for purposes of partisan
political activity shall be made directly or
indirectly by any of the following:
a. Public or private financial institutions:
Provided, however, That nothing herein
shall prevent the making of any loan to a
candidate or political party by any such
public or private financial institutions
legally in the business of lending money,
and that the loan is made in accordance
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
with laws and regulations and in the
ordinary course of business;
b. Natural and juridical persons operating a
public utility or in possession of or
exploiting any natural resources of the
nation;
c. Natural and juridical persons who hold
contracts or sub-contracts to supply the
government or any of its divisions,
subdivisions or instrumentalities, with
goods or services or to perform
construction or other works;
d. Natural and juridical persons who have
been granted franchises, incentives,
exemptions, allocations or similar
privileges or concessions by the
government or any of its divisions,
subdivisions or instrumentalities,
including GOCCs;;
e. Natural and juridical persons who, within
one year prior to the date of the election,
have been granted loans or other
accommodations in excess of P100,000
by the government or any of its divisions,
subdivisions or instrumentalities including
GOCCs;
f. Educational institutions which have
received grants of public funds
amounting to no less than P100,000.00;
g. Officials or employees in the Civil Service,
or members of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines; and
h. Foreigners and foreign corporations.
It shall be unlawful for any person to solicit
or receive any contribution from any of the
persons or entities enumerated herein. (Sec.
95, Batas Pambansa Blg. 881)
268
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
2. LAWFUL ELECTION PROPAGANDA –
R.A. NO. 9006
Lawful election propaganda shall include:
1. Pamphlets, leaflets, cards, decals,
stickers or other written or printed
materials the size of which does not
exceed eight and one-half inches in
width and fourteen inches in length;
2. Handwritten or printed letters urging
voters to vote for or against any
particular political party or candidate
for public office;
3. Cloth, paper or cardboard posters
whether framed, or posted, with an
area not exceeding two (2) feet by
three (3) feet, except that, at the site
and on the occasion of a public
meeting or rally, or in announcing the
holding of said meeting or rally,
streamers not exceeding three (3)
feet by eight (8) feet in size, shall be
allowed: Provided, That said
streamers may be displayed five (5)
days before the date of the meeting
or rally and shall be removed within
twenty-four (24) hours after said
meeting or rally;
4. Paid advertisements in print or
broadcast media: Provided, That the
advertisements shall follow the
requirements set forth in Section 4 of
this Act; and
5. All other forms of election
propaganda not prohibited by the
Omnibus Election Code or this Act.
(Sec. 3, Republic Act No. 9006)
Requirements for Published or Printed
and Broadcast Election Propaganda
1. Any newspaper, newsletter, news
weekly, gazette or magazine advertising,
posters, pamphlets, comic books,
circulars, handbills, bumper stickers,
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
streamers, simple list of candidates or
any published or printed political matter
and any broadcast of election
propaganda by television or radio for or
against a candidate or group of
candidates to any public office shall bear
and be identified by the reasonably
legible or audible words “political
advertisement paid for,” followed by the
true and correct name and address of the
candidate or party for whose benefit the
election propaganda was printed or aired.
2. If the broadcast is given free of charge by
the radio or television station, it shall be
identified by the words “airtime for this
broadcast was provided free of charge
by” followed by the true and correct
name and address of the broadcast
entity.
3. Print, broadcast or outdoor
advertisements donated to the candidate
or political party shall not be printed,
published, broadcast or exhibited without
the written acceptance by the said
candidate or political party. Such written
acceptance shall be attached to the
advertising contract and shall be
submitted to the COMELEC as provided in
Subsection 6.3 hereof. (Sec. 4, Republic
Act No. 9006)
Prohibited Forms of Election
Propaganda
It shall be unlawful:
1. To print, publish, post or distribute any
poster, pamphlet, circular, handbill, or
printed matter urging voters to vote for
or against any candidate unless they bear
the names and addresses of the printer
and payor as required in Section 84
hereof;
2. To erect, put up, make use of, attach,
float or display any billboard, tinplate-
269
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
poster, balloons and the like, of whatever
size, shape, form or kind, advertising for
or against any candidate or political
party;
3. To purchase, manufacture, request,
distribute or accept electoral propaganda
gadgets, such as pens, lighters, fans of
whatever nature, flashlights, athletic
goods or materials, wallets, shirts, hats,
bandanas, matches, cigarettes and the
like, except that campaign supporters
accompanying a candidate shall be
allowed to wear hats and/or shirts or T-
shirts advertising a candidate;
4. To show or display publicly any
advertisement or propaganda for or
against any candidate by means of
cinematography, audio-visual units or
other screen projections except telecasts
which may be allowed as hereinafter
provided; and
5. For any radio broadcasting or television
station to sell or give free of charge
airtime for campaign and other political
purposes except as authorized in this
Code under the rules and regulations
promulgated by the Commission
pursuant thereto.
Any prohibited election propaganda gadget
or advertisement shall be stopped,
confiscated, or torn down by the
representative of the Commission upon
specific authority of the Commission. (Sec.
85, Batas Pambansa Blg. 881)
Election Surveys
Election surveys refer to the measurement of
opinions and perceptions of the voters as
regards a candidate's popularity,
qualifications, platforms or a matter of public
discussion in relation to the election,
including voters' preference for candidates or
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
publicly discussed issues during the
campaign period (Sec. 5.1, Republic Act No.
9006)
The survey together with raw data gathered
to support its conclusions shall be available
for inspection, copying and verification by the
COMELEC or by a registered political party or
a bona fide candidate or by any COMELEC-
accredited citizen's arm. A reasonable fee
sufficient to cover the costs of inspection,
copying and verification may be charged.
(Sec. 5.3, Republic Act No. 9006)
Surveys affecting national candidates shall
not be published fifteen (15) days before an
election and surveys affecting local
candidates shall not be published seven (7)
days before an election. (Sec. 5.4, Republic
Act No. 9006)
3. STATEMENT OF CONTRIBUTIONS
AND EXPENSES - R.A. NO. 7166, SEC. 14
Statement of Contributions and
Expenditures (SOCE)
Every candidate and treasurer of the political
party shall, within thirty (30) days after the
day of the election, file in duplicate with the
offices of the Commission the full, true and
itemized statement of all contributions and
expenditures in connection with the election.
General Rule: No person elected to any
public offices shall enter upon the duties of
his office until he has filed the statement of
contributions and expenditures herein
required. The same prohibition shall apply if
the political party which nominated the
winning candidate fails to file the statement
required.
Exception: Candidates for elective barangay
office who failed to file the statements or
reports in connection with electoral
270
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
contributions and expenditures as required.
(Sec. 14, Republic Act No. 7166)
Effects of failure to file
First Administrative Offense (except
Candidates for elective barangay office)
Failure to file the statements or reports in
connection with electoral contributions and
expenditures as required herein shall
constitute an administrative offense for which
the offenders shall be liable to pay an
administrative fine ranging from One
thousand pesos (P1,000.00) to Thirty
thousand pesos (P30,000.00), in the
discretion of the Commission.
The fine shall be paid within thirty (30) days
from receipt of notice of such failure;
otherwise, it shall be enforceable by a writ of
execution issued by the Commission against
the properties of the offender. (Sec. 14,
Republic Act No. 7166)
Second or Subsequent Administrative
Offense
For the commission of a second or
subsequent offense under this section, the
administrative fine shall be from Two
thousand pesos (P2,000.00) to Sixty
thousand pesos (P60,000.00), in the
discretion of the Commission. In addition, the
offender shall be subject to perpetual
disqualification to hold public office. (Sec. 14,
Republic Act No. 7166)
Duty of City or Municipal Election
Registrar
It shall be the duty of every city or municipal
election registrar to advise in writing, by
personal delivery or registered mail, within
five (5) days from the date of election all
candidates residing in his jurisdiction to
comply with their obligation to file their
statements of contributions and
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
expenditures. (Sec. 14, Republic Act No.
7166)
NOTE: A candidate who withdraws his
certificate of candidacy must still file a
statement of contributions and expenditures,
for the law make no distinction. (Pilar vs.
Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 115245,
July 11, 1995)
F. REMEDIES
1. PRE-ELECTION REMEDIES
A. PETITION FOR DISQUALIFICATION
It is the remedy against any candidate:
1. Who does not possess all the
qualifications required by the Constitution
or law; or
2. Who commits any act declared by law to
be grounds for disqualification (Sec. 1,
Rule 25, COMELEC Rules of Procedure).
Grounds
Any candidate who, in an action or protest in
which he is a party is declared by final
decision of a competent court guilty of, or
found by the Commission of having:
a. given money or other material
consideration to influence, induce or
corrupt the voters or public officials
performing electoral functions;
b. committed acts of terrorism to enhance
his candidacy;
c. spent in his election campaign an amount
in excess of that allowed by this Code;
d. solicited, received or made any
contribution prohibited under Sections
89, 95, 96, 97 and 104; or
271
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
e. violated any of Sections 80, 83, 85, 86
and 261, paragraphs d, e, k, v, and cc,
sub-paragraph 6, shall be disqualified
from continuing as a candidate, or if he
has been elected, from holding the office.
f. Any person who is a permanent resident
of or an immigrant to a foreign country
shall not be qualified to run for any
elective office under this Code.
Exception: Said person has waived his
status as permanent resident or immigrant of
a foreign country in accordance with the
residence requirement provided for in the
election laws. (Sec. 68, Batas Pambansa Blg.
881)
Who may file: Any citizen of voting age, or
any duly registered political party,
organization, or coalition of political parties.
(Sec. 2, Rule 25, COMELEC Rules of
Procedure)
When to file: Any day after the last day for
filing of certificates of candidacy, but not later
than the date of proclamation (Sec. 3, Rule
25, COMELEC Rules of Procedure).
Where filed: Law Department of the
Commission on Elections (Sec. 2, Rule 25,
COMELEC Rules of Procedure).
Final and Executory Judgment
A decision or resolution is deemed final and
executory if, in case of a division ruling, no
motion for reconsideration is filed within the
reglementary period, or in cases of rulings of
the Commission en banc, no restraining order
is issued by the Supreme Court within five (5)
days from receipt of the decision or
resolution. (Sec. 8, Rule 23, 2013 COMELEC
Rules of Procedure, as amended by
COMELEC Resolution No. 9523)
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Effect
Any candidate who has been declared by final
judgment to be disqualified shall not be voted
for, and the votes cast for him shall not be
counted. The fact that the candidate who
obtained the highest number of votes is later
declared to be disqualified or not eligible for
the office to which he was elected, does not
necessarily entitle the candidate who
obtained the second highest number of votes
to be declared the winner of the elective
office. (Sec. 72, Batas Pambansa Blg. 881)
A possible exception is predicated on the
concurrence of two assumptions, namely: (1)
the one who obtained the highest number of
votes is disqualified; and (2) the electorate is
fully aware in fact and in law of a candidate’s
disqualification so as to bring such awareness
within the realm of notoriety but would
nonetheless cast their votes in favor of the
ineligible candidate. (Grego vs. Commission
on Elections, GR No. 125955, June 19, 1997)
The ground invoked by Sarip in his Petition
for Disqualification against Munder—the
latter’s alleged status as an unregistered
voter in the municipality—was inappropriate
for the said petition. The said ground should
have been raised in a petition to cancel
Munder’s CoC. It may be true that in 2003,
Munder, who was still a minor, registered
himself as a voter and misrepresented that
he was already of legal age. Even if it was
deliberate, we cannot review his past political
acts in this petition. Neither can the Comelec
review those acts in an inappropriate remedy.
In so doing, it committed grave abuse of
discretion, and the act resulting therefrom
must be nullified. (Munder vs. COMELEC,
G.R. No. 194076, October 19, 2011)
B. PETITION NOT TO GIVE DUE COURSE
OR CANCEL CERTIFICATES OF
CANDIDACY
272
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
A verified petition seeking to deny due
course or to cancel a certificate of candidacy
may be filed by the person exclusively on the
ground that any material representation
contained therein as required under Section
74 hereof is false. The petition may be filed
at any time not later than twenty-five days
from the time of the filing of the certificate of
candidacy and shall be decided, after due
notice and hearing, not later than fifteen days
before the election. (Sec. 78, Batas
Pambansa Blg. 881).
Although the law does not specify what would
be considered as a “material representation”,
the Court concluded that this refers to
qualifications for elective office. Citing
previous cases in which the Court interpreted
this phrase, we held that Section 78
contemplates statements regarding age,
residence, and citizenship or non-possession
of natural-born Filipino status.
Furthermore, aside from the requirement of
materiality, the false representation must
consist of a deliberate attempt to mislead,
misinform, or hide a fact which would
otherwise render a candidate ineligible. In
other words, it must be made with an
intention to deceive the electorate as to one’s
qualification for public office. (Gonzales vs.
Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 192856,
March 8, 2011)
EXCEPTION: The electorate is fully aware in
fact and in law of the candidate’s
disqualification so as to bring such awareness
within the realm of notoriety but would
nonetheless cast their vote in favor of the
ineligible candidate. (Grego vs. Commission
on Elections, G.R. No. 125955, June 19,
1997)
Before final judgment: If for any reason a
candidate is not declared by final judgment
before an election to be disqualified and he is
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
voted for and receives the winning number of
votes in such election the Court or
Commission shall continue with the trial and
hearing of the action, inquiry or protest and,
upon motion of the complainant or any
intervenor, may, during the pendency
thereof, order the suspension of the
proclamation of such candidate whenever the
evidence of guilt is strong.
The rule then is that candidates who are
disqualified by final judgment before the
election shall not be voted for, and the votes
cast for them shall not be counted. But those
against whom no final judgment of
disqualification had been rendered may be
voted for and proclaimed, unless, on motion
of the complainant, the Commission on
proclamation because the grounds for their
disqualification or cancellation of their
certificates of candidacy are strong (Gonzalez
vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No.
192856, March 8, 2011)
Who may file: Any person
When to file: Any time not later than 25
days from the time of the filing of the
certificate of candidacy (Sec. 78, Batas
Pambansa Blg. 881)
Execution of Judgement:
shall be decided after due notice and hearing,
not later than fifteen days before the election
(Ibid).
C. PETITION TO DECLARE A NUISANCE
CANDIDATE
Any registered candidate for the same office
may file a petition to declare a duly registered
candidate as a nuisance candidate,
personally, or through duly authorized
representative with COMELEC within five
days from the last day of filing of COC. (Sec.
5[a], Republic Act No. 6646)
273
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
Grounds
The Commission may motu proprio or upon a
verified petition of an interested party, refuse
to give due course to or cancel a certificate
of candidacy if it is shown that said certificate
has been filed to:
1. Put the election process in mockery or
disrepute; or
2. Cause confusion among the voters by
the similarity of the names of the
registered candidates; or
3. By other circumstances or acts which
clearly demonstrate that the candidate
has no bona fide intention to run for the
office for which the certificate of
candidacy has been filed and thus
prevent a faithful determination of the
true will of the electorate (Sec. 69, Batas
Pambansa Blg. 881).
Effect of Voting a Nuisance Candidate
The votes cast for a nuisance candidate are
not stray but counted in favor of the bona
fide candidate. (Dela Cruz v. COMELEC, G.R.
No. 192221, 13 Nov. 2012)
2. DURING ELECTION
A. PETITION TO POSTPONE ELECTIONS
When for any serious cause such as:
a. Violence;
b. Terrorism;
c. Loss or destruction of election
paraphernalia or records;
d. Force majeure; and and
e. Other analogous causes of such a nature
that the holding of a free, orderly and
honest election should become
impossible in any political subdivision.
The Commission, motu proprio or upon a
verified petition by any interested party, and
after due notice and hearing, whereby all
interested parties are afforded equal
opportunity to be heard, shall postpone the
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
election therein to a date which should be
reasonably close to the date of the election
not held, suspended or which resulted in a
failure to elect. (Sec. 5, Batas Pambansa Blg.
881)
Note: It should not be later than thirty days
after the cessation of the cause for such
postponement or suspension of the election
or failure to elect. (Sec. 5, Batas Pambansa
Blg. 881)
B. PETITION TO DECLARE FAILURE OF
ELECTIONS
Instances to File a Petition to Declare
Failure of Elections
a. The election is any polling place has not
been held on the date fixed on account of
force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud,
or other analogous causes.
b. The election in any polling place had been
suspended before the hour fixed by law
for the closing of the voting on account
of force majeure, violence, terrorism
fraud, or other analogous causes;
c. After the voting and during the
preparation and the transmission of the
election returns or in the custody or
canvass thereof, such election results in
failure to elect on account of force
majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or
other analogous causes; and
d. In any of such cases the failure or
suspension of election would affect the
result of the election, the Commission
shall, on the basis of a verified petition by
any interested party and after due notice
and hearing, call for the holding or
continuation of the election not held,
suspended or which resulted in a failure
to elect on a date reasonably close to the
274
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW

date of the election not held, suspended Execution of Judgment

or which resulted in a failure to elect. It shall be heard summarily by the COMELEC.
Its decision shall be executory after five (5)
Note: It should not be later than thirty days days from receipt by the losing party, unless
after the cessation of the cause of such otherwise ordered. (Sec. 246, Batas
postponement or suspension of the election Pambansa Blg. 881)
or failure to elect. (Sec. 6, Batas Pambansa
Blg. 881) Failure of Election vs. Postponement of
Elections
Note:
There is failure of elections only when the will
of the electorate has been muted and cannot
be ascertained (Benito v. COMELEC, G.R. No.
134913, 19 Jan. 2001)

The disruption of the election process due to

machine (PCOS) breakdown or malfunction
may be limited to a precinct only or could
affect an entire municipal/city. The worst-
case scenario of course would be the
wholesale breakdown of the 82,000 PCOS
machines. Nonetheless, even in this most
extreme case, failure of all the machines
would not necessarily translate into failure of
elections. Manual count tabulation and
transmission, as earlier stated, can be done,
PCOS being a paper-ballot technology. If the 3. PRE-PROCLAMATION CONTROVERSY
machine fails for whatever reason, the paper
ballots would still be there for the hand Any question pertaining to or affecting the
counting of the votes, manual tabulation and proceedings of the board if canvassers which
transmission of the ERs. Failure of elections may be raised by any candidate or by any
consequent to voting machines failure would, registered political party or coalition of
in fine, be a very remote possibility. (Roque political parties before the board or directly
vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 188456, September with the Commission, or any matter raised
10, 2009) under Section 233, 234, 235 and 236 in
relation to the preparation, transmission,
Jurisdiction receipt, custody and appreciation of the
COMELEC has exclusive jurisdiction over pre- election returns. (Sec. 241, Batas Pambansa
proclamation cases. It may order, motu Blg. 881)
proprio or upon written petition, and after
due notice and hearing the partial or total Proceedings of the board of canvassers which
suspension of the proclamation of any may be raised by any candidate or by any
candidate-elect or annul partially or totally registered political party or coalition of
any proclamation, if one has been made, as political parties, or by any accredited and
the evidence shall warrant. (Sec. 242, Batas participating party list group, before the
Pambansa Blg. 881)

AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION 275

 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
board or directly with the Commission. (Sec.
1, Rule 3, COMELEC Resolution No. 8804)
Issues that may be raised (restrictive
and exclusive)
a. Illegal composition or proceedings of the
Board of Election Canvassers;
b. Canvassed election returns are either:
i. Incomplete
ii. Contain material defects
iii. Appear to be tampered with or
falsified
iv. Contain discrepancies in the same
returns or in other authentic copies
c. The election returns were prepared under
duress, threats, coercion, or intimidation,
or they are obviously manufactured or
not authentic; and
d. When substitute or fraudulent returns in
controverted polling places were
canvassed, the results of which materially
affected the standing of the aggrieved
candidate or candidates. (Sec. 243, Batas
Pambansa Blg. 881; Chavez vs.
Commission on Elections, G.R. No.
162777, August 31, 2004)
Issues that cannot be raised
a. Appreciation of ballots, as this is
performed by the BEI at the precinct level
and is not part of the proceedings of the
BOC (Sanchez vs. COMELEC, G.R. No.
78461, August 12, 1987)
b. Technical examination of the signatures
and thumb marks of voters (Matalam vs.
COMELEC, G.R. No. 123230 April 18,
1997)
c. Prayer for re-opening of ballot boxes
(Alfonso vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 107847
June 2, 1994)
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
d. Padding of the Registry List of Voters of
a municipality, massive fraud and
terrorism (Ututalum vs. COMELEC, G.R.
No. 84843-44, January 22, 1990)
e. Challenges directed against the Board of
Election Inspectors (Ututalum vs.
COMELEC, supra)
f. Fraud, terrorism and other illegal
electoral practices. These are properly
within the office of election contests over
which electoral tribunals have sole,
exclusive jurisdiction (Loong vs.
COMELEC, G.R. No. 133676 April 14,
1999).
Note: In Sec. 1, Rule 3, of COMELEC
Resolution No. 8804 (promulgated March 22,
2010), there are only two (2) issues covered
in pre- proclamation controversy:
1. Illegal composition of the BOC; and
2. Illegal proceedings of the BOC.
When pre-proclamation cases are not
allowed
Pre-proclamation cases on matters relating to
the preparation, transmission, receipt,
custody, and appreciation of the election
returns or the certificates of canvass NOT
allowed in elections of President, Vice-
President, Senator, or Member of the House
of Representatives (Sec. 15, Republic Act No.
7166).
When pre-proclamation cases are
deemed terminated
All pre-proclamation cases pending before
the Commission on Elections shall be deemed
terminated at the beginning of the term of
the office involved and the rulings of the
boards of canvassers concerned shall be
deemed affirmed. This is without prejudice to
the filing of a regular election protest by the
aggrieved party (Sec. 16, Republic Act No.
7166).
276
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
Effect of Filing Petition to Annual or to
Suspend the Proclamation
The filing with the Commission of a petition
to annual or to suspend the proclamation of
any candidate shall suspend the running of
the period within which to file an election
protest or quo warranto proceedings. (Sec.
248, Batas Pambansa Blg. 881)
4.POST-PROCLAMATION
a. Election Contest
A contest between the defeated and winning
candidates on the ground of frauds or
irregularities in the casting and counting of
the ballots, or in the preparation of the
returns. It raises the question of who actually
obtained the plurality of the legal votes and
therefore is entitled to hold the office (Samad
vs. Commission on Elections, GR No. 107854,
July 16, 1993).
General Rule: The filing of an election
protest or a petition for quo warranto
precludes the subsequent filing of a pre-
proclamation controversy, or amounts to the
abandonment of one earlier filed, thus
depriving the COMELEC of the authority to
inquire into and pass upon the title of the
protestee or the validity of his proclamation.
(Villamor vs. Commission on elections, G.R.
No. 169865, July 21, 2006)
EXCEPTIONS:
1. The board of canvassers was improperly
constituted;
2. Quo warranto was not the proper
remedy;
3. What was filed was not really a petition
for quo warranto or an election protest
but a petition to annul a proclamation;
a. The filing of a quo warranto petition or an
election protest was expressly made
without prejudice to the pre-proclamation
controversy or was made ad cautelam;
and
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
b. The proclamation was null and void
(Samad v. COMELEC, supra).
i. Election Protest
A petition contesting the elections or returns
of an elective regional, provincial, or city
official shall be filed with the Commission by
any candidate who was voted for in the same
office and who Commission by any candidate
who was voted for in the same office and who
received the second or third highest number
of votes or, in a multi-slot position, was
among the next four candidates following the
last ranked winner duly proclaimed, as
reflected in the official results of the election
contained in the Statement of Votes. The
party filing the protest shall be designated as
the protestant; the adverse party shall be
known as the protestee (SEC. 2, Rule 6, PART
III, COMELEC Reso. No. 8804).
The purpose of an election protest is to
ascertain whether the candidate proclaimed
by the board of canvassers is the lawful
choice of the people. What is sought is the
correction of the canvass of votes, which was
the basis of proclamation of the winning
candidate. Election contests, therefore,
involve the adjudication not only of private
and pecuniary interests of rival candidates
but also of paramount public interest
considering the need to dispel uncertainty
over the real choice of the electorate.
(Martinez vs. House of Representatives
Electoral Tribunal, G.R. No. 189034, January
11, 2010)
Who can file: An election protest maybe
filed by any candidate who has filed a
certificate of candidacy and has been voted
upon for the same office. (Sec. 250, Art. XXI,
Batas Pambansa Blg. 881)
Grounds (FITI)
a. Fraud
b. Terrorism
277
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
c. Irregularities
d. Illegal acts committed before, during, or
after the casting and counting of votes
(Nachura, Outline Reviewer in Political Law,
2014, p.527)
Time to file: Within 10 days from the
proclamation of the results of the election.
(Sec. 250, Art. XXI, Batas Pambansa Blg.
881)
Since it is the Commission on Elections which
has jurisdiction to take cognizance of an
appeal from the decision of the regional trial
court in election contests involving elective
municipal officials, then it is also the
Commission on Elections which has
jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari in aid
of its appellate jurisdiction. (Bulilis vs. Nuez,
G.R. No. 195953, August 9, 2011)
Doctrine of Statistical Improbability
The Doctrine of Statistical Improbability is
applied only where the unique uniformity of
tally of all the votes cast in favor of all the
candidates belonging to one party and the
systematic blanking of all the candidates of
all the opposing parties appear in the election
return. The doctrine has no application where
there is neither uniformity of tallies nor
systematic blanking of the candidates of one
party.
Thus, the base fact that a candidate for public
office received no votes in one or two
precincts, standing alone and without more,
cannot adequately support a finding that the
subject election returns are statistically
improbable. Verily, a zero vote for a particular
candidate in the election returns is but one
strand in the web of circumstantial evidence
that the electoral returns were prepared
under duress, force and intimidation.
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
The Court has thus warned that the doctrine
of statistical improbability must be
restrictively viewed with the utmost care
being taken lest in penalizing fraudulent and
corrupt practices – which is truly called for –
innocent voters become disenfranchised, a
result that hardly commends itself. (Suhuri
vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No.
181869, October 2, 2009)
ii. Quo Warranto
Quo warranto proceeding for an elective
office: Quo warrant refers to an election
contest relating to the qualifications of an
elective official on the ground of (1)
ineligibility or (2) disloyalty to the Republic of
the Philippines. The issue is whether the
respondent possesses all the qualifications
and none of the disqualifications prescribed
by law. (A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC, effective May
15, 2007)
A sworn petition that can be filed by any voter
to contest the election of any member of
Congress or local government official on the
ground of ineligibility or of disloyalty to the
Republic of the Philippines (Sec. 253, Batas
Pambansa Blg. 881).
In quo warranto proceedings referring to
offices filled by election, what is to be
determined is the eligibility of the candidate
elect, while in quo warranto proceedings
referring to offices filled by appointment,
what is determined is the legality of the
appointment. In the first case when the
person elected is ineligible, the court cannot
declare that the candidate occupying the
second place has been elected, even if he
were eligible, since the law only authorizes a
declaration of election in favor of the person
who has obtained a plurality of votes, and has
presented his certificate of candidacy. In the
second case, the court determines who has
been legally appointed and can and ought to
declare who is entitled to occupy the office
278
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
(Nuval vs. Guray, G.R. No. L-30241,
December 29, 1928).
A petition for quo warranto is a proceeding to
determine the right of a person to the use or
exercise of a franchise or office and to oust
the holder from its enjoyment if his claim is
not well-founded. Or if he has forfeited his
right to enjoy the privilege. Where the action
is filed by a private person, in his own name,
he must prove that he is entitled to the
controverted position; otherwise, respondent
has a right to the undisturbed possession of
the office. In a quo warranto proceeding, the
person suing must show that he has a clear
right to the office allegedly held unlawfully by
another. Absent that right, the lack of
qualification or eligibility of the supposed
usurper is immaterial. (Ong vs. Office of the
President, G.R. No 184219, January 30,
2012)
iii. Jurisdiction
Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET)
The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be
the sole judge of all contests relating to the
election, returns and qualifications of the
President or Vice-President, and may
promulgate its rules for the purpose. (Sec. 4,
Art. VII, 1987 Constitution)
Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET)
The Senate shall have an Electoral Tribunal
which shall be the sole judge of all contests
relating to the election, returns, and
qualifications of their respective Members.
(Sec. 17, Art. VI, 1987 Constitution)
House of Representatives Electoral
Tribunal (HRET)
The House of Representatives shall have an
Electoral Tribunal which shall be the sole
judge of all contests relating to the election,
returns, and qualifications of their respective
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Members. (Sec. 17, Art. VI, 1987
Constitution)
COMELEC – 1987 CONST., art. IX-C, sec.
2(2); B.P. Blg. 881, secs. 250 and 253
The Commission on Elections shall exercise
exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests
relating to the elections, returns, and
qualifications of all elective regional,
provincial, and city officials, and appellate
jurisdiction over all contests involving elective
municipal officials decided by trial courts of
general jurisdiction, or involving elective
barangay officials decided by trial courts of
limited jurisdiction. (Sec 2[2], Art IX-C, 1987
Constitution)
Election contests for Batasang
Pambansa, regional, provincial and city
offices. - A sworn petition contesting the
election of any Member of the Batasang
Pambansa or any regional, provincial or city
official shall be filed with the Commission by
any candidate who has duly filed a certificate
of candidacy and has been voted for the
same office, within ten days after the
proclamation of the results of the election.
(Sec. 250, Batas Pambansa Blg. 881)
Petition for quo warranto. - Any voter
contesting the election of any Member of the
Batasang Pambansa, regional, provincial, or
city officer on the ground of ineligibility or of
disloyalty to the Republic of the Philippines
shall file a sworn petition for quo warranto
with the Commission within ten days after the
proclamation of the results of the election.
(Sec. 253, Batas Pambansa Blg. 881)
RTC – R.A. No. 7166, sec. 22; B.P. Blg.
881, secs. 251 and 253
Election Contests for Municipal Offices.
- All election contests involving municipal
offices filed with the Regional Trial Court shall
be decided expeditiously. The decision may
279
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
be appealed to the Commission within five
(5) days from promulgation or receipt of a
copy thereof by the aggrieved party. The
Commission shall decide the appeal within
sixty (60) days after it is submitted for
decision, but not later than six (6) months
after the filing of the appeal, which decision
shall be final, unappealable and executory.
(Sec. 22, Republic Act No. 7166)
Election contests for municipal offices. -
A sworn petition contesting the election of a
municipal officer shall be filed with the proper
regional trial court by any candidate who has
duly filed a certificate of candidacy and has
been voted for the same office, within ten
days after proclamation of the results of the
election. (Sec. 251, Batas Pambansa Blg.
881)
Petition for quo warranto. - Any voter
contesting the election of any Member of the
Batasang Pambansa, regional, provincial, or
city officer on the ground of ineligibility or of
disloyalty to the Republic of the Philippines
shall file a sworn petition for quo warranto
with the Commission within ten days after the
proclamation of the results of the election.
(Sec. 253, Batas Pambansa Blg. 881)
MTC – B.P. Blg. 881, secs. 252-253
Election contest for barangay offices. -
A sworn petition contesting the election of a
barangay officer shall be filed with the proper
municipal or metropolitan trial court by any
candidate who has duly filed a certificate of
candidacy and has been voted for the same
office, within ten days after the proclamation
of the results of the election. The trial court
shall decide the election protest within fifteen
days after the filing thereof. The decision of
the municipal or metropolitan trial court may
be appealed within ten days from receipt of a
copy thereof by the aggrieved party to the
regional trial court which shall decide the
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
case within thirty days from its submission,
and whose decisions shall be final. (Sec. 252,
Batas Pambansa Blg. 881)
Petition for quo warranto. - Any voter
contesting the election of any Member of the
Batasang Pambansa, regional, provincial, or
city officer on the ground of ineligibility or of
disloyalty to the Republic of the Philippines
shall file a sworn petition for quo warranto
with the Commission within ten days after the
proclamation of the results of the election.
(Sec. 253, Batas Pambansa Blg. 881)
G. PROSECUTION OF ELECTION
OFFENSES (B.P. Blg. 881 as amended by
R.A. No. 9369,
sec. 265)
Sec. 265. Prosecution. - The Commission
shall, through its duly authorized legal
officers, have the power, concurrent with the
other prosecuting arms of the government, to
conduct preliminary investigation of all
election offenses punishable under this Code,
and prosecute the same. (Sec. 43, Republic
Act No. No. 9369).
INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION
COMELEC has exclusive jurisdiction to
investigate and prosecute cases involving
violation of election laws (Sec. 2 [6], Art. IX-
C, 1987 Constitution)
However, it may validly delegate the power
to the Provincial Prosecutor or to the
Ombudsman.
In the event that the COMELEC fails to act on
any complaint within 4 months from its filing,
the complainant may file the complaint with
the fiscal or the Department of Justice, if
warranted (Sec. 265, Batas Pambansa Blg.
881).
280
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
It is not the duty of the COMELEC, as
investigator and prosecutor, to gather proof
in support of a complaint filed before it
(Kilosbayan v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 128054,
October 16, 1997).
TRIAL AND DECISION
General Rule: RTCs have exclusive original
jurisdiction to try and decide any criminal
actions or proceedings for violation of
election laws. (Sec. 268, Batas Pambansa
Blg. 881)
Exception: MTCs exercise jurisdiction only
over offenses relating to failure to register or
to vote
PREFERENTIAL DISPOSITION OF
ELECTION OFFENSES
The investigation and prosecution of cases
involving violations of the elections laws shall
be given preference and priority by the
Commission on Elections and prosecuting
officials. Their investigation shall be
commenced without delay, and shall be
resolved by the investigation officer within
(5) days from its submission for resolution.
The courts shall likewise give preference to
election offices over all other cases, except
petitions for writ of habeas corpus. Their trial
shall likewise be commenced without delay,
and shall be conducted continuously until
terminated, and the case shall be decided
within thirty (30) days from its submission for
decision. (Sec. 1, Presidential Decree No.
1676, effective February 19, 1980)
ELECTION OFFENSES
i. Registration
1. Failure of the Board of Election
Inspectors to post the list of voters in
each precinct. [Sec. 9, R.A. 7166];
2. Change or alteration or transfer of a
voter's precinct assignment in the
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
permanent list of voters without the
express written consent of the voter [Sec.
4, R.A. 8189]
ii. Certificate of Candidacy
1. Continued misrepresentation or holding
out as a candidate of a disqualified
candidate or one declared by final and
executory judgment to be a nuisance
candidate [Sec. 27f, R.A. 6646]
2. Knowingly inducing or abetting such
misrepresentation of a disqualified or
nuisance candidate [Sec. 27f, R.A.
6646];
3. Coercing, bribing, threatening, harassing,
intimidating, terrorizing, or actually
causing, inflicting or producing violence,
injury, punishment, torture, damage, loss
or disadvantage to discourage any other
person or persons from filing a certificate
of candidacy in order to eliminate all
other potential candidates from running
in a special election [Sec. 5, R.A. 8295]
iii. Election Campaign
1. Appointment or use of special policemen,
special agents or the like during the
campaign period [Sec. 261m, B.P. 881]
2. Use of armored land, water or aircraft
during the campaign period [Sec. 261r,
B.P.881]
3. Unlawful electioneering [Sec. 261k, B.P.
881]
4. Acting as bodyguards or security in the
case of policemen and provincial guards
during the campaign period [Sec. 261t,
B.P. 881]
5. Removal, destruction, obliteration, or
tampering of lawful election propaganda,
or preventing the distribution thereof
[Sec. 83, B.P. 881 vis-à-vis Sec. 262, B.P.
881]
iv. Voting
1. Vote-buying and vote-selling [Sec. 261a,
B.P. 881]
281
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
2. Conspiracy to bribe voters [Sec. 261b,
B.P. 881]: A disputable presumption of a
conspiracy to bribe voters is created
when there is proof that at least 1 voter
in different precincts representing at least
20% of the total precincts in any
municipality, city or province has been
offered, promised or given money,
valuable consideration or other
expenditure by a candidate's relatives,
leaders and/or sympathizers for the
purpose of promoting the election of such
candidate. [Sec. 28, R.A. 6646]
3. Coercion of subordinates to vote for or
against any candidate [Sec. 261d, B.P.
881]
4. Dismissal of employees, laborers, or
tenants for refusing or failing to vote for
any candidate [Sec. 261d(2), B.P. 881]
5. Being a flying voter [Sec. 261z (2), B.P.
881]
v. Counting of Votes
1. Tampering, increasing, decreasing votes,
or refusal to correct tampered votes after
proper verification and hearing by any
member of the board of election
inspectors [Sec. 27b, R.A. 6646]
2. A special election offense to be known as
electoral sabotage and the penalty to be
imposed shall be life imprisonment. [Sec.
42, RA 9369]
3. Refusal to issue to duly accredited
watchers the certificate of votes cast and
the announcement of the election, by any
member of the board of election
inspectors [Sec. 27c, R.A. 6646]
vi. Canvassing
Any chairperson of the board of
canvassers who fails to give notice of
meeting to other members of the board,
candidate or political party as required
[Sec. 27e, R.A. 6646]
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
vii. Acts of government or public
officers
1. Appointment of new employees, creation
of new positions, promotion, or giving
salary increases within the election period
[Sec. 261g, B.P. 881]
2. Transfer of officers and employees in the
civil service within the election period
without the prior approval of the
COMELEC [Sec. 261h, B.P. 881]
3. Intervening of public officers and
employees in the civil service in any
partisan political activity [Sec. 261i, B.P.
881]
4. Use of public funds for an election
campaign [Sec. 261o, B.P. 881]
5. Illegal release of prisoners before and
after election [Sec. 261n, B.P. 881]
6. Release, disbursement or expenditure of
public funds during the prohibited period
[Sec. 261v, B.P. 881]
7. Construction of public works, etc. during
the prohibited period [Sec. 261w, B.P.
881]
8. Suspension of elective local officials
during the election period without prior
approval of the COMELEC [Sec. 261x,
B.P. 881]
viii. Coercion, intimidation, violence
1. Coercion of election officials and
employees
2. Threats, intimidation, terrorism, use of
fraudulent devices or other forms of
coercion [Sec. 261e, B.P. 881]
3. Use of undue influence [Sec. 261j, B.P.
881]
4. Carrying deadly weapons within the
prohibited area [Sec. 261p, B.P. 881]
5. Carrying firearms outside residence or
place of business [Sec. 261q, B.P. 881]
6. Organization or maintenance of reaction
forces, strike forces, or similar forces
during the election period [Sec. 261u,
B.P. 881]
282
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
ix. Other prohibitions
1. Unauthorized printing of official ballots
and election returns with printing
establishments that are not under
contract with the COMELEC [Sec. 27a,
R.A. 6646]
2. Wagering upon the results of elections
[Sec. 261c, B.P. 881]
3. Sale,etc.of intoxicating liquor the day
fixed by law for the registration of voters
in the polling place, or the day before the
election or on election day [Sec. 261d (1),
B.P. 881]
4. Opening booths or stalls within 30 meters
of any polling place [Sec, 261d (2), B.P.
881]
5. Holding fairs, cockfights, etc. on Election
Day [Sec. 261d (3), B.P. 881]
6. Refusal to carry election mail during the
election period [Sec. 261d (4), B.P. 881].
In addition to the prescribed penalty,
such refusal constitutes a ground for
cancellation or revocation of certificate of
public convenience or franchise.
7. Discrimination in the sale of airtime [Sec.
261d (5), B.P. 881]. In addition to the
prescribed penalty, such refusal
constitutes a ground for cancellation or
revocation of the franchise.
Note: Good faith is not a defense, as election
offenses are generally mala prohibita.
PENALTIES
i. For individuals
1. Imprisonment of not less than 1 year but
not more than 6 years, without probation
[Sec. 264, B.P. 881]
2. Disqualification to hold public office
3. Deprivation of the right of suffrage
ii. For a Foreigner
1. Imprisonment of not less than 1 year but
not more than 6 years (without
probation);
2. Deportation after service of sentence
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
iii. For a Political Party
Payment of a fine not less than P10,000 after
a criminal conviction
iv. Persons Required by Law to Keep
Prisoners in their Custody
For prisoners illegally released from any
penitentiary or jail during the prohibited
period, where such prisoners commit any act
of intimidation, terrorism or interference in
the election, prison mayor in its maximum
period. [Sec. 264, B.P. 881]
ARRESTS IN CONNECTION WITH
ELECTION CAMPAIGN
Only upon a warrant of arrest issued by a
competent judge after all the requirements of
the Constitution have been strictly complied
with.
PRESCRIPTION
Five years from the date of their commission.
If the discovery of the offense be made in an
election contest proceeding, the period of
prescription shall commence on the date on
which the judgment in such proceedings
becomes final and executory [Sec. 267, B.P.
Blg. 881].
GRANT OF TRANSACTIONAL IMMUNITY
Any person guilty of violations of Sec. 261a
(Vote buying and vote-selling) and 261b
(Conspiracy to bribe voters) of B.P. Blg. 881
who voluntarily gives information and
willingly testifies on any violation of said
sections in any official investigation or
proceeding shall be exempt from prosecution
and punishment for the offenses with
reference to which his information and
testimony were given, without prejudice to
his liability for perjury or false testimony [Sec.
28, RA 6646].
PROHIBITED ACTS UNDER R.A. 9369
1. Utilizing without authorization, tampering
with, damaging, destroying or stealing:
283
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
a. Official ballots, election returns, and
certificates of canvass of votes used
in the system; and
b. Electronic Devices or their
components, peripherals or supplies
used in the AES such as counting
machine, memory pack/diskette,
memory pack receiver and computer
set.
EXCEPTIONS: Those convicted of the crime
2. Interfering with, impeding, absconding for
of electoral sabotage, which includes acts or
purpose of gain, preventing the installation or
offenses committed in any of the following
use of computer counting devices and the
instances: (Sec. 28, Republic Act No. 9369)
processing, storage, generation and
transmission of election results, data or
information;
3. Gaining or causing access to using,
altering, destroying or disclosing any
computer data, program, system software,
network, or any computer-related devices,
facilities, hardware or equipment, whether
classified or declassified;
4. Refusal of the citizens’ arm to present for
perusal its copy of election return to the
board of canvassers;
5. Presentation by the citizens’ arm of
tampered or spurious election returns;
6. Refusal or failure to provide the dominant
majority and dominant minority parties or the
citizens’ arm their copy of election returns;
and
7. The failure to post the voters list within the
specified time, duration and in the designated
location shall constitute an election offense
on the part of the election officer concerned.
(Sec. 28, Republic Act No. 9369)
PENALTIES
GENERAL RULE:
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
a. Imprisonment of 8 years and one day
to 12 years without possibility of
parole;
b. Perpetual disqualification to hold
public and any non-elective public
office; and
c. Deprivation of the right of suffrage.
(Sec. 28, Republic Act No. 9369)
a. National elective office: When the
tampering, increase and/or decrease
of votes perpetrated or the refusal to
credit the correct votes or to deduct
tampered votes is/are committed in
the election of a national elective
office which is voted upon nationwide
and the tampering, increase and/ or
decrease of votes or refusal to credit
the correct votes or to deduct
tampered votes, shall adversely
affect the results of the election to
the said national office to the extent
that losing candidate/s is /are made
to appear the winner/s.
b. Regardless of the elective office
involved: When the tampering,
increase and/or decrease of votes
committed or the refusal to credit the
correct votes or to deduct tampered
votes perpetrated is accomplished in
a single election document or in the
transposition of the figure / results
from one election to credit correct
votes or deduct tampered votes
exceed 5,000 votes, and that the
same adversely affects the true
results of the election. document to
another and involved in the said
tampering increase and/or decrease
or refusal
284
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
c. Any and all other forms or tampering
increase/s and/ or decrease/s of
votes perpetuated or in cases of
refusal to credit the correct votes or
deduct the tampered votes, where
the total votes involved exceed
10,000 votes.
Any and all other persons or individuals
determined to be in conspiracy or in
connivance with the members of the BEIs or
BOCs involved shall be meted the same
penalty of life imprisonment. (Sec. 42,
Republic Act No. 9369)
XI. LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
A. Principles of Local Autonomy
The 1987 Philippine Constitution
The State shall ensure the autonomy of local
governments (Sec. 25, Art. II, 1987
Constitution)
The territorial and political subdivisions shall
enjoy local autonomy (Sec. 2, Art. X, 1987
Constitution)
The Congress shall enact a local government
code which shall provide for a more
responsive and accountable local
government structure instituted through a
system of decentralization with effective
mechanisms of recall, initiative, and
referendum, allocate among the different
local government units their powers,
responsibilities, and resources, and provide
for the qualifications, election, appointment
and removal, term, salaries, powers and
functions and duties of local officials, and all
other matters relating to the organization and
operation of the local units (Sec. 3, Art. X,
1987 Constitution)
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
RA 7160, Local Government Code of
1991
Declaration of Policy
(a) It is hereby declared the policy of the
State that the territorial and political
subdivisions of the State shall enjoy genuine
and meaningful local autonomy to enable
them to attain their fullest development as
self-reliant communities and make them
more effective partners in the attainment of
national goals. Toward this end, the State
shall provide for a more responsive and
accountable local government structure
instituted through a system of
decentralization whereby local government
units shall be given more powers, authority,
responsibilities, and resources. The process
of decentralization shall proceed from the
National Government to the local government
units.
(b) It is also the policy of the State to ensure
the accountability of local government units
through the institution of effective
mechanisms of recall, initiative and
referendum.
(c) It is likewise the policy of the State to
require all national agencies and offices to
conduct periodic consultations with
appropriate local government units,
nongovernmental and people‘s organizations,
and other concerned sectors of the
community before any project or program is
implemented in their respective jurisdictions.
(Sec. 2, Chapter I, Republic Act No. 7160)
Concepts of Local Autonomy
The principle of local autonomy under the
1987 Constitution simply means
“decentralization”, it does not make the local
governments sovereign within the state or an
“imperium in imperio”. (Nachura, Outline
285
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
Reviewer in Political Law, 2015 Edition, p.
695)
There is decentralization of administration
when the central government delegates
administrative powers to political subdivisions
in order to broaden the base of government
power and in the process to make local
governments more responsive and
accountable, and ensure their fullest
development as self-reliant communities and
make them more effective partners in the
pursuit of national development and social
progress. (Pimentel vs. Hon. Aguirre, G.R.
No. 132988, July 19, 2000)
Decentralization of power, on the other hand,
involves an abdication of political power in
the favor of local government units declared
to be autonomous. In that case, the
autonomous government is free to chart its
own destiny and shape its future with
minimum intervention from central
authorities. According to a constitutional
author, decentralization of power amounts to
'self-immolation,' since in that event, the
autonomous government becomes
accountable not to the central authorities but
to its constituency." (Pimentel vs. Hon.
Aguirre, G.R. No. 132988, July 19, 2000)
Devolution - the act by which the National
Government confers power and authority
upon the various local government units to
perform specific functions and
responsibilities. (Sec. 17, Local Government
Code). It is the transfer of powers and
authority from the national government to
LGU s as the territorial and political
subdivisions of the State. The nature of
power transfer is political and the approach is
territorial. (Brillantes, The Philippines:
Sustaining the Gains of Decentralization of
Local Government, 2002 Edition).
The devolution contemplated in this Code
shall include the transfer to local government
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
units of the records, equipment, and other
assets and personnel of national agencies
and offices corresponding to the devolved
powers, functions, and responsibilities. (Sec.
17[i], Republic Act. No. 7160)
Doctrines / Jurisprudence
The principle of local autonomy does not
make local governments sovereign within the
state, it simply means decentralization (Basco
vs. Phil. Amusements and Gaming
Corporation, G.R. 91649, May 14, 1991)
Decentralization simply means the devolution
of national administration, not power, to local
governments (Pimentel, Jr. vs. Aguirre, G.R.
No. 132988, July 19, 2000)
By upholding the power of LGUs to grant
allowances to judges and leaving to their
discretion the amount of allowances they
may want to grant, depending on the
availability of local funds, the genuine and
meaningful local autonomy of the LGUs is
ensured (Leynes vs. Commission on Audit,
G.R. No. 143596, December 11, 2003)
It is well to note that the principle of local
autonomy, while concededly expounded in
greater detail in the present Constitution,
dates back to the turn of the century when
President William McKinley, in his
Instructions to the Second Philippine
Commission dated 7 April 1900, ordered the
new Government “to devote their attention in
the first instance to the establishment of
municipal governments in which the natives
of the Islands, both in the cities and in the
rural communities, shall be afforded the
opportunity to manage their own affairs to
the fullest extent of which they are capable,
and subject to the least degree of supervision
and control in which a careful study of their
capacities and observation of the workings of
native control show to be consistent with the
maintenance of law, order and loyalty.”
286
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
(Province of Batangas vs. Romulo, G.R. No.
152774, May 27, 2004)
The national government ought to be attuned
to the sensitiveness of devolution and strive
to be sparing in usurping the prerogatives of
local governments to regulate the general
welfare of their constituents; The Court does
not doubt the ability of the national
government to implement police power
measures that affect the subjects of
municipal government, especially if the
subject of regulation is a condition of
universal character irrespective of territorial
jurisdictions (Tan vs. Pereña, G.R. No.
149743, February 18, 2005)
To rule against the power of LGUs to
reclassify areas within their jurisdiction will
subvert the principle of local autonomy
guaranteed by the Constitution. As we have
noted in earlier decisions, our national
officials should not only comply with the
constitutional provisions on local autonomy
but should also appreciate the spirit and
liberty upon which these provisions are based
(Social Justice Society (SJS) vs. Atienza, Jr.,
G.R. No. 156052, February 13, 2008)
There is nothing wrong with the local
government granting additional benefits to
the officials and employees. The laws even
encourage the granting of incentive benefits
aimed at improving the services of these
employees. Considering, however, that the
payment of these benefits constitute
disbursement of public funds, it must not
contravene the law on disbursement of public
funds (Veloso vs. Commission on Audit, G.R.
No. 193677, September 06, 2011)
Consistent with the 1987 Constitution’s
declared preference, the taxing powers of
local government units (LGUs) must be
resolved in favor of their local fiscal
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
autonomy (Demaala vs. Commission on
Audit, G.R. 199752, February 17, 2015)
To conform with the guarantees of the
Constitution in favor of the autonomy of the
Local Government Units (LGUs), therefore, it
becomes the duty of the Supreme Court (SC)
to declare and pronounce Section 3(b) of
Presidential Decree (PD) No. 198 as already
partially unconstitutional (Rama vs. Moises,
G.R. No. 197146, December 06, 2016)
The grant of autonomy simply means that
Congress will allow the local government
units (LGUs) to perform certain functions and
exercise certain powers in order not for them
to be overly dependent on the National
Government subject to the limitations that
the 1987 Constitution or Congress may
impose (Mandanas vs. Ochoa, Jr., G.R. No.
199802, July 03, 2018)
The concept of local autonomy does not
preclude intervention by the national
government in the form of supervision to
ensure that the local programs, fiscal and
otherwise, are consistent with the national
goals (Abella V. Commission on Audit, G.R.
No. 238940 April 19, 2022, J. MV Lopez)
B. Local Government Units
1. Powers of Local Government Units
a. Police Power and General Welfare
Clause
Statutory Basis
Every local government unit shall exercise the
powers expressly granted, those necessarily
implied therefrom, as well as powers
necessary, appropriate, or incidental for its
efficient and effective governance, and those
which are essential to the promotion of the
general welfare. Within their respective
287
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
territorial jurisdictions, local government
units shall ensure and support, among other
things, the preservation and enrichment of
culture, promote health and safety, enhance
the right of the people to a balanced ecology,
encourage and support the development of
appropriate and self-reliant scientific and
technological capabilities, improve public
morals, enhance economic prosperity and
social justice, promote full employment
among their residents, maintain peace and
order, and preserve the comfort and
convenience of their inhabitants. (Sec. 16,
Chapter II, Republic Act. No. 7160)
Doctrines / Jurisprudence
Like the State, the police power of a
municipal corporation extends to all matters
affecting the peace, order, health, morals,
convenience, comfort, and safety of its
citizens—the security of social order—the
best and highest interests of the municipality
(United States vs. Salaveria., G.R. No. L-
13678, November 12, 1918)
An ordinance authorizing the suppression of
animal disease was held valid. The
quarantine, isolation and even slaughter of
cattle suffering from infectious disease have
been recognized under the general welfare
clause (PunzaIan vs. Ferriols, G.R. No. L-
6016, March 25, 1911)
An ordinance of the City of Manila compelling
owners of buildings to make connections with
the new sewer system was held valid for
reasons of public health and safety (Case vs.
Board of Health, G.R. No. L-7595, February
4, 1913)
Authority to require building permits;
Authority predicated upon general welfare
clause (People vs. Gozo, G.R. No. L-36409,
October 26, 1973)
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
City ordinance prohibiting admission of two
or more persons in amusement places with
use of only one ticket is a valid regulatory
police measure (Samson vs. Mayor of
Bacolod City, G.R. No. L-28745 , October 23,
1974)
Buying and selling and storing copra is
properly the subject of regulation within the
police power granted to municipalities under
the general welfare clause (Procter & Gamble
Philippine Manufacturing Corp. vs.
Municipality of Jagna, G.R. No. L-24265,
December 28, 1979)
A local government council cannot prohibit
the establishment of nightclubs and cabarets;
it may only regulate their operations (De la
Cruz vs. Paras, G.R. Nos. L-42571-72, July
25, 1983)
Even if the FDA has licensed the operation of
the applicant drugstore, the mayor may still
refuse to grant the permit if it is shown that
the local requirements have not been
observed (Gordon vs. Veridiano II, G.R. No.
L-55230, November 08, 1988)
The support for the poor has long been an
accepted exercise of police power in the
promotion of the common good (Binay vs.
Domingo, G.R. No/ 92389, September 11,
1991)
What the national legislature allows by law,
such as lotto, a provincial board may not
disallow by ordinance or resolution (Lina, Jr.
vs. Paño, G.R. No. 129093, August 30, 2001)
As with the State, the local government may
be considered as having properly exercised
its police power only if there is a concurrence
of a lawful subject and lawful method
(Lucena Grand Central Terminal, Inc. vs. JAC
Liner, Inc., G.R. No. 148339, February 23,
2005)
288
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
The exercise of police power by the local
government is valid unless it contravenes the
fundamental law of the land, or an act of the
legislature, or unless it is against public
policy, or is unreasonable, oppressive,
partial, discriminating, or in derogation of a
common right (Tayaban vs. People, G.R. No.
150194, March 06, 2007)
b. Eminent Domain and Taxation
Eminent Domain
A local government unit may, through its
chief executive and acting pursuant to an
ordinance, exercise the power of eminent
domain for public use, or purpose or welfare
for the benefit of the poor and the landless,
upon payment of just compensation,
pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution
and pertinent laws: Provided, however, That
the power of eminent domain may not be
exercised unless a valid and definite offer has
been previously made to the owner, and such
offer was not accepted: Provided, further,
That the local government unit may
immediately take possession of the property
upon the filing of the expropriation
proceedings and upon making a deposit with
the proper court of at least fifteen percent
(15%) of the fair market value of the
property based on the current tax declaration
of the property to be expropriated: Provided,
finally, That, the amount to be paid for the
expropriated property shall be determined by
the proper court, based on the fair market
value at the time of the taking of the
property. (Sec. 19, Chapter II, Republic Act
No. 7160)
Doctrines / Jurisprudence
Requisites to be complied with by the local
government unit in the exercise of the power
of eminent domain.—The courts have the
obligation to determine whether the following
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
requisites have been complied with by the
local government unit concerned:
1. An ordinance is enacted by the local
legislative council authorizing the local
chief executive, on behalf of the local
government unit, to exercise the power
of eminent domain or pursue
expropriation proceedings over a
particular private property;
2. The power of eminent domain is
exercised for public use, purpose or
welfare, or for the benefit of the poor
and the landless;
3. There is payment of just compensation,
as required under Section 9, Article III
of the Constitution, and other pertinent
laws;
4. A valid and definite offer has been
previously made to the owner of the
property sought to be expropriated, but
said offer was not accepted (Heirs of
Alberto Suguitan vs. City of
Mandaluyong, G.R. No. 135087, March
14, 2000)
In the case at bar, the applicable law as to
the point of reckoning for the determination
of just compensation is Section 19 of R.A. No.
7160, which expressly provides that just
compensation shall be determined as of the
time of actual taking (The City of Cebu vs.
Dedamo, G.R. No. 142971, May 07, 2002)
Local government units have no inherent
power of eminent domain and can exercise it
only when expressly authorized by the
legislature (Lagcao vs. Labra, G.R. No.
155746, October 13, 2004)
Requisites for authorizing immediate
entry
1. the filing of a complaint for
expropriation sufficient in form and
substance; and
289
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
2. the deposit of the amount equivalent
to fifteen percent (15%) of the fair
market value of the property to be
expropriated based on its current tax
declaration. Upon compliance with
these requirements, the issuance of a
writ of possession becomes
ministerial (City of Iloilo vs. Legaspi,
G.R. No. 154614, November 25,
2004)
An ordinance which permanently restricts the
use of property that it can not be used for
any reasonable purpose goes beyond
regulation and must be recognized as a
taking of the property without just
compensation (City of Manila vs. Laguio, Jr.,
G.R. No. 118127, April 12, 2005)
Non-payment of just compensation does not
entitle the private landowner to recover
possession of the expropriated lots, however,
in cases where the government failed to pay
just compensation within five (5) years from
the finality of judgment in the expropriation
proceedings, the owners concerned shall
have the right to recover possession of their
property (Yujuico vs. Atienza, Jr., G.R. No.
164282, October 12, 2005)
The right to take private property for public
purposes necessarily originates from “the
necessity” and the taking must be limited to
such necessity (Masikip vs. City of Pasig, G.R.
No. 136349, January 23, 2006)
Power to Tax
Constitutional Basis:
Each local government unit shall have the
power to create its own sources of revenues
and to levy taxes, fees and charges subject
to such guidelines and limitations as the
Congress may provide, consistent with the
basic policy of local autonomy. Such taxes,
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
fees, and charges shall accrue exclusively to
the local governments. (Sec. 5, Art. X, The
1987 Constitution)
Statutory Basis:
Section 129. Power to Create Sources of
Revenue. - Each local government unit shall
exercise its power to create its own sources
of revenue and to levy taxes, fees, and
charges subject to the provisions herein,
consistent with the basic policy of local
autonomy. Such taxes, fees, and charges
shall accrue exclusively to the local
government units. (Sec. 129, Republic Act
No. 7160)
Taxation shall be uniform in each local
government unit. (Sec. 130, Chapter I, Title
I, Book II, Republic Act No. 7160)
Doctrines / Jurisprudence
The IRA’s are items of income because they
form part of the gross accretion of the funds
of the local government unit (Alvarez vs.
Guingona, Jr., 252 SCRA 695, January 31,
1996)
A province has no authority to impose taxes
on stones, sand, gravel, earth and other
quarry resources extracted from private lands
(Province of Bulacan vs. Court of Appeals,
299 SCRA 442, November 27, 1998)
The province can only impose tax on
admission from the proprietors, lessees, or
operators of theaters, cinematographs,
concert halls, circuses and other places of
amusement, and has no authority to tax
professional basketball games (Philippine
Basketball Association vs. Court of Appeals,
337 SCRA 358, August 08, 2000)
The grant of taxing powers to local
government units under the Constitution and
290
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
the LGC does not affect the power of
Congress to grant exemptions to certain
persons, pursuant to a declared national
policy (Philippine Long Distance Telephone
Company, Inc. vs. City of Davao, 363 SCRA
522, August 22, 2001)
Taxation assumes even greater significance
with the ratification of the 1987 Constitution.
Thenceforth, the power to tax is no longer
vested exclusively on Congress; local
legislative bodies are now given direct
authority to levy taxes, fees and other
charges pursuant to Article X, section 5 of the
1987 Constitution (National Power
Corporation vs. City of Cabanatuan, 401
SCRA 259, April 09, 2003)
Condominium corporations are generally
exempt from local business taxation under
the Local Government Code, irrespective of
any local ordinance that seeks to declare
otherwise (Yamane vs. BA Lepanto
Condominium Corporation, 474 SCRA 258,
October 25, 2005)
Public hearing apparently is not necessary
when the tax or fee is imposed on a tax base
or subject specifically enumerated in the
Local Tax Code (Berdin vs. Mascariñas, 526
SCRA 592, July 06, 2007)
The 1987 Constitution is forthright and
unequivocal in ordering that the just share of
the LGUs in the national taxes shall be
automatically released to them (Mandanas
vs. Ochoa, Jr., 869 SCRA 440, July 03, 2018)
c. Requisites of a Valid Ordinance;
Local Initiative and Referendum
While ordinances are laws and possess a
general and permanent character,
resolutions are merely declarations of the
sentiment or opinion of a lawmaking body on
a specific matter and are temporary in
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
nature. As opposed to ordinances, “no rights
can be conferred by and be inferred from a
resolution”. The authority to be granted to
the local executive to enter into obligations
binding on the local government unit must be
made pursuant to a law or ordinance. When
made through a mere resolution, it shall not
confer any right to a person. (Land Bank of
the Philippines vs. Eduardo Cacayuran, G.R.
No. 191667; April 17, 2013)
A resolution is upon a specific matter of a
temporary nature, while an ordinance is a law
that is permanent in character. (Beluso vs.
Municipality of Panay, Capiz, G.R. No.
153974, August 7, 2006)
No rights can be conferred by and be inferred
from a resolution, which is nothing but an
embodiment of what the lawmaking body has
to say in the light of attendant circumstances.
The lawmaking body simply expresses its
sentiment or opinion through a resolution
(Spouses Yusay vs. CA, G.R. No. 156684,
April 6, 2011)
Tests of validity
The two tests in determining the validity of
an ordinance are the Formal Test and the
Substantive Test. The Formal Test requires
the determination of whether the ordinance
was enacted within the corporate powers of
the LGU, and whether the same was passed
pursuant to the procedure laid down by law.
Meanwhile, the Substantive Test primarily
assesses the 318 reasonableness and
fairness of the ordinance and significantly its
compliance with the Constitution and existing
statutes. (Manila Electric Company vs. City of
Muntinlupa, G.R. No. 198529, February 9,
2021)
Substantial validity:
In order for an ordinance to be substantially
valid, the following must concur:
291
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
1. Must not contravene the Constitution
and any statute;
2. Must not be unfair or oppressive;
3. Must not be partial or discriminatory;
4. Must not prohibit, but may regulate
trade;
5. Be general in application and
consistent with public policy; and
6. Must not be unreasonable. (Magtajas
vs. Pryce Properties, G.R. No.
111097, July 20, 1994)
Local Initiative and Referendum
It is also the policy of the State to ensure the
accountability of local government units
through the institution of effective
mechanisms of recall, initiative and
referendum. (Sec. 2[b], Republic Act No.
7160)
Local initiative is the legal process whereby
the registered voters of a local government
unit may directly propose, enact, or amend
any ordinance. (Sec. 120, Republic Act No.
7160)
Local referendum is the legal process
whereby the registered voters of the local
government units may approve, amend or
reject any ordinance enacted by the
Sanggunian. (Sec. 126, Republic Act No.
7160)
Doctrines / Jurisprudence
The Constitution clearly includes not only
ordinances but resolutions as appropriate
subjects of a local initiative; A law should be
construed in harmony with and not in
violation of the Constitution (Garcia vs.
Commission on Elections, 237 SCRA 279,
September 30, 1994)
In initiative and referendum, the Comelec
exercises administration and supervision of
the process itself akin to its powers over the
conduct of elections (Subic Bay Metropolitan
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Authority vs. Commission on Elections, 262
SCRA 492, September 26, 1996)
Limitations on Local Initiatives
a. The power of local initiative shall not be
exercised more than once a year;
b. Initiative shall extend only to subjects or
matters which are within the legal powers of
the sanggunian to enact; and
c. If at any time before the initiative is held,
the sanggunian concerned adopts in toto the
proposition presented and the local chief
executive approves the same, the initiative
shall be cancelled. However, those against
such action may, if they so desire, apply for
initiative in the manner herein provided. (Sec.
124, Republic Act No. 7160)
Limitations upon Sanggunians: Any
proposition or ordinance approved through
the system of initiative and referendum shall
not be repealed, modified, or amended by the
sanggunian concerned within six (6) months
from the date of the approval thereof and
may be amended, modified, or repealed by
the sanggunian within three (3) years
thereafter by a vote of three-fourths (3/4) of
all its members. Provided that in case of
barangays, the period shall be eighteen
months.
Procedure:
1. Registered voter must file a petition with
the Sanggunian concerned proposing the
adoption, enactment, repeal, or amendment
of an ordinance. Not less than one thousand
(1,000) voters for provinces and cities. Not
less than one hundred (100) voters in
municipalities: and not less than fifty (50)
voters in barangay.
2. If no favorable action is taken by the
Sanggunian within thirty (30) days from the
presentation, the proponents must give
notice to Sanggunian.
292
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
3. Formation of the proposition with the
assistance of the COMELEC: two (2) or more
propositions may be submitted in an
initiative.
4. Proponents must collect the required
number of signatures within Ninety (90) days
for provinces and cities; Sixty (60) days from
municipalities; and Thirty (30) days for
barangay, from notice.
5. Petition must be signed before the election
registrar or his representative, representative
of proponent and representative of the
Sanggunian.
6. Certification by the COMELEC as to
whether or not the required number of
signatures had been obtained.
7. The proposition is defeated. Otherwise, the
COMELEC shall set a date for initiative during
which the proposition shall be submitted to
the registered voters for approval within;
Sixty (60) days for provinces, Forty-five (45)
days for municipalities; and Thirty (30) days
for barangay.
8. If the Proposition is approved by a majority
of votes cast, it shall take effect within fifteen
(15) days after the certification by the
COMELEC. (Sec. 122 and 123, Republic Act
No. 7160)
d. Corporate Powers
Every local government unit, as a
corporation, shall have the following powers:
1. To have continuous succession in its
corporate name;
2. To sue and be sued; (Sec. 22, Republic
Act No. 7160)
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
With respect to proprietary functions,
the settled rule is that a municipal
corporation can be held liable to third
persons ex contractu or ex delicto.
Municipal corporations are subject to be
sued upon contracts and in tort. (Torio
vs. Fontanilla, 85 SCRA 599, October 23,
1978)
For liability to arise under Article 2189 of
the Civil Code, ownership of the roads,
streets, bridges, public buildings and
other public works, is not a controlling
factor, it being sufficient that a province,
city or municipality has control or
supervision thereof. (Municipality of San
Juan, Metro Manila vs. Court of Appeals,
466 SCRA 78, August 09, 2005)
The mayor has the authority to file suits
for the recovery of funds and property
on behalf of the city even without the
prior authorization from the
Sanggunian. (City of Caloocan vs. Court
of Appeals, 489 SCRA 45, May 03, 2006)
Requisites of Valid Municipal Contracts
a. The local government unit has the
express, implied or inherent power to
enter into a particular contract;
b. Entered into by the proper
department, board, committee or
agent;
c. Must comply with certain substantive
requirements, such as when
expenditure of public funds is to be
made, there must be an actual
appropriation and a certificate of
availability of funds;
d. Must comply with formal
requirements, e.g. Statute of Frauds;
and
e. In case entered into by the local chief
executive on behalf of LGU, prior
authorization by the sanggunian
concerned is needed. (Sec. 22. Local
293
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
Government Code; LandBank vs.
Cacayuran, G.R. No. 191667, April
17, 2013)
3. To have and use a corporate seal;
4. To acquire and convey real or personal
property; (Sec. 22, Republic Act No.
7160)
Properties of public dominion devoted to
public use and made available to the public in
general are outside the commerce of men
and cannot be disposed of or leased by the
local government unit to private persons
(Macasiano vs. Diokno, 212 SCRA 464,
August 10, 1992)
The prevailing rule is that reclaimed
disposable lands of the public domain may
only be leased and not sold to private parties.
These lands remained sui generis, as the only
alienable or disposable lands of the public
domain which the government could not sell
to private parties except if the legislature
passes a law authorizing such sale (Republic
vs. Enciso, 474 SCRA 700, November 11,
2005)
Municipal corporations cannot appropriate to
themselves public or government lands
without prior grant from the government
(Rural Bank of Anda, Inc. vs. Roman Catholic
Archbishop of Lingayen-Dagupan, 523 SCRA
301, May 29, 2007)
5. To enter into contracts; and (Sec. 22,
Republic Act No. 7160)
The right of the public to use the city streets
may not be bargained away through contract
(Dacanay vs. Asistio, Jr., 208 SCRA 404, May
06, 1992)
While the Local Government Code of 1991
(Republic Act No. 7160) now requires that the
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
mayor’s representation of the city in its
business transactions must be “upon
authority of the sangguniang panlungsod or
pursuant to law or ordinance,” no such prior
authority was required under the Local
Government Code of 1983 (Batas Pambansa
Blg. 337) (City of Quezon vs. Lexber
Incorporated, 354 SCRA 493, March 15,
2001)
If the project or program is identified in the
appropriation ordinance in sufficient detail,
then there is no more need to obtain a
separate or additional authority from the
sanggunian. In such case, the project and the
cost are already identified and approved by
the sanggunian through the appropriation
ordinance (Municipality of Corella,
represented by Mayor Tocmo vs. Philkonstrak
Development Corporation, G.R. No. 218663,
February 28, 2022)
6. To exercise such other powers as are
granted to corporations, subject to the
limitations provided in this Code and
other laws.
Local government units may continue using,
modify, or change their existing corporate
seals: Provided, That newly established local
government units or those without corporate
seals may create their own corporate seals
which shall be registered with the
Department of the Interior and Local
Government: Provided, further, That any
change of corporate seal shall also be
registered as provided hereon.
Unless otherwise provided in this Code, no
contract may be entered into by the local
chief executive on behalf of the local
government unit without prior authorization
by the Sanggunian concerned. A legible copy
of such contract shall be posted at a
conspicuous place in the provincial capitol or
the city, municipal or barangay hall.
294
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
Local government units shall enjoy full
autonomy in the exercise of their proprietary
functions and in the limitations provided in
this Code and other applicable laws. (Sec. 22,
Republic Act No. 7160)
2. Local Elective and Appointive
Officials
Qualifications and Disqualifications of
Elective Officials
Qualifications
1. An elective local official must be a citizen
of the Philippines; a registered voter in
the barangay, municipality, city, or
province or, in the case of a member of
the sangguniang panlalawigan,
sangguniang panlungsod, or
sangguniang bayan, the district where
he intends to be elected; a resident
therein for at least one (1) year
immediately preceding the day of the
election; and able to read and write
Filipino or any other local language or
dialect.
2. Candidates for the position of governor,
vice-governor, or member of the
sangguniang panlalawigan, or mayor,
vice-mayor or member of the
sangguniang panlungsod of highly
urbanized cities must be at least twenty-
three (23) years of age on election day.
3. Candidates for the position of mayor or
vice-mayor of independent component
cities, component cities, or
municipalities must be at least twenty-
one (21) years of age on election day.
4. Candidates for the position of member
of the sangguniang panlungsod or
sangguniang bayan must be at least
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
eighteen (18) years of age on election
day.
5. Candidates for the position of punong
barangay or member of the
sangguniang barangay must be at least
eighteen (18) years of age on election
day.
6. Candidates for the sangguniang
kabataan must be at least fifteen (15)
years of age but not more than twenty-
one (21) years of age on election day.
(Sec. 39, Republic Act No. 7160)
Section 39 of the Local Government Code
speaks of Qualifications of Elective Officials
not of candidates (Frivaldo vs. Commission
on Elections, 257 SCRA 727, June 28, 1996)
The Local Government Code requires an
elective official to be a registered voter, it
does not require him to vote actually
(Frivaldo vs. Commission on Elections, 257
SCRA 727, June 28, 1996)
His act of filing a certificate of candidacy for
elective office in the Philippines did not of
itself constitute a waiver of his status as a
permanent resident or immigrant of the
United States; Waiver should be manifested
by some act or acts independent of and done
prior to the filing his candidacy for elective
office in this country (Caasi vs. Court of
Appeals, 191 SCRA 229, November 08, 1990)
The determination of a person’s legal
residence or domicile largely depends upon
intention which may be inferred from his acts,
activities and utterances (Abella vs.
Commission on Elections, 201 SCRA 253,
September 03, 1991)
Residence is to be understood not in its
common acceptation as referring to
“dwelling” or “habitation” but rather to
295
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
“domicile” or legal residence (Coquilla vs.
Commission on Elections, 385 SCRA 607, July
31, 2002)
The rationale of requiring candidates to have
a minimum period of residence in the area in
which they seek to be elected is to prevent
the possibility of a “stranger or newcomer
unacquainted with the conditions and needs
of a community and not identified with the
latter from seeking an elective office to serve
that community” (Torayno, Sr. vs.
Commission on Elections, 337 SCRA 574,
August 09, 2000)
Disqualifications. - The following persons
are disqualified from running for any elective
local position:
1. Those sentenced by final judgment
for an offense involving moral
turpitude or for an offense punishable
by one (1) year or more of
imprisonment, within two (2) years
after serving sentence;
2. Those removed from office as a result
of an administrative case;
3. Those convicted by final judgment for
violating the oath of allegiance to the
Republic;
4. Those with dual citizenship;
5. Fugitives from justice in criminal or
non-political cases here or abroad;
6. Permanent residents in a foreign
country or those who have acquired
the right to reside abroad and
continue to avail of the same right
after the effectivity of this Code; and
7. The insane or feeble-minded. (Sec.
40, Republic Act No. 7160)
Moral turpitude implies something
immoral in itself, regardless of the fact
that it is punishable by law or not. It
must not be merely mala prohibita, but the
act itself must be inherently immoral. The
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
doing of the act itself, and not its prohibition
by statute fixes the moral turpitude. Moral
turpitude does not, however, include such
acts as are not of themselves immoral but
whose illegality lies in their being positively
prohibited. (Dela Torre vs. Commission on
Elections, 258 SCRA 483, July 05, 1996)
The phrase “within two (2) years after
serving sentence” should be interpreted and
understood to apply both to those who have
been sentenced by final judgment for an
offense involving moral turpitude and to
those who have been sentenced by final
judgment for an offense punishable by one
(1) year or more of imprisonment—the
placing of the comma (,) in the provision
means that the phrase modifies both parts of
Sec. 40(a) of the Local Government Code
(Moreno vs. Commission on Elections, 498
SCRA 547, August 10, 2006)
This is as good a time as any to clarify that
those who have not served their sentence by
reason of the grant of probation which should
not be equated with service of sentence,
should not likewise be disqualified from
running for a local elective office because the
two (2)-year period of ineligibility under Sec.
40(a) of the Local Government Code does not
even begin to run (Moreno vs. Commission
on Elections, 498 SCRA 547, August 10,
2006)
To reiterate, a “fugitive from justice” : “x x x
includes not only those who flee after
conviction to avoid punishment but likewise
who, after being charged, flee to avoid
prosecution.” (Rodriguez vs. Commission on
Elections, 259 SCRA 296, July 24, 1996)
Respondent’s suspension from office is
indeed not a ground for a petition for
disqualification as Section 40(b) clearly
speaks of removal from office as a result of
an administrative offense that would
296
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
disqualify a candidate from running for any
elective local position (Albania vs.
Commission on Elections, 826 SCRA 191,
June 06, 2017)
Manner of Election
(a) The governor, vice-governor, city mayor,
city vice-mayor, municipal mayor, municipal
vice-mayor, and punong barangay shall be
elected at large in their respective units by
the qualified voters therein. However, the
sangguniang kabataan chairman for each
barangay shall be elected by the registered
voters of the katipunan ng kabataan, as
provided in this Code.
(b) The regular members of the sangguniang
panlalawigan, sangguniang panlungsod, and
sangguniang bayan shall be elected by
district as follows:
First and second-class provinces shall
have ten (10) regular members; third and
fourth-class provinces, eight (8); and fifth
and sixth-class provinces, six (6):
Provided, That in provinces having more
than five (5) legislative districts, each
district shall have two (2) sangguniang
panlalawigan members, without prejudice
to the provisions of Section 2 of Republic
Act No. 6637. Sangguniang barangay
members shall be elected at large.
The presidents of the leagues of
sanggunian members of component cities
and municipalities shall serve as ex officio
members of the sangguniang
panlalawigan concerned. The presidents
of the liga ng mga barangay and the
pederasyon ng mga sangguniang
kabataan elected by their respective
chapters, as provided in this Code, shall
serve as ex officio members of the
sangguniang panlalawigan, sangguniang
panlungsod, and sangguniang bayan. (An
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Act Amending Section 41(B) of Republic
Act No. 7160, Otherwise Known as the
Local Government Code of 1991, Republic
Act No. 8553, [February 25, 1998])
(c) In addition thereto, there shall be one (1)
sectoral representative from the women, one
(1) from the workers, and one (1) from any
of the following sectors: the urban poor,
indigenous cultural communities, disabled
persons, or any other sector as may be
determined by the sanggunian concerned
within ninety (90) days prior to the holding of
the next local elections as may be provided
for by law. The COMELEC shall promulgate
the rules and regulations to effectively
provide for the election of such sectoral
representatives. (Sec. 41, Republic Act No.
7160)
Date of Election
Unless otherwise provided by law, the
elections for local officials shall be held every
three (3) years on the second Monday of
May. (Sec. 42, Republic Act No. 7160)
Prohibited Business and Pecuniary
Interest (Elective and Appointive)
(a) It shall be unlawful for any local
government official or employee, directly or
indirectly, to:
1. Engage in any business transaction
with the local government unit in
which he is an official or employee or
over which he has the power of
supervision, or with any of its
authorized boards, officials, agents, or
attorneys, whereby money is to be
paid, or property or any other thing of
value is to be transferred, directly or
indirectly, out of the resources of the
local government unit to such person
or firm;
297
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
2. Hold such interests in any cockpit or
other games licensed by a local
government unit;
3. Purchase any real estate or other
property forfeited in favor of such local
government unit for unpaid taxes or
assessment, or by virtue of a legal
process at the instance of the said
local government unit;
4. Be a surety for any person contracting
or doing business with the local
government unit for which a surety is
required; and
5. Possess or use any public property of
the local government unit for private
purposes.
(b) All other prohibitions governing the
conduct of national public officers relating to
prohibited business and pecuniary interest so
provided for under Republic Act Numbered
Sixty-seven thirteen (R.A. No. 6713)
otherwise known as the "Code of Conduct
and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and
Employees" and other laws shall also be
applicable to local government officials and
employees. (Sec. 89, Republic Act No. 7160)
Practice of Profession (Elective and
Appointive)
(a) All governors, city and municipal mayors
are prohibited from practicing their
profession or engaging in any occupation
other than the exercise of their functions as
local chief executives.
(b) Sanggunian members may practice their
professions, engage in any occupation, or
teach in schools except during session hours:
Provided, That sanggunian members who are
also members of the Bar shall not:
1. Appear as counsel before any court in
any civil case wherein a local
government unit or any office,
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
agency, or instrumentality of the
government is the adverse party;
2. Appear as counsel in any criminal
case wherein an officer or employee
of the national or local government is
accused of an offense committed in
relation to his office
3. Collect any fee for their appearance
in administrative proceedings
involving the local government unit of
which he is an official; and
4. Use property and personnel of the
government except when the
sanggunian member concerned is
defending the interest of the
government.
(c) Doctors of medicine may practice their
profession even during official hours of work
only on occasions of emergency: Provided,
That the officials concerned do not derive
monetary compensation therefrom. (Sec. 90,
Republic Act. 7160)
Petitioner violated Memorandum Circular No.
74-58 prohibiting a government official from
engaging in the private practice of his
profession if such practice would
represent interests adverse to the
government (Javellana vs. Department of
Interior and Local Government, 212 SCRA
475, August 10, 1992)
Since it is the Sangguniang Bayan that has
the authority to issue a license for the
establishment, operation, and maintenance
of cockpits, a mayor could not be found to
have intervened or taken part in his official
capacity in the issuance of a cockpit license
because he is not a member of the
Sangguniang Bayan, and if there is no finding
that the mayor is guilty, a fortiori, there is no
legal basis to convict an alleged co-
conspirator (Teves vs. Sandiganbayan, 447
SCRA 309, December 17, 2004)
298
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
Prohibited Appointment (Elective and
Appointive)
RA 7160, Section 94. Appointment of Elective
and Appointive Local Officials; Candidates
Who Lost in an Election. -
(a) No elective or appointive local official shall
be eligible for appointment or designation in
any capacity to any public office or position
during his tenure.
Unless otherwise allowed by law or by the
primary functions of his position, no elective
or appointive local official shall hold any other
office or employment in the government or
any subdivision, agency or instrumentality
thereof, including government-owned or
Appointed Local Officials
(Municipalities, Cities, and Provinces)
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
controlled corporations or their subsidiaries.
(Sec. 94, Republic Act No. 7160)
Prohibited Compensation (Elective and
Appointive)
No elective or appointive local official or
employee shall receive additional, double, or
indirect compensation, unless specifically
authorized by law, nor accept without the
consent of Congress, any present,
emoluments, office, or title of any kind from
any foreign government. Pensions or
gratuities shall not be considered as
additional, double, or indirect compensation.
(Sec. 95, Republic Act. 7160)
299
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
3. Rules of Succession
Permanent Vacancies
Permanent Vacancies in the Offices of the
Governor, Vice-Governor, Mayor, and Vice-
Mayor.
1. If a permanent vacancy occurs in the
office of the governor or mayor, the vice-
governor or vice-mayor concerned shall
2. If a permanent vacancy occurs in the
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
become the governor or mayor. If a
permanent vacancy occurs in the offices of
the governor, vice-governor, mayor, or
vice-mayor, the highest ranking
sanggunian member or, in case of his
permanent inability, the second highest
ranking sanggunian member, shall
become the governor, vice-governor,
mayor or vice-mayor, as the case may be.
Subsequent vacancies in the said office
shall be filled automatically by the other
sanggunian members according to their
ranking as defined herein.
office of the punong barangay, the highest
300
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
ranking sanggunian barangay member or,
in case of his permanent inability, the
second highest ranking sanggunian
member, shall become the punong
barangay.
3. A tie between or among the highest
ranking sanggunian members shall be
resolved by the drawing of lots.
4. The successors as defined herein shall
serve only the unexpired terms of their
predecessors.
For purposes of this Chapter, a permanent
vacancy arises when an elective local official
fills a higher vacant office, refuses to assume
office, fails to qualify, dies, is removed from
office, voluntarily resigns, or is otherwise
permanently incapacitated to discharge the
functions of his office.
For purposes of succession as provided in the
Chapter, ranking in the sanggunian shall be
determined on the basis of the proportion of
votes obtained by each winning candidate to
the total number of registered voters in each
district in the immediately preceding local
election. (Sec. 44, Republic Act No. 7160)
Considering the permanent vacancy in the
Office of the Mayor of Kinoguitan, Misamis
Oriental occasioned by Noble’s
disqua--li-fication, the proclaimed Vice Mayor
shall then succeed as mayor (Pundaodaya vs.
Commission on Elections, 600 SCRA 178,
September 17, 2009)
Where there is a permanent vacancy arising
from the failure of a mayor to qualify or
arising from her removal from office, the
Vice-Mayor shall succeed as mayor, not the
second placer in the election (Limbona vs.
Commission on Elections, 555 SCRA 391,
June 25, 2008)
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Permanent Vacancies in the
Sanggunian
1. Permanent vacancies in the sanggunian
where automatic succession provided
above do not apply shall be filled by
appointment in the following manner:
a. The President, through the
Executive Secretary, in the case of
the sangguniang panlalawigan and
the sangguniang panlungsod of
highly urbanized cities and
independent component cities;
b. The governor, in the case of the
sangguniang panlungsod of
component cities and the
sangguniang bayan;
c. The city or municipal mayor, in the
case of sangguniang barangay,
upon recommendation of the
sangguniang barangay concerned.
2. Except for the sangguniang barangay,
only the nominee of the political party
under which the sanggunian member
concerned had been elected and whose
elevation to the position next higher in
rank created the last vacancy in the
sanggunian shall be appointed in the
manner hereinabove provided. The
appointee shall come from the same
political party as that of the sanggunian
member who caused the vacancy and
shall serve the unexpired term of the
vacant office. In the appointment herein
mentioned, a nomination and a certificate
of membership of the appointee from the
highest official of the political party
concerned are conditions sine qua non,
and any appointment without such
nomination and certification shall be null
and void ab initio and shall be a ground
for administrative action against the
official responsible therefore.
301
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
3. In case or permanent vacancy is caused
by a sanggunian member who does not
belong to any political party, the local chief
executive shall, upon recommendation of
the sanggunian concerned, appoint a
qualified person to fill the vacancy.
4. In case of vacancy in the representation of
the youth and the barangay in the
sanggunian, said vacancy shall be filled
automatically by the official next in rank of
the organization concerned. (Sec. 45,
Republic Act 7160)
Temporary Vacancy in the Office of the
Local Chief Executive
(a) When the governor, city or municipal
mayor, or punong barangay is temporarily
incapacitated to perform his duties for
physical or legal reasons such as, but not
limited to, leave of absence, travel abroad,
and suspension from office, the vice-
governor, city or municipal vice-mayor, or the
highest ranking sangguniang barangay
member shall automatically exercise the
powers and perform the duties and functions
of the local chief executive concerned, except
the power to appoint, suspend, or dismiss
employees which can only be exercised if the
period of temporary incapacity exceeds thirty
(30) working days.
(b) Said temporary incapacity shall terminate
upon submission to the appropriate
sanggunian of a written declaration by the
local chief executive concerned that he has
reported back to office. In cases where the
temporary incapacity is due to legal causes,
the local chief executive concerned shall also
submit necessary documents showing that
said legal causes no longer exist.
(c) When the incumbent local chief executive
is traveling within the country but outside his
territorial jurisdiction for a period not
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
exceeding three (3) consecutive days, he
may designate in writing the officer-in-charge
of the said office. Such authorization shall
specify the powers and functions that the
local official concerned shall exercise in the
absence of the local chief executive except
the power to appoint, suspend, or dismiss
employees.
(d) In the event, however, that the local chief
executive concerned fails or refuses to issue
such authorization, the vice-governor, the
city or municipal vice-mayor, or the highest
ranking sangguniang barangay member, as
the case may be, shall have the right to
assume the powers, duties, and functions of
the said office on the fourth (4th) day of
absence of the said local chief executive,
subject to the limitations provided in
subsection (c) hereof.
(e) Except as provided above, the local chief
executive shall in no case authorize any local
official to assume the powers, duties, and
functions of the office, other than the vice-
governor, the city or municipal vice-mayor, or
the highest ranking sangguniang barangay
member, as the case may be. (Sec. 46,
Republic Act No. 7160)
The mode of succession provided for
permanent vacancies, under Sec. 49 in
connection with Sec. 52 of the Local
Government Code, in the Office of Vice-
Governor, may likewise be observed in case
of a temporary vacancy occurring in the same
office (Menzon vs. Petilla, 197 SCRA 251, May
20, 1991)
Under Section 46 of the Local Government
Code, the vice-mayor automatically assumes
the powers and duties of the mayor in case
of the latter’s temporary absence (Velasco vs.
Sandiganbayan (Fifth Division), 691 SCRA
293, February 20, 2013)
302
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
A Vice Governor who is concurrently an
Acting Governor is actually a quasi-Governor.
This means, that for purposes of exercising
his legislative prerogatives and powers, he is
deemed as a non-member of the SP for the
time being. (Gamboa vs. Aguirre, G.R. No.
134213, July 20, 1999)
The concept of holdover when applied to a
public officer implies that the office has a
fixed term and the incumbent is holding onto
the succeeding term. It is usually provided by
law that officers elected or appointed for a
fixed term shall remain in office not only for
that term but until their successors have
been elected and qualified. Where this
provision is found, the office does not
become vacant upon the expiration of the
term if there is no successor elected and
qualified to assume it, but the present
incumbent will carry over until his successor
is elected and qualified, even though it be
beyond the term fixed by law. Absent an
express or implied constitutional or statutory
provision to the contrary, an officer is entitled
to stay in office until his successor is
appointed or chosen and has qualified. The
legislative intent of not allowing holdover
must be clearly expressed or at least implied
in the legislative enactment, otherwise it is
reasonable to assume that the law-making
body favors the same. (Lecaroz vs.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 130872, March 25,
1999)
4. Term Limitations and Recall
Term of Office
(a) The term of office of all elective officials
elected after the effectivity of this Code shall
be three (3) years, starting from noon of June
30, 1992 or such date as may be provided for
by law, except that of elective barangay
officials and members of the sangguniang
kabataan: Provided, That all local officials
first elected during the local elections
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
immediately following the ratification of the
1987 Constitution shall serve until noon of
June 30, 1992.
(b) No local elective official shall serve for
more than three (3) consecutive terms in the
same position. Voluntary renunciation of the
office for any length of time shall not be
considered as an interruption in the
continuity of service for the full term for
which the elective official concerned was
elected.
(c) The term of barangay officials and
members of the sangguniang kabataan shall
be for five (5) years, which shall begin after
the regular election of barangay officials on
the second Monday of May 1997: Provided,
That the sangguniang kabataan members
who were elected in the May 1996 elections
shall serve until the next regular election of
barangay officials. (Sec. 43, Republic Act No.
8524, effective February 14, 1998)
It is not enough that an individual has served
three consecutive terms in an elective local
office—he must also have been elected to the
same position for the same number of times
before the disqualification can apply (Borja,
Jr. vs. Commission on Elections, 295 SCRA
157, September 03, 1998)
Voluntary renunciation of a term does not
cancel the renounced term in the
computation of the three term limit;
conversely, involuntary severance from office
for any length of time short of the full term
provided by law amounts to an interruption
of continuity of service (Lonzanida vs.
Commission on Elections, 311 SCRA 602, July
28, 1999)
After three consecutive terms, an elective
local official cannot seek immediate
reelection for a fourth term; Any subsequent
election, like a recall election, is no longer
303
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
covered by the prohibition (Socrates vs.
Commission on Elections, 391 SCRA 457,
November 12, 2002)
For the three-term limit for elective local
government officials to apply, two conditions
or requisites must concur, to wit: (1) that the
official concerned has been elected for three
(3) consecutive terms in the same local
government post, and (2) that he has fully
served three (3) consecutive terms (Ong vs.
Alegre, 479 SCRA 473, January 23, 2006)
Whether as “caretaker” or “de facto” officer,
respondent exercises the powers and enjoys
the prerequisites of the office which enables
him “to stay on indefinitely.” (Rivera III vs.
Commission on Elections, 523 SCRA 41, May
09, 2007)
Involuntary severance from office for any
length of time short of the full term provided
by law amounts to an interruption of
continuity of service (Bolos, Jr. vs.
Commission on Elections, 581 SCRA 786,
March 17, 2009)
Disqualifications of Local Elective
Officials
The following persons are disqualified from
running for any elective local position:
1. Those sentenced by final judgment
for an offense involving moral
turpitude or for an offense
punishable by one (1) year or more
of imprisonment, within two (2) years
after serving sentence;
2. Those removed from office as a result
of an administrative case;
3. Those convicted by final judgment for
violating the oath of allegiance to the
Republic;
4. Those with dual citizenship;
5. Fugitives from justice in criminal or
non-political cases here or abroad;
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
6. Permanent residents in a foreign
country or those who have acquired
the right to reside abroad and
continue to avail of the same right
after the effectivity of this Code; and
7. The insane or feeble-minded. (Sec.
40, Republic Act No. 6170)
Date of Election: Every 3 years on the 2nd
Monday of May, unless otherwise provided by
law.
Term of Office of Local Elective Officials
(except Barangay Officials): 3 years, but not
more than 3 consecutive terms.
Temporary inability or disqualification to
exercise the functions of an elective post,
even if involuntary, should not be considered
an effective interruption of a term because it
does not involve the loss of title to office or
at least an effective break from holding
office—the office holder, while retaining title,
is simply barred from exercising the functions
of his office for a reason provided by law
(Aldovino, Jr. vs. Commission on Elections,
609 SCRA 234, December 23, 2009)
An interruption occurs when the term is
broken because the office holder lost the
right to hold on to his office, and cannot be
equated with the failure to render service.
The latter occurs during an office holder’s
term when he retains title to the office but
cannot exercise his functions for reasons
established by law. Of course, the “failure to
serve” cannot be used once the right to office
is lost; without the right to hold office or to
serve, then no service can be rendered so
that none is really lost (Tallado vs.
Commission on Elections, 919 SCRA 61,
September 10, 2019)
The conversion of a municipality into a city
does not constitute an interruption of the
incumbent official’s continuity of service; He
304
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
never ceased from discharging his duties and
responsibilities as chief executive of the same
local government unit (Abundo, Sr. vs.
Commission on Elections, 688 SCRA 149,
January 08, 2013)
Three-Term Limit Rule: No local elective
official shall serve for more than three (3)
consecutive terms in the same position.
Voluntary renunciation of the office for any
length of time shall not be considered as an
interruption in the continuity of service for
the full term for which the elective official
concerned was elected” (Lonzanida vs.
COMELEC, G.R. No. 135150, July 28, 1999;
Sec. 43[b], Local Government Code)
Requisites for the Disqualification of
the Three- Term Limit Rule:
a. That the official concerned has been
elected for three consecutive terms in the
same local government post.
b. That he has fully served three consecutive
terms. (Halili vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 231643,
January 15, 2019)
Issues affecting consecutiveness of
terms and/or involuntary interruption
a. If the official runs again for the same
position he held prior to his assumption of the
higher office, then his succession to said
position is by operation of law and is
considered an involuntary severance or
interruption. (Montebon vs. COMELEC, G.R.
No. 180444, April 8, 2008)
b. An elective official, who has served for
three consecutive terms and who did not
seek elective position for what could be his
fourth term, but later won in a recall election,
had an interruption in the continuity of the
official’s service (Adormeo vs. COMELEC,
G.R. No. 147927, February 4, 2002 and
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Socrates vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 154512,
November 12, 2002)
c. The abolition of an elective local official
due to the conversion of municipality to a city
does not by itself, work to interrupt the
incumbent official’s continuity of service
(Latasa vs. COMELEC, G.R. NO. 154829,
December 10, 2003)
d. Preventive Suspension is not a term
interrupting event as the elective officer’s
continued stay and entitlement to the office
remain unaffected during the period of
suspension, although he is barred from
exercising the functions of his office during
this period. (Aldovino Jr. vs. COMELEC, G.R.
No. 184836, December 23, 2009)
e. When a candidate is proclaimed winner for
an elective position and assumes office, his
term is interrupted when she loses in an
election protest and is ousted from office,
thus, disenabling him from serving what
would be the unexpired portion of his term of
office had the protest been dismissed.
f. When an official is defeated in an election
protest and said decision becomes final after
said official had served the full term for said
office, then his loss in the election contest
does not constitute an interruption since he
has managed to serve the term from the start
to finish. His full service, despite the defeat,
should be counted in the application of term
limits because the nullification of his
proclamation came after the expiration of the
term. (Ong vs. Alegre, G.R. No. 163295,
January 23, 2006; Rivera vs. COMELEC, G.R.
No. 167591, May 9, 2007)
Recall
Recall is a mechanism embodied in the
Constitution for the creation of responsive
and accountable local government structure.
It is a process of removing any elective
305
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
provincial, city, municipal, or barangay
official by the registered voters of the local
government unit concerned for loss of
confidence
By Whom Exercised
The power of recall for loss of confidence
shall be exercised by the registered voters of
a local government unit to which the local
elective official subject to such recall belongs
(Section 69, Republic Act No. 7160)
Ground for Recall: Loss of confidence.
LOSS OF CONFIDENCE – the formal
withdrawal by an electorate of their trust in a
person’s ability to discharge his office
previously bestowed on him by the same
electorate. (Evardone vs. COMELEC, G.R. No.
94010, December 2, 1991)
Initiation of the Recall Process
(a) Recall may be initiated by a preparatory
recall assembly or by the registered voters of
the local government unit to which the local
elective official subject to such recall belongs.
(b) There shall be a preparatory recall
assembly in every province, city, district, and
municipality which shall be composed of the
following:
1. Provincial level. - All mayors, vice-
mayors, and sanggunian members of
the municipalities and component
cities;
2. City level. - All punong barangay and
sanggunian barangay members in the
city;
3. Legislative District level. - In case
where sangguniang panlalawigan
members are elected by district, all
elective municipal officials in the
district; and in cases where
sangguniang panlungsod members are
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
elected by district, all elective barangay
officials in the district; and
4. Municipal level. - All punong barangay
and sangguniang barangay members in
the municipality.
(c) A majority of all the preparatory recall
assembly members may convene in session
in a public place and initiate a recall
proceedings against any elective official in
the local government unit concerned. Recall
of provincial, city, or municipal officials shall
be validly initiated through a resolution
adopted by a majority of all the members of
the preparatory recall assembly concerned
during its session called for the purpose.
(d) Recall of any elective provincial, city,
municipal, or barangay official may also be
validly initiated upon petition of at least
twenty-five percent (25%) of the total
number of registered voters in the local
government unit concerned during the
election in which the local official sought to
be recalled was elected.
1. A written petition for recall duly signed
before the election registrar or his
representative, and in the presence of
a representative of the petitioner and a
representative of the official sought to
be recalled and, and in a public place in
the province, city, municipality, or
barangay, as the case may be, shall be
filed with the COMELEC through its
office in the local government unit
concerned. The COMELEC or its duly
authorized representative shall cause
the publication of the petition in a
public and conspicuous place for a
period of not less than ten (10) days
nor more than twenty (20) days, for the
purpose of verifying the authenticity
and genuineness of the petition and the
required percentage of voters.
306
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
2. Upon the lapse of the aforesaid period,
the COMELEC or its duly authorized
representative shall announce the
acceptance of candidates to the
position and thereafter prepare the list
of candidates which shall include the
name of the official sought to be
recalled (Section 70, Republic Act No.
7160)
Election on Recall.
Upon the filing of a valid petition for recall
with the appropriate local office of the
Comelec, the Comelec or its duly authorized
representative shall set the date of the
election or recall, which shall not be later
than thirty (30) days upon the completion of
the procedure outlined in the preceding
article, in the case of the barangay, city or
municipal officials, and forty-five (45) days in
the case of provincial officials. The officials
sought to be recalled shall automatically be
considered as duly registered candidate or
candidates to the pertinent positions and, like
other candidates, shall be entitled to be voted
upon. (Sec. 71, Republic Act No. 7160)
Effectivity of Recall
The recall of an elective local official shall be
effective only upon the election and
proclamation of a successor in the person of
the candidate receiving the highest number
of votes cast during the election on recall.
Should the official sought to be recalled
receive the highest number of votes,
confidence in him is thereby affirmed, and he
shall continue in office. (Sec. 72, Republic Act
No. 7160)
Prohibition from Resignation.
The elective local official sought to be
recalled shall not be allowed to resign while
the recall process is in progress. (Sec. 73,
Republic Act No. 7160)
Limitations on Recall
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
1. Any elective local official may be the
subject of a recall election only once
during his term of office for loss of
confidence.
2. No recall shall take place within one (1)
year from the date of the official's
assumption to office or one (1) year
immediately preceding a regular local
election. (Sec. 74, Republic Act No. 7160)
The petition to initiate recall proceedings
must be of or by, at least 25% of the total
number of registered voters, i.e., the petition
must be filed, not by one person only, but by
at least 25% of the total number of
registered voters (Angobung vs. Commission
on Elections, 269 SCRA 245, March 05, 1997)
If the Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) elections
which is set by R.A. 7808 to be held every
three years from May 1996 were to be
deemed within the purview of the phrase
“regular local elections,” then no recall
election can be conducted rendering inutile
the recall provision of the Local Government
Code (Paras vs. Commission on Elections,
264 SCRA 49, November 04, 1996)
“The only logical reason which we can ascribe
for requiring the electors to wait one year
before petitioning for a recall election is to
prevent premature action on their part in
voting to remove a newly elected official
before having had sufficient time to evaluate
the soundness of his policies and decisions”
(Claudio vs. Commission on Elections, 331
SCRA 388, May 04, 2000)
A resolution for the recall of a vice mayor
becomes moot and academic when said
elective official has become mayor by legal
succession (Afiado vs. Commission on
Elections, 340 SCRA 600, September 18,
2000)
NOTE: The winner of the recall election shall
serve only the unexpired term. This term
307
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
shall not be counted for the purposes of the
3-term limit. (Adormeo vs. COMELEC, G.R.
No. 147927, February 4, 2002)
XII. PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW
International law - is a body of rules and
principles of action which are binding upon
civilized states in their relations to one
another. States are the sole actors in this
definition and, in the past, public
international law dealt almost exclusively
with regulating the relations between states
in diplomatic matters and in the conduct of
war. (Bernas, SJ., Introduction to Public
International Law, 2009 edition, p. 1)
Public International Law - governs the
relationships between and among states and
also their relations with international
organizations and individual persons.
(Bernas, SJ., Introduction to Public
International Law, 2009 edition, p. 4)
Municipal Law vs International Law
A. Doctrine of Incorporation and
Transformation
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Doctrine of Incorporation
The Constitution provides that the Philippines
adopts the generally accepted principles of
international law as part of the law of the
land and adheres to the policy of peace,
equality, justice, freedom, cooperation, and
amity with all nations. (Sec. 2, Art. II, 1987
Constitution)
Under the doctrine of incorporation, rules of
international law form part of the law of the
land and no further legislative action is
needed to make such rules applicable in the
domestic sphere (Secretary of Justice vs.
Lantion, 322 SCRA 160, January 18, 2000)
Hence, even if the Bill of Rights under the
1973 Constitution was not operative during
the interregnum, the protection accorded
to individuals under the Covenant and
the Declaration remained in effect
during the interregnum (Republic vs.
Sandiganbayan, 407 SCRA 10, July 21, 2003)
Doctrine of Transformation
No treaty or international agreement shall be
valid and effective unless concurred in by at
least two-thirds of all the Members of the
Senate. (Sec. 21, Art VII, 1987 Constitution)
This is based on a strict dualist approach.
Since the two systems are distinct and
operate separately, for international law
to become part of domestic law it must
be expressly and specifically
transformed into domestic law through
the appropriate constitutional
machinery such as an act of Congress or
Parliament. This doctrine flows by analogy
from what is applicable to treaties. Treaties
do not become part of the law of a state
unless it is consented to by the state.
(Bernas, SJ., Introduction to Public
International Law, 2009 edition, p. 60)
308
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
The Senate Act, after deliberation and voting,
of voluntarily and overwhelmingly giving its
consent to the WTO Agreement thereby
making it “a part of the law of the land,” is a
legitimate exercise of its sovereign duty and
power. (Tañada vs. Angara, 272 SCRA 18,
May 02, 1997)
While the International Code of Marketing of
Breastmilk Substitutes (ICMBS) and World
Health Assembly (WHA) Resolutions are not
treaties as they have not been concurred in
by at least two-thirds of all members of the
Senate, the International Code of Marketing
of Breastmilk Substitutes (ICMBS) which was
adopted by the World Health Assembly
(WHA) in 1981 had been transformed into
domestic law through local legislation, the
Milk Code. (Pharmaceutical and Health Care
Association of the Philippines vs. Duque III,
535 SCRA 265, October 09, 2007)
The enactment of RA 10368 is, in truth, in
fulfillment of the country’s duty under Article
2(2) of the ICCPR to “take the necessary
steps, in accordance with its constitutional
processes and with the provisions of the
present Covenant, to adopt such laws or
other measures as may be necessary to give
effect to the rights recognized in the present
Covenant. (Ocampo vs. Enriquez, 807 SCRA
223, November 08, 2016)
There must be an act more than ratification
to make a treaty applicable in our jurisdiction.
(Wilson vs. Ermita, 813 SCRA 103, December
07, 2016)
B. Sources of Obligations in
International Law
1. Treaties
2. International Customs
3. Generally accepted principles of law
4. Judicial decisions and the teachings of
the most highly qualified publicists
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
The Court, whose function is to decide in
accordance with international law such
disputes as are submitted to it, shall apply:
a. international conventions, whether
general or particular, establishing
rules expressly recognized by the
contesting states;
b. international custom, as evidence of a
general practice accepted as law;
c. the general principles of law
recognized by civilized nations;
d. subject to the provisions of Article 59,
judicial decisions and the teachings of
the most highly qualified publicists of
the various nations, as subsidiary
means for the determination of rules
of law.
This provision shall not prejudice the power
of the Court to decide a case ex aequo et
bono, if the parties agree thereto. (Art. 38,
Statute of the International Court
of Justice)
1. TREATIES
TREATY - is an international agreement
concluded between States in written form
and governed by international law, whether
embodied in a single instrument or in two or
more related instruments and whatever its
particular designation. (Article 2 [1][a],
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties,
1969)
Treaties are generally binding only on the
parties, the number of the contracting parties
and the generality of the acceptance of the
rules created by the treaty can have the
effect of creating a universal law in much the
same way that general practice suffices to
create customary law. (Bernas, SJ.,
Introduction to Public International Law,
2009 edition, pp. 15-16)
309
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
REQUISITES OF A TREATY
1. Must be concluded between States
2. In written form
3. Governed by International Law
4. Must be embodied in a single
instrument or in two or more related
instruments
BASIS OF A TREATY OBLIGATION
Treaty obligation is based on consent. No
state may be bound by a treaty obligation
unless it has so consented. (Art. 34, Vienna
Convention on the Law of Treaties)
JUS COGENS (PEREMPTORY NORMS OF
INTERNATIONAL LAW)
These are norms accepted and recognized by
the international community of States as a
whole as norms from which no
derogation is permitted and which can be
modified only by a subsequent norm of
general international law having the same
character. (Ocampo vs. Abando, GR. No.
176830, February 11, 2014)
It means “compelling law” and is also called
the peremptory norm.
ELEMENTS OF JUS COGENS (ADS)
1. A norm Accepted and recognized by
the international community of states
as a whole.
2. No Derogation is permitted.
3. It can only be modified by a
Subsequent norm having the same
character. (Art. 53, Vienna
Convention on the Law of Treaties)
RESERVATIONS, WITHDRAWAL,
TERMINATION, AND REBUS SIC
STANTIBUS RESERVATIONS
GENERAL RULE: A reservation is a
unilateral statement made by a state upon
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
entering a treaty and operates to exclude or
modify the legal effect of certain provision/s
of the treaty in their application to the
reserving state. (Art 19, Vienna Convention
on Law of Treaties)
EXCEPTIONS: A reservation shall not
operate to modify or exclude the provisions
of a treaty:
1. Where the treaty expressly prohibits
reservations in general;
2. Where the treaty expressly prohibits
that specific reservation being made;
or
3. Where the reservation is
incompatible with the object and
purpose of the treaty.
WITHDRAWAL
Withdrawal of reservations and of objections
to reservations:
1. Unless the treaty otherwise provides, a
reservation may be withdrawn at any
time and the consent of a State which has
accepted the reservation is not required
for its withdrawal.
2. Unless the treaty otherwise provides, an
objection to a reservation may be
withdrawn at any time.
3. Unless the treaty otherwise provides, or
it is otherwise agreed:
a. the withdrawal of a reservation
becomes operative in relation to
another contracting State only when
notice of it has been received by that
State;
b. the withdrawal of an objection to a
reservation becomes operative only
when notice of it has been received
by the State which formulated the
reservation. (Art. 22, Vienna
Convention on Law of Treaties)
TERMINATION
A treaty may be terminated or suspended
according to the terms of the treaty or with
310
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
the consent of the parties. A treaty with a
definite period may also expire. It may also
end when the purpose for the treaty has
already been achieved. But a mere change of
government or severance of diplomatic
relations does not terminate or suspend a
treaty.
Three other important modes of terminating
a treaty are:
1. material breach;
2. impossibility of performance and;
3. change of fundamental conditions
(rebus sic stantibus).
REBUS SIC STANTIBUS
A fundamental change of circumstances
which has occurred with regard to those
existing at the time of the conclusion of a
treaty, and which was not foreseen by the
parties. (Art. 62, Vienna Convention on the
Law on Treaties)
2. CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW
Custom or customary international law
means “a general and consistent
practice of states followed by them
from a sense of legal obligation.” This
statement contains the two basic elements of
custom: the material factor, that is, how
states behave, and the psychological or
subjective factor, that is, why they behave
the way they do. (Bernas, SJ., Introduction
to Public International Law, 2009 edition, p.
10)
It is necessary that the custom be:
1. Prevailing practice by a number of
states (Use);
2. Repeated over a considerable period
of time (Duration or Diuturnitas); and
3. Attended by opinion juris or a sense
of legal obligation. (Aust, Handbook
on International Law, 2010)
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
STATE PRACTICE (OBJECTIVE
ELEMENT)
A consistent and uniform external conduct of
States. Generally, both what states say and
what they do are considered state practice.
The practice must be consistent and general.
However, consistency requires substantial
uniformity and not necessarily complete
uniformity in practice (ICJ, Asylum Case,
1950 edition).
OPINIO JURIS (SUBJECTIVE ELEMENT)
A belief that this practice is rendered
obligatory by the existence of a rule of law
requiring it. (ICJ, North Sea Continental Shelf
Cases, 1969 edition)
State practice must be accompanied with the
conviction that the State is legally obligated
to do so by international law, and not through
mere courtesy or comity, or because of
humanitarian considerations. (Nicaragua vs.
United States, ICJ Reports, 1986)
No particular length of time is required for the
formation of customary norms so long as the
existence of the two elements of custom are
manifest. (ICJ, North Sea Continental Shelf
Cases, 1969 edition)
NOTE: Customary norms are legally binding
upon states regardless of whether they
consent, subject to the Persistent Objector
rule.
PERSISTENT OBJECTOR PRINCIPLE
As stated above, customary international law
is binding upon a nation. A nation-state may,
however, avoid being bound by a rule of
customary international law if it has been a
"persistent objector" to the norm or rule.
Objection to the norm must be "consistent"
and, irrespective of disagreement. (Nachura
& Gatdula, Outline Introduction to Public
International Law, 2017 p.15)
311
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
OBLIGATIONS ERGA OMNES
Obligations erga omnes are “obligations of a
State towards the international community as
a whole,” which are the “concern of all
States” and for whose protection all States
have a “legal interest.” (ICJ, Barcelona
Traction Case, 1970 edition)
“Obligation Erga Omnes” exists because of
the universal and undeniable interest in the
perpetuation of important and critical rights.
In the Barcelona Traction case, the
International Court of Justice (ICJ) stated:
“An essential distinction should be drawn
between the obligations of a State towards
the international community as a whole, and
those arising vis-à-vis another State in the
field of diplomatic protection.
By their very nature the former are the
concern of all States. In view of the
importance of the rights involved, all States
can be held to have a legal interest in their
protection; they are obligations erga omnes”.
(Vinuya, et al. vs. Executive Secretary et al.,
GR No. 162230, April 28, 2010)
3. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF LAW
General principles of law recognized by
civilized nations and it is recognized by or
common to the world’s major legal systems.
(Bernas, SJ., Introduction to Public
International Law, 2009 edition, pp. 17-18)
This has reference not to principles of
international law but to principles of
municipal law common to the legal systems
of the world. They may, in a sense, be said
to belong to no particular system of law but
are evidence rather of the fundamental unity
of law. Most of these principles, however,
have either become part of customary law or
have been incorporated into conventional
international law. (Bernas, SJ., Introduction
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
to Public International Law, 2009 edition, p.
18)
4. JUDICIAL DECISIONS AND
TEACHINGS OF THE MOST HIGHLY
QUALIFIED PUBLICISTS OF THE
VARIOUS NATIONS
Article 38 of the Statute directs the Court to
apply judicial decisions as subsidiary means
for the determination of the rules of law. But
this is made subject to Article 59 which says
that “the decisions of the court have no
binding force except between the parties and
in respect of that particular case.” Hence,
such decisions do not constitute stare decisis.
However, the decisions of the ICJ are not
only regarded as highly persuasive in
international law circles; they have also
contributed to the formulation of principles
that have become international law. (Bernas,
SJ., Introduction to Public International Law,
2009 edition, p. 19)
PUBLICISTS are institutions which write on
international law. (Bernas, SJ., Introduction
to Public International Law, 2009 edition, p.
19)
In many cases of first impression, the only
authorities that can be cited are writers. The
extent to which they are referred to depends
on the tradition of the court or of individual
judges. In common law jurisdictions, there is
reluctance to use them, more so in the US
than in Britain. In civil law jurisdictions, there
is more ready reference to writers. The ICJ is
generally reluctant to refer to writers but they
are often taken into consideration. It should
be noted, however, that these institutions are
generally government sponsored; hence,
they bear within themselves a potential for
national bias. (Bernas, SJ., Introduction to
Public International Law, 2009 edition, p. 19)
312
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
C. Subjects of International Law
SUBJECTS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW -
are entities endowed with rights and
obligations in the international order and
possessing the capacity to take certain kinds
of action on the international plane. In other
words, they are those who have international
personality. They are actors in the
international legal system and are distinct
from objects of international law. Objects of
international law are those who indirectly
have rights under or are beneficiaries of
international law through subjects of
international law. (Bernas, SJ., Introduction
to Public International Law, 2009 edition, p.
71)
STATES
ELEMENTS OF A STATE
1. People or Population
2. Territory
3. Government
4. Sovereignty or Independence
5. Recognition by other states (as
suggested by other writers – Isagani
Cruz, International Law, 2003 edition)
6. Possession of a sufficient degree of
civilization (as suggested by other writers
–Isagani Cruz, International Law, 2003
edition)
RECOGNITION - means the acceptance of
the personality of another State with all the
rights and duties determined by international
law. (Hofileña, Jr. International Law, 2016
edition, p. 79)
RECOGNITION OF STATES - is a
diplomatic act by which one State recognizes
another State or government with the
corresponding rights and duties that such
recognition entails. It is a political act by
which the existence of a new State or
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
government is acknowledged. (Hofileña, Jr.
International Law, 2016 edition, p. 79)
Note: Recognition of a State does not
automatically entail the recognition of the
government of that State. (Hofileña, Jr.
International Law, 2016 edition, p. 80)
TWO THEORIES ON THE NATURE OF
RECOGNITION:
1. Declaratory Theory - recognition is
merely “declaratory” of the existence of
the state and that its being a state
depends upon its possession of the
required elements and not upon
recognition. A recognizing state merely
accepts an already existing situation. The
weight of authority favors the
“declaratory view.”
2. Constitutive Theory - recognition
“constitutes” a state, that is, it is what
makes a state a state and confers legal
personality on the entity. In effect, this
merely emphasizes the point that states
are under no obligation to enter into
bilateral relations. But then states may
decide to recognize an entity as a state
even if it does not have all the elements
of a state found in the Montevideo
Convention. (Bernas, SJ., Introduction to
Public International Law, 2009 edition,
pp. 74-75)
Recognition need not be done by States
individually. Collective recognition or
nonrecognition may be made through the
action of intergovernmental organizations.
Thus, Liechtenstein was initially unable to
join the League of Nations because it was not
deemed to be a State (at that time, its
external relations were governed by other
states), and the United Nations refused to
recognized the “states” like Ciskei that
declared independence from South Africa
313
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
(Roque, Primer on Public International Law,
Bar Review Notes, 2014 edition).
KINDS OF RECOGNITION OF STATE
a. DE FACTO GOVERNMENT - extended
by the recognizing state which believes
that some of the requirements for
recognition are absent. The recognition is
generally provisional and limited to
certain juridical relations; it does not
bring about full diplomatic intercourse
and does not give title to assets of the
state held/situated abroad. (Nachura,
Outline Reviewer in Political Law, 2009)
b. DE JURE GOVERNMENT - extended to
a government fulfilling the requirements
for recognition. When there is no specific
indication, recognition is generally
considered as de jure. The recognition is
relatively permanent; brings about full
diplomatic intercourse and observance of
diplomatic immunities; and confers title
to assets abroad (Lawyers League for a
Better Philippines vs. Aquino, G.R. No.
73748, May 22, 1986).
RECOGNITION OF A GOVERNMENT is a
political decision and an acknowledgement
that a regime in another State meets the
criteria of effective government. Recognition
of a government carries with it the
commitment to treat the aforesaid political
regime as the legitimate political authority of
the State. When a government is recognized,
its statehood is automatically recognized.
(Hofileña, Jr. International Law, 2016 edition,
p. 80)
REQUIREMENTS FOR RECOGNITION OF
GOVERNMENT
1. The government is stable and
effective, with no substantial
resistance to its authority;
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
2. It must show willingness and ability
to discharge its international
obligations; and
3. The government must enjoy the
popular consent or approval of the
people.
LIMITATIONS ON RECOGNITION
1. TOBAR or WILSON DOCTRINE –
imposes a theoretical limitation,
oftentimes ignored, to the right of a State
to recognize another State. Carlos Tobas,
former foreign minister of Ecuador, gave
the doctrine its name. He sought to deny
recognition to Latin American
governments which had come to power
through unconstitutional means until free
elections are held, and the winner
assumed the reign of government as the
constitutionally legitimate authority.
(Hofileña, Jr. International Law, 2016
edition, p. 83)
2. STIMSON DOCTRINE – this is named
after U.S. Secretary of state Henry L.
Stimson. It decrees that governments
established as a result of external
aggression should not be recognized.
This was adopted by the League of
Nations and the Draft Declarations on
Rights and Duties of States of the
International Law Commission of the
U.N. (Hofileña, Jr. International Law,
2016 edition, p. 83)
3. ESTRADA DOCTRINE – this was
named after Mexican Foreign Minister
Genaro Estrada. The doctrine adheres to
the policy of non-intervention between
States. According to the doctrine, a State
should open diplomatic relations with a
newly created government without
issuing a pronouncement recognizing
such government, since the manner in
which a new government comes to power
314
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
is wholly a matter of national concern.
According to the Estrada Doctrine, a
State should not try to influence the
outcome of an internal power struggle by
granting or withholding recognition.
(Hofileña, Jr. International Law, 2016
edition, p. 84)
Since recognition has been construed as
approval (and nonrecognition,
disapproval) of a government established
through a political upheaval, a state may
not issue a declaration giving recognition
to such government, but merely accept
whatever government is in effective
control without raising the issue of
recognition. Dealing or not dealing with
the government is not a judgment on the
legitimacy of the said government.
(Nachura, Outline Reviewer in Political
Law, 2009)
RECOGNITION DE JURE vs
RECOGNITION DE FACTO
EFFECTS OF RECOGNITION
1. Full diplomatic relations are
established except where the
government recognized is de facto.
2. Right to sue in the courts of the
recognizing state.
NOTE: Mere breach of diplomatic relations
does not have the effect of withdrawing the
right to sue as held by the US Supreme court.
(Banco Nacional de Cuba vs. Sabbatino, 376
U.S. 398., March 23, 1964)
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Effects of Recognition
Recognition allows a new State to conclude
treaties with other States and to set-up the
defense of State immunity in the courts of the
recognizing State. (Hofileña, Jr. International
Law, 2016 edition, p. 86)
Effects of Non-Recognition
An unrecognized State or government cannot
sue or be sued in the courts of a State which
does not recognize it. All its executive and
judicial acts are considered invalid by the
State that refuses to grant recognition.
Consequently, national courts of the State
cannot take judicial notice of the laws of the
state that it has not recognized.
The State which refuses to recognize another
State may not treat the official acts of the
unrecognized State as valid. Consequently,
international comity may be disregarded.
Diplomatic and commercial relations may not
be established or may be refused. (Hofileña,
Jr. International Law, 2016 edition, p. 86)
Fundamental Rights of States
1. Independence - is the capacity of a
state to provide for its own well-being
and development free from the
domination of other states, providing it
does not impair or violate their legitimate
rights;
2. Equality - it means equality of legal
rights irrespective of the size or power of
the state. Within the General Assembly,
the doctrine means one state, one vote;
3. Peaceful co-existence - it includes
mutual respect for each other’s territorial
integrity and sovereignty, mutual non-
aggression, non interference in each
other’s affairs and the principle of
equality. (Bernas, SJ., Introduction to
Public International Law, 2009 edition, p.
85)
315
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION - is
an organization that is set up by treaty
among two or more states. It is different from
non-governmental organizations (NGO)
which are set up by private persons. The
constituent document of international
organizations therefore is a treaty. For this
reason, only states are members of
international organizations. (Bernas, SJ.,
Introduction to Public International Law,
2009 edition, p. 87)
INTERNATIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE
BODIES – are certain administrative bodies
created by agreement among states which
may be vested with international personality
when two conditions concur. First, their
purposes are mainly non-political, and
second, they are autonomous and not
subject to the control of any state e.g.
International Labor Organization, Food and
Agriculture Organization and World Health
Organization. (Southeast Asia Fisheries
Development Center vs. Acosta, G.R. Nos.
97468-70, September 2, 1993)
UNITED NATIONS (UN) - is a universal
organization charged with peacekeeping
responsibilities, the development of friendly
relations among nations, the achievement of
international cooperation in solving
international problems of an economic,
social, cultural and humanitarian character,
and the promotion of human rights and
fundamental freedoms for all human beings
without discrimination. Article 1 of the
Charter says that the UN can include “all
other peace-loving states which accept the
obligations contained in the present Charter
and, in the judgment of the Organization, are
able and will to carry out these obligations.”
As new independent nations arise, the
number of members continue to grow.
(Bernas, SJ., Introduction to Public
International Law, 2009 edition, p. 93)
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
The Purposes of the United Nations are:
1. To maintain international peace and
security, and to that end: to take effective
collective measures for the prevention and
removal of threats to the peace, and for the
suppression of acts of aggression or other
breaches of the peace, and to bring about by
peaceful means, and in conformity with the
principles of justice and international law,
adjustment or settlement of international
disputes or situations which might lead to a
breach of the peace;
2. To develop friendly relations among
nations based on respect for the principle of
equal rights and self-determination of
peoples, and to take other appropriate
measures to strengthen universal peace;
3. To achieve international co-operation in
solving international problems of an
economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian
character, and in promoting and encouraging
respect for human rights and for fundamental
freedoms for all without distinction as to race,
sex, language, or religion; and
4. To be a center for harmonizing the actions
of nations in the attainment of these common
ends. (Bernas, SJ., Introduction to Public
International Law, 2009 edition, pp. 93-94)
NATIONAL LIBERATION MOVEMENTS -
are organized groups fighting in behalf of a
whole people for freedom from colonial
powers. According to the First Protocol of the
1977 Geneva Convention, they are “peoples
fighting against colonial domination and alien
occupation and against racist regimes in the
exercise of their right of self-determination,
as enshrined in the Charter of the United
Nations.” They first arose in Africa and then
in Asia. Many of these movements succeeded
in their struggle and acquired statehood.
Thus, liberation movements are now on the
316
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
wane. (Bernas, SJ., Introduction to Public
International Law, 2009 edition, pp. 100)
D. Diplomatic and Consular Law
(Vienna Convention on Diplomatic
Relations; Vienna Convention on
Consular Relations)
DIPLOMATIC LAW
VIENNA CONVENTION ON DIPLOMATIC
RELATIONS
It is a codification of the rules of international
law on diplomatic intercourse, privileges, and
immunities. The Philippines signed it on
October 20, 1961 and ratified it on November
15, 1965.
This has become a universal treaty with 190
State Parties as of 2014. (Planck,
Encyclopedia of Public International Law,
2011)
RIGHT OF DIPLOMATIC INTERCOURSE
The right of a State to send and receive
diplomatic missions, enabling the State to
carry on friendly relations. It is neither a
natural or inherent right, but exists only by
common consent. The refusal of a State to
send or receive diplomatic representatives
does not give rise to legal liability. (Nachura,
Public International Law, 2017 edition)
DIPLOMATS
A class of persons including the ambassadors
sent by their foreign government to a foreign
state for the purpose of being general
representatives or to undertake special
negotiations. (Fox, Dictionary of
International Law and Comparative Law,
2003 edition)
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
DIPLOMATIC AGENTS
The head of the mission or a member of the
diplomatic staff of the mission. (Art. 1[e],
Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations)
The person of a diplomatic agent shall be
inviolable. He shall not be liable to any form
of arrest or detention. The receiving State
shall treat him with due respect, and shall
take all appropriate steps to prevent any
attack on his person, freedom, or dignity (Art.
29, Vienna Convention on Diplomatic
Relations).
Diplomatic agents are vested with blanket
diplomatic immunity from civil and criminal
suits (Minucher v. Scalzo, GR No. 142396,
February 11, 2003).
AIDE MEMOIRE
Written summary of the key points made by
a diplomat in an official conversation.
Literally, a document left to the conversation,
either at the time of the conversation, either
at the time of the conversation or
subsequently, as an aid to memory
(Sarmiento, Public International Law, 2016
edition).
DIPLOMATIC CORPS
A body consisting of all diplomatic envoys
accredited to the same local or receiving
state. The doyen du corps or the head of this
body is:
1. The Papal Nuncio, if there is one;
2. The oldest ambassador; or
3. In the absence of the aforementioned,
the oldest minister plenipotentiary.
(Nachura, Public International Law, 2017
edition)
APPOINTMENT OF
ENVOYS/DIPLOMATIC CORPS
In the Philippines, it is the President who
appoints, sends, and instructs the diplomatic
317
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
and consular representatives. This
prerogative is unquestionable. (De Perio
Santos v. Macaraig, G.R. No. 94070, April 10,
1992)
DOCUMENTS CARRIED BY DIPLOMATIC
REPRESENTATIVES
1. Letter of credence – a letter given to an
ambassador by his Chief od State and
addressed to the Chief of State of the
receiving State requesting the latter to
give full credence to what the
ambassador will say on behalf of the
government;
2. Diplomatic passport authorizing the
envoy’s travel;
3. Instructions which may include
documents of full powers (pliens
pouviors) authorizing him to negotiate on
extraordinary or special business; and
4. Ciphers for secret communications with
his State. (Cruz, International Law, 2020
edition)
MEMBERS OF DIPLOMATIC MISSIONS
Head of the mission (ACE):
1. Ambassadors or nuncios accredited to
Head of State and other heads of mission
of equivalent rank;
2. Charge d’affaires accredited to Ministers
of Foreign Affairs; and
3. Envoys, ministers, and internuncios
accredited to the heads of States. (Art.
14[1], Vienna Convention on Diplomatic
Relations)
Staff of the mission (SAD):
1. Service staff;
2. Administrative and technical staff; and
3. Diplomatic staff with diplomatic rank.
(Art. 1[c], Vienna Convention on
Diplomatic Relations)
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
FUNCTIONS OF DIPLOMATS MISSIONS
(FRION)
1. Promote Friendly relations between the
sending State and the receiving State,
and the development of their economic,
cultural, and scientific relations;
2. Represent his country in the receiving
State;
3. Protect the Interests of the nationals of
his country within the limits allowed by
international law;
4. Observe and report to his country the
developments in the receiving State; and
5. Negotiate with the government of the
receiving State. (Art. 3[1], Vienna
Convention on Diplomatic Relations)
Persona Non Grata
The “receiving State may at any time, and
without having to explain its decision, notify
the sending State that the head of the
mission or any member of the diplomatic
staff of the mission is persona non grata or
that any other member of the staff of the
mission is not acceptable. In any such case,
the sending State shall, as appropriate, either
recall the person concerned or terminate his
functions with the mission. A person may be
declared non grata or not acceptable before
arriving in the territory of the receiving
State.” (Art. 9, Vienna Convention on
Diplomatic Relations)
PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES
Diplomatic Agents
The person of a diplomatic agent shall be
inviolable. He shall not be liable to any form
of arrest or detention. The receiving State
shall treat him with due respect and shall
take all appropriate steps to prevent any
attack on his person, freedom or dignity. (Art.
29, Vienna Convention on Diplomatic
Relations)
318
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
A diplomatic agent shall enjoy and follow the
following:
1. Immunity from Criminal, civil and
administrative jurisdiction of the
receiving State;
EXCEPTIONS:
a. A real action relating to private
immovable property situated in the
territory of the receiving State, unless
he holds it on behalf of the sending
State for the purposes of the mission;
b. An action relating to succession in
which the diplomatic agent is involved
as executor, administrator, heir or
legatee as a private person and not on
behalf of the sending State;
c. An action relating to any professional
or commercial activity exercised by
the diplomatic agent in the receiving
State outside his official functions.
2. Not obliged to give evidence as a witness;
3. No measures of execution may be taken in
respect of a diplomatic agent;
EXCEPTION:
In the cases coming under subparagraphs
(a), (b) and (c) of paragraph 1 of this
article, and provided that the measures
concerned can be taken without infringing
the inviolability of his person or of his
residence.
4. The immunity of a diplomatic agent from
the jurisdiction of the receiving State does
not exempt him from the jurisdiction of the
sending State. (Art. 31, Vienna Convention
on Diplomatic Relations)
Rule on Waiver of Immunity
1.) The immunity from jurisdiction of
diplomatic agents and of persons
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
enjoying immunity under article 37 may
be waived by the sending State;
2.) Waiver must always be express;
3.) The initiation of proceedings by a
diplomatic agent or by a person enjoying
immunity from jurisdiction under article
37 shall preclude him from invoking
immunity from jurisdiction in respect of
any counterclaim directly connected with
the principal claim;
4.) Waiver of immunity from jurisdiction in
respect of civil or administrative
proceedings shall not be held to imply
waiver of immunity in respect of the
execution of the judgement, for which a
separate waiver shall be necessary. (Art.
32, Vienna Convention on Diplomatic
Relations)
Note: A diplomatic agent shall with respect to
services rendered for the sending State be
exempt from social security provisions which
may be in force in the receiving State. (Art.
33[1], Vienna Convention on Diplomatic
Relations)
Exemption from All Dues and Taxes
A diplomatic agent shall be exempt from all
dues and taxes, personal or real, national,
regional or municipal, except:
a. Indirect taxes of a kind which are
normally incorporated in the price of
goods or services;
b. Dues and taxes on private immovable
property situated in the territory of the
receiving State, unless he holds it on
behalf of the sending State for the
purposes of the mission;
c. Estate, succession or inheritance duties
levied by the receiving State, subject to
319
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
the provisions of paragraph 4 of article
39;
d. Dues and taxes on private income having
its source in the receiving State and
capital taxes on investments made in
commercial undertakings in the receiving
State;
e. Charges levied for specific services
rendered;
f. Registration, court or record fees,
mortgage dues and stamp duty, with
respect to immovable property, subject
to the provisions of article 23. (Art. 34,
Vienna Convention on Diplomatic
Relations)
Note: The receiving State shall exempt
diplomatic agents from all personal services,
from all public service of any kind
whatsoever, and from military obligations
such as those connected with requisitioning,
military contributions and billeting. (Art. 35,
Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations)
The personal baggage of a diplomatic agent
shall be exempt from inspection, unless there
are serious grounds for presuming that it
contains articles not covered by the
exemptions mentioned in paragraph 1 of this
article, or articles the import or export of
which is prohibited by the law or controlled
by the quarantine regulations of the receiving
State. Such inspection shall be conducted
only in the presence of the diplomatic agent
or of his authorized representative. (Art.
36[2], Vienna Convention on Diplomatic
Relations)
The members of the family of a diplomatic
agent forming part of his household shall, if
they are not nationals of the receiving State,
enjoy the privileges and immunities specified
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
in articles 29 to 36. (Art. 37[1], Vienna
Convention on Diplomatic Relations)
Administrative and Technical Staff
Members of the administrative and technical
staff of the mission, together with members
of their families forming part of their
respective households, shall, if they are not
nationals of or permanently resident in the
receiving State, enjoy the privileges and
immunities specified in articles 29 to 35,
except that the immunity from civil and
administrative jurisdiction of the receiving
State specified in paragraph 1 of article 31
shall not extend to acts performed outside
the course of their duties. They shall also
enjoy the privileges specified in article 36,
paragraph 1, in respect of articles imported
at the time of first installation. (Art. 37[2],
Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations)
Service Staff
Members of the service staff of the mission
who are not nationals of or permanently
resident in the receiving State shall enjoy
immunity in respect of acts performed in the
course of their duties, exemption from dues
and taxes on the emoluments they receive by
reason of their employment and the
exemption contained in article 33. (Art.
37(3), Vienna Convention on Diplomatic
Relations)
Private Servants
If they are not nationals of or permanent
residents in the receiving State, they shall be
exempt from dues and taxes on the
emoluments they receive by reason of their
employment. In other respects, they may
enjoy privileges and immunities only to the
extent admitted by the receiving State.
However, the receiving Stale must exercise
its jurisdiction over those persons in such a
320
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
manner as not to interfere unduly with the
performance of the functions of the mission.
(Art. 37[4], Vienna Convention on Diplomatic
Relations)
Other Persons Privileged
Other members of the staff of the mission
and private servants who are nationals of or
permanently resident in the receiving State
shall enjoy privileges and immunities only to
the extent admitted by the receiving State.
However, the receiving State must exercise
its jurisdiction over those persons in such a
manner as not to interfere unduly with the
performance of the functions of the mission..
(Art. 38[2], Vienna Convention on Diplomatic
Relations)
DIPLOMATIC INVIOLABILITY
As an aspect of diplomatic privilege, it means
that the person of the diplomatic agent,
his residence. and the diplomatic
premises and property may not be the
subject of any kind of interference on
the part of the receiving State which is
legally bound to afford him special
protection. It is universally recognized as a
most fundamental rule of both customary
and conventional law and an essential
prerequisite for the conduct of relations
between States. (Sarmiento, Public
International Law, 2016 edition)
DURATION OF PRIVILEGES AND
IMMUNITIES
The privileges are enjoyed by the envoy from
the moment he enters the territory of the
receiving State and shall cease only at the
moment he leaves the country, or on expiry
of a reasonable time in which to do so;
although with respect to official acts,
immunity shall continue indefinitely. These
privileges are available even in transit, when
traveling through a Third State on the way to
or from the receiving State (Nachura, Public
International Law, 2017 edition).
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
NOTE: The immunity of a diplomatic agent
from the jurisdiction of the receiving State
will not exempt him from the jurisdiction of
the sending State. (Art. 31[4], Vienna
Convention on Diplomatic Relations)
WAIVER OF IMMUNITIES
Diplomatic privileges may be waived but as a
rule, the waiver cannot be made by the
individual concerned since such immunities
are not personal to him. Waiver may be made
only by the government of the sending State
if it concerns the immunities of the head of
mission. In other cases, the waiver may be
made either by the government or by the
chief of mission. Waiver of the privilege,
however does not include waiver of immunity
in respect of the execution of judgment, a
separate waiver of the latter is necessary.
(Nachura, Public International Law, 2017
edition)
TERMINATION OF DIPLOMATIC
RELATIONS (WaRR-DREAD)
1. War between the receiving and
sending States;
2. Resignation;
3. Removal;
4. Death;
5. Recall by the sending State;
6. Extinction of State;
7. Abolition of office; and
8. Dismissal by the receiving State.
CONSULAR LAW
VIENNA CONVENTION ON CONSULAR
RELATIONS
It is a codification of the existing practice and
rules of customary international law on
consular relations. The Philippines signed it
on April 24, 1963 and ratified it on November
15, 1965. (Vienna Convention on Consular
Relations, effective March 19, 1967)
321
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
CONSULAR OFFICERS
Any person, including the head of a consular
post, entrusted in that capacity with the
exercise of consular function. (Art. 1, Vienna
Convention on Consular Relations)
HONORARY CONSUL
Consular officers who are nationals of the
receiving State. They do not have the status
of an official of the sending State and are,
therefore, less worthy of protection. (Planck,
Encyclopedia of Public International Law,
2011 edition)
KINDS OF CONSUL
CONSULES MISSI – professional and career
consuls, and nationals of the sending State;
and
CONSULES ELECTI – selected by the sending
State from its own citizens or from among
nationals abroad. (Nachura, Public
International Law, 2017 edition)
CLASSES OF CONSUL
1. Consul-general;
2. Consul;
3. Vice-consul; and
4. Consular agents. (Art. 9, Vienna
Convention on Consular Relations)
WHO APPOINTS HEAD OF CONSULAR
POST
a. The sending State; and
b. Admitted to the exercise of their
function by the receiving State. (Art.
10, Vienna Convention on Consular
Relations)
Note: The head of a consular post shall be
provided by the sending State with a
document, in the form of a commission or
similar instrument, made out for each
appointment, certifying his capacity and
showing, as a general rule, his full name, his
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
category and class, the consular district and
the seat of the consular post.
The sending State shall transmit the
commission or similar instrument through the
diplomatic or other appropriate channel to
the Government of the State in whose
territory the head of a consular post is to
exercise his functions. (Art. 11, Vienna
Convention on Consular Relations)
Exequatur – the authorization issued by the
receiving State admitting the head of a
consular post to the exercise of his functions.
(Art. 12[1], Vienna Convention on Consular
Relations)
CONSULATE
The office established by one State in an
important city of another State for the
purpose of supporting and protecting its
citizens travelling or residing there. These
offices are also charged with performing
other important administrative duties, e.g.,
issuing visas. (Sarmiento, Public
International Law, 2016 edition)
CONSULAR FUNCTIONS (DICAPRIOS)
1. Foster the Development of economic and
cultural relations;
2. Protect the Interest of their home State
and its nationals;
3. Promote the Commercial interests of the
sending State;
4. Assist nationals in distress in finding
lawyers to represent them in court, visit
prisoners, and establish contact with
local authorities;
5. Administer the Property of nationals of
the sending State;
6. Register births, deaths, and marriages;
7. Issue visas and passports;
8. Other functions entrusted to a consular
post by the sending State which are not
prohibited by the laws and regulations of
322
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
the receiving State or to which no
objection is taken by the receiving State
or which are referred to in the
international agreements in force
between the sending State and the
receiving State; and
9. Supervise vessels and aircraft attributed
to the sending State. (Art. 5, Vienna
Convention on Consular Relations)
NOTE: In a State where the sending State
has no diplomatic mission and is not
represented by a diplomatic mission of a third
State, a consular officer may, without the
consent of the receiving State, and without
affecting his consular status, be authorized to
perform diplomatic acts. (Art. 17[1], Vienna
Convention on Consular Relations)
Two or more States may, with the consent of
the receiving State, appoint the same person
as consular officer in that State. (Art. 18,
Vienna Convention on Consular Relations)
PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF
CONSULAR OFFICERS (EDAJE)
1. No obligation to give Evidence
concerning matters connected with the
exercise of their functions or to produce
official correspondence and documents
relating thereto;
2. Entitled to Decline to give evidence as
expert witnesses with regard to the law
of the sending State;
3. Not liable to Arrest or detention pending
trial, except in the case of a grave crime
and pursuant to a decision by the
competent judicial authority;
4. Not amenable to the Jurisdiction of the
judicial or administrative authorities of
the receiving State in respect of acts
performed in the exercise of consular
functions, except in a civil action either:
a. Arising out of a contract in which the
consular officer or employee did not
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
contract expressly or impliedly as an
agent of the sending State; or
b. By a third party for damage arising
from an accident in the receiving
State caused by a vehicle, vessel, or
aircraft; and
5. Exemption from registration of aliens and
residence permits, work permits,
taxation, customs duties and inspections,
and from personal services and
contribution. (Arts. 41-52, Vienna
Convention on Consular Relations)
WAIVER OF IMMUNITIES
The sending State may waive, with regard to
a member of the consular post, any of the
privileges and immunities afforded to the
latter. The waiver shall in all cases be
expressed and shall be communicated to the
receiving State in writing. However, the
initiation of proceedings by a consular officer
or a consular employee in a matter where he
might enjoy immunity from jurisdiction shall
preclude him from invoking immunity from
jurisdiction in respect of any counterclaim
directly connected with the principal claim.
(Art. 45, Vienna Convention on Consular
Relations)
A separate waiver shall be necessary for the
execution of a judicial decision. (Art. 45[4],
Vienna Convention on Consular Relations)
TERMINATION OF CONSULAR MISSION
(MEWW)
1. Usual Modes of terminating official
relationships;
2. Extinction of State;
3. Withdrawal of exequatur; and
4. War. (Nachura, Public International
Law, 2017)
NOTE: Severance of consular relations does
not necessarily terminate diplomatic
323
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
relations. (Art. 2[3], Vienna Convention on
Consular Relations)
DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS vs.
CONSULAR RELATIONS
E. Treaties; Vienna Convention on the
Law of Treaties
TREATY
Treaty is an international agreement
concluded between States in written form
and governed by international law, whether
embodied in a single instrument or in two or
more related instruments and whatever its
particular designation" (Article 2 [1][a],
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties,
1969)
Note: Executive Agreement is not a treaty
insofar as the concurrence thereto of the
Senate which is not required under our
Constitution. This distinction is purely
municipal and has no international
significance. From the viewpoint of
international law, treatise and executive
agreements are alike in that both constitute
equally binding obligations upon the nation
RULES ON TREATIES
With respect to treaties, the Vienna
Convention is followed. The rules are:
1. When part of the territory of a state
becomes territory of another state, the
international agreements of the
predecessor state cease to have effect in
respect of the territory and the
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
international agreements of the
successor state come into force there.
This reflects the “moving treaty rule” or
“moving boundaries rule.” If X has a
treaty with Y, and part of Y is transferred
to Z, X may seek relief from treaty
obligation under “rebus sic stantibus.’’
2. When a state is absorbed by another
state, the international agreements of the
absorbed state are terminated and the
international agreements of the
absorbing state become applicable to the
territory of the absorbed state. Third
states may appeal to rebus sic stantibus.
3. When a part of a state becomes a new
state, the new state does not succeed to
the international agreements to which
the predecessor state was party, unless,
expressly or by implication, it accepts
such agreements and the other party or
parties thereto agree or acquiesce. This
applies the “clean slate theory.”
4. Pre-existing boundary and other
territorial agreements continue to be
binding notwithstanding. This is the uti
possidetis rule. (Bernas, SJ., Introduction
to Public International Law, 2009 edition,
p. 84)
The Constitution of the Philippines authorizes
the President to make treaties, subject to the
concurrence of two-thirds of all the members
of the Senate.
In our system of government, the President,
being the head of state, is regarded as the
sole organ and authority in external relations
and is the country’s sole representative with
foreign nations (Pimentel, Jr. vs. Office of the
Executive Secretary, 462 SCRA 622, July 06,
2005)
324
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
The participation of the legislative branch in
the treaty-making process was deemed
essential to provide a check on the executive
in the field of foreign relations (Pimentel, Jr.
vs. Office of the Executive Secretary, 462
SCRA 622, July 06, 2005)
TREATY - MAKING PROCESS
1. Negotiation - it is a standard practice
for one of the parties to submit a
draft of the proposed treaty, which,
together with the counter-proposals,
becomes the basis of the subsequent
negotiations
2. If and when the negotiators finally
agree on the terms of the treaty, the
same is opened for signature
3. Ratification - is the formal act by
which a state confirms and accepts
the provisions of a treaty concluded
by its representatives; an unratified
treaty cannot be a source of
obligations between the parties
4. Exchange of the instruments of
ratification or deposit with the
government of one of the
contracting parties or with an organ
of an international organization
5. Registration with and publication by
the Secretariat of the United Nations
(Pimentel, Jr. vs. Office of the
Executive Secretary, G.R. No.
158088, July 06, 2005)
The signing of the treaty and the ratification
are two separate and distinct steps in the
treaty-making process—the signature is
primarily intended as a means of
authenticating the instrument and as a
symbol of the good faith of the parties,
usually performed by the state’s authorized
representative, while ratification is the formal
act by which a state confirms and accepts the
provisions of a treaty concluded by its
representative, and is generally held to be an
executive act, undertaken by the head of the
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
state or of the government (Pimentel, Jr. vs.
Office of the Executive Secretary, 462 SCRA
622, July 06, 2005)
CONSENT
1. The consent of a State to be bound by a
treaty is expressed by the signature of its
representative when:
a. the treaty provides that signature
shall have that effect;
b. it is otherwise established that the
negotiating States were agreed that
signature should have that effect; or
c. the intention of the State to give that
effect to the signature appears from
the full powers of its representative
or was expressed during the
negotiation.
2. For the purposes of paragraph 1:
a. the initialling of a text constitutes a
signature of the treaty when it is
established that the negotiating
States so agreed;
b. the signature ad referendum of a
treaty by a representative, if
confirmed by his State, constitutes a
full signature of the treaty. (Article
12, Vienna Convention on the Law of
Treaties, 1969)
BINDING EFFECT
Every treaty in force is binding upon the
parties to it and must be performed by them
in good faith. (Article 27, Vienna Convention
on the Law of Treaties, 1969)
Unless a different intention appears from the
treaty or is otherwise established, a treaty is
binding upon each party in respect of its
entire territory. (Article 29, Vienna
Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969)
325
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
The amending agreement does not bind any
State already a party to the treaty which does
not become a party to the amending
agreement. (Article 40[4], Vienna Convention
on the Law of Treaties, 1969)
Instances when Third States may be
validly held to the observance of or
benefit from the provisions of a treaty
where it is not a member:
1. The treaty may be merely a formal
expression of customary international law
which, as such, is enforceable on all
civilized states because of their
membership in the family of nations
2. Under Art. 2 of the UN Charter - The
organization shall ensure that non-
member States act in accordance with
the principles of the Charter so far as
may be necessary for the maintenance
of international peace and security
3. The treaty itself may expressly extend its
benefits to non-signatory states.
(Pangilinan vs. Cayetano, G.R. No.
238875, March 16, 2021)
RULES ON OBSERVANCE OF TREATIES
General Rule: Every treaty in force is
binding upon the parties to it and must be
performed by them in good faith. (Article 26,
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties,
1969)
A party to a treaty is not allowed to “invoke
the provisions of its internal law as
justification for its failure to perform a
treaty.” (Lim vs. Executive Secretary, 380
SCRA 739, April 11, 2002)
Exception: Rebus sic stantibus -
international law admits that a fundamental
change in the circumstances which
determined the parties to accept a treaty, if
it has resulted in a radical transformation of
the extent of the obligations imposed by it,
may, under certain conditions, afford the
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
party affected a ground for invoking the
termination or suspension of the treaty but
the Court also added that the changes “must
have increased the burden of the obligations
to be executed to the extent of rendering
performance something essentially different
from the original intention.” (Bernas, SJ.,
Introduction to Public International Law,
2009 edition, pp. 48-49)
INTERPRETATION OF TREATIES
1. A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith
in accordance with the ordinary meaning
to be given to the terms of the treaty in
their context and in the light of its object
and purpose.
2. The context for the purpose of the
interpretation of a treaty shall comprise,
in addition to the text, including
preamble and annexes:
a. Any agreement relating to the treaty
which was made between all the
parties in connection with the
conclusion of the treaty.
b. Any instrument which was made by
one or more parties in connection
with the conclusion of the treaty and
accepted by the other parties as an
instrument related to the party.
3. There shall be taken into account,
together with the context:
a. Any subsequent agreement between
the parties regarding the
interpretation of the treaty or the
application of its provision.
b. Any subsequent practice in the
application of the treaty which
establishes the agreement of the
parties regarding its interpretation.
c. Any relevant rules of international
law applicable in the relations
between the parties.
326
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
4. A special meaning shall be given to a
term if it is established that the parties so
intended. (Article 31, Vienna Convention
on the Law of Treaties, 1969)
SUPPLEMENTARY MEANS OF
INTERPRETATION
Recourse may be had to supplementary
means of interpretation, including the
preparatory work of the treaty and the
circumstances of its conclusion, in order to
confirm the meaning resulting from the
application of Article 31, or to determine the
meaning when the interpretation according
to Article 31:
1. leaves the meaning ambiguous or
obscure; or
2. leads to a result which is manifestly
absurd or unreasonable. (Article 32,
Vienna Convention on the Law of
Treaties, 1969)
TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION OF A
TREATY
A treaty may be terminated in any of the
following ways:
1. By expiration of the term, which may be
fixed or subject to a resolutory condition
2. By accomplishment of the purpose.
3. By Impossibility of performance.
4. By loss of the subject-matter.
5. By desistance of the parties, through
express mutual consent; desuetude, or
the exercise of the right of denunciation
(or withdrawal), when allowed.
6. By novation.
7. By extinction of one of the parties if the
treaty is bipartite.
8. By vital change of circumstance under
the doctrine of rebus sic stantibus.
9. By outbreak of war between the parties
in most cases, except if the treaty was
intended to regulate the conduct of the
signatories during the hostilities, or to
cede territory, or to fix boundaries.
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Techt is entitled to hold the real property by
virtue of the treaty. In this case, the court
finds that there is nothing incompatible with
the policy of the government, safety of the
nation, or the maintenance of the war in the
enforcement of this treaty. The treaty
between them is still in force and must be
followed. Some have ruled that treaties end
ipso facto at time of war. But in this case, the
court found that treaties end only to the
extent that their execution is incompatible
with the war (Techt v. Hughes, 229 N.Y. 222)
10. By voiding the treaty because of defects
in its conclusion, violation of its provisions
by one of the parties, or incompatibility
with international law or the U.N.
Charter. (Vienna Convention on the Law
of Treaties, 1969)
F. Nationality and Statelessness
NATIONALITY - says that every state has
jurisdiction over its nationals even when
those nationals are outside the state.
(Bernas, SJ., Introduction to Public
International Law, 2009 edition, p. 140)
Each state has the right to decide who are its
nationals using either the principle ofjus
sanguinis or jus soli or naturalization laws.
However, for a state to claim a person as a
national, the state must have reasonable
connection or an “effective link” with that
person. The consent of the individual alone is
not enough for him to be recognized by other
states as a national of the state to which he
claims to belong. (Bernas, SJ., Introduction
to Public International Law, 2009 edition, p.
142)
Effective Nationality Link - The doctrine
on effective nationality link is used to
determine which of two states of which a
person is a national will be recognized as
having the right to give diplomatic protection
327
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
to the holder of dual nationality. (Bernas, SJ.,
Introduction to Public International Law,
2009 edition, p. 142)
Note: When one State has conferred its
nationality upon an individual and another
State has conferred its own nationality on the
same person, it may occur that each of these
States, considering itself to have acted in the
exercise of its domestic jurisdiction, adheres
to its own view and bases itself thereon in so
far as its own actions are concerned. In so
doing, each State remains within the limits of
its domestic jurisdiction. (Bernas, SJ.,
Introduction to Public International Law,
2009 edition, p. 145)
Naturalization is not a matter to be taken
lightly. To seek and to obtain it is not
something that happens frequently in the life
of a human being. It involves his breaking of
a bond of allegiance and his establishment of
a new bond of allegiance. (Bernas, SJ.,
Introduction to Public International Law,
2009 edition, p. 148)
Naturalization in Relation to
Corporations
As to corporations, a state has jurisdiction
over corporations organized under its laws.
Many states assert jurisdiction over
corporations whose principal place of
business or registered office is located in their
territories. States have also sought to
regulate corporations organized or having
their principal place of business abroad when
these corporations are owned or controlled
by nationals. (Bernas, SJ., Introduction to
Public International Law, 2009 edition, pp.
151-152)
For maritime vessels, a state has jurisdiction
over vessels flying its flag. Each state
determines requirements for registration. But
flags of convenience might be challenged on
the ground of lack of sufficient link. The same
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
principle is generally applicable to aircraft
and spacecraft. (Bernas, SJ., Introduction to
Public International Law, 2009 edition, p.
151)
MULTIPLE NATIONALITY
It is the condition in which individuals hold
the nationality of more than one State.
There are three significant sources of
multiple nationality.
1. Multiple nationality may result from the
interplay of different birthright nationality
laws under which citizenship at birth can
be ascribed both by location (the rule of
jus soli) and by parentage (jus
sanguinis), so that a child born in one
State to a parent holding citizenship in
another State will hold both nationalities
at birth.
2. Dual nationality may result where a child
is born of parents of different
nationalities, if the relevant States allow
jus sanguinis transmission.
3. Multiple citizenship may result where an
individual undertakes naturalization in a
State without relinquishing or forfeiting
prior nationalities. This again may result
in the acquisition of more than two
nationalities, in cases of serial
naturalization or where a person who is a
dual citizen by birthright naturalizes in a
third State. (Planck, Institute for
Comparative Public Law and
International Law, 2008)
RA 9225 (Philippine Dual Citizenship
Act)
Retention of Philippine Citizenship
Any provision of law to the contrary
notwithstanding, natural-born citizenship by
reason of their naturalization as citizens of a
foreign country are hereby deemed to have
328
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
re-acquired Philippine citizenship upon taking
the following oath of allegiance to the
Republic. (Sec. 3, Republic Act No. 9225)
Natural born citizens of the Philippines who,
after the effectivity of this Act, become
citizens of a foreign country shall retain their
Philippine citizenship upon taking the
aforesaid oath. (Sec. 3, Republic Act No.
9225)
Derivative Citizenship
The unmarried child, whether legitimate,
illegitimate or adopted, below eighteen (18)
years of age, of those who re-acquire
Philippine citizenship upon effectivity of this
Act shall be deemed citizenship of the
Philippines. (Sec. 4, Republic Act No. 9225)
Civil and Political Rights and Liabilities
of those Who Retain or Reacquire
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:
(1) Those intending to exercise their right of
suffrage must Meet the requirements under
Section 1, Article V of the Constitution,
Republic Act No. 9189, otherwise known as
"The Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003"
and other existing laws;
(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;
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
(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;
(4) Those intending to practice their
profession in the Philippines shall apply with
the proper authority for a license or permit to
engage in such practice; and
(5) That right to vote or be elected or
appointed to any public office in the
Philippines cannot be exercised by, or
extended to, those who:
(a) are candidates for or are occupying
any public office in the country of which
they are naturalized citizens; and/or
(b) are in active service as
commissioned or non-commissioned
officers in the armed forces of the
country in which they are naturalized
citizens. (Sec. 5, Republic Act No. 9225)
According to Peruvian legislation, Canevaro is
a Peruvian by birth for he was born in
Peruvian territory. On the other hand, he is
of Italian nationality because he was born of
an Italian father. But because of Canevaro’s
acts in Peru, whatever his status as a national
may be in Italy, the Government of Peru has
a right to consider him as a Peruvian citizen
and to deny his status as an Italian claimant
(The Canevaro Claim, Tribunal of the
Permanent Court of Arbitration, 3 May 1912,
Scott, Hague Court Reports, 284)
CONFLICT OF NATIONALITY LAWS
to provide against conflicts arising from
divergent municipal laws nationality, the
following rules were embodied in the Hague
Convention of 1930 on the Conflict of
Nationality Laws:
329
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
a. Art.1. It is for each state to determine
under its law who are nationals. This law
shall be recognized by other States
insofar as it is consistent with
international conventions, international
customs, and the principles of law
generally recognized with regard to
nationality.
b. Art.2. Any question as to whether a
person possesses the nationality of a
particular State shall be determined in
accordance with the law of the state.
c. Art.3. Subject to the provisions of the
present Convention, a person having two
or more nationalities may be regarded as
its national by each of the states whose
nationality he possesses.
d. Art.4. A State may not afford diplomatic
protection to one of its nationals against
a State whose nationality such person
also possesses.
e. Art.5. Within a third State, a person
having more than one nationality shall be
treated as if he had only one. Without
prejudice to the application of its law in
matters of personal status and of any
convention in force, a third State shall, of
the nationalities which any such person
possesses, recognize exclusively in its
territory either the nationality of the
country in which he is habitually and
principally resident or the nationality of
the country with which in the
circumstances he appears to be in fact
most closely connected. (The Hague
Convention, 1930)
THE NOTTEBOHM CASE
Although the Court stated that it is the
sovereign right of all states to determine its
own citizens and criteria for becoming one in
municipal law, such a process would have to
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
be scrutinized on the international plain in
questions of diplomatic protection. The Court
upheld the principle of effective nationality,
where the national must prove a meaningful
connection to the state in question.This
principle was previously applied only in cases
of dual nationality to determine which
nationality should be used in a given case.
However, Nottebohm had forfeited his
German nationality and thus only had the
nationality of Liechtenstein (Liechtenstein v.
Guatemala, April 6, 1955)
STATELESSNESS
Stateless persons are those who do not have
a nationality. They are either de jure or de
facto stateless.
De jure stateless persons - are those who
have lost their nationality, if they had one,
and have not acquired a new one.
De facto stateless persons - are those
who have a nationality but to whom
protection is denied by their state when out
of the state. This is the situation of many
refugees. (Bernas, SJ., Introduction to Public
International Law, 2009 edition, p.151)
CAUSES OF STATELESSNESS
1. Discrimination
Many nations discriminate their citizens on
the basis of ethnicity, race, color, descent
which is against the standards of
international law.
2. Conflict and gap between laws
Nationality can be acquired in various
ways by birth, naturalization, descent,
marriage, registration, etc. all countries
have their own nationality law by which
citizenship could be acquired or
withdrawn. Hence, if a person is unable to
prove his link with a country will be at risk
of becoming stateless.
330
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
3. State succession
Another significant determinant of
statelessness is state succession. People
moving from the country where they were
born to another when their origin country
disintegrates, gets dissolved, ceases to
exist or their country comes under the
control of another country leads to
statelessness.
4. By Renunciation
When a person voluntarily relinquishes
his/her nationality or citizenship or refuses
the protection of a state is said to
renounce his citizenship.
Convention Relating to the Status of
Stateless Persons (The Hague, 1954)
The Convention itself does not create specific
rights for them; however, it does reaffirm the
rights that must be granted by the laws of
the State on whose territory stateless
persons legally reside. States Parties to the
Convention must treat stateless persons as
favorably as possible and no less favorably
than other foreign persons in the same
circumstances. In particular, these provisions
apply to the following rights:
1. family rights, respect for personal
status, freedom of conscience and
religion (Arts. 4, 12);
2. right to property (Arts. 13, 14);
3. right of association (Art. 15);
4. right of access to courts (Art. 16);
5. right to engage in different
professions (Arts. 17–19);
6. right to benefit from various social,
administrative, and other public
services (Arts. 20–25);
7. right to freedom of movement, travel
documents, and transfer of assets
(Arts. 26–30);
8. respect for rights in terms of
expulsion and naturalization (Arts.
31, 32).
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
STATELESSNESS NOTABLE CASES:
Kurić and others vs Slovenia
Eight applicants, some of whom were
stateless and others were nationals of former
Yugoslavia, failed to request Slovenian
citizenship within the six months’ deadline
provided for permanent residents to apply for
citizenship following Slovenia’s
independence. Two months after the
deadline, their names were erased from the
Register of Permanent Residents, resulting in
them becoming stateless together with
approximately 25,671 other people in
Slovenia, who became known as “the
erased”. The Court held that the domestic
legal system had failed to clearly regulate the
consequences of the “erasure”, resulting in a
violation of Article 8(2), 13, and 14 ECHR.
(Kurić and others vs Slovenia, June 26, 2012)
Andrejeva vs Latvia
The applicant was previously a national of the
former USSR, before becoming a
“permanently resident non-citizen” of Latvia,
where she moved at age 12. Her case is
concerned with the deprivation of her
pension entitlements in respect of 17 years’
employment due to discriminatory reasons
regarding her lack of Latvian nationality. The
Court ruled that there had been a violation of
the applicant’s rights under Article 14 taken
in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
and Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
(Andrejeva vs Latvia, February 18, 2009)
Konstantinov vs The Netherlands
The applicant of Roma origin was denied a
residence permit to the Netherlands on the
basis of the applicant’s husband failing to
meet the requirements under domestic
immigration rules and because of the
applicant’s multiple convictions. The Court
held the Contracting State had struck a fair
balance between the applicant’s Article 8
rights and its own interests in regulating its
331
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
immigration. (Konstantinov vs The
Netherlands, September 24, 2007)
DOCTRINE OF STATE RESPONSIBILITY
The customary law doctrine on the protection
of aliens should be seen in relation to the
doctrine on “state responsibility.” When an
injury has been inflicted, there is need to
determine whether the state can be held
responsible for it. One of the principles most
strongly held by states is that if a state
violates a customary rule of international law
or a treaty obligation, it commits an
“internationally wrongful act.” (Bernas, SJ.,
Introduction to Public International Law,
2009 edition, p. 227)
INTERNATIONAL DELINQUENCY
In order to constitute an international
delinquency should amount to an outrage, to
bad faith, to willful neglect of duty, or to an
insufficiency of governmental action so far
short of international standards that every
reasonable and impartial man would readily
recognize its insufficiency. Whether the
insufficiency proceeds from deficient
execution of an intelligent law or from the
fact that the laws of the country do not
empower the authorities to measure up to
international standards is immaterial.
(Bernas, SJ., Introduction to Public
International Law, 2009 edition, p. 226)
G. Jurisdiction of States
Jurisdiction - is the authority exercised by
a state over persons and things within or
sometimes outside its territory, subject to
certain exceptions.
Jurisdiction may be classified as either:
a. Personal jurisdiction is the power
exercised by a state over its nationals. It
is based on the theory that a national is
entitled to the protection of his state
wherever he may be and is, therefore,
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
bound to it by a duty of obedience and
allegiance. This duty follows him even
when he is outside the territory of his
state and he may not ordinarily be
excused from it unless he is prepared to
renounce his own nationality.
b. Territorial jurisdiction is that a state
has jurisdiction over all persons and
property within its territory. (Cruz,
International Law, 2003, p. 125)
The jurisdiction of the nation within its
own territory is necessary, exclusive and
absolute. It is susceptible to no limitation
not imposed by itself. (The Schooner
Exchange vs. McFaddon, 11 U.S. 116,
1812)
Jurisdiction may be exercised over:
1. Its nationals;
2. The terrestrial domain;
3. The maritime and fluvial domain;
4. The continental shelf;
5. The Open seas
6. The Aerial domain;
7. The outer space; and
8. Other territories. (Cruz, International
Law, 2003, p. 125)
1. TERRITORIALITY PRINCIPLE
The fundamental source of jurisdiction is
sovereignty over territory. A state has
absolute, but not necessarily exclusive,
power to prescribe, adjudicate and enforce
rules for conduct that occurs within its
territory. For this reason, it is necessary that
boundaries be determined. (Bernas, SJ.,
Introduction to Public International Law,
2009 edition, p. 133)
This principle summarizes the rules on
boundaries where states are not islands but
parts of a larger land mass thus:
a. The boundary separating the land areas
of two states is determined by acts of the
332
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
states expressing their consent to its
location.
b. Unless a consent to a different rule has
been expressed,
i. when the boundary between two
states is a navigable river, its location is
the middle of the channel of navigation
(Thalweg doctrine),
ii. when the boundary between two
states is a non-navigable river or a lake,
its location is the middle of the river or
lake. (Bernas, SJ., Introduction to Public
International Law, 2009 edition, p. 133)
Doctrine: A state has jurisdiction over acts
occurring outside its territory but having
effects within it. (Bernas, Introduction to
Public International Law, 2009)
There is no rule of international law in regard
to collision cases to the effect that criminal
proceedings are exclusively within the
jurisdiction of the State whose flag is flown.
It is only natural that each should be able to
exercise jurisdiction and to do so in respect
of the incident as a whole. It is therefore a
case of concurrent jurisdiction. (France vs.
Turkey, Permanent Court of International
Justice, 1927)
PRINCIPLES OF EFFECTS DOCTRINE
1. Subjective Territorial Principle – a
state has jurisdiction to prosecute and punish
for crime commenced within the state but
completed or consummated abroad.
2. Objective Territorial Principle – a state
has jurisdiction to prosecute and punish for
crime commenced without the state but
consummated within its territory. (Bernas,
Introduction to Public International Law,
2009 edition, p.133)
FRENCH RULE – crimes committed aboard
a foreign merchant vessel should not be
prosecuted in the courts of the country within
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
whose territorial jurisdiction they were
committed, unless their commission affects
the peace and security of the territory.
(People of the Philippines vs. Wong Cheng,
GR No. L-18924, October 19, 1922)
ENGLISH RULE – crimes perpetrated under
such circumstances are in general triable in
the courts of the country within territory they
were committed. (People of the Philippines
vs. Wong Cheng, GR No. L-18924, October
19, 1922)
2. NATIONALITY PRINCIPLE
Everyone has the right to a nationality. No
one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his
nationality nor denied the right to change his
nationality. (Article 15 of the 1948 Universal
Declaration of Human Rights)
A court has jurisdiction if the offender is a
national of the Forum State. Each state has
the right to decide who are its nationals using
either the principle of jus sanguinis or jus soli
or naturalization laws. However, for a state
to claim a person as a national, the state
must have reasonable connection or an
“effective link” with that person. The consent
of the individual alone is not enough for him
to be recognized by other states as a national
of the state to which he
claims to belong.
EFFECTIVE NATIONALITY LINK
DOCTRINE
– used to determine which of two states of
which a person is a national will be
recognized as having the right to give
diplomatic protection to the holder of dual
nationality. (Bernas, Introduction to Public
International Law, 2009)
As to corporations, a state has jurisdiction
over corporations organized under its laws.
(Barcelona Traction Light and Power
Company, Belgium vs. Spain, 1962)
333
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
As to detained stateless persons with no
pending charges nor prospects of bringing
any against him, the writ (of habeas corpus)
will issue commanding the respondents to
release the petitioner (stateless person) from
custody upon these terms: The petitioner
shall be placed under the surveillance of the
immigration authorities or
their agents in such form and manner as may
be deemed adequate to insure that he keep
peace and be available when the Government
is ready to deport him. (Mejoff vs. Director of
Prisons, GR No. L-4254, September 26, 1951)
NATIONALITY - It is membership in a
political community with all its concomitant
rights and obligations. It is the tie that binds
the individual to his State, from which he can
claim protection and whose laws he is obliged
to obey. (Nachura & Gatdula, Outline
Introduction to Public International Law,
2017 p.119)
Citizenship is the membership in a political
community which is personal and more or
less permanent in character. It denotes
possession within that particular political
community of full civil and political rights
subject to special disqualifications such as
minority. Reciprocally, it imposes the duty of
allegiance to the political community.
(Bernas, Commentary, p.629)
DETERMINATION OF NATIONALITY
In principle, questions of nationality fall
within the domestic jurisdiction of each State.
However, the applicability of a State’s
internal decisions can be limited by the
similar actions of other States and by
international law. In other words, how a
State exercises its right to determine its
citizens should conform to the relevant
provisions in international law. (Nachura &
Gatdula, Outline Introduction to Public
International Law, 2017 p.119)
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
ACQUISITION OF NATIONALITY
1. BY BIRTH – An individual acquires the
nationality of the state where he is born (jure
soli) or the nationality of his parents (jure
sanguinis) regardless of the place of his birth.
(Nachura & Gatdula, Outline Introduction to
Public International Law, 2017 p.119)
2. NATURALIZATION – a process by which
a foreigner acquires, voluntarily or by
operation of law, the nationality of another
state. It can be effected through marriage,
legitimation, option (election), acquisition of
domicile, appointment to government office,
or grant on application. In the Philippines,
naturalization may be by judicial or legislative
process, election or marriage. (Moy Ya Lim
Yao vs Commission of Immigration, G.R. No.
L-21289 October 4, 1971)
3. REPATRIATION – the recovery of
nationality by individuals who were natural-
born citizens of a state but who had lost their
nationality. Repatriation in the Philippines is
governed by RA 8171. (Salonga, Private
International Law 1995, p.
165)
4. SUBJUGATION – when a state is
defeated, and its territory is annexed, its
nationals become subjects of the winning
state. (Hall, Nationality Migration Rights, and
Citizenship of the Union, 1995 p. 74)
5. CESSION – a state cedes its territory to
another state, the people found in the ceded
territory becomes subjects of the accepting
state. (Hall, Nationality Migration Rights, and
Citizenship of the Union, 1995 p.74)
3. PROTECTIVE PRINCIPLE
A court is vested with jurisdiction if a national
interest or policy is injured or violated. (US
vs. Fawaz Yunis, Crim. A. No. 87-0377,
February 12, 1988)
334
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
This principle says that a state may exercise
jurisdiction over conduct outside its territory
that threatens its security, as long as that
conduct is generally recognized as criminal by
states in the international community. This
conditional clause excludes acts committed in
exercise of the liberty guaranteed an alien by
the law of the place where the act was
committed. (Bernas, SJ., Introduction to
Public International Law, 2009 edition, p.
156)
The examples given of acts covered by the
protective principle are plots to overthrow the
government, forging its currency, and plot to
break its immigration regulations. (Ibid.)
A sample case of this is that of “Lord Haw
Haw,” an American citizen who broadcast
messages from Germany seeking to
persuade the Allies to surrender. Until 1940,
he held a British passport. After the war, he
was convicted of high treason in the United
Kingdom. In upholding the principle, Lord
Jowwit of the House of Lords said: “No
principle of comity demands that a state
should ignore the crime of treason committed
against it outside its territory. On the
contrary, a proper regard for its own security
requires that all those who commit that
crime, whether they commit it within or
without the realm, should be amenable to its
laws.” (Bernas, SJ., Introduction to Public
International Law, 2009 edition, p. 156)
4. UNIVERSALITY PRINCIPLE
The universality principle recognizes that
certain activities, universally dangerous to
states and their subjects, require authority in
all community members to punish such acts
wherever they may occur, even absent a link
between the state and the parties or the acts
in question. (Bernas, SJ., Introduction to
Public International Law, 2009 edition, p.
157)
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
This principle started with piracy. Piracy in
international law means any illegal act of
violence or depredation committed for
private ends on the high seas or outside the
territorial control of any state. Now the
principle covers not just piracy but also
genocide, crimes against humanity, war
crimes, aircraft piracy and terrorism. There is
also a growing support for universal
jurisdiction over crimes against human rights.
(Bernas, SJ., Introduction to Public
International Law, 2009 edition, p. 157)
The Court held that deliberate torture under
the color of official authority violated the
universal rules of international law regardless
of the nationality of the parties. In reaching
the conclusion that the prohibition of torture
has become part of customary international
law, the Court referred as evidence to the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and as
particularly relevant, the 1975 Declaration on
the Protection of all Persons from Torture.
The Declaration goes on to provide that
“[w]here it is proved that an act of torture or
other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment
or punishment has been committed by or at
the instigation of a public official, the victim
shall be afforded redress and compensation,
in accordance with national law.” (Filartiga
vs. Pena-Irala, 630 FJD 876, 1980)
5. PASSIVE PERSONALITY PRINCIPLE
This principle authorizes states to assert
jurisdiction over offenses committed against
their citizens abroad. It recognizes that each
state has a legitimate interest in protecting
the safety of its citizens when they journey
outside national boundaries. (US vs. Fawaz
Yunis, Crim. A. No. 87-0377, February 12,
1988)
The passive personality principle asserts that
a state may apply law — particularly criminal
law — to an act committed outside its
territory by a person not its national where
335
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
the victim of the act was its national. The
principle has not been ordinarily accepted for
ordinary torts or crimes, but it is increasingly
accepted as applied to terrorist and other
organized attacks on a state’s nationals by
reason of their nationality, or to assassination
of a state’s diplomatic representatives or
other officials. (Bernas, SJ., Introduction to
Public International Law, 2009 edition, p.
167)
This principle authorizes states to assert
jurisdiction over offenses committed against
their citizens abroad. It recognizes that each
state has a legitimate interest in protecting
the safety of its citizens when they journey
outside national boundaries. (Bernas, SJ.,
Introduction to Public International Law,
2009 edition, p. 171)
6. CONFLICTS OF JURISDICTION
Since there are various accepted principles
for assuming jurisdiction, more than one
state may have a valid claim to jurisdiction.
U.S. courts have attempted to develop more
sophisticated modes of resolving conflict of
jurisdiction. (Bernas, SJ., Introduction to
Public International Law, 2009 edition, p.
172)
3 Modes
1. The Balancing Test
The court employed a tripartite analysis to
determine whether to assume jurisdiction or
not.
a. First, was there an actual or intended
effect on American foreign commerce.
b. Second, is the effect sufficiently large
to present a cognizable injury to the
plaintiffs and, therefore, a civil violation
of the anti-trust laws.
c. Third, are the interests of, and link to,
the United States including effects on
American foreign commerce sufficiently
strong, vis-d-vis those of other nations,
to justify an assertion of extraordinary
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
authority. If the answer is yes to all
these, then the court will assume
jurisdiction. (Bernas, SJ., Introduction
to Public International Law, 2009
edition, p. 173)
2. International Comity
Even when a state has basis for exercising
jurisdiction, it will refrain from doing so if its
exercise will be unreasonable.
Unreasonableness is determined by
evaluating various factors, such as the link of
the activity to the territory of the regulating
state, the connection, such as nationality,
residence, or economic activity, between the
regulating state and the person principally
responsible for the activity to be regulated,
the character of the activity to be regulated,
the existence of justified expectations that
might be protected or hurt by the regulation,
the likelihood of conflict with regulation by
another state. (Bernas, SJ., Introduction to
Public International Law, 2009 edition, p.
173)
3. Forum non conveniens
If in the whole circumstances of the case it
be discovered that there is a real unfairness
to one of the suitors in permitting the choice
of a forum which is not the natural or proper
forum, either on the ground of convenience
of trial or the residence or domicile of parties
or of its being the locus contractus, or locus
solutionis, then the doctrine of forum non
conveniens is properly applied. (Bernas, SJ.,
Introduction to Public International Law,
2009 edition, p. 173)
The application is discretionary with the
court. Some of the interests which the court
needs to weigh are divided into private
interest factors and public interest factors.
The private interest factors are access to
sources of proof, availability of compulsory
process for unwilling witnesses and other
336
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
personal problems which make trial easy,
expeditious and inexpensive. Public interest
factors include congestion, desire to settle
local controversies at home, and having the
case tried in a forum at home with the
applicable law. Forum non conveniens
presumption is with the plaintiff. (Piper
Aircraft Co, vs. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 1981)
H. Treatment of Aliens; Extradition and
Deportation
ALIENS
In relation to a State, an alien is any person
who is not one of its nationals (AUST, supra
at 184).
STANDARDS ON THE TREATMENT OF
ALIENS:
1. International Minimum Standard
The developed States of the West have
argued historically that there exists an
international minimum standard for the
protection of foreign nationals that must be
upheld irrespective of how the state treats its
own nationals (SHAW, supra at 824);
2. National Treatment (Equality of
Treatment)
The state needs to treat the alien as it does
its own nationals. It was intended as a shield
against external interference (Ibid.);
3. Calvo Doctrine
A state is not responsible for losses incurred
by aliens in times of civil war (SARMIENTO,
supra at 83); and
4. Calvo Clause
It prevents appeals by aliens to their home
governments for diplomatic intervention in
behalf of their contract rights (SARMIENTO,
supra at 85).
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
a. It is found in contracts between aliens
and States, and namely, in concession
agreements. It deals with settlement of
disputes between aliens and States. It
requires that aliens commit themselves,
by their very contract with the State,
not to seek diplomatic protection from
the State of which they are nationals as
against the Contracting State, which
allegedly caused them damage. The
clause therefore amounts to a waiver of
diplomatic protection (EPIL, supra at
5).
b. The general tenor of the Calvo Clause
is that the alien agrees that any dispute
that might arise out of the contract is to
be decided by the national courts in
accordance with the national law and is
not to give rise to any international
reclamation (FENWICK, supra at 292).
c. This was rejected in North American
Dredging Company Claim (1926) by the
Mexico-United States General Claims
Commission. The right to seek redress
is a sovereign prerogative of a state
and a private individual has no right to
waive it (BERNAS, supra at 246).
RULES ON THE TREATMENT OF ALIENS
1. Flowing from its right to existence and as
an attribute of sovereignty, no State is
under obligation to admit aliens. The State
can determine in what cases and under
what conditions it may admit aliens
(NACHURA, International Law, supra at
132);
2. The State has the right to expel aliens from
its territory through:
Deportation: It is the expulsion of an
alien considered undesirable by local
state, usually but not necessarily to his
own state (Ibid.); or
337
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
Reconduction: It is the forcible
conveying of aliens back to their home
state without any formalities (Id.). The
right of the President to reconduct is
based on the fact that since aliens are
not part of the nation, their admission
into the territory is a matter of pure
permission and simple tolerance which
creates no obligation on the part of the
government to permit them to stay
(SARMIENTO, supra at 134); and
3. The alien must accept the institutions of
State as he finds them (NACHURA,
International Law, supra at 132).
State Responsibility for Improper
Treatment of Aliens
The State may be held liable for injuries and
damages sustained by the alien while in the
territory of the state provided that:
1. The act or omission constitutes an
international delinquency. The treatment
of the alien should amount to:
a. An outrage;
b. Bad faith;
c. Wilful neglect of duty; or
d. Insufficiency of governmental action,
such that every reasonable and
impartial man would readily recognize
ils insufficiency or inadequacy.
2. The act or omission is directly or
indirectly imputable to the state:
a. Direct Imputability - It is where the
international delinquency was
committed by superior government
officials or organs like the chief of state
or the national legislature, liability will
attach immediately as their acts may
not be effectively prevented or
reversed under the constitution or laws
of the state.
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
b. Indirect Imputability - It is where
the offense is committed by inferior
government officials or by private
individuals, the state will be held liable
only if, by reason of its indifference in
preventing or punishing it, it can be
considered to have connived in
effecting its commission.
3. There is indirect injury to the claimant
state because of damage to its national
(NACHURA, International Law, supra at
134-135).
Conditions for enforcement of state
responsibility
1. The injured subject must first exhaust all
local remedies; and
2. He must resort to diplomatic protection
(Ibid. at 136-137).
Exceptions: Exhaustion maybe
dispensed with
1. There are no remedies to exhaust (the
laws are intrinsically defective);
2. The courts are corrupt;
3. There is no adequate machinery; and
4. It involves acts of states not subject to
judicial review (NACHURA, International
Law, supra at 137)
EXTRADITION
The removal of an accused from the
requested state with the object of placing him
at the disposal of foreign authorities to
enable the requesting state or government to
hold him in connection with any criminal
investigation directed against him or the
execution of a penalty imposed on him under
the penal or criminal law of the requesting
state or government (Art 2[a], Presidential
Decree No. 1069).
It is a sui generis proceeding tracing its
existence wholly to treaty obligations
338
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
between different nations. It is not a
criminal proceeding; it is not a trial to
determine the guilt or innocence of the
potential extraditee. Nor is it a full-blown civil
action, but one that is merely administrative
in character (Government of Hong Kong
Special Administrative Region v. Olalia, Jr.,
G.R. No. 153675, April 19, 2007).
Characteristics of Extradition:
1. It entails a deprivation of liberty on the
part of the potential extraditee; and
2. The means employed to attain the
purpose of extradition is also "the
machinery of criminal law". There may be
immediate arrest and temporary
detention of the accused if that will best
serve the interest of justice, and, in case
of urgency, the requesting state may ask
for the provisional arrest of the accused
pending the receipt of the request for
extradition (Government of Hong Kong
Special Administrative Region v. Olalia,
Jr., supra).
Aims or Purposes of Extradition:
1. Criminal prosecution
It is instituted by authorities of the requesting
State or government charging the accused
with an offense; and
2. Execution of a prison sentence
It is imposed by a court of the requesting
State or government, with such duration as
that stipulated in the relevant extradition
treaty or convention, to be served in the
jurisdiction of and as a punishment for an
offense committed by the accused within the
territorial jurisdiction of the requesting State
or government (Sec. 3, Presidential Decree
No. 1069).
Elements for the Exercise of
Extradition:
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
1. Acts of Sovereignty on the part of two
States;
2. A Request by one State to another State
for the delivery to it of an alleged
criminal; and
3. The Delivery of the person requested for
the purposes of trial or sentence in the
territory of the requesting state
(SARMIENTO, supra at 133).
NOTE: As long as the request for extradition
is upon the authority of an existing
extradition treaty between the requesting
and requested states, then it may not be
refused. The State is bound by pacta sunt
servanda to comply in good faith with its
obligations under the Treaty (Government of
the U.S.A. v. Purganan, G.R. No. 148571,
September 24, 2002).
EXTRADITION AND DEPORTATION,
DISTINGUISHED
Conditions Precedent for Extradition:
1. There must be an Authority to extradite
through treaties or international
agreements;
2. Can only extradite Persons subject of
such authority; and
3. Through Offenses covered by extradition
(SARMIENTO, supra at 132).
339
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW

Extradition Treaty Required for the

Authority to Extradite
A fugitive from justice may be extradited only
upon the authority of an extradition treaty
between the requesting and requested states
(Ibid.).
The concept of ex post facto laws is limited
only to penal and criminal statutes that affect
the substantial rights of the accused. An
extradition treaty is neither a piece of
criminal legislation nor a criminal procedural
statute. It merely provides for the extradition
of persons wanted for prosecution of an
offense or a crime which offense or crime
Persons Subject to Extradition
was already committed or consummated at
Those charged or convicted of offenses that
the time the treaty was ratified (Wright v.
are extraditable under the terms of the
Court of Appeals, G.R No. 113213, August 15,
extradition treaty between the requesting
1994).
States where the crime was committed and
the requested State where the person
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES:
requested to be extradited has sought refuge
(SARMIENTO, supra at 132).
1. It is sui generis. It is neither a criminal
nor civil in nature (Government of Hong
Any person may be extradited, whether he be
Kong Special Administrative Region v.
a national of the requesting state, of the state
Olalia, Jr., supra):
of refuge, or of another state (CRUZ, supra
at 203):
2. It is based upon bilateral treaty law and
does not exist as an obligation upon
Offenses Subject to Extradition:
states in customary law. A fugitive from
justice may be extradited only upon
1. List-Type Extradition Treaty
authority of an extradition treaty
Those which are specifically listed in the
between the requesting and the
extradition treaty to be extraditable; and
requested State;
2. Dual/Double Criminality Clause
3. Double criminality
(Non-List Type Extradition Treaty)
The crime involved should be a crime in
Those which are defined and punished as
both states concerned.
crimes under the laws of both the requesting
and requested States. Usually, the dual
The act for which extradition is sought
criminality clauses prescribe a minimum
must be punishable in both the
prison term usually of at least one year under
requesting and requested states
the laws of both State Parties for an offense
(Government of Hongkong Special
to be extraditable (CRUZ, supra at 138-139).
Administrative Region v. Muñoz, G.R. No.
207342, August 16, 2016).

AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION 340

 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
4. Principle of Specialty
A person surrendered may be tried and
punished only for the offense for which
extradition had been sought and granted
(SHAW, supra at 686);
5. Differences in legal system can be an
obstacle to interpretation of what the
crime is (BERNAS, supra at 174):
6. Religious and political offenses are not
extraditable (Id.); as well as political and
military offenses (SARMIENTO, supra at
141);
Exception to the Exception as regards
Political Offenses:
Attentat clause
It provides that the assassination, murder,
attempt on the life of, or other willful crimes
against the person of the Head of the State
or Head of Government of either of the State
Parties or of a member of his family shall not
be regarded as political crimes (SARMIENTO,
supra at 142).
7. Prohibition on discrimination
Extradition may not be granted if it would be
subject the fugitive to prosecutions based on
race, nationality, or political opinion
(SARMIENTO, supra at 140); and
8. Lack of probable cause clause
The request for extradition must include
sufficient prima facie evidence of guilt
attributable to the person requested to be
extradited (SARMIENTO, supra at 141).
FIVE POSTULATES OF EXTRADITION:
1. Extradition is a major instrument for the
suppression of crime with an important
practical effect that criminals should be
restored to the Jurisdiction of the locus
delicti commissi (the place of the
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
commission of the crime) competent to
try and punish them so that the number
of criminals seeking refuge abroad will be
reduced.
2. The Requesting State will accord due
process to the accused. An extradition
treaty presupposes that both parties
have examined and that both accept and
trust each other's legal system and
judicial process.
3. The proceedings are sui generis. They
are not criminal in nature which will call
into operation all the rights of an accused
as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. They
do not include the determination of the
guilt or innocence of the accused.
4. Compliance shall be in good faith.
5. There is an underlying risk of flight.
Persons to be extradited are presumed to
be flight risk (USA v. Judge Purganan,
G.R. No. 148571, September 24, 2002;
SARMIENTO, supra at 144-145).
EXTRADITION PROCEDURE
1. Extradition Request
a. Any foreign state or government with
which the Republic of the Philippines has
entered into an extradition treaty or
convention, only when the relevant
treaty or convention, remains in force,
may request for the extradition of any
accused who is or suspected of being in
the territorial jurisdiction of the
Philippines (Sec. 4, Presidential Decree
No. 1069).
b. The request shall be made by the Foreign
Diplomat of the requesting state or
government, addressed to the Secretary
of Foreign Affairs, and shall be
accompanied by:
341
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
i. The original or an authentic copy of
either:
1. The decision or sentence
imposed upon the accused by the
court of the requesting state or
government; or
2. The criminal charge and the
warrant of arrest issued by the
authority of the requesting state or
government having jurisdiction of the
matter or some other instruments
having the equivalent legal force.
ii. A recital of the acts for which
extradition is requested, with the fullest
particulars as to the name and identity of
the accused, his whereabouts in the
Philippines, if known, the acts or
omissions complained of, and the time
and place of the commission of these
acts;
iii. The text of the applicable law or a
statement of the contents of said law,
and the designation or description of the
offense by the law, sufficient for
evaluation of the request; and
iv. Such other documents or information
in support of the request (Sec. 4,
Presidential Decree No. 1069).
2. Extradition Petition (Evaluation
Process)
a. Unless it appears to the Secretary of
Foreign Affairs that the request falls to
meet the requirements of this law and
the relevant treaty or convention, the
Secretary of Foreign Affairs shall forward
the request to the Secretary of Justice
who shall authorize an attorney to take
charge of the case (Sec. 5, Presidential
Decree No. 1069):
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Hence, said process may be
characterized as an investigative or
inquisitorial process in contrast to a
proceeding conducted in the exercise of
an administrative body's quasi-judicial
power (Secretary of Justice v. Lantion,
G.R. No. 139465, January 18, 2000).
b. The attorney shall file a written petition
with the proper Court of First Instance
(Trial Court) of the province or city
having jurisdiction of the place, with a
prayer that the court take the request
under consideration and shall attach to
the petition all related documents (Sec.
5, Presidential Decree No. 1069).
3. Extradition Hearing
a. Immediately upon receipt of the petition,
the presiding judge of the court shall, as
soon as practicable, summon the accused
to appear and to answer the petition on
the day and hour fixed in the order..
Upon receipt of the answer, or should the
accused after having received the
summons fail to answer within the time
fixed, the presiding judge shall hear the
case or set another date for the hearing
thereof (Sec. 6, Presidential Decree No.
1069),
b. In the hearing, the provisions of the
Rules of Court insofar as practicable and
342
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
not inconsistent with the summary nature
of the proceedings, shall apply to
extradition cases, and the hearing shall
be conducted in such a manner as to
arrive as a fair and speedy disposition of
the case (Sec. 9, Presidential Decree No.
1069):
c. Upon conclusion of the hearing, the court
shall render a decision granting the
extradition, and giving his reasons
therefore upon showing of the existence
of a prima facie case. Otherwise, it shall
dismiss the petition (Sec. 10, Presidential
Decree No. 1069):
ENTITLEMENT TO BAIL
The Philippines should see to it that the right
to liberty of every individual is not impaired.
The right of a prospective extraditee to apply
for bail in the Philippines must be viewed in
light of the various treaty obligations of the
Philippines concerning respect for the
promotion and protection of human rights.
Under these treaties, the presumption lies in
favor of human liberty (Government of Hong
Kong Special Administrative Region v. Olalia,
Jr., supra).
It may grant bail to a possible extradite only
upon a clear and convincing showing:
1. That he will not be a flight risk or danger
to the community; and
2. That there exist special, humanitarian
and compelling circumstances
(Government of Hong Kong Special
Administrative Region v. Olalia, Jr. cited
by BERNAS, supra at 190).
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Rights of a Person Arrested and
Detained in Another State:
1. Right to have his Request complied with
by the receiving State to so inform the
consular post of his condition;
2. Right to be Informed by the competent
authorities of the receiving State without
delay to his rights as mentioned above;
and Right to have his Communication
addressed to the consular post forwarded
by the receiving State accordingly (Art.
36[1], Vienna Convention on Consular
Relations, 1963).
The International Court of Justice has
determined that Article 36 (1) of the VCCR
creates individual right for the detained
person in addition to the rights accorded the
sending States (La Grand (Germany v. United
States), Judgment, /CJ Reports 2001, p.497).
IRREGULAR RENDITION
A practice of some States that is borne of
frustration caused by the unwillingness of a
country upon which a valid extradition
request has been made to carry out its
international obligations (SARMIENTO, supra
at 135).
Examples are when the United States
retrieved John Surratt from Egypt, or when
Israel retrieved Eichmann from Argentina.
(SARMIENTO, supra at 135)
Varieties of Irregular Rendition:
1. Transnational Forcible Abduction
One sovereign may simply kidnap the
culprit seeking refuge in a foreign land,
343
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
an action that is invariable against the
law of the foreign jurisdiction.
2. Informal Surrender/Disguised
Extradition
Deportation used to achieve extradition;
without process, the foreign jurisdiction
may simply grant permission or silently
accede lo the requesting State's demand
for the surrender of the fugitive or it may
affirmatively move to deport or expel him
or her.
3. Lures
Tricked by subterfuge or deception, the
fugitive may be lured from an extradition
retuge to the territory of the pursuing
State, international waters, or to another
country permitting extradition to the
pursuing State (SARMIENTO, supra at
115-116).
KER-FRISBIE DOCTRINE
Criminal defendants may be tried regardless
of whether their presence before the court
was secured from outside its territorial
jurisdiction by means other than pursuant to
a valid extradition (SARMIENTO, supra at
136).
ASYLUM
When a State allows an alien to enter and
remain in its territory even if his own State
objects. Aliens have no right of asylum; it is
merely the right of the State to grant it. The
concept is wider than refugee status in that
it can be granted when the person has no
fear of persecution (AUST, supra at 187).
Special types of Asylum:
1. Territorial
It is a protection which a State offers to an
individual within its territory or in another
relevant territory who seek such protection;
asylum provided by a State to individuals in
its territory (EPIL (2009), supra at 1-2); and
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
2. Exterritorial Diplomatic
It is a protection from prosecution is sought
within the persecuting State, with a
diplomatic mission of providing legal or at
least physical protection and not in the State
of Refuge; asylum in “extensions” of a State’s
territory - mainly in the premises of an
embassy or a legation, or in foreign public
ships (EPIL, supra at 2 & 24; SUAREZ, supra
at 1224).
I. International Human Rights Law (The
United Nations’ Universal Declaration
of Human Rights)
All human beings are born free and equal in
dignity and rights. They are endowed with
reason and conscience and should act
towards one another in a spirit of
brotherhood. (Art. 1, Universal Declaration of
Human Rights)
By its Constitution (Art. II, Sec. 3) the
Philippines “adopts the generally accepted
principles of international law as part of the
law of the Nation.” And in a resolution
entitled “Universal Declaration of Human
Rights” and approved by the General
Assembly of the United Nations of which the
Philippines is a member, at its plenary
meeting on December 10, 1948, the right to
life and liberty and all other fundamental
rights as applied to all human beings were
proclaimed. It was there resolved that “All
human beings are bom free and equal in
degree and rights”. (Bernas, SJ., Introduction
to Public International Law, 2009 edition, p.
61)
344
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
Entitlement
Everyone is entitled to a social and
international order in which the rights and
freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be
fully realized. (Art. 28, Universal Declaration
of Human Rights)
Duties of the People
Everyone has duties to the community in
which alone the free and full development of
his personality is possible.
In the exercise of his rights and freedoms,
everyone shall be subject only to such
limitations as are determined by law solely for
the purpose of securing due recognition and
respect for the rights and freedoms of others
and of meeting the just requirements of:
a. Morality,
b. Public order, and
c. The general welfare in a democratic
society.
Note: These rights and freedoms may in no
case be exercised contrary to the purposes
and principles of the United Nations. (Art. 29,
Universal Declaration of Human Rights)
Policy in Interpretation
Nothing in this Declaration may be
interpreted as implying for any State, group
or person any right to engage in any activity
or to perform any act aimed at the
destruction of any of the rights and freedoms
set forth. (Art. 30, Universal Declaration of
Human Rights)
J. International Humanitarian Law
(R.A. No. 9851)
INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW
(LAWS OF WAR; LAWS OF ARMED
CONFLICT)
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Purpose of Passage of RA 9851
RA 9851 mandates both the State and non-
State armed groups to observe international
humanitarian law standards and gives the
victims of war-crimes, genocide, and crimes
against humanity legal recourse.
The body of international rules, established
by treaties or custom, which are specifically
intended to solve humanitarian problems
directly arising from international or non-
international armed conflicts and which, for
humanitarian reasons, limit the right of
parties to a conflict to use the methods and
means of warfare of their choice or protect
persons and property that are, or may be,
affected by conflict (International Committee
of the Red Cross, Advisory Service on
International Humanitarian Law).
1. War Crimes, Genocide, and Other
Crimes against Humanity – Sections
4-6
WAR CRIMES - or “crimes against
International Humanitarian Law” means:
(a) International armed conflict, grave
breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12
August 1949, namely, any of the following
acts against persons or property protected
under the provisions of the relevant Geneva
Convention:
(1) Willful killing;
(2) Torture or inhuman treatment,
including biological experiments;
(3) Willfully causing great suffering, or
serious injury to body or health;
(4) Extensive destruction and
appropriation of property not justified by
military necessity and carried out
unlawfully and wantonly;
(5) Willfully depriving a prisoner of war
or other protected person of the rights
of fair and regular trial;
345
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
(6) Arbitrary deportation or forcible
transfer of population or unlawful
confinement;
(7) Taking of hostages;
(8) Compelling a prisoner of war or other
protected person to serve in the forces
of a hostile power; and
(9) Unjustifiable delay in the repatriation
of prisoners of war or other protected
persons.
(b) Non-international armed conflict, serious
violations of common Article 3 to the four
Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949,
namely, any of the following acts committed
against persons taking no active part in the
hostilities, including members of the armed
forces who have laid down their arms and
those placed hors de combat by sickness,
wounds, detention or any other cause:
(1) Violence to life and person, in
particular, willful killings, mutilation,
cruel treatment and torture;
(2) Committing outrages upon personal
dignity, in particular, humiliating and
degrading treatment;
(3) Taking of hostages; and
(4) The passing of sentences and the
carrying out of executions without
previous judgment pronounced by a
regularly constituted court, affording all
judicial guarantees which are generally
recognized as indispensable.
(c) Other serious violations of the laws and
customs applicable in armed conflict, within
the established framework of international
law.
Any person found guilty of committing any of
the acts specified herein shall suffer the
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
penalty provided under Section 7 of this Act.
(Sec. 4, Chapter III, Republic Act No. 9851)
GENOCIDE
(a) It means any of the following acts with
intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a
national, ethnic, racial, religious, social or any
other similar stable and permanent group as
such:
(1) Killing members of the group;
(2) Causing serious bodily or mental
harm to members of the group;
(3) Deliberately inflicting on the group
conditions of life calculated to bring
about its physical destruction in whole
or in part;
(4) Imposing measures intended to
prevent births within the group; and
(5) Forcibly transferring children of the
group to another group.
(b) It shall be unlawful for any person to
directly and publicly incite others to commit
genocide.
Any person found guilty of committing any of
the acts specified in paragraphs (a) and (b)
of this section shall suffer the penalty
provided under Section 7 of this Act. (Sec. 5,
Chapter III, Republic Act No. 9851)
OTHER CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY
It means any of the following acts when
committed as part of a widespread or
systematic attack directed against any civilian
population, with knowledge of the attack:
(a) Willful killing;
(b) Extermination;
346
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW
(c) Enslavement;
(d) Arbitrary deportation or forcible transfer
of population;
(e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation
of physical liberty in violation of fundamental
rules of international law;
(f) Torture;
(g) Rape, sexual slavery, enforced
prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced
sterilization, or any other form of sexual
violence of comparable gravity;
(h) Persecution against any identifiable group
or collectivity on political, racial, national,
ethnic, cultural, religious, gender, sexual
orientation or other grounds that are
universally recognized as impermissible
under international law, in connection with
any act referred to in this paragraph or any
crime defined in this Act;
(i) Enforced or involuntary disappearance of
persons;
(j) Apartheid; and
(k) Other inhumane acts of a similar
character intentionally causing great
suffering, or serious injury to body or to
mental or physical health.
Any person found guilty of committing any of
the acts specified herein shall suffer the
penalty provided under Section 7 of this Act.
(Sec. 6, Chapter III, Republic Act No. 9851)
2. Jurisdiction and Double Jeopardy –
Section 17
The State shall exercise jurisdiction over
persons, whether military or civilian,
suspected or accused of a crime defined and
penalized in this Act, regardless of where the
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
crime is committed, provided, any one of the
following conditions is met:
a. The accused is a Filipino citizen;
b. The accused, regardless of citizenship or
residence, is present in the Philippines; or
c. The accused has committed the said
crime against a Filipino citizen. (Sec. 17,
Chapter III, Republic Act No. 9851)
Dispense with the Investigation or
Prosecution
The relevant Philippine authorities may
dispense with the investigation or
prosecution of a crime punishable under this
Act if another court or international tribunal
is already conducting the investigation or
undertaking the prosecution of such crime.
(Ibid.)
Note: Instead, the authorities may surrender
or extradite suspected or accused persons in
the Philippines to the appropriate
international court, if any, or to another State
pursuant to the applicable extradition laws
and treaties.
No criminal proceedings shall be initiated
against foreign nationals suspected or
accused of having committed the crimes
defined and penalized in this Act if they have
been tried by a competent court outside the
Philippines in respect of the same offense
and acquitted, or having been convicted,
already served their sentence. (Sec. 17,
Chapter III, Republic Act No. 9851)
3. Irrelevance of Official Capacity –
Section 9
This Act shall apply equally to all persons
without any distinction based on official
capacity. In particular, official capacity as a
head of state or government, a member of a
government or parliament, an elected
347
 PURPLE NOTES 2024 – POLITICAL LAW

representative or a government official shall
in no case exempt a person from criminal
responsibility under this Act, nor shall it, in
and of itself, constitute a ground for
reduction of sentence.
Grounds for exemption
a. Immunities or special procedural rules
that may be attached to the official
capacity of a person under Philippine law
other than the established constitutional
immunity from suit of the Philippine
President during his/her tenure, shall not
bar the court from exercising its
jurisdiction over such a person; and
(b) That superior failed to take all necessary
and reasonable measures within his/her
power to prevent or repress their commission
or to submit the matter to the competent
authorities for investigation and prosecution.
(Sec. 10, Chapter III, Republic Act No. 9851)
5. Nonprescription – Section 11
The crimes defined and penalized under this
Act, their prosecution, and the execution of
sentences imposed on their account, shall not
be subject to any prescription. (Sec. 11,
Chapter III, Republic Act No. 9851)

b. Immunities that may be attached to the

official capacity of a person under
international law may limit the application
of this Act, but only within the bounds
established under international law. (Sec.
9, Chapter III, Republic Act No. 9851)

4. Responsibility of Superiors –
Section 10
In addition to other grounds of criminal
responsibility for crimes defined and
penalized under this Act, a superior shall be
criminally responsible as a principal for such
crimes committed by subordinates under
his/her effective command and control, or
effective authority and control as the case
may be, as a result of his/her failure to
properly exercise control over such
subordinates.

Instances Where the Superior is

Principally Liable for the Crimes
Committed by the Subordinate

(a) That superior either knew or, owing to the

circumstances at the time, should have
known that the subordinates were
committing or about to commit such crimes;

AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION 348