Legal Research Reviewer

SERENO’s QUO WARRANTO

1. Quo Warranto VS Impeachment Proceeding
- An account for quo warranto tests the right of a person to occupy a public position. It is a direct proceeding
assailing the title to a public office. The issue to be resolved by the Court is WON the defendant is legally
occupying a public position which goes into the question of whether the defendant was legally appointed, legally
qualified, and has completed legal title to the office.
- An action of impeachment concerns those that make the officer unfit to continue exercising his or her office to
hold the position to begin it. It is political in nature and may result to outster of the impeachable public official. An
impeachment proceeding is a process instigated by the government of some branch thereof, against a person
who has somehow harmed the government of the community.

In Sereno’s case, Quo warranto is an available remedy because what is being sought is to question the validity of her
appointment. OSG maintains that the phrase “may be removed from office” is Sec 2 article 8 of constitution means that
the members of the SC may be removed through modes other than impeachment.

2. Forum Shopping
- It is the act of a litigant who repetitively availed of several judicial remedies in different courts, simultaneously or
successively, all substantially founded on the same transactions and the same essential facts and circumstances,
and all raising substantially the same issues, either pending in or already resolved by some other courts in order
to increase his chances of obtaining a favorable decision if not in one court, then in another.
- The elements of forum shopping are:
o Identity of parties between
o Identity of rights or causes of action
o Identity of the reliefs sought.

In Sereno’s case, the controversy in this quo warranto proceedings is the determination of WON Sereno legally
holds the CJ position to be considered as an impeachable officer in the first place. While, in the impeachment
case is for Sereno’s prosecution for certain impeachable offenses. Therefore, there exist differences in the cause
of action.
Furthermore, Sereno’s quo warranto proceeding shall be adjudged to cease form holding a public office, which
she is ineligible to hold. While the impeachment proceeding would result into the removal of Sereno from the
public office that he is legally holding. It is not legally possible to impeach or remove a person from and office that
she, in the first place, does not and cannot legally hold or occupy. Therefore, the identity of the reliefs sought are
also different.
There can be no forum shopping because the impeachment proceeding is not the impeachment case proper,
rather, it is only the determination of a probable cause.

In De lima’s Case, there exist a forum shopping because in both cases filed by her, she advances the RTC’s
supposed lack of jurisdiction over the offense, the alleged multiplicity of offenses included in the information, the
purpoted lack of corpus delicti of the charge, and the non-existence of probable cause to indict her. The defense
of De lima are mere reiterations of the ground in the same motion to quash and even the reliefs prayed for are
essentially the same.

3. Several ways to commit forum shopping

- Ground for dismissal is litis pendentia:
o Filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and with same prayer, the previous case is not
resolved yet.
- Ground for dismissal is res judicata:
o Filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action, with same prayer, but the previous case has
been judicially resolved.
- Ground for dismissal is either litis pendentia or res judicata:
o Filing of multiple cases based on the same cause of action but with different prayers. Splitting causes of
action.

4. Requisites of Litis pendentia

- Identity of the parties
 - Identity of the rights asserted and reliefs prayed for
- Identity with respect to the 2 proceeding particulars in the two cases.

5. Requisites of Res Judicata

Since case are not supposed to be ad infinitum, once the case is already decided, it is final.
The cases are final if there is no motion for reconsideration/appeal if the case is already decided by the SC being
the court of last resort.
- The former judgment is already final
- It is rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties
- It is a judgment or an order on the merits
- There is the first and second actions- identity of parties, of subject matter, and of causes of action.

6. Jurisdiction
- It is the power to take cognizance to a certain controversy.

In Sereno’s Case, the Court’s exercise of its jurisdiction over the quo petition is not violative of the doctrine of separation
of powers. It does not preclude the Congress from enforcing its own prerogative of determining probable cause for
impeachment. It will not preclude the Senate from exercising its constitutionally committed power of impeachment.

In De Lima’s case, no other trial court was mentioned in RA 9165 as having the authority to take cognizance of drug
related case except for the Regional Trial Court. The Sandiganbayan will remain to be the anti-graft court because it
would be unwise and reckless to allow a tribunal uninstructed and inexperienced with the intricacies of drug cases to hear
and decide violations of RA 9165 solely on account of the pay scale of the accused.

7. Prescription
- The loss or forfeiture of the right to prosecute an offender who violated laws of the land.

In Sereno’s case, the Court has ruled that the 1-year prescriptive period has been applied in cases where private
individuals asserts their right to office, unlike in this case where no private individual claims the title of the Chief Justice.
Instead, it is the government itself which commenced the present action for quo warranto and puts the qualification of the
person holding the highest position in the judiciary. Generally, for the prescription to lie, the reckoning point would only be
upon the discovery of the offended party or the authorities. Nevertheless, there is no limitation or prescription of action in
an action for quo warranto in Sereno’s case. Prescription could not be plead as a defense to an action by the
Government.

8. Judicial power Application

- It is vested in the SC and in such lower courts as may be established by law.

It includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and
enforceable and to determine WON there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government. It comes with the power of judicial review.

REQUISITES for Judicial review

a. Actual or appropriate case and controversy exist
b. A personal and substantial interest of the party raising the constitutional question
c. The exercise of judicial review must be placed at the earliest opportunity
d. The constitutional question must be raised as the very lis mota of the case.

Doctrine of Judicial Supremacy

- It pertains to the power of judicial review by the Judiciary, in which the court has the power to annul the acts of
the legislative and executive department of found not to be in conformity to the fundamental law. This does not
mean, however, that the Judiciary is supreme to the other branches of the government. The judiciary, when
applying this doctrine only asserts its solemn obligation vested by the constitution, that is, to uphold the
fundamental law of the land
 9. Judicial Restraint
- A clear renunciation of judicial duty. However, Its exercise over justiciable issues is not an option before this
Court.
- Adjudication may not be declined because this Court is not legally disqualified. Jurisdiction cannot be renounced
as there is no other tribunal to which the controversy may be referred.

SHOW CAUSE RESOLUTION SERENO

10. Principle of Sub Judice
- the sub judice rule restricts comments and disclosures pertaining to pending judicial proceedings otherwise, the
commentator may be liable for contempt.
- They may comment or disclose the status of the case under review but not with themerits of the case.
- The restriction applies not only to participants in the pending case, i.e., to members of the bar and bench, and to
litigants and witnesses, but also to the public in general
- The principal purpose of the sub judice rule is to preserve the impartiality of the judicial system by protecting it
from undue influence

11. Defenses of Sereno

- According to Sereno, she should not be judged as a lawyer but as a party litigant.
o However, SC said that the fact that Sereno was not the judge nor the counsel but a litigant in the subject
of the case foes not strip her off her membership in the Bar, as well as her being the member and the
head of the Supreme Court. Being a litigant does not mean that she was free to conduct herself in less
honorable manner than that expected of a lawyer or a judge.
o As a former CJ, she was supposed to be the epitome of righteousness since it is the tendency of the
public to generalize, reliance of the public on the impartiality of the judiciary, then the public will take the
law in their own hands.
- According to Sereno, the public statements attributed to her did not create a serious and imminent threat to the
administration of justice.
o the SC differentiated indirect contempt versus the principle of sub judice.
o The SC held that Sereno may be correct in arguing that there must be a clear and present danger to the
admin of justice for statements covered by sub judice rule to be considered punishable under the rules of
contempt HOWEVER, this case is not a contempt proceeding.
 This is an administrative matter thus, a lawyer speech is subject to greater regulation because a
lawyer’s relationship to the judicial process, and the significant danger that a lawyer’s speech
poses to the trial process. Hence, It is the Sub Judice rule applies in this matter.
- According to Sereno, she the series of onslaught on her integrity in public justifies her act of speaking in public.
o The SC said that the statement from the OSG were never made to challenge theSC’s authority or
undermined its ability to pass judgment with impartiality. Those statements had nothing to do with
assailing the capacity of the SC to render justice according to law, which is what Sereno has been doing.
o That the lawyers, as members of the court, must never behave in such a way that would diminish the
sanctity of and dignity of the court even when confronted with rudeness and insolence.
- According to Sereno, she was denied of due process
o The SC said that Sereno has been given several opportunities to explain her side. Congress invited her to
shed light on accusations against her but she never heeded the invitation. SC gave her opportunity to
comment on the petition of the quo warranto case. They also gave Sereno Special hearing for her
requested oral argument. However, Sereno gave statements through media when in fact, she should
have seeked for the proper forum since it is the Court to decide her case and not the media.

DE LIMA VS GUERRERO et al.

12. Doctrine of Hierarchy of Courts

- An established policy that parties must observe hierarchy of courts before they can seek relied directly from the
Supreme Court.
- According to this doctrine, the SC is the court of final resort. It cannot and should not be burdened with tasks of
deciding cases in the first instance.
- This is an ordained sequence of recourse to courts vested with concurrent jurisdiction. This sequence begins
from the first level, consisting of Municipal Trial Court, Metropolitan Trial Court, and Municipal Circuit Trial Court;
second level, consisting of the Regional Trial Court; third level, consisting of the Court of Appeals and the two
collegiate courts which are Sandiganbayan and Court of Tax Appeals; up to the fourth level, the Supreme Court.
In De Lima’s case, the doctrine requires respect for the hierarchy of courts was created by this court to ensure that every
level of the judiciary performs its designated roles in an effective and efficient manner.
The trial courts are territorially organized within their boundaries to perform their tasks in inferring the facts from
the evidence as these are physically presented before them.
The CA is collegiate in nature which ensures more standpoits in the review of the actions in the trial court.
The SC leads the judiciary by breaking new ground or further reiterating existing precedents. The SC
promulgates doctrinal devices in order that it truly performs that role.

XPN to the Doctrine of Hierarchy of Courts: (direct resort to SC were allowed)

1. When genuine issues of constitutionality are raised that must be addressed immediately
2. When the case involves trancedental importance
3. When the case is novel
4. When the constitutional issues raised are better decided by the SC
5. When the time is of essence
6. When the subject of review involves acts of constitutional organ
7. When there is no other plain, speedy, adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law
8. When the petition includes question that may affect public welfare, public policy, or demanded by the broader
interest of justice
9. When the order complained of was a patent nullity
10. When the appeal was considered as an inappropriate remedy.

De lima’s case is not among these exceptions. She is not even the first public official accused for violating RA 9165 nor
the first defendant to question the probable cause of the case. Being a senator of the republic does not merit also for the
right to equal treatment of the law must be upheld

13. Premature proceeding

- This is outside the ambit of orderly and expeditious rules of procedure which may render instant dismissal of a
case
- In De lima’s case, the SC held that the case is premature since the motion to quash is still pending while De lima
is seeking for a review for such decision.
- So if the court ruled in favor of De Lima’s motion to quash, that will pre-empt the respondent judge from doing her
duty to resolve the said motion and even prejudge the case.

14. Actions for Motion to Quash

- To order the amendment of the information
- Sustain the Motion to Quash
- Deny the Motion to Quash.

15. Probable Cause

- Probable cause is the existence of such facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonably discreet and
prudent person to believe that an offense has been committed by the person sought to be arrested.
- The judge merely determines the probability, not the certainty, of guilt of the accused and in doing so, he simple
personally reviews the prosecutor’s initial determination finding probable cause to see if it is supported by
substantial evidence.

The respondent judge in De Lima’s case did not abuse her discretion in Finding the probable cause to order De Lima’s
arrest before resolving the motion to quash.
o The SC said that it I just in conformity with the Rules of Court considering that a Motion to Quash may be
filed and resolved at any time, before the accused enter her plea, by a trial court judge; while probable
cause must be determined within a limited period of 10 days.

KNIGHTS OF RIZAL VS DMCI HOMES

16. Doctrine of unclean hands

- One who seeks equity and justice must come to court with clean hands
 - This signifies that a litigant may be denied relief by a court of equity on the ground that his conduct has been
inequitable, unfair and dishonest, fraudulent, or deceitful as the controversy in issue.

In Knight’s Case, The KOR, having proposed earlier a national theatre that would have dwarfed Rizal monument comes to
this Court with unclean hands. On this ground, the Court can immediately dismiss KOR’s petition.

17. NUISANCE
- any act, omission, establishment, business, condition of property, or anything else which
o Injures or endangers the health and safety of others
o Annoys or offends the senses
o Shocks, defies, or disregards decency or morality
o Obstructs or interferes with the passage of any public highway or street, or any body of water
o Hinders or impairs the use of property.

NUISANCE PER SE
Nuisance under any and all circumstances because it constitutes direct meance to the public health or safety
NUISANCE PER ACCIDENS
Nuisance which depends upon the conditions and circumstances and its existence being a question of fact,
cannot be abated without due hearing in a tribunal authorized to decide whether such a thing in law constitutes a nuisance.

LAGMAN VS EXEC SEC

18. Locus Standi
- It is also known as legal standing. It means that the party must have a personal and substantial interest raised
before the court.
- It means that he is a real party in interest. He is the party that have sustained or will sustain an impending injury if
such petition will not be resolved by the courts. He is the one benefitted or injured by the judgement or one that is
entitled to the avails of the suit.
- The court uses direct injury test in order to determine WON one has locus standi.

In Lagman’s case, the locus standi of the petitioners is in their capacity as the citizen of the Philippines.

In David VS Arroyo, locus standi was defined as a right of appearance in a court of justice on a given question. In a
private suits, every action must be prosecuted of defended in the name of the real party in interest, the party who stands
to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. The difficulty of
determining locus standi arises in public suits where the one who asserts a public right does so as a representative of a
general public. He has to adequately show that he is entitled to seek judicial protection. In other words, he has to make
out a sufficient interest in the vindication of the public order and the securing of relief as a citizen or as a tax payer.

19. Doctrine of Political Question

-This is the limitation to the power of judicial review by the SC by virtue of the doctrine of separation of powers unless
there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
-This doctrine is defined as questionwhich are to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity with regard to which
full discretionary authority has been delegated to the political branches of the government.

Political Questions are questions which under the Constitution are to be decided by the people in their sovereign
capacity. It concerns with the issues having wisdom as the basis and not just legal particularity of measure. The
cognizance of Political questions is delegated to the Executive and Legislative department.

In Lagman’s Case, the matter on determining the declaration of Martial law or the suspension of the writ of HC is
not a political question but precisely within the ambit of judicial review.

IN Ocampo’s case, the SC agrees with the OSG that Duterte’s decision to have the remains of Marcos interred at
the LNMB involves a political question that is not a justiciable controversy.
 20. Judicial review VS Congressional Power
- Under Judicial power to review, the SC may strike down the presidential proclamation in an appropriate
proceeding filed by ANY CITIZEN due to lack of sufficient basis. It is a passive act which is initiated only by
appropriate proceeding. It considers only the information and data available to the president prior to or at the time
of the declaration of martial law. It does not look into the absolute correctness of the factual basis

- Under the congressional power, the congress may revoke the proclamation or suspension which revocation shall
not be set aside by the president. This power is automatically done after such declaration or suspension was
made. The congress may take into consideration not only the data available prior to but also the events
supervening the declaration, taking into consideration the correctness of the facts.

21. Graduation of powers

- Refers to hierarchy based on scope and effect; it does not refer to the sequence, order, or arrangement by which
the commander-in-chief must adhere to. This does not dictate or restrict the manner by which the President
decide which powers to choose.

22. Void for vagueness doctrine

- A statute or act may be said to be vague when it lacks comprehensible standards that men of common
intelligence must necessarily guess as its meaning and differ as to its application.
- It only applies to free-speech cases. They are not appropriate for testing the validity of penal statutes.

In Lagman’s case, the term “other rebel groups” is not vague when viewed in the context of the words which accompanied
it. The text in PD 216 is found in Proclamation 55, which it cited by way of reference in its Whereas clause.

a. It is repugnant to the Constitution if:

i. It violates due process for failure to accord persons, especially parties targeted by it, fair notice of
conduct to avoid
ii. It leaves the law enforcers unbridled discretion in carrying out its provision and becomes and
arbitrary flexing of the Government muscle.

23. Doctrine of Operative fact

- Recognizes legal effects of an act or statute prior to its declaration of unconstitutionality, The reason is based
on equity and fair play. It is an exception to the rule that unconstitutional law confers no rights and imposes no
duties.

24. Doctrine of independent relevant statement

- It is an exemption to the hearsay rule.
- It applies to cases where only the fact that such statements were made is relevant and the truth or falsity thereof
is immaterial.

The so-called counter evidence of the petitioners in Lagman’s case were derived solely from unverified news articles on
the internet with neither the authors nor the sources shown to have affirmed the contents thereof. SC said, these are
hearsay.

25. MAXIM: falsus in uno falsus in omnibus

- As long as there are other facts in the proclamation and the written report showing the presence of an actual
invasion or rebellion and that public safety requires it, the finding of sufficiency of factual basis stands.

David VS Arroyo

26. Moot and Academic Principle

- Means that a case ceased to present on actual case or controversy by virtue of supervening events. Thus,
judgment on the case would have no practical value. However, it is not a magic formula to deprive the cours of
the power of judicial review since it is subject to exceptions. Two of which is a grave violation of the constitution
and the other is capable of repetition yet evading review.
 According to the SC, the case of David vs Arroyo is not moot and academic. The Court laid down several
exceptions where they will decide cases where these exceptions justified the SC’s assumption of jurisdiction over
David’s petition. The following are:
1. There is a grave violation of the Constitution
2. The exceptional character of the situation and the paramount public interest is involved
3. When constitutional issue raised requires formulation fo controlling principles to guide the bench, the
bar, and the public
4. If the case is capable of repetition yet evading review.

27. Overbreadth Doctine

- Refers to the facial invalidity of laws but it is applicable only to free speech cases as it was applied on American
jurisprudence. Moreover, to declare he law unconstitutional under this doctrine, one must prove that the law is
invalid in all cases.

In David VS Arroyo, the 7 consolidated cases are not primarily “freedom of speech” cases. Also, the plain reading
of PP 1017 shows that is not primarily directed to speech or even speech-related conduct. It is actually a call
upon the AFP to prevent or suppress all forms of lawless violence. PP1017 pertains to a spectrum of conduct, not
free speech, which is manifestly subject to state regulation.

Saturnino Ocampo VS Enriquez et al.

28. Reason of SC for allowing the burial of former president Marcos in LNMB
a. It invoked the political question doctrine asserting that it is a question of policy. Pres. Duterte deemed in
wise to take such course of action to promote national healing and reconciliation . The SC cannot
question the wisdom of a particular measure because it would violate the principle of separation of
powers. Moreover, there was no grave abuse of discretion amounting the lack or excess of jurisdiction on
the part of the president for allowing such act.
b. The petitioners violated the doctrine of administrative remedies. They should have given the secretary of
national defense a chance to correct his/her error first.
c. The burial did not violate those sections from the constitution invoked by the petitioners since they fall
under the Declaration of State policies which are not self-executing. They are guides for judicial
interpretation and enactment of laws but nevertheless, it still needs enabling laws.
d. The burial did not violate PD 829 for the National Pantheon contemplated under the said act and the
LNMB are separate and distinct from each other. Even if it is applicable, it would be contrary to public
policy and every remains in the LNMB will be put into question. Furthermore, Marcos’ burial did not vest
him the title of a ‘hero’
e. The burial did not violate RA 10368 which provides compensation for Human Rights Violations during
Martial law. There is nothing in the said law that prohibits his burial. It would be unjust to extend the law
to what it contemplates.
f. Duterte is not bound by the agreement between former president Fidel Ramos and Marcos’ family. The
power of control of the president is self-executing. He can amend, rescind, or revoke the agreements of
his predecessors.
g. Marcos possesses all the qualifications and non of the disqualifications under the following regulations in
the said case. As to his qualifications, he was a former president, Medal of Valor awardee, secretary of
National defense, and a Veteran. He was also not convicted by final judgment of a crime involving moral
turpitude. The cases cited by petitioners were civil in nature. Also, the Court cannot give any legal
meaning to the EDSA people power revolution other than its purpose to oust the president Marcos.
29. Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative remedies
- one must exhaust all the administrative processes before resorting to the court’s power of judicial review. The
department heads concerned must be given a chance to correct themselves first.

Enrile VS Sandiganbayan.
30. Since the admission to bail in offenses punished by death or life imprisonment, or reclusion perpetua is subject to
judicial discretion, the petition by Juan Ponce Enrile was granted because of humanitarian reasons.
a. The SC ruled that since the Philippines is a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
granting Enrile the right to bail would uphold the principle of the UDHR.
b. The SC also took credence of Enrile’s frail health in giving him the right to bail, relying on the testimony of
his doctor stating that Enrile is not fit to be placed behind bars.
 c. The SC also invoked the track record of Enrile and his respect for the justice system. Asserting that the
main purpose of preventive imprisonment is to secure the attendance or participation of the accused in
the proceedings or the trial. Therefore, due to Enrile’s respect for the justice system, as evidenced by his
records, the SC deemed it likely that he will not jump bail

Morales VS Binay
31. Preventive Suspension
- Not a penalty but a preventive measure during the pendency of an administrative proceeding in order to:
a. prevent the respondent from possibly influencing the witnesses that may be used to testify against him
b. tamper with the documents that would serve to prove his charge.

32. Condonation doctrine

- applies only to administrative cases and not on criminal cases.
- It states that the penalty of removal may not be extended beyond the term in which the public officer was
elected for each term is separate and distinct; an elective official's re-election serves as a condonation of
previous misconduct, thereby cutting the right to remove him therefor; and courts may not deprive the
electorate, who are assumed to have known the life and character of candidates, of their right to elect
officers.

Arroyo VS Sandiganbayan
33. Wheel or Circle Conspiracy
- There is wheel or circle conspiracy when the person or group of persons known as the hub deals individually with
another person or group of persons known as the spokes

34. Chain Conspiracy

- Is just like in an ordinary business transaction wherein there is a constant and consistent interaction among the
manufacturer and the wholesaler, wholesaler to the retailer, retailer to the consumer but this involve narcotics and
any other contraband.

35. Demurrer to Evidence

- an objection by one of the parties in an action, to the effect that the evidence which his adversary produced is
insufficient in point of law, whether true or not, to make out a case or sustain the issue. The party demurring
challenges the sufficiency of the whole evidence to sustain a verdict. The court then ascertains whether there is a
competent or sufficient evidence to sustain the indictment or to support a verdict of guilt.

In the case, the order denying the motion for leave of court to file demurrer to evidence or the demurrer itself shall not be
reviewable by appeal or by certiorari before judgment." It is not an insuperable obstacle to this action, however, that the
denial of the demurrers to evidence of the petitioners was an interlocutory order that did not terminate the proceedings,
and the proper recourse of the demurring accused was to go to trial, and that in case of their conviction they may then
appeal the conviction, and assign the denial as among the errors to be reviewed.

The petition filed by former president GMA assailing the decision of the SB was granted because I did not satisfy all the
elements of pluder. First, the act of signing “okay” by the former president is not an overt act to prove that she is a
conspirator in the plunder since it is deemed part of her essential duties as a president to sign them.
In plunder case, the SC held that conspiracy must be express and not merely implied. Also in plunder, there must also be
raid of public treasury. In the case of Arroyo, the funds were not misappropriated nor converted for personal gains or any
other purpose.

Senate VS Ermita
36. The SC stated that to invoke executive privilege, there must be an express, proper, and formal claim of privilege.
Thus, it must specify the reasons why the confidentiality of such information needs to be preserved. Lack of
specificity would give rise to abuse or it would frustrate the legislative power of the congress by depriving it of
such information and also the right of the people of information would be prejudiced.
The Department Secretary must only exercise it on behalf of the President since it is only the president who can
validly claim or invoke such executive privilege.

37. Doctrine of Executive Privilege

 - Premised on the fact that certain information must, as a matter of necessity, be kept confidential in pursuit of
the public interest.
- There are 3 varieties of the privilege.
o First is the State secrets privilege where the information is of such nature that its disclosure would subvert
crucial military or diplomatic objectives.
o Second is the informer’s privilege or the privilege of the Government not to disclose the identity of
persons who furnish information of violations of law to officers charged with the enforcement of that law.
o Lastly, a generic privilege for internal deliberations as been said to attach to intergovernmental
documents reflecting advisory opinions, recommendations, and deliberations comprising part of a process
by which governmental decisions and policies are formulated.
- In keeping with the separation of powers, states in which Congress may request the appearance of the
department heads when seeking information when inquiring how they are implementing the statutes which it has
issued.

The privilege is an exemption from the obligation to disclose information. In this case to
Congress, the necessity must be of such high degree as to outweigh the public interest in enforcing that
obligation in a particular case.

38. Question hour

- Found in Article VI Sec 22 of the 1987 constitution where the department heads may voluntarily, with the consent
of the president or by the request of either Houses of Congress, appear before such house for any matter
pertaining to their office. While written question must be submitted, the questions to be impounded on them will
not be limited to such.

39. Section 22(question hour) VS Section 21 (aid of legislation/power of inquiry)

- Sec 21 and 22 while closely related and complementary to each other, should not be considered as pertaining to
the same power of Congress.
- Question hour is pursuant to the oversight function of the Congress, more particularly, scrutiny. It is done in order
to know how the laws are enacted by them are implemented by the executive department. Attendance was
meant to be discretionary in the question hour.
- Under the Aid of legislation, appearance is compulsory in its inquiries . The executive department cannot
frustrate the power of legislation. One cannot expect the Congress to enact good laws if they can be deprived of
information necessary for legislation.
- The power of Congress to compel the appearance of executive officials under sec 21 and the lack of it under sec
22 find their basis in the principle of separation of powers. While the executive branch is a co-equal branch of the
legislature, it cannot frustrate the power of Congress to legislate by refusing to comply with its demand for
information.
- When the Congress exercises its power of inquiry, the only way for department heads to exempt themselves is by
a valid claim of privilege.
The reference to Commissioner Suarez bears noting, he being one of
the proponents of the amendment to make the appearance of department heads discretionary in the question
hour. Under this rule, even a Department Head who is an alter ego of the President may be summoned

National Artists VS executive secretary

-The president’s discretion in the conferment of the Order of National Artist should be exercised in accordance
with the duty to faithfully execute the relevant laws. The faithful execution clause is best construed as an obligation
imposed on the President, not a separate grant of power.

Imbong VS Ochoa
40. Doctrine of Benevolent Neutrality
- Means that the “wall of separation” is to protect the church from the State. It is applied by the Court when there is
a conflict between the free exercise clause and the interest of the State. The separation of the Church and the
state does not mean hostility towards religion. Thus, the state may allow religious practices or considerations in
certain cases.

41. Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction

-Holds that if a case is such that its determination requires expertise, specialized training, and knowledge of an
administrative body, relief must be obtained in an administrative proceedings before there is a resort to courts.
 42. Doctrine of Stare Decisis
-Stand by the precedents and do not disturb what has been settled.
-When the court has laid down a principle of law as applicable to a certain state of facts, it will adhere to that principle and
apply it to all future cases involving facts that are substantially the same.
-It is embodied in Article 8 of Civil Code that “Judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the constitution shall
form part of the legal system of the Philippines.”
-The courts follow this doctrine because of three reasons.
1. It legitimizes judicial institution
2. It promotes judicial economy
3. It allows certainty, predictability, and stability
Without these reasons, it would be hard for the people to trust the judicial system as courts will be prone to arbitrary
decisions.
-There are two kinds of Stare Decisis.
1. Vertical Stare Decisis
-It is an obligation of the lower court to apply the decision of the Supreme Court
2. Horizontal Stare Decisis.
-It is a policy for the higher court to adhere to its precedents.
-Horizontal Stare decisis has 2 kinds namely:
a. Constitutional Stare Decisis
-Judicial interpretation to the constitution. It is deemed flexible because of the changing condition.
b. Statutory Stare Decisis.
-Judicial interpretation of the statutes. It has lesser flexibility.

43. Sui Generis

- Literaly means “Of its own kind”
-In law, it may pertain to entities or transactions of a different nature.
-Insofar as preceedings are concerned, the Show Cause resolution is a preceeding sui generis for it has no complainant.
It is done by the court on its initiatives. An administrative proceedings of disciplining lawyers is neither criminal or civil
case. It does not need a full blown trial but more of an investigation of the court as to the conduct of lawyers involved in
the said proceedings.

44. Doctrine of Separation of Powers

-Imposes upon the courts a proper restraint born of the nature of their function and their respect for the other departments.
-According to this doctrine, a branch of the government must not encroach upon the powers of roles of the respective
departments as a respect to a co-equal branches of the government. Moreover, it is necessary to avoid concentration of
powers.
-Under this doctrine, the executive power of the power to enforce the law is vested in the President; the legislative power,
or the power to make laws as well as to alter or repeal them, is vested in the Congress; and the judiciary power, or the
power to interpret laws, is vested in the Supreme Court and othe lower courts established by law.

45. Doctrine of qualified political agency

- The president cannot possibly perform all the function of a Chief Executive, hence, the executive and administrative
organizations are adjuncts of the executive department and that the multifarious functions of the chief executive are
performed by and through the executive department. Therefore, the acts of the cabinet secretaries performed and
promulgated during the regular course of business, unless reprobated or disapproved by the President are acts of the
Chief Executive.

46. Doctrine of Strained Relations

-It appears that relations between the petitioner and the complainants have been so strained that the complainants are no
longer willing to be reinstated. As such reinstatement would only exacerbate the animosities that have developed between
the parties, the public respondents were correct in ordering instead the grant of separation pay to the dismissed
employees in the interest of industrial peace.
 47. Maria Clara Doctrine
- A belief that Filipino women would not admit that they have been abused sexually unless that abuse actually happened.
-A rape victim would not publicly disclose that she had been raped and undergo trouble and humiliation of trial.
Elements of Rape
A. Force and Intimidation
B. Woman is deprived of reason
C. Under 12 years of age (for statutory rape)
Possible Defenses of Rape
A. Consent – negated in statutory rape
B. Alibi- negated if not physically impossible

48. Sweetheart Theory

- Usually applied by an accused in a rape case for his defense. He says that he and the victim had a romantic
relationship and thus consented the sexual intercourse.

49. Suspension
-it is not the same with preventive suspension.
-This is a penalty or the final sanction imposed to a respondent in an administrative proceeding which is given through a
court order or a resolution.