Constitutional Law Reviewer END Law Note PDF

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEWER
By: Ernesto N. Dayao, Jr. END Law Notes
INTRODUCTION – CONSTITUTIONAL
LAW Who can propose revisions to the
Constitution?
Definition of Constitution
Revision2 to the Constitution may be
By Justice Cooley (BAR EXAM): proposed by:
Constitution is a body of rules and maxims 1. Congress by exercising its

in accordance with which the powers of constituent powers; and
sovereignty are habitually exercised.
- 3/4 votes of all its members
By Justice Malcolm: (House of Representatives and
Senate).
That written instrument enacted by the
direct action of the people by which the 2. Constitutional Convention.
fundamental powers of the government are
established, limited and defined, and by - 2/3 vote of all the members of
which those powers are distributed among Congress (House of
the several departments for their safe and Representatives and Senate) or
useful exercise for the benefit of the body to be resolved by the people in
politic. a plebiscite.
Changing the Constitution Who can propose amendments to the

Constitution? (BAR EXAM)
The Constitution may be changed thru the
following methods: Amendment to the Constitution may be
proposed by:
1. Amendment; or
2. Revision 1. Congress by exercising its
constituent powers;3
Distinguish Amendment from Revision
- 3/4 votes of all its members
Revision broadly implies a change that (House of Representatives and
alters a basic principle in the constitution, Senate).
like altering the principle of separation of
powers or the system of checks-and- 2. Constitutional Convention; and
balances. There is also revision if the
change alters the substantial entirety of the - 2/3 vote of all the members of
constitution, as when the change affects Congress (House of
substantial provisions of the constitution. Representatives and Senate) or
to be resolved by the people in
On the other hand, amendment broadly a plebiscite.4
refers to a change that adds, reduces, or
deletes without altering the basic principle 3. People’s initiative.5
involved.
- Petition made by at least 12% of
Revision generally affects several the total number of registered
provisions of the constitution, while voters of which every legislative
amendment generally affects only the district must be represented by
specific provision being amended.1
1Lambino v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 174153, 3 Ibid.

October 25, 2006 4 Ibid.
2 Sec. 1 of Art. XVII of the 1987 Philippine 5 Sec. 2 of Art. XVII of the 1987 Philippine
Constitution Constitution
Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for men.
(Colossians 3:23)
at least 3% of the registered

voters therein. How amendment should be made thru
people’s initiative?
Q & A (BAR EXAM)
These essential elements are present only
A priority thrust of the Administration is the if the full text of the proposed amendments
change of the form of government from is first shown to the people who express
unitary to federal. The change can be their assent by signing such complete
effected only through constitutional proposal in a petition. Thus, an amendment
amendment or revision. is "directly proposed by the people through
initiative upon a petition" only if the people
Cite at least three provisions of the sign on a petition that contains the full text
Constitution that need to be amended or of the proposed amendments.
revised to effect the change from unitary to
federal, and briefly explain why? The full text of the proposed amendments
may be either written on the face of the
Answer: petition, or attached to it. If so attached, the
petition must state the fact of such
➢ Article I – National Territory attachment. This is an assurance that
every one of the several millions of
Ratio: Due to the enumeration of signatories to the petition had seen the full
the different States of the Federal text of the proposed amendments before
Government. signing. Otherwise, it is physically
impossible, given the time constraint, to
➢ Sec. 2 Article VI – Composition of prove that every one of the millions of
the Senate. signatories had seen the full text of the
proposed amendments before signing.9
Ratio – New number of senators
which will be elected per state. Any amendment/revision, in order to be
valid, should be ratified by a majority
➢ Sec. 16 Article VI – Quorum votes cast in a plebiscite
Ratio – Revised number of Any amendment to, or revision of, the

Senators to constitute quorum.6 Constitution under Section 1 of Article XVII
(Amendment/Revision made by Con-Ass10
Limitations in exercising People’s & Con-Con11) shall be valid when ratified by
Initiative a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite
which shall be held not earlier than sixty
1. People's initiative to change the days nor later than ninety days after the
Constitution applies only to an approval of such amendment or revision.12
amendment of the Constitution and
not to its revision;7 and Any amendment under Section 2 of Article
XVII (Amendment made thru People’s
2. No amendment shall be authorized Initiative) shall be valid when ratified by a
within 5 years following the majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite
ratification of the constitution nor which shall be held not earlier than sixty
more often than once every 5 days nor later than ninety days after the
years.8
6http://senate.gov.ph/14th_congress/resolution 9Lambino v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 174153,

s/sjr-10.pdf October 25, 2006
7Lambino v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 174153, 10 Constitutional Assembly
October 25, 2006 11 Constitutional Convention

8 Sec. 2 of Art. XVII of the 1987 Philippine 12 Sec. 4 of Art. XVII of the 1987 Philippine
Constitution Constitution
(Colossians 3:23)
certification by the Commission on

Elections of the sufficiency of the petition.13
Hence, if not submitted to the people, such

amendment or revision will be considered
as void/invalid.
Differentiate plebiscite from referendum
"Plebiscite" is the electoral process by

which an initiative on the Constitution is
approved or rejected by the people.14
"Referendum" is the power of the

electorate (people) to approve or reject a
legislation through an election called for the
purpose. It may be of two classes, namely:
a. Referendum on statutes which

refers to a petition to approve or
reject an act or law, or part thereof,
passed by Congress; and
b. Referendum on local law which

refers to a petition to approve or
reject a law, resolution or ordinance
enacted by regional assemblies
and local legislative bodies.15
13 Ibid. 15 Sec. 3(c) of R.A. No. 6735

14 Sec. 3(e) of R.A. No. 6735
(Colossians 3:23)
INTERPRETING THE CONSTITUTION by the Constitution to determine conflicting

claims of authority under the Constitution
Role of the Judiciary as interpreter of and to establish for the parties in an actual
laws controversy the rights which that
instrument secures and guarantees to
The judicial power shall be vested in one them. This is in truth all that is involved in
Supreme Court and in such lower courts as what is termed "judicial supremacy" which
may be established by law. properly is the power of judicial review
under the Constitution. In cases of conflict,
Judicial power includes the duty of the the judicial department is the only
courts of justice to settle actual constitutional organ which can be called
controversies involving rights which are upon to determine the proper allocation of
legally demandable and enforceable, and powers between the several departments
to determine whether or not there has been and among the integral or constituent units
a grave abuse of discretion amounting to thereof. (Angara v. Electoral
lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of Commission)19
any branch or instrumentality of the
Government.16 What is the American type of
constitutional government?
All cases involving the constitutionality of a
treaty, international or executive The framers of our constitution adopted the
agreement, or law, which shall be heard by American type where the written
the Supreme Court en banc, and all other constitution is interpreted and given effect
cases which under the Rules of Court are by the judicial department. (Angara v.
required to be heard en banc, including Electoral Commission)20
those involving the constitutionality,
application, or operation of presidential Rules in Interpreting the Constitution:
decrees, proclamations, orders,
instructions, ordinances, and other 1. Verba Legis
regulations, shall be decided with the
concurrence of a majority of the Members Wherever possible, the words used
who actually took part in the deliberations in the Constitution must be given
on the issues in the case and voted their ordinary meaning except
thereon.17 where technical terms are
employed.
A law repugnant to the Constitution is void,
and that courts, as well as other The basic canon of statutory
departments, are bound by that instrument. interpretation is that the word used
(Murbury v. Madison)18 in the law must be given its ordinary
meaning, unless a contrary intent is
The Constitution itself has provided for the manifest from the law itself. (PCFI
instrumentality of the judiciary as the v. NTC)21
rational way. And when the judiciary
mediates to allocate constitutional 2. Ratio Legis Est Anima
boundaries, it does not assert any
superiority over the other departments; it The words of the Constitution
does not in reality nullify or invalidate an act should be interpreted in accordance
of the legislature, but only asserts the with the intent of its framers.
solemn and sacred obligation assigned to it
16 Sec. 1 of Art. VIII of the 1987 Philippine 19Angara v Electoral Commission, G.R. No. L-
Constitution 45081, July 15, 1936
17 Sec. 4(2) of Art. VIII of the 1987 Philippine 20 G.R. No. L-45081, July 15, 1936
Constitution 21 G.R. No. L-63318, August 18, 1984

18Murbury v. Madison, 5 US 137
(Colossians 3:23)
3. Ut Magis Valeat Quam Pereat

The following are some issues involving
The Constitution is to be interpreted political questions:
as a whole. The provision should
function to the full extent of its 1. Court refused to reverse a decision
substance and its terms, not by of the HRET, in the absence of a
itself alone, but in conjunction with showing that said tribunal had
all other provisions of that great committed grave abuse of
document. (Francisco v. HRET)22 discretion amounting to lack of
jurisdiction. (Co v. HRET)28
What is Judicial Review?
2. Reexamination of the enrolled bill
Judicial Review is the power of the courts doctrine and to look beyond the
to test the validity of the executive and certification of the Speaker of the
legislative acts in light of their conformity House of Representatives that the
with the Constitution. bill, which was later enacted as
Republic Act 8240, was properly
This is consistent with the provision of the approved by the legislative body.
Civil Code which provides: The Court, however, dismissed the
petition, because the matter
When the courts declared a law to be complained of concerned the
inconsistent with the Constitution, the internal procedures of the House,
former shall be void and the latter shall with which the Court had no
govern.23 concern. (Arroyo v. De Venecia)29
Who may exercise such power? 3. The manner of electing a Senate

President and a House Speaker.
1. Supreme Court;24 Apparently, Congress verily has the
2. Family Courts;25 power and prerogative to provide
3. Regional Trial Courts (RTC);26 and for such officers as it may deem.
4. Court of Tax Appeals.27 And it is certainly within its own
jurisdiction and discretion to
What is a Political Question? prescribe the parameters for the
exercise of this prerogative.
It refers to those questions which, under (Santiago v. Guingona)30
the Constitution, are to be decided by the
people in their sovereign capacity, or in The following issues, on the other hand,
regard to which full discretionary authority are not political in nature, hence, subject to
has been delegated to the legislative or judicial review:
executive branch of the government. It is
concerned with issues dependent upon the 1. Validity of the selection of members
wisdom, not legality, of a particular of the Senate Electoral Tribunal by
measure. Hence, political questions are, the senators was not a political
ordinarily, outside the pale of Judicial question. (Tanada v. Cuenco)31
Review.
22Francisco v House of Representatives, G.R. 26 Planters Products, Inc. v. Fertiphil

160261, Nov. 10, 2003 Corporation, G.R. No. 166006, March 14, 2008,
23Par. 2 Art. 7 of the New Civil Code citing Mirasol v. CA, 403 Phil. 760 (2001)
24 Sec. 4(2) of Article VIII of the 1987 Philippine 27 Banco De Oro v. Republic, G.R. No. 198756,
Constitution August 16, 2016

25 Garcia v. Drilon, G.R. No. 179267, June 25, 28 G.R. Nos. 92191-92, July 30, 1991
2013 29 G.R. No. 127255, August 14, 1997

30 G.R. No. 134577, November 18, 1998
31 G.R. No. L-10520, February 28, 1957
(Colossians 3:23)
2. The Court had authority to and

should inquire into the existence of The inquiry is limited to whether such
the factual bases required by the statutory grant violates the Constitution,
Constitution for the suspension of particularly whether Section 8(2) of RA No.
the privilege of the writ [of habeas 6770 violates the core constitutional
corpus]. (Lansang v. Garcia)32 principle of the independence of the Office
of the Ombudsman as expressed in
3. Acts of the leaders of both houses Section 5, Art. XI of the Constitution.
of Congress in apportioning among
political parties the seats to which To be sure, neither the Executive nor the
each chamber was entitled in the Legislative can create the power that
Commission on Appointments. This Section 8(2) of RA No. 6770 grants where
is justiciable since it involved the the Constitution confers none. When
legality, not the wisdom, of the exercised authority is drawn from a
manner of filling the Commission on vacuum, more so when the authority runs
Appointments as prescribed by counter to a core constitutional principle
[Section 18, Article VI of] the and constitutional intents, the Court is duty-
Constitution. (Court. Daza v. bound to intervene under the powers and
Singson,33 Coseteng v. Mitra Jr.34 duties granted and imposed on it by Article
and Guingona Jr. v. Gonzales)35 VIII of the Constitution.
4. Senates’ concurrence in the Rationale why the Courts should not

ratification of the World Trade Rule upon Issues Involving Political
Organization (WTO) Agreement. Questions
Where an action of the legislative
branch is seriously alleged to have It was held in the case of Javellana v.
infringed the Constitution, it Executive Secretary38 that one of the
becomes not only the right but in principal bases of the non-justiciability of
fact the duty of the judiciary to settle so-called political questions is the principle
the dispute. (Taada v. Angara)36 of separation of powers -- characteristic of
the presidential system of government --
Is the President’s administrative the functions of which are classified or
disciplinary jurisdiction over the Deputy divided, by reason of their nature, into three
Ombudsman a justiciable or political (3) categories, namely:
question?
1) Those involving the making of laws,
It is a justiciable question. The Court which are allocated to the
clarified in the case of Gonzales III v. Office legislative department;
of the President,37 that the issue of whether
a Deputy Ombudsman may be subjected to 2) Those concerning mainly with the
the administrative disciplinary jurisdiction of enforcement of such laws and of
the President (concurrently with that of the judicial decisions applying and/or
Ombudsman) is a justiciable – not a interpreting the same, which belong
political – question. A justiciable question is to the executive department; and
one which is inherently susceptible of being
decided on grounds recognized by law, as 3) Those dealing with the settlement
where the court finds that there are of disputes, controversies or
constitutionally-imposed limits on the conflicts involving rights, duties or
exercise of the powers conferred on a prerogatives that are legally
political branch of the government. demandable and enforceable,
32 G.R. No. L-33964, December 11, 1971 36 G.R. No. 118295, May 2, 1997
33 G.R. No. 86344, December 21, 1989 37 G.R. No. 196231, January 28, 2014
34 G.R. No. 86649, July 12, 1990 38 G.R. No. L-36142, March 31, 1973
35 G.R. No. 106971, October 20, 1992
(Colossians 3:23)
which are apportioned to courts of 1. There is an actual case or

justice. controversy;
Within its own sphere -- but only within such 2. Constitutional question must be
sphere each department is supreme and raised by the proper party;
independent of the others, and each is
devoid of authority not only to encroach 3. Constitutional question must be
upon the powers or field of action assigned raised at the earliest possible time;
to any of the other departments, but also to and
inquire into or pass upon the advisability or
wisdom of the acts performed, measures 4. Decision of the constitutional
taken or decisions made by the other question must be determinative of
departments -- provided that such acts, the case itself.39
measures or decision are within the area
allocated thereto by the Constitution. Determination of Actual Case or
Controversy
Accordingly, when the grant of power is
qualified, conditional or subject to An actual case or controversy involves a
limitations, the issue of whether or not the conflict of legal right, an opposite legal
prescribed qualifications or conditions have claims susceptible of judicial resolution. It
been met, or the limitations respected is is definite and concrete, touching the legal
justiciable or non-political, the crux of the relations of parties having adverse legal
problem being one of legality or validity of interest; a real and substantial controversy
the contested act, not its wisdom. admitting of specific relief. (David v.
Otherwise, said qualifications, conditions or Arroyo40)
limitations -- particularly those prescribed
by the Constitution -- would be set at Related to the requirement of an actual
naught. What is more, the judicial inquiry case of controversy is the requirement of
into such issue and the settlement thereof “ripeness,” and a question is ripe when the
are the main functions of the courts of act being challenged has a direct effect on
justice under the presidential form of the individual challenging it.
government adopted in our 1935
Constitution, and the system of checks and For a case to be considered ripe for
balances, one of its basic predicates. As a adjudication, it is a prerequisite that an act
consequence, we have neither the had been accomplished or performed must
authority nor the discretion to decline allege the existence of an immediate or
passing upon said issue, but are under the threatened injury to himself as a result of
ineluctable obligation -- made particularly the challenged action. (Belgica v. Ochoa41)
more exacting and peremptory by our oath,
as members of the highest Court of the It is settled that there is an actual case or
land, to support and defend the controversy that is ripe for adjudication for
Constitution -- to settle it. This explains the following:
why, in Miller v. Johnson [92 Ky. 589, 18
SW 522, 523], it was held that courts have 1. When the assailed laws (K to 12
a duty, rather than a power, to determine Law) and executive issuances
whether another branch of the government (CMO No. 20) have already taken
has kept within constitutional limits. effect and petitioners herein, who
are faculty members, students and
Requisites of Judicial Review parents, are individuals directly and
considerably affected by their
39Mariano v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 118577, 40 David v. Arroyo, G.R. No. 171396, May 3,
March 7, 1995 2006
41 G.R. No. 208566, November 19, 2013
(Colossians 3:23)
implementation (COTESCUP v. Arroyo, prior to the decision

Lumbera42). issued by the Supreme Court.
(Lacson v. Perez)47
2. When the RH Law and its
implementing rules had already - Following the results of that
taken effect and that budgetary elections, private respondent
measures to carry out the law had (Erap) was not elected
already been passed (Imbong v. President for the second time.
Ochoa43). Thus, any discussion of his
reelection will simply be
3. The questions in these hypothetical and speculative. It
consolidated cases are ripe for will serve no useful or practical
adjudication since the challenged purpose. (Pormento v.
funds and the provisions allowing Peralta)48
for their utilization – such as the
2013 GAA for the PDAF, PD 910 for 4. When the issue involves a “political
the Malampaya Funds and PD question” which is outside the ambit
1869, as amended by PD 1993, for of judicial review.
the Presidential Social Fund – are
currently existing and operational; In the case of Ocampo v.
hence, there exists an immediate or Enriquez,49 the Court agrees with
threatened injury to petitioners as a the OSG that President Duterte’s
result of the unconstitutional use of decision, in the exercise of his
these public funds (Belgica v. powers under the Constitution and
Ochoa44). the Executive Order No. 292
(otherwise known as the
On the other hand, there is no actual case Administrative Code of 1987), to
or controversy in the following scenarios: have the remains of Marcos
interred at the Libingan ng mga
1. The petition is premised on the Bayani (LNMB) involves a political
occurrence of many contingent question that is not a justiciable
events, i.e., that Mayor Binay will controversy.
run again in this coming mayoralty
elections; that he would be re- Instances where moot and academic
elected in said elections. (Mariano cases is still subject to judicial review
v. COMELEC)45
It was held that courts will still decide cases
2. Petition to prevent Congress from otherwise moot and academic if:
enacting into law a proposed bill. A
proposed bill is not subject to 1. There is a grave violation of the
judicial review because it is not a constitution;
law. (Montesclaros v. COMELEC)46
2. Exceptional character of the
3. Cases are already moot and situation and paramount public
academic. interest is involved;
- Proclamation No. 38 has 3. Constitutional issues raised require

already been lifted by President formulation of controlling principles
42 G.R. No. 216930, October 9, 2018 46 Montesclaros v. COMELEC, G.R. No.

43 G.R. No. 204819, April 8, 2014 152295, July 9, 2002
44 G.R. No. 208566, November 19, 2013 47 Lacson v. Perez, G.R. No. 147780, May 10,
45 Mariano v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 118577, 2001
March 7, 1995 48 G.R. No. 191988, August 31, 2010
49 G.R. No. 225973, November 8, 2016
(Colossians 3:23)
to guide the bench, the bar and the depends for illumination of difficult
public; constitutional questions. (IBP v. Zamora53)
4. Case is capable of repetition yet This Court adopted the "direct injury" test in
evasive of review; (DeFunis v. our jurisdiction. In People v. Vera, it held
Odegaard50) or that the person who impugns the validity of
a statute must have "a personal and
5. Moot case may still be decided substantial interest in the case such that he
provided that the party raising it in a has sustained, or will sustain direct injury
proper case has been and/or as a result."
continues to be prejudiced or
damaged as a direct result of its The Vera doctrine was upheld in a litany of
issuance. (David v. Arroyo51) cases, such as, Custodio v. President of
the Senate, Manila Race Horse Trainers'
Determination of Legal Standing Association v. De la Fuente, Pascual v.
Secretary of Public Works and Anti-
Judicial power is the power to hear and Chinese League of the Philippines v. Felix.
decide causes pending between parties
who have the right to sue in the courts of FACTS:
law and equity. Corollary to this provision is
the principle of locus standi of a party The Congress proposed a bill which will
litigant. One who is directly affected by and give health centers additional access to
whose interest is immediate and methods and medicines, of various kinds,
substantial in the controversy has the on contraception and fertility control.
standing to sue. The rule therefore requires
that a party must show a personal stake in The Catholic Church gave their opposition
the outcome of the case or an injury to regarding the bill and conducted a rally in
himself that can be redressed by a EDSA.
favorable decision so as to warrant an
invocation of the court's jurisdiction and to Due to the opposition of the Church, the
justify the exercise of the court's remedial Mayor of Manila ordered health centers to
powers in his behalf. (Kilusang Mayo Uno stop the distribution of contraceptives that
Labor Center v. Garcia52) is currently being given to citizens residing
within their jurisdiction.
Legal standing or locus standi has been
defined as a personal and substantial Due to these circumstances, Jon and Jona,
interest in the case such that the party has both residents of Manila, restrain
sustained or will sustain direct injury as a themselves in having sexual intercourse.
result of the governmental act that is being However, after 6 months, Jona got
challenged. The term interest means a pregnant.
material interest, an interest in issue
affected by the decree, as distinguished QUESTION:
from mere interest in the question involved,
or a mere incidental interest. The gist of the 1. Can the Catholic Church question
question of standing is whether a party the constitutionality of the bill?
alleges such personal stake in the outcome
of the controversy as to assure that 2. Does Jon and Jona possess Locus
concrete adverseness which sharpens the Standi to file a petition?
presentation of issues upon which the court
ANSWER:
50 DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312 (1974) 53IBP v. Zamora, G.R. No. 141284, August 15,
51 David v. Arroyo, G.R. 171396, May 3, 2006 2000
52 Kilusang Mayo Uno Labor Center v. Garcia,
G.R. No. 115381, December 23, 1994

(Colossians 3:23)
suit raising the issue that the

1. No. A proposed bill is not subject to issuance of A.O. No. 308 (Adoption
judicial review because it is not a of a National Computerized
law. Therefore, it can be deduced Identification System) is a
that there is no actual case or usurpation of legislative power.56
controversy to speak of.
4. Information Technology Foundation
2. Yes, in this case, they have a of the Philippines v. COMELEC,
personal and substantial interest in G.R. No. 159139, January 13, 2004
relation to the action of the mayor.
Petitioners, suing as taxpayers,
Example of cases involving locus standi: assert a material interest in seeing
to it that public funds are properly
1. Kilusang Mayo Uno Labor Center v. and lawfully used.
Garcia, G.R. No. 115381,
December 23, 1994 In the Petition, they claim that the
bidding was defective, the winning
KMU members, who avail of the bidder not a qualified entity, and the
use of buses, trains and jeepneys award of the Contract contrary to
everyday, are directly affected by law and regulation. Accordingly,
the burdensome cost of arbitrary they seek to restrain respondents
increase in passenger fares. from implementing the Contract
and, necessarily, from making any
In the case at bench, petitioner, unwarranted expenditure of public
whose members had suffered and funds pursuant thereto. Thus, we
continue to suffer grave and hold that petitioners possess locus
irreparable injury and damage from standi.57
the implementation of the
questioned memoranda, circulars 5. Kilosbayan v. Guingona, G.R.
and/or orders, has shown that it has 113375, May 5, 1994
a clear legal right that was violated
and continues to be violated with Ordinary taxpayers, members of
the enforcement of the challenged Congress, and even association of
memoranda, circulars and/or planters, and non-profit civic
54
orders. organizations were allowed to
initiate and prosecute actions
2. Tanada v. Tuvera, G.R. No. L- before this Court to question the
63915, April 24, 1985 constitutionality or validity of laws,
acts, decisions, rulings, or orders of
Private citizen's legal personality in various government agencies or
compelling the state to publish the instrumentalities.
Presidential Decrees (PDs) issued
by the President.55 We find the instant petition to be of
transcendental importance to the
3. Ople v. Torres, G.R. No. 127685, public. The issues it raised are of
July 23, 1998 paramount public interest and of a
category even higher than those
A Senator, petitioner is possessed involved in many of the afore-cited
of the requisite standing to bring cases. The ramifications of such
54 Kilusang Mayo Uno Labor Center v. Garcia, 56 Ople v. Torres, G.R. No. 127685, July 23,
G.R. No. 115381, December 23, 1994 1998
55 Tanada v. Tuvera, G.R. No. L-63915, April 57 Information Technology Foundation of the
24, 1985 Philippines v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 159139,

January 13, 2004
(Colossians 3:23)
issues immeasurably affect the

social, economic, and moral well- No. The students/petitioners have a legal
being of the people even in the standing to file an action. The personality of
remotest barangays of the country the petitioner minors to sue in behalf of the
and the counter-productive and succeeding generations can only be based
retrogressive effects of the on the concept of intergenerational
envisioned on-line lottery system responsibility insofar as the right to a
are as staggering as the billions in balanced and healthful ecology is
pesos it is expected to raise. The concerned.
legal standing then of the
petitioners (Kilosbayan) deserves Locus Standi of Taxpayers, Voters,
recognition and, in the exercise of Concerned Citizens, and Legislators
its sound discretion, this Court
hereby brushes aside the Taxpayers, voters, concerned citizens, and
procedural barrier which the legislators may be accorded standing to
respondents tried to take sue, provided that the following
58
advantage of. requirements are met:
FACTS (BAR QUESTION): 1. The cases involve constitutional

issues; and
Several concerned residents of the areas
fronting Manila Bay, among them a group 2. For taxpayers, there must be a
of students who are minors, filed a suit claim of illegal disbursement of
against the Metro Manila Development public funds or that the tax measure
Authority (MMDA), the Department of is unconstitutional.
Environment and Natural Resources
(DENR), the Department of Health (DOH), Taxpayers may also question
the Department of Agriculture (DA), the contracts entered into by the
Department of Education (DepEd), the national government or by
Department of Interior and Local government-owned or controlled
Government (DILG), and a number of other corporations allegedly in
executive agencies, asking the court to contravention of law;60
order them to perform their duties relating
to the cleanup, rehabilitation and protection 3. For voters, there must be a showing
of Manila Bay. The complaint alleges that of obvious interest in the validity of
the continued neglect by defendants and the election law in question;
their failure to prevent and abate pollution
in Manila Bay constitute a violation of the 4. For concerned citizens, there must
petitioners' constitutional right to life, health be a showing that the issues raised
and a balanced ecology. are of transcendental importance
which must be settled early; and/or
QUESTION:
5. For legislators, there must be a
If the defendants assert that the claim that the official action
students/petitioners who are minors do not complained of infringes upon their
have locus standi to file the action, is the prerogatives as legislators.61
assertion correct? Explain your answer.
6. For organization, it should assert
ANSWER: the rights of its members, but the
mere invocation by the Integrated
See the case of Oposa v. Factoran59 Bar of the Philippines or any
58 Kilosbayan v. Guingona, G.R. 113375, May 60 Abaya v. Ebdane, G.R. No. 167919, February
5, 1994 14, 2009
59 G.R. No. 101083, July 30, 1993 61 David v. Arroyo, G.R. 171396, May 3, 2006
(Colossians 3:23)
member of the legal profession of suffer direct and personal injury as a result
the duty to preserve the rule of law of the interment of Marcos at the Libingan
does not suffice to clothe it with ng mga Bayani (LNMB).
standing.
Ratio:
7. For local government unit (LGU), it
can seek relief in order to protect or a. Taxpayers
vindicate an interest of its own, and
of the other LGUs.62 As taxpayers, petitioners merely
claim illegal disbursement of public
Case where legal standing/locus standi funds, without showing that Marcos
was not proved is disqualified to be interred at the
LNMB by their express or implied
The legal standing of the Integrated Bar of provision of the Constitution, the
the Philippines (IBP) was not proved in laws or jurisprudence.
assailing the constitutionality of the Joint
Implementing Police Visibility Patrols b. Members of the Integrated Bar
between the PNP NCRPO and the
Philippine Marines partnership in the As members of the Bar, averments
conduct of visibility patrols in Metro Manila. in their petition-in-intervention failed
to disclose such injury, and that
The mere invocation by the IBP of its duty their interest in this case is too
to preserve the rule of law and nothing general and shared by other
more, while undoubtedly true, is not groups, such that their duty to
sufficient to clothe it with standing in this uphold the rule of law, without
case. This is too general an interest which more, is inadequate to clothe them
is shared by other groups and the whole with requisite legal standing.65
citizenry. Based on the standards above-
stated, the IBP has failed to present a c. Concerned citizens
specific and substantial interest in the
resolution of the case. Its fundamental As concerned citizens, petitioners
purpose which, under Section 2, Rule 139- are also required to substantiate the
A of the Rules of Court, is to elevate the issues raised are of transcendental
standards of the law profession and to importance, of overreaching
improve the administration of justice is significance to society, or of
alien to, and cannot be affected by the paramount public interest.66 In
deployment of the Marines. (IBP v. cases involving such issues, the
Zamora)63 imminence and clarity of the threat
to fundamental constitutional rights
Also, in the case of Ocampo v. Enriquez,64 outweigh the necessity for
67
the Court ruled that petitioners who filed prudence.
their respective petitions for certiorari,
prohibition and mandamus, in their At this point in time, the interment of
capacities as citizens, human rights Marcos at a cemetery originally
violations victims, legislators, member of established as a national military
the Bar and taxpayers, have no legal cemetery and declared a national
standing to file such petitions because they shrine would have no profound
failed to show that they have suffered or will effect on the political, economic,
62 Osmena III v. Abaya, G.R. No. 211737, 65 Citing IBP v. Zamora, G.R. No. 141284,
January 13, 2016 August 15, 2000
63 IBP v. Zamora, G.R. No. 141284, August 15, 66 Citing Kilosbayan v. Guingona, G.R. No.
2000 113375, May 5, 1994

64 G.R. No. 225973, November 8, 2016 67 Citing The Diocese of Bacolod v. COMELEC,
G.R. No. 205728, January 21, 2015

(Colossians 3:23)
and other aspects of our national lie In all actions assailing the validity of a
considering that more than 27 years statute, treaty, presidential decree, order,
since his death and 30 years after or proclamation, notice to the Solicitor
his ouster have already passed. General is mandatory.
Significantly, petitioners failed to The purpose of the mandatory Notice in

demonstrate a clear and imminent Rule 64, Section 3 is to enable the Solicitor
threat to their fundamental General to decide whether or not his
constitutional rights. intervention in the action assailing the
validity of a law or treaty is necessary. To
d. Legislators deny the Solicitor General such notice
would be tantamount to depriving him of his
As legislators suing to defend the day in court. We must stress that, contrary
Constitution and to protect to petitioners' stand, the mandatory notice
appropriated public funds from requirement is not limited to actions
being used unlawfully. In the involving declaratory relief and similar
absence of a clear showing of any remedies. The rule itself provides that such
direct injury to their person or the notice is required in "any action" and not
institution to which they belong, just actions involving declaratory relief.
their standing as members of the Where there is no ambiguity in the words
Congress cannot be upheld.68 used in the true, there is no room for
construction. (Mirasol v. Court of
They do not specifically claim that Appeals)71
the official actions complained of,
i.e., the memorandum of the Effect when the courts declare a law to
Secretary of National Defense and be inconsistent with the Constitution
the directive of the AFP Chief of
Staff regarding the interment of When the courts declare a law to be
Marcos at the LNMB, encroach on inconsistent with the Constitution, the
their prerogatives as legislators.69 former shall be void and the latter shall
govern.72
Determination of Earliest Possible
Opportunity In the case of Salazar v. Achacoso,73 the
Court nullified the warrants of search and
The earliest opportunity to raise a seizure issued by the Secretary of Labor
constitutional issue is to raise it in the being contrary to the Constitution. It was
pleadings before a competent court that held by the Court that only a judge may
can resolve the same, such that, "if it is not issue warrants of search and arrest
raised in the pleadings, it cannot be pursuant to the Constitution.
considered at the trial, and, if not
considered at the trial, it cannot be Operative Fact Doctrine
considered on appeal. (Matibag v.
Benipayo)70 The actual existence of a statute, prior to
such a determination [of
Notice to the Solicitor General is unconstitutionality], is an operative fact and
required in all actions assailing the may have consequences which cannot
validity of a statute, treaty, presidential justly be ignored. The past cannot always
decree, order, or proclamation be erased by a new judicial declaration.
The effect of the subsequent ruling as to
68 Citing BAYAN v. Exec. Sec. Zamora, 396 70 Matibag v. Benipayo, G.R. No. 149036, April
Phil. 623, 648 (2000) 2, 2002
69 Citing Birarogo v. The Philippine Truth 71 G.R. No. 128448, February 1, 2001
Commission, 651 Phil. 374, 439 (2010) 72 Par. 2 of Art. 7 of the New Civil Code
73 G.R. No. 81510, March 14, 1990
(Colossians 3:23)
invalidity may have to be considered in

various aspects, with respect to particular
relations, individual and corporate, and
particular conduct, private and official. (De
Agbayani v. PNB)74
The doctrine of operative fact recognizes

the existence of the law or executive act
prior to the determination of its
unconstitutionality as an operative fact that
produced 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. (Auraullo v. Aquino)75
74De Agbayani v. PNB, G.R. No. L-23127, April 75 G.R. No. 209287, July 1, 2014
29, 1971
(Colossians 3:23)
CITIZENSHIP: the disqualifications mentioned in Section 4

of C.A. 473.
Two ways of Acquiring Citizenship
Repatriation, on the other hand, may be
Two ways of acquiring citizenship: had under various statutes by those who
lost their citizenship due to:
1. By birth; and
2. By naturalization. 1. Desertion of the armed forces;
2. Service in the armed forces of the
Natural-born citizens "are those citizens of allied forces in World War II
the Philippines from birth without having to 3. Service in the Armed Forces of the
perform any act to acquire or perfect his United States at any other time;
Philippine citizenship.” 4. Marriage of a Filipino woman to an
alien; and
Naturalized citizens are those who have 5. Political and economic necessity.78
become Filipino citizens through
naturalization, generally under Main distinction of Naturalization vis-à-
Commonwealth Act No. 473, otherwise vis Repatriation, as to application:
known as the Revised Naturalization Law,
which repealed the former Naturalization As distinguished from the lengthy process
Law (Act No. 2927), and by Republic Act of naturalization, repatriation simply
No. 530. (Bengzon v. HRET)76 consists of the taking of an oath of
allegiance to the Republic of the
Three modes by which Philippine Philippines and registering said oath in the
citizenship may be reacquired by a Local Civil Registry of the place where the
former citizen person concerned resides or last resided.79
The following are the three modes by which Effect of Repatriation

Philippine citizenship may be reacquired by
a former citizen: Repatriation results in the recovery of the
original nationality. This means that a
1. By naturalization; naturalized Filipino who lost his citizenship
2. By repatriation; and will be restored to his prior status as a
3. By direct act of Congress.77 naturalized Filipino citizen. On the other
hand, if he was originally a natural-born
Naturalization vis-à-vis Repatriation citizen before he lost his Philippine
citizenship, he will be restored to his former
Naturalization is a mode for both status as a natural-born Filipino.80
acquisition and reacquisition of Philippine
citizenship. As a mode of initially acquiring Retroactive Effect of Repatriation:
Philippine citizenship, naturalization is
governed by Commonwealth Act No. 473, Repatriation granted under P.D. 725 is to
as amended. On the other hand, be deemed retroacted to the date of the
naturalization as a mode for reacquiring application. (Frivaldo v. COMELEC81)
Philippine citizenship is governed by
Commonwealth Act No. 63. Under this law, How citizenship may be lost
a former Filipino citizen who wishes to
reacquire Philippine citizenship must A Filipino citizen may lose his citizenship in
possess certain qualifications and none of any of the following ways and/or events:
76Bengson III v. HRET, G.R. No. 142840, May 79Ibid.
7, 2001 80Ibid.
77Ibid. 81 G.R. No. 120295, June 28, 1996
78Ibid.
(Colossians 3:23)
1. By naturalization in a foreign Philippines are accorded the status

country; of Philippine citizenship.
2. By express renunciation of
citizenship; 2. David is not a Filipino citizen.
3. By subscribing to an oath of
allegiance to support the Note that a Filipino citizen losses
constitution or laws of a foreign his citizenship once he/she
country; becomes a naturalized citizen of a
4. By rendering services to, or foreign country. Since his parents
accepting commission in, the were naturalized in the US, it
armed forces of a foreign country; means that neither his parents nor
5. By having been declared by he is a Filipino citizen.
competent authority; and
6. In the case of a woman, upon her Renunciation of Philippine Citizenship
marriage to a foreigner if, by virtue
of the laws in force in her husband's The court held that renunciation needed to
country, she acquires his lose Philippine citizenship must be
nationality.82 "express", it stands to reason that there can
be no such loss of Philippine 'citizenship
FACTS: when there is no renunciation either
"'express" or "implied". (Aznar v.
John and Grace, both Filipino citizens, COMELEC83)
were childhood sweethearts. In order to
have a better life, they opted to work in USA Can a natural-born citizen of the
and permanently reside therein. After a Philippines who have lost his
year of cohabitation with each other, Grace citizenship thru naturalization abroad
got pregnant out of wedlock. They named but reacquires such citizenship be
their first child Clarisse. allowed to run for public office in the
Philippines?
6 months after the birth of Clarisse, they
decided to get married. Thereafter, they Yes. They may now run for public office in
filed an application to become a naturalized the Philippines provided that they:
US citizen. The said application was later
on granted by the US authorities. Two 1. Meet the qualifications for holding
years had gone by and Grace got pregnant such public office as required by the
again. They named their second child Constitution and existing laws; and
David.
2. Make a personal and sworn
QUESTION: renunciation of any and all foreign
citizenships before any public
1. What is the citizenship of Clarisse? officer authorized to administer an
oath prior to or at the time of filing of
2. What is the citizenship of David? their Certificate of Candidacy
(COC).84
ANSWER:
The use of a foreign passport amounts
1. Clarisse is a Filipino citizen. to repudiation or recantation of the oath
of renunciation
The 1987 Philippine Constitution
provides that those whose fathers The Court held in the case of Maquiling v.
or mothers are citizens of the COMELEC85 that the use of foreign
82 Commonwealth Act (CA) No. 63 84 Arnado v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 210164,

83 G.R. No. 83820, May 25, 1990 August 18, 2015
85 G.R. No. 195649, April 16, 2013
(Colossians 3:23)
passport after renouncing one’s foreign

citizenship is a positive and voluntary act of Constitutional Basis of Citizenship:
representation as to one’s nationality and
citizenship; it does not divest Filipino 1. The Philippine Organic Act of 1902
citizenship regained by repatriation but it or Philippine Bill of 1902;
recants the Oath of Renunciation required 2. The Jones Law of 1916;
to qualify one to run for an elective position. 3. The 1935 Philippine Constitution;
4. The 1973 Philippine Constitution;
Also, it was reiterated in the case of Arnado and
v. COMELEC86 that the use of a foreign 5. The 1987 Philippine Constitution.
passport amounts to repudiation or
recantation of the oath of renunciation. The Philippine Bill of 1902
Reacquisition of Philippine Citizenship Inhabitants of the Philippines who were

under RA 9225 (Aug. 29, 2003 – Date of Spanish subjects on the 11th day of April
Approval by the President) 1899 and then residing in said islands and
their children born subsequent thereto
Natural-born citizenship by reason of their were conferred the status of a Filipino
naturalization as citizens of a foreign citizen. (Co v. HRET89)
country are hereby deemed to have re-
acquired Philippine citizenship upon taking Article 17 of the Civil Code of Spain
the following oath of allegiance to the enumerates those who were considered
Republic: Spanish Subjects, viz:
"I _____________________, solemnly The following are Spaniards:

swear (or affirm) that I will support and
defend the Constitution of the Republic of 1. Persons born in Spanish territory.
the Philippines and obey the laws and legal
orders promulgated by the duly constituted 2. Children born of a Spanish father or
authorities of the Philippines; and I hereby mother, even though they were
declare that I recognize and accept the born out of Spain.
supreme authority of the Philippines and
will maintain true faith and allegiance 3. Foreigners who may have obtained
thereto; and that I imposed this obligation naturalization papers.
upon myself voluntarily without mental
reservation or purpose of evasion." 4. Those without such papers, who
may have acquired domicile in any
Natural born citizens of the Philippines town in the Monarchy.90
who, after the effectivity of this Act, become
citizens of a foreign country shall retain Important matter here is that the domicile of
their Philippine citizenship upon taking the is fixed in the Philippines and pursuant to
aforesaid oath.87 the Civil Code of Spain, he had become a
Spanish subject. Hence, it is immaterial if
Derivative Citizenship under RA 9225 the Spanish subject went outside or even
died outside the Philippines.91
The unmarried child, whether legitimate,
illegitimate or adopted, below eighteen (18) Article IV of the 1935 Constitution
years of age, of those who re-acquire provides (Date of Effectivity - February
Philippine citizenship upon effectivity of this 8, 1935):
Act shall be deemed citizenship of the
Philippines.88
86 G.R. No. 210164, August 18, 2015 89 G.R. Nos. 92191-92, July 30, 1991
87Sec. 3 of Republic Act (RA) No. 9225 90Ibid.
88 Sec. 4 of Republic Act (RA) No. 9225 91Ibid.
(Colossians 3:23)
The following are citizens of the 2. Said election must be made "upon
Philippines: reaching the age of majority.”
(Cuenco v. Sec. of Justice)94
1. Those who are citizens of the
Philippine Islands at the time of the Meaning of “Age of Majority”
adoption of this Constitution.
The age of majority will commence upon
2. Those born in the Philippine Islands reaching 21 years. (Go Sr. v. Ramos)95
of foreign parents who, before the
adoption of this Constitution, had Meaning of “Reasonable Time after
been elected to public office in the Reaching the Age of Majority”
Philippine Islands.
Secretary of Justice has ruled that three (3)
3. Those whose fathers are citizens of years is the reasonable time to elect
the Philippines. Philippine citizenship under the
constitutional provision. (Cuenco v.
4. Those whose mothers are citizens Secretary of Justice)96
of the Philippines and, upon
reaching the age of majority, elect Can a legitimate child born under the
Philippine citizenship. 1935 Constitution of a Filipino mother
and an alien father validly elect
5. Those who are naturalized in Philippine citizenship fourteen (14)
accordance with law.92 years after he has reached the age of
majority and subsequently take the bar
Jus Sanguinis vis-à-vis Jus Soli exam?
Principle of Jus Sanguinis confers No. In the case of In Re Ching,97 the Court
citizenship by virtue of blood ruled that based on the interpretation of the
93
relationship. Hence, the child follows the phrase "upon reaching the age of majority,"
nationality or citizenship of the parents Ching's election was clearly beyond, by any
regardless of the place of his/her birth. reasonable yardstick, the allowable period
Such principle can be gleaned in Par. 3 within which to exercise the privilege. It
Sec. 1 of Art. IV of the 1935 Constitution should be stated, in this connection, that
and was subsequently retained under the the special circumstances invoked by
provisions of the 1973 and 1987 Ching, i.e., his continuous and
Constitution. uninterrupted stay in the Philippines and
his being a certified public accountant, a
Principle of Jus Soli, on the other hand, registered voter and a former elected public
determines nationality or citizenship on the official, cannot vest in him Philippine
basis of place of birth. citizenship as the law specifically lays down
the requirements for acquisition of
Requisites of Par. 4 Sec. 1 of Art. IV of Philippine citizenship by election.
the 1935 Philippine Constitution:
The prescribed procedure in electing
1. The mother of the person making Philippine citizenship is certainly not a
the election must be a citizen of the tedious and painstaking process. All that is
Philippines; and required of the elector is to execute an
affidavit of election of Philippine citizenship
92 Sec. 1 of Art. IV of the 1935 Philippine 95 G.R. Nos. 167569-70 and 171946,
Constitution September 4, 2009
93 Valles v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 137000, 96 G.R. No. L-18069, May 26, 1962
August 9, 2000 97 Bar Matter No. 914, October 1, 1999

94Cuenco v. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. L-
18069, May 26, 1962

(Colossians 3:23)
and, thereafter, file the same with the correction of entry in the civil registry, i.e.,
nearest civil registry. Ching's unreasonable election, loss and recovery of citizenship,
and unexplained delay in making his which is not the relief prayed for by the
election cannot be simply glossed over. respondent. (Republic v. Sagun)100
Statutory formalities of electing Election of Citizenship under Par. 4 Sec.

Philippine citizenship 1 of Art. IV of the 1935 Philippine
Constitution applies only to
In the case of Ma v. Fernandez, G.R. No. LEGITIMATE CHILDREN
183133, July 26, 2010, the Supreme Court
held the following formalities: As held in the case of Republic v. Lim, the
Court held that constitutional and statutory
1. A statement of election under oath; requirements of electing Filipino citizenship
apply only to legitimate children. These do
2. An oath of allegiance to the not apply in the case of respondent who
Constitution and Government of the was concededly an illegitimate child,
Philippines; and considering that her Chinese father and
Filipino mother were never married.
3. Registration of the statement of
election and of the oath with the It is a settled rule that only legitimate
nearest civil registry.98 children follow the citizenship of the father
and that illegitimate children are under the
What is the effect in case of failure to parental authority of the mother and follow
“register the statement of election and her nationality.
oath” with the nearest civil registry?
An illegitimate child of Filipina need not
The failure to register the election in the perform any act to confer upon him all the
civil registry should not defeat the election rights and privileges attached to citizens of
and resultingly negate the permanent fact the Philippines; he automatically becomes
that they have a Filipino mother. The a citizen himself. (Go Sr. v. Ramos)101 The
lacking requirements may still be complied illegitimate child is a Filipino since birth
with subject to the imposition of appropriate without having to elect Filipino citizenship
administrative penalties, if any.99 when she reached the age of majority.102
Is the direct filing of a petition for Is the exercise of the rights and
declaration of election of Philippine privileges granted only to Filipinos (ex.
citizenship before the courts VALID? participating in the national election and
registering himself as a voter) a
No. It should be stressed that there is no conclusive proof of citizenship?
specific statutory or procedural rule which
authorizes the direct filing of a petition for No. The exercise of the rights and
declaration of election of Philippine privileges granted only to Filipinos is not
citizenship before the courts. The special conclusive proof of citizenship, because a
proceeding provided under Section 2, Rule person may misrepresent himself to be a
108 of the Rules of Court on Cancellation Filipino and thus enjoy the rights and
or Correction of Entries in the Civil privileges of citizens of this country. (Go Sr.
Registry, merely allows any interested v. Ramos)103
party to file an action for cancellation or
98 Ma v. Fernandez, G.R. No. 183133, July 26, 101Go, Sr. v. Ramos, G.R. Nos. 167569-70 and
2010 171946, September 4, 2009
99Ibid. 102 Republic of the Philippines v. Lim, G.R. No.
100 Republic of the Philippines v. Sagun, G.R. 153883, January 13, 2004
No. 187567, February 15, 2012 103Go, Sr. v. Ramos, G.R. Nos. 167569-70 and
171946, September 4, 2009.

(Colossians 3:23)
Citizenship of “Foundlings” public office in the Philippine

Islands.”
It is a generally accepted principle of
international law to presume foundlings as 2. Inclusion of mothers who are
having been born of nationals of the citizens of the Philippines. The
country in which the foundling is found. sentence was changed to “Those
(Poe-Llamanzares v. COMELEC)104 whose fathers and mothers are
citizens of the Philippines.”
This is pursuant to Article 2 of the 1961
United Nations Convention on the Article IV of the 1987 Philippine
Reduction of Statelessness which states: Constitution provides (Date of
Effectivity – February 2, 1987)
“A foundling found in the territory of a
Contracting State shall, in the absence of The following are citizens of the
proof to the contrary, be considered to have Philippines:
been born within the territory of parents
possessing the nationality of that State.” 1. Those who are citizens of the
(Poe-Llamanzares v. COMELEC) Philippines at the time of the
adoption of this Constitution.
Article IV of the 1973 Constitution
provides (Date of Effectivity - deemed 2. Those whose fathers or mothers
ratified by Citizens’ Assemblies held are citizens of the Philippines.
from January 10 to 15, 1973, proclaimed
in force by Proclamation by President 3. Those born before January 17,
Marcos, January 17, 1973): 1973, of Filipino mothers, who elect
Philippine citizenship upon
The following are citizens of the reaching the age of majority.
Philippines:
4. Those who are naturalized in
1. Those who are citizens of the accordance with law.
Philippines at the time of the
adoption of this Constitution. Main difference between the 1973 and
1987 Philippine Constitution regarding
2. Those whose fathers and mothers Citizenship
are citizens of the Philippines.
The conjunction “and” was replaced by “or.”
3. Those who elect Philippine Now, the legitimate or illegitimate child will
citizenship pursuant to the automatically become a Filipino citizen
provisions of the Constitution of once his/her mother or father is a Filipino
nineteen hundred and thirty-five. citizen.
4. Those who are naturalized in Note that in 1973 Constitution, both

accordance with law. parents, the mother and the father, should
be citizens of the Philippines to accord their
The 1973 Philippine Constitution vis-à- child the status of Philippine citizenship.
vis The 1935 Philippine Constitution
Prohibition of Dual Citizenship for
1. Deletion of “Those born in the Persons who opt to Run for Public
Philippine Islands of foreign parents Office
who, before the adoption of this
Constitution, had been elected to Those seeking elective public in the
Philippines shall meet the qualification for
104Poe-Llamanzaresv. COMELEC, G.R. Nos.

221697& 221698-700, March 8, 2016
(Colossians 3:23)
holding such public office as required by Re-acquisition Act of 2003 that a natural-
the Constitution and existing laws and, at born citizenship by reason of their
the time of the filing of the certificate of naturalization as citizens of a foreign
candidacy, make a personal and sworn country are hereby deemed to have re-
renunciation of any and all foreign acquired Philippine citizenship upon taking
citizenship before any public officer the following oath of allegiance to the
authorized to administer an oath.105 Republic. Furthermore, the unmarried
child, whether legitimate, illegitimate or
R.A. No. 9225 was passed on August 29, adopted, below eighteen (18) years of age,
2003 and the act will take effect after 15 of those who re-acquire Philippine
days following its publication in the Official citizenship upon effectivity of RA 9225 shall
Gazette or two (2) newspapers of general be deemed citizens of the Philippines.
circulation.
Since Onofre reacquired his Filipino
BAR QUESTION: citizenship, such citizenship will
automatically confer to Robert and Mare,
Onofre, a natural born Filipino citizen, his children below 18 years of age.
arrived in the United States in 1985. In However, such citizenship will not confer to
1990, he married Salvacion, a Mexican, Alfred, his son who is currently 21 years of
and together they applied for and obtained age, and to Salvacion, his wife who is an
American citizenship in 2001. In 2015, the alien.
couple and their children --Alfred, 21 years
of age, Robert, 16, and Marie, 14, who
were all born in the U.S. -- returned to the
Philippines on June 1, 2015. On June 15,
2015, informed that he could reacquire
Philippine citizenship without losing his
American citizenship, Onofre went home to
the Philippines and took the oath of
allegiance prescribed under R.A. No. 9225.
On October 28, 2015, he filed a Certificate
of Candidacy to run in the May 9, 2016
elections for the position of Congressman
in his home province of Pala wan, running
against re-electionist Congressman
Profundo.
QUESTION:
Did Onofre's reacquisition of Philippine

citizenship benefit his wife, Salvacion, and
their minor children and confer upon them
Filipino citizenship? Explain your answer.
ANSWER:
Philippine citizenship will only confer to his

minor children, Robert and Marie.
However, such citizenship will not confer to
Salvacion and Alfred.
It is provided for under Republic Act (RA)

No. 9225 or the Citizenship Retention and
105 Sec. 5(2) of Republic Act (RA) No. 9225

(Colossians 3:23)
STATE IMMUNITY scope of his authority. (Republic v.

Purisima)111
Suits v. the Philippine State
Determining whether or not there is a
General Rule: suit against the state
The State may not be sued without its In the following instances there is a suit
consent.106 against the state, hence, state immunity
may be invoked:
Under the doctrine of immunity from
suit, the State cannot be sued without 1. The plaintiff has impleaded the
its consent. How may the consent be Republic of the Philippines as
given by the State? (BAR QUESTION) defendant in an action for recovery
of ownership and possession of a
The State may waive its cloak of immunity parcel of land, bringing the State to
and the waiver may be made expressly or court just like any private person
by implication. (DOTC v. Spouses who is claimed to be usurping a
Abecina)107 piece of property.
An express waiver, to be effective, must A suit for the recovery of property is

come from the State acting through a duly not an action in rem, but an action
enacted statute. (Republic v. Purisima)108 in personam. It is an action directed
against a specific party or parties,
An implied waiver, on the other hand, and any judgment therein binds
happens when the government enters into only such party or parties. The
commercial business, hence, it abandons complaint filed by plaintiff, the
its sovereign capacity and is to be treated private respondent herein, is
like any other corporation. (PNB v. Court of directed against the Republic of the
Industrial Relations)109 Philippines, represented by the
Land Authority, a governmental
Presently, state immunity restrictively agency created by Republic Act No.
extends only to acts jure imperii while acts 3844. (Republic of the Philippines v.
jure gestionis are considered as a waiver of Feliciano)112
immunity. (DOTC v. Spouses Abecina)110
2. The suit disguised as one for
Can the government waive its non- mandamus to compel the Auditors
suability thru its counsel? to approve the vouchers for
payment, is a suit against the State,
No. The consent, to be effective though, which cannot prosper or be
must come from the State acting through a entertained by the Court except
duly enacted statute. with the consent of the State.
(Sayson v. Singson)113
Whatever counsel for the government
(defendant Rice and Corn Administration) 3. A suit against the Commissioner of
agreed to, had no binding force on the Bureau of Customs with regard to
government. That was clearly beyond the the damaged goods of the importer
(respondent).
106 Sec. 3 of Art. XVI of the 1987 Philippine 110 G.R. No. 206484, June 29, 2016
Constitution 111 Republic of the Philippines v. Purisima, G.R.
107 G.R. No. 206484, June 29, 2016 No. L-36084, August 31, 1977
108 Republic of the Philippines v. Purisima, G.R. 112 Republic of the Philippines v. Feliciano, G.R.
No. L-36084, August 31, 1977 No. 70853, March 12, 1987
109 PNB v. Court of Industrial Relations, G.R. 113 Sayson v. Singson, G.R. No. L-30044,
No. L-32667, January 31, 1978 Decemeber 19, 1973

(Colossians 3:23)
In the case of Republic v.

Bureau of Customs cannot be held Sandiganbayan,117 the Republic of the
liable for actual damages that the Philippines intervened by filing a complaint
private respondent sustained with in intervention. Thereafter, the defendant
regard to its goods. Otherwise, to filed its answer to the complaint in
permit private respondent's claim to intervention, and set up a counterclaim
prosper would violate the doctrine against the Republic of the Philippines.
of sovereign immunity. Since it
demands that the Commissioner of The Supreme Court held that by filing its
Customs be ordered to pay for complaint in intervention the Government
actual damages it sustained, for in effect waived its right to non-suability.118
which ultimately liability will fall on
the government, it is obvious that The Court also held in the case of Froilan
this case has been converted v. Pan Oriental Shipping Co.,119 that by the
technically into a suit against the act of filing the Government’s complaint in
state. (Farolan v. Court of Tax intervention, the Government in effect
Appeals)114 waived its right of nonsuability.
If the government enters into The complaint in intervention sought to

commercial business, it abandons its recover possession of the vessel in
sovereign capacity question from the plaintiff, and this claim is
logically adverse to the position assumed
It is well settled that when the government by the defendant that it has a better right to
enters into commercial business, it said possession than the plaintiff who
abandons its sovereign capacity and is to alleges in his complaint that he is entitled to
be treated like any other corporation. recover the vessel from the defendant.
By engaging in a particular business thru In short, by taking the initiative in an action

the instrumentality of a corporation, the against a private party, the state surrenders
government divests itself pro hac vice of its its privileged position and comes down to
sovereign character, so as to render the the level of the defendant. The latter
corporation subject to the rules of law automatically acquires, within certain limits,
governing private corporations. (PNB v. the right to set up whatever claims and
Court of Industrial Relations)115 other defenses he might have against the
state.120
What was sought to be garnished was the
money of the People's Homesite and When waiver of non-suability is
Housing Corporation deposited at expressly granted under prevailing law
petitioner's branch in Quezon City, to
satisfy a decision of respondent Court In the case of Lim v. Brownwell,121the
which had become final and executory. immunity of the state from suit, however,
(PNB v. Court of Industrial Relations)116 cannot be invoked where the action, as in
the present case, is instituted by a person
Waiver of the right to non-suability who is neither an enemy or ally of an
enemy for the purpose of establishing his
right, title or interest in vested property, and
114 Farolan v. Court of Tax Appeals, G.R. No. 118Ibid.
42204, January 21, 1993 119Froilanv. Pan Oriental Shipping Co., G.R.
115 PNB v. Court of Industrial Relations, G.R. No. L-6060, September 30, 1954
No. L-32667, January 31, 1978 120Ibid.
116Ibid. 121 G.R. No. L-8587, March 24, 1960
117Republic of the Philippines v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 85284, February 28,
1990
(Colossians 3:23)
of recovering his ownership and therefore reliance on Commonwealth Act

possession. Congressional consent to No. 327 would be futile.123
such suit has expressly been given by the
United States. (Sec. 3, Philippine Property Also, in the case of Amigable v. Cuenca,124
Act of 1946; Philippine Alien Property the court held that where the government
Administration vs. Castelo, et al., 89 Phil., takes away property from a private
568.) landowner for public use without going
through the legal process of expropriation
When there is “implied waiver,” the or negotiated sale, the aggrieved party may
Government cannot invoke state properly maintain a suit against the
immunity government without thereby violating the
doctrine of governmental immunity from
In the case of Santiago v. Republic,122 there suit without its consent.
was a revocation of a deed of donation
executed by the petitioner in January of In the said case, without prior expropriation
1971, with the Bureau of Plant Industry as or negotiated sale, the government used a
the donee. As alleged in such complaint, portion of said lot, with an area of 6,167
such Bureau, contrary to the terms of the square meters, for the construction of the
donation, failed to "install lighting facilities Mango and Gorordo Avenues.
and water system on the property donated
and to build an office building and parking By necessary implication, the filing of a
[lot] thereon which should have been complaint for expropriation is a waiver
constructed and ready for occupancy on or of State immunity
before December 7, 1974.
Whenever private property is taken for
The Supreme Court held in this case that public use, it becomes the ministerial duty
where there is consent, a suit may be filed. of the concerned office or agency to initiate
Consent need not be express. It can be expropriation proceedings. By necessary
implied. implication, the filing of a complaint for
expropriation is a waiver of State immunity.
The doctrine of governmental immunity
from suit cannot serve as an instrument for Therefore, the Court held that the
perpetrating an injustice on a citizen. Department’s entry into and taking of
possession of the respondents’ property
Where the government ordinarily benefited amounted to an implied waiver of its
by the taking of the land, the failure to governmental immunity from suit. (DOTC v.
institute the necessary condemnation Spouses Abecina)125
proceedings should not be a bar to an
ordinary action for the collection of the just Suability of Government Owned and
compensation due. Here, the alleged Controlled Corporations
failure to abide by the conditions under
which a donation was given should not Question: Do government-owned or -
prove an insuperable obstacle to a civil controlled corporations also enjoy the
action, the consent likewise being immunity of the State from suit? Explain
presumed. This conclusion is strengthened your answer. (BAR EXAM)
by the fact that while a donation partakes of
a contract, there is no money claim, and Yes. It was held in the case of Hermano Oil
Manufacturing & Sugar Corporation v. Toll
122 Santiago v. The Government of the Republic 124Amigable v. Cuenca, G.R. L-26400,
of the Philippines, G.R. No. L-48214, December February, 29, 1972
19, 1978 125 G.R. No. 206484, June 29, 2016
123 Santiago v. The Government of the Republic
of the Philippines, G.R. No. L-48214, December

19, 1978
(Colossians 3:23)
Regulatory Board126 that an unincorporated Government must be deemed to

government agency without any separate have waived immunity in respect of
juridical personality of its own enjoys the SSS, although it does not
immunity from suit because it is invested thereby concede its liability. (SSS v.
with an inherent power of sovereignty. CA)128
Accordingly, a claim for damages against 2. National Power Corporation (NPC)

the agency cannot prosper; otherwise, the
doctrine of sovereign immunity is violated. As a government owned and
controlled corporation, it has a
However, the need to distinguish between personality of its own, distinct and
an unincorporated government agency separate from that of the
performing governmental function and one Government. Moreover, the charter
performing proprietary functions has provision that the NPC can "sue
arisen. The immunity has been upheld in and be sued in any court" is without
favor of the former because its function is qualification on the cause of action
governmental or incidental to such and accordingly it can include a tort
function; it has not been upheld in favor of claim such as the one instituted by
the latter whose function was not in pursuit the petitioners. (Rayo v. Court of
of a necessary function of government but First Instance)129
was essentially a business.
Suability of Municipality
Presently, state immunity restrictively
extends only to acts jure imperii while acts The powers of a municipality are twofold in
jure gestionis are considered as a waiver of character public, governmental or political
immunity. (DOTC v. Spouses Abecina)127 on the one hand, and corporate, private, or
proprietary on the other.
Government Owned and Controlled
Corporations which has corporate Governmental powers are those exercised
powers separate and distinct from the by the corporation in administering the
Government, hence, can sue and be powers of the state and promoting the
sued public welfare and they include the
legislative, judicial public, and political.
1. Social Security System (SSS) Municipal powers on the other hand are
exercised for the special benefit and
SSS is a juridical entity with a advantage of the community and include
personality of its own. It has those which are ministerial private and
corporate powers separate and corporate.
distinct from the Government. SSS'
own organic act specifically Activities of the municipality which is
provides that it can sue and be sued considered as governmental:
in Court. These words "sue and be
sued" embrace all civil process 1. Regulations against fire,
incident to a legal action. So that, 2. Disease,
even assuming that the SSS, as it 3. Preservation of public peace,
claims, enjoys immunity from suit 4. Maintenance of municipal prisons,
as an entity performing 5. Establishment of schools, post-
governmental functions, by virtue of offices, etc.
the explicit provision of the
aforecited enabling law, the
126 G.R. No. 167290, November 26, 2014 129Rayo v. Court of First Instance, G.R. L-
127 G.R. No. 206484, June 29, 2016 55273-83, December 19, 1981
128 Social Security System v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. L-41299, February 21, 1983

(Colossians 3:23)
While the following are corporate or Ombudsman charged the public officer with
proprietary in character, viz: gross violation of Section 3(e) of Republic
Act No. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-
1. Municipal waterwork, Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, such case
2. Slaughter houses, is being filed against the “personal
3. Markets, capacity” of the public officer, hence, does
4. Stables, not constitute a suit against the state.
5. Bathing establishments, (Philippine Agila Satellite v. Lichauco)131
6. Wharves,
7. Ferries, Suits v. Foreign State
8. Fisheries; and
9. Maintenance of parks, golf courses, Suability of a Foreign State
cemeteries and airports
The immunity of the sovereign is
If the injury is caused in the course of the recognized only with regard to public acts
performance of a governmental function or or acts jure imperii of a state, but not with
duty no recovery, as a rule, can be had regard to private acts or acts jure gestionis.
from the municipality unless there is an
existing statute on the matter, nor from its This Court has considered the following
officers, so long as they performed their transactions by a foreign state with private
duties honestly and in good faith or that parties as acts jure imperii:
they did not act wantonly and maliciously.
1. The lease by a foreign government
With respect to proprietary functions, the of apartment buildings for use of its
settled rule is that a municipal corporation military officers (Syquia v. Lopez,
can be held liable to third persons ex 84 Phil. 312 [1949]);
contract or ex delicto. Hence, Municipal
corporations are subject to be sued upon 2. The conduct of public bidding for
contracts and in tort. the repair of a wharf at a United
States Naval Station (United States
From the foregoing, the Supreme Court of America v. Ruiz, supra.); and
held that the town fiesta in 1959 by the
municipality of Malsiqui Pangasinan was 3. The change of employment status
an exercise of a private or proprietary of base employees (Sanders v.
function of the municipality. Veridiano, 162 SCRA 88 [1988]).
Section 2282 of the Chatter on Municipal On the other hand, this Court has
Law of the Revised Administrative Code considered the following transactions by a
simply gives authority to the municipality to foreign state with private parties as acts
celebrate a yearly fiesta but it does not jure gestionis:
impose upon it a duty to observe one.
1. The hiring of a cook in the
Easily, no governmental or public policy of recreation center, consisting of
the state is involved in the celebration of a three restaurants, a cafeteria, a
town fiesta. (Torio v. Fontanilla)130 bakery, a store, and a coffee and
pastry shop at the John Hay Air
Instance where the suit is being filed Station in Baguio City, to cater to
against the public official in his/her American servicemen and the
“Personal Capacity” general public (United States of
America v. Rodrigo, 182 SCRA 644
The Supreme Court held that when the [1990]); and
complaint before the Office of the
130Torio v. Fontanilla, G.R. No. L-29993, 131Philippine Agila Satellite v. Lichauco, G.R.
October 23, 1978 No. 134887, July 27, 2006
(Colossians 3:23)
2. The bidding for the operation of 1. United States concluded contracts

barber shops in Clark Air Base in with private individuals but the
Angeles City (United States of contracts notwithstanding the
America v. Guinto, 182 SCRA 644 States was not deemed to have
[1990]). given or waived its consent to be
sued for the reason that the
Certainly, the mere entering into a contract contracts were for jure imperii and
by a foreign state with a private party not for jure gestionis.
cannot be the ultimate test. Such an act can
only be the start of the inquiry. The logical The contract in this case involves
question is whether the foreign state is the repair of the US Naval Base in
engaged in the activity in the regular course Subic, Zambales. (USA v. Ruiz)133
of business. If the foreign state is not
engaged regularly in a business or trade, 2. The government of the United
the particular act or transaction must then States itself, which Scalzo claims to
be tested by its nature. If the act is in pursuit be acting for, has formulated its
of a sovereign activity, or an incident standards for recognition of a
thereof, then it is an act jure imperii, diplomatic agent. The State
especially when it is not undertaken for Department policy is to only
gain or profit. concede diplomatic status to a
person who possesses an
In the case of The Holy See v. Rosario, the acknowledged diplomatic title and
Court held that the right of a foreign performs duties of diplomatic
sovereign to acquire property, real or nature.
personal, in a receiving state, necessary for
the creation and maintenance of its Suing a representative of a state is
diplomatic mission, is recognized in the believed to be, in effect, suing the
1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic state itself. The proscription is not
Relations (Arts. 20-22). This treaty was accorded for the benefit of an
concurred in by the Philippine Senate and individual but for the State, in
entered into force in the Philippines on whose service he is, under the
November 15, 1965. maxim - par in parem, non habet
imperium - that all states are
In Article 31(a) of the Convention, a sovereign equals and cannot assert
diplomatic envoy is granted immunity from jurisdiction over one another.
the civil and administrative jurisdiction of
the receiving state over any real action A foreign agent, operating within a
relating to private immovable property territory, can be cloaked with
situated in the territory of the receiving immunity from suit but only as long
state which the envoy holds on behalf of the as it can be established that he is
sending state for the purposes of the acting within the directives of the
mission. If this immunity is provided for a sending state. (Minucher v. CA)134
diplomatic envoy, with all the more reason
should immunity be recognized as regards 3. When petitioner Republic of
the sovereign itself, which in this case is the Indonesia was acting in pursuit of a
Holy See.132 sovereign activity when it entered
into a contract with respondent for
Example of cases which is considered as the upkeep or maintenance of the
jure imperii: air conditioning units, generator
sets, electrical facilities, water
132 The Holy See v. Rosario, G.R. No. 101949, 134Minucher v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
December 1, 1994 142396, February 11, 2003
133 United States of America v. Ruiz, G.R. No.
L-35645, May 22, 1985

(Colossians 3:23)
heaters, and water motor pumps of profit or gain but are official acts
the Indonesian Embassy and the over which a waiver of immunity
official residence of the Indonesian would not attach.(DFA v. NLRC)137
ambassador.
Suits against Public Officers of the
There is no dispute that the Philippines
establishment of a diplomatic
mission is an act jure imperii. A In the case of Nessia v. Fermin,138 the court
sovereign State does not merely upheld the complaint filed against
establish a diplomatic mission and respondents Jesus M. Fermin and the
leave it at that; the establishment of Municipality of Victorias, Negros
a diplomatic mission encompasses Occidental, by petitioner Jose V. Nessia for
its maintenance and upkeep. recovery of damages and reimbursement
Hence, the State may enter into of expenses incurred in the performance of
contracts with private entities to his official duties as the then Deputy
maintain the premises, furnishings Municipal Assessor of Victorias.
and equipment of the embassy and
the living quarters of its agents and The Court also said that indeed,
officials. (Republic of Indonesia v. respondent could have, and should have,
Vinzon)135 either included the claim of petitioners
herein in the general budget he is bound to
4. Issuance of warrant for the search submit, pursuant to section 2295 of the
and seizure of ten crates consigned Revised Administrative Code, or prepared
to the petitioner Verstuyft, a a special budget for said claim, and urged
representative of World Health the municipal council to appropriate the
Organization (WHO) in the sum necessary therefor. In any event, if the
Philippines. municipal mayor fails or refuses to make
the necessary appropriation, petitioners
Hence, in adherence to the settled may bring an action against the
principle that courts may not so municipality for the recovery of what is due
exercise their jurisdiction by seizure them and after securing a judgment
and detention of property, as to therefor, seek a writ of mandamus against
embarrass the executive arm of the the municipal council and the municipal
government in conducting foreign mayor to compel the enactment and
relations, it is accepted doctrine that approval of the appropriation ordinance
"in such cases the judicial necessary therefor.139
department of (this) government
follows the action of the political Also, in the case of Animas v. PVAO,140 the
branch and will not embarrass the Court took cognizance of the case
latter by assuming an antagonistic instituted by a petitioner-veteran when he
jurisdiction.” (WHO v. Aquino)136 assailed that he is entitled to the pension
granted under Republic Act No. 65 or the
5. The service contracts referred to by Veterans’ Bill of Rights. In this case, the
private respondent in relation to the Court held that gesture of gratitude on the
alleged illegal dismissal by ADB part of the State and a tribute to their
and the latter's violation of the gallantry and selfless love of country.
"labor-only" contracting law have Though valor cannot be measured in terms
not been intended by the ADB for of money, money is the best we can offer
135 The Republic of Indonesia v. Vinzon, G.R. 138G.R. No. 102918, March 30, 1993
No. 154705, June 26, 2003 139Nessia v. Fermin, G.R. No. 102918, March
136 The World Health Organization v. Aquino, 30, 1993
G.R. No. L-35131, November 29, 1972 140 G.R. No. 79156, June 22, 1989
137 Department of Foreign Affairs v. NLRC, G.R.
No. 113191, September 18, 1996

(Colossians 3:23)
for the moment. And if we cannot do more, when there is a corresponding

let us do no less. This case should not have appropriation as required by law.
indeed reached this Court had not Otherwise stated, the rule on the immunity
insensitivity gotten the better of of public funds from seizure or garnishment
Government functionaries. does not apply where the funds sought to
be levied under execution are already
Q & A: (BAR EXAM) allocated by law specifically for the
satisfaction of the money judgment against
The doctrine of immunity from suit in the government. In such a case, the
favor of the State extends to public monetary judgment may be legally
officials in the performance of their enforced by judicial processes.
official duties. May such officials be
sued nonetheless to prevent or to undo Suits against Public Officers of Foreign
their oppressive or illegal acts, or to States
compel them to act? Explain your
answer. In USA v. Reyes, the Court held that since
it is apparent from the complaint that
Answer: Bradford was sued in her private or
personal capacity for acts allegedly done
Yes, the petitioner may seek a writ of beyond the scope and even beyond her
mandamus to compel the erring public place of official functions (oppressive and
official to perform his/her official duties.141 discriminatory acts committed by Bradford
because the doctrine of immunity from suit in excess of her authority as store manager
cannot serve as an instrument for of the NEX JUSMAG), said complaint is not
perpetrating an injustice on a citizen. then vulnerable to a motion to dismiss
based on the grounds relied upon by the
Garnishment or Levy of Government petitioners because as a consequence of
Funds the hypothetical admission of the truth of
the allegations therein, the case falls within
The Court held in the case of City of the exception to the doctrine of state
Caloocan v. Allarde,142 that the rule is and immunity.143
has always been that all government funds
deposited in the PNB or any other official Also, in the case of Shauf v. Court of
depositary of the Philippine Government by Appeals,144 the court held that state that the
any of its agencies or instrumentalities, doctrine of immunity from suit will not apply
whether by general or special deposit, and may not be invoked where the public
remain government funds and may not be official is being sued in his private and
subject to garnishment or levy, in the personal capacity as an ordinary citizen.
absence of a corresponding appropriation The cloak of protection afforded the officers
as required by law. and agents of the government is removed
the moment they are sued in their individual
The rule is based on obvious capacity. This situation usually arises
considerations of public policy. The where the public official acts without
functions and public services rendered by authority or in excess of the powers vested
the State cannot be allowed to be in him. It is a well-settled principle of law
paralyzed or disrupted by the diversion of that a public official may be liable in his
public funds from their legitimate and personal private capacity for whatever
specific objects, as appropriated by law. damage he may have caused by his act
done with malice and in bad faith, or
However, the rule is not absolute and beyond the scope of his authority or
admits of a well-defined exception, that is, jurisdiction.
141 Nessia v. Fermin, G.R. No. 102918, March 143 United States of America v. Reyes, G.R. No.
30, 1993 79253, March 1, 1993
142 G. R. No. 107271, September 10, 2003 144 G.R. No. 90314, November 27, 1990
(Colossians 3:23)
In the said case, the respondents were held

liable in their personal capacity and were
found guilty of discriminating against
petitioner Loida Q. Shauf on account of her
sex, color and origin. Hence, the complaint
for damages filed against private
respondents Don Detwiler and Anthony
Persi for the alleged discriminatory acts
was upheld by the Court.
(Colossians 3:23)
PHILIPPINES AS A STATE sufficing and to defend themselves and

small enough to be easily administered and
“State” definition sustained.147
The State is a community of persons, more What are the components of a territory?
or less numerous, permanently occupying
a fixed territory, and possessed of an The components of a territory are
independent government organized for enumerated as follows:
political ends to which the great body of
inhabitants render habitual obedience.145 1. Terrestrial Domain
Elements of the State - Land mass
The essential elements of the State are 2. Maritime and Fluvial Domain
enumerated as follows:
- Inland and external waters
1. People
3. Aerial Domain
People refers simply to the
inhabitants of the State. - Air space above the land and
waters.
2. Territory
Define Archipelagic Doctrine (Bar
Territory is the fixed portion of the Question)
surface of the earth inhabited by the
people of the State. Under this doctrine, the Philippine
Archipelago is considered as one
3. Government integrated unit instead of being divided into
more than seven thousand island. This
Government is the agency or assertion together with the application of
instrumentality through which the straight baseline method, is what is
will of the State is formulated, referred as the Archipelagic Doctrine.148
expressed, and realized.
Explain the Straight Baseline Method
4. Sovereignty (Bar Question)
Sovereignty is the supreme and Straight Baseline Method is employed in

uncontrollable power inherent in a determining the extent of archipelagic
State by which that State is waters.149 By using this method, the
governed.146 outermost point of our archipelago are
connected with straight baseline and all
Is there a requirement with regard to the waters inside the baseline are considered
number of people occupying the state? as internal waters.150
No. While there is no legal requirement as How can a state acquire a territory?
to the number, it is generally agreed that
they must be numerous enough to be self-
145 Philippine Political Law, Isagani Cruz, 2002 148 Fundamentals of the 1987 Philippine
Edition, p. 14 Constitution, Judge Eliza B. Yu, Vol. 1 2016 ed.,
146 Philippine Political Law, Isagani Cruz, 2002 p. 25
Edition, p. 15 - 26 149 Ibid.
147 Philippine Political Law, Isagani Cruz, 2002 150 Fundamentals of the 1987 Philippine
Edition, p. 15 Constitution, Judge Eliza B. Yu, Vol. 1 2016 ed.,

p. 34
(Colossians 3:23)
Under traditional international law typology, absolute. It is susceptible of no limitation

States acquire (or conversely, lose) not imposed by itself. Any restriction upon
territory through occupation, accretion, it, deriving validity from an external source,
cession and prescription, not by executing would imply a diminution of its sovereignty
multilateral treaties on the regulations of to the extent of the restriction. All
sea-use rights or enacting statutes to exceptions, therefore, to the full and
comply with the treaty terms to delimit complete power of a nation within its own
maritime zones and continental shelves. territories, must be traced up to the consent
(Magallona v. Executive Secretary)151 of the nation itself. They can flow from no
other legitimate source. (Reagan v. CIR)153
Explain the so-called Baseline Law
Is the erection of a building in a naval
Baselines laws are nothing but statutory base leased to the American Armed
mechanisms for UNCLOS III States parties Forces form part of the Philippine
to delimit with precision the extent of their territory?
maritime zones and continental shelves. In
turn, this gives notice to the rest of the Yes. Within the limits of its territory,
international community of the scope of the whatever statutory powers are vested upon
maritime space and submarine areas it may be validly exercised. Any residual
within which States parties exercise treaty- authority and therein conferred, whether
based rights, namely, the exercise of expressly or impliedly, belongs to the
sovereignty over territorial waters (Article national government, not to an alien
2), the jurisdiction to enforce customs, country. (People v. Gozo)154
fiscal, immigration, and sanitation laws in
the contiguous zone (Article 33), and the Concept of Sovereignty as auto-
right to exploit the living and non-living limitation
resources in the exclusive economic zone
(Article 56) and continental shelf (Article It is the property of a state-force due to
77). (Magallona v. Executive Secretary)152 which it has the exclusive capacity of legal
self-determination and self-restriction. A
Is the Clark Air Force Base considered State then, if it chooses to, may refrain from
as part of the Philippine Territory? the exercise of what otherwise is illimitable
competence. (Reagan v. CIR)155
Yes. Nothing is better settled than that the
Philippines being independent and Definition of “Government”
sovereign, its authority may be exercised
over its entire domain. There is no portion Government of the Republic of the
thereof that is beyond its power. Within its Philippines refers to the corporate
limits, its decrees are supreme, its governmental entity through which the
commands paramount. Its laws governed functions of government are exercised
therein, and everyone to whom it applies throughout the Philippines, including, save
must submit to its terms. That is the extent as the contrary appears from the context,
of its jurisdiction, both territorial and the various arms through which political
personal. Necessarily, likewise, it has to be authority is made effective in the
exclusive. If it were not thus, there is a Philippines, whether pertaining to the
diminution of its sovereignty. autonomous regions, the provincial, city,
municipal or barangay subdivisions or
The jurisdiction of the nation within its other forms of local government.156
territory is necessarily exclusive and
151 Magallona v. Executive Secretary, G.R No. 154 People v. Gozo, G.R. No. L-36409, October
187167, July 16, 2011 26, 1973
152 Ibid. 155 Reagan v. CIR, G.R. No. L-26379,
153 Reagan v. CIR, G.R. No. L-26379, December 27, 1969
December 27, 1969 156 Sec. 2 of the Administrative Code of 1987
(Colossians 3:23)
What is the prescribed form of difference is that MIAA is vested with

“Government”? corporate powers.
From the viewpoint of international law, no When the law vests in a government
particular form of government is instrumentality corporate powers, the
prescribed, provided only that the instrumentality does not become a
government is able to represent the State corporation. Unless the government
in its dealings with other States.157 instrumentality is organized as a stock or
non-stock corporation, it remains a
However, it is expressly stated in the 1987 government instrumentality exercising not
Philippine Constitution that our government only governmental but also corporate
should be democratic and republican.158 powers. Thus, MIAA exercises the
governmental powers of eminent domain,
What is the meaning of a “democratic police authority and the levying of fees and
and republican” form of Government? charges. At the same time, MIAA exercises
"all the powers of a corporation under the
It means that sovereignty resides with the Corporation Law, insofar as these powers
people and all government authority are not inconsistent with the provisions of
emanates from them.159 this Executive Order."
Is the Armed Forces of the Philippines Likewise, when the law makes a
Retirement and Separation Benefits government instrumentality operationally
System (AFP-RSBS) considered as a autonomous, the instrumentality remains
government entity? part of the National Government machinery
although not integrated with the
Yes. It was held in the case of People v. department framework. The MIAA Charter
Sandiganbayan160 that the character and expressly states that transforming MIAA
operations of the AFP-RSBS are imbued into a "separate and autonomous body" will
with public interest. As such, the Court held make its operation more "financially
that the same is a government entity and its viable."
funds are in the nature of public funds.
AFP-RSBS was created by Presidential What are the two functions of the
Decree No. 361. Its purpose and functions Government?
are akin to those of the GSIS and the SSS,
as in fact it is the system that manages the The 2 functions of the Government are
retirement and pension funds of those in enumerated as follows:
the military service.
1. Constituent Function
Is the Manila International Airport
Authority (MIAA) considered as a Constitute the very bonds of society
government owned and controlled and are therefore compulsory. (ex.
corporation? keeping order and providing
protection, fixing legal relations
No. In the case of MIAA v. Court of between husband, wife and
Appeals,161 the Court ruled that MIAA is a children, determination of
government instrumentality vested with contractual rights., etc.)
corporate powers to perform efficiently its
governmental functions. MIAA is like any 2. Ministrant Function
other government instrumentality, the only
157 Philippine Political Law, Isagani Cruz, 2002 159 Ibid.

Edition, p. 18-19 160 G.R. No. 145951, August 12, 2003
158 Sec. 1 of Art. II of the 1987 Philippine 161 G.R. No. 155650, July 20, 2006
Constitution
(Colossians 3:23)
Are those undertaken to advance It was held in the case of Cabanas v.

the general interests of society, Pilapil,165 that the judiciary, as an agency of
such as public works, public charity, the State acting as parens patriae, is called
and regulation of trade and upon whenever a pending suit of litigation
industry. These are merely affects one who is a minor to accord priority
optional.162 to his best interest.
Can Government Service and Insurance The prerogative of parens patriae is

System (GSIS) invoke its exercise of inherent in the supreme power of every
propriety (ministrant) function and State, whether that power is lodged in a
exclude itself from the coverage and royal person or in the legislature, and has
scope of right to information? no affinity to those arbitrary powers which
are sometimes exerted by irresponsible
No. The Court held in the case of Valmonte monarchs to the great detriment of the
v. Belmonte,163 that the “constituent- people and the destruction of their liberties.
ministrant” dichotomy characterizing
government function has long been Also, in the case of People v. Baylon,166 the
repudiated. The Court said that the State, as parens patriae, is under the
Government, whether carrying out its obligation to minimize the risk of harm to
sovereign attributes or running some those who, because of their minority, are as
business, discharges the same function of yet unable to take care of themselves fully.
service to the people.
Are judges prohibited to engage or to
Consequently, that the GSIS, in granting have an interest in any lawful business?
the loans, was exercising a proprietary
function would not justify the exclusion of No. The Court held in the case of Macariola
the transactions from the coverage and v. Asuncion,167 that there is no provision in
scope of the right to information. both the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions of
the Philippines, nor is there an existing law
Government-owned and controlled expressly prohibiting members of the
corporations, whether performing Judiciary from engaging or having interest
proprietary or governmental functions are in any lawful business. Article 14 of the
accountable to the people, the Court is Code of Commerce which prohibits judges
convinced that transactions entered into by from engaging in commerce is, as
the GSIS, a government-owned and heretofore stated, deemed abrogated
controlled corporation created by special automatically upon the transfer of
legislation are within the ambit of the sovereignty from Spain to America,
people’s right to be informed pursuant to because it is political in nature.
the constitutional policy of transparency in
government dealings. Does the State have the power to deport
undesirable aliens in its territory?
Doctrine of Parens Patriae
Yes. It was held in the case of Harvey v.
One of the important tasks of the Commissioner,168 that every sovereign
Government is to act for the State as power has the inherent power to exclude
parens patriae, or guardian of the rights of aliens from its territory upon such grounds
the people.164 as it may deem proper for its self-
preservation or public interest. The power
to deport aliens is an act of State, an act
162 Philippine Political Law, Isagani Cruz, 2002 165 G.R. No. L-25843, July 25, 1974
Edition, p. 19-20 166 G.R. No. L-35785, May 29, 1974
163 G.R. No. 74930, February 13, 1989 167 A.M. No. 133-J, May 31,1982
164 Philippine Political Law, Isagani Cruz, 2002 168 G.R. No. 82544, June 28, 1988
Edition, p. 19-20
(Colossians 3:23)
done by or under the authority of the

sovereign power. It is a police measure
against undesirable aliens whose
continued presence in the country is found
to be injurious to the public good and the
domestic tranquility of the people.
Particularly so in this case where the State
has expressly committed itself to defend
the right of children to assistance and
special protection from all forms of neglect,
abuse, cruelty, exploitation, and other
conditions prejudicial to their development
(Art. XV, Sec. 3[2]). Respondent
Commissioner of Immigration and
Deportation, in instituting deportation
proceedings against petitioners, acted in
the interest of the State.
(Colossians 3:23)
PREAMBLE (Bar Exam) pursue such policies cannot give

rise to a cause of action in the
We, the sovereign Filipino people, courts.
imploring the aid of Almighty God, in order
to build a just and humane society and They are used by the judiciary as
establish a Government that shall embody aids or as guides in the exercise of
our ideals and aspirations, promote the its power of judicial review, and by
common good, conserve and develop our the legislature in its enactment of
patrimony, and secure to ourselves and our laws.
posterity the blessings of independence
and democracy under the rule of law and a 2) Differentiate not self-executing from
regime of truth, justice, freedom, love, self-executing provisions
equality, and peace, do ordain and
promulgate this Constitution. A provision which lays down a
general principle, such as those
ARTICLE I found in Art. II of the 1987
Constitution, is usually not self-
NATIONAL TERRITORY executing.
The national territory comprises the But a provision which is complete in

Philippine archipelago, with all the islands itself and becomes operative
and waters embraced therein, and all other without the aid of supplementary or
territories over which the Philippines has enabling legislation, or that which
sovereignty or jurisdiction, consisting of its supplies sufficient rule by means of
terrestrial, fluvial, and aerial domains, which the right it grants may be
including its territorial sea, the seabed, the enjoyed or protected, is self-
subsoil, the insular shelves, and other executing.
submarine areas. The waters around,
between, and connecting the islands of the Thus a constitutional provision is
archipelago, regardless of their breadth self-executing if the nature and
and dimensions, form part of the internal extent of the right conferred and the
waters of the Philippines. liability imposed are fixed by the
constitution itself, so that they can
ARTICLE II be determined by an examination
and construction of its terms, and
DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND there is no language indicating that
STATE POLICIES the subject is referred to the
legislature for action.170
Principles:
3) List of non self-executing provisions
Q & A: of the Constitution
1) Are the provisions of Article II of the Basco v. PAGCOR171

1987 Constitution self-executing?
 Sections 11 (Personality
No. It was held in the case of Taada Dignity), 12 (Family), and 13
v. Angara,169 that provisions of (Role of Youth) of Article II;
Article II of the 1987 Constitution,
the declarations of principles and  Section 13 (Social Justice)
state policies, are not self- of Article XIII;
executing. Legislative failure to
169
G.R. No. 118295, May 2, 1997 171 G.R. No. 91649, May 14, 1991
170Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS, G.R. No.
122156, February 3, 1997
(Colossians 3:23)
 Section 11 of Article XIII

 Section 2 (Educational (adopt an integrated and
Values) of Article XIV. comprehensive approach to
health development)
Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance172
 Section 14 of Article XIII
 Section 1 of Article XIII (protect working women by
(human dignity and the providing safe and healthful
reduction of social, working conditions)
economic and political
inequalities)  Section 1 of Article XV
(State recognizes the
 Section 2 of Article XIV Filipino family as the
(right to "quality education”) foundation of the nation)
Taada v. Angara173  Section 3 of Article XV (Duty

of the State to defend family
 Section 5 of Article II rights)
(maintenance of peace and
order, the protection of life, Pamatong v. COMELEC175
liberty, and property, and
the promotion of the general  Section 26 of Article II (equal access to
welfare) opportunities for public service)
 Section 9 of Article II 4) List of self-executing provisions of

(promote a just and dynamic the Constitution
social order)
Oposa v. Factoran176
 Section 10 of Article II
(promote social justice) ✓ Section 16 of Article II (right of the
people to a balanced and healthful
 Section 11 of Article II ecology)
(values the dignity of every
human person and Gamboa v. Finance Secretary177
guarantees full respect for
human rights) ✓ Sec. 11 of Article XII (40% limit on
foreign ownership of public utilities)
 Section 13 of Article II
(recognizes the vital role of The term capital in Section 11,
the youth in nation-building) Article XII of the Constitution
refers only to shares of stock
 Section 15 of Article II entitled to vote in the election of
(protect and promote the directors, and thus in the
right to health of the people) present case only to common
shares, and not to the total
 Section 18 of Article II outstanding capital stock
(affirms labor as a primary comprising both common and
social economic force) non-voting preferred shares.
(Bar Question)
Tondo Medical Center Employees
Association v. CA174
172 G.R. No. 115455, August 25, 1994 175 G.R. No. 161872, April 13, 2004
173 G.R. No. 118295, May 2, 1997 176 G.R. No. 101083, July 30, 1993
174 G.R. No. 167324, July 17, 2007 177 G.R. No. 176579, June 28, 2011
(Colossians 3:23)
SECTION 1. The Philippines is a 3) Can the City Mayor deport any

democratic and republican State. Filipino women of ill-repute, located
Sovereignty resides in the people and in Manila, to another place, such as
all government authority emanates from Davao?
them.
No. The Court held in the case of
Q & A: Villavicencio v. Lukban,180 that the
mayor may not be permitted to
1) Can a second placer in the restrain a fellow citizen of her liberty
congressional elections be by forcing her to change her
proclaimed the duly elected domicile and to avow the act with
Congressman in case an electoral impunity in the courts, while the
protest was filed against the first person who has lost her birthright of
placer with the HRET? liberty has no effective recourse.
The great writ of liberty may not
No. It was held in the case of thus be easily evaded.
Ocampo v. HRET178 that for a
candidate who has not been SECTION 2. The Philippines renounces
disqualified by final judgment during war as an instrument of national policy,
the election day, the people voted adopts the generally accepted
for him bona fide, without any principles of international law as part of
intention to misapply their the law of the land and adheres to the
franchise, and in the honest belief policy of peace, equality, justice,
that the candidate was then freedom, cooperation, and amity with all
qualified to be the person to whom nations.
they would entrust the exercise of
the powers of government. Q & A:
2) Can certain qualifications to be 1) Is the letter of Instruction, issued by

possessed or that certain the Executive Department,
disqualifications be not possessed providing for an early seaming
by persons desiring to serve as device for motor vehicles valid?
elective public officials be cured by
popular votes? Yes. The Court held in the case of
Agustin v. Edu,181 that the hazards
No. The Court ruled in the case of posed by such obstructions to traffic
Maquiling v. COMELEC,179 that the have been recognized by
will of the people as expressed international bodies concerned with
through the ballot cannot cure the traffic safety, the 1968 Vienna
vice of ineligibility, especially if they Convention on Road Signs and
mistakenly believed, as in this case, Signals and the United Nations
that the candidate was qualified. Organization (U.N.); [Whereas], the
Obviously, this rule requires strict said Vienna Convention, which was
application when the deficiency is ratified by the Philippine
lack of citizenship. If a person seeks Government under P.D. No. 207,
to serve in the Republic of the recommended the enactment of
Philippines, he must owe his total local legislation for the installation
loyalty to this country only, abjuring of road safety signs and devices; *
and renouncing all fealty and fidelity * * " It cannot be disputed then that
to any other state. this Declaration of Principle found in
the Constitution possesses
relevance: "The Philippines * * *
178 G.R. No. 158466, June 15, 2004 180 G.R. No. L-14639, March 25, 1919
179 G.R. No. 195649, April 16, 2013 181 G.R. No. L-49112, February 2, 1979
(Colossians 3:23)
adopts the generally accepted rules being reserved only to the

principles of international law as Congress of the Philippines.
part of the law of the land * * *." The
1968 Vienna Convention on Road It is clear, therefore, that the
Signs and Signals is impressed with privileges provided in the Treaty
such a character. It is not for this invoked by the applicant are made
country to repudiate a commitment expressly subject to the laws and
to which it had pledged its word. regulations of the contracting State
The concept of Pacta sunt in whose territory it is desired to
servanda stands in the way of such exercise the legal profession; and
an attitude, which is, moreover, at Section 1 of Rule 127, in connection
war with the principle of with Sections 2, 9, and 16 thereof,
international morality. which have the force of law, require
that before anyone can practice the
2) What should prevail in case of legal profession in the Philippine he
conflict between a treaty and a must first successfully pass the
subsequent law? required bar examinations.
In the case of Ichong v. 4) Is the Senate’s power to concur

Hernandez,182 the Court held that with treaties constitute a justiciable
Republic Act No. 1180 entitled "An question?
Act to Regulate the Retail
Business” is valid and No, it pertains to the wisdom rather
constitutional. The Court pointed than the legality of the act. The
out that even supposing that the law Court ruled in the case of Bayan v.
infringes upon the said treaty, the Zamora184 that as to the power to
treaty is always subject to concur with treaties, the constitution
qualification or amendment by a lodges the same with the Senate
subsequent law, and the same may alone. Thus, once the Senate
never curtail or restrict the scope of performs that power, or exercises
the police power of the State. its prerogative within the
boundaries prescribed by the
3) Can a treaty modify the laws and Constitution, the concurrence
regulations governing the cannot, in like manner, be viewed to
admission to the practice of law in constitute an abuse of power, much
the Philippines? less grave abuse thereof.
No. In the case of In Re Garcia,183 For the role of the Senate in relation
the Court held that treaty concluded to treaties is essentially legislative
between the Republic of the in character; the Senate, as an
Philippines and the Spanish State independent body possessed of its
could not have been intended to own erudite mind, has the
modify the laws and regulations prerogative to either accept or
governing admission to the practice reject the proposed agreement, and
of law in the Philippines, for the whatever action it takes in the
reason that the Executive exercise of its wide latitude of
Department may not encroach discretion, pertains to the wisdom
upon the constitutional prerogative rather than the legality of the act.
of the Supreme Court to promulgate
rules for admission to the practice SECTION 3. Civilian authority is, at all
of law in the Philippines, the lower times, supreme over the military. The
to repeal, alter or supplement such Armed Forces of the Philippines is the
182 G.R. No. L-7995, May 31, 1957 184 G.R. No. 138570, October 10, 2000
183 August 15, 1961
(Colossians 3:23)
protector of the people and the State. Its SECTION 6. The separation of Church
goal is to secure the sovereignty of the and State shall be inviolable.
State and the integrity of the national
territory. BAR EXAM:
SECTION 4. The prime duty of the Fernando filed an administrative complaint

Government is to serve and protect the against his co-teacher, Amelia, claiming
people. The Government may call upon that the latter is living with a married man
the people to defend the State and, in who is not her husband. Fernando charged
the fulfillment thereof, all citizens may Amelia with committing "disgraceful and
be required, under conditions provided immoral conduct" in violation of the
by law, to render personal military or Revised Administrative Code and, thus,
civil service. should not be allowed to remain employed
in the government. Amelia, on the other
Q & A: hand, claims that she and her partner are
members of a religious sect that allows
1) Can an ordinary civilian refuse to members of the congregation who have
register with the army on the ground been abandoned by their respective
that he is fatherless, no military spouses to enter marital relations under a
learnings, and does not wish to kill "Declaration of Pledging Faithfulness."
or be killed? Having made such Declaration, she argues
that she cannot be charged with committing
No. It was held in the case of immoral conduct for she is entitled to free
People v. Lagman,185 that what exercise of religion under the Constitution.
justifies compulsory military service
is the defense of the State, whether QUESTIONS:
actual or whether in preparation to
make it more effective, in case of a. Is Amelia administratively liable?
need. State your reasons briefly.
The National Defense Law, in so far b. Briefly explain the concept of

as it establishes compulsory "benevolent neutrality."
military service, does not go against
this constitutional provision but is, ANSWERS:
on the contrary, in faithful
compliance therewith. The duty of a. No. The Court held in the case of
the Government to defend the State Estrada v. Escritor,186 that the
cannot be performed except image of a court of justice is
through an army. To leave the mirrored in the conduct, official and
organization of an army to the will of otherwise, of the personnel who
the citizens would be to make this work thereat, from the judge to the
duty of the Government excusable lowest of its personnel. Court
should there be no sufficient men personnel have been enjoined to
who volunteer to enlist therein. adhere to the exacting standards of
morality and decency in their
SECTION 5. The maintenance of peace professional and private conduct in
and order, the protection of life, liberty, order to preserve the good name
and property, and the promotion of the and integrity of the courts of justice.
general welfare are essential for the
enjoyment by all the people of the It is apparent from the Office of the
blessings of democracy. Court Administrator (OCA)’s
reliance upon this ruling that the
state interest it upholds is the
185 G.R. No. L-45892, July 13, 1938 186 A.M. No. P-02-1651. August 4, 2003
(Colossians 3:23)
preservation of the integrity of the standard of living, and an improved

judiciary by maintaining among its quality of life for all.
ranks a high standard of morality
and decency. However, there is SECTION 10. The State shall promote
nothing in the OCAs memorandum social justice in all phases of national
to the Court that demonstrates how development.
this interest is so compelling that it
should override respondent’s plea Q & A:
of religious freedom nor is it shown
that the means employed by the 1) Can the Congress pass a law
government in pursuing its interest imposing property qualifications in
is the least restrictive to order that a person could run for a
respondent’s religious exercise. public office and that the people
could validly vote for him?
b. Benevolent neutrality protects
religious realities, tradition and No. The Court ruled in the case of
established practice with a flexible Maquera v. Borra,188 that social
reading of the principle. justice presupposes equal
opportunity for all, rich and poor
Benevolent neutrality gives room alike, and that, accordingly, no
for different kinds of person shall, by reason of poverty,
accommodation: those which are be denied the chance to be elected
constitutionally compelled, i.e., to public office
required by the Free Exercise
Clause; and those which are 2) What is the legal definition of
discretionary or legislative, i.e., and “Social Justice”? (BAR EXAM
those not required by the Free QUESTION)
Exercise Clause but nonetheless
permitted by the Establishment Social justice is "neither
Clause. (Estrada v. Escritor)187 communism, nor despotism, nor
atomism, nor anarchy," but the
State Policies: humanization of laws and the
equalization of social and economic
SECTION 7. The State shall pursue an forces by the State so that justice in
independent foreign policy. In its its rational and objectively secular
relations with other states the conception may at least be
paramount consideration shall be approximated.
national sovereignty, territorial
integrity, national interest, and the right Social justice means the promotion
to self-determination. of the welfare of all the people, the
adoption by the Government of
SECTION 8. The Philippines, consistent measures calculated to insure
with the national interest, adopts and economic stability of all the
pursues a policy of freedom from competent elements of society,
nuclear weapons in its territory. through the maintenance of a
proper economic and social
SECTION 9. The State shall promote a equilibrium in the interrelations of
just and dynamic social order that will the members of the community,
ensure the prosperity and constitutionally, through the
independence of the nation and free the adoption of measures legally
people from poverty through policies justifiable, or extra-constitutionally,
that provide adequate social services, through the exercise of powers
promote full employment, a rising underlying the existence of all
187 Ibid. 188 G.R. No. L-24761, September 7, 1965

(Colossians 3:23)
governments on the time-honored investigatorial powers. To

principle of salus populi est exemplify, the power to cite for
suprema lex. (Calalang v. contempt could be exercised
189
Williams) against persons who refuse to
cooperate with the said body, or
3) Can the Philippine Coconut who unduly withhold relevant
Authority (PCA) require all those information, or who decline to honor
who want to engage in coconut summons, and the like, in pursuing
processing to apply to it for a its investigative work. The "order to
license permit as a condition for desist" (a semantic interplay for a
engaging in such business? restraining order) in the instance
before us, however, is not
Yes. It was held the case of APCD investigatorial in character but
v. PCA,190 that PCA has the power prescinds from an adjudicative
to regulate the coconut industry, as power that it does not possess.
in fact the power is bestowed upon
it by its organic act, P.D. No. 232, SECTION 12. The State recognizes the
viz. "to promote the rapid integrated sanctity of family life and shall protect
development and growth of the and strengthen the family as a basic
coconut and other palm oils in autonomous social institution. It shall
industry in all its aspects and to equally protect the life of the mother and
ensure that the coconut farmers the life of the unborn from conception.
become direct participants in, and The natural and primary right and duty
beneficiaries of, such development of parents in the rearing of the youth for
and growth." Its broad mandate is civic efficiency and the development of
"to formulate and adopt a general moral character shall receive the
program of development for the support of the Government.
coconut and other palm oils
industry." SECTION 13. The State recognizes the
vital role of the youth in nation-building
SECTION 11. The State values the and shall promote and protect their
dignity of every human person and physical, moral, spiritual, intellectual,
guarantees full respect for human and social well-being. It shall inculcate
rights. in the youth patriotism and nationalism,
and encourage their involvement in
Q & A: public and civic affairs.
1) Does the Commission on Human SECTION 14. The State recognizes the
Right have the power to issue an role of women in nation-building, and
“order to desist” in order to prevent shall ensure the fundamental equality
the petitioner to demolish the stalls before the law of women and men.
of the respondents pursuant to the
authority given by the Mayor of SECTION 15. The State shall protect and
Quezon City? promote the right to health of the people
and instill health consciousness among
No. The Court held in the case of them.
Simon v. CHR,191 that power to cite
for contempt, however, should be SECTION 16. The State shall protect and
understood to apply only to advance the right of the people to a
violations of its adopted operational balanced and healthful ecology in
guidelines and rules of procedure accord with the rhythm and harmony of
essential to carry out its nature.
189 G.R. No. 47800, December 2, 1940 191 G.R. No. 100150, January 5, 1994
190 G.R. No. 110526, February 10, 1998
(Colossians 3:23)
Freedom of contract and enterprise,

SECTION 17. The State shall give like all other freedoms, is not free
priority to education, science and from restrictions, more so in this
technology, arts, culture, and sports to jurisdiction, where laissez faire has
foster patriotism and nationalism, never been fully accepted as a
accelerate social progress, and promote controlling economic way of life.
total human liberation and
development. This Court understands the grave
implications the questioned Order
Q & A: has on the business of recruitment.
The concern of the Government,
1) Can a school revoke the doctoral however, is not necessarily to
degree of their graduate student maintain profits of business firms. In
without violating the constitutional the ordinary sequence of events, it
right of such student? is profits that suffer as a result of
Government regulation. The
Yes. In the case of UP Board of interest of the State is to provide a
Regents v. CA,192 the Court held decent living to its citizens. The
that where it is shown that the Government has convinced the
conferment of an honor or Court in this case that this is its
distinction was obtained through intent.
fraud, a university has the right to
revoke or withdraw the honor or SECTION 19. The State shall develop a
distinction it has thus conferred. self-reliant and independent national
Also, the sphere of autonomy economy effectively controlled by
granted to institutions of higher Filipinos.
learning, for the constitutional grant
of academic freedom is not to be SECTION 20. The State recognizes the
construed in a niggardly manner or indispensable role of the private sector,
in a grudging fashion. encourages private enterprise, and
provides incentives to needed
SECTION 18. The State affirms labor as investments.
a primary social economic force. It shall
protect the rights of workers and SECTION 21. The State shall promote
promote their welfare. comprehensive rural development and
agrarian reform.
Q & A:
SECTION 22. The State recognizes and
1) Is the “Temporary Suspension promotes the rights of indigenous
Order”/Department Order No. 1 cultural communities within the
issued by the Department of Labor, framework of national unity and
concerning the deployment of development.
Filipino Domestic and Household
Workers, valid and constitutional? SECTION 23. The State shall encourage
non-governmental, community-based,
Yes. The Court held in the case of or sectoral organizations that promote
PASEI v. Drilon,193 that non- the welfare of the nation.
impairment clause of the
Constitution, invoked by the SECTION 24. The State recognizes the
petitioner, must yield to the loftier vital role of communication and
purposes targeted by the information in nation-building.
Government.
192 G.R. No. 134625, August 31, 1999 193 G.R. No. 81958, June 30, 1988
(Colossians 3:23)
SECTION 25. The State shall ensure the public disclosure of all its transactions
autonomy of local governments. involving public interest.
SECTION 26. The State shall guarantee

equal access to opportunities for public
service, and prohibit political dynasties
as may be defined by law.
Q & A:
1) Can the COMELEC strike out

nuisance candidates who could not
wage a nationwide campaign
and/or are not nominated by a
political party or are not supported
by a registered political party with a
national constituency?
Yes. The Court held in the case of

Pamatong v. COMELEC,194 that the
State has a compelling interest to
ensure that its electoral exercises
are rational, objective, and orderly.
Towards this end, the State takes
into account the practical
considerations in conducting
elections. Inevitably, the greater the
number of candidates, the greater
the opportunities for logistical
confusion, not to mention the
increased allocation of time and
resources in preparation for the
election. These practical difficulties
should, of course, never exempt the
State from the conduct of a
mandated electoral exercise. At the
same time, remedial actions should
be available to alleviate these
logistical hardships, whenever
necessary and proper. Ultimately, a
disorderly election is not merely a
textbook example of inefficiency,
but a rot that erodes faith in our
democratic institutions.
SECTION 27. The State shall maintain

honesty and integrity in the public
service and take positive and effective
measures against graft and corruption.
SECTION 28. Subject to reasonable

conditions prescribed by law, the State
adopts and implements a policy of full
194 G.R. No. 161872, April 13, 2004

(Colossians 3:23)
INHERENT POWERS OF THE safety, public morals, and the general

GOVERNMENT welfare.195
What are the three (3) inherent powers Who can exercise this power?
of the Government?
It bears stressing that police power is
The three inherent powers of the lodged primarily in the National
Government are enumerated as follows: Legislature. It cannot be exercised by
any group or body of individuals not
1. Police Power; possessing legislative power. The
National Legislature, however, may
2. Power of Eminent Domain; and delegate this power to the President and
administrative boards as well as the
3. Power of Taxation. lawmaking bodies of municipal
corporations or local government units.
Similarities of the three (3) inherent Once delegated, the agents can exercise
powers: only such legislative powers as are
conferred on them by the national
1. It is inherent in a state and can be lawmaking body.196
exercise without any constitutional
grant. However, when Congress has consulted
its own wisdom, the Court has no
2. Primarily exercised by the authority to review, much less reverse.
legislature.
That is the prerogative of the political
3. It is indispensable and a state departments. It is settled that questions
cannot survive without exercising regarding the wisdom, morality, or
the said powers. practicability of statutes are not
addressed to the judiciary but may be
4. Interferes with the private rights of resolved only by the legislative and
the inhabitants of the State. executive departments, to which the
function belongs in our scheme of
Definition of the three (3) inherent government. That function is exclusive.
powers of the Government: Whichever way these branches decide,
they are answerable only to their own
Police Power: conscience and the constituents who will
ultimately judge their acts, and not to the
Police power is an inherent attribute of courts of justice.197
sovereignty. It has been defined as the
power vested by the Constitution in the
legislature to make, ordain, and establish Power of Eminent Domain:
all manner of wholesome and reasonable
laws, statutes and ordinances, either with Eminent domain is defined as the power of
penalties or without, not repugnant to the the nation or a sovereign state to take, or to
Constitution, as they shall judge to be for authorize the taking of, private property for
the good and welfare of the a public use without the owner’s consent,
commonwealth, and for the subjects of the conditioned upon payment of just
same. The power is plenary and its scope compensation. It is acknowledged as an
is vast and pervasive, reaching and inherent political right, founded on a
justifying measures for public health, public common necessity and interest of
appropriating the property of individual
195 Gancayco v. City Government of Quezon 196Ibid.

City & MMDA, G.R. No. 177807, October 11, 197 Magtajas v. Pryce Properties Corporation,
2011 Inc., G.R. No. 111097, July 20, 1994
(Colossians 3:23)
members of the community to the great 2. When a property interest is

necessities of the whole community.198 appropriated and applied to some
public purpose, there is
201
For the taking of private property by the compensable taking.
government to be valid, the taking must be
for public use and there must be just Who can exercise this power?
compensation.199
The power of eminent domain is
The exercise of the power of eminent exercised by the Legislature.
domain is constrained by two constitutional
provisions: (1) that private property shall However, it may be delegated by
not be taken for public use without just Congress to the President,
compensation under Article III (Bill of administrative bodies, local government
Rights), Section 9 and (2) that no person units, and even to private enterprises
shall be deprived of his/her life, liberty, or performing public services.
property without due process of law under
Art. III, Sec. 1.200 As a rule, the determination of whether
there is genuine necessity for the
Differentiate the power of eminent domain exercise is a justiciable question.
from police power However, when the power is exercised
by the Legislature, the question of
Eminent Domain: necessity is essentially a political
question.202 But even if the same is
1. The power of eminent domain is the considered as a political question, other
inherent right of the state (and of requisites should still concur to validly
those entities to which the power justify the exercise of this power.
has been lawfully delegated) to
condemn private property to public Municipality has also the power to
use upon payment of just exercise the right of eminent domain as
compensation. it is expressly provided for in Batas
Pambansa Blg. 337, the Local
2. Property condemned under police Government Code.203
power is usually noxious or
intended for a noxious purpose; Power of eminent domain could be
hence, no compensation shall be exercised by the City only through the
paid. filing of a verified complaint in the proper
court. Before the City as the
Police Power: expropriating authority filed such verified
complaint, no expropriation proceeding
1. Police power is the power of the could be said to exist. Until then, the
state to promote public welfare by petitioners as the owners could not also
restraining and regulating the use of be deprived of their property under the
liberty and property. power of eminent domain.204
198 Barangay Sindalan v. CA, G.R. No. 150640, 202 Manapat v. CA, G.R. No. 110478, October
March 22, 2007 15, 2007
199 Moday v. CA, G.R. No. 107916, February 203 Moday v. CA, G.R. No. 107916, February
20, 1997 20, 1997

200 Barangay Sindalan v. CA, G.R. No. 150640, 204 Spouses Yusay v. CA, G.R. No. 156684,
March 22, 2007 April 6, 2011

201 Didipio Earth-Savers MultiPurpose
Association v. Gozun, G.R. No. 157882, March
30, 2006
(Colossians 3:23)
Power of Taxation
It is the Power to enforce proportional

contribution from persons and property
levied by the state by virtue of its
sovereignty for the support of the
government and all public needs. (Cooley,
Taxation, 4th ed. Sec. 1)
The power of taxation is the power to levy

taxes to be used for public purpose.205
Differentiate the power of taxation from

police power
Taxation:
1. Power of taxation is the power to

levy taxes to be used for public
purpose.
2. Main purpose of taxation is revenue

generation.
3. The power of taxation is

circumscribed or limited by inherent
and constitutional limitations.
Police power:
1. Police power is the power of the

State to enact legislation that may
interfere with personal liberty or
property in order to promote the
general welfare.
2. Main purpose of police power is the

regulation of a behavior or conduct.
3. The lawful subjects and lawful

means tests are used to determine
the validity of a law enacted under
the police power.206
205 Planters Products, Inc. v. Fertiphil 206 Ibid.

Corporation,G.R. No. 166006, March 14, 2008
(Colossians 3:23)
POLICE POWER corporation to exercise police power, there

must be a legislative grant which
What are the requisites for the valid necessarily also sets the limits for the
exercise of Police Power? exercise of the power.
Requisites for the valid exercise of police In the Philippines, the grant of authority to
power are enumerated as follows: the municipality to exercise police power is
embodied in Section 2238 of the Revised
1. Interests of the public generally, as Administrative Code, otherwise known as
distinguished from those of a the General Welfare Clause. Chartered
particular class, require an cities are granted similar authority in their
interference with private rights. respective charters.
(lawful subject); and
The general welfare clause has two
2. Means adopted must be reasonably branches:
necessary for the accomplishment
of the purpose and not unduly 1. The first authorizes the municipal
oppressive upon individuals. (lawful council to enact such ordinances
means)207 and make such regulations not
repugnant to law, as may be
Ratio: A reasonable relation must exist necessary to carry into effect and
between the purposes of the police discharge the powers and duties
measure and the means employed for its conferred upon the municipal
accomplishment, for even under the council by law.
guise of protecting the public interest,
personal rights and those pertaining to 2. The second branch authorizes the
private property will not be permitted to municipality to enact such
be arbitrarily invaded.208 ordinances as may be necessary
and proper for the health and
safety, promote the prosperity,
Limitations in the exercise of Police improve the morals, peace, good
Power (when exercised by a delegate) order, comfort, and convenience of
the municipality and inhabitants
1. Police power should be expressly thereof, and for the protection of
granted by law or the constitution; property therein. (U.S. v. Salaveria
39 Phil. 103).211
2. Police power should be exercised
only within territorial limits, except How to determine if the exercise of
when LGUs opt to protect water police power by the local government is
supply;209 valid?
3. Police power must not be contrary The exercise of police power by the local
to law.210 government is valid unless it contravenes
the fundamental law of the land, or an act
Police power is inherent in the State but of the legislature, or unless it is against
not in municipal corporations public policy or is unreasonable,
oppressive, partial, discriminating or in
Police power is inherent in the State but not derogation of a common right.
in municipal corporations. For a municipal
207 City of Manila v. Laguio, G.R. No. 118127, 210Ibid.

April 12, 2005 211Justice Gutierrez Jr. Separate Opinion in the
208 Ibid. case of Balaquit v. CFI, G.R. No. L-38429, June
209 Outline Reviewer in Political Law, Antonio 30, 1988
E.B. Nachura, 2016, p. 67
(Colossians 3:23)
It should be noted that the presumption is Cases where there is legitimate exercise
always in favor of the validity of the of Police Power:
ordinance.
✓ When the City of Palawan and
This maybe the rule but it has already been Sanguniang Panlalawigan enacted
held that although the presumption is an Ordinance banning the shipment
always in favor of the validity or of all live fish and lobster outside
reasonableness of the ordinance, such Puerto Princesa City for 5 years and
presumption must nevertheless be set a resolution prohibiting the catching,
aside when the invalidity or gathering, possessing, buying,
unreasonableness appears on the face of selling and shipment of live marine
the ordinance itself or is established by coral dwelling aquatic organism.
proper evidence.212 (Tano v. Socrates)214
Regulatory ordinance must be Ratio: Under the general welfare

reasonable and its provisions cannot be clause of the Local Government
oppressive amounting to arbitrary Code (LGC), local government units
interference have the power, inter alia, to enact
ordinances to enhance the right of
While it is true that a business may be the people to a balanced ecology.215
regulated, it is equally true that such Also, fishermen were not totally
regulation must be within the bounds of banned from fishing, they are only
reason, that is, the regulatory ordinance banned in catching specific species
must be reasonable, and its provisions of fish. Hence, petitioners were not
cannot be oppressive amounting to an totally deprived of life, liberty and
arbitrary interference with the business or property.
calling subject of regulation.
✓ Letter of instruction issued by the
A lawful business or calling may not, under President which prohibits the use of
the guise of regulation, be unreasonably private motor vehicles with Heavy
interfered with even by the exercise of (H) and Extra Heavy (EH) plates on
police power. week-ends and holidays from
"[12:00] a.m. Saturday morning to
A police measure for the regulation of the 5:00 a.m. Monday morning.”
conduct, control and operation of a (Bautista v. Juinio216)
business should not encroach upon the
legitimate and lawful exercise by the Ratio: To cushion the effect of
citizens of their property rights. increasing oil prices and avoid fuel
supply disruptions, it is imperative to
The right of the owner to fix a price at which adopt a program directed towards
his property shall be sold or used is an the judicious use of our energy
inherent attribute of the property itself and, resources complemented with
as such, within the protection of the due intensified conservation efforts and
process clause."" Hence, the proprietors of efficient utilization thereof. That is
a theater have a right to manage their undeniable is that the action taken is
property in their own way, to fix what prices an appropriate response to a
of admission they think most for their own problem that presses urgently for
advantage, and that any person who did solution. It may not be the only
not approve could stay away.213 alternative, but its reasonableness is
immediately apparent.217
212 Balaquit v. CFI, G.R. No. L-38429, June 30, 215 Ibid.
1988 216 G.R. No. L-50908, January 31, 1984
213 Ibid. 217 Ibid.
214 G.R. No. 110249, August 21, 1997
(Colossians 3:23)
✓ A statute regulating the slaughter of

Also, petition was dismissed on the carabao for the purpose of
ground that there were no facts to conserving an adequate supply of
support that some eight cylinder draft animals. (US v. Toribio222)
vehicles, which have been
registered as “light,” consume more Ratio: The law in question "is not a
gasoline since the issue was never taking of the property for public use,
brought to the Regional Trial Court within the meaning of the
(RTC) in order to prove such claim. constitution, but is a just and
The Letter of Instruction was facially legitimate exercise of the power of
challenged and brought immediately the legislature to regulate and
to the Supreme Court (SC). restrain such particular use of the
However, the SC is not a trier of property as would be inconsistent
facts, hence, the petition was with or injurious to the rights of the
immediately dismissed. public.223
✓ Statute banning the retail sale of ✓ A zoning ordinance prohibiting the

milk in plastic nonreturnable, operation of a lumber yard within
nonrefillable containers, but certain areas. (People v. De
permitting such sale in other Guzman224)
nonreturnable, nonrefillable
containers, such as paperboard, Ratio: The passage of the
milk cartons. (Minnesota v. Clover ordinance was prompted by a desire
Leaf Creamery Company218) to abate nuisances resulting from
the operation of lumber yards within
Ratio: The opinion by Justice residential zones, and this falls
Brennan noted that "proponents of under the legitimate exercise of
the legislation argued that it would police power by the municipal
promote resource conservation, council.225
ease solid waste disposal problems,
and conserve energy." That sufficed ✓ Issuance of Batas Pambansa Bilang
for the Court to conclude "that the 22 or the Bouncing Check Law.
ban on plastic nonreturnable milk (Lozano v. Martinez226)
containers bears a rational relation
to the State's objectives, and must Ratio: The enactment of BP 22 is a
be sustained under the Equal declaration by the legislature that, as
Protection Clause."219 a matter of public policy, the making
and issuance of a worthless check is
✓ An ordinance prohibiting theaters deemed public nuisance to be
from selling tickets in excess of their abated by the imposition of penal
seating capacity (which would result sanctions.227
in the diminution of profits of the
theater-owners). (People v. Chan220) ✓ A law (Generics Act of 1988 also
known as Rep. Act No. 6675) which
Ratio: This would promote the requires doctors, dentists, and
comfort, convenience and safety of veterinarians to use the generic
the customers.221 terminology in writing their
218 449 US 456 (1981) 223 Ibid.

219 Ibid. 224 G.R. Nos. L-2772-5, September 29, 1951
220 G.R. No. L-45435, June 17, 1938 225 Ibid.
221 Ibid. 226 G.R. No. L-63419, December 18, 1986
222 G.R. No. L-5060, January 26, 1910 227 Ibid.
(Colossians 3:23)
prescriptions. (Del Rosario v. undesirable situation and the

Bengzon)228 legislative attempt at correction.
Ratio: It secures to the patient the The right of the individual is

right to choose between the brand necessarily subject to reasonable
name and its generic equivalent restraint by general law for the
since his doctor is allowed to write common good x x x The liberty of the
both the generic and the brand citizen may be restrained in the
name in his prescription form. If a interest of the public health, or of the
doctor is allowed to prescribe a public order and safety, or otherwise
brand-name drug with "no within the proper scope of the police
substitution," the patient's option to power.231
buy a lower-priced, but equally
effective, generic equivalent would ✓ Ordinances punishing vagrancy and
thereby be curtailed. The law aims to classifying a pimp or procurer as a
benefit the impoverished (and often vagrant;232 provide a license tax for
sickly) majority of the population in a and regulating the maintenance or
still developing country like ours, not operation of public dance halls;233
the affluent and generally healthy prohibiting gambling;234 prohibiting
minority.229 jueteng;235 and monte;236 prohibiting
playing of panguingui on days other
✓ The Ordinance enacted by the City than Sundays or legal holidays;237
of Manila imposing unreasonable prohibiting the operation of pinball
license fees on hotels (P6,000.00 machines;238 and prohibiting any
fee per annum for first class motels person from keeping, conducting or
and P4,500.00 for second class maintaining an opium joint or visiting
motels), requiring the hotel operator a place where opium is smoked or
to list the name of the customers, otherwise used.239
and would be open for inspection
either by the City Mayor, or the Chief Ratio: All of which are intended to
of Police, or their duly authorized protect public morals.240
representatives. (Ermita-Malate
Hotel and Motel Operators ✓ Prohibiting any operator of any
Association, Inc. v. City Mayor of barber shop to conduct the business
Manila230) of massaging customers or other
persons in any adjacent room or
Ratio: Precisely it was intended to rooms of said barber shop, or in any
curb the opportunity for the immoral room or rooms within the same
or illegitimate use to which such building where the barber shop is
premises could be, and, according located as long as the operator of
to the explanatory note, are being the barber shop and the room where
devoted. How could it then be massaging is conducted is the same
arbitrary or oppressive when there person. (Velasco v. Villegas241)
appears a correspondence between
the undeniable existence of an
228 G.R. No. 88265, December 21, 1989 237 U.S. v. Salaveria, (1918) 39 Phil. 102
229 Ibid. 238 Uy Ha v. The City Mayor, L-14149, May 30,
230 G.R. No. L-24693, July 31, 1967 1969
231 Ibid. 239 U.S. v. Ten Yu, (1912) 24 Phil. 1
232 U.S. vs. Giner Cruz, (1918) 38 Phil. 677 240 Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators
233 U.S. vs. Rodriguez, (1918) 38 Phil. 759 Association, Inc. v. City Mayor of Manila, G.R.
234 U.S. v. Pacis, (1915) 31 Phil. 524 No. L-24693, July 31, 1967
235 U.S. vs. Espiritu-Santo, (1912) 23 Phil. 610 241 G.R. No. L-24153, February 14, 1983
236 U.S. v. Tamparong, (1915) 31 Phil. 321
(Colossians 3:23)
Ratio: To be able to impose purpose intended. Reason, not

payment of the license fee for scientific exactitude, is the measure
engaging in the business of of the validity of the governmental
massage clinic under Ordinance No. regulation. Arguments based on
3659 as amended by Ordinance what is "best" are arguments
4767, an entirely different measure reserved for the Legislature’s
than the ordinance regulating the discussion. Judicial intervention in
business of barbershops. such matters will only be warranted
if the assailed regulation is patently
In order to forestall possible whimsical.
immorality which might grow out of
the construction of separate rooms Petitioners are not being deprived of
for massage of customers.242 their right to use the limited access
facility. They are merely being
✓ A Circular issued by Board of required, just like the rest of the
Transportation declaring that no car public, to adhere to the rules on how
beyond six years shall be operated to use the facility. AO 1 does not
as taxi. (Taxicab Operators of Metro infringe upon petitioners’ right to
Manila, Inc. v. The Board of travel but merely bars motorcycles,
Transportation243) bicycles, tricycles, pedicabs, and
any non-motorized vehicles as the
Ratio: The overriding consideration mode of traveling along limited
is the safety and comfort of the riding access highways. Several cheap,
public from the dangers posed by accessible and practical alternative
old and dilapidated taxis. The State, modes of transport are open to
in the exercise, of its police power, petitioners. There is nothing
can prescribe regulations to promote oppressive in being required to take
the health, morals, peace, good a bus or drive a car instead of one’s
order, safety and general welfare of scooter, bicycle, calesa, or
the people. It can prohibit all things motorcycle upon using a toll way.246
hurtful to comfort, safety and welfare
of society. It may also regulate ✓ A Resolution passed by the
property rights.244 Philippine Ports Authority (PPA)
adopting and approving set of
✓ An Administrative Order, pursuant to policies on Port Administration,
RA 2000, issued by the Department Management and Operation,
of Public Works and Highways including the operation of arrastre
(DPWH) prohibiting certain and stevedoring services in one
motorcycles in tollways. (Mirasol v. port. (Anglo-Fil Trading Corporation
DPWH245) v. Lazaro247)
Ratio: The means by which the Ratio: The Manila South Harbor is
government chooses to act is not public property owned by the State.
judged in terms of what is "best," The operations of this premiere port
rather, on simply whether the act is of the country, including stevedoring
reasonable. The validity of a police work, are affected with public
power measure does not depend interest. Stevedoring services are
upon the absolute assurance that subject to regulation and control for
the purpose desired can in fact be the public good and in the interest of
probably fully accomplished, or upon general welfare.
the certainty that it will best serve the
242 Ibid. 245 G.R. No. 158793, June 8, 2006

243 G.R. No. L-59234, September 30, 1982 246 Ibid.
244 Ibid. 247 G.R. No. L-54958, September 2, 1983
(Colossians 3:23)
Not only does the PPA, as an services awarded through the

agency of the State enjoy the system of public bidding. (Philippine
presumption of validity in favor of its Ports Authority v. Cipres
official acts implementing its Stevedoring and Arrastre, Inc.249)
statutory charter, it has more than
adequately proved that the Ratio: The Court found no
integration of port services-is far arbitrariness nor irregularity on the
from arbitrary and is related to the part of petitioner as far as PPA AO
stated governmental objective. No. 03-2000 is concerned. It is
worthwhile to remind respondent
A single contractor furnishing the that petitioner was created for the
stevedoring requirements of a port purpose of, among other things,
has in its favor the economy of scale promoting the growth of regional
and the maximum utilization of port bodies. In furtherance of this
equipment and manpower. In turn, objective, petitioner is empowered,
effective supervision and control as after consultation with relevant
well as collection and accounting of government agencies, to make port
the government share of revenues regulations particularly to make
are rendered easier for PPA than rules or regulation for the planning,
where there are 23 contractors for it development, construction,
to oversee. As respondent court maintenance, control, supervision
found from the evidence, the and management of any port or port
multiple-contractor system has bred district in the country.
cut-throat competitions in the port.
Understandably, most contractors With this mandate, the decision to
had been unable to acquire bid out the cargo holding services in
sufficient modern facilities, observe the ports around the country is
labor standards for their workers, properly within the province and
maintain efficiency in services, and discretion of petitioner which we
pay PPA dues. The questioned cannot simply set aside absent
program would accelerate the grave abuse of discretion on its part.
rationalization and integration of all The discretion to carry out this policy
cargo-handling activities and port- necessarily required prior study and
related services in major ports and evaluation and this task is best left to
the development of vital port the judgment of petitioner.250
facilities, projects, and services.248
✓ Issuance of the PNP Chief regarding
However, the problem with this the Ban on the Carrying of Firearms
ruling is that there might be an Outside of Residence. (Chavez v.
instance wherein the Government is Romulo251)
at a disadvantage since other
stevedoring and arrastre companies Ratio: What they proscribe is merely
may offer prices at a lower cost while the carrying of firearms outside of
maintaining a much higher or at par residence. However, those who wish
standard of work/services as to carry their firearms outside of their
compared to the winning contractor. residences may re-apply for a new
PTCFOR. This we believe is a
✓ An Administrative Order containing reasonable regulation. If the carrying
guidelines and procedures in the of firearms is regulated, necessarily,
selection and award of cargo crime incidents will be curtailed.
handling contracts in all government Criminals carry their weapon to hunt
ports as well as cargo handling for their victims; they do not wait in
248 Ibid. 250 Ibid.

249 G.R. No. 145742, July 14, 2005 251 G.R. No. 157036, June 9, 2004
(Colossians 3:23)
the comfort of their homes. With the area which are allegedly operated
revocation of all PTCFOR, it would under the deceptive veneer of
be difficult for criminals to roam legitimate, licensed and tax-paying
around with their guns. On the other nightclubs, bars, karaoke bars, girlie
hand, it would be easier for the PNP houses, cocktail lounges, hotels and
to apprehend them. motels. (City of Manila v. Judge
Laguio257)
With the promotion of public peace
as its objective and the revocation of Ratio: An ordinance which
all PTCFOR as the means, we are permanently restricts the use of
convinced that the issuance of the property that it cannot be used for any
assailed Guidelines constitutes a reasonable purpose goes beyond
reasonable exercise of police regulation and must be recognized as a
power.252 taking of the property without just
compensation. The prohibition of the
✓ Laws regulating the acquisition or enumerated establishments will not per
possession of guns (State v. se protect and promote the social and
Reams253) moral welfare of the community; it will
not in itself eradicate the alluded social
Ratio: It was held that the legislature ills of prostitution, adultery, fornication
may regulate the right to bear arms nor will it arrest the spread of sexual
in a manner conducive to the public disease in Manila. Also, sexual
peace.254 immorality, being a human frailty, may
take place in the most innocent of
✓ Statutory regulation prohibiting the places that it may even take place in the
carrying of concealed weapons. (US substitute establishments.258
v. Villareal255)
 Ordinance issued by the City of
Ratio: Strict enforcement of such a Bacolod making it unlawful for any
regulation would tend to increase proprietor, lessee, or operator of an
the security of life and limb, and to amusement place to admit two or more
suppress crime and lawlessness, in persons with only one admission ticket.
any community wherein the practice (Samson v. City Mayor of Bacolod
of carrying concealed weapons City259)
prevails, and this without being
unduly oppressive upon the Ratio: Insofar as movie houses and
individual owners of these weapons. other places of amusement are
It follows that its enactment by the concerned, the least doubt cannot be
legislature is a proper and legitimate entertained as to the validity of a
exercise of the police power of the measure prohibiting a proprietor,
state.256 lessee or operator of an amusement
place to admit two or more persons with
Cases where there is an invalid exercise only one admission ticket, not only in
of Police Power: the interest of preventing fraud insofar
as municipal taxes are concerned, but
 An Ordinance enacted by the City of also in accordance with public health,
Manila to address and arrest the social public safety and the general
ills purportedly spawned by the welfare.260
establishments in the Ermita-Malate
252 Ibid. 256 Ibid.

253 121 N.C. 556, 557, 27 S.E. 1004, 1005 257 G.R. No. 118127, April 12, 2005
(1897) 258 Ibid.
254 Ibid. 259 G.R. No. L-28745, October 23, 1974
255 28 Phil. 390 (1914) 260 Ibid.
(Colossians 3:23)
 Ordinance issued by the City of Butuan allowing to be used its premises or

penalizing businesses who are portion thereof for the operation of
engaged in any movie or public casino. (Magtajas v. Pryce Properties
exhibitions who requires children Corporation, Inc.265)
between 7 and 12 to pay full for tickets
intended for adults instead of ½ of the Ratio: The morality of gambling is not a
price of the said ticket. (Balaquit v. justiciable issue. Gambling is not illegal
CFI261) per se. While it is generally considered
inimical to the interests of the people,
Ratio: The petitioners are merely there is nothing in the Constitution
conducting their legitimate businesses. categorically proscribing or penalizing
The object of every business gambling or, for that matter, even
entrepreneur is to make a profit out of mentioning it at all.
his venture. There is nothing immoral or
injurious in charging the same price for The apparent flaw in the ordinances in
both children and adults. In fact, no question is that they contravene P.D.
person is under compulsion to 1869 and the public policy embodied
purchase a ticket. It is a totally voluntary therein insofar as they prevent
act on the part of the purchaser if he PAGCOR from exercising the power
buys a ticket to such performances. conferred on it to operate a casino in
Cagayan de Oro City.
Moreover, there is no discernible
relation between the ordinance and the Under this construction, PAGCOR will
promotion of public health, safety, have no more games of chance to
morals and the general welfare.262 regulate or centralize as they must all
be prohibited by the local government
 An Ordinance prohibiting the exercise units pursuant to the mandatory duty
of a lawful trade, the operation of night imposed upon them by the Code. In this
clubs, and the pursuit of a lawful situation, PAGCOR cannot continue to
occupation, such clubs employing exist except only as a toothless tiger or
hostesses. (De La Cruz v. Paras263) a white elephant and will no longer be
able to exercise its powers as a prime
Ratio: The purpose sought to be source of government revenue through
achieved could have been attained by the operation of casinos.
reasonable restrictions rather than by
an absolute prohibition. Hence, the Court held that the power of
PAGCOR to centralize and regulate all
It is clear that in the guise of a police games of chance, including casinos on
regulation, there was in this instance a land and sea within the territorial
clear invasion of personal or property jurisdiction of the Philippines, remains
rights, personal in the case of those unimpaired. P.D. 1869 has not been
individuals desirous of patronizing modified by the Local Government
those night clubs and property in terms Code, which empowers the local
of the investments made and salaries to government units to prevent or
be earned by those therein suppress only those forms of gambling
employed.264 prohibited by law.266
 An Ordinance prohibiting the issuance What are the substantive requirements

of business permit and cancelling of a VALID ordinance?
existing business permit to any
establishment for the using and
261 G.R. No. L-38429, June 30, 1988 264 Ibid.

262 Ibid. 265 G.R. No. 111097, July 20, 1994
263 G.R. No. L-42571-72, July 25, 1983 266 Ibid.
(Colossians 3:23)
A long line of decisions has held that for an

ordinance to be valid, it must not only be
within the corporate powers of the local
government unit to enact and must be
passed according to the procedure
prescribed by law, it must also conform to
the following substantive requirements:
(1) Must not contravene the

Constitution or 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) Must be general and consistent with

public policy; and
(6) Must not be unreasonable.267
267City of Manila v. Judge Laguio, G.R. No.

118127, April 12, 2005
(Colossians 3:23)
POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN: 2) Necessity of exercising eminent

domain must be genuine and of a
Differentiate Power of Eminent Domain public character.
from Police Power
3) Government may not capriciously
As to Definition: choose what private property
should be taken.271
Eminent Domain:
4) Private property shall not be taken
The power of eminent domain is the for public use without just
inherent right of the state (and of those compensation.272
entities to which the power has been
lawfully delegated) to condemn private Objects of expropriation
property to public use upon payment of just
compensation. 1. Private property;
Police Power: 2. Services; and
Police power is the power of the state to 3. Easement of right of way.273

promote public welfare by restraining and
regulating the use of liberty and property. Exception: Public properties,274 money
and choses in action cannot be
As to Purpose: expropriated.275
Eminent Domain: Where to file expropriation cases?
When a property interest is appropriated Jurisdiction over eminent domain cases is

and applied to some public purpose, there still within the Regional Trial Courts
is compensable taking. (RTCs).276
Police Power: Priorities in the acquisition of Land:
Property condemned under police power is For Socialized Housing:

usually noxious or intended for a noxious
purpose; hence, no compensation shall be a. Those owned by the Government or
paid.268 any of its sub-divisions,
instrumentalities, or agencies,
Limitations to the exercise of the power including government-owned or
of eminent domain: controlled corporations and their
subsidiaries;
1) Compensation must be made269
and due process of law270 must be b. Alienable lands of the public
observed. domain;
268 Didipio Earth-Savers Multi-Purpose 272 Sec. 9 of Art. III of the 1987 Philippine
Association Inc. v. Gozun, G.R. No. 157882, Constitution
March 30, 2006 273 Republic of the Philippines v. PLDT, G.R.
269 Sec. 9 of Art. III of the 1987 Philippine No. L-18841, January 27, 1969
Constitution 274 City of Manila v. Chinese Community of
270 Sec. 1 of Art. III of the 1987 Philippine Manila, G.R. No. L-14355, October 31, 1919
Constitution 275 Republic of the Philippines v. PLDT, G.R.
271 Moday v. CA, G.R. No. 107916, February No. L-18841, January 27, 1969
20, 1997 276 Brgy. San Roque v. Heirs of Pastor, G.R. No.
138896, June 20, 2000

(Colossians 3:23)
c. Unregistered or abandoned and benefit, the advisability or necessity of

idle lands; which he later discovers no longer exists,
or that the result of the action would be
d. Those within the declared Areas of different from what he had intended, then
Priority Development, Zonal he should be permitted to withdraw his
Improvement sites, and Slum action, subject to the approval of the court.
Improvement and Resettlement The plaintiff should not be required to
Program sites which have not yet continue the action, subject to some well-
been acquired; defined exceptions, when it is not to his
advantage to do so. Litigation should be
e. Bagong Lipunan Improvement sites discouraged and not encouraged. Courts
and Services or BLISS sites which should not require parties to litigate when
have not yet been acquired; and they no longer desire to do so. Courts, in
granting permission to dismiss an action, of
f. Privately-owned lands.277 course, should always take into
consideration the effect which said
Note: Expropriation shall be resorted to dismissal would have upon the rights of the
only when other modes of acquisition have defendant.
been exhausted: Provided, further, that
where expropriation is resorted to, parcels Exception:
of land owned by small property owners
shall be exempted.278 Once the first order (either an order of
expropriation or an order of dismissal)
Private lands rank last in the order of becomes final and no appeal thereto is
priority for purposes of socialized housing. taken, the authority to expropriate and its
In the same vein, expropriation public use can no longer be questioned.
proceedings may be resorted to only after
the other modes of acquisition are Ratio: It is arbitrary and capricious for a
exhausted. Compliance with these government agency to initiate expropriation
conditions is mandatory because these are proceedings, seize a person’s property,
the only safeguards of oftentimes helpless allow the judgment of the court to become
owners of private property against what final and executory and then refuse to pay
may be a tyrannical violation of due on the ground that there are no
process when their property is forcibly appropriations for the property earlier taken
taken from them allegedly for public use. and profitably used. The Court condemns
(Lagcao v. Labra279) in the strongest possible terms the cavalier
attitude of government officials who adopt
Can the government, in an action for such a despotic and irresponsible
expropriation, after it has been placed in stance.281
possession of the property and before
the termination of the action, dismiss Right to Civil Action:
the petition?
Also, if the propriety of the taking of private
Yes. It was held in the case of City of property through eminent domain is subject
Manila v. Ruymann280 that the right of the to judicial scrutiny, the dismissal of the
plaintiff to dismiss an action with the complaint must also pass judicial inquiry
consent of the court is universally because private rights may have suffered
recognized with certain well-defined in the meantime. The dismissal, withdrawal
exceptions. If the plaintiff discovers that the or abandonment of the expropriation case
action which he commenced was brought cannot be made arbitrarily. If it appears to
for the purpose of enforcing a right or a the court that the expropriation is not for
277 Sec. 9 of Republic Act (RA) No. 7279 280

G.R. No. 154411, June 19, 2003
278 Sec. 10 of Republic Act (RA) No. 7279 281 National Housing Authority v. Heirs of
279 G.R. No. 155746, October 13, 2004 Guivelondo, G.R. No. 154411, June 19, 2003
(Colossians 3:23)
some public use, then it becomes the duty Section 9 of B.P. Blg. 337 (Local
of the court to dismiss the action. However, Government Code). Also, the only
when the defendant claims that his land ground upon which a provincial
suffered damage because of the board may declare any municipal
expropriation, the dismissal of the action resolution, ordinance, or order
should not foreclose the defendant’s right invalid is when such resolution,
to have his damages ascertained either in ordinance, or order is beyond the
the same case or in a separate action. powers conferred upon the council
(NAPOCOR v. CA & Pobre282) or president making the same.285
Can the plaintiff, as a matter of right, ✓ When the Republic of the

dismiss the expropriation complaint Philippines, through the Bureau of
filed by the government? Telecommunications, exercises the
sovereign power of eminent
No. In the case of Philippines v. Baylosis,283 domain, by requiring PLDT to
the Court ruled that in expropriation cases, permit interconnection of the
there is no such thing as the plaintiff’s government telephone system and
matter of right to dismiss the complaint that of the PLDT, as the needs of
precisely because the landowner may have the government service may
already suffered damages at the start of the require, subject to the payment of
taking. The plaintiff’s right in expropriation just compensation to be determined
cases to dismiss the complaint has always by the court. (Republic of the
been subject to court approval and to Philippines v. PLDT286)
certain conditions.
Ratio: If, under section 6, Article
Cases where there is legitimate exercise XIII, of the Constitution, the State
of the power of eminent domain: may, in the interest of national
welfare, transfer utilities to public
✓ Resolution issued by the Municipal ownership upon payment of just
Mayor to expropriate private compensation, there is no reason
property even though the said why the State may not require a
resolution was disapproved by the public utility to render services in
Sangguniang Panlalawigan on the the general interest, provided just
ground that the "expropriation is compensation is paid therefor.
unnecessary considering that there Ultimately, the beneficiary of the
are still available lots in Bunawan interconnecting service would be
for the establishment of the the users of both telephone
government center." (Moday v. systems, so that the condemnation
CA284) would be for public use.287
Ratio: The Sangguniang ✓ When the Philippine Tourism

Panlalawigan was without the Authority expropriated 282
authority to disapprove Municipal hectares of land in order to
Resolution No. 43-89 for the construct a sports complex
Municipality of Bunawan clearly has (basketball courts, tennis courts,
the power to exercise the right of volleyball courts, track and field,
eminent domain and its baseball and softball diamonds,
Sangguniang Bayan the capacity to and swimming pools), clubhouse,
promulgate said resolution, gold course, children's playground
pursuant to the earlier-quoted and a nature area for picnics and
282 G.R. No. 106804, August 12, 2004 285 Ibid.

283 109 Phil. 580 (1960); Metropolitan Water 286 G.R. No. L-18841, January 27, 1969
District v. De Los Angeles, 55 Phil. 776 (1931) 287 Ibid.
284 G.R. No. 107916, February 20, 1997
(Colossians 3:23)
horseback riding for the use of the broad discretion to designate the
public. (Heirs of Juancho Ardona v. particular property/properties to be
Reyes288) taken for socialized housing
purposes and how much thereof
Ratio: As long as the purpose of may be expropriated.291
the taking is public, then the power
of eminent domain comes into play. Case where there is an invalid exercise
Hence, it is accurate to state then of the power of eminent domain
that at present whatever may be
beneficially employed for the  An ordinance setting aside of at
general welfare satisfies the least six (6) percent of the total area
requirement of public use. The of an private cemeteries for charity
public end may be as well or better burial grounds of deceased
served through an agency of private paupers and the promotion of
enterprise than through a health, morals, good order, safety,
department of government-or so or the general welfare of the people.
the Congress might conclude. We (City Government of Quezon City v.
cannot say that public ownership is Ericta292)
the sole method of promoting the
public purposes of community Ratio: The ordinance is actually a
redevelopment projects.289 taking without compensation of a
certain area from a private
✓ Expropriation proceeding filed by cemetery to benefit paupers who
the National Housing Authority are charges of the municipal
(NHA) for the renewal or corporation. Instead of building or
redevelopment and the maintaining a public cemetery for
construction of low-cost housing in this purpose, the city passes the
order to provide housing facilities to burden to private cemeteries.293
low-salaried government
employees. (Sumulong v. Requisites for the valid exercise of the
Guerrero290) power of eminent domain
Ratio: Urban renewal or 1. There is genuine necessity, and

redevelopment and the such necessity must be of a public
construction of low-cost housing is character.294
recognized as a public purpose, not
only because of the expanded 2. The property to be expropriated is a
concept of public use but also private property;295
because of specific provisions in
the Constitution. Also, housing is a 3. There is taking of the private
basic human need. Shortage in property;296
housing is a matter of state concern
since it directly and significantly 4. The taking to be valid must be for
affects public health, safety, the public use;297 and
environment and in sum, the
general welfare. The State acting
through the NHA is vested with
288 G.R. Nos. L-60549, 60553 to 60555, 294 City of Manila v. Chinese Community of
October 26, 1983 Manila, G.R. No. L-14355, October 31, 1919
289 Ibid. 295 Ibid.
290 G.R. No. L-48685, September 30, 1987 296 Republic of the Philippines v. Castellvi, G.R.
291 Ibid. No. L-20620, August 15, 1974
292 G.R. No. L-34915, June 24, 1983 297 Manosca v. CA, G.R. No. 106440, January
293 Ibid. 29, 1996
(Colossians 3:23)
5. There should be payment of just the expropriation case filed by

compensation.298 Caniogan Barangay Council has no
merit since necessity has not been
Discussion of the Requisites: shown, especially considering that
there exists an alternative facility for
1. Necessity sports development and community
recreation in the area, which is the
Foundation of the right to exercise Rainforest Park, available to all
the power of eminent domain is residents of Pasig City, including those
genuine necessity of Caniogan.
The foundation of the right to exercise If the power of eminent domain is

the power of eminent domain is exercised by the legislature, the
genuine necessity and that necessity question of necessity becomes
must be of a public character.299 political in character
It is recognized, that the government The necessity and expediency of

may not capriciously or arbitrarily' exercising the right of eminent domain
choose what private property should be are questions essentially political and
taken.300 not judicial in their character. The
determination of those questions (the
Hence, in the case of Municipality of necessity and the expediency) belongs
Meycauayan v. Intermediate Appellate to the sovereign power; the legislative
Court,301 the Court held that there is no department is final and conclusive, and
genuine necessity for the Municipality the courts have no power to review it
of' Meycauayan to expropriate the (the necessity and the expediency) . . .
property of the Philippine Pipes and . It (the legislature) may designate the
Merchandising Corporation for use as a particular property to be condemned,
public road. and its determination in this respect
cannot be reviewed by the courts. (The
Ratio: City of Manila v. Chinese Community of
Manila303)
Considering that in the vicinity there are
other available road and vacant lot Also in the case of Republic v. De
offered for sale situated similarly as the Knecht,304 the Court agrees in the
lot in question and lying Idle, unlike the wisdom and necessity of enacting B.P.
lot sought to be expropriated which was Blg. 340. Thus, the anterior decision of
found by the Committee to be badly the Court must yield to this subsequent
needed by the company as a site for its legislative fiat.
heavy equipment after it is fenced
together with the adjoining vacant lot, 2. Private Property
the justification to condemn the same
does not appear to be very imperative Only private properties can be the
and necessary and would only cause subject of expropriation
unjustified damage to the firm. proceedings (public properties are
not included)
Also, in the case of De La Paz Masikip
v. Judge Legaspi,302 the Court held that
298 Sec. 9 of Article III of the 1987 Philippine 300 De Knecht v. Bautista, G.R. No. L-51078
Constitution October 30, 1980
299 Municipality of Meycauayan v. Intermediate 301 G.R. No. 72126, January 29, 1988
Appellate Court, G.R. No. 72126, January 29, 302 G.R. No. 136349, January 23, 2006
1988 303 G.R. No. L-14355, October 31, 1919

304 G.R. No. 87335, February 12, 1990
(Colossians 3:23)
The Court held in the case of City of 5) Utilization of the property for public
Manila v. Chinese Community of use must be in such a way as to
Manila,305 that the LGU of Manila has oust the owner and deprive him of
no authority or right under the law to all beneficial enjoyment of the
expropriate public property. property.308
3. Taking Examples:
Legal definition of the word “Taking” 1) Actual taking of the property.
Taking' under the power of eminent 2) Trespass without actual eviction of

domain may be defined generally as the owner.309
entering upon private property for more
than a momentary period, and, under 3) Material impairment of the value of
the warrant or color of legal authority, the property.310
devoting it to a public use, or otherwise
informally appropriating or injuriously 4) Prevention of the ordinary uses for
affecting it in such a way as which the property was intended
substantially to oust the owner and such as the establishment of an
deprive him of all beneficial enjoyment easement.311
thereof. (Republic of the Philippines v.
Castellvi306) 5) If thru the Government’s action/s, it
makes the property inhabitable.312
Requisites:
6) When the COMELEC requires print
1) The expropriator must enter a media enterprises to “donate” free
private property. print space to the former.313
2) The entrance into private property Flights over respondents' property

must be for more than a momentary which rendered it uninhabitable
period. constitutes “taking”
Note: It was clarified that the It was held in the case of US v.

entrance and occupation by the Causby314 that when flights over
condemnor must be for a respondents' property rendered it
permanent, or indefinite period.307 uninhabitable, there would be a taking
compensable under the Fifth
3) The entry into the property should Amendment.
be under warrant or color of legal
authority. Though it would be only an easement
of flight which was taken, that
4) The property must be devoted to a easement, if permanent and not merely
public use or otherwise informally temporary, normally would be the
appropriated or injuriously affected. equivalent of a fee interest.
305 G.R. No. L-14355, October 31, 1919 310 Ibid.

306 G.R. No. L-20620, August 15, 1974 311 Ibid.
307 Republic of the Philippines v. Castellvi, G.R. 312 US v. Causby, 328 US 256 (1946)
No. L-20620, August 15, 1974 313 Philippine Press Institute Inc. v. COMELEC,
308 Republic of the Philippines v. Castellvi, G.R. G.R. No. L-119694, May 22, 1995
No. L-20620, August 15, 1974 314 328 US 256 (1946)
309 Didipio Earth-Savers MultiPurpose
Association v. Gozun, G.R. No. 157882, March
30, 2006
(Colossians 3:23)
Easement of right-of-way is destroy the view of the plaza from the

definitely a taking under the power highway.
of eminent domain
The court ruled that the municipal
The Court held in the case of ordinance under the guise of police
NAPOCOR v. Gutierrez,315 the power permanently divest owners of
easement of right-of-way is definitely a the beneficial use of their property for
taking under the power of eminent the benefit of the public; hence,
domain. Considering the nature and considered as a taking under the power
effect of the installation of the 230 KV of eminent domain that could not be
Mexico-Limay transmission lines, the countenanced without payment of just
limitation imposed by NPC against the compensation to the affected owners.
use of the land for an indefinite period In this case, what the municipality
deprives private respondents of its wanted was to impose an easement on
ordinary use. the property in order to preserve the
view or beauty of the public plaza,
Similarly, in the case of NAPOCOR v. which was a form of utilization of
San Pedro316 the Court ruled that the Fajardos property for public benefit.
commissioners' observation on the
reported constant loud buzzing and Grant of mining rights to the holders
exploding sounds emanating from the thereof and enters private lands for
towers and transmission lines, purposes of conducting mining
especially on rainy days; the constant activities such as exploration,
fear on the part of the landowners that extraction and processing of
the large transmission lines looming not minerals constitutes “taking”
far above their land and the huge tower
in front of their lot will affect their safety Mining right holders build mine
and health; and the slim chance that no infrastructure, dig mine shafts and
one would be interested to buy the connecting tunnels, prepare tailing
remaining portions on each side of the ponds, storage areas and vehicle
residential lot affected by the project, to depots, install their machinery,
the damage of the landowners, both as equipment and sewer systems. On top
to future actual use of the land and of this, under Section 75, easement
financial gains to be derived therefrom, rights are accorded to them where they
makes the instant case fall within the may build warehouses, port facilities,
ambit of expropriation. electric transmission, railroads and
other infrastructures necessary for
An ordinance prohibiting a person mining operations.
from constructing his house on his
own land on the ground that the All these will definitely oust the owners
proposed structure would destroy or occupants of the affected areas the
the view or beauty of the public plaza beneficial ownership of their lands.
constitutes “taking” Without a doubt, taking occurs once
mining operations commence. (Didipio
In People v. Fajardo,317 the municipal Earth-Savers Multi-Purpose
mayor refused Fajardo permission to Association Incorporated v. Gozun318)
build a house on his own land on the
ground that the proposed structure When should the “taking” of the
would destroy the view or beauty of the property be reckoned?
public plaza. The ordinance relied upon
by the mayor prohibited the The “taking” of the property should be
construction of any building that would reckoned at the time when the
315 G.R. No. L-60077, January 18, 1991 317 G.R. No. L-12172, August 29, 1958
316 G.R. No. 170945, September 26, 2006 318 G.R. No. 157882, March 30, 2006
(Colossians 3:23)
complaint for eminent domain was filed. Examples:

(Republic of the Philippines v.
Castellvi319) Expropriation for the construction of
roads, bridges, ports, waterworks,
Note: The fair value of the property, schools, electric and
which will become the basis of “just telecommunications systems,
compensation,” should be determined hydroelectric power plants, markets
from the date of the actual “taking” of and slaughterhouses, parks, hospitals,
the property. government office buildings, and flood
control or irrigation systems is valid.322
4. Public Use
However, the Idea that "public use"
Definition of Public Use is strictly limited to clear cases of
"use by the public" has been
Public use, in constitutional provisions discarded
restricting the exercise of the right to
take private property in virtue of There was a time when it was felt that a
eminent domain, means a use literal meaning should be attached to
concerning the whole community as such a requirement. Whatever project
distinguished from particular is undertaken must be for the public to
individuals. But each and every enjoy, as in the case of streets or parks.
member of society need not be equally Otherwise, expropriation is not
interested in such use, or be personally allowable. It is not any more. As long as
and directly affected by it; if the object the purpose of the taking is public, then
is to satisfy a great public want or the power of eminent domain comes
exigency, that is sufficient.320 into play. Hence, it is accurate to state
then that at present whatever may be
The term may be said to mean public beneficially employed for the general
usefulness, utility, or advantage, or welfare satisfies the requirement of
what is productive of general benefit. It public use.323
may be limited to the inhabitants of a
small or restricted locality, but must be Hence, in the case of Heirs of Juancho
in common, and not for a particular Ardona v. Reyes,324 the Court upheld
individual. The use must be a needful the validity of the expropriation
one for the public, which cannot be proceedings instituted by the Philippine
surrendered without obvious general Tourism Authority since it is stressed
loss and inconvenience. A public use that the development of the 808
for which land may be taken defies hectares includes plans that would give
absolute definition for it changes with the petitioners and other displaced
varying conditions of society, new persons productive employment,
appliances in the sciences, changing higher incomes, decent housing, water
conceptions of scope and functions of and electric facilities, and better living
government, and other differing standards.
circumstances brought about by an
increase in population and new modes Also, in the case of Sumulong v.
of communication and Guerrero,325 the Court held that the
321
transportation. expropriation proceedings instituted by
the National Housing Authority is valid
319 G.R. No. L-20620, August 15, 1974 322 Heirs of Juancho Ardona v. Reyes, G.R.
320 Rindge Co. vs. Los Angeles County, 262 Nos. L-60549, 60553 to 60555 October 26,
U.S. 700, 43 S.Ct. 689, 692, 67 L.Ed. 1186 1983
321 Katz v. Brandon, 156 Conn., 521, 245 A.2d 323 Ibid.
579,586 324 Ibid.

325 G.R. No. L-48685, September 30, 1987
(Colossians 3:23)
since urban renewal or redevelopment most others could well be true but such
and the construction of low-cost a peculiar advantage still remains to be
housing is recognized as a public merely incidental and secondary in
purpose, not only because of the nature. Indeed, that only a few would
expanded concept of public use but actually benefit from the expropriation
also because of specific provisions in of property does not necessarily
the Constitution, specifically Art. II, sec. diminish the essence and character of
9 and Art. XIII, sec. 9 of the 1987 public use. (Note: It can be said that the
Philippine Constitution. Also, Housing term “public purpose” is loosely
is a basic human need. Shortage in interpreted in this case since it can be
housing is a matter of state concern inferred that the public will not benefit,
since it directly and significantly affects directly or indirectly, from expropriating
public health, safety, the environment the birth place of Manalo)
and in sum the general welfare.
Lastly, in the case of Jimenez v.
Furthermore, in the case of Province of PEZA,328 the Court upheld the validity
Camarines Sur v. CA,326 the Court of the expropriation made by PEZA
upheld the validity of the resolution even though it change its initial plan
authorizing the Provincial Governor to since PEZA can vary the purpose for
purchase or expropriate property which a condemned lot will be devoted
contiguous to the provincial capitol site, to, provided that the same is for public
in order to establish a pilot farm for non- use. Petitioner cannot impose or dictate
food and non-traditional agricultural on the respondent what facilities to
crops and a housing project for establish for as long as the same are for
provincial government employees public purpose.
since the establishment of a pilot
development center would inure to the 5. Just Compensation
direct benefit and advantage of the
people of the Province of Camarines What constitutes “Just
Sur. Once operational, the center Compensation”?
would make available to the community
invaluable information and technology Just compensation is defined as the full
on agriculture, fishery and the cottage and fair equivalent of the property taken
industry. Ultimately, the livelihood of from its owner by the expropriator. In
the farmers, fishermen and craftsmen this case, this simply means the
would be enhanced. The housing property’s fair market value at the time
project also satisfies the public purpose of the filing of the complaint, or "that
requirement of the Constitution. sum of money which a person desirous
but not compelled to buy, and an owner
Moreover, in the case of Manosca v. willing but not compelled to sell, would
CA,327 the Court upheld the validity of agree on as a price to be given and
the expropriation proceedings instituted received therefor." The measure is not
by the National Historical Institute (NHI) the taker’s gain, but the owner’s loss.
since the purpose in setting up the (NAPOCOR v. Tiangco329)
marker is essentially to recognize the
distinctive contribution of the late Felix Just compensation means the value of
Manalo to the culture of the Philippines, the property at the time of the taking. It
rather than to commemorate his means a fair and full equivalent for the
founding and leadership of the Iglesia loss sustained. ALL the facts as to the
ni Cristo. The practical reality that condition of the property and its
greater benefit may be derived by surroundings, its improvements and
members of the Iglesia ni Cristo than by
326 G.R. No. 103125, May 17, 1993 328 G.R. No. 137285, January 16, 2001
327 G.R. No. 106440, January 29, 1996 329 G.R. No. 170846, February 6, 2007
(Colossians 3:23)
capabilities, should be considered. taken for public use without just

(Sumulong v. Guerrero330) compensation, no statute, decree, or
executive order can mandate that its
Further, just compensation means not own determination shall prevail over
only the correct amount to be paid to the court's findings. Much less can the
the owner of the land but also the courts be precluded from looking into
payment of the land within a reasonable the "just-ness" of the decreed
time from its taking. Without prompt compensation. Hence, in the case of
payment, compensation cannot be Export Processing Zone Authority v.
considered just for then the property Dulay,333 the Court ruled that the P.D.
owner is made to suffer the No. 1533, which eliminates the court's
consequence of being immediately discretion to appoint commissioners
deprived of his land while being made pursuant to Rule 67 of the Rules of
to wait for a decade or more before Court, is unconstitutional and void.
actually receiving the amount
necessary to cope with his loss. Furthermore, it was held in the case of
(Eslaban v. Onorio331) Land Bank of the Philippines v. Yatco
Agricultural Enterprises334 that LBP’s
Determination of just compensation determination of land valuation and
for a condemned property is compensation for all private lands
basically a judicial function acquired for agrarian reform purposes
is only preliminary. The landowner may
The determination of just compensation still take the matter of just
for a condemned property is basically a compensation to the court for final
judicial function. As the court is not adjudication.
bound by the commissioners’ report, it
may make such order or render such Tax valuations made by assessors
judgment as shall secure to the plaintiff can serve as guides but cannot be
the property essential to the exercise of absolute substitutes for just
its right of condemnation, and to the compensation
defendant just compensation for the
property expropriated. For that matter, Tax values can serve as guides but
this Court may even substitute its own cannot be absolute substitutes for just
estimate of the value as gathered from compensation.
the record. Hence, although the
determination of just compensation To say that the owners are estopped to
appears to be a factual matter which is question the valuations made by
ordinarily outside the ambit of its assessors since they had the
jurisdiction, this Court may disturb the opportunity to protest is illusory. (Export
lower court’s factual finding on appeal Processing Zone Authority v. Dulay335)
when there is clear error or grave abuse
of discretion. (Republic of the "Trial with the aid of the
Philippines v. Intermediate Appellate commissioners is a substantial right
Court332) that may not be done away with
capriciously or for no reason at all."
The executive department or the
legislature may make the initial "Trial with the aid of the commissioners
determinations but when a party claims is a substantial right that may not be
a violation of the guarantee in the Bill of done away with capriciously or for no
Rights that private property may not be reason at all."336
330 G.R. No. L-48685, September 30, 1987 334 G.R. No.172551, January 15, 2014
331 G.R. No. 146062, June 28, 2001 335 G.R. No. L-59603, April 29, 1987
332 G.R. No. 71176, May 21, 1990 336 NAPOCOR v. Spouses Dela Cruz, G.R. No.
333 G.R. No. L-59603, April 29, 1987 156093, February 2, 2007
(Colossians 3:23)
price; understandably, it is customary

The determination by the Court of "the for the owner to raise the price offer.
just compensation for the property
sought to be taken" is done by the Court Report of the “Commissioners” are
with the assistance of not more than not binding, but merely advisory in
three (3) commissioners. character, as far as the court is
concerned
Hence, it was held in the case of Manila
Electric Company v. Pineda337 that the The report of the commissioners of
respondent judge's act of determining appraisal in condemnation proceedings
and ordering the payment of just are not binding, but merely advisory in
compensation without the assistance of character, as far as the court is
a Board of Commissioners is a flagrant concerned. (Republic of the Philippines
violation of petitioner's constitutional v. Castellvi341)
right to due process and is a gross
violation of the mandated rule Reckoning point of just
established by the Revised Rules of compensation
Court.
When expropriation action precedes
Also, in the case of NPC v. Henson,338 the taking of the property
the Court invalidated the valuation
made by the trial court when after Normally, of course, where the
creating a board of commissioners to institution of an expropriation action
help it determine the market value of precedes the taking of the property
the land did not conduct a hearing on subject thereof, the just compensation
the report of the commissioners. is fixed as of the time of the filing of the
complaint. (Ansaldo v. Tantuico342)
Similarly, it was held in the case of
NAPOCOR v. Spouses Dela Cruz339 When taking precedes the
that the fact that no trial or hearing was expropriation action
conducted to afford the parties the
opportunity to present their own Where the expropriating agency takes
evidence should have impelled the trial over the property prior to the
court to disregard the commissioners’ expropriation suit, just compensation
findings. The absence of such trial or shall be determined as of the time of
hearing constitutes reversible error on taking, not as of the time of filing of the
the part of the trial court because the action of eminent domain. (Ansaldo v.
parties’ (in particular, petitioner’s) right Tantuico343)
to due process was violated.
The nature and character of the land at
Lastly, in the case of Leca Realty the time of its taking is the principal
Corporation v. Republic of the criterion for determining how much just
Philippines,340 the Court invalidated the compensation should be given to the
Commissioners Report which relied landowner. All the facts as to the
heavily on newspaper advertisements condition of the property and its
of offers of sale of properties in the surroundings, as well as its
vicinity. Clearly, these offers were improvements and capabilities, should
merely asking prices. By their very be considered. (NAPOCOR v.
nature, they are subject to negotiations Tiangco344)
in which a buyer may ask for a lower
337 G.R. No. L-59791, February 13, 1992 341 G.R. No. L-20620, August 15, 1974
338 G.R. No. 129998, December 29, 1998 342 G.R. No. L-50147, August 3, 1990
339 G.R. No. 156093, February 2, 2007 343 Ibid.
340 G.R. No. 155605, September 27, 2006 344 G.R. No. 170846, February 6, 2007
(Colossians 3:23)
When petitioner consented to upon both parties, and the law has fixed
conform with the valuation that standard as money in cash. (Mandl
recommended by the v. City of Phoenix347)
commissioners, it cannot detract
from its agreement now and assail Part cash and deferred payments are
correctness of the commissioner’s not and cannot, in the nature of things,
assessment be regarded as a reliable and constant
standard of compensation.
In the case of City of Cebu v. Apolonio (Sacramento Southern R. Co. v.
& Dedamo,345 the Court ruled that it is Heilbron348)
too late for petitioner to question the
valuation now without violating the For Comprehensive Land Reform
principle of equitable estoppel. cases:
Estoppel in pais arises when one, by
his acts, representations or Compensation should be paid in cash
admissions, or by his own silence when or in LBP bonds.349
he ought to speak out, intentionally or
through culpable negligence, induces It is very explicit therefrom that the
another to believe certain facts to exist deposit must be made only in "cash" or
and such other rightfully relies and acts in "LBP bonds". Nowhere does it
on such belief, so that he will be appear nor can it be inferred that the
prejudiced if the former is permitted to deposit can be made in any other form.
deny the existence of such facts. If it were the intention to include a "trust
Records show that petitioner account" among the valid modes of
consented to conform with the deposit, that should have been made
valuation recommended by the express, or at least, qualifying words
commissioners. It cannot detract from ought to have appeared from which it
its agreement now and assail can be fairly deduced that a "trust
correctness of the commissioner’s account" is allowed. In sum, there is no
assessment. ambiguity in Section 16(e) of RA 6657
to warrant an expanded construction of
Mode of Payment the term "deposit". (Land Bank of the
Philippines v. CA350)
Ordinary expropriation proceedings
Legal interest for expropriation
The landowner should be paid not by cases
treasury bills but by cash. (Republic of
the Philippines v. Holy Trinity Realty The legal interest required to be paid on
Development Corp.346) the amount of just compensation for the
properties expropriated is manifestly in
The condemnor cannot compel the the form of indemnity for damages for
owner to accept anything but money, the delay in the payment thereof.
nor can the owner compel or require the Therefore, since the kind of interest
condemnor to pay him on any other involved in the joint judgment of the
basis than the value of the property in lower court sought to be enforced in this
money at the time and in the manner case is interest by way of damages,
prescribed by the Constitution and the and not by way of earnings from loans,
statutes. When the power of eminent etc. Art. 2209 of the Civil Code shall
domain is resorted to, there must be a apply.351
standard medium of payment, binding
345 G.R. No. 142971, May 7, 2002 349 Sec. 16(e) of RA 6657
346 G.R. No. 172410, April 14, 2008 350 G.R. No. 118712, October 6, 1995
347 18 P.2d 271 (Ariz. 1933) 351 NAPOCOR v. Angas, G.R. Nos. 60225-26,
348 156 Cal. 408 (Cal. 1909) May 8, 1992
(Colossians 3:23)
Hence, in the case of NAPOCOR v.

Angas,352 the Court upheld the 6%
interest since cases requiring the
payment of indemnities as damages, in
connection with any delay in the
performance of an obligation other than
those involving loan or forbearance of
money, goods or credits, Art. 2209 of
the Civil Code applies.
When applied?
Where there was delay in tendering a

valid payment of just compensation,
imposition of interest is in order.353
Instance where interest in the form of

damages cannot be applied
Interest in the form of damages cannot

be applied where there was prompt and
valid payment of just compensation.354
352
G.R. Nos. 60225-26, May 8, 1992 354 Ibid.
353Land Bank of the Philippines v. Wycoco,
G.R. No. 140160, January 13, 2004
(Colossians 3:23)
POWER OF TAXATION support of the state. For this reason, no one

is allowed to object to or resist the payment
Explain the lifeblood doctrine of taxes solely because no personal benefit
to him can be pointed out.357
Taxes are the lifeblood of the government
and so should be collected without Purpose
unnecessary hindrance. On the other hand,
such collection should be made in It is said that taxes are what we pay for
accordance with law as any arbitrariness civilization society. Without taxes, the
will negate the very reason for government government would be paralyzed for lack of
itself. It is therefore necessary to reconcile the motive power to activate and operate it.
the apparently conflicting interests of the Hence, despite the natural reluctance to
authorities and the taxpayers so that the surrender part of one's hard earned income
real purpose of taxation, which is the to the taxing authorities, every person who
promotion of the common good, may be is able to must contribute his share in the
achieved.355 running of the government. (CIR v. Algue,
Inc.358)
Doctrine of symbiotic relationship
Hence, in the case of Commissioner of
It is said that taxes are what we pay for Customs v. Makasiar,359 the Court ruled
civilization society. Without taxes, the that BOC has the jurisdiction over the
government would be paralyzed for lack of counterfeited whiskey since the rule is
the motive power to activate and operate it. anchored upon the policy of placing no
Hence, despite the natural reluctance to unnecessary hindrance on the
surrender part of one's hard earned income government's drive not only to prevent
to the taxing authorities, every person who smuggling and other frauds upon customs,
is able to must contribute his share in the but also, and more importantly, to render
running of the government. effective and efficient the collection of
import and export duties due the state.
The government for its part, is expected to
respond in the form of tangible and Who exercises the power?
intangible benefits intended to improve the
lives of the people and enhance their moral Sec. 28 of Art. VI of the 1987 Constitution
and material values. This symbiotic
relationship is the rationale of taxation and The rule of taxation shall be uniform and
should dispel the erroneous notion that it is equitable. The Congress shall evolve a
an arbitrary method of exaction by those in progressive system of taxation.
the seat of power.356
Sec. 5 of Art. X of the 1987 Constitution
Necessity and benefits principle of tax
Each local government unit shall have the
Obligation to pay taxes rests upon the power to create its own sources of
necessity of money for the support of the revenues and to levy taxes, fees and
state. charges subject to such guidelines and
limitations as the Congress may provide,
The obligation to pay taxes rests not upon consistent with the basic policy of local
the privileges enjoyed by, or the protection autonomy. Such taxes, fees, and charges
afforded to, a citizen by the government, shall accrue exclusively to the local
but upon the necessity of money for the governments.
355Commissioner of Internal Revenue, et al. vs. 357 Pablo Lorenzo vs. Juan Posadas, Jr., G.R.
Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 119322, June No. 43082, June 18, 1937
4, 1996 358 G.R. No. L-28896, February 17, 1988
356 CIR v. Algue, Inc., G.R. No. L-28896, 359 G.R. No. 79307, August 29, 1989
February 17, 1988

(Colossians 3:23)
a. YMCA is exempt from the real

Tax exemptions property tax imposed by the
local government since it is
1. Charitable institutions, churches dedicated exclusively for
and personages or convents religious, charitable, and
appurtenant thereto, mosques, educational purposes. (YMCA
non-profit cemeteries, and all lands, v. CIR362)
buildings, and improvements,
actually, directly, and exclusively Note: The decision was held
used for religious, charitable, or prior to the 1987 Constitution.
educational purposes shall be
exempt from taxation.360 b. Part of the church used as a
lodging house by the people
Important Note: who participate in religious
festivities, which constitutes an
Under the 1935 Constitution: incidental use in religious
"Cemeteries, churches, and functions, which also comes
parsonages or convents within the exemption. (Roman
appurtenant thereto, and all lands, Catholic Bishop of Nueva
buildings, and improvements used Segovia v. Provincial Board of
exclusively for religious, charitable, Ilocos Norte363)
or educational purposes shall be
exempt from taxation." c. The use of the second floor of
the main building of the school
The present Constitution added for residential purposes of the
"charitable institutions, mosques, Director and his family, may find
and non-profit cemeteries" and justification under the concept
required that for the exemption of of incidental use, which is
":lands, buildings, and complimentary to the main or
improvements," they should not primary purpose—educational.
only be "exclusively" but also (Abra Valley College, Inc. v.
"actually and "directly" used for Aquino364)
religious or charitable purposes.
Note: In the same case the
The Constitution is worded Court held that the lease of the
differently. The change should not first floor thereof to the Northern
be ignored. It must be duly taken Marketing Corporation cannot
into consideration. Reliance on past by any stretch of the
decisions would have sufficed were imagination be considered
the words "actually" as well as incidental to the purpose of
"directly" not added. There must be education since the same is
proof therefore of the actual and being used for commercial
direct use of the lands, buildings, purposes. Hence, it is only fair
and improvements for religious or that half of the assessed tax be
charitable purposes to be exempt returned to the school involved.
from taxation. (Province of Abra v.
Hernando361) d. Distribution and sale of bibles
and other religious literature to
Examples: the people of the Philippines.
360 Sec. 28(3) of Art. VI of the 1987 Philippine 362 G.R. No. L-7988, January 19, 1916
Constitution 363 G.R. No. L-27588, December 31, 1927
361 G.R. No. L-49336, August 31, 1981 364 G.R. No. L-39086, June 15, 1988
(Colossians 3:23)
(American Bible Society v. City disposed of in the manner provided

of Manila365) by law.367
Ratio of the Ruling: the price Prohibition on double taxation

asked for the bibles and other
religious pamphlets was in What is double taxation?
some instances a little bit higher
than the actual cost of the same Double taxation means taxing the same
but this cannot mean that property twice when it should be taxed only
appellant was engaged in the once; that is, "taxing the same person twice
business or occupation of by the same jurisdiction for the same thing."
selling said "merchandise" for
profit. Also, taxing it would Otherwise described as "direct duplicate
impair plaintiff's right to the free taxation," the two taxes must be imposed
exercise and enjoyment of its on the same subject matter, for the same
religious profession and purpose, by the same taxing authority,
worship, as well as its rights of within the same jurisdiction, during the
dissemination of religious same taxing period; and the taxes must be
beliefs. of the same kind or character.368
Not covered by the exemption: Ratio: It is obnoxious when the taxpayer is

taxed twice, when it should be but once.369
a. Gift tax, in relation to the
donated lot by MB Estate to the When can the argument against double
parish priest to be used for the taxation may not be invoked?
construction of the church in the
locality, is not within the The argument against double taxation may
exempting provisions of the not be invoked where one tax is imposed
section just mentioned. A gift by the state and the other is imposed by the
tax is not a property tax, but an city (1 Cooley on Taxation, 4th ed., p. 492),
excise tax imposed on the it being widely recognized that there is
transfer of property by way of nothing inherently obnoxious in the
gift inter vivos, the imposition of requirement that license fees or taxes be
which on property used exacted with respect to the same
exclusively for religious occupation, calling or activity by both the
purposes, does not constitute state and the political subdivisions thereof.
an impairment of the (51 Am. Jur., 341.)
Constitution. (Lladoc v. CIR366)
Hence, in the case of Punzalan v.
2. All revenues and assets of non- Municipal Board of Manila,370 the Court
stock, non-profit educational ruled that there is no double taxation since
institutions used actually, directly, the taxes being imposed under the
and exclusively for educational municipal ordinance is different from the
purposes shall be exempt from occupation tax under section 201 of the
taxes and duties. Upon the National Internal Revenue Code.
dissolution or cessation of the
corporate existence of such
institutions, their assets shall be
365 G.R. No. L-9637, April 30, 1957 368 Nursery Care Corporation v. Acevedo, G.R.
366 G.R. No. L-19201, June 16, 1965 No. 180651, July 30, 2014
367 Sec. 4 of Art. XIV of the 1987 Philippine 369 Ibid.
Constitution 370 Punsalan v. Municipal Board of the City of
Manila, G.R. No. L-4817, May 26, 1954

(Colossians 3:23)
INTRODUCTION TO BILL OF RIGHTS powerful, and of oligarchs — political,

economic or otherwise.373
What is the “Bill of Rights”?
Purpose of the bill of rights
The Bill of Rights is designed to preserve
the ideals of liberty, equality and security In the pithy language of Mr. Justice Robert
"against the assaults of opportunism, the Jackson, the purpose of the Bill of Rights is
expediency of the passing hour, the to withdraw "certain subjects from the
erosion of small encroachments, and the vicissitudes of political controversy, to
scorn and derision of those who have no place them beyond the reach of majorities
patience with general principles." and officials, and to establish them as legal
principles to be applied by the courts.
While the Bill of Rights also protects
property rights, the primacy of human rights One's rights to life, liberty and property, to
over property rights is recognized. Because free speech, or free press, freedom of
these freedoms are "delicate and worship and assembly, and other
vulnerable, as well as supremely precious fundamental rights may not be submitted to
in our society" and the "threat of sanctions a vote; they depend on the outcome of no
may deter their exercise almost as potently elections."
as the actual application of sanctions," they
"need breathing space to survive," Laski proclaimed that "the happiness of the
permitting government regulation only "with individual, not the well-being of the State,
narrow specificity." 371 was the criterion by which its behaviour
was to be judged. His interests, not its
Rationale of Bill of Rights power, set the limits to the authority it was
entitled to exercise."374
The Bill of Rights is the bedrock of
constitutional government. If people are To whom can this right be invoked?
stripped naked of their rights as human
beings, democracy cannot survive and The bill of rights can be invoked against the
government becomes meaningless. This state. As held in the case of People v.
explains why the Bill of Rights, contained Marti,375 the Court ruled that the Bill of
as it is in Article III of the Constitution, Rights governs the relationship between
occupies a position of primacy in the the individual and the state. Its concern is
fundamental law way above the articles on not the relation between individuals,
governmental power.372 between a private individual and other
individuals. What the Bill of Rights does is
Actions against the violation of human to declare some forbidden zones in the
rights are imprescriptible private sphere inaccessible to any power
holder.
Property and property rights can be lost
thru prescription; but human rights are Bill of rights are limitations upon all the
imprescriptible. If human rights are powers of the government
extinguished by the passage of time, then
the Bill of Rights is a useless attempt to limit It was held in the case of Hurtado v.
the power of government and ceases to be California,376 that the bill of rights are
an efficacious shield against the tyranny of limitations upon all the powers of
officials, of majorities, of the influential and
371 Philippine Blooming Mills Employment 373 Philippine Blooming Mills Employment
Organization v. Philippine Blooming Mills Co., Organization v. Philippine Blooming Mills Co.,
Inc., G.R. No. L-31195 June 5, 1973 Inc., G.R. No. L-31195 June 5, 1973
372 People v. Tudtud, G.R. No. 144037, 374 Ibid.
September 26, 2003 375 G.R. No. 81561, January 18, 1991
376 110 U.S. 516 (1884)
(Colossians 3:23)
government, legislative as well as

executive and judicial.
Who can invoke this right?
Constitutional guarantees embodied in the

Bill of Rights are given and extend to:
1. All persons, both aliens and

citizens;377
2. Juridical person, with respect to

property rights.
377People v. Wong Chuen Ming, G.R. Nos.

112801-11, April 12, 1996
(Colossians 3:23)
BILL OF RIGHTS PROVISIONS process in the States is regulated by the

law of State."
DUE PROCESS
Purpose of the constitutional right to
SECTION 1 OF ARTICLE III. No person due process
shall be deprived of life, liberty, or
property without due process of law, The purpose of the guaranty is to prevent
nor shall any person be denied the arbitrary governmental encroachment
equal protection of the laws. against the life, liberty and property of
individuals. The due process guaranty
SECTION 14 OF ARTICLE III serves as a protection against arbitrary
regulation or seizure. (White Light
1. No person shall be held to answer Corporation v. City of Manila380)
for a criminal offense without due
process of law. Who are the persons covered by this
constitutional guarantee?
Meaning of due process 1. Natural persons
No freeman of this State be taken or To prevent arbitrary governmental

imprisoned, or disseized of his freehold, encroachment against the life,
liberties, or privileges, outlawed, exiled, or liberty and property of
381
in any manner destroyed or deprived of his individuals.
life, liberty or property but by the judgment
of his peers or the law of the land.378 2. Juridical persons (such as
corporations and partnerships)
In the case of Hurtado v. California,379 the
Court ruled that due process has been Insofar as their property is
observed even though the plaintiff concerned.382
(Hurtado) had never been legally, or
otherwise, indicted or presented by any 3. Aliens residing in the Philippines
grand jury, since he was properly
proceeded against by information made These constitutional guarantees
and filed by the district attorney of the which embody the essence of
county of Sacramento, after examination individual liberty and freedom in
and commitment by a magistrate of the democracies, are not limited to
said county citizens alone but are admittedly
universal in their application,
The Court further ruled that the state without regard to any differences of
cannot deprive a person of his property race, of color, or of nationality.383
without due process of law; but this does
not necessarily imply that all trials in the Two types of due process:
State courts affecting the property of
persons must be by jury. This requirement The due process guaranty has traditionally
of the Constitution is met if the trial is had been interpreted as imposing two related
according to the settled course of judicial but distinct restrictions on government, to
proceedings. Due process of law is process wit:
according to the law of the land. This
1. Substantive due process; and
378 Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 (1884) 382Ibid.

379 110 U.S. 516 (1884) 383Ichong v. Hernandez, G.R. No. L-7995, May
380 G.R. No. 122846, January 20, 2009 31, 1957
381 White Light Corporation v. City of Manila,
G.R. No. 122846, January 20, 2009

(Colossians 3:23)
2. Procedural due process. Requiring a person before he can be

employed to get a permit from the City
Substantive Due Process Mayor of Manila who may withhold or
refuse it at will is tantamount to denying him
This serves as a restriction on the basic right of the people in the
government’s law and rule-making Philippines to engage in a means of
powers.384 livelihood. While it is true that the
Philippines as a State is not obliged to
An ordinance that does not contain or admit aliens within its territory, once an
suggest standard or criterion to guide alien is admitted, he cannot be deprived of
the public official in the exercise of the life without due process of law. This
power which has been granted to him by guarantee includes the means of livelihood.
such ordinance violates substantive The shelter of protection under the due
due process process and equal protection clause is
given to all persons, both aliens and
In the case of Villegas v. Hiu Chiong Tsai citizens.
Pao Ho,385 the Court ruled that Ordinance
No. 6537 is void because it does not Note: It should be noted that in this case,
contain or suggest any standard or criterion the ordinance empowered the mayor to
to guide the mayor in the exercise of the withhold or refuse to issue the permit within
power which has been granted to him by his/her own will/discretion. Further, the
the ordinance. ordinance in question does not state the
grounds that will result to non-issuance of
Section 1 of said Ordinance No. 6537 the permit.
prohibits aliens from being employed or to
engage or participate in any position or Whether or not a law segregating the
occupation or business enumerated Manguianes constitutes a violation of
therein, whether permanent, temporary or substantive due process?
casual, without first securing an
employment permit from the Mayor of No. The Court held in the case of Rubi et al
Manila and paying the permit fee of P50.00 v. The Provincial Board of Mindoro386 that
except persons employed in the diplomatic the Manguianes are restrained for their
or consular missions of foreign countries, own good and the general good of the
or in the technical assistance programs of Philippines. Nor can one say that due
both the Philippine Government and any process of law has not been followed. To
foreign government, and those working in go back to our definition of due process of
their respective households, and members law and equal protection of the law:
of religious orders or congregations, sect or
denomination, who are not paid monetarily 1. There exists a law;
or in kind.
2. The law seems to be reasonable;
Violations of this ordinance is punishable
by an imprisonment of not less than three 3. It is enforced according to the
(3) months to six (6) months or fine of not regular methods of procedure
less than P100.00 but not more than prescribed; and
P200.00 or both such fine and
imprisonment, upon conviction. 4. It applies alike to all of a class.
The ordinance in question violates the due In so far as the Manguianes themselves
process of law and equal protection rule of are concerned, the purpose of the
the Constitution. Government is evident. Here, we have on
384Outline Reviewer in Political Law, Antonio 385 G.R. No. L-29646, November 10, 1978
E.B. Nachura, 2016, p. 125 386 G.R. No. L-14078, March 7, 1919
(Colossians 3:23)
the Island of Mindoro, the Manguianes, Void-for- Overbreadth

leading a nomadic life, making vagueness
depredations on their more fortunate essential of due
neighbors, uneducated in the ways of process of law."
civilization, and doing nothing for the
advancement of the Philippine Islands.
A facial challenge is allowed to be made
What the Government wished to do by to a vague statute and to one which is
bringing than into a reservation was to overbroad because of possible "chilling
gather together the children for educational effect" upon protected speech
purposes, and to improve the health and
morals — was in fine, to begin the process In the case of Estrada v.
of civilization. this method was termed in Sandiganbayan,388 the Court ruled that a
Spanish times, "bringing under the bells." facial challenge is allowed to be made to a
The same idea adapted to the existing vague statute and to one which is
situation, has been followed with reference overbroad because of possible "chilling
to the Manguianes and other peoples of the effect" upon protected speech.
same class, because it required, if they are
to be improved, that they be gathered The theory is that "[w]hen statutes regulate
together. On these few reservations there or proscribe speech and no readily
live under restraint in some cases, and in apparent construction suggests itself as a
other instances voluntarily, a few vehicle for rehabilitating the statutes in a
thousands of the uncivilized people. single prosecution, the transcendent value
Segregation really constitutes protection to all society of constitutionally protected
for the Manguianes. expression is deemed to justify allowing
attacks on overly broad statutes with no
Hence, the Court ruled that section 2145 of requirement that the person making the
the Administrative Code is a legitimate attack demonstrate that his own conduct
exertion of the police power, somewhat could not be regulated by a statute drawn
analogous to the Indian policy of the United with narrow specificity."
States. Section 2145 of the Administrative
Code of 1917 is constitutional. The possible harm to society in permitting
some unprotected speech to go
Void-for-vagueness vis-à-vis unpunished is outweighed by the possibility
Overbreadth Doctrine that the protected speech of others may be
deterred and perceived grievances left to
Void-for- Overbreadth fester because of possible inhibitory effects
vagueness of overly broad statutes.
States that "a Decrees that "a
statute which governmental The overbreadth and vagueness
either forbids or purpose may not doctrines then have special application
requires the doing be achieved by only to free speech cases and not
of an act in terms means which applicable for testing the validity of
so vague that men sweep “penal statutes”
of common unnecessarily
intelligence must broadly and The overbreadth and vagueness doctrines
necessarily guess thereby invade the then have special application only to free
at its meaning and area of protected speech cases. They are inapt for testing
differ as to its freedoms."387 the validity of penal statutes. As the U.S.
application, Supreme Court put it, in an opinion by Chief
violates the first Justice Rehnquist, "we have not
recognized an 'overbreadth' doctrine
387 Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 388 G.R. No. 148560, November 19, 2001
148560, November 19, 2001
(Colossians 3:23)
outside the limited context of the First doctrine outside the limited context of the
Amendment." First Amendment” (freedom of speech).
The doctrines of strict scrutiny, A law is not vague when the public is
overbreadth, and vagueness are analytical given fair notice of what acts are
tools developed for testing "on their faces" proscribed
statutes in free speech cases or, as they
are called in American law, First In the case of Ong v. Sandiganbayan,391
Amendment cases. They cannot be made the Court ruled that RA 1379 is not vague
to do service when what is involved is a as it defines with sufficient particularity
criminal statute. With respect to such unlawfully acquired property of a public
statute, the established rule is that "one to officer or employee as that which is
whom application of a statute is manifestly out of proportion to his salary as
constitutional will not be heard to attack the such public officer or employee and to his
statute on the ground that impliedly it might other lawful income and the income from
also be taken as applying to other persons legitimately acquired property. It also
or other situations in which its application provides a definition of what is legitimately
might be unconstitutional." acquired property.
As has been pointed out, "vagueness Based on these parameters, the public is
challenges in the First Amendment context, given fair notice of what acts are
like overbreadth challenges typically proscribed. The law, therefore, does not
produce facial invalidation, while statutes offend the basic concept of fairness and the
found vague as a matter of due process due process clause of the Constitution.
typically are invalidated [only] 'as applied'
to a particular defendant." An Administrative Order is broad,
vague, and overbreadth if it will put
Consequently, in the case of Estrada v. people's right to privacy in clear and
Sandiganbayan,389 the Court ruled that present danger
there is no basis for petitioner's claim that
this Court review the Anti-Plunder Law on In the case of Ople v. Torres,392 the Court
its face and in its entirety. ruled that what is not arguable is the
broadness, the vagueness, the
Presidential Proclamation which is not overbreadth of A.O. No. 308 which if
primarily directed to speech or even implemented will put our people's right to
speech-related conduct cannot be privacy in clear and present danger.
facially challenged
The heart of A.O. No. 308 lies in its Section
In the case of David v. Arroyo,390 the Court 4 which provides for a Population
ruled that the overbreadth doctrine is an Reference Number (PRN) as a "common
analytical tool developed for testing “on reference number to establish a linkage
their faces” statutes in free speech cases, among concerned agencies" through the
also known under the American Law as use of "Biometrics Technology" and
First Amendment cases. "computer application designs."
A plain reading of PP 1017 shows that it is A.O. No. 308 should also raise our
not primarily directed to speech or even antennas for a further look will show that it
speech-related conduct. It is actually a call does not state whether encoding of data is
upon the AFP to prevent or suppress all limited to biological information alone for
forms of lawless violence. In United States identification purposes. In fact, the Solicitor
v. Salerno, the US Supreme Court held that General claims that the adoption of the
“we have not recognized an “overbreadth” Identification Reference System will
389 G.R. No. 148560, November 19, 2001 391 G.R. No. 126858, September 16, 2005
390 G.R. No. 171396, May 3, 2006 392 G.R. No. 127685, July 23, 1998
(Colossians 3:23)
contribute to the "generation of population Procedural Due Process

data for development planning."
This serves as a restriction on actions of
This is an admission that the PRN will not judicial power to hear and determine the
be used solely for identification but for the matter before it.394
generation of other data with remote
relation to the avowed purposes of A.O. Requisites
No. 308. Clearly, the indefiniteness of A.O.
No. 308 can give the government the 1. An impartial court or tribunal
roving authority to store and retrieve clothed with judicial power to hear
information for a purpose other than the and determine the matter before it;
identification of the individual through his
PRN. 2. Jurisdiction must be lawfully
acquired over the person of the
Temporary Protection Order (TPO) defendant and over the property
issued pursuant to R.A. No. 9262 (VAWC which is the subject matter of the
Law) is not violative of the due process proceedings;
clause of the Constitution
3. The defendant must be given an
A protection order is an order issued to opportunity to be heard; and
prevent further acts of violence against
women and their children, their family or 4. Judgment must be rendered upon
household members, and to grant other lawful hearing.
necessary reliefs. Its purpose is to
safeguard the offended parties from further 1. Impartial Court or Tribunal
harm, minimize any disruption in their daily
life and facilitate the opportunity and ability Where the validity of an appointment
to regain control of their life. of the Commissioners, who will hear
the case, is not challenged in an
The grant of a TPO ex parte cannot, appropriate proceeding, the
therefore, be challenged as violative of the question of competence is not within
right to due process. Just like a writ of the field of judicial inquiry
preliminary attachment which is issued
without notice and hearing because the In the case of Tañada v. PAEC,395 the
time in which the hearing will take could be Court ruled that here the validity of an
enough to enable the defendant to abscond appointment is not challenged in an
or dispose of his property, in the same way, appropriate proceeding, the question of
the victim of VAWC may already have competence is not within the field of
suffered harrowing experiences in the judicial inquiry. If not considered a
hands of her tormentor, and possibly even qualification the absence of which
death, if notice and hearing were required would vitiate the appointment,
before such acts could be prevented. competence is a matter of judgment
that is addressed solely to the
It is a constitutional commonplace that the appointing power.
ordinary requirements of procedural due
process must yield to the necessities of Hence, the Court ruled that Philippine
protecting vital public interests, among Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC)
which is protection of women and children Commissioners are deemed competent
from violence and threats to their personal to pass judgment on the safety of the
safety and security.393 Philippine Nuclear Plant.
393Garcia v. Judge Drilon, G.R. No. 179267, 394 Outline Reviewer in Political Law, Antonio
June 25, 2013 E.B. Nachura, 2016, p. 126
395 G.R. No. L-68474, February 11, 1986
(Colossians 3:23)
A different person should decide the of the protestant in a contested

appeal of the protestant in a appointment.
contested appointment
In this case, the person who acted for
In the case of Anzaldo v. Clave,396 the the Office of the President is the same
Court ruled that when Presidential person in the Civil Service Commission
Executive Assistant Clave said in his who was consulted by the Office of the
decision that he was "inclined to concur President: Jacobo C. Clave. The Civil
in the recommendation of the Civil Service Decree could not have
Service Commission", what he meant contemplated that absurd situation for,
was that he was concurring with as held in the Zambales Chromite case,
Chairman Clave's recommendation: he that would not be fair to the appellant.
was concurring with himself.
The officer who reviews a case on
It is evident that Doctor Anzaldo was appeal should not be the same
denied due process of law when person whose decision is under
Presidential Executive Assistant Clave review
concurred with the recommendation of
Chairman Clave of the Civil Service In the case of Tejano v.
Commission. The case is analogous to Ombudsman,397 the Court ruled that the
Zambales Chromite Mining Co. vs. officer who reviews a case on appeal
Court of Appeals, L-49711, November should not be the same person whose
7, 1979, 94 SCRA 261, where it was decision is under review.
held that the decision of Secretary of
Agriculture and Natural Resources In Zambales Chromite Mining
Benjamin M. Gozon, affirming his own Company v. Court of Appeals,398 the
decision in a mining case as Director of decision of the Secretary of Agriculture
Mines was void because it was and Natural Resources was set aside
rendered with grave abuse of discretion by this Court after it had been
and was a mockery of administrative established that the case concerned an
justice. appeal of the Secretary’s own previous
decision, which he handed down while
Due process of law means fundamental he was yet the incumbent Director of
fairness. It is not fair to Doctor Anzaldo Mines. We have equally declared void
that Presidential Executive Assistant a decision rendered by the Second
Clave should decide whether his own Division of the National Labor Relations
recommendation as Chairman of the Commission, because one of its
Civil Service Commission, as to who members, Commissioner Raul Aquino,
between Doctor Anzaldo and Doctor participated in the review of the case
Venzon should be appointed Science which he had earlier decided on as a
Research Supervisor II, should be former labor arbiter.
adopted by the President of the
Philippines. Likewise, this Court struck down a
decision of Presidential Executive
Common sense and propriety dictate Assistance Jacobo Clave over a
that the commissioner in the Civil resolution of the Civil Service
Service Commission, who should be Commission, in which he, then
consulted by the Office of the concurrently its Chairman, had earlier
President, should be a person different concurred.399
from the person in the Office of the
President who would decide the appeal
396 G.R. No. L-54597, December 15, 1982 399Anzaldo v. Clave, G.R. No. L-54597,
397 G.R. No. 159190, June 30, 2005 December 15, 1982
398 G.R. No. L-49711, November 7, 1979
(Colossians 3:23)
Having participated in the initial Judge Pedro Espina, as correctly

preliminary investigation of the instant pointed out by the Solicitor General,
case and having recommended the cannot be considered to adequately
filing of an appropriate information, it possess such cold neutrality of an
behooved Ombudsman Desierto to impartial judge as to fairly assess both
recuse himself from participating in the the evidence to be adduced by the
review of the same during the prosecution and the defense in view of
reinvestigation. He should have his previous decision in Special Civil
delegated the review to his Deputies Action No. 92-11-219 wherein he
pursuant to Section 15 of Rep. Act No. enjoined the preliminary investigation
6770. at the Regional State Prosecutor's
Office level against herein respondent
Judge is disqualified to try the case Jane Go, the principal accused in the
if he had direct pecuniary interest in killing of her husband Dominador Go.
the outcome and because of his
official motive to convict and to Judge Espina's decision in favor of
graduate the fine to help the respondent Jane Go serves as
financial needs of the village sufficient and reasonable basis for the
prosecution to seriously doubt his
In the case of Tumey v. Ohio,400 the US impartiality in handling the criminal
Supreme Court ruled that no matter cases. Verily, it would have been more
what the evidence was against the prudent for Judge Espina to have
accused, he had the right to have an voluntarily inhibited himself from
impartial judge. He seasonably raised hearing the criminal cases.
the objection, and was entitled to halt
the trial because of the disqualification Examinations made by a Judge
of the judge, which existed both during a trial should be limited in
because of his direct pecuniary interest asking clarificatory questions
in the outcome and because of his
official motive to convict and to The Court ruled in the case of Tabuena
graduate the fine to help the financial v. Sandiganbayan402 that the Court has
needs of the village. There were thus acknowledged the right of a trial judge
presented at the outset both features of to question witnesses with a view to
the disqualification. satisfying his mind upon any material
point which presents itself during the
Hence, to subject a defendant to trial in trial of a case over which he presides.
a criminal case involving his liberty or But not only should his examination be
property before a judge having a direct, limited to asking clarificatory questions,
personal, substantial interest in the right should be sparingly and
convicting him is a denial of due judiciously used; for the rule is that the
process of law. court should stay out of it as much as
possible, neither interfering nor
A judge cannot be considered to intervening in the conduct of the trial.
adequately possess such cold
neutrality of an impartial judge if he At the case at bar, these limitations
enjoined the preliminary were not observed. Hardly in fact can
investigation at the Regional State one avoid the impression that the
Prosecutor's Office level against Sandiganbayan had allied itself with, or
herein respondent to be more precise, had taken the
cudgels for the prosecution in proving
In the case of People v. CA,401 the the case against Tabuena and Peralta
Court ruled that in the case at bar, when the Justices cross-examined the
400 273 U.S. 510 (1997) 402 G.R. No. 103501-03, February 17, 1997
401 G.R. No. 118882, September 26, 1996
(Colossians 3:23)
witnesses, their cross-examinations From the cases coming here, we note

supplementing those made by that unfair and prejudicial news
Prosecutor Viernes and far exceeding comment on pending trials has become
the latter’s questions in length. increasingly prevalent. Due process
requires that the accused receive a trial
Therefore, the cold neutrality of an by an impartial jury free from outside
impartial judge requirement of due influences. Given the pervasiveness of
process was certainly denied Tabuena modern communications and the
and Peralta when the court, with its difficulty of effacing prejudicial publicity
overzealousness, assumed the dual from the minds of the jurors, the trial
role of magistrate and advocate. courts must take strong measures to
ensure that the balance is never
The presence of the press at judicial weighed against the accused. And
proceedings must be limited when it appellate tribunals have the duty to
is apparent that the accused might make an independent evaluation of the
otherwise be prejudiced or circumstances.
disadvantaged
But where there is a reasonable
In the case of Sheppard v. Maxwell,403 likelihood that prejudicial news prior to
the US Supreme Court ruled that being trial will prevent a fair trial, the judge
advised of the great public interest in should continue the case until the threat
the case, the mass coverage of the abates, or transfer it to another county
press, and the potential prejudicial not so permeated with publicity. In
impact of publicity, the court could also addition, sequestration of the jury was
have requested the appropriate city something the judge should have
and county officials to promulgate a raised sua sponte with counsel. If
regulation with respect to dissemination publicity during the proceedings
of information about the case by their threatens the fairness of the trial, a new
employees. trial should be ordered.
In addition, reporters who wrote or When the accused is given an

broadcast prejudicial stories could have opportunity to prove lack of
been warned as to the impropriety of probable cause, it cannot be said
publishing material not introduced in that the said accused was denied of
the proceedings. The judge was put on his constitutional right to due
notice of such events by defense process and violation of his right to
counsel's complaint about the WHK an impartial investigation
broadcast on the second day of trial.
The Court held in the case of Webb v.
In this manner, Sheppard's right to a De Leon404 that the records will show
trial free from outside interference that the DOJ Panel did not conduct the
would have been given added preliminary investigation with indecent
protection without corresponding haste. Petitioners were given fair
curtailment of the news media. Had the opportunity to prove lack of probable
judge, the other officers of the court, cause against them. The fairness of this
and the police placed the interest of opportunity is well stressed in the
justice first, the news media would have Consolidated Comment of the Solicitor
soon learned to be content with the task General.
of reporting the case as it unfolded in
the courtroom -- not pieced together Again, there is no merit in this
from extrajudicial statements. contention. Petitioners were afforded
all the opportunities to be heard.
Petitioner Webb actively participated in
403 384 U.S. 333 (1966) 404
(Colossians 3:23)
the preliminary investigation by conduct further proceedings, e.g.

appearing in the initial hearing held on comparison of the photo-copies of the
June 30, 1995 and in the second submitted documents with the originals
hearing on July 14, 1995; and by filing on July 17, 1995. (p. 7, Petition) The
a "Motion for Production and panel even entertained the "Response"
Examination of Evidence and submitted by accused Miguel
Documents" on June 27, 1995 (p. 4, Rodriguez on July 18, 1995. (p. 17
Petition), a "Reply to the compliance Resolution) In addition to these, the
and Comment/Manifestation to the panel even announced that any party
Motion for Production and Examination may submit additional evidence before
of Evidence" on July 5, 1995 (p. 6, the resolution of the case. (p. 8,
Petition), a "Comment and Petition) From the time the panel
Manifestation" on July 7, 1995 (p. 6, declared the termination of the
Petition), his "Counter-Affidavit" on July preliminary investigation on July 14,
14, 1995 (pp. 6-7, Petition) and a 1995, twenty-seven (27) days elapsed
"Motion to Resolve" on August 1, 1995. before the resolution was promulgated,
Numerous letter-requests were also and the information eventually filed in
sent by the petitioner Webb's counsel the Regional Trial Court of Parañaque
to the DOJ Panel requesting the latter on August 10, 1995. This
to furnish him a copy of the reports notwithstanding the directive of Section
prepared by the FBI concerning the 3(f) Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of
petitioner's whereabouts during the Court that the investigating officer shall
material period (Annexes "L", "L-1" and resolve the case within ten (10) days
"L-2" of the Supplemental Petition from the termination of the preliminary
dated August 14, 1995). In fact, not investigation. The DOJ Panel precisely
satisfied with the decision of the DOJ allowed the parties to adduce more
Panel not to issue subpoena duces evidence in their behalf and for the
tecum to Atty. Arturo L. Mercader, Jr., panel to study the evidence submitted
petitioner Webb filed a "Petition for more fully. This directly disputes the
Injunction, Certiorari, Prohibition and allegation of the petitioners that the
Mandamus" with the Regional Trial resolution was done with indecent
Court, Branch 63 of Makati in order to haste in violation of the rights of the
compel said Atty. Mercader, Jr. to petitioners. During the period of twenty-
produce the first sworn statement of seven (27) days, the petitioners were
Alfaro for submission to the DOJ Panel. free to adduce and present additional
(p. 4, Petition) The said court dismissed evidence before the DOJ Panel.
the petition after Mercader produced
and submitted to the DOJ Panel the first Verily, petitioners cannot now assert
sworn statement of Alfaro, without that they were denied due process
ruling on the admissibility and credence during the conduct of the preliminary
of the two (2) conflicting and investigation simply because the DOJ
inconsistent sworn statements of the Panel promulgated the adverse
principal witness, Alfaro. (Attached resolution and filed the Information in
hereto is a copy of the order of Judge court against them.
Ruben A. Mendiola, RTC-Makati,
Branch 63 dated July 28, 1995) marked A judge exposure to publications
as Annex "F." and publicity stunts does not per se
fatally infect their impartiality
It must also be pointed out that despite
the declaration by the DOJ Panel that In the case of People v. Sanchez,405 the
the preliminary investigation was to be Court ruled that pervasive publicity is
terminated after the hearing held on not per se prejudicial to the right of an
July 14, 1995, the panel continued to accused to fair trial. The mere fact that
405 G.R. Nos. 121039-45, October 18, 2001

(Colossians 3:23)
the trial of appellant was given a day- requirements of due process are
to-day, gavel-to-gavel coverage does satisfactorily complied with.
not by itself prove that publicity so
permeated the mind of the trial judge Significantly, the records show that the
and impaired his impartiality Our judges PAGC issued an order informing
are learned in the law and trained to Montemayor of the formal charge filed
disregard off-court evidence and on- against him and gave him ten (10) days
camera performances of parties to a within which to present a counter-
litigation. Their mere exposure to affidavit or verified answer.
publications and publicity stunts does
not per se fatally infect their impartiality. When the said period lapsed without
respondent asking for an extension, the
2. Jurisdiction must be lawfully PAGC gave Montemayor a fresh ten
acquired over the person (10)-day period to file his answer, but
the latter chose to await the decision of
How to acquire jurisdiction over the the CA in his petition for certiorari.
person of the defendant?
During the preliminary conference,
a. Thru service of summons. Montemayor was again informed that
he is given a new ten (10)-day period,
b. Voluntary appearance before the or until June 19, 2003 within which to
court. file his memorandum/position paper as
well as supporting evidence with a
c. Submission of pleadings in warning that if he still fails to do so, the
compliance with the order of the complaint shall be deemed submitted
court and tribunal.406 for resolution on the basis of available
documentary evidence on record.
3. Defendant must be given an
opportunity to be heard Again, the deadline lapsed without any
evidence being presented by
In administrative proceedings, so Montemayor in his defense.
long as the party is given the
opportunity to explain his side, the Absence of a preliminary
requirements of due process are investigation does not render the
satisfactorily complied with Information invalid nor affect the
jurisdiction of the court over the
In the case of Flores v. Montemayor,407 case
the Court ruled that Montemayor’s
argument, as well as the CAs In the case of Budiongan Jr. v. Hon.
observation that respondent was not Dela Cruz,408 the Court rule that the
afforded a second opportunity to right to a preliminary investigation is not
present controverting evidence, does a constitutional right, but is merely a
not hold water. right conferred by statute. The absence
of a preliminary investigation does not
The essence of due process in impair the validity of the Information or
administrative proceedings is an otherwise render the same defective. It
opportunity to explain one’s side or an does not affect the jurisdiction of the
opportunity to seek reconsideration of court over the case or constitute a
the action or ruling complained of. So ground for quashing the Information.
long as the party is given the
opportunity to explain his side, the If absence of a preliminary investigation
does not render the Information invalid
406
De Los Santos v. NLRC, G.R. No. 121327, 407 G.R. No. 170146, August 25, 2010
December 20, 2001 408 G.R. No. 170288, September 22, 2006
(Colossians 3:23)
nor affect the jurisdiction of the court explain their side of the controversy or
over the case, then the denial of a an opportunity to move for a
motion for reinvestigation cannot reconsideration of the action or ruling
likewise invalidate the Information or complained of.
oust the court of its jurisdiction over the
case. In the case at bar, the record clearly
shows that petitioners not only filed
Petitioners were not deprived of due their respective Counter-Affidavits
process because they were afforded during the preliminary investigation,
the opportunity to refute the charges by they also filed separate Motions for
filing their counter-affidavits. The Reconsideration of the October 19,
modification of the offense charged did 1993 Order of the Ombudsman
not come as a surprise to the impleading them as accused in
petitioners because it was based on the Criminal Case No. 18956.
same set of facts and the same alleged
illegal acts. Moreover, petitioners failed Not all petitions for preliminary
to aver newly discovered evidence nor injunction need undergo a trial-type
impute commission of grave errors or hearing
serious irregularities prejudicial to their
interest to warrant a reconsideration or In the case of Marohombsar v. Judge
reinvestigation of the case as required Adiong,410 the Court ruled that in
under Section 8, Rule III of the Rules of applications for preliminary injunction,
Procedure of the Office of the the dual requirement of prior notice and
Ombudsman. hearing before injunction may issue
has been relaxed to the point that not
Thus, the modification of the offense all petitions for preliminary injunction
charged, even without affording the need undergo a trial-type hearing, it
petitioners a new preliminary being doctrinal that a formal or trial-type
investigation, did not amount to a hearing is not, at all times and in all
violation of their rights. instances, essential to due process.
Furthermore, the right to preliminary The essence of due process is that a

investigation is deemed waived when party is afforded a reasonable
the accused fails to invoke it before or opportunity to be heard and to present
at the time of entering a plea at any evidence he may have in support of
arraignment. his defense. In the present case,
complainant was able to move for a
The rule is well established that due reconsideration of the order in
process is satisfied when the parties question, hence her right to due
are afforded fair and reasonable process was not in anyway
opportunity to explain their side of transgressed. We have ruled that a
the controversy or an opportunity to party cannot claim that he has been
move for a reconsideration of the denied due process when he has
action or ruling complained of availed of the opportunity to present his
position.
It has been held in the case of Roxas v.
Hon. Vasquez409 that petitioners cannot Due process in administrative
argue that they have been deprived of proceedings
due process. The rule is well
established that due process is Moreover, Department of Health v.
satisfied when the parties are afforded Camposano411 restates the guidelines
fair and reasonable opportunity to laid down in Ang Tibay v. Court of
409 G.R. No. 114944, June 19, 2001 411 496 Phil. 886 (2005)
410 A.M. No. RTJ-02-1674, January 22, 2004
(Colossians 3:23)
Industrial Relations412 that due process

in administrative proceedings requires To recall, after the affidavit of Acero
compliance with the following cardinal was filed with the Office of the
principles: Ombudsman-Mindanao, the
respondents therein, i.e., Reyes and
(1) The respondents right to a hearing, Pealoza, were ordered to submit their
which includes the right to present counter-affidavits in order to discuss
one’s case and submit supporting the charges lodged against them. While
evidence, must be observed; Pealoza acknowledged in his counter-
affidavit his participation in the illicit
(2) The tribunal must consider the transaction complained of, he pointed
evidence presented; to Reyes as the main culprit. Pealoza
thereafter submitted the affidavits of
(3) The decision must have some basis Amper and Valdehueza as witnesses
to support itself; who would substantiate his
accusations. However, the records
(4) There must be substantial reveal that only the Office of the
evidence; Ombudsman-Mindanao and Acero
were furnished copies of the said
(5) The decision must be rendered on affidavits.
the evidence presented at the
hearing, or at least contained in the Thus, Reyes was able to respond only
record and disclosed to the parties to the affidavit of Acero. It would appear
affected; that Reyes had no idea that Pealoza, a
co-respondent in the administrative
(6) In arriving at a decision, the tribunal case, would point an accusing finger at
must have acted on its own him and even supply the inculpatory
consideration of the law and the evidence to prove his guilt. The said
facts of the controversy and must affidavits were made known to Reyes
not have simply accepted the views only after the rendition of the petitioners
of a subordinate; and Decision dated September 24, 2001.
(7) The decision must be rendered in 4. Notice and hearing

such manner that respondents
would know the reasons for it and Notification of the charges
the various issues involved.413 contemplates that respondent be
informed of the specific charges
When the accused was not furnished against the erring official
a copy of the said documents before
petitioner rendered its Decision, his In the case of Summary Dismissal
right to due process was violated Board and the Regional Appellate
Board v. Torcita,415 the Court ruled that
It was held in the case of Office of the notification of the charges
Ombudsman v. Reyes414 that in the contemplates that respondent be
case at bar, the fifth requirement stated informed of the specific charges
above was not complied with. Reyes against him.
was not properly apprised of the
evidence offered against him, which In the case at bar, Torcita was entitled
were eventually made the bases of to know that he was being charged with
petitioner’s decision that found him being drunk while in the performance of
guilty of grave misconduct. duty, so that he could traverse the
412
69 Phil. 635 (1940) 414 G.R. No. 170512, October 5, 2011
413Ombudsman v. Reyes, G.R. No. 170512, 415 G.R. No. 130442, April 6, 2000
October 5, 2011
(Colossians 3:23)
accusation squarely and adduce Difference between extradition

evidence in his defense. proceeding and a criminal
proceeding
Although he was given an opportunity
to be heard on the multiple and broad Extradition Criminal
charges initially filed against him, the An extradition Criminal
absence of specification of the offense proceeding is proceedings
for which he was eventually found guilty summary in involve a full-
is not a proper observance of due nature. blown trial.
process. There can be no short-cut to
the legal process (Alonte vs. Savellano The rules of In criminal
Jr., 287 SCRA 245). evidence in an proceeding, the
extradition admission of
An extradition proceeding is sui proceeding allow evidence should
generis. It is not a criminal admission of comply with
proceeding which will call into evidence under stringent
operation all the rights of an less stringent standards.
accused as guaranteed by the Bill of standards.
Rights
A fugitive may be A criminal case
In the case of Secretary of Justice v. ordered requires proof
Hon. Lantion,416 the Court ruled that an extradited "upon beyond
extradition proceeding is sui generis. It showing of the reasonable doubt
is not a criminal proceeding which will existence of a for conviction
call into operation all the rights of an prima facie
accused as guaranteed by the Bill of case.”
Rights. To begin with, the process of
extradition does not involve the In an extradition In a criminal
determination of the guilt or innocence proceeding, our case, judgment
of an accused. courts may becomes
adjudge an executory upon
As an extradition proceeding is not individual being rendered
criminal in character and the evaluation extraditable but final.417
stage in an extradition proceeding is not the President
akin to a preliminary investigation, the has the final
due process safeguards in the latter do discretion to
not necessarily apply to the former. extradite him.
This we hold for the procedural due
process required by a given set of
circumstances "must begin with a
determination of the precise nature of By depriving appellant of a mental
the government function involved as examination, the trial court
well as the private interest that has effectively deprived appellant of a
been affected by governmental action." fair trial
The concept of due process is flexible In the case of People v. Estrada,418 the
for "not all situations calling for Court ruled that by depriving appellant
procedural safeguards call for the same of a mental examination, the trial court
kind of procedure.” effectively deprived appellant of a fair
trial.
416
G.R. No. 139465, October 17, 2000 418 G.R. No. 130487, June 19, 2000
417Secretary of Justice v. Hon. Lantion, G.R.
No. 139465, October 17, 2000
(Colossians 3:23)
The trial courts negligence was a of Bistro. For this reason, the trial court
violation of the basic requirements of properly restrained the acts of Lim.
due process; and for this reason, the
proceedings before the said court must Necessity of notice and hearing in an
be nullified. administrative proceeding depends
on the character of the proceeding
The regulatory powers granted to and the circumstances involved
municipal corporations must always
be exercised in accordance with law, 'Aside from statute, the necessity of
with utmost observance of the rights notice and hearing in an administrative
of the people to due process and proceeding depends on the character
equal protection of the law of the proceeding and the
circumstances involved.
In the case of Lim v. CA,419 the Court
ruled that the regulatory powers In so far as generalization is possible in
granted to municipal corporations must view of the great variety of
always be exercised in accordance with administrative proceedings, it may be
law, with utmost observance of the stated as a general rule that notice and
rights of the people to due process and hearing are not essential to the validity
equal protection of the law. Such power of administrative action where the
cannot be exercised whimsically, administrative body acts in the exercise
arbitrarily or despotically. of executive, administrative, or
legislative functions;
In the instant case, we find that Lim’s
exercise of this power violated Bistros But where a public administrative body
property rights that are protected under acts in a judicial or quasi-judicial matter,
the due process clause of the and its acts are particular and
Constitution. immediate rather than general and
prospective, the person whose rights or
Lim did not charge Bistro with any property may be affected by the action
specific violation of the conditions of its is entitled to notice and hearing.420
business license or permits. Still, Lim
closed down Bistros operations even Hence, in the case of Philippine
before the expiration of its business Communication Satellite Corporation v.
license on December 31, 1992. Lim Alcuaz,421 the Court ruled that while
also refused to accept Bistros license respondents may fix a temporary rate
application for 1993, in effect denying pending final determination of the
the application without examining application of petitioner, such rate-
whether it complies with legal fixing order, temporary though it may
prerequisites. be, is not exempt from the statutory
procedural requirements of notice and
Lims zeal in his campaign against hearing, as well as the requirement of
prostitution is commendable. The reasonableness.
presumption is that he acted in good
faith and was motivated by his concern Assuming that such power is vested in
for his constituents when he NTC, it may not exercise the same in
implemented his campaign against an arbitrary and confiscatory manner.
prostitution in the Ermita-Malate area. Categorizing such an order as
However, there is no excusing Lim for temporary in nature does not perforce
arbitrarily closing down, without due entail the applicability of a different rule
process of law, the business operations of statutory procedure than would
419G.R. No. 111397, August 12, 2002 421 G.R. No. 84818, December 18, 1989
420 The Central Bank of the Philippines vs.
Cloribel, et al., 44 SCRA 307 (1972)
(Colossians 3:23)
otherwise be applied to any other order Dulles No. 12406, 23 June 1955, all
on the same matter unless otherwise decided by the States Court of Appeals
provided by the applicable law. for the district of Columbia, cited by the
petitioner, the revocation of a passport
Where the holder of a passport is already issued or refusal to issue a
facing a criminal a charge in our passport applied for, was on the vague
courts and left the country to evade reason that the continued possession
criminal prosecution, the Secretary or the issuance thereof would be
for Foreign Affairs, in the exercise of contrary to the best interest of the
his discretion to revoke a passport United States.
already issued, cannot be held to
have acted whimsically or Extension of stay of aliens is purely
capriciously in withdrawing and discretionary on the part of the
cancelling such passport immigration authorities
In the case of Suntay v. People,422 the In the case of De Bisschop v.

Court ruled that where the holder of a Galang,423 the Court held that the
passport is facing a criminal a charge in administration of immigration laws is
our courts and left the country to evade the primary and exclusive responsibility
criminal prosecution, the Secretary for of the Executive branch of the
Foreign Affairs, in the exercise of his government. Extension of stay of aliens
discretion to revoke a passport already is purely discretionary on the part of the
issued, cannot be held to have acted immigration authorities.
whimsically or capriciously in
withdrawing and cancelling such Since Commonwealth Act No. 613,
passport. otherwise known as the Philippine
Immigration Act of 1940, is silent as to
Due process does not necessarily the procedure to be followed in these
mean or require a hearing. When cases, we are inclined to uphold the
discretion is exercised by an officer argument that courts have no
vested with it upon an undisputed fact, jurisdiction to review the purely
such as the filing of a serious criminal administrative practice of immigration
charge against the passport holder, authorities of not granting formal
hearing maybe dispensed with by such hearings in certain cases as the
officer as a prerequisite to the circumstances may warrant, for
cancellation of his passport; lack of reasons of practicability and
such hearing does not violate the due expediency.
process of law clause of the
Constitution; and the exercise of the This would not violate the due process
discretion vested in him cannot be clause if we take into account that, in
deemed whimsical and capricious of this particular case, the letter of
because of the absence of such appellant-commissioner advising de
hearing. Bisschop to depart in 5 days is a mere
formality, a preliminary step, and,
If hearing should always be held in therefore, far from final, because, as
order to comply with the due process of alleged in paragraph 7 of appellant's
clause of the Constitution, then a writ of answer to the complaint, the
preliminary injunction issued ex parte "requirement to leave before the start of
would be violative of the said clause. the deportation proceedings is only an
advice to the party that unless he
In the cases of Bauer vs. Acheson, 106 departs voluntarily, the State will be
F. Supp. 445; Nathan, vs. Dulles, 129 compelled to take steps for his
F. Supp. 951; and Schachtman vs. expulsion". It is already a settled rule in
422 G.R. No. L-9430, June 29, 1957 423 G.R. No. L-18365, May 31, 1963
(Colossians 3:23)
this jurisdiction that a day in court is not (1) The first of these rights is the right
a matter of right in administrative to a hearing, which includes the
proceedings. right of the party interested or
affected to present his own case
The essence of due process is and submit evidence in support
simply an opportunity to be heard, thereof. In the language of Chief
or, as applied to administrative Hughes, in Morgan v. U.S., 304
proceedings, an opportunity to U.S. 1, 58 S. Ct. 773, 999, 82 Law.
explain one's side, or an opportunity ed. 1129, "the liberty and property
to seek a reconsideration of the of the citizen shall be protected by
action or ruling complained of the rudimentary requirements of fair
play.
In the case of Var-Orient Shipping Co.,
Inc. v. Achacoso,424 the Court ruled that (2) Not only must the party be given an
the essence of due process is simply an opportunity to present his case and
opportunity to be heard, or, as applied to adduce evidence tending to
to administrative proceedings, an establish the rights which he
opportunity to explain one's side, or an asserts but the tribunal must
opportunity to seek a reconsideration of consider the evidence presented.
the action or ruling complained of. (Chief Justice Hughes in Morgan v.
U.S. 298 U.S. 468, 56 S. Ct. 906, 80
The fact is that at the hearing of the law. ed. 1288.) In the language of
case on March 4,1987, it was agreed by this court in Edwards vs. McCoy, 22
the parties that they would file their Phil., 598, "the right to adduce
respective memoranda and thereafter evidence, without the
consider the case submitted for corresponding duty on the part of
decision (Annex 7 of Bunyog's the board to consider it, is vain.
Comment). This procedure is Such right is conspicuously futile if
authorized by law to expedite the the person or persons to whom the
settlement of labor disputes. evidence is presented can thrust it
aside without notice or
However, only the private respondents consideration."
submitted memoranda. The petitioners
did not. On June 10, 1987, the (3) "While the duty to deliberate does
respondents filed a motion to resolve not impose the obligation to decide
(Annex 7, Bunyog's Comment). The right, it does imply a necessity
petitioners' counsel did not oppose which cannot be disregarded,
either the "Motion to Resolve" or the namely, that of having something to
respondents "Motion for Execution of support it is a nullity, a place when
Decision" dated October 19, 1987 directly attached." (Edwards vs.
(Annex 10), both of which were McCoy, supra.) This principle
furnished them through counsel. If it emanates from the more
were true, as they now contend, that fundamental is contrary to the
they had been denied due process in vesting of unlimited power
the form of a formal hearing, they anywhere. Law is both a grant and
should have opposed both motions. a limitation upon power.
Administrative Due Process (4) Not only must there be some

evidence to support a finding or
Fundamental and essential conclusion (City of Manila vs.
requirements of due process in Agustin, G.R. No. 45844,
administrative proceedings promulgated November 29, 1937,
XXXVI O. G. 1335), but the
424 G.R. No. 81805, May 31, 1988

(Colossians 3:23)
evidence must be "substantial." Commission vs. L. & N. R. Co., 227

(Washington, Virginia and U.S. 88, 33 S. Ct. 185, 57 Law. ed.
Maryland Coach Co. v. national 431.) Only by confining the
labor Relations Board, 301 U.S. administrative tribunal to the
142, 147, 57 S. Ct. 648, 650, 81 evidence disclosed to the parties,
Law. ed. 965.) It means such can the latter be protected in their
relevant evidence as a reasonable right to know and meet the case
mind accept as adequate to support against them. It should not,
a conclusion." (Appalachian however, detract from their duty
Electric Power v. National Labor actively to see that the law is
Relations Board, 4 Cir., 93 F. 2d enforced, and for that purpose, to
985, 989; National Labor Relations use the authorized legal methods of
Board v. Thompson Products, 6 securing evidence and informing
Cir., 97 F. 2d 13, 15; Ballston- itself of facts material and relevant
Stillwater Knitting Co. v. National to the controversy. Boards of
Labor Relations Board, 2 Cir., 98 F. inquiry may be appointed for the
2d 758, 760.) . . . The statute purpose of investigating and
provides that "the rules of evidence determining the facts in any given
prevailing in courts of law and case, but their report and decision
equity shall not be controlling.' The are only advisory. (Section 9,
obvious purpose of this and similar Commonwealth Act No. 103.) The
provisions is to free administrative Court of Industrial Relations may
boards from the compulsion of refer any industrial or agricultural
technical rules so that the mere dispute or any matter under its
admission of matter which would be consideration or advisement to a
deemed incompetent inn judicial local board of inquiry, a provincial
proceedings would not invalidate fiscal. a justice of the peace or any
the administrative order. (Interstate public official in any part of the
Commerce Commission v. Baird, Philippines for investigation, report
194 U.S. 25, 44, 24 S. Ct. 563, 568, and recommendation, and may
48 Law. ed. 860; Interstate delegate to such board or public
Commerce Commission v. official such powers and functions
Louisville and Nashville R. Co., 227 as the said Court of Industrial
U.S. 88, 93 33 S. Ct. 185, 187, 57 Relations may deem necessary, but
Law. ed. 431; United States v. such delegation shall not affect the
Abilene and Southern Ry. Co. S. Ct. exercise of the Court itself of any of
220, 225, 74 Law. ed. 624.) But this its powers. (Section 10, ibid.)
assurance of a desirable flexibility
in administrative procedure does (6) The Court of Industrial Relations or
not go far as to justify orders without any of its judges, therefore, must
a basis in evidence having rational act on its or his own independent
probative force. Mere consideration of the law and facts of
uncorroborated hearsay or rumor the controversy, and not simply
does not constitute substantial accept the views of a subordinate in
evidence. (Consolidated Edison arriving at a decision. It may be that
Co. v. National Labor Relations the volume of work is such that it is
Board, 59 S. Ct. 206, 83 Law. ed. literally Relations personally to
No. 4, Adv. Op., p. 131.)" decide all controversies coming
before them. In the United States
(5) The decision must be rendered on the difficulty is solved with the
the evidence presented at the enactment of statutory authority
hearing, or at least contained in the authorizing examiners or other
record and disclosed to the parties subordinates to render final
affected. (Interstate Commence decision, with the right to appeal to
(Colossians 3:23)
board or commission, but in our affected to present his own case and
case there is no such statutory submit evidence in support thereof.
authority.
Since the school failed to give the petitioner
(7) The Court of Industrial Relations an opportunity to present his side, then
should, in all controversial administrative due process was not
questions, render its decision in complied with.
such a manner that the parties to
the proceeding can know the Due process of law guarantees notice
various issues involved, and the and opportunities to be heard to
reasons for the decision rendered. persons who would be affected by the
The performance of this duty is order or act contemplated
inseparable from the authority
conferred upon it.425 In the case of Manila Electric Company v.
Public Service Commission et al,427 the
Deficiencies on procedural due process Court ruled that we need not be reminded
in the administrative level is remedied that it is the cardinal right of a party in trials
when the petitioner was able to present and administrative proceedings to be
his case before the Court heard, which includes the right of the party
interested or affected to present his own
In the case of Montemayor v. Araneta case and submit evidence in support
University Foundation,426 the Court ruled thereof and to have such evidence
that it does appear therefore that the presented considered by the tribunal
members of such investigating committee (Comm. of Immigration vs. Fernandez, et
failed to show full awareness of the al., L-22696, May 29, 1964 and cases cited
demands of procedural due process. therein).
A motion by petitioner for postponement of "Even if the Commission is not bound by

the hearing, apparently the first one made, the rules of judicial proceedings, it must
was denied. What is worse, in his absence how its head to the constitutional mandate
the matter was heard with the committee that no person shall be deprived of right
losing no time in submitting its report without due process of law", which binds
finding the charges against petitioner to not only the government of the Republic,
have been sufficiently established and but also each and everyone of its branches,
recommending his removal. If that were all, agencies, etc. "Due process of law
respondent Secretary of Labor cannot be guarantees notice and opportunities to be
sustained. certiorari would lie. heard to persons who would be affected by
the order or act contemplated" (Halili v.
But such deficiency was remedied, as Public Service Com., et al., 49 O.G. 825,
pointed out in the same comment of the citing 16 C.J.S. 1141, 1149).
Solicitor General, by the fact "that petitioner
was able to present his case before the
Labor Commission." There should be no short cuts in the
disposition of the time-honored principle
Note: It can be deduced that the ruling in that no one should be deprived of his life,
this case is erroneous. liberty and property, without due process of
law.
One of the requisites of administrative due
process is the right to a hearing, which Considering the fact that the reduction of
includes the right of the party interested or rates herein sought might involve huge
amounts of money and the errors, alleged
425 Ang Tibay v. The Court of Industrial 426 G.R. No. L-44251, May 31, 1977
Relations, G.R. No. L-46496, February 27, 427 G.R. No. L-13638-40, June 30, 1964
1940
(Colossians 3:23)
to have been committed, if true, would

affect likewise not only the right of the Accordingly, the minimum standards laid
petitioner but also public interest, it would down by the Court to meet the demands of
have been a better part of valor and procedural due process are:
wisdom to have delayed a little bit the final
resolution of the controversy. (1) The students must be informed in
writing of the nature and cause of
Due process in administrative any accusation against them;
proceedings also requires
consideration of the evidence presented (2) They shall have the right to answer
and the existence of evidence to the charges against them, with the
support the decision assistance of counsel, if desired:
Due process in administrative proceedings (3) They shall be informed of the

also requires consideration of the evidence evidence against them;
presented and the existence of evidence to
support the decision (Halili v. Court of (4) They shall have the right to adduce
Industrial Relations, 136 SCRA 112). evidence in their own behalf and
In the case of Ateneo de Manila University (5) The evidence must be duly
v. CA, et al.,428 Juan Ramon himself considered by the investigating
appeared before the Board of Discipline. committee or official designated by
He admitted the slapping incident, then the school authorities to hear and
begged to be excused so he could catch decide the case (Guzman vs.
the boat for Bacolod City. Juan Ramon, National University, 142 SCRA 706-
therefore, was given notice of the 707 [1986]).
proceedings; he actually appeared to
present his side; the investigating board Hence, in the case of Alcuaz v. PSBA,429
acted fairly and objectively; and all the Court ruled that at the outset satisfied
requisites of administrative due process conditions No. 1 and 2, but, without a
were met. hearing, conditions No. 3, 4 and 5 had
evidently not been completed with.
It is unfortunate of the parents suffered
some embarrassment because of the It therefore becomes readily apparent that
incident. However, their predicament arose while the students and the teachers have
from the misconduct of their own son who, been informed in writing of the charges filed
in the exuberance of youth and unfortunate against them and they in turn filed their
loss of self control, did something which he answers thereto, no investigating
must have, later, regretted. There was no committee or official was designated by the
bad faith on the part of the university. In school authorities to hear and decide the
fact, the college authorities deferred any case upon the presentation of evidence of
undue action until a definitive decision had both parties.
been rendered. The whole procedure of the
disciplinary process was set up to protect Hence, petitioners were correct in stating
the privacy of the student involved. There that they were deprived of procedural due
is absolutely no indication ot malice,. fraud, process which requires that there be due
and improper or willful motives or conduct notice and hear hearing and of substantive
on the part of the Ateneo de Manila due process which requires that the person
University in this case. or body to conduct the investigation be
competent to act and decide free from bias
Minimum standards laid down by the or prejudice.
Court to meet the demands of
procedural due process
428 G.R. No. L-56180, October 16, 1986 429 G.R. No. 76353, May 2, 1988
(Colossians 3:23)
Similarly, in the case of Non v. Hon.

Danes,430 the Court ruled that it does not
appear that the petitioners were afforded
due process, in the manner expressed in
Guzman, before they were refused re-
enrollment. In fact, it would appear from the
pleadings that the decision to refuse them
re-enrollment because of failing grades
was a mere afterthought.
It is not denied that what incurred the ire of

the school authorities was the student
mass actions conducted in February 1988
and which were led and/or participated in
by petitioners.
Certainly, excluding students because of

failing grades when the cause for the action
taken against them undeniably related to
possible breaches of discipline not only is a
denial of due process but also constitutes a
violation of the basic tenets of fair play.
430 G.R. No. 89317, May 20, 1990

(Colossians 3:23)
EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE workers and employers and the

preferential use of voluntary modes in
SECTION 1 OF ARTICLE III. nor shall settling disputes, including
any person be denied the equal conciliation, and shall enforce their
protection of the laws. mutual compliance therewith to foster
industrial peace.
Social Justice
The State shall regulate the relations
SECTION 1 OF ARTICLE XIII. The between workers and employers,
Congress shall give highest priority recognizing the right of labor to its
to the enactment of measures that just share in the fruits of production
protect and enhance the right of all and the right of enterprises to
the people to human dignity, reduce reasonable returns on investments,
social, economic, and political and to expansion and growth.
inequalities, and remove cultural
inequities by equitably diffusing Nationalization of Business
wealth and political power for the
common good. SECTION 10 OF ARTICLE XII. The
Congress shall, upon
To this end, the State shall regulate recommendation of the economic and
the acquisition, ownership, use, and planning agency, when the national
disposition of property and its interest dictates, reserve to citizens of
increments. the Philippines or to corporations or
associations at least sixty per centum
SECTION 2 OF ARTICLE XIII. The of whose capital is owned by such
promotion of social justice shall citizens, or such higher percentage as
include the commitment to create Congress may prescribe, certain
economic opportunities based on areas of investments. The Congress
freedom of initiative and self-reliance. shall enact measures that will
encourage the formation and
Protection to Labor operation of enterprises whose
capital is wholly owned by Filipinos.
SECTION 3 OF ARTICLE XIII. The
State shall afford full protection to In the grant of rights, privileges, and
labor, local and overseas, organized concessions covering the national
and unorganized, and promote full economy and patrimony, the State
employment and equality of shall give preference to qualified
employment opportunities for all. Filipinos.
It shall guarantee the rights of all The State shall regulate and exercise
workers to self-organization, authority over foreign investments
collective bargaining and within its national jurisdiction and in
negotiations, and peaceful concerted accordance with its national goals
activities, including the right to strike and priorities.
in accordance with law. They shall be
entitled to security of tenure, humane Reservation of Marine Resources
conditions of work, and a living wage.
They shall also participate in policy SECTION 2 (SECOND PAR.) OF
and decision-making processes ARTICLE XII. The State shall protect
affecting their rights and benefits as the nation’s marine wealth in its
may be provided by law. archipelagic waters, territorial sea,
and exclusive economic zone, and
The State shall promote the principle reserve its use and enjoyment
of shared responsibility between exclusively to Filipino citizens.
(Colossians 3:23)
Free Access to the Courts Purpose of the Equal Protection Clause
SECTION 11 OF ARTICLE II. The State One of the basic principles on which this
values the dignity of every human government was founded is that of the
person and guarantees full respect equality of right which is embodied in
for human rights. Section 1, Article III of the 1987
Constitution. The equal protection of the
Legal Aid to the Poor laws is embraced in the concept of due
process, as every unfair discrimination
SECTION 5(5) OF ARTICLE VIII. offends the requirements of justice and fair
Promulgate rules concerning the play.
protection and enforcement of
constitutional rights, pleading, It has been embodied in a separate clause,
practice, and procedure in all courts, however, to provide for a more specific
the admission to the practice of law, guaranty against any form of undue
the Integrated Bar, and legal favoritism or hostility from the government.
assistance to the underprivileged. Arbitrariness in general may be challenged
Such rules shall provide a simplified on the basis of the due process clause. But
and inexpensive procedure for the if the particular act assailed partakes of an
speedy disposition of cases, shall be unwarranted partiality or prejudice, the
uniform for all courts of the same sharper weapon to cut it down is the equal
grade, and shall not diminish, protection clause.431
increase, or modify substantive
rights. Rules of procedure of special According to a long line of decisions, equal
courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall protection simply requires that all persons
remain effective unless disapproved or things similarly situated should be
by the Supreme Court. treated alike, both as to rights conferred
and responsibilities imposed. It requires
Protection of Candidates public bodies and institutions to treat
similarly situated individuals in a similar
SECTION 10 OF ARTICLE IX-C. Bona manner.
fide candidates for any public office
shall be free from any form of The purpose of the equal protection clause
harassment and discrimination. is to secure every person within a state’s
jurisdiction against intentional and arbitrary
Public Service discrimination, whether occasioned by the
express terms of a statue or by its improper
SECTION 26 OF ARTICLE II. The State execution through the states duly
shall guarantee equal access to constituted authorities. In other words, the
opportunities for public service, and concept of equal justice under the law
prohibit political dynasties as may be requires the state to govern impartially, and
defined by law. it may not draw distinctions between
individuals solely on differences that are
Equality of Women and Men irrelevant to a legitimate governmental
objective.
SECTION 14 OF ARTICLE II. The State
recognizes the role of women in The equal protection clause is aimed at all
nation-building, and shall ensure the official state actions, not just those of the
fundamental equality before the law of legislature. Its inhibitions cover all the
women and men. departments of the government including
the political and executive departments,
431The Philippine Judges Association v. Hon.

Pardo, G.R. No. 105371, November 11, 1993
(Colossians 3:23)
and extend to all actions of a state denying The mere fact that an individual belonging
equal protection of the laws, through to a class differs from the other members,
whatever agency or whatever guise is as long as that class is substantially
taken.432 distinguishable from all others, does not
justify the non-application of the law to him.
Classification, under the equal
protection clause, to be valid must pass The classification must not be based on
the test of reasonableness existing circumstances only, or so
constituted as to preclude addition to the
What the equal protection clause simply number included in the class. It must be of
requires is equality among equals as such a nature as to embrace all those who
determined according to a valid may thereafter be in similar circumstances
classification. Indeed, the equal protection and conditions. It must not leave out or
clause permits classification. Such underinclude those that should otherwise
classification, however, to be valid must fall into a certain classification. 434
pass the test of reasonableness. The test
has four requisites: Equal protection simply requires that all
persons or things similarly situated
(1) The classification rests on should be treated alike, both as to rights
substantial distinctions; conferred and responsibilities imposed
(2) It is germane to the purpose of the In the case of Biraogo v. The Philippine
law; Truth Commission of 2010,435 the Court
ruled that equal protection simply requires
(3) It is not limited to existing conditions that all persons or things similarly situated
only; and should be treated alike, both as to rights
conferred and responsibilities imposed.
(4) It applies equally to all members of
the same class. Superficial In this regard, it must be borne in mind that
differences do not make for a valid the Arroyo administration is but just a
classification.433 member of a class, that is, a class of past
administrations. It is not a class of its own.
Note: For a classification to meet the Not to include past administrations similarly
requirements of constitutionality, it must situated constitutes arbitrariness which the
include or embrace all persons who equal protection clause cannot sanction.
naturally belong to the class. The Such discriminating differentiation clearly
classification will be regarded as invalid if reverberates to label the commission as a
all the members of the class are not vehicle for vindictiveness and selective
similarly treated, both as to rights conferred retribution.
and obligations imposed.
Though the OSG enumerates several
It is not necessary that the classification be differences between the Arroyo
made with absolute symmetry, in the sense administration and other past
that the members of the class should administrations, these distinctions are not
possess the same characteristics in equal substantial enough to merit the restriction
degree. Substantial similarity will suffice; of the investigation to the previous
and as long as this is achieved, all those administration only. The reports of
covered by the classification are to be widespread corruption in the Arroyo
treated equally. administration cannot be taken as basis for
distinguishing said administration from
earlier administrations which were also
432 Biraogo v. The Philippine Truth Commission 434 Ibid.

of 2010, G.R. No. 192935, December 7, 2010 435 G.R. No. 192935, December 7, 2010
433 Ibid.
(Colossians 3:23)
blemished by similar widespread reports of by it in the same way as are the members
impropriety. They are not inherent in, and of the class.
do not inure solely to, the Arroyo
administration. As Justice Isagani Cruz put Sexual Discrimination
it, Superficial differences do not make for a
valid classification. Classification made-the preference for
female workers — rests on substantial
The probability that there would be difficulty distinctions
in unearthing evidence or that the earlier
reports involving the earlier administrations In the case of Philippine Association of
were already inquired into is beside the Service Exporters, Inc. v. Hon. Drilon,436
point. Obviously, deceased presidents and the Court ruled that it is satisfied that the
cases which have already prescribed can classification made-the preference for
no longer be the subjects of inquiry by the female workers — rests on substantial
PTC. Neither is the PTC expected to distinctions.
conduct simultaneous investigations of
previous administrations, given the bodys As a matter of judicial notice, the Court is
limited time and resources. The law does well aware of the unhappy plight that has
not require the impossible (Lex non cogit befallen our female labor force abroad,
ad impossibilia). especially domestic servants, amid
exploitative working conditions marked by,
Given the foregoing physical and legal in not a few cases, physical and personal
impossibility, the Court logically recognizes abuse. The sordid tales of maltreatment
the unfeasibility of investigating almost a suffered by migrant Filipina workers, even
century’s worth of graft cases. However, rape and various forms of torture,
the fact remains that Executive Order No. 1 confirmed by testimonies of returning
suffers from arbitrary classification. The workers, are compelling motives for urgent
PTC, to be true to its mandate of searching Government action. As precisely the
for the truth, must not exclude the other caretaker of Constitutional rights, the Court
past administrations. The PTC must, at is called upon to protect victims of
least, have the authority to investigate all exploitation.
past administrations. While reasonable
prioritization is permitted, it should not be In fulfilling that duty, the Court sustains the
arbitrary lest it be struck down for being Government's efforts in temporarily
unconstitutional. suspending the deployment of domestic
helpers and female workers with similar
In order for a classification to meet the skills.
requirements of constitutionality, it must
include or embrace all persons who The same, however, cannot be said of our
naturally belong to the class. Such a male workers. In the first place, there is no
classification must not be based on existing evidence that, except perhaps for isolated
circumstances only, or so constituted as to instances, our men abroad have been
preclude additions to the number included afflicted with an Identical predicament. The
within a class, but must be of such a nature petitioner has proffered no argument that
as to embrace all those who may thereafter the Government should act similarly with
be in similar circumstances and conditions. respect to male workers. The Court, of
course, is not impressing some male
Furthermore, all who are in situations and chauvinistic notion that men are superior to
circumstances which are relative to the women. What the Court is saying is that it
discriminatory legislation and which are was largely a matter of evidence (that
indistinguishable from those of the women domestic workers are being ill-
members of the class must be brought treated abroad in massive instances) and
under the influence of the law and treated not upon some fanciful or arbitrary
436 G.R. No. 81958, June 30, 1988

(Colossians 3:23)
yardstick that the Government acted in this the coconut industry as one of the sources
case. It is evidence capable indeed of of our national economy. Unlike rice and
unquestionable demonstration and sugar cane farms where the range of vision
evidence this Court accepts. The Court is unobstructed, coconut groves cannot be
cannot, however, say the same thing as far efficiently watched because of the nature of
as men are concerned. There is simply no the growth of coconut trees; and without a
evidence to justify such an inference. special measure to protect this kind of
Suffice it to state, then, that insofar as property, it will be, as it has been in the past
classifications are concerned, this Court is the favorite resort of thieves. There is
content that distinctions are borne by the therefore, some reason for the special
evidence. Discrimination in this case is treatment accorded the industry; and as it
justified. cannot be said that the classification is
entirely without basis, the plea of
Administration of Justice unconstitutionality must be denied.
State, as a part of its police power, may If the stipulation in the Agreement does
exercise a large measure of discretion, not specify the exact scope of future
without violating the equal protection claims against the accused that the
guaranty, in creating and defining government thereby relinquishes, it
criminal offenses, and may make violates the equal protection clause
classification as to persons amenable to
punishment In the case of Chaves v. PCGG,438 the
Court ruled that when the government
In the case of People v. Isnain,437 the waived all claims and counterclaims,
accused contended that 310 of the Revised “whether past, present, or future, matured
Penal Code classifying as qualified theft, or inchoate,” against the Marcoses in the
the stealing of coconut is unconstitutional, compromise agreement, the same is
because it punishes the larceny of such constituted as vague and broad statement
products more heavily than the taking away and may well be interpreted to include all
of similar produce, such as rice and sugar, future illegal acts of any of the Marcos
and thereby denies him the equal heirs, practically giving them a license to
protection of the laws. perpetrate fraud against the government
without any liability at all.
The Court, on the other hand, ruled that a
state, "as a part of its police, may exercise This is a palpable violation of the due
s large measure of discretion, without process and equal protection guarantees of
violating the equal protection guaranty, in the Constitution. It effectively ensconces
creating and defining criminal offenses, the Marcoses beyond the reach of the law.
and may make classification as to persons It also sets a dangerous precedent for
amenable to punishment, so long as the public accountability. It is a virtual warrant
classifications are reasonable and the for public officials to amass public funds
legislation bears equally on all in the same illegally, since there is an open option to
class, and, where a reasonable compromise their liability in exchange for
classification is made as between persons only a portion of their ill-gotten wealth.
or corporations, the persons or corporation
in each class may be dealt with in a manner General guarantees of the Bill of Rights,
different from that employed with regard to included among which are the due
the persons or corporations in other process of law and equal protection
classes.” clauses must "give way to [a] specific
provision”
In the matter of theft of coconuts, the
purpose of the heavier penalty is to
encourage and protect the development of
437 G.R. No. L-2857, February 28, 1950 438 G.R. No. 130716, December 9, 1998
(Colossians 3:23)
In the case of Nuñez v. Sandiganbayan,439 recommended the filing of appropriate

the Court ruled that the general guarantees information against petitioners because
of the Bill of Rights, included among which there are ample grounds to hold them for
are the due process of law and equal trial. He was only exercising his power and
protection clauses must "give way to [a] discharging his duty based upon the
specific provision. The scope of such a constitutional mandate of his office.
principle is not to be constricted. It is
certainly broad enough to cover the instant Stated otherwise, the circumstances
situation. obtaining in the numerous cases previously
dismissed by the Ombudsman are entirely
To repeat, the Constitution specifically divergent from those here existing.
makes mention of the creation of a special
court, the Sandiganbayan precisely in Public Policy
response to a problem, the urgency of
which cannot be denied, namely, What is the “rational basis test”?
dishonesty in the public service. It follows
that those who may thereafter be tried by Under the "rational basis test," such
such court ought to have been aware as far legislative classification enjoyed a strong
back as January 17, 1973, when the presumption of constitutionality and, not
present Constitution came into force, that a being clearly arbitrary, could not therefore
different procedure for the accused therein, be invalidated.441
whether a private citizen as petitioner is or
a public official, is not necessarily offensive Exception to the “rational basis test”
to the equal protection clause of the
Constitution. In the case of Central Bank Employees
Association, Inc. v. Banko Sentral ng
If the classification is characterized by Pilipinas,442 the Court ruled that the
real and substantial differences, one Congress retains its wide discretion in
class may be treated differently from providing for a valid classification, and its
another policies should be accorded recognition
and respect by the courts of justice except
In the case of Gallardo v. People,440 the when they run afoul of the Constitution.
Court ruled that the equal protection clause The deference stops where the
allows reasonable classification. If the classification violates a fundamental right,
classification is characterized by real and or prejudices persons accorded special
substantial differences, one class may be protection by the Constitution. When these
treated differently from another. violations arise, this Court must discharge
its primary role as the vanguard of
In the case at bar, the Court held that constitutional guaranties, and require a
simply because the respondent stricter and more exacting adherence to
Ombudsman dismissed some cases constitutional limitations. Rational basis
allegedly similar to the case at bar is not should not suffice.
sufficient to impute arbitrariness or caprice
on his part, absent a clear showing that he In the case at bar, it is precisely the fact that
gravely abused his discretion in pursuing as regards the exemption from the Salary
the instant case. Standardization Law (SSL), there are no
characteristics peculiar only to the seven
The Ombudsman dismissed those cases Government Financial Institutions (GFIs) or
because he believed there were no their rank-and-file so as to justify the
sufficient grounds for the accused therein exemption which BSP rank-and-file
to undergo trial. On the other hand, he employees were denied (not to mention the
439 G.R. Nos. L-50581-50617, January 30, 1982 441 Murphy v. Edmonds, 601 A.2d 102, 325 Md.
440 G.R. No. 142030, April 21, 2005 342, February 7, 1992
442 G.R. No. 148208, December 15, 2004
(Colossians 3:23)
anomaly of the SEC getting one). The A law is deemed valid unless declared null
distinction made by the law is not only and void by a competent court; more so
superficial, but also arbitrary. It is not based when the issue has not been duly pleaded
on substantial distinctions that make real in the trial court. The question of
differences between the BSP rank-and-file constitutionality must be raised at the
and the seven other GFIs. earliest opportunity.
In addition, the challenged proviso In the case at bar, Respondents not only
operates on the basis of the salary grade or failed to challenge the constitutionality of
officer-employee status. It is akin to a RA 6758; worse, they used it in seeking
distinction based on economic class and compensation from petitioner. The settled
status, with the higher grades as recipients rule is that courts will not anticipate a
of a benefit specifically withheld from the question of constitutional law in advance of
lower grades. Officers of the BSP now the necessity of deciding it. Furthermore,
receive higher compensation packages as previously discussed, a valid
that are competitive with the industry, while classification was made by the law in
the poorer, low-salaried employees are segregating other employees from the
limited to the rates prescribed by the SSL. incumbents who were already receiving the
benefits on July 1, 1989.
The implications are quite disturbing: BSP
rank-and-file employees are paid the Head of state of every country in the
strictly regimented rates of the SSL while world must from the very nature of his
employees higher in rank - possessing position, be accorded certain privileges
higher and better education and not equally available to those who are
opportunities for career advancement - are opposed to him
given higher compensation packages to
entice them to stay. In the case of United Democratic
Opposition (UNIDO) v. COMELEC,444
Considering that majority, if not all, the UNIDO contended that they were denied of
rank-and-file employees consist of people equal protection of law when the
whose status and rank in life are less and COMELEC denied their demand equal
limited, especially in terms of job opportunity, equal time and equal space on
marketability, it is they - and not the officers media the same opportunity as Marcos
- who have the real economic and financial has.
need for the adjustment This is in accord
with the policy of the Constitution "to free The Court, however, ruled that head of
the people from poverty, provide adequate state of every country in the world must
social services, extend to them a decent from the very nature of his position, be
standard of living, and improve the quality accorded certain privileges not equally
of life for all." Any act of Congress that runs available to those who are opposed to him
counter to this constitutional desideratum in the sense that, since the head of state
deserves strict scrutiny by this Court before has the grave and tremendous
it can pass muster. responsibility of planning and implementing
the plan of government itself, either by
For reasons of public policy, however, virtue of the popular mandate given to him
the constitutionality of a law cannot be under the corresponding provisions of the
attacked in a collateral way Constitution and the laws or any other duly
recognized grant of power and authority,
In the case of PNB v. Palma,443 the Court the opposition cannot be placed at par with
ruled that for reasons of public policy, him, since logically the opposition can only
however, the constitutionality of a law fiscalize the administration and punctualize
cannot be attacked in a collateral way. its errors and shortcomings to the end that
when the duly scheduled time for the
443 G.R. No. 157279, August 9, 2005 444 G.R. No. 56515, April 3, 1981
(Colossians 3:23)
people to exercise their inalienable power sending mail without payment of postage).
to make a better choice, the opposition may There is no question that if there is any
have the chance to make them accept the major branch of the government that needs
alternative they can offer. the privilege, it is the Judicial Department,
as the respondents themselves point out.
Note: Justice Teehankee, in his dissent, Curiously, the respondents would justify
says that the respondent Comelec is fully the distinction on the basis precisely of this
authorized (as it has done with its need and, on this basis, deny the Judiciary
"Comelec Time" on TV and radio) to issue the franking privilege while extending it to
all reasonable measures to the mass others less deserving.
media, particularly to the government-
owned television and radio stations, to If the problem of the respondents is the loss
grant petitioners as much time and space of revenues from the franking privilege, the
as is feasible (although understandably remedy, it seems to us, is to withdraw it
less than the President-Prime Minister as altogether from all agencies of government,
head of state and government) to air and including those who do not need it. The
disseminate their contrary views on the problem is not solved by retaining it for
proposed amendments and enable the some and withdrawing it from others,
voter to exercise intelligently his choice on especially where there is no substantial
acceptance or rejection of "changes of the distinction between those favored, which
existing charter of his rights and liberties may or may not need it at all, and the
and the existing government form as well Judiciary, which definitely needs it. The
as the powers of those who are to govern problem is not solved by violating the
him" – to borrow the language of the Constitution.
ponente Mr. Justice Barredo.
Hence, the Court was unable to agree with
The COMELEC are political appointees of the respondents that Section 35 of R.A. No.
the President (Marcos), that’s the main 7354 represents a valid exercise of
reason why it did not use its powers in discretion by the Legislature under the
airing the position of United Democratic police power. On the contrary, the Court
Opposition (UNIDO) in relation to the found its repealing clause to be a
amendment of the Constitution. discriminatory provision that denies the
Judiciary the equal protection of the laws
What the clause requires is equality guaranteed for all persons or things
among equals as determined according similarly situated. The distinction made by
to a valid classification the law is superficial. It is not based on
substantial distinctions that make real
In the case of Philippine Judges differences between the Judiciary and the
Association v. Hon. Prado,445 the Court grantees of the franking privilege.
ruled that what the equal protection clause
requires is equality among equals as This is not a question of wisdom or power
determined according to a valid into which the Judiciary may not intrude. It
classification. By classification is meant the is a matter of arbitrariness that this Court
grouping of persons or things similar to has the duty and power to correct.
each other in certain particulars and
different from all others in these same Partiality in relation to the issuance of a
particulars. permit violates the equal protection
clause
Hence, in the case at bar, the Court held
that it cannot understand why, of all the In the case of Mayor Olivarez v.
departments of the government, it is the Sandiganbayan,446 the Court ruled that
Judiciary, that has been denied the petitioner's suspected partiality may be
franking privilege (refers to the privilege of gleaned from the fact that he issued a
445 G.R. No. 105371, November 11, 1993 446 G.R. No. 118533, October 4, 1995
(Colossians 3:23)
permit in favor of the unidentified Baclaran- regulations on banking and finance, and (6)
based vendors' associations by the mere the grant of resident status to certain
expedient of an executive order, whereas investors and of working visas to certain
so many requirements were imposed on foreign executives and workers.
Baclaran Credit Cooperative, Inc. (BCCI)
before it could be granted the same permit. Certainly, there are substantial differences
between the big investors who are being
Worse, petitioner failed to show, in lured to establish and operate their
apparent disregard of BCCI's right to equal industries in the so-called secured area
protection, that BCCI and the unidentified and the present business operators outside
Baclaran-based vendors' associations the area. On the one hand, we are talking
were not similarly situated as to give at of billion-peso investments and thousands
least a semblance of legality to the of new jobs. On the other hand, definitely
apparent haste with which said executive none of such magnitude. In the first, the
order was issued. It would seem that if economic impact will be national; in the
there was any interest served by such second, only local. Even more important, at
executive order, it was that of herein this time the business activities outside the
petitioner. secured area are not likely to have any
impact in achieving the purpose of the law,
Equal-protection guarantee does not which is to turn the former military base to
require territorial uniformity of laws, as productive use for the benefit of the
long as there are actual and material Philippine economy.
differences between territories, there is
no violation of the constitutional clause There is, then, hardly any reasonable basis
to extend to them the benefits and
In the case of Tiu v. CA,447 the Court ruled incentives accorded in RA 7227.
that it is well-settled that the equal- Additionally, as the Court of Appeals
protection guarantee does not require pointed out, it will be easier to manage and
territorial uniformity of laws. As long as monitor the activities within the secured
there are actual and material differences area, which is already fenced off, to prevent
between territories, there is no violation of fraudulent importation of merchandise or
the constitutional clause. And of course, smuggling.
anyone, including the petitioners,
possessing the requisite investment capital Furthermore, in the case of Coconut Oil
can always avail of the same benefits by Refiners, Inc. v. Hon. Torres,448 the Court
channeling his or her resources or ruled that Executive Order No. 97,
business operations into the fenced-off free Clarifying the Tax and Duty Free Incentive
port zone. Within the Subic Special Economic Zone is
not violative of the equal protection clause.
In the case at bar, it can be deduced that
the real concern of RA 7227 is to convert The Court said that the classification is
the lands formerly occupied by the US germane to the purpose of Republic Act
military bases into economic or industrial No. 7227. As held in Tiu, the real concern
areas. In furtherance of such objective, of Republic Act No. 7227 is to convert the
Congress deemed it necessary to extend lands formerly occupied by the US military
economic incentives to attract and bases into economic or industrial areas. In
encourage investors, both local and furtherance of such objective, Congress
foreign. Among such enticements are: (1) a deemed it necessary to extend economic
separate customs territory within the zone, incentives to the establishments within the
(2) tax-and-duty-free importations, (3) zone to attract and encourage foreign and
restructured income tax rates on business local investors. This is the very rationale
enterprises within the zone, (4) no foreign behind Republic Act No. 7227 and other
exchange control, (5) liberalized similar special economic zone laws which
447 G.R. No. 127410, January 20, 1999 448 G.R. No. 132527, July 29, 2005
(Colossians 3:23)
grant a complete package of tax incentives When there is reasonable classification

and other benefits. under the Local Government Code to
justify the different tax treatment
Persons who work with substantially between electric cooperatives, the same
equal qualifications, skill, effort and does not violate the equal protection
responsibility, under similar conditions, clause
should be paid similar salaries
In the case of Philippine Rural
In the case of International School Alliance Cooperatives Association, Inc.
of Educators (ISAE) v. Hon. Quisumbing449 (PHILRECA) v. Secretary of DILG, the 450
respondents (Filipino teachers) cry for Court ruled that there is reasonable
discrimination because they received classification under the Local Government
salaries less than the amount received by Code to justify the different tax treatment
foreign hires. They contended that between electric cooperatives covered by
employees should be given equal pay for P.D. No. 269, as amended, and electric
work of equal value. cooperatives under R.A. No. 6938.
In the case at bar, the Court ruled that Substantial distinctions exist between
persons who work with substantially equal cooperatives under P.D. No. 269, as
qualifications, skill, effort and responsibility, amended, and cooperatives under R.A. No.
under similar conditions, should be paid 6938. These distinctions are manifest in at
similar salaries. This rule applies to the least two material respects which go into
School, its "international character" the nature of cooperatives envisioned by
notwithstanding. R.A. No. 6938 and which characteristics
are not present in the type of cooperative
If an employer accords employees the associations created under P.D. No. 269,
same position and rank, the presumption is as amended.
that these employees perform equal work.
This presumption is borne by logic and Lastly, Sections 193 and 234 of the Local
human experience. If the employer pays Government Code permit reasonable
one employee less than the rest, it is not for classification as these exemptions are not
that employee to explain why he receives limited to existing conditions and apply
less or why the others receive more. That equally to all members of the same class.
would be adding insult to injury. The Exemptions from local taxation, including
employer has discriminated against that real property tax, are granted to all
employee; it is for the employer to explain cooperatives covered by R.A. No. 6938
why the employee is treated unfairly. and such exemptions exist for as long as
the Local Government Code and the
The employer in this case has failed to provisions therein on local taxation remain
discharge this burden. There is no good law.
evidence here that foreign-hires perform
25% more efficiently or effectively than the Class legislation, discriminating against
local-hires. Both groups have similar some and favoring others is prohibited
functions and responsibilities, which they but classification on a reasonable basis
perform under similar working conditions. and not made arbitrarily or capriciously
is permitted
The School cannot invoke the need to
entice foreign-hires to leave their domicile In the case of Beltran v. Sec. of Health,451
to rationalize the distinction in salary rates the Court held that Section 7 of R.A. 7719,
without violating the principle of equal work which provides the phasing out of
for equal pay. commercial blood banks, is not contrary to
the equal protection clause as provided for
449 G.R. No. 128845, June 1, 2000 451 G.R. No. 133640, November 25, 2005
450 G.R. No. 143076, June 10, 2003
(Colossians 3:23)
under the Constitution. It was held that redemption for juridical persons whose
Class legislation, discriminating against properties were foreclosed and sold in
some and favoring others is prohibited but accordance with the provisions of Act No.
classification on a reasonable basis and 3135 (An Act to regulate the sale of
not made arbitrarily or capriciously is property under special powers inserted in
permitted. or annexed to real estate mortgages).
In the case at bar, the Court held that the The difference in the treatment of juridical
law was based on substantial distinctions. persons and natural persons was based on
The former operates for purely the nature of the properties foreclosed –
humanitarian reasons and as a medical whether these are used as residence, for
service while the latter is motivated by which the more liberal one-year redemption
profit. Also, while the former wholly period is retained, or used for industrial or
encourages voluntary blood donation, the commercial purposes, in which case a
latter treats blood as a sale of commodity. shorter term is deemed necessary to
reduce the period of uncertainty in the
Second, the classification, and the ownership of property and enable
consequent phase out of commercial blood mortgagee-banks to dispose sooner of
banks is germane to the purpose of the law, these acquired assets.
that is, to provide the nation with an
adequate supply of safe blood by It must be underscored that the General
promoting voluntary blood donation and Banking Law of 2000, crafted in the
treating blood transfusion as a aftermath of the 1997 Southeast Asian
humanitarian or medical service rather than financial crisis, sought to reform the
a commodity. This necessarily involves the General Banking Act of 1949 by fashioning
phase out of commercial blood banks a legal framework for maintaining a safe
based on the fact that they operate as a and sound banking system.
business enterprise, and they source their
blood supply from paid blood donors who In this context, the amendment introduced
are considered unsafe compared to by Section 47 embodied one of such safe
voluntary blood donors as shown by the and sound practices aimed at ensuring the
USAID-sponsored study on the Philippine solvency and liquidity of our banks.1âwphi1
blood banking system. It cannot therefore be disputed that the said
provision amending the redemption period
Three, the Legislature intended for the in Act 3135 was based on a reasonable
general application of the law. Its classification and germane to the purpose
enactment was not solely to address the of the law.
peculiar circumstances of the situation nor
was it intended to apply only to the existing This legitimate public interest pursued by
conditions. the legislature further enfeebles petitioner’s
impairment of contract theory.
Lastly, the law applies equally to all
commercial blood banks without exception.
One class may be treated differently

from another where the groupings are
based on reasonable and real
distinctions
It was held in the case of Goldenway

Merchandising Corporation v. Equitable
PCI Bank452 that the legislature clearly
intended to shorten the period of
452 G.R. No. 195540, March 13, 2013

(Colossians 3:23)
THE NON-IMPAIRMENT CLAUSE The new redemption period commences

from the date of foreclosure sale, and
SECTION 10 OF ARTICLE III. No law expires upon registration of the certificate
impairing the obligation of contracts of sale or three months after foreclosure,
shall be passed. whichever is earlier. There is likewise no
retroactive application of the new
redemption period because Section 47
Purpose exempts from its operation those properties
foreclosed prior to its effectivity and whose
The purpose of the non-impairment clause owners shall retain their redemption rights
of the Constitution is to safeguard the under Act No. 3135.
integrity of contracts against unwarranted
interference by the State.453 Therefore, the petitioner’s claim that
Section 47 infringes the equal protection
As a rule, contracts should not be tampered clause as it discriminates
with by subsequent laws that would change mortgagors/property owners who are
or modify the rights and obligations of the juridical persons is equally bereft of merit.
parties.454
Lastly, such authority to regulate
Impairment is anything that diminishes the businesses extends to the banking industry
efficacy of the contract. There is an which, as this Court has time and again
impairment if a subsequent law changes emphasized, is undeniably imbued with
the terms of a contract between the parties, public interest.
imposes new conditions, dispenses with
those agreed upon or withdraws remedies Non-impairment Clause is not absolute
for the enforcement of the rights of the
parties.455 In Abe v. Foster Wheeler Corporation,457
declared that: "The freedom of contract,
Hence, in the case of Goldenway under our system of government, is not
Merchandising Corporation v. Equitable meant to be absolute. The same is
PCI Bank,456 the Court held that Section 47 understood to be subject to reasonable
of R.A. 8791 (General Banking Law of legislative regulation aimed at the
2000) did not violate the constitutional promotion of publicity health, morals, safety
proscription against impairment of the and welfare. In other words, the
obligation of contract. constitutional guaranty of non-impairment
of obligations of contract is limited by the
The Court said that Section 47 did not exercise of the police power of the State, in
divest juridical persons of the right to the interest of public health, safety, morals
redeem their foreclosed properties but only and general welfare."
modified the time for the exercise of such
right by reducing the one-year period It has been said, and we believe correctly,
originally provided in Act No. 3135 (An Act that "the economic interests of the State
to regulate the sale of property under may justify the exercise of its continuing
special powers inserted in or annexed to and dominant protective power
real estate mortgages). notwithstanding interference with
contracts."458
453 Goldenway Merchandising Corporation v. 456G.R. No. 195540, March 13, 2013
Equitable PCI Bank, G.R. No. 195540, March 457 G.R. No. L-14785 and L-14923, November
13, 2013 29, 1960
454 Siska Development Corporation v. Office of 458 The Philippine American Life Insurance
the President of the Phils., G.R. No. 93176, Company v. The Auditor General, G.R. No. L-
April 22, 1994 19255, January 18, 1968
455 Id., citing Clemons v. Nolting, 42 Phil. 702,
717 (1922)
(Colossians 3:23)
3. Laws which, without destroying

License is not a contract to which the contracts, derogate from
protection accorded by the non- substantial contractual rights.462
impairment clause may extend
In the case of Republic of the Philippines v. When allowed

Rosemoore Mining Development
Corporation, et al.,459 the Court held that In spite of the constitutional prohibition, the
the granting that respondents’ mining State continues to possess authority to
license is valid, however, it can still be safeguard the vital interests of its people.
validly revoked by the State in the exercise
of police power. Legislation appropriate to safeguarding
said interests may modify or abrogate
Furthermore, respondents’ mining license contracts already in effect.463
is not a contract to which the protection
accorded by the non-impairment clause Furthermore, legislation impairing the
may extend. obligation of contracts can be sustained
when it is enacted for the promotion of the
Even if the license were, it is settled that general good of the people, and when the
provisions of existing laws and a means adopted to secure that end are
reservation of police power are deemed reasonable.
read into it, because it concerns a subject
impressed with public welfare. Both the end sought and the means
adopted must be legitimate, i.e., within the
As it is, the non-impairment clause must scope of the reserved power of the state
yield to the police power of the state. construed in harmony with the
constitutional limitation of that power.464
When impairment occurs
Emergency Powers
1. According to Black, any statute
which introduces a change into the The protective power of the State, the
express terms of the contract, or its police power, may only be invoked and
legal construction, or its validity, or justified by an emergency, temporary in
its discharge, or the remedy for its nature, and can only be exercised upon
enforcement, impairs the reasonable conditions in order that it may
contract.460 not infringe the constitutional provision
against impairment of contracts (First Trust
Note: The extent of the change is Co. of Lincoln vs. Smith 277 N.W., pp. 762,
not material. It is not a question of 769).
degree or manner or cause, but of
encroaching in any respect on its Hence, it should be noted in the case of
obligation or dispensing with any Rutter v. Esteban465 that Republic Act No.
part of its force. 342 only extends relief to debtors of prewar
obligations who suffered from the ravages
2. If either party is absolved by law of the last war and who filed a claim for their
from its performance.461 losses with the Philippine War Damage
Commission. It is therein provided that said
459 G.R. No. 149927, March 30, 2004 463 Stephenson v. Binford, 287 U.S. 251, 176,
460 Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope Worker’s Union, 77 L. ed. 288., 301, 53 S. Ct. 181, 87 A.L.R. 721
G.R. No. L-25246, September 12, 1974 citing 464 Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope Worker’s Union,
Black's Constitutional Law, 2nd ed., page 607 G.R. No. L-25246, September 12, 1974
461 Ibid. 465 G.R. No. L-3708, May 18, 1953
462 Home Building & Loan Association vs.
Blaisdell 290 U.S. 398, 8 L Ed 413, 425

(Colossians 3:23)
obligation shall not be due and fairness and righteousness, we feel that the
demandable for a period of eight (8) years only way open to us under the present
from and after settlement of the claim filed circumstances is to declare that the
by the debtor with said Commission. The continued operation and enforcement of
purpose of the law is to afford to prewar Republic Act No. 342 at the present time is
debtors an opportunity to rehabilitate unreasonable and oppressive, and should
themselves by giving them a reasonable not be prolonged a minute longer, and,
time within which to pay their prewar debts therefore, the same should be declared null
so as to prevent them from being victimized and void and without effect. And what we
buy their creditors. While it is admitted in say here with respect to said Act also holds
said law that since liberation conditions true as regards Executive Orders Nos. 25
have gradually returned to normal, this is and 32, perhaps with greater force and
not so with regard to those who have reason as to the latter, considering that
suffered the ravages of war and so it was said Orders contain no limitation
therein declared as a policy that as to them whatsoever in point of time as regards the
the debt moratorium should be continued in suspension of the enforcement and
force (section 1). effectivity of monetary obligations. And
there is need to make this pronouncement
But we should not lost sight of the fact that in view of the revival clause embodied in
these obligations had been pending since said Act if and when it is declared
1945 as a result of the issuance of unconstitutional or invalid.
Executive Orders Nos. 25 and 32 and at
present their enforcement is still inhibited Zoning and Regulatory Ordinances
because of the enactment of Republic Act
No. 342 and would continue to be A public plaza is beyond the commerce
unenforceable during the eight-year period of man and so cannot be the subject of
granted to prewar debtors to afford them an lease or any other contractual
opportunity to rehabilitate themselves, undertaking
which in plain language means that the
creditors would have to observe a vigil of at In the case of Villanueva v. Castañeda
least twelve (12) years before they could Jr.,466 the basic contention of the petitioners
effect a liquidation of their investment is that the disputed area is under lease to
dating as far back as 1941. them by virtue of contracts they had
entered into with the municipal
This period seems to us unreasonable, if government, first in 1961 insofar as the
not oppressive. while the purpose of original occupants were concerned, and
Congress is plausible, and should be later with them and the other petitioners by
commended, the relief accorded works virtue of the space allocations made in their
injustice to creditors who are practically left favor in 1971 for which they saw they are
at the mercy of the debtors. Their hope to paying daily fees.
effect collection becomes extremely
remote, more so if the credits are However, the Court ruled that a public
unsecured. And the injustice is more patent plaza is beyond the commerce of man and
when, under the law, the debtor is not even so cannot be the subject of lease or any
required to pay interest during the other contractual undertaking.
operation of the relief, unlike similar
statutes in the United States (Home The Civil Code, article 1271, prescribes
Building and Loan Association vs. Blaisdell, that everything which is not outside the
supra). commerce of man may be the object of a
contract, and plazas and streets are
In the face of the foregoing observations, outside of this commerce, as was decided
and consistent with what we believe to be by the supreme court of Spain in its
as the only course dictated by justice, decision of February 12, 1895, which says:
466 G.R. No. L-61311, September 21, 1987

(Colossians 3:23)
"communal things that cannot be sold

because they are by their very nature Our jurisdiction guarantees sanctity of
outside of commerce are those for public contract and is said to be the "law between
use, such as the plazas, streets, common the contracting parties, but while it is so, it
lands, rivers, fountains, etc. cannot contravene 'law, morals, good
customs, public order, or public policy.
Exactly in point is Espiritu v. Municipal
Council of Pozorrubio,467 where the Above all, it cannot be raised as a deterrent
Supreme Court declared: to police power, designed precisely to
promote health, safety, peace, and
There is absolutely no question that the enhance the common good, at the expense
town plaza cannot be used for the of contractual rights, whenever necessary.
construction of market stalls, specially of
residences, and that such structures Undoubtedly, the MMC Ordinance
constitute a nuisance subject to abatement (opening of Jupiter Street to the general
according to law. Town plazas are public) represents a legitimate exercise of
properties of public dominion, to be police power.
devoted to public use and to be made
available to the public in general. They are The petitioners have not shown why we
outside the common of man and cannot be should hold otherwise other than for the
disposed of or even leased by the supposed "non-impairment" guaranty of
municipality to private parties. the Constitution, which, as we have
declared, is secondary to the more
Applying this well-settled doctrine, we rule compelling interests of general welfare.
that the petitioners had no right in the first The Ordinance has not been shown to be
place to occupy the disputed premises and capricious or arbitrary or unreasonable to
cannot insist in remaining there now on the warrant the reversal of the judgments so
strength of their alleged lease contracts. appealed.
They should have realized and accepted A law enacted in the exercise of police
this earlier, considering that even before power to regulate or govern certain
Civil Case No. 2040 was decided, the activities or transactions could be given
municipal council of San Fernando had retroactive effect and may reasonably
already adopted Resolution No. 29, series impair vested rights or contracts
of 1964, declaring the area as the parking
place and public plaza of the municipality. In the case of Ortigas & Co. Ltd. v. CA,469
the Court held that it is equally settled, only
"Non-impairment" guaranty of the laws existing at the time of the execution of
Constitution is secondary to the more a contract are applicable thereto and not
compelling interests of general welfare later statutes, unless the latter are
specifically intended to have retroactive
In the case of Sangalang, et al. v. effect.
Intermediate Appellate Court,468 the Court
ruled that as far as the Bel-Air subdivision A later law which enlarges, abridges, or in
itself is concerned, certainly, the restrictive any manner changes the intent of the
easements are valid and enforceable. parties to the contract necessarily impairs
the contract itself and cannot be given
But they are, like all contracts, subject to retroactive effect without violating the
the overriding demands, needs, and constitutional prohibition against
interests of the greater number as the State impairment of contracts.
may determine in the legitimate exercise of
police power.
467 102 Phil. 869-870 469 G.R. No. 126102, December 4, 2000
468 G.R. No. 71169, December 22, 1988
(Colossians 3:23)
But, the foregoing principles do admit of held that the salary check of a government
certain exceptions. One involves police officer or employee such as a teacher does
power. A law enacted in the exercise of not belong to him before it is physically
police power to regulate or govern certain delivered to him. Until that time the check
activities or transactions could be given belongs to the Government.
retroactive effect and may reasonably
impair vested rights or contracts. Police Accordingly, before there is actual delivery
power legislation is applicable not only to of the check, the payee has no power over
future contracts, but equally to those it; he cannot assign it without the consent
already in existence. of the Government. On this basis, Circular
No. 21 stands on firm legal footing.
Nonimpairment of contracts or vested
rights clauses will have to yield to the Zafra's claim that the Circular impairs the
superior and legitimate exercise by the obligation of contracts with the teachers is
State of police power to promote the health, baseless. For the Circular does not prevent
morals, peace, education, good order, Zafra from collecting the loans. The
safety, and general welfare of the people. Circular merely makes the Government a
Moreover, statutes in exercise of valid non-participant in their collection which is
police power must be read into every within its competence to do.
contract.
Hence, the Court granted the petition and
Noteworthy, in Sangalang v. Intermediate upheld the validity of the circular which
Appellate Court,470 the Court already forbade the collection of the salary checks.
upheld MMC Ordinance No. 81-01 as a
legitimate police power measure. Rental Laws
Hence, in the case at bar, when that stretch Police power can be activated at
of Ortigas Avenue from Roosevelt Street to anytime to change the provisions of the
Madison Street was reclassified as a contract, or even abrogate it entirely, for
commercial zone by the Metropolitan the promotion or protection of the
Manila Commission in March 1981, the general welfare
restrictions in the contract of sale between
Ortigas and Hermoso, limiting all In the case of Caleon v. Agus Development
construction on the disputed lot to single- Corporation & CA,472 the Court held that
family residential buildings, were deemed police power can be activated at anytime to
extinguished by the retroactive operation of change the provisions of the contract, or
the zoning ordinance and could no longer even abrogate it entirely, for the promotion
be enforced. or protection of the general welfare.
While our legal system upholds the sanctity Batas Pambansa Blg. 25, "An Act
of contract so that a contract is deemed law Regulating Rentals of Dwelling Units or of
between the contracting parties, Land On Which Another's Dwelling is
nonetheless, stipulations in a contract Located and For Other Purposes" shows
cannot contravene law, morals, good that the subject matter of the law is the
customs, public order, or public policy. regulation of rentals and is intended only
Otherwise such stipulations would be for dwelling units with specified monthly
deemed null and void. rentals constructed before the law became
effective (Baens v. Court of Appeals, 125
Administrative Regulations SCRA 634 [1983]).
In the case of Tiro v. Judge Hontanostas & Batas Pambansa Blg. 25 is derived from
Zafra Financing Enterprise,471 the Court P.D. No. 20 which has been declared by
470 G.R. No. 71169, December 22, 1988 472 G.R. No. 77365, April 7, 1992
471 G.R. No. L-32312, November 25, 1983
(Colossians 3:23)
this Court as a police power legislation,

applicable to leases entered into prior to
July 14, 1971 (effectivity date of RA 6539),
so that the applicability thereof to existing
contracts cannot be denied (Gutierrez v.
Cantada, 90 SCRA 1 [1979]).
Hence, Section 5 of Batas Pambansa Blg.

25 which enumerates the grounds for
judicial ejectment, among which is the
subleasing of residential units without the
written consent of the owner/lessor, was
upheld by the Court and says that it is
indeed constitutional.
Tax Exemptions
No franchise for the operation of a

public utility shall be granted except
under the condition that such privilege
shall be subject to amendment,
alteration or repeal by Congress as and
when the common good so requires
In the case of Manila Electric Company v.

Province of Laguna & Balazo,473 the Court
ruled that Article XII, Section 11, of the
1987 Constitution, like its precursor
provisions in the 1935 and the 1973
Constitutions, is explicit that no franchise
for the operation of a public utility shall be
granted except under the condition that
such privilege shall be subject to
amendment, alteration or repeal by
Congress as and when the common good
so requires.
Hence, in the case at bar, the Court upheld

the validity of the provision of Republic Act
No. 7160, otherwise known as the Local
Government Code of 1991, which imposes
franchise tax on every businesses enjoying
a franchise, such as the petitioner
(MERALCO).
473 G.R. No. 131359, May 5, 1999

(Colossians 3:23)
ARRESTS, SEARCHES, AND SEIZURES violated by the use in evidence of articles

obtained by an unconstitutional search and
SECTION 2 OF ARTICLE III. The right seizure. (People vs. Defore, 242 N. Y., 13;
of the people to be secure in their 150 N. E., 585.)
persons, houses, papers, and effects
against unreasonable searches and In view of the manifest objective of the
seizures of whatever nature and for constitutional safeguard against
any purpose shall be inviolable, and unreasonable search, the Constitution and
no search warrant or warrant of arrest the Rules limit the place to be searched
shall issue except upon probable only to those described in the warrant.474
cause to be determined personally by
the judge after examination under Thus, the Court in the case of Villanueva v.
oath or affirmation of the complainant Querubin475 has held that this constitutional
and the witnesses he may produce, right [i]s the embodiment of a spiritual
and particularly describing the place concept: the belief that to value the privacy
to be searched and the persons or of home and person and to afford its
things to be seized. constitutional protection against the long
reach of government is no less than to
SECTION 3 (2) OF ARTICLE III. Any value human dignity, and that his privacy
evidence obtained in violation of this must not be disturbed except in case of
or the preceding section shall be overriding social need, and then only under
inadmissible for any purpose in any stringent procedural safeguards.
proceeding.
The right against unreasonable search
and seizure in turn is at the top of the
Purpose and Importance of the hierarchy of rights, next only to, if not on
Guarantee the same plane as, the right to life,
liberty and property, which is protected
A lawful arrest may be made either while a by the due process clause
crime is being committed or after its
commission. The right to search includes in The right against unreasonable search and
both instances that of searching the person seizure in turn is at the top of the hierarchy
of him who is arrested, in order to find and of rights, next only to, if not on the same
seize things connected with the crime as its plane as, the right to life, liberty and
fruits or as the means by which it was property, which is protected by the due
committed. (Agnello vs. United States, 269 process clause.
U. S., 20.)
This is as it should be for, as stressed by a
When one is legally arrested for an offense, couple of noted freedom advocates, the
whatever is found in his possession or in right to personal security which, along with
his control may be seized and used in the right to privacy, is the foundation of the
evidence against him; and an officer has right against unreasonable search and
the right to make an arrest without a seizure includes the right to exist, and the
warrant of a person believed by the officer right to enjoyment of life while existing.
upon reasonable grounds to have (People v. Tudtud476)
committed a felony. (Carroll vs. United
States, 267 U. S., 132.) Waiver of the objection on the
admissibility of evidence
The majority of the states have held that the
privilege against compulsory self- In the case of Alvero v. Dizon, et al,477 the
incrimination, which is also guaranteed by Court ruled that in the case at bar it is true
state constitutional provisions is not that on December 1, 1945, herein petitioner
474 Uy Kheytin v. Villareal, 42 Phil 886 (1920) 476 G.R. No. 144037, September 26, 2003
475 48 SCRA 345, 350 (1972) 477 G.R. No. L-342, May 4, 1946
(Colossians 3:23)
filed a petition, demanding the return of Bernas, Record of the Constitutional

certain papers and documents allegedly Commission, Vol. 1, p. 674; July 17, 1986;
seized and taken from his house at the time Emphasis supplied)
of his arrest;
The constitutional proscription against
But when he consented to their unlawful searches and seizures therefore
presentation, as part of the evidence for the applies as a restraint directed only against
prosecution, at the hearing on his petition the government and its agencies tasked
for bail and at the trial of the case on the with the enforcement of the law. Thus, it
merits, without having insisted that the could only be invoked against the State to
question of the alleged illegality of the whom the restraint against arbitrary and
search and seizure of said papers and unreasonable exercise of power is
documents should first have been directly imposed.
litigated and established by a motion, made
before the trial, for their return, he was and Hence, in the case at bar, the Court ruled
should be deemed to have waived his that if the search is made at the behest or
objection to their admissibility as part of the initiative of the proprietor of a private
evidence for the prosecution; since the establishment for its own and private
privilege against compulsory self- purposes and without the intervention of
incrimination may be waived. police authorities, the right against
unreasonable search and seizure cannot
To whom directed? be invoked for only the act of private
individual, not the law enforcers, is
In the case of People v. Marti,478 the Court involved.
ruled that the Bill of Rights embodied in the
Constitution is not meant to be invoked In sum, the protection against
against acts of private individuals finds unreasonable searches and seizures
support in the deliberations of the cannot be extended to acts committed by
Constitutional Commission. True, the private individuals so as to bring it within
liberties guaranteed by the fundamental the ambit of alleged unlawful intrusion by
law of the land must always be subject to the government.
protection. But protection against whom?
Commissioner Bernas in his sponsorship Who may invoke the right?
speech in the Bill of Rights answers the
query which he himself posed, as follows: 1. Private individual479
First, the general reflections. The 2. Foreigners arriving in the

protection of fundamental liberties in the Philippines480
essence of constitutional democracy.
Protection against whom? Protection 3. Juridical Persons,481 including
against the state. The Bill of Rights governs Newspaper Companies482
the relationship between the individual and
the state. Its concern is not the relation 4. Officers of a corporation483
between individuals, between a private
individual and other individuals. What the What is sought to be protected against
Bill of Rights does is to declare some the State's unlawful intrusion are
forbidden zones in the private sphere persons, not places
inaccessible to any power holder.
(Sponsorship Speech of Commissioner
478 G.R. No. 81561, January 18, 1991 482 Zurcher v. Stanford Daily, 436 U.S. 547
479 Wilson v. Layne, 98-0083, May 24, 1999 (1978)
480 G.R. No. L-16968, October 6, 1921 483 Stonehill v. Diokno, G.R. No. L-19550, June
481 Bache and Co., v. Ruiz, G.R. No. L-32409 19, 1967
February 27, 1971
(Colossians 3:23)
In the case of People v. Valdez,484 the warrant of arrest/search warrant, no

Court ruled that the right against public official has the right to enter
unreasonable searches and seizures is the the premises of another without his
immunity of one's person, which includes consent for the purpose of search
his residence, his papers, and other and seizure. (Lim v. Ponce de
possessions. Leon486)
The guarantee refers to "the right of Exception: Cases of Valid

personal security" of the individual. As Warrantless Arrest:
appellant correctly points out, what is
sought to be protected against the State's a. A peace officer or a private
unlawful intrusion are persons, not places. person may, without a warrant,
arrest a person when, in his
Fourth Amendment was never intended presence, the person to be
to restrain the actions of the Federal arrested has committed, is
Government against aliens outside of actually committing, or is
the territory attempting to commit an offense
(Doctrine of In Flagrante
In the case of United States v. Verdugo- Delicto);487
Urquidez,485 the US Supreme Court ruled
that the purpose of the Fourth Amendment b. A peace officer or a private
was to protect the people of the United person may, without a warrant,
States against arbitrary action by their own arrest a person when an offense
Government; it was never suggested that has just been committed and he
the provision was intended to restrain the has probable cause to believe
actions of the Federal Government against based on personal knowledge
aliens outside of the United States territory. of facts or circumstances that
the person to be arrested has
The Court said that at the time of the committed it (Doctrine of Hot
search, Verdugo-Urquidez was a citizen Pursuit);488
and resident of Mexico with no voluntary
attachment to the United States, and the c. A peace officer or a private
place searched was located in Mexico. person may, without a warrant,
Under these circumstances, the Fourth arrest a person when the
Amendment has no application. person to be arrested is a
prisoner who has escaped from
It can be noted that the arrest of the a penal establishment or place
accused and the subsequent search and where he is serving final
seizure of his house occurred in a Mexican judgment or is temporarily
territory. confined while his case is
pending, or has escaped while
When can the search/seizure be being transferred from one
considered as “unreasonable”? confinement to another.489
The search/seizure is considered as d. Stop and Frisk (see the

“unreasonable” when: landmark case of Terry v.
Ohio490).
1. As a general rule, when the
arresting officer does not have a
484 G.R. No. 129296, September 25, 2000 488 Sec. 5(b) of Rule 113 of the Revised Rules
485 494 U.S. 259 (1990) of Criminal Procedures
486 G.R. No. L-22554, August 29, 1975 489 Sec. 5(c) of Rule 113 of the Revised Rules
487 Sec. 5(a) of Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedures
of Criminal Procedures 490 392 U.S. 1 (1968)
(Colossians 3:23)
e. A person lawfully arrested may

be searched for dangerous (1) It must be issued upon "probable
weapons or anything which may cause";
have been used or constitute
proof in the commission of an (2) Probable cause must be
offense without a search determined personally by the judge;
warrant (Search incident to
lawful arrest).491 (3) Such judge must examine under
oath or affirmation the complainant
f. Seizure of prohibited articles in and the witnesses he may produce;
plain view (Plain View and
Doctrine). See the case of
People v. Calantiao.492 (4) The warrant must particularly
describe the place to be searched
g. Customs Search. and the persons or things to be
seized.497
h. Exigent and emergency
circumstances.493 1. Probable Cause
2. “Consent” to be searched is not Define “Probable Cause”

voluntarily given (unequivocally,
specific, & intelligently, see the Probable cause for a search is defined
landmark case of Caballes v. as such facts and circumstances which
CA494). would lead a reasonably discreet and
prudent man to believe that an offense
3. “Consent” to be searched was has been committed and that the
vitiated by duress (violence, objects sought in connection with the
intimidation, threat) or coercion. offense are in the place sought to be
See the landmark case of Caballes searched.498
v. CA495).
Requisites:
Note: What constitutes a reasonable or
unreasonable search or seizure in any In the case of People v. Choi,499 the
particular case is purely a judicial question, Court held that the determination of the
determinable from a consideration of the existence of probable cause requires
circumstances involved, including the the following:
purpose of the search, the presence or
absence or probable cause, the manner in (1) The judge must examine the
which the search and seizure was made, complainant and his witnesses
the place or thing searched, and the personally;
character of the articles procured (Alvarez
v. CFI496). (2) The examination must be under
oath and
Conditions for a valid search warrant or
warrant of arrest (3) The examination must be reduced
in writing in the form of searching
There are only four requisites for a valid questions and answers.
warrant, i.e:
491 Sec. 13 of Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of 496 G.R. No. L-45358, January 29, 1937
Criminal Procedures 497 People v. Tiu Won Chua, G.R. No. 149878,
492 G.R. No. 203984, June 18, 2014 July 1, 2003
493 People v. Bolasa, 378 Phil. 1073 (1999) 498 Burgos v. Chief of Staff, G.R. No. L-64261,
494 G.R. No. 136292, January 15, 2002 December 26, 1984
495 Ibid. 499 G.R. No. 152950, August 3, 2006
(Colossians 3:23)
General warrant will not suffice in justification of a Fourth Amendment

intrusion, courts must undertake a
In the case of Burgos v. Chief of context-specific inquiry, examining
Staff,500 the Court ruled that when the closely the competing private and
search warrant applied for is directed public interests advanced by the
against a newspaper publisher or editor parties.
in connection with the publication of
subversive materials, as in the case at "In limited circumstances, where the
bar, the application and/or its privacy interests implicated by the
supporting affidavits must contain a search are minimal, and where an
specification, stating with particularity important governmental interest
the alleged subversive material he has furthered by the intrusion would be
published or is intending to publish. placed in jeopardy by a requirement of
Mere generalization will not suffice. individualized suspicion, a search may
be reasonable despite the absence of
Thus, the broad statement in Col. such suspicion."
Abadilla's application that petitioner "is
in possession or has in his control By requiring candidates for public office
printing equipment and other to submit to drug testing, Georgia
paraphernalia, news publications and displays its commitment to the struggle
other documents which were used and against drug abuse. The suspicionless
are all continuously being used as a tests, according to respondents, signify
means of committing the offense of that candidates, if elected, will be fit to
subversion punishable under serve their constituents free from the
Presidential Decree 885, as amended influence of illegal drugs. But Georgia
..." is a mere conclusion of law and asserts no evidence of a drug problem
does not satisfy the requirements of among the State's elected officials,
probable cause. Bereft of such those officials typically do not perform
particulars as would justify a finding of high-risk, safety-sensitive tasks, and
the existence of probable cause, said the required certification immediately
allegation cannot serve as basis for the aids no interdiction effort. The need
issuance of a search warrant and it was revealed, in short, is symbolic, not
a grave error for respondent judge to "special," as that term draws meaning
have done so. from our case law.
Where public safety is not genuinely However well meant, the candidate
in jeopardy, the Fourth Amendment drug test Georgia has devised
precludes the suspicionless search, diminishes personal privacy for a
no matter how conveniently symbol's sake. The Fourth Amendment
arranged shields society against that state
action.
In the case of Chandler v. Miller,501 the
Court ruled that to be reasonable under Where the risk to public safety is
the Fourth Amendment, a search substantial and real, blanket
ordinarily must be based on suspicionless searches calibrated to
individualized suspicion of wrongdoing. the risk may rank as "reasonable"-for
But particularized exceptions to the example, searches now routine at
main rule are sometimes warranted airports and at entrances to courts and
based on "special needs, beyond the other official buildings. But where, as in
normal need for law enforcement." this case, public safety is not genuinely
in jeopardy, the Fourth Amendment
When such "special needs" concerns precludes the suspicionless search, no
other than crime detection-are alleged matter how conveniently arranged.
500 G.R. No. L-64261, December 26, 1984 501 520 U.S. 305 (1997)
(Colossians 3:23)
and within the view of the arresting

Arresting officer must have personal officers, are not sufficient to constitute
knowledge of such fact or as recent probable cause that would justify an in
case law adverts to, personal flagrante delicto arrest.
knowledge of facts or
circumstances convincingly There could have been no valid in
indicative or constitutive of probable flagrante delicto ... arrest preceding
cause the search in light of the lack of
personal knowledge on the part of
In the case of People v. Ho San,502 the the arresting officer
Court ruled that in cases of in flagrante
delicto arrests, a peace officer or a In the case of People v. Molina,503 the
private person may without a warrant, Court ruled that there could have been
arrest a person, when, in his presence, no valid in flagrante delicto ... arrest
the person to be arrested has preceding the search in light of the lack
committed, is actually committing, or is of personal knowledge on the part of
attempting to commit an offense. The Yu, the arresting officer, or an overt
arresting officer, therefore, must have physical act, on the part of petitioner,
personal knowledge of such fact or as indicating that a crime had just been
recent case law adverts to, personal committed, was being committed or
knowledge of facts or circumstances was going to be committed.
convincingly indicative or constitutive of
probable cause. In holding a bag on board a trisikad,
accused-appellants could not be said to
In the case at bar, the Court finds that be committing, attempting to commit or
there are no facts on record reasonably have committed a crime. It matters not
suggestive or demonstrative of CHUAs that accused-appellant Molina
participation in an ongoing criminal responded Boss, if possible we will
enterprise that could have spurred settle this to the request of SPO1
police officers from conducting the Pamplona to open the bag. Such
obtrusive search. response which allegedly reinforced
the suspicion of the arresting officers
True, CHUA entered Philippine territory that accused-appellants were
without a visa. This was not obvious to committing a crime, is an equivocal
the police. But gossamer to the officer’s statement which standing alone will not
sense perception and view were CHUA constitute probable cause to effect an
disembarking from a speedboat, CHUA inflagrante delicto arrest. Note that
walking casually towards the road, and were it not for SPO1 Marino
CHUA carrying a multicolored Paguidopon (who did not participate in
strawbag. These acts did not convey the arrest but merely pointed accused-
any impression that he illegally entered appellants to the arresting officers),
Philippine shores. Neither were these accused-appellants could not be the
overt manifestations of an ongoing subject of any suspicion, reasonable or
felonious activity nor of CHUAs criminal otherwise.
behavior as clearly established in CIDs
(Chief of Police of the Bacnotan Police Partially Valid Warrant
Station) testimony.
In the case of People v. Salanguit,504
Note: In in flagrante delicto arrests, it is the Court ruled that because the
settled that reliable information alone, location of the shabu was indicated in
absent any overt act indicative of a the warrant and thus known to the
felonious enterprise in the presence police operatives, it is reasonable to
502 G.R. No. 128222, June 17, 1999 504 G.R. Nos. 133254-55, April 19, 2001
503 G.R. No. 133917, February 19, 2001
(Colossians 3:23)
assume that the police found the the presence of petitioner’s software on
packets of the shabu first. Once the the same computer unit. There was a
valid portion of the search warrant has comparison between petitioner’s
been executed, the plain view doctrine genuine software and Maxicorp’s
can no longer provide any basis for software pre-installed in the computer
admitting the other items subsequently unit that NBI Agent Sambiano
found. purchased.
In this case, the marijuana allegedly 2. Personal determination by judge

found in the possession of accused-
appellant was in the form of two bricks After the case had already been filed
wrapped in newsprint. Not being in a in court, "fiscals are not clothed with
transparent container, the contents power, without the consent of the
wrapped in newsprint could not have court, to dismiss or nolle prosequi
been readily discernible as marijuana. criminal actions actually instituted
Nor was there mention of the time or and pending further proceedings”
manner these items were discovered.
Accordingly, for failure of the In the case of Sta. Rosa Mining
prosecution to prove that the seizure of Company v. Asst. Provincial Fiscal
the marijuana without a warrant was Zabala,506 the Court ruled that after the
conducted in accordance with the plain case had already been filed in court,
view doctrine, we hold that the "fiscals are not clothed with power,
marijuana is inadmissible in evidence without the consent of the court, to
against accused-appellant. However, dismiss or nolle prosequi criminal
the confiscation of the drug must be actions actually instituted and pending
upheld. further proceedings. The power to
dismiss criminal actions is vested solely
Also, in the case of Microsoft in the court."
Corporation v. Maxicorp, Inc.,505 the
Court ruled that even if the Court This ruling is just being consistent with
disregard the sales receipt issued in the the principle first laid down in U.S. vs.
name of Joel Diaz, which petitioners Valencia (1 Phil. 642) where it was held
explained was the alias NBI Agent that "after the complaint has been
Samiano used in the operation, there presented, and certainly after the trial
still remains more than sufficient has been commenced, the court and
evidence to establish probable cause not the fiscal has full control of it. The
for the issuance of the search warrants. complaint cannot be withdrawn by the
fiscal without the consent of the court."
For purposes of determining probable It is discretionary on the court where the
cause, the sales receipt is not the only case is pending to grant the motion to
proof that the sale of petitioner’s dismiss or deny the same (Asst.
software occurred. During the search Provincial Fiscal of Bataan vs. Dollete,
warrant application proceedings, NBI 103 Phil. 914).
Agent Samiano presented to the judge
the computer unit that he purchased Therefore, the order of the Secretary of
from Maxicorp, in which computer unit Justice to reverse the findings of prima
Maxicorp had pre-installed petitioner’s facie case of the Provincial Fiscal and
software. Sacriz, who was present directed said prosecuting officer to
when NBI Agent Samiano purchased immediately move for the dismissal of
the computer unit, affirmed that NBI the criminal case will not bind the Court
Agent Samiano purchased the since it already acquired jurisdiction
computer unit. Pante, the computer over the case.
technician, demonstrated to the judge
505 G.R. No. 140946, September 13, 2004 506 G.R. No. L-44723, August 31, 1987
(Colossians 3:23)
What is a “preliminary Thus, even if petitioner was not given

investigation”? the opportunity to cross-examine
Galarion and Hanopol at the time they
A preliminary investigation is defined as were presented to testify during the
an inquiry or proceeding for the separate trial of the case against
purpose of determining whether there Galarion and Roxas, he cannot assert
is sufficient ground to engender a well any legal right to cross-examine them
founded belief that a crime cognizable at the preliminary investigation
by the Regional Trial Court has been precisely because such right was never
committed and that the respondent is available to him. The admissibility or
probably guilty thereof, and should be inadmissibility of said testimonies
held for trial. should be ventilated before the trial
court during the trial proper and not in
The quantum of evidence now required the preliminary investigation.
in preliminary investigation is such
evidence sufficient to "engender a well Authorities must apply for the
founded belief as to the fact of the issuance of a search warrant from a
commission of a crime and the judge, if in their opinion, an
respondent's probable guilt thereof. obscenity rap is in order
A preliminary investigation is not the In the case of Pita v. CA,509 the Court
occasion for the full and exhaustive ruled that it is basic that searches and
display of the parties' evidence; it is for seizures may be done only through a
the presentation of such evidence only judicial warrant, otherwise, they
as may engender a well grounded become unreasonable and subject to
belief that an offense has been challenge.
committed and that the accused is
probably guilty thereof.507 However, the Court said that the
following should be observed by the
The accused in a preliminary respondent:
investigation has no right to cross-
examine the witnesses which the 1. The authorities must apply for the
complainant may present issuance of a search warrant from a
judge, if in their opinion, an
In the case of Atty. Panderanga v. Hon. obscenity rap is in order;
Drilon,508 the Court ruled that the
accused in a preliminary investigation 2. The authorities must convince the
has no right to cross-examine the court that the materials sought to be
witnesses which the complainant may seized are "obscene", and pose a
present. Section 3, Rule 112 of the clear and present danger of an evil
Rules of Court expressly provides that substantive enough to warrant
the respondent shall only have the right State interference and action;
to submit a counter-affidavit, to
examine all other evidence submitted 3. The judge must determine whether
by the complainant and, where the or not the same are indeed
fiscal sets a hearing to propound "obscene:" the question is to be
clarificatory questions to the parties or resolved on a case-to-case basis
their witnesses, to be afforded an and on His Honor's sound
opportunity to be present but without discretion.
the right to examine or cross-examine.
507 Atty. Paderanga v. Hon. Drilon, G.R. No.

96080, April 19, 1991 509 G.R. No. 80806, October 5, 1989
508 G.R. No. 96080, April 19, 1991
(Colossians 3:23)
4. If, in the opinion of the court, a conclusion as to the existence of

probable cause exists, it may issue probable cause.
the search warrant prayed for;
Difference between the
5. If, in the opinion of the court, determination of probable cause of
probable cause exists, it may issue the prosecutor vis-à-vis
the search warrant prayed for; determination of probable cause by
a judge
6. Any conviction is subject to appeal.
The appellate court may assess Prosecutor Judge
whether or not the properties seized Whether there is Determines
are indeed "obscene". reasonable whether a
ground to believe warrant of arrest
Since there was no warrant that was that the accused should be issued
issued in favor of the respondent mayor is guilty of the against the
(Bagatsing), the raid conducted by the offense charged accused, i.e.,
said respondent is considered as illegal and should be whether there is
because it made him the judge, jury, held for trial is a necessity for
and executioner in this case. what the placing him
prosecutor under immediate
In satisfying himself of the existence passes upon. custody in order
of probable cause for the issuance not to frustrate
of a warrant of arrest, the judge is the ends of
not required to personally examine justice.
the complainant and his witnesses
The contents of The judge cannot
In the case of Soliven v. Makasiar,510 the prosecutor’s rely solely on the
the Court ruled that what the report will report of the
Constitution underscores is the support his own prosecutor in
exclusive and personal responsibility of conclusion that finding probable
the issuing judge to satisfy himself of there is reason to cause to justify
the existence of probable cause. In charge the the issuance of a
satisfying himself of the existence of accused for an warrant of arrest.
probable cause for the issuance of a offense and hold
warrant of arrest, the judge is not him for trial.
required to personally examine the
complainant and his witnesses. Probable cause Probable cause
Following established doctrine and is determined will be
procedure, he shall: based on the determined
complete or based on
(1) Personally evaluate the report and entire records of sufficient
the supporting documents the case during supporting
submitted by the fiscal regarding the preliminary documents (such
the existence of probable cause investigation. as the complaint,
and, on the basis thereof, issue a affidavits,
warrant of arrest; or counter-
affidavits, sworn
(2) If on the basis thereof he finds no statements of
probable cause, he may disregard witnesses or
the fiscals report and require the transcript of
submission of supporting affidavits
of witnesses to aid him in arriving at
510 G.R. No. 82585, November 14, 1988

(Colossians 3:23)
Prosecutor Judge probable cause was found to exist as

stenographic against those charged in the
notes, if any).511 information filed."
Determination of Determination of The statement is an admission that

probable cause probable cause respondent relied solely and
during a by a judge is a completely on the certification made by
preliminary judicial the fiscal that probable cause exists as
investigation is function.512 against those charged in the
an executive information and issued the challenged
function. warrant of arrest on the sole basis of
the prosecutor’s findings and
recommendations. He adopted the
Judge cannot rely solely and entirely judgment of the prosecutor regarding
on the prosecutor’s the existence of probable cause as his
recommendation own.
It was held in the case of Ho v. Although the prosecutor enjoys the

People513 that the judge cannot rely legal presumption of regularity in the
solely and entirely on the prosecutor’s performance of his official duties, which
recommendation, as Respondent Court in turn gives his report the presumption
did in this case. Although the of accuracy, nothing less than the
prosecutor enjoys the legal fundamental law of the land commands
presumption of regularity in the the judge to personally determine
performance of his official duties and probable cause in the issuance of
functions, which in turn gives his report warrants of arrest. A judge fails in this
the presumption of accuracy, the constitutionally mandated duty if he
Constitution, we repeat, commands the relies merely on the certification or
judge to personally determine probable report of the investigating officer.
cause in the issuance of warrants of
arrest. Mere affidavits of the complainant
and his witnesses are thus not
This Court has consistently held that a sufficient. The examining Judge has
judge fails in his bounden duty if he to take depositions in writing of the
relies merely on the certification or the complainant and the witnesses he
report of the investigating officer. may produce and to attach them to
the record
A judge fails in this constitutionally
mandated duty if he relies merely on In the case of People v. Mamaril,515 the
the certification or report of the Court ruled that mere affidavits of the
investigating officer complainant and his witnesses are thus
not sufficient. The examining Judge
In the case of Abdula v. Hon. Guiani,514 has to take depositions in writing of the
the Court ruled that in the case at complainant and the witnesses he may
bench, respondent admits that he produce and to attach them to the
issued the questioned warrant as there record. Such written deposition is
was "no reason for (him) to doubt the necessary in order that the Judge may
validity of the certification made by the be able to properly determine the
Assistant Prosecutor that a preliminary existence or non-existence of the
investigation was conducted and that probable cause, to hold liable for
511 Ho v. People, G.R. No. 106632, October 9, 513 G.R. No. 106632, October 9, 1997
1997 514 G.R. No. 118821, February 18, 2000
512 People v. CA & Cerbo, G.R. No. 126005, 515 G.R. No. 147607, January 22, 2004
January 21, 1999

(Colossians 3:23)
perjury the person giving it if it will be cause, for the same presupposes the
found later that his declarations are introduction of competent proof that the
false. party against whom it is sought has
performed particular acts, or committed
In the case at bar, the Court ruled that specific omissions, violating a given
the prosecution failed to prove that provision of our criminal law.
Executive Judge Eugenio G. Ramos
put into writing his examination of the Failure of the applicant to state,
applicant and his witnesses in the form under oath, the urgent need for the
of searching questions and answers issuance of the search warrant, his
before issuance of the search warrant. application having been filed on a
The records only show the existence of Saturday, will not necessarily
an application for a search warrant and invalidate the warrant
the affidavits of the complainant’s
witnesses. In the case of Dr. Prudente v. Hon.
Judge Dayrit,518 the Court ruled that
3. Examination of witnesses Circular No. 19, dated 14 August 1987
merely provides for a guideline,
Specific offense alleged to have departure from which would not
been committed as a basis for the necessarily affect the validity of an
finding of probable cause otherwise valid search warrant.
In the case of Olaes v. People,516 the Under the said circular, applications
Court ruled that the search warrant filed after office hours, during
issued in the instant case and find it Saturdays, Sundays and holidays shall
does not come under the structures of likewise be taken cognizance of and
the Stonehill doctrine. In the case cited, acted upon by any judge of the court
there was a bare reference to the laws having jurisdiction of the place to be
in general, without any specification of searched, but in such cases the
the particular sections thereof that were applicant shall certify and state the
alleged to have been violated out of the facts under oath, to the satisfaction of
hundreds of prohibitions contained in the judge, that the issuance is urgent.
such modifications. There is no similar
ambiguity in the instant case. Hence, failure on the part of the
applicant to state, under oath, the
Although the specific section of the urgent need for the issuance of the
Dangerous Drugs Act is not pinpointed, search warrant will not necessarily
there is no question at all of the specific invalidate the same.
offense alleged to have been
committed as a basis for the finding of Witnesses should have personal
probable cause. knowledge with regard to the
offense that was committed
Note: In the case of Stonehill v.
Diokno,517 the Court ruled that if no In the case of 20th Century Fox Film
specific offense had been alleged in the Corporation v. CA,519 the Court held
application of the warrant, the that the lower court is correct in lifting
averments thereof with respect to the the three (3) questioned search
offense committed were abstract. warrants in the absence of probable
cause that the private respondents
As a consequence, it was impossible violated P.D. 49. As found out by the
for the judges who issued the warrants court, the NBI agents who acted as
to have found the existence of probable witnesses did not have personal
516 G.R. Nos. 78347-49, November 9, 1987 518 G.R. No. 82870, December 14, 1989
517 G.R. No. L-19550, June 19, 1967 519 G.R. Nos. 76649-51, August 19, 1988
(Colossians 3:23)
knowledge of the subject matter of their (1) The judge must examine the
testimony which was the alleged complainant and his witnesses
commission of the offense by the personally;
private respondents.
(2) The examination must be under
Only the petitioner's counsel who was oath and
also a witness during the application for
the issuance of the search warrants (3) The examination must be reduced
stated that he had personal knowledge in writing in the form of searching
that the confiscated tapes owned by the questions and answers.521
private respondents were pirated tapes
taken from master tapes belonging to If the judge fails to determine
the petitioner. However, the lower court probable cause by personally
did not give much credence to his examining the applicant and his
testimony in view of the fact that the witnesses in the form of searching
master tapes of the allegedly pirated questions before issuing a search
tapes were not shown to the court warrant, grave abuse of discretion is
during the application. committed
Note: The presentation of the master In the case of People v. Choi,522 the
tapes is essential to prove that P.D. 49 Court ruled that if the judge fails to
is violated. determine probable cause by
personally examining the applicant and
However, this doctrine was later on his witnesses in the form of searching
reversed in the case of Columbia questions before issuing a search
Pictures, Inc. v. CA,520 wherein the warrant, grave abuse of discretion is
Court ruled that it is true that such committed.
master tapes are object evidence, with
the merit that in this class of evidence The determination of probable cause
the ascertainment of the controverted does not call for the application of rules
fact is made through demonstrations and standards of proof that a judgment
involving the direct use of the senses of of conviction requires after trial on the
the presiding magistrate. merits.
Such auxiliary procedure, however, As the term implies, probable cause is

does not rule out the use of testimonial concerned with probability, not
or documentary evidence, depositions, absolute or even moral certainty.
admissions or other classes of
evidence tending to prove the factum The standards of judgment are those of
probandum, especially where the a reasonably prudent man, not the
production in court of object evidence exacting calibrations of a judge after a
would result in delay, inconvenience or full-blown trial.
expenses out of proportion to its
evidentiary value. No law or rule states that probable
cause requires a specific kind of
Determination of the existence of evidence. No formula or fixed rule for
probable cause its determination exists. Probable
cause is determined in the light of
The determination of the existence of conditions obtaining in a given
probable cause requires the following: situation. The entirety of the questions
propounded by the court and the
520G.R. No. 110318, August 28, 1996 522 G.R. No. 152950, August 3, 2006
521 People v. Mamaril, G.R. No. 147607,
January 22, 2004
(Colossians 3:23)
answers thereto must be considered by

the judge. Personal investigation made by the
applicant of the warrant may permit
In the case at bar, it cannot be said that the issuance thereof
Judge Gatbalite committed grave
abuse of discretion in issuing the In the case of Yee Su Kuy v. Almeda,524
search warrant. Her questions were the Court ruled that the criticism of
sufficiently probing, not at all superficial petitioners that the search warrant in
and perfunctory. The testimonies were question was not issued in accordance
consistent with each other and the with the formalities prescribed by
narration of facts was credible. The Section 1, Paragraph 3 of Article III of
testimonies and other evidence on the Constitution and of section 97,
record constituted adequate bases to General Order 58 is untenable. As a
establish probable cause that the matter of fact, the strict observance of
alleged offense had been committed. such formalities was followed.
If the existence of probable cause The applicant Almeda, in his

was determined not by the judge application, swore that “he made his
himself but by the applicant, the own personal investigation and
issued warrant is considered as void ascertained that Sam Sing & Co. is
lending money without license,
In the case of De Garcia v. Locsin,523 charging usurious rate of interest and is
the Court ruled that in the case at bar, keeping, utilizing and concealing in the
all that the judge did was to accept as store and premises, occupied by it
true the affidavit made by agent documents, notebooks, lists, receipts,
Almeda. He did not decide for himself. promissory notes and book of accounts
It does not appear that he examined the and records.
applicant and his witnesses, if any.
Moreover, witness Estrada, in his
Even accepting the description of the testimony before the judge, swore that
properties to be seized to be sufficient he knew Sam Sing & Co. and its
and on the assumption that the receipt activities because he personally
issued is sufficiently detailed within the investigated the victims who secured
meaning of the law, the properties loans from Sam Sing & Co.
seized were not delivered to the court
which issued the warrant, as required Affidavit, which served as the
by law. (See, secs. 95 and 104, G. O. exclusive basis of the search
No. 58.) instead, they were turned over warrant, is insufficient and fatally
to the respondent provincial fiscal and defective
used by him in building up cases
against the petitioner. In the case of Alvarez v. CFI,525 the
Court ruled that the search warrant
Considering that at the time the warrant issued by the court is illegal because it
was issued there was no case pending has been based upon the affidavit of
against the petitioner, the averment agent Mariano G. Almeda in whose
that the warrant was issued primarily for oath he declared that he had no
exploration purposes is not without personal knowledge of the facts which
basis. The lower court is, therefore, were to serve as a basis for the
correct in reaching the conclusion that issuance of the warrant but that he had
the search warrant (Exhibit B) was knowledge thereof through mere
illegally issued by the justice of the information secured from a person
peace of Tarlac, Tarlac. whom he considered reliable.
523 G.R. No. L-45950, June 20, 1938 525 G.R. No. L-45358, January 29, 1937
524 70 Phil. 141, (1940)
(Colossians 3:23)
affidavit of the agent who had no

In the case at bar, it appears that the personal knowledge of the facts.
affidavit, which served as the exclusive
basis of the search warrant, is Mere affidavits of the complainant
insufficient and fatally defective by and his witnesses are thus not
reason of the manner in which the oath sufficient
was made, and therefore, it is hereby
held that the search warrant in question In the case of Mata v. Bayona,527 the
and the subsequent seizure of the Court ruled that mere affidavits of the
books, documents and other papers complainant and his witnesses are thus
are illegal and do not in any way not sufficient.
warrant the deprivation to which the
petitioner was subjected. More emphatic and detailed is the
implementing rule of the constitutional
If knowledge of the facts was not injunction, Section 4 of Rule 126 which
personal but merely hearsay, it is the provides that the judge must before
duty of the judge to require the issuing the warrant personally examine
affidavit of one or more witnesses on oath or affirmation the complainant
for the purpose of determining the and any witnesses he may produce and
existence of probable cause to take their depositions in writing, and
warrant the issuance of the search attach them to the record, in addition to
warrant any affidavits presented to him.
In the case of Alvarez v. CFI,526 the The examining Judge has to take
Court ruled that if the affidavit of the depositions in writing of the
applicant or complainant is sufficient, complainant and the witnesses he may
the judge may dispense with that of produce and to attach them to the
other witnesses. Inasmuch as the record. Such written deposition is
affidavit of the agent in this case was necessary in order that the Judge may
insufficient because his knowledge of be able to properly deter-mine the
the facts was not personal but merely existence or non-existence of the
hearsay, it is the duty of the judge to probable cause, and to hold liable for
require the affidavit of one or more perjury the person giving it if it will be
witnesses for the purpose of found later that his declarations are
determining the existence of probable false.
cause to warrant the issuance of the
search warrant. In the case at bar, the Court held that
the search warrant is tainted with
When the affidavit of the applicant of illegality by the failure of the Judge to
the complaint contains sufficient facts conform with the essential requisites of
within his personal and direct taking the depositions in writing and
knowledge, it is sufficient if the judge is attaching them to the record, rendering
satisfied that there exists probable the search warrant invalid.
cause; when the applicant's knowledge
of the facts is mere hearsay, the 4. Particularity of description
affidavit of one or more witnesses
having a personal knowledge of the fact Particularity of the description to be
is necessary. made of the "place to be searched
and the persons or things to be
Hence, the Court conclude, that the seized
warrant issued is likewise illegal
because it was based only on the
526 Ibid. 527 GR No. L-50720, Mar 26, 1984

(Colossians 3:23)
In the case of Olaes v. People,528 the In the case of Chia v. Collector of

Court agreed that the search warrant Customs,530 the Court ruled that the
issued by Judge Santos satisfies the warrants issued by the Collector of
requirement in the Bill of Rights of the Customs in this case were not general
particularity of the description to be warrants, as erroneously alleged by the
made of the "place to be searched and petitioner for they identified the stores
the persons or things to be seized." to be searched, described the articles
to be seized and specified the provision
A description of a place to be of the Tariff and Customs Code
searched is sufficient if the officer violated.
with the warrant can, with
reasonable effort, ascertain and Upon effecting the seizure of the goods,
Identify the place intended the Bureau of Customs acquired
exclusive jurisdiction not only over the
In the case of Prudente v. Judge case but also over the goods seized for
Dayrit,529 the Court ruled that a the purpose of enforcing the tariff and
description of a place to be searched is customs laws.
sufficient if the officer with the warrant
can, with reasonable effort, ascertain Articles without specification and/or
and Identify the place intended. particularity that they were really
instruments in violating an Anti-
In the case at bar, the application for Piracy law makes the search warrant
search warrant and the search warrant too general which could result in the
itself described the place to be confiscation of all items found in any
searched as the premises of the video store
Polytechnic University of the
Philippines, located at Anonas St., Sta. In the case of 20th Century Fox Film
Mesa, Sampaloc, Manila more Corp. v. CA,531 the Court ruled that
particularly, the offices of the articles without specification and/or
Department of Military Science and particularity that they were really
Tactics at the ground floor, and the instruments in violating an Anti-Piracy
Office of the President, Dr. Nemesio law makes the search warrant too
Prudente, at PUP, Second Floor and general which could result in the
other rooms at the second floor. confiscation of all items found in any
video store.
The designation of the places to be
searched sufficiently complied with the Television sets, video cassette
constitutional injunction that a search recorders, reminders and tape cleaners
warrant must particularly describe the are articles which can be found in a
place to be searched, even if there video tape store engaged in the
were several rooms at the ground floor legitimate business of lending or
and second floor of the PUP. renting out betamax tapes. In short,
these articles and appliances are
The warrants issued by the Collector generally connected with, or related to
of Customs are not considered as a legitimate business not necessarily
general warrants when it identified involving piracy of intellectual property
the stores to be searched, described or infringement of copyright laws.
the articles to be seized and
specified the provision of the Tariff Although the applications and warrants
and Customs Code violated themselves covered certain articles of
property usually found in a video store,
the Court believes that the search party
528 G.R. Nos. 78347-49, November 9, 1987 530 G.R. No. L-43810, September 26, 1989
529 G.R. No. 82870, December 14, 1989 531 G.R. Nos. 76649-51, August 19, 1988
(Colossians 3:23)
should have confined themselves to issuance of a search warrant. It is true

articles that are according to them, that such master tapes are object
evidence constitutive of infringement of evidence, with the merit that in this
copyright laws or the piracy of class of evidence the ascertainment of
intellectual property, but not to other the controverted fact is made through
articles that are usually connected with, demonstrations involving the direct use
or related to, a legitimate business, not of the senses of the presiding
involving piracy of intellectual property, magistrate.
or infringement of copyright laws.
Such auxiliary procedure, however,
So that a television set, a rewinder, and does not rule out the use of testimonial
a whiteboard listing Betamax tapes, or documentary evidence, depositions,
video cassette cleaners video cassette admissions or other classes of
recorders as reflected in the Returns of evidence tending to prove the factum
Search Warrants, are items of probandum, especially where the
legitimate business engaged in the production in court of object evidence
video tape industry, and which could would result in delay, inconvenience or
not be the subject of seizure, The expenses out of proportion to its
applicant and his agents therefore evidentiary value.
exceeded their authority in seizing
perfectly legitimate personal property Note: In the case of Columbia Pictures,
usually found in a video cassette store Inc. v. Court of Appeals534 the Court
or business establishment." had the chance to state that other
pieces of evidence may be the subject
Insofar as it required the of search/seizure in order to justify that
presentation of the master tapes for PD 49 (Intellectual Property Law) has
comparison with the pirated copies been violated.
for a search warrant to issue, had
already been superseded by It can be deduced that the problem with
Columbia Pictures, Inc. v. Court of the 20th Century Fox535 ruling is the
Appeals difficulty of securing the “Master Tape”
because there might be instances
In the case of People v. Choi,532 the wherein a pirated copy is used in the
Court ruled that insofar as it required actual production thereof.
the presentation of the master tapes for
comparison with the pirated copies for Judges exercise of discretion
a search warrant to issue, had already should not be unduly restricted by
been superseded by Columbia adding a requirement that is not
Pictures, Inc. v. Court of Appeals533 to sanctioned by law
wit:
In the case of People v. Choi,536 the
It is evidently incorrect to suggest, as Court held that 20th Century Fox Film
the ruling in 20th Century Fox may Corporation537 should not be applied to
appear to do, that in copyright the present case since this involves the
infringement cases, the presentation of offense of unfair competition and not
master tapes of the copyrighted films is copyright infringement.
always necessary to meet the
requirement of probable cause and More importantly, as pronounced by
that, in the absence thereof, there can the Court in Columbia Pictures, Inc.,538
be no finding of probable cause for the the judges exercise of discretion should
532 G.R. No. 152950, August 3, 2006 536 G.R. No. 152950, August 3, 2006
533 G.R. No. 110318, August 28, 1996 537 G.R. Nos. 76649-51, August 19, 1988
534 Ibid. 538 G.R. No. 110318, August 28, 1996
535 G.R. Nos. 76649-51, August 19, 1988
(Colossians 3:23)
not be unduly restricted by adding a particularity. It simply authorizes a

requirement that is not sanctioned by search of the aforementioned
law. premises, but it did not specify such
premises. The warrant identifies only
Mere generalization will not suffice one place, and that is the Paper
and does not satisfy the Industries Corporation of the
requirements of probable cause Philippines, located at PICOP
upon which a warrant may issue Compound, Barangay Tabon, Bislig[,]
Surigao del Sur.
In the case of Nolasco v. Judge
Paño,539 the Court ruled that mere The PICOP compound, however, is
generalization will not suffice and does made up of 200 offices/buildings, 15
not satisfy the requirements of probable plants, 84 staff houses, 1 airstrip, 3
cause upon which a warrant may issue. piers/wharves, 23 warehouses, 6 POL
depots/quick service outlets and some
In the case at bar, the Court held that 800 miscellaneous structures, all of
the 6th, 7th and 8th questions in the which are spread out over some one
deposition refer to the description of the hundred fifty-five hectares.
personalities to be seized, which is
Identical to that in the Search Warrant Obviously, the warrant gives the police
and suffers from the same lack of officers unbridled and thus illegal
particularity. authority to search all the structures
found inside the PICOP compound.
It should be noted that the issued
warrant consists of: Will a submitted sketch comply with
the constitutional requirement of
“Other papers and documents like particularity?
Minutes of the Party Meetings, Plans of
these groups, Programs, List of No. In the case of PICOP v. Judge
possible supporters, subversive books Asuncion,541 the Court ruled that the
and instructions, manuals not sketches allegedly submitted by the
otherwise available to the public and police were not made integral parts of
support money from foreign and local the search warrant issued by Judge
sources.” Asuncion. Moreover, the fact that the
raiding police team knew which of the
The requisite of particularity is buildings or structures in the PICOP
related to the probable cause Compound housed firearms and
requirement ammunitions did not justify the lack of
particulars of the place to be searched.
In the case of PICOP v. Judge
Asuncion,540 the Court ruled that the Otherwise, confusion would arise
requisite of particularity is related to the regarding the subject of the warrant the
probable cause requirement in that, at place indicated in the warrant or the
least under some circumstances, the place identified by the police. Such
lack of a more specific description will conflict invites uncalled for mischief or
make it apparent that there has not abuse of discretion on the part of law
been a sufficient showing to the enforcers.
magistrate that the described items are
to be found in a particular place. Furthermore, the particularization of the
description of the place to be searched
In the present case, the assailed search may properly be done only by the
warrant failed to describe the place with Judge, and only in the warrant itself; it
539 G.R. No. L-69803, October 8, 1985 541 G.R. No. 122092, May 19, 1999
540 G.R. No. 122092, May 19, 1999
(Colossians 3:23)
cannot be left to the discretion of the are without discretion regarding

police officers conducting the search. what articles they shall seize
The law does not require that the In the case of Del Rosario v. People,543
things to be seized must be the Court ruled that seizure is limited to
described in precise and minute those items particularly described in a
details as to leave no room for doubt valid search warrant. Searching officers
on the part of the searching are without discretion regarding what
authorities articles they shall seize.
In the case of Al-Ghoul v. CA,542 the In this case, the firearm was not found
Court ruled that the nature of the items inadvertently and in plain view. It was
ordered to be seized did not require, in found as a result of a meticulous search
our view, a technical description. in the kitchen of petitioner’s house. This
Moreover, the law does not require that firearm, to emphasize, was not
the things to be seized must be mentioned in the search warrant.
described in precise and minute details Hence, the seizure was illegal.
as to leave no room for doubt on the
part of the searching authorities, Note: As an exception, the police may
otherwise, it would be virtually seize without warrant illegally
impossible for the applicants to obtain a possessed firearm or any contraband
search warrant as they would not know for that matter, inadvertently found in
exactly what kind of things they are plain view. However, [t]he seizure of
looking for. evidence in plain view applies only
where the police officer is not searching
Once described, however, the articles for evidence against the accused, but
subject of the search and seizure need inadvertently comes across an
not be so invariant as to require incriminating object.
absolute concordance, in our view,
between those seized and those Exclusion of unlawfully seized evidence
described in the warrant. Substantial is the only practical means of enforcing
similarity of those articles described as the constitutional injunction against
a class or species would suffice. unreasonable searches and seizures
In the present case, a careful In the case of Al-Ghoul v. CA,544 the Court
examination of Search Warrant Nos. ruled that the exclusion of unlawfully seized
54-95 and 55-95 shows that they were evidence is the only practical means of
worded in such a manner that the enforcing the constitutional injunction
enumerated items to be seized could against unreasonable searches and
bear a direct relation to the offense of seizures.
violation of Section 1 and 3 of
Presidential Decree No. 1866, as In the case at bar, the Court declared that
amended, penalizing illegal possession the search made at Apartment No. 8 is
of firearms, ammunitions and illegal and the .45 caliber pistol taken
explosives. What the warrants thereat is inadmissible in evidence against
authorized was the seizure of articles petitioners since the said apartment is not
proscribed by that decree, and no included in the warrant.
other.
Furthermore, the Court also held in the
Seizure is limited to those items case of Del Rosario v. People545 that
particularly described in a valid evidence seized on the occasion of such an
search warrant. Searching officers unreasonable search and seizure is tainted
542 G.R. No. 126859, September 4, 2001 544 G.R. No. 126859, September 4, 2001
543 G.R. No. 142295, May 31, 2001 545 G.R. No. 142295, May 31, 2001
(Colossians 3:23)
and excluded for being the proverbial fruit have known in advance of the location of
of a poisonous tree. In the language of the the evidence and intend to seize it.
fundamental law, it shall be inadmissible in Discovery is not anticipated.548
evidence for any purpose in any
proceeding. The incriminating nature of the evidence
becomes apparent in the course of the
Objects of Seizure search, without the benefit of any
unlawful search or seizure. It must be
A search warrant may be issued for the apparent at the moment of seizure
search and seizure of personal property:
In the case of United Laboratories, Inc. v.
a. Subject of the offense; Isip,549 the Court ruled that the incriminating
nature of the evidence becomes apparent
b. Stolen or embezzled and other in the course of the search, without the
proceeds, or fruits of the offense; or benefit of any unlawful search or seizure. It
must be apparent at the moment of seizure.
c. Used or intended to be used as the
means of committing an offense.546 In the present case, it was thus incumbent
on the NBI agents and the petitioner to
Immediately Apparent Test prove their claim that the items were seized
based on the plain view doctrine. It is not
The immediate requirement means that the enough to prove that the sealed boxes
executing officer can, at the time of were in the plain view of the NBI agents;
discovery of the object or the facts therein evidence should have been adduced to
available to him, determine probable cause prove the existence of all the essential
of the objects incriminating evidence. requirements for the application of the
doctrine during the hearing of the
In other words, to be immediate, probable respondent’s motion to quash, or at the
cause must be the direct result of the very least, during the hearing of the NBI
officer’s instantaneous sensory perception and the petitioners motion for
of the object. reconsideration on April 16, 2004.
The object is apparent if the executing Furthermore, there is no showing that the
officer had probable cause to connect the NBI and the petitioner even attempted to
object to criminal activity. adduce such evidence. In fact, the
petitioner and the NBI failed to present any
The immediately apparent test does not of the NBI agents who executed the
require an unduly high degree of certainty warrant, or any of the petitioner’s
as to the incriminating character of representative who was present at the time
evidence. It requires merely that the of the enforcement of the warrant to prove
seizure be presumptively reasonable that the enforcing officers discovered the
assuming that there is probable cause to sealed boxes inadvertently, and that such
associate the property with criminal activity; boxes and their contents were incriminating
that a nexus exists between a viewed and immediately apparent.
object and criminal activity.547
It must be stressed that only the NBI
Inadvertence Test agent/agents who enforced the warrant
had personal knowledge whether the
The requirement of inadvertence, on the sealed boxes and their contents thereof
other hand, means that the officer must not
546 Sec. 3 of Rule 126 of the Revised Rule on 548 Ibid.

Criminal Procedures 549 G.R. No. 163858, June 28, 2005
547 United Laboratories Inc. v. Isip, G.R. No.
163858, June 28, 2005

(Colossians 3:23)
were incriminating and that they were

immediately apparent. 5. When it involves prohibited articles
in plain view;555
There is even no showing that the NBI
agents knew the contents of the sealed 6. When it is made on automobiles for
boxes before they were opened. the purpose of preventing violations
of smuggling or immigration laws; 556
In sum then, the Court finds and so hold
that the petitioner and the NBI failed to 7. Searches made in checkpoints, as
prove the essential requirements for the long as the vehicle is neither
application of the plain view doctrine. searched nor its occupants
subjected to a body search, and the
Searches and seizures must be inspection of the vehicle is limited to
supported by a valid warrant is not an a visual search;557 and
absolute one
8. Inspection of buildings and other
In the case of Spouses Veroy v. Judge premises for the enforcement of
Layague,550 the Court held that searches fire, sanitary and building
and seizures must be supported by a valid regulations.558
warrant is not an absolute one. Among the
recognized exceptions thereto are: Waiver of the right to be secured from
unreasonable search
1. A search incidental to an arrest;
In the case of People v. Correa,559 the
2. A search of a moving vehicle; and Court held that the right to be secure from
unreasonable search may, like every right,
3. Seizure of evidence in plain view be waived and such waiver may be made
(People v. Lo Ho Wing, G.R. No. either expressly or impliedly.
88017, January 21, 1991 [193
SCRA 122]). Express Waiver:
Other Examples of Warrantless When one voluntarily submits to a search

Searches or consents to have it made on his person
or premises, he is precluded from later
1. Consented warrantless complaining thereof.
search/when the owner of the
premises waives his right against Implied Waiver:
such incursion;551
Voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of
2. When it is made on vessels and the trial court, when they entered a plea of
aircraft for violation of customs not guilty upon arraignment and by
laws;552 participating in the trial.
3. “Stop and frisk” doctrine;553 VALID WAIVER:
4. Exigent and emergency When the accused willingly gave prior

circumstances;554 consent to the search, he automatically
550 G.R. No. L-95630, June 18, 1992 555 Harris v. U.S., 390 U.S. 234 (1968)
551 Bagcal v. Villaraza, 120 SCRA 525 (1983); 556 Caroll v. U.S., 267 U.S. 132 (1925)
Callanta v. Villanueva, et al., 77 SCRA 377 557 Valmonte v. De Villa, 264 Phil. 265 (1990)
(1977) 558 Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523

552 Roldan v. Arca, 65 SCRA 336 (1975) (1967)
553 Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) 559 G.R. No. 119246, January 30, 1998
554 People v. Bolasa, 378 Phil. 1073 (1999)
(Colossians 3:23)
waived his right against unreasonable Again, the appellants did not raise any
searches and seizures protest when they, together with their cargo
of drugs and their vehicle, were brought to
In the case of People v. Omaweng,560 the the police station for investigation and
Court ruled that when the appellant willingly subsequent prosecution.
gave prior consent to the search and
voluntarily agreed to have it conducted on Hence, when one voluntarily submits to a
his vehicle and travelling bag. search or consents to have it made on his
person or premises, he is precluded from
Thus, the accused waived his right against later complaining thereof (Cooley,
unreasonable searches and seizures. Constitutional Limitations, 8th ed., vol. I,
When one voluntarily submits to a search page 631).
or consents to have it made of (sic) his
person or premises, he is precluded from There is an express waiver when
later complaining thereof, he right to be NARCOM agents who conducted the
secure from unreasonable search may, like search testified that they had to ask
every right, be waived and such waiver appellant to stand so that they could
may be made either expressly or impliedly. look inside the trash can under the
'papag' of the appellant and the latter,
Since in the course of the valid search forty- on the other hand, voluntarily stood up
one (41) packages of drugs were found, it
behooved the officers to seize the same; no In the case of People v. Rosalinda,562 the
warrant was necessary for such seizure. Court held that there is an express waiver
Besides, when said packages were when NARCOM agents who conducted the
identified by the prosecution witnesses and search testified that they had to ask
later on formally offered in evidence, the appellant to stand so that they could look
accused did not raise any objection inside the trash can under the 'papag' of the
whatsoever. appellant and the latter, on the other hand,
voluntarily stood up.
The appellants are precluded from
assailing the warrantless search and Hence, the 20 sticks of marijuana, found in
seizure when they voluntarily submitted the trash can, are admissible in evidence
to it as shown by their actuation during and the trial court's finding that the
the search and seizure appellant is guilty of possession is correct.
In the case of People v. Correa,561 the Note: As held in the case of Caballes v.
Court ruled that the appellants are now CA,563 the consent must be voluntary in
precluded from assailing the warrantless order to validate an otherwise illegal
search and seizure when they voluntarily detention and search, i.e., the consent is
submitted to it as shown by their actuation unequivocal, specific, and intelligently
during the search and seizure. given, uncontaminated by any duress or
coercion. Hence, consent to a search is not
The appellants never protested when to be lightly inferred, but must be shown by
SPO3 Jesus Faller, after identifying himself clear and convincing evidence.
as a police officer, opened the tin can
loaded in the appellants vehicle and found In the case at bar, it can be deduced that it
eight (8) bundles. And when Faller opened is unclear whether or not Mama Rose
one of the bundles, it smelled of marijuana. voluntarily consented to the search.
The NBI later confirmed the eight (8) Therefore, since consent to a search
bundles to be positive for marijuana. cannot be lightly inferred, the 20 sticks of
marijuana should be considered as
inadmissible as evidence.
560 G.R. No. 99050, September 2, 1992 562 G.R. No. 85401-02, June 4, 1990
561 G.R. No. 119246, January 30, 1998 563 424 Phil. 263 (2002)
(Colossians 3:23)
The accused is not to be presumed to

Probable cause to conduct without a have waived the unlawful search
judicial warrant an extensive search of conducted on the occasion of his
moving vehicles warrantless arrest "simply because he
failed to object
The Court held in the case of People v.
Barros,564 that there is probable cause to In the case of People v. Burgos,570 the
conduct without a judicial warrant an Court ruled that the accused is not to be
extensive search of moving vehicles in presumed to have waived the unlawful
situations where: search conducted on the occasion of his
warrantless arrest "simply because he
(1) There had emanated from a failed to object."
package the distinctive smell of
marijuana;565 To constitute a waiver, it must appear:
(2) Agents of the Narcotics Command 1. First that the right exists;
("Narcom") of the Philippine
National Police ("PNP") had 2. Secondly, that the person involved
received a confidential report from had knowledge, actual or
informers that a sizeable volume of constructive, of the existence of
marijuana would be transported such a right; and
along the route where the search
was conducted;566 3. Lastly, that said person had an
actual intention to relinquish the
(3) Narcom agents were informed or right (Pasion Vda. de Garcia vs.
"tipped off" by an undercover "deep Locsin, 65 Phil. 689).
penetration" agent that prohibited
drugs be brought into the country The accused's silence during the
on a particular airline flight on a warrantless search should not be lightly
given date;567 taken as consent to that search
(4) Narcom agents had received It was held in the case of People v.
information that a Caucasian Barros571 that the accused's silence during
coming from Sagada, Mountain the warrantless search should not be lightly
Province, had in his possession taken as consent to that search, but rather
prohibited drugs and when the construed as explained by the Court in
Narcom agents confronted the Burgos, and as pointed out by Mr. Justice
accused Caucasian, because of a Laurel, a "demonstration of regard for the
conspicuous bulge in his waistline, supremacy of the law."
he failed to present his passport
and other identification papers If the express permission did not
when requested to do so;568 and include any authority to conduct a room
to room search, items taken were,
(5) Narcom agents had received therefore, products of an illegal search
confidential information that a
woman having the same physical In the case of Spouses Veroy v. Judge
appearance as that of the accused Layague,572 the Court ruled that Capt.
would be transporting marijuana.569 Obrero had permission from Ma. Luisa
Veroy to break open the door of their
564 G.R. No. 90640, March 29, 1994 568 People v. Malmstedt, 198 SCRA 401 (1991)
565 People v. Claudio, 160 SCRA 646 (1988) 569 People v. Bagista, 214 SCRA 63 (1992)
566 People v. Maspil, 188 SCRA 751 (1990) 570 144 SCRA 1 (1986)
567 People v. Lo Ho Wing, 193 SCRA 122 571 G.R. No. 90640, March 29, 1994
(1991) 572 G.R. No. L-95630, June 18, 1992
(Colossians 3:23)
residence, it was merely for the purpose of the citizens, for the enforcement of no
ascertaining thereat the presence of the statute is of sufficient importance to justify
alleged "rebel" soldiers. indifference to the basic principles of
government (Rodriguez v. Evangelista, 65
The permission did not include any Phil. 230, 235).
authority to conduct a room to room search
once inside the house. As a consequence, the search conducted
by the authorities was illegal.
The items taken were, therefore, products
of an illegal search, violative of their Note: It would have been different if the
constitutional rights. As such, they are situation here demanded urgency which
inadmissible in evidence against them. could have prompted the authorities to
dispense with a search warrant. But the
The constitutional immunity from record is silent on this point.
unreasonable searches and seizures,
being personal one, cannot be waived Immunity from unwarranted intrusion is
by anyone except the person whose a personal right which may be waived
rights are invaded or one who is either expressly or impliedly
expressly authorized to do so in his or
her behalf In the case of Lopez v. Commissioner of
Customs,574 the Court ruled that when the
In the case of People v. Damaso,573 the wife, Teofila Ibañez (was later on turned
Court held that the constitutional immunity out to be a manicurist), of petitioner Tomas
from unreasonable searches and seizures, Velasco, upon being informed of the
being personal one, cannot be waived by purpose of the search by the officers,
anyone except the person whose rights are invited them to enter and search the hotel
invaded or one who is expressly authorized room and even voluntarily gave the
to do so in his or her behalf (De Garcia v. documents and things requested by said
Locsin, 65 Phil. 689, 695). officers, there is an express waiver of the
constitutional right.
In the case at bar, the records show that
appellant was not in his house at that time That during said search, upon the request
Luz Tanciangco and Luz Morados, his of Atty. [Reynolds] and Lt.[Arceño], [Teofila
alleged helper, allowed the authorities to Ibañez] voluntarily opened her handbag
enter it. which was found to contain a .45 caliber
pistol and likewise voluntarily opened the
Furthermore, the Court found no evidence maletas which were found to contain
that would establish the fact that Luz several papers and documents; That
Morados was indeed the appellant's helper receipts were duly issued to [Teofila
or if it was true that she was his helper, that Ibañez] which accounted for everything
the appellant had given her authority to taken from their room (Rm. No. 220) during
open his house in his absence. the search, including said .45 caliber pistol,
papers and documents and that nothing
The prosecution likewise failed to show if was lost; That [Teofila Ibañez] signed the
Luz Tanciangco has such an authority. receipts and received copies thereof; That
Without this evidence, the authorities' [Teofila Ibañez] and I were present when
intrusion into the appellant's dwelling the said search was being conducted; That
cannot be given any color of legality. said search was conducted in a peaceful
and orderly manner ...."
While the power to search and seize is
necessary to the public welfare, still it must Note: The outcome of the case would be
be exercised and the law enforced without different if the hotel room is named after
transgressing the constitutional rights of “Tomas Velasco” only.
573 G.R. No. 93516, August 12, 1992 574 G.R. No. L-27968, December 3, 1975
(Colossians 3:23)
In the case of Caballes v. CA,575 the Court

It should be noted that in this case, the held that one such form of search of moving
room is named after “Mr. and Mrs. Tomas vehicles is the "stop-and-search" without
Velasco,” hence, any of the two can give warrant at military or police checkpoints
their express or implied consent to the which has been declared to be not illegal
search. per se, for as long as it is warranted by the
exigencies of public order and conducted in
There was an attempt on the part of a way least intrusive to motorists.
petitioners to counteract the force of the
above recital by an affidavit of one Corazon A checkpoint may either be a mere routine
Y. Velasco, who stated that she is the legal inspection or it may involve an extensive
wife of petitioner Tomas Velasco, and search.
another by such petitioner himself
reiterating such a fact and that the person Routine inspections are not regarded as
who was present at his hotel room was one violative of an individual's right against
Teofila Ibañez, "a manicurist by unreasonable search. The search which is
occupation." normally permissible in this instance is
limited to the following instances:
Their effort appurtenant thereto is doomed
to failure. If such indeed were the case, (1) Where the officer merely draws
then it is much more easily understandable aside the curtain of a vacant vehicle
why that person, Teofila Ibañez, who could which is parked on the public fair
be aptly described as the wrong person at grounds;576
the wrong place and at the wrong time,
would have signified her consent readily (2) Simply looks into a vehicle;577
and immediately. Under the circumstances,
that was the most prudent course of action. (3) Flashes a light therein without
It would save her and even petitioner opening the car's doors;578
Velasco himself from any gossip or
innuendo. Nor could the officers of the law (4) Where the occupants are not
be blamed if they would act on the subjected to a physical or body
appearances. search;579
There was a person inside who from all (5) Where the inspection of the
indications was ready to accede to their vehicles is limited to a visual search
request. Even common courtesy alone or visual inspection;580 and
would have precluded them from inquiring
too closely as to why she was there. Under (6) Where the routine check is
all the circumstances, therefore, it can conducted in a fixed area.581
readily be concluded that there was
consent sufficient in law to dispense with On the other hand, when a vehicle is
the need for a search warrant. The petition stopped and subjected to an extensive
cannot, therefore, prevail. search, such a warrantless search would
be constitutionally permissible only if the
Routine inspection vis-à-vis extensive officers conducting the search have
search (Checkpoint) reasonable or probable cause to believe,
before the search, that either the motorist
575 G.R. No. 136292, January 15, 2002 578 Valmonte v. de Villa, 178 SCRA 211 (1989),
576 Valmonte v. de Villa, 178 SCRA 211 (1989), citing Rowland vs. Commonwealth, 259 S.W.
citing People vs. Case, 27 A.L.R. 686. 33
577 Valmonte v. de Villa, 178 SCRA 211 (1989), 579 People v. Barros, 231 SCRA 557 (1994)
citing State v. Gaina, 3 A.L.R. 1500 580 People v. Lacerna, 278 SCRA 561 (1997)
581 People v. Escao, et al., 323 SCRA 754
(2000)
(Colossians 3:23)
is a law-offender or they will find the question of fact to be determined from

instrumentality or evidence pertaining to a the totality of all the circumstances
crime in the vehicle to be searched.
In the case of Caballes v. CA,584 the Court
The constitutional right against held that the question whether a consent to
unreasonable search and seizure is a search was in fact voluntary is a question
violated when the police officers did not of fact to be determined from the totality of
merely conduct a visual search or visual all the circumstances.
inspection of the petitioner's vehicle
Relevant to this determination are the
In the case of Caballes v. CA,582 the Court following characteristics of the person
held that in the case at bar, the police giving consent and the environment in
officers did not merely conduct a visual which consent is given:
search or visual inspection of herein
petitioner's vehicle. They had to reach (1) The age of the defendant;
inside the vehicle, lift the kakawati leaves
and look inside the sacks before they were (2) Whether he was in a public or
able to see the cable wires. It cannot be secluded location;
considered a simple routine check.
(3) Whether he objected to the search
In fact, the Court cited the case of United or passively looked on;585
States v. Pierre,583 wherein the US
Supreme Court held that the physical (4) The education and intelligence of
intrusion of a part of the body of an agent the defendant;
into the vehicle goes beyond the area
protected by the Fourth Amendment, to wit: (5) The presence of coercive police
procedures;
"The Agent . . . stuck his head through the
driver's side window. The agent thus (6) The defendant's belief that no
effected a physical intrusion into the incriminating evidence will be
vehicle. . . [W]e are aware of no case found;586
holding that an officer did not conduct a
search when he physically intruded part of (7) The nature of the police
his body into a space in which the suspect questioning;
had a reasonable expectation of privacy.
[The] Agent['s] . . . physical intrusion (8) The environment in which the
allowed him to see and to smell things he questioning took place; and
could not see or smell from outside the
vehicle. . . In doing so, his inspection went (9) The possibly vulnerable subjective
beyond that portion of the vehicle which state of the person consenting.587
may be viewed from outside the vehicle by
either inquisitive passersby or diligent It is the State which has the burden of
police officers, and into the area protected proving, by clear and positive testimony,
by the Fourth amendment, just as much as that the necessary consent was obtained
if he had stuck his head inside the open and that it was freely and voluntarily given.
window of a home."
Requisites of consented searches
The question whether a consent to a
search was in fact voluntary is a In the case of Caballes v. CA,588 the Court
held that in case of consented searches or
582 G.R. No. 136292, January 15, 2002 585 United States v. Barahona, 990 F. 2d 412
583 932 F. 2d 377 cited in Hermann, Search and 586 United States vs. Lopez, 911 F. 2d 1006
Seizure Checklists, 1994 ed., p. 246 587 United States vs. Nafzger, 965 F. 2d 213
584 G.R. No. 136292, January 15, 2002 588 G.R. No. 136292, January 15, 2002
(Colossians 3:23)
waiver of the constitutional guarantee the vehicle. He never testified that he

against obtrusive searches, it is asked petitioner for permission to conduct
fundamental that to constitute a waiver, it the search.
must first appear that
In the case of People v. Tudtud,590 the
(1) The right exists; Court ruled that the appellants implied
acquiescence, if at all, could not have been
(2) That the person involved had more than mere passive conformity given
knowledge, either actual or under coercive or intimidating
constructive, of the existence of circumstances and is, thus, considered no
such right; and consent at all within the purview of the
constitutional guarantee. Consequently,
(3) The said person had an actual appellants lack of objection to the search
intention to relinquish the right. and seizure is not tantamount to a waiver
of his constitutional right or a voluntary
The "consent" given under intimidating submission to the warrantless search and
or coercive circumstances is no seizure.
consent within the purview of the
constitutional guaranty As the search of appellant’s box does not
come under the recognized exceptions to a
In the case of Caballes v. CA,589 the Court valid warrantless search, the marijuana
held that the "consent" given under leaves obtained thereby are inadmissible in
intimidating or coercive circumstances is evidence. And as there is no evidence
no consent within the purview of the other than the hearsay testimony of the
constitutional guaranty. In addition, in arresting officers and their informant, the
cases where this Court upheld the validity conviction of appellants cannot be
of consented search, it will be noted that sustained.
the police authorities expressly asked, in
no uncertain terms, for the consent of the It should be noted that in the case at bar, a
accused to be searched. And the consent man who identified himself as a police
of the accused was established by clear officer approached him, pointing a .38
and positive proof. caliber revolver. The man told him not to
run. Tudtud raised his arms and asked, Sir,
In the case of herein petitioner, the what is this about? The man answered that
statements of the police officers were not he would like to inspect the plastic bag
asking for his consent; they were declaring Tudtud was carrying, and instructed Tudtud
to him that they will look inside his vehicle. to open the bag, which revealed several
Besides, it is doubtful whether permission pairs of Levis pants.
was actually requested and granted
because when Sgt. Noceja was asked The man then directed Tudtud to open a
during his direct examination what he did carton box some two meters away.
when the vehicle of petitioner stopped, he According to Tudtud, the box was already
answered that he removed the cover of the there when he disembarked the bus.
vehicle and saw the aluminum wires. It was Tudtud told the man the box was not his,
only after he was asked a clarificatory but proceeded to open it out of fear after
question that he added that he told the man again pointed his revolver at him.
petitioner he will inspect the vehicle. To our Tudtud discovered pieces of dried fish,
mind, this was more of an afterthought. underneath which was something wrapped
in cellophane which was found to be
Likewise, when Pat. de Castro was asked marijuana.
twice in his direct examination what they
did when they stopped the jeepney, his Cases wherein there is express consent
consistent answer was that they searched to the search
589 Ibid. 590 G.R. No. 144037, September 26, 2003

(Colossians 3:23)
see it." The Court said there was a

1. In Asuncion v. Court of Appeals,591 valid consented search.
the apprehending officers sought
the permission of petitioner to Neither can petitioner's passive
search the car, to which the latter submission be construed as an implied
agreed. Petitioner therein himself acquiescence to the warrantless search
freely gave his consent to said
search. Neither can petitioner's passive submission
be construed as an implied acquiescence
2. In People v. Lacerna,592 the to the warrantless search (Caballes v.
appellants who were riding in a taxi CA596).
were stopped by two policemen
who asked permission to search the In People v. Barros,597 appellant Barros,
vehicle and the appellants readily who was carrying a carton box, boarded a
agreed. In upholding the validity of bus where two policemen were riding. The
the consented search, the Court policemen inspected the carton and found
held that appellant himself who was marijuana inside. When asked who owned
"urbanized in mannerism and the box, appellant denied ownership of the
speech" expressly said that he was box and failed to object to the search. The
consenting to the search as he Court there struck down the warrantless
allegedly had nothing to hide and search as illegal and held that the accused
had done nothing wrong. is not to be presumed to have waived the
unlawful search conducted simply because
3. In People v. Cuizon,593 the accused he failed to object, citing the ruling in the
admitted that they signed a written case of People v. Burgos,598 to wit:
permission stating that they freely
consented to the search of their "As the constitutional guaranty is not
luggage by the NBI agents to dependent upon any affirmative act of the
determine if they were carrying citizen, the courts do not place the citizens
shabu. in the position of either contesting an
officer's authority by force, or waiving his
4. In People v. Montilla,594 it was held constitutional rights; but instead they hold
that the accused spontaneously that a peaceful submission to a search or
performed affirmative acts of seizure is not a consent or an invitation
volition by himself opening the bag thereto, but is merely a demonstration of
without being forced or intimidated regard for the supremacy of the law."
to do so, which acts should properly
be construed as a clear waiver of When the appellant is a deaf-mute, and
his right. there was no interpreter to explain to
him what was happening, his seeming
5. In People v. Omaweng,595 the acquiescence to the search without a
police officers asked the accused if warrant may be attributed to plain and
they could see the contents of his simple confusion and ignorance
bag to which the accused said "you
can see the contents but those are In the case of People v. Asis,599 the Court
only clothings." Then the policemen held that in the present case, in which
asked if they could open and see it, appellant is a deaf-mute, and there was no
and accused answered "you can interpreter to explain to him what was
happening.
591 302 SCRA 490 (1999) 596 G.R. No. 136292, January 15, 2002
592 278 SCRA 561 (1997) 597 231 SCRA 557 (1994)
593 256 SCRA 325 (1996) 598 144 SCRA 1 (1986)
594 285 SCRA 703 (1998) 599 G.R. No. 142531, October 15, 2002
595 213 SCRA 462 (1992)
(Colossians 3:23)
and the area from within which he might

His seeming acquiescence to the search have obtained either a weapon or
without a warrant may be attributed to plain something that could have been used as
and simple confusion and ignorance. evidence against him.
Verily, courts indulge every reasonable There was no constitutional justification, in

presumption against waiver of fundamental the absence of a search warrant, for
constitutional rights and x x x The Court extending the search beyond that area.
does not presume acquiescence [to] the The scope of the search was, therefore,
loss of fundamental rights. "unreasonable" under the Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendments, and the
INCIDENT TO A LAWFUL ARREST petitioner's conviction cannot stand.
Basis (Sec. 13 of Rule 126 of the Revised Note: It is important to note that after
Rules of Criminal Procedure) Chimel’s arrest, the officers looked through
the entire three-bedroom house, including
Search incident to lawful arrest. – A person the attic, the garage, and a small workshop
lawfully arrested may be searched for without obtaining first a search warrant.
dangerous weapons or anything which may
have been used or constitute proof in the Nature of Entrapment
commission of an offense without a search
warrant.600 Entrapment is the employment of such
ways and means for the purpose of
Ratio: To find and seize things connected trapping or capturing a lawbreaker from
with the crime as its fruits or as the means whose mind the criminal intent originated.
by which it was committed, as well as Oftentimes, it is the only effective way of
weapons and other things to effect an apprehending a criminal in the act of the
escape from custody.601 commission of the offense.603
Searches, in the absence of well What is a “Buy-bust Operation”?

recognized exceptions, may be made
only under the authority of a search Buy-bust operation is the method
warrant employed by peace officers to trap and
catch a malefactor in flagrante delicto.
In the case of Chimel v. California,602 the
U.S. Supreme Court ruled that there is no It is essentially a form of entrapment since
comparable justification, however, for the peace officer neither instigates nor
routinely searching any room other than induces the accused to commit a crime.604
that in which an arrest occurs -- or, for that
matter, for searching through all the desk Buy-bust operation, there is seizure of
drawers or other closed or concealed areas evidence from one's person without a
in that room itself. search warrant, needless to state a
search warrant is not necessary, the
Such searches, in the absence of well search being incident to a lawful arrest
recognized exceptions, may be made only
under the authority of a search warrant. In the case of People v. De La Cruz,605 the
Court held that a buy-bust operation, there
In the case at bar, the search went far is seizure of evidence from one's person
beyond the petitioner's (Chimel’s) person without a search warrant, needless to state
600 Sec. 13 of Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of 602 395 U.S. 752 (1969)
Criminal Procedure 603 People v. De La Cruz, G.R. No. 83260, April
601 Carroll v. United States, 267 U. S. 132, 267 18, 1990
U. S. 158 & Weeks v. United States, 232 U. S. 604 Ibid.
383, 232 U. S. 392 605 G.R. No. 83260, April 18, 1990
(Colossians 3:23)
a search warrant is not necessary, the

search being incident to a lawful arrest. In the case of People v. Malmstedt,607 the
accused was searched and arrested while
A peace officer may, without a warrant, transporting prohibited drugs (hashish).
arrest a person when, in his presence, the
person to be arrested has committed, is Hence, the Court held that a crime was
actually committing or is attempting to actually being committed by the accused
commit an offense. and he was caught in flagrante delicto.
Thus, the search made upon his personal
It is a matter of judicial experience that in effects falls squarely under paragraph (1)
the arrest of violators of the Dangerous of the foregoing provisions of law, which
Drugs Act in a buy-bust operation, the allow a warrantless search incident to a
malefactors were invariably caught red- lawful arrest.
handed.
Note: It should be noted that in a search
There being no violation of the incident to a lawful arrest, an arrest should
constitutional right against unreasonable first be made before the search.
search and seizure, the confiscated articles
are admissible in evidence. In the case at bar, Malmstedt was not
arrested before he was searched.
The search was made as an incident of
a lawful arrest and so was also lawful It should be noted that CIC Galutan noticed
under Section 12 of Rule 116 a bulge on accused's waist. Suspecting the
bulge on accused's waist to be a gun, the
In the case of People v. Kalubiran,606 the officer asked for accused's passport and
Court held that the defense posture that other identification papers. When accused
Kalubiran's arrest and search violated the failed to comply, the officer required him to
Bill of Rights demonstrates an unfamiliarity bring out whatever it was that was bulging
with the applicable rules and jurisprudence. on his waist. The bulging object turned out
to be a pouch bag and when accused
The accused-appellant was arrested in opened the same bag, as ordered, the
flagrante delicto as a result of the officer noticed four (4) suspicious-looking
entrapment and so came under Section 5, objects wrapped in brown packing tape,
Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, authorizing prompting the officer to open one of the
a warrantless arrest of any person actually wrapped objects. The wrapped objects
committing a crime. turned out to contain hashish, a derivative
of marijuana.
The search was made as an incident of a
lawful arrest and so was also lawful under In fact, Justice Narvasa’s separate
Section 12 of Rule 116. In addition to the concurring and dissenting opinion, he said
aforecited Rules, there is abundant that if a person is searched without a
jurisprudence justifying warrantless warrant, or under circumstances other than
searches and seizures under the those justifying an arrest without warrant in
conditions established in this case. accordance with law, supra, merely on
suspicion that he is engaged in some
A crime was actually being committed felonious enterprise, and in order to
by the accused and he was caught in discover if he has indeed committed a
flagrante delicto. Thus, the search made crime, it is not only the arrest which is illegal
upon his personal effects falls squarely but also, the search on the occasion
under paragraph (1) of the foregoing thereof, as being "the fruit of the poisonous
provisions of law, which allow a tree. In that event, any evidence taken,
warrantless search incident to a lawful even if confirmatory of the initial suspicion,
arrest
606 G.R. No. 84079, May 6, 1991 607 G.R. No. 91107, June 19, 1991
(Colossians 3:23)
is inadmissible "for any purpose in any accused were bringing prohibited

proceeding." drugs into the country;612
Warrantless search of the personal (f) Where the arresting officers had
effects of an accused that has been received a confidential information
declared by the Court as valid that the accused, whose identity as
a drug distributor was established in
In earlier decisions, we held that there was a previous test-buy operation,
probable cause in the following instances: would be boarding MV Dona
Virginia and probably carrying
(a) Where the distinctive odor of shabu with him;613
marijuana emanated from the
plastic bag carried by the (g) Where police officers received an
accused;608 information that the accused, who
was carrying a suspicious-looking
(b) Where an informer positively gray luggage bag, would transport
identified the accused who was marijuana in a bag to Manila;614 and
observed to be acting
suspiciously;609 (h) Where the appearance of the
accused and the color of the bag he
(c) Where the accused who were riding was carrying fitted the description
a jeepney were stopped and given by a civilian asset.615
searched by policemen who had
earlier received confidential reports Search incidental to a lawful arrest may
that said accused would transport a extend beyond the person of the one
quantity of marijuana;610 arrested to include the premises or
surroundings under his immediate
(d) Where Narcom agents had control
received information that a
Caucasian coming from Sagada, In the case of Espano v. CA,616 the Court
Mountain Province had in his held that an exception to the said rule is a
possession prohibited drugs and warrantless search incidental to a lawful
when the Narcom agents arrest for dangerous weapons or anything
confronted the accused Caucasian which may be used as proof of the
because of a conspicuous bulge in commission of an offense.
his waistline, he failed to present his
passport and other identification It may extend beyond the person of the one
papers when requested to do so;611 arrested to include the premises or
surroundings under his immediate control.
(e) Where the moving vehicle was
stopped and searched on the basis In the present case, articles seized from
of intelligence information and petitioner during his arrest were valid under
clandestine reports by a deep the doctrine of search made incidental to a
penetration agent or spy -- one who lawful arrest. The warrantless search made
participated in the drug smuggling in his house, however, which yielded ten
activities of the syndicate to which cellophane bags of marijuana became
the accused belong -- that said unlawful since the police officers were not
armed with a search warrant at the time.
608 People v. Claudio, 160 SCRA 646 (1988) 612 People v. Lo Ho Wing, 193 SCRA 122
609 People v. Tangliben, 184 SCRA 220 (1990) (1991)
610 People v. Maspil, Jr., 188 SCRA 751 (1990) 613 People v. Saycon, 236 SCRA 325 (1994)
611 People v. Malmsteadt, 198 SCRA 401 614 People v. Balingan, 241 SCRA 277 (1995)
(1991) 615 People v. Valdez, 304 SCRA 140 (1999)

616 G.R. No. 120431, April 1, 1998
(Colossians 3:23)
Moreover, it was beyond the reach and

control of petitioner. Note: Prevailing jurisprudence
acknowledges the existence of probable
When the accused was caught in cause based on informer’s tip.
flagrante, since he was carrying
marijuana at the time of his arrest, The rationale of which can be gleaned in
warrantless search incident to the the case of Florida v. J.L.619 wherein the US
lawful arrest is considered valid Supreme Court held that tip from a known
informant, whose reputation can be
In the case of People v. Tangliben,617 the assessed, can be held responsible if her
Court held that the accused was caught in allegations turn out to be fabricated.
flagrante, since he was carrying marijuana
at the time of his arrest. This case therefore Therefore, it can be deduced that it is
falls squarely within the exception. The important to note and distinguish a tip from
warrantless search was incident to a lawful a known informant versus a tip coming from
arrest and is consequently valid. an unknown informant.
The present case should be distinguished Unlike a tip from a known informant, "an
from the case of People v. Amudin,618 anonymous tip alone seldom demonstrates
wherein the vehicle was identified. The the informant's basis of knowledge or
date of its arrival was certain. And from the veracity.”
information they had received, they could
have persuaded a judge that there was To be valid, the search must have been
probable cause, indeed, to justify the conducted at about the time of the
issuance of a warrant. Yet they did nothing. arrest or immediately thereafter and
No effort was made to comply with the law. only at the place where the suspect was
The Bill of Rights was ignored altogether arrested, or the premises or
because the PC lieutenant who was the surroundings under his immediate
head of the arresting team, had determined control
on his own authority that a "search warrant
was not necessary." In the case of People v. Che Chun Ting,620
the Court ruled that the lawful arrest being
In contrast, the case before us presented the sole justification for the validity of the
urgency. Although the trial court's decision warrantless search under the exception,
did not mention it, the transcript of the same must be limited to and
stenographic notes reveals that there was circumscribed by the subject, time and
an informer who pointed to the accused- place of the arrest.
appellant as carrying marijuana. (TSN, pp.
52-53) Faced with such on-the-spot As to subject, the warrantless search is
information, the police officers had to act sanctioned only with respect to the person
quickly. of the suspect, and things that may be
seized from him are limited to "dangerous
There was not enough time to secure a weapons" or ''anything which may be used
search warrant. We cannot therefore apply as proof of the commission of the offense."
the ruling in Aminnudin to the case at bar.
To require search warrants during on-the- With respect to the time and place of the
spot apprehensions of drug pushers, illegal warrantless search, it must be
possessors of firearms, jueteng collectors, contemporaneous with the lawful arrest.
smugglers of contraband goods, robbers,
etc. would make it extremely difficult, if not Stated otherwise, to be valid, the search
impossible to contain the crimes with which must have been conducted at about the
these persons are associated. time of the arrest or immediately thereafter
617 G.R. No. L-63630, April 6, 1990 619 529 U.S. 266 (2000)
618 163 SCRA 402 (1988) 620 G.R. Nos. 130568-69, March 21, 2000
(Colossians 3:23)
and only at the place where the suspect the fruit of the crime, or which may provide
was arrested, or the premises or the prisoner with the means of committing
surroundings under his immediate control. violence or escaping, or which may be
used in evidence in the trial of the case.
The accused was admittedly outside unit
122 and in the act of delivering to Mabel When a vehicle is stopped and
Cheung Mei Po a bag of shabu when he subjected to an extensive search, such
was arrested by the NARCOM operatives. would be constitutionally permissible
Moreover, it is borne by the records that only if the officers made it upon
Unit 122 was not even his residence but probable cause, i.e., upon a belief,
that of his girlfriend Nimfa Ortiz, and that he reasonably arising out of circumstances
was merely a sojourner therein. known to the seizing officer, that an
automobile or other vehicle contains as
Hence, it can hardly be said that the inner item, article or object which by law is
portion of the house constituted a subject to seizure and destruction
permissible area within his reach or
immediate control, to justify a warrantless In the case of People v. Libnao,622 the
search therein. Court ruled that when a vehicle is stopped
and subjected to an extensive search, such
Search as an incident to a lawful arrest would be constitutionally permissible only if
should not be strained beyond what is the officers made it upon probable cause,
needed to serve its purpose i.e., upon a belief, reasonably arising out of
circumstances known to the seizing officer,
In the case of People v. Estella,621 the that an automobile or other vehicle
Court ruled that the purpose of the contains as item, article or object which by
exception is to protect the arresting officer law is subject to seizure and destruction.
from being harmed by the person being
arrested, who might be armed with a The warrantless search in the case at
concealed weapon, and to prevent the bench is not bereft of a probable cause.
latter from destroying evidence within The Tarlac Police Intelligence Division had
reach. been conducting surveillance operation for
three months in the area. The surveillance
The exception, therefore, should not be yielded the information that once a month,
strained beyond what is needed to serve its appellant and her co-accused Rosita
purpose. Nunga transport drugs in big bulks.
In the case at bar, the search involves the At 10:00 pm of October 19, 1996, the police
entire hut, which cannot be said to have received a tip that the two will be
been within appellants immediate control. transporting drugs that night riding a
Thus, the search exceeded the bounds of tricycle. Surely, the two were intercepted
that which may be considered to be three hours later, riding a tricycle and
incident to a lawful arrest. carrying a suspicious-looking black bag,
which possibly contained the drugs in bulk.
The scope of the search should be limited When they were asked who owned it and
to the area within which the person to be what its content was, both became uneasy.
arrested can reach for a weapon or for Under these circumstances, the
evidence that he or she can destroy. warrantless search and seizure of
appellant’s bag was not illegal.
The prevailing rule is that the arresting
officer may take from the arrested It is also clear that at the time she was
individual any money or property found apprehended, she was committing a
upon the latter’s person -- that which was criminal offense. She was making a
used in the commission of the crime or was delivery or transporting prohibited drugs in
621 G.R. Nos. 138539-40, January 21, 2003 622 G.R. No. 136860, January 20, 2003
(Colossians 3:23)
violation of Article II, Section 4 of R.A. No.

6425. Under the Rules of Court, one of the Not applicable when:
instances a police officer is permitted to
carry out a warrantless arrest is when the 1. The seizure of the object where the
person to be arrested is caught committing incriminating nature of the object is
a crime in flagrante delicto. not apparent from the "plain view"
of the object.
Once the lawful arrest was effected, the
police may undertake a protective 2. Used to launch unbridled searches
search of the passenger compartment and indiscriminate seizures nor to
and containers in the vehicle which are extend a general exploratory
within petitioner's grabbing distance search made solely to find evidence
regardless of the nature of the offense of defendant's guilt.625
In the case of Padilla v. CA,623 the Court It must be immediately apparent to the
ruled that once the lawful arrest was police that the items that they observe
effected, the police may undertake a may be evidence of a crime, contraband,
protective search of the passenger or otherwise subject to seizure
compartment and containers in the vehicle
which are within petitioner's grabbing In the case of People v. Musa,626 the Court
distance regardless of the nature of the held that it must be immediately apparent
offense. to the police that the items that they
observe may be evidence of a crime,
This satisfied the two-tiered test of an contraband, or otherwise subject to
incidental search: seizure.
a. The item to be searched (vehicle) In the instant case, the appellant was
was within the arrestee's custody or arrested and his person searched in the
area of immediate control; and living room. Failing to retrieve the marked
money which they hoped to find, the
b. The search was contemporaneous NARCOM agents searched the whole
with the arrest. house and found the plastic bag in the
kitchen. The plastic bag was, therefore, not
PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE within their "plain view" when they arrested
the appellant as to justify its seizure.
Plain view doctrine
The NARCOM agents had to move from
Objects in the "plain view" of an officer who one portion of the house to another before
has the right to be in the position to have they sighted the plastic bag.
that view are subject to seizure and may be
presented as evidence.624 Unlike Ker vs. California,627 where the
police officer had reason to walk to the
Applicability doorway of the adjacent kitchen and from
which position he saw the marijuana, the
Applicable when: NARCOM agents in this case went from
room to room with the obvious intention of
1. The police officer is not searching fishing for more evidence.
for evidence against the accused,
but nonetheless inadvertently Requisites of the “Plain View” doctrine
comes across an incriminating
object.
623G.R. No. 121917, March 12, 1997 625 Ibid.

624People v. Musa, G.R. No. 96177, January 626 G.R. No. 96177, January 27, 1993
27, 1993 627 374 U.S. 23 (1963)
(Colossians 3:23)
Seizure of evidence in "plain view", the In the case of People v. Valdez,629 the
elements of which are: Court ruled that the seizure of evidence in
"plain view" applies only where the police
(a) A prior valid intrusion based on the officer is not searching for evidence against
valid warrantless arrest in which the the accused, but inadvertently comes
police are legally present in the across an incriminating object.
pursuit of their official duties;
Clearly, in the present case, their discovery
(b) The evidence was inadvertently of the cannabis plants was not inadvertent.
discovered by the police who had The Court also note the testimony of SPO2
the right to be where they are; Tipay that upon arriving at the area, they
first had to "look around the area" before
(c) The evidence must be immediately they could spot the illegal plants.
apparent, and
Patently, the seized marijuana plants were
(d) "Plain view" justified mere seizure not "immediately apparent" and a "further
of evidence without further search. search" was needed. In sum, the marijuana
plants in question were not in "plain view"
The evidence seized pursuant to the or "open to eye and hand." The "plain view"
“Plain View” doctrine must be doctrine, thus, cannot be made to apply.
immediately apparent
However, in the case of People v. Huang
628
In the case of Padilla v. CA, the Court Zhen Hua,630 the Court ruled that it cannot
ruled that in the case at bar, it indeed be denied that the cards, passbook,
appears that the authorities stumbled upon passport and other documents and papers
petitioner's firearms and ammunitions seen by the policemen have an intimate
without even undertaking any active search nexus with the crime charged or, at the very
which, as it is commonly understood, is a least, incriminating.
prying into hidden places for that which is
concealed. The passport of the appellant would show
when and how often she had been in and
The seizure of the Smith & Wesson out of the country. Her credit cards and
revolver and an M-16 rifle magazine was bank book would indicate how much
justified for they came within "plain view" of money she had amassed while in the
the policemen who inadvertently country and how she acquired or earned
discovered the revolver and magazine the same. The pictures and those of the
tucked in petitioner's waist and back pocket other persons shown therein are relevant to
respectively, when he raised his hands show her relationship to Lao and Chan.
after alighting from his Pajero. The same
justification applies to the confiscation of Furthermore, since the said items was in
the M-16 armalite rifle which was “plain view” of the police officers, the same
immediately apparent to the policemen as can be seized without the necessity of a
they took a casual glance at the Pajero and warrant.
saw said rifle lying horizontally near the
driver's seat. For the legal authority to move the
equipment, probable cause, to believe
The seizure of evidence in "plain view" that the equipment was stolen, is
applies only where the police officer is required
not searching for evidence against the
accused, but inadvertently comes In the case of Arizona v. Hicks,631 the US
across an incriminating object Supreme Court held that whether legal
authority to move the equipment could be
628 G.R. No. 121917, March 12, 1997 630

629 G.R. No. 129296, September 25, 2000 631 480 U.S. 321 (1987)
(Colossians 3:23)
found only as an inevitable concomitant of came in plain view of the marijuana plants.
the authority to seize it, or also as a When the agents entered his premises on
consequence of some independent power July 13, 1995, their intention was to seize
to search certain objects in plain view, the evidence against him. In fact, they
probable cause to believe the equipment initially wanted to secure a search warrant
was stolen was required. but could not simply wait for one to be
issued. The NARCOM agents, therefore,
A dwellingplace search, no less than a did not come across the marijuana plants
dwellingplace seizure, requires probable inadvertently when they conducted a
cause, and there is no reason in theory or surveillance and barged into accused-
practicality why application of the "plain appellant’s residence.
view" doctrine would supplant that
requirement. ENFORCEMENT OF FISHING,
CUSTOMS, AND IMMIGRATION LAWS
Note: In the case at bar, one of the
policemen, Officer Nelson, noticed two sets Accused which was caught in flagrante
of expensive stereo components, which illegally fishing with dynamite and
seemed out of place in the squalid and without the requisite license can be
otherwise ill-appointed four-room apprehended without a warrant of arrest
apartment. Suspecting that they were
stolen, he read and recorded their serial In the case of Hon. Roldan v. Judge
numbers -- moving some of the Arca,633 the Court ruled that in the case at
components, including a Bang and Olufsen bar, the members of the crew of the two
turntable, in order to do so -- which he then vessels were caught in flagrante illegally
reported by phone to his headquarters. fishing with dynamite and without the
requisite license.
Hence, it can be deduced that the seizure
of the stereo is illegal since the serial Thus, their apprehension without a warrant
numbers of the same are not in “plain view” of arrest while committing a crime is lawful.
of the arresting officers. Consequently, the seizure of the vessel, its
equipment and dynamites therein was
When the agents entered the premises equally valid as an incident to a lawful
of the accused and their intention was arrest.
to seize evidence against him, plain
view doctrine cannot apply When appellant checked in his bag as
his personal luggage as a passenger of
In the case of People v. Compacion,632 the the aircraft, he thereby agreed to the
Court held that when the agents entered inspection thereof in accordance with
the premises of the accused and their customs rules and regulations, an
intention was to seize evidence against international practice of strict
him, plain view doctrine cannot apply. observance, and waived any objection
to a warrantless search
Here, there was no valid warrantless arrest.
NARCOM agents forced their way into In the case of People v. Gatward,634 the
accused-appellant’s premises without the Court held that the trial court was correct in
latter’s consent. rejecting the challenge to the admissibility
in evidence of the heroin retrieved from the
It is undisputed that the NARCOM agents bag of appellant.
conducted a surveillance of the residence
of accused-appellant on July 9, 1995 on the While no search warrant had been
suspicion that he was growing and obtained for that purpose, when appellant
cultivating marijuana when they allegedly checked in his bag as his personal luggage
632 G.R. No. 124442, July 20, 2001 634 G.R. Nos. 119772-73, February 7, 1997
633 G.R. No. L-25434, July 25, 1975
(Colossians 3:23)
as a passenger of KLM Flight No. 806 he would be subject to seizure. These

thereby agreed to the inspection thereof in announcements place passengers on
accordance with customs rules and notice that ordinary constitutional
regulations, an international practice of protections against warrantless searches
strict observance, and waived any and seizures do not apply to routine airport
objection to a warrantless search. procedures.
His subsequent arrest, although likewise In the case at bar, it can be deduced that
without a warrant, was justified since it was the packs of methamphetamine
effected upon the discovery and recovery hydrochloride having thus been obtained
of the heroin in his bag, or in flagrante through a valid warrantless search, they
delicto. are admissible in evidence against the
accused-appellant herein.
Persons may lose the protection of the
search and seizure clause by exposure Corollarily, her subsequent arrest, although
of their persons or property to the public likewise without warrant, was justified since
in a manner reflecting a lack of it was effected upon the discovery and
subjective expectation of privacy, which recovery of shabu in her person in flagrante
expectation society is prepared to delicto.
recognize as reasonable
To simply refuse passengers carrying
In the case of People v. Reyes,635 the Court suspected illegal items to enter the pre-
ruled that persons may lose the protection departure area, as claimed by appellant,
of the search and seizure clause by is to deprive the authorities of their duty
exposure of their persons or property to the to conduct search, thus sanctioning
public in a manner reflecting a lack of impotence and ineffectivity of the law
subjective expectation of privacy, which enforcers, to the detriment of society
expectation society is prepared to
recognize as reasonable. Such recognition In the case of People v. Suzuki,636 the
is implicit in airport security procedures. Court ruled that the PASCOM agents have
the right under the law to conduct search of
With increased concern over airplane prohibited materials or substances. To
hijacking and terrorism has come simply refuse passengers carrying
increased security at the nation’s airports. suspected illegal items to enter the pre-
Passengers attempting to board an aircraft departure area, as claimed by appellant, is
routinely pass through metal detectors; to deprive the authorities of their duty to
their carry-on baggage as well as checked conduct search, thus sanctioning
luggage are routinely subjected to x-ray impotence and ineffectivity of the law
scans. Should these procedures suggest enforcers, to the detriment of society.
the presence of suspicious objects,
physical searches are conducted to It should be stressed, however, that
determine what the objects are. There is whenever the right against unreasonable
little question that such searches are search and seizure is challenged, an
reasonable, given their minimal individual may choose between invoking
intrusiveness, the gravity of the safety the constitutional protection or waiving his
interests involved, and the reduced privacy right by giving consent to the search or
expectations associated with airline travel. seizure.
Indeed, travelers are often notified through Here, appellant voluntarily gave his
airport public address systems, signs, and consent to the search when PO1 Casugod
notices in their airline tickets that they are asked him to open the box was confirmed
subject to search and, if any prohibited by SPO1 Linda and PO3 Poyugao.
materials or substances are found, such
635 G.R. No. 138881, December 18, 2000 636 G.R. No. 120670, October 23, 2003
(Colossians 3:23)
Rationale of warrantless search of instruments for the assault of the police

incoming and outgoing passengers, at officer.
the arrival and departure areas of an
international airport The scope of the search in this case
presents no serious problem in light of
In the case of Valmonte v. Gen. Villa,637 the these standards. Officer McFadden patted
Court held that a warrantless search of down the outer clothing of petitioner and his
incoming and outgoing passengers, at the two companions. He did not place his
arrival and departure areas of an hands in their pockets or under the outer
international airport, is a practice not surface of their garments until he had felt
constitutionally objectionable because it is weapons, and then he merely reached for
founded on public interest, safety, and and removed the guns.
necessity.
He never did invade Katz' person beyond
STOP AND FRISK the outer surfaces of his clothes, since he
discovered nothing in his pat-down which
Concept of “Stop and Frisk” might have been a weapon. Officer
McFadden confined his search strictly to
The police should be allowed to "stop" a what was minimally necessary to learn
person and detain him briefly for whether the men were armed and to disarm
questioning upon suspicion that he may be them once he discovered the weapons. He
connected with criminal activity. Upon did not conduct a general exploratory
suspicion that the person may be armed, search for whatever evidence of criminal
the police should have the power to "frisk" activity he might find.
him for weapons. If the "stop" and the "frisk"
give rise to probable cause to believe that Hence, the revolver seized from Terry was
the suspect has committed a crime, then properly admitted in evidence against him.
the police should be empowered to make a
formal "arrest," and a full incident "search" Note: Where a police officer observes
of the person.638 unusual conduct which leads him
reasonably to conclude in light of his
Ratio why “Stop and Frisk” is allowed experience that criminal activity may be
afoot and that the persons with whom he is
This scheme is justified in part upon the dealing may be armed and presently
notion that a "stop" and a "frisk" amount to dangerous, where, in the course of
a mere "minor inconvenience and petty investigating this behavior, he identifies
indignity," which can properly be imposed himself as a policeman and makes
upon the citizen in the interest of effective reasonable inquiries, and where nothing in
law enforcement on the basis of a police the initial stages of the encounter serves to
officer's suspicion.639 dispel his reasonable fear for his own or
others' safety, he is entitled for the
The sole justification of “Stop and protection of himself and others in the area
Frisk” is the protection of the police to conduct a carefully limited search of the
officer and others nearby outer clothing of such persons in an
attempt to discover weapons which might
In the case of Terry v. Ohio,640 the Court be used to assault him.
ruled that the sole justification of the search
in the present situation is the protection of Such a search is a reasonable search
the police officer and others nearby, and it under the Fourth Amendment, and any
must therefore be confined in scope to an weapons seized may properly be
intrusion reasonably designed to discover introduced in evidence against the person
guns, knives, clubs, or other hidden from whom they were taken.
637 G.R. No. 83988, May 24, 1990 639 Ibid.

638 Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) 640 392 U.S. 1 (1968)
(Colossians 3:23)
was there error on the part of the trial court

“Stop and Frisk” is applicable when when it admitted the homemade firearm as
there was a probable cause to conduct evidence.
a search even before an arrest could be
made Similarly, the Court held in the case of
Manalili v. CA643 that Patrolman Espiritu
In the case of People v. Solayao,641 the and his companions observed during their
Court held that stop and frisk is applicable surveillance that appellant had red eyes
when there was a probable cause to and was wobbling like a drunk along the
conduct a search even before an arrest Caloocan City Cemetery, which according
could be made. to police information was a popular
hangout of drug addicts. From his
In the present case, after SPO3 Nino told experience as a member of the Anti-
accused-appellant not to run away, the Narcotics Unit of the Caloocan City Police,
former identified himself as a government such suspicious behavior was
agent. The peace officers did not know that characteristic of drug addicts who were
he had committed, or was actually high.
committing, the offense of illegal
possession of firearm. Tasked with The policemen therefore had sufficient
verifying the report that there were armed reason to stop petitioner to investigate if he
men roaming around in the barangays was actually high on drugs. During such
surrounding Caibiran, their attention was investigation, they found marijuana in
understandably drawn to the group that petitioner’s possession
had aroused their suspicion. They could
not have known that the object wrapped in Note: In the Solayao644 case, police
coconut leaves which accused-appellant officers became suspicious when observed
was carrying hid a firearm. that Nilo and his group were drunk and that
accused-appellant himself was wearing a
The circumstances in this case are similar camouflage uniform or a jungle suit.
to those obtaining in Posadas v. Court of Accused-appellant's companions, upon
Appeals642 where this Court held that "at seeing the government agents, fled.
the time the peace officers identified
themselves and apprehended the Two-fold interest in “Stop and Frisk”
petitioner as he attempted to flee, they did
not know that he had committed, or was "Stop-and-frisk" serves a two-fold interest:
actually committing the offense of illegal
possession of firearm and ammunitions. (1) The general interest of effective
They just suspected that he was hiding crime prevention and detection,
something in the buri bag. They did not which underlies the recognition that
know what its contents were." a police officer may, under
appropriate circumstances and in
The Court, nevertheless, ruled that the an appropriate manner, approach a
search and seizure in the Posadas case person for purposes of investigating
brought about by the suspicious conduct of possible criminal behavior even
Posadas himself can be likened to a "stop without probable cause; and
and frisk" situation. There was a probable
cause to conduct a search even before an (2) The more pressing interest of safety
arrest could be made. and self-preservation which permit
the police officer to take steps to
Thus, there was no violation of the assure himself that the person with
constitutional guarantee against whom he deals is not armed with a
unreasonable searches and seizures. Nor deadly weapon that could
641 G.R. No. 119220, September 20, 1996 643 G.R. No. 113447, October 9, 1997
642 188 SCRA 188 (1990) 644 G.R. No. 119220, September 20, 1996
(Colossians 3:23)
unexpectedly and fatally be used

against the police officer.645 In the case of Carroll v. United States,648
the US Supreme Court held that searches
If nothing in petitioners behavior or and seizures without warrant are valid if
conduct which could have reasonably made upon probable cause, that is, upon a
elicited even mere suspicion, “stop and belief reasonably arising out of
frisk” is not applicable circumstances known to the seizing officer,
that an automobile or other vehicle
In the case of Malacat v. CA,646 the Court contains that which by law is subject to
ruled that “stop and frisk” is invalid in the seizure and destruction.
case at bar since nothing in petitioners
behavior or conduct which could have Furthermore, it was held in the case of
reasonably elicited even mere suspicion Whren v. United States649 that as a general
other than that his eyes were moving very matter, the decision to stop an automobile
fast an observation which leaves the Court is reasonable where the police have
incredulous (doubtful) since Yu and his probable cause to believe that a traffic
teammates were nowhere near petitioner violation has occurred.
and it was already 6:30 p.m., thus
presumably dusk. Subject matter of the search
Petitioner and his companions were merely Search of MOBILE:

standing at the corner and were not
creating any commotion or trouble, as Yu 1. Ship;
explicitly declared on cross-examination.
2. Motorboat;
“Stop and Frisk” is inapplicable when
the officers' suspicion arose not from 3. Wagon;
any observations of their own but solely
from a call made from an unknown 4. Automobile;650
location by an unknown caller
5. Aircraft; or
In the case of Florida v. J.L.,647 the US
Supreme Court held that “stop and frisk” is 6. Other motor vehicle.651
inapplicable since the officers' suspicion
that J. L. was carrying a weapon arose not Ratio: It is not practicable to secure a
from any observations of their own but warrant because the vehicle can be quickly
solely from a call made from an unknown moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in
location by an unknown caller. which the warrant must be sought.652
Unlike a tip from a known informant whose Search of a dwelling house or other
reputation can be assessed and who can structure vis-à-vis search of a ship,
be held responsible if her allegations turn motorboat, wagon, or automobile
out to be fabricated, "an anonymous tip
alone seldom demonstrates the informant's The guaranty of freedom from
basis of knowledge or veracity.” unreasonable searches and seizures is
construed as recognizing a necessary
SEARCH OF MOVING VEHICLE difference between a search of a dwelling
house or other structure in respect of which
When valid? a search warrant may readily be obtained
645 Malacat v. CA, G.R. No. 123595, December 649 517 U.S. 806 (1996)
12, 1997 650 Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925)
646 G.R. No. 123595, December 12, 1997 651 Salvador v. People, G.R. No. 146706, July
647 529 U.S. 266 (2000) 15, 2005
648 267 U.S. 132 (1925) 652 Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925)
(Colossians 3:23)
and a search of a ship, motorboat, wagon, It should be noted that at the time of the
or automobile for contraband goods, where search, petitioner and his co-accused were
it is not practicable to secure a warrant on board a moving PAL aircraft tow truck.
because the vehicle can be quickly moved Verily, the Court ruled that the Court of
out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the Appeals committed no reversible error in
warrant must be sought.653 holding that the articles involved in the
instant controversy were validly seized by
Hence, in the case of Papa v. Mago & the authorities even without a search
Jarencio,654 the Court held that an warrant, hence, admissible in evidence
automobile truck or an automobile could be against petitioner and his co-accused.
searched without search warrant or other
process and the goods therein seized used Probable cause justifies a search and
afterwards as evidence in a trial for seizure
violation of the prohibition laws of the State.
In the case of Whren v. United States,657
When an undisclosed informer himself the US Supreme Court ruled that probable
went along with the agents to positively cause justifies a search and seizure.
identify the suspected carrier of
untaxed merchandise, the subsequent In the case at bar, the Court found that the
warrantless search conducted by the officers had probable cause to believe that
agents is deemed valid petitioners had violated the traffic code.
That rendered the stop reasonable under
In the case of People v. CFI of Rizal,655 the the Fourth Amendment, the evidence
Court ruled that when the undisclosed thereby discovered admissible, and the
Informer himself went along with the agents upholding of the convictions by the Court of
to the rendezvous point where at the Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
appointed time he positively Identified an correct.
approaching car as the one described by
him a week earlier to be the suspected Explain the “balancing analysis”
carrier of untaxed merchandise. principle
Clearly therefore, the agents acted not on “Balancing" analysis involved searches or
the basis of a mere hearsay but on a seizures conducted in an extraordinary
confirmed information worthy of belief and manner, unusually harmful to an
probable cause enough for them to adopt individual's privacy or even physical
measures to freeze the fleeting event. interests-such as, for example:
The search of a moving vehicle is a. Seizure by means of deadly

recognized in this jurisdiction as a valid force,658
exception to the requirement for a
search warrant b. Unannounced entry into a home,659
In the case of Salvador v. People,656 the c. Entry into a home without a warrant,
Court held that the search of a moving see,660 or
vehicle is recognized in this jurisdiction as
a valid exception to the requirement for a d. Physical penetration of the body.661
search warrant.
Applicability of “balancing analysis”
principle
653 Papa v. Mago & Jarencio, G.R. No. L-27360, 657 517 U.S. 806 (1996)
February 28, 1968 658 Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)
654 G.R. No. L-27360, February 28, 1968 659 Wilson v. Arkansas, 514 U.S. 927 (1995)
655 G.R. No. L-41686, November 17, 1980 660 Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740 (1984)
656 G.R. No. 146706, July 15, 2005 661 Winston v. Lee, 470 U.S. 753 (1985)
(Colossians 3:23)
chaos and disorder at that time because of

The US Supreme Court held in the case of simultaneous and intense firing within the
Whren v. United States662 that the vicinity of the office and in the nearby Camp
balancing analysis principle is applicable if Aguinaldo which was under attack by rebel
there is probable cause to believe the law forces.
has been broken "outbalances" private
interest in avoiding police contact. The courts in the surrounding areas were
obviously closed and, for that matter, the
EMERGENCY CIRCUMSTANCES building and houses therein were deserted.
Absence of a judicial warrant is no legal Under the foregoing circumstances, it is our

impediment to arresting or capturing considered opinion that the instant case
persons committing overt acts of falls under one of the exceptions to the
violence against government forces, or prohibition against a warrantless search. In
any other milder acts but really in the first place, the military operatives,
pursuance of the rebellious movement taking into account the facts obtaining in
this case, had reasonable ground to
In the case of People v. De Gracia,663 the believe that a crime was being committed.
Court held that absence of a judicial There was consequently more than
warrant is no legal impediment to arresting sufficient probable cause to warrant their
or capturing persons committing overt acts action.
of violence against government forces, or
any other milder acts but really in Furthermore, under the situation then
pursuance of the rebellious movement. prevailing, the raiding team had no
opportunity to apply for and secure a
It is admitted that the military operatives search warrant from the courts. The trial
who raided the Eurocar Sales Office were judge himself manifested that on
not armed with a search warrant at that December 5, 1989 when the raid was
time. The raid was actually precipitated by conducted, his court was closed. Under
intelligence reports that said office was such urgency and exigency of the moment,
being used as headquarters by the RAM. a search warrant could lawfully be
dispensed with.
Prior to the raid, there was a surveillance
conducted on the premises wherein the Note: Conversely, if there was no general
surveillance team was fired at by a group of chaos and disorder at that time, the military
men coming from the Eurocar building. operatives should have procured a
When the military operatives raided the search/arrest warrant.
place, the occupants thereof refused to
open the door despite requests for them to CHECKPOINTS
do so, thereby compelling the former to
break into the office. Checkpoints per se are valid
The Eurocar Sales Office is obviously not a Checkpoints per se are valid.
gun store and it is definitely not an armory
or arsenal which are the usual depositories They are allowed in exceptional
for explosives and ammunition. It is circumstances:
primarily and solely engaged in the sale of
automobiles. a. To protect the lives of individuals
and ensure their safety.
The presence of an unusual quantity of
high-powered firearms and explosives
could not be justifiably or even colorably
explained. In addition, there was general
662 517 U.S. 806 (1996) 663 G.R. Nos. 102009-10, July 6, 1994
(Colossians 3:23)
b. They are also sanctioned in cases right to "free passage without interruption,"
where the government's survival is but it cannot be denied that, as a rule, it
in danger.664 involves only a brief detention of travelers
during which the vehicles occupants are
Considering that routine checkpoints required to answer a brief question or two.
intrude "on [a] motorist's right to 'free For as long as the vehicle is neither
passage'" to a certain extent, they must be searched nor its occupants subjected to a
"conducted in a way least intrusive to body search, and the inspection of the
motorists." vehicle is limited to a visual search, said
routine checks cannot be regarded as
The extent of routine inspections must be violative of an individual’s right against
limited to a visual search. Routine unreasonable search. In fact, these routine
inspections do not give law enforcers carte checks, when conducted in a fixed area,
blanche to perform warrantless are even less intrusive.668
searches.665
In the case of Cong. Aniag Jr. v.
Rationale of checkpoints COMELEC,669 the petitioner contends that
the guns were not tucked in Arellano's
No one can be compelled, under our waist nor placed within his reach, and that
libertarian system, to share with the they were neatly packed in gun cases and
present government its ideological beliefs placed inside a bag at the back of the car.
and practices, or commend its political, Significantly, COMELEC did not rebut this
social and economic policies or claim.
performance.
The records do not show that the manner
But, at least, one must concede to it the by which the package was bundled led the
basic right to defend itself from its enemies PNP to suspect that it contained firearms.
and, while in power, to pursue its program There was no mention either of any report
of government intended for public welfare; regarding any nervous, suspicious or
and in the pursuit of those objectives, the unnatural reaction from Arellano when the
government has the equal right, under its car was stopped and searched.
police power, to select the reasonable
means and methods for best achieving Given these circumstances and relying on
them. The checkpoint is evidently one of its visual observation, the PNP could not
such means it has selected.666 thoroughly search the car lawfully as well
as the package without violating the
Routine inspection constitutional injunction.
Warrantless search during checkpoints is Applicability of extensive search

not violative of the Constitution for as long
as the vehicle is neither searched nor its In the case of Valmonte v. Gen. Villa,670 the
occupants subjected to a body search, and Court held that vehicles are generally
the inspection of the vehicle is merely allowed to pass these checkpoints after a
limited to a visual search.667 This is also routine inspection and a few questions.
called as “routine inspection.”
If vehicles are stopped and extensively
For, admittedly, routine checkpoints do searched, it is because of some probable
intrude, to a certain extent, on motorists cause which justifies a reasonable belief of
664 Valmonte v. De Villa, 264 Phil. 265, 269 667 Cong. Aniag Jr. v. COMELEC, G.R. No.
(1990) 104961, October 7, 1994
665 Veridiano v. People, G.R. No. 200370, June 668 People v. Escao, G.R. Nos. 129756-58,
7, 2017 January 28, 2000

666 People v. Vinecario, G.R. No. 141137, 669 G.R. No. 104961, October 7, 1994
January 20, 2004 670 G.R. No. 83988, May 24, 1990
(Colossians 3:23)
the men at the checkpoints that either the

motorist is a law-offender or the contents of Ratio: To hold that no criminal can, in any
the vehicle are or have been instruments of case, be arrested and searched for the
some offense. evidence and tokens of his crime without a
warrant, would be to leave society, to a
Effect in absence of probable cause large extent, at the mercy of the shrewdest
the most expert, and the most depraved of
In the case of Cong. Aniag Jr v. criminals, facilitating their escape in many
COMELEC,671 the Court held that there instances.
was no evidence to show that the
policemen were impelled to do the search Checkpoints which are considered as
because of a confidential report leading legal
them to reasonably believe that certain
motorists matching the description In the case of People v. Escao,673 the Court
furnished by their informant were engaged held that not all checkpoints are illegal.
in gunrunning, transporting firearms or in Those which are warranted by the following
organizing special strike forces. are allowed:
Nor, as adverted to earlier, was there any 1. Checkpoints warranted by

indication from the package or behavior of exigencies of public order; and
Arellano that could have triggered the
suspicion of the policemen. 2. Checkpoints which are conducted
in a way least intrusive to motorists.
Absent such justifying circumstances (also known as “routine inspection”)
specifically pointing to the culpability of
petitioner and Arellano, the search could Directing flashlights inside a car,
not be valid. without opening the car door or
subjecting its passengers to a body
The action then of the policemen search does not violate the
unreasonably intruded into petitioner's constitutional right
privacy and the security of his property, in
violation of Sec. 2, Art. III, of the In the case of People v. Escao,674 the Court
Constitution. Consequently, the firearms held that the facts adduced do not
obtained in violation of petitioner's right constitute a ground for a violation of the
against warrantless search cannot be constitutional rights of the accused against
admitted for any purpose in any illegal search and seizure.
proceeding.
PO3 Suba admitted that they were merely
Warrantless searches and seizures at stopping cars they deemed suspicious,
the checkpoints are quite similar to such as those whose windows are heavily
searches and seizures accompanying tinted just to see if the passengers thereof
warrantless arrests during the were carrying guns. At best they would
commission of a crime, or immediately merely direct their flashlights inside the
thereafter cars they would stop, without opening the
cars doors or subjecting its passengers to
In the case of Valmonte v. Gen. Villa,672 the a body search. There is nothing
Court held that warrantless searches and discriminatory in this as this is what the
seizures at the checkpoints are quite situation demands.
similar to searches and seizures
accompanying warrantless arrests during Checkpoints need not be announced
the commission of a crime, or immediately
thereafter.
671 G.R. No. 104961, October 7, 1994 673 G.R. Nos. 129756-58, January 28, 2000
672 G.R. No. 83988, May 24, 1990 674 Ibid.
(Colossians 3:23)
In the case of People v. Escao,675 the Court minimum standards prescribed in local
ruled that there is no need for checkpoints regulatory ordinances.
to be announced, as the accused have
invoked. Not only would it be impractical, it Since the inspector does not ask that the
would also forewarn those who intend to property owner open his doors to a search
violate the ban. Even so, badges of for "evidence of criminal action" which may
legitimacy of checkpoints may still be be used to secure the owner's criminal
inferred from their fixed location and the conviction, historic interests of "self-
regularized manner in which they are protection" jointly protected by the Fourth
operated. and Fifth Amendments are said not to be
involved, but only the less intense "right to
When the appellants sped away after be secure from intrusion into personal
noticing the checkpoint and even after privacy."677
having been flagged down by police
officers, their suspicious and nervous Housing inspectors cannot enter the
gestures when interrogated constitutes leasehold of a person without a warrant
probable cause if there is no emergency demanding
immediate access
In the case of People v. Vinecario,676 the
Court held that when appellants sped away In the case of Camara v. Municipal
after noticing the checkpoint and even after Court,678 the US Supreme Court held that,
having been flagged down by police in the case at bar, there was no emergency
officers, their suspicious and nervous demanding immediate access; in fact, the
gestures when interrogated on the contents inspectors made three trips to the building
of the backpack (which contained in an attempt to obtain appellant's consent
“marijuana”) which they passed to one to search. Yet no warrant was obtained,
another, and the reply of Vinecario, when and thus appellant was unable to verify
asked why he and his co-appellants sped either the need for or the appropriate limits
away from the checkpoint, that he was a of the inspection.
member of the Philippine Army, apparently
in an attempt to dissuade the policemen No doubt, the inspectors entered the public
from proceeding with their inspection, there portion of the building with the consent of
existed probable cause to justify a the landlord, through the building's
reasonable belief on the part of the law manager, but appellee does not contend
enforcers that appellants were offenders of that such consent was sufficient to
the law or that the contents of the backpack authorize inspection of appellant's
were instruments of some offense. premises.
INSPECTION OF BUILDING Assuming the facts to be as the parties

have alleged, we therefore conclude that
Rationale appellant had a constitutional right to insist
that the inspectors obtain a warrant to
Municipal fire, health, and housing search and that appellant may not
inspection programs "touch at most upon constitutionally be convicted for refusing to
the periphery of the important interests consent to the inspection.
safeguarded by the Fourteenth
Amendment's protection against official Exception: If there has been a citizen
intrusion," because the inspections are complaint or there is other satisfactory
merely to determine whether physical reason for securing immediate entry.679
conditions exist which do not comply with
675 Ibid. 678 387 U.S. 523 (1967)

676 G.R. No. 141137, January 20, 2004 679 Ibid.
677 Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523
(1967)
(Colossians 3:23)
WARRANTLESS ARREST punishable by light penalties, or their

equivalent; eighteen (18) hours, for
RULE 113 OF THE REVISED RULES crimes or offenses punishable by
ON CRIMINAL PROCEDURES correctional penalties, or their equivalent
and thirty-six (36) hours, for crimes, or
Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when offenses punishable by afflictive or
lawful. – A peace officer or a private capital penalties, or their equivalent.
person may, without a warrant, arrest a
person:
Rationale of Warrantless Arrest
(a) When, in his presence, the person to
be arrested has committed, is actually To hold that no criminal can, in any case,
committing, or is attempting to commit an be arrested and searched for the evidence
offense; and tokens of his crime without a warrant,
would be to leave society, to a large extent,
(b) When an offense has just been at the mercy of the shrewdest, the most
committed and he has probable cause to expert, and the most depraved of criminals,
believe based on personal knowledge of facilitating their escape in many
facts or circumstances that the person to instances.681
be arrested has committed it; and
Crimes of insurrection or rebellion,
(c) When the person to be arrested is a subversion, conspiracy or proposal to
prisoner who has escaped from a penal commit such crimes, and other crimes
establishment or place where he is and offenses committed in the
serving final judgment or is temporarily furtherance, on the occasion thereof, or
confined while his case is pending, or incident thereto, or in connection
has escaped while being transferred therewith are all in the nature of
from one confinement to another. continuing offenses
In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and In the case of Umil v. Ramos,682 the Court
(b) above, the person arrested without a ruled that the crimes of insurrection or
warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the rebellion, subversion, conspiracy or
nearest police station or jail and shall be proposal to commit such crimes, and other
proceeded against in accordance with crimes and offenses committed in the
section 7 of Rule 112. furtherance, on the occasion thereof, or
incident thereto, or in connection therewith
under Presidential Proclamation No. 2045,
OFFENSE THAT CAN BE COMMITTED are all in the nature of continuing offenses
BY A PUBLIC OFFICER IN CASE OF which set them apart from the common
WARRANTLESS ARREST offenses, aside from their essentially
involving a massive conspiracy of
Art. 125.680 Delay in the delivery of nationwide magnitude.
detained persons to the proper
judicial authorities. — The penalties In the case at bar, Rolando Dural was
provided in the next preceding article arrested for being a member of the New
shall be imposed upon the public officer Peoples Army (NPA), an outlawed
or employee who shall detain any person subversive organization. Subversion being
for some legal ground and shall fail to a continuing offense, the arrest of Rolando
deliver such person to the proper judicial Dural without warrant is justified as it can
authorities within the period of; twelve be said that he was committing an offense
(12) hours, for crimes or offenses when arrested.
680 Revised Penal Code 682 G.R. No. 81567, July 9, 1990
681 People v. Malasugui, 63 Phil. 221
(Colossians 3:23)
Ratio: Obviously, the absence of a judicial at a chapel two (2) meters away from
warrant is no legal impediment to arresting Regalado's house.
or capturing persons committing overt acts
of violence against government forces, or Fulgencio, within a distance of two meters
any other milder acts but equally in saw Sucro conduct his nefarious activity.
pursuance of the rebellious movement. He saw Sucro talk to some persons, go
inside the chapel, and return to them and
The arrest or capture is thus impelled by exchange some things. These, Sucro did
the exigencies of the situation that involves three times during the time that he was
the very survival of society and its being monitored. Fulgencio would then
government and duly constituted relay the on-going transaction to P/Lt.
authorities. Seraspi.
If killing and other acts of violence against However, the accused questions the failure
the rebels find justification in the exigencies of the police officers to secure a warrant
of armed hostilities which is of the essence considering that Fulgencio himself knew of
of waging a rebellion or insurrection, most Sucro's activities even prior to the former's
assuredly so in case of invasion, merely joining the police force. Fulgencio reported
seizing their persons and detaining them Sucro's activities only three days before the
while any of these contingencies continues incident.
cannot be less justified.
As the records reveal, Fulgencio and Sucro
OFFENSE COMMITTED IN THE had known each other since their childhood
PRESENCE OF THE POLICE OFFICER years and that after Fulgencio joined the
OR PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL (IN police force, he told the accused-appellant
FLAGRANTE DELICTO) not to sell drugs in their locality. Hence, it is
possible that because of this friendship,
When applicable? Fulgencio hesitated to report his childhood
friend and merely advised him not to
An offense is committed in the presence or engage in such activity. However, because
within the view of an officer, within the of reliable information given by some
meaning of the rule authorizing an arrest informants that selling was going on
without a warrant, when the officer sees the everyday, he was constrained to report the
offense, although at a distance, or hears matter to the Station Commander.
the disturbances created thereby and
proceeds at once to the scene thereof.683 Since the belief was based on intelligence
reports gathered from surveillance
Offense committed within the view of activities on the suspected syndicate, of
the officer which appellant was touted to be a
member. The important thing is that there
In the case of People v. Sucro,684 the Court was probable cause to conduct the
ruled that an arrest without a warrant can warrantless search, which is present in the
be effected when the offense is committed case at bar.
in the presence or within the view of the
arresting officer. Committing a crime in the presence of
the police officers
In the case at bar, records show that
Fulgencio (police officer) went to Arlie In the case of People v. Go,685 the Court
Regalado's house at C. Quimpo Street to ruled that in the case at bar, the police saw
monitor the activities of the accused who the gun tucked in appellant’s waist when he
was earlier reported to be selling marijuana stood up. The gun was plainly visible. No
search was conducted as none was
683U.S. v. Fortaleza, 12 Phil. 472 (1909); and 684 G.R. No. 93239, March 18, 1991
U.S. v. Samonte, 16 Phil. 516 (1910) 685 G.R. No. 116001, March 14, 2001
(Colossians 3:23)
necessary. Accused-appellant could not Tipped information is applicable only in

show any license for the firearm, whether either a buy-bust operation or drugs in
at the time of his arrest or thereafter. transit
Thus, he was in effect committing a crime In the case of People v. Martinez,687 the
in the presence of the police officers. No Court held that in several dangerous drugs
warrant of arrest was necessary in such a cases that tipped information is sufficient
situation, it being one of the recognized probable cause to effect a warrantless
exceptions under the Rules. search, such rulings cannot be applied in
the case at bench because said cases
Possible defense: License to possess the involve either a buy-bust operation or drugs
firearm may be established through the in transit, basically, circumstances other
testimony of or a certification from a than the sole tip of an informer as basis for
representative of the Firearms and the arrest. None of these drug cases
Explosives Bureau of the Philippine involve police officers entering a house
National Police (FEB-PNP). without warrant to effect arrest and seizure
based solely on an informer’s tip.
The term in flagrante delicto requires
that the suspected drug dealer must be As to paragraph (a) of Section 5 of Rule
caught redhanded in the act of selling 113, the arresting officers had no personal
marijuana or any prohibited drug to a knowledge that at the time of the arrest,
person acting or posing as a buyer accused had just committed, were
committing, or were about to commit a
In the case of People v. Rodrigueza,686 the crime, as they had no probable cause to
Court ruled that the term in flagrante delicto enter the house of accused Rafael
requires that the suspected drug dealer Gonzales in order to arrest them.
must be caught redhanded in the act of
selling marijuana or any prohibited drug to As to paragraph (b), the arresting officers
a person acting or posing as a buyer. had no personal knowledge of facts and
circumstances that would lead them to
In the instant case, however, the procedure believe that the accused had just
adopted by the NARCOM agents failed to committed an offense. As admitted in the
meet this qualification. Based on the very testimony of PO1 Azardon, the tip
evidence of the prosecution, after the originated from a concerned citizen who
alleged consummation of the sale of dried himself had no personal knowledge of the
marijuana leaves, CIC Taduran information that was reported to the police.
immediately released appellant
Rodrigueza instead of arresting and taking Note: Arresting officers should have
him into his custody. This act of CIC personal knowledge that at the time of their
Taduran, assuming arguendo that the arrest, that the accused-appellants had just
supposed sale of marijuana did take place, committed, were committing, or were about
is decidedly contrary to the natural course to commit a crime.
of things and inconsistent with the
aforestated purpose of a buy-bust Apprehending officers should have
operation. conducted first a surveillance considering
that the identities and address of the
It is rather absurd on his part to let appellant suspected culprits were already
escape without having been subjected to ascertained. After conducting the
the sanctions imposed by law. It is, in fact, surveillance and determining the existence
a dereliction of duty by an agent of the law. of probable cause for arresting accused-
appellants, they should have secured a
686 G.R. No. 95902, February 4, 1992 687 G.R. No. 191366, December 13, 2010
(Colossians 3:23)
search warrant prior to effecting a valid At the time of the arrest, appellant had just
arrest and seizure.688 alighted from the Gemini bus and was
waiting for a tricycle. Appellant was not
Personal knowledge of facts in arrests acting in any suspicious manner that would
without warrant must be based upon engender a reasonable ground for the
probable cause police officers to suspect and conclude that
he was committing or intending to commit
It has been held that personal knowledge a crime.
of facts in arrests without warrant must be
based upon probable cause, which means Were it not for the information given by the
an actual belief or reasonable grounds of informant, appellant would not have been
suspicion. apprehended and no search would have
been made, and consequently, the sachet
The grounds of suspicion are reasonable of shabu would not have been confiscated.
when the suspicion, that the person to be
arrested is probably guilty of committing an Neither were the arresting officers impelled
offense, is based on actual facts, that is, by any urgency that would allow them to do
supported by circumstances sufficiently away with the requisite warrant. As testified
strong in themselves to create the probable to by Police Officer 1 Aurelio Iniwan, a
cause of guilt of the person to be member of the arresting team, their office
arrested.689 received the tipped information on May 19,
2003. They likewise learned from the
Reliable information alone is not informant not only the appellant’s physical
sufficient to justify a warrantless arrest. description but also his name. Although it
The rule requires, in addition, that the was not certain that appellant would arrive
accused perform some overt act that on the same day (May 19), there was an
would indicate that he has committed, is assurance that he would be there the
actually committing, or is attempting to following day (May 20). Clearly, the police
commit an offense had ample opportunity to apply for a
warrant.
In the case of People v. Racho,690 the Court
ruled that the long standing rule in this Note: Showing of some overt act indicative
jurisdiction is that reliable information alone of the criminal design is important in order
is not sufficient to justify a warrantless to establish probable cause.
arrest. The rule requires, in addition, that
the accused perform some overt act that The Court, on the other hand, is not
would indicate that he has committed, is unaware of another set of jurisprudence
actually committing, or is attempting to that deems reliable information sufficient to
commit an offense. justify a search incident to a lawful
warrantless arrest. As cited in People v.
In the case at bar, appellant herein was not Tudtud,691 these include People v. Maspil,
committing a crime in the presence of the Jr.,692 People v. Bagista,693 People v.
police officers. Neither did the arresting Balingan,694 People v. Lising,695 People v.
officers have personal knowledge of facts Montilla,696 People v. Valdez,697 and People
indicating that the person to be arrested v. Gonzalez.698
had committed, was committing, or about
to commit an offense. In these cases, the Court sustained the
validity of the warrantless searches
688 People v. Bolasa, 378 Phil. 1073, 1078-1079 693 G.R. No. 86218, September 12, 1992
(1999) 694 311 Phil. 290 (1995)
689 People v. Doria, 361 Phil. 595, 632 (1999) 695 341 Phil. 801 (1997)
690 G.R. No. 186529, August 3, 2010 696 349 Phil. 640 (1998)
691 458 Phil. 752 (2003) 697 363 Phil. 481 (1999)
692 G.R. No. 85177, August 20, 1990 698 417 Phil. 342 (2001)
(Colossians 3:23)
notwithstanding the absence of overt acts Gerente only some three (3) hours after
or suspicious circumstances that would Gerente and his companions had killed
indicate that the accused had committed, Blace.
was actually committing, or attempting to
commit a crime. They saw Blace dead in the hospital and
when they inspected the scene of the
But as aptly observed by the Court, except crime, they found the instruments of death:
in Valdez and Gonzales, they were covered a piece of wood and a concrete hollow
by the other exceptions to the rule against block which the killers had used to
warrantless searches.699 bludgeon him to death.
PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE The eye-witness, Edna Edwina Reyes,

OFFENSE reported the happening to the policemen
and pinpointed her neighbor, Gerente, as
Rationale one of the killers.
To hold that no criminal can, in any case, Under those circumstances, since the
be arrested and searched for the evidence policemen had personal knowledge of the
and tokens of his crime without a warrant, violent death of Blace and of facts
would be to leave society, to a large extent, indicating that Gerente and two others had
at the mercy of the shrewdest, the most killed him, they could lawfully arrest
expert, and the most depraved of criminals, Gerente without a warrant. If they had
facilitating their escape in many postponed his arrest until they could obtain
instances.700 a warrant, he would have fled the law as his
two companions did.
Requisites
Similarly, in the case of People v. Sinoc,704
1. The offender has just committed an the Court ruled that there is no question
offense and, that the police officers in this case were
aware that an offense had just been
2. The arresting peace officer or committed: i.e., that some twelve hours
private person has personal earlier, a Pajero belonging to a private
knowledge of facts indicating that company had been stolen (carnapped) and
the person to be arrested has its driver and passenger shot, the former
committed it.701 having died and the latter being on the
verge of death. Nor is there any doubt that
Note: It has been held that personal an informer (asset) had reported that the
knowledge of facts in arrests without a stolen Pajero was at the Bliss Housing
warrant must be based upon probable Project at the Moncayo.
cause, which means an actual belief or
reasonable grounds of suspicion.702 It was precisely to recover the Pajero that a
team composed of SPO1 Micheal Aringo
When an offense has in fact just been and joint elements of 459 PNP MFC and
committed, and he has personal Monkayo Police Stn. Led by Insptr. Eden T.
knowledge of facts indicating that the Ugale, went to that place and, on taking
person to be arrested has committed it custody of the Pajero, forthwith dispatched
a radio message to Higher Headquarters
In the case of People v. Gerente,703 the advising of that fact.
Court upheld the validity of the arrest of the
accused since the policemen arrested
699 People v. Racho, G.R. No. 186529, August 702 Ibid.

3, 2010 703 G.R. No. 95847-48. March 10, 1993
700 People vs. Malasugui, 63 Phil. 221, 228 704 G.R. Nos. 113511-12, July 11, 1997
701 People v. Mahusay, 282 SCRA 80 (1997)
(Colossians 3:23)
There is no question either that when based upon probable cause, which means
SPO1 Aringo and his companions reached an actual belief or reasonable grounds of
the place where the Pajero was parked, suspicion.
they were told by Paulino Overa, owner of
the apartment behind which the vehicle In this case, the arrest of accused-
was parked, that the man who had brought appellant was effected shortly after the
the Pajero would be back by 12:00 noon; victim was killed. The question, therefore,
that the person thus described did in fact is whether there was probable cause for
show up at about 10:00 A.M., and was PO3 Rosal and SPO1 Malinao, Jr., the
immediately identified by Overa as the one arresting officers, to believe that accused-
who rode on that car pajero;' just as there appellant committed the crime.
is no question that when the police officers
accosted him, Sinoc had the key to the The Court held that there was none. The
stolen Pajero and was in the act of moving two did not have personal knowledge of
toward it admittedly to take possession of it facts indicating that accused-appellant had
(after having arrived by bus from Tagum committed the crime.
together with another suspect, Ram).
Sinocs link to the stolen vehicle (and hence Their knowledge of the circumstances from
to the kidnapping and killing accompanying which they allegedly inferred that accused-
its asportation) was thus palpable. appellant was probably guilty was based
entirely on what they had been told by
Mere suspicion cannot satisfy the others, to wit: by someone who called the
requirement of probable cause PNP station in San Antonio, Cavite City at
about 3:30 in the morning of August 26,
In the case of People v. Baula,705 the Court 1997 and reported that a man had been
ruled that mere suspicion cannot satisfy the killed along Julian Felipe Boulevard of the
requirement of probable cause which said city; by an alleged witness who saw
signifies a reasonable ground of suspicion accused-appellant and the victim coming
supported by circumstances sufficiently out of the Sting Cafe; by Danet Garcellano,
strong in themselves to warrant a cautious waitress at the Sting Cafe, who said that
man to believe that the person accused is the man last seen with the victim was lean,
guilty of the offense with which he can be mustachioed, dark-complexioned and was
charged. wearing a white t-shirt and a pair of brown
short pants; by a tricycle driver named
An illegal search cannot be undertaken and Armando Plata who told them that the
then an arrest effected on the strength of physical description given by Garcellano
the evidence yielded by that search. fitted accused-appellant, alias Jun Dulce
and who said he knew where accused-
Clearly, the police officers acted on a mere appellant lived and accompanied them to
suspicion that accused-appellants could be accused-appellants house. Thus, PO3
responsible for the commission of the crime Rosal and SPO1 Malinao, Jr. merely relied
and only because of their being at the store on information given to them by others.
where the victim was last seen.
Note: If the police officers only relied to the
Personal knowledge of facts in arrests pieces of information given by informants,
without a warrant must be based upon the same will not constitute probable
probable cause, which means an actual cause.
belief or reasonable grounds of
suspicion Furthermore, it should be noted that a
tipped information is applicable only in
In the case of People v. Cubcubin Jr.,706 the either a buy-bust operation or drugs in
Court ruled that personal knowledge of transit.
facts in arrests without a warrant must be
705 G.R. No. 132671, November 15, 2000 706 G.R. No. 136267, July 10, 2001
(Colossians 3:23)
TIME OF ARREST Hence, the Court acquitted Rodrigueza for

the crime charged.
Section 6 of Rule 113 of the Rules of
Court provides that an arrest may be Petitioner was not arrested when he
made on any day and at any time of the walked into the police station and
day or night. placed himself at the disposal of the
police authorities
The term in flagrante delicto requires In the case of Go v. CA,708 the Court held
that the suspected drug dealer must be that there was no lawful warrantless arrest
caught redhanded in the act of selling of petitioner within the meaning of Section
marijuana or any prohibited drug to a 5 of Rule 113.
person acting or posing as a buyer
Indeed, petitioner was not arrested at all.
707 When he walked into San Juan Police
In the case of People v. Rodrigueza, the
Court held that a buy-bust operation is a Station, accompanied by two (2) lawyers,
form of entrapment employed by peace he in fact placed himself at the disposal of
officers to trap and catch a malefactor in the police authorities. He did not state that
flagrante delicto. he was "surrendering" himself, in all
probability to avoid the implication he was
Applied to the case at bar, the term in admitting that he had slain Eldon Maguan
flagrante delicto requires that the or that he was otherwise guilty of a crime.
suspected drug dealer must be caught
redhanded in the act of selling marijuana or Appellant is estopped from raising the
any prohibited drug to a person acting or issue of the legality of his arrest when
posing as a buyer. he entered a plea of not guilty to each of
the informations charging him of rape
In the instant case, however, the procedure
adopted by the NARCOM agents failed to In the case of People v. Calimlim,709 the
meet this qualification. Court held that appellant avers that his
arrest violated Section 5 of Rule 113, since
Based on the very evidence of the his arrest was made one day after the crime
prosecution, after the alleged was committed, but without any judicial
consummation of the sale of dried warrant, although the police had ample
marijuana leaves, CIC Taduran time to get one. This he claims is also in
immediately released appellant violation of Article III, Sec. 2 of the
Rodrigueza instead of arresting and taking Constitution.
him into his custody.
But here it will be noted that appellant
This act of CIC Taduran, assuming entered a plea of not guilty to each of the
arguendo that the supposed sale of informations charging him of rape. Thus, he
marijuana did take place, is decidedly had effectively waived his right to question
contrary to the natural course of things and any irregularity which might have
inconsistent with the aforestated purpose accompanied his arrest and the unlawful
of a buy-bust operation. restraint of his liberty. This is clear from a
reading of Section 9 of Rule 117 of the
It is rather absurd on his part to let appellant Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
escape without having been subjected to
the sanctions imposed by law. It is, in fact, MARKED MONEY
a dereliction of duty by an agent of the law.
The discovery of the marked money on
the accused did not mean he was
707 G.R. No. 95902, February 4, 1992 709 G.R. No. 123980, August 30, 2001
708 G.R. No. 101837, February 11, 1992
(Colossians 3:23)
caught in the act of selling marijuana appellant is Abugatal's testimony, but this
since the marked money is not has been questioned and discredited by
prohibited per se the prosecution itself. Its case against
Enrile is thus left without a leg to stand on
In the case of People v. Enrile,710 it was and must therefore be dismissed.
held that the discovery of the marked
money on him did not mean he was caught Law-enforcement authorities are
in the act of selling marijuana. The marked admonished that mere enthusiasm in the
money was not prohibited per se. Even if it discharge of their duties is not enough to
were, that fact alone would not retroactively build a case against a person charged with
validate the warrantless search and a crime. They should build it with
seizure. painstaking care, stone by stone of
provable fact, and with constant regard for
The principle has been honored through the rights of the accused, before they can
the ages in all liberty-loving regimes that a hope to secure a conviction that can be
man's house is his castle that not even the sustained in a court of justice.
mighty monarch, with all its forces, may
violate. There were measures available LACK OF URGENCY
under the law to enable the authorities to
search Enrile's house and to arrest him if Search and seizure conducted without
he was found in possession of prohibited the requisite judicial warrant is illegal
articles. The police did not employ these and void ab initio
measures.
In the case of People v. Pasudag,711 it was
What they did was simply intrude into held that as a general rule, the
Enrile's house and arrest him without the procurement of a search warrant is
slightest heed to the injunctions of the Bill required before a law enforcer may validly
of Rights. By so doing, they were using the search or seize the person, house, papers
tactics of the police state, where the or effects of any individual. The
minions of the government place little value Constitution provides that the right of the
on human rights and individual liberties and people to be secure in their persons,
are obssessed only with the maintenance houses, papers and effects against
of peace and punishment of crime. unreasonable searches and seizures of
whatever nature and for any purpose shall
In the light of the proven circumstances of be inviolable, x x x. Any evidence obtained
this case, the Court is not convinced that in violation of this provision is inadmissible.
there is enough evidence to establish
Enrile's guilt beyond the shadow of doubt. In the case at bar, the police authorities had
The paucity of such evidence only ample opportunity to secure from the court
strengthens the suspicion that the marked a search warrant. SPO2 Pepito Calip
money was really "planted" on Enrile by the inquired as to who owned the house. He
police officers who were probably worried was acquainted with marijuana plants and
that their earlier efforts in securing Enrile's immediately recognized that some plants in
conviction as a drug pusher would be the backyard of the house were marijuana
thwarted by his application for probation. plants. Time was not of the essence to
uproot and confiscate the plants. They
Whatever their motives, the fact is that were three months old and there was no
Abugatal's sworn statement implicating sufficient reason to believe that they would
Enrile is inadmissible against Enrile, and so be uprooted on that same day.
is the marked money allegedly found on
him as a result of the illegal search. The In People vs. Valdez,712 the Court ruled that
only remaining evidence against the search and seizure conducted without the
710 G.R. No. 74189, May 26, 1993 712 G.R. No. 129296, September 25, 2000
711 G. R. No. 128822, May 4, 2001
(Colossians 3:23)
requisite judicial warrant is illegal and void head of the arresting team, had determined
ab initio. The prosecution’s evidence on his own authority that a "search warrant
clearly established that the police was not necessary."
conducted a search of accused’s backyard
garden without a warrant; they had In the many cases where this Court has
sufficient time to obtain a search warrant; sustained the warrantless arrest of
they failed to secure one. There was no violators of the Dangerous Drugs Act, it has
showing of urgency or necessity for the always been shown that they were caught
warrantless search, or the immediate red-handed, as a result of what are
seizure of the marijuana plants. popularly called "buy-bust" operations of
the narcotics agents.715 Rule 113 was
When expediency cannot be invoked clearly applicable because at the precise
time of arrest the accused was in the act of
In the case of People v. Aminnudin,713 there selling the prohibited drug.
was no warrant of arrest or search warrant
issued by a judge after personal In the case at bar, the accused-appellant
determination by him of the existence of was not, at the moment of his arrest,
probable cause. Contrary to the averments committing a crime nor was it shown that
of the government, the accused-appellant he was about to do so or that he had just
was not caught in flagrante nor was a crime done so. What he was doing was
about to be committed or had just been descending the gangplank of the M/V
committed to justify the warrantless arrest Wilcon 9 and there was no outward
allowed under Rule 113 of the Rules of indication that called for his arrest. To all
Court. Even expediency could not be appearances, he was like any of the other
invoked to dispense with the obtention of passengers innocently disembarking from
the warrant as in the case of Roldan v. the vessel. It was only when the informer
Arca,714 for example. Here it was held that pointed to him as the carrier of the
vessels and aircraft are subject to marijuana that he suddenly became
warrantless searches and seizures for suspect and so subject to apprehension. It
violation of the customs law because these was the furtive finger that triggered his
vehicles may be quickly moved out of the arrest. The Identification by the informer
locality or jurisdiction before the warrant was the probable cause as determined by
can be secured. the officers (and not a judge) that
authorized them to pounce upon
The present case presented no such Aminnudin and immediately arrest him.
urgency. From the conflicting declarations
of the PC witnesses, it is clear that they had EFFECT OF BAIL
at least two days within which they could
have obtained a warrant to arrest and Section 26 of Rule 114 of the Revised
search Aminnudin who was coming to Iloilo Rules of Court.
on the M/V Wilcon 9. His name was known.
The vehicle was Identified. The date of its Bail not a bar to objections on illegal
arrival was certain. And from the arrest, lack of or irregular preliminary
information they had received, they could investigation. — An application for or
have persuaded a judge that there was admission to bail shall not bar the
probable cause, indeed, to justify the accused from challenging the validity of
issuance of a warrant. Yet they did nothing. his arrest or the legality of the warrant
No effort was made to comply with the law. issued therefor, or from assailing the
The Bill of Rights was ignored altogether regularity or questioning the absence of
because the PC lieutenant who was the a preliminary investigation of the charge
713 G.R.No. 74869, July 6, 1988 Sarmiento, 147 SCRA 252; People v.
714 65 SCRA 336 Cerelegia; 147 SCRA 538; People v. Fernando,
715 People v. Rubio, 142 SCRA 329; People v. G.R. No. L-68409, December 1, 1987
Madarang, 147 SCRA 123; People v.
(Colossians 3:23)
against him, provided that he raises them those leading to the conviction of the
before entering his plea. The court shall appellants and his co-accused, nor can the
resolve the matter as early as practicable state be deprived of its right to convict the
but not later than the start of the trial of guilty when all the facts on record point to
the case. their culpability.
EFFECT OF ENTRY OF PLEA
By so pleading, they submitted to the

jurisdiction of the trial court, thereby
curing any defect in their arrest, for the
legality of an arrest affects only the
jurisdiction of the court over their
persons
In the case of People v. Plana,716 the Court

held that with respect to the second issue
raised by accused-appellants, i.e., they
were detained without judicial order and
prior to the filing of the information, suffice
it to say, that they already waived their right
to question the irregularity, if any, in their
arrest.
Accused-appellants respectively entered a

plea of not guilty at their arraignment.
By so pleading, they submitted to the

jurisdiction of the trial court, thereby curing
any defect in their arrest, for the legality of
an arrest affects only the jurisdiction of the
court over their persons.
VALIDITY OF CONVICTION
The warrantless arrest, even if illegal,

cannot render void all other
proceedings including those leading to
the conviction of the appellants and his
co-accused, nor can the state be
deprived of its right to convict the guilty
when all the facts on record point to
their culpability
In the case of People v. Conde,717 the Court

held that the illegal arrest of an accused is
not sufficient cause for setting aside a valid
judgment rendered upon a sufficient
complaint after trial free from error. The
warrantless arrest, even if illegal, cannot
render void all other proceedings including
716 G.R. No. 128285, November 27, 2001 717 G.R. No. 113269, April 10, 2001
(Colossians 3:23)
PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATION AND law; or to replay the same for any other
CORRESPONDENCE person or persons; or to communicate the
contents thereof, either verbally or in
SECTION 3 OF ART. III writing, or to furnish transcriptions thereof,
whether complete or partial, to any other
(1) The privacy of communication person: Provided, That the use of such
and correspondence shall be record or any copies thereof as evidence in
inviolable except upon lawful any civil, criminal investigation or trial of
order of the court, or when offenses mentioned in Sec. 3 hereof, shall
public safety or order requires not be covered by this prohibition.719
otherwise as prescribed by
law. RA No. 4200 is applicable only if the
conversation is “private”
(2) Any evidence obtained in
violation of this or the In the case of Navarro v. CA,720 the Court
preceding section shall be ruled that the law prohibits the overhearing,
inadmissible for any purpose intercepting, or recording of private
in any proceeding. communications.
Since the exchange between petitioner

Exception to the right of privacy as Navarro and Lingan was not private, its
provided under the Constitution tape recording is not prohibited.
The only exception to the prohibition in the How can this crime be committed?
Constitution is if there is a lawful order [from
a] court or when public safety or order There must be either a physical interruption
requires otherwise, as prescribed by law.718 through a wiretap or the deliberate
installation of a device or arrangement in
Anti-Wiretapping Act (R.A. No. 4200) order to overhear, intercept, or record the
spoken words.721
It shall be unlawful for any person, not
being authorized by all the parties to any Types of devices prohibited under the
private communication or spoken word, to act
tap any wire or cable, or by using any other
device or arrangement, to secretly 1. Dictaphone
overhear, intercept, or record such 2. Dictagraph
communication or spoken word by using a 3. Detectaphone
device commonly known as a dictaphone 4. Walkie-talkie
or dictagraph or detectaphone or walkie- 5. Tape recorder
talkie or tape recorder, or however
otherwise described: Meaning of "device or arrangement" in
Section 1 of RA No. 4200
It shall also be unlawful for any person, be
he a participant or not in the act or acts The phrase "device or arrangement" in
penalized in the next preceding sentence, Section 1 of RA No. 4200, although not
to knowingly possess any tape record, wire exclusive to that enumerated therein,
record, disc record, or any other such should be construed to comprehend
record, or copies thereof, of any instruments of the same or similar nature,
communication or spoken word secured that is, instruments the use of which would
either before or after the effective date of be tantamount to tapping the main line of a
this Act in the manner prohibited by this telephone.
718 Zulueta v. CA, G.R. No. 107383, February 720G.R. No. 121087, August 26, 1999
20, 1996 721Gaanan v. IAC, G.R. No. L-69809, October
719 Sec. 1 of R.A. No. 4200 16, 1986
(Colossians 3:23)
The law can be invoked against “any

It refers to instruments whose installation or person” (private or public) pursuant to Sec.
presence cannot be presumed by the party 1 of the law.
or parties being overheard because, by
their very nature, they are not of common As ruled in the case of Ramirez v. CA725 the
usage and their purpose is precisely for provision clearly and unequivocally makes
tapping, intercepting or recording a it illegal for any person, not authorized by
telephone conversation.722 all the parties to any private communication
to secretly record such communication by
Hence, in the case of Gaanan v. IAC,723 the means of a tape recorder. The law makes
Court ruled that it is a general rule that no distinction as to whether the party
penal statutes must be construed strictly in sought to be penalized by the statute ought
favor of the accused. Thus, in case of doubt to be a party other than or different from
as in the case at bar, on whether or not an those involved in the private
extension telephone is included in the communication.
phrase "device or arrangement", the penal
statute must be construed as not including The Court further ruled that the provision
an extension telephone. seeks to penalize even those privy to the
private communications. Where the law
Mere act of listening is not prohibited makes no distinctions, one does not
under RA 4200 distinguish.
As held by the Court in the case of Gaanan The right of privacy of communication
v. IAC724 consequently, the mere act of can also be invoked even if the person
listening, in order to be punishable must is in a public telephone booth
strictly be with the use of the enumerated
devices in RA No. 4200 or others of similar The US Supreme Court held in the case of
nature. Hence, the Court held that an Katz v. US726 that the surveillance of the
extension telephone is not among such telephone booth bypasses the safeguards
devices or arrangements prohibited under provided by an objective predetermination
RA No. 4200. of probable cause, and substitutes instead
the far less reliable procedure of an after-
What the law intends to prohibit? the-event justification for the . . . search, too
likely to be subtly influenced by the familiar
The law intends to prohibit is the use of shortcomings of hindsight judgment.
tape record and other electronic devices to
intercept private conversations which later Hence, the Court ruled that the
on will be used in court. Government's eavesdropping activities
violated the privacy upon which petitioner
It can be readily seen that our lawmakers justifiably relied while using the telephone
intended to discourage, through booth, and thus constituted a "search and
punishment, persons such as government seizure" within the meaning of the Fourth
authorities or representatives of organized Amendment.
groups from installing devices in order to
gather evidence for use in court or to The nature of the conversations is
intimidate, blackmail or gain some immaterial to a violation of the statute
unwarranted advantage over the telephone
users. The Court ruled in the case of Ramirez v.
CA727 that the nature of the conversations
To whom can this law be invoked? is immaterial to a violation of the statute.
The substance of the same need not be

723 G.R. No. L-69809, October 16, 1986 726 389 U.S. 347 (1967)
724 G.R. No. L-69809, October 16, 1986 727 G.R. No. 93833, September 28, 1995
(Colossians 3:23)
specifically alleged in the information. What As a general rule, an inmate has no

R.A. 4200 penalizes are the acts of secretly reasonable expectation of privacy
overhearing, intercepting or recording inside his cell
private communications by means of the
devices enumerated therein. In the case of Hudson v. Palmer,730 the US
Supreme Court held that prisoners
As the Solicitor General pointed out in his necessarily lose many protections of the
COMMENT before the respondent court: Constitution, thus:
"Nowhere (in the said law) is it required that
before one can be regarded as a violator, However, while persons imprisoned for
the nature of the conversation, as well as crime enjoy many protections of the
its communication to a third person should Constitution, it is also clear that
be professed." imprisonment carries with it the
circumscription or loss of many significant
Meaning of “Private Communications” rights. These constraints on inmates, and
as contemplated under Sec. 1 of RA in some cases the complete withdrawal of
4200 certain rights, are justified by the
considerations underlying our penal
These definitions are broad enough to system.
include verbal or non-verbal, written or
expressive communications of "meanings The curtailment of certain rights is
or thoughts" which are likely to include the necessary, as a practical matter, to
emotionally-charged exchange. accommodate a myriad of institutional
needs and objectives of prison facilities,
Any doubts about the legislative body's chief among which is internal security. Of
meaning of the phrase "private course, these restrictions or retractions
communication" are, furthermore, put to also serve, incidentally, as reminders that,
rest by the fact that the terms under our system of justice, deterrence and
"conversation" and "communication" were retribution are factors in addition to
interchangeably used by Senator Tañada correction.
in his Explanatory Note to the bill.728
Privacy rights enjoyed by convicted
Absent a clear showing that both parties prisoners
to the telephone conversations allowed
the recording of the same, the The U.S. Supreme Court held in the case
inadmissibility of the subject tapes is of Wolff v. Mcdonnel731 that prison officials
mandatory could open in the presence of the inmates
incoming mail from attorneys to inmates.
In the case of Salcedo-Ortanez v. CA,729 However, prison officials could not read
the Court ruled that respondents trial court such mail from attorneys.
and Court of Appeals failed to consider the
provisions of the law (RA 4200) in admitting As to the ability to open the mail in the
in evidence the cassette tapes in question. presence of inmates, this could in no way
constitute censorship, since the mail would
Absent a clear showing that both parties to not be read. Neither could it chill such
the telephone conversations allowed the communications, since the inmate’s
recording of the same, the inadmissibility of presence insures that prison officials will
the subject tapes is mandatory under Rep. not read the mail. The possibility that
Act No. 4200. contraband will be enclosed in letters, even
those from apparent attorneys, surely
warrants prison officials opening the letters.
728 Ramirez v. CA, G.R. No. 93833, September 730 468 U.S. 517 (1984)
28, 1995 731 418 U.S. 539 (1974)
729 G.R. No. 110662, August 4, 1994
(Colossians 3:23)
Difference between confidential and

Privacy rights enjoyed pre-trial non-confidential letters between the
detainees detainees and their lawyers
The US Supreme Court held in the case of The Court held in the case of Alejano v.
Palmigiano v. Travisono732 that pre-trial Cabuay734 that the letters alleged to have
detainees, unlike convicted prisoners, been read by the ISAFP authorities were
enjoy a limited right of privacy in not confidential letters between the
communication. Censorship of pre-trial detainees and their lawyers. The petitioner
detainee’s mail addressed to public who received the letters from detainees
officials, courts and counsel was held Trillanes and Maestrecampo was merely
impermissible. While incoming mail may be acting as the detainees’ personal courier
inspected for contraband and read in and not as their counsel when he received
certain instances, outgoing mail of pre-trial the letters for mailing.
detainees could not be inspected or read at
all. In the present case, since the letters were
not confidential communication between
However, the later case of State v. Dunn,733 the detainees and their lawyers, the
citing Hudson v. Palmer, abandoned officials of the ISAFP Detention Center
Palmigiano v. Travisono and made no could read the letters.
distinction as to the detainees limited right
to privacy. State v. Dunn noted the If the letters are marked confidential
considerable jurisprudence in the United communication between the detainees and
States holding that inmate mail may be their lawyers, the detention officials should
censored for the furtherance of a not read the letters but only open the
substantial government interest such as envelopes for inspection in the presence of
security or discipline. the detainees.
State v. Dunn declared that if complete Is privacy of communication also

censorship is permissible, then the lesser applicable to government employees?
act of opening the mail and reading it is also
permissible. Yes. It was held by the US Supreme Court
in the case of O’Connor v. Ortega735 that
An excerpt of the decision is reproduced the said right also applies to a government
below: workplace.
“[A] right of privacy in traditional Fourth Requisites under O’Connor v. Ortega case:
Amendment terms is fundamentally
incompatible with the close and continual 1. When government employees’
surveillance of inmates and their cells have reasonable expectations of
required to ensure institutional security and privacy in their workplace; and
internal order. We are satisfied that society
would insist that the prisoner’s expectation 2. Search conducted by the public
of privacy always yield to what must be employer must be reasonable.
considered a paramount interest in
institutional security. We believe that it is Question of whether an employee has a
accepted by our society that [l]oss of reasonable expectation of privacy must
freedom of choice and privacy are inherent be addressed on a case-by-case basis
incidents of confinement.”
The US Supreme Court held in the case of
O’Connor v. Ortega736 that the employee’s
732 317 F. Supp. 776 (1970) 735 480 U.S. 709 (1987)
733 478 So.2d 659 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1985) 736 Ibid.
734 G.R. No. 160792, August 25, 2005
(Colossians 3:23)
expectation of privacy must be assessed in supervision, control, and the efficient

the context of the employment relation. An operation of the workplace.
office is seldom a private enclave free from
entry by supervisors, other employees, and Work-related searches are merely incident
business and personal invitees. Instead, in to the primary business of the agency,
many cases offices are continually entered hence, a warrant is no longer needed.
by fellow employees and other visitors
during the workday for conferences, Under these circumstances, the imposition
consultations, and other work-related visits. of a warrant requirement would conflict with
Simply put, it is the nature of government the "common-sense realization that
offices that others – such as fellow government offices could not function if
employees, supervisors, consensual every employment decision became a
visitors, and the general public – may have constitutional matter.
frequent access to an individual’s office.
To ensure the efficient and proper
"[c]onstitutional protection against operation of the agency, therefore, public
unreasonable searches by the government employers must be given wide latitude to
does not disappear merely because the enter employee offices for work-related,
government has the right to make noninvestigatory reasons.
reasonable intrusions in its capacity as
employer," x x x but some government Same goes true when it comes to
offices may be so open to fellow employees employee misconduct. The Court held that
or the public that no expectation of privacy a probable cause requirement for searches
is reasonable. x x x Given the great variety of the type at issue here would impose
of work environments in the public sector, intolerable burdens on public employers.
the question of whether an employee has a The delay in correcting the employee
reasonable expectation of privacy must be misconduct caused by the need for
addressed on a case-by-case basis. probable cause rather than reasonable
suspicion will be translated into tangible
Possible defense: Public employees’ and often irreparable damage to the
expectations of privacy in their offices, agency’s work, and ultimately to the public
desks, and file cabinets, like similar interest.
expectations of employees in the private
sector, may be reduced by virtue of actual Determining the reasonableness of any
office practices and procedures, or by search involves a twofold inquiry:
legitimate regulation.
1. One must consider ‘whether
Balance the invasion of the employees’ the…action was justified at its
legitimate expectations of privacy against inception; and
the government’s need for supervision,
control, and the efficient operation of the 2. One must determine whether the
workplace. search as actually conducted ‘was
reasonably related in scope to the
Determining whether or not the search circumstances which justified the
conducted by the public employer is interference in the first place
reasonable
An action justified at its inception
The US Supreme Court held in the case of
O’Connor v. Ortega737 that in the case of The US Supreme Court held in the case of
searches conducted by a public employer, O’Connor v. Ortega738 that ordinarily, a
we must balance the invasion of the search of an employee’s office by a
employees’ legitimate expectations of supervisor will be "justified at its inception"
privacy against the government’s need for when there are reasonable grounds for
737 480 U.S. 709 (1987) 738 Ibid.

(Colossians 3:23)
suspecting that the search will turn up implies that on-the-spot inspections may be
evidence that the employee is guilty of done to ensure that the computer
work-related misconduct, or that the search resources were used only for such
is necessary for a noninvestigatory work- legitimate business purposes.
related purpose such as to retrieve a
needed file. x x x The search will be The search of petitioner’s computer files
permissible in its scope when "the was conducted in connection with
measures adopted are reasonably related investigation of work-related misconduct
to the objectives of the search and not prompted by an anonymous letter-
excessively intrusive in light of …the nature complaint addressed to Chairperson David
of the [misconduct]." regarding anomalies in the CSC-ROIV
where the head of the Mamamayan Muna
In O’Connor, the Court recognized that Hindi Mamaya Na division is supposedly
"special needs" authorize warrantless "lawyering" for individuals with pending
searches involving public employees for cases in the CSC.
work-related reasons. The Court thus laid
down a balancing test under which Letters addressed to individual
government interests are weighed against Justices, in connection with the
the employee’s reasonable expectation of performance of their judicial functions
privacy. This reasonableness test become part of the judicial record and
implicates neither probable cause nor the are a matter of concern for the entire
warrant requirement, which are related to Court
law enforcement.
In the case of In Re Laureta,741 the Court
Under the reasonableness standard, ruled that Letters addressed to individual
both the inception and the scope of the Justices, in connection with the
intrusion must be reasonable performance of their judicial functions
become part of the judicial record and are
The US Supreme Court held in the case of a matter of concern for the entire Court.
O’Connor v. Ortega739 that public employer The contumacious character of those
intrusions on the constitutionally protected letters constrained the First Division to refer
privacy interests of government employees the same to the Court en banc, en consulta
for noninvestigatory, work-related and so that the Court en banc could pass
purposes, as well as for investigations of upon the judicial acts of the Division.
work-related misconduct, should be judged
by the standard of reasonableness under If the production of that letter by the
all the circumstances. prosecution was not the result of an
unlawful search and seizure nor was it
A public employee has no reasonable through unwarranted intrusion or
expectation of privacy with regard to the invasion, the same is admissible
computer assigned to him by virtue of
public office The Court ruled in the case of People v.
Albofera742 that privacy of communication
In the case of Pollo v. Constantino- implements another Constitutional
David,740 the Court ruled that the CSC in provision on the security of a citizen against
this case had implemented a policy that put unreasonable search and seizure. The
its employees on notice that they have no production of that letter by the prosecution
expectation of privacy in anything they was not the result of an unlawful search
create, store, send or receive on the office and seizure nor was it through unwarranted
computers, and that the CSC may monitor intrusion or invasion into Albofera's privacy.
the use of the computer resources using
both automated or human means. This
739 Ibid. 741 G.R. No. L-68635, May 14, 1987

740 G.R. No. 181881, October 18, 2011 742 G.R. No. L-69377, July 20, 1987
(Colossians 3:23)
Albofera admitted having sent the letter Communication is privileged in nature

and it was its recipient, Rodrigo Esma and as such comes within the purview
himself, who produced and Identified the of Article 354 of the Revised Penal Code
same in the course of his testimony in
Court. Besides, there is nothing really self- It was held in the case of Deaño v.
incriminatory in the letter. Albofera mainly Godinez745 that communication is
pleaded that Esma change his declaration privileged in nature and as such comes
in his Affidavit and testify in his (Albofera's) within the purview of Article 354 of the
favor. Furthermore, nothing Albofera stated Revised Penal Code:
in his letter is being taken against him in
arriving at a determination of his culpability. 1. A private communication made by
any person to another in the
Constitutional protection against performance of any legal, moral or
unreasonable searches and seizures social duty; and
refers to the immunity of one’s person
from interference by government and 2. A fair and true report, made in good
cannot be extended to acts committed faith, without any comments or
by private individuals remarks, of any judicial, legislative
or other official proceedings which
In the case of Zulueta v. CA,743 the Court are not of confidential nature, or of
held that the files obtained by the petitioner any statement, report or speech
from her husband are inadmissible as delivered in said proceedings, or of
evidence. The constitutional injunction any other act performed by public
declaring the privacy of communication and officers in the exercise of their
correspondence [to be] inviolable is no less functions.
applicable simply because it is the wife
(who thinks herself aggrieved by her In the case at bar, the letter sent by
husband’s infidelity) who is the party defendant being a privileged
against whom the constitutional provision is communication, it is presumed that it was
to be enforced. The only exception to the sent without malice. It being a
prohibition in the Constitution is if there is a communication sent in the discharge of a
lawful order [from a] court or when public legal duty, the writer is not liable for
safety or order requires otherwise, as damages.
prescribed by law. Any violation of this
provision renders the evidence obtained It will be noted that all of the defendant's
inadmissible for any purpose in any communications were of a public nature
proceeding. and addressed to his superior officers, and
that his investigation was made in the line
However, the Zulueta ruling was later on of his duty. There is no evidence that
reversed in the case of Waterhouse Drug defendant was actuated by any malicious
Corporation v. NLRC,744 wherein the Court motive ....
held that it did not find no reason to revise
the doctrine laid down in People vs. Marti SECTION 3(2) OF ARTICLE III. Any
that the Bill of Rights does not protect evidence obtained in violation of this
citizens from unreasonable searches and or the preceding section shall be
seizures perpetrated by private individuals. inadmissible for any purpose in any
It is not true, as counsel for Catolico claims, proceeding.
that the citizens have no recourse against
such assaults. On the contrary, and as said
counsel admits, such an invasion gives rise Purpose
to both criminal and civil liabilities.
743 G.R. No. 107383, February 20, 1996 744 G.R. No. 113271, October 16, 1997
745 G.R. No. L-19518, November 28, 1964
(Colossians 3:23)
Under the libertarian exclusionary rule Chief Justice Claudio Teehankee — to the
known as the fruit of the poisonous tree, law of force rather than the force of law, it
evidence illegally obtained by the state is necessary to remind ourselves that
should not be used to gain other evidence certain basic rights and liberties are
because the illegally obtained evidence immutable and cannot be sacrificed to the
taints all evidence subsequently transient needs or imperious demands of
obtained.746 the ruling power. The rule of law must
prevail, or else liberty will perish. Our
The essence of a provision forbidding the commitment to democratic principles and
acquisition of evidence in a certain way is to the rule of law compels us to reject the
that not merely evidence so acquired shall view which reduces law to nothing but the
not be used before the Court, but that it expression of the will of the predominant
shall not be used at all.747 power in the community.
The exclusionary rule is the only practical "Democracy cannot be a reign of progress,
means of enforcing the constitutional of liberty, of justice, unless the law is
injunction against abuse. This approach is respected by him who makes it and by him
based on the justification made by Judge for whom it is made. Now this respect
Learned Hand that only in case the implies a maximum of faith, a minimum of
prosecution which itself controls the seizing Idealism. On going to the bottom of the
officials, knows that it cannot profit by their matter, we discover that life demands of us
wrong, will the wrong be repressed.748 a certain residuum of sentiment which is
not derived from reason, but which reason
If knowledge of them is gained from an nevertheless controls.750
independent source the same can be
used as evidence It should be noted that under Art. 32, the
indemnity shall include moral damages.
Of course, this does not mean that the facts Exemplary damages may also be
thus obtained become sacred and adjudicated.
inaccessible. If knowledge of them is
gained from an independent source they
may be proved like any others, but the
knowledge gained by the Government's
own wrong cannot be used by it in the way
proposed.749
Liability for damages in case of violation
It is obvious that the purpose of Art. 32 of

the New Civil Code is to provide a sanction
to the deeply cherished rights and
freedoms enshrined in the Constitution. Its
message is clear; no man may seek to
violate those sacred rights with impunity.
In times of great upheaval or of social and

political stress, when the temptation is
strongest to yield — borrowing the words of
746 People v. Rondero, G.R. No. 125687, 749 Silverthorne Lumber v. US, 251 US 385
December 9, 1999 (1920)
747 Silverthorne Lumber v. US, 251 US 385 750 Aberca v. Maj. Gen. Ver, G.R. No. L-69866,
(1920) April 15, 1988

748 People v. Aruta, G.R. No. 120915, April 3,
1998
(Colossians 3:23)
RIGHTS OF PERSONS UNDER Ratio: It is not admissible to do a great right

CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION by doing a little wrong. . . . It is not sufficient
to do justice by obtaining a proper result by
SECTION 12 OF ARTICLE III irregular or improper means. Furthermore,
not only does the use of the third degree
(1) Any person under involve a flagrant violation of law by the
investigation for the officers of the law, but it involves also the
commission of an offense dangers of false confessions, and it tends
shall have the right to be to make police and prosecutors less
informed of his right to remain zealous in the search for objective
silent and to have competent evidence.752
and independent counsel
preferably of his own choice. If Hence, in the case of Miranda v. Arizona,753
the person cannot afford the the US Supreme Court ruled that the
services of counsel, he must statements obtained by the police are
be provided with one. These inadmissible as evidence since the
rights cannot be waived except constitutional right of the accused (Arizona)
in writing and in the presence was blatantly violated when the police did
of counsel. not effectively advise him of his right to
remain silent or of his right to consult with
(2) No torture, force, violence, his attorney. Rather, they confronted him
threat, intimidation, or any with an alleged accomplice who accused
other means which vitiate the him of having perpetrated a murder. In
free will shall be used against addition, during Arizona’s interrogation, the
him. Secret detention places, police denied his request to speak to his
solitary, incommunicado, or attorney, and they prevented his retained
other similar forms of attorney, who had come to the police
detention are prohibited. station, from consulting with him.
(3) Any confession or admission To whom is this privilege applicable?

obtained in violation of this or
Section 17 hereof shall be It was clarified by the Court in the case of
inadmissible in evidence People v. Judge Ayson754 that these rights
against him. apply to persons "under investigation for
the commission of an offense," i.e.,
(4) The law shall provide for penal "suspects" under investigation by police
and civil sanctions for authorities.
violations of this section as
well as compensation to and And this is what makes these rights
rehabilitation of victims of different from that embodied in the first
torture or similar practices, sentence, that against self-incrimination
and their families. which, as aforestated, (Sec. 17 of Art. III)
indiscriminately applies to any person
testifying in any proceeding, civil, criminal,
Legal maxim of nemo tenetur seipsum or administrative.
accusare
Objective of Sec. 12 of Art. III of the
The legal maxim of nemo tenetur seipsum Constitution
accusare states that an individual may not
be compelled to incriminate himself.751 The objective is to prohibit
"incommunicado interrogation of
individuals in a police-dominated
751 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 753 384 U.S. 436
752 Ibid. 754 G.R. No. 85215, July 7, 1989
(Colossians 3:23)
atmosphere, resulting in self-incriminating custody interrogation of accused

statement without full warnings of persons.757
constitutional rights.755
This constitutional right is available
The constitutional right is only even if the accused is located abroad
applicable on or after January 17, 1973
In the case of People v. Gomez,758 the
756
It was held in the case of People v. Jose Court ruled that it is immaterial that the
that a confession obtained from a person sworn statement was executed in a foreign
under investigation for the commission of land. Appellant, a Filipino citizen, should
an offense, who has not been informed of enjoy these constitutional rights, like
his right (to silence and) to counsel, is anyone else, even when abroad.
inadmissible in evidence if the same had
been obtained after the effectivity of the What is custodial investigation?
New Constitution on January 17, 1973.
Custodial investigation is the stage where
Conversely, such confession is admissible the police investigation is no longer a
in evidence against the accused, if the general inquiry into an unsolved crime but
same had been obtained before the has begun to focus on a particular suspect
effectivity of the New Constitution, even if taken into custody by the police who carry
presented after January 17, 1973, and out a process of interrogation that lends
even if he had not been informed of his right itself to elicit incriminating statements.759
to counsel, since no law gave the accused
the right to be so informed before that date. Custodial interrogation is meant
"questioning initiated by law enforcement
In the case at bar, since the confession of officers after a person has been taken into
Bajao was given by him before the custody or otherwise deprived of his
effectivity of the New Constitution, the freedom of action in any significant way.760
Court admitted the admissibility of the said
extrajudicial confession. Defendant on trial or under preliminary
investigation is not under custodial
Kinds of confessions that Sec. 12 of Art. interrogation
III seeks to protect:
It seems quite evident that a defendant on
Sec. 12 of Art. III seeks to protect trial or under preliminary investigation is not
uncounseled confessions made: under custodial interrogation. His
interrogation by the police, if any there had
1. Orally; been would already have been ended at
2. In writing; the time of the filing of the criminal case in
3. Impliedly; or court (or the public prosecutors' office).
4. Thru re-enactments.
Hence, with respect to a defendant in a
The rights granted in Sec. 12 of Art. III criminal case already pending in court (or
exist only in "custodial interrogations," the public prosecutor's office), there is no
or "in-custody interrogation of accused occasion to speak of his right while under
persons "custodial interrogation" laid down by the
second and subsequent sentences of
The rights above specified, to repeat, exist Section 20, Article IV of the 1973
only in "custodial interrogations," or "in-
755 People v. Ayson, G.R. No. 85215 July 7, 758 G.R. No. 101817, March 26, 1997
1989 759 People v. Del Rosario, G.R. No. 127755,
756 G.R. No. L-35280, August 12, 1983 April 14, 1999
757 People v. Ayson, G.R. No. 85215 July 7, 760 People v. Ayson, G.R. No. 85215 July 7,
1989 1989
(Colossians 3:23)
Constitution, for the obvious reason that he

is no longer under "custodial interrogation." The US Supreme Court held in the case of
Escobedo v. Illinois764 that when the
But unquestionably, the accused in court process shifts from investigatory to
(or undergoing preliminary investigation accusatory -- when its focus is on the
before the public prosecutor), in common accused and its purpose is to elicit a
with all other persons, possesses the right confession -- our adversary system begins
against self- incrimination set out in the first to operate, and, under the circumstances
sentence of Section 20 Article IV of the here, the accused must be permitted to
1973 Constitution (now Sec. 17 of Art. III of consult with his lawyer.
the 1987 Constitution), i.e., the right to
refuse to answer a specific incriminatory Hence, the US Supreme Court ruled that
question at the time that it is put to him.761 the statement made by Escobedo against
DiGerlando, while they are both in police
Most confessions are obtained during custody, was held inadmissible as
the period between arrest and evidence since they were not allowed to be
indictment represented by a lawyer while under police
interrogation.
Because most confessions are obtained
during the period between arrest and The right under Sec. 12 of Art. III is not
indictment, any lawyer worth his salt will tell applicable if the inquest was still a
the suspect in no uncertain terms to make general inquiry into an unsolved offense
no statement to police under any at the time and there was, as yet, no
circumstances.762 specific suspect
The period of arrest and indictment is In the case of People v. Uy,765 the Court
critical in nature since it is the "stage held that the statements given by the
when legal aid and advice" are surely accused, which was taken during the
needed administrative investigation of NPCs audit
team and before he was taken into custody,
The fact that many confessions are are admissible as evidence.
obtained during this period points up its
critical nature as a "stage when legal aid It should be noted that the inquest was still
and advice" are surely needed. a general inquiry into an unsolved offense
at the time and there was, as yet, no
The right to counsel would indeed be specific suspect.
hollow if it began at a period when few
confessions were obtained. Who are authorized to conduct the
investigation?
There is necessarily a direct relationship
between the importance of a stage to the The investigation is defined as an
police in their quest for a confession and investigation conducted by police
the criticalness of that stage to the accused authorities which will include investigation
in his need for legal advice.763 conducted by the following:
When the process shifts from 1. Municipal Police,

investigatory to accusatory our
adversary system begins to operate, 2. P.C. (now PNP),
and, under the circumstances here, the
accused must be permitted to consult 3. NBI, and
with his lawyer
761 Ibid. 764 378 U.S. 478 (1964)

762 Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 (1964) 765 G.R. No. 157399, November 17, 2005
763 Ibid.
(Colossians 3:23)
4. Such other police agencies in our willingly, openly and publicly in the
government.766 presence of newsmen is not
covered by the provision.
Can the right be invoked if the
investigation was conducted by the However, the Court warned trial
Office of Court administrator? courts to take extreme caution in
further admitting similar
No. As held in the case of OCA v. confessions because we
Sumilang,767 the Office of the Court recognized the distinct possibility
Administrator can hardly be deemed to be that the police, with the connivance
the law enforcement authority of unscrupulous media
contemplated in the constitutional practitioners, may attempt to
provision. legitimize coerced extrajudicial
confessions and place them
Hence, it can be deduced that the said right beyond the exclusionary rule by
cannot be invoked. having an accused admit an
offense on television. 772
The rights enumerated by the
constitutional provision are not Ratio: The protective mantle of the
available before government constitutional provision also does
investigators enter the picture not extend to admissions or
confessions made to a private
The Court held in the case of People v. individual.773
Uy,768 that the rights enumerated by the
constitutional provision invoked by How to conduct custodial investigation
accused-appellant are not available before pursuant to the Miranda v. Arizona774
government investigators enter the picture. ruling:
Hence, such rights cannot be invoked in 1. If a person in custody is to be

the following cases: subjected to interrogation, he must
first be informed in clear and
1. Admissions made during the course unequivocal terms that he has the
of an administrative investigation by right to remain silent
Philippine Airlines do not come
within the purview of Section 12.769 Ratio: More important, such a
warning is an absolute prerequisite
2. Verbal admission made to a radio in overcoming the inherent
announcer who was not part of the pressures of the interrogation
investigation.770 atmosphere. It is not just the
subnormal or woefully ignorant who
3. Admission made to a mayor which succumb to an interrogator's
was approached as a personal imprecations, whether implied or
confidante and not in his official expressly stated, that the
capacity.771 interrogation will continue until a
confession is obtained or that
4. Videotaped interview showing the silence in the face of accusation is
accused unburdening his guilt
766 OCA v. Sumilang, A.M. No. MTJ-94-989, 771 People v. Zuela, 380 Phil. 568 [2000]
April 18, 1997 772 People v. Endino, G.R. No. 133026,
767 A.M. No. MTJ-94-989, April 18, 1997 February 20, 2001
768 G.R. No. 157399, November 17, 2005 773 People v. Uy, G.R. No. 157399, November
769 People v. Ayson, G.R. No. 85215, July 7, 17, 2005
1989 774 384 U.S. 436
770 People v. Ordoo, 390 Phil. 649 [2000]
(Colossians 3:23)
itself damning, and will bode ill 4. It is necessary to warn the accused
when presented to a jury. not only that he has the right to
consult with an attorney, but also
Further, the warning will show the that, if he is indigent, a lawyer will
individual that his interrogators are be appointed to represent him
prepared to recognize his privilege
should he choose to exercise it. Ratio: Without this additional
warning, the admonition of the right
2. The warning of the right to remain to consult with counsel would often
silent must be accompanied by the be understood as meaning only that
explanation that anything said can he can consult with a lawyer if he
and will be used against the has one or has the funds to obtain
individual in court one. Hence, if the interrogation
continues without the presence of
Ratio: This warning is needed in an attorney and a statement is
order to make him aware not only of taken, a heavy burden rests on the
the privilege, but also of the government to demonstrate that the
consequences of forgoing it. It is defendant knowingly and
only through an awareness of these intelligently waived his privilege
consequences that there can be against self-incrimination and his
any assurance of real right to retained or appointed
understanding and intelligent counsel.
exercise of the privilege. Moreover,
this warning may serve to make the In short, it was held in the case of Rhode
individual more acutely aware that Island v. Innis,775 that the Miranda warnings
he is faced with a phase of the -- namely, that the defendant be informed:
adversary system -- that he is not in
the presence of persons acting 1. That he has the right to remain
solely in his interest. silent,
3. The accused should be advised of 2. That anything he says can be used

his right to consult with counsel against him in a court of law,
prior to questioning and also to
have counsel present during any 3. That he has the right to the
questioning if the defendant so presence of an attorney, and
desires
4. That, if he cannot afford an
Ratio: If the accused decides to talk attorney, one will be appointed for
to his interrogators, the assistance him prior to any questioning if he so
of counsel can mitigate the dangers desires.
of untrustworthiness. With a lawyer
present, the likelihood that the -- or their equivalent.
police will practice coercion is
reduced, and, if coercion is However, in light of new legal
nevertheless exercised, the lawyer developments, the Court laid down in the
can testify to it in court. The case of People v. Mahinay776 the following
presence of a lawyer can also help procedure, guidelines and duties which the
to guarantee that the accused gives arresting, detaining, inviting, or
a fully accurate statement to the investigating officer or his companions
police, and that the statement is must do and observe at the time of making
rightly reported by the prosecution an arrest and again at and during the time
at trial. of the custodial interrogation:
775 446 U.S. 291 (1980) 776 G.R. No. 122485, February 1, 1999
(Colossians 3:23)
1. The person arrested, detained, duly accredited national or

invited or under custodial international non-government
investigation must be informed in a organization. It shall be the
language known to and understood responsibility of the officer to
by him of the reason for the arrest ensure that this is accomplished;
and he must be shown the warrant
of arrest, if any; Every other 7. He must be informed that he has
warnings, information or the right to waive any of said rights
communication must be in a provided it is made voluntarily,
language known to and understood knowingly and intelligently and
by said person; ensure that he understood the
same;
2. He must be warned that he has a
right to remain silent and that any 8. In addition, if the person arrested
statement he makes may be used waives his right to a lawyer, he must
as evidence against him; be informed that it must be done in
writing AND in the presence of
3. He must be informed that he has counsel, otherwise, he must be
the right to be assisted at all times warned that the waiver is void even
and have the presence of an if he insist on his waiver and
independent and competent chooses to speak;
lawyer, preferably of his own
choice; 9. That the person arrested must be
informed that he may indicate in
4. He must be informed that if he has any manner at any time or stage of
no lawyer or cannot afford the the process that he does not wish to
services of a lawyer, one will be be questioned with warning that
provided for him; and that a lawyer once he makes such indication, the
may also be engaged by any police may not interrogate him if the
person in his behalf, or may be same had not yet commenced, or
appointed by the court upon petition the interrogation must ceased if it
of the person arrested or one acting has already begun;
in his behalf;
10. The person arrested must be
5. That whether or not the person informed that his initial waiver of his
arrested has a lawyer, he must be right to remain silent, the right to
informed that no custodial counsel or any of his rights does not
investigation in any form shall be bar him from invoking it at any time
conducted except in the presence during the process, regardless of
of his counsel or after a valid waiver whether he may have answered
has been made; some questions or volunteered
some statements;
6. The person arrested must be
informed that, at any time, he has 11. He must also be informed that any
the right to communicate or confer statement or evidence, as the case
by the most expedient means may be, obtained in violation of any
telephone, radio, letter or of the foregoing, whether
messenger with his lawyer (either inculpatory or exculpatory, in whole
retained or appointed), any member or in part, shall be inadmissible in
of his immediate family, or any evidence.
medical doctor, priest or minister
chosen by him or by any one from The fundamental import of the privilege
his immediate family or by his while an individual is in custody is
counsel, or be visited by/confer with whether or not he can be interrogated
(Colossians 3:23)
The fundamental import of the privilege But that is not the end of the inquiry. It must
while an individual is in custody is not also be established that a suspect's
whether he is allowed to talk to the police incriminating response was the product of
without the benefit of warnings and words or actions on the part of the police
counsel, but whether he can be that they should have known were
interrogated.777 reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating
response.
Exception to the Miranda warning
Since the voluntary response of the
It was held by the US Supreme Court in the accused in telling the police officers where
case of New York v. Quarles778 that "public he hide his shotgun was not yet found to be
safety" is the exception to the requirement the product of the words or actions of the
of the Miranda warnings. police, the US Supreme Court remanded
the case for further proceedings.
The police in this case, in the very act of
apprehending a suspect, were confronted Allegation of violation of rights during
with the immediate necessity of custodial investigation, when relevant?
ascertaining the whereabouts of a gun
which they had every reason to believe the Any allegation of violation of rights during
suspect had just removed from his empty custodial investigation is relevant and
holster and discarded in the supermarket. material only to cases in which an
extrajudicial admission or confession
So long as the gun was concealed extracted from the accused becomes the
somewhere in the supermarket, with its basis of their conviction.
actual whereabouts unknown, it obviously
posed more than one danger to the public Hence, in the case of Ho Wai Pang v.
safety: an accomplice might make use of it, People781 the Court ruled that petitioner did
a customer or employee might later come not make any confession or admission
upon it. during his custodial investigation. The
prosecution did not present any
How can an individual know that he is extrajudicial confession extracted from him
being interrogated? as evidence of his guilt. Moreover, no
statement was taken from petitioner during
The definition of interrogation can extend his detention and subsequently used in
only to words or actions on the part of evidence against him. Verily, in
police officers that they should have known determining the guilt of the petitioner and
were reasonably likely to elicit an his co-accused, the trial court based its
incriminating response.779 Decision on the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses and on the
Hence, in the case of Rhode Island v. existence of the confiscated shabu.
Innis,780 the US Supreme Court ruled that
the definition of "interrogation" was not Any statement given freely and
satisfied, for the conversation between voluntarily without any compelling
Patrolmen Gleckman and McKenna influences is, of course, admissible in
included no express questioning of the evidence
respondent. Rather, that conversation was,
at least in form, nothing more than a The requisite of voluntariness is not
dialogue between the two officers to which satisfied by establishing merely that the
no response from the respondent was confession was not induced by a promise
invited. or a threat.
777 Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (1980) 780 446 U.S. 291 (1980)
778 467 U.S. 649 (1984) 781 G.R. No. 176229, October 19, 2011
779 Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (1980)
(Colossians 3:23)
be informed of his rights under the

A confession is voluntary in law if, and only Constitution and our laws.
if, it was, in fact, voluntarily made. A
confession may have been given Instead there should be several short and
voluntarily, although it was made to police clear questions and every right explained in
officers, while in custody, and in answer to simple words in a dialect or language
an examination conducted by them. known to the person under investigation.
But a confession obtained by compulsion Accused is from Samar and there is no

must be excluded whatever may have been showing that he understands Tagalog.
the character of the compulsion, and Moreover, at the time of his arrest, accused
whether the compulsion was applied in a was not permitted to communicate with his
judicial proceeding or otherwise.782 lawyer, a relative, or a friend. In fact, his
sisters and other relatives did not know that
If there is no clear proof of maltreatment he had been brought to the NBI for
and/or tortured in giving the statement, investigation and it was only about two
the confession of the accused is held to weeks after he had executed the salaysay
be true, correct and freely or voluntarily that his relatives were allowed to visit him.
given His statement does not even contain any
waiver of right to counsel and yet during the
In the case of People v. Mahinay,783 the investigation he was not assisted by one.
Court ruled that since there is no evidence At the supposed reenactment, again
presented to show that said confession accused was not assisted by counsel of his
were obtained as a result of violence, choice. These constitute gross violations of
torture, maltreatment, intimidation, threat or his rights.
promise of reward or leniency nor that the
investigating officer could have been Warning against imputing to an accused
motivated to concoct the facts narrated in an understanding of the proceeding
said affidavit; the confession of the when the language used is one with
accused is held to be true, correct and which he is not familiar
freely or voluntarily given.
In the case of People v. Caguioa,785 the
It should be noted that in this case, there is Court held that the statement of the
no clear proof of maltreatment and/or accused is inadmissible as evidence since
tortured in giving the statement. the accused is a Visayan and still a
Furthermore, there were no medical neophyte in the national penitentiary who
certificate submitted by the accused to does not understand well Tagalog, the
sustain his claim that he was mauled by the dialect used at the time of the police
police officers. interrogation. Furthermore, an observation
and closer look [at] his signature indeed
Long question followed by a reveals that the accused is an illiterate and
monosyllabic answer does not satisfy unschooled person. The strokes of his
the requirements of the law that the signature are irregular, halting, and show a
accused be informed of his rights under difficult and laborious effort to write the
the Constitution and our laws (Galit letters of his name.
Rule)
Tested by such a clear and unequivocal
It was held in the case of People v. Galit784 standard, the alleged waiver falls far short.
that a long question followed by a It is clearly inadmissible.
monosyllabic answer does not satisfy the
requirements of the law that the accused Spontaneous statement, elicited
without any interrogation, was part of
782 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 784 G.R. No. L-51770, March 20, 1985
783 G.R. No. 122485, February 1, 1999 785 G.R. No. L-38975, January 17, 1980
(Colossians 3:23)
the res gestae and at the same time was furnished by the police officers for him
a voluntary confession of guilt is not competent, independent, vigilant,
and effective
Tampus786 that spontaneous statement, In the case of People v. Sayaboc,788 the
elicited without any interrogation, was part Court ruled that the extrajudicial confession
of the res gestae (achievements) and at the of Sayaboc may not be admitted in
same time was a voluntary confession of evidence against him because Atty.
guilt. Cornejo, the PAO lawyer who was his
counsel during the custodial investigation,
Not only that. The two accused, by means was not a competent, independent, vigilant,
of that statement given freely on the spur of and effective counsel.
the moment without any urging or
suggestion, waived their right to remain He was ineffective because he remained
silent and to have the right to counsel. That silent during the entire proceedings. He
admission was confirmed by their was not independent, as he was formerly a
extrajudicial confession, plea of guilty and judge in the National Police Commission,
testimony in court. They did not appeal which was holding court inside the PNP
from the judgment of conviction. Command of Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya.
Waiver made by appellant/accused Statements if not made "under custodial

being without the assistance of counsel interrogation," or "under investigation
is sufficient to invalidate the sworn for the commission of an offense," the
statement made by such said statements are not protected
appellant/accused
Not every statement made to the police by
In the case of People v. Rodrigueza,787 the a person involved in some crime is within
Court held that an examination of said the scope of the constitutional protection. If
sworn statement shows that appellant was not made "under custodial interrogation," or
informed of his constitutional right to "under investigation for the commission of
remain silent and to be assisted by counsel an offense," the statement is not
during custodial examination. He was also protected.789
asked if he was waiving his right to be
assisted by counsel and he answered in Thus, as held in the case of Peo. v.
the affirmative. Taylaran,790 where a person went to a
police precinct and before any sort of
However, while the rights of a person under investigation could be initiated, declared
custodial investigation may be waived, that he was giving himself up for the killing
such waiver must be made not only of an old woman because she was
voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently but threatening to kill him by barang, or
also in the presence and with the witchcraft, the Court ruled that such a
assistance of counsel. statement was admissible, compliance with
the constitutional procedure on custodial
In the present case, the waiver made by interrogation not being eligible under the
appellant being without the assistance of circumstances.
counsel, this omission alone is sufficient to
invalidate said sworn statement. Customs declaration form can be
accomplished without the benefit of a
Extrajudicial confessions made by the counsel even the accused is under
accused cannot be admitted as police custody
evidence against him if the counsel
786 G.R. No. L-44690, March 28, 1980 789 People v. Judge Ayson, G.R. No. 85215,
787 G.R. No. 95902, February 4, 1992 July 7, 1989
788 G.R. No. 147201, January 15, 2004 790 G.R. No. L-49149, October 23, 1981
(Colossians 3:23)
The Court held in the case of Evangelista 1. The accused-appellant’s act of

v. People791 that the accomplishment of the confessing to SPO2 Gallardo that
Customs Declaration Form was not elicited he raped and killed Nairube without
through custodial investigation. It is a the assistance of counsel cannot be
customs requirement which petitioner had used against him for having
a clear obligation to comply. As correctly transgressed accused-appellants
observed by the CA, the preparation of the rights under the Bill of Rights.
Customs Declaration Form is a (People v. Lugod794)
requirement for all arriving passengers in
an international flight. Petitioner was Ratio: Records reveal that
among those passengers. Compliance with accused-appellant was not
the constitutional procedure on custodial informed of his right to remain silent
investigation is, therefore, not applicable in and to counsel, and that if he
this case. cannot afford to have counsel of his
choice, he would be provided with
When the assailed statements were one. Moreover, there is no evidence
spontaneously made by petitioner and to indicate that he intended to waive
were not at all elicited through these rights.795
questioning the constitutional
procedure for custodial investigation is 2. From the time Del Rosario was
not applicable "invited" for questioning at the
house of the barangay captain, he
The Court ruled in the case of Jasalva v. was already under effective
People792 that the assailed statements custodial investigation, but he was
herein were spontaneously made by not apprised nor made aware
petitioner and were not at all elicited thereof by the investigating officers.
through questioning. It was established that The police already knew the name
petitioner, together with his cousin Fiscal of the tricycle driver and the latter
Jayona, personally went to the police was already a suspect in the
station and voluntarily made the statement robbing and senseless slaying of
that Leticia jumped out of his vehicle at Virginia Bernas. (People v. Del
around 12:30 a.m. of September 9, 1992. Rosario796)
The RTC and the CA did not, therefore, err
in holding that the constitutional procedure Ratio: Since the prosecution failed
for custodial investigation is not applicable to establish that del Rosario had
in the instant case. waived his right to remain silent, his
verbal admissions on his
Effect in case the confession or participation in the crime even
admission obtained was in violation of before his actual arrest were
Sec. 12 of Art. III of the Constitution inadmissible against him, as the
same transgressed the safeguards
Any confession or admission obtained shall provided by law and the Bill of
be inadmissible in evidence against the Rights.797
accused.793
3. When the oral admission of the
Examples of custodial investigations in appellant was given without the
violation of Sec. 12 of Art. III of the assistance of counsel as it was
Constitution made while on board the police
791 G.R. No. 163267, May 5, 2010 794 G.R. No. 136253, February 21, 2001
793 Sec. 12(3) of Art. III of the 1987 Philippine 796 G.R. No. 127755, April 14, 1999
Constitution 797 Ibid.
(Colossians 3:23)
vehicle on their way to the police

station. (People v. Bolanos798) No real need to afford a suspect the
services of counsel during a police line-
Ratio: Being already under up
custodial investigation while on
board the police patrol jeep on the Given the clear constitutional intent in the
way to the Police Station where 1973 and 1987 Constitutions, to extend to
formal investigation may have been those under police investigation the right to
conducted, appellant should have counsel, this occasion may be better than
been informed of his Constitutional any to remind police investigators that,
rights under Article III, Section 12 of while the Court finds no real need to afford
the 1987 Constitution.799 a suspect the services of counsel during a
police line-up.
The accused is not under custodial
investigation prior to and during the The moment there is a move or even an
administrative inquiry urge of said investigators to elicit
admissions or confessions or even plain
It was held in the case of People v. Judge information which may appear innocent or
Ayson800 that the accused, Felipe Ramos, innocuous at the time, from said suspect,
was not in any sense under custodial he should then and there be assisted by
interrogation, as the term should be counsel, unless he waives the right, but the
properly understood, prior to and during the waiver shall be made in writing and in the
administrative inquiry into the discovered presence of counsel. (Gamboa v. Cruz801)
irregularities in ticket sales in which he
appeared to have had a hand. Also, it was held in the case of US v.
Wade802 that the constitutional right of the
The constitutional rights of a person under accused was not violated even if he was
custodial interrogation under Section 20, placed in a lineup in which each person
Article IV of the 1973 Constitution did not wore strips of tape on his face, as the
therefore come into play, were of no robber allegedly had done, and, on
relevance to the inquiry. direction, repeated words like those the
robber allegedly had used. The Court also
It is also clear, too, that Ramos had said that such act constitutes compulsion of
voluntarily answered questions posed to the accused to exhibit his physical
him on the first day of the administrative characteristics, not compulsion to disclose
investigation, February 9, 1986 and agreed any knowledge he might have.
that the proceedings should be recorded,
the record having thereafter been marked Difference between a show-up and a
during the trial of the criminal action line-up
subsequently filed against him as Exhibit A,
just as it is obvious that the note (later An out-of-court identification of an accused
marked as Exhibit K) that he sent to his can be made in various ways.
superiors on February 8,1986, the day
before the investigation, offering to In a show-up, the accused alone is brought
compromise his liability in the alleged face to face with the witness for
irregularities, was a free and even identification, while in a police line-up, the
spontaneous act on his part. suspect is identified by a witness from a
group of persons gathered for that purpose.
They may not be excluded on the ground (People v. Escordial803)
that the so-called "Miranda rights" had not
been accorded to Ramos.
798 G.R. No. 101808, July 3, 1992 801 G.R. No. L-56291, June 27, 1988
799 Ibid. 802 388 U.S. 218 (1967)
800 G.R. No. 85215, July 7, 1989 803 G.R. Nos. 138934-35, January 16, 2002
(Colossians 3:23)
The accused was already under to elicit information and/or confessions or

custodial investigation when the police admissions from respondent/accused.
diverted their focus to the former after
he had been pointed out by a witness At such point or stage, the person being
interrogated must be assisted by counsel to
In the case of People v. Escordial804 the avoid the pernicious practice of extorting
Court ruled that inasmuch as accused- false or coerced admissions or confessions
appellant, having been the focus of from the lips of the person undergoing
attention by the police after he had been interrogation for the commission of the
pointed to by a certain Ramie as the offense.806
possible perpetrator of the crime, was
already under custodial investigation when Duty of a lawyer during custodial
these out-of-court identifications were investigation
conducted by the police.
Indeed, as an officer of the court, it is an
Hence, any identification of an attorney’s duty to, first and foremost, seek
uncounseled accused made in a police the truth. However, counsel should be able,
line-up, or in a show-up for that matter, after throughout the investigation, to explain the
the start of the custodial investigation is nature of the questions by conferring with
inadmissible as evidence against him. his client and halting the investigation
should the need arise.807
When witnesses were certain that they
recognized the perpetrators of the It is not intended as a deterrent to the
crime, a police lineup is no longer accused from confessing guilt if he
needed voluntarily and intelligently so desires but to
protect the accused from being coerced to
In the case of People v. Piedad,805 the admit any that is untrue.
Court ruled that the witnesses did not
incriminate the accused simply because To be an effective counsel, a lawyer need
they were the only ones presented by the not challenge all the questions being
police, rather, the witnesses were certain propounded to his client. The presence of
they recognized the perpetrators of the a lawyer is not intended to stop an accused
crime. from saying anything which might
incriminate him but, rather, it was adopted
Besides, there is no law which requires a in our Constitution to preclude the slightest
police lineup before a suspect can be coercion as would lead the accused to
identified as the culprit of a crime. admit something false.
What is important is that the prosecution The counsel, however, should never
witnesses positively identify the persons prevent an accused from freely and
charged as the malefactors. voluntarily telling the truth.808
Right to counsel attaches upon the start In addition, the duty of a lawyer includes
of an investigation ensuring that the suspect under custodial
investigation is aware that the right of an
Right to counsel attaches upon the start of accused to remain silent may be invoked at
an investigation, i.e., when the any time.809
investigating officer starts to ask questions
804 G.R. Nos. 138934-35, January 16, 2002 808 People v. Bagnete, G.R. No. 133685-86,
805 G.R. No. 131923, December 5, 2002 May 20, 2004
806 Gamboa v. Judge Cruz, G.R. No. 56291, 27 809 People v. Sayaboc, G.R. No. 147201,
June 1988 January 15, 2004

807 People v. Sayaboc, G.R. No. 147201,
January 15, 2004

(Colossians 3:23)
The Constitution requires that a counsel The Court stressed that an accused right to
must be independent be informed of the right to remain silent and
to counsel contemplates the transmission
In the case of People v. Bandula,810 the of meaningful information rather than just
Court ruled that the Constitution also the ceremonial and perfunctory recitation of
requires that counsel be independent. an abstract constitutional principle.811
Obviously, he cannot be a special counsel,
public or private prosecutor, counsel of the Belated arrival of a CLAO (now PAO)
police, or a municipal attorney whose lawyer the following day even if prior to
interest is admittedly adverse to the the actual signing of the uncounseled
accused. confession does not cure the defect
Granting that Atty. Zerna assisted accused In the case of People v. Quidato,812 the
Dionanao and Bandula when they Court ruled that the settled rule is that an
executed their respective extrajudicial uncounseled extrajudicial confession
confessions, still their confessions are without a valid waiver of the right to counsel
inadmissible in evidence considering that that is, in writing and in the presence of
Atty. Zerna does not qualify as an counsel is inadmissible in evidence.
independent counsel.
Hence, it is undisputed that the statements
As a legal officer of the municipality, he made by the Malita brothers to Patrolman
provides legal assistance and support to Mara in the absence of counsel, although
the mayor and the municipality in carrying they signed the same in the presence of
out the delivery of basic services to the counsel the next day, is inadmissible as
people, including the maintenance of evidence.
peace and order.
[T]he belated arrival of a CLAO (now PAO)
It is thus seriously doubted whether he can lawyer the following day even if prior to the
effectively undertake the defense of the actual signing of the uncounseled
accused without running into conflict of confession does not cure the defect (of lack
interests. He is no better than a fiscal or of counsel) for the investigators were
prosecutor who cannot represent the already able to extract incriminatory
accused during custodial investigations. statements from accused-appellant.
How to be considered competent and If the lawyer were one furnished in the
independent for the purpose of accused's behalf, it is important that he
assisting an accused during a custodial should be competent and independent
investigation?
It was held in the case of People v.
To be considered competent and Junario813 that a lawyer called to be present
independent for the purpose of assisting an during such investigation should be as far
accused during a custodial investigation, it as reasonably possible, the choice of the
is only required for a lawyer to be: individual undergoing questioning.
“Willing to fully safeguard the constitutional If the lawyer were one furnished in the
rights of the accused, as distinguished from accused's behalf, it is important that he
one who would merely be giving a routine, should be competent and independent, i.e.,
peremptory and meaningless recital of the that he is willing to fully safeguard the
individual’s constitutional rights.” constitutional rights of the accused, as
distinguished from one who would merely
be giving a routine, peremptory and
810
G.R. No. 89223, May 27, 1994 812 G.R. No. 117401, October 1, 1998
811
People v. Bagnate, G.R. No. 133685-86, 813 G.R. No. 98252, February 7, 1997
May 20, 2004
(Colossians 3:23)
meaningless recital of the individual's reservations. Having made no objection

constitutional rights. before the trial court, appellant cannot raise
this question for the first time on appeal.
In the case at bar, the lawyer furnished to
the accused could not have been the A barangay captain is not legally
independent counsel solemnly spoken of possible to be considered as an
by our Constitution. He was an applicant independent counsel of the accused
for a position in the NBI and therefore it can
never be said that his loyalty was to the The Court held in the case of People v.
confessants. In fact, he was actually Tomaquin816 that a barangay captain, is
employed by the NBI a few months after. called upon to enforce the law and
ordinances in his barangay and ensure
An Attorney regularly engaged by the peace and order at all times. Hence, it is
police as counsel de officio for suspects not legally possible to consider Atty.
who cannot avail the services of the Parawan as an independent counsel of
counsel is not considered as appellant.
independent
Persons who cannot considered as an
In the case of People v. Labtan,814 the independent counsel:
Court held that Atty. Chavez did not provide
the kind of counselling required by the a. Municipal attorney;817 and
Constitution. He did not explain to accused- b. Municipal mayor.818
appellant the consequences of his action
that the sworn statement can be used Furthermore, by the time Atty. Parawan
against him and that it is possible that he arrived, the investigation had already
could be found guilty and sent to jail. started and SPO2 Monilar had already
asked and elicited information from
Furthermore, the Court also found out that appellant. Worse, Atty. Parawan merely
the independence of Atty. Chavez is observed during the entire investigation
impaired since he is regularly engaged by and failed to advise or explain to appellant
the Cagayan de Oro City Police as counsel the questions being propounded by SPO2
de officio for suspects who cannot avail the Monilar. He did not even bother to ask
services of counsel. He even received appellant if the extrajudicial confession he
money from the police as payment for his was about to execute was being voluntarily
services. given.
If the defense failed to object the There is nothing in the Constitution that
admissibility of the testimony during the mandates a counsel to inform an
trial, the defense is deemed to have accused of the possible penalty for the
waived objection to its admissibility crime he committed
The Court ruled in the case of People v. The Court ruled in the case of People v.
Samus815 that since the defense failed to Bagnate819 that there is nothing in the
object to its presentation during the trial, Constitution that mandates a counsel to
with the result that the defense is deemed inform an accused of the possible penalty
to have waived objection to its admissibility. for the crime he committed. Neither would
a presumption arise that the counsel is
Appellant did not question or object to the incompetent or not independent just
admissibility of the formers testimony. because he failed to apprise the accused
Worse, the latter’s counsel even freely that the imposable penalty for the crime he
cross-examined the witness without any was about to admit is death. After all, the
814 G.R. No. 127493, December 8, 1999 817 People vs. Culala, 316 SCRA 582 (1999)
815 G.R. Nos. 135957-58, September 17, 2002 818 People v. Taliman, 342 SCRA 534 (2000)
816 G.R. No. 133188, July 23, 2004 819 G.R. No. 133685-86, May 20, 2004
(Colossians 3:23)
imposable penalty is totally immaterial to who will represent the accused and protect
the resolve of an accused to admit his guilt their Constitutionally guaranteed rights.
in the commission of a crime.
Furthermore, it was held in the case of
As previously noted, Atty. Brotamonte ably People v. Barasina821 that withal, the word
assisted appellant during the entire "preferably" under Section 12[1], Article 3
procedure from the time appellant signified of the 1987 Constitution does not convey
his intention to give his extrajudicial the message that the choice of a lawyer by
confession up to the time he signed the a person under investigation is exclusive as
same. Besides, it cannot be gainsaid that to preclude other equally competent and
appellant was not aware of the independent attorneys from handling his
consequences of his admissions as Judge defense. If the rule were otherwise, then,
Base explained it to appellant when he the tempo of a custodial investigation will
appeared before the latter to swear to the be solely in the hands of the accused who
veracity of his confession. can impede, nay, obstruct the progress of
the interrogation by simply selecting lawyer
The accused really has the final choice who for one reason or another, is not
as he may reject the counsel chosen for available to protect his interest. This absurd
him and ask for another one scenario could not have been
contemplated by the framers of the charter.
Gallardo820 that while the initial choice of The claim of herein appellant that he was
the lawyer in cases where a person under assisted by counsel, not of his own choice,
custodial investigation cannot afford the is belied by records. During the custodial
services of a lawyer is naturally lodged in investigation, he failed to indicate in any
the police investigators, the accused really manner and at any stage of the process
has the final choice as he may reject the that he wishes to consult with an attorney
counsel chosen for him and ask for another of his own preference before speaking or
one. giving any statement. Indeed, there is no
showing that he manifested any resistance
A lawyer provided by the investigators is when he was assisted by Atty. Torres. We
deemed engaged by the accused where he are thus inclined to agree with the Solicitor
never raised any objection against the General that the hiring of Atty. Romeo
formers appointment during the course of Mendoza as counsel by the appellant after
the investigation and the accused the custodial investigation is an
thereafter subscribes to the veracity of his afterthought.
statement before the swearing officer.
Competent or independent counsel so
In the case at bar, although Atty. Velasco engaged should be present from the
was provided by the State and not by the beginning to end
accused themselves, the accused were
given an opportunity whether to accept or Section 2(a) of R.A. No.7438 requires that
not to accept him as their lawyer. They "[a]ny person arrested, detained or under
were asked and they immediately agreed custodial investigation shall at all times be
to have Atty. Velasco as their counsel assisted by counsel." The last paragraph of
during the investigation. There is no Section 3 of the same law mandates that
requirement in the Constitution that the "[i]n the absence of any lawyer, no
lawyer of an accused during custodial custodial investigation shall be conducted.
investigation be previously known to them.
The Constitution provides that the counsel Hence, in the case of People v. Morial822
be a competent and independent counsel, the Court ruled that the right of appellant to
counsel was therefore completely negated
820 G.R. No. 113684, January 25, 2000 822 G.R. No. 129295, August 15, 2001
821 G.R. No. 109993, January 21, 1994
(Colossians 3:23)
by the precipitate departure of Atty. Tobias Similarly, the Court ruled in the case of
before the termination of the custodial People v. Macabalang824 that while it is true
investigation. that appellant signed receipt of the property
seized unassisted by counsel, this only
What may satisfy constitutional renders inadmissible the receipt itself.
requirements of voluntariness at the
investigation's onset may not be sufficient In fact, in the case at bar, the evidentiary
as the investigation goes on. x x x. The value of the Receipt of Property Seized is
competent or independent counsel so irrelevant in light of the ample evidence
engaged should be present from the proving appellant’s guilt beyond
beginning to end, i.e., at all stages of the reasonable doubt. The prosecution was
interview, counseling or advising caution able to prove that a valid buy-bust
reasonably at every turn of the operation was conducted to entrap
investigation, and stopping the appellant.
interrogation once in a while either to give
advice to the accused that he may either Besides, the prosecution did not present in
continue, choose to remain silent or evidence any receipt of property seized
terminate the interview. relating to the shabu confiscated from the
appellant. Appellant may have testified as
Atty. Tobias, by his failure to inform to having signed such receipt, but it was not
appellant of the latter's right to remain introduced in evidence. What was
silent, by his "coming and going" during the presented before the Court was a receipt
custodial investigation, and by his abrupt attesting to the seizure from the appellant
departure before the termination of the of two vehicles he was in possession at that
proceedings, can hardly be the counsel time of his arrest, and not that of a shabu in
that the framers of the 1987 Constitution question. Considering that appellant is
contemplated when it added the modifier charged with the sale of shabu, and not of
"competent" to the word "counsel." Neither those vehicles, any irregularity that would
can he be described as the "vigilant and have attended the signing of the receipt
effective" counsel that jurisprudence would bear no relevance to the crime for
requires. Precisely, it is Atty. Tobias' which appellant was charged.
nonchalant behavior during the custodial
investigation that the Constitution abhors However, even if the “Receipt of
and which this Court condemns. Property Seized" is inadmissible in
evidence, the accused can still be
Signature on the "Receipt of Property prosecuted if there is still ample
Seized" is inadmissible in evidence as evidence to prove his guilt beyond
there is no showing that the accused
was assisted by counsel when he In the case of People v. Castro,825 the Court
signed the same agreed that with Castro's contention that
his signature on the "Receipt of Property
In the case of People v. Castro,823 the Court Seized" is inadmissible in evidence as
held that Castro's (accused) contention there is no showing that he was assisted by
that his signature on the "Receipt of counsel when he signed the same. Since
Property Seized" is inadmissible in this is a document tacitly admitting the
evidence as there is no showing that he offense charged, the constitutional
was assisted by counsel when he signed safeguard must be observed.
the same. Since this is a document tacitly
admitting the offense charged, the Be that as it may, even disregarding this
constitutional safeguard must be observed. document, there is still ample evidence to
prove Castro's guilt beyond reasonable
doubt, the same having been shown by the
823 G.R. No. 106583, June 19, 1997 825 G.R. No. 106583, June 19, 1997
824 G.R. No. 168694, November 27, 2006
(Colossians 3:23)
detailed testimonies of the law officers who

took part in the buy-bust operation. Indeed, petitioner and his co-accused were
not convicted solely on the basis of the
The fact that all accused are foreign signatures found on the letters but on other
nationals does not preclude application evidence, notably the testimonies of NBI
of the exclusionary rule agents and other prosecution witnesses.
The Court ruled in the case of People v. Statements spontaneously made by a

Wong Chuen Ming826 that the fact that all suspect to news reporters during a
accused are foreign nationals does not televised interview are voluntary and
preclude application of the exclusionary admissible in evidence
rule because the constitutional guarantees
embodied in the Bill of Rights are given and In the case of People v. Andan,828 the Court
extend to all persons, both aliens and ruled that the confessions were made in
citizens. response to questions by news reporters,
not by the police or any other investigating
By affixing their signatures on the boxes of officer. We have held that statements
Alpen Cereals and on the plastic bags, spontaneously made by a suspect to news
accused in effect made a tacit admission of reporters on a televised interview are
the crime charged for mere possession of deemed voluntary and are admissible in
shabu is punished by law. These evidence.
signatures of accused are tantamount to an
uncounselled extra-judicial confession The records show that Alex Marcelino, a
which is not sanctioned by the Bill of Rights television reporter for "Eye to Eye" on
(Section 12[1][3], Article III, 1987 Channel 7, interviewed appellant on
Constitution). February 27, 1994. The interview was
recorded on video and showed that
They are, therefore, inadmissible as appellant made his confession willingly,
evidence for any admission wrung from the openly and publicly in the presence of his
accused in violation of their constitutional wife, child and other relatives.
rights is inadmissible against them.
Furthermore, in the case of People v.
Evidence validly seized from the Guillermo,829 the Court ruled that the TV
accused as an incident of a valid arrest news reporter’s testimonies on record
can be considered as admissible show that they were acting as media
professionals when they interviewed
In the case of Marcelo v. Sadiganbayan,827 appellant. They were not under the
the Court ruled that the letters were validly direction and control of the police. There
seized from petitioner and Romero as an was no coercion for appellant to face the
incident of a valid arrest. A ruling that TV cameras. The record also shows that
petitioners’ admission that the letters in the interviews took place on several
question were those seized from him and occasions, not just once. Each time, the
his companion on February 17, 1989 is appellant did not protest or insist on his
inadmissible in evidence does not extend innocence. Instead, he repeatedly admitted
to the exclusion from evidence of the letters what he had done. He even supplied
themselves. The letters can stand on their details of Keysers killing. As held in Andan,
own, being the fruits of a crime validly statements spontaneously made by a
seized during a lawful arrest. That these suspect to news reporters during a
letters were the ones found in the televised interview are voluntary and
possession of petitioner and his companion admissible in evidence.
and seized from them was shown by the
testimonies of Vela and Tumagan.
826 G.R. Nos. 112801-11, April 12, 1996 828 G.R. No. 116437, March 3, 1997
(Colossians 3:23)
Hence, despite the inadmissibility of 4. News reporters should ask

appellant’s alleged confession to the permission to interview the
police, the prosecution has amply proven accused; and
the appellants guilt in the killing of Victor F.
Keyser. The bare denial raised by the 5. There should be witness/es
appellant in open court pales in contrast to attesting to the confession/s made
the spontaneous and vivid out-of-court by the accused to the reporters,
admissions he made to security guard either his family or other
Campos and the two media reporters, relatives.831
Abelgas and David. The positive evidence,
including the instruments of the crime, Because of the inherent danger in the use
together with the medical evidence as well of television as a medium for admitting
as the testimonies of credible prosecution one’s guilt, and the recurrence of this
witnesses, leaves us no doubt that phenomenon in several cases, it is prudent
appellant killed his employer, Victor that trial courts are reminded that extreme
Francisco Keyser, in the gruesome manner caution must be taken in further admitting
vividly described before the trial court. similar confessions. For in all probability,
the police, with the connivance of
Also, in the case of People v. Endino,830 the unscrupulous media practitioners, may
Court ruled that the accused, in his TV attempt to legitimize coerced extrajudicial
interview (Exh. H), freely admitted that he confessions and place them beyond the
had stabbed Dennis Aquino, and that exclusionary rule by having an accused
Edward Endino had shot him (Aquino). admit an offense on television. Such a
There is no showing that the interview of situation would be detrimental to the
accused was coerced or against his will. guaranteed rights of the accused and thus
Hence, there is basis to accept the truth of imperil our criminal justice system.
his statements therein.
Sections 12, pars. (1) and (3), Art. III, of
Instances that should be considered to the Constitution do not cover the verbal
check the admissibility of the confessions of the two (2) accused to
confession/s made by the accused to the radio announcer
the news reporter/s:
The Court ruled in the case of People v.
In order for the confession to be admissible Ordoo832 that Sections 12, pars. (1) and (3),
as evidence, the following instances should Art. III, of the Constitution do not cover the
concur: verbal confessions of the two (2) accused
to the radio announcer. What the
1. Appellant's confessions to the news Constitution bars is the compulsory
reporters were given free from any disclosure of incriminating facts or
undue influence from the police confessions. The rights enumerated under
authorities; Sec. 12, Art. III, are guaranteed to preclude
the slightest use of coercion by the state as
2. The news reporters acted as news would lead the accused to admit something
reporters and not acting under the false, not to prevent him from freely and
direction and control of the police; voluntarily telling the truth.
3. News reporters should not force Samples of other confessions

appellant to grant them an interview admissible as evidence:
and reenact the commission of the
crime; 1. When the accused verbally admits
that she committed the offense to
830G.R. No. 133026, February 20, 2001 832 G.R. No. 132154, June 29, 2000
831 People v. Andan, G.R. No. 116437, March
3, 1997
(Colossians 3:23)
one of the neighbors. (People v.

Malngan833) In the case of People v. Alicando,838 the
Court ruled that the burden to prove that an
2. When the accused (suspect) said accused waived his right to remain silent
an incriminating response to a and the right to counsel before making a
fellow inmate. (Illinois v. Perkins834) confession under custodial interrogation
rests with the prosecution. It is also the
If it is not clear whether or not the burden of the prosecution to show that the
accused was informed of his evidence derived from confession is not
constitutional right, the Court should tainted as "fruit of the poisonous tree." The
decline to uphold the admissibility of burden has to be discharged by clear and
evidence convincing evidence. Indeed, par. 1 of
Section 12 of Article III of the Constitution
In the case of People v. Luvendino,835 the provides only one mode of waiver — the
Court ruled that it is not clear from the waiver must be in writing and in the
record that before the re-enactment was presence of counsel. In the case at bar, the
staged by Luvendino, he had been records show that the prosecution utterly
informed of his constitutional rights failed to discharge this burden.
including, specifically, his right to counsel
and that he had waived such right before It matters not that in the course of the
proceeding with the demonstration. Under hearing, the appellant failed to make a
these circumstances, we must decline to timely objection to the introduction of these
uphold the admissibility of evidence constitutionally proscribed evidence. The
relating to that re-enactment. lack of objection did not satisfy the heavy
burden of proof that rested on the
Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine prosecution.
Fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine pertains Any allegation of violation of rights
to any confession or admission obtained in during custodial investigation is
violation of Sec. 12 or Section 17 of Art. III relevant and material only to cases in
shall be inadmissible in evidence against which an extrajudicial admission or
the accused.836 confession extracted from the accused
becomes the basis of their conviction
Ratio: It is one thing to say that the
Government cannot make an affirmative In the case of Ho Wai Pang v. People,839
use of evidence unlawfully obtained. It is the Court ruled that in the case at bench,
quite another to say that the defendant can petitioner did not make any confession or
turn the illegal method by which evidence admission during his custodial
in the Government's possession was investigation. The prosecution did not
obtained to his own advantage, and present any extrajudicial confession
provide himself with a shield against extracted from him as evidence of his guilt.
contradiction of his untruths. (Harris v. New Moreover, no statement was taken from
York837) petitioner during his detention and
subsequently used in evidence against
Burden to prove that an accused waived him. Verily, in determining the guilt of the
his right to remain silent and the right to petitioner and his co-accused, the trial
counsel before making a confession court based its Decision on the testimonies
under custodial interrogation rests with of the prosecution witnesses and on the
the prosecution existence of the confiscated shabu.
833 G. R. No. 170470, September 26, 2006 837 401 U.S. 222 (1971)
834 496 U.S. 292 (1990) 838 G.R. No. 117487, December 12, 1995
835 G.R. No. L-69971, July 3, 1992 839 G.R. No. 176229, October 19, 2011
836 Sec. 12(3) of Art. III of the 1987 Philippine
Consitution
(Colossians 3:23)
Any allegation of violation of rights during

custodial investigation is relevant and
material only to cases in which an
extrajudicial admission or confession
extracted from the accused becomes the
basis of their conviction. Hence, petitioner’s
claim that the trial court erred in not
excluding evidence taken during the
custodial investigation deserves scant
consideration.
Petitioner’s conviction in the present case

was on the strength of his having been
caught in flagrante delicto transporting
shabu into the country and not on the basis
of any confession or admission.
(Colossians 3:23)
RIGHT TO BAIL ingredient of the offense. The offense

may be alleged to have been
Constitutional Grant: committed on a date as near as
possible to the actual date of its
SECTION 13 of Art. III of the 1987 commission.
Philippine Constitution
Section 14. Amendment or
All persons, except those charged substitution. — A complaint or
with offenses punishable by reclusion information may be amended, in form
perpetua when evidence of guilt is or in substance, without leave of
strong, shall, before conviction, be court, at any time before the accused
bailable by sufficient sureties, or be enters his plea. After the plea and
released on recognizance as may be during the trial, a formal amendment
provided by law. The right to bail shall may only be made with leave of court
not be impaired even when the and when it can be done without
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus causing prejudice to the rights of the
is suspended. Excessive bail shall not accused.
be required.
However, any amendment before
Bail Defined: plea, which downgrades the nature of
the offense charged in or excludes
Rule 114 of Sec. 1 of the Revised any accused from the complaint or
Rules of Court information, can be made only upon
motion by the prosecutor, with notice
Bail defined. — Bail is the security to the offended party and with leave of
given for the release of a person in court. The court shall state its
custody of the law, furnished by him reasons in resolving the motion and
or a bondsman, to guarantee his copies of its order shall be furnished
appearance before any court as all parties, especially the offended
required under the conditions party.
hereinafter specified.
If it appears at any time before
Kinds of Bail: judgment that a mistake has been
made in charging the proper offense,
Rule 114 of Sections 10, 11, 14 & 15 of the court shall dismiss the original
the Revised Rules of Court complaint or information upon the
filing of a new one charging the
Section 10. Place of commission of proper offense in accordance with
the offense. — The complaint or section 19, Rule 119, provided the
information is sufficient if it can be accused shall not be placed in double
understood from its allegations that jeopardy. The court may require the
the offense was committed or some of witnesses to give bail for their
the essential ingredients occurred at appearance at the trial.
some place within the jurisdiction of
the court, unless the particular place Section 15. Place where action is to
where it was committed constitutes be instituted. —
an essential element of the offense or
is necessary for its identification. (a) Subject to existing laws, the
criminal action shall be
Section 11. Date of commission of instituted and tried in the court
the offense. — It is not necessary to of the municipality or territory
state in the complaint or information where the offense was
the precise date the offense was committed or where any of its
committed except when it is a material
(Colossians 3:23)
essential ingredients laws. (Government of the United States of

occurred. America v. Purganan841)
(b) Where an offense is committed However, the said ruling was reversed in
in a train, aircraft, or other the case of Gov. of Hong Kong v. Olalia842
public or private vehicle while wherein the Court ruled that after World
in the course of its trip, the War II, both international organizations and
criminal action shall be states gave recognition and importance to
instituted and tried in the court human rights. Thus, on December 10,
of any municipality or territory 1948, the United Nations General
where such train, aircraft or Assembly adopted the Universal
other vehicle passed during Declaration of Human Rights in which the
such its trip, including the right to life, liberty and all the other
place of its departure and fundamental rights of every person were
arrival. proclaimed.
(c) Where an offense is committed While not a treaty, the principles contained
on board a vessel in the course in the said Declaration are now recognized
of its voyage, the criminal as customarily binding upon the members
action shall be instituted and of the international community. Thus, in
tried in the court of the first Mejoff v. Director of Prisons,843 this Court,
port of entry or of any in granting bail to a prospective deportee,
municipality or territory where held that under the Constitution, the
the vessel passed during such principles set forth in that Declaration are
voyage, subject to the part of the law of the land. In 1966, the UN
generally accepted principles General Assembly also adopted the
of international law. International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights which the Philippines
(d) Crimes committed outside the signed and ratified. Fundamental among
Philippines but punishable the rights enshrined therein are the rights
under Article 2 of the Revised of every person to life, liberty, and due
Penal Code shall be process.
cognizable by the court where
the criminal action is first filed. In other words, the Philippine authorities
are under obligation to make available to
every person under detention such
Main purpose of bail remedies which safeguard their
fundamental right to liberty. These
Its main purpose, then, is to relieve an remedies include the right to be admitted to
accused from the rigors of imprisonment bail. While this Court in Purganan limited
until his conviction and yet secure his the exercise of the right to bail to criminal
appearance at the trial.840 proceedings, however, in light of the
various international treaties giving
When applied? recognition and protection to human rights,
particularly the right to life and liberty, a
As suggested by the use of the word reexamination of this Court’s ruling in
"conviction," the constitutional provision on Purganan is in order.
bail quoted above, as well as Section 4 of
Rule 114 of the Rules of Court, applies only Clearly, the right of a prospective extraditee
when a person has been arrested and to apply for bail in this jurisdiction must be
detained for violation of Philippine criminal viewed in the light of the various treaty
840 Almeda v. Villaluz, etc., et al., L-31665, 842 G.R. No. 153675, April 19, 2007
August 6, 1975 843 90 Phil. 70 (1951)
841 G.R. No. 148571, September 24, 2002
(Colossians 3:23)
obligations of the Philippines concerning warrant of arrest issued pursuant to

respect for the promotion and protection of Section 6, Rule 112, or by
human rights. Under these treaties, the warrantless arrest under Section 5,
presumption lies in favor of human liberty. Rule 113 in relation to Section 7,
Thus, the Philippines should see to it that Rule 112 of the revised Rules on
the right to liberty of every individual is not Criminal Procedure, or (b) when he
impaired. has voluntarily submitted himself to
the jurisdiction of the court by
Who can avail the constitutional surrendering to the proper
provision of right to bail? When can the authorities.
person avail of this right?
2. Upon proper application for
It was held in the case of Teehankee v. admission to bail, the court having
Rovira844 that only those persons who have custody of the accused should, as a
been either arrested, detained or otherwise matter of course, grant the same
deprived of their liberty will ever have after a hearing conducted to
occasion to seek the benefits of said specifically determine the
provision. conditions of the bail in accordance
with Section 6 (now, Section 2) of
But in order that a person can invoke this Rule 114.
constitutional precept, it is not necessary
that he should wait until a formal complaint 3. On the other hand, as the grant of
or information is filed against him. bail becomes a matter of judicial
discretion on the part of the court
From the moment he is placed under under the exceptions to the rule, a
arrest, detention or restraint by the officers hearing, mandatory in nature and
of the law, he can claim this guarantee of which should be summary or
the Bill of Rights, and this right he retains otherwise in the discretion of the
unless and until he is charged with a capital court, is required with the
offense and evidence of his guilt is strong. participation of both the defense
and a duly notified representative of
If there is a presumption of innocence in the prosecution, this time to
favor of one already formally charged with ascertain whether or not the
criminal offense (Constitution, Article III, evidence of guilt is strong for the
section 1[17], a fortiori, this presumption provisional liberty of the applicant.
should be indulged in favor of one not yet
so charged, although already arrested or 4. Where such a hearing is set upon
detained. proper motion or petition, the
prosecution must be give an
Can this right be waived? opportunity to present, within a
reasonable time, all the evidence
Yes. The right to bail, which may be waived that it may want to introduce before
considering its personal nature.845 the court may resolve the
application, since it is equally
Procedure for bail entitled as the accused to due
process.
1. The applicant should first be in the
custody of the law. Note: If the prosecution is denied
this opportunity, there would be a
Note: A person is considered to be denial of procedural due process,
in the custody of the law (a) when as a consequence of which the
he is arrested either by virtue of a
844 G.R. No. L-101, December 20, 1945 845People v. Donato, etc., et al., G.R. No.
79269, June 5, 1991
(Colossians 3:23)
court's order in respect of the The Court ruled in the case of People v.
motion or petition is void. San Diego848 that whether the motion for
bail of a defendant who is in custody for a
At the hearing, the petitioner can capital offense be resolved in a summary
rightfully cross-examine the proceeding or in the course of a regular
witnesses presented by the trial, the prosecution must be given an
prosecution and introduce his own opportunity to present, within a reasonable
evidence in rebuttal. time, all the evidence that it may desire to
introduce before the court should resolve
5. When, eventually, the court issues the motion for bail.
an order either granting or refusing
bail, the same should contain a The judge is mandated to conduct a
summary of the evidence for the hearing, whether summary or otherwise
prosecution, followed by its in the discretion of the court primarily to
conclusion as to whether or not the determine the existence of strong
evidence of guilt is strong. evidence of guilt or lack of it, against the
accused
Note: The court, though, cannot
rely on mere affidavits or recitals of In the case of Cortes v. Catral,849 the Court
their contents, if timely objected to, ruled that whether bail is a matter of right or
for these represent only hearsay of discretion, reasonable notice of hearing
evidence, and thus are insufficient is required to be given to the prosecutor or
to establish the quantum of fiscal or at least he must be asked for his
evidence that the law requires.846 recommendation because in fixing the
amount of bail, the judge is required to take
Constructive custody of the law into account a number of factors such as
the applicants character and reputation,
In the case of Paderanga v. CA,847 the forfeiture of other bonds or whether he is a
Court ruled that there is constructive fugitive from justice.
custody when the accused, through his
lawyers, expressly submitted to physical Bail as a matter of right
and legal control over his person:
All persons in custody shall be admitted to
1. By filing the application for bail with bail as a matter of right, with sufficient
the trail court; sureties, or released on recognizance as
prescribed by law or this Rule:
2. By furnishing true information of his
actual whereabouts; and a. Before or after conviction by the
Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal
3. More importantly, by unequivocally Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court in
recognizing the jurisdiction of the Cities, or Municipal Circuit Trial
said court. Court, and
The prosecution must be given an b. Before conviction by the Regional

opportunity to present, within a Trial court of an offense not
reasonable time, all the evidence that it punishable by death, reclusion
may desire to introduce before the court perpetua, or life imprisonment.850
should resolve the motion for bail
Bail as a matter of discretion
846 Paderanga v. CA, G.R. No. 115407, August 849

A.M. No. RTJ-97-1387, September 10, 1997
28, 1995 850
Sec. 4 of Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of
847 G.R. No. 115407, August 28, 1995 Court
848 G.R. No. L-29676, December 24, 1968
(Colossians 3:23)
1. When a person is charged with an under the same bail subject to the
offense punishable by death, consent of the bondsman.
reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment, bail is a matter of 3. If the penalty imposed by the trial
discretion. (Cortes v. Catral851) court is imprisonment exceeding six
(6) years, the accused shall be
Note: Rule 114, Section 7 of the denied bail, or his bail shall be
Rules of Court states: No person cancelled upon a showing by the
charged with a capital offense, or prosecution, with notice to the
an offense punishable by reclusion accuse, of the following or other
perpetua or life imprisonment when similar circumstances:
the evidence of guilt is strong, shall
be admitted to bail regardless of the a. That he is a recidivist, quasi-
stage of the criminal action. recidivist, or habitual
Consequently, when the accused is delinquent, or has committed
charged with an offense punishable the crime aggravated by the
by death, reclusion perpetua or life circumstance of reiteration;
imprisonment, the judge is
mandated to conduct a hearing, b. That he has previously escaped
whether summary or otherwise in from legal confinement, evaded
the discretion of the court, not only sentence, or violated the
to take into account the guidelines conditions of his bail without
set forth in Section 9, Rule 114 of valid justification;
the Rules of Court, but primarily to
determine the existence of strong c. That he committed the offense
evidence of guilt or lack of it, while under probation, parole,
against the accused. or conditional pardon;
2. Upon conviction by the Regional d. That the circumstances of his

Trial Court of an offense not case indicate the probability of
punishable by death, reclusion flight if released on bail; or
perpetua, or life imprisonment,
admission to bail is discretionary.852 e. That there is undue risk that he
may commit another crime
Note: The application for bail may during the pendency of the
be filed and acted upon by the trial appeal.853
court despite the filing of a notice of
appeal, provided it has not Note: The appellate court may,
transmitted the original record to motu proprio or on motion of any
the appellate court. However, if the party, review the resolution of the
decision of the trial court conviction Regional Trial Court after notice to
the accused changed the nature of the adverse party in either case.
the offense from non-bailable to
bailable, the application for bail can Why is it important to determine
only be filed with and resolved by whether the bail proceeding is a matter
the appellate court. Should the of right or a matter of discretion?
court grant the application, the
accused may be allowed to Matter of Right Matter of
continue on provisional liberty Discretion
during the pendency of the appeal The prosecution In the cases where
does not have the the grant of bail is
851
A.M. No. RTJ-97-1387, September 10, 1997 853
Sec. 5 of Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of
852
Sec. 5 of Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Court
Court
(Colossians 3:23)
Matter of Right Matter of the evidence for or against the accused,

Discretion nor will it speculate on the outcome of the
right to present discretionary, due trial or on what further evidence may be
evidence for the process requires therein offered or admitted. The course of
denial of bail in the that the inquiry may be left to the discretion of the
instances where prosecution must court which may confine itself to receiving
bail is a matter of be given an such evidence as has reference to
right. opportunity to substantial matters, avoiding unnecessary
present, within a thoroughness in the examination and cross
reasonable time, examination. (Siazon v. Presiding
all the evidence Judge857)
that it may desire to
introduce before Who has the burden of showing that the
the court should “evidence of guilt” is strong?
resolve the motion
for bail.854 At the hearing of an application for bail filed
by a person who is in custody for the
commission of an offense punishable by
What is a capital offense? death, reclusion perpetua, or life
imprisonment, the prosecution has the
A capital offense is an offense which, under burden of showing that evidence of guilt is
the law existing at the time of its strong.858
commission and of the application for
admission to bail, may be punished with A bail hearing is mandatory to give the
death.855 prosecution reasonable opportunity to
oppose the application by showing that
Capital offense or an offense evidence of guilt is strong
punishable by reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment, not bailable The Court ruled in the case of Go v.
Bangolan859 that a bail hearing is
No person charged with a capital offense, mandatory to give the prosecution
or an offense punishable by reclusion reasonable opportunity to oppose the
perpetua or life imprisonment, shall be application by showing that evidence of
admitted to bail when evidence of guilt is guilt is strong. We note that the prosecution
strong, regardless of the state of the was caught off guard in the regular hearing
criminal prosecution.856 of May 20, 1998, when Atty. Astudillo
sprang on it a Motion to Amend the
What is a summary hearing? Information and Fix Bail. It is true that when
asked by Judge Bongolan whether the
A summary hearing means such brief and prosecution would present additional
speedy method of receiving and evidence, Prosecutor Gayao responded in
considering the evidence of guilt as is the negative. Subsequently, however, the
practicable and consistent with the purpose prosecution changed its mind when it
of hearing which is merely to determine the stated in its Opposition that a resolution of
weight of evidence for purposes of bail. On the Motion for admission to bail would be
such hearing, the court does not sit to try premature since it has additional witnesses
the merits or to enter into any nice inquiry to present. In his Comment, Judge
as to the weight that ought to be allowed to Bongolan contends that it is not necessary
854 People v. Donato, G.R. No. 79269, June 5, 857 42 SCRA 184 (1971)
1991 858 Sec. 8 of Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of
855 Sec. 6 of Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Court
Court 859 A.M. No. RTJ-99-1464, July 26, 1999
856 Sec. 7 of Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of
Court
(Colossians 3:23)
for the prosecution to present all its Conclusion without a summary of the
witnesses before he could resolve the evidence voids the grant of bail
motion for bail. The stance cannot be
sustained. In the case of People v. Gako861 the Court
ruled that the order granting bail issued by
In Borinaga v. Tamin, we ruled that the Judge Gako, Jr. merely made a conclusion
prosecution must be given an opportunity without a summary of the evidence, a
to present its evidence within a reasonable substantive and formal defect that voids the
time whether the motion for bail of an grant of bail. Well settled is the rule that
accused who is in custody for a capital after the hearing, whether the bail is
offense be resolved in a summary granted or denied, the presiding judge is
proceeding or in the course of a regular mandated to prepare a summary of the
trial. If the prosecution is denied such an evidence for the prosecution. A summary is
opportunity, there would be a violation of defined as a comprehensive and usually
procedural due process. brief abstract or digest of a text or
statement.
The records show that the prosecution was
supposed to present its 6th and 7th Based on the summary of evidence, the
witnesses on June 4, 1998 when Judge judge formulates his own conclusion on
Bongolan prematurely resolved the motion. whether such evidence is strong enough to
A bail application does not only involve the indicate the guilt of the accused. The
right of the accused to temporary liberty, importance of a summary cannot be
but likewise the right of the State to protect downplayed, it is considered an aspect of
the people and the peace of the community procedural due process for both the
from dangerous elements. These two rights prosecution and the defense; its absence
must be balanced by a magistrate in the will invalidate the grant or denial of bail.
scale of justice, hence, the necessity for
hearing to guide his exercise of discretion. Duties of a judge in case an application
for bail is filed
Prosecution is equally entitled to due
process in bail proceedings 1. Notify the prosecutor of the hearing
for bail or require him to submit his
The Court ruled in the case of People v. recommendation;
Gako860 that it is inconceivable how Judge
Gako, Jr. could have appreciated the 2. Conduct a hearing of the
strength or weakness of the evidence of application for bail regardless of
guilt of the accused when he did not even whether or not the prosecution
bother to hear the prosecution. The refuses to present evidence to
reliance of Judge Gako, Jr. on the show that the guilt of the accused is
voluminous records of the case simply strong for the purpose of enabling
does not suffice. the court to exercise its discretion;
As judge, he was mandated to conduct a 3. Decide whether the evidence of

hearing on the petition for bail of the guilt of the accused is strong based
accused since he knew that the crime on the summary of evidence of the
charged is one that carries a penalty of prosecution;
reclusion perpetua, and in that hearing, the
prosecution is entitled to present its 4. If the guilt of the accused is not
evidence. It is worth stressing that the strong, discharge the accused upon
prosecution is equally entitled to due the approval of the bail bond.
process. Otherwise, petition should be
denied.
860 G.R. No. 135045, December 15, 2000 861 G.R. No. 135045, December 15, 2000
(Colossians 3:23)
The prosecution can dispense the Rule 114, 2(b) of the Rules on Criminal
introduction of evidence during the Procedure, one of the conditions of bail is
proper forum and stage of bail that "the accused shall appear before the
proceeding proper court whenever so required by the
court or these Rules," while under Rule
In the case of Paderanga v. CA,862 the 116, 1(b) the presence of the accused at
Court ruled that Prosecutor Abejo on the the arraignment is required.
instructions of Regional State prosecutor
Zozobrado, had no intention at all to The 1987 Constitution strengthens
oppose the motion for bail and this should further the right to bail by explicitly
be so notwithstanding the statement that providing that it shall not be impaired
they were "neither supporting nor even when the privilege of the writ of
opposing" the motion. habeas corpus is suspended
What is of significance is the manifestation In the case of People v. Judge Donato,864

that the prosecution was "submitting (the the Court ruled that the 1987 Constitution
motion) to the sound discretion of the strengthens further the right to bail by
Honorable Court." By that, it could not be explicitly providing that it shall not be
any clearer. The prosecution was impaired even when the privilege of the writ
dispensing with the introduction of of habeas corpus is suspended. This
evidence en contra and this it did at the overturns the Court's ruling in Garcia-
proper forum and stage of the proceedings, Padilla vs. Enrile, et al., supra., to wit:
that is, during the mandatory hearing for
bail and after the trial court had fully “The suspension of the privilege of the writ
satisfied itself that such was the position of of habeas corpus must, indeed, carry with
the prosecution. it the suspension of the right to bail, if the
government's campaign to suppress the
The grant of bail can be availed/granted rebellion is to be enhanced and rendered
even before arraignment effective. If the right to bail may be
demanded during the continuance of the
In the case of Lavides v. CA,863 the Court rebellion, and those arrested, captured and
ruled that the condition in the May 16, 1997 detained in the course thereof will be
order of the trial court that "approval of the released, they would, without the least
bail bonds shall be made only after doubt, rejoin their comrades in the field
arraignment," which the Court of Appeals thereby jeopardizing the success of
should instead have declared void. government efforts to bring to an end the
invasion, rebellion or insurrection.”
This theory is mistaken. In the first place,
as the trial court itself acknowledged, in Extradition Different from Ordinary
cases where it is authorized, bail should be Criminal Proceedings
granted before arraignment, otherwise the
accused may be precluded from filing a In the case of Government of the USA v.
motion to quash. For if the information is Purganan865 the Court ruled that by the use
quashed and the case is dismissed, there of the word "conviction," the constitutional
would then be no need for the arraignment provision on bail quoted above, as well as
of the accused. Section 4 of Rule 114 of the Rules of Court,
applies only when a person has been
In the second place, the trial court could arrested and detained for violation of
ensure the presence of petitioner at the Philippine criminal laws. It does not apply
arraignment precisely by granting bail and to extradition proceedings, because
ordering his presence at any stage of the extradition courts do not render judgments
proceedings, such as arraignment. Under of conviction or acquittal.
862 G.R. No. 115407, August 28, 1995 864 G.R. No. 79269, June 5, 1991
863 G.R. No. 129670, February 1, 2000 865 G.R. No. 148571, September 24, 2002
(Colossians 3:23)
serious crime known to law;" and that while

Moreover, the constitutional right to bail deportation is not a criminal proceeding,
"flows from the presumption of innocence some of the machinery used "is the
in favor of every accused who should not machinery of criminal law." Thus, the
be subjected to the loss of freedom as provisions relating to bail was applied to
thereafter he would be entitled to acquittal, deportation proceedings.
unless his guilt be proved beyond
reasonable doubt." It follows that the In Mejoff v. Director of Prisons868 and
constitutional provision on bail will not Chirskoff v. Commission of Immigration,869
apply to a case like extradition, where the this Court ruled that foreign nationals
presumption of innocence is not at issue. against whom no formal criminal charges
have been filed may be released on bail
That the offenses for which Jimenez is pending the finality of an order of
sought to be extradited are bailable in the deportation. As previously stated, the Court
United States is not an argument to grant in Mejoff relied upon the Universal
him one in the present case. To stress, declaration of Human Rights in sustaining
extradition proceedings are separate and the detainee’s right to bail.
distinct from the trial for the offenses for
which he is charged. He should apply for Ratio: The Philippines, along with the other
bail before the courts trying the criminal members of the family of nations,
cases against him, not before the committed to uphold the fundamental
extradition court. human rights as well as value the worth and
dignity of every person.
However, this view was abrogated in the
case of Government of Hong Kong v. This commitment is enshrined in Section II,
Olalia,866 wherein the Court ruled that if bail Article II of our Constitution which provides:
can be granted in deportation cases, we "The State values the dignity of every
see no justification why it should not also human person and guarantees full respect
be allowed in extradition cases. Likewise, for human rights."
considering that the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights applies to deportation The Philippines, therefore, has the
cases, there is no reason why it cannot be responsibility of protecting and promoting
invoked in extradition cases. After all, both the right of every person to liberty and due
are administrative proceedings where the process, ensuring that those detained or
innocence or guilt of the person detained is arrested can participate in the proceedings
not in issue. before a court, to enable it to decide without
delay on the legality of the detention and
Foreign nationals against whom no order their release if justified.
formal criminal charges have been filed
may be released on bail pending the In other words, the Philippine authorities
finality of an order of deportation are under obligation to make available to
every person under detention such
The 1909 case of US v. Go-Sioco867 is remedies which safeguard their
illustrative. In this case, a Chinese facing fundamental right to liberty. These
deportation for failure to secure the remedies include the right to be admitted to
necessary certificate of registration was bail.870
granted bail pending his appeal. After
noting that the prospective deportee had As enunciated in Article 3 of the Universal
committed no crime, the Court opined that Declaration of Human Rights:
"To refuse him bail is to treat him as a
person who has committed the most
866 G.R. No. 153675, April 19, 2007 869

90 Phil. 256 (1951)
867 12 Phil. 490 (1909) 870Government of Hong Kong v. Olalia, G.R.
868 90 Phil. 70 (1951) No. 153675, April 19, 2007
(Colossians 3:23)
“Everyone has the right to life, liberty and

security of person.” Section 5 of Rule 114, the accused may
be admitted to bail upon the court's
If an accused is convicted by the trial discretion after conviction by the RTC of
court and sentenced to suffer reclusion an offense not punishable by death,
perpetua, bail is neither a matter of right reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment
on the part of the accused nor of
discretion on the part of the court In the case of Magudattu v. CA,872 the
Court ruled that pursuant to Section 5 of
In the case of People v. Fortes,871 the Court Rule 114, the accused may be admitted to
ruled that if an accused who is charged with bail upon the court's discretion after
a crime punishable by reclusion perpetua is conviction by the RTC of an offense not
convicted by the trial court and sentenced punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or
to suffer such a penalty, bail is neither a life imprisonment.
matter of right on the part of the accused
nor of discretion on the part of the court. However, such bail shall be denied or bail
previously granted shall be cancelled if the
In such a situation, the court would not penalty imposed is imprisonment
have only determined that the evidence of exceeding 6 years but not more than 20
guilt is strong — which would have been years if any one of the circumstances
sufficient to deny bail even before enumerated in the third paragraph of
conviction — it would have likewise ruled Section 5 is present.
that the accused's guilt has been proven
beyond reasonable doubt. Filing of a notice of appeal effectively
deprived the trial court of jurisdiction to
Bail must not then be granted to the entertain the motion for bail
accused during the pendency of his appeal
from the judgment of conviction. In the case of Magudattu v. CA,873 the
Construing Section 3, Rule 114 of the 1985 Court ruled that the filing of a notice of
Rules on Criminal Procedure, as amended, appeal effectively deprived the trial court of
this Court, in the en banc Resolution of 15 jurisdiction to entertain the motion for bail
October 1991 in People vs. Ricardo Cortez, pending appeal because appeal is
ruled that: perfected by the mere filing of such notice.
It has been held that trial courts would be
“Pursuant to the aforecited provision, an well advised to leave the matter of bail,
accused who is charged with a capital after conviction for a lesser crime than the
offense or an offense punishable by capital offense originally charged, to the
reclusion perpetua, shall no longer be appellate court's sound discretion.
entitled to bail as a matter of right even if he
appeals the case to this Court since his The approval of the bail bond was done
conviction clearly imports that the evidence without authority, because the appeal
of his guilt of the offense charged is strong.” had already been perfected and the trial
court had lost jurisdiction
In the instant case, the rape for which the
accused was indicted is punishable by In the case of Obosa v. CA,874 the Court
reclusion perpetua pursuant to Article 335 ruled that while bail was granted by the trial
of the Revised Penal Code; he was court when it had jurisdiction, the approval
convicted therefor and subsequently of the bail bond (June 4) was done without
sentenced to serve that penalty. It is thus authority, because by then, the appeal had
evident that the trial court correctly denied already been perfected (June 1) and the
his application for bail during the pendency trial court had lost jurisdiction.
of the appeal.
871 G.R. No. 90643, June 25, 1993 873 G.R. No. 139599, February 23, 2000
872 G.R. No. 139599, February 23, 2000 874 G.R. No. 114350, January 16, 1997
(Colossians 3:23)
Needless to say, the situation would have amount could render meaningless the right
been different had bail been granted and to bail. Thus, in Villaseor v. Abao,876 this
approval thereof given before the notice of Court made the pronouncement that it will
appeal was filed. not hesitate to exercise its supervisory
powers over lower courts should the latter,
Standards for fixing bail after holding the accused entitled to bail,
effectively deny the same by imposing a
Sec. 9 of Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of prohibitory sum or exacting unreasonable
Court provides: conditions.
Amount of bail; guidelines. – The judge The right to bail exists, it should not be
who issued the warrant or granted the rendered nugatory by requiring a sum
application shall fix a reasonable amount of that is excessive. So the Constitution
bail considering primarily, but not limited to, commands
the following factors:
The Court ruled in the case of Camara v.
(a) Financial liability of the accused to Enage877 that the right to bail exists, it
give bail; should not be rendered nugatory by
requiring a sum that is excessive. So the
(b) Nature and circumstance of the Constitution commands. It is
offense; understandable why. If there were no such
prohibition, the right to bail becomes
(c) Penalty for the offense charged; meaningless.
(d) Character and reputation of the It would have been more forthright if no
accused; mention of such a guarantee were found in
the fundamental law. It is not to be lost sight
(e) Age and health of the accused; of that the United States Constitution limits
itself to a prohibition against excessive
(f) Weight of the evidence against the bail.7 As construed in the latest American
accused; decision, "the sole permissible function of
money bail is to assure the accused's
(g) Probability of the accused presence at trial, and declared that "bail set
appearing at the trial; at a higher figure than an amount
reasonably calculated to fulfill thus purpose
(h) Forfeiture of other bail; is "excessive" under the Eighth
Amendment."
(i) The fact that the accused was a
fugitive from justice when arrested; Nothing can be clearer, therefore, than that
and the challenged order of August 10, 1970
fixing the amount of P1,195,200.00 as the
(j) Pendency of other cases where the bail that should be posted by petitioner, the
accused is on bail. sum of P840,000.00 for the information
charging multiple murder, there being
Excessive bail shall not be required. fourteen victim, and the sum of P355,200
for the other offense of multiple frustrated
Ratio why bail should not be excessive murder, there being twelve victims, is
clearly violative of constitutional provision.
The obvious rationale, as declared in the
leading case of De la Camara v. Enage,875 Under the circumstances, there being only
is that imposing bail in an excessive two offenses charged, the amount required
875
41 SCRA 1 (1971) 877 G.R. Nos. L-32951-2, September 17, 1971
87621 SCRA 312 (1967). See also Chu v.
Dolalas, 260 SCRA 309 (1996).
(Colossians 3:23)
as bail could not possibly exceed 3. Penalty for the offense charged;
P50,000.00 for the information for murder
and P25,000.00 for the other information 4. Character and reputation of the
for frustrated murder. Nor should it be accused;
ignored in this case that the Department of
Justice did recommend the total sum of 5. Health of the accused;
P40,000.00 for the two offenses.
6. Character and strength of the
The question of whether bail is evidence;
excessive "lays with the court to
determine 7. Probability of the accused
appearing in trial;
The Court ruled in the case of Villaseñor v.
Abano878 that the question of whether bail 8. Forfeiture of other bonds;
is excessive "lays with the court to
determine.” 9. Whether the accused was a fugitive
from justice when arrested; and
Expressions in varying, language spell out
in a general way the principles governing 10. If the accused is under bond for
bail fixing. One is that the amount should appearance at trial in other cases.
be high enough to assure the presence of
defendant when required but no higher But, at bottom, in bail fixing, "the principal
than is reasonably calculated to fulfill this factor considered, to the determination of
purpose. which most other factors are directed, is the
probability of the appearance of the
Another is that "the good of the public as accused, or of his flight to avoid
well as the rights of the accused," and "the punishment." Of importance then is the
need for a tie to the jurisdiction and the right possible penalty that may be meted. Of
to freedom from unnecessary restraint course penalty depends to a great extent
before conviction under the circumstances upon the gravity of offense.
surrounding each particular accused",
should all be balanced in one equation. Therefore, in the case at bar, petitioner is
charged with a capital offense, direct
We are not to consider solely the inability of assault upon an agent of a person in
a defendant to secure bail in a certain authority with murder. A complex crime, it
amount. This circumstance by itself does may call for the imposition of the capital
not make the amount excessive. For, punishment. Then, Circular 47 dated July
where an accused has no means of his 5, 1946 of the Department of Justice,
own, no one to bail him out, or none to turn reiterated in Circular 48 of July 18, 1963,
to for premium payments, any amount fixed directed prosecuting attorney's to
no matter how small would fall into the recommend bail at the rate of P2,000.00
category of excessive bail; and, he "would per year of imprisonment, corresponding to
be entitled to be discharged on his the medium period of the penalty
recognizance." prescribed for the offense charged, unless
circumstances warrant a higher penalty.
So it is, that experience has brought forth The reasonableness of this circular has
certain guidelines in bail fixing, which may already received this Court's imprimatur in
be summarized as follows: one case. We are unprepared to
downgrade this method of computation,
1. Ability of the accused to give bail; what with a compound of reduced peso
value and the aggravated crime climate.
2. Nature of the offense;
878 G.R. No. L-23599, September 29, 1967

(Colossians 3:23)
Difference between surety or property because, strictly speaking, the very nature
bond and cash bond of bail presupposes the attendance of
sureties to whom the body of the prisoner
A surety or property bond does not require can be delivered.
an actual financial outlay on the part of the
bondsman or the property owner, and in And even where cash bail is allowed, the
the case of the bondsman the bond may be option to deposit cash in lieu of a surety
obtained by the accused upon the payment bond primarily belongs to the accused.
of a relatively small premium. Only the
reputation or credit standing of the Thus, the trial court may not reject
bondsman or the expectancy of the price at otherwise acceptable sureties and insist
which the property can be sold, is placed in that the accused obtain his provisional
the hands of the court to guarantee the liberty only thru a cash bond.
production of the body of the accused at the
various proceedings leading to his Where the Court fears that the accused
conviction or acquittal. may jump bail, it is certainly not
precluded from installing devices to
Upon the other hand, the posting of a cash ensure against the same
bond would entail a transfer of assets into
the possession of the court, and its In the case of Yap Jr. v. CA,881 the Court
procurement could work untold hardship on ruled that the court has wide latitude in
the part of the accused as to have the effect fixing the amount of bail. Where it fears that
of altogether denying him his constitutional the accused may jump bail, it is certainly
right to bail.879 not precluded from installing devices to
ensure against the same. Options may
The option to deposit cash in lieu of a include increasing the bail bond to an
surety bond primarily belongs to the appropriate level, or requiring the person to
accused report periodically to the court and to make
an accounting of his movements.
In the case of Almeda v. Villaluz,880 the
Court ruled that the amount fixed for bail, In the present case, where petitioner was
while reasonable if considered in terms of found to have left the country several times
surety or property bonds, may be while the case was pending, the Court of
excessive if demanded in the form of cash. Appeals required the confiscation of his
passport and the issuance of a hold-
Aside from the foregoing, the condition that departure order against him.
the accused may have provisional liberty
only upon his posting of a cash bond is Under the circumstances of this case, the
abhorrent to the nature of bail and Court found that appropriate conditions
transgresses our law on the matter. have been imposed in the bail bond to
ensure against the risk of flight, particularly,
The sole purpose of bail is to insure the the combination of the hold-departure order
attendance of the accused when required and the requirement that petitioner inform
by the court, and there should be no the court of any change of residence and of
suggestion of penalty on the part of the his whereabouts.
accused nor revenue on the part of the
government. The allowance of a cash bond Does a person facing a criminal
in lieu of sureties is authorized in this indictment and provisionally released
jurisdiction only because our rules on bail have an unrestricted right to
expressly provide for it. Were this not the travel?
case, the posting of bail by depositing cash
with the court cannot be countenanced
879Almeda v. Villaluz, G.R. No. L-31665, 880 G.R. No. L-31665, August 6, 1975
August 6, 1975 881 G.R. No. 141529, June 6, 2001
(Colossians 3:23)
No. In the case of Manotoc v. CA,882 the P3,1991.40. The bail of P30,000 is not
Court ruled that the court has the power to proportionate to the amount stolen.
prohibit a person admitted to bail from
leaving the Philippines. This is a necessary When the law transgressed is elementary,
consequence of the nature and function of the failure to know or observe it constitutes
a bail bond. gross ignorance of the law.
The condition imposed upon petitioner to The Court cannot permit any act or
make himself available at all times omission which yanks public faith away
whenever the court requires his presence from the judiciary. That is why, despite
operates as a valid restriction on his right to respondent’s death, we sanction his acts.
travel. As we have held in People vs. Uy
Tuising, 61 Phil. 404 (1935). Judges are expected to be competent and
qualified for the position to which they were
“... the result of the obligation assumed by appointed. To be able to render substantial
appellee (surety) to hold the accused justice and to maintain public confidence in
amenable at all times to the orders and the legal system, judges must keep abreast
processes of the lower court, was to of all laws and prevailing jurisprudence,
prohibit said accused from leaving the consistent with the standard that
jurisdiction of the Philippines, because, magistrates must be the embodiments of
otherwise, said orders and processes will competence, integrity and independence.
be nugatory, and inasmuch as the
jurisdiction of the courts from which they Hence, the Judge was ordered to pay a fine
issued does not extend beyond that of the amounting to P5,000 due to his acts.
Philippines they would have no binding
force outside of said jurisdiction.” Furthermore, the Court held in the case of
Victory Liner Inc. v. Bellosillo884 that under
Indeed, if the accused were allowed to the 2000 Bail Bond Guide of the
leave the Philippines without sufficient Department of Justice (DOJ), crimes of
reason, he may be placed beyond the reckless imprudence resulting in homicide
reach of the courts. and with violation of the Land
Transportation and Traffic Code, bail shall
Note: If the accused wants to travel be P30,000 regardless of the number of
abroad, he/she should file a motion for deaths.
permission to leave the country.
De la Cruz and Serrano were both charged
Failure to know or observe the Bail with the offense of reckless imprudence
Bond Guide constitutes gross resulting in homicide. Although
ignorance of the law, on the part of the permanently employed as drivers of VLI, it
judge could not be said that each was capable of
posting a cash bail bond of P50,000 and
In the case of Cabaero v. Caon,883 the P350,000, respectively. In fixing such
Court ruled that under Department Circular amounts, the respondent apparently did
No. 4, the 1996 Bail Bond Guide for the not take into account the gravity of the
National Prosecution Service for the offense charged and the financial capability
offense of qualified theft, if the value of the of the accused.
property stolen is more than P200.00 but
does not exceed P6,000.00, the bail The judge thereby willfully disregarded the
recommended is P24,000.00. guidelines under Section 9, Rule 114 of the
1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, as
In the instant case, the monetary value of amended, and the 2000 Bail Bond Guide of
the falcata trees cut into logs is the DOJ. In effect, he violated the
882 G.R. No. L-62100, May 30, 1986 884 A.M. No. MTJ-00-1321, March 10, 2004
883 A.M. No. MTJ-01-1369, September 20, 2001
(Colossians 3:23)
constitutional right of the accused to bail,

as well as the prohibition against excessive
bail, making the right, in the words of
Justice Jackson, a teasing illusion like a
munificent bequest in a paupers will.
The respondent judge, therefore, grossly

erred in converting Serrano’s surety bond
to cash bond and in demanding that De la
Cruz post a cash bond to obtain their
provisional liberty.
Hence, Judge Bellosillo was ordered to pay

a fine amounting to P10,000.
(Colossians 3:23)
PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE
Sec. 14(2) of Article III of the 1987

Philippine Constitution
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused

shall be presumed innocent until the
contrary is proved.
(Colossians 3:23)
SECTION 21 OF ARTICLE III. No

person shall be twice put in jeopardy [A]t the heart of this policy is the concern
of punishment for the same offense. If that permitting the sovereign freely to
an act is punished by a law and an subject the citizen to a second judgment for
ordinance, conviction or acquittal the same offense would arm the
under either shall constitute a bar to government with a potent instrument of
another prosecution for the same act. oppression.
SECTION 7 OF RULE 117 OF THE The provision therefore guarantees that the
REVISED RULES OF COURT. State shall not be permitted to make
repeated attempts to convict an individual
Former conviction or acquittal; for an alleged offense, thereby subjecting
double jeopardy. — When an accused him to embarrassment, expense, and
has been convicted or acquitted, or ordeal and compelling him to live in a
the case against him dismissed or continuing state of anxiety and insecurity,
otherwise terminated without his as well as enhancing the possibility that
express consent by a court of even though innocent he may be found
competent jurisdiction, upon a valid guilty.
complaint or information or other
formal charge sufficient in form and Society’s awareness of the heavy personal
substance to sustain a conviction and strain which a criminal trial represents for
after the accused had pleaded to the the individual defendant is manifested in
charge, the conviction or acquittal of the willingness to limit the government to a
the accused or the dismissal of the single criminal proceeding to vindicate its
case shall be a bar to another very vital interest in the enforcement of
prosecution for the offense charged, criminal laws.885
or for any attempt to commit the same
or frustration thereof, or for any "Without the safeguard this article
offense which necessarily includes or establishes in favor of the accused, his
is necessarily included in the offense fortune, safety, and peace of mind would
charged in the former complaint or be entirely at the mercy of the complaining
information. witness, who might repeat his accusation
as often as dismissed by the court and
SECTION 5 OF RULE 120 OF THE whenever he might see fit, subject to no
REVISED RULES OF COURT. other limitation or restriction than his own
will and pleasure. The accused would
When an offense includes or is never be free from the cruel and constant
included in another. — An offense menace of a never-ending charge, which
charged necessarily includes the the malice of the complaining witness might
offense proved when some of the hold indefinitely suspended over his head .
essential elements or ingredients of . ."886
the former, as alleged in the complaint
or information, constitute the latter. Elements of Double Jeopardy
And an offense charged is
necessarily included in the offense In order that the protection against double
proved, when the essential jeopardy may inure in favor of an accused,
ingredients of the former constitute or the following requisites must have obtained
form a part of those constituting the in the original prosecution:
latter.
(a) A valid complaint or information;
Ratio of the constitutional provision (b) A competent court;
885
People of the Philippines v. Sandiganbayan, 886People v. Hon. Vergara, G.R. Nos. 101557-
G.R. Nos. 168188-89, June 16, 2006 58, April 28, 1993
(Colossians 3:23)
personally or through his counsel;

(c) The defendant had pleaded to the and
charge; and
2. Such dismissal must not be on the
(d) The defendant was acquitted, or merits and must not necessarily
convicted, or the case against him amount to an acquittal.890
was dismissed or otherwise
terminated without his express To reconsider a judgment of acquittal
consent.887 places the accused twice in jeopardy of
being punished for the crime of which
Exceptions to double jeopardy: he has already been absolved
1. Doctrine of estoppel To reconsider a judgment of acquittal

places the accused twice in jeopardy of
The doctrine of estoppel is in being punished for the crime of which he
quintessence the same as the has already been absolved.
doctrine of waiver: the thrust of both
is that a dismissal, other than on the There is reason for this provision of the
merits, sought by the accused in a Constitution. In criminal cases, the full
motion to dismiss, is deemed to be power of the State is ranged against the
with his express consent and bars accused.
him from subsequently interposing
the defense of double jeopardy on If there is no limit to attempts to prosecute
appeal or in a new prosecution for the accused for the same offense after he
the same offense.888 has been acquitted, the infinite power and
capacity of the State for a sustained and
2. Doctrine of waiver repeated litigation would eventually
overwhelm the accused in terms of
When the case is dismissed with resources, stamina, and the will to fight.891
the express consent of the
defendant, the dismissal will not be Motion for reconsideration after an
a bar to another prosecution for the acquittal is possible but the grounds are
same offense; because, his action exceptional and narrow
in having the case dismissed
constitutes a waiver of his In the case of Lejano v. People,892 the
constitutional right or privilege, for Court ruled that on occasions, a motion for
the reason that he thereby prevents reconsideration after an acquittal is
the court from proceeding to the possible. But the grounds are exceptional
trial on the merits and rendering a and narrow such as the following:
judgment of conviction against
him.889 a. When the court that absolved the
accused gravely abused its
The application of the sister doctrines of discretion, resulting in loss of
waiver and estoppel requires two sine jurisdiction, or
qua non conditions:
b. When a mistrial has occurred.
1. The dismissal must be sought or
induced by the defendant
887 People v. Obsania, G.R. No. L-24447, June 890 People v. Obsania, G.R. No. L-24447, June
29, 1968 29, 1968
888 People v. Acierto, 92 Phil. 534 (1953) 891 Lejano v. People, G.R. No. 176389, January
889 People v. Salico, 84 Phil. 722 (1949) 18, 2011
892 G.R. No. 176389, January 18, 2011
(Colossians 3:23)
In any of such cases, the State may assail

the decision by special civil action of In this connection, an offense may be said
certiorari under Rule 65. to necessarily include another when some
of the essential ingredients of the former as
In the case at bar, what the complainant alleged in the information constitute the
actually questions is the Courts latter. And vice-versa, an offense may be
appreciation of the evidence and said to be necessarily included in another
assessment of the prosecution witnesses when all the ingredients of the former
credibility. He ascribes grave error on the constitute a part of the elements
Courts finding that Alfaro was not a credible constituting the latter (Rule 116, sec. 5.)
witness and assails the value assigned by
the Court to the evidence of the defense. In In other words, on who has been charged
other words, private complainant wants the with an offense cannot be again charged
Court to review the evidence anew and with the same or identical offense though
render another judgment based on such a the latter be lesser or greater than the
re-evaluation. This is not constitutionally former.
allowed as it is merely a repeated attempt
to secure Webb, et als conviction. The "As the Government cannot be with the
judgment acquitting Webb, et al is final and highest, and then go down step to step,
can no longer be disturbed. bringing the man into jeopardy for every
dereliction included therein, neither can it
Meaning of the phrase “same offense” begin with the lowest and ascend to the
as enunciated in Sec. 21 of Art. III (Rule highest with precisely the same result."
of Identity) (People vs. Cox, 107 Mich., 435, quoted
with approval in U. S. vs. Lim Suco, 11
The phrase same offense, under the Phil., 484; see also U. S. vs. Ledesma, 29
general rule, has always been construed to Phil., 431 and People vs. Martinez, 55 Phil.,
mean not only the second offense charged 6, 10.)
is exactly the same as the one alleged in
the first information, but also that the two This rule of identity does not apply,
offenses are identical.893 however when the second offense was
not in existence at the time of the first
There is identity between the two offenses prosecution
when the evidence to support a conviction
for one offense would be sufficient to In the case of Carmelo v. People,894 the
warrant a conviction for the other. This so Court ruled that the rule of identity does not
called "same-evidence test" which was apply, however when the second offense
found to be vague and deficient, was was not in existence at the time of the first
restated by the Rules of Court in a clearer prosecution, for the simple reason that in
and more accurate form. such case there is no possibility for the
accused, during the first prosecution, to be
Under said Rules there is identity between convicted for an offense that was then
two offenses not only when the second inexistent.
offense is exactly the same as the first, but
also when the second offense is an attempt Thus, where the accused was charged with
to commit the first or a frustration thereof, physical injuries and after conviction the
or when it necessary includes or is injured person dies, the charge for
necessarily included in the offense charged homicide against the same accused does
in the first information. (Rule 113, sec. 9; not put him twice in jeopardy.
U.S. vs. Lim Suco, 11 Phil., 484; U. S. vs.
Ledesma, 29 Phil., vs. Martinez, 55 Phil., This is the ruling laid down by the Supreme
6.) Court of the United States in the Philippines
893Carmelo v. People, G.R. No. L-3580, March 894 G.R. No. L-3580, March 22, 1950
22, 1950
(Colossians 3:23)
case of Diaz vs. U. S., 223 U. S. 442, Finally, Criminal Case No. 96-154193 was
followed by this Court in People vs. Espino, dismissed for insufficiency of evidence.
G. R. No. 46123, 69 Phil., 471, and these Consequently, the right not to be placed
two cases are similar to the instant case. twice in jeopardy of punishment for the
Stating it in another form, the rule is that same offense became vested on
"where after the first prosecution a new fact respondent spouses.
supervenes for which the defendant is
responsible, which changes the character Meaning of express consent
of the offense and, together with the fact
existing at the time, constitutes a new and Express consent has been defined as that
distinct offense" (15 Am. Jur., 66), the which is directly given either viva voce
accused cannot be said to be in second (orally) or in writing. It is a positive, direct,
jeopardy if indicated for the new offense. unequivocal consent requiring no inference
or implication to supply its meaning.896
Dismissal with the express consent or
upon motion of the accused does not There was no express consent of the
result in double jeopardy, however, this accused when the prosecutor moved for
rule is subject to two exceptions the dismissal of the original
Informations
On the last element, the rule is that a
dismissal with the express consent or upon In the case of People v. Hon. Vergara,897
motion of the accused does not result in the Court ruled that simply, there was no
double jeopardy. express consent of the accused when the
prosecutor moved for the dismissal of the
However, this rule is subject to two original Informations.
exceptions, namely:
Since it was the prosecuting officer who
a. If the dismissal is based on instituted the cases, and who thereafter
insufficiency of evidence or moved for their dismissal, a hearing on his
motion to dismiss was not necessary at all.
b. On the denial of the right to speedy It is axiomatic that a hearing is necessary
trial. only in cases of contentious motions. The
motion filed in this case has ceased to be
In the case of PS Bank v. Bermoy,895 the contentious. Definitely, it would be to his
Court ruled that the dismissal upon best interest if the accused did not oppose
demurrer to evidence falls under the first the motion. The private complainants, on
exception. Since such dismissal is based the other hand, are precluded from
on the merits, it amounts to an acquittal. questioning the discretion of the fiscal in
moving for the dismissal of the criminal
As the Court of Appeals correctly held, the action. Hence, a hearing on the motion to
elements required in Section 7 were all dismiss would be useless and futile.
present in Criminal Case No. 96-154193.
Consent cannot be implied or presumed
Thus, the Information for estafa through
falsification of a public document against In the case of Tupaz v. Hon. Ulep,898 the
respondent spouses was sufficient in form Court ruled that an accused is placed in
and substance to sustain a conviction. The double jeopardy if he is again tried for an
trial court had jurisdiction over the case and offense for which he has been convicted,
the persons of respondent spouses. acquitted or in another manner in which the
Respondent spouses were arraigned indictment against him was dismissed
during which they entered not guilty pleas. without his consent.
895G.R. No. 151912, September 26, 2005 897 G.R. Nos. 101557-58, April 28, 1993
896People v. Hon. Vergara, G.R. Nos. 101557- 898 G.R. No. 127777, October 1, 1999
58, April 28, 1993
(Colossians 3:23)
cases already mentioned nor withdrawn by

In the instant case, there was a valid another order reconsidering the dismissal
complaint filed against petitioner to which of the case since the inherent power of a
she pleaded not guilty. The court dismissed court to modify its order or decision does
the case at the instance of the prosecution, not extend to a judgment of acquittal in a
without asking for accused-petitioners criminal case.
consent.
Complainant herein was already acquitted
This consent cannot be implied or of murder by respondent in a decision
presumed. Such consent must be promulgated on 13 August 1993. Applying
expressed as to have no doubt as to the the aforestated rule, the decision became
accused’s conformity. As petitioner’s final and immutable on the same day. As a
consent was not expressly given, the member of the bench who is always
dismissal of the case must be regarded as admonished to be conversant with the
final and with prejudice to the re-filing of the latest legal and judicial developments,
case. more so of elementary rules, respondent
should have known that she could no
Consequently, the trial court committed longer "revise" her decision of acquittal
grave abuse of discretion in reinstating the without violating not only an elementary
information against petitioner in violation of rule of procedure but also the constitutional
her constitutionally protected right against proscription against double jeopardy.
double jeopardy. When the law is so elementary, not to know
it constitutes gross ignorance of the law.
Ratio: Consent must be express, so as to
leave no doubt as to the defendant's When can the right against double
conformity. Otherwise, the dismissal will be jeopardy be invoked?
regarded as final, i.e., with prejudice to the
refiling of the case.899 The right against double jeopardy can be
invoked if
Effect in case defendant expressly
consents to or moves for the dismissal (a) The accused is charged with the
of the case against him same offense in two separate
pending cases, or
Where a defendant expressly consents to
or moves for the dismissal of the case (b) The accused is prosecuted anew
against him, even if the court or judge for the same offense after he had
states in the order that the dismissal is been convicted or acquitted of such
definite or does not say that the dismissal offense, or
is without prejudice to the filing of another
information, the dismissal win not be a bar (c) The prosecution appeals from a
to a subsequent prosecution of the judgment in the same case.
defendant for the same offense.900
Note: The last is based on Section 2, Rule
In criminal cases, a judgment of 122 of the Rules of Court which provides
acquittal is immediately final upon its that [a]ny party may appeal from a final
promulgation judgment or order, except if the accused
would be placed thereby in double
In the case of Argel v. Judge Pascua,901 the jeopardy.
Court ruled that in criminal cases, a
judgment of acquittal is immediately final
upon its promulgation. It cannot be recalled
for correction or amendment except in the
899
Caes v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. 900 Gandicela v. Lutero, 88 Phil. 299 (1951)
Nos. 74989-90, November 6, 1989 901 A.M. No. RTJ-94-1131, August 20, 2001
(Colossians 3:23)
Hence, in the case of PS Bank v. defense of double jeopardy must

Bermoy,902 the Court ruled that when the prevail.
petitioner seeks a review of the 21 April
1998 Order dismissing Criminal Case No. Civil indemnity may be increased only if
96-154193 for insufficiency of evidence. it will not require an aggravation of the
decision in the criminal case on which it
It is in effect appealing from a judgment of is based
acquittal. By mandate of the Constitution
and Section 7, the courts are barred from In the case of Heirs of Rillorta v. Hon.
entertaining such appeal as it seeks an Firme,905 the Court ruled that civil indemnity
inquiry into the merits of the dismissal. may be increased only if it will not require
an aggravation of the decision in the
As held in the case of People v. Bans:903 criminal case on which it is based. In other
words, the accused may not, on appeal by
“In terms of substantive law, the Court will the adverse party, be convicted of a more
not pass upon the propriety of the order serious offense or sentenced to a higher
granting the Demurrer to Evidence on the penalty to justify the increase in the civil
ground of insufficiency of evidence and the indemnity. This rule is applicable in the
consequent acquittal of the accused, as it present case.
will place the latter in double jeopardy.
Generally, the dismissal of a criminal case The petitioners, in the case at bar, are
resulting in acquittal made with the express urging that the civil award in the sum of only
consent of the accused or upon his own P500.00 be increased because the
motion will not place the accused in double accused should not have been found guilty
jeopardy. However, this rule admits of two of only less serious physical injuries but of
exceptions, namely: insufficiency of homicide.
evidence and denial of the right to a speedy
trial xxx In the case before us, the They are not confining themselves to the
resolution of the Demurrer to Evidence was civil aspect of the challenged decision. In
based on the ground of insufficiency of their own words, their appeal involves "both
evidence xxx Hence, it clearly falls under the criminal aspect and the civil liabilities in
one of the admitted exceptions to the rule. the criminal cases." This is not permitted
Double jeopardy therefore, applies to this under the rule on double jeopardy.
case and this Court is constitutionally
barred from reviewing the order acquitting The mere filing of the two (2) sets of
the accused.” information does not itself give rise to
double jeopardy
Lastly, it was held in the case of People v.
Hon. Vergara904 that the conditions for a In the case of People v. Miraflores,906 the
valid defense of double jeopardy, i.e., Court ruled that while the filing of the two
sets of Information under the provisions of
(a) A first jeopardy must have attached Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 and under the
prior to the second; provisions of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended, on estafa, may refer to identical
(b) The first jeopardy must have been acts committed by petitioner, the
validly terminated; and prosecution thereof cannot be limited to
one offense, because a single criminal act
(c) The second jeopardy must be for may give rise to a multiplicity of offenses
the same offense as that of the first, and where there is variance or differences
all being present in these cases, the between the elements of an offense in one
law and another law as in the case at bar
902 G.R. No. 151912, September 26, 2005 905 G.R. No. L-54904, January 29, 1988
903 G.R. No. 104147, December 8, 1994 906 115 SCRA 570 (1982)
904 G.R. Nos. 101557-58, April 28, 1993
(Colossians 3:23)
there will be no double jeopardy because hold in the cases at bar where as the Court
what the rule on double jeopardy prohibits have held, the sham trial was but a mock
refers to identity of elements in the two (2) trial where the authoritarian president
offenses. ordered respondents Sandiganbayan and
Tanodbayan to rig the trial and closely
Otherwise stated prosecution for the same monitored the entire proceedings to assure
act is not prohibited. What is forbidden is the pre-determined final outcome of
prosecution for the same offense. Hence, acquittal and total absolution as innocent of
the mere filing of the two (2) sets of an the respondents-accused.
information does not itself give rise to
double jeopardy. Notwithstanding the laudable efforts of
Justice Herrera which saw him near the
Jurisdiction of Courts end "deactivating" himself from the case,
as it was his belief that its eventual
Legal jeopardy resolution was already a foregone
conclusion, they could not cope with the
Legal jeopardy attaches only: misuse and abuse of the overwhelming
powers of the authoritarian President to
(a) Upon a valid indictment, weaken the case of the prosecution, to
suppress its evidence, harass, intimidate
(b) Before a competent court, and threaten its witnesses, secure their
recantation or prevent them from testifying.
(c) After arraignment,
Manifestly, the prosecution and the
(d) A valid plea having been entered; sovereign people were denied due process
and of law with a partial court and biased
Tanodbayan under the constant and
(e) The case was dismissed or pervasive monitoring and pressure exerted
otherwise terminated without the by the authoritarian President to assure the
express consent of the accused.907 carrying out of his instructions. A dictated,
coerced and scripted verdict of acquittal
The remand of the criminal case for such as that in the case at bar is a void
further hearing and/or trial before the judgment. In legal contemplation, it is no
lower courts amounts merely to a judgment at all. It neither binds nor bars
continuation of the first jeopardy anyone. Such a judgment is "a lawless
thing which can be treated as an outlaw". It
In the case of People v. Bocar,908 the Court is a terrible and unspeakable affront to the
ruled that the first jeopardy was never society and the people. To paraphrase
terminated, and the remand of the criminal Brandeis: If the authoritarian head of the
case for further hearing and/or trial before government becomes the law-breaker, he
the lower courts amounts merely to a breeds contempt for the law, he invites
continuation of the first jeopardy, and does every man to become a law unto himself,
not expose the accused to a second he invites anarchy.
jeopardy.
Respondent Courts' Resolution of acquittal
If the acquittal was a void judgment for was a void judgment for having been
having been issued without jurisdiction, issued without jurisdiction. No double
double jeopardy will not attach jeopardy attaches, therefore. A void
judgment is, in legal effect, no judgment at
In the case of Galman v. all. By it no rights are divested. Through it,
Sandiganbayan,909 the Court ruled that the no rights can be attained.
rule against the invoking of double jeopardy
907 People v. Ylagan, 58 Phil. 851 (1933) 909 G.R. No. 72670, September 12, 1986
908 G.R. No. L-27935, August 16, 1985
(Colossians 3:23)
Being worthless, all proceedings founded such imperative is void for lack of
upon it are equally worthless. It neither jurisdiction.
binds nor bars anyone. All acts performed
under it and all claims flowing out of it are It was not a court of competent jurisdiction
void. when it precipitately rendered a decision of
acquittal after a pre-trial. A trial should
Where an order dismissing a criminal follow a pre-trial. That is the mandate of the
case is not a decision on the merits, it rules. Obviously, double jeopardy has not
cannot bar as res judicata a subsequent set in this case.
case based on the same offense
For the constitutional plea of double
In the case of People v. Judge Gorospe,910 jeopardy to be available, not all the
the Court ruled that present petition for technical elements constituting the first
certiorari seeking to set aside the void offense need be present in the technical
Decision of Respondent Judge does not definition of the second offense
place Respondent-accused in double
jeopardy for the same offense. It will be In the case of People v. Hon. Relova,912 the
recalled that the questioned judgment was Court ruled that for the constitutional plea
not an adjudication on the merits. It was a of double jeopardy to be available, not all
dismissal upon Respondent Judge's the technical elements constituting the first
erroneous conclusion that his Court had no offense need be present in the technical
"territorial jurisdiction" over the cases. definition of the second offense. The law
here seeks to prevent harassment of an
Where an order dismissing a criminal case accused person by multiple prosecutions
is not a decision on the merits, it cannot bar for offenses which though different from
as res judicata a subsequent case based one another are nonetheless each
on the same offense (People vs. Bellosillo, constituted by a common set or
No. L-18512, December 27, 1963, 9 SCRA overlapping sets of technical elements.
835, 837).
In the case at bar, the dismissal by the
The dismissal being null and void the Batangas City Court of the information for
proceedings before the Trial Court may not violation of the Batangas City Ordinance
be said to have been lawfully terminated. upon the ground that such offense had
There is therefore, no second proceeding already prescribed, amounts to an acquittal
which would subject the accused to double of the accused of that offense. Under
jeopardy. Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code,
"prescription of the crime" is one of the
In sum, Respondent Judge had jurisdiction grounds for "total extinction of criminal
to try and decide the subject criminal case, liability." Under the Rules of Court, an order
venue having been properly laid. sustaining a motion to quash based on
prescription is a bar to another prosecution
The Court is not of competent for the same offense.
jurisdiction when it precipitately
rendered a decision of acquittal after a It is not without reluctance that the Court
pre-trial deny the people's petition for certiorari and
mandamus in this case. It is difficult to
In the case of People v. Hon. Santiago,911 summon any empathy for a businessman
the Court ruled that in the case at bar, the who would make or enlarge his profit by
prosecution was deprived of an opportunity stealing from the community. Manuel
to prosecute and prove its case. The Opulencia is able to escape criminal
decision that was rendered in disregard of punishment because an Assistant City
Fiscal by inadvertence or otherwise chose
910 G.R. Nos. L-74053-54, January 20, 1988 912 G.R. No. L-45129, March 6, 1987
911 G.R. No. L-80778, June 20, 1989
(Colossians 3:23)
to file an information for an offense which Evidence required to prove one offense
he should have known had already is not the same evidence required to
prescribed. We are, however, compelled by prove the other, the defense of double
the fundamental law to hold the protection jeopardy cannot prosper
of the right against double jeopardy
available even to the private respondent in In the case of People v. City Court of
this case. Manila,914 the Court ruled that nature of
both offenses also shows their essential
The extinction of criminal liability difference. The crime punished in Rep. Act
whether by prescription or by the bar of No. 3060 is a malum prohibitum in which
double jeopardy does not carry with it criminal intent need not be proved because
the extinction of civil liability arising it is presumed, while the offense punished
from the offense charged in Article 201 (3) of the Revised Penal Code
is malum in se, in which criminal intent is an
In the case of People v. Hon. Relova & indispensable ingredient.
Opulencia,913 the Court ruled that the
extinction of criminal liability whether by Considering these differences in elements
prescription or by the bar of double and nature, there is no Identity of the
jeopardy does not carry with it the offenses here involved for which legal
extinction of civil liability arising from the jeopardy in one may be invoked in the
offense charged. other. Evidence required to prove one
offense is not the same evidence required
In the present case, as we noted earlier, to prove the other. The defense of double
accused Manuel Opulencia freely admitted jeopardy cannot prosper.
during the police investigation having
stolen electric current through the As aptly put in People v. Doriquez915:
installation and use of unauthorized
elibctrical connections or devices. While “It is a cardinal rule that the protection
the accused pleaded not guilty before the against double jeopardy may be invoked
City Court of Batangas City, he did not deny only for the same offense or Identical
having appropriated electric power. offense. A single act may offend against
However, there is no evidence in the record two (or more) entirely distinct and unrelated
as to the amount or value of the electric provisions of law, and if one provision
power appropriated by Manuel Opulencia, requires proof of an additional fact or
the criminal informations having been element which the other does not, an
dismissed both by the City Court and by the acquittal or conviction or a dismissal of the
Court of First Instance (from which information under one does not bar
dismissals the Batangas City electric light prosecution under the other. (People v.
system could not have appealed before Bacolod, 89 Phil. 621; People v. Alvarez,
trial could begin. 45 Phil. 24).
Accordingly, the related civil action which Phrased elsewhere, where two different
has not been waived expressly or impliedly, laws (or articles of the same code) define
should be remanded to the Court of First two crimes, prior jeopardy as to one of them
Instance of Batangas City for reception of is no obstacle to a prosecution of the other,
evidence on the amount or value of the although both offenses arise from the same
electric power appropriated and converted facts, if each crime involves some
by Manuel Opulencia and rendition of important act which is not an essential
judgment conformably with such evidence. element of the other. (People v. Alvarez, 45
Phil. 472).”
Identity of offenses
913 G.R. No. L-45129, March 6, 1987 915 G.R. No. L-24445-45, July 29, 1968
914 G.R. No. L-36528, September 24, 1987
(Colossians 3:23)
Single criminal act may give rise to a Valid previous proceedings are required in
multiplicity of offenses and where there order that the defense of double jeopardy
is variance or differences between the can be raised by the accused in the second
elements of an offense in one law and prosecution.
another law as in the case at bar there
will be no double jeopardy However, such view was reversed in the
case of Tan v. Barrios,918 wherein the Court
In the case of Nierras v. Hon. Dacuycuy,916 held that the refiling of the information
the Court ruled that while the filing of the would place the accused in double
two sets of Information under the jeopardy.
provisions of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22
and under the provisions of the Revised It should be noted that the trial of thousands
Penal Code, as amended, on estafa, may of civilians for common crimes before
refer to identical acts committed by military tribunals and commissions during
petitioner, the prosecution thereof cannot the ten-year period of martial rule (1971-
be limited to one offense, because a single 1981) which were created under general
criminal act may give rise to a multiplicity of orders issued by President Marcos in the
offenses and where there is variance or exercise of his legislative powers, is an
differences between the elements of an operative fact that may not be justly
offense in one law and another law as in ignored. The belated declaration in 1987 of
the case at bar there will be no double the unconstitutionality and invalidity of
jeopardy because what the rule on double those proceedings did not erase the reality
jeopardy prohibits refers to identity of of their consequences which occurred long
elements in the two (2) offenses. Otherwise before our decision in Olaguer was
stated prosecution for the same act is not promulgated and which now prevent us
prohibited. What is forbidden is prosecution from carrying Olaguer to the limit of its
for the same offense. logic.
Hence, the mere filing of the two (2) sets of The Court said that the doctrine of
information does not itself give rise to "operative facts" applies to the proceedings
double jeopardy (People v. Miraflores, 115 against the petitioners and their co-
SCRA 570). accused before Military Commission No. 1.
Military Court Proceedings The principle of absolute invalidity of the

jurisdiction of the military courts over
The refiling of the information, from civilians should not be allowed to obliterate
military to civil courts, against the the "operative facts" that in the particular
petitioners would place them in double case of the petitioners, the proceedings
jeopardy were fair, that there were no serious
violations of their constitutional right to due
In the case of Cruz v. Minister Enrile,917 the process, and that the jurisdiction of the
Court acknowledged that no breach of the military commission that heard and decided
constitutional prohibition against twice the charges against them during the period
putting an accused in jeopardy of of martial law, had been affirmed by this
punishment for the same offense would Court (Aquino vs. Military Commission No.
result from the retrial of the petitioners" 2, 63 SCRA 546) years before the Olaguer
cases, for the simple reason that the case arose and came before us.
absence of jurisdiction of the courts martial
to try and convict the petitioners prevented Because of these established operative
the first jeopardy from attaching. facts, the refiling of the information against
the petitioners would place them in double
916 G.R. Nos. 59568-76, January 11, 1990 918 G.R. No. 85481-82, October 18, 1990
917 G.R. No. 75983, April 15, 1988
(Colossians 3:23)
jeopardy, in hard fact if not in constitutional of the denial of his right to a speedy
logic. trial.
Right to Speedy Trial Ratio: This is in effect a failure to

prosecute.921
What is a “speedy trial”?
There is denial of a speedy trial when
A speedy trial 'is a trial conducted the accused was not given an
according to the law of criminal procedure opportunity to deny them because his
and the rules and regulations, free from trial could not be held
vexatious, capricious, and oppressive
delays.919 In the case of Caes v. Intermediate
Appellate Court,922 the Court ruled that the
It can be one which may be had as soon petitioner was arraigned on August 31,
after indictment as the prosecution can with 1982, but was never actually tried until the
reasonable diligence prepare for trial. And cases were dismissed on November 14,
such a trial is denied an accused person 1983, following eleven postponements of
where through the vacillation and the scheduled hearings, mostly because
procrastination of prosecuting officers, the the prosecution was not prepared. The
accused is forced to wait many months or accused was never absent at these
years for trial.920 aborted hearings. He was prepared to be
tried, but either the witnesses against him
Instances where the dismissal will be were not present, or the prosecutor himself
held to be final and will dispose of the was absent, or the court lacked material
case once and for all even if the time. Meantime, the charges against him
dismissal was made on motion of the continued to hang over his head even as he
accused himself was not given an opportunity to deny them
because his trial could not be held.
There are instances in fact when the
dismissal will be held to be final and to Under these circumstances, Caes could
dispose of the case once and for all even if have himself moved for the dismissal of the
the dismissal was made on motion of the cases on the ground of the denial of his
accused himself. right to a speedy trial. This would have
been in keeping with People v. Cloribel,923
1. Where the dismissal is based on a where the case dragged for almost four
demurrer to the evidence filed by years due to numerous postponements,
the accused after the prosecution mostly at the instance of the prosecution,
has rested. and was finally dismissed on motion of the
defendants when the prosecution failed to
Ratio: Such dismissal has the appear at the trial. This Court held "that the
effect of a judgment on the merits dismissal here complained of was not truly
and operates as an acquittal. a dismissal but an acquittal. For it was
Prosecution team had to be denied entered upon the defendants' insistence on
relief because the dismissal their constitutional right to speedy trial and
amounted to an acquittal on the by reason of the prosecution's failure to
merits which was therefore not appear on the date of trial."
appealable.
The circumstance that the dismissal of the
2. Where the dismissal is made, also cases against the petitioner was described
on motion of the accused, because by the trial judge as "provisional" did not
919 Kalaw v. Apostol, et al., 64 Phil. 852 (1937) 922 G.R. Nos. 74989-90, November 6, 1989
920 Conde v. Judge, et al., 45 Phil. 173 (1923) 923 11 SCRA 805 (1964)
921 Caes v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R.
Nos. 74989-90, November 6, 1989

(Colossians 3:23)
change the nature of that dismissal. As it while the Sandiganbayan case also against
was based on the "lack of interest" of the said petitioner is criminal in nature.
prosecutor and the consequent delay in the
trial of the cases, it was final and operated When the Supreme Court acts on
as an acquittal of the accused on the complaints against judges or any of the
merits. No less importantly, there is no personnel under its supervision and
proof that Caes expressly concurred in the control, it acts as personnel administrator,
provisional dismissal. Implied consent, as imposing discipline and not as a court
we have repeatedly held, is not enough; judging justiciable controversies.
neither may it be lightly inferred from the Administrative procedure need not strictly
presumption of regularity, for we are adhere to technical rules. Substantial
dealing here with the alleged waiver of a evidence is sufficient to sustain conviction.
constitutional right. Any doubt on this Criminal proceedings before the
matter must be resolved in favor of the Sandiganbayan, on the other hand, while
accused. they may involve the same acts subject of
the administrative case, require proof of
Hence, the Court conclude that the trial guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
judge erred in ordering the revival of the
cases against the petitioner and that the It is precisely for this reason, among others,
respondent court also erred in affirming that the administrative case against
that order. Caes having been denied his petitioner was dismissed by the Supreme
constitutional right to a speedy trial, and not Court for lack of merit; and yet, it cannot be
having expressly consented to the assumed at this point that petitioner is not
"provisional" dismissal of the cases against criminally liable under R.A 3019, par. 3(e)
him, he was entitled to their final dismissal for issuing the questioned orders of
under the constitutional prohibition against detention. In fact, the Ombudsman has
double jeopardy. found a prima facie case which led to the
filing of the information.
Possible defense on the part of the
prosecutor It is settled that the dismissal of a case
during its preliminary investigation
There were no oppressive delays on the does not constitute double jeopardy
part of the prosecution and postponements
requested by the prosecution appear to be In the case of Vincoy v. CA,926 the Court
reasonable.924 ruled that it is settled that the dismissal of a
case during its preliminary investigation
Administrative and criminal does not constitute double jeopardy since
proceedings a preliminary investigation is not part of the
trial and is not the occasion for the full and
When the case is administrative in exhaustive display of the parties evidence
character while the other case arising but only such as may engender a well-
from the same offense is criminal in grounded belief that an offense has been
nature, double jeopardy does not apply committed and accused is probably guilty
thereof.
In the case of Icasiano Jr. v. Hon.
Sandiganbayan,925 the Court ruled that it is For this reason, it cannot be considered
correct on the part of Sandiganbayan to equivalent to a judicial pronouncement of
hold that double jeopardy does not apply in acquittal. Hence, petitioner was properly
the present controversy because the charged before the Office of the City
Supreme Court case (against the herein Prosecutor of Pasig City which is not bound
petitioner) was administrative in character by the determination made by the Pasay
City Prosecutor who may have had before
924Que v. Hon. Cosico, G.R. No. 81861, 925 G.R. No. 95642, May 28, 1992
September 8, 1989 926 G.R. No. 156558, June 14, 2004
(Colossians 3:23)
him a different or incomplete set of

evidence than that subsequently presented
before the Pasig City Prosecutor.
Plea of Guilt at a Lesser Offense
The right against double jeopardy given

to the accused in Section 2, Rule 116 of
the Rules of Court applies in cases
where both the fiscal and the offended
party consent to the private
respondent's change of plea
In the case of People v. Hon. Villarama,927

the Court ruled that the right against double
jeopardy given to the accused in Section 2,
Rule 116 of the Rules of Court applies in
cases where both the fiscal and the
offended party consent to the private
respondent's change of plea.
Since this is not the situation here, the

private respondent cannot claim this
privilege. Instead, the more pertinent and
applicable provision is that found in Section
7, Rule 117.
Under this rule, the private respondent

could still be prosecuted under the original
charge of violation of Section 16 of RA
6425 as amended because of the lack of
consent of the Fiscal who also represents
the offended party, i.e., the state. More
importantly, the trial court's approval of his
change of plea was irregular and improper.
927 G.R. No. 99287, June 23, 1992

(Colossians 3:23)
When is the writ of habeas corpus

applicable?
The suspension of the privilege of the writ

of habeas corpus finds application "only to
persons judicially charged for rebellion or
offenses inherent in or directly connected
with invasion.928
An accusation, according to the

fundamental law, is not synonymous
with guilt
It was held in the case of Dumlao v.

COMELEC929 that explicit is the
constitutional provision that, in all criminal
prosecutions, the accused shall be
presumed innocent until the contrary is
proved, and shall enjoy the right to be
heard by himself and counsel (Article IV,
section 19, 1973 Constitution). An
accusation, according to the fundamental
law, is not synonymous with guilt. The
challenged proviso contravenes the
constitutional presumption of innocence, as
a candidate is disqualified from running for
public office on the ground alone that
charges have been filed against him before
a civil or military tribunal. It condemns
before one is fully heard. In ultimate effect,
except as to the degree of proof, no
distinction is made between a person
convicted of acts of dislotalty and one
against whom charges have been filed for
such acts, as both of them would be
ineligible to run for public office.
A person disqualified to run for public office

on the ground that charges have been filed
against him is virtually placed in the same
category as a person already convicted of
a crime with the penalty of arresto, which
carries with it the accessory penalty of
suspension of the right to hold office during
the term of the sentence (Art. 44, Revised
Penal Code).
928Government of the United States of America 929 G.R. No. L-52245, January 22, 1980
v. Purganan, G.R. No. 148571, September 24,
2002
(Colossians 3:23)
SECTION 17 of ART III. No person It prescribes an "option of refusal to answer

shall be compelled to be a witness incriminating questions and not a
against himself. prohibition of inquiry.
It simply secures to a witness, whether he

To whom is this privilege applicable? be a party or not, the right to refuse to
answer any particular incriminatory
The privilege against self-incrimination question, i.e., one the answer to which has
secured by the Constitution applies to all a tendency to incriminate him for some
individuals.930 crime.935
Furthermore, as clarified in the case of When can the right kick-in?

People v. Judge Ayson,931 the Court ruled
that the right against self-incrimination The right can be claimed only when the
which, as aforestated, (Sec. 17 of Art. III) specific question, incriminatory in
indiscriminately applies to any person character, is actually put to the witness. It
testifying in any proceeding, civil, criminal, cannot be claimed at any other time.936
or administrative.
Can the privilege give the witness the
The right against self-incrimination is right to disregard a subpoena?
not self- executing or automatically
operational No. As held in the case of People v. Judge
Ayson,937 the Court says that the said
The right against self-incrimination is not privilege does not give a witness the right
self- executing or automatically to disregard a subpoena, to decline to
operational. It must be claimed. If not appear before the court at the time
claimed by or in behalf of the witness, the appointed, or to refuse to testify altogether.
protection does not come into play.932
The witness receiving a subpoena must
Can the privilege against self- obey it, appear as required, take the stand,
incrimination be waived? be sworn and answer questions. It is only
when a particular question is addressed to
As a general rule, the rights granted under him, the answer to which may incriminate
Sec. 12 of Art. III of the 1987 Constitution him for some offense, that he may refuse to
cannot be waived except in writing and in answer on the strength of the constitutional
the presence of counsel.933 guaranty.
Furthermore, as held in the case of People Is the judge, or other officer presiding
v. Judge Ayson,934 such right may be over a trial, hearing or investigation
waived, expressly, or impliedly, as by a obligated to advise the witness of this
failure to claim it at the appropriate time. right?
Sec. 17 of Art. III prescribes an "option No. The Court ruled in the case of People
of refusal to answer incriminating v. Judge Ayson938 that the 1973
questions and not a prohibition of Constitution (now the 1987 Constitution)
inquiry does not impose on the judge, or other
officer presiding over a trial, hearing or
investigation, any affirmative obligation to
930 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 934 G.R. No. 85215 July 7, 1989
931 G.R. No. 85215, July 7, 1989 935 People v. Judge Ayson, G.R. No. 85215,
932 People v. Judge Ayson, G.R. No. 85215, July 7, 1989
July 7, 1989 936 Ibid.
933 Sec. 12(1) of Art. III of the 1987 Philippine 937 G.R. No. 85215, July 7, 1989
Constitution 938 G.R. No. 85215, July 7, 1989
(Colossians 3:23)
advise a witness of his right against self- the contentions of the defense are without
incrimination. merit.
It is a right that a witness knows or should The defense contends that the right of the
know, in accordance with the well-known accused against self-incrimination was
axiom that everyone is presumed to know violated when he was made to undergo an
the law, that ignorance of the law excuses ultraviolet ray examination. The defense
no one. Furthermore, in the very nature of also argues that Chief Chemist Teresita
things, neither the judge nor the witness Alberto failed to inform the accused of his
can be expected to know in advance the right to counsel before subjecting him to the
character or effect of a question to be put examination.
to the latter.
It should be noted that what is prohibited by
But the prohibition of compelling a man the constitutional guarantee against self-
in a criminal court to be a witness incrimination is the use of physical or moral
against himself, is a prohibition of the compulsion to export communication from
use of physical or moral compulsion, to the witness, not an inclusion of his body in
extort communications from him, not an evidence, when it may be material.
exclusion of his body as evidence, when
it may be material Stated otherwise, it is simply a prohibition
against legal process to extract from the
In the case of US v. Teng,939 the Court ruled defendant's own lips, against his will, an
that the substance coming from the admission of guilt. Nor can the subjection
defendant’s genitals are admissible as of the accused's body to ultraviolet
evidence. radiation, in order to determine the
presence of ultraviolet powder, be
The Court further ruled that the prohibition considered a custodial investigation so as
of compelling a man in a criminal court to to warrant the presence of counsel.
be a witness against himself, is a
prohibition of the use of physical or moral The prohibition contained in section 5 of
compulsion, to extort communications from the Philippine Bill is simply a prohibition
him, not an exclusion of his body as against legal process to extract from the
evidence, when it may be material. defendant's own lips, against his will, an
admission of his guilt.
The objection, in principle, would forbid a
jury (court) to look at a person and compare It was held in the case of US v. Teng942 that
his features with a photograph in proof. the prohibition contained in section 5 of the
Moreover we are not considering how far a Philippine Bill that a person shall not be
court would go in compelling a man to compelled to be a witness against himself,
exhibit himself, for when he is exhibited, is simply a prohibition against legal process
whether voluntarily or by order, even if the to extract from the defendant's own lips,
order goes too far, the evidence if material, against his will, an admission of his guilt.
is competent.
Furthermore, the main purpose of the
Also, it is important to note that the provision of the Philippine Bill is to prohibit
defendant, in this case, did not oppose the compulsory oral examination of prisoners
extraction from his body of the substance before trial or upon trial, for the purpose of
later used as evidence against him.940 extorting unwilling confessions or
declarations implicating them in the
In addition, the Court ruled in the case of commission of a crime. (People vs.
People v. Carlos Tranca y Arellano941 that Gardner, 144 N. Y., 119.)
939
G.R. No. 7081, September 7, 1912 941 G.R. No. 110357, August 17, 1994
940 Beltran v. Samson, G.R. No. 32025, 942 G.R. No. 7081, September 7, 1912
September 23, 1929
(Colossians 3:23)
of refusal, not a prohibition of inquiry.

Such an inspection of the bodily features by Hence, when an ordinary witness is on the
the court or by witnesses, cannot violate stand, and a self-criminating act relevant to
the privilege granted under the Philippine the issue is desired to be shown by him, the
Bill, because it does not call upon the question may be asked, and then it is for
accused as a witness — it does not call the witness to say whether he will answer it
upon the defendant for his testimonial or claim its privilege, for it cannot be known
responsibility. Mr. Wigmore says that beforehand what he will do."945
evidence obtained in this way from the
accused, is not testimony but his body his Note: Whenever it is possible, the counsel
body itself. of the accused should refrain from putting
the latter in the witness stand.
"Measuring or photographing the party
is not within the privilege" (against self- The purpose of the constitutional
incrimination) prohibition is positively to avoid and
prohibit thereby the repetition and
The Court ruled in the case of People v. recurrence of the certainly inhuman
Otadora943 that when Francisco Galos procedure of compelling a person, in a
denied ownership of the pants he was criminal or any other case, to furnish the
ordered to put it on; and the judge found missing evidence necessary for his
that it fitted him perfectly, the Court noted conviction
that in the record no timely objection upon
that specific ground. And it is to be doubted The purpose thereof is positively to avoid
whether the accused could benefit from the and prohibit thereby the repetition and
error, if any. recurrence of the certainly inhuman
procedure of compelling a person, in a
Furthermore, and this is conclusive, criminal or any other case, to furnish the
"measuring or photographing the party is missing evidence necessary for his
not within the privilege" (against self- conviction. If such is its purpose, then the
incrimination). "Nor is the removal or evidence must be sought elsewhere; and if
replacement of his garments or shoes. Nor it is desired to discover evidence in the
is the requirement that the party move his person himself, then he must be promised
body to enable the foregoing things to be and assured at least absolute immunity by
done." one authorized to do so legally, or he
should be asked, once for all, to furnish
This right extends to all cases, be they such evidence voluntarily without any
criminal, civil or administrative condition.
Article III, section 1, No. 18 (now Sec. 17), Hence, in the case of Bermudez v.
of the Constitution of the Philippines is Castillo,946 the Court ruled that Castillo is
worded in such a way that the protection covered by the constitutional right against
referred to therein extends to all cases, be self-incrimination when the prosecuting
they criminal, civil or administrative.944 attorney compelled her to write by hand
what was then dictated to him. Apparently,
The privilege against self-crimination is were she compelled to write and were it
a personal one but the privilege is an proven by means of what she might write
option of refusal, not a prohibition of later that said documents had really been
inquiry written by her, it would be impossible for
her to evade prosecution for perjury,
"The privilege against self-crimination is a inasmuch as it would be warranted by
personal one. But the privilege is an option article 183 of the Revised Penal Code.
943G.R. No. L-2154, April 26, 1950 945 Bermudez v. Castillo, Per. Rec. No. 714-A,
944Bermudez v. Castillo, Per. Rec. No. 714-A, July 26, 1937
July 26, 1937 946 Per. Rec. No. 714-A, July 26, 1937
(Colossians 3:23)
test or refusing. Of course, the fact the

Writing is not a purely mechanical act, government gives a defendant or suspect a
because it requires the application of "choice" does not always resolve the
intelligence and attention compulsion inquiry.
The Court ruled in the case of Beltran v. The classic Fifth Amendment violation --
Samson947 that writing is something more telling a defendant at trial to testify -- does
than moving the body, or the hands, or the not, under an extreme view, compel the
fingers; writing is not a purely mechanical defendant to incriminate himself.
act, because it requires the application of
intelligence and attention; and in the case Hence, the Court held that a refusal to take
at bar writing means that the petitioner a blood alcohol test, after a police officer
herein is to furnish a means to determine has lawfully requested it, is not an act
whether or not he is the falsifier, as the coerced by the officer, and thus is not
petition of the respondent fiscal clearly protected by the privilege against self-
states. incrimination.
Hence, the Court found the present action Privilege protects an accused only from
well taken, and it is ordered that the being compelled to testify against
respondents and those under their orders himself, or otherwise provide the State
desist and abstain absolutely and forever with evidence of a testimonial or
from compelling the petitioner to take down communicative nature
dictation in his handwriting for the purpose
of submitting the latter for comparison. In the case of Schmerber v. California,949
the US Supreme Court ruled that
The element of compulsion or withdrawal of the blood and admission in
involuntariness was always an evidence of the analysis involved did not
ingredient of the right and, before the violate the petitioner’s privilege.
right existed, of protests against
incriminating interrogatories The Court said that the privilege protects
an accused only from being compelled to
The US Supreme Court held in the case of testify against himself, or otherwise provide
South Dakota v. Neville948 that the Court the State with evidence of a testimonial or
has held repeatedly that the Fifth communicative nature and that the
Amendment is limited to prohibiting the use withdrawal of blood and use of the analysis
of 'physical or moral compulsion' exerted in question in this case did not involve
on the person asserting the privilege. compulsion to these ends.
This coercion requirement comes directly Since the blood test evidence, although an
from the constitutional language directing incriminating product of compulsion, was
that no person "shall be compelled in any neither petitioner's testimony nor evidence
criminal case to be a witness against relating to some communicative act or
himself." And as Professor Levy concluded writing by the petitioner, it was not
in his history of the privilege, the element of inadmissible on privilege grounds.
compulsion or involuntariness was always
an ingredient of the right and, before the It bears emphasis, however, that under
right existed, of protests against the right against self-incrimination,
incriminating interrogatories. what is actually proscribed is the use of
physical or moral compulsion to extort
At the case at bar, the State did not directly communication from the accused-
compel respondent to refuse the test, for it appellant and not the inclusion of his
gave him the choice of submitting to the
947 G.R. No. 32025, September 23, 1929 949 384 U.S. 757 (1966)
948 459 U.S. 553 (1983)
(Colossians 3:23)
body in evidence when it may be of the analysis involved.

material (Schmerber v. California958)
Hence, the following examples are not Ratio: For what is proscribed is the use of
covered by such right: testimonial compulsion or any evidence
communicative in nature acquired from the
1. Substance emitted from the body of accused under duress. (People v.
the accused may be received as Rondero959)
evidence in prosecution for acts of
lasciviousness. (US v. Tan Teng950) In what proceedings is this right
applicable?
2. Morphine forced out of the mouth of
the accused may also be used as At first, the provision in our organic laws
evidence against him. (US v. Ong were similar to the Constitution of the
Siu Hong951) United States and was as follows:
3. Hair samples were forcibly taken “That no person shall be ... compelled in a
from the accused and submitted to criminal case to be a witness against
the NBI for forensic examination. himself.”
(People v. Rondero952)
As now worded, Section 20 of Article IV
4. The taking of pictures of an reads:
accused even without the
assistance of counsel, being a “No person shall be compelled to be a
purely mechanical act, is not a witness against himself.”
violation of his constitutional right
against self-incrimination. (People The deletion of the phrase "in a criminal
v. Gallarde953) case" connotes no other import except to
make said provision also applicable to
5. A woman charged with adultery cases other than criminal. Decidedly then,
may be compelled to submit to the right "not to be compelled to testify
physical examination to determine against himself" applies to the herein
her pregnancy. (Villaflor v. private respondents notwithstanding that
Summers954) the proceedings before the Agrava Board
(fact finding committee) is not, in its
6. To have the outline of his (accused) strictest sense, a criminal case. (Galman v.
foot traced to determine its identity Pamaran960)
with bloody footprints. (U.S. v.
Salas;955 U.S. v. Zara956) Furthermore, it was held in the case of
Pascual v. Board of Medical Examiners961
7. To be photographed or measured, that such right extends its protection to
or his garments or shoes removed lawyers as well as to other individuals, and
or replaced, or to move his body to that it should not be watered down by
enable the foregoing things to be imposing the dishonor of disbarment and
done. (People v. Otadora, et al.957) the deprivation of a livelihood as a price for
asserting it." We reiterate that such a
8. Withdrawal of the blood of the principle is equally applicable to a
accused and admission in evidence proceeding that could possibly result in the
950 23 Phil 145 (1912) 956 42 Phil. 308 (1921)

951 36 Phil 735 (1917) 957 86 Phil. 244 (1950)
952 G.R. No. 125687, December 9, 1999 958 384 U.S. 757 (1966)
953 G.R. No. 133025, February 17, 2000 959 G.R. No. 125687, December 9, 1999
954 41 Phil. 62 (1920) 960 G.R. Nos. 71208-09, August 30, 1985
955 25 Phil. 337 (1913) 961 G.R. No. L-25018, May 26, 1969
(Colossians 3:23)
loss of the privilege to practice the medical testimony or evidence, documentary

profession. or otherwise, required of him may
tend to incriminate him or subject him
Hence, in an administrative hearing against to prosecution; but no individual shall
a medical practitioner for alleged be prosecuted criminally for or on
malpractice, respondent Board of Medical account of any transaction, matter or
Examiners cannot, consistently with the thing concerning which he is
self-incrimination clause, compel the compelled, after having claimed his
person proceeded against to take the privilege against self-incrimination, to
witness stand without his consent. testify or produce evidence,
documentary or otherwise, except
Note: It can be deduced from the above- that such individual so testifying shall
mentioned cases pertain to government not be exempt from prosecution and
intrusions. Therefore, the right against self- conviction for perjury or false
incrimination is available to the following testimony committed in so testifying
government intrusions: or from administrative proceedings.
1. Criminal proceedings;
2. Administrative proceedings; and Two classifications of “Immunity
3. Fact finding investigations. statutes”
SECTION 18 of ART. XIII. The Immunity statutes may be generally

Commission on Human Rights shall classified into two: one, which grants "use
have the following powers and immunity"; and the other, which grants
functions: what is known as "transactional immunity."
(8) Grant immunity from prosecution The distinction between the two is as
to any person whose testimony or follows:
whose possession of documents or
other evidence is necessary or 1. Immunity
convenient to determine the truth in
any investigation conducted by it or "Use immunity" prohibits use of witness'
under its authority; compelled testimony and its fruits in any
manner in connection with the criminal
prosecution of the witness. It grants merely
REPUBLIC ACT No. 1379 immunity from use of any statement given
before the Board, but not immunity from
AN ACT DECLARING FORFEITURE IN prosecution by reason or on the basis
FAVOR OF THE STATE ANY thereof.
PROPERTY FOUND TO HAVE BEEN
UNLAWFULLY ACQUIRED BY ANY Merely testifying and/or producing
PUBLIC OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE evidence do not render the witness
AND PROVIDING FOR THE immune from prosecution notwithstanding
PROCEEDINGS THEREFOR. his invocation of the right against self-
incrimination. He is merely saved from the
Section 8. Protection against self- use against him of such statement and
incrimination. Neither the respondent nothing more. Stated otherwise ... he still
nor any other person shall be excused runs the risk of being prosecuted even if he
from attending and testifying or from sets up his right against self- incrimination.
producing books, papers, (Galman v. Pamaran962)
correspondence, memoranda and
other records on the ground that the 2. Transactional Immunity
962 G.R. Nos. 71208-09, August 30, 1985

(Colossians 3:23)
On the other hand, "transactional

immunity" grants immunity to the witness
from prosecution for an offense to which his
compelled testimony relates." (Galman v.
Pamaran963)
963 G.R. Nos. 71208-09, August 30, 1985

(Colossians 3:23)
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION approve existing political beliefs or

economic arrangements, to lend support to
SECTION 4 OF ARTICLE III. No law official measures, to take refuge in the
shall be passed abridging the existing climate of opinion on any matter of
freedom of speech, of expression, or public consequence. So atrophied, the right
of the press, or the right of the people becomes meaningless. The right belongs
peaceably to assemble and petition as well, if not more, for those who question,
the government for redress of who do not conform, who differ. To
grievances. paraphrase Justice Holmes, it is freedom
for the thought that we hate, no less than
SECTION 18 OF ARTICLE III. (1) No for the thought that agrees with us.
person shall be detained solely by
reason of his political beliefs and So with Emerson one may conclude that
aspirations. "the theory of freedom of expression
involves more than a technique for arriving
at better social judgments through
Purpose democratic procedures. It comprehends a
vision of society, a faith and a whole way of
The constitutional safeguard, we have said, life. The theory grew out of an age that was
"was fashioned to assure unfettered awakened and invigorated by the idea of
interchange of ideas for the bringing about new society in which man's mind was free,
of political and social changes desired by his fate determined by his own powers of
the people."964 reason, and his prospects of creating a
rational and enlightened civilization virtually
The vital need in a constitutional unlimited.
democracy for freedom of expression is
undeniable whether as a means of It is put forward as a prescription for
assuring individual self-fulfillment, of attaining a creative, progressive, exciting
attaining the truth, of assuring participation and intellectually robust community. It
by the people in social including political contemplates a mode of life that, through
decision-making, and of maintaining the encouraging toleration, skepticism, reason
balance between stability and change. The and initiative, will allow man to realize his
trend as reflected in Philippine and full potentialities. It spurns the alternative of
American decisions is to recognize the a society that is tyrannical, conformist,
broadcast scope and assure the widest irrational and stagnant."965
latitude to this constitutional guaranty.
Guarantees of free speech and free
It represents a profound commitment to the press includes the following:
principle that debate of public issue should
be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open. It is 1. Right to criticize judicial
not going too far, according to another conduct.
American decision, to view the function of
free speech as inviting dispute. "It may Ratio: If the people cannot criticize
indeed best serve its high purpose when it a justice of the peace or a judge the
induces a condition of unrest, creates same as any other public officer,
dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, public opinion will be effectively
or even stirs people to anger." muzzled. Attempted terrorization of
public opinion on the part of the
Freedom of speech and of the press thus judiciary would be tyranny of the
means something more than the right to basest sort.966
964 Roth v. United States, 354 U. S. 476, 354 U. 966US v. Bustos, et al., G.R. No. L-12592,
S. 484 March 8, 1918
965 Gonzales v. COMELEC, G.R. No. L-27833,
April 18, 1969

(Colossians 3:23)
category of expression even though

2. Right against restraint or such suppression is only for a
censorship abhorrent to the limited period, and (3) the
freedom of the press. governmental interest sought to be
promoted can be achieved by
Ratio: This state of being is means other than the suppression
patently anathematic to a of freedom of expression.969
democratic framework where a
free, alert and even militant press is It would appear that the right is not
essential for the political susceptible of any limitation
enlightenment and growth of the
citizenry.967 From the language of the specified
constitutional provision, it would appear
3. Right to criticize public officials that the right is not susceptible of any
based on their performance or limitation. No law may be passed abridging
deficiencies. the freedom of speech and of the press.
The realities of life in a complex society
Ratio: Common knowledge that the preclude however a literal interpretation.
average person knows that Freedom of expression is not an absolute.
municipal agents, such as police It would be too much to insist that at all
and firemen, and others, are under times and under all circumstances it should
the control and direction of the city remain unfettered and unrestrained.970
governing body, and more
particularly under the direction and Limitations
control of a single commissioner. In
measuring the performance or 1. Clear and Present danger rule
deficiencies of such groups, praise
or criticism is usually attached to Means that the evil consequence of the
the official in complete control of the comment or utterance must be
body. Since there were no evidence extremely serious and the degree of
that were presented to prove actual imminence extremely high' before the
malice, the case was remanded to utterance can be punished.
the Court a quo for further
proceedings.968 The danger to be guarded against is the
'substantive evil' sought to be
4. Right against the prohibition prevented." It has the advantage of
regarding the publication of establishing according to the above
election survey results affecting decision "a definite rule in constitutional
candidates within the prescribed law. It provides the criterion as to what
periods of fifteen (15) days words may be public established."971
immediately preceding a national
election and seven (7) days A limitation on the freedom of
before a local election. expression may be justified only by a
danger of such substantive character
Ratio: The same is invalid because that the state has a right to prevent.972
(1) it imposes a prior restraint on the
freedom of expression, (2) it is a 2. Dangerous Tendency rule
direct and total suppression of a
967 Burgos, Sr. v. Chief of Staff, G.R. No. L- 970 Gonzales v. COMELEC, G.R. No. L-27833,
64261, December 26, 1984 April 18, 1969
968 New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 971 Ibid.
254 (1964) 972 ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation v.

969 Social Weather Stations, Inc. v. COMELEC, COMELEC, G.R. No. 133486, January 28,
G.R. No. 147571, May 5, 2001 2000
(Colossians 3:23)
If the words uttered create a dangerous In the case of Sanidad v. COMELEC,977

tendency which the state has a right to petitioner assailed the constitutionality of
prevent, then such words are Section 19 of Comelec Resolution No.
punishable. It is not necessary that 2167, which provides:
some definite or immediate acts of
force, violence, or unlawfulness be “Section 19. Prohibition on columnists,
advocated. It is sufficient that such acts commentators or announcers. — During
be advocated in general terms. the plebiscite campaign period, on the day
before and on the plebiscite day, no mass
Nor is it necessary that the language media columnist, commentator, announcer
used be reasonably calculated to incite or personality shall use his column or radio
persons to acts of force, violence, or or television time to campaign for or against
unlawfulness. It is sufficient if the the plebiscite issues.”
natural tendency and probable effect of
the utterance be to bring about the The Court ruled that while the limitation
substantive evil which the legislative does not absolutely bar petitioner's
body seeks to prevent.973 freedom of expression, it is still a restriction
on his choice of the forum where he may
In the "dangerous tendency" doctrine, express his view. No reason was advanced
the danger must not only be clear but by respondent to justify such abridgement.
also present. "Present" refers to the
time element; the danger must not only Hence, the Court held that that this form of
be probable but very likely to be regulation is tantamount to a restriction of
inevitable. The evil sought to be petitioner's freedom of expression for no
avoided must be so substantive as to justifiable reason.
justify a clamp over one's mouth or a
restraint of a writing instrument.974 Plebiscite issues are matters of public
concern and importance. The people's right
3. Balancing of Interest Test to be informed and to be able to freely and
intelligently make a decision would be
When particular conduct is regulated in better served by access to an unabridged
the interest of public order, and the discussion of the issues, including the
regulation results in an indirect, forum.
conditional, partial abridgment of
speech, the duty of the courts is to The people affected by the issues
determine which of these two presented in a plebiscite should not be
conflicting interests demands the unduly burdened by restrictions on the
greater protection under the particular forum where the right to expression may be
circumstances presented.975 exercised. Comelec spaces and Comelec
radio time may provide a forum for
The principle "requires a court to take expression but they do not guarantee full
conscious and detailed consideration of dissemination of information to the public
the interplay of interests observable in concerned because they are limited to
a given situation or type of situation.976 either specific portions in newspapers or to
specific radio or television times.
A law which restricts the choice of the
forum where a person may express his The interest in encouraging freedom of
view is considered as unconstitutional expression in a democratic society
973Gonzales v. COMELEC, G.R. No. L-27833, 975 American Communications Assn. v. Douds,
April 18, 1969 339 U.S. 382 (1950)
974 ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation v. 976 Zaldivar v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 79690-
COMELEC, G.R. No. 133486, January 28, 707, February 1, 1989

2000 977 G.R. No. 90878, January 29, 1990
(Colossians 3:23)
outweighs any theoretical but unproven

benefit of censorship Students can invoke their rights to
peaceable assembly and free speech.
In the case of Reno v. American Civil They enjoy like the rest of the citizens
Liberties Union,978 the US Supreme Court the freedom to express their views and
held that the Communications Decency Act communicate their thoughts to those
(CDA) is unconstitutional since the open- disposed to listen in gatherings such as
ended prohibitions embrace all nonprofit was held in this case.
entities and individuals posting indecent
messages or displaying them on their own In several cases, this Court has upheld the
computers in the presence of minors. The right of the students to free speech in
general, undefined terms "indecent" and school premises. In the landmark case of
"patently offensive" cover large amounts of Malabanan vs. Ramento,979 students of the
non-pornographic material with serious Gregorio Araneta University Foundation,
educational or other value. believing that the merger of the Institute of
Animal Science with the Institute of
Moreover, the "community standards" Agriculture would result in the increase in
criterion as applied to the Internet means their tuition, held a demonstration to protest
that any communication available to a the proposed merger. The rally however
nationwide audience will be judged by the was held at a place other than that
standards of the community most likely to specified in the school permit and
be offended by the message. continued longer than the time allowed.
The protest, moreover, disturbed the
It is at least clear that the strength of the classes and caused the stoppage of the
Government's interest in protecting minors work of non-academic personnel. For the
is not equally strong throughout the illegal assembly, the university suspended
coverage of this broad statute. the students for one year. In affirming the
students' rights to peaceable assembly and
Under the CDA, a parent allowing her 17- free speech, the Court through Mr. Chief
year-old to use the family computer to Justice Enrique Fernando, echoed the
obtain information on the Internet that she, ruling of the US Supreme Court in Tinker v.
in her parental judgment, deems Des Moines School District.980
appropriate could face a lengthy prison
term. Similarly, a parent who sent his 17- Petitioners invoke their rights to peaceable
year-old college freshman information on assembly and free speech. They are
birth control via e-mail could be entitled to do so. They enjoy like the rest of
incarcerated even though neither he, his the citizens the freedom to express their
child, nor anyone in their home community views and communicate their thoughts to
found the material "indecent" or "patently those disposed to listen in gatherings such
offensive," if the college town's community as was held in this case. They do not, to
thought otherwise. borrow from the opinion of Justice Fortas in
Tinker v. Des Moines Community School
As a matter of constitutional tradition, in the District, 'shed their constitutional rights to
absence of evidence to the contrary, the freedom of speech or expression at the
Court presumed that governmental schoolhouse gate.' While, therefore, the
regulation of the content of speech is more authority of educational institutions over the
likely to interfere with the free exchange of conduct of students must be recognized, it
ideas than to encourage it. The interest in cannot go so far as to be violative of
encouraging freedom of expression in a constitutional safeguards. On a more
democratic society outweighs any specific level there is persuasive force to
theoretical but unproven benefit of this Fortas opinion. "The principal use to
censorship. which the schools are dedicated is to
978 521 U.S. 844 (1997) 980 393 U.S. 503 (1968)
979 129 SCRA 359 (1984)
(Colossians 3:23)
accommodate students during prescribed classwork or involves substantial disorder

hours for the purpose of certain types of or invasion of the rights of others."984
activities. Among those activities is
personal intercommunication among the Exemption from disciplinary action
students. This is not only inevitable part of (Sec. 7 of the Campus Journalism Act)
the educational process. A student's rights,
therefore, do not embrace merely the In the case of Mirriam College Foundation,
classroom hours. When he is in the Inc. v. CA,985 the Court ruled that Sec. 7 of
cafeteria, or on the playing field, or on the the Campus Journalism Act should be
campus during the authorized hours, he construed in harmony with those of the
may express his opinions, even on Constitution; acts of the legislature should
controversial subjects like the conflict in be construed, wherever possible, in a
Vietnam, if he does so without 'materially manner that would avoid their conflicting
and substantially interfer[ing] with the with the fundamental law. A statute should
requirements of appropriate discipline in not be given a broad construction if its
the operation of the school' and without validity can be saved by a narrower one.
colliding with the rights of others. * * * But
conduct by the student, in class or out of it, Thus, Section 7 should be read in a manner
which for any reason - whether it stems as not to infringe upon the school's right to
from time, place, or type of behavior -- discipline its students. At the same time,
materially disrupts classwork or involves however, we should not construe said
substantial disorder or invasion of the rights provision as to unduly restrict the right of
of others is, of course, not immunized by the students to free speech. Consistent
the constitutional guarantee of freedom of with jurisprudence, we read Section 7 of
speech. the Campus Journalism Act to mean that
the school cannot suspend or expel a
However, the right of the students to student solely on the basis of the articles he
free speech in school premises is not or she has written, except when such
absolute articles materially disrupt class work or
involve substantial disorder or invasion of
The Malabanan ruling was followed in Villar the rights of others.
vs. Technological Institute of the
Philippines,981 Arreza vs. Gregorio Araneta To justify a restriction, the promotion of
University Foundation,982 and Non vs. a substantial government interest must
Dames II.983 be clearly shown
The right of the students to free speech in To justify a restriction, the promotion of a
school premises, however, is not absolute. substantial government interest must be
The right to free speech must always be clearly shown. Thus:
applied in light of the special characteristics
of the school environment. "A government regulation is sufficiently
justified if it is within the constitutional
Thus, while the Court upheld the right of the power of the government, if it furthers an
students to free expression in these cases, important or substantial government
the Court did not rule out disciplinary action interest; if the governmental interest is
by the school for "conduct by the student, unrelated to the suppression of free
in class or out of it, which for any reason - expression; and if the incidental restriction
whether it stems from time, place, or type on alleged First Amendment freedoms is
of behavior - which materially disrupts
981 135 SCRA 706 (1985) Foundation, supra, at 97-98, and Non vs.
982 137 SCRA 94 (1985) Dames II, supra, at 535.
983 185 SCRA 523 (1990) 985 G.R. No. 127930, December 15, 2000
984 Malabanan vs. Ramento, supra, at 368. See
also Arreza vs. Gregorio Araneta University

(Colossians 3:23)
no greater than is essential to the for, based on the limited data gathered
furtherance of that interest." from polled individuals. Finally, not at stake
here are the credibility and the integrity of
Hence, even though the government's the elections, which are exercises that are
purposes are legitimate and substantial, separate and independent from the exit
they cannot be pursued by means that polls. The holding and the reporting of the
broadly, stifle fundamental personal results of exit polls cannot undermine those
liberties, when the end can be more of the elections, since the former is only
narrowly achieved.986 part of the latter. If at all, the outcome of
one can only be indicative of the other.
Hence, in the case of ABS-CBN
Broadcasting Corporation v. COMELEC,987 The absolute ban imposed by the Comelec
the Court ruled that the resolution cannot, therefore, be justified. It does not
restraining exit surveys is unconstitutional. leave open any alternative channel of
communication to gather the type of
In the case at bar, the Comelec justifies its information obtained through exit polling.
assailed Resolution as having been issued On the other hand, there are other valid and
pursuant to its constitutional mandate to reasonable ways and means to achieve the
ensure a free, orderly, honest, credible and Comelec end of avoiding or minimizing
peaceful election. While admitting that "the disorder and confusion that may be brought
conduct of an exit poll and the broadcast of about by exit surveys.
the results thereof [are] x x x an exercise of
press freedom," it argues that "[p]ress For instance, a specific limited area for
freedom may be curtailed if the exercise conducting exit polls may be designated.
thereof creates a clear and present danger Only professional survey groups may be
to the community or it has a dangerous allowed to conduct the same. Pollsters may
tendency." It then contends that "an exit be kept at a reasonable distance from the
poll has the tendency to sow confusion voting center. They may be required to
considering the randomness of selecting explain to voters that the latter may refuse
interviewees, which further make[s] the exit to be interviewed, and that the interview is
poll highly unreliable. The probability that not part of the official balloting process. The
the results of such exit poll may not be in pollsters may further be required to wear
harmony with the official count made by the distinctive clothing that would show they
Comelec x x x is ever present. In other are not election officials. Additionally, they
words, the exit poll has a clear and present may be required to undertake an
danger of destroying the credibility and information campaign on the nature of the
integrity of the electoral process." exercise and the results to be obtained
therefrom. These measures, together with
However, the Court ruled that such a general prohibition of disruptive behavior,
arguments are purely speculative and could ensure a clean, safe and orderly
clearly untenable. First, by the very nature election.
of a survey, the interviewees or participants
are selected at random, so that the results The COMELEC resolution is
will as much as possible be representative constitutional and does not violate
or reflective of the general sentiment or freedom of expression when its primary
view of the community or group polled. objectives is to prohibit premature
Second, the survey result is not meant to campaigning and to level the playing
replace or be at par with the official field for candidates of public office
Comelec count. It consists merely of the
opinion of the polling group as to who the In the case of Chaves v. COMELEC,988 the
electorate in general has probably voted petitioner alleged and question the
986ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation v. 987 G.R. No. 133486, January 28, 2000
COMELEC, G.R. No. 133486, January 28, 988 G.R. No. 162777, August 31, 2004
2000
(Colossians 3:23)
constitutionality of Sec. 32 of Resolution country which, like ours, is characterized by

No. 6520 of the COMELEC which reads: extreme disparity in income distribution
between the economic elite and the rest of
“Section 32. All propaganda materials such society, and by the prevalence of poverty,
as posters, streamers, stickers or paintings with so many of our population falling below
on walls and other materials showing the the poverty line.
picture, image, or name of a person, and all
advertisements on print, in radio or on Freedom of Expression, Libel and
television showing the image or mentioning National Security
the name of a person, who subsequent to
the placement or display thereof becomes The issue of validity of the libel, charges
a candidate for public office shall be by reason of their alleged collision with
immediately removed by said candidate freedom of expression, is a matter that
and radio station, print media or television should be raised in the proper forum
station within 3 days after the effectivity of
these implementing rules; otherwise, he In the case of Babst v. National Intelligence
and said radio station, print media or Board,990 the Court ruled that the issue of
television station shall be presumed to validity of the libel, charges by reason of
have conducted premature campaigning in their alleged collision with freedom of
violation of Section 80 of the Omnibus expression, is a matter that should be
Election Code.” raised in the proper forum, i.e., before the
court where the libel cases are pending or
The Court noted that a close examination where they may be filed.
of the assailed provision reveals that its
primary objectives are to prohibit The right to seek redress when libeled is
premature campaigning and to level the a personal and individual privilege of
playing field for candidates of public office, the aggrieved party
to equalize the situation between popular
or rich candidates, on one hand, and In the case of Babst v. National Intelligence
lesser-known or poorer candidates, on the Board,991 the Court ruled that the right to
other, by preventing the former from seek redress when libeled is a personal
enjoying undue advantage in exposure and and individual privilege of the aggrieved
publicity on account of their resources and party, and no one among the respondent
popularity. officials has the authority to restrain any of
his subordinates who has been libeled from
The latter is a valid reason for the exercise vindicating his right by instituting a libel suit.
of police power as held in National Press
Club v. COMELEC,989 wherein the In the case at bar, Brig. Gen. Tadiar has
petitioners questioned the constitutionality filed the libel case against petitioners
of Section 11(b) of Republic Act No. 6646, Suarez and Doyo in his personal capacity.
which prohibited the sale or donation of Moreover, he is not even a member of
print space and air time for campaigning or respondent NIB. And the NIB does not
other political purposes, except to the appear to have anything to do with Gen.
COMELEC. The obvious intention of this Tadiar's private right to complain of libel.
provision is to equalize, as far as
practicable, the situations of rich and poor Writings which tend to overthrow or
candidates by preventing the former from undermine the security of the
enjoying the undue advantage offered by government or to weaken the
huge campaign war chests. confidence of the people in the
government are against the public
This Court ruled therein that this objective peace, and are criminal not only
is of special importance and urgency in a because they tend to incite to a breach
989 207 SCRA 1 (1992) 991 G.R. No. L-62992, September 28, 1984
990 G.R. No. L-62992, September 28, 1984
(Colossians 3:23)
of the peace but because they are Anyway, it is clear that the letter suggested
conducive to the destruction of the very the decapitation or assassination of all
government itself Roxas officials (at least members of the
Cabinet and a majority of Legislators
In the case of Espuelas v. People,992 the including the Chief Executive himself). And
Court ruled that writings which tend to such suggestion clinches the case against
overthrow or undermine the security of the appellant.
government or to weaken the confidence of
the people in the government are against A prosecution for libel lacks
the public peace, and are criminal not only justification if the offending words find
because they tend to incite to a breach of sanctuary within the shelter of the free
the peace but because they are conducive press guarantee
to the destruction of the very government
itself. In the case of Elizalde v. Hon. Gutierrez,993
the Court ruled that it is clear that a
In disposing of this appeal, careful thought prosecution for libel lacks justification if the
had to be given to the fundamental right to offending words find sanctuary within the
freedom of speech. Yet the freedom of shelter of the free press guarantee.
speech secured by the Constitution "does
not confer an absolute right to speak or In fact, the opinion of Chief Justice Paras in
publish without responsibility whatever one Quisumbing v. Lopez,994 a 1955 decision,
may choose." It is not "unbridled license is even more explicit on the matter. Thus:
that gives immunity for every possible use "The newspapers should be given such
of language and prevents the punishment leeway and tolerance as to enable them to
of those who abuse this freedom." So courageously and effectively perform their
statutes against sedition have guaranty, important role in our democracy. In the
although they should not be interpreted so preparation of stories, press reporters and
as to agitate for institutional changes. edition usually have to race with their
deadlines; and consistently with good faith
As heretofore stated publication suggest or and reasonable care, they should not be
incites rebellious conspiracies or riots and held to account, to a point of suppression,
tends to stir up people against the for honest mistakes or imperfection in the
constituted authorities, or to provoke choice of words.
violence from opposition who may seek to
silence the writer. Which is the sum and In the case at bar, petitioners were
substance of the offense under prosecuted for libel because the Evening
consideration. News carried in its issue of September 1,
1967 a news item furnished it by the
To top it all, appellant proclaimed to his Philippine News Service. It was a faithful
readers that he committed suicide because and accurate summary of what was
he had "no power to put under juez de testified to by a witness in a pending rape
cuchillo all the Roxas people now in case. That was all. The name of the alleged
power." Knowing, that the expression Juez offended party, Vincent Crisologo, was
de Cuchillo means to the ordinary layman repeatedly mentioned in such testimony. It
as the Law of the Knife, a "summary and would have been a plain and simple
arbitrary execution by the knife", the idea distortion thereof if such a fact were omitted
intended by the appellant to be conveyed by the Philippine News Service. The
was no other than bloody, violent and Evening News in turn published such item.
unpeaceful methods to free the This is a case therefore that falls squarely
government from the administration of within the protection of the free press
Roxas and his men. provision found in the Constitution.
992 G.R. No. L-2990, December 17, 1951 994 96 Phil. 510
993 G.R. No. L-33615, April 22, 1977
(Colossians 3:23)
What is the doctrine of “privileged comments or remarks, of any

communication”? judicial, legislative, or other official
proceedings which are not of
The doctrine of privileged communication confidential nature.
rests upon public policy, 'which looks to the
free and unfettered administration of 2. When there is a fair and true report,
justice, though as incidental result, it may in made in good faith, of any
some instances afford an immunity to the statement, report, or speech
evil-disposed and malignant slanderer.995 delivered in judicial, legislative, or
other official proceedings which are
Furthermore, a privileged communication not of confidential nature.
should not be subjected to microscopic
examination to discover grounds of malice 3. When there is a fair and true report,
or falsity. Such excessive scrutiny would made in good faith, of any other act
defeat the protection which the law throws performed by public officers in the
over privileged communications. The exercise of their functions.
ultimate test is that of bona fides.996
A privileged communication may be
Hence, in the case of Elizalde v. Hon. either absolutely privileged or
Gutierrez,997 the Court ruled that by no qualifiedly privileged
stretch of the imagination then could it be
said that the Philippine News Service and Absolutely Qualifiedly
the Evening News exhibited mala fides by Privileged Privileged
the mere fact of narrating in a news item Absolutely Qualifiedly
the testimony of a witness in a rape case privileged privileged
just because it did cast a reflection on the communications communications
conduct of a third party. are those which containing
are not actionable defamatory
The doctrine of privileged communication even if the author imputations are not
moreover is explicitly provided for in the has acted in bad actionable unless
Revised Penal Code, as an exception to faith. found to have been
the general principle that every defamatory made without good
imputation is presumed to be malicious, intention or
even if it is true in the absence of "good justifiable motive.
intention" and "justifiable motive" To this genre
belong private
Thus: "A fair and true report, made in good communications
faith, without any comments or remarks, of and fair and true
any judicial, legislative, or other official report without any
proceedings which are not of confidential comments or
nature, or of any statement, report, or remarks.998
speech delivered in said proceedings, or of
any other act performed by public officers
in the exercise of their functions. However, no inroads on press freedom
should be allowed in the guise of
Note: From this case, there is privileged punitive action visited on what
communication in the following instances: otherwise could be characterized as
libel
1. When there is a fair and true report,
made in good faith, without any
995 Abbott v. National Bank of Commerce, 175 997

G.R. No. L-33615, April 22, 1977
US 400, 411 (1899) 998Philippine Journalist Inc. v. Thoenen, G.R.
996 Santiago v. Calvo, 48 Phil. 919 (1926) and No. 143372, December 13, 2005
El Hogar Filipino v. Prautch, 49 Phil. 171 (1926)
(Colossians 3:23)
In the case of Lopez v. CA,999 the Court circulated among the general population. A
ruled that no inroads on press freedom written letter containing libelous matter
should be allowed in the guise of punitive cannot be classified as privileged when it is
action visited on what otherwise could be published and circulated in public, which
characterized as libel whether in the form was what the petitioners did in this case.
of printed words or a defamatory imputation
resulting from the publication of Neither is the news item a fair and true
respondent's picture with the offensive report without any comments or remarks of
caption as in the case here complained of. any judicial, legislative or other official
proceedings; there is in fact no proceeding
This is not to deny that the party to speak of. Nor is the article related to any
responsible invites the institution either of a act performed by public officers in the
criminal prosecution or a civil suit. It must exercise of their functions, for it concerns
be admitted that what was done did invite only false imputations against Thoenen, a
such a dire consequence, considering the private individual seeking a quiet life.
value the law justly places on a man's
reputation. What is the doctrine of “fair
commentaries”?
This is merely to underscore the primacy
that freedom of the press enjoys. It ranks The doctrine of fair commentaries means
rather high in the hierarchy of legal values. that while in general every discreditable
If the cases moan anything at all then, to imputation publicly made is deemed false,
emphasize what has so clearly emerged, because every man is presumed innocent
they call for the utmost care on the part of until his guilt is judicially proved, and every
the judiciary to assure that in safeguarding false imputation is deemed malicious,
the interest of the party allegedly offended nevertheless, when the discreditable
a realistic account of the obligation of a imputation is directed against a public
news media to disseminate information of person in his public capacity, it is not
a public character and to comment thereon necessarily actionable.
as well as the conditions attendant on the
business of publishing cannot be ignored. In order that such discreditable imputation
to a public official may be actionable, it
Hence, the Court ruled that the publisher must either be a false allegation of fact or a
and editor of This Week Magazine was comment based on a false supposition.
liable for damages due to its publication of
a picture of respondent, Fidel G. Cruz, as In Borjal v. Court of Appeals,1001 the Court
being responsible for the hoax of the year. stated that the enumeration under Art. 354
is not an exclusive list of qualifiedly
A written letter containing libelous privileged communications since fair
matter cannot be classified as commentaries on matters of public interest
privileged when it is published and are likewise privileged.
circulated in public
Also, the Court reasoned out in this case
In the case of Philippine Journalist Inc. that the declared objective of the
(Peoples Journal) v. Thoenen,1000 the Court conference, the composition of its
ruled that even if we assume that the letter members and participants, and the manner
written by the spurious Atty. Angara is by which it was intended to be funded no
privileged communication (because the doubt lend to its activities as being
letter was directly sent to the genuinely imbued with public interest. An
Commissioner of Bureau of Immigration), it organization such as the First National
lost its character as such when the matter Conference on Land Transportation
was published in the newspaper and (FNCLT) aiming to reinvent and reshape
999 G.R. No. L-26549, July 31, 1970 1001 G.R. No. 126466, January 14, 1999
1000 G.R. No. 143372, December 13, 2005
(Colossians 3:23)
the transportation laws of the country and Des Moines Independent

seeking to source its funds for the project Community School Dist.1004)
from the public at large cannot dissociate
itself from the public character of its 2. Sit-in by blacks in a "whites only"
mission. As such, it cannot but invite close area to protest segregation. (Brown
scrutiny by the media obliged to inform the v. Louisiana1005)
public of the legitimacy of the purpose of
the activity and of the qualifications and 3. The wearing of American military
integrity of the personalities behind it. uniforms in a dramatic presentation
criticizing American involvement in
However, in the case of Philippine Vietnam. (Schacht v. United
Journalist Inc. (Peoples Journal) v. States1006)
Thoenen,1002 the Court ruled that the said
privilege is unavailing to the petitioners. 4. Picketing about a wide variety of
causes. (Food Employees v. Logan
The Court said that the respondent is a Valley Plaza, Inc.1007 & United
private individual, and not a public official States v. Grace1008)
or public figure.
Careful consideration of the actual
Therefore, the Court is persuaded by the circumstances surrounding such
reasoning of the United States Supreme expression should be observed, asking
Court in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.,1003 whether the expression "is directed to
that a newspaper or broadcaster publishing inciting or producing imminent lawless
defamatory falsehoods about an individual action and is likely to incite or produce
who is neither a public official nor a public such action"
figure may not claim a constitutional
privilege against liability, for injury inflicted, In the case of Texas v. Johnson,1009 the US
even if the falsehood arose in a discussion Supreme Court ruled that the government
of public interest. is not permitted to assume that every
expression of a provocative idea will incite
Having established that the article cannot a riot, but have instead required careful
be considered as privileged consideration of the actual circumstances
communication, malice is therefore surrounding such expression, asking
presumed, and the fourth requisite for the whether the expression "is directed to
imputation of libel to attach to the inciting or producing imminent lawless
petitioners in this case is met. The news action and is likely to incite or produce such
article is therefore defamatory and is not action."
within the realm of protected speech. There
is no longer a need to discuss the other Whether Johnson's burning of the flag
assignment of errors, save for the amount violated Texas law thus depended on the
of damages to which respondent is entitled. likely communicative impact of his
expressive conduct.
The US Supreme Court held that the
following acts are covered by the First If there is a bedrock principle underlying the
Amendment (Freedom of expression): First Amendment, it is that the government
may not prohibit the expression of an idea
1. The expressive nature of students' simply because society finds the idea itself
wearing of black armbands to offensive or disagreeable.
protest American military
involvement in Vietnam. (Tinker v.
1002 G.R. No. 143372, December 13, 2005 1006 398 U. S. 58 (1970)
1003 418 U.S. 323 (1974) 1007 391 U. S. 308, 391 U. S. 313-314 (1968)
1004 393 U. S. 503, 393 U. S. 505 (1969) 1008 461 U. S. 171, 461 U. S. 176 (1983)
1005 383 U. S. 131, 383 U. S. 141-142 (1966) 1009 491 U.S. 397 (1989)
(Colossians 3:23)
Fortified in today's conclusion by our precept that in cases involving claims for
conviction that forbidding criminal damages arising out of alleged defamatory
punishment for conduct such as Johnson's articles, it is essential that the alleged
will not endanger the special role played by victim be identifiable although it is not
our flag or the feelings it inspires. To necessary that he be named. It is enough if
paraphrase Justice Holmes, we submit that by intrinsic reference the allusion is
nobody can suppose that this one gesture apparent or if the publication contains
of an unknown man will change our matters of descriptions or reference to facts
Nation's attitude towards its flag. and circumstances from which others
reading the article may know the plaintiff
"To courageous, self-reliant men, with was intended, or if extraneous
confidence in the power of free and circumstances point to him such that
fearless reasoning applied through the persons knowing him could and did
processes of popular government, no understand that he was the person referred
danger flowing from speech can be to.
deemed clear and present unless the
incidence of the evil apprehended is so In the case of Borjal v. Court of Appeals,1011
imminent that it may befall before there is this Court declared that [i]t is also not
opportunity for full discussion. If there be sufficient that the offended party
time to expose through discussion the recognized himself as the person attacked
falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by or defamed, but it must be shown that at
the processes of education, the remedy to least a third person could identify him as
be applied is more speech, not enforced the object of the libelous publication.
silence."
Plainly, private respondent has the
Therefore, the State's interest in preventing bounden duty to present before the court
breaches of the peace does not support evidence that a third person could easily
Johnson’s conviction, because his conduct identify him as the person libeled.
did not threaten to disturb the peace. Nor
does the State's interest in preserving the The privilege extends to a great variety
flag as a symbol of nationhood and national of subjects, and includes matters of
unity justify his criminal conviction for public concern, public men, and
engaging in political expression. candidates for office
Note: It is important to carefully consider In the case of Baguio Midland Courier v.

the actual circumstances surrounding the CA,1012 the Court ruled that the private
expression. respondent was not yet a public official at
the time the 10 January 1988 article was
Hence, if in this case, riot and other published. Nevertheless, this fact does not
disturbances arose due to Johnson’s act remove said article from the mantle of
(burning the flag), then the US Supreme protection guaranteed by the freedom of
Court would rule otherwise. expression provision of the Constitution.
Indeed, as early as 1909, in the case of
It is a basic precept that in cases United States v. Sedano,1013 this Court had
involving claims for damages arising recognized the public’s right to be informed
out of alleged defamatory articles, it is on the mental, moral, and physical fitness
essential that the alleged victim be of candidates for public office.
identifiable although it is not necessary
that he be named Hence, the Court ruled that petitioner
Afable’s article constitutes a fair comment
In the case of Baguio Midland Courier v. on a matter of public interest as it dealt with
CA,1010 the Court ruled that it is a basic the character of private respondent who
1010 G.R. No. 107566, November 25, 2004 1012 G.R. No. 107566, November 25, 2004
1011 G.R. No. 126466, January 14, 1999 1013 14 Phil. 338 (1909)
(Colossians 3:23)
was running for the top elective post in Judges could not proceed to hear the case
Baguio City at the time. Considering that before the transcription of the said notes."
private respondent assured his would-be
constituents that he would be donating Analyzing said utterances, one would see
millions of his own money, petitioner that if they ever criticize, "the criticism
Afable’s column with respect to private refers, not to the court, but to opposing
respondents indebtedness provided the counsel whose tactical maneuvers" has
public with information as regards his allegedly caused the undue delay of the
financial status which, in all probability, was case. The grievance or complaint, if any, is
still unbeknownst to them at that time. addressed to the stenographers for their
apparent indifference in transcribing their
Indeed, the information might have notes.
dissuaded some members of the electorate
from voting in favor of private respondent The only disturbing effect of the letter which
but such is the inevitable result of the perhaps has been the motivating factor of
application of the law. The effect would the lodging of the contempt charge by the
have been adverse to the private trial judge is the fact that the letter was sent
respondent but public interest in this case to the Office of the President asking for help
far outweighs the interest of private because of the precarious predicament of
respondent. Cabansag.
Freedom of Expression and While the course of action he had taken

Administration of Justice may not be a wise one for it would have
been proper had he addressed his letter to
To be so the danger must cause a the Secretary of Justice or to the Supreme
serious imminent threat to the Court, such act alone would not be
administration of justice contemptuous.
In the case of Cabansag v. Fernandez, et To be so the danger must cause a serious

al.,1014 the Court ruled that if we make a imminent threat to the administration of
careful analysis of the letter sent by justice. Nor can we infer that such act has
appellant Cabansag to the PCAC which "a dangerous tendency" to belittle the court
has given rise to the present contempt or undermine the administration of justice
proceedings, we would at once see that it for the writer merely exercised his
was far from his mind to put the court in constitutional right to petition the
ridicule and much less to belittle or degrade government for redress of a legitimate
it in the eyes of those to whom the letter grievance.
was addressed for, undoubtedly, he was
compelled to act the way he did simply Hence, the contempt charge against
because he saw no other way of obtaining Cabansag was reversed by the Court.
the early termination of his case. This is
clearly inferable from its context wherein, in Newspaper publications tending to
respectful and courteous language, impede, obstruct, embarrass, or
Cabansag gave vent to his feeling when he influence the courts in administering
said that he "has long since been deprived justice in a pending suit or proceeding
of his land thru the careful maneuvers of a to criminal contempt which is
tactical lawyer"; that the case which had summarily punishable by the courts
long been pending could not be decided
due to the fact that the transcript of the In the case of People v. Alarcon et al.,1015
records has not as yet, been transcribed by the Court ruled that newspaper
the stenographer who took the publications tending to impede, obstruct,
stenographic notes", and that the new embarrass, or influence the courts in
administering justice in a pending suit or
1014 G.R. No. L-8974, October 18, 1957 1015 GR No. 46551, December 12, 1939
(Colossians 3:23)
proceeding to criminal contempt which is correction of an error, if any has been

summarily punishable by the courts. The committed.
rule is otherwise after the cause is ended.
The Court, needless to state, as a human
It must, however, clearly appear that such institution, does not assume a posture of
publications of impede, interfere with, and infallibility or perfection in its decisions or
embarrass the administration of justice rulings. In fact, its decisions are open to
before the author of the publications should criticisms for as long as they are couched
be held for contempt. in respectful language and, above all
directed at the merits of the case.
What is it said to be shielded against the
influence of newspaper comments is the Where, however, comment in the guise of
all-important duty of the court to administer a critique is intended merely to degrade
justice in the decision of a pending case. and ridicule the Court, as well as to insult
There is no pending case to speak of when its members, thereby causing or
and once the court has come to a decision conditioning the public to lose its respect
and you have control either to reconsider or for the Court and its members, the
amend it. comment becomes clearly an obstruction
or affront to the administration of justice;
That, we believe, is the case at the bar, for hence, it is contemptous.
here we have a concession that the letter
was filed after the Court of First Instance of Coming to Tulfo's specific language
Pampanga had decided the aforesaid employed in the questioned articles (“Idiotic
criminal case for robbery in band, and after Decision” & “Sangkatutak na Bobo”), a man
that decision had been appealed to the in his right senses would find no social;
Court of Appeals. The fact that a motion to value, or intellectual significance or even
reconsider its order confiscating the bond literary delight in its use. In fact, nothing
of the accused therein was filed filed may constructive can be attained by an attempt
be admitted; But, the important to downgrade, damage and even destroy
consideration is that it was then without the authority of the Court which is a focal
power to reopen or modify the decision institution of democracy in this country.
which had been rendered on the merits of
the case, and could not have been Reading through the two (2) articles written
influenced by the questioned publication. by Tulfo, respectively entitled "Idiotic
decision" and "Sangkatutak na Bobo", it is
It has been settled that mere criticism or plain that Tulfo intended to ridicule and
comment on the correctness; or degrade the Court and its members before
wrongness, soundness or the public, not merely to criticize its
unsoundness of a decision of the court decision on the merits, as he would now
in a pending case, made in good faith, like to make this Court believe. The general
may be tolerated, for if it is well founded, tone and language used in Tulfo's articles
it may enlighten the court and belie his belated allegation that the word
contribute to the correction of an error, "idiotic" was used in the sense of the
if any has been committed. decision being merely "illogical, irrational,
unwarranted and unwise."
In the case of In Re Ramon Tulfo,1016 the
Court ruled that it has been settled that Had Tulfo honestly meant to express only
mere criticism or comment on the to the public his personal opinion that the
correctness; or wrongness, soundness or questioned decision is "illogical, irrational,
unsoundness of a decision of the court in a unwarranted and unwise," then, he could
pending case, made in good faith, may be have said so without resort to the use of
tolerated, for if it is well founded, it may words which are derogatory, and thereafter
enlighten the court and contribute to the claim that he did not mean the way they
1016 AM No. 90-4-1545-0, April 17, 1990

(Colossians 3:23)
were written or understood by his readers. pending cases shall be allowed in the
Such turnabout only shows how grossly vicinity and/or within the premises of any
irresponsible, or in bad faith or mentally and all courts.
dishonest Tulfo was in writing said articles
and causing the same to be published. Divulging judicial secrets constitutes an
interference with the proper functioning
Grievances, if any, must be ventilated of the courts and the administration of
through the proper channels in keeping justice
with the respect due to the Courts as
impartial administrators of justice In the case of In Re Atty. Jurado,1018 the
Court ruled that divulging judicial secrets
In the case of Nestle Philippines Inc. v. constitutes an interference with the proper
Hon. Sanchez,1017 the Court ruled that functioning of the courts and the
grievances, if any, must be ventilated administration of justice.
through the proper channels, i.e., through
appropriate petitions, motions or other Furthermore, the Court cited the US case
pleadings in keeping with the respect due Burns v. State1019 wherein the US Supreme
to the Courts as impartial administrators of Court held that judicial proceedings, in a
justice entitled to "proceed to the case which the law requires to be
disposition of its business in an orderly conducted in secret for the proper
manner, free from outside interference administration of justice, should never be,
obstructive of its functions and tending to while the case is on trial, given publicity by
embarrass the administration of justice." the press.
We realize that the individuals herein cited As important as is the maintenance of the
who are non-lawyers are not unmuzzled press and the free exercise of
knowledgeable in her intricacies of the rights of the citizen is the maintenance
substantive and adjective laws. They are of the independence of the Judiciary.
not aware that even as the rights of free Respect for the Judiciary cannot be had if
speech and of assembly are protected by persons are privileged to scorn a resolution
the Constitution, any attempt to pressure or of the court adopted for good purposes,
influence courts of justice through the and if such persons are to be permitted by
exercise of either right amounts to an subterranean means to diffuse inaccurate
abuse thereof, is no longer within the ambit accounts of confidential proceedings to the
of constitutional protection, nor did they embarrassment of the parties and the
realize that any such efforts to influence the courts.
course of justice constitutes contempt of
court. In the case at bar, it is quite evident that in
the particular circumstances of this case
The duty and responsibility of advising and upon authority of the cited precedents,
them, therefore, rest primarily and heavily respondent cannot shield himself from
upon the shoulders of their counsel of culpability by invoking the freedoms of the
record. Atty. Jose C. Espinas, when his press and of information. There can be no
attention was called by this Court, did his doubt that his published report and
best to demonstrate to the pickets the comments on a non-existent decision
untenability of their acts and posture. tended directly to embarrass the court and
obstruct its proper functioning, putting it to
Hence, the contempt charges against what should have been the unnecessary
herein respondents were DISMISSED. task of defending or proving the integrity of
Henceforth, no demonstrations or pickets its proceedings.
intended to pressure or influence courts of
justice into acting one way or the other on
1017 G.R. No. 75209, September 30, 1987 1019 (1929) 36 Fed. (2nd) 230, 238-239
1018 A.M. No. 90-5-2373, July 12, 1990
(Colossians 3:23)
Even assuming that he had learned, concerned, it cannot be stressed strongly

correctly but surreptitiously through that the arts and letters "shall be under the
unauthorized “leaks,” of a voting trend in patronage of the State.
favor of upholding the Hernandez doctrine,
or of deliberations pointing to such a trend, The adult classification given the film
or even of a draft decision or resolution of serves as a warning to theater operators
the terms and tenor reported, premature and viewers that some contents of Kapit
revelation thereof placed the Court in are not fit for the young. Some of the
disrepute as an inept and incompetent scenes in the picture were taken in a
guardian of its own confidential theater-club and a good portion of the film
proceedings or, worse, offered the shots concentrated on some women
temptation to rewrite the decision in order erotically dancing naked, or at least nearly
to avoid such odium. naked, on the theater stage. Another scene
on that stage depicted the women kissing
These, considering that as the highest and caressing as lesbians. And toward the
tribunal in the land, the Court is and should end of the picture, there exists scenes of
serve as the model and exemplar for all excessive violence attending the battle
lower courts to emulate, constituted a clear between a group of robbers and the police.
and present danger to the orderly and The vulnerable and imitative in the young
impartial administration of justice. audience will misunderstand these scenes.
To repeat, respondent cannot claim Further: "Respondents (The Board of

absolution even where the Court to lend Review for Motion Pictures and Television)
ear to his plea that his actions be judged further stated in its answer that petitioner-
solely as those of a newspaperman company has an option to have the film
unburdened by the duties and reclassified to For-General-Patronage if it
responsibilities peculiar to the law would agree to remove the obscene
profession of which he is also a member. scenes and pare down the violence in the
film." Petitioners, however, refused the "For
Hence, respondent was imposed a fine Adults Only" classification and instead, as
amounting to P1,000 and the Court ordered noted at the outset, filed this suit for
a copy of the resolution to be entered into certiorari.
the personal record of the said respondent
with the office of the Bar Confidant. All that remains to be said is that the ruling
is to be limited to the concept of obscenity
Freedom of Expression, Movie applicable to motion pictures. It is the
Censorship, Obscenity and the Right to consensus of this Court that where
Privacy television is concerned: a less liberal
approach calls for observance. This is so
As far as the question of sex and because unlike motion pictures where the
obscenity are concerned, it cannot be patrons have to pay their way, television
stressed strongly that the arts and reaches every home where there is a set.
letters "shall be under the patronage of Children then will likely will be among the
the State avid viewers of the programs therein
shown. As was observed by Circuit Court
In the case of Gonzales v. Katigbak,1020 the of Appeals Judge Jerome Frank, it is hardly
Court ruled that in the applicable law, the concern of the law to deal with the
Executive Order No. 876, reference was sexual fantasies of the adult population. It
made to respondent Board "applying cannot be denied though that the State as
contemporary Filipino cultural values as parens patriae is called upon to manifest an
standard, words which can be construed in attitude of caring for the welfare of the
an analogous manner. Moreover, as far as young.
the question of sex and obscenity are
1020 G.R. No. L-69500, July 22, 1985

(Colossians 3:23)
Validity of the agreement will have to be retired into the seclusion of simple private
upheld particularly because the limits of citizenship. He continues to be a "public
freedom of expression are reached figure." After a successful political
when expression touches upon matters campaign during which his participation in
of essentially private concern the EDSA Revolution was directly or
indirectly referred to in the press, radio and
In the case of Lagunzad v. Soto,1021 the television, he sits in a very public place, the
Court ruled that in the case at bar, the Senate of the Philippines.
interest observable are the right to privacy
asserted by respondent and the right of - The line of equilibrium in the specific
freedom of expression invoked by context of the instant case between the
petitioner. constitutional freedom of speech and of
expression and the right of privacy, may be
Taking into account the interplay of those marked out in terms of a requirement that
interests, we hold that under the particular the proposed motion picture must be fairly
circumstances presented, and considering truthful and historical in its presentation of
the obligations assumed in the Licensing events. There must, in other words, be no
Agreement entered into by petitioner, the knowing or reckless disregard of truth in
validity of such agreement will have to be depicting the participation of private
upheld particularly because the limits of respondent in the EDSA Revolution. There
freedom of expression are reached when must, further, be no presentation of the
expression touches upon matters of private life of the unwilling private
essentially private concern. respondent and certainly no revelation of
intimate or embarrassing personal facts.
Hence, the Court found no merit in
petitioner's contention that the Licensing The proposed motion picture should not
Agreement infringes on the constitutional enter into what Mme. Justice Melencio-
right of freedom of speech and of the press, Herrera in Lagunzad referred to as "matters
in that, as a citizen and as a of essentially private concern." To the
newspaperman, he had the right to express extent that "The Four Day Revolution"
his thoughts in film on the public life of limits itself in portraying the participation of
Moises Padilla without prior restraint. private respondent in the EDSA Revolution
to those events which are directly and
The right of privacy of a "public figure" reasonably related to the public facts of the
is necessarily narrower than that of an EDSA Revolution, the intrusion into private
ordinary citizen respondent's privacy cannot be regarded
as unreasonable and actionable. Such
In the case of Ayer Productions Pty. Ltd. v. portrayal may be carried out even without a
Hon. Capulong,1022 the Court ruled that license from private respondent.
private respondent (Juan Ponce Enrile) is a
"public figure" precisely because, inter alia, What is a “public figure”?
of his participation as a principal actor in the
culminating events of the change of A public figure has been defined as a
government in February 1986. Because his person who, by his accomplishments,
participation therein was major in fame, or mode of living, or by adopting a
character, a film reenactment of the profession or calling which gives the public
peaceful revolution that fails to make a legitimate interest in his doings, his
reference to the role played by private affairs, and his character, has become a
respondent would be grossly unhistorical. 'public personage.' He is, in other words, a
celebrity.
The right of privacy of a "public figure" is
necessarily narrower than that of an Obviously to be included in this category
ordinary citizen. Private respondent has not are those who have achieved some degree
1021 G.R. No. L-32066, August 6, 1979 1022 G.R. No. 82380, April 29, 1988
(Colossians 3:23)
of reputation by appearing before the because the database allegedly

public, as in the case of an actor, a infringed the right to privacy of
professional baseball player, a pugilist, or individuals who want to keep their
any other entertainment. The list is, personal matters confidential. The
however, broader than this. It includes U.S. Supreme Court rejected the
public officers, famous inventors and privacy claim, and declared:
explorers, war heroes and even ordinary
soldiers, an infant prodigy, and no less a Disclosures of private medical
personage than the Grand Exalted Ruler of information to doctors, to hospital
a lodge. It includes, in short, anyone who personnel, to insurance companies,
has arrived at a position where public and to public health agencies are
attention is focused upon him as a person. often an essential part of modern
medical practice even when the
Such public figures were held to have lost, disclosure may reflect unfavorably
to some extent at least, their tight to on the character of the patient.
privacy. Three reasons were given, more or Requiring such disclosures to
less indiscriminately, in the decisions" that representatives of the State having
they had sought publicity and consented to responsibility for the health of the
it, and so could not complaint when they community does not automatically
received it; that their personalities and their amount to an impermissible
affairs has already public, and could no invasion of privacy.
longer be regarded as their own private
business; and that the press had a 2. Planned Parenthood of Central
privilege, under the Constitution, to inform Missouri v. Danforth1025
the public about those who have become
legitimate matters of public interest. On one The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the
or another of these grounds, and validity of a law that required
sometimes all, it was held that there was no doctors performing abortions to fill
liability when they were given additional up forms, maintain records for
publicity, as to matters legitimately within seven years, and allow the
the scope of the public interest they had inspection of such records by public
aroused.1023 health officials.
US Supreme Court cases stating that The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that
there were no violation of rights to recordkeeping and reporting
privacy requirements that are reasonably
directed to the preservation of
1. Whalen v. Roe1024 maternal health and that properly
respect a patients confidentiality
In Whalen, the U.S. Supreme Court and privacy are permissible.
upheld the validity of a New York
law that required doctors to furnish 3. Planned Parenthood of
the government reports identifying Southeastern Pennsylvania v.
patients who received prescription Casey1026
drugs that have a potential for
abuse. The government maintained The U.S. Supreme Court upheld a
a central computerized database law that required doctors
containing the names and performing an abortion to file a
addresses of the patients, as well report to the government that
as the identity of the prescribing included the doctor’s name, the
doctors. The law was assailed woman’s age, the number of prior
1023 Ayer Productions Pty. Ltd. v. Hon. 1025 428 U.S. 52 (1976)
Capulong, G.R. No. 82380, April 29, 1988 1026 505 U.S. 833 (1992)
1024 429 U.S. 589 (1977)
(Colossians 3:23)
pregnancies and abortions that the issuance in Ople v. Torres1028 sought to

woman had, the medical establish a National Computerized
complications from the abortion, the Identification Reference System, a national
weight of the fetus, and the marital ID system that did not exist prior to the
status of the woman. In case of assailed executive issuance. Obviously, a
state-funded institutions, the law national ID card system requires legislation
made such information publicly because it creates a new national data
available. collection and card issuance system where
none existed before.
In Casey, the U.S. Supreme Court
stated: The collection of information In the present case, EO 420 does not
with respect to actual patients is a establish a national ID system but makes
vital element of medical research, the existing sectoral card systems of
and so it cannot be said that the government entities like GSIS, SSS,
requirements serve no purpose Philhealth and LTO less costly, more
other than to make abortion more efficient, reliable and user-friendly to the
difficult. public. Hence, EO 420 is a proper subject
of executive issuance under the Presidents
Whether or not the adoption of a unified constitutional power of control over
multi-purpose ID system for the government entities in the Executive
government violates the constitutional department, as well as under the
right of privacy? Presidents constitutional duty to ensure
that laws are faithfully executed.
In the case of Kilusang Mayo Uno v.
Director General of NEDA,1027 the Court Movie and Television Review and
ruled that compared to the disclosure Classification Board (MTRCB) has the
requirements of personal data that the U.S. power to screen, review and examine all
Supreme Court have upheld in Whalen, television programs
Danforth and Casey as not violative of the
right to privacy, the disclosure In the case of MTRCB v. ABS-CBN
requirements under EO 420 are far benign Broadcasting Corporation & Loren
and cannot therefore constitute violation of Legarda,1029 respondents sought
the right to privacy. EO 420 requires exemption from the coverage of the term
disclosure of 14 personal data that are television programs on the ground that the
routine for ID purposes, data that cannot The Inside Story is a public affairs program,
possibly embarrass or humiliate anyone. news documentary and socio-political
editorial protected under Section 4, Article
Petitioners have not shown how EO 420 III of the Constitution. Albeit, respondent’s
will violate their right to privacy. Petitioners basis is not freedom of religion, as in Iglesia
cannot show such violation by a mere facial ni Cristo, but freedom of expression and of
examination of EO 420 because EO 420 the press, the ruling in Iglesia ni Cristo
narrowly draws the data collection, applies squarely to the instant issue.
recording and exhibition while prescribing
comprehensive safeguards. The law (Section 7 of Presidential Decree
(P.D.) No. 1986 and Section 3, Chapter III
EO 420 applies only to government entities and Section 7, Chapter IV of the MTRCB
that already maintain ID systems and issue Rules and Regulations), on the other hand,
ID cards pursuant to their regular functions gives the Board (MTRCB) the power to
under existing laws. EO 420 does not grant screen, review and examine all television
such government entities any power that programs. By the clear terms of the law, the
they do not already possess under existing Board has the power to approve, delete x x
laws. In contrast, the assailed executive x and/or prohibit the x x x exhibition and/or
1027 G.R. No. 167798, April 19, 2006 1029 G.R. No. 155282, January 17, 2005
1028 354 Phil. 948 (1998)
(Colossians 3:23)
television broadcast of x x x television

programs x x x. The law also directs the (1) Television programs imprinted or
Board to apply contemporary Filipino exhibited by the Philippine
cultural values as standard to determine Government and/or its departments
those which are objectionable for being and agencies, and
immoral, indecent, contrary to law and/or
good customs, injurious to the prestige of (2) Newsreels.
the Republic of the Philippines and its
people, or with a dangerous tendency to Thus:
encourage the commission of violence or of
a wrong or crime. SEC. 7. Unauthorized showing or
exhibition. It shall be unlawful for any
However, the Court ruled that it is person or entity to exhibit or cause to be
significant to note that in Iglesia ni exhibited in any moviehouse, theatre, or
Cristo,1030 the Court declared that freedom public place or by television within the
of religion has been accorded a preferred Philippines any motion picture, television
status by the framers of our fundamental program or publicity material, including
laws, past and present, designed to protect trailers, and stills for lobby displays in
the broadest possible liberty of conscience, connection with motion pictures, not duly
to allow each man to believe as his authorized by the owner or his assignee
conscience directs x x x. Yet despite the and passed by the BOARD; or to print or
fact that freedom of religion has been cause to be printed on any motion picture
accorded a preferred status, still this Court, to be exhibited in any theater or public
did not exempt the Iglesia ni Cristo’s place or by television a label or notice
religious program from petitioner’s review showing the same to have been officially
power. passed by the BOARD when the same has
not been previously authorized, except
Respondent’s claim that the showing of motion pictures, television programs or
“The Inside Story” is protected by the publicity material imprinted or exhibited by
constitutional provision on freedom of the Philippine Government and/or its
speech and of the press. However, there departments and agencies, and newsreels.
has been no declaration at all by the
framers of the Constitution that freedom of In the case of MTRCB v. ABS-CBN
expression and of the press has a preferred Broadcasting Corporation & Loren
1031
status. Legarda, the Court ruled that newsreels
are straight presentation of events. They
If this Court, in Iglesia ni Cristo, did not are depiction of actualities.
exempt religious programs from the Correspondingly, the MTRCB Rules and
jurisdiction and review power of petitioner Regulations implementing P. D. No. 1986
MTRCB, with more reason, there is no define newsreels as straight news
justification to exempt therefrom The Inside reporting, as distinguished from news
Story which, according to respondents, is analyses, commentaries and opinions. Talk
protected by the constitutional provision on shows on a given issue are not considered
freedom of expression and of the press, a newsreels.
freedom bearing no preferred status.
Therefore, the Court held that the The
Exceptions from the MTRCB’s power of Inside Story cannot be considered a
review newsreel. It is more of a public affairs
program which is described as a variety of
The only exceptions from the MTRCBs news treatment; a cross between pure
power of review are those expressly television news and news-related
mentioned in Section 7 of P. D. No. 1986, commentaries, analysis and/or exchange
such as
1030 G.R. No. 119673, July 26, 1996 1031 G.R. No. 155282, January 17, 2005
(Colossians 3:23)
of opinions. Hence, such kind of program is defined by the applicable state law;
within petitioner’s (MTRCB) review power. and
Note: It bears stressing that the sole issue (c) Whether the work, taken as a
here is whether petitioner MTRCB has whole, lacks serious literary,
authority to review The Inside Story. artistic, political, or scientific value.
Clearly, the Courts are not called upon to
determine whether petitioner violated In addition, there is no evidence, empirical
Section 4, Article III (Bill of Rights) of the or historical, that the stern 19th century
Constitution providing that no law shall be American censorship of public distribution
passed abridging the freedom of speech, of and display of material relating to sex in any
oppression or the press. Petitioner did not way limited or affected expression of
disapprove or ban the showing of the serious literary, artistic, political, or
program. Neither did it cancel respondents scientific ideas.
permit. Respondents were merely
penalized for their failure to submit to The Court do not see the harsh hand of
petitioner The Inside Story for its review censorship of ideas -- good or bad, sound
and approval. Therefore, the Court need or unsound -- and "repression" of political
not resolve whether certain provisions of P. liberty lurking in every state regulation of
D. No. 1986 and the MTRCB Rules and commercial exploitation of human interest
Regulations specified by respondents in sex.
contravene the Constitution.
What remains clear is that obscenity is
Obscene material is not protected by an issue proper for judicial
the First Amendment and such material determination and should be treated on
can be regulated by the State, subject to a case to case basis and on the judge’s
the specific safeguards sound discretion
In the case of Miller v. California,1032 the US It was held in the case of Fernando &
Supreme Court held that obscene material Estorinos v. CA,1033 the Court ruled that
is not protected by the First Amendment obscenity is an issue proper for judicial
and such material can be regulated by the determination and should be treated on a
States, subject to the specific safeguards case to case basis and on the judge’s
without a showing that the material is sound discretion.
"utterly without redeeming social value."
As obscenity is an unprotected speech
Furthermore, the Court also explained that which the State has the right to regulate,
obscenity is to be determined by applying the State in pursuing its mandate to
"contemporary community standards." protect, as parens patriae, the public
from obscene, immoral and indecent
According to the US Supreme Court, there materials must justify the regulation or
is no perfect definition of "obscenity" but the limitation
basic guidelines are:
As obscenity is an unprotected speech
(a) Whether to the average person, which the State has the right to regulate,
applying contemporary standards the State in pursuing its mandate to protect,
would find the work, taken as a as parens patriae, the public from obscene,
whole, appeals to the prurient immoral and indecent materials must justify
interest; the regulation or limitation.
(b) Whether the work depicts or

describes, in a patently offensive
way, sexual conduct specifically
1032 413 U.S. 15 (1973) 1033 G.R. No. 159751, December 6, 2006
(Colossians 3:23)
Hence, in the case of Fernando & Estorinos circumstances of broadcast media into
v. CA,1034 the Court prosecuted the account
petitioners for the distribution and
exhibition of obscene materials. In the case of Eastern Broadcasting
Corporation (DYRE) v. Hon. Dans,1036 the
Notably, the subject premises of the search Court ruled that clear and present danger
warrant was the Gaudencio E. Fernando test, therefore, must take the particular
Music Fair, named after petitioner circumstances of broadcast media into
Fernando. The mayor’s permit was under account. The supervision of radio stations-
his name. Even his bail bond shows that whether by government or through self-
Hhe lives in the same place. Moreover, the regulation by the industry itself calls for
mayor’s permit dated August 8, 1996, thoughtful, intelligent and sophisticated
shows that he is the owner/operator of the handling.
store. While the mayor’s permit had already
expired, it does not negate the fact that The government has a right to be protected
Fernando owned and operated the against broadcasts which incite the
establishment. It would be absurd to make listeners to violently overthrow it. Radio and
his failure to renew his business permit and television may not be used to organize a
illegal operation a shield from prosecution rebellion or to signal the start of widespread
of an unlawful act. Furthermore, when he uprising. At the same time, the people have
preferred not to present contrary evidence, a right to be informed. Radio and television
the things which he possessed were would have little reason for existence if
presumptively his. broadcasts are limited to bland,
obsequious, or pleasantly entertaining
To be prosecuted under Art. 201 of the utterances. Since they are the most
Revised Penal Code (Immoral doctrines, convenient and popular means of
obscene publications and exhibitions disseminating varying views on public
and indecent shows), the law does not issues, they also deserve special
require that a person be caught in the protection.
act of selling, giving away or exhibiting
obscene materials to be liable, for as
long as the said materials are offered for
sale, displayed or exhibited to the public
It was held in the case of Fernando &

Estorinos v. CA,1035 the Court held that the
law does not require that a person be
caught in the act of selling, giving away or
exhibiting obscene materials to be liable,
for as long as the said materials are offered
for sale, displayed or exhibited to the
public.
In the present case, the Court found that

petitioners are engaged in selling and
exhibiting obscene materials. Hence, they
were prosecuted as such.
Radio Broadcast
Clear and present danger test,

therefore, must take the particular
1034 G.R. No. 159751, December 6, 2006 1036 G.R. No. L-59329, July 19, 1985
1035 Ibid.
(Colossians 3:23)
Jurisdiction of Courts
2) filed before a competent court;
Sections 1, 2, and 3 of Rule 118 of the 1985
Rules on Criminal Procedure provide as 3) to which defendant had pleaded;
follows: and
SECTION 1. Pre-trial: when proper.-To 4) of which he has previously been

expedite the trial, where the accused and convicted or acquitted or which was
counsel agree, the court shall conduct a dismissed or terminated without his
pretrial conference on the matters express consent.
enumerated in Section 2 hereof, without
impairing the rights of the accused. In this case, the prosecution was deprived
of an opportunity to prosecute and prove its
SEC. 2. Pre-trial conference; subjects.-The case. The decision that was rendered in
pre-trial conference shall consider the disregard of such imperative is void for lack
following: of jurisdiction. It was not a court of
competent jurisdiction when it precipitately
(a) Plea bargaining; rendered a decision of acquittal after a pre-
trial. A trial should follow a pre-trial. That is
(b) Stipulation of facts; the mandate of the rules. Obviously, double
jeopardy has not set in this case.
(c) Marking for Identification of
evidence of the parties; At the pre-trial, U.P. presented its title and
plan showing that the accused built a
(d) Waiver of objections to admissibility structure within its property. The accused
of evidence; and by her proffer of exhibits and manifestation
pretended to have a title to the questioned
(e) Such other matters as will promote land. However, as stressed by U.P., the
a fair and expeditious trial. (n) titled property of accused is located in
Marikina and not in Quezon City and said
SEC. 3. Pre-trial order.-After the pre-trial title could not cover the very lot in question
conference, the court shall issue an order which is at Pook Amorsolo, U.P. Campus
reciting the actions taken, the facts where the structure of accused was built.
stipulated, and evidence marked. Such
order shall bind the parties, limit the trial to This issue cannot be determined by a mere
matters not disposed of and control the examination of the titles and documents
course of the action during the trial, unless submitted by the parties.
modified by the court to prevent manifest
injustice. A trial on the merits should be undertaken
to determine once and for all whether the
It was not a court of competent place where the structure was built by the
jurisdiction when it precipitately accused belongs to U.P. or to the accused.
rendered a decision of acquittal after a
pre-trial The conclusion of the trial court that the
accused did not build her structure illegally
The Court ruled in the case of People v. as she has a title to the property in question
Santiago1037 that double jeopardy cannot is without any factual or legal basis. Indeed,
be invoked as a bar to another prosecution the observation of respondent judge in the
in this case. There is double jeopardy only questioned decision as to "the inadequacy
when: in details of the state's evidence" simply
demonstrates that a trial on the merits
1) there is a valid complaint or should have been held to enable the
information; prosecution to establish its case. No doubt,
1037 G.R. No. L-80778, June 20, 1989

(Colossians 3:23)
the acquittal of the accused is a nullity for

want of due process. The prosecution was
not given the opportunity to present its
evidence or even to rebut the
representations of the accused. The
prosecution is as much entitled to due
process as the accused in a criminal case.
(Colossians 3:23)
THE EXERCISE OF GOVERNMENT of powers is a fundamental principle in our

POWER system of government. It obtains not
through express provision but by actual
What is the principle of “Separation of division in our Constitution. Each
Powers”? department of the government has
exclusive cognizance of matters within its
Separation of powers is as an institutional jurisdiction, and is supreme within its own
arrangement or situation within the sphere. But it does not follow from the fact
government. Conceptually, Separation of that the three powers are to be kept
Powers combines a definite structure of separate and distinct that the Constitution
government, with a set of relationships intended them to be absolutely
among the component elements of such unrestrained and independent of each
structure. other. The Constitution has provided for an
elaborate system of checks and balances
Each branch is separate and distinct from to secure coordination in the workings of
the other branches, and may exercise only the various departments of the
the Power lodged with it but not other government.
Powers. This may be stated with greater
particularity, as follows: For example, the Chief Executive under our
Constitution is so far made a check on the
1. The Legislative branch is separate legislative power that this assent is
and distinct from the Executive and required in the enactment of laws. This,
Judicial branches. It exercises however, is subject to the further check that
Legislative Power, but may not a bill may become a law notwithstanding
exercise either Executive or Judicial the refusal of the President to approve it, by
Power. a vote of two-thirds or three-fourths, as the
case may be, of the National Assembly.
2. The Executive Branch is separate The President has also the right to convene
and distinct from the Legislative and the Assembly in special session whenever
Judicial branches. It exercises he chooses. On the other hand, the
Executive Power, but may not National Assembly operates as a check on
exercise Legislative or Judicial the Executive in the sense that its consent
Power. through its Commission on Appointments is
necessary in the appointments of certain
3. The Judicial Branch is separate and officers; and the concurrence of a majority
distinct from the Legislative and of all its members is essential to the
Executive branches. It exercises conclusion of treaties. Furthermore, in its
Judicial Power, but may not power to determine what courts other than
exercise either Executive or the Supreme Court shall be established, to
Legislative Power. define their jurisdiction and to appropriate
funds for their support, the National
Conceptually, then, Separation of Powers Assembly controls the judicial department
is present within the government, if in such to a certain extent. The Assembly also
government, there is a Tripartite System of exercises the judicial power of trying
Powers, and each of the three branches impeachments. And the judiciary in turn,
comprising such System is independent of with the Supreme Court as the final arbiter,
the others, and enjoys a monopoly of the effectively checks the other departments in
Power entrusted or allocated to it.1038 the exercise of its power to determine the
law, and hence to declare executive and
The Court held in the case of Angara v. legislative acts void if violative of the
Electoral Commission,1039 that separation Constitution.
1038 Fundamentals of the 1987 Philippine 1039 G.R. No. L-45081, July 15, 1936
Constitution, Judge Eliza B. Yu, Vol. 1 2016 ed.,
p. 100
(Colossians 3:23)
claims of authority under the Constitution

Discuss the “Tripartite Structure” of the and to establish for the parties in an actual
Government. controversy the rights which that
instrument secures and guarantees to
There is a tripartite system in a particular them. (Angara v. Electoral Commission)1043
government, where the three different
powers of Legislation, Execution, and Who is considered as the most powerful
Adjudication are each lodges in a separate among the three branches of the
Branch of government. Traditionally, a government?
Tripartite System consists of the
Legislative, the Executive, and the Judicial None. On the principle of Equality, each
branches. Each of these branches has a Branch is the equal of the others; hence, it
definite legal relationship to the others. may not be controlled by the others, and in
Such relationships are summed up, in the turn, it may not control either or both of
principles of equality and separation.1040 them.1044
What is the purpose of the principle of Can an incumbent member/s of the

Separation of Power? Supreme Court and other courts be
appointed as Provincial/City
The theory of the separation of powers is Committees on Justice to perform
designed by its originators to secure action administrative functions?
and at the same time to forestall overaction
which necessarily results from undue No. The Court held in the case of In Re
concentration of powers, and thereby Manzano,1045 that while the doctrine of
obtain efficiency and prevent separation of powers is a relative theory not
deposition.1041 In short, its purpose is to to be enforced with pedantic rigor, the
prevent the concentration of authority in practical demands of government
one person or group of persons that might precluding its doctrinaire application, it
lead to an irreversible error or abuse in its cannot justify a member of the judiciary
exercise to the detriment of republican being required to assume a position or
institutions.1042 perform a duty non-judicial in character.
That is implicit in the principle. Otherwise
The Constitution is a definition of the there is a plain departure from its
powers of government. Who is to command. The essence of the trust
determine the nature, scope and extent reposed in him is to decide. Only a higher
of such powers? court, as was emphasized by Justice
Barredo, can pass on his actuation. He is
The Constitution itself has provided for the not a subordinate of an executive or
instrumentality of the judiciary as the legislative official, however eminent. It is
rational way. And when the judiciary indispensable that there be no exception to
mediates to allocate constitutional the rigidity of such a norm if he is, as
boundaries, it does not assert any expected, to be confined to the task of
superiority over the other departments; it adjudication. Fidelity to his sworn
does not in reality nullify or invalidate an act responsibility no less than the maintenance
of the legislature, but only asserts the of respect for the judiciary can be satisfied
solemn and sacred obligation assigned to it with nothing less.
by the Constitution to determine conflicting
1040 Fundamentals of the 1987 Philippine 1042 Outline Reviewer in Political Law, Antonio
Constitution, Judge Eliza B. Yu, Vol. 1 2016 ed., E.B. Nachura, 2016, p. 96
p. 100 1043 G.R. No. L-45081, July 15, 1936
1041 Pangasinan Transportation Co. v. Public 1044 Fundamentals of the 1987 Philippine
Service Commission, G.R. No. 47065, June 26, Constitution, Judge Eliza B. Yu, Vol. 1 2016 ed.,
1940 p. 100
1045 A.M. No. 88-7-1861-RTC, October 5, 1988
(Colossians 3:23)
This declaration does not mean that RTC circumstances. It is not disputed that this
Judges should adopt an attitude of choice to delegate authority is precisely the
monastic insensibility or unbecoming kind of decision that can be implemented
indifference to Province/City Committee on only in accordance with the procedures set
Justice. As incumbent RTC Judges, they out in Art. I. Disagreement with the Attorney
form part of the structure of government. General's decision on Chadha's
Their integrity and performance in the deportation -- that is, Congress' decision to
adjudication of cases contribute to the deport Chadha -- no less than Congress'
solidity of such structure. As public officials, original choice to delegate to the Attorney
they are trustees of an orderly society. General the authority to make that
Even as non-members of Provincial/City decision, involves determinations of policy
Committees on Justice, RTC judges should that Congress can implement in only one
render assistance to said Committees to way; bicameral passage followed by
help promote the laudable purposes for presentment to the President. Congress
which they exist, but only when such must abide by its delegation of authority
assistance may be reasonably incidental to until that delegation is legislatively altered
the fulfillment of their judicial duties. or revoked.
Can the executive department pass Does the Judiciary have the right to
judgement upon the judiciary with review the findings of legislative bodies
regard to the alleged unjust decision in the exercise of the prerogative of
that the latter has rendered? legislation, or interfere with their
proceedings or their discretion (ex.
No. In the case of In re Laureta,1046 the ordering the detention of a person for
Court held that it is "entrusted exclusively contempt)?
with the judicial power to adjudicate with
finality all justifiable disputes, public and No. In the case of Arnault v. Balagtas,1048
private. No other department or agency the court held that the judicial department
may pass upon its judgments or declare of the government has no right or power or
them 'unjust' upon controlling and authority to do, much in the same manner
irresistible reasons of public policy and of that the legislative department may not
sound practice." invade the judicial realm in the
ascertainment of truth and in the
Can the legislative department veto the application and interpretation of the law, in
actions made by the executive what is known as the judicial process,
department pursuant to the valid because that would be in direct conflict with
delegation made by the former to the the fundamental principle of separation of
latter with regard to the deportation of powers established by the Constitution.
aliens? The only instances when judicial
intervention may lawfully be invoke are
No. In the case of INS v. Chadha,1047 the when there has been a violation of a
US Supreme court held that the nature of constitutional inhibition, or when there has
the decision implemented by the one- been an arbitrary exercise of the legislative
House veto in these cases further discretion.
manifests its legislative character. After
long experience with the clumsy, time- It has been said that the methods,
consuming private bill procedure, regulations, and restrictions to be imposed
Congress made a deliberate choice to to attain results consistent with the public
delegate to the Executive Branch, and welfare are purely of legislative
specifically to the Attorney General, the cognizance, and the determination of the
authority to allow deportable aliens to legislature is final, except when so arbitrary
remain in this country in certain specified as to be violative of the constitutional rights
1046 G.R. No. L-68635, May 14, 1987 1048 G. R. No. L-6749, July 30, 1955
1047 462 US 919
(Colossians 3:23)
of the citizen. Furthermore, in the absence subsidized local manufacturers may

of a clear violation of a constitutional otherwise impose upon the community.
inhibition, the courts should assume that
legislative discretion has been properly Can the Governor-General, under the
exercised. executive department, issue a
proclamation fixing the price at which
Can the executive department, through rice should be sold pursuant to the
the President, revoke a treaty without delegation of powers conferred upon by
any Congressional approval? the legislative department?
The US Supreme Court held in the case of No. It was held by the Court in the case of
Goldwater v. Carter,1049 that prudential US v. Tang Ho,1051 that by organic Law, all
considerations persuade the court that a Legislative power is vested in the
dispute between Congress and the Legislature, and the power conferred upon
President is not ready for judicial review the Legislature to make laws cannot be
unless and until each branch has taken delegated to the Governor-General, or
action asserting its constitutional authority. anyone else. The Legislature cannot
The Judicial Branch should not decide delegate the legislative power to enact any
issues affecting the allocation of power law. If Act no 2868 is a law unto itself and
between the President and Congress until within itself, and it does nothing more than
the political branches reach a constitutional to authorize the Governor-General to make
impasse. Otherwise, we would encourage rules and regulations to carry the law into
small groups, or even individual Members, effect, then the Legislature itself created
of Congress to seek judicial resolution of the law. There is no delegation of power
issues before the normal political process and it is valid. On the other hand, if the Act
has the opportunity to resolve the conflict. within itself does not define crime, and is
not a law, and some legislative act remains
Can the President issue an executive to be done to make it a law or a crime, the
order imposing additional duties, taxes doing of which is vested in the Governor-
and charges imposed by law on all General, then the Act is a delegation of
articles imported into the Philippines? legislative power, is unconstitutional and
void.
Yes. The Court held in the case of Garcia
v. Executive Secretary,1050 that Section 401 Does POEA have the power and
of the Tariff and Customs Code establishes authority to fix and promulgate rates
general standards with which the exercise affecting death and workmen's
of the authority delegated by that provision compensation of Filipino seamen
to the President must be consistent: that working in ocean-going vessels?
authority must be exercised in "the interest
of national economy, general welfare Yes. It was held in the case of Conference
and/or national security." We believe, for v. POEA1052 that POEA is only exercising
instance, that the protection of consumers, rule making power as confined with the
who after all constitute the very great bulk authority given by the legislature when it
of our population, is at the very least as fixed and promulgated the rates affecting
important a dimension of "the national the death and workmen’s compensation
economy, general welfare and national act.
security" as the protection of local
industries. And so customs duties may be It is well established in our jurisdiction that,
reduced or even removed precisely for the while the making of laws is a non-delegable
purpose of protecting consumers from the power that pertains exclusively to
high prices and shoddy quality and Congress, nevertheless, the latter may
inefficient service that tariff-protected and constitutionally delegate the authority to
1049 444 U.S. 996 (1979) 1051 G.R. No. 17122, February 27, 1922
1050 G.R. No. 101273, July 3, 1992 1052 G.R. No. 114714, April 21, 1995
(Colossians 3:23)
promulgate rules and regulations to

implement a given legislation and
effectuate its policies, for the reason that
the legislature finds it impracticable, if not
impossible, to anticipate situations that
may be met in carrying the law into effect.
All that is required is that the regulation
should be germane to the objects and
purposes of the law; that the regulation be
not in contradiction to but in conformity with
the standards prescribed by the law.
Can the president issue an executive

order which creates various
municipalities in the Philippines?
No. It was held by the court in the case of

Pelaez v. Auditor General,1053 that the
authority to create municipal corporations
is essentially legislative in nature. In the
language of other courts, it is "strictly a
legislative function" or "solely and
exclusively the exercise of legislative
power." As the Supreme Court of
Washington has put it "municipal
corporations are purely the creatures of
statutes."
Can the Courts fix the term of

imprisonment in case the same was not
provided for by the legislature?
No. It was held in the case of People v.

Dacuycuy1054 that it is not for the courts to
fix the term of imprisonment where no
points of reference have been provided by
the legislature. What valid delegation
presupposes and sanctions is an exercise
of discretion to fix the length of service of a
term of imprisonment which must be
encompassed within specific or designated
limits provided by law, the absence of
which designated limits well constitute such
exercise as an undue delegation, if not-an
outright intrusion into or assumption, of
legislative power.
1053 G.R. No. L-23825, December 24, 1965 1054 G.R. No. L-45127, May 5, 1989
(Colossians 3:23)
ARTICLE VI progressive ratio, and those

who, as provided by law, shall be
THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT elected through a party-list
system of registered national,
Section 1. The legislative power shall be regional, and sectoral parties or
vested in the Congress of the organizations.
Philippines which shall consist of a
Senate and a House of Representatives, 2. The party-list representatives
except to the extent reserved to the shall constitute twenty per
people by the provision on initiative and centum of the total number of
referendum. representatives including those
under the party list. For three
Section 2. The Senate shall be consecutive terms after the
composed of twenty-four Senators who ratification of this Constitution,
shall be elected at large by the qualified one-half of the seats allocated to
voters of the Philippines, as may be party-list representatives shall
provided by law. be filled, as provided by law, by
selection or election from the
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator labor, peasant, urban poor,
unless he is a natural-born citizen of the indigenous cultural
Philippines and, on the day of the communities, women, youth, and
election, is at least thirty-five years of such other sectors as may be
age, able to read and write, a registered provided by law, except the
voter, and a resident of the Philippines religious sector.
for not less than two years immediately
preceding the day of the election. 3. Each legislative district shall
comprise, as far as practicable,
Section 4. The term of office of the contiguous, compact, and
Senators shall be six years and shall adjacent territory. Each city with
commence, unless otherwise provided a population of at least two
by law, at noon on the thirtieth day of hundred fifty thousand, or each
June next following their election. No province, shall have at least one
Senator shall serve for more than two representative.
consecutive terms. Voluntary
renunciation of the office for any length 4. Within three years following the
of time shall not be considered as an return of every census, the
interruption in the continuity of his Congress shall make a
service for the full term of which he was reapportionment of legislative
elected. districts based on the standards
provided in this section.
Section 5.
Q & A:
1. The House of Representatives
shall be composed of not more 1) Can the Courts review the
than two hundred and fifty apportionment act which was
members, unless otherwise fixed passed by the legislature?
by law, who shall be elected from
legislative districts apportioned Yes. In the case of Macias v.
among the provinces, cities, and COMELEC1055 that the
the Metropolitan Manila area in constitutionality of a legislative
accordance with the number of apportionment act is a judicial
their respective inhabitants, and question, and not one which the
on the basis of a uniform and
1055 G.R. No. L-18684, September 14, 1961

(Colossians 3:23)
court cannot consider on the than that two political units would be
ground that it is a political question. affected. The first would be the
parent province of Negros
It is well settled that the passage of Occidental because its boundaries
apportionment acts is not so would be substantially altered. The
exclusively within the political other affected entity would be
power of the legislature as to composed of those in the area
preclude a court from inquiring into subtracted from the mother
their constitutionality when the province to constitute the proposed
question is properly brought before province of Negros del Norte.
it.
3) What are the requisites for the
2) Can the Court inquire into the action creation of a province?
of the legislature in altering the
province of Negros Occidental and Province may be created if it has an
excluding other voters, not included average annual income, as certified
in the new province of “Negros Del by the Department of Finance, of
Norte,” in a plebiscite held for that not less than Twenty million pesos
purpose? (₱20,000,000.00) based on 1991
constant prices and either of the
Yes. In the case of Tan v. following requisites:
COMELEC,1056 the Court held that
it did not find merit in the (i) a contiguous territory of at
submission of the respondents that least two thousand (2,000)
the petition should be dismissed square kilometers, as
because the motive and wisdom in certified by the Lands
enacting the law may not be Management Bureau; or
challenged by petitioners. The (ii) A population of not less than
principal point raised by the two hundred fifty thousand
petitioners is not the wisdom and (250,000) inhabitants as
motive in enacting the law but the certified by the National
infringement of the Constitution Statistics Office.
which is a proper subject of judicial
inquiry. Provided, That, the creation thereof
shall not reduce the land area,
The constitutional provision makes population, and income of the
it imperative that there be first original unit or units at the time of
obtained "the approval of a majority said creation to less than the
of votes in the plebiscite in the unit minimum requirements prescribed
or units affected" whenever a herein.1057
province is created, divided or
merged and there is substantial 4) What are the requirements for the
alteration of the boundaries. It is creation of a highly urbanized city
thus inescapable to conclude that (HUC)?
the boundaries of the existing
province of Negros Occidental Cities with a minimum population of
would necessarily be substantially two hundred thousand (200,000)
altered by the division of its existing inhabitants as certified by the
boundaries in order that there can National Statistics Office, and within
be created the proposed new the latest annual income of at least
province of Negros del Norte. Plain Fifty Million Pesos
and simple logic will demonstrate (₱50,000,000.00) based on 1991
1056 G.R. No. 73155, July 11, 1986 1057

Sec. 461(a) of the Local Government Code
(LGC)
(Colossians 3:23)
constant prices, as certified by the reduction in income upon

city treasurer, shall be classified as separation would clearly leave a
highly urbanized cities.1058 crippling effect on the province’s
operations as there would be less
5) Who are the participants in a funding to finance infrastructure
plebiscite called for the conversion projects and to defray overhead
of a component city into a highly costs. Moreover, the quality of
urbanize city (HUC)? (BAR EXAM) services being offered by the
province may suffer because of
In view of the changes in the looming austerity measures.
economic and political rights of the
province and its residents, the Impact on Political Rights:
entire province certainly stands to
be directly affected by the Duties, privileges and obligations
conversion of a component city into appertaining to HUCs will attach to
a highly urbanize city (HUC). Cabanatuan City if it is converted
Following the doctrines in Tan and into an HUC. This includes the right
Padilla, all the qualified registered to be outside the general
voters of the province should then supervision of the province and be
be allowed to participate in the under the direct supervision of the
plebiscite called for that President.
purpose.1059
An HUC is not subject to provincial
6) What are the economic and political oversight because the complex and
impact to the province in case a varied problems in an HUC due to a
component city becomes a HUC? bigger population and greater
economic activity require greater
Impact on Economic Rights: autonomy.
Once converted, the taxes imposed The provincial government stands

by the HUC will accrue to itself. to lose the power to ensure that the
Prior to this, the province enjoys the local government officials of
prerogative to impose and collect Cabanatuan City act within the
taxes such as those on sand, gravel scope of its prescribed powers and
and other quarry resources, functions, to review executive
professional taxes, and amusement orders issued by the city mayor,
taxes over the component city. This and to approve resolutions and
reduction in both taxing jurisdiction ordinances enacted by the city
and shares poses a material and council.
substantial change to the province’s
economic rights, warranting its The province will also be divested
participation in the plebiscite. of jurisdiction over disciplinary
cases concerning the elected city
A component city’s conversion into officials of the new HUC, and the
an HUC and its resultant autonomy appeal process for administrative
from the province is a threat to the case decisions against barangay
latter’s economic viability. officials of the city will also be
Noteworthy is that the income modified accordingly.
criterion for a component city to be
converted into an HUC is higher Likewise, the registered voters of
than the income requirement for the the city will no longer be entitled to
creation of a province. The ensuing
1058
Sec. 452(a) of the Local Government Code 1059Umali v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 203974, April
(LGC) 22, 2014
(Colossians 3:23)
vote for and be voted upon as left the manner of allocating the
provincial officials. seats available to party-list
representatives to the wisdom of
The provincial government will no the legislature.
longer be responsible for delivering
basic services for the city residents’ The first clause of Section 11(b) of
benefit. Ordinances and resolutions R.A. No. 7941 states that "parties,
passed by the provincial council will organizations, and coalitions
no longer cover the city. Projects receiving at least two percent (2%)
queued by the provincial of the total votes cast for the party-
government to be executed in the list system shall be entitled to one
city will also be suspended if not seat each."
scrapped to prevent the LGU from
performing functions outside the The remaining available seats for
bounds of its territorial jurisdiction, allocation as "additional seats" are
and from expending its limited the maximum seats reserved under
resources for ventures that do not the Party List System less the
cater to its constituents.1060 guaranteed seats. Fractional seats
are disregarded in the absence of a
7) How to compute the number of provision in R.A. No. 7941 allowing
party-list representatives? for a rounding off of fractional seats.
It was held in the case of Banat v. The percentage of votes garnered

COMELEC1061 that Section 5(2), by each party-list candidate is
Article VI of the Constitution, on the arrived at by dividing the number of
other hand, states the ratio of party- votes garnered by each party by
list representatives to the total 15,950,900, the total number of
number of representatives. We votes cast for party-list candidates.
compute the number of seats There are two steps in the second
available to party-list round of seat allocation. First, the
representatives from the number of percentage is multiplied by the
legislative districts. On this point, remaining available seats, 38,
we do not deviate from the first which is the difference between the
formula in Veterans, thus: 55 maximum seats reserved under
the Party-List System and the 17
guaranteed seats of the two-
percenters. The whole integer of
the product of the percentage and
of the remaining available seats
This formula allows for the corresponds to a partys share in the
corresponding increase in the remaining available seats. Second,
number of seats available for party- we assign one party-list seat to
list representatives whenever a each of the parties next in rank until
legislative district is created by law. all available seats are completely
Since the 14th Congress of the distributed. We distributed all of the
Philippines has 220 district remaining 38 seats in the second
representatives, there are 55 seats round of seat allocation. Finally, we
available to party-list apply the three-seat cap to
representatives. After prescribing determine the number of seats
the ratio of the number of party-list each qualified party-list candidate is
representatives to the total number entitled.
of representatives, the Constitution
1060Umali v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 203974, April 1061 G.R. No. 179271, April 21, 2009
22, 2014
(Colossians 3:23)
8) Can an organization composed of declaration of private respondent’s

men and women who identify ineligibility. The use of the word
themselves as lesbians, gays, sole emphasizes the exclusive
bisexuals, or trans-gendered character of the jurisdiction
individuals (LGBTs) file an conferred. The exercise of the
application with the COMELEC as power by the Electoral Commission
party list representatives? under the 1935 Constitution has
been described as intended to be
Yes. In the case of Ang Ladlad v. as complete and unimpaired as if it
COMELEC,1062 the Court held that had remained originally in the
moral disapproval, without more, is legislature. Earlier, this grant of
not a sufficient governmental power to the legislature was
interest to justify exclusion of characterized by Justice Malcolm
homosexuals from participation in as full, clear and complete. Under
the party-list system. The denial of the amended 1935 Constitution, the
Ang Ladlads registration on purely power was unqualifiedly reposed
moral grounds amounts more to a upon the Electoral Tribunal and it
statement of dislike and disapproval remained as full, clear and
of homosexuals, rather than a tool complete as that previously granted
to further any substantial public the legislature and the Electoral
interest. Respondents blanket Commission.
justifications give rise to the
inevitable conclusion that the 10) Can a non-sectoral party also
COMELEC targets homosexuals qualify under the party-list system
themselves as a class, not because even though they do not represent
of any particular morally the marginalized and
reprehensible act. It is this selective underrepresented sector?
targeting that implicates our equal
protection clause. Yes. In the case of Paglaum v.
COMELEC,1064 the Court held that
9) Who has the jurisdiction with regard the framers of the 1987 Constitution
to the party-list representative after intended the party-list system to
its proclamation and assumption of include not only sectoral parties but
office? also non-sectoral parties. The
framers intended the sectoral
It was held in the case of Bello v. parties to constitute a part, but not
COMELEC1063 that the consistent the entirety, of the party-list system.
judicial holding is that the HRET As explained by Commissioner
has jurisdiction to pass upon the Wilfredo Villacorta, political parties
qualifications of party-list nominees can participate in the party-list
after their proclamation and system "For as long as they field
assumption of office; they are, for candidates who come from the
all intents and purposes, elected different marginalized sectors that
members of the House of we shall designate in this
Representatives although the entity Constitution."
directly voted upon was their party.
Under the party-list system, an
Pursuant to Art. VI, 17 of the ideology-based or cause-oriented
Constitution, the House of political party is clearly different
Representatives Electoral Tribunal from a sectoral party. A political
has the exclusive original party need not be organized as a
jurisdiction over the petition for the sectoral party and need not
1062 G.R. No. 190582, April 8, 2010 1064 G.R. No. 203766, April 2, 2013
1063 G.R. No. 191998, December 7, 2010
(Colossians 3:23)
represent any particular sector. conditions stated above, the lack of

There is no requirement in R.A. No. identification — sentimental, actual
7941 that a national or regional or otherwise — with the area, and
political party must represent a the suspicious circumstances
"marginalized and under which the lease agreement
underrepresented" sector. It is was effected all belie petitioner's
sufficient that the political party claim of residency for the period
consists of citizens who advocate required by the Constitution, in the
the same ideology or platform, or Second District of Makati.
the same governance principles
and policies, regardless of their In the absence of clear and positive
economic status as citizens. proof, the domicile of origin be
deemed to continue requirements
Section 6. No person shall be a Member are hardly met by the evidence
of the House of Representatives unless adduced in support of petitioner's
he is a natural-born citizen of the claims of a change of domicile from
Philippines and, on the day of the Tarlac to the Second District of
election, is at least twenty-five years of Makati. In the absence of clear and
age, able to read and write, and, except positive proof, the domicile of origin
the party-list representatives, a should be deemed to continue.
registered voter in the district in which
he shall be elected, and a resident 2) BAR EXAM:
thereof for a period of not less than one
year immediately preceding the day of Onofre, a natural born Filipino
the election. citizen, arrived in the United States
in 1985. In 1990, he married
Q & A: Salvacion, a Mexican, and together
they applied for and obtained
1) Can a person, with a 1 year and 13 American citizenship in 2001. In
days residency in Makati, file a 2015, the couple and their children
Certificate of Candidacy for the --Alfred, 21 years of age, Robert,
position of Representative for the 16, and Marie, 14, who were all
new Second Legislative district of born in the U.S. -- returned to the
Makati even though he is born in Philippines on June 1, 2015. On
Tarlac, a resident and a registered June 15, 2015, informed that he
voter therein, and only leased a could reacquire Philippine
condominium unit in Makati City? citizenship without losing his
American citizenship, Onofre went
It was held in the case of Aquino v. home to the Philippines and took
COMELEC1065 that from data the oath of allegiance prescribed
furnished by petitioner himself to under R.A. No. 9225. On October
the COMELEC at various times 28, 2015, he filed a Certificate of
during his political career, what Candidacy to run in the May 9, 2016
stands consistently clear and elections for the position of
unassailable is that this domicile of Congressman in his home province
origin of record up to the time of of Pala wan, running against re-
filing of his most recent certificate of electionist Congressman Profundo.
candidacy for the 1995 elections
was Concepcion, Tarlac. QUESTION:
The absence of clear and positive Before the May 9, 2016 elections,
proof showing a successful Profundo's lawyer filed a Petition to
abandonment of domicile under the Deny Due Course or to Cancel the
1065 G.R. No. 120265, September 18, 1995

(Colossians 3:23)
Certificate of Candidacy against Section 9. In case of vacancy in the

Onofre. What grounds can he raise Senate or in the House of
in his Petition to support it? Explain Representatives, a special election may
your answer.1066 be called to fill such vacancy in the
manner prescribed by law, but the
ANSWER: Senator or Member of the House of
Representatives thus elected shall
If I were Profundo's lawyer, I will serve only for the unexpired term.
invoke failure to meet the one year
residency requirement and failure Section 10. The salaries of Senators and
to renounce foreign citizenship as Members of the House of
grounds in order to cancel the Representatives shall be determined by
Certificate of Candidacy of Onofre. law. No increase in said compensation
shall take effect until after the expiration
It is required under the 1987 of the full term of all the Members of the
Constitution that any candidate for Senate and the House of
congress should be a resident of Representatives approving such
the district that he wants to increase.
represent for at least one year.
Also, prevailing law states that Q & A:
persons who wants to seek public
office should renounce their foreign 1) Can the Congress pass a law
citizenship to enable themselves to authorizing the increase in their
qualify to run for public office here compensation even their term has
in the Philippines. not yet expired?
Since both requirements were not No. The Court ruled in the case of
met by Onofre, such grounds may Philippine Constitution Association
be invoked by Profundo’s lawyer in Inc. v. Mathay1067 that the purpose
order to cancel the Certificate of of the provision is to place "a legal
Candidacy of the former. bar to the legislators yielding to the
natural temptation to increase their
Section 7. The Members of the House of salaries. Not that the power to
Representatives shall be elected for a provide for higher compensation is
term of three years which shall begin, lacking, but with the length of time
unless otherwise provided by law, at that has to elapse before an
noon on the thirtieth day of June next increase becomes effective, there
following their election. No Member of is a deterrent factor to any such
the House of Representatives shall measure unless the need for it is
serve for more than three consecutive clearly felt" (Tañada & Fernando,
terms. Voluntary renunciation of the Constitution of the Philippines, Vol.
office for any length of time shall not be 2, p. 867).
considered as an interruption in the
continuity of his service for the full term Also, the argument that if the
for which he was elected. intention was to require that the
term of office of the Senators, as
Section 8. Unless otherwise provided by well as that of the Representatives,
law, the regular election of the Senators must all expire the Constitution
and the Members of the House of would have spoken of the "terms"
Representatives shall be held on the (in the plural) "of the members of
second Monday of May. the Senate and of the House",
instead of using "term" in the
singular (as the Constitution does in
1066 2016 Political Law Bar Exam 1067 G.R. No. L-25554, October 4, 1966
(Colossians 3:23)
section 14 of Article VI), has been the Congress or in any committee

already considered. As previously thereof.
observed, the use of the singular
form "term" precisely emphasizes Section 12. All Members of the Senate
that in the provision in question the and the House of Representatives shall,
Constitution envisaged both upon assumption of office, make a full
legislative chambers as one single disclosure of their financial and
unit, and this conclusion is business interests. They shall notify the
reinforced by the expression House concerned of a potential conflict
employed, "until the expiration of of interest that may arise from the filing
the full term of ALL the members of of a proposed legislation of which they
the Senate and of the House of are authors.
Representatives approving such
increase". Section 13. No Senator or Member of the
House of Representatives may hold any
2) Can the petitioner-Congressman other office or employment in the
appeal his claim for retirement Government, or any subdivision,
gratuity computed on the basis of agency, or instrumentality thereof,
the increased salary which was not including government-owned or
applied to him during his controlled corporations or their
incumbency which ended subsidiaries, during his term without
December 30, 1969? forfeiting his seat. Neither shall he be
appointed to any office which may have
No. In the case of Ligot v. been created or the emoluments thereof
Mathay1068 the Court held that the increased during the term for which he
salary increase for members of was elected.
Congress under Republic Act 4134
could be operative only for Section 14. No Senator or Member of the
incoming members of Congress House of Representatives may
when the full term of all members of personally appear as counsel before
Congress (House and Senate) that any court of justice or before the
approved the increase (such as Electoral Tribunals, or quasi-judicial
petitioner) will have expired. and other administrative bodies. Neither
shall he, directly or indirectly, be
As stressed by the Auditor General interested financially in any contract
in his decision in the similar case of with, or in any franchise or special
petitioner's colleague, ex- privilege granted by the Government, or
Congressman Singson, "(S)uch a any subdivision, agency, or
scheme would contravene the instrumentality thereof, including any
Constitution for it would lead to the government-owned or controlled
same prohibited result by enabling corporation, or its subsidiary, during his
administrative authorities to do term of office. He shall not intervene in
indirectly what cannot be done any matter before any office of the
directly. Government for his pecuniary benefit or
where he may be called upon to act on
Section 11. A Senator or Member of the account of his office.
House of Representatives shall, in all
offenses punishable by not more than Section 15. The Congress shall convene
six years imprisonment, be privileged once every year on the fourth Monday of
from arrest while the Congress is in July for its regular session, unless a
session. No Member shall be different date is fixed by law, and shall
questioned nor be held liable in any continue to be in session for such
other place for any speech or debate in number of days as it may determine
1068 G.R. No. L-34676, April 30, 1974

(Colossians 3:23)
until thirty days before the opening of its nor to any other place than that
next regular session, exclusive of in which the two Houses shall be
Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays. sitting.
The President may call a special
session at any time. Q & A:
Section 16. 1) Can the Courts review the selection

of the senators with regard to the
1. The Senate shall elect its presiding Senate President?
President and the House of
Representatives, its Speaker, by No. In the case of Avelino v.
a majority vote of all its Cuenco,1069 the Court held that it
respective Members. Each must abstain in this case because
House shall choose such other the selection of the presiding officer
officers as it may deem affect only the Senators themselves
necessary. who are at liberty at any time to
choose their officers, change or
2. A majority of each House shall reinstate them. Anyway, if, as the
constitute a quorum to do petition must imply to be
business, but a smaller number acceptable, the majority of the
may adjourn from day to day and Senators want petitioner to preside,
may compel the attendance of his remedy lies in the Senate
absent Members in such manner, Session Hall — not in the Supreme
and under such penalties, as Court.
such House may provide.
2) Can the Courts review the selection
3. Each House may determine the of the senators with regard to the
rules of its proceedings, punish voted minority leader?
its Members for disorderly
behavior, and, with the No. In the case of Santiago v.
concurrence of two-thirds of all Guingona,1070 the Court held that
its Members, suspend or expel a Congress verily has the power and
Member. A penalty of prerogative to provide for such
suspension, when imposed, officers as it may deem. And it is
shall not exceed sixty days. certainly within its own jurisdiction
and discretion to prescribe the
4. Each House shall keep a Journal parameters for the exercise of this
of its proceedings, and from time prerogative. This Court has no
to time publish the same, authority to interfere and unilaterally
excepting such parts as may, in intrude into that exclusive realm,
its judgment, affect national without running afoul of
security; and the yeas and nays constitutional principles that it is
on any question shall, at the bound to protect and uphold — the
request of one-fifth of the very duty that justifies the Court's
Members present, be entered in being. Constitutional respect and a
the Journal. Each House shall becoming regard for the sovereign
also keep a Record of its acts of a coequal branch prevents
proceedings. this Court from prying into the
internal workings of the Senate. To
5. Neither House during the repeat, this Court will be neither a
sessions of the Congress shall, tyrant nor a wimp; rather, it will
without the consent of the other, remain steadfast and judicious in
adjourn for more than three days,
1069 G.R. No. L-2821, March 4, 1949 1070 G.R. No. 134577, November 18, 1998
(Colossians 3:23)
upholding the rule and majesty of purposely withheld from the two
the law. Houses of the Legislature and the
Governor-General alike the power
While no provision of the to suspend an appointive member
Constitution or the laws or the rules of the Legislature.
and even the practice of the Senate
was violated, and while the judiciary The power of the Senate to punish
is without power to decide matters its members for disorderly behavior
over which full discretionary does not authorize it to suspend on
authority has been lodged in the appointive member from the
legislative department, this Court exercise of his office for one year,
may still inquire whether an act of conceding what has been so well
Congress or its officials has been stated by the learned counsel for
made with grave abuse of the petitioner, conceding all this and
discretion. This is the plain more, yet the writ prayed for cannot
implication of Section 1, Article VIII issue, for the all-conclusive reason
of the Constitution, which expressly that the Supreme Court does not
confers upon the judiciary the possess the power of coercion to
power and the duty not only "to make the Philippine Senate take
settle actual controversies involving any particular action. If it be said
rights which are legally demandable that this conclusion leaves the
and enforceable," but likewise "to petitioner without a remedy, the
determine whether or not there has answer is that the judiciary is not
been a grave abuse of discretion the repository of all wisdom and all
amounting to lack or excess of power. It would hardly be becoming
jurisdiction on the part of any for the judiciary to assume the role
branch or instrumentality of the of either a credulous inquisitor, a
Government." querulous censor, or a jaunty
knight, who passes down the halls
3) Can the Supreme Court of the of legislation and of administration
Philippines Islands by mandamus giving heed to those who have
and injunction annul the suspension grievances against the Legislature
of a Senator and compel the and the Chief Executive.
Philippine Senate to reinstate him in
his official position? 4) Can the Sandiganbayan cite in
contempt of court the Speaker of
No. In the case of Alejandrino v. the House of Representatives for
Quezon,1071 the Court held that refusing to implement the
either House (Senate and House of preventive suspension order it
Representatives) may thus punish issued in a criminal case against a
an appointive member for member of the House.
disorderly behavior. Neither House
may expel an appointive member Yes. In the case of De Venecia v.
for any reason. As to whether the Sandiganbayan,1072 the Court held
power to "suspend" is then included that the doctrine of separation of
in the power to "punish," a power powers by itself may not be deemed
granted to the two Houses of the to have effectively excluded
Legislature by the Constitution, or in members of Congress from
the power to "remove," a power Republic Act No. 3019 nor from its
granted to the Governor-General by sanctions. The maxim simply
the Constitution, it would appear recognizes that each of the three
that neither is the correct co-equal and independent, albeit
hypothesis. The Constitution has coordinate, branches of the
1071 G.R. No. 22041, September 11, 1924 1072 G.R. No. 130240, February 5, 2002
(Colossians 3:23)
government - the Legislative, the 1) May the House of Representatives,

Executive and the Judiciary - has at the request of the dominant
exclusive prerogatives and political party therein, change that
cognizance within its own sphere of party's representation in the House
influence and effectively prevents Electoral Tribunal to thwart the
one branch from unduly intruding promulgation of a decision freely
into the internal affairs of either reached by the tribunal in an
branch. election contest pending therein?
May the Supreme Court review and
5) Can the Courts review judgements annul that action of the House?
made by the House or Senate in
excluding their own member? No. In the case of Bondoc v.
Pineda,1074 the Court held that the
Yes. In the case of Powell v. independence of the House
McCormack,1073 the court held that Electoral Tribunal so zealously
the judgment made by the House or guarded by the framers of our
Senate in excluding a member Constitution, would, however, by a
arises from the allocation of powers myth and its proceedings a farce if
between the two branches of the the House of Representatives, or
Federal Government (a question of the majority party therein, may
justiciability). "Judicial Power shall shuffle and manipulate the political
extend to all Cases . . . arising (as distinguished from the judicial)
under this Constitution. . . ." It has component of the electoral tribunal,
long been held that a suit "arises to serve the interests of the party in
under" the Constitution if a power.
petitioner's claim "will be sustained
if the Constitution . . . [is] given one The resolution of the House of
construction and will be defeated if Representatives removing
[it is] given another." Congressman Camasura from the
House Electoral Tribunal for
Section 17. The Senate and the House of disloyalty to the LDP, because he
Representatives shall each have an cast his vote in favor of the
Electoral Tribunal which shall be the Nacionalista Party's candidate,
sole judge of all contests relating to the Bondoc, is a clear impairment of the
election, returns, and qualifications of constitutional prerogative of the
their respective Members. Each House Electoral Tribunal to be the
Electoral Tribunal shall be composed of sole judge of the election contest
nine Members, three of whom shall be between Pineda and Bondoc.
Justices of the Supreme Court to be
designated by the Chief Justice, and the To sanction such interference by
remaining six shall be Members of the the House of Representatives in the
Senate or the House of Representatives, work of the House Electoral
as the case may be, who shall be chosen Tribunal would reduce the tribunal
on the basis of proportional to a mere tool for the
representation from the political parties aggrandizement of the party in
and the parties or organizations power (LDP) which the three
registered under the party-list system justices of the Supreme Court and
represented therein. The senior Justice the lone NP member would be
in the Electoral Tribunal shall be its powerless to stop. A minority party
Chairman. candidate may as well abandon all
hope at the threshold of the tribunal.
Q & A:
1073 395 U.S. 486 (1969) 1074 G.R. No. 97710, September 26, 1991
(Colossians 3:23)
2) Can HRET assume jurisdiction over election, returns, and qualifications

cases involving motion for ends, and the HRET’s own
reconsiderations that is still to be jurisdiction begins. (Ongsiako
1076
decided by the COMELEC En Reyes v. COMELEC)
Banc?
Section 18. There shall be a
No. In the case of Codilla v. De Commission on Appointments
Venecia1075 the Court held that consisting of the President of the
when the validity of the Resolution Senate, as ex officio Chairman, twelve
of the COMELEC Second Division Senators, and twelve Members of the
was seasonably challenged by the House of Representatives, elected by
petitioner in his Motion for each House on the basis of proportional
Reconsideration, the issue was still representation from the political parties
within the exclusive jurisdiction of and parties or organizations registered
the COMELEC en banc to resolve. under the party-list system represented
Hence, the HRET cannot assume therein. The chairman of the
jurisdiction over the matter. Commission shall not vote, except in
case of a tie. The Commission shall act
3) Sec. 17, Art. VI of the Constitution on all appointments submitted to it
establishes an Electoral Tribunal for within thirty session days of the
each of the Houses of Congress, Congress from their submission. The
and makes each Electoral Tribunal Commission shall rule by a majority
"the sole judge of all contests vote of all the Members.
relating to the election, returns, and
qualifications of their respective Q & A:
Members." On the other hand, Sec.
2(1), C (Commission on Elections), 1) Can the Senators and members of
Art. IX of the Constitution grants to the House of Representatives,
the COMELEC the power to purporting to act as the
enforce and administer all laws and Commission on Appointments,
regulations "relative to the conduct reject or approve an ad interim
of an election, plebiscite, initiative, appointment?
referendum, and recall."
No. In the case of Cunanan v.
Considering that there is no Tan,1077 the Court held that the
concurrence of jurisdiction between Commission on Appointments is it
the Electoral Tribunals and the creature of the Constitution.
COMELEC, state when the Although its membership is
jurisdiction of the Electoral confined to members of Congress,
Tribunals begins, and the said Commission is independent of
COMELEC's jurisdiction ends. Congress. The powers of the
Explain your answer. (BAR EXAM) Commission do not come from
Congress, but emanate directly
ANSWER: from the Constitution. Hence, it is
not an agent of Congress. In fact,
The Court has invariably held that the functions of the Commissioner
once a winning candidate has been are purely executive in nature. In
proclaimed, taken his oath, and order that the members of the
assumed office as a Member of the Commission could properly
House of Representatives, the discharge their duties as such, it is
COMELEC’s jurisdiction over essential that their tenure therein be
election contests relating to his provided with a certain measure of
1075 G.R. No. 150605, December 10, 2002 1077 G.R. No. L-19721, May 10, 1962
1076 G.R. No. 207264, June 25, 2013
(Colossians 3:23)
stability to insure the necessary rights of persons appearing in, or

freedom of action. affected by, such inquiries shall be
respected.
A shifting of votes at a given time,
even if due to arrangements of a Q & A:
more or less temporary nature, like
the one that has led to the formation 1) What is an “inquiry in aid of
of the so-called "Allied Majority", legislation”?
does not suffice to authorize a
reorganization of the membership Such inquiries may refer to the
of the Commission for said House. implementation or re-examination
Otherwise, the Commission on of any law or in connection with any
Appointments may have to be proposed legislation or the
reorganized as often as votes shift formulation of future legislation.
from one side to another in the They may also extend to any and all
House. The framers of our matters vested by the Constitution
Constitution could not have in Congress and/or in the Senate
intended to thus place a alone.1078
constitutional organ, like the
Commission on Appointments, at 2) Is the power of both houses of
the mercy of each House of Congress to conduct inquiries in aid
Congress. of legislation absolute?
Section 19. The Electoral Tribunals and No. The power of both houses of
the Commission on Appointments shall Congress to conduct inquiries in aid
be constituted within thirty days after of legislation is not, therefore,
the Senate and the House of absolute or unlimited. Its exercise is
Representatives shall have been circumscribed by the afore-quoted
organized with the election of the provision of the Constitution. Thus,
President and the Speaker. The as provided therein, the
Commission on Appointments shall investigation must be "in aid of
meet only while the Congress is in legislation in accordance with its
session, at the call of its Chairman or a duly published rules of procedure"
majority of all its Members, to discharge and that "the rights of persons
such powers and functions as are appearing in or affected by such
herein conferred upon it. inquiries shall be respected." It
follows then that the rights of
Section 20. The records and books of persons under the Bill of Rights
accounts of the Congress shall be must be respected, including the
preserved and be open to the public in right to due process and the right
accordance with law, and such books not to be compelled to testify
shall be audited by the Commission on against one's self.1079
Audit which shall publish annually an
itemized list of amounts paid to and 3) Can the Senate still conduct an
expenses for each Member. inquiry in aid of legislation even if
the jurisdiction of the graft and
Section 21. The Senate or the House of corruption case was already been
Representatives or any of its respective acquired by the Sandiganbayan?
committees may conduct inquiries in
aid of legislation in accordance with its
duly published rules of procedure. The
1078 Bengzon v. Senate Blue Ribbon 1079 Bengzon v. Senate Blue Ribbon
Committee, G.R. No. 89914, November 20, Committee, G.R. No. 89914, November 20,
1991 1991
(Colossians 3:23)
No. In the case of Bengzon v. diplomatic and other national

Senate Blue Ribbon Committee,1080 security matters.
the Court held that to allow the
respondent Committee to conduct The same case held that closed-
its own investigation of an issue door Cabinet meetings are also a
already before the Sandiganbayan recognized limitation on the right to
would not only pose the possibility information.
of conflicting judgments between a
legislative committee and a judicial The Court ruled that the right to
tribunal, but if the Committee's information does not extend to
judgment were to be reached matters recognized as privileged
before that of the Sandiganbayan, information under the separation of
the possibility of its influence being powers, by which the Court meant
made to bear on the ultimate Presidential conversations,
judgment of the Sandiganbayan correspondences, and discussions
cannot be discounted. in closed-door Cabinet meetings. It
also held that information on
4) Is the power of inquiry also covers military and diplomatic secrets and
officials of the executive those affecting national security,
department? and information on investigations of
crimes by law enforcement
Yes. It was held in the case of agencies before the prosecution of
Senate v. Ermita1081 that the power the accused were exempted from
of inquiry is broad enough to cover the right to information.
officials of the executive branch
may be deduced from the same From the above discussion on the
case. The power of inquiry, the meaning and scope of executive
Court therein ruled, is co-extensive privilege, both in the United States
with the power to legislate. and in this jurisdiction, a clear
principle emerges. Executive
The matters which may be a proper privilege, whether asserted against
subject of legislation and those Congress, the courts, or the public,
which may be a proper subject of is recognized only in relation to
investigation are one. It follows that certain types of information of a
the operation of government, being sensitive character. While
a legitimate subject for legislation, executive privilege is a
is a proper subject for investigation. constitutional concept, a claim
thereof may be valid or not
5) What is the limitation/s to the power depending on the ground invoked to
of inquiry that can be invoked by the justify it and the context in which it
executive department? is made. Noticeably absent is any
recognition that executive officials
The power of “Executive Privilege.” are exempt from the duty to
disclose information by the mere
The Court held in the case of fact of being executive officials.
Senate v. Ermita1082 that this Indeed, the extraordinary character
jurisdiction recognizes the common of the exemptions indicates that the
law holding that there is a presumption inclines heavily
governmental privilege against against executive secrecy and in
public disclosure with respect to favor of disclosure.
state secrets regarding military,
6) What is an “Executive Privilege”?
1080 G.R. No. 89914, November 20, 1991 1082 G.R. No. 169777, April 20, 2006
1081 G.R. No. 169777, April 20, 2006
(Colossians 3:23)
candor of presidential advisors and

It is the power of the Government to to provide the President and those
withhold information from the who assist him with freedom to
public, the courts, and the explore alternatives in the process
Congress. of shaping policies and making
decisions and to do so in a way
Executive privilege, whether many would be unwilling to express
asserted against Congress, the except privately.
courts, or the public, is recognized
only in relation to certain types of 8) What are the two kinds of
information of a sensitive character. “Executive Privilege”?
While executive privilege is a
constitutional concept, a claim In In Re: Sealed Case,1085 the U.S.
thereof may be valid or not Court of Appeals delved deeper. It
depending on the ground invoked to ruled that there are two (2) kinds of
justify it and the context in which it executive privilege;
is made. Noticeably absent is any
recognition that executive officials a. Presidential communications
are exempt from the duty to privilege; and
disclose information by the mere
fact of being executive officials. b. Deliberative process privilege.
Indeed, the extraordinary character
of the exemptions indicates that the The Presidential Communications
presumption inclines heavily Privilege pertains to
against executive secrecy and in communications, documents or
favor of disclosure.1083 other materials that reflect
presidential decision-making and
7) What is the “Presidential deliberations and that the President
Communications Privilege”? believes should remain
confidential.
The Nixon and post-Watergate
cases established the broad Deliberative Process Privilege, on
contours of the presidential the other hand includes advisory
communications privilege. opinions, recommendations and
deliberations comprising part of a
In United States v. Nixon,1084 the process by which governmental
U.S. Court recognized a great decisions and policies are
public interest in preserving the formulated.
confidentiality of conversations that
take place in the Presidents Accordingly, they are characterized
performance of his official duties. by marked distinctions. Presidential
communications privilege applies to
It thus considered presidential decision-making of the President
communications as presumptively while, the deliberative process
privileged. privilege, to decision-making of
executive officials. The first is
Apparently, the presumption is rooted in the constitutional principle
founded on the Presidents of separation of power and the
generalized interest in Presidents unique constitutional
confidentiality. The privilege is said role; the second on common law
to be necessary to guarantee the privilege. Unlike the deliberative
1083 Senate v. Ermita, G.R. No. 169777, April 1085

In Re: Sealed Case No. 96-3124, June 17,
20, 2006 1997
1084 418 U.S. 683
(Colossians 3:23)
process privilege, the presidential and, that the information sought to

communications privilege applies to be disclosed might impair our
documents in their entirety, and diplomatic as well as economic
covers final and post-decisional relations with the People’s Republic
materials as well as pre-deliberative of China?
ones
Yes. It was held in the case of Neri
9) What are the requisites of v. Senate1087 that first, the
“Presidential Communications communications relate to a
Privilege”? quintessential and non-delegable
power of the President, i.e. the
The above cases, especially, power to enter into an executive
Nixon, In Re Sealed Case and agreement with other countries.
Judicial Watch, somehow provide This authority of the President to
the elements of presidential enter into executive agreements
communications privilege, to wit: without the concurrence of the
Legislature has traditionally been
a. The protected communication recognized in Philippine
must relate to a quintessential jurisprudence.
and non-delegable presidential
power. Second, the communications are
received by a close advisor of the
b. The communication must be President. Under the operational
authored or solicited and proximity test, petitioner can be
received by a close advisor of considered a close advisor, being a
the President or the President member of President Arroyo’s
himself. The judicial test is that cabinet.
an advisor must be in
operational proximity with the And third, there is no adequate
President. showing of a compelling need that
would justify the limitation of the
c. The presidential privilege and of the unavailability of
communications privilege the information elsewhere by an
remains a qualified privilege appropriate investigating authority.
that may be overcome by a
showing of adequate need, Here, the record is bereft of any
such that the information sought categorical explanation from
likely contains important respondent Committees to show a
evidence and by the compelling or citical need for the
unavailability of the information answers to the three (3) questions
elsewhere by an appropriate in the enactment of a law. Instead,
investigating authority.1086 the questions veer more towards
the exercise of the legislative
10) Can the Executive Secretary oversight function under Section 22
premise his claim of executive of Article VI rather than Section 21
privilege on the ground that the of the same Article. Senate v.
communications elicited by the Ermita ruled that the the oversight
three (3) questions fall under function of Congress may be
conversation and correspondence facilitated by compulsory process
between the President and public only to the extent that it is
officials necessary in her executive performed in pursuit of legislation. It
and policy decision-making process is conceded that it is difficult to draw
1086 Neri v. Senate, G.R. No. 180643, 1087 G.R. No. 180643, September 4, 2008
September 4, 2008
(Colossians 3:23)
the line between an inquiry in aid of statement of grounds satisfies the

legislation and an inquiry in the requirement:
exercise of oversight function of
Congress. In this regard, much will “The context in which executive
depend on the content of the privilege is being invoked is that the
questions and the manner the information sought to be disclosed
inquiry is conducted. might impair our diplomatic as well
as economic relations with the
More than anything else, though, People’s Republic of China. Given
the right of Congress or any of its the confidential nature in which
Committees to obtain information in these information were conveyed to
aid of legislation cannot be equated the President, he cannot provide
with the people’s right to public the Committee any further details of
information. The former cannot these conversations, without
claim that every legislative inquiry is disclosing the very thing the
an exercise of the people’s right to privilege is designed to protect.”
information.
At any rate, as held further in
For one, the demand of a citizen for Senate v. Ermita, the Congress
the production of documents must not require the executive to
pursuant to his right to information state the reasons for the claim with
does not have the same obligatory such particularity as to compel
force as a subpoena duces tecum disclosure of the information which
issued by Congress. Neither does the privilege is meant to protect.
the right to information grant a This is a matter of respect to a
citizen the power to exact testimony coordinate and co-equal
from government officials. These department.
powers belong only to Congress,
not to an individual citizen. 12) Differentiate “Question Hour” from
“Inquiries in aid of Legislation”
Thus, while Congress is composed
of representatives elected by the Question hour is a period of
people, it does not follow, except in confrontation initiated by
a highly qualified sense, that in Parliament to hold the Prime
every exercise of its power of Minister and the other ministers
inquiry, the people are exercising accountable for their acts and the
their right to information. operation of the government,
corresponding to what is known in
11) How to determine if the claim of Britain as the question period. In the
executive privilege is properly Philippines, the objective of the
invoked? “question hour” is to obtain
information in pursuit of Congress
The case of Senate v. Ermita only oversight function. Also,
requires that an allegation be made attendance was meant to be
whether the information demanded discretionary in the question hour.
involves military or diplomatic
secrets, closed-door Cabinet Aims of “inquiries in aid of
meetings, etc. The particular legislation,” on the other hand, is to
ground must only be specified. The elicit information that may be used
enumeration is not even intended to for legislation. Attendance is
be comprehensive. In the case of compulsory in “inquiries in aid of
Neri v. Senate the following legislation.”1088
1088Senate v. Ermita, G.R. No. 169777, April

20, 2006
(Colossians 3:23)
equal branch of government which

Inquiries in aid of legislation can be is sanctioned by a long-standing
found in Sec. 21 of Art. VI of the custom.
Constitution while question hour
can be found in Sec. 22 of Art. VI of By the same token, members of the
the Constitution. Supreme Court are also exempt
from this power of inquiry. Unlike
13) When Congress exercises its the Presidency, judicial power is
power of inquiry, can department vested in a collegial body; hence,
heads refuse to comply with its each member thereof is exempt on
demands for information? the basis not only of separation of
powers but also on the fiscal
No. In fine, the oversight function of autonomy and the constitutional
Congress may be facilitated by independence of the judiciary. This
compulsory process only to the point is not in dispute, as even
extent that it is performed in pursuit counsel for the Senate, Sen. Joker
of legislation. This is consistent with Arroyo, admitted it during the oral
the intent discerned from the argument upon interpellation of the
deliberations of the Constitutional Chief Justice.1089
Commission.
14) Can an implied claim for “Executive
Ultimately, the power of Congress Privilege” frustrate the Senate’s
to compel the appearance of inquiry in aid of legislation?
executive officials under Section 21
and the lack of it under Section 22 No. It should be noted that in the
find their basis in the principle of case of Senate v. Ermita,1090 the
separation of powers. Court held that the claim of privilege
under Section 3 of E.O. 464 in
While the executive branch is a co- relation to Section 2(b) is thus
equal branch of the legislature, it invalid per se. It is not asserted. It is
cannot frustrate the power of merely implied. Instead of providing
Congress to legislate by refusing to precise and certain reasons for the
comply with its demands for claim, it merely invokes E.O. 464,
information. coupled with an announcement that
the President has not given her
When Congress exercises its consent. It is woefully insufficient for
power of inquiry, the only way for Congress to determine whether the
department heads to exempt withholding of information is
themselves therefrom is by a valid justified under the circumstances of
claim of privilege. They are not each case. It severely frustrates the
exempt by the mere fact that they power of inquiry of Congress.
are department heads.
In fine, Section 3 and Section 2(b)
Only one executive official may be of E.O. 464 must be invalidated.
exempted from this power the
President on whom executive 15) Who is the proper party who can
power is vested, hence, beyond the validly invoke executive privilege?
reach of Congress except through
the power of impeachment. It is It was held in the case of Senate v.
based on her being the highest Ermita1091 that the Court finds it
official of the executive branch, and essential to limit to the President
the due respect accorded to a co- the power to invoke the privilege.
1089Senate v. Ermita, G.R. No. 169777, April 1090 G.R. No. 169777, April 20, 2006
20, 2006 1091 Ibid.
(Colossians 3:23)
She may of course authorize the inquiries in aid of legislation. That

Executive Secretary to invoke the such rights must indeed be
privilege on her behalf, in which respected by Congress is an echo
case the Executive Secretary must from Article VI Section 21 of the
state that the authority is By order Constitution mandating that [t]he
of the President, which means that rights of persons appearing in or
he personally consulted with her. affected by such inquiries shall be
The privilege being an respected.
extraordinary power, it must be
wielded only by the highest official Section 22. The heads of departments
in the executive hierarchy. In other may, upon their own initiative, with the
words, the President may not consent of the President, or upon the
authorize her subordinates to request of either House, as the rules of
exercise such power. each House shall provide, appear before
and be heard by such House on any
16) If “Executive Privilege” can only be matter pertaining to their departments.
invoked by the President, what is Written questions shall be submitted to
the executive official’s recourse in the President of the Senate or the
case he/she is summoned by Speaker of the House of
Congress? Representatives at least three days
before their scheduled appearance.
The Court held in the case of Interpellations shall not be limited to
Senate v. Ermita1092 that when an written questions, but may cover
official is being summoned by matters related thereto. When the
Congress on a matter which, in his security of the State or the public
own judgment, might be covered by interest so requires and the President
executive privilege, he must be so states in writing, the appearance
afforded reasonable time to inform shall be conducted in executive
the President or the Executive session.
Secretary of the possible need for
invoking the privilege. This is Section 23.
necessary in order to provide the
President or the Executive 1. The Congress, by a vote of two-
Secretary with fair opportunity to thirds of both Houses in joint
consider whether the matter indeed session assembled, voting
calls for a claim of executive separately, shall have the sole
privilege. If, after the lapse of that power to declare the existence of
reasonable time, neither the a state of war.
President nor the Executive
Secretary invokes the privilege, 2. In times of war or other national
Congress is no longer bound to emergency, the Congress may,
respect the failure of the official to by law, authorize the President,
appear before Congress and may for a limited period and subject
then opt to avail of the necessary to such restrictions as it may
legal means to compel his prescribe, to exercise powers
appearance. necessary and proper to carry
out a declared national policy.
The Court notes that one of the Unless sooner withdrawn by
expressed purposes for requiring resolution of the Congress, such
officials to secure the consent of the powers shall cease upon the next
President under Section 3 of E.O. adjournment thereof.
464 is to ensure respect for the
rights of public officials appearing in
1092 Ibid.
(Colossians 3:23)
Section 24. All appropriation, revenue or legislative process culminating in

tariff bills, bills authorizing increase of the enactment of the law — must
the public debt, bills of local application, substantially be the same as the
and private bills, shall originate House bill would be to deny the
exclusively in the House of Senate's power not only to "concur
Representatives, but the Senate may with amendments" but also to
propose or concur with amendments. "propose amendments." It would be
to violate the coequality of
Q & A: legislative power of the two houses
of Congress and in fact make the
1) Can the Courts amend the House superior to the Senate.
provisions of an enrolled bill in case
the Congress made any mistake in Section 25.
the printing of the bill before it was
certified by the officers of Congress 1. The Congress may not increase
and approved by the Executive? the appropriations
recommended by the President
No. In the case of Casco Philippine for the operation of the
Chemical Co., Inc. v. Gimenez,1093 Government as specified in the
the Court held that if there has been budget. The form, content, and
any mistake in the printing of the bill manner of preparation of the
before it was certified by the officers budget shall be prescribed by
of Congress and approved by the law.
Executive — on which we cannot
speculate, without jeopardizing the 2. No provision or enactment shall
principle of separation of powers be embraced in the general
and undermining one of the appropriations bill unless it
cornerstones of our democratic relates specifically to some
system — the remedy is by particular appropriation therein.
amendment or curative legislation, Any such provision or enactment
not by judicial decree. shall be limited in its operation to
the appropriation to which it
2) Can the Senate make changes or relates.
even rewrite the whole revenue bill
passed by the House of 3. The procedure in approving
Representatives? appropriations for the Congress
shall strictly follow the
Yes. In the case of Tolentino v. procedure for approving
Secretary of Finance,1094 the Court appropriations for other
held that it is important to departments and agencies.
emphasize this, because a bill
originating in the House may 4. A special appropriations bill
undergo such extensive changes in shall specify the purpose for
the Senate that the result may be a which it is intended, and shall be
rewriting of the whole. The supported by funds actually
possibility of a third version by the available as certified by the
conference committee will be National Treasurer, or to be
discussed later. At this point, what raised by a corresponding
is important to note is that, as a revenue proposal therein.
result of the Senate action, a
distinct bill may be produced. To 5. No law shall be passed
insist that a revenue statute — and authorizing any transfer of
not only the bill which initiated the appropriations; however, the
1093 G.R. No. L-17931, February 28, 1963 1094 G.R. No. 115455, August 25, 1994
(Colossians 3:23)
President, the President of the

Senate, the Speaker of the House The fundamental rule, as
of Representatives, the Chief categorically articulated in
Justice of the Supreme Court, Abakada, cannot be overstated –
and the heads of Constitutional from the moment the law becomes
Commissions may, by law, be effective, any provision of law that
authorized to augment any item empowers Congress or any of its
in the general appropriations law members to play any role in the
for their respective offices from implementation or enforcement of
savings in other items of their the law violates the principle of
respective appropriations. separation of powers and is thus
unconstitutional.
6. Discretionary funds
appropriated for particular 2) Did the Disbursement Acceleration
officials shall be disbursed only Program (DAP) violate Sec. 29, Art.
for public purposes to be VI of the 1987 Constitution, which
supported by appropriate provides: “No money shall be paid
vouchers and subject to such out of the Treasury except in
guidelines as may be prescribed pursuance of an appropriation
by law. made by law?
7. If, by the end of any fiscal year, Yes. The Court held in the case of
the Congress shall have failed to Araullo v. Aquino,1096 that the
pass the general appropriations transfer of appropriated funds, to be
bill for the ensuing fiscal year, valid under Section 25(5), supra,
the general appropriations law must be made upon a concurrence
for the preceding fiscal year shall of the following requisites, namely:
be deemed re-enacted and shall
remain in force and effect until a) There is a law authorizing the
the general appropriations bill is President, the President of the
passed by the Congress. Senate, the Speaker of the
House of Representatives, the
Q & A: Chief Justice of the Supreme
Court, and the heads of the
1) Is the law allowing legislators to Constitutional Commissions to
wield any form of post-enactment transfer funds within their
authority in the implementation or respective offices;
enforcement of the budget (Pork
Barrel), unrelated to congressional b) The funds to be transferred are
oversight, a violative of the doctrine savings generated from the
of separation of powers? appropriations for their
respective offices; and
Yes. In the case of Belgica v.
Ochoa,1095 the Court held that the c) The purpose of the transfer is to
post-enactment measures which augment an item in the general
govern the areas of project appropriations law for their
identification, fund release and fund respective offices.
realignment are not related to
functions of congressional Section 25(5), supra, not being a
oversight and, hence, allow self-executing provision of the
legislators to intervene and/or Constitution, must have an
assume duties that properly belong implementing law for it to be
to the sphere of budget execution. operative. That law, generally, is
1095 G.R. No. 208566, November 19, 2013 1096 G.R. No. 209287, July 1, 2014
(Colossians 3:23)
the GAA of a given fiscal year. To augment any item in the GAA "for
comply with the first requisite, the their respective offices," Section
GAAs should expressly authorize 25(5), supra, has delineated
the transfer of funds. borders between their offices, such
that funds appropriated for one
A reading shows, however, that the office are prohibited from crossing
aforequoted provisions of the GAAs over to another office even in the
of 2011 and 2012 were textually guise of augmentation of a deficient
unfaithful to the Constitution for not item or items. Thus, we call such
carrying the phrase "for their transfers of funds cross-border
respective offices" contained in transfers or cross-border
Section 25(5), supra. The impact of augmentations.
the phrase "for their respective
offices" was to authorize only 3) The Executive Department has
transfers of funds within their offices accumulated substantial savings
(i.e., in the case of the President, from its appropriations. Needing
the transfer was to an item of ₱3,000,000.00 for the conduct of a
appropriation within the Executive). plebiscite for the creation of a new
The provisions carried a different city but has no funds appropriated
phrase ("to augment any item in this soon by the Congress for the
Act"), and the effect was that the purpose, the COMELEC requests
2011 and 2012 GAAs thereby the President to transfer funds from
literally allowed the transfer of funds the savings of the Executive
from savings to augment any item Department in order to avoid a
in the GAAs even if the item delay in the holding of the
belonged to an office outside the plebiscite.
Executive. To that extent did the
2011 and 2012 GAAs contravene May the President validly exercise
the Constitution. At the very least, his power under the 1987
the aforequoted provisions cannot Constitution to transfer funds from
be used to claim authority to the savings of the Executive
transfer appropriations from the Department, and make a cross-
Executive to another branch, or to a border transfer of ₱3,000,000.00 to
constitutional commission. the COMELEC by way of
augmentation? (BAR EXAM)
The withdrawal and transfer of
unobligated allotments and the ANSWER:
pooling of unreleased
appropriations were invalid for No. The Court held in the case of
being bereft of legal support. Araullo v. Aquino1097 that funds
Nonetheless, such withdrawal of appropriated for one office are
unobligated allotments and the prohibited from crossing over to
retention of appropriated funds another office even in the guise of
cannot be considered as augmentation of a deficient item or
impoundment. items. Hence, transfer funds from
the savings of the Executive
By providing that the President, the Department to the COMELEC is
President of the Senate, the deemed unconstitutional.
Speaker of the House of
Representatives, the Chief Justice Will your answer be the same if the
of the Supreme Court, and the transfer is treated as aid to the
Heads of the Constitutional COMELEC? Explain your answer.
Commissions may be authorized to (BAR EXAM)
1097 G.R. No. 209287, July 1, 2014

(Colossians 3:23)
Is there an exception to the

ANSWER: provision? Explain your answer.
(BAR EXAM)
Yes. It is provided under the 1987
Constitution that no money shall be ANSWER:
paid out of the Treasury except in
pursuance of an appropriation Yes, if the President certifies to the
made by law. necessity of its immediate
enactment to meet a public calamity
Since the aid to COMELEC is not or emergency, the Congress can
duly appropriated under the law, the pass the same without complying
same cannot be disbursed in its with the “three readings on
favor on the ground that such action separate day requirement.”
will be deemed as unconstitutional.
Section 27.
Section 26.
1. Every bill passed by the
1. Every bill passed by the Congress shall, before it
Congress shall embrace only becomes a law, be presented to
one subject which shall be the President. If he approves the
expressed in the title thereof. same he shall sign it; otherwise,
he shall veto it and return the
2. No bill passed by either House same with his objections to the
shall become a law unless it has House where it originated, which
passed three readings on shall enter the objections at large
separate days, and printed in its Journal and proceed to
copies thereof in its final form reconsider it. If, after such
have been distributed to its reconsideration, two-thirds of all
Members three days before its the Members of such House shall
passage, except when the agree to pass the bill, it shall be
President certifies to the sent, together with the
necessity of its immediate objections, to the other House by
enactment to meet a public which it shall likewise be
calamity or emergency. Upon the reconsidered, and if approved by
last reading of a bill, no two-thirds of all the Members of
amendment thereto shall be that House, it shall become a law.
allowed, and the vote thereon In all such cases, the votes of
shall be taken immediately each House shall be determined
thereafter, and the yeas and nays by yeas or nays, and the names
entered in the Journal. of the Members voting for or
against shall be entered in its
Q & A: Journal. The President shall
communicate his veto of any bill
1) Sec. 26(2), Art. VI of the to the House where it originated
Constitution provides that no bill within thirty days after the date of
passed by either House of receipt thereof, otherwise, it shall
Congress shall become a law become a law as if he had signed
unless it has passed three readings it.
on separate days and printed
copies of it in its final form have 2. The President shall have the
been distributed to the Members of power to veto any particular item
the House three days before its or items in an appropriation,
passage. revenue, or tariff bill, but the veto
(Colossians 3:23)
shall not affect the item or items veto but also overlooks the
to which he does not object. Constitutional mandate that any
provision in the general
Q & A: appropriations bill shall relate
specifically to some particular
1) General Veto vis-à-vis Item Veto appropriation therein and that any
such provision shall be limited in its
General Veto – when the President operation to the appropriation to
veto the whole or entire bill passed which it relates (1987 Constitution,
by the legislature. Article VI, Section 25 [2]). In other
words, in the true sense of the term,
Item Veto – refers to the veto of a provision in an Appropriations Bill
particulars, the details, the distinct is limited in its operation to some
and severable parts of the bill. particular appropriation to which it
relates, and does not relate to the
2) As a rule, is a partial veto valid? entire bill.
No. As a rule, a partial veto is Also, "provisions" which do not

invalid. It is allowed only for relate to any particular or distinctive
particular items in an appropriation, appropriation may be vetoed.1100
revenue, or tariff bill.1098
It should be noted that the
3) Is pocket veto allowed in the President shall have the power to
Philippines? veto any particular item or items in
an appropriation, revenue, or tariff
No. Pocket veto happens when the bill pursuant to the 1987 Philippine
President would simply refuse to Constitution.1101
act on the bill by inaction.
5) Can the legislative department pass
Apparently, the President must a law without publishing the same?
communicate his decision to veto
within 30 days from the date of No. It was held in the landmark
receipt thereof. If he fails to do so, case of Tanada v. Tuvera,1102 the
the bill shall become a law as if he Court ruled that the publication is
signed it. Hence, eliminating any required to give the general public
pocket veto. adequate notice of various laws
which are to regulate their actions
4) Can the President veto an item or and conduct as citizens. Without
items in an appropriation, revenue, such notice and publications, there
or tariff bill? would be no basis for the
application of the maxim “ignorantia
Yes, in the case of Gonzales v. legis non excusat.” It would be the
Macaraig,1099 the Court held that height of injustice to punish or
the restrictive interpretation urged otherwise burden a citizen for the
by petitioners that the President transgression of a law of which he
may not veto a provision without had no notice whatsoever, not even
vetoing the entire bill not only a constructive one.
disregards the basic principle that a
distinct and severable part of a bill 6) A law is passed intended to protect
may be the subject of a separate women and children from all forms
1098 Antonio E.B. Nachura, Outline Reviewer in 1101 Sec. 27(2) of Article VI of the 1987
Political Law, 2015 edition, p. 327 Philippine Constitution
1099 G.R. No. 87636, November 19, 1990 1102 G.R. No. L-63915, April 24, 1985
1100 Ibid.
(Colossians 3:23)
of violence. When a woman dues, and other duties or

perceives an act to be an act of imposts within the framework of
violence or a threat of violence the national development
against her, she may apply for a program of the Government.
Barangay Protection Order (BPO)
to be issued by the Barangay 3. Charitable institutions, churches
Chairman, which shall have the and personages or convents
force and effect of law. Conrado, appurtenant thereto, mosques,
against whom a BPO had been non-profit cemeteries, and all
issued on petition of his wife, went lands, buildings, and
to court to challenge the improvements, actually, directly,
constitutionality of the law. He and exclusively used for
raised that the grant of authority to religious, charitable, or
the Barangay Chairman to issue a educational purposes shall be
Barangay Protection Order (BPO) exempt from taxation.
constitutes an undue delegation of
judicial power, because obviously, 4. No law granting any tax
the issuance of the BPO entails the exemption shall be passed
exercise of judicial power. Is the without the concurrence of a
contention correct? (BAR EXAM) majority of all the Members of the
Congress.
No. The Court held in the case of
Garcia v. Drilon1103 that the BPO Q & A:
issued by the Punong Barangay or,
in his unavailability, by any 1) Is the express grant to the
available Barangay Kagawad, President regarding the stand-by
merely orders the perpetrator to authority to raise the VAT rate from
desist from (a) causing physical 10% to 12% when a certain
harm to the woman or her child; and condition is met, constitute undue
(2) threatening to cause the woman delegation of the legislative power
or her child physical harm. Such to tax?
function of the Punong Barangay is,
thus, purely executive in nature, in No. In the case of ABAKADA Guro
pursuance of his duty under the v. Ermita,1104 the Court held that the
Local Government Code to legislature may delegate to
"enforce all laws and ordinances," executive officers or bodies the
and to "maintain public order in the power to determine certain facts or
barangay." conditions, or the happening of
contingencies, on which the
Section 28. operation of a statute is, by its
terms, made to depend, but the
1. The rule of taxation shall be legislature must prescribe sufficient
uniform and equitable. The standards, policies or limitations on
Congress shall evolve a their authority.
progressive system of taxation.
While the power to tax cannot be
2. The Congress may, by law, delegated to executive agencies,
authorize the President to fix details as to the enforcement and
within specified limits, and administration of an exercise of
subject to such limitations and such power may be left to them,
restrictions as it may impose, including the power to determine
tariff rates, import and export the existence of facts on which its
quotas, tonnage and wharfage operation depends.
1103 G.R. No. 179267, June 25, 2013 1104 G.R. No. 168056, September 1, 2005
(Colossians 3:23)
proscriptions. This stage, however,

Congress simply granted the has not been demonstrated to have
Secretary of Finance the authority been reached within any
to ascertain the existence of a fact, appreciable distance in this
namely, whether by December 31, controversy before us.
2005, the value-added tax
collection as a percentage of Gross 3) What type of tax/es are exempt
Domestic Product (GDP) of the under Sec. 28(3) of Article VI of the
previous year exceeds two and Constitution?
four-fifth percent (24/5%) or the
national government deficit as a The tax exemption under this
percentage of GDP of the previous constitutional provision covers
year exceeds one and one-half property taxes only (real property
percent (1%). If either of these two tax).1106
instances has occurred, the
Secretary of Finance, by legislative 4) Is the portion of the land is being
mandate, must submit such leased by a non-stock, non-profit
information to the President. Then hospital to private individuals, for
the 12% VAT rate must be imposed business purposes or for profit
by the President effective January activities, still exempt from real
1, 2006. There is no undue property tax?
delegation of legislative power but
only of the discretion as to the No. In the case of Lung Center v.
execution of a law. This is QC,1107 the Court held that under
constitutionally permissible. the 1973 and the present
Constitutions, for "lands, buildings,
2) Is the imposition of graduated rates and improvements" of the
of income tax to individuals, which charitable institution to be
is different on tax on corporations considered exempt, the same
and partnerships, violate the should not only be "exclusively"
constitutional mandate of uniform used for charitable purposes; it is
and equitable taxation? required that such property be used
"actually" and "directly" for such
No. In the case of Tan v. Del purposes.
Rosario,1105 the Court held that the
legislature primarily lies the Under the 1973 and 1987
discretion to determine the nature Constitutions and Rep. Act No.
(kind), object (purpose), extent 7160 in order to be entitled to the
(rate), coverage (subjects) and exemption, the petitioner is
situs (place) of taxation. This court burdened to prove, by clear and
cannot freely delve into those unequivocal proof, that (a) it is a
matters which, by constitutional fiat, charitable institution; and (b) its real
rightly rest on legislative judgment. properties are ACTUALLY,
DIRECTLY and EXCLUSIVELY
Of course, where a tax measure used for charitable purposes.
becomes so unconscionable and "Exclusive" is defined as possessed
unjust as to amount to confiscation and enjoyed to the exclusion of
of property, courts will not hesitate others; debarred from participation
to strike it down, for, despite all its or enjoyment; and "exclusively" is
plenitude, the power to tax cannot defined, "in a manner to exclude; as
override constitutional enjoying a privilege exclusively."
1105
G.R. No. 109289, October 3, 1994 1107 G.R. No. 144104, June 29, 2004
1106
Lung Center of the Philippines v. Rosas,
G.R. No. 144104, June 29, 2004
(Colossians 3:23)
administrative and disciplinary

If real property is used for one or cases?
more commercial purposes, it is not
exclusively used for the exempted No. In the case of Fabian v.
purposes but is subject to taxation. Disierto,1108 the Court held that such
law violates the proscription in
Section 29. Section 30, Article VI of the
Constitution against a law which
1. No money shall be paid out of the increases the Appellate jurisdiction
Treasury except in pursuance of of this Court. No countervailing
an appropriation made by law. argument has been cogently
presented to justify such disregard
2. No public money or property of the constitutional prohibition
shall be appropriated, applied, which, as correctly explained in
paid, or employed, directly or First Leparto Ceramics, Inc. vs. The
indirectly, for the use, benefit, or Court of Appeals, el al. was
support of any sect, church, intended to give this Court a
denomination, sectarian measure of control over cases
institution, or system of religion, placed under its appellate
or of any priest, preacher, Jurisdiction. Otherwise, the
minister, other religious teacher, indiscriminate enactment of
or dignitary as such, except legislation enlarging its appellate
when such priest, preacher, jurisdiction would unnecessarily
minister, or dignitary is assigned burden the Court.
to the armed forces, or to any
penal institution, or government 2) Is the direct filing to the Supreme
orphanage or leprosarium. Court allowed in case the petitioner
obtained a final decision from the
3. All money collected on any tax Board of Investments (BOI)?
levied for a special purpose shall
be treated as a special fund and No. In the case of First Lepanto v.
paid out for such purpose only. If CA,1109 the Court held that Circular
the purpose for which a special 1-91 effectively repealed or
fund was created has been superseded Article 82 of E.O. 226
fulfilled or abandoned, the insofar as the manner and method
balance, if any, shall be of enforcing the right to appeal from
transferred to the general funds decisions of the BOI are concerned.
of the Government. Appeals from decisions of the BOI,
which by statute was previously
Section 30. No law shall be passed allowed to be filed directly with the
increasing the appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court, should now be
the Supreme Court as provided in this brought to the Court of Appeals.
Constitution without its advice and
concurrence. Section 31. No law granting a title of
royalty or nobility shall be enacted.
Q & A:
Section 32. The Congress shall, as early
1) Can the Congress pass a law as possible, provide for a system of
authorizing a direct appeal to the initiative and referendum, and the
Supreme Court with regard to the exceptions therefrom, whereby the
decisions made by the people can directly propose and enact
Ombudsman concerning laws or approve or reject any act or law
or part thereof passed by the Congress
1108 G.R. No. 129742, September 16, 1998 1109 G.R. No. 110571, March 10, 1994
(Colossians 3:23)
or local legislative body after the

registration of a petition therefor signed
by at least ten per centum of the total
number of registered voters, of which
every legislative district must be
represented by at least three per centum
of the registered voters thereof.
(Colossians 3:23)
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT 2) Is the power of the Chief Executive

limited only to the powers conferred
Section 1. The executive power shall be by the Constitution?
vested in the President of the
Philippines. No. It was held in the case of
Marcos v. Manglapus1111 that it
Q & A: cannot be denied that the
President, upon whom executive
1) Can the President bar former power is vested, has unstated
President Marcos and his family residual powers which are implied
from returning to the Philippines? from the grant of executive power
and which are necessary for her to
Yes. In the case of Marcos v. comply with her duties under the
Manglapus,1110 the Court held that Constitution. The powers of the
among the duties of the President President are not limited to what are
under the Constitution, in expressly enumerated in the article
compliance with his (or her) oath of on the Executive Department and in
office, is to protect and promote the scattered provisions of the
interest and welfare of the people. Constitution. This is so,
Her decision to bar the return of the notwithstanding the avowed intent
Marcoses and subsequently, the of the members of the
remains of Mr. Marcos at the Constitutional Commission of 1986
present time and under present to limit the powers of the President
circumstances is in compliance with as a reaction to the abuses under
this bounden duty. In the absence the regime of Mr. Marcos, for the
of a clear showing that she had result was a limitation of specific
acted with arbitrariness or with power of the President, particularly
grave abuse of discretion in arriving those relating to the commander-in-
at this decision, the Court will not chief clause, but not a diminution of
enjoin the implementation of this the general grant of executive
decision. power.
The powers of the President are not 3) Does the Chief Executive, her
limited to what are expressly officers and agents, have the
enumerated in the article on the authority and jurisdiction, to sell the
Executive Department and in Roppongi property (a property in
scattered provisions of the Japan acquired by the Philippine
Constitution. This is so, government under the Reparations
notwithstanding the avowed intent Agreement entered into with
of the members of the Japan)?
Constitutional Commission of 1986
to limit the powers of the President No. It was held in the case of Laurel
as a reaction to the abuses under v. Garcia1112 that it is not for the
the regime of Mr. Marcos, for the President to convey valuable real
result was a limitation of specific property of the government on his
power of the President, particularly or her own sole will. Any such
those relating to the commander-in- conveyance must be authorized
chief clause, but not a diminution of and approved by a law enacted by
the general grant of executive the Congress. It requires executive
power. and legislative concurrence.
1110 G.R. No. 88211, October 27, 1989 1112 G.R. No. 92013, July 25, 1990
1111 Ibid.
(Colossians 3:23)
Section 2. No person may be elected be qualified for election to the same

President unless he is a natural-born office at any time.
citizen of the Philippines, a registered
voter, able to read and write, at least No Vice-President shall serve for more
forty years of age on the day of the than two successive terms. Voluntary
election, and a resident of the renunciation of the office for any length
Philippines for at least ten years of time shall not be considered as an
immediately preceding such election. interruption in the continuity of the
service for the full term for which he was
Section 3. There shall be a Vice- elected.
President who shall have the same
qualifications and term of office and be Unless otherwise provided by law, the
elected with, and in the same manner, regular election for President and Vice-
as the President. He may be removed President shall be held on the second
from office in the same manner as the Monday of May.
President.
The returns of every election for
The Vice-President may be appointed as President and Vice-President, duly
a Member of the Cabinet. Such certified by the board of canvassers of
appointment requires no confirmation. each province or city, shall be
transmitted to the Congress, directed to
Q & A: the President of the Senate. Upon
receipt of the certificates of canvass,
1) The President appoints the Vice the President of the Senate shall, not
President as his Administration's later than thirty days after the day of the
Housing Czar, a position that election, open all the certificates in the
requires the appointee to sit in the presence of the Senate and the House of
Cabinet. Although the appointment Representatives in joint public session,
of the members of the Cabinet and the Congress, upon determination
requires confirmation by the of the authenticity and due execution
Commission on Appointment (CA), thereof in the manner provided by law,
the Office of the President does not canvass the votes.
submit the appointment to the CA.
May the Vice President validly sit in The person having the highest number
the Cabinet? of votes shall be proclaimed elected, but
in case two or more shall have an equal
Yes. Pursuant to the 1987 and highest number of votes, one of
Constitution, the Vice-President them shall forthwith be chosen by the
may be appointed as a Member of vote of a majority of all the Members of
the Cabinet and such appointment both Houses of the Congress, voting
requires no confirmation from the separately.
Commission of Appointments (CA).
The Congress shall promulgate its rules
Section 4. The President and the Vice- for the canvassing of the certificates.
President shall be elected by direct vote
of the people for a term of six years The Supreme Court, sitting en banc,
which shall begin at noon on the shall be the sole judge of all contests
thirtieth day of June next following the relating to the election, returns, and
day of the election and shall end at noon qualifications of the President or Vice-
of the same date, six years thereafter. President, and may promulgate its rules
The President shall not be eligible for for the purpose.
any re-election. No person who has
succeeded as President and has served Section 5. Before they enter on the
as such for more than four years shall execution of their office, the President,
(Colossians 3:23)
the Vice-President, or the Acting Representatives, shall act as President

President shall take the following oath until a President or a Vice-President
or affirmation: shall have been chosen and qualified.
“I do solemnly swear [or affirm] that I The Congress shall, by law, provide for
will faithfully and conscientiously fulfill the manner in which one who is to act
my duties as President [or Vice- as President shall be selected until a
President or Acting President] of the President or a Vice-President shall have
Philippines, preserve and defend its qualified, in case of death, permanent
Constitution, execute its laws, do disability, or inability of the officials
justice to every man, and consecrate mentioned in the next preceding
myself to the service of the Nation. So paragraph.
help me God.” [In case of affirmation,
last sentence will be omitted]. Section 8. In case of death, permanent
disability, removal from office, or
Section 6. The President shall have an resignation of the President, the Vice-
official residence. The salaries of the President shall become the President to
President and Vice-President shall be serve the unexpired term. In case of
determined by law and shall not be death, permanent disability, removal
decreased during their tenure. No from office, or resignation of both the
increase in said compensation shall President and Vice-President, the
take effect until after the expiration of President of the Senate or, in case of his
the term of the incumbent during which inability, the Speaker of the House of
such increase was approved. They shall Representatives, shall then act as
not receive during their tenure any other President until the President or Vice-
emolument from the Government or any President shall have been elected and
other source. qualified.
Section 7. The President-elect and the The Congress shall, by law, provide who
Vice President-elect shall assume office shall serve as President in case of
at the beginning of their terms. death, permanent disability, or
resignation of the Acting President. He
If the President-elect fails to qualify, the shall serve until the President or the
Vice President-elect shall act as Vice-President shall have been elected
President until the President-elect shall and qualified, and be subject to the
have qualified. same restrictions of powers and
disqualifications as the Acting
If a President shall not have been President.
chosen, the Vice President-elect shall
act as President until a President shall Q & A:
have been chosen and qualified.
1) What are the requisites of
If at the beginning of the term of the “Resignation”?
President, the President-elect shall have
died or shall have become permanently Resignation is not a high level legal
disabled, the Vice President-elect shall abstraction. It is a factual question
become President. and its elements are beyond
quibble:
Where no President and Vice-President
shall have been chosen or shall have a. There must be an intent to
qualified, or where both shall have died resign and
or become permanently disabled, the
President of the Senate or, in case of his
inability, the Speaker of the House of
(Colossians 3:23)
b. The intent must be coupled by public official is facing

acts of relinquishment.1113 administrative or criminal
investigation or prosecution, such
2) Is the resignation be in writing in resignation or retirement will not
order to be valid? cause the dismissal of the criminal
or administrative proceedings
No. The validity of a resignation is against him. He cannot use his
not government by any formal resignation or retirement to avoid
requirement as to form. It can be prosecution.
oral. It can be written. It can be
express. It can be implied. As long However, the exact nature of an
as the resignation is clear, it must impeachment proceeding is
be given legal effect.1114 debatable. But even assuming
arguendo that it is an administrative
3) Is the proposal of a snap election by proceeding, it cannot be considered
the incumbent president, stressing pending at the time petitioner
that he would not be a candidate, resigned because the process
constitute implied resignation? already broke down when a
majority of the senator-judges voted
Yes. The proposal for a snap against the opening of the second
election for president in May where envelope, the public and private
he would not be a candidate is an prosecutors walked out, the public
indicium that petitioner had prosecutors filed their Manifestation
intended to give up the presidency of Withdrawal of Appearance, and
even at that time. Also, the Angara the proceedings were postponed
diary is high grade evidence that indefinitely. There was, in effect, no
the petitioner has resigned. The impeachment case pending against
intent to resign is clear when he petitioner when he resigned.1115
said "x x x Ayoko na masyado nang
masakit." "Ayoko na" are words of Section 9. Whenever there is a vacancy
resignation. in the Office of the Vice-President
during the term for which he was
Also, Sec. 12 of RA No. 3019 elected, the President shall nominate a
cannot be invoked because the Vice-President from among the
intention of the law is to prevent the Members of the Senate and the House of
act of resignation or retirement from Representatives who shall assume
being used by a public official as a office upon confirmation by a majority
protective shield to stop the vote of all the Members of both Houses
investigation of a pending criminal of the Congress, voting separately.
or administrative case against him
and to prevent his prosecution Section 10. The Congress shall, at ten
under the Anti-Graft Law or o’clock in the morning of the third day
prosecution for bribery under the after the vacancy in the offices of the
Revised Penal Code. To be sure, President and Vice-President occurs,
no person can be compelled to convene in accordance with its rules
render service for that would be a without need of a call and within seven
violation of his constitutional right. days, enact a law calling for a special
election to elect a President and a Vice-
In addition, a public official has the President to be held not earlier than
right not to serve if he really wants forty-five days nor later than sixty days
to retire or resign. Nevertheless, if from the time of such call. The bill
at the time he resigns or retires, a calling such special election shall be
1113Estrada v. Arroyo, G.R. No. 146710-15, 1114 Ibid.

March 2, 2001 1115 Ibid.
(Colossians 3:23)
deemed certified under paragraph 2, shall convene, if it is not in session,

Section 26, Article VI of this within forty-eight hours, in accordance
Constitution and shall become law upon with its rules and without need of call.
its approval on third reading by the
Congress. Appropriations for the If the Congress, within ten days after
special election shall be charged receipt of the last written declaration, or,
against any current appropriations and if not in session, within twelve days
shall be exempt from the requirements after it is required to assemble,
of paragraph 4, Section 25, Article VI of determines by a two-thirds vote of both
this Constitution. The convening of the Houses, voting separately, that the
Congress cannot be suspended nor the President is unable to discharge the
special election postponed. No special powers and duties of his office, the
election shall be called if the vacancy Vice-President shall act as President;
occurs within eighteen months before otherwise, the President shall continue
the date of the next presidential exercising the powers and duties of his
election. office.
Section 11. Whenever the President Section 12. In case of serious illness of
transmits to the President of the Senate the President, the public shall be
and the Speaker of the House of informed of the state of his health. The
Representatives his written declaration members of the Cabinet in charge of
that he is unable to discharge the national security and foreign relations
powers and duties of his office, and until and the Chief of Staff of the Armed
he transmits to them a written Forces of the Philippines, shall not be
declaration to the contrary, such denied access to the President during
powers and duties shall be discharged such illness.
by the Vice-President as Acting
President. Section 13. The President, Vice-
President, the Members of the Cabinet,
Whenever a majority of all the Members and their deputies or assistants shall
of the Cabinet transmit to the President not, unless otherwise provided in this
of the Senate and to the Speaker of the Constitution, hold any other office or
House of Representatives their written employment during their tenure. They
declaration that the President is unable shall not, during said tenure, directly or
to discharge the powers and duties of indirectly, practice any other
his office, the Vice-President shall profession, participate in any business,
immediately assume the powers and or be financially interested in any
duties of the office as Acting President. contract with, or in any franchise, or
special privilege granted by the
Thereafter, when the President Government or any subdivision,
transmits to the President of the Senate agency, or instrumentality thereof,
and to the Speaker of the House of including government-owned or
Representatives his written declaration controlled corporations or their
that no inability exists, he shall subsidiaries. They shall strictly avoid
reassume the powers and duties of his conflict of interest in the conduct of
office. Meanwhile, should a majority of their office.
all the Members of the Cabinet transmit
within five days to the President of the The spouse and relatives by
Senate and to the Speaker of the House consanguinity or affinity within the
of Representatives, their written fourth civil degree of the President shall
declaration that the President is unable not, during his tenure, be appointed as
to discharge the powers and duties of Members of the Constitutional
his office, the Congress shall decide the Commissions, or the Office of the
issue. For that purpose, the Congress Ombudsman, or as Secretaries,
(Colossians 3:23)
Undersecretaries, chairmen or heads of being qualified by the phrase "in the

bureaus or offices, including Government." The prohibition
government-owned or controlled imposed on the President and his
corporations and their subsidiaries. official family is therefore all-
embracing and covers both public
Q & A: and private office or employment.
1) Is the Executive Order (EO) issued Going further into Section 13,
by the President allowing a member Article VII, the second sentence
of the Cabinet, undersecretary or provides: "They shall not, during
assistant secretary or other said tenure, directly or indirectly,
appointive officials of the Executive practice any other profession,
Department to hold not more than participate in any business, or be
two positions in the government financially interested in any contract
and government corporations and with, or in any franchise, or special
receive the corresponding privilege granted by the
compensation constitutional? Government or any subdivision,
agency or instrumentality thereof,
No. The Court held in the case of including government-owned or
Civil Liberties Union v. Executive controlled corporations or their
Secretary,1116 that this practice of subsidiaries." These sweeping, all-
holding multiple offices or positions embracing prohibitions imposed on
in the government soon led to the President and his official family,
abuses by unscrupulous public which prohibitions are not similarly
officials who took advantage of this imposed on other public officials or
scheme for purposes of self- employees such as the Members of
enrichment. In fact, the holding of Congress, members of the civil
multiple offices in government was service in general and members of
strongly denounced on the floor of the armed forces, are proof of the
the Batasang Pambansa. intent of the 1987 Constitution to
treat the President and his official
A foolproof yardstick in family as a class by itself and to
constitutional construction is the impose upon said class stricter
intention underlying the provision prohibitions.
under consideration. Thus, it has
been held that the Court in Since the evident purpose of the
construing a Constitution should framers of the 1987 Constitution is
bear in mind the object sought to be to impose a stricter prohibition on
accomplished by its adoption, and the President, Vice-President,
the evils, if any, sought to be members of the Cabinet, their
prevented or remedied. deputies and assistants with
respect to holding multiple offices or
In striking contrast is the wording of employment in the government
Section 13, Article VII which states during their tenure, the exception to
that "(T)he President, Vice- this prohibition must be read with
President, the Members of the equal severity. On its face, the
Cabinet, and their deputies or language of Section 13, Article VII
assistants shall not, unless is prohibitory so that it must be
otherwise provided in this understood as intended to be a
Constitution, hold any other office positive and unequivocal negation
or employment during their tenure." of the privilege of holding multiple
In the latter provision, the government offices or employment.
disqualification is absolute, not Verily, wherever the language used
1116 G.R. No. 83896, February 22, 1991

(Colossians 3:23)
in the constitution is prohibitory, it is under Section 13, Article VII is not

to be understood as intended to be to be interpreted as covering
a positive and unequivocal positions held without additional
negation. compensation in ex-officio
capacities as provided by law and
The phrase "unless otherwise as required by the primary functions
provided in this Constitution" must of the concerned official’s office.
be given a literal interpretation to
refer only to those particular 4) Are posts occupied by the
instances cited in the Constitution Executive officials in their ex-officio
itself, to wit: the Vice-President capacity entitle themselves to
being appointed as a member of the receive additional compensation for
Cabinet under Section 3, par. (2), his services in the said position?
Article VII; or acting as President in
those instances provided under No. It was held in the case of Dela
Section 7, pars. (2) and (3), Article Cruz v. COA1119 that the ex-officio
VII; and, the Secretary of Justice position being actually and in legal
being ex-officio member of the contemplation part of the principal
Judicial and Bar Council by virtue of office, it follows that the official
Section 8 (1), Article VIII. concerned has no right to receive
additional compensation for his
2) Define ex-officio position. services in the said position. The
reason is that these services are
The term ex-officio means from already paid for and covered by the
office; by virtue of office. It refers to compensation attached to his
an authority derived from official principal office. It should be obvious
character merely, not expressly that if, say, the Secretary of Finance
conferred upon the individual attends a meeting of the Monetary
character, but rather annexed to the Board as an ex-officio member
official position. Ex-officio likewise thereof, he is actually and in legal
denotes an act done in an official contemplation performing the
character, or as a consequence of primary function of his principal
office, and without any other office in defining policy in monetary
appointment or authority than that banking matters, which come under
conferred by the office. An ex-officio the jurisdiction of his department.
member of a board is one who is a For such attendance, therefore, he
member by virtue of his title to a is not entitled to collect any extra
certain office, and without further compensation, whether it be in the
warrant or appointment. To form of a per diem or an honorarium
illustrate, by express provision of or an allowance, or some other
law, the Secretary of Transportation such euphemism. By whatever
and Communications is the ex- name it is designated, such
officio Chairman of the Board of the additional compensation is
Philippine Ports Authority, and the prohibited by the Constitution.
Light Rail Transit Authority.1117
5) Are appointed officials of the civil
3) Is the prohibition under Sec. 13, service allowed to hold other office
Article VII covers positions held in or employment in the government
an ex-officio capacity? during their tenure?
No. It was held in the case of Dela It depends. It was held in the case
Cruz v. COA1118 that the prohibition of National Amnesty Commission v.
1117Dela Cruz v. Commission on Audit, G.R. 1118 G.R. No. 138489, November 29, 2001
No. 138489, November 29, 2001 1119 G.R. No. 138489, November 29, 2001
(Colossians 3:23)
COA,1120 that all other appointive Appointment Designation

officials in the civil service are The legal basis Designation
allowed to hold other office or of an does not entail
employment in the government employees’ payment of
during their tenure when such is right to claim additional
allowed by law or by the primary the salary benefits or
functions of their positions. attached grant upon the
thereto is a duly person so
6) Are members of the Cabinet, their issued and designated the
deputies and assistants allowed to approved right to claim
hold other office or employment in appointment to the salary
the government during their tenure? the position and attached to the
not a mere position.1122
No. It was held in the case of designation.
National Amnesty Commission v.
COA,1121 that members of the
Cabinet, their deputies and 8) Is the IRR issued by the National
assistants may do so only when Amnesty Commission (NAC)
expressly authorized by the authorizing the ex-officio members
Constitution itself. to designate representatives to
attend commission meetings and
In other words, Section 7, Article IX- entitling them to receive per diems,
B is meant to lay down the general honoraria and other allowances,
rule applicable to all elective and constitutional?
appointive public officials and
employees, while Section 13, No. It was held in the case of
Article VII is meant to be the National Amnesty Commission v.
exception applicable only to the COA,1123 that said provision in the
President, the Vice-President, new IRR is null and void for having
Members of the Cabinet, their been promulgated in excess of its
deputies and assistants. rule-making authority. Proclamation
No. 347, the presidential issuance
7) Difference between appointment creating the NAC, makes no
and designation. mention that representatives of ex-
officio members can take the place
Appointment Designation of said ex-officio members during
An appointment Designation its meetings and can receive per
is the selection merely diems and allowances. This being
by the proper connotes an the case, the NAC, in the exercise
authority of an imposition of of its quasi-legislative powers,
individual who additional cannot add, expand or enlarge the
is to exercise duties, usually provisions of the issuance it seeks
the powers and by law, upon a to implement without committing an
functions of a person already ultra vires act.
given office. in the public
service by The administrative order itself
virtue of an acknowledges that payment of
earlier allowances to the representatives
appointment. must be authorized by the law, that
is, the Constitution, statutes and
judicial decisions. However, as
already discussed, the payment of
1120 G.R. No. 156982, September 8, 2004 1122 Ibid.
(Colossians 3:23)
such allowances is not allowed, respondent senior officers of the

prohibited even. Philippine National Police who were
promoted to the ranks of Chief
Section 14. Appointments extended by Superintendent and Director
an Acting President shall remain without their appointments
effective, unless revoked by the elected submitted to the Commission on
President, within ninety days from his Appointments for confirmation
assumption or reassumption of office. constitutional?
Section 15. Two months immediately Yes. It was held in the case of
before the next presidential elections Manalo v. Sistosa,1124 that Republic
and up to the end of his term, a Act 6975 which states in part:
President or Acting President shall not
make appointments, except temporary The policy force shall be organized,
appointments to executive positions trained and equipped primarily for
when continued vacancies therein will the performance of police functions.
prejudice public service or endanger Its national scope and civilian
public safety. character shall be paramount. No
element of the police force shall be
Section 16. The President shall military nor shall any position
nominate and, with the consent of the thereof be occupied by active
Commission on Appointments, appoint members of the Armed Forces of
the heads of the executive departments, the Philippines.
ambassadors, other public ministers
and consuls, or officers of the armed Thereunder, the police force is
forces from the rank of colonel or naval different from and independent of
captain, and other officers whose the armed forces and the ranks in
appointments are vested in him in this the military are not similar to those
Constitution. He shall also appoint all in the Philippine National Police.
other officers of the Government whose Thus, directors and chief
appointments are not otherwise superintendents of the PNP, such
provided for by law, and those whom he as the herein respondent police
may be authorized by law to appoint. officers, do not fall under the first
The Congress may, by law, vest the category of presidential appointees
appointment of other officers lower in requiring the confirmation by the
rank in the President alone, in the Commission on Appointments.
courts, or in the heads of departments,
agencies, commissions, or boards. 2) Is the appointment in the Philippine
Coast Guard need to be approved
The President shall have the power to by the Commission on
make appointments during the recess of appointments?
the Congress, whether voluntary or
compulsory, but such appointments No. In the case of Soriano v.
shall be effective only until disapproved Lista,1125 the Court ruled that now
by the Commission on Appointments or that the PCG is under the DOTC
until the next adjournment of the and no longer part of the Philippine
Congress. Navy or the Armed Forces of the
Philippines, the promotions and
Q & A: appointments of respondent
officers of the PCG, or any PCG
1) Is the permanent appointments officer from the rank of captain and
issued by former President higher for that matter, do not require
Corazon C. Aquino to the confirmation by the CA.
1124 G.R. No. 107369, August 11, 1999 1125 G.R. No. 153881, March 24, 2003
(Colossians 3:23)
The power to appoint is essentially

The enumeration of appointments executive in nature, and the
subject to confirmation by the CA legislature may not interfere with
under Section 16, Article VII of the the exercise of this executive power
1987 Constitution is exclusive. The except in those instances when the
clause officers of the armed forces Constitution expressly allows it to
from the rank of colonel or naval interfere. Limitations on the
captain refers to military officers executive power to appoint are
alone. This is clear from the construed strictly against the
deliberations of the Constitutional legislature. The scope of the
Commission on the proposed text legislature’s interference in the
of said Section 16, Article VII of the executive’s power to appoint is
Constitution. Since the promotions limited to the power to prescribe the
and appointments of respondent qualifications to an appointive
officers are not covered by the office. Congress cannot appoint a
above-cited provision of the person to an office in the guise of
Constitution, the same need not be prescribing qualifications to that
confirmed by the CA. office. Neither may Congress
impose on the President the duty to
3) Distinguish ad interim appoint any particular person to an
appointments from appointments in office. However, even if the
an acting capacity. Commission on Appointments is
composed of members of
Ad-interim appointments must be Congress, the exercise of its
distinguished from appointments in powers is executive and not
an acting capacity. Both of them are legislative. The Commission on
effective upon acceptance. Appointments does not legislate
when it exercises its power to give
Ad-interim appointments are or withhold consent to presidential
extended only during a recess of appointments. Thus:
Congress. Moreover ad-interim
appointments are submitted to the “The Commission on Appointments
Commission on Appointments for is a creature of the Constitution.
confirmation or rejection. Although its membership is
confined to members of Congress,
Whereas acting appointments may said Commission is independent of
be extended any time there is a Congress. The powers of the
vacancy. In addition, acting Commission do not come from
appointments are not submitted to Congress, but emanate directly
the Commission on Appointments. from the Constitution. Hence, it is
Acting appointments are a way of not an agent of Congress. In fact,
temporarily filling important offices the functions of the Commissioner
but, if abused, they can also be a are purely executive in nature.”1127
way of circumventing the need for
confirmation by the Commission on 5) Is the appointment of respondents
Appointments.1126 as acting secretaries without the
consent of the Commission on
4) Explain the nature of the power to Appointments while Congress is in
appoint session constitutional?
1126Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J., The 1987 1127Pimentel v. Ermita, G.R. No. 164978,
Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: October 13, 2005
A Commentary 772 (1996).
(Colossians 3:23)
No. In the case of Pemintel v. 5, Title I, Book III of EO 292 states

Ermita,1128 the Court ruled that the that [t]he President may temporarily
essence of an appointment in an designate an officer already in the
acting capacity is its temporary government service or any other
nature. It is a stop-gap measure competent person to perform the
intended to fill an office for a limited functions of an office in the
time until the appointment of a executive branch. Thus, the
permanent occupant to the office. In President may even appoint in an
case of vacancy in an office acting capacity a person not yet in
occupied by an alter ego of the the government service, as long as
President, such as the office of a the President deems that person
department secretary, the competent.
President must necessarily appoint
an alter ego of her choice as acting Petitioners assert that Section 17
secretary before the permanent does not apply to appointments
appointee of her choice could vested in the President by the
assume office. Constitution, because it only
applies to appointments vested in
Congress, through a law, cannot the President by law. Petitioners
impose on the President the forget that Congress is not the only
obligation to appoint automatically source of law. Law refers to the
the undersecretary as her Constitution, statutes or acts of
temporary alter ego. An alter ego, Congress, municipal ordinances,
whether temporary or permanent, implementing rules issued pursuant
holds a position of great trust and to law, and judicial decisions.
confidence. Congress, in the guise
of prescribing qualifications to an Finally, petitioners claim that the
office, cannot impose on the issuance of appointments in an
President who her alter ego should acting capacity is susceptible to
be. abuse. Petitioners fail to consider
that acting appointments cannot
The office of a department exceed one year as expressly
secretary may become vacant while provided in Section 17(3), Chapter
Congress is in session. Since a 5, Title I, Book III of EO 292. The
department secretary is the alter law has incorporated this safeguard
ego of the President, the acting to prevent abuses, like the use of
appointee to the office must acting appointments as a way to
necessarily have the Presidents circumvent confirmation by the
confidence. Thus, by the very Commission on Appointments.
nature of the office of a department
secretary, the President must 6) What is the “Doctrine of Qualified
appoint in an acting capacity a Agency”?
person of her choice even while
Congress is in session. That person Without minimizing the importance
may or may not be the permanent of the heads of the various
appointee, but practical reasons departments, their personality is in
may make it expedient that the reality but the projection of that of
acting appointee will also be the the President. Stated otherwise,
permanent appointee. and as forcibly characterized by
Chief Justice Taft of the Supreme
The law expressly allows the Court of the United States, "each
President to make such acting head of a department is, and must
appointment. Section 17, Chapter be, the President's alter ego in the
1128 G.R. No. 164978, October 13, 2005

(Colossians 3:23)
matters of that department where grant of productivity incentive

the President is required by law to benefits without prior approval of
exercise authority." the President. Is the act of the
President constitutional?
Section 17. The President shall have
control of all the executive departments, Yes. In the case of Blaquera v.
bureaus, and offices. He shall ensure Alcala,1130 the Court held that the
that the laws be faithfully executed. President was only exercising his
power of control by modifying the
Q & A: acts of the respondents who
granted incentive benefits to their
1) Can the NBI Director refuse the act employees without appropriate
of the Secretary of Justice clearance from the Office of the
regarding his directives of President, thereby resulting in the
reinstating former employees of the uneven distribution of government
NBI? resources. In the view of the
President, respondents did a
No. It was held in the case of De mistake which had to be corrected.
Leon v. Carpio1129 that the In so acting, the President
Secretary of Justice was acting in exercised a constitutionally-
the regular discharge his functions protected prerogative.
as an alter ego of the President. His
acts should therefore have been The Presidents duty to execute the
respected by the respondent law is of constitutional origin. So,
Director of the National Bureau of too, is his control of all executive
Investigation, which is in the departments. Thus it is, that
Department of Justice under the department heads are men of his
direct control of its Secretary. As a confidence. His is the power to
subordinate in this department, the appoint them; his, too, is the
respondent was (and is) bound to privilege to dismiss them at
obey the Secretary's directives, pleasure. Naturally, he controls and
which are presumptively the acts of directs their acts. Implicit then is his
the President of the Philippines. authority to go over, confirm, modify
or reverse the action taken by his
2) Officials and employees of several department secretaries. In this
government departments and context, it may not be said that the
agencies who were paid incentive President cannot rule on the
benefits for the year 1992, pursuant correctness of a decision of a
to Executive Order No. 292 (EO department secretary.
292), otherwise known as the
Administrative Code of 1987, and 3) Is the President’s “Power of
the Omnibus Rules Implementing Control” in relation to the incentive
Book V of EO 292. On January 19, benefits applicable to all
1993, then President Fidel V. departments of the Government?
Ramos (President Ramos) issued
Administrative Order No. 29 (AO No. It is understood that the
29) authorizing the grant of following enjoy fiscal autonomy:
productivity incentive benefits for
the year 1992 in the maximum a. Judiciary,
amount of P1,000.00 and b. Civil Service Commission,
reiterating the prohibition under c. Commission on Audit,
Section 7 of Administrative Order d. Commission on Elections, and
No. 268 (AO 268), enjoining the e. Office of the Ombudsman.
1129 G.R. No. 85243, October 12, 1989 1130 G.R. No. 109406, September 11, 1998
(Colossians 3:23)
Also, the foregoing is not covered 4) What is fiscal autonomy? (BAR

by the amount fixed by the EXAM)
President.
Fiscal autonomy means freedom
As envisioned in the Constitution, from outside control.1132
the fiscal autonomy enjoyed by the
Judiciary, the Civil Service 5) Can the President require the Subic
Commission, the Commission on Bay Metropolitan Authority (SBMA)
Audit, the Commission on to conduct a rebidding of its
Elections, and the Office of the proposed project?
Ombudsman contemplates a
guarantee of full flexibility to Yes. It was held in the case of
allocate and utilize their resources Hutchison Ports Philippines Limited
with the wisdom and dispatch that v. SBMA1133 that as a chartered
their needs require. It recognizes institution, the SBMA is always
the power and authority to levy, under the direct control of the Office
assess and collect fees, fix rates of of the President, particularly when
compensation not exceeding the contracts and/or projects
highest rates authorized by law for undertaken by the SBMA entail
compensation and pay plans of the substantial amounts of money.
government and allocate and
disburse such sums as may be Specifically, Letter of Instruction
provided by law or prescribed by No. 620 dated October 27, 1997
them in the course of the discharge mandates that the approval of the
of their functions. President is required in all contracts
of the national government offices,
The Judiciary, the Constitutional agencies and instrumentalities,
Commissions, and the including government-owned or
Ombudsman must have the controlled corporations involving
independence and flexibility two million pesos (P2,000,000.00)
needed in the discharge of their and above, awarded through public
constitutional duties. The bidding or negotiation.
imposition of restrictions and
constraints on the manner the The President may, within his
independent constitutional offices authority, overturn or reverse any
allocate and utilize the funds award made by the SBMA Board of
appropriated for their operations is Directors for justifiable reasons. It is
anathema to fiscal autonomy and well-established that the discretion
violative not only of the express to accept or reject any bid, or even
mandate of the Constitution but recall the award thereof, is of such
especially as regards the Supreme wide latitude that the courts will not
Court, of the independence and generally interfere with the exercise
separation of powers upon which thereof by the executive
the entire fabric of our constitutional department, unless it is apparent
system is based. In the interest of that such exercise of discretion is
comity and cooperation, the used to shield unfairness or
Supreme Court, Constitutional injustice.
Commissions, and the
Ombudsman have so far limited When the President issued the
their objections to constant memorandum setting aside the
reminders.1131 award previously declared by the
1131 Ibid. 1133 G.R. No. 131367. August 31, 2000

1132 Ibid.
(Colossians 3:23)
SBMA in favor of HPPL and Supervision Control

directing that a rebidding be not observed, subordinates or
conducted, the same was, within they may order even decide to
the authority of the President and the work done do it
was a valid exercise of his or redone, but themselves.
prerogative. Consequently, only to
petitioner HPPL acquired no clear conform to
and unmistakable right as the such rules.
award announced by the SBMA
prior to the Presidents revocation May not Can prescribe
thereof was not final and binding. prescribe their their own
own manner of manner of
6) Difference between supervision execution of execution of the
and control the act. act.
Supervision Control May not Can prescribe

Overseeing or The power of prescribe their their own
the power or an officer to own manner of manner of
authority of an alter or modify execution of execution of the
officer to see or nullify or set the act. act.1134
that aside what a
subordinate subordinate
officers officer ha[s] 7) The President’s power of control is
perform their done in the only applicable to members of the
duties. performance of Cabinet and other executive
his duties and officials. While heads of political
If the latter fail to substitute the subdivisions are subject to the
or neglect to judgment of the Presidents supervision only.
fulfill them, the former for that
former may of the latter. Under our present system of
take such government, executive power is
action or step vested in the President. The
as prescribed members of the Cabinet and other
by law to make executive officials are merely alter
them perform egos. As such, they are subject to
their duties. the power of control of the
President, at whose will and behest
Supervising Officers in they can be removed from office; or
officials merely control lay their actions and decisions
see to it that down the rules changed, suspended or reversed.
the rules are in the In contrast, the heads of political
followed, but performance or subdivisions are elected by the
they accomplishme people. Their sovereign powers
themselves do nt of an act. If emanate from the electorate, to
not lay down these rules are whom they are directly
such rules, nor not followed, accountable. By constitutional fiat,
do they have they may, in they are subject to the Presidents
the discretion their discretion, supervision only, not control, so
to modify or order the act long as their acts are exercised
replace them. undone or within the sphere of their legitimate
If the rules are redone by their powers. By the same token, the
1134Pimentel v. Aguirre, G.R. No. 132988, July

19, 2000
(Colossians 3:23)
President may not withhold or alter mandated by no less than the

any authority or power given them Constitution. The Local
by the Constitution and the law.1135 Government Code specifies further
that the release shall be made
8) What is Local Autonomy? directly to the LGU concerned
within five (5) days after every
Local autonomy signified "a more quarter of the year and "shall not be
responsive and accountable local subject to any lien or holdback that
government structure instituted may be imposed by the national
through a system of government for whatever purpose."
decentralization." The grant of As a rule, the term "shall" is a word
autonomy is intended to "break up of command that must be given a
the monopoly of the national compulsory meaning. The provision
government over the affairs of local is, therefore, imperative.
governments, x x x not x x x to end
the relation of partnership and Section 4 of AO 372, however,
interdependence between the orders the withholding, effective
central administration and local January 1, 1998, of 10 percent of
government units x x x." the LGUs' IRA "pending the
Paradoxically, local governments assessment and evaluation by the
are still subject to regulation, Development Budget Coordinating
however limited, for the purpose of Committee of the emerging fiscal
enhancing self-government.1136 situation" in the country. Such
withholding clearly contravenes the
9) What is Decentralization? Constitution and the law. Although
temporary, it is equivalent to a
Decentralization simply means the holdback, which means "something
devolution of national held back or withheld, often
administration, not power, to local temporarily." Hence, the
governments. Local officials remain "temporary" nature of the retention
accountable to the central by the national government does
government as the law may not matter. Any retention is
provide.1137 prohibited.
10) Is (a) Section 1 of AO 372, insofar The latter provision effectively

as it "directs" LGUs to reduce their encroaches on the fiscal autonomy
expenditures by 25 percent; and (b) of local governments. Concededly,
Section 4 of the same issuance, the President was well-intentioned
which withholds 10 percent of their in issuing his Order to withhold the
internal revenue allotments, LGUs IRA, but the rule of law
constitute a valid exercise of the requires that even the best
President's power of general intentions must be carried out within
supervision over local the parameters of the Constitution
governments? and the law. Verily, laudable
purposes must be carried out by
No. It was held in the case of legal methods.
Pimentel v. Aguirre,1138 that Section
4 of AO 372 cannot, however, be 11) Is the reassignment of private
upheld. A basic feature of local respondent from School Division
fiscal autonomy is the automatic Superintendent of Quezon City to
release of the shares of LGUs in the Vocational School Superintendent
national internal revenue. This is
1135 Ibid. 1137 Ibid.

1136 Ibid. 1138 Ibid.
(Colossians 3:23)
of MIST violative of his security of voting jointly, by a vote of at least a

tenure? majority of all its Members in regular or
special session, may revoke such
Yes. It was held in the case of proclamation or suspension, which
Gloria v. CA1139 that security of revocation shall not be set aside by the
tenure is a fundamental and President. Upon the initiative of the
constitutionally guaranteed feature President, the Congress may, in the
of our civil service. The mantle of its same manner, extend such
protection extends not only to proclamation or suspension for a period
employees removed without cause to be determined by the Congress, if the
but also to cases of unconsented invasion or rebellion shall persist and
transfers which are tantamount to public safety requires it.
illegal removals.
The Congress, if not in session, shall,
While a temporary transfer or within twenty-four hours following such
assignment of personnel is proclamation or suspension, convene in
permissible even without the accordance with its rules without need
employees’ prior consent, it cannot of a call.
be done when the transfer is a
preliminary step toward his The Supreme Court may review, in an
removal, or is a scheme to lure him appropriate proceeding filed by any
away from his permanent position, citizen, the sufficiency of the factual
or designed to indirectly terminate basis of the proclamation of martial law
his service, or force his resignation. or the suspension of the privilege of the
Such a transfer would in effect writ of habeas corpus or the extension
circumvent the provision which thereof, and must promulgate its
safeguards the tenure of office of decision thereon within thirty days from
those who are in the Civil Service. its filing.
Having found the reassignment of A state of martial law does not suspend
private respondent to the MIST to the operation of the Constitution, nor
be violative of his security of tenure, supplant the functioning of the civil
the order for his reassignment to courts or legislative assemblies, nor
the MIST cannot be countenanced. authorize the conferment of jurisdiction
on military courts and agencies over
Section 18. The President shall be the civilians where civil courts are able to
Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces function, nor automatically suspend the
of the Philippines and whenever it privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.
becomes necessary, he may call out
such armed forces to prevent or The suspension of the privilege of the
suppress lawless violence, invasion or writ of habeas corpus shall apply only to
rebellion. In case of invasion or persons judicially charged for rebellion
rebellion, when the public safety or offenses inherent in, or directly
requires it, he may, for a period not connected with, invasion.
exceeding sixty days, suspend the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or During the suspension of the privilege
place the Philippines or any part thereof of the writ of habeas corpus, any person
under martial law. Within forty-eight thus arrested or detained shall be
hours from the proclamation of martial judicially charged within three days,
law or the suspension of the privilege of otherwise he shall be released.
the writ of habeas corpus, the President
shall submit a report in person or in Q & A:
writing to the Congress. The Congress,
1139 G.R. No. 119903, August 15, 2000

(Colossians 3:23)
1) What are the three extraordinary b. Suspending the privilege of writ

powers of the President? of habeas corpus and/or
declaring martial law.
a. Calling out the armed forces;
b. Suspending the privilege of writ May be exercised only when
of habeas corpus; and there is an actual invasion or
c. Declaring martial law. rebellion, and public safety
requires it.
2) Distinguish the three extraordinary
powers of the President. What happens during martial
law?
a. Calling out the armed forces;
➢ Arrest and seizures
The President may resort to this without judicial
extraordinary power whenever warrants;
it becomes necessary to ➢ Ban on public
prevent or suppress lawless assemblies;
violence, invasion, or rebellion. ➢ Takeover of news media
and agencies and press
Who may call/exercise this censorship; and
power? ➢ Issuance of Presidential
Decrees.
➢ The power to call is fully
discretionary to the Who may call-out this power?
President.
➢ The power to call is fully
Is it subject to judicial review? discretionary to the
President.
➢ No. The actual use to
which the President puts What are the limits in exercising
the armed forces is not these powers?
subject to judicial
review.1140 ➢ A time limit of 60 days;
➢ Review and possible
Rationale: “Call Out” power revocation by Congress;
is considered as the lesser and
and more benign power ➢ Review and possible
compared to the power to nullification of the
suspend the privilege of the Supreme Court.1142
writ of habeas corpus and
the power to impose martial Rationale: Exercise of such
law, both of which involve the power involve the curtailment
curtailment and suppression and suppression of certain basic
of certain basic civil rights civil rights and individual
and individual freedoms, and freedoms.1143
thus necessitating
safeguards by the Congress 3) Is “insurrection” and/or “imminent
and review of this Courts.1141 danger” constitute a ground for the
declaration of martial law and/or
suspension of the writ of habeas
corpus?
1140 Lagman v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 1142 Lagman v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No.
231658, July 4, 2017 231658, July 4, 2017
1141 Ibid. 1143 Ibid.
(Colossians 3:23)
contention of the prosecutor

No. It was held in the case of correct?
Lagman v. Executive Secretary1144
that the framers of the 1987 No. It was held in the case of
Constitution eliminated Lagman v. Executive Secretary1146
insurrection, and the phrase that where the privilege of the writ
“imminent danger thereof” as of habeas corpus is also
grounds for the suspension of the suspended, such suspension
privilege of the writ of habeas applies only to those judicially
corpus or declaration of martial law. charged with rebellion or offenses
connected with invasion.
Rationale: They perceive the
phrase “imminent danger” to be Since, Jose is not charged of the
“fraught with possibilities of crime rebellion, he can avail of the
abuse;” besides, the calling out writ of habeas corpus.
power of the President “is
sufficient for handling imminent 6) Is the recommendation of the
danger.” Defense Secretary a condition
precedent in order for the President
4) Will the declaration of martial law to declare martial law or the
suspend the operation of the suspension of the privilege of the
Constitution? writ of habeas corpus?
No. It was held in the case of No. It was held in the case of
Lagman v. Executive Secretary1145 Lagman v. Executive Secretary1147
that the declaration of martial law that even the recommendation of,
does not suspend the operation of or consultation with, the Secretary
the Constitution, neither does it of National Defense, or other high-
supplant the operation of civil courts ranking military officials, is not a
or legislative assemblies. condition for the President to
declare martial law. A plain reading
5) President Dugong suspend the of Sec. 18, Article VII of the
privilege of the writ of habeas Constitution shows that the
corpus in Mindanao due to the President’s power to declare martial
rebellious act of the Mapute rebel law is not subject to any condition
group. Two weeks after the except for the requirements of
suspension, Jose, a resident of actual invasion or rebellion and the
Malawi Mindanao, was captured by public safety requires it. Besides, it
the police and was accused for would be contrary to common
violating the Dangerous Drugs Act sense if the decision of the
even though he was only caught President is made dependent on
with drug paraphernalia. As a the recommendation of his mere
consequence, Jose filed a writ of alter ego. Rightly so, it is only the
habeas corpus with the Court President and no other that the
questioning the validity of his arrest. exercise of the powers of the
The prosecutor, on the other hand, Commander-in-Chief under Section
contended that the suspension of 18, Article VII of the Constitution is
the privilege of habeas corpus is bestowed.
currently suspended, hence, the
petition prayed for by the accused 7) Is there a hierarchy with regard to
should be dismissed. Is the the exercise of the extraordinary
powers?
1144 Ibid. 1146 Ibid.

1145 Ibid. 1147 Ibid.
(Colossians 3:23)
pardons, and remit fines and forfeitures,

No. It was held in the case of after conviction by final judgment.
that it does not in any manner refer He shall also have the power to grant
to a sequence, arrangement, or amnesty with the concurrence of a
order which the Commander-in- majority of all the Members of the
Chief must follow. This so-called Congress.
“graduation of powers” does not
indicate or restrict the manner by Q & A:
which the President decides which
power to choose. 1) In 2007, the Sandiganbayan
convicted former President
The power to choose, initially, Estrada, a former President of the
which among these extraordinary Republic of the Philippines, for the
powers to wield in a given set of crime of plunder. However, during
conditions is a judgment call on the the same year, incumbent
part of the President. President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo
(former President Arroyo) extended
It is beyond doubt that the power of executive clemency, by way of
judicial review does not extend to pardon, to former President
calibrating the President’s decision Estrada. Former President Estrada
pertaining to which extraordinary "received and accepted" the pardon
power to avail given a set of facts or by affixing his signature beside his
conditions. To do so would be handwritten notation thereon. On
tantamount to an incursion into the October 2, 2012, former President
exclusive domain of the Executive Estrada once more ventured into
and an infringement on the the political arena, and filed a
prerogative that solely, at least Certificate of Candidacy, this time
initially, lies with the President. vying for a local elective post, that
of the Mayor of the City of Manila. Is
8) Is the declaration of martial law or Erap disqualified to Run for Public
suspending the privilege of writ of Office because of his Conviction for
habeas corpus be facially Plunder by the Sandiganbayan
challenged using the vagueness pursuant to the provisions of Sec.
doctrine? 40 of the Local Government Code
and Sec. 12 of the Omnibus
No. It was held in the case of Election Code?
that facial review on the ground of No. In the case of Vidal v.
vagueness is unwarranted. The COMELEC,1150 the Court held that
proclamation of martial law or Former President Estrada was
suspension of the privilege of writ granted an absolute pardon that
does not regulate speech, religious fully restored all his civil and
freedom, and other fundamental political rights, which naturally
rights that may be facially includes the right to seek public
challenged. What it seeks to elective office, the focal point of this
penalize is conduct, not speech. controversy.
Section 19. Except in cases of The wording of the pardon

impeachment, or as otherwise provided extended to former President
in this Constitution, the President may Estrada is complete, unambiguous,
grant reprieves, commutations, and and unqualified. It is likewise
1148 Ibid. 1150 G.R. No. 206666, January 21, 2015

1149 Ibid.
(Colossians 3:23)
unfettered by Articles 36 and 41 of President’s power of pardon by acts

the Revised Penal Code. The only of Congress?
reasonable, objective, and
constitutional interpretation of the A pardon, being a presidential
language of the pardon is that the prerogative, should not be
same in fact conforms to Articles 36 circumscribed by legislative action.
and 41 of the Revised Penal Code. (Vidal v. COMELEC)1153
2) What are the instances wherein 5) Distinguish Pardon from Amnesty.

“Pardon” cannot be extended? (BAR EXAM)
In the case of Vidal v. Pardon Amnesty

COMELEC,1151 the Supreme Court a. As to type of offense
enumerated the following instances Infractions of Public crimes.
in which the President may not the peace or
extend pardon: private crimes.
b. As to the concurrence of
a. Impeachment cases; Congress
Not necessary Necessary
b. Cases that have not yet resulted c. As to the grantee
in a final conviction; and An individual Classes of
persons
c. Cases involving violations of d. Acceptance by the grantee
election laws, rules and Acceptance by The grantee’s
regulations in which there was the grantee is acceptance is
no favorable recommendation needed. not needed.
coming from the COMELEC. e. As to judicial notice
Courts don’t Courts take
3) Can the Legislative or Judiciary take judicial judicial notice
subject the pardoning powers of the
notice because because it is a
President to any limitation? it is a private public act.
act of the
No. It was held in the case of Vidal President.
v. COMELEC,1152 that under the
f. As to effect
doctrine of non-diminution or non-
Relieves the Abolishes the
impairment of the President’s
offender from offense.
power of pardon by acts of
the
Congress, "a pardon, being a
consequences
presidential prerogative, should not
of the offense.
be circumscribed by legislative
g. As to the timing of the grant
action." Thus, it is unmistakably the
long-standing position of this Court Only after Before or after
that the exercise of the pardoning conviction by conviction.
power is discretionary in the final judgment.
President and may not be interfered
with by Congress or the Court, 6) What is a reprieve?
except only when it exceeds the
limits provided for by the Reprieve is the cancellation or
Constitution. postponement of a punishment.
4) What is the doctrine of non- 7) What is commutation?

diminution or non-impairment of the

1152 Ibid.
(Colossians 3:23)
Commutation is the substitution of a

lesser penalty for the sentence Exception to the rule:
given upon one's conviction of
criminal allegations. Unless the President expressly
includes said accessory penalties in
8) Can the President impose the pardon.
restrictions or restoration of certain
rights of an individual in a pardon? Rationale:
Yes. In the case of Vidal v. It still recognizes the Presidential

COMELEC,1154 the Court held that if prerogative to grant executive
the President wishes to include in clemency and, specifically, to
the pardon the restoration of the decide to pardon the principal
rights of suffrage and to hold public penalty while excluding its
office, or the remission of the accessory penalties or to pardon
accessory penalty of perpetual both. Thus, Articles 36 and 41 of the
absolute disqualification, he or she RPC only clarify the effect of the
should do so expressly. Articles 36 pardon so decided upon by the
and 41 of the Revised Penal Code President on the penalties imposed
only ask that the President state his in accordance with law. (1156
or her intentions clearly, directly,
firmly, precisely, and unmistakably. 11) Is the grant of Temporary
To belabor the point, the President Restraining Order by the Court in
retains the power to make such effect granted reprieve which is an
restoration or remission, subject to exclusive function of the President?
a prescription on the manner by
which he or she is to state it. No. In the case of Echegaray v.
Secretary of Justice,1157 the Court
9) What is the importance of Articles ruled that in truth, an accused who
36 and 41 of the RPC in relation to has been convicted by final
the pardoning powers of the judgment still possesses collateral
President? rights and these rights can be
claimed in the appropriate courts.
In the case of Vidal v. For instance, a death convict who
COMELEC,1155 the Court held that becomes insane after his final
the said codal provisions must be conviction cannot be executed
construed to harmonize the power while in a state of insanity. As
of Congress to define crimes and observed by Antieau, "today, it is
prescribe the penalties for such generally assumed that due
crimes and the power of the process of law will prevent the
President to grant executive government from executing the
clemency. death sentence upon a person who
is insane at the time of execution."
10) Does the pardon of the principal
penalty carry with it the remission of The suspension of such a death
the accessory penalty? sentence is undisputably an
exercise of judicial power. It is not a
As a general rule, NO. All that the usurpation of the presidential power
said provisions impart is that the of reprieve though its effect is the
pardon of the principal penalty does same -- the temporary suspension
not carry with it the remission of the of the execution of the death
accessory penalties. convict.

(Colossians 3:23)
and containing other matters as may be

In the same vein, it cannot be provided by law.
denied that Congress can at any
time amend R.A. No. 7659 by Q & A:
reducing the penalty of death to life
imprisonment. The effect of such an 1) Are debt-relief contracts entered
amendment is like that of into pursuant to the Financing
commutation of sentence. But by no Program beyond the powers
stretch of the imagination can the granted to the President under
exercise by Congress of its plenary Section 20, Article VII of the
power to amend laws be Constitution?
considered as a violation of the
power of the President to commute With regard to bond conversion:
final sentences of conviction. The
powers of the Executive, the No. In the case of Constantino v.
Legislative and the Judiciary to Cuisia,1158 the Court held that the
save the life of a death convict do language of the Constitution is
not exclude each other for the simple and clear as it is broad. It
simple reason that there is no allows the President to contract and
higher right than the right to life. guarantee foreign loans. It makes
no prohibition on the issuance of
Indeed, in various States in the certain kinds of loans or distinctions
United States, laws have even been as to which kinds of debt
enacted expressly granting courts instruments are more onerous than
the power to suspend execution of others. This Court may not ascribe
convicts and their constitutionality to the Constitution meanings and
has been upheld over arguments restrictions that would unduly
that they infringe upon the power of burden the powers of the President.
the President to grant reprieves.
For the public respondent’s Also, the negotiable character of
therefore to contend that only the the subject bonds is not mutually
Executive can protect the right to exclusive with the Republics
life of an accused after his final freedom to negotiate with
conviction is to violate the principle bondholders for the revision of the
of co-equal and coordinate powers terms of the debt. Moreover, the
of the three branches of our securities market provides some
government. flexibility if the Philippines wants to
pay in advance, it can buy out its
Section 20. The President may contract bonds in the market; if interest rates
or guarantee foreign loans on behalf of go down but the Philippines does
the Republic of the Philippines with the not have money to retire the bonds,
prior concurrence of the Monetary it can replace the old bonds with
Board, and subject to such limitations new ones; if it defaults on the
as may be provided by law. The bonds, the bondholders shall
Monetary Board shall, within thirty days organize and bring about a re-
from the end of every quarter of the negotiation or settlement.
calendar year, submit to the Congress a
complete report of its decision on 2) Is it correct to assert that the power
applications for loans to be contracted to pay public debts lies with
or guaranteed by the Government or Congress and was deliberately the
government-owned and controlled power to pay public debts lies with
corporations which would have the Congress and was deliberately?
effect of increasing the foreign debt,
1158 G.R. No. 106064, October 13, 2005

(Colossians 3:23)
With regard to the Buyback the payment despite appropriations

Scheme: therefor.
No. In the case of Constantino v. It is inescapable from the

Cuisia,1159 the Court held that the standpoint of reason and necessity
Debt service is not included in the that the authority to contract foreign
General Appropriation Act, since loans and guarantees without
authorization therefor already restrictions on payment or manner
exists under RA Nos. 4860 and thereof coupled with the availability
245, as amended, and PD 1967. of the corresponding
Precisely in the light of this appropriations, must include the
subsisting authorization as power to effect payments or to
embodied in said Republic Acts and make payments unavailing by
PD for debt service, Congress does either restructuring the loans or
not concern itself with details for even refusing to make any payment
implementation by the Executive, altogether.
but largely with annual levels and
approval thereof upon due 3) Can the Governor of the Bangko
deliberations as part of the whole Sentral ng Pilipinas, the Secretary
obligation program for the year. of Finance, the National Treasurer,
Upon such approval, Congress has and the Philippine Debt Negotiation
spoken and cannot be said to have Chairman act in behalf of the
delegated its wisdom to the President in relation to the latter’s
Executive, on whose part lies the power to incur foreign debts?
implementation or execution of the
legislative wisdom. Yes. Petitioner’s position in the
case of Constantino v. Cuisia1160 is
Specific legal authority for the negated both by explicit
buyback of loans is established constitutional and legal
under Section 2 of Republic Act imprimaturs, as well as the doctrine
(R.A.) No. 240. The afore-quoted of qualified political agency.
provisions of law specifically allow
the President to pre-terminate The evident exigency of having the
debts without further action from Secretary of Finance implement the
Congress. decision of the President to execute
the debt-relief contracts is made
Buyback is a necessary power manifest by the fact that the
which springs from the grant of the process of establishing and
foreign borrowing power. Every executing a strategy for managing
statute is understood, by the government’s debt is deep
implication, to contain all such within the realm of the expertise of
provisions as may be necessary to the Department of Finance, primed
effectuate its object and purpose, or as it is to raise the required amount
to make effective rights, powers, of funding, achieve its risk and cost
privileges or jurisdiction which it objectives, and meet any other
grants, including all such collateral sovereign debt management goals.
and subsidiary consequences as
may be fairly and logically inferred The Secretary of Finance or any
from its terms. The President is not designated alter ego of the
empowered to borrow money from President is bound to secure the
foreign banks and governments on latter’s prior consent to or
the credit of the Republic only to be subsequent ratification of his acts.
left bereft of authority to implement In the matter of contracting or
1159 G.R. No. 106064, October 13, 2005 1160 G.R. No. 106064, October 13, 2005
(Colossians 3:23)
guaranteeing foreign loans, the presidential prerogative may be

repudiation by the President of the exercised by the Presidents alter
very acts performed in this regard ego, who in this case is the
by the alter ego will definitely have Secretary of Finance.
binding effect. Had petitioners
herein succeeded in demonstrating It bears emphasis that apart from
that the President actually withheld the Constitution, there is also a
approval and/or repudiated the relevant statute, R.A. No. 245, that
Financing Program, there could be establishes the parameters by
a cause of action to nullify the acts which the alter ego may act in
of respondents. Notably though, behalf of the President with respect
petitioners do not assert that to the borrowing power. This law
respondents pursued the Program expressly provides that the
without prior authorization of the Secretary of Finance may enter into
President or that the terms of the foreign borrowing contracts. This
contract were agreed upon without law neither amends nor goes
the Presidents authorization. contrary to the Constitution but
Congruent with the avowed merely implements the subject
preference of then President provision in a manner consistent
Aquino to honor and restructure with the structure of the Executive
existing foreign debts, the lack of Department and the alter ego
showing that she countermanded doctrine. In this regard,
the acts of respondents leads us to respondents have declared that
conclude that said acts carried they have followed the restrictions
presidential approval. provided under R.A. No. 245, which
include the requisite presidential
With constitutional parameters authorization and which, in the
already established, we may also absence of proof and even
note, as a source of suppletory allegation to the contrary, should be
guidance, the provisions of R.A. No. regarded in a fashion congruent
245. The afore-quoted Section 1 with the presumption of regularity
thereof empowers the Secretary of bestowed on acts done by public
Finance with the approval of the officials.
President and after consultation of
the Monetary Board, to borrow from Section 21. No treaty or international
time to time on the credit of the agreement shall be valid and effective
Republic of the Philippines such unless concurred in by at least two-
sum or sums as in his judgment thirds of all the Members of the Senate.
may be necessary, and to issue
therefor evidences of indebtedness Q & A:
of the Philippine Government.
Ineluctably then, while the 1) What is a treaty?
President wields the borrowing
power it is the Secretary of Finance A treaty, as defined by the Vienna
who normally carries out its thrusts. Convention on the Law of Treaties,
is an international instrument
The Constitution allocates to the concluded between States in
President the exercise of the written form and governed by
foreign borrowing power subject to international law, whether
such limitations as may be provided embodied in a single instrument or
under law. Following Southern in two or more related instruments,
Cross, but in line with the limitations and whatever its particular
1161
as defined in Villena, the designation.
1161 Vienna Convention, Article 2

(Colossians 3:23)
navigation arrangements and the

There are many other terms used settlement of claims. The validity of
for a treaty or international these has never been seriously
agreement, some of which are: act, questioned by our courts.1165
protocol, agreement, compromis d
arbitrage, concordat, convention, 3) Difference of a treaty and executive
declaration, exchange of notes, agreement
pact, statute, charter and modus
vivendi. All writers, from Hugo Treaty Executive
Grotius onward, have pointed out Agreement
that the names or titles of May not be Must remain
international agreements included traceable to an traceable to an
under the general term treaty have express or express or
little or no legal significance. implied implied
Certain terms are useful, but they authorization authorization
furnish little more than mere under the under the
description.1162 Constitution, Constitution,
statutes, or statutes, or
Thus, in international law, there is treaties. treaties.
no difference between treaties and
executive agreements in their Products of the Solely
binding effect upon states acts of the executive
concerned, as long as the Executive and actions
negotiating functionaries have the Senate.
remained within their powers.1163
International law continues to make Treaty is Executive
no distinction between treaties and regarded as agreement is
executive agreements: they are being on the not regarded as
equally binding obligations upon same level as being on the
nations.1164 a statute. same level as a
statute.
2) What is an executive agreement?
If there is an Executive
The right of the Executive to enter irreconcilable agreements
into binding agreements without the conflict, a later that are
necessity of subsequent law or treaty inconsistent
congressional approval has been takes with either a
confirmed by long usage. precedence law or a treaty
over one that is are considered
From the earliest days of our history prior. ineffective.1166
we have entered into executive
agreements covering such subjects Treaties are Executive
as commercial and consular formal agreements
relations, most-favored-nation documents become
rights, patent rights, trademark and which require binding through
copyright protection, postal and ratification with executive
1162 Gerhard von Glahn, Law among Nations, 1164 Richard J. Erickson, The Making of
an Introduction to Public International Law, 4th Executive Agreements by the United States
Ed., p. 480 Department of Defense: An agenda for
1163 Hackworth, Digest of International Law, Vol. Progress, 13 Boston U. Intl. L.J. 58 [1995]
5, p. 395, cited in USAFE Veterans Association 1165 Bayan v. Zamora, G.R. No. 138570,
Inc. vs. Treasurer of the Philippines, 105 Phil. October 10, 2000
1030, 1037 [1959] 1166 Saguisag v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No.
212426, January 12, 2016

(Colossians 3:23)
Treaty Executive Section 25, Article XVIII disallows

Agreement foreign military bases, troops, or
the approval of action without facilities in the country, unless the
two-thirds of the need of a following conditions are sufficiently
the Senate. vote by the met, viz:
Senate or by
Congress.1167 a. It must be under a treaty;
b. The treaty must be duly

4) The President signs an agreement concurred in by the Senate and,
with his counterpart in another when so required by congress,
country involving reciprocity in the ratified by a majority of the votes
treatment of each country's cast by the people in a national
nationals residing in the other's referendum; and
territory. However, he does not
submit the agreement to the Senate c. Recognized as a treaty by the
for concurrence. other contracting state.
Sec. 21, Art. VII of the Constitution The concurrence of the Senate
provides that no treaty or contemplated under Section 25,
international agreement shall be Article XVIII means that at least
valid and effective without such two-thirds of all the members of the
concurrence. Senate favorably vote to concur
with the treaty-the VFA in the
Is the agreement signed by the instant case.
President effective despite the lack
of Senate concurrence? Explain The phrase recognized as a treaty
your answer. (BAR EXAM) means that the other contracting
party accepts or acknowledges the
ANSWER: agreement as a treaty.1169
Yes. Prevailing jurisprudence 6) Is the visiting forces agreement

states that the right of the Executive (VFA) entered into by the President
to enter into binding agreements constitutional?
without the necessity of subsequent
congressional approval has been Yes. In the case of Bayan v.
confirmed by long usage.1168 Zamora,1170 the Court held that
since the said agreement was
Since the agreement constitutes an concurred by at least 2/3 of all the
executive agreement, the same members of the Senate and the
shall still be valid because this act United States of America accepts or
falls within the exclusive acknowledges the VFA as a treaty,
prerogative of the President. and binds itself further to comply
with its obligations under the treaty,
5) Section 25, Article XVIII disallows there is indeed marked compliance
foreign military bases, troops, or with the mandate of the
facilities in the country. What is the Constitution.
condition/instance wherein the
same may be allowed? 7) Can an executive agreement
amend a provision of a treaty?
1167Saguisag v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 1169 Bayan v. Zamora, G.R. No. 138570,
212426, January 12, 2016 October 10, 2000
1168 Bayan v. Zamora, G.R. No. 138570, 1170 G.R. No. 138570, October 10, 2000
October 10, 2000

(Colossians 3:23)
agreements, which are executive

As a general rule, NO. In the case agreements essentially, but which
of Adolfo v. CFI,1171 the Court ruled proceed from previous
that the making of the treaty having authorization by Congress, thus
been undertaken under the joint dispensing with the requirement of
auspices of the President and the concurrence by the Senate.1173
Senate, its amendment or revision
must similarly be undertaken by 9) Is the RP-U.S. Non-Surrender
both agencies of the State as Agreement in the form of an
directed by the Constitution. executive agreement, instead of a
treaty, entered into by the President
Exception: without Senate concurrence
constitutional?
Detail adjustments to a treaty using
an executive agreement can be Yes. In the case of Bayan Muna v.
made provided that the following Romulo,1174 the Court held that the
are present: right of the Executive to enter into
binding agreements without the
a. The executive agreement must necessity of subsequent
not go beyond the parameters, Congressional approval has been
limitations, and standards set confirmed by long usage. From the
by the law and/or treaty that the earliest days of our history, we have
former purports to implement; entered executive agreements
and must not unduly expand the covering such subjects as
international obligation commercial and consular relations,
expressly mentioned or most favored-nation rights, patent
necessarily implied in the law or rights, trademark and copyright
treaty; and protection, postal and navigation
arrangements and the settlement of
b. The executive agreement must claims. The validity of these has
be consistent with the never been seriously questioned by
Constitution, as well as with our courts.
existing laws and treaties.
(Saguisag v. Executive 10) Is the Enhanced Defense
1172
Secretary) Cooperation Agreement (EDCA)
entered into by the Philippines and
8) What is an international United States constitutional even
agreement? though the same was not concurred
by at least 2/3 of all of the members
International agreements are of the Senate?
similar instruments, the provisions
of which may require the ratification In the case of Saguisag v.
of a designated number of parties Executive Secretary,1175 the Court
thereto. These agreements ruled that executive agreements
involving political issues or changes merely involve arrangements on the
in national policy, as well as those implementation of existing policies,
involving international agreements rules, laws, or agreements. They
of a permanent character, usually are concluded:
take the form of treaties. They may
also include commercial a. To adjust the details of a treaty;
1171 G.R. No. L-30650, July 31, 1970 1174 G.R. No. 159618, February 1, 2011
1173 Saguisag v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No.
212426, January 12, 2016

(Colossians 3:23)
b. Pursuant to or upon
confirmation by an act of the
Legislature; or
c. In the exercise of the

President's independent
powers under the Constitution.
However, adjustment to the details

of a treaty requires the following:
a. The executive agreement must

not go beyond the parameters,
limitations, and standards set
by the law and/or treaty that the
former purports to implement;
and must not unduly expand the
international obligation
expressly mentioned or
necessarily implied in the law or
treaty; and
b. The executive agreement must

be consistent with the
Constitution, as well as with
existing laws and treaties.
Section 22. 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.
Section 23. The President shall address

the Congress at the opening of its
regular session. He may also appear
before it at any other time.
(Colossians 3:23)
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
a. The Constitution;
SECTION 1. The judicial power shall be
vested in one Supreme Court and in b. By existing domestic and
such lower courts as may be international law.
established by law.
which sets limits or conditions to the
Judicial power includes the duty of the powers and functions conferred
courts of justice to settle actual upon these political bodies.
controversies involving rights which are [COTESCUP, et al. v. Dep Ed
legally demandable and enforceable, Secretary Luisitro, et al. citing
and to determine whether or not there Francisco, Jr. v. House of
has been a grave abuse of discretion Representatives, 460 Phil. 830, 904
amounting to lack or excess of (2003)1177]
jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the Government. 3) Can the Court pass upon a case
brought before it alleging serious
Q & A: allegations that a law or executive
issuance is contrary to the
1) Expanded definition of Judicial Constitution?
Power under the 1987 Philippine
Constitution Yes. When a case is brought before
the Court with serious allegations
Section 1, Artilcle VIII authorizes that a law or executive issuance
courts of justice to: infringes upon the Constitution, as
in these consolidated cases, it
a. Settle actual case controversies becomes not only a right but in fact
involving rights which are the duty of the Court to settle the
legally demandable and dispute.
enforceable; and
In doing so, the Court does not find
b. To determine whether there has any constitutional infringement,
been grave abuse of discretion then, it has no more authority to
amounting to lack or excess of proscribe the actions under review.
jurisdiction on the part of any [COTESCUP, et al. v. Dep Ed
branch or instrumentality of the Secretary Luisitro, et al. citing
Government. (COTESCUP, et Tanada v. Angara 338 Phil 546, 574
al. v. Dep Ed Secretary Luisitro, (1997)1178]
et al.1176)
4) What are the appropriate remedies
2) What are the guides used by the to raise constitutional issues and to
Court in determining whether or not review and/or prohibit or nullify, on
there has been grave abuse of the ground of grave abuse of
discretion amounting to excess or discretion?
lack of jurisdiction?
It has long been judicially settled
In determining whether grave that under the Court’s expanded
abuse of discretion amounting to jurisdiction, the following:
excess or lack of jurisdiction has
been committed by any branch or a. Writs of Certiorari; and
instrumentality of the government,
the Court is guided primarily by: b. Prohibition
1176 G.R. No. 216930, October 9, 2018 1178 Ibid.

1177 Ibid.
(Colossians 3:23)
bids for and authorizing a new

are appropriate remedies to raise contract for the Metro Manila waste
constitutional issues and to review management ILLEGAL and VOID.
and/or prohibit or nullify, on the MMDA filed a special civil action for
ground of grave abuse of discretion, certiorari with the Court of Appeals.
any act of any branch or Can the Supreme Court take
instrumentality of the government, cognizance of the case?
even if the latter does not exercise
judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial No. the Court held in the case of
functions. [COTESCUP, et al. v. MMDA v. JANCOM,1181 that such
Dep Ed Secretary Luisitro, et al. action cannot be done.
citing Jardaleza v. Sereno, 741 Phil.
460, 491 (2014)1179] Petition for certiorari is filed when
any tribunal, board or officer
5) Congress passed a law (RA 8528) exercising judicial or quasi-judicial
converting the city of Santiago, functions has acted without or in
Isabela from an independent excess of its or his jurisdiction, or
component city into a component with grave abuse of discretion
city without holding any plebiscite. amounting to lack or excess of
The incumbent mayor and its jurisdiction, and there is no appeal,
residents filed a case inquiring the or any plain, speedy, and adequate
constitutionality of the passage of remedy in the ordinary course of
the said law. Can the Courts took law, a person aggrieved thereby
cognizance of the case? may file a verified petition in the
proper court, alleging the facts with
Yes. In the case of Miranda v. certainty and praying that judgment
Aguirre,1180 the Court held that the be rendered annulling or modifying
petition at bar presents a justiciable the proceedings of such tribunal,
issue. Petitioners claim that under board or officer, and granting such
Section 10, Article X of the 1987 incidental reliefs as law and justice
Constitution they have a right to may require.
approve or disapprove R.A. No.
8528 in a plebiscite before it can be Since the decision of the trial court
enforced. It ought to be self-evident was not appealed, it became final
that whether or not petitioners have and has thus gone beyond the
the said right is a legal not a political reach of any court to modify in any
question. For whether or not laws substantive aspect. The remedy to
passed by Congress comply with obtain reversal or modification of
the requirements of the Constitution the judgment on the merits is
pose questions that this Court alone appeal. This is true even if the error,
can decide. The proposition that or one of the errors, ascribed to the
this Court is the ultimate arbiter of court rendering the judgment is its
the meaning and nuances of the lack of jurisdiction over the subject
Constitution need not be the subject matter, or the exercise of power in
of a prolix explanation. excess thereof, or grave abuse of
discretion in the findings of fact or of
6) The trial court rendered a decision law set out in the decision. The
declaring the Resolution of existence and availability of the
respondent Greater Metropolitan right of appeal proscribes a resort to
Manila Solid Waste Management certiorari, because one of the
Committee disregarding petitioners requirements for availment of the
BOT Award Contract and calling for
1179 G.R. No. 216930, October 9, 2018 1181 G.R. No. 147465, January 30, 2002
1180 G.R. No. 133064, September 16, 1999
(Colossians 3:23)
latter remedy is precisely that there much the same way that the courts
should be no appeal. would be extremely swamped if
they would be compelled to review
7) Can the petitioner file a petition for the exercise of discretion on the
certiorari with the Supreme Court part of the fiscals or prosecuting
ordering the latter to review the attorneys each time they decide to
evidence presented with the file an information in court or
Ombudsman and determine dismiss a complaint by a private
whether in fact he acted in good complainant.
faith and that no conspiracy existed
among the accused? SECTION 2. The Congress shall have
the power to define, prescribe, and
No. In the case of Tirol Jr. v. apportion the jurisdiction of various
COA,1182 the Court held that only courts but may not deprive the Supreme
questions of law may be appealed Court of its jurisdiction over cases
to us by way of certiorari. This Court enumerated in Section 5 hereof.
is not ordinarily a trier of facts, its
jurisdiction being limited to errors of No law shall be passed reorganizing the
law. There is a question of law in Judiciary when it undermines the
any given case when the doubt or security of tenure of its Members.
difference arises as to what the law
is on a certain state of facts. A SECTION 3. The Judiciary shall enjoy
question of fact arises when the fiscal autonomy. Appropriations for the
doubt or difference arises as to the Judiciary may not be reduced by the
truth or falsehood of alleged facts. legislature below the amount
appropriated for the previous year and,
In this case, there is only the claim after approval, shall be automatically
of petitioner that he had acted in and regularly released.
good faith and that there was no
conspiracy. The Ombudsman SECTION 4. (1) The Supreme Court shall
believes otherwise. It is settled that be composed of a Chief Justice and
this Court ordinarily does not fourteen Associate Justices. It may sit
interfere with the discretion of the en banc or in its discretion, in divisions
Ombudsman to determine whether of three, five, or seven Members. Any
there exists reasonable ground to vacancy shall be filled within ninety
believe that a crime has been days from the occurrence thereof.
committed and that the accused is
probably guilty thereof and, (2) All cases involving the
thereafter, to file the corresponding constitutionality of a treaty,
information with the appropriate international or executive agreement, or
courts. This rule is based not only law, which shall be heard by the
upon respect for the investigatory Supreme Court en banc, and all other
and prosecutory powers granted by cases which under the Rules of Court
the Constitution to the Office of the are required to be heard en banc,
Ombudsman but upon practicality including those involving the
as well. Otherwise the functions of constitutionality, application, or
the courts will be grievously operation of presidential decrees,
hampered by immeasurable proclamations, orders, instructions,
petitions assailing the dismissal of ordinances, and other regulations, shall
investigatory proceedings be decided with the concurrence of a
conducted by the Office of the of the majority of the Members who actually
Ombudsman with regard to took part in the deliberations on the
complaints filed before it, in as issues in the case and voted thereon.
1182 G.R. No. 133954, August 3, 2000

(Colossians 3:23)
order appealed from shall stand

(3) Cases or matters heard by a division affirmed; and on all incidental
shall be decided or resolved with the matters, the petition or motion shall
concurrence of a majority of the be denied.”
Members who actually took part in the
deliberations on the issues in the case Hence, the petition was dismissed.
and voted thereon, and in no case,
without the concurrence of at least three SECTION 5. The Supreme Court shall
of such Members. When the required have the following powers:
number is not obtained, the case shall
be decided en banc: Provided, that no (1) Exercise original jurisdiction over
doctrine or principle of law laid down by cases affecting ambassadors, other
the court in a decision rendered en banc public ministers and consuls, and over
or in division may be modified or petitions for certiorari, prohibition,
reversed except by the court sitting en mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas
banc. corpus.
Q & A: (2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or

affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law
1) Citizens and taxpayers brought a or the Rules of Court may provide, final
suit for prohibition and mandamus judgments and orders of lower courts
with the Supreme Court assailing in:
the constitutionality of certain
provisions of Republic Act No. 8371 (a) All cases in which the
(R.A. 8371), otherwise known as constitutionality or validity of any treaty,
the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act international or executive agreement,
of 1997 (IPRA), and its law, presidential decree, proclamation,
Implementing Rules and order, instruction, ordinance, or
Regulations (Implementing Rules). regulation is in question.
During the deliberations, the votes
of the Justices were equally divided (b) All cases involving the legality of any
(7 to 7) and the necessary majority tax, impost, assessment, or toll, or any
was not obtained. However, after penalty imposed in relation thereto.
redeliberation, the voting remained
the same. Can the Court grant the (c) All cases in which the jurisdiction of
petition? any lower court is in issue.
No. In the case of Cruz v. DENR,1183 (d) All criminal cases in which the
the Court held that in case of a tie, penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua
the case will be ruled upon pursuant or higher.
to Rule 56 Sec. 7 of the Rules of
Civil Procedures which provides: (e) All cases in which only an error or
question of law is involved.
“Section 7. Procedure if opinion
is equally divided. — Where the (3) Assign temporarily judges of lower
court en banc is equally divided in courts to other stations as public
opinion, or the necessary majority interest may require. Such temporary
cannot be had, the case shall again assignment shall not exceed six months
be deliberated on, and if after such without the consent of the judge
deliberation no decision is reached, concerned.
the original action commenced in
the court shall be dismissed, in (4) Order a change of venue or place of
appealed cases, the judgment or trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice.
1183 G.R. No. 135385, December 6, 2000

(Colossians 3:23)
person seeking admission had

(5) Promulgate rules concerning the practiced law without a license.
protection and enforcement of
constitutional rights, pleading, practice, True, respondent here passed the
and procedure in all courts, the 2000 Bar Examinations and took
admission to the practice of law, the the lawyers oath. However, it is the
Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to signing in the Roll of Attorneys that
the underprivileged. Such rules shall finally makes one a full-fledged
provide a simplified and inexpensive lawyer. The fact that respondent
procedure for the speedy disposition of passed the bar examinations is
cases, shall be uniform for all courts of immaterial. Passing the bar is not
the same grade, and shall not diminish, the only qualification to become an
increase, or modify substantive rights. attorney-at-law.
Rules of procedure of special courts
and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain Respondent should know that two
effective unless disapproved by the essential requisites for becoming a
Supreme Court. lawyer still had to be performed,
namely: his lawyers oath to be
(6) Appoint all officials and employees administered by this Court and his
of the Judiciary in accordance with the signature in the Roll of Attorneys.
Civil Service Law.
SECTION 6. The Supreme Court shall
Q & A: have administrative supervision over all
courts and the personnel thereof.
1) Can the Supreme Court allow a
person who passed the bar but SECTION 7. (1) No person shall be
allegedly engaged in the appointed Member of the Supreme
unauthorized practice of law [i.e. by Court or any lower collegiate court
representing a client before the unless he is a natural-born citizen of the
Municipal Board of Election Philippines. A Member of the Supreme
Canvassers (MBEC) and signing Court must be at least forty years of age,
pleadings] to be admitted to the and must have been for fifteen years or
bar? more a judge of a lower court or
engaged in the practice of law in the
No. in the case of Aguirre v. Philippines.
Rana,1184 the Court ruled that the
right to practice law is not a natural (2) The Congress shall prescribe the
or constitutional right but is a qualifications of judges of lower courts,
privilege. It is limited to persons of but no person may be appointed judge
good moral character with special thereof unless he is a citizen of the
qualifications duly ascertained and Philippines and a member of the
certified. The exercise of this Philippine Bar.
privilege presupposes possession
of integrity, legal knowledge, (3) A Member of the Judiciary must be a
educational attainment, and even person of proven competence, integrity,
public trust since a lawyer is an probity, and independence.
officer of the court. A bar candidate
does not acquire the right to SECTION 8. (1) A Judicial and Bar
practice law simply by passing the Council is hereby created under the
bar examinations. The practice of supervision of the Supreme Court
law is a privilege that can be composed of the Chief Justice as ex
withheld even from one who has officio Chairman, the Secretary of
passed the bar examinations, if the Justice, and a representative of the
1184 B. M. No. 1036, June 10, 2003

(Colossians 3:23)
Congress as ex officio Members, a Integrated Bar," tasked to

representative of the Integrated Bar, a participate in the selection of
professor of law, a retired Member of the nominees for appointment to vacant
Supreme Court, and a representative of positions in the judiciary, may be
the private sector. the reason why the position of IBP
president has attracted so much
(2) The regular Members of the Council interest among the lawyers. The
shall be appointed by the President for much coveted "power" erroneously
a term of four years with the consent of perceived to be inherent in that
the Commission on Appointments. Of office might have caused the
the Members first appointed, the corruption of the IBP elections. To
representative of the Integrated Bar impress upon the participants in
shall serve for four years, the professor that electoral exercise the
of law for three years, the retired Justice seriousness of the misconduct
for two years, and the representative of which attended it and the stern
the private sector for one year. disapproval with which it is viewed
by this Court, and to restore the
(3) The Clerk of the Supreme Court shall non-political character of the IBP
be the Secretary ex officio of the and reduce, if not entirely eliminate,
Council and shall keep a record of its expensive electioneering for the top
proceedings. positions in the organization which,
as the recently concluded elections
(4) The regular Members of the Council revealed, spawned unethical
shall receive such emoluments as may practices which seriously
be determined by the Supreme Court. diminished the stature of the IBP as
The Supreme Court shall provide in its an association of the practitioners
annual budget the appropriations for of a noble and honored profession.
the Council.
Due to irregularities committed by
(5) The Council shall have the principal the elected officials, the Supreme
function of recommending appointees Court annulled the IBP elections
to the Judiciary. It may exercise such held on June 3, 1989.
other functions and duties as the
Supreme Court may assign to it. SECTION 9. The Members of the
Supreme Court and judges of lower
Q & A: courts shall be appointed by the
President from a list of at least three
1) Is the election of the national nominees prepared by the Judicial and
officers of the IBP valid even though Bar Council for every vacancy. Such
the said officers violated the acts appointments need no confirmation.
and practices under the IBP By-
Laws, specifically the "strictly non- For the lower courts, the President shall
political" character of the Integrated issue the appointments within ninety
Bar of the Philippines? days from the submission of the list.
No. It was held In the Matter of the SECTION 10. The salary of the Chief
Inquiry into the 1989 Elections of Justice and of the Associate Justices of
the Integrated Bar,1185 that the the Supreme Court, and of judges of
provision in the 1987 Constitution lower courts shall be fixed by law.
(See. 8, Art. VIII) providing for a During their continuance in office, their
Judicial and Bar Council composed salary shall not be decreased.
of seven (7) members among Q & A:
whom is "a representative of the
1185 A.M. No. 491, October 6, 1989

(Colossians 3:23)
1) Is Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 valid The undeniably strong links that
on the ground that it sought to bind the executive and legislative
bolster their claim by imputing lack departments under the amended
of good faith in its enactment and Constitution assure that the framing
characterizing as an undue of policies as well as their
delegation of legislative power to implementation can be
the President his authority to fix the accomplished with unity,
compensation and allowances of promptitude, and efficiency.
the Justices and judges?
SECTION 11. The Members of the
No. It was held in the case of De La Supreme Court and judges of lower
Llana v. Alba,1186 the Court ruled courts shall hold office during good
that the basic postulate that behavior until they reached the age of
underlies the doctrine of non- seventy years or become incapacitated
delegation is that it is the legislative to discharge the duties of their office.
body which is entrusted with the The Supreme Court en banc shall have
competence to make laws and to the power to discipline judges of lower
alter and repeal them, the test being courts, or order their dismissal by a vote
the completeness of the statue in all of a majority of the Members who
its terms and provisions when actually took part in the deliberations on
enacted. the issues in the case and voted
thereon.
To avoid the taint of unlawful
delegation, there must be a SECTION 12. The Members of the
standard, which implies at the very Supreme Court and of other courts
least that the legislature itself established by law shall not be
determines matters of principle and designated to any agency performing
lays down fundamental policy. quasi-judicial or administrative
Otherwise, the charge of complete functions.
abdication may be hard to repel. A
standard thus defines legislative SECTION 13. The conclusions of the
policy, marks its limits, maps out its Supreme Court in any case submitted to
boundaries and specifies the public it for decision en banc or in division
agency to apply it. It indicates the shall be reached in consultation before
circumstances under which the the case is assigned to a Member for the
legislative command is to be writing of the opinion of the Court. A
effected. It is the criterion by which certification to this effect signed by the
legislative purpose may be carried Chief Justice shall be issued and a copy
out. Thereafter, the executive or thereof attached to the record of the
administrative office designated case and served upon the parties. Any
may in pursuance of the above Member who took no part, or dissented,
guidelines promulgate or abstained from a decision or
supplemental rules and regulations. resolution must state the reason
The standard may be either therefor. The same requirements shall
express or implied. If the former, the be observed by all lower collegiate
non-delegation objection is easily courts.
met. The standard though does not
have to be spelled out specifically. SECTION 14. No decision shall be
It could be implied from the policy rendered by any court without
and purpose of the act considered expressing therein clearly and distinctly
as a whole. the facts and the law on which it is
based.
1186 G.R. No. L-57883, March 12, 1982

(Colossians 3:23)
No petition for review or motion for served upon the parties. The
reconsideration of a decision of the certification shall state why a decision
court shall be refused due course or or resolution has not been rendered or
denied without stating the legal basis issued within said period.
therefor.
(4) Despite the expiration of the
Q & A: applicable mandatory period, the court,
without prejudice to such responsibility
1) Is the resolution of the Court of as may have been incurred in
Appeals denying his motion for consequence thereof, shall decide or
reconsideration was rendered in resolve the case or matter submitted
violation of the Constitution thereto for determination, without
because it does not state the legal further delay.
basis thereof?
SECTION 16. The Supreme Court shall,
No. It was held in the case of within thirty days from the opening of
Martinez v. CA1187 that Art. VIII, each regular session of the Congress,
Sec. 14 of the Constitution provides submit to the President and the
that "No petition for review or Congress an annual report on the
motion for reconsideration of a operations and activities of the
decision of the court shall be Judiciary.
refused due course or denied
without stating the basis therefor."
This requirement was fully complied
with when the Court of Appeals, in
denying. reconsideration of its
decision, stated in its resolution that
it found no reason to change its
ruling because petitioner had not
raised anything new.
SECTION 15. (1) All cases or matters

filed after the effectivity of this
Constitution must be decided or
resolved within twenty-four months
from date of submission for the
Supreme Court, and, unless reduced by
the Supreme Court, twelve months for
all lower collegiate courts, and three
months for all other lower courts.
(2) A case or matter shall be deemed

submitted for decision or resolution
upon the filing of the last pending, brief,
or memorandum required by the Rules
of Court or by the court itself.
(3) Upon the expiration of the

corresponding period, a certification to
this effect signed by the Chief Justice or
the presiding judge shall forthwith be
issued and a copy thereof attached to
the record of the case or matter, and
1187 G.R. No. 123547, May 21, 2001

(Colossians 3:23)
CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS SECTION 3. The salary of the Chairman

and the Commissioners shall be fixed
ARTICLE IX by law and shall not be decreased
during their tenure.
Constitutional Commissions
SECTION 4. The Constitutional
A. Common Provisions Commissions shall appoint their
officials and employees in accordance
SECTION 1. The Constitutional with law.
Commissions, which shall be
independent, are the Civil Service SECTION 5. The Commission shall
Commission, the Commission on enjoy fiscal autonomy. Their approved
Elections, and the Commission on annual appropriations shall be
Audit. automatically and regularly released.
Q & A: Q & A:
1) Can a Constitutional Commission 1) Can the Department of Budget and

amend and/or revise the Management (DBM) withhold the
Constitution? part of the budget of Civil Service
Commission (CSC) on the basis of
No. The Constitutional Commission “no report, no release policy”?
has no such power. The power to
amend the Constitution lies with the No. It was held in the case of CSC
Congress by exercising its v. DBM1188 that the no report, no
Constituent Powers, Constitutional release policy may not be validly
Convention, or through People’s enforced against offices vested with
initiative. fiscal autonomy is not disputed.
Indeed, such policy cannot be
While, the power to revise the enforced against offices
Constitution lies with the Congress possessing fiscal autonomy without
by exercising its Constituent violating Article IX (A), Section 5 of
Powers or through the the Constitution.
Constitutional Convention called for
that purpose. By parity of construction, automatic
release of approved annual
SECTION 2. No Member of a appropriations to petitioner, a
Constitutional Commission shall, constitutional commission which is
during his tenure, hold any other office vested with fiscal autonomy, should
or employment. Neither shall he engage thus be construed to mean that no
in the practice of any profession or in condition to fund releases to it may
the active management or control of any be imposed.
business which in any way be affected
by the functions of his office, nor shall Furthermore, the Constitution
he be financially interested, directly or grants the enjoyment of fiscal
indirectly, in any contract with, or in any autonomy only to the Judiciary, the
franchise or privilege granted by the Constitutional Commissions of
Government, any of its subdivisions, which petitioner is one, and the
agencies, or instrumentalities, Ombudsman. To hold that
including government-owned or petitioner may be subjected to
controlled corporations or their withholding or reduction of funds in
subsidiaries. the event of a revenue shortfall
would, to that extent, place
1188 G.R. No. 158791, July 22, 2005

(Colossians 3:23)
petitioner and the other entities Supreme Court has no power to

vested with fiscal autonomy on review via certiorari, an
equal footing with all others which interlocutory order or even a final
are not granted the same resolution of a Division of the
autonomy, thereby reducing to Commission on Elections.
naught the distinction established
by the Constitution. SECTION 8. Each Commission shall
perform such other functions as may be
The agencies which the provided by law.
Constitution has vested with fiscal
autonomy should thus be given
priority in the release of their
approved appropriations over all
other agencies not similarly vested
when there is a revenue shortfall.
SECTION 6. 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.
SECTION 7. 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.
Q & A:
1) Can the Supreme Court directly

hear cases resolved by a Division of
the COMELEC?
No. It was held in the case of Ambil

Jr. v. COMELEC1189 that the
decision must be a final decision or
resolution of the Comelec en banc
not of a division, certainly not an
interlocutory order of a division. The
1189 G.R. No. 143398, October 25, 2000

(Colossians 3:23)
ARTICLE IX only be filled only for the

unexpired balance of the term.
Constitutional Commissions
Rationale: To preserve the
B. The Civil Service Commission independence of the
Constitutional Commission
SECTION 1. (1) The Civil Service shall be and not to be at the mercy of
administered by the Civil Service the incumbent President.
Commission composed of a Chairman
and two Commissioners who shall be 2) When is the expiration of the term
natural-born citizens of the Philippines of the Commissioner if he/she was
and, at the time of their appointment, at appointed on June 12, 1993?
least thirty-five years of age, with
proven capacity for public His/her term will expire on Feb. 2,
administration, and must not have been 1999. As held in the case of
candidates for any elective position in Gaminde v. COA,1191 the Court
the elections immediately preceding clarified that there is no need to
their appointment. expressly state the beginning of the
term of office as this is understood
(2) The Chairman and the to coincide with the effectivity of the
Commissioners shall be appointed by Constitution upon its ratification (on
the President with the consent of the February 02, 1987). The line of
Commission on Appointments for a succession, terms of office and
term of seven years without tenure of the Chairman and
reappointment. Of those first appointed, members of the Civil Service
the Chairman shall hold office for seven Commission may be outlined their
years, a Commissioner for five years, term of office ends on Feb. 2.
and another Commissioner for three Hence, the term of office of the
years, without reappointment. petitioner should end on Feb. 2,
Appointment to any vacancy shall be 1999 or seven (7) years after his
only for the unexpired term of the appointment.
predecessor. In no case shall any
Member be appointed or designated in a SECTION 2. (1) The civil service
temporary or acting capacity. embraces all branches, subdivisions,
instrumentalities, and agencies of the
Q & A: Government, including government-
owned or controlled corporations with
1) Explain the concept of rotational original charters.
plan.
(2) Appointments in the civil service
It was held in the case of Gaminde shall be made only according to merit
v. COA,1190 that the operation of the and fitness to be determined, as far as
rotational plan requires two practicable, and, except to positions
conditions, both indispensable to its which are policy-determining, primarily
workability: confidential, or highly technical, by
competitive examination.
a. That the terms of the first three
(3) Commissioners should start (3) No officer or employee of the civil
on a common date, and, service shall be removed or suspended
except for cause provided by law.
b. That any vacancy due to death,
resignation or disability before
the expiration of the term should
1190 G. R. No. 140335, December 13, 2000 1191 G. R. No. 140335, December 13, 2000
(Colossians 3:23)
(4) No officer or employee in the civil or controlled, or private in nature is

service shall engage, directly or simple.
indirectly, in any electioneering or
partisan political campaign. Is it created by its own charter for
the exercise of a public function, or
(5) The right to self-organization shall by incorporation under the general
not be denied to government corporation law?
employees.
Those with special charters are
(6) Temporary employees of the government corporations subject to
Government shall be given such its provisions, and its employees
protection as may be provided by law. are under the jurisdiction of the Civil
Service Commission, and are
Q & A: compulsory members of the
Government Service Insurance
1) Is the Philippine National Red System.1193
Cross (PNRC) covered by the Civil
Service? SECTION 3. The Civil Service
Commission, as the central personnel
Yes. In the case of Camporedondo agency of the Government, shall
v. NLRC,1192 the Court ruled that the establish a career service and adopt
Philippine National Red Cross measures to promote morale, efficiency,
(PNRC) is a government owned integrity, responsiveness,
and controlled corporation, with an progressiveness, and courtesy in the
original charter under Republic Act civil service. It shall strengthen the
No. 95, as amended. merit and rewards system, integrate all
human resources development
The PNRC was not "impliedly programs for all levels and ranks, and
converted to a private corporation" institutionalize a management climate
simply because its charter was conducive to public accountability. It
amended to vest in it the authority shall submit to the President and the
to secure loans, be exempted from Congress an annual report on its
payment of all duties, taxes, fees personnel programs.
and other charges of all kinds on all
importations and purchases for its SECTION 4. All public officers and
exclusive use, on donations for its employees shall take an oath or
disaster relief work and other affirmation to uphold and defend this
services and in its benefits and fund Constitution.
raising drives, and be alloted one
lottery draw a year by the Philippine SECTION 5. The Congress shall provide
Charity Sweepstakes Office for the for the standardization of compensation
support of its disaster relief of government officials and employees,
operation in addition to its existing including those in government-owned
lottery draws for blood program. or controlled corporations with original
charters, taking into account the nature
2) What is the test to determine of the responsibilities pertaining to, and
whether a corporation is the qualifications required for their
government owned or controlled, or positions.
private in nature?
SECTION 6. No candidate who has lost
The test to determine whether a in any election shall, within one year
corporation is government owned after such election, be appointed to any
office in the Government or any
1192 G.R. No. 129049, August 6, 1999 1193 Ibid.

(Colossians 3:23)
government-owned or controlled
corporations or in any of their
subsidiaries.
SECTION 7. 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 controlled
corporations or their subsidiaries.
SECTION 8. No elective or appointive

public officer or employee shall receive
additional, double, or indirect
compensation, unless specifically
authorized by law, nor accept without
the consent of the Congress, any
present, emolument, office, or title of
any kind from any foreign government.
Pensions or gratuities shall not be

considered as additional, double, or
indirect compensation.
(Colossians 3:23)
ARTICLE IX appears in a representative

capacity as an advocate in
Constitutional Commissions proceedings pending or
prospective, before any court,
C. The Commission on Elections commissioner, referee, board,
body, committee, or commission
SECTION 1. (1) There shall be a constituted by law or authorized to
Commission on Elections composed of settle controversies and there, in
a Chairman and six Commissioners who such representative capacity
shall be natural-born citizens of the performs any act or acts for the
Philippines and, at the time of their purpose of obtaining or defending
appointment, at least thirty-five years of the rights of their clients under the
age, holders of a college degree, and law. Otherwise stated, one who, in
must not have been candidates for any a representative capacity, engages
elective position in the immediately in the business of advising clients
preceding elections. However, a as to their rights under the law, or
majority thereof, including the while so engaged performs any act
Chairman, shall be Members of the or acts either in court or outside of
Philippine Bar who have been engaged court for that purpose, is engaged in
in the practice of law for at least ten the practice of law.
years.
2) Can the President appoint a
(2) The Chairman and the COMELEC Chairman in a
Commissioners shall be appointed by temporary capacity?
the President with the consent of the
Commission on Appointments for a No. In the case of Brillantes v.
term of seven years without Yorac,1195 the Court ruled that the
reappointment. Of those first appointed, the choice of a temporary chairman
three Members shall hold office for in the absence of the regular
seven years, two Members for five chairman comes under that
years, and the last Members for three discretion. That discretion cannot
years, without reappointment. be exercised for it, even with its
Appointment to any vacancy shall be consent, by the President of the
only for the unexpired term of the Philippines.
predecessor. In no case shall any
Member be appointed or designated in a Article IX-A, Section 1, of the
temporary or acting capacity. Constitution expressly describes all
the Constitutional Commissions as
Q & A: "independent." Although essentially
executive in nature, they are not
1) What is the scope of the practice of under the control of the President of
law? the Philippines in the discharge of
their respective functions.
In the landmark case of Cayetano v.
Monsod,1194 the Court held that the In the choice of the Acting
practice of law is not limited to the Chairman, the members of the
conduct of cases in court. A person Commission on Elections would
is also considered to be in the most likely have been guided by the
practice of law when he, for seniority rule as they themselves
valuable consideration engages in would have appreciated it. In any
the business of advising person, event, that choice and the basis
firms, associations or corporations thereof were for them and not the
as to their rights under the law, or President to make.
1194 G.R. No. 100113, September 3, 1991 1195 G.R. No. 93867, December 18, 1990
(Colossians 3:23)
their goals through violence or unlawful

SECTION 2. The Commission on means, or refuse to uphold and adhere
Elections shall exercise the following to this Constitution, or which are
powers and functions: supported by any foreign government
shall likewise be refused registration.
(1) Enforce and administer all laws and
regulations relative to the conduct of an Financial contributions from foreign
election, plebiscite, initiative, governments and their agencies to
referendum, and recall. political parties, organizations,
coalitions, or candidates related to
(2) Exercise exclusive original elections constitute interference in
jurisdiction over all contests relating to national affairs, and, when accepted,
the elections, returns, and qualifications shall be an additional ground for the
of all elective regional, provincial, and cancellation of their registration with
city officials, and appellate jurisdiction the Commission, in addition to other
over all contests involving elective penalties that may be prescribed by law.
municipal officials decided by trial
courts of general jurisdiction, or (6) File, upon a verified complaint, or on
involving elective barangay officials its own initiative, petitions in court for
decided by trial courts of limited inclusion or exclusion of voters;
jurisdiction. investigate and, where appropriate,
prosecute cases of violations of
Decisions, final orders, or rulings of the election laws, including acts or
Commission on election contests omissions constituting election frauds,
involving elective municipal and offenses, and malpractices.
barangay offices shall be final,
executory, and not appealable. (7) Recommend to the Congress
effective measures to minimize election
(3) Decide, except those involving the spending, including limitation of places
right to vote, all questions affecting where propaganda materials shall be
elections, including determination of posted, and to prevent and penalize all
the number and location of polling forms of election frauds, offenses,
places, appointment of election officials malpractices, and nuisance
and inspectors, and registration of candidacies.
voters.
(8) Recommend to the President the
(4) Deputize, with the concurrence of the removal of any officer or employee it
President, law enforcement agencies has deputized, or the imposition of any
and instrumentalities of the other disciplinary action, for violation or
Government, including the Armed disregard of, or disobedience to its
Forces of the Philippines, for the directive, order, or decision.
exclusive purpose of ensuring free,
orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible (9) Submit to the President and the
elections. Congress a comprehensive report on
the conduct of each election, plebiscite,
(5) Register, after sufficient publication, initiative, referendum, or recall.
political parties, organizations, or
coalitions which, in addition to other SECTION 3. The Commission on
requirements, must present their Elections may sit en banc or in two
platform or program of government; and divisions, and shall promulgate its rules
accredit citizens’ arms of the of procedure in order to expedite
Commission on Elections. Religious disposition of election cases, including
denominations and sects shall not be pre-proclamation controversies. All
registered. Those which seek to achieve such election cases shall be heard and
(Colossians 3:23)
decided in division, provided that President without the favorable

motions for reconsideration of recommendation of the Commission.
decisions shall be decided by the
Commission en banc. SECTION 6. A free and open party
system shall be allowed to evolve
Q & A: according to the free choice of the
people, subject to the provisions of this
1) Can the Commission En Banc hear Article.
election cases, including pre-
proclamation controversies, at the SECTION 7. No votes cast in favor of a
first instance? political party, organization, or coalition
shall be valid, except for those
No. It was held in the case of registered under the party-list system
Sarmiento v. COMELEC,1196 that it as provided in this Constitution.
is clear from the provision of the
1987 Constitution that election SECTION 8. Political parties, or
cases include pre-proclamation organizations or coalitions registered
controversies, and all such cases under the party-list system, shall not be
must first be heard and decided by represented in the voters’ registration
a Division of the Commission. The boards, boards of election inspectors,
Commission, sitting en banc, does boards of canvassers, or other similar
not have the authority to hear and bodies. However, they shall be entitled
decide the same at the first to appoint poll watchers in accordance
instance. with law.
SECTION 4. The Commission may, SECTION 9. Unless otherwise fixed by

during the election period, supervise or the Commission in special cases, the
regulate the enjoyment or utilization of election period shall commence ninety
all franchises or permits for the days before the day of the election and
operation of transportation and other shall end thirty days after.
public utilities, media of communication
or information, all grants, special SECTION 10. Bona fide candidates for
privileges, or concessions granted by any public office shall be free from any
the Government or any subdivision, form of harassment and discrimination.
agency, or instrumentality thereof,
including any government-owned or SECTION 11. Funds certified by the
controlled corporation or its subsidiary. Commission as necessary to defray the
Such supervision or regulation shall expenses for holding regular and
aim to ensure equal opportunity, time, special elections, plebiscites,
and space, and the right to reply, initiatives, referenda, and recalls, shall
including reasonable, equal rates be provided in the regular or special
therefor, for public information appropriations and, once approved,
campaigns and forums among shall be released automatically upon
candidates in connection with the certification by the Chairman of the
objective of holding free, orderly, Commission.
honest, peaceful, and credible
elections.
SECTION 5. No pardon, amnesty,

parole, or suspension of sentence for
violation of election laws, rules, and
regulations shall be granted by the
1196 G. R. No. 105628, August 6, 1992

(Colossians 3:23)
ARTICLE IX offices that have been granted fiscal

autonomy under this Constitution; (b)
Constitutional Commissions autonomous state colleges and
universities; (c) other government-
D. Commission on Audit owned or controlled corporations and
their subsidiaries; and (d) such non-
SECTION 1. (1) There shall be a governmental entities receiving subsidy
Commission on Audit composed of a or equity, directly or indirectly, from or
Chairman and two Commissioners, who through the Government, which are
shall be natural-born citizens of the required by law or the granting
Philippines and, at the time of their institution to submit to such audit as a
appointment, at least thirty-five years of condition of subsidy or equity.
age, certified public accountants with However, where the internal control
not less than ten years of auditing system of the audited agencies is
experience, or members of the inadequate, the Commission may adopt
Philippine Bar who have been engaged such measures, including temporary or
in the practice of law for at least ten special pre-audit, as are necessary and
years, and must not have been appropriate to correct the deficiencies.
candidates for any elective position in It shall keep the general accounts of the
the elections immediately preceding Government and, for such period as
their appointment. At no time shall all may be provided by law, preserve the
Members of the Commission belong to vouchers and other supporting papers
the same profession. pertaining thereto.
(2) The Chairman and the (2) The Commission shall have
Commissioners shall be appointed by exclusive authority, subject to the
the President with the consent of the limitations in this Article, to define the
Commission on Appointments for a scope of its audit and examination,
term of seven years without establish the techniques and methods
reappointment. Of those first appointed, required therefor, and promulgate
the Chairman shall hold office for seven accounting and auditing rules and
years, one Commissioner for five years, regulations, including those for the
and the other Commissioner for three prevention and disallowance of
years, without reappointment. irregular, unnecessary, excessive,
Appointment to any vacancy shall be extravagant, or unconscionable
only for the unexpired portion of the expenditures, or uses of government
term of the predecessor. In no case funds and properties.
shall any Member be appointed or
designated in a temporary or acting SECTION 3. No law shall be passed
capacity. exempting any entity of the Government
or its subsidiary in any guise whatever,
SECTION 2. (1) The Commission on or any investment of public funds, from
Audit shall have the power, authority, the jurisdiction of the Commission on
and duty to examine, audit, and settle all Audit.
accounts pertaining to the revenue and
receipts of, and expenditures or uses of SECTION 4. The Commission shall
funds and property, owned or held in submit to the President and the
trust by, or pertaining to, the Congress, within the time fixed by law,
Government, or any of its subdivisions, an annual report covering the financial
agencies, or instrumentalities, condition and operation of the
including government-owned or Government, its subdivisions,
controlled corporations with original agencies, and instrumentalities,
charters, and on a post-audit basis: (a) including government-owned or
constitutional bodies, commissions and controlled corporations, and non-
(Colossians 3:23)
governmental entities subject to its

audit, and recommend measures
necessary to improve their
effectiveness and efficiency. It shall
submit such other reports as may be
required by law.
(Colossians 3:23)
Estrada v. Escritor Notes this liberty, whether direct or indirect,

unless required by clear and compelling
Belief-action test which allows absolute government interest of the highest order.
protection to belief but not to action.
Strict Neutrality v. Benevolent Neutrality
Rationale: Laws are made for the Principle
government of actions, and while they
cannot interfere with mere religious belief Separation - strict or tame - protects the
and opinions, they may with practices. principle of church-state separation with a
rigid reading of the principle.
Free Exercise Clause accords absolute
protection to individual religious convictions Benevolent neutrality protects religious
and beliefs and proscribes government realities, tradition and established practice
from questioning a persons beliefs or with a flexible reading of the principle.
imposing penalties or disabilities based
solely on those beliefs. The Clause extends Benevolent neutrality gives room for
protection to both beliefs and unbelief. The different kinds of accommodation: those
protection also allows courts to look into the which are constitutionally compelled, i.e.,
good faith of a person in his belief, but required by the Free Exercise Clause; and
prohibits inquiry into the truth of a persons those which are discretionary or legislative,
religious beliefs. i.e., and those not required by the Free
Exercise Clause but nonetheless permitted
The least protected under the Free by the Establishment Clause.
Exercise Clause is religious conduct,
usually in the form of unconventional
religious practices. Protection in this realm
depends on the character of the action and
the government rationale for regulating the
action.
Two-part balancing test of validity where

the first step was for plaintiff to show that
the regulation placed a real burden on his
religious exercise. Next, the burden would
be upheld only if the state showed that it
was pursuing an overriding secular goal by
the means which imposed the least burden
on religious practices. The Court found that
the state had an overriding secular interest
in setting aside a single day for rest,
recreation and tranquility and there was no
alternative means of pursuing this interest
but to require Sunday as a uniform rest day.
Compelling state interest test stressed

that the state interest was not merely any
colorable state interest, but must be
paramount and compelling to override the
free exercise claim. The compelling state
interest test effectuates the First
Amendments command that religious
liberty is an independent liberty, that it
occupies a preferred position, and that the
Court will not permit encroachments upon
(Colossians 3:23)

Constitutional Law Reviewer END Law Note PDF

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Constitutional Law Reviewer END Law Note PDF

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEWER

By: Ernesto N. Dayao, Jr. END Law Notes

Constitution is a body of rules and maxims 1. Congress by exercising its

Changing the Constitution Who can propose amendments to the

1Lambino v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 174153, 3 Ibid.

at least 3% of the registered

Ratio – Revised number of Any amendment to, or revision of, the

6http://senate.gov.ph/14th_congress/resolution 9Lambino v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 174153,

October 25, 2006 11 Constitutional Convention

certification by the Commission on

Hence, if not submitted to the people, such

Differentiate plebiscite from referendum

"Plebiscite" is the electoral process by

"Referendum" is the power of the

a. Referendum on statutes which

b. Referendum on local law which

13 Ibid. 15 Sec. 3(c) of R.A. No. 6735

INTERPRETING THE CONSTITUTION by the Constitution to determine conflicting

Constitution 21 G.R. No. L-63318, August 18, 1984

3. Ut Magis Valeat Quam Pereat

Who may exercise such power? 3. The manner of electing a Senate

22Francisco v House of Representatives, G.R. 26 Planters Products, Inc. v. Fertiphil

Constitution August 16, 2016

2013 29 G.R. No. 127255, August 14, 1997

2. The Court had authority to and

4. Senates’ concurrence in the Rationale why the Courts should not

which are apportioned to courts of 1. There is an actual case or

implementation (COTESCUP v. Arroyo, prior to the decision

- Proclamation No. 38 has 3. Constitutional issues raised require

42 G.R. No. 216930, October 9, 2018 46 Montesclaros v. COMELEC, G.R. No.

G.R. No. 115381, December 23, 1994

suit raising the issue that the

24, 1985 Philippines v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 159139,

issues immeasurably affect the

FACTS (BAR QUESTION): 1. The cases involve constitutional

2000 113375, May 5, 1994

G.R. No. 205728, January 21, 2015

Significantly, petitioners failed to The purpose of the mandatory Notice in

invalidity may have to be considered in

The doctrine of operative fact recognizes

CITIZENSHIP: the disqualifications mentioned in Section 4

The following are the three modes by which Effect of Repatriation

76Bengson III v. HRET, G.R. No. 142840, May 79Ibid.

1. By naturalization in a foreign Philippines are accorded the status

82 Commonwealth Act (CA) No. 63 84 Arnado v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 210164,

passport after renouncing one’s foreign

Reacquisition of Philippine Citizenship Inhabitants of the Philippines who were

"I _____________________, solemnly The following are Spaniards:

August 9, 2000 97 Bar Matter No. 914, October 1, 1999

18069, May 26, 1962

Statutory formalities of electing Election of Citizenship under Par. 4 Sec.

171946, September 4, 2009.

Citizenship of “Foundlings” public office in the Philippine

4. Those who are naturalized in Note that in 1973 Constitution, both

104Poe-Llamanzaresv. COMELEC, G.R. Nos.

Did Onofre's reacquisition of Philippine

Philippine citizenship will only confer to his

It is provided for under Republic Act (RA)

105 Sec. 5(2) of Republic Act (RA) No. 9225

STATE IMMUNITY scope of his authority. (Republic v.

An express waiver, to be effective, must A suit for the recovery of property is

No. L-32667, January 31, 1978 Decemeber 19, 1973

In the case of Republic v.