CONSTITUIONAL LAW 1 CASE DOCTRINE

1. Ph gov’t is competent to file a complaint or reimbursement agsnt Monte De piedad Bank

under the Doctrine of Parens patriae

2. Judicial acts and Proceeding of the court during japanesse occupation remain good and valid.
Proclamation of General McArthur did not specifically referred to judicial processes. Existence
of the court depends upon the laws which create and confer upon them their jurisdiction (Co kim
chan v tan keh)

3. Municipal ordinance is enforceable within US Naval Base. Ph Gov’t has not abdicated its
sovereignty over the base as part of territory. City of Olongapo still has administrative
jurisdiction over the lot located with in Naval base (pp v Gozo)

4. Enemy occupation does not suspend the allegiance of the Filipino citizens during said
occupation. A citizen owes absolute and permanent allegiance not abrogated or severed by
enemy occupation bcus sovereignty of the gov’t is not transferred by occupier (Laurel v Misa)

5. We are government of laws and not of men. Lukban committed grave abuse of discretion by
deporting prostitute to a new domicile agnst their will. Prostitutes are still citizens of Ph and
entitled to same rights (Villavencio v Lukban)

6. Sale transaction of automobile made at clark field air base to a member of US marine corps is
subject to tax. Military base is not and cannot be foreign territory (Reagan v CIR)

7. Where the State gives its consent to be sued, consent only upto the completion of the
proceedings and the power of the courts ends when the judgment is rendered, gov’t funds and
properties may not be seized under writs of execution or garnishment to satisfy such judgment.
Disbursement of public funds must be covered by corresponding appropriation (Republic v
Villasor)

8. UNRFNRE did not waive its diplomatic immunity when it engaged in exploration work and
entered into a contract of employment with petitioner. The presence of UNRFNRE was not bcus
of commercial venture but bcus of joint project entered into by Ph Government and Us for
mineral exploration in Dinagat Island (Lasco vUNRFNRE)

9. SEAFDEC is an international agency and thus beyond the jurisdiction of NLRC (SEAFDEC v
NLRC)

10. Petitioner was employed as a driver at Int’t Rice research. One day while driving and IRRI
vehicle on an official trip to NAIA and back to IRRI petitioner figured an accident, he was under
influence of alcohol. Did IRRI waives its immunity from suit when dispute arose from E-ER
Relationship? Court rule, no. IRRI enjoys immunity from penal, civil and administrative
poceedings except waived. It is an international organization (Callado v IRRI)

11. Where a litigation may have an adverse consequence on the public treasury, whether in the
disbursement of funds or loss property, the public official proceeded agnst not being liable in his
personal capacity, doctrine of non-suibility may be properly invoked (Begosa v PVA)

12. VMPSI’s complaint agnst PC chief of staff anf PC-SUSIA a suit asnt the State without its
consent, the latter being instrumentalities of the governemnt exercising primarily a governmental
function of regulating the organization and operation of private detective, watchmen or security
agencies (VMP v CA)

13. GOCC has a personality of its own, distinct an separate from the Gov’t. It may be sue and be
sued and may be subjected to the court processes just like any other corporations.
14. PNR altho a gov’t instrumentality is not immune from suit. Immunity from suit depends on
the character of the objectives from which the entity was organized. PNR is not performing any
governmental function (Malong v PNR)

15. National Power Corporation a GOCC is not immune from suit in the operation and
management of Angat Dam. (Rayo v CFI Bulacan)

16. Victims of Mendiola Massacre filed an action for damages agnst the Republic and military/
police officers involved in the accident. The recommendation made by the commission to
indemnify the heirs of the deceased and the victims does not in any way mean that liability
attaches to the State. It does not bind the State. State cannot be made liable bcus the military/
police who allegedly were responsible acted beyond their scope of their authority and must be
help personally (Republic v Sandoval)

17. Legislature passed Act2457 authorizing Meritt to bring suit agnst the government of the
Philippines. The consent does not mean liability. In this case the negligent driver of the
ambulance who struck the plaintiff was not a special agent and was acting in the scope of his
function (Meritt v Gov’t of Phils)

18. Repair of wharves or shoreline are integral part of naval base which is devoted to the defense
of both US and Ph, a function of the government they are unitized for nor dedicated to
commercial or business function. Contract entered is noncommercial hence no waiver of
immunity from suit. (Us v Ruiz)

19. Republic or any of its agency being a donee is entitled to got to court in case of an alleged
breach of the conditions of such donation (Santiago v republic)

20. Government impliedly allowed itself to be sued when it filed a complaint in intervention for
the purpose of asserting claim for affirmative relief agnst the plaintiff to the recovery of the
vessel. (Froilan v Oriental pan shipping)

21. Funds of municipality are exempt from execution. Public property and funds are nor subject
to levy or execution, there must be a corresponding appropriation in the form of ordinance.
Municipal revenue which are intended primarily and exclusively for the purpose of financing the
governmental activities and functions of the municipality (Mun of San Miguel v Bulacan, Mun
of Makati v CA)

22. RA1180 the Retail Trade Nationalization Act even infringing treaties still valid, a treaty is
always subject to qualification or amendment by subsequent law. Note: treaty once concurred by
senate became a municipal law and has same weight with laws enacted with congress so, those
what comes latter validly repeal the old one. (Inchong v Hernandez)

23. Treaty and statue if inconsistent with on another, the conflict must be resolved in favor of the
one which is the latest point of time (Gonzales v Hechanova)

24. Treaty on academic degrees is not applicable to filipino citizens desiring to practice law in
Ph. Treaty could not modify laws and regulations governing admissions to the practice of law.
Executive department may not encroach upon the constitutional prerogative of SC to promulgate
rules for admission to the practice of law (In re: Garcia)

25. The national defense law insofar it establishes compulsory military service does not violate
the constitution. The duty of the government to defend the State cannot be performed except thru
an army. To leave the organization of an army to the will of the citizens would be to make this
duty excusable there being no sufficient men who volunteer to enlist. The right of the
government to require compulsory military service is a consequence of its duty to defend the
State (Pp v Lagman)

26. The stamps where not issued and sold for the benefit of Roman catholic church nor were
money derived from such sale given to the church. The only purpose in issuing and selling the
stamp was to advertise Ph and attract more tourist to the country. (Alipay v ruiz)
27. Social justice cannot be invoke to trample the rights of property owners nor nullify a law o
obligations and contracts (Salonga v Farrales)

28. The state cannot prohibit teaching German language to children who has not reached age 8 in
the exercise of its police power. N emergency which renders knowledge of the child of some
language other than English so clearly harmful ad to justify its inhibition.

29. The State cannot require that the children shall attend only public school. (Pierce v Society of
Sisters)

30. RA94850 which mandated LLDA to adjudicate pollution case in Laguna Lake are and
surrounding provinces. The law expressly authorized LLDA to make, alter or modify requiring
the discontinuance of pollution and to make whatever order may be necessary in the exercise of
its jurisdiction (LLDA v CA)

31. Only the National government has the power to issue license, permits for the operation of
gambling. The LGU have no power to tax instrumentalities of National government such as
PAGCOR. (Baco v Pagcor)

32. Information on civil service eligibility of government employees in positions requiring them
is a matter of public concern. (employees as sanitarians in Health Department). Public office is
a public trust (Legaspi v CSC)

33. Public nature of loanable funds of GSIS and the public office held by the alleged borrowers
make the information a matter of public concern subject to reasonable regulation. Altho citizen
are afforded the right to information ad access to official records The constitution does not
accord a right to compel custodian of official records to prepare list, abstracts and summaries
(Valmonte v Balmonte)

34. MTRCB’s voting slips are matters of public concern in the review of of movie and TV
production. They are performing an official conduct (Aquino v Morato)

35. Membership of the Judiciary cannot be required to assume a position non-judicial in

character. They shall not be designated to any agency performing quasi-judicial or administrative
functions. Separation of power (In re: Manzano)

36. Electoral commission have the constitutional power to promulgate rules of procedure such a
fixing a deadline for filing election protest relating to election protest in the absence of any
further constitutional provision. Incidental power to promulgate such rules necessary for the
exclusive power to judge all contest (Angara v Electoral commission)

37. Political question may still come within powers of court to review under its expanded
jurisdiction (Casibang v Aquino)

38. RA9337 which gives the president thru Secretary of Finance the stand by authority to raise
VAT rate to 12% is not undue delegation of separation of power. Congress simply granted Sec
of finance the authority to ascertain the existence of a fact, must submit such information to the
President. Then the 12% VAT rate must be imposed. (ABAKADA GURO v Ermita)

39. Tariff and custom cide states that in the interest of national economy, general welfare or
national interest, president , subject to limitations may increase existing rates of import duty
when necessary. EO 475 and 478 imposing additional duty of 9% ad valorem to imported crude
oil and other oil products and special duties is constitutional. The constitutional permission to
authorize president to fix rates subject to congress restrictions (Garcia v Executive Secretary)

40. RA2382 or the Medical Act is valid delegation of legislative power. The standardization and
regulation of medial education (Tablarin v Guiterez)

41. RA7675 enacted to convert Municipality of Mandaluyong into HUC and divide the
legislative districts of Mandaluyong and San Juan is valid. The argument that such resulted in the
composition of House of Representatives is constitutional. The congress may increase
composition of HoR thru legislative enactment (Tobias v Abalos)

42. Important Points in Banat v Comelec

a) 20% allocation for party-list representative is merely a ceiling, neither the Constitution
nor RA7941 mandates the filling-up of the entire 20% allocation of partylist.
b) The 3 seat limit is valid to prevent any party from dominating the party-list election.
c) The 2% threshold vote is merely a guaranteed seat and not mandatory in the second
round of filing up seat
d) Procedure for allocation of seat for party-list representative
i. Parties, organizations and coalitions(POC) must be ranked from highest to the
lowest based on the number of votes garnered
ii. POC receiving at least 2% of total votes cast is entitled to 1 seat
iii. Those garnering sufficient number of votes, according to the ranking shall be
entitled to additional seat in proportion to their total number of votes until 3 seat
limitation is allocated
e) Procedure in computing additional seats (2nd round), the guaranteed seats shall no
longer be included bcus they have already been allocated.
i. The percentage is multiplied by the remaining available seats
ii. Assign one partylist seat to each of the parties next in rank until all available seats
are completely distribute

43. Honest mistake in COC regarding period of residency does not negate the fact of residence if
such fact is established. When the constitution speaks of Residence it actually speaks of domicile
of origin.(Marcos v Comelec)

44. Aquino’s domicile of origin is Tarlac and the same is not easily lost. The fact that Aquino
claims to have other residence in Mnl and resident of Condo unit in Makati for a short period of
time indicate that his sole purpose in transferring his physical residence is not to acquire a new
residence of domicile but only to qualify as a candidate (Aquino v comelec)

45. Term of office is different from tenure. When Rep. Dimaporo file his COC for governor he is
deemed to have voluntarily cut short his tenure and not his term. His term remain (Dimaporo v
Mitra)

46. Members of the Congress may not personally appear as counsel before administrative body
whether directly or indirectly. XPN: when assemblyman Fernandez appeared before SEC
inolving intra -corporate dispute. The court held that intervention was valid and cannot be said to
be appearing as counsel but appearing for the protection of ownership of shares in respect of the
matter of litigation. (Puyat v De Guzman)

47. Enrolled bill in conclusive upon courts over statement so entered in the journal except those
matters required under the constitution to be entered in the journal (US v PONS)

48. Enrolled bill regards the tenor of the measure passed by Congress and approved by president.
If there has been any mistake in the printing of a bill, the remedy is amendment or currative
legislation NOT judicial decree (Casco v Gimenez)

49. HRET has jurisdiction over failed election protest as the sole judge of all contest to election,
returns and qualifications of it members, promulgate its own rules and regulations relative to the
matters of jurisdiction. Including period of filing of protest. Its rule making power flows from
the general power granted to it by the Constitution (Lazatin v HRET)
50. Members of HRET must be independent being a non-partisan court. Its jurisdiction is not to
be shared by it with the Legislature nor Courts. Complete independence even from political
parties to which they belong. Hence, ‘disloyalty to party, breach of party discipline’ are no valid
grounds for expulsion of members (Bondoc v Pineda)

51. Pre-poclamation controversies not allowed in presidential and senatorial candidacy. It is

pre-proclamation when it calls for correction of manifest errors in the certificate of canvass or
election returns I.e questioning the authenticity of election returns canvassed. Proper recourse is
to file a regular election protest with SET (Chavez v comelec)

52. Discretion of the House to choose its members to HRET and CA. Partylist representatives
are not prevented from participation in the election of HRET and CA (Pimentel v HRET)

53. Proportional representation in CA means proportional representation of permanent political

parties. The authority of the HoR to change its representation in CA to reflect at anytime the
changes that may transpire in the political alignments of its membership (Daza v Singson)
Also, its members are nominated and elected by each House and not by their respective
political parties (Coseteng v Mitra)

54. Rounding up and down a half seat in CA is a violation of proportional representation. No

party can claim more than what he is entitled. Constitution does not contemplate that CA
must necessarily include 12 senator ans 12 members of HoR to function. All that is required
to function is a quorum. (Guingona v Gonzales)

55. President being a commander -in- chief may prevent memebr of AFP from appearing in
legislative inquiries but congress may seek recourse with SC. (Gudani v Senga)

56. Correspondence between president and public officials necessary in her executive and
policy-decision making process is covered by privileged communication. NBN ZTE deal
(Neri v Senate committee of accountability)

57. It is not the law but the revenue BILL which is required by the constitution to originate
exclusively in HoR. Constitution does not prohibit the filing of the Senate of a substitute bill
in anticipation of its receipt (Anticipatory bill) from the house so long as action by the
Senate as a body is withheld pending receipt of the Bill. (Tolentino v Sec of Finance)

58. PD1177 or the ‘budget reform decree which provides that the President have the authority to
transfer any fund appropriated for different agencies of executive department which are
included in GAA, to any program included in GAA or approved after its enactment’ is
unconstitutional. Indiscriminate transfer of funds from one department or agency of
Executive Dep’t to any program of any department included in GAA without regard as to
whether or not the funds are actually savings in the item from which the same are to be
taken. (Demetria v Alba)

59. Note: Ph Judges Association v Prado

60. Item-Veto is valid where the provision of the appropriation bill is deemed inappropriate
(Gonzales v Macaraig)

61. Presidential veto contravenes the constitutional provision on the Judiciary’s fiscal autonomy.
Judiciary is guaranteed the flexibility to allocate and utilize resources with the wisdom and
dispatch that their needs require. RA1797: adjustment of pensions of retired justices, the
Veto of the president is tantamount to dictating the judiciary how its fund should be utilized.
The veto impairs the power of the Chief justice to augment other items in Judiciary’s
appropriation (Bengzon v Drilon)

62. Mere ownership of a Roman Catholic of a property does not mean ADE, there must be proof
of ADE to be exempted from tax (Province of Abra v Hernando)
63. Property sought to be improved with public funds was private in nature at the time the
appropriation was made. The subsequent donation of the road to the government did not
cure the defect that the appropriation sought was for private purpose (Pascual v Sec of
Public Works)

64. President power is not limited only to those specified and enumerated under the Constitution.
Has a residual power to protect the general welfare of the people. Has the power to bar
Marcoses from returning to Ph by exercising residual power (Marcos v Manglapus)

65. EO566 authorizing CHED to supervise the establishment and operation of all review centers
is an invalid exercise of legislative power as its expands CHED jurisdiction. Powers of
CHED includes: monitoring, and evaluation of the performance of programs and institutions
of higher learning, a review center is not an institution of higher learning (Review center v
Manglapus)

66. Creation of Truth Commission finds justification in the faithful execution clause by the
President however it violates equal protection clause (Biraogo v Truth Commission)

67. Designation of Agra as acting secretary of justice concurrently with his position of Acting
Solicitor General is unconstitutional. Art7 sec13 prohibits holding of any office or
employment during his tenure as acting solgen. Prohibition agnst dual or multiple office
whether permanent or temporary (Funa v Agra)

68. Duty of the president to make an appointment of a member of SC within 90 days fro
occurrence of vacancy. Failure of the president to do so will be a clear disobedience to the
Constitution. Midnight appointment does not cover Judiciary and LGU (De castro v JBC)

69. Commissioner of Custom, Chairman of CHR are not among the positions mentioned to be
confirmed by CA

70. Seats reserved for sectoral representative may be filled by appointment by the president
subject to CA confirmation (deles v Ca)

71. Congress cannot by law expands the confirmation power of CA (Tarrosa v Singson)

72. CSC is not a co-manager with appointing power. No authority to disapprove a permanent
appointment on the ground that another person is better qualified.Merely see to it that the
appointee possess minimum requirement (Luego v CSC)

73. Secretary of Interior (Dep’t of Interior) has the power to order investigation and suspend a
Mayor. Investigation falls within the purview of supervision. However, no power to suspend
a mayor there being no express grant of authority. Power to suspend may be exercised by
president (Villena v Sec of Finance)

74. Executive secretary acting by authority of the President may reverse a decision of Director
of Lands. President may delegate to his executive secretary the acts that the constitution
does not command he perform personally (Lacson-Magallanes) Note: What are those acts
which the Constitution directs President personally?

75. President has the authority to grant a portion of public domain to any government like City
of Iligan (City of Ilgan v Director of Lands)

76. Agreement to arbitrate entered into by Executive secretary with ABS-CBN was acting on
behalf if the president , valid. (Gasco v Arroyo)

77. Calling out power of the President is a discretionary power solely vested in his wisdom.
Widest leeway and broadest discretion in using power to call out bcus lesser and more
benign power compared to suspension of HC and imposition of Martial Law (IBP v Zamora)
78. Military tribunal has no jurisdiction to trial civilians while civil courts are open during
martial law.(Olaguer Doctrine)

79. Declaration of State of rebellion and calling out the armed forces was merely and exercise of
President of his commander-in-chief power (Sanlakas v Executive secretary)

80. Pardon is forgiveness and remission of guilt but does not erase the fact of commission of the
crime. Pardon granted removes disqualification from holding public employment but it
cannot go beyond that. To regain employment, apply again (Monsanto v factoran)

81. Pardon is given only those whose conviction is final If you file an appeal, not yet final, no
pardon yet. (Pp v Salle)

82. Pardon does not generally result to automatic reinstatement nor backwages. XPN: if the
acquittal of the accused was really on the ground that he did not commit the offense imputed,
that he was really innocent, this is the only time that automatic reinstatement and backwages
could be granted in case of pardon (Garcia v COA)

83. More reason for the President to grant administrative pardon which are less serious
offense(Llamas v Executive secretary)

84. Operative fact doctrine was applied in Hacienda Luisita case. The doctrine is not limited
only to invalid or unconstitutional laws but also to decision of the President or
administrative agencies that have force and effect of laws. Operative fact to prevent unjust
enrichment on the part of the government and double jeopardy (HLI v PARC)

85. Courts are not prevented from exercising their power to restrain and prohibit administrative
acts thru issuance of TRO/ Injuction (Malaga v Penachos)

86. Judicial power is limited to actual controversies. Hypothetical issues are not covered

87. RA7279 knows as urban Development and Housing Act where the petitioner in this case
questioned its validity, his legal standing on being a consultant of DPWH and being a
taxpayer. The court ruled that no actual controversy bcus petitioner did not claim that in
either or both he has bee actually prevented from performing his duties (Macasiano v NHA)|

88. Confiscation of properties by Aquino administration should not be understood to mean that
the ownership of the paintings has automatically passed on the government without
complying with the constitutional and statutory requirements of due process. Failed to show
that petitioners are legal owners of the artworks hence not legal right (Joya v PCGG)

89. PCSO cannot share its franchise with another by way of collaboration, association or joint
venture, there is transcendental importance here altho petitioner does not have legal standing
to sue. (Kilosbayan v Guingona). Equipment lease agreement is valid, PCSO now bears all
losses bcus the operation of the system is completely in it hands (Kilosbayan v Morato)

90. House Resolution1109 ‘Calling upon congress to convene for the purpose of considering
proposal to amend or revise the Constitution upon 3/4 votes of all its members’, petitioner
alleged that it is unconstitutional for deviation from prescribed procedure to amend the
Constitution. Court ruled that it still a bill, no injury yet, no convention (Lozano v Nograles)

91. Power to punish contempt is inherent in all courts to preserve order in judicial proceedings
as well as uphold the administration of justice. Must exercise the power of contempy for
purpose that are impersonal bcus it is intended to safeguard not the judges but for the
function they exercise (Inog v Judge Franco)

92. PET is not a separate an distinct entity from SC. Adopeion of separate seal and well as
change in nomenclature of chief justice and associate justice into Chairman and members of
tribunal was simply to highlight the singularity and exclusivity of the Tribunals function as
special electoral court (Macalintal v PET)
93. Reorganization of SC into 3 division is purely internal matter and cannot be questioned
(Limketkai sons milling v CA)

94. Filling of charges and the issuance of warrant of arrest agsnt a person invalidly detained will
cure the defect of detention. (Laranaga v CA)

95. Art82 of Omnibus Investment Code providing direct appeal to SC from the decision of BOI,
increase the appellate jurisdiction of SC. It was enacted without the advice and concurrence
of SC, not valid (First Lepanto Ceramics v CA)

96. DILG Memorandum Circular 90-81 is constitutional it simply prescribe rules of conduct for
public official to avoid conflict of interest between the discharge of their public duties and
private practice of their profession. If you want to practice your profession you need a
certificate from your office (Javellana v DILG)

97. It is only the SC which can oversee judges and court personnel’s compliance with all the
laws and take proper administrative action agnst them if they commit any violation.
Ombudsman findings must recommend it to SC (Maceda v Vasquez)

98. Members of the judiciary are subject to payment of income tax . It does not fall within the
constitutional protection agnst decrease of thier salaries during their continuance in office,
this also to ensure equality of the 3 branches (Nitafan v CIR)

99. Abolition of office does not amnt to illegal removal of its incumbent so long exercise in GF
(De la Llana v alba)

100.Second division of SC has the competence to administer discipline judge bcus not all
disciplinary cases must be heard en banc(Pp v judge gacott)

101.Preliminary investigation is not quaisi-judicial proceeding. It does not determine the guilt or
innocence of the accused. Merely inquisitorial

CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION

102. Petitioner filed an election protest before a regular court(RTC) whose proceeding is
governed by Ruled of Court and not comelec rules of procedure. (Aruelo v CA)

103.2-1 votes in division is valid vote. 3 who voted out 5 members is majority (Cua v comelec)

104. The lower court had jurisdiction to take cognizance of the suit involving the award of
contract of Comelec. Comelec resolution awarding as an incident of its inherent
administrative function over the conduct of election, hence said resolution may not be ‘final
order’ reviewable by certiorari by SC. Being non-judicial in character, no contempt may be
imposed by Comelec from the order. (Filipinas v Ferrer)

105.Hiring and firing of employees of GOCCs are governed by provision of Civil service law
and rules and regulation. RTCs have no jurisdiction to entertain cases involving dismissal of
officers and employees covered by Civil Service Law. Party aggrieved involving
termination of services may appeal to CSC within 15 days. Thereafter, private respondent
could go to CA (Meteo v CA)

106.GOCC with original charter like NHC, CSC does not have jurisdiction. Red Cross is sui
generis and not within CSC jurisdiction

107.Position is primary confidential if:

a) When president upon recommendation of the Commission declared it as such
b) Absence of such declaration, by the nature of the function of the office. There being
close intimacy
 Primary confidential position could be dismissed at the pleasure of appointing authority

108.Persons holding positions which are highly technical in nature must be afforded the
Constitutional safeguard requiring removal to be for cause as provided by law.

109.CSC cannot change the nature of appointment to temporary if appointing authority declared
such as permanent. (Luego v CSC)

110.CSC is a proper party to appeal the suit, may appeal the case by certiorari to determine if
there was grave abuse of discretion in exonerating respondent. Provided that the person who
will appeal is not the one who judged it otherwise violation of due process (CSC v
Dacoycoy)

111.Rules of court applies suppletorily to comelec rules. Comelec did not err in allowing
implementation of writ of execution pending appeal (Lindo v Comelec)

112.Comelec have jurisdiction over petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus in election
cases in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction (Relampagos v Comelec)

113. Comelec power to recluster precincts and designation of special board of election
inspectors whenever there is a failure of election. Precisely to prevent another failure
(Dumarpa v Comelec)

114.Whether the order of dismissal should be appealed it is the Comelec who decide . Comelec
does not only investigate but also prosecute cases of violation of election laws. Comelec is
empowered to conduct preliminary investigation in election offenses. Beyond the power of
State prosecutor to oppose appeal but prosecutor can initiate the filing of preliminary
investigation (Comelec v Silva)

115.Power of comelec en banc to order correction of the Statement of Votes to make it conform
to the election returns. Correction in computation the Municipal Board of Canvassers acted
in pursuant to administrative capacity under control and supervision of comelec (Torres v
Comelec)

116.RA6646 which prohibts any newspaper, radio, any person making the use of media to sell or
give free of charge of space or time for political purpose is valid limitations (National Press
Club v Comelec)

117.Comelec ban on political stickers in cars or in public places during election and limit the
authorized areas is invalid. Tantamount to censorship. NO public interest substantial enough
to warrant such prohibition (Adiong v Comelec)

118.Restriction on the radio announcer, his choice of forum where he can express his view is
violative of right to freedom of expression

119.Auditing disbursement account is not a ministerial function but discretionary

120.COA’s disallowance of appropriation of made conformably with the compromise agreement

ind the civil suit is grave abuse of discretion. The participation of the City in negotiations for
amicable settlement of pending litigation and eventually execution are within its authority
and capacity as public corporation (Osmena v COA)

121.Power of SC to review COA decision refers to money matters and not administrative cases
involving discipline of its personnel (Saligumba v COA)

122.COA jurisdiction cover both GOCC with or without charter

 ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS

123. Ombudsman and his deputies including special prosecutor shall be appointed by president
from 21 nominees prepared by JBC filed within 3 mnths after its occurrence. Shall not be
qualified to rune for any office in the election immediately following their cessation from
office. Not allowed to appear or practice before Ombudsman for 2 years following their
cessation

124.Preventive suspension without pay for the maximum of 6 months

125.Sandiganbayan authority to suspend covers member of congress. Suspension must not

exceed 90 days

126.Impeachment deemed initiated upon filing of the complaint AND referral to proper
committee

127.A corporation is disqualified to acquire or hold alienable lands except by lease not
exceeding 1,000 hectares (Republic v Villanueva)

128.The presumption that the land was occupied in open, continuous and notorious possession of
public land for more than 30 years does not automatically amnt to rights of possession. It
cease to be public only upon issuance of certificate of title to any filipino citizens claiming it
under the law.XPN: possession of the land since time immemorial, presumption that land
never been part of public domain . There must be issuance of title before juridical entity may
have acquired possession over a property. Until a certificate of title is issued, a piece of land
remains public. Any levy or execution is void (Meralco v Castro-Bartolome)

129. Sell of land to a nonfilipino whom later was transferred back to fiipino, defect was cured
(Godinez v Fong pak luen)

130.Private Monopolies are not prohibited. Regulate means power to control, govern and restrain.
Area affected is maritime transportation which affects not only City of Cebu but also the
economy of the whole country, the operation is imbued with public interest subject to
regulation and control for public good and welfare. PPA’s policy to monopolize is not
prohibited (PPA v Mendoza)

131.Unclassified land of public domain remains unclassified. There must be a positive act from
the government either thru congress of President to be alienable (Secretary of DENR v Yap)

132.Timber land cannot be alienated and be disposed (Republic v CA)

133.Executive department or any government agency have the power to delineate and
recognized ancestral land (Province of North Cotabato v the Gov’t)

134.School paper contains obscene, vulgar and sexually explicit contains, board found the
defendants guilty and imposed them disciplinary measure is valid on the ground of academic
freedom. Rights of student to free speech in school is not always absolute. Power of the
school to investigate is adjunct of its power to suspend and expel, necessary for the
enforcement of rules and regulations and maintenance of safe and orderly educational
environment (Miriam College Foundation v CA)

135. Highest budgetary priority to education is merely directory. It cannot hamstrung the hands
of the Congress as to deprive it the power to respond to the imperatives of the national
interest for attainment of other state policies or objectives. (Guingona v Carague)

136.IPRA do not contravene the constitution. Nothing in the law that grants the ICC/IPs
ownership over natural resources within their ancestral domain. Rights granted to IPRA
merely gives the owners and occupants of the land. Ancestral lands and ancestral domain are
not part of the public domain. They are private land and belong to IPs by native title.
Limited form of ownership only (Cruz v Secretray of DENR)
137. Placing of NAPOLCOM and PNP under reorganized DILG is merely an administrative
realignment that would bolster a system of coordination and cooperation among the
citizenry. (Carpio v Executive Secretary)

138.PNP officers need not CA confirmation. PNP is separate and distinct from AFP, ranks of
military are not similar to PNP. (Manala v Sistoza)

139.PNP are treated differently from other persons charged criminally or administratively insofar
as the application of the rule on preventive suspension. Policemen carry weapons and the
badge of the law which can be used to harass or intimidate witness agnst them. It does not
violate equal protection there being a valid classification (Himagan v pp)

140.Congress has the authority to call for Constitutional convention as a constituent assembly.
Congress acting as constituent assembly has full authority to propose amendments or call for
convention (Imbong v Comelec)

141.Comelec cannot validly promulgate rules and regulations to implement the exercise of the
right of the people to directly propose amendment to the COnstitution thru Initiative
(Santiago v Comelec)

142.In initiative petition, people must be informed of the time of signing of the nature and effect
of such, failure to do so is deceptive and misleading which renders initiative invalid.

143.Merging of legislative and executive is a radical change therefore constitute as a revision

 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 CASE DOCTRINES

1. Mnnl City ordinance7774 prohibiting short time admission rates is an invalid police power
bcus the mean employed is unreasonable despite the fact that the lawful subject to minimize
illicit sex, prostitution, drug use are valid subject. Police power to be valid require: Lawful
subject AND lawful means which is not oppressive of private rights and align with the
Constitution. Police power is subject to judicial review when life, liberty or property is
affected. The means in the case is sweeping, other Constitutional right of married couples
are violated, right of travelers and owners (whitelight v city of mnl)

2. 20% senior citizen discount is an exercise of police power (Mnl Memorial Park v Sec of
DSWD)

3. MMDA has no power to dismantle, destroy,remove trackwork’s billboard, signages and

advertisement installed on MRT , MMDA power is limited to formulation, coordination,
regulation, implementation, preparation, management, monitoring, setting policies, installing
a system and administration. Nothing in RA7924 granted MMDA police power. The posting,
installation and display of billboard is prohibited only to public areas MRT3 is a private
property, no state interest yet to regulate bcus the ownership is not yet in the hands of the
gov’t. (MMDA v Trackworks)

4. Mayor does not have the power to regulate profession it is within the purview of PRC.
(Acebo optical v CA)

5. Agrarian reform is not an exercise of police power but of eminent domain giving land owner
just compensation (asso of land owners v sec of agrarian reform)

6. Comelec resolution 2772 directing newspaper to provide free print space of not less than 1/2
page for use of Comelec space free of charge is invalid exercise of eminent domain. To
compel print media companies to donate comelec space amounts taking of private personal
property without just compensation. (PPI v Comelec) (Take note of the difference between
print media and broadcast media. Print is eminent domain while broadcast is subject to
police power bcus of franchise granted to them by the state which is a privilege and subject
to reservation clause- TELEBAP case)

7. Petition for fixing of just compensation with SAC is not an appeal from agrarian reform
adjudicator’s decision but an original action which must be file within 15 days period as
stated in the DARAD Rules otherwise, adjudicator’s decision will become final.

8. Nonfiling of the case for expropriation will not necessarily lead to return of the property to
the landowner, what is left to the landowner is the right of just compensation. Just
compensation base on the value of the property at the time of taking (compare this with
FORFORM CASE)

9. Water flowing from Agus River for operation of Hydroelectric Project which traversed the
landowner’s land that the underground tunnel had been constructed without their knowledge
and consent and that the presence of the tunnel deprived them of the agricultural,
commercial, industrial and residential value of their land is tantamount to ‘taking’ of the the
land notwithstanding that the owner were actually dispossessed. Taking need not be actual
physical taking or appropriation. Imposition of additional burden is also taking. 5 yrs
prescriptive period does not apply to claims for just compensation (NPC v Heirs of
Sangkay)
10. Right to counsel cannot be waived unless in writing and in the presence of the counsel,
afforded to the accused during custodial investigation. Right to counsel is not an absolute
right in administrative proceedings. In administrative proceeding the essence of due process
is opportunity to explain one’s side (Lumiqued v Exevea)

11. Notice and hearing during evaluation stage of the extradition is not a matter of right and
cannot be compelled by mandumus (Sec of Justice v Lantion)

12. preliminary investigation is only for the determination of probable cause/ probability of guilt.
It is not part of the trial and it is only in the trial where the accused can demand full exercise
of his rights: confront witnesses, cross-examine etc. The quantum of evidence in preliminary
investigation is such evidence sufficient to engender a well-founded belief as to the fact of
the commission of a crime and respondent’s probable cause. Preliminary investigation is not
full exhaustion of evidence. Hearsay evidence is admissible in determining probable cause
in PI bcus such investigation is merely preliminary (Estrada v Ombudsman)

13. 2 phase of Extradition Case

a) Evaluation Stage- if no opportunity to be heard, still valid and no violation of due
process
b) Hearing Proper- This is the only time you can claim due process.
Right to bail is available in extradition provided you proved by clear and convincing
evidence that you are not a flight risk and will abide all the conditions (Hongkong v ulalia)

14. RA9164 where brgy official were singled out is not violative of equal protection clause. The
law can treat brgy officials differently from other elective officials bcus the Constitution
itself provides a significant distinction between these elective officials with respect to the
length of term and term limitation. Constitution itself allows non-uniform treatment. The
law is valid (Comelec v Cruz)

15. In determining probable cause the judge must determine such base on the resolution AND
all the records, evidences of the prosecutor. Must make his own personal determination
regarding the existence of probable cause and does not rely merely on prosecution’s findings.
He must go beyond the Prosecutor’s certification (Lim v Felix)

16. GR: Search and seizure must be validated by previously secure judicial warrant otherwise
unconstitutional and subject to challenge. XPNS: Stop and frisk provided base on reasonable
hunch and police officers must introduce themselves. Failure to object the admissibility of
the evidence illegally obtained is deemed waiver (Manlili v CA)

17. Person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may be
used as proof of the commission of an offense without search warrant. Warrantless search
and seizure are legal as long as probable cause exist and police officer has personal
knowledge of the actual commission of the crime from surveillance of the activities of the
accused. (Pp v Sucro)

18. While monitoring the coastal area regarding unfamiliar speedboat a male passenger alighted
and the police officer became suspicious of the man whom changed his direction and broke
into run upon seeing the approaching officers, he was then arrested. The court rules that the
act of the accused does not constitute probable cause, any search therein is illegal. (Pp v
Chua)

19. Seizure of cultivated and cultures marijuan plants is invalid. No search warrant issued by the
judge. The ample had ample time to obtain warrant. The protection agnst illegal search and
seizure is constitutionally mandated. The seized plants cannot be used agnst the accused
being a product of unlawful search (Pp v Valdez)

20. Police officer while conducting a surveillance they noticed accused carrying a travelling bag
who acted suspiciously. They confronted him, inspect his bag and found marijuana. The
 search and seizure was sustained by the court because there was an informer telling the
police that such accused was carrying marijuana. Police had to act quickly, an urgency. (Pp
v Tangliben)

21. Shabu seized during the routine frisk at the airport was acquired legitimately pursuant to
airport security procedure (pp v Johnson)

22. An information that a Caucasian coming from Sagada had in his possession a prohibited
drugs. No time for the police to secure a search warrant hence, the search and seizure was
held valid (Pp v Malmstedt)

23. Checkpoints without search warrant is valid so long limited to visual search except if there is
a probable cause, then could be subjected to extensive search (Valmonte v De villa)

24. Valid search and seizure when the raiding team was not armed with search warrant. It was
precipitated by intelligence reports that headquarters was being used by the Reform armed
forces movement. Also when the military raided the place, the occupants refused to open the
door despite their request, thereby compelling the former to break into the office. They have
a reasonable ground to believe that a crime was being committed. No opportunity to apply
for search warrant (Pp v De Garcia)

25. Mandatory drug testing to students by school is valid on the ground of academic freedom.
Random drug testing of officers and employees of public office and private officers is
justifiable provided that must undertake a calculated protection of employee privacy. BUT
person charged with a crime before prosecutors office cannot be subject to drug testing it
would violate their right to privacy and would incriminate them. (Social justice society v
Dangerous drugs board)

26. Right to freedom of fear is protected by Amparo. The right to security of person is freedom
from fear (Sec of Nat’l defense v Manalo). Writ of Amparo is not available to tresspass to
dwelling

27. Doctrine of command responsibility can be used in Amparo to determine whether

respondents are accountable for so the court can device remedial measure that maybe
appropriate. Also, for command responsibility to apply there must be superior -subordinate.
Superior knew or had the reason to know or he failed to take necessary measures or did not
do anything to punish it. Knowledge is presumed if: widespread in the are of responsibility,
act is repeatedly committed in the area, committed by the members of his immediate office
or staff.Amparo do not determine criminal, civil or administrative liability. President can be
impleaded but cannot be convicted in the Amparo petition, there must be a separate petition
(Rodriguez v Arroyo)

28. Hold departure order base on pendency of criminal case is not subject of Amparo. Subject to
amporo only when denial of your right to travel endanger your life, liberty and security
(Reyes v Gonzales)

29. Inclusion in the list of individuals maintaining Private Army Groups cannot be subject of
Habeas Data. Habeas Data is availed only to protect image, privacy, honor, information and
freedom of information of an individual (Gamboa v Chan)

30. Exchange of words which were recorded on tape, inadmissible in evidence. (Navarro v CA)

31. Anti-Wiretapping law applies to recordings by one of the parties in the conversation. The
law makes no distinction as to whether the party sought to be penalized by the statute ought
to be a party other than or different from those involved in the private communication. The
nature of the conversation is immaterial (Ramirez v CA)

32. Wife forcibly opened the drawers and cabinet of her husband’s clinic and took documents
consisting private correspondence between alleged paramours and used it in evidence in
 legal separation and disqualification are inadmissible. Private communication and
correspondence is inviolable except lawful order of the court (Zulueta v CA)

33. Clerk of Waterous drug opened the envelope and saw that there was a check for another
employee. The check is admissible in evidence bcus the person who opened the envelope is
a private person. But you can file a civil case base on Art32 of the civil code for damages.
(WaterHouseDrug v NLRC)

34. Order of Ombudsman to produce for an in camera inspection based on pending investigation
at the office of the Ombudsman in NOT allowed. XPN: is allowed only when (requisites)
a) Pending case before a court of competent jurisdiction
b) Accnt must be clearly identified
c) Inspection is limited to the subject matter of the pending case
d) Bank personnel and accnt holder must be notified

35. Administrative order 308 or the adoption of National Computerized ID system violates
rights to privacy bcus of the possibilities of the abuse and misuse of biometrics and
computer technology (Ople v Torres)

36. Comelec time or giving free air time in all broadcasting, radio, TV is valid. Franchise
given to them are privilege they do not own the airwaves and frequencies thru which they
transmit broadcast signals and images, no property is taken. Not eminent domain (Telebap v
comelec)

37. Exit polls is allowed subject to conditions that only professional survey groups are allowed
to conduct, kept at reasonable distance from voting, required to explain to voters that they
may refuse and such does not partake official balloting process, wear a distinctive clothing
to show that they are not election officials. Also, the contents of the ballot is not actually
exposed. (Abs-cbn v comelec)

38. Acts of closing the radio station or preventing their operations during pendency of election
period constitute as an act of prior restraint agnst speech, expression and speech. Prior
restraint refers to official government restrictions on the press or other forms of expression
in advance of actual publication or dissemination. The closure in this case comes at a most
critical time when the people are set to exercise their right of suffrage.
(Newsoundbroadcasting v Dy)

39. If government employees stopped working but no demand, not a strike and still covered by
freedom of expression and assembly. (GSIS v Villaviza)

40. Human security Act of 2007 cannot be facially challenged on the ground of vagueness,
Facial invalidation of a statute is allowed only in free speeches cases because of the probable
chilling effect. Facial challenge does not apply to penal statutes. (southern hemispher v
anti-terrorism counsel)

41. Religious programs are beyond the review of MTRCB but it can be regulated by the State
when it will bring about a clear and present danger of some substantive evil which the State
has the duty to prevent. (Soriano v MTRCB)

42. A newspaper should be free to report on event and developments in which the public has a
legitimate interest with minimum fear of being hauled to court, Fair commentaries on
matters of public interest are privileged communications and constitute valid defense in
action for libel or slander. Doctrine of Fair comment (Villanueva v Ph Daily Inquirer)

43. RA9006 which provides that surveys affecting national candidates shall not be published is a
restriction on the publication of election survey which constitute prior restraint on the
 exercise of freedom of speech without any clear and present danger to justify it.
Unconstitutional abridgment of freedom of speech, expression and press. Power of the
comelec over media franchise is limited to ensuring equal opportunity, time, space. (SWS v
Comelec)

44. Accused has a right to public trial that the court’s door is open , it is not synonymous with
publicized trial. Freedom of the press and right to information of public is not absolute esp if
the right of the accused is prejudiced (SC radio tv coverage of trial in sandiganbayan)

45. BP880 which requires permit before one can stage a public assembly regardless of the
presence or absence of clear and present danger is valid. It is not an absolute prohibition of
public assemblies but simply a regulation. Further, permit can only be denied on the ground
of clear and present danger to the public order, morals, safety, convenience and health. The
change of venue of time of assembly must be base on clear and present danger rule +
opportunity to be heard of the applicant. (Bayan v Ermita)

46. Modification in the permit without stating the cause infringes the rights of freedom of
assembly (eg. Permit to rally at the foot of Mendiola bridge which was later changed upon
issuance to be in Plaza Miranda instead). If the Mayor is of view that there is imminent and
grave danger of substantive evil warranting such denial or modification of the permit, he
shall immediately inform the applicant who must be heard on the matter (IPB v Atienza)

47. Benevolent Neutrality recognizes that government must pursue its secular goals and interest
at the same time strives to uphold religious liberty within constitutional limits.Allow
accommodation of morality based on religion provided it does not offend compelling state
interest. Note that the state could only interfere if there is compelling state interest which is
lacking in Estrada v Excrito case. If however the husband here files criminal case then state
now have a compelling state interest to implement RPC (Estrada v Escritor)

48. Conscientious objectors: you can object on certain government policies and actions based on
your religion

49. Obscene remarks against Iglesia during televised “Ang Dating Daan” as part of religious
discourse, not within the protection of Sec5 Art3. There is adverse effect of petitioner’s
utterance on the viewers fundamental rights, MTRCB properly suspended him from
appearing on TV (Paramount of viewers rights). Also, power of the state to regulate
broadcast media. The government interest here is protection of children from indecent
language used (Soriano v La Guardia)

50. Misappropriation of denominational funds, willfull breacjh of trust etc is not purely
ecclesiastical affair. NLRC had jurisdiction because secular matters (Austria v NLRC)

51. EO465 creating the Ph Halal certification Scheme and designating office on Muslim affairs
to oversea its implementation is invalid. It has the effect of forcing Muslims to accept
State’s own interpretation of Qur’an and Sunnah on halal food. No compelling justification
for the government to deprive Muslim organizations of their religious rights to classify a
product as halal even on the premise of the health of Muslim filipinos. EO is null and void.
Classification of food as halal is exclusive to Muslims, purely religious (IDCP v Office of
Executive Secretary)

52. Expulsion/ excummunication of members of religious institution and organization of its

member is purely ecclesiastic. (Taruc v Bishop De La cruz)

53. Incumbent upon PCGG and its officers as well as gov’t representatives to disclose sufficient
public information on any PROPOSED settlement they decided to take up with the owners
and holders of ill-gotten wealth subject to restrictions: National security, trade secrets and
banking transactions, criminal matter, Confidential informations

54. Private corporations cannot hold alienable lands except lease.

55. Duty of the comelec to disclose the source code for automated election system to requesting
political party or groups which may conduct their own review (Center for pp empowerment
v comelec)

56. Student leaders are likely to be assertive and dogmatic. They would be ineffective during
rally if they speak in the guarded and judicious language of the academe. However permit
must be sought from school authorities if assembly is within the school, who are devoid of
the power to deny such request arbitrarily or unreasonably. In granting such permit there
must be conditions as to time, place of assembly to avoid disruption of classes or stoppage
of work. (Malaban v Ramento)

57. Prohibition on managerial employees from forming or joining labor organization to prevent
conflict of interest (United pepsi-cola v Laguesma)

58. Timber license is not a contract. All licenses may be revoked or rescinded by executive
action. Not a property. Presidential warranty cannot, be construed as contractual undertaking
(Alvares v PCOP)

59. Tollway operators can collect toll fees which can be subjected to VAT. They do not belong
to the exceptions (Diaz v Sec of Finance)

60. IBP resolution24 series of 2008 which asked for exemption from payment of filing , docket
fees and other fees of clients of the legal aid offices in various IBP Chapter is valid. The
constitutional guarantees that the right of the poor to free access to the courts and to
adequate legal assistance

61. Accused came from Samar and no showing that he understood Tagalog, not permitted to
communicate with his lawyer, relative or friend. His statement does not even contain any
waiver of right to counsel and yet during investigation he was not assisted by one. At the
supposed reenactment, accused was not assisted with counsel Violation of Rights of the
accused (Pp v galit)

62. Interview of the reporter is not in the nature of custodial investigation. Reporter is a private
individual. Uncounselled confession is admissible (PP v Ordondo) BUT take note that if the
reporter, radio announcer colluded with police officer to elicit inculpatory evidence the
violation

63. Confession of the accused without assistance of counsel cannot be used agnst him, violation
of his rights. Also, the act of pointing out of the accused of the location of the body of the
victim was also elicited in violation of the accused right to remain silent (Pp v Lugod)

64. Judge to conduct bail hearing whenever the accused is charged with a capital offense
(parricide). Absence of objection from prosecutor is never a basis for the grant of bail, judge
has no right to presume that the prosecutor knows what he is doing on account of familiarity
of case. Court’s grant or refusal of bail must contain a summary of the evidence for
prosecution. (Narcisto v Cruz)

65. Admission made by appellant-accused to the police officer ay not be admitted as evidence
considering that the alleged verbal admission was made without informing his right to
remain silent and right to counsel. However the court cannot disregard the testimony of the
police, that immediately upon his arrival, appellant spontaneously told the police that he was
the one who shot the victim. Admission was made when the appellant has not been taken
into custody by police officer and therefore admissible evidence as spontaneous statements
(Pp v Alcazando)

66. Information which does not allege the minority of the victim altho the same was proven
during the trial, accused convicted only of simple rape. He cannot be convicted of any
offense not charged in the complaint/ information (Pp v Baya)
67. Court partially grants pro hac vice the live broadcast of the trial proceeding of Maguindanao
massacre. Must past totality of interest test. The right of the accused to a fair trial is not
incompatible to a press, that pervasive publicity is not per se prejudicial to the right of an
accused to a fair trial and that there must be an allegation and proof of the impaired capacity
of a judge to render a bias-free decision.(Ampatuan Case) NOTE: Live coverage trial is not
allowed in libel case.

68. Failure of prosecution to present confidential informant as witness during the trial and
thereby preventing accused from confronting said witness is not a violation to the rights of
the accused to meet the witness face to face. Informant’s presence is not a requisite in drugs
case. What is material is proof that transaction took place, presentation of corpus delicti. (Pp
v Bohol)

69. Wallet, residence certificate, ID Card, keys of the accused is not violative of right agnst self-
incrimination. Evidence is not incriminating statement but object evidence. What is
prohibited is testimonial compulsion (Pp v Malimit)

70. Strands of hair is admissible evidence. Substance emitted from the body of the accused may
be received in evidence in prosecution of acts of lasciviousness and morphine forced out of
the mouth of the accused may also be admitted. In this case however, the blood stained shit
and short cannot be used in evidence bcus they were taken without proper search warrant
(Pp v Rondero)

71. NBI agents asked accused to affix their signatures on the envelopes of the letters. They did
so in the presence of the members of NBI, in order to identify the letters as the very same
letter confiscated from them. The court ruled that such letters signed are valid evidence, it
was validly seized and the acccused here was convicted not only by means of the letters but
also testimonies of NBI (Marcelo v sandiganbayan)

72. Taking pictures of the accuse even without the assistance of counsel, being purely
mechanical act is not a violation of constitutional right agnst self incrimination. (Pp v
galarde)

73. Death penalty is not per se cruel, unjust, excessive or unusual punishment. It is an exercise
of State’s power to secure society agsnst threatened and actual evil. Congress power to
re-impose death penalty for COMPELLING reasons involving heinous crimes. Congres
prerogative to define what are heinous crimes (Pp v Echegaray, Pp v Mercado)

74. Right of the accused is not violated when CA ordered the trial court to promulgate a
decision sentencing the accused to imprisonment even if earlier, the same decision has been
promulgated in regard only to the payment of modified civil indemnity arising from same
act. Trial court promulgated only the civil aspect but not the criminal (Cuizon v CA)

75. Lower court acquitted the accused of crime of reckless imprudence resulting to homicide.
Respondent filed their appeal on civil aspect of lower court’s judgement, no violation of
double jeopardy. Accused was not charged anew with a second criminal offense identical to
the fist offense. (Manantan v CA)

76. A discharge if granted at the stage where jeopardy has already attached is equivalent to an
acquittal. BUT in the instance where the discharged accused fails to fulfill his part of the
bargain and refuses to testify agnst his co-accused, the benefit of his discharge can be
withdrawn and he can again be prosecuted for same offense (Pp v Feleciano)

77. Refusal to present required evidence by prosecutor which resulted to acquittal of the accused
considered done without regard to due process of law and null and void as if there was NO
acquittal and cannot constitute double jeopardy if case be reopened (Merciales v CA)

78. Trial court convicted the accused and the petitioner manifested that he will not appeal
therefrom. However, the wife of the victim file an MR which was granted by court and
ordered that the records of the case be remanded for re-evaluation, tantamount to double
 jeopardy. Right prohibits any subsequent prosecution of nay person for a crime which he has
previously convicted or acquitted. Also, right to appeal belongs to the accuse with respect to
criminal liability (Potot v Pp)

79. Retroactive effect of Extradition Treaty does not violate prohibition agnst Ex post facto law.
Treaty is not a criminal legislation nor criminal procedure statute Treaty merely provides for
the extradition of person wanted for prosecution of an offense or crime which already
committed (Wright v CA)

ADMINISTARTIVE LAW

80. Dismissal of the petitioner based on BFP compliant does not constitute res judicata in
relation to CSC complaint. Dismissal of BFP is not based on the merits but based on
recommendation of fact finding committee in determining whether a formal admin charge
should be file (Encinas v Agustin)

81. RA7611 creating Palawan Council for sustainable development does NOT confer
quasi-judicial power. Agency’s power to formulate rules for the proper discharge of its
function is always circumscribed by enabling statute. In issuing SEP Clearance PCSD does
not decide the rights an obligations of adverse parties with finality. SEP clearance is not a
license or permit. All it does is to allow the concession with the relevant gov’t agencies, it
allows the project proponent to prove the viability of their project (Villanueva v PCSD)

82. Cessation from office (Constructive resignation by filling of certificate of candidacy) does
not render administrative case moot and academic. It does not preclude finding of any admin
liability which he is still answerable. Public interest (Office of the court administrator v
Macusi)

83. CA erred in dismissing outrightly the petition for certiorari on the ground of non-exhaustion
of administrative remedies. Bcus judicial recourse availed of by the accused is a special civil
action ascribing grave abuse of discretion which is one of the exceptions (Maglalang v
Pagcor)

84. In administrative case the quantum of proof is Substantial evidence- such relevant evidence
as a reasonable mind might accept. (Office of the Ombudsman v Mapoy)

85. In questioning the validity or constitutionality of a rule or regulation issued by

administrative agency, a party need NOT exhaust admin remedies before going to court,
only applicable when in the exercise of quasi-judicial function (Villafuerte v Robredo)

86. LBP has jurisdiction to determine land valuation and compensation for agrarian reform
cases but determination is only preliminary. The landowner may still take the matter of just
compensation to the RTC-SAC for final adjudication (LBP v Yatco)

87. In canceling COC and absent of any petition to deny due course to or cancel said COC
involve quasi-judicial function of the Comelec should be decided in division first. Where
Comelec Law dep’t recommended the cancellation 0f a candidate’s COC for lack of
qualification and which was affirmed by Comelec en banc, court held that comelec cannot
cut short the proceeding by acting on the case without prior action by division. The
determination of whether the candidate is eligible for the position involve a determination of
fact where parties must be allowed to adduce evidence (Silva v Comelec)

88. Important points ins Cudia’s Case:President can overturn the decision of PMA, he who has
utmost latitude in making decisions affecting military. PMA’s academic freedom to decide
whether or not a cadet is still worthy to be part of the institution. Cudia was accorded with
due process.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT
89. Issue is WON the qualified registered voters of the entire province of Nueva Ecija or only
Cabanatuan City can participate in the plebiscite called for the conversion of Cabanatuan
from being a component city to HUC: The entire Nueva Ecija must participate. Province
will ultimately suffer a corresponding decrease in territory brought by Cabanatuan
independence as well as free from oversight function of the province (Umali v Comelec)

90. LGU is vested with authority to reclassify lands but ordinance is required in order to
reclassify agricultural lands. Ordinance only pass after conducting a hearing. A resolution
for reclassification will NOT suffice bcus it is a mere declaration of the sentiment or opinion
of the lawmaking body. Absence of valid and complete reclassification of the property,
remained agricultural land(Holy trinity v De La cruz)

91. RA7076 or the People’s Small Scale Mining program was established to be implemented by
DENR in coordination with gov’t agencies. DENR Order34 exercise direct supervision and
control over People’s small scale mining program and provincial/ city mining regulatory
board (PMRB) power and function shall be subject to review by DENR secretary, its power
emanates in RA7076 (League of Province in Ph v DENR)

92. Ordinance1664 that authorize traffic enforcers of Cebu to immobilize any motor vehicle
violating the parking restrictions and prohibition is valid and constitutional. It is a delegated
police power under general welfare clause. This to ensure smooth flow of vehicular traffic.
The clamping is fair and reasonable way to enforce ordinance otherwise, the transgressor
would evade liability by simply driving away. Take note of the test of valid ordinance: Not
contravene the constitution or state, not oppressive, not unreasonable,not partial or
discriminatory, not prohibit but regulate trade, and general and consistent with public
policy(Legaspi v City of cebu)

93. Boy scout of the Philippines is under COA’s audit jurisdiction being a public corporation
created under special law (BSP v COA)

94. Resolution was passed to obtain loan from a bank and in return mortgaged portion of the
plaza as collateral is ultra vires and void. The plaza is a public dominion and cannot be
object of appropriation either by state of private person nor lease (LBP v Cacayuran)

95. MMDA no power to declare, prevent nor abate nuisance. Sanguniang Bayan cannot declare
a particular thing as nuisance per se and order its condemnation. It does not have the power.
It must be determined by court (Gabcayco v MMDA)

96. Upon reacquisition of Filipino citizenship, must still show that you choose to establish
domicile in Ph thru a positive act and period of residency shall be counted from the time you
made a domicile of choice. (Ongsiako reyes v Comelec)

97. Joint Panel of comelec and DOJ is valid. Concurrent jurisdiction (Arroyo v Doj)

98. Comelec power to enforce, administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of
election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum, recall. Exclusive enforcement to ensure free and
orderly and honest election. Suspension by comelec of Plebiscite for creation of Davao
occidental is valid in order to accommodate the National and local election (Cagas v
Comelec)

99. Reacquired his Filipino citizenship and took oath of allegiance but he USE his passport
which revert back as being a foreigner, dual citizen hence cannot run for public office
(Macquiling v comelec)

100.Petition to deny due course or cancel certificate of candidacy of respondent on the ground of
false/ deceptive nickname is not a valid ground. The ground must relate to qualifications
(Villafuerte v Comelec)

101.Comelec en banc did not exercise its quasi-judicial function when it issued a resolution9613
in cancelling Jalosjos COC on the basis of his perpetual absolute disqualification already
 established by his final conviction, it was an admin function. Despite the lapse of 2 years
from jalosjos service of his prison term, he remains bound to suffer accessory penalty of
perpetual disqualification- it does not depend on the length of prison term (Jalosjos v
Comelec)

BAR Q’s 2019

102.A refugee includes one who as a result of events and owing to well-founded fear of being
prosecuted fro reason of race, religion,nationality, membership of a particular social group
or political opinion is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing such fear,
is unwilling to avail himself of protection of his country (2019 Bar)

103.Rights of persons under Custodial Investigation:

a) Remain silent
b) Have competent counsel preferably his own choice, if cannot afford shall be appointed
with one
c) To be informed of such rights
d) Waiver must be in writing signed by the accused and his counsel
e) No torture, force violence, threat, intimidation or any other means which vitiate the free
will of the accused
f) Secret detention places, solitary, confinement, incommunicado or similar forms of
detention are prohibited.
g) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of such rights are inadmissible in
evidence

104. Stop and frisk- right of the police officer to stop a citizen on the street and interrogate him
and pat him for weapons. 2 fold interest: Crime prevention and detection, and safety and
preservation of of police officer.

105.If the officer wants to be withhold the information on the ground of privilege
communication he must assert it and state the reason why it must be respected.Mere claim of
privilege without providing precise and certain reason for the claim is not sufficient

106.Condonation doctrine already abandoned in Carpio-Morales case Nov10, 2015 however,

same being prospective in application, public official can benefit from the doctrine if
re-elected to the office before Nov 10,2015 by same body politic electing the person. This
applies only to elective officials. The doctrine does not apply to appointive officials since
there is no sovereign will to disenfranchise

107.Curfew ordinance does not violate the primary right and duty of the parents to rear their
children. While parents have primary role in child-rearing, it should be stressed that when
actions concerning the child have a relations to the public welfare or well-being of the child,
state may act to promote these legitimate interest. In cases which harms the physical or
mental health of the child or public safety, order, peace welfare is demonstrated these
legitimate state interest may override the parents qualified right to control the upbringing of
the child.

108. Comelec has the jurisdiction over election contest for any regional, provincial or city
official (Governor). RTC has jurisdiction over election election contest for municipal
official (Mayor)

109. Person holding an elective office, not be considered ipso facto resigned from his office
upon filling his certificate of candidacy for the same or any other elected office or position,
and can still continue to hold office. Elected official may run for another position without
 forfeiting his seat (Quinto v Comelec). If however, he is an incumbent undersecretary
(appointive) filing of COC deemed ipso facto resigned

110.Process to Revise the Constitution

a) Proposal by
i. Congress by vote of 3/4 of all its members
ii. Constitutional Convention- the congress by vote of 2/3 of all its members call a
concon or by majority vote of all its members, submit to the electorate the question
calling such convention
b) Ratification-- by majority of votes cast in plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than
60 days nor later than 90 days after the approval of such amendment or revision.

111.Rule of succession: if permanent vacancy occurs in the office (death). The highest ranking
official or in case his permanent disability, the second highest shall assume office

112.If the officials runs again for same position he held prior to his assumption of the higher
office his succession to said position is by operation of law and is considered an involuntary
severance or interruption. He could run again (Municipal councilor for 3 consecutive terms
but before the end of his 3rd term Vice Mayor died so he assumed office as Vice Mayor by
succession, after such, he could run again as Municipal counsilor bcus there was an
interruption) (Abundo v Comelec)

113.Authority to keep general accounts of the Gov’t and for such period provided by laq,
preserve the vouchers and other supporting document- COA
a) Power to allow small scale utilization of natural resources by Filipino citizens as well as
cooperative fish farming, with priority to subsistence fishermen and fishworkers in
rivers, lakes, bays and lagoon- Congress
b) Authority to provide for the standardization of compensation of gov’t official and
employees- Congress
c) Sole power to declare the existence of war- Congress by 2/3 votes of both houses in
joint session assembled, voting separately
d) Ratify treaty- president. Concurred- Congress

114.An ad interim appointment that has lapsed by inaction of CA does not constitute a term of
office. The term without reappointment applies only to one who has bee appointed by the
President and confirmed by CA, whether or not such person completes his term of office.
There must be confirmation by CA before prohibition can apply. (Matibag v Benipayo)

115. A naturalized filipino citizen cannot run for a public office. Not qualified under the
constitution ‘No person shall be a member of a HoR unless he is a naturalized born citizen.
XPN: he is a natural born citizen who lost fiipino citizenship and reacquired it

116. Mere filing of COC of a dual citizen (Naturalize american citizen) is insufficient act to
renounce foreign citizenship, there must be a personal and sworn renunciation of foreign
citizenship for those who desire to run (Sobejan-Condon v Comelec.) VS

117.If he is a dual citizen bcus his parents are Filipino and he was born in US and filed his COC,
such filing is sufficient already to renounce his american citizenship. (Cordora v Comelec)

QUIZES
118. President is only given 30 days to veto otherwise the bill deemed passed into law due to his
inaction. Also, veto only if it is an inappropriate provision

119. During calling out power of the President, he ordered to arrest the leaders of the rally on
the ground that the rally disturbed the peace and order of the city- the act is invalid since no
valid delegation of emergency power only calling out power

120. Accused was charged of homicide before RTC, he posted bail - Matter of right: Before
conviction in RTC notwithstanding the accused was a recidivist.

121.Failure to appear in court bcus he forgot about his pre-trial is not a ground of trial in absentia
bcus accused did not jump bail.

122.Right of the accused to confront witnesses is not available and could not be invoke if
prosecution did not present the witness in the trial (informant was not presented by
prosecution in the trial