© ATENEO

CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019

JORGE ALFONSO C. MELO

Bar Review Coordinator

LEILA S. LIM
Bar Review Secretariat

ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS

PATRICK EDWARD BALISONG

Chairman

KATRINA Y. COSCOLLUELA JONATHAN VICTOR NOEL CZARINA CHER CUERPO

GENICA THERESE ENDALUZ JOHN STEPHEN PANGILINAN BENIGNO ENCISO
Administration Committee Heads Academics Committee Heads Hotel Operations Committee Heads

ATTY. MA. NGINA TERESA CHAN-GONZAGA

ATTY. DIANNA LOUISE DELA GUERRA
ATTY. MARIA LUISA ISABEL ROSALES
ATTY. ALBERTO AGRA
POLITICAL LAW Faculty Advisers

JAN DOMINIC CASTRO

PAUL RICO TAN
ALYANNA MARIE MANALANG
CZARINA MICHAELLA PLEYTO
MARION IYA MERILLES
POLITICAL LAW Subject Heads

EUNICE A. MALAYO
FRANCES CHRISTINE F. SAYSON
Central Bar Operations
Academics Understudies

GIA MORDENO
STEPHEN ESPIRITU FELEO QUIJANO
MARK VERGARA
SELINA MIRANDA JOHN CARILLO
HIDEYUKI SATO
VEYA JOSEF ANTOINETTE DUQUE
MARJOLAINE DE CASTRO
PRAM MENGHRAJANI HAZEL SEGOVIA
JASON DIZON
GE-AN SALUD NICO CALDOZO
POLITICAL LAW Volunteers
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019 POLITICAL LAW

THE PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION electorate the question of whether to

call a Constitutional Convention or
A. CONSTITUTION: DEFINITION, NATURE not (Phil. Const, art. XVII, §3)
AND CONCEPTS c. People’s Initiative
B. PARTS Requirements:
1. Petition must be signed be at least
C. AMENDMENTS AND REVISIONS
12% of ALL REGISTERED
VOTERS.
Q: Differentiate Amendments from Revisions:
2. Every legislative district represented
Amendment Revision by at least 3% of the registered
voters therein.
Change in the Constitution
Purpose is to Purpose is to Limitations:
improve specific parts examine entirety 1. No amendment in this manner within
5yrs from ratification of 1987
Affects only the specific Affects several Constitution;
provision amended provisions 2. No amendment in this manner more
often than once every 5yrs
Affects thereafter.
Adds, reduces, deletes basic principles 3. Applies only to Amendments, NOT
WITHOUT revisions. (Phil. Const, art. XVII, §2)
altering basic principle Affects
substantial entirety II.RATIFICATION
Proposed amendment becomes part of the
Ex: shift from Constitution when ratified by a MAJORITY of
Ex: extending the term presidential to votes cast in a plebiscite held not earlier than 60
limit of members of parliamentary days nor later than 90days AFTER approval of
House of system; altering the the proposal by Congress, or the Constitutional
Representatives; principle of Convention, or after certification by COMELEC of
reduction of voting age separation of powers the sufficiency of the petition under Sec.2, Art.
from 18 to 15 years or the system of XVII. (Phil. Const, art. XVII, §4)
checks-and-balances
D. SELF-EXECUTING AND NON-SELF
EXECUTING PROVISIONS
Q: How to determine whether change is an E. GENERAL PROVISIONS
Amendment or a Revision:
Two-Part Test in Lambino v. COMELEC, GR No. Q: Are Constitutional provisions self-
174153, Oct. 25, 2006: executory?
• First: Quantitative test - Whether the change GR: Self-Executory - Complete in itself;
operative without the aid of supplementary or
is so extensive as to change the “substance
enabling legislation; supplies a sufficient rule by
entirety” by the number of provisions affected
means of which the right is grants may be
without considering the degree of change
enjoyed or protected.
• Second: Qualitative Test - Whether the
change will affect the nature of the basic
XPN: Those that only lay down gen. principles
governmental plan
such as Art. II; do not bestow rights; do not
elevate privileges to the level of enforceable
Q: Steps in the Amendatory Process:
rights but merely specify guidelines for Legislative
I. PROPOSAL
and Executive action.
a. Congressional Assembly (ConAss) - by a
vote of % of ALL its members (3/4 Senate
EXCEPTION TO EXCEPTION:
and 3/4 HOR) (Phil. Const, art. XVII, §2)
b. Constitutional Convention (ConConf • Article II Sec. 16 on the right to a balanced
and healthful ecology is self-executing
How called:
1. Congress may call a ConCon by a (Oposa v. Factoran, G.R. No. 101083, July
30, 1993).
2/3 vote of all its members
2. By a majority vote of all its members, • Article II, Sec. 15 on the right to health is
Congress may submit to the also self-executing (Imbong v. Ochoa, G.R.

PAGE 1 OF 108
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019 POLITICAL LAW

No. 204819, 2014).

• Right to full public disclosure of all the State’s 12 nautical
Absolute
transactions involving public interest. miles from
sovereignty
(Province of North Cotabato v. GRP, G.R. baselines
No. 204819, 2014)
Enforcement
of customs,
PRELIMINARY PROVISIONS AND 24 nautical
fiscal,
BASIC CONCEPTS miles from
immigration,
baselines
and sanitation
A. NATIONAL TERRITORY laws
1. ARCHIPELAGIC DOCTRINE
Exploitation of
Exclusive 200 nautical
Q: What is the archipelagic doctrine? living and
Economic miles from
It is a doctrine of national territory articulated in non-living
Zone baselines
the second sentence of Sec. 1, Art. I: “The waters resources
around, between, and connecting the islands of
Sovereign
the archipelago, regardless of their breadth and
rights of
dimensions, forms part of the internal waters of
exploration
the Philippines.” Submerged
and
Continental prolongation of
exploitation of
It is based on the principle that an archipelago, Shelf the land
which consists of a number of islands separated living and
territory
non-living
by bodies of water, should be treated as one
integral unit. (Magallona v. Ermita, G.R. No. resources of
187167, 2011) the seabed

Q: What are the 3 basic principles of
archipelagic States?
1. An archipelagic State may draw straight
baselines connecting the outermost points of
the outermost islands and drying reefs of the
archipelago from which the extent of the
territorial sea of the archipelagic state is, or
may be determined.
2. The waters within the baselines, regardless
of their depth or distance from the coast, the
seabed and the subsoil, and the superjacent
airspace, as well as all their resources,
belong to, and are subject to the sovereignty
of the archipelagic State.
3. Innocent passage of foreign vessels
through the waters of the archipelagic State
shall be allowed in accordance with its
national legislation, having regard to the
existing rules of international law. Such
passage shall be through sea lanes as may
be designated for the purpose by the
archipelagic State. (Magallona citing Art. 49,
UNCLOS III).
Q: What is the extent of our maritime zones?
PAGE 2 OF 108
Q: What is the treatment of the Baselines Law
(RA 9522) to the Kalayaan Group of Islands?
The Kalayaan Island Group (KIG), also known as
the Spratlys, and the Bajo de Masinloc, also
known as Scarborough Shoal, were NOT
included in the islands enclosed by the Philippine
archipelagic baselines, and are instead treated as
"regime of islands."
Had Congress in RA 9522 enclosed the KIG and
the Scarborough Shoal as part of the Philippine
archipelago, adverse legal effects would have
ensued. The Philippines would have committed a
breach of two provisions of UNCLOS III. First,
Article 47 (3) of UNCLOS III requires that ‘[t]he
drawing of such baselines shall not depart to any
appreciable extent from the general configuration
of the archipelago.’ Second, Article 47 (2) of
UNCLOS III requires that ‘the length of the
baselines shall not exceed 100 nautical miles,’
save for 3% of the total number of baselines
which can reach up to 125 nautical miles.
(Magallona v. Executive Secretary, G.R No.
187167, July 16, 2011).
O- What w> kiiw ■ ■
the hacic nf tho Dhilinnlna’pU UIUIIII
to the KIG (the Spratly Islands) and
Scarborough Shoal?
It is based on Art. 1 of the 1987 Constitution,
which states that the national territory includes
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019
“all other territories over which the Philippines has
sovereignty or jurisdiction.”
Q: Is the use of the framework of Regime of
Islands in RA9522 to determine the Maritime
Zones of the KIG and the Scarborough Shoal
inconsistent with the Philippines’ claim of
sovereignty over these areas?
No. Far from surrendering the Philippines’ claim
over the KIG and the Scarborough Shoal,
Congress’ decision to classify the KIG and the
Scarborough Shoal as “Regime of Islands” under
the Republic of the Philippines is consistent with
Art. 121 of UNCLOS III and manifests the
Philippine State’s responsible observance of its
pacta sunt servanda obligation under UNCLOS
III. Under this article, any “naturally formed area
of land, surrounded by water, which is above
water at high tide”, such as the KIG, qualifies
under the category of “regime of islands” whose
lands generate their own applicable maritime
zones (Magallona v. Ermita, G.R. No. 187167,
July 16, 2011).
Q: What is the treatment of the Scarborough
Shoal following the South China Sea
Arbitration?
As a high tide elevation, Scarborough Shoal is
entitled to its own territorial sea of 12 nautical
miles. The waters surrounding Scarborough
Shoal do not form part of the exclusive economic
zone of the Philippines. (The South China Sea
Arbitration, 2013-19, July 12, 2016)
Q: Who has historical fishing rights in
Scarborough Shoal?
Fishermen of Philippines, China, and other
countries have long fished at Scarborough Shoal
and have traditional fishing rights within the area.
By preventing Philippine fishermen from
accessing the shoal, China violated its duty to
respect the traditional fishing rights of these
Filipino fishermen. (The South China Sea
Arbitration, 2013-19, July 12, 2016)
Q: Who has the exclusive right to construct
artificial islands or structures on low-tide
elevations (LTEs)?
A coastal state wherein an LTE is found within its
EEZ has the exclusive right to construct artificial
islands or structures on the said LTE. Only the
Philippines has the exclusive right to construct
artificial islands or structures in Ayungin Shoal -
an LTE within the Philippines EEZ. (The South
China Sea Arbitration, 2013-19, July 12, 2016)
PAGE 3 OF 108
POLITICAL LAW
B. DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND
STATE POLICIES
Q: What is “Soft Law”?
“Soft law” are non-binding norms, principles and
practices that influence state behavior such as
certain declarations and resolutions of the UN
General Assembly like the UN Declaration of
Human Rights (UDHR) (Pharmaceutical and
Health Care Association of the Philippines v.
Duque III).
Q: Does “soft law” form part of the law of the
land by the doctrine of incorporation?
It depends. For an international rule to be
considered as customary law, it must be
established that such rule is being followed by
states because they consider it obligatory to
comply with such rules (opinio juris). Unless it can
be shown that this soft law has been enforced,
practiced and considered as binding by states,
soft law cannot be deemed to form part of the law
of the land. (Pharmaceutical and Health Care
Association of the Philippines v. Duque III,G.R.
No. 173034, 2007).
Q: Can the BIR impose additional
requirements for obtaining a refund that is
based on an international agreement?
No. The Constitution provides for adherence to
the general principles of international law as part
of the law of the land. Obligations under a treaty
must be complied with in good faith. The BIR
must not impose additional requirements that will
negate the availment of the reliefs paid for under
international agreement (Deutsche Bank v. CIR,
G.R. No. 188550, August 19, 2013).
Q: How is standing treated in actions for
violations of environmental laws?
The enactment of the Rules of Procedure for
Environmental Cases enabled litigants enforcing
environmental rights to file their cases as citizen
suits. It liberalized standing for all cases filed
enforcing environmental laws and collapses the
traditional rule on personal and direct interest,
based on the principle that humans are stewards
of nature. (Resident Marine Mammals v. Reyes,
G.R. No. 180771, 2015).
Q: Do animals have standing?
No. The need to give the Resident Marine
Mammals legal standing has been eliminated by
our Rules, which allow any Filipino citizen, as a
steward of nature, to bring a suit to enforce our
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019
environmental laws. It is worth noting here that
the Stewards are joined as real parties in the
Petition and not just in representation of the
named cetacean species. The Stewards having
shown in their petition that there may be possible
violations of laws concerning the habitat of the
Resident Marine Mammals, are therefore
declared to possess the legal standing to file this
petition. (Resident Marine Mammals v. Reyes,
G.R. No. 180771, 2015).
Q: What are the requisites for a party to avail
of the writ of kalikasan?
(1) There is an actual or threatened violation
of the constitutional right to a balanced and
healthful ecology;
(2) The actual or threatened violation arises
from an unlawful act or omission of a public
official or employee, or private individual or
entity; and
(3) The actual or threatened violation involves
or will lead to an environmental damage of
such magnitude as to prejudice the life,
health or property of inhabitants in two or
more cities or provinces (LNL Archipelago,
2016)
C. SEPARATION OF POWERS
D. CHECKS AND BALANCES
E. STATE IMMUNITY
Q: Does consent to be sued include consent
to be bound by the judgment or decision?
No. Consent to be sued does not include consent
to the execution of judgment against it. Such
execution will require another waiver because the
power of the court ends when judgment is
rendered, since government funds and properties
may not be seized under writs of execution or
garnishment, unless such disbursements are
covered by appropriation as required by law
(Republic v. Villasor, G.R. No. L-30671,
November 28, 1973).
Q: Is ATO covered by state immunity from
suit?
No. ATO does not enjoy sovereign immunity
because even if it is unincorporated, it is involved
in the management and operation of an airport
which is a proprietary function. While an
unincorporated agency is clothed with sovereign
immunity when performing governmental
function, the same privilege is not enjoyed by an
agency performing proprietary function (ATO v.
David, 2011).
PAGE 4 OF 108
POLITICAL LAW
Q: When a private corporation entered into
exploration and development of natural
resources with the State, will it be covered by
state immunity?
No. It did not become an agent of the State by
virtue of a Service Contract which did not
constitute Shell to represent the State in dealing
with third persons. The contract merely gave rise
to a contractual commitment on the part of Shell
to undertake extraction and exploration but never
to represent the State in its dealings (Shell
Exploration Philippines v. Jalos, 2010).
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
A. LEGISLATIVE POWER
a. SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS
Q: May Congress provide the criteria
necessary for the creation of a city, including
the conversion of a municipality into a city in
another law?
No, while the constitution requires the Congress
to stipulate in the Local Government Code all the
criteria necessary for such, it cannot be justified
to insist that the Constitution must have to yield
to every amendment to the LGC despite the
amendment imminently producing effects
contrary to the original thrusts of the LGC. Income
is changed from 20 to 100 million and meets
either of the following: a) contiguous territory of
2000 square kilometers; b) population not less
than 250,000. HOWEVER, Congress clearly
intended that the local government units covered
by the Cityhood Laws be exempted from the
coverage of RA 9009, which imposes a higher
income requirement of 100 million for the creation
of cities. Cityhood laws were VALID. (League of
Cities of the Phil, et al. v. COMELEC, et at., G.R.
No. 176951; G.R. No. 177499; G.R. No. 178056,
2011 and Local Government Code, Sec. 461).
LIMITATION:
So long as the amendment is germane to the
subject of the bills before the Committee.
(Tolentino v. Sec. of Finance, supra).
(Limitation on legislative power
i. Limitations on revenue, appropriations
and tariff measures
ii. Presidential veto and Congressional
override
Q: What are the limitations to Congress’
plenary power of legislation?
1. Substantive - Limits the content of laws