'--1 !, 1-',- ,i,.-, 1--' -!--, )''-- ^ -1 '--- !

-
REVIEWER IN POLITICAL LAW
A. Definition and Division of PoIiticaI Law
PoIiticaI Law - is that branch of public law which deals
with the organization and operations of the
governmental organs of the State and defines the
relations of the State with the inhabitants of its territory.
a. Constitutional Law
b. Administrative law
c. Election Law
d. Law of Public Officers
e. Law on Municipal Corporations
n case of Macariola vs. Asuncion, the court says ; &5on
the transfer of sovereignty from S5ain to the &nited
States and Iater on from the &nited States to the
Re5:-Iic of the PhiIi55ines, Article 14 of this Code of
Commerce must be deemed to have been abrogated
because where there is change of sovereignty, the
5oIiticaI Iaws of the former sovereign, whether
com5ati-Ie or not with those of the new sovereign, are
a:tomaticaIIy a-rogated, :nIess they are ex5ressIy re-
enacted -y affirmative act of the new sovereign.
Likewise, Article 14 of the Code of Commerce which
prohibits judges from engaging in commerce is, as
heretofore stated, deemed abrogated automatically upon
the transfer of sovereignty from Spain to America, because
it is political in nature.
B. Definition of Constit:tionaI Law
Constitutional Law may be defined as that branch of Public
Law which treats of constitution, their nature, formation,
amendment, and interpretation.
t refers to the law embodied in the Constitution as
well as the principles growing out of the interpretation and
application made by the courts of the provisions of the
Constitution in specific cases. Thus, the Philippine
Constitution itself is brief but the law of the Constitution lies
scattered in thousands of Supreme Court decisions.
Distinguished Constitutional Law from Political Law
PoIiticaI Law deals specifically with the study of the
structure and powers of our government.
Constit:tionaI Law is one of the division of Political
Law that defines the specific duties and responsibilities
of our government together with their privileges and
rights and as a fundamental or supreme law of the land,
it enumerates the rights of every citizens with their
corresponding functions where the sovereignty resides
in the people and all government authority emanates
from them.
C. Constit:tion (1987 Constit:tion)
a. Definition
Constitution - define as the supreme law of the land and
established by the people which prescribes the permanent
framework of the system of government, which establishes
basic principles upon which the government founded, and
which defines and allocates to the various organs of
government their respective powers and duties.
Social Contract Theory People entrust their rights to the
government. The government in return does their part and
gives the people what due to them.
b. Function
(1) Serves as the supreme or fundamental law
(2) Establishes basic framework and underlying principles of
government
(3) Defines and allocates to the various organs of
government their respective powers and duties.
c. Classification
A Constitution may be written or unwritten, conventional or
cumulative, and rigid or flexible.
(i) Written is one which has been given definite
written form at a particular time.
(ii) Unwritten is one which has not been reduced
to writing at any specific time but it is the
collective product of a gradual political
development, consisting of unwritten usages
and customary rules, judicial decisions, and
legislative enactments of a fundamental
character written but scattered in various
records without having any compact form in
writing.
(iii) Conventional enacted deliberately and
consciously by a constituent body or ruler, at a
certain time and place.
(iv) Cumulative is a product of gradual political
development.
(v) Rigid is one which can be amended through a
formal and difficult process.
(vi) Flexible is one which can be changed by
ordinary legislation.
The 1987 Philippine Constitution is a written, conventional
and rigid Constitution.
d. Essential Qualities of a Written Constitution
(i) As to form, a good written constitution should be:
Brief because if a constitution is too detailed, it
would lose the advantage of a fundamental law
which in a few provisions outlines the government
of the whole state and the rights of the citizens.
Broad- because a statement of the powers and
functions of government, and of the relations
between the governing body and the governed,
requires that it be as comprehensive as possible.
Definite- because otherwise the application of its
provisions to concrete situations may prove unduly
difficult if not impossible.
(ii) As to contents, it should contain at least three sets of
provisions;
Constitution of Government
Constitution of Liberty
Constitution of Sovereignty
e. Parts of a Constitution
f. nterpretation of the Constitution
'--1 !, 1-',- ,i,.-, 1--' -!--, )''-- ^ -1 '--- !-
n rancisco vs House of Rep., G.R. No. 160261, The
Supreme Court ruled that;
" The separation of powers is a fundamental principle in our
system of government. t obtains not through express
provision but by actual division in our Constitution. Each
department of the government has exclusive cognizance of
matters within its jurisdiction, and is supreme within its own
sphere. But it does not follow from the fact that the three
powers are to be kept separate and distinct that the
Constitution intended them to be absolutely unrestrained
and independent of each other. The Constitution has
provided for an elaborate system of checks and balances to
secure coordination in the workings of the various
departments of the government. And the judiciary in turn,
with the Supreme Court as the final arbiter, effectively
checks the other departments in the exercise of its power to
determine the law, and hence to declare executive and
legislative acts void if violative of the Constitution.
"The Constitution did not intend to leave the matter of
impeachment to the sole discretion of Congress. nstead, it
provided for certain well-defined limits, or "judicially
discoverable standards" for determining the validity of the
exercise of such discretion, through the power of judicial
review. There is indeed a plethora of cases in which this
Court exercised the power of judicial review over
congressional action. Finally, there exists no constitutional
basis for the contention that the exercise of judicial review
over impeachment proceedings would upset the system of
checks and balances. Verily, the Constit:tion is to -e
inter5reted as a whoIe and "one section is not to -e
aIIowed to defeat another." Both are integral components
of the calibrated system of independence and
interdependence that insures that no branch of government
act beyond the powers assigned to it by the Constitution.
g. Supremacy of the Constitution
The Constitution is the basic and paramount law to which all
other laws must conform and to which all persons, including
the highest official of the land, must defer. No act shall be
valid, however noble its intentions, if it conflicts with the
Constitution. The Constit:tion m:st ever remain
S:5reme. All must bow to mandate of this law. Expediency
must not be allowed to sap its strength nor greed for power
debase its rectitude.
n case of Mutuc vs COMELEC;
ss:e: Whether the taped jingles fall under the phrase "and
the like.
HeId: Under the weII-known 5rinci5Ie of ej:sdem
generis, the general words following any enumeration are
applicable only to things of the same kind or class as those
specifically referred to. t is quite apparent that what was
contemplated in the Act was the distribution of gadgets of
the kind referred to as a means of inducement to obtain a
favorable vote for the candidate responsible for its
distribution. The Constitutional Convention Act
contemplated the prohibition on the distribution of gadgets
of the kind referred to as a means of inducement to obtain a
favorable vote for the candidate responsible for its
distribution (distribution of electoral propaganda gadgets,
mention being made of pens, lighters, fans, flashlights,
athletic goods or materials, wallets, bandanas, shirts, hats,
matches, and cigarettes, and concluding with the words
"and the like.). Taped jingles therefore were not prohibited.
NOTE: Ej:sdem-Generis - Latin: of the same kind. A rule
of statutory construction, generally accepted by both state
and federal courts, "that where general words follow
enumerations of particular classes or persons or things, the
general words shall be construed as applicable only to
persons or things of the same general nature or kind as
those enumerated
CUSTODA LEGS. n the custody of the law. n
general, when things are in custodia legis, they cannot be
distrained, nor otherwise interfered with by custodia legis,
they cannot be distrained, nor otherwise interfered with by a
private person.
n case of Alih vs Castro; The Supreme Court declared
those seized in custodia legis and declared that the
operation conducted by Maj. Gen. Castro was LLEGAL.
The respondents have all the time to obtain a search
warrant granted that they have about 10 trial courts. The SC
also held the protection of the petitioner's human rights as
stated in Art V Sec 3 and 4 of the 1973 Constitution
regarding illegal search and seizure. The presumption of
innocence of the petitioners should be observed and that
they cannot be subjected to self-incriminating instances like
paraffin tests, photographing and finger printing.

n this case, "The Constitution is a law for rulers and people,
equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its
protection all classes of men, at all times and under all
circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious
consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than
that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of
the great exigencies of government."
n case of Manila Prince Hotel vs GSS; n its plain and
ordinary meaning, the term patrimony pertains to heritage.
When the Constitution speaks of national patrimony, it
refers not only to the natural resources of the Philippines, as
the Constitution could have very well used the term natural
resources, but also to the cultural heritage of the Filipinos. t
also refers to Filipino's intelligence in arts, sciences and
letters. n the present case, Manila Hotel has become a
landmark, a living testimonial of Philippine heritage. While it
was restrictively an American hotel when it first opened in
1912, a concourse for the elite, it has since then become
the venue of various significant events which have shaped
Philippine history. n the granting of economic rights,
privileges, and concessions, especially on matters involving
national patrimony, when a choice has to be made between
a "qualified foreigner and a "qualified Filipino, the latter
shall be chosen over the former.
A provision which is complete in itself and becomes
operative without the aid of supplementary or enabling
legislation, or that which supplies sufficient rule by means of
which the right it grants may be enjoyed or protected, is
self-executing. Thus a constit:tionaI 5rovision is seIf-
exec:ting if the nat:re and extent of the right conferred
and the Iia-iIity im5osed are fixed -y the constit:tion
itseIf, so that they can be determined by an examination
and construction of its terms, and there is no language
indicating that the subject is referred to the legislature for
action. n self-executing constitutional provisions, the
legislature may still enact legislation to facilitate the exercise
of powers directly granted by the constitution, further the
operation of such a provision, prescribe a practice to be
used for its enforcement, provide a convenient remedy for
the protection of the rights secured or the determination
thereof, or place reasonable safeguards around the
exercise of the right. The mere fact that legislation may
supplement and add to or prescribe a penalty for the
violation of a self-executing constitutional provision does not
'--1 !, 1-',- ,i,.-, 1--' -!--, )''-- ^ -1 '--- !-
render such a provision ineffective in the absence of such
legislation. The omission from a constitution of any express
provision for a remedy for enforcing a right or liability is not
necessarily an indication that it was not intended to be self-
executing. The rule is that a self-executing provision of the
constitution does not necessarily exhaust legislative power
on the subject, but any legislation must be in harmony with
the constitution, further the exercise of constitutional right
and make it more available.
II. AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTIT&TION
ARTICLE XVII
AMENDMENTS OR REVISIONS
Section 1. Any amendment to, or revision of, this
Constit:tion may -e 5ro5osed -y:
(1) The Congress, :5on a vote of three-fo:rths
of aII its Mem-ers; or
(2) A constit:tionaI convention.

Section 2. Amendments to this Constit:tion may
Iikewise -e directIy 5ro5osed -y the 5eo5Ie thro:gh
initiative :5on a 5etition of at Ieast tweIve 5er cent:m
of the totaI n:m-er of registered voters, of which every
IegisIative district m:st -e re5resented -y at Ieast three
5er cent:m of the registered voters therein. No
amendment :nder this section shaII -e a:thorized
within five years foIIowing the ratification of this
Constit:tion nor oftener than once every five years
thereafter.
The Congress shaII 5rovide for the im5Iementation of
the exercise of this right.
Section 3. The Congress may, -y a vote of two-thirds of
aII its Mem-ers, caII a constit:tionaI convention, or -y a
majority vote of aII its Mem-ers, s:-mit to the
eIectorate the q:estion of caIIing s:ch a convention.
A. Amendment vs Revision
Amendment is a change or alteration for the better; an
amendment or change within the lines of the original
instrument which will bring about improvement
Revision is the rewriting or overhauling of the entire
instrument.
B. Pro5osaI - is the motion of initiating suggestions or
proposals on amendment or revision, which may either be
by;
(a) Congress, upon vote of of all its members;
(b) Constitutional Convention
(c) The people thru initiative
n case of Santiago vs COMELEC; R.A. 6735 is
inadequate to cover the system of initiative on amendments
to the Constitution. Under the said law, initiative on the
Constitution is confined only to proposals to AMEND. The
people are not accorded the power to "directly propose,
enact, approve, or reject, in whole or in part, the
Constitution" through the system of initiative. They can only
do so with respect to "laws, ordinances, or resolutions." The
use of the clause "proposed laws sought to be enacted,
approved or rejected, amended or repealed" denotes that
R.A. No. 6735 excludes initiative on amendments to the
Constitution.

Also, while the law provides subtitles for National nitiative
and Referendum and for Local nitiative and Referendum,
no subtitle is provided for initiative on the Constitution. This
means that the main thrust of the law is initiative and
referendum on national and local laws. f R.A. No. 6735
were intended to fully provide for the implementation of the
initiative on amendments to the Constitution, it could have
provided for a subtitle therefor, considering that in the order
of things, the primacy of interest, or hierarchy of values, the
right of the people to directly propose amendments to the
Constitution is far more important than the initiative on
national and local laws.

While R.A. No. 6735 specially detailed the process in
implementing initiative and referendum on national and local
laws, it intentionally did not do so on the system of initiative
on amendments to the Constitution.
n case of Lambino vs COMELEC;
The essence of amendments "directly proposed by the
people through initiative upon a petition is that the entire
proposal on its face is a petition by the people. This means
two essentiaI eIements must be present.
irst, the people must author and thus sign the entire
proposal. o agent or representative can sign on their
behalf.
Second, as an initiative upon a petition, the proposal
must be embodied in a petition.
These essential elements are present only if the full text of
the proposed amendments is first shown to the people who
express their assent by signing such complete proposal in a
petition. The full text of the proposed amendments may be
either written on the face of the petition, or attached to it. f
so attached, the petition must state the fact of such
attachment. This is an assurance that every one of the
several millions of signatories to the petition had seen the
full text of the proposed amendments before not after
signing.
Moreover, "an initiative signer must be informed at the time
of signing of the nature and effect of that which is proposed
and failure to do so is "deceptive and misleading which
renders the initiative void.
In the case of the Lam-ino Gro:5s 5etition, theres not
a singIe word, 5hrase, or sentence of text of the
5ro5osed changes in the signat:re sheet. Neither does
the signat:re sheet state that the text of the 5ro5osed
changes is attached to it. The signat:re sheet mereIy
asks a q:estion whether the 5eo5Ie a55rove a shift
from the BicameraI-PresidentiaI to the &nicameraI-
ParIiamentary system of government. The signat:re
sheet does not show to the 5eo5Ie the draft of the
5ro5osed changes -efore they are asked to sign the
signat:re sheet. This omission is fataI.
An initiative that gathers signatures from the people without
first showing to the people the full text of the proposed
amendments is most likely a deception, and can operate as
a gigantic fraud on the people. That's why the Constitution
requires that an initiative must be "directly proposed by the
people x x x in a petition meaning that the people must
sign on a petition that contains the full text of the proposed
amendments. On so vital an issue as amending the nation's
'--1 !, 1-',- ,i,.-, 1--' -!--, )''-- ^ -1 '--- !-
fundamental law, the writing of the text of the proposed
amendments cannot be hidden from the people under a
general or special power of attorney to unnamed, faceless,
and unelected individuals.


C. S:-mission-
n case of Tolentino vs COMELEC; The Supreme Court
held that in Section 1 of Article 15, there should be only one
"election or plebiscite for the ratification of all amendments
the Convention may propose.
D. Ratification: ArticIe 17 Section 4, Paragra5hs 1 and 2
Section 4. Any amendment to, or revision of, this
Constit:tion :nder Section 1 hereof shaII -e vaIid when
ratified -y a majority of the votes cast in a 5Ie-iscite
which shaII -e heId not earIier than sixty days nor Iater
than ninety days after the a55rovaI of s:ch amendment
or revision.
Any amendment :nder Section 2 hereof shaII -e vaIid
when ratified -y a majority of the votes cast in a
5Ie-iscite which shaII -e heId not earIier than sixty
days nor Iater than ninety days after the certification -y
the Commission on EIections of the s:fficiency of the
5etition.
E. The 5osition of the Convention in o:r system of
government
There are three theories on the relative position of the
Constitutional Convention vis--vis the regular department
of the government.
The first, as announced in Loomis v. Jackson, holds that the
constitutional constitution is supreme over the other
departments of the government because the powers it
exercises are in the nature of sovereign powers. This theory
is thus called the Theory of Conventional Sovereignty.
The second, as announced in Wood's Appeal, considers the
constitutional convention inferior to the other departments of
the government since it is merely a creation of the
legislature.
The third, as announced in Frantz vs Autry, declares that as
long as it exists and confines itself within the sphere of its
jurisdiction, the constitutional convention must be
considered independent of and co-equal with the other
departments of the government.
The third of these theories, which is the most popular, has
been observed in our government since the case of
Mabanag vs. Vito.
III. History and Backgro:nd
A. The PhiIi55ine RevoI:tion and the MaIoIos
Constit:tion
On June 29,1898, Gen, Aguinaldo established the
Revolutionary Government replacing the Dictatorial
Government with himself as the President and a
Congress whose function was advisory and
ministerial. The decree making such change stated
that the aims of the new government were "to
struggle for the independence of the Philippines,
until all nations including Spain will expressly
recognize it, and "to prepare the country for the
establishment of a real Republic.
On September 15, 1898, revolutionary Congress of
Filipino representatives met in Malolos, Bulacan at
the call of the Revolutionary Government. The
Malolos Congress ratified on Sept. 29, 1898 the
proclamation of Philippine ndependence made by
Gen. Emilio Aguinaldo in Kawit, Cavite on June
12,1898 and framed the so-called Malolos
Constitution.This Constitution was the first
democratic constitution ever promulgated in the
whole Asia. t established a "free and independent
Philippine Republic. However, it was not
recognized by the family of nations. t had short-
lived.
B. The Organic Laws :nder the American Period
(1) Mckinley's nstructions (April 7, 1990)
President McKinley's instruction to the Philippine
Commission in April 1900 directed that, "... Beginning with
the 1st day of September, 1900, the authority to exercise
that part of the power of government in the Philippine
slands which is of legislative nature, is to be transferred
from the Military Governor to this commission." The
instruction also gave the Commission the power to appoint
to officers under the judicial, educational, and civil service
systems and in the municipal and departmental
governments. The instruction charged the Commission, "...
n all the forms of government and administrative provisions
which they are authorized to proscribe, the Commission
should bear in mind that the government which they are
establishing is designed not for our satisfaction, or for the
expression of our theoretical views, but for the happiness,
peace and prosperity of the people of the Philippine islands,
and measures adopted should be made to conform to their
customs, their habits, and even their prejudices, to the
fullest extent consistent with the accomplishment of just and
effective government."
(2) The Spooner Amendment (1901)
The Army Appropriation Act, also known as the Spooner
Amendment, is passed by the US Senate. t provides that
the US President governs the Philippines by the authority of
Congress and not as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed
Forces, thereby formally ending the US military regime in
the archipelago.
(3)The Philippine Bill of 1902, or the Cooper Act of July 1,
1902, provided for the retention of executive powers of the
Philippine Commission and the establishment of a
bicameral Philippine Legislature. t provided for the creation
of the Philippine Assembly, a body that would share
legislative powers with the Philippine Commission and
would function as the lower chamber of the proposed
Philippine Legislature. t also provided for a bill of rights for
the Filipinos, and the appointment of two Filipino resident
commissioners to represent the Philippines in the United
States Congress but without voting rights. On October 16,
1907, the first session of the Philippine assembly opened,
with an elected lower house and the Philippine Commission,
previously established, as the upper house.
(4) The Philippine Autonomy Act or Jones Law
'--1 !, 1-',- ,i,.-, 1--' -!--, )''-- ^ -1 '--- !-
Statute announcing the intention of the United States
government to "withdraw their sovereignty over the
Philippine slands as soon as a stable government can be
established therein. The U.S. had acquired the Philippines
in 1898 as a result of the SpanishAmerican War; and from
1901 legislative power in the islands had been exercised
through a Philippine Commission effectively dominated by
Americans. One of the most significant sections of the
Jones Act replaced the Commission with an elective Senate
and, with minimum property qualifications, extended the
franchise to all literate Filipino males. The law also
incorporated a bill of rights.
C. Japanese Occupation
(1) The Philippine Executive Commission- a civil
government composed of Filipinos was organized by the
military forced of occupation. The commission exercised
both the executive and legislative powers. The laws enacted
were, however, subject to the approval of the Commander-
in-chief of the Japanese Forces.
(2) The Japanese-sponsored Republic of the Philippines
was inaugurated with Jose Laurel as the President. The
same as the Philippine Executive Commission. The ultimate
source of its authority was the Japanese military authority
and government.
D. The 1935 Constitution
The original 1935 Constitution provided for unicameral
National Assembly and the President was elected to a six-
year term without re-election. t was amended in 1940 to
have a bicameral Congress composed of a Senate and
House of Representatives, as well the creation of an
independent electoral commission. The Constitution now
granted the President a four-year term with a maximum of
two consecutive terms in office.
A Constitutional Convention was held in 1971 to rewrite the
1935 Constitution. The convention was stained with
manifest bribery and corruption. Possibly the most
controversial issue was removing the presidential term limit
so that Ferdinand E. Marcos could seek election for a third
term, which many felt was the true reason for which the
convention was called. n any case, the 1935 Constitution
was suspended in 1972 with Marcos' proclamation of
martial law, the rampant corruption of the constitutional
process providing him with one of his major premises for
doing so.
n case of Mabanag vs Vito, the Court held;
t is a doctrine too well established to need citation of
authorities that political questions are not within the
province of the judiciary, except to the extent that power to
deal with such questions has been conferred upon the
courts by express constitutional or statutory provision. This
doctrine is predicated on the principle of the separation of
powers, a principle also too well known to require
elucidation or citation of authorities. f a political question
conclusively binds the judges out of respect to the political
departments, a duly certified law or resolution also binds the
judges under the "enrolled bill rule" born of that respect. f
ratification of an amendment is a political question, a
proposal which leads to ratification has to be a political
question. The two steps complement each other in a
scheme intended to achieve a single objective. t is to be
noted that the amendatory process as provided in section
of Article XV of the Philippine Constitution "consists of (only)
two distinct parts: proposal and ratification." There is no
logic in attaching political character to one and withholding
that character from the other. Proposal to amend the
Constitution is a highly political function performed by the
Congress in its sovereign legislative capacity and
committed to its charge by the Constitution itself. The
exercise of this power is even in dependent of any
intervention by the Chief Executive. f on grounds of
expediency scrupulous attention of the judiciary be needed
to safeguard public interest, there is less reason for judicial
inquiry into the validity of a proposal then into that of a
ratification.


E. The 1973 Constitution
The 1973 Constitution, composed of a preamble and 17
articles, provides for the shift from presidential to
parliamentary system of government. The Constitution vests
the legislative power in the National Assembly. A Prime
Minister is elected from among the members of the National
Assembly and serves as the head of government and
commander-in-chief of the Philippine Armed Forces. A
President is elected from among the members of the
National Assembly and serves as the symbolic head of
state with a six-year term. The judicial power is vested in
the Supreme Court, composed of a Chief Justice and 14
Justices. The National Assembly exercises the power to
define, prescribe and apportion the jurisdiction of the lower
courts. All justices of the Supreme Court and judges of the
lower courts are appointed by the Prime Minister. This
Constitution retains the independence of the Commission
on Elections and establishes two independent Constitution
al bodies [Civil Service Commission and the Commission on
Audit] as well as the National Economic Development
Authority [NEDA]. On 24 August 1970, Congress enacted
RA No. 6132, otherwise known as the Constitution al
Convention Act, for the purpose of convening a Constitution
al Convention. The 320 delegates met from June 1971 until
30 November 1972, when they approved the draft of the
new Charter. While in the process of drafting a new
Constitution , President Ferdinand Marcos declared Martial
Law on 21 September 1972. The draft Constitution was
submitted to the Citizen's Assemblies from January 10 to
17, 1973 for ratification. On 17 January 1973 , President
Marcos issued Proclamation No. 1102, announcing the
ratification of the Constitution of the Republic of the
Philippines. The above constitution was amended in 1976,
1980 and in 1981. There were minor amendments done in
1984.
n case of Sanidad vs COMELEC;
The Constitutional Convention intended to leave to the
President the determination of the time when he shall
initially convene the interim National Assembly, consistent
with the prevailing conditions of peace and order in the
country. When the Delegates to the Constitutional
Convention voted on the Transitory Provisions, they were
aware of the fact that under the same, the incumbent
President was given the discretion as to when he could
convene the interim National Assembly. n sensu striciore,
when the legislative arm of the state undertakes the
proposals of amendment to a Constitution, that body is not
in the usual function of lawmaking. t is not legislating when
engaged in the amending process. Rather, it is exercising a
peculiar power bestowed upon it by the fundamental charter
itself. n the Philippines, that power is provided for in Article
XV of the 1973 Constitution (for the regular National
'--1 !, 1-',- ,i,.-, 1--' -!--, )''-- ^ -1 '--- !-
Assembly) or in Section 15 of the Transitory Provisions (for
the interim National Assembly). While ordinarily it is the
business of the legislating body to legislate for the nation by
virtue of constitutional conferment, amending of the
Constitution is not legislative in character. n political
science a distinction is made between constitutional content
of an organic character and that of a legislative character.
The distinction, however, is one of policy, not of law. Such
being the case, approval of the President of any proposed
amendment is a misnomer. The prerogative of the President
to approve or disapprove applies only to the ordinary cases
of legislation. The President has nothing to do with
proposition or adoption of amendments to the Constitution.
F. The 1986 Provisional Constitution
The 1986 ProvisionaI Constit:tion, popularly known as
the Freedom Constitution, promulgated by President
Corazon C. Aquino on March 25, 1986, was a provisional
constitution after a successful People Power Revolution.
Under the Freedom Constitution, executive and legislative
powers are exercised by the President, and shall continue
to exercise legislative powers until a legislature is elected
and convened under a new Constitution. Furthermore, the
President is mandated to convene a Constitutional
Commission tasked to draft a new charter.
(1) Snap Election
n the Philippines, the term "snap election" usually
refers to the 1986 presidential election, where President
Ferdinand Marcos called elections earlier than
scheduled, in response to growing social unrest.
Marcos was declared official winner of the election but
was eventually ousted when it was alleged that he
cheated in the elections.
n the current constitution, a snap election will be held
for the positions of president and vice president on the
condition that both positions are vacant, and outside the
90-day range of the next scheduled presidential
election.
(2) The February 1986 Revolution
(3) Proclamation No.1 , Feb. 25, 1986
Pres. Aquino declared that she and her vice-
president were "taking power in the name and by
the will of the Filipino People on the basis of the
clear sovereign will of the people expressed in the
election of Feb. 7, 1986. n her oath, she swore to
preserve and defend the "fundamental law (not the
"Constitution) and execute "just laws ( instead of
"its laws).
(4) Proclamation No. 3, March 25, 1986
That the provisional government established
thereunder was revolutionary in character having
been installed by direct action of the people or by
"people power, deriving its existence and authority
directly from the people themselves and not from
the then operating 1973 Constitution.
G. The 1987 Philippine Constitution
(1) The Constitutional Commission of 1986
The 1987 Constitution was drafted by a
Constitutional Commission created under Article V of
Proclamation No. 3 issued on March 25, 1986 which
promulgated the "Freedom Constitution through a direct
exercise of the power of the Filipino people.
(2) Proclamation No. 58 (Feb. 11, 1987)
(3) When Considered ratified?
ArticIe 18 Section 27 (1987 Constit:tion)
This Constit:tion shaII take effect immediateIy :5on its
ratification -y a majority of the votes cast in a 5Ie-iscite
heId for the 5:r5ose and shaII s:5ersede aII 5revio:s
Constit:tions.
The foregoing 5ro5osed Constit:tion of the Re5:-Iic of
the PhiIi55ines was a55roved -y the Constit:tionaI
Commission of 1986 on Octo-er 12, 1986 and
accordingIy signed on Octo-er 15, 1986 at the PIenary
HaII, NationaI Government Center, Q:ezon City, -y the
Commissioners whose signat:res are here:nder
affixed/
IV. J&DICIAL REVIEW
A. Theory and Justification of Judicial Review
n case of Angara vs Electoral Commission, the Court
held that;
n case of conflict, the judicial department is the only
constitutional organ which can be called upon to determine
the proper allocation of powers between the several
departments and among the integral or constituent thereof.
n case of rancisco vs House of Representatives, the
court ruled that;
The judiciary in turn, with the Supreme Court as the final
arbiter, effectively checks the other departments in the
exercise of its power to determine the law, and hence to
declare executive and legislative acts void if violative of the
Constitution.
B. Requisites of Judicial Review
There must be an actual case or
controversy
The question of constitutionality must be
raised by the proper party.
The constitutional question must be raised
at the earliest possible opportunity.
The decision of the constitutional question
must be necessary to the determination of
the case itself.
Article 8 Sec.5, paragraph (2)
(1) Act:aI Case or Controversy- involves a conflict of
legal rights, an assertion of opposite legal claims
susceptible of judicial resolution. A "controversy
must be the one that is appropriate for judicial
determination. t must be definite and concrete,
touching the legal relations of parties having
adverse legal interests.
Prematurity
'--1 !, 1-',- ,i,.-, 1--' -!--, )''-- ^ -1 '--- !-
n the case of PACU vs. Secretary of Education the
petition contesting the validity of a regulation issued by the
Secretary of Education requiring private schools to secure a
permit to operate was dismissed on the ground that all the
petitioners have permits and are actually operating under
the same. The petitioners questioned the regulation
because of the possibility that the permit might be denied
them in the future. This Court held that there was no
justiciable controversy because the petitioners suffered no
wrong by the implementation of the questioned regulation
and therefore, they are not entitled to relief. A mere
apprehension that the Secretary of Education will withdraw
the permit does not amount to a justiciable controversy. The
questioned regulation in the PACU case may be questioned
by a private school whose permit to operate has been
revoked or one whose application therefor has been denied.
NOTE: Courts do not sit to adjudicate mere academic
questions. Courts will not pass upon the constitutionality of
a law upon the complaint of one who fails to show that he is
injured by its operation.
n case of Mariano vs COMELEC held that the petition is
premised on the occurrence of many contingent events, i.e.,
that Mayor Binay will run again in this coming mayoralty
elections; that he would be re-elected in said elections; and
that he would seek re-election for the same position in the
1998 elections. Considering that these contingencies may
or may not happen, petitioners merely pose a
hypothetical issue which has yet to ripen to an actual
case or controversy. Petitioners who are residents of
Taguig (except Mariano) are not also the proper parties to
raise this abstract issue. Worse, they hoist this futuristic
issue in a petition for declaratory relief over which this Court
has no jurisdiction.
The decided case of Cutaran vs DER the court defined
the word "justiciable controversy Court cannot rule on the
basis of petitioners' speculation that the DENR will approve
the application of the heirs of Carantes. There must be an
actual governmental act which directly causes or will
imminently cause injury to the alleged right of the petitioner
to possess the land before the jurisdiction of this Court may
be invoked. There is no showing that the petitioners were
being evicted from the land by the heirs of Carantes under
orders from the DENR;
A justiciable controversy has been defined as, "a definite
and concrete dispute touching on the legal relations of
parties having adverse legal interest which may be
resolved by a court of law through the application of a law.
Co:rts have no j:diciaI 5ower to review cases invoIving
5oIiticaI q:estions and as a r:Ie, wiII desist from taking
cognizance of s5ec:Iative or hy5otheticaI cases,
advisory o5inions and in cases that has -ecome moot.
Subject to certain well-defined exceptions courts will not
touch an issue involving the validity of a law unless there
has been a governmental act accomplished or performed
that has a direct adverse effect on the legal right of the
person contesting its validity.
n the instant case of Montecarlos vs COMELEC, there is
no actual controversy requiring the exercise of the power of
judicial review. Petitioners' prayer to prevent Congress from
enacting into law a proposed bill lowering the membership
age in the SK does not present an actual justiciable
controversy. A proposed bill is not subject to judicial review
because it is not a law. A proposed bill creates no right and
imposes no duty legally enforceable by the Court. A
proposed bill, having no legal effect, violates no
constitutional right or duty. The Court has no power to
declare a proposed bill constitutional or unconstitutional
because that would be in the nature of rendering an
advisory opinion on a proposed act of Congress. The power
of judicial review cannot be exercised in vacuo.22 The
second paragraph of Section 1, Article V of the
Constitution states
"Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of
justice to settle actual controversies involving
rights which are legally demandable and
enforceable, and to determine whether or not there
has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any
branch or instrumentality of the Government."
Thus, there can be no justiciable controversy involving the
constitutionality of a proposed bill. The Court can exercise
its power of judicial review only after a law is enacted, not
before.
Mootness
n case of Gonzales vs arvasa, that, with respect to the
PCCR, this case has become moot and academic.
An action is considered 'moot" when it no longer
presents a justiciable controversy because the issues
involved have become academic or dead.
The PCCR submitted its recommendations to the President
on December 20, 1999 and was dissolved by the President
on the same day. t had likewise spent the funds allotted to
it. Thus, the PCCR has ceased to exist, having lost its
raison d'etre. Subsequent events have overtaken the
petition and the Court has nothing left to resolve.
The staleness of the issue before us is made more
manifest by the impossibility of granting the relief prayed for
by petitioner. Basically, petitioner asks this Court to enjoin
the PCCR from acting as such. Clearly, prohibition is an
inappropriate remedy since the body sought to be enjoined
no longer exists. t is well established that prohibition is a
preventive remedy and does not lie to restrain an act that is
already fait accompli. At this point, any ruling regarding the
PCCR would simply be in the nature of an advisory opinion,
which is definitely beyond the permissible scope of judicial
power.
n case of Defunis vs Odegaard; DeFunis did not cast his
suit as a class action, and the only remedy he requested
was an injunction commanding his admission to the Law
School. He was not only accorded that remedy, but he now
has also been irrevocably admitted to the final term of the
final year of the Law School course. The controversy
between the parties has thus clearly ceased to be
"definite and concrete" and no longer "touches the
legal relations of parties having adverse legal
interests."
There is a line of decisions in this Court standing for the
proposition that the "voluntary cessation of allegedly
illegal conduct does not deprive the tribunal of power
to hear and determine the case, i. e., does not make the
case moot." These decisions and the doctrine they reflect
would be quite relevant if the question of mootness here
had arisen by reason of a unilateral change in the
admissions procedures of the Law School. For it was the
admissions procedures that were the target of this litigation,
and a voluntary cessation of the admissions practices
complained of could make this case moot only if it could be
said with assurance "that `there is no reasonable
expectation that the wrong will be repeated.'" Otherwise,
'--1 !, 1-',- ,i,.-, 1--' -!--, )''-- ^ -1 '--- !-
"the defendant is free to return to his old ways," and this fact
would be enough to prevent mootness because of the
"public interest in having the legality of the practices
settled." But mootness in the present case depends not at
all upon a "voluntary cessation" of the admissions practices
that were the subject of this litigation. t depends, instead,
upon the simple fact that DeFunis is now in the final quarter
of the final year of his course of study, and the settled and
unchallenged policy of the Law School to permit him to
complete the term for which he is now enrolled.
Exceptions to Mootness
n case of Acop vs. Guingona, the court sayd that it's
necessary to resolve the merits of the principal issue raised
for a proper disposition of prayer c) and for future guidance
of both bench and bar as to the application of Sections 3(d)
and 4 of R.A. No. 6981. As we have ruled in Alunan vs.
Mirasol, and Viola vs. Alunan , "courts will decide a
question otherwise moot and academic if it is 'capable
of repetition, yet evading review.'"
n case of Sanlakas vs Executive Secretary; The Court
agrees with the Solicitor General that the issuance of
Proclamation No. 435, declaring that the state of rebellion
has ceased to exist, has rendered the case moot. As a rule,
courts do not adjudicate moot cases, judicial power
being limited to the determination of "actual
controversies." evertheless, courts will decide a
question, otherwise moot, if it is "capable of repetition
yet evading review." The case at bar is one such case.
The same as in the case of Pimentel vs Ermita, the court
held that as a rule, the writ of prohibition will not lie to enjoin
acts already done. However, as an exception to the rule on
mootness, courts will decide a question otherwise moot
if it is capable of repetition yet evading review.
n the present case, the mootness of the petition does not
bar its resolution. The question of the constitutionality of the
Presidents appointment of department secretaries in an
acting capacity while Congress is in session will arise in
every such appointment.
2. Pro5er Party
In case of oya vs PCGG , THE COURT HELD THAT
ONE HAVNG NO RGHT OR NTEREST TO PROTECT
CANNOT NVOKE JURSDCTON OF THE COURT AS
PART-PLANTFF N AN ACTON. THS S PREMSED ON
SEC. 2, RULE 3, OF THE RULES AND W/C PROVDES
THAT EVERY ACTON MUST BE PROSECUTED AND
DEFENDED N THE NAME OF THE REAL PARTY
NTEREST AND THAT ALL PERSONS HAVNG
NTEREST N THE SUBJECT OF THE ACTON AND N
OBTANNG RELEF AND SHALL BE JONED AS
PLANTFFS. THE COURT WLL EXERCSE TS POWER
OF JUDCAL REVEW ONLY F THE CASE THAT A
PARTY WHO HAS THE LEGAL STANDNG TO RASE
THE CONSTTUTONAL OR LEGAL QUESTON.
ANY CONSTTUTONAL DEFECT N THER
ACQUSTON AND THER SUBSEQUENT DSPOSTON
MUST BE RASED ONLY BY THE PROPER PARTES
TRUE OWNERS THEREOF WHOSE AUTHORTY TO
RECOVER EMANATES FROM THER PROPRETY
RGHTS. HAVNG FALED TO SHOW THAT THEY ARE
THE LEGAL OWNERS OF THE ARTWORK THAT THE
VALUED PSCES HAVE BECOME PULCLY OWNED,
PETTONERS DO NOT POSSESS ANY CLEAR LEGAL
RGHT TO QUESTON THER ALLEGED
UNAUTHORZED DSPOSTON.
n case of CHR Employees Assoc. vs CHR, the court held
that; On petitioner's personality to bring this suit, which held
in a multitude of cases that a proper party is one who has
sustained or is in immediate danger of sustaining an
injury as a result of the act complained of
Citizen Standing
n Taada v. Tuvera, the Court asserted that when the
issue concerns a public right and the object of mandamus is
to obtain the enforcement of a 5:-Iic d:ty, the people are
regarded as the real parties in interest; and because it is
sufficient that petitioner is a citizen and as such is interested
in the execution of the laws, he need not show that he has
any legal or special interest in the result of the action.
n Chavez vs PEA, the Court ruled that since the instant
petition, brought by a citizen, involves the enforcement of
constit:tionaI rights - to information and to the equitable
diffusion of natural resources - matters of transcendental
public importance, the petitioner has the requisite locus
standi.
AssociationaI Standing
n KMU Labor Center vs Garcia, the court held that; n line
with the liberal policy of this Court on Ioc:s standi, ordinary
taxpayers, members of Congress, and even association of
5Ianters, and
non-5rofit civic organizations were aIIowed to initiate
and 5rosec:te actions -efore this co:rt to q:estion the
constit:tionaIity or vaIidity of Iaws, acts, decisions,
r:Iings, or orders of vario:s government agencies or
instr:mentaIities.
Court is ready to brush aside this barren procedural
infirmity and recognize the legal standing of the
petitioner in view of the transcendental importance of
the issues raised. And this act of liberality is not
without judicial precedent. As early as the Emergency
Powers Cases, this Court had exercised its discretion
and waived the requirement of proper party.
n ohn Hay vs Lim, The court says; The grant by the law
on local government units of the right of concurrence on the
bases' conversion is equivalent to vesting a legal standing
on them, for it is in effect a recognition of the real interests
that communities nearby or surrounding a particular base
area have in its utilization. Thus, the interest of petitioners,
being inhabitants of Baguio, in assailing the legality of
Proclamation 420, is personal and substantial such that
they have sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of
the government act being challenged." Theirs is a material
interest, an interest in issue affected by the proclamation
and not merely an interest in the question involved or an
incidental interest," for what is at stake in the enforcement
of Proclamation 420 is the very economic and social
existence of the people of Baguio City.
'--1 !, 1-',- ,i,.-, 1--' -!--, )''-- ^ -1 '--- !-
n the case of Kilosbayan, nc., et al. v. Teofisto
Guingona, r., et al., ruled in the same lines and
enumerated some of the cases where the same policy was
adopted, viz:
. . . A 5arty's standing -efore this Co:rt is a 5roced:raI
technicaIity which it may, in the exercise of its
discretion, set aside in view of the im5ortance of the
iss:es raised. In the Iandmark Emergency Powers
Cases, this Co:rt -r:shed aside this technicaIity
-eca:se "the transcendentaI im5ortance to the 5:-Iic
of these cases demands that they -e settIed 5rom5tIy
and definiteIy, -r:shing aside, if we m:st, technicaIities
of 5roced:re." Insofar as tax5ayers' s:its are
concerned, this Co:rt had decIared that it "is not
devoid of discretion as to whether or not it sho:Id -e
entertained," or that it "enjoys an o5en discretion to
entertain the same or not.
Tax5ayers Standing
n T vs COMELEC, the co:rt heId that;The issues
central to the case are "of transcendental importance
and of national interest." As alleged, Comelec's flawed
bidding and questionable award of the Contract to an
unqualified entity would impact directly on the success or
the failure of the electoral process. Any taint on the sanctity
of the ballot as the expression of the will of the people
would inevitably affect their faith in the democratic system of
government. Further, the award of any contract for
automation involves disbursement of public funds are in
gargantuan amounts; therefore, public interest requires that
the laws governing the transaction must be followed strictly.
Truly, our nation's political and economic future virtually
hangs in the balance, pending the outcome of the 2004
elections. Hence, there can be no serious doubt that the
subject matter of the case is "a matter of public
concern and imbued with public interest"; in other
words, it is of "paramount public interest" and
"transcendental importance." This fact alone would
justify relaxing the rule on legal standing, following the
liberal policy of the Court whenever a case involves "an
issue of overarching significance to our society." TF,
et. al.'s legal standing should therefore be recognized and
upheld. Moreover, the Court has held that taxpayers are
allowed to sue when there is a claim of "illegal
disbursement of public funds," or if public money is being
"deflected to any improper purpose"; or when petitioner(s)
seek to restrain respondent(s) from "wasting public funds
through the enforcement of an invalid or unconstitutional
law."
In umamil vs Caf, The co:rt defined the word Ioc:s
standi and interest;
Legal standing or locus standi is a party's personal and
substantial interest in a case such that he has sustained or
will sustain direct injury as a result of the governmental act
being challenged. t calls for more than just a generalized
grievance. %e term "interest" means a material interest, an
interest in issue affected by te decree, as distinguised
from mere interest in te question involved, or a mere
incidental interest. Unless a person's constitutional rights
are adversely affected by the statute or ordinance, he has
no legal standing.
Voters Standing
n TOLETO VS COMELEC
Court Ruling:
"Legal standing" or locus standi refers to a personal and
substantial interest in a case such that the party has
sustained or will sustain direct injury because of the
challenged governmental act.
The requirement of standing, which necessarily "sharpens
the presentation of issues," relates to the constitutional
mandate that this Court settle only actual cases or
controversies
Thus, generally, a party will be allowed to litigate only when
(1) he can show that he has personally suffered some
actual or threatened injury because of the allegedly illegal
conduct of the government; (2) the injury is fairly traceable
to the challenged action; and (3) the injury is likely to be
redressed by a favorable action.
n questioning, in their capacity as voters, the validity of the
special election on 14 May 2001, petitioners assert a harm
classified as a "generalized grievance." This generalized
grievance is shared in substantially equal measure by a
large class of voters, if not all the voters, who voted in that
election.
On the other hand, we have relaxed the requirement on
standing and exercised our discretion to give due course to
voters' suits involving the right of suffrage
We accord the same treatment to petitioners in the instant
case in their capacity as voters since they raise
important issues involving their right of suffrage,
considering that the issue raised in this petition is likely
to arise again.
LegisIative Standing
n Ople vs Torres
RULNG:
Petitioner O5Ie is a disting:ished mem-er of o:r Senate.
As a Senator, 5etitioner is 5ossessed of the req:isite
standing to -ring s:it raising the iss:e that the issuance
of A.O. No. 308 is a usurpation of legislative power. As
taxpayer and member of the Government Service nsurance
System (GSS), petitioner can also impugn the legality of
the misalignment of public funds and the misuse of GSS
funds to implement A.O. No. 308.
The ri5eness for adj:dication of the 5etition at
-ar is not affected by the fact that the
implementing rules of A.O. No. 308 have yet to be
promulgated. Petitioner Ople assails A.O. No. 308
as invalid per se and as infirmed on its face. His
action is not 5remat:re for the r:Ies yet to -e
5rom:Igated cannot c:re its fataI defects.
All signals from the respondents show their
unswerving will to implement A.O. No. 308 and we
need not wait for the formality of the rules to pass
judgment on its constitutionality. n this light, the
dissenters insistence that we tighten the r:Ie on
standing is not a commenda-Ie stance as its
res:It wo:Id -e to throttIe an im5ortant
constit:tionaI 5rinci5Ie and a f:ndamentaI right.
'--1 !, 1-',- ,i,.-, 1--' -!--, )''-- ^ -1 '--- !-
GOVERNMENTAL STANDING:
n People vs Vera;
HELD: The People of the Philippines, represented by the
Solicitor-General and the Fiscal of the City of Manila, is a
proper party in the present proceedings. The unchallenged
rule is that the person who impugns the validity of a statute
must have a personal and substantial interest in the case
such that he has sustained, or will sustained, direct injury as
a result of its enforcement. t goes without saying that if Act
4221 really violates the constitution, the People of the
Philippines, in whose name the present action is
brought, has a substantial interest in having it set
aside. Of greater import than the damage caused by the
illegal expenditure of public funds is the mortal wound
inflicted upon the fundamental law by the enforcement
of an invalid statute. Hence, the well-settled rule that
the state can challenge the validity of its own laws.
Facial Challenge
n Estrada vs Sandiganbayan, the court defined the "face
challenge;
A faciaI chaIIenge is aIIowed to -e made to a vag:e
stat:te and to one which is over-road -eca:se of
5ossi-Ie "chiIIing effect" :5on 5rotected s5eech. The
theory is that "[w]hen statutes regulate or proscribe speech
and no readily apparent construction suggests itself as a
vehicle for rehabilitating the statutes in a single prosecution,
the transcendent value to all society of constitutionally
protected expression is deemed to justify allowing attacks
on overly broad statutes with no requirement that the
person making the attack demonstrate that his own conduct
could not be regulated by a statute drawn with narrow
specificity." The possible harm to society in permitting some
unprotected speech to go unpunished is outweighed by the
possibility that the protected speech of others may be
deterred and perceived grievances left to fester because of
possible inhibitory effects of overly broad statutes.
This rationale does not apply to penal statutes. Criminal
statutes have general in terrorem effect resulting from their
very existence, and, if facial challenge is allowed for this
reason alone, the State may well be prevented from
enacting laws against socially harmful conduct. n the area
of criminal law, the law cannot take chances as in the area
of free speech.
For this reason, it has been held that "a facial challenge to
a legislative act is the most difficult challenge to mount
successfully, since the challenger must establish that
no set of circumstances exists under which the Act
would be valid." As for the vagueness doctrine, it is said
that a litigant may challenge a statute on its face only if it is
vague in all its possible applications. "A plaintiff who
engages in some conduct that is clearly proscribed cannot
complain of the vagueness of the law as applied to the
conduct of others."
3. Earliest Opportunity
4. Necessity of Deciding Constitutional Questions
n case of Arceta vs Mangrobang, the court held that;
Every law has in its favor the presumption of
constitutionality, and to justify its nullification, there
must be a clear and unequivocal breach of the
Constitution, and not one that is doubtful, speculative
or argumentative. The Court examined the contentions of
Arceta and Dy carefully; but they still have to persuade us
that BP 22 by itself or in its implementation transgressed a
provision of the Constitution. Even the thesis of Dy that the
present economic and financial crisis should be a basis to
declare the Bouncing Checks Law constitutionally infirm
deserves but scant consideration. As stressed in Lozano, it
is precisely during trying times that there exists a most
compelling reason to strengthen faith and confidence in the
financial system and any practice tending to destroy
confidence in checks as currency substitutes should be
deterred, to prevent havoc in the trading and financial
communities. Further, while indeed the metropolitan trial
courts may be burdened immensely by bouncing checks
cases now, that fact is immaterial to the alleged invalidity of
the law being assailed. The solution to the clogging of
dockets in lower courts lies elsewhere.
Mandatory Notice
n case of Mirasol vs. C.A, the court held that;
otice to Solicitor General) of te Rules of Court provides
tat "in any action wic involves te validity of a statute, or
executive order or regulation, te Solicitor General sall be
notified by te party attacking te statute, executive order,
or regulation, and sall be entitled to be eard upon suc
question." The purpose of the mandatory notice in Rule 64,
Section 3 is to enable the Solicitor General to decide
whether or not his intervention in the action assailing the
validity of a law or treaty is necessary. To deny the Solicitor
General such notice would be tantamount to depriving him
of his day in court. %e mandatory notice requirement is not
limited to actions involving declaratory relief and similar
remedies. %e rule itself provides tat suc notice is
required in "any action" and not just actions involving
declaratory relief. Where there is no ambiguity in the words
used in the rule, there is no room for construction. n all
actions assailing the validity of a statute, treaty, presidential
decree, order, or proclamation, notice to the Solicitor
General is mandatory.
C. F&NCTIONS OF J&DICIAL REVIEW
n case of Salonga vs Cruz-Pano, the court enumerates
their functions for the judicial review;
The setting aside or declaring void, in proper cases, of
intrusions of State authority into areas reserved by the Bill
of Rights for the individual as constitutionally protected
spheres where even the awesome powers of Government
may not enter at will is not the totality of the Court's
functions. %e Court also as te duty to formulate guiding
and controlling constitutional principles, precepts, doctrines,
or rules. It as te symbolic function of educating benc and
bar on te extent of protection given by constitutional
guarantees.
%e fact tat te petition was moot and academic did not
prevent te Court in te exercise of its symbolic function
from promulgating one of te most voluminous decisions
ever printed in te Reports. Herein, the prosecution
evidence miserably fails to establish a prima facie case
against Salonga, either as a co-conspirator of a
destabilization plan to overthrow the government or as an
officer or leader of any subversive organization. The
respondents have taken the initiative of dropping the
charges against Salonga. The Court reiterates the rule,
however, that the Court will not validate the filing of an
information based on the kind of evidence against Salonga
found in the records.
'--1 !, 1-',- ,i,.-, 1--' -!--, )''-- ^ -1 '--- !-
D. The Exercise of J:diciaI Review
n case of not vs AC, Under the provision granting te
SC jurisdiction to "review, revise, reverse, modify or affirm
on appeal or certiorari, as te law or rules of court may
provide final judgments of lower courts" in all cases
involving te constitutionality of certain measures, lower
courts can pass upon te validity of a statute in te first
instance.
E. Effect of DecIaration of &nconstit:tionaIity
New CiviI Code, ArticIe 7
Laws are re5eaIed onIy -y the s:-seq:ent ones, and
their vioIation or nono-servance shaII not -e exc:sed
-y dis:se, or c:stom or 5ractice to the contrary.
When the co:rts decIare a Iaw to -e inconsistent with
the Constit:tion, the former shaII -e void and the Iatter
shaII govern.
Administrative or exec:tive acts, orders and
reg:Iations shaII -e vaIid onIy when they are not
contrary to the Iaws or the Constit:tion.
n case of Serrano de Agbayani vs P,
The decision reflects the orthodox view that an
unconstitutional act, for that matter an executive order or a
municipal ordinance likewise suffering from that infirmity,
cannot be the source of any legal rights or duties. Nor can it
justify any official act taken under it. ts repugnancy to the
fundamental law once judicially declared results in its being
to all intents and purposes a mere scrap of paper. As the
new Civil Code puts it: "When the courts declare a law to be
inconsistent with the Constitution, the former shall be void
and the latter shall govern. Administrative or executive acts,
orders and regulations shall be valid only when they are not
contrary to the laws of the Constitution. t is understandable
why it should be so, the Constitution being supreme and
paramount. Any legislative or executive act contrary to its
terms cannot survive.
Such a view has support in logic and possesses the merit of
simplicity. t may not however be sufficiently realistic. t does
not admit of doubt that prior to the declaration of nullity such
challenged legislative or executive act must have been in
force and had to be complied with. This is so as until after
the judiciary, in an appropriate case, declares its invalidity, it
is entitled to obedience and respect. Parties may have
acted under it and may have changed their positions. What
could be more fitting than that in a subsequent litigation
regard be had to what has been done while such legislative
or executive act was in operation and presumed to be valid
in all respects. t is now accepted as a doctrine that prior to
its being nullified, its existence as a fact must be reckoned
with. This is merely to reflect awareness that precisely
because the judiciary is the governmental organ which has
the final say on whether or not a legislative or executive
measure is valid, a period of time may have elapsed before
it can exercise the power of judicial review that may lead to
a declaration of nullity. t would be to deprive the law of its
quality of fairness and justice then, if there be no recognition
of what had transpired prior to such adjudication.
F. PartiaI &nconstit:tionaIity
n case Salazar vs Achacoso,
The decrees in question stand as the dying vestiges of
authoritarian rule in its twilight moments. &nder te new
Constitution, "no searc warrant or warrant of arrest sall
issue except upon probable cause to be determined
personally by te judge after examination under oat or
affirmation of te complainant and te witnesses e may
produce, and particularly describing te place to be
searced and te persons or tings to be seized. It is only a
judge wo may issue warrants of searc and arrest."
Mayors may not exercise this power. Neither may it be done
by a mere prosecuting body. %e Secretary of Labor, not
being a judge, may no longer issue searc or arrest
warrants. Hence, the authorities must go through the judicial
process. To that extent, the Court declare Article 38,
paragraph (c), of the Labor Code, unconstitutional and of no
force and effect. For the guidance of the bench and the bar,
the COurt reaffirmed the principles that (1) Under Article ,
Section 2 , of the 1987 Constitution, it is only judges, and no
oter, wo may issue warrants of arrest and searc and )
%e exception is in cases of deportation of illegal and
undesirable aliens, wom te President or te
Commissioner of Immigration may order arrested, following
a final order of deportation, for te purpose of deportation.
Thus, the Court herein granted the petition, declaring Article
38, paragraph (c) of the Labor Code unconstitutional and
null and void, and thus ordering the POEA to return all
materials seized as a result of the implementation of Search
and Seizure Order 1205.
V. THE STATE
A. Conce5t and Definition
State- is a community of persons, more or less numerous,
permanently occupying a fixed territory, and possessed of
an independent government organized for political ends to
which the great body of inhabitants render habitual
obedience.
OTE: State is a legal concept, while the nation is only a
racial or ethnic concept.
n case CR vs Campos Rueda, the court held that; f a
foreign country is to be identified with a state, it is required
in line with Pound's formulation that it be a politically
organized sovereign community independent of outside
control bound by penalties of nationood, legally supreme
witin its territory, acting troug a government functioning
under a regime of law. t is thus a sovereign person with the
people composing it viewed as an organized corporate
society under a government with the legal competence to
exact obedience to its commands. t has been referred to as
a body-politic organized by common consent for mutual
defense and mutual safety and to promote the general
welfare.
B. Territory
Definition: Territory is the fixed portion of the surface of the
earth inhabited by the people of the State.
Components: land, mass, otherwise known as the terrestrial
domain, the inland and external waters, which make up the
maritime and fluvial domain, and the air space above the
land and waters, which is called the aerial domain.
The Philippine Archipelago
ARTICLE I
'--1 !, 1-',- ,i,.-, 1--' -!--, )''-- ^ -1 '--- !-
NATIONAL TERRITORY
.
The nationaI territory com5rises the PhiIi55ine
archi5eIago, with aII the isIands and waters em-raced
therein, and aII other territories over which the
PhiIi55ines has sovereignty or j:risdiction, consisting
of its terrestriaI, fI:viaI and aeriaI domains, incI:ding its
territoriaI sea, the sea-ed, the s:-soiI, the ins:Iar
sheIves, and other s:-marine areas. The waters
aro:nd, -etween, and connecting the isIands of the
archi5eIago, regardIess of their -readth and
dimensions, form 5art of the internaI waters of the
PhiIi55ines.
C. Peo5Ie
Definition: refers simply to the inhabitants of the State.
(a) As inhabitants
ARTCLE
Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or
property without due process of law, nor shall any person
be denied the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable
searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any
purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or
warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to
be determined personally by the judge after examination
under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the
witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the
place to be searched and the persons or things to be
seized.
ARTCLE
Section 15. The State shall protect and promote the right to
health of the people and instill health consciousness among
them.
Section 16. The State shall protect and advance the right of
the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord
with the rhythm and harmony of nature.
b. As Electors
ARTCLE V
EXECUTVE DEPARTMENT
Section 4. The President and the Vice-President shall be
elected by direct vote of the people for a term of six years
which shall begin at noon on the thirtieth day of June next
following the day of the election and shall end at noon of the
same date, six years thereafter. The President shall not be
eligible for any re-election. No person who has succeeded
as President and has served as such for more than four
years shall be qualified for election to the same office at any
time.
No Vice-President shall serve for more than two successive
terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of
time shall not be considered as an interruption in the
continuity of the service for the full term for which he was
elected.
Unless otherwise provided by law, the regular election for
President and Vice-President shall be held on the second
Monday of May.
The returns of every election for President and Vice-
President, duly certified by the board of canvassers of each
province or city, shall be transmitted to the Congress,
directed to the President of the Senate. Upon receipt of the
certificates of canvass, the President of the Senate shall,
not later than thirty days after the day of the election, open
all the certificates in the presence of the Senate and the
House of Representatives in joint public session, and the
Congress, upon determination of the authenticity and due
execution thereof in the manner provided by law, canvass
the votes.
The person having the highest number of votes shall be
proclaimed elected, but in case two or more shall have an
equal and highest number of votes, one of them shall
forthwith be chosen by the vote of a majority of all the
Members of both Houses of the Congress, voting
separately.
The Congress shall promulgate its rules for the canvassing
of the certificates.
The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the sole judge
of all contests relating to the election, returns, and
qualifications of the President or Vice-President, and may
promulgate its rules for the purpose.
ARTCLE XV
GENERAL PROVSONS
Section 2. The Congress may, by law, adopt a new name
for the country, a national anthem, or a national seal, which
shall all be truly reflective and symbolic of the ideals,
history, and traditions of the people. Such law shall take
effect only upon its ratification by the people in a national
referendum.


ARTCLE XV
TRANSTORY PROVSONS
Section 25. After the expiration in 1991 of the Agreement
between the Republic of the Philippines and the United
States of America concerning military bases, foreign military
bases, troops, or facilities shall not be allowed in the
Philippines except under a treaty duly concurred in by the
Senate and, when the Congress so requires, ratified by a
majority of the votes cast by the people in a national
referendum held for that purpose, and recognized as a
treaty by the other contracting State.
C. As citizens
ARTCLE
DECLARATON OF PRNCPLES AND STATE POLCES
PRNCPLES
'--1 !, 1-',- ,i,.-, 1--' -!--, )''-- ^ -1 '--- !-
Section 1. The Philippines is a democratic and republican
State. Sovereignty resides in the people and all government
authority emanates from them.
Section 4. The prime duty of the Government is to serve
and protect the people. The Government may call upon the
people to defend the State and, in the fulfillment thereof, all
citizens may be required, under conditions provided by law,
to render personal, military or civil service.
ARTCLE
BLL OF RGHTS
Section 7. The right of the people to information on matters
of public concern shall be recognized. Access to official
records, and to documents and papers pertaining to official
acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to government
research data used as basis for policy development, shall
be afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations as may
be provided by law.
D. Government
Definition: is the agency or instrumentality through which
the will of the State is formulated, expressed and realized.
Government of the Republic of the Philippines :
n case of People vs. Sandiganbayan; the law provides
that the contribution by military officers and enlisted
personnel to the System shall be compulsory. ts enabling
law further mandates that the System shall be administered
by the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines
through an agency, group, committee or board, which may
be created and organized by him and subject to such rules
and regulations governing the same as he may, subject to
the approval of the Secretary of National Defense,
promulgate from time to time. Moreover, the investment of
funds of the System shall be decided by the Chief of Staff of
the Armed Forces of the Philippines with the approval of the
Secretary of National Defense.
Constituent vs Ministrant Functions
Constit:ent f:nctions constitute the very bonds of society
and are therefore compulsory. Among the constituent
functions are the following;
1. The keeping of order and providing for the
protection of persons and property from violence
and robbery;
2. The fixing of the legal relations between husband
and wife and between parents and children.
3. The regulation of the holding, transmission and
interchange of property, and the determination of its
liabilities for debt or crime;
4. The determination of contractual rights between
individuals;
5. The definition and punishment of crimes;
6. The administration of justice in civil cases;
7. The administration of political duties, privileges and
relations of citizens; and
8. The dealings of the State with foreign powers; the
preservation of the State from external danger or
encroachment and the advancement of its
international interests.
MinisteriaI f:nctions are those undertaken to advance the
general interests of society, such as public works, public
charity, and regulation of trade and industry. These
functions are merely optional.
n case of ACCA vs CUGCO;the court held;
The ACA is a government office or agency engaged in
governmental, not proprietary functions. These functions
may not be strictly what President Wilson described as
"constituent" as distinguised from "ministrant"), suc as
tose relating to te maintenance of peace and te
prevention of crime, tose regulating property and property
rigts, tose relating to te administration of justice and te
determination of political duties of citizens, and tose
relating to national defense and foreign relations. &nder tis
traditional classification, suc constituent functions are
exercised by te State as attributes of sovereignty, and not
merely to promote te welfare, progress and prosperity of
te people tese latter functions being ministrant, te
exercise of wic is optional on te part of te government.
PARENS PATRAE
Definition: Guardian of the rights of the people.
n case of Government of the Phil. Vs. Monte de Piedad,
the court held the right of the government to file the case for
the State as parens patriae in representation of the
legitimate claimants.
n Cabanas v Pilapil, the Supreme Court said;
.the judiciary as the agency of the State acting as parens
patriae, is called upon whenever a pending suit or litigation
affects one who is a minor to accord priority to his best
interests. t may happen as it did in this case, that family
relations may press their respective claims. It would be
more in consonance not only wit te natural order of tings
but te tradition of te country for a parent to be preferred.
DE J&RE GOVERNMENT/ CRITERIA FOR LEGITIMACY
A de j:re government has rightful title but no power or
control, either because this has been withdrawn from it or
because it has not yet actually entered into exercises
thereof.
DE FACTO GOVERNMENT
A de facto government is a government of fact, that is, it
actually exercises power or control but without legal title.
KNDS of de facto government;
1. The government that gets possession and control
of, or usurps, by force or by the voice of the
majority, the rightful legal government and
maintains itself against the will of the latter, such as
the government of England under the
Commonwealth, first by Parliamentary and later by
Cromwell as Protector.
2. That established as an independent government by
the inhabitants of a country who rise in insurrection
against the parent state, such as the government of
the Southern Confederacy in revolt against the
Union during the war of secession in the United
States.
3. That which is established and maintained by
military forces who invade and occupy a territory of
the enemy in the course of war, and which is
denominated as a government of paramount force,
'--1 !, 1-',- ,i,.-, 1--' -!--, )''-- ^ -1 '--- !-
such as the cases of Castine in Maine, which was
reduced to a British possession in the war of 1812,
and of Tampico, Mexico, occupied during the war
with Mexico by the troops of the United States.
n case Co Kim Cham vs Valdez, the court define the kinds
of de facto governments;
There are several kinds of de facto governments. The first,
or government de facto in a proper legal sense, is that
government that gets possession and control of, or usurps,
by force or by the voice of the majority, the rightful legal
government and maintains itself against the will of the latter.
The second is that which is established and maintained by
military forces who invade and occupy a territory of the
enemy in the course of war, and which is denominated a
government of paramount force. And the third is that
established as an independent government.
By contrast, the Supreme Court unanimously held in
Lawyers League for a better Philippines v Aquino that "the
people have made the judgment; they have accepted the
government of Pres. Aquino which is in effective control of
the entire country so that it is not merely a de facto
government but in fact and law a de jure government.
Moreover, the community of nations has recognized the
legitimacy of the present government.
Government distinguished from Administration
Government must be distinguished from administration,
which is the group of persons in whose hands the reins of
government are for the time being. The administration runs
the government as a machinist operates his machine.
dministration is transitional wereas te government is
permanent.
OTHER CLASSFCATONS OF GOVERNMENTS
a. Based on accountability to the people
b. Presidential vs Parliamentary
c. National. Local, federal
E. Sovereignty
Definition: is the supreme and uncontrollable power inherent
in a State by which that State is governed.
Kinds:
1. Legal Sovereignty is the authority which has the
power to issue final commands.
2. Political Sovereignty is the power behind the legal
sovereign or the sum of the influences that operate
upon it.
3. nternal Sovereignty refers to the power of the
State to control its domestic affairs.
4. External Sovereignty power of the State to direct
its relations with other States is also known as
independence.
Sovereign is permanent, exclusive, comprehensive,
absolute, indivisible, inalienable, and imprescriptible.
Effects of Change of Sovereignty
n case of MacarioIa vs As:ncion, the court held that ;
Upon the transfer of sovereignty from Spain to the United
States and later on from the United States to the Republic
of the Philippines, Art. 14 of the Code of Commerce must
be deemed to have been abrogated because where there is
a change of sovereignty , the political laws of the former
sovereign , whether compatible or not with those of the new
sovereign, are automatically abrogated, unless they are
expressly re-enacted by affirmative act of the new
sovereign.
Acts of State
n case of Harvey vs. Commissioner, the court held that;
Every sovereign power has the inherent power to exclude
aliens from its territory upon such grounds as it may deem
proper for its self-preservation or public interest. The power
to deport aliens is an act of State, an act done by or under
the authority of the sovereign power. t is a police measure
against undesirable aliens whose continued presence in the
country is found to be injurious to the public good and the
domestic tranquility of the people. Particularly so in this
case, where the State has expressly committed itself to
defend the tight of children to assistance and special
protection from all forms of neglect, abuse, cruelty,
exploitation, and other conditions prejudicial to their
development (Article XV, Section 3[2]). Respondent
Commissioner of mmigration and Deportation, in instituting
deportation proceedings against petitioners, acted in the
interests of the State.
VI. CITIZENSHIP
Citizenshi5- is membership in a political community which
is personal and more or less permanent in character.

NationaIity- is membership in any class or form of political
community. Thus, nationals may be citizens [if member of a
democratic community] or subjects [if members of a
monarchial community]. t does not necessarily include the
right or
privilege of exercising political and civil rights.
Modes of Acq:iring Citizenshi5
Jus Soli acquisition of citizenship on the
basis of place of birth.
Jus sanguinis- acquisition of citizenship on
the basis of blood relationship.
Naturalization- the legal act of adopting an
alien and clothing him with the privilege of
native-born citizen.
Marriage
Who are Philippine Citizens;
Section 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines:
[1] Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the
time of the adoption of this Constitution;
[2] Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of
the Philippines;
[3] Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino
mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon
reaching the age of majority; and
[4] Those who are naturalized in accordance with
law.
'--1 !, 1-',- ,i,.-, 1--' -!--, )''-- ^ -1 '--- !-
Proced:re for eIection of PhiIi55ine citizenshi5

1. Election is ex5ressed in a statement to be signed
and sworn to by the party concerned before any
official authorized to administer oaths.
2. Statement to be fiIed with the nearest Civil Registry
accom5anied with the Oath of AIIegiance to the
Constitution and the Government of the Philippines.
[Sec. 1, CA 625].

Nat:raIized citizens are those who have become Filipino
citizens through naturalization, generally under CA No. 473,
otherwise known as the Revised Naturalization Law, which
repealed the former Naturalization Law (Act No. 2927), and
by RA 530.

To be naturalized, an applicant has to prove that he
possesses all the qualifications and none of the
disqualifications provided by law to become a Filipino
citizen. The decision granting Philippine citizenship
becomes executor only after 2 years from its promulgation
when the court is satisfied that during the intervening
period, the applicant:

1. Has not left the Philippines;
2. Has dedicated himself to a lawful calling or profession;
3. Has not been convicted of any offense or violation of
government promulgated rules; or
4. Has not committed any act prejudicial to the interest of
the nation or contrary to any government announced
policies. [Sec. 1, RA 530]

Nat:raIization

-mode for both acquisition and reacquisition of citizenship
-governed by CA 473 (for acquisition) and CA 63 (for
reacquisition)
-consists a lengthy process

Modes of Nat:raIization:

1. DRECT- through:

a. Judicial or administrative proceedings- e.g. RA 9139 The
Administrative Nat:raIization Law of 2000grants
Philippine citizenship to aliens born and residing in the
Philippines
b. Special act of legislature- this is discretionary on
Congress; usually conferred on an alien who has made an
outstanding contribution to the country
c. Collective change of nationality, as a result of cessation
or subjugation
d. Some cases, by adoption of orphan minors as nationals
of the State where they are born

2. DERVATVE-Citizenship conferred on:

a. Wife of naturalized husband;
b. Minor children of naturalized person;
c. Alien woman upon marriage to a national.
Denat:raIization
Grounds:

1. Naturalization certificate was obtained fraudulently or
illegally;
2. Within 5 years, he returns to his native country or to
some foreign country and establishes residence there;

Prima Facie evidence of intent to take up residence:
a. Native country- 1-year stay
b. Foreign country- 2-year stay
3. Petition was made on an invalid declaration of intent;
4. Minor children failed to graduate through the fault of the
parents either by
neglecting to support them or by transferring them to
another school;
5. Allowed himself to be used as a dummy;

Effects of Denat:raIization:
1. f the ground affects the intrinsic validity of the
proceedings, denaturalization shall divest the wife and
children of their derivative naturalization;
2. f the ground was personal to the denaturalized person,
his wife and children shall retain their Philippine citizenship.

Section 2. Natural-born citizens are those who are citizens
of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any
act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship. Those
who elect Philippine citizenship in accordance with
paragraph (3), Section 1 hereof shall be deemed natural-
born citizens.
Section 3. Philippine citizenship may be lost or reacquired
in the manner provided by law.
Loss of citizenshi5:
1. By nat:raIization in a foreign co:ntry - However, this
was modified by RA 9225-An Act Making the
Citizenshi5
of PhiIi55ine Citizens Who Acq:ire Foreign Citizenshi5
Permanent September 15, 2003 which declares the
policy of the State that all Philippine citizens who become
citizens of another country shall be deemed to have lost
their Philippine citizenship under the conditions of this Act.

They may reacquire Philippine citizenship by taking
the oath of allegiance
Those Filipino citizens who, after the effectivity of
RA 9225, become citizens of a foreign country, may
reacquire Philippine citizenship upon taking the
oath of allegiance
Unmarried child, whether legitimate, illegitimate or
adopted, below 18 years of age, of those who
reacquire their Philippine citizenship upon the
effectivity of RA 9225 shall be deemed citizens of
the Philippines.
Those who reacquire or retain Philippine citizenship
under this Act shall enjoy full civil and political rights
and be subject to all attendant liabilities and
responsibilities under existing laws of the
Philippines and the following
conditions:

- Meet the requirements of RA 9189, The
Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003,
and other existing laws
- For those seeking elective public office and
appointive office, meet the qualifications,
make personal and sworn renunciation,
subscribe and swear to an oath of
allegiance to the RP
- For those intending to practice their
profession, apply with the proper authority
for a license or permit to engage in such
practice

2. By ex5ress ren:nciation of citizenshi5

Conscious, voluntary and intelligent renunciation
Express renunciation means a renunciation made
known distinctly and explicitly, and not left to
inference or implication.
'--1 !, 1-',- ,i,.-, 1--' -!--, )''-- ^ -1 '--- !-
Mere registration of alien in BD and mere
possession of foreign passport do not constitute
effective renunciation.
n illie u vs. Defensor-Santiago, obtaining a
Portuguese passport and signing commercial
documents as a Portuguese were construed as
renunciation of Philippine citizenship.

3. By s:-scri-ing to an oath of aIIegiance to support the
Constitution or laws of a foreign country upon attaining the
age of 21; provided, however, that a Filipino may not divest
himself of Philippine citizenship in this manner while RP is
at war with any co:ntry. -an application of the principle of
ndelible Allegiance.by virtue of RA 9225

4. By rendering service to or acce5ting commission in
the armed forces of a foreign co:ntry EXCEPT:
f RP has a defensive and/or offensive pact of
alliance with the said foreign country; and
The said foreign country maintains armed forces in
Philippine territory with the consent of RP

5. By canceIIation of the certificate of nat:raIization

6. By having -een decIared -y com5etent a:thority a
deserter of the pardon or amnesty has been granted.

Reacq:isition of citizenshi5:

1. Under RA 9225, by taking an oath of allegiance
2. By naturalization
3. By repatriation
4. By direct act of Congress

Re5atriation
-mode for reacquisition for those who lost their citizenship
-governed by various statutes
-consists of taking of an oath of allegiance to the RP and
registering said oath in the LCR of the place where the
person
concerned resides or last resided
Effect of re5atriation:

t allows the person to recover or return to, his original
status before he lost his Philippine citizenship. Thus, the
respondent, a former natural-born Filipino citizen who lost
his Philippine citizenship when he enlisted in the US Marine
Corps, was deemed to have recovered his natural-born
status when he reacquired Filipino citizenship through
repatriation.

The only persons entitled to repatriation under RA 8171 are
the following:
a) Filipino women who lost their Philippine citizenship by
marriage to aliens; and
b) Natural-born Filipinos including their minor children who
lost their Philippine citizenship on account of political
or economic necessity.
Section 4. Citizens of the Philippines who marry aliens shall
retain their citizenship, unless by their act or omission, they
are deemed, under the law, to have renounced it.
Section 5. Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the
national interest and shall be dealt with by law.

Doctrine of INDELIBLE ALLEGIANCE: an individual may
be compelled to retain his original nationality even if he has
already renounced or forfeited it under the laws of the
second State whose nationality he has acquired.

D:aI Citizenshi5
- arises as a result of the concurrent application of
the different laws of 2 or more states, a person is
simultaneously
considered as a national of said states
- involuntary

D:aI AIIegiance
- refers to a situation in which a person
simultaneously owes, by some positive act, loyalty
to 2 or more states
- voluntary

Instances when a citizen of the PhiIi55ines may
5ossess d:aI citizenshi5:

1. Those born of Filipino fathers and/or mothers in foreign
countries which follow the principle of jus soli;
2. Those born in the Philippines of Filipino mothers and
alien fathers if by the laws of their father's country such
children are citizens of that country;
3. Those who marry aliens if by the laws of the latter's
country the former are considered citizens, unless by their
act or omission they are deemed to have renounced
Philippine citizenship.