Reviewer in
Atty. Butch Jamon’s Constitutional Law 1 Class
By Antonio T. Delgado
PART I: INTRODUCTION
1.
What are the rules in constitutional construction?
In Francisco v HoR, the Court referred to the rules of constitutional construction:
(1) Verba legis, that is, wherever possible, the words used in the Constitution
must be given their ordinary meaning except where technical terms are
employed.
(2) Where there is ambiguity, ratio legis est anima. The words of the
Constitution should be interpreted in accordance with the intent of its
framers.
(3) Ut magis valeat quam pereat. The Constitution is to be interpreted as a
whole.
2.
When is an impeachment complaint “deemed filed”?
In Francisco v HoR, the Court ruled that an Impeachment proceeding is initiated
or begins, when a verified complaint is filed and referred to the Committee on
Justice for action.
NB: No impeachment proceeding shall be initiated against the same official more
than once within a period of one year.
PART II: AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION
3.
Distinguish revision and amendment.
Lambino v COMELEC enumerates the distinctions between revision and
amendment, as follows: Revision broadly implies a change that alters a basic
principle in the Constitution, like altering the principle of separation of powers or
the system of checks and balances. There is also revision if the change alters the
substantial entirety of the Constitution. On the other hand, amendment broadly
refers to a change that adds, reduces, deletes, without altering the basic principle
involved. Revision generally affects several provisions of the Constitution; while
amendment generally affects only the specific provision being amended.
Lambino v Comelec considered the two-part test: the quantitative test and the
qualitative test.
(1) Quantitative test – The court examines only the number of provisions
affected and does not consider the degree of the change.
(2) Qualitative test – The court inquires into the qualitative effects of the
proposed change in the constitution. The main inquiry is whether the
change will “accomplish such far reaching changes in the nature of our
Prepared by: Antonio T. Delgado (AUSL, 2019)
Page 1 of 26
basic governmental plan as to amount to a revision.” The changes
include those to the “fundamental framework or the fundamental
powers of its Branches,” and those that “jeopardize the traditional form
of government and the system of check and balances.” Whether there
is an alteration in the structure of government is a proper subject of
inquiry.
4.
Explain and expound the system of “initiative” as provided in the
Constitution.
People (through a People’s Initiative) – petition of at least 12% of
the total number of registered voters; every legislative district must be
represented by at least 3% of the registered voters therein.
(i) Limitation on Initiative: No amendment in this manner shall be
authorized (1) within 5 years following the ratification of the 1987
Const. nor (2) more often than once every 5 years thereafter.
(ii) Enabling Law: Constitutional provision on amendments via
People’s Initiative not self-executory [Defensor-Santiago
v.COMELEC, 270 SCRA 170 (1997)]
Revision cannot be proposed via a People’s initiative. [Lambino v
COMELEC]
5.
Explain and expound the system of initiative as illustrated in the cases of
Santiago v Comelec and Lambino v Comelec.
In Santiago v COMELEC, the Court ruled that the right of the people to directly
propose amendments to the Constitution through the system of initiative would
remain entombed in a cold niche until Congress provides for its implementation.
Section 2 of Article XVII is not self-executing.
In Lambino v COMELEC, the Court referred to the essence of people's initiative:
(1) people must author; (2) they must sign the proposal; (3) proposal is embodied
in petition
Futhermore, the Court ruled that revision cannot be proposed via a People’s
initiative.
6.
What is the doctrine of proper submission?
A plebiscite may be held on the same day as a regular election [Gonzales v.
COMELEC, 21 SCRA 774].
The entire Constitution must be submitted for ratification at one plebiscite only.
The people must have a proper “frame of reference”. [Tolentino v. COMELEC, 41
SCRA 702].
Prepared by: Antonio T. Delgado (AUSL, 2019)
Page 2 of 26
No “piecemeal submission,” e.g. submission of age amendment ahead of other
proposed amendments. [Lambino v. COMELEC, G.R. No.174153. October 25,
2006]
PART III: JUDICIAL REVIEW
7.
What are the requirements of judicial review?
In Francisco v HoR, the Court ruled that its power of judicial review, like almost all
powers conferred by the Constitution, is subject to several limitations, namely:
(1) an actual case or controversy calling for the exercise of judicial power;
(2) the person challenging the act must have “standing” to challenge; he
must have a personal and substantial interest in the case such that he
has sustained, or will sustain, direct injury as a result of its enforcement;
(3) the question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest possible
opportunity; and
(4) the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case.
8.
Explain the principle of Judicial Restraint.
The judiciary will not interfere with its co-equal branches when (1) there is no
showing of grave abuse of discretion, (2) the issue is a political question.
In La Bugal-B’Laan Tribal Association v Ramos, G.R. No. 127882, December 1,
2004, the Court restrained itself from intruding into policy matters to allow the
President and Congress maximum discretion in using the mineral resources of our
country and in securing the assistance of foreign groups to eradicate the grinding
poverty of our people and answer their cry for viable employment opportunities in
the country. “The Judiciary is loath to interfere with the due exercise by co-equal
branches of the government of their official functions”. Let the development of the
mining industry be the responsibility of the political branches of government. The
questioned provisions of R.A. 7942 (Philippine Mining Act of 1995) are not
unconstitutional.
9.
Define political question and justiciable question.
In Casibang v Aquino, the Court referred to political questions as “those questions
which, under the Constitution, are to be decided by the people in their sovereign
capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to
the Legislature or executive branch of the Government.” It is concerned with
issues dependent upon the wisdom, not legality, of a particular measure.
On the other hand, a purely justiciable question implies a given right, legally
demandable and enforceable, an act or omission violative of such right, and a
remedy granted and sanctioned by law for said breach of right.
10.
What is writ of mandamus?
A writ of mandamus is a court order issued by a judge at a petitioner’s request
compelling someone to execute a duty that they are legally obligated to complete.
Prepared by: Antonio T. Delgado (AUSL, 2019)
Page 3 of 26
11.
Discuss the case of Marbury v Madison.
Marbury v. Madison was a U.S. Supreme Court case that established the principle
of judicial review, meaning that courts have the power to strike down laws,
statutes, and some government actions that violate the Constitution.
Facts: William Marbury (Marbury), an end-of-term appointee of President John
Adams (President Adams) to a justice of the peace position in the District of
Columbia, brought suit against President Thomas Jefferson’s (President
Jefferson) Secretary of State, James Madison, seeking delivery of his
commission.
Issue. Is Marbury entitled to mandamus from the Supreme Court?
Held: No. Case dismissed for want of jurisdiction. As the President signed
Marbury’s commission after his confirmation, the appointment has been made,
and Marbury has a right to the commission Given that the law imposed a duty on
the office of the president to deliver Marbury’s commission, that the Supreme
Court has the power to review executive actions when the executive acts as an
officer of the law and the nature of the writ of mandamus to direct an officer of the
government “to do a particular thing therein specified,” mandamus is the
appropriate remedy, if available to the Supreme Court. To issue mandamus to the
Secretary of State really is to sustain an original action, which is (in this case)
outside the constitutional limits of jurisdiction imposed on the Supreme Court.
12.
Explain and expound the “moot and academic” rule in judicial review. Is
there an exception?
In Guingona v CA, the Court ruled that a case becomes moot when there are
facts, injuries and heated arguments but for some reason the legal problem has
become stale.
In David v Macapagal Arroyo, it was held that courts will still decide cases
otherwise moot and academic if:
(1) There is a grave violation of the Constitution;
(2) There is an exceptional character of the situation and paramount public
interest is involved;
(3) The constitutional issues raised require formulation of controlling principles
to guide the bench, the bar and the public; and
(4) The case is capable of repetition yet evasive of review.
13.
Discuss the case of Lacson v Perez.
In Lacson v Perez, G.R. No. 147780, May 10, 2001, where cases were filed
questioning the declaration by President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo of a “state of
rebellion” in Metro Manila (under General Order No. 1), the Supreme Court
disfmissed the petitions because on May 6, 2001, the President ordered the lifting
Prepared by: Antonio T. Delgado (AUSL, 2019)
Page 4 of 26
of the “state of rebellion”, and, thus, the issue raised in the petitions had become
moot and academic.
14.
Enumerate 5 legal standings and explain.
(1) Taxpayers, when public funds are involved. [Tolentino v. Comelec
(2004)]
(2) Government of the Philippines, when questioning the validity of its own
laws. [People v. Vera (1937)]
(3) Legislators, when the powers of Congress are being impaired.
[PHILCONSA v. Enriquez, (1994)]
(4) Citizens, when the enforcement of a public right is involved. [Tañada
vs Tuvera, (1985)]
(5) Any Filipino citizen in representation of others, including minors or
generations yet unborn, may file an action to enforce rights or
obligations under environmental laws [Resident Marine Mammals of
the Protected Seascape Tanon Strait v. Reyes, G.R. No. 180771
(2015)]
NB: Associational standing as illustrated in KMU Labor Center v. Garcia.
In KMU Labor Center v Garcia, 239 SCRA 386, the Court held that KMU
members who avail of the use of buses, trains and jeepneys everyday are
directly affected by the burdensome cost of arbitrary increases in
passenger fares. They are, therefore, proper parties to contest the validity
of DOTC memoranda, etc., authorizing provincial bus and jeepney
operators to increase or decrease transportation fares.
In the same vein, an association of registered recruitment agencies had
legal standing to question the constitutionality of the Migrant Workers and
Overseas Filipino Act, in order to assert the concern of its constituents.
15.
Compare the cases of Kilosbayan v Guingona and Kilosbayan v Morato.
In Kilosbayan v Guingona, one of the issues was the locus standi of the petitioner,
an association of citizens and taxpayers, to challenge a contract entered into by
the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office with a foreign corporation for the
operation of a nationwide lottery. The majority opinion penned by Justice Hilario
G. Davide, Jr. declare: “We find the instant petition to be of transcendental
importance to the public. The issues it raised are of paramount public interest and
of category even higher than those involved in many of the aforecited cases. The
ramifications of such issues immeasurably affect the social, economic and moral
well-being of the people even in the remotest barangays of the country and the
counter-productive and retrogressive effects of the envisioned on-line lottery
system are as staggering as the billions of pesos it is expected to raise. The legal
standing then of the petitioners deserves recognition and, in the exercise of its
sound discretion, this Court hereby brushes aside the procedural barrier which the
respondents tried to take advantage of.”
Prepared by: Antonio T. Delgado (AUSL, 2019)
Page 5 of 26
In Kilosbayan v Morato, the Court ruled that Since Equipment Lease Agreement
(ELA) for online lottery equipment and accessories is a different contract, the
previous decision in Kilosbayan v Guingona does not preclude determination of
the petitioner’s standing. Standing is a concept in constitutional law and here no
constitutional question is actually involved. The more appropriate issue is whether
the petitioners are ‘real parties of interest’. Question of contract of law: The real
parties are those who are parties to the agreement or are bound either principally
or are prejudiced in their rights with respect to one of the contracting parties and
can show the detriment which would positively result to them from the contract.
Petitioners do not have such present substantial interest. Questions to the nature
or validity of public contracts maybe made before COA or before the
Ombudsman.
16.
What is facial challenge and illustrate it in the case of Estrada v
Sandiganbayan.
A facial challenge is allowed to be made to a vague statute and to one which is
overbroad because of possible “chilling effect: upon protected speech. It can only
be invoked against that specie of legislation that is utterly vague on its face, i.e.,
that which cannot be clarified either by a saving clause or by construction. –
In Estrada v Sandiganbayan, the Court ruled that criminal statutes such as RA
7080 have general in terrorem effect resulting from the very existence, and, if
facial challenge is allowed for this reason alone, the State may well be prevented
from enacting laws against socially harmful l conducts. In the area of criminal law,
the law cannot take chances as in the area of free speech. The over breadth and
vagueness doctrines then have a special application only to free speech cases.
PART IV: THREE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT
A. CONGRESS
17.
What are the qualifications of a senator of the Philippines?
Art. VI, Sec. 3. No person shall be a senator unless he is a natural-born citizen of
the Philippines, and, on the day of the election, is at least thirty-five years of age,
able to read and write, a registered voter, and a resident of the Philippines for not
less than two years immediately preceding the day of election.
18.
Distinguish Domicile and Residence.
In Marcos v COMELEC:
Domicile means an individuals’ “permanent home”, “a place to which, whenever
absent for business or for pleasure, one intends to return, and depends on facts
and circumstances in the sense that they disclose intent.” Domicile includes the
twin elements of “the fact of residing or physical presence in a fixed place” and
animus manendi, or intention of returning there permanently.
Prepared by: Antonio T. Delgado (AUSL, 2019)
Page 6 of 26
Residence, it its ordinary conception, implies the factual relationship of an
individual to a certain place. It is the physical presence of a person in a given
area, community, or country.
The essential distinction between residence and domicile in law is that residence
involves the intent to leave when the purpose for which the resident has taken up
his abode ends. If a person’s intent be to remain, it becomes his domicile; if his
intent is to leave as soon as his purpose it I is residence. It is thus, quite perfectly
normal for an individual to have different residence in various paces, However, a
person can only have a single domicile, unless, for various reasons, he
successfully abandons his domicile in favor of another domicile of choice.
19.
What are the latest guidelines in determining the winners in the partylist
elections and in their seat allocations in the Congress?
In Veterans Fed. Party v. Comelec:
Formula on how to determine the additional seats:
1. 20% allocation- the combined number of all party-list representatives shall
not exceed 20% of the total membership of the HR, including those under
the party-list.
2. 2% threshold- only those garnering at least 2% of the total votes cast for
party-list are qualified to have a seat. 1 Section 10, Article 10, 1987
Constitution.
3. three-seat limit – additional seats shall be computed “in proportion to their
total number of votes”.
4. proportional representation
HOWEVER, in BANAT v. COMELEC:
Four parameters of the party-list system:
(1) 20% Allocation: 20% of the total number of the membership of the House
of Representatives is merely a ceiling, i.e., the maximum number of seats
available to party-list organizations.
(2) 2% Threshold: Garnering 2% of the total votes cast in the party-list
elections guarantees a party-list organization one (1) seat.
(3) Additional Seats: The additional seats, that is, the remaining seats after
allocation of the guaranteed seats, shall be distributed to the party-list
organizations including those that received less than two percent of the
total votes.
N.B. The continued operation of the 2% threshold to the allocation of the
additional seats is unconstitutional because this threshold mathematically
and physically prevents the filling up of the available party-list seats.
a) (4) 3-Seat Cap: The three-seat cap is constitutional.
Rules on Computation of Seats: Two-Round Allocation
Step 1: Compute total number of seats allocated for party-list
representatives
Prepared by: Antonio T. Delgado (AUSL, 2019)
Page 7 of 26
Step 2: Rank all party-list candidates from highest to lowest based on the
number of votes they garnered
Step 3: Compute for each party-list candidate’s percentage of votes
garnered in relation to the total number of votes cast for party-list
candidates.
Step 4: Round 1 – Allocate one (1) seat each for party-list that garnered at
least 2% of the total number of votes.
Step 5: Round 2 – Assign additional seats from the balance (i.e. total
number of partylist seats minus Round 1 allocations) by:
(a) Allocating one (1) seat for every whole integer (e.g. if a party
garners 2.73% of the vote, assign it two [2] more seats; if 1.80%,
assign it one [1] more seat); then
(b) Allocating the remaining seats (i.e. total seats minus Round 1
and Round 2a allocations) to those next in rank until all seats are
completely distributed.
Step 6: Apply the 3-Seat Cap, if necessary.
20.
What are the latest guidelines in determining whether or not the
organizations or parties intending to participate in the partylist system
qualify?
In Atong Paglaum v. COMELEC:
GUIDELINES AS TO WHO MAY PARTICIPATE IN THE PARTY-LIST
ELECTIONS:
(1) Three different groups may participate in the party-list system: (1) national
parties or organizations, (2) regional parties or organizations, and (3)
sectoral parties or organizations.
(2) National parties or organizations and regional parties or organizations do
not need to organize along sectoral lines and do not need to represent any
“marginalized and underrepresented” sector.
(3) Political parties can participate in partylist elections provided they register
under the party-list system and do not field candidates in legislative district
elections. A political party, whether major or not, that fields candidates in
legislative district elections can participate in party-list elections only
through its sectoral wing that can separately register under the party-list
system. The sectoral wing is by itself an independent sectoral party, and is
linked to a political party through a coalition.
(4) Sectoral parties or organizations may either be “marginalized and
underrepresented” or lacking in “welldefined political constituencies.” It is
enough that their principal advocacy pertains to the special interest and
concerns of their sector. The sectors that are “marginalized and
underrepresented” include labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor,
indigenous cultural communities, handicapped, veterans, and overseas
workers. The sectors that lack “welldefined political constituencies” include
professionals, the elderly, women, and the youth.
(5) A majority of the members of sectoral parties or organizations that
represent the “marginalized and underrepresented” must belong to the
Prepared by: Antonio T. Delgado (AUSL, 2019)
Page 8 of 26
“marginalized and underrepresented” sector they represent. Similarly, a
majority of the members of sectoral parties or organizations that lack
“welldefined political constituencies” must belong to the sector they
represent. The nominees of sectoral parties or organizations that
represent the “marginalized and underrepresented,” or that represent
those who lack “welldefined political constituencies,” either must belong to
their respective sectors, or must have a track record of advocacy for their
respective sectors. The nominees of national and regional parties or
organizations must be bonafide members of such parties or organizations.
(6) National, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations shall not be
disqualified if some of their nominees are disqualified, provided that they
have at least one nominee who remains qualified.
21.
Explain and distinguish “forbidden office” and “incompatible office.”
Art. VI, Sec. 13. No Senator or Member of the House of Representatives may hold
any other office or employment in the Government, or any subdivision, agency, or
instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations or
their subsidiaries, during his term without forfeiting his seat. Neither shall he be
appointed to any office which may have been created or the emoluments thereof
increased during the term for which he was elected.
Forbidden Office: Even if a member of the Congress is willing to forfeit his seat
therein, he may not be appointed to any office in the government that has been
created or the emoluments thereof have been increased during his term. Such a
position is forbidden office.
Incompatible office: No Senator or Member of the House of Representatives may
hold any other office or employment in the Government, or any subdivision,
agency, or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled
corporations or their subsidiaries, during his term without forfeiting his seat.
The purpose is to prevent him from owing loyalty to another branch of the
government, to the detriment of the independence of the legislature and the
doctrine of separation of powers. See Adaza v Pacana.
22.
What are the privileges of a legislator of Congress or Senate? Explain each
privilege.
(1) Salaries - The salaries of Senators and Representatives shall be
determined by law; no increase in said compensation shall take effect until
after the expiration of the full term of all the Members of the Senate and the
House of Representatives approving such increase. [Art. VI, Sec. 10]
(2) Freedom from Arrest - A Senator or Member of the House of
Representatives shall, in all offenses punishable by not more than six years
imprisonment, be privileged from arrest while the Congress is in session
[Art. VI, Section 11].
Prepared by: Antonio T. Delgado (AUSL, 2019)
Page 9 of 26
(3) Speech and debate clause - No Member shall be questioned nor be held
liable in any other place for any speech or debate in the Congress or in any
committee thereof [Art. VI, Section 11].
23.
Explain the parliamentary immunity of the members of the Congress and
Senate. Explain the “freedom from arrest” clause and the “speech and
debate” clause.
Article VI, Sec. 11 provides that a Senator or member of the House of
Representatives shall, in all offenses punishable by not more than six years
imprisonment, be privileged from arrest while the Congress is in session.
In Jimenez v Cabangbang, the Court ruled that the “Speech or debate” used in
Article VI, Section 15 (now 11) of the Constitution refers to utterances made by
Congressmen in the performance of their official functions while Congress is in
session. The open letter to the President was made by Cabangbang when
Congress was not in session. And in causing the communication to be so
published, he was not performing his official duty xxx as a member of Congress.
Hence, the communication is not absolutely privileged.
24.
Compare the cases of Macias v COMELEC and Aquino/Robredo v
COMELEC.
In Macias v COMELEC, an act that gives provinces with less number of
inhabitant more representative districts than those with bigger population was
declared invalid because it violates the principle of proportional representation
prescribed by the Constitution. The Supreme Court noted that some big
provinces were given less representatives than certain relatively smaller ones,
e.g. Cebu got seven while Rizal with a bigger population then got only four.
In Aquino vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 189793, April 7, 2010, the Court ruled that
the second sentence of Section 5(3), Article VI of the Constitution, succinctly
provides: "Each city with a population of at least two hundred fifty thousand, or
each province, shall have at least one representative." The provision draws a
plain and clear distinction between the entitlement of a city to a district on one
hand, and the entitlement of a province to a district on the other. Plainly read,
Section 5(3) of the Constitution requires a 250,000 minimum population only for a
city to be entitled to a representative, but not so for a province.
25.
Compare the cases of Osmena v Pendatun and Alejandrino v Quezon.
In Alejandrino v Quezon, the Court ruled that where a member has been expelled
by the legislative body, the courts have no power, irrespective of whether or not
the expulsion was right or wrong, to issue a mandate to compel his reinstatement.
In Osmena v Pendatun, the Court for unparliamentary conduct, members of
Congress can be censured, committed to prison, suspended or expelled by the
votes of their colleagues.
Prepared by: Antonio T. Delgado (AUSL, 2019)
Page 10 of 26
26.
What is preventive suspension?
In Santiago v Sandiganbayan, the Court ruled that the order of suspension
prescribed by RA 3019 is distinct from the powers of Congress to discipline its
own ranks under the Constitution.
In De Venecia v Sandiganbayan, the Court ruled that the suspension provided for
in the Anti-graft law is mandatory and is of different nature and purpose. It is
imposed by the court, not as a penalty, but as a precautionary measure resorted
to upon the filing of valid Information. Its purpose is to prevent the accused public
officer from frustrating his prosecution by influencing witnesses or tampering with
documentary evidence and from committing further acts of malfeasance while in
office. It is thus an incident to the criminal proceedings before the court.
27.
What is quorum? What constitutes quorum and majority in the Senate?
Distinguish quorum and majority.
Quorum is any number sufficient to transact business, which may be less than the
majority of the membership. In our Constitution, it is required that the quorum be a
majority of the each House.
In Santiago v. Guingona, Jr.:
The term “majority” has been judicially defined a number of times. When referring
to a certain number out of a total or aggregate, it simply “means the number
greater than half or more than half of any total.”
Majority may also refer to “the group, party, or faction with the larger number of
votes,” not necessarily more than one half. This is sometimes referred to as
plurality. In contrast, minority is “a group, party, or faction with a smaller number of
votes or adherents than the majority.” Between two unequal parts or numbers
comprising a whole or totality, the greater number would obviously be the
majority, while the lesser would be minority.
Art. VI, Section 16. (2). A majority of each House shall constitute a quorum to do
business, but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day and may compel the
attendance of absent Members in such manner, and under such penalties, as
such House may provide.
28.
What is the doctrine of coercive jurisdiction? Illustrate.
In Avelino v Cuenco, the Court referred to the theory of the amicus curiae that the
majority mentioned in the Constitution refers only to the majority of the members
who can be reached by coercive processes.
NB: Within jurisdiction of Senate = those it can order arrested for the purpose of
questioning
29.
Describe the process of enacting laws.
Procedure for the passage of bills:
Prepared by: Antonio T. Delgado (AUSL, 2019)
Page 11 of 26
(1) The Secretary reports for the first reading, which consists of reading the
number and title of the bill, followed by its referral to the appropriate
Committee for study and recommendation.
(2) Second Reading: The bill shall be read in full with the amendments
proposed by the Committee, if any, unless copies thereof are distributed
and such reading is dispensed with. After the amendments, the bill will be
voted on second reading.
(3) Third Reading: The bill approved on second reading will be submitted for
final votes by yeas and nays. No amendments may be introduced.
(4) The bill approved on the third reading by one house is transmitted to the
other House for concurrence, which will follow the same procedures as a
bill originally filed with it.
(5) If the other House introduces amendments and the House from which it
originated does not agree with said amendments, the differences will be
settled by the Conference Committee of both chambers, whose report or
recommendation thereon will have to be approved by both Houses in
order that it will be considered passed by Congress and thereafter sent to
the President for action.
(6) If the President shall it, and if after such consideration, two-thirds of all the
Members of such House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent,
together with the objections, to the other House by which it shall likewise
be reconsidered, and if approved by two-thirds of all the Members of that
House, it shall become a law.
30.
TRUE or FALSE. Legislative power is vested solely in Congress.
Section 1, Article VII of the Constitution provides that legislative power shall be
vested in the Congress of the Philippines which shall consist of a Senate and a
House of Representatives, except to the extent reserved to the people by the
provision on initiative and referendum.
31.
What are the limitations on legislative power?
(1) The express substantive limitations - Circumscribe both the exercise of the
power itself and the allowable subject of legislation which are chiefly found
in the Bill of Rights
a. Bill of attainder
b. Ex post facto law
(2) Procedural limitations- prescribing the manner of passing bills and the form
they should take.
a. Title of bills: one title, one subject rule
b. 3 readings: No bill passed by either house shall become law unless
it has passed 3 readings on separate days.
32.
Compare Ople v Torres and KMU v NEDA.
In Ople v Torres, the Court ruled it cannot be simplistically argued that A.O. No.
308 merely implements the Administrative Code of 1987. It establishes for the first
time a National Computerized Identification Reference System. Such a System
Prepared by: Antonio T. Delgado (AUSL, 2019)
Page 12 of 26
requires a delicate adjustment of various contending state policies — the primacy
of national security, the extent of privacy interest against dossier-gathering by
government, the choice of policies, etc. Indeed, the dissent of Mr. Justice
Mendoza states that the A.O. No. 308 involves the all-important freedom of
thought. As said administrative order redefines the parameters of some basic
rights of our citizenry vis-a-vis the State as well as the line that separates the
administrative power of the President to make rules and the legislative power of
Congress, it ought to be evident that it deals with a subject that should be covered
by law.
In KMU v NEDA, the Court ruled that Executive Order No. 420 that directs a
unified ID system among government agencies and Government owned and
controlled corporations in order to have a uniform ID for all government agencies,
is a proper subject of executive issuance under the president’s constitutional
power of control over government entities in the executive department, as well as
the president’s constitutional duty to ensure that all laws are faithfully executed,
thus said executive order is not a usurpation of legislative power. Furthermore, it
is not usurpation of legislative power because the act of issuing ID cards and the
collection of some necessary information to imprint in them do not require a
legislation. What needs legislation is the system of appropriation to enforce the
unified ID system, when unified ID system includes the citizens and when
personal data that are beyond of what is routinely needed is collected for the ID.
33.
Who has the power to declare a State of National Emergency? What are the
effects of such declaration?
Article VI, Section 23.
(1) The Congress, by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses in joint session
assembled, voting separately, shall have the sole power to declare the existence
of a state of war.
(2) In times of war or other national emergency, the Congress may, by law,
authorize the President, for a limited period and subject to such restrictions as it
may prescribe, to exercise powers necessary and proper to carry out a declared
national policy. Unless sooner withdrawn by resolution of the Congress, such
powers shall cease upon the next adjournment thereof.
NB: While the President could validly declare the existence of a state of national
emergency even in the absence of a Congressional enactment, the exercise of
the emergency powers, such as the taking over of privately-owned public utility or
business affected with public interest, requires a delegation from Congress which
is the repository of emergency powers. [David v. Arroyo (2006)]
34.
What matters are entered in the Journals of Congress?
The following matters are entered in the Journal:
b) Yeas and nays of the final reading of the bill.
c) Veto message of the President.
Prepared by: Antonio T. Delgado (AUSL, 2019)
Page 13 of 26
d) Yeas and nays on repassing the bill vetoed by the President.
e) Yeas and nays on any question at the request of 1/5 of the Members
present.
35.
What are the instances when Congress meets jointly but votes separately?
The House of Representatives and the Senate meet jointly but vote separately on
the following occasions:
a. Choosing the President (Sec. 4, Art. VII)
b. Determine President’s disability (Sec. 11, Art. VII)
c. Confirming nomination of the Vice President (Sec. 9, Art. VII)
d. Declaring the existence of a state of war (Sec. 23, Art. VI)
e. Proposing constitutional amendments (Sec. 1, Art. XVII)
On the other hand, Congress votes jointly to revoke or extend proclamation
suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or placing the Philippines
under martial law. (Sec. 18, Art. VII)
36.
What is the “enrolled bill” doctrine?
Black’s Law Dictionary defines an enrolled bill as one which has been duly
introduced, finally passed by both houses, signed or authenticated by the proper
officers of each, approved by the President and filed by the secretary of state.
In Casco Chemical Co. v Gimenez, the Court ruled that it is well settled that the
enrolled bill is conclusive upon the courts as regards the tenor of the measure
passed by Congress and approved by the President If there has been any
mistake in the printing of the bill before it was certified by the officers of Congress
and approved by the Executive the remedy is by amendment or curative
legislation, not by judicial decree.
37.
In case of conflict between the journal and the enrolled bill, which will
prevail?
Enrolled bill prevails, except as to matters which, under the Constitution, must be
entered in the Journal. (See Astorga v Villegas, 56 SCRA 714)
38.
What are the signatures needed for a bill to become a law?
The signatures of:
 Senate President
 House Speaker
 Secretary of the Senate
 Secretary of the House
 President
39.
What constitutes the members of the Commission on Appointments? Relate
to the case of Daza v Singson.
Prepared by: Antonio T. Delgado (AUSL, 2019)
Page 14 of 26
Article VI, Section 18 provides that there shall be a Commission on Appointments
consisting of the President of the Senate, as ex officio Chairman, twelve Senators,
and twelve Members of the House of Representatives, elected by each House on
the basis of proportional representation from the political parties and parties or
organizations registered under the party-list system represented therein. The
chairman of the Commission shall not vote, except in case of a tie. The
Commission shall act on all appointments submitted to it within thirty session days
of the Congress from their submission. The Commission shall rule by a majority
vote of all the Members.
In Daza v Singson, the Court ruled that the sense of the Constitution is that the
membership in the Commission on Appointments must always reflect political
alignments and must adjust to changes. Nowhere, however, in the Constitution
require that the party must be a registered party.
40.
Can the Supreme Court acquire jurisdiction over the rules on proceedings
of the Commission on Appointments? Explain.
In Pacete v Commission on Appointments, the Court ruled that the courts may
acquire jurisdiction over the rules of proceedings of the CA. The courts are called
upon to see it that private rights are not invaded. This even legislative acts and
executive orders are not beyond the pale of judicial scrutiny. Certainly, there is
nothing sacrosanct about a rule of the CA, especially so, when as in this case, a
construction sought to be fastened on it would defeat the right of an individual to a
public office. It certainly can be inquired into in an appropriate case, although the
utmost deference should be paid to the interpretation accorded it by the
Commission on Appointments itself.
41.
What constitutes the members of HRET and SET?
Art. VI, Section 17 of the Constitution provides that each Electoral Tribunal shall
be composed of nine Members, three of whom shall be Justices of the Supreme
Court to be designated by the Chief Justice, and the remaining six shall be
Members of the Senate or the House of Representatives, as the case may be,
who shall be chosen on the basis of proportional representation from the political
parties and the parties or organizations registered under the party-list system
represented therein. The senior Justice in the Electoral Tribunal shall be its
Chairman.
42.
Explain the doctrine of “Primary Jurisdiction.”
In Codilla v De Venecia, the Court held that, the Constitution expressly grants to
the House of Representatives the prerogative, within constitutionally defined
limits, to choose from its district and party-list representatives those who may
occupy the seats allotted to the House in HRET and the CA. Thus, petitioner’s
primary recourse rests with the House of Representatives and not with this Court.
Under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, prior recourse to the House is
necessary before petitioners may bring the case to the court. Sections 17 and 18,
Article VI of the Constitution state that party-list representatives must first show
Prepared by: Antonio T. Delgado (AUSL, 2019)
Page 15 of 26
the House that they possess the required numerical strength to be entitled to
seats in the HRET and CA. Moreover, facts show, at that time, that party-list
groups merely refrained from participating in the election process. There was no
mention of nominees.
43.
What are the limits on the Power of Legislative Investigation?
Limits on the Power of Legislative Investigation
(1) Must be “in aid of legislation”
In Bengzon v. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee, the Court ruled that the
investigation was not “in aid of legislation” but merely tried to determine
whether the relatives of Pres. Aquino violated the law. The case was
also dismissed because the issue was already in court. Hence, the
legislative investigation cannot be invoked, or the legislature cannot
inquire.
(2) Must be” in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure.”
(3) The rights of persons appearing in affected by such inquiries shall be
respected.
44. Compare Art. VI, Sec. 21 with Sec. 22
Section 21 refers to legislative investigation or the power to make investigation
and exact testimony to exercise legislative functions advisedly and effectively.
Section 22 refers to question hour, wherein the heads of departments may upon
their own initiative, with the consent of the President, or upon the request of
either House, as the rules of each House shall provide, appear before and be
heard by such House on any matter pertaining to their departments. It is an
exercise of oversight function.
45.
Differentiate “investigation in aid of legislation” and “question hour as
oversight function” of Congress. Illustrate using recent applicable
jurisprudence.
In Senate v Ermita:
- The “oversight function” of Congress may be facilitated by compulsory
process only to the extent that it is performed in pursuit of legislation.
- When Congress exercises its power of inquiry, the only way for the
department heads to exempt themselves therefrom is by a valid claim of
privilege.
- When Congress merely seeks to be informed on how department heads
are implementing the statutes, it is not imperative.
- Appearance of department heads in question hour is discretionary.
46.
Can the government withhold information from the public? Explain and
expound.
In Senate v Ermita, the Court referred to “executive privilege”. This is the power of
the government to withhold information from the public, the courts, and the
Prepared by: Antonio T. Delgado (AUSL, 2019)
Page 16 of 26
Congress. This is recognized only to certain types of information of a sensitive
character.
47.
Explain the “Presidential Communication” privilege and the “deliberative
process” privilege.
In Neri v Senate, the Court referred to two (2) kinds of executive privilege;
(1) Presidential communications privilege - pertains to "communications,
documents or other materials that reflect presidential decision-making and
deliberations and that the President believes should remain confidential."
(2) Deliberative process privilege - includes 'advisory opinions,
recommendations and deliberations comprising part of a process by which
governmental decisions and policies are formulated.
In Akbayan v. Aquino (2008):
(1) Presidential Communications Privilege (President): communications are
presumptively privileged; president must be given freedom to explore
alternatives in policy-making.
(2) Deliberative Process Privilege (Executive Officials): refer to materials that
comprise part of a process by which governmental decisions and policies
are formulated. This includes diplomatic processes.
48.
What are the elements of the presidential communications privilege?
In Neri v Senate, the court referred to the three elements of presidential
communications privilege:
First, the communications relate to a “quintessential and non-delegable
power” of the President
Second, the communications are “received” by a close advisor of the
President in operational proximity
And Lastly, there is no adequate showing of a compelling need that would
justify the limitation of the privilege and of the unavailability of the
information elsewhere by an appropriate investigating authority.
NOTE: Executive privilege is attached to the information.
49.
Explain the doctrine of “operational proximity”.
In Neri v Senate, the Court referred to the “operational proximity” as one of the
elements of presidential communications privilege. The communication must be
authored or "solicited and received" by a close advisor of the President or the
President himself. The judicial test is that an advisor must be in "operational
proximity" with the President.
Here, petitioner NEDA Director General Romulo Neri can be considered a close
advisor, being a member of President Arroyo’s cabinet.
50.
Compare the cases of Senate v Ermita and Neri v Senate.
Prepared by: Antonio T. Delgado (AUSL, 2019)
Page 17 of 26
In Senate v Ermita, the Court ruled that when Congress exercises its power of
inquiry, the only way for the department heads to exempt themselves therefrom is
by a valid claim of privilege.
In Neri v Senate, it is wrong for Senate to punish one for contempt where
executive privilege is properly invoked.
51.
What is impoundment?
In PHILCONSA v Enriquez, the Court referred to impoundment as a refusal by the
President, for whatever reason, to spend funds made available by Congress. It is
the failure to spend or obligate budget authority of any type.
52.
Name at least three other powers of Congress.
The other powers of Congress are:
a. Act as board of canvassers for presidential election
b. Call a special election for Presidency
c. Decide on disability of the President
d. Legislative veto or extension for habeas corpus or declaration of martial
law
e. Presidential Amnesties
f. Concur in treaties
g. Declaration of existence of war
h. Delegation of emergency powers
i. Utilization of natural resources
j. Amendments of constitution
k. Power of Impeachment
PART IV: THREE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT
B. EXECUTIVE DEPARMENT
53.
What are the qualifications of the President?
(1) Natural-born citizen of the Philippines;
(2) A registered voter;
(3) Able to read and write;
(4) At least 40 years of age on the day of the election; and
(5) A resident of the Philippines for at least 10 years immediately preceding such
election.
54.
What are the prohibitions on the President under Art. VII, Sec. 13?
Section 13. The President, Vice-President, the Members of the Cabinet, and their
deputies or assistants shall not, unless otherwise provided in this Constitution,
hold any other office or employment during their tenure. They shall not, during
said tenure, directly or indirectly, practice any other profession, participate in any
business, or be financially interested in any contract with, or in any franchise, or
special privilege granted by the Government or any subdivision, agency, or
Prepared by: Antonio T. Delgado (AUSL, 2019)
Page 18 of 26
instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations or
their subsidiaries. They shall strictly avoid conflict of interest in the conduct of
their office.
The spouse and relatives by consanguinity or affinity within the fourth civil degree
of the President shall not, during his tenure, be appointed as Members of the
Constitutional Commissions, or the Office of the Ombudsman, or as Secretaries,
Undersecretaries, chairmen or heads of bureaus or offices, including
government-owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries.
55.
56.
What is the doctrine of qualified political agency as illustrated in DENR v
DENR Region XII Employees?
The doctrine of qualified political agency is corollary to the control power of the
President. He may delegate some of his powers to his cabinet members except
in some situations where the Constitution solely provided its exercise only by
him. He cannot be expected to exercise his control and supervisory powers all
the time.The Cabinet secretary is the alter ego of the President.
What are residual powers of the President? How is it different from his
“commander-in-chief” and “emergency” powers?
In Marcos v Manglapus, the Court referred to the residual powers of the
President as the Chief Executive of the country, which powers include others not
set forth in the Constitution.
NB: To protect the general welfare of people; founded on duty of President as
steward of the people; includes powers unrelated to execution of any provision of
law. [Marcos v Manglapus]
In Sanlakas v Executive Secretary, the Court referred to the Commander-in-Chief
powers which Art. VII, sec. 18 grants the President, as Commander-in-Chief, a
“sequence” of “graduated power[s].” From the most to the least benign, these
are: (1) the calling out power, (2) the power to suspend the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus, and the (3) power to declare martial law.
Art. VI, Sec. 23 of the Constitution provides for emergency powers of the
President:
(1) In times of war or other national emergency, the Congress, may, by law,
authorize the President, for a limited period, and subject to such
restrictions as it may prescribe, to exercise powers necessary and proper
to carry out a declared national policy
(2) Unless sooner withdrawn by resolution of the Congress, such powers shall
cease upon the next adjournment thereof
NB: Emergency powers are delegated powers. The President, under martial rule
or in a revolutionary government, may exercise delegated legislative powers. [See
Art. VI, Sec. 23[2]] Congress may delegate legislative powers to the president in
times of war or in other national emergency. [BERNAS]
Prepared by: Antonio T. Delgado (AUSL, 2019)
Page 19 of 26
This power is:
(1) For a limited period; and
(2) Subject to such restrictions as Congress may provide.
57.
What are the presidential appointments that require confirmation of
Commission on Appointments?
Art. VII, Section 16 provides that the President shall nominate and, with the
consent of the Commission on Appointments, appoint the heads of the executive
departments, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, or officers of the
armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain, and other officers whose
appointments are vested in him in this Constitution.
58.
What are the Commander-in-Chief Powers [Art. VII, Sec. 18] of the
President?
(1) Call Out Power - Armed forces to suppress lawless violence;
(2) Suspension of Writ of Habeas Corpus- Only (a) in times of rebellion or
invasion AND (b) when required by public safety
(3) Martial Law – N.B. Does not suspend Constitution
59.
What is the calling out power of the President?
Art VII, Section 18 provides that the President shall be the Commander-in-Chief
of all armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary, he
may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion
or rebellion.
NB: This is merely a police measure meant to quell disorder. As such, the
Constitution does not regulate its exercise radically.
Note: Calling-out power is purely discretionary on the President; the Constitution
does not explicitly provide for a judicial review of its factual basis. (IBP v. Zamora
[2001])
Limit on Calling out Power. —Test of Arbitrariness: The question is not whether
the President or Congress acted correctly, but whether he acted arbitrarily in that
the action had no basis in fact. [IBP v. Zamora, (2000)]. This amounts to a
determination of whether or not there was grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction.
60.
What are the rules provided for by the Constitution in the suspension,
extension, and revocation of proclamation of the privilege of writ of habeas
corpus when exercised the President?
Art. VII, Section 18:
In case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it, he may, for a
period not exceeding sixty days, suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus or place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law. Within forty-
Prepared by: Antonio T. Delgado (AUSL, 2019)
Page 20 of 26
eight hours from the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege
of the writ of habeas corpus, the President shall submit a report in person or in
writing to the Congress. The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least a
majority of all its Members in regular or special session, may revoke such
proclamation or suspension, which revocation shall not be set aside by the
President. Upon the initiative of the President, the Congress may, in the same
manner, extend such proclamation or suspension for a period to be determined by
the Congress, if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and public safety requires it.
The Congress, if not in session, shall, within twenty-four hours following such
proclamation or suspension, convene in accordance with its rules without need of
a call.
The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen,
the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the
suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or the extension thereof,
and must promulgate its decision thereon within thirty days from its filing.
A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of the Constitution, nor
supplant the functioning of the civil courts or legislative assemblies, nor authorize
the conferment of jurisdiction on military courts and agencies over civilians where
civil courts are able to function, nor automatically suspend the privilege of the writ
of habeas corpus.
The suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall apply only to
persons judicially charged for rebellion or offenses inherent in, or directly
connected with, invasion.
During the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, any person
thus arrested or detained shall be judicially charged within three days, otherwise
he shall be released.
61.
What is the requirement in order for a treaty or international agreement to
be binding and effective in the Philippines?
1987 Philippine Constitution, Sec.21, Art. VII provides that no treaty or
international agreement shall be valid and effective unless concurred in by at least
two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate.
Note: It is the President who RATIFIES a treaty (not the Senate), the Senate
merely CONCURS. [Bayan v. Executive Secretary, supra]
The President cannot be compelled to submit a treaty to the Senate for
concurrence; she has the sole power to submit it to the Senate and/or to ratify it.
[Bayan Muna v. Romulo (2011)]
Prepared by: Antonio T. Delgado (AUSL, 2019)
Page 21 of 26
62. What are the limitations on the appointive power of the President?
Limitations on appointing power of the President:
(1) Art. VII, Sec. 13, par. 2 - The spouse and relatives by consanguinity or
affinity within the 4th civil degree of the President shall not, during his
"tenure", be appointed as:
(a) Members of the Constitutional Commissions;
(b) Member of the Office of Ombudsman;
(c) Secretaries;
(d) Undersecretaries;
(e) Chairmen or heads of bureaus or offices, including governmentowned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries.
(2) Recess (Ad Interim) appointments: The President shall have the power
to make appointments during the recess of the Congress, whether
voluntary or compulsory, but such appointments shall be effective only
until disapproval by the Commission on Appointments or until the next
adjournment of the Congress. (art. VII, sec. 16[2])
63.
Compare In Re Valenzuela and De Castro v JBC.
In In Re Valenzuela, the Court ruled that during this period, the President is
neither required to make appointments to the courts nor allowed to do so.
Sections 4 (1) and 9 of Article VIII simply mean that the President is required by
law to fill up vacancies in the courts within the time frames provided therein,
unless otherwise prohibited by Sec. 15, Art. VII. While filling up of vacancies in
the judiciary is undoubtedly in the public interest, there is no showing in this case
of any compelling reason to justify the making of the appointments during the
period of the ban.
De Castro v JBC has superseded In Re Valenzuela. In De Castro, the Court
ruled that the Constitutional Commission did not extend to the Judiciary the ban
on presidential appointments during the period stated in Sec. 15, Art. VII. The
deliberations that the dissent of Justice Carpio Morales quoted from the records
of the Constitutional Commission did not concern either Sec. 15, Art. VII or Sec.
4(1), Art. VIII, but only Sec. 13, Art. VII, a provision on nepotism. Election ban on
appointments does not extend to the Supreme Court. Section 9, Article VIII,
exempts judicial appointments from the prohibition of Section 15, Article VII.
64.
65.
What is the Doctrine of Inappropriate Provisions?
A provision that is constitutionally inappropriate for an appropriation bill may be
singled out for veto (i.e. treated as an item) even if it is not an appropriation or
revenue item. [Gonzales v. Macaraig (1990)]
What is the power of augmentation and who has the authority to wield it?
Augmentation Power refers to the power of the heads of the department to
reallocate funds taken from their savings and which must be provided by law.
Prepared by: Antonio T. Delgado (AUSL, 2019)
Page 22 of 26
Art. VI, Section 25 (5): No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of
appropriations; however, the President, the President of the Senate, the Speaker
of the House of Representatives, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the
heads of Constitutional Commissions may, by law, be authorized to augment any
item in the general appropriations law for their respective offices from savings in
other items of their respective appropriations.
PART IV: THREE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT
C. JUDICIAL DEPARMENT
66.
What is judicial power?
Art. VIII, Section 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and
in such lower courts as may be established by law.
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.
67.
What are the qualifications of the members of the Supreme Court?
Art. VIII, Section 7. (1) No person shall be appointed Member of the Supreme
Court or any lower collegiate court unless he is a natural-born citizen of the
Philippines. A Member of the Supreme Court must be at least forty years of age,
and must have been for fifteen years or more, a judge of a lower court or engaged
in the practice of law in the Philippines.
Art. VIII, Section 7. (3) A Member of the Judiciary must be a person of proven
competence, integrity, probity, and independence.
68.
Distinguish between integrity and probity.
Integrity – concern adherence to moral and ethical principles
Probity – uprightness, honesty
69.
Can the Congress enact laws prescribing qualifications for judges of all
court levels of the Judiciary Branch? Explain.
Art. VIII, Section 7 (2): The Congress shall prescribe the qualifications of judges of
lower courts.
70.
What are the rules in case of vacancy in the seats of justices of the Supreme
Court?
Art. VIII, Section 4 provides that any vacancy shall be filled within ninety days
from the occurrence thereof.
Art. VIII, Section 9 provides that the Members of the Supreme Court and judges of
the lower courts shall be appointed by the President from a list of at least three
Prepared by: Antonio T. Delgado (AUSL, 2019)
Page 23 of 26
nominees prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council for every vacancy. Such
appointments need no confirmation.
71.
What are the reglementary periods of the cases filed before the Courts of
the Judicial Branch?
Section 15, Art. VII provides the period for deciding cases: all cases or matters filed
after the effectivity of this Constitution must be decided or resolved within twentyfour months from date of submission for the Supreme Court, and, unless reduced
by the Supreme Court, twelve months for all lower collegiate courts, and three
months for all other lower courts.
72.
What are the requirements provided by Article VIII, Section 14 of the
Constitution regarding decisions rendered by the Court? If these
requirements are not followed, what is the effect to the decision?
Art. VIII, Section 14:
(1) No decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly
and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based.
(2) No petition for review or motion for reconsideration of a decision of the court
shall be refused due course or denied without stating the legal basis therefor.
In Yao vs CA, Yao was convicted of unfair competition in MeTC for issuing locally
General electric lamp starters which was affirmed by RTC without saying more.
The Court ruled that a decision or resolution, especially one resolving an appeal,
should directly meet the issue for resolution; otherwise, the appeal would be
pointless – while brevity in the writing of decision is an admirable trait, it should
not and cannot be substituted for substance.
73.
Explain what a “sin perjucio” judgment is.
In Dizon v Judge Lopez, the Court referred to a “sin perjuicio” judgment, which is
a judgment without a statement of the facts in support of its conclusions, to be
later supplemented by the final judgment. As early as 1923, the Supreme Court
already expressed its disapproval of the practice of rendering “sin perjuicio”
judgments. What should be promulgated must be the complete decision.
74.
In case of tie in the voting of constitutionality of a law in the Supreme Court,
what is the status to be decreed on the law that has been voted upon?
In Cruz v DENR, when the votes are equally divided and the majority vote is not
obtained, then pursuant to Sec. 7, Rule 56 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the
petition shall be dismissed.
75. What extraordinary remedies were innovated under Reynato Puno’s Court
in connection to the extensive Philippine extrajudicial killings and forced
disappearances since 1999.
a. Writ of Amparo
Prepared by: Antonio T. Delgado (AUSL, 2019)
Page 24 of 26
The petition for a writ of amparo is a remedy available to any person
whose right to life, liberty and security is violated or threatened with
violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or
of a private individual or entity
b. Writ of Habeas Data
The writ of habeas data is an independent remedy to protect the right to
privacy, especially the right to informational privacy. The essence of the
constitutional right to informational privacy goes to the very heart of a
person’s individuality, an exclusive and personal sphere upon which the
State has no right to intrude without any legitimate public concern. The
basic attribute of an effective right to informational privacy is the right of an
individual to control the flow of information concerning or describing them.
It is a remedy available to any person whose right to privacy in life, liberty
or security is violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or
omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity
engaged in gathering, collecting or storing of data or information regarding
the person, family, honor and correspondence of the aggrieved party.
76.
Differentiate writ of habeas corpus from writ of amparo.
Writ of Habeas corpus- is a summons with the force of a court order, addressed to
the custodian (a prison official for example) demanding that a prisoner be taken
before the court, and that the custodian present proof of authority, allowing the
court to determine if the custodian has lawful authority to detain the person.
Writ of Amparo- is a remedy available to any person whose right to life, liberty,
and security has been violated or is threatened with violation by an unlawful act or
omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity. The
writ covers existing extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or threats
thereof.
4 reliefs given by Amparo:
1. inspection order
2. Temporary protection order
3. Witness protection order
4. Production order-xerox all necessary materials
77.
Define the following:
a. Writ of Amparo
The petition for a writ of amparo is a remedy available to any person
whose right to life, liberty and security is violated or threatened with
violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or
of a private individual or entity
b. Writ of Habeas Data
The writ of habeas data is an independent remedy to protect the right to
privacy, especially the right to informational privacy. The essence of the
constitutional right to informational privacy goes to the very heart of a
Prepared by: Antonio T. Delgado (AUSL, 2019)
Page 25 of 26
person’s individuality, an exclusive and personal sphere upon which the
State has no right to intrude without any legitimate public concern. The
basic attribute of an effective right to informational privacy is the right of an
individual to control the flow of information concerning or describing them.
It is a remedy available to any person whose right to privacy in life, liberty
or security is violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or
omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity
engaged in gathering, collecting or storing of data or information regarding
the person, family, honor and correspondence of the aggrieved party.
c. Writ of Kalikasan
A special civil action akin to writ of amparo but protects one’s right for a
healthy environment rather than constitutional rights
78.
Compare the salaries of the three branches.
Legislative:
Article VI, Section 10. The salaries of Senators and Members of the House of
Representatives shall be determined by law. No increase in said compensation
shall take effect until after the expiration of the full term of all the Members of the
Senate and the House of Representatives approving such increase.
Executive:
Article VII, Section 6. The President shall have an official residence. The salaries
of the President and Vice-President shall be determined by law and shall not be
decreased during their tenure. No increase in said compensation shall take effect
until after the expiration of the term of the incumbent during which such increase
was approved. They shall not receive during their tenure any other emolument
from the Government or any other source.
Judiciary:
Art. VIII, Section 10. The salary of the Chief Justice and of the Associate Justices
of the Supreme Court, and of judges of lower courts, shall be fixed by law. During
their continuance in office, their salary shall not be decreased.
Prepared by: Antonio T. Delgado (AUSL, 2019)
Page 26 of 26