PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION the term of a public office created by Congress is fixed by the

Constitution, Congress is devoid of any power to change the term

Q: Can the plebiscite for the proposed amendments to the of that office. Thus, statutes which extend the term of an elective
1987 Constitution be held simultaneous with the 2019 office as fixed in the Constitution — either by postponing elections,
elections? changing the date of commencement of term of the successor, or
authorizing the incumbent to remain in office until his successor is
ANSWER: NO. elected and qualified — are unconstitutional. [Kida v. Senate,
There is not enough time to sufficiently inform the general public October 18, 2011]
of the proposed amendments. This will violate the doctrine of fair
and proper submission to the people of proposed constitutional Q. With the popularity of President Duterte, the members
amendments. of the PDP-Laban super majority in the House of
In the case of Tolentino vs. Comelec (41 SCRA 702, 729) the Representatives increased to almost 270, out of the 300 total
Supreme Court held that "in order that a plebiscite for the membership in the House. The Super majority in the House
ratification of an amendment to the Constitution may be validly decided that it was time to propose amendments to the
held, it must provide the voter not only sufficient time, but ample Constitution. The Senators, however, were cool to the idea.
basis for an intelligent appraisal of the nature of the amendment But the members of the House insisted.
per se as well as its relation to the other parts of the Constitution They accordingly convened Congress into a constituent
with which it has to form a harmonious whole." assembly in spite of the opposition of the majority of the
There must be fair submission and intelligent consent or rejection. members of the Senate. When the votes were counted, 275
The people must be "sufficiently informed of the amendments to be members of the House of Representatives approved the
voted upon, to conscientiously deliberate thereon, to express their proposed amendments. Only 10 Senators supported such
will in a genuine manner." proposals.
The proponents now claim that the proposals were validly
Q. Congress passed a law changing the design of the made, since more than the required three-fourths vote of
Philippine flag and the lyrics of the Philippine National Congress (combined) has been obtained. The 14 Senators
Anthem. Is the law constitutional. who voted against the proposals claim that the proposals
ANSWER: NO. The law is unconstitutional. Since the design of needed not threefourths vote of the entire Congress but
the flag is provided for in Section 1, Article XVI of the Constitution, each house voting separately. Since the required number
it cannot be changed by law and may be changed only by of votes in the Senate was not obtained, then there could be
constitutional amendment. no valid proposals, so argued the Senators. Were the
Congress may by law adopt a new national anthem, but it shall proposals validly adopted by Congress? Explain.
take effect only upon ratification by the people in a national ANSWER:
referendum (Section 2, Article XVI of the Constitution). NO. The proposals were not validly adopted, because the ten (10)
Senators who voted in favor of the proposed amendments
Q. Congress enacted a law postponing the local and constituted less than three-fourths of all the Members of the
national elections from May 14, 2019 to May 2020. Is this Senate.
law constitutional? Explain. Although Section 1, Article XVII of the Constitution did not
ANSWER: NO. The term of office of local and national officials expressly provide that the Senate and the House of
like Senators and members of congress is fixed by the 1987 Representatives must vote separately, but since the nature of our
Constitution, as follows: Congress is a BICAMERAL BODY, then the Legislature consist of
(i) Senators, with a term of six years beginning at noon on the two (2) houses, both the house and the senate must each vote
thirtieth day of June next following the day of the election, unless separately and the 3/4th vote required by the Constitution must be
otherwise provided by law, eligible for two consecutive reelections obtained from each the House and the Senate separately. The
(Art. VI, Section 4); determination of one house must be submitted to the separate
(ii) Members of the House of Representatives, with a term of three determination of the other house [Miller v. Mardo, 2 SCRA 898
years beginning at noon on the thirtieth day of June next following [1961].
the day of the election, unless otherwise provided by law, eligible
for two consecutive reelections (Art. VI, Section 7); and Q. President Duterte recently announced that he will form
(iii) Local officials, except barangay officials, with a term of three a Constitutional Convention to formulate proposed
years, for a maximum of three consecutive terms (Art. X, Section revisions to the Philippine Constitution and he will appoint
8). the members thereof. Is this constitutional? How will the
Congress cannot pass a law that will amend the Constitution. If a amendments proposed by a constitutional convention take
public office is created by the Constitution with a fixed term, or if effect or become valid?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
NO. The President cannot unilaterally form a constitutional
convention and appoint its members.
Under Section 1, Article XVII of the Constitution, a constitutional
convention may propose any amendment to or revision of the
Constitution. According to Section 3, Article XVII of the
Constitution --- it is Congress (not the President) who may by a
two-thirds vote of all its Members call a constitutional convention
or by a majority vote of all its Members submit the question of
calling such a convention to the electorate.
According to Section 4, Article XVII of the Constitution, to be valid
any amendment to or revision of the Constitution must be ratified
by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite.

Q: Can the plebiscite for the new constitution be held

together with the barangay elections?
ANSWER: YES. Provided that the doctrine of fair and proper
submission to the people of proposed constitutional amendments
is followed.
In the case of Tolentino vs. Comelec (41 SCRA 702, 729) the
Supreme Court explained that "in order that a plebiscite for the
ratification of an amendment to the Constitution may be validly
held, it must provide the voter not only sufficient time, but ample
basis for an intelligent appraisal of the nature of the amendment
per se as well as its relation to the other parts of the Constitution
with which it has to form a harmonious whole."
There must be fair submission and intelligent consent or rejection.
The people must be "sufficiently informed of the amendments to be
voted upon, to conscientiously deliberate thereon, to express their
will in a genuine manner."
 NATIONAL TERRITORY
(c) other rights and duties provided for in this
Q: Recent land reclamation by China has dramatically Convention.
transformed seven disputed maritime features in the
Spratly Islands at the West Philippine Sea. These include 2. In exercising its rights and performing its duties under this
Mischief, Gaven, Subi, Johnson, Cuarteron, Fiery Cross, Convention in the exclusive economic zone, the coastal State shall
and Hughes (McKennan) Reefs. For example, in 1995, Subi have due regard to the rights and duties of other States and shall
Reef was completely submerged at high tide. Today, there act in a manner compatible with the provisions of this Convention.
are 3.9 million square meters of reclaimed land above water
at high tide on Subi Reef, and it is home to a pair of wooden Article 77 of the UNCLOS provides: Rights of the coastal State
barracks, communications array, and helipad. There are over the continental shelf
similarly stark changes at each of the other reefs. Will 1. The coastal State exercises over the continental shelf
China’s reclamation activities entitle it to claim maritime sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring it and
rights over its newly created territories? Is reclamation a exploiting its natural resources.
valid mode of acquiring territory? Explain. 2. The rights referred to in paragraph 1 are exclusive in
A: NO. Artificial Islands Do Not Generate Maritime Entitlements the sense that if the coastal State does not explore the
According to UNCLOS, an island is: “a naturally formed area of continental shelf or exploit its natural resources, no one
land, surrounded by water, which is above water at high tide.” may undertake these activities without the express
Reclamation is obviously not a mode of acquiring territory under consent of the coastal State.
land cannot be considered “a naturally 3. The rights of the coastal State over the continental shelf
international law because reclaimed formed area of land.” do not depend on occupation, effective or notional, or on
The reefs reclaimed by China are considered as Low-tide any express proclamation.
elevations. The UNCLOS defines these maritime features as 4. The natural resources referred to in this Part consist of
landmass above water only at low tide. Outside an existing the mineral and other non-living resources of the seabed
territorial sea it is not entitled to a separate maritime zone. It is and subsoil together with living organisms belonging to
unable to sustain human habitation or economic life on its own. It sedentary species, that is to say, organisms which, at the
is therefore NOT entitled to a territorial sea and contiguous zone harvestable stage, either are immobile on or under the
or other maritime rights. It is therefore NOT entitled to a seabed or are unable to move except in constant physical
territorial sea and contiguous zone or other maritime rights. contact with the seabed or the subsoil. (Emphasis
[Philippines vs. China, ITLOS, 12 July 2016] supplied)

Article 60 of the UNCLOS provides:

Q: What are the rights of a coastal state over its exclusive Artificial islands, installations and structures in the
economic zone (EEZ), and continental shelf? How about exclusive economic zone
artificial islands found within its EEZ? 1. In the exclusive economic zone, the coastal State shall
A: Article 56 of UNCLOS provides: have the exclusive right to construct and to authorize and
1. In the exclusive economic zone, the coastal State has: regulate the construction, operation and use of:
(a) sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and
exploiting, conserving and managing the natural (a) artificial islands;
resources, whether living or non-living, of the waters (b) installations and structures for the purposes provided
superjacent to the seabed and of the seabed and its for in article 56 and other economic purposes;
subsoil, and with regard to other activities for the (c) installations and structures which may interfere with
economic exploitation and exploration of the zone, such the exercise of the rights of the coastal State in the zone.
as the production of energy from the water, currents and 2. The coastal State shall have exclusive jurisdiction over
winds; such artificial islands, installations and structures,
including jurisdiction with regard to customs, fiscal,
(b) jurisdiction as provided for in the relevant provisions health, safety and immigration laws and regulations.
of this Convention with regard to:

(i) the establishment and use of artificial islands,

installations and structures; (ii) marine scientific Q: What is meant by “freedom of navigation”? Explain.
research; (iii) the protection and preservation of the
marine environment;
A: Freedom of navigation (FON) is a principle of customary
international law which states that ships flying the flag of any
sovereign state shall not suffer interference from other states
while in international waters. This right is now also codified as
article 87(1)a of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law
of the Sea.

The UNCLOS makes ample reference to the freedom of navigation,

for example in Article 36 (freedom of navigation in straits used for
international navigation), Article 58 (freedom of navigation in the
exclusive economic zone), Article 78 and Article 87 (high seas).

Q: Distinguish the right of innocent passage with the

freedom of transit passage.

A: The UNCLOS established a legal order for peaceful uses of the

seas and oceans. Included in the UNCLOS (Part II, Sections 2 and
3) is a legal framework establishing the limits of the territorial
seas of coastal nations, as well as the right of innocent passage
through these waters. The territorial seas, water over which the
coastal nation enjoys sovereignty, extend 12 nautical miles from
the coastline. However, vessels enjoy the right of innocent passage,
continuous and expeditious passage that is not prejudicial to the
peace, good order, or security of the coastal nation, through these
waters.

The UNCLOS (Part III) established the right of transit passage

through straits used for international navigation. Therefore, under
the UNCLOS right of transit passage, vessels enjoy the right of
unimpeded, continuous and expeditious transit through the Strait
without delay and while refraining from threats or use of force
against the sovereignty of the coastal nation. Thus, innocent
passage is for travel within territorial waters while transit passage
is for any zone. Innocent passage applies only to ships while transit
passage applies to aircrafts as well. In transit passage, military
vessels are also allowed which are not allowed in innocent passage.

Q: Distinguish Maritime Dispute with Territorial Dispute

A: Maritime disputes are subject to compulsory arbitration

because under UNCLOS a party state has given its advance
consent to compulsory arbitration, unless a state has opted out of
compulsory arbitration involving certain specified disputes. In
contrast, territorial disputes can be subject to arbitration only with
the consent of each disputant state to every arbitration, unless
such consent has been given in advance in a treaty.

There is no such treaty between the Philippines and China

involving compulsory arbitration of territorial disputes. The
Philippines’ arbitration case against China is solely a maritime
dispute and does not involve any territorial dispute.
 STATE PRINCIPLES & POLICIES / STATE IMMUNITY encroachment over the respondents' property, there is no evidence
that it acted maliciously or in bad faith when the construction was
done. Article 527 of the Civil Code presumes good faith. Therefore,
Q: UP Los Banos was sued because it failed to pay the the forfeiture of the improvements in favor of the respondent
balance of the construction cost for its CAS Bldg. It lost the spouses is unwarranted. [DOTC v. Spouses Abecina, G.R. No.
case. The RTC issued a writ of execution and ordered that 2106484 | June 29, 2016 ]
funds of UP be garnished. Can UP invoke the doctrine of
State immunity after it already lost in the case?
A: YES. UP is a government instrumentality, performing the Q. A leading food manufacturer and the DOST embarked on
State’s constitutional mandate of promoting quality and accessible field testing for a genetically modified species of eggplant
education. The funds of the UP are government funds that are (BT Talong). Several farmer groups filed suit (writ of
public in character. They include the income accruing from the use kalikasan) assailing the possible dangers to health and the
of real property ceded to the UP that may be spent only for the environment. The CA noted that there is yet no evidence of
attainment of its institutional objectives. Hence, UP funds could possible health hazards or any danger to the environment.
not be subject to execution or garnishment. Suability of the It also noted that petitioners failed to present evidence to
State does not necessarily mean its liability. The execution of the prove their claim that Bt talong field trials violated
monetary judgment against the UP was within the primary environmental laws and rules. Nonetheless, the CA issued
jurisdiction of the COA. [UP v. Judge Dizon, G.R. No. 171182, an injunction to restrain the respondents from pursuing
August 23, 2012; J. Bersamin]. field trials on Bt Talong under the precautionary principle
Trial judges should not immediately issue writs of execution or of protecting the constitutional right to a balanced and
garnishment against the Government or any of its subdivisions, healthful ecology. Is the CA correct?
agencies and instrumentalities to enforce money judgments. They
should bear in mind that the primary jurisdiction to examine, A: YES. The precautionary principle bridges the gap in cases
audit and settle all claims of any sort due from the Government or where scientific certainty in factual findings cannot be achieved.
any of its subdivisions, agencies and instrumentalities pertains to By applying the precautionary principle, the court may construe a
the Commission on Audit (COA) pursuant to Presidential Decree set of facts as warranting either judicial action or inaction, with
No. 1445 (Government Auditing Code of the Philippines). [UP v. the goal of preserving and protecting the environment.
Judge Dizon, G.R. No. 171182, August 23, 2012; J. Bersamin].
This may be further evinced from the second paragraph where bias
is created in favor of the constitutional right of the people to a
Q: Municipality of Jose Panganiban, Camarines Norte balanced and healthful ecology. In effect, the precautionary
donated 1, 200 square meters to DOTC to implement the principle shifts the burden of evidence of harm away from those
Regional Telecommunications Development Project. The likely to suffer harm and onto those desiring to change the status
Municipality erroneously included portion of the property quo.
owned by Spouses Abecina in the donation. Pursuant to the
Financial Lease Agreement with DOTC, DIGITEL For purposes of evidence, the precautionary principle should be
constructed telephone exchange on the property. Spouses treated as a principle of last resort. When these features —
Abecina discovered it and required Digitel to vacate and uncertainty, the possibility of irreversible harm, and the
pay damages. Due to non-compliance with the demands, possibility of serious harm — coincide, the case for the
the Spouses Abecina sued DOTC and Digitel. DOTC claimed precautionary principle is strongest. When in doubt, cases
immunity from suit. Spouses Abecina argued that state must be resolved in favor of the constitutional right to a
immunity cannot be invoked to perpetrate an injustice balanced and healthful ecology. Parenthetically, judicial
against its citizens. Is the DOTC correct? adjudication is one of the strongest fora in which the precautionary
A: NO. The doctrine of state immunity cannot serve as an principle may find applicability. [International Service for the
instrument for perpetrating an injustice to a citizen. Under the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications, Inc.v. Greenpeace
Law, eminent domain should be exercised through expropriation Southeast Asia (Philippines), G.R. No. 209271, 8 December 2015]
proceedings in court. Whenever private property is taken for public
use, it becomes the ministerial duty of the concerned office or
agency to initiate expropriation proceedings.
By necessary implication, the filing of a complaint for
expropriation is a waiver of State immunity. Thus, entry and
taking of property is an implied waiver. DOTC is not a builder in
bad faith. While the DOTC later realized its error and admitted its
 BILL OF RIGHTS and they are invited to voluntarily go with them to the
nearest police station for an interrogation and registration
procedure. They were made to sign an affidavit stating
Q. The PNP launched a campaign against loitering in they are voluntarily admitting themselves into a
public streets. They arrested individuals who are found government rehabilitation program and that they promise
loitering or are outside their houses in certain hours of the not to engage in drug dealing again. If they sign it, they are
day. Included were those who are drinking liquor, not detained in a rehab center for three (3) months. If they
wearing shorts, or are the usual suspects in petty crimes. refuse, they are detained without bail and charged in Court
This was challenged on the ground that vagrancy has for drug dealing. Is this legal?
already been decriminalized. The PNP justified the A: NO. The warrantless arrests are unconstitutional. At the time
warrantless arrests on the ground that they are simply the suspected drug dealers were apprehended, they were not doing
enforcing local ordinances. Is the PNP correct? nor had just done any criminal act. Neither were they caught in
Answer: NO. Under the Rules of Court, a warrant of arrest need flagrante delicto or had escaped from confinement.
not be issued if the information or charge was filed for a violation The fact that the suspected drug dealers were merely invited to the
of an ordinance or an offense penalized by a fine only. It may be police precinct is of no moment. Such invitation is actually in the
stated as a corollary that neither can a warrantless arrest be made nature of an arrest under RA 7438 as it is designed for the purpose
for such an offense because no warrant of arrest can even be issued. of conducting an interrogation. The so-called police “invitation” is
[Luz v. People, February 29, 2012] covered by the proscription on warrantless arrest because it is
intended for no other reason than to conduct an investigation.
Q. The PNP suspected that Villamor and Bonaobra are Thus, pursuant to Section 3, Article III of the 1987 Constitution,
engaged in Lotteng (Jueteng with STL as a front). They "any evidence" obtained in violation of their right under Section 2,
decided to conduct a surveillance operation at the house of Article III (pertaining to invalid warrantless arrests) "shall be
Villamor. The house was surrounded with a bamboo fence inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding." [People v.
5’9 feet high with two inches in between. From these spaces, Olivarez, December 4, 1998]
at a distance of 15 to 20 meters, they were able to see
Villamor and Bonaobra holding papelitos and calculators
with monies scattered on the table. So they decided to raid Q. What is meant by the terms “extra-legal killings” and
the operations without a warrant and they arrested the two “enforced disappearances”?
individuals. They were also able to confiscate monies and A: Extralegal killings are killings committed without due
gambling paraphernalias. process of law, i.e., without legal safeguards or judicial
1. Was the warrantless search and arrest valid? proceedings. On the other hand, enforced disappearance has
2. Are the gambling paraphernalias admissible as been defined by the Court as the arrest, detention, abduction or
evidence? any other form of deprivation of liberty by agents of the State or by
Answer: NO. From the circumstances above, it is highly suspect persons or groups of persons acting with the authorization, support
that the police witnessed any overt act indicating that the or acquiescence of the State, followed by a refusal to acknowledge
petitioners were actually committing a crime. It appears that the the deprivation of liberty or by concealment of the fate or
police officers acted based solely on the information received from whereabouts of the disappeared person, which place such a person
an informant and not on personal knowledge that a crime had just outside the protection of the law. [Mamba v. Bueno, G.R. No.
been committed, was actually being committed, or was about to be 191416, 7 February 2017].
committed in their presence. It is doubtful that the police officers
witnessed any overt act before entering the private home of
Bonaobra immediately preceding the arrest. From their position Q: What are the elements constituting “enforced
outside the compound, the police could not read the contents of the disappearances”?
socalled "papelitos;" yet, upon seeing the calculator, phone, papers A: The elements constituting "enforced disappearances" as defined
and money on the table, they readily concluded the same to be in Section 3(g) of R.A. No. 9851, are to wit:
gambling paraphernalias. This is an unreasonable search and (a) that there be an arrest, detention, abduction or any
arrest. The evidence obtained is inadmissible. [MARTIN form of deprivation of liberty;
VILLAMOR v. PEOPLE, G.R. No. 200396, March 22, 2017] (b) that it be carried out by, or with the authorization,
support or acquiescence of, the State or a political
organization;
Q. The PNP launched an operation against drug peddling (c) that it be followed by the State or political
where suspected drug dealers are visited by police organization's refusal to acknowledge or give
operatives in their places of residence without a warrant
 information on the fate or whereabouts of the person the utilization of the OSN's privacy tools. In other words,
subject of the amparo petition; and utilization of these privacy tools is the manifestation, in cyber
(d) that the intention for such refusal is to remove the world, of the user's invocation of his or her right to informational
subject person from the protection of the law for a privacy.
prolonged period of time. [Navia v. Pardico, 688 Phil. Considering that the default setting for Facebook posts is "Public,"
266, 279 (2012)] it can be surmised that the photographs in question were viewable
to everyone on Facebook, absent any proof that petitioners'
children positively limited the disclosure of the photograph.
Q: Can a detained person apply for bail even before charges A person who places a photograph on the Internet precisely
against him are filed in court? intends to forsake and renounce all privacy rights to such imagery,
Answer: Yes. The rule is that a person deprived of his liberty by particularly under circumstances such as here, where the
virtue of his arrest or voluntary surrender may apply for bail as Defendant did not employ protective measures or devices that
soon as he is deprived of his liberty, even before a complaint or would have controlled access to the Web page or the photograph
information is filed against him. (Serapio v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. itself. That the photos are viewable by "friends only" does not
No. 148468, January 28, 2003) necessarily bolster the petitioners' contention. In this regard, the
The right to bail is available from the very moment of arrest (which cyber community is agreed that the digital images under this
may be before or after the filing of formal charges in court) up to setting still remain to be outside the confines of the zones of
the time of conviction by final judgment (which means after privacy because facebook is a public site. (Read: Vivares v. St.
appeal). No charge need be filed formally before one can file for Theresa’s College, G.R. No. 202666, September 29, 2014)
bail, so long as one is under arrest or detention. (Heras Teehankee
v. Rovira, G.R. No. L-101, Dec. 20, 1945)
Q. Lee and Ilagan were common law partners. They had
bitter arguments that later turned into ugly scenes and
Q. The DOJ issued Department Circular No. 41 which violent quarrels. Ilagan, who was a big man but very
empowers the DOJ Secretary to issue Hold Departure emotional and physically aggressive, would often hit and
Orders (HDO), Watch List Orders, Allow Departure Order slap the hapless female Lee. Thus, Lee filed a criminal case
and Look Out Bulletins, even without court orders. This against Ilagan for violation of RA 9262. Lee used as part of
was used by then DOJ Secretary De Lima to prevent former her evidence a sex video of Ilagan with another woman,
President GMA from leaving the country. Is this which she found in the memory card of their digital
Department Circular constitutional? camera. Lee reproduced the video for the purpose of using
A: NO. There was no legal basis for the DOJ to issue Department it as evidence in other cases she intends to file against
Circular No. 41 because there was no law authorizing the DOJ Ilagan. In turn, Ilagan applied for a Writ of Habeas Data in
Secretary to issue such HDO’s or watch list orders or look out the RTC to compel Lee to return the memory card and
bulletins. The right to travel cannot be impaired except in the enjoin her from reproducing and distributing the sex video.
interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may Should the writ be issued?
be provided by law. (Arroyo v. De Lima, 18 April 2018). ANSWER: No. Ilagan was not able to sufficiently allege that his
right to privacy in life, liberty or security was or would be violated
through the supposed reproduction and threatened dissemination
Q. Two (2) students of STC in Cebu City posted pictures of of the subject sex video. While Ilagan purports a privacy interest
themselves on their Facebook page wearing only their in the suppression of this video — which he fears would somehow
inner garments. Their classmates showed the Facebook find its way to Quiapo or be uploaded in the internet for public
page to their teacher and the two (2) erring students were consumption — he failed to explain the connection between such
administratively sanctioned. The subject students interest and any violation of his right to life, liberty or security.
questioned the penalty imposed upon them on the ground Indeed, courts cannot speculate or contrive versions of possible
that the retrieval of the photos from their Facebook page transgressions. As the rules and existing jurisprudence on the
was a violation of their right to privacy. Are the students matter evoke, alleging and eventually proving the nexus between
correct? Is there a right to privacy on Facebook and other one's privacy right to the cogent rights to life, liberty or security
online social network (OSN)? Explain. are crucial in habeas data cases, so much so that a failure on either
ANSWER: NO. Before one can have an expectation of privacy in account certainly renders a habeas data petition dismissible, as in
his or her OSN activity, it is first necessary that said user manifest this case. [Lee v. Ilagan, 738 SCRA 59 (2014)]
the intention to keep certain posts private, through the
employment of measures to prevent access thereto or to limit its
visibility. And this intention can materialize in cyberspace through
Q. Six (6) department heads of the provincial government post or in the pillory, to burning at the stake, breaking on the
of Ilocos Norte appeared before the House Blue Ribbon wheel, disemboweling and the like. The fact that the penalty is
Committee as resource persons in the investigation being severe provides insufficient basis to declare a law unconstitutional
conducted by the said committee with regard to the alleged and does not, by that circumstance alone, make it cruel and
mis-use of the excise taxes collected from Tobacco inhuman. (Maturan v. COMELEC, March 28, 2017]
companies in the province.
These resource persons (Ilocos 6) were cited in contempt
and ordered detained because they refused to provide 2017
answers to the questions of the lawmakers (since most of Q. If the Information for Rape does not specify the date
them said they could no longer remember the facts). These when the alleged rape occurred, will this be a violation of
resource persons (Ilocos 6) then applied for a Writ of the right of an accused to be informed of the nature and
Amparo to protect them from alleged actual and threatened cause of the accusation against him? Explain.
violations of their rights to liberty and security of person.
Should the Writ of Amparo be issued? A: No. Failure to specify the exact dates or time when the rapes
occurred does not ipso facto make the information defective on its
A: NO. The privilege of the writ of Amparo is a remedy available face. The reason is obvious. The precise date or time when the
ONLY to victims of extra-judicial killings and enforced victim was raped is not an element of the offense. The
disappearances or threats of a similar nature, regardless of gravamen of the crime is the fact of carnal knowledge under any of
whether the perpetrator of the unlawful act or omission is a public the circumstances enumerated under Article 335 of the Revised
official or employee or a private individual. Penal Code. As long as it is alleged that the offense was committed
at any time as near to the actual date when the offense was
The writ of Amparo is designed to protect and guarantee the (1) committeed an information is sufficient. [People v. Buca, G.R. No.
right to life; (2) right to liberty; and (3) right to security of persons, 209587, September 23, 2015]
free from fears and threats that vitiate the quality of life.
Petitioners thus failed to establish that their attendance at and
participation in the legislative inquiry as resource persons have Q. Nestor posted on Facebook that Juan Dela Cruz, a
seriously violated their right to liberty and security, for which no married person, has an illicit affair with Maria. Dexter
other legal recourse or remedy is available. Perforce, the petition liked this post and commented: “Yes! This is true! What an
for the issuance of a writ of Amparo must be dismissed. [Agcaoli v. immoral thing to do?!”
Hon. Rodolfo Farinas, GR No. 232395, July 3, 2017] This post was likewise liked by 23 people. Juan Dela Cruz
filed a case for online libel against Nestor, Dexter and 23
other people who liked the post using as his basis Sec. 5 of
Q: When is a punishment considered cruel, unusual, and the Cybercrime law which penalizes any person who
inhumane? willfully abets or aids in the commission of any of the
A: Settled is the rule that a punishment authorized by statute is offenses enumerated in the said law. Is this provision of the
not cruel, degrading or disproportionate to the nature of the offense law constitutional? Explain.
unless it is flagrantly and plainly oppressive and wholly
disproportionate to the nature of the offense as to shock the moral ANSWER: No. The terms “aiding or abetting” constitute broad
sense of the community. It takes more than merely being harsh, sweep that generates chilling effect on those who express
excessive, out of proportion or severe for a penalty to be obnoxious themselves through cyberspace posts, comments, and other
to the Constitution. Based on this principle, the Court has messages. Its vagueness raises apprehension on the part of
consistently overruled contentions of the defense that the penalty internet users because of its obvious chilling effect on the freedom
of fine or imprisonment authorized by the statute involved is cruel of expression, especially since the crime of aiding or abetting
and degrading. [Lim v. People, September 27, 2002] ensnares all the actors in the cyberspace front in a fuzzy way. The
terms “aiding or abetting” constitute broad sweep that generates
chilling effect on those who express themselves through cyberspace
Q: Is perpetual disqualification to hold any public office a posts, comments, and other messages. Hence, Sec. 5 of the
cruel, unusual and inhumane punishment? cybercrime law that punishes “aiding or abetting” libel on the
A: NO. The prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment is cyberspace is a nullity. But Nestor, the author, is still liable for the
generally aimed at the form or character of the punishment rather defamatory words he posted. (Disini v. Secretary of Justice G.R.
than its severity in respect of its duration or amount, and applies No. 203335 February 11, 2014)
to punishments which public sentiment regards as cruel or
obsolete. This refers, for instance, to those inflicted at the whipping
Q: Cadet First Class (1CL) Cudia and five other cadets counsel. Hence, the PMA as an administrative body is under no
arrived two minutes late in their class at the Philippine duty to provide the person with counsel because assistance of
Military Academy (PMA). They were given demerits and counsel is not an absolute requirement. [First Class Cadet Aldrin
tour of duties. Cudia protested on the ground that “their Jeff Cudia vs. The Superintendent of the PMA, G.R. No. 211362,
previous class was dismissed a bit late.” Because he 25 February 2015. ]
protested, a disciplinary case was filed against him for
lying. It was alleged that the previous class was dismissed
on time. Q: Can a corporation invoke the right to privacy?
Answer: No. The right to privacy belongs to the individual in his
The Honors Committee (HC) was constituted to investigate private capacity, and not to public and governmental agencies like
him. The HC initially voted 8-1. Under PMA Rules, the case the GSIS. Moreover, the right cannot be invoked by juridical
should be dismissed if voting was not unanimous. The HC entities like the GSIS. A corporation has no right of privacy in its
Chairman called for an executive session and a second name since the entire basis of the right to privacy is an injury to
voting was done. The result was now unanimous. Cudia was the feelings and sensibilities of the party and a corporation would
ordered dismissed from the PMA. Cudia claims that the have no such ground for relief. Neither can the GSIS invoke the
executive session, the act of “chambering” (accosting one of right to privacy of its borrowers.
the HC members who voted in his favor), and the second The right is purely personal in nature, and hence may be invoked
voting are all meant to indict him in violation of his right only by the person whose privacy is claimed to be violated.
to due process. (Valmonte vs. Belmonte, G.R. No. 74930. February 13, 1989)

Are PMA cadets entitled to procedural due process during

disciplinary hearings? Was there a violation of his rights to Q: Can the school expel / exclude a student on account of
due process? her pregnancy?
Answer: No. Private or Public schools cannot prescribe rules
A: A PMA cadet facing dismissal from the military academy for against student pregnancy pursuant to Section 13 of RA 9710.
misconduct has constitutionally protected private interests (life, (Magna Carta of Women Act)
liberty, or property); hence, disciplinary proceedings conducted Also, under the DepEd’s “Child Friendly School System” all
within the bounds of procedural due process is a must. For that secondary public schools and universities are prohibited from
reason, the PMA is not immune from the strictures of due process. expelling students who get pregnant or even stopping them from
Where a person's good name, reputation, honor, or integrity is at going to school.
stake because of what the government is doing to him, the minimal The determination of whether a conduct is disgraceful or immoral
requirements of the due process clause must be satisfied. involves a two-step process: first, a consideration of the totality of
However, in this case, the HC is given leeway on the voting the circumstances surrounding the conduct; and second, an
procedures in actual cases taking into account the exigency of the assessment of the said circumstances vis-à-vis the prevailing
times. What is important is that, in the end, there must be a norms of conduct, i.e., what the society generally considers moral
unanimous nine votes in order to hold a cadet guilty of violating t and respectable. [Leus v. St. Scholastica’s College Westgrove, G.R.
he Honor Code. Granting, for argument’s sake, that the HC No. 187226, January 28, 2015]
violated its written procedure, there is nothing inherently wrong Note: Republic Act No. 9710: AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE
with the practice of “chambering” considering that the presence of MAGNA CARTA OF WOMEN (August 14, 2009)
intimidation or force cannot automatically be inferred therefrom. Section 13. Equal Access and Elimination of
[First Class Cadet Aldrin Jeff Cudia vs. The Superintendent of the Discrimination in Education, Scholarships, and
PMA, G.R. No. 211362, 25 February 2015] Training.
(c.) Expulsion and non-readmission of women faculty due
to pregnancy outside of marriage shall be outlawed. No
Q. Can a PMA cadet under investigation for Honor Code school shall turn out or refuse admission to a female
Violation invoke the right to counsel? student solely on the account of her having contracted
A: NO. There is nothing in the 1987 Constitution stating that a pregnancy outside of marriage during her term in school.
party in a non-litigation proceeding is entitled to be represented by
counsel. The assistance of a lawyer, while desirable, is not
indispensable. A party in an administrative inquiry may or may Q. The Information charges an accused for attempted theft,
not be assisted by counsel, irrespective of the nature of the charges but during trial it was proven that the theft was
and of the respondent's capacity to represent himself, and no duty consummated. May the accused be convicted for
rests on such body to furnish the person being investigated with consummated theft?
A: No. The crime of theft in its consummated stage undoubtedly
includes the crime in its attempted stage. In this case, although
the evidence presented during the trial prove the crime of
consummated Theft, he could be convicted of Attempted
Theft only, regardless of the overwhelming evidence to convict
him for consummated Theft. Because the Information did not
charge him with consummated Theft, the Court cannot convict him
for consummated theft as the same would violate his right to be
informed of the nature and cause of the allegations against him.
[Canceran v. People, G.R. No. 206442, July 1, 2015]
 LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT A: Section 17, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution endows the
HRET with jurisdiction to resolve questions on the qualifications
Q. Controversial former assistant secretary Mocha Uson is of members of Congress. In the case of party-list representatives,
running for party-list representative under the AA-Kasosyo the HRET acquires jurisdiction over a disqualification case upon
party. This party is supposed to represent the plight of proclamation of the winning party-list group, oath of the nominee,
overseas Filipino workers (OFW’s). But this party, back in and assumption of office as member of the House of
2011, channelled its pork barrel funds to a bogus NGO of Representatives.
pork barrel queen Janet Lim Napoles. It was blacklisted by In this case, the COMELEC proclaimed Ating Koop as a winning
the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) in 2012 party-list group; petitioner Lico took his oath; and he assumed
from further receiving public funds from the government office in the House of Representatives. Thus, it is the HRET, and
due to its connection with Ms. Napoles. Ms. Uson just not the COMELEC, that has jurisdiction over the disqualification
recently joined this party a few days ago before she filed case. [Lico v. Commission on Elections, (G.R. No. 205505,
her Certificate of Candidacy. September 29, 2015)]
COMELEC was wrong in upholding the validity of the expulsion
i) Is Mocha Uson qualified to represent the OFW sector of petitioner Lico from Ating Koop, despite its own ruling that the
even if she does not belong to the said sector? HRET has jurisdiction over the disqualification issue. These
ANSWER: Yes. A nominee who does not actually possess the findings already touch upon the qualification requiring a party-list
marginalized and underrepresented status represented by the nominee to be a bona fide member of the party-list group sought to
party-list group but proves to be a genuine advocate of the interest be represented. The COMELEC justified its Resolution on the
and concern of the marginalized and underrepresented sector merits of the expulsion, by relying on the rule that it can decide
represented is still qualified to be a nominee. intra-party matters as an incident of its constitutionally granted
Since political parties are identified by their ideology or platform powers and functions (citing Lokin v. COMELEC).
of government, bona fide membership, in accordance with the The Lokin case, however, involved nominees and not incumbent
political party's constitution and bylaws, would suffice. The members of Congress. In the present case, the fact that petitioner
nominees of sectoral parties or organizations that represent the Lico was a member of Congress at the time of his expulsion from
"marginalized and underrepresented," or that represent those who Ating Koop removes the matter from the jurisdiction of the
lack "welldefined political constituencies," either must belong to COMELEC. [Lico v. Commission on Elections, (G.R. No. 205505,
their respective sectors, or must have a track record of advocacy September 29, 2015)]
for their respective sectors. (Atong Paglaum, Inc. v. COMELEC,
G.R. No. 203766. April 2, 2013.) Q. In the 2007 senatorial election, Koko placed 13th behind
Migz. Koko filed a protest before the Senate Electoral
ii) Is AA-Kasosyo Party qualified to run in the party-list Tribunal (SET) against Migz. Realizing that the SET is
election? likely to rule against him, Migz resigned his senate seat on
ANSWER: NO. AA-Kasosyo is not qualified to run in the party- August 3, 2011. On August 11, 2011, little more than a week
list elections because it received funding from the government. RA after Migz’ resignation, the SET proclaimed Koko as the
7941 or the party-list law states that the party or organization 12th winning senator in the 2007 elections. In the
intending to join in the party-list system must not be an adjunct succeeding 2013 senatorial elections, Koko won another
of, or a project organized or an entity funded or assisted by, the sixyear term. In the upcoming 2019 senatorial elections,
government. can Koco run again?
By the very nature of the party-list system, the party or ANSWER: Yes.
organization must be a group of citizens, organized by citizens and "Art. VI, Sec. 4 of the 1987 Constitution states that --- “No Senator
operated by citizens. It must be independent of the government. shall serve for more than two consecutive terms. Voluntary
The participation of the government or its officials in the affairs of renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be
a party-list candidate is not only illegal and unfair to other parties, considered as an interruption in the continuity of his service for
but also deleterious to the objective of the law: to enable citizens the full term for which he was elected.”
belonging to marginalized and underrepresented sectors and What is prohibited is the service of a third consecutive full term.
organizations to be elected to the House of Representatives. [Ang Koko was not able to serve in full his first “term” because he
Bagong-Bayani-OFW v. COMELEC, June 26, 2001] assumed the position only in 2011. He was only able to serve two
(2) years and four (4) months of his supposed first term of six (6)
Q: Which has jurisdiction over a petition to expel a member years from 2007-2013.
of the House (party-list) – the HRET or COMELEC? How The word "term" is a fixed and definite period of time prescribed
about expulsion from the partylist? by law or the Constitution during which the public officer may
claim to hold the office as a right. It is a fixed and definite period
of time to hold office, perform its functions, and enjoy its privileges A: YES. If the utterances were made outside of Congress then the
and emoluments until the expiration of the period. senator is not protected by his parliamentary privilege.
Although both Koko and Migz were able to have discharged the Parliamentary non-accountability cannot be invoked when the
duties of the office during this fixed six-year period, it does not lawmaker's speech or utterance is made outside sessions, hearings
mean that they have both served the term. Note that the term of or debates in Congress, extraneous to the '"due functioning of the
senator is for six years. It is not divided into smaller terms by the (legislative) process”.
number of incumbents who may fill the office. It is one and To deliver speeches in public and participate in or respond to
indivisible, and term follows term in successive cycles of six years media interviews is not an official function of any lawmaker; it is
each. If the incumbent or the one elected to the office fills a higher not demanded by his sworn duty nor is it a component of the
vacant office, refuses to assume office, fails to qualify, dies, is process of enacting laws. The parliamentary privilege arises not
removed from office, voluntarily resigns or is otherwise because the statement is made by a lawmaker, but because it is
permanently incapacitated to discharge the functions of his office, uttered in furtherance of legislation. [Senator Antonio Trillanes vs.
thereby creating a permanent vacancy, the term would remain Hon. Evangeline Castillo-Marigomen, G.R. No. 223451, March 14,
unbroken until the recurring election for the office. 2018]
Since Koko has only served one full term as senator from 2013-
2019, then he is qualified to run again for Senator in 2019.
Q. Can Congress pass a law abolishing the Court of
Appeals?
Q. Does Congress have the mandatory duty to convene and A: NO. While the law creating the Court of Appeals can be
meet in joint session upon the President's proclamation of amended or repealed by Congress, it cannot remove or shorten the
martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of tenure of incumbent Justices of the Court of Appeals or transfer its
habeas corpus? Explain. workload and duties to the Supreme Court or any other court
A: NO. Congress is not constitutionally mandated to convene in without the advice and concurrence of the Supreme Court.
joint session except to vote jointly to revoke the President's The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court may not be reduced by
declaration or suspension. By the language of Article VII, Section Congress. Neither may it be increased without the advice and
18 of the 1987 Constitution, the Congress is only required to vote concurrence of the Supreme Court. [Section 30, Article VI, 1987
jointly to revoke the President's proclamation of martial law and/or Constitution]
suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. If Justices may not be removed until they reach the reason age 70
Congress does not want to revoke or lift the declaration of martial except through impeachment (for Supreme Court Justices) or
law, then there is no need for them to meet in joint session. administrative proceedings (for all other Justices of appellate
It is worthy to stress that the provision does not actually refer to a courts). All courts and court personnel are under the
"joint session.” The requirement of voting jointly explicitly applies administrative supervision of the Supreme Court. The President
only to the situation when the Congress revokes the President's may not appoint any Judge or Justices unless he or she has been
proclamation of martial law. [Padilla v. Congress, 25 July 2017] nominated by the Judicial and Bar Council which, in turn, is under
the Supreme Court's supervision. Their salaries may not be
decreased during their continuance in office. They cannot be
Q. In the exercise of its power to investigate in aid of designated to any agency performing administrative or quasi-
legislation, can Congress cite a person in contempt and judicial functions. The judiciary is specifically given fiscal
detain him indefinitely? autonomy. The Judiciary is not only independent of, but also co-
ANSWER: No. Congress may cite persons in contempt and order equal and coordinate with the Executive and Legislative
them detained. But the detention cannot be indefinite. The Departments. (Article VIII, 1987 Constitution); [Bengzon vs.
detention should only last until the termination of the legislative Drilon, (G.R. No. 103524) and In Re Request of Retired Justices
inquiry under which the said power is invoked or when Congress (A.M. No. 91-8-225-CA) jointly decided on April 15, 1992]
adjourns sine die. If Congress decides to extend the period of
imprisonment for the contempt committed by a witness beyond the Q. Can Congress issue a subpoena to compel attendance of
duration of the legislative inquiry or after it has already adjourned, Justices of the Court of Appeals in its investigation in-aid
then it may file a criminal case under the existing statute or enact of legislation, and cite them in contempt should they refuse
a new law to increase the definite period of imprisonment. (Arvin to appear?
Balag v. Senate, GR No. 234608, July 3, 2018) A: NO. Congressional powers cannot be used to deprive the
Supreme Court of its Constitutional duty to supervise judges of
lower courts in the performance of their official duties. The fact
Q. Can a Senator be held liable for speeches and media remains that the CA Justices are non-impeachable officers. As
interviews he made outside of Congress?
such, authority over them primarily belongs to the Supreme Court complaint. Surely, the exercise of sovereign legislative authority,
and to no other. of which the power of legislative inquiry is an essential component,
The principle of separation of powers also serves as one of the can not be made subordinate to a criminal or an administrative
basic postulates for exempting the Justices, officials and investigation. (Standard Chartered Bank v. Senate, G.R. No.
employees of the Judiciary and for excluding the Judiciary's 167173, December 27, 2007)
privileged and confidential documents and information from any
compulsory processes which very well includes the Congress'
power of inquiry in aid of legislation. Such exemption has been Q: Can major political parties participate in the party-list
jurisprudentially referred to as judicial privilege as implied from elections?
the exercise of judicial power expressly vested in one Supreme Yes. Political parties can participate in party-list elections
Court and lower courts created by law. [Agcaoli v. Hon. Rodolfo provided they register under the party-list system and do not field
Farinas, GR No. 232395, July 3, 2017] candidates in legislative district elections. A political party,
whether major or not, that fields candidates in legislative district
2017 elections can participate in party-list elections only through its

Q. President Duterte, concerned about persistent reports sectoral wing that can separately register under the party-list

of widespread irregularities and shenanigans related to the system. The sectoral wing is by itself an independent sectoral

alleged ghost projects with which the pork barrel funds of party, and is linked to a political party through a coalition. (Atong

members of Congress had been associated, decided not to Paglaum, Inc. v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 203766. April 2, 2013.)

release the funds authorized under the General

Appropriations Act for the construction of a new bridge in
Ilo-Ilo City. President Duterte explained that, to properly Q: Is it necessary for a party-list nominee to actually belong

conserve and preserve the limited funds of the government, to the marginalized sector that he seeks to represent?
as well as to avoid further mistrust by the people, such a A: NO. A nominee who does not actually possess the marginalized

project – which he considered as unnecessary since there and underrepresented status represented by the party-list group

was an old bridge near the proposed bridge which was still but proves to be a genuine advocate of the interest and concern of

functional – should be scrapped. He then declared the the marginalized and underrepresented sector represented is still

money as “savings” and used it to build a drug- qualified to be a nominee.

rehabilitation facility in Caloocan City. Does the President Since political parties are identified by their ideology or platform

have such authority? Explain. of government, bona fide membership, in accordance with the

ANSWER: political party's constitution and by-laws, would suffice. In both

The President does not possess the authority to scrap the political or sectoral party or group, party membership is the most

appropriated funds and declare it as savings. The President cannot tangible link of the nominees to their respective parties and to the

decide not to spend the money allocated by Congress. Savings party-list system. Subject to the above, the disqualification of

cannot be had in the middle of the year. The President is required the nominee does not necessarily mean the disqualification

to implement all laws. The GAA is a law. His only mandate is to of the party since all the grounds for cancellation or refusal of

implement it, as passed by Congress – which includes the budget registration pertain to the party itself. (Atong Paglaum, Inc. v.
for the bridge in Ilo-Ilo City. Generally, he cannot replace COMELEC, G.R. No. 203766. April 2, 2013.)

legislative discretion with his own personal judgment as to the

wisdom of a law (Araullo v. Aquino G.R. No. 209287, July 1, 2014.)
Q: Can the House Speaker be compelled by Mandamus to

Q: The Senate Blue Ribbon Committee sent a subpoena to recognize Velasco as the lawful congressman of

Former Bureau of Customs Commissioner Nicanor Faeldon Marinduque?

requiring him to appear in the investigation being A: YES. The administration of oath and the registration of Velasco

conducted by the said Senate Committee with regard to the in the Roll of Members of the House are no longer a matter of

TARA system in the BOC. But Faeldon refused to attend the discretion or judgment on the part of Speaker Belmonte, Jr. He is

hearing on the ground that there is already a case pending legally duty-bound to recognize Velasco as the duly elected

with the Office of the Ombudsman. Is he correct? Congressman of Marinduque in view of the ruling rendered by the

ANSWER: NO. The mere filing of a criminal or an SC which is now final and executory. It is well past the time for

administrative complaint before a court or a quasi-judicial everyone concerned to accept what has been adjudicated and take

body should not automatically bar the conduct of judicial notice of the fact that Reyes's ineligibility to run for and be

legislative investigation. Otherwise, it would be extremely easy elected to the subject position had already been long affirmed by

to subvert any intended inquiry by congress through the the SC. Any ruling deviating from such established ruling will be

convenient ploy of instituting a criminal or an administrative

contrary to the Rule of Law and should not be countenanced.
[Velasco v. Belmonte, Jr.,G.R. No. 211140, 12 January 2016]
 EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT What is true for the Ombudsman must be equally and necessarily
true for her Deputies who act as agents of the Ombudsman in the
performance of their duties. The Ombudsman can hardly be

Q. CAN THE PRESIDENT ALONE REVOKE THE AMNESTY expected to place her complete trust in her subordinate officials
GRANTED TO SEN. ANTONIO TRILLANES? who are not as independent as she is, if only because they are
subject to pressures and controls external to her Office. [Emilio
ANSWER: NO. Since the grant of amnesty requires concurrence of
Gonzales III vs. Office of the President, G.R. No. 196232. January
congress, it cannot be revoked by the president alone. Even
28, 2014].
assuming that what the President seeks to declare as “void ab
initio” is ONLY the inclusion of Sen. Trillanes in the list of
grantees of amnesty – still, the president has no power to declare
Q: May the President discipline the Chairman and other
his inclusion VOID. Only the courts can do so because the effects
officers of the Commission on Human Rights?
of amnesty has already set in and recognized by the government
when the cases against him were dismissed and he was released A: No. As the term of office of the Chairman (and Members) of the
from detention by reason of the grant of amnesty. Commission on Human Rights, is seven (7) years, without re-
appointment, --- their tenure cannot be made dependent on the
pleasure of the President. It is extremely difficult to conceptualize
Q. DISTINGUISH PARDON FROM AMNESTY how an office conceived and created by the Constitution to be
independent — as the Commission on Human Rights — and vested
A:
with the delicate and vital functions of investigating violations of

(i). Pardon is a private act and must be pleaded and human rights, pinpointing responsibility and recommending

proved by the person pardoned; while amnesty is a public sanctions as well as remedial measures therefor, can truly function

act of which courts take judicial notice; with independence and effectiveness, when the tenure in office of
its Chairman and Members is made dependent on the pleasure of
(ii). Pardon does not require the concurrence of Congress, the President. [Bautista v. Salonga, G.R. No. 86439. April 13,
while amnesty requires the concurrence of Congress; 1989].

(iii). Pardon is granted to individuals, while amnesty is

granted to classes of persons or communities;
Q. In case the President and the Vice President both die
(iv). Pardon may be granted for any offense, while simultaneously --- who shall become acting President? How
amnesty is granted for political offenses; will the vacancy in their positions be filled-up? Explain.

(v). Pardon is granted after final conviction, while A: The Senate President shall be acting President.
amnesty may be granted at any time; and
ARTICLE VII, SECTION 8. In case of death, permanent
(vi). Pardon looks forward and relieves the offender from disability, removal from office, or resignation of the
the consequences of his offense, while amnesty looks President, the Vice-President shall become the President
backward and the person granted it stands before the to serve the unexpired term. In case of death, permanent
law as though he had committed no offense. [People v. disability, removal from office, or resignation of both the
Casido, March 7, 1997] President and Vice-President, the President of the Senate
or, in case of his inability, the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, shall then act as President until the
Q: May the President discipline or remove a deputy President or VicePresident shall have been elected and
ombudsman? qualified.

A: NO. Subjecting the Deputy Ombudsman to discipline and The vacancy shall be filled up, as follows:
removal by the President, whose own alter egos and officials in the
a. Congress shall convene 3 days after the vacancy in the
Executive Department are subject to the Ombudsman's
office of both the President and the VP, without need of
disciplinary authority, cannot but seriously place at risk the
a call. The convening of Congress cannot be suspended.
independence of the Office of the Ombudsman itself. The Office of
the Ombudsman, by express constitutional mandate, includes its b. Within 7 days after convening, Congress shall enact a
key officials, all of them tasked to support the Ombudsman in law calling for a special election to elect a President and
carrying out her mandate. a VP. The special election cannot be postponed.
 c. The special election shall be held not earlier than 45 it (pardon) did not expressly provide for the remission of
days nor later than 60 days from the time of the the penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification,
enactment of the law. particularly the restoration of his (former President
Estrada) right to vote and be voted upon for public office.
d. The 3 readings for the special law need not be held on
separate days. She invokes Articles 36 and 41 of the Revised Penal Code as
the foundations of her theory, which provides:
e. The law shall be deemed enacted upon its approval on
third reading. ART. 36. Pardon; its effects.– A pardon shall not work the
restoration of the right to hold public office, or the right
No special election shall be called if the vacancy occurs within 18
of suffrage, unless such rights be expressly restored by the
months before the date of the next presidential election. In which
terms of the pardon.
case, the Senate President shall be acting President until a new
President is elected and qualified. ART. 41. Reclusion perpetua and reclusion temporal –
Their accessory penalties.– The penalties of reclusion
perpetua and reclusion temporal shall carry with them
2017 that of civil interdiction for life or during the period of the
sentence as the case may be, and that of perpetual
Q: Can the President choose to award the status of National
absolute disqualification which the offender shall suffer
Artist to persons not nominated by the NCCA and CCP?
even though pardoned as to the principal penalty, unless

A: NO. Under the law, the discretion of the President in the matter the same shall have been expressly remitted in the

of the Order of National Artists is confined to the names submitted pardon. (Emphases supplied.)

to him/her by the NCCA and the CCP Boards. This means that the
A: Former President Estrada was granted an absolute pardon that
President could not have considered conferment of the Order of
fully restored all his civil and political rights, which naturally
National Artists on any person not considered and recommended
includes the right to seek public elective office, the focal point of
by the NCCA and the CCP Boards. The President's discretion on
this controversy. The wording of the pardon extended to former
the matter does not extend to removing a legal impediment or
President Estrada is complete, unambiguous, and unqualified.
overriding a legal restriction. [Almario v. Executive Secretary, 701
Exceptions to the grant of pardon cannot be presumed from the
SCRA 269 (2013)]
absence of the qualifying word "full" when the pardon restored the

NO. The former President's constitutional duty to faithfully "political rights" of former President Estrada without any

execute the laws and observe the rules, as to the selection of the exclusion or reservation. Therefore, there can be no other

nominees for conferment of the Order of National Artists conclusion but to say that the pardon granted to former

proscribed her from having a free and uninhibited hand in the President Estrada was absolute in the absence of a clear,

conferment of the said award. Otherwise, not only will the unequivocal and concrete factual basis upon which to

stringent selection and meticulous screening process be rendered anchor or support the Presidential intent to grant a limited

futile, the respective mandates of the NCCA and the CCP Board of pardon.

Trustees under relevant laws to administer the conferment of

It is likewise unfettered by Articles 36 and 41 of the Revised Penal
Order of National Artists, draft the rules and regulations to guide
Code. The pardoning power of the President cannot be
its deliberations, formulate and implement policies and plans, and
limited by legislative action. The 1987 Constitution,
undertake any and all necessary measures in that regard will also
specifically Section 19 of Article VII and Section 5 of Article IX-C,
become meaningless. [Almario v. Executive Secretary, 701 SCRA
provides that the President of the Philippines possesses the power
269 (2013)]
to grant pardons, along with other acts of executive clemency. It is
apparent from the foregoing constitutional provisions that the only
instances in which the President may not extend pardon remain to
Q: Risos-Vidal filed a petition seeking to disqualify be in: (1) impeachment cases; (2) cases that have not yet resulted
President Estrada from running for and holding any public in a final conviction; and (3) cases involving violations of election
elective office notwithstanding the fact that he is a grantee laws, rules and regulations in which there was no favorable
of a pardon that includes a statement expressing: "[h]e is recommendation coming from the COMELEC. Therefore, it can
hereby restored to his civil and political rights." Risos-Vidal be argued that any act of Congress by way of statute cannot
theorizes that former President Estrada is disqualified operate to delimit the pardoning power of the President.
from running for Mayor of Manila in the May 13, 2013 (Risos-Vidal v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 206666, January 21, 2015; J.
Elections, and remains disqualified to hold any local De Castro)
elective post despite the presidential pardon extended to
him in 2007 by former President Arroyo for the reason that
Q: May the president be held liable under the doctrine of A: The Constitution explicitly clothes "any citizen" with the legal
“command responsibility” for enforced disappearances of standing to challenge the constitutionality of the declaration of
political dissidents under the rules on the writ of amparo? martial law or suspension of the writ. The Constitution does not
make any distinction as to who can bring such an action. As
A: No. There is still no Philippine law that provides for criminal
discussed in the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission,
liability under that doctrine. The individual’ criminal liability of
the "citizen" who can challenge the declaration of martial law or
respondents, if there be any, is beyond the reach of amparo
suspension of the writ need not even be a taxpayer. (Fortun v. Pres.
proceedings. In other words, the Court does not rule in such
Macapagal-Arroyo, March 20, 2012)
proceedings on any issue of criminal culpability, even if
incidentally a crime or an infraction of an administrative rule may
have been committed.
Q: Can the President impose martial law without any
The writ of amparo was conceived to provide expeditious and concurrence of Congress?
effective procedural relief against violations or threats of violation
A: Yes. The Constitution vests exclusively in the President, as
of the basic rights to life, liberty, and security of persons; the
Commander-in-Chief, the emergency powers to declare martial
corresponding amparo suit, however, “is not an action to determine
law or suspend the writ in cases of rebellion or invasion, when the
criminal guilt requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt x x x or
public safety requires it. The imposition of martial law or
administrative liability requiring substantial evidence that will
suspension of the writ takes effect the moment it is declared by the
require full and exhaustive proceedings.”(Rubrico v. Pres.
President. No other act is needed for the perfection of the
Macapagal-Arroyo, G.R. No. 183871, February 18, 2010, 613 SCRA
declaration of martial law or the suspension of the writ.
233.)
(Ampatuan v. Sec. Puno, G.R. No. 190259. June 7, 2011.)

Q: Prior to the conduct of the May 2010 elections, then

Q: Can the President, on his own, terminate a treaty?
President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (President Macapagal-
Arroyo) issued more than 800 appointments to various A: NO. Typically, a treaty provides for its termination by notice of
positions in several government offices during the ban on one of the parties, usually after a prescribed time from the date of
appointments (midnight appointments). On 30 June 2010, notice. Of course, treaties may also be terminated by agreement of
President Benigno S. Aquino III (President Aquino) took the parties, or by breach by one of the parties, or by some other
his oath of office as President of the Republic of the means. Because the Constitution requires the consent of the
Philippines. On 30 July 2010, President Aquino issued EO 2 Senate for making a treaty, one can logically argue that its consent
recalling, withdrawing, and revoking appointments issued is as well required for terminating it. Finally, because treaties are,
by President Macapagal Arroyo which violated the like statutes, the supreme law of the land, it may well be argued
constitutional ban on midnight appointments. Is EO 2 that, again like statutes, they may be undone only through law–
correct? Should the appointments made by GMA be making by the entire Congress; additionally, since Congress may
revoked? be required to implement treaties and may displace them through
legislation, this argument is re-enforced.
A: YES. All of the 800 appointments of GMA were midnight
appointments and are void for violation of Section 15, Article VII
of the 1987 Constitution. EO 2 is constitutional. The President
Q: Is the President immune from suit?
exercises only one kind of appointing power. There is no need to
differentiate the exercise of the President’s appointing power A: YES. There is no provision in the 1987 Constitution clothing the
outside, just before, or during the appointment ban. president with immunity from suit. Under Article VII of Sec. 15 of
the 1973 Constitution – “The president shall be immuned from suit
The Constitution allows the President to exercise the power of
during his tenure..” But the 1987 Constitution did not preserve
appointment during the period not covered by the appointment
this provision. The reason, according to the framers – is that there
ban, and disallows (subject to an exception) the President from
pardwas no need to do so because “it was understood that the
exercising the power of appointment during the period covered by
President is immuned from suit during his tenure.”
the appointment ban. So even if the appointment was accepted
after the ban, it is still void. [Velicaria-Garafil v. Office of the However, in Soliven vs Judge Makasiar (1988), the SC said that
President, (G.R. No. 203372,16 June 2015)] president Cory Aquino enjoys immunity. In Estrada v. Desierto
(2001), the SC also held that the intent of the framers of the 1987
Constitution was to continue the president’s immunity during his
Q: Who can challenge the constitutionality of the tenure. In the case of Rodriguez vs. GMA (2011), the SC also
declaration of martial law? affirmed that a sitting president is immune from suit.