Midterm exam

1. It is that written instrument by which the fundamental powers of the

government are established, limited, and defined and by which these powers
are distributed among the several departments or branches for their safe and
useful exercise for the benefit of the people.
a. Constitution                 b. Statute of the Philippines               c. Ordinance of
the Philippines         d. Constitution of the Philippines
 
2. It is a form of constitution that is regarded as a document of special sanctity
which cannot be amended or altered except by some special machinery more
cumbersome than the ordinary legislative process.
a. Enacted                         b. Unwritten                          c. Inelastic                            
d. Cumulative
 
3. What is that group of provisions that deal with the framework of the
government and its powers, and defining the electorate?
a. Constitution of government      b. Constitution of liberty    c. Constitution of
sovereignty           d. All of the above
 
4. It is the Constitution drafted by a Constitutional Commission created under
the Article V of Proclamation No. 3 issued on March 25, 1986 which
promulgated the Freedom Constitution following the installation of a
revolutionary government through a direct exercise of the power of the
Filipino people.
a. 1986 Provisional Constitution  b. 1987 Constitution           c. 1973
Constitution           d. 1935 Constitution
 
5. Under what provision in the Constitution can you find the Doctrine of
Incorporation?
a. Art. II, Sec. 1                    b. Art. II, Sec. 2                    c. Art. II, Sec. 3                   
d. Art. II, Sec. 4
 
6. Which of the following rules is adopted by the Philippines in determining
the limits of its territory?
a. 3-mile limit rule                                b. 12-mile limit rule             c. Archipelagic
Doctrine     d. Archipelago Doctrine
 
7. What is the significance of the Archipelagic principle of territoriality?
a. It prevents the danger of having open seas right at the center or our
territory.
b. It welcomes other nations to enter into our territory without much
requirements.
c. It opens our doors to enemy warships or other foreign vessels and have
friendly ties with them.
d. All of the above
 
8. If the State inflicted damages to the property of a citizen, can the citizen just
sue the State?
a. Yes, because he has the right to demand from the State the indemnification
of his property.
b. No, because of the principle of the non-suability of the State.
c. No, because the citizen has no right to demand for indemnifications.
d. None of the above.
 
9. Is it unconstitutional to declare war against the NPA’s?
a. Yes, because Art. II, Sec. 2 states that the Philippines renounces war as an
instrument of national policy.
b. No, because this is in order to preserve peace and integrity of the State.
c. Yes, because war in here is aggressive.
d. No, because rebels need to die.
 
10. What are some of the measures employed by the Government to safeguard
the State against military dictatorship?
a. By vesting upon a civilian the highest authority in the land, the Presidency.
b. By making the President the Commander-in-Chief of the AFP.
c. By giving the President and the Congress the power to determine the
military budget and define the national policy on defense and security.
d. All of the above
 
11. Which of the following explains the principle of the separation of the
Church and State?
a. No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion.
b. No public money or property shall ever be used for any religious
denomination.
c. The Church must not interfere with the affairs exclusively for the State.
d. All of the above
 
12. Which of the following is NOT prohibited by the State?
a. Nuclear power                  b. Abortion            c. Divorce              d. None of the
above
 
13. What is social justice?
a. Giving equal opportunity to all, rich and poor alike.
b. Giving preferential attention to the less fortunate.
c. Eradicating poverty through the abolition of private property
d. Getting some from the rich and giving the same to the poor.
 
14. It is the method by which a public officer may be removed from office
during his tenure or before the expiration of his term by a vote of the people
after registration of the petition signed by the required percentage of the
qualified voters.
a. Plebiscite           b. Referendum                     c. Recall                 d. Impeachment
 
 15. What is the difference between a citizen and an alien?
1. A citizen is a member of a democratic community, while an alien is only someone
passing through another country.
2. A citizen is a member of a democratic country who is accorded protection inside and
outside the territory of the State, while an alien is a citizen of another country who may only be
protected inside the territory where he is passing through.
3. A citizen is a member of a democratic country who enjoys full civil and political rights
while an alien is someone who does not enjoy the same.
4. All of the above
 
16. A Bill of Local Application was submitted by Senator Wade to the Senate
Secretary. It has passed three readings in the Senate and then in the Congress.
Thereafter, it was presented to the President for approval, but the same was
disapproved. The President vehemently objected to the validity of the entire
process.
Is the President correct?
a. Yes, the Bill must first be submitted to a proper committee.
b. No, it must be approved because there has been no constitutional breach.
c. Yes, because the said Bill must only emanate from the House of
Representatives.
d. No, it may be initiated by the Senate because either House of the Congress
may do so.
e. Yes, because the President possesses an absolute veto power.
f. No, the veto power is not absolute.
g. Yes, the law allows the president to disapprove any bill submitted to him by
the Congress.
h. No, the president acted in grave abuse of his discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction.
 
17. President Juan Masipag filed an application for appropriation, and in
pursuance thereof money was paid out of the National Treasury. It must be
noted that the appropriation is for a public purpose, and it is not for any
specific sect, church, denomination.
Is there something wrong with the presidential appropriation?
a. None; it is perfectly valid.
b. The appropriation is unlawful because it is paid out of the National
Treasury.
c. It is invalid because the Senate President, not the President, is empowered
to apply for appropriation.
d. It is wrong because before public funds may be used, an appropriations law
must first be passed.
e. It is lawful; the President can by law file an application for appropriation.
f. It is illegal because it should have been the Congress that applied for the
appropriations.
 
18. When the president dies, is permanently disabled, is impeached, or
resigns, the Vice-President becomes President for the unexpired term.
However, if both the President and Vice-President die, become permanently
disabled, are impeached, or resigned, the Senate President shall act as
President until the President or VP shall have been elected and qualified.
If the Senate President becomes disabled, who will succeed?
a. The Speaker of the House shall become the President.
b. There will be a special election specifically conducted for the filling up of the
vacant offices.
c. The Senate President shall submit to the Congress a declaration of his
disability, then a Senior Senator will be the acting President.
d. The Speaker of the House shall act as President until the President or VP
shall have been elected and qualified.
 
19. Noel Uban was nominated by President John Mar Siuagan to the rank of
naval captain in the Armed Forces of the Philippines. His nomination has been
confirmed by the Commission on Appointments, and his appointment (by
President Siuagan) followed thereafter. Noel Uban have accepted the
nomination with great pride and honor. The President reconsidered his
appointment after discovering that Mr. Uban has a criminal record. The
President withdrew his appointment. Is this allowed?
a. Yes. This is a matter of presidential discretion, arising from the power of
appointment.
b. No. The President can no longer withdraw the appointment because all the
steps have already been complied with.
c. Yes. The power to withdraw appointments is one of the residual powers of
the President.
d. No. once the appointee accepts, President can no longer withdraw the
appointment.
e. A & C
f. B & D
g. None of the above
 
20. Vincent is an alien visiting the Philippines. During his visit, he was
accused of killing a Filipino. Which of the following actions are permitted by
the Constitution?
a. Imprison Vincent right away
b. Give him the chance to defend himself
c. Deport him back to his country
d. The government cannot do anything because he is an alien.
 
21. Is a citizen also a national?
a. Yes, inasmuch as he also owes allegiance to a State.
b. No, the two are not the same.
c. Yes, because like a nation a citizen exercises political and civil rights.
d. No, not all citizens are nationals.
 
22. This Constitutional principle signifies that all persons subject to legislation
should be treated alike, under like circumstances and conditions both in the
privileges conferred and liabilities imposed.
a. Due process of law
b. Equal protection of laws
c. Security in one’s person, house, papers, and effects
d. National integrity
 
23. Pedro was born January 17, 1973, of Filipino mother but a Swedish father.
Is he still required to elect his Philippine citizenship?
a. Yes. Since he was born on January 17, 1973, the governing provision during
that time requires that his parents must both be Filipinos. Thus to effect his
Philippine citizenship, he must elect for it upon reaching 18 years old.
b. No. The governing provision at the time of his birth requires only that either
his father or mother is a Filipino. Thus, he is already a Filipino and electing his
Philippine citizenship is no longer necessary.
c. Yes because Art. 4, Sec. 1 (3) states that “those born on January 17, 1973, of
Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of
majority” are citizens of the Philippines. So if Pedro wants to be a Filipino
citizen he must elect for it.
d. No because he is already 38 years old.
 
24. It is a form of government in which the control of national and local affairs
is exercised by the central or national government.
a. Republic                    b. Unitary                      c. Federal                                  d.
Parliamentary
 
25. This government was established during the American regime pursuant to
an act of the United States Congress on March 24, 1934, commonly known as
the Tydings-McDuffie Law.
a. Commonwealth Gov’t b. Military  Gov’t                       c. Civil Gov’t                d.
Republic
 
26. It refers to that body of rules and principles in accordance with which the
powers of sovereignty are regularly exercised.
a. Statute                                   b. Civil Code                 c. Preamble                   d.
Constitution
 
27. Which among the following is not descriptive of the Philippine
Constitution?
a. Cumulative                b. Rigid                         c. Conventional              d. Written
 
28. What’s the difference between a Constitution and a statute?
a. A Constitution is a legislation direct from the people, while a state is a
legislation from the people’s representatives.
b. A Constitution provides the details of the general framework of the law and
the government stated in the statute.
c. The Statute is the fundamental law of the land to which the Constitution and
all other laws must conform.
d. There is no difference because they are both laws.
 
29. This principle holds that no man is above the law, so that every man,
however high or low, is equal.
a. Rule of the majority    b. Rule of Law               c. Democracy                 d.
Constitution
 
30. Although the Preamble is not an essential part of the Constitution, why is
it advisable to have one?
a. It could be a source of private right enforceable by the courts.
b. It sets down the origin and purposes of the Constitution.
c. Aside from (b), it may serve as an aid in the interpretation of the
Constitution.
d. All of the above
 
31. What is the single biggest factor for national solidarity?
a. The government envisioned in the Constitution
b. The Preamble and the different Statutes promulgated by the Congress
c. The Democratic ideals of peace, love, freedom, justice, & equality
d. All of the above
 
32. Which of the following explains the principle of the separation of the
Church and State?
a. No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion.
b. No public money or property shall ever be used for any religious
denomination.
c. The Church must not interfere with the affairs exclusively for the State.
d. All of the above
 
33. What is meant by a bicameral legislature?
a. It means that the Congress is composed of two House of Representatives.
b. It means that the Congress is composed of two chambers: Senate and House
of Representatives.
c. It means that the legislative power, the authority to enact and promulgate
laws, is vested in the Congress of the Philippines.
d. All of the above
 
34. What is the difference between a Senator and a Member of the House of
Representatives?
a. A Senator is elected at large by qualified voters, whereas a member of the
House of Representatives is elected in his district.
b. Although both are legislators, a senator is concerned with the national
interest of the people, while a member of the House of Representatives is
concerned only with the regional interest of the people.
c. A senator is trained to be the future leader of the country, whereas a
member of the House of Representatives is not.
d. All of the above
 
35. Which of the following speaks of the Philippine foreign policy?
a. It is one that preserves and enhances national and economic security.
b. It guarantees the protection of the rights and promotion of the welfare and
interest of Filipino overseas.
c. It is one that does not subordinate or subject to nor dependent upon the
support of another country.
d. Its objective is to establish friendly relations with all countries of the world
regardless of race, religion, ideology and social system and to promote as
much beneficial relations with them particularly in economic and trade
activities.
e. It is the sole weapon of the Philippines for the promotion of national
interest in international affairs.
f. All of the above
g. C and D
h. C, D, and E
 
36. What is the extent of the right of State to interfere with education of
children?
 
a. Since the children are the property of the State (Regalian Doctrine), it can
by law compel the parents to make their children accept interference with the
liberty of parent to direct the upbringing and education of children under their
control.
b. The State can reasonable regulate all schools, their teachers and pupils.
c. The State can require that all children of proper age attend school, that
teachers shall be of good moral character and patriotic disposition.
d. The State can oblige that certain studies plainly essential to good citizenship
must be taught, and that nothing to be taught which is manifestly inimical to
public welfare.
e. While the natural and primary responsibility for educating the child rests in
the family, the State also has a distinct interest in this matter since a proper
education – humanistic, vocational, moral, religious, civic – is necessary for
social well-being.
f. It is the right and duty of the State to see that the obligations of the parents
are fulfilled (through such means as compulsory education laws.
g. The State may supply the essential educational facilities which private
initiative is unable to furnish.
h. All except A
i. B, C, D, E
 
37. It is principle that discourages government engagement in particular
business activities which can be competently and efficiently undertaken by the
private sector unless the latter is timid or does not want to enter into a specific
industry or enterprise.
a. Principle of subsidiarity                       b. Principle of subsidy
c. Principle of subsidiary                         d. Principle of free enterprise
e. Principle of capitalism                         f. Principle of free market
 
38. What is an indigenous cultural community?
a. It refers to those groups in our region which possess and wish to develop
their ethnic, religious, or linguistic traditions or characteristics markedly
different from the rest of the world.
b. It refers to those dominant groups in our country which possess and wish to
improve their ethnic, religious, or linguistic traditions or characteristics
similar the rest of the population.
c. It refers to those minority groups in other countries which possess and wish
to preserve ethnic, religious, or linguistic traditions or characteristics
markedly different from the rest if the population.
d. It refers to those non-dominant groups in our country which possess and
wish to preserve ethnic, religious, or linguistic traditions or characteristics
markedly different from the rest of the population.
 
39. It is a name given to the submission of a law or part thereof passed by the
national or local legislative body to the voting citizens of a country for their
ratification or rejection.
a. Election         b. Plebiscite       c. Referendum               d. Initiative        e. Recall
 
40. In this system or principle, the powers of the government are divided into
three distinct classes: the legislative, the executive, and the judiciary.
a. Bicameralism             b. Parliamentary System             c. Presidential
System                 d. Checks and Balances
 
41. Who among the following is a registered voter?
a. One who is eighteen years of age and can read and write.
b. One who is at least 35 years of age on the day of the election and is a
resident of the Philippines for at least 2 years prior the day of election.
c. one who has all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications of a voter
provided by law and who has registered in the list of voters.
d. All of the above
e. B and C
f. All except A
 
42.When is the regular election of the Senators and the Members of the House
of Representatives held?
a. Every 4th Monday of July
b. 2nd Monday of May
c. 1st Sunday of June
d. None of the above
 
43. If there are 215 Members of the House of Representatives, and 15 are
abroad, what would constitute the quorum?
a. 100               b. 101               c. 100.5             d. 102               e. 108
 
44. Which of the following is not allowed by the rules on Congressional
suspension?
a. Suspension for 1 month           b. Indefinite suspension   c. Suspension for 1
day   d. None of the above
 
45. It is a bill affecting purely municipal concerns like changing the name of a
city.
a. Bill of municipal application
b. Bill authorizing change of name
c. Bill of local application
d. Private bill
 
II. ENUMERATION
 
1-4. Qualifications of voters
5-6. Congressional disqualifications
7-15. Steps in the passage of a bill

CITIZENSHIP AND SUFFRAGE

This paper explains briefly Article IV (Citizenship) and Article V (Suffrage) of the
1987 Philippine Constitution.
At the end the discussion, the students are expected to:
1. Explain the meaning and requirements of Philippine citizenship;
2. Discuss and distinguish the different principles and concepts involving
citizenship;
3. Explain the meaning and requirements of suffrage; and
4. Discuss the various related concepts and principles in suffrage.
PRELIMINARIES
Need for Citizenship Education
1. Citizenship education, which is the primary purpose of studying Philippine politics
and governance, entails knowing the basic rights as well as the corresponding duties
of the citizens. Section 3 (2), Article XIV provides that all educational institutions
“shall inculcate patriotism and nationalism, foster love of humanity, respect for
human rights, appreciation of the role of national heroes in the historical
development of the country, teach the rights and duties of citizenship, strengthen
ethical and spiritual values, develop moral character and personal discipline,
encourage critical and creative thinking, broaden scientific and technological
knowledge, and promote vocational efficiency.”
2. It must also be noted that one of the State Policies of the Philippines is the rearing
of the youth for civic efficiency. Section 13, Article II provides that “the State
recognizes the vital role of the youth in nation-building and shall promote and
protect their physical, moral, spiritual, intellectual, and social well-being. It shall
inculcate in the youth patriotism and nationalism, and encourage their involvement
in public and civic affairs.” This is also why, under Section 12, Article II, the State
supports the parents in their primary right and duty in rearing the youth for civic
efficiency and development of moral character.
3. Before delving on the rights and duties of the citizens, it is logically important to
know first who are the citizens of the Philippines, the modes of acquiring citizenship,
the types of citizens, and difference between a citizen and a non-citizen as to
possession of rights, privileges, and duties. Knowing these concepts will preparatory
for the discussion of suffrage, which is one of the rights and duties of a citizen, and
the bill of rights, which is the declaration and enumeration of the rights individuals
as will be discussed in Chapter 9.
Constitutional Provisions on Citizenship and Suffrage
Article IV of the 1987 Constitution discusses Citizenship. Article V discusses
Suffrage. These provisions will be explained in detail in the following subtopics.
CITIZENSHIP
Meaning of Citizenship
Citizenship refers to the membership of a person to a democratic state which
bestows upon him/her full civil and political rights (unless especially disqualified by
law), and the corresponding duty to support and maintain allegiance to the state.
Such membership underscores the symbiotic relationship of the state, which on the
one hand gives protection to the citizen, and the citizen, who on the other hand is
duty bound to support the state.
Citizens of the Philippines
1. Classification. There are four instances enumerated in the Constitution as to who
are considered citizens of the Philippines. Section 1, Article IV of the Constitution,
provides:
“The following are citizens of the Philippines:
(1) Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of this
Constitution;
(2) Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines;
(3) Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine
citizenship upon reaching the age of majority; and
(4) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.”
First, those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of the 1987
Constitution, referring to those who were already Filipinos under the 1973
Constitution and were still citizens at the time of the passage of the 1987
Constitution. Second, those who are Philippine citizens because either their fathers
“or” mothers are Philippine citizens. Third, those whose fathers are foreigners, and
then later elected their Philippine citizenship upon reaching 18 years old in
accordance with 1935 Constitution which was in effect at the time of their birth. And
fourth, those who are naturalized under the procedures provided by law.
2. Natural Born and Naturalized Citizens. Basically, there are only two categories of
Philippine citizens: the natural born and the naturalized. On the one hand, a natural
born citizen is someone who is already a Filipino at the time of his birth and does not
have to do anything to acquire or perfect his citizenship (Sec. 2, Art. II). In other
words, he is a Filipino by birth. On the other hand, a naturalized citizen is someone
who was once a foreigner then later on became a Filipino by legal fiction. Paragraph
2 (Either father or mother is a Filipino) and paragraph 3 (Elect Philippine
Citizenship) of the above provision are natural born citizens, while paragraph 4
(naturalized under the law) refers to the naturalized citizen. Paragraph 1 (citizen at
the time of the adoption of the Constitution) may refer to either a natural born or
naturalized citizen depending on the kind of citizenship he has at the time of the
adoption of the 1987 Constitution.
3. Principles Determining Citizenship. How can birth determine citizenship in the
case of natural born citizens? There are two principles that could answer this. First is
the jus sanguinis principle, which states that “blood relations” determine citizenship,
and the second is the jus soli or jus loci principle, which states that the “place of
birth” determines citizenship. The Philippines adopts the jus sanguinis principle and
is now the underlying theory behind Article IV. Thus, someone becomes a Filipino by
birth if either his mother “or” father is a Filipino, so that by virtue of his blood
relations to either his Filipino parents he is also a Filipino. If Pedro, for example, has
a Filipino mother and a foreigner father, then he is still a Filipino by birth, and
therefore a natural born citizen.
4. Old Rule. It must be noted that the present rule is different from that in the 1935
Constitution. Under the old rule, those whose fathers are foreigners and whose
mothers are citizens of the Philippines must still elect their Philippine citizenship
upon reaching 18 years old. In other words, citizenship depends upon blood
relations with the father. This was no longer the rule under the 1973 Constitution
and under the present Constitution. Citizenship is now attributable to both the
father and mother. But for those who were born during the effectivity of the 1935
Constitution, or before January 17, 1973 (the date of promulgation of the 1973
Constitution), they must still elect their Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age
of majority. For instance, if Pedro was born in January 1, 1970, of a Chinese father
and a Filipino mother, then in 1988 when he is already 18 years old, he must elect his
Philippine citizenship. Under Section 2, Article II, those who elect their Philippine
citizenship are still deemed natural born citizens.
Naturalized Citizens
1. Who are Naturalized Citizens? Naturalized citizens those are clothed by law with
the rights and privileges accorded to a citizen of the Philippines, as well as bound by
their duties to the State. In other words, they are also Filipinos. Thus they can vote
during elections, acquire real property, and engage in business, among others. They
must likewise observe loyalty to the Philippines, pay their taxes, and obey the laws
and duly constituted authorities of the land. However, they cannot be elected
President or Vice-President, or member of the Congress, or appointed justice of the
Supreme Court or lower collegiate courts, or member of any of the Constitutional
Commissions, or Ombudsman or his Deputy, or member of the Central Monetary
Agency. These are among the restrictions to a naturalized citizen which are reserved
only to a natural born citizen, who is by birth and heart a Filipino.
2. Naturalization entails renunciation of former allegiance and the subsequent act of
formal entrance into a new body politic. The grant of citizenship by naturalization is
an act of grace on the part of the State. Just as the State can confer or grant
citizenship, it can also withhold or take away the same. Thus, aliens or foreigners do
not have a natural or inherent right to demand membership to the State.
3. Kinds of Naturalization. The government, through its three branches, can confer
citizenship by naturalization. Hence, a foreigner can be naturalized in either of three
ways:
(a) Judicial naturalization refers to naturalization by means of court judgment
pursuant to the “Revised Naturalization Act.” Applications are filed with the proper
Regional Trial Court which will render the decree of naturalization;
(b) Legislative naturalization refers to naturalization by means of a direct act of
Congress, that is, by the enactment of a law by the Congress declaring therein that a
foreigner is conferred citizenship and admitted into the political community; and
(c) Administrative naturalization is naturalization by means of administrative
proceedings before the Special Committee on Naturalization pursuant to the
“Administrative Naturalization Law of 2000.” Applicants must be aliens born and
residing in the Philippines with all of the qualifications and none of the
disqualifications provided by law.
Lost and Reacquisition of Citizenship
1. Lost of Citizenship. Section 3, Article 4 of the Constitution states that “Philippine
citizenship may be lost or reacquired in the manner provided by law.” There are two
laws which provide the manner of loss of citizenship. First is “Commonwealth Act
No. 63” which provides that citizenship is lost by naturalization in another country,
by express renunciation of citizenship, by subscribing to an oath of allegiance to
support the constitution and laws of another country, by rendering service to a
foreign armed forces, and by deserting the armed forces of the Philippines. Second is
Commonwealth Act No. 473 which states that citizenship is lost by cancellation of
certificate of naturalization by court, by permanent residence in the country of origin
for a period of five years from the time of naturalization, by an invalid declaration of
intent in the petition, by failure to with the educational requirements of the minor
children, and by allowing oneself to used by a foreigner.
2. Reacquisition of Citizenship. As far as reacquisition of citizenship is concerned,
Commonwealth Act No. 63 also provides that citizenship which was lost may be
reacquired by naturalization, by a direct act of Congress, or by repatriation.
(a) Naturalization may be applied for by a former Philippine citizen who lost his
citizenship under any of the aforesaid ways. For example, Pedro was a Filipino who
became a naturalized citizen in another country, and as a result he lost his Philippine
citizenship. If he applies for naturalization and later on the court gave him a decree
of naturalization, then he reacquires his Philippine citizenship.
(b) The Congress can also reinstitute, by means of a law, citizenship to those who
lost it.
(c) Repatriation is accomplished by taking the necessary oath of allegiance to the
Republic of the Philippines and then registering the same in the proper Civil Registry
and in the Bureau of Immigration. This is available to women who have lost their
citizenship through marriage to aliens, those who lost their citizenship on account of
economic and political necessity not otherwise disqualified by law, and deserters of
the Armed Forces of the Philippines.
3. R.A. No. 9225. Special note must be given to Republic Act No. 9225, otherwise
known as “Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act of 2003,”which amended
Commonwealth Act No. 63. It provides that natural born citizens of the Philippines
who lost their citizenship because of naturalization in a foreign country shall be
deemed to have reacquired their Philippine citizenship upon taking the oath of
allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines. After the effectivity of RA 9225, those
who are naturalized in a foreign country shall retain their Philippine citizenship also
upon taking the oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines. Thus, under the
present law, it is the taking of the necessary oath of allegiance and registration of the
same that retains and reacquires Philippine citizenship.
4. Marriage to an Alien. Under Section 4, Article IV, mere marriage to an alien is not
a ground for losing Philippine citizenship, unless there is implied or express
renunciation through acts or omissions. For example, if Maria is married to
Friedrich, a foreigner, and in Friedrich’s country his marriage confers on Maria their
citizenship, then Maria will not automatically lose her citizenship as provided by the
Constitution. What she has is dual citizenship. But if Maria subscribes to an oath of
allegiance to her husband’s country, then her act is deemed a renunciation of her
Philippine citizenship, thus, a ground for losing her citizenship.
Dual Allegiance and Dual Citizenship
1. Dual Allegiance as Provided in the Constitution. Section 5, Article IV states, “Dual
allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt with by
law.” Dual allegiance happens when a naturalized citizen of the Philippines
maintains his allegiance to his country of origin. For example, if Joe, who was a
foreigner, becomes a naturalized citizen of the Philippines, and after naturalization
he still maintains his allegiance to his mother country, then his case is said to be one
of dual allegiance. This is prohibited by the Constitution to prevent a former
foreigner, who gained political membership, to have false allegiance or pretend
loyalty to the Philippines.
2. Dual Allegiance vs. Dual Citizenship. The Constitution, however, does not prohibit
dual citizenship. Dual allegiance is different from dual citizenship. Dual citizenship
happens when an individual is a citizen of two countries because the laws of both
countries confer upon him membership to their State. For example, if Pedro’s
parents are Filipinos and he is born in United State of America, he acquires
Philippine citizenship under the principle of jus sanguinis and American citizenship
under the principle of jus soli. Thus, he has dual citizenship because of the respective
laws of the two countries. Another example is when a Filipino marries a foreigner
and thereby acquires the citizenship of the spouse, there is also dual citizenship. The
Philippines cannot prohibit dual citizenship because its laws cannot control the laws
of other states. It is dual allegiance that is prohibited because it is intentional while
dual citizenship is generally unintentional, in that it is only accidentally cause by
birth in a foreign state or marriage with a foreigner.
3. Limitation on Dual Citizenship. Dual citizenship may be prohibited under special
cases. For instance, pursuant to the Constitution, RA 9225 requires that all those
who are seeking elective public offices in the Philippines to execute a personal and
sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship to qualify them as candidates in
the Philippine elections.
SUFFRAGE
Meaning of Suffrage
Suffrage is the right and obligation to vote. It is a political right conferred by the
Constitution empowering a citizen to participate in the process of government which
makes the State truly democratic and republican. Section 1, Article V, however,
provides that “suffrage may be exercised…” thus, making it non-mandatory. Failure
to exercise such right is not punishable by law, but nonetheless makes a citizen
irresponsible. In other words, suffrage is an obligation but a non-mandatory one.
When Suffrage may be Exercised
Suffrage is exercised not only during elections, but also during initiatives,
referendums, plebiscite, and recalls. Election is the means by which the people
choose their representatives who are entrusted the exercise of the powers of the
government. Initiative is the means by which people directly propose and enact laws,
that is, they initiate the law-making process. Referendum refers to process by which
the people ratify or reject a law or part thereof referred or submitted to them by the
national or local law-making body. Plebiscite entails a process by which the people
either ratify or reject an amendment or revision to the Constitution. And recall is a
mode of removing an incumbent official from office by a vote of the people upon
proper registration of a petition signed by the required number of qualified voters.
In all these instances, a qualified citizen can rightfully exercise suffrage.
Who may Exercise Suffrage
1. Qualified Citizens Only. Suffrage can be exercised only by a citizen of the
Philippines, who has none of the disqualifications, at least eighteen years of age on
the day of the election, and a resident of the Philippines for at least one year and of
the place where he intends to vote for at least six months immediately preceding the
election (Section 1, Article V). Suffrage is an attribute of citizenship, and therefore
aliens cannot exercise the same.
2. Reason for Lowering the Voting Age. The voting age was lowered down from 21 to
18 years old to broaden the electoral base. If the voting age is 21, then only a small
percentage of the total population of the Philippines can vote. Moreover, according
to psychologists, 18 to 21 year-old Filipino youth, living in urban or rural areas, have
the same political maturity. This is affirmed in many provisions of Philippine law, in
that the marrying age, the age when someone can enter into a contract, and the age
when someone can be called to defend the State, is 18 years old. It must be noted,
however, “registration” may be done before reaching the age of majority for as long
as the voter is 18 years old on the day of the election.
3. Explanation of Residency Requirement. A citizen, in order to be qualified to vote,
must have resided in the Philippines for at least one year and for at least six months
on the place where he intends to vote immediately preceding the elections. The “one
year residency requirement” means “permanent residence” while the “six month
residency requirement” means either “permanent or temporary residence.” On the
on hand, permanent residence or domicile requires bodily presence in the locality,
the intention to remain there (animus manendi), and an intention to return to it if
one goes somewhere else (animus revertendi). If a new residence is established,
permanent residence requires an intention not to return to the old domicile (animus
non revertandi). For example, if a Filipino citizen works abroad to look for greener
pastures, but still has the “intention to return” to the Philippines, he can still exercise
his right to vote since his domicile is still in the Philippines. On the other hand,
temporary residence only requires the intention to reside in a fixed place. To be
familiar with the needs of the locality, a voter must reside therein for at least six
months immediately preceding the elections. This is requirement for both national
and local elections. In here, since residence can also mean temporary residence, one
can vote in either his locality of permanent residence or locality of temporary
residence during local or national elections. For example, Pedro is domiciled in
Tuguegarao City and is a registered voter therein. But he is working in Manila for
more than six months already, has established a temporary residence, and is likewise
a registered voter there. Under the law, he can vote in Tuguegarao city since he is a
permanent resident of the place or in Manila since he has a temporary residence
there.
4. No Additional Substantive Requirement. Still in keeping with the trend for
broadening electoral base, the Constitution does not provide for “literacy, property
or other substantive requirements.” Rather it encourages the “participation” and
“equalization” of the privileges and rights of the people. Being democratic and
republican, the State endeavors for the establishment of a wide base of electoral
involvement by the people, not only by the rich minority who joy the privilege of
formal education, but also by the poor majority who are usually unlettered because
of poverty. It must also be emphasize that there is no direct relationship between
education or property, on the one hand, and capacity for intelligent voting, on the
other, in that even a rich and highly educated person may initiate and be swayed by
sham elections.
Absentee Voting
Because of the phenomenon of “Filipino labor explosion overseas,” the so-called
“absentee voting system” is mandated by the Constitution to be provided for, or
legislated, by the Congress. Section 2, Article V states, “The Congress shall provide…
a system for absentee voting by qualified Filipinos abroad.” For as long as they are
qualified, overseas Filipino workers can still participate in elections despite their
temporary absence in the Philippines. While residency is a voting requirement, it
must not be a reason for disenfranchising thousands of Filipinos abroad whose
hearts are still with the Philippines.
Importance of Suffrage
As a final note, the importance of suffrage cannot be overemphasized as it is the bed
rock of Philippine democracy and republicanism. Removed, then the Philippines is
no longer democratic and republican. This is why the Constitution mandates the
Congress “to provide a system for securing the secrecy and sanctity of the ballot.”
The mandate becomes especially important now that the electoral base is broadened
to include the illiterate and the disabled who are the usual prey of unscrupulous
politicians. Thus, to secure the very essence of Philippine democracy and to protect
the illiterates and disabled from being disenfranchised, the Constitution also
provides that “The Congress shall also design a procedure for the disabled and the
illiterates to vote without the assistance of other persons. Until then, they shall be
allowed to vote under existing laws and such rules as the Commission on Elections
may promulgate to protect the secrecy of the ballot.”

THE PHILIPPINE GOVERNMENT

This paper discusses the three departments of the Philippine Government
(legislative, executive, and judicial department) and three Constitutional
Commissions, the principles and doctrines underlying their structure and
composition, and their respective roles, powers, and functions. The paper basically
discusses the Constitution of Government.
At the end of the discussion, the students must be able to:
1. Explain the basic political law doctrines involving the Philippine Government;
2. Explain and distinguish the three branches of the government;
3. Identify and compare the respective roles, functions and composition of the
branches of the government; and
4. Explain and distinguish the powers, functions, and jurisdiction of the three
Constitutional Commissions.
 
PRELIMINARIES
1. Definition of Government. Government has been defined as that institution or
collection of institutions through which a sovereign society makes and implements
law which enable men to live with each other or which are imposed upon the people
forming the society by those who have the authority of prescribing them.
2. Definition of “Government of the Republic of the Philippines.” Under Section 2(1)
of the Administrative Code of the Philippines, the “Government of the Republic of
the Philippines” is defined as “the corporate governmental entity through which the
functions of government are exercised throughout the Philippines, including, save as
the contrary appears from the context, the various arms through which political
authority is made effective in the Philippines, whether pertaining to the autonomous
regions, the provincial, city, municipal, or barangay subdivisions, or other forms of
local government.” In other words, it refers to the corporate institution which acts as
an instrument through which the people exercise their sovereignty. It is composed of
the central or national government and local government units.
3. Overview of the Structure of the Philippine Government. As provided in Article II
of the Constitution, the Philippine Government is democratic and republican. It
follows the separation of powers, so that as provided in Articles VI, VII and VIII, it
divides itself into three branches: Legislative, Executive, and Judicial. Although
these branches have their own particular powers and functions, they form only one
coherent government with a common purpose. Independent Constitutional
Commissions were also created as constitutional safeguards for the other aspects of
governance in the Philippines, such as audit of public funds, conduct of elections,
and maintenance of civil service. The intricacies of Philippine bureaucracy are laid
down in the Constitution of Government, which will be discussed below.
 
SEPARATION OF POWERS
Meaning of the Doctrine
The Doctrine of Separation of Powers entails: first, the division of the powers of the
government into three, which are legislative, executive, and judicial; and second, the
distribution of these powers to the three major branches of the government, which
are the Legislative Department, Executive Department, and the Judicial
Department. Basically, it means that the Legislative Department is generally limited
to the enactment of the law and not to implementation or interpretation of the same;
the Executive Department is generally limited to the implementation of the law and
not to the enactment or interpretation of the same; and the Judicial Department is
generally limited to the interpretation and application of laws in specific cases and
not to the making or implementation of the same.
Purpose of the Doctrine
Prevention of Monopoly of Power. Separation of powers is said to be an attribute of
republicanism, in that, among other reasons, it seeks to prevent monopoly or
concentration of power to one person or group of persons, and thereby forestalls
dictatorship or despotism. Sovereignty resides in the people, and it should remain
that way. Government officials, who are the representatives of the people, must
exercise the powers of their office in the interest of the public. While
representational exercise of power brings out the essence of republicanism, too
much concentration of power rips it apart, as was experienced some administrations.
Separation not Exclusive
Important to understand is the meaning of “separation” not as exclusivity but as
“collaboration.” While each of the Departments exercises its respective power, it
does so in collaboration with the other Departments because in the end they all
belong to one unified government with a common purpose. Appointment, for
example, of Members of the Supreme Court by the President must be upon the
recommendation of the Judicial and Bar Council. In here before the President, who
belongs to the executive branch, appoint a Supreme Court justice, a
recommendation must first be given to him by the JBC, which is an independent
body in the judiciary. Another example would be the use of public funds. In here, the
President prepares the budget, on the basis of which the Congress enacts an
appropriations bill which will then be submitted and approved by the President.
Checks and Balances
From the examples above one can understand the corollary doctrine of “checks and
balances.” Under the doctrine, there is no absolute separation of the three branches
of the government, but to maintain their coequality each department checks the
power of the others. Generally, the departments cannot encroach each others’ power,
but constitutional mechanisms allow each one of them to perform acts that would
check the power of others to prevent monopoly, concentration, and abuse of power.
For example, the Judicial and Bar Council recommends nominees to the President
so that the latter will not capriciously appoint someone whom he can easily convert
into a puppet and thereby become his medium to control the judiciary. In the same
way, the disbursement of public funds cannot depend solely upon the discretion of
the President, but must be based on legislation by the Congress.
Presidential System
The Philippines has a presidential form of government because it observes the
principle of separation of powers. The ordinary connotation of presidential system is
that it is headed by a president, as distinguished from a parliamentary system which
is headed by a prime minister. The real essence, however, of the presidential system
and that which distinguishes it from the parliamentary is its strict observance of the
separation of powers. Under the presidential system, any governmental act in
violation of the said doctrine is null and void. The government is divided into three
branches and each is limited to the power delegated to it. On the contrary, under the
parliamentary form, the legislative and executive branches are “coordinate
branches” so that the two organs are fused together as one body performing both
legislative and executive functions. The Prime Minister, for example, is chosen from
among the lawmakers in the parliament to become the head of the state. His term is
at the pleasure of the parliament, thus, making the executive branch intrinsically
merged with the legislative.
THE LEGISLATURE AND THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS
Legislative Power
1. Meaning. The word “legislative” is derived from the Latin “lex” which means “law.”
In general, legislative power refers to the power to make and unmake laws. Laws are
rules or collection of rules, whether written or unwritten, prescribed under the
authority of a political society for the common good. The “Legislative Department”
(Legislature) is the law-making branch of the government.
2. Delegation to the Congress. Fundamentally, legislative power is an attribute of
sovereignty, in that the Constitution itself, the fundamental law of the State, is a
legislation of the sovereign people. However, through the Constitution, the people
“delegated” the legislative power to the Congress of the Philippines. Section 1, Article
VI states that “Legislative power shall be vested in the Congress of the Philippines…”
The delegation of power entails a surrender of authority to the representatives, or in
the case of legislative power, to the Congress. Thus, law-making can only be
performed by the Congress, even if the law it enacts involves the people.
3. Reservation to the People. The Constitution, however, makes a reservation as to
the delegation, in that it explicitly states: “… except to the extent reserved to the
people by the provision on initiative and referendum.” In other words, there is no
complete delegation of law-making power to the Congress, as the power is reserved
to the people in cases of initiative and referendum. Thus, laws are made or unmade,
first, by the Congress in the form of “statutes,” and second, by the people in
initiatives and referendums; legislative power is exercised by the Congress and the
sovereign Filipino people.
4. Legislative Power as Exercised by Congress. Legislative power as exercised by
Congress manifests itself more specifically in the Constitution as “power of
appropriation,” “power of taxation,” and “power of concurrence.”
(a) Power of Appropriation. Section 29 (1), Article VI speaks of the power to
appropriate. It states, “No money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in
pursuance of an appropriation made by law.” Appropriation means the authorization
by law for the use of a certain sum of the public funds. An appropriations law is
necessary before public funds may be spent by the government for its projects. The
government needs money in all its activities and projects so that the power of
appropriation, also known as the “power of the purse,” is said to be one of the most
important prerogatives of the Congress.
(b) Power of Taxation. The power, which is one of the inherent powers of the state, is
generally exercised by the legislative department. The Constitution limits such power
as follows: “The rule of taxation shall be uniform and equitable. The Congress shall
evolve a progressive system of taxation.” As was discussed in Chapter 4, taxation
must be uniform, equitable, and progressive. Any law passed by the Congress
contrary to this provision is null and void.
(c) Power of Concurrence. Section 21, Article VII states 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.” This refers to the power of concurrence
of the Congress in which no treaty can become binding and effective as a domestic
law without the two-thirds concurrence of the Members of the Senate.
Non-Delegation of Powers
1. Meaning and Explanation. The Congress cannot further delegate the power
delegated to it by the people. This is in keeping with the principle of non-delegation
of powers which is applicable to all the three branches of the government. The rule
states that what has been delegated cannot further be delegated – potestas delegata
non delegari potest. A delegated power must be discharged directly by the delegate
and not through the delegate’s agent. It is basically an ethical principle which
requires direct performance by the delegate of an entrusted power. Further
delegation therefore constitutes violation of the trust reposed by the delegator on the
delegate. The people, through the Constitution, delegated lawmaking powers to the
Congress, and as such, it cannot as a rule delegate further the same to another.
2. Exceptions. In order to address the numerous and complex demands of legislative
function, the Constitution provides exceptions to the rule. Further delegation is
permitted in the following cases:
(a) Delegation to the people at large. The Congress further delegates its legislative
power by allowing direct legislation by the people in cases of initiative and
referendum;
(b) Delegation of emergency powers to the President. Section 23 (2), Article VI of the
Constitution states that “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.” Emergency powers are delegated to the President by the
Congress to effectively solve the problems caused by war or other crisis which the
Congress could not otherwise solve with more dispatch than the President;
(c) Delegation of tariff powers to the President. Section 28 (2), Article VI of the
Constitution states that “the Congress may, by law, authorize the President to fix
within specified limits, and subject to such limitations and restrictions as it may
impose, tariff rates, import and export quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues, and
other duties or imposts within the framework of the national development program
of the Government.” Tariff powers are delegated to the President by the Congress to
efficiently and speedily solve economic problems posed by foreign trade which the
Congress could not otherwise address with more dispatch than the President;
(d) Delegation to administrative bodies. The Congress delegates the so called “power
of subordinate legislation” to administrative bodies. Due to the growing complexity
of modern society, it has become necessary to allow specialized administrative
bodies to promulgate supplementary rules, so that they can deal with technical
problems with more expertise and dispatch than the Congress or the courts.
Regulations or supplementary rules passed by the administrative bodies are
intended to fill-in the gaps and provide details to what is otherwise a broad statute
passed by Congress. For the rules and regulations to be valid and binding, they must
be in accordance with the statute on which they are based, complete in themselves,
and fix sufficient standards. If any of the requirements is not satisfied, the regulation
will not be allowed to affect private rights; and
(e) Delegation to the local governments. This delegation is based on the principle
that the local government is in better position than the national government to act
on purely local concerns. Legislative power is therefore given to them for effective
local legislation.
Bicameralism and Composition of Congress
1. Bicameralism in the Congress. The Constitution prescribes bicameralism in the
Congress. Congress, to whom legislative power is vested, “shall consist of a Senate
and a House of Representatives.” Bicameralism is a traditional form of legislative
body consisting of two chambers or houses, one representing regional interests and
the other representing national interests. The Congress of the Philippines is said to
be bicameral because it consists of two houses: the House of Representatives, which
is concerned with local issues, and the Senate, which is concerned with national
issues. These two are co-equal branches and their primary function is law-making.
2. The Senate. The Senate and its members are described in the Constitution as
follows:
(a) Composition. The Senate is “composed of twenty-four Senators who shall be
elected at large by the qualified voters of the Philippines, as may be provided by law.”
It is said to be the training ground of future Presidents because membership in the
Senate requires national constituency and demands a broad circumspection of the
issues and problems of the country.
(b) Qualifications of a Senator. To be a senator, one must be 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 the election.”
(c) Term. Each Senator shall have a term of six years and he shall serve for not more
than two consecutive terms.
3. The House of Representatives. The House and its members are described in the
Constitution as follows:
(a) Composition. The House of Representatives is composed of “District
Representatives” and “Party-list Representatives.” On the one hand, district
representatives or congressmen as they are commonly called, whose number is now
fixed by law, are elected from the “legislative districts” in provinces and cities. On the
other hand, party-list representatives are elected at large through a party-list system
of registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations. Twenty
percent of the total number of all the members of the House of Representatives
constitutes the party-list representatives.
(b) Qualifications of a Member. To be a member of the House of Representatives,
one must be “a natural-born citizen of the Philippines and, on the day of the election,
is at least twenty-five years of age, able to read and write, and, except the party-list
representatives, a registered voter in the district in which he shall be elected, and a
resident thereof for a period of not less than one year immediately preceding the day
of the election.”
(c) Term. Each Member has a term of three years and shall serve for not more than
three consecutive terms.
4. The Officers of the Congress are the Senate President, who heads the sessions in
the Senate, and the House Speaker, who heads the House of Representatives. They
are elected by majority vote of all their respective members. If it deems necessary,
each House can choose other officers.
Party-list Representation
1. Meaning and Purpose. The party-list system aims at establishing representation of
the underprivileged. It is a social justice tool designed not just to make the
underprivileged mere beneficiaries of law but to make them lawmakers themselves.
It opens up the political system to the prejudiced and underrepresented sectors of
the society. Under the present rule, however, party-list representatives need not
represent only the marginalized and the underrepresented; national political parties
can participate through their sectoral wings provided they are registered separately
in the COMELEC. Party-list representatives after all may represent not just a
marginalized or underrepresented sectors but also “ideologies” germane to
democracy.
2. Parameters for Allocation of Seats. As to the allocation of seats of party-list
representatives in the House of Representatives, the parameters are:
(a) Twenty percent allocation in the House (Sec. 5(2), Art. VI);
(b) To qualify to a seat, at least two percent of the votes is casted on the party;
(c) A qualified party is entitled to a maximum of three seats; and
(d) Proportional representation as to the number of additional seats vis-à-vis the
total number of votes cast.
Sessions and Quorum
1. Kinds of Session. The Congress has regular sessions and special sessions. On the
one hand, the regular sessions are conducted once a year starting on the fourth
Monday of July and continue as long as the Congress deems it necessary but only
until thirty days before the next regular session. On the other hand, special sessions
are conducted anytime upon the call of the President on subjects he wishes to
consider. This can last for as long as the Congress wants.
2. Quorum. In order to transact business during its regular or special sessions, each
House must meet the quorum or majority of the body. One half of the members plus
one is the majority. No law can be passed or a legislative function discharged unless
the quorum is reached. In determining the quorum, however, members who are
abroad, suspended or otherwise prevented from participating are not counted. Only
those who are in the Philippines and on whom the Congress has coercive power to
enforce its authority and command are counted. For example, if one of the members
of the Senate is outside the Philippines, the base number is twenty three because the
Senator abroad is not counted. The quorum is therefore twelve since it is the
majority of twenty three.
3. Recess. Thirty days before the next regular sessions, the Congress shall have its
compulsory recess or adjournment. But each House can adjourn for a voluntary
recess provided that the consent of the other House is obtained if the adjournment is
for three days or to any other place than that to which the two Houses are sitting.
Parliamentary Immunities
1. Meaning. Parliamentary immunity refers to the privilege given to Members of the
Congress intended to ensure their effective discharge of legislative functions and
maintenance of representation in the Congress.
2. Two Kinds of Immunity. The Constitution provides two kinds of immunities:
“immunity from arrest” and “privilege of speech and debate.” Section 11, Article VI
states: “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. 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.”
(a) Immunity from arrest refers to the freedom of Senators and Members of the
House of Representative from arrest while the Congress is in session, whether
regular or special, from the time it convenes until its final adjournment. The offense,
however, of which the arrest is made must not be punishable for more than six years
of imprisonment. For example, if Senator Pedro is charged for the crime of simple
theft while the Congress is still in session, he cannot be arrested because simple theft
is not punishable for more than six years of imprisonment. But if he is charged for
rape, he may be arrested even though the Congress is in session because rape is
punishable by more than six years imprisonment.
(b) Privilege of speech and debate refers to the freedom of Senators and Members of
the House of Representatives from being questioned or held liable in any place for
any speech or debate in the Congress or in any committee thereof. This is to give
leeway to the members of the Congress to express their ideas without fear of being
held liable in the courts of justice for the effective discharge of their duties. It must
be noted, however, that the privilege is effective only in speeches and debates made
in the Congress or in those uttered by the legislator in his capacity as member of the
Congress. Moreover, although the legislator cannot be held liable before the courts,
he could be held liable in the Congress itself for words or conduct unbecoming of a
member. For example, if Congressman Pedro, during his speech before the House,
uttered unsavory remarks against a fellow member, he cannot be charged for libel
before the courts but he can be made liable in the House itself for words or conduct
unbecoming of a member of the House.
Restrictions and Disqualifications
1. Conflict of Interest. The Constitution demands transparency in the Congress,
particularly in the financial and business interests of its members, in order for the
legislature to be aware of a “potential conflict of interest.” Potential conflict of
interest happens when a legislator derives financial advantage from a law which he
legislates or was legislated during his term and the body was not notified of such
conflict. It constitutes betrayal of public trust in that the personal interest of the
legislator is placed over that of the public. Note however that the legislator can still
propose a law even if there is a potential conflict of interest for as long as he has
notified the body about it. The purpose therefore of this requirement is to allow the
House to better examine the legislation vis-à-vis the legislator.
2. Incompatible Office. In keeping with doctrine of separation of powers, the
Constitution provides that “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.” This
disqualification refers to the “incompatible office” which is any other office in the
government that if held by a member of the Congress would result to the forfeiture of
his seat in the Congress. The provision allows a member to hold an incompatible
office but the result is the automatic forfeiture of his seat. For example, if during the
term of Senator Pedro he becomes the head of a government-owned and controlled
corporation, he will no longer be Senator because of the automatic forfeiture, the
GOCC being an incompatible office.
3. Forbidden Office. Another disqualification involves the so-called “forbidden
offices” or offices which have been created or the emoluments of which were
increased while the legislator was a member of the Congress. The purpose of this
disqualification is to prevent legislators to create an office or to increase its
emoluments for personal gain. Pursuant to this disqualification, a Senator, for
example, cannot be appointed to a civil or military office which was created while he
was still a senator. The disqualification lasts for the entire six-year term even if the
member resigns before the end of his term.
Independent Bodies
1. The Constitution creates two independent bodies in the Congress especially to
perform non-legislative functions and to check the appointing power of the Chief
Executive, to wit: (a) the Electoral Tribunals and (b) Commission on Appointments.
Although majority of their members come from the Congress, they considered
independent bodies in that they have the exclusive right to prescribe their own rules
of procedure, they have their own set of employees who are under their control and
supervision, and they have their own function distinct from that of the Congress.
2. Electoral Tribunal. To ensure fairness and impartiality in deciding election
contests involving members of the Congress, each House in the Congress shall have
an Electoral Tribunal: the “Senate Electoral Tribunal” in the Senate, and “House of
Representatives Electoral Tribunal” in the House of Representatives. Each Electoral
Tribunal shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and
qualifications of their respective Members. Each shall be composed of nine
members, three are Justices of the Supreme Court, and six are members of the
Senate or the House of Representatives, as the case may be. The Chairman shall be
the senior Justice. While the member Justices are designated by the Chief Justice of
the Supreme Court, the six other legislator members are chosen on the basis of
proportional representation from political parties and party-list organizations (duly
registered under the party-list system) in the Congress. Thus, if there is an election
contest, for instance, involving the qualifications of Congressman Juan, the case
shall be decided by the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal which is the sole
judge of election contests involving the Members of the House of Representatives.
3. Commission on Appointments. Another independent body in the Congress is the
Commission on Appointments which was created to check the appointing power of
the President, specifically in appointments to importance offices in the government.
It consists of twenty five members: the Senate President, as ex officio Chairman,
twelve Senators, and twelve Members of the House of Representatives. The Senators
and Members of the House are elected by their respective Houses based on
proportional representation from the political parties and party-list organizations
(duly registered under the party-list system) in the Congress. The function of the
Commission is to approve or disapprove the nominations submitted to it by the
President to appointments that require its approval. For example, before a Cabinet
Member may be appointed, the President must first submit his nomination for
approval to the Commission on Appointments. With the approval, there could be no
appointment.
Procedure of How a Bill Becomes a Law
1. Bill vs. Statute. Among the most important things studied in Article VI, The
Legislative Department, is the procedure of how a bill becomes a law. A bill is a
proposed law. As such, it is not yet binding nor does it confer or affect the rights and
duties of individuals. It becomes a law only after it has gone through all the
formalities and solemnities of the legislation process as prescribed in the
Constitution. The law enacted by the Congress is called a statute.
2. The procedure is as follows:
(a) A bill is introduced by any Member of the Senate or the House of Representatives
by filing it with the Office of the Secretary where it is calendared for the First
Reading. Some bills, however must originate exclusively from the House of
Representatives, such as the appropriation, revenue or tariff bills, bills authorizing
increase of the public debt, bills of local application, and private bills, although the
Senate may propose or concur with amendments.
(b) During the first reading the number, title, and name/s of author/s are read. The
subject of the bill as expressed in its title must only be one in order to avoid hodge-
podge or log-rolling legislation which entails insertion of many unrelated subjects.
The bill is referred to an appropriate committee for study. Public hearings or
consultations may be conducted by the committee before it recommends the bill for
approval, with or without amendments, or for consolidation with similar bills, or for
disapproval. If it is disapproved, the bill is said to be “killed.” If approved or reported
out, it will calendared for the second reading.
(c) During the second reading, which is the start of the most important stage, the bill
is read in its entirety, together with the amendments introduced by the committee, if
there are any. The bill will thereafter be debated upon and amended if the members
deem it necessary.
(d) The approved bill in the second reading is printed in its final form and copies of
it are furnished to the members three days before the third reading. During the third
reading, only the title of the bill is read, and immediately after, the Members will
vote thereon and their votes (yeas and nays) will be entered in the journal. No
further amendments are allowed.
(e) The approved bill is referred to the other house where it also undergoes three
readings on three separate days. If compromise or reconciliation of conflicting
provisions is necessary because of the differences in the House Bill and Senate Bill
version, the bill shall be submitted to a joint bicameral committee.
(f) After the bill has been approved on third reading on both Houses it shall be
submitted to the President for his action. He approves by signing the bill; he
disapproves by vetoing and returning the bill with his objections to the House of
origin. In order to override the veto of the President, two-thirds of all the Members
of each house voting separately must agree to pass the bill. If the President will not
act on the bill in thirty days, the bill shall become a law as if signed by him. “Pocket
veto” is not allowed under the laws.
(g) The enrolled bill or bill as printed and approved by the Congress and the
President shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation or in the Official
Gazette of the Government and shall become binding fifteen days following its
publication unless another date is provided therein.
3. Three Readings on Three Separate Days. What is important to remember in all
these steps is the rule of “three readings on three separate days.” Except when the
President certifies to the necessity of its immediate enactment to meet a public
calamity or emergency, no bill can become a law unless it passes three readings on
three separate days in both Houses of the Congress.
Non-legislative and other Powers of Congress
1. Non-Lawmaking Powers. Aside from lawmaking, Congress performs non-
lawmaking functions, such as initiation and holding of impeachment (Art. XI, Sec.
2), acting as a constituent assembly (Article XVII, Sec. 1), declaration of existence of
war (Art. VI, Sec. 1), approval of Presidential appointments through the Commission
on Appointments (Art. VI, Sec. 17), and deciding election cases involving its
members (Art. VI, Sec. 16).
2. Power to Declare the Existence of War. Section 23 (1), Article VI states that “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.” This
means that when the Philippines is under attack by foreign invaders, the Congress by
means of enacting a law, affirms that the Philippines is already at war with the
enemy. War is not solely controlled by the President who is the commander in chief
of the military; it is likewise controlled by the legislature because it has power over
the money used in the war.
3. Legislative Inquiries. The Congress also conducts legislative inquiries which power
is necessarily implied in its power to legislate. Legislative inquiry is a process held in
the Congress especially conducted to compulsorily obtain requisite information from
witnesses in aid of legislation. The process and the requite information taken are
necessary to legislate wisely and effectively. The Constitution provides limitations, to
wit: (1) the inquiries must be in aid of legislation; (2) it must be in accordance with
the duly published rules of procedure of the Congress; and (3) the rights of persons
appearing shall be respected.
4. Question Hour. Inquiries may also be conducted to obtain information from the
heads of departments on matters pertaining to how laws are implemented. This is
called the question hour. The manner of obtaining information, however, is not
compulsory because of the doctrine of separation of powers. The heads of the
departments are alter egos of the President; to maintain the co-equality of the
executive and legislative branch, either House of Congress may only request for the
appearance of the department heads. Conversely, the department heads may appear
but the Congress is not obliged to hear them. Question hour is different from
legislative inquiry in that appearance in the former is not compulsory, while
appearance in the latter is compulsory; information derived in the former is in
exercise of “oversight functions,” while informative derived in the latter is in aid of
legislation; and the former is not among the traditional processes of a presidential
government, while the latter is an inherent legislative power under a presidential
government.
 
THE EXECUTIVE AND EXECUTIVE PROCESS
Executive Power
1. Meaning. Executive power includes, first, the power to implement and administer
the law, and, second, other powers necessary to carry out the same. Section 1, Article
VII provides that “the executive power shall be vested in the President of the
Philippines,” so that his primary role is to ensure that the laws are faithfully
executed. That executive power is given to the President alone makes him the most
potent official in the government. But while much is given to him, much is also
expected. The limits of his awesome powers are structurally provided in the
Constitution to prevent irresponsible and despotic exercise thereof.
2. Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency. While executive power is given only to the
President, the President can appoint “Members of his Cabinet” whom the law
considers as his “alter egos” (extensions of himself). Under the doctrine of qualified
political agency, the acts of the Members of the Cabinet are deemed to be the acts of
the President unless reprobated or altered by him. The Cabinet Members are
political agents of the President who help him discharge his powers and duties which
alone he cannot efficiently perform. They are the heads of the departments who
serve as presidential advisers. Just as the President has the power of control over
them, he also has the power to remove them, him being still the chief of
administration.
Presidential Privileges
1. Meaning. Presidential privilege refers to an immunity or privilege granted to the
President intended for the effective performance of his executive functions and
duties.
2. Kinds. The President is granted the privilege of immunity from suit and executive
privilege.
(a) Immunity from suit means that the President cannot be sued, if he invokes such
privilege, for any civil or criminal action during his tenure. In one case, the Court
said that “the rationale for the grant of the privilege of immunity from suit is to
assure the exercise of the Presidential duties and functions free from any hindrance
or distraction, considering that being the Chief Executive of the Government is a job
that, aside from requiring all of the office-holder’s time, also demands undivided
attention.” After his tenure, however, the President can no longer invoke immunity
for non-official acts.
(b) Executive privilege refers to the power of the President to withhold confidential
information from the other branches of the Government and the public. Among
these types of information covered by the privilege are: (i) conversations and
correspondence between the President and the public officials (covered by E.O.
464); (ii) military, diplomatic, and other national security matters which in the
interest of national security should not be divulged; (iii) information between inter-
government agencies prior to the conclusion of treaties and executive agreements;
(iv) discussion in close-door Cabinet meetings; and (v) matters affecting national
security and public order. These types of information are closed or withheld from the
other branches and the public because they are crucial for the exercise of executive
functions and to prevent the potential harm resulting from the disclosure of the
same. Thus, the President and the Cabinet Members, for instance, can invoke
executive privilege even in the Congress during legislative investigations.
Qualifications, Manner of Election, and Term
1. The President. The Constitution provides the qualifications, manner of election,
and term of the President as follows:
(a) Qualifications. Section 2, Article VII of the Constitution provides the
qualifications of a President, to wit: (i) he must be a natural-born citizen of the
Philippines; (ii) a registered voter; (iii) able to read and write; (iv) at least forty years
of age on the day of the election; and (v) a resident of the Philippines for at least ten
years immediately preceding such election.
(b) Manner of Election. He is elected at large by the direct vote of all qualified
citizens.
(c) Term. His term is six years, for which he cannot seek for reelection. He may be
removed from office through “impeachment.”
2. The Vice-President. Section 3, Article VII states that the Vice-President has “the
same qualifications and term of office as the President,” for the reason that his
primary role is to succeed the President in case of vacancy due to the latter’s death,
permanent disability, or resignation. He may also be removed from office in the
same manner as the President. However, the Vice-President may serve for two
consecutive terms.
3. When Qualifications must be Present. It must be noted that the qualifications
must be present on the day of the election and not on the day of filing the Certificate
of Candidacy or the day of proclamation of the President-elect. Thus, one can still
run for President even if he is still thirty nine years old on the day of filling the
certificate of candidacy, for as long as he is forty years old on the day of the election.
Worthy of note also is the Constitutional limitation on the term of the President, that
is, he cannot seek for reelection. The manifest purpose of this is to prevent
despotism and to protect the highest public official from being consumed by the
overwhelming powers of Presidency.
Presidential Succession
1. Two Rules on Presidential Succession. Section 7 and Section 8, Article VII
prescribe the rules for presidential succession or the manner of filling a vacancy in
the presidency. Section 7 talks of succession when vacancy happens at the start of
the term of the President-elect, while Section 8 talks of succession when vacancy
happens at the mid part of the term of the incumbent President. These rules are
important because they provide immediate remedy for filling the vacancy in the
highest and most crucial seat of the land.
2. Succession at the Start of the Term. Under Section 7, Article VII, the rule is:
(a) The Vice-President becomes the Acting President in the event that the President-
elect fails to qualify, or when no President was chosen;
(b) The Vice-President becomes the President in the event that the President-elect
dies or becomes permanently disabled; and
(c) The Senate President or, in case of his inability, the House Speaker, becomes the
Acting President on the event that no President and Vice-President are chosen or
qualified, or where both died or become permanently disabled.
In the first case, the Vice-President acts as President until a President-elect is
qualified and chosen. In the second case, the Vice-President does not only act as
President but becomes the President. And in the third case, the Senate President or,
in his inability, the House Speaker acts as President until a President or a Vice-
President are chosen and qualified.
3. No Presidential Hold-Over. Note well that the former President, whose term
already expired, has no right of “hold-over.” So as not to repeat the dictatorship of
the past, the Constitution is strict with the six-year term limit. No extensions are
allowed, not even in a hold-over capacity. Thus, if no President assumes office after
the election, the former President is not allowed to continue discharging the
functions of the presidency.
4. Succession at the Mid-Part of the Term. Under Section 8, Article VII, the rule is:
(a) the Vice-President becomes the President for the unexpired term in case of the
latter’s death, permanent disability, removal from office, or resignation; and
(b) if the same happens to both the President and the Vice-President, then the
Senate President or, in case of his inability, the House Speaker, will act as President
until the President or Vice-President will be elected and qualified.
5. Vacancy in the Office of the Vice-President. If the Office of the Vice-President is
vacant as a consequence of presidential succession, the President shall nominate a
Vice-President from among the Members of Congress who shall assume office upon
confirmation of the Members of Congress. For example, when former President
Joseph Estrada was ousted from Malacanang through People Power, he was
succeeded by then Vice- President Gloria Arroyo. As a matter of course, the Office of
the Vice-President became vacant. Thus, the new President, Gloria Arroyo,
nominated then Senator Teofisto Ginggona for Vice-President whose nomination
was confirmed by the Members of Congress. Note that President Arroyo could have
nominated any Member of the Congress, that is, either a Senator or a Member of the
House of Representatives for Vice-Presidency.
6. Temporary Disability of the President. And lastly, Presidential succession also
happens when the President is “temporarily disabled.” The temporary disability of
the President, of which the public must be informed, is determined by:
(a) the President himself through a written declaration transmitted to the Senate
President and House Speaker, in which case the Vice-President becomes the Acting
President;
(b) majority of Cabinet Members through a written declaration transmitted to the
two officials, in which case the Vice-President becomes the Acting President; and
(c) 2/3 vote of both Houses of Congress, voting separately, in case there is a dispute
between the President and the Cabinet Members, in which case the Vice-President
also becomes the Acting President.
Presidential incapacity is said to be terminated when the President or his Cabinet
Members transmit to the Congress that the inability no longer exists, or in case the
temporary disability was declared by the Congress, when both Houses by 2/3 vote,
each voting separately, declare the termination of presidential incapacity.
Inhibitions and Disqualifications
The Constitution provides many inhibitions and disqualifications on the President,
Vice-President, Cabinet Members, and their deputies and assistants. The subjects of
the inhibitions and disqualifications are: (1) increase in their salaries and
emoluments; (2) the holding of other offices; (3) appointment of relatives; and (4)
midnight appointment.
1. Inhibition on Salary. The Congress fixes by law the salaries of the President and
Vice-President. The salaries cannot be decreased during their tenure, but the same
can be increased. The increase takes effect only after the expiration of the term of the
President and Vice-President during whose term the increase was approved.
2. Disqualification on Holding Other Offices. They cannot also receive during their
tenure any other compensation or allowances from the Government or any other
source. The reason for this is that they cannot hold any other office or employment,
unless otherwise provided in the Constitution. Their office, being very important and
crucial in the government, demands their full time and attention. The
disqualification also prevents them from extending special favors to their own
private business which comes under their official jurisdiction, and assures the public
that they will be faithful and dedicated in the performance of their functions. Public
office is public trust, so that it cannot be used for personal benefit and familial
advantage. Thus, they shall strictly avoid conflict of interest in the conduct of their
office.
It should be noted that the Vice-President can be appointed as Member of the
Cabinet and his appointment need not go through the Commission on
Appointments. This is an exception to the above prohibition, of which its purpose is
to give due reverence to the second highest office of the land and more importantly
to give him a function other than being a mere President Reserve.
3. Prohibition against Appointment of Relatives. Nepotism is prohibited by the
Constitution. Nepotism happens when the President, during his tenure, appoints his
spouse and relatives by consanguinity or affinity within the fourth civil degree 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. Public office is
not a property, nor can it be shared and passed as a matter of right to family
members. The Philippines is not the kingdom of the President; his office is only
entrusted to him by the people who are the sovereign rulers of the country and to
whom he must serve with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency.
4. Prohibition against Midnight Appointments. Midnight appointments are also
prohibited by the Constitution. Midnight appointment refers to presidential
appointment after election but before assumption to office of the next President.
Section 15, Article VII provides that “two months immediately before the next
presidential elections and up to the end of his term, a President or Acting President
shall not make appointments.” This is essentially a limitation to the appointing
power of the President. The purpose of the prohibition is to avoid using the
Presidency for partisan considerations and for vote buying. It is also rude and
unstatesman-like for an outgoing President to appoint within the said period so as to
prevent the incoming President to exercise his prerogative of selecting his own set of
officers.
Powers of the President
The President of the Philippines has specific powers provided in the Constitution, to
wit: (1) appointing power; (2) power of control and supervision; (3) military power;
(4) pardoning power; (5) diplomatic power; (6) residual power; (7) delegated power;
and (8) veto power.
1. Power of Appointment.
(a) Meaning. Appointment is one mode of putting a person in office in which an
appointing authority selects a person to discharge the functions of an appointive
office. The power is exercised by the President, although legislative and judicial
officials can also appoint their respective personnel.
(b) Types of Appointment. There are four types of presidential appointments:
(i) Appointment by an Acting President ;
(ii) Temporary appointment ;
(iii) Regular appointment ; and
(iv) Ad interim appointment.
(c) Appointments Distinguished from Each Other. Appointment by an Acting
President may be revoked by the elected President within ninety days from his
assumption or reassumption of office. If it were not revoked, the appointment
remains effective, as if it were the President-elect who made the appointment.
Temporary appointment is appointment made prior a presidential election that is
subject to a possible cancellation or revocation of the President-elect. As an
exception to midnight appointments, temporary appointments may be extended by
an outgoing President to executive positions when continued vacancies therein will
prejudice public service or endanger public safety. Regular appointment is
presidential appointment made with or without the consent of the Commission on
Appointments. And Ad interim appointment is appointment made during the recess
of the Congress, whether voluntary or compulsory, which is effective until
disapproved by the Commission on Appointments or until the next adjournment of
the Congress.
(d) Ad Interim Appointment vs. Regular Appointment. Ad interim appointment is
different from regular appointment, in that the purpose of the former is to prevent
hiatus or lull in government offices, while that of the latter is to simply fill an office
in the ordinary course of business; an ad interim appointee immediately assumes
office, while a regular appointee does not, since confirmation by the Commission on
Appointments is still required. Moreover, an ad interim appointment is different
from temporary appointment. Although the former is subject to the revocation of the
Congress (through the Commission on Appointments), it is not temporary because it
takes effect immediately and cannot be revoked or withdrawn by the President if the
ad interim appointee is qualified. In fact, ad interim appointment is permanent and
its subsequent disapproval does not change its nature. Lastly, an ad interim
appointment is different from appointment in acting capacity, in that the former
requires confirmation of the Commission on Appointments, while the latter does
not; the former is permanent, while the latter is temporary; and the former is made
during recess, while the latter in made either during recess or not.
(e) Appointments Requiring Confirmation. Section 16, Article VII provides an
exclusive list of Presidential appointees whose appointments require the
confirmation of the Commission on Appointments. These officials are: (1) the
department secretaries, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls; (2)
officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain; (3) other
officers whose appointments are vested in him in the Constitution; (4) all other
officers of the Government whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by
law, and those whom he may be authorized by law to appoint; and (5) the heads of
departments, agencies, commissions, boards, those lower in rank in the President.
Members of the Constitutional Commissions and regular members of the Judicial
and Bar Council are officers whose appointments are vested in him in the
Constitution. The list is exclusive, thus, other appointments by the President do not
require consent of the Commission on Appointments.
The appointees are subject to the control of the President in line with the doctrine of
the qualified political agency. The President has the power to change and set-aside
their acts.
2. Power of Control and Supervision.
(a) Control. The President has control over all executive departments, bureaus, and
offices; as chief administrator, he has the primary duty to ensure that the laws are
faithfully executed. Power of control refers to the power of the President, being the
Chief Executive, to alter, modify or set aside the acts of his subordinates and
substitute his judgment for that of the latter. His subordinates include the Cabinet
Members or heads of the executive departments, heads of bureaus and offices, and
their subordinates and assistants. The Cabinet Members are alter egos of the
President as enunciated in the doctrine of qualified political agency; thus, the
President has the power to alter or set aside their acts. Moreover, the power of
control is connected to the appointing power of the President. Just as he can put
people to appointive positions, he can also investigate, discipline, suspend, and
remove them when they become inefficient or corrupt.
(b) Supervision. The power of control includes the power of supervision. The power
of supervision refers to the authority to oversee a subordinate officer and to see to it
that he performs his functions and duties in accordance with law. It generally
includes the power to investigate. It must be noted that the power of control is
broader than the power of supervision, since the former includes the latter. The
President has power of supervision over local government units, in which he can
investigate and see to it that they perform their duties in accordance to established
laws. He does not, however, have power of control over them, so that he cannot
change their acts or substitute his judgment for their judgment.
3. Military Powers.
The President is granted military powers, the primary purpose of which is to
maintain civilian supremacy over the military. The power includes: (a) calling-out
power; (b) power to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus; and (c) power
to declare martial law.
(a) President as Commander-in-Chief. Section 18, Article VII states that the
President is the Commander-in-Chief of the 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. As the highest civilian officer, the
President is also the highest military authority. This is so because civilian authority
should, at all times, be supreme over the military in the democratic, republican
Philippines. The military is the single most power institution equipped by law to use
violence and force. Thus, to prevent military takeover, the fundamental law makes a
civilian the commander-in-chief of the military. Although the President lacks
military training, the ideals of democracy dictate that he should possess the
tremendous power of controlling and directing the military even in times of war.
While he may delegate to, and ask advice from, military men, the ultimate authority
to direct and call out the armed forces is with him. Not even the courts can question
him in exercise of this prerogative of calling the armed forces to prevent or suppress
lawless violence, invasion or rebellion.
(b) Suspension of the Privilege of Habeas Corpus. Section 18, Article VII also
expressly gives the President the power to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus. The writ of habeas corpus is a written order issued by the court directing a
person detaining another to produce (habeas) the body (corpus) of the latter and to
explain before the court his authority for detaining the latter. Habeas corpus is a
special proceeding which provides speedy remedy for the immediate release of an
unlawfully detained person. Thus, a person who was arrested and detained without a
valid warrant may file a petition for habeas corpus for his immediate release, after
the judge determines that there is no valid ground for his detention. Under Section
18, this “privilege” of habeas corpus may be suspended by the President in case of
invasion or rebellion, and when public safety requires it. The rationale for such
power is to allow the President to expediently reestablish peace and order by
detaining apparent offenders without the hindrance or threat of their immediate
release. Note, however, that what is suspended is the “privilege,” not the right to file
the petition for habeas corpus. Thus, even when the President suspends the
privilege, persons unlawfully detained may still file a petition for habeas corpus.
Only the privilege of immediate release is suspended.
(c) Martial Law. The power to declare martial law is likewise expressly granted in
Section 18. Martial law, within the Constitutional context, means temporary military
rule especially declared not to replace civilian authority but to help it recover in case
of invasion or rebellion, and when public safety requires it. Martial law, unlike a
military takeover, does not suspend the operation of the Constitution and guarantee
for respect of human rights. It is not permanent; it is declared only for a limited
duration, that is, for not more than sixty days. In addition, the President must also
report in writing to the Congress within forty eight hours from proclamation, and the
Congress may conduct special sessions even without the call of the President. As far
as the courts are concerned, the military courts do not acquire jurisdiction over cases
involving civilians if civil courts are still able to function. These constitutional
limitations are intended to uphold democracy and civilian supremacy in the
Philippines, as well as to prevent the rise of an abusive military regime that does not
respect due process and takes for granted the liberties of the sovereign people.
(d) Comparison of the Military Powers. To compare the military powers of the
President, it must be noted that the power to declare martial law and the power to
suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus are the greater powers since it
curtails the freedoms and civil liberties of the citizens. The calling out power is said
to be lesser or benign power, in that it has no such effect. Thus, the Constitution
limits the former powers by making them susceptible to review by the courts,
whereas the calling out power is exercised by the President with full discretion and
wisdom as the commander-in-chief of armed forces, not subject to judicial review.
4. Pardoning Power.
The pardoning power of the President refers to the exercise of executive clemency. It
includes: (a) pardon; (b) commutation; (c) reprieve; (d) amnesty; and (e) parole.
(a) Pardon is an act of grace which exempts an individual from serving his sentence
or punishment which the law inflicts for the crime he committed. It forgives the
offender by not letting him pay for the crime he committed. For pardon to be given,
a person must first be declared guilty of a crime by final judgment of the court, and
the President thereafter extends pardon. Instead of making him serve his sentence,
the President exempts him through his personal act of grace. What the convict is
exempted from is criminal liability not civil liability.
There are two kinds of pardon: absolute and conditional. Absolute pardon is one that
absolves the convict from criminal liability without any conditions whatsoever, while
condition pardon absolves the convict from criminal liability under the penalty of
recommitment to prison in case any condition provided is violated.
It must be remembered, however, that pardon cannot be granted in cases of
impeachment; or in violations of election laws without favorable recommendation of
the COMELEC; or in cases of legislative contempt or civil contempt; or can it restore
forfeited public offices.
(b) Commutation refers to reduction or mitigation of the penalty. For example,
instead of serving ten years of imprisonment, reduction has the effect of reducing the
penalty to five years, for instance, at the discretion of the President.
(c) Reprieve refers to the postponement of sentence or stay of execution. This was
applicable when death penalty was still effective. For instance, the execution of a
death convict may be postponed by the President to another date if he extends
reprieve.
(d) Parole is probational release from imprisonment. It is given to a convict who has
served the minimum sentence of his penalty and has acted in good behavior inside
the penal institution. Parole does not fully restore the freedom of the parolee since
he is still in the custody of the law although not in confinement.
(e) Amnesty is an act of grace by the President extended to groups of persons who
committed political offenses. It requires the concurrence of the legislature and puts
into oblivion the offense itself. It is distinguished from pardon, in that: the former
forgives political offenses (such as treason and rebellion) deemed expedient for the
public welfare than prosecution of the same, while the latter forgives crimes against
the peace of the state (such as homicide and murder); the former is usually given to
groups of offenders, whereas the latter is given to an individual; the former requires
concurrence of the Congress, while the latter does not; the former is a public act
which the courts takes judicial notice, whereas the latter is a private act of the
President which must be pleaded by the person pardoned for the court to take
judicial notice; and the former looks backward and abolishes the criminal and civil
liability of the offenders, while the latter looks forward and relieves only the criminal
liability of the offender.
5. Diplomatic Powers.
The President has diplomatic powers because, as the head of the State, he is the
spokesman of the nation on matters of external affairs. “He may deal with foreign
states and governments, extend or withhold recognition, maintain diplomatic
relations, enters into treaties, and otherwise transact with the business of foreign
relations,” The Constitution, however, limits this power of the President, as it
expressly states “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.” Thus, if
the President, for instance, enters into an international agreement with the United
States of America for the establishment of civilian rights mutually benefiting the
citizens of both countries, then on the part of the Philippines, least two-thirds of all
the Members of the Senate must concur with the said international agreement.
6. Residual Powers.
The President, as the head of the State, is given residual powers. Under the
presidential system, the President is not a mere symbolic head; he is the chief
executive granted with powers, so broad to include even those not mentioned in the
Constitution. “The powers of the President are not limited to what are expressly
enumerated in the article on Executive Department and in scattered provisions of
the Constitution.” He has unstated powers called “residual powers” which are
implied from the grant of executive powers and necessary for the exercise of his
duties under the Constitution. It is called “residual” because it is whatever power
which the legislature or the judiciary does not possess and which the President
could, thus, legitimately exercise consistent with his functions. This is not to foster
another dictatorship or an unbridled exercise of power as was experienced during
the Marcos administration; nor is it a violation of the Constitutional intent to limit
the specific powers of the President to avoid another abusive regime (since
appropriate measures are already provided in the new Constitution). The grant of
residual powers, rather, is just in recognition of the general grant of executive power
to the President.
7. Delegated Powers.
As previously discussed, the Congress can delegate legislative powers to the
President, among which are emergency powers (Section 23(2), Article VI) and tariff
powers (Section 28(2), Article VI).
8. Veto Power.
The President exercises veto power in relation to his role of checking the power of
the Congress. If he thinks that a bill enacted by Congress should be disapproved, he
exercises his veto power and returns the same with his objections to the House of
origin. As a general rule, the veto must pertain to the entire bill, so that he is not
allowed to veto separate items of the bill. The exception, however, is “item veto”
allowed in case of appropriation, revenue and tariff bill. The Constitution expressly
provides that “President shall have the power to veto any particular item or items in
an appropriation, revenue, or tariff bill, but the veto shall not affect the item or items
to which he does not object.”
 
THE JUDICIARY AND THE JUDICIAL PROCESS
Judicial Power
1. Meaning in General. In a broad sense, judicial power refers to the power of the
different courts of justice to interpret and apply the laws in particular cases.
Interpretation, on the one hand, refers to the process by which the court discovers
the true meaning of the language used by the law. Its purpose is to give effect to the
intent or spirit of the law. The application of the law, on the other, refers the process
by which the court relates the pertinent legal provisions to the set of facts of a
particular case.
2. Strict Meaning. In a strict sense, the Constitution provides that “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.” The
definition includes two aspects of judicial power: (a) duty to settle actual
controversies; and (b) authority to determine if there is grave abuse of discretion.
(a) The first aspect, settlement of actual controversies, is the traditional meaning of
judicial power. In here, there exists an “actual controversy” which, if properly filed,
the court has duty to settle. For an actual controversy to exist there must be a legally
demandable or enforceable right which is violated by another who, in turn, has the
correlative duty to respect it. If the other party asserts an opposite legal claim, then it
becomes susceptible of judicial adjudication. A right is legally demandable or
enforceable if it is recognized by law and enforceable before the courts. A right which
has no basis in law cannot be enforced in the courts and violation of which does not
produce an actual controversy. Thus, while a woman has a right to demand for
financial support from the father of her son, she does not have the right to demand
for marriage from a person who impregnated her because the right has no basis in
law; the first can give rise to an actual controversy, while the other cannot.
(b) The second aspect, determination of grave abuse of authority, is the expanded
part of judicial power. It is said to be expanded because traditionally the courts
cannot question the “political acts” of the other departments of the government
(executive and legislative – political departments). The courts can only settle
justiciable questions or questions involving rights and laws, and not political
questions or questions addressed to the wisdom or discretion of political
departments. But with the expanded authority, the courts can now determine if the
political departments gravely abused the exercise of their discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction. Grave abuse of discretion refers to “such capricious and
arbitrary exercise of judgment as is equivalent, to the eyes of the law, to lack of
jurisdiction” and for it to be covered by judicial power, abuse of discretion must be
palpably grave. Thus, the President and the Congress cannot escape the authority of
the courts in determining whether or not their political acts are void, even if they
invoke that their political acts are matters of political question. This is manifestly in
line with the principle of checks and balances, and consequently, with the doctrine of
separation (in the sense of collaboration) of powers.
For example, the President is given the so-called calling out power which is a
discretionary power solely vested in him. Generally, the courts cannot inquire in this
and substitute it for its own decision since this is a political question. But if it can be
shown that there is a grave abuse of discretion on the part of the President, it will be
subject to judicial review. This is now the effect of the expanded power of the
judiciary.
3. Who Exercises Judicial Power. Section 1, Article VIII, states that judicial power is
vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law.
This means that the power to interpret and apply the laws in actual controversies is
given to, first, the Supreme Court, and, second, to other/lower courts.
4. Supreme Court and Other Lower Courts. There could only be one Supreme Court,
and its supremacy puts finality to all legal disputes. The other courts are all lower
than it, thus, they are referred as lower courts. Lower courts are also called
“statutory courts” because they are created by the act of Congress. The only
Constitutional court is the Supreme Court, while statutory courts include the Court
of Appeals, Regional Trial Court, Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court,
Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Sandiganbayan, and Court of Tax Appeals, among
others. The Court of Appeals, Regional Trial Courts, Metropolitan Trial Court,
Municipal Trial Court, and Municipal Circuit Trial Court are “regular courts” created
by the Judiciary Reorganization Law (as amended). Sandiganbayan and the Court of
Tax Appeals are “special courts” respectively created by P.D. No. 1606 and R.A. No.
1125 (as amended). These courts comprise the judicial department which exercises
judicial power.
Power of Judicial Review
1. Meaning. The courts also have the power of judicial review or the power to test the
validity or constitutionality of the legislative and executive acts, such as treaty,
international or executive agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order,
instruction, ordinance, or regulation. It is an aspect of judicial power, in that it is
essentially derived from the duty of the court to settle controversies between
conflicting parties by applying the appropriate law. The applicable law may be the
Constitution or some appropriate statute; in case of conflict between the two, the
Constitution must prevail, and the statute which is not in accordance with it must be
stricken out, or at least some parts of it. The Constitution is the fundamental law and
therefore all the acts or laws passed by the government must be in accordance with
it.
2. Requisites. The requisites of judicial review are: (a) there must be an actual
controversy; (b) the question of constitutionality must be raised by the proper party;
(c) the question is raised at the earliest opportune time; and (d) the resolution of the
constitutional question is the main issue.
3. Explanatory Example. Pedro is running for reelection for his third term as
congressman. However, the Congress passed a law prohibiting reelection for the
third term. Apparently, the statute is in conflict with the Constitution which allows
reelection of a congressman for his third term. He questions the validity of the
statute. Judicial review is proper in this case. There is an actual controversy between
Pedro and the government. He likewise has a legal standing because he has a
personal and substantial interest in the case such that he will be directly benefited or
injured by the decision to the case. The question was raised in the earliest possible
time and the resolution of the constitutional question is the main issue.
Judicial Independence
The Judicial Department plays an indispensable role in the government as the
administrator of justice. The government and consequently the State will not survive
without the judiciary. It preserves the cohesiveness of the different governmental
organs, always seeing to it that they function in accordance with the Constitution.
And inasmuch as the Philippines is a government of laws and not of men, the
judiciary protects the very essence of democracy being guardian of rights and legal
processes. Thus, in order for the judiciary to function effectively and impartially, the
Constitution provides safeguards for its independence, to wit:
(1) The Supreme Court, as a constitutional body, cannot be abolished by law passed
by the Congress;
(2) Members of the Supreme Court can only be removed through impeachment;
(3) The Supreme Court cannot be deprived of its minimum and appellate
jurisdiction; appellate jurisdiction may not be increased without its advice or
concurrence;
(4) The Supreme Court has administrative supervision over all inferior courts and
personnel;
(5) It has exclusive power to discipline judges/justices of inferior courts;
(6) Members of the judiciary have security of tenure;
(7) Members of the judiciary may not be designated to any agency performing quasi-
judicial or administrative functions;
(8) Salaries of judges may not be reduced;
(9) The judiciary enjoys fiscal autonomy;
(10) The Supreme Court alone can initiate the Rules of Court;
(11) It alone may order temporary detail of judges; and
(12) It can appoint all officials and employees of the judiciary.
Jurisdiction
1. Meaning. Jurisdiction is the power and authority of the court to hear and decide
cases. Judicial power is exercised by the various courts within their respective
jurisdictions, so that if judicial power is exercised without or in excess of jurisdiction,
then the decisions of the courts are said to be null and void.
2. Role of Congress. The various courts have their respective jurisdiction. Each
jurisdiction is defined, prescribed, and apportioned by the Congress, except that of
the Supreme Court whose jurisdiction (as enumerated in Section 5, Article VIII) is
Constitutionally prescribed so that it cannot be lessened or taken away by the
Congress.
3. Kinds of Jurisdiction. Jurisdiction could be “general or limited,” “original or
appellate,” and “exclusive or concurrent.” On the one hand, a court has a general
jurisdiction when it is empowered to hear and decide all disputes filed before it
except those falling in the jurisdiction of other courts; on the other hand, a court is
said to have a limited jurisdiction if it can hear and decide specific cases only.
Example of a court of general jurisdiction is the Regional Trial Court, and an
example of a court of limited jurisdiction is the Court of Tax Appeals. Moreover, a
court has an original jurisdiction, on the one hand, if it is empowered to hear and
decide cases filed for the first time, whereas a court has appellate jurisdiction, on the
other, if it can review a decision rendered by a lower court. The Municipal Trial
Court, for instance, has original jurisdiction over forcible entry cases, while the
Regional Trial Court has appellate jurisdiction to review the decisions of the
Municipal Trial Court. And lastly, a court has exclusive jurisdiction if it alone has
authority to hear and decide a case filed before it, while it has concurrent jurisdiction
if other courts can hear and decide a case which could be filed before it. For example,
a Regional Trial Court acting as Family Courts has exclusive jurisdiction over family
cases, whereas it (Regional Trial Court) has current jurisdiction with the Court of
Appeals and Supreme Court over habeas corpus cases.
Qualifications and Tenure
1. Qualifications of Members of the Supreme Court. Section 7(1), Article VIII
provides the qualifications of a Member of the Supreme Court or any lower collegiate
court: (a) he must be a natural-born citizen of the Philippines; (b) at least forty years
of age; (c) must have been a judge of a lower court or engaged in the practice of law
in the Philippines for fifteen years or more; and (d) must be a person of proven
competence, integrity, probity, and independence. The qualifications of judges in
lower courts shall be prescribed by Congress, but the qualifications must include
Philippine citizenship and membership in the Philippine Bar.
2. Tenure. Justices and judges can hold office until they reach the age of seventy or
become incapacitated to discharge the duties of their office. They must be in good
behavior during their tenure; otherwise they (judges) may be disciplined or
dismissed by the Supreme Court (sitting en banc).
Composition of the Supreme Court
1. Composition. The Supreme Court is composed of fifteen members: a Chief Justice
and fourteen Associate Justices. Any vacancy must be filled within ninety days from
its occurrence.
2. How Cases are Heard. In hearing cases, the Supreme Court may either sit en banc
or in division of three, five, or seven Members. On the one hand, if it sits en banc,
majority of the members who actually took part in the deliberations of the case must
concur or come up with the same vote, in order to resolve the case. En banc cases
include those involving constitutionality of a treaty, international or executive
agreement, or law, those involving the constitutionality, application, or operation of
presidential decrees, proclamations, orders, instructions, ordinances, and other
regulations. Also, only the Court sitting en banc can modify or reverse a doctrine or
principle which it itself laid down. Discipline and dismissal of judges are likewise
decided by the Court sitting en banc.
On the other hand, if the Court sits in division, at least three members must take
part in the deliberations and hearings of the case, and must have the same vote
thereon in order to resolve the case. If the required number is not obtained, the case
shall be decided en banc. For example, if the Court sits in division of seven, then at
least three of the members must actually deliberate the case and have the same stand
thereon. If only two concurred or have the same vote, then the case will now be
decided by the Court en banc, meaning majority of all the fifteen Justices must take
part in the deliberations and majority of those who took part must have the same
stand on the case. Nonetheless, if Court sits in division of three, all the members
must take part in the deliberations and come up with the same vote in order to
resolve the case. This is because the “at least three members” requirement must also
be followed.
3. Prohibitions. It must be noted that the Members of the Supreme Court and the
lower courts cannot be designated to any agency performing quasi-judicial or
administrative functions. An agency is said to perform a “quasi-judicial” function if it
acts like a court in that it hears and decides cases even if it is not a court.
Administrative agencies are under the executive branch and may be delegated quasi-
judicial powers in deciding specific cases which it could competently and efficiently
resolve. Justices and judges cannot be designated to these agencies in accordance
with the principle of separation of powers. If they are allowed to be designated to
administrative agencies, then they are likewise performing executive function, thus
violating the said principle.
Judicial and Bar Council
1. Meaning. The Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) is a constitutional body under the
supervision of the Supreme Court that has the principal function of recommending
appointees to the Judiciary. As was previously discussed, the Justices or Members of
the Supreme Court and judges of the lower courts are among the officials who are
appointed by the President. For their appointments to be valid, they must first be
nominated by the JBC. For every vacant seat in the judiciary, the Council prepares a
list of at least three nominees from which the President shall select and appoint.
Manifestly, this is form of constitutional check on the appointing power of the
President which is already deemed sufficient even without the confirmation of the
Commission on Appointments. Thus, if there is a vacancy for judgeship in a court,
the JBC must first provide a list of at least three nominees. From the list the
President shall select whom he shall appoint.
2. Composition. The JBC is composed of seven members: (a) the Chief Justice as ex
officio Chairman; (b) the Secretary of Justice as an ex officio member; (c) a
representative of the Congress as ex officio member; (d) a representative of the
Integrated Bar; (e) a professor of law; (f) a retired Member of the Supreme Court;
and (g) a representative of the private sector. The ex officio members are the Chief
Justice, Secretary of Justice, and representative of the Congress. The four others are
called regular members. The ex officio members, on the one hand, are those who by
reason of their office are also members of the Council. The regular members, on the
other, are appointed by the President for a term of four years with the consent of the
Commission on Appointments. The Secretary of the Council, who shall be in-charge
with the records keeping, is the Clerk of the Supreme Court.
Powers of the Supreme Court
The powers of the Supreme Court are expressly provided in Section 5, Article VIII.
Its powers are classified into: (1) its original jurisdiction; (2) its appellate
jurisdiction; (3) power to temporarily assign judges; (4) power to change venue; (5)
rule-making power; (6) power to appoint court personnel; and (7) administrative
supervision over lower courts.
1. Original jurisdiction means the authority to settle cases filed for the first time.
Among the cases which can be filed and settled for the first time in the Supreme
Court are, first, cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls,
and, second, petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and
habeas corpus.
The first set of cases involves diplomatic agents, who under international law are
considered representatives of the States where they are nationals. An ambassador,
being a representative or extension of a sovereign State, has immunity from suits in
the receiving state. The immunity is based on the international law doctrine of State
immunity and the equality of sovereign states. For example, the ambassador of U.S.
cannot be sued for a criminal offense committed in the Philippines, unless the
immunity or privilege is waived. In here the Philippines is the receiving State and the
ambassador is a representative of U.S. Note, however, Filipino ambassadors are not
immune from suits here in the Philippines. A consul, likewise, although a diplomatic
agent, has no diplomatic immunity. Nevertheless, all cases involving these
diplomats, ambassadors, public ministers and consuls, may be heard for the first
time in the Supreme Court.
The second set of cases involves special civil actions (certiorari, prohibition,
mandamus, and quo warranto) and a special proceeding (habeas corpus). The Rules
of Court provide for their definition and the manner of their filing.
(a) Certiorari is a special civil action which is filed by a person who is aggrieved by
any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions that had
acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no plain and speedy remedy
in the ordinary course of law. Its purpose is to invalidate a judgment rendered
without or in excess of authority or jurisdiction.
(b) Prohibition is a special civil action filed by a person aggrieved in the proceedings
of any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person, whether exercising judicial,
quasi-judicial or ministerial functions, which proceedings are without or in excess of
its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction, and there is no plain and speedy remedy in the ordinary course of
law. Its purpose is to stop a tribunal or person from further engaging in proceedings
done without or in excess of authority or jurisdiction.
(c) Mandamus is a special civil action filed by a person aggrieved by any tribunal,
corporation, board, officer or person, who unlawfully neglects the performance of an
act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from office, trust, or station,
or unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to
which such other is entitled, there is no plain, adequate, and speedy remedy in the
ordinary course of law. Its purpose is to compel the performance of a ministerial
duty or duty mandated by law to be performed under certain circumstances.
(d) Quo Warranto is a special civil action instituted by the Philippine Government
against a person, public officer, or association which usurps, unlawfully holds,
intrudes into an office, position, or franchise. Its purpose is to recover an office or
position from a usurper or from an officer, who has forfeited his office, and a
franchise from a false corporation (one without legal personality).
(e) Habeas corpus is a special proceeding the purpose of which is to grant speedy
remedy for the release of a person illegally confined or detained, or for the grant of
rightful custody over a child or person to someone from whom the custody is
withheld or to whom it rightfully belongs.
2. Appellate jurisdiction refers to the authority to review decisions of a lower court.
The Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction over final judgments and orders of
lower courts in:
(a) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or
executive agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction,
ordinance, or regulation is in question.
(b) All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or toll, or any
penalty imposed in relation thereto.
(c) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue.
(d) All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher.
(e) All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved.
The review of cases involves the right to appeal. As a general rule, the right to appeal
is only “statutory,” meaning it is the Congress, by means of a statute, that determines
whether a person can appeal an adverse decision of a lower court to a higher court.
However, the present provision dealing with the appellate jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court is not statutory but constitutional, meaning the Congress cannot
diminish or lessen the Court’s jurisdiction and consequently prevent a person from
appealing thereto. Thus, persons adversely affected by final judgments and decrees
of lower courts involving the above enumerated cases may file an appeal or certiorari
in the Supreme Court if all the requirements are met.
It could be gleaned also from the present provision that the power of judicial review
is exercised also by lower courts. The constitutionality or validity of laws and decrees
may be passed upon by the lower courts whose decisions may be subjected to review
by the Supreme Court upon filing of the proper party.
Important to note also that only cases involving error or question of law are
appealable to the Supreme Court, except some cases. If it involves questions of fact
or a mixture of fact and law, the case cannot be elevated to Supreme Court. On the
one hand, a case involves a question of fact if it requires the determination of the
truth or falsity of a fact in dispute as alleged in the pleadings of the parties. For
example, if the issue of the case is whether or not the document is genuine, then it
involves a question of fact. On the other hand, a case involves a question of law if it
does not involve the determination of the truth or falsity of a fact but only a question
of validity or applicability of a law. An example is a case involving the
constitutionality of a statute. Under the Rule of Court, the mode of appeal to the
Supreme Court appropriate in cases involving purely question of law is certiorari
under Rule 45.
3. Temporary Assignment of Judges. The Supreme Court also has the power to
“assign temporarily judges of lower courts to other stations as public interest may
require. Such temporary assignment shall not exceed six months without the consent
of the judge concerned.” This power reinforces the independence of the Supreme
Court from the Executive Department as well as balances the powers of the
government. Even if he is the appointing authority, the President has no power to
temporarily assign or transfer at his pleasure judges to other courts. Under the law
and the present rules, only the Supreme Court has the power to do so and under the
conditions that the temporary assignment results to a better administration of
justice, faster disposition of cases, and impartial decision making.
4. Change of Venue. The Court is empowered to order a change of venue or place of
trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice. Venue refers to the place where the trial is
conducted. The Rules of Court provide the rules on venue, which are clearly intended
for the speedy, impartial, and convenient disposition of cases. If instead of being
convenient, venue causes miscarriage of justice, the Supreme Court has the power to
change the venue. Even if venue is jurisdictional in criminal cases, the Supreme
Court still has the power to change the same. For example, venue maybe changed by
the Supreme Court to allow a witness to give an objective testimony without fear of
retaliation from the adverse party. The venue may also be changed when there is
danger to the life of the accused.
5. Rule-Making Power. The Court has the power to promulgate rules concerning:
(a) The protection and enforcement of constitutional rights;
(b) Pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts;
(c) The admission to the practice of law;
(d) The Integrated Bar of the Philippines; and
(e) Legal assistance to the under-privileged.
Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy
disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not
diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special courts
and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme
Court.
This power of the Supreme Court is the basis for making the Rules of Court.
6. Power to Appoint Its Own Personnel. The Court has the power to appoint all
officials and employees of the Judiciary in accordance with the Civil Service Law.
Although the power to appoint is vested in the President, the Supreme Court has the
power to appoint officials and employees of the Judicial Department. However, the
appointment must be in accordance with the Civil Service Law.
7. Administrative Supervision. Section 6, Article VIII states that the Supreme Court
has administrative supervision over all courts and its personnel. This is one of the
constitutional safeguards for the independence of the judiciary. During the
effectivity of the 1935 Constitution, the Department of Justice had administrative
supervision over the lower courts which compromised the independence of the
courts as their decisions were often swayed by the executive department. But with
the transfer of supervision to the Supreme Court, courts are empowered and freed
from the political pressures of the executive branch.
Decisions of the Supreme Court
1. Consultation. The Supreme Court is a collegiate court, in that it is composed of
many members and its decisions are reached through consultation or thorough
deliberation of its members. Consultation is necessary before the case is assigned to
a member for the writing of the opinion of the Court. Justices of the Court must
discuss with each other and vote on the settlement of the case before a certification is
given assigning the writing of the opinion to a member. For members who did not
participate, abstained, or dissented from a decision or resolution, they must explain
and state their reason for it. The same requirements must also be observed by lower
collegiate courts.
2. Constitutional Requirement. In rendering a decision, the Court must express
clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which the decision is based. The
purpose of this constitutional requirement is to inform the parties, most especially
the adversely affected party, the reasons why the judgment is rendered as such. The
Court must, therefore, state the factual and legal basis of its decision. In the same
way, resolutions refusing a petition for review or denying a motion for
reconsideration of a court decision must state the legal basis for it.
3. Period for Rendering Judgments. After the trial and parties already submitted the
case for decision, the court is duty bound to render the decision within a certain
period of time. A case or matter is deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon
the filing of the last pleading, brief, or memorandum required by the Rules of Court
or by the court itself. From date of submission, the Supreme Court must decide the
case or resolve any matter within twenty-four months, and lower courts must decide
and resolve within twelve months, unless reduced by the Supreme Court. If the court
fails to render a decision within the applicable mandatory period, it must still decide
or resolve the case or matter without further delay and without prejudice to such
responsibility incurred because of the delay.
 
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS
Independence of the Commissions
The three Constitutional Commissions are the Civil Service Commission,
Commission on Elections, and Commission on Audit. They are independent bodies
not under the jurisdiction of any department in the government. To ensure their
independence, the Constitution provides for the following safeguards:
(1) They are created by the Constitution and cannot therefore be abolished by a
statute passed by Congress;
(2) Each has powers and functions which cannot be diminished by statute;
(3) The Constitution expressly describes them as independent;
(4) The Chairmen and members of the Commissions have a fairly long term of seven
years;
(5) The Chairmen and members can only be removed through impeachment;
(6) The Chairmen and members cannot be reappointment or appointed in an acting
capacity;
(7) Salaries of Chairmen and members cannot be decreased;
(8) The Commissions enjoy fiscal autonomy;
(9) Each Commission can promulgate its own rules;
(10) Disqualifications are provided to strengthen the integrity of the Commissions;
and
(11) The Commissions may appoint their own officials and personnel in accordance
with the Civil Service Law.
Powers and Functions of Each Commission
1. The Civil Service Commission is the central personnel agency of the Government.
As such, it has the following powers and functions:
(a) Establish a career service and adopt measures to promote morale, efficiency,
integrity, responsiveness, progressiveness, and courtesy in the civil service;
(b) Strengthen the merit and rewards system, integrate all human resources
development programs for all levels and ranks; and
(c) Institutionalize a management climate conducive to public accountability.
2. The Commission on Elections is a constitutional creature which safeguards the
core of republicanism and democracy by being an effective instrument for ensuring
the secrecy and sanctity of ballots being the expression of the will of the people. It
shall exercise the following powers and functions:
(a) Enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an
election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum, and recall.
(b) Decide, except those involving the right to vote, all questions affecting elections,
including determination of the number and location of polling places, appointment
of election officials and inspectors, and registration of voters.
(c) Deputize, with the concurrence of the President, law enforcement agencies and
instrumentalities of the Government, including the Armed Forces of the Philippines,
for the exclusive purpose of ensuring free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible
elections.
(d) Register, after sufficient publication, political parties, organizations, or coalitions
which, in addition to other requirements, must present their platform or program of
government; and accredit citizens’ arms of the Commission on Elections.
(e) File, upon a verified complaint, or on its own initiative, petitions in court for
inclusion or exclusion of voters; investigate and, where appropriate, prosecute cases
of violations of election laws, including acts or omissions constituting election
frauds, offenses, and malpractices.
(f) Recommend to the Congress effective measures to minimize election spending,
including limitation of places where propaganda materials shall be posted, and to
prevent and penalize all forms of election frauds, offenses, malpractices, and
nuisance candidacies.
(g) Recommend to the President the removal of any officer or employee it has
deputized, or the imposition of any other disciplinary action, for violation or
disregard of, or disobedience to, its directive, order, or decision.
(h) Submit to the President and the Congress, a comprehensive report on the
conduct of each election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum, or recall.
3. The Commission on Audit is the watchdog of the financial operations of the
government. It sees to it that government funds are well accounted for and that they
are spent in accordance with the appropriations law. As such it has the following
powers and functions:
(a) Examine, audit, and settle all accounts pertaining to the revenue and receipts of,
and expenditures or uses of funds and property, owned or held in trust by, or
pertaining to, the Government;
(b) Keep the general accounts of the Government and preserve the vouchers and
other supporting papers pertaining thereto;
(c) Define the scope of its audit and examination, establish the techniques and
methods required therefor; and
(d) Promulgate accounting and auditing rules and regulations, including those for
the prevention and disallowance of irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant, or
unconscionable expenditures or uses of government funds and properties.
Jurisdiction of the Commissions
1. The Civil Service Commission has jurisdiction over all branches, subdivisions,
instrumentalities, and agencies of the Government, including government-owned or
controlled corporations with original charters as far as civil service is concerned.
Civil service refers to that part of public service composed of professional men and
women working for the government as their lifetime career basically governed by the
so-called merit system.
2. The Commission on Elections has exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests
relating to the elections, returns, and qualifications of all elective regional,
provincial, and city officials. It has appellate jurisdiction over all contests involving
elective municipal officials decided by trial courts of general jurisdiction, or
involving elective barangay officials decided by trial courts of limited jurisdiction.
3. The Commission on Audit has auditing authority over the Government, or any of
its subdivisions, agencies, or instrumentalities, including government-owned or
controlled corporations with original charters. It also has post auditing authority
over (a) constitutional bodies, commissions and offices that have been granted fiscal
autonomy under this Constitution; (b) autonomous state colleges and universities;
(c) other government-owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries; and
(d) such non-governmental entities receiving subsidy or equity, directly or indirectly,
from or through the Government.
Review of Final Orders, Resolutions, and Decisions
1. Final orders, resolutions, and decision of the CSC may be appealed to the Court of
Appeals under rule 43 of the Rules of Court.
2. Final orders, resolutions, and decision of the COMELEC may be reviewed by way
of petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court under Rule 65 in relation to Rule 64 of
the Rules of Court.
3. Final orders, resolutions, and decision of the COA may be reviewed by way of
petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court under Rule 65 in relation to Rule 64 of
the Rules of Court.
Guide Questions:
1. Explain the structure of the government using the doctrine of separation of
powers.
2. Briefly compare the powers of the branches of the government. Then explain how
they are related with each other.
3. What is meant by a bicameral legislature? Give at least three advantages of
bicameralism.
4. If there are 200 District Representatives, how many Party-List Representatives
are required to complete the Members of the House of Representatives?
5. If there are 215 Members of the House of Representatives, and 15 are abroad, what
would constitute the quorum?
6. A Bill of Local Application was submitted by Senator Wade to the Senate
Secretary. It has passed three readings in the Senate and then in the Congress.
Thereafter, it was presented to the President for approval, but the same was
disapproved. The President vehemently objected to the validity of the entire process.
Is the President correct?
7. What are congressional disqualifications? Give examples.
8. Concisely discuss the steps of how a bill becomes a law
9. Enumerate at least five powers of the President and briefly discuss each power.
1o. When the president dies, is permanently disabled, is impeached, or resigns, the
Vice-President becomes President for the unexpired term. However, if both the
President and Vice-President die, become permanently disabled, are impeached, or
resigned, the Senate President shall act as President until the President or VP shall
have been elected and qualified. If the Senate President becomes disabled, who will
succeed?
11. Juan Dela Cruz was nominated by President Pedro Santos to the rank of naval
captain in the Armed Forces of the Philippines. His nomination has been confirmed
by the Commission on Appointments, and his appointment (by President Siuagan)
followed thereafter. Juan Dela Cruz have accepted the nomination with great pride
and honor. The President reconsidered his appointment after discovering that Mr.
Dela Cruz has a criminal record. The President withdrew his appointment. Is this
allowed?
12. President Juan Masipag filed an application for appropriation, and in pursuance
thereof money was paid out of the National Treasury. It must be noted that the
appropriation is for a public purpose, and it is not for any specific sect, church,
denomination.
Is there something wrong with the presidential appropriation?
13. Discuss briefly the hierarchy of courts in the Philippine Judiciary.
14. What is judicial review?
15. Concisely compare and distinguish the powers and functions of the three
Constitutional Commissions.

PRELIMINARIES
Government Power vs. Individual Freedom
1. Among the changes brought about by the Period of Enlightenment was the shift of
power from the crown to the individual. The long reign of monarchs came to an end,
and the rule of the people became the standard. The government, while still the
repository of power, was limited to its role as the protector of the people and the
guardian of rights. Liberalism, which took its cue from individualism, advocated the
principle of egalitarianism, in which men, regardless of their status in life, are
regarded as equals in terms of rights before the law. Modern democracies are
founded on these liberal ideals, in that the heart of democratic objectives is the
protection of human dignity and respect for human rights.
2. Nonetheless, the government remains to be a powerful institution, capable of
summoning the military, evoking its past image as the uncontestable holder of
sovereignty. In fact, republicanism essentially requires delegation of powers to the
government; that although the people remain to be the sovereign, actual exercise of
it is given to the government. Protection and service of the people is the primal duty
of the government, but be that as it may, the government is still the single biggest
institution that exercises sovereign powers.
3. More so, it possesses the “inherent powers” which the Constitution itself does not
confer. Every government for it to exist exercises “police power,” “power of eminent
domain,” and “power of taxation.” A constitution does not grant such powers to the
government; a constitution can only define and delimit them and allocate their
exercise among various government agencies.[1] These are awesome powers, which,
if left uncheck, may seriously restrict and jeopardize the freedom of individuals.
Thus, it is inbuilt in every democratic constitution to meticulously include provisions
guaranteeing the rights of the individuals and those restricting the powers of the
government. This is to prevent the tragedy that the government created by the
people will in turn be the instrument to enslave and abuse them.
4. The Bill of Rights (Article III) is an indispensable part of the Constitution. In fact,
it is one of the most important parts of the fundamental law since it aims at
balancing the power of the government and the various freedoms of the individual.
As will be seen below, the Bill of Rights provide for two things: first, restrictions
directed against the state, and, second, explicit identification and limitation of rights
of the individuals. On the one hand, the government exercises its tremendous
powers, but its powers are limited by the Constitution. On the other hand, the
individuals are guaranteed of their rights, but subject also to limitations in
recognition of the powers of the government. What balances the two (power and
freedom) are the limitations provided by the Constitution, which limitations are by
nature compromises or solutions to situations resulting from the overlapping or
conflict of the two realms. For example, while the government has the inherent
authority to take and convert a property for public use, and the people on the other
have the right to hold their private property, the Constitution, contemplating a case
of overlap or conflict between the two, compromises both by prescribing that the
government gives just compensation to the private owner who in turn must
surrender his property.
Meaning of the Bill of Rights
1. From the foregoing, it is not difficult to understand that the Bill of Rights refers to
the declaration and enumeration of the fundamental civil and political rights of a person
with the primary purpose of safeguarding the person from violations by the government, as
well as by individuals and group of individuals. It includes the protection of the
following rights:
(a)  Civil rights or those rights belonging to individuals by virtue of their citizenship,
such as freedom to contract, right to property, and marriage among others;
(b) Political rights which are rights pertaining to the citizenship of the individual vis-
à-vis the administration of the government, such as right of suffrage right to hold
office, and right to petition for redress of wrong;
(c) Socio-economic rights or those which ensure the well-being and economic security
of an individual; and
(d) Rights of the accused which refer to protections given to the person of an accused
in any criminal case.
2. It must be noted that the restriction provided in the Bill of Rights is directed
against the government, so that it does not govern private relations. As far as the
Constitution is concerned, Article III can be invoked only against the government.
Nonetheless, with the inclusion of almost all the constitutional rights in Article 32 of
the Civil Code, the same may now be invoked in civil cases involving relations
between private persons. Thus, the definition above indicates that the bill of rights is
a safeguard not just against the abuses of the government but also of individuals or
group of individuals.
 
RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION
Life, Liberty, and Property
1. Constitutional Provision. Section 1, Article III of the Constitution states “No person
shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any
person be denied the equal protection of the laws.” The provision speaks of “due
process” and “equal protection.”
2. Scope of Protection. The protection covers all persons, whether citizens or aliens,
natural or juridical.
3. Meaning of Life, Liberty, and Property. Due process and equal protection cover
the right to life, liberty, and property. It is important therefore to know the meaning of
the three.
(a) Life. When the constitution speaks of right to life, it refers not just to physical
safety but also to the importance of quality of life. Thus, right to life means right to
be alive, right to one’s limbs against physical harm, and, equally important, right to a
good quality of life.[2] Life means something more than mere animal existence.[3]
(b) Liberty. It includes “negative” and “positive” freedom. Negative freedom means
freedom from, or absence of, physical constraints, while positive freedom means
freedom to exercise one’s faculties. Right to liberty therefore includes the two
aspects of freedom and it cannot be dwarfed into mere freedom from physical
restraint or servitude, but is deemed to embrace the right of man to enjoy his God-
given faculties in all lawful ways, to live and work where he will, to earn his
livelihood by any lawful calling, to pursue any vocation, and enter into contracts.[4]
(c) Property.  It refers either to the thing itself or right over the thing. As a thing,
property is anything capable of appropriation, and it could be personal or real. As a
right, it refers to right to own, use, possess, alienate, or destroy the thing. The
constitution uses property in the sense of right, and as such it includes, among
others, right to work, one’s employment, profession, trade, and other vested rights.
It is important to note however that privileges like licenses are not protected
property; but they may evolve in a protected right if much is invested in them as
means of livelihood. Public office is not also a property; but to the extent that
security of tenure cannot be compromised without due process, it is in a limited
sense analogous to property.[5]
5. These rights are intimately connected. For example, if one’s property right over
employment is taken away, the same will adversely affect one’s right to life since
quality of living is jeopardized. Consequently, in the absence of property and a good
quality of life, the ability to do what one wants is impeded.
6. Hierarchy of Rights. While the rights are intimately related, they have a hierarchy.
As to their order of importance, right to life comes first, followed by right to liberty,
and then right of property.
Due Process
1. Meaning. Due  process of law is a constitutional guarantee against hasty and
unsupported deprivation of some person’s life, liberty, or property by the
government. While is it true that the state can deprive its citizens of their life, liberty,
or property, it must do so in observance of due process of law. This right is “the
embodiment of the supporting idea of fair play”[6] and its essence is that it is “a law
which hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry and renders judgment
only after trial.”[7]
2. When Invoked. The right is invoked when the act of the government is arbitrary,
oppressive, whimsical, or unreasonable. It is particularly directed against the acts of
executive and legislative department.
3. Two Aspects of Due Process. Due process of law has two
aspects: procedural and substantive. Basically, the procedural aspect involves the
method or manner by which the law is enforced, while the substantive aspect
involves the law itself which must be fair, reasonable, and just.
4. Procedural due process requires, essentially, the opportunity to be heard in which
every citizen is given the chance to defend himself or explain his side through the
protection of general rules of procedure. It contemplates notice and opportunity to
be heard before judgment is rendered.
In judicial proceedings, the requirements of procedural due process are:[8]
(a) An impartial or objective court or tribunal with jurisdiction over the subject
matter;
(b) Court with jurisdiction over the person of the defendant or the property which is
the subject of the proceeding;
(c) Defendant given the opportunity to be heard (requirement on notice and
hearing); and
(d) Judgment rendered after lawful hearing.
Since some cases are decided by administrative bodies, the Court also provides
requirements of procedural due process in administrative proceedings. These
requirements, also known as “seven cardinal primary rights,” are:[9]
(a) The right to a hearing, where a party may present evidence in support of his case;
(b) The tribunal must consider the evidence presented;
(c) The decision of the tribunal must be supported by evidence;
(d) The evidence must be substantial.  Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence
as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion;
(e) The evidence must have been presented at the hearing, or at least contained in
the record and known to the parties affected;
(f) The tribunal or body or any of its judges must rely on its own independent
consideration of evidence, and not rely on the recommendation of a subordinate;
and
(g) The decision must state the facts and the law in such a way that the parties are
apprised of the issues involved and the reasons for the decision.
5. Notice and Opportunity to be Heard. What matters in procedural due process
are notice and an opportunity to be heard.
(a) Notice. This is an essential element of procedural due process, most especially in
judicial proceedings, because without notice the court will not acquire jurisdiction
and its judgment will not bind the defendant. The purpose of the notice is to inform
the defendant of the nature and character of the case filed against him, and more
importantly, to give him a fair opportunity to prepare his defense. Nevertheless, the
notice is useless without the opportunity to be heard.
(b) Opportunity to be Heard. It must be emphasized that what is required is not
“actual” hearing but a real “opportunity” to be heard.[10] If, for instance, a person
fails to actually appear in a hearing even though he was given the chance to do so, a
decision rendered by the court is not in violation of due process. Moreover, strict
observance of the rule is not necessary, especially in administrative cases. In fact, in
administrative proceedings, notice and hearing may be dispensed with for public
need or for practical reasons. It is also sufficient that subsequent hearing is held if
the same was not previously satisfied.
6. Substantive due process requires that the law itself is valid, fair, reasonable, and
just. For the law to be fair and reasonable it must have a valid objective which is
pursued in a lawful manner. The objective of the government is valid when it
pertains to the interest of the general public, as distinguished from those of a
particular class. The manner of pursuing the objective is lawful if the means
employed are reasonably necessary and not unduly oppressive.
7. Under the doctrine of void for vagueness, a statute or law that is vague is void
because it violates the rights to due process. A statute is vague when it lacks
comprehensible standards which men of ordinary intelligence must necessarily
know as to its common meaning but differ as to its application. Such kind of statute
is opposed to the Constitution because it fails to accord persons proper
understanding or fair notice, and because the government is given unbridled
freedom to carry out its provision. For this doctrine to be operative, however, the
statute must be utterly vague. Thus, if a law, for example, could be interpreted and
applied in various ways, it is void because of vagueness. Corollary to this is
the doctrine of overbreadth which states that a statute that is “overly broad” is void.
This is because it prevents a person from exercising his constitutional rights, as it
fails to give an adequate warning or boundary between what is constitutionally
permissive and not. If a law, for instance, prohibits a bystander from doing any
“annoying act” to passersby, the law is void because “annoying act” could mean
anything to a passerby and as such, overly broad.
Equal Protection
1. Meaning. The guarantee of equal protection means that “no person or class of
persons shall be deprived of the same protection of the laws which is enjoyed by
other persons or other classes in the same place and in like circumstances.”[11] It
means that “all persons or things similarly situated should be treated alike, both as
to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed.” The guarantee does not provide
absolute equality of rights or indiscriminate operation on persons. Persons or things
that are differently situated may thus be treated differently. Equality only applies
among equals. What is prohibited by the guarantee is the discriminatory legislation
which treats differently or favors others when both are similarly situated.
2. Purpose. The purpose of the guarantee is to prohibit hostile discrimination or
undue favor to anyone, or giving special privilege when it is not reasonable or
justified.
3. Reasonable Classification. Well established is the rule that reasonable
classification does not violate the guarantee, provided that the classification has the
following requisites:[12]
(a) It must be based upon substantial distinctions;
(b) It must be germane to the purpose of the law;
(c) It must not be limited to existing conditions only; and
(d) It must apply equally to all members of the class.
4. Example. In one case,[13] Section 66 of the Omnibus Election Code was challenged
for being unconstitutional, as it is violative of the equal protection clause. The
provision distinguishes between an elective official and an appointive official in the
filing of theire certificate of candidacy. While elective officials are not deemed
resigned upon the filing their certificates, appointive officials are. The Supreme
Court held that the law is constitutional and not violative of equal protection since
the classification is valid. The Court argues that elective office is different from
appointive office, in that the mandate of the former is from the people, while that of
the latter is from the appointing authority. The term of the elective officials are
likewise longer than that of the appointive officials. Thus, the classification is
adjudged reasonable and valid.
5. Discrimination against Aliens. Although the protection extends to both citizens and
aliens, discrimination against aliens may be held valid under certain circumstances.
For example, citizens by virtue of their membership to the political community
possess complete civil and political rights, while aliens do not have complete political
rights. The former can vote during elections, run for public office, own real property,
while aliens cannot.
6. Review of Laws. If the laws are scrutinized by the court, it said to be subject to
“judicial review.” There are three standards followed by the court in judicial review,
these are:
(a) Deferential review in which laws are upheld to be valid or consistent to the
guarantee of equal protection when they are rational and the classifications therein
bear a relation to a legitimate governmental interests or purpose. In here the courts
do not seriously inquire into the substantiality of the interest and possibility of
alternative means to achieve the objectives;
(b) Intermediate review in which the substantiality of the governmental interest is
closely scrutinized as well as the availability of less restrictive means or alternatives.
This standard is used if the classification involves important but not fundamental
interests; and
(c) Strict scrutiny in which the government is required to show the presence of a
compelling government interest, rather than a mere substantial interest, and the
absence of a less restrictive means for achieving the interest. Upon showing of these
requirements, the limitation of a fundamental constitutional right is justified. This
standard is used if the law classifies persons and limits others of their exercise of
fundamental rights.
ARRESTS, SEARCHES AND SEIZURES
Right against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures
1. Constitutional Provision. Section 2, Article III states that people have the inviolable
right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable
searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose, and a search warrant
or warrant of arrest can only be issued upon showing of a probable cause determined
personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the
complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the
place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
2. Scope. The protection extends to all persons, aliens or citizens, natural or juridical.
It is a personal right which may be invoked or waived by the person directly
affected[14] against unreasonable arrests or searches by the government and its
agencies. It cannot, however, be invoked against private individuals.
Warrant of Arrest and Search Warrant
1. Generally, the right against unreasonable searches and seizures requires that
before a person is arrested or a personal property seized, it must be supported by a
valid warrant of arrest or a search warrant. The exceptions are in cases of valid
warrantless arrests and searches.
2. A warrant of arrest is a written order of the court, issued in the name of the
Philippines, authorizing a peace officer to arrest a person, and put him under the
custody of the court.
3. A search warrant is a written order of the court, authorizing or directing a peace
officer to search a specific location, house, or other premises for a personal property
allegedly used in a crime or may be utilized as a tool to prove a crime.
Requisites of a Valid Warrant
1. Since as a general rule, an arrest or search is reasonable when it is covered by a
valid warrant, it is thus important to know the requisites a valid warrant. The Court
enumerates the requisites as follows:
(a) It must be based upon a probable cause. Probable cause refers to such facts and
circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe
that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in connect with the
offense are in the place sought to be searched;
(b) The probable cause must be determined personally by the judge. That the judge
“personally” determines the probable cause means that “he personally evaluates the
report and the supporting documents submitted by the public prosecutor regarding
the existence of the probable cause,” or, if the same is insufficient, “require
additional evidence to aid him in arriving at a conclusion as to the existence of
probable cause.”[15] Thus, personal determination does not mean that he must
personally examine the complainant and his witnesses.[16] He may rely on reports
and evidence submitted to him, on the basis of which he determines the existence of
probable cause and orders the issuance of warrant. What is prohibited is to rely
solely on the recommendation of the prosecutors without doing any determination
on his own;
(c) The determination must be made after examination under oath or affirmation of
the complainant and the witness he may produce; and
(d) It must particularly describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to
be seized. The property subject to search includes those used in the commission of
the offense, stolen or embezzled and other proceeds or fruits of the offense, or used
or intended to be used in the commission of the offense.
2. General warrants are those that do not particularly describe the place to be
searched or the persons or things to be seized. They are unconstitutional because the
sanctity of the domicile and privacy of communication and correspondence of
individuals are placed at the mercy, caprice, and passion of peace officers.[17]
Warrantless Arrest
1. When Warrantless Arrest Valid. Arrest without warrant is strictly construed as an
exception to the general rule requiring warrant. Under the Rules of Court,[18] a
peace officer or a private person may arrest a person even without a warrant under
the following instances:
(a) In flagrante delicto arrest. When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
(b) Hot pursuit. When an offense, has in fact just been committed, and he has
personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed
it; and
(c) Arrest of escaped prisoners. When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has
escaped from a penal establishment of place where he is serving final judgment or
temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being
transferred from one confinement to another.
2. Citizen Arrest. It must be noted that a lawful warrantless arrest may be performed
not just by a peace officer but also by a civilian. This is permitted under the rules
under limited circumstances, and it is called citizen arrest.
3. In the case of flagrante delicto arrest, an offense is committed “in the presence” of
the arresting officer or civilian. For example, if a person pushes illegal drugs in the
presence of a police officer, the latter can arrest the pusher even without a warrant of
arrest because an offense is actually being committed in his presence. The same
principle underlies the “buy-bust” or “entrapment” operations conducted by police
officers in catching law offenders. In one case,[19] the Court held that rebellion is a
continuing offense, and so the rebel may be arrested anytime even without a warrant
because he is deemed to commit the offense in the presence of the arresting officer
or person.
4. Illegal Detention is the offense committed by the arresting officer or civilian if the
warrantless arrest is performed outside the above rules.
Warrantless Searches
A search is valid even without a warrant, under the following instances:
(a) Search as an incident to a lawful arrest. When a valid arrest precedes the search or
contemporaneous with it, and the search is limited to the immediate vicinity of the
place of arrest, for purposes of securing dangerous objects and effects of the crime;
(b) Consented search. When the right has been voluntarily waived by person who has
a right, aware of such right, and has an actual intention to relinquish such right;
(c) Plainview search. When prohibited articles are within the sight of an officer who
has the right to be in a position to that view;
(d) Visual search at checkpoints. When the search at stationary checkpoints is pre-
announced, and limited to a visual search only;
(e) Terry search. When a police officer, in interest of effective crime prevention,
performs a “stop-and-frisk” or patting of outer clothing for dangerous weapons, after
observing a suspicious conduct on the part of a citizen;
(f) Search of moving vehicles, vessels, and aircrafts for violation of laws;
(g) Inspection of buildings and other premises for the enforcement of fire, sanitary,
and building regulations; and
(h) Search in airports and other populous places.
Administrative Searches and Arrests
1. In cases of deportation, where the State expels an undesirable alien from its
territory, court intervention and proceedings are not required. Nonetheless, the
alien’s constitutional rights are still preserved because they are given fair trial and
administrative due process.
2. Important to note is that no probable cause is required in deportation
proceedings.[20] It is the Commissioner of Immigration or any officer designated by
him, not the judge, who issues the administrative warrant, after determination by
the Board of Commissioners of the existence of a ground for deportation.
RIGHT TO PRIVACY 
Provisions and Laws on Right to Privacy
1. Constitutional Provisions. The right to privacy is scattered throughout the Bill of
Rights.[21] The right against unreasonable searches and seizures, in Section 2, is an
expression of this right, inasmuch as it is based on the sacred right to be secure in
the privacy of one’s person, house, paper, and effects. Due process of law, in Section
1, also provides the same privacy security by protecting an individual’s life, liberty,
and property against undue interference by the government. Section 6 speaks of the
right to establish and change one’s home which likewise deals with the privacy and
comfort of one’s home. The right to form unions or associations under Section 8, and
the right against self-incrimination under Section 17 are also privacy rights which
need protection against undue intrusion by the government.
2. Nonetheless, the word “privacy” is expressly provided in Section 3(1), Article III,
which states that “the privacy of communication and correspondence shall be
inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order
requires otherwise, as prescribed by law.” Privacy of communication and
correspondence is also an expression of the right to privacy.
3. Statutory Reinforcements. To reinforce these constitutional provisions, the Congress
has passed laws that recognize and protect the zones of privacy of an individual.
These laws include: (a) The Civil Code of the Philippines; (b) The Revised Penal
Code; (c) Anti-Wire Tapping Act; (d) The Secrecy of Bank Deposits; and (e)
Intellectual Property Code.
Privacy of Communication and Correspondence
1. Subject of the Right. Invasion of communication and correspondence is one kind of
search.[22] However the subject of search is not a tangible object but
an intangible one, such as telephone calls, text messages, letters, and the like. These
forms of communication and correspondence may be intruded into by means
of wiretapping or other means of electronic eavesdropping. What the constitution
prohibits is government intrusion, by means of wiretapping or electronic
eavesdropping, into the privacy of communication without a lawful court order or
when public safety and order does not demand.
2. Rule. As a rule, the government cannot intrude into the privacy of communication
and correspondence. The exceptions are: (a) when the court allows the intrusion,
and (b) when public safety and order so demands.
Anti-Wire Tapping Act
1. R.A. 4200 or the Anti-Wire Tapping Act, as a reinforcement of privacy of
communication, is a law which prohibits a person not authorized by all the parties to
any private communication, to wire tap or use any devise to secretly overhear,
intercept, record, or communicate the content of the said communication to any
person.
2. Wire tapping or the use of record may be permitted in civil or criminal
proceedings involving specified offenses principally affecting national security, and
only with previous authorization by the court which must comply with the
requirements of a warrant. The authority is effective only for sixty days.
Writ of Habeas Data 
The writ of habeas data is a remedy available to any person whose right to privacy in
life, liberty, or security is violated or threatened to be violated by an unlawful act or
omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity engaged
in the gathering, collecting or storing of data or information regarding the person,
family, home, and correspondence of the aggrieved party.
Exclusionary Rule
1. The exclusionary rule states that any evidence unlawfully obtained is inadmissible
as evidence before the courts. This is based on Section 3(2), Article III which
provides that any evidence obtained in violation of right to privacy of
communication or right to due process of law shall be inadmissible for any purpose
in any proceeding. The same rule is applied to any evidence taken in violate of R.A.
4200.
2. The rule is also called Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine. The name of the doctrine
metaphorically describes what happens to an “evidence” (fruit) taken through
“unlawful means” (poisonous tree). The evidence-fruit is discarded because it may
infect or destroy the integrity of the case and forfeit the purpose of the law.
3. For example, if police officers search a house without a search warrant and the
same does not fall under any of the instances of a valid warrantless search, the
evidence obtained even if material in the case cannot be admitted in court. Or if
police officers wiretap a conversation without court authorization, the recorded
conversation shall be excluded as an evidence in court. Thus, the evidences are said
to be fruits of a poisonous tree.
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
Meaning and Scope
1. Constitutional Provision. Section 4, Article III provides that “no law shall be passed
abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the
people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of
grievances.” The right underscores tolerance to different views and thoughts.
2. Aspects of the Right. Freedom of expression has four aspects, to wit: (a) freedom of
speech; (b) freedom of expression; (c) freedom of the press; and (d) freedom of
assembly. Nonetheless, the scope of the protection extends to right to form
associations or societies not contrary to law, right to access to information on
matters of public concern, and freedom of religion. These are all crucial to the
advancement of beliefs and ideas and the establishment of an “uninhibited, robust
and wide-open debate in the free market of ideas.”[23]
3. Importance of the Right. Freedom of expression is accorded the highest protection in
the Bill of Rights since it is indispensable to the preservation of liberty and
democracy. Thus, religious, political, academic, artistic, and commercial speeches
are protected by the constitutional guarantee.
4. Limitation. The right is not absolute. It must be exercised within the bounds of law,
morals, public policy and public order, and with due regard for others’ rights. Thus,
obscene, libelous, and slanderous speeches are not protected by the guarantee. So
are seditious and fighting words that advocate imminent lawless conduct.
Freedom from Prior Restraint and Subsequent Punishment
1. Freedom of speech and of the press has two aspects: (a) freedom from prior
restraint, and (b) freedom from subsequent punishment.
2. On the one hand, freedom from prior restraint means freedom from censorship or
governmental screening of what is politically, morally, socially, and artistically
correct. In here, persons and the media are freed from total suppression or
restriction by the government of what could be disseminated, and prevents the
government from being a subjective arbiter of what is acceptable and not. Although
the system of prior restraint is presumed unconstitutional, it is allowed under the
following instances:[24]
(a) Undue utterances in time of war;
(b) Actual obstruction or unauthorized dissemination of military information;
(c) Obscene publication; and
(d) Inciting to rebellion.
3. On the other hand, freedom from subsequent punishment refers to the assurance that
citizens can speak and air out their opinions without fear of vengeance by the
government. Subsequent chastisement has the effect of unduly curtailing expression,
and thus freedom therefrom is essential to the freedom of speech and the press. The
State, however, can validly impose subsequent punishment under the following
instances:
(a) Libel which is the most common form of subsequent punishment, refers to a
public and malicious imputation of a crime, vice or defect, real or imaginary or any
act or omission, status tending to cause dishonor, discredit or contempt of a natural
or juridical person, or blacken the memory of one who is dead;[25]
(b) Obscenity which includes works (taken as a whole) appealing to prurient interest
or depicting sexual conduct as defined by law or lacking of serious literary, artistic,
political or scientific value;[26]
(c) Criticism of official conduct made with actual malice;[27] and
(d) School articles which materially disrupt class work or involves substantial
disorder or invasion of rights of others.[28]
Tests to Determine When Right Maybe Suppressed
There are six tests or rules to determine when the freedom may be suppressed. These
are:
(1) Dangerous Tendency Test which provides that if a speech is capable of producing a
substantive evil which the State is mandated to suppress or prevent, even if it did not
materialize, the State is justified of restricting the right. This rule has already been
abandoned;
(2) Clear and Present Danger Test which is a more libertarian rule, provides that the
finding out of substantive evil is not enough to suppress the right. Rather the
substantive evil must have clear and present danger type depending on the specific
circumstances of the case. This rule is consistent with the principle of “maximum
tolerance” and is often applied by the Court in freedom of expression cases;
(c) Balancing of Interest Test which provides that when there is conflict between a
regulation and freedom of speech, the court has the duty to determine which of the
two demands greater protection;
(d) Grave-but-Improbable Danger Test which was meant to supplant the clear and
present danger test, determines whether the gravity of the evil, less its improbability
to happen, can justify the suppression of the right in order to avoid the danger;[29]
(e) O’Brien Test which provides that when “speech” and “non-speech” elements are
combined in the same course of conduct, a sufficiently important government
interest that warrants the regulation of the “non-speech” element can also justify
incidental limitations on the speech element; and
(f) Direct Incitement Test which determines what words are uttered and the likely
result of the utterance, that is, whether or not they will directly incite or produce
imminent lawless action.
Restrictions on Freedom of Speech
1. Two Kinds of Restrictions. The State may impose two kinds of restrictions on speech
under a system of prior restraint: content-based restriction and content-neutral
restriction. The restriction is content-based when restriction is directed to the speech
itself, while the restriction is content-neutral when it is directed, not to the speech
itself, but to the incidents (such as time, place, or manner) of the speech. An example
of a content-based restriction is when the government prohibits speeches against the
President, in which case the restriction is on the speech itself. An example of a
content-neutral restriction is when the government regulates the manner of posting
campaign advertisements, in which case the restriction is on the manner the right is
made.
2. Appropriate Tests for Each Restriction. If the governmental restriction is content-
based, the applicable rule or test is the clear and present danger test. This is to give
the government a heavy burden to show justification for the imposition of such prior
restraint which bears a heavy presumption of unconstitutionality. If the restriction is
content-neutral, the applicable rule is only an intermediate approach, inasmuch as
the restraint is only regulatory and does not attack the speech directly.
3. Example. In one case, the court held that the act of granting a permit to rally under
the condition that it will be held elsewhere is a content-based restriction and not
content-neutral because it is directed to the exercise of the speech right itself and not
merely to the manner. As such, the applicable test is the clear and present danger
test.[30]
Regulations on Mass Media
Mass media may be broadcast media (e.g. television and radio) or print media (e.g.
newspaper). The two have a substantial difference in that broadcast media has a
uniquely pervasive presence in the lives of Filipinos. Thus, freedom of television and
radio broadcasting is somewhat lesser than the freedom accorded to the print media;
[31] greater regulation is imposed over broadcast media because of its greater
tendency to invade the privacy of everyone than print media.
Doctrine of Fair Comment
1. Meaning. Under the doctrine of fair comment, a discreditable imputation directed
against a public person in his public capacity, does not necessarily make one liable.
Although generally every discreditable imputation publicly made is deemed false and
malicious because every man is presumed innocent until proven guilty, nevertheless,
if the imputation directed against a person in his public is based on “established
facts,” even if the inferred opinion is wrong, the comments as justified. As long as the
opinion might reasonably inferred from the facts, it is not actionable. In order to that
such discreditable imputation to a public official may be actionable, it must either be
a “false allegation” or a “baseless comment.”[32]
2. Example. If a case of theft was filed against a barangay official, and someone
commented that he maliciously stole things from the local residents, the doctrine of
fair comment is applicable, inasmuch as the opinion was based on such fact. In here,
the comment is justified.
Commercial Speech
1. Meaning. Commercial speech is one that proposes a commercial transaction done
in behalf of a company or individual for purposes of profit. It is a protected speech
for as long as it is not false or misleading and does not propose an illegal transaction.
[33]
2. But if the government has a substantial interest to protect, even a truthful and
lawful commercial speech may be regulated.[34]
3. Private speech is accorded more freedom and protection than commercial speech.
Freedom of Assembly
1. Meaning. Freedom of assembly refers to the right to hold a rally to voice out
grievances against the government.
2. Freedom not Subject to Prior Restraint. As a rule, freedom of assembly is not subject
to prior restraint or prior issuance of permit by government authorities.
Nevertheless, it must be exercised in such a way that will not to prejudice public
welfare. Freedom of assembly is reinforced by Batas Pambansa Blg. 880, otherwise
known as the Public Assembly Acts of 1985, which basically provides the
requirements and procedure for holding rallies. It also implements the observance of
“maximum tolerance” towards participants of rallies consistent with the clear and
present danger test.
3. Permit Requirement. Under the said law, permit is required to hold a rally. It must
be emphasized, however, that the permit is not  a requirement for the validity of the
assembly or rally, because the right is not subject to prior restraint. Rather, the
permit is a requirement for the use of the public place.
4. When Permit not Required. Permit is not required if the rally is held in a private
place, in a campus of a state college or university, or in a freedom park, in which case
only coordination with the police is required. If the application for permit is not
acted upon by the mayor within two working days, then the same is deemed granted.
5. Political rally during election is regulated by the Omnibus Election Code, not by
BP 880.
Right to Form Associations
1. Constitutional Provision. Section 8, Article III provides that “the right of the people,
including those employed in the public and private sectors, to form unions,
associations, or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged.”
2. Who may Exercise the Right. The right of association may be exercised by the
employed or the unemployed and by those employed in the government or in the
private sector. It likewise embraces the right to form unions both in the government
and private sector. The right of civil servants to unionize is expressly provided in
Section 2(5), Article IX-B: “The right to self-organization shall not be denied to
government employees.” The right of labor in general to unionize is likewise
provided in Section 3, Article XIII: “[The State] shall guarantee the rights of all
workers to self-organization, collective bargaining and negotiations, and peaceful
concerted activities, including the right to strike in accordance with law.”
3. Right to Strike not Included. The right to form associations or to self-organization
does not include the right to strike. Thus, public school teachers do not enjoy the
right to strike even if they are given the constitutional right of association.[35] The
terms and conditions of employment in the Government, including in any political
subdivision or instrumentality thereof and government owned and controlled
corporations with original charters, are governed by law and the employees therein
shall not strike for purposes of securing changes.[36]
Right to Information
1. Constitutional Provision. Section 7, Article III provides that “the right of the people
to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized. Access to official
records, and to documents and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or
decisions, as well as to government research data used as basis for policy
development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations as may be
provided by law.”
2. Scope and Limitation. The right guarantees access to official records for any lawful
purpose. However, access may be denied by the government if the information
sought involves: (a) National security matters, military and diplomatic secrets; (b)
Trade or industrial secrets; (c) Criminal matters; and (d) Other confidential
information (such as inter-government exchanges prior to consultation of treaties
and executive agreement, and privilege speech).
FREEDOM OF RELIGION
Two Aspects of Freedom of Religion
1. Freedom of religion has two aspects: (a) the freedom to believe, and (b) the freedom
to act on one’s belief. The first aspect is in the realm of the mind, and as such it is
absolute, since the State cannot control the mind of the citizen. Thus, every person
has the absolute right to believe (or not to believe) in anything whatsoever without
any possible external restriction by the government. The aspect refers to the
externalization of belief as it is now brought out from the bosom of internal belief.
Since it may affect peace, morals, public policy, and order, the government may
interfere or regulate such aspect of the right.
2. The second aspect is expressed in Section 5, Article III, thus “… The free exercise
and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or
preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the
exercise of civil or political rights.”
Non-establishment Clause
1. Constitutional Provision. Section 5, Article III provides that “no law shall be made
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
2. Explanation. The non-establishment clause holds that the State cannot set up a
church or pass laws aiding one religion, all religion, or preferring one over another,
or force a person to believe or disbelieve in any religion.[37] In order words, it
prohibits the State from establishing an official religion. It discourages excessive
government involvement with religion and manifest support to any one religious
denomination. Manifestly, the clause is rooted in the principle of separation of
church and state.
3. Particular Prohibitions. In particular, the non-establishment clause prohibits,
among others, prayers of a particular denomination to start a class in public schools,
[38] financial subsidy of a parochial school,[39] display of the ten commandments in
front of a courthouse,[40] law prohibiting the teaching of evolution,[41] mandatory
reading of the bible,[42] and using the word “God” in the pledge of allegiance.[43]
4. Exceptions to the Prohibition. The clause, however, permits the following:
(a) Tax exemption on property “actually, directly and exclusively used” for religious
purposes;[44]
(b) Religious instruction in sectarian schools[45] and expansion of educational
facilities in parochial schools for secular activities;[46]
(c) Religious instruction in public schools, elementary and high school, at the option
of parents or guardians expressed in writing, within regular class hours by
designated instructors, and without additional costs to the government;[47]
(d) Financial support given to priest, preacher, minister, or dignitary assigned to the
armed forces, penal institution or government orphanage or leprosarium;[48]
(e) Government sponsorship of town fiestas which traditions are used to be purely
religious but have now acquired secular character;[49] and
(f) Postage stamps depicting Philippines as the venue of a significant religious event,
in that the benefit to religious sect is incidental to the promotion of the Philippines
as a tourist destination.[50]
Tests to Determine whether Governmental Act Violates Freedom of Religion
1. Different tests are used to determine if there are governmental violations of non-
establishment clause and free exercise clause. On the on hand, Lemon Test is used to
determine whether an act of the government violates the non-establishment clause.
Under this test, a law or a governmental act does not violate the clause when it has a
secular purpose, does not promote or favor any set of religious beliefs, and does not
get the government too entangled with religion.[51]
2. On the other hand, Compelling State Interest Test and Clear and Present Danger
Test are used to determine whether there is violation of free-exercise clause.
Compelling state interest test is used to determine if the interests of the State are
compelling enough to justify intrusion into an individual’s freedom of religion.
Under this test, government infringement is justified if the burden it creates on
freedom of religion is due to a sufficiently compelling state interest and the means
used to attain its purpose is the least intrusive. Clear and present danger test is used
to determine whether the circumstance are of such nature as to create a clear and
present danger that will bring about a substantive evil which the state has the right
to prevent.
3, Example. In one case,[52]  the Court held that expulsion from school is unjustified
if is based on the conflict between religious beliefs and school practices (saluting the
flag). The expulsion violates the right of children to education. Using the clear and
present danger test, the Court held that the danger of disloyalty which the
government is trying to prevent may be the very same thing that it advocates if
expulsion is validated. Times have changed. Freedom of religion is now recognized
as a preferred right.
Religious Solicitations
Under Presidential Decree No. 1564, also known as the Solicitation Law, permit is
required before solicitations for “charitable and public welfare purposes” may be
carried out. The purpose of the law is to protect the public from fraudulent
solicitations. Nonetheless, permit is no longer required if the solicitation is for
“religious purposes.” Fraud is much less in religion. If the law is extended to religion,
then it becomes unconstitutional; it constitutes restriction on freedom of religion as
resources necessary for maintenance are deprived of churches.
Conscientious Objector Test
A conscientious objector is someone who sincerely claims the right to refuse to
perform military service[53] and salute a flag[54] on the grounds of freedom of
thought, conscience, and/or religion. He may be granted exemption from military
service or from saluting the flag if he establishes that his objection is “sincere,” based
on “religious training and belief,” and not arbitrary.
LIBERTY OF ABODE AND RIGHT TO TRAVEL
Freedom of Movement
1. Constitutional Provision. Section 6, Article III provides that “the liberty of abode and
of changing the same within the limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired
except upon lawful order of the court. Neither shall the right to travel be impaired
except in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be
provided by law.”
2. Aspects of the Freedom. Freedom of movement has two aspects: (a) Freedom to
choose and change one’s domicile, and (b) Freedom to travel within and outside the
country. A person’s place of abode or domicile is his permanent residence.
Limitations
1. Freedom of movement is not an absolute right. It has limitations. Liberty of abode
may be impaired or restricted when there is a “lawful court order.”
2. The right to travel may also be restricted in interest of national security, public
safety, or public health, or when a person is on bail, or under a watch-list and hold
departure order.
Right to Return to One’s Country
Although the right to return to one’s country is not among the rights expressly
mentioned in the Bill of Rights, it is nonetheless recognized and protected in the
Philippines. It is a generally accepted principle of international law, and as such it is
part of the law of the land, pursuant to the doctrine of incorporation. It is different
from the right to travel and is guaranteed under the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights.[55]
NON-IMPAIRMENT OF CONTRACTS
Contract Clause
1. Section 10, Article III provides that “no law impairing the obligation of contracts
shall be passed.” This is the so-called contract clause, which seeks to restrain
substantial legislative  impairment of, or intrusion into, the obligations of contracts.
What the clause guarantees is the integrity of contracts against undue interference
by the government.
2. For example, if a lawyer enters into a contract with a client by which the latter will
pay 5% of the value of the monetary claim, a subsequent law which deprives the
lawyer of the said value is arbitrary and unreasonable since it is destructive of the
inviolability of contracts, and therefore invalid as lacking of due process.[56]
Contracts Affected
1. Only valid contracts, either executed or executory, are covered by the guarantee.
2. The agreement of the parties, as long as it is valid, is the law between them. Their
will should prevail, and this must be respected by the legislature and not tampered
with by subsequent laws. Well-established is the policy that the subject of
contractual agreements is “imbued with paramount public interest.”
Kind of Impairment Covered 
1. For the clause to be operative, the impairment caused by law must be substantial.
Substantial impairment happens when the law changes the terms of a legal contract
between parties, either in the time or mode of performance, or imposes new
conditions, or dispenses with those expressed, or authorizes for its satisfaction
something different from that provided in its terms.[57] In other words, the act of
impairment is anything that diminishes the value of the contract.[58]
2. The cause of the impairment must be legislative in nature. The obligation of contract
must be impaired by a statute, ordinance, or any legislative act for it to come within
the meaning of the constitutional provision.[59] An administrative order or court
decision is not included in the scope of the constitutional guarantee.
3. In one case,[60] the Court held that a Rehabilitation Plan approved by the
Securities and Exchange Commission which suspends contractual claims against an
insolvent or bankrupt corporation does not violate the contract clause. The
impairment must be legislative in character. SEC’s approval of the plan is not a
legislative act but an administrative act. Thus, there is not impairment of the
freedom to contract.
Limitations
1. As between freedom of contract and police power, police power prevails. Thus, laws
enacted in exercise of police power will prevail over contracts. After all, private rights
and interest in contracts must yield to the common good. Every contract affecting
public welfare is presumed to include the provisions of existing laws and a
reservation of police power.
2. The supremacy of police power is felt most clearly in labor contracts and
agricultural tenancy contracts. For instance, a law (Blue Sunday Law) which
provides for work or play on a Sunday is upheld as valid even if it nullifies existing
labor contracts, since it is a legitimate exercise of police power.[61] In another case, a
law (R.A. No. 34) changed the crop-sharing system between the landlord and tenants
from 50-50 to 55-45 in favor of the tenants. The Court held that the law is valid.
Consistent with the policy of social justice, the law favored the tenants as well as the
general welfare of the people in exchange of contractual rights.
3. The power of taxation and power of eminent domain, inasmuch as they are also sovereign
powers of the state, can validly impair obligations of contracts.
4. Licenses are different from contracts. Licenses are franchises or privileges given by
the State to qualified entities that may be withdrawn or relinquished when national
interests so require. However, like contracts, they yield to police power.
LEGAL ASSISTANCE AND FREE ACCESS TO COURTS
1. Constitutional Provision. Section 11, Article III provides that “free access to the
courts and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate legal assistance shall not be denied to
any person by reason of poverty.”
2. Protection for the Poor. Free access is a right covered by the due process clause,
because a person, regardless of his status in life, must be given an opportunity to
defend himself in the proper court or tribunal. Nonetheless, the right is placed in a
separate provision to emphasize the desire for constitutional protection of the poor.[62]
3. Litigation in Forma Pauperis. In consonance with this constitutional provision, the
Rules of Court provide for litigation in forma pauperis in which paupers and
indigents, who have only their labor to support themselves, are given free legal
services and access to courts.
RIGHTS OF PERSONS UNDER CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION
Miranda Rights
1. Constitutional Provision. Section 12, Article III enumerates the rights of a person
under custodial investigation for the commission of an offense, to wit:
(a) Right to remain silent, right to have a competent and independent counsel preferably of
his own choice, right to free legal services if he cannot afford one, and the right to
informed of these rights. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the
presence of counsel;
(b) Right against the use of torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other
means which vitiate his free will. Prohibition against secret detention places, solitary,
incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention;
(c) Exclusion of any confession or admission obtained in violation of this provision or the
right against self-incrimination as evidence against him; and
(d) Sanctions against violators and compensation for rehabilitation of victims.
2. Why called Miranda Rights. The present provision is usually referred to as the
“Miranda Rights” because it is an adoption of the rights provided in the American
case “Miranda v. Arizona.”[63]
Purpose of the Right
The provision emphasizes on the duty of law enforcement officers to treat properly and
humanely those under investigation. It recognizes the fact that the environment in
custodial investigations is psychologically if not physically coercive in nature,[64] so
that law enforcers should be reminded of the sanctity of individual rights and the
limitations on their means of solving crimes. In fact, as far as the present provision is
concerned, the “presumption of regularity” of official acts and the behavior of police
or prosecution is not observed if the person under investigation was not informed.
[65]
Custodial Investigation
1. This enumeration of rights above may be invoked during custodial investigations.
Custodial investigation refers to any questioning initiated by law enforcement
officers after a person has been taken into custody. The rights are available when the
person interrogated is already treaded as a particular suspect and the investigation is
no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime. However, during this stage, no
complaint or criminal case has been filed yet. As such, the person suspected to have
committed a crime is not yet an accused, since no case was instituted against him.
2. During custodial investigations, suspects are identified by way of show-ups, mug
shots, and line ups. Show-ups are done by bringing the lone suspect face-to-face with
the witness for identification. Mug shots are performed by showing photographs to
witnesses to identify the suspect. And in line ups, the witness identifies the suspect
from a group of persons.
Extrajudicial Confession
1. Meaning. Extrajudicial consfession refers to a confession or admission of guilt
made outside (extra) the court (judicial). It is a critical area of study in
Constitutional Law. With respect to the present provision, it refers to a confession
given during a custodial investigation, which is not judicial in nature. Under the
Miranda Rights, a person may waive his right to remain silent and admit the charge
against him because anything that he says may be used against him. However, the
waiver or confession must be valid to be admissible as evidence against him.
2. Requisites for Validity. For an extrajudicial confession to be valid and admissible as
evidence in court, it must be: (a) voluntary; (b) made in the assistance of a competent
and independent counsel; (c) express; and (d) in writing.
3. Involuntary Confession. There are two kinds of involuntary confession: (a)
confession through coercion;[66] and (b) confession without being informed of the
Miranda rights.[67] Both forms are invalid and cannot be admitted as evidence
against the confidant, the confession considered as a fruit of a poisonous tree.
Extrajudicial confessions must be given voluntarily. However, there is a distinction
between the two. On the one hand, an extrajudicial confession alleged to be taken
through torture or coercion is presumed voluntarily given and valid since the law
enforcers are presumed to perform their duty regularly, so that the complainant-
suspect should prove that there is torture to invalidate his confession. On the other
hand, a confession given without being informed of the Miranda rights is presumed
involuntarily given, so that the law enforces must prove its regularity.[68]
4. Assistance of Counsel. An extrajudicial confession made in the absence of a counsel,
or even in his presence but without adequate assistance, is also invalid and
inadmissible. The rule requires that the assisting counsel must
be independent and competent. For this matter, a fiscal or a public prosecutor, who
represents the interest of the State, cannot assist the suspect or person under
investigation. His interest is adverse to the latter. Thus, even if competent, he cannot
be an independent counsel for the suspect.
5. A counsel from the Public Attorney’s Office is qualified to assist a person in executing
an extrajudicial confession, his interest not adverse to the latter.     
6. An extrajudicial confession to a mayor, even if uncounselled, may be admissible.
[69] While a mayor has power of supervision over the police, an admission to him,
not in the capacity of a law enforcer, is deemed freely given. The uncounselled
admission to him does not violate the right to legal assistance and therefore the
confession is admissible as evidence against the confidant. In addition, extrajudicial
confession to a media man who is acting as a news reporter and not under the
supervision of the police, is admissible.
7. Because of the inherent danger of using information from broadcast media, extreme
caution must be taken in further admitting similar evidence or confession. There is
presumption of voluntariness in confessions which media describes as freely given.
They must be strictly scrutinized.
RIGHT TO BAIL
Meaning of Right
1. Constitutional Provision. Section 13, Article III provides that “all persons, except
those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is
strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released on
recognizance as may be provided by law. The right to bail shall not be impaired even
when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive bail shall not
be required.”
2. Meaning of Bail. Bail refers to the security given for the temporary release of a
person in custody of the law, furnished by him or a bondsman, conditioned upon his
appearance before any court as may be required. For instance, a person arrested and
detained for the offense of homicide may post a bond for his temporary release on
the condition that he will appear in the court during the trial or when the court so
requires.
3. Purpose of Bail. Probational release through bail is corollary to the right to be
presumed innocent and a means of immediately obtaining liberty.[70] During the
duration of release, the accused is given the chance to prepare his defense,[71] and
thus level the playing field for the parties. Worth emphasizing is the reason why
those charge with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua and against whom
evidence of guilt is strong, are not allowed to bail. Under such circumstances, there
is improbability of appearance, and bail merely becomes an instrument of evading
the law.
Standards for Fixing Amount of Bail
1. The law does not prescribe for a fix amount of bail. What it requires is that the
amount should be reasonable and not excessive otherwise the right is rendered
useless. Under the Rules of Court, the amount is reasonable if the judge bases it
primarily, but not exclusively, on the following guidelines:[72]
(a) Financial ability of the accused;
(b) Nature and circumstances of offense;
(c) Penalty for offense charged;
(d) Character and reputation of accused;
(e) Age and health of the accused;
(f) Weight of evidence against him;
(g) Probability of his appearance at trial;
(h) Forfeiture of other bonds by him;
(i) The fact that he is a fugitive from justice when arrested; and
(j) Pendency of other cases where he is also under bail.
When Right May be Invoked 
1. General Rule. The right to bail may be invoked from the moment of detention or
arrest. Even if no formal charges have been filed yet, for as long as there is already an
arrest, the right may already be availed of.
2. Bail as a Matter of Right. Bail may be invoked as a matter of right if the charge is
not punishable by reclusion perpetua and there is no final judgment of conviction yet.
Technically, the instances when bail is a matter of right are: (a) Before or after
conviction by the MTC; and (b) Before conviction of the RTC of an offense not
punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment.
3. Bail as a Matter of Discretion. Bail may be invoked as a matter of discretion on the
part of the court in the following instances:
(a) After conviction by the RTC of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion
perpetua or life imprisonment;
(b) Pending appeal subject to the consent of the bondsman; and
(c) After conviction, pending appeal when the court imposed a penalty of
imprisonment for more than six years but not more than twenty years, and it is not
shown that the accused repeated a crime, an escapee, committed an offense while
under the custody of the probational release, or had the tendency of flight or to
commit another offense.
3. Right not Suspended. The present constitutional provision clearly provides that the
right to bail is not suspended when the President suspends the privilege of the writ
of habeas corpus. While bail and habeas corpus are remedies intended for the
immediate release of a detainee, there are fundamental differences between them so
that the suspension of one does not mean the suspension of the other. Firstly, in bail,
there is an implicit recognition of the validity of detention or arrest, while in habeas
corpus, there is an assumption that the detention or arrest is illegal. And secondly,
the prayer in bail is for the temporary release of the detainee, whereas in habeas
corpus, the prayer is for permanent release.
When the privilege of habeas corpus is suspended, the remedy of immediate release
cannot be availed of (although filing is still allowed). Under the current rules, if the
detainee files a bail for his temporary release, then it moots the purpose of habeas
corpus, because it destroys the assumption of illegality of the arrest or detention.
4. The law still allows those who jumped bail to exercise the right before conviction
for as long as bail is still a matter of right. What the court must do in such cases is to
increase the amount of bail.
5. Bail is now available in extradition[73] cases, consistent with the developments in
international law which now treats an individual as a subject or party.[74]
When Right May not be Invoked 
1. It could be inferred from the present provision that the right to bail may not be
invoked if the offense for which the person is detained is punishable by reclusion
perpetua and the evidence of guilt is strong.
2. Important also to note is that the military may not invoke the right to bail.
[75] Among other reasons, allowing military members to bail would pose a great
danger to national security. They are allowed to use firearms and they are paid using
government money. Their sheer number and unique structure, as well as the military
mentality that they carry, may very well result to the overthrow of the government if
continuous allowance of the right to bail is given them most especially when there
are coup attempts. Allowing them to bail could mean resumption of widespread
commission of heinous activities.
Mandatory Hearing
When the offense charged is punishable by reclusion perpetua, before rendering a
judgment, due process demands that the court must conduct a mandatory hearing to
determine if evidence of guilt is strong. This is one of the instances when bail is a
matter of discretion. But if the prosecutor simply manifested that he leaves it to the
sound discretion of the judge to grant bail and the judge grants the same without
hearing, then the judge commits an error because he cannot repose solely on the
prosecutor his decision. Even if there is no objection, there must be a hearing.[76]
RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
Criminal Cases
1. Section 14, Article III deals with the rights of the accused. It contemplates a
scenario where a case has already been filed against a person, in contrast to custodial
investigations where a case may not have been filed yet. The case filed is a criminal
case, in which the parties are the “People of the Philippines” and the “accused.”
The People of the Philippines is the complainant, while the accused is the person
formally charged of a crime or offense punishable by law.
2. A case is said to be criminal when it involves the prosecution of a crime by the
State and the imposition of liability on erring individuals. It highlights the relation of
the individual and the state, with the state having the right to inflict punishment to
an offender once his guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt.
3. The real offended party or victim in a criminal case is the State or the People of the
Philippines, and not the private complainant. This is because what has generally
been violated is the law of the Philippines which provides protection to the people
and guarantees peace and order in the land. Violation of the law poses danger not
just to a private person, but to the people as a whole, and is a threat to the
sovereignty of the State.
4. The accused, who is the person charged in a criminal case, is pitted against the
State. With all its machineries, manpower, and almost unlimited sources of money,
the State is placed in an advantaged position. To level therefore the playing field, the
Constitution provides for numerous rights of the accused and of persons under
investigation. Justice demands that they should be given a fighting chance against
the most power institution, which is the State.
Criminal Due Process
1. Constitutional Provision. Section 14(1), Article III provides that “no person shall be
held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law.”
2. The provision refers to due process in criminal cases. As to its procedural aspect,
criminal due process requires that: (a) The accused is brought into a court of
competent jurisdiction; (b) He is notified of the case; (c) He is given the opportunity
to be heard; and (d) There is a valid judgment deliberated and rendered by the court.
[77] As to its substantive aspect, the criminal cases must be based on a penal law.
3. The right to appeal is not a constitutional right. It is a statutory right granted by the
legislature. But when it is expressly granted by law, then it comes within the scope of
due process.
4. Criminal due process requires impartiality or objectivity on the part of the court.
Although a separate right to impartial trial is granted in Section 14, paragraph 2 of
the Bill of Rights, it refers only to the right of the accused during trial. Impartiality in
criminal due process (Section 14, paragraph 1) is broader since it extends
to preliminary investigations conducted before the filing criminal cases in court. One of
the instances wherein impartiality is compromised is the so-called trial by publicity.
When preliminary investigations are held for purposes of determining whether an
information or a case should be filed against the respondent, the investigating
prosecutor should not be swayed by the circumstances of pervasive and prejudicial
publicity. It was held that prejudicial publicity may be invoked as denial of due
process if it prevents the “observance of those decencies” or requirements of
procedural due process.[78]
5. A military court has its own unique set of procedures consistent with the nature and
purpose of the military. Because of its distinct features, a military court cannot try
and exercise jurisdiction, even during martial law, over civilians for offenses
allegedly committed by them as long as civilian courts are still open and functioning.
[79] Due process therefore demands that civilians can only be tried for an offense in
civilian courts and not in military courts, unless no civilian court is available.
Rights of the Accused during Trial
1. Constitutional Provision. Section 14(2), Article III enumerates rights of the
accused in all criminal prosecutions, to wit:
(a) Right to be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved;
(b) Right to be heard by himself and counsel;
(c) Right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him;
(d) Right to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial;
(e) Right to meet the witnesses face to face; and
(f) Right to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the
production of evidence in his behalf.
2. Criminal Prosecution. These are rights of the accused “in criminal prosecutions.”
Under the Rules, criminal proceedings start from arraignment up to the rendition of
final judgment by the court. Arraignment refers to that stage of the criminal
proceeding when the information is read to the accused to which he pleads guilty or
not guilty. The proceeding continues until a final judgment is entered by the court.
The judgment is final when there is nothing for the court to do but to execute it.
Thus, during this duration the accused can invoke the said rights under the proper
circumstances.
Right to be Presumed Innocent
1. Meaning.  The right refers to the constitutional guarantee that the accused should
be treated as if innocent until he is proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
2. Presumption of Innocence and Criminal Due Process. Basically, the rights in Section
14(2) are elaborations of criminal due process. The right to presumption of
innocence, for instance, is based on the fundamental procedural rule that the court
must hear first before it condemns. If what the court presumes is the guilt of the
accused, then procedural due process is violated. In fact, the accused is already in a
disadvantaged position since he is pitted against the State. Presumption of guilt
renders the rights of the accused nugatory. To protect therefore individual rights, in
particular one’s liberty, it should be the State that proves the guilt of accused, and
not that the accused proves his innocence. It is the prosecution (State) who has the
burden of overcoming the presumption of innocence. It should rely on its own merits
and not on the weakness of the defense.
2. When Presumption is Overcome. The presumption of innocence is overcome by proof
beyond reasonable doubt. Under the rules of evidence, proof beyond reasonable doubt
is the highest quantum of evidence. Such proof requires that the court is morally
certain that the accused is guilty of the crime, so that if there is reasonable doubt
that lurks in the mind of the judge, the accused must be acquitted. When the defense
creates reasonable doubt, the presumption of innocence remains. It must be noted
that the certainty required by law is not absolute certainty but moral certainty as to
every proposition of proof requisite to constitute the offense.[80]
3. Why Right is Granted. The philosophy behind the very high quantum of evidence to
establish the guilt of the accused is expressed by the court as follows: “It is better to
acquit a person upon the ground of reasonable doubt even though he may in reality
be guilty, than to inflict imprisonment on one who may be innocent.”[81]
4. Presumption of Guilt. The law and rules, however, allow that presumption of
innocence may be overcome by another presumption through prima
facie evidence. Prima facie evidence means an evidence deemed sufficient unless
contradicted. The is based on logic and human experience. When the prosecution,
for instance, establishes that the stolen object is in the possession of the accused, it
creates a prima facie evidence that the accused committed the crime of theft. The
presumption of innocence is overturned, and the evidence creates a prima facie proof
of the guilt of the accused. This does not, however, mean that the presumption of
innocence is finally overcome. The burden of proof simply shifts from the
prosecution to the defense (side of the accused) who will in turn present
contradictory evidence to overcome the prima facie proof.
Right to be Heard by Himself and Counsel             
1. Right to be Heard. The right to be heard is the heart of criminal due process.
Basically, it refers to all the mechanisms afforded to the accused during the criminal
proceedings. It is a safeguard against prejudicial and partial judgments by the
courts, as well as a guarantee that the accused be given an opportunity to participate
during trial in defense of himself.
2. Related Rights. Participation of the accused in the right to be heard includes three
specific rights: (a) the right to present evidence and to be present at the trial; (b) the
right to be assisted by counsel; and (c) the right to compulsory process to compel the
attendance of witnesses in his behalf.[82]
3. Ratio of Right to Counsel. The right of the accused to counsel is based on the reason
that only a lawyer has a substantial knowledge of the rules of evidence, and a non-
lawyer, in spite of his education in life, may not be aware of the intricacies of law and
procedure. Depriving a person of such right constitutes violation of due process.
4. Related Right. Included in the right to counsel is the duty of the court to inform the
accused of his right to counsel before arraignment and to give a counsel in case the accused
cannot afford the services of one. The counsel representing the accused must be
independent and competent. A counsel who has a divided interest between the
prosecution (State) and the defense (accused) is disqualified on the ground of lack of
independence and conflict of interest.
Right to be Informed of Nature and Cause of Accusation
1. Right to be informed is again an essential aspect of procedural due process. The
constitutional mandate is complied with by the arraignment of the accused in which
he is informed by the court of the offense charged to which the accused either pleads
guilty of not guilty.
2. Well-settled is the rule that the allegations in the complaint and not the title of the
case that determines the nature of the offense.
Right to Speedy, Impartial and Public Trial
                  1. Right to speedy trial is based on the maxim that “justice delayed is justice
denied.” Unreasonable delays may result to a prolonged suffering of an innocent
accused or an evasion of justice by a truly guilty person. It offends not just the
accused but also the State, inasmuch as what is at stake is the speedy, inexpensive,
and orderly administration of justice. Undue postponements not only depletes the
funds of the defense but also of prosecution. Thus, if the prosecution unreasonably
delays the criminal proceedings because of too many postponements and
unjustifiable absences, the accused may be acquitted on the ground of violation of
right to speedy trial. This does not, however, mean that the court cannot grant
reasonable postponements. What is prohibited is oppressive and vexatious
postponements.
2. Right to impartial trial primarily requires that the judge who sits in the case must be
objective and renders a decision based on the cold neutrality of the evidence
presented. For instance, a judge who is hostile to the accused based on his comments
and utterances, or who is substantially swayed by the prejudicial publicity of the
case, is a partial judge and must be inhibited from the case.
3. Right to public trial demands that the proceedings be conducted in such a way that
the public may know what transpires during the trial. It is not necessary that the
entire public can witness the proceedings; it is enough that the relatives and friends
of the interested parties are accommodated in the trial venue. In fact, the court is
allowed under the rules to order the public to leave the premises of the court room in
interest of morality and order.
Right to Meet the Witnesses Face-to-Face
The right to confrontation enables the accused to test the credibility of the witnesses.
The right is reinforced under the rules of criminal procedure by the so-called cross-
examination. Cross-examination is conducted after the presentation and direct
examination of witnesses by the opposing side. Both parties are allowed to test the
veracity of the testimonies presented by the other.
Right to Compulsory Process
1. Reason for the Right. The form of criminal proceeding is adversarial because two
opposing parties battle out against each other and only one of them could emerge as
victor. It is often the case that the party with the weightier evidence wins. In criminal
proceedings, the accused needs only to create reasonable doubt on the mind of the
court to be acquitted. Nevertheless, evidence is difficult to find because of people’s
anxiety in testifying in court as well as their dislike for burdensome court processes.
In recognition therefore of this fact, the law and the rules give the accused the right
to avail of compulsory means for attendance of witnesses and production of needed
document or things.
2. Kinds of Compulsory Processes. When the person sought to testify is uncooperative
or just afraid of court-related actions, the remedy of subpoena ad testificandum may be
availed to compel the person to testify. When relevant documents are needed but the
holder thereof refuses to produce them, the remedy of subpoena duces tecum may be
availed of to compel the production of the same.[83] These remedies are also
available to the prosecution.
Right to be Present
1. Meaning and Purpose of the Right. As a rule, the accused has the right to be present
at all stages of trial, from arraignment to rendition of judgment, in order that he may
be informed of what transpires in every stage of the proceedings, to guard himself
from technical blunders, and ultimately, to fully defend himself from the accusation
against him. Thus, it is again an incident of criminal due process.
2. Waiver of Right. Right to be present, inasmuch as it is a right, may be waived by the
accused. For as long as it does not prejudice others, rights may be waived by its
possessor. An example of a valid waiver of the right to be present is the so-called trial
in absentia. Even in the absence of the accused, trial may still proceed (trial in
absentia) if after his arraignment and notification of the date of the hearing, he still
unjustifiably failed to appear. The effect of the waiver is that the accused will no
longer have the right to present evidence and confront the witnesses.
3. When Right not Waivable. It must be noted that the presence of the accused
becomes a duty, and therefore not waivable, in the following: (a) During arraignment
and plea;[84] (b) When he is to be identified;[85] (c) During the promulgation of
judgment, except when it is for a light offense.[86] In all these instances, the accused
must appear because his non-appearance may either prejudice his rights or that of
the State.
PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
1. Constitutional Provision. Section 15, Article III states that “the privilege of the writ
of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except in cases of invasion or rebellion,
when the public safety requires it.” This is a reiteration of Section 18, Article VII.
What is constitutionally guaranteed is the right of a person detained by another to
test or challenge, through habeas corpus, the validity of his detention when the
authority of the detaining person or agency is at issue.
2. The writ of habeas corpus is a written order issued by the court directed to a person
detaining another commanding him to produce the body of the prisoner at a
designated time and place, with the day and cause of his capture and detention, to
do, to submit to, and to receive whatever court or judge awarding the writ shall
consider in his behalf. When a person is illegally confined or detained, or when his
liberty is illegally restrained, he has the constitutional right to file a petition of
habeas corpus. Should the court find out that the person is illegally confined or
detained, he shall be immediately released from detention.
3. When Privilege Suspended. The privilege of habeas corpus is suspended in cases of
rebellion or invasion. This is in order to meet the exigencies in such cases.
4. Writ of Amparo. Aside from the writ of habeas corpus, the writ of amparo is another
available remedy to any person whose right to life, liberty, and security has been
violated or threatened to be violated by an unlawful act or omission of a public
official or employee, or of a private individual or entity. This remedy is especially
available in cases of enforced disappearances and extrajudicial killings.
RIGHT TO SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF CASES
Section 16, Article III states that “all persons shall have the right to a speedy
disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.”
Unlike the right to speedy trial which applies only in criminal proceedings, the right
to speedy disposition of cases may be invoked in all cases, whether judicial, quasi-
judicial, or administrative. Thus, right to speedy disposition of cases is broader than
right to speedy trial.
RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION
Meaning of Right against Self-Incrimination
Section 17, Article III provides that “no person shall be compelled to be a witness
against himself.” This constitutional guarantee is better known as right against self-
incrimination. The right allows a person not to answer an incriminating question. An
incriminating question is one that if answered renders a person liable for an offense.
However, it is only when the incriminating question is put to a witness stand that the
right may be invoked.
When Right Available
1. The right is available in all government proceedings, whether criminal or civil, and
whether judicial or quasi-judicial or administrative. It is even available in legislative
investigations and impeachment proceedings. In addition, the right may be invoked
by all persons subject to judicial examination and legislative investigation. Thus it
may be invoked not just by the accused in criminal cases, but also defendants in civil
cases, and witnesses in all kinds of proceedings.
2. The right, nonetheless, is not self-executing. It is not automatically operational once
an incriminating question is asked. It must be properly invoked by objecting to an
incriminating question. For example, when a witness is subjected to direct
examination by the opposing party, and the opposing counsel asked “was there an
instance that you cheated on your wife?,” the right may be invoked by a timely
objection to the incriminating question. If no objection is raised, then the answer
may be used as evidence against the witness for the proper criminal charge.
3. Although all persons subject to judicial, quasi-judicial, administrative, and
legislative investigations can invoke the right under proper circumstances, special
utilization of the right is given to the accused. A witness can invoke the right only when
the question tends to be self-incriminating, but an accused can invoke the same in
two ways. First is by refusing to testify altogether during trial. And the second is,
when he chooses to testify, by refusing to answer questions that tend to incriminate
him for another offense.
4. In criminal proceedings what is prohibited is physical or moral compulsion to extort
communication from the accused. Subjecting the body of the accused when material
to solve the case is allowed and not violative of the right. In one case, the Court held
that writing is not a pure mechanical act but requires the use of the intellect. Thus,
an accused cannot be compelled to write or sign and use the same as evidence
against him.
5. State witnesses cannot avail of the right because the very purpose of their being state
witnesses is to give them immunity or protection to testify. Their testimonies are so
crucial to the resolution of a criminal case so that in attainment thereof immunity is
given to them by the State. This means that they will no longer be prosecuted for the
crime for which they are testifying. Since they have to unravel everything, even their
guilt, in exchange of immunity, the right against self-incrimination could no longer
be invoked.
Basis of the Right
1. The philosophy behind the constitutional guarantee is similar to the other rights of
the accused. From the very start, the accused is already in an adverse position pitted
against the entire machinery of the State. If evidence will still be taken from the lips
of the accused, it would even tilt the scales heavily in favor of the State.
2. The right is founded on public policy and humanity.[87] Public policy demands that
a person be spared from answering incriminating questions because requiring him
would likely lead to the crime of perjury, which is basically lying to the court after
having promised to tell the truth and nothing but the whole truth. Humanity
prevents extorting confession by duress.
RIGHT AGAINST INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE
1. Constitutional Provision. Section 18, Article III provides that no person should be
detained solely by reason of his political beliefs and aspirations, nor should
involuntary servitude in any form exist, except as a punishment for a crime. The first
part of the provision deals with the right not to be detained by reason solely of
political beliefs and aspirations. This is essentially embodied in the freedom of
expression but with emphasis on the prohibition against incarceration of “political
prisoners.” The second part deals with the right against involuntary servitude.
Involuntary servitude refers to the compulsory service of another or simply modern
day slavery. The right is based on the egalitarian principle of democracy which
prescribes equality of everyone in law, and on humanity which prevents degradation
of human dignity through enforced labor.
2. Slavery is an ancient practice of treating man as a commodity under the complete
power of the master. This has never been practiced in the Philippines, but has its
remnants in modern forms of enforced labor and peonage. Enforced labor happens
when a person is unlawfully compelled to work against his will; it is involuntary and
to a certain extent resembles slavery. When a person, because of poverty or lack of
money, works for another in payment of his debt, the same is prohibited by the
present guarantee even if the service is rendered voluntarily. This voluntary service
in payment of debt is called peonage. While it appears voluntary, peonage is
prohibited because the person is forced to work by the circumstances of his
indebtedness, although not by his creditor.
2. Exceptions. Involuntary servitude may be allowed under the following instances:
(a) as punishment for crime; (b) in the case of personal, military or civil service in
defense of the State; and (c) in compliance to a return to work order issued by the
Department of Labor and Employment.
RIGHT AGAINST EXCESSIVE FINES AND CRUEL PUNISHMENTS
Meaning of Excessive Fine and Cruelty
1. Constitutional Provision. Section 19(1), Article III states that “excessive fines shall
not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted…”
2. A fine is excessive when it is unreasonable and beyond the limits prescribed by law.
The amount of the fine is said to be unreasonable if the court does not take into
consideration certain standards, such as the nature of the offense, and the
circumstances of the person punished by fine. The imposed fine may never go
beyond the statutory prescription, otherwise it is unlawfully excessive.
3. A punishment is cruel when it is shocking to the conscience of mankind and it
involves prolonged suffering and agony to the person punished. For a penalty to
violate the constitutional guarantee, it must be so flagrant and oppressive so as to be
degrading to human dignity, and it must be unreasonably disproportionate to the
nature of the offense as to shock the senses of the community.[88] The mere severity
of a penalty does not make the punishment cruel or inhumane, for as long as it is
within the limits provided by law. As one maxim states, “even if the law is harsh, it is
still the law (dura lex sed lex).” A penalty that is germane to purpose of the penal law
is not cruel and inhumane.
4. Lastly, a penalty must be acceptable to the contemporary society. Ancient forms of
punishment, such as pillory, disembowelment, and crucifixion, which are already
considered barbarous practices, are cruel and inhumane. If a person, for instance, is
paraded around town naked with a tag on his neck saying “I am a thief; do not
imitate me,” the form of punishment is cruel and inhuman; it is barbarous and so
ancient that it is no longer acceptable to the present-day society.
Death Penalty
1. Constitutional Provision. Section 19(2) also states that “… neither shall death penalty
be imposed, unless, for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress
hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty already imposed shall be reduced
to reclusion perpetua.” The present provision abolishes death penalty, although with a
reservation that the Congress can subsequently pass a law imposing it for compelling
reasons involving heinous crimes.
2. Death Penalty not Cruel. The constitutional provision on death penalty or capital
punishment does not explicitly mention that it is cruel and inhumane. In fact, the
Constitution allows the Congress to impose death penalty for the right reasons. It
could even be argued that extinguishment of human life is not cruel and inhumane
for the following reasons:
(a) It is proportionate to the nature of the offense. Death penalty may only be imposed by
Congress in the commission of heinous crimes and for compelling reasons. Heinous
crimes are crimes which are so flagrant and evil so as to be shocking to the
conscience of civilized persons, such as genocide, rape with homicide, murder,
rebellion, and treason, especially when committed against the innocent and helpless.
With compelling reasons, Congress may impose death penalty since it is
proportionate to the atrocities committed;
(b) This form of penalty still has currency in the contemporary time. Death by lethal
injection is prevalently practiced by many countries for the punishment of heinous
offenses; and
(c) Death by lethal injection is not cruel and inhumane because it does not prolong
suffering or inflict excruciating agony to the person punished. In truth, it only induces the
person to sleep through a lethal substance injected in the bloodstream which
thereafter painlessly put the person to death.
Proper Treatment of Persons Legally Detained or Imprisoned
1. Constitutional Provision. Section 19(2), Article III provides that “the employment of
physical, psychological, or degrading punishment against any prisoner or detainee or
the use of substandard or inadequate penal facilities under subhuman conditions
shall be dealt with by law.”
2. Purpose of the Right. This constitutional guarantee recognizes the inalienability of
human dignity. Even when a person is imprisoned or detained, and even if he
commits heinous crimes, he is still a person entitled to proper treatment and
protection. Paraphrasing it, the Constitution provides that even if a person is
imprisoned or detained, he must be protected against physical, psychological, or
degrading punishment, and is entitled to the use of standard or adequate penal
facilities under humane conditions.
  
RIGHT AGAINST IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT
1. Constitutional Provision. Section 20, Article III provides that “no person shall be
imprisoned for debt or non-payment of a poll tax.”
2. A debt, as covered by the constitutional guarantee, refers to a contractual
obligation by a debtor to pay money to the creditor. If by reason of poverty or lack of
money a person cannot pay his debt, he cannot be imprisoned by reason thereof. The
creditor only has himself to blame if he voluntarily agreed to lend money to someone
who apparently cannot pay or whom he thought could pay but did not. Nevertheless,
although the debtor cannot be imprisoned, his property may be taken or attached by
the court, and then sold at public auction in payment of his debt to the creditor.
3. Estafa is not covered by this constitutional guarantee. What is punished in estafa is
not the non-payment of debt but the deceit accompanying the act of non-payment.
4. Non-payment of poll tax cannot be a cause of imprisonment. A poll tax is a tax of a fixed
amount imposed on individuals residing within a specified territory, whether
citizens or not, without regard to their property or the occupation in which they may
be engaged.[89] Community tax or residence tax is an example of poll tax. As far as
poll tax is concerned, non-payment is not punished by the government in
consideration of the plight of the poor who cannot even afford to pay it. Poverty
could never be a reason for a person’s imprisonment. It must be emphasized,
however, that as regards other forms of taxes, non-payment may be a cause of
imprisonment. Failure to pay income taxes is considered a crime (tax evasion), and
punishable under the law by imprisonment.
 
RIGHT AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY
Meaning of Double Jeopardy
1. Constitutional Provision. Section 21, Article III states that “no person shall be twice
put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. If an act is punished by a law
and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to
another prosecution for the same act.” This is more famously known as the right
against double jeopardy.
2. Double jeopardy means that a person is twice put at the risk of conviction for the
same act or offense. The right against double jeopardy therefore means that a person
can only be indicted or charge once by a competent court for an offense. When a
person, for instance, has been charged of homicide and the court acquitted him of
the case, he can no longer be prosecuted for the same offense or act. He can now
invoke his right against double jeopardy.
3. There are two types of double jeopardy. The first happens when a person is put twice
in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense, and the second happens when an
act is punishable by a law and an ordinance at the same time, in which case the
conviction or acquittal in either one of them constitute as bar to another prosecution
for the same act.
3. The requisites of double jeopardy are:[90]
(a) A valid complaint or information;
(b) Filed before a competent court;
(c) To which the defendant has pleaded; and
(d) The defendant was previously acquitted or convicted or the case dismissed or
otherwise terminated without his express consent.
When Double Jeopardy Could Be Claimed
1. Before double jeopardy could be claimed, there must be a first jeopardy. The first
jeopardy attaches only: (a) upon good indictment; (b) before a competent court; (c)
after arraignment; (d) when a valid plea has been entered; and (e) the case was
dismissed or otherwise terminated without the consent of the accused. A case is said
to be terminated without the consent of the accused when there is acquittal or a final
decision convicting him.
2. To substantiate therefore the claim for double jeopardy, the following must be
proven:
(a) A first jeopardy must have attached prior to the first jeopardy;
(b) The first jeopardy must have been validly terminated; and
(c) The second jeopardy must be for the same offense, or the second offense includes
or is necessarily included in the offense charged in the first information, or is an
attempt to commit the same or is a frustration thereof.
RIGHT AGAINST EX POST FACTO LAW AND BILL OF ATTAINDER
Meaning of Ex Post Facto Law
1. Constitutional Provision. Section 22, Article III provides that “no ex post facto law or
bill of attainder shall be enacted.”
2. An ex post facto law is one which:
(a) Makes criminal an act done before the passage of the law which was innocent
when done, and punishes such an act;
(b) Aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed;
(c) Changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed
to the crime when committed;
(d) Alters the legal rules of evidence, and authorizes conviction upon less or different
testimony than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense;
(e) Assuming to regulate civil rights and remedies only, in  effect imposes penalty or
deprivation of a right for something which when done was lawful; and
(f) Deprives a person accused of a crime of some lawful protection to which he has
become entitled, such as the protection of a former conviction or acquittal, or a
proclamation of amnesty.[91]
3. Applicable only in Criminal Cases. The constitutional prohibition applies only in
criminal cases.[92] One of the characteristics of criminal law is prospectivity in which
only crimes committed after the enactment of a penal are punishable. It cannot
retroact and punish acts which were not yet criminalized before its passage. The
basic rule is that before an act may be considered an offense or crime, it must first be
defined as a crime and a penalty must be imposed for it under a law passed by the
legislative body. An act therefore is not a crime if there is no law punishing it. In the same
vein, a person does not commit a crime, no matter how apparently illegal it is, if
there is no law defining and punishing it. It is for this reason that an ex post facto
law is not allowed because it criminalizes what was not yet a crime during its
commission.
Meaning of Bill of Attainder
1. Definition. A bill of attainder is “a legislative act which inflicts punishment without
trial. Its essence is the substitution of a legislative for a judicial determination of
guilt.”[93]
2. Two Kinds of Bill of Attainder: (a) the bill of attainder proper which involves the
legislative imposition of death penalty, and (b) bill of pains and penalties which
involves imposition of a lesser penalty.
3. Reason for Prohibition. The prohibition against bill of attainder is an implementation
of the principle of separation of powers. The legislature cannot bypass the judiciary by
enacting a law that punishes an act without need of judicial proceedings. The
legislative department should be confined to its law-making function; it cannot
encroach the authority of the courts by prescribing a law that directly adjudges guilt
without judicial determination.
4. Example. In one case, the Court held that the Anti-Subversion Law (R.A. 1700) is
not a bill of attainder.[94] The law declared the Communist Party of the Philippines
(CPP) a clear and present danger to Philippine security, and thus prohibited
membership in such organization. It is not a bill of attainder because it does not
define a crime, but only lays a basis for the legislative determination that
membership in CPP and any other organization having the same purposes is a crime.
It does not automatically secure judgment by mere membership. In operation, the
law does not render unnecessary judicial proceedings. The guilt of the individual
members of subversive groups must still be judicially established.
[1] Bernas, p. 101.
[2] See Bernas, p. 110.
[3] De Leon, p. 130.
[4] See Smith, Bell & Co. v. Natividad, 40 Phil 136.
[5] See Morfe v. Mutuc, L-20387, January 31, 1968.
[6] Felix Frankfurter, Mr. Justice Holmes and the Supreme Court. Emphasis provided
[7] Lopez v. Director of Lands, 47 Phil 23 (1924)
[8] Banco Espanol Filipino v. Palanca, 37 Phil. 921 (1918)
[9] Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial Relations, 69 Phil. 635 (1940)
[10] Bernas, p. 116.
[11] Tolentino v. Board of Accountancy, 90 Phil. 83 (1951)
[12] People v. Cayat, 68 Phil. 12 (1939)
[13] Quinto v. COMELEC
[14] Stonehill v. Diokno, 20 SCRA 383; People v. Damaso, 212 SCRA 457.
[15] Salazar v. Achacoso, G.R. No. 81510, March 14, 1990
[16] See Soliven v. Makasiar, 167 SCRA 393 (1998)
[17] See Stonehill v. Diokno, 20 SCRA 383
[18] Sec. 5, Rule 113
[19] See Umil v. Ramos, G.R. No. 81567 (October 3, 1991).
[20] Morano v. Vico, 20 SCRA 526
[21] The constitutional provisions dealing with the right to privacy are Secs. 1, 2, 3, 6,
8, and 17 of Article III.
[22] Bernas, p. 217
[23] Abraham v. U.S., 250 U.S. 616 (1919)
[24] See Near v. Minesota, 238 U.S. 697
[25] Article 353, Revised Penal Code
[26] See Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973)
[27] New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 US 254
[28] Miriam College Foundation v. C.A., G.R. No. 127930, December 15, 2000
[29] Dennis v. U.S., 341 U.S. 494
[30] See Reyes v. Bagatsing, G.R. No. L-65366 (November 9, 1993).
[31] Telecommunications and Broadcast Attorneys of the Philippines v. COMELEC, G.R.
No. 132922 (April 21, 1998).
[32] See Borjal v. CA, 301 SCRA 1.
[33] Friedman v. Rogers, 440 US 1; Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Human Relations Commission,
413 US 376.
[34] Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission of NY, 447 US
557.
[35] Manila Public School Teachers Association v. Secretary of Education, G.R. No. 95445,
August 6, 1991
[36] SSS Employees Association v. CA, 175 SCRA 686
[37] Everson v. Board of Education, 30 US 1
[38] Abington School District v. Schemp, 374 US 203
[39] Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 US 602
[40] Glassroth v. Moore, 335 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2003)
[41] Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 US 97
[42] Abington School District v. Schemp, 374 US 203
[43] Newdow v. US, No. 00-16423 (9th Cir. 2003)
[44] Sec. 28(3), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution
[45] Ibid., Sec. 4(2), Article XIV
[46] Tilton v. Richardson, 403 US 672
[47] Sec. 3(3), Art. XIV, Constitution
[48] Ibid., Sec. 29(2), Art. VI
[49] Graces v. Estenzo, 104 SCRA 510
[50] Alipay v. Ruiz, 64 Phil 201
[51] Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 US 602
[52] See Ebralinag v. Division Superintendent of Schools of Cebu, 219 SCRA 256.
[53] Cassius Clay v. US, 403 US 698; See also Article 18, International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights
[54] Ebralinag v. Division Superintendent of Schools of Cebu, 219 SCRA 256
[55] See Marcos v. Manglapus, G.R. No. 88211, Sept. 15, 1989 & Oct. 27, 1989
[56] People v. Zeta, 98 Phil. 143
[57] Clemons v. Nolting, 42 Phil. 702
[58] Manila Trading Company. v. Reyes, 1935
[59] See Philippine Rural Electric Cooperatives Association v. DILG Secretary, G.R. No.
143076, June 10, 2003
[60] See China Banking Corporation v. ADB Holdings, G.R. No. 172192, December 23,
2008
[61] Asia Bed Factory v. National Bed and Kapok Industries Worker’s Union, 100 Phil. 837
[62] See Bernas, p. 464
[63] 384 US 436 (1966)
[64] Bernas, p. 448.
[65] See People v. Tolentino, 145 SCRA 597
[66] Sec. 12(2), Art. III
[67] Sec. 12 (1), Art. III
[68] See People v. Obrero,  G.R. No. 122142 (May 17, 2000).
[69] People v. Andang,  GR 116437 (March 3, 1997).
[70] Bernas, p. 486.
[71] Ibid.
[72] Sec. 6, Rule 114
[73] Procedure of returning an extraditee to the requesting state.
[74] See Government of Hong Kong v. Judge Olalia,  G.R. No. 153675 (April 19, 2007).
[75] See Comendador v. De Villa, 200 SCRA 80, 96.
[76] See Narciso v. Sta. Romana-Cruz, G.R. No. 134504 (March 17, 2000).
[77] US v. Grant, 18 Phil 154.
[78] Martelino v. Alejandro, 32 SCRA 115.
[79] Olaguer v. Military Commission No. 34, 150 SCRA 165.
[80] Mupas v. People, G.R. No. 172834, February 6, 2008.
[81] People v. Manoji, 68 Phil. 471.
[82] Bernas, p. 514
[83] Aside from these remedies, the Rules of Court also provide for other modes of
discovery.
[84] Sec. 1, Rule 116, Rules of Court.
[85] Aquino v. Military Commission No. 2, 63 SCRA 546.
[86] Sec. 6, Rule 120, Rule of Court.
[87] U.S. v. Navarro, 3 Phil 63.
[88] Green Notes, Political Law, Handout No. 002, p. 42.
[89] De Leon, p. 196.
[90] Rule 117, Sec. 7; People v. Obsania, 23 SCRA 249.
[91] Mekin v. Wolfe, 2 Phil. 74.
[92] In re Kay Villegas Kami, Inc., 35 SCRA 428.
[93] People v. Ferrer, 48 SCRA 382.
[94] Ibid.