compilation of digests political law 1 bill of rights and citizenship

8/19/2019 Compilation of Digests Political Law 1 Bill of Rights and Citizenship

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/compilation-of-digests-political-law-1-bill-of-rights-and-citizenship 1/33

I've long been contemplating to come up with a blog that would help the barristers,law students and anyonewho wishes to get legal updates, review materials, and digested cases to aid them in their respectiveendeavors. Finally, it came into fruition. Thanks to my boredom coz it drives me to nuts in setting this up.

MARTES, MAYO 08, 2012

Political aw !igests "

#$%&TITTI$%( ()

I. Bill of Rights

Procedurl !ue Process

http://jamesmamba.blogspot.com/



1. E"iste#ce of $ioltio#

Lameyra v. Pangilinan*++ &#( ""-%A&TS' Petitioner received a letter from the mayor informing him that he is droppedfrom the roll of employees of the local government unit. Petitioner claims that he was

terminated without prior written notice of the charges and without investigation andhearing.

(E)!' (lthough it is clear from the #ivil &ervice emorandum #ircular that no prior notice is re/uired to drop from the rolls an employee who has been continuously absentwithout leave for at least thirty days, petitioner contests the finding that he was absent atall. 0e claims that he reported for work but was prevented form signing the log book. Inview of the circumstances prevailing in this case, the #ivil &ervice #ommission shouldhave considered the new evidence anne1ed by petitioner to his motion for reconsideration.

Velayo v. Comelec *+- &#( -"*

%A&TS' The #omelec issued a resolution annulling the proclamation of 2elayo asmayor. 2elayo claimed that he was denied due process because he was not furnishedany notice of the pre3proclamation proceedings against him from beginning to end. (llthat petitioner received from the #omelec was its en banc resolution annulling hisproclamation.

(E)!' 2elayo is a real party3in3interest since he was the proclaimed mayor. 0is non3inclusion as respondent and his lack of notice of the proceedings in the #omelec whichresulted to the cancellation of his proclamation constitute clear denial of due process.

y v. #ommission on (uditG.R. No. 130685 (March 21, 2000)

%A&TS' 4overnor Paredes dismissed from service more than si1ty employees,allegedly to scale down the operations of the office. The erit &ystems Protection5oard rendered a decision that the reduction in work force was not done in accordancewith civil service rules and regulations, and ordered the reinstatement of theworkers. The #ommission on (udit 6#$(7 rendered a decision ruling that the backsalaries of the workers have become the personal liability of the 4overnor because theillegal dismissal was done in bad faith.

(E)!' 4overnor Paredes was never made a party to nor served a notice of theproceedings before the #$(. Fundamental re/uirement of procedural due processcannot be violated before administrative agencies like #$(.

&ummary !ismissal 5oard v. Torcita

G.R. No. 130442 (April 6, 2000)%A&TS' espondent was charged with "+ administrative complaints which wereconsolidated into one ma8or complaint, which is, conduct unbecoming of a policeofficer. The &ummary !ismissal 5oard suspended respondent from service for +9 days,for :simple irregularity in the performance of service;. The 5oard later found respondentto have committed a breach of internal discipline by taking alcoholic drinks while on duty.

(E)!' espondent was entitled to know that he was being charged with being drunkwhile in the performance of duty. (lthough he was given the opportunity to be heard on



the multiple and broad charges filed against him, the absence of specification of theoffense for which he was eventually found guilty is not a proper observance of dueprocess.

Villanueva v. MalayaG.R. No. 94617 (April 12, 2000)

(E)!' The T#<s granting of the writ of possession e par!e violates petitioner3lessees<right to due process. ( writ of possession may issue against occupants of a propertysub8ect of e1ecution who derive their right of possession from the 8udgment debtor uponmotion in the e1ecution proceedings and without need of a separate e8ectment action,provided that the occupants are afforded an opportunity to e1plain the nature of their possession, on which basis the writ of possession will be denied or granted.

4ozun v. langco A.M. No. M"#$97$1136 (A%&%'! 30, 2000)

%A&TS' The &angguniang 5ayan passed a resolution declaring the parcel of landoccupied by complainant as the new site of the rural health center. espondent issued aresolution declaring that the &angguniang 5ayan resolution is valid and enforceable andthat the mayor could order the police authorities to evict complainant.

(E)!' #omplainant was not made a party to the petition nor notifiedthereof. espondent violated the rights of the complainant to due process.

2. A*se#ce of +ioltio#

Immam v. Comelec *++ &#( =>>%A&TS' Petitioner claims that the /uestioned #omelec order was issued without anymotion for its issuance and without notice and hearing. Thus, he claimed that his right todue process was violated.

(E)!' The essence of due process is the opportunity to be heard. The right to be

heard does not only refer to the right to present verbal arguments in court. ( party canbe heard through the pleadings he submits. In this case, petitioner was heard throughthe memorandum he submitted.

Ocampo v. Office of the Ombudsman*++ &#( "-%A&TS' ( criminal complaint was filed against petitioner for estafa andfalsification. The $mbudsman issued several orders to petitioner to file his counter3affidavit and controverting evidence. Petitioner failed. The $mbudsman issued theassailed resolution dismissing petitioner from service. Petitioner claimed that he wasdenied due process because he was not given any notice of the order declaring him tohave waived his right to file his counter3affidavit.

(E)!' The orders of the $mbudsman re/uiring petitioner to submit his counter3affidavitcontained a warning that if no counter3affidavit is filed within the given period, a waiver would be considered. (lso, petitioner was given the opportunity to be heard. ( partywho chooses not to avail of the opportunity cannot complain of denial of due process

National Police Commission v. BernabeG.R. No. 129914 (Ma 12, 2000)



%A&TS' The #ourt of (ppeals set aside the decision of the %ational Police #ommissionon the ground that respondent was denied due process in the conduct of theinvestigation of the charges filed against him.

(E)!' The essence of due process is simply to be heard, or as applied toadministrative proceedings, an opportunity to e1plain one<s side or an opportunity to

seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. !ue process does notalways re/uire a trial3type proceeding. In this case, the record shows that respondentwas given notice of the complaints and an opportunity to answer. 0e even submitted anaffidavit answering point by point the charges against him.

. Ad-i#istrti+e !ue Process

Pefianco v. Moral *++ &#( ?*@%A&TS' Former !A#& &ecretary filed an administrative complaint against respondentfor dishonesty. &he was dismissed. espondent filed a petition for mandamus tocompel petitioner to furnish her a copy of the !A#& Investigation #ommittee eport. Itwas denied.

(E)!' ( respondent in an administrative case is not entitled to be informed of thefindings and recommendations of any investigating committee created to in/uire intocharges filed against him. 0e is entitled only to the administrative decision and areasonable opportunity to meet the charges and the evidence presented during thehearings of the investigation committee. espondent had been accorded these rights.

. I-/rtilit of udge

oriano v. !ngelesG.R. No. 109920 (A%&%'! 31, 2000)

%A&TS' This is a petition for certiorari which seeks to annul the decision of respondent 8udge ac/uitting the accused in a direct assault case filed against him by the petitioner

on the ground that respondent was biased.

(E)!' The fact that respondent 8udge believed the evidence of the defense more thanthat of the prosecution does not indicate that she was biased.

!lmendra v. !sis A.M. R"#$1590 (April 6, 2000)

(E)!' The mere fact that respondent 8udge ruled against complainant in the threecases filed before him did not amount to partiality against said complainant or warrantthe conclusion that respondent rendered an un8ust 8udgment.

People v. "heng Bai #ui G.R. No. 127580 (A%&%'! 22, 2000)

(E)!' The /uestioning of the witnesses by the 8udge is not a sufficient sign of bias. 6ee al'o People v. #abiles, 4.. %o. "+B99=, $ctober +*, +9997

Eul Protectio#

$e %u&man v. Comelec G.R. No. 129118 (#%l 19, 2000)

%A&TS' The #omelec reassigned petitioners to other stations pursuant to &ection ?? of the 2oter<s egistration (ct. The (ct prohibits election officers from holding office in a



particular city or municipality for more than four years. Petitioners claim that the actviolated the e/ual protection clause because not all election officials were covered bythe prohibition.

(E)!' The law does not violate the e/ual protection clause. It is intended to ensure theimpartiality of election officials by preventing them from developing familiarity with the

people of their place of assignment. arge3scale anomalies in the registration of voterscannot be carried out without the complicity of election officers, who are the highestrepresentatives of #omelec in a city or municipality.

B. Serches #d Sei3ures1. !eter-i#tio# of Pro**le &use * udge

$i&on v. Veneracion A.M. No. R"#$97$1376 (#%l 20, 2000)

%A&TS' espondent issued a search warrant for the seizure of "99 cars imported bythe operators of etro anila Inc. on the ground that the value of the cars had not beenpaid to the supplier. Prior to the issuance of the warrant, the 8udge asked the witness for proof. The witness answered that there was evidence from the shipper.

(E)!' The 8udge failed to comply with the constitutional re/uirement that before asearch warrant may be issued, there must first be a complainant and his witness, andthat the 8udge should determine probable cause through searching /uestions andanswers.

(bdula v. 4uiani326 *RA 1

(E)!' If a 8udge relies solely on the certification of the prosecutor when the records arenot before him, he has not personally determined the e1istence of probable cause. Theconstitutional re/uirement has not been satisfied. The 8udge does not have to personallye1amine the witnesses. 0owever, there should be a report and necessary documentssupporting the certification of the prosecutor. (ll these should be before the 8udge. 6eeal'o aro v. &andiganbayan, 4.. %o. "9=?*", Culy "?, +999 and im v. Feli1, 4.. %o.@?9B?-7

'olentino v. Malangaon A.M. No. R"#$99$1444 (A%&%'! 3, 2000)

%A&TS' espondent 8udge dismissed the case of child abuse filed by petitioner on theground that the prosecution failed to establish probable cause. Previously, the courtordered petitioner to show cause why the court should order the arrest of theaccused. 0owever, petitioner refused to present additional affidavits on the ground thatthere was no need to prove the factual basis of the information.

(E)!' The 8udge must be satisfied with the e1istence of probable cause for the

issuance of a warrant of arrest. The 8udge may re/uire the prosecutor to present further evidence to provide a factual basis for the finding of probable cause.

2. Prticulrit of !escri/tio#

(y v. Bureau of Internal )evenueG.R. No. 129651 (+c!ober 20, 2000)

%A&TS' Petitioners claim that the search warrant issued lacks particularity. The itemsdescribed in the warrant are as followsD multiple sets of books of accounts, ledgers,

8ournals, columnar books, cash register books, sales books or records, provisional and



official receipts, production record books, inventory lists, stock cards, unregistereddelivery receipts, unregistered purchase and sales invoicesE sales records, 8ob orders,corporate financial records, bank statements, cancelled checks.

(E)!' ost of the items listed lacked particularity. The 8udge could have formed amore specific description of the documents, since the former employee of the petitioners

furnished photocopies of the documents sought to be seized. )ith regard to theunregistered delivery receipts and unregistered purchase and sales invoices, they arespecific. %o more detailed description could have been given. Items not particularlydescribed may be cut off, without rendering the entire warrant void.

. 4rr#tless Serches #d Sei3ure. I#cide#t of Arrest

People v. *lamparoG.R. No. 121572 (March 31, 2000)

(E)!' (ppellant<s subse/uent arrest was lawful, coming as it is within the purview of :in la&ran!e -elic!o; arrest. The warrantless search and seizure was also lawful since itwas a search incidental to a lawful arrest.

People v. evillaG.R. No. 124077 (ep!eber 5, 2000)

%A&TS' ( team of police officers went to the house of the accused to enforce a warrantof arrest. &ome members of the %arcotics #ommand 8oined the team to look for mari8uana. (ccused was subse/uently charged with illegal possession of mari8uana.

(E)!' The search is illegal. It is not a search incidental to a valid arrest since the%arcotics #ommand 8oined the team of police officers for the specific purpose of conducting a search.

People v. +igueroaG.R. No. 134056 (#%l 6, 2000)

%A&TS' (ccused, together with %5I agents, went to the house of his co3accused andpointed to a pail in the kitchen containing prohibited drugs. %5I agents seized the itemand arrested co3accused. Is the warrantless seizure valid (E)!' %o. The search is not incidental to a valid arrest. The arrest of the co3accuseddid not precede the search.

People v. Che Chun 'ing G.R. No. 130568 (March 21, 2000)

%A&TS' &tanding outside nit "++, accused handled two transparent bags of drugs toabel Po, in full view of %(#$ agents. Police officers arrested the surprised manand conducted a search of nit "++ where they found more bags of shabu.

(E)!' The search of nit "++ and the seizure of drugs found therein are illegal. (warrantless search should be limited to the premises and surroundings that are under the immediate control of the accused. nit "++ is not even the house of the accused butthat of his girlfriend.

*. Mo+i#g $ehicle

People v. *sca,o*+* &#( -B?



%A&TS' !uring a checkpoint, a police saw a firearm on the lap of the accused. (s aresult, other passengers were searched and all firearms were seized. (re checkpointsillegal

(E)!' (s long as the vehicle is neither searched nor its occupants sub8ected to a bodysearch, and the inspection is limited to a visual search, such routine checks cannot be

regarded as violative of the right against unreasonable search.

c. Prohi*ited Article i# Pli# $ie5 6 &ustodil I#+estigtio#

People v. 2aldezG.R. No. 129296 (ep!eber 25, 2000)

%A&TS' 5ased on a tip from an informer, police officers went to the place of theaccused where they found mari8uana plants being cultivated appro1imately twenty3fivemeters from the house of the accused. They uprooted the plants and arrested theaccused. They asked the accused who owned the plants and the accused admitted thatthey belonged to him. The prosecution offered the plants and the admission of theaccused as evidence. The accused claimed that the warrantless search was illegal whilethe police officers claimed that the plants were found in plain view.

(E)!' The mari8uana plants were not in plain view. For the plain view doctrine to apply,the following must be presentD 6a7 there was a valid prior intrusion based on a validwarrantless arrest in which the police are legally present in the pursuit of their officialdutiesE 6b7 the evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who have the right tobe where they wereE 6c7 the evidence must be immediately apparentE and 6d7 plain view

8ustified seizure of the evidence without further search. In this case, the police officerslocated the plants before they arrested the accused without a warrant. (lso, they weredispatched precisely to look for the mari8uana plants. The discovery was notinadvertent. The confession is also inadmissible. In trying to elicit information from theaccused, the police was investigating him as a suspect. (t this point, he was alreadyunder custodial investigation and had a right to counsel.

People v. $eang G.R. No. 128045 (A%&%'! 24, 2000)

%A&TS' The accused was arrested for kidnapping for ransom with homicide. 0eaccompanied the police to his house to surrender his share of theransom. &ubse/uently, the accused got convicted. 0e claimed that the warrantlessseizure of the money was illegal.

(E)!' The warrantless seizure of the money was legal because it was made with theconsent of the accused.

. 4rr#tless Arrests. I#+lid Arrests

People v. $ela Cru& G. R. No. 138516 (+c!ober 17, 2000)

(E)!' ( warrantless arrest after the commission of a crime is illegal. The seizure of the items he stole is also illegal.

Posadas v. OmbudsmanG.R. No. 131492 (ep!eber 29, 2000)



%A&TS' pon the re/uest of the niversity #hancellor, the %5I sent agents to theuniversity and tried to arrest two members of a fraternity who were identified by twowitnesses as responsible for the killing of a member of another fraternity.

(E)!' The %5I agents had no personal knowledge of any fact which might indicate thatthe two students were probably guilty of the crime. Their attempt to arrest them without

a warrant was illegal.

7. Effect of Ple o# Illegl Arrest

People v. %ome& *+B &#( >"(E)!' (ny ob8ection to the warrant of arrest or the procedure in the ac/uisition by thecourt of 8urisdiction over the person of the accused must be made before he enters hisplea, otherwise, the ob8ection is deemed waived. Thus, if he fails to move for the/uashing of the information against him before his arraignment, he may be estoppedfrom assailing the illegality of his arrest. 6ee al'o People v. 5uluran, *+B &#( ?->7

!. %reedo- of S/eech #d of the Press1. )i*el

-alandoni v. $rilon327 *RA 107

%A&TS' Private respondents published a full3page advertisement in five ma8or dailynewspapers. These ads contained allegations naming petitioner who was then a P#44#ommissioner of having committed illegal and unauthorized acts. Petitioner filed acomplaint for the crime of libel.

(E)!' In libel cases against public officials, for liability to arise, the alleged defamatorystatement must relate to official conduct, even if the defamatory statement is false,unless the public official concerned proves that the statement was made with actualmalice, that is, with knowledge that it was false or not. 0ere, petitioner failed to proveactual malice on the part of the private respondents. The statements embodied in the

advertisement are covered by the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech. Thiscarries the right to criticize the action and conduct of a public official.

2. %reedo- of e"/ressio#

!BCBN Broadcasting Corporation v. Comelec 323 *RA 811

%A&TS' #omelec came up with a resolution prohibiting the conduct of e1it polls during elections for the reason that e1it pollshave the tendency to cause confusion.

(E)!' #onducting e1it polls and reporting their results are valid e1ercises of freedom of speech and of the press. ( limitation onthem may be 8ustified only by a danger of such substantive character that the state has a right to prevent. The concern of the#omelec cannot be 8ustified since there is no showing that e1it polls cause chaos in voting centers.

E. Right to I#for-tio#

%on&ales v. Narvasa

G.R. No. 140835 (A%&%'! 14, 2000)%A&TS' Petitioner wrote a letter to the A1ecutive &ecretary re/uesting for information with respect to the names of e1ecutiveofficials holding multiple positions, copies of their appointments, and a list of recipients of lu1ury vehicles previously seized by the5ureau of #ustoms and turned over to the $ffice of the President. Petitioner filed this petition to compel the A1ecutive &ecretaryto answer his letter.

(E)!' It is the duty of the A1ecutive &ecretary to answer the letter of the petitioner. The letter deals with matters of publicconcern, appointments to public offices and utilization of public property. The A1ecutive &ecretary is obliged to allow theinspection and copying of appointment papers.

%. E-i#e#t !o-i#

antos v. Land Ban/ of the Philippines



G.R. No. 137431 (ep!eber 7, 2000)(E)!' #ompensation for land e1propriation for agrarian reform is valid, even if made not completely in cash.

. Prohi*itio# Agi#st I-/ir-e#t of &o#trcts

#arrison Motors Corporation v. NavarroG.R. No. 132269 (April 27, 2000)

%A&TS' 0arrison otors sold two trucks to %avarro. &ubse/uently, the 5ureau of

Internal evenue 65I7, the and Transportation $ffice and the 5ureau of #ustomers65$#7 entered in a emorandum of (greement which provided that for purposes of registering vehicles, a #ertificate of Payment should first be obtained from the5I. 4overnment agents seized and detained the two trucks of %avarro after discoveringthat there were still unpaid ta1es.

(E)!' The emorandum of (greement does not impose any additional ta1es which would unduly impair the contract of salebetween petitioner and private respondent. Instead, these administrative orders were passed to enforce payment of e1isting 5Ita1es and customs duties at the time of importation. )hat &ec. "9 (rt. III of the #onstitution prohibits is the passage of a lawwhich enlarges, abridges or in any manner changes the intention of the contracting parties.

(. Rights !uri#g I#+estigtio#1. I#//lic*ilit

. Ad-i#istrti+e I#+estigtio#

ebastian v. %architorena

G.R. No. 114028 (+c!ober 18, 2000)%A&TS' &ome employees of the post office were investigated by the chief postal service officer in connection with missingpostage stamps. !uring interrogation, they submitted sworn statements. The prosecution presented the sworn statements asevidence. (ccused claimed that their sworn statements were not admissible in evidence since they were not assisted by counsel.

(E)!' The right to counsel is not imperative in administrative investigation because such in/uiries are conducted merely todetermine whether there are facts that merit disciplinary measures against erring public officers.

*. Police )i#e9:/

People v. PartiareG.R. No. 129970 (April 5, 2000)

(E)!' The accused3appellant<s defense that the identification made by the private complainant in the police line3up isinadmissible because the appellant stood at the line3up without the assistance of counsel is inadmissible. The stage of aninvestigation wherein a person is asked to stand in a police line3up is outside the mantle of protection of the right to counsel. 6eeal'o People v. &irad, 4.. %o. "*9B@?, Culy B, +9997

c. Photogr/h

People v. %allarde325 *RA 835

%A&TS' (ccused was charged with the crime of rape with homicide. The trial court convicted him of murder only. The trial courtre8ected the photographs taken of the accused immediately after the incident on the ground that the same were taken when theaccused was already under the mercy of the police.

(E)!' The taking of pictures of an accused, even without the assistance of counsel, being purely a mechanical act, is not aviolation of his constitutional rights against self3incrimination.

. A//lic*ilit%utang v. People

G.R. No. 135406 (#%l 11, 2000)(E)!' eceipt by the accused of prohibited drugs is inadmissible in evidence.

. &ustodil I#+estigtio#

People v. Bari0uit G.R. No. 122733 (+c!ober 2, 2000)

(E)!' #onfession given by the accused without the assistance of counsel, while on the way to the police station, is inadmissiblein evidence.

People v. Valde& G.R. No. 129296 (ep!eber 25, 2000)

%A&TS' The accused was arrested for bank robbery. (fter four days, the police investigator took down his e1tra8udicialconfession and called a lawyer who conferred with the accused for ten minutes and e1ecuted his confession.



(E)!' The confession is inadmissible. The moment the accused was arrested and detained, he was already under custodialinvestigation. The lawyer was called only on the ?th day of detention when the accused was about to put down his confession inwriting.

People v. Legaspi G.R. No. 117802 (April 27, 2000)

%A&TS' egaspi and Franco were charged and convicted of the special comple1 crimeof robbery with homicide. They were identified as perpetrators of the crime by someone

from a group of eleven residents who were invited for /uestioning by the police. Theaccused now claims that their rights during custodial investigation were violated.

(E)!' %o rights were transgressed inasmuch as egaspi and Franco were not yetsingled out as perpetrators of the crime on %ovember +@, "@@+. Inviting certainindividuals for /uestioning and asking them a single /uestion as to their whereabouts onthe day of the crime do not amount to custodial investigation. )hen certain personsare already singled out and pinpointed as authors of the crime, they are entitled to therights of persons under custodial investigation.

. Sufficie#c of 4r#i#g

People v. amoldeG.R. No. 128551 (#%l 31, 2000)

%A&TS' The accused was arrested for murder. 5efore he was interrogated, he was informed of his right to remain silent, that anystatement he might give could be used as evidence against him, and that he had the right to be assisted by counsel of his ownchoice. !uring trial, the prosecution offered his confession in evidence.

(E)!' The confession is inadmissible. The accused was given only a perfunctory recitation of his rights. This is inade/uate totransmit meaningful information to the suspect.

People v. Manri0ue& G.R. No. 122510 (March 17, 2000 7

%A&TS' (ccused were found guilty of two counts of murder. They e1ecuted an e1tra3 8udicial confession wherein they narrated their participation in the commission of thecrime. They also signed a waiver in the presence of a counsel which contained that theydid not want the assistance of counsel.

(E)!' ights to remain silent and to counsel were violated. The lawyer<s e1planation on the effects of the waiver is

unsatisfactory. (lso, the e1tra38udicial confession is inadmissible evidence. It is intrinsically flawed. It was merely attached aspage + of the waiver. It was not prepared at the time the waiver was being prepared since another typewriter was used in

preparing the e1tra38udicial confession.

People v. ObreroG.R. No. 122142 (Ma 17, 2000)

%A&TS' (ppellant was charged with robbery with homicide. 0is e1tra38udicialconfession was presented as evidence.

(E)!' A1tra38udicial confession is inadmissible in evidence because counsel for accused was not independent. (t the time he

assisted accused3appellant, he was the station commander of the )P! and a P# captain. (s part of the police force, he couldnot be e1pected to have effectively assisted the accused during the investigation.

7. I#de/e#de#ce of &ou#sel

People v. Base

G.R. No. 109773 (March 30, 2000)(E)!' )hile the initial choice in cases where a person under custodial investigation cannot afford the services of a lawyer isnaturally lodged in the police investigators, the accused really has the final choice as he may re8ect the counsel chosen for himand ask for another one. ( lawyer provided by the investigators is deemed engaged by the accused where he never raised anyob8ection against the former<s appointment during the course of the investigation. 6ee al'o People v. 4allardo, *+* &#( *"=7

;. Ad-issi*ilit of E+ide#ce. Ad-issi*le E+ide#ce

People v. Lumandong 327 *RA 650

(E)!' The four fundamental re/uirements on the admissibility of the e1tra8udicial confession areD "7 the confession must bevoluntaryE + 7 the confession must be made with the assistance of competent and independent counselE *7 the confession must be



e1pressE and ?7 the confession must be in writing. 6ee al'o People v. !aeng, 4.. %o. "+=9?B, (ugust +?, +999E People v.lanes, 4.. %o. "?9+>=, &eptember "=, +999E and People v. ameng, 4.. %o. "+*"?-, $ctober "*, +9997

People v. ContinenteG.R. No. 1000801 (A%&%'! 25, 2000)

%A&TS' The trial court convicted the accused of murder. (mong the evidence the trial court relied upon were the confession of

the accused. The accused argued that their confession were inadmissible in evidence, since they were not informed of theirconstitutional right.

(E)!' The written warning contained an e1planation that the investigation dealt with the participation of the accused who chosenot to give any statement to the investigator and a warning that any statement obtained from the accused might be used againstthem in court. They contained an advice that the accused might engage the service of a lawyer of their own choice and that ifthey could not afford the service of a lawyer, they would be provided with one for free. !espite the manifestation of the accusedthat they intended to give their statements, the investigator re/uested two lawyers to act as counsel for the accused. The lawyers

conferred with the accused before their investigation. The accused were informed of their constitutional rights in the presence oftheir counsel. The confession are admissible in evidence.

*. I#d-issi*le E+ide#ce

People v. Naag 322 *RA 710

(E)!' #ircumstances show that the e1tra8udicial confession was signed without the assistance of counsel. (s such, it isinadmissible. The te1t of the confession is darker suggesting that a different typewriter was used from that used to type the name

of the accused. 6ee al'o People v. Paglinawan, *+? &#( @-7

c. 4i+er People v. #ermoso

G.R. No. 130590 (+c!ober 18, 2000)(E)!' )hen the confession of the accused was given without the assistance of counsel and the accused did not ob8ect, hewaives his right to ob8ect.

(. Right to BilLardes v. C!

324 *RA 321%A&TS' Petitioner filed a petition for bail. The trial court granted it but imposed a condition that the approval of the bail bondwould only be made after arraignment to make sure that the accused could not delay his trial by absenting himself.

(E)!' 5ails should be granted before arraignment. $therwise, the accused might be precluded from filing a motion to /uash.

I. Right to &ou#sel1. A*se#ce of $ioltio#

People v. !0uinoG.R. No. 129288 (March 30, 2000)

%A&TS' (ccused were charged with robbery with homicide. (ccused claimed that he was denied of his constitutional right to

counsel.

(E)!' (ccused should have informed the trial court if he had difficulties with his counsel. 0e had the opportunity to present hisown version of the events but he 8ust kept /uiet. 5esides, accused was convicted based on the strength of the prosecution andnot on the weakness of the defense.

Villanueva v. PeopleG.R. No. 135098 (April 12, 2000)

%A&TS' Petitioner was found guilty of the 5ouncing #heck aw. 0e appealed to the #ourt of (ppeals. The #ourt of (ppealsaffirmed the conviction. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but the same was denied because it was filed out oftime. Petitioner claimed that he had a difficulty in finding a new lawyer and that when the #( denied his motion forreconsideration, he was denied of his right to counsel.

(E)!' Petitioner was represented by counsel of his choice in the trial court, and also by a counsel -e par!e before the#(. There was no violation of his right to counsel when his new lawyer committed a procedural blunder.

2. Prese#ce of $ioltio#

People v. Nadera324 *RA 490

%A&TS' The accused was charged for raping his two daughters. 0e pleaded guilty. The lawyer of the accused did not cross3e1amine the first daughter because he was convinced that she was telling the truth. The cross e1amination of the seconddaughter centered on what she did when she saw her sister being raped. The lawyer did not present any evidence, ande1pressed his conformity for the admission of the evidence of the prosecution.

(E)!' The case should be remanded because of the neglect of the lawyer of the accused in representing his cause.

I. Right to *e I#for-ed1. !iffere#t Offe#se



People v. Paglina1an324 *RA 97

%A&TS' The accused was charged with murder. !uring trial, it was shown that the victims also suffered in8uries.

(E)!' ( person cannot be convicted of a crime for which he has not been charged. (ccused cannot be held liable for thein8uries.

2. A*se#ce of <ulifi#g &ircu-st#ce

People v. Villar 322 *RA 390

(E)!' If no /ualifiying circumstances were alleged in the information, accused cannot be sentenced to death. 6ee al'o Peoplev. 5ernaldez, *++ &#( ->+7.

. =u-*er of Offe#se

People v. Pambid2G.R. No. 129164 (March 15, 2000)

(E)!' If a person is charged only with one count of rape, even though the victim wasraped more than once, the accused can only be convicted of one count of rape. 6eeal'oPeople v. (lnero, 4.. %o. "*?B*>, (pril B, +9997

7. !te of &o--issio# of &ri-e

Su-*#g +. e#erl &ourt Mrtil PRO9Regio# ;G.R. No. 140188 (A%&%'! 3, 2000)

%A&TS' Petitioner, who is a member of the Philippine #onstabulary, was charged withdouble murder before a general court martial. The composition of the court martial waschanged four times. The accused argued that his right to a speedy trial has beenviolated since the case has been going on for years.

(E)!' The prosecution had no fault in the delay since the membership of the generalcourt martial underwent changes four times and none of the original members whoheard the prosecution witnesses were reappointed in the succeeding courtmartial. 5esides, the petitioner failed to assert his right to a speedy trial. It wasonly after the general court martial resumed hearing of the case in "@@@ that petitioner

invoked his right to a speedy trial. 0is silence should be interpreted as a waiver of suchright.

!rambulo v. La0ui G.R. No. 138596 (+c!ober 12, 2000)

%A&TS' ( libel case was filed against the petitioner3accused. 0e filed a motion to/uash on the ground of prescription which was denied. 0e filed motion for reconsideration which was also denied. Petitioner3accused filed a petition for certiorariin the #ourt of (ppeals which was dismissed. 0is motion for reconsideration was alsodenied. Petitioner3accused later on claimed that his right to a speedy trial was violated.

(E)!' The right to a speedy trial is violated only when there is an unreasonable delay

without the fault of the accused. Petitioner3accused is not without fault in the delay of the prosecution against her.

M. Right to &o#fro#ttio#

People v. Crispin327 *RA 167

(E)!' (ffidavit of a witness who was not presented as such is not admissible inevidence.



=. Right to &o-/ulsor Process

People v. 3ambot G.R. No. 120350 (+c!. 13, 2000)

%A&TS' The accused were charged with kidnapping for ransom. )hen it was their turnto present evidence, the subpoena for the first witness was not served because she was

unknown at her given address, while the subpoena for the other witness was receivedonly three days before the hearing. (t the ne1t hearing, the two witnesses did notappear. The subpoena for the first witness remained unserved while the subpoena for the second was received four days before date of hearing. The trial court denied there/uest of the counsel of the accused for postponement and considered the casesubmitted for decision even though it issued a warrant for the arrest of the secondwitness.

(E)!' The delay is not entirely attributable to the accused. The trial court should havegranted postponement.

O. Right to S/eed !is/ositio# of &ses

$ansal v. +ernande& 327 *RA 145

%A&TS' Petitioners, who were officers of the %ational Food (uthority, were charged withestafa thru falsification of a public document in the office of the $mbudsman. (nadditional charge for violation of the (nti34raft and #orrupt Practices (ct was filedagainst the petitioners. ore than one year and four months after the cases weresubmitted for resolution, the $ffice of the $mbudsman issued a resolutionrecommending the filing of a case for estafa thru falsification and a case for violation of the (nti34raft and #orrupt Practices (ct against the petitioners. Petitioners argued thatthe delay in the termination of the preliminary investigation violated their right to aspeedy disposition of their cases.

(E)!' The concept of speedy disposition of cases is a relative and fle1ible concept. Itis consistent with reasonable delay. The protection under the speedy disposition of cases should not operate as to deprive the government of the inherent prerogative toprosecute criminal cases or in seeing to it that all who approach the bar of 8ustice beafforded a fair opportunity to present their side. It cannot be said that petitioners foundthemselves in a situation oppressive to their rights simply by reason of delay.

$omingo v. andiganbayan322 *RA 655

%A&TS' $n ay +>, "@=-, a complaint was filed with the Tanodbayan against petitioner for violation of the (nti34raft and #orrupt Practices (ct. $n Culy *9, "@@+, a case wasfiled against petitioner with the &andiganbayan. Petitioner argued that the inordinatedelay in the preliminary investigation violated right to speedy disposition of his case.

(E)!' The delay was not undue since it was brought about by peculiar unforeseencircumstances. The &# nullified the authority of the $ffice of the &pecial Prosecutor which necessitated the issuance of ($ G" by the $mbudsman authorizing the &pecialProsecutor to continue with the preliminary investigation. The assigned prosecutor retired in "@=@. (fter the reorganization by the $mbudsman of the $ffice of the &pecialProsecutor, the case was assigned to a new prosecutor. The subpoena sent topetitioner was return unserved because he was no longer connected with his previous



office. The prosecutor issued another subpoena to give petitioner chance to filecounteraffidavits which he filed only on arch "@@+.

Castillo v. andiganbayanG.R. No. 109271 (March 14, 2000)

%A&TS' $n (ugust +B, "@=>, a complaint was filed against petitioners with the

Tanodbayan. $n $ct. *9, "@=-, the Tanodbayan recommended filing a case for violationof the (nti34raft and #orrupt Practices (ct. Petitioners filed motion for reinvestigation. The $mbudsman filed an information against petitioners on %ovember B,"@@9 without first resolving the motion for reinvestigation. Petitioners argued that thecase should be dismissed for un8ustified delay in the filing of the information.

(E)!' There was no violation of right to speedy trial. The delay was not capricious nor oppressive but was brought about by fre/uent amendments of procedural laws in theinitial stages of the case.

)aro v. andiganbayanG.R. No. 108431 (#%l 14, 2000)

%A&TS' The complaint against petitioner for violation of the (nti34raft and #orrupt

Practices (ct was referred by the !eputy $mbudsman to the %5I for investigation. The%5I recommended the prosecution of the petitioners. 0owever, the petitioners arguethat the four3year delay in the completion of the preliminary investigation violated right tospeedy disposition of cases.

(E)!' It took the %5I + years to complete its report. The resolution recommending thefiling of the case against petitioner has to be reviewed. The length of time it took beforethe conclusion of the preliminary investigation may only be attributed to the adherence of the $mbudsman and %5I to the rudiments of fair play.

P. Prohi*itio# Agi#st &ruel Pu#ish-e#t

People v. !licante

G.R. No. 127026 (Ma 31, 2000)(E)!' !eath penalty is not cruel.

<. !ou*le eo/rd

1. Ter-i#tio#

People v. VelascoG.R. No. 127444 (ep!eber 13, 2000)

%A&TS' Trial court ac/uitted respondent from a case of murderE two cases of frustratedmurder and a case for illegal possession of firearms outside of his residence. Theprosecution filed a petition for certiorari on the ground that the trial court deliberately andwrongfully interpreted certain facts and evidence.

(E)!' $n the ground of double 8eopardy, an ac/uittal is final andunappealable. Prosecution cannot accomplish through a writ of certiorari what it couldnot do so by appeal.

2. !iffere#t Offe#ses

People v. Ong 322 *RA 38



(E)!' (n illegal recruiter can be charged with estafa and illegal recruitment 6eeal'oPeople v. eris, 4.. %o. ""-"?B, arch +=, +9997

II. &iti3e#shi/

Valles v. Comelec G.R. No. 137000 (A%&%'! 9, 2000)

%A&TS' espondent was born in (ustralia on ay ">, "@*? to a Filipino father and an (ustralian mother. &he ran for governor. Petitioner, her opponent, filed a case for dis/ualification on the ground that she is not a Filipino citizen since she was issued analien certificate of registrationE there was an application for an immigrant certificate of residence and she was a holder of an (ustralian passport.

(E)!' The respondent is a Filipino citizen since her father is a Filipino. 0olding of an (ustralian passport and an alien certificate of registration does not constitute an effectiverenunciation of citizenship and does not militate against her claim of Filipinocitizenship. (t most, she has dual citizenship.

Valles v. Comelec

G.R. No. 137000 (A%&%'! 9, 2000)%A&TS' espondent was born in (ustralia to a Filipino father and an (ustralianmother. (ustralia follows /%' 'oli . &he ran for governor. $pponent filed petition todis/ualify her on the ground of dual citizenship.

(E)!' !ual citizenship as a dis/ualification refers to citizens with dual allegiance. Thefact that she has dual citizenship does not automatically dis/ualify her from running for public office. Filing a certificate of candidacy suffices to renounce foreign citizenshipbecause in the certificate, the candidate declares himself to be a Filipino citizen and thathe will support the Philippine #onstitution. &uch declaration operates as an effectiverenunciation of foreign citizenship.

III. )EIS)ATI$E !EPARTME=T

A. Prt9)ist

Veteran +ederation Party v. Comelec G.R. No. 136781 (+c!ober 6, 2000)

%A&TS' The #omelec proclaimed "? party list representatives from "* parties whichobtained at least +H of the total number of votes cast as member of the 0ouse of ep.pon petition by other party3list organization, it proclaimed another *= additional partyrepresentatives althout they received less than +H of the votes on the ground that under the #onstitution it is mandatory that at least +9H of the members of 0ouse of ep. mustcome from the party list system.

(E)!' &ection B6+7, (rticle 2I of the #onstitution is not mandatory. It merely provides a

ceiling for party list seats in the 0ouse of epresentatives. The #ongress is vested withpower to define and prescribe the mechanics of the party3list system of representation. In the e1ercise of their #onstitutional prerogative, #ongress deemed itnecessary that parties participating in the system to obtain at least +H of the total votescast to be entitled to a party3list seat. This is to ensure that only parties with sufficientnumber of constituents are actually represented in #ongress.

B. Atte#d#ce of Sessio#



People v. -alos4os324 *RA 689

%A&TS' )hile his appeal from a conviction of rape is pending, the accused, a#ongressman was confined at the national penitentiary. &ince he was reelected to hisposition, he argued that he should be allowed to attend the legislative sessions andcommittee hearings, because his confinement was depriving his constituents of their

voice in #ongress.

(E)!' Alection to high government office does free accused from the commonrestraints of general law. nder &ection II, (rticle 2I of the #onstitution, a member of the0ouse of ep is privileged from arrest only if offense is punishable by not more than >years imprisonment. #onfinement of a congressman charged with a crime punishableby more than > years has constitutional foundations. If allowed to attend thecongressional sessions, the accused would be virtually made a free man. )hen he waselected into office, the voters were aware of his limitations on his freedom of action. #ongress can continue to function even without all its members beingpresent. Alection to the position of #ongressman is not a reasonable classification incriminal law enforcement.

&. Electorl Tri*u#l

%uerrero v. Comelec G.R. No. 137004 (#%l 26, 2000)

%A&TS' ( petition to dis/ualify respondent as a candidate for #ongressman was filedwith the #omelec on the ground that he was campaigning although he had not filed acertificate for candidacy. Three days before the election, respondent filed his certificateof candidacy as substitute for another candidate who withdrew. The petitioner arguedthat the substitution was fatally defective since the replaced candidate was anindependent and the respondent ran as candidate for a political party. espondent wasproclaimed winner and assumed office. #omelec dismissed petition on the ground thatthe matter is now within the e1clusive 8urisdiction of the 0ouse of epresentative

Alectoral Tribunal.

(E)!' $nce a winning candidate has assumed office as a member of the 0ouse of ep, the 8urisdiction of #omelec over his /ualification ends and 8urisdiction of AlectoralTribunal begins. The 8urisdiction of the Tribunal is not limited to constitutional/ualifications only. The filing of a certificate of candidacy is a statutory /ualification.

!. Title of the )5

$e %u&man v. Comelec G.R.No. 129118 (#%l 19, 2000)

%A&TS' &ection ?? of the 2oter<s egistration (ct provided that no election officer shall hold office in a particular municipality or city for more than ? years. In accordance

with it, the #omelec reassigned petitioners, who were election officers to other stations. Petitioners argued that the provision was not e1pressed in the title of the law,which is :(n (ct Providing for a 4eneral egistration of 2oters, (dopting a &ystem of #ontinuing egistration, Prescribing the Procedures Thereof and (uthorizing the

(ppropriation of Fund Thereof;.

(E)!' The contention is untenable. &ection ?? is relevant to the sub8ect matter of registration as it seeks to ensure the integrity of the registration process by providing aguideline for the #omelec to follow in the reassignment of election officers.



E. A//ellte urisdictio# of Su/re-e &ourt

Villanert v. $esierto326 *RA 355

(E)!' The law making the decision of the $mbudsman appealable to the &# is invalidbecause the concurrence of the &# was not obtained. 6ee al'o Tirol v. #ommission on

(udit, 4.. %o. "**B@?, (ugust *, +9997

I$. E"ecuti+e !e/rt-e#t

A. I--u#it fro- Suit

%loria v. C! G.R. No. 119903 (A%&%'! 15, 2000)

%A&TS' pon recommendation by the &ecretary of Aducation, #ulture and &ports,respondent was reassigned as superintendent in another school. espondent filed apetition for prohibition against the &ecretary on the ground that his indefinitereassignment violated his security of tenure. The &ecretary argued that the filing of thecase violated the immunity of the President from suit.

(E)!' The contention is untenable. The petition is not directed against thePresident. Presidential decisions may be /uestioned before the courts.

B. Po5er of &o#trol

#utchison Ports Philippines2 Ltd. V. ubic Bay Metropolitan !uthority G.R. No. 131367 (A%&%'! 31, 2000)

%A&TS' The &ubic 5ay etropolitan (uthority conducted a bidding for the developmentand operation of a modern marine container terminal. It awarded the contract topetitioner. The $ffice of the President set aside the award and ordered a newbidding. Petitioner filed action for specific performance.

(E)!' The &ubic 5ay etropolitan (uthority is under the control of the $ffice of thePresident. Therefore the President may overturn any of awards granted by it for

8ustifiable reasons.

&. Po5er to &ll Out Ar-ed %orces

IBP v. "amoraG.R. No. 941284 (A%&%'! 15, 2000)

%A&TS' In view of the alarming increase in violent crimes in etropolitan anila, thePresident ordered the P%P and the Phil. arines to conduct 8oint visibility patrols for crime prevention and suppression. I5P /uestioned validity of the order on the groundthat there is no factual basis for President to e1ercise his power to call out the (rmedForces to prevent or suppress lawless violence.

(E)!' The I5P failed to support its assertion that the President acted without factualbasis. The President has determined the necessity and factual basis for calling thearmed forces. 0e asserted that violent crimes like bank and store robberies, holdups,kidnappings and carnappings continue to occur. The court can take 8udicial notice of therecent bombing perpetrated by lawless elements in public places.

!. Stte of Re*ellio#



Lacson v. Pere& G.R. No. 147780 (Ma 10, 2001)

%A&TS' $n ay ", +99", President acapagal3(rroyo, faced by an angry mob assaultingand attempting to break into alacaang, issued Proclamation %o. *= declaring thatthere was a state of rebellion in the %ational #apital egion. &he likewise issued

4eneral $rder %o. " directing the (rmed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippine%ational Police to suppress the rebellion in the %ational #apital egion. )arrantlessarrests of several alleged leaders and promoters of the :rebellion; were thereaftereffected.

(ggrieved by the warrantless arrests, and the declaration of a :state of rebellion,;which allegedly gave a semblance of legality to the arrests, four related petitions werefiled before the #ourt assailing the declaration of a state of rebellion by the Presidentand the warrantless arrests allegedly effected by virtue thereof, as having no basis bothin fact and in law.

". $n ay >, +99", the President ordered the lifting of the declaration of a :state ofrebellion; in etro anila. (ccordingly, the instant petitions have been rendered mootand academic.

+. (s to petitioners< claim that the proclamation of a :state of rebellion; is being used by theauthorities to 8ustify warrantless arrests, there are actually general instructions to lawenforcement officers and military agencies to implement Proclamation %o. *= and obtainregular warrants of arrests from the courts. This means that preliminary investigationswill be conducted.

*. oreover, petitioners< contention that they are under imminent danger of being arrestedwithout warrant do not 8ustify their resort to the e1traordinary remedies of mandamusand prohibition, since an individual sub8ected to warrantless arrest is not withoutade/uate remedies in the ordinary course of law.

?. Petitioners cannot ask the #ourt to direct the courts before whom the informationsagainst the petitioners are filed to desist from arraigning and proceeding with the trial ofthe case. &uch relief is clearly premature considering that as of this date, no complaintsor charges have been filed against any of the petitioners for any crime.

B. 0old departure orders issued against petitioners cannot be declared null and void sincepetitioners are not directly assailing the validity of the sub8ect hold departure orders intheir petition.

>. Petitioner !efensor3&antiago has not shown that she is in imminent danger of beingarrested without a warrant. 0ence, her petition of mandamus cannot be issued sincesuch right to relief must be clear at the time of the award.

-. Petitioner umbao, leader of the People<s ovement against Poverty 6P(P7, arguesthat the declaration of a :state of rebellion; is violative of the doctrine of separation ofpowers, being an encroachment on the domain of the 8udiciary to interpret what tookplace on ay ". The #ourt disagreed since the President as the #ommander3in3#hief ofall armed forces of the Philippines, may call out such armed forces to prevent orsuppress lawless violence.

=. (s for petitioner aban ng !emokratikong Pilipino 6!P7, it is not a real party3in3interest.!P has not demonstrated any in8ury to itself which would 8ustify resort to the #ourt.



Petitioner is a 8uridical person not sub8ect to arrest. Thus, it cannot claim to bethreatened by a warrantless arrest. %or is it alleged that its leaders, members andsupporters are being threatened with warrantless arrest and detention for the crime ofrebellion.

Aven if instant petition may be considered as an action for declaratory relief, the

&upreme #ourt does not have 8urisdiction in the first instance over such a petition.

PATITI$%& !I&I&&A! 60owever, petitioners cannot be arrested without the re/uired 8udicial warrant for all acts committed in relation to or in connection with the ay ",+99" siege7

E. )egiti-c of the Arroo Preside#c

*strada v. $esiertoG. R. No'. 146710$15, March 2, 2001

*strada V. !rroyoG.R. No. 146738

%A&TS' Petitioner sought to en8oin the respondent $mbudsman from conducting anyfurther proceedings in any criminal complaint that may be filed in his office, until after theterm of petitioner as President is over and only if legally warranted. Arap also filed a Juo)arranto case, praying for 8udgment :confirming petitioner to be the lawful andincumbent President of the epublic of the Philippines temporarily unable to dischargethe duties of his office, and declaring respondent to have taken her oath as and to beholding the $ffice of the President, only in an acting capacity pursuant to the provisionsof the #onstitution.;

(E)!'%IRST' The cses t *r /ose legl #d #ot /oliticl uestio#s.

The principal issues for resolution re/uire the proper interpretation of certainprovisions in the "@=- #onstitution, notably section " of (rticle II, and section = of (rticle2II, and the allocation of governmental powers under section II of (rticle 2II. The issueslikewise call for a ruling on the scope of presidential immunity from suit. They alsoinvolve the correct calibration of the right of petitioner against pre8udicial publicity. (searly as the "=9* case of Marb%r . Ma-i'on, the doctrine has been laid down that :it isemphatically the province and duty of the 8udicial department to say what the law is . . .;

The #ourt also distinguished between A!&( People Power I and A!&( People Power II. A!&( I involves the e1ercise ofthe people power of revolution which overthrew the whole government. A!&( II is an e1ercise of people power of freedom ofspeech and freedom of assembly to petition the government for redress of grievances which only affected the office of thePresident. A!&( I is e1tra constitutional and the legitimacy of the new government that resulted from it cannot be the sub8ect of 8udicial review, but A!&( II is intra constitutional and the resignation of the sitting President that it caused and the succession ofthe 2ice President as President are sub8ect to 8udicial review. A!&( I presented political /uestionE A!&( II involves legal/uestions.

SE&O=!' :si#g the totlit test, the S& held tht /etitio#er resig#ed s Preside#t.a. The proposal for a snap election for president in ay where he would not be a candidate

is an indicium that petitioner had intended to give up the presidency even at that time.b. The (ngara diary shows that the President wanted only five3day period promised by

eyes, as well as to open the second envelop to clear his name.KIf the envelope is opened, on onday, he says, he will leave by onday.



KThe President says. :Pagod na pagod na ako. (yoko na masyado nangmasakit. Pagod na ako sa red tape, bureaucracy, intriga. 6I am very tired. I don<t wantany more of this L it<s too painful. I<m tired of the red tape, the bureaucracy, the intrigue.7

KI 8ust want to clear my name, then I will go.;The &# held that this is high grade evidence that the petitioner has resigned. The intentto resign is clear when he said :1 1 1 (yoko na masyado nang masakit.; : (yoko na; are

words of resignation.c. !uring the negotiations, the resignation of the petitioner was treated as a given fact. The

only unsettled points at that time were the measures to be undertaken by the partiesduring and after transition period.

d. 0is resignation was also confirmed by his leaving alacaang. In the press releasecontaining his final statement, 6"7 he acknowledged the oath3taking of the respondent asPresident of the epublic albeit with the reservation about its legalityE 6+7 he emphasizedhe was leaving the Palace, the seat of the presidency, for the sake of peace and in order to begin the healing process of our nation. 0e did not say he was leaving the Palacedue to any kind of inability and he was going to re3assume the presidency as soon asthe disability disappearsE 6*7 he e1pressed his gratitude to the people for the opportunityto serve them. )ithout doubt, he was referring to the past opportunity given him to

serve the people as PresidentE 6?7 he assured that he will not shirk from any futurechallenge that may come ahead in the same service of our country. Petitioner<sreference is to a future challenge after occupying the office of< the president which hehas given upE and 6B7 he called on his supporters to 8oin him in the promotion of aconstructive national spirit of reconciliation and solidarity. #ertainly, the national spirit of reconciliation and solidarity could not be attained if he did not give up thepresidency. The press release was petitioner<s valedictory, his final act of farewell. 0ispresidency is now in the past tense.

T(IR!' The /etitio#er is /er-#e#tl u#*le to ct s Preside#t.

&ection "" of (rticle 2II provides that :#ongress has the ultimate authority under the #onstitution to determine whether thePresident is incapable of performing his functions.; 5oth houses of #ongress have recognized respondent (rroyo as thePresident.

The 0ouse of epresentative passed on Canuary +?, +99" 0ouse esolution %o.l-B which statesD :A&$TI$% AMPA&&I%4 T0A &PP$T $F T0A 0$&A $FAPA&A%T(TI2A& T$ T0A (&&PTI$% I%T$ $FFI#A 5N 2I#A PA&I!A%T4$I( (#(P(4(3($N$ (& PA&I!A%T $FT0A AP5I# $F T0AP0IIPPI%A&, AMTA%!I%4 IT& #$%4(T(TI$%& (%! AMPA&&I%4 IT&&PP$T F$ 0A (!I%I&T(TI$% (& ( P(T%A I% T0A (TT(I%A%T $FT0A %(TI$%<& 4$(& %!A T0A #$%&TITTI$%.; The &enate also passed&enate esolution %o. =+ which statesD :A&$TI$% #$%FII%4 PA&I!A%T4$I( (#(P(4(3($N$<& %$I%(TI$% $F &A%. TA$FI&T$ T. 4I%4$%(,C. (& 2I#A PA&I!A%T $F T0A AP5I# $F T0A P0IIPPI%A&;

Implicitly clear in that recognition is the premise that the inability of petitioner Astrada is no longer temporary. #ongress has clearly re8ected petitioner<s claim of inability. Aven if petitioner can prove that he did not resign, still, he cannot successfullyclaim that he is a President on leave on the ground that he is merely unable to governtemporarily. That claim has been laid to rest by #ongress and the decision thatrespondent (rroyo is the de 8ure President made by a co3e/ual branch of governmentcannot be reviewed by the &upreme #ourt.

%O:RT(' The /etitio#er does #ot e#>o i--u#it fro- suit.



The &upreme #ourt re8ected petitioner<s argument that he cannot be prosecuted for the reason that he must first beconvicted in the impeachment proceedings. The impeachment trial of petitioner Astrada was aborted by the walkout of theprosecutors and by the events that led to his loss of the presidency. $n February -, +99", the &enate passed &enate esolution%o. =* :ecognizing that the Impeachment #ourt is Functus $fficio.; &ince the Impeachment #ourt is now functus officio, it isuntenable for petitioner to demand that he should first be impeached and then convicted before he can be prosecuted. The plea,if granted, would put a perpetual bar against his prosecution. The debates in the #onstitutional #ommission make it clear that

when impeachment proceedings have become moot due to the resignation of the President, the proper criminal and civil casesmay already be filed against him.

The &# also ruled in n re a!%rnino er%-e that :incumbent Presidents areimmune from suit or from being brought to court during the period of their incumbencyand tenure; but not beyond. #onsidering the peculiar circumstance that theimpeachment process against the petitioner has been aborted and thereafter he lost thepresidency, petitioner cannot demand as a condition sine /ua non to his criminalprosecution before the $mbudsman that he be convicted in the impeachmentproceedings.

(lso, petitioner cannot cite any decision of the &# licensing the President tocommit criminal acts and wrapping him with post3tenure immunity from liability. The ruleis that unlawful acts of public officials are not acts of the &tate and the officer who actsillegally is not acting as such but stands in the same footing as any other trespasser.

%I%T(' Petitio#er 5s #ot de#ied the right to i-/rtil tril.

Pervasive publicity is not per se pre8udicial to the right of an accused to fair trial. The mere fact that the trial of appellantwas given a day3to3day, gavel3to3gavel coverage does not by itself prove that the publicity so permeated the mind of the trial 8udgeand impaired his impartiality. In the case at bar, the records do not show that the trial 8udge developed actual bias againstappellant as a conse/uence of the e1tensive media coverage of the pre3trial and trial of his case. The totality of circumstances ofthe case does not prove that the trial 8udge ac/uired a fi1ed opinion as a result of pre8udicial publicity which is incapable if changeeven by evidence presented during the trial. (ppellant has the burden to prove this actual bias and he has not discharged theburden.

$. udicil !e/rt-e#t

A. udicil Re+ie5

%on&ales v. Narvasa

G.R. No. 140835 (A%&%'! 14, 2000)%A&TS' The president issued A$ ?* creating the Preparatory #ommission on#onstitutional eform to recommend amendments to the #onstitution. Petitioner, in hiscapacity as ta1payer, filed a petition assailing constitutionality of the #ommission.

(E)!' The Preparatory #ommission was created by the President by virtue of A$?*. (n amount was set aside for its operation from the funds of the $ffice of thePresident. There was no e1ercise by #ongress of its ta1ing or spendingpowers. Petitioner cannot /uestion the constitutionality of the #ommission in hiscapacity as ta1payer.

%on&ales v. NarvasaG.R. No. 140835 (A%&%'! 14, 2000)

%A&TS' Petitioner filed a petition in his capacity as ta1payer /uestioning theconstitutionality of the creation by the President of seventy positions for presidentialadvisers on the ground that the President did not have the power to create thesepositions.

(E)!' Petitioner has not proven that he has sustained any in8ury as a result of theappointment of presidential advisers.

Bayan v. "amora



G.R. No. 138570 (+c!. 10, 2000)%A&TS' 2isiting Forces (greement 62F(7 was entered into by the Philippines andnited &tates to regulate conditions of presence of & military personnels in thePhilippines. The &enate concurred with the 2F(. Petitioners who are ta1payers andmembers of #ongress /uestioned its validity.

(E)!' Petitioners failed to show that they have sustained or are in danger of sustainingany direct in8ury as a result of the enforcement of 2F(. (s ta1payers, they failed to showhow the 2F( will involve the e1ercise of #ongress of its ta1ing or spendingpowers. embers of #ongress< standing cannot be upheld absent a clear showing of any direct in8ury to their person or to the institution to which they belong. Further, I5Phas no standing.

IBP v. "amoraG.R. No. 141284 (A%&%'! 15, 2000)

%A&TS' In view of the alarming increase in violent crimes in etropolitan anila, thePresident ordered the P%P and the Phil. arines to conduct 8oint visibility patrols for crime prevention and suppression. The I5P /uestioned validity of the order invoking itsresponsibility to uphold the rule of law.

(E)!' The mere invocation by the I5P of its duty to preserve the rule of law is notsufficient to clothe it with standing in this case. This is too general an interest which isshared by the whole citizenry. The I5P has failed to show any specific in8ury it hassuffered or may suffer by virtue of the /uestioned order. The presumed possible in8ury ishighly speculative.

Militante v. C!GR. No. 107040 (April 12, 2000)

%A&TS' Pres. arcos issued P! "*"B in "@-B e1propriating ?9 hectares in #aloocanfor distribution to their occupants. The lots of petitioners were included in the coverageof the decree. 0owever, these lots were not among those ac/uired by government in

"@-= and "@-@. $n ay "?, "@=9, Proclamation %o. "@>- indentified +?? sites inetropolitan anila as areas for priority development and urban land reform zones. In"@=", the 0uman &ettlements egulatory #ommission 60&#7 declared the lots of petitioner to be outside the reform area. 5ecause the %ational 0ousing (uthority 6%0(7failed to evict the s/uatters on his lots, petitioner /uestioned the constitutionality of P!"*"B.

(E)!' The lots of petitioners are not in danger of e1propriation. P!. "*"B was issuedin "@-B. It is doubtful that the government will still desire to e1propriate the lots of petitioner. oreover, the 0&# certified that the lots were outside the rban andeform Oone. In "@=-, petitioner negotiated with the %0( for the price of his lotstherefore, he is estopped from asserting that P! "*"B to be unconstitutional.

B. %or- of !ecisio#

1. $oid !ecisio#People v. Nadera

324 *RA 490 %A&TS' The accused was charged with rape. The trial court convicted him. Thedecision merely narrated the evidence of the prosecution and a republic act.



(E)!' The trial court failed to state the factual and legal reasons on which it based theconviction of the accused. There is nothing to indicate the reason for the decision. %oreason is given why the trial court found the testimonies of the witnesses credible.

Madrid v. C!GR No. 130683 (Ma 31, 2000)

%A&TS' The accused was convicted of homicide by the trial court. The decisionsummarized the testimonies of witnesses from both sides. It then stated that thetestimonies of the witnesses for the prosecution convinced the court. $n the other hand,the demeanor of the defense witnesses were not credible. The decision added that theaggravating circumstance of evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength werepresent.

(E)!' The decision does not indicate what the trial court found in the testimonies of theprosecution witnesses to consider them straightforward when they are in factcontradictory and confused. %either does the decision contain any 8ustification for theappreciation of aggravating circumstances against the accused. The decision failed tocomply with the constitutional re/uirement that a decision must e1pressly state the factsand the law on which it is based

3ao v. C!GR. No. 132428 (+c!ober 24, 2000)

%A&TS' The T# convicted petitioner of unfair competition. Petitioner appealed toT#. The T# confirmed his conviction. In its decision, it stated that it found no cogentreason to disturb the finding of fact of the T#.

(E)!' The decision of the T# fell short of the constitutional re/uirement. Parties to alitigation should be informed of how it was decided, with an e1planation of the factualand legal reasons that led to the conclusion of the court. The decision in /uestionshould be struck close as a nullity.

People v. $umaguing G.R. No. 135516 (ep!eber 20, 2000)

%A&TS' The trial court convicted the accused of rape. The decision simply stated thatthe accused was guilty of raping his own daughter and that the evidence of theprosecution was not controverted by the accused.

(E)!' The trial court failed to comply with the re/uirement that it should state clearlyand distinctly the facts on which it is based.

2. $lid !ecisio#People v. Ordone&

G.R. No. 129593 (#%l 10, 2000)%A&TS' The trial court convicted the accused of illegal recruitment and estafa. The

accused argued that the decision did not comply with &ection "?, (rticle 2III of theconstitution, because it merely paraphrased the testimonies of the witnesses.

(E)!' The trial court went over the testimonies of every witness of both parties. (fter summarizing the testimonies, the trial court stated in its decision that it found that theaccused informed the complainants that they would be going to orea to work when infact they landed in uala umpur insteadE that one of the complainants had no 8obwaiting, and the other complainant landed in 8ail at the time he arrived in uala umpur and had to be returned to the Philippines. The decision complied with the re/uirement.



(E)!' There is nothing to show that the reassignment of respondent is temporary. Theevidence or intention to reassign respondent had no definite period. It is violative of hissecurity of tenure.

Padolino v. +ernande& G.R. No. 133511 (+c!ober 10, 2000)

%A&TS' espondent was Finance and anagement !ivision #hief. The petitioner, the&ecretary of &cience and Technology issued an order providing for the reassignment of branch, division and section chiefs. The order provided that their return would be thesub8ect of a separate order. Pursuant to the order, respondent was reassigned to the$ffice of the !irector of Finance and anagement &ervice in Taguig. espondentargued that this violated her security of tenure.

(E)!' The order violated the security of tenure of respondent and hence invalid. Theorder contains no definite duration of the reassignment. The reassignment of respondent reduced her to a mere subordinate without authority to supervise anyone.

2. Reorg#i3tio#Canoni&ado v. !guirre

323 *RA 312 %A&TS' Petitioners were incumbent commissioners of the %ational Police #ommissionwhen epublic (ct. %o. ==B", otherwise known as the P%P eform and eorganization

(ct of "@@=, took effect. &ection = of epublic (ct. %o. ==B" provided that the terms of office of the incumbent commissioners were deemed e1pired. Petitioners claimed thatthis violated their security of tenure.

(E)!' Petitioners are members of the civil service. epublic (ct %o. =BB" did note1pressly abolish the positions of petitioners. nder ( %o. >@-B, the %ational Police#ommission was under the !epartment of Interior and ocal 4overnment, while under epublic (ct. %o. =BB" it is made an agency attached to the !epartment of Interior andocal 4overnment. The organizational structure and the composition of the %ational

Police #ommission remain essentially the same e1cept for the addition of the #hief of P%P as e$oicio member. The powers and duties of the %ational Police #ommissionremain basically unchanged. %o bona i-e reorganization of the %P# having beenmandated by #ongress and insofar as ( ==B" declares the office of the petitioner ase1pired resulting in their separation from office, it is tantamount to removing civil serviceemployees from office without legal cause therefore, it must be struck down for beingconstitutionally infirm.

. )c? of Eligi*ilitCuevas v. Bacal

G.R. No. 139382 (eceber 6, 2000)%A&TS' espondent passed the #areer A1ecutive &ervice A1amination. &he wasappointed egional !irector of the Public (ttorney<s $ffice. ater, she was designatedas acting chief Public (ttorney. pon change of administration, respondent wasappointed egional !irector. espondent argued she was removed without cause.

(E)!' The rank level of respondent is ank level III. The position of #hief Public (ttorney re/uired rank level I. (s respondent does not have the re/uired ank, her appointment to that position cannot be considered permanent and she cannot claim theright to a security of tenure.

&. &o--issio# o# Electio#s



1. Po5er to A//oi#t E-/loees

$e %u&man v. Comelec G.R. No. 129118 (#%l 19, 2000)

%A&TS' &ection ?? of the 2oter<s egistration (ct provided that no election officer shallhold office in a particular municipality or city for more than ? years. In accordance withit, the #omelec reassigned petitioners, who were election officers to other stations.Petitioner argue that the law undermined the constitutional authority of the #omelec toappoint its own officials.

(E)!' The law merely provides the basis for the transfer of an election officers anddoes not deprive the #omelec of its power to appoint its officials.

2. udicil Re+ie5 !mbil v. Comelec

G.R. No. 143398 (+c!ober 25, 2000)%A&TS' Petitioner and respondent were opposing candidates for governor. Petitioner won. espondent filed election protest with the #ommission on Alections. ( member of

its first division prepared the resolution but he retired before it could be promulgated. (new member was appointed to replace the retired commissioner. The first divisionissued a resolution declaring the previously prepared resolution void, because it had notbeen promulgated.

(E)!' Petition should be denied because the &# had no power to review interlocutoryorders or final resolutions of a division of #omelec. It must first be reviewed by the#omelec en banc before it can be brought to the &#.

!BCBN v. Comelec 323 *RA 811

%A&TS' #omelec approved esolution @=3"?"@ on (pril +", "@@= which prohibited theconduct of e1it polls. Petitioners /uestioned the validity of the resolution by filing a

petition for certiorari in the &#. &olicitor 4eneral argued that case should be dismissedfor failure to e1haust all available remedies by failure to file a motion for reconsiderationbefore the #omelec.

(E)!' #onsidering that the resolution was issued only +9 days before the election andthat the petitioners got a copy of it only on ay ?, "@@=, there was hardly anyopportunity to move for reconsideration and to obtain and swift resolution in time for theay "" elections. The petition also involves transcendental constitutional issuestherefore, direct resort to &# is 8ustified.

alva v. Ma/alintal G.R. No. 132603 (ep!eber 8, 2000)

%A&TS' The &angguniang Pambayan of #alaca 5atangas approved an ordinancemerging 5arangay &an afael with another 5arangay. The &anggunian Panlalawiganpassed a resolution instructing the #omelec to hold a plebiscite. The #omelec passed aresolution calling for a plebiscite. The officials and residents of &an afael filed a casein T# to prohibit the plebiscite on the ground that the ordinance and the resolutionswere invalid. The T# ruled that it had no 8urisdiction over the case because only the&upreme #ourt can review the resolution of the #ommission on Alections.



(E)!' The issuance of the esolution of the #omelec was a ministerial duty which maybe en8oined by law and is part of its administrative functions. (ny /uestion pertaining toits validity may be taken in an ordinary civil action before the T#.

. !ecisio#oller v. Comelec

G.R. No. 139853 (ep!.5, 2000)%A&TS' Petitioner and respondent were opposing candidates for mayor. Petitioner wasproclaimed elected. espondent filed with #omelec a petition for annulment of proclamation. ( week later, he filed an election protest in the T#. Petitioner moved todismiss the protest on the ground of lack of 8urisdiction, forum shopping, and failure tostate a cause of action. The T# denied motion. espondent also filed certiorari with#omelecen banc which was later denied.

(E)!' The authority to resolve petitions for certiorari involving incidental issues of election protests falls within the 8urisdiction of the !ivision of the #omelec and not withthe #omelecen banc . If the principal case is cognizable on appeal by a !ivision, there isno reason why petitions for certiorari relating to incidents of election protest should notbe referred first to a !ivision of the #omelec for resolution.

!. &o--issio# o# Audit

Laysa v. Commission on !udit G.R. No. 12813 (+c!ober 18, 2000)

%A&TS' (s a result of an audit of the Fishery &ector Program Fund of the !epartmentof (griculture, egional $ffice %o. 2 was found to not have complied with the rules onbidding, submission of documents to support claim of disbursement. Petitioner, !irector of the office, argued that since the Fishery &ector Program is a special program for research and development, bureaucratic adherence to prescribed rules and proceduresstifles research and development.

(E)!' 2erification of whether officials of an agency properly discharged their fiscalresponsibilities and whether an agency complied with internal audit controls in thecollection and disbursement of government funds are part of the functions of the#ommission on (udit.

1. Pre+e#tio# of :##ecessr E"/e#ses

Polloso v. %anganG.R. No. 140563 (#%l 14, 2000)

%A&TS' The %ational Power #orporation 6%(P$#$7 hired the legal service of petitioner, a private lawyer. The #ommission on (udit disallowed the payment of hiscompensation, since he was hired without complying with #ircular %o. =>3+BB whichre/uires prior written approval by the &olicitor 4eneral as well as the #ommission on

(udit. Petitioner argued that circular is unconstitutional because it restricted the practiceof law.

(E)!' The claim is bereft of merit. The circular simply sets forth the prere/uisite for thegovernment agency in hiring a private lawyer which are reasonable safeguards toprevent irregular, unnecessary, e1cessive and e1travagant e1penditures of governmentfunds.

(y v. Commission on !udit G.R. No. 130685 (March 21, 2000)



%A&TS' Petitioners, who were officers of the !epartment of Anvironment and %aturalesources seized two motor vehicles for transporting illegally cut lumber. The owner and the driver filed a case against them for the recovery of the possession of the motor vehicle.

(E)!' The acts for which petitioners are being called to account were performed by

them in the discharge of their official duties. ( suit against them is a suit against thestate. It cannot prosper without the consent of the state.

B. )5 E#force-e#t

Ar-ed %orces

IN'*%)!'*$ B!) O+ '#* P#ILIPPIN* V. "!MO)!

G.R. N+. 141284 (A%&%'! 15, 2000)%A&TS' The petitioner argues that the order of the President for the Philippine %ationalPolice and the Philippine arines to carry out 8oint visibility patrols to prevent and

restrain crime, violated the prohibition on the appointment of the members of the (rmedForces who are in active service to civilian positions.

(E)!' The &# held that there was actually no appointment of the members of the (rmed Forces to civilian positions. The

members of the Philippine arines were not integrated as members of the P%P. The participation of the #hief of &taff in civilianlaw enforcement does not mean that he was appointed to a civilian post, since the head of the P%P is the one actually vested withauthority in these operations.

Phili//i#e =tio#l Police

IN'*%)!'*$ B!) O+ '#* P#ILIPPIN* V. "!MO)!

G.R. N+. 141284 (A%&%'! 15, 2000)%A&TS' The petitioner argues that the order of the President for the Philippine %ationalPolice and the Philippine arines to carry out 8oint visibility patrols to prevent and

restrain crime, violated the principle of supremacy of civilian authority over the militaryand the civilian character of the police force.

(E)!' The participation of the Philippine arines constitutes a permissible use of military assets for civilian law enforcement.The civilian character of the police force is also not affected by this participation. The members of the P%P are the ones in chargeof the operations. They are the ones who will direct and supervise the deployment of the Philippine arines.

$isiti#g %orces Agree-e#t

Bayan v. "amoraG.R. N+. 138570 (+c!ober 10. 2000)

The 2isiting Forces (greement, for which &enate concurrence was sought andreceived on ay +-, "@@@, is the sub8ect of a number of #onstitutional challenges.

Issue 1' !o the Petitio#ers h+e legl st#di#g s co#cer#ed citi3e#s, t"/ers, or legisltors to uestio# the

co#stitutio#lit of the $%A

Petitioners 5ayan una, etc. have no standing. ( party bringing a suitchallenging the #onstitutionality of a law must show not only that the law is invalid, butthat he has sustained or is in immediate danger of sustaining some direct in8ury as aresult of its enforcement, and not merely that he suffers thereby in some indefiniteway. Petitioners have failed to show that they are in any danger of direct in8ury as aresult of the 2F(.



(s !apaer', they have failed to establish that the 2F( involves the e1ercise by#ongress of its ta1ing or spending powers. ( ta1payer's suit refers to a case where theact complained of directly involves the illegal disbursement of public funds derived fromta1ation. 5efore he can invoke the power of 8udicial review, he must specifically provethat he has sufficient interest in preventing the illegal e1penditure of money raised byta1ation and that he will sustain a direct in8ury as a result of the enforcement of the

/uestioned statute or contract. It is not sufficient that he has merely a general interestcommon to all members of the public. #learly, inasmuch as no public funds raised byta1ation are involved in this case, and in the absence of any allegation by petitioners thatpublic funds are being misspent or illegally e1pended, petitioners, as ta1payers, have nolegal standing to assail the legality of the 2F(.

&imilarly, the petitioner3le&i'la!or' 6Tanada, (rroyo, etc.7 do not possess there/uisite locus standi to sue. In the absence of a clear showing of any direct in8ury totheir person or to the institution to which they belong, they cannot sue. The Integrated5ar of the Philippines 6I5P7 is also stripped of standing in these cases. The I5P lacks thelegal capacity to bring this suit in the absence of a board resolution from its 5oard of 4overnors authorizing its %ational President to commence the present action.

%otwithstanding, in view of the paramount importance and the constitutional

significance of the issues raised, the #ourt may brush aside the procedural barrier andtakes cognizance of the petitions.

Issue 2' Is the $%A go+er#ed * sectio# 21, Art. $II, or sectio# 27, Art. C$III of the &o#stitutio#

&ection +B, (rt M2III, #ot section +", (rt. 2II, applies, as the 2F( involves thepresence of foreign military troops in the Philippines.

The #onstitution contains two provisions re/uiring the concurrence of the &enateon treaties or international agreements. &ection +", (rticle 2II readsD :QnRo treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective unless concurred in by at least two3thirds of all the embers of the &enate.K &ection +B, (rticle M2III, providesDKQaRfter thee1piration in "@@" of the (greement between the epublic of the Philippines and thenited &tates of (merica concerning ilitary 5ases, foreign military bases, troops, or

facilities shall not be allowed in the Philippines e1cept under a treaty duly concurred inby the &enate and, when the #ongress so re/uires, ratified by a ma8ority of the votescast by the people in a national referendum held for that purpose, and recognized as atreaty by the other contracting &tate.K

&ection +", (rticle 2II deals with treaties or international agreements in general,in which case, the concurrence of at least two3thirds 6+S*7 of all the embers of the&enate is re/uired to make the treaty valid and binding to the Philippines. This provisionlays down the &eneral r%le on treaties. (ll treaties, regardless of sub8ect matter,coverage, or particular designation or appellation, re/uires the concurrence of the&enate to be valid and effective.

In contrast, &ection +B, (rticle M2III is a special provision that applies to treatieswhich involve the presence of foreign military bases, troops or facilities in the

Philippines. nder this provision, the concurrence of the &enate is only one of there/uisites to render compliance with the constitutional re/uirements and to consider theagreement binding on the Philippines. &ec +B further re/uires that Kforeign militarybases, troops, or facilitiesK may be allowed in the Philippines only by virtue of a treatyduly concurred in by the &enate, ratified by a ma8ority of the votes cast in a nationalreferendum held for that purpose if so re/uired by #ongress, and recognized as such bythe other contracting state.

$n the whole, the 2F( is an agreement which defines the treatment of & troopsvisiting the Philippines. It provides for the guidelines to govern such visits of military



personnel, and further defines the rights of the & and P government in the matter of criminal 8urisdiction, movement of vessel and aircraft, import and e1port of e/uipment,materials and supplies.

ndoubtedly, &ection +B, (rticle M2III, which specifically deals with treatiesinvolving foreign military bases, troops, or facilities, should apply in the instant case. To acertain e1tent, however, the provisions of &ection +", (rticle 2II will find applicability with

regard to determining the number of votes re/uired to obtain the valid concurrence of the&enate.

It is specious to argue that &ection +B, (rticle M2III is inapplicable to meretransient agreements for the reason that there is no permanent placing of structure for the establishment of a military base. The #onstitution makes no distinction betweenKtransientK and KpermanentK. )e find nothing in &ection +B, (rticle M2III that re/uiresforeign troops or facilities to be stationed or placed permanently in thePhilippines. )hen no distinction is made by lawE the #ourt should not distinguish. )edo not subscribe to the argument that &ection +B, (rticle M2III is not controlling since noforeign military bases, but merely foreign troops and facilities, are involved in the 2F(.The proscription covers Kforeign military bases, troops, or facilities.K &tated differently,this prohibition is not limited to the entry of troops and facilities without any foreign bases

being established. The clause does not refer to Kforeign military bases, troops, or facilitiesK collectively but treats them as separate and independent sub8ects, such thatthree different situations are contemplated a military treaty the sub8ect of which couldbe ei!her 6a7 foreign bases, 6b7 foreign troops, or 6c7 foreign facilities any of the threestanding alone places it under the coverage of &ection +B, (rticle M2III.

Issue *D )as &ec +B (rt M2III<s re/uisites satisfied to make the 2F( effective

&ection +B, (rticle M2III disallows foreign military bases, troops, or facilities in thecountry, unless the following conditions are sufficiently metD 6a7 it must be under a treatyE6b7 the treaty must be duly concurred in by the &enate and, when so re/uired by#ongress, ratified by a ma8ority of the votes cast by the people in a national referendumEand 6c7 recognized as a treaty by the other contracting state. There is no dispute as to

the presence of the first two re/uisites in the case of the 2F(. The concurrence handedby the &enate through esolution %o. "= is in accordance with the #onstitution, as therewere at least "> &enators that concurred.

(s to condition 6c7, the #ourt held that the phrase Krecognized as a treatyK meansthat the other contracting party accepts or acknowledges the agreement as a treaty. Tore/uire the & to submit the 2F( to the & &enate for concurrence pursuant to its#onstitution, is to accord strict meaning to the phrase. )ell3entrenched is the principlethat the words used in the #onstitution are to be given their ordinary meaning e1ceptwhere technical terms are employed, in which case the significance thus attached tothem prevails. Its language should be understood in the sense they have in commonuse.

The records reveal that the & 4overnment, through (mbassador 0ubbard, has

stated that the & has fully committed to living up to the terms of the 2F(. For as longas the & accepts or acknowledges the 2F( as a treaty, and binds itself further tocomply with its treaty obligations, there is indeed compliance with the mandate of the#onstitution.

)orth stressing too, is that the ratification by the President of the 2F(, and theconcurrence of the &enate, should be taken as a clear and une/uivocal e1pression of our nation's consent to be bound by said treaty, with the concomitant duty to uphold theobligations and responsibilities embodied thereunder. atification is generally held to bean e1ecutive act, undertaken by the head of the state, through which the formal



acceptance of the treaty is proclaimed. ( &tate may provide in its domestic legislationthe process of ratification of a treaty. I# our >urisdictio#, the /o5er to rtif is +estedi# the Preside#t #d #ot, s co--o#l *elie+ed, i# the legislture. The role of theSe#te is li-ited o#l to gi+i#g or 5ithholdi#g its co#se#t, or co#curre#ce, to thertifictio#.

)ith the ratification of the 2F( it now becomes obligatory and incumbent on our

part, under principles of international law 6 pac!a '%n! 'eran-a7, to be bound by theterms of the agreement. Thus, no less than &ection +, (rticle II declares that thePhilippines adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of thelaw of the land and adheres to the policy of peace, e/uality, 8ustice, freedom,cooperation and amity with all nations.Posted by Cames amba at ?D"= (

Reactions:I3email Ito5logThisUIbahagi sa Twitter Ibahagi sa Facebook Ibahagi sa Pinterest

)alang komentoD

ag3post ng isang omento

as 5agong Post ga umang Post 0omeag3subscribe saD I3post ang ga omento 6(tom7

MA PA(I=A

• 0ome

SIMP)Y AMES

James Mamba

When lifeis filled

with

shadows,face the

sunshine

of God's

Love.

Believe in

your

ideas. Anidea that

is

developedand put

$IE4 AMES OT(ER B)OS

• V 202 !2"

o V #ay !2"

$olitical

Law %i&ests 2

$oliticalLaw %i&ests

Reedi

al Law %i&ests 2

Reedi

al Law %i&ests

La(or

Law %i&ests 2

La(or

Law %i&ests

Le&al)thics %i&ests

*riina

l Law %i&ests 2

*riina

l Law %i&ests

$rof.

https://plus.google.com/113032523755298781489


http://jamesmamba.blogspot.com/2012/05/political-law-digests-1.html


https://www.blogger.com/share-post.g?blogID=6920121122697892918&postID=6905963457564312258&target=email

https://www.blogger.com/share-post.g?blogID=6920121122697892918&postID=6905963457564312258&target=blog

https://www.blogger.com/share-post.g?blogID=6920121122697892918&postID=6905963457564312258&target=twitter

https://www.blogger.com/share-post.g?blogID=6920121122697892918&postID=6905963457564312258&target=facebook

https://www.blogger.com/share-post.g?blogID=6920121122697892918&postID=6905963457564312258&target=pinterest



http://jamesmamba.blogspot.com/2012/05/remedial-law-digests-2.html



http://jamesmamba.blogspot.com/feeds/6905963457564312258/comments/default




http://void%280%29/

http://jamesmamba.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2012-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&updated-max=2013-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&max-results=21

http://void%280%29/

http://jamesmamba.blogspot.com/2012_05_01_archive.html









http://jamesmamba.blogspot.com/2012/05/labor-cases-digests-2.html




http://jamesmamba.blogspot.com/2012/05/legal-ethics-digests.html


http://jamesmamba.blogspot.com/2012/05/criminal-law-digests-2.html




http://jamesmamba.blogspot.com/2012/05/prof-domondon-2010-taxation-review-2.html




https://www.blogger.com/share-post.g?blogID=6920121122697892918&postID=6905963457564312258&target=email

https://www.blogger.com/share-post.g?blogID=6920121122697892918&postID=6905963457564312258&target=blog

https://www.blogger.com/share-post.g?blogID=6920121122697892918&postID=6905963457564312258&target=twitter

https://www.blogger.com/share-post.g?blogID=6920121122697892918&postID=6905963457564312258&target=facebook

https://www.blogger.com/share-post.g?blogID=6920121122697892918&postID=6905963457564312258&target=pinterest







http://void%280%29/

http://jamesmamba.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2012-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&updated-max=2013-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&max-results=21

http://void%280%29/

http://jamesmamba.blogspot.com/2012_05_01_archive.html






















into

action is

ore

iportantthan an

idea thate+istsonly as an

idea.

Buddha

-in&nan an&ain&

upleton&

profile

%oondon 200 -a+ationReview 2

200

-a+ation Review (y%oondon

/rte&a

pecific *ries 2

/rte&a

pecific *ries

Revised

/rte&a 1otes 2

Revised

/rte&a 1otes

*A)

LAW #ultiple

*hoice uestions

an

Beda 2000200 #eory Aid

3A#4L

5 R)LA-4/1 Article 678)4R /3 *8R4-41A ...

9R)

5 /3 *A) 41 *44L LAW

#yision and #ission

Cames Cumao3as amba. Picture )indow na template. Pinagana ng 5logger .







http://jamesmamba.blogspot.com/2012/05/2010-taxation-review-by-domondon-1.html



http://jamesmamba.blogspot.com/2012/05/ortega-specific-crimes-2.html





http://jamesmamba.blogspot.com/2012/05/revised-ortega-notes-2.html



http://jamesmamba.blogspot.com/2012/05/revised-ortega-notes.html


http://jamesmamba.blogspot.com/2012/05/g.html


http://jamesmamba.blogspot.com/2012/05/multiple-choice-questions.html


http://jamesmamba.blogspot.com/2012/05/san-beda-2000-2001-memory-aid.html


http://jamesmamba.blogspot.com/2012/05/family-relations-article-173-heirs-of.html



http://jamesmamba.blogspot.com/2012/05/survey-of-cases-in-civil-law.html


http://jamesmamba.blogspot.com/2012/05/my-vision-and-mission.html


https://www.blogger.com/

































compilation of digests political law 1 bill of rights and citizenship

Documents