GABBY NOTES 2017
FINALS
Q: According to the Supreme Court in
the case of People v. Judge Ayson
citing Miranda v. Arizona, custodial
investigation means any questioning
initiated by law enforcement officer
after a person has been taken into
custody or otherwise deprived of his
freedom of movement in any
significant way
Q: WHEN DOES CUSTODIAL
INVESTIGATION BEGIN?
A: from the moment the person is taken
into custody, custodial investigation
begins even if no questioning is yet
elicited from him.
So custodial investigation begins when a
person is taken into custody and the law
enforcement officer starts to ask
question in relation to a crime of which
the person being interrogated is a
suspect so custodial investigation begins
when the questioning ceases to be a
general inquiry in an unsolved crime,
and starts to focus on a particular
individual as a suspect.
Q: And under Republic Act 7438 what
is included in the custodial
investigation
A: under that it includes the practice of
issuing invitation to a person who is
investigated in connection with a
offense on which is a suspect, of which
is suspected that committed the crime it
CACAPIT/LIMBO/MODESTO/RAMOS
is the liability the inviting officer.
G: What are the right of a person under
custodial investigation according to the
Supreme Court in the case of People v.
Ayson?
A: 1.Right to remain silent and to have
competent and independent counsel
preferably of his own choice
2)Right to be informed of his
rights
3)Not to be subjected to violence,
force, threat or intimidation or any
means which vitiates the free will shall
be used against him. Secret detention
places, solitary in communicado, or
other similar forms of detention are
prohibited.
4)To have evidence obtained in
the violation of these rights excluded as
evidence. ( The right not to admit any
evidence in violation of his
constitutional rights)
Q: Under the Constitution are the
rights of a person under custodial
investigation waivable?
A: Right to remain silent. After the
warnings have been given, such
opportunity afforded him, the
individual may knowingly and
intelligently waive these rights and
agree to answer or make a statement.
Q:While the constitution expressly
provides that these rights can not be
waived except in writing and signed in
the presence of a counsel this
 GABBY NOTES 2017
FINALS
constitutional provision does not apply
to all rights of a person under custodial
investigation. What rights under
custodial investigation may be waived
as long as it is in writing and signed in
the presence of a counsel?
A: : extrajudicial confession..
Q: Extrajudicial confessions obtained
during custodial investigation may be
admitted in evidence if there is a valid
waiver. The rights of a person under
custodial investigation that may be
waived which may result in the
inadmissibility of evidence obtained
including the extrajudicial confession
during the custodial investigation are?
A: The right to remain silent, the right to
counsel
Q: How about the right to be informed
A: Can not be waived
Q: Rights against to violence, force,
threat or intimidation or any means
which vitiates the free will
A: Can not be waived
Q: The right to have evidence obtained
in the violation of these rights
excluded as evidence.
A: It cannot be waived
Q: Supposing during custodial
investigation the person subjected to
this proceedings was tortured which
resulted in his confession and the
extrajudicial confession of the accused
CACAPIT/LIMBO/MODESTO/RAMOS
was being offered in evidence during
the trial but the opposing counsel did
not object to the presentation of that
extrajudicial confession. Will that
constitute an implied waiver of the
rights during the custodial
investigation?
A: Even if the defense counsel failed to
object to the presentation of an
extrajudicial confession. it can not
constitute as an implied waiver. Because
in People vs Andan it is incumbent
upon the prosection to prove that the
rights in the custodial investigation
were respected and duly complied with.
In default of the eveidence showing
that this extrajudicial confession were
obtained in accordance with the
constitution the court may disregard the
evidence even if the defense did not
object
Q: Custodial Investigation begins
when the investigation ceases to be a
general inquiry in an unsolved crime
and starts to focus on a particular
individual as a suspect. Is police line
up part of the custodial investigation.
A: it depends.if there is no investigation
on the part of the police line up, the
police line up is not considered part of
the custodial investigation.
G: This is in reference of People vs
Macam and Gamboa vs Cruz. Gamboa
vs cruz, the Supreme Court said the
police line up in that case is not yet
part of the custodial investigation.
While in the case of people vs macam
 GABBY NOTES 2017
FINALS
the supreme court said the
uncounseled identification in the
hospital constitute part of the custodial
investigation. So therefore, any
identification without being accorded
of these rights under section 12 will be
rendered inadmissible in evidence
G: How about audit investigation of
state reports, are these part of custodial
investigation
A: it was held by the Supreme Court
that Audit investigation is not part of
Custodial Investigation because it does
not involve law enforcers and he is not
yet taken in custody under an
administrative proceeding.
A: A person under normal audit
investigation is not under custodial
investigation, because an audit
examiner can hardly be deemed to be
the law enforcement officer
contemplated in the rule [Navallo v.
Sandiganbayan, 234 SCRA 175]. Because
the Court Administrator is not a law
enforcement officer, an investigation
conducted by him does not constitute
custodial investigation within the
contemplation of the constitutional
guarantee [Office of the Court
Administrator v. Sumilang, 271 SCRA
316].
Q: who is a law enforcement officer
under the context of section 12 article
3?
A: People who has the power to
prosecute
CACAPIT/LIMBO/MODESTO/RAMOS
Q: so public prosecutors are law
enforcement officers who can conduct
a custodial investigation?
A: they are the PNP, police
Q: Under RA 7438, who are the people
considered as investigating officers
which is synonymous with a law
enforcement officer within the context
of section 12 art 3
A:police
G: yes, for example police NBI, who are
the investigating officers under the law
or considered as investigating officers
who are the law enforcement officers
who may conduct custodial
investigation
G: Public officers who have the power
and duty to arrest, investigate any
violation of law
G: Under the constitution any
confession or admission obtained
during custodial investigation it is
required that the rights of a person
under custodial investigation have
been complied with but under RA7438
there are additional requirements for
the inadmissibility of extrajudicial
confession or admissions during
custodial investigation. Would it not
be an unconstitutional law because it
expands the coverage of section 12
article 3?
A:it is not unconstitutional because it is
favorable to the accused
Q: So the imposition of additional
impositions does not violate the
 GABBY NOTES 2017
FINALS
constitution. What are the additional
conditions under RA7438 for the
admissibility of confessions obtained
during custodial investigation. Because
under the constitution any confessions
obtained under custodial investigation
are admissible as long as the accused is
informed of his right to remain silent
and to have counsel, he is not
subjected to torture or violence or
intimidation, and any violation
obtained in violation of these right are
inadmissible as evidence. But under
the law those are not enough for the
admissibility of confessions obtained
under custodial investigation because
the law provides if any of the
requisites under the law are not
complied with even if the rights under
the constitution were followed, the
confession or admission remain
inadmissible as evidence. Does the law
require that the investigation report
should be in writing
S:yes
Q: yes. So this means that if the
custodial investigation report is not in
writing, any confession or admission
obtained during custodial investigation
is inadmissible in evidence.
G: does the law require that the
extrajudial confession itself shall be in
writing?
A: No.
Q: which means all confession or
admission during CI is inadmissible
in evidence? Because it is not required
under the law that the confession or
CACAPIT/LIMBO/MODESTO/RAMOS
admission obtained during custodial
investigation has to be in writing
A: it must be in writing
Q: Custodial investigation must be in
writing, the extrajudicial confession or
admission obtained from CI must be
in writing and signed by the person
subjected to CI and assisted Any a
counsel. If the person waived his right
to a counsel before whom should he
sign his extrajudicial confession?
A: Any of the parents, brothers and
sisters, spouse, municipal mayor,
municipal judge, school district
supervisor, the priest or minister trusted
and chosen by him.
LAWYERS DISQUALIFIED TO ACT AS
ASSISTING COUNSEL DURING CI and
ADMINISTRATIVE INVESTIGATION
Q: under the law who may be
appointed as assisting counsel
A: any lawyer except those who are
interested in the outcome of the case.
For example if the complainant is a
lawyer he cannot be appointed as an
assisting counsel during the
investigation
Q: may a public prosecutor be
appointed as an assisting counsel?
A: No. because he is a lawyer who is
charge with the obligation of the
conduct of preliminary investigation
and prosecution of offenses
 GABBY NOTES 2017
FINALS
G: why does the constitution afford
these rights to a person under CI?
A: In people vs Andan the objective of
the rights under Sec.12 Art. 3 is to
preclude or prohibit in comminicado
interrogation of individuals in a police
dominated atmosphere where
potentiality for compulsion, physical or
psychological, is apparent.
G: In a custodial investigation a law
enforcement officer is not an interested
party so in a custodial investigation the
law enforcement officer is just
performing his official function which
means he is not personally interested
in the outcome of the investigation
G: In an investigation between an
employer and employee the
investigator is the lawyer and
definitely the employer is very much
interested in the outcome of the
investigation so which means that if
there is a risk during CI that the law
enforcement officer while
disinterested may employ compulsion,
coercion the risks are greater when it
comes to administrative investigation
because now the investigator is
financially interested in the outcome of
the investigation
Q: because of that can we extend the
rights under sec 12 art 3to persons
facing administrative investigations?
A: NO. the bill of rights does not apply
in the said proceedings
CACAPIT/LIMBO/MODESTO/RAMOS
Q: how did the Supreme court address
the issue of high risk of using
compulsion, moral ascendancy,
influence by employers on the
employee in order to extract
confession. It is true that admin
proceedings are not proceedings
conducted by law enforcement officers
because the Lawyer in an
administrative investigation is not a
law enforcement officer but the
supreme court recognized the legality
that during the administrative
investigation the employer will
overbear on the employee and employ
coercion, moral ascendancy in order to
extract confession. So how does the
legality addressed in the constitution?
A:any confession or admission during
administrative investigation obatained
by coercion or moral ascendancy or
influence maybe considered as
inadmissible not because of violation of
Sec 12 Art3 of the constitution because
the said section does not apply to this
type of proceedings but under the
general principles of the Civil Law ,
Vitiated Consent. So the supreme court
said in Peple vs Judge Ayson that
vitiated consent can not produce any
evidence
EXCLUSIONARY RULE, DERIVATIVE
EVIDENCE,FRUIT OF POISONOUS
TREE
 GABBY NOTES 2017
FINALS
Q: Supposing the rights in the
constitution were violated, under the
constitution any confession or
admission obtained during custodial
investigation will be inadmissible in
evidence for any purpose. In the case
of People vs Alicando, the Supreme
Court said that not only admission or
confession obtained during the
custodial investigation be considered
as inadmissible in evidence, what else
is declared inadmissible in evidence?
A: any derivative evidence obtained
from the illegally tainted confession or
admission are also considered as
inadmissible in evidence. So the
confession or admission obtained
during custodial investigation in
violation of the constitutional rights of
the person under custodial investigation
are declared inadmissible in evidence
under the exclusionary rule particularly
uner the 3rd paragraph of section 12
article 3 and par.2 section3 article 3
Q: how about the derivative or
secondary evidence obtained from this
confession or admission, what is the
legal basis for declaring this derivative
evidence inadmissible in evidence
A: they are inadmissible under the
concept of the fruit of the poisonous tree
Q: what is this all about?
A: Anything that is obtained from an
illegal source is also inadmissible in
evidence. The supreme court in the case
CACAPIT/LIMBO/MODESTO/RAMOS
of People vs. Alicando cited Justice
Frankfurter in the case of US vs
Cardone, not only the admission or
confession obtained in violation of the
constitution be considered as null and
void and inadmissible in evidence but
all derivative evidence however far
removed from the primary source. The
fruit of poisonous tree does not only
deal with the fruit because when we say
fruit, fruit is a derivative evidence once
removed from a primary source because
the primary source, the confession or
admission is the tree and the fruit which
is the secondary evidence is once
removed from the primary source but
the fruit of poisonous tree extends to all
evidence however removed from the
primary source. Which means that if the
confession or admission of the accused
resulted in the discovery of a secondary
evidence, that secondary evidence is
inadmissible in evidence. If the
discovery of the secondary evidence
leads to another derivative evidence
that derivative evidence is still
considered inadmissible in evidence.
ACQUITTAL, INDEPENDENT
EVIDENCE
Q: can we now say that whenever the
rights of a person under CI have been
violated the accused is entitled to no
less than an acquittal?
 GABBY NOTES 2017
FINALS
A: No.even if the rights of the person
were violated during CI resulting to the
inadmissibility of evidence of any
confession or admission or any
derivative evidence if the prosecution
wwas able to present independent
evidence that may establish the guilt of
the accused beyond reasonable doubt
the accused may still be convicted. This
is shown in the case of Ho Wai Pang vs
People. In Ho wai Pang vs People, the
Chinese accused were not accorded the
right under sec 12 art 3, there was no
interpreter and there was no counsel
during the investigation but the SC
considered independent evidence,
independent from confession or
admission, like the testimony of the
immigration officer who has searched
the luggage of the accused. Similarly in
the case of people vs macam again the
identification of the hospital was
considered as inadmissible in evidence
but the SC said that during trial the
witnesses were able to identify them in
court so which means that there are
other independent evidence that were
presented by the prosecution to
establish the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt
Q: in the case of people vs Dy and
People vs Andan the SC admitted in
CACAPIT/LIMBO/MODESTO/RAMOS
evidence the uncounselled confession
of the accused to the mayor in Andan
who is also a law enforcement officer,
and to the police officer in duty in the
case of people vs dy. So why did the
SC admit these in evidence
A: the accused admitted or made those
confession spontaneously and
voluntarily not solicited through
questioning, without any influence of
the police or of the investigating officer.
In the case where the accused admitted
to the mayor , he admitted it when he is
in a private room or office of the police
chief. He was not forced and the mayor
did not ask if he was involved in the
crime. In people vs andan the sc said the
rights of sec 12 art 3 are guaranteed to
preclude the slightest use of coercion of
the state as to result in him admitting
something is false but not to prevent
him from freely and voluntarily telling
the truth.
In Ppl vs DY, the inadmissibility of
evidence passed to form test. The first
form is the determination whether the
confession is part of the investigation.
The SC said that it is not part of the CI
because no questioning was elicited
from the accused so it is a voluntary
sponateous act it is not part of the CI.
The second form is in order to hurdle
the rule against hearsay. Off course the
 GABBY NOTES 2017
FINALS
accused admit his guilt but the mayor or
PO did not know the truth of his
confession so therefore under the
hearsay rule they are disqualified even
though dy admitted he killed a tourist
the Police officer in duty was not there,
he does not know, he has no personal
knowledge of the fact of the incident.
Generally under the hearsay rule the
testimony of the police in duty can not
be offered in evidence
Q: did the SC allowed the testimony of
the mayor and of the police officer on
duty despite the fact that they do not
have personal knowledge as to the
incident being the subject matter of the
controversy
A: Yes under the principle of res gestae.
It may in a sense be also regarded as
part of the res gestae. The rule is that,
any person, otherwise competent as a
witness, who heard the confession, is
competent to testify as to the substance
of what he heard if he heard and
understood all of it. An oral confession
need not be repeated verbatim, but in
such a case it must be given in
substance. This is an exception of the
hearsay rule.
BAIL Section 13
Q: What is bail?
CACAPIT/LIMBO/MODESTO/RAMOS
A: Bail is a security given for the release
of a person in custody of law, furnished
by him or a bondsman, to guarantee his
appearance before any court as required
under the conditions hereinafter
specified. Bail may be given in the form
of corporate surety, property bond,
cash deposit, or recognizance. (Sec 21
rule 114)
Q: what is the purpose of bail based on
manotoc vs CA?
A: to temporarily release the person.in
Basco vs Rapatalo a person is detained
by the state so that in order to ensure
that he appears before the proper court
at the scheduled time and place to
answer the charges brought against him
and her. The accused has interest in the
presence of the accused in the trial even
though the accused has an interest to be
provisionally free during the pendency
of the trial. So there are two conflicting
interest. Bail is the moderating
mechanism in order to balance the
interest of the state, to ensure that the
accused will appear during the trial and
the interest of the accused, to be at
liberty during the pendency of the trial
while his guilt is not yet established
beyond reasonable doubt.
In Manotoc vs CA, the objective of bail
is to relieve the accused from
imprisonment and on the state to the
 GABBY NOTES 2017
FINALS
burden of keeping him and as well as to
maintain the jurisdiction of the court
over the accused as if he is in custody of
the proper officer of the court to receive
any lawful order may be given to him
Q:Generally bail is only allowed or
required in criminal cases and in favor
of the accused. May bail be required
from a person who is not a party to a
case?
A: Yes.bail may be required to material
witness under rule 119. It is required in
order to guarantee that the material
witness will appear in the trial and if the
material witness does not post bail he
will be detained prior to or while
waiting for the trial in the case
Q: what are the different kinds of bail?
A: Bail as matter of right and Bail as a
matter of discretion
Q: What are the 4 forms of bail
A: Cash deposits, Recognizance,
property bond and corporate surety(
bonding company that guarantees the
appearance of an acussed)
Q: what are the four mandatory
conditions in the all kinds of bail
A:
First, Undertaking shall be effective
upon approval, and unless cancelled,
CACAPIT/LIMBO/MODESTO/RAMOS
shall remain in force at all stages of the
case until promulgation of the judgment
of the RTC, irrespective of whether the
case was originally filed in or appealed
to it;
Second, The accused shall appear before
the proper court whenever required
Third,The failure of the accused to
appear at the trial without justification
and despite due process shall be
deemed a waiver of his right to be
present thereat. In such case, the trail
may proceed in absentia.
Fourth,Bondsman shall surrender the
accused to the court for execution for
final judgment
Q: what happen if the accused failed to
appear despite duty and without just
cause
A: His right during trial is waived and
the case will be tried in trial trial in
abscencia
G: under sec 4 rule 114, when is bail a
matter of right
A: All persons in custody shall be
admitted to bail as a matter of right,
with sufficient sureties, or released on
recognizance as prescribed by law or
this Rule;
a)Before or after conviction by the MTC
(offenses punishable 6 years or below)
 GABBY NOTES 2017
FINALS
b)Before conviction of the RTC of an
offense not punishable by death,
reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment.
Q: is there any circumstance that bail is
a matter of right?
A: offense not punishable by death,
reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment
when evidence of guilt is not strong
Q:when is bail matter of discretion
A: Upon conviction by the Regional
Trial Court of an offense not
punishable by death, reclusion
perpetua, or life imprisonment,
admission to bail is discretionary.
The application for bail may be filed
and acted upon by the trial court
despite the filing of a notice of
appeal, provided it has not
transmitted the original record to the
appellate court. However, if the
decision of the trial court conviction
the accused changed the nature of the
offense from non-bailable to bailable,
the application for bail can only be filed
with and resolved by the appellate
court. (Section 5 Rule 114)
Q: is there other instance when bail is
matterof discretion
A:when the offense charged is
punishable by RP, Life imprisonment or
death . the court will exercise its
CACAPIT/LIMBO/MODESTO/RAMOS
discretion to determine the weight of
evidence of guilt. If the evidence of guilt
is strong, the discretion ceases, the court
need to deny it. Its its not a matter of
right nor discretion. Similarly,after
hearing and the court exercise its
discretion, the court determines that the
evidence of guilt is weak the discretion
cease. The court has no choice but to
grant it because bails becomes a matter
of right
Q:In the case of Basco vs Rapatalo,
what are the four fold application of
the court whenever the application of
bail is filed before the court
A: In Basco v. Rapatalo, the Supreme
Court laid down the four fold duties of
the court;
1)Notify the prosecutor of the hearing of
the application for bail or require him to
submit his recommendation
2)Conduct a hearing for the application
for bail regardless of whether or not the
prosecution refuses to present evidence
to show that the guilt of the accused is
strong for the purpose of enabling the
court to exercise its sound discretion
3)Decide whether the evidence of the
guilt of the accused is strong based on
the summary of evidence of the
prosecution.
4)If the guilt of the accused is not strong,
discharge the accused upon the
 GABBY NOTES 2017
FINALS
approval of the bail bond otherwise
deny the application for bail.
Q:Are these applicable onle to bail as
matter of discretion?
A: yes. The four fold application does
not apply when bail is matter of right.
But there is a need to conduct a hearing
when bail is matter of right and if the
purpose of conducting a hearing is to
determine the evidence of guilt and
proper amount of bail
G: in bail as a right, the purpose of
hearing is
A: to know the reasonable amount of
bail. that is the only issue in a hearing
when bail is a matter of right. But in
practice upon the issuance of a warrant
of arrest there is already
recommended amount of bail. The
accused may file a motion in order to
reduce the amount of bail, and that is
time when a hearing for the
determination of the reasonable amount
of bail shall be established by the court.
G: What are the factors that the court
should consider in determining the
amount of bail under sec9 rule 114?
A:
a)Financial ability of the accused to give
bail
CACAPIT/LIMBO/MODESTO/RAMOS
b)Nature and circumstances of the
offense
c)Penalty for the offense charged
d)Character and reputation of the
accused
e)Age and health of the accused
f)Weight of the evidence against the
accused
g)Probability of the accused appearing
at the trial
h)Forfeiture of the bail
i)The fact that the accused was a fugitive
from justice when arrested
j)Pendency of other cases where the
accused is on bail
these factors are not exclusive, other
factors may be considered by the court
G:in determining the nature of bail
a whether it is a matter of right or
discretion what is the penalty
determinative of the nature of bail
A: First, all persons are entitled to bail
except when the offense is punishable
by RP, LI or death
Second , bail becomes a matter of
discretion when offense charged is
punishable by RP, LI, or death when the
penalty imposed is imprisonment
exceeding six years provided that the
following circumstances are present.
Which means if any of those
circumstances mentioned in par 2 of sec
 GABBY NOTES 2017
FINALS
5 rule 114 is present bail is neither a
matter of right or discretion
Iit is inappropriate to say bailable or non
bailable offenses because all offenses a
re bailabale, what is non bailable is the
accused because if the accused is
charged with rp, li or death and if the
evidence of guilt is strong he cant be
admitted to bail
G: As stated in Sec. 5 rule 114 of the
rules of Court, bail is a matter of
discretion when the penalty for the
crime charged is less than reclusion
perpetua but the penalty imposed by
the trial court is imprisonment
exceeding six (6) years, the accused
shall be denied bail, or his bail shall be
cancelled upon a showing by the
prosecution, with notice to the accused,
of the following or other similar
circumstances?
A:
(a) That he is a recidivist, quasi-
recidivist, or habitual delinquent, or has
committed the crime aggravated by the
circumstance of reiteration;
(b) That he has previously escaped from
legal confinement, evaded sentence, or
violated the conditions of his bail
without valid justification;
(c) That he committed the offense while
under probation, parole, or conditional
pardon;
CACAPIT/LIMBO/MODESTO/RAMOS
(d) That the circumstances of his case
indicate the probability of flight if
released on bail; or
(e) That there is undue risk that he may
commit another crime during the
pendency of the appeal.
Q: in the case of Rapatalo, bail is
matter of right or discretion, and the
nature of bail is determined by the
penalty for the offense charged. At
what time should the penalty for the
offense should be determined in order
to establish whether bail is a matter of
right or discretion
A:Deterrmined by the law providing for
the penalty for the offense charged at
the time of the application or pendency
for the application of bail.
Q: In Ppl vs Judge Donato, at the time
of the commission of the offense
charged the penalty provided by law is
RP to Death. During the pendency for
the application for bail was reduced to
prision mayor so what is now the
character of bail?
A: Upon the issuance of the executive
order, bail becomes a matter of right
because the nature of bail shall be
determined by the nature of the offense
charged at the time of pendency for the
application for bail
 GABBY NOTES 2017
FINALS
Q: supposing that at the time of the
commission of the offense charged the
penalty is PM. At the time for the
pendency for the application for bail it
was increased to RP. So now it
becomes a matter of discretion because
the applicable penalty the penalty
provided for by the law at the time of
pendency of the application for bail. In
the example given, bail becomes a
matter of discretion?
A:it is the lower penalty. The penalty
for the offense charged at the time for
application for bail is the applicable law
because it is the lower penalty.
Q:is right to bail a waivable right?
A: yes
Q: should it be in writing and signed
in the presence of a counsel?
A: no required formality
Q:are motions for application for bail
required to comply with 3 day motion
rule?
A: Yes. In Baylon v. Judge Sison the
Supreme court ruled that the reason
given by the respondent judge that the
non observance of the three day motion
rule is justified because of the urgent
motion for the petition for bail and time
is of the essence is untenable. Such
raciconation, which espouses and
CACAPIT/LIMBO/MODESTO/RAMOS
reveals distorted notion as to the true
nature and conditions does violence to
the well established rule of law that bail
is not a matter of right and requires
hearing where the accused is charged
Q: what are the substantive basis of
this?
A: right to be heard. Right of the
prosecution the opportunity to prepare
in order to establish the weight of
evidence.
Q: do members of afp can exercise the
right to bail?
A: No, in the case of Commendador v.
De Villa the right to speedy trial is given
more emphasis in the military where the
right to bail does not exist because of the
unique structure of the military should
be enough reason to exempt military
mean from the constitutional coverage
on the right to bail. Right to bail to
members of AFP are not accorded to
them because of their pecuniary
structure, they carry firearms and
operate within the government
therefore they cannot demand for the
same right as any private citizen entitled
to.
In Commendador v. De Villa, the
accused herein are under court martial
proceedings. Right to bail are not
entitled if the offense is administrative
 GABBY NOTES 2017
FINALS
or under court martial but when it is a
criminal in nature they can post bail.
Q: PNP has the right to bail and carry
also firearms. is there a reasonable
distinction between AFP and PNP?
A: PNP are compared to civilians
Q: are members of AFP not entitled to
bail the general rule?
A: no it’s the exception. Members of afp
like any other person are entitled to bail
except when they are charged before
general court of martial. Because they
are not criminal and judicial
proceedings but executive proceedings.
It is not appealble before general court
but to the president
Q: the right to bail may may be denied
depending on the penalty of the
offense charged and evidence of guilt,
is the right to bail available in non
criminal proceedings like extradition?
A: No. The extradition proceedings do
not determine the guilt or innocence of
the accused. The court only determines
if there is an extradition treaty or the
case is extraditable.
Q: What are the 5 postulates of
extradition proceedings
A:1)Extradition is a major instrument
for suppression of crime
CACAPIT/LIMBO/MODESTO/RAMOS
2)The requesting State will accord due
process to the accused
3)The proceedings are sui generis
4)Compliance shall be in good faith
5)There is underlying risk of flight
Q: What are the issues in an
extrajudicial proceedings
A: 1.whether the request complies with
the extradition treaty
2. whether the person is extraditable
Q: What does speedy trial mean?
A: Means a trial conducted according to
the law of criminal procedure and the
rules and regulations, free from
vexatious, capricious and oppressive
delays. (People v. Tee)
Q: What are the factors to be weighed
by the court as to determine whether
the right has been violated? (LRCEP)
People v. Tee
A: 1)Length of the delay
2)Reason for the delay Failure to
present the material witness in the trial
3)The conduct of prosecution and
accused The prosecution exerted all
efforts to produce the witness. Defense
did not make any move to invoke the
constitutional right of the accused to a
speedy trial
 GABBY NOTES 2017
FINALS
4)Efforts exerted by the
defendant to assert his right
5)Prejudice and damage caused
to the accused
Q: Applying these factors, can we say
that there was a violation to right to
speedy trial in People v. Tee?
A: No. The Supreme Court ruled that
although the absences of prosecution
witness Abratique totaled to 20 hearing
days, there is no showing whatsoever
that prosecution capriciously caused
Abratique’s absences as to vex or
oppress appellant and deny him his
rights. Under the rules, appellant could
have moved the trial court to require the
witness to post bail to ensure that the
latter would testify when required.
Appellant could have moved to have
Abratique found in contempt and duly
sanctioned. Appellant did neither. It is a
bit too late in the day for the appellant
to invoke now his right to speedy trial.
Q: Speedy trial is a relative concept
and the right to speedy trial can be
violated when?
CACAPIT/LIMBO/MODESTO/RAMOS
A: 1)The proceedings are attended
by vexatious, capricious and oppressive
delays
2)When unjustified
postponements are asked for and
granted/secured
3)When without cause or
justifiable motive of long period of time
is allowed to elapse without the party
having his case tried (People v. Tee)
Q: In order for these 3 to constitute
violation, what is the qualifier?
A: The delay must be attributable to the
prosecution.
Q: What is the remedy if there is
violation of his right to speedy trial?
A: petition for certiorari/mandamus;
writ of habeas corpus if he is detained
Q: Why does the constitution
guarantee that the accused should be
tried for the least amount of time?
A: so that the accused if he be innocent
be released from anxiety
Q: Are appeals covered under the right
to speedy trial?
A: Proceedings anterior to trial and trial
itself.
 GABBY NOTES 2017
FINALS

Q: Right under Sec.14 is the right to
speedy trial. Can we say that this right
is only applicable during trial?
A: No. The Supreme Court in the case of
Flores v. People citing Justice Laurel,
“An accused is entitled to a trial at the
earliest opportunity. He cannot be
oppressed by delaying
commencement of trial for an
unreasonable length of time. If the
proceedings pending trial are deferred,
the trial itself is necessarily delayed.
Q: How about on appeal?
A: No. Right to speedy trial applies to
the proceedings anterior to the trial.
Delay in the appeal is covered by a
different constitutional guarantee
covered by Sec.16 Art.3.
Q: In the case of Conde v. Rivera, for a
period of one year she was required to
a dance attendance to the Court. Why?
A: She is required to attend at the trial
whether the trial is postponed. The
Supreme Court dismissed the case
because of the violation of the right to
speedy trial of the accused.
Q: In this case the accused was made to
dance attendance in court?
A: Like cha-cha made back and forth in
attending court hearings
Q: What does impartial trial mean?
A: Hearing before an impartial and
disinterested tribunal and that every
litigant is entitled nothing less than the
cold neutrality of an impartial judge.
Q: In Mateo Jr. v. Villaluz, described a
cold, neutral and impartial judge. Who
the
is an impartial judge?
A: A cerebral man deliberately holds in
check the tag and pull of purely
personal preferences and prejudices
which he shares with the rest of his
fellow mortals.
Q: Judge has two obligations in
promulgating judgement?
A: (1)Duty to render just decision and
(2) must do it free from any suspicion of
partiality/ prejudice. Judge must be
impartial and appear impartial.
Q: is it enough that the trial judge
impartial? Supposing the judge is
indeed impartial and renders decision
based on evidence. Is that enough?
What if he is seen socializing with one
of the party in a case he is handling
after work?
A: No it is not enough. The judge or
justice of Courts must appear to be
impartial. Even if they penned their
decision based on evidence they must

CACAPIT/LIMBO/MODESTO/RAMOS
 GABBY NOTES 2017
FINALS
have semblance of impartiality. They
cannot just associate with any parties in
the case because it will bring a
semblance of partiality.
Q: In our judicial system, are trial court
judges required to leap lie hermits
detached with world? Because in the
case of People v. Teehankee, the
accused contends that his right to
impartial trial is violated because of
the pervasive publicity of the case.
A: In People v. Teehankee, the
Supreme Court ruled that pervasive
publicity is not per se prejudicial to the
right of an accused to fair trial. The mere
fact that the trial of appellant was given
a day to day, gavel to gavel, coverage
does not by itself prove that the
publicity so permeated the mind of a
trial judge and impaired his
impartiality. Our idea of a fair and
impartial judge is not that of a hermit
who is out of touch with the world. We
have not installed the jury system
whose members are overly protected
from publicity lest they lose their
impartiality. Our judges are learned in
law and trained to disregard off court
evidence and on camera performances
of parties in litigation. Their mere
exposure to publications and publicity
stunts do not per se fatally infect their
impartiality.
CACAPIT/LIMBO/MODESTO/RAMOS
Mere possibility of influence is not
enough, the accused must show
probable cause that judgment is
impaired.
Q: Mateo Jr. v. Vilalauz, the
respondent judge is the one who
attested to the affidavit of one of the
witnesses. But when the witness is
presented, he reacted and said that he
was forced to sign the affidavit. After
the claim made by the witness, the
defendant immediately filed for an
inhibition of the respondent judge.
According the defense they cannot
longer expect an impartial and cold
neutrality on the presiding judge.
Why?
A: The Supreme Court ruled that
having the extrajudicial statement was
attested before him, such repudiation
was hardly flattering to the judge. His
sense of fairness under the
circumstances could easily be blunted.
The absence of the requisite of due
process element is thus noticeable.
Q: What is the purpose of this
constitutional guarantee of public trial
according to the case of Garcia v.
Domingo?
 GABBY NOTES 2017
FINALS
A: Justice Laurel: Trial should be in
public in order to offset any danger of
conducting it in an illegal or unjust
manner.
Atty. Gabriel: Necessary to prevent
abuses that may be committed by the
court to the prejudice of the defendant.
Q: In the case of Garcia v. Domingo,
this right to due process in order to
offset any danger of conducting it in an
illegal or unjust manner. The right to
public trial in order to ship the accused
form the arbitrariness of the judge,
how can it protect the accused form
arbitrariness?
A: Based on experience. Public officers
are more prudent when the trial is
witnessed by the public.
Q: Right to public trial is a right that
belongs to the accused. Can an accused
waive it? Meaning can he exclude the
public from the witnessing his trial?
A: Prosecution can invoke the right to
public trial by the virtue of the due
process clause.
Q: Would the proceedings in the
chamber of the judge considered as
public trial?
A: No. The Supreme Court in the case
of Garcia v. Domingo, ruled that there
CACAPIT/LIMBO/MODESTO/RAMOS
is no showing that the public was
excluded. It is to be admitted that the
size of the room allotted by the Judge
would reduce the number of those who
could be present. Such a fact though is
not indicative of any transgression of
this right. Courtrooms are not of
uniform dimensions. Some are smaller
than others. Moreover as what Justice
Black opined, it suffices to satisfy the
requirement of a trial being public if the
accused could have his friends, relatives
and counsel present, no matter what
offense he may be charged.
Q: Is trial by publicity the same as
public trial?
A: No. Aquino case-absolute ban on
recording, trial is not for entertainment.
Estrada case-was allowed for
documentation ONLY
Ampatuan case- pro hac vice,
allowed live video streaming by reason
of extraordinary circumstance of the
case.
Atty. Gabriel: In the case of In re:
Petition for radio and television
coverage of multiple murder case
against Maguindanao Governor Zaldy
Ampatuan, the Supreme Court
 GABBY NOTES 2017
FINALS
discussed the evolution on the right of
impartial trial on the one hand and right
to information on the other hand. From
the outright denial in the case of Aquino
to the filming for the purposes of
recording in the case of Estrada and to a
restricted and to regulated public airing
in the case of Maguindanao massacre,
but note as well in the decision of the SC
in the case of In re: Petition for radio
and television coverage of multiple
murder case against Maguindanao
Governor Zaldy Ampatuan was
modified in its resolution because in its
decision it allowed the TV and radio
coverage of the trial under restrictive
and more prohibitive procedure. But in
its resolution modified its , by denying
live TV and radio coverage and
allowing only live streaming from an
extension in the premises of the court
because of the balancing interest of the
accused and the people. Note as well
and the resolution and decision of the
SC in the Maguindanao case is a pro hac
vice case meaning it cannot be
considered as judicial precedent under
the doctrine of stare decisis. Applicable
in that particular case only.
Atty. Gabriel : Waiver of public trial
Section 21. Exclusion of the public. —
The judge may, motu proprio, exclude
the public from the courtroom if the
CACAPIT/LIMBO/MODESTO/RAMOS
evidence to be produced during the trial
is offensive to decency or public morals.
He may also, on motion of the accused,
exclude the public from the trial, except
court personnel and the counsel of the
parties
Q: What is right to confrontation?
A: Right of the accused to see the
witness face to face
Q: What are the two reasons as
mentioned in the case of US v. Javier
why the courts cannot allow the
affidavit of a deceased who is not cross
examined as admissible in evidence?
A: 1)To allow the accused to exercise
his right to cross examination of the
witness
2)A tribunal may have before it
the deportment and appearance of the
witness while testifying
Q: Substantively these are the two
reasons why the affidavit cannot be
admitted without presenting the
affiant as a witness. Procedurally, what
is the basis of the exclusion? An ex
parte cannot be presented as evidence
because?
A: Intended to prevent the conviction of
the accused upon deposition or ex parte
affidavits.
 GABBY NOTES 2017
FINALS
Q: Supposing the accused are tried
separately on the same criminal
information on the same acts or
omissions. Supposing A B C tried on
the same criminal information may the
testimony of a witness in the case of A
who was a exhaustively cross
examined by the accused can be used
as a witness to other cases without
presenting the witness in the other
case. D was presented as a witness in
the case of A can D be presented as a
witness in the case of B and C without
presenting as witness in B and C’s
case?
Atty. Gabriel: No. It would deprive the
court to observe the deportment of the
witness during the trial. If we say
automatically that the second court will
admit the evidence of the witness who is
presented in another case would not
that be a deprivation of the right of the
second court to determine whether the
witness is lying or telling the truth?
Even if the parties are the same if the
court trying the parties are not the same
the right to confrontation requires that
the witness presented in one case be
presented in the other case.
Q: Is there an exemption to the rule in
Talino v. Sandiganbayan
CACAPIT/LIMBO/MODESTO/RAMOS
A: (1) The admissibility of “dying
declarations;” and (2) trial in absentia
under Section 14(2)
Q: Supposing A was presented a s a
witness during his testimony he
produced the affidavit of B in order to
prove that he is telling the truth. Can
the defense object to that evidence?
A: Yes. The affidavit would be
considered as a hearsay evidence. Atty.
Gabriel: Procedurally, ex parte affidavits
cannot be admitted because on the rule
of hearsay evidence.
Q: What are the two compulsory
processes available to the accused?
Section 14, Article 3
A: 1)Subpoena ad testificandum
Person is required by the court to testify
2)Subpoena duces tecum
Required by the court for the
production of books, records, things or
documents therein specified
Q: May a subpoena ad testificandum
be issued by the court without issuing
subpoena duces tecum?
A: Yes. Subpoena duces tecum cannot
be issued by the court without subpoena
ad testificandum but subpoena ad
testificandum can be issued without
Subpoena duces tecum. It is not enough
 GABBY NOTES 2017
FINALS

that the documents which is the subject
of subpoena duces tecum to just bring it
before the court. It must be testified and
authenticated by the custodian. In that
regard, the complete term for subpoena
duces tecum ad testificandum
Atty. Gabriel: did not pass because it
cannot be used as to determine the guilt
or innocence of the accused. The
petitioner used this only to fish for
evidence.
Q: What are the two tests in order to
determine the propriety of the issuance
of subpoena duces tecum?
A: 1)The books and documents or
other things required must appear
prima facie relevant to the issue subject
of the controversy (Test of relevancy)
When are they relevant? An evidence is
relevant when it establishes the guilt or
innocence of the accused.
Like in the case of Roco v. Contreras (BP
22 case), the Supreme Court ruled that
the production of book of account,
ledgers and documents requested by the
petitioner are not indispensable to prove
his defense of payment. We do not find
any justifiable reason and petitioner has
not shown any, why this court must
have to disbelieve the factual findings of
the appellate court. Thus the issuance of
subpoena duces tecum subpoena ad
testificandum would serve no purpose
but to further the delay of the
proceedings in pending criminal cases.
It is not relevant since it is only used for
fishing expediton.
2)Such books must be reasonably
described by the parties to be readily
identified (Test of definiteness) In Roco
v. Contreras, the Supreme Court ruled
that the books and documents that the
petitioner requested to be subpoenaed
are designated and described in his
request with definiteness and readily
identifiable.
Q: Sec. 14 Art.3 enumerates the rights
of the accused expect for one which is?
A: The provision on trial by absentia.
This right favors the prosecution so that
the trial won’t be delayed.
Q: What are the three requirements so
that trial in absentia may proceed?
A: 1) There has been an arraignment
2) That the accused had been
notified
3) That he fails to appear and his
failure to do so is unjustified

CACAPIT/LIMBO/MODESTO/RAMOS
 GABBY NOTES 2017
FINALS
Q: What is the consequence of trial in
absentia?
A: The accused waived his right to
appear in the trial. He cannot present
evidence. He cannot be present in
person or in counsel. He loses his legal
standing.
Q: The presence of the accused is
needed during arraignment the
presence of the accused is mandatory
during trial and during the
promulgation. Does that mean that the
court cannot during trial during trial in
absentia if the purpose of the trial is to
identify the accused?
A: During trial, the accused can
expressly waive his appearance through
his counsel by making a manifestation,
that whenever a witness is to be
presented to identify the accused, the
defense is admitting that the accused
will be identified by the witness. In that
regard to be dispense with the
appearance of the accused in
identification purposes. On the third
instance, during the promulgation of the
judgment, it is the issue in the case of
People v. Valeriano, whether the court
can promulgate a decision when the
accused flee from justice. The Supreme
Court ruled that the accused jumped
CACAPIT/LIMBO/MODESTO/RAMOS
bail after he had been arraigned just
before the retaking of evidence
commenced, one who jumps bail can
never offer a justifiable reason for his
non appearance during trial.
Accordingly, after the trial in absentia,
the court can render judgment in the
case and the promulgation may be made
by simply recording the judgment in the
criminal docket with a copy thereof
served upon his counsel provided that
the notice requiring him to be present at
the promulgation is served through his
bondsmen or warden and counsel.
Atty. Gabriel: Only during the
arraignment, the presence of the
accused is not waivable but only to the
two instances it is waivable.
Q: When is the Presence of the Accused
Mandatory
A: 1. During arraignment and plea
(Rules of Court, Rule 116, Sec. 1).
2. During trial, for identification,
unless the accused has already
stipulated on his identity during the
pre-trial and that he is the one who will
be identified by the witnesses as the
accused in the criminal case; or
3. During promulgation of
sentence, unless for a light offense
(Rules of Court, Rule 120, Sec. 6). Upon
 GABBY NOTES 2017
FINALS
the termination of a trial in absentia, the
court has the duty to rule upon the
evidence presented in court. The court
need not wait for the time until the
accused who escaped from custody
finally decides to appear in court to
present his evidence and cross-examine
the witnesses against him. To allow the
delay of proceedings for this purpose is
to render ineffective the constitutional
provision on trial in absentia (People v.
Mapalao)
Q: May an accused tried in absentia be
convicted in absentia likewise appeal
in absentia?
A: This is one the issue in the case of
People v. Mapalao, the Supreme court
ruled that the accused while at large,
cannot seek relief from the court as he is
deemed to have waived his right and
has no standing in court. Upon
promulgation of the judgment, he failed
to appear without justifiable cause
although his bondsmen and counsel
were given notice, he is therefore
waived his right to appeal.
Q: What is Habeas Corpus (“you have
the body”) Section 15, article 3?
A: An order requiring a person to be
brought before a judge or court,
especially for investigation of a restraint
CACAPIT/LIMBO/MODESTO/RAMOS
of the person's liberty, used as a
protection against illegal imprisonment.
Q: May the writ of habeas corpus be
suspended? The writ itself?
A: Only the privilege only.
Q: What is the difference on the
suspension of the privilege writ of
habeas corpus and writ of habeas
corpus?
A: Writ of Habeas Corpus- application
for habeas corpus is filed and the court
finds the petition in proper form, it will
issue the writ as a matter of course,
ordering the production of the person
allegedly detained and requiring the
respondent to justify the detention. A
high prerogative writ, a writ of inquiry-
seeks to determine the validity or
legality of the detention.
Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus-
where the return of the respondent
shows that the person in custody is
being held for a crime covered by the
proclamation suspending the privilege
and in a place where it is effective will
the court dismiss the petition. Is the
order for the release of the person.
Q: Only the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus may be suspended and
not the writ. Who may suspend the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus?
 GABBY NOTES 2017
FINALS
What are the valid grounds of the
suspension?
A: The president and the grounds are in
cases of invasion when public safety
requires it and in cases of rebellion
when public safety requires it.
Encompasses the meaning under the
revised penal code? Statutorily defined
offenses - Lagman case
Q: How about imminent threat of
rebellion or invasion? Is this a valid
ground of suspension?
A: Yes, in the case of Lansang v. Garcia
interpreting the 1935 Constitution.
Under 1987 Constitution, mere threat of
rebellion is not a valid ground.
Q: What are the two instances wherein
writ of habeas corpus can be issued or
available?
A: 1) In cases of illegal detention in
order to test the validity of detention.
Reckoning period: as of the filing for the
petition of the writ of habeas corpus at
the earliest time and if there are
supervening events that will supersede
the petition of the writ of habeas corpus
and bar his release from custody.
2) Speedy trial
CACAPIT/LIMBO/MODESTO/RAMOS
Q: How can you question the
suspension of the privilege of the writ
of habeas corpus? Lansang case
A: in an appropriate proceeding, sub
judice.
Q: When does it promulgate its
decision challenging such suspension?
A: 30 days after questioning
Q: Quantum of evidence?
A: probable cause.
Q: Does it consider the subsequent
events in determining the sufficiency
of factual basis for the suspension of
privilege of writ of habeas corpus and
proclamation of martial law?
A: Courts of justice can only limit its
factual gaze at the time of actual
proclamation
In contrast with power of Congress
power to revoke or extend, it may
consider any evidence before or after
such proclamation.
Q: Can the courts defer any action
challenging such petition until the
congress acted according to the
constitution? Should the court wait on
the action of congress to revoke or
extend before it assumes jurisdiction?
 GABBY NOTES 2017
FINALS
A: No remedies are separate and
independent.
Q: What are the constitutional
limitations in the suspension of the
privilege of the writ?
A: He may for a period not exceeding
sixty days suspend to privilege and only
the Congress can extend it. Upon the
suspension of the privilege his duty is to
submit a report within 48 hours from
the suspension in person or in writing.
Q: Prior to the 1987 Constitution,
whether the Supreme Court can review
the sufficiency of the factual
circumstances in the suspension. Can
the Supreme Court review?
A: In the case of Lansang v. Garcia, the
Supreme Court ruled that Art. 7 vest the
executive the power to suspend, but not
absolute, it goes hand in hand with the
system of checks and balances under
which the Executive is supreme as
regards to the suspension of the
privilege but only if and when he acts
within the sphere allotted to him by the
Basic law, authority to determine
whether he has so acted is vested in the
Judicial Department. Check only and
not to supplant.
Q: What are the offenses covered by
the suspension of the privilege?
CACAPIT/LIMBO/MODESTO/RAMOS
A: Rebellion or offenses inherent in or
directly connected with invasion.
Q: Under Sec. 15 art.3 constitution
provides that the privilege of writ
habeas corpus shall not be suspended
except in cases of invasion or rebellion
when the public safety requires it. The
use of term invasion and rebellion are
they taken within the context of
criminal law?
A: Yes new ruling in Lagman
Q: For how long a person may be
suspected to have committed an
offense of rebellion or offenses
inherent in or directly connected with
invasion be detained?
A: Person thus arrested or detained
shall be judicially charged within 3 days
of otherwise he shall be released.
Atty. Gabriel: Supposing A was
arrested for being a suspected rebel at
the time that he was arrested the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus
was suspended. On the 3rd day of his
arrest, police officers who arrested him
filed a criminal complaint before a
public prosecutor for preliminary
investigation, would that suffice to bar
the 3 day period in order to be said that
the detention of A is justified?
 GABBY NOTES 2017
FINALS
A: A must be judicially charged. Mere
filing criminal complaint before a public
prosecutor for preliminary investigation
is not sufficient to bar the running of the
3 day period. It can only be interrupted
by filing criminal information before the
court.
Q: Consequence in the petition for bail
of a person who filed a petition for
habeas corpus?
A: This is the issue in the case of
Jackson v. Macalino, wherein the
Supreme Court ruled that by offering of
the petitioner to post bail bond, the
petitioner thereby admitted that he was
under custody of CID and voluntarily
accepted the jurisdiction of CID.
Q: Can the court continue to hear the
petition of writ of habeas corpus after
the petitioner filed for bail?
A: If the accused applied for bail, it is an
expressed admission or recognition of
the validity of his detention and would
render the petition for habeas corpus
moot and academic.
Q: Sec.18 Art. 7 enumerate the powers
of the President. Supreme Court in the
Sanlakas case said that the
enumeration in Sec.18 Art.7 was
deliberately made from an order, to the
CACAPIT/LIMBO/MODESTO/RAMOS
most benign to the least benign. (Can
be used although not in succession)
A: 1)Calling out power
2)Suspension of the privilege of
the writ Habeas Corpus
3)Declaration of martial law Sec.
18 only enumerates the power
wherein the President may call
martial law or suspend the
privilege in invasion when public
safety requires it and in cases of
rebellion when public safety
requires it.
Can the President exercise or proclaim
martial law without the presence of
rebellion, invasion or lawless violence?
A: Even if there is no actual rebellion,
invasion or lawless violence the
President may exercise his calling out
power in order to avert or to stop it
from happening.
Q: What happens to the person who
post bail in suspension of the privilege
of habeas corpus? Can he still exercise
the right to bail? What is the purpose
for the suspension?
A: The purpose is to quash or stop
rebellion or invasion.
 GABBY NOTES 2017
FINALS
Atty. Gabriel: Let’s assume that the
penalty for rebellion is reclusion
temporal. Supposing after the President
suspended the privilege, all the
members of a group were arrested being
suspected rebels. Supposing there are
100 rebels can they post bail? As we said
earlier right to bail is a matter of right if
the penalty of the offense is lower than
reclusion perpetua regardless of the
weight of the evidence of guilt?
Remember, right to post bail shall not be
impaired in the suspension of the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.
A: This is the issue in the case of In re:
The issuance of the writ of habeas
corpus for Dr. Aurora Parong, et.al.
Ponce Enrile, wherein the Supreme
Court ruled that transcends in the
importance that if these person would
be given the right to bail, after they are
released, they may rejoin the rebels and
continue their furtherance of invasion or
rebellious activities. The constitutional
guarantee provided in Sec.13, does not
apply in offenses of rebellion or offenses
inherent or directly connected with
invasion. They cannot post bail as a
matter of right, regardless of the penalty
and the weight of evidence of guilt.
Q: We said earlier that the purpose of
the writ of habeas corpus is to test the
validity of the arrest and detention of
CACAPIT/LIMBO/MODESTO/RAMOS
the accused and ultimately retain the
liberty of the person. Aside from the
writ of habeas corpus there are other
high prerogative writ that produce the
same effect like writ of amparo. Five
types of writ of amparo as enumerated
in the case of Secretary of defense v.
Manalo
A: 1)amparo libertad for the
protection of personal freedom,
equivalent to the habeas corpus writ;
(2) amparo contra leyesfor the
judicial review of the constitutionality of
statutes;
(3) amparo casacion for the
judicial review of the
constitutionality and legality of a
judicial decision;
(4) amparo administrativo for the
judicial review of administrative
actions; and
(5) amparo agrario for the
protection of peasants’ rights derived
from the agrarian reform process
*Out of these amparo cases one is
equivalent to habeas corpus and it is
amparo libertad.
Q: Supposing that the privilege was
suspended by the President can it be
 GABBY NOTES 2017
FINALS
vailidly obtained through this writ of
amparo?
A: No. although the constitution
provides only for the suspension of the
writ of habeas corpus, all similar writs
are also suspended because if it is
allowed then the provision in the
constitution would be useless.
Q: Speedy disposition of cases covers
proceedings previous to trial or those
after trial?
A: speedy disposition applies to all
stages of the trial.
Q:Which means that there are two
rights operating during the trial stage,
the right to speedy trial and right to
speedy disposition of cases. Both of
which prohibits any unreasonable
delay. How can we identify which
operates?
A: Right to speedy trial applies to trial
proper and proceedings anterior to the
trial. Right to speedy disposition applies
to all stages of the criminal proceedings.
The latter covers criminal
administrative, civil, quasi judicial
proceedings while the former covers
only criminal proceedings. Prosecution
is not entitled in speedy trial while in
speedy disposition the prosecution and
the accused. If the trial is attended by
CACAPIT/LIMBO/MODESTO/RAMOS
vexatious, capricious and oppressive
delays caused by prosecution the
accused may claim the right to speedy
trial. If the right claimed is speedy
disposition of cases, the only objective is
to expedite the disposition the case.
Q: Supposing the trial is attended with
vexatious, capricious and oppressive
delays at the instance of the accused.
What right may be invoked by the
prosecution?
A: Sec. 16. Right to speedy trial and
speedy disposition operates during the
trial but the person invoking should be
different.
Q: What is right against self
incrimination?
A: No person shall be compelled to be a
witness against himself
Q: What is the common law basis of
this right?
A: nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare (no
man is bound to accuse himself) It is
considered as a revolt against as a
thumbscrew and a rock (inquisitorial
devices applied in order to extract a
confession in the defendant)
Q: According to the Supreme Court in
the case of Chavez v. Court of Appeals,
this constitutional guarantee is
 GABBY NOTES 2017
FINALS
founded upon the broad basis of
public policy and humanity. Why?
A: Public policy because the witness is
placed in the strongest temptation to
commit perjury and humanity because
to extract a confession of truth by a kind
of duress every species and degree of
which the law abhors.
Q: So this constitutional guarantee
according to Supreme Court in the case
of Chavez v. Court of Appeals is not
only intended to protect the guilty and
imprudent but the innocent and
foresighted. What does it mean?
A:
Q: Substance of this guarantee?
A: Stated in the case of US v. Tan Teng
citing Justice Holmes, the prohibition of
the use of physical or moral compulsion
to extort communications from him, not
an exclusion of his body as evidence,
when it may be material.
Q: Does that mean an accused may be
compelled under pain of contempt tom
produce evidence as long as it is not
testimonial in character without
violating the constitutional guarantee
on right against self incrimination?
Supposing the accused is charged with
homicide. The prosecution moved for
the production of the knife used by the
CACAPIT/LIMBO/MODESTO/RAMOS
accused to kill the victim. Can the
prosecution compel the accused to
produce as such?
A: No. It means that the constitutional
guarantee does not cover only
testimonial evidence but also object and
documentary evidence.
Q: What are the documentary evidence
that the accused must produce even
against his will? Supposing the person
is charged with tax evasion can he be
compelled to produce income tax
return?
A: Even if he will be incriminated he is
required to produce such documents.
This are reportorial documents which
are required for every tax payers
therefore this documents are needed to
be filed to government agencies are not
covered by constitutional guarantee of
right against self incrimination.
Q: Can the Court compel the accused to
write the fiscal’s dictation for the
purpose of comparison allowed?
A: No. Writing is something more than
moving the body, or the hands, or the
fingers; writing is not purely a
mechanical act, because it requires the
application of intelligence and attention.
In Beltran v. Samson, the Supreme
Court rule that privilege is not limited to
 GABBY NOTES 2017
FINALS

testimony, but extends to all giving or A: A witness can be compelled to testify

furnishing of evidence. The
constitutional inhibition is directed not
merely to giving of oral testimony but
embraces as well as the furnishing of
evidence by other means than by the
word of mouth, the divulging in short of
any fact which the accused has a right to
hold secret.
Q: In the case of Chavez v. Court of
Appeals prosecution believes that they
can call the accused as witness and the
court believes the prosecution. Did the
Supreme Court agree?
A: No. The Supreme Court ruled that
the court may not extract from a
defendant’s own lips and against his
will an admission of his guilt. Nor a
court as much as resort to compulsory
disclosure, directly or indirectly of facts
usable against him as confession of the
crime or the tendency of which is to
prove the commission of a crime.
Because it is his right to forego
testimony, to remain silent, unless he
chooses to take the witness stand with
undiluted, unfettered exercise of his free
genuine will.
Q: What is the extent of the
constitutional protection as to the
witness?
against his will and can invoke only
such right when an incriminating
question is asked.
Q: Is the right against self
incrimination available during
preliminary investigation before the
public prosecutor?
A: Yes. In Beltran v. Samson the
Supreme Court ruled that if the
prosecutor will be allowed to compel
the respondent to produce incriminating
evidence which later on be introduced
as evidence in trial proper itself, then
this constitutional guarantee will be a
meaningless protection. Q: How about
in administrative proceedings? Is this
constitutional guarantee available?
A: Yes. In the case of Pascual v. Board
of Medical Examiners , the Supreme
Court ruled this right does not apply to
all administrative proceedings and
similar proceedings. Applies to
Administrative and civil proceedings
but with qualification, constitutional
guarantee applies with administrative
and civil proceedings which are penal in
character or where there is an attached
penalty. *Constitutional guarantee does
not apply in all proceedings. Rule 25,
rules of court (Modes of discovery)

CACAPIT/LIMBO/MODESTO/RAMOS
 GABBY NOTES 2017
FINALS
Q: In cases where a constitutional issue
is involved it is always a balancing of
interest of the state and an individual.
Insofar as issues involving right
against self incrimination it is a
conflicting interest of the state to
penalize the violation of laws. It is the
interest of the accused to keep to
himself an information that may
incriminate him. Does that meaning
given this conflicting interest, there is
no way the state can compel a person to
incriminate himself?
A: No, by granting immunity of the
State to the person.
Q: What are the two kinds of immunity
statutes granted to a witness?
A: 1)Transactional immunity – a
witness can no longer be prosecuted for
any offense whatsoever arising out of
the act or transaction
2)Used and derivative use
immunity – A witness is only assured
that his or her particular testimony and
evidence derived from it will not be
used against him or her in a subsequent
prosecution
Q: Under Sec. 18 Art. 3 is a
constitutional guarantee is more
specific in political beliefs and
aspirations. Supposing a person
believes that all governments are evil
CACAPIT/LIMBO/MODESTO/RAMOS
because it restricts the full liberty an
individual. In order to attain his belief,
he is urging people to arms against
government. Can that person be
prosecuted to inciting rebellion?
A: If such belief would be allowed then
it would disturb the peace and would be
detrimental to the public and to the
State.
Q: What are two aspects of involuntary
servitude?
A: 1)Compulsion to perform or
work in consideration of debt against
his will
2)concept of slavery
A: Like in the case of Caunca v. Salazar
it is a case wherein a habeas corpus was
filed by a house helper who was being
detained and required to render
domestic services in payment for the
money advanced for her transportation
from the province. Is this allowed?
A: No. A person cannot be compelled to
work against his will in payment of a
debt.
Q: Under the constitution, this right is
not absolute. The exceptions are?
A: 1)punishment of a crime whereof
the party shall have been duly convicted
 GABBY NOTES 2017
FINALS
2)render service to defend the
state
3)Return to work order in
assumption jurisdiction cases
4)Naval enlistment
5)Posse comitatus – command to
help them find some criminals
6)Patria potestas
Q: What are the prohibited
punishments?
A: Excessive fines, cruel, degrading,
inhuman punishment
Q: Does the constitution prohibit
excessive punishment?
A: This is the issue in the case of People
v. Estoista, wherein the Supreme Court
ruled that the excessiveness of the
penalty shall not refer to the duration
but to the method or mechanism of
imposing the penalty. Not the term but
the method. Excessive penalty is not
prohibited.
Q: What is the obligation of the court
whenever the court feels that the
penalty imposed by law is excessive?
A: The Court can give the copy of the
decision be furnished to the President,
thru the Secretary of Justice, with the
CACAPIT/LIMBO/MODESTO/RAMOS
recommendation that the imprisonment
imposed be lowered.
Q: Is death penalty or death by lethal
injection a cruel punishment?
A: No. The Supreme Court ruled in the
case of Echagaray v. Secretary of Justice
is that the cruelty against which the
Constitution protects a convicted man is
cruelty inherent in the method of
punishment not necessary the suffering
involved in any method employed to
extinguish life humanely.
Q: Does the constitution prohibit
unusual punishment?
A: No. It may impose new punishment
as long as long it is not cruel, degrading,
inhuman.
Q: Does the 1987 constitution prohibit
death penalty?
A: Only a limitation on the imposition of
death penalty
Q: In the cases of People v. Valeriano
and People v. Mapalo, we have learned
that a person who without justifiable
reason fails to appear during trial may
 GABBY NOTES 2017
FINALS

be tried in absentia. What if the of financial violence and violation of

accused is convicted of a crime with a this law can make the person
penalty of death? Does it mean that he imprisoned. Is the law
waived his right to appeal? unconstitutional?

A: No it is not waivable. The Supreme A: No. In the case of Lozano v.

Court will have an automatic review of Martinez, the Supreme Court ruled that
the judgment. the debt intended to be covered by the
constitutional guarantee are liabilities
Atty. Gabriel : The role of the trial court
arising from ex contractu. Since this is
only acts as a commissioner and all
an obligation arising from law, the
judgment of trial court are merely
failure of the father to pay financial
recommendations. Which needs the
obligation may result in imprisonment.
approval of the Supreme court in order
to attain the character of finality.

Q: Why does the constitution protects a

faulting debtor by guaranteeing him
that he will not be subjected to
imprisonment? Q: In the case of Lozano v. Martinez
A: This provision is one of the social petitioner contends that B.P.22 is
unconstitutional because it imposes
justice provisions. The inability of the
the penalty of imprisonment of the
person to pay is due to his dismal
failure of the drawer to pay the face
contractual condition. In short the
value of the check. Did the Supreme
Constitution presumes good faith in
Court agree?
part of the debtor.
A: No. The Supreme Court ruled that it
Q: What does debt mean?
is not the non payment of an obligation
A: Civil obligation arising from contract, which the law punishes. The law is not
expressed or implied. intended or designed to coerce a debtor
to pay his debt. The thrust of the law is
Q: Under R.A. 9262, a man is under to
to prohibit, under pain of penal
support his wife and children. If he
sanctions, the making of worthless
fails to provide support to his family,
checks and putting them in circulation
the man can be convicted for violation
the law punishes the act not as an

CACAPIT/LIMBO/MODESTO/RAMOS
 GABBY NOTES 2017
FINALS
offense against property but an offense
against public order.
Q: Supposing A is the drawer and B is
the payee. A issued a check in payment
for services rendered by B. At the time
a issued the check, he already knows
that his checking account is closed and
when B will present the check for
encashment, A knows that it will
bounce or dishonored. B deposited the
check; the drawee bank dishonored the
check. Under BP22 the payee has the
obligation to notify the drawer that his
check bounce and the drawer is given 5
days to make good of the face value of
the check, otherwise he becomes
criminally liable. So in the example
given, supposing b notified A that his
check bounced, and A pays the check
within 5 days, is he criminally liable?
A: If A does not issue a check he may
not be criminally liable under an
obligation based on contract. Since he
issues the check, he is subjected to the
rules of bp 22, he has to make sure that
it is sufficiently funded on the date of
due otherwise he runs the risk of being
imprisoned.
Q: Under the law, the drawer has 5
days form notice of dishonor to pay the
check. Is the obligation of the drawer
to pay the face value of the check arises
CACAPIT/LIMBO/MODESTO/RAMOS
from same obligation which is the
contract?
A: It is already an obligation arising
from law which is BP 22. Supposing A
and B again, A is expecting a money
from a business partner and issued the
check expecting that it will be funded
when it becomes due. Unfortunately,
the money did not arrive. So when B
deposited the check, it was dishonored.
At the time A receives the notice of
dishonor; he exhausted all efforts to
make the face value of the check but
unfortunately failed to produce as such.
Is he criminally liable?
A: Yes. The obligation now is arising
from law, which is not protected by this
constitutional guarantee.
Q: What is a poll tax?
A: it is the specific sum levied upon any
person belonging to a certain class
without regard to property or
occupation.
Who are citizens of the Philippines?
❖ Those who are citizens of the
Philippines at the time of the
adoption of the 1987 constitution
❖ Those whose fathers or mothers
are citizens of the Philippines
❖ Those born before January 17,
1973, of Filipino mothers, who
 GABBY NOTES 2017
FINALS
elect Philippine citizenship upon
reaching the age of majority.
❖ Those who are naturalized in
accordance with law
The first group of Filipino citizens under
Art. 4 refers to those who have been
considered by competent authority as
citizens of the Philippines before the
adoption of the 1987 constitution. This is
a recognition of the doctrine of res
judicata under the 1987 constitution
because once a person has been declared
and considered as Filipino citizen before
the adoption of the 1987 constitution,
under the first group of Art. 4 sec 1 they
are considered as citizens of the
Philippines. So under the 1973, 1943,
1935 and even the organic laws before
the 1935 constitution they are
considered citizens of the Philippines.
There are three traditional modes of
acquiring citizenship. What are these?
❖ By birth
❖ Naturalization
❖ By marriage (derivative
naturalization)
Under sec. 15 of CA 473 the wife of the
naturalized Filipino or an alien woman
who is married to a Filipino citizen who
herself maybe lawfully naturalized is
considered as a Filipino citizen. Also
under CA 473 we have included another
CACAPIT/LIMBO/MODESTO/RAMOS
type of acquiring citizenship which is by
repatriation but this is available only to
specific individuals, to those filipino
citizens who have lost their Filipino
citizenship.
By birth
Principles of acquiring citizenship by
birth
❖ Jus soli – citizenship of the place
of burth will be conferred upon
the person born in that
jurisdiction
❖ Jus sanguinis – citizenship of the
parent is transmitted to the child
What principle was applied under the
1987 constitution?
Jus sanguinis.
Is that absolute or is there any exception
to that?
Yes. Foundlings. This is just establishes
a presumptive citizenship.
According to the case of Poe
llamansares vs comelec as well as David
vs. Senate electoral tribunal, under
international code particularly under
the international covenant on civil and
political rights and under the
international covenant on human rights,
children whose parents are known shall
be considered as citizen of the place
 GABBY NOTES 2017
FINALS
where they are born or found. But this is
just a presumptive conferment of
citizenship which means that
notwithstanding the fact that the
parents are unknown, may still be
considered as an alien if the child has
the features of alien. The only reason
why the SC recognized the citizenship
of Senator Poe is because of the
concurrence of several factors, one was
the fact that she was found in the
Philippines, and based on statistical
records, it is almost an absolute
certainty that a child born in the
Philippines at the time of the
presumptive birth of Senator Poe is of
Filipino parents 99.899999. The fact of
being a 1) foundling in the Philippines,
2) statistical data and more importantly
the 3) physical features which are
consistent with the features of Filipino
citizen. So in order to confer Filipino
citizenship whose parents are unknown
and who are presumptively born in the
Philippines the three conditions must
concur. But again this is an exception
rather than the general rule. The general
rule is citizenship by birth can only be
conferred under the 1987 constitution by
birth.
Under the previous constitutions have
we ever applied the Jus soli principle
in the Philippines?
CACAPIT/LIMBO/MODESTO/RAMOS
According to some legal scholars, April
11, 1899 and July 1902. April 11, 1899 is
the cutoff to be considered as a filipino
citizen. To be considered as a filipino
citizen the person must be a Spanish
subject as of that date.
What is the status of the child born
after April 11, 1899 until July 1902
which is the effectivity of the
Philippine bill 1902?
Jus soli was applicable. Any child born
from April 11, 1899 until July 1902
regardless of alien parentage is a
Filipino citizen.
How about under the 1935
constitution? Was the Jus soli principle
applied?
Yes. Under the second group of the 1935
constitution, children born in the
Philippines of alien parents who before
the adoption of the constitution has
been elected to public office. Which
means that this is a modified jus soli
principle because for a person to be
considered as citizen of the Philippines,
he must be born in the Philippines but
there is also a qualification he must have
been elected to public office before the
adoption of the 1935 constitution. which
means place of birth and the election to
public office determines the citizenship
of the Philippines.
 GABBY NOTES 2017
FINALS
How do we call this principle on
Second paragraph of section 4 of the
1935 constitution?
Caram principle
Why caram principle?
Because Caram is a delegate of the 1935
constitution representing Iloilo. He was
born in the Philippines. His parents are
Syrians who are subject to persecution
and in order to evade persecution they
migrated to the Philippines where Dr.
Caram, was born. During the 1935
constitutional convention, he ran and he
was elected.
Why do the constitutional convention
need to provide for specific provision in
order to accommodate one person?
Because it was intended to cure the
anomaly at that time. Because there
would be an anomaly where the
constitution which is the fundamental
law of the land was written by the
convention with the member who is not
a Filipino citizen.
Under the second group of Filipino
citizen for a child to become a Filipino
citizen, is it required that both parents
are Filipino citizens?
No because the provision use the word
“or” which means either of the parents
CACAPIT/LIMBO/MODESTO/RAMOS
can transmit their Filipino citizenship
without any qualification
We go to the third group, in the case of
Tecson vs Comlec the SC discuss the
evolution of children belonging to the
third group. What is the difference of
the treatment of this group of children
under the 1935, 1973 and 1987
constitution? (Filipino mother + Alien
father)
1935: Children born of Filipino mother
of legitimate issue are considered as not
Filipino citizen. A child must elect
Filipino citizenship upon reaching the
age of majority (21)
1973: Children born of Filipino mother
regardless of filiation legitimate or
illegitimate will automatically become a
filipino citizen at birth
1987: The 1987 treats the child the same
as 1973 but it does not only confer
Filipino citizenship over a child of
filipino mother but it also bent
backward by making those who elect
Filipino citizenship during the 1935
constitution as natural-born Filipino
citizen. In order to equalize the playing
field.
Supposing the child was born on
January 16, 1973 his mother is filipino
citizen, the father is Chinese citizen.
 GABBY NOTES 2017
FINALS
What is the status of the child during
his minority? This is before the 1973
constitution.
Not Filipino citizen. He can only
become Filipino citizen when he elects
Filipino citizenship at the time he reach
the age of majority.
Are all children born before January
17, 1973 of Filipino mothers alien
fathers require to elect filipino
citizenship upon reaching the age of
majority in order to become Filipino
citizens?
No under Republic vs Lim, children
born of Filipino mothers, Alien Fathers
during the 1935 constitution who are
illegitimate, are Filipino Citizens at birth
hence they do not need to elect Filipino
citizenship. Which means that only
legitimate children of Filipino mothers,
Alien Fathers during the 1935
constitution need to elect Filipino
citizenship to become Filipino.
What is wisdom behind this principle?
Because the illegitimate child is under
the exclusive parental authority of the
mother and the presumption is it is the
mother who will provide for the
support of the child. They are Filipino
citizens from birth.
CACAPIT/LIMBO/MODESTO/RAMOS
Supposing the child was born of Filipino
Father, the mother was American. The
child was born during the 1935
constitution and the child was
illegitimate. Under that example, the
child is American because the mother is
an American and the child is
illegitimate. FPJ is an American?
FPJ is a Filipino citizen we cannot apply
the principle in Republic vs Lim because
under the 1935 constitution there is no
qualification as to children born of
Filipino mother the constitution only
say of “Filipino mother” nothing more.
The constitution always presumes that
the term Filipino mother, the
presumption is of legitimate issue. In
the case of FPJ the SC said there is no
qualification legitimate or illegitimate.
This only shows how are constitutions is
so accommodating.
Is there a procedure in electing Filipino
citizenship?
CA 625 which provides three conditions
for a valid election of Filipino
citizenship
❖ Made in writing and Sworn
before the officer authorized to
administer oaths
❖ Register in the nearest civil
registry
 GABBY NOTES 2017
FINALS
❖ Oath of allegiance to support and
defend the laws of the
Philippines
Is there any other way of electing
Philippine citizenship?
In the case of Ong vs HRET there is
informal election of citizenship such as
what Ong did the performance of
deliberate activities which indicate
election of filipino citizenship which is
no less binding than that of the formal
requirements hence no need to comply
with CA 625.
But in the case of In re: Ching the facts
are almost the same as that of Ong vs
HRET, he performed deliberate
activities such as passing the bar, run
for office and wa in fact elected.
However the SC said that Respondent
Ching is not a filipino citizens because
he belatedly file his affidavit. Can we
not say that Petitioner ching should be
considered also as filipino citizen as
that of Ong? Why the difference?
Because the father of respondent Ong
was naturalized while Ong was still 9
years old and under sec 15 of CA 473
respondent Ong who was residing at
the Philippines at the time of the
naturalization of the father, Ong is
considered as Filipino citizenship by
derivative naturalization. Hence there
CACAPIT/LIMBO/MODESTO/RAMOS
is no need to comply with formal
election.
Formal election is required to those who
are not yet citizen of the Philippines,
petitioner Ching was never a Filipino
citizenship.
Respondent Ong was only exempted to
comply with the formal requirements
but there is still a need to elect
although informally. Why? Why did
the SC still need to determine whether
respondent Ong has informally elected
Filipino citizenship when he was
already a Filipino citizen when he was
still a minor?
If respondent Ong did not informally
elect Filipino citizenship, the status of
the child is only naturalized citizen, the
informal election of the respondent Ong
was needed in order to convert his
status as a natural born citizen. Because
under par. 3 sec. 1 of Art. 4 those who
elect Philippine citizenship are natural
born citizens.
When should the election be made
during the 1935 constitution? when the
mother is Filipino and the father is
alien?
Within reasonable time upon reaching
the age of 21.
 GABBY NOTES 2017
FINALS
How did the SC interpret reasonable
time? Is 7 years in the case of Cuenco vs
Sec of justice reasonable?
No it is unreasonable more so in the
case of Ching 14 years.
Supposing the child was born of
filipino mother Chinese father under
the 1935 constitution and upon
reaching the age of 21 the person
declared that he is electing filipino
citizenship, he subscribed oath of
allegiance but he only registered the
documents 30 years after attaining the
age 21, is that still a valid election?
Because if 7 and 14 years is not
reasonable, more so 30 years?
In Cabiling vs Fernandez the petitioner
was allowed to complete the process
eventhough the third condition, the
registration of the affidavit, was not
complied with. Registration is not the
operative fact for the election and
because in the meantime, the petitioner
performed activities which are
constitutive of notice that they are
electing Filipino citizenship.
We go to Sec. 3 of Art. 4 what are the
modes of acquiring Philippine
citizenship other than birth?
• Naturalization
• Direct act of congress
CACAPIT/LIMBO/MODESTO/RAMOS
Who may be naturalized Filipino
citizens under CA 473?
• Resided in the Ph for a period of
not less than 10 years
- Supposing A is a Chinese
citizen who has been residing
in the Philippines for 9 years
and 15 days. On his 9th year
and 16th day, he went to
china. When he return to the
Ph can he complete the
remaining 15 days in order to
be qualified to apply for
naturalization? Residence
should be interpreted to mean
domicile which means a
person must have domicile in
the Ph. Hence, he may still
continue the9th yr and 16th
day when he returned here in
the Philippines.
A. The period of not less than
10 years can be shorten to 5
years when a person has have
established a new industry or
must introduce an invention
in the Philippines
B. Must be honorably held
office
C. Having been born in the
Philippines
D. Supposing the wife is a
citizen of the Philippines
 GABBY NOTES 2017
FINALS
E. When he is a teacher atleast
3 years
❖ Own real estate in the Philippines
worth not less than 5,000 pesos or
must have some known lucrative
trade, profession or lawful
occupation
❖ Not less than 21 years of age on
the date of the hearing of the
petition
❖ Good moral character; believes in
the principles underlying the
constitution
❖ Enrolled his minor children of
school age in any of the public or
private schools recognized by the
government
❖ Speak and write English or
Spanish and any principal
languages
Disqualifications
❖ Those opposed to organized
government or affiliated with
any associations or group of
persons who uphold and
teach doctrines opposing all
organized governments
❖ Defending or teaching the
necessity or propriety of
violence, personal assault or
assassination for the success
or predominance of their
ideas
❖ Polygamist or believers of
polygamy
CACAPIT/LIMBO/MODESTO/RAMOS
❖ Convicted of a crime
involving moral turpitude
❖ Suffering from mental
alienation or incurable
contagious disease
❖ Who during the period of
their residence in the
Philippines have not mingled
socially with the Filipinos or
who have not evinced a
sincere desire to learn and
embrace the customs,
traditions and ideals of the
Filipinos
❖ Citizens or subjects of nation
of whom the Philippines is at
was during the period of
such war
❖ Citizens or subjects of a
foreign country whose laws
do not grant Filipinos the
right to become naturalized
citizens or subject thereof
It is not required that the citizen does
not possess all the qualifications so long
as he does not labor in any of the
disqualification
Before the filing of the petition is there
a process mandated to allow the filing
of petition?
1 year before the filing of the actual
petition the petitioner must file a
declaration or manifestation of his
 GABBY NOTES 2017
FINALS
intention to become a Filipino citizen
before the OSG
Did the SC agree in People vs Dela
Rosa that the requirements under CA
473 are just procedural matters and
therefore can be relaxed?
No because this requirements are
jurisdictional which divest the court of
any jurisdiction in the absence of
compliance with the requirements
including the required allegations
provided for by law
When does the decision granting the
decree of naturalization final?
The date of finality is after 30 days from
receipt of the OSG granting the decree.
The 2 year period refers to executory
manner of the order of naturalization. It
is counted from the time the decision
became final.
Why does the law required 2 years
before the decree of naturalization may
be executed?
❖ The court must satisfy that the
petitioner did not leave the
Philippines
❖ Dedicated himself continuously
to a noble profession or calling
CACAPIT/LIMBO/MODESTO/RAMOS
❖ Not been convicted of any
offense or violation of rules
❖ Not committed an act prejudicial
to the interest of the nation or
contrary to government-
announced policies
Born in the Philippines and have
received their primary and secondary
education in public
What is the condition for the wife and
the minor children of the naturalized
citizen may also be deemed a Filipino
citizen without performing any act?
This is the issue in the case of Moy Ya
Lim Yao
The phrase who might herself be
lawfully naturalized does not require
that the wife to possess all the
qualification the only important
condition is that the wife does not suffer
any of the disqualification.
What is the rule on the minor children
born in the Philippines at the time of
the naturalization of the father?
They shall be deemed citizens of the
Philippines
Minor children born outside the
Philippines, residing outside the
Philippines?
 GABBY NOTES 2017
FINALS
Citizen of the Philippines provided they
start residing in the Philippines during
their minority
Supposing during the minority they
started to reside in the Philippines?
Citizens of the Philippines
Minor children born after the
naturalization of the father who is
residing outside the Philippines
Filipino citizen provided upon reaching
the age of majority he must register in
the consulate office where he is residing
otherwise he will lose his status as
Filipino citizen.
What are the modes of losing Filipino
citizenship?
❖ By naturalization in the foreign
country
❖ By accepting commission in or
rendering services to the armed
forces of the foreign state
provided that there is consent by
the Philippines
❖ By express renunciation of
citizenship
❖ Subscribing to an oath of
allegiance
❖ By cancellation of the certificate
of naturalization
❖ By having declared by competent
authority a deserter of the
CACAPIT/LIMBO/MODESTO/RAMOS
Philippine armed forces in time
of war
What is the effect of RA 9225 to the
mode of losing citizenship? Did it
repealed CA 63?
It did not. It only modified CA 63 to the
extent that only naturalized Filipino
citizen may lose its Filipino citizenship
upon naturalization to the foreign
country. Because natural born citizens
will not lose their Filipino citizenship by
subsequent naturalization in the foreign
country as long as they comply with the
requirement of RA 9225.
What is the condition under RA 9225
for a natural born citizen who is
naturalized in a foreign country may
be acquired or retain his Filipino
citizenship?
By taking the oath of allegiance and
have that oath of allegiance registered in
the civil registry or consulate office of
the Philippines where he is residing.
Don’t be confused with RA 8725 which
was applied in the Frivaldo case. This is
another repatriation law
There are two operative acts under RA
9225. Retention and Reacquisition.
When does it apply?
 GABBY NOTES 2017
FINALS

Retention, Filipino citizenship never What is the character of repatriation

lost their citizenship. Which means it
will be applied to those who are
naturalized in the foreign country after
the effectivity of RA 9225
Reacquisition, applies to those who
were naturalized in the foreign country
before the effectivity of RA 9225.
Because before the effectivity of RA
9225, a natural born citizen who is
naturalized in the foreign country will
automatically lose his Filipino
citizenship. In order to reacquire it they
have to subscribe to oath and register it
and then they have considered to have
reacquired it.
Supposing A is a natural born citizen,
in January 2010 he was naturalized in
the US and in January 2016 he
subscribed to oath of allegiance to
support and defend the Philippines
and he had it registered. What is the
status of A from January 2010, to
December 2015 before he subscribed to
the oath of allegiance? Supposing in
January 2013 A purchase a real
property in the Philippines, is that a
valid purchase?
The oath of allegiance that he subscribed
will retroact from the time that he was
naturalized in the US as if he never lost
it.
laws according to the case of Altajeros
vs Comelec?
Remedial in character. Retroactive in
application
In the case of Frivaldo the SC said once
citizenship was lost it cannot easily be
acquired. The person must show that he
has complied with any of the modes of
reacquiring Filipino citizenship. Either
by repatriation under CA 63, by
naturalization/ direct act of congress, or
by repatriation. The automatic exercise
of activities reserved for the Filipino
citizens does not automatically revert or
result in the reacquisition of Filipino
citizenship.
In Labo vs Comelec, the SC said the
subsequent declaration of nullity of his
marriage does not automatically revert
him back to his Filipino citizenship.
Once it was lost even if the basis for
losing it was considered as null and
void, by the adopting state, that does
not concern the Philippines. He has to
reacquire Filipino citizenship either by
naturalization, direct act of congress of
repatriation.
The application of res judicata does not
apply to naturalization cases.
Citizenship of the Filipinos is always
open to attack. Res judicata in

CACAPIT/LIMBO/MODESTO/RAMOS
 GABBY NOTES 2017
FINALS
citizenship may only be applied when
the latter is the 1) lis morta of the
controversy,2) when the case is with the
active participation of the OSG or when
3) the citizenship was approved by the
SC.
In Yu vs Defensor Santiago, the
petitioner was naturalized in the
philippines after which he used his
portugese passport. So what is the effect
of the use of it to his naturalized Filipino
citizen status? While renunciation is a
mode for losing citizenship must be
categorical and express, the acts of the
petitioner, taken together constitute a
renunciation of Filipino citizenship.
Does that mean use of foreign passport
constitute loss of Filipino citizenship? In
the case of Maquiling this was the issue.
The SC said that does not affect his
Filipino citizenship, the use of US
passport is only deemed a withdrawal
of his affidavit of renunciation of his
American citizenship. The use of US
passport only means he regains his
american citizenship in the eyes of the
ph law. So at that time he again resume
as a dual citizen. But it did not result to
loss of Filipino citizenship.
What is the effect of the repatriation?
This was ruled in the case of Tecson vs
HRET?
CACAPIT/LIMBO/MODESTO/RAMOS
It reverts back to the status of the
Filipino citizen.
Supposing a law disqualifies dual
citizen. Is that law constitutional? This
was the issue in Manzano vs Mercado
The SC said dual citizen under the Local
government code means dual
allegiance.
The SC said dual citizenship is possible
in two scenarios
1. When a child is born to a Filipino
parent in a country which applies
Jus Soli
2. When a Filipino woman is
married to an alien whose laws
made the Filipino woman only a
citizen of the husband state
3. When a child is born to a Filipino
mother alien father whose laws
make the child also a Filipino
citizen.
In an electoral protest A challenges B
and present B’s American passport to
prove B is not a Filipino citizen. This the
case of Aznar vs Comelec. SC said that
proof that respondent Osmena is an
American citizen does not mean that he
is not a Filipino citizen. Particularly
because he is born of Filipino parents.
The final act for naturalization is the
taking of the oath of allegiance. Under
 GABBY NOTES 2017
FINALS
RA 9225 a natural born citizen who is
naturalized in a foreign state may retain
or reacquire his Philippine citizenship
provided he take his oath of allegiance
to the Philippines. Remember when a
Filipino became naturalized in America
he take his oath of allegiance. When he
reacquire his Filipino citizenship under
RA 9225 he also take an oath of
allegiance in the Philippines. Dual
Allegiance? 9225 unconstitutional?
It is not unconstitutional. In the eyes of
the ph law, the most recent oath of
allegiance is the only recognized
allegiance that is why a natural born
citizen who is naturalized in the foreign
state is required to take an oath of
allegiance for his Filipino citizenship
because otherwise the only allegiance
that the philippines will recognize is the
foreign allegiance.
Separation of Powers
What is separation of powers
In Angara vs Electoral commission
under this principle each department
has exclusive cognizance of matter
within its own jurisdiction.
Is there any specific constitutional
provision that requires the adoption of
this fundamental principle? The SC said
in Angara vs Electoral tribunal that: the
CACAPIT/LIMBO/MODESTO/RAMOS
separation of power does not obtain
from constitutional provision but it
flows from the specific distribution of
powers. Once the powers of the
constitution are distributed, the
corollary effect is separation.
Judicial supremacy is not an arrogation
of the supremacy of the SC but the
supremacy of the constitution. The
constitution however cannot assume
jurisdiction at all time. There must be a
justiciable controversy.
In the case of Casibang vs Aquino,
during the pendency of the electoral
protest, the 1973 constitution became
effective. Under the 1973 constitution all
incumbent public officer shall remain in
office so theory of the respondent is that
since the constitution says that all shall
remain in office and he is the incumbent
of an office, the electoral protest now
becomes a political question. SC said no,
what was affected was the term to hold
office and not the right to hold office. In
order that a public officer may be
entitled to that indefinite term of office
he must first show that he has a right to
hold that office.
In the case of Tanada vs Cuenco, Daza
vs Singson what was in issue in this
cases is the discretion of the congress in
appointing members to the electoral
 GABBY NOTES 2017
FINALS
tribunal and the commission on
appointments. Is this purely political
question? Not all because in the case of
Pimentel the SC said that the power to
choose and elect members of the
commission on appointments or the
electoral commission representing the
house rest on the house itself not on the
political party. The political parties can
only nominate members of the electoral
tribunal or commission on
appointments and the appointing
authority still rest in the house. Is that a
purely political question? No. if the
controversy involves the legality of the
act, that remains to be a justiciable
controversy.
What is the effect of the expanded
jurisdiction of the SC to the political
question concept? Did it do away with
the doctrine of political question?
Because under the expanded
jurisdiction of the SC the courts also
have the jurisdiction to determine
whether there is grave abuse of
discretion. No it did not totally abrogate
the concept of political question because
in exercising its expanded judicial
power, the SC will not determine
whether the other 2 agencies have
discretion, the courts will determined
whether they have abused their
CACAPIT/LIMBO/MODESTO/RAMOS
discretion which must be so gross and
so patent.
There are two instances when
Separation of powers is violated said the
SC in the case of Ochoa
1. When one department unduly
interferes with the exercise of the
powers belonging to the other
department
2. When one department assumes
the power belonging to another
department
Delegation of Powers
The constitution allows delegation of
executive, legislative and judicial power
Delegation to administrative agencies
What may be delegated is how the law
should be applied. The rule making
power of the administrative agencies are
considered as subordinate legislation.
Two test for valid delegation of
legislative power according to the case
of Eastern Shipping
❖ Completeness test the law must
be complete in all its terms and
conditions when it leaves the
congress so that when it reaches
the delegate, the delegate has
nothing to do but to implement
 GABBY NOTES 2017
FINALS
it. (Us. Vs Ang Tang Ho, Pelaez
vs Auditor General)
❖ Sufficient standard test the law
delegating the legislative
authority to administrative
agency must provide for
limitations and guidelines to
prevent the delegation from
running riot or to contain it from
the banks to prevent it from
overflowing. (Ynot vs IAC)
SC said in Pelaez vs Auditor that the
delegation must comply with both.
What are policies and standards that
may be considered as sufficient
according to the SC in the case of
Eastern Shipping?
There are several. Public interest, public
convenience and public welfare,
national security, simplicity, efficiency,
economy.
Can we nowvsay that in some future
laws, when this are the same standards,
can we say that the future law has
complied with the sufficient standard
test?
The SC said in Eastern Shipping, no.
The sufficiency of the standard can only
be determined within the factual
circumstances of the law. We cannot
apply the principle of stare decisis.
CACAPIT/LIMBO/MODESTO/RAMOS
These are only applicable to delegation
to administrative agencies. They do not
apply to other delegation of legislative
power. So if the delegation is emergency
power, we do not apply the tests, we
apply Sec. 23. If the delegation is tariff
power, we apply sec. 28. If what is
delegated is initiative and referendum,
we apply Sec. 32. For local governments
apply Art. 10.
Tariff powers
There must be a law passed by the
congress delegating the authority.
The congress authorizes the president to
increase the VAT from 10-12% upon the
determination of the president of the
existences of several factual
circumstances. In the case of ABAKADA
guro vs Ermita the petitioner contends
what the law allows to delegate is the
tariff powers, VAT is not a Trariff power
it is a revenue tax. Is that an
impermissible delegation? There are
two kinds of rulemaking power that
may be exercised by the delegate.
1. Supplementary rules- those that
fill in the gaps and those which
provides for implementing detail
2. Contingent regulation- the
determination or power to
determine the existence of
 GABBY NOTES 2017
FINALS
emergency in accordance with
which the law may be applied
In the case of ABAKADA guro what
was delegated to the president is not the
power to fix the tax but the power to
determine whether the standards
enumerated are existing in order that
the tax may be increased from 10-12%.
This is the contingent power.
Atty. Gabriel: we have not yet discussed
Garcia vs. executive secretary, anyway
the only issue in this case is they stand
the powers of the president under the
tariffs and customs code. So remember
that we said earlier that for the tariff
code to be validly delegated to the
president, there must be a law
delegating that authority and uh, there
is currently a law that allows the
President to fix tariff rates, and this is
the customs and tariffs code. But the
problem in this case was that the
petitioner contends that the authority of
the president to exercise tariff powers is
only limited to protect local industries,
so the petitioner contends that the
president cannot exercise tariff powers
for other reason aside from protecting
local industry. So remember in this case
what the president did was to increase
the tariff rates for petroleum products,
so definitely the increase of tariff rate, or
petroleum products would affect local
CACAPIT/LIMBO/MODESTO/RAMOS
industries. So according to the petitioner
that is not a valid exercise of the
delegated tariff powers because it did
not inure to the benefit of the local
industries. So the SC said, that tariff is
essentially a tax, tariff is a tax on
imported products. So since tariff is
essentially a tax, the purpose of a tax is
not only limited to regulation. Mainly,
taxes like tariff are imposed in order to
raised revenue. So which means, that
the president can also exercise the
delegated tariff powers in order to raise
revenue, not only to protect local
industries. And the SC noted, that uh
there are 2 formal agencies of the
government whose main task is to
perform or raise revenue, these are
BOC, which exercise tariff powers and
mainly the BIR which implements
revenue taxes. So since the BOC is under
the executive department and exercises
delegated tariff as well or not tariff
powers but implements rather, the
tariffs enacted by the Congress, the
president can also exercise this
delegated power to raise revenue.
So we go to emergency powers, under
sec 23 of art 6, the constitution
authorizes the congress to delegate
emergency powers. And there are only 2
grounds for valid delegation of
emergency powers. The 2 grounds are:
 GABBY NOTES 2017
FINALS
in times of war, 2nd in times of national
emergency. So again the congress
cannot delegate emergency powers to
the president for any other reason
except for existence of war and in
instance of national emergency. Under
the 1st par. Of sec 23 the constitution
provides for the requirement in order
that the Congress can delegate
emergency powers to the president in
times of war, one is that a congress must
declare the existence of a state of war,
and what is the voting requirement for
the congress to declare for the existence
of a state of war, 2/3 of the members of
both houses in joint session assembled
voting separately. Supposing threre is
indeed a war but the congress failed to
mustered the required 2/3 vote, can the
congress still delegate emergency
powers because of war, although it
failed to declare, the existence of the
state of war, answer is: YES, because
war is also a national emergency. So
again, in the case of Rodriguez ve gella,
the SC said may include manmade and
natural disaster. So it may include
rebellion. With more reason that it
includes war. So even if the congress
failed to declare a state of war because
of the deficiency in number, he can still
use war as a basis for declaration or
delegation of the national emergceny,
and the congress will treat war as a
CACAPIT/LIMBO/MODESTO/RAMOS
national emergceny. So what are the
limitations for the valid delegations of
emergceny powers: there must be a law
authorizing the president to exercise the
emergceny power, 2nd the delegation
must be for a limited period. The
delegation must provide limitations for
the exercise of these powers and the
power must be only to carry out powers
necessary to declared national policy. So
these are the conditions, these are the
requirements for a valid exercise of
emergency powers to the president.
Under the 1935 constitution, the
delegation of emergency powers of the
president is not as specific as the 1987
constitution, but notwithstanding this
specific limitation, on the delegation of
emergceny powers under the 1935
constitution as early as in the case of
araneta vs dinglasan, Rodriguez vs
gella, the SC has already ruled that
delegation of emergency powers to the
president is only for a limited period. SC
likewise ruled that delegation of
emerfceny powers to the president even
under the 1935 constitution, is a self
limiting power, is like the tape in
mission impossible that ethan hope
always receives this and it self destructs
in a specific time. So that’s the same
principle or concept of the delegation of
emergency powers. Upon the
happening of an event, the delegated
 GABBY NOTES 2017
FINALS
emergency power is automatically
deemed extinguished. Under the 1935
constitution, the SC said in araneta vs
dinglasan, it looks to the extent of the
emergency powers under CA 671 or
emergency powers act, so remember
that CA 671 was passed by the congress
upon the request of president quezon
and the reason why president quezon
requested emergency powers was
because manila was already attacked by
the Japanese and there was already an
anticipated inability on the part of the
congress to meet in regular session in
January 1942, so that’s the reason why
the congress paseed CA 671 authorizing
the president to exercise the emergency
powers during the existence of war. The
question is, up to what time can the
president exercises emergency powers.
So remember that president quezon and
the successors still continued to
discharge emergceny powers. 1st the
president who exercise emergency
powers after quezon said that it was
withdrawn by the congress by the
enactment of law, the emergency
powers shall subsist. The previous
president likewise contends that,
assuming for the sake of argument that
during the regular session of congress, it
can now discharge legislative power,
once the congress recesses or holds
recess mandatory adjournment, the
CACAPIT/LIMBO/MODESTO/RAMOS
president can now continue the
emergency power, so the position of the
respondent was while the congress was
still in session the emergency powers
suspended, when the congress adjourns,
reactivated. The SC said, NO. it
specified the event that extinguishes the
delegated emergency power. SC said,
once the congress deems in regular
session, the delegated emergency
powers are automatically extinguished.
So this is the event that dissolves the
emergceny powers, note that this is
under the 1935 constitution. The SC
explained why regular why not special
session because before the congress met
in regular session on may 25, 1956, there
were already previous special sessions.
So the SC said regular session should
mark the end of the delegated
emergency powers because in special
session, the congress is not fully
discharging its legislative power. It is
only addressing the specific subject
matter referred to it by the President. So
when the congress meets in regular
session, it is already in its full discharge
of legislative power, therefore the
delegated emergency powers
automatically cease. Now we stand
behind this is the SC, as said araneta, to
avoid a situation that there are 2
functioning legislative bodies. One the
congress the other contradicting each
 GABBY NOTES 2017
FINALS
other, So the SC said this is not far fetch
because in several occasions in araneta,
the SC noted that the president vetoed a
bill passed by the congress and while
the congress is in adjournment, the
president issues an EO of the same
subject matter which is different from
the bill of the congress. So the SC said,
in order to avoid a situation where we
have 2 existing legislative bodies, once
the congress resumes its regular session,
the delegated emergency powers are
deemed withrdrawn. So this is an
implication, again we are discussing
araneta under the 1935 constitution. The
ruling here impliedly limits the
authority of the congress the delegated
emergency powers if the congress
cannot meet in regular session, necause
that is the wisdom. The SC said that
when the congress is in its full discharge
of its legislative power, automatically
the delegated emergency powers are
deemed withdrawn. Which means that
when the congress are in regular
session, the implication of that ruling is
that the congress cannot delegate
emergency powers because the congress
are in its full exercise of its legislative
power, that is the implication, and that
is under the 1935 constitution. So can we
still apply the principle in araneta vs
dinglasan that once the congress meets
in regular session, the delegated
CACAPIT/LIMBO/MODESTO/RAMOS
emergency powers are deemed
withdrawn under the 1987 constitution?
Answer: NO. Because now the
constitution specifically identifies the
event which will terminate
automatically the delegation of
emergency powers. The constitution
says in the last par. Of 2nd par of section
23, unless sooner withdrawn by
resolution of the Congress, such powers
shall cease upon the next adjournment
thereof. Which means that it is not the
convening of the regular session that
extinguishes the delegated powers but
the adjournment. Which implies that
even the congress is in regular session, it
can delegate emergency powers. Only
that, once it adjourns, that delegated
powers is deemed automatically
withdrawn. That is now under the 1987
constitution. Can we say that delegation
of powers is co-extensive with the
existence of war which is the basis of the
delegation of powers or national
emergency, so can we say that
delegation in so far as the period in
exercise of the emergency power is co-
extensive with the existence of war or
national emergency? Answer? So can
we say that the president may exercise
the delegated emergency powers as long
as there is war? As long as there is
national emergency? So inversely, can
we say that once there is no more war
 GABBY NOTES 2017
FINALS
there is no more delegated emergency
power? Supposing the war subsist for 10
yrs, does that mean that the president
can exercise delegated emergency
powers for the period of 10 yrs and on
the other hand, supposing the
delegation was for specific period, say
for example, 6 months, but on the 3rd
month, the president was already able
to address the national emergency,
which is the purpose of the delegation.
Does that mean that the president can
no longer exercise the remaining period
of that delegation? Answer? So is the
exercise of delegated powers co-
extensive with the national emergency
or war? Answer: NO. War or national
emergency does not create delegated
emergency power. The immolator is the
war even if there is national emergency,
the congress may opt not to delegate
emergency powers. The congress may
opt to directly discharge legislative
powers including emergency powers.
Which means that once the congress
delegate emergency powers, that
delegation is limited, is not co-extensive
with the national emergency or war
because if the congress delegate
emergency powers even if there is still
war, once the congress adjourns, that
delegated emergency powers are
deemed withdrawn. Even if the national
emergency on the other hand if the
CACAPIT/LIMBO/MODESTO/RAMOS
specific delegation is for a specific
period, like in the example given, 6
months but on the 3rd month there is no
more national emergency, the president
can still exercise the remaining period.
One good example, although this is also
an emergency power but not flowing
under section 23 but under section 18 of
art 7 is the martial law power of the
president. Remember that the congress
extends the power of the president to
exercise his military powers in
Mindanao until dec 31, 2017 there is no
more insurgency, can the president still
exercise his martial law power in
marawi? YES he can. Even if there is no
more insurgency, because the delegation
is for specific period the president can
exercise that delegated power even if
there is no more contingency. SAME
PRINCIPLE in emergency powers, even
if there is no more national emergency
as long as the delegation is specific, the
delegation says 6 months, then the
President can exercise it for 6 months.
Unless the congress withdraws it before
the 6month. So there are 2 modes of
extinguishing the delegation emergency
powers, by express resolution of
congress OR upon the next adjournment
of congress. So under the 1987
constitution, can the congress delegate
emergency powers for more than 1 yr?
can the congress delegate emergency
 GABBY NOTES 2017
FINALS
powers to the president for a period
longer that 1 yr? answer: NO. Because
under sec. 15 of article 6, the congress is
mandated by the constitution to adjourn
on a year to year basis; it is required to
adjourn 30 days before the opening of
its regular session. Which means that
even if the delegation is for a period of 2
years, once the congress adjourns for a
period on a year to year basis, that
delegation is deemed withdrawn
automatically. Which means, less than 1
yr. so, is it required that there must be a
law in order to expressly withdraw the
delegated emergency powers? NO. law
is not required. Even in the 1935
constitution even if there is no specific
constitutional provision, the SC is in the
position that mere resolution of
congress is enough to withdraw the
delegated emergency power. Because
the SC in araneta vs dinglasan, as well
as in Rodriguez vs gella, distinguished
delegation from abdication. SC said
congress can only delegate, congress
cannot abdicate legislative powers.
What is the distinction bet. Delegation
and abdication? SC said that there is
only a thin line between delegation and
abdication, both allows the conferment
of authority to another person. But what
distinguishes, SC said in araneta citing
corwill that there can only be delegation
if a power can be conferred to another
CACAPIT/LIMBO/MODESTO/RAMOS
public officer, and that power can be
recovered without the consent of the
delegate. Which means that if it cannot
be withdrawn, without the consent of
the delegate, it amounts to an
abdication. The SC also compared
deleagation of emergency powers under
the constitution to the president to the
civil law concept of agency. How these 2
arrangement similar, the SC said that in
creating an agency, the agent is not
compelled to accept the authority.
Which means that in order to create an
agency, the agent must consent.
Similarly, delegation of emergency
powers to the president is like the
agency, the president cannot be
compelled to accept because the
delegation needs the approval of the
president because it can only be made
by the enactment of a law. If the
president approves that law, then that is
an acceptance of the delegation.
Similarly, in a civil law concept of
agency, the principal is not required to
remain in the agency perpetually. The
principal at anytime can dissolve the
agency, even without the consent of the
agent. Similarly, in the delegation of
emergency of powers while the congress
needs the president to create the agency,
the congress does not need the president
to dissolve it. So that is the similarity
between agency and emergency powers
 GABBY NOTES 2017
FINALS

to the president. National emergency power), anything which is inherently

means that the magnitude of the
emergency is such that it will affect the
country as a whole. And grant of
emergency powers can be localized. An
emergency power to the president is a
justiciable question.
legislative, anything which is
necessarily implied the grant of
legislative power to the president, may
be exercised by the congress even if
there is no express constitutional
provision confirming this power.

Is it true that the legislative power of

the congress is without limit because in
Article 6, legislative power – is the
the case of govt. vs. springer, pimintel
power to enact, to make, to amend, to
vs comelec the SC noted a statement,
revise, and to repeal laws. To whom it is
they said someone has said that the
conferred? Upon the congress of the
powers to the legislative dept of govt,
Philippines and under sec 1 of art 6 the
like the boundaries of the ocean are
congress of the Philippines is divided
unlimited. But the SC said, in
into 2 houses, this is the basis of the
constitutional govts however as well as
bicameral system of congress. Since it is
govts acting under a delegated
the constitution that directs the congress
authority, the powers of each of the
to be divided into 2 houses, the congress
department are limited and confined
cannot just convert it into 1 by mere
within the 4 walls or corners of the
legislative action. There must be
constitution or charter. And each
revision of the constitution in order to
department can only exercise powers
confer the congress into a unicameral
which are necessarily implied from the
congress. Does that mean that the
given power. Then the SC concluded by
congress can only exercise powers
saying that the Constitution therefore is
which are expressly conferred under the
the shore of the legislative authority
Constitution? Answer: NO. apply the
against which the waves of legislative
principle in the case of marcos vs
enactments may dash but over which it
manglapuz, the residual powers to the
cannot leap. So it is the constitution
president. The grant of the legislative
itself that provides for the limitation
powers to the president under the
both substantive and procedural. So the
Constitution carries with it ex rae
limitations and the exercise of legislative
necesitae (all other powers which are
powers of the congress are provided for
necessary, implied from the given

CACAPIT/LIMBO/MODESTO/RAMOS
 GABBY NOTES 2017
FINALS
under sections 23, 24, 25, 26 up to
section 32. So these are the limitations
on the exercise of legislative power of
congress
Section 2, composition of the senate,
how many senators? 24. Manner of
election? At large. By whom? Qualified
voters. Sec 2 tells us 3 things:
composition of the senate; the manner of
election; and who may vote for the
senators. Remember that you have
learned in your statcon that if a sentence
is divided into several parts, separated
by commas and one of the parts of this
sentence is qualifier, the qualifier will
apply to the phrase preceding or
immediately subsequent to it. Section 2
of art 6 is divided only into 2 parts and
the 2 parts are separated by a comma,
the consti says: The Senate shall be
composed of twenty-four Senators who
shall be elected at large by the qualified
voters of the Philippines, as may be
provided by law. The qualifier is “as
may be provided by law” does that
mean that it applies to the entire phrase
before it? So may a law be passed
providing for a different composition?
Say for example 30, may a law be passed
for a different manner of election, say
for example regional? May a law be
passed providing for the qualification of
voters? To all the question, YES to the
last, NO to the previous. Which means
that this is one of the instance a rule of
statcon will yield to the spirit or
substance of the law. So the as may be
provided by law can only apply to the
CACAPIT/LIMBO/MODESTO/RAMOS
qualification of voters not to the
composition and manner of election. So
it cannot be modified by mere
legislative act. It can only be modified
by a change to the constitution, a formal
change of the constitution.
Section3 provides for the qualifications
of the senators, No person shall be a
Senator unless he is a natural-born
citizen of the Philippines and, on the
day of the election, is at least thirty-five
years of age, able to read and write, a
registered voter, and a resident of the
Philippines for not less than two years
immediately preceding the day of the
election. Age qualification must be
possessed day before the election.
Residence requirement must be possess
at the day before the election. How
about citizenship qualification? Because
under constitution, the senator must be
a natural born Filipino citizen. When
should the person possess that
qualification to be qualified as senator?
Upon birth? But is it possible that a
person is a natural born Filipino citizen
at one time and then at a subsequent
time he is not a natural born citizen and
then at some other future time he again
becomes a natural born Filipino citizen.
So its possible, right? Through
repatriation as we discussed earlier.
Which means that A who is a natural
born Filipino citizen may not be a
natural born at this year but in another
year may again becomes a natural born
Filipino citizen. This was answered by
the SC in the 1996 frivaldo vc comelec,
 GABBY NOTES 2017
FINALS
because note in the qualification, except
for age and residencey requirement
qualifications, there is no specific
provision under section 3 and 6 of art 6
when the person should possess the
other qualifications. Citizenship;
literacy; registered voter. So SC said in
the case of frivaldo, that if the
constitution does not provide for the
time period when the qualification
should be posess, that qualification
should be possessed at the start of the
term of office of the public officer. Again
in the 1996 frivaldo case, the application
for repatriation was filed before the year
of election. Which means that when
filed the COC, he is not yet repatriated.
And when he was elected and
proclaimed. He was not yet repatriated
and on the day itself at the start of the
term of office of the petitioner, as
elected governor, the application was
approved. SC said petitioner is qualified
because he possesses the qualification
on the day he is upon to discharge the
functions of the office. Secondly, SC said
that the repatriation retroacted to the
day on the filing of the application.
Again do not be confused as to the
frivaldo vs COMELEC as to the
retroactivity date of repatriation because
the repatriation applied in this case is
PD 725. 9225 the repatriation law would
retroact to the event that may have
produced the cause for the losing of the
Filipino citizenship. So in the example
earlier given, it will retroact to the day
that the natural born Filipino citizen
was naturalized in a foreign country. In
CACAPIT/LIMBO/MODESTO/RAMOS
the case of citizenship, as long as the
natural born Filipino citizen status was
regained by a candidate at noon 30th of
june, next following their election, he is
qualified to become a senator.
Can the congress enact a law providing
for another or adding a qualifications
under section 3 as well as section of
article 6? SC said in Pimentel, NO. the
enumeration of qualifications under sec
3 and 6 of article 6 is exclusive. Which
means the congress cannot expand, it
cannot restrict the qualification. Because
remember in Pimentel vs COMELEC,
what was being assailed was the
additional qualification for the public
officer under RA 9165 which requires
that before assuming public office, he
must submit a certificate of drug non-
dependence. So he must show that he is
not a drug dependent. SC said that this
is an additional qualification since it
expands the qualifications of senators
and members of the House of
Representatives, this is unconstitutional.
Under the constitution, to become a
senator, a person must be able to read
and write, is there a degree of literacy to
the constitution? NO. it does not require
a certain degree. Meaning, college
graduate, HS or elementary graduate.
As long as the person is able to read and
write, he is qualified to be a senator.
Supposing the person can only read and
write in Chinese, is he qualified? NO.
the qualification has purposes for a
specific objective. It means that ABLE to
READ and WRITE in the official
language used in the Philippines.
 GABBY NOTES 2017
FINALS

Otherwise, that qualification would continuity for the service of the full term
become absurd. It would become for which he was elected, only means
useless. Because the public officer voluntary renunciation among others.
cannot discharge the official function. Which means that the enumeration is
Term of office? 12 years. Term limit? 2 not exclusive. The statement voluntary
consecutive terms. Which means that a renunciation does not exclude
senator can as many terms as he selected involuntary renunciation. It is as if the
as long as it is not beyond 2 consecutive constitution is just saying, including
terms. Supposing the term of office of among other. Because it would be
senate and HOR start at noon 30th day of absurd if we interpret it otherwise. -
June. Can it be moved to a different 40:09
date? YES. Because constitution says,
otherwise may be provided for by law,
which means that a l aw may be passed
providing for a different date of
commencement. Supposing on the
second term of senator A, he resign.
Would he be allow to run for the
immediately succeeding election
because he was not able to complete 2
successive terms? Answer: NO. because
the constitution says, voluntary
renunciation will not interrupt the
continuity of the service of the full term
for which he was elect. Which means
that even if a senator resigns on his
second term, he will still be disqualified
in the next succeeding election. He was
to wait for another 3 yrs. Supposing the
senator on his 2nd term did not resigned
but was expelled? Does that mean that
since the constitution only says
voluntary renunciation, definitely
expulsion is not a voluntary
renunciation, it will not interrupt the
running of the 2 successive term limit?
Answer: NO. because the provision in
the constitution which says voluntary
renunciation shall not interrupt

CACAPIT/LIMBO/MODESTO/RAMOS