Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
by Victoria V. Loanzon
with the assistance of Atty. Ramon Conducto III
Question: Does equality between men and women allow same sex
marriages?
Answer: No, equality between men and women does not allow same
sex marriages because there is yet no law which implements it. (Falcis
Petition)
Note: Silverio Ruling: Petitioner pleads that "[t]he unfortunates are also
entitled to a life of happiness, contentment and [the] realization of their
dreams." No argument about that. The Court recognizes that there are
people whose preferences and orientation do not fit neatly into the
commonly recognized parameters of social convention and that, at least
for them, life is indeed an ordeal. However, the remedies petitioner
seeks involve questions of public policy to be addressed solely by the
legislature, not by the courts.
Cagandahan Ruling: Respondent is the one who has to live with his
intersex anatomy. To him belongs the human right to the pursuit of
happiness and of health. Thus, to him should belong the primordial
choice of what courses of action to take along the path of his sexual
development and maturation. In the absence of evidence that
respondent is an "incompetent” and in the absence of evidence to show
that classifying respondent as a male will harm other members of society
who are equally entitled to protection under the law, the Court affirms as
Note: Vivas (Euro Credit Savings Bank) v. Monetary Board: “Close now,
Ask Later:” Due process does not necessarily require a prior hearing; a
hearing or an opportunity to be heard may be subsequent to the closure.
One can just imagine the dire consequences of a prior hearing: bank
runs would be the order of the day, resulting in panic and hysteria. In the
process, fortunes may be wiped out and disillusionment will run the
gamut of the entire banking community. To address the growing
concerns in the banking industry, the legislature has sufficiently
empowered the MB to effectively monitor and supervise banks and
financial institutions.
Delegation of Powers
Question: What are the factors in the determination of valid delegation
of power?
Address: Kapatiran Kaunlaran Foundation, Inc. (KKFI) 7
Unit 911-C P. Paredes Street, Sampaloc, Manila (Beside UST near Morayta Street)
* www.villasislawcenter.com / www.facebook.com/villasislawcenter / www.remediallawdoctrines.blogspot.com /
villasislawcenter@gmail.com / mvplawoffice@gmail.com
Tel. No. (02) 241-4830 / Cel. Nos. (0949) 343-6092; (0922) 898-8626
Answer: The factors in the determination of valid delegation of power
are:
1. Completeness test: The law sets forth the policy to be executed,
carried out, or implemented by the delegate such that there is
nothing left for the delegate to do but to enforce the law;
2. Sufficient standard test: The standard is sufficient if it defines
legislative policy, marks its limits, maps out its boundaries and
specifies the public agency to apply it. It indicates the circumstances
under which the legislative command is to be affected.
Right to Life
Question: What are the two cornerstone principles of the national
population program?
Answer: The two cornerstone principles of the national population
program are the principle of anti-abortion and the principle of anti-
coercion. (Imbong v. Ochoa, G.R. No. 204819, April 8, 2014)
Freedom of Religion
Question: What are the guarantees under religious freedom?
Answer: The constitutional assurance of religious freedom provides two
guarantees: the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause.
Principle of non-Coercion
Address: Kapatiran Kaunlaran Foundation, Inc. (KKFI) 10
Unit 911-C P. Paredes Street, Sampaloc, Manila (Beside UST near Morayta Street)
* www.villasislawcenter.com / www.facebook.com/villasislawcenter / www.remediallawdoctrines.blogspot.com /
villasislawcenter@gmail.com / mvplawoffice@gmail.com
Tel. No. (02) 241-4830 / Cel. Nos. (0949) 343-6092; (0922) 898-8626
Question: How is the principle of non-coercion applied to ensure free
exercise clause?
Answer: In case of conflict between the religious beliefs and moral
convictions of individuals, on one hand, and the interest of the State, on
the other, to provide access and information on reproductive health
products, services, procedures and methods to enable the people to
determine the timing, number and spacing of the birth of their children,
the Court is of the strong view that the religious freedom of health
providers, whether public or private, should be accorded primacy.
SEPARATION OF POWERS
Question: How does the Pork Barrel System violate the Principle of
Checks and Balances?
Answer: Under the 2013 PDAF Article, the amount of ₱24.79 Billion
only appears as a collective allocation limit and could, after the GAA is
passed, effectively appropriate PDAF funds based on their own
discretion. As these intermediate appropriations are made by legislators
only after the GAA is passed and hence, outside of the law, it
necessarily means that the actual items of PDAF appropriation would not
have been written into the General Appropriations Bill and thus
effectuated without veto consideration. This kind of lump-sum/post-
enactment legislative identification budgeting system fosters the creation
of a “budget within a budget" which subverts the prescribed procedure of
presentment and consequently impairs the President’s power of item
veto.
The above-described system forces the President to decide between (a)
accepting the entire ₱24.79 Billion PDAF allocation without knowing the
specific projects of the legislators, which may or may not be consistent
with his national agenda and (b) rejecting the whole PDAF to the
detriment of all other legislators with legitimate projects (Belgica v Ochoa
G.R. Nos. 208566, 208493 & 209251, November 19, 2013).
Question: What are the two tests to ensure that the legislative
guidelines for delegated rule-making are adequate? Elaborate.
Answer: The first test is called the “completeness test.” Case law states
that a law is complete when it sets forth therein the policy to be
executed, carried out, or implemented by the delegate. On the other
hand, the second test is called the “sufficient standard test.”
Jurisprudence holds that a law lays down a sufficient standard when it
provides adequate guidelines or limitations in the law to map out the
boundaries of the delegate‘s authority and prevent the delegation from
running riot. To be sufficient, the standard must specify the limits of the
delegate’s authority, announce the legislative policy, and identify the
conditions under which it is to be implemented (Belgica v Ochoa G.R.
Nos. 208566, 208493 & 209251, November 19, 2013).
Question: How does the Pork Barrel System violate the Principle of
Non-delegability of Legislative Power?
Answer: Insofar as it confers post-enactment identification authority to
individual legislators, it violates the principle of non-delegability since
said legislators are effectively allowed to individually exercise the power
of appropriation, which is lodged in Congress (Belgica v Ochoa G.R.
Nos. 208566, 208493 & 209251, November 19, 2013)
STATE IMMUNITY
Question: What are the elements of a state?
Answer: The elements of a state are: people, territory, sovereignty and
government.
Question: What are the two concepts which govern the concept of
sovereign immunity?
Answer: There are two conflicting concepts of sovereign immunity, each
widely held and firmly established. According to the classical or absolute
theory, a sovereign cannot, without its consent, be made a respondent in
the courts of another sovereign. According to the newer or restrictive
theory, the immunity of the sovereign is recognized only with regard to
public acts or acts jure imperii of a state, but not with regard to private
acts or acts jure gestionis (United States of America v. Ruiz, 136 SCRA
487 [1987]; Coquia and Defensor-Santiago, Public International Law 194
[1984]).
Diplomatic Immunity
Question: A parcel of land was donated to the Holy See by the
Archbishop of Manila. The property was intended to serve as the official
residence of the Papal Nuncio to the Philippines. With the presence of
numerous informal settlers, the Holy See decided to dispose of it. The
Holy See and Provident Real Properties, Inc. (“Provident) executed a
Deed of Conditional Sale over a parcel of land in Pasay City. The Holy
See did not pursue the transaction with Provident. Instead, it executed a
Deed of Absolute Sale over the same property with Trinity Resort
Development Corporation (“Trinity”). Provident instituted an action
Question: Is the claim of the Holy See tenable? Justify your answer.
Answer: Yes, the claim of the Holy See is tenable. The Holy See
exercises sovereignty over the Vatican City in Rome, Italy, and is
represented in the Philippines by the Papal Nuncio. The Vatican City fits
into none of the established categories of states, and the attribution to it
of "sovereignty" must be made in a sense different from that in which it is
applied to other states (Fenwick, International Law 124-125 [1948];
Cruz, International Law 37 [1991]). In a community of national states, the
Vatican City represents an entity organized not for political but for
ecclesiastical purposes and international objects. Despite its size and
object, the Vatican City has an independent government of its own, with
the Pope, who is also head of the Roman Catholic Church, as the Holy
Question: What will indicate that the state waived its consent to be
sued?
Answer: The consent of the State to be sued may be given expressly or
impliedly. There is an express consent when there is a law expressly
granting authority to sue the State or any of its agencies.
There is implied consent when:
1. The State enters into a private contract, unless the contract is
merely incidental to the performance of a governmental function
(Santos v. Santos, 1952);
2. The State enters into an operation that is essentially a business
operation, unless the business operation is merely incidental to the
performance of a governmental function, as for instance, arrastre
service. (Mobil Philippines v. Customs Arrastre Service, 1966); and
3. The State sues a private party, unless the suit is instituted only to
resist a claim. (Lim v. Brownell, 1960)
Legislative Branch
Question: How is legislative power exercised under the Constitution?
Address: Kapatiran Kaunlaran Foundation, Inc. (KKFI) 21
Unit 911-C P. Paredes Street, Sampaloc, Manila (Beside UST near Morayta Street)
* www.villasislawcenter.com / www.facebook.com/villasislawcenter / www.remediallawdoctrines.blogspot.com /
villasislawcenter@gmail.com / mvplawoffice@gmail.com
Tel. No. (02) 241-4830 / Cel. Nos. (0949) 343-6092; (0922) 898-8626
Answer: Under the Constitution, legislative power may be exercised by:
1. Congress. Legislative power is vested in Congress, which consists
of a Senate and a House of Representatives. (Sec. 1, Art. VI,
Constitution)
2. Local legislative bodies. Local legislative power is vested in the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan for the province; the Sangguniang
Panlungsod for the city; the Sangguniang Bayan for the
municipality; and the Sangguniang Barangay for the barangay.
(Sec. 48, LGC)
3. People’s initiatives on statutes. Legislative power is reserved to the
people by the provision on initiative and referendum. (Sec. 1, Art.
VI, Constitution)
4. Emergency legislative power of the President. (Sec. 23, Art. VI,
Constitution)
Question: May Congress provide that the law granting the rights to
OFWs may only be amended or repealed by a 2/3 vote by all members
of both Houses of Congress must be obtained to repeal or amend any of
its provisions?
Answer: No, because such voting requirement is not enshrined in the
Constitution and directly curtails the power of Congress to enact and
repeal laws.
Question: Must the party list members be limited to the poor members
of society?
Answer: No, the party-list system is intended to democratize political
power by giving political parties that cannot win in legislative district
elections a chance to win seats in the House of Representatives.50 The
voter elects two representatives in the House of Representatives: one for
his or her legislative district, and another for his or her party-list group or
organization of choice. To require all national and regional parties under
the party-list system to represent the "marginalized and
underrepresented" is to deprive and exclude, by judicial fiat, ideology-
based and cause-oriented parties from the party-list system. It is
sufficient that the political party consists of citizens who advocate the
same ideology or platform, or the same governance principles and
policies, regardless of their economic status as citizens. The
nominees of the sectoral party either must belong to the sector, or must
have a track record of advocacy for the sector represented. (Atong
Paglaum v. COMELEC)
Question: May the Senate compel a witness to appear before it? May it
cite a witness in contempt during a congressional inquiry?
Answer: Yes, the Senate may cite a witness in contempt during a
congressional inquiry. If the subject of investigation before the
committee is within the range of legitimate legislative inquiry and the
proposed testimony of the witness called relates to that subject,
obedience, to its process may be enforced by the committee by
imprisonment. (Sullivan vs. Hill, 73 W. Va., 49; 79 S.E., 670; 40 Ann.
Cas. [1916 B.], 1115.)
Question: May the Senate detain for an indefinite period a person cited
in contempt?
Answer: No, the Senate may not detain for an indefinite period a
person cited in contempt. While the contempt order issued against
petitioner simply stated that he would be arrested and detained until
such time that he gives his true testimony, or otherwise purges himself of
the contempt. It does not provide any definite and concrete period of
detention. Neither does the Senate Rules specify a precise period of
detention when a person is cited in contempt.
The Court finds that there is a genuine necessity to place a limitation on
the period of imprisonment that may be imposed by the Senate pursuant
to its inherent power of contempt during inquiries in aid of legislation.
Section 21, Article VI of the Constitution states that Congress, in
conducting inquiries in aid of legislation, must respect the rights of
persons appearing in or affected therein. Under Arnault, however, a
witness or resource speaker cited in contempt by the Senate may be
detained indefinitely due to its characteristic as a continuing body. The
said witness may be detained for a day, a month, a year, or even for a
lifetime depending on the desire of the perpetual Senate. Certainly, in
that case, the rights of persons appearing before or affected by the
legislative inquiry are in jeopardy. The constitutional right to liberty that
every citizen enjoys certainly cannot be respected when they are
detained for an indefinite period of time without due process of law.
Question: During her 2nd and last term, Senator Bamby sponsored and
voted for the approval of a new office. After ending her term, she was
appointed to this office. Is the appointment of Senator Bamby valid?
Answer: The appointment of Senator Bamby is not valid. The
Constitution prohibits that the holding what is known as forbidden office.
The prohibition includes offices which have been created or the
emoluments of which were increased while the legislator was a member
of Congress. The Member of Congress cannot occupy the office even if
he or she is willing to give up his/her seat.
Special Cases:
Address: Kapatiran Kaunlaran Foundation, Inc. (KKFI) 32
Unit 911-C P. Paredes Street, Sampaloc, Manila (Beside UST near Morayta Street)
* www.villasislawcenter.com / www.facebook.com/villasislawcenter / www.remediallawdoctrines.blogspot.com /
villasislawcenter@gmail.com / mvplawoffice@gmail.com
Tel. No. (02) 241-4830 / Cel. Nos. (0949) 343-6092; (0922) 898-8626
Action Vote Required Senate and Basis
Question: Upon convening the 17th Congress, Rep. Alvarez was elected
Speaker of the House; while Reps. Baguilat and Suarez came as
second and third-placers for the speakership respectively. As the House
minority convened, they elected Rep. Suarez as the Minority Floor
Leader for the 17th Congress. Rep. Baguilat protested arguing, among
others, that there is a long-standing practice in the House of
Representatives that the second-placer in the election of the Speaker
would automatically become the Minority Floor Leader. As such, Rep.
Suarez’s election as Minority Floor Leader contravenes Article VI,
Section 16(1) of the 1987 Constitution. Are Rep. Baguilat’s contentions
correct?
Answer: No, under Article VI, Section 16(1), the Speaker of the House
of Representatives shall be elected by a majority vote of its entire
membership. Said provision also states that the House of
Representatives may decide to have officers other than the Speaker,
and that the method and manner as to how these officers are chosen is
something within its sole control. In the case of Defensor-Santiago v.
Guingona, which involved a dispute on the rightful Senate Minority
Leader during the 11th Congress (1998-2001), this Court observed that
“[w]hile the Constitution is explicit on the manner of electing x x x [a
Speaker of the House of Representative,] it is, however, dead silent on
the manner of selecting the other officers [of the Lower House]. All that
the Charter says is that ‘[e]ach House shall choose such other officers
as it may deem necessary.’ [As such], the method of choosing who will
be such other officers is merely a derivative of the exercise of the
prerogative conferred by the aforequoted constitutional provision.
Address: Kapatiran Kaunlaran Foundation, Inc. (KKFI) 33
Unit 911-C P. Paredes Street, Sampaloc, Manila (Beside UST near Morayta Street)
* www.villasislawcenter.com / www.facebook.com/villasislawcenter / www.remediallawdoctrines.blogspot.com /
villasislawcenter@gmail.com / mvplawoffice@gmail.com
Tel. No. (02) 241-4830 / Cel. Nos. (0949) 343-6092; (0922) 898-8626
Therefore, such method must be prescribed by the [House of
Representatives] itself, not by [the] Court.” (Baguilat v Alvarez, G.R. No.
227757, July 25, 2017)
Discipline of members
Question: May the Ombudsman discipline a member of Congress?
Answer: No, the Ombudsman may not discipline a member of
Congress. Each house may punish its members for disorderly behavior,
and with the concurrence of 2/3 of ALL its members, with either a
suspension which shall not exceed 60 days; or expulsion. The
suspension contemplated in the Constitution is different from the
suspension prescribed in the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA
3019). The former is punitive in nature while the latter is preventive.
(Defensor-Santiago v. Sandiganbayan)
Congress may impose other disciplinary measures such as:
1. Deletion from the record of remarks which would bring dishonor to
the body
2. Fine
3. Imprisonment
4. Censure
Question: What are the issues which the SET and HRET resolve in an
election contest?
Answer: The issues which the SET and HRET resolve in an election
contest are: election, returns and qualifications.
Question: May the Supreme Court issue a Writ of Mandamus for the
Speaker of the House to remove from the Roll of Members of the House
of Representatives a member adjudged by the COMELEC and affirmed
by the Court to be not a Filipino citizen?
Answer: Yes, the Supreme Court may issue a Writ of Mandamus for
the Speaker of the House to remove from the Roll of Members of the
House of Representatives a member adjudged by the COMELEC and
affirmed by the Court to be not a Filipino citizen. (Velasco v. Speaker
Belmonte)
Question: Can a judge who was dismissed by the Supreme Court seek
presidential pardon to reinstate him to his post?
Answer: No, the power of executive clemency cannot extend to
administrative cases in the Judiciary because it will violate the principle
of separation of powers and impair the power of the Supreme Court
under Section 6, Article VIII of the Constitution of administrative
supervision over all courts. (Petition for Judicial Clemency of Romillo,
1997)
Constitutional Commissions
Question: Cite the constitutional safeguards to ensure independence of
the CSC, COMELEC and COA.
Answer:
1. They are constitutionally created; may not be abolished by a
statute;
2. Each is conferred certain powers and functions which cannot be
reduced by statute;
3. Each expressly described as independent;
4. Chairmen and members are given fairly long term of office for
seven (7) years;
5. Chairmen and members cannot be removed except by
impeachment;
6. Chairmen and members may not be reappointed or appointed in
an acting capacity;
7. Salaries of chairmen and members are relatively high and may not
be decreased during continuance in office;
8. Commissions enjoy fiscal autonomy;
9. Each commission may promulgate its own procedural rules;
10. Chairmen and members are subject to certain disqualifications
calculated to strengthen their integrity; and
11. Commissions may appoint their own officials and employees in
accordance with Civil Service Law.
Question: What are the prohibited offices and interests of a Member of a
Constitutional Commission?
Answer: No member of a Constitutional Commission shall, during his tenure:
(1) Hold any other office or employment;
(2) Engage in the practice of any profession;