Law

The science of moral laws founded on the rational nature of man that governs his free
activity for the realization of the individual and social ends of life under an aspect of mutual
conditional dependence.

A rule of conduct, just, obligatory, formulated by legitimate authority for common

observance and benefit. (J. Rodriguez, Lapitan v PCSO)

When Laws Take Effect

Presidential issuances of general application, which have not been published, shall have no
force and effect. (Taada v Tuvera 1985)

All statutes, including those of local application and private laws, shall be published as a
condition for their effectivity, which shall begin fifteen days after publication unless a
different effectivity date is fixed by the legislature. Administrative rules and regulations
must also be published if their purpose is to enforce or implement existing law pursuant
also to a valid delegation. (Taada v Tuvera 1986)

Interpretative regulations and those merely internal in nature, that is, regulating only the
personnel of the administrative agency and not the public, need not be published. As with
letters of instructions issued by administrative superiors concerning the rules or guidelines
to be followed by their subordinates in the performance of their duties. (Taada v Tuvera
1986)

Judicial Decisions

Judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws of the Constitution shall form part of
the legal system of the Philippines (Art 8. Civil Code of the Philippines)

The doctrine of stare decisis et non quieta movere is embodied in Article 8 of the Civil Code
of the Philippines. (Lazatin v Disierto)

There is no law requiring the publication of Supreme Court decisions in the Official Gazette
before they can be binding and as a condition to their becoming effective. (De Roy v CA)

Stare Decisis

The doctrine of stare decisis enjoins adherence to judicial precedents. It requires courts in a
country to follow the rule established in a decision of the Supreme Court thereof. It is based
on the principle that once a question of law has been examined and decided, it should be
deemed settled and closed to further argument. (Fermin v People)

Only upon showing that circumstances attendant in a particular case override the great
benefits derived by our judicial system from the doctrine of stare decisis, can the courts be
justified in setting aside the same. (Lazatin v Disierto)

Introduction to Law Reviewer 1

Prepared by: Louis Tan
Ignorance of the Law

Ignorance of the Law excuses no one from compliance therewith (Art 3. Civil Code of the
Philippines)

Mistake of law does not make a contract voidable, because ignorance of the law does not
excuse anyone from its compliance. (De Luna v Linatoc)

Silence of the Law

There being no rule of law, expressly applicable to [an issue], [the Court] is required to apply
the general principles of law. (Civil Code, art. 6.) Under this authorization, [the court] may
adopt and apply by analogy the general rules established by the Code relating to the [issue].
(Cerrano v Tan Chuco)

Lawyers

Any person heretofore duly admitted as a member of the bar, or hereafter admitted as such
in accordance with the provisions of this rule, and who is in good and regular standing, is
entitled to practice law. (Rule 138 Sec 1, Rules of Court)

Requirements for all applicants for admission to the bar:

(1) a citizen of the Philippines,

(2) at least twenty-one years of age,
(3) of good moral character, and
(4) resident of the Philippines; and
(5) must produce before the Supreme Court satisfactory evidence of good moral
character, and
(6) that no charges against him, involving moral turpitude, have been filed or are
pending in any court in the Philippines. (Rule 138 Sec 2, Rules of Court)

A law student who has successfully completed his 3rd year of the regular four-year
prescribed law curriculum and is enrolled in a recognized law school's clinical legal
education program approved by the Supreme Court, may appear without compensation in
any civil, criminal or administrative case before any trial court, tribunal, board or o cer, to
represent indigent clients accepted by the legal clinic of the law school. (Rule 138-A Sec 1,
Rules of Court)

There is no distinction as to whether the transgression is committed in the lawyers

professional capacity or in his private life. This is because a lawyer may not divide his
personality so as to be an attorney at one time and a mere citizen at another. Thus, not only
his professional activities but even his private life, insofar as the latter may reflect
unfavorably upon the good name and prestige of the profession and the courts, may at any
time be the subject of inquiry on the part of the proper authorities. (Cojuanco, Jr. v Palma)

The Bar

The Court, by virtue of the power vested in it by Section 13 of Article VIII of the
Constitution, hereby ordains the integration of the Bar of the Philippines, effective on
January 16, 1973.

Introduction to Law Reviewer 2

Prepared by: Louis Tan
Integration of the Philippine Bar means the official unification of the entire lawyer
population of the Philippines. This requires membership and financial support (in
reasonable amount) of every attorney as conditions sine qua non to the practice of law and
the retention of his name in the Roll of Attorneys of the Supreme Court. (IBP v Zamora)

The term Bar refers to the collectivity of all persons whose names appear in the Roll of
Attorneys. An Integrated Bar (or Unified Bar) perforce must include all lawyers. (IBP v
Zamora)

Disciplinary Proceedings; public interest is its primary objective, and the real question for
determination is whether or not the attorney is still a fit person to be allowed the privileges
as such. (In Re Almacen)

In the exercise of its disciplinary powers, the Court merely calls upon a member of the Bar
to account for his actuations as an officer of the Court with the end in view of preserving the
purity of the legal profession and the proper and honest administration of justice by purging
the profession of members who by their misconduct have proved themselves no longer
worthy to be entrusted with the duties and responsibilities pertaining to the office of an
attorney. (In Re Almacen)

Practice of Law

To engage in the practice of law is to perform those acts which are characteristics of the
profession. Generally, to practice law is to give notice or render any kind of service, which
device or service requires the use in any degree of legal knowledge or skill. (Cayetano v
Monsod)

Practice of law means any activity, in or out of court, which requires the application of law,
legal procedures, knowledge, training and experience. To practice law is to give advice or
render any kind of service that involves legal knowledge or skill. (Ulep v Legal Clinic)

The practice of giving out legal information constitutes practice of law. (Ulep v Legal Clinic)

In his relations with the courts, a lawyer may not divide his personality so as to be an
attorney at one time and a mere citizen at another. (In Re Almacen)

The law profession does not prescribe a dichotomy of standards among its members. There
is no distinction as to whether the transgression is committed in the lawyers professional
capacity or in his private life. This is because a lawyer may not divide his personality so as
to be an attorney at one time and a mere citizen at another. Thus, not only his professional
activities but even his private life, insofar as the latter may reflect unfavorably upon the
good name and prestige of the profession and the courts, may at any time be the subject of
inquiry on the part of the proper authorities. (Cojuangco, Jr v Palma)

No matter how firm a lawyers conviction in the righteousness of his cause there is simply
no excuse for denigrating the courts and engaging in public behavior that tends to put the
courts and the legal profession into disrepute. All lawyers, whether they are judges, court
employees, professors or private practitioners, are officers of the Court and have voluntarily
taken an oath, as an indispensable qualification for admission to the Bar, to conduct
themselves with good fidelity towards the courts. (In Re Letter of the UP Law Faculty)

Introduction to Law Reviewer 3

Prepared by: Louis Tan
Free Legal Assistance Act (R.A. 9999)

The State shall guarantee free legal assistance to the poor and ensure that every person
who cannot afford the services of a counsel is provided with a competent and independent
counsel preferably of his/her own choice, if upon determination it appears that the party
cannot a ord the services of a counsel, and that services of a counsel are necessary to secure
the ends of justice and protect of the party. (Sec. 2)

Hierarchy of Courts

Trial courts do not only determine the facts from the evaluation of the evidence presented
before them. They are likewise competent to determine issues of law which may include the
validity of an ordinance, statute, or even an executive issuance in relation to the
Constitution. (The Diocese of Bacolod v. COMELEC)

The Court of Appeals is primarily designed as an appellate court that reviews the
determination of facts and law made by the trial courts. (The Diocese of Bacolod v.
COMELEC)

Doctrine of Hierarchy of Courts

The doctrine that requires respect for the hierarchy of courts was created by this court to
ensure that every level of the judiciary performs its designated roles in an effective and
efficient manner. (The Diocese of Bacolod v. COMELEC)

The doctrine of hierarchy of courts is not an iron-clad rule. The court has full discretionary
power to take cognizance and assume jurisdiction [over] special civil actions for certiorari .
. . filed directly with it for exceptionally compelling reasons or if warranted by the nature of
the issues clearly and specifically raised in the petition. (The Diocese of Bacolod v.
COMELEC)

Exceptions to Hierarchy of Courts

1. When there are genuine issues of constitutionality that must be addressed at the
most immediate time.
2. When the issues involved are of transcendental importance.
3. Cases of first impression
4. The constitutional issues raised are better decided by this court
5. The time element presented in this case cannot be ignored.
6. The filed petition reviews the act of a constitutional organ.
7. Petitioners rightly claim that they had no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy
in the ordinary course of law that could free them from the injurious effects of
respondents acts in violation of their right to freedom of expression.
8. The petition includes questions that are dictated by public welfare and the
advancement of public policy, or demanded by the broader interest of justice, or the
orders complained of were found to be patent nullities, or the appeal was considered
as clearly an inappropriate remedy. (Diocese of Bacolod v COMELEC, summarized
by Senador)

Introduction to Law Reviewer 4

Prepared by: Louis Tan
Separation of Powers

One department of the government has no power or authority to inquire into the acts of
another, which acts are performed within the discretion of the other department. (Abueva v
Wood)

The separation of powers is a fundamental principle in our system of government. It obtains

not through express provision but by actual division in our Constitution. Each department
of the government has exclusive cognizance of matters within its jurisdiction, and is
supreme within its own sphere. (Angara v ELECOM)

Blending of Powers

It does not follow from the fact that the three powers are to be kept separate and distinct
that the Constitution intended them to be absolutely unrestrained and independent of each
other. The Constitution has provided for an elaborate system of checks and balances to
secure coordination in the workings of various departments of government. (Angara v
ELECOM)

Supreme Court

The following are considered en banc cases:

1. Cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or

executive agreement, law, executive order, or presidential decree, proclamation,
order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question;
2. Criminal cases in which the appealed decision imposes the death penalty;
3. Cases raising novel questions of law;
4. Cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;
5. Cases involving decisions, resolutions or orders of the Civil Service Commission,
Commission on Elections, and Commission on Audit;
6. Cases where the penalty to be imposed is the dismissal of a judge, officer or employee
of the judiciary, disbarment of a lawyer, or either the suspension of any of them for a
period of more than one (1) year or a fine exceeding P10,000.00 or both;
7. Cases where a doctrine or principle laid down by the court en banc or in division may
be modified or reversed;
8. Cases assigned to a division which in the opinion of at least three (3) members thereof
merit the attention of the court en banc and are acceptable to a majority of the actual
membership of the court en banc; and
9. All other cases as the court en banc by a majority of its actual membership may deem
of sufficient importance to merit its attention. (Firestone Ceramics, Inc v CA)

The promulgation of the Amparo Rule was an exercise for the first time of the Supreme
Courts expanded power to promulgate rules to protect our peoples constitutional rights,
which made its maiden appearance in the 1987 Constitution in response to the Filipino
experience of the martial law regime. (Secretary of National Defense v Manalo)

Introduction to Law Reviewer 5

Prepared by: Louis Tan
 Trial Courts

Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980 (BP No. 129)

Court of Appeals
Members/Divisions Exclusive Original Jurisdiction
Original Jurisdiction Appellate Jurisdiction
-1 Presiding Justice Actions for annulment of (1) Issuance of writs of: All final judgments,
judgments of Regional Trial resolutions, orders or awards
-50 Associate Justices Courts. -mandamus, of RTC and quasi-judicial
-17 divisions, 3 members each -prohibition, agencies, instrumentalities,
boards or commission. (SEC,
-certiorari, SSC, ECC, CSC)

-habeas corpus, and

-quo warranto

(2) auxiliary writs of processes *except those falling w/in the

appellate jurisdiction of the
SC. (Constitution, Labor Code,
PD 442)
*may sit En Banc only for the
exercising administrative,
ceremonial, or other non-
adjudicatory functions *WON in aid of its appellate
jurisdiction.

Introduction to Law Reviewer 6

Prepared by: Louis Tan
 Regional Trial Court
Members/Regions Exclusive Original Jurisdiction Appellate Jurisdiction

-13 Regional Trial Courts, one for Civil: Criminal: All cases decided by:
each judicial region (1) all civil actions in which the subject
All criminal cases not w/in the -Metropolitan Trial Courts,
of litigation is incapable of pecuniary
-57(I), estimation; exclusive original jurisdiction of any
court, tribunal or body, except under -Municipal Trial Courts, and
-32(II), (2) all civil actions which involve the exclusive and concurrent
title to, or possession of real property, Sandiganbayan jurisdiction. -Municipal Circuit Trial Courts
-75(III), or any interest where the assessed
value exceeds 20K PHP (50K in Metro
-172(NCR), Manila);
Original Jurisdiction Special Jurisdiction
(3) all actions in admiralty and
-82(IV),
maritime jurisdiction where the (1) Issuance of writs of: The Supreme Court may designate
-55(V), demand or claim exceeds 100K (200K
certain branches of the RTC to
in MM); -mandamus, handle exclusively criminal cases,
-63(VI), (4) all matters of testate and intestate juvenile and domestic relations
probate, where the gross value of the -prohibition, cases, agrarian cases, urban land
-46(VII), estate exceeds 100K (200K in MM); reform cases, which do not fall under
-certiorari,
-33(VIII), (5) all actions involving marital the jurisdiction of quasi-judicial
contracts and relations; -habeas corpus, bodies and agencies, and/or other
-24(IX), special cases as the SC may
(6) all cases not w/in the exclusive
-quo warranto, and determine in the interest of a speedy
jurisdiction of any court, tribunal,
-32(X), person or body exercising judicial or and efficient administration of
quasi-judicial functions; -injunction, justice.
-29(XI),
(7) all civil actions and special which may be enforced in any part of
-20(XII) proceedings falling w/in the exclusive their respective regions;
jurisdiction of a Juvenile and Domestic
Relations Court and Courts of (2) actions affection ambassadors,
Agrarian Relations; and and other public ministers and
(8) all other cases in which the consuls.
demand, exclusive of interest,
damages of whatever kind, attorneys
fees, litigation expenses, and costs or
the value of the property exceeds
100K.

Introduction to Law Reviewer 7

Prepared by: Louis Tan
 Metropolitan, Municipal, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts
Members/Divisions
-Metropolitan Trial Court in
each metropolitan area
established by law
-82 branches of Metropolitan
Trial Court of Manila
-Municipal Trial Court in
each of the other cities or
municipalities
-1 branch of Municipal Trial
Court in every city and
municipality which does not
form part of a metropolitan
area (with exceptions)
-Municipal Circuit Trial
Court in each circuit
comprising such cities and/or
municipalities as are grouped
together
-1 Municipal Circuit Trial
Court in each area defined as
a municipal circuit,
comprising one or more cities
and/or more municipalities
Introduction to Law Reviewer
Prepared by: Louis Tan
Exclusive Original Jurisdiction
Criminal:
(1) all violations of city or
municipal ordinances
committed w/in their
respective territorial
jurisdiction; and
(2) all offenses punishable
with imprisonment not
exceeding 6 years irrespective
of the amount of fine and
regardless of other imposable
accessory or other penalties.
Civil:
(1) civil actions and special
probate proceedings, testate
and intestate, including the
grant of provisional remedies
in proper cases, where the
value of the personal
property, estate, or amount of
the demand does not exceed
100K (200K in MM) exclusive
of whatever kind of damages,
attorneys fees, litigation
expenses, and costs. (to
consolidate amounts of claims
in cases of multiple claims or
causes of action);
(2) cases of forcible entry or
unlawful detainer; and
(3) civil actions which involve
title to, or possession of, real
property, or any interest
therein wherein the assessed
value does not exceed 20K
(50K in MM) exclusive of
whatever kind of damages,
attorneys fees, litigation
expenses, and costs. (value of
property shall be determined
by the assessed value of
adjacent lots).
Delegate Jurisdiction
May be assigned by the SC to
hear and determine cadastral
or land registration cases
covering lots where there is
no controversy or opposition,
or contested lots where the
value of which does not
exceed 100K.
Special Jurisdiction
In the absence of all Regional
Trial Judges in a province or
city, any Metropolitan,
Municipal, and Municipal
Circuit Trial Judge may hear
and decide petitions for a writ
of habeas corpus or
applications for bail in
criminal cases in the province
or city where the absent
Regional Trial Judges sit.
8
Judiciary and Bar Council

Section 8(1) of Article VIII of the Constitution:

A Judicial and Bar Council is hereby created under the supervision of the Supreme
Court composed of the Chief Justice as ex officio Chairman, the Secretary of Justice,
and a representative of the Congress* as ex officio Members, a representative of the
Integrated Bar, a professor of law, a retired Member of the Supreme Court, and a
representative of the private sector.

*The lone representative of Congress is entitled to one full vote. This pronouncement
effectively disallows the scheme of splitting the said vote into half (1/2), between two
representatives of Congress. Not only can this unsanctioned practice cause disorder in the
voting process, it is clearly against the essence of what the Constitution authorized. (Chavez
v JBC 2013)

The Framers of our Constitution intended to create a JBC as an innovative solution in

response to the public clamor in favor of eliminating politics in the appointment of members
of the Judiciary. (Chavez v JBC 2012)

In Re: Valenzuela and Vallarte/ De Castro v Judiciary Bar and Council

Section 15, Article VII of the Constitution:

Two months immediately before the next presidential elections and up to

the end of his term, a President or Acting President shall not make
appointments, except temporary appointments to executive positions when
continued vacancies therein will prejudice public service or endanger public safety.

Sections 4(1) of Article VIII of the Constitution:

The Supreme Court shall be composed of a Chief Justice and fourteen Associate
Justices. It may sit en banc or in its discretion, in division of three, five, or seven
Members. Any vacancy shall be filled within ninety days from the occurrence
thereof.

Initially, in the case of Valenzuela, the Court ruled that, during the period stated in Section
15, Article VII of the Constitutiontwo months immediately before the next presidential
elections and up to the end of his termthe President is neither required to make
appointments to the courts nor allowed to do so. On the ground that, the prevention of vote-
buying and similar evils outweighs the need for avoiding delays in filling up of court
vacancies or the disposition of some cases. And that Constitution must be construed in its
entirety as one, single instrument. (In Re: Valenzuela)

However, in De Castro v JBC, the Court reversed itself, stating that the prohibition against
presidential appointments under Section 15, Article VII does not extend to appointments in
the Judiciary. On the ground that had the framers intended to extend the prohibition
contained in Section 15, Article VII, which is dedicated to the Executive Department, to the
appointment of Members of the Supreme Court, they could have explicitly done sothey
could not have ignored the meticulous ordering of the provisions. (De Castro v JBC)

Introduction to Law Reviewer 9

Prepared by: Louis Tan
If midnight appointments were made in haste and with irregularities, or made by an
outgoing Chief Executive in the last days of his administration out of a desire to subvert the
policies of the incoming President or for partisanship, the appointments to the Judiciary
made after the establishment of the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) would not be suffering
from such defects because of the JBCs prior processing of candidates. The intervention of
the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) eliminates the danger that appointments to the
Judiciary can be made for the purpose of buying votes in a coming presidential election, or
of satisfying partisan considerations. (De Castro v JBC)

Constitution

"A constitution is a fundamental law or basis of government. It is established by the people,

in their original sovereign capacity, to promote their own happiness, and permanently to
secure their rights, property, independence, and common welfare. (Story, Const.)

"The constitution is certain and fixed. It contains the permanent will of the people, and is
the supreme law of the land. It is paramount to the legislature, and can be revoked or altered
only by the authority that made it." (J Johns, Villamor, and Ostrand in Lopez v De Los
Reyes)

Bill of Rights

A bill of rights is a declaration and enumeration of the individual rights and privileges which
the Constitution is designed to protect against violations by the government, or by
individuals or groups of individuals. It is a charter of liberties for the individual and a
limitation upon the power of the state. (Filoteo Jr., v Sandiganbayan)

Who Interprets the Constitution?

The framers of our Constitution adopted the American type where the written constitution
is interpreted and given effect by the judicial department. (Angara v ELECOM)

In cases of conflict, the judicial department is the only constitutional organ which can be
called upon to determine the proper allocation of powers between the several departments
and among the integral or constituent units thereof. (Angara v ELECOM)

Constitutional Construction

Verba Legis; wherever possible, the words used in the Constitution must be given
their ordinary meaning except where technical terms are employed.

As the Constitution is not primarily a lawyers document, it being essential for the
rule of law to obtain that it should ever be present in the peoples consciousness, its
language as much as possible should be understood in the sense they have in common
use. What it says according to the text of the provision to be construed compels
acceptance and negates the power of the courts to alter it, based on the postulate that
the framers and the people mean what they say. (J.M. Tuason Co., Inc v Land Tenure
Association)

Introduction to Law Reviewer 10

Prepared by: Louis Tan
 Ratio Legis Est Anima; where there is ambiguity, the words of the Constitution
should be interpreted in accordance with the intent of its framers.

Intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it should be given
effect. The primary task in constitutional construction is to ascertain and thereafter
assure the realization of the purpose of the framers and of the people in the adoption
of the Constitution. (Nitafan v CIR)

A foolproof yardstick in constitutional construction is the intention underlying the

provision under consideration. Thus, it has been held that the Court in construing a
Constitution should bear in mind the object sought to be accomplished by its adoption,
and the evils, if any, sought to be prevented or remedied. A doubtful provision will be
examined in the light of the history of the times, and the condition and circumstances
under which the Constitution was framed. The object is to ascertain the reason which
induced the framers of the Constitution to enact the particular provision and the
purpose sought to be accomplished thereby, in order to construe the whole as to make
the words consonant to that reason and calculated to effect that purpose. (Civil
Liberties Union v Executive Secretary)

Ut Magis Valeat Quam Pereat; the Constitution is to be interpreted as whole.

(Francisco v HoR)

Construction Limitations

The judiciary does not pass upon questions of wisdom, justice or expediency of legislation.
(Angara v ELECOM) *Political Question

Self-Executing Provisions

A constitutional provision is self-executing if the nature and extent of the right conferred
and the liability imposed are fixed by the Constitution itself, so that they can be determined
by an examination and construction of its terms, and there is no language indicating that
the subject is referred to the legislature for action. (Manila Prince Hotel v GSIS)

The omission from a constitution of any express provision for a remedy for enforcing a right
or liability is not necessarily an indication that it was not intended to be self-executing.
Subsequent legislation does not necessarily mean that the subject constitutional provision
is not, by itself, fully enforceable. (Manila Prince Hotel v GSIS)

Judicial Power

It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is.
Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that
rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Courts must decide on the operation of each.
So, if a law be in opposition to the Constitution, if both the law and the Constitution apply
to a particular case, so that the Court must either decide that case conformably to the law,
disregarding the Constitution, or conformably to the Constitution, disregarding the law, the
Court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very
essence of judicial duty. (Marbury v Madison)

Introduction to Law Reviewer 11

Prepared by: Louis Tan
Section 1, Article VIII of the Constitution vests in the judicial branch of the government,
not merely some specified or limited judicial power, but the entirety or all of said power,
except, only, so much as the Constitution confers upon some other agency, such as the power
to judge all contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of members of the
Senate and those of the House of Representatives, which is vested by the fundamental law
solely in the Senate Electoral Tribunal and the House Electoral Tribunal, respectively.
(Lopez v Roxas)

when the judiciary mediates to allocate constitutional boundaries, it does not assert any
superiority over the other departments; does not in reality nullify or invalidate an act of the
legislature [or the executive], but only asserts the solemn and sacred obligation assigned to
it by the Constitution.

Judicial Supremacy

The Constitution is a definition of the powers of government. Who is to determine the

nature, scope and extent of such powers? The Constitution itself has provided for the
instrumentality of the judiciary as the rational way. And when the judiciary mediates to
allocate constitutional boundaries, it does not assert any superiority over the other
department; it does not in reality nullify or invalidate an act of the legislature, but only
asserts the solemn and sacred obligation assigned to it by the Constitution to determine
conflicting claims of authority under the Constitution and to establish for the parties in an
actual controversy the rights which that instrument secures and guarantees to them. This
is in truth all that is involved in what is termed "judicial supremacy" which properly is the
power of judicial review under the Constitution. (Araullo v Aquino)

In its task of applying the law to the facts as found in deciding cases, the judiciary is called
upon to maintain inviolate what is decreed by the fundamental law. Even its power of
judicial review to pass upon the validity of the acts of the coordinate branches in the course
of adjudication is a logical corollary of this basic principle that the Constitution is
paramount. It overrides any governmental measure that fails to live up to its mandates.
Thereby there is a recognition of its being the supreme law.

Requisites for Judicial Review

As clearly stated in Angara v. Electoral Commission, the courts power of judicial review,
like almost all powers conferred by the Constitution, is subject to several limitations,
namely: (1) an actual case or controversy calling for the exercise of judicial power; (2) the
person challenging the act must have standing to challenge; he must have a personal and
substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained or will sustain, direct injury as
a result of its enforcement; (3) the question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest
possible opportunity; and (4) the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the
case. (Francisco v HOR)

Political Question

Political Question connotes what it means in ordinary parlance, namely, a question of policy.
It refers to those questions which under the Constitution are to be decided by the people in
their sovereign capacity; or in regard to to which full discretionary authority has been

Introduction to Law Reviewer 12

Prepared by: Louis Tan
delegated to the legislative or executive branch of the government. It is concerned with
issues dependent upon the wisdom, not legality, of a particular measure. (Taada
v. Cuenco)

Effects of Unconstitutionality

The strict view considers a legislative enactment which is declared unconstitutional as

being, for all legal intents and purposes, a total nullity, and it is deemed as if it had never
existed. Here, of course, we refer to the law itself being per se repugnant to the Constitution.
It is not always the case, however, that a law is constitutionally faulty per se. Thus, it may
well be valid in its general import but invalid in its application to certain factual situations.
To exemplify, an otherwise valid law may be held unconstitutional only insofar as it is
allowed to operate retrospectively such as, in pertinent cases, when it vitiates contractually
vested rights. To that extent, its retroactive application may be so declared invalid as
impairing the obligations of contracts. (Republic v CA)

Operative Fact Doctrine

The actual existence of a statute, prior to such a determination (of unconstitutionality), is

an operative fact and may have consequences which cannot justly be ignored. The past
cannot always be erased by a new judicial declaration. The effect of the subsequent ruling
as to invalidity may have to be considered in various aspects, with respect to particular
relations, individual and corporate, and particular conduct, private and official. (De
Agbayani v PNB)

Prior to the declaration of nullity, a challenged legislative or executive act must have been
in force and had to be complied with. This is so as until after the judiciary, in an appropriate
case, declares its invalidity, it is entitled to obedience and respect. Parties may have acted
under it and may have changed their positions. What could be more fitting than that in a
subsequent litigation regard be had to what has been done while such legislative or
executive act was in operation and presumed to be valid in all respects. It is now accepted
as a doctrine that prior to its being nullified, its existence as a fact must be reckoned with.
This is merely to reflect awareness that precisely because the judiciary is the governmental
organ which has the final say on whether or not a legislative or executive measure is valid,
a period of time may have elapsed before it can exercise the power of judicial review that
may lead to a declaration of nullity. It would be to deprive the law of its quality of fairness
and justice then, if there be no recognition of what had transpired prior to such adjudication.
(De Agbayani v PNB)

Rules of Avoidance/ Judicial Restraint

The Court must not anticipate a question of constitutional law in advance of the necessity
of deciding it. It is not the habit of the Court to decide questions of a constitutional nature
unless absolutely necessary to a decision of the case. In addition, the Court must not pass
upon a constitutional question although properly presented by the record, if there is also
present some other ground upon which the case may be disposed of. (Central Bank v BSP)

The Courts power of judicial review must be confined only to dispositions which are
constitutionally supportable. Aside from the jurisdictional requirements for the exercise

Introduction to Law Reviewer 13

Prepared by: Louis Tan
thereof, other guidelines are also mandated, i.e., that the question to be answered must be
in a form capable of judicial resolution; that as previously discussed, the Court will not
anticipate a question in advance of the necessity of deciding it; and, most relevant to the
present case, that the Court will not formulate a rule of constitutional law broader than is
required by the precise facts on which it is to be applied. Given a controversy that raises
several issues, the tribunal must limit its constitutional construction to the precise facts
which have been established. This rule is most applicable in determining whether one, some
or all of the remaining substantial issues should be passed upon. Thus, the Court is not
authorized to take cognizance of an issue too far- removed from the other. (Separate
Concurring Opinion of CJ Sereno in Belgica v Ochoa)

Political Law

Political Law has been defined as that branch of public law which deals with the
organization and operation of the governmental organs of the State and define the relations
of the state with the inhabitants of its territory. (Macariola v Ascunsion)

Where there is change of sovereignty, the political laws of the former sovereign, whether
compatible or not with those of the new sovereign, are automatically abrogated, unless they
are expressly re-enacted by affirmative act of the new sovereign. (Macariola v Ascunsion)

It is a general principle that whenever there is acquisition of new territory, the previous
political relations are totally abrogated, although some laws from the Spanish Penal Code
are still used in force, it was only done so because of convenience. However, with the new
American occupation all laws that are inconsistent with the democratic nature of the new
government are displaced without the need for any declaration. (People v Perfecto)

Co-Equal Branches of the Government

One department of the government has no power or authority to inquire into the acts of
another, which acts are performed within the discretion of the other department. ach of the
three departments of government has separate and distinct functions to perform. No one
department of the government can or ever has claimed a greater zeal than the others in its
desire to promote the welfare of the individual citizen and to protect his rights. (Abueva v
Wood)

Separation of Powers

The principle of separation of powers refers to the constitutional demarcation of the three
fundamental powers of government; To the legislative branch of government, through
Congress, belongs the power to make laws; to the executive branch of government, through
the President, belongs the power to enforce laws; and to the judicial branch of government,
through the Court, belongs the power to interpret laws. (Belgica v Ochoa)

Executive Branch

Although the 1987 Constitution imposes limitations on the exercise of specific powers (e.g.,
Execution of Laws, Power over countrys foreign relations, etc.) of the President, it
maintains intact what is traditionally considered as within the scope of executive power.
Corollarily, the Powers of the President cannot be said to be limited only to the specific

Introduction to Law Reviewer 14

Prepared by: Louis Tan
powers enumerated in the Constitution. In other words, executive power is more than the
sum of specific powers so enumerated. President has residual unstated powers which are
implicit in and correlative to the paramount duty residing in that office to safeguard and
protect general welfare. Hence, in this context, President should have broader discretion to
determine whether petition must be granted or denied.

Executive Privilege

It covers communications in the performance of the Presidents responsibilities of his office

and made in the process of shaping policies and making decisions. (US v Nixon)

The power of the Government to withhold information from the public, the courts, and the
Congress; the right of the President and high-level executive branch officers to withhold
information from Congress, the courts, and ultimately the public. (Senate v Ermita)

Elements of Presidential Communications Privilege:

1. Quintessential and non-delegable presidential power.

2. Authored or solicited and received by a close advisor of the President or the
President himself.
3. May be overcome by a showing of adequate need, such that the information sought
likely contains important evidence and by the unavailability of the information
elsewhere by an appropriate investigating authority. (Neri v Senate)

E.O. 464 - Ensuring Observance of the Principle of Separation of Powers, Adherence to the
Rule on Executive Privilege and Respect for the Rights of Public Officials Appearing in
Legislative Inquiries in Aid of Legislation Under the Constitution, And for Other Purposes.

In Senate v Ermita, the Supreme Court nullified specific provisions of E.O. 464 (Sec 2 and
3) authorizing certain officers specified therein to make a determination as to the privileges
nature of a particular information requested to be disclosed by Congress in the course of tis
conduct of inquiries in aid of legislation, without any showing of a prior consultation with,
or, much less the concurrence of, the President.

Immunity from Suit

Settled is the doctrine that the President, during his tenure of office or actual incumbency,
may not be sued in any civil or criminal case, and there is no need to provide for it in the
Constitution or law; It will degrade the dignity of the high office of the President, the Head
of State, if he can be dragged into court litigations while serving as such. (David v Arroyo)

But this privilege of immunity from suit, pertains to the President by virtue of the office and
may be invoked only by the holder of the office; not by any other person in the President's
behalf. (Beltran v Makaisar)

There is nothing in our laws that would prevent the President from waiving the privilege.
Thus, if so minded the President may shed the protection afforded by the privilege and
submit to the court's jurisdiction. The choice of whether to exercise the privilege or to waive
it is solely the President's prerogative. It is a decision that cannot be assumed and imposed
by any other person. (Beltran v Makaisar)

Introduction to Law Reviewer 15

Prepared by: Louis Tan
Impeachment of the President

Section 3(7) of Article XI of the Constitution conveys two uncomplicated ideas: first, it tells
us that judgment in impeachment cases has a limited reach, i.e., it cannot extend further
than removal from office and disqualification to hold any office under the Republic of the
Philippines, and second, it tells us the consequence of the limited reach of a judgment in
impeachment proceedings considering its nature, i.e., that the party convicted shall still be
liable and subject to prosecution, trial and punishment according to law. (Estrada v Disierto)

By resigning from the presidency, the former president more than consented to the
termination of the impeachment case against him, for he brought about the termination of
the impeachment proceedings. (Estrada v Disierto)

Legislative Branch

The legislative power has been described generally as being a power to make, alter and
repeal laws. It is the peculiar province of the legislature to prescribe general rules for the
government of society. The essential of the legislative function is the determination of the
legislative policy and its formulation and promulgation as a defined and binding rule of
conduct. It is a recognized principle in constitutional law that the legislative body possesses
plenary power for a 11 purposes of civil government. (Oceaa v COMELEC)

While lower courts should observe a becoming modesty in examining constitutional

questions, they are nonetheless not prevented from resolving the same whenever
warranted, subject only to review by the highest tribunal. The Court has jurisdiction under
the Constitution to "review, revise, reverse, modify or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the
law or rules of court may provide," final judgments and orders of lower courts in, among
others, all cases involving the constitutionality of certain measures. This simply means that
the resolution of such cases may be made in the first instance by these lower courts. (Ynot
v IAC)

Police Power

The concept of police power is well-established in this jurisdiction. It has been defined as
the "state authority to enact legislation that may interfere with personal liberty or property
in order to promote the general welfare." As defined, it consists of (1) an imposition of
restraint upon liberty or property, (2) in order to foster the common good. It is not capable
of an exact definition but has been, purposely, veiled in general terms to underscore its all
comprehensive embrace. "Its scope, ever-expanding to meet the exigencies of the times, even
to anticipate the future where it could be done, provides enough room for an efficient and
flexible response to conditions and circumstances thus assuring the greatest benefits."
(PASEI v Drilon)

Notwithstanding its extensive sweep, police power is not without its own limitations. For
all its awesome consequences, it may not be exercised arbitrarily or unreasonably.
Otherwise, and in that event, it defeats the purpose for which it is exercised, that is, to
advance the public good. Thus, when the power is used to further private interests at the
expense of the citizenry, there is a clear misuse of the power. (PASEI v Drilon)

Introduction to Law Reviewer 16

Prepared by: Louis Tan
In the exercise of police power, property rights of individuals may be subjected to restraints
and burdens in order to fulfil the objectives of the government. Otherwise stated, the
government may enact legislation that may interfere with personal liberty, property, lawful
businesses and occupations to promote the general welfare. However, the interference must
be reasonable and not arbitrary. And to forestall arbitrariness, the methods or means used
to protect public health, morals, safety or welfare must have a reasonable relation to the
end in view. (Gancayco v City Government of QC)

Law-Making Power v Rule-Making Authority

Administrative agencies possess quasi-legislative or rule-making powers and quasi- judicial

or administrative adjudicatory powers. Quasi-legislative or rule-making power is the power
to make rules and regulations which results in delegated legislation that is within the
confines of the granting statute and the doctrine of non-delegability and separability of
powers. (SMART v NTC)

The true distinction between delegation of the power to legislate and the conferring of
authority or discretion as to the execution of the law consists in that the former necessarily
involves a discretion as to what the law shall be, while in the latter the authority or
discretion as to its execution has to be exercised under and in pursuance of the law. The
first cannot be done; to the latter no valid objection can be made. (Araneta v Gatmaitan)

The principle of non-delegation of powers is applicable to all the three major powers of the
Government but is especially important in the case of the legislative power because of the
many instances when its delegation is permitted. Such occasions have become more and
more frequent, if not necessary. This had led to the observation that the delegation of
legislative power has become the rule and its non-delegation the exception. (Easter Shipping
Line v POEA)

With the proliferation of specialized activities and their attendant peculiar problems, the
national legislature has found it more and more necessary to entrust to administrative
agencies the authority to issue rules to carry out the general provisions of the statute. This
is called the power of subordinate legislation.
With this power, administrative bodies may implement the broad policies laid down in a statute
by filling in the details which the Congress may not have the opportunity or competence to
provide. This is effected by their promulgation of what are known as supplementary regulations,
such as the implementing rules issued by the Department of Labor on the new Labor Code. These
regulations have the force and effect of law. (Eastern Shipping Line v POEA)

Not to be confused with the quasi-legislative or rule-making power of an administrative

agency is its quasi-judicial or administrative adjudicatory power. This is the power to hear
and determine questions of fact to which the legislative policy is to apply and to decide in
accordance with the standards laid down by the law itself in enforcing and administering
the same law. (SMART v NTC)

The administrative body exercises its quasi-judicial power when it performs in a judicial
manner an act which is essentially of an executive or administrative nature, where the
power to act in such manner is incidental to or reasonably necessary for the performance of
the executive or administrative duty entrusted to it. (SMART v NTC)

Introduction to Law Reviewer 17

Prepared by: Louis Tan
The doctrine of primary jurisdiction applies only where the administrative agency exercises
its quasi-judicial or adjudicatory function. Thus, in questioning the validity or
constitutionality of a rule or regulation issued by an administrative agency, a party need
not exhaust administrative remedies before going to court. This principle applies only where
the act of the administrative agency concerned was performed pursuant to its quasi-judicial
function, and not when the assailed act pertained to its rule-making or quasi-legislative
power. (SMART v NTC)

Bill of Rights

The scope of human rights can be understood to include those that relate to an individuals
social, economic, cultural, political and civil relations. It thus seems to closely identify the
term to the universally accepted traits and attributes of an individual, along with what is
generally considered to be his inherent and inalienable rights, encompassing almost all
aspects of life. (Simon v CHR)

Civil rights are rights appertaining to a person by virtue of his citizenship in a state or
community. Such term may also refer, in its general sense, to rights capable of being
enforced or redressed in a civil action. (Simon v CHR)

Political rights, on the other hand, are said to refer to the right to participate, directly or
indirectly, in the establishment or administration of government, the right of suffrage, the
right to hold public office, the right of petition and, in general, the right appurtenant to
citizenship vis-a-vis the management of government. (Simon v CHR)

Search and Seizures

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be
inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable
cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation
of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place
to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. (Art III, Sec 2)

This constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure refers to the immunity of
ones person, whether citizen or alien, from interference by government, included in which
is his residence, his papers, and other possessions. There the state, however powerful, does
not as such have the access except under the circumstances above noted, for in the
traditional formulation, his house, however humble, is his castle. Thus is outlawed any
unwarranted intrusion by government, which is called upon to refrain from any invasion of
his dwelling and to respect the privacies of his life. (People v Marti)

The protection of fundamental liberties in the essence of constitutional democracy.

Protection against whom? Protection against the state. The Bill of Rights governs the
relationship between the individual and the state. Its concern is not the relation between
individuals, between a private individual and other individuals. What the Bill of Rights does
is to declare some forbidden zones in the private sphere inaccessible to any power holder.
(People v Marti)

Requisites of a Valid Warrant

Introduction to Law Reviewer 18

Prepared by: Louis Tan
The constitutional requirements of a valid search warrant or warrant of arrest are the
following:

(1) It must be based upon probable cause.

(2) The probable cause must be determined personally by the judge.
(3) The determination must be made after examination under oath or affirmation of the
complainant and the witnesses he may produce.
(4) It must particularly describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be
seized.

Probable cause has been defined as referring to such facts and circumstances antecedent to
the issuance of the warrant that in themselves are sufficient to induce a cautious man to
rely on them and act in pursuance thereof. (People v Syjuco)

Warrantless Searches and Seizures

Instances when a search or seizure may be validly made notwithstanding noncompliance

with the requisites of a valid search warrant:

Consented searches; as an incident to a lawful arrest; searches of vessels and aircraft for
violation of immigration, customs, and drug laws; searches of moving vehicles; searches of
automobiles at borders or constructive borders; where the prohibited articles are in plain
view; searches of buildings and premises to enforce fire, sanitary, and building regulations;
and stop and frisk operations; customs searches; and searches conducted under exigent
and emergency circumstances; those made at military checkpoints; those based on tipped
information in buy-bust operations; those involving drugs in transit.

Where an arrest is effected by virtue of a valid warrant, or under a valid warrantless arrest
(i.e. in flagrante delicto), a search may be made as an incident to such valid arrest.

In arrests in flagrante delicto, the accused is apprehended at the very moment he is

committing or attempting to commit or has committed an offense in the presence of the
arresting officer. To constitute a valid in flagrante delicto arrest, two requisites must concur:

(1) The person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and
(2) Such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer.

Prohibited articles within plain view, open to eye and hand, of a law enforcement officer
who comes upon them inadvertently may also be seized by him even without a warrant.

The plain view doctrine applies when the following requisites concur:

(1) The law enforcement officer sin search of the evidence has a prior justification for an
intrusion or is in a position from which he can view the particular area;
(2) The discovery of the evidence in plain view is inadvertent;
(3) It is immediately apparent to the officer that the item he observes may be evidence
of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure.

Where the object seized was inside a close package, the object itself is not in plain view and
therefore cannot be seized without a warrant. However, if the package is such that an

Introduction to Law Reviewer 19

Prepared by: Louis Tan
experienced observer could infer from its appearance that it contains the prohibited article
then the article is deemed in plain view.

When the Bill of Rights May Be Invoked Against Private Persons

Under the Civil Code of the Philippines,

Article 32. Any public officer or employee, or any private individual, who directly or
indirectly obstructs, defeats, violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any of the
following rights and liberties of another person shall be liable to the latter for damages:

(1) Freedom of religion; (2) Freedom of speech; (3) Freedom to write for the press or to
maintain a periodical publication; (4) Freedom from arbitrary or illegal detention; (5)
Freedom of suffrage; (6) The right against deprivation of property without due process of
law; (7) The right to a just compensation when private property is taken for public use; (8)
The right to the equal protection of the laws; (9) The right to be secure in one's person,
house, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures; (10) The liberty of
abode and of changing the same; (11) The privacy of communication and
correspondence; (12) The right to become a member of associations or societies for purposes
not contrary to law; (13) The right to take part in a peaceable assembly to petition the
Government for redress of grievances; (14) The right to be a free from involuntary servitude
in any form; (15) The right of the accused against excessive bail; (16) The right of the accused
to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
against him, to have a speedy and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to
have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witness in his behalf; (17) Freedom
from being compelled to be a witness against one's self, or from being forced to confess guilt,
or from being induced by a promise of immunity or reward to make such confession, except
when the person confessing becomes a State witness; (18) Freedom from excessive fines, or
cruel and unusual punishment, unless the same is imposed or inflicted in accordance with
a statute which has not been judicially declared unconstitutional; and (19) Freedom of
access to the courts.

In any of the cases referred to in this article, whether or not the defendant's act or omission
constitutes a criminal offense, the aggrieved party has a right to commence an entirely
separate and distinct civil action for damages, and for other relief. Such civil action shall
proceed independently of any criminal prosecution (if the latter be instituted), and may be
proved by a preponderance of evidence.

The indemnity shall include moral damages. Exemplary damages may also be adjudicated.

The responsibility herein set forth is not demandable from a judge unless his act or omission
constitutes a violation of the Penal Code or other penal statute.

-Good Luck-

Introduction to Law Reviewer 20

Prepared by: Louis Tan