August 5, 2016

Positive attitude. Never entertain negative thoughts. You

can do it. But do not entertain any illusion, BAR is a
difficult exam. Challenge to hurdle it.

You must invested so much time and effort. You cannot

afford to fall your family.

Section 19 of Bill of Rights -The power to impose the death

penalty is not a Presidential Power. It belongs to Congress.

Echegaray vs. Court of Appeals

Supreme Court said in this case death by lethal injection is

not cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment. To
constitute cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment is not
a mere extinguishment of life, there should be prolong
agony and suffering. It refers more to a nature of penalty
that is shocking to humankind.

Death by hanging may be cruel, degrading or inhuman

punishment.

President Digong wanted us to shift to Federalism. Our

present form of government is Unitary or Presidential form
of government.

Amendment- peacemil change in the constitution.

Revision- Amendment of the entire constitution.

Lambino vs. Comelec

2 test to determine
1)Quantitative test- asks whether the proposed change is
so extensive in its provisions as to change directly the
substantial entirety of the constitution by the deletion or
alteration of numerous existing provisions. The court
examines only the number of provisions affected and does
not consider the degree of the change.

2)Qualitative Test
- inquires into the qualitative effects of the proposed
change in the Constitution. The main inquiry is whether
the change will accomplish such far reaching changes in
the nature of our basic governmental plan as to amount to
a revision. Whether there is alteration in the structure of
government is a proper subject of inquiry. Thus, a change
in the nature of the basic governmental plan includes
change in its fundamental framework or the fundamental
powers of its Branches. A change in the nature of of the
basic governmental plan also includes changes that
jeopardize the traditional form of government and the
system of check and balances.

Presidentiary to parliamentary- this will involve revision of

the Constitution.

2 stages of the process of revision

1) proposal stage- one proposed the amendments or

revision

2) Ratification stage- How this should be done? Thru

plebiscite to be ratified by the majority vote of the people.
PROPOSAL- The adoption of the suggested change in the
Constitution

How may ways of proposing an amendment?

1) Congress itself as a constituent assembly may directly

proposed an amendments by a vote of three fourths vote
of all its members

*When Congress meets to propose an amendment or

revision, in what capacity Congress be acting? Congress is
acting as a constituent assembly not acting as a
legislative body.

A: They are acting as a Constituent Assembly by 3/4

votes.
2) Constitutional Convention- which may be called into
existence by 2/3 of all the members of Congress. The
Congress, upon a majority vote of all its members may
submit the question of whether to call a constitutional
convention to be resolved by the people in a plebiscite.
(Section 3 Article XVII)

Constitutional Convention is a separate and distinct body

by Congress. Members elected by their respective
districts.

First Constitution- 1935 Constitution was drafted by

Constitutional Convention.

Second Constitution- 1973 Constitution was drafted by

Constitutional Convention

Third Constitution- 1987 Constitution was drafted by

Constitutional Commission wherein members where not
elected by people but were appointed by President Aquino.

1987 Constitution -no mention of constitutional

commission- not a way of proposing amendment or
revision.

How many ways of calling a Constitutional Convention?

* 2/3 votes of all its members may call a constitutional

Convention.

* Submit that issue of calling a constitutional convention

to the people. How many votes? Majority.

1) Peoples initiative- Section 2 Article XVII. How it is

done?

A: Thru a petition signed by at least 12% of the total

number of registered voters, of which every legislative
district must be represented by at least three per cent of
the registered voters therein.
Limitation: No Amendment under this section shall be
authorized within 5 years following the ratification of this
constitution nor oftener than once every five years
thereafter.

However, the Congress shall provide for the

implementation of the exercise of this right.

Is there implementing law on Initiative and referendum? It

remains to be non-self executing provision because R.A.
6735 on Initiative and Referendum law was declared to be
unconstitutional.

In Santiago vs. Comelec Supreme Court said Section 2 of

Article XVII is limited only to amendments not revision.

Digong is limited into 2 choices:

1) It must be thru Congress acing as a constitutional
Assembly; It is not clear on how shall they vote whether
separately or jointly. Surely, they need to submit it to the
Supreme Court how shall they vote.

How will Congress convene?

Compare:

Section 23 Article VI: The Congress, by a vote of two-

thirds of both Houses in joint session assembled, voting
separately, shall have the sole power to declare the
existence of a state of war.
_In this case it is clear how the Congress will meet and
how they will vote.

However, with regards to amendments or revisions, it is

not clear how shall the Congress meet and how shall they
vote? Jointly or separately.

Section XVII

-Section 1. Any amendments to , or revision of, this

Constitution may be proposed by:
a. Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its
members or
b. A constitutional convention.

2) Thru a constitutional convention- Digong prefer this but

later changed his mind because it is costly because if it is
thru constitutional convention, delegates may be elected.

Constitutional Convention is a separate and distinct body

from Congress.

Bicameral Congress- A Senate and a Congress.

*Distinguish a Constitutional Assembly from a

Constitutional Convention

A: Constitutional Assembly is a body converting itself as

to Constitutional Assembly While Constitutional
Convention is a separate and distinct body from Congress.

SOUTH CHINA SEA

What is the status of South east asia? That is high seas.

Components of a Territory of a State

Territorial/Land Maritime/Fluvial Aerial Domain

Domain Domain

-includes internal
waters territorial Contaguous EEZ/Continental
Sea zone Shelf
12n.m 24 n.m. 200 n.m.

-modes of aquiring territory

Right of innocent passage.

Elements of State

1. People
2.
3 Sovereignty
4
-Components of a Territory of a State

1) Territorial
-internal waters- rivers, falls, canals and harbors= forms part of territorial
waters.

Modes of Acquiring Territory

1) Discovery of territory which is Terra nullius

* Terra nullius means land belonging to no one.

*doctrine of effective occupation- means discovery alone is not enough. It
merely gives the discoverer an enchoate rights over the territory. For title
to freely vest to the discoverer, the discovery must be followed within
reasonable time by effective occupation and administration of the
territory.

2) Cession- Done thru a treaty wherein one State cease a territory in favor
of another State

3) Prescription

4) Accretion

MARITIME/Fluvial Domain
-territorial sea
-Contaguous zone
-Exclusive Economic zone
-Continental Shelf- submerged area

* What rights does the State has in territorial sea? State has sovereignty
in its territorial sea. How many? 12 nautical miles.

*What rights does a State has in Contaguous zone? State has jurisdiction
to enforce Customs Fiscal Immigaration and Sanitary laws.

*What about the Exclusive Economic Zones/Continental Shelf? Exclusive

right to exploit the resources there both living and non-living resources,
sea bed, sub-soil and other sub-marine area. How many? 200 nautical
miles.

*How it differs in UNCLOS?

A: In UNCLOS, it is a continuous, uninterrupted passage without however

entering the internal waters.

*When do you consider passage innocent?

A: Passage is innocent if it will not compromise the peace, good order and
security of coastal State.

*Beyond the 200 nautical mile of Exclusive Economic Zone/Continental

Shelf, what do you find there?
A: The high seas or international waters.

*What is the legal status of high seas in international law?

A: RES COMMUNES- Belong to everyone, not susceptible of
appropriation by any single State, and forms part of common heritage of
all mankind.

*What is the regime governing laws of high seas?

A: Mare Liberum_ means freedom of high seas.

*What are the fundamentals freedom in the high seas?

1) Freedom of Navigation of flight, fishing and mining.

2) Laying down of under water cables
3) Freedom to do scientific research

-Any State may do the above activities in the high seas.

*Who has jurisdiction when vessels sailing in high seas?

A: Only flag state.

Flag State- is a state whose nationality the vessel carries.

* How to determine the nationality of the vessel?

A: It is determine by registration.

Exceptions: 1) It the vessel happens to be a pirate ships. Hostiss Human

generis

Pirate ships- enemies of all mankind.

2) If the vessel is engage in a slave trade;

3) If the vessel is sailing without a flag, using a false flag or refuse to

show the flag when required to do so

4) If the vessel is engage in unauthorized broadcast directed against

another State.

5) Doctrine of Hot pursuit

Note; Do not confuse from arrest in hot pursuit. Hot pursuit in criminal
procedure Rule 113 Section 5. These are instances of valid warrantless
arrest: 1) inflagrante
2) Arrest in hot pursuit
3) Escape

Doctrine of Hot pursuit- You pursue a vessel. It presupposes that there

was a foreign vessel that enters your territorial sea, internal waters,
contaguous zone which has committed violation of law on the sea that you
have reasonable ground to believe that the foreign vessel has committed
a violation of its laws in which case you may pursue that foreign vessel
even if that foreign vessel already reached the high seas invoking the so
called Doctrine of Hot pursuit. There was a requirement here that a
pursuit once commenced must be continuous and uninterrupted.

Spratly or Kalayan by Executive Order _____ was called by Pinoy West

Philippine Sea. It is called by the Vietnam as East Vietnam Sea.

Scarborough Shoal or Panatag shoal. In Spanish term, it is called Bajo de

Masenloc.

-Shoal means a shallow portion of the sea or river. It submerged at hight

tide.

It is located at 124 miles from Zambales. West of Masinloc Zambales.

*Northern Palawan- we can find oil in Malampaya 10% oil requirement.

Article I National Territory comprise of the following:

1) Philippine Archipelago
2) All other territories over which the Philippine has sovereignty or
jurisdiction.

*Would you consider Spratly Group of Island as part of Philippine

Archipelago?
A: Not part of the Philippine Archipelago but it is part of all other
territories over which the Philippine has sovereignty or jurisdiction.

P.D. 96 we will hold elections there in spratleys. This is an act of

sovereignty.

Two Ancillary Treaties

1)Treaty of Washington
2)Treaty of Great Bretain. Is that include Spratly? No, at that time terra
Nullius. It was discovered in 1950s by a Boholano. During Martial law
Cloma waives his rights. President Marcos he had philippine marine
occupied by virtue of PD 1596 constituting municipality of Kalayaan. It is
part of our National territory.
*The waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the
archipelago, regardless of their breadth and dimensions, form part of the
internal waters of the Philippines. These are internal waters and internal
water form part of territorial water.

*Archaepelagic sailing. The use o Archaepelagic sailing shall be under the

control and regulation of Archaelaic State.

Magellan vs. Ermita

-R.A. 3046 demarcating our maritime as an archaepelagic state.
-UNCLOS was ratified on February_______ Congress as to amend RA 3046
and enacted R.A 9522 adjusting base points. R.a. 9522 in compliance with
UNCLOS was ratified on February 24, 1994. What is the significance of
R.A. 9522 as standpoint of international law? That was inacted by
Congress in compliance of UNCLOS 3 that is now a notice to the whole
world over maritime baseline and archaepelagic. Therefore, foreign State
has to recognize our baselines. It is from those baseline that we are
measuring out territorial sea., contiguous zone and exclusive economic
zone.

-In R.A. 9522 and R.A. 3046 Kalayaan and Scarborough shoal are excluded.
The petitioner said that RA 9522 is unconstitutional because it diminish
our territory because it did not include Spratly and Scarborough Shoal.

-Supreme Court did not agree. It said that On the contrary R.A. 9522
even increased our Natiional Territory but more than that according to SC,
R.A. 9522 has nothing to do with acquisition, diminution of land territory.
It is a mere statutory tool demarcating our maritime baseline in line with
UNCLOS 3. That is why you cannot include Spratly and Scarborough shoal.
Why not included? If we do that we will be claiming a big part of China.

*Can Spratly claim 200 Exclusive Economic Zone? No. It is only entitled
to 12 nautical miles in territorial sea, that can sustain a stable community
of people with no supplies from outside.

EDCA- enhance, define communication agreement sgined by American

Amabassador and Philippne defense secretary. Obama and pinoy merely
witnessed the signing. Is EDCA a treaty or Executive Agreement?
-In this case the SC only wants access to Philippine bases.

Bayan vs. Executive Secretary Ronaldo Zamora

Who ratifies a treaty?
SC said n our jurisdiction the one who ratifies a treaty is the President,
the role of Senate is limited only to giving or withholding its consent to the
ratification.

Pimentel vs. ___

-SC said Executive Agreement will not require concurrence of Senate.

Treaty or international Agreement needs concurrence of Senate.

*In International law, there is no distinction between Executive agreement

and Treaty. They are equally binding obligation upon nations.

Treaty Executive Agreement

-Requires concurrence of congress Will not require concurrence of
Congress

Saguisag VS. Executive SEcretary Ochoa

-Is EDCA a treaty? SC said EDCA is not a treaty. It is a mere executive
agreement.

-What were the Us Treaties

1) Visiting Forces Agreement
2) Mutual defense Treaty of 1950

-DCA merely implements the two treaties( VFA and Mutual defense treaty
of 1950). It will not require concurrence of Senate. This is not a treaty. It
is a mere executive agreement.
Bishop Arrigo of Palawan vs. Other environmental Groups

-American Naval Vessel supposed to go to Indonesia. Along the way it will

anchor at Subic. It dismantle the American Naval Vessel destroying much
of our corals. Will a petition for a writ of Kalikasan prosper? No. On what
ground? Lack of jurisdiction. What is the principle: Sovereign equality of
all State. Par in Parem Nun habet in perium. What does it mean? All State
are sovereign equal. An equal will not assume jurisdiction over an equal.

-Supreme Court further said, the doctrine of State immunity from suit
applies to complaint filed againsst the public office. in the performance of
his duties, you have deemed to have sued the US itself.

* In International law, a foreign Naval vessel is considered as extension of

the territory where they belong. It is called the principle of exterritoriallity.

* arguments in this case:

Argued that there is a waiver of immunity from suit under the VFA. Will
the waiver under the VFA apply in this case? No because waiver under
VFA is a waiver of criminal jurisdiction over offenses committed by the
American soldiers in the Philippines.

Petitioners said, US may bound pursuant to provisions of UNCLOS? SC

said, US until now has not yet ratify the UNCLOS, but then according to
Justice Carpio, lthough US has not yet ratify Customary International law,
US may be bound because US is the principal proponents of UNCLOS.
However, US is willing to pay its damages. What US wants is a panel of
experts to assist them to determine the total damages. So, no need for
the issuance of Writ of Kalikasan.

August 6, 2016

What comprises National territory?

A:
1) It comprises the Philippine Archipelago;
2) All other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or
jurisdiction.

Is Spratly or kalayaan Island Group and Scarborough shoal (Panatag Shoal)

part of the Philippine Archaepelago? No

Are they part of all other territories over which the Philippines has
sovereignty or jurisdiction? Yes.

*The second sentence of Article I provides; that the waters around,

between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago, regardless of their
breadth and dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the
Philippines. They are part of internal waters and as internal waters, they
form part of the land of territorial domain of the State.

*Conflict in Mindanao* Filipino brothers are killing each other.

Art. X Section I. The territorial and political subdivisions of the Republic of
the Philippines are the provinces, cities municipalities, and barangays.
There shall be autonomous regions in Muslim Mindanao and the Cordilleras as
hereinafter provided.

-The constitution only mentioned two places as autonomous regions

namely:
1) Muslim Mindanao
2) Cordilleras

*The constitution only contemplate 2 places to be the autonomous

regions. Only in Muslim Mindanao and Cordilleras.
Ex. Is it allowed to create an autonomous region in Bicol? No because the
constitution contemplates on of establishing an autonomous regions in
two places in the Philippines,namely the Muslim Mindanao and Cordilleras.

*BANGSAMORO BASIC LAW

-Should Bangsamoro Basic Law be declared unconstitutional or should it

be constitutionally affirmed? There is still no law yet.

BBL will still passed Bicameral Conference committee . Then, after

passing through the Bicameral Conference Committee, it will go back to
both houses to be voted upon and assuming that it will be voted upon that
will be the time that it will become an enrolled bill, to be presented to the
President for signature. Assuming that the President will sign it into law.
Will that take effect already? Hindi pa because under Section 18 Article X
It needs plebiscite for the BBL to be ratified. It is only then that the bill
becomes a law.

Local Government, how are they referred to by the Constitution? They are
the territorial, political subdivision of the Republic of the Philippines,

There should be two places mentioned in the constitution to be the

autonomous regions. But at present, only Muslim Mindanao becomes an
autonomous region. What happened with the autonomous region in the
Cordilleras? The organic act creating the autonomous region in the
Cordillera when presented by people to be ratified by them under Section
18 of Article X, was lost in the Plebiscite. Why? Only one province voted
in favor of autonomy there. SC said, it cannot be allowed when only one
province voted in favor of the autonomy. When we talk of a region, we
speak of two provinces or at least one city one province. A single province
could not possibly constitute into a region. That is why the autonomous
region of Cordilleras was never created. Instead, what was merely created
there was Cordillera Administrative Region which is not an autonomous
region. It is like Ilocos Region -Region I, Central Luzon Regio II, Southern
Tagalog Region Iv, Bicol Region Region v, Western Visayas Region VI,
Central visayas Region VII, Samar/Leyte group Eastern Visayas,
Zamboanga Region IX, Northern Mindanao X. Davao Region XI, Karaga
region XIII. Unlike ARMM it is an autonomous region.

*Just be very familiar with the Codal provisions.

How does the constitution define an autonomous region? Section 15
Article X. There shall be created autonomous regions in Muslim Mindanao
and in the Cordilleras consisting of provinces, cities, municipalities, and
geographical areas sharing common and distinctive historical and cultural
heritage, economic and social structures, and other relevant
characteristics within the framework of this Constitution and the national
sovereignty as well as territorial integrity of the Republic of the Philippines.

Q: Following the definition does the constitution contemplates the

creation of an imperium imperium ( a state within state)? Of course no
because whatever entity that would have to be created on those places
must be within the framework of the constitution. And the national
sovereignty as well as territorial integrity of the Republic of the Philippines.

MOA-R (Memorandum of Agreement of Ancestral Remains)- There

supposed to be the signing of the MOA-R between the representative of
the government as well as the Moro Islamic Liberation Fund. Kasi if
nagka pirmahan yon, in effect. In MOA-R , the Bangsamoro juridical Entity
will have its own territory, people and government. That is a State
separate and distinct from that of the Philippines, obviously the
Philippines does not contemplate on that. How did the constitution define
the Autonomous region? Section 15 Art. X.

Province of North Cotabato vs. Republic of the Philippines Peace Panel

This is a development in Public international law.

What is an association? Two states of unequal power they voluntarily

establish durable links. In its basic model, one state, the associate
delegates certain responsibility to the other, the principal while
maintaining its International status as a State. That is its basic model.

- This is a development in Public International law, dati naman wala

namang tinatawag na association or associate State. What is the example
given by the Supreme Court? Are the new State in Micronesia and
Marshall Islands, it is in South Pacific. Before, they used to be considered
Trust Territories, administered by the US pursuant to the United Nations
Trusteeship Council. However today, they become an Independent State.
In fact, they already joined the United Nations. At present, there is no
Trust Territories anymore because what used to be trust territories in the
past have now evolved into full blown state. However, while becoming an
independent States, yet they still maintain that associative relationship
with the United States. They delegate certain responsibility to the U.S. like
in matters of self-defense. Kasi maliliit na islands lang yan eh. That is the
new concept in International law. That isits basic model.
In international practice, SC said, this association state relationship is a
transitional device of former colonies on their way to full independence.

Example carebean State, group of islands east of cuba, south of dominican

Republi used to be colonies of Great Bretain, before they become an
independent State they passed transitional device of former colonies on
their way o full independence.

Q: Is that concept of association or associate state recognized by the

Supreme Court in 1987 Constitution? Supreme Court said, No, the 1987
Constitution states that no province, city or municipality not even the
ARMM is recognized under our laws having an associative relationship with
international law. Indeed the concept implies power to go beyond
anything never granted by the constitution to any local or original
government. It also implies the recognition of _______ as a State. The
constitution however does not contemplate any State in this jurisdiction
other than the Philippine State much less does it provide for a transitional
status that aims to prepare any part of Philippine Territory or
independence because the signing of the MOA-R push through in effect we
will be allowing this _______ in Mindanao over Bangsamoro, political entity
as an associate state of the republic of the Philippines. That is not
contemplated in the constitution. That is why I invite you attention to the
definition of Autonomous region Section 15 Art. X. Obviously the
Bangsamoro that will have to be created in MOA-R contravenes the
constitution particularly the definition under Article X, Section 15. On that
important consideration, the Supreme Court had to declare that MOA R is
unconstitutional.

Under provision to consider: Section 18 Article X. Who is supposed to

enact that organic act, creating the autonomous regions in those two
places? It is Congress that enact an organic act creating the autonomous
regions in two places. In that MOA-R was Congress involved? No. That is
another reason why MOA-R had to be declared unconstitutional because
Congress was ignored there. While it is clear in Section 18 Article X that
the Congress shall enact an organic act, not an executive alone.

Under Section 18, it is Congress that is asked to enact that organic act,
creating the autonomous region in those two places and what is the basic
structure of that autonomous government? It is stated in Section 18,
consisting of the executive department and legislative assembly who are
to be elected by the people there. The organic acts shall likewise provide
for special courts with personal, family and property law jurisdiction
consistent with the provision of this Constitution and national laws.
* Whatever entities we will create, First, it should be the Congress is
supposed to enact those organic act.

Second, it must always be within the framework of the constitution as well

as the national sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic of the
Philippines. The constitution does not contemplate the establishment of a
State within State.

Third, assuming that organic act has already been enacted, plebiscite is
still to be conducted for those two places for the people to choose whether
they wanted to join that autonomous region or not and to be ratified by
the majority of the people there. Thus, MOA R should be declared
unconstitutional on that score alone that Congress was ignored. Secondly,
the powers that will be given to the Bangsamoro juridical entity (MOA R)
approximates the entire Bangsamoro juridical entity that of the creation in
Mindanao of the Bangsamoro entity as an associate State of the Republic
of the Philippines. Obviously, that would be unconstitutional. Remember:
the constitution does not contemplate any State in its jurisdiction other
than the Philippine State much less does it provide for a transition status
that aims to prepare any part of Philippine Territory or independence.
 Right to self-determination of People

Internal External
Self-determination Self-determination

-A peoples pursuit of its -Takes the form of an

own political, economic, assertion of a right to
social and cultural development unilateral secission/
within the framework of an Separation.
existing state.

-May be invoked only in existing cases

1) in case of people who colonial rule
2) In case of people under foreign domination or exploitation.
These rights properly belongs to the minority groups within state which
are called indigenous cultural communities or indigenous people.

Province of Cotabato vs.

-SC said, this right to self-determination of people, this has gone beyond
mere treaty of convention, in fact it has now been elevated into the status
of a generally accepted principle of International law. So, what is the
significance of that statement? The significance lies in the application of
the Doctrine of Incorporation. Remember Section 2 Article II of the
Constitution; The Philippines adopts the generally accepted principles of
international law as part of the law of the land and adheres to the policy of
peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation, and amity with all nations.
That provision is an affirmation of an adherence to the Doctrine of
Incorporation in International law. Following that statement, is the right to
self-determination has now been elevated into the status of generally
accepted principle of international laws. Following that provision, it is now
automatically incorporated in our laws. Remember, Congress already
enacted, indigenous peoples rights act, the IPRA R.A. 8371, that is the law
recognizing and protecting the Rights of Minority Groups. Kaya nga
Indigenous Peoples rights act.

If that be the case, this right to self-determination has now been generally
accepted principle of international law as part of the law of the land. May
our Muslim brothers and sisters in Muslim Mindanao, may they not validly
invoke their right to self-determination in order to separate from the
Republic of the Philippines? How do you address that kind of a question?

SC said in the case of Province of Cotabato, actually when we talk of right

to self-determination of peoples as a generally accepted principle of
International law, we have to distinguish between internal self-
determination and external self-determination.

Internal self-determination, what do you mean by that? Means a people

pursuit of its own political, economic, and social cultural development
within the framework of an existing States. On the other hand, external
self-determination, it takes the form of an assertion of a right to unilateral
cessation or separation. SC further said, when we talk of right to self-
determination as a generally accepted principle of international law, that
actually we only refer to internal self-determination. Meaning to say, a
peoples pursuit to its own political, economic, social and cultural
development within the framework of an existing State. The right to
external self-determination, according to the Court in that case takes the
form of an assertion of a right to unilateral cessation/separation that may
be invoked only in extreme cases. What are those extreme cases when
right to self-determination maybe invoke?

1. In case of people under colonial rule;

2. In case of people under foreign domination or exploitation outside of a
colonial context.

But as normally understood in international law, when we talk of this right

to self-determination of people as a generally accepted principle of
International Law, we refer only to Internal self-determination. Meaning to
say, a peoples pursuit to its own political, economic, social and cultural
development within the framework of an existing State. So going back to
our question, May the Bangsamoro People of Mindanao, may they not
validly invoke right to self-determination in order to separate from the
Republic of the Philippines? Obviously, No because in effect what they are
invoking is an external self determination. This is not in the contemplation
of the constitution because as normally understood when we talk about
right to self-determination of people we refer only to internal self-
determination, not external. The right to external self-determination,
according to the Court in that case takes the form of an assertion of a right
to unilateral cessation/separation that may be invoked only in extreme
cases. Now, answer me, are the people in Bangsamoro Mindanao under a
colonial rule or under a foreign denomination or exploitation? No

I invite your attention to Section 15, Article X. How do the constitution

define autonomous region there? Section 15, Article X, provides, there
shall be created autonomous regions in Muslim Mindanao and in the
Cordilleras consisting of provinces, cities, municipalities, and geographical
areas sharing common and distinctive historical and cultural heritage,
economic and social structures, and other relevant characteristics within
the framework of this Constitution and the national sovereignty as well as
territorial integrity of the Republic of the Philippines.

Is that definition consistent with internal self-determination? Yes, it is

consistent the Constitution does not invasion the external self-
determination because whatever entity be created there, must always be
within the framework of the constitution and the national sovereignty as
well as territorial integrity of the Republic of the Philippines.

Another current issue: Traffic. President Digong wants to have an

emergency Power to resolve the issue of Traffic.

Emergency power is a delegated power of the president from Congress.

The President cannot declare emergency power on its own. There must be
a law enacted by Congress authorizing him to exercise emergency power.

Section 23 (2) ART VI In times of war or other national emergency, the

Congress may, by law, authorize the President, for a limited period and
subject to such restrictions as it may prescribe, to exercise powers
necessary and proper to carry out a declared national policy. Unless
sooner withdrawn by resolution of the Congress, such powers shall cease
upon the next adjournment thereof.

Randolf vs. GMA

-SC said, there was no law enacted by Congress at that time authorizing
him to exercise emergency powers. So, that was not the emergency
power she exercised when she promulgated Proclamation 1070 declaring
State emergency and effecting warrantless arrest, and prohibiting public
rally because of that there was no law enacted at that time authorizing the
President.

Requisites for Congress to validly delegate emergency power to the

President:

1. There must be war or other National Emergency;

2. The delegation must be for a limited period only;
3. It must always be subject to such restrictions as Congress may
prescribe;
4. It must always be pursuant to a declared National policy

It is clear that if Congress would like to give Emergency Power to the

President, Congress will have to pass a law for that purpose.

-What if Congress would like to revoke or withdraw the delegated power to

the President? Is Congress required to enact another law for that purpose?

For Congress to avoid the Veto, to override the VETO a greater majority
from Congress required two-thirds.

History:
President Quirino Veto the revocation of his Emergency power present
before him by Congress

It was elevated to the SC because there was emergency power crises, SC

said. f Congress would like to revoke or withdraw the delegated
emergency power of the President another law is not required for that
purpose, a mere resolution from Congress will suffice. Otherwise it will lead
to an absurd situation where for the purpose of delegating emergency
power to the President mere majority vote from Congress will do, but if
Congress would like to revoke or withdraw the emergency power, a
greater majority will be required by Congress.

*RESIDENT MAMMALS vs. SECRETARY ANGELO REYES

Tanyon State is a small body of water separating Cebu from Negros. It is

protected area because of its rich in marine resources under NIPAS
(National Integrated Protected Areas System).

Who are the residents of Tanyon State? Dolphins, whales and other
cetacean species. What is Cetacean species? It is a large mammals,
inhabiting the seas. The Philippine government entered into a service
contract for the exploration of oil which threatened the mammals and
other inhabitants of the sea. Petitioners file a Petition in the Supreme
Court for the issuance of a Writ of kalikasan. Who are the petitioners?
Resident mammals. Are they the proper parties? In the Civil action who
may be parties to Civil Action? It says there only persons whether natural
or juridical.

In Oposa vs. Factoran, you have minors file petition in Court. What is the
purpose of the petition? For the Court to cancel existing Timber License
Agreements that had already been issued to logging concessionaires and
for the DENR not to issue additional timber license agreement to preserve
whatever _____. What right they have invoke? Section 16 Article II. The
right of the people to a balance and healthful ecology in accord with the
rhythm and harmony of nature. They are minor represented by their
parents? Are the minors proper party to file the case? SC said, Yes they
may be the proper parties after all they were represented by their parents.
They maybe minors but they were represented by their parents.

However, in this case it is different, resident mammals are made parties.

What did the Supreme Court say? Supreme court said, It can be after all
they (mammals) were joined by human beings in their petition as stewards
of Gods creation. Then, Supreme Court used citizen suit, that is a proper
party.

Please read Arigo vs. Admiral Scotch

In the case of Resident Mammals, the petitioners wanted the Supreme

Court to declare the service contract entered into between the
government and Japan violates Article XII Section 2. All lands of the public
domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all
forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and
fauna, and other natural resources are owned by the State. With the
exception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not be
alienated. The exploration, development, and utilization of natural
resources shall be under the full control and supervision of the State. This
is the Regalian Doctrine.

Section 2 (4) Article XII. The President may enter into agreements with
foreign-owned corporations involving either technical or financial
assistance for large-scale exploration, development, and utilization of
minerals, petroleum, and other mineral oils according to the general terms
and conditions provided by law, based on real contributions to the
economic growth and general welfare of the country. In such agreements,
the State shall promote the development and use of local scientific and
technical resources.

-It is argued in this case by the Petitioner in this case that the Secretary of
Energy can validly enter into a contract with foreign-owned corporation
because of the doctrine of Qualified Political Agency otherwise known as
Alter Ego Doctrine. The members of the cabinet and the heads of the
executive departments are deemed to be the alter egos of the President.
So that their acts, their decisions performed or rendered in their regular
course of business, they are deemed to be the acts or the decision of the
president himself, unless reprobated or disapproved by him.

Supreme Court in this case said that the service contract entered into
between the Philippines and Japan is unconstitutional as it did no comply
with the constitutional requirements that it should be the President that
will enter into agreements with the foreign-owned corporation and the
Energy Secretary. Apparently this is an exemption of the Doctrine of
Qualified Political Agency, it cannot be invoked. Why? Since the
constitution itself has got to be performed by the President himself
especially since what is involved are natural resources of paramount
public interest.

BT TALONG CASE

-Genetically Modified organism. (GMO)

Talong___ BT Talong ____Filed _____ Commercial

GMO Testing Propagation
International

Green Peace and other environmentalist filed a petition in the Supreme

Court that for the issuance of a writ of Kalikasan, not to continue with the
filed testing of BT Talong as well as the commercial propagation. What
did the Supreme Court do? The Supreme court referred the case to the
Court of Appeals. Why in the Court of Appeals? Why is it that the
Supreme Court did not resolved the case? Because the Supreme Court is
not a triar of facts. Then, both parties present their expert witnesses.
What did the Court of Appeals do? The Court of appeals thereafter,
conducted HOT TUB hearing.

Hot Tub hearing- this is something to do with an expert witness. What is

the usual rule/ First, you have to qualify him as an expert witness for a
particular subject. And once the Court is convinced that the witness is an
expert witness, that is the time that there is direct-examination, cross-
examination, re-direct-examination. After qualifying that all of the witness
as an expert witness from both sides. That is a cumbersome procedure
and the witness cannot express their expertise in their fields because they
are limited to questions in the direct-examination and cross-examination.
So, instead of following the usual procedure, the Court of Appeals utilized
Hot Tub hearing wherein there is a panel discussion or there is a panel of
experts. Since the testimonies of both sides are inclusive, because of that
the Court of Appeals issued a Writ of Kalikasan not to further conduct the
filed testing of this GMO, applying the so called in issued the writ of
kalikasan, the precautionary principle. What is that precautionary
principle and where do you find that one? It is bound in Cartagena
principle on Biosafety. What is this Cartagena principle on Biosafety? It is
a Multi lateral treaty which we are a party and which we ratified.

Part of the syllabus is International Environmental laws. Rule 20 for the

enforcement of our Environmental laws promulgated by the SC pursuant
to its Rule Making Power. Precautionary principle in incorporated in Rule
20 on the Rules for the enforcement of our Environmental laws. The
decision of the CA is affirmed by the SC. Ano ang pinaka essence nga
Environmetal laws, better be safe than sorry later on. That is why the CA
issue a Writ of Kalikasan not to conduct filed testing and commercial
propagation of BT Talong. The CA also considers same incident happened
in India and the Indian Supreme Court issued a Moriturium against the
field testing of BT Bringal because of precautionary principal, huwag muna
until ma establish na safe yan. Ang tawag sa Indian ay BT Bringal case.

SEPARATION OF POWERS

Legislative Power Executive Power Judicial Power

Congress
Sec. 1, Art VI Sec. 1, Art. VII SC+ Sec par1 Art VIII

-Section 1 Article II, The kind of Government we have is a Democratic and

Republican Government.

The Form of Government is a Presidential form of government. Let us

correlate this with International Law; International law does not concern
with what kind of government whether it is autocratic or democratic, what
is important is that there must be a government in the State.

However, in our Constitution, the kind of government really matters. In

fact, it prescribes that our government opt to be democratic. It opt to be a
republican. That is an important consideration and because of that. There
is no way by which you can identify the establishment in the Philippines of
a dictatorship or of any kind of government unless you wanted to do away
with the constitution.
In a Democratic and Republican State, sovereignty resides in the people
and all government authority emanates from them. That is why we have
to consider Section 1 Article XI, which provides that a Public office is a
public trust.

What are the important characteristic of a Democratic and Republican

state?
1) Public office is a public trust;
2) Public office may not be inherited;
3) Public office is outside the commerce of men and cannot be the subject
of a valid contract.

How do we connect that with party-list system? Thru Term sharing

Agreement. Term Sharing agreement is a contract. What is important in a
contract is a meeting of the mind. The tertiary agreement, is that
enforceable in court? Of course no, since the subject matter of the term
sharing agreement is public office and public office is outside the
commerce of men. So, it may not be the subject of a valid contract. So, it
is unenforceable.

4) Public office is not a property, that is why it is not protected by due

process clause. There can be no vested right to public office. You have to
correlate it with Section 1 Article II. Sovereignty resides in the people and
all government authority emanates from them. Article XI Section 1Public
office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must, at all times, be
accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility,
integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead
modest lives. For example, you are occupying a public office and then,
Congress decides to abolish your office, can you complain that there is a
violation of the right to due process? Of course no, since public office is
not a property. It is not protected by the due process clause. Ano ba ang
sinasabi ng due process clause? No person shall be deprived of life,
liberty and property without due process of law. Remember the power of
Congress to create public office carries with it to abolish the same office.

*Note: what are the requisites of a valid contract?

1) Consent
2) Consideration
3) Subject matter of a contract- Now the subject matter of the contract
must not be outside the commerce of men.

Distinguish abolition of an office and removal of an officer. These are two

modes of extinguishing terminal relation with the government.

In abolition of an office, what is abolish is the office itself but not in a

removal of an officer. In removal of an officer, the one who is removed is
the occupant whereas the office remains. That is why it is in the removal
of an officer that the occupant can file a complaint by reason of his
security of tenure because under the constitution and under civil service
law before one may be lawfully removed from office it must be for cause
provided for by law that there must be a due process but not in the
abolition of an office. The power of Congress to create public office carries
with it the power to abolish it created. The only limitation to abolish an
office is that the abolition must be done in good faith. So, public office is
not a property. It is not protected by the due process clause. There can
be no vested right to public office. Those are the four important
characteristic of public office in a republican/democratic State. Article XI
Section I should be correlated with Article II Section 1. The first among the
fundamental principles of government, the Philippines is a
republican/democratic State, sovereignty resides in the people. That is
also by the way you will find also that provision in impeachment not found
in Article VI, VII, and VIII. In fact, they are found in Article XI. After all
what is impeachment all about. Impeachment is all about public
accountability since we are a republican/democratican State. For that
matter Section 2 Article XI becomes very important. Who are the
impeachable officers?
1) The President
2) The Vice President
3) Members of the the Supreme Court
4) Members of the Constitutional Commissions
a) COA
b) Civil Service Commission
c) COMELEC
5) Ombudsman
*The list of impeachable officers are exclusive pursuant to Article XI
Section to second paragraph, All other public officers and employees may
be removed from office as provided by law, but not by impeachment.
Meaning to say the list of impeachable officers are exclusive. Hindi puede
bawasan, hind puede dagdagan.
-President and Vice President, they are the highest elective officials of the
land. Members of the Supreme Court, Members of the Constitutional
Commission, Ombudsman, they are the highest appointed officials of the
land.

What are the grounds for impeachment?

1) culpable violation of the Constitution;
2) Treason;
3) Bribery;
4) Graft and Corruption;
5) Other high crimes;
6) Betrayal of public trust

You compare that with the US. In US, only three grounds for
impeachment:
1) Treason;
2) Other high crimes;

3) Betrayal of Public Trust

*Former justice Corona and Former President Joseph Estrada, were they
impeached?

A; Both were impeached, kaya lang the results of their impeachment trial
magkaiba. In the case of former President Estrada if you will recall after
the prosecution presented their evidence, they walked out of the
impeachment trial. That is why the State had to declare the impeachment
court functous officio and the rest were overtaken by events nagkaroon ng
EDSA 2. But in the case of former Chief Justice Corona, he was not only
impeached after that impeachment trial he was found guilty and that is
why he was removed.

*Co-equal branch, house of representative and senate. Who prosecutes all

cases of impeachment? House of representatives. In such a case the
house of representative shall be acting as a prosecutoral body.
Who will try the impeachment case? Senate.
If the subject matter of impeachment is the President, who shall preside?
The chief justice merely presides but the one that shall vote shall be the
Senate as the body itself. The one who will try is the Senate while the
Chief justice only presides. (Section 3 (pag6) The Senate shall have the
sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment. When sitting for
that purpose, the Senators shall be on oath or affirmation. When the
President of the Philippines is on trial the Chief Justice of the Supreme
Court shall preside, but shall not vote. No person shall be convicted
without the concurrence of two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate.
When the Senators is sitting for that purpose, they shall take an oath or
affirmation emphasizing that they are not acting as Senate but as judges.

In a transitional form of government, there is what we call separation of

powers as distinguished from a parliamentary government like what they
have in Great Bretain. The parliamentary government, instead of
separation of powers, we have there the union of the executive and
legislative branches. In parliamentary government, the Prime minister,
the head of the State is elected not by the people at large but by the
members of parliament. So, because of that the prime minister is
accountable not to the people but to members of parliament. That is why
at anytime that his presence will be required in parliament, he and his
member of his parliament, in what is known as the question hour will have
to appear and explain there before members of parliament because if he
will not be able to explain there to the satisfaction of the members of the
parliament, what will happened? There might be a vote of no confidence
in the parliament. If it will happened, the whole parliament will have to be
dissolved and special elections will have to be conducted to elect a new
parliament. The new parliament will now elect a new prime minister.

In a Presidential form of government, the President is not directly

accountable to members of Congress. He is directly accountable to the
people. The first two branches which are the Legislative branches and
Executive branches are referred to as Political Branches of the
government. These are the branches which are policies are formulated,
laws are enacted eventually enforced and executed. From there arose a
political question doctrine. If you were asked what are political questions?
In general, it is a question of policy. They involved the wisdom of an act or
the efficacy of a particular measure. Court are not supposed to intrude
into those question. Court are not supposed to lay down policies or to
enact laws because the power to enact laws is vested in the Congress not
in the Courts. Courts are not supposed to implement the laws. Court are
supposed to interpret the laws.

Example of questions of political questions:

Same sex marriage and Divorce.
EX. If we have to recognized a new State of Islamic State of IIrac and
Seria, (ISIS- in the middle east). Should the Philippines recognized that?
That is an Important foreign policy, you leave that to the President. He is
the chief architect of foreign policy, the spokesman of foreign relations. It
is a Political questions;

Congress belongs the power of appropriation. That is why it is called

power of the first. To the President power of the sword. He is the chief
executive. He is the commander in chief of the armed forces. To the
Courts -Judicial power as well as the power of judicial review.

Legislative Branch shall be vested in Congress which shall consists of a

Senate and a House of Representative. So based on that as you can see,
we have a Bicameral Congress consisting of a Senate and the House of
Representatives. These two are co-equal bodies. Two kinds of
Congressman:
a) Those elected by district representative or the so called district
representative;
b) Those elected under the party-list, the party-list representative;

We have a Bicameral Congress consisting of a Senate and the House of

Representatives and because of that we have to consider the Bicameral
Conference Committee. What kind of a body is that? A Bicameral
Conference Committee is a mechanism for compromising differences
between the Senate and the House of Representative. That is how the
Supreme Court describe the so called Bicameral Conference Committee.
By the nature of his function, a Bicameral conference committee is
capable of producing unexpected results. A result that may even go
beyond his own mandates.
Ex. You are a Congressman representing your district there in the house of
representatives. Then you file a bill in the House of Representatives. But
then a similar bill was filed in the Senate by A Senator. Naturally, the two
versions will be different from each other. Your version was filed in the
House of Representative and Senators version was filed in the Senate.
How should Congress reconcile the two versions and come up a version
that would be acceptable to both house of Congress. That is how the
Congress will convene, that is called a Bicameral Conference Committee.
The members of the Committee shall come from both the Senate and the
House of Representatives. Some authorities in the United States referred
the Bicameral Conference Committee, a third house of Congress.

Because of the principle of Bicameral Conference, I invite you to Sec. 24

Art VI. In this section, there are certain bills that are required to originally
and exclusively in the House of Representatives, not in the Senate. Again,
if what we have is a unicameral Congress, there will be no need for
Section 24.
APRIL
1) Appropriation Bill;
2) Private Bill;
3) Revenue or Tariff bills;
4) Bills authorizing increase of public debts.
5) Bills of local application

Tolentino vs. Secretary of Finance. The one involved there was the
expanded VAT Law during the time of President Ramos. What kind of bill
was EVAT? Di ba revenue bill yan. It seeks to raise revenue through
taxation.

Section 24, Article VI. All appropriation, revenue or tariff bills, bills
authorizing increase of the public debt, bills of local application, and
private bills shall originate exclusively in the house of Representatives, but
the Senate may propose or concur with amendments.

But there is a last phrase there, but the Senate may propose or concur
with amendments. And in this case (Tolentino vs. Secretary of Finance)
SC said that although this bills are required to be exclusively in the House
of Representatives, yet the Senate may propose or concur with
amendments. And when we talk of amendments here, amendments here
include even amendments by substitution, after all what was required to
originate exclusively in the House of Representatives, is not the law itself
but only the bill and the Senate has the power to propose and concur with
amendments.

Section 1Article VI The legislative power shall be vested in the Congress of

the Philippines which shall consist of a Senate and a House of
Representatives, except to the extent reserved to the people by the provision
on initiative and referendum.
In other words, under this constitution legislative power is no longer exclusively
vested in the Congress because the people have expressly made reservation to
directly enact laws by that provision on initiative and referendum.
However, this reservation for the people to exercise legislative power through
initiative and referendum. This is not self-executing. Why? Because you have to
consider Section 32 of Article VI. It says there that the Congress shall as early as
possible_____ for initiative and referendum unlike Sections therefrom whereby the
people can directly propose and enact
laws__________________________________________. So, in other words, it is in Section
32 of Art. VI that you find the mandate for Congress to enact the so called
initiative and and referendum law.

Q: Has congress already enacted that law, the so called initiative and referendum
law? Yes or No. Republic Act 6735 (Initiative and referendum law).
That was enacted by Congress pursuant to Section 32 of Article VI as well as
Section 2 of Article XVII. If you go over the provision of R.A. 6735, you will find
that there are three (3) kinds of initiative there:

1) Initiative on the Constitution;

2) Initiative on Statutes;
3) Initiative on Localization

*Now, the second initiative is the initiative on Statute, those are the implementing
provisions of that preservation made by the people under Section I of Article VI to
directly enact laws. Until today we have not exercise that power of initiative
under R.A. 6735. The provision remains dormant simply because of lack of
information on that matter.

As to composition of Congress, we now have two (2) kinds of Congressman:

1.) Those elected by districts or the so called District Representatives;
2.) and Those elected under the Party-list system;

*How many should be the Party-list representatives?

_Section 4 (2) of Article VI, how many should be the party-list representatives?
The party-list representatives shall constitute twenty per centum of the total
number or representatives including those under the party-list. For three
consecutive terms after the ratification of this Constitution, one-half of the seats
allocated to party-list representatives shall be filed, as provided by law, by
selection or election from labor, peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural
communities, women, youth, and such other sectors as may be provided by law,
except the religious sector.

*Because the constitution says, the party-list representatives shall constitute

twenty percent (20%) of the total number of representatives including those of
the party-list. Application:

Let us assume that in the house of representatives, there are 240 district
Congressmen. Applying Section 5 (2) of Article VI, how many should be the party-
list representatives?

Because the provision says, that the party-list representatives shall compose of
20% of total number of representatives, including under those under the party-
list. That was clarified by the Supreme Court in a case of Veterans Federation
Party vs. Comelec. So, applying that, Supreme Court said if there are 240 District
Congressmen by analysis, they represent how many percent? They represent
80% of the total number of congressmen because 20% is reserved for Party-list.
This is the proper formula:
240 district congressmen by analysis they represent how many percent? They
represent 80% of the total number of Congressmen because 20% is reserved for
party-list. This is the proper formula.

240/80%x20=240/4=60
*What is the ratio? The ratio actually is 4:1 for every four (4) district
representatives, there should be one party-list.

Pinaka short cut computation niyan is: If you will be given the number of district,
all you have to do is to divide it by four (4). Example:

243 District Congressmen

Divided by 4 equals 60.75. Disregard the fraction. Fractional representation is not
allowed.

Ang bagong bayani OFW Labor Party vs. Comelec. The Court there had an
occasion to clarify. In the first place, the Supreme Court said, this party-list
system, this is not really a regular feature of a Presidential form like what we
have. This is just a borrowed concept. Of course this party-list system, this is
very popular among the parliamentary democracies in Europe. We are trying to
integrate that in our Presidential type of government. Since that is really a
borrowed concept. What is the big idea behind this party-list system? The big
idea is simple so that the so called marginalized and under represented sectors of
society shall have appropriate representation in the parliament, the law making
body. So, what are these under represented sector? Some of them are
enumerated there in Section 5 (2) Article VI, like it says there labor, peasant,
urban poor, indigenous cultural community, women, youth, etc. For that purpose
Congress enacted Republic Act 7941. What law is that? The party-list law. The
law that seeks to implement a provision of the Constitution dealing with this
party-list system. However, there is this case Atong Paglaum Incorporated vs.
Comelec, that is the latest work on the matter, medyo problematic yan. Kasi
ganito yan, initially in the case of Ang Bagong Bayani, the Supreme court had
cleared that the party-list system is a social justice toll. So, the so called
marginalized and under represented sector of society shall have appropriate
representation in the law making body. Thus, Supreme Court said it is not really
open to all without any qualification. Kaya lang you have the latest ruling on the
matter, Atung Paglaum Incorporated vs. Comelec. In that case of Atong Paglaum,
the Supreme Court said, who may participate in party-list election? There are
three main categories:
1) National parties and organizations;
2) Regional parties and organizations;
3) Sectoral parties and organizations

*Now, with respect to the sectoral, they are further categorize into two (2) main
groups. What are those two (2) main groups?

1) Those that belong to marginalized and under represented sector like labor,
peasant, fisher folk, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, veterans,
OFWs. They belong to marginalized and under represented sectors. The other
category of sectoral,
2) those that lack well-defined political constituents like the professionals,
women, youth, the elderly. Now, the National parties and Regional parties,
according to the Court in that same case, they need not organized along sectoral
lines. They need not even represent marginalized and under represented sectors.
May they participate in party-list election? General rule: if they filled candidates
in the District Elections, they may not. Exception: Even if they filled candidates in
the District Elections they may still participate thru their sectoral wing, provided
that the sectoral wing is registered separately as a political party in the Comelec
and is link to a national party or general party by means of a coalition. To
illustrate, the liberal party is a dominant political party, may it participate in a
party-list elections? If it filled candidates in district elections, it may not because
everybody knows that LP filled candidates in the District Elections. Exception:
Even if it filled candidates in district elections , it may still participate thru its
sectoral wing like, for example, the labor sector of the LP or the youth sector of
the LP, sectoral wing provided that the sectoral wing is registered separately as a
political party in the comelec and is link to the LP by means of a coalition.
Another example: NP (Nationalista Party), that is a dominant political party. May
it participate in the Party-list elections? General Rule: Since the NP filled
candidates in the District Elections, it may not. Exceptions: even if it filled
candidates in the District Elections, it may still participate in sectoral wing. Urban
poor sector of the NP, the women Sector of the NP, provided that the sectoral
wing is registered separately as a political party in the Comelec and is link to the
NP by means of a coalition. That is the ruling in Atong Paglaum Incorporated vs.
Comelec. That is the latest ruling in the matter. And this was the one asked in
the Bar last year. Substantially ganoon ang tanong eh, the dominant party may
participate in the party list elections, applying that one, through its sectoral
wing.

By the way going back to Ang Bagong Bayani. If you read Section 5 (2) Article VI,
what is the last phrase there,

The part-list representative shall constitute twenty per centum of the total
number of representatives including those under the part-list. For three (3)
consecutive terms after the ratification of this Constitution, one-half of the sets
allocated to party-list representatives shall be filled, as provided by law, by
selection or election from the labor, peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural
communities, women, youth, and such other sectors as may be provided by law,
except the religious sector.

So, as you can see that religious sector is expressly excepted from participating in
party-list election. Besides, if you look at Section 2 paragraph (5) Article IX-c of
the constitution with respect of the power of the Comelec to registered political
parties:
The Commission on Elections shall exercise the following powers and functions:
1.Xxxxxxxxx
2.Xxxxxxxx
3.Xxxxxxx
4.Xxxxxxx
5. Register, after sufficient publication, political parties, organizations, or
coalitions which, in addition to other requirements, must present their platform or
program of government; and accredit citizensarms of the Commission on
Elections. Religious denominations and sects shall not be registered. Those
which seek to achieve their goals through violence or unlawful means, or refuse to
uphold and adhere to this Constitution, or which are supported by any foreign
government shall likewise be refused registration.

However, in the case of Ang Bagong Bayani OFW Labor Party vs. Comelec: The
Supreme Court made a deliberations in the Constitutional Commissions. SC said
what is prohibited is a registration of a religious sect as a political party. There is
no prohibition against priest running as a candidate.

Ang Ladlad LGBT party vs. Comelec

Is Ladlad should it be allowed to participate in a party-list elections? SC said, the
act of the Comelec in stating that they ladlad party is immoral. Comelec even
stated bible verse. SC said the act of the comelec is violate the non-
establishment of freedom of religion. You look at section 5 of the Bill of rights.

Section 5 Article III. No law shall be made respecting an establishment of

religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment
of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall
forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or
political rights.
Firs sentence: No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof. This is known as the non-establishment
clause of freedom of religion. The state is not supposed to establish any
particular religion. Does not supposed to prohibit any particular religion. It is not
supposed to side any religion. The non-establishment clause of Freedom of
Religion.
SC said, the act of Comelec in not allowing the LGBT to participate in Party-list
elections, that was Grave Abuse of Discretion on the part of the Comelec. Why?
Because it violated the non-establishment clause of the Freedom of Religion. SC
further said, the Comelec as a government body should not used religious
standard in his religious actions.

Second sentence: The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and
worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. This is
known as the Free exercise clause.

Third sentence: No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or
political rights. This is known as No religious test clause.

YOGYAKARTA Principle- is the application of International Human Rights Law in

relation to Sexual Orientation and gender identity.

The Supreme Court said, at this time we are not prepared to declare that this
Yogyakarta Principle contain norms that are obligatory on the Philippines. There
are declarations and obligations outlined in said principles which are not reflective
of the current state of international law and do not find basis in the concept of
International law enumerated under Article 13 of pag (1) in the International Court
of Justice.

PORK BARREL SYSTEM-

Belgica v. Ochoa

Pork Barrel system

(Lumpsum, discretionary Fund)

Congressional or legislative Presidential

Pork Barrel Pork Barrel

PDAF--- Php 200m/Senator -Malampaya Fund

-----Php 70m/Congressman -Presidential Social Fund

(Priority Development Assistance Fund)

PDAF is integrated in General
Appropriations Act.

Malampaya Fund- We discovered oil in Malampaya. Doon sa Malampaya in

Northern Palawan, the proceeds from the exploration of oil from Malampaya in
Northern Palawan, that is called Malampaya Fund.
Presidential Social Fund- What is its source? The earnings of Pagcor in operating
CASINO all over the country if taken together that is called Presidential Social
Fund.

PDAF ___Php 200m/Senator

---Php 70m/Congressman

Before:
Philconsta vs. Enriquez
CDF--17 M/SENATOR
----12 M/CONGRESMAN.. Priority Development Assistance Fund

Country Development Fund- Earlier Counterpart of PDAF

May kasalan and SC dito: In Philconsta vs. Enriquez SC justified CDF at that time
every senator has a pork barrel amounting to 17m. In this case it is questioned.
Sabi nang petitioner that CDF violate the principle of separation of powers
because the work of Congress ends upon the enactment of the General
appropriations Act. Hanggang doon lang yan. When it comes to the
implementation of budget, that function properly belongs to Executive branch.
When the Congress chooses the projects and the implementing agencies, they are
now functioning a duty that belongs to the Executive branch. So, violative of the
doctrine of separation of powers. Kaya lang the SC do not look at that way.
Because remember the power of appropriation belongs to Congress and included
in that power, is the power to impose conditions on how the money appropriated
shall be spend.

That is now this time, iba na ang decision ng SC., The court renders this decision
to rectify an error which has persisted in a chronicles of our history. In a final
analysis, the court must strike down the pork barrel system because that is
unconstitutional in view of the inherent defects of the rules. To recount, we are
dealing first with the Congressional pork barrel kasi iba yan sa Presidential Pork
barrel. The system violate the principle of separation of powers. Why? Because
as I told you the work of congress ends upon the enactment of General
Approprations because when it comes to execution, that functions properly
belongs to Executive branch. Ang trabaho ng congress is oversight (just to see to
it the the budget is properly implemented by the executive branch). Dito sa Pork
barrel system sila na ang nag identify nang projects, where the money
appropriated should be spent, sila pa ang mag-identify nang implementing
agencies. Sila pa rin ang mag idenfi nang beneficiaries. So, they are now
inturding to the functons that properly belongs of the EXecutive Branch of the
Government. That is what the issue. PDAF also violate the principle of non-
delatation of powers. General Rule: What has been delegated may no longer be
delegated. SC said, the power of appropriation has been delegated by the
constitution to the Congress as a body. That power may no longer be further
delegated by the members of Congress. In other words, the power of delegation
which has been delegated by the Constitution to the Congress as a body was
further delegated to individual members of Congress, hindi puede yan. It violate
the doctrine of non-delegation of powers. In sofar as the PDAF created a system
of budgeting wherein items are not textualize into the appropriations bill, it denies
the power of the President to VETO items. I invite your attention to Section 27
Article VI
Every bill passed by the Congress shall, before it becomes a law, be presented
to the President. If he approves the same, he shall sign it; otherwise, he shall
vote it and return the same with his objections to the House where it originated,
which shall enter the objections at large in its Journal and proceed to reconsider it.
If, after such reconsideration, two-thirds of all the Members of that House, it shall
become a law. In all such cases, the votes of each House shall be determined by
yeas or nays, and the names of the Members voting for or against shall be
entered in its Journal. The President shall communicate his veto of any bill to the
house where it originated within thirty days after the date of receipt thereof,
otherwise, it shall become a law as if he had signed it.

2) The President shall have the power to veto any particular item or items in an
appropriation, revenue, or tariff bill, but the veto shall not affect the item or items
to which he does not object.
-In the first paragraph that is you will find the so called General Veto of the
President.
-The second paragraph that is you will find the item or line veto of the President.

=The President may not veto a provision in a bill without vetoing the entire bill
itself. That is a very important rule. Either he signs a bill in toto that becomes a
law or he vetoes an entire bill, it does not become a law.
Bengzon vs. Drillon
-Sc said the executive must veto a bill in its entirety or not at all. He or she
cannot act like an editor, crossing out specific lines, provisions or paragraph in a
bill, that he or she dislikes. In the exercise of a Veto Power, it is generally all or
nothing. However, in second paragraph it is an exception. The general rule is
that: He may not veto a provision in a bill without vetoing the entire bill itself but
in the second paragraph, he/she is expressly allowed to veto item or items in
appropriation, revenue or tariff bills and the veto do not affect the item or items.
But the second paragraph applies only to three kinds of bill. What is that? (ART)
with respect to the appropriations, revenue, and tariff bills. He is expressly
allowed to veto an item in the said bills and the veto shall not affect the items to
which the President does not veto. Itong PDAF is integrated in the appropriation
act.

Third ground for PDAF being unconstitutional:

3) It denies the item veto of the president; or deny the president the power to
veto items
4) It impaired public accountability
Papano yan? Because as you know very well, the work of congress ends upon
enactment of the budget, the execution of the budget belong to the executive
branch. The work of Congress is limited only to monitoring whether the money
appropriated is properly and wisely spend, that is called oversight powers.

5) The PDAF subverted genuine local autonomy;

-Remember that the Senators, congressmen. They are national officials.
Remember under Section 25 Article II of the constitution; The State shall ensure
the autonomy of local governments.
Under Section 2 of Article X- The territorial and political subdivisions shall enjoy
local autonomy
That is why in your local government code RA 7160, every level of local
governments, nagtayo nang local development council. Para ma enjoy nila yong
local autonomy.

PRESIDENTIAL PORK BARREL

-Malampaya fund and Social Fund. The law creating the Malampaya Fund, the
president will use the Malampay funds sa Energy related purposes and other
purposess he may deemed fit. Samantalang the law creating the PAGCOR,
gagamit ni president sa priority infrastracture development projects. Sabi nang
SC hindi puede yan, there will be undue delegation of powers to the president.
Applying the sufficient standards test. General rule: What has been delegated
may not be further delegated. But there may be exceptions to that. And because
of those exceptions, the Court has to devise the so called test for a valid
delegation. Every delegation must be subject to this test to see to it that there is
no undue delegation or a delegation running riot because if that happens that is
no longer delegation of power. That is now application of power in favor of
delegated. So, what are these tests devised by the Constitution for a valid
delegation?
1) Completeness test;
2) Sufficient Standard test;

Completeness tests- so that under this test, the law delegating the power must be
complete in all essential terms and conditions so that when it reaches the
delegate, there is nothing left for the delegate to do but to implement or enforce
the laws. In other words, the delegate will not fill in the gaps in the law. Tell me
what is the remedy if there is a gap in the law? Amend the law. Only Congress
can amend the law. Kaya nga tawag nyan completeness test. The law delegating
the power must be complete in all essential terms and conditions so that when it
reached the delegates there is nothing left for the delegate to do but to
implement or enforce the laws. You know the court has to devise the second test
because more often, you cannot expect Congress to anticipate the
implementation of a particular measure.
2) Sufficient Standard test- under this test for as long as there are standards that
will limit the authority of the delegate or that will guide the delegate in the____

Priority infrastracture development project- it is very broad. Maraming papasok

niyan. Appying sufficient standard test, it is a undue delegation.

DAP- Disbursement accellaration program adopted by the Auino Administration.

SC said DAP is unconstitutional. Why? Because it violated Section 25 paragraph
5 of Article VI of the Constitution.
No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriations, however, the
President, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the heads of the
Constitutional Commissions may, by law, be authorized to augment any item in
the general appropraiton law for their respective offices from savings in other
items of their respective appropriation.

Araullo vs. Pres. Aquino, et al.

(dap case)
What do you find in Section 25 (5), that is the power of augmentation. Following
that provision, under the General rule: once the budget was enacted, the general
appropriations act, NO law shall be passed authorizing the transfer of
appropriations.
Exceptions:
1) Power of Augmentation;
-Who has the power of Augmentation?
-the president, the senate president, the Speaker of the House of Representatives,
the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the heads of the Constitutional
Commissions.

The president as head of of executive department, Speakers of House of

Representative as heads of two bodies in Cognress, SEnate PResident, Chief
Justice as head of judiciary departyment, and heads of three constitutional
commissions.
What are these three (3) Constitutional commissions:
A). Civil Service Commisisons;
B). Commission on Electons;
C) Commission on Audit

However, there must be three requisites for them to validly exercise the power of
augmentation.

1). There must be a law authorizing them to do that;

2)The funds to be used to augment from savings must come from their respective
department. Savings may only be determined at the end of the fiscal year;
3)There shall be no cross-boarder transfer of funds.

What is cross boarder?

Ex> The funds or savings of the agriculture is used to augment the fudns of the
Department of Education and vice-versa. It is prohibited.
Auraullo vs.
In this case the Supreme Court found out that these three requisites where not
complied with. In the first place, there was no law authorizing President Aquino to
do that. The funds used is not from savings but from slow moving project which
was converted into savings. Saving may only be determined at the end of the
fiscal year. Besides, there was certain items na wala sa General Appropriatons
Act. And there was cross boarder transfer of funds, savings of the Executive
branch were used to augment the funds of the Civil Service Sommisisons and
vice-versa. So, the three conditions will not complied with, that is why the
Supreme Court had to declare that unconstitutional. It did not satisfy the
requirement of Section 25 (5) of Article VI.
Q: What shall we do with the projects using the funds of the DAP? Di ba the rule is
or it is already a settled rule that once it is unconstitutional, it is as if it was never
enacted.
A:operative fact doctrine- SC said the executive act or legislative act that is
declared void or unconstitutional cannot give rise to any right or obligation. The
doctrine of operative fact recognizes the existence of a law and executive act
prior to its determination of its uncontitutionality,as an operative fact that
produced consequence that cannot be erased, ignored or disregard. In short, it
nullified the void law but sustains its effect or positive result.
-The programs, activities, projects under DAP remaina valid under the Operative
Fact Doctrine. As a general rule, the nullification of an unconsitutional alw carries
with it the illegality of its effects. However, in cases where nullification of the
effects will result in enequity and injustice, the operative doctrine may apply.

Wha will we do with President Aquino, Secretary Abad and other officials for
creating an unconstitutional law? Will that case prosper?
A: Aquino and groups has to prove thate they are in good faith when
implementing the DAP. However, the SC said, we never did away with the
presumption in good faith. It is therein the civil code and it is also a judicial
presumption.
What matters that will no longer require proof?
1) judicial admission
2) Judicial notice
3) Judicial presumption

In Araullo vs. Aquino. SC said, We never did away with the presumption of good
faith. It is there in the civil code and in fact it is a judicial presumption which no
longer require proof. However, SC said there is another presumption that will
apply to the implementation of the DAP, Ano yon? Presumption in the regularity
in the performance of official duties.

LEGISLATIVE INVESTIGATIONS

Inquiry in Aid of Executive privilege Question Hour

Legislation Senate vs. Ermita Sec. 22, Art VI

Sec. 21, Art VI

Arnod v. Nazareno
Bengzon Jr. V. SBRC Varities:
1. State Secrets privilege
Compare: 2. Informers privilege
Standard Chartered 3. generic privilege
Bank vs. SCB 4. internal diliberation
Legislative Contempt

Two kinds of Congressional or legislative investigations:

1. Inquiry in Aid of Legislation (Section 21, Article VI)
2. Question Hour ( Section 22, Article VI)

INQUIRY IN AID OF LEGISLATION

-Section 21 Article VI The Senate or the House of Representatives or any of its

respective committees may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance
with its duly published rules of procedure. The rights of persons appearing in or
affected by such inquireis shall be respected.

Arnold vs. Nazareno under the 1935 Constitution.

-Intrinsic in the grant of legislative power to conduct inquiry in Aid of legislation.
For indeed, you cannnot expect Congress to enact good law if you deny them the
power to investigate.

Bengzon vs. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee

= In this case there are two (2) important issues raised:
1) Is the power of Congress to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation, is this
absolute or alternative?
2) Is this subject to judicial review of it is a political question?

-With regards to the first issue, according to the Supreme Court, the power of
Congress to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation is not absolute. In fact there are
three (3) limitations:

1). The inquiry must always be in aid of legislation;

2). It must be conducted in accordance with duly published rules of procedure in
the house of Congress conducting that inquiry;
3) The rights of persons appearing in or affected of such inquiry shall

* And among the right that may be invoke in the conduct of inquiries in aid of
legislation is the right agaisnt self incrimination.

-With regards to the second issue: Is this subject to judicial review of it is a

political question?
* According to the Supreme Court in the same case, it is subject to judicial review
especially in view of the expanded power of the Court whether or not there has
been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of in excess of jurisdiction on
the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government. The Court may
validly inquire into whether the inquiry is conducted in accordance with the duly
published rules of Congress conducting them. The Court may validly inquire into
whether the rights of persons appearing in or affected by that inquiry.

-In this case Benzon vs. Senate Bule Ribbon Committee- The Supreme Court
granted the petiton for certiorari and order the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee not
to further conduct the inquiry because after all the Court found that the inquiry
there was not in aid of legislation. In fact the Supreme Court said, it was an
enforcement of Judicial prerogative. That is why the Supreme Court granted the
Petition for Certiorari. Kasi ganito yan, Senator Enrile delivered a speech in the
Senate. In his privilege speech, Senator Enrile alleged that there were certain
properties owned by chronies of President Marcos that somehow landed in the
hands of the relatives of President Cory Aquino. Enrile said the properties was
subject to inquiry by the sandiganbayan how come it landed in the hand sof the
relatives of Cory Aquino. Because of that Senator Enrile urges the Senate Blue
ribbon Committee to conduct an inquiry to determine whether there is a violation
of Philippine Criminal law. Remember the properties of chronies of Marcos was a
pending case in the Sandiganbayan. Was that in aid of legislation? What was the
purpose of Enrile? For the Seate Blue Riboon Committee to determine whether
there is a violation of Philippine Criminal laws. Is it in aid of legislation? It is not,
in fact the Supreme Court said, it was an encroachment on a judicial prerogative
because under the doctrine of Separation of powers, sino lang ang mag determine
whether ther eis a violation of Philippine Criminal law? That is the function that
belongs to the Court, not to the Senate. SC further said, if we will allow the SBRC
to conduct its own inquiry, what if later on it will arrived at a conclusion different
from the conclusion of the Sandiganbayan. What will happened? You are enviting
a possible Constitutional Crisis. If we will allow the Senate Blue Ribbon
Committee to proceed its inquiry, what if later on it will arrived at a conclusion
different from that which will arrive at the Sandiganbayan, you are enviting a
constitutional crisis. That is why the Supreme Court granted the Peition for
Certiorari and order the SBRC not to further conduct an inquiry after all the
purpose was not in aid of legislation.

Standard Chartered Bank vs. Senate Commission Bank

-Senator urge the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee to conduct an inquiry to
determine whether there are loopholes in the rules allowing the foreign banks to
invest in the Philippines in order to protect local investors from fraudulent
malpractice. Was that inquiry in aid of legislation? The Supreme Court deemed it
found that the inquiry was in aid of legislation.

*Only the Supreme Court will determine whether it is in aid of legislation or

personal interest.

*Extra-judicial killings= Digong said that is part of her judicial mandate as a duly
elected memebers of Congress.

*Solicitor general is not elected of the people.

*Legislative contempt. If pumasok and inquiry in aid of legislation, kabuntot ang

legislative contemp if you fail to appear or refuse to cooperate. When House of
Congress conducts an inquiry in aid of legislation, and then yo were summoned
to appear before that body but you did not appear or you refuse to cooperate, you
may be cited for contempt, tha is known as Legislative Contempt.

In general, how do you describe the power of contempt?

A: It is judicial.
Exception: Legislative contempt. When the House of Congress conducts an
inquiry in aid of legislation, and then you were summoned to apepar before that
body but you did not appear or refuse to cooperate, your may be cited for
contempt, that is known as Legislative Contempt. In fact you will be imprisoned
there. How long shall you remain in prison? SC said you hold the key to your
freedom. You shall remain there for as long as you refuse to cooperate.
Q: May he be validly granted power by the president? This is a limitation of the
power of the President. The pardoning power of the President will not apply In
legislative inquiry because of separation of power.

QUESTION HOUR:
Section 22 Article VIThe heads of departments may upon their own initiative,
with the consent of the President, or upon the request of either House, as the
rules of each House shall provide, appear before and be heard by such House on
any matter pertaining to their departments. Written questions shall be submitted
to the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House of Representatives at
least three days before their scheduled appearance. Interpellations shall not be
limited to written questions, but may cover matters related thereto. When the
secutiry of the State or the public interest so requires and the President so states
in writing, the appearance shall be conducted in executive session.

-It applies only to heads of Departments on any matter pertaining to their

departments. Supreme Court said, this is not really an regular featuare in a
Presidential form of government. It is merely a borrowed concept from
Parliamentary form of government.

Senate vs. Ermita

-GMA promulgated Executive Order 464 prohibiting members of her cabinet and
other top executive branch and members of the AFP from appearing in the
Congressional inquiries without her consent. The constitutionality of that
Executive Order No. 464 was challenge by the Supreme Court. And what was the
ruling of the Supreme Court?

Distinction:

Inquiry in Aid of Legislation (Section 21, Question Hour (Section 22, Art. VI)
Art. VI)

*any person may be summoned -only the heads of the department

On any matter that is
Subject of legislation

*Members of Cabinet, officers

Of executive branch, including
officer of theArm forces
Of the Philippines.
They may not validly
refuse to appear without the
consent of the President
invoking E.O. 464, if the
Will do that they may be
cited for contempt.
Their non-appearance or refusal in
the conduct of legislative inquiry
Will impair the work of Congress.
Their non-appearance will
Also violate the right of people
To information in matters
Of public concern (Section7
Of Art. III)

*Sino naman ang mag

Refuse to appear aside
From the SC because of
The Doctrine of Separation
Of power? Only the president
Or the Executive Secretary
Acting by authority of the
President. However, according
To the SC, for the President
Or the Executive SEcretary acting
By authority of the President to
refuse to appear during the inquiry
in aid of legislation:
1) He must invoke/claim/assert what is
Known as Executive privilege;
*what is executive privilege?
A: It refers to the right of the President
And other top level executive branch
Officers to withhold information from
the Congress, Courts and ultimately to
the public.

What are the varities of Executive

Privilege?
1) State Secrets privilege
2) Informers privilege
3) Internal deliberations

*The one ofen invoked

by the president on the ground
that the informaton is of such
nature that is disclosure which
subvert crucial, military objective
is the STATE SECRETS PRIVILEGE.

The President or the Executive

Secretary acting by authority
Of the President must claim/
Invoke/assert executive privilege.
It cannot be implied because we
Are in a Democratice/Republican
State of Government. The
General Rule is disclosure of
Information nto secrecy because of
Section 7 of Art III there
Should be right to information on
Matters of public concern and
of Section 28 Art II, the State
Policy on Tranparency.

*Moreover, sc said there should

Be no blanket invocation of an
Executive privilege. After all,
Sc said the executive privilege
Attaches not to the person or to
The office of the president, rather
It attaches with the kind of
Information that is being asked by the congress.

With respect to the question Hour

SC said, dyan members of the cabinet they may validly refuse to appear during
the question hour without the consent of the President invoking executive
privilege. After all this question Hour as already explained earlier. This is not a
regular feature of a Presidential form of government. It is merely a borrowed
concept from a Parliamentary form of government, that is why that question hour
is not really that mandatory. But not in case of inquiry in aid of legislation. Ibang
usapan yon.
*What are the bodies attached to the Congress?
A:
1) Commission on appointments
2) Two Electoral tribunal of Congress :
a) Senate Electoral Tribunal
b) House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal

COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS (Section 18 and 19 Art VI) The main funciton on

commission on appointment is to act on presidential appointments.

Section 18 Art. VI There shall be a Commission on Appointments consisting of the

President of the Senate, as ex officio Chairman, twelve Senators, and twelve
members of the House of Representatives, elected by each House on the basis of
proportional representation from the political parties and parties or organizatons
registered under the party-list system represented therein. The Chairman of the
Commission shall not vote, except in case of a tie. The Commisison shall act on
all appointments submitted to it withinthirty session days of the Congress from
their submission. The Commission shall rule by a majority vote of all the
Members.

Section 19. The Electoral Tribunals and the Commission on Appointments shall be
constituted within thirty days after the Senate and the House of Representatives
shall have been organized with the election of the President and the Speaker. The
Commission on Appointments shall meet only while the Congress is in session, at
the call of its Chairman or a majority of all its Members, to discharge such powers
and functions as are herein conferred upon it.

* It is on the Commisison on Appointments that Congress will check the

appointing power of the President following the principle of check and balance.

*What is the composition of the Commission on Appointments?

A: 1) Twelve (12) Senators
2) Twelve (12) Congressmen
3) One (1) Senate President as ex officio Chairman

How are these members of the Commission on Appointments are to be chosen?

A: They shall be chosen on the basis of propotional representation from the
political parties having members in the Senate or in the House of representatives.

Take Note on the last sentence of Section 19 Article VI:

The Commission on Appointments shall meet only while the Congress is in

session, at the call of its Chairman or a majority of all its Members, to discharge
such powers and functions as are herein conferred upon it.

*Meaning to say when Congress is not in session, the Commission on

Appointments cannot meet. There is such thing as Ad interim appointment.

What is Ad interim appointment?

A:

Two Electoral Tribunal of Congress:

1) Senate Electoral Tribunal
2)House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal

Section 17. The Senate and the House of Representatives shall each have an
Electoral Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the
election, returns, and qualifications of their respective Members. Each Electoral
Tribunal shall be composed of nine Members, three of whom shall be Justices of
the Supreme Court to be designated by the Chief Justice, and the remaining six
shall be Members of the Senate or the House of Representatives, as the case may
be, who shall be chosen on the basis of proportional representation from the
political parties and the parties or organizations registered under the party-list
system represented therein. The senior Justice in the Electoral Tribunal shall be its
Chairman.

*What is the composition of the Senate Electoral Tribunal? How many members is
the Senate Electoral Tribunal?
A: Each tribunals has 9 members, 3 of whom shall be Justices of the Supreme
Court to be designated by the Chief justice, the most senior among whom
automatically becomes the chairman while the remaining six shall either be
members of the Senators or Congressmen as the case may be.

* How are the six Senators, six Congressmen, members of the Congress. How are
they to be chosen?
A: They shall be chosen again on the basis of proportional represention from the
political parties having members in the Senate or in the House of Representatives.

If you compare the composition of the Commission on Appointment between

Electoral Tribunal
Commission on Appointments Electoral Tribunal
-All members are members of Congress -There is a judicial component and
legislative component (6 Congressmen)

David vs. Grace Po

First case that is a quo warranto questioning her qualification in the Senate
Electoral Tribunal when she ran for senator.

Second case= Section 78 of Omnibus Election- the jurisdiction is in Comelec in

connection for running for presidency.

Q: Where should a party go to appeal from the deciison of Electoral Tribunal in

Congress?
A: No appeal. Under Section 17 Article VI, The Senate and the House of
Representatives shall each have an Electoral Tribunal which shall be the sole
judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of their
respective Members.

Q: Is appeal a Constitutional right? No. It is not found in the Bill of Rights. It is

merely a Statutory right.

Q: What is now the remedy of the party adversely affected by the decision of the
Electoral tribunal in Congress?
A: Rule 65- it is a special civil action based on grave abuse of discretion.