CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
Final Examination Reviewer [Case Doctrines]
SECTION 5 [FREEDOM OF RELIGION]
List of Cases
GAAEEII
Garces vs. Estenzo
Aglipay vs. Ruiz
American Bible Society vs. City of Manila
Ebralinag vs. Division Superintendent of Cebu
Estrada vs. Escritor
Iglesia ni Cristo vs. CA
Imbong vs. Ochoa
GARCES vs. ESTENZO
Not every governmental activity which involves the expenditure of
public funds and which has some religious tint is violative of the
constitutional provisions regarding separation of church and state,
freedom of worship and banning the use of public money or property.
AGLIPAY vs. RUIZ
Religious freedom, however, as a constitutional mandate is not
inhibition of profound reverence for religion and is not denial of its
influence in human affairs. Religion as a profession of faith to an active
power that binds and elevates man to his Creator is recognized. And,
in so far as it instills into the minds the purest principles of morality,
its influence is deeply felt and highly appreciated.
AMERICAN BIBLE SOCIETY vs. CITY OF MANILA
The power to tax the exercise of a privilege is the power to control or
suppress its enjoyment. . . . Those who can tax the exercise of this
religious practice can make its exercise so costly as to deprive it of the
resources necessary for its maintenance. Those who can tax the
privilege of engaging in this form of missionary evangelism can close
all its doors to all those who do not have a full purse. Spreading
religious beliefs in this ancient and honorable manner would thus be
denied the needy. . . .
EBRALINAG vs. DIVISION SUPERINTENDENT OF CEBU
The idea that one may be compelled to salute the flag, sing the national
anthem, and recite the patriotic pledge, during a flag ceremony on pain
of being dismissed from one's job or of being expelled from school, is
alien to the conscience of the present generation of Filipinos who cut
their teeth on the Bill of Rights which guarantees their rights to free
speech ** and the free exercise of religious profession and worship
ESTRADA vs. ESCRITOR
Four Qualifications/Criteria of Religion
(1) there must be belief in God or some parallel belief that
occupies a central place in the believers life;
(2) the religion must involve a moral code transcending
individual belief, i.e., it cannot be purely subjective.
(3) a demonstrable sincerity in belief is necessary, but the
court must not inquire into the truth or reasonableness of the
belief
(4) there must be some associational ties although there is also
a view that religious beliefs held by a single person rather
than being part of the teachings of any kind of group or sect
are entitled to the protection of the Free Exercise Clause.
Jeffersonian and William’s Wall
Jeffersonian wall that is meant to protect the state from the church;
instead, the wall is meant to protect the church from the state, i.e., the
garden of the church must be walled in for its own protection from the
wilderness of the world with its potential for corrupting those values
so necessary to religious commitment.
Accommodation vs. Strict Neutrality
An accommodationist holds that it is good public policy, and
sometimes constitutionally required, for the state to make conscious
and deliberate efforts to avoid interference with religious freedom.
On the other hand, the strict neutrality adherent believes that it is good
public policy, and also constitutionally required, for the government to
avoid religion-specific policy even at the cost of inhibiting religious
exercise.
Two-step balancing process
(1) (h)as the statute or government action created a burden on
the free exercise of religion?
(2) (i)s there a sufficiently compelling state interest to justify
this infringement of religious liberty?
(3) (h)as the state in achieving its legitimate purposes used the
least intrusive means possible so that the free exercise is not
infringed any more than necessary to achieve the legitimate
goal of the state?
The Court and Benevolent Neutrality
Benevolent neutrality does not mean that the Court ought to grant
exemptions every time a free exercise claim comes before it. But it
does mean that the Court will not look with hostility or act indifferently
towards religious beliefs and practices and that it will strive to
accommodate them when it can within flexible constitutional limits; it
does mean that the Court will not simply dismiss a claim under the Free
Exercise Clause because the conduct in question offends a law or the
orthodox view for this precisely is the protection afforded by the
religion clauses of the Constitution.
IGLESA NI CRISTO vs. CA
Two-fold aspect of Right to Religious Profession and Worship
1. freedom to believe and
2. freedom to act on one’s beliefs.
The first is absolute as long as the belief is confined within the realm
of thought. The second is subject to regulation where the belief is
translated into external acts that affect the public welfare.
However absurd his beliefs may be to others, even if they be hostile
and heretical to the majority, he has full freedom to believe as he
pleases. But where the individual externalizes his beliefs in acts or
omissions that affect the public, his freedom to do so becomes subject
to the authority of the State.
Clear and Present Danger Rule
The test was originally designed to determine the latitude which should
be given to speech that espouses anti-government action.
IMBONG vs. OCHOA
Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause
The establishment clause "principally prohibits the State from
sponsoring any religion or favoring any religion as against other
religions. It mandates a strict neutrality in affairs among religious
groups."Essentially, it prohibits the establishment of a state religion
and the use of public resources for the support or prohibition of a
religion.
On the other hand, the basis of the free exercise clause is the respect
for the inviolability of the human conscience. Under this part of
religious freedom guarantee, the State is prohibited from unduly
interfering with the outside manifestations of one's belief and faith.
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
Final Examination Reviewer [Case Doctrines]
Benevolent Neutrality
The benevolent neutrality theory believes that with respect to these
governmental actions, accommodation of religion may be allowed, not
to promote the government's favored form of religion, but to allow
individuals and groups to exercise their religion without hindrance.
Tests
1. American Bible Society, the Court mentioned the "clear and
present danger" test but did not employ it.
2. Gerona case then pronounced that the test of permissibility
of religious freedom is whether it violates the established
institutions of society and law.
3. The Victoriano case mentioned the "immediate and grave
danger" test as well as the doctrine that a law of general
applicability may burden religious exercise provided the law
is the least restrictive means to accomplish the goal of the
law. The case also used, albeit inappropriately, the
"compelling state interest" test.
4. After Victoriano , German went back to the Gerona rule.
Ebralinag then employed the "grave and immediate
danger" test and overruled the Gerona test.
5. The fairly recent case of Iglesia ni Cristo went back to the "
clear and present danger" test
SECTION 6 [LIBERTY OF ABODE AND OF TRAVEL]
List of Cases
MMS
Marcos vs. Manglapus
Manotoc vs. CA
Silverio vs. CA
MARCOS vs. MANGLAPUS
he right to return to one's country is not among the rights specifically
guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, which treats only of the liberty of
abode and the right to travel, but it is our well-considered view that the
right to return may be considered, as a generally accepted principle of
international law and, under our Constitution, is part of the law of the
land [Art. II, Sec. 2 of the Constitution.]
However, it is distinct and separate from the right to travel and
enjoys a different protection under the International Covenant of Civil
and Political Rights, i.e., against being "arbitrarily deprived" thereof
[Art. 12 (4).]
MANOTOC vs. CA
A court has the power to prohibit a person admitted to bail from leaving
the Philippines. This is a necessary consequence of the nature and
function of a bail bond.
Rule 114, Section 1 of the Rules of Court defines bail as the security
required and given for the release of a person who is in the custody of
the law, that he will appear before any court in which his appearance
may be required as stipulated in the bail bond or recognizance.
SILVERIO vs. CA
Article III, Section 6 of the 1987 Constitution should by no means be
construed as delimiting the inherent power of the Courts to use all
means necessary to carry their orders into effect in criminal cases
pending before them. When by law jurisdiction is conferred on a Court
or judicial officer, all auxillary writs, process and other means
necessary to carry it into effect may be employed by such Court or
officer (Rule 135, Section 6, Rules of Court).
SECTION 7 [RIGHT TO INFORMATION]
List of Cases
VP-LECI
Valmonte vs. Belmonte Jr
Province of Cotabato vs. Peace Panel on AD
Legaspi vs. CSC
Echagaray vs. Secretary of Justice
Chavez vs. PCGG
In Re: Production of Court Records and Documents and the
Attendance of Court officials and employees as witnesses
under the subpoenas of February 10, 2012 and the various
letters for the Impeachment Prosecution Panel dated January
19 and 25, 2012
VALMONTE vs. BELMONTE JR.
Right to Information, Freedom of Speech and of Expression
The right to information goes hand-in-hand with the constitutional
policies of full public disclosure * and honesty in the public service.
** It is meant to enhance the widening role of the citizenry in
governmental decision-making as well as in checking abuse in
government.
Requisites before the right to information may be enforced
1. it must be clear that the information sought is of "public
interest" or "public concern," and
2. is not exempted by law from the operation of the
constitutional guarantee.
PROVINCE OF COTABATO vs. PEACE PANEL
Requiring a consummated contract will keep the public in the dark
until the contract, which may be grossly disadvantageous to the
government or even illegal, becomes fait accompli. This negates the
State policy of full transparency on matters of public concern, a
situation which the framers of the Constitution could not have
intended. Such a requirement will prevent the citizenry from
participating in the public discussion of any proposed contract,
effectively truncating a basic right enshrined in the Bill of Rights. We
can allow neither an emasculation of a constitutional right, nor a retreat
by the State of its avowed policy of full disclosure of all its transactions
involving public interest.
LEGASPI vs. CSC
A distinction has to be made between the discretion to refuse outright
the disclosure of or access to a particular information and the
authority to regulate the manner in which the access is to be
afforded.
1. The first is a limitation upon the availability of access to the
information sought, which only the Legislature may impose
(Art. III, Sec. 6, 1987 Constitution).
2. The second pertains to the government agency charged with
the custody of public records. Its authority to regulate access
is to be exercised (a) solely to the end that damage to, or loss
of, public records may be avoided, (b) undue interference
with the duties of said agencies may be prevented, and more
importantly, (c) that the exercise of the same constitutional
right by other persons shall be assured.
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
Final Examination Reviewer [Case Doctrines]
The incorporation in the Constitution of a guarantee of access to
information of public concern is a recognition of the essentiality of the
free flow of ideas and information in a democracy.
ECHAGARAY vs. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE
The contents of the manual are matters of public concern "which the
public may want to know, either because these directly affect their
lives, or simply because such matters naturally arouse the interest of
an ordinary citizen."
CHAVEZ vs. PCGG
However, the following are some of the recognized restrictions:
(1) national security matters and intelligence information,
(2) trade secrets and banking transactions,
(3) criminal matters, and
Also excluded are classified law enforcement matters, such as those
relating to the apprehension, the prosecution and the detention of
criminals, which courts may not inquire into prior to such arrest,
detention and prosecution. Efforts at effective law enforcement would
be seriously jeopardized by free public access to, for example, police
information regarding rescue operations, the whereabouts of fugitives,
or leads on covert criminal activities.
(4) other confidential information.
(a) diplomatic correspondence,
(b) closed door Cabinet meetings and
(c) executive sessions of either house of Congress,
(d) internal deliberations of the Supreme Court.
IN RE: PRODUCTION OF COURT RECORDS AND
DOCUMENTS
Specifically, the Internal Rules of the Supreme Court (IRSC) prohibits
the disclosure of
(1) the result of the raffle of cases,
(2) the actions taken by the Court on each case included in the
agenda of the Court’s session, and
(3) the deliberations of the Members in court sessions on
cases and matters pending before it.
Qualifications for protection under Deliberative Process Privilege
To qualify for protection under the deliberative process privilege, the
agency must show that the document is both
(1) predecisional and
(2) deliberative.
A document is “predecisional” under the deliberative process
privilege if it precedes, in temporal sequence, the decision to which it
relates. In other words, communications are considered
predecisional if they were made in the attempt to reach a final
conclusion.
A material is “deliberative,” on the other hand, if it reflects the give
and-take of the consultative process. The key question in determining
whether the material is deliberative in nature is whether disclosure of
the information would discourage candid discussion within the
agency.
Two other grounds for denying access to court records
(1) the disqualification by reason of privileged
communication and
(2) the pendency of an action or matter.
Judge and Justices may not be compelled
To state the rule differently, Justices of the Court cannot be compelled
to testify on matters relating to the internal deliberations and actions
of the Court, in the exercise of their adjudicatory functions and duties.
This is to be differentiated from a situation where the testimony is on
a matter which is external to their adjudicatory functions and duties.
What are not subject to public disclosure
(1) Court actions such as the result of the raffle of cases and the
actions taken by the Court on each case included in the agenda of the
Court’s session on acts done material to pending cases, except where a
party litigant requests information on the result of the raffle of the case,
pursuant to Rule 7, Section 3 of the IRSC;
(2) Court deliberations or the deliberations of the Members in
court sessions on cases and matters pending before the Court;
(3) Court records which are “predecisional” and “deliberative”
in nature, in particular, documents and other communications which
are part of or related to the deliberative process, i.e., notes, drafts,
research papers, internal discussions, internal memoranda, records of
internal deliberations, and similar papers.
(4) Confidential Information secured by justices, judges, court
officials and employees in the course of their official functions,
mentioned in (2) and (3) above, are privileged even after their term of
office.
(5) Records of cases that are still pending for decision are
privileged materials that cannot be disclosed, except only for
pleadings, orders and resolutions that have been made available by the
court to the general public.
(6) The principle of comity or inter-departmental courtesy
demands that the highest officials of each department be exempt from
the compulsory processes of the other departments.
(7) These privileges belong to the Supreme Court as an
institution, not to any justice or judge in his or her individual capacity.
Since the Court is higher than the individual justices or judges, no
sitting or retired justice or judge, not even the Chief Justice, may claim
exception without the consent of the Court.
SECTION 8 [RIGHT TO FORM ASSOCIATION]
List of Cases
SIV
SSS Employees Association vs. CA
In Re Edillon
Victoriano vs. Elizalde Rope Workers’ Union
SSS EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION vs. CA
The principle behind labor unionism in private industry is that
industrial peace cannot be secured through compulsion by law.
Relations between private employers and their employees rest on an
essentially voluntary basis. Subject to the minimum requirements of
wage laws and other labor and welfare legislation, the terms and
conditions of employment in the unionized private sector are settled
through the process of collective bargaining. In government
employment, however, it is the legislature and, where properly given
delegated power, the administrative heads of government which fix the
terms and conditions of employment. And this is effected through
statutes or administrative circulars, rules, and regulations, not through
collective bargaining agreements.
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
Final Examination Reviewer [Case Doctrines]
Government employees may, therefore, through their unions or
associations, either
(a) petition the Congress for the betterment of the terms and
conditions of employment which are within the ambit of
legislation or
(b) negotiate with the appropriate government agencies for the
improvement of those which are not fixed by law.
If there be any unresolved grievances, the dispute may be referred to
the Public Sector Labor - Management Council for appropriate
action. But employees in the civil service may not resort to strikes,
walk-outs and other temporary work stoppages, like workers in the
private sector, to pressure the Government to accede to their demands.
IN RE EDILLON
Integration does not make a lawyer a member of any group of which
he is not already a member. He became a member of the Bar when he
passed the Bar examinations. All that integration actually does is to
provide an official national organization for the well-defined but
unorganized and incohesive group of which every lawyer is a ready a
member.
VICTORIANO vs. ELIZALDE ROPE WORKERS’ UNION
whatever theory of right one subscribes to, a right comprehends at
least two broad notions, namely:
(1) liberty or freedom, i.e., the absence of legal restraint,
whereby an employee may act for himself without being
prevented by law; and
(2) power, whereby an employee may, as he pleases, join or
refrain from Joining an association.
a closed shop, by virtue of which the employer may employ only
member of the collective bargaining union, and the employees must
continue to be members of the union for the duration of the contract in
order to keep their jobs.
SECTION 10 [NON-IMPAIRMENT CLAUSE]
List of Cases
GLOR
Ganzon vs Inserto
Lozano vs. Martinez
Ortigas & Co. Ltd. Partnership vs. Feati Bank & Trust Co.
Rutter vs. Esteban
GANZON vs. INSERTO
The mortgage lien in favor of Petitioner Rodolfo Ganzon is inseparable
from the mortgaged property. It is a right in rem, a lien on the property.
To substitute the mortgage with a surety bond would convert such lien
from a right in rem, to a right in personam. This conversion can not
be ordered for it would abridge the rights of the mortgagee under the
mortgage contract.
LOZANO vs. MARTINEZ
The freedom of contract which is constitutionally protected is freedom
to enter into "lawful" contracts. Contracts which contravene public
policy are not lawful. Besides, we must bear in mind that checks can
not be categorized as mere contracts. It is a commercial instrument
which, in this modem day and age, has become a convenient substitute
for money; it forms part of the banking system and therefore not
entirely free from the regulatory power of the state.
ORTIGAS vs. FEATI
it should be stressed, that while non-impairment of contracts is
constitutionally guaranteed, the rule is not absolute, since it has to be
reconciled with the legitimate exercise of police power, i.e., "the
power to prescribe regulations to promote the health, morals, peace,
education, good order or safety and general welfare of the people.
RUTTER vs. ESTEBAN
the reservation of essential attributes of sovereign power is also read
into contracts as a postulate of the legal order.
The policy of protecting contracts against impairment presupposes the
maintenance of a government by virtue of which contractual relations
are worthwhile a government which retains adequate authority to
secure the peace and good order of society. This principle of
harmonizing the constitutional prohibition with the necessary
residuum of state power has had progressive recognition in the
decision of this Court.
SECTION 11 [FREE ACCESS TO THE COURTS]
IN RE: QUERY OF MR. ROGER PRIORESCHI
The clear intent and precise language of the aforequoted provisions of
the Rules of Court indicate that only a natural party litigant may be
regarded as an indigent litigant. The Good Shepherd Foundation, Inc.,
being a corporation invested by the State with a juridical personality
separate and distinct from that of its members, is a juridical person.
Among others, it has the power to acquire and possess property of all
kinds as well as incur obligations and bring civil or criminal actions,
in conformity with the laws and regulations of their organization. As a
juridical person, therefore, it cannot be accorded the exemption from
legal and filing fees granted to indigent litigants.
That the Good Shepherd Foundation, Inc. is working for indigent and
underprivileged people is of no moment. Clearly, the Constitution has
explicitly premised the free access clause on a persons poverty, a
condition that only a natural person can suffer.
SECTION 12 [CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION]
List of Cases
HGN
PEOPLE vs. DBM PAJA
Ho Wai Pang vs. People
Gamboa vs. Cruz
Navallo vs. Sandiganbayan
PEOPLE versus
Dy
Bolanos
Macam
Pinlac
Andan
Judge Ayson
Alicando
HO WAI PANG vs. PEOPLE
The admissibility of other evidence, provided they are relevant to the
issue and [are] not otherwise excluded by law or rules, [are] not
affected even if obtained or taken in the course of custodial
investigation.
[a]ny allegation of violation of rights during custodial investigation is
relevant and material only to cases in which an extrajudicial admission
or confession extracted from the accused becomes the basis of their
conviction.
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
Final Examination Reviewer [Case Doctrines]
GAMBOA vs. CRUZ
The right to counsel attaches upon the start of an investigation, i.e.
when the investigating officer starts to ask questions to elicit
information and/or confessions or admissions from the
respondent/accused.
the waiver shall be made in writing and in the presence of counsel.
NAVALLO vs. SANDIGANBAYAN
A person under a normal audit examination is not under custodial
investigation. An audit examiner himself can hardly be deemed to be
the law enforcement officer contemplated in the above rule.
PEOPLE vs. DY
The declaration of an accused acknowledging his guilt of the
offense charged may be given in evidence against him. It may in a
sense be also regarded as part of the res gestae.
The rule is that, any person, otherwise competent as a witness, who
heard the confession, is competent to testify as to the substance of what
he heard if he heard and understood all of it. An oral confession need
not be repeated verbatim, but in such a case it must be given in
substance.
What was told by the Accused to Pat, Padilla was a spontaneous
statement not elicited through questioning, but given an ordinary
manner. No written confession was sought to be presented in evidence
as a result of formal custodial investigation.
PEOPLE vs. BOLANOS
Considering the clear requirements of the Constitution with respect to
the manner by which confession can be admissible in evidence, and the
glaring fact that the alleged confession obtained while on board the
police vehicle was the only reason for the conviction, besides
appellant's conviction was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, this
Court has no recourse but to reverse the subject judgment under
review.
PEOPLE vs. MACAM
It is therefore appropriate to extend the counsel guarantee to critical
stages of prosecution even before the trial. The law enforcement
machinery at present involves critical confrontations of the accused by
the prosecution at pre-trial proceedings "where the result might well
settle the accused's fate and reduce the trial itself to a mere formality."
A police line-up is considered a "critical" stage of the proceedings.
PEOPLE vs. PINLAC
When the Constitution requires a person under investigation "to be
informed" of his right to remain silent and to counsel, it must be
presumed to contemplate the transmission of a meaningful
information rather than just the ceremonial and perfunctory recitation
of an abstract constitutional principle.
As a rule, therefore, it would not be sufficient for a police officer just
to repeat to the person under investigation the provisions of the
Constitution. He is not only duty-bound to tell the person the rights to
which the latter is entitled; he must also explain their effects in
practical terms.
PEOPLE vs. ANDAN
Beginning of the Investigation
An investigation begins when it is no longer a general inquiry into an
unsolved crime but starts to focus on a particular person as a suspect,
i.e., when the police investigator starts interrogating or exacting a
confession from the suspect in connection with an alleged offense.
Constitutional Procedure does not apply to spontaneous statement
Thus, it has been held that the constitutional procedures on custodial
investigation do not apply to a spontaneous statement, not elicited
through questioning by the authorities, but given in an ordinary
manner whereby appellant orally admitted having committed the
crime.
The Constitution bars compulsory disclosure
What the Constitution bars is the compulsory disclosure of
incriminating facts or confessions. The rights under Section 12 are
guaranteed to preclude the slightest use of coercion by the state as
would lead the accused to admit something false, not to prevent him
from freely and voluntarily telling the truth. Hence we hold that
appellant's confession to the mayor was correctly admitted by the trial
court.
Spontaneous statements to news reporters admissible
Appellant's confessions to the media were likewise properly admitted.
The confessions were made in response to questions by news reporters,
not by the police or any other investigating officer. We have held that
statements spontaneously made by a suspect to news reporters on a
televised interview are deemed voluntary and are admissible in
evidence.
PEOPLE vs. JUDGE AYSON
Custodial Investigation meant "questioning initiated by law
enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or
otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way."
SECTION 13 [RIGHT TO BAIL]
List of Cases
2PM-2B2GC
People vs. Judge Donato
People vs. Fortes
Manotoc vs. CA
Basco vs. Rapatalo
Baylon vs. Judge Sison
Government of US vs. Judge Puruganan
Government of HK vs. Hon. Olalia
Comendador vs. De Villa
PEOPLE vs. JUDGE DONATO
Therefore, before conviction bail is either a matter of right or of
discretion. It is a matter of right when the offense charged is
punishable by any penalty lower than reclusion perpetua. To that
extent the right is absolute.
Upon the other hand, if the offense charged is punishable by
reclusion perpetua bail becomes a matter of discretion.
It shall be denied if the evidence of guilt is strong. The court's
discretion is limited to determining whether or not evidence of guilt is
strong. But once it is determined that the evidence of guilt is not
strong, bail also becomes a matter of right.
PEOPLE vs. FORTES
Bail must not then be granted to the accused during the pendency of
his appeal from the judgment of conviction.
MANOTOC vs. CA
The condition imposed upon petitioner to make himself available at
all times whenever the court requires his presence operates as a valid
restriction on his right to travel.
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
Final Examination Reviewer [Case Doctrines]
BASCO vs. RAPATALO
In theory, the only function of bail is to ensure the appearance of the
defendant at the time set for trial. The sole purpose of confining the
accused in jail before conviction, it has been observed, is to assure his
presence at the trial.
Lord Mansfield, speaking of the discretion to be exercised in granting
or denying bail said: "But discretion when applied to a court of justice,
means sound discretion guided by law. It must be governed by rule,
not by humour; it must not be arbitrary, vague and fanciful; but legal
and regular."
BAYLON vs. JUDGE SISON
. . . The prosecution must first be accorded an opportunity to present
evidence because by the very nature of deciding applications for bail,
it is on the basis of such evidence that judicial discretion is weighed
against in determining whether the guilt of the accused is strong. In
other words, discretion must be exercised regularly, legally and within
the confines of procedural due process, that is, after evaluation of the
evidence submitted by the prosecution. Any order issued in the absence
thereof is not a product of sound judicial discretion but of whim and
caprice and outright arbitrariness.
GOVERNMENT OF US vs. JUDGE PURUGANAN
International Extradition is a process under which a sovereign state
surrenders to another sovereign state a person accused in a case or a
fugitive offender in the latter state.
Starting with the declaration that the right to bail is available to all
persons, the Constitution proceeds to define its exceptions and
qualifications —
1. when a criminal offense is a capital one and the evidence of
guilt is strong, and
2. when granted the bail shall not be excessive.
The circumstance of "high risk of flight" upon which the main
decision anchors its refusal to grant bail is conspicuously absent from
the recital.
GOVERNMENT OF HK vs. HON. OLALIA
Reexamination of the PURGANAN Ruling
1. First, we note that the exercise of the State’s power to
deprive an individual of his liberty is not necessarily limited
to criminal proceedings. Respondents in administrative
proceedings, such as deportation and quarantine, have
likewise been detained.
2. Second, to limit bail to criminal proceedings would be to
close our eyes to our jurisprudential history. Philippine
jurisprudence has not limited the exercise of the right to bail
to criminal proceedings only. This Court has admitted to bail
persons who are not involved in criminal proceedings. In
fact, bail has been allowed in this jurisdiction to persons in
detention during the pendency of administrative
proceedings, taking into cognizance the obligation of the
Philippines under international conventions to uphold
human rights.
It is not a trial to determine the guilt or innocence of the potential
extraditee. Nor is it a full-blown civil action, but one that is merely
administrative in character. Its object is to prevent the escape of a
person accused or convicted of a crime and to secure his return to the
state from which he fled, for the purpose of trial or punishment.
COMENDADOR vs. DE VILLA
We find that the right to bail invoked by the private respondents in
G.R. Nos. 95020 has traditionally not been recognized and is not
available in the military, as an exception to the general rule
embodied in the Bill of Rights. This much was suggested in ARULA,
where we observed that "the right to a speedy trial is given more
emphasis in the military where the right to bail does not exist.
Reasons:
1. The unique structure of the military
2. Fiduciary use of firearms by the government
3. National security considerations
SECTION 14 [CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS]
List of Cases
TAG
Tatad vs. Sandiganbayan
Alonte vs. Savellano
Galman vs. Sandiganbayan
TATAD vs. SANDIGANBAYAN
We find the long delay in the termination of the preliminary
investigation by the Tanodbayan in the instant case to be violative of
the constitutional right of the accused to due process. Substantial
adherence to the requirements of the law governing the conduct of
preliminary investigation, including substantial compliance with the
time limitation prescribed by the law for the resolution of the case by
the prosecutor, is part of the procedural due process constitutionally
guaranteed by the fundamental law.
ALONTE vs. SAVELLANO
Jurisprudence acknowledges that due process in criminal proceedings,
in particular, require
(a) that the court or tribunal trying the case is properly clothed
with judicial power to hear and determine the matter before
it;
(b) that jurisdiction is lawfully acquired by it over the person of
the accused;
(c) that the accused is given an opportunity to be heard; and
(d) that judgment is rendered only upon lawful hearing
The principles find universal acceptance and are tersely expressed in
the oft-quoted statement that procedural due process cannot possibly
be met without a "law which hears before it condemns, which
proceeds upon inquiry and renders judgment only after trial.”
GALMAN vs. SANDIGANBAYAN
The Supreme Court cannot permit such a sham trial and verdict and
travesty of justice to stand unrectified. The courts of the land under its
aegis are courts of law and justice and equity. They would have no
reason to exist if they were allowed to be used as mere tools of
injustice, deception and duplicity to subvert and suppress the truth,
instead of repositories of judicial power whose judges are sworn and
committed to render impartial justice to all alike who seek the
enforcement or protection of a right or the prevention or redress of a
wrong, without fear or favor and removed from the pressures of politics
and prejudice.
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
Final Examination Reviewer [Case Doctrines]
SECTION 14 [PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE]
List of Cases
PDMCF
People vs. Dramayo
Dumlao vs. COMELEC
Marquez vs. COMELEC
Corpus vs. People
Feeder International Line vs. CA
PEOPLE vs. DRAMAYO
It is thus required that circumstance favoring his innocence be duly
taken into count. The proof against him must survive the reason; the
strongest suspicion must not be permitted to sway away judgment. The
conscience must be satisfied that on the defendant could be laid the
responsibility for the offense charged; that not only did he perpetrate
the act but that it amounted to a crime. What is required then is moral
certainty.
By Reasonable Doubt
"By reasonable doubt is meant that which of possibility may arise, but
it is doubt engendered by an investigation of the whole proof and an
inability, after such investigation, to let the mind rest easy upon the
certainty of guilt. Absolute certain of guilt is not demanded by the
law to convict of any carnal charge but moral certainty is required,
and this certainty is required as to every proposition of proof regular to
constitute the offense."
DUMLAO vs COMELEC
An accusation, according to the fundamental law, is not synonymous
with guilt. The challenged proviso contravenes the constitutional
presumption of innocence, as a candidate is disqualified from running
for public office on the ground alone that charges have been filed
against him before a civil or military tribunal.
MARQUEZ vs. COMELEC
The Court believes and thus holds, albeit with some personal
reservations of the ponente (expressed during the Court's en banc
deliberations), that Article 73 of the Rules and Regulations
Implementing the Local Government Code of 1991, to the extent
that it confines the term "fugitive from justice" to refer only to a person
(the fugitive) "who has been convicted by final judgment." is an
inordinate and undue circumscription of the law.
CORPUS vs. PEOPLE
The equipoise rule invoked by the petitioner is applicable only where
the evidence of the parties is evenly balanced, in which case the
constitutional presumption of innocence should tilt the scales in
favor of the accused. There is no such equipoise here. The evidence of
the prosecution is overwhelming and has not been overcome by the
petitioner with his nebulous claims of persecution and conspiracy.
FEEDER INTERNATIONAL LINE vs. CA
Besides, if ever there was any doubt as to the veracity of the sworn
statements of Deposa and Torres, they should have been presented
during any appropriate stage of the proceedings to refute or deny
the statements they made. This was not done by petitioner. Hence, the
presumption that official duty was regularly performed stands.
SECTION 14 [RIGHT TO BE HEARD BY HIMSELF AND
COUNSEL]
List of Cases
PAP
People vs. Holgado
Amion vs. Judge Chiongson
People vs. Agbayani
PEOPLE vs. HOLGADO
Four important duties of the courts
Under this provision, when a defendant appears without attorney, the
court has four important duties to comply with:
1. — It must inform the defendant that it is his right to have
attorney before being arraigned;
2. — After giving him such information the court must ask him
if he desires the aid of an attorney;
3. — If he desires and is unable to employ attorney, the court
must assign attorney de oficio to defend him; and
4. — If the accused desires to procure an attorney of his own
the court must grant him a reasonable time therefor.
Right to be heard
Even the most intelligent or educated man may have no skill in the
science of the law, particularly in the rules of procedure, and, without
counsel, he may be convicted not because he is guilty but because he
does not know how to establish his innocence.
AMION vs. JUDGE AYSON
Even if we were to extend the application of the concept of preference
in the choice of counsel to an accused in a criminal prosecution, such
preferential discretion cannot partake of a discretion so absolute and
arbitrary as would make the choice of counsel refer exclusively to the
predilection of the accused.
PEOPLE vs. AGBAYANI
If we should insist on finding every fact fully recorded before a citizen
can be punished for an offense against the laws, we should destroy
public justice, and give unbridled license to crime. Much must be left
to intendment and presumption, for it is often less difficult to do things
correctly than to describe them correctly.
SECTION 14 [RIGHT TO BE INFORMED OF THE NATURE
AND CAUSE OF ACCUSATION]
List of Cases
BSPP
Borja vs. Mendoza
Soriano vs. Sandiganbayan
People vs. Quitlong
Pecho vs. People
BORJA vs. MENDOZA
At the very least then, he must be fully informed of why the
prosecuting arm of the state is mobilized against him. An arraignment
serves that purpose. Thereafter he is no longer in the dark. It is true,
the complaint or information may not be worded with sufficient clarity.
He would be in a much worse position though if he does not even have
such an opportunity to plead to the charge.
It is not useless formality, much less an Idle ceremony.
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
Final Examination Reviewer [Case Doctrines]
SORIANO vs. SANDIGANBAYAN
The petitioner also claims that he cannot be convicted of bribery under
the Revised Penal Code because to do so would be violative of as
constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation against him. Wrong. A reading of the information which
has been reproduced herein clearly makes out a case of bribery so that
the petitioner cannot claim deprivation of the right to be informed.
PEOPLE vs. QUITLONG
Informing must be in writing of the charges
(1) First. To furnish the accused with such a description of the
charge against him as will enable him to make his defense;
(2) Second, to avail himself of his conviction or acquittal for
protection against a further prosecution for the same cause;
(3) Third, to inform the court of the facts alleged, so that it
may decide whether they are sufficient in law to support a
conviction, if one should be had.
What must be included in the Information
An information, in order to ensure that the constitutional right of the
accused to be informed of the nature and cause of his accusation is not
violated, must state
(a) the name of the accused;
(b) the designation given to the offense by the statute;
(c) a statement of the acts or omissions so complained of as
constituting the offense;
(d) the name of the offended party;
(e) the approximate time and date of the commission of the
offense; and
(f) the place where the offense has been committed.
PECHO vs. PEOPLE
What determines the real nature and cause of accusation against an
accused is the actual recital of facts stated in the information or
complaint and not the caption or preamble of the information or
complaint nor the specification of the provision of law alleged to have
been violated, they being conclusions of law. An incorrect caption is
not a fatal mistake.
Accused may convicted of a crime not charged
It follows then that an accused may be convicted of a crime which,
although not the one charged, is necessarily included in the
latter. Section 4, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court thus provides:
SEC. 4. Judgment in case of variance between allegation and proof.
-- When there is variance between the offense charged in the complaint
or information, and that proved or established by the evidence, and the
offense as charged is included in or necessarily includes the offense
proved, the accused shall be convicted of the offense proved included
in that which is charged, or of the offense charged included in that
which is proved.
SECTION 14 [RIGHT TO SPEEDY, IMPARTIAL AND
PUBLIC TRIAL]
List of Cases
CFM-GRIPPPP
Conde vs. Rivera
Flores vs. People
Mateo Jr. vs. Villaluz
Garcia vs. Domingo
Re Maguindanao Governor Zaldy Ampatuan
In Re: Plunder Cases
People vs. Tee
People vs. Teehankee Jr.
People vs. Mapalao
People vs. Valeriano
CONDE vs. RIVERA
We lay down the legal proposition that, where a prosecuting officer,
without good cause, secures postponements of the trial of a defendant
against his protest beyond a reasonable period of time, as in this
instance for more than a year, the accused is entitled to relief by a
proceeding in mandamus to compel a dismissal of the information, or
if he be restrained of his liberty, by habeas corpus to obtain his
freedom.
FLORES vs. PEOPLE
"The Government should be the last to set an example of delay and
oppression in the administration of justice and it is the moral and legal
obligation of this court to see that the criminal proceedings against the
accused come to an end and that they be immediately discharged from
the custody of the law."
MATEO JR. vs. VILLALUZ
every litigant is entitled to nothing less than the cold neutrality of an
impartial judge."
He should, to quote from another decision "at all times manifest depth
of commitment and concern to the cause of justice according to legal
norms, a cerebral man who deliberately holds in cheek the tug and pull
of purely personal preferences and prejudices which he shares with the
rest of his fellow mortals."
A judge then, to quote from the latest decision in point, Geotina v.
Gonzales, penned by Justice Castro, should strive to be at all times
"wholly free, disinterested, impartial and independent.
GARCIA vs. DOMINGO
It possesses that character when anyone interested in observing the
manner a judge conducts the proceedings in his courtroom may do so.
There is to be no ban on such attendance. His being a stranger to the
litigants is of no moment.
RE MAGUINDANAO GOVERNOR ZALDY AMPATUAN
An accused has a right to a public trial but it is a right that belongs to
him, more than anyone else, where his life or liberty can be held
critically in balance.
A public trial aims to ensure that he is fairly dealt with and would not
be unjustly condemned and that his rights are not compromised in
secrete conclaves of long ago.
IN RE: PLUNDER CASES (ESTRADA)
Reasons for televised recording
1. the hearings are of historic significance. They are an
affirmation of our commitment to the rule that "the King is
under no man, but he is under God and the law." (Quod Rex
non debet esse sub homine, sed sub Deo et Lege.)
2. the Estrada cases involve matters of vital concern to our
people who have a fundamental right to know how their
government is conducted. This right can be enhanced by
audio-visual presentation.
3. audio-visual presentation is essential for the education and
civic training of the people.
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
Final Examination Reviewer [Case Doctrines]
PEOPLE vs. TEE
The concept of speedy trial is necessarily relative. A determination as
to whether the right has been violated involves the weighing of
several factors such as
(a) the length of the delay,
(b) the reason for the delay,
(c) the conduct of the prosecution and the accused, and
(d) the efforts exerted by the defendant to assert his right, as well
as
(e) the prejudice and damage caused to the accused.
The right to a speedy trial is deemed violated only when:
(1) the proceedings are attended by vexatious, capricious, and
oppressive delays; or
(2) when unjustified postponements are asked for and secured;
or
(3) when without cause or justifiable motive a long period of
time is allowed to elapse without the party having his case
tried.
PEOPLE vs. TEEHANKEE JR.
Pervasive publicity is not per se prejudicial to the right of an accused
to fair trial. The mere fact that the trial of appellant was given a day-
to-day, gavel-to-gavel coverage does not by itself prove that the
publicity so permeated the mind of the trial judge and impaired
his impartiality.
we rejected this standard of possibility of prejudice and adopted the
test of actual prejudice as we ruled that to warrant a finding of
prejudicial publicity, there must be allegation and proof that the
judges have been unduly influenced, not simply that they might be,
by the barrage of publicity.
PEOPLE vs. MAPALAO
What the Constitution guarantees him is a fair trial, not continued
enjoyment of his freedom even if his guilt could be proved. With the
categorical statement in the fundamental law that his absence cannot
justify a delay provided that he has been duly notified and his failure
to appear is unjustified, such an abuse could be remedied. That is the
way it should be, for both society and the offended party have a
legitimate interest in seeing to it that came should not go unpunished.
PEOPLE vs. VALERIANO
. Paragraph (2), Section 14, Article III of the Constitution permits
trial in absentia after the accused has been arraigned provided he has
been duly notified of the trial and his failure to appear thereat is
unjustified. One who jumps bail can never offer a justifiable reason for
his non-appearance during the trial. Accordingly, after the trial in
absentia, the court can render judgment in the case and promulgation
may be made by simply recording the judgment in the criminal docket
with a copy thereof served upon his counsel, provided that the notice
requiring him to be present at the promulgation is served through his
bondsmen or warden and counsel.
SECTION 14 [RIGHT OF CONFRONTATION]
List of Cases
UT
US vs. Javier
Talino vs. Sandiganbayan
US vs. JAVIER
In other words, confrontation is essential because cross-examination
is essential.
A second reason for the prohibition is that a tribunal may have before
it the department and appearance of the witness while testifying.
TALINO vs. SANDIGANBAYAN
It is settled that if a separate trial is allowed to one of two or more
defendants, his testimony therein imputing guilt to any of the co-
accused is not admissible against the latter who was not able to cross-
examine him.
No accusation is permitted to be made against his back or in his
absence nor is any derogatory information accepted if it is made
anonymously, as in poison pen letters sent by persons who cannot
stand by their libels and must shroud their spite in secrecy.
SECTION 14 [COMPULSORY PROCESSES]
ROCO vs. CONTRERAS
In this jurisdiction, there are two (2) kinds of subpoena, to wit:
1. subpoena ad testificandum and
2. subpoena duces tecum.
The first is used to compel a person to testify, while the second is used
to compel the production of books, records, things or documents
therein specified.
The subpoena duces tecum is, in all respects, like the ordinary
subpoena ad testificandum with the exception that it concludes with
an injunction that the witness shall bring with him and produce at the
examination the books, documents, or things described in the
subpoena.
Requisites for Subpoena duces tecum
(1) the books, documents or other things requested must
appear prima facie relevant to the issue subject of the
controversy (test of relevancy); and
(2) such books must be reasonably described by the parties to be
readily identified (test of definiteness).
SECTION 15 [SUSPENSION OF THE PRIVILEGE OF THE
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS]
List of Cases
JIL
Jackson vs. Macalino
In Re Aurora Parong vs. Ponce Enrile
Lansang vs. Garcia
JACKSON vs. MACALINO
What is to be inquired into is the legality of his detention as of, at the
earliest, the filing of the application for a writ of habeas corpus, for
even if the detention is at its inception illegal, it may, by reason of same
supervening events such as the instances mentioned in Section 4, Rule
102, be no longer illegal at the time of the filing of the application. Any
such supervening events are the issuance of a judicial process
preventing the discharge of the detained person.
IN RE AURORA PARONG vs. PONCE ENRILE
The suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus must,
indeed, carry with it the suspension of the right to bail, if the
government's campaign to suppress the rebellion is to be enhanced and
rendered effective.
Reason: If the right to bail may be demanded during the continuance
of the rebellion, and those arrested, captured and detained in the course
thereof will be released, they would, without the least doubt, rejoin
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
Final Examination Reviewer [Case Doctrines]

their comrades in the field thereby jeopardizing the success of Transactional immunity is broader in the scope of its protection. By
government efforts to bring to an end the invasion, rebellion or its grant, a witness can no longer be prosecuted for any offense
insurrection. whatsoever arising out of the act or transaction

LANSANG vs. GARCIA In contrast, by the grant of use-and-derivative-use immunity,

Indeed, the grant of power to suspend the privilege is neither absolute a witness is only assured that his or her particular testimony and
nor unqualified. The authority conferred by the Constitution, both evidence derived from it will not be used against him or her in a
under the Bill of Rights and under the Executive Department, is limited subsequent prosecution.
and conditional.
BELTRAN vs. SAMSON
FIVE TYPES OF WRIT OF AMPARO The rights intended to be protected by the constitutional provision that
1. amparo libertad no man accused of crime shall be compelled to be a witness against
2. amparo contra leyes himself is so sacred, and the pressure toward their relaxation so great
3. amparo casacion when the suspicion of guilt is strong and the evidence obscure, that is
4. amparo administrative the duty of courts liberally to construe the prohibition in favor of
5. amparo agrario personal rights, and to refuse to permit any steps tending toward their
invasion. Hence, there is the well-established doctrine that the
SECTION 16 [RIGHT TO SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF CASES] constitutional inhibition is directed not merely to giving of oral
testimony, but embraces as well the furnishing of evidence by other
PADUA vs. ERICTA means than by word of mouth, the divulging, in short, of any fact
Courts should not brook undue delays in the ventilation and which the accused has a right to hold secret.
determination of causes.
CHAVEZ vs. CA
It should be their constant effort to assure that litigations are Petitioner, as accused, occupies a different tier of protection from an
prosecuted and resolved with dispatch. ordinary witness. Whereas an ordinary witness may be compelled to
take the witness stand and claim the privilege as each question
Postponements of trials and hearings should not be allowed except on requiring an incriminating answer is shot at him, and accused may
meritorious grounds; and the grant or refusal thereof rests entirely in altogether refuse to take the witness stand and refuse to answer
the sound discretion of the Judge. any and all questions.

SECTION 17 [RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION]
List of Cases
UV-MB-CPP
US vs. Tan Teng
Villaflor vs. Summers
Mapa Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan
Beltran vs. Samson
Chavez vs. CA
People vs. Gallarde
Pascual vs. Board of Medical Examiners
US vs. TAN TENG
But the prohibition of compelling a man in a criminal court to be a
witness against himself, is a prohibition of the use of physical or
moral compulsion, to extort communications from him, not an
exclusion of his body as evidence, when it may be material.
VILLAFLOR vs. SUMMERS
The maxim of the common law, Nemo tenetur seipsum accusare, was
recognized in England in early days, but not in the other legal systems
of the world, in a revolt against the thumbscrew and the rack. A legal
shield was raised against odious inquisitorial methods of
interrogating an accused person by which to extort unwilling
confessions with the ever present temptation to commit the crime of
perjury.
For, in reality, the purpose of calling an accused as a witness for the
People would be to incriminate him. The rule positively intends to
avoid and prohibit the certainly inhuman procedure of compelling a
person "to furnish the missing evidence necessary for his conviction."
This rule may apply even to a co-defendant in a joint trial.
PEOPLE vs. GALLARDE
The constitutional right of an accused against self-incrimination
proscribes the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort
communications from the accused and not the inclusion of his body in
evidence when it may be material.
Purely mechanical acts are not included in the prohibition as the
accused does not thereby speak his guilt, hence the assistance and
guiding hand of counsel is not required.
PASCUAL vs. BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS
We reiterate that such a principle is equally applicable to a
proceeding that could possibly result in the loss of the privilege to
practice the medical profession.
SECTION 18 [RIGHT AGAINST INVOLUNTARY
SERVITUDE]
List of Cases
PI
PH Refining Company Worker’s Union vs. PH Refining Co.
In Re Segifredo Aclaracio

MAPA JR. vs. SANDIGANBAYAN PH REFINING COMPANY WORKER’S UNION vs. PH

In the United States, there are two types of statutory immunity REFINING CO
granted to a witness. They are the The voluntariness of the employee's entering into such a contract of
(a) transactional immunity and the employment — he has a free choice between entering into it or not
(b) used-and-derivative-use immunity. — with such an implied condition, negatives the possibility of
involuntary servitude ensuing. . . .
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
Final Examination Reviewer [Case Doctrines]
IN RE SEGIFREDO ACLARACION
Involuntary servitude denotes a condition of enforced, compulsory
service of one to another or the condition of one who is compelled
by force, coercion, or imprisonment, and against his will, to labor.
That situation does not obtain in this case.
NOTES:
Right against involuntary servitude is not absolute
Exceptions:
1. Punishment of a crime whereof the party shall have been
duly convicted
2. Render service to defend the state
3. Return to work order in assumption jurisdiction cases
4. Naval enlistment
5. Posse comitatus – command to help them find some
criminals
6. Patria potestas – authority which is lawfully exercised by
the father over his children
SECTION 19 [PROHIBITED PUNISHMENT]
List of Cases
PEP
People vs. Estoisa
Echagaray vs. Executive Secretary
People vs. Esparas
PEOPLE vs. ESTOISA
The constitutionality of an act of the legislature is not to be judged in
the light of exceptional cases. Small transgressors for which the heavy
net was not spread are like small fishes, bound to be caught, and it is
to meet such a situation as this that courts are advised to make a
recommendation to the Chief Executive for clemency or reduction of
the penalty.
ECHAGARAY vs. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
In the oft-cited case of Harden v. Director of Prisons, this Court held
that "[p]unishments are cruel when they involve torture or a
lingering death; but the punishment of death is not cruel, within the
meaning of that word as used in the constitution. It implies there
something inhuman and barbarous, something more than the mere
extinguishment of life."
Indisputably, Article 6 of the Covenant enshrines the individual's right
to life. Nevertheless, Article 6 (2) of the Covenant explicitly
recognizes that capital punishment is an allowable limitation on the
right to life, subject to the limitation that it be imposed for the "most
serious crimes".
PEOPLE vs. ESPARAS
Having received the highest penalty which the law imposes, he is
entitled under that law to have the sentence and all the facts and
circumstances upon which it is founded placed before the highest
tribunal of the land to the end that its justice and legality may be clearly
and conclusively determined.
SECTION 20 [NON-IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT]
List of Cases
SL
Serafin vs. Lindayag
Lozano vs. Martinez
SERAFIN vs. LINDAYAG
either he believed that non-payment of an indebtedness constitutes the
crime of estafa which would make him guilty of gross ignorance of the
law or although knowing the law, of nevertheless disregarding it and
giving due course to the town police chief's "prosecution" on behalf of
the municipal secretary which would constitute an utter betrayal of his
oath of office to render justice to every man.
LOZANO vs. MARTINEZ
Mr. Justice Malcolm speaking for the Supreme Court in Ganaway vs.
Queen, stated: "The 'debt' intended to be covered by the constitutional
guaranty has a well-defined meaning. Organic provisions relieving
from imprisonment for debt, were intended to prevent commitment of
debtors to prison for liabilities arising from actions ex contractu
SECTION 21 [DOUBLE JEOPARDY]
List of Cases
PEOPLE vs. BOCPART
PP-LIME
PEOPLE versus
Balisacan
Obsania
City Court of Silay
Pineda
Adil
Relova
Tampal
PS Bank vs. Bermoy
Paulin vs. Gimenez
Lejano vs. People
Icasiano vs. Sandiganbayan
Melo vs. People
Esmena vs. Pogoy
PEOPLE vs. BALISACAN
A plea of guilty is an unconditional admission of guilt with respect to
the offense charged. It forecloses the right to defend oneself from said
charge and leaves the court with no alternative but to impose the
penalty fixed by law under the circumstances.
In this case, the defendant was only allowed to testify in order to
establish mitigating circumstances, for the purposes of fixing the
penalty. Said testimony, therefore, could not be taken as a trial on
the merits, to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused.
PEOPLE vs. OBSANIA
Three requirements
1. the dismissal is made upon motion, or with the express
consent, of the defendant, and
2. the dismissal is not an acquittal or based upon consideration
of the evidence or of the merits of the case; and
3. the question to be passed upon by the appellate court is
purely legal; so that should the dismissal be found incorrect,
the case would have to be remanded to the court of origin for
further proceedings, to determine the guilt or innocence of
the defendant.
Doctrine of Estoppel and Doctrine of Waiver
The doctrine of estoppel is in quintessence the same as the doctrine of
waiver: the thrust of both is that a dismissal, other than on the merits,
sought by the accused in a motion to dismiss, is deemed to be with his
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
Final Examination Reviewer [Case Doctrines]
express consent and bars him from subsequently interposing the
defense of double jeopardy on appeal or in a new prosecution for the
same offense.
PEOPLE vs. CITY COURT OF SILAY
The inherent powers of a court to modify its order or decision, under
section 5, Rule 124 of the Rules of Court claimed for the respondent
to set aside his order of dismissal, does not extend to an order of
dismissal which amounts to a judgment of acquittal in a criminal
case; and the power of a court to modify a judgment or set it aside
before it has become final or an appeal has been perfected, under
section 7, Rule 116 of the Rules of Court, refers to a judgment of
conviction and does not and cannot include a judgment of acquittal.
PEOPLE vs. PINEDA
Withal, the mere filing of two informations charging the same offense
is not an appropriate basis for the invocation of double jeopardy since
the first jeopardy has not yet set in by a previous conviction, acquittal
or termination of the case without the consent of the accused.
PEOPLE vs. ADIL
Stated differently, if after the first. prosecution 'a new fact supervenes
on which defendant may be held liable, resulting in altering the
character of the crime and giving rise to a new and distinct offense,
'the accused cannot be said to be in second jeopardy if indicted for the
new offense.
PEOPLE vs. RELOVA
Thus, the first sentence prohibits double jeopardy of punishment for
the same offense, whereas the second contemplates double jeopardy
of punishment for the same act.
Put a little differently, where the offenses charged are penalized either
by different sections of the same statute or by different statutes, the
important inquiry relates to the identity of offenses charge: the
constitutional protection against double jeopardy is available only
where an Identity is shown to exist between the earlier and the
subsequent offenses charged.
In contrast, where one offense is charged under a municipal ordinance
while the other is penalized by a statute, the critical inquiry is to
the identity of the acts which the accused is said to have committed
and which are alleged to have given rise to the two offenses: the
constitutional protection against double jeopardy is available so long
as the acts which constitute or have given rise to the first offense under
a municipal ordinance are the same acts which constitute or have given
rise to the offense charged under a statute.
PEOPLE vs. TAMPAL
The three (3) requisites of double jeopardy are:
1. a first jeopardy must have attached prior to the second,
2. the first jeopardy must have been validly terminated, and
3. a second jeopardy, must be for the same offense as that in
the first.
PS BANK vs. BERMOY
Elements in the first criminal case for double jeopardy to apply
1. The complaint or information or other formal charge was
sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction;
2. The court had jurisdiction;
3. The accused had been arraigned and had pleaded; and
4. He was convicted or acquitted or the case was dismissed
without his express consent
Dismissal with the express consent of the accused
On the last element, the rule is that a dismissal with the express consent
or upon motion of the accused does not result in double jeopardy.
However, this rule is subject to two exceptions, namely,
1. if the dismissal is based on insufficiency of evidence or
2. on the denial of the right to speedy trial.
A dismissal upon demurrer to evidence falls under the first
exception. Since such dismissal is based on the merits, it amounts to
an acquittal.
When right against double jeopardy can be invoked
1. the accused is charged with the same offense in two separate
pending cases, or
2. the accused is prosecuted anew for the same offense after he
had been convicted or acquitted of such offense, or
3. the prosecution appeals from a judgment in the same
case
Absolute nature of acquittals
The philosophy underlying this rule establishing the absolute nature of
acquittals is part of the paramount importance criminal justice
system attaches to the protection of the innocent against wrongful
conviction.
The interest in the finality-of-acquittal rule, confined exclusively to
verdicts of not guilty, is easy to understand: it is a need for repose, a
desire to know the exact extent of one’s liability. With this right of
repose, the criminal justice system has built in a protection to insure
that the innocent, even those whose innocence rests upon a jury’s
leniency, will not be found guilty in a subsequent proceeding.
PAULIN vs. GIMENEZ
. . . Acquittal is always based on the merits, that is, the defendant is
acquitted because the evidence does not show that defendant's guilt is
beyond reasonable doubt; but dismissal does not decide the case on
the merits or that the defendant is not guilty.
Dismissals terminate the proceedings, either because
a. the court is not a court of competent jurisdiction, or
b. the evidence does not show that the offense was committed
within the territorial jurisdiction of the court, or
c. the complaint or information is not valid or sufficient in form
and substance, etc. . .
LEJANO vs. PEOPLE
Society’s awareness of the heavy personal strain which a criminal trial
represents for the individual defendant is manifested in the willingness
to limit the government to a single criminal proceeding to vindicate its
very vital interest in the enforcement of criminal laws.
ICASIANO vs. SANDIGANBAYAN
When the Supreme Court acts on complaints against judges or any of
the personnel under its supervision and control, it acts as personnel
administrator, imposing discipline and not as a court judging
justiciable controversies. Administrative procedure need not strictly
adhere to technical rules. Substantial evidence is sufficient to sustain
conviction.
Criminal proceedings before the Sandiganbayan, on the other hand,
while they may involve the same acts subject of the administrative
case, require proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
Final Examination Reviewer [Case Doctrines]

MELO vs. PEOPLE

Under said Rules there is identity between two offenses not only when b. which aggravates a crime or makes it greater than it was
the second offense is exactly the same as the first, but also when the when committed; or
second offense is an attempt to commit the first or a frustration
thereof, or when it necessary includes or is necessarily included in the c. which changes the punishment and inflicts a greater
offense charged in the first information. punishment than the law annexed to the crime when it was
committed; or
When offense is said to necessarily include another
In this connection, an offense may be said to necessarily include d. which alters the legal rules of evidence and receives less or
another when some of the essential ingredients of the former as different testimony than the law required at the time of the
alleged in the information constitute the latter. And vice-versa, an commission of the offense in order to convict the defendant
offense may be said to be necessarily included in another when all the
ingredients of the former constitute a part of the elements e. That which assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies
constituting the latter (Rule 116, sec. 5.) only but in effect imposes a penalty or deprivation of a right
which when done was lawful; or
When Rule of Identity does not apply
This rule of identity does not apply, however when the second offense f. that which deprives a person accused of a crime of some
was not in existence at the time of the first prosecution, for the simple lawful protection to which he has become entitled, such as
reason that in such case there is no possibility for the accused, during the protection of a former conviction or acquittal, or a
the first prosecution, to be convicted for an offense that was then proclamation of amnesty
inexistent.
ARTICLE IV [CITIZENSHIP]
ESMENA vs. POGOY List of Cases
When these three conditions are present, the acquittal or conviction of TRICYCL-FAR-BAMMM
the accused or the dismissal or termination of the case without his
express consent constitutes res judicata and is a bar to another Tecson vs. COMELEC
prosecution for the offense charged, or for any attempt to commit the Republic vs. Lim
same or frustration thereof, or for any offense which necessarily In Re: Application for Admission to the Bar of Vicente Ching
includes or is included therein. Co vs. HOR
Yu vs. Defensor-Santiago
SECTION 22 [EX POST FACTO LAW AND BILL OF Cabiling Ma vs. Fernandez
ATTAINDER] Labo vs. COMELEC
List of Cases
CUNS Frivaldo vs. COMELEC
Aznar vs. COMELEC
Concepcion vs. Garcia Republic vs. Dela Rosa
US vs. Conde
Nasi-Villar vs. People Bengzon III vs. HRET
Salvador vs. Mapa Jr. Altajeros vs. COMELEC
Maquiling vs. COMELEC
CONCEPCION vs. GARCIA Mercado vs. Manzano
Moreover, the term "ex post facto," as applied to statutes, in section 3 Mo Ya Lim Yao vs. Commissioner on Immigration
of our organic law, is a technical term, used only in connection with
crimes and penalties. TECSON vs. COMELEC
Treaty of Paris
The term is never used to indicate the obnoxious character of statutes  entered into on 10 December 1898 between Spain and the
dealing retroactively with civil rights. United States
US vs. CONDE Philippine Bill of 1902
A law imposing a new penalty, or a new liability or disability, or giving  The term inhabitant was taken to include
a new right of action, must not be construed as having a retroactive
1. a native-born inhabitant
effect. It is an elementary rule of contract that the laws in force at the
2. an inhabitant who was a native of Peninsular Spain, and
time the contract was made must govern its interpretation and
3. an inhabitant who obtained Spanish papers on or before
application. Laws must be construed prospectively and not
11 April 1899
retrospectively.
 Controversy arose on to the status of children born in the
NASI-VILLAR vs. PEOPLE
Philippines from 11 April 1899 to 01 July 1902, during
A law can never be considered ex post facto as long as it operates
which period no citizenship law was extant in the
prospectively since its strictures would cover only offenses committed
Philippines. Weight was given to the view, articulated in
after and not before its enactment.
jurisprudential writing at the time, that the common law
principle of jus soli, otherwise also known as the principle
SALVADOR vs. MAPA JR.
of territoriality, operative in the United States and England,
An ex post facto law has been defined as one
governed those born in the Philippine Archipelago within
a. which makes an action done before the passing of the law
that period.
and which was innocent when done criminal, and punishes
such action; or
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
Final Examination Reviewer [Case Doctrines]
Jones Law
 Under the Jones Law, a native-born inhabitant of the
Philippines was deemed to be a citizen of the Philippines as
of 11 April 1899 if he was
1. a subject of Spain on 11 April 1899
2. residing in the Philippines on said date, and,
3. since that date, not a citizen of some other country.
1935 Philippine Constitution
 While there was, at one brief time, divergent views on
whether or not jus soli was a mode of acquiring citizenship,
the 1935 Constitution brought to an end to any such link with
common law, by adopting, once and for all, jus sanguinis or
blood relationship as being the basis of Filipino citizenship -
 Section 1, Article III, 1935 Constitution. The following are
citizens of the Philippines -
1. Those who are citizens of the Philippine Islands at the
time of the adoption of this Constitution
2. Those born in the Philippines Islands of foreign parents
who, before the adoption of this Constitution, had been
elected to public office in the Philippine Islands.
3. Those whose fathers are citizens of the Philippines.
4. Those whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines
and upon reaching the age of majority, elect Philippine
citizenship.
5. Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.
1973 Philippine Constitution
 Seeking to correct this anomaly, as well as fully cognizant of
the newly found status of Filipino women as equals to men,
the framers of the 1973 Constitution crafted the provisions
of the new Constitution on citizenship to reflect such
concerns
 Section 1, Article III, 1973 Constitution - The following
are citizens of the Philippines:
1. Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of
the adoption of this Constitution.
2. Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the
Philippines.
3. Those who elect Philippine citizenship pursuant to the
provisions of the Constitution of nineteen hundred and
thirty-five.
4. Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.
 For good measure, Section 2 of the same article also further
provided that
"A female citizen of the Philippines who marries an alien retains her
Philippine citizenship, unless by her act or omission she is deemed,
under the law to have renounced her citizenship."
1987 Philippine Constitution
 The 1987 Constitution generally adopted the provisions of
the 1973 Constitution, except for subsection (3) thereof that
aimed to correct the irregular situation generated by the
questionable proviso in the 1935 Constitution.
 Section I, Article IV, 1987 Constitution now provides:
The following are citizens of the Philippines:
1. Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the
adoption of this Constitution.
2. Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the
Philippines.
3. Those born before January 17, 1973 of Filipino mothers,
who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of
majority; and
4. Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.
Fr. Bernas: It was not the fault of the child that his parents had illicit
liaison. Why deprive the child of the fullness of political rights for no
fault of his own? To disqualify an illegitimate child from holding an
important public office is to punish him for the indiscretion of his
parents. There is neither justice nor rationality in that. And if there is
neither justice nor rationality in the distinction, then the distinction
transgresses the equal protection clause and must be reprobated.
REPUBLIC vs. LIM
It cites Article IV, Section 1(3) of the 1935 Constitution, which
provides that the citizenship of a legitimate child born of a Filipino
mother and an alien father followed the citizenship of the father,
unless, upon reaching the age of majority, the child elected Philippine
citizenship.
Likewise, the Republic invokes the provision in Section 1 of
Commonwealth Act No. 625, that legitimate children born of Filipino
mothers may elect Philippine citizenship by expressing such intention
in a statement to be signed and sworn to by the party concerned before
any officer authorized to administer oaths, and shall be filed with the
nearest civil registry. The said party shall accompany the aforesaid
statement with the oath of allegiance to the Constitution and the
Government of the Philippines.
Plainly, the above constitutional and statutory requirements of
electing Filipino citizenship apply only to legitimate children.
IN RE: VICENTE CHING
The phrase "reasonable time" has been interpreted to mean that the
election should be made within three (3) years from reaching the age
of majority.
It is true that this clause has been construed to mean a reasonable
period after reaching the age of majority, and that the Secretary of
Justice has ruled that three (3) years is the reasonable time to elect
Philippine citizenship under the constitutional provision adverted to
above, which period may be extended under certain circumstances,
as when the person concerned has always considered himself a
Filipino.
CO vs. HOR
‘election’ as both formal and informal process
In the case of In Re: Florencio Mallare (59 SCRA 45 [1974]), the
Court held that the exercise of the right of suffrage and the
participation in election exercises constitute a positive act of election
of Philippine citizenship.
The private respondent did more than merely exercise his right of
suffrage. He has established his life here in the Philippines.
In Re Mallare Rule
For those already Filipinos when the time to elect came up, there are
acts of deliberate choice which cannot be less binding. Entering a
profession open only to Filipinos, serving in public office where
citizenship is a qualification, voting during election time, running for
public office, and other categorical acts of similar nature are
themselves formal manifestations of choice for these persons.
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
Final Examination Reviewer [Case Doctrines]
The framers of the Constitution adhered to the earlier definition given
to the word "residence" which regarded it as having the same meaning
as domicile.
The term "domicile" denotes a fixed permanent residence to which
when absent for business or pleasure, one intends to return.
The absence of a person from said permanent residence, no matter how
long, notwithstanding, it continues to be the domicile of that person. In
other words, domicile is characterized by animus revertendi
YU vs. DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO
express renunciation was held to mean a renunciation that is made
known distinctly and explicitly and not left to inference or implication.
CABILING MA vs. FERNANDEZ
The statutory formalities of electing Philippine citizenship are:
1. a statement of election under oath;
2. an oath of allegiance to the Constitution and Government of
the Philippines; and
3. registration of the statement of election and of the oath with
the nearest civil registry.
Purpose of registration
To register is to record or annotate. American and Spanish authorities
are unanimous on the meaning of the term to register as to enter in a
register; to record formally and distinctly; to enroll; to enter in a list.
Registration, then, is the confirmation of the existence of a fact. In the
instant case, registration is the confirmation of election as such
election.
LABO vs. COMELEC
His divestiture of Australian citizenship does not concern us here. That
is a matter between him and his adopted country. What we must
consider is the fact that he voluntarily and freely rejected Philippine
citizenship and willingly and knowingly embraced the citizenship of
a foreign country. The possibility that he may have been subsequently
rejected by Australia, as he claims, does not mean that he has been
automatically reinstated as a citizen of the Philippines.
FRIVALDO vs. COMELEC
This country of ours, for all its difficulties and limitations, is like a
jealous and possessive mother. Once rejected, it is not quick to
welcome back with eager arms its prodigal if repentant children. The
returning renegade must show, by an express and unequivocal act, the
renewal of his loyalty and love.
Renunciation does not automatically restore citizenship
It should be obvious that even if he did lose his naturalized American
citizenship, such forfeiture did not and could not have the effect of
automatically restoring his citizenship in the Philippines that he had
earlier renounced. At best, what might have happened as a result of the
loss of his naturalized citizenship was that he became a stateless
individual.
Decisions about citizenship cannot govern future status with
finality
Indeed, decisions declaring the acquisition or denial of citizenship
cannot govern a person's future status with finality. This is because a
person may subsequently reacquire, or for that matter lose, his
citizenship under any of the modes recognized by law for the purpose.
Everytime the citizenship of a person is material or indispensable in a
judicial or administrative case, whatever the corresponding court or
administrative authority decides therein as to such citizenship is
generally not considered res judicata, hence it has to be threshed out
again and again, as the occasion demands.
Exceptions:
1. when the issue of citizenship is immaterial to the
controversy
2. active participation of the Solicitor General in the case
3. decision must be sustained by the Supreme Court
AZNAR vs. COMELEC
Parenthetically, the statement in the 1987 Constitution that "dual
allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall be
dealt with by law"(Art. IV, Sec. 5) has no retroactive effect. And while
it is true that even before the 1987 Constitution, Our country had
already frowned upon the concept of dual citizenship or allegiance, the
fact is it actually existed. Be it noted further that under the aforecited
proviso, the effect of such dual citizenship or allegiance shall be dealt
with by a future law. Said law has not yet been enacted.
REPUBLIC vs. DELA ROSA
Section 1 of R.A. No. 530 provides that no decision granting
citizenship in naturalization proceedings shall be executory until after
two years from its promulgation in order to be able to observe if:
1. the applicant has left the country;
2. the applicant has dedicated himself continuously to a lawful
calling or profession;
3. the applicant has not been convicted of any offense or
violation of government promulgated rules; and
4. the applicant has committed any act prejudicial to the interest
of the country or contrary to government announced policies.
BENGZON III vs. HRET
Natural-born citizen
A person who at the time of his birth is a citizen of a particular country,
is a natural-born citizen thereof.
As defined in the same Constitution, natural-born citizens "are those
citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any
act to acquire or perfect his Philippine citizenship."
Naturalization
Naturalization is a mode for both acquisition and reacquisition of
Philippine citizenship.
As a mode of initially acquiring Philippine citizenship,
naturalization is governed by Commonwealth Act No. 473, as
amended.
On the other hand, naturalization as a mode for reacquiring
Philippine citizenship is governed by Commonwealth Act No. 63.
Repatriation
Repatriation, on the other hand, may be had under various statutes by
those who lost their citizenship due to:
1. desertion of the armed forces;
2. service in the armed forces of the allied forces in World War
II;
3. service in the Armed Forces of the United States at any other
time;
4. marriage of a Filipino woman to an alien;
5. political and economic necessity.
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
Final Examination Reviewer [Case Doctrines]
ALTAJEROS vs. COMELEC
Hence, in addition to taking the Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of
the Philippines, the registration of the Certificate of Repatriation in
the proper civil registry and the Bureau of Immigration is a
prerequisite in effecting the repatriation of a citizen.
MAQUILING vs. COMELEC
If there is any remaining doubt, it is regarding the efficacy of Arnado’s
renunciation of his American citizenship when he subsequently used
his U.S. passport. The renunciation of foreign citizenship must be
complete and unequivocal. The requirement that the renunciation must
be made through an oath emphasizes the solemn duty of the one
making the oath of renunciation to remain true to what he has sworn
to. Allowing the subsequent use of a foreign passport because it is
convenient for the person to do so is rendering the oath a hollow
act. It devalues the act of taking of an oath, reducing it to a mere
ceremonial formality.
MERCADO vs. MANZANO
To begin with, dual citizenship is different from dual allegiance.
The former arises when, as a result of the concurrent application of
the different laws of two or more states, a person is simultaneously
considered a national by the said states. For instance, such a situation
may arise when a person whose parents are citizens of a state which
adheres to the principle of jus sanguinis is born in a state which follows
the doctrine of jus soli.
Such a person, ipso facto and without any voluntary act on his part, is
concurrently considered a citizen of both states.
Classes of citizens to possess dual citizensip
Considering the citizenship clause (Art. IV) of our Constitution, it
is possible for the following classes of citizens of the Philippines to
possess dual citizenship:
1. Those born of Filipino fathers and/or mothers in foreign
countries which follow the principle of jus soli;
2. Those born in the Philippines of Filipino mothers and alien
fathers if by the laws of their father’s country such children
are citizens of that country;
3. Those who marry aliens if by the laws of the latter’s country
the former are considered citizens, unless by their act or
omission they are deemed to have renounced Philippine
citizenship.
There may be other situations in which a citizen of the Philippines may,
without performing any act, be also a citizen of another state; but the
above cases are clearly possible given the constitutional provisions on
citizenship.
Dual allegiance
Dual allegiance, on the other hand, refers to the situation in which a
person simultaneously owes, by some positive act, loyalty to two or
more states. While dual citizenship is involuntary, dual allegiance is
the result of an individuals volition.
MOYA LIM YAO vs. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION
Who might herself be lawfully naturalized
The phrase "who might herself be lawfully naturalized", as contained
in the above provision, means that the woman who is married to a
Filipino citizen must not belong to any of the disqualified classes
enumerated in Section 4 of the Naturalization Law
Unreasonableness of requiring alien wife to prove qualification
1. One of the qualifications required of an Applicant for
naturalization under Section 2 of the law is that the applicant
"must have resided in the Philippines for a continuous
period of not less than ten years."
If this requirement is applied to an alien wife married to a
Filipino citizen, this means that for a period of ten years at
least, she cannot hope to acquire the citizenship of her
husband. If the wife happens to be a citizen of a country
whose law declares that upon her marriage to a foreigner she
automatically loses her citizenship and acquires the
citizenship of her husband, this could mean that for a period
of ten years at least, she would be stateless. And even after
having acquired continuous residence in the Philippines for
ten years, there is no guarantee that her petition for
naturalization will be granted, in which case she would
remain stateless for an indefinite period of time.
2. Section 2 of the law likewise requires of the applicant for
naturalization that he "must own real estate in the
Philippines worth not less than five thousand pesos,
Philippine currency, or must have some known lucrative
trade, profession, or lawful occupation."
Considering the constitutional prohibition against
acquisition by an alien of real estate except in cases of
hereditary succession (Art. XIII, Sec. 5, Constitution), an
alien wife desiring to acquire the citizenship of her husband
must have to prove that she has a lucrative income derived
from a lawful trade, profession or occupation.
The income requirement has been interpreted to mean that
the petitioner herself must be the one to possess the said
income. In other words, the wife must prove that she has a
lucrative income derived from sources other than her
husband's trade, profession or calling.
It is of common knowledge, and judicial notice may be taken
of the fact that most wives in the Philippines do not have
gainful occupations of their own. Indeed, Philippine law,
recognizing the dependence of the wife upon the
husband, imposes upon the latter the duty of supporting the
former. (Art. 291, Civil Code).
It should be borne in mind that universally, it is an accepted
concept that when a woman marries, her primary duty is to
be a wife, mother and housekeeper. If an alien wife is not to
be remiss in this duty, how can she hope to acquire a
lucrative income of her own to qualify her for citizenship?
3. Under Section 2 of the law, the applicant for naturalization
"must have enrolled his minor children of school age, in any
of the public schools or private schools recognized by the
Office of the Private Education of the Philippines, where
Philippine history, government and civics are taught or
prescribed as part of the school curriculum during the entire
period of residence in the Philippines required of him prior
to the hearing of his petition for naturalization as Philippine
citizen."
If an alien woman has minor children by a previous
marriage to another alien before she marries a Filipino,
and such minor children had not been enrolled in Philippine
schools during her period of residence in the country, she
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
Final Examination Reviewer [Case Doctrines]

cannot qualify for naturalization under the interpretation of

this Court.

The reason behind the requirement that children should be

enrolled in recognized educational institutions is that they
follow the citizenship of their father.

Considering that said minor children by her first husband

generally follow the citizenship of their alien father, the basis
for such requirement as applied to her does not
exist. Cessante ratione legis cessat ipsa lex.

4. Under Section 3 of the law, the 10-year continuous

residence prescribed by Section 2 "shall be understood as
reduced to five years for any petitioner (who is) married to
a Filipino woman."

It is absurd that an alien male married to a Filipino wife

should be required to reside only for five years in the
Philippines to qualify for citizenship, whereas an alien
woman married to a Filipino husband must reside for ten
years.

Policy of Selective Admission does not apply when it is by operation

of law
But this policy finds no application in cases where citizenship is
conferred by operation of law.