1

The Law Pertaining to the state and its relationship with its Citizens – 18

a. Constitutional Law – 11

1. Basic principles of political law

NATIONAL TERRITORY
The national territory is comprised of —
(1) Philippine archipelago, with all the islands and waters embraced therein;

Internal waters – waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago, regardless of breadth
and dimension; and
(2) All other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction. It consists of —
(a) Territorial sea, seabed, subsoil, insular shelves, and other submarine areas
(b) Terrestrial, fluvial, and aerial domains [Article I, 1987 Constitution]

Archipelagic Doctrine
A body of water studded with islands, or the islands surrounded with water, is viewed as a unity of islands and
waters together forming one integrated unit. [N.B. Embodied in Art. I, specifically by the mention of the
“Philippine archipelago” and the specification on “internal waters.”].

Declaration of Principles and State Policies

Sec 5, 12 and 17 of Art II does not confer rights but only provide guidelines for legislative
and executive action

Section 1: The Philippines is a democratic and republican State. Sovereignty resides in the people and all
government authority emanates from them.

Requiring candidates to post a bond to run for an elective position is “.. inconsistent with the nature and essence
of the Republican system ordained in our Constitution and the principle of social justice underlying the same, for
said political system is premised upon the tenet that sovereignty resides in the people..” (Maquera vs Borra)

Doctrine of Incorporation –
Incorporation: When, by mere constitutional declaration, international law is deemed to have the force of
domestic law. [Pharmaceutical and Health Care Assoc. Of the Philippines v. Duque III, G.R. No. 173034 (2007)]

Renunciation of War
Section 2. The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy, 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.

Civilian Supremacy
Section 3. Civilian authority is, at all times, supreme over the military. The Armed Forces of the Philippines is the
protector of the people and the State. Its goal is to secure the sovereignty of the State and the integrity of the
national territory.

Compulsory military and civil service

Section 4. The prime duty of the Government is to serve and protect the people. The Government may call upon
the people to defend the State and, in the fulfillment thereof, all citizens may be required, under conditions
provided by law, to render personal, military or civil service.
N.B. Under conditions provided by law.

Promote Social Justice in All Phases of National Development

Section 10. The State shall promote social justice in all phases of national development.
 2

Personal Dignity and Human Rights

Section 11. The State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for human rights.

Family as Basic Social Institution and Natural and Primary Right and Duty of Parents in the Rearing of the Youth

Section 12. The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic
autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from
conception. The natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and
the development of moral character shall receive the support of the Government.

Role of Women in Nation Building Fundamental Equality Before the Law of Women and Men
Section 14. The State recognizes the role of women in nation-building, and shall ensure the fundamental equality
before the law of women and men.

Right to a Balanced and Healthful Ecology

Section 16. The State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in
accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature.

Priority to Education, Science, and Technology, Arts, Culture, and Sports

Section 17. The State shall give priority to education, science and technology, arts, culture, and sports to foster
patriotism and nationalism, accelerate social progress, and promote total human liberation and development.

Recognition and Promotion of Rights of Indigenous Cultural Communities

Section 22. The State recognizes and promotes the rights of indigenous cultural communities within the framework of
national unity and development.

Equal Access for Public Service and Prohibition of Political Dynasties

Section 26. The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service and prohibit political
dynasties as may be defined by law.

Policy of Full Public Disclosure

Section 28. Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the State adopts and implements a policy of full
public disclosure of all its transactions involving public interest.

a) Basic Principles of political law

1) Separation of powers

Ordains that each of the 3 branches of government has exclusive cognizance of and is supreme in matters
falling within its constitutionally allocated sphere; each branch cannot invade the domain of others. Powers of the
government are separated to avoid concentration of powers in any one branch [Gatmaytan].

The government established by the Constitution follows the theory of separation of powers. Separation of
powers is a fundamental principle in our system of government and is founded on the belief that, by establishing
equilibrium among the three (3) power holders, harmony will result and power will not be concentrated and
tyranny will be avoided [Bernas].

Any system that is violative of the principle of separation of powers is unconstitutional and void [See Belgica v.
Ochoa on the unconstitutionality of the PDAF].

The Philippine government is divided into three (3) branches of government, namely:
1. Legislative
2. Executive; and
3. Judiciary

The principle of separation of powers ordains that each of the three government branches has exclusive
cognizance of and is supreme in concerns falling within its own constitutionally allocated sphere. It intends to
secure action, to forestall over-action, to prevent despotism, and to promote efficiency
 3

While the separation of powers is not expressly provided for in the Constitution, it obtains from actual division in
the Constitution (found in Sec. 1 of Arts. VI, VII, and VIII). Each department has exclusive cognizance of matters
within its jurisdiction and is supreme within its own sphere (see Angara v. Electoral Commission).

Political Question Doctrine

A question of which a resolution has been vested by the Constitution exclusively in the people, or in which full
discretionary authority has been delegated to a co-equal branch of the government (separation of powers)
cannot be decided upon by the Courts.
This is as opposed to a justiciable question which deals with matters re: the law and its interpretation, not left to
the wisdom of the people.

Application
A. Belgica v. Ochoa
The Pork Barrel System violates the separation of powers because it is a form of postenactment authority in the
implementation or enforcement of the budget.
1. The system permits legislative encroachment upon the executive prerogative of implementing the law, by
giving individual legislators:

(a) The power

to determine projects after the General Appropriations Act (GAA) is passed; and
(b) through congressional committees, authority in the areas of fund release and realignment, the system
encroaches on the Executive’s power to implement the law.
2. Furthermore, identification of a project by a legislator being a mandatory requirement before his PDAF can be
tapped as a source of funds, his act becomes indispensable in the entire budget execution process.

B. Ocampo v. Enriquez, G.R. No. 225973 (2016)

In the exercise of his powers under the Constitution and the Executive Order No. 292 (Administrative Code of
1987), to allow the internment of Marcos at the LNMB, which is a land of the public domain devoted for national
military cemetery and military shrine purposes, President Duterte decided a question of policy based on his
wisdom that it shall promote national healing and forgiveness. There being no taint of grave abuse of discretion,
as discussed below, President Duterte’s decision on that political question is outside the ambit of judicial review.

C. Forietrans Manufacturing Corporation v. Davidoff Et Cia. SA, G.R. No. 197482 (2017)
The task of determining probable cause is lodged with the public prosecutor and ultimately, the Secretary of
Justice. Under the doctrine of separation of powers, courts have no right to directly decide matters over which
full discretionary authority has been delegated to the Executive Branch of the Government. D. OCA v. Reyes, A.M.
No. P-08- 2535 (2010)

The legislative power imposing policies through laws is subject to the substantive and constitutional limitations. It
cannot limit the Court’s power to impose disciplinary actions against erring justices, judges and court personnel.
Neither should such policy be used to restrict the Court’s power to preserve and maintain the Judiciary’s honor,
dignity and integrity and public confidence that can only be achieved by imposing strict and rigid standards of
decency and propriety governing the conduct of justices, judges and court employees

2) Sovereignty

Sovereignty is the supreme and uncontrollable power inherent in the State by which the state is governed.
Two kinds of sovereignty:
1. Legal Sovereignty — authority which has the power to issue final commands
2. Political Sovereignty — power behind the legal sovereign, or the sum total of all the influences that operate
upon it

Sovereignty may also be internal or external:

1. Internal Sovereignty — refers to the power of the state to control its domestic or internal affairs
2. External Sovereignty — the power of the State to direct its relations with other states, also known as
independence
 4

3) Judicial Review

General Rule
Judicial review may be granted or withheld as Congress chooses, except when the Constitution requires or
allows it. Thus, a law may provide that the decision of an administrative agency shall be final and not reviewable
and it would still not offend due process.

However, Sec. 1, par. 2, Art. VIII of the Constitution, provides that judicial review of administrative decisions
cannot be denied the courts when there is an allegation of grave abuse of discretion [NACHURA].
It is generally understood that as to administrative agencies exercising quasi-judicial or legislative power, there is
an underlying power in the courts to scrutinize the acts of such agencies on questions of law and
jurisdiction even though no right of review is given by statute. xxx Judicial review is proper in case of lack of
jurisdiction, grave abuse of discretion, error of law, fraud or collusion [San Miguel Corp. v. NLRC, G.R. No. L-
39195 (1975), citing Timbancaya v. Vicente, G.R. No. L-19100 (1963)].

Rationale
The purpose of judicial review is to keep the administrative agency within its jurisdiction and protect the
substantial rights of the parties;

It is that part of the checks and balances which restricts the separation of powers and forestalls arbitrary and
unjust adjudications [St. Martin’s Funeral Homes v. NLRC, G.R. No. 130866 (1998)].

N.B. Rule 43 of the Rules of Court provides that the Court of Appeals shall have appellate jurisdiction over
awards, judgments, final orders or resolutions of or authorized by any quasi-judicial agency in the exercise of its
quasi-judicial functions.

Checks and balances

Corollary to Separation of Powers: Prevent

authority from being concentrated in one
branch. Each branch is supreme within their
own sphere
It does not follow from the fact that the three
powers are to be kept separate and distinct that
the Constitution intended them to be absolutely
unrestrained and independent of each other.
The Constitution has provided for an elaborate
system of checks and balances to secure
coordination in the workings of the various
departments of the government [Angara v.
Electoral Commission].

EXTENT OF JUDICIAL REVIEW

1. Questions of Law
a. Constitutionality of the law creating the agency and granting it powers
b. Validity of agency action if these transcend limits established by law
c. Correctness of interpretation or application of the law

2. Questions of Fact
Judicial Review. –
Review shall be made on the basis of the record taken as a whole. The findings of fact of the agency when
supported by substantial evidence shall be final except when specifically provided otherwise by law [Sec. 25,
Chapter 4, Book VII, Admin. Code].

General Rule: Findings of fact by the agency are final when supported by substantial evidence.

Exceptions
a. Specifically allowed otherwise by law
 5

b. Fraud, imposition, mistake, or other error of judgment in evaluating the evidence [Ortua v. Singson Encarnacion,
G.R. No. L-39919 (1934)]
c. Error in appreciation of pleadings and interpretation of the documentary evidence presented by the parties
[Tan Tiong Teck v. SEC, G.R. No. L-46471 (1940)]
d. Decision of the agency was rendered by an almost divided agency and that the division was precisely on the
facts as borne out by the evidence [Gonzales v. Victory Labor Union, G.R. No. L-2256 (1969)]

3. Question of Discretion
General Rule: Administrative and discretionary functions may not be interfered with by the courts.

Rationale: Courts have none of the technical and economic or financial competence which specialized
administrative agencies have at their disposal, and in particular must be wary of intervening in matters which are
at their core technical and economic in nature [PLDT v. National Telecommunications Commission, G.R. No. 94374
(1995)].

Exceptions
1. When there is a grave abuse of discretion;
2. Where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner [Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank v.
Monetary Board, G.R. No. 70054 (1991)];
3. If without reasonable support in the evidence;
4. Rendered against law, or
5. Issued without jurisdiction [Laguna Tayabas Bus Company v. Public Service Commission, G.R. No. 10903 (1957)].

1. Doctrine of Primary Administrative Jurisdiction

Courts cannot or will not determine a controversy involving a question which is within the jurisdiction of the
administrative tribunal prior to the resolution of that question by the administrative tribunal, where the question
demands the exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring the special knowledge, experience and
services of the administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters of fact [Guy v. Ignacio, G.R. No.
167824 (2010)].

It can only occur where there is a concurrence of jurisdiction between the court and the administrative agency.

It is a question of the court yielding to the agency because of the latter’s expertise, and does not amount to
ouster of the court [Texas & Pacific Railway v. Abilene, 204 U.S. 426 (1907)].

It may occur that the Court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of a particular case, which means that the matter
involved is also judicial in character. However, if the determination of the case requires the expertise, specialized
skills and knowledge of the proper administrative bodies because technical matters or intricate questions of facts
are involved, then relief must first be obtained in an administrative proceeding before a remedy will
be supplied by the courts even though the matter is within the proper jurisdiction of a court [Industrial Enterprises,
Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 88550 (1990)].

Administrative agencies are given a wide latitude in the evaluation of evidence and in the exercise of their
adjudicative functions, latitude which includes the authority to take judicial notice of facts within their special
competence [Quiambao v. CA, G.R. No. 128305 (2005)].

The doctrine of primary jurisdiction applies where a claim is originally cognizable in the courts, and comes into
play whenever enforcement of the claim requires the resolution of issues which, under a regulatory scheme,
have been placed within the special competence of an administrative body; in such
case, the judicial process is suspended pending referral of such issues to the administrative body for its view
[Industrial Enterprises, Inc. v. CA, supra].

The doctrine of primary jurisdiction does not warrant a court to arrogate unto itself authority to resolve a
controversy the jurisdiction over which is initially lodged with an administrative body of special competence
[Vidad v. RTC, G.R. No. 98084 (1993)].

Rationale
 6

In this era of clogged docket courts, the need for specialized administrative boards with the special knowledge
and capability to hear and determine promptly disputes on technical matters has become well-nigh
indispensable.

Between the power lodged in an administrative body and a court, the unmistakable trend has been to refer it to
the former [GMA v. ABS CBN, G.R. No. 160703 (2005)].

Requisites
1. An administrative body and a regular court have concurrent and original jurisdiction
2. Question to be resolved requires expertise of administrative agency
3. Legislative intent on the matter is to have uniformity in rulings
4. Administrative agency is performing a quasi-judicial or adjudicatory function (not rulemaking or quasi-
legislative function [Smart v. NTC, G.R. No. 151908 (2003)]

Effect
While no prejudicial question strictly arises where one is a civil case and the other is an administrative
proceeding, in the interest of good order, it behooves the court to suspend its action on the cases before it
pending the final outcome of the administrative proceedings [Vidad v. RTC, supra].

Does not per se have the effect of restraining or preventing the courts from the exercise of their lawfully
conferred jurisdiction. A contrary rule would unduly expand the doctrine of primary jurisdiction [Conrad and Co.,
Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 115115 (1995)].

All the proceedings of the court in violation of the doctrine and all orders and decisions rendered thereby are null
and void [Province of Aklan v. Jody King Construction and Development Corp., G.R. No. 197592 (2013)].

Note: The court may raise the issue of primary jurisdiction sua sponte and its invocation cannot be waived by the
failure of the parties to argue it as the doctrine exists for the proper distribution of power between judicial and
administrative bodies and not for the convenience of the parties [Euro-Med Laboratories Phil., Inc. v. Province of
Batangas, G.R. No. 148106 (2006)].

When the Doctrine is not Applicable

1. When the issue is not within the competence of the administrative body to act on (e.g. pure questions of law,
over which the expertise is with the courts);

a. Regular courts have jurisdiction in cases where what is assailed is the validity or constitutionality of a rule
or regulation issued by the administrative agency in the performance of its quasi-legislative function [Smart v.
NTC, supra]
2. When the issue involved is clearly a factual question that does not require specialized skills and knowledge for
resolution to justify the exercise of primary jurisdiction.

2. Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

General Rule: Where the law has delineated the procedure by which administrative appeal or remedy could be
effected, the same should be followed before recourse to judicial action can be initiated [Pascual v. Provincial
Board, G.R. No. L-11959 (1959)].

One of the reasons for exhaustion of administrative remedies is our well-entrenched doctrine on separation of
powers, which enjoins upon the Judiciary a policy of noninterference with matters falling primarily (albeit
not exclusively) within the competence of other departments. Courts, for reasons of law, comity and
convenience, should not entertain suits unless the available administrative remedies have first been resorted to
and the proper authorities have been given an appropriate opportunity to act and correct their alleged errors, if
any, committed in the administrative forum [Antolin v. Domondon, G.R. No. 165036 (2010)].

Requisites
a. The administrative agency is performing a quasi-judicial function;
b. Judicial review is available; and
c. The court acts in its appellate jurisdiction.
Rationale
 7

a. Legal reason: The law prescribes a procedure.

b. Practical reason: To ensure that disputes involving technical and specialized matters are first resolved by the body
which has the expertise and competence to resolve them, and, in most cases, to give the agency a chance to correct its own
errors and prevent unnecessary and premature resort to the courts. It also entails lesser expenses and provides for a speedier
disposition of controversies.
c. Reasons of comity: Expedience, courtesy, convenience.
d. Separation of powers: enjoins upon the Judiciary a policy of non-interference with matters falling primarily (albeit not
exclusively) within the competence of other departments.

a. Exceptions to the Doctrine

The exceptions may be condensed into three:
1. Grave abuse of discretion;
2. Pure question of law; or
3. No other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy.

3. Doctrine of Finality of Administrative Action

Courts will not interfere with the act of an administrative agency before it has reached finality or it has been
completed. Once a decision or order becomes final and executory, it thereby becomes immutable and
unalterable and any amendment or alteration which substantially affects a final and executory judgment is null
and void for lack of jurisdiction, including the entire proceedings held for that purpose [Gagui v. Dejero, G.R. No.
196036 (2013)].
Rationale: Without a final order or decision, the power has not been fully and finally exercised.
Exceptions to the doctrine of finality [Peña
v. GSIS, G.R. No. 159520 (2006)]
a. Correction of clerical errors
b. Nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party
c. Void judgments
d. Whenever circumstances transpire after the finality of the decision rendering its execution unjust and
inequitable

4) Fundamental Powers of the state

(a) police power

Definition
It is the inherent and plenary power of the state which enables it to prohibit all that is hurtful to the comfort, safety
and welfare of society. [Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association, Inc. v. Mayor of Manila, G.R. No. L-
24693 (1967)]
The police power of the state is a power coextensive with self-protection, and is not inaptly termed the “law of
the overruling necessity” [Rubi v. Provincial Board of Mindoro, G.R. No. L-14078 (1919)]

Police power, while incapable of an exact definition, has been purposely veiled in general terms to underscore
its comprehensiveness to meet all exigencies and provide enough room for an efficient and flexible response as
the conditions warrant” [White Light Corporation v. City of Manila, G.R. No. 122846 (2009)].

Scope and Limitations

“The state in order to promote the general welfare, may interfere with personal liberty, with property, and with
business and occupations. Persons may be subjected to all kinds of restraints and burdens, in order to secure
the general comfort, health and prosperity of the state and to this fundamental aim of our Government, the rights
of the individual are subordinated” [Ortigas and Co., Limited Partnership v. Feati Bank and Trust Co., G.R. No. L-
24670 (1979)].

As police power derives its existence from the very existence of the State itself, it does not need to be expressed
or defined in its scope. XXX So it is that Constitutions do not define the scope or extent of the police power of
 8

the State; what they do is to set forth the limitations thereof. The most important of these are the due process
clause and the equal protection clause. [Ichong v. Hernandez, G.R. No. L-7995 (1957)].

Police power has been characterized as the most essential, insistent, and the least limitable of powers,
extending as it does to all the great public needs [Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association, Inc. v.
Mayor of Manila, supra)].

Taxation and Eminent Domain as Implements on Police Power

Taxation may be used as an implement of police power [Lutz v. Araneta, G.R. No. L-7859 (1955)].
Eminent domain may be used as an implement to attain the police objective. [Association of Small Landowners v.
Secretary of Agrarian Reform, G.R. No. 78742, (1989)]

Specific Coverage
1. Public Health
2. Public Safety
3. Public Morals
4. General Welfare [Abe v. Foster Wheeler Corporation, G.R. No. L-14785 & L-14923 (1960)]

Who may Exercise Police Power

Generally: Legislature
Delegated
1. President
2. Administrative Bodies
3. Law-making Bodies of LGUs
Limitations on Delegation of Police Power
1. Express grant by law;
2. Within the territorial jurisdiction of LGUs; and
3. Must not be contrary to law
TEST OF VALID EXERCISE
A. Means Purpose Test
1. Lawful Subject - the interests of the public, generally, as distinguished from those of a particular class, require
such interference and that the subject of the measure is within the scope of the police power [Ichong v.
Hernandez, supra].
2. Lawful Means - the means employed are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and not
unduly oppressive upon individuals [National Development Company v. Philippine Veterans Bank, G.R. No. 84132-33
(1990)]
B. Reasonability Test
The limit to police power is reasonability. The Court looks at the test of reasonability to decide whether it
encroaches on the right of an individual. So long as legitimate means can reasonably lead to create that end, it
is reasonable [Morfe v. Mutuc, G.R. No. L-20387, (1968)].

Application
The PWD mandatory discount on the purchase of medicine is supported by a valid objective or purpose as
aforementioned. It has a valid subject considering that the concept of public use is no longer confined to the
traditional notion of use by the public, but held synonymous with public interest, public benefit, public welfare,
and public convenience. As in the case of senior citizens, the discount privilege to which the PWDs are entitled
is actually a benefit enjoyed by the general public to which these citizens belong. The means employed in
invoking the active participation of the private sector, in order to achieve the purpose or objective of the
law, is reasonably and directly related. Also, the means employed to provide a fair, just and quality health care to
PWDs are reasonably related to its accomplishment, and are not oppressive, considering that as a form of
reimbursement, the discount extended to PWDs in the purchase of medicine can be claimed by the
establishments as allowable tax deductions pursuant to Section 32 of R.A. No. 9442 as implemented in Section
4 of DOF Revenue Regulations No. 1-2009. Otherwise stated, the discount reduces taxable income upon which
the tax liability of the establishments is computed [Drugstores Association of the Philippines, Inc. v. National Council
on Disability Affairs, G.R. No. 194561, (2016)].

Exercise of Police Power is subject to judicial inquiry

Legislature’s determination as to what is a proper exercise of its police powers is not final or conclusive, but is
subject to the supervision of the court [US v. Toribio, G.R. No. L-5060 (1910)].
 9

However, courts cannot delimit beforehand the extent or scope of the police power, since they cannot foresee
the needs and demands of public interest and welfare. So it is that Constitutions do not define the scope or
extent of the police power of the State; what they do is to set forth the limitations thereof. The most important of
these are the due process clause and the equal protection clause [Ichong v. Hernandez, supra]

Example of a Legitimate Exercise of Police Power

RA 9257, the Expanded Senior Citizens Act of 2003, is a legitimate exercise of police power. Administrative Order No.
177 issued by the Department of Health, providing that the 20% discount privilege of senior citizens shall not be
limited to the purchase of unbranded generic medicine but shall extend to both prescription and non-prescription
medicine, whether branded or generic, is valid [Carlos Superdrug Corporation v. DSWC et al. G.R. No. 166494,
(2007)].
(b) eminent domain
Definition
The right of eminent domain is the ultimate right of the sovereign power to appropriate, not only the public but
the private property of all citizens within the territorial sovereignty, to public purpose [Republic v. Heirs of Borbon,
G.R. No. 165354 (2015)].

Scope and Limitations

The exercise of such right is not unlimited, for two mandatory requirements should underlie the Government’s
exercise of the power of eminent domain, namely:
(1) that it is for a particular public purpose; and
(2) that just compensation be paid to the property owner [Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority v. Lozada,
Sr., G.R. No. 176625 (2010)].
The power of eminent domain is the inherent right of the State to condemn private property to public use upon
payment of just compensation.

It is well settled that eminent domain is an inherent power of the State that need not be granted even by the
fundamental law. Sec. 9, Art. III merely imposes a limit on the government’s exercise of this power [Republic v.
Tagle, G.R. No. 129079 (1998)].

Who may Exercise Eminent Domain

Generally: Legislature
Delegated (through charter):
1. LGUs
2. Other Government entities

The repository of eminent domain powers is the legislature, i.e. exercised through the enactment of laws. But
power may be delegated to LGUs and other government entities (via charter); still, the delegation must be by law
[Manapat v. CA, G.R. No. 110478 (2007)].

Requisites for the Valid Exercise of Eminent Domain

1. Necessity
2. Private Property
3. Public Use
4. Taking
5. Just Compensation
6. Due Process
1. Necessity
There must be a necessity which must be of public character [Manapat v. CA, supra].
Difference as to the exercising officer
a. If Congress exercises the power of eminent domain, the question of necessity is a political question.
b. If a delegate exercises such power under a general authority, the question of necessity is a justiciable
question.
c. If a delegate exercises such power under a special authority for a special purpose, the question of necessity is
a political question [Manapat v. CA, supra].
2. Private Property
 10

General Rule: All private property capable of ownership may be expropriated and it may include public utility and
services [Republic v. PLDT, G.R. No. 18841, January 27, 1961].

Exceptions
a. Money
b. Choses in Action
Chose in Action
It is a personal right not reduced into possession such as debts owed by another person; it is the right to recover
a debt, demand, or damages on a cause of action ex contractu or for a tort or omission of a duty. [Black’s Law
Dictionary].
3. Public Use
Public use includes not only use directly available to the public but also those which redound to their indirect
benefit [Heirs of Ardona v. Reyes, G.R. Nos. L-60549, 60553-55 (1983)].

As long as the public has the right of use, whether exercised by one or many members of public, a public
advantage or public benefit accrues sufficient to constitute a public use [Manosca v. CA, G.R. No. 106440 (1995)].
4. Taking
There is taking of property when the following are present [Republic v. Castellvi, G.R. No. L- 20620 (1974)]:
1. the expropriator must enter a private property
2. the entrance into private property must be or more than a momentary period
3. the entry into the property should be under warrant or color of legal authority
4. the property must be devoted to a public use
5. the utilization of the property ousts the owner and deprives him of all beneficial enjoyment of the property
Not an instance of taking
Imposition of restrictions on the use of property to protect the public health safety or morals from danger is not
taking as there is no dedication to public use [Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. v. Sec. of
Agrarian Reform, G.R. No. 78742 (1989)].

5. Just Compensation
Just compensation is defined as the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the
expropriator. The measure is not the taker's gain, but the owner's loss. The word "just" is used to intensify the
meaning of the word "compensation" and to convey thereby the idea that the equivalent to be rendered for the
property to be taken shall be real, substantial, full, and ample [National Transmission Corporation v. Oroville
Development Corporation, G.R. No. 223366 (2017)].

Determination of Just Compensation

General Rule: Computed at the time of the filing of the complaint for expropriation (Sec. 4, Rule 67, ROC)
Exception: At the time of taking, when taking precedes filing of the complaint.

It is also important to note that inflation will not be considered in determining what the value is [Nepomuceno v CA,
G.R. No. 166246 (2008)].
Determination of Just Compensation is a Judicial Function
The determination of just compensation is a judicial function. The executive or legislature may make the initial
determination but when a party claims a violation in the Bill of Rights, no statute, decree, or executive order can
mandate that its own determination shall prevail over the court’s mandate [EPZA v. Dulay, G.R. No. L-59603,
(1987)]
Difference between Eminent Domain and Regulatory Taking
1) Eminent domain is an inherent power of the State based on the Constitution. Just compensation must be
paid.
2) Regulatory taking is the exercise of the State of its police power. In this case, just compensation need not be
paid.
Two stages of Eminent Domain
1. Determination of the authority of the expropriator to exercise the power of eminent domain and the propriety of
its exercise
2. Determination by the court of the just compensation [Municipality of Biñan v. Garcia, G.R. No. 69260 (1989)]

(c) taxation
 11

Definition
It is the power by which the State raises revenue to defray the necessary expenses of the Government. It is the
enforced proportional contributions from persons and property, levied by the State by virtue of its sovereignty, for
the support of the government and for all public needs. It is as broad as the purpose for which it is given.
Purpose:
1. To raise revenue
2. Tool for regulation
3. Protection/power to keep alive

Lifeblood theory and Necessity theory

Taxes are the lifeblood of the government, for without taxes, the government can neither exist
nor endure. A principal attribute of sovereignty, the exercise of taxing power derives its source from the very
existence of the state whose social contract with its citizens obliges it to promote public interest and common
good. The theory behind the exercise of the power to tax emanates from necessity; without taxes, government
cannot fulfill its mandate of promoting the general welfare and well-being of the people. [NPC v. Cabanatuan, G.R.
No. 149110, (2003)]
Tax for special purpose Treated as a special fund and paid out for such purpose only; when purpose is fulfilled,
the balance, if any, shall be transferred to the general funds of the Government [Sec. 29 (3), Art. VI].

Requisites [Sec. 28(1), Art. VI]

a. Uniform and Equitable
Taxes should be (a) uniform (persons or things belonging to the same class shall be taxed at the same rate) and
(b) equitable (taxes should be apportioned among the people according to their ability to pay)
b. Progressive system of taxation
The rate increases as the tax base increases, with social justice as basis (Taxation here is an instrument for a
more equitable distribution of wealth).
c. Delegated tax legislation
Congress may delegate law-making authority when the Constitution itself specifically authorizes it.
Scope and Limitation
General Limitations
(1) Power to tax exists for the general welfare; should be exercised only for a public purpose
(2) Might be justified as for public purpose even if the immediate beneficiaries are private individuals
(3) Tax should not be confiscatory: If a tax measure is so unconscionable as to amount to confiscation of
property, the Court will invalidate it. But invalidating a tax measure must be exercised with utmost caution,
otherwise, the State’s power to legislate for the public welfare might be seriously curtailed.
(4) Taxes should be uniform and equitable [Sec. 28(1), Art. VI]

Judicial review for unconscionable and unjust tax amounting to confiscation of property
The legislature has discretion to determine the nature, object, extent, coverage, and situs of taxation. But where
a tax measure becomes so unconscionable and unjust as to amount to confiscation of property, courts will not
hesitate to strike it down; the power to tax cannot override constitutional prescriptions. [Tan v. del Rosario, G.R.
No. 109289 (1994)]

Specific Limitations
a. Uniformity of taxation
General Rule: Simply geographical uniformity, meaning it operates with the same force and effect in every place
where the subject of it is found
Exception: Rule does not prohibit classification for purposes of taxation, provided the requisites for valid
classification are met [Ormoc Sugar v. Treasurer of Ormoc, G.R. No. L- 23793 (1968)].
b. Tax Exemptions
No law granting any tax exemption shall be passed without the concurrence of a majority of all the Members of
Congress [Sec. 28 (4), Art. VI].
There is no vested right in a tax exemption. Being a mere statutory privilege, a tax exemption may be modified
or withdrawn at will by the granting authority [Republic v. Caguioa, G.R. No. 168584 (2007)].
Exemptions may either be constitutional or statutory:
1. Constitutional exemptions [Sec. 28(3), Art. VI]
2. If statutory, it has to have been passed by majority of all the members of Congress [Sec. 28 (4), Art. VI]
 12

Police Power Eminent Domain Taxation

1. As to concept Power to make and Power to take private Power to enforce
implement laws for property for public use contribution to raise
the general welfare with just government funds
compensation
2. As to scope Broad in application Merely a power to Plenary,
as it pertains to the take private property comprehensive and
general power to for public use supreme
make and implement
laws
3. As to the Government and its Generally, by the Government and its
exercising political subdivisions government but the political subdivisions
authority power may be granted
to public service or
public utility
companies
4. As to the Promotion of general The taking of private Enforced contribution
Purpose Welfare property is for public is to support the
use government
5. As to Upon valid delegation, Upon valid delegation, Upon valid delegation,
Delegation it may be exercised by it may be exercised by the President and the
the President, the President, Law-making bodies of
Lawmaking Lawmaking the LGUs can exercise
Bodies of bodies of it
LGUs, and LGUs, Public
Administrative corporation, Quasipublic
Agencies corporation and
Administrative
agencies
6. As to the Relatively free from Superior to and may Subject to
relationship to the constitutional override constitutional Constitutional and
Constitution limitations and is impairment provision Inherent Limitations;
superior to the non- because the welfare Inferior to non-
impairment of the State is superior impairment
clause to any private contract clause
7. As to Limitation Limited by the Bounded by public Constitutional and
demand for public purpose and just Inherent Limitations
interest and due compensation
process

[VALENCIA ROXAS, Income Taxation, 7th Edition]

b) Bill of rights

1) due process

Section 1, Article III. – No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any
person be denied the equal protection of the laws.

Sec. 1, Art. XIII. – The Congress shall give highest priority to the enactment of measures that protect and enhance the
right of all the people to human dignity, reduce social, economic, and political inequalities, and remove cultural inequities
by equitably diffusing wealth and political power for the common good.

Due process is a guaranty against any arbitrariness on the part of the government, whether committed by the
legislature, the executive or the judiciary. [Cruz, p. 205]
 13

The due process clause has to do with the reasonableness of legislation enacted in pursuance of the police
power. xxx The test or standard, as always, is reason. The police power legislation must be firmly grounded on
public interest and welfare, and a reasonable relation must exist between purposes and means. [Ichong v.
Hernandez, supra].

Definition
Due process furnishes a standard to which the governmental action should conform in order that deprivation of
life, liberty or property, in each appropriate case, be valid. The standard is responsiveness to the supremacy of
reason, obedience to the dictates of justice. It has been identified as freedom from arbitrariness. [Ermita-Malate
Hotel and Motel Operators Association v. City of Manila, supra]

Right to Liberty
Liberty - the right to exist and the right to be free from arbitrary personal restraint or servitude. It includes the
right of the citizen to be free to use his faculties in all lawful ways. [Rubi v. Provincial Board of Mindoro, G.R. No.
L-14078 (1919)]

"Liberty" as understood in democracies, is not license; it is "liberty regulated by law." Implied in the term is
restraint by law for the good of the individual and for the greater good of the peace and order of society and the
general wellbeing. It cannot be taken away except by due process of law.

Civil Liberty - that measure of freedom which may be enjoyed in a civilized community, consistently with the
peaceful enjoyment of like freedom in others. [Id.]

The term cannot be dwarfed into mere freedom from physical restraint of the person of the citizen, but is deemed
to embrace the right of man to enjoy the faculties with which he has been endowed by his Creator, subject only
to such restraints as are necessary for the common welfare. [Id.]

Chief elements of the guaranty:

Right to contract
Right to choose one’s employment
Right to labor
Right to locomotion [Id.]

Right to liberty – civil rights are superior to property rights

2) equal protection

Concept
All persons or things similarly situated must be similarly treated both as to rights conferred and responsibilities
imposed. Similar subjects, in other words, should not be treated differently, so as to give undue favor to some
and unjustly discriminate against others [Ichong v. Hernandez, supra].

The equal protection clause does not require the universal application of the laws on all persons or things
without distinction. What the clause requires is equality among equals as determined according to a valid
classification.

By classification is meant the grouping of persons or things similar to each other in certain particulars and
different from all others in these same particulars [The Philippine Judges Association v. Prado, G.R. No. 105371,
(1993)].

Scope
Natural and juridical persons (the equal protection clause extends to artificial persons but only insofar as their
property is concerned.)
a. A corporation as an artificial person is protected under the Bill of Rights against denial of due process, and it enjoys the
equal protection of the law [Smith, Bell and Co., v. Natividad, supra].
b. A corporation is also protected against unreasonable searches and seizures [Stonehill v. Diokno, G.R. No. L-19550
(1967)].
 14

c. It can only be proceeded against by due process of law, and is protected against unlawful discrimination [Bache and Co.
v. Ruiz, G.R. No. L- 32409 (1971)].

Requisites for Valid Classification

1. It must rest on substantial distinctions which make for real differences;
2. It must be germane to the purpose of the law;
3. It must not be limited to existing conditions only
4. It must apply equally to all members of the same class

Presumption of Validity
All classifications made by law are generally presumed to be valid unless shown otherwise by petitioner [Lacson
v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 128096 (1999)].

Rule on Aliens
General Rule: A legislative act may not validly classify the citizens of the State on the basis of their origin, race or
parentage.

Exceptions
a. In times of great and imminent danger, such as a threatened invasion or war, such a classification is permitted by the
Constitution when the facts so warrant (e.g. discriminatory legislation against Japanese citizens during WWII).
b. The political rights of aliens do not enjoy the same protection as that of citizens.
c. Statutes may validly limit to citizens exclusively the enjoyment of rights or privileges connected with the public domain,
the public works, or the natural resources of the State. The rights and interests of the state in these things are not simply
political but also proprietary in nature; and so the citizens may lawfully be.

Levels of Scrutiny
Serrano v. Gallant Maritime [G.R. No. 167614 (2009)] introduced a modification in equal protection jurisprudence
by using the three-level review used in due process cases.

In effect, the level of review when it comes to equal protection challenges may follow the following format:
a. Rational Basis Test
The classification should bear a reasonable relation to the government’s purpose or legitimate state interest.
Note: This test is important when there is no plausible difference between the disadvantaged class and those not
disadvantaged, and when the government attaches a morally irrelevant and negative significance to a difference
between the advantaged and the disadvantaged.
b. Intermediate Scrutiny Test
The Court accepts the articulated purpose of the legislation, but it closely scrutinizes the relationship between
the classification and the purpose based on a spectrum of standards, by gauging the extent to which
constitutionally guaranteed rights depend upon the affected individual interest.

Government must show that the challenged classification serves an important state interest and that the
classification is at least substantially related to serving that interest. Applicable to certain sensitive but not
suspect classes; certain important but not fundamental interest.
c. Strict Scrutiny Test
Example:
In Central Bank Employees Association v. BSP, the challenged proviso operates on the basis of the salary grade or
officer-employee status. It is akin to a distinction based on economic class and status, with the higher grades as
recipients of a benefit specifically withheld from the lower grades. Officers of the BSP now receive higher
compensation packages that are competitive with the industry, while the poorer, low-salaried employees are
limited to the rates prescribed by the SSL. The implications are quite disturbing: BSP rank-and-file employees
are paid the strictly regimented rates of the SSL while employees higher in rank — possessing higher and better
education and opportunities for career advancement — are given higher compensation packages to entice them
to stay.

Considering that majority, if not all, the rank and- file employees consist of people whose status and rank in life
are less and limited, especially in terms of job marketability, it is they — and not the officers — who have the real
economic and financial need for the adjustment. This is in accord with the policy of the Constitution "to free the
people from poverty, provide adequate social services, extend to them a decent standard of living, and improve
 15

the quality of life for all." Any act of Congress that runs counter to this constitutional desideratum deserves strict
scrutiny by this Court before it can pass muster [Central Bank Employees Association v. BSP, G.R. No. 148208
(2004)].

In upholding the constitutionality of an ordinance imposing curfew upon minors in Quezon City, the Supreme
Court resorted to the strict scrutiny test and ruled that under our legal system's own recognition of a minor's
inherent lack of full rational capacity, and balancing the same against the State's compelling interest to promote
juvenile safety and prevent juvenile crime, it finds that the curfew imposed is reasonably justified with its
narrowly drawn exceptions and hence, not constitutionally infirm [SPARK v. Quezon City, G.R. No. 225442 (2017)].

Suspect classes
A classification that violates a fundamental right, or prejudices a person accorded special protection by the
Constitution [Serrano v. Gallant, supra]. May therefore include a classification based on income. This test is
usually applied to cases involving classifications based on race, national origin, religion, alienage, denial of the
right to vote, migration, access to courts, and other rights recognized as fundamental. See Table at page 12 for
comparison between levels of scrutiny

Examples of Valid Classification

Filipino Female Domestics Working Abroad
They are a class by themselves because of the special risks to which their class was exposed [Phil. Association
of Service Exporters v. Drilon, G.R. No. 81958 (1988)].

Land-Based v. Sea-Based Filipino Overseas Workers

There is dissimilarity as to work environment, safety, danger to life and limb, and accessibility to social, civil and
spiritual activities [Conference of Maritime Manning Agencies v. POEA, G.R. No. 114714 (1995)].

Office of the Ombudsman

Allowing the Ombudsman to start an investigation based on an anonymous letter does not violate the equal
protection clause.

The Office of the Ombudsman is different from other investigatory and prosecutory agencies of government
because those subject to its jurisdiction are public officials who, through official pressure and influence, can
quash, delay or dismiss investigations against them. [Almonte v. Vasquez, G.R. No. 95367 (1995)]

3) freedom of expression

Sec. 4, Art. III. No law shall be passed

abridging the freedom of speech, of
expression, or of the press, or the right of the
people peaceably to assemble and petition
the government for redress of grievances.

Commercial Speech
Commercial speech is a separate category of
speech which is not accorded the same level of
protection as that given to other constitutionally
guaranteed forms of expression but is
nonetheless entitled to protection.

Central Hudson Gas & Elec. v. Public Svc.

Comm’n [447 U.S. 557 (1980)] established the
test to be applied to regulations on commercial
speech:
(1) Speech must not be false, misleading,
or proposing an illegal activity;
(2) Government interest sought to be
served by regulation must be
substantial;
 16

(3) The regulation must advance

government interest; and
(4) The regulation must not be overbroad.

Types of Regulation
a. Prior restraint and subsequent
punishment
Prior Restraint
Refers to official governmental restrictions on
the press or other forms of expression in
advance of actual publication or dissemination.
[Newsounds Broadcasting Network v. Dy,
supra].
Not all prior restraint is invalid. But all prior
restraints are presumed invalid (“any act that
restrains speech is hobbled by the presumption
of invalidity and should be greeted with
furrowed brows”).

Every man shall have a right to speak, write,

and print his opinions upon any subject
whatsoever, without any prior restraint, so
always that he does not injure any other person
in his rights, person, property, or reputation,
and so always that he does not thereby disturb
the public peace or attempt to subvert the
government [Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697
(1931)].

Examples
● Censorship: Censorship conditions the
exercise of freedom of expression upon
the prior approval of the government. The
censor serves therefore as the political,
moral, social and artistic arbiter for the
people, usually applying only their own
subjective standards in determining what
is good and what is not.
● Permits
● Business closure
General Rules
1. Any system of prior restraints of expression
comes to the Court bearing a heavy
presumption against its constitutionality,
giving the government a heavy burden to
show justification for the imposition of such
restraint [New York Times Co. v. US, 403
U.S. 713 (1971)].
2. There need not be total suppression. Even
restriction of circulation constitutes
censorship [Grosjean v. American Press
Co., Inc., 297 U.S. 233 (1936)].

Examples of Unconstitutional Prior Restraint

● COMELEC prohibition against radio
commentators and newspaper columnists
from commenting on the issues involved in
a scheduled plebiscite. [Sanidad v.
 17

COMELEC, G.R. No. 90878 (1990)]

● Arbitrary closure of a radio station [Eastern
Broadcasting v. Dans, Jr., G.R. No. L-
59329 (1985)]; or even when there is legal
justification, such as lack of mayor’s
permit [Newsounds Broadcasting Network
v. Dy, supra]
● COMELEC resolution prohibiting the
posting of decals and stickers in mobile
units such as cars and other vehicles.
[Adiong v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 103956
(1992)]
● Searching, padlocking, and sealing of the
offices of newspaper publishers by military
authorities. [Burgos v. Chief of Staff, G.R.
No. L-64261 (1984)
● An announcement by a public official
prohibiting the media from airing or
broadcasting the Garci tapes. [Chavez v.
Gonzales, supra]

Examples of Constitutional Prior Restraint

● Law which prohibits, except during the
prescribed election period, making
speeches, announcements, or
commentaries for or against the election of
any candidate for office. [Gonzales v.
COMELEC, G.R. No. L-27833 (1969)]
● Prohibiting any person making use of the
media from selling or giving print space or
air time free of charge for campaign or
other political purposes. Ratio: Police
power of the State to regulate media for
the purpose of ensuring equal opportunity,
time, and space for political campaigns,
which COMELEC is authorized to carry
out. [National Press Club v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 102653 (1992); Osmeña v.
COMELEC, G.R. No. 132231 (1998)]
● Film censorship: The power of the MTRCB
can be exercised only for purposes of
reasonable classification, not censorship.
[NACHURA, citing Gonzalez v. Katigbak,
G.R. No. L-69500 (1985) and Ayer Prod.
PTY. LTD. v. Judge Capulong, G.R. No.
82380 (1988)]

Subsequent Punishment
Freedom of speech includes freedom after
speech. Without this assurance, citizens would
hesitate to speak for fear that they might be
provoking the vengeance of the officials they
criticized (chilling effect).
Examples of Valid Subsequent Punishment
● Libel – Every defamatory imputation is
presumed to be malicious, even if it be
true. [Alonzo v. CA, G.R. No. 110088
(1995)]
 18

Exceptions to the Presumption [Art. 354,

Revised Penal Code]
● Private communication in the performance
of any legal, moral, or social duty
● Fair and true report of any judicial,
legislative, or other official proceedings
● Obscenity – Determination of what is
obscene is a judicial function. [Pita v. CA,
G.R. No. 80806 (1989)]
● Contempt for criticism or publications
tending to impede, obstruct, embarrass, or
influence the courts in administering
justice in a pending suit or proceeding
(subjudice) [People v. Alarcon, G.R. No.
46551 (1939)]
● Right of students to free speech on school
premises must not infringe on the school’s
right to discipline its students. [Miriam
College Foundation v. CA, G.R. No.
127930 (2000)]

Exceptions
1. Fair comment on matters of public
interest – Fair comment is that which is
true or, if false, expresses the real opinion
of the author based upon reasonable
degree of care and on reasonable grounds
2. Criticism of official conduct is given the
widest latitude [US v. Bustos, G.R. No. L-
12592 (1918)]
4) rights during expropriation

Sec. 9, Art. III. Private property shall not be

taken for public use without just
compensation.

Requisites for Valid Exercise

1. Private property
2. Genuine necessity - inherent/presumed in
legislation, but when the power is
delegated (e.g. local government units),
necessity must be proven.
3. For public use - Court has adopted a broad
definition of “public use”
4. Payment of just compensation
5. Due process [Manapat v. CA, supra]

c. Effect of Delay
General Rule: For non-payment, the remedy
is the demand of payment of the fair market
value of the property and not the recovery of
possession of the expropriated lots [Republic
of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
146587 (2002); Reyes v. National Housing
Authority, G.R. No. 147511, (2003)].
Exception
When the government fails to pay just
compensation within five years from the finality
 19

of the judgment in the expropriation

proceedings, the owners concerned shall have
the right to recover possession of their property
[Republic v. Vicente Lim, G.R. No. 161656
(2005)].

3. Abandonment of Intended
Use and Right of Repurchase
If the expropriator (government) does not use
the property for a public purpose, the property
reverts to the owner in fee simple [Heirs of
Moreno v. Mactan-Cebu International Airport,
G.R. No. 156273 (2005)].
In Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority
v. Tudtud [G.R. No. 174012 (2008)], the Court
held that the expropriator has the obligation to
reconvey property expropriated but never
used, on the condition that the landowners
would return the just compensation they
received, plus interest.
5) searches and seizures

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

To whom is it directed
Against the State; the right cannot be invoked against a private individual. [The] protection against unlawful
searches and seizures…applies to governmental action. Its origin and history clearly show that it was intended
as a restraint upon the activities of sovereign authority, and was not intended to be a limitation upon other than
governmental agencies; as against such authority it was the purpose of the Fourth Amendment to secure the
citizen in the right of unmolested occupation of his dwelling and the possession of his property, subject to the
right of seizure by process duly served [People v. Marti, supra]

Who may invoke

The constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures is a personal right, invocable only by those
whose rights have been infringed.

It protects all persons, including aliens [Qua Chee Gan v. Deportation Board, G.R. No. L-10280 (1963)].

A corporation is entitled to immunity, under the 4th Amendment, against unreasonable searches and seizures. A
corporation is, after all, an association of individuals under an assumed name and with a distinct legal entity. In
organizing itself as a collective body it waives no constitutional immunities appropriate to such body. [Bache and
Co. v. Ruiz, G.R. No. L-32409 (1971)].

1. Concept of Privacy
Zones of privacy are recognized and protected in our laws. Within these zones, any form of intrusion is
impermissible unless excused by law and in accordance with customary legal process.

The Constitution does not have a specific provision protecting the right to privacy. It is a penumbral right formed
from the shadows created by several constitutional provisions. That is to say, the right to privacy is located within
the zones created by various provisions of the Constitution and various statutes which protect aspects of privacy.
[Ople v. Torres, G.R. No. 127685 (1998)]

2. Concept of a Search
 20

The constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures is a personal right invocable only by those
whose rights have been infringed or threatened to be infringed [Valmonte v. General De Villa, G.R. No. 83988
(1989)].

What constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable search and seizure in any particular case is purely a judicial
question, determinable from a consideration of the circumstances involved [Id].

4. Warrantless Searches
Probable cause (warrantless searches) must be “based on reasonable ground of suspicion or belief that a crime
has been committed or is about to be committed” [People v. Aruta, G.R. No. 120915 (1998)].

Exceptions to the warrant requirement; valid warrantless searches

Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest
Seizure of evidence in plain view
Search of a moving vehicle
Consented warrantless search
Customs search
Stop and Frisk
Exigent and Emergency Circumstances

a. Warrantless Search Incidental to

Lawful Arrest
A person lawfully arrested may be searched for
dangerous weapons or anything which may be
used as proof of the commission of an offense,
without a search warrant [Sec. 12, Rule 126,
ROC].
Absent a valid search warrant, the search is
confined to the person being lawfully arrested.
It is also a general rule that, as an incident of
an arrest, the place or premises where the
arrest was made can also be searched without
a search warrant. In this case, the extent and
reasonableness of the search must be decided
on its own facts and circumstances.
What must be considered is the balancing of
the individual’s right to privacy and the public’s
interest in the prevention of crime and the
apprehension of criminals [Nolasco v. Paño,
supra].

Test for validity

Item to be searched was within the arrester’s
custody;
Search was contemporaneous with the arrest
An “arrest being incipiently illegal, it logically
follows that the subsequent search was
similarly illegal” [People v. Aruta, supra].
Arresting officer may search
The arrestee’s person:
to discover and remove weapons and
to seize evidence to concealment or
destruction; and
The area within the immediate control of the
arrestee, i.e. area from which he might gain
possession of a weapon or destructible
evidence [Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752
(1969)].
 21

Immediate control
Immediate area to the defendant’s person
where there are nearby weapons he could grab
to attack the officer or what he has in his
pocket.
Purpose of this exception
The purpose of the exception is to protect the
arresting officer from being harmed by the
person arrested, who might be armed with a
concealed weapon, and to prevent the latter
from destroying evidence within reach
[Valeroso v. CA, G.R. No. 164815, (2009)].

b. Plain View Doctrine – lex pareto

Things seized are within plain view of a
searching party.
Requisites
1. Prior valid intrusion based on valid
warrantless arrest in which the police are
legally present in the pursuit of their official
duties
2. Evidence was inadvertently discovered by
the police who had the right to be where
they are
3. Evidence must be immediately apparent
4. “Plain view” justified mere seizure of
evidence without further search [People v. Aruta, supra; N.B. substantially the same
as Nala v. Barroso requirements]

An object is in “plain view” if the object itself is

plainly exposed to sight. Where the seized
object is inside a closed package, the object is
not in plain view and, therefore, cannot be
seized without a warrant. However, if the
package proclaims its contents, whether by its
distinctive configuration, its transparency, or if
its contents are obvious to an observer, then
the contents are in plain view, and may be
seized [Caballes v. CA, G.R. No. 136292
(2002)].

If the package is such that an experienced

observer could infer from its appearance that it
contains the prohibited article, then the article
is deemed in plain view. It must be immediately
apparent to the police that the items that they
observe may be evidence of a crime,
contraband or otherwise subject to seizure.
[People v. Nuevas, G.R. No. 170233 (2007)].
The plain view doctrine only applies where a
police officer is not searching for evidence
against the accused but inadvertently comes
across an incriminating object [People v. Musa,
G.R. No. 96177 (1993)].

c. Search of Moving Vehicles

Securing a search warrant is not practicable
 22

since the vehicle can be quickly moved out of

the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant
must be sought [Papa v. Mago, G.R. No. L-
27360, (1968)].
A variant of searching moving vehicles without
a warrant may entail the setup of military or
police checkpoints [People v. Manago, G.R.
No. 212340, (2016)].
“Stop and search” without a warrant at military
or police checkpoints has been declared not to
be illegal per se so long as it is required by
exigencies of public order and conducted in a
way least intrusive to motorists [Valmonte v. de
Villa, G.R. No. 83988 (1989)].

These are permissible if limited to the following:

• where the officer merely draws aside the
curtain of a vacant vehicle which is parked
on the public fair grounds;
• simply looks into a vehicle;
• flashes a light therein without opening the
car's doors;
• where the occupants are not subjected to a
physical or body search;
• where the inspection of the vehicles is
limited to a visual search or visual
inspection; and
• where the routine check is conducted in a
fixed area.

It is well to clarify, however, that routine

inspections do not give police officers carte
blanche discretion to conduct warrantless
searches in the absence of probable cause.
When a vehicle is stopped and subjected to an
extensive search - as opposed to a mere
routine inspection - such a warrantless search
has been held to be valid only as long as the
officers conducting the search have
reasonable or probable cause to believe before
the search that they will find the instrumentality
or evidence pertaining to a crime, in the vehicle
to be searched [People v. Manago, supra].

d. Consented search
Requisites
1. Must appear that right exists;
2. Person involved had actual or constructive knowledge of the existence of such right;
3. Said person had an actual intent to relinquish the right. [People v. Aruta, supra]

Mere failure to object to the search and seizure

does not constitute a waiver.
The right to be secure from unreasonable
search may be waived. Waiver may be express
or implied. When one voluntarily submits to a
search or consents to have it made of his
person/premises, he is precluded from later
complaining. [People v. Kagui Malasugui, G.R.
No. L-44335 (1936)]
 23

There is presumption against waiver by the

courts. It is the State that has the burden of
proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that
the necessary consent was obtained and that it
was voluntarily and freely given. [Caballes v.
CA, supra)]
Voluntariness is a question of fact to be
determined from the totality of all the
circumstances, and that the state of a
defendant's knowledge is only one factor to be
taken into account in assessing the
voluntariness of a consent.
While knowledge of the right to refuse consent
is one factor to be taken into account, the
government need not establish such
knowledge as the sine qua non of an effective
consent [Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S.
218 (1973)].

e. Enforcement of Fishing, Customs,

and Immigration Law
The police are allowed to conduct warrantless
searches on behalf of the Department of
Customs.
They are authorized to open and examine any
box, trunk, or other containers where he has
reasonable cause to believe that such items
were hidden from customs search [Papa v.
Mago, supra].
Sec. 219 of the Customs Modernization and
Tariff Act states that no warrant is required for
police or authorized persons to pass, enter,
search any land, enclosure, building,
warehouse, vessels, aircrafts, vehicles but not
dwelling.
Purpose of customs search
To verify whether or not custom duties and
taxes were paid for their importation.

f. Stop and Frisk

There is a justifiable cause to stop and frisk
persons who flee upon seeing law enforcement
[People v. Solayao, G.R. No. 119220 (1996)].

Test
Whether or not a reasonably prudent man in
the circumstances would be warranted in the
belief that his safety or that of others was in
danger [Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)].
Test for validity of a stop-and-frisk search as
established by jurisprudence:
● There must be specific and articulable
facts which, taken together with rational
inferences, reasonably warrant the
intrusion.
● The officer must identify himself and make
reasonable inquiries.
 24

● The “frisk” is permitted to search for

weapons for the protection of the police
officer, where he has reason to believe that
he is dealing with an armed and dangerous
individual, regardless of probable cause
for a crime.
● The scope of the search is limited to the
outer surface of the subject’s clothing.

Police officer has a right to stop a citizen on the

street and pat him for a weapon in the interest
of protecting himself from the person with
whom he was dealing by making sure that he
is not armed.
g. Exigent and Emergency
Circumstances
The raid and seizure of firearms and
ammunition at the height of the 1989 coup
d’état, was held valid, considering the exigent
and emergency situation. The military
operatives had reasonable ground to believe
that a crime was being committed, and they
had no opportunity to apply for a search
warrant from the courts because the latter were
closed. Under such urgency and exigency, a
search warrant could be validly dispensed with
[People v. de Gracia, G.R. Nos. 102009-10
(1994)].

5. Warrantless Arrests and Detentions

Valid Warrantless Arrests [Rule 113, Sec. 5,
Rules on Criminal Procedure]
a. In flagrante delicto
When in his presence, the person to be
arrested has committed, is actually committing,
or is attempting to commit an offense. The
person must be arrested after the offense has
been committed and in the presence of a police
officer [People v. Mengote, G.R. No. 87059
(1992)].
Rebellion is a continuing offense. Therefore, a
rebel may be arrested without a warrant at any
time of the day or the night as he is deemed to
be in the act of committing rebellion. [Umil v.
Ramos, G.R. No. 81567 (1991)]

Though kidnapping with serious illegal

detention is deemed a continuing crime, it can
be considered as such only when the
deprivation of liberty is persistent and
continuing from one place to another [Parulan
v. Dir. of Prisons, G.R. No. L-28519 (1968)].
Buy-Bust
A buy-bust operation is a valid in flagrante
arrest. The subsequent search of the person
arrested and the premises within his immediate
control is valid as an incident to a lawful arrest
[People v. Hindoy, G.R. No. 132662 (2001)].
 25

When buy-bust not proper

Instead of arresting the suspect after the sale
in a buy-bust operation, the officer returned to
the police headquarters and filed his report. It
was only in the evening that he, without
warrant, arrested the suspect at his house
where dried marijuana leaves were found and
seized. This is unlawful arrest [People v.
Rodriguez, G.R. No. 138987 (1992)].

b. Hot Pursuit
When an offense has just been committed and
he has probable cause to believe based on
personal knowledge of facts or circumstances
that the person to be arrested has committed it
Requisites
1. Offense had just been committed; The
person must be immediately arrested after
the commission of the offense [People v.
Manlulu, supra].
2. Person making the arrest has probable
cause to believe based on personal
knowledge of the facts and
circumstances.

Personal knowledge
Experience of an officer which gives the idea
that there is probable cause that the person
caught is responsible. It has been ruled that
“personal knowledge of facts” in arrests without
a warrant must be based on probable cause,
which means an actual belief or reasonable
grounds of suspicion [Cadua v. CA, G.R. No.
123123 (1999)].
Note: There must be a large measure of
immediacy between the time the offense is
committed and the time of the arrest. If there
was an appreciable lapse of time between
arrest and commission of crime, warrant of
arrest must be secured [NACHURA].
Warrantless arrest of accused for selling
marijuana 2 days after he escaped is invalid
[People v. Kimura, G.R. No. 130805 (2004)].

The warrantless arrest only 3 hours after the

killing was held valid since personal knowledge
was established as to the fact of death and
facts indicating that the accused killed the
victim [People v. Gerente, G.R. Nos. 95847-48
(1993)]
There is no personal knowledge when the
commission of a crime and identity of the
accused were merely furnished by an
informant, or when the location of the firearm
was given by the wife of the accused. It is not
enough that there is reasonable ground to believe that the person to be arrested has
committed a crime. That a crime has actually
been committed is an essential precondition
[People v. Burgos, G.R. No. L-68955 (1986)].
 26

c. Escaped Prisoners
When the person to be arrested is a prisoner
who has escaped from a penal establishment
or place where he is serving final judgment or
is temporarily confined while his case is
pending, or has escaped while being
transferred from one confinement to another.

ADDITIONAL EXCEPTIONS
a. When the right is voluntarily waived
(estoppel)
Appellant is estopped from questioning the
illegality of the arrest when he voluntarily
submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court
by entering a plea of not guilty and by
participating in the trial [People v. Salvatierra,
G.R. No. 104663 (1997)].
Failure to raise the question of admissibility
during the trial is waiver of the right to assert
inadmissibility on appeal [Manalili v. CA,
supra].
Scope of Waiver
Waiver is limited to the illegal arrest. It does not
extend to the search made as an incident
thereto, or the subsequent seizure of evidence
allegedly found during the search [People v.
Peralta, G.R. No. L-19069 (2004)].

Drug, Alcohol, and Blood Tests

The Court held that Randomized Drug Testing
(RDT) for students and employees does not
violate the right to privacy in the Constitution.
Students do not have rational expectation of
privacy since they are minors and the school is
in loco parentis. Employees and students in
universities, on the other hand, voluntarily
subject themselves to the intrusion because of
their contractual relation to the company or
university.

But it is unconstitutional to subject criminals to

RDT. Subjecting criminals to RDT would
violate their right against self-incrimination.
It is also unconstitutional to subject public
officials whose qualifications are provided for in
the Constitution (e.g. members of Congress) to
RDT. Subjecting them to RDT would amount to
imposing an additional qualification not
provided for in the Constitution [SJS v.
Dangerous Drugs Board, G.R. No. 157870
(2008)].

Routine Security Checks

The Court held that the search and seizure of
an illegal drug during a routine airport
inspection made pursuant to the aviation
security procedures as a constitutionally
reasonable administrative search.
Persons may lose the protection of the search
 27

and seizure clause by exposure of their

persons or property to the public in a manner
reflecting a lack of subjective expectation of
privacy, which expectation society is prepared
to recognize as reasonable. Thus, while the
right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures is
guaranteed by Section 2, Article III of the 1987
Constitution, a routine security check being
conducted in air and sea ports has been a
recognized exception. [People v O’Cochlain,
G.R. No. 229071 (2018)]

6. Exclusionary Rule
All evidence obtained in violation of Sec. 2, Art.
III shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any
proceeding [Stonehill v. Diokno, G.R. No. L-
19550 (1967)].
The exclusionary rule extends to evidence
obtained through uncounseled confession
[People v. Alicando, G.R. No. 117487 (1995)].
The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree
The Exclusionary Rule is also extended to
exclude evidence which is derived or directly
obtained from that which was illegally seized
[BAUTISTA].

Once the primary source (tree) is shown to

have been unlawfully obtained, any secondary
or derivative evidence (fruit) derived from it is
also inadmissible.
7. Effects of Unreasonable
Searches and Seizures
Unlawful search
Police officers arrived at appellant’s residence
and “side-swiped” appellant’s car (which was
parked outside) to gain entry into the house.
Appellant’s son, who is the only one present in
the house, opened the door and was
immediately handcuffed to a chair after being
informed that they are policemen with a
warrant to search the premises [People v.
Benny Go, G.R. No. 144639 (2003)].

Consequences of an unlawful search

An unlawful search will result in the exclusion
from admission as evidence of that which was
obtained from such unlawful search and
seizure.
Further, an unlawful search and seizure may
justify:
the use of self-help in the form of resistance to
such unlawful search and seizure;
the criminal prosecution of the searching
officer;
civil damages against such officer; and
disciplinary action against the officer by his
 28

administrative officers [BAUTISTA, Basic

Criminal Procedure (2010), hereinafter
BAUTISTA].
c) Composition and powers of the government organs

d) Judicial Review

Judicial power includes the duty of the courts

to:
a. Settle actual controversies involving rights
which are legally demandable and
enforceable; and
b. To determine whether or not there has
been a grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
on the part of any branch or instrumentality
of the Government.
The second clause effectively limits the
doctrine of “political question” [See Francisco
v. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261
(2003)].
e) Supervision of courts

Section 6. The Supreme Court shall have administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel
thereof.
f) Powers of the Supreme Court

Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:

(1) Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and
consuls, and over petitions for  certiorari, prohibition, mandamus,  quo warranto, and habeas corpus.

(2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or  certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court
may provide, final judgments and orders of lower courts in:

(a) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or executive
agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in
question.

(b) All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or toll, or any penalty imposed in
relation thereto.

(c) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue.

(d) All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is  reclusion perpetua or higher.

(e) All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved.

(3) Assign temporarily judges of lower courts to other stations as public interest may require. Such
temporary assignment shall not exceed six months without the consent of the judge concerned.
 29

(4) Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice.

(5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading,
practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the integrated bar, and
legal assistance to the underprivileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive
procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade,
and shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special courts
and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court.

 (6) Appoint all officials and employees of the Judiciary in accordance with the Civil Service Law.

g) Qualifications, disqualifications and selection

1) President

Section 2. No person may be elected President unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, a
registered voter, able to read and write, at least forty years of age on the day of the election, and a resident
of the Philippines for at least ten years immediately preceding such election.

Prohibitions on The Executive Department

The following prohibitions apply to:
a. President
b. Vice-President,
c. The members of the Cabinet, and their
deputies or assistants

Prohibited Acts
a. Shall not receive any other
emoluments from the government or
any other source [For President and
Vice-President, Sec. 6, Art. VII].
b. Unless otherwise provided in the
constitution, shall not hold any other
office or employment [Sec. 13, Art. VII].

Exceptions
1. The prohibition does not include
posts occupied by executive
officials without additional
compensation in an ex-officio
capacity, as provided by law or as
required by the primary functions of
the said official’s office. [National
Amnesty Commission v. COA,
G.R. No. 156982(2004)].
2. The Vice-President being
appointed as a member of the
cabinet.
3. The Vice-President acting as
president when one has not yet
been chosen or qualified [Sec.
7(2)(3), Art. VII].
4. The Secretary of Justice sitting as
 30

ex-officio member of the Judicial

and Bar Council [Sec. 8(1), Art.
VIII; Civil Liberties Union v.
Executive Secretary, supra].

c. Shall not directly or indirectly

1. practice any other profession;
2. participate in any business; or
3. be financially interested in any
contract with, or in any franchise or
special privilege granted by the
government or any subdivision,
agency, or instrumentality thereof,
including government-owned or

controlled corporations or their

subsidiaries [Sec. 13, Art. VII].
d. Strictly avoid conflict of interest in the
conduct of their office [Sec. 13, Art.
VII].
e. May not appoint (a) spouse; or (b)
relatives by consanguinity or affinity
within the fourth civil degree as
members of Constitutional
Commissions, or the Office of the
Ombudsman, or as Secretaries,
Undersecretaries, chairmen or heads
of bureaus or offices, including
government-owned or controlled
corporation and their subsidiaries.

Prohibitions
(OEPBCF - "Only Eccentric People Believe
Cockatoos Find Soulmates")
a. Hold any other office or employment
b. Practice any other profession
c. Participate in any business
d. Be financially interested in any contract
with, or in any franchise, or special privilege
granted by the Government or any of its
subdivision, agency, or instrumentality
President's spouse and relatives by
consanguinity or affinity within the fourth civil
degree cannot be appointed during his tenure
as: (COSUCH)
a. Members of the Constitutional
Commissions
b. Members of the Office of the Ombudsman
c. Secretaries, Undersecretaries, chairmen or
heads of bureaus or offices (including
GOCCs and subsidiaries)

2) Senators

Senate vs HOR

Senate (Secs. 2- House of

14, Article VI) Representatives
 31

(Secs. 5-8, Art. VI)

COMPOSITION
24 senators Not more than 250
elected at large members, unless
otherwise provided by
law, consisting of:
a. District
Representatives
b. Party-List
Representatives
QUALIFICATIONS
a. Natural-born a. Natural-born citizen
citizen b. At least 25 years
b. At least 35 old on the day of the
years old on the election
day of the c. Able to read and
election write
c. Able to read d. A registered voter
and write in the district he seeks
d. A registered to represent
voter e. A resident of the
e. Resident of the said district for at
Philippines for at least 1 year
least 2 years immediately
immediately preceding the day of
preceding the day the election
of the election
TERM OF OFFICE
6 years 3 years
TERM LIMITS
2 consecutive 3 consecutive terms
terms

Privileges
a. Salaries

Section 10, Art. VI. The salaries of Senators

and Members of the House of
Representatives shall be determined by law.
No increase in said compensation shall take
effect until after the expiration of the full term
of all the Members of the Senate and the
House of Representatives approving such
increase.

Section 17, Art. XVIII. Until the Congress

provides otherwise, the President shall
receive an annual salary of three hundred
thousand pesos; the Vice-President, the
President of the Senate, the Speaker of the
House of Representatives, and the Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court, two hundred
forty thousand pesos each; the Senators, the
Members of the House of Representatives,
the Associate Justices of the Supreme
Court, and the Chairmen of the
Constitutional Commissions, two hundred
four thousand pesos each; and the Members
 32

of the Constitutional Commissions, one

hundred eighty thousand pesos each.

“Expiration of the full term of all Members of the

Senate and the House of Representatives” is
singular and means that the increase may only
take effect upon the expiration of the terms
of both houses who passed the law
increasing said salary. This means that even
if the House of Representatives term has
already expired but the senate has not, the
salary increase cannot yet take effect even if
the increase is different for each house
[PHILCONSA v. Mathay, G.R. No. L-25554
(1966)].

This prohibition also applies to the benefits a

member of congress will attain upon
retirement. Thus, a member of congress may
not compute his retirement benefits based on
the salary increase which he was not able to
reach because his term has already expired
before said increase took effect [Ligot v.
Mathay, G.R. No. L-34676 (1974)] .

b. Freedom from Arrest

A Senator or Member of the House of
Representatives shall, in all offenses
punishable by not more than six years
imprisonment, be privileged from arrest while
the Congress is in session [...] [Sec. 11, Art. VI].
Regardless of the whereabouts of a Senator or
Member of the House, freedom from arrest
holds, so long as Congress is in session.
Freedom from arrest applies only to offenses
punishable by not more than six years
imprisonment.

Preventive suspension is not a penalty. Order

of suspension under R.A. 3019 (Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act) is distinct from the
power of Congress to discipline its own
members and did not exclude members of
Congress from its operation [Defensor-
Santiago v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 128055
(2001)].

In People v. Jalosjos [G.R. No. 132875,

February 3, 2000], the SC denied the request
of Cong. Jalosjos that he be allowed to attend
legislative sessions. The denial was premised
on the following: (a) membership in Congress
does not exempt an accused from statutes and
rules which apply to validly incarcerated
persons; (b) one rationale behind confinement
is public self-defense; (c) it would amount to
creation of a privileged class, without
justification in reason; and (d) he was provided
with an office in the New Bilibid Prison.
 33

c. Speech and Debate Clause

[...] No Member shall be questioned nor be held
liable in any other place for any speech or

debate in the Congress or in any committee

thereof [Sec. 11, Art. VI].
This means the Senator or Member of the
House can still be questioned and held liable in
Congress.
To come under the guarantee, the speech or
debate must be one made "in Congress or in
any committee thereof." Publication of an
allegedly libelous letter is not covered by the
privilege [Jimenez v. Cabangbang, G.R. No. L-
15905 (1966)].
What is covered under this provision?
Anything a member of Congress says in line
with his legislative functions (Jimenez v.
Cabangbang, supra)
a. Speeches
b. Utterances
c. Bills signed
d. Votes passed

While the immunity of a Member of Congress

is absolute and thus even the Supreme Court
cannot discipline a lawyer-senator for remarks
made against the court, it does not shield said
member from the authority of Congress to
discipline its own members [Defensor-Santiago
v. Pobre, A.C. No. 7399 (2009)].

2. Inhibitions and
Disqualifications
a. May not hold any other office or
employment in the government
during his term without forfeiting his
seat [Sec. 13, Art. VI]
Incompatible Office — The forfeiture of the
seat in Congress shall be automatic upon a
member’s assumption of such office deemed
incompatible. Thus, when a governor-elect ran
for the Batasang Pambansa and won, he could
not hold both offices [Adaza v. Pacana, G.R.
No. L-68159 (1985)]
Note: The office of the Philippine National Red
Cross (PNRC) Chairman is not a government
office or an office in a government-owned or -
controlled corporation for purposes of the

prohibition in Sec. 13, Art. VI [Liban v. Gordon,

G.R. No. 175352 (2009 & 2011); but note that
the structure of the PNRC is sui generis being
neither strictly private nor public in nature].
b. May not be appointed to any office
created or whose emoluments were
increased during the term for which
 34

he was elected [Sec. 13, Art. VI]

Forbidden Office — One to which a member
cannot be appointed even if he is willing to give
up his seat in Congress. The effect of his
resignation from the Congress is the loss of his
seat therein but his disqualification for the
forbidden office nevertheless remains.
c. Shall not be financially interested,
directly or indirectly, in any contract
with, or franchise or special
privilege granted by the government
during his term of office [Sec. 14,
Art. VI]

d. Shall not intervene in any matter

before any office of the government
when it is for his pecuniary benefit
or where he may be called upon to
act on account of his office [Sec. 14,
Art. VI]
The Pork Barrel System “runs afoul” of Sec. 14,
Art. VI, because in “allowing legislators to
intervene in the various phases of project
implementation – a matter before another
office of government – [Pork Barrel] renders
them susceptible to taking undue advantage of
their own office” [Belgica, supra].

e. Cannot personally appear as

counsel before any court, electoral
tribunal, quasi judicial and
administrative bodies during his
term of office [Sec. 14, Art. VI]
This prohibition is absolute. Thus, when an
assemblyman acting as counsel for one group
in an internal dispute in a company was denied
leave to intervene, the court held that his action
of buying 10 stocks in order to be able to
intervene in the company’s dispute as a
stockholder was an indirect violation of this rule
and still unconstitutional [Puyat v. De Guzman
Jr., G.R. No. L-51122 (1982)]
3) HOR

Look at the senator

4) Justices and judges

1. Qualifications of Members of the Judiciary

Justices of the SC and RTC MTC

Collegiate Courts
CITIZENSHIP
Natural-born citizen
AGE
At least 40 At least 35 At least 30
years of years of age years of age
 35

age
Experience
15 years or Has been Has been
more as a engaged for engaged for
judge of a at least 10 at least 5
lower court years in the years in the
OR has practice of practice of
been law OR has law OR has
engaged in held public held public
the office in the office in the
practice of PH requiring PH requiring
law in the admission to admission to
PH for the the practice the practice
same of law as an of law as an
period indispensable indispensable
requisite requisite
Tenure Sec 11, Art VIII
Hold office during good behavior until they
reach the age of 70 OR become
incapacitated to discharge their duties
QUALIFICATIONS
Person of proven competence, integrity,
probity, and independence

Disqualification from Other Positions or

Offices

Sec. 12, Art. VIII. The Members of the

Supreme Court and of other courts
established by law shall not be designated to
any agency performing quasi-judicial or
administrative functions.

The SC and its members should not and

cannot be required to exercise any power or to
perform any trust or to assume any duty not
pertaining to or connected with the
administering of judicial functions [Meralco v.
Pasay Transportation Co., G.R. No. L-37838
(1932)].
5) Ombudsman

The Ombudsman and the

Office of the Special
Prosecutor
THE OMBUDSMAN
Composition
a. Ombudsman/Tanodbayan;
b. Overall Deputy (at least one Deputy each
for Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao).
c. Deputy for military establishment may be
appointed

Qualifications: (Ombudsman and

Deputies):
a. Natural born citizen of the Philippines
b. At least 40 years old at time of appointment
 36

c. Of recognized probity and independence

d. Member of the Philippine bar
e. Must not have been candidate for any
elective office in the immediately preceding
election
f. For Ombudsman: He must have been for
10 years or more:
i. A judge OR
ii. Engaged in the practice of law

Disqualifications and Prohibitions

a. Cannot hold any other office or
employment during his tenure;
b. Cannot engage in the practice of any
profession or in the active management or
control of any business which may be
affected by the functions of his office;
c. Cannot be financially interested, directly or
indirectly, in any contract with or in any
franchise or privilege granted by the
Government, any of its subdivisions,
agencies or instrumentalities, including
GOCCs or their subsidiaries.

6) Constitutional Commissioners

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

Sec. 3, Art. IX-B. The Civil Service
Commission, as the central personnel
agency of the Government, shall establish a
career service and adopt measures to
promote morale, efficiency, integrity,
responsiveness, progressiveness, and
courtesy in the civil service. It shall
strengthen the merit and rewards system,
integrate all human resources development
programs for all levels and ranks, and
institutionalize a management climate
conducive to public accountability. It shall
submit to the President and the Congress an
annual report on its personnel programs.

Composition
A Chairman and two (2) Commissioners
Qualifications: [Sec. 1(1), Art. IX-B]
a. Natural-born citizens of the Philippines;
b. At the time of their appointment, at least 35
years of age;
c. With proven capacity for public
administration; and
d. Must not have been candidates for any
elective position in the election
immediately preceding their appointment.

Disqualifications [Art. IX-B]:

1. No candidate who has lost in any election
shall within one (1) year after such election,
be appointed to any office in the
 37

Government or any GOCC or in any of its

subsidiaries. [Sec. 6]
2. No elective official shall be eligible for
appointment or designation in any
capacity to any public office or position
during his tenure. [Sec. 7[1]]
3. Unless otherwise allowed by law OR by the
primary functions of his position, no
appointive official shall hold any other
office or employment in the Government or
any subdivision, agency or instrumentality
thereof including GOCCs or their
subsidiaries. [Sec. 7(2)]
4. No officer or employee in the civil service
shall engage directly or indirectly, in any
electioneering or partisan political activity.
[Sec. 2(4)]

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
Composition
A Chairman and six (6) Commissioners.
Qualifications
a. Must be natural-born citizens;
b. At least 35 years of age;
c. Holders of a college degree;
d. Have not been candidates in the
immediately preceding election;
e. Majority, including the Chairman, must be
members of the Philippine Bar who have
been engaged in the practice of law for at
least ten (10) years. [Sec. 1, Art. IX-C,
Constitution]

COMMISSION ON AUDIT
Composition
A Chairman and two (2) Commissioners
Qualifications
a. Natural born Filipino citizens
b. At least thirty-five (35) years of age
c. CPAs with not less than ten (10) years of
auditing experience OR members of the
Philippine bar with at least ten (10) years
practice of law
Note: At no time shall all members belong to
the same profession.

Disqualification
No member of the Constitutional Commissions
shall, during their tenure:
1. Hold any other office or employment. This
is similar to the prohibition against
executive officers. It applies to both public
and private offices and employment;
2. Engage in the practice of any profession;
3. Engage in the active management or
control of any business which in any way
may be affected by the functions of his
office; or
 38

4. Be financially interested, directly or

indirectly, in any contract with, or in any
franchise or privilege granted by, the
Government, its subdivisions, agencies or
instrumentalities, including GOCCs or their
subsidiaries [Sec. 2, Art. IX-A].
The CSC Chairman cannot be a member of a
government entity that is under the control of
the President without impairing the
independence vested in the CSC by the 1987
Constitution [Funa v. Civil Service
Commission, G.R. No. 191672 (2014)].

h) Immunity of the president, privileges of senators and member of the HOR

1) President

Official residence
The president shall have an official residence
[Sec. 6, Art. VII].
Salary
This shall be determined by law. It shall not be
decreased during tenure. No increase shall
take effect until after the expiration of the term
of the incumbent during which such increase
was approved [Sec. 6, Art. VII].

1. Presidential Immunity
The President as such cannot be sued,
enjoying as he does immunity from suit. But the
validity of his acts can be tested by an action
against other executive officials [Carillo v.
Marcos, G.R. No. L-21015(1981)].
The privilege may be invoked only by the
President.
— Immunity from suit pertains to the President
by virtue of the office and may be invoked only
by the holder of the office; not by any other
person in the President's behalf. The President
may waive the protection afforded by the privilege and submit to the court's jurisdiction
[Soliven v. Makasiar, G.R. No. 82585, and
Beltran v. Makasiar, G.R. No. 82827(1988)].
But presidential decisions may be questioned
before the courts where there is grave abuse of
discretion or that the President acted without or
in excess of jurisdiction [Gloria v. CA, G.R. No.
119903(2000)].
Immunity co-extensive with tenure and covers
only official duties. After tenure, the Chief
Executive cannot invoke immunity from suit for
civil damages arising out of acts done by him
while he was President which were not
performed in the exercise of official duties
[Estrada v. Desierto, G.R. Nos. 146710-
15(2001)].

This presidential privilege of immunity cannot

be invoked by a non-sitting president even for
 39

acts committed during his or her tenure. [Saez

v. Macapagal-Arroyo, G.R. No. 183533(2012)].
Exception: The president may be sued if the act
is one not arising from official conduct [See
Estrada v. Desierto, supra].
2. Presidential Privilege
It is "the right of the President and high-level
executive branch officers to withhold
information from Congress, the courts, and
ultimately the public" [ROZELL].
N.B. Case law uses the term presidential
privilege to refer to either (1) immunity from suit
(i.e. immunity from judicial processes, see Neri
v. Senate, infra, and Saez v. Macapagal-
Arroyo, supra); or (2) executive privilege
[Akbayan v. Aquino, infra].
i) Structure of the government

1) Composition
2) Functions
3) powers and privileges
4) Separation of powers
5) System of checks and balances

j) Process of legislation

Requirements as to bills
Sec. 26, Art. VI.
(1) Every bill passed by the Congress shall
embrace only one subject which shall be
expressed in the title thereof. Xxx

One Subject One Title Rule

1. To prevent hodge-podge, "log-rolling", or
the smuggling in of "riders", that is, "any act
containing several subjects dealing with
unrelated matters representing diverse
interests.
2. To prevent surprise or fraud upon the
legislature
3. To fairly apprise the people of the subjects
of legislation that are being considered in
order that they may have the opportunity of
being heard thereon, by petition or
otherwise, if they should so desire.
4. But the title need not be a complete
catalogue of a bill. In any case, a title must
not be "so uncertain that the average
person reading it would not be informed of
the purpose of the enactment.
5. The title of the bill is controlling over the
text. [Dela Cruz v. Paras, G.R. No. L-
42571-72(1983)].
2. Requirements as to Certain
Laws

Appropriations Laws – created to regulate

 40

Spending

Sec. 22, Art. VII. The President shall submit

to the Congress within thirty days from the
opening of every regular session, as the
basis of the general appropriations bill, a
budget of expenditures and sources of
financing, including receipts from existing
and proposed revenue measures.

Sec. 24, Art. 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.
Sec. 25, Art. VI.
(1) The Congress may not increase the
appropriations recommended by the
President for the operation of the
Government as specified in the budget. The
form, content, and manner of preparation of
the budget shall be prescribed by law.
(2) No provision or enactment shall be
embraced in the general appropriations bill
unless it relates specifically to some
particular appropriation therein. Any such
provision or enactment shall be limited in its
operation to the appropriation to which it
relates. (3) The procedure in approving
appropriations for the Congress shall strictly
follow the procedure for approving
appropriations for other departments and
agencies.
(4) A special appropriations bill shall
specify the purpose for which it is intended,
and shall be supported by funds actually
available as certified by the National
Treasurer, or to be raised by a
corresponding revenue proposed therein.
(5) 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
Constitutional Commissions may, by law, be
authorized to augment any item in the
general appropriations law for their
respective offices from savings in other items
of their respective appropriations.
(6) Discretionary funds appropriated for
particular officials shall be disbursed
only for public purposes to be supported
by appropriate vouchers and subject to such
guidelines as may be prescribed by law.
(7) If, by the end of any fiscal year, the
Congress shall have failed to pass the
 41

general appropriations bill for the ensuing

fiscal year, the general appropriations law
for the preceding fiscal year shall be
deemed reenacted and shall remain in force
and effect until the general appropriations bill
is passed by the Congress.

Sec. 29, Art. VI. (1) No money shall be paid

out of the Treasury except in pursuance of
an appropriation made by law.

Procedure for Passage of Bills

Sec. 27, Art. VI
(1) 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 veto 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 such House shall agree to pass
the bill, it shall be sent, together with the
objections, to the other House by which it
shall likewise be reconsidered, and if
approved by 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.

Generally, there are 3 ways for the bill to

become a law:
(1) When it is approved by the President;
(2) When the vote of the President is
overridden by a two-thirds vote of all the
members of both houses;
(3) Upon failure of the President to veto the bill
and to return it with his objections, to the
House where it originated, within 30 days
after the date of receipt

Sec. 26, Art. VI

(2) No bill passed by either House shall
become a law unless it has passed three
readings on separate days, and printed
copies thereof in its final form have been
distributed to its Members three days before
its passage, except when the President
certifies to the necessity of its immediate
enactment to meet a public calamity or
emergency. Upon the last reading of a bill,
no amendment thereto shall be allowed, and
 42

the vote thereon shall be taken immediately

thereafter, and the yeas and nays entered in
the Journal.

The President’s Veto Power

Section 27, Article VI defines the only way for
the President to veto a bill.
When the President vetoes a measure, he
should return the measure to the House of
origin, indicating his objections thereto in what
is commonly known as a veto message so that
the same may be studied by the members for
possible overriding of his veto.
General rule: The President must approve a
bill in its entirety or disapprove it in toto.
Exception: The exception applies to
appropriation, revenue and tariff bills, any
particular item or items of which may be
disapproved without affecting the item or items
to which he does not object.
To override the President’s veto, at least ⅔ of
ALL members of each house must agree to
pass the bill. In such case, the veto is
overridden and the bill becomes law without
need of presidential approval.

Doctrine of inappropriate provision

A provision that is constitutionally inappropriate
for an appropriation bill may be singled out for
veto even if it is not an appropriation or revenue
item.

Effectivity of Laws
Art. 2, Civil Code. Laws shall take effect
after fifteen days following the completion of
their publication in the Official Gazette,
unless it is otherwise provided. This Code
shall take effect one year after such
publication.

Tanada v. Tuvera [G.R. No. L-63915 (1985)]:

Even when the law provides its own date of
effectivity, the publication requirement is
mandatory, in order that a law may become
effective. The object of the publication
requirement is to give the general public
adequate notice of the various laws which are
to regulate their actions and conduct—without
publication, there would be no basis for the
application of the maxim, “ignorantia legis non
excusat.” The publication requirement is a
requirement of due process.

k) Natural resources (nationalization principle for natural resources and

economic activities)

Filipino first
Sec. 10, Art. XII. In the grant of rights,
 43

privileges, and concessions covering the

national economy and patrimony, the State
shall give preference to qualified Filipinos.
The State shall regulate and exercise
authority over foreign investments within its
national jurisdiction and in accordance with
its national goals and priorities.

Such provision is per se enforceable and

requires no further guidelines or implementing
rules or laws for its operation [Manila Prince
Hotel v. GSIS, G.R. No. 122156 (1997)].
The Constitution does not impose a policy of
Filipino monopoly of the economic
environment. It does not rule out the entry of
foreign investments, goods, and services.
While it does not encourage their unlimited
entry into the country, it does not prohibit them
either. In fact, it allows an exchange on the
basis of equality and reciprocity, frowning only
on foreign competition that is unfair. [Tañada v.
Angara, G.R. No. 118295 (1997)].

Sec. 12, Art. XII. The State shall promote the

preferential use of Filipino labor, domestic
materials and locally produced goods, and
adopt measures that help make them
competitive.
l) Amendment and revision of the constitution (Art XVII)

Amendments: An addition or change within

the lines of the original constitution as will effect
an improvement, or better carry out the
purpose for which it was framed; a change that
adds, reduces or deletes without altering the
basic principles involved; affects only the
specific provision being amended [Lambino v.
COMELEC, supra].
Revisions: A change that alters a basic
principle in the constitution, like altering the
principle of separation of powers or the system
of checks-and- balances; alters the substantial
entirety of the constitution, as when the change
affects substantial provisions of the constitution
[Id.].
Difference: Revision generally affects several
provisions of the constitution, while
amendment generally affects only the specific
provision being amended [Id.]. This distinction
is significant because the 1987 Constitution
allows people’s initiative only for the purpose of
amending, not revising, the Constitution [See
Lambino v. COMELEC, supra].

Legal Tests
Lambino considered the two-part test: the
quantitative test and the qualitative test.
a. Quantitative test: The court examines
 44

only the number of provisions affected

and does not consider the degree of
the change.
b. Qualitative test: The court 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.” The changes include those to
the “fundamental framework or the
fundamental powers of its Branches,”
and those that “jeopardize the
traditional form of government and the
system of check and balances.”
Whether there is an alteration in the
structure of government is a proper
subject of inquiry [Lambino v.
COMELEC, supra].

Procedure
There are two steps in the amendatory
process:
a. Proposal: This refers to the adoption
of the suggested change in the
Constitution.
1. Congress (as a Constituent
Assembly) – a vote of 3/4 of ALL its
members.
2. Constitutional Convention –
Called into existence by (i) 2/3 of all
members of Congress OR (ii) the
electorate, in a referendum called
for by a majority of all members of
Congress [Sec. 3, Art. XVII]
3. People (through a People’s
Initiative) – petition of at least 12%
of the total number of registered
voters; every legislative district
must be represented by at least 3%
of the registered voters therein
i. Limitation on Initiative: No
amendment in this manner
shall be authorized (1) within
5 years following the
ratification of the 1987 Const.
nor (2) more often than once
every 5 years thereafter.
ii. Enabling Law:
Constitutional provision on
amendments via People’s
Initiative are not selfexecutory
[Defensor-
Santiago v. COMELEC, 270
SCRA 170 (1997)]

b. Ratification: The Proposed Amendments

shall be submitted to the people and shall be
 45

deemed ratified by the majority of the votes

cast in a plebiscite, held not earlier than 60
days nor later than 90 days:
1. After approval of the proposal by
Congress or ConCon;
2. After certification by the COMELEC of
sufficiency of petition of the people.

Doctrine of Proper Submission

A plebiscite may be held on the same day as a
regular election [Gonzales v. COMELEC, G.R.
No. L-28196 (1967)]. The entire Constitution
must be submitted for ratification at one
plebiscite only. The people must have a proper
“frame of reference” [J. Barredo’s Dissent in
Tolentino v. COMELEC, G.R. No. L-34150
(1971)]. No “piecemeal submission” is allowed
e.g. submission of age amendment ahead of
other proposed amendments [Lambino v.
COMELEC, supra].

Note: The process of revision is the same in all

respects except that it cannot be proposed via
a People’s Initiative [See Lambino v.
COMELEC, supra].
Judicial Review of Amendments: The
validity of the process of amendment is not a
political question because the Court must
review if constitutional processes were
followed [See Lambino v. COMELEC, supra].

TWO STAGES OF
By Proposal Ratification
Amendments Congress By a vote Via
(as Constituent of . of all Plebiscite,
Assembly) its 60-90 days
members after
Constitutional Per submission of
Convention internal the
rules, amendments
limited by
the
Doctrine of
Proper
Submission
People’s Upon
Initiative COMELEC’s
certification
of the
sufficiency
of the
petition
Revision Congress By a vote Via
as Constituent of . of all Plebiscite,
Assembly its 60-90 days
members after
Constitutional Convention Per submission of revision
internal
rules,
limited by
the
Doctrine of
Proper
 46

Submission
AMENDATORY/REVISION PROCESS

b. International Law – 1

1. Sources of international law

Listing is found in Article 38 (1 (a) – (d)) of the
ICJ Statute:
Article 38 of the ICJ Statute
1. The Court, whose function is to decide in
accordance with international law such
disputes
as are submitted to it, shall apply:
a. international conventions, whether
general or particular, establishing
rules expressly recognized by the
contesting states;
b. international custom, as evidence of
a general practice accepted as law;
c. the general principles of law
recognized by civilized nations ;
d. subject to the provisions of Article
59, judicial decisions and the
teachings of the most highly qualified
publicists of the various nations, as
subsidiary means for the
determination of rules of law.

2. This provision shall not prejudice the

power of the Court to decide a case ex
aequo et bono, if the parties agree thereto.

Shorthand Terms for sources of

international law:
• 1(a) refers to CONVENTIONAL
INTERNATIONAL LAW
• 1(b) refers to CUSTOMARY
INTERNATIONAL LAW (hereinafter
referred to as CIL)
• 1(c) refers to GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF
LAW (hereinafter referred to as GPL)
• 1(d) refers to JUDICIAL DECISIONS and
TEACHINGS of the most highly qualified
Publicists

Types of Sources of International Law

1. Primary Sources
a. Conventional International Law
b. Customary International Law
c. General Principles of Law
2. Subsidiary Sources
a. Judicial Decisions
b. Teachings of the most highly
qualified publicists

2. Relationship with domestic law

How International Law Becomes part of

 47

Philippine Law
1. Doctrine of Incorporation: The
Philippines adopts the “generally accepted
principles of international law” (customary
international law) as part of the law of the
land [Sec. 2, Art. II, 1987 Constitution].
They are deemed as national law whether
or not they are enacted as statutory or
legislative rules [MAGALLONA].
By the doctrine of incorporation, the
country is bound by generally accepted
principles of international law, which are
considered to be automatically part of our
own laws. [Tañada v. Angara, G.R. No.
118295. May 2, 1997]

2. Doctrine of Transformation: Treaties or

international agreements shall become
valid and effective upon concurrence by at
least two-thirds of all the Members of the
Senate [Sec. 21, Art. VII, 1987
Constitution]. These rules of international
law are not part of municipal law unless
they are transformed via legislation
[MAGALLONA].

Special Case for the presence of certain

foreign troops in the Philippines [Sec. 25,
Art. XVIII, 1987 Constitution]
After the expiration in 1991 of the Agreement
between the Republic of the Philippines and
the United States of America concerning
Military Bases, foreign military bases, troops,
or facilities shall not be allowed in the
Philippines except under a treaty duly
concurred in by the Senate and, when the
Congress so requires, ratified by a majority of
the votes cast by the people in a national
referendum held for that purpose, and
recognized as a treaty by the other contracting
State.

Philippine Domestic Law in Public

International Law
General Rule: A State cannot invoke its own
national law to resist an international claim or
excuse itself from breach of duty under
international law [Art. 6, VCLT; Polish
Nationals in Danzig Case (PCIJ, 1932); Art. 32,

Articles on State Responsibility (hereinafter

“ASR”)].
A party may not invoke the provisions of its
internal law as justification for its failure to
perform a treaty. This rule is without prejudice
to article 46 [Art. 27, VCLT].
Exception: A State may invoke the fact that its
consent to be bound by a treaty has been
expressed in violation of a provision of its
 48

internal law regarding competence to conclude

treaties as invalidating its consent if that
violation was manifest and concerned a rule of
its internal law of fundamental importance [Art.
46, VCLT].

c. Labor law – 3

1. Basic principles

1987 Constitution
ART. II: Declaration of Principles and State
Policies
The State shall:
a. Promote full employment, a rising standard
of living, and an improved quality of life for
all [Sec. 9, Art. II]
b. Promote social justice [Sec. 10, Art. II]
c. Affirm labor as a primary social economic
force [Sec. 18, Art. II]
d. Protect rights of workers and promote their
welfare [Sec. 18, Art. II]
e. Recognize the indispensable role of the
private sector [Sec. 20, Art. II.]
f. Encourage private enterprise [Sec. 20, Art.
II.]
g. Provide incentives to needed investments
[Sec. 20, Art. II.]

SEC. 3, par. 1-2, ART. XIII: Social Justice

and Human Rights
The State shall:
a. Afford full protection to labor, local and
overseas, organized and unorganized
b. Promote full employment and equality of
employment opportunities for all.
c. Guarantee the rights (also known as the
“Cardinal Labor Rights”) of all workers to
1. Self-organization
2. Collective bargaining and negotiations
3. Peaceful concerted activities
4. Strike in accordance with law
5. Security of tenure,
6. Humane conditions of work
7. A living wage.
8. To participate in policy and decisionmaking
processes affecting their rights
and benefits as may be provided by
law.

Labor as Protected Class; Presumption of

Inherent Inequality
The presumption is that the employer and the
employee are on unequal footing, so the State
has the responsibility to protect the employee.
This presumption, however, must be taken on
a case-to-case basis. In situations where
special qualifications are required for
 49

employment, such as a Master's degree,

prospective employees are at a better position
to bargain with the employer. Employees with
special qualifications would be on equal footing
with their employers, and thus, would need a
lesser degree of protection from the State than
an ordinary rank-and-file worker. [Perfecto
Pascua v. Bank Wise Inc., G.R. No. 191460 &
191464 (2018)].

Balancing of Interests
While labor laws should be construed liberally
in favor of labor, we must be able to balance
this with the equally important right of the
[employer] to due process [Gagui v. Dejero,
G.R. No. 196036 (2013)]

Labor as Property Right

One’s employment is a property right, and the
wrongful interference therewith is an actionable
wrong. The right is considered to be property
within the protection of the constitutional
guarantee of due process of law. [Texon
Manufacturing v. Millena, G.R. No. 141380
(2004)]

Sec. 10, Art. II, 1987 Constitution: The State

shall promote social justice in all phases of
national development.
Social Justice as justification [Calalang v.
Williams, G.R. No. 47800 (1940)]
Social justice is neither communism, nor
despotism, nor atomism, nor anarchy BUT:
a. The humanization of laws; and
b. The equalization of social and economic
forces by the State.
So that justice in its rational and objectively
secular conception may at least be
approximated.

2. Existence of employer-employee relationship; test

a. Four-Fold Test
Elements of an EER
1. Selection and engagement of the
employee;
2. Payment of wages;
3. Power of dismissal; and
4. Employer’s power to control the
employee’s conduct with respect to the
means and methods by which the work is
to be accomplished [Brotherhood Labor
Unity Movement of the PH v. Zamora, G.R.
No. 48645, (1987)]

3. Termination of employment

1. Requisites for Validity

 50

a. Substantive due process

Substantive Due Process - whether the
termination was based on the provisions of the
Labor Code or in accordance with
jurisprudence.
The dismissal must be for any of the causes
provided for in Art. 297-299.
i. Just causes
a. Serious Misconduct or Willful
Disobedience (Insubordination)
b. Gross & Habitual Neglect of Duties
c. Fraud/Willful Breach of Trust
d. Commission of A Crime
e. Analogous cases

(a) Serious Misconduct or Willful

Disobedience
Requisites of Serious Misconduct
1. There must be misconduct
2. The misconduct is of such grave and
aggravated character
3. It must relate to the performance of the
employee’s duties
4. A showing that the employee becomes
unfit to continue working for the
employer. [Sec. 5.2(a), D.O. No. 147-15]
Misconduct refers to the improper or wrong
conduct that transgresses some established
and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a
dereliction of duty, willful in character, and
implies wrongful intent and not mere error in
judgment. [Northwest Airlines Inc v. Del
Rosario, GR No. 157633 (2014)]
Example: Accusatory and inflammatory
language used by an employee to the
employer or superior. [Nissan Motors Phils v.
Angelo, GR No. 164181 (2011)]

Requisites of Willful Disobedience

1. There must be disobedience or
insubordination;
2. The disobedience or insubordination must
be willful or intentional characterized by
a wrongful and perverse attitude;
3. The order violated must be reasonable,
lawful and made known to the employee
[Mirant Philippines Corp v. Sario, GR No.
197598 (2012)]; and
4. The order must pertain to the duties which
he has been engaged to discharge. [Sec.
5.2(b), D.O. No. 147-15]

ii. Authorized causes

Also known as “Business-related Causes”
The employer may also terminate the
employment of any employee due to:
a. The installation of labor-saving devices,
b. Redundancy,
c. Retrenchment to prevent losses or
 51

d. The closing or cessation of operation of the

establishment or undertaking not due to
serious loss [Art. 298]
Other causes
a. Disease incurable in 6 months [Art. 299]
b. Enforcement of union security clause in the
CBA
c. Dismissal of union officers for the conduct
of an illegal strike; Dismissal of union
members for participating in the
commission of illegal acts in a strike [Art.
279 (a)]
d. Termination in conformity with existing
statute/qualification requirements.
4. Requirements for valid labor-only contracting

Contracting or Subcontracting
Definition of Contracting/Subcontracting
Contracting or subcontracting refers to an
arrangement whereby a principal agrees to
farm out to a contractor the performance or
completion of a specific job or work –
a. Within a definite or predetermined period,
b. Regardless of whether such job or work is
to be performed or completed within or
outside the premises of the principal. [Sec.
3(c), D.O. No. 174-17]

a. Elements
To be considered legitimate contracting or
subcontracting, the following elements must
concur:
1. Distinct and independent business:
Contractor or subcontractor is engaged in
a distinct and independent business and
undertakes to perform the job on its own
responsibility, according to its own manner
and method;
2. Substantial capital or investment:
Contractor or subcontractor has substantial
capital to carry out the job farmed out by
the principal on his account, manner and
method, investment in the form of tools,
equipment, machinery and supervision;
3. Free from control/direction of the
principal: In performing the work,
contractor or subcontractor is free from the
control/direction of the principal in all
matters regarding performance of the work
except the result;
4. Compliance with labor laws: Service
Agreement ensures that employees of the
contractor/subcontractor are given all the benefits and rights they are entitled to
under labor laws. [Sec. 8, D.O. No. 174-17]
Substantial capital (#2)
Refers to paid-up capital stocks/shares of at
least P5,000,000 in the case of corporations,
partnerships and cooperatives; in case of
 52

single proprietorship, a net worth of at least

P5,000,000. [Sec. 3(l), D.O. No. 174-17]

Labor-only contracting
This is one of the violations that may be
committed by the principal and contractor,
which may make them solidarily liable. There
are two kinds:
1. Provided for by Article 206, Labor Code:
a. (i) The contractor does not have
substantial capital; or
(ii) the contractor does not have
investments in the form of tools,
equipment, machineries, supervision,
work premises, among others;
b. The contractor’s employees are
performing activities that are directly
related to the main business operation
of the principal.
2. The contractor does not exercise the right
to control the performance of the work of
the employee. [Sec. 5., D.O. No. 174-17]

5. Rights of employees and of labor organizations; membership in unions

Rights and Conditions of

Membership
Nature of Relationship
i. Member-Labor Union
The nature of the relationship between the
union and its members is fiduciary in nature,
which arises from the dependence of the
employee on the union, and from the
comprehensive power vested in the union with
respect to the individual. The union may be
considered but the agent of its members for the
purpose of securing for them fair and just
wages and good working conditions. [Heirs of
Cruz v. CIR, G.R. No. L-23331-32 (1969)]
Admission and Discipline of Members
No arbitrary or excessive initiation fees or fines.
No arbitrary or excessive initiation fees shall be
required of the members of a legitimate labor
organization nor shall arbitrary, excessive or oppressive fine and forfeiture be imposed. [Art.
250(e)]

Check off, Assessment, Agency

Fees
CHECK-OFF
A check-off is a process or device whereby the
employer, on agreement with the Union,
recognized as the proper bargaining
representative, or on prior authorization from
the employees, deducts union dues or agency
fees from the latter’s wages and remits them
directly to the Union. [Marino v. Gamilla, G.R.
No. 149763 (2009)]
 53

The system of check-off is primarily for the

benefit of the Union and, only indirectly, for the
benefit of the individual employees. [Marino v.
v Gamilla, G.R. No. 149763 (2009)]
Note: For a check-off to be valid, it must comply
with the requirements of a valid special
assessment.

ASSESSMENT
Special assessments are payments for a
special purpose, especially if required only for
a limited time. [Azucena]
No special assessment or other extraordinary
fees may be levied upon the members of a
labor organization
• unless authorized by a written resolution of
a majority of all the members at a general
membership meeting duly called for the
purpose. [Art. 250 (n)]

6. Management prerogative

Definition
“Management Prerogative” is the right of an
employer to regulate all aspects of
employment.
Courts often decline to interfere in legitimate
business decisions of employers. In fact, labor
laws discourage interference in employers’
judgment concerning the conduct of their
business.
Scope
Management prerogative gives employers the
freedom to regulate, according to their
discretion and best judgment, all aspects of
employment, including:
a. Work assignment
b. Working methods,
c. Processes to be followed,
d. Working regulations,
e. Transfer of employees,
f. Work supervision, lay-off of workers and
the discipline, dismissal and recall of
workers.

7. Illegal recruitment of overseas Filipino workers

SECTION 19. Penalty for Violation by

Recruitment/Manning Agency. —
Violation by a recruitment/manning agency
of the preceding section shall constitute an
offense punishable by revocation of its
license and all its officers and directors shall
be perpetually disqualified from engaging in
the business of recruitment/placement of
overseas workers. Such penalty is without
prejudice to any other liability which the
officers and directors may have incurred
 54

under existing laws, rules and regulations.

8. Remedies (labor standard violations)

Jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter

as distinguished from the
Regional Director

JURISDICTION OF THE LABOR ARBITER

Except as otherwise provided under the Code,
the Labor Arbiters shall have original and
exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide:
a. Unfair labor practices cases;
b. Termination disputes;
c. Cases that workers may file involving
wages, rates of pay, hours of work and
other terms and conditions of employment,
if accompanied with a claim for
reinstatement;
d. Claims for actual, moral, exemplary and
other forms of damages arising from the
employer-employee relations;
e. Cases arising from any violation of Art.
[279] of this Code, including questions
involving the legality of strikes and
lockouts;
f. Except claims for Employees
Compensation, Social Security, Medicare
[Philhealth] and maternity benefits, all other
claims, arising from employer-employee
relations, including those of persons in
domestic or household service, involving
an amount exceeding P5,000 regardless of
whether accompanied with a claim for
reinstatement. [Art. 224]
g. Money claims arising out of employeremployee
relationship or by virtue of any
law or contract, involving claims for actual,
moral, exemplary and other forms of
damages, as well as employment
termination of OFWs;

h. Wage distortion disputes in unorganized

establishments not voluntarily settled by
the parties. [Art. 124]
i. Enforcement of compromise agreements
when there is non-compliance by any of the
parties. [Art. 233]
j. Other cases as may be provided by law.
Requisites of LA’s jurisdiction over Money
Claims
1. Money claims arose from ER-EE relations;
Note: If not, regular courts have jurisdiction
2. Money claims arose from law or contracts
other than a CBA.
Note: If not, Voluntary Arbitrator has
Jurisdiction

LABOR ARBITER v. REGIONAL DIRECTOR

 55

[Art. 129]
A money claim arising from employeremployee
relations, except SSS,
ECC/Medicare [Philhealth] claims, is within the
jurisdiction of a Labor Arbiter if:
a. The claim, regardless of amount, is
accompanied with a claim of reinstatement;
or
b. The claim exceeds P5,000, whether or not
there is a claim for reinstatement.
The Regional Director has jurisdiction if:
a. Money claim arose out of employeremployee
relationships;
b. Money claim is NOT accompanied by a
claim for reinstatement; AND
c. Money claim does not exceed P5,000,
whether or not claim arose from ER-EE
relationships.

PROCEDURE BEFORE LABOR ARBITER

Where to File [Sec. 1, Rule IV, 2011 NLRC
Rules of Procedure]
All cases which Labor Arbiters have authority
to hear and decide may be filed in the Regional
Arbitration Branch (RAB) having jurisdiction
over the workplace of the complainant or
petitioner.
a. Workplace – place or locality where the
employee is regularly assigned at the time
the cause of action arose. It shall include
the place where the employee is supposed to report back after a temporary detail,
assignment, or travel.
b. In the case of field employees, ambulant or
itinerant workers, their workplace is (a)
where they are regularly assigned or (b)
where they are supposed to regularly
receive their salaries and wages or work
instructions from, and report the results of
their assignment to their employers.
NATURE OF THE PROCEEDING
Proceedings before the LA are non-litigious.
The Labor Arbiter is not bound by the technical
rules of procedure.
The Labor Arbiter shall use all reasonable
means to ascertain the facts in each speedily
and objectively. [Art. 227]

2. Requirements to perfect appeal to

National Labor Relations
Commission
Period of Appeal
Labor Arbiter to NLRC: Decisions, awards, or
orders of the [LA] shall be final and executory
unless appealed to the [NLRC] by any or both
parties within 10 calendar days from receipt
[thereof]. [Art. 229]
Note: If the last day of the reglementary period
falls on a Sunday or a holiday, the last day shall
 56

be the next working day.

Grounds of Appeal [Art. 229]

a. If there is prima facie evidence of abuse of
discretion on the part of the Labor Arbiter
or Regional Director;
b. If the decision, resolution or order was
secured through fraud or coercion,
including graft and corruption;
c. If made purely on questions of law; and/or
d. If serious errors in the findings of fact are
raised which, if not corrected, would cause
grave or irreparable injury to the appellant.
When Appeal is Perfected
Judgment involving a monetary award
An appeal by the employer may be perfected
only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond issued by a reputable bonding company duly
accredited by the Commission in the amount
equivalent to the monetary award in the
judgment appealed from. [Art. 229]
It is clear from the NLRC Rules of Procedure
that appeals must be verified and certified
against forum-shopping by the parties-ininterest
themselves. [Antonio B. Salenga, et al.
v. CA, G.R. No. 174941 (2012)]
Note: Decisions of the Labor Arbiter are
appealable to the NLRC. Decisions by the
NLRC are appealable to the CA via Rule 65.
[St. Martin’s Funeral Homes v. NLRC, 295
SCRA 494 (1998)]

Memorandum of Appeal
In all cases, the appellant shall furnish a copy
of the memorandum of appeal to the other
party who shall file an answer not later than ten
(10) calendar days from receipt thereof. [Art.
229]
3. Reinstatement and/or execution
pending appeal
Reinstatement Pending Appeal and Effect
of NLRC reversal of Labor Arbiter’s order of
reinstatement
In any event, the decision of the Labor Arbiter
reinstating a dismissed or separated
employee, insofar as the reinstatement aspect
is concerned, shall immediately be
executory, even pending appeal.

The employee shall either be:

a. Admitted back to work under the same
terms and conditions prevailing prior to his
dismissal or separation; or
b. Merely reinstated in the payroll, at the
option of the employer.
The posting of a bond by the employer shall not
stay the execution for reinstatement provided
herein. [Art. 229]
 57

Reversal of the order of reinstatement of

the Labor Arbiter
During the period of appeal until reversal by the
higher court, it is obligatory on the part of the
employer to:
1. Reinstate, and
2. Pay the wages of the dismissed employee.
If the employee has been reinstated during the
appeal period and such reinstatement order is
reversed with finality, the employee is NOT
required to reimburse whatever salary he
received. He is entitled to such especially if he
actually rendered services during the period.
[Garcia v. Philippine Airlines, Inc., G.R. No.
164856 (2009)]

Exclusive Appellate Jurisdiction: over all

cases decided by Labor Arbiters [Art. 224(b)]
and the DOLE Regional Directors under Art.
129.

2. Remedies
Appeal: Appeal from decisions of the NLRC
after denial of Motion for Reconsideration
appealed via Rule 65 to CA then Rule 45 to the
SC. [St. Martin’s Funeral Homes v. NLRC, 295
SCRA 494 (1998)]
Requisites for Perfection of Appeal to the
Court of Appeals [Rule VI, 2011 NLRC Rules
of Procedure]

1. The appeal shall be:

a. Filed within the reglementary period;
b. Verified by the appellant himself in
accordance with Sec. 4, Rule 7 of the
Rules of Court;
c. In the form of a memorandum of appeal
which shall state the grounds relied
upon and the arguments in support
thereof, the relief prayed for, and with a
statement of the date the appellant
received the appealed decision,
resolution or order;
d. In three (3) legibly typewritten or
printed copies; and
e. Accompanied by (a) proof of payment
of the required appeal fee; (b) posting
of a cash or surety bond as provided in
Sec. 6 of the NLRC Rules; and (c) proof
of service upon the other parties.

2. A mere notice of appeal without complying

with the other requisites aforestated shall
not stop the running of the period for
perfecting an appeal.
3. The appellee may file with the Regional
Arbitration Branch or Regional Office
where the appeal was filed, his answer or
reply to appellant’s memorandum of
 58

appeal, not later than 10 calendar days

from receipt thereof.
a. Failure on the part of the appellee who
was properly furnished with a copy of
the appeal to file his answer or reply
within the said period may be
construed as a waiver on his part to file
the same.
4. Subject to the provisions of Art. [225] of the
Labor Code, once the appeal is perfected
in accordance with these Rules, the
Commission shall limit itself to reviewing

and deciding only the specific issues that

were elevated on appeal.
EXTRAORDINARY REMEDY
Verified Petition: A party aggrieved by any
order or resolution of the Labor Arbiter,
including a writ of execution and others issued
during execution proceedings, may file a
verified petition to annul or modify the same.
The petition may be accompanied by an
application for the issuance of a temporary
restraining order and/or writ of preliminary or
permanent injunction:
a. To enjoin the Labor Arbiter, or any person
acting under his/her authority
b. To desist from enforcing said resolution,
order or writ. [Rule XII, Sec. 1, 2011 NLRC
Rules of Procedure, as amended by En
Banc Resolution No. 07-14]

d. Taxation – 3

1. Basic principles of taxation in the Constitution

Inherent and Constitutional Limitations on Taxation

1. Inherent Limitations
The following are the inherent limitations of
taxation:
a. Public Purpose
b. Inherently Legislative
c. Territorial
d. International Comity
e. Exemption of Government Entities,
Agencies, and Instrumentalities

2. Constitutional Limitations
The following are the constitutional limitations
of taxation:
1. Provisions directly affecting taxation:
1. Prohibition against imprisonment for
non-payment of poll tax;
2. Uniformity and equality of taxation;
3. Grant by Congress of authority to the
President to impose tariff rates;
4. Prohibition against taxation of religious,
 59

charitable entities, and educational

entities;
5. Prohibition against taxation of non-stock,
non-profit educational institutions;
6. Majority vote of Congress for grant of
tax exemption;
7. Prohibition on use of tax levied for
special purpose;
8. President’s veto power on appropriation,
revenue, tariff bills;
9. Non-impairment of jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court;
10. Grant of power to the local government
units to create its own sources of
revenue;
11. Flexible tariff clause;
12. Exemption from real property taxes;
and
13. No appropriation or use of public
money for religious purposes.

2. Provisions indirectly affecting taxation:

1. Due process
2. Equal protection;
3. Religious freedom;
4. Non-impairment of obligations of
contracts;
5. Freedom of speech and expression;
6. Presidential power to grant reprieves,
communications, and pardons, and
remit fines and forfeitures after
conviction by final judgement; and
7. No taking of private property for public
use without just compensation

a. Provisions directly affecting

Taxation
1. Prohibition against imprisonment for
non-payment of poll tax
No person shall be imprisoned for debt or
non-payment of a poll tax. [Sec. 20, Art. III,
1987 Constitution]
2. Uniformity and equality of taxation
The rule of taxation shall be uniform and
equitable. Congress shall evolve a
progressive system of taxation. [Sec.
28(1), Art. VI, 1987 Constitution]

Test of Valid Classification: Classification, to

be valid, must be reasonable and this
requirement is not deemed satisfied unless:
a. It is based upon substantial distinctions
which make real differences;
b. These are germane to the purpose of the
legislation or ordinance;
c. The classification applies not only to
present conditions but also to future
conditions substantially identical to those of
 60

the present; and

d. The classification applies equally to all
those who belong to the same class.
[Pepsi-Cola v. Butuan City, G.R. No. L-
22814 (1968)]

The progressive system of taxation would

place stress on direct rather than indirect taxes,
on non-essentiality rather than essentiality to
the taxpayer of the object of taxation, or on the
taxpayer’s ability to pay. Example is that
individual income tax system that imposes
rates progressing upwards as the tax base
(taxpayer’s taxable income) increases. A
progressive tax, however, must not be
confused with a progressive system of
taxation.
While equal protection refers more to like
treatment of persons in like circumstances,
uniformity and equity refer to the proper relative
treatment for tax purposes of persons in unlike
circumstances.

3. Grant by Congress of authority to the

President to impose tariff rates
Delegation of Tariff powers to the President
under the flexible tariff clause [Sec. 28(2), Art.
VI, 1987 Constitution], which authorizes the
President to modify import duties. [Sec. 1608,
Customs Modernization and Tariff Act]

4. Prohibition against taxation of religious,

charitable entities, and educational
entities
Sec. 28(3), Art. VI, 1987 Constitution:
a. Charitable institutions, churches and
personages or convents appurtenant
thereto, mosques, non-profit cemeteries,
and all lands, buildings, and improvements,
b. Actually, directly, and exclusively used for
religious, charitable, or educational
purposes shall be exempt from taxation.
c. The tax exemption under this constitutional
provision covers property taxes only and
not other taxes [Lladoc v. Commissioner,
G.R. No. L-19201 (1965)].
d. In general, special assessments are not
covered by the exemption because by
nature they are not classified as taxes.
[Apostolic Prefect v. City Treasurer of
Baguio, G.R. No. L-47252 (1941)]

5. Prohibition against taxation of nonstock,

non-profit educational
institutions

Sec. 4, Art. XIV, 1987 Constitution

All revenues and assets of non-stock, nonprofit
educational institutions used actually,
 61

directly, and exclusively for educational

purposes shall be exempt from taxes and
duties.
Proprietary educational institutions,
including those cooperatively owned, may
likewise be entitled to such exemptions
subject to the limitations provided by law,
including restrictions on dividends and
provisions for reinvestment.
Subject to conditions prescribed by law, all
grants, endowments, donations, or
contributions used actually, directly, and
exclusively for educational purposes shall be
exempt from tax.

This provision covers only non-stock, nonprofit

educational institutions.

The exemption covers income, property, and

donor’s taxes, custom duties, and other taxes
imposed by either or both the national
government or political subdivisions on all
revenues, assets, property or donations, used
actually, directly and exclusively for
educational purposes. (In the case of religious
and charitable entities and non-profit
cemeteries, the exemption is limited to property
tax.)
The exemption does not cover revenues
derived from, or assets used in, unrelated
activities or enterprise.

Revenues derived from assets used in the

operation of cafeterias, canteens, and
bookstores are also exempt if they are owned
and operated by the educational institution as
ancillary activities and the same are located
within the school premises [RMC No. 76-2003]

Similar tax exemptions may be extended to

proprietary (for profit) educational
institutions by law subject to such
limitations as it may provide, including
restrictions on dividends and provisions for
reinvestment. The restrictions are designed to
ensure that the tax-exemption benefits are
used for educational purposes.
Lands, buildings, and improvements
actually, directly and exclusively used for
educational purposes are exempt from
property tax [Sec. 28(3), Art. VI, 1987
Constitution], whether the educational
institution is proprietary or non-profit.

Sec 28 par Art VI Sec 4 par 3 Art XIV

Charitable Non-stock, non-profit
institutions, churches educational
and parsonages or institutions.
convents
 62

appurtenant thereto,
mosques, non-profit
cemeteries, and all
lands, buildings, and
improvements,
actually, directly, and
exclusively used for
religious, charitable,
or educational
purposes.
Property taxes Income, property,
and donor’s taxes
and custom duties.

6. Majority vote of Congress for grant of

tax exemption

Sec. 28, Art. VI, 1987 Constitution.

No law granting any tax exemption shall be
passed without the concurrence of a majority
of all the Members of the Congress.

Basis: The inherent power of the state to

impose taxes carries with it the power to grant
tax exemptions.
Exemptions may be created by:
a. The Constitution, or
b. Statutes, subject to constitutional
limitations
Vote required for the grant of exemption:
Absolute majority of the members of Congress
(at least . + 1 of ALL the members voting
SEPARATELY)
Vote required for withdrawal of such grant
of exemption: Relative majority is sufficient
(MAJORITY of the QUORUM).

8. President’s veto power on

appropriation, revenue, tariff bills

Sec. 27(2), Art. VI, 1987 Constitution.

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 times to which
he does not object.

9. Non-impairment of jurisdiction of the

Supreme Court
Sec. 2, Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution.
The Congress shall have the power to
define, prescribe, and apportion the
jurisdiction of the various courts but may not
deprive the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction
over cases enumerated in Section 5 hereof.

Sec. 5(2(b)), Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution.

The Supreme Court shall have the following
powers: xxx
 63

(2) Review, revise, modify or affirm on

appeal or certiorari, as the laws or the Rules
of Court may provide, final judgments and
orders of lower courts in xxx
(b) all cases involving the legality of any tax,
impost, assessment or toll or any penalty
imposed in relation thereto.

Sec. 30, Art. VI, 1987 Constitution.

No law shall be passed increasing the
appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
without its advice and concurrence.
Scope of Judicial Review in taxation: limited
only to the interpretation and application of tax
laws. Its power does not include inquiry into the
policy of legislation. Neither can it legitimately
question or refuse to sanction the provisions of
any law consistent with the Constitution. [Coll.
v. Bisaya Land Transportation, 105 Phil. 338
(1959)].

10. Grant of power to the local government

units to create its own sources of
revenue
LGUs have power to create its own sources of
revenue and to levy taxes, fees and charges,
subject to such guidelines and limitations as
the Congress may provide which must be
consistent with the basic policy of local
autonomy. [Sec. 5, Art. X, 1987 Constitution]

11. Flexible tariff clause

Delegation of tariff powers to the President
under the flexible tariff clause [Sec. 28(2), Art.
VI, 1987 Constitution]
Flexible tariff clause: the authority given to the
President, upon the recommendation of NEDA,
to adjust the tariff rates under Sec. 1608 of the
CMTA in the interest of national economy,
general welfare and/or national security.

12. Exemption from real property taxes

Sec. 28(3), Art. VI, 1987 Constitution.
Charitable institutions, churches and
personages or convents appurtenant
thereto, mosques, non-profit cemeteries,
and all lands, buildings, and improvements,
actually, directly, and exclusively used for
religious, charitable, or educational purposes
shall be exempt from taxation.

13. No appropriation or use of public

money for religious purposes
Sec. 29, Art. VI, 1987 Constitution
No public money or property shall be
appropriated, applied, paid, or employed,
directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or
support of any sect, church, denomination,
sectarian institution, or system of religion, or
 64

of any priest, preacher, minister, other

religious teacher, or dignitary as such,
except when such priest, preacher, minister,
or dignitary is assigned to the armed forces,
or to any penal institution, or government
orphanage or leprosarium.

b. Provisions Indirectly Affecting

Taxation
1. Due process
Sec. 1, Art. III, 1987 Constitution.
No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or
property without due process of law, nor shall
any person be denied the equal protection of
the laws.

2. Equal protection
Sec. 1, Art. III, 1987 Constitution.
No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or
property without due process of law, nor shall
any person be denied the equal protection of
the laws.

3. Religious freedom
Sec. 5, Art. III, 1987 Constitution.
No law shall be made respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof. (Non-establishment
clause)
The free exercise and enjoyment of religious
profession and worship, without
discrimination or preference, shall forever be
allowed. (Free exercise clause)
No religious test shall be required for the
exercise of civil and political rights.

4. Non-impairment of obligations of
contracts
Sec. 10, Art. III, 1987 Constitution.
No law impairing the obligation of contracts
shall be passed.

2. Income Tax

Taxable income – means the pertinent items

of gross income specified in the Tax Code, less
the deductions and/or personal and additional
exemptions, if any, authorized for such types of
income by the Tax Code or other special laws
[Sec. 31, NIRC ]. It is synonymous to the term
“net income.” [VALENCIA and ROXAS]

Gross income – The total income of a

taxpayer subject to tax. It includes the gains,
profits, and income derived from whatever
source, whether legal or illegal. [Sec. 32(A),
NIRC] It does not include income excluded by
law, or which are exempt from income tax.
 65

[Sec. 32(B), NIRC]

Gross Income [Sec. 32(A)]

Gross Income means all income derived from
whatever source, including (but not limited to)
the following items:
• Compensation for services in whatever
form paid, including, but not limited to fees,
salaries, wages, commissions, and similar
items;
• Gross income derived from the conduct of
trade or business or the exercise of a
profession;
• Gains derived from dealings in property;
interests; rents; royalties; dividends;
annuities; prizes and winnings; pensions;
and partner's distributive share from the net
income of the general professional
partnership.

Exclusions Under the Tax Code

[Sec. 32(b), NIRC]
(a) Proceeds of life insurance
Policies
(b) Return of premium paid
(c) Amounts received under life
insurance, endowment or
annuity contracts
(d) Value of property acquired by
gift, bequest, devise or descent
(e) Amount received through
accident or health insurance
(Compensation for damages)
(f) Income exempt under tax treaty
(g) Retirement benefits, pensions,
gratuities, etc.
h. Winnings, prizes and award, including
those in sports competitions

Retirement benefits received under RA

7641(The Retirement Pay Law) and those
received by officials and employees of private
firms under a reasonable private benefit plan
(RPBP) maintained by the employer under RA
4917 (now Section 32(B)(6)(a) of NIRC) are
excluded from gross income subject to income
tax.
RA 7641 RPBP
Retiring employee Retiring official or
must be in the employee must have
service of same been in the service of
employer the same employer
CONTINUOUSLY for for at least ten (10)
at least five (5) years years.
Retiring employee Retiring official or
must be at least sixty employee must be at
(60) years old but not least fifty (50) years
more than 65 years old at the time of
 66

of age at the time of retirement

retirement
Availed of only once, Retiring employee
and only when there shall not have
is no RPBP previously availed of
the privilege under a
retirement benefit
plan of the same or
another employer
Plan must be
reasonable. Its
implementation must
be fair and equitable
for the benefit of all
employees (e.g. from
president to laborer)
Plan must be
approved by BIR

Taxation of Passive Income

Passive Income Subject to Final Tax
“Final tax” means tax withheld from source,
and the amount received by the income earner
is net of the tax already. The income having
been tax-paid already, it need not be included
in the gross income in the yearly submission of
ITR.

Interest income
• on any currency bank deposit, yield or any
other monetary benefit from deposit
substitutes, trust funds and similar
arrangements - 20% final tax
• under the expanded foreign currency
deposit system (EFCDS) - 15% final tax
for residents, exempt if non-residents

Treatment of income from long-term

deposits
On long-term deposit or investment certificates
(LTDIC) in banks (e.g., savings, common or
individual trust funds, deposit substitutes,
investment management accounts and other
investments, which have maturity of 5 years or
more) – exempt
Should LTDIC holder pre-terminate LTDIC
before the 5th year, a final tax shall be imposed
on the entire income based on the remaining
maturity:

4 years to less than 5 5%

years
3 years to less than 4 12%
years
less than 3 years 20%

Any income of nonresidents, whether

individuals or corporations, from transactions
 67

with depository banks under the expanded

system shall be exempt from income tax.
For interest from foreign currency loans
granted by FCDUs to residents other than
Offshore Banking Units (OBUs) or other
depository banks under the expanded system
– tax rate is 10% if payors are RESIDENTS,
whether individuals or corporations.
Royalties
(See summary table, infra)

Dividends from domestic corporation

a. cash and/or property dividends actually or
constructively received by an individual
from
b. a domestic corporation
c. a joint stock company
d. insurance or mutual fund companies
e. regional operating headquarters of
multinational companies
f. share of an individual in the distributable
net income after tax of a partnership
(except a general professional
partnership) of which he is a partner
g. share of an individual member or coventurer
in the net income after tax of an
association, a joint account, or a joint
venture or consortium taxable as a
corporation

Rate:
a. 10% for residents (RC, RA) and nonresident
citizens (NRC);
b. 20% for non-resident aliens engaged in
trade or business (NRAETB)

However, if a corporation cancels or redeems

stock issued as a dividend at such time and in
such manner as to make the distribution and
cancellation or redemption, in whole or in part,
essentially equivalent to the distribution of a
taxable dividend, the amount so distributed in
redemption or cancellation of the stock shall be
considered as taxable income to the extent that
it represents a distribution of earnings or
profits. [Sec. 73 (B), NIRC]
In other words, stock dividends are generally
not subject to tax as long as there are no
options in lieu of the shares of stock.
On the other hand, a stock dividend constitutes
income if it gives the shareholder an interest
different from that which his former
stockholdings represented.

Prizes and other winnings

Prizes and other winnings - 20%, except
a. Prizes amounting to P10,000 or less, which
shall be subjected to the graduated rates
under Subsection A of Section 24; and
 68

b. Philippine Charity sweepstakes / lotto

winnings which does not exceed P10,000 -
exempt ;
c. Prizes excluded from gross income.
Prize, differentiated from winnings:
A prize is the result of an effort made (e.g.,
prize in a beauty contest), while winnings are
the result of a transaction where the outcome
depends upon chance (e.g., betting).
Taxation of Capital Gains

(c) Income from the sale, exchange,

or other disposition of other
capital assets
Other properties shall be subject to income
tax
a. At the graduated income tax rates, if the
seller is an individual
b. Long-term capital gains: only 50% is
recognized.
c. Short-term capital asset transactions:
100% subject to tax [Sec. 39(B), NIRC].

Determination of whether short- or longterm:

Short-term if held for 12 months or less;
otherwise, it is a long-term capital gain.
At 30% corporate income tax, if the seller is a
corporation.
Rule: Capital gain/loss is recognized in full.
Capital assets shall refer to all real properties
held by a taxpayer, whether or not connected
with his trade or business, and which are not
included among the real properties considered
as ordinary assets under Section 39(A)(1).

Ordinary assets shall refer to all real

properties specifically excluded from the
definition of capital assets under Section
39(A)(1), NIRC, namely:
a. Stock in trade of a taxpayer or other real
property of a kind which would properly be
included in the inventory of the taxpayer if
on hand at the close of the taxable year; or
b. Real property held by the taxpayer
primarily for sale to customers in the
ordinary course of his trade or business; or
c. Real property used in trade or business
(i.e., buildings and/or improvements) of a
character which is subject to the allowance
for depreciation provided for under Sec.
34(F) of the Code; or
d. Real property used in trade or business of
the taxpayer

Classification Taxable income Tax rate Tax base

Resident Citizen Income from 0%-35% Net Income
sources within and
outside the
Philippines
 69

Non-Resident Income from 0%-35% Net Income

sources within the
Citizen Philippines
Resident Alien Income from 0%-35% Net Income
sources within the
Philippines
Non-resident alien Income from 0%-35% Net Income
sources within the
engaged in trade or Philippines
business
Non-resident alien Income from 25% Gross income
sources within the
not engaged in trade Philippines
or business

3. Value-added Tax

Composition of Value-Added
Tax
a. On sale of goods or properties
Transactions:
! Every sale, barter or exchange (actual sale
and in the course of trade or business)
! Transactions “deemed sale” of taxable
goods or properties [Sec. 4.106-1, RR 16-
2005]
Rate: 12% VAT [Sec. 106, NIRC]
Who Pays: Seller/Transferor[Sec. 106(A),
NIRC]

Zero-rated and Effectively

Zero-rated sales of goods or
properties, and services
Rate: 0% VAT
Concept: A zero-rated sale of goods,
properties, or services by a VAT-registered
person is a taxable transaction for VAT
purposes but shall not result in any output
tax. However, the input tax on purchases of
goods, properties or services, related to such
zero-rated sale, shall be available as tax credit
or refund.

The following transactions are subject to VAT

at 0%
a. Export sales
b. Sales of goods or property to persons
or entities who are tax-exempt
(Effectively Zero-Rated Sales)
c. Zero-rated sale of services

Effectively Zero-Rated Sales [Sec.

106(A)(2)(b), NIRC]
This refers to (i) the local sale of goods and
properties (ii) by a VAT-registered person (iii)
to a person or entity who was granted direct
and indirect tax exemption under special laws
or international agreement (e.g., PEZA, Asian
 70

Development Bank, International Rice

Research Institute). [MAMALATEO; RR 4-
2007]
ECOZONES
Ecozones shall be managed and operated by
PEZA as a separate customs territory [Sec. 8,
RA 7916 or the “Special Economic Zone Act of
1995”].

Value-added Tax-exempt
Transactions
Section 109. Exempt Transactions. - The following shall be exempt from the value-added tax:

(a) Sale of nonfood agricultural products; marine and forest products in their original state by the primary
producer or the owner of the land where the same are produced;

(b) Sale of cotton seeds in their original state; and copra;

(c) Sale or importation of agricultural and marine food products in their original state, livestock and
poultry of or king generally used as, or yielding or producing foods for human consumption; and breeding
stock and genetic materials therefor.

Products classified under this paragraph and paragraph (a) shall be considered in their original state
even if they have undergone the simple processes of preparation or preservation for the market, such as
freezing, drying, salting, broiling, roasting, smoking or stripping.

Polished and/or husked rice, corn grits, raw cane sugar and molasses, and ordinary salt shall be
considered in their original state;

VAT ON LEASED PROPERTIES

Leased of residential units where the monthly rental per unit exceeds PhP12,800.00 but the aggregate of such
rentals of the lessor during the year do not exceed 1,919,500 shall likewise be exempt from VAT, however, the
same shall be subjected to 3% percentage tax

Note that lease of a residential unit with a monthly rental not exceeding 10k is exempted for VAT Sec. 109 (Q)
NIRC

REFUND OF VALUE ADDED TAX

Only VAT-Registered taxpayers are entitled to a refund of their unapplied/unused VAT (Sec 112 (A) NIRC

For refund of VAT, invoices and receipts must be presented as evidence. A mere Summary done by a certified
public accountant will not suffice.

VAT ON IMPORTATION OF GOODS

SEC 107. VAT on importation of goods

(A) In General – There shall be levied, assessed and collected on every importation of goods a VAT equivalent
to 10% based on the total value used by the Bureau of Customs in determining tariff and customs duties plus
customs duties, excise taxes, if any, and other charges, such tax to be paid by the importer prior to the release
of such goods from customs custody.
 71

Provided, that where the customs duties are determined on the basis of the quantity or volume of the goods, the
VAT shall be based on the landed cost-plus excise taxes, if any.

Importation of motor Vehicle from abroad stored, used and traded within an exempted zone such as the Subic
Naval Basse (SBMA) may enjoy exemption from custom duties and VAT provided they are registered with
SMBA (RA 7096)

VAT – Imposition

Section 105. Persons Liable. - Any person who, in the course of trade or business, sells barters, exchanges,
leases goods or properties, renders services, and any person who imports goods shall be subject to the value-
added tax (VAT) imposed in Sections 106 to 108 of this Code.

The value-added tax is an indirect tax and the amount of tax may be shifted or passed on to the buyer,
transferee or lessee of the goods, properties or services. This rule shall likewise apply to existing contracts of
sale or lease of goods, properties or services at the time of the effectivity of Republic Act No. 7716.

The phrase 'in the course of trade or business' means the regular conduct or pursuit of a commercial or an
economic activity, including transactions incidental thereto, by any person regardless of whether or not the
person engaged therein is a nonstock, nonprofit private organization (irrespective of the disposition of its net
income and whether or not it sells exclusively to members or their guests), or government entity.

The rule of regularity, to the contrary notwithstanding, services as defined in this Code rendered in the
Philippines by nonresident foreign persons shall be considered as being course of trade or business.

4. Donor’s Tax

Section 85. Gross Estate. - the value of the gross estate of the decedent shall be determined by including the
value at the time of his death of all property, real or personal, tangible or intangible, wherever situated: Provided,
however, that in the case of a nonresident decedent who at the time of his death was not a citizen of the
Philippines, only that part of the entire gross estate which is situated in the Philippines shall be included in his
taxable estate.

(B) Transfer in Contemplation of Death. - To the extent of any interest therein of which the decedent has
at any time made a transfer, by trust or otherwise, in contemplation of or intended to take effect in
possession or enjoyment at or after death, or of which he has at any time made a transfer, by trust or
otherwise, under which he has retained for his life or for any period which does not in fact end before his
death (1) the possession or enjoyment of, or the right to the income from the property, or (2) the right,
either alone or in conjunction with any person, to designate the person who shall possess or enjoy the
property or the income therefrom; except in case of a bonafide sale for an adequate and full
consideration in money or money's worth.

(E) Proceeds of Life Insurance. - To the extent of the amount receivable by the estate of the deceased,
his executor, or administrator, as insurance under policies taken out by the decedent upon his own life,
irrespective of whether or not the insured retained the power of revocation, or to the extent of the amount
receivable by any beneficiary designated in the policy of insurance, except when it is expressly stipulated
that the designation of the beneficiary is irrevocable.

Section 87. Exemption of Certain Acquisitions and Transmissions. - The following shall not be taxed:

(A) The merger of usufruct in the owner of the naked title;

(B) The transmission or delivery of the inheritance or legacy by the fiduciary heir or legatee to the
fideicommissary;
 72

(C) The transmission from the first heir, legatee or donee in favor of another beneficiary, in accordance
with the desire of the predecessor; and

(D) All bequests, devises, legacies or transfers to social welfare, cultural and charitable institutions, no
part of the net income of which insures to the benefit of any individual: Provided, however, That not more
than thirty percent (30%) of the said bequests, devises, legacies or transfers shall be used by such
institutions for administration purposes.

Section 86. Computation of Net Estate. - For the purpose of the tax imposed in this Chapter, the value of the net
estate shall be determined:

(A) Deductions Allowed to the Estate of Citizen or a Resident. - In the case of a citizen or resident of the
Philippines, by deducting from the value of the gross estate -

(1) Expenses, Losses, Indebtedness, and taxes. - Such amounts -

(a) For actual funeral expenses or in an amount equal to five percent (5%) of the gross
estate, whichever is lower, but in no case to exceed Two hundred thousand pesos
(P200,000);

VANISHING DEDUCTIONS

Property previously taxed otherwise known as “Vanishing deductions” is availed of (allowable

deductions from gross estate) in order to get a lesser net taxable gross estate. (Sec 86 (A)(2) and
Sec. 86 (B)(2) NIRC) Vanishing deductions shall be allowed only where a donor’s tax or estate tax
imposed was finally determined and paid by or on behalf of such donor.

Family Home [Sec. 86(A)(7),

NIRC; Sec. 6(7), RR 12-2018]
Family home – The dwelling house, including
the land on which it is situated, where the
husband and wife, or a head of the family, and
members of their family reside, as certified to
by the Barangay Captain of the locality. It is
deemed constituted on the house and lot from
the time it is actually occupied as the family
residence and considered as such for as long
as any of its beneficiaries actually resides
therein.
Temporary absence from the constituted family
home due to travel or studies or work abroad,
etc. does not interrupt actual occupancy. The
family home is generally characterized by
permanency, that is, the place to which one still
intends to return.

It must be part of the ACP/CPG/exclusive

property of the decedent. It may also be
constituted by an unmarried head of a family on
his or her own property.

For purposes of availing this deduction, a

person may constitute only one family home.
[Sec. 6(7.1), RR 12-2018 citing Arts. 152, 153,
156 and 161, Family Code]

Requisites for Deductibility [Sec. 6(7.2), RR

 73

12-2018]
1. The decedent was married (or if single, was
the head of the family).
2. Along with the decedent, any of the
beneficiaries must be dwelling in the family
home.
3. The family home as well as the land on
which it stands must be owned by the
decedent.
4. The family home must be the actual
residential home of the decedent and his
family at the time of his death, as certified
by the Barangay Captain of the locality
where the same is situated.
5. The total value of the family home must be
included as part of the gross estate.
6. Allowable deduction must be in an amount
equivalent to whichever is lowest of:
a. the current FMV of the family home as
declared or included in the gross
estate, or
b. the extent of the decedent’s interest
(whether conjugal/community or
exclusive property), or
c. P10,000,000. [AMPONGAN, 2017 and
TABAG, 2019]

NOT SUBJECT TO DONOR’S TAX

1. Contributions to a candidate or political
party for campaign purposes duly reported
to COMELEC [Sec. 99 (B), NIRC]
Donation to a Political Candidate
Prior to R.A. 7166, a donation for a political
candidate was subject to donor’s tax.
[ACCRA v CIR, G.R. No. 120721 (2005)]

Under R.A. 7166, contributions duly

reported to the BIR are not subject to
donor’s tax, as long as it is utilized in his
campaign. Unutilized/excess campaign
funds, that is, campaign contributions net
of the candidate’s campaign expenditures,
shall be considered as subject to income
tax and must be included in the candidate’s taxable income as stated in his/her ITR
[Sec. 2, RR 7-2011]
2. Gift to Parish Priest or Church (applies only
to real property tax)
3. Onerous donations or donations in
exchange for goods/services (they are
subject to income tax)
SUBJECT TO DONOR’S TAX
Gratuitous Donations to Homeowners’
Association

Section 101. Exemption of Certain Gifts. - The following gifts or donations shall be exempt from the tax provided
for in this Chapter:
 74

(A) In the Case of Gifts Made by a Resident. -

(1) Dowries or gifts made on account of marriage and before its celebration or within one year
thereafter by parents to each of their legitimate, recognized natural, or adopted children to the
extent of the first Ten thousand pesos (P10,000):

DONATIONS TO NON-STOCK NON PROFIT ENTITIES (SEC 101(A)(3), NIRC)

In order that donations and contributions to non-stock non profit educational institutions may be
exempt from donor’s tax, the following must be complied:

1) Not more than 30% of said gifts shall be used by such done for administration purposes.
2) The educational institution is incorporated as a non-stock entity, paying no dividends, governed
by trustees who receive no compensation, and devoting all income, whether student’s fees or
gifts, donations, subsidies or other forms of philanthropy, to the accomplishment and promotion of
the purposes enumerated in it’s articles of incorporation.

The fair market value/zonal value of the lot donated may not be claimed in full by the donor if a
donation is made by him to a qualified done institutions. The deduction shall be based on the
acquisition cost of the property (Sec 34 (H) (3).

Section 104. Definitions. - For purposes of this Title, the terms 'gross estate' and 'gifts' include real and personal
property, whether tangible or intangible, or mixed, wherever situated: Provided, however, That where the
decedent or donor was a nonresident alien at the time of his death or donation, as the case may be, his
real and personal property so transferred but which are situated outside the Philippines shall not be
included as part of his 'gross estate' or 'gross gift':

NOT SUBJECT TO DONOR’S TAX

1. Contributions to a candidate or political
party for campaign purposes duly reported
to COMELEC [Sec. 99 (B), NIRC]
Donation to a Political Candidate
Prior to R.A. 7166, a donation for a political
candidate was subject to donor’s tax.

[ACCRA v CIR, G.R. No. 120721 (2005)]

Under R.A. 7166, contributions duly

reported to the BIR are not subject to
donor’s tax, as long as it is utilized in his
campaign. Unutilized/excess campaign
funds, that is, campaign contributions net
of the candidate’s campaign expenditures,
shall be considered as subject to income

tax and must be included in the candidate’s

taxable income as stated in his/her ITR

[Sec. 2, RR 7-2011]
2. Gift to Parish Priest or Church (applies only
to real property tax)
 75

3. Onerous donations or donations in

exchange for goods/services (they are

subject to income tax)

Sec 99 (B) Tax Payable by Donor if Donee is a Stranger. - When the donee or beneficiary is stranger,
the tax payable by the donor shall be thirty percent (30%) of the net gifts. For the purpose of this tax, a
'stranger,' is a person who is not a:

(1) Brother, sister (whether by whole or half-blood), spouse, ancestor and lineal descendant; or

(2) Relative by consanguinity in the collateral line within the fourth degree of relationship.

Section 100. Transfer for Less Than Adequate and full Consideration. - Where property, other than real property
referred to in Section 24(D), is transferred for less than an adequate and full consideration in money or money's
worth, then the amount by which the fair market value of the property exceeded the value of the consideration
shall, for the purpose of the tax imposed by this Chapter, be deemed a gift, and shall be included in computing
the amount of gifts made during the calendar year.

WHEN COMPULSORY HEIR RENOUNCES SHARE IN INHERITANCE IN FAVOR OF OTHER CO-HEIRS

(TAX IMPLICATIONS)

When a compulsory heir renounces his share in favor of other co-heir his share passes to other co-heirs
by inheritance. Such renunciation is not subject to donor’s tax as he did not donate said inheritance as
the property never became actually his.

Renunciation of a spouse of his/her share in the conjugal estate will however be subject to donor’s
taxes.

INTERVIVOS DONATIONS MADE IN COMTEMPLATION OF DEATH

Gifts given by a donor who is suffering from an incurable disease but makes a will and simultane

5. Remedies (jurisdiction of courts, prescription, remedies against assessment

notices)