V.

01.

PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

What is Public International La !

ANSWER: Public International law is that branch of public law consisting of a body of legal principles, norms and processes which regulates the relations of States and other international persons and go erns their conduct affecting the interest of the international community as a whole! It is used interchangeably with "law of nations#!
0". #istin$uish International la %ro& 'unici(al la

ANSWER: $! %IL is not imposed but adopted by states as a common rule of action among themsel es! %'L is issued by a political superior for obser ance by those under its authority& '! %IL is deri ed from such sources as international customs, con entions or general principles of law! %'L consists mainly of enactments from law%ma(ing authority of the state& )! %IL applies to relations inter se of states and other international persons! %'L regulates the relations of indi iduals among themsel es or with their own state& *! %in IL they are resol ed through state%to%state transactions! %+iolations of 'L are redressed through local administrati e and ,udicial processes& -! %in IL there is collecti e responsibility because it attaches directly to the state and not to its nationals! %.reaches of 'L entail only indi idual responsibility& Conce(ts
0). What is a Jus Cogens nor&!

ANSWER: A Jus Cogens norm is a peremptory norm of general international law accepted and recogni/ed by the international community of States as a whole as a norm from which no derogation is permitted and which can be modified only by a subse0uent norm of general international law of the same character! It is by its nature binding on e ery State! 1he following are norms considered jus cogens in character: $2 3aws on genocide '2 Principle of non%racial discrimination )2 Principle of self 4 determination *2 3aws penali/ing crimes against humanity -2 prohibition against sla ery, sla e trade 52 3aws penali/ing piracy!
0*. What is obli$ation er$a o&nes!

Erga Omnes is an obligation of e ery State towards the international community as a whole! All states ha e a legal interest in its compliance, and thus all States are entitled to in o(e responsibility for breach of such an obligation! .y the nature of jus cogens norms they embody erga omnes obligations! E en as all erga omnes obligations may not be in the nature of jus cogens norms, jus cogens norms necessarily embody erga omnes obligations! E6amples of erga omnes obligations are outlawing of acts of aggression, and of genocide, as also from the principles and rules concerning the basic rights of the human person, including protection from sla ery and racial discrimination!
0+. What is the conce(t o% Aeguo Et Bono?

ANSWER: 1his for the application of the principle of what is good and ,ust also (nown as the rule on e0uity! It is sub,ect to the re0uirement that parties to the dispute ha e to agree thereto as pro ided in Article )7 8$2 of the Statute of the international 9ourt of :ustice!
0,. What is the -u(re&ac. Clause un/er Article 10) o% the UN Charter!

ANSWER: 1he Supremacy 9lause under Article $;) of the <N 9harter pro ides that in the e ent of a conflict between the obligations of the =embers of the <N under the present <N 9harter and their obligations under any other international agreements, their obligation under the present 9harter shall pre ail! 010

PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

/P 02

E6amples of obligations of =embers of the <N under the present <N 9harter are: so ereign e0uality of States, the duty to settle international disputes in a peaceful manner, prohibition against the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, duty to fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present 9harter, uni ersal respect for, and obser ation of, human rights and fundamental freedoms without distinction as to race, se6, language or religion!
01. #istin$uish 2har/ la 3 %ro& 2so%t la 3.

ANSWER: ">ard law# is used to designate a norm or rule of conduct accepted and recogni/ed by the international community of states as a whole, as a source of law binding on them! It produces obligations which when breached gi es rise to international responsibility and, conse0uently, to reparation! "Soft law# has no binding force and pertains to a statement or declaration of principles with moral force on the conduct of states but no normati e character and without intent to create enforceable obligations! "Soft law# is an e6pression of non% binding norms, principles and practices that influences state beha ior! It does not fall into any of the categories of international law set forth in Article )7, 9hapter III of the $?*5 Statute of the International 9ourt of :ustice! 9ertain declarations and resolutions of the <N @eneral Assembly fall under this category! =ost notable is the <N Aeclaration of >uman Rights which the Supreme 9ourt enforced in arious cases! It is resorted to in order to reflect and respond to the changing needs and demands of constituents of certain international organi/ations li(e the World >ealth Brgani/ation! (Pharmaceutica an! "ea th care Association o# the Phi i$$ines %s& 'u(ue III) *+* ,CRA -.*/
04. Is the Worl/ 5ealth Asse&bl. 6W5A7 Resolutions8 absolutel. (rohibitin$ a/9ertise&ents an/ (ro&otions o% breast &il: substitutes consi/ere/ as (art o% the la o% the lan/!

ANSWER: NB! <nli(e what has been done with the International 9ode of =ar(eting of .reastmil( Substitutes 8I9=.S2 whereby the legislature enacted most of the pro isions into law which is the =il( 9ode, the subse0uent W>A Resolutions ha e not been adopted and cannot be considered as part of the law of the land that can be implemented by e6ecuti e agencies without the need of a law enacted by the legislature! 9onse0uently, legislation is necessary to transform the pro isions of the W>A Resolutions into domestic law! (I0i!&/
0;. What is custo&ar. international la !

ANSWER: 9ustom or customary international law means Ca general and consistent practice of states followed by them from a sense of legal obligation (o$inion juris/)C which statement contains the two basic elements of custom: the material factor, that is, how states beha e, and, the psychological or sub,ecti e factor, that is, why they beha e the way they do! 9ustomary international law is deemed incorporated in our domestic system! (I0i!&/
10. What /o .ou un/erstan/ b. the (hrase <$enerall. acce(te/ (rinci(les o% international la <!

ANSWER: C@enerally accepted principles of international lawC refers to the norms of general or customary international law which are binding on all states, i!e!, renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy, the principle of so ereign immunity, a personDs right to life, liberty and due process, and $acta sunt ser%an!a) among others! 1hey are primary sources of international law because they ha e the "character of ,us rationale# and "are alid through all (inds of human societies(I0i!&/ -ources o% International La
11. What are the sources o% international la !

Answer: $! Primary Sources %1hey are %or&al sources because they are the methods by which norms of international law are created and recogni/ed!

PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW a!

/P 03

'!

International Treaties and Conventions8 whether general or particular, establishing rules e6pressly recogni/ed by the contesting state! 1hey are sources of international law only when they ha e been concluded by numerous states for the purpose of confirming, establishing or abolishing a rule of international law! E6ample: +ienna 9on ention on the 3aw of 1reaties! E1reaties may be considered as direct source of international law when concluded by a si/eable number of states, and is reflecti e of the will of the family of nations! E.ilateral treaties are sources of particular international law but may become primary sources when different contract treaties are of the same nature, containing practically uniform pro isions, and are concluded by substantial number of States! b! International Customs8 as e idence of a general practice accepted as law! It is a set of practices which has grown up between states and has come to be accepted as binding by mere fact of persistent usage o er a long period of time! 1hey preclude rules which are binding only on a few or a small number of States! E6amples: prohibition against sla ery and the prohibition against torture EElements of International 9ustoms: $2 @eneral practice by a number of states, characteri/ed by uniformity and consistency '2 Bpinio ,uris, or recognition of that practice as a legal norm and therefore obligatory! )2 Auration% repeated o er a considerable period of time c! General Principles of a! % these are rules deri ed mainly from natural law, which are obser ed by the ma,ority of ci ili/ed states because they are belie ed to be good and ,ust! E6amples: due process, res ,udicata, prescription, estoppel, pacta sunt ser anda Secondary Sources 4 they are subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law! 1hey are to be regarded merely as authoritati e e idence of the state of law! a! "ecisions of International Tri#unals, and b! Teac$ings and !ritings of $ig$l% &ualified pu#licists Re0uisites: $2 writings must be fair and impartial, and '2 must be an ac(nowledged authority in the field! 1he application of ,udicial decisions and teachings of publicists by the International 9ourt of :ustice is sub,ect to two limitations: $2 it is restricted to the parties to the dispute and is not e6tended to any other case, including a case in ol ing the same parties, and '2 these decisions may also be applied as "subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law,# which is 0uite distinct from the status of sources of law! 1hey ser e to e idence or ascertain the e6istence or status of a principle as law!
Are resolutions an/ /eclarations o% the UN =eneral Asse&bl. a source o% international la !

1".

ANSWER: FES! 1he emerging iew is that resolutions and declarations of the @eneral Assembly ha e obligatory effect upon member States and are thus considered a source of international law!! 1his thesis finds support in Article )8$; of the <N 9harter empowering the @eneral Assembly, inter alia, to initiate studies and ma(e recommendations for the purpose of encouraging the progressi e de elopment of international law or its codification! 1hus, if a resolution or declaration of the @eneral Assembly is accepted by the ma,ority of the <N members, then the resolution or declaration de elops into a customary law which under Article )7 of the Statute of the I9:, is considered as primary source of international law!

PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

1). 5o &a. international la beco&e a (art o% /o&estic la !

/P 0'

$!

'!

"octrine of Incorporation% 1he Incorporation 9lause 8Article II, Section ', P92 prescribes that the Philippines "adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as a part of the law of the land!# It is a formal recognition of general international law a "part of the law of the land!# 1he incorporation method applies when, international law is deemed to ha e the force of domestic law! No further legislati e action is needed to ma(e such rules applicable in the domestic sphere! Gor these principles of international law to become part of national law they must be of customary or general international law, i!e! binding on all States! It further decrees that rules of international law are gi en e0ual standing with, but are not superior to, national legislati e enactments! C@enerally accepted principles of international lawC refers to the norms of general or customary international law which are binding on all states, i!e!, renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy, the principle of so ereign immunity, a personDs right to life, liberty and due process, and $acta sunt ser%an!a) among others! 1hey are primary sources of international law because they ha e the "character of ,us rationale# and "are alid through all (inds of human societies! (Pharmaceutica ) su$ra / "octrine of Transformation% 8either through legislati e enactment or under the 1reaty 9lause2 1his doctrine holds that the generally accepted rules of international law are not per se binding upon the state but must first be transformed into domestic law through a constitutional mechanism such as local legislation by the lawma(ing body! 1reaties may also become part of the law of the land pursuant to the 1reaty 9lause 8Article +II, Section '$, P92 which is a process of transforming a treaty or international con ention into national law! EA customary norm becomes "part of the law of the land# by irtue of the Incorporation 9lause! A customary norm is incorporated into the national law under the Incorporation 9lause! EA con entional rule is transformed into a " alid and effecti e " domestic clause under the 1reaty 9lause of the 9onstitution! 1o be internali/ed into national law and before they may be applied in Philippine ,urisdiction, norms and principles of ob,ecti e international law must comply with the foregoing methods of internali/ation! 1hus, treaties or con entional international law must go through a process prescribed by the 9onstitution for it to be transformed into municipal law that can be applied to domestic conflicts! In Pharmaceutica ) su$ra) it was ruled that the World >ealth Assembly 8W>A2 Resolutions, absolutely prohibiting ad ertisements and promotions of breast mil( substitutes are not considered as part of the law of the land! <nli(e what has been done with the International 9ode of =ar(eting of .reastmil( Substitutes 8I9=.S2 whereby the legislature enacted most of the pro isions into law which is the =il( 9ode, the subse0uent W>A Resolutions ha e not been adopted and cannot be considered as part of the law of the land that can be implemented by e6ecuti e agencies without the need of a law enacted by the legislature! 9onse0uently, legislation is necessary to transform the pro isions of the W>A Resolutions into domestic law!
5o are con%licts bet een International la an/ 'unici(al La resol9e/!

1*.

$! 1he basic rule is to reconcile or harmoni/e the apparent conflict, thereby gi ing effect to both! '! If the conflict is irreconcilable, apply the law of the forum 8le( forei2: a2 where the conflict is ele ated to an international tribunal, then international law is more paramount because international law pro ides the standard by which to determine the legality of a StateHs conduct&

PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

/P 0)

b2 where the contro ersy is brought before a local tribunal, the tribunal will uphold the superiority of its municipal law! )! In Philippine ,urisdiction: a! Philippine 9onstitution s international law principle: the 9onstitution pre ails! Rationa e1 Art! +III, Sec -8'2 8a2 of the Philippine 9onstitution empowers the Supreme 9ourt to declare a treaty or e6ecuti e agreement unconstitutional! Also in ,ecretar2 o# Justice %s& Lantion) 3R No&4+56.*) Januar2 47) -888) it was held that in states where the 9onstitution is the highest law of the land, both statutes and treaties may be in alidated iG they are in conflict with the 9onstitution! b! E6ercise of police power: the municipal law pre ails! c! If International 3aw 8treaties or con entions2 is in conflict with a statute: A treaty has two aspects% as an international agreement between states, and as a municipal law for the people of each state to obser e! <nder the Aoctrine of Incorporation the rules of international law are gi en e0ual standing with, but are not superior to, national legislati e enactments in the municipal sphere! >ence, a treaty may repeal a statute and a statute may repeal a treaty! 1hus, the principle of le( posterior derogat priori* that which comes last in time will be upheld by the local tribunal! 1he 9onstitution also authori/es the nullification of a treaty not only when it conflicts with the fundamental law, but also when it runs counter to an act of 9ongress! (Lim %s Arro2o) 3R No& 4*46** A$ri 44) -88-/
1+. What &a. be sub>ect o% Public International La !

ANSWER: A sub,ect of international law is an entity that has rights and responsibilities under the law! It has an international personality that it can directly assert rights and be held directly responsible under the law of nations! It can be a proper party in transactions in ol ing the application of the law of nations among members of international communities! 1he sub,ects are: $! Airect sub,ects% a2 States b2 colonies and dependencies c2 mandates and trust territories& belligerent communities d2 1he +atican e2 the <nited nations& international administrati e bodies and f2 to a certain e6tent, indi iduals! While international law recogni/es the indi idual natural person as sub,ect, it is not howe er by reason of general international law or international custom! >is personality is deri ed from the collecti e will of States e6pressed in an international con ention! 1he indi idual becomes a sub,ect of international law by reason of con entional international law, not on account of customary international law! (9aga ona) 9er in 9&) The ,u$reme Court an! Internationa La:1 Pro0 ems an! A$$roaches in Phi i$$ine Practice& UP La: Center Institute o# Internationa Lega ,tu!ies) -848/ '! Indirect sub,ects 4 a2 international organi/ations b2 indi iduals& and c2 corporations! )! Incomplete sub,ects 4 a2 protectorates b2 federal states c2 mandated and trust territories
1,. What are ob>ects o% international la !

ANSWER: A person or thing in respect of which rights are held and obligations assumed by the sub,ect! It is not directly go erned by the rules of international law! Its rights are recei ed and its responsibilities imposed indirectly through the instrumentality of an intermediate agency! -tate -o9erei$nt.
11. What is the #octrine o% -o9erei$n I&&unit. o% -tates! What are the basis o% i&&unit. %ro& suits o% a %orei$n state!

ANSWER: 1he Aoctrine of So ereign Immunity of States is a uni ersally recogni/ed principle which e6empts a state from the ,urisdiction of other States including the right not to be sued in the courts of another without its consent or unless consent is wai ed! PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW /P 0+ State immunity includes not only e6emption of the StateHs property from ta6ation or attachment where er the property is located but also the e6emption of its public essels from being searched, detained, sei/ed by any State! 1he basis of immunity from suits of a foreign state are the twin principles of independence and e0uality of states pursuant to the ma6im "par parem habet non imperium# 8an e0ual has no dominion o er an e0ual2 (Re$u0 ic o# In!onesia %s& ;in<on) 68* ,CRA 4-./ -tate I&&unit. %ro& -uit
14. What is -tate I&&unit. %ro& -uit! #oes it a((l. to %orei$n $o9ern&ents! Can the ri$ht to state i&&unit. be ai9e/!

ANSWER: State immunity from suit means that the state may not be sued without its consent! .ut consent to suit does not include consent to attachment of property for foreign so ereign! 1he doctrine applies to foreign go ernment! When a foreign state wishes to in o(e so ereign immunity, it secures an e6ecuti e endorsement of its claim of immunity from the Aepartment of Goreign Affairs, and the determination made by the E6ecuti e Aepartment is a political 0uestion which is conclusi e on Philippine courts! It may also file a motion to dismiss on the ground of lac( of ,urisdiction o er its person! 1he right to state immunity may be wai ed but it does not mean that it is admitting liability! (Phi i$$ine Roc= In!ustries) Inc& %s& Boar! o# Li(ui!ators) 478 ,CRA >4/ It means that the State in allowing itself to be sued is merely gi ing the plaintiff the opportunity to pro e its case but the State does not wai e its lawful defenses!
1;. What are the t o :in/s o% so9erei$n i&&unit.!

ANSWER: 1he two (inds of so ereign immunity are $2 absolute immunity and '2 restricti e immunity! <nder absolute immunity, all acts of state, be they go ernmental or proprietary, are protected by so ereign immunity! <nder restricti e immunity, a State liable to suit only in the e6ercise of its proprietary acts and does not apply to acts performed in its so ereign or go ernmental function!
"0. What /o .ou un/erstan/ b. the (rinci(le o% Restricti9e -tate I&&unit. %ro& -uit!

ANSWER: State immunity from suit e6tends only to go ernmental acts (jure im$erii/ and does not co er pri ate, commercial and proprietary act (jure gestiones/& 1he restricti e application of State immunity is proper only when the proceedings arise out of commercial transaction of the foreign so ereign, its commercial acti ities or economic affairs! Stated differently, a State may be said to ha e descended to the le el of an indi idual and can thus be deemed to ha e tacitly gi en its consent to be sued only when it enters into business contracts! It does not apply where the contracts relate to the e6ercise of its so ereign function! 1hus, where the 0uestioned transaction dealt with the impro ements on the whar es in the na al station at Subic .ay, the pro,ects are an integral part of the na al base which is de oted to the defense of both the <S and the Philippines, indisputably a function of go ernment of the highest order& they are not utili/ed for, nor dedicated to commercial or business purposes! (U,A %s& Rui<) 4+. ,CRA 67> an! 'A %s& NLRC) --> ,CRA .5+/
"1. Who are co9ere/ b. the #octrine o% -tate I&&unit.! -tate its rationale.

ANSWER: A state en,oys immunity from the e6ercise of ,urisdiction 8legislati e, e6ecuti e, ,udicial2 by another state, unless it has gi en consent, wai ed its immunity, or oluntarily submitted to the ,urisdiction of the court concerned! Also, the stateHs immunity e6tends to the >ead of State, who is the personification of the state, and to diplomatic representati es, in order to uphold their dignity as representati es of their respecti e states and to allow them free and unhampered e6ercise of their functions! 3i(ewise, under Article $;- of the <N 9harter, the <nited Nations, its Brgans, Speciali/ed Agencies and other International organi/ations and its Bfficers shall en,oy pri ileges and immunities as are necessary for the independent e6ercise of their

functions! Rationa e1 to secure them legal and practical independence in fulfilling their duties (Lasco %s& UN re%o %ing ?un! #or Natura Resources E@$ oration) -64 ,CRA .74/ and to shield the affairs of international organi/ations, in accordance with international PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW /P 0, practice, from political pressure or control by the host country, and to ensure the unhampered performance of their functions! (Internationa Catho ic 9igration %s& Ca eja) 458 ,CRA 4+8/
"". When is a suit a$ainst a (ublic o%%icial /ee&e/ to be a suit a$ainst the -tate!

ANSWER: While the doctrine of state immunity appears to prohibit only suits against the state without its consent, it is also applicable to complaints filed against public officials for acts allegedly done in the performance of their official duties! 1he rule is that the suit must be regarded as one against the State where the satisfaction of the ,udgment against the public official concerned will re0uire the State to perform a positi e act, such as appropriation of the amount necessary to pay the damages awarded to the plaintiff! 1he rule does not apply where the public official is clearly being sued for acts that are unlawful and in,urious to the rights of others! Public officials are not e6empt, in their personal capacity, from liability arising from the acts committed in bad faithINeither does it apply where the public official is clearly being sued not in his official capacity but in his personal capacity, although the acts complained of may ha e been committed while he occupied a public position! As regards petitioner AB>, the defense of immunity from suit will not a ail despite its being an unincorporated agency of the go ernment, for the only causes of action directed against it are preliminary in,unction and mandamus! <nder Section $, Rule -7 of the Rules of 9ourt, preliminary in,unction may be directed against a party or a court, agency or a person! =oreo er, the defense of state immunity does not apply in causes of action which do not see( to impose a charge or financial liability against the State! (Lansang %s& CA) +-. ,CRA -*5 an! 'O" %s& Pharma:ea th) Inc&) 3R No& 4.5+86) 9arch 4+) -88>/
"0. The Re(ublic o% In/onesia re(resente/ b. its 'inister Counsellor entere/ into a 'aintenance A$ree&ent ith ?V8 sole (ro(rietor o% Vin@on Tra/e an/ -er9ices. The a$ree&ent state/ that ?V &aintain s(eci%ie/ eAui(&ent at the e&bass. 'ain Buil/in$8 inclu/in$ the o%%icial resi/ence o% the A&bassa/or. But (rior to the eB(iration o% the *0.ear contract8 the In/onesian E&bass. ter&inate/ the a$ree&ent. ?V %ile/ a co&(laint a$ainst the Re(ublic o% In/onesia8 the A&bassa/or an/ the 'inister Counsellor8 ho in turn %ile/ a &otion to /is&iss in9o:in$ so9erei$n i&&unit. %ro& suit. ?V %ile/ an O((osition conten/in$ thatC 617 the Re(ublic o% In/onesia eB(ressl. ai9e/ its i&&unit. because o% a (ara$ra(h in the contract statin$ that an. le$al action arisin$ out o% the a$ree&ent shall be settle/ accor/in$ to the la s o% the Phili((ines an/ b. a s(eci%ie/ court in the Phili((inesD 6"7 that the actual (h.sical &aintenance o% the (re&ises o% the /i(lo&atic &ission is no lon$er a so9erei$n %unction o% the -tateD an/ 6)7 that the A&bassa/or an/ the 'inister Counsellor can be sue/ an/ hel/ liable in their (ri9ate ca(acit. %or tortuous acts /one ith &alice an/ ba/ %aith. #eci/e.

ANSWERS: 8$2 1he e6istence alone of the paragraph in the contract is not necessarily a wai er of so ereign immunity from suit! 1he aforesaid pro ision contains language not necessarily inconsistent with so ereign immunity! Bn the other hand, such pro ision may also be meant to apply where the so ereign party elects to sue in the local courts, or otherwise wai es its immunity by any subse0uent acts! 1he applicability of Philippine laws must be deemed to include Philippine laws in its totality, including the principle recogni/ing so ereign immunity! >ence, the proper court may ha e no proper action, by way of settling the case, e6cept to dismiss it! 3i(ewise, the Solicitor @eneral states that "it was not a wai er of their immunity from suit but mere stipulation that in the e ent they do wai e their immunity, Philippine laws shall go ern the resolution of any legal action arising out of the agreement and the proper court in =a(ati 9ity shall be the agreed enue thereof!# 8'2 1here is no dispute that the establishment of a diplomatic mission is an act jure im$erii& A so ereign state does not merely establish a diplomatic mission and lea e it at that& the establishment of a diplomatic mission encompasses its maintenance and up(eep

of air conditioning units, generator sets, electrical facilities, water heaters and water pumps of the Indonesian Embassy and the official residence of the Indonesian Ambassador! PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW /P 08)2 1he acts of the Ambassador and the =inister 9ounsellor in terminating the agreement is not co ered by the e6ceptions pro ided in Article )$ of the +ienna 9on ention which pro ides: $! A diplomatic agent shall en,oy immunity from criminal ,urisdiction of the recei ing state! >e shall also en,oy immunity from its ci il and administrati e ,urisdiction, e6cept in the case of: 8a2 a real action relating to pri ate immo able property situated in the territory of the recei ing state, unless he holds it on behalf of the sending State for the purpose of the mission& 8b2 an action relating to succession in which the diplomatic agent is in ol ed as e6ecutor, administrator, heir or legatee as a pri ate person and not on behalf of the sending State& J an action relating to any professional or commercial acti ity e6ercised by the diplomatic agent in the recei ing State outside his official functions! 666 666 666 1he said act may fall under subparagraph 8c2 thereof, but said pro ision clearly applies only to a situation where the diplomatic agent engages in any professional or commercial acti ity outside official functions, which is not the case herein! (The Re$u0 ic o# In!onesia %s& James ;in<on) 3R No& 4*6>8*) June -.) -88+/
"1. Are o%%icers o% the Asian #e9elo(&ent Ban:8 inclu/in$ eB(erts an/ consultants (er%or&in$ &ission %or the Ban:8 entitle/ to i&&unit. %ro& le$al (rocess!

ANSWERC FES! .ut the immunity granted to officers and staff of the AA. is not absolute! It is limited to acts performed in an official capacity, e6cept when the .an( wai es the immunity! 1he immunity cannot co er the commission of a crime such as slander or oral defamation in the name of official duty! Bfficials of international organi/ations en,oy "functional# immunity, that is, only those necessary for the e6ercise of their functions of the organi/ation and the fulfilment of its purposes! In other words, the officials and employees of the AA. are sub,ect to the ,urisdiction of the local courts for their pri ate acts, notwithstanding the absence of a wai er of immunity! (Liang %s& Peo$ e) +** ,CRA 4-*/ Act o% -tate #octrine
"". What is the so0calle/ Act o% -tate #octrine!

ANSWER: A doctrine emanating from the right of e0uality among nations which means that a State cannot, in anyway, 0uestion the alidity of the official acts of another state insofar as these acts are performed within the sphere of the latter StateHs own ,urisdiction and not contrary to accepted rules of public international law! 1he act of state doctrine is one of the methods by which States pre ents their national courts from deciding disputes which relate to the internal affairs of another State, the other two being immunity and non%,usticiability! It is an a oidance techni0ue that is directly related to the StateDs obligation to respect the independence and e0uality of other States by not re0uiring them to submit to ad,udication in a national court or to settlement of their disputes without their consent! It re0uires the forum court to e6ercise restraint in the ad,udication of disputes relating to legislati e or other go ernmental acts which a foreign State has performed within its territorial limits! 1he parameters of the use of the act of state doctrine were clarified in Banco Naciona !e Cu0a %s& ,a00atino (+>7 U&,& +57A 76 ,&Ct& -5+/ 1here, the <!S! Supreme 9ourt held that international law does not re0uire the application of this doctrine nor does it forbid the application of the rule e en if it claimed that the act of state in 0uestion iolated international law! =oreo er, due to the doctrineHs peculiar nation%to%nation character, in practice the usual method for an indi idual to see( relief is to e6haust local remedies and then refer to the e6ecuti e authorities of his own state to persuade them to champion his claim in diplomacy or before an international tribunal! (PC33 %s& ,an!igan0a2an) *+8 ,CRA 4+/ PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW
"). What is the Princi(le o% Auto0li&itation!

/P 0.

ANSWER: <nder the principle of auto%limitation, any State may by its consent, e6press or implied, submit to a restriction of its so ereign rights! 1here may thus be a curtailment of what otherwise is a plenary power! (Reagan %& CIR) 3R No& LB-.+>) 'ecem0er ->) 45.5/ Ri$ht o% Le$ation
"*. What is a$reation

ANSWER: It is a practice of the States before appointing a particular indi idual to be the chief of their diplomatic mission in order to a oid possible embarrassment! It consists of two acts: 1he in0uiry, usually informal, addressed by the sending State regarding the acceptability of an indi idual to be its chief of mission& and the agreement also informal, by which the recei ing State indicates to the sending State that such person, would be acceptable!
"+. What is letter o% cre/ence!

ANSWER: 1his is the document by which the en oy is accredited by the sending State to the foreign State to which he is being sent! It designates his ran( and the general ob,ect of his mission, and as(s that he be recei ed fa ourably and that full credence be gi en to what he says on behalf of his State!
",. What is a letter (atent!

ANSWER: 1he appointment of a consul is usually e idenced by a commission, (nown as letter patent, issued by the appointing authority of the sending State and transmitted to the recei ing State through diplomatic channels!
"1. What are the (ri9ile$es an/ i&&unities o% /i(lo&atic re(resentati9es!

ANSWER: $2 Personal in iolability 4 members of the diplomatic mission shall not be liable for any form of arrest or imprisonment '2 In iolability of premises % premises, furnishings and means of transport shall be immune from search, sei/ure, attachment or e6ecution! )2 Aiplomatic agents are immune from criminal ci il or administrati e liability *2 Archi es or documents shall be in iolable -2 A diplomatic agent is e6empted to gi e e idence as a witness

52 K2 7! ?!
"4.

Recei ing state shall protect official communication and official correspondence of diplomatic mission E6emption from general duties and ta6es including custom duties with certain e6ceptions! Recei ing State shall ensure all members of diplomatic mission freedom of mo ement and tra el! <se of flag and emblem of sending State on premises of recei ing State
Are consuls entitle/ to i&&unities an/ (ri9ile$es!

NB1E: Gor E6ceptions to the pri ileges and immunities, see Luestion '; 8)2 abo e! ANSWER: FES, but not to the same e6tent as those en,oyed by diplomatic officials! 3i(e diplomats, consuls are entitled to: $2 in iolability of their correspondence, archi es and other documents& '2 freedom of mo ement and tra el& )2immunity from ,urisdiction for acts performed in their official capacity& and *2 e6emption from certain ta6es and custom duties! >owe er, consuls are liable to: $2 arrest and punishment for gra e offenses& and '2 may be re0uired to gi e testimony, sub,ect to certain e6ceptions! 1he consular offices are immune only: $2 with respect to the part where the consular wor( is being performed& and may be e6propriated by the recei ing state for purposes of national defense or public utility! EBtra/ition E #e(ortation
";. What is the /i%%erence i% an. bet een eBtra/ition an/ /e(ortation!

ANSWER: 1he following are the differences between e6tradition and deportation: PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW /P /0 $2 According to purpose, e6tradition is effected for the benefit of the state to which the person being e6tradited will be surrendered because he is a fugiti e criminal in that state, while deportation is effected for the protection of the state e6pelling an alien because his presence is not conduci e to the public good! '2 According to basis, e6tradition is effected on the basis of an e6tradition treaty or upon the re0uest of another state, while deportation is the unilateral act of the state e6pelling an alien! )2 According to its effect upon the alien, in e6tradition, the alien will be surrendered to the state as(ing for his e6tradition, while in deportation, the undesirable alien may be sent to any state willing to accept him!
)0. What is the (rinci(le o% /ouble cri&inalit.! What i/ the (ur(ose o% the (rinci(le!

ANSWER: <nder the principle of double criminality, e6tradition is a ailable only when the act is an offense in the two countries in ol ed in e6tradition! 1he principle of double criminality is satisfied e en if the act was not punishable in the re0uested state at the time of its occurrence if it was criminal at the time the re0uest was made! 1he purpose of the principle of double criminality is to ensure each state that it can rely on reciprocal treatment and that no state will use its processes to surrender a person for contract which it does not characteri/e as criminal!
)1! -tate A an/ -tate B entere/ into an eBtra/ition treat.8 hich (ro9i/e/ that eBtra/ition &a. be $rante/ irres(ecti9e o% the /ate hen the o%%ense as co&&itte/. -tate A as:e/ that the accuse/ be eBtra/ite/ %or s in/lin$ an/ (er>ur. co&&itte/ be%ore the treat. too: e%%ect. Accuse/ ar$ue/ that his eBtra/ition %or o%%enses co&&itte/ be%ore the e%%ecti9it. o% the eBtra/ition treat. 9iolates the (rohibition a$ainst e( post facto la s. Is the contention o% the accuse/ le$all. tenable!

ANSWER: NB! 1he prohibition against e@ $ost #acto law applies to penal laws only! 1he e6tradition treaty is not a criminal statute! (Wright %s& CA) -+* ,CRA +64/
)". #iscuss the (roce/ure %or eBtra/ition.

ANSWER: <pon receipt of the petition for e6tradition and its supporting documents, the ,udge must study them and ma(e, as soon as possible, a $rima #acie finding whether 8a2 they are sufficient in form and in substance, 8b2 they comply with the E6tradition 1reaty and 3aw, and 8c2 the person sought is e6traditable! At his discretion, the ,udge may re0uire the submission of further documentation, or may personally e6amine the affiants

and witnesses of the petitioner! If, in spite of this study and e6amination, the petition may be dismissed at the discretion of the ,udge! Bn the other hand, if the presence of $rima #acie case is determined, then the magistrate must immediately issue a warrant for the arrest of the e6tradite, who is at the same time summoned to answer the petition and to appear at scheduled summary hearings! Prior to the issuance of the warrant, the ,udge must not inform or notify the potential e6tradite of the pendency of the petition, lest the latter be gi en the opportunity to escape and frustrate the proceedings! After a potential e6tradite has been arrested or placed under the custody of the law, bail may be applied for and granted as an e6ception, only upon a clear and con incing showing 8$2 that, once granted bail, the applicant will not be a flight ris( or a danger to the community and 8'2 that there e6ist special, humanitarian or compelling circumstances including, as a matter of reciprocity, those cited by the highest court in the re0uesting state when it grants pro isional liberty in e6tradition cases therein! (3o%ernment o# the Unite! ,tates o# America %s& "on& Purganan) 3R No& 467*>4) ,e$tem0er 66) -88-/
)). Is the ri$ht to /ue (rocess $uarantee/ in eBtra/ition (rocee/in$s!

ANSWER: FES! Potential e6traditees are entitled to the rights of due process and to fundamental fairness! Aue process does not always call for a prior opportunity to be heard! A subse0uent opportunity is sufficient due to the flight ris( in ol ed! Indeed, a ailable during the hearings on the petition and the answer is the full chance to be heard PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW /P // and to en,oy fundamental fairness that is compatible with the summary nature of e6tradition! (3o%ernment o# the Unite! ,tates o# America %s& "on& Purganan) 3R No& 467*>4) ,e$tem0er 66) -88-/ 0ig$t to Bail and "ue Process in E(tradition Proceedings
)*. Is the constitutional (ro9ision on the ri$ht to bail un/er -ection 1* o% the Constitution as ell as -ection 11* o% the Rules o% Court a((licable to eBtra/ition cases! Is the ri$ht to /ue (rocess a9ailable to (otential eBtra/itees!

ANSWER: In 3o%ernment o# the Unite! ,tates o# America %s& "on& Purganan) 3R No& 467*>4) ,e$tem0er 66) -88-) it was held that the said pro isions apply only when a person has been arrested and detained for iolation of Philippine criminal laws! It does not apply to e6tradition proceedings because e6tradition courts do not render ,udgments of con iction or ac0uittal! E6tradition proceedings are separate and distinct from the trial for the offenses for which the respondent is charged! >e should apply for bail before the courts trying the criminal cases against him, not before the e6tradition court! NEW R<3IN@: >owe er, in 3o%ernment o# "ong=ong ,$ecia A!ministrati%e Region %s& Ju!ge O a ia) 3R 4*+.>*) A$ri 45) -88>) the Supreme 9ourt ruled that a potential e6traditee may be granted bail on the basis of clear and con incing e idence that the person is not a flight ris( and will abide with all the orders and processes of the e6tradition court! While our e6tradition law does not pro ide for the grant of bail to an e6tradite, there is no pro ision prohibiting him or her filing a motion for bail, a right guaranteed not only by the 9onstitution, but also by international con ention, to which the Philippines is a party! 1he Philippines, being a signatory to the $??5 <N @eneral Assembly which adopted the International 9on ention on 9i il and Political Rights, is under obligation to ma(e a ailable to e ery person under detention such remedies which safeguard their fundamental rights to liberty! If bail can be granted in deportation cases, there is no ,ustification why it should not also be allowed in e6tradition cases! 3i(ewise, considering that the <ni ersal Aeclaration of >uman Rights applies to deportation cases, there is no reason why it cannot be in o(ed in e6tradition cases! After all, both are administrati e proceedings where the innocence or guilt of the person detained is not an issue!
)+. I% there is no eBtra/ition treat. bet een the state o% re%u$e an/ the state see:in$ the %u$iti9eFs return8 ho &a. the latter acAuire >uris/iction o9er hi&! EB(lain.

ANSWER: 1he state may still secure his surrender, but not as a matter of right! In the interest of international comity or courtesy, the state of refuge may accede to the formerHs re0uest and surrender the fugiti e to it!
),. What is the (rinci(le o% as.lu&! #oes this (rinci(le a((l. in the Phili((ines!

ANSWERS: 1his is the power of the state to allow an alien who has sought refuge from prosecution or persecution to remain within the territory and under its protection! 1his has ne er been recogni/ed as a principle in international law! Asylum may either be: $2 1erritorial, where it e6ists only if stipulated in a treaty, or ,ustified by established usage and depends on the liberal attitude of the recei ing state on grounds of "territorial supremacy,# or '2 Aiplomatic, if granted only by irtue of treaty stipulation, or where established usage allows it, or when the life or liberty of the person is threatened by imminent iolence! @enerally, diplomatic asylum in the Philippines cannot be granted e6cept to members of the official or personal household of diplomatic representati es! Bn humanitarian grounds, howe er, refuge may be granted to fugiti es whose li es are in imminent danger from mob iolence but only during the period when acti e danger persists! Treaties
)1. 'a. a treat. or con9entional rule Auali%. as a nor& o% 1us cogens character!

ANSWER: NB! A treaty or con entional rule may not 0ualify as a jus cogens because such norm is binding on all states, whereas a treaty rule binds only the states that are parties to it and e en in the e ent that all states are parties to a treaty, they are entitled to PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW /P /2 terminate or withdraw from the treaty! A jus cogens norm is characteri/ed as a norm of general international law which by its nature is binding on e ery state!
)4. 'a. a treat. 9iolate international la !

ANSWER: Fes, a treaty may iolate international law if it conflicts with peremptory norm or jus cogens of international law! Jus cogens norm is defined as a norm of general international law accepted and recogni/ed by the international community as a whole "as a norm from which no derogation is permitted and which can be modified only by a subse0uent norm of general international law ha ing the same character!# Article -) of the +ienna 9on ention on the 3aw of 1reaties pro ides that a treaty is oid if at the time of its conclusion, it conflicts with jus cogens norm! Article -* of the same 9on ention, if a new peremptory norm of general international law emerges, any e6isting treaty which is in conflict with that norm becomes oids and terminates!
);. Can a treat. or international a$ree&ent be in9ali/ate/ b. Phili((ine courts or a&en/e/ b. subseAuent la !

ANSWER: FES! 1he 9onstitution of the Philippines has clearly settled that an international agreement may be in alidated by Philippine 9ourts! Sec!' of Article +III thereof pro ides that the Supreme 9ourt may not be depri ed of its ,urisdiction to re iew, re ise, re erse, modify or affirm on appeal, certiorari or writ of error as the law or the rules of court may pro ide, final ,udgments and decrees of inferior courts in all cases in which the constitutionality or alidity of any treaty, law or ordinance or e6ecuti e order or regulation is in 0uestion! In other words, the 9ourt authori/es the nullification of a treaty, not only when it conflicts with the fundamental law, but, also, when it runs counter to an act of 9ongress! Also, the pro isions of a treaty are always sub,ect to 0ualification or amendment by a subse0uent law, or that it is sub,ect to the police power of the State! (Lim %s& 9aca$aga BArro2o) 3R No& 4*466*) A$ri 44) -88-/
*0. 'a. a state (art. to a treat. b. unilateral act /eclare it ter&inate/8 or ith/ra %ro& it!

ANSWER: NB! E en on grounds pro ided for by the +ienna 9on ention on the 3aw of 1reaties, either of these cannot be done unilaterally! 1his 9on ention re0uires a procedure, beginning with notification to the other parties to the treaty as to the measure it proposes to ta(e! If no party has raised any ob,ection, the proponent state may carry out the measure it has proposed by a formal instrument signed by the >ead of State or of

@o ernment and the same is communicated to the other parties!

*1. Assu&in$ that the other countr.0(art. to a treat. is a$reeable to the ter&ination o% such treat.8 can the Presi/ent alone ithout the concurrence o% the -enate abro$ate the sa&e! Can such ter&ination be sub>ect to >u/icial re9ie !

ANSWER: FES! 1he authority of the Senate o er treaties is limited to concurrence! 1he 9onstitution is silent as to the participation of the Senate in the abrogation of a treaty! 1here being no e6press constitutional pro ision regulating the termination of treaties, it is presumed that the power of the President o er treaty agreements and o er foreign relations includes the authority to terminate treaties! 1he termination of a treaty by the President without the concurrence of the Senate is not sub,ect to constitutional attac(, there being no Senate authority to that effect! =oreo er, the ,urisdiction of the courts o er a treaty is only with respect to 0uestions of its constitutionality or alidity! 1he 0uestion should in ol e the constitutionality of a treaty or its alidity in relation to a statute! It does not pertain to the termination of a treaty!
*". 6a7 6b7 #istin$uish si$nin$ o% a treat. %ro& its rati%ication. #oes &an/a&us lie to co&(el the O%%ice o% the EBecuti9e -ecretar. an/ #e(art&ent o% Gorei$n A%%airs to trans&it the si$ne/ teBt o% a treat. 6Ro&e -tatute7 to the -enate o% the Phili((ines %or rati%ication!

ANSWERS: 8a2 1he signing of a treaty and ratification are two separate and distinct steps in the treating%ma(ing process% the signature is primarily intended as a means of authenticating the instrument and the symbol of the good faith of the parties, usually performed by the PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW /P /3 8b2 stateHs authori/ed representati es, while ratification is the formal act by which a state confirms and accepts the pro isions of a treaty concluded by its representati es, and sis generally held to be an e6ecuti e act underta(en by the head of state or of the go ernment! <nder the 9onstitution, the power to ratify is ested in the President, sub,ect to the concurrence of the Senate! 1he role of the Senate, howe er, is limited only to gi ing or withholding concurrence its consent, or concurrence, to its ratification! 8b2 NB! 1he Philippines is not bound under treaty law and international law to ratify a treaty which it has signed 4 it is the ratification that binds the state to the pro isions thereof! 1here is no legal obligation to ratify a treaty, but the refusal must be based on substantial grounds and not on superficial or whimsical reasons! 1he President has the discretion e en after the signing of the treaty by the Philippine representati e whether or not to ratify the same! It is within the authority of the President to refuse to submit a treaty to the Senate or, ha ing secured its consent for its ratification, refuse to ratify it! (Pimente %s& O##ice o# E@ecuti%e ,ecretar2) 6.- ,CRA .--/
*). 'a. a non0si$nator. -tate beco&e a (art. to a treat.!

ANSWER: FES! A non%signatory State may become a party to a treaty through the process of "adhesion!# 1hus, upon in itation or permission of the contracting parties, a third party who did not participate or who did not ratify on time, may be bound by a treaty! Bther States my also be bound by the terms of a treaty if lin(ed by the most #a%ore! nation c ause) under which a contracting State entitled to the clause may claim the benefits e6tended by the latter to another State in a separate agreement! Also, if the treaty is merely a formal e6pression of customary international law, or where the treaty e6pressly e6tends benefits to non%signatory States, States not originally parties to the agreement may become bound!
**. EB(lain the conce(ts o% Pacta 2unt 2ervanda* 0e#us 2ic 2tanti#us 3 &ost %a9ore/ nation clause.

ANSWER: $2 Pacta ,unt ,er%an!a B treaties must be performed in good faith! '2 Ri0us ,ic ,tanti0us C 8things remaining as they are2 a party to a treaty is discharged in the e ent a change of circumstances occurs which renders the fulfilment of the treaty grossly un,ust, oppressi e and ini0uitous!

)2 =ost fa ored nation clause 4 a clause in the treaty that grants to the other party e0ual treatment 8not less fa ourable2 that has been granted or may be granted to the most fa ored other country! La o% the -ea
*+. What are the %our con9entions a/o(te/ b. the UN Con%erence on the La o% the -ea!

ANSWER: 1he four con entions adopted by the <N 9onference on the 3aw of the Sea are: $! 9on ention on the >igh seas 8$?5'2 '! 9on ention on the 9ontinental Shelf 8$?5*2 )! 9on ention on the 1erritorial Sea and 9ontiguous Mone 8$?5*2 *! 9on ention on Gishing and 9onser ation of 3i ing resources of the >igh Seas 8$?552 Bnly the 9on ention on the >igh Seas is "generally declaratory of established principles of international law& but the other three pro ide e idence of the generally accepted rules bearing on the sub,ect matter, the cogency of this depending in part on the number of ratification!
*,. a7 b7 What /o .ou un/erstan/ b. the Archi(ela$o #octrine! 5o /oes the #octrine8 as e&bo/ie/ in Article I o% the Phili((ine Constitution8 /i%%er %ro& the 9ersion o% the 1;4" UN Con9ention on the La o% the -ea!

ANSWERS: a2 1he archipelagic doctrine emphasi/es the unity of the land and waters by defining an archipelago either as a group of islands and islets or body of waters studded PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW /P /' with islands! Gor this purpose, it re0uires that baselines be drawn by connecting the appropriate points of the outermost islands to encircle the islands within the archipelago! 1he waters on the landward side of the baselines regardless of breadth or dimension are considered merely internal waters! b2 Article I of the Philippine 9onstitution treats the ast areas of water between islands as internal waters and therefore not sub,ect to the right of innocent passage! 1he $?7' <N93BS ersion calls such areas "archipelagic waters# and are sub,ect to the right of innocent passage through passages designated by the archipelago concerned! .ut, where the establishment of a straight baseline in accordance with Article * of the <N93BS has the effect of enclosing as internal waters areas which pre iously had been considered as part of the territorial sea or of the high seas 8referred to as archipelagic waters2, the right of innocent passage shall e6ist in those waters, through passages designated by the archipelago concerned!
What is the ri$ht o% innocent (assa$e!

*1.

ANSWER: It is the na igation through the territorial sea for the purpose either of tra ersing the sea without entering the internal waters, or of proceeding to internal waters, or of ma(ing for the high seas from internal water! It includes stopping and anchoring, but only in so far as the same are incidental to ordinary na igation or are rendered necessary by force ma,eure or by distress! Passage is innocent as long as it is not pre,udicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal state! Submarines are re0uired to na igate on the surface and to show their flag! Goreign fishing essels must obser e duly published rules and regulations of the coastal state and rules of international law relating to transport and na igation! 1he coastal state can pre ent these essels from fishing in the territorial sea!
*4. What is transit (assa$e!

ANSWER: It is the right to e6ercise freedom of na igation and o erflight solely for the purpose of continuous and e6peditious transit through the straits used for international na igation, i!e!, between two areas of the high seas or between two e6clusi e economic

/ones! All ships and aircraft en,oy the right to transit passage!
*;. What is a baseline! The strai$ht baseline &etho/!

ANSWERS: It is a line from which the breadth of the territorial sea, the contiguous /one and the e6clusi e economic /one is measured in order to determine the maritime boundary of the coastal state! 1he straight baseline method is used by the Philippines in drawing its baseline from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured! 1his is done by ,oining the appropriate points through straight lines! 1his method is applied in cases where the coastline is deeply indented and cut into, or if there is a fringe of islands along the coast in its immediate icinity!
+0. What is a continental shel%!

ANSWER& It comprises the seabed and subsoil of the submarine areas that e6tend beyond its territorial sea throughout the natural prolongation of its land territory to the outer edge of the continental margin or to a distance of ';; nautical miles beyond the baseline from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured if the edge of the continental margin does not e6tend up that that distance! >owe er, if the coastal state succeeds in its application for an e6tended continental shelf, it may e6tend to not more than )-; nautical miles!
+1. #istin$uish the territorial sea %ro& the internal aters o% the Phili((ines.

ANSWER: 1erritorial sea is an ad,acent belt of sea with a breadth of twel e nautical miles measured from the baselines of a state and o er which a state has so ereignty 8Articles ' and ) of the 9on ention on the 3aw of the Sea2 Ships of all states en,oy the PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW /P /)

right of innocent passage through the territorial sea! 8Article $* of the 9on ention on the 3aw of the Sea2 Internal waters, on the other hand, are the waters on the landward side of baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is calculated! 1he internal waters of the Philippines consist of the waters around, between and connecting the islands of the Philippine Archipelago, regardless of their breadth and dimensions, including the waters in bays, ri ers and la(es! 8Section $, Article I, Philippine 9onstitution22 No right of innocent passage for foreign essels e6ists in the case of internal waters!
+". What is the conti$uous @one!

ANSWER: 9ontiguous /one is a /one contiguous to the territorial sea and e6tends up to twel e 8$'2 nautical miles from the territorial sea and o er which the coastal state may e6ercise control necessary to pre ent infringement of its customs, fiscal immigration or sanitary laws and regulations within its territory or territorial sea! 8Article )) of the 9on ention on the 3aw of the Sea2
+). What is the EBclusi9e Econo&ic Hone!

ANSWER: 1he e6clusi e economic /one is a /one e6tending up to ';; nautical miles from the baseline of a state! It gi es the coastal state so ereign rights o erall economic resources of the sea, seabed and subsoil !
+*. What are the ri$hts o% the coastal state in the EBclusi9e econo&ic Hone!

ANSWER: A2 So ereign rights: $2 for the purpose of e6ploring and e6ploiting, conser ing and managing the li ing and non%ling resources in the super ad,acent waters of the seabed and the resources of the seabed and subsoil '2 with respect to the other acti ities for the economic e6ploitation an e6ploration of the EEM, such as production of energy from water currents and winds .2 :urisdictional rights: $2 with respect to establishment and use of artificial islands '2 as to protection and preser ation of the marine en ironment and )2 o er marine scientific research! 92 Bther rights and duties pro ided for in the 3aw of the Sea 9on ention!

++.

What is the ne archi(ela$ic baseline la o% the Phili((ines! What is its i&(lications8 i% an.8 u(on the Phili((ine territorial clai&s o9er -abah an/ the Iala.aan Islan/s =rou(!

ANSWER: 1he new archipelagic baseline law of the Philippines is embodied in RA ?-'' which effecti ely amended Section $ of RA );*5, entitled "An Act to Aefine the .aselines of the 1erritorial Sea of the Philippines,# as amended by Section $ of RA -**5! RA ?-'' adopts the "regime of islands# formula in dealing with our claim o er Spratlys! 1he new law would operate as a repeal of the Sabah pro ision of the pre ious baseline law, RA -**5 8the only legislati e re%affirmation of Philippine so ereignty o er Sabah2, resulting in the derogation of the other territories clause of the 9onstitution! (9er in 9& 9aga ona) DA ?rame:or= #or the ,tu!2 o# Nationa Territor21 A ,tatement o# the Pro0 emE IBP Journa ) ,e$tem0er -887&/
+,. What is the Re$i&e o% Islan/s #octrine enunciate/ in RA ;+""8 or the ne archi(ela$ic baseline la o% the Phili((ines! What are the ar$u&ents %or an/ a$ainst the /octrine.

ANSWER: 1he Regime of Islands Aoctrine as embodied in the new archipelagic baseline law of the Philippines modifies the Archipelagic Principle by e6cluding two disputed territories, namely, the Nalayaan Islands @roup and the Scarborough Shoal from the countryHs archipelagic baseline but they remain as parts of Philippine territory and considered as regime of islands consistent with Article $'$ of the <nited Nations 9on ention on the 3aw of the Seas 8<N93BS2! It adopts a mi6 formula that combines archipelagic baselines for the main archipelago, and "regime of islands# for the disputed islands with the option to fi6 normal baselines in the islands we claim in the disputed Spratly islands group! <nder the "regime of islands# principle, baselines will be drawn on an island%to%island basis rather than a pac(age deal%type "archipelago!# Among the arguments in support of the doctrine are, according to Aean Raul Pangalangan: 8$2 the uncontested claims o er islands comprising Philippine territory are PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW /P /+

enclosed within the archipelagic baselines, while it retains the option to draw indi idual baselines for islands within the disputed /one& 8'2 it translates the Philippine claim of title o er Nalayaan Island @roup and pro,ects it to the sea& and 8)2 it protects Philippine claim o er contested islands because it discards attempts to incorporate Nalayaan Islands @roup and Scarborough Shoal in drawing up modern baselines ensuring a oidance of "unnecessary ire and retribution# from 9hina, 1aiwan, .runei and +ietnam& and, as per pronouncement of Senator =iriam Santiago 8$2 it a oids conflicting base points with other claimants& 8'2 it increases the si/e of the countryHs archipelagic waters including economic /ones& and 8)2 it preser es the natural shape of the archipelago! 1he arguments against the principle are basically on constitutional grounds: 8$2 it is unconstitutional because the 9onstitution proclaims us as an archipelago and we ha e no choice but to adopt archipelagic baseline to maintain the integrity of our land and maritime territory 8'2 the 9onstitution clearly calls for archipelagic line and does not allow us to car e out the Spratly islands from the Philippine archipelago! RA ?-'', being a mere statute, cannot e6empt a few islands from the archipelagic baseline without in iting direct challenge before the Supreme 9ourt, and 8)2 according to Aean =agallona, it would trash into pieces our so ereign claim o er the regime of internal water around the Nalayaan Islands @roup of the Pro ince of Palawan, including the seabed, subsoil and airspace! International 5u&an Ri$hts
+1. What are hu&an ri$hts in international relations! 5o &a. hu&an ri$hts be classi%ie/!

ANSWERS: International human rights are liberties or freedoms, immunities and benefits accepted as guaranteed rights and gi ing rise to obligations under international law! <nder the <nited Nations 9harter, the international community of States has recogni/ed the general obligation on "uni ersal respect for, and obser ance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, se6, language, or religion!#

>uman rights may either be indi idual rights or collecti e or national rights! 1hey may also be classified into first generation of human rights, ie, ci il and political rights, second generation, ie, economic, social and cultural rights, or third generation, ie, right to peace, healthy en ironment and the right to de elopment!
+4. What is the 2International Bill o% 5u&an Ri$ht3! #oes international (rotection o% hu&an ri$hts entail cri&inal liabilit.!

ANSWERS: "International .ill of >uman Rights# is the designation used to refer to three instruments of the international protection of human rights, ta(en together, namely: 8$2 the <ni ersal Aeclaration of >uman Rights based on the human rights pro isions of the <N 9harter, 8'2 the International 9o enant of 9i il and Political Rights, and 8)2 the International 9o enant on Economic, Social and 9ultural Rights! FES! 9ertain categories of acts of iolation of human rights, such as genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity within the ,urisdiction of the International 9riminal 9ourt 8I992 are characteri/ed as gra e offenses under international law and are defined as crimes! 1hey entail criminal liability on the part of the indi idual perpetrator!
+;. Un/er international la 8 &a. a -tate /ero$ate %ro& the obli$ations in treaties %or the (rotection o% hu&an ri$hts! #oes such /ero$ation a((l. to all hu&an ri$hts!

ANSWERS: FES! Article *8$2 or the Aerogation 9lause of the International 9o enant on 9i il and Political Rights, pro ides that in time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation, and the e6istence of which is officially proclaimed, the State Parties to the present co enant may ta(e measures derogating from their obligations under the present 9o enant to the e6tent strictly re0uired by the e6igencies of the situation, pro ided such measures are not inconsistent with their obligations under international law and do not in ol e discrimination solely on the ground of race, color, se6, language, religion or social origin! PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW /P /,

NB! 1he Aerogation 9lause does not apply to the following human rights 8$2 right to life& 8'2 right not to be sub,ected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment& 8)2 right not to be held in sla ery or in ser itude& 8*2 right to be imprisoned merely on ground of inability to fulfill a contractual obligation& 8-2 the right not to be held guilty under e@ $ost #acto law& 852 right to be recogni/ed e erywhere as a person before the law& and 8K2 right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion! 1hese are non%derogable rights! -ettle&ent o% International #is(utes
,0. In international relations8 /oes the use o% ar or %orce b. a state a$ainst another 9iolate international la ! We &a. %orce be use/ ithout 9iolatin$ the UN Charter!

ANSWER: FES! Article ' 8*2 in the <nited Nations 9harter prohibits the use of force in the relations of states by pro iding that all members of the <N shall "refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the <nited Nations!# FES! 1he following are instances when force may be used without iolating the <N 9harter: 8$2 Right to indi idual or collecti e defense 8<N 9harter, Art! -$2 8'2 Enforcement measure in ol ing the use of armed force by the Security 9ouncil 8I0i!&) Art!*'2 8)2 Enforcement measure by regional arrangement as authori/ed by the Security 9ouncil 8I0i!&2
,1. What is the role o% the International Court o% ?ustice 6IC?7 in international relations! What are the t o li&itations on the >uris/iction o% the International Court o% ?ustice!

ANSWERS: 1he International 9ourt of :ustice may decide on interpretation of treaties, any 0uestion on international law, the e6istence of facts constituting breach of international obligations, and the nature or e6tent of the reparation to be made for the breach of international obligation! 1he two limitations on the ,urisdiction of the International 9ourt of :ustice are:

8$2 Bnly states may be parties in cases before it 8Art! )*2 and 8'2 1he consent of the parties is needed for the court to ac0uire ,urisdiction with the "optional ,urisdiction clause!# 8Art! )52
,". The UN -ecurit. Council has the (ri&ar. res(onsibilit. to &aintain international (eace an/ securit.. In case o% an outbrea: o% ar&e/ con%lict bet een or a&on$ nations hat ste(s &a. be un/erta:en b. the UN-C to settle the /is(ute!

ANSWER: In case of armed conflict between or among nations, the <N Security 9ouncil may underta(e pre enti e action and enforcement action! Pre enti e action consists of pro isional measures to pre ent a conflict from worsening and may in ol e the deployment of peace(eeping or obser er missions! 1he military obser ers shall be unarmed, while peace(eeping forces may be armed with light weapons but they are no authori/ed to use force e6cept in self%defense and the operations must not interfere with the internal affairs of the host country! Enforcement action in ol es the deployment of air, sea and land forces, or in the institution of a bloc(ade! 1he only limitation in the e6ercise of the <NS9 power to underta(e pre enti e and enforcement actions is that the dispute must be international and not domestic in character!
,). -tate the uni9ersal >uris/iction o% the International Cri&inal Court 6ICC7.

ANSWER: 1he ,urisdiction of the International 9riminal 9ourt, in accordance with the I99 Rome Statute shall be limited to serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole: 8$2 the crime of genocide or acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethical, racial or religious, groups, such as (illing members of the group, imposing measures intended to pre ent births within the group O forcibly transferring children of the group to another group! 8'2 crimes against humanity or acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attac( directed against any ci ilian population, such as murder, e6termination, ensla ement, apartheid torture, rape, se6ual sla ery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterili/ation! 8)2 war crimes, such as torture or inhuman treatment and 8*2 the crime of aggression! PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW /P /,*. What is international 5u&anitarian La !

ANSWER: It is a branch of public international law which go erns armed conflicts to the end that the use of iolence is limited and that human suffering is mitigated or reduced by regulating or limiting the means of military operation and by protecting persons who do not or no longer participate in hostilities! It is also (nown as the law of armed conflict or the law of war!
,+. What are the t o branches o% I5L!

ANSWER: $2 3aw of @ene a 4 designed to safeguard military personnel who are no longer ta(ing part in the fighting! '2 3aw of the >ague 4 establishes the rights and obligations of belligerents in the conduct of military operation, and limits the means of harming the enemy!
,,. What is the 'artens Clause!

ANSWER: In cases not co ered by international agreements, ci ilians and combatants remain under the protection and authority of the principles of international law deri ed from established custom, from the principles of humanity and from the dictates of public conscience!
,1. What is international cri&inal la !

ANSWER: It is the branch of public international law which proscribes specified acts as international crimes, pro ides for their prosecution and punishment, and go erns relations of States with respect to indi idual criminal liability and its enforcement!
,4. What is an international cri&e!

ANSWER: It refers to an act or acts uni ersally recogni/ed as criminal, which is considered a gra e matter of international concern and for some alid reason cannot be

left within the e6clusi e ,urisdiction of the State that would ha e control o er it under ordinary circumstances!
,;. What is international en9iron&ental la !

ANSWER: It is a branch of public international law comprising "those substanti e, procedural and institutional rules which ha e as their primary ob,ecti e the protection of the en ironment,# the term en ironment being understood as encompassing "both the features and the products of the natural world and those of human ci ili/ation!
10. What is Princi(le "1 o% the -toc:hol& #eclaration!

ANSWER: 1his declares that States ha e the so ereign right to e6ploit their own resources pursuant to their own en ironmental policies, and the responsibility to ensure that acti ities within their ,urisdiction or control do not cause damage to the en ironment of other States or areas beyond the limits of national ,urisdiction! %%ooBoo%%

II.
Police Po er
01.

CON-TITUTIONAL LAW JBILL OG RI=5T-

#e%ine (olice (o er. What are the t o tests8 reAuisites or li&itations %or the 9ali/ eBercise o% (olice (o er!

ANSWER: Police power is the power to ma(e, ordain, and establish all manner of wholesome and reasonable laws, statutes, ordinances whether with penalties or without, not repugnant to the 9onstitution, the good and welfare of the commonwealth, and for the sub,ects of the same! (99'A %s & 3arin) 3R No& 4+8-+8) A$ri 4*) -88*/

1he two tests for the alid e6ercise of police power are: $2 3awful Sub,ect 4 the interest of the public in general, and not of a particular sub,ect, re0uires an interference with pri ate rights, and '2 3awful =eans% the means adopted must be reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose It must not be unduly oppressi e upon indi iduals! (Cit2 o# 9ani a %s& Laguio) 3R No&4474->) A$ri 4-) -88*/
0". U(on ho& is (olice (o er lo/$e/! 'a. it be /ele$ate/! What are the li&itations i% the eBercise o% (olice (o er is &erel. /ele$ate/!

ANSWER: Police power is lodged with the National 3egislature which in turn may delegate it to local go ernment units! 9ongress has delegated police to the 3@<Hs in the 3ocal @o ernment 9ode of $??$! 1he other limitations if the e6ercise of police power is merely delegated are: $2 the delegation is by e6press pro ision of law, '2 it must be e6ercised within the territorial limits of the delegate, and )2 such e6ercise is not contrary to law!
0). #oes the ''#A ha9e the (o er to con%iscate8 sus(en/ or re9o:e /ri9ersF licences!

ANSWER: NB! the ==AA does not ha e the power to confiscate, suspend or re o(e dri ersH licences without a traffic law or regulation alidly enacted by the legislature or those of the local go ernment units to whom legislati e powers ha e been delegated! Bnce there is such a law, ==AA is duty%bound to confiscate, suspend or re o(e dri ersH licences in the e6ercise of its mandate of transport and traffic management! 3icense to operate a motor ehicle is not a property, but a pri ilege granted by the state which may be suspended or re o(ed by the state in the e6ercise of its police power, in the interest of public safety and welfare, sub,ect to the procedural re0uirements of due process! (99'A %s & 3arin) su$ra&/
0*. The EB(an/e/ -enior Citi@ens Act o% "00) $rants to senior citi@ens "0K /iscount %ro& all establish&ents relati9e to the utili@ation o% ser9ices in hotels an/ si&ilar establish&ents as ell as (urchases o% &e/icines. -tate the nature or >usti%ication o% the la .

ANSWER: 1he law is a legitimate e6ercise of police power which, similar to the power of eminent domain, has the general welfare for its ob,ect! When conditions so demand as determined by the legislature, property rights must bow to the primacy of police power because property rights, though sheltered by due process, must yield to the general welfare! (Car os ,u$er 'rug Cor$& %s& ',W') 3R No& 4..656) Januar2 -5) -88>/ Po er o% E&inent #o&ain
+. What is the (o er o% e&inent /o&ain! What are the constitutional li&itations in the eBercise o% the (o er o% e&inent /o&ain!

ANSWER: 1he power of eminent domain is the "rightful authority, which e6ists in e ery so ereignty to control and regulate those rights of public nature which pertain to its citi/ens in common, and to appropriate and control indi idual property for the public benefit, as the public safety, necessity, con enience, or welfare may demand! 1he e6ercise of the power of eminent domain is constrained by two constitutional pro isions: 8$2 that pri ate property shall not be ta(en for public use without ,ust compensation under Article III, Section ? on .ill of Rights and 8'2 the due process clause which states that no person shall be depri ed of life, liberty or property without due process of law also under Article III, Section $! (Lagcao %s& La0ra) 3R No& 4**>6.) Octo0er 4+) -886/ 010 CON,TITUTIONAL LAWBBILL O? RI3"T, PP0"
0,. #istin$uish the (o er o% e&inent /o&ain %ro& (olice (o er.

ANSWER: In the e6ercise of the power of eminent domain, the ta(ing of property is for public use while in the e6ercise of police power, the ta(ing is a mere incident to a alid regulation to promote public interest! In the e6ercise of eminent domain, property or right of property is ta(en from the owner and transferred to a public agency to be en,oyed by its as its own while in the e6ercise of police power, the ta(ing of property or a right therein is accomplished not by transfer of ownership but by destroying the property or impairing its alue!

01.

#istin$uish the e%%ects o% the eBercise o% (olice (o er an/ the (o er o% i&&inent /o&ain in relation to the ri$ht to (ri9ate (ro(ert..

ANSWER: In the e6ercise of police power, there is a limitation or restriction of property interests to promote public welfare which in ol es no compensable ta(ing! 9ompensation is necessary only when the stateHs power of eminent domain is e6ercised! In eminent domain, property is appropriated and applied to some public purpose! Property condemned under the e6ercise of police power, on the other hand, is no6ious or intended for no6ious or forbidden purpose, and conse0uently, is not compensable! 1he restriction imposed to protect li es, public health and safety from danger is not a ta(ing! It is merely the prohibition or abatement of no6ious use which interferes with paramount right of the public! (,ocia Justice ,ociet2 %s& Atien<a) *6* ,CRA 5-/
04. 'a. L=UFs eBercise the (o er o% e&inent /o&ain! 'a. L=UFs 9ali/l. eB(ro(riate s&all lots to acco&&o/ate no &ore than %e tenants or sAuatters!

ANSWER: FES! While 3@<Hs ha e no inherent power of eminent domain, by irtue of the 3ocal @o ernment 9ode, 9ongress conferred upon 3@<Hs the power to e6propriate! >owe er, condemnation of small pri ate lots in an irrational or piecemeal fashion or the random e6propriation of small lots to accommodate no more than a few tenants or s0uatters is certainly not the condemnation for public use contemplated by the 9onstitution! 1his is depri ing a citi/en of his property for the con enience of a few without perceptible benefit to the public! While housing is one of the most serious problems of the country, 3@<Hs do not possess unbridled authority to e6ercise their power of eminent domain in see(ing solutions to this problem! (Lagcao %s& La0ra) su$ra/
0;. 'a. a baran$a. $o9ern&ent eB(ro(riate a (ro(ert. hich shall be use/ as a %ee/er roa/ %or the bene%it o% the resi/ents o% Puro: Paraiso8 .et the Puro: is ithin a (ri9ate sub/i9ision!

ANSWER: NB! 1he e6propriation was intended for pri ate purpose! It would benefit only the owners of the subdi ision who will be able to circum ent the commitment to pro ide road access to the subdi ision and relie ed from spending their funds for a right of way! 1he intended e6propriation of pri ate property for the benefit of a pri ate indi idual is clearly proscribed by the 9onstitution, declaring that it should be for public use or purpose! 3i(ewise, public fund can be used only for a public purpose! In this proposed condemnation, go ernment funds would be employed for the benefit of a pri ate indi idual without any legal mooring! (Baranga2 ,in!a an %s& CA) 3R No& 4*8.68) 9arch --) -88>/
10. -(ouses 5 an/ W ere the lessees o% a (arcel o% lan/ in Lue@on Cit.. A la as enacte/ authori@in$ the national $o9ern&ent to eB(ro(riate certain (ro(erties8 a&on$ others8 %or the eBtension o% E#-A. The lan/ lease/ b. 5 an/ W as (art o% those eB(ro(riate/ un/er the sai/ la . The. ere not inclu/e/ in the eB(ro(riation (rocee/in$s because the. ere &ere lessees o% the (ro(ert.8 accor/in$ to the -olicitor =eneral. To be entitle/ to >ust co&(ensation8 shoul/ the /e%en/ant be the o ner o% the (ro(ert. eB(ro(riate/!

ANSWER: NB! 1he defendants in an e6propriation case are not limited to the owners of the property condemned! 1hey include all other persons, owning, occupying, or claiming to own the property! When a parcel of land is ta(en by eminent domain, the owner of the fee is not necessarily the only person entitled to compensation! A lessee, mortgagee, or a endee in possession under an e6ecutory contract of the land has the right to ta(e part in the e6propriation proceeding! If a person claiming an interest in the land sought to be condemned is not made a party, he is gi en the right to inter ene and lay claim to the compensation! (Fnecht %s& CA) 3R No& 48784*) 9a2 -8 4557/ CON,TITUTIONAL LAWBBILL O? RI3"T, PP0)

11.

A (ro(ert. as con9erte/ into an air(ort b. the Air Trans(ortation O%%ice 6ATO7 /e(ri9in$ the o ners o% the bene%icial use an/ en>o.&ent o% the sa&e as earl. as 1;*4 ithout an eB(ro(riation (rocee/in$. It as conten/e/ that there as ta:in$8 hence8 >ust co&(ensation shoul/ be rec:one/ %ro& 1;*4. Is the contention le$all. tenable!

ANSWER: NB! As a general rule, the determination of ,ust compensation in eminent domain cases is rec(oned from the time of ta(ing! (3a0atin %s& LBO) 666 ,CRA 4>./ In this case, howe er, application of the said rule would lead to gra e in,ustice! Note that the A1B had been using the property as airport since $?*7 without ha ing instituted the proper e6propriation proceedings! 1o peg the alue of the property at the time of ta(ing in $?*7, despite the e6ponential increase in its alue considering the lapse of o er half a century, would be ini0uitous! A1B cannot con eniently in o(e the right of eminent domain to ta(e ad antage of the ridiculously low alue of the property at the time of ta(ing that it arbitrarily chooses to the pre,udice of the owners! :ustice and fairness dictate that the appropriate rec(oning point for the aluation of the property is when the trial court made its order of e6propriation in ';;$! ("eirs o# 9ateo Pi!acan an! Romana Eigo %s& ATO) 3R No& 4.->>5) June 4*) -88>/ Conce(t o% #ue Process
1". What is /ue (rocess! What are its (ur(oses! Who are co9ere/ b. the /ue (rocess clause!

ANSWER: 1here is no controlling and precise definition of due process but its standard may be described! 1his standard may be described as responsi eness to the supremacy of reason, obedience to the dictates of ,ustice, and as such, it is a limitation upon the e6ercise of police power! Among the purposes of the guaranty of the right to due process area: $2 to pre ent go ernmental encroachment against the life, liberty and property of indi iduals, and '2 to secure to all persons e0ual and impartial ,ustice and the benefit of the general law! (Cit2 o# 9ani a %s& Laguio) su$ra&/ 1he guarantee ser es as protection against arbitrary regulation, and pri ate corporations and partnerships are persons within the scope of the guaranty insofar as their property is concerned! (I0i!&/

"ue Process and 0ig$t to Counsel

1). #oes the /ue (rocess clause enco&(ass the ri$ht to be assiste/ b. counsel /urin$ an/ a/&inistrati9e inAuir.!

ANSWER: NB! In an administrati e proceeding, a respondent has the option of engaging the ser ices of counsel or not! 1hus, the right to counsel is not imperati e in administrati e in estigations because such in0uiries are conducted merely to determine whether there are facts that merit disciplinary measures against erring public officers and employees, with the purpose of maintaining the dignity of go ernment ser ice! 1he right to counsel is not indispensable to due process unless re0uired by the 9onstitution or the law! (Lumi(ue! %s& E@e%ea) -7- ,CRA 4-* an! Remo ana %s& C,C) +.- ,CRA +86/ #ue Process an/ Preli&inar. In9esti$ation
1*. The char$e %ile/ a$ainst (etitioner as &o/i%ie/ %ro& 9iolation o% Art. ""0 6Technical 'al9ersation7 o% the Re9ise/ Penal Co/e to 9iolation o% -ecs. )6e7 an/ )6h78 RA )01;. Petitioners clai& that their ri$ht to /ue (rocess as /enie/ since the. ere not $i9en the o((ortunit. to ans er an/ (resent e9i/ence on the ne char$e in a (reli&inar. in9esti$ation. #eci/e.

ANSWER: 1he petition lac(s merit! 1he right to a preliminary in estigation is not a constitutional right but it is merely conferred by statute! 1he absence of a preliminary in estigation does not impair the alidity of Information or otherwise render the same defecti e! 1he denial of the motion for rein estigation cannot li(ewise in alidate the Information or oust the court of its ,urisdiction o er the case! Petitioners were not denied due process because they had the opportunity to refute the charges by filing their counter% affida its! 1he modification of the offense charged was based on the same set of facts and the same allegedly illegal acts! Gurthermore, the right to preliminary in estigation is deemed wai ed when the accused fails to in o(e it before or at the time of entering a plea

on arraignment! (Bu!iongan %s& !e a Cru<) 3R No& 4>8-77) ,e$tem0er --) -88./ CON,TITUTIONAL LAWBBILL O? RI3"T,
1+.

PP0*

A res(on/ent clai& /enial o% /ue (rocess hen she as $i9en the o((ortunit. to %ile her a%%i/a9its an/ other (lea/in$s an/ sub&it e9i/ence be%ore the #O? /urin$ the (reli&inar. in9esti$ation o% her case an/ be%ore the In%or&ation as %ile/ a$ainst her. #eci/e.

ANSWER: 1here is no denial of due process! Aue process is merely an opportunity to be heard! In addition, preliminary in estigation conducted by the AB: is merely in0uisitorial! It is not a trial of the case on the merits! Its sole purpose is to determine whether a crime has been committed and whether the respondent therein is probably guilty of the crime! It is not the occasion to the full and e6hausti e display of the partiesH e idence! >ence, if the in estigating prosecutor is already satisfied that he can reasonably determine the e6istence of probable cause based on the partiesH e idence thus presented, he may terminate the proceedings and resol e the case! (,antos %s& Peo$ e) 3R No& 4>+4>.) August -.) -887/ Conce(t o% EAual Protection
1,. What is .our un/erstan/in$ o% the eAual (rotection clause! #oes it ta:e the (o er to classi%.! What are the reAuisites o% 9ali/ classi%ication! a. %ro& the -tate

ANSWER: 1he guaranty to e0ual protection and uniformity is satisfied $2 when the laws operate uniformly on all persons under similar circumstances, and '2 all persons are treated in the same manner in terms of both pri ileges conferred and liabilities imposed, the conditions not being different, and that fa oritism and preference are not allowed! NB! 1he e0ual protection clause does not ta(e away from the state the power to classify in the adoption of police power laws, but admits of the e6ercise of the wide scope of discretion in that regards and a oids what is done only when it is without any reasonable basis, and therefore is purely arbitrary! (Re1 Re(uest #or the grant o# ,$ecia 'istortion A o:ance) A&9& No& 8+B44B-*B,C) Octo0er 4) -886/ 1he re0uisites of alid classification are: $2 there must substantial distinctions which must ma(e for real differences& '2 the classification must be germane to the issue& )2 it must apply not only to e6isting conditions but future conditions as well& and *2 it must be applicable to all members of the same class! (Peo$ e %s& ;era) .* Phi *./
11. The (etitioners assail the 9ali/it. o% A/&inistrati9e or/er No. 18 hich (rohibite/ &otorc.cles on li&ite/ access hi$h a.s on the basis o% RA "000 6Li&ite/ Access 5i$h a. Act7. The (etitioner see:s re/ress %ro& the &otorc.cle ban un/er the eAual (rotection clause8 because AO 1 sin$le/ out &otorc.cles. #eci/e.

ANSWER: 1here is a real and substantial distinction between a motorcycle and other motor ehicles! Not all motori/ed ehicles are created e0ual 4 real and substantial differences e6ist between a motorcycle and other forms of transport sufficient to ,ustify its classification among those prohibited from plying the toll ways! (9iraso %s& 'PW") 3R No& 4*7>5+) June 7) -88./
14. #oes the VAT La 9iolate the /ue (rocess an/ eAual (rotection clauses hen it re/uce/ the in(ut cre/its to onl. 10K o% out(ut VAT!

ANSWER: NB! Input +A1 is not a property or a property right within the constitutional pur iew of the due process clause being merely a statutory pri ilege! Persons ha e no ested rights in statutory pri ileges! 1he State may change or ta(e away rights, which were created by laws of the State, although it may not ta(e away property, which was ested which was ested by irtue of such rights! (A0a=a!a 3uro Part2List %s& Ermita) 3R No& 4.78*.) ,e$t& 4) -88*/

1;.

#oes a cit. or/inance that (rohibit &otels an/ inns in the Er&ita0'alate area but not outsi/e o% this area 9iolate the eAual (rotection clause!

ANSWER: FES! A city ordinance iolates the e0ual protection clause where it prohibits motels and inns but not pension houses, hotels, lodging houses or other similar establishments despite the fact that these establishments are all similarly situated! Gurthermore, it prohibits the business and operation of motels in the Ermita%=alate area but not outside of this area! 1here is no alid classification because a no6ious establishment does not become any less no6ious if located outside the area! 89ity of =anila s !3aguio, supra!2 CON,TITUTIONAL LAWBBILL O? RI3"T, -earch an/ -ei@ureD Probable Cause
"0.

PP0+

What are the reAuisites %or issuin$ a search arrant! What are the reAuisites in the /eter&ination o% the eBistence o% (robable cause!

ANSWER: A search warrant shall not issue but $2 upon probable clause '2 in connection with one specific offense a2 to be determined personally by the ,udge b2 after e6amination under oath or affirmation of i2 the complainant ii2 the witness he may produce, and )2 particularly describing a2 the place to be searched and b2 the things to be sei/ed i2 anywhere in the Philippines! <nder the 9onstitution and the Rules of 9ourt, the issuance of a search warrant is ,ustified only upon a finding of probable cause! In determining the e6istence of probable cause, it is re0uired that: 8$2 the ,udge must e6amine the complainant of his witness personally& 8'2 the e6amination must be under oath& and 8)2 the e6amination must be reduced in :riting in the #orm o# searching (uestions an! ans:ers& In Peo$ e %s& 9amari ) 3R No& 46>.8>) Januar2 --) -886) the records only show the e6istence of an application for search warrant, 1he affida its of complainantHs witnesses and return of the search warrant! 1he prosecution failed to pro e that the issuing ,udge put into writing his e6amination of the applicant and his witnesses in the form of searching 0uestions and answers before issuance of the search warrant, rendering the search warrant in alid and the e idence sei/ed pursuant thereto is inadmissible!
"1. 'a. the constitutional (rotection a$ainst unreasonable searches an/ sei@ures be eBten/e/ to acts co&&itte/ b. (ri9ate in/i9i/uals!

ANSWER: NB! As held in Peo$ e %s& 9arti) $?) S9RA -K, the constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and sei/ures refers to the immunity of oneHs person from interference by go ernment and it cannot be e6tended to acts committed by pri ate indi iduals so as to bring it within the ambit of alleged unlawful intrusion! (Peo$ e %s& 9en!o<a) +84 ,CRA ../
"". Can the (lace to be searche/8 as set out in the arrant8 be a&(li%ie/ or &o/i%ie/ b. the o%%icersF o n (ersonal :no le/$e o% the (re&ises8 or the e9i/ence the. a//uce in su((ort o% their a((lication %or arrant!

ANSWER: NB! Such a change is proscribed by the 9onstitution which re0uires inter a ia the search warrant to particularly describe the place to be searched as well as the persons or things to be sei/ed! It would concede to the police officers the power of choosing the place to be searched, e en if it not be that delineated in the warrant! It would open wide the door to abuse of the search process, and grant to officers e6ecuting a search warrant that discretion which the 9onstitution has precisely remo ed from them! 1he particulari/ation of the description of the place to be searched may properly be done only by the ,udge, and only in the warrant itself& it cannot be left to the discretion of the police officers conducting the search! (Peo$ e %s& CA) -54 ,CRA 688/
"). What are the instances o% 9ali/ arrantless searches an/ sei@ures!

ANSWER: $2 search incident to a lawful arrest '2 when it in ol es prohibited articles in "plain iew!# )2 search of a mo ing ehicle *2 consented warrantless search -2 customs searches 52 searches without warrant of automobiles K2 "Stop and fris(# 72 E6igent and emergency circumstances ! (Peo$ e %s& Nue%as) 3R No& 4>8-++) ?e0& --) -88>/
"*. What is (robable cause in arrantless arrest!

ANSWER: Probable cause means an actual belief or reasonable ground of suspicion!

1hus, there is no "personal (nowledge of facts# where the police officers merely relied on information gi en to them by others such as a report of the (illing, information from a witness who saw the (illing, the physical description gi en of the last man who saw the ictim fitting the person arrested and information where this man li ed! (Peo$ e %s& Cu0cu0in) 3R No& 4+.-.>)Ju 2 48) -884/
"+. What is the (lain 9ie /octrine!

ANSWER: Bb,ects falling within the plain iew of an officer who has a right to be in the position to ha e that iew are sub,ect to sei/ure e en without search warrant and may be introduced in e idence! CON,TITUTIONAL LAWBBILL O? RI3"T, PP0,
",. What is the 2Gruit o% the Poisone/ Tree3 #octrine!

ANSWER: E idence obtained from illegal search and sei/ure shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceedings! QArt! III, Sec! )8'2R Privac% of Communication
"1. AN#REA an/ 'ONICA ha/ con%rontation in the latterFs o%%ice. AN#REA secretl. ta(e/ the con9ersation. The con9ersation bet een the& bor/ere/ on hu&iliatin$ an/ 9eBin$ the (ersonalit. an/ /i$nit. o% 'ONICA %or hich she %ile/ a ci9il case %or /a&a$es. #urin$ the hearin$ AN#REA (ro/uce/ the recor/e/ ta(e to (ro9e that 'ONICA in/ee/ insulte/ her. 'ONICA8 in a countersuit %ile/ a cri&inal case a$ainst AN#REA %or 9iolation o% RA *"00 hich (rohibits an/ (enali@es ire ta((in$ an/ other 9iolations o% (ri9ate co&&unications. AN#REA &o9e/ to /is&iss the cri&inal case on the $roun/ that the alle$ations /o not constitute an o%%ense an/ that the ta(in$ o% con9ersation bet een the (arties is not co9ere/ b. RA *"00. The trial court $rante/ sai/ &otion hich /ecision as re9erse/ b. the Court o% A((eals. AN#REA ele9ate/ the case to the -u(re&e Court on certiorari. Is AN#REA liable %or 9iolation o% RA *"00! #eci/e.

ANSWER: FES! Section $ of RA *';; clearly and une0ui ocably prohibits any person, not authori/ed by all the parties to any pri ate con ersation, to secretly tape record any communication by means of a tape recorder! 9ongressional records support the iew that the intention of the lawma(ers in enacting RA *';; is to ma(e illegal any unauthori/ed tape recording of pri ate con ersation or communication ta(en by either of the parties themsel es or third persons! Absent a clear showing that both parties to the telephone con ersations allowed the recording of the same, the inadmissibility of the sub,ect tapes is mandatory under RA *';;! (Ramire< %s& CA) -67 ,CRA *58 an! ,a ce!oBOrtane< %s& CA) -+* ,CRA 444/

In 9am0a %s& Ju!ge 3arcia) A&9& No& 9TJB5.B4448) June -*) -884) the Supreme 9ourt li(ewise ruled that the in estigating ,udgeHs reliance on the tape%recorded con ersation is erroneous! 1he recording of pri ate con ersation, without the consent of the parties, contra enes the pro isions of RA *';;, otherwise (nown as the Anti%Wire 1apping 3aw, and renders the same inadmissible in e idence in any proceeding! 1he law co ers e en those recorded by persons pri y to the con ersation, as in this case!
"4. Can a /etention (risoner 9ali/l. in9o:e his ri$ht to (ri9ac. o% co&&unication $uarantee/ un/er -ection ) o% the Bill o% Ri$hts!

ANSWER: I 0ualify! While letters containing confidential communication between detainees and their lawyers en,oy a limited protection in that prison officials can open and inspect the mail for contraband but could not read the contents thereof without iolating the inmatesH right to correspondence, letters folded but not in a sealed en elope and are not confidential communication between the detainees and their lawyers, the officials of the ISAGP Aetention 9enter could read the letters! If the letters are mar(ed confidential communication between detainees and their lawyers, the detention officials should not read the letters but only open the en elopes for inspection in the presence of the detainees! (A ejano %s& Ca0ua2) 6.7 ,CRA 477/ 0ig$t to Privac% and 0ig$t Against 2elf4incrimination
";. #oes a -enate Co&&ittee inAuir. 9iolate Philco&sat 5ol/in$ Cor(oration an/ -tan/ar/ Charter Ban:Fs ri$ht to (ri9ac. an/ ri$ht a$ainst sel%0incri&ination!

ANSWER: NB! Since the in0uiry focused on the acts committed in the discharge of their duties as officers and directors of said corporations, they ha e no reasonable e6pectation of pri acy on matters in ol ing their offices in a corporation where the go ernment has

interest! Such matters are of public concern and o er which the people ha e the right to information! 1his goes to show that the right to pri acy is not absolute where there is an o erriding compelling state interest!(,a0io %s& 3or!on) *86 ,CRA >86/ Employing the rational basis relationship test, as laid down in 9or#e %s& 9utuc) -- ,CRA 6-6) there is no infringement on the indi idualHs right to pri acy as the re0uirement to disclose information is for alid purpose, in this case, to ensure that the go ernment agencies in ol ed in regulating ban(ing transactions ade0uately protect the public who in est in foreign securities! Suffice it to say that this purpose constitutes a reason compelling enough to proceed with the assailed legislati e in estigation! (,tan!ar! Charter Ban= %s& ,enate Committee on Ban=s) 3R 4.>4>+) 'ecem0er ->) -88>/ CON,TITUTIONAL LAWBBILL O? RI3"T, PP01

1he right against self%incrimination may be in o(ed by the said directors and officers of the corporations only when the incriminating 0uestion is being as(ed, since they ha e no way of (nowing in ad ance the nature or effect of the 0uestions to be as(ed of them! 1hat this right may possibly iolated or abused is no ground for denying the Senate 9ommittees their power of in0uiry! When this power is abused, it may be presented before the courts! What is important is that the Senate 9ommittees ha e sufficient Ru es to guide them when the right against self%incrimination is in o(ed! (,a0io %s& 3or!on) su$ra&/ An accused occupies a different tier of protection from an ordinary witness! Whereas an ordinary witness may be compelled to ta(e the witness stand and claim the pri ilege as each 0uestion re0uiring an incriminating answer is shot at him, an accused may altogether refuse to ta(e the witness stand and refuse to answer any 0uestions! In this case, petitioners neither stand as accused in criminal case nor will they be sub,ected by the respondent to any penalty by reason of their testimonies! >ence, they cannot altogether decline appearing before respondent, although they may in o(e the pri ilege when a 0uestion calling for an incriminating answer is propounded! (,tan!ar! Charter Ban= %s& ,enate Committee) su$ra/ Gree/o& o% EB(ression
)0. The National Teleco&&unications Co&&ission issue/ this (ress releaseC 2NTC =IVEGAIR WARNIN= TO RA#IO AN# TELEVI-ION OWNER- TO OB-ERVE ANTI0 WIRETAPPIN= LAW AN# PERTINENT CIRCULAR- ON PRO=RA' -TAN#AR#-.3 Petitioner Cha9e@ %ile/ a (etition alle$in$ that the acts o% res(on/ents are 9iolation o% the %ree/o& on eB(ression an/ o% the (ress8 an/ the ri$ht o% the (eo(le on in%or&ation on &atters o% (ublic concern.

ANSWER: It is clear that the challenged acts in the case at bar need to be sub,ected to the clear and present danger rule, as they are content%based restrictions! 1he acts of the respondents focused solely on but one sub,ect 4 a specific content% fi6ed as these were on the alleged tape con ersation between the President and a 9B=E3E9 official! <ndoubtedly, these did not merely pro ide regulations as to the time, place or manner of the dissemination of speech and e6pression! 1he records of the case at bar, howe er are confused and confusing, and respondentHs e idence fall short of satisfying the clear and present danger test! (Cha%e< %s& 3on<a e<) 3R No& 4.7++7) ?e0ruar2 4*) -887/ Gree/o& o% Reli$ionM-e(aration o% Church E -tate
)1. Can the courts8 in the (er%or&ance o% their >u/icial %unctions8 eBercise control o9er church authorities in the (er%or&ance o% their /iscretionar. an/ o%%icial %unctions!

ANSWER: NB! 1he e6pulsionPe6communication of members of a religious institution or organi/ation is a matter best left to the discretion of the officials, and laws and canons, of said institutionPorgani/ation! It is not for the courts to e6ercise control o er church authorities in the performance of their discretionary and official functions! In disputes in ol ing religious institution or organi/ation, there is one area which the 9ourt should not touch: doctrinal and disciplinary matters! 1he amendments of the constitution, re%statement of articles of religion and abandonment of faith or ab,uration alleged by the appellant, ha ing to do with faith, practice, doctrine, form of worship, ecclesiastical law, custom and rule of a church and ha ing reference to the power of e6cluding from the church those allegedly unworthy of membership, are un0uestionably ecclesiastical matters which are outside the pro ince of ci il courts! (Taruc %s& Cru<) 6*+ ,CRA 4-+/

)".

What /o .ou un/erstan/ b. the #octrine o% ACCO''O#ATION!

BENEVOLENT NEUTRALITN or

ANSWER: 1he doctrine belie es that the wall of separation that di ides the church and the state is meant to protect the church from the state! 1he principle recogni/es that the state is not hostile to religion because it plays an important role in public life! It belie es that the wall of separation does not re0uire the state to be ad ersary, rather, the state must be neutral in its relations with groups or religious belie ers and non%belie ers! <nder the doctrine, accommodation of religion may be allowed not to promote the go ernmentHs fa ored form of religion, but to allow indi iduals and groups to e6ercise their religion without hindrance! 1hus, the Philippine 9onstitution pro ides for ta6 e6emption of church properties, salary of religious officers in go ernment institutions, and optional CON,TITUTIONAL LAWBBILL O? RI3"T, PP04 religious instructions in public schools! 1he adoption of the bene olent neutrality% accommodation approach does not mean that the 9ourt ought to grant e6emption e ery time a free e6ercise claim comes before it! (Estra!a %s& Escritor) 65- ,CRA 4/ Libert. o% Abo/e E Tra9el
)). What are the li&itations on libert. o% abo/e! What are the li&itations on the ri$ht to tra9el!

ANSWER: 1he limitation on the liberty of abode is upon lawful order of the court while on the right to tra el is in the interest of national security, public safety or public health, as may be pro ided by law! 8Art! III, Sec! 52 Ri$ht to In%or&ation
)*. #oes the CO'ELEC ha9e the constitutional /ut. to /isclose an/ release the na&es o% the no&inees o% the (art.0list $rou(s.

ANSWER: FES! 1he right to information is a public right where the real parties in interest are the public or the citi/ens! 1he right to information is limited to "matters of public concern# and is further sub,ect to such limitations as may be pro ided by law! Also, the policy of public disclosure on Art! II Sec! '7, is confined to transactions in ol ing "public interest and is sub,ect to reasonable conditions prescribed by law! >owe er, no national security is in ol ed in the disclosure of the names of the nominees of the party%list groups in 0uestion! (Banta2 RA >564 %s& CO9ELEC) 3R No& 4>>->4) 9a2 6) -88>/
)+. Are the o%%ers &a/e b. the Phili((ine an/ ?a(anese $o9ern&ents /urin$ the ne$otiations o% the ?a(an0Phili((ines Econo&ic Partnershi( A$ree&ent 6?PEPA7 co9ere/ b. the eBecuti9e (ri9ile$e on /i(lo&atic co&&unications!

ANSWER: FES! In A=0a2an Citi<ens Action Part2 %s& A(uino) 3R No& 4>8*4.)Ju 2 4.) -887) it was held that the :apanese representati es submitted their offers with the understanding that Shistoric con%i/entialit.F would go ern the same and that they continue to be pri ilege e en after the agreement has been published! Aisclosing these offers could impair the ability of the Philippines to deal not only with :apan but with other foreign go ernments in %uture ne$otiations. A ruling that Philippines offers in treaty negotiation should now be open to public scrutiny would discourage future Philippine representati es from fran(ly e6pressing their iews during negotiations! 1he diplomatic negotiation pri ilege bears a close resemblance to the deliberati e process and presidential communication pri ilege! Ri$ht to Gor& Associations
),. #oes the ri$ht the ri$ht to stri:e %or& a (art o% the %ree/o& o% eB(ression!

ANSWER: NB! 1he claim that the right to stri(e is a part of the freedom of e6pression and the right to peacefully assemble and petition the go ernment for redress of grie ances, and should thus, be recogni/ed e en in the case of go ernment employees, was re,ected by the Supreme 9ourt in 3,I, %s& Fa$isanan ng 9ga 9anggaga:a sa 3,I,) 3R No& 4>84+-) 'ecem0er .) -88. Non0i&(air&ent Clause
)1. What is the non0i&(air&ent clause!

ANSWER: 1he non%impairment clause is a constitutional prohibition for 9ongress and

Sanggunians to enact a law or ordinance which changes the terms of a legal contract between parties, either in the time or mode of performance, or imposes new conditions, or dispenses with those e6pressed or authori/es for its satisfaction something different from that pro ided in its term! It impairs the obligation of a contract and is therefore null and oid! 1o constitute impairment, the law must affect a change in the rights of the parties with reference to its other and not with respect to non%parties! (P"ILRECA %s& The ,ecretar2) 'IL3) 3R No& 46+8>.) June 48) -88+/
)4. Unite/ BG 5o&eo ners Associations8 Inc.8 Auestions the constitutionalit. o% a @onin$ or/inance reclassi%.in$ certain (ortions o% BG 5o&es ParanaAue %ro& resi/ential to co&&ercial @one because it i&(airs the contracts bet een the /e9elo(er an/ the lot bu.ers. One o% the (ro&ises o% the /e9elo(er is that the (ro(ert. shall be use/ %or resi/ential (ur(oses onl.. Is the or/inance 9iolati9e o% the non0i&(air&ent clause in the Bill o% Ri$hts!

CON,TITUTIONAL LAWBBILL O? RI3"T, PP0; ANSWER: NB! 1he 9ourt has upheld in se eral cases the superiority of police power o er the non%impairment clause! 1he constitutional guarantee of non%impairment of contracts is limited by the e6ercise of police power of the State, in the interest of public health, safety, morals and general welfare! (Unite! B? "omeo:nersG Associations) Inc& %s& The Cit2 9a2or) Parana(ue Cit2/ In Ortigas H Co& %s& ?eati Ban= an! Trust Co&) 56 ,CRA *++) 1he 9ourt held that contractual restrictions on the use of property could not pre ail o er the reasonable e6ercise of police power through /oning regulations! Ri$ht to Re&ain -ilent an/ to Counsel
);. What is custo/ial in9esti$ation! What are the ri$hts o% a (erson un/er custo/ial in9esti$ation!

ANSWER: 9ustodial in estigation is the stage of police in estigation $2 when a parson is ta(en into custody and '2 is singled out as a suspect in the commission of the crime under in estigation and )2 the police officers begin to as( 0uestions on a2 the suspectHs participation therein and b2 which tend to elicit an admission! (Peo$ e %s& Pa%i are) 3R No& 4-55>8) A$ri *) -888/ 1he "=iranda# rights of a person under custodial in estigation are the right $2 to be informed of his right to remain silent, '2 to ha e competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice and the right to be informed of such rights! If the person cannot afford the ser ices of counsel, he must be pro ided with one! 1hese rights, e6cept the right to be informed of such rights, cannot be wai ed e6cept in writing and in the presence of counsel! (Peo$ e %s& Naag) 3R No& 4-+7.8) Januar2 -8) -888/ 1he person under custodial in estigation must be informed in a language (nown to and understood by him of the reason for the arrest and he must be shown the warrant of arrest, if any! (Peo$ e %s& 9ahina2) 3R No& 4--67*) ?e0ruar2 4) 4555& EBclusionar. Rule
*0. #oes the eBclusionar. rule un/er (ara$ra(h "8 -ection 1" o% the Bill o% Ri$ht a((l. to a/&issions &a/e in an a/&inistrati9e in9esti$ation! What about eBtra>u/icial state&ents &a/e be%ore an e&(lo.er!

ANSWER: NB! 1he e6clusionary rule under paragraph 8'2, Section $' of the .ill of Rights applies only to admissions made in a criminal in estigation but not to those made in an administrati e in estigation! Admissions made by a respondent during an administrati e in estigation may be used as e idence to ,ustify his dismissal! As such, the hearing conducted by the in estigating authority is not part of criminal prosecution! 1he right to counsel attaches only upon the start of a custodial in estigation! 1he right to counsel under Section $' of the .ill of Rights is meant to protect a suspect in a criminal case under custodial in estigation! (Remo ana %s& C,C) +.- ,CRA +86/ NB! Admissions made during the course of administrati e in estigation by an employer 8Philippine Airlines2 do not come within the pur iew of Section $'! 1he protecti e mantle of the constitutional pro ision also does not e6tend to admissions or confessions made to a radio announcer who was not part of the in estigation, or e en to a mayor approached as a personal confidante and not in his official capacity! 1he right e6ist only in "custodial in estigations,# or "in%custody custody interrogation of accused persons!# And, by custodial interrogation is meant "0uestioning initiated by law

enforcement officers after a person has been ta(en into custody or otherwise depri ed of his freedom of action in any significant way!# (Peo$ e %s& A2son) 4>* ,CRA -4.A Peo$ e %s& Tin Lan U2) 6>* ,CRA -671 Astu!i o %s& Peo$ e) 3R No& 4*5>+6) No%& +8) -88./ Ri$ht to Bail
*1. What is bail! What are the %or&s o% bail!

ANSWER: .ail is a security gi en for the release of a person in custody of the law, furnished by him or a bondsman, to guarantee his appearance before any court as re0uired under the conditions hereinafter specified! 8Sec! $, Rule $$*, RB92 .ail may be in the form of corporate surety, property bond, cash deposit or recogni/ance! CON,TITUTIONAL LAWBBILL O? RI3"T,
*". When is bail a &atter o% ri$ht!

PP10

ANSWER: All persons in custody shall be admitted to bail as a matter of right, with sufficient sureties, or be released on recogni/ance as prescribed by law of the Rules of 9ourt $2 before con iction by the =etropolitan 1rial 9ourt, =unicipal 1rial 9ourt, =unicipal 1rial 9ourt in 9ities, or =unicipal 9ircuit 1rial 9ourt, and '2 before con iction by the Regional 1rial 9ourt of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment! 8Sec! *, Rule $$*, RB92
*). When is bail &atter o% /iscretion! In hat court can the a((lication %or bail be %ile/!

ANSWER: <pon con iction by the Regional 1rial 9ourt of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, the court, on application, admission to bail is discretionary! 666 Should the court grant the application, the accused may be allowed pro isional liberty during the pendency of the appeal under the same bail sub,ect to the consent of the bondsman! 8Sec! -, Rule $$*2 Whene er the grant of bail is a matter of discretion, or the accused see(s to be released on recogni/ance, the application can only be filed in the court where the case is pending, whether on preliminary in estigation, trial, or appeal! 8Sec! $K, Rule $$*2
**. EB(lain the conce(t o% /iscretionar. bail (en/in$ a((eal a%ter con9iction %or non0ca(ital o%%ense.

ANSWER: 1he discretion to e6tend bail during the course of the appeal should be e6ercised with gra e caution and for strong reasons, considering that the accused has been in fact con icted by the trial court! Reason: .ail should be granted only when it is uncertain whether the accused is guilty or innocent, and therefore, where that uncertainty is remo ed by con iction it would, generally spea(ing be absurd to admit bail! Grom another point of iew, it may be properly argued that the probability of ultimate punishment is so enhanced by the con iction that the accused is more li(ely to escape if liberated on bail than before con iction! (Ia$) Jr& %s& CA) 3R No& 464*-5/
*+. Is hearin$ &an/ator. hen the accuse/ is char$e/ (er(etua8 or li%e i&(rison&ent! ith an o%%ense (unishable b. reclusion

ANSWER: FES! 1he ,udge shall conduct a hearing whether summary or otherwise, not only to ta(e into account the guidelines set forth under the Rules for the grant of bail, but primarily to determine the e6istence of strong e idence of guilt or lac( of it, against the accused, only for purposes of the bail! If e idence of guilt is not strong, bail becomes a matter of right! Presu&(tion o% Innocence
*,. Are the si$natures o% the accuse/ on the boBes an/ on the (lastic ba$s tanta&ount to uncounselle/ eBtra>u/icial con%essions an/ there%ore ina/&issible in e9i/ence!

ANSWER: FES! 1hey are not sanctioned by the .ill of Rights and are therefore inadmissible as e idence! 1he fact that all of the accused are foreign nationals does not

preclude application of the "E6clusionary rule# because the constitutional guarantee embodied in the .ill of Rights are gi en and e6tends to all persons, both aliens and citi/ens! (Peo$ e %s& Wong Chuen 9ing) 3R No& 44-784B44) A$ri 4-) 455./ 1he accused ha e the constitutional presumption of innocence! Ri$ht to -(ee/. Trial
*1. When is the ri$ht to s(ee/. trial /ee&e/ 9iolate/!

ANSWER: =ere mathematical rec(oning of time in ol ed is not sufficient in determining iolation of right to speedy trial! It is iolated only when the proceedings is attended by e6atious, capricious and oppressi e delays or when un,ustified postponements of the trial are as(ed and secured, or when without cause or un,ustifiable moti e, along period of time is allowed to lapse without the party ha ing his case tried! (T2B'a<o %s& ,an!igan0a2an) 3R No& 46+77*B7.) Januar2 -4) -88-/ CON,TITUTIONAL LAWBBILL O? RI3"T, PP11 -us(ension o% the Writ o% 5abeas Cor(us
*4. When &a. the (ri9ile$e o% the sus(ension be a((lie/! rit o% habeas cor(us be sus(en/e/! To ho& &a. the

ANSWER: In case of in asion or rebellion, when the public safety re0uires it, the President may suspend the pri ilege of the writ of habeas corpus! 8Art! III, Sec! $-, P92 1he suspension of the pri ilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall apply only to persons ,udicially charged for rebellion or offenses inherent in or directly connected with in asion! Auring the suspension of the pri ilege of the writ, any person thus arrested or detained shall be ,udicially released within three days, otherwise he shall be released! 8Art! +II, Sec! $7, -th and 5th pars! P92 Ri$ht A$ainst -el%0Incri&ination
*;. What is the sco(e o% the ri$ht a$ainst sel%0incri&ination! What are the &echanical acts that8 ithout the use o% intelli$ence8 /o not %all ithin the sco(e o% the (rotection!

ANSWER: 1he scope of the right includes $2 prohibition against testimonial e idence and '2 prohibition against act that re0uire use of intelligence, such as pro iding handwriting for comparison! Some acts which are not co ered by the right against self%incrimination are: $2 Gingerprinting, photographing and paraffin testing, physical e6amination& '2 Physical e6amination of a woman accused of adultery to determine if she is pregnant& )2 <ndergoing ultra% iolet rays e6amination to determine presence of fluorescent powder on the hands& *2 Subpoena directing go ernment officials top produce official documents or public records in their custody& and -2 Gitting the accused foot o er a foot print, putting on a pair of trousers, shoes, etc!
+0. Can an accuse/ in9o:e the ri$ht a$ainst sel%0incri&ination! What about or/inar. itnesses!

ANSWER: An accused is e6empt from being compelled to be a witness against himself QSec $ 8e2, Rule $$-, RB9R, so he could alidly refuse to ta(e the witness stand! An ordinary witness who is not the accused may be compelled to testify! >owe er, he could claim the pri ilege against self%incrimination and refuse to answer only as each 0uestion re0uiring an incriminatory answer is propounded to him! (Ba!iong %s& 3on<a es) 56 ,CRA 58./ #ouble ?eo(ar/.
+1. What is the conce(t o% /ouble >eo(ar/.!

ANSWER: When an accused $2 has been con icted or ac0uitted, or '2 the case against him dismissed or otherwise terminated a2without his consent b2 by a court of competent ,urisdiction, c2 upon a alid complaint or other formal charge sufficient in form and substance to sustain a con iction and )2after the accused had pleaded guilty to the charge, *2 the con iction or ac0uittal of the accused or the dismissal of the case shall be a bar to another prosecution a2 for the offense charged, or b2 for any attempt to commit the same or frustration thereof, or c2 for any offense which necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the offense charged in the former complaint or information! $st

par! Sec! K, Rule $$K RB92

+". What are the (rotection a%%or/e/ b. the ri$ht a$ainst /ouble >eo(ar/.!

ANSWER: $2 Against a second prosecution for the same offense after ac0uittal '2 Against a second prosecution for the same offense after con iction )2 Against multiple punishments for the same offense
+). What are the reAuisites %or /ouble >eo(ar/.! What are the (roo%s that the %irst >eo(ar/. ha/ attache/!

ANSWER: Re0uisites:$2 the first ,eopardy must ha e attached prior to the second& '2 the first ,eopardy must ha e been alidly terminated& )2 the second ,eopardy must be a2 for the same offense& b2 the second offense includes or is necessarily included in the offense charged in the first information, or is )2 an attempt to commit the same or is a frustration thereof! (Cu!ia %s& CA) 3R No& 448+4*) Januar2 4.) 4557/ CON,TITUTIONAL LAWBBILL O? RI3"T, PP1" ProofsC $2 court of competent ,urisdiction& '2 alid complaint or information )2 arraignment& *2 alid plea& and -2 the defendant was ac0uitted or con icted or the case was dismissed or otherwise terminated without the e6press consent of the accused! (Cu!ia %s& CA) su$ra&/
+*. Is there /ouble >eo(ar/. i% acAuittal 9iolates /ue (rocess!

ANSWER: NBNE! 1he only instance when double ,eopardy will not attach is when the trial court acted with gra e abuse of discretion amounting to lac( or e6cess of ,urisdiction due to a iolation of due process, ie, that the prosecution was denied the opportunity to present its case, in which case certiorari may be resorted to cure an abusi e denial! In that e6traordinary proceeding it must be clearly demonstrated that the trial court blatantly abused its authority to a point so gra e as to depri e it of its ery power to dispense ,ustice! (Peo$ e %s& ,an!igan0a2an) 3R No& 468.++) ?e0ruar2) -88-/
++. Is there /ouble >eo(ar/. u(on a con9iction %or 9iolation o% Anti0=ra%t La an/ a subseAuent char$e %or %alsi%ication o% (ublic /ocu&ents!

ANSWER: NBNE! Bne of the elements of double ,eopardy that is missing is that the second ,eopardy 8falsification of public documents2 must be for the same offense as that in the first 8Anti%@raft and 9orrupt Practices2! 1he crime of falsification of public documents is not necessarily included in Anti%@raft and 9orrupt Practices! 1hey ha e different elements! 1he guilt or innocence of the accused in the anti%graft case does not hinge on the alidity or falsity of the documents which is the sub,ect of the falsification! Gurthermore, it is clear that the Sandiganbayan did not rule on the alidity or falsity of the public documents! (,uero %s& Peo$ e) 3R No& 4*.687) Janura2 +4) -88*/
+,. When it beca&e &ani%est be%ore the >u/$&ent that a &ista:e has been &a/e in char$in$ the (ro(er o%%ense a$ainst A8 the %irst char$e as /is&isse/ to (a9e the a. %or the %ilin$ o% the (ro(er o%%ense. #oes the %ilin$ o% the (ro(er o%%ense constitute /ouble >eo(ar/.!

ANSWER: No! 1he dismissal of the first case will not gi e rise to double ,eopardy inasmuch as the proper offense was not the one charged against A in such case! 1he filing of the proper offense, therefore, does not constitute double ,eopardy! (3on<a es %s& Court o# A$$ea s) -+- ,CRA ..>/
+1. What is the so0calle/ Ginalit.0o%0AcAuittal #octrine!

ANSWER: 1he doctrine is a safeguard against double ,eopardy where erdicts of ac0uittal are to be regarded as absolutely final and irre iewable! In the Absence of a finding of mistrial, i!e!, the criminal trial was a sham, a ,udgment of ac0uittal is final and unappealable on the ground of double ,eopardy whether it happens at the trial court le el or at the 9ourt of Appeals! In Peo$ e %s& CA) 3R No& 46-8*4) ?e0ruar2 -6) -886) the special ci il action of certiorari see(ing a re iew and re ersal of decision ac0uitting an accused on ground of gra e abuse of discretion is not proper! If the petition, regardless of its nomenclature, merely calls for an ordinary re iew of the findings of the court a 0uo, without demonstrating that the lower court blatantly abused its authority to a point so gra e as to depri e it of its ery power to dispense ,ustice, the constitutional right against

double ,eopardy would be iolated! Such recourse is tantamount to con erting the petition for certiorari into an appeal, contrary to the e6press in,unction of the 9onstitution, the Rules of 9ourt and pre ailing ,urisprudence on double ,eopardy! (I0i!&/ O9erbreath #octrine an/ Voi/ %or Va$ueness #octrine
+4. #e%ineMeB(lain brie%l. the %ollo in$ /octrinesC 617 O9erbreath #octrine 6"7 Voi/ %or Va$ueness #octrine

8$2

1he B erbreath Aoctrine states that "a go ernmental purpose may not be achie ed by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby in ade the area of protected freedoms!# In 'a%i! %s& Ermita) the Supreme 9ourt pre ented the go ernment, pursuant to Presidential Proclamation $;$K and @eneral Brder No! -, from hunting down terrorists since "acts of terrorism# had not been defined and made punishable by 9ongress! CON,TITUTIONAL LAWBBILL O? RI3"T, PP1) 8'2 1he +oid for +agueness Aoctrine which renders a law in alid "if men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application! 1hus, a statute may be rendered oid if its terms are uncertain or not sufficiently definite rendering it incomprehensible to ordinary people and thereby ma(ing the enforcement of the law arbitrary and sub,ect to abuse! Such a ague or ambiguous piece of legislation iolates due process of law! It pro ides a rule to the effect that a statute establishing a criminal offense must define the offense with sufficient definiteness that persons of ordinary intelligence can understand what conduct is condemned!
R challen$es the 9ali/it. o% -ection + o% RA )01;8 a (enal statute on the $roun/ that the act constitutin$ the o%%ense is alle$e/l. 9a$ue an/ 2i&(er&issibl. broa/3 an/ thus 9iolate/ /ue (rocess ri$ht o% in/i9i/ual to be in%or&e/ o% the nature an/ cause o% accusation a$ainst hi&. Will his suit (ros(er!

+;.

ANSWER: NB! o erbreadth and agueness doctrine ha e special application only to free speech cases! 1hey are not appropriate for testing the alidity of penal statutes! When the allegation in the information is ague or indefinite, the remedy of the accused is not a motion to 0uash, but a motion for a bill of particulars! (Romua !e< %s& ,an!igan0a2an) 6+* ,CRA +>4/ A statute or regulation is considered oid for o erbreadth when it offends the constitutional principle that a go ernmental purpose to control or pre ent acti ities constitutionally sub,ect to State regulation may not be achie ed by means that sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby in ade the area of protected freedoms! (Cha%e< %s& CO9ELEC) 6+> ,CRA 64*/
,0. What is the e%%ect o% an 2on its %ace3 in9ali/ation o% cri&inal statutes! What is the test in /eter&inin$ hether a cri&inal statute is 9oi/!

ANSWER: 1he test in determining whether a criminal statute is oid for uncertainty is whether the language con eys a sufficiently definite warning as to the proscribed conduct when measured by common understanding and practice! 1he agueness doctrine merely re0uires a reasonable degree of certainty for the statute to be upheld 4 not absolute precision or mathematical e6actitude! Gacial in alidation or an "on its face# in alidation of criminal statutes is not appropriate because it would result in a mass ac0uittal of parties whose cases may not ha e e en reached the courts! Such in alidation would constitute a departure from the usual re0uirement of "actual case and contro ersy# and permit decisions to be made in a sterile abstract conte6t ha ing no factual concreteness! 1he test in determining whether a criminal statute is oid for uncertainty is whether the language con eys a sufficiently definite warning as to the proscribed conduct when measured by common understanding and practice! 1he agueness doctrine merely re0uires a reasonable degree of certainty for the statute to be upheld 4 not absolute precision or mathematical e6actitude! (Romua !e< %s& ,an!igan0a2an) su$ra&/ No EBPost Gacto La

,1.

What is eB (ost %acto la ! What are the characteristics o% eB0(ost %acto la !

ANSWER: E6 post facto law which penali/es a person for ha ing committed an act which was not punishable at the time of its commission! Such retroacti e application iolates a personHs right to due process! An e6 post facto law is one that $2 =a(es an act done before the passage of the law and which was innocent when done, and punishes such an act& '2 Aggra ates a crime, or ma(es it greater that it was, when committed& )2 9hanges the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the law anne6ed to the crime when committed& *2 Alters the legal rules of e idence, authori/es con iction upon less or different testimony than the law re0uired at the time of the commission of the offense& -2 Assuming to regulate ci il rights and remedies only, in effect imposes penalty or depri ation of a right for something which when done was lawful& and 52 Aepri es a person accused of a crime of some lawful protection to which he has become entitled, such as the protection of a former con iction or ac0uittal, or a proclamation of amnesty! CON,TITUTIONAL LAWBBILL O? RI3"T, PP1* 1he prohibition against e6 post facto law applies only to penal laws which are gi en retroacti e effect! Penal law is one that prescribes a criminal penalty imposable in a criminal trial! A law is also penal if it prescribes a burden e0ui alent to a criminal penalty 8eg! dis0ualification from the practice of a profession2 e en if such burden is imposed in an administrati e proceeding (Pascua %s& Boar! o# 9e!ica E@aminers) -7 ,CRA +66/ Aca/e&ic Gree/o&
,". #oes the Ci9il -er9ice Co&&ission ha9e the (o er to ter&inate e&(lo.&ent o% a UP (ro%essor or other aca/e&ic (ersonnel!

ANSWER: NB! 1he 9i il Ser ice 9ommission has no authority to dictate to <P the outright dismissal of its personnel! Bn its own, the 9S9 does not ha e the power to terminate employment or to drop wor(ers from the rolls! Academic freedom encompasses the autonomy to choose who should teach and, concomitant therewith, who should be retained in its rolls of professors and other academic personnel! 1he <P by opting to retain a professor and e en promoting him despite his absence without lea e, e6ercised its freedom to choose who may teach or, more precisely, who may continue to teach within its faculty! 8<P s! 9S9, )-5 S9RA -K2
,). #oes aca/e&ic %ree/o& enco&(ass a uni9ersit.Fs /iscretion to /eter&ine con%erre/ aca/e&ic honors! ho shall be

ANSWER: FES! Academic freedom accords an institution of higher learning the right to decide for itself its aims and ob,ecti es and how best to attain them! Academic freedom e6tends to the right to confer academic honors! 1hus, the e6ercise of academic freedom grants the <ni ersity the e6clusi e discretion to determine to whom among its graduates it shall confer academic recognition based on its established standards! And the courts may not interfere unless there is a clear showing that the <ni ersity has arbitrarily and capriciously e6ercised its ,udgments! 8=orales s! <P .oard of Regents, **5 S9RA ''K2
,*. 'a. a uni9ersit. 9ali/l. re9o:e a /e$ree or honor it has con%erre/ to a stu/ent a%ter the $ra/uation o% the latter a%ter %in/in$ that such /e$ree or honor as obtaine/ throu$h %rau/!

ANSWER: FES! Academic freedom of institution of higher learning is a freedom granted to "institutions of higher learning# which is thus gi en a "wide sphere of authority certainly e6tending to the choice of students!# If such institution of higher learning can decide who can and who cannot study in it, it certainly can also determine on whom it can confer the honor and distinction of being its graduates! Where it is shown that the conferment of an honor or distinction was obtained through fraud, a uni ersity has the right to re o(e or withdraw the honor or distinction it has thus conferred! 1his freedom of a uni ersity does not terminate upon the "graduation# of a student, for it is precisely the "graduation# of such a student that it is in 0uestion! (UP Boar! o# Regents %s& CA an! Ce ine) 3R No& 4+6.-*) August +4) 4555/

,+.

The Boar/ o% Re$ents o% the Ben$uet -tate Uni9ersit. a((ro9e/ a resolution $rantin$ rice subsi/. an/ health care allo ance to B-UFs e&(lo.ees. The $rant o% this rice subsi/. an/ health care allo ance in the a&ount o% P*.)+' as /isallo e/ in au/it b. the Co&&ission on Au/it statin$ that RA ;"4"8 the 5i$her E/ucation 'o/erni@ation Act o% 1;;18 /oes not (ro9i/e %or the $rant o% sai/ allo ance to e&(lo.ees an/ o%%icials to the uni9ersit.. B-U ar$ue/ that the authorit. $i9en to the =o9ernin$ Boar/ is (lenar. an/ absolute in9o:in$ the aca/e&ic %ree/o& clause o% the Constitution. Is the contention o% B-U le$all. tenable!

ANSWER: NB! .S< cannot find solace in the academic freedom clause of the 9onstitution! Academic freedom as ad erted to in the 9onstitution and in RA ?'7' only encompasses the freedom of the institution of higher learning to determine for itself, on academic grounds, who may teach, what may be taught, how it shall be taught and who may be admitted to study! 1he guaranteed academic freedom does not grant the institution of higher learning unbridled authority to disburse its funds and grant additional benefits sans statutory basis that would ,ustify the grant of these additional benefits to its employees! (B,U %s& COA) *-6 ,CRA 6+>/ CON,TITUTIONAL LAWBBILL O? RI3"T,
,,.

PP1+

#oes the assu&(tion b. the Ci9il -er9ice Co&&ission o% >uris/iction o9er a (resi/ent o% a state uni9ersit. 9iolate aca/e&ic %ree/o&!

ANSWER: NB! A complaint against a state uni ersity official may be filed either with the uni ersityHs .oard of Regents or directly with the 9i il Ser ice 9ommission which has concurrent ,urisdiction! 9ontrary to the matters traditionally held to be ,ustified to be within the bounds of academic freedom, the administrati e complaints filed against a state uni ersity president in ol es iolations of the ci il ser ice rules! 1he guaranteed academic freedom does not gi e an institution the unbridled authority to perform acts without any statutory basis! Gor that reason, a school official, who is a member of the ci il ser ice, may not be permitted to commit iolations of ci il ser ice rules under the ,ustification that he was free to do so under the principle of academic freedom! (Ci%i ,er%ice Commission %s& ,ojor) 3R 4.7>..) 9a2 --) -887/ %%oo;oo%%

II.
Police Po er

CON-TITUTIONAL LAW JBILL OG RI=5T-

01. The EB(an/e/ -enior Citi@ens Act o% "00) $rants to senior citi@ens "0K /iscount %ro& all establish&ents relati9e to the utili@ation o% ser9ices in hotels an/ si&ilar establish&ents as ell as (urchases o% &e/icines. -tate the nature or >usti%ication o% the la .

ANSWER: 1he law is a legitimate e6ercise of police power which, similar to the power of eminent domain, has the general welfare for its ob,ect! When conditions so demand as determined by the legislature, property rights must bow to the primacy of police power because property rights, though sheltered by due process, must yield to the general welfare! (Car os ,u$er 'rug Cor$& %s& ',W') 3R No& 4..656) Januar2 -5) -88>/

Po er o% E&inent #o&ain
0". What are the constitutional li&itations in the eBercise o% the (o er o% e&inent /o&ain!

ANSWER: 1he e6ercise of the power of eminent domain is constrained by two constitutional pro isions: 8$2 that pri ate property shall not be ta(en for public use without ,ust compensation under Article III, Section ? on .ill of Rights and 8'2 that no person shall be depri ed of life, liberty or property without due process of law also under Article III, Section $!
0). Can a baran$a. $o9ern&ent eB(ro(riate a (ro(ert. hich shall be use/ as a %ee/er roa/ %or the bene%it o% the resi/ents o% Puro: Paraiso8 .et the Puro: is ithin a (ri9ate sub/i9ision!

ANSWER: NB! 1he e6propriation was intended for pri ate purpose! It would benefit only the owners of the subdi ision who will be able to circum ent the commitment to pro ide road access to the subdi ision and relie ed from spending their funds for a right of way! 1he intended e6propriation of pri ate property for the benefit of a pri ate indi idual is clearly proscribed by the 9onstitution, declaring that it should be for public use or purpose! 3i(ewise, public fund can be used only for a public purpose! In this proposed condemnation, go ernment funds would be employed for the benefit of a pri ate indi idual without any legal mooring! (Baranga2 ,in!a an %s& CA) 3R No& 4*8.68) 9arch --) -88>/
0*. A (ro(ert. as con9erte/ into an air(ort b. the Air Trans(ortation O%%ice 6ATO7 /e(ri9in$ the o ners o% the bene%icial use an/ en>o.&ent o% the sa&e as earl. as 1;*4 ithout an eB(ro(riation (rocee/in$. It as conten/e/ that there as ta:in$8 hence8 >ust co&(ensation shoul/ be rec:one/ %ro& 1;*4. Is the contention le$all. tenable!

ANSWER: NB! As a general rule, the determination of ,ust compensation in eminent domain cases is rec(oned from the time of ta(ing! (3a0atin %s& LBO) 666 ,CRA 4>./ In this case, howe er, application of the said rule would lead to gra e in,ustice! Note that the A1B had been using the property as airport since $?*7 without ha ing instituted the proper e6propriation proceedings! 1o peg the alue of the property at the time of ta(ing in $?*7, despite the e6ponential increase in its alue considering the lapse of o er half a century, would be ini0uitous! A1B cannot con eniently in o(e the right of eminent domain to ta(e ad antage of the ridiculously low alue of the property at the time of ta(ing that it arbitrarily chooses to the pre,udice of the owners! :ustice and fairness dictate that the appropriate rec(oning point for the aluation of the property is when the trial court made its order of e6propriation in ';;$! ("eirs o# 9ateo Pi!acan an! Romana Eigo %s& ATO) 3R No& 4.->>5) June 4*) -88>/

CON,TITUTIONAL LAW
0+.

/P)"

-(ouses 5 an/ W ere the lessees o% a (arcel o% lan/ in Lue@on Cit.. A la as enacte/ authori@in$ the national $o9ern&ent to eB(ro(riate certain (ro(erties8 a&on$ others8 %or the eBtension o% E#-A. The lan/ lease/ b. 5 an/ W as (art o% those eB(ro(riate/ un/er the sai/ la . The. ere not inclu/e/ in the eB(ro(riation (rocee/in$s because the. ere &ere lessees o% the (ro(ert.8 accor/in$ to the -olicitor =eneral. To be entitle/ to >ust co&(ensation8 shoul/ the /e%en/ant be the o ner o% the (ro(ert. eB(ro(riate/!

ANSWER: NB! 1he defendants in an e6propriation case are not limited to the owners of the property condemned! 1hey include all other persons, owning, occupying, or claiming to own the property! When a parcel of land is ta(en by eminent domain, the owner of the fee is not necessarily the only person entitled to compensation! A lessee, mortgagee, or a endee in possession under an e6ecutory contract of the land has the right to ta(e part in

the e6propriation proceeding! If a person claiming an interest in the land sought to be condemned is not made a party, he is gi en the right to inter ene and lay claim to the compensation! Police Po er E Po er o% I&&inent #o&ain an/ the Ri$ht to Pri9ate Pro(ert.
0,. #istin$uish the e%%ects o% the eBercise o% (olice (o er an/ the (o er o% i&&inent /o&ain in relation to the ri$ht to (ri9ate (ro(ert..

ANSWER: In the e6ercise of police power, there is a limitation or restriction of property interests to promote public welfare which in ol es no compensable ta(ing! 9ompensation is necessary only when the stateHs power of eminent domain is e6ercised! In eminent domain, property is appropriated and applied to some public purpose! Property condemned under the e6ercise of police power, on the other hand, is no6ious or intended for no6ious or forbidden purpose, and conse0uently, is not compensable! 1he restriction imposed to protect li es, public health and safety from danger is not a ta(ing! It is merely the prohibition or abatement of no6ious use which interferes with paramount right of the public! (,ocia Justice ,ociet2 %s& Atien<a) *6* ,CRA 5-/ #ue Process an/ Preli&inar. In9esti$ation
01. The char$e %ile/ a$ainst (etitioner as &o/i%ie/ %ro& 9iolation o% Art. ""0 6Technical 'al9ersation7 o% the Re9ise/ Penal Co/e to 9iolation o% -ecs. )6e7 an/ )6h78 RA )01;. Petitioners clai& that their ri$ht to /ue (rocess as /enie/ since the. ere not $i9en the o((ortunit. to ans er an/ (resent e9i/ence on the ne char$e in a (reli&inar. in9esti$ation. #eci/e.

ANSWER: 1he petition lac(s merit! 1he right to a preliminary in estigation is not a constitutional right but it is merely conferred by statute! 1he absence of a preliminary in estigation does not impair the alidity of Information or otherwise render the same defecti e! 1he denial of the motion for rein estigation cannot li(ewise in alidate the Information or oust the court of its ,urisdiction o er the case! Petitioners were not denied due process because they had the opportunity to refute the charges by filing their counter%affida its! 1he modification of the offense charged was based on the same set of facts and the same allegedly illegal acts! Gurthermore, the right to preliminary in estigation is deemed wai ed when the accused fails to in o(e it before or at the time of entering a plea on arraignment! (Bu!iongan %s& !e a Cru<) 3R No& 4>8-77) ,e$tem0er --) -88./

CON,TITUTIONAL LAW #ue Process an/ Ri$ht to Counsel

/P))

04. #oes the /ue (rocess clause enco&(ass the ri$ht to be assiste/ b. counsel /urin$ an/ a/&inistrati9e inAuir.!

ANSWER: NB! In an administrati e proceeding, a respondent has the option of engaging the ser ices of counsel or not! 1hus, the right to counsel is not imperati e in administrati e in estigations because such in0uiries are conducted merely to determine whether there are facts that merit disciplinary measures against erring public officers and employees, with the purpose of maintaining the dignity of go ernment ser ice! 1he right to counsel is not indispensable to due process unless re0uired by the 9onstitution or the law! (Lumi(ue! %s& E@e%ea) -7- ,CRA 4-* an! Remo ana %s& C,C) +.- ,CRA +86/ Pri9ac. o% Co&&unication

0;.

AN#REA an/ 'ONICA ha/ con%rontation in the latterFs o%%ice. AN#REA secretl. ta(e/ the con9ersation. The con9ersation bet een the& bor/ere/ on hu&iliatin$ an/ 9eBin$ the (ersonalit. an/ /i$nit. o% 'ONICA %or hich she %ile/ a ci9il case %or /a&a$es. #urin$ the hearin$ AN#REA (ro/uce/ the recor/e/ ta(e to (ro9e that 'ONICA in/ee/ insulte/ her. 'ONICA8 in a countersuit %ile/ a cri&inal case a$ainst AN#REA %or 9iolation o% RA *"00 hich (rohibits an/ (enali@es ire ta((in$ an/ other 9iolations o% (ri9ate co&&unications. AN#REA &o9e/ to /is&iss the cri&inal case on the $roun/ that the alle$ations /o not constitute an o%%ense an/ that the ta(in$ o% con9ersation bet een the (arties is not co9ere/ b. RA *"00. The trial court $rante/ sai/ &otion hich /ecision as re9erse/ b. the Court o% A((eals. AN#REA ele9ate/ the case to the -u(re&e Court on certiorari. Is AN#REA liable %or 9iolation o% RA *"00! #eci/e.

ANSWER: FES! Section $ of RA *';; clearly and une0ui ocably prohibits any person, not authori/ed by all the parties to any pri ate con ersation, to secretly tape record any communication by means of a tape recorder! 9ongressional records support the iew that the intention of the lawma(ers in enacting RA *';; is to ma(e illegal any unauthori/ed tape recording of pri ate con ersation or communication ta(en by either of the parties themsel es or third persons! Absent a clear showing that both parties to the telephone con ersations allowed the recording of the same, the inadmissibility of the sub,ect tapes is mandatory under RA *';;! (Ramire< %s& CA) -67 ,CRA *58 an! ,a ce!oBOrtane< %s& CA) -+* ,CRA 444/ In the case of 9am0a %s& Ju!ge 3arcia) A&9& No& 9TJB5.B4448) June -*) -884) the Supreme 9ourt li(ewise ruled that the in estigating ,udgeHs reliance on the tape% recorded con ersation is erroneous! 1he recording of pri ate con ersation, without the consent of the parties, contra enes the pro isions of RA *';;, otherwise (nown as the Anti%Wire 1apping 3aw, and renders the same inadmissible in e idence in any proceeding! 1he law co ers e en those recorded by persons pri y to the con ersation, as in this case!

CON,TITUTIONAL LAW
10.

/P)*

Can a /etention (risoner 9ali/l. in9o:e his ri$ht to (ri9ac. o% co&&unication $uarantee/ un/er -ection ) o% the Bill o% Ri$hts!

ANSWER: I 0ualify! While letters containing confidential communication between detainees and their lawyers en,oy a limited protection in that prison officials can open and inspect the mail for contraband but could not read the contents thereof without iolating the inmatesH right to correspondence, letters folded but not in a sealed en elope and are not confidential communication between the detainees and their lawyers, the officials of the ISAGP Aetention 9enter could read the letters! If the letters are mar(ed confidential communication between detainees and their lawyers, the detention officials should not read the letters but only open the en elopes for inspection in the presence of the detainees! (A ejano %s& Ca0ua2) 6.7 ,CRA 477/

Ri$ht to Pri9ac. an/ Ri$ht A$ainst -el%0incri&ination

11. #oes a -enate Co&&ittee inAuir. 9iolate Philco&sat 5ol/in$ Cor(oration an/ -tan/ar/ Charter Ban:Fs ri$ht to (ri9ac. an/ ri$ht a$ainst sel%0incri&ination!

ANSWER: NB! Since the in0uiry focused on the acts committed in the discharge of their duties as officers and directors of said corporations, they ha e no reasonable e6pectation of pri acy on matters in ol ing their offices in a corporation where the go ernment has interest! Such matters are of public concern and o er which the people ha e the right to information! 1his goes to show that the right to pri acy is not absolute where there is an

o erriding compelling state interest!(,a0io %s& 3or!on) *86 ,CRA >86/ Employing the rational basis relationship test, as laid down in 9or#e %s& 9utuc) -- ,CRA 6-6) there is no infringement on the indi idualHs right to pri acy as the re0uirement to disclose information is for alid purpose, in this case, to ensure that the go ernment agencies in ol ed in regulating ban(ing transactions ade0uately protect the public who in est in foreign securities! Suffice it to say that this purpose constitutes a reason compelling enough to proceed with the assailed legislati e in estigation! (,tan!ar! Charter Ban= %s& ,enate Committee on Ban=s) 3R 4.>4>+) 'ecem0er ->) -88>/ 1he right against self%incrimination may be in o(ed by the said directors and officers of the corporations only when the incriminating 0uestion is being as(ed, since they ha e no way of (nowing in ad ance the nature or effect of the 0uestions to be as(ed of them! 1hat this right may possibly iolated or abused is no ground for denying the Senate 9ommittees their power of in0uiry! When this power is abused, it may be presented before the courts! What is important is that the Senate 9ommittees ha e sufficient Ru es to guide them when the right against self%incrimination is in o(ed! (,a0io %s& 3or!on) su$ra&/ An accused occupies a different tier of protection from an ordinary witness! Whereas an ordinary witness may be compelled to ta(e the witness stand and claim the pri ilege as each 0uestion re0uiring an incriminating answer is shot at him, an accussd may altogether refuse to ta(e the witness stand and refuse to answer any 0uestions! In this case, petitioners neither stand as accused in criminal case nor will they be sub,ected by the respondent to any penalty by reason of their testimonies! >ence, they cannot altogether decline appearing before respondent, although they may in o(e the pri ilege when a 0uestion calling for an incriminating answer is propounded! (,tan!ar! Charter Ban= %s& ,enate Committee) su$ra/ CON,TITUTIONAL LAW /P)+ EAual Protection
1". The (etitioners assail the 9ali/it. o% A/&inistrati9e or/er No. 18 hich (rohibite/ &otorc.cles on li&ite/ access hi$h a.s on the basis o% RA "000 6Li&ite/ Access 5i$h a. Act7. The (etitioner see:s re/ress %ro& the &otorc.cle ban un/er the eAual (rotection clause8 because AO 1 sin$le/ out &otorc.cles. #eci/e.

ANSWER: 1here is a real and substantial distinction between a motorcycle and other motor ehicles! Not all motori/ed ehicles are created e0ual 4 real and substantial differences e6ist between a motorcycle and other forms of transport sufficient to ,ustify its classification among those prohibited from plying the toll ways! (9iraso %s& 'PW") 3R No& 4*7>5+) June 7) -88./ Gree/o& o% EB(ression
1). The National Teleco&&unications Co&&ission issue/ this (ress releaseC 2NTC =IVEGAIR WARNIN= TO RA#IO AN# TELEVI-ION OWNER- TO OB-ERVE ANTI0 WIRETAPPIN= LAW AN# PERTINENT CIRCULAR- ON PRO=RA' -TAN#AR#-.3 Petitioner Cha9e@ %ile/ a (etition alle$in$ that the acts o% res(on/ents are 9iolation o% the %ree/o& on eB(ression an/ o% the (ress8 an/ the ri$ht o% the (eo(le on in%or&ation on &atters o% (ublic concern. #eci/e.

ANSWER: FES! It is clear that the challenged acts in the case at bar need to be sub,ected to the clear and present danger rule, as they are content%based restrictions! 1he acts of the respondents focused solely on but one sub,ect 4 a specific content% fi6ed as these were on the alleged tape con ersation between the President and a 9B=E3E9 official! <ndoubtedly, these did not merely pro ide regulations as to the time, place or manner of the dissemination of speech and e6pression! 1he records of the case at bar, howe er are confused and confusing, and respondentHs e idence fall short of satisfying the clear and present danger test! (Cha%e< %s& 3on<a e<) 3R No& 4.7++7) ?e0ruar2 4*) -887/ -earch an/ -ei@ureD Probable Cause
1*. 'a. the constitutional (rotection a$ainst unreasonable searches an/ sei@ures be eBten/e/ to acts co&&itte/ b. (ri9ate in/i9i/uals!

ANSWER: NB! As held in Peo$ e %s& 9arti) $?) S9RA -K, the constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and sei/ures refers to the immunity of oneHs person from interference by go ernment and it cannot be e6tended to acts committed by pri ate

indi iduals so as to bring it within the ambit of alleged unlawful intrusion! (Peo$ e %s& 9en!o<a) +84 ,CRA ../
1+. Can the (lace to be searche/8 as set out in the arrant8 be a&(li%ie/ or &o/i%ie/ b. the o%%icersF o n (ersonal :no le/$e o% the (re&ises8 or the e9i/ence the. a//uce in su((ort o% their a((lication %or arrant!

ANSWER: NB! Such a change is proscribed by the 9onstitution which re0uires inter a ia the search warrant to particularly describe the place to be searched as well as the persons or things to be sei/ed! It would concede to the police officers the power of choosing the place to be searched, e en if it not be that delineated in the warrant! It would open wide the door to abuse of the search process, and grant to officers e6ecuting a search warrant that discretion which the 9onstitution has precisely remo ed from them! 1he particulari/ation of the description of the place to be searched may properly be done only by the ,udge, and only in the warrant itself& it cannot be left to the discretion of the police officers conducting the search! (Peo$ e %s& CA) -54 ,CRA 688/ CON,TITUTIONAL LAW /P),
1,. What are the reAuisites in the /eter&ination o% the eBistence o% (robable cause!

ANSWER: <nder the 9onstitution and the Rules of 9ourt, the issuance of a search warrant is ,ustified only upon a finding of probable cause! In determining the e6istence of probable cause, it is re0uired that: 8$2 the ,udge must e6amine the complainant of his witness personally& 8'2 the e6amination must be under oath& and 8)2 the e6amination must be reduced in :riting in the #orm o# searching (uestions an! ans:ers& In Peo$ e %s& 9amari ) 3R No& 46>.8>) Januar2 --) -886) the records only show the e6istence of an application for search warrant, 1he affida its of complainantHs witnesses and return of the search warrant! 1he prosecution failed to pro e that the issuing ,udge put into writing his e6amination of the applicant and his witnesses in the form of searching 0uestions and answers before issuance of the search warrant, rendering the search warrant in alid and the e idence sei/ed pursuant thereto is inadmissible! EBclusionar. Rule
11. #oes the eBclusionar. rule un/er (ara$ra(h "8 -ection 1" o% the Bill o% Ri$ht a((l. to a/&issions &a/e in an a/&inistrati9e in9esti$ation! What about eBtra>u/icial state&ents &a/e be%ore an e&(lo.er!

ANSWER: NB! 1he e6clusionary rule under paragraph 8'2, Section $' of the .ill of Rights applies only to admissions made in a criminal in estigation but not to those made in an administrati e in estigation! Admissions made by a respondent during an administrati e in estigation may be used as e idence to ,ustify his dismissal! As such, the hearing conducted by the in estigating authority is not part of criminal prosecution! 1he right to counsel attaches only upon the start of a custodial in estigation! 1he right to counsel under Section $' of the .ill of Rights is meant to protect a suspect in a criminal case under custodial in estigation! (Remo ana %s& C,C) +.- ,CRA +86/ NB! Admissions made during the course of administrati e in estigation by an employer 8Philippine Airlines2 do not come within the pur iew of Section $'! 1he protecti e mantle of the constitutional pro ision also does not e6tend to admissions or confessions made to a radio announcer who was not part of the in estigation, or e en to a mayor approached as a personal confidante and not in his official capacity! 1he right e6ist only in "custodial in estigations,# or "in%custody custody interrogation of accused persons!# And, by custodial interrogation is meant "0uestioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been ta(en into custody or otherwise depri ed of his freedom of action in any significant way!# (Peo$ e %s& A2son) 4>* ,CRA -4.A Peo$ e %s& Tin Lan U2) 6>* ,CRA -671 Astu!i o %s& Peo$ e) 3R No& 4*5>+6) No%em0er +8) -88./ "ou#le Jeopard%
14. When it beca&e &ani%est be%ore the >u/$&ent that a &ista:e has been &a/e in char$in$ the (ro(er o%%ense a$ainst A8 the %irst char$e as /is&isse/ to (a9e the a. %or the %ilin$ o% the (ro(er o%%ense. #oes the %ilin$ o% the (ro(er o%%ense constitute /ouble >eo(ar/.!

ANSWER: No! 1he dismissal of the first case will not gi e rise to double ,eopardy inasmuch as the proper offense was not the one charged against A in such case! 1he filing of the proper offense, therefore, does not constitute double ,eopardy! (3on<a es %s& Court o# A$$ea s) -+- ,CRA..>/ CON,TITUTIONAL LAW /P)1

1;.

What is the so0calle/ Ginalit.0o%0AcAuittal #octrine!

ANSWER: 1he doctrine is a safeguard against double ,eopardy where erdicts of ac0uittal are to be regarded as absolutely final and irre iewable! In the Absence of a finding of mistrial, i!e!, the criminal trial was a sham, a ,udgment of ac0uittal is final and unappealable on the ground of double ,eopardy whether it happens at the trial court le el or at the 9ourt of Appeals! In Peo$ e %s& CA) 3R No& 46-8*4) ?e0ruar2 -6) -886) the special ci il action of certiorari see(ing a re iew and re ersal of decision ac0uitting an accused on ground of gra e abuse of discretion is not proper! If the petition, regardless of its nomenclature, merely calls for an ordinary re iew of the findings of the court a 0uo, without demonstrating that the lower court blatantly abused its authority to a point so gra e as to depri e it of its ery power to dispense ,ustice, the constitutional right against double ,eopardy would be iolated! Such recourse is tantamount to con erting the petition for certiorari into an appeal, contrary to the e6press in,unction of the 9onstitution, the Rules of 9ourt and pre ailing ,urisprudence on double ,eopardy! (I0i!&/ O9erbreath #octrine an/ Voi/ %or Va$ueness #octrine
"0. #e%ineMeB(lain brie%l. the %ollo in$ /octrinesC 617 O9erbreath #octrine 6"7 Voi/ %or Va$ueness #octrine

8$2

1he B erbreath Aoctrine states that "a go ernmental purpose may not be achie ed by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby in ade the area of protected freedoms!# In 'a%i! %s& Ermita) the Supreme 9ourt pre ented the go ernment, pursuant to Presidential Proclamation $;$K and @eneral Brder No! -, from hunting down terrorists since "acts of terrorism# had not been defined and made punishable by 9ongress! 1he +oid for +agueness Aoctrine which renders a law in alid "if men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application! 1hus, a statute may be rendered oid if its terms are uncertain or not sufficiently definite rendering it incomprehensible to ordinary people and thereby ma(ing the enforcement of the law arbitrary and sub,ect to abuse! Such a ague or ambiguous piece of legislation iolates due process of law! It pro ides a rule to the effect that a statute establishing a criminal offense must define the offense with sufficient definiteness that persons of ordinary intelligence can understand what conduct is condemned!
R challen$es the 9ali/it. o% -ection + o% RA )01;8 a (enal statute on the $roun/ that the act constitutin$ the o%%ense is alle$e/l. 9a$ue an/ 2i&(er&issibl. broa/3 an/ thus 9iolate/ /ue (rocess ri$ht o% in/i9i/ual to be in%or&e/ o% the nature an/ cause o% accusation a$ainst hi&. Will his suit (ros(er!

8'2

"1.

ANSWER: NB! o erbreadth and agueness doctrine ha e special application only to free speech cases! 1hey are not appropriate for testing the alidity of penal statutes! When the allegation in the information is ague or indefinite, the remedy of the accused is not a motion to 0uash, but a motion for a bill of particulars! (Romua !e< %s& ,an!igan0a2an) 6+* ,CRA +>4/ CON,TITUTIONAL LAW /P)4

A statute or regulation is considered oid for o erbreadth when it offends the constitutional principle that a go ernmental purpose to control or pre ent acti ities constitutionally sub,ect to State regulation may not be achie ed by means that sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby in ade the area of protected freedoms! (Cha%e< %s& CO9ELEC) 6+> ,CRA 64*/

"".

What is the e%%ect o% an 2on its %ace3 in9ali/ation o% cri&inal statutes! What is the test in /eter&inin$ hether a cri&inal statute is 9oi/!

ANSWER: 1he test in determining whether a criminal statute is oid for uncertainty is whether the language con eys a sufficiently definite warning as to the proscribed conduct when measured by common understanding and practice! 1he agueness doctrine merely re0uires a reasonable degree of certainty for the statute to be upheld 4 not absolute precision or mathematical e6actitude! Gacial in alidation or an "on its face# in alidation of criminal statutes is not appropriate because it would result in a mass ac0uittal of parties whose cases may not ha e e en reached the courts! Such in alidation would constitute a departure from the usual re0uirement of "actual case and contro ersy# and permit decisions to be made in a sterile abstract conte6t ha ing no factual concreteness! 1he test in determining whether a criminal statute is oid for uncertainty is whether the language con eys a sufficiently definite warning as to the proscribed conduct when measured by common understanding and practice! 1he agueness doctrine merely re0uires a reasonable degree of certainty for the statute to be upheld 4 not absolute precision or mathematical e6actitude! (Romua !e< %s& ,an!igan0a2an)su$ra&/
"). Unite/ BG 5o&eo ners Associations8 Inc.8 Auestions the constitutionalit. o% a @onin$ or/inance reclassi%.in$ certain (ortions o% BG 5o&es ParanaAue %ro& resi/ential to co&&ercial @one because it i&(airs the contracts bet een the /e9elo(er an/ the lot bu.ers. One o% the (ro&ises o% the /e9elo(er is that the (ro(ert. shall be use/ %or resi/ential (ur(oses onl.. Is the or/inance 9iolati9e o% the non0i&(air&ent clause in the Bill o% Ri$hts!

ANSWER: NB! 1he 9ourt has upheld in se eral cases the superiority of police power o er the non%impairment clause! 1he constitutional guarantee of non%impairment of contracts is limited by the e6ercise of police power of the State, in the interest of public health, safety, morals and general welfare! (Unite! B? "omeo:nersG Associations) Inc& %s& The Cit2 9a2or) Parana(ue Cit2/ In Ortigas H Co& %s& ?eati Ban= an! Trust Co&) 56 ,CRA *++) 1he 9ourt held that contractual restrictions on the use of property could not pre ail o er the reasonable e6ercise of police power through /oning regulations!

CON,TITUTIONAL LAW

/P);

Aca/e&ic Gree/o&
"*. #oes aca/e&ic %ree/o& enco&(ass a uni9ersit.Fs /iscretion to /eter&ine con%erre/ aca/e&ic honors! ho shall be

ANSWER: FES! Academic freedom accords an institution of higher learning the right to decide for itself its aims and ob,ecti es and how best to attain them! Academic freedom e6tends to the right to confer academic honors! 1hus, the e6ercise of academic freedom grants the <ni ersity the e6clusi e discretion to determine to whom among its graduates it shall confer academic recognition based on its established standards! And the courts may not interfere unless there is a clear showing that the <ni ersity has arbitrarily and capriciously e6ercised its ,udgments! (9ora es %s& UP Boar! o# Regents) 66. ,CRA -->/
"+. #oes the Ci9il -er9ice Co&&ission ha9e the (o er to ter&inate e&(lo.&ent o% a UP (ro%essor or other aca/e&ic (ersonnel!

ANSWER: NB! 1he 9i il Ser ice 9ommission has no authority to dictate to <P the outright dismissal of its personnel! Bn its own, the 9S9 does not ha e the power to terminate employment or to drop wor(ers from the rolls! Academic freedom encompasses the autonomy to choose who should teach and, concomitant therewith, who should be retained in its rolls of professors and other academic personnel! 1he <P by opting to retain a professor and e en promoting him despite his absence without lea e, e6ercised its freedom to choose who may teach or, more precisely, who may continue to teach within its faculty! (UP %s& C,C) +*. ,CRA *>/
"1. 'a. a uni9ersit. 9ali/l. re9o:e a /e$ree or honor it has con%erre/ to a stu/ent a%ter the $ra/uation o% the latter a%ter %in/in$ that such /e$ree or honor as obtaine/ throu$h %rau/!

ANSWER: FES! Academic freedom of institution of higher learning is a freedom granted to "institutions of higher learning# which is thus gi en a "wide sphere of authority certainly e6tending to the choice of students!# If such institution of higher learning can decide who can and who cannot study in it, it certainly can also determine on whom it can confer the honor and distinction of being its graduates! Where it is shown that the conferment of an honor or distinction was obtained through fraud, a uni ersity has the right to re o(e or withdraw the honor or distinction it has thus conferred! 1his freedom of a uni ersity does not terminate upon the "graduation# of a student, for it is precisely the "graduation# of such a student that it is in 0uestion! (UP Boar! o# Regents %s& CA an! Ce ine) 3R No& 4+6.-*) August +4) 4555/
"4. The Boar/ o% Re$ents o% the Ben$uet -tate Uni9ersit. a((ro9e/ a resolution $rantin$ rice subsi/. an/ health care allo ance to B-UFs e&(lo.ees. The $rant o% this rice subsi/. an/ health care allo ance in the a&ount o% P*.)+' as /isallo e/ in au/it b. the Co&&ission on Au/it statin$ that RA ;"4"8 the 5i$her E/ucation 'o/erni@ation Act o% 1;;18 /oes not (ro9i/e %or the $rant o% sai/ allo ance to e&(lo.ees an/ o%%icials to the uni9ersit.. B-U ar$ue/ that the authorit. $i9en to the =o9ernin$ Boar/ is (lenar. an/ absolute in9o:in$ the aca/e&ic %ree/o& clause o% the Constitution. Is the contention o% B-U le$all. tenable!

CON,TITUTIONAL LAW

/P*0

ANSWER: NB! .S< cannot find solace in the academic freedom clause of the 9onstitution! Academic freedom as ad erted to in the 9onstitution and in RA ?'7' only encompasses the freedom of the institution of higher learning to determine for itself, on academic grounds, who may teach, what may be taught, how it shall be taught and who

may be admitted to study! 1he guaranteed academic freedom does not grant the institution of higher learning unbridled authority to disburse its funds and grant additional benefits sans statutory basis that would ,ustify the grant of these additional benefits to its employees! (B,U %s& COA) *-6 ,CRA 6+>/
";. #oes the assu&(tion b. the Ci9il -er9ice Co&&ission o% >uris/iction o9er a (resi/ent o% a state uni9ersit. 9iolate aca/e&ic %ree/o&!

ANSWER: NB! A complaint against a state uni ersity official may be filed either with the uni ersityHs .oard of Regents or directly with the 9i il Ser ice 9ommission which has concurrent ,urisdiction! 9ontrary to the matters traditionally held to be ,ustified to be within the bounds of academic freedom, the administrati e complaints filed against a state uni ersity president in ol es iolations of the ci il ser ice rules! 1he guaranteed academic freedom does not gi e an institution the unbridled authority to perform acts without any statutory basis! Gor that reason, a school official, who is a member of the ci il ser ice, may not be permitted to commit iolations of ci il ser ice rules under the ,ustification that he was free to do so under the principle of academic freedom! (Ci%i ,er%ice Commission %s& ,ojor) 3R 4.7>..) 9a2 --) -887/ %%oo;oo%%