Last Minute Tips: Political & Public International Law

Political & Public International Law

1. Basic Concepts

1. Distinguish Amendment from Revision.

: Table summary: The differences between a constitutional Amendment and a Revision. An amendment generally affects only a specific provision, whereas a revision generally affects several provisions. Amendments can be proposed by Congress with a three-fourths vote, a Constitutional Convention, or a People's Initiative requiring a petition of at least twelve percent of total registered voters with three percent representation per district. Revisions are more limited, proposed only by Congress with a three-fourths vote or a Constitutional Convention. Both processes become valid upon ratification by a majority vote in a plebiscite held between sixty and ninety days after approval or certification.

2. Distinguish express consent from implied consent to be sued.

Table summary: The distinction between Express and Implied Consent. Express Consent occurs when the legislature enacts a statute, whether it is a general or specific law. Implied Consent occurs when the State enters into a contract in a proprietary or private capacity, or when the State commences litigation and opens itself to a compulsory counterclaim.

3. What are the two ways by which the principle of separation of powers may be violated?

The principle of separation of powers may be violated in two (2) ways: firstly,"one branch may interfere impermissibly with the other's performance of its constitutionally assigned function"; and"alternatively, the doctrine may be violated when one branch assumes a function that more properly is entrusted to another." In other words, there is a violation of the principle when there is impermissible (a) interference with and/or (b) assumption of another department's functions.

4. What is a legislative veto?

Legislative veto is a statutory provision requiring the President or an administrative agency to present the proposed implementing rules and regulations of a law to Congress which, by itself or through a committee formed by it, retains a"right" or"power" to approve or disapprove such regulations before they take effect.

: Table summary: A comparison of the three inherent powers of the State: Police Power, Eminent Domain, and Taxation. Police Power is used to promote public welfare through regulation and applies to all persons and property, though it provides no direct benefit to the individual. Eminent Domain involves taking particular property for public use in exchange for just compensation equivalent to market value, and can be exercised by the government, its subdivisions, or authorized public utilities. Taxation is used to raise revenue for public funds and applies generally to persons and property; while it provides no special direct benefit, it secures the general protection and welfare of all citizens. Both Police Power and Taxation are exercised by the government and its political subdivisions, whereas Eminent Domain specifically transfers property rights to the State.

6. When can the exercise of police power be considered reasonable?

To be considered reasonable, the government's exercise of police power must satisfy the"valid object and valid means" method of analysis. First, the interest of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a particular class, requires interference; and second, the means employed are reasonably necessary to attain the objective sought and not unduly oppressive upon individuals.

7. What are the requisites for a valid exercise of the power of eminent domain?

a. There is a public necessity;

b. It must involve the taking of the property by the government, whether actual or constructive;

c. What is taken must be private property;

d. The taking must be for public use;

e. The owner of the private property must be paid just compensation for the property taken; and

f. Due process must be observed in the taking of the property.

8. What are the standards for the assessment of the value of the property subject to negotiated sale under R. A. No. 10752?

a. The classification and use for which the property is suited;

b. The development cost for improving the land;

c. The value declared by the owners:

d. The current selling price of similar lands in the vicinity;

e. The reasonable disturbance compensation for the removal and demolition of certain improvements on the land and for the value of improvements thereon;

f. The size, shape or location, tax declaration and zonal valuation of the land;

g. The price of the land as manifested in the ocular findings, oral as well as documentary evidence presented; and

h. Such facts and events as to enable the affected property owners to have sufficient funds to acquire similarly situated lands of approximate areas as those required from them by the government, and thereby rehabilitate themselves as early as possible. (Sec. 7, R.A. No. 10752)

9. May the Court impose interest in case of delay in the payment of just compensation in expropriation cases?

Yes. When property is taken, full compensation of its value must immediately be paid to achieve a fair exchange for the property and the potential income lost. Thus, the Court has upheld the imposition of legal interest in expropriation cases where there is delay in the payment since the just compensation due to the landowners was deemed to be an effective forbearance on the part of the State. However, interest shall be imposed only on the unpaid balance of the just compensation.

0. What are the guidelines for expropriating property for the right-of-way of national government infrastructures? a. Upon the filing of the complaint or at any time thereafter, and after due notice to the defendant, the implementing agency shall immediately deposit to the court in favor of the owner the amount equivalent to the sum of:

1. One hundred percent (100%) of the value of the land based on the current relevant zonal valuation of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (B.I.R) issued not more than three (3) years prior to the filing of the expropriation complaint subject to subparagraph (c) of this section;

2. The replacement cost at current market value of the improvements and structures as determined by:

2. A government financial institution with adequate experience in property appraisal; and

3. An independent property appraiser accredited by the B.S.P.

3. The current market value of crops and trees located within the property as determined by a government financial institution or an independent property appraiser to be selected as indicated in subparagraph (a) of Section 5 hereof.

Upon compliance with the guidelines abovementioned, the court shall immediately issue to the implementing agency an order to take possession of the property and start the implementation of the project. If, within seven (7) working days after the deposit to the court of the amount equivalent to the sum under subparagraphs (a) (1) to (a) (3) of this section, the court has not issued to the implementing agency a writ of possession for the affected property, the counsel of the implementing agency shall immediately seek from the court the issuance of the writ of possession. The court shall issue the writ of possession ex parte; no hearing shall be required. The court shall release the amount to the owner upon presentation of sufficient proofs of ownership.

b. With reference to subparagraph (a) (1) of this section, in case the completion of a government infrastructure project is of utmost urgency and importance, and there is no land classification or no existing zonal valuation of the area concerned or the zonal valuation has been in force for more than three (3) years, the implementing agency shall use the B.I.R zonal value and land classification of similar lands within the adjacent vicinity as the basis for the valuation.

c. In any of the cases in Section 6, upon its receipt of the writ of possession issued by the court, the implementing agency may take possession of the property and start the implementation of the project. (Sec. 6 (a)(d)(e), R.A. No. 10752)

Note: R.A. No. 10752 was already amended by R.A. No. 12289 which took effect on October 4, 2025. The coverage of bar syllabus is only until June 30, 2025.

11. Explain the Archipelagic Doctrine.

2. National Territory

It is the recognition of archipelagic States' archipelago and the waters enclosed by their baselines as one cohesive entity.

Note: The waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago, regardless of their breadth and dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the Philippines.

12. What are the maritime zones?

Table summary: The maritime zones of the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone. The Territorial Sea extends up to 12 nautical miles from the baseline, granting the coastal state sovereignty over the sea, airspace, and seabed, subject to the right of innocent passage. The Contiguous Zone extends up to 24 nautical miles from the baseline, meaning it reaches 12 nautical miles beyond the territorial sea; here, the coastal state's authority is limited to preventing and punishing infringements of customs, fiscal, immigration, and sanitation laws.

Table summary: Definitions and rights associated with maritime zones. The Exclusive Economic Zone extends up to 200 nautical miles beyond the baseline, granting the coastal state rights over natural resources in the sea, seabed, and subsoil without affecting the navigation and flight rights of other states. The Continental Shelf covers the seabed and subsoil adjacent to coastal states or islands, extending to 200 meters depth or as far as exploitation is possible. Rights on the Continental Shelf include exploring and exploiting natural resources, building installations, and establishing 500-meter safety zones around those installations, though these rights do not cover non-resource materials or hinder navigation.

(Magallona vs. Ermita, G.R. No. 187167, August 16, 2011)

3. Citizenship

13. A.A.A was born on November 24, 1942. She is an illegitimate daughter of a Chinese father and a Filipino mother. In case A.A.A elects Filipino citizenship when she reaches the age of majority, do the provisions of the 1935 Constitution on citizenship, and the Commonwealth Act No. 625 apply?

No. The requirement of electing Filipino citizenship under the 1935 Constitution and Commonwealth Act No. 625 applied only to legitimate children. These would not apply in the case of A.A.A who is an illegitimate child. By being an illegitimate child of a Filipino mother, A.A.A automatically became a Filipino upon birth. She is a Filipino since birth without having to elect Filipino citizenship when she reached the age of majority.

Table summary: Dual citizenship is the involuntary result of the concurrent application of laws from two or more states, making a person a national of those states. In contrast, dual allegiance is a voluntary situation where an individual, through their own positive act, owes loyalty to two or more states.

(Mercado v. Manzano, G.R. No. 135083, May 26, 1999)

15. Differentiate between the "re-acquisition" and "retention" of Philippine citizenship.

Table summary: The distinction between re-acquisition and retention of Philippine citizenship under R.A. No. 9225 depends on the date of naturalization. Those naturalized before September 17, 2003, are deemed to have lost their citizenship and must re-acquire it, while those naturalized after that date are deemed to have retained it. In both cases, the individual must take the oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines to either re-acquire or retain their citizenship.

(Sec. 3, R.A. No. 9225)

16. Distinguish the compliance requirement insofar as R. A. No. 9225.

Table summary: The requirements for qualifying as a candidate for public office differ based on how dual citizenship was acquired. Those who are dual citizens by Birth are not required by law to take the oath of renunciation, as filing a certificate of candidacy implies a renunciation of foreign citizenship. In contrast, those who are dual citizens by Naturalization must personally renounce their foreign citizenship and take the Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines.

4. Legislative Department

17. What are the two tests for a valid delegation of legislative power?

Table summary: The distinction between the Completeness Test and the Sufficient Standard Test. The Completeness Test requires a law to be complete in all terms and conditions upon leaving the legislature so that the delegate only needs to enforce it. In contrast, the Sufficient Standard Test prevents the total transference of legislative power by defining the legislative policy and the circumstances for its pursuit, thereby mapping the boundaries of the delegate's authority.

(Belgica vs. Ochoa, G.R. No. 208566, November 19, 2013)

18. Does the Congress have the power to arrest a witness to compel his or her attendance to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation?

Yes. An arrest is necessary to carry out the coercive process of compelling attendance, testimony, and production of documents relevant and material in a legislative inquiry. As long as the testimony of a resource person is primordial in the Legislature's inquiry in aid of legislation, then any House of Congress or its committees may compel, by way of an arrest, his or her appearance in the inquiry proceedings. Depriving the Senate of this inherent and necessary power to compel a witness to appear will amount to a serious handicap to its Constitutional function to gather information relevant and material to its legislative inquiries.

19. Can the Senate indefinitely detain persons held in contempt? When is it terminated?

No. The Court finds that the period of imprisonment under the inherent power of contempt by the Senate during inquiries in aid of legislation should only last until the termination of the legislative inquiry under which the said power is invoked. Further, the Court rules that the legislative inquiry of the Senate terminates on two instances: First, upon the approval or disapproval of the Committee Report. Second, the legislative inquiry of the Senate also terminates upon the expiration of one (1) Congress.

20. Discuss the guidelines for the Legislature's power of contempt?

Table summary: A breakdown of the Senate's powers and constraints during legislative inquiries. The nature of these proceedings is criminal or punitive, but they are intended for investigation to aid legislation rather than to serve as trials, meaning they cannot result in the legally binding deprivation of life, liberty, or property. The power of contempt is an implied and inherent authority used to compel information and ensure the legislature can function independently of the Judicial Branch. This includes the valid power to arrest witnesses to compel attendance, testimony, and document production. However, the power of detention is limited, meaning imprisonment under the inherent power of contempt must end once the legislative inquiry concludes. Regarding testimony, the table clarifies that testifying falsely involves making incorrect statements with the intent to deceive, while evasive answers are those that avoid directly answering a question. Finally, the right against self-incrimination can only be invoked at the moment an incriminating question is actually asked.

(Ong vs. Senate of the Philippines, GR No. 257401 and GR No. 257916, March 28, 2023, Landmark Case; Balag vs. Senate, G.R. No. 234608, July 3, 2018)

21. What are the limitations on the Senate's power of inquiry in aid of legislation?

Under Section 21, Article 6 of the 1987 Constitution, the power of legislative investigation is subject to three limitations: (1) the inquiry must be"in aid of legislation;" (2) the inquiry must be conducted in accordance with its duly published rules; and (3) the rights of persons appearing shall be respected.

Table summary: Voting requirements for various congressional decisions vary based on the subject matter. A majority vote is required for choosing a president in case of a tie, confirming a replacement Vice-President, and revoking the suspension of the privilege of writ of hebeas corpus or the declaration of martial law. Higher thresholds are required for more critical actions, such as a 2/3 vote for determining the President's inability to discharge duties, declaring a state of war, convicting an impeachable officer, concurring to a treaty, or expelling a member. The most stringent requirement is a 3/4 vote for proposing constitutional amendments or revisions. Other specific requirements include 1/3 of the House of Representatives to send Articles of Impeachment and 1/5 of members present to enter Yeas or Nays in the Journal.

23. When is an impeachment complaint deemed initiated?

The initiation takes place by the act of filing and referral or endorsement of the impeachment complaint to the House Committee on Justice or, by the filing by at least one-third of the members of the House of Representatives with the Secretary General of the House. Once an impeachment complaint has been initiated, another impeachment complaint may not be filed against the same official within a one year period.

(Re: Letter of Corona, A.M. No. 20-07-10-SC, January 12, 2021)

: Table 24 summary: The fundamental differences between Impeachment and Quo Warranto. Impeachment is a political process where Congress serves as the prosecutor, trier, and judge to vindicate a breach of public trust, governed by the 1987 Constitution and internal congressional rules. Its result is the removal of the official and perpetual political disqualification. In contrast, Quo Warranto is a judicial process heard by the Supreme Court and instituted by the Solicitor General or an individual claimant to determine an incumbent's legal right or eligibility for office according to the Rules of Court. While both can lead to ouster, a Quo Warranto ruling may also include penalties like the reimbursement of costs and further judgments regarding the rights to the public office.

25. Are the retirement benefits, survivorship benefits and other allowances of former Chief Justice Corona forfeited due to his impeachment?

No. The effects of a judgment on an impeachment complaint extends no further than to removal from office and disqualification from holding any public office. Impeachment is designed to remove the impeachable officer from office, not punish him. It is purely political, and it is neither civil, criminal, nor administrative in nature. No legally actionable liability attaches to the public officer by a mere judgment of impeachment against him or her, and thus lies the necessity for a separate conviction for charges that must be properly filed with courts of law.

26. What are the guidelines to determine participation in the party-list elections?

a. Three different groups may participate in the party-list system: (1) national parties or organizations, (2) regional parties or organizations, and (3) sectoral parties or organizations.

b. National parties or organizations and regional parties or organizations do not need to organize along sectoral lines and do not need to represent any “marginalized and underrepresented” sector.

c. Political parties can participate in party-list elections provided they register under the party-list system and do not field candidates in legislative district elections. A political party, whether major or not, that fields candidates in legislative district elections can participate in party-list elections only through its sectoral wing that can separately register under the party-list system. The sectoral wing is by itself an independent sectoral party, and is linked to a political party through a coalition.

d. Sectoral parties or organizations may either be "marginalized and underrepresented or lacking in "well-defined political constituencies." It is enough that their principal advocacy pertains to the special interests and concerns of their sector. The sectors that are marginalized and underrepresented include labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, handicapped, veterans, and overseas workers. The sectors that lack "well-defined political constituencies" include professionals, the elderly, women, and the youth.

e. A majority of the members of the sectoral parties or organizations that represent the "marginalized and underrepresented must belong to the marginalized and underrepresented sector they represent. Similarly, a majority of the members of the sectoral parties or organizations that lack "well-defined political constituencies" must belong to the sector they represent. The nominees of sectoral parties or organizations that represent the "marginalized and underrepresented" or that represent those who lack "well-defined political constituencies," either must belong to their respective sectors, or must have a track record or advocacy for their respective sectors. The nominees of national and regional parties or organizations must be bona-fide members of such parties or organizations.

f. National, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations shall not be disqualified if some of their nominees are disqualified, provided that they have at least one nominee who remains qualified.

27. How are party-list seats allocated?

a. The parties, organizations, and coalitions shall be ranked from the highest to the lowest based on the number of votes they garnered during the elections.

b. The parties, organizations, and coalitions receiving at least two percent (2%) of the total votes cast for the party-list system shall be entitled to one guaranteed seat each.

c. Those garnering sufficient number of votes, according to the ranking in paragraph 1, shall be entitled to additional seats in proportion to their total number of votes until all the additional seats are allocated.

Note: The "additional seats" in Step 3 is [(Total number of Partylist Seats) - (Number of guaranteed seats allocated)]. Thus, even partylist groups who failed to attain the 2% threshold may be given a chance to have one seat during the allocation of "additional seats" on Step 3. The percentage of votes for each party is computed by dividing its votes by the total votes cast for all party-list candidates.

There are two steps in the second round of seat allocation:

1. The percentage is multiplied by the remaining available seats which is the difference between the maximum seats reserved under the Party-List System and the guaranteed seats of the two-percenters. The whole integer of the product of the percentage and of the remaining available seats corresponds to a party's share in the remaining available seats.

2. Assignment of one party-list seat to each of the parties next in rank until all available seats are completely distributed. Distribute all of the remaining seats in the second round of seat allocation. Finally, apply the three-seat cap to determine the number of seats each qualified party-list candidate is entitled to. d. Each party, organization, or coalition shall be entitled to not more than three (3) seats.

28. What are the constitutional limitations on Congress' power to appropriate funds?

a. No money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law.

b. No public money or property shall be appropriated, applied, paid, or employed, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, sectarian institution, or system of religion, or of any priest, preacher, minister, or other religious teacher, or dignitary as such, except when such priest, preacher, minister, or dignitary is assigned to the armed forces, or to any penal institution, or government orphanage or leprosarium.

c. All money collected on any tax levied for a special purpose shall be treated as a special fund and paid out for such purpose only. If the purpose for which a special fund was created has been fulfilled or abandoned, the balance, if any, shall be transferred to the general funds of the Government.

29. What are the requisites for the valid exercise of the power to transfer funds?

a. There must be a law authorizing the President, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the heads of the Constitutional Commissions to transfer funds within their respective offices.

b. The funds to be transferred are savings generated from the appropriations for their respective offices.

c. The purpose of the transfer is to augment an existing item in the general appropriations law for their respective offices.

30. What inhibits apply to individuals holding the offices of senator or representative?

a. No Senator or Member of the House of Representatives may hold any other office or employment in the Government, or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries, during his term without forfeiting his seat (Incompatible Office).

b. Neither shall he be appointed to any office which may have been created or the emoluments thereof increased during the term for which he was elected (Forbidden Office).

c. No Senator or Member of the House of Representatives may personally appear as counsel before any court of justice or before the Electoral Tribunals, or quasi-judicial and other administrative bodies.

d. Neither shall he, directly or indirectly, be interested financially in any contract with, or in any franchise or special privilege granted by the Government, or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including any government-owned or controlled corporation, or its subsidiary, during his term of office.

e. He shall not intervene in any matter before any office of the Government for his pecuniary benefit or where he may be called upon to act on account of his office.

31. What is the enrolled bill doctrine?

It is the signing of a bill by the Speaker of the House and the Senate President and the certification of the Secretaries of both Houses of Congress that it was passed is conclusive not only as to its provisions but also as to its due enactment.

5. Executive Department

32. What are the kinds of privileged communications?

Table summary: Presidential Communications Privilege and Deliberative Process Privilege differ in their constitutional basis and scope. Presidential Communications Privilege is rooted in the constitutional principle of separation of powers and the President's unique role, applying to decision-making of the President and covering documents in their entirety, including final, post-decisional, and pre-deliberative materials. In contrast, the Deliberative Process Privilege is rooted in common law, applies to the decision-making of executive officials, and includes a governmental privilege against public disclosure regarding state secrets such as military, diplomatic, and other security matters.

(Neri v. Senate, G.R. No. 180643, March 25, 2008)

33. Is the presidential communication privilege absolute?

No. If what is involved is the presumptive privilege of presidential communications when invoked by the President on a matter clearly within the domain of the Executive, the said presumption dictates that the same be recognized and be given preference or priority, in the absence of proof of a compelling or critical need for disclosure by the one assailing such presumption. Therefore, presidential communication is presumptively privileged; but the presumption is subject to rebuttal. Whoever challenges it must show good and valid reasons related to the public welfare.

34. What are the confidential information covered by executive privilege?

a. Conversations and correspondence between the President and other officials of the government.

b. Military, diplomatic, and other national security matters which in the interest of national security should not be divulged.

c. Information between inter-government agencies before the conclusion of treaties and executive agreements.

d. Discussion in closed-door Cabinet meetings; Matters affecting national security and public order.

35. What are the Presidential appointments subject to confirmation by the Commission on Appointments?

a. Heads of executive departments;

b. Ambassadors:

c. Other public ministers and consuls;

d. Other officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel;

e. Other officers whose appointments are vested in him by the Constitution. (Art. 7, Sec. 16, Constitution; Sarmiento 3 v.

Mison, G.R. No. 79974, December 17, 1987; Bautista v. Salonga, G.R. No. 86439, April 13, 1989)

36. What is the effect of a bypassed appointment?

A by-passed appointment is one that has not been finally acted upon on the merits by the Commission on Appointments at the close of the session of Congress. There is no final decision by the Commission on Appointments to give or withhold its consent to the appointment as required by the Constitution. Absent such decision, the President is free to renew the ad interim appointment of a by-passed appointee.

37. Does the president have the power to remove a presidential appointee from office?

Yes. As a general rule, presidential appointees come under the direct disciplining authority of the President pursuant to the well-settled principle that, in the absence of a contrary law, the power to remove or to discipline is lodged in the same authority in whom the power to appoint is vested.

Note: However, pursuant to the constitutional grant to the President to appoint Justices of the Court, this principle cannot apply without conflicting with the autonomy to a co-equal branch of the government.

38. Distinguish calling-out powers, martial law powers, and the power to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.

Table summary: Constitutional powers of the President regarding the armed forces and legal protections are defined by specific criteria and limitations. The calling-out power allows the President to deploy armed forces to address lawless violence, invasion, or rebellion, provided the action does not constitute a grave abuse of discretion. Martial law powers and the suspension of the privilege of the writ of hebeas corpus are restricted to cases of invasion or rebellion where public safety requires it. These two powers are subject to a sixty-day duration limit, as well as oversight and potential revocation by Congress or nullification by the Supreme Court. If the conditions of invasion or rebellion and public safety requirements are not both met, the declaration of martial law or the suspension of the writ of hebeas corpus must be struck down.

Note: The Congress may extend such proclamation or suspension when the following concur: (a) the extension should be upon the President's initiative; (b) the invasion or rebellion persists and public safety requires it; and (c) the Congress must vote jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of all its Members in regular or special session.

39. Distinguish judicial power to review the proclamation of martial law and suspension of the privilege of the writ of hebeas corpus from the congressional power to revoke.

;// Table summary: A comparison between the judicial and congressional powers to review presidential proclamations or suspensions. The Court's power is passive, meaning it requires a citizen to file a petition in an appropriate proceeding, and it is limited to reviewing the factual basis using only information available to the President at the time of the declaration without independent investigation. In contrast, Congress has an automatic review mechanism it can activate at any time, with the power to revoke the proclamation or suspension in a manner that the President cannot set aside. Unlike the Court, Congress can consider events that occurred after the declaration and can probe more deeply into the accuracy of the facts presented.

(Lagman v. Medialdea, G.R. No. 231658, July 4, 2017)

40. What are the constitutional limits on pardoning power and executive clemency?

: Table summary: The President's pardoning powers allow for the granting of reprieves, commutations, pardons, and the remitting of fines and forfeitures after a conviction by final judgment, as well as the power to grant amnesty with the concurrence of a majority of all Congress members. These powers are subject to several limitations, including that they cannot be used in cases of impeachment, must generally follow a final judgment, and cannot extinguish civil liability awarded to third persons or restore offices forfeited or vacated after conviction. Additionally, pardons involving election law violations require a favorable recommendation from the Commission on Elections, and while the President can grant pardons in administrative cases, the pardoned official cannot reclaim a position forfeited by a criminal conviction.

(Art. VII, Sec. 19, 1987 Constitution; Monsato v. Factoran, G.R. No. 78239, February 9, 1989)

41. What is the doctrine of qualified political agency?

The doctrine states that all executive and administrative organizations are adjuncts of the Executive Department, the heads of the various executive departments are assistants and agents of the Chief Executive, and, except in cases where the Chief Executive is required by the Constitution or law to act in person or the exigencies of the situation demand that he acts personally, the multifarious executive and administrative functions of the Chief Executive are performed by and through the executive departments, and the acts of the secretaries of such departments, performed and promulgated in the regular course of business, are unless disapproved or reprobed by the Chief Executive presumptively the act of the Chief Executive.

6. Judicial Department

42. What is a political question, and when may courts rule on political questions?

Political questions refer"to those questions which, under the Constitution, are to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislative or executive branch of government." Thus, if an issue is clearly identified by the text of the Constitution as matters for discretionary action by a particular branch of government or to the people themselves then it is held to be a political question. Court may rule on political questions when: (a) there is an exercise of discretion so grave as to amount to an excess or lack of jurisdiction by different agencies and departments of the executive or those of the legislature; (b) the act of a constitutional organ infringes upon a fundamental individual or collective right; and (c) the issue involved concerns the validity of President's discretionary powers or whether said powers are within the limits prescribed by the Constitution.

43. When is a case or issue considered Moot and Academic? What are its exceptions, if any?

A case or issue is considered moot and academic when it ceases to present a justifiable controversy by virtue of supervening events, so that an adjudication of the case or a declaration on the issue would be of no practical value or use. However, a court may still decide a case otherwise moot and academic, if it finds that: (a) there is a grave violation of the Constitution; (b) the situation is of exceptional character and paramount public interest is involved; (c) the constitutional issue raised requires formulation of controlling principles to guide the bench, the bar, and the public; and (d) the case is capable of repetition yet evading review.

44. What is the doctrine of operative fact?

Under the operative fact doctrine, the law is recognized as unconstitutional but the effects of the unconstitutional law, prior to its declaration of nullity, may be left undisturbed as a matter of equity and fair play.

7. Constitutional Commissions

45. A.A.A argued that comelec is not allowed to fix an election period beyond the 90 to 30-day rule under the Constitution. Is the comelec expressly authorized to fix a different date of the election period?

Yes. Unless fixed by the Commission in special cases, the election period shall commence ninety (90) days before the day of election and shall end thirty (30) days thereafter. The Commission is not precluded from fixing the length and the starting date of the election period to ensure free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible elections.

46. Differentiate the requisites for a government-owned and controlled corporation and a government agency to engage the services of a private lawyer.

Table summary: Comparison of requirements for hiring private counsel for Government-Owned and Controlled Corporations versus Government Agencies. A GOCC must obtain written conformity and acquiescence from the OGCC, while a Government Agency must obtain written conformity and concurrence from the Solicitor General. For both entities, written concurrence from the COA is also required. Hiring private counsel is permitted only in exceptional cases and requires strict compliance, meaning approvals from both the COA and the respective legal office must be complete and obtained before the lawyer is hired.

Private counsels can be hired only in exceptional cases.

8. Bill of Rights

47. P.P.P and A.A.A question the validity of Section 8 of R.A. No. 7941 which prevents a candidate for any elective office or a person who has lost in the immediately preceding elections from being included in the list of nominees for party-list representatives, and Sections 5(d) and 10 of comelec Resolution No. 10717 which adopted the provisions of R.A. No. 7941. Does the provision violate the right to substantive due process? Yes. The qualifiers"lost" and"immediately preceding election" do not have any rational basis that would bolster the objective of the party-list law. The prohibition is an arbitrary and whimsical intrusion of the right of losing candidates in the immediately preceding elections, by needlessly restraining them from participating in the present elections.

48. What are the conditions that must be present and strictly complied with for administrative warrants to be valid and justified?

a. The danger, harm, or evil sought to be prevented must be imminent and must be greater than the damage or injury to be sustained by the one who shall be temporarily deprived of a right to liberty or property

b. The warrant's resultant deprivation of a right or legitimate claim of entitlement must be temporary or provisional, aimed only at suppressing imminent danger, harm, or evil and such deprivation's permanency must be strictly subjected to procedural due process requirements.

c. The issuing administrative authority must be empowered by law to perform specific implementing acts pursuant to well defined regulatory purposes.

d. The issuing administrative authority must be necessarily authorized by law to pass upon and make final pronouncements on conflicting rights and obligations of contending parties, as well as to issue warrants or orders that are incidental to or reasonably necessary for the performance of the executive or administrative duty entrusted to it. e. The issuance of an administrative warrant must be based on tangible proof of probable cause and must state a specific purpose or infraction allegedly committed with particular descriptions of the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. f. The warrant issued must not pertain to a criminal offense or pursued as a precursor for the filing of criminal charges and any object seized pursuant to such writ shall not be admissible in evidence in any criminal proceeding.

g. The person temporarily deprived of a right or entitlement by an administrative warrant shall be formally charged within a reasonable time if no such period is provided by law and shall not be denyed any access to a competent counsel of his or her own choice. Furthermore, in cases where a person is deprived of liberty by virtue of an administrative warrant, the adjudicative body which issued the warrant shall immediately submit a verified notice to the Regional Trial Court nearest to the detainee for purposes of issuing a judicial commitment order.

h. A violation of any item of these guidelines is a prima facie proof of usurpation of judicial functions, malfeasance, misfeasance, nonfeasance, or graft and corrupt practices on the part of responsible officers.

(Mosqueda v. Filipino Banana Growers & Exporters Association, Inc., G.R. Nos. 189185 & 189305, August 16, 2016; Central Bank Employees Association, Inc. v. BSP, G.R. No. 148208, December 15, 2004; Sobrejuanite-Flores v. Pilando, G.R. No. 251816, November 23, 2021)

(Sec. 13, Rule 126; People v. Lagman, G.R. No. 168695, December 8, 2008; People v. Mariacos, G.R. No. 188611, June 16, 2010; People v. Nuevas, G.R. No. 170233, February 22, 2007; De la Cruz v. People, G.R. No. 209387, January 11, 2016)

Table 49 summary: The three levels of judicial review used to evaluate legislative classifications. The Rational Basis Test is the most lenient, applying to economics, social welfare, or non-suspect classes, requiring only that a classification reasonably relate to the legislative purpose. The Strict Scrutiny Test is the most rigorous, applying to fundamental rights or suspect classes; it requires the government to prove the law is suitably tailored to serve a compelling or overriding state interest. The Intermediate Scrutiny Test falls between the two, applying to classifications like gender and legitimacy; it requires that the law further an important governmental interest, be substantially related to it, and be based on genuine justifications rather than broad generalizations.

Table 50 summary: Instances where a warrantless search is considered valid. These include searches incidental to a lawful arrest, provided the search is within the person's reach or immediate control, and the Plain View Doctrine, which requires a prior justification for intrusion, inadvertent discovery, and that the item is immediately apparent as evidence or contraband. Searches of moving vehicles are permitted due to their mobility, though probable cause remains imperative. Consented searches are valid if the person knew their rights and intentionally relinquished them. Customs searches are allowed if conducted by police authority to enforce customs law in a non-dwelling place. Stop and frisk searches require the officer to have personal knowledge of facts creating a reasonable suspicion of an illicit act. Finally, exigent and emergency circumstances justify a search when there is reasonable ground to believe a crime is being committed and no opportunity to secure a warrant due to urgency.

51. What are the three strands of the right to privacy?

: Table summary: Three types of privacy based on rulings from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines v. Purisima and Disini, Jr. v. Secretary of Justice. Locational Privacy, also called situational privacy, involves privacy in a physical space and can be violated by trespass or unlawful search. Informational Privacy is the right to control the acquisition, disclosure, and use of personal information. Decisional Privacy is the right to make fundamental choices regarding personal and reproductive autonomy.

52. What are the exceptions to the applicability of the Data Privacy Act?

a. Information about any individual who is or was an officer or employee of a government institution that relates to the position or functions of the individual, including:

1. The fact that the individual is or was an officer or employee of the government institution;

2. The title, business address and office telephone number of the individual:

3. The classification, salary range and responsibilities of the position held by the individual; and

4. The name of the individual on a document prepared by the individual in the course of employment with the government;

b. Information about an individual who is or was performing service under contract for a government institution that relates to the services performed, including the terms of the contract, and the name of the individual given in the course of the performance of those services;

c. Information relating to any discretionary benefit of a financial nature such as the granting of a license or permit given by the government to an individual, including the name of the individual and the exact nature of the benefit;

d. Personal information processed for journalistic, artistic, literary or research purposes;

e. Information necessary in order to carry out the functions of public authority which includes the processing of personal data for the performance by the independent, central monetary authority and law enforcement and regulatory agencies of their constitutionally and statutorily mandated functions. Nothing in this Act shall be construed as to have amended or repealed Republic Act No. 1405, otherwise known as the Secrecy of Bank Deposits Act; Republic Act No. 6426, otherwise known as the Foreign Currency Deposit Act; and Republic Act No. 9510, otherwise known as the Credit Information System Act (cisa);

f. Information necessary for banks and other financial institutions under the jurisdiction of the independent, central monetary authority or Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas to comply with Republic Act No. 9510, and Republic Act No. 9160, as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Money Laundering Act and other applicable laws; and

g. Personal information originally collected from residents of foreign jurisdictions in accordance with the laws of those foreign jurisdictions, including any applicable data privacy laws, which is being processed in the Philippines.

53. What is the standard in assessing whether the State impermissibly intrudes into zones of privacy?

In evaluating a claim for violation of the right to privacy, a court must determine whether a person has exhibited a reasonable expectation of privacy, and if so, whether the expectation has been violated by unreasonable government intrusion. Note: Two constitutional guarantees create these zones of privacy: (a) the right against unreasonable searches and seizures, which is the basis of the right to be let alone, and (b) the right to privacy of communication and correspondence.

54. A.A.A was administratively charged for allegedly fixing cases based on text messages from a number belonging to A.A.A as evidenced by his 2011 Personal Data Sheet (P.D.S). A.A.A contended that the mobile phone number in his P.D.S is protected under the Data Privacy Act and cannot be used for the purpose of establishing his identity. Is a mobile number under the P.D.S considered personal information under the Data Privacy Act of 2012?

a. Is a mobile number under the P.D.S considered personal information under the Data Privacy Act of 2012? Yes. Personal information refers to "any information... from which the identity of an individual is apparent or can be reasonably and directly ascertained by the entity holding the information, or when put together with other information would directly and certainly identify an individual." The National Privacy Commission considered the mobile phone number of an individual as personal information because when these are combined with other information, the same would identify such person.

b. Was A.A.A's right to privacy violated?

No. Rule V, Section 21, I.R.R of the D.P.A provides that for processing of personal information to be lawful, any of the following conditions must be complied with:" (f) The processing of personal information is necessary for the fulfillment of the constitutional or statutory mandate of a public authority." A.A.A's personal information was lawfully processed as such was done in relation to an administrative investigation by the O.M.B involving an illegal scheme. The O.M.B, thus, has the authority to process personal information pursuant to its mandate.

Note: While the D.P.A recognizes such mandate, the law is also clear that processing of personal information must adhere to the principles of transparency, legitimacy, and proportionality.

55. The Finance Secretary issued a Revenue Regulation requiring all self-employed professionals to register with the Bureau of Internal Revenue their books of account and appointment books containing the names of their clients, and their meeting date and time. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Philippine College of Physicians alleged that the regulation violated their patients' and clients' privacy rights and ethical norms in their professions. Did the revenue regulation violate the constitutional right to privacy?

Yes. Under the Constitution, the privacy of communication and correspondence is inviolable except only when there is a court order, or as the law prescribes when public safety or order requires otherwise. Clients and patients have a reasonable expectation of privacy when they set appointments with the professionals that the I.B.P and P.C.P represent. It is this pattern of behavior, which can be extracted from the appointment book, that a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy over and which must be protected.

56. On January 3, 2007, an anonymous letter-complaint was delivered to C.S.C Chairperson. The letter alleged that an official in the C.S.C-RO 4 P.A.L.D division was "lawyering" and preparing pleadings for government employees with pending administrative cases before the C.S.C. Acting on the complaint, C.S.C Chairperson immediately dispatched a team of I.T personnel to C.S.C-RO 4 to back up the files stored on the computers of the P.A.L.D and Legal Services Division. A.A.A was on leave at the time, though he was informed of the activity via text message. An examination of files backed up from A.A.A's assigned work computer revealed 40 to 42 draft pleadings, motions, and letters written on behalf of individuals involved in administrative cases pending before the C.S.C and other tribunals. A.A.A denyed the charges, claiming that the search of his government computer and the retrieval of his personal files violated his constitutional right to privacy. Decide.

No. There was no violation of the right to privacy of A.A.A because he failed to prove that he had an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy either in his office or government-issued computer which contained his personal files. The search of petitioner's computer files was conducted in connection with investigation of work-related misconduct prompted by an anonymous letter-complaint addressed to Chairperson David regarding anomalies in the C.S.C-ROIV where the head of the Mamamayan Muna Hindi Mamaya Na division is supposedly"lawyering" for individuals with pending cases in the C.S.C.

57. What is the Reasonable Expectation of Privacy Test and its Application to C.C.T.V Footages?

In ascertaining whether there is a violation of the right to privacy, courts use the"reasonable expectation of privacy" test. This test determines whether a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and whether the expectation has been violated. We enunciated that"the reasonableness of a person's expectation of privacy depends on a two-part test: (1) whether, by his conduct, the individual has exhibited an expectation of privacy; and (2) this expectation is one that society recognizes as reasonable." Customs, community norms, and practices may, therefore, limit or extend an individual's"reasonable expectation of privacy." In this day and age, video surveillance cameras are installed practically everywhere for the protection and safety of everyone. The installation of these cameras, however, should not cover places where there is reasonable expectation of privacy, unless the consent of the individual, whose right to privacy would be affected, was obtained. Nor should these cameras be used to pry into the privacy of another's residence or business office as it would be no different from eavesdropping, which is a crime under Republic Act No. 4200 or the Anti-Wiretapping Law.

(Chavez v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 168338, February 15, 2008)

: Table 58 summary: Content-based regulations are distinguished from content-neutral regulations by their focus, legal scrutiny, and presumptions of validity. Content-based regulations focus on the subject matter of the speech, are given the strictest scrutiny due to their invasive impact, and bear a heavy presumption of invalidity under the clear and present danger rule. In contrast, content-neutral regulations concern the incidents of speech, such as time, place, or manner under defined standards; they are valid if there is a substantial governmental interest and are subjected to an intermediate review.

59. Differentiate the freedom from prior restraint from the freedom from punishment subsequent to publication.

Table 59 summary: A distinction between Prior Restraint and Subsequent Punishment. Prior Restraint consists of official government restrictions on expression before it is published or disseminated, serving as a form of censorship regardless of which branch of government executes it. In contrast, Subsequent Punishment refers to liability after publication. The table notes that freedom from subsequent liability for traditionally innocent views is necessary, because the threat of such punishment would otherwise act as an effective prior restraint.

60. Distinguish the void-for-vagueness, facial challenge, and overbreadth doctrine.

: Table summary: Key distinctions between Void for Vagueness, Overbreadth Doctrine, and Facial Challenges. Void for Vagueness occurs when laws are so unclear that people of common intelligence must guess their meaning and is applicable to all criminal laws, regardless of whether they involve free speech. In contrast, the Overbreadth Doctrine applies specifically to statutes infringing upon freedom of speech, where the government's means of regulation unnecessarily sweep too broadly and invade protected freedoms. A Facial Challenge asserts that a law is unconstitutional in all applications, not just a specific instance; while generally disfavored due to judicial restraint, it is permitted in cases concerning freedom of speech and expression.

(Lagman v. Medialdea, G.R. No. 231658, July 4, 2017; Disini v. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 203335, February 11, 2014)

61. Distinguish “fighting words” and Abrasive speech between private individuals.

;// Table summary: The distinction between unprotected fighting words and protected abrasive speech, as defined in the landmark case MTRCB v. ABC Development Corp. Unprotected speech consists of fighting words that immediately threaten the State with clear and present danger, such as rebellion and sedition, and bring about general disorder. In contrast, protected speech includes words spewed during fights or quarrels between private individuals, which remain protected even if they are vulgar or profane. The critical difference is whether the words cause a breach of peace or general disorder concerning the State.

62. What are the legal tests to determine the validity of governmental regulation?

: Table summary: Legal tests used to evaluate government actions affecting religious freedom. The Clear and Present Danger Test determines if a limitation is valid based on whether the danger is substantial, immediate, and real. The Compelling State Interest Test requires the government to prove a regulation serves an overriding state interest and is narrowly tailored. Similarly, the Strict Scrutiny Test, applied when fundamental rights are impinged, requires the law to be narrowly tailored for a compelling government interest with no less restrictive alternatives available.

Intermediate Scrutiny Test

Applies when a classification does not involve suspect classes or fundamental rights, but requires heightened scrutiny, such as in classifications based on gender and legitimacy. The law must not only further an important governmental interest and be substantially related to that interest, but the justification for the classification must be genuine and must not depend on broad generalizations.

Rational Basis Test Applies in cases involving economics or social welfare, or to any other case not involving a suspect class. This demands that the classification reasonably relate to the legislative purpose.

63. A.B.C Church registered with the Social Security System (S.S.S) and listed its officers as "employees," but later filed a request for the conversion of their membership status to "voluntary or self-employed," which was denyed.

a. Does the principle of separation of Church and state apply in the present case?

No. The principle of separation of church and state applies only to ecclesiastical affairs. As defined, an "ecclesiastical affair" concerns doctrine, creed, or form of worship of the church, or the adoption and enforcement within a religious association of needful laws and regulations for the government of the membership, and the power of excluding from such associations those deemed unworthy of membership." Just because a case involves the relationship between the Church and its religious ministers does not automatically bring it within the ambit of a purely religious affair. It is the nature of the incident that must be looked into in order to rule whether the same is within the permissible sphere of judicial review.

b. Does the coverage of a religious institution, such as the A.B.C Church, in the S.S.S violate the non-establishment clause of the Constitution?

No. The creation of the S.S.S is an exercise of the State's police power. The Social Security Law was enacted to safeguard employees against the hazards of disability, sickness, old age, and death in accordance with the protection afforded upon labor and the social justice thrust of the Constitution. The nature of the petitioner as a religious institution does not exempt it from the coverage of the S.S.S.

64. What is benevolent neutrality approach?

Government might adopt laws or actions of general applicability which inadvertently burden religious exercise. Benevolent neutrality gives room for accommodation of these religious exercises as required by the Free Exercise Clause.

65. What are exceptions to the right of information?

a. Information covered by Executive privilege;

b. Privileged information relating to national security, defense or international relations;

c. Information concerning law enforcement and protection of public and personal safety;

d. Information deemed confidential for the protection of the privacy of persons and certain individuals such as minors, victims of crimes, or the accused;

e. Information, documents or records known by reason of official capacity and are deemed as confidential, including those submitted or disclosed by entities to government agencies, tribunals, boards, or officers, in relation to the performance of their functions, or to inquiries or investigation conducted by them in the exercise of their administrative, regulatory or quasi-judicial powers;

f. Prejudicial premature disclosure;

g. Records of proceedings or information from proceedings which, pursuant to law or relevant rules and regulations, are treated as confidential or privileged;

h. Matters considered confidential under banking and finance laws, and their amendatory laws; and

1. Other exceptions to the right to information under laws, jurisprudence, rules and regulations.

66. When is a person considered under custodial investigation?

Custodial investigation involves any questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. It is only after the investigation ceases to be a general inquiry into an unsolved crime and begins to focus on a particular suspect, the suspect is taken into custody, and the police carries out a process of interrogations that lends itself to eliciting incriminating statements that the rule begins to operate.

67. What are the rights of persons arrested, detained, or under custodial investigation?

a. Right to be assisted by counsel;

b. Right to be informed of his rights; for example to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel, preferably of his own choice, who shall at all times be allowed to confer privately with the person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation; Note: If such person cannot afford the services of his own counsel, he must be provided with a competent and independent counsel by the investigating officer.

c. Right to written custodial investigation report;

d. Right to have confessions or admissions obtained in violation of these rights considered inadmissible in evidence;

e. Right to valid waiver; and

Note: Must be in writing and signed by such person in the presence of his counsel; otherwise the waiver shall be null and void and of no effect.

f. Right to visits or conferences by any member of his immediate family, or any medical doctor or priest or religious minister chosen by him or by any member of his immediate family or by his counsel, or by any national non-governmental organization duly accredited by the Commission on Human Rights or by any international non-governmental organization duly accredited by the Office of the President. (Sec. 2, R.A. No. 7438)

68. What are the guidelines for resolving alleged violations of the right to speedy trial or disposition of cases?

a. The right to speedy disposition of cases is different from the right to speedy trial. The right to speedy trial may only be invoked in criminal prosecutions against courts of law.

b. A case is deemed initiated upon the filing of a formal complaint prior to a conduct of a preliminary investigation.

c. Courts must first determine which party carries the burden of proof. If the right is invoked within the given time periods contained in current Supreme Court resolutions and circulars, and the time periods that will be promulgated by the Office of the Ombudsman, the defense has the burden of proving that the right was justifiably invoked. If the delay occurs beyond the given time period and the right is invoked, the prosecution has the burden of justifying the delay.

d. Determination of the length of delay is never mechanical. Courts must consider the entire context of the case, from the amount of evidence to be weighed to the simplicity or complexity of the issues raised.

e. The right to speedy disposition of cases or the right to speedy trial must be timely raised.

69. A.A.A went missing after being released to five barangay tanods on the same day of his arrest. A.A.A's family instituted a Petition for a Writ of Amparo after they were merely given empty reassurances that his disappearance was being investigated. Are the police officers liable for failing to conduct a thorough investigation on the disappearance of A.A.A?

Yes. Section 17 of the Amparo Rule emphasizes the extraordinary diligence required of a public official or employee who is named as a respondent. The failure to conduct a fair and effective investigation similarly amounted to a violation of, or threat to person's rights to life, liberty, and security. They failed to exercise extraordinary diligence in investigating the case and providing information on A.A.A's fate or whereabouts, contrary to the requirement of Section 17 of the Amparo Rule.

70. A.A.A was granted amnesty in 2011 through Proclamation No. 75, which was concurred in by Congress, leading to the dismissal of the criminal cases against him. In 2018, President B.B.B issued Proclamation No. 572, declaring A.A.A's amnesty void for supposedly failing to file an application and admit guilt. Based on this, the government sought to revive the previously dismissed cases. A.A.A contested the proclamation, arguing that it violated his constitutional rights.

a. Did Proclamation No. 572 violate his constitutional rights against ex post facto laws?

Yes. While Proclamation No. 572 is not a penal law, it nonetheless strips A.A.A of a lawful protection against criminal prosecution to which he has become entitled. The prohibition preventing the State from unlawfully and retroactively stripping a person of a lawful protection must apply equally to all branches of government, including the Executive.

b. Did Proclamation No. 572 violate his constitutional rights against double jeopardy?

Yes. Where an accused moves for the dismissal of a criminal case on the ground that he or she has been granted amnesty, the Court rules that double jeopardy applies. The dismissal of the case must bar a second prosecution for the same offense if the amnesty is to be given its full effect and if the grantee is to be allowed to enjoy the complete benefits.

c. Did Proclamation No. 572 violate his constitutional rights to due process?

Yes. Proclamation No. 572 was issued in disregard of the procedural rules dictating how amnesty decisions of the D.N.D can be challenged and when such decisions become final. In disregarding the applicable procedural rules, Proclamation No. 572 violated his constitutional right to procedural due process. In the revocation of his amnesty, A.A.A was not given the process that was due him.

9. National Economy and Patrimony

71. What is the Regalian Doctrine?

General Rule: All lands of the public domain, as well as all natural resources, whether on public or private land, belong to the State.

Exception: The only exception in the Regalian Doctrine is native title to land, or ownership of land by Filipinos by virtue of a claim of ownership since time immemorial and independent of any grant from the Spanish Crown.

72. Can the alienable and disposable lands of the State be classified into (1) patrimonial lands, or those classified as lands of private ownership under Article 425 of the Civil Code, without limitation, and (2) the lands of public domain, or the public lands as provided by the Constitution, but with limitation that the lands must only be agricultural?

No. Lands of the public domain under the Constitution pertain to all lands owned or held by the State both in its public and private capacity. Property of public dominion and patrimonial property, as defined by the Civil Code, both fall within the scope of public domain contemplated under the 1987 Constitution. Excepted from the scope of public domain are lands subject of a claim of ownership based on native title.

Note: The scope of public dominion, as used in the Civil Code, is limited to state properties for public use, for public service, or the development of national wealth. Unlike public domain, which connotes full ownership, public dominion "is not a relationship of ownership, but of belonging, which brings as a consequence certain legal prerogatives in favor of the State as territorial sovereign. (Gaerlan, J., separate concurring opinion).

73. What is the Public Trust Doctrine?

The doctrine speaks of an imposed duty upon the State and its representative of continuing supervision over the taking and use of appropriated water. Thus, "parties who acquired rights in trust property (only hold) these rights subject to the trust and, therefore, could assert no vested right to use those rights in a manner harmful to the trust." In this framework, a relationship is formed - "the state is the trustee, which manages specific natural resources the trust principal - for the trust principal for the benefit of the current and future generations - the beneficiaries." The State has an affirmative duty to take the public trust into account in the planning and allocation of water resources, and to protect public trust uses whenever feasible.

74. What are public utilities under the New Public Service Act?

Public Utility refers to a public service that operates, manages or controls for public use any of the following:

1. Distribution of Electricity;

2. Transmission of Electricity;

3. Petroleum and Petroleum Products Pipeline Transmission Systems;

4. Water Pipeline Distribution Systems and Wastewater Pipeline Systems, including sewerage pipeline systems;

5. Seaports; and

6. Public Utility Vehicles.

All concessionaires, joint ventures and other similar entities that wholly operate, manage or control for public use the sectors above are public utilities. Nothing in this Act shall be interpreted as a requirement for legislative franchise where the law does not require any. No other person shall be deemed a public utility unless otherwise subsequently provided by law. (Sec. 13(d), C.A. No. 146, as amended by R.A. No. 11659)

Note: Any citizen or juridical entity desiring to operate a public utility must meet the minimum nationality requirement prescribed in Section 11, Article 12 of the Constitution. Hence, for a corporation to be granted authority to operate a public utility, at least 60 percent of its"capital" must be owned by Filipino citizens.

75. What is capital?

The term"capital" in Section 11, Article 12 of the 1987 Constitution refers to shares with voting rights, as well as with full beneficial ownership. The 60% requirement applies to both (1) the total number of outstanding shares of stock entitled to vote in the election of directors; and (2) the total number of outstanding shares of stock, whether or not entitled to vote in the election of directors.

76. May foreign entities be allowed to conduct exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources in the Philippines?

No. The exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources shall be under the full control and supervision of the State. The State may directly undertake such activities, or it may enter into co-production, joint venture, or production-sharing agreements with Filipino citizens, or corporations or associations at least 60 per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens.

77. What is the indigenous concept of ownership under the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act?

Indigenous concept of ownership sustains the view that ancestral domains and all resources found therein shall serve as the material bases of their cultural integrity. The indigenous concept of ownership generally holds that ancestral domains are the I.C.C's/I.P's private but community property which belongs to all generations and therefore cannot be sold, disposed or destroyed. It likewise covers sustainable traditional resource rights. (Sec. 5, Chap. 2, R.A. No. 8371)

78. What Rights Do I.C.C's/I.P's Have Over Ancestral Domains and Ancestral Lands?

- cestral (1) Right of ownership; (2) Right to develop lands and natural resources; (3) Right to stay in the territories; (4) Right in case of displacement; (5) Right to regulate entry of migrants; (6) Right to safe and clean air and water; (7) Right to claim parts of reservations; and (8) Right to resolve conflict.

- Ancestral Lands Right to transfer land/property; and Right to redemption.

10. Administrative Law

79. Are public officers who are considered as alter-ego of the President be immune from suit?

No. Settled is the doctrine that the President, during his tenure of office or actual incumbency, is immune from suit and may not be sued in any civil or criminal case. However, such immunity does not extend to his alter egos. The rule is that unlawful acts of public officials are not acts of the State and the officer who acts illegally is not acting as such.

80. What is the Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction?

Primary jurisdiction, also known as the doctrine of Prior Resort, is the power and authority vested by the Constitution or by statute upon an administrative body to act upon a matter by virtue of its specific competence. prevents the court from arrogating unto itself the authority to resolve a controversy which falls under the jurisdiction of a tribunal possessed with special competence.

81. What is the Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies and its exceptions?

The doctrine of exhaustion states that courts cannot or will not determine a controversy involving a question which is within the jurisdiction of the administrative tribunal prior to the resolution of that question by the administrative tribunal, where the question demands the exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring the special knowledge, experience and services of the administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters of fact. The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is not absolute as it admits of the following exceptions:

a. When there is a violation of due process.

b. When the issue involved is purely a legal question.

c. When the administrative action is patently illegal amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

d. When there is estoppel on the part of the administrative agency concerned

e. When there is irreparable injury. f. When the respondent is a department secretary whose acts as an alter ego of the President bears the implied and assumed approval of the latter.

g. When to require exhaustion of administrative remedies would be unreasonable.

h. When it would amount to a nullification of a claim.

1. When the subject matter is a private land in land case proceedings.

j. When the rule does not provide a plain, speedy and adequate remedy.

k. When there are circumstances indicating the urgency of judicial intervention, and unreasonable delay would greatly prejudice the complainant.

1. Where no administrative review is provided by law.

m. Where the rule of qualified political agency applies.

Where the issue of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies has been rendered moot.

11. Law on Public Officers

82. Distinguish between Regular Appointment and Ad Interim Appointment.

: Table summary: The primary distinction between Regular and Ad Interim Appointments lies in the timing of the appointment relative to the session of Congress and the timing of confirmation. A Regular Appointment is made while Congress is in session, after confirmation by the Commission on Appointments, and continues stably until the end of term. In contrast, an Ad Interim Appointment is made while Congress is not in session and before confirmation, allowing the appointee to assume office immediately. While both are permanent in nature, an Ad Interim Appointment ceases to be valid if the appointee is disapproved or bypassed by the Commission on Appointments upon the next adjournment of Congress.

(General v. Urro, G.R. No. 191560, March 29, 2011; Sec. 16, Art VI; Nachura Reviewer)

83. What are the proper remedies and respective court jurisdictions to challenge the different rulings of the Office of the Ombudsman?

Table summary: Legal remedies and jurisdictions for different types of OMB Rulings. For criminal cases concerning the existence or lack of probable cause, the remedy is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 filed with the Supreme Court. Administrative cases are split into two categories. Unappealable decisions, which include those where the respondent is absolved, receives public censure, reprimand, suspension of one month or less, or a fine of one month's salary, may be assailed via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals if there is grave abuse of discretion. All other administrative decisions are appealable to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.

84. Can the salaries of public officials be subjected to garnishment?

Yes. The salaries of public officials are subject to garnishment because they are not covered by the exemptions provided under existing laws and rules. The determining factor is the absence of any law explicitly exempting such salaries from garnishment. The garnishment of property to enforce a writ of execution operates as an attachment, creating a lien that places the property under the jurisdiction of the court. The salaries of public officials and laborers may both be subject to garnishment.

85. What is the nature of preventive suspension pending investigation, and its two kinds?

Preventive suspension pending investigation is not a penalty. It is a measure intended to enable the disciplining authority to investigate charges against respondent by preventing the latter from intimidating or in any way influencing witnesses against him. If the investigation is not finished and a decision is not rendered within that period, the suspension will be lifted and the respondent will automatically be reinstated. If after investigation, respondent is found innocent of the charges and is exonerated, he should be reinstated.

>(Table summary: Difference between preventive suspension during a pending investigation versus a pending appeal. During an investigation, suspension may occur for charges involving dishonesty, oppression, grave misconduct, or neglect of duty; the employee is not entitled to salaries during this time and is automatically reinstated after 90 days. In contrast, during an appeal, if the respondent is exonerated after a review of a suspension or dismissal penalty, they are reinstated with full pay for the period of suspension, or that period is counted as part of the final penalty.

86. May the Ombudsman still take cognizance of an administrative complaint filed against a public officer after their voluntary retirement from government service?

Yes. The public officer can still be held administratively liable as his or her retirement was voluntary. A government employee's resignation is not a way out to evade administrative liability when he or she is facing administrative sanction. Such voluntary separation from the government service, in addition to his or her knowledge that a complaint would most likely be filed bolsters the Ombudsman's position that the public officer attempted to forestall the filing of an administrative case.

87. Administrative and criminal complaints were filed before the Ombudsman against Governor C.C.C and other appointed officials, D.D.D, E.E.E, and F.F.F, for graft arising from the tax sale. The C.A ruled that C.C.C was exonerated under the condonation doctrine because of his 2007 reelection.

A. Will the Condonation Doctrine Apply to Governor C.C.C?

Yes. By reason of Governor C.C.C's reelection to the same position in 2007, his constituents have already forgiven him for any administrative liability that he may have incurred during his incumbency as governor. His reelection to the same position had already exonerated him from the administrative misconduct imputed against him from 2004 to 2007.

b. The condonation doctrine has been abandoned in the case of Carpio Morales v. Court of Appeals. Will the condonation doctrine still apply prior to the finality of Carpio Morales Case?

Yes. The condonation doctrine is still considered as"good law" in all administrative cases involving public officials whose reelections occurred before April 12, 2016, regardless of the dates of filing of the administrative cases against them or the status of said cases when the Carpio Morales case ruling attained finality. The most important consideration in the doctrine of condonation is the fact that the misconduct was done on a prior term and that the subject public official was eventually reelected by the same body politic.

12. Election Law

88. What are the grounds or causes for the deactivation of registration of voters?

a. Any person who has been sentenced by final judgment to suffer imprisonment for not less than one (1) year, such disability not having been removed by plenary pardon or amnesty: Provided, however, That any person disqualified to vote under this paragraph shall automatically reacquire the right to vote upon expiration of five (5) years after service of sentence as certified by the clerks of courts of the Municipal/Municipal Circuit/Metropolitan/Regional Trial Courts and the Sandiganbayan;

b. Any person who has been adjudged by final judgment by a competent court or tribunal of having caused/committed any crime involving disloyalty to the duly constituted government such as rebellion, sedition, violation of the anti-subversion and firearms laws, or any crime against national security, unless restored to his full civil and political rights in accordance with law; Provided, That he shall regain his right to vote automatically upon expiration of five (5) years after service of sentence;

c. Any person declared by competent authority to be insane or incompetent unless such disqualification has been subsequently removed by a declaration of a proper authority that such person is no longer insane or incompetent;

d. Any person who did not vote in the two (2) successive preceding regular elections as shown by their voting records. For this purpose, regular elections do not include the Sangguniang Kabataan (S.K) elections;

e. Any person whose registration has been ordered excluded by the Court; and

f. Any person who has lost his Filipino citizenship. (Sec. 27, R.A. No. 8189)

89. Distinguish the effect of filing of certificate of candidacy of appointive officials from elective officials.

Table summary: The rules for holding office while running for election differ based on the type of official. Appointive Officials are considered resigned and must vacate their position at the start of the day they file a Certificate of Candidacy, per Section 66 of B.P. Blg. 881 and Section 4 of COMELEC Resolution No. 9518. In contrast, Elective Officials are not considered resigned upon filing a Certificate of Candidacy, regardless of whether they are running for the same or a different elective office.

90. Is an administrative regulation declaring electric cooperative officers automatically resigned upon filing their certificates of candidacy unconstitutional?

Yes. An administrative agency cannot, by its own issuances, amend an act of Congress; it cannot modify, expand, or subtract from the law that it is intended to implement. Under the Omnibus Election Code,"ipso facto resignation" applies only to persons"holding a public appointive office or position" or in"government-owned or controlled corporations."

91. Is failure to file an income tax return a crime involving moral turpitude?

No. Failure to file income tax return does not always amount to tax evasion because it may be committed by neglect, without any fraudulent intent and/or willfulness. The'failure to file an income tax return' is not a crime involving moral turpitude as the mere omission is already a violation regardless of the fraudulent intent or willfulness of the individual.

92. In case a permanent vacancy arises due to the local executive's disqualification of ineligibility from office, should the candidate who received the second highest number of votes assume the position left vacant?

No. No law authorizes the proclamation of the second placer in the elections in case the candidate who received the most votes is disqualified or turned out to be ineligible. The second placer rule undermines the people's choice in every election and is repugnant to the people's constitutional right to suffrage. In fine, the Court hereby abandons the second placer rule and declares that the rules on succession under the L.G.C shall apply in all cases where a permanent vacancy results from a local elective official's disqualification from office regardless of the proceedings involved.

93. Summarize the prevailing jurisprudence on issues affecting consecutiveness of terms and/or involuntary interruption.

Table summary: Scenarios affecting the consecutiveness of terms and involuntary interruption for elective local officials. Serving an unexpired portion of a term due to succession is not counted as a full term toward term limits, and assuming a higher office is considered an involuntary interruption, allowing the official to potentially run for their previous position later. An official who leaves office after three terms but later wins a recall election is eligible to serve because they were a private citizen in the interim. Conversely, the abolition of an office due to municipal conversion does not interrupt service continuity. Preventive suspension is not a term-interrupting event, as the official remains entitled to the office. Dismissal from service that is later appealed is considered an involuntary interruption, meaning that term does not count toward the three-term limit. Similarly, being ousted from office following an election protest is an involuntary interruption, regardless of the duration of the break. However, if an official serves a full term and is only defeated in an election protest after the term expires, the service is counted in full and does not constitute an interruption. Finally, serving the balance of a term following a recall election is not counted as a full three-year term, and an incumbent who survives a recall election continues their service without a break in the three-term limit calculation.

(Borja, Jr. v. Comelec, G.R. No. 133495, September 3, 1998; Montebon v. Comelec, G.R. No. 180444, April 8, 2008; Adormeo v. Comelec, G.R. No. 147927, February 4, 2002; Socrates v. Comelec, G.R. No. 154512, November 12, 2002; Latasa v. Comelec, G.R. No. 154829, December 10, 2003; Aldovino, Jr. v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 184836, December 23, 2009; Tallado vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 246679, September 10, 2019; Lonzanida v. Comelec, G.R. No. 135150, July 28, 1999; Ong v. Aleore, G.R. No. 163295, January 23, 2006)

94. On What Grounds Can the comelec Declare Someone as a Nuisance Candidate?

a. That such candidate only filed his or her C.O.C to put the election process in mockery or to cause disrepute;

b. That such candidate only filed his or her C.O.C to cause confusion among the voters, and;

c. That there exists circumstances that clearly demonstrate that the candidate has no bona fide intention to run for office to prevent a faithful determination of the true will of the electorate.

95. Can a person be punished for premature campaigning before the official campaign period?

No. Under prevailing laws and jurisprudence, premature campaigning is no longer punishable. The essential elements for violation of Section 80 of the Omnibus Election Code are: (1) a person engages in an election campaign or partisan political activity; (2) the act is designed to promote the election or defeat of a particular candidate or candidates; (3) the act is done outside the campaign period. In relation to the second element, Section 79(a) of the Omnibus Election Code defines a"candidate" as"any person aspiring for or seeking an elective public office, who has filed a certificate of candidacy by himself or through an accredited political party, agroupment, or coalition of parties." A person is considered as a"candidate" only at the start of the campaign period for which the certificate of candidacy is filed.

96. In the 2013 Elections, A.A.A Partylist's allocation was increased to two seats, but a subsequent Resolution declared it entitled to only one. A petition to cancel A.A.A Partylist's registration was filed alleging that its second nominee improperly assumed office. Does the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (H.R.E.T) have jurisdiction over the petition?

No. Republic Act No. 7941 confers upon comelec the sole and exclusive jurisdiction to act on petitions for registration of party-lists. The jurisdiction of the H.R.E.T is limited to only contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of Members of the HoR. As it is the nominee—and not the party-list—who is the Member of the HoR, the H.R.E.T's jurisdiction is limited only to cases involving the sitting nominee. As A.A.A Partylist is not a Member of the HoR, the case cannot fall under the H.R.E.T's jurisdiction.

97. Distinguish Petition to Deny Due Course or to Cancel Certificate of Candidacy (C.O.C) and Petition for Disqualification.

Table summary: Differences between a Petition to Deny Due Course or to Cancel COC and a Petition for Disqualification revolve around the nature of the candidate's legal standing. A Petition to Deny Due Course or to Cancel COC addresses false material representation regarding legal qualifications like residency, age, or citizenship, with the effect that the person is not considered a candidate and cannot be substituted. In contrast, a Petition for Disqualification concerns a candidate's ineligibility due to a final decision by a court or the Commission, allowing for substitution if the candidate had a valid COC. Filing deadlines differ, with the former required within five days of the last day of filing and no later than 25 days after filing, while the latter is filed from the day after the last day of filing until the date of proclamation. Regarding election outcomes, a final disqualification before an election results in stray votes, while proceedings after an election continue even if the candidate is proclaimed, except for congressional or senatorial candidates who fall under the jurisdiction of their respective electoral tribunals after taking the oath of office.

98. Distinguish an Election Contest Filed with the P.E.T from a Petition for Quo Warranto.

;// Table summary: The key differences between an Election Contest and a Petition for Quo Warranto center on their grounds, eligible filers, and deadlines. An Election Contest is anchored on allegations of electoral frauds, anomalies, or irregularities, can only be filed by the candidate who received the second or third highest number of votes, and must be filed within thirty days after the proclamation of the winner. In contrast, a Petition for Quo Warranto attacks the protestee's ineligibility or acts of disloyalty, may be filed by any registered voter who voted in the election, and has a shorter filing window of ten days after the proclamation.

13. Local Governments

99. What are the substantive requirements of a valid ordinance?

a. Must not contravene the Constitution or any statute;

c. Must not be partial or discriminatory;

d. Must not prohibit, but may regulate trade;

e. Must be general and consistent with public policy; and

f. Must not be unreasonable.

100. Sangguniang Panlungsod of Puerto Princesa passed Ordinance No. 438 which established the Early and Voluntary Separation Incentive Program (E.V.S.I.P) to provide a retirement plan to qualified employees relying on the principle of local autonomy. The ordinance is challenged on the ground that it circumvents Commonwealth Act No. 186, which provides that no supplementary retirement plans other than the G.S.I.S shall exist.

a. Is the Sangguniang Panglungsd correct to rely on the principle of local autonomy?

No. The concept of local autonomy does not preclude intervention by the national government to ensure that local programs are consistent with national goals. Fiscal decentralization does not signify the absolute freedom of the L.G.U's to spend their revenues unrestrictedly or upon their individual whims and caprices. Local appropriations and expenditures are still under the supervision of the President and the authority of the C.O.A to ensure compliance with laws and regulations.

b. Is Ordinance No. 438 valid?

No. C.A. No. 186 is loud and clear: no supplementary retirement or pension plans other than the G.S.I.S shall exist in any government office or instrumentality. The creation of a retirement incentive package plan for an L.G.U would necessitate a law authorizing the same for reasons such as reorganization or streamlining. Otherwise, said plan would run contrary to C.A. No. 186, as amended by R.A. No. 4968.

Note: In Bayron v. C.O.A, G.R. No. 253127, November 29, 2022, the Court ruled that it is the Government Service Insurance System (G.S.I.S) that was expressly granted the power to adopt a retirement plan for its employees. A retirement plan must be an early retirement incentive for the purpose of retirement. E.V.S.I.P's very objective contradicts the nature of an early retirement incentive plan, its purpose is not to encourage employees to retire but to augment the retirement benefits they would receive under our present laws. E.V.S.I.P of the P.P.C.G is ultra vires and deems it proper to declare said basis as null and void.

101. Is an ordinance passed by a Sangguniang Panlalawigan reversing a merger of two barangays valid despite the absence of a plebiscite?

No. In the case of a barangay, except in Metropolitan Manila area and in cultural communities, such may be done by the sangguniang panlalawigan or sangguniang panlungsod concerned through the passage of an ordinance, subject to the mandatory requirement of a plebiscite conducted for the purpose in the political units affected.

102. The Province of Sulu rejected the Bangsamoro Organic Law in a plebiscite, but was included in Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (B.A.R.M.M) because the majority of the A.R.M.M voted in favor. Sulu argued that its automatic inclusion and the requirement to vote as one geographical area violated its right to local autonomy.

a. Is Sulu's argument meritorious?

Yes. Under Article 10, Section 18 of the 1987 Constitution, the creation of an autonomous region requires the approval of a majority of votes cast in a plebiscite by the constituent units. The Constitution contemplates a separate and individual vote by each local government unit, ensuring that only those units that vote in favor shall be included. The provision requiring the entire A.R.M.M to vote as a single geographical unit was therefore unconstitutional.

b. Did the creation of the B.A.R.M.M violate the principle of Imperium in imperii (state within a state)?

No. The framers of the Constitution envisioned autonomous regions having "an efficient working relationship with the central government," not a complete separation from the rest of the country. In the Bangsamoro Organic Law, the Bangsamoro government is not conferred the power to enter relations with other states, nor is it granted sovereignty. National defense and security, citizenship, foreign policy, and foreign trade remain in the domain of the national government.

The Bangsamoro, although its territory is defined, is not a separate state. The autonomy granted to the Bangsamoro government is limited to its internal governance, preventing it from having sovereignty.

103. Does the one-year constitutional prohibition on appointment to government positions apply to an appointment under a contract of service in a different city from where the candidate lost?

Yes. Article 9-B, Section 6, Constitution, prohibits those who lost in the election from being appointed to any government position within one year of such election. Undoubtedly, Section 6, Article 9-B, Constitution, and Section 94(b), Local Government Code, expressly disallow losing candidates in any election within 1 year after such election to be appointed to any office in the government or any government-owned or controlled corporations (G.O.C.C's) or in any of their subsidiaries.

14. Public International Law

: Table summary: The primary sources of obligations in international law include treaties, which are written international instruments between states; customary international law, characterized by consistent state practice and a sense of legal obligation known as opinion juris; and general principles of law, which are binding norms such as the principle of sovereign immunity and the right to life. Additionally, judicial decisions and the writings of highly qualified publicists serve as secondary sources that are persuasive rather than authoritative for deciding cases.

(Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties; Bayan Muna v. Romulo, G.R. No. 159618, February 1, 2011; Pangilinan v. Cayetano, G.R. No. 238875, March 16, 2021; Bayan Muna v. Romulo, G.R. No. 159618, February 1, 2011

105. What is the difference between binding and non-binding actions of international organizations?

: Table summary: Sources of international law obligations are divided into binding and non-binding actions. Binding actions are legal obligations member states must follow, such as UN Security Council decisions made under Chapter VII regarding peace and security. Non-binding actions, such as resolutions from the UN General Assembly or the International Labour Organization, carry moral or political influence rather than direct legal obligations, though they may help develop customary international law or provide treaty guidance.

(Art. 25, United Nations Charter; Arts. 10 and 14, United Nations Charter)

106. What is the double criminality rule in extradition proceedings?

The extraditable offense must be criminal under the laws of both the requesting and the requested states. In other words, the requested state comes under no obligation to surrender the person if its laws do not regard the conduct covered by the request for extradition as criminal.

107. What is the process of extradition? a. Under the Rules on Extradition Proceedings, extradition is commenced by the filing of a verified petition by the Central Authority, which is the Secretary of Justice, or the designated and authorized State Counsels of the Office of the Chief State Counsel, before the Extradition Court.

b. The court conducts an ex parte review of the petition to determine whether it complies with the law and the applicable Extradition Treaty and whether probable cause exists. If the requisites are present, the court issues an Extradition Warrant of Arrest.

c. After arrest, the extraditee is served with summons and may file a verified answer within fifteen (15) calendar days. The court then determines whether a prima facie case exists showing compliance with the law and the applicable Extradition Treaty, that the offense is extraditable, and that the extraditee is the person sought. If the petition is granted and the decision becomes final and executory, the extraditee is turned over to the authorities of the Requesting State.

108. What are the principles on jurisdiction of states?

Table summary: Five principles of state jurisdiction. The Territoriality Principle covers power over persons and things within a state's territory, while the Nationality Principle and Statelessness extends power over nationals even when they are outside that territory. The Protective Principle allows jurisdiction over acts abroad that threaten national security or vital interests, and the Universality Principle applies to universal crimes regardless of the location or the perpetrator. Finally, the Passive Personality Principle allows jurisdiction over crimes against a state's own nationals committed abroad, typically used if other principles are not applicable.

109. On March 15, 2018, the Philippines announced its withdrawal from the International Criminal Court. On March 16, 2018, it formally submitted its Notice of Withdrawal through a Note Verbale to the United Nations Office of the Secretary-General's Chef de Cabinet. The Secretary General received this communication the following day, March 17, 2018.

a. Is the President exempt from criminal liability under the Rome Statute?

No. In determining liability under the Rome Statute, a person's official capacity is irrelevant. In particular, official capacity as a Head of State or Government, a member of a Government or parliament, an elected representative or a government official shall in no case exempt a person from criminal responsibility under this Statute, nor shall it, in and of itself, constitute a ground for reduction of sentence.

b. Does the president enjoy unbridled authority to unilaterally withdraw from a treaty?

No. The president does not enjoy unbridled authority to withdraw from treaties or international agreements. Any such withdrawal must be anchored on a determination that they run afoul of the Constitution or a statute. Any such determination must have clear and definite basis; any wanton, arbitrary, whimsical, or capricious withdrawal is correctible by judicial review. Specific circumstances attending Congress' injunction on the executive to proceed in treaty negotiation, or the Senate's specification of the need for its concurrence to be obtained in a withdrawal, binds the president and may prevent him or her from proceeding with withdrawal.

c. When is Senate concurrence required in withdrawing from a treaty or international agreement? Senate concurrence to withdraw from a treaty or international agreement is required (a) when the Senate conditionally concurs, such that it requires concurrence also to withdraw; or (b) when the withdrawal itself will be contrary to a statute, or to a legislative authority to negotiate and enter into a treaty, or an existing law which implements a treaty.

d. Is the Senate's power to ratify limited to treaties to the exclusion of executive agreements?

No. Article 7, Section 21 does not limit the requirement of senate concurrence to treaties alone. It may cover other international agreements, including those classified as executive agreements, if: (1) they are more permanent in nature; (2) their purposes go beyond the executive function of carrying out national policies and traditions; and (3) they amend existing treaties or statutes. As long as the subject matter of the agreement covers political issues and national policies of a more permanent character, the international agreement must be concurred in by the Senate.

e. What are the guidelines for evaluating cases concerning the president's withdrawal from international agreements?

1. The president enjoys some leeway in withdrawing from agreements which he or she determines to be contrary to the Constitution or statutes.

2. The president cannot unilaterally withdraw from agreements which were entered into pursuant to congressional imprimatur. 3. The President cannot unilaterally withdraw from international agreements where the Senate concurred and expressly declared that any withdrawal must also be made with its concurrence.

110. Distinguish Extradition from Deportation.

Table summary: The primary distinctions between Extradition and Deportation. Extradition is the surrender of a wanted person by a requested state to a requesting state based on a treaty, focusing on offenses committed in the state of origin and benefiting that requesting state. In contrast, Deportation is a unilateral exercise of sovereignty involving the expulsion of an unwanted alien based on causes in the local state for the interest of the country of residence. While Extradition specifically returns a fugitive to their state of origin, Deportation allows an alien to be sent to a state other than their own or their state of origin.