ANTICIPATED TOPICS FOR POLITICAL LAW

Anticipated topics for Political Law

1. Citizenship

a.     Who are citizens of the Philippines.

b.    Natural borne Filipino citizen – Ong

c.     Dual citizenship vs. Dual allegiance; suffrage (Lewis vs. Comelec)

- Dual citizens may vote even without one year residency

d.    Repatriation (Tabasa vs. CA; Willaims vs. Enriquez) who are entitled:

(1)   Filipino woman who lost citizenship by marriage to a foreigner

(2)   Natural borne Filipinos, including their minor children who lost Filipino citizenship on account of political or economic necessity.

2. Eminent domain.

a)     Elements

1)     Adequacy of compensation – deposit is 100% of the market value or BIR Zonal valuation, whichever is higher (RA 8974; Republic vs. Guingoyon, Dec. 19, 2005)

2)     Necessity of the taking

3)     Public use – public character of the taking – beneficiary may not be a private entity (members of the Association not the residents) and there is alternative recreation facility. (Masikip vs. City of Pasig, Jan. 23, 2006)

4)     Valid offer previously made but not accepted (Jesus is Lord, Aug. 2, 2005)

b)    Republic vs. Guingoyon, Feb. 1, 2006

The fact that PIATCO have obligations to other parties which are yet unproven may not overturn the final decision requiring the Government to pay PIATCO Php3.02 Billion before it may acquire physical possession over the facilities. This provisional payment prior to taking possession is not yet final but sufficient under RA 897 to take possession of the expropriated property.

Justice and equity dictates that owners of expropriated property are entitled to reconveyance or repurchase of the expropriated property after the public purpose for the expropriation is abandoned by the Government even without an express proviso for such right of reconveyance or repurchase normally stipulated in negotiated sale. (Moreno vs. Mactan Cebu International Airport, Aug. 5, 2005)

3. Warrantless search and seizure

a)     Plain view doctrine (United Laboratories, Inc. vs. Isip, June 28, 2005)

b)    Customs search when riding a motor vehicle (Salvador vs. People, July 15, 2005)

4. Privacy of communications and correspondence

a)     Persons under lawful detention have limited privacy rights. Their letters and other communications may be opened and read to secure their safety and prevent their escape (Trillanes vs. Cabuay, Aug. 26, 2005)

b)    Anti-wire tapping law (RA 4200)

5. Freedom of Expression (Bayan vs. Ermita, per Azcuna, April 26, 2006)

CPR (Calibrated Pre-emptive Response) policy to disperse rally is unconstitutional.

BP 880 and Maximum tolerance upheld.

6. Freedom of Religion

a)     Living in without the benefit of lawful marriage by a married woman with a married man and begetting a child by him while the legal husband is still alive but living with another woman falls within the freedom of religion because it is sanctioned by her religious organization Jehovah’s Witness. (Estrada vs. Escritor, June 22, 2006).

b)    Muslim employees in the RTC of Iligan City requested

1)     To work from 7:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. without break during Ramadan.

2)     Be excused from work from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. every Friday to allow them to attend Muslim Prayer Day.

Held:    The first request is granted, being sanctioned by a presidential decree.

            The second request is denied. The free exercise clause of the Constitution, the right to religious profession and worship, has two fold aspect (1) freedom to believe; and (2) freedom to act on one’s belief. The first is absolute within the realm of thought. The second is subject to regulation when the belief is translated into external acts that affect the public welfare. The observance of office hours must apply to all government servants, Muslims or Christians (Request of Muslim Employees, Dec. 14, 2005)

c)     Respondent Judge’s practice of reading verses from the Bible during hearings is an exercise of his freedom of religion (Trial Lawyer’s of Mla vs. Veneracion, April 26, 2006)

7. Writ of Habeas Corpus vs. Writ of Amparo

What is the Writ of Amparo?

It is a Writ for the Protection of Constitutional rights. It is more powerful and more effective than the Writ of Habeas Corpus which is limited only to questioning the legality of detention in the custody of the respondent. Under the Writ of Amparo, search may be ordered by the Court to locate the whereabout of the subject, even if custody is denied by the respondent.

8. E.O. 465 – Executive Privilege

Question hour vs. in aid of legislation (Senate vs. Ermita, April 20, 2006)

9. The charter of the CCP providing that the Board may fill up a vacancy is an unconstitutional delegation of the appointing power of the President, which is allowed under the Constitution only for appointment of “officers lower in rank” and not of equal rank of the delegated appointed power (Sec. 16, Art. VII; Rufino vs. Endriga, July 21, 2006)

10. KMU vs. Director General, April 19, 2006

E.O. 420 – Uniform Government I.D. System

11. Under Sec. 20, Art. VII of the Constitution, the President may contract and guarantee foreign loans (Constantino vs. Cuisia, Oct. 13, 2005)

12. The power to ratify a treaty is vested in the President, subject to the concurrence of the Senate (Sec. 21, Art. VII). (Pimentel vs. Executive Secretary, July 6, 2005)

13. Didipio vs. Gozun, March 30, 2006 reiterating La Bugal for large scale exploration, development and utilization of minerals, petroleum and other mineral oils, foreign management and operations of mining enterprises are allowed. Foreign participation is not limited to technical and financial agreements only.

14. David vs. Arroyo, May 3, 2006

PD 1017 – Declaration of National Emergency. The president may not take over public utilities in times of national emergency without an enabling act of Congress.

15. Lambino vs. Comelec, Oct. 25, 2006

People’s Initiative

a)     The people must first see the proposed amendments and must sign the Petition

b)    Applicable only to amendment, not to revision.

Election Law

16. Espidol vs. Comelec – the Comelec has the power to suspend the effect of proclamation that is null and void.

Party List

17. BA RA 7941 vs. Comelec, May 4, 2007

a)     The Comelec need not determine the qualifications of the nominees simultaneously with the accreditation of the party list.

b)    The names of the nominees must be disclosed under the right to public information.

18. Failure of election

a)     No election on account of force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud

b)    Election is suspended before closing for the same grounds.

c)     After voting and during the preparation, transmission, custody or canvass, the election results in a failure to elect on account of any said causes. (Galo vs. Comelec, April 19, 2006)

19. Pre-proclamation controversy (Lucman vs. Comelec, June 29, 2005)

20. Execution pending appeal of election protest

Allowed only on good reasons as when the protestant clearly appears as having won the election. Mere length of time of protest not a valid ground (Estarul vs. Comelec, June 16, 2006)

Extradition

21. Hongkong vs. Olalia, April 19, 2007

US vs. Puruganan was reversed. An extraditee is entitled to bail by proving that he is not a flight risk and will abide by the processes of the extradition court.

22. Rodriguez vs. RTC Manila, Feb. 27, 2006.

Same ruling as above.