he obtained his Bachelor of Arts major in political science he was a recipient of the outstanding student award at the University of Negros Occidental recoletas he was a rotary Foundation International Group study exchange scholar to Sweden a Fulbright Institute fellow at the Temple University in Philadelphia Pennsylvania USA a Swiss iff scholar at the Freeburg University in Switzerland and a resource speaker at the 2010 asean Regional Forum in Brussels Belgium he placed 10th at the 1997 bar examination a Thomas Moore award in 2015 address memorial fund award recipient only this year 2023 aside from these achievements he has also authored books such as the public international law bar reviewer and bar exam English published by Rex education and the lecturer in the mcle for lawyers in international law and a board reviewer and lecturer in public international law and bar exam techniques he was the executive director of the universe University of Saint LaSalle Law Center from 1998 till 2010 and is now the dean of the University of Saint LaSalle College of Law in Bacolod City ladies and gentlemen it is my honor to present to you Dean Ralph a serviento good afternoon Dean good afternoon Paul foreign okay let me uh share my screen okay so good good afternoon and uh before I begin with my lecture proper let me uh thank uh Rex education and of course the Philippine Association of law schools fans for making this uh lecture possible so thank you very much and of course good afternoon to everyone who is joining us in this afternoon's uh lecture so my assigned topic are the frequently Asked topics in public international law and if I will still have the time uh I will uh I will I may as well uh uh take time to lecture about some fundamental or important Concepts in public International or if we still have the the time later okay so without Much Ado let me begin okay so let me begin with a Cornerstone element of Philippine constitutional law which is Article 1 on national territory under the 1987 Constitution now this topic is frequently Asked in the Philippine bar given its foundational significance uh in Philippine political law so let me first examine the actual wording of article 1 the text reads as follows the national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago with all the waters and Islands Embrace they're in and then it proceeds with all other territories over which the Philippines are sovereignty and jurisdiction and then it talks about their domains and then it ends with the statement about the waters around between and connecting the islands of the archipelago regardless of their breath and dimension and it is said that they form part of the internal Waters of the Philippines and this last part this embodies or codifies what is known as the archeology principle which is uh very important for the purposes of the body examinations so take note the first part talks about the Philippine archipelago so this refers to the geographical mass that consists of the country's numerous islands and these definitions rooted in both historical context and legal president and then the islets and Waters encompasses not only the land mass but also the maritime areas the rivers and the lakes and then the close all other territories over which the Philippines are sovereignty and jurisdiction or jurisdiction allows for the inclusion of territories that may not be part of the archipelago but over which the Philippines exercises either sovereignty or control now what what is the importance of understanding article one on the national territory now this is critical for several reasons number one for purposes of territorial Integrity Article 1 delineates the territorial extent of the Philippine Republic and it serves as a basis of national integrity and sovereignty second for purposes of jurisdiction legal proceedings and law enforcement derive their territorial scope from article one and then for international relations it's also very important because it lays the groundwork for diplomatic interactions and territorial disputes so given its significance Article 1 is often asked in the bar examination especially through hypothetical questions or scenarios questioning the extent of Philippine sovereignty or jurisdiction over certain areas now let me turn to the archeology Doctrine a you know another subject of immense importance in Philippine political law particularly in the Philippine by examinations so the archipelagic doctrine refers to the legal and constitutional framework that allows the country to treat its numerous islands and Waters enclosed by archipelagic baselines as a single unified unit or entity this Doctrine is embodied both in international law and Philippine law providing the basis for the Philippines sovereignty and jurisdiction over its archipelagic Waters as well as the airspace above and the seabed and subsoil beneath these Waters now the Philippine adoption of the art archipelagic doctrines have already mentioned previously it's embodied in Article 1 of the 1987 Constitution and at the same time this is also further emphasized in Republic act number 9522 which is known as the Philippine archipelagic baselines law now the doctrine the archipelagic doctor install is likewise recognized under the unclos or the universal or United Nations convention on the Lord sea and this International treaty the unclose has been ratified the Philippines and it provides the framework that justifies the archipelagic doctrine and sets guidelines for its limitations or implementation now what are the legal implications of this Doctrine now this the implications for the Philippines are very profound especially concerning the legal jurisdiction over resources and our territorial Integrity it permits the Philippines to exercise sovereignty over a vast Maritime area which is crucial given the country's geographical composition of more than 7 000 Islands typical bar examination questions concerning the archipelagic doctrine often revolve around the legal basis the Constitutional mandate and the Practical implications to the Philippines so it's advisable to have been nuanced understanding of the unclos and the specific laws that engage with the archipelagic blockchain now let me turn to another very important topic which is the doctrine of State immunity now uh this principle which is also known as the principle of non-swability at its core it embodies the idea that the state as a sovereign npt cannot be sued in its own courts without its consent the doctrine is deeply rooted in the concept of sovereignty and it recognizing that the state possesses inherent in dignity and autonomy that should be preserved in Practical terms this principle ensures that the governments the the government can function without undue hindrance from legal actions now what's the basis of this uh doctrine of State immunity uh first with respect to the Constitutional basis this is found in article 16 Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution which states that the state may not be sued without its consent it reflects nothing less than a recognition of The Sovereign character of the state and an Express affirmation of the unwritten rule effectively insulating it from the jurisdiction of Courts it is also based on the very essence of sovereignty in the classic formulation by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr considered to be the greatest juries of the English-speaking World particularly in the case of kawab and Apollo versus polybound he said a sovereign is exempt from suit not because of Any formal conception or obsolete Theory but on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal rights as against the authority that makes the law on which the right depends sometimes these Doctrine is also derisively called The Royal prerogative of this honesty because it grants the state the prerogative to defeat any legitimate claim against it by simply invoking its nanso ability or by simply refusing to give its consent to be sued now State immunity is not only domestic concept it is likewise a Doctrine in or a principle in international law The Shield of immunity is like uh so uh it also extends to foreign States a state may not be sued in the courts of another state without its consent and this is a necessary consequence of the principle of Independence and equality of saints and this rule is derived from the principle of sovereign equality of states which is a fundamental principle uh of the community of Nations particularly the United Nations organization and it is expressed in the Latin maximum Imperial or meaning to say among equals there can be no Superior all states therefore considered to be Sovereign equals and they cannot they cannot assert jurisdiction over one another and they contrary added to the set to undulivex the Peace of Nations so what are the purposes of this Doctrine number one it safeguards the state's Financial Resources ensuring that public funds are allocated to Public Welfare rather than being tied up in legal disputes second it promotes the effective governance by shielding the government from undue disruptions caused by litigation and third state immunity also Fosters diplomatic relations as it prevents foreign courts from asserting jurisdiction over sovereign states now you have to take note that the doctrine of State immunity is not an absolute rule it does not say that the state may not be sued under any and all circumstances on the contrary the doctrine says the state may not be sued without its consent and therefore it's clear clear import is that the state may be sued with its consent so how does the state give its consent to be certain well we all know that it can be given expressly it can also be given impliedly so there is expressed consent or Express waiver immunity and when there is a general law waving the immunity of the state in the context of the Philippines so for example we have app number 3083 whereby the Philippine government consented and submitted to be sued upon any money claims involving liability arising from contract expresso implied which could serve as a basis of civil action between private parties consent males be made through a special law like in the case of Merit versus government of the Philippine Islands implied consent on the other hand is considered when the state itself commences litigation thus opening itself to counter claims or when it enters into a contract because in this situation the government is deemed to have descended to the level of a private individual and to have divested itself of its sovereign immunity take note however that not all contracts entered into by the government operates uh operate as a waiver of its non-so ability distinction must be made between one which is executed in the exercise of its Sovereign function and another which is done in its proprietary capacity hence technically the state waves its immunity impliedly when it enters into a construct and its proprietary capacity and the same is not incidental in the exercise of its Sovereign functions and this brings us to this restrictive theory of State immunity so the doctrines the document state immunities application is often viewed through the lens of the restrictive Theory and this Theory distinguishes between acts urine Perry and axial resistance actually in Perry pertain to the Sovereign functions of the state on the contrary absolute resistance involve commercial or proprietary functions of the State under the restrictive theory of State immunity which is followed in which is followed in the Philippines the state cannot cannot invoke immunity from suit when it is sued in its proprietary or commercial capacity or in-apps Yuri dissonance in other words when the state engages in activities that are commercial or proprietary in nature it is deemed to have descended to the level of an individual and it can now be sued like any private entity however you have to take note that when the state engages and activities that are sovereign or governmental in nature it retains its immunity from suit and therefore it cannot be sued without its consent now when is a suit against a public official considered to be a suit against State a suit against public officials considered to be a suit against State when the public official is sued in their official capacity for apps performed in the discharge of the Republic Judas in such cases the public official is considered to be acting as an agent of the state and the suit therefore is considered to be effectively against the state itself however you have to take note that if a public official stood in their personal capacity for apps that are outside of the scope of their official duties or for apps that are performed in bad feed or with malice then the suit is not considered to be against the state and in these cases the public official may be held personally liable for their own actions now let me turn to the incorporation Clause so the incorporation Clause is another important provision of the Philippine Constitution and it states that the Philippines adopts adapts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land it serves as another Cornerstone or a Cornerstone for the integration of international law into Philippine law and policy so this means that international law is automatically incorporated into the Philippine domestic law without the need of any further action on the part of the Philippine government so it also provides the basis for the application of internal international law in Philippine courts now the nature of the incorporation Clause under Article 2 Section 2 the 1987 Constitution is that it is both restrictive restrictive but at the same time automatic it is restrictive in the sense that it only covers the generally accepted principles of international law but automatic in the sense that it does not need any further legislation or further affirmative actions on the part of the state or the government now the incorporation Clause generally applies to customary international law and Norms which are considered to be used go against rules of international law that are accepted universally or which are considered to be imperative for other Norms or principles of international law especially those which are considered to be used this possible as distinguished from usecogens or yusco against storms they may become part of Philippine domestic law through a process of transformation so when it is a generally accepted principle consisting of customary Norms or useful gun storms they are automatically Incorporated pursuant to the incorporation Clause but for other Norms which are considered to be used this possible they need to be transformed so we need to talk about another method and this is known as the transformation method so the transformation method allows allows international law to be converted into domestic law through a specific legislative executive or judicial Act with this act of transformation international law can have the force can have Force within our domestic legal system so for example principles of international humanitarian loan under the Rome statute of the international criminal court have been transformed into the basic law through Republic act number 9851 or the Philippine act on crimes against International humanitarian law genocide and other crimes against humanity another example the principles of the sidao or the convention against elimination of all forms of discrimination against women have been transformed into domestic law via Republic act number 9 9262 for the anti-vousy law Treatise and international agreements may also be transformed into domestic law upon their ratification by the president in the exercise with street-making powers and upon concurrence of three-fourths at least three-fourths of all the members of the Senate person article article 7 section 21 of the 1987 Constitution and likewise the Supreme Court may also transform a principle of international law to become part of domestic law when it applies the same in deciding cases and this is known as a soft transformation now let me jump to another important principle this is the principle about the self-executing and the non-self-executing provisions of the Constitution generally a provision that establishes a broad broad principle often found in Article 2 of the 1987 Constitution which is known as the Declaration of principles and state policies it is usually considered to be or typically not self-executing conversely improvision is considered to be self-executing if it is complete itself and becomes operative without requiring supplementary or enabling legislation from Congress his self-exacting provision also supplies an adequate rule by which the right it confers may be enjoyed or protected so even if the provision does not contain any specific remedies for the enforcement or Vindication we've said right it operates upon the principle of ubu's UB remedial which means that whenever or where there is a right there has to be a remedy and this legal Maxim signifies that if someone's legal rights are violated there will be a way for them to secret dress or remedy through the legal system another indicator of the self-executory nature of paper vision is when the Constitution itself fixes the nature and the scope of the rights granted as well as the liabilities imposed by the provision these elements can be determined through a textual examination an interpretation of the provisions terms provided of course that there is no language suggesting that a mother is deferred to the legislature for further action now let me turn to the principle of separation of powers another Cornerstone principle of Philippine political and constitutional law what is what is uh separation Powers at its core the principle of Separation power serves to distribute the functions of the government among its three principal branches the executive the legislative branch and the Judiciary that Vision ensures a system of checks and balances thus preventing a single Branch from Gaining disproportionate power to achieve this purpose The Divided power must be wielded by co-equal branches of the government that are that are capable of independent action in exercising their respective mandates now when's the principle violated there there is a violation of the principle of Separation powers when one branch and Julian quotas on the domain of an address and this encroachment can be done in two ways firstly one branch May interfere in permissibly with the performance of the uh the another Branch constitutionally assigned functions and secondly when one branch assumes a function that is more properly or that more properly is entrusted to another branch and so the principle of Separation Powers is violated now let's turn to the principle of balances now usually uh most uh people and uh even a lot of professors talk about the uh the distinction and talk about the principle of checks and balances but uh oftentimes you don't see anyone trying to distinguish the this uh trying to distinguish between the checks and the Balances the principle of checks is different from the balances under the principle of checks and balances so one should be able to distinguish the checks from the balances because they are they are an entirely different system the concept of balances in a constitutional framework it refers to the structural features that inherently moderate or distribute Powers among the different branches or levels of government checks on the other hand are active restraints where one branch can limit or stop another balance are more passive because they are built into the systems architecture so they're embedded in the system so this could include how terms of office are staggered how different bodies represent different constituencies or how power is distributed between the state and the local government units so the idea is to create a system in which no single actor or Branch can easily dominate or make unilateral decisions without consideration of the other stakeholders now in the context of Philippine constitutional law and the Philippine governmental system what are the balances that are built in into the Philippine constitutional system and governmental structure so the Philippine constitutional structure incorporates several balances the and they are aimed at Distributing power and ensuring that no single entity gains an overwhelming influence over the entire Republic these features that were embedded into the Constitutional system collectively formed a complex web of balances that work in tandem with the principles principle objects to prevent any one branch or a single single Branch or level of government from becoming overwhelmingly powerful and this design helps to safeguard Democratic governance and it mitigates the risk of tyranny first example would be balance is the existence or the observance of the principle of decentralization and Devolution of powers to the local government units the Philippine system allows for decentralization and evolution of powers to local government units through the local government code this creates a system where not all government governance decisions are made at the national level because by empowering the local government units or the lgus with certain legislative and administrative functions the central or the national government's dominance is mitigated and this mechanism provides the LG use the latitude to address localized issues more effectively now another example would be balance in our constitutional system is the existence of different terms of office for elected officials so the Philippine Constitution stipulates very uh varied or different terms for different elected public officials for example the president serves for a term of six years Senators also serve for a term of six years but are subject to staggered elections and Congressman served for three years and then other public officials in the local government units also served for two years they ignore the government the president is not eligible for re-election while senators and congressmen can be re-elected so this system not only avoids abrupt changes in power but it also ensures that voters have the opportunity to reassess their elected officials at different intervals a third example would be balanced is the existence of different constituencies in the Philippines elected officials represent various forms of constituencies for instance the president is selected by the entire nation centers represent the whole country congressmen are elected from Individual legislative districts but some are voted through or via the partly system local officials like Mayors Governors represent the respective CDs or provinces so this setup ensures that different Geographic and demographic sectors have representation in governance thus reducing the concentration of power in only one area or District another balance is the existence of a bicameral Congress the Philippine Congress is bicameral composed of the House of Representatives and the Senate and this arrangement provides for multiple layers of review for any proposed legislation or Bill it also encourages consensus building and deliberation making it more difficult for a single piece of legislation to pass without Toro scrutiny from various perspectives another important balance is the uh is the fact that we have a constitution provided for independent constitutional commissions particularly the the common the Koba Civil Service Commission and likewise the office of the ombudsman so these bodies operate autonomously without being under any of the uh three main branches of government and thereby it provides a counterbalance to potential excesses or deficiencies in the three main branches of government likewise the partly system is also designed as a form of a structural balance it ensures that marginalized sector sub representation in the House of Representatives so this adds another layer balance by amplifying Voices That might otherwise be drowned in the majoritarian electoral system and lastly for the to complete the balances built or embedded in the Philippine constitutional system and governmental structure we have the system of people's initiative and referendum so the Constitution provides that the people can directly propose an Annapolis or directly approve or reject any law or act through popular vote and thus it serves as a balance against potential legislative inertia in action or neglect now let's examine the example okay so after we have discussed about the balances now let's turn to the checks which are existing within our constitutional system so for example in the in the table you will see these are the checks that can be done by the executive okay over the legislature and then over the Judiciary for example on part of the executive the executive can use the veto power okay over against the uh bills or proposed legislation from the house or from the uh either the house of senate or the House of Representatives and then the executive uh also exercises a formal paycheck through the uh a point through the appointment whereby okay it's the presidential appoints members of the Judiciary although it's from a list uh shortlist provided by the judicial and very Council now the President also exercises the power of executive diplomacy so he can grant Pardons commutations reprieves and this uh also operates as a form of a check against the exercise by the Judiciary of its judicial functions on the part of the legislature over the Executive the legislature has the power of impeachment so the house may initiate impeachment proceedings against high-ranking officials while the Senate conducts the trial the legislature likewise has the power to confirm appointments made by the president through the commission on appointments and then we also be question hour whereby the Congress can require public officials or officials especially from officials of the executive branch to appear and to answer questions about their departments and of course whenever the president exercises his veto power uh Congress May override the same if they have a two-thirds majority vote over the Judiciary the legislature likewise likewise has the uh can can check the apps or the uh the Judiciary Branch through its impeachment power it also has has the budgetary power because the it's the legislature that controls the Appropriations thereby thereby affecting the judiciary's functions and it can also override judicial decisions to the passage of corrective legislations after uh which can effectively negate judicial interpretations made of loss coming from Congress and on the part of the Judiciary it's mostly about the exercise of the power of judicial view whereby this uh the courts of the Judiciary can review and then of course potentially declare unconstitutional or invalid laws coming from Congress or programs being implemented by the executive branch and in addition of course the Judiciary also has the Rito pamparo and the writ of habeas data which can also serve as a form of a check against the executive branch now let's talk about the principle of blending of power so we we came from the principle of separation of powers then the principle of checks and balances now let's talk about the principle of blending Powers so there is blending of powers when the Constitution requires that one branch initiates an action that must be completed or ratified by another Branch to be valid and effective so this model breaks away from a rigid understanding of the principle of separation of powers and it allows for inter interdependence among the branches of government this approach also enhances the the principle of checks and balances and it also facilitates cooperation among the branches examples of blending powers under the 1987 Constitution first we have the appointment powers under article 7 section 16 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution the president has the power to appoint officials but such appointments often require confirmation by the commission on appointments which is a legislative body so the President appoints and then Congress confirms the appointment so it completes the process of appointment the budgetary process for example it's the president who prepares the budget and then Congress passes the necessary appropriation law so that's also an example whereby the powers of the executive branch and the legislative branches are being Blended impeachment on the other hand is also initiated by the House of Representatives and then the impeachment process is completed by trial in the Senate person to article 11 section 6 and when the president is subject of impeachment it is the Chief Justice who presides the proceedings with respect to the treaty making process it is the president who negotiates and ratifies treaties but these treaties can only become effective and binding if they are concurred by at least two-thirds of all members of the all members of the Senate person to article 7 section 21 of the 1987 Constitution thus a blending of powers with respect to the performance of the treaty making process okay between the uh and blending powers between the executive and the uh Senate in particular and now this brings us brings us to the principle of Delegation of powers this principle is again uh you know a logical corollary to the doctrine of Separation polish so it is expressed in the Latin Maxim protestas which means that what has been delegated cannot be further delegated and this Doctrine is based on the ethical principle that's once a power has been delegated and we have to assume that all powers come from the people so once the people have delegated the power upon you know and to a particular public official that public official will have not only a right but also but more importantly a duty to to perform that function or that dude uh you know that power that has been delegated to him using his own judgment and not through the intervening mind of another so what has been delegated by the people the public official should not be further delegated by that public official through another person because the the trust of the people have been given to him so he must perform that through the instrumentality of his own judgment now take note the presumption is always in favor of non-delegation so in case of any ambiguity or vagueness in the delegation so it must be it must be resolved in favor of non-delegation because otherwise the delegate might abdicate their duty to perform the task delegated to them if the rule were otherwise now what are the tests in determining whether there is a valid delegation of legislative power there are two accept the tests okay first uh we have the completeness test and then we have the sufficient standards test under the complete test the law must be complete in all its terms and conditions when it leaves the legislature such that when it reaches the delegate the only thing that he will have to do is to enforce or to implement the law now under the sufficient standard standard test there must be an adequate guidelines there must be adequate guidelines or stations in the law to map out the boundaries of the delegate's authority to prevent the delegation from running right backwards used by the Supreme Court so both tests are intended to prevent a total transference of legislative authority to the delegate and the delegate of course is not allowed to step into the shoes of the legislature and exercise the power which is essentially legislative in nature now what are the exceptions to the principle of non-delegational Power with respect to the delegation of legislative powers first we have the delegation of emergency powers to the president which is allowed by the Constitution itself so this is allowed under article 6 section 23 paragraph two of the Constitution whereby Congress made by law authorize the president to exercise Powers necessary during emergencies provided of course that it specifies certain limits and standards for the exercise of such delegated power by the president then we have the Tariff Powers delegation on tariff powers of the president which is provided for in section 28 uh paragraph 2 or particle 6 of the 1987 Constitution and uh of course the scope and limitations of such a delegation of power must also be explicitly defined by Congress and then we have delegation to the local government units okay so as an exception local government units are invested with the authority to enact ordinances within the scope of their territorial jurisdiction there can also be delegation to administrative bodies who are given the task to implement particular legislations and the delegation is consider to be permissible if the enabling statute offers standards to guide the actions of the delegate so the implementing legislations that the the you know the uh uh they release or they they implement it should be within the scope of implementing the enabling law which is uh being implemented and then we have the doctrine of qualified political agency which is also important for purposes of the bar examinations and also of course for uh theoretically for purposes of international person so this Doctrine qualified political agency also known as the alter ego Doctrine it postulates that the acts performed by secretaries and other officers in the executive department are by default deemed to be acts of the president himself unless of course the president quickly and expressly disapproves them the 197 Constitution does not explicitly mention the doctrine of qualified political agency but it is a principle derived from jurisprudence and the doctrine emanates from the president's power of control over all executive departments bureaus and officers are stipulated in article 7 section 17 of the Constitution now take note the the doctrine has its own limitations first when there is disapproval on part of the president so if the president expressly disapproves an act then it is nullified and it cannot be considered to be an act of the president himself and second of course if the act of the the uh the secretary or the public official under the executive branch is ultravirus or Beyond his powers or authority or are not aligned with existing laws then they are also not protected by the doctrine of qualified political agency and therefore they will not be considered to be uh to be the acts of the president himself now let's talk about police powers foreign police power is the inherent and plenary power of the state to enact laws and regulations that promote the general welfare um also Public Safety uh common good comfort of society and many other valid objectives of police power it is considered to be the most essential consistent and most elimitable power of the state in the Philippine setting bullish power has allowed the state to enact legislations that may interfere with personal Liberty or property in order to promote the general welfare some examples of the exercise of least power in the Philippines include prescribing retention limits to land owners under the comprehensible and foreign law granting discounts on medicines for senior citizens and persons with disabilities temporary closure of tourists limiting the deployment of overseas contract workers to Skilled workers and regulating the exercise of certain professions that are imbued with public interests so what are the requisites for the exercise or the valid exercise to police power of course we have the lawful subject and then we have the lawful means so for the lawful subject the subject of the exercise of police power must be lawful or it must have a lawful purpose or objective and as to the means the means employed must be reasonably necessary and they must not be unduly oppressive and take note also that the exercise of Bliss Power means I mean sometimes clash with individual rights and freedoms and it is therefore crucial to reconcile this with a Bill of Rights especially with the principles of due process and the equal protection under the law so any you have to take note that any discriminatory exercise or Violet exercise of police power which is in violence on the principle of or the right to Due Process they may be struck uh struck down by the Supreme Court as being unconstitutional so in case of conflict between the police power and Bill of Rights okay particularly the fundamental rights which are guaranteed by article 3 of the 1987 Constitution so what happens so that's that's bullish power limit the Bill of Rights or does the Bill of Rights limit the exercise of police power which is which the answer is that the Bill of Rights serves to limit the exercise of police power and it's not the other way around the primary function of the Bill of Rights is to delineate the scope of governmental Authority in order to protect individual liberties and fundamental rights from arbitrary and undo governmental governmental intuition nabilopride sets the boundaries that police power may not transgress thereby safeguarding individual liberties and reinforcing the principle of limited government the principle of limited government is a foundational principle of constitutional democracies including the Philippines so this principle necessitates that all forms of state power including police power must be exercised within constitutional limits and boundaries now what are the standards of scrutiny in case of an alleged violation of the Bill of Rights so when when a governmental action based on police power is believed to encroach upon a fundamental right the courts usually apply apply a strict scrutiny which is a heightened form of judicial scrutiny so under the standard the owners provide your burden proof is on the government to establish that there is a compelling State interest which is at stake second the means chosen are narrowly tailored to achieve that interest it employs the least restrictive means possible Supreme Court of the judicial may also apply the balancing of Interest tests principle so while police power is essentially for the maintenance of public order and the general welfare of course it cannot be exercised in a vacuum devoid of constitutional safeguards and standards so the rights codified in the Bill of Rights act as a counterbalance ensuring that the exercise of this inherent power of the state remains constrained and does not violate fundamental Rights and Freedoms and so courts play a pivotal role in ensuring that the exercise of police power adheres to constitutional limits this judicial review is fundamental to maintaining a balance the the proper balance between State Authority and individual liberties now what is the power of eminent domain excuse me the power of eminent domain also known as the power of expropriation is the inherent power of the state to take private property for public use article 3 the Bill of Rights section 9 of the 1970 Constitution establishes the legal basis for this power emphasizing just compensation or due process or more particularly this considered Being Human power and the proper function particle 3 section 9 is to provide a constitutional limit to the exercise of this power that no private properties shall be taken for public use without just compensation so it provides for the right to receive Jazz compensation in case the government or the state exercises the right uh the power of expropriation so what are the Constitutional limitations so first we have the due process clause okay it requires that no person of course will be deprived of life liberty or property so we focus on the property without due process of law so when there is uh when the exercise of the power of eminent domain violates the due process clause particularly because uh uh it's a deprivation of property okay without due process then it can be struck down okay for violating the due process flaws and the second constitutional limitation is articles I've already mentioned article 3 section 9 that provides that private property shall not be taken for public use without the payment of just compensation now what are the key principles or key elements to note with respect to the exercises of the power of MN domain now take note number one there must be a taking of private property so the ACT must involve a taking and the taking can be either physical or regulatory now so you have to make a distinction as to whether the taking or uh the taking is regulatory or compensable and I'll discuss that later second important element is the question of public use the property can technically can all be taken by the state for purposes of some public utility or public welfare this Doctrine however has been expansively interpreted already used to include not just traditional users like roads and public buildings but also Economic Development Economic Development projects that broadly benefit the community third important element to note is the right to receive Jazz compensation so one important tenets of the power dependent domain is the obligation of the state to pay just compensation to the affected property owner and this does not merely signify a monetary exchange but it encapsulates the idea that the compensation should be fair it should be reasonable and it should be sufficient fourth the issue or the question of necessity so this principle that requires necessity requires that the taking or private property must be substantially necessary for the proposed public use otherwise if it is not substantially necessary then it also becomes unjustified or illegal taking or private property fifth as I previously mentioned due process so this requires that the state must follow established procedures during and after the taking of the private property so this ensures that the rights of the property owners are respected and that they have the opportunity to contest the taking or the compensation offered by the state and of course last but not least okay least restrictive means and this is corollary corollary to the principle of necessity it requires that the state should employ the means that are least restrictive or least burdensome to the property owner so as long as the public use objective can still be achieved now another important topic that you have to remember in relation to the exercise of the power of eminent domain is the distinction between regulatory taking under police power and compensable taking under the power of eminent domain in the exercise of police power the property involved is often considered to be noxious or detrimental to Public Welfare safety or health so for example properties that violate Health codes or constitute a public nuisance may be subjected to regulatory taking so here the primary goal is not to make use of the property for public purposes or public use but rather to eliminate the harm or the threat to the community or to the public as such when the property is when a property is taken in the exercise of police power and this is probably called regulatory taking the property is usually either destroyed altered or regulated to me to mitigate the perceived harm so since the property is taken out of necessity to Abate a negative condition so there is no required payment of compensation to the property owner now we have to distinguish this from compensable taking in the exercise or under eminent domain so compensable taking under eminent domain involves properties that are useful or beneficial to the public the state takes control of these properties not because they are harmful not because of being a public nuisance but because they are needed for some public use or purpose for example construction of public buildings roads or Public Utilities so as the property is being taken for some for its utility and benefit to the public or to the community the owner therefore is entitled to compensation and thus the term compensable taking now let's talk about the right to equal protection under the equal protection Clause article 3 section 1 of the 1907 Constitution so the Constitution states that no person okay due process to us the private life limited property without due process blow and then it proceeds by saying nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the loss now the overarching objective of the equal protection Clause is to safeguard individuals from the arbitrary and discriminatory action by the government however take note that it is imperative to recognize that equal protection toss does not require equal treatment in all instances and under all circumstances but rather it only mandates that those who are similarly situated must be treated alike so it is therefore not absolute the fundamental right to equal production is subject to reasonable classification so if the groupings are characterized by substantial distinctions that makes for real differences so one class may be treated and regulated differently from the others or from another so the classification must also be okay so it requires that for that purpose the classification must be Germain to the purpose of the law and it must apply equally to all those belonging to the affected class now what are the tests or standards of review that are applied by the Supreme Court when laws are challenged or for allegedly infringing upon the equal protection clause first we have the rational review or rational basis review then we have the intermediate scrutiny and then we have the strict scrutiny test now turning to the rational review our rational basis review test so as a rule a law subject to the equal protection analysis must meet the rational basis test so under this test the law is upheld if it is rationally related to some legitimate governmental objective so this is usually applied in classifications based on AIDS economic status disability and other social and economic regulations in this test the onus probandi is on the party questioning the validity of the law invoking the equal protection clause and then we have the second test known as the intermediate scrutiny test so an intermediate level so this is sort of between the rational basis test and the strict scrutiny test and this exists for quasi-suspect classifications like gender and gender identity where the law must serve an important governmental objective and it must be substantially related to achieving that that objective so in this case as the honors bandi is on the government and then of course we have the strict scrutiny tests and this applies to suspect classifications such as race ethnicity color religion or when fundamental rights like voting or the Bill of Rights are involved in this test the honest burbandi is on the government to show that the law serves a compelling compelling State interests that is narrowly tailored to achieve that particular interest now let's talk about freedom of expression protected under section 4 of the Bill of Rights so the section states that no loan shall be passed abridging freedom of speech expression or of the press or the right with the people visibly to assemble and petition the government for redress of gibances so this provision guarantees the right to freedom of expression which includes not only the right to speak and freely or to write freely but it also but it also includes the right to receive information and ideas this extends not only to utterances but also to other forms of non-verbal Expressions such as such as art music and symbolic expressions like flag burning and wedding armband armbands as a form of political protest there are two aspects to freedom of expression so first is in order to give full less protection for the you know to allow people the fullest enjoyment to freedom of expression the exercise or the enjoyment of freedom of expression must be free from Priority strength or censorship and at the same time there must be Freedom or it must be free from subsequent punishment so first we have freedom from prior strength so this refers to the prohibition against government governmental actions that suppress it suppressed speeds or other forms of expression before they occur so it's a form of censorship okay now why is this important prior restraint or censorship causes a chilling effect on Free Speech thereby it stifles public discourse and Democratic discussion now what are the exceptions to this okay there are based on our Judas Prudence based on Philippine jurisprudence private stream may be considered valid okay under certain conditions in the following instances like movies and television censorship pornography false or misleading commercial statements advocacy of imminent Lawless actions danger to National Security and the sub-judice rule and then to complete freedom of expression okay we need this aspect of freedom from subsequent punishment so this principle dictates that individuals cannot be penalized after expressing their views unless those expressions fall under legally established exceptions now take note that these two aspects play a complementary role freedom from prior restraint ensures that the speech or expression can occur and that people can express their thoughts and let their ideas out on the other hand freedom from subsequent punishment ensures that there will be no adverse consequences following the expression or the exercise of the freedom of expression so this proceeds from the principle that no person can be punished for the exercise or enjoyment of a fundamental right or freedom now let me talk about certain important Concepts in release on the freedom of expression first is the concept of marketplace of ideas this principle asserts that the truth will emerge especially political truth will emerge from the competition of ideas in a free transparent public discourse it poses that the free expression can contribute to the discovery of Truth and in the words of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr in his descending opinion in Abrams versus United States he said that the best test of Truth is the power of the thought or the idea to get itself accepted in the competition of the market another important concept is the clear and present danger test again Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr formulated the clear and present danger test in his 1999 decision in sanct versus United States and this rule or clear and present danger rule or doctrine now serves as the gold standard in determining when speeds can be lawfully limited or punished so just Psalms explained that the question in every case is whether the words used are in such are used in such circumstances and are obsessing nature as to create a clear and present danger that will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has the right to prevent so take note of the keywords clear present and substantive evils that the state has the right to prevent now another important concept is you need to distinguish between content-based regulations and content neutral regulations content based restraint or censorship refers to restrictions based on the subject matter of the utterance or speech a content-based regulation Bears a heavy presumption of invalidity and is measured against the clear and present danger test so the latter will pass constitutional Master only if justified by a compelling reason and the restrictions imposed are neither overbroad nor vague and then we have content content neutral regulations so in contrast these regulations includes controls that are that controls merely the incidence of the speech such as the time the place or the manner of the expression or the speech and these restrictions on speech okay which are considered to be content neutral are subject to what is known as the O'Brien O'Brien test okay so what is the O'Brien test this test is applied to content neutral regulations and serves as a guide for assessing the constitutionality of DPM restrictions on speeds okay or time place and manner restrictions on speech so the test was formulated to determine whether governmental regulation that impacts expressive conduct can be justified so the O'Brien test is a four-prong test so the regulation of time place and manner of speech is Justified if number one and uh number one okay so all of these four requisites have to conquer number one the law is within the Constitutional power of the government the law furthers an important or substantial governmental interest the governmental interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression and the incidental restriction on speech or expression is no greater than that which is essential to the furtherance of that particular interest so that is the O'Brien tests and then let's turn to freedom of religion and other frequently Asked topics in political law freedom of religion means that every person has the right to choose their own religion to practice it and to change it if they wish the government is not allowed to establish an official state religion or to discriminate against any religion moreover no one can be required to pass a religious test in order to exercise a civil or political right these rights are guaranteed by Saxon fiber the Bill of Rights which can be dissected into three Clauses first we have the non-establishment clause and then we have the free exercise free exercise clause and we have the no religious test clause prohibits government from promoting or favoring one religion over another in the Philippine context this constitutional mandate ensures that the state remains neutral in matters of religion on the other hand the free exercise clause protects an individual's right to practice their religion within government without governmental interference one such Landmark case with respect to the free exercise clause is the case of Abrahim versus the division superintendent of schools of Cebu where the Supreme Court held the Jehovah's Witnesses could not be expelled from from school for refusing to salute the flag seeing the national anthem or to recite the Patriotic flaps this case shows how far the Judiciary will go to protect free free exercise rights even against seemingly neutral loss another important principle is the principle of separation of church and state so this principle is enshrined in Article 2 Section 6 of The Constitution which states that the separation of church and state shall be invaluable Justice isagani Cruz explained that the rational or the principle the rational the principle of separation of church and state is summed up in the in the saying that strong fences make good neighbors so the idea is to delineate boundaries between two institutions and thus avoid encroachments by one against the other because of a misunderstanding of the limits of their respective exclusive jurisdictions the demarcation line calls for on the entities to render and to Cesar the things that are scissors and to Render unto God the things which are gods now what are the tests used in determining the validity of laws that impacts or laws that impact or affect religious freedom now in so far as the non-establishment Clause is concerned what is usually applied is the three-pronged test developed by the U.S Supreme Court in the case of Lemon versus kurtzman and this test is also known as The Lemon test and this is usually used to determine whether law or a governmental action violates a non-estabasement clause which prohibits the government from making a law respecting an establishment of religion now the three prongs of the lemon test are as follows first there must be a secular purpose and this means that the challenge law or governmental action must have been objectively secular purpose second there must be neutral effect and this means that the principle or primary effect of the challenge law or governmental action must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion and third there must be no excessive entanglement between religion and the state so the challenge lower government election must not result in any excessive entanglement with religion now for the the strict scrutery so insofar as the the free exercise clause is concerned as a rule we usually apply this the strict scrutiny test okay when a law burdens religious exercise so the test requires that the law must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest and then we have the concept of benevolent neutrality so in the Philippines we have this very important case Estrada versus escritor whereby the Philippine Supreme Court articulated the benevolent neutrality approach that allows accommodation of religion under certain conditions so the benevolent neutrality approach or accommodation diverges from the strict neutrality rule by allowing some levels of accommodation between the state and religion so it means that when religions looked upon while religions looked upon with benevolence and not uh religion must be looked upon with benevolence but not hostility so benevolent neutrality allows accommodation of religion or accommodation of governmental policies that take religion specifically into account not to promote not to promote government's favored form of religion but to allow individuals and groups to exercise their religion without hindrance so their purpose or effect is to remove a burden on or to facilitate the exercise of a person's or an institutions religion so in the case of Estrada versus escator the Supreme Court laid a lay down a two-pronged test to determine the constitutionality of religious exercise first there must be sincerity of religious belief so the this requires that there must be an examination of whether the belief that is cleaned in connection with the free exercise clause is sincerely held and is religious in nature and second compelling State interests so this considers whether there is a compelling State interest to regulate the the practice of religion in question and if so whether the regulation is the least restrictive means to achieve the states objective now let's turn to our section 2 of the Bill of Rights on the clause on the searches and seizures Okay so with respect to article 3 section 2 so which what rights or what the right or what rights are protected by this particular provision of the Constitution so section two of the Bill of Rights is one of the Constitutional provision that actually protects the right to to privacy and this is considered to be of course a very important fundamental right to be more specific section 2 protects the right of the people to be secure in their persons houses papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for whatever purpose and this protection serves as a safeguard against governmental intuition into the private lives of individuals so article article 3 section took the Constitution states that this right shall be inviolable and that no search warrant or warrant of personal issue except upon probable costs so take note there is no blanket prohibition against all searches and seizures okay rather it operates the Clause operates only to uh to prohibit searches and seizures which are considered to be unresolvable so when is a search or seizure considered to be unreasonable in the context of section 2 The Bill of Rights okay so asserts is considered to be unreasonable if it is made without a warrant if the warrant is invalid or issued invalidly or when the search or seizure is without a warrant and it is not one of the instances where a valid warrantless search can be made now what is the warrant rule a search warrant or a one Enterprise should be issued okay pursuant to section two of the Bill of Rights only upon probable cause which must be determined personally by the judge and note that the necessity of personal determination by the judge okay which is a safeguard against arbitrary invasions of privacy and freedom but take note this personal determination has been interpreted by interpreted by the Supreme Court as merely underscoring the personal responsibility of the judge in the determination of probable cause so while the Constitution states that probably costs must be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath of the complainant and Witnesses they may produce it is not mandatory for the for the judge uh with respect to for example uh uh to the uh issuance of A1 Enterprise to uh to have personally uh examined or met the complainant and Witnesses but you have to distinguish okay that there is a different tool with respect to searches and seizure with respect to Services searches and seizures jurisprudence has established that there there must be a personal determination and not only that the judge has to ask searching there must be certain questions on answers on the applicant and Witnesses he may produce so take note also that the warrant must also particularly describe the place we searched and the persons for things to be seized meaning say there must be a compliance with the rule on the scriptural Persona there must be sufficient description of the place and this uh the the place and the the things to be searched or the things to be seized and as well as the person to be arrested and take note also the exclusionary rule okay so under paragraph two of Section 3 of the Bill of Rights it states that any evidence obtained in violation of section 2 okay or the uh provisional and searches and seizure it shall be inadmissible for any purpose and in any proceeding and this is also known as the fruit of the poisonous tree Doctrine now as we have mentioned the biller price does not prohibit or does not give or the it does not provide a blanket prohibition on searches or warrantless searches okay so warrantless searches can can be uh uh can be considered to be valid under certain circumstances and these have been established by jurisprudence so for example when there is a consented search okay which is voluntary and made without coercion when the search is incidental to a lawful arrest law enforcement May conduct research of the arrested individuals person and his immediate surrounding when there's a search under the Plain View Doctrine for example an officer sees evidence or contrabands in plain view where he has the right to be so he may sees the evidence without a warrant there can also be valid warranty search so be moving vehicle so due to the mobile nature the vehicle so a warrant is not strictly necessary if there is a probable cause for the search of a moving vehicle and then of course Judas Prudence also developed the Stop and face cruel so there can be a cursory search or for weapons based on reasonable grounds there can also be regulatory searches without the need of a warrant and this can include searches at airports border control points as well as inspection of buildings and other premises for the enforcement of uh let's say fire sanitary and other building regulations and other regulations for health and safety take note also of another important Doctrine the abandoned property doctrine that when the property is voluntarily discarded or abandoned by an individual okay it loses any reasonable expectation of privacy and it does permits law enforcement to seize it or to search for it without a warrant and then we have the Open Fields Doctrine so in contrast to homes and buildings Open Fields do not enjoy the same level of constitutional protection so there is no reasonable reasonable expectation of privacy in Open Fields so law enforcement can enter and search Open Fields without a warrant and lastly we have excision circumstances whereby when there is a situation where obtaining a warrant would be impractical such as when there is an immediate threat to Public Safety so there can be a warrant research under this circumstances now let's talk about the fundamental the important powers of congress first Congress has plenary legislative powers pursuant to article 6 section 1 of the Constitution so legislative power has been vested in Congress but they have to take note that the power is Susan says except to the extent we serve to the People by the provisions on initiative and referendum and then another important power is the power of the purse or the power of appropriation so this refers to the exclusive authority of Congress to appropriate appropriate funds for governmental expenditure Congress also has the power of taxation so it has the power to Levy taxes duties imposed and exercises which is inherent and it does not require an Express Grant from the Constitution Congress also has the power of legislative investigation or to conduct conduct increase in aw legislation okay pursuanto article 6 section 21 of the Constitution and under article 6 section 23 Congress by a vote of two-thirds of both houses in joint session assembled it also has the power to declare the existence of a state of War now aside from its legislative powers Congress has also been invested by the Constitution by with non-legislative Powers first the power of impeachment Congress has the authority to initiate and to conduct impeachment proceedings so the House of Representative Representatives has the power to initiate the proceedings while the Senate acts as the impeachment Court confirmation of appointments the commission and appointments consist of members from the Senate and from the house and they have the power to confirm certain appointments made by the president such as cabinet ministers ambassadors other public ministers and the heads of constitutional commissions the power to concur in treaties the Senate has the power to incur with treaties and international agreements entered into and ratified by the president as mandated by article 7 section 21 of the Constitution Congress also has the power to declare the existence to say the war also had mentioned Congress also has the power to revoke the Declaration of Martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the rate of habeas corpus pursuant and this is pursuant to article 7 section 18 of the Constitution Congress also has the power to override the presidential veto and as also mentioned Congress also has the power of legislative inquiry and Congress also has the power to propose amendments or divisions to the Constitution pursuanto article 17 of the Constitution Congress Congress also has electoral tribunals both from the House of Representatives and then the Senate and these electoral tribunals they settle electoral disputes concerning the members of the respected houses Congress also has the power to convas the presidential and vice presidential votes Congress also has the power to decide presidential election in case of a tie or a dispute and Congress also has the power the exclusive power to Grant from sizes for public utilities and similar services now let's focus on the veto power uh or limitations on the powers of congress first we have substantive limitations okay for the substantive limitations we have the Bill of Rights so Congress cannot cannot enact laws that infringe upon civil liberties or fundamental freedoms and signed or guaranteed in the Bill of Rights second we have the non-delegation principle whereby legislative power must be exercised by Congress and cannot be delegated except in cases outlined by law and jurisprudence okay as as previously mentioned okay such as a delegation to local governments and delegation under President like uh in cases of emergency powers or tariff powers to the president there is also a substantive limitation provided by the Constitution okay found in article 6 section 31 whereby Congress is prohibited from granting titles of royalty or nobility now aside from the substantive limitations provided under the Constitution there are also procedural limitations also provided by the Constitution first we have the one bill one subject rule so according to article 6 section 26 paragraph one every Bill shall Embrace only one subject which shall be expressed in its title so this is to preclude the practice of riders or Rider Provisions that are irrelevant to the Bill's main subject second is the requirement that the title must be sufficient so the title of the bill should be comprehensive enough to include all the provisions of the loan so that members of Congress and the public can be properly apprised as to its nature the scope and the consequences of the implementation of the law bills must also there are also bills that must originate exclusively from the House of Representatives and this is based on article 6 section 24 with respect to all appropriation revenue and tariff bills which are required to originate to originate exclusively from the House of Representatives there's also another procedural rule on that requires three readings on separate days and this is found in section 26 paragraph two or particle 6 which requires that A bill must pass three readings on separate days and this ensures ample time for deliberation and scrutiny of proposed bills or proposed legislations and then we also have the bicameral conference committee if the house and the senate pass different versions of a bill so there can be there will be bicameral conference committee that will be fine to reconcile conflicting Provisions so the record side version must then be ratified by both houses now let's talk about the different vetoes okay in our constitutional system first of course we have the presidential veto uh upon receipt of the bill okay the enrolled Bill the president has the option to either sign the bill and then it becomes a loan so or the president can also exercise his his veto power and then veto the law so if vetoed Congress May override this veto by a two-thirds vote of all its members and then we have the concept of packet veto and this is based on article 6 section 27 the Constitution so if the president takes no action on a bill for 30 days while Congress is in adjournment okay um so this principle of bucket veto while allowed in other jurisdictions so this kind of veto is not allowed under Filipino so under Philippine law because of presidential election okay uh 30 days after receiving the enrolled Bill coming from the uh coming from Congress so the bill automatically lapses and becomes a law through presidential inaction and then we have the principle of item veto found in section 27 paragraph 2 particle 6. so the president is allowed to veto particular items in an appropriation revenue or tariff bills without affecting the entire legislation and then there's also another concept of veto which is also not allowed in Philippine jurisdiction okay so this is the concept of legislative veto or sometimes known as the one house veto so legislative veto is a statutory provision acquiring the president or an administrative agency to present the proposed implementing rules or regulations of a law to Congress which by itself or through a committee formed by it retains a right or a power to approve or disapprove such regulations before they take effect it is in the form of a congressional oversight committee and therefore it is not allowed under Philippine law because it radically changes the design or structure of the Constitution's diagram of power as it entrust to Congress a direct rule or an inter it allows Congress to intervene in the enforcement or enforcement or the implementation of the loads are properly the province of the executive branch okay so you have to take note that there is no legislative veto in the Philippines and likewise there is also no pocket veto that is uh allowed under Filipino now let's talk about the enrolled Bill Theory so what what is this Theory so once a bill is enrolled been regularly passed by the Legislative department so the enrolled bill is considered to be a conclusive proof of the bills due enactment now in case of conflict between the enrolled bill and the legislative Journal so which shall prevail excuse me in the context of Philippine law when there is a conflict between the enroll bill and the less legislative journal the enrolled bill as a rule generally reveals so these principles rooted in the enrollable theory okay and it says that a Bill signed by the speaker of the house and the Senate President and approved by the president is conclusive proof of its proper enactment so the enrolled deal serves as a formal final document that represents the legislative will and it is assumed to be authentic and an authentic Act of the legislative body so courts usually refrain from looking Beyond or outside of the confines of the gold Bill to avoid undue interference in the legislative process thereby respecting the doctrine of separation of powers take note however that for matters specifically required by the Constitution to be stated on the legislative Journal then the legislative Journal will reveal okay so take note in all other matters okay not required to be stated on the legislative Journal then the enrolled bill as a rule reveals okay so the legislative Journal will only Prevail already enrolled Bill only in matters that are required specifically by the Constitution to be stated on the legislative Journal now the military powers of the president article 7 section 18 of the 1987 Constitution outlines the military powers of the president so essentially the president serves in a triple capacity he is the head of state the head of government and at the same time the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines so article 7 section 18 provides certain specific Powers particularly first we have the calling out power the president shall be documented in Chief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary he may call out such Armed Forces to prevent or suppress suppressed Lawless Lawless violence Invasion or Rebellion the President also has martial law powers in case of invasion or Rebellion and take note it must be when Public Safety requires it he may for us for a period not exceeding 60 days to spend the privilege of the rate of previous Corpus or please the Philippines or any part thereof on the martial law and of course the President also has the power to suspend the privilege of the rate of habeas corpus so and this can be made alongside with the power to declare barcelon now what are the important safeguards against the president's exercise of his martial law powers the 1987 Constitution provides several safeguards against the abuse or possible abuse of the president's power to declare martial law okay so this includes number one the power of judicial review so Supreme Court May review review in an appropriate proceedings filed by any any citizen the sufficiency of the factual basis of the Proclamation of Martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the wreath of habeas corpus second there must be Congressional congressional oversight within 40 48 hours from the proclamation of Martial law or the suspense on the privilege of the rate of habeas corpus the president is mandated to submit a report either in person or in writing to Congress and Congress voting jointly by a vote but is a majority of all its members in regular or in special session May revoke okay it may revoke such Proclamation or suspension and such education or such revocation of the Proclamation or suspension shall not be set aside by the president and third there is also a duration limit the duration of Martial law suspension the privilege of the rate of Fabius Corpus shall not exceed 60 days following which following which it shall be lifted and less extended by Congress okay so these measures ensure that the immense power of Martial law cannot be abused by the president now these are the distinctions between the power of judicial review and the congressional power to revoke the Declaration of Martial law the suspension of the privilege of the writtopavious Corpus okay with respect to the exercise of the martial law powers of the president so take note the judicial power review is passive so Supreme Court cannot do anything with it unless its power of judicial view is invoked through the initiation by a citizen okay by filing an appropriate proceeding contesting or challenging or questioning the sufficiency of the factual basis of the Declaration of martial law okay but with respect to the congressional power to revoke such is automatic and it can be initiated by the Congress itself at any time after the proclamation of a proclamation martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the Rita paper scorpus now with respect to the scope of review the power of judicial view of the Supreme Court is limited only to the data available to the president at or before the time of the Declaration martial law meaning to say the court cannot conduct an independent investigation beyond the pleadings so it has to limit its analysis only based on the bleedings on the other hand Congress can consider both prior and super winning events and in fact it can it can also prove deeper into the accuracy of the facts presented in the pleadings as to the outcome the Supreme Court can nullify the presidential Proclamation if found to lack sufficient factual basis on the other hand Congress can revoke the presidential Proclamation and such revocation cannot be satisfied by the president now take note the power the power of judicial view when exercising relation to the martial law powers of the president this is independent of congress's power to revoke and at the same time Congress has power to revoke is also considered to be independent of the Supreme Court's power to review and now as to the aim of course when you invoke the power of judicial view with respect to the exercise of military power military powers or martial law Powers the aim is the Nullification of the presidential Proclamation based on legal scrutiny or the part of the congressional power to revoke the aim is nullification or extension of the presidential Proclamation based on both factual and policy considerations meaning say it's not limited to Legal basis or scrutiny now let's turn to the power of Judy saliva okay so this is uh another fundamental Concept in political lower constitutional law okay so for the Supreme Court exercise its power of judicial review there are four important requisites first there must be an actual con case or controversy okay so this is a foundational requirement stipulating that there must be an existing dispute between parties who are legally opposed to its other memes say there must be a contrarity of legal rights between the two second there must be a proper party with local standi so the legal standing of the petitioner okay and this indicates that the individual masabi personal and substantial interest in case either he must have suffered a direct injury or he was directly affected or he is in imminent danger of being affected being affected by the implementation of the law third the Constitutional question must be raised at the earliest opportunity the issue of constitutionality should not be an a mere after thought it should be raised as soon as possible as soon as possible in the proceedings so delaying the raising of the Constitutional question will normally result in the dismissal of the petition invoking the power of judicial View fourth the Constitutional question is the least Mota of the case meaning say the Constitutional issue must be critical and necessary to the resolution of the case it should be the pivot on which the entire controversy turns otherwise otherwise the court can simply dismiss the case invoking the principle or the doctrine of avoidance so if they can dispose of the case on some other grounds as a rule the Supreme Court will avoid this uh deciding the Constitutional question raised now what are the limitations on the power of judicial view first we have the doctrine of political questions so when there is a when the subject matters a political question therefore it is non-justiciable so it either belongs to the wisdom of the legislative or executive branch or the political branches of government or it is a matter that is probably you know to be decided by the people directly so when the petition raises a political question okay then it is considerably not justiceable and therefore it cannot result in the OR it cannot engage the exercise but the Supreme Court of its power of judicial review and then we have the doctrine of operative facts unconstitutional laws may have effects that become irreversible and therefore these effects are usually respected to an extent when they are reasonable uh reasonable but of course the as a rule the the effect of the Declaration of unconstitutionality is the the law becomes null okay the law becomes invalid okay but sometimes under the doctrine operative fact we have to recognize that prior to the Declaration of unconstitutionality the law had effects okay people had been affected by it people had uh had gained some vested rights uh before its declaration unconstitutionality so pursuanted the doctrine of operative fact those things must be properly respected okay within constitutional bonds and limitations now another important principle that you must remember is the distinction between a facial Challenge and and as applied challenge now these are legal mechanisms employed to contest the constitutionality of statutes or regulations so official challenge is an assertion that the statute or law is unconstitutional on its face that is in every scenario and for every individual or group of people it questions the validity of the law itself on its face contending that the law cannot be constitutionally applied under any and all circumstance therefore if a facial challenge is successful the effect is that the law itself is declared unconstitutional on its face and that is in its entirety and as applied science on the other hand challenges only a specific application of a law it does not attack the law itself or as a whole or on its face but it argues that the law is unconstitutional as applied to a particular particular case or to a particular group of individuals or entities examples of facial challenges are petitions based on the over breath or the void for bigness rule and an example of an a supply challenge is a challenge on a law that is allegedly discriminatory against particular individuals or groups invoking the equal protection clause now another important concept is the principle of moodness when is an action considered moot and thereby preventing the exercise of the power of judicial review an action is considered mood when it no longer presents a justiceable controversy because the issues involved have become academic or dead or when the modern dispute has already been resolved and hence one is not entitled to judicial intervention unless the issue is likely to be raised Again by the parties so there is nothing more or nothing left for the court to result as the determination thereof hasle had been overtaken by subsequent or supervening events now what are the exceptions to the new test Doctrine so there are recognized exceptions that the rule means say that when the court has seen fit to the side cases which would otherwise be considered already as mood and academic so there are requisites for this so first there must be a grave violation of the Constitution Second the exceptional character of the situation and the Paramount public interests okay that are involved in the controversy and third the Constitutional question raised requires formulation of controlling principles to guide the bench the bar and the public and forth the uh the case or the issue is capable of repetition yet evading review okay so take note of these four requirements now let's talk about the remedies against uh election results okay so fundamentally after the election there are uh basically there are four possible remedies that people can uh people can employ either the candidates or the non-candidates now so we have the failure Declaration of the failure of Elections we have a pre-proclination controversy we have the filing of an election protest and there can also be a petition for cold warranty as the jurisdiction failure collection is within the jurisdiction the comlak likewise for pre-proclamation controversies they are also in the jurisdiction the complex for election protests it varies depending on the office so uh for example it can be in the Electoral tribunals it can also be in the courts likewise it varies depending on the position involved for the scope with respect to failure of Elections circumstances okay what is the scope okay we refer to the circumstances making the election impossible or leading to a failure to elect in a pre-proclamation controversy it must deal with issues before Proclamation okay this includes illegal composition of the board and irregularities in the returns and with respect to election protests these are post-election issues affecting the vote count for example when there is fraud or when there is irregularity in accounting and with respect to the petition for coaranto it's also a post-election issue but instead of the voting or instead of the conversing or the returns the issue here is really related to the uh to questions of Eligibility and qualifications of the winner now with respect to the time period for the fighting cases failure of Elections immediately after the occurrence of the alleged events leading to the failure of election pre-proclamation controversy as a theme implies it must be filed before proclamation of the winner and election protest is filed after proclamation of the winner and equivalent to petition must be filed within 10 10 days after proclamation of the winner now has who can file this particular election remedies with respect to failure of Elections any registered voter or participant in the election May file okay for failure of elections in a pre-proclamation controversy this is limited only to candidates or registered political parties or coalitions as to election protest a candidate okay this is only a candidate who has filed a certificate of candidacy and who has been voted for in the same office it can be any voter as to grounds with respect to failure elections these are as provided under BP bilang 881 okay we have for example Force Major violence terrorism fraud or other analogous cases which resulted in the failure to vote okay for pre-proclimation controversies these are also found in the election code for election protests it can uh it can be on grounds of fraud or irregularities in the casting or in the counting of the ballots now for covarento it's either on the ground of disloyalty or on the ground of uh in eligibility or lack of qualification to hold the public office for the procedure a failure of Elections is filed with the commonlack for pre-proclination Conservancy it is uh the issue must first be raised before the board of congresses and then it can be with the comet for the election protest it has been filed with the appropriate tribunal or Court and with the coordinate petition it must also be filed in the appropriate tribunal or Court now what is the result in a failure election it results in a declaration of field Loop elections and this will lead to the holding of new elections or other remedies as may be appropriate for pre-proclimation Conservancy so it can lead to the corrections a prior to the proclamation and for election protests the protesting may be unseated however and the Protestant may be installed the respondent may be unseated but the petitioner may or may not be installed depending upon the circumstances for the nature of the action a failure collection is an extraordinary remedy to declare an election not invoid a pre-proclamation controversy contest it contests related uh to pre-proclamation issues election protests it can't uh it contests uh it's a contest between the winning and the defeated candidates okay now equivalent on the other hand is not a contest but it's a proceeding to assist the ineligible candidate now for the burden proof it's all the same the burden proof is on the person the petitioner okay filing the raising the issue or filing the petition or raising the contest now let's turn two important Concepts in public international law first let's talk about the sources of international law okay so for the sources our our Authority is article 38 of the statute of the international court of justice so this article describes the sources that the court may use in resolving disputes okay involving international law okay so these sources may involve International costs conventions or treaties International Customs general principles of law judicial decisions and also academic writings or opinions of the most highly qualified publicist of the various Nations International conventions okay it says article 38 says whether general or particular and they must establish rules that are expressly recognized by the contesting parties being say we are applying the positivities theory that international law may only be binding upon a state if the state gives consent to be bound by certain principles of international law particularly with respect to treaties and conventions and you have to take note for example the United States had a different approach okay it's a very very positive positivist in nature like in the packet abana case Supreme Court of the United States declared that international law exists only in so far as the U.S or the United States recognizes it so if if a state does not recognize the existence of a particular rule of international law when you say it does not given its consent to be bound by those particular rules then under the positivist theory of international law then it cannot be bound by those rules second we have international Customs as the second source of public international law so International Customs are considered to be evidence of a general practice accepted as law okay so uh here there must be uh the concurrence of two elements you uh you have to establish the elements of State practice okay there must be a uh a continuous consistent practice among states and there must be opinionists under the principle of opinion Euro CB necess status means say the states engaged in that particular practice because of their belief in the juridical necessity of that practice they believe that it is a law and therefore they they believe that as a law it is binding upon them and then we have general principles of law which are recognized by the Civilized Nations so for example example of this general principles of law are the principles of bhakta sunservanda the principle of rest judicata and the international standards on due process and then uh article 50 um article 38 second paragraph also provides four subsidiary means in the determination of rules of international law so it talks about okay it's it says that subject to the provisions of article 59 and article 59 contains the rest inter alios okay meaning say judicial decisions okay shall only apply to the parties to a particular case okay so what are the subsidiary means in the determination of the rules of international law we have judicial decisions okay and then we have the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various various Nations for example Hugo Grace was considered Grocers considered to be the father of international law s of Francis oppenheim heard slaughterback Hans kelsen okay so this can be considered the writings can be considered as subsidiary means in the determination of rules of law now take note judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicist of the various Nations these are not considered to be sources of international law so technically we only have three sources of international law we have international conventions we have international customs and general principles of Law and okay judicial decisions and opinions of the most highly qualified publicist of the virus nations are only considered to be subsidiary means in the determination of rules of international law okay so we can use them to determine if indeed a rule of international law exists so judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists should always Point towards the existence okay of the sources of international law of either International conventions International Customs or general principles of law now let's turn to let's try to understand what happens in case of big conflict between international law and domestic law okay so in case of a conflict between International and domestic law how do we resolve the conflict or which shall reveal okay so to answer the question let us first take into account several Concepts in order to understand the uh the context of the question first we have to distinguish between the monist and the dualist system in International practice and within the International Community the money system so in some countries international law is considered to be automatically incorporated into their domestic law so once a country becomes a party to an international treaty blah blah blah then uh international law automatically becomes part of the the their own law okay pursuant to the monastery so they do not make a distinction between international law and their own domestic laws Okay so in in modest systems typically international law takes precedence over conflicting domestic law unless of course the domestic Constitution explicitly States otherwise however in dualist countries okay we're International and domestic law are considered to be separate and distinct okay so in these jurisdictions an international treaty must first be transposed or transformed into domestic legislation before it becomes valid and enforceable so here whether international law takes precedence is a matter of domestic domestic law often requiring legislative or constitutional arrangements to resolve the conflict then we also have to consider the harmonization rule or Theory so under the uh the urbanization rule of theory advocates for interpreting domestic and international laws in a way that avoids conflict and promotes consistency with the two legal systems so the theory suggests that unless there's a clear and explicit contradiction between domestic statute and an international treaty or obligation the court should always strive to interpret the statute or the domestic law in a way that would make it inconsistent or that would make it align with international law so in some jurisdiction this approach has been codified or adopted as general principle of law for example in the U.S okay in the U.S the United States Supreme Court adopted or formulated what is known as the Charming Betsy Canon under the charging battery Cannon okay an act of Congress should never be construed to violate the law of Nations if any possible construction remains available so meaning to say if there is an apparent conflict between international law or in normal international law then a statute passed by the U.S Congress okay and if if the statute or or the statute passed by the U.S Congress is susceptible to two possible interpretations One In conflict with international law and one consistent with international law such interpretation which would make the statute to be consistent with international law okay such interpretation will have to be adopted okay so that is what is meant by the Charming website Canon another consideration is the Lex 40 principle Now The Lex 40 principle refers to the rule that the law of the Forum or the jurisdiction where the legal action is brought governs procedural matters and sometimes even substantive issues in the case so for example in international forums the governing law is typically international law okay so this includes treaties costomar international law and general principles of law recognized by the Civilized Nations specific specific courts like for example the international criminal court the ICC the international court of justice the icg have well-defined jurisdiction and set up laws that they apply okay and these are outlined in their funding or fundamental documents for example the Rome statute with respect to the international criminal court and the statute of the international court of justice now if we turn to the domestic forum when a court in a particular jurisdiction is deciding or in matter that could be governed by either International or domestic law The Lex 40 principle generally dictates that the court will apply its own domestic loss to the procedural and possibly substantive aspects of the case so however the domestic law itself may include Provisions that incorporate international law or treaties or they may be established jurisprudential principles that guide the court in giving weight to international law but as a default domestic law shall apply subject to the exceptions that might compel the application of international law so this is in consideration of the fact for example under under Philippine law okay the Constitution an Article 2 Section 2 provides that okay we adopt the generally accepted principles from international law and you know we make them part of the law of the land so technically Under The Lex 40 principle if the matter the issue the conflict the apparent conflict between International and domestic law is to be decided by Domestic Court The Domestic Court also has to take into account that international law particularly the generally accepted principles of international law are also deemed to be part of the law of the land okay so technically when we say load the Forum it's not it's not automatically the domestic law which is develop the Forum because International principles or Norms that have been incorporated or even transformed as part of domestic law likewise become part of domestic law and so this brings us to the question so what if there is an irreconcilable conflict between international law and domestic law so what do we do okay so first another consideration before we can answer the question is we must distinguish between you score against principles or norms okay and use this possible norms so when a norm of international law is considered to be used go against so it's an imperative Norm of international law we say it's an imperative all states are bound no derogation from these Norms is allowed okay while use these possible Norms are just any Norm you know the states may or may not adopt them so for example if uh uh if states are negotiating a treaty they cannot they cannot put any statement or uh you know provision in the treaty that would put them in violation of certain use against norms however with respect to dorms which are considered to be merely used disposite they may or may not adopt those Norms okay as part of their agreement or stipulations in their in their treaty or convention so use go against Norms being the most Supreme of all rooms being imperative and whereby states do have the obligation not to derogate upon the or not to delegate them okay so in case of conflict between youth against norms and domestic law okay so that's you know that's not a that's not a complicated problem because obviously you score against Norms will reveal okay now what if the conflict is between a treaty okay now let's let's look at this from the lens of Philippine law and jurisprudence so if the conflict is between a treaty and our own Constitution so how do we how do you how do we handle or address the the situation now take note article 27 of the Vienna convention on diplomatic religions okay a party uh oh no I'm sorry there's a typographical error it should be the Vienna convention on the Lob City a party may not invoke the provisions of its own internal law as a justification for its failure to perform a 3D however this is without prejudice to article 46 of the Vienna convention on the law of treaties okay and Article 4 success that the state may not invoke the fact that it's consent to be bound by a treaty has been expressed in violation of a provision of its own internal law regarding competence to conclude treaties as validating its consent unless that violation was manifest and concerned a rule of its internal law which is of fundamental character now oh sorry so while as a rule okay as a rule okay in the point of view of international law whenever there's a conflict between City you know we cannot be excused from the performance of our obligations under treaty by invoking our own internal law however article 46 specifically allows that when we are invoking okay uh when the violation was manifest and it concerns a rule of internal law which is fundamental or fundamental importance and that refers to a constitutional provision or the constitution in general okay so when that happens okay we are actually allowed to give to deviate from our own 3D obligations now what if the conflict is between treaty treaties and statutes so what happens so first consideration take note particle 7 section 21 no treaty or International agreements shall be valid and effective unless concurred concurred in by at least two-thirds ball members of the Senate so this implies that once the Senate provides it its concurrence the treaty becomes part of the domestic law and it can be enforceable within the Philippines however you should also consider that uh or or determine if the treaty or its Provisions are self-executory or not because 3D Provisions can also be self-executory or not self-executory so non-self-executive Provisions in a treaty would require legislative enabling acts okay in order for them to be implemented and to be enforceable in the Philippines okay and then also take note of article 8 section 5 of The Constitution which gives the Supreme Court the power to review revised modify or reverse modify or affirm on appeal or certiorari as the Lord's rules of Court May provide final judgment and Orders of lower courts in all cases in which the constitutionality of validity and treaty International or executive agreement is in question okay so this means that okay Supreme Court may decide on cases involving constitutionality or validity of treaties or International agreements implying therefore that the Supreme Court May declare a treaty unconstitutional in the point of view of Philippine law however you have to take out that in in the point of view of Philippine law even if we declare a treaty unconstitutional it may not automatically excuse us from our obligations under international law so as we have mentioned okay as a rule we cannot invoke our own domestic law unless of course you can you can argue that okay the the the principle being violated by the treaty is so fundamental okay that it must be respected over the enforcement of the treaty another consideration is the ruling of the Supreme Court the statements made by the Supreme Court in the case of its own versus Hernandez whereby the Supreme Court said that the police power may not be curtailed or surrendered by any treaty or any other conventional agreement okay Supreme Court said that a treaty is always subject to a qualification or amendment by a subsequent law okay and the same may never curtail or restrict the scope of police power okay now take note in a recent decision in pangilinan versus kayatano it was qualified it was um uh it was specified by the Supreme Court that a treaty cannot amend a statute okay so in treaty Canada okay a treaty entered into a notified by the president and even after being concurred by two-thirds ball members of the set okay it cannot amend a statute okay so take note in case of conflict okay under the in the explanation of the Supreme Court in pangilinan versus cayetano if the treaty amends a statute there are two options available First Option the president May unilaterally withdraw from a treaty or the statute can be amended in order to make it consistent with the treaty okay so the rule is there should be no conflict between the two okay so either president withdraws from the treaty or congress May amend the law the inconsistent law to make it consistent with the treaty now what if the conflict is between customary norms okay which are automatically incorporated as part of the law of the land pursuant to the incorporation clause and the article two section two of the Constitution okay and now the conflict with our own statutes or domestic law okay so what happens first consideration Philip Morris versus court of appeals when principles or Norms of international law are Incorporated pursuant to the incorporation Clause they are given a status equal but not Superior to our own domestic law okay so means say they're just equal they're just they're just to be treated like in domestic law okay so what is the effect of that what is the legal consequence or significance of that judgment okay that they are to be treated just like domestic law they are not they're given uh they're accorded a status equal but not Superior okay so first so in case of a conflict what happens is that we apply principles of statutory constructions because the conflicts now between equals okay considered to be part of domestic law or the law of the land okay so what what particular principles of statutory consumption can we apply for example we can apply the Lex specialized rule let's specialize we must distinguish which is the Lex Center Valley okay and which is the Lex specialist so after we determine which is the Lex and rally and like special is then of course under the lack specialized rule it is the Lex specialist that prevails over the legs in a valley so for example if there is a domestic law and the domestic law applies to a particular issue or matter in a general way but the principle of international law that has been Incorporated automatically as part of the law of the land pursuant to the incorporation Clause is leg specialist applies in a special manner with respect to the same matter and therefore under the leg specialist rule it is the principle of international law that must be applied okay the legs specialist principle now we can also apply the Lex posterior rule okay under the latin Maxim Leches posteriores so the later law the law which is later in time will abrogate the law okay which was uh previous in time okay so you also have to distinguish make a determination so which is in point of time which is the later law so the law that is later in time will have to Prevail over the law which was okay previous in time now another important concept that we must remember is the distinction between a treaty and an executive agreement now is there a distinction between a treaty an international agreement now the distinction between the two is actually purely constitutional and it has no International legal significance in the point of view of international there there is absolutely no difference between treaties and international agreements okay with respect to the binding effects upon States okay they are both binding of uh they're all both binding on on States okay concerned uh on the states concerned as long as the negotiating functionaries or the representatives of the states which you know participated in their negotiation and conclusion have you know have remained within their powers men say they have remained within the balance of their Authority and have not acted in an ultimate the Vienna convention on the law treatise also does not make a distinction between executive agreements and treaties an international agreement that meets the requirement of the definition of a treaty is recognized as a treaty whatever its particular title or designation is given by the states so states can call it whatever okay but in the point of view of the Vienna convention on the law Treatise as long as if it fits the definition of HTT then it will be considered a treaty okay within the context of the Vienna convention okay now if we turn to Philippine law okay we distinguish between a treaty and an executive agreement as to conclusion Philippine law particularly our constitution requires that a treaty is concluded by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate okay so our particularly article 7 section 21 requires that no treaty or International agreements shall be valid and effective and less concurred by at least two-thirds of all members of the Senate on the other hand an executive agreement is concluded by the president based on Authority either granted by Congress or an inherent Authority granted to the president by the Constitution itself or something an authority which is inherent in the office of the executive now as to subject matters treaties are commonly used for matters of political and or national characters such as peace and friendship agreements alliances boundary disputes okay whereas International Agreements are concerned commonly used for mentors of purely executive and administrative concerns such as you know adjustments in commercial or Consular relations between states now with respect to their binding effect okay so executive agreements result in binding International obligations okay so as I mentioned they're valid and binding under international law okay uh and uh recently in the case in the 21 2021 case of panillion versus the Supreme Court uh ruled that the validity and effectivity of Internet excitable Givens are contingent on their traceability to an Express or an implied authorization an Express or implied authorization okay under the Constitution or the statutes or other treaties so in effect executive agreements must not create new international obligations okay not expressly allowed or reasonably implied by law that they purport to implement so the absence of these precedence puts the validity and effectivity of the open executive agreement under serious question so the main function of the executive is to enforce the Constitution and the laws enacted by the legislature not the defeat or interfere in the performance uh performance of these rules therefore while executive Agreements are binding at the international level their domestic effect is subject to their consistency with the Constitution and as well as to enacting laws and treaties now are in with respect to Legal hierarchy our treaty is superior to Executive agreements or is it the other way around okay so treaties are by by their very nature considered to be superior to Executive arguments treaties are products of the acts of the executive and the Senate okay blending of powers unlike executive agreements which are solely executive actions so because of legislative participation through the Senate a treaty is regarded as being on the same level as a statute so if there is an irreconceivable conflict a later law or a treaty takes precedence over one that is prior so an executive agreement is treated differently executive agreements that are inconsistent with either the law or a treaty okay will be considered ineffective but of course you you have to take note that both treaties and executive arguments of course are subject to the supremacy of the Constitution so there is no difference in that regard now another important uh uh source of our exam questions is the concept of diplomatic immunity and the concept of Consular immunity now you have to be very clear about the distinctions between these two okay so with respect to criminal jurisdiction diplomatic envoys shall not be liable to any form of arrest or detention and they shall enjoy immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving state okay now with respect to Consular officials they shall not enjoy immunity from Criminal jurisdiction means they if criminal proceedings are instituted against a consular officer he must appear before the competent authorities to defend or represent himself okay they shall not however they shall not be liable to arrest and detention pending trial except in case of a grave crime and pursuant to the decision a pursuantic decision of a competent Authority now as to civil jurisdiction diplomatic envoys shall enjoy immunity except in the following cases a real action relating to private immovable property is situated in the territory of the receiving state in an action relating to succession in which they are involved as a private person not on behalf of the sending state or in an action relating to any professional or commercial activity exercised by The Diplomatic Envoy in the receiving State outside of their official functions Consular Consular officials on the other hand shall also enjoy immunity from civil jurisdiction except in respect of civil actions either okay number one arising out of a contract included by the Consular official official in which the Consular official acted in his personal capacity or when he is a uh when uh there is an action by a third party for damages or arising from an accident in which the receiving State uh uh in which the receiving State okay uh caused by a vehicle a vessel or aircraft in the uh receiving state so basically you have to you have to um be clear about this so diplomatic and voice with respect to criminal actions they are entitled to complete immunity from Criminal jurisdiction however it doesn't mean of course that they are uh they are completely free to meet any kind okay if they commit any crime within the jurisdiction territorial jurisdiction the receiving State this will be immune only from the jurisdiction criminal jurisdiction of the receiving state but of course they are not immune from the jurisdiction of their own sending State okay so I'm going to say while we cannot take jurisdiction over them okay for definition pen crimes within the territorial within the territory of for example the Philippines okay it doesn't mean that they will be excused or accepted from Criminal liability because they will be subject to trial and Punishment within the or pursuant to the laws of the sending state now with respect to treaty withdrawals okay so you have to take note that the president's power or discretion on treaty withdrawal is not absolute okay so his discretion to unilaterally withdraw from any treaty or internal International agreement okay is not absolute okay so this was clarified Again by the uh by the Supreme Court in the case of pangilinan versus kaitano uh whereby Supreme Court said that the president's power to withdraw from International treaties is subject to constitutional framework and to the rule of block and moreover the the president's power to withdraw from a treaty is limited by the need to respect the legislative process and the principle of Separation Powers so when can the president unilaterally unilaterally withdraw from a treaty explicitly provide for the process of withdrawal from International treaties however it does provide that in the process of 3D ratification particularly in section 21 article 7 okay so no Treaty of international agreements will be valid and effective and less concurred by at least two-thirds of all the members of the Senate so this provision implies that the Senate's concurrence is necessary for the validity and effectiveness of HTT or International agreement however in the case of pangilinan versus the Supreme Court clarified that the president cannot unilaterally withdraw from each City if there is a subsequent legislation which affirms or implements a treaty conversely a treaty cannot amend a statute okay so as previously mentioned so when the president enters into a treaty does it that is inconsistent with the prior statute so either the president unilaterally withdraws from the treaty or the prior statute can be amended by Congress to be consistent with the treaty and therefore the extent of legislative involvement in withdrawing from treaties is determined by circumstances attendant to how the treaty was entered in two or how it came into effect okay so where the legislative imprimatur impaled the president's action to enter into a treaty a withdrawal cannot be affected cannot be affected without the concomitant legislative sanction so similarly where the Senate's concurrence imposes a condition the same a condition on the same concurrence for withdrawal so the president enjoys no unilateral authority to withdraw and must therefore secure the concurrence of the Senate prior to withdrawing from its treaty okay so that's the president okay can we draw from a treaty as a matter of policy in keeping with our legal system if the treaty okay is unconstitutional or contrary to provisions of an existing law however the president may not unilaterally withdraw from a treaty when the Senate conditionally concurs such that it requires concurrence also to withdraw okay or when the withdrawal itself is contrary to a statute or to a legislative authority to negotiate and enters into a treaty or an existing law which implements a treaty foreign Rex education and Philippine Association of law school I need to end the lecture by 4 30 so it's 4 29 so it's exactly uh right in time all right thank you very much Dean for your comprehensive and insightful lecture for today now for everyone we are opening the floor for any questions you can send them via the comment feature on our Facebook live both on the page of files as well as Rex education now again we are reminding everyone and all attendees that this lecture is streamed by a Facebook live and that recording and or reproduction of this session is neither allowed nor encouraged so this session is readily available already on the Facebook pages of our partners so you can replay it when needed so um you can send your um questions now via comments uh sir actually for me I have a question it's um in relation to the president's immunity from during um his or her term so it's a general rule I think that the um president is immune from uh during his or her term but if ever there's a violation during um the president's term will that uh be included in counting will his or her term be included in counting the prescription of the crime he has committed say uh let's say if it's an unofficial app prescription means say uh you're you're looking at the context of the uh a violation let's say a equivalent Act was committed by the president during his term yes and you know so the statute of limitations is therefore running and therefore during the time that he is considered to be immune from suit then I would say that the statute of limitations would have to be considered as being suspended because uh at that particular time when the principle of State immunity is in effect it does not allow the complainant to file the action meaning say uh effectively therefore suspending the application of the period of prescription so I think theoretically it must not be counted okay so um also in relation then being with the power of the president so it's also mentioned earlier that the president has the power to veto specific line items or particular items when in terms of um appropriation but is it also possible that the president can appropriate a specific lump of budget to another office or another agency well uh it it cannot be done technically by the president because that should be part of the appropriation law so mean to say when the president uh exercises The veto power you just have to veto and he cannot transfer you know one in the uh in the process of approving the Appropriations law okay so it has to approve the appropriation slow and then exercise only his you know his powers as limited by the Constitution so if he exercises the line veto then it resolves a line veto but uh in approving the Appropriations law it doesn't have the authority you know to transfer one item to another and then make it you know approve it and then make it a law then then effectively that would be an assumption of legislative powers because only the legislature can can do that pursuant to its power of appropriation all right um another question we have a provision I think it's called The Lame the provision where it is prohibited [Laughter] um I will would just like to ask for if it is also applicable to the um officially withdrawn candidates of the previously held elections form uh I I would say uh I am not uh I cannot answer that's uh that question specifically uh it might be subject to a specific uh provision or decision the Supreme Court to put at present I am not aware so I I'm I'm sorry about that that's okay for Dean so I'm seeing that there are no other questions both from the Rex page as well as the past page I think they have already understood their lecture nothing so let me um ask you about for final words of encouragement or enough for our buddies test for our um upcoming bars good luck and uh I hope you would uh use the remaining time you know to your benefit okay do not waste the remaining time okay it's in each and every hour uh towards the you know the the week look I said practically one week is very important so you must be sure that you use it to your advantage um I usually say that you must study actively okay uh anything that you do especially towards this last trip on the bar should be beneficial or should enhance your chances to be you know to be a to be admitted to the uh honorable profession of lawyers so well so good luck I hope to see you at the uh oath taking uh there are several uh but exam sites of course we cannot we cannot go around okay so for example in my case most of my students are in in Cebu City so I'll be going to Cebu City uh for our bar operations so for those who are in uh students or bar takers here from Cebu City okay I I hope I can say hi to you but for for those who are in other bar examination sites so I'm sure and I hope that I will see you during the oath taking all right thank you very much Dean sarimiento and I'm very sure that our buddies passed as well as those who have attended here including myself I've learned a lot from your lecture in political law as well as international law so now we are reminding every one of the following schedule of the remaining lectures for the pre-week for um 2023 bar examinations we have taxation law on September 11th then criminal law on September 12 and remedial law focusing on evidence on September 13. of course this event will not be possible without our ever supportive sponsors and partners we extend our deepest and sincerest gratitude to the Philippine Association of law schools and Rex education once again thank you very much Dean Ralph sermiento and to everyone who participated and attended today's session