POLITICAL LAW DOCTRINES & PRINCIPLES

Presidential Communication Privilege

= applies to decision-making of the Pres.

= applies to all documents in their entirety and covers final and post-decisional matters, as well as pre-deliberate ones.

Deliberate Process Privilege

= applies to decision-making of the Exec. officials.

= includes advisory opinions, recommendations, and deliberations comprising part of a process by which gov. Decisions and policies are formatted.

Doctrine of Operative Facts

-          means that before a law was declared unconstitutional, its actual existence must be taken into account and whatever was done while the law was in operation should be recognized as valid.

De facto municipal Corporation

-          is one so defectively created as not to be a de jure corporation but is nevertheless the result of a bona fide attempt to incorporate under existing statutory authority, coupled with the existence of corporate powers and recognized by the courts as such on the ground of public policy in all proceedings except a direct attack by the state questioning its corporate existence.

Municipal Corporation by Estoppel

-          is a corp. which is to defectively formed as not to be a de facto corp. but it considered a corporation in relation to someone who dealt with it and acquiesced in its exercise of its corporate functions or entered into a contract with it.

Doctrine of Necessary Implication

-          means that every statute is understood by implication to contain all such provisions as may be necessary to effectuate its object and purpose or to make effective rights, powers, privileges, or jurisdiction which it grants, including all such collateral and subsidiary consequences as may be fairly and logically inferred from its terms.

Principle of Holdover

-          in the absence of an express or implied constitutional or statutory provisions to the contrary, an officer is entitled to hold his office until his successor is appointed or chosen and has been qualified.

International law: Hard law v. Soft law

Hard law

-          is used to designate a norm or rule of conduct accepted and recognized by the international community of states a whole, as a source of law binding on them.

-          Produces obligations which when breached gives rise to international responsibility and, consequently, to reparation.

Soft law

-          Has no binding force and pertains to a statement or declaration of principles with moral force on the conduct os states but bo normative character and without intent to create enforceable obligations.

-          Become the basis of norm-creation in treaty-making and in general practice of states in customary-norm formation.

Void-for-vagueness Doctrine

-          If a law is incomprehensible to ordinary people such that they do not really know what is required or prohibited, then the law must be struck down.

Constitutional Avoidance

Constitutional Avoidance is the principal that, if possible, the Supreme Court should avoid ruling on constitutional issues, and resolve the cases before them on other (usually statutory) grounds.  In practice, what this often means is that if the Supreme Court is faced with two possible interpretations of a statute, one of which is plainly constitutional, and the other of which is of questionable constitutionality, the court will interpret the statute as having the plainly constitutional meaning, to avoid the hard constitutional questions that would come with the other interpretation. 

Enrolled Bill Doctrine

As the President has no authority to approve a bill not passed by Congress, an enrolled Act in the custody of the Secretary of State, and having the official attestations of the Speaker of the House of Representatives, of the President of the Senate, and of the Chief Executive, carries, on its face, a solemn assurance by the legislative and executive departments of the government, charged, respectively, with the duty of enacting and executing the laws, that it was passed by Congress.

JUSTICIABLE QUESTION

Implies a given right, legally demandable and enforceable, an act or omission violative of such right, and a remedy granted and sanctioned by law for said breach of right. (Casibang vs. Aquino, 92 SCRA 642)

POLITICAL QUESTION DOCTRINE

A ‘political question’ is one the resolution of which has been vested by the Constitution exclusively in either the people, in the exercise of their sovereign capacity, or in which full discretionary authority has been delegated to a co-equal branch of the Government. Thus, while courts can determine questions of legality with respect to governmental action, they cannot review government policy and the wisdom thereof, for these questions have been vested by the Constitution in the Executive and Legislative Departments.

CONSTITUTION

The Constitution is the basic and paramount law to which all other laws must conform and to which all persons, including the highest officials, must defer.  Three (3) parts of a written Constitution

1. Constitution of Sovereignty (Article XVII – Amendments and Revisions)

2. Constitution of Liberty (Article III – Bill of Rights)

3. Constitution of Government (Article VI, VII, VIII, IX)

It should be interpreted:

1. Verba Legis – ordinary meaning of the words used

2. Ratio legis et anima – intent of the framers

3. Ut magis valeat quam pereat – as a whole (Francisco vs HR GR160261 11.10.03)

POLITICAL QUESTION of Constitutionality: In Re: Puno June 29, 1992 - It was through the February 1986 revolution, a relatively peaceful one, and more popularly known as the “people power revolution” that the Filipino people tore themselves away from an existing regime.  This revolution also saw the unprecedented rise to power of the Aquino government. It has been said that “the locus of positive law-making power lies with the people of the state” and from there is derived “the right of the people to abolish, to reform and to alter any existing form of government without regard to the existing constitution.”

JUSTICIABLE QUESTION on EDSA I vs. EDSA II: Estrada v. Arroyo GR 146738 - The Court also distinguished between EDSA People Power I and EDSA People Power II.  EDSA I involves the exercise of the people power of revolution which overthrew the whole government.  EDSA II is an exercise of people power of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly to petition the government for redress of grievances which only affected the office of the President.  EDSA I is extra constitutional and the legitimacy of the new government that resulted from it cannot be the subject of judicial review, but EDSA II is intra constitutional and the resignation of the sitting President that it caused and the succession of the Vice President as President are subject to judicial review. EDSA I presented political question; EDSA II involves legal questions.

CONSTITUTIONAL SUPREMACY DOCTRINE

Under this doctrine, if a law or contract violates ANY norm of the Constitution, that law or contract, whether promulgated by the legislative or by the executive branch or entered into by private persons for private purposes, is null and void and without any force or effect. Thus, since the Constitution is the fundamental, paramount and supreme law of the nation, it is DEEMED written in every statute and contract. (Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS GR 122156 02.03.97)

LEX POSTERIOR DEROGATE PRIORI

In states where the constitution is the highest law of the land, both statutes and treaties may be invalidated if they are in conflict with the constitution. (Secretary of Justice vs. Lantion, G.R. No. 139465, January 18, 2000)

ARCHIPELAGIC DOCTRINE

The waters, around between and connecting different islands of the Archipelago, regardless of their breadth or dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the Philippines. (Article I 2nd Sentence.) Integration of a group of islands to the sea and their oneness so that together they can constitute one unit, one country, and one state. An imaginary single baseline is drawn around the islands by joining appropriate points of the outermost islands of the archipelago with straight lines and all islands and waters enclosed within the baseline form part of the territory. Purpose: [1] Territorial Integrity, [2] National Security, [3] Economic Reasons.

DOCTRINE OF EFFECTIVE OCCUPATION

Discovery alone is not enough. Mere discovery gives only an inchoate right to the discoverer. For title to finally vest, discovery must be followed by effective occupation in a reasonable time and attestation of the same.

GROTIUS DOCTRINE OF IMMEMORIAL PRESCRIPTION

Speaks of uninterrupted possession going beyond memory.

THALWEG DOCTRINE

For boundary rivers, in the absence of an agreement between the riparian states, the boundary line is laid on the middle of the main navigable channel.

MIDDLE OF THE BRIDGE DOCTRINE

Where there is a bridge over a boundary river, the boundary line is the middle or center of the bridge.

PARENS PATRIAE DOCTRINE

the government as guardian of the rights of the people may initiate legal actions for and in behalf of particular individual. (Government of the Philippine Islands vs. Monte de Piedad, 35 SCRA 738)

DOCTRINE OF INCORPORATION

The rules of international law form part of the law of the land and no legislative action is required to make them applicable to a country. The Philippines follows this doctrine, because Section 2. Article II of the constitution states that the Philippines adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land. However, the doctrine dictates that rules of international law are given equal standing with, and are not superior to, national legislative enactments.

DOCTRINE OF AUTOLIMITATION

The doctrine where the Philippines adheres to principles of international law as a limitation to the exercise of its sovereignty.

DOCTRINE OF SUABILITY / STATE IMMUNITY

Under  this  doctrine,  the  State  cannot  be  sued without  its  consent.

The State may not be sued without its consent. (Sec 3, Art XVI) There can be no legal right as against the authority that makes the laws on which the right depends. [Kawananakoa v. Polyblank 205 US 349]  also called the doctrine of Royal Prerogative of Dishonesty. If the State is amenable to suits, all its time would be spent defending itself from suits and this would prevent it from performing it other functions. [Republic v. Villasor]

JUDICIAL REVIEW

The  power  of  the  SC  to  declare  a  law,  treaty, ordinance  and  other  governmental  act unconstitutional.

Requisites: [1] Actual Case or Controversy; [2] Proper Party (Locus Standi); [3] Earliest Opportunity; [4] Necessity of deciding constitutional questions

DOCTRINE OF PURPOSEFUL HESITATION

This is about the Symbolic function of the court. It means that the court would not decide on matters which are considered political questions. This focus on the necessity of resolving Judicial Review. Furthermore, in questions of constitutionality, Supreme Court will not rule right away because the Supreme Court assumes that the Law passed the two departments already, thus, it went through process of determining its constitutionality

INTER-GENERATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY DOCTRINE

The Supreme Court in granting the petition ruled that the children had the legal standing to file the case based on the concept of “intergenerational responsibility”. Their right to a healthy environment carried with it an obligation to preserve that environment for the succeeding generations. In this, the Court recognized legal standing to sue on behalf of future generations. Also, the Court said, the law on non-impairment of contracts must give way to the exercise of the police power of the state in the interest of public welfare.

NON-IMPAIRMENT OF CONTRACTS Clause

When does a law impair the obligation of contracts:

1) If it changes the terms and conditions of a legal contract either as to the time or mode of performance

2) If it imposes new conditions or dispenses with those expressed

3) If it authorizes for its satisfaction something different from that provided in its terms.

A mere change in PROCEDURAL REMEDIES which does not change the substance of the contract, and which still leaves an efficacious remedy for enforcement does NOT impair the obligation of contracts.

A valid exercise of police power is superior to obligation of contracts.

SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE

This principle operated as an implicit limitation on legislative powers as on the two other powers. In essence, separation of powers means the legislation belongs to Congress, execution to the executive, settlement of legal controversies to the judiciary. Each is prevented from invading the domain of the others. But the separation is not total. The system allows for “checks and balances” the net effect of which being that, in general, no one department is able to act without the cooperation of at least one of the other departments.

Purpose: To prevent concentration of powers in one department and thereby to avoid tyranny. The purpose was not to avoid friction, but, by means of the inevitable friction incident to the distribution of governmental powers among the three departments, to save the people from autocracy. [1] To secure action; [2] To forestall overaction; [3] To prevent despotism; and [4] To obtain efficiency

PRINCIPLE OF BLENDING OF POWERS

Instances when powers are not confined exclusively within one department but are assigned to or shared by several departments.

CHECKS AND BALANCES PRINCIPLE

This allows one department to resist encroachments upon its prerogative or to rectify mistakes or excesses committed by the other departments. The first and safest criterion to determine whether a given power has been validly exercised by a particular department is whether or not the power has been constitutionally conferred upon the department claiming its exercise—since the conferment is usually done expressly. However, even in the absence of express conferment, the exercise of the power may be justified under the doctrine of necessary implication. The grant of express power carried with it all other powers that may be reasonably inferred from it.

ORIGIN OF THE REVENUE BILL

ART. VI Section 24. All appropriation, revenue or tariff bills, bills authorizing increase of public debt, bills of local application, and private bills shall originate EXCLUSIVELY in the the HOR, but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments.

EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE

It  is  the  power  of  the  President  to  withhold certain  types  of  information  from  the  public,  the courts, and the Congress.

ART. VI Section 22. The heads of departments may, upon their own initiative, with the consent

 of the President, or upon the request of either House, as the rules of each House shall

 provide, appear before and be heard by such House on any matter pertaining to their

 departments. Written questions shall be submitted to the President of the Senate or the

 Speaker of the House of Representatives at least three days before their scheduled

 appearance. Interpellations shall not be limited to written questions, but may cover

 matters related thereto. When the security of the State or the public interest so requires

 and the President so states in writing, the appearance shall be conducted in executive

 session.

DOCTRINE IN MARBURY V. MADISON

The case of Marbury v. Madison established the doctrine of judicial review as a core legal principle in American constitutional system: “So if a law be in opposition to the constitution; of both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law; the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is the very essence of judicial duty.”

MONSANTO DOCTRINE

One who is given pardon has no demandable right to reinstatement. He may however be reappointed.

DOCTRINE OF OPERATIVE FACT

In Yap v. Thenamaris Ship’s Management, the Operative Fact Doctrine was discussed in that:

As a general rule, an unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is inoperative as if it has not been passed at all. The general rule is supported by Article 7 of the Civil Code, which provides:

Art. 7. Laws are repealed only by subsequent ones, and their violation or non-observance shall not be excused by disuse or custom or practice to the contrary.

The doctrine of operative fact serves as an exception to the aforementioned general rule. In Planters Products, Inc. v. Fertiphil Corporation, we held:

The doctrine of operative fact, as an exception to the general rule, only applies as a matter of equity and fair play. It nullifies the effects of an unconstitutional law by recognizing that the existence of a statute prior to a determination of unconstitutionality is an operative fact and may have consequences which cannot always be ignored. The past cannot always be erased by a new judicial declaration.

The doctrine is applicable when a declaration of unconstitutionality will impose an undue burden on those who have relied on the invalid law. Thus, it was applied to a criminal case when a declaration of unconstitutionality would put the accused in double jeopardy or would put in limbo the acts done by a municipality in reliance upon a law creating it.

In that case, this Court further held that the Operative Fact Doctrine will not be applied as an exception when to rule otherwise would be iniquitous and would send a wrong signal that an act may be justified when based on an unconstitutional provision of law.

DOCTRINE OF QUALIFIED POLITICAL AGENCY / ALTER EGO DOCTRINE

Acts of the Secretaries of Executive departments when performed and promulgated in the regular course of business or unless disapproved or presumptively the acts of the Chief Executive (Villena v. Secretary of the Interior). The President can assume a Cabinet post, (because the departments are mere extensions of his personality, according to the Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency, so no objection can be validly raised based on Sec. 13, Art VII.)

QUALIFIED POLITICAL AGENCY DOCTRINE (ALSO ALTER EGO PRINCIPLE)

“all the different executive and administrative organizations are mere adjuncts of the Executive Department, the heads of the various executive departments are assistants and agents of the Chief Executive, and, except in cases wherein the Chief Executive is required by the Constitution or by the law to act in person or the exigencies of the situation demand that he act personally, the multifarious executive and administrative functions of the Chief Executive are performed by and through the executive departments., performed and promulgated in the regular course of business, are, unless disapproved or reprobated by the Chief Executive, presumptively acts of the Chief Executive.” (Free Telephone Workers Union vs. Minister of Labor and Employment)

EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

Whenever there is an available administrative remedy provided by law, no judicial recourse can be made until all such remedies have been availed of and exhausted.

The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies applies where a claim is cognizable in the first instance by an administrative agency alone. Judicial interference is withheld until the administrative process has been completed. As stated in Industrial Enterprises, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 184 SCRA 426.

PRIMARY ADMINISTRATIVE DOCTRINE / DOCTRINE OF PRIOR RESORT

Where there is competence or jurisdiction vested upon administrative body to act upon a matter, no resort to courts may be made before such administrative body shall have acted upon the matter

DOCTRINE OF FINALITY OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION

No resort to courts will be allowed unless administrative action has been completed and there is nothing left to be done in the administrative structure.

BRANDEIS DOCTRINE OF ASSIMILATION OF FACTS

Where what purports to be a finding upon a question of fact is so involved with and dependent upon a question of law as to be in substance and effect a decision on the latter, the court will, in order to decide the legal question, examine the entire record including the evidence if necessary.

DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY JURISDICTION

The doctrine of primary jurisdiction applies where a case is within the concurrent jurisdiction of the court and an administrative agency but the determination of the case requires the technical expertise of the administrative agency. In such a case, although the matter is within the jurisdiction of the court, it must yield to the jurisdiction of the administrative case.

DOCTRINE OF NON-INTERFERENCE

Regarded as an elementary principle of higher importance in the administration of justice that the judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction may not be opened, modified, or vacated by any court of concurrent jurisdiction (30-A Am Jur 605).

DOCTRINE OF IMPLIED MUNICIPAL LIABILITY

A municipality may become obligated upon an implied contract to pay

 the reasonable value of the benefits accepted or appropriated by it as to which it has the general power to contract (Province of Cebu vs. IAC, 147 SCRA 447).

 The doctrine applies to all cases where money or property of a party is received under such circumstances that the general law, independent of an express contract, implies an obligation to do justice with respect to the same.

 Thus, in this case, the Province of Cebu cannot set up the plea that the contract was ultra vires and still retain benefits thereunder. Having regarded the contract as valid for purposes of reaping benefits, the Province of Cebu is estopped to question its validity for the purpose of denying answerability.

DOCTRINE OF RATIFICATION

Although 
the 
act
 of
 a
 public
 officer
 may
 not
 be
 binding
 on 
the
 State
 because
 he
 has
 exercised
 his
 powers
defectively,
 his 
acts 
may
 be 
ratified.


Exceptions:


[1] Where
 there 
is 
a
 want
 of
 power 
in
 the
 public 
officer 
to 
perform 
the
 original 
act


[2] The 
act
was
 absolutely 
void
 at 
the 
time. 
However 
if
 the
 act 
is 
merely 
voidable, 
it
 can
 be
 rendered
 valid

[3] 
If
 the principal
 himself
 could
 not 
lawfully
 have 
done
 the 
act,
 or if 
it
 could
 not
 have 
been 
lawfully
 done
 by
 anyone.


DOCTRINE OF OFFICIAL IMMUNITY FROM LIABILITIES

In re: Gonzales – A public officer who under the Constitution is required to be a member of the Philippine Bar as a qualification for the office held by him cannot be charged with disbarment during his incumbency. He cannot be charged criminally before the Sandiganbayan, or are other court, with any offense which carries with it the penalty of removal from office. Members of the Supreme Court are removed only by impeachment. They are not entitled to immunity from liability. They must first be removed, via the constitutional route of impeachment, and then only may he be held liable either criminally or administratively (including disbarment), for any wrong.

DOCTRINE OF REJECTION OF 2ND PLACER

Geronimo 
v
 Ramos
 - Sound
 policy
 dictates 
that 
public
 elective
 offices 
are
 filled
 by
 those 
who 
have
received 
the 
highest
 number
 of 
votes
 cast
 in
 the election
 for
 that
 office, 
and 
it
 is
 a fundamental 
idea 
in
 all
republican 
forms 
of
 government
 that 
no 
one 
can 
be 
declared
 elected 
and
 no
 measure
 can
 be 
declared
carried
 unless 
he
 or 
it 
receives
 a
 majority
 or
 plurality 
of
 the 
legal
 votes
 cast 
in
 the
 election.
 COMELEC
cannot
 name 
the 
2nd
 placer
 as
 the
 winner.
 Follow the hierarchy of positions instead.

DOCTRINE OF PROPER SUBMISSION

Plebiscite may be held on the same day as regular election (Gonzales v. COMELEC GR L28196 Nov. 1967), provided the people are sufficiently informed of the amendments to be voted upon, to conscientiously deliberate thereon, to express their will in a genuine manner. Submission of piece-meal amendments is unconstitutional. All the amendments must be submitted for ratification at one plebiscite only.  The people have to be given a proper frame of reference in arriving at their decision. They have no idea yet of what the rest of the amended constitution would be. (Tolentino v. Comelec GR L34150 Oct. 16 1971)

DOCTRINE OF NECESSARY IMPLICATION

Grant of an express power carries with it all other powers that may be reasonably inferred from it.

DOCTRINE OF SHIFTING MAJORITY

For each House of Congress to pass a bill, only the votes of the majority of those present in the session, there being a quorum, is required.

DOCTRINE OF INAPPRORIATE PROVISION

A provision that is constitutionally inappropriate for an appropriation bill may be singled out for veto even if it is not an appropriation or revenue “item”. (Gonzales v. Macaraig)

 Reason for the Doctrine

: The intent behind the doctrine is to prevent the legislature from forcing the government to veto an entire appropriation law thereby paralyzing government.

 Inappropriate Provisions

- Repeal of laws. Repeal of laws should not be done in appropriation act but in a separate law (PHILCONSA v. Enriquez) (use this doctrine carefully)

DOCTRINE OF AUGMENTATION

Prohibition  against  transfer  of appropriations, however  the  following may, by law, be authorized to augment any  item  in  the  general  appropriations law  for  their  respective  offices  from savings  in  other  items  of  their respective appropriations:

1. President

2. Senate President

3. Speaker of the HoR

4. Chief Justice

5. Heads of Constitutional Commissions.

THEORY OF RELATIVE CONSTITUTIONALITY

The constitutionality of a statute cannot, in every instance, be determined by a mere comparison of its provisions with applicable provisions of the Constitution, since the statute may be constitutionally valid as applied to one set of facts and invalid in its application to another. A statute valid at one time may become void at another time because of altered circumstances. Thus, if a statute in its practical operation becomes arbitrary or confiscatory, its validity, even though affirmed by a former adjudication, is open to inquiry and investigation in the light of changed conditions (Central Bank Employee Assn, Inc. vs. BSP, GR 148208, Dec. 15, 2004).

OVER-BREADTH DOCTRINE

Decrees that a governmental purpose may not be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of protected freedoms.

VOID FOR VAGUENESS RULE

A criminal statute that fails to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that his contemplated conduct is forbidden by the statute, or is so indefinite that it encourages arbitrary and erratic arrests and convictions is void for vagueness. The constitutional vice in a vague or indefinite statute is the injustice to the accused in placing him on trial for an offense, the nature of which he is given no fair warning.

A law is “vague” as not to satisfy the due process need for notice when it lacks comprehensible standards that “men of common intelligence must necessarily guess as to its meaning and differ as to its application” or is so indefinite that “it encourages arbitrary and erratic arrests and convictions.”

It is injustice to the accused in placing him on trial for an offense, the nature of which he is given no fair warning.

PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE

The objects within the sight of an officer who has a right to be in a position to have that view are subject to seizure and may be presented as evidence (open to the eye and hand). Finds application only when the incriminating nature of the object

 is in the “plain view” of the police officer.

 ~ It is clear that an object is in plain view if the object itself is plainly exposed to sight. The difficulty arises when the object is inside a closed container. Where the object seized was inside a closed package, the object itself is not in plain view and therefore cannot be seized without a warrant. However, if the package proclaims its contents, whether by its distinctive configuration, its transparency, or if its contents are obvious to an observer, then the contents are in plain view and may be seized. In other words, if the package is such that an experienced observer could infer from its appearance that it contains the prohibited article, then the article is deemed in plain view. It must be immediately apparent to the police that the items that they observe may be evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure. (People vs. Doria, 301 SCRA 668)

Requisites:

1. Valid intrusion based on a valid warrantless arrest in which the police are legally present in the pursuit of their official duties;

2. The evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who have the right to be where they are;

3. The evidence must be immediately apparent; and

4. Plain view justified mere seizure of evidence without further search.

DOCTRINE OF FAIR COMMENT / BORJAL DOCTRINE

Fair commentaries on matters of public interest are privileged and constitute a valid defense in an action for libel or slander. It means that while in general every discreditable imputation publicly made is deemed false, because every man is presumed innocent until his guilt is judicially proved, and every false imputation is deemed malicious, nevertheless, when the discreditable imputation is directed against a public person in his public capacity, it is not necessarily actionable. In order that such discreditable imputation to a public official may be actionable, it must either be a false allegation of fact or a comment based on a false supposition. If the comment is an expression of opinion, based on established facts, it is immaterial that the opinion happens to be mistaken, as long as it might reasonably inferred from the facts. (Borjal vs. CA, 301 SCRA 1)

BALANCING OF INTEREST DOCTRINE

Privilege Not Absolute

: Claim of executive privilege is subject to balancing against other interest. In other words, confidentiality in executive privilege is not absolutely protected by the Constitution. Neither the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances. A claim of executive privilege does not guard against a possible disclosure of a crime or wrongdoing (Neri v. Senate).

MIRANDA DOCTRINE

The Miranda Doctrine or the Miranda Warning provides that:

1. A person in custody must be informed at the outset in clear and unequivocal terms that he has the right to remain silent and that anything he says can and will be used against him in a court of law;

2. He or she has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have a lawyer with him during the interrogation;

3. If he cannot afford a lawyer, like if he is an indigent, a lawyer shall be appointed by the State to represent him;

4. His right to counsel is available at any stage of the interrogation, hence, even if he consents to answer questions without the assistance of counsel, the moment he asks for a lawyer at any point of the investigation, the interrogation must cease until an attorney is present. If the above are not observed, the evidence obtained therefrom shall not be admissible in court.

EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES DOCTRINE

[This doctrine though is commonly used in warrantless arrest and warrantless search and seizure cases]

The ECD basically provides that the normal procedures and rules of court in the admissibility of evidence may be disregarded in exigent circumstances like when there is a coup d’etat. The rationale is the same as with PSC, that is to protect public safety or national security. This doctrine was used in the 1994 case of People vs Rolando De Gracia (GR Nos. 102009-10). The accused therein was subjected to a warrantless search and seizure sometime in 1989 during the height of the coup attempts against then President Cory Aquino. Confiscated from him were various explosives and ammunition. De Gracia contested the warrantless search and seizure but the Supreme Court ruled that the search warrant can be dispensed with due to the exigent circumstances attendant to the case.

POISONOUS TREE DOCTRINE

Exclusionary Rule

 - Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this section shall be inadmissible in evidence against him (the accused). Therefore, any evidence obtained by virtue of an illegally obtained confession is also inadmissible, being the fruit of a poisonous tree.

DOCTRINE OF SUPEREVENING EVENT

Prosecution for another offense if subsequent development changes the character of the first indictment under which he may have already been charged or convicted. Conviction of accused shall not bar another prosecution for an offense which necessarily includes the offense originally charged when:

1. Graver offense developed due to supervening facts arising from the same act or omission;

2. Facts constituting graver offense arose or discovered only after filing of former complaint or information; and

3. Plea of guilty to lesser offense was made without the consent of prosecutor or offended party.

Cabo vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 169509, June 16, 2006, for double jeopardy to attach, the case against the accused must have been dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent by a court of competent jurisdiction, upon a valid information sufficient in form and substance and the accused pleaded to the said charge.

MELO DOCTRINE The rule of identity does not apply when the second offense was not in existence at the time of the first prosecution, for the simple reason that in such case, there is no possibility for the accused, during the first prosecution, to be convicted for an offense that was then inexistent. Thus, where the accused was charged with physical injuries and after conviction, the injured person dies, the charged for homicide against the same accused does not put him twice in jeopardy.

DOCTRINE OF COMMAND RESPONSIBILITY

Superior officer is liable for acts of subordinate when:

1. he negligently or willfully employs or retains unfit or incompetent subordinates

2. he negligently or willfully fails to require subordinate to conform to prescribed regulations

3. he negligently or carelessly oversees business of office as to furnish subordinate an opportunity for default

4. he directed or authorized or cooperated in the wrong

5. law makes himself expressly liable

SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION DOCTRINE

Power of administrative agency to promulgate rules and regulations on matters of their own specialization.

DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA

The doctrine of res judicata applies only to judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings and not to the exercise of purely administrative functions. Administrative proceedings are non-litigious and summary in nature; hence, res judicata does not apply. [Nasipit Lumber Co. v NLRC (1989)]. The essential requisites of res judicata are:

1. The former judgment must be final;

2. It must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties;

3. It must be a judgment on the merits; and

4. There must be identity of parties, subject matter and cause of action. [Ipekdijan Merchandising v CTA (1963)]

VARIANCE DOCTRINE

Is that a crime charged includes crime proved, convict of crime proved. Also applies when crime proved includes crime charged, convict of crime charged.

RIPENESS FOR REVIEW DOCTRINE

1. This determines the point at which courts may review administrative action.

2. Application:

[a] when the interest of the plaintiff is subjected to or imminently threatened with substantial injury

[b] if the statute is self-executory

[c] when a party is immediately confronted with the problem of complying or violating a statute and there is a risk of criminal penalties

[d] when plaintiff is harmed by the vagueness of the statute.

REGALIAN DOCTRINE

All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum and other minerals oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests, or timber, wildlife, flora, and fauna and natural resources belong to the State. With the exception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not be alienated. (Sec. 2 Art XII)

STEWARDSHIP DOCTRINE

Private property is supposed to be held by the individual only as a trustee for the people in general, who are its real owners.

DOCTRINE OF TRANSFORMATION

The generally accepted rules of international law are not per se binding upon the State but must first be embodied in legislation enacted by the lawmaking body and so transformed into municipal law. Only when so transformed will they become binding upon the State as part of its municipal law.

PACTA SUNT SERVANDA

Treaties must be observed in good faith. If necessary, the State concerned must even modify its national legislation and constitution to make them conform to the treaty to avoid international embarrassment.

REBUS SIC STANTIBUS

A contracting state’s obligations under a treaty terminates when a vital or fundamental change or circumstance occurs, thus allowing a state to unilaterally withdraw from a treaty, because of the disappearance of the foundation upon which it rests

WILSON DOCTRINE

recognition shall not be extended to any government established by revolution or internal violence until the freely elected representatives of the people have organized a constitutional government.

ESTRADA DOCTRINE

the Mexican government declared that it would, as it saw fit, continue or terminate its diplomatic relations with any country in which a political upheaval had taken place and in so doing it would not pronounce judgment on the right of the foreign state to accept, maintain or replace its government. (Cruz, International Law, 2003 ed.) (In view of recent developments, the Wilson doctrine and the Estrada doctrine are no longer in the mainstream of public international law.)

INDELIBLE ALLEGIANCE DOCTRINE

an individual may be compelled to retain his original nationality notwithstanding that he has already renounced or forfeited it under the laws of the second state whose nationality he has acquired.

HOT PURSUIT DOCTRINE

Requisites:

a. Pursuit commences from internal waters,territorial sea or contiguous zone ofpursuing state

b. Continuous and unabated

c. Conducted by warship, military aircraft orgovernment ships, authorized for the purpose

d. Ceases as soon as the ship being pursued enters the territorial sea of its own, or of a third state

DOCTRINE OF FREE ENTERPRISE

Pest Management Association of the Philippines vs. Fertilizer and Pesticide Authority, G.R. No. 156041, February 21, 2007 and Pharmaceutical and Health Care Association of the Philippines vs. Sec. Duque III, G.R. No. 173034, October 9, 2007, it was held that despite the fact that “our present Constitution enshrines free enterprise as a policy”, it nevertheless reserves to the Government the power to intervene whenever necessary to promote the general welfare. Free enterprise does not call for removal of ‘protective regulations’. It must be clearly explained and proven by competent evidence just exactly how such protective regulation would result in the restraint of trade.

WILSON/TOBAR DOCTRINE

Precludes recognition of government established by revolution, civil war, coup d’etat or other forms of internal violence until freely elected representatives of the people have organized a constitutional government (US President Woodrow Wilson and Ecuadorian FM) [2004 Bar]

STIMSON DOCTRINE

Precludes recognition of any government established as a result of external aggression (US Sec. Of State Henry Stimson)

ESTRADA DOCTRINE

Dealing or not dealing with the government established through a political upheaval is not a judgment on the legitimacy of the said government (Mexican Minister Genaro Estrada) [2004 Bar]

DOCTRINE OF INDELIBLE ALLEGIANCE

an individual may be compelled to retain his original nationality although he has already renounced it under the laws of another state whose nationality he has acquired

DOCTRINE OF EFFECTIVE NATIONALITY

(Art. 5, Hague Convention of 1930 on the Conflict of Nationality Laws) – a person having more than one nationality shall be treated as if he had only one—either the nationality of the country in which he is habitually and principally resident or the nationality of the country with which, in the circumstances, he appears to be most closely connected (Frivaldo vs. Comelec)