Rev.docx

Enrile vs Sandiganbayan Bail is a matter of right and of discretion. The general rule is that any person, before being convicted of any criminal offense, shall be bailable, unless he is charged with a capital offense, or with an offense punishable with reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, and the evidence of his guilt is strong. Thus, once it has been established that the evidence of guilt is strong, no right to bail shall be recognized. However, for purposes of admission to bail, the determination of whether or not evidence of guilt is strong lies within the discretion of the trial court. Furthermore, the court upholds the Philippines’ responsibility in the international community arising from the national commitment under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This national commitment has authorized the grant of bail to extraditees upon a clear and convincing showing: (1 ) that the detainee will not be a flight risk or a danger to the community; and (2 ) that there exist special, humanitarian and compelling circumstances. Enrile’s poor health and old age justifies his admission to bail. In addition, his social and political standing and his having immediately surrendered to the authorities upon his being charged in court indicate that the risk of his flight or escape from this jurisdiction is highly unlikely. He is a person who has great respect for the legal processes as shown by a past case of him involving rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated murder. With his solid reputation in both his public and his private lives, his long years of public service, and history’s judgment of him being at stake, he should be granted bail.

LNMB The Court agrees that President Duterte's decision to have the remains of Marcos interred at the LNMB involves a political question that is not a justiciable controversy. President Duterte decided a question of policy based on his wisdom that it shall promote national healing and forgiveness. There being no taint of grave abuse in the exercise of such discretion, President Duterte's decision on that political question is outside the ambit of judicial review. Petitioners violated the doctrines of exhaustion of administrative remedies and hierarchy of courts. Petitioners should be faulted for failing to seek reconsideration of the assailed memorandum and directive before the Secretary of National Defense. The Secretary of National Defense should be given opportunity to correct himself. Petitioners also cannot simply brush aside the doctrine of hierarchy of courts that requires such petitions to be filed first with the proper Regional Trial Court (RTC).

Also, the provisions of the constitution invoked by petitioners are not self-executing ones. They are used by the judiciary as aids or as guides in the exercise of its power of judicial review, and by the legislature in its enactment of laws. Next, petitioners failed to prove that the LNMB and the National Pantheon are one and the same. The LNMB is distinct and separate from the burial place envisioned in R.A. No 289. To apply the standard that the LNMB is reserved only for the "decent and the brave" or "hero" would be violative of public policy as it will put into question the validity of the burial of each and every mortal remains resting therein, and infringe upon the principle of separation of powers since the allocation of plots at the LNMB is based on the grant of authority to the President under existing laws and regulations. Next, the Court cannot subscribe to petitioners' logic that the provisions of R.A. No. 10368 include the prohibition on Marcos' burial at the LNMB. This Act only recognizes the heroism of Filipinos and provides for their reparation. It would be undue to extend the law beyond what it actually contemplates. President Duterte is also not bound by the alleged 1992 Agreement between FVR and the Marcos family to have the remains of Marcos interred in Ilocos Norte. As Duterte is free to amend, revoke or rescind political agreements entered into by his predecessors, and to determine policies which he considers, based on informed judgment and presumed wisdom, will be most effective in carrying out his mandate. Lastly, aside from being eligible for burial at the LNMB for being a ____, Marcos possessed none of the disqualifications stated in AFP Regulations. He was neither convicted by final judgment of the offense involving moral turpitude nor dishonorably discharged from active military service.

GMA VS Sandiganbayan The Prosecution did not sufficiently allege the existence of a conspiracy among GMA, Aguas and Uriarte. what the Prosecution sought to show was an implied conspiracy to commit plunder. It is notable that the Prosecution did not allege that the conspiracy among all of the accused was by express agreement, or was a wheel conspiracy or a chain conspiracy. This was a fatal flaw on the part of the Prosecution. The Plunder Law requires that in the criminal charge for plunder against several individuals that there must be a main plunderer and her coconspirators. Such identification of the main plunderer was not only necessary because the law required such identification, but also because it was essential in

safeguarding the rights of all of the accused to be properly informed of the charges, they were being made answerable for. Next, GMA’s act of approval by signing “okay”, even if unqualified, could not make her part of any criminal conspiracy to commit plunder or any other crime considering that her approval was not by any means irregular or illegal. Also, pursuant to the maxim of noscitur a sociis, there was no raiding of the treasury, as this requires the raider to use the property taken impliedly for his personal benefit. In this case, there was no showing that the public officers misappropriated, converted, misused or malversated the public funds to and for themselves. Senate vs Ermita When Congress exercises its power of inquiry, the only way for department heads to exempt themselves therefrom is by a valid claim of executive privilege. The requirement to secure presidential consent under Section 1, limited as it is only to appearances in the question hour, is valid on its face. For under Section 22, Article VI of the Constitution, the appearance of department heads in the question hour is discretionary on their part. In such instances, in keeping with the separation of powers, states that Congress may only request their appearances.

Demurrer to evidence After the prosecution rests its case, the court may dismiss the action on the ground of insufficiency upon demurrer to evidence filed by the accused with or without leave of court. If the court denies the demurrer to evidence filed with leave of court, the accused may adduce evidence in his defense. When the demurrer to evidence is filed without leave of court, the accused waives the right to present evidence and submits the case for judgment on the basis of the evidence for the prosecution. In criminal cases, demurrer to evidence is tantamount to acquittal. However, in civil cases, After the plaintiff has completed the presentation of his evidence, the defendant may move for dismissal on the ground that upon the facts and the law the plaintiff has shown no right to relief. If his motion is denied, he shall have the right to present evidence. If the motion is granted but on appeal the order of dismissal is reversed, he shall be deemed to have waived the right to present evidence. David vs Arroyo Binay Case

The Congress’ power of inquiry in aid of legislation is expressly recognized in Section 21 of Article VI of the Constitution. A legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of information respecting the conditions which the legislation is intended to affect or change; and where the legislative body does not itself possess the requisite information. Attendance is thus mandatory in inquiries in aid of legislation. The executive department cannot frustrate the power of legislation because the aim of which is to elicit information that may be used for legislation. On the other hand, Section 22 on the other hand provides for the Question Hour. In this case, Section 22 on the other hand provides for the Question Hour. In this case, attendance was meant to be discretionary only. The only objective of which is to obtain information in pursuit of Congress’ oversight function, to see how the Executive implements the statutes enacted by them.

The CA's resolutions were all hinged on cases enunciating the condonation doctrine. By merely following settled precedents on the condonation doctrine, which at that time, unwittingly remained "good law," it cannot be concluded that the CA committed a grave abuse of discretion based on its legal attribution. However, the condonation doctrine should be abandoned. There is no constitutional or statutory basis to support it. The continued application of the condonation doctrine is simply inconsistent and impermissible under the auspices of the present Constitution which explicitly mandates that public office is a public trust and that public officials shall be accountable to the people at all times. Election is not a mode of condoning an administrative offense.

Doctrines Stare Decisis - an abbreviation of the latin phrase stare decisis et non quieta movere which literally means “to stand by decisions and not to disturb settled matters”. Under this doctrine, when the court has once laid down a principle of law, it will adhere to that same principle, and shall apply to it to all subsequent cases where the same legal issue is raised, or where the factual circumstances are substantially the same. It promotes stability in the law, and should, therefore, be accorded with respect. It is embodied in Article 8 of the New Civil Code which provides that “Judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall form a part of the legal system of the Philippines”. Command Responsibility - The doctrine of command responsibility holds military commanders and other persons occupying positions of superior authority criminally responsible for the unlawful conduct of their subordinates. For the doctrine to apply, the following elements must be shown to exist: (i) the existence of a superior-subordinate relationship; (ii) the superior knew or had reason to know that the criminal act was about to be or had been committed; and (iii) the superior failed to take the necessary and reasonable measures to prevent the criminal act or punish the perpetrator. Operative Fact Doctrine Political Question Doctrine – Based on the principle of separation of powers, the Judicial Branch cannot decide questions "in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislative or executive branch of the government". It is concerned with issues dependent upon the wisdom, not legality of a particular measure. Hierarchy of Courts - Philippine courts observe a hierarchy with different status and roles established by the law and by the Supreme Court, which governs when and how their granted powers may be invoked. Qualified Political Agency - The multifarious executive and administrative functions of the Chief Executive are performed by and through the executive departments, and the acts of the Secretaries of such departments, performed and promulgated in the regular course of business, are, unless disapproved or reprobated by the Chief Executive presumptively the acts of the Chief Executive. Separation of Powers

Sub Judice Rule - A matter is before the court for consideration and, hence, should not be discussed in other fora. The sub judice rule restricts comments and disclosures pertaining to the judicial proceedings in order to avoid prejudging the issue, influencing the court, or obstructing the administration of justice. Its purpose is to preserve the impartiality of the judicial system by shielding the court from outside influence, and to ensure a fair trial – one that is based on facts, not on public opinion. Over Breadth Doctrine - Based on American Jurisprudence, a penal statue is unconstitutional if its language is so broad that it unnecessary interferes with the exercise of constitutional rights, even though the purpose is to prohibit activities that the government may constitutionally prohibit. Doctrine of Benevolent Neutrality - Benevolent neutrality recognizes that government must pursue its secular goals and interests but at the same time strives to uphold religious liberty to the greatest extent possible within flexible constitutional limits. Religious freedom is seen as a substantive right and not merely a privilege against discriminatory legislation. With religion looked upon with benevolence and not hostility, benevolent neutrality allows accommodation of religion under certain circumstances. Moot and Academic Principle - An issue or a case becomes moot and academic when it ceases to present a justiciable controversy so that a determination thereof would be without practical use and value. Forum Shopping - when a party repetitively avails of several judicial remedies in different courts, simultaneously or successively, all substantially founded on the same transactions and the same essential facts and circumstances, and all raising substantially the same issues either pending in or already resolved adversely by some other court. Doctrine of Condonation - The doctrine of condonation is a limited empowerment of the electorate over the accountabilities of their elective local officials, grounded upon a presumed knowledge of all the activities and behavior of the elective local official. It is presumed that when the electorate exercised their right to choose, they were all aware of “all” the misconducts of the public official.

David vs Arroyo De Lima Lagman vs Medialdea Imbong v Ochoa National Artist