Author Archives: Atty. Lapadiday

How to get an IBP ID? (local and national)

HOW TO GET AN IBP ID?

Next to passing the bar, signing the roll of attorneys, and getting your very own Roll number is the privilege of being able to acquire a small handy identification card that will exhibit the aforementioned facts (well, there’s being able to finally practice law, give legal advice, notarize, and all other cool stuff too though… but that’s not the point of this post) to anyone who dares question your certification… or your age. *curse your baby face!*

So to save you from continuously defending yourself as an official adult AND/OR a lawyer, allow me to help you obtain an Integrated Bar of the Philippines Identification Card  (IBP ID Card), from the local and national office.

N.B. This is just a guide and that the process may vary depending on your local chapters.

LOCAL IBP ID

This is what a local IBP ID looks like: 20160711_201019-1

NOTE, that this local IBP ID might look different from other local IBP IDs of other chapters. They might differ in cost too. So you might as well just skip this part and make an inquiry from your local chapters directly.

STEPS

FIRST STEP. Go to the local IBP Office of the Chapter where you belong. (In Bohol, the IBP office is located just behind the Hall of Justice). There you will be given a form (the same form handed to you by the IBP personnel at the Supreme Court during your clearance). It’ll look something like this: IBP ID FORM

SECOND STEP. Personally fill up the form. (Don’t forget to ask for your IBP ID # from the personnel in charge)

THIRD STEP. Submit the following to the printing press/printing establishment ACCREDITED by your local IBP chapter. (In Bohol, it’s the Universal press located near University of Bohol):

  1. the filled-up form
  2. Two (2) 1×1 picture
  3. Three (3) Specimen of your signature

FOURTH STEP.  Pay the cost of printing. When I got mine in 2016, it cost P200.00.

FIFTH STEP. Await its release. The printing press will call you in a week or two to tell you that your ID is ready for pickup.

NATIONAL IBP ID

The New National IBP Card now looks like this: (it has an enhanced QR as a new security feature. You may also use this ID as a discount and privilege card for selected merchant partners using the MobKard App… IKR!! super cool!! ^_^ )20170322_112858

There are three ways I know of that you can obtain a National IBP ID: one, through your local IBP Chapter Office; second, by sending your application through mail or courier; third,by directly going to the National IBP Office.  I did the last.

If you opt to go through the local IBP Office, the time that you will have to wait will take longer than actually procuring it yourself at the national office for obvious reasons. The local IBP Office will have to mail the requirements to the national office, which will then process it, and once the ID has been made, it’ll be sent to you or back to the local office through mail. But this will of course cost less since you won’t have to spend for travel. (ask your local IBP office for more details)

If you want to send your application through mail or courier, you will have to provide a Special Power of Attorney to your agent or representative who shall present a valid identification card. In addition, your current IBP dues must be paid and all required data in the application form must be complete.

But if you’re keen on getting it personally at the national office or if you happen to be at the area, then follow the following process:

STEPS

FIRST STEP. Go to the National IBP Office located at IBP Building, No.15 Doña Julia Vargas Avenue, Ortigas Center, Pasig City.

When I got there, there was an undergoing construction and I couldn’t find the proper entrance. I had to pass through a narrow alleyway to find an alternative. The office is not as conspicuous as you might think it would be. If this is still the case, feel free to ask for directions. There’s a 7/11 in the groundfloor of the building where a security guard is stationed, so go ahead and ask him.

SECOND STEP. Bring and/or present the following:

  1. Two (2) Valid Government IDs
  2. Your roll number  and, if you’re an IBP lifetime member, your IBP lifetime number (the IBP will no longer supply these data)
  3. Receipt of your current IBP contribution/fee/payment

THIRD STEP. Pay for your ID. When I got mine, it cost me P300.00.

FOURTH STEP. You will be asked to step on another room where your photograph and signature will be taken. So might I suggest that you wear something decent when you go there, lest you be photographed wearing a sando or tube top (not that they’d allow it).

FIFTH STEP. Wait for its release. It took not more than ten(10) minutes for my ID to be released, given that I was also the only one there.

The ID is renewable and expires in 2 years.

N.B. The National IBP trunklines: (02) 631-3014 and(02) 631-3018.

So there you have it. You can now flaunt your ID to the next person who’ll ask you, “abugado diay ka? Pila na diay edad nimo, doy?”

Hope this helps.

How to be a Notary Public?

You made it out of law school, hurdled the bar review, and just passed the Bar! Yay, Congratulations!

If you are contemplating on engaging in private practice, it may be essential and convenient (although not compulsory) to be commissioned as a notary public. (Some lawyers working in the government may not be commissioned as a notary public. Note also that in the present rules, only lawyers can be commissioned as Notary Public.)

A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC provides for the Rules on Notarial Practice. But allow me to break the process down for you and cite the requirements you need to comply with before you are commissioned by the proper court as a certified Notary Public.

Note: I will speak based on my own experience.

PROCESS:

  1. Prepare your petition.

-pm me for sample form or simply follow Rule III, Sec 2 (A) of the Rules

  1. Your petition must be verified (accompanied by a verification and certification)

-it must be notarized by a notary public

  1. Prepare and mark the following appendices:
Annex A, A1, and A2

 

Three (3) passport size photos

– light background

-not retouched

-sign your name at the bottom of the photographs

Annex B

 

Certificate of Membership in the Philippine Bar
Annex C Certificate of good standing from the IBP (your chapter)

HOW TO CLAIM:

–          You will go to the IBP office of your respective chapter

–          Bring and present to the person-in-charge your Official Receipt (the one given to you by the IBP personnel upon payment of your membership fee during your clearance at the Supreme Court)

–          Pay your mortuary fee as quoted to you by the IBP person-in-charge

Annex D Attach the following Official Receipts

·         IBP official receipt (P1.200)

·         Supreme Court Official Receipt for:

-Bar admission fee

-Bar-Cert/membership

(P3,600)

Annex E Professional Tax Receipt

–          Secure your PTR from the City or municipality where you intend to practice (P300)

Note: there is still another annex you have to include, which you will acquire later… I am simply walking you through the step-by-step process

  1. Make five (5) photocopies of the aforementioned
  2. Submit it (the original and the photocopies) to the court having proper jurisdiction, that is, the court having jurisdiction over the place you intend to practice in (In my case, I filed it before the multiple sala court which thereafter raffled it to the proper court)
  3. Upon submission, the person-in-charge will check the petition and the annexes, after which, you will be asked to pay to the cashier the fee for the application for notarial commission, (I was asked to pay P1532 and P468)
  4. Continue to attach the following annexes AND DON’T FORGET TO MAKE THE SAME NUMBER OF PHOTOCOPIES AS YOU DID PREVIOUSLY
ANNEX F OFFICIAL RECEIPTS FOR THE APPLICATION FOR NOTARIAL COMMISSION ISSUED BY THE COURT (the one mentioned in #6 above)
ANNEX G NBI CLEARANCE
  1. AWAIT THE SUMMONS TO BE SENT OUT TO YOU FOR YOUR HEARING
  2. Attend the hearing
  1. Granting that the court has found you worthy of its grace and knighted you an elite and noble notary public (lol), the Court will issue to you the following:
  • A certification of your commission as notary public
  • A copy of your oath of office, which you will sign upon receipt
  • An order stating that a Certificate of Authorization to purchase a notarial seal be issued to you
  • The Certificate of Authorization to purchase Notarial Seal

-you will present this to the accredited establishment that will create your seal

-this certificate of authorization has an expiry date, so take note thereof

  • another document will be issued to you. This is the one which you will surrender to the accredited establishment that will create your seal.

It will take a few weeks for your seal to be made. Mine took around 2 weeks and cost me P4500.

  1. Once done, you present to the court an impression of your seal.
  1. BUYING YOUR NOTARIAL REGISTER

-I got mine from the Office of the Court Administrator (the building next to the Supreme Court) for P1200

-You can opt to have a notarial register made as my friends did.

Hope this helps.

-atty. J

SUSPENSION OF THE PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

RE: SUSPENSION OF THE PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

DEFINE A “WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS”?

 ANS.  A writ of habeas corpus is defined as a writ directed to the person detaining another, commanding him to produce the body of the prisoner at a designated time and place, with the day and cause of his caption and detention, to do, submit to, and receive whatever the court of judge awarding the writ shall consider in that behalf.

Habeas corpus when translated means “produce the body”. If a writ of habeas corpus is issued by the court, the court is basically ordering a person who has detained another to produce the body of the latter at a designated time and place, and to show sufficient cause for holding in custody the individual so detained.

WHAT IS THE “PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS?”

ANS.  The privilege of the writ is the further order from the court to release an individual if it finds his detention without legal cause or authority.

WHAT THEN MAY BE SUSPENDED: THE WRIT OR THE PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT?

ANS. It is the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus (not the writ itself)

WHO MAY SUSPEND THE PRIVILEGE?

ANS. The President

WHEN MAY THE PRIVILEGE BE SUSPENDED? Limitation #1

ANS. “…in cases of invasion or rebellion, when public safety requires it.”

HOW LONG MAY IT BE SUSPENDED? Limitation #2

ANS. It shall not exceed the period of 60 days.

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT IS SUSPENDED?

ANS. When the privilege of the writ is suspended, the person under detention by the government may not obtain his liberty by its use.

                The writ itself may still be issued by the court and the person detained must still be produced in court. However, the official or person detaining him may ask the court not to continue the proceeding any further as the privilege of the writ as to that particular person seeking release has been suspended

                Once the officer making the return shows to the court that the person detained is being detained for an office covered by the suspension, the court may not enquire any further.

WHEN THE PRESIDENT DECLARES A STATE OF MARTIAL LAW, IS THE PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT AUTOMATICALLY SUSPENDED?

ANS. No, not automatically.

TO WHOM DOES THE SUSPENSION OF THE PRIVILEGE APPLY? Limitation #3

ANS. “The suspension of the privilege of the writ shall apply only to persons judicially charged for rebellion or offenses inherent in or directly connected with invasion.”

                “…any person thus arrested or detained shall be judicially charged within three days, otherwise he shall be released.”

DOES THE SUSPENSION OF THE PRIVILEGE ALSO SUSPEND THE RIGHT TO BAIL?

ANS. NO. ART III, SEC. 13

REFERENCE:

  1. The 1987 Constitution
  2. Revised Rules of Court on Habeas Corous, Rule 102
  3. Bernas, J. (2011). The 1987 Philippine Consitution: A Comprehensive Reviewer
  4. Bernas J. (2009). The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A Commentary
  5. De Leon, H. (2008). Textbook on the Philippine Constitution
  6. Nachura, AE. (2009). Outline/Reviewer in Political Law

 

Cases:

  1. Gudani vs. Senga G.R. No. 170265, April 15, 2006
  2. Gumawa vs. Espino, 96 SCRA 403,403-7, February 29, 1980
  3. Lansang vs. Garcia 42 SCRA 448
  4. Lacson vs. Perez, G.R. No. 147780, May 10, 2001
  5. IBP vs. Zamora, G.R. No. 141284, August 15, 2000
  6. Padilla vs. Ponce Enrile, L-61388, April 20, 1983

FAQ ON MARTIAL LAW

WHAT IS “MARTIAL LAW”?

BRIEFLY: Martial law is founded on necessity and is essentially police power exercised by the executive with the aid of the military, the latter being called upon to assist in the maintenance of peace and order and the enforcement of legal norms. The purpose thereof being the preservation of the public safety and good order in times when the domination of lawless elements cannot be stopped by civil authorities.

IN LENGTH: Tracing the history of the Philippine Constitution will show that it is of American origin, thus, most law books provide for definition derived from American cases and material references.

Westel Willoughby, for one, had the following to say:

                “In the most comprehensive sense of the term, Martial Law includes all law that has reference to, or is administered by the military forces of the State. Thus it includes (1) Military Law Proper, that is, the body of administrative laws created by Congress for the government of the army and navy as an organized force; (2) the principles governing the conduct of military forces in time of war, and in the government of occupied territory, and,…

 (3) Martial Law in sensu strictiore, or that law which has application when the military arm does not supersede civil authority but is called upon to aid it in the execution of its civil functions.”

                 The Martial Law in our Constitution refers to the third definition.

                Martial Law authorizes “the military to act vigorously for the maintenance of an orderly civil government.” – Justice Black, Duncan v. Kahanmoku, 327 U.S”. 304, 323 (1946).

                Martial Law is “the exercise of the power which resides in the executive branch of the government to preserve order and insure the public safety in times of emergency, when other branches of the government are unable to function, or their functioning would itself threaten the public safety… It is the law of necessity to be prescribed and administered by the executive power. Its object, the preservation of the public safety and good order, defines the scope, which will vary with the circumstances and necessities of the case. The exercise of the power may not extend beyond what is required by the exigency which calls it forth.” –Justice Stone, Id. at 335-6

 WHO CAN DECLARE “MARTIAL LAW?

ANS. The President as commander-in-chief pursuant to Art VII, Sec 18 of the 1987 Constitution.

WHAT IS THE “COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF” CLAUSE?

ANS. The Constitution declares the President, a civilian, as the Commander-in –Chief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (the power covers the Philippine National Police (PNP).

The reason behind this provision is to ensure the supremacy of the civil authorities over the military forces of the government.

The President has control and direction of the conduct of war and, when necessary, may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion, or rebellion.  However, it is only in this sense that the president may be referred to as a military officer. The President does not enlist in, nor is he inducted or drafted into forces; “he is not subject to court martial or other military discipline.”Swartz, The Powers of the President, p.215 (1963)

The net effect of Article II, Section 3, when read with Article VII, Section 18, is that a civilian President holds supreme military authority and is the ceremonial, legal, and administrative head of the armed forces. The Constitution does not require that the President must be possessed of military training and talents, but as Commander-in-Chief, he has the power to direct military operations and to determine military strategy. Normally, he would be expected to delegate the actual command of the armed forces to military experts; but the ultimate power is his. “As Commander-in-chief, he is authorized to direct the movements of the naval and military forces placed by law at his command, and to employ them in the manner he may deem most effectual to harass and conquer and subdue the enemy.” Fleming v. Page, 9 How 603, 615 U.S. (1850)

 WHAT POWER DOES THE PRESIDENT HAVE OVER THE MILITARY?

ANS. Since the President is commander-in-chief of the Armed forces, she can demand obedience from military officers. Military officers who disobey or ignore her command can be subjected to court martial proceeding. Thus, for instance, the President as Commander-in-Chief may prevent a member of the armed forces from testifying before a legislative inquiry, a military officer who disobeys the President’s directive may be made to answer before a court martial. (see Gudani v. Senga, G.R. No. 170165, April 15, 2006).

 IN WHAT INSTANCES CAN THE PRESIDENT DECLARE MARTIAL LAW? (GROUNDS)

Ans. Martial Law depends on two factual bases: (1) the existence of invasion or rebellion, and (2) the requirements of public safety.  (Art. VII, Sec 18 of the 1987 Constitution)

WHAT ARE THE LIMITATIONS/RESTRICTIONS?

  1. Grounds: There must be (actual) invasion or rebellion and public safety requires the proclamation or suspension;
  1. Duration: shall not exceed 60 days, following which it shall be lifted, unless extended by Congress 
  1. Duty of President to report action to Congress: within 48 hours, personally or in writing
  1. Congress may revoke [or extend on request of the President] the effectivity of the proclamation by
  • a majority vote
  • voting jointly
  • If not in session, Congress shall convene within 24 hours following such proclamation or suspension, convene in accordance with its rules without need of a call
  1. The Supreme Court may review the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ or the extension thereof
  • in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen
  • must promulgate its decision within thirty (30) days from its filing

It is therefore settled that the imposition of martial law or the suspension of the privilege is now a judicial question, not a political one. Note however that this judicial review is only for the Court to look into the sufficiency of the factual basis for the exercise of the power. In Lacson vs. Perez, the Supreme Court said that the President has discretionary authority to declare a “state of rebellion”.

WHAT ARE THE EFFECTS OF A STATE OF MARTIAL LAW?

 ANS.           The definition of the extent of martial law powers is made by way of denials, stating what are not the effects of a state of martial law. Thus:

  1. It does not suspend the operation of the Constitution.

-Therefore, it does not suppress the powers of the various branches of the government.

  1. It does not supplant the functioning of the civil courts or legislative assemblies

Meaning, the ordinary legislation continues to belong to the legislative bodies even during martial law.  It adopts the “open court rule” in Duncan v. Kahanamoku 327 U.S. 304, 324 (1946)which provides that civil courts cannot be supplanted by military courts. 

  1. It does not authorize the conferment of jurisdiction on military courts and agencies over civilians where civil courts are able to function

-When martial law is declared, civil authorities are not superseded by military authorities. Civil laws are likewise not suspended. 

  1. It does not automatically suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus

-the privilege continues to be available to persons under detention until suspended by the President. (Continue reading or refer to other posts for further discussion the matter)

-it affects only those “persons judicially charged for rebellion or offenses inherent in or directly connected with invasion.”

 RE: SUSPENSION OF THE PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 

DEFINE A “WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS”?

ANS.  A writ of habeas corpus is defined as a writ directed to the person detaining another, commanding him to produce the body of the prisoner at a designated time and place, with the day and cause of his caption and detention, to do, submit to, and receive whatever the court of judge awarding the writ shall consider in that behalf.

Habeas corpus when translated means “produce the body”. If a writ of habeas corpus is issued by the court, the court is basically ordering a person who has detained another to produce the body of the latter at a designated time and place, and to show sufficient cause for holding in custody the individual so detained.

WHAT IS THE “PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS?”

ANS.  The privilege of the writ is the further order from the court to release an individual if it finds his detention without legal cause or authority.

WHAT THEN MAY BE SUSPENDED: THE WRIT OR THE PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT?

ANS. It is the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus (not the writ itself)

WHO MAY SUSPEND THE PRIVILEGE?

ANS. The President

WHEN MAY THE PRIVILEGE BE SUSPENDED? Limitation #1

ANS. “…in cases of invasion or rebellion, when public safety requires it.”

HOW LONG MAY IT BE SUSPENDED? Limitation #2

ANS. It shall not exceed the period of 60 days.

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT IS SUSPENDED?

ANS. When the privilege of the writ is suspended, the person under detention by the government may not obtain his liberty by its use.

                The writ itself may still be issued by the court and the person detained must still be produced in court. However, the official or person detaining him may ask the court not to continue the proceeding any further as the privilege of the writ as to that particular person seeking release has been suspended

                Once the officer making the return shows to the court that the person detained is being detained for an office covered by the suspension, the court may not enquire any further.

 WHEN THE PRESIDENT DECLARES A STATE OF MARTIAL LAW, IS THE PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT AUTOMATICALLY SUSPENDED?

ANS. No, not automatically.

TO WHOM DOES THE SUSPENSION OF THE PRIVILEGE APPLY? Limitation #3

ANS. “The suspension of the privilege of the writ shall apply only to persons judicially charged for rebellion or offenses inherent in or directly connected with invasion.”

                “…any person thus arrested or detained shall be judicially charged within three days, otherwise he shall be released.”

DOES THE SUSPENSION OF THE PRIVILEGE ALSO SUSPEND THE RIGHT TO BAIL?

ANS. NO. ART III, SEC. 13

HOW DIFFERENT IS THE MARTIAL LAW UNDER THE MARCOS REGIME FROM THAT WHICH IS CONTEMPLATED UNDER THE PRESENT CONSTITUTION?

                 In the case of Gumawa vs. Espino, 96 SCRA 403, 403-7 (February 29, 1980), the Marcos Supreme court made the following conclusions:

  1. That the proclamation of martial law automatically suspends the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus;
  1. That the President of the Philippines, “as Commander-in-Chief and as enforcer or administrator of martial law… can promulgate proclamations, orders, and decrees during the period of martial law essential to the security and preservation of the Republic, to the defense of the political and social liberties of the people, and to the institution of reforms to prevent the resurgence of rebellion or insurrection or secession of the threat thereof as well as to meet the impact of a world recession, inflation, or economic crisis which presently threatens all nations including highly developed countries…”
  1. That the President of the Philippines, as legislator during the period of martial law, can legally create military commissions or courts martial to try not only members of the armed forces but also civilian offenders for specified offenses.

 

The new Constitution, however, rejects the above Marcos Court pronouncements and now says categorically: “A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of the Constitution, nor supplant the functioning of the civil courts or legislative assemblies, nor authorize the conferment of jurisdiction on military courts and agencies over civilians where civil courts are able to function, nor automatically suspend the privilege of the writ.”

REFERENCE:

  1. The 1987 Constitution
  2. Revised Rules of Court on Habeas Corous, Rule 102
  3. Bernas, J. (2011). The 1987 Philippine Consitution: A Comprehensive Reviewer
  4. Bernas J. (2009). The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A Commentary
  5. De Leon, H. (2008). Textbook on the Philippine Constitution
  6. Nachura, AE. (2009). Outline/Reviewer in Political Law

Cases:

  1. Gudani vs. Senga G.R. No. 170265, April 15, 2006
  2. Gumawa vs. Espino, 96 SCRA 403,403-7, February 29, 1980
  3. Lansang vs. Garcia 42 SCRA 448
  4. Lacson vs. Perez, G.R. No. 147780, May 10, 2001
  5. IBP vs. Zamora, G.R. No. 141284, August 15, 2000
  6. Padilla vs. Ponce Enrile, L-61388, April 20, 1983

 

MARCOS BURIAL CASE DECISION FULL TEXT ( G.R. No. 225973, 225984, 226097 226116, 226117, 226120, & 226294 )

CLICK HERE to view and download. 🙂

source: supreme court website

CASE DIGEST: TECSON VS. COMELEC

G.R. No. 161434             March 3, 2004

MARIA JEANETTE C. TECSON and FELIX B. DESIDERIO, JR. vs.COMELEC, FPJ and VICTORINO X. FORNIER, 

G.R. No. 161634             March 3, 2004

ZOILO ANTONIO VELEZ vs.FPJ

GR. No. 161824             March 3, 2004

VICTORINO X. FORNIER, vs. HON. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and FPJ

Facts:

Petitioners sought for respondent Poe’s disqualification in the presidential elections for having allegedly misrepresented material facts in his (Poe’s) certificate of candidacy by claiming that he is a natural Filipino citizen despite his parents both being foreigners. Comelec dismissed the petition, holding that Poe was a Filipino Citizen. Petitioners assail the jurisdiction of the Comelec, contending that only the Supreme Court may resolve the basic issue on the case under Article VII, Section 4, paragraph 7, of the 1987 Constitution.

Issue:

Whether or not it is the Supreme Court which had jurisdiction.

Whether or not Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion in holding that Poe was a Filipino citizen.

Ruling:

1.)   The Supreme Court had no jurisdiction on questions regarding “qualification of a candidate” for the presidency or vice-presidency before the elections are held.

“Rules of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal”  in connection with Section 4, paragraph 7, of the 1987 Constitution, refers to “contests” relating to the election, returns and qualifications of the “President” or “Vice-President”, of the Philippines which the Supreme Court may take cognizance, and not of “candidates” for President or Vice-President before the elections.

2.)   Comelec committed no grave abuse of discretion in holding Poe as a Filipino Citizen.

The 1935 Constitution on Citizenship, the prevailing fundamental law on respondent’s birth, provided that among the citizens of the Philippines are “those whose fathers are citizens of the Philippines.”

Tracing respondent’s paternal lineage, his grandfather Lorenzo, as evidenced by the latter’s death certificate was identified as a Filipino Citizen. His citizenship was also drawn from the presumption that having died in 1954 at the age of 84, Lorenzo would have been born in 1870. In the absence of any other evidence, Lorenzo’s place of residence upon his death in 1954 was presumed to be the place of residence prior his death, such that Lorenzo Pou would have benefited from the “en masse Filipinization” that the Philippine Bill had effected in 1902. Being so, Lorenzo’s citizenship would have extended to his son, Allan—respondent’s father.

Respondent, having been acknowledged as Allan’s son to Bessie, though an American citizen,  was a Filipino citizen by virtue of paternal filiation as evidenced by the respondent’s birth certificate. The 1935 Constitution on citizenship did not make a distinction on the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the child, thus, the allegation of bigamous marriage and the allegation that respondent was born only before the assailed marriage had no bearing on respondent’s citizenship in view of the established paternal filiation evidenced by the public documents presented.

But while the totality of the evidence may not establish conclusively that respondent FPJ is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, the evidence on hand still would preponderate in his favor enough to hold that he cannot be held guilty of having made a material misrepresentation in his certificate of candidacy in violation of Section 78, in relation to Section 74 of the Omnibus Election Code.

###

Also, please follow our community for more updates : FACEBOOK PAGE and  WORDPRESS

CASE DIGEST: LACSON VS. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

 301 SCRA 298; G.R. NO. 12809620 JAN 1999

LACSON VS. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY


Facts: 

Eleven persons believed to be members of the Kuratong Baleleng gang, an organized crime syndicate involved in bank robberies, were slain by elements of the Anti-Bank Robbery andIntelligence Task Group (ABRITG). Among those included in the ABRITG were petitioners and petitioner-intervenors.

Acting on a media expose of SPO2 Eduardo delos Reyes, a member of the Criminal Investigation Command, that what actually transpired was a summary execution and not a shoot-out between the Kuratong Baleleng gang members and the ABRITG, Ombudsman Aniano Desiertoformed a panel of investigators to investigate the said incident. Said panel found the incident as a legitimate police operation. However, a review board modified the panel’s finding and recommended the indictment for multiple murder against twenty-six respondents including herein petitioner, charged as principal, and herein petitioner-intervenors, charged as accessories. After a reinvestigation, the Ombudsman filed amended informations before the Sandiganbayan, where petitioner was charged only as an accessory.

The accused filed separate motions questioning the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, asserting that under the amended informations, the cases fall within the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court pursuant to Section 2 of R.A. 7975. They contend that the said law limited the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan to cases where one or ore of the “principal accused” are government officals with Salary Grade 27 or higher, or PNP officials with rank of Chief Superintendent or higher. Thus, they did not qualify under said requisites. However, pending resolution of their motions, R.A. 8249 was approved amending the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan by deleting the word “principal” from the phrase “principal accused” in Section 2 of R.A. 7975.

Petitioner questions the constitutionality of Section 4 of R.A. 8249, including Section 7 which provides that the said law shall apply to all cases pending in any court over which trial has not begun as of the approval hereof.

Issues: 

(1) Whether or not Sections 4 and 7 of R.A. 8249 violate the petitioners’ right to due process and the equal protection clause of the Constitution as the provisions seemed to have been introduced for the Sandiganbayan to continue to acquire jurisdiction over the Kuratong Baleleng case.

(2) Whether or not said statute may be considered as an ex-post facto statute.

(3) Whether or not the multiple murder of the alleged members of the Kuratong Baleleng was committed in relation to the office of the accused PNP officers which is essential to the determination whether the case falls within the Sandiganbayan’s or Regional Trial Court’s jurisdiction.

RULING:

1.) RIGHTS NOT VIOLATED.

Petitioner and intervenors’ contention that Sections 4 and 7 of R.A. 8249 violate their right to equal protection of the law is too shallow to deserve merit. No concrete evidence and convincing argument were presented to warrant such a declaration. Every classification made by the law is presumed reasonable and the party who challenges the law must present proof of arbitrariness. The classification is reasonable and not arbitrary when the following concur: (1) it must rest on substantial distinction; (2) it must be germane to the purpose of the law; (3) must not be limited to existing conditions only, and (4) must apply equally to all members of the same class; all of which are present in this case.

Paragraph a of Section 4 provides that it shall apply “to all cases involving” certain public officials and under the transitory provision in Section 7, to “all cases pending in any court.” Contrary to petitioner and intervenors’ argument, the law is not particularly directed only to the Kuratong Baleleng cases. The transitory provision does not only cover cases which are in the Sandiganbayan but also in “any court.”

2.) NOT EX POST FACTO LAW.

There is nothing ex post facto in R.A. 8249. Ex post facto law, generally, provides retroactive effect of penal laws. R.A. 8249 is not apenal law. It is a substantive law on jurisdiction which is not penal in character. Penal laws are those acts of the Legislature which prohibit certain acts and establish penalties for their violations or those that define crimes and provide for their punishment. R.A. 7975, as regards the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction, its mode of appeal and other procedural matters, has been declared by the Court as not a penal law, but clearly a procedural statute, one which prescribes rules of procedure by which courts applying laws of all kinds can properly administer justice. Not being a penal law, the retroactive application of R.A. 8249 cannot be challenged as unconstitutional.

3.) RTC HAS JURISDICTION.

In People vs. Montejo, it was held that an offense is said to have been committed in relation to the office if it is intimately connected with the office of the offender and perpetrated while he was in the performance of his official functions. Such intimate relation must be alleged in the information which is essential in determining the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. However, upon examination of the amended information, there was no specific allegation of facts that the shooting of the victim by the said principal accused was intimately related to the discharge of their official duties as police officers. Likewise, the amended information does not indicate that the said accused arrested and investigated the victim and then killed the latter while in their custody. The stringent requirement that the charge set forth with such particularity as will reasonably indicate the exact offense which the accused is alleged to have committed in relation to his office was not established.

Consequently, for failure to show in the amended informations that the charge of murder was intimately connected with the discharge of official functions of the accused PNP officers, the offense charged in the subject criminal cases is plain murder and, therefore, within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court and not the Sandiganbayan.


###
Also, please follow our community for more updates :

FACEBOOK PAGE and  WORDPRESS