ARTICLE V

Suffrage

Section 1. Suffrage may be exercised by all citizens of the Philippines not otherwise disqualified by law,
who are at least eighteen years of age, and who shall have resided in the Philippines for at least one
year, and in the place wherein they propose to vote, for at least six months immediately preceding the
election. No literacy, property, or other substantive requirement shall be imposed on the exercise of
suffrage.
Section 2. The Congress shall provide a system for securing the secrecy and sanctity of the ballot as well
as a system for absentee voting by qualified Filipinos abroad.
The Congress shall also design a procedure for the disabled and the illiterates to vote without the
assistance of other persons. Until then, they shall be allowed to vote under existing laws and such rules
as the Commission on Elections may promulgate to protect the secrecy of the ballot.
GALLEGO VS VERRA
G.R. No. L-48641 November 24, 1941

FACTS:
This is a petition for certiorari to review the decision of the CA affirming the decision of the CFI-Leyte,
which declared illegal the petitioner's election to the office of municipal mayor of Abuyog, Leyte in the
election of December 1940, on the ground that he did not meet the residence qualification.

Gallego is a native of Abuyog. After his studies, he was employed as a school teacher in Catarman,
Samar, as well as in some municipalities in Leyte.In 1937, he ran as municipal mayor in Abuyog but lost.
In June 1938, he worked in Malaybalay, Bukidnon in a plantation of Bureau of Forestry to make up for
the financial drawback caused by his loss in the previous election, and stayed there until he resigned in
September 1940.

Gallego registered himself as an elector in Bukidnon and voted in the election for assemblymen held in
December 1938, and in January 1940. He obtained and paid for his residence certificate it was stated
that he had resided in the said municipality for one and a half years.

Under the foregoing facts, the CA declared that Gallego lost his domicile in Abuyog at the time he was
elected mayor.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Gallego lost his domicile of origin in Abuyog, Leyte and acquired a new domicile in
Malaybalay, Bukidnon.

RULING:
NO. In the definition of "residence"in the election law, it states that in order to acquire a domicile by
choice, there must concur: (1) residence or bodily presence in the new locality; (2) an intention to
remain there; and (3) an intention to abandon the old domicile.

The purpose to remain in the domicile should be for an indefinite period of time. The court believed that
Gallego had no intention to stay in Malaybalay indefinitely because: (1) When he was employed as a
teacher in Samar, he always returned in Abuyog and even resigned when he ran for office in 1937; (2)
His departure was only for the purpose of making up for the financial drawback caused by his loss in the
election; (3) He did not take his wife and children to Malaybalay with him; (4) He bought a piece of land
in Abuyog and did not avail of the land in the plantation offered to him by the government; and (5) He
visited his family thrice despite the great distance between Leyte and Bukidnon.

The Court said that the manifest intent of the law in fixing a residence qualification is to "exclude a
stranger, or a newcomer, unacquainted with the conditions and needs of a community and not
identified with the latter from an elective office to serve that community."

Moreover, the petitioner was a native there, had run for the same office before, and was now elected
with a majority of 800 votes in a 3rd class municipality.
Romualdez vs RTC, 226 SCRA 408
Facts:
Petitioner Philip G. Romualdez is a natural-born citizen; the son of Kokoy Romualdez and a niece of
Imelda Marcos. In 1980, he established his residence in Malbog, Tolosa, Leyte. However, in 1986, during
the days of People Power, relatives of the deposed President (Marcos), fearing for their personal safety,
fled the country. One of them are the Romuladezes – they left the country and sought asylum in the
United States.

However, in 1991, the U.S. Immigration informed them to depart from the U.S. or else they’ll be
deported. Upon receipt of the information, Romuladez went back to the Philippines and did not delay
his return to his residence in Leyte and immediately registered himself as a voter.

In 1992, herein private respondent Advincula filed a petition to exclude petitioner from the list of the
voters alleging that the latter is a U.S. resident, and residency is a qualification for a registered voter.
However, the MTC denied the petition but when the respondent elevated the petition to the RTC, the
appellate court reversed MTC’s ruling and disqualified Romuldez as a registered voter. Hence, this case.

Issue:
Whether or not petitioner is qualified to be a registered voter in Malbog, Tolosa, Leyte despite his
sudden departure to the U.S?

Held:
The Court held that YES, Petitioner is qualified as a registered voter because he is still considered a
resident of Malbog, Tolosa, Leyte.

Stating that, the political situation brought about by people’s Power Revolution must have caused great
fear to the Romualdezes, and as having concern over the safety of their families, their self-exile is
understandable. Moreover, their sudden departure cannot be described as ‘voluntary’ or ‘abandonment
of residence’.

It must be emphasized that the right to vote is a most precious political right; a bounden duty of every
citizen enabling them to participate in the government process to ensure the will of the people.
AKBAYAN v COMELEC No. 147066, March 26 2001

FACTS:
Petitioner Akbayan Youth seek to direct the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to conduct a special
registration before May 2001 General Elections for new voters ages 18 to 21. According to petitioners,
around four million youth failed to register on or before the December 27, 2000 deadline set by the
respondent COMELEC under Republic Act No. 8189.
A request to conduct a two-day additional registration of new voters on February 17 and 18, 2001 was
passed but it was denied by the COMELEC. Section 8 of Republic Act No. 8189 explicitly provides that no
registration shall be conducted during the period starting one hundred twenty (120) days before a
regular election and that the Commission has no more time left to accomplish all pre-election activities.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the Court can compel respondent COMELEC, to conduct a special registration of new
voters during the period between the COMELEC’s imposed December 27, 2000 deadline and the May
14, 2001 general elections.

HELD:
The Supreme Court could not compel Comelec to conduct a special registration of new voters. The right
to suffrage is not absolute and must be exercised within the proper bounds and framework of the
Constitution. Petitioners failed to register, thus missed their chance. However, court took judicial notice
of the fact that the President issued a proclamation calling Congress to a Special Session to allow the
conduct of special registration for new voters and that bills had been filed in Congress to amend
Republic Act No. 8189.
CENIZA V COMELEC; G.R. NO. L-52304; 28 JAN 1980; 95 SCRA 763

FACTS:
The Interim BatasangPambansa enacted Batas Blg. 51 providing for local elections on January 30, 1980.
The said legislation classified the chartered cities into “highly urbanized” and “component” cities based
on the annual income of each city and provided that “the registered voter of a component city may be
entitled to vote in the election of the officials of a province of which the city is a component, if its
charter provides”, while “voters registered in a high urbanized city shall not participate nor vote in the
election of the officials of the province in which the highly urbanized city is geographically located. In
effect, the City of Mandaue is classified as a component city and its registered voters cannot participate
in the election of the provincial officials of the Province of Cebu as expressly provided in the city’s
charter (RA 5519).
ISSUE(S):
Whether or not the assailed legislation violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution.
HELD:
NO. The equal protection of the law contemplates equality in the enjoyment of similar rights and
privileges granted by law. It would have been discriminatory and a denial of the equal protection of the
law if the statute prohibited an individual or group of voters in the city from voting for provincial officials
while granting it to another individual or group of voters in the same city. neither can it be considered
an infringement upon the petitioners’ rights of suffrage since the Constitution confers no right to a voter
in a city to vote for the provincial officials of the province where the city is located. Their right is limited
to the right to vote for elective city officials in local elections which the questioned statues neither
withdraw nor restrict.
Petition is DISMISSED.
Macalintal vs. COMELEC G.R. No. 157013. July 10, 2003 Suffrage, Overseas Absentee Voting

FACTS:
This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition filed by Romulo B. Macalintal, a member of the Philippine Bar,
seeking a declaration that certain provisions of Republic Act No. 9189 (The Overseas Absentee Voting Act of
2003) suffer from constitutional infirmity. Claiming that he has actual and material legal interest in the
subject matter of this case in seeing to it that public funds are properly and lawfully used and appropriated,
petitioner filed the instant petition as a taxpayer and as a lawyer.

Petitioner posits that Section 5(d) is unconstitutional because it violates Section 1, Article V of the 1987
Constitution which requires that the voter must be a resident in the Philippines for at least one year and in
the place where he proposes to vote for at least six months immediately preceding an election. Petitioner
cites the ruling of the Court in Caasi vs. Court of Appeals to support his claim. In that case, the Court held that
a green card holder immigrant to the United States is deemed to have abandoned his domicile and residence
in the Philippines.

Petitioner further argues that Section 1, Article V of the Constitution does not allow provisional registration
or a promise by a voter to perform a condition to be qualified to vote in a political exercise; that the
legislature should not be allowed to circumvent the requirement of the Constitution on the right of suffrage
by providing a condition thereon which in effect amends or alters the aforesaid residence requirement to
qualify a Filipino abroad to vote. He claims that the right of suffrage should not be granted to anyone who, on
the date of the election, does not possess the qualifications provided for by Section 1, Article V of the
Constitution.

ISSUE:
Is RA 9189 [Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003], valid & constitutional?

RULING:
Contrary to petitioner’s claim that Section 5(d) circumvents the Constitution, Congress enacted the law
prescribing a system of overseas absentee voting in compliance with the constitutional mandate. Such
mandate expressly requires that Congress provide a system of absentee voting that necessarily presupposes
that the “qualified citizen of the Philippines abroad” is not physically present in the country.

The petition was partly GRANTED. The following portions of R.A. No. 9189 are declared VOID for being
UNCONSTITUTIONAL:

a) The phrase in the first sentence of the first paragraph of Section 17.1, to wit: “subject to the approval of
the Joint Congressional Oversight Committee;”b) The portion of the last paragraph of Section 17.1, to wit:
“only upon review and approval of the Joint Congressional Oversight Committee;”c) The second sentence of
the first paragraph of Section 19, to wit: “The Implementing Rules and Regulations shall be submitted to the
Joint Congressional Oversight Committee created by virtue of this Act for prior approval;” andd) The second
sentence in the second paragraph of Section 25, to wit: “It shall review, revise, amend and approve the
Implementing Rules and Regulations promulgated by the Commission” of the same law;

for being repugnant to Section 1, Article IX-A of the Constitution mandating the independence of
constitutional commission, such as COMELEC.

Pursuant to Section 30 of R.A. No. 9189, the rest of the provisions of said law continues to be in full force and
effect.
Republic Act No. 9189 February 13, 2003
AN ACT PROVIDING FOR A SYSTEM OF OVERSEAS ABSENTEE VOTING BY QUALIFIED
CITIZENS OF THE PHILIPPINES ABROAD, APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND
FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Section 1. Short Title. – This Act shall be known as "The Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003."

Sec. 2. Declaration of Policy. – It is the prime duty of the State to provide a system of honest and orderly
overseas absentee voting that upholds the secrecy and sanctity of the ballot. Towards this end, the State
ensures equal opportunity to all qualified citizens of the Philippines abroad in the exercise of this
fundamental right.

Sec. 3. Definition of Terms. – For purposes of this Act:

a. "Absentee Voting" refers to the process by which qualified citizens of the Philippines abroad
exercise their right to vote;

b. "Commission" refers to the Commission on Elections;

c. "Certified List of Overseas Absentee Voters" refers to the list of registered overseas absentee
voters whose applications to vote in absentia have been approved by the Commission, said list to be
prepared by the Committee on Absentee Voting of the Commission, on a country-by-country basis.
This list shall be approved by the Commission in an en banc resolution;

d. "Day of Election" refers to the actual date of elections in the Philippines;

e. "National Registry of Absentee Voters" refers to the consolidated list prepared, approved and
maintained by the Commission, of overseas absentee voters whose applications for registration as
absentee voters, including those registered voters who have applied to be certified as absentee
voters, have been approved by the Election Registered Board;

f. "Overseas Absentee Voter" refers to a citizen of the Philippines who is qualified to register and
vote under this Act, not otherwise disqualified by law, who is abroad on the day of elections.

Sec. 4. Coverage. – All citizens of the Philippines abroad, who are not otherwise disqualified by law, at least
eighteen (18) years of age on the day of elections, may vote for president, vice-president, senators and party-
list representatives.

Sec. 5. Disqualifications. – The following shall be disqualified from voting under this Act:

1. Those who have lost their Filipino citizenship in accordance with Philippine laws;

2. Those who have expressly renounced their Philippine citizenship and who have pledged allegiance
to a foreign country;

3. Those who have committed and are convicted in a final judgment by a court or tribunal of an
offense punishable by imprisonment of not less than one (1) year, including those who have
committed and been found guilty of Disloyalty as defined under Article 137 of the Revised Penal
Code, such disability not having been removed by plenary pardon or amnesty; Provided, however,
That any person disqualified to vote under this subsection shall automatically acquire the right to
vote upon expiration of five (5) years after service of sentence; Provided, further, That the
Commission may take cognizance of final judgments issued by foreign courts or tribunals only on the
 basis of reciprocity and subject to the formalities and processes prescribed by the Rules of Court on
execution of judgments;

4. An immigrant or a permanent resident who is recognized as such in the host country, unless
he/she executes, upon registration, an affidavit prepared for the purpose by the Commission
declaring that he/she shall resume actual physical permanent residence in the Philippines not later
than three (3) years from approval of his/her registration under this Act. Such affidavit shall also
state that he/she has not applied for citizenship in another country. Failure to return shall be the
cause for the removal of the name of the immigrant or permanent resident from the National
Registry of Absentee Voters and his/her permanent disqualification to vote in absentia.

5. Any citizen of the Philippines abroad previously declared insane or incompetent by competent
authority in the Philippines or abroad, as verified by the Philippine embassies, consulates or foreign
service establishments concerned, unless such competent authority subsequently certifies that such
person is no longer insane or incompetent.

Sec. 6. Personal Overseas Absentee Registration. – Registration as an overseas absentee voter shall be done
in person.

Qualified citizens of the Philippines abroad who failed to register under Republic Act No. 8189, otherwise
known as the "The Voters Registration Act of 1996", may personally apply for registration with the Election
Registration Board of the city or municipality where they were domiciled immediately prior to their
departure from the Philippines, or with the representative of the Commission at the Philippine embassies,
consulates and other foreign service establishments that have jurisdiction over the locality where they
temporarily reside. Subject to the specific guidelines herein provided, the Commission is hereby authorized
to prescribe additional procedures for overseas absentee registration pursuant to the provisions of Republic
Act No. 8189, whenever applicable, taking into strict consideration the time zones and the various periods
and processes herein provided for the proper implementation of this Act. The embassies, consulates and
other foreign service establishments shall transmit within (5) days from receipt the accomplished registration
forms to the Commission, after which the Commission shall coordinate with the Election Officer of the city or
municipality of the applicant’s stated residence for verification, hearing and annotation in the permanent list
of voters.

All applications for the May, 2004 elections shall be filed with the Commission not later than two hundred
eighty (280) calendar days before the day of elections. For succeeding elections, the Commission shall
provide for the period within which applications to register must be filed.

In the case of seafarers, the Commission shall provide a special mechanism for the time and manner of
personal registration taking into consideration the nature of their work.

6.1. Upon receipt of the application for registration, the Election Officer shall immediately set the
application for hearing, the notice of which shall be posted in a conspicuous place in the premises of
the city or municipal building of the applicant’s stated residence for at least one (1) week before the
date of the hearing. The Election Officer shall immediately furnish a copy of the application to the
designated representatives of political parties and other accredited groups.

6.2. If no verified objection to the application is filed, the Election Officer shall immediately forward
the application to the Election Registration Board, which shall decide on the application within one
(1) week from the date of hearing without waiting for the quarterly meeting of the Board. The
applicant shall be notified of the approval or disapproval of his/her application by registered mail.
 6.3. In the event that an objection to the application is filed prior to or on the date of hearing, the
Election Officer shall notify the applicant of said objection by registered mail, enclosing therein
copies of affidavits or documents submitted in support of the objection filed with the said Election
Officer, if any. The applicant shall have the right to file his counter-affidavit by registered mail, clearly
stating therein facts and defenses sworn before any officer in the host country authorized to
administer oaths.

6.4. The application shall be approved or disapproved based on the merits of the objection, counter-
affidavit and documents submitted by the party objecting and those of the applicant.

6.5 A Certificate of Registration as an overseas absentee voter shall be issued by the Commission to
all applicants whose applications have been approved, including those certified as registered voters.
The Commission shall include the approved applications in the National Registry of Absentee Voters.

6.6. If the application has been approved, any interested party may file a petition for exclusion not
later than two hundred ten (210) days before the day of elections with the proper municipal or
metropolitan trial court. The petition shall be decided within fifteen (15) days after its filing on the
basis of the documents submitted in connection therewith. Should the court fail to render a decision
within the prescribed period, the ruling of the Election Registration Board shall be considered
affirmed.

6.7. If the application has been disapproved, the applicant or his authorized representative shall,
within a period of five (5) days from receipt of the notice of disapproval, have the right to file a
petition for inclusion with the proper municipal or metropolitan trial court. The petition shall be
decided within five (5) days after its filing on the basis of documents submitted in connection
therewith.

Qualified citizens of the Philippines abroad, who have previously registered as voters pursuant to Republic
Act No. 8189 shall apply for certification as absentee voters and for inclusion in the National Registry of
Overseas Absentee Voters, with a corresponding annotation in the Certified Voters’ List.

Sec. 7. System of Continuing Registration. – The Commission shall ensure that the benefits of the system of
continuing registration are extended to qualified overseas absentee voters. Towards this end, the
Commission shall optimize the use of existing facilities, personnel and mechanisms of the various
government agencies for purposes of data gathering, data validation, information dissemination and
facilitation of the registration process.

Pre-departure programs, services and mechanisms offered and administered by the Department of Foreign
Affairs, Department of Labor and Employment, Philippine Overseas Employment Administration, Overseas
Workers’ Welfare Administration, Commission on Filipinos Overseas and other appropriate agencies of the
government shall be utilized for purposes of supporting the overseas absentee registration and voting
processes, subject to limitations imposed by law.

Sec. 8. Requirements for Registration. – Every Filipino registrant shall be required to furnish the following
documents:

a. A valid Philippine passport. In the absence of a valid passport, a certification of the Department of
Foreign Affairs that it has reviewed the appropriate documents submitted by the applicant and
found them sufficient to warrant the issuance of a passport, or that the applicant is a holder of a
valid passport but is unable to produce the same for a valid reason;
 b. Accomplished registration form prescribed by the Commission containing the following mandatory
information:

i. Last known residence of the applicant in the Philippines before leaving for abroad;

ii. Address of applicant abroad, or forwarding address in the case of seafarers;

iii. Where voting by mail is allowed, the applicant’s mailing address outside the Philippines
where the ballot for absentee voters will be sent, in proper cases; and;

iv. Name and address of applicant’s authorized representative in the Philippines for
purposes of Section 6.7 and Section 12 hereof.

c. In the case of immigrants and permanent residents not otherwise disqualified to vote under this
Act, an affidavit declaring the intention to resume actual physical permanent residence in the
Philippines not later than three (3) years after approval of his/her registration as an overseas
absentee voter under this Act. Such affidavit shall also state that he/she has not applied for
citizenship in another country.

The Commission may also require additional data to facilitate registration and recording. No information
other than those necessary to establish the identity and qualification of the applicant shall be required.

Sec. 9. National Registry of Overseas Absentee Voters. – The Commission shall maintain a National Registry of
Overseas Absentee Voters. Approved applications of overseas absentee registrants shall also be included in
the permanent list of voters of the city or municipality where the registrant is domiciled, with the
corresponding annotation that such person has been registered or will be voting as an overseas absentee
voter. The registry shall also include those registered under Republic Act No. 8189 and who have been issued
certifications as overseas absentee voters. The entries in the National Registry of Overseas Absentee Voters
and the annotations as overseas absentee voters in the Certified Voters’ List shall be permanent, and cannot
be cancelled or amended except in any of the following cases:

9.1. When the overseas absentee voter files a letter under oath addressed to the Commission that
he/she wishes to be removed from the Registry of Overseas Absentee Voters, or that his/her name
be transferred to the regular registry of voters; or,

9.2. When an overseas absentee voter’s name was ordered removed by the Commission from the
Registry of Overseas Absentee Voters for his/her failure to exercise his/her right to vote under this
Act for two (2) consecutive national elections.

Sec. 10. Notice of Registration and Election. – The Commission shall, through the embassies, consulates and
other foreign service establishments, cause the publication in a newspaper of general circulation of the place,
date and time of the holding of a regular or special national election and the requirements for the
participation of qualified citizens of the Philippines abroad, at least six (6) months before the date set for the
filing of applications for registration.

The Commission shall determine the countries where publication shall be made, and the frequency thereof,
taking into consideration the number of overseas Filipinos present in such countries. Likewise, the
Commission and the Department of Foreign Affairs shall post the same in their respective websites.

Sec. 11. Procedure for Application to Vote in Absentia. –

 11.1. Every qualified citizen of the Philippines abroad whose application for registration has been
approved, including those previously registered under Republic Act No. 8189, shall, in every national
election, file with the officer of the embassy, consulate or other foreign service establishment
authorized by the Commission, a sworn written application to vote in a form prescribed by the
Commission. The authorized officer of such embassy, consulate or other foreign service
establishment shall transmit to the Commission the said application to vote within five (5) days from
receipt thereof. The application form shall be accomplished in triplicate and submitted together with
the photocopy of his/her overseas absentee voter certificate of registration.

11.2. Every application to vote in absentia may be done personally at, or by mail to, the embassy,
consulate or foreign service establishment, which has jurisdiction over the country where he/she has
indicated his/her address for purposes of the elections.

11.3. Consular and diplomatic services rendered in connection with the overseas absentee voting
processes shall be made available at no cost to the overseas absentee voter.

Sec. 12. Verification and Approval of Application to Vote. – All applications shall be acted upon by the
Commission upon receipt thereof, but in no case later than one hundred fifty (150) days before the day of
elections. In the event of disapproval of the application, the voter or his authorized representative may file a
Motion for Reconsideration with the Commission personally, or by registered mail, within ten (10) days from
receipt of the notice of disapproval. The Commission shall act within five (5) days from receipt of such Motion
for Reconsideration and shall immediately notify the voter of its decision. The decision of the Commission
shall be final and executory.

The Commission shall issue an overseas absentee voter identification card to those whose applications to
vote have been approved.

Sec. 13. Preparation and Posting of Certified List of Overseas Absentee Voters. – The Commission shall
prepare the Certified List of Overseas Absentee Voters within one hundred twenty (120) days before every
election, and furnish within the same period copies thereof to the appropriate embassies, consulates and
other foreign service establishments, which shall post the same in their bulletin boards within ten (10) days
from receipt thereof.

Subject to reasonable regulation and the payment of fees in such amounts as may be fixed by the
Commission, the candidates, political parties, accredited citizens’ arms, interested persons and all embassies,
consulates and other foreign service establishments shall be furnished copies thereof.

Sec. 14. Printing and Transmittal of Ballots, Voting Instructions, Election Forms and Paraphernalia. –

14.1. The Commission shall cause the printing of ballots for overseas absentee voters, voting
instructions, and election forms in such number as may be necessary, but in no case shall it exceed
the total number of approved applications. Security markings shall be used in the printing of ballots
for overseas absentee voters.

14.2. The Commission shall present to the authorized representatives of the Department of Foreign
Affairs and the accredited major political parties the ballots for overseas absentee voters, voting
instructions, election forms and other election paraphernalia for scrutiny and inspection prior to
their transmittal to the embassies, consulates and other foreign service establishments concerned.

14.3. The Commission shall, not later than seventy-five (75) days before the day of elections,
transmit by special pouch to the embassies, consulates and other foreign service establishments, the
 exact number of ballots for overseas absentee voters corresponding to the number of approved
applications, along with such materials and election paraphernalia necessary to ensure the secrecy
and integrity of the election.

14.4. The authorized representatives of accredited major political parties shall have the right to be
present in all phases of printing, transmittal, and casting of ballots abroad. Unclaimed ballots
properly marked as such, shall be cancelled and shipped to the Commission by the least costly
method.

Sec. 15. Regulation on Campaigning Abroad. – The use of campaign materials, as well as the limits on
campaign spending shall be governed by the laws and regulations applicable in the Philippines.

Sec. 16. Casting and Submission of Ballots. –

16.1. Upon receipt by the designated officer of the embassy, consulate and other foreign service
establishments of the ballots for overseas absentee voters, voting instructions, election forms and
other paraphernalia, he/she shall make them available on the premises to the qualified overseas
absentee voters in their respective jurisdictions during the thirty (30) days before the day of
elections when overseas absentee voters may cast their vote. Immediately upon receiving it, the
overseas absentee voter must fill-out his/her ballot personally, in secret, without leaving the
premises of the embassies, consulates and other foreign service establishments concerned.

16.2. The overseas absentee voter shall personally accomplish his/her ballot at the embassy,
consulate or other foreign service establishment that has jurisdiction over the country where he/she
temporarily resides or at any polling place designated and accredited by the Commission.

16.3. The overseas absentee voter shall cast his ballot, upon presentation of the absentee voter
identification card issued by the Commission, within thirty (30) days before the day of elections. In
the case of seafarers, they shall cast their ballots anytime within sixty (60) days before the day of
elections as prescribed in the Implementing Rules and Guidelines.

16.4. All accomplished ballots received shall be placed unopened inside sealed containers and kept in
a secure place designated by the Commission.

16.5. The embassies, consulates and other foreign service establishments concerned shall keep a
complete record of the ballots for overseas absentee voters, specifically indicating the number of
ballots they actually received, and in cases where voting by mail is allowed under Section 17 hereof,
the names and addresses of the voters to whom these ballots were sent, including proof of receipt
thereof. In addition, the embassies, consulates and other foreign service establishments shall submit
a formal report to the Commission and the Joint Congressional Oversight Committee created under
this Act within thirty (30) days from the day of elections. Such report shall contain data on the
number of ballots cast and received by the offices, the number of invalid and unclaimed ballots and
other pertinent data.

16.6. The overseas absentee voter shall be instructed that his/her ballot shall not be counted if it is
not inside the special envelope furnished him/her when it is cast.

16.7. Ballots not claimed by the overseas absentee voters at the embassies, consulates and other
foreign service establishments, in case of personal voting, and ballots returned to the embassies,
consulates and other foreign service establishments concerned, in the case of voting by mail, shall be
 cancelled and shipped to the Commission by the least costly method within six (6) months from the
day of elections.

16.8. Only ballots cast, and mailed ballots received by the Philippine embassies, consulates and other
foreign service establishments concerned in accordance with Section 17 hereof before the close of
voting on the day of elections shall be counted in accordance with Section 18 hereof. All envelopes
containing the ballots received by the embassies, consulates and other foreign service
establishments after the prescribed period shall not be opened, and shall be cancelled and shipped
to the Commission by the least costly method within six (6) months from the day of elections.

16.9. A Special Ballot Reception and Custody Group composed of three (3) members shall be
constituted by the Commission from among the staff of the embassies, consulates and other foreign
service establishments concerned, including their attached agencies, and citizens of the Philippines
abroad, who will be deputized to receive ballots and take custody of the same preparatory to their
transmittal to the Special Boards of Election Inspectors.

16.10. During this phase of the election process, the authorized representatives of the political
parties, candidates, and accredited citizens’ arms of the Commission shall be notified in writing
thereof and shall have the right to witness the proceedings.

16.11. The Commission shall study the use of electronic mail, Internet, or other secured networks in
the casting of votes, and submit a report thereon to the Joint Congressional Oversight Committee.

Sec. 17. Voting by Mail. –

17.1. For the May, 2004 elections, the Commission shall authorize voting by mail in not more than
three (3) countries, subject to the approval of the Congressional Oversight Committee. Voting by
mail may be allowed in countries that satisfy the following conditions:

a. Where the mailing system is fairly well-developed and secure to prevent the occasion of
fraud;

b. Where there exists a technically established identification system that would preclude
multiple or proxy voting; and,

c. Where the system of reception and custody of mailed ballots in the embassies, consulates
and other foreign service establishments concerned are adequate and well-secured.

Thereafter, voting by mail in any country shall be allowed only upon review and approval of the Joint
Congressional Oversight Committee.

17.2. The overseas absentee voters shall send his/her accomplished ballot to the corresponding
embassy, consular or other foreign service establishment that has jurisdiction over the country
where he/she temporarily resides. He/She shall be entitled to cast his/her ballot at any time upon
his/her receipt thereof, provided that the same Is received before the close of voting on the day of
elections. The overseas absentee voter shall be instructed that his/her ballot shall not be counted if
not transmitted in the special envelope furnished him/her.

17.3. Only mailed ballots received by the Philippine embassy, consulate and other foreign service
establishments before the close of voting on the day of elections shall be counted in accordance with
Section 18 hereof. All envelopes containing the ballots received by the embassies, consulates and
 other foreign service establishments after the prescribed period shall not be opened, and shall be
cancelled and disposed of appropriately, with a corresponding report thereon submitted to the
Commission not later than thirty (30) days from the day of elections.

Sec. 18. On-Site Counting and Canvassing. –

18.1. The counting and canvassing of votes shall be conducted on site in the country where the votes
were actually cast. The opening of the specially-marked envelopes containing the ballots and the
counting and canvassing of votes shall be conducted within the premises of the embassies,
consulates and other foreign service establishments or in such other places as may be designated by
the Commission pursuant to the Implementing Rules and Regulations. The Commission shall ensure
that the start of counting in all polling places abroad shall be synchronized with the start of counting
in the Philippines.

18.2. For these purposes, the Commission shall constitute as many Special Boards of Election
Inspectors as may be necessary to conduct and supervise the counting of votes as provided in
Section 18.2 hereof. The Special Boards of Election Inspectors to be constituted herein shall be
composed of a Chairman and two (2) members, one (1) of whom shall be designated as poll clerk.
The ambassador or consul-general, or any career public officer posted abroad designated by the
Commission, as the case may be, shall act as the chairman; in the absence of other government
officers, the two (2) other members shall be citizens of the Philippines who are qualified to vote
under this act and deputized by the Commission not later than sixty (60) days before the day of
elections. All resolutions of the Special Board of Election Inspectors on issues brought before it
during the conduct of its proceedings shall be valid only when they carry the approval of the
chairman.

Immediately upon the completion of the counting, the Special Boards of Election Inspectors shall
transmit via facsimile and/or electronic mail the results to the Commission in Manila and the
accredited major political parties.

18.3. Only ballots cast on, or received by the embassies, consulates and other foreign service
establishments before the close of voting on the day of elections shall be included in the counting of
votes. Those received afterwards shall not be counted.

18.4. A Special Board of Canvassers composed of a lawyer preferably of the Commission as chairman,
a senior career officer from any of the government agencies maintaining a post abroad and, in the
absence of another government officer, a citizen of the Philippines qualified to vote under this Act
deputized by the Commission, as vice-chairman and member-secretary, respectively, shall be
constituted to canvass the election returns submitted to it by the Special Boards of Election
Inspectors. Immediately upon the completion of the canvass, the chairman of the Special Board of
Canvassers shall transmit via facsimile, electronic mail, or any other means of transmission equally
safe and reliable the Certificates of Canvass and the Statements of Votes to the Commission, and
shall cause to preserve the same immediately after the conclusion of the canvass, and make it
available upon instructions of the Commission. The Special Board of Canvassers shall also furnish the
accredited major political parties and accredited citizens’ arms with copies thereof via facsimile,
electronic mail and any other means of transmission equally safe, secure and reliable.
 The Certificates of Canvass and the accompanying Statements of Votes as transmitted via facsimile,
electronic mail and any other means of transmission equally safe, secure and reliable shall be the
primary basis for the national canvass.

18.5. The canvass of votes shall not cause the delay of the proclamation of a winning candidate if the
outcome of the election will not be affected by the results thereof. Notwithstanding the foregoing,
the Commission is empowered to order the proclamation of winning candidates despite the fact that
the scheduled election has not taken place in a particular country or countries, if the holding of
elections therein has been rendered impossible by events, factors and circumstances peculiar to
such country or countries, and which events, factors and circumstances are beyond the control or
influence of the Commission.

18.6. In the preparation of the final tally of votes on the results of the national elections, the
Commission shall ensure that the votes canvassed by each and every country shall be reflected as a
separate item from the tally of national votes. For purposes of this Act, the returns of every election
for president and vice-president prepared by the Special Board of Canvassers shall be deemed a
certificate of canvass of a city or province.

18.7. Where feasible, the counting and canvassing of votes shall be automated. Towards this end,
the Commission is hereby authorized to borrow, rent, lease or acquire automated voting machines
for purposes of canvassing and counting of votes pursuant to the provisions of this Act, and in
accordance with the Implementing Rules and Regulations promulgated by the Commission.

Sec. 19. Authority of the Commission to Promulgate Rules. – The Commission shall issue the necessary rules
and regulations to effectively implement the provisions of this Act within sixty (60) days from the effectivity
of this Act. The Implementing Rules and Regulations shall be submitted to the Joint Congressional Oversight
Committee created by virtue of this Act for prior approval.

In the formulation of the rules and regulations, the Commission shall coordinate with the Department of
Foreign Affairs, Department of Labor and Employment, Philippine Overseas and Employment Administration,
Overseas Workers’ Welfare Administration and the Commission on Filipinos Overseas. Non-government
organizations and accredited Filipino organizations or associations abroad shall be consulted.

Sec. 20. Information Campaign. – The Commission, in coordination with agencies concerned, shall undertake
an information campaign to educate the public on the manner of absentee voting for qualified overseas
absentee voters. It may require the support and assistance of the Department of Foreign Affairs, through the
embassies, consulates and other foreign service establishments, Department of Labor and employment,
Department of Transportation and Communications, Philippine Postal Corporation, Philippine Overseas
Employment Administration, Overseas Workers’ Welfare Administration and the Commission on Filipinos
Overseas. The Commission may deputize Filipino organizations/associations overseas for the same purpose:
Provided, That any such deputized organization/association shall be prohibited from participating in the
elections by campaigning for or fielding candidates; Provided, further, That if any such deputized
organization/association is discovered to have a member who is not a qualified overseas absentee voter as
herein defined, such deputized organization/association shall be banned from participating in any manner,
and at any stage, in the Philippine political process abroad.

Such information campaign shall educate the Filipino public, within and outside the Philippines, on the rights
of overseas absentee voters, absentee voting processes and other related concerns. Information materials
shall be developed by the Commission for distribution, through the said government agencies and private
organizations. No government agency or accredited private organizations shall prepare, print, distribute or
post in websites any information material without the prior approval of the Commission.

Sec. 21. Access to Official Records and Documents. – Subject to the pertinent provisions of this Act, any
person shall have the right to access and/or copy at his expense all registration records, voters lists and other
official records and documents, subject to reasonable regulations as may be imposed by the Commission.

Sec. 22. Assistance from Government Agencies. – All government officers, particularly from the Department
of Foreign Affairs, Department of Labor and Employment, Department of Transportation and
Communications, Philippine Postal Corporation, Philippine Overseas Employment Administration, Overseas
Workers’ Welfare Administration, Commission on Filipinos Overseas and other government offices concerned
with the welfare of the Filipinos overseas shall, to the extent compatible with their primary responsibilities,
assist the Commission in carrying out the provisions of this Act. All such agencies or officers thereof shall take
reasonable measures to expedite all election activities, which the Commission shall require of them. When
necessary, the Commission may send supervisory teams headed by career officers to assist the embassies,
consulates and other foreign service establishment concerned.

Sec. 23. Security Measures to Safeguard the Secrecy and Sanctity of Ballots. – At all stages of the electoral
process, the Commission shall ensure that the secrecy and integrity of the ballots are preserved. The
Committee on Absentee Voting of the Commission shall be responsible for ensuring the secrecy and sanctity
of the absentee voting process. In the interest of transparency, all necessary and practicable measures shall
be adopted to allow representation of the candidates, accredited major political parties, accredited citizens’
arms and non-government organizations to assist, and intervene in appropriate cases, in all stages of the
electoral exercise and to prevent any and all forms of fraud and coercion.

No officer or member of the foreign service corps, including those belonging to attached agencies shall be
transferred, promoted, extended, recalled or otherwise moved from his current post or position one (1) year
before and three (3) months after the day of elections, except upon the approval of the Commission.

Sec. 24. Prohibited Acts. – In addition to the prohibited acts provided by law, it shall be unlawful:

24.1. For any officer or employee of the Philippine government to influence or attempt to influence
any person covered by this Act to vote, or not to vote, for a particular candidate. Nothing in this Act
shall be deemed to prohibit free discussion regarding politics or candidates for public office.

24.2. For any person to deprive any person of any right secured in this Act, or to give false
information as to his/her name, address, or period of residence for the purposes of establishing
his/her eligibility or ineligibility to register or vote under this Act; or to conspire with another person
for the purpose of encouraging the giving of false information in order to establish the eligibility or
ineligibility of any individual to register or vote under this Act; or, to pay, or offer to pay, or to accept
payment either for application to vote in absentia or for voting;

24.3. For any person to tamper with the ballot, the mail containing the ballots for overseas absentee
voters, the election returns, including the destruction, mutilation and manipulation thereof;

24.4. For any person to steal, destroy, conceal, mutilate or alter any record, document or paper as
required for purposes of this Act;

24.5. For any deputized agent to refuse without justifiable ground, to serve or continue serving, or to
comply with his/her sworn duties after acceptance of his/her appointment;
 24.6. For any public officer or employee who shall cause the preparation, printing, distribution of
information material, or post the same in websites without the prior approval of the Commission;

24.7. For any public officer or employee to cause the transfer, promotion, extension, recall of any
member of the foreign service corps, including members of the attached agencies, or otherwise
cause the movement of any such member from his current post or position one (1) year before and
three (3) months after the day of elections, without securing the prior approval of the Commission;

24.8. For any person who, after being deputized by the Commission to undertake activities in
connection with the implementation of this Act, shall campaign for or assist, in whatever manner,
candidates in the elections;

24.9. For any person who is not a citizen of the Philippines to participate, by word or deed, directly or
indirectly through qualified organizations/associations, in any manner and at any stage of the
Philippine political process abroad, including participation in the campaign and elections.

The provision of existing laws to the contrary notwithstanding, and with due regard to the Principle of Double
Criminality, the prohibited acts described in this section are electoral offenses and punishable in the
Philippines.

The penalties imposed under Section 264 of the Omnibus Election Code, as amended, shall be imposed on
any person found guilty of committing any of the prohibited acts as defined in this section: Provided, That the
penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period shall be imposed upon any person found guilty of Section
24.3 hereof without the benefit of the operation of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. If the offender is a
public officer or a candidate, the penalty shall be prision mayor in its maximum period. In addition, the
offender shall be sentenced to suffer perpetual disqualification to hold public office and deprivation of the
right to vote.

Immigrants and permanent residents who do not resume residence in the Philippines as stipulated in their
affidavit under Section 5(d) within three (3) years after approval of his/her registration under this Act and yet
vote in the next elections contrary to the said section, shall be penalized by imprisonment of not less than
one (1) year, and shall be deemed disqualified as provided in Section 5(c) of this Act. His/her passport shall be
stamped "not allowed to vote".

Sec. 25. Joint Congressional Oversight Committee. – A Joint Congressional Oversight Committee is hereby
created, composed of the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Constitutional Amendments, Revision of
Codes and Laws, and seven (7) other Senators designated by the Senate President, and the Chairman of the
House Committee on Suffrage and Electoral Reforms, and seven (7) other Members of the House of
Representatives designated by the Speaker of the House of Representatives: Provided, That, of the seven (7)
members to be designated by each House of Congress, four (4) should come from the majority and the
remaining three (3) from the minority.

The Joint Congressional Oversight Committee shall have the power to monitor and evaluate the
implementation of this Act. It shall review, revise, amend and approve the Implementing Rules and
Regulations promulgated by the Commission.

Sec. 26. Applicability of Other Election Laws. – The pertinent provisions of the Omnibus Election Code, as
amended, and other election laws, which are not in conflict with the provisions of this Act shall remain in full
force and shall have suppletory application to this Act.
Sec. 27. Enforcement and Administration by the Commission. – The Commission shall, for the purpose of
ensuring honest, orderly, peaceful and free elections abroad, have exclusive charge of the enforcement,
administration and implementation of this Act.

Sec. 28. Mandatory Review. – Congress shall complete a mandatory review of this Act within two (2) years
following the May, 2004 elections for the purpose of amending it to expand or restrict its coverage, scope
and application, as well as improve its procedures and institute measures and safeguards, taking into account
the experience of the previous election, technological advances and structural political changes.

Sec. 29. Appropriations. – The amount necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act shall be provided in a
supplemental budget or included in the General Appropriations Act of the year of its enactment into law.
Thereafter, the expenses for its continued implementation shall be included in the subsequent General
Appropriations Act.

Sec. 30. Separability Clause. – If any part or provision of this Act shall be declared unconstitutional or invalid,
other provisions hereof which are not affected thereby shall continue to be in full force and effect.

Sec. 31. Repealing Clause. – All laws, presidential decrees, executive orders, rules and regulations, other
issuances, and parts thereof, which are inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, are hereby repealed or
modified accordingly.

Sec. 32. Effectivity. – This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days following its publication in three (3)
newspapers of general circulation.
 The Philippine Government
The Philippines is a republic with a presidential form of government wherein power is equally divided
among its three branches: executive, legislative, and judicial.

One basic corollary in a presidential system of government is the principle of separation of powers
wherein legislation belongs to Congress, execution to the Executive, and settlement of legal
controversies to the Judiciary.

US v. Dorr 2 Phil 332, at 339 (1903)

Facts:
Fred L. Dorr and a number of other persons (Dorr, et al.) were convicted of violating Section 8 of Act No.
292 which punishes the utterance of "seditious words or speeches" and the writing, publication, or
circulation of "scurrilous libels against the Government of the United States or the Insular Government
of the Philippine Islands" or other libels against the same entities which (1) "tend to disturb or obstruct
any lawful officer in executing his office", (2) "tend to instigate others to cabal or meet together for
unlawful purposes", (3) "suggest or incite rebellious conspiracies or riots", or (4) "tend to stir up the
people against the lawful authorities or to disturb the peace of the community, the safety, and order of
the Government". The same provision also punishes the deliberate concealment of the aforementioned
acts.
The charge against Dorr et al. stemmed from an article published in the newspaper Manila
Freedom criticizing the appointment by the Civil Commission of certain persons— including Trinidad H.
Pardo de Tavera— to key government positions. The said article referred to the aforementioned
appointees as "rascals" and "corrupt" and called certain government offices organized by the Civil
Commission as "rotten" and "corrupt".

Issue:
Whether or not the publication of the subject article falls within the purview of Section 8 of Act No. 292.

Held:
No. The article in question produces none of the effects enumerated in Section 8 of Act No. 292. In
addition, the same provision refers to libel of the government in general, and not of specific individuals.

Ratio Decidendi
N.B.: The Court did not provide any basis for finding that the subject article did not have the tendency to
produce the effects enumerated under Section 8 of Act No. 292, other than all the justices agreed on the
same conclusion.

As used in Act No. 292, the term "government" is used in the abstract sense of the existing political
system, as distinguished from the concrete organisms of the Government, such as the Houses of
Congress and the Executive, which are also specially mentioned. Had the framers of the said law
intended to mean specific government personnel, they would have expressly stated so.

In this case, the article in question, attacked the Civil Commission and some of its individual members,
not the governmental system. Hence, it falls outside the purview of Act No. 292.
de jure government is the legal, legitimate government of a state and is so recognized by other
states. In contrast,

de facto government is a government wherein all the attributes of sovereignty have, by usurpation,
been transferred from those who had been legally invested with them to others, who, sustained by a
power above the forms of law, claim to act and do really act in their stead.

Co Kim Cham vs. Valdez Tan Keh and Dizon

75 Phil 113

Facts:
The respondent judge of the lower court refused to take cognizance of and continue the proceeding of
civil case No. 3012 of said court which was initiated under the regime of the so-called Republic of the
Philippines established during the Japanese military occupation of thePhilippines. He argued that the
proclamation issued by Gen. Douglas MacArthur had the effectof invalidating and nullifying all judicial
proceedings and judgements of the courts of the saidgovernments. He also argued that the said
governments during the Japanese occupation were notde facto governments.

Issue:
Whether or not the governments established in the Philippines under the names of Philippines
Executive Commission and Republic of the Philippines during the Japanese military occupationor regime
were de facto governments.

Held:
The Supreme Court held that the Philippine Executive Commission which was organized byOrder No. 1
by the Commander of the Japanese forces, was a civil government established by themilitary forces of
occupation and therefore a de facto government of the second kind. The sourceof its authority comes
from the Japanese military, it is a government imposed by the laws of war.The same is true with the
Republic of the Philippines. Apparently established and organized as asovereign state independent from
any other government by the Filipino people, was, in truth andreality, a government established by the
Japanese forces of occupation
Revolutionary government
If a government is overthrown by force, the new ruling group is sometimes called a revolutionary
government.

Republic vs. Sandiganbayan (Case Digest)

Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, GR No. 152154, July 15, 2003

FACTS:
One of the foremost concerns of the Aquino Government in February 1986 was the recovery of the
unexplained or ill-gotten wealth reputedly amassed by former President and Mrs. Ferdinand E. Marcos, their
relatives, friends and business associates. Thus, the very first Executive Order (EO) issued by then President
Corazon Aquino upon her assumption to office after the ouster of the Marcoses was EO No. 1, issued on
February 28, 1986. It created the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) and charged it with
the task of assisting the President in the "recovery of all ill-gotten wealth accumulated by former President
Ferdinand E. Marcos, his immediate family, relatives, subordinates and close associates, whether located in
the Philippines or abroad, including the takeover or sequestration of all business enterprises and entities
owned or controlled by them during his administration, directly or through nominees, by taking undue
advantage of their public office and/or using their powers, authority, influence, connections or relationship."

In all the alleged ill-gotten wealth cases filed by the PCGG, this Court has seen fit to set aside technicalities
and formalities that merely serve to delay or impede judicious resolution. This Court prefers to have such
cases resolved on the merits at the Sandiganbayan. But substantial justice to the Filipino people and to all
parties concerned, not mere legalisms or perfection of form, should now be relentlessly and firmly pursued.
Almost two decades have passed since the government initiated its search for and reversion of such ill-gotten
wealth. The definitive resolution of such cases on the merits is thus long overdue. If there is proof of illegal
acquisition, accumulation, misappropriation, fraud or illicit conduct, let it be brought out now. Let the
ownership of these funds and other assets be finally determined and resolved with dispatch, free from all the
delaying technicalities and annoying procedural sidetracks.

Issue:
Whether or not President Marcos committed prohibited and inhibited acts as a president during his term of
office

Held:
Yes

Ratio:
It is settled that judicial admissions may be made: (a) in the pleadings filed by the parties; (b) in the course of
the trial either by verbal or written manifestations or stipulations; or (c) in other stages of judicial
proceedings, as in the pre-trial of the case.[82] Thus, facts pleaded in the petition and answer, as in the case
at bar, are deemed admissions of petitioner and respondents, respectively, who are not permitted to
contradict them or subsequently take a position contrary to or inconsistent with such admissions.[83]

The sum of $304,372.43 should be held as the only known lawful income of respondents since they did not
file any Statement of Assets and Liabilities (SAL), as required by law, from which their net worth could be
determined. Besides, under the 1935 Constitution, Ferdinand E. Marcos as President could not receive any
other emolument from the Government or any of its subdivisions and instrumentalities.[84] Likewise, under
the 1973 Constitution, Ferdinand E. Marcos as President could not receive during his tenure any other
emolument from the Government or any other source.[85] In fact, his management of businesses, like the
administration of foundations to accumulate funds, was expressly prohibited under the 1973 Constitution:

Article VII, Sec. 4(2) The President and the Vice-President shall not, during their tenure, hold any other office
except when otherwise provided in this Constitution, nor may they practice any profession, participate
directly or indirectly in the management of any business, or be financially interested directly or indirectly in
any contract with, or in any franchise or special privilege granted by the Government or any other
subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including any government owned or controlled corporation.

Article VII, Sec. 11 No Member of the National Assembly shall appear as counsel before any court inferior to a
court with appellate jurisdiction, x xx. Neither shall he, directly or indirectly, be interested financially in any
contract with, or in any franchise or special privilege granted by the Government, or any subdivision, agency,
or instrumentality thereof including any government owned or controlled corporation during his term of
office. He shall not intervene in any matter before any office of the government for his pecuniary benefit.

Article IX, Sec. 7 The Prime Minister and Members of the Cabinet shall be subject to the provision of Section
11, Article VIII hereof and may not appear as counsel before any court or administrative body, or manage any
business, or practice any profession, and shall also be subject to such other disqualification as may be
provided by law.

Their only known lawful income of $304,372.43 can therefore legally and fairly serve as basis for determining
the existence of a prima facie case of forfeiture of the Swiss funds.

Respondents argue that petitioner was not able to establish a prima facie case for the forfeiture of the Swiss
funds since it failed to prove the essential elements under Section 3, paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) of RA
1379. As the Act is a penal statute, its provisions are mandatory and should thus be construed strictly against
the petitioner and liberally in favor of respondent Marcoses.

We hold that it was not for petitioner to establish the Marcoses other lawful income or income from
legitimately acquired property for the presumption to apply because, as between petitioner and
respondents, the latter were in a better position to know if there were such other sources of lawful
income. And if indeed there was such other lawful income, respondents should have specifically stated the
same in their answer. Insofar as petitioner Republic was concerned, it was enough to specify the known
lawful income of respondents.

Section 9 of the PCGG Rules and Regulations provides that, in determining prima facie evidence of ill-gotten
wealth, the value of the accumulated assets, properties and other material possessions of those covered by
Executive Order Nos. 1 and 2 must be out of proportion to the known lawful income of such persons. The
respondent Marcos couple did not file any Statement of Assets and Liabilities (SAL) from which their net
worth could be determined. Their failure to file their SAL was in itself a violation of law and to allow them to
successfully assail the Republic for not presenting their SAL would reward them for their violation of the law.
Parens patriae is Latin for 'parent of his or her country.' In the juvenile justice legal system,
Parens patriae is a doctrine that allows the state to step in and serve as a guardian for
children, the mentally ill, the incompetent, the elderly, or disabled persons who are unable
to care for themselves.

GP VS MONTE DE PIEDAD
G.R. No. L-9959 December 13, 1916
THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, represented by the Treasurer of the Philippine
Islands, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
EL MONTE DE PIEDAD Y CAJA DE AHORRAS DE MANILA, defendant-appellant.

Facts:
A devastating earthquake took place in the Philippines sometimes in 1863. Contributions amounting to
$400,000 were collected during the Spanish regime for the relief of the victims of an earthquake. Out of
the aid, $80,000.00 was left untouched. The Monte de Piedad, a charitable institution, in need for more
working capital, petitioned the Governor-General for the transfer of $80,000 as a loan.

In June 1893, the Department of Finance called upon the Monte de Piedad to return the $80,000. The
respondent bank declined to comply with this order upon the ground that only the Governor-General of
the Philippine Islands and not the Department of Finance had the right to order the reimbursement.

On account of various petitions of the persons, the Philippine Islands, through the Attorney-General,
bring suit against the Monte de Piedad for a recover of the $80,000, together with interest, for the
benefit of those persons or their heirs. After due trial, judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiff for
the sum of $80,000 gold or its equivalent in Philippine currency, together with legal interest from
February 28, 1912, and the costs of the cause.

The defendant appealed. One of the assignment of errors made by the defendant was to question the
competence of the plaintiff (government) to bring the action, contending that the suit could be
instituted only by the intended beneficiaries themselves or by their heirs.

Issues:
Whether or not the Philippine government is competent to file a complaint against the respondent bank
for the reimbursement of the money of the intended beneficiaries?

Discussions:
In accordance with the doctrine of Parens Patriae. The government being the protector of the rights of
the people has the inherent supreme power to enforce such laws that will promote the public interest.
No other party has been entrusted with such right hence as “parents” of the people the government has
the right to take back the money intended for the people.
Rulings:

Yes. The Supreme Court upheld the right of the Government to file the case as parens patriae in
representation of the legitimate claimants. The legislature or government of the State, as parens
patriae, has the right to enforce all charities of public nature, by virtue of its general superintending
authority over the public interests, where no other person is entrusted with it.

This prerogative of parens patriae is inherent in the supreme power of every State, whether that power
is lodged in a royal person or in the legislature. It is a most beneficient functions, and often necessary to
be exercised in the interest of humanity, and for the prevention of injury to those who cannot protect
themselves. The beneficiaries of charities, who are often in capable of vindicating their rights, and justly
look for protection to the sovereign authority, acting as parens patriae. They show that this beneficient
functions has not ceased to exist under the change of government from a monarchy to a republic; but
that it now resides in the legislative department, ready to be called into exercise whenever required for
the purposes of justice and right, and is a clearly capable of being exercised in cases of charities as in any
other cases whatever.
Sovereign immunity, or crown immunity, is a legal doctrine by which the sovereign or state cannot
commit a legal wrong and is immune from civil suitor criminal prosecution, strictly speaking in
modern texts in its own courts.

G.R. No. 70853 148 SCRA 424 March 12, 1987

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner-appellee,
PABLO FELICIANO and INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, respondents-appellants

Facts:
The appeal was filed by 86 settlers of Barrio of Salvacion, representing the Republic of the Philippines to
dismiss the complaint filed by Feliciano, on the ground that the Republic of the Philippines cannot be
sued without its consent.

Prior to this appeal, respondent Pablo Feliciano filed a complaint with the Court of First Instance against
the Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Land Authority, for the recovery of ownership and
possession of a parcel of land consisting of four lots. The trial court rendered a decision declaring Lot No.
1 to be the private property of Feliciano and the rest of the property, Lots 2, 3 and 4, reverted to the
public domain.

The trial court reopened the case due to the filing of a motion to intervene and to set aside the decision
of the trial court by 86 settlers, alleging that they had been in possession of the land for more than 20
years under claim of ownership. The trial court ordered the settlers to present their evidence but they
did not appear at the day of presentation of evidence. Feliciano, on the other hand, presented
additional evidence. Thereafter, the case was submitted for decision and the trial court ruled in favor of
Feliciano.

The settlers immediately filed a motion for reconsideration. The case was reopened to allow them to
present their evidence. But before this motion was acted upon, Feliciano filed a motion for execution
with the Appellate Court but it was denied.

The settlers filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the Republic of the Philippines cannot be sued
without its consent and hence the action cannot prosper. The motion was opposed by Feliciano.

Issue/s:
Whether or not the state can be sued for recovery and possession of a parcel of land.

Discussions:
A suit against the State, under settled jurisprudence is not permitted, except upon a showing that the
State has consented to be sued, either expressly or by implication through the use of statutory language
too plain to be misinterpreted. It may be invoked by the courts suasponte at any stage of the
proceedings.

Waiver of immunity, being a derogation of sovereignty, will not be inferred lightly. but must be
construed in strictissimi juris (of strictest right). Moreover, the Proclamation is not a legislative act. The
consent of the State to be sued must emanate from statutory authority. Waiver of State immunity can
only be made by an act of the legislative body.
Ruling/s:
No. The doctrine of non-suability of the State has proper application in this case. The plaintiff has
impleaded the Republic of the Philippines as defendant in an action for recovery of ownership and
possession of a parcel of land, bringing the State to court just like any private person who is claimed to
be usurping a piece of property. A suit for the recovery of property is not an action in rem, but an
action in personam. It is an action directed against a specific party or parties, and any judgment therein
binds only such party or parties. The complaint filed by plaintiff, the private respondent herein, is
directed against the Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Land Authority, a governmental
agency created by Republic Act No. 3844.

The complaint is clearly a suit against the State, which under settled jurisprudence is not permitted,
except upon a showing that the State has consented to be sued, either expressly or by implication
through the use of statutory language too plain to be misinterpreted. There is no such showing in the
instant case. Worse, the complaint itself fails to allege the existence of such consent.
G.R. No. L-11154 March 21, 1916
E. MERRITT, plaintiff-appellant,
vs.
GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, defendant-appellant.

FACTS:
Merrit was riding a motorcycle along Padre Faura Street when he was bumped by the ambulance of the
General Hospital. Merrit sustained severe injuries rendering him unable to return to work. The
legislature later enacted Act 2457 authorizing Merritt to file a suit against the Government in order to fix
the responsibility for the collision between his motorcycle and the ambulance of the General Hospital,
and to determine the amount of the damages, if any, to which he is entitled. After trial, the lower court
held that the collision was due to the negligence of the driver of the ambulance. It then determined the
amount of damages and ordered the government to pay the same.

ISSUES:
1. Did the Government, in enacting the Act 2457, simply waive its immunity from suit or did it also
concede its liability to the plaintiff?
2. Is the Government liable for the negligent act of the driver of the ambulance?

HELD:
1. By consenting to be sued a state simply waives its immunity from suit. It does not thereby
concede its liability to plaintiff, or create any cause of action in his favor, or extend its liability to
any cause not previously recognized. It merely gives a remedy to enforce a preexisting liability
and submits itself to the jurisdiction of the court, subject to its right to interpose any lawful
defense.
2. Under the Civil Code, the state is liable when it acts through a special agent, but not when the
damage should have been caused by the official to whom properly it pertained to do the act
performed. A special agent is one who receives a definite and fixed order or commission, foreign
to the exercise of the duties of his office if he is a special official. This concept does not apply to
any executive agent who is an employee of the acting administration and who on his own
responsibility performs the functions which are inherent in and naturally pertain to his office
and which are regulated by law and the regulations. The driver of the ambulance of the General
Hospital was not a special agent; thus the Government is not liable.ands, G.R. No. L-11154,
March 21 1916, 34 Phil. 311)

NOTE:
■ The State is responsible in like manner when it acts through a special agent; but not when the damage
has been caused by the official to whom the task done properly pertains. (Art. 2180 par. 6, Civil Code)
■ The state is not responsible for the damages suffered by private individuals in consequence of acts
performed by its employees in the discharge of the functions pertaining to their office, because neither
fault nor even negligence can be presumed on the part of the state in the organization of branches of
public service and in the appointment of its agents. (Merritt vs. Government of the Philippine Islands)
■ The State is not liable for the torts committed by its officers or agents whom it employs, except when
expressly made so by legislative enactment. The government does not undertake to guarantee to any
person the fidelity of the officers or agents whom it employs since that would involve it in all its
operations in endless embarrassments, difficulties and losses, which would be subversive of the public
interest. (Merritt vs. Government of the Philippine Islands)
Philippine Agila Satellite and De Guzman v. Trinidad-Lichauco, G.R. No. 142362, 03 May2006

FACTS:
Petitioners are Philippine Agila Satellite Inc. (PASI) and its President and Chief Executive Officer Michael
De Guzman. PASI was established by a consortium of private telecommunications carriers which in 1994
had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the DOTC, through its then Secretary
Jesus Garcia, concerning the planned launch of a Philippine-owned satellite into outer space. Under the
MOU, the launch of the satellite was to be an endeavor of the private sector, and the satellite itself to
be owned by the Filipino-owned consortium (subsequently organized as PASI). Petitioners filed an action
against the new DOTC Secretary Lichauco for allegedly having awarded the orbital slot to an unknown
awardee.

The first cause of action, for injunction, sought to establish that the award of orbital slot 153º East
Longitude should be enjoined since the DOTC had previously assigned the same orbital slot to PASI. The
second cause of action, for declaration of nullity of award, averred that the award to the unknown
bidder is null and void, as it was rendered by Lichauco beyond her authority.

ISSUE:
Would the doctrine of non-suability of the State find application in this case?

HELD:
NO.
The Court rules that the defense of state immunity from suit do not apply since said causes of action
cannot be properly considered as suits against the State in constitutional contemplation. These causes
of action do not seek to impose a charge or financial liability against the State, but merely the
nullification of state action. The prayers attached to these two causes of action are for the revocation of
the Notice of Bid and the nullification of the purported award, nothing more. Had it been so that
petitioner additionally sought damages in relation to said causes of action, the suit would have been
considered as one against the State. Had the petitioner impleaded the DOTC itself, an unincorporated
government agency, and not Lichauco herself, the suit would have been considered as one against the
State. But neither circumstance obtains in this case.
Money Claims

ANGEL MINISTERIO and ASUNCIONSADAYA vs.

THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CEBU
40 SCRA 464

FACTS:
Petitioners sought the payment of just compensation for a registered lot alleging that in 1927 the
National Government through its authorized representatives took physical and material possession of it
and used it for the widening of a national road, without paying just compensation and without any
agreement, either written or verbal. There was an allegation of repeated demands for the payment of
its price or return of its possession, but defendants Public Highway Commissioner and the Auditor
General refused to restore its possession.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the defendants are immune from suit.

HOLDING:
NO. Where the judgment in such a case would result not only in the recovery of possession of the
property in favor of said citizen but also in a charge against or financial liability to the Government, then
the suit should be regarded as one against the government itself, and, consequently, it cannot prosper
or be validly entertained by the court except with the consent of said Government. In as much as the
State authorizes only legal acts by its officers, unauthorized acts of government officials or officers are
not acts of the State, and an action against the officials or officers by one whose rights have been
invaded or violated by such acts, for the protection of his rights, is not a suit against the State within the
rule of immunity of the State from suit.

NOTE: When the government takes any property for public use, which is condition upon the payment of
just compensation, to be judicially ascertained, it makes manifest that it submits to the jurisdiction of a
court. The Court may proceed with the complaint and determine the compensation to which the
petitioner are entitle

(Ministeriovs.CFI, 40 SCRA 464)

Inherent Powers of the Government

Power of Eminent Domain - Eminent domain is the right or power of a sovereign state to appropriate
private property to particular uses to promote public welfare. It is an indispensable attribute of
sovereignty; a power grounded in the primary duty of government to serve the common need and
advance the general welfare.

Police Power – is the power of the government to regulate behaviors and enforce order within its
territory, often framed in terms of public welfare, security, health, and safety. The exercise of police
power can be in the form of making laws, compelling obedience to those laws through physical means
with the aim of removing liberty, legal sanctions, or other forms of coercion and inducements.

Power of Taxation – the power to impose and collect taxes and charges on individuals, goods, services,
and other to support the operation of the government.

Funds provided by taxation have been used by states and their functional equivalents throughout
history to carry out many functions. Some of these include expenditures on war, the enforcement of law
and public order, protection of property, economic infrastructure (roads, legal tender, enforcement of
contracts, etc.), public works, social engineering, and the operation of government itself. Governments
also use taxes to fund welfare and public services. These services can include education systems, health
care systems, pensions for the elderly, unemployment benefits, and public transportation. Energy, water
and waste management systems are also common public utilities.
Rubi vs Provincial Board of Mindoro
Constitutional Law : Article VI, Sec. 1(Legislative Power; Non-Delegation)
G.R. No. L-14078; March 7, 1919; 39 Phil 660

FACTS:
The case is an application for habeas corpus in favor of Rubi and other Manguianes of the Province of Mindoro. It
is alleged that the Maguianes are being illegally deprived of their liberty by the provincial officials of that province.
Rubi and his companions are said to be held on the reservation established at Tigbao, Mindoro, against their will,
and one Dabalos is said to be held under the custody of the provincial sheriff in the prison at Calapan for having
run away from the reservation.

The provincial governor of Mindoro and the provincial board thereof directed the Manguianes in question to take
up their habitation in Tigbao, a site on the shore of Lake Naujan, selected by the provincial governor and approved
by the provincial board. The action was taken in accordance with section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1917,
and was duly approved by the Secretary of the Interior as required by said action.

Section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1917 reads as follows:

SEC. 2145. Establishment of non-Christian upon sites selected by provincial governor. — With the prior approval of
the Department Head, the provincial governor of any province in which non-Christian inhabitants are found is
authorized, when such a course is deemed necessary in the interest of law and order, to direct such inhabitants to
take up their habitation on sites on unoccupied public lands to be selected by him an approved by the provincial
board.
Petitioners, however, challenge the validity of this section of the Administrative Code.

ISSUE:
Does section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1917 constitute an unlawful delegation of legislative power by the
Philippine Legislature to a provincial official and a department head, therefore making it unconstitutional?

HELD:
No. The Philippine Legislature has here conferred authority upon the Province of Mindoro, to be exercised by the
provincial governor and the provincial board.

In determining whether the delegation of legislative power is valid or not, the distinction is between the delegation
of power to make the law, which necessarily involves a discretion as to what it shall be, and conferring an authority
or discretion as to its execution, to be exercised under and in pursuance of the law. The first cannot be done; to
the later no valid objection can be made. Discretion may be committed by the Legislature to an executive
department or official. The Legislature may make decisions of executive departments of subordinate official
thereof, to whom it has committed the execution of certain acts, final on questions of fact. The growing tendency
in the decision is to give prominence to the "necessity" of the case.

In enacting the said provision of the Administrative Code, the Legislature merely conferred upon the provincial
governor, with the approval of the provincial board and the Department Head, discretionary authority as to the
execution of the law. This is necessary since the provincial governor and the provincial board, as the official
representatives of the province, are better qualified to judge “when such as course is deemed necessary in the
interest of law and order”. As officials charged with the administration of the province and the protection of its
inhabitants, they are better fitted to select sites which have the conditions most favorable for improving the
people who have the misfortune of being in a backward state.

Hence, Section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1917 is not an unlawful delegation of legislative power by the
Philippine Legislature to provincial official and a department head.
G.R. No. L-49112 February 2, 1979
LEOVILLO C. AGUSTIN, petitioner,
vs.
HON. ROMEO F. EDU, in his capacity as Land Transportation Commissioner; HON. JUAN PONCE
ENRILE, in his capacity as Minister of National Defense; HON. ALFREDO L. JUINIO, in his capacity
as Minister Of Public Works, Transportation and Communications; and HON: BALTAZAR AQUINO,
in his capacity as Minister of Public Highways, respondents.
88 SCRA 195

FACTS:
This was an original action in the Supreme Court for prohibition.Petitioner was an owner of a
volkswagen beetle car,model 13035 already properly equipped when it came out from the assembly
lines with blinking lights which could serve as an early warning device in case of the emergencies
mentioned in Letter of Instructions No 229, as amended, as well as the Implementing rules and
regulations in Administrative Order No 1 issued by Land transportation Commission.Respondent Land
Transportation commissioner Romeo Edu issued memorandum circular no 32 pursuant to Letter of
Instructions No.229,as amended. It required the use of early Warning Devices (EWD) on motor vehicles.
Petitioner alleged that the letter of instructions, as well as the implementing rules and regulations were
unlawful and unconstitutional.

ISSUE:
Whether the Letter of Instruction imposes valid measure of police power?

HELD:
YES, The court held that the letter of Instruction No.229,as amended as well as the implementing rules
and regulations were valid and constitutional as a valid measure of police power. The Vienna
Convention on Road signs and signals and the United Nations Organization was ratified by the Philippine
local legislation for the installation of road safety signs and devices.It cannot be disputed then that this
Declaration of Principle found in the Constitution possesses relevance,between the International law
and municipal law in applying the rule municipal law prevails.