State of Lawlessness is Not Martial Law

State of lawlessness is different from a martial law. This is my answer when someone at the firm asked me if the country will be placed under martial law after President Duterte declared a state of lawlessness in Davao that marred the country last September 2, 2016. The fear that the country will be placed under martial law is understandable considering the political history that left many Filipinos scarred until this time. In order to shed light into this issue, it is important to understand the difference between the two within the legal purview. A state of lawlessness pertains to the condition where there is no regard for the law or situations where there is unbridled conduct or behavior that equates to unruly condition or violence. Its implication is under the state of lawlessness the President may call more Armed Forces to provide more stringent security to places where there is lawlessness.

This power of the President emanates from the Constitutional provision embodied under Article VII, Section 18 where “The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion.” This, however, cannot be construed as equivalent to the declaration of a Martial Law. It is worth noting that only under the state of invasion and rebellion that the President of the Philippines may lawfully declare the country under Martial Law.

Under the state of lawlessness, the armed forces or the military will be allowed to exercise punitive action to prevent violence or acts of terrorism. This power of the President to declare a state of lawlessness is justified to reinforce the security of the country and to protect its citizens against lawlessness and violence. The military forces are still under the mandate to observe due process and uphold human rights along the process of executing their duties to protect the country.

In contrast, when the President declares a Martial Law when the public safety requires it, the armed forces or military will be authorized to make arrests without the need of court intervention. This is because the effect of Martial Law results in the suspension of the privilege of habeas corpus (note: it is merely suspended temporarily not exceeding sixty days, unless it is revoked or extended by the Congress voting jointly by a vote of at least the majority of its members).

The declaration of the Martial Law is without prejudice to the right of the citizens to seek redress from the Supreme Court to review the sufficiency of the factual basis of the Martial Law and the suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus. Moreover, the Constitution provides that the suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus will only be applied against persons charged with invasion or rebellion. The declaration of Martial Law will have the effect of calling the military to overtake civilian authority which is not the case in the declaration of a state of lawlessness in Davao City.

The mere effect of the declaration of a state of lawlessness is there will be more military and armed forces called upon to enforce the law, conduct check points and other security measures deemed necessary to ensure public safety. Civil rights will not be impaired and the security forces deployed will still be bound by the Constitutional provisions of due process and respect of human rights and will be still liable in case of any infractions of the law in the conduct of their duties. 

Primicias v Fugoso 80 PHIL 71 (1948)

Facts: An action was instituted by the petitioner for the refusal of the respondent to issue a permit to them to hold a public meeting in Plaza Miranda for redress of grievances to the government. The reason alleged by the respondent in his defense for refusing the permit is, "that there is a reasonable ground to believe, basing upon previous utterances and upon the fact that passions, specially on the part of the losing groups, remains bitter and high, that similar speeches will be delivered tending to undermine the faith and confidence of the people in their government, and in the duly constituted authorities, which might threaten breaches of the peace and a disruption of public order." Giving emphasis as well to the delegated police power to local government. Stating as well Revised Ordinances of 1927 prohibiting as an offense against public peace, and penalizes as a misdemeanor, "any act, in any public place, meeting, or procession, tending to disturb the peace or excite a riot; or collect with other persons in a body or crowd for any unlawful purpose; or disturb or disquiet any congregation engaged in any lawful assembly." Included herein is Sec. 1119, Free use of Public Place.

De Los Santos v Yatco (106 PHIL 745)

Article IX (B), Section 2. (1) The civil service embraces all branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities, and agencies of the Government, including government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters. (2) Appointments in the civil service shall be made only according to merit and fitness to be determined, as far as practicable, and, except to positions which are policy-determining, primarily confidential, or highly technical, by competitive examination. (3) No officer or employee of the civil service shall be removed or suspended except for cause provided by law. (4) No officer or employee in the civil service shall engage, directly or indirectly, in any electioneering or partisan political campaign. (5) The right to self-organization shall not be denied to government employees. (6) Temporary employees of the Government shall be given such protection as may be provided by law.

Facts:

Petitioner files for certiorari to revoke the order of respondent Judge Yatco for cancelling his previous order for execution on the parcel of land owned by the petitioner. The said parcel of land is being occupied by Fernando Mendoñez with an agreement to pay in installment the said land to the petitioners and that he shall voluntarily vacate the land and the payments he previously made shall be forfeited in favor of the plaintiff. A civil case was filed by the petitioner against Mendoñez for failure to pay as per agreement of both parties. Petitioner later filed a motion for execution to take the land back. Defendant Mendoñez moved for postponement to give both parties sufficient time to come to an agreement which was allowed by the respondent judge. It was settled by both parties that Mendoñez will secure a GSIS loan however when he was ready to make the payment the petitioner refused to abide with their agreement and now asking for a higher amount of money for payment. Finding no justification on the issuance of the writ of execution, Judge Yatco quashed said order hence this petition for certiorari based on lack of jurisdiction or abuse of discretion.

Acena v Civil Service Commission 193 SCRA 623 (1991)

FACTS:

This is a petition for certiorari to annul the resolution of the Civil Service Commission which set aside the order of the Merit Systems Protection Board declaring the herein petitioner as the legitimate Administrative Officer of Rizal Technological Colleges. Acena was assigned as Admin. Officer by then President of Rizal Technological Colleges and was subsequently promoted as Associate Professor on temporary status pending his compliance to obtain a Master’s Degree while assuming the position of Acting Admin Officer at the same time. The Board of Trustees designated Ricardo Salvador as Acting Admin Officer and pursuant to the same, the new College President Dr. Estolas revoked the designation of the petitioner as acting Admin Officer. Petitioner sent a letter to the CSC stating his desire to keep his appointment as Admin Officer instead of Associate Professor. Thus the latter’s appointment was withdrawn. He also filed a complaint for injunction of damages to Dr. Estolas assailing the validity of his dismissal from his position as violation of security of tenure. He filed another complaint for illegal termination against Dr. Estolas before the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). The CSC opined that Acena is still the Admin Officer since his appointment as Asso. Prof. was withdrawn. Dr. Estolas filed petition for review to the Office of the President. The Presidential Staff Director referred the complaint back to the CSC. In the dispositive portion of its resolution, the CSC finds the action of Dr. Estolas valid and set aside the previous opinion made by the CSC and the order of the MSPB. The petitioner files a petition for certiorari against the CSC decision on jurisdictional issue.

Saligumba v COA (117 SCRA 669)

Article IX (D), Section 2.  Section 2. (1) The Commission on Audit shall have the power, authority, and duty to examine, audit, and settle all accounts pertaining to the revenue and receipts of, and expenditures or uses of funds and property, owned or held in trust by, or pertaining to, the Government, or any of its subdivisions, agencies, or instrumentalities, including government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters, and on a post- audit basis: (a) constitutional bodies, commissions and offices that have been granted fiscal autonomy under this Constitution; (b) autonomous state colleges and universities; (c) other government-owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries; and (d) such non-governmental entities receiving subsidy or equity, directly or indirectly, from or through the Government, which are required by law or the granting institution to submit to such audit as a condition of subsidy or equity. However, where the internal control system of the audited agencies is inadequate, the Commission may adopt such measures, including temporary or special pre-audit, as are necessary and appropriate to correct the deficiencies. It shall keep the general accounts of the Government and, for such period as may be provided by law, preserve the vouchers and other supporting papers pertaining thereto. 
(2) The Commission shall have exclusive authority, subject to the limitations in this Article, to define the scope of its audit and examination, establish the techniques and methods required therefor, and promulgate accounting and auditing rules and regulations, including those for the prevention and disallowance of irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant, or unconscionable expenditures or uses of government funds and properties. 

Saligumba v COA (117 SCRA 669)

FACTS:

This is a petition for review of the decision rendered by the COA regarding the Administrative case filed by petitioner against Leonardo Estella, Auditing Examiner III of the Auditor’s office of Misamis Occidental. The charge was that the respondent raped Editha Saligumba on several occasions. The COA dropped the administrative complaint due to insufficient evidence. Saligumba petition the court to review such action taken by the COA.

Civil Liberties Union v Executive Secretary (194 SCRA 317)

Article IX (B), Section 7. No elective official shall be eligible for appointment or designation in any capacity to any public office or position during his tenure. Unless otherwise allowed by law or by the primary functions of his position, no appointive official shall hold any other office or employment in the Government or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including Government-owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries.

Civil Liberties Union v Executive Secretary (194 SCRA 317)

FACTS: The petitioner are assailing the Executive Order No. 284 issued by the President allowing cabinet members, undersecretary or asst. secretaries and other appointive officials of the executive department to hold 2 positions in the government and government corporations and to receive additional compensation. They find it unconstitutional against the provision provided by Section 13, Article VII prohibiting the President, Cabinet members and their deputies to hold any other office or employment. Section 7, par. (2), Article IX-B further states that “Unless otherwise allowed by law or by the primary functions of his position, no appointive official shall hold any other office or employment in the Government or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporation or their subsidiaries." In the opinion of the DOJ as affirmed by the Solicitor General, the said Executive Order is valid and constitutional as Section 7 of Article IX-B stated “unless otherwise allowed by law” which is construed to be an exemption from that stipulated on Article VII, section 13, such as in the case of the Vice President who is constitutionally allowed to become a cabinet member and the Secretary of Justice as ex-officio member of the Judicial and Bar Council.

Tobias v Abalos 239 SCRA 106 G.R. No. L-114783 December 8, 1994

Facts:

Petitioners assail the constitutionality of the Republic Act No. 7675, otherwise known as "An Act Converting the Municipality of Mandaluyong into a Highly Urbanized City to be known as the City of Mandaluyong.” Prior to the enactment of the assailed statute, the municipalities of Mandaluyong and San Juan belonged to only one legislative district. The petitioners contend on the following:

(1) Article VIII, Section 49 of R.A. No. 7675 contravenes from the "one subject-one bill" rule provided in the Constitution by involving 2 subjects in the bill namely (1) the conversion of Mandaluyong into a highly urbanized city; and (2) the division of the congressional district of San Juan/Mandaluyong into two separate districts.

(2) The division of San Juan and Mandaluyong into separate congressional districts under Section 49 of the assailed law has resulted in an increase in the composition of the House of Representatives beyond that provided in Article VI, Sec. 5(1) of the Constitution.

(3) The said division was not made pursuant to any census showing that the subject municipalities have attained the minimum population requirements.

(4) That Section 49 has the effect of preempting the right of Congress to reapportion legislative districts pursuant to Sec. 5(4) of the Constitution stating that “within three years following the return of every census, the Congress shall make a reapportionment of legislative districts based on the standard provided in this section

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW NOTES

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW NOTES

By: Evelyn Chua Bergantinos-De Matias

PEOPLE’S INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM

(Lambino et al. vs Comelec GR No. 174153)

3 Ways to Amend Constitution:

1. thru Congress by ¾ of votes by its members } can propose both revision & amendment

2. thru Constitutional Commission                    } of Constitution

3. thru People’s Initiative   à may only propose an amendment of the Constitution

Requirements for People’s Initiative:

1. People must author and sign the proposal with no agent or representative allowed to sign on their behalf.
2. The full text of the proposed amendments must be written on the face of the petition or attached to it.

PARTY LIST INVIOLABLE PARAMETERS:

(Veterans vs Comelec GR no. 136781)

1. 20% Allocation à combined no, of all party list congressmen shall not exceed 20% of the total membership of the House of Representative
2. 2% Threshold  à only parties garnering a minimum of 2% of the total valid votes cast for the party list system are qualified to have a seat in the House
3. 3-seat Limit  à each qualified party, regardless of the no, of votes it actually obtained is entitled to a maximum of 3 seats only – 1 qualifying and 2 additional seats
4. Proportionate Representation  à the additional seat which a qualified party is entitled to shall be computed in proportion to their total no. of votes

GUIDELINES FOR POLITICAL PARTIES TO BE REGISTERED UNDER THE PARTY LIST SYSTEM

(Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party vs Comelec  GR NO. 147589)

1. Must represent marginalized and under-represented sectors
2. Major political parties must comply with this statutory policy
3. Must be subject to Constitutional prohibition against religious sects
4. Party must not be disqualified under RA 7941 (Party List System Act)
5. Party must not be an adjunct to projects funded by the govt.
6. Party and its representatives must comply with the law requirements
7. The nominee must represent a marginalized or under-represented sector
8. The nominee must be able to contribute to the formulation and enactment of appropriate legislation that will benefit the nation.

ANIMOS MANINDI  à  intention to return permanently and reside in the place of origin

ANIMOS REVERTINDI à continuously going back to the place of residence

THE PASSAGE OF BILL IN THE PHILIPPINES

THE PASSAGE OF BILL

(Source: Senate of the Philippines)

Summary

The following is a summary of how a bill becomes a law:

Filing/Calendaring for First Reading

A bill is filed in the Office of the Secretary where it is given a corresponding number and calendared for First Reading.

First Reading

Its title, bill number, and author’s name are read on the floor, after which it is referred to the proper committee. (note the 1 subject – 1 title rule)

Committee Hearings/Report

Committee conducts hearings and consultation meetings. It then either approves the proposed bill without an amendment, approves it with changes, or recommends substitution or consolidation with similar bills filed.

Calendaring for Second Reading

The Committee Report with its approved bill version is submitted to the Committee on Rules for calendaring for Second Reading.

Second Reading

Bill author delivers sponsorship speech on the floor. Senators engage in debate, interpellation, turno en contra, and rebuttal to highlight the pros and cons of the bill. A period of amendments incorporates necessary changes in the bill proposed by the committee or introduced by the Senators themselves on the floor.

People v Tee GR No. 140546-47 (January 20, 2003)

"rights of the accused to speedy trial"



Facts
The case involves an automatic review of judgment made against Tee who was convicted for illegal possession of marijuana and sentenced to death. The defense assailed the decision of the court for taking admissible as evidence the marijuana seized from the accused by virtue of allegedly general search warrant. They further contend that the accused was deprived of his right to speedy trial by failure of the prosecution to produce their witness who failed to appear during the 20 hearing dates thereby slowing down the trial procedure. 


Issue
Whether or not the substantive right of the accused for a speedy trial prejudiced during the hearing of the case.

Flores v People 61 SCRA 331 (December 10, 1974)

"rights of the accused to a speedy trial"

Facts: Petitioners plea for their constitutional rights to a speedy trial by certiorari where the proceeding of the case for robbery against petitioners dragged on for over a decade without any final judgment rendered by the court. Petitioners sought for the dismissal of the case due to inordinate delay in its disposition. The People in its affirmative defense raised the facts that the case was not properly captioned, as the People of the Phils. against whom it is filed was not a tribunal exercising judicial functions and without the Court of Appeals being made a part to the petition there are insufficient facts to constitute a cause of action. Moreover it defends that the CA took all necessary steps to complete the transcript of stenographic notes of the original trial. 

Garcia v Domingo 52 SCRA 143 (1973)

Facts: For the convenience of the parties the trial was held in the air conditioned chamber of the respondent judge Garcia. The complaint was under the premise that such act is in violation of the right to hold a public trial.

Issue: Whether or not such proceeding of holding trial in the chamber of the judge in violation to the principle of right to a public trial.

Carredo v People 183 SCRA 273 (1990)

“trial in absentia not allowed when it is necessary to establish the identity of accused by the witness”

Facts: Accused after arraignment waives his right to appear in court during the trial while under a bond. At the presentation of the principal witness the court issued a subpoena to the accused to appear on trial for the purpose of meeting the witness face to face, however he did not appear with the justification of his waiver. Subsequently the municipal judge issued order of arrest of the accused with confiscation of his cash bond and ordering the bondsman to show cause why no judgment shall be rendered against him.

Read RA No. 7438

Republic of the Philippines
Congress of the Philippines
Metro Manila

Eighth Congress

Republic Act No. 7438             April 27, 1992

AN ACT DEFINING CERTAIN RIGHTS OF PERSON ARRESTED, DETAINED OR UNDER CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION AS WELL AS THE DUTIES OF THE ARRESTING, DETAINING AND INVESTIGATING OFFICERS, AND PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled::

Section 1. Statement of Policy. – It is the policy of the Senate to value the dignity of every human being and guarantee full respect for human rights.

Section 2. Rights of Persons Arrested, Detained or Under Custodial Investigation; Duties of Public Officers.–

(a) Any person arrested detained or under custodial investigation shall at all times be assisted by counsel.

(b) Any public officer or employee, or anyone acting under his order or his place, who arrests, detains or investigates any person for the commission of an offense shall inform the latter, in a language known to and understood by him, of his rights to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel, preferably of his own choice, who shall at all times be allowed to confer privately with the person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation. If such person cannot afford the services of his own counsel, he must be provided with a competent and independent counsel by the investigating officer.lawphi1Ÿ

(c) The custodial investigation report shall be reduced to writing by the investigating officer, provided that before such report is signed, or thumbmarked if the person arrested or detained does not know how to read and write, it shall be read and adequately explained to him by his counsel or by the assisting counsel provided by the investigating officer in the language or dialect known to such arrested or detained person, otherwise, such investigation report shall be null and void and of no effect whatsoever.

(d) Any extrajudicial confession made by a person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation shall be in writing and signed by such person in the presence of his counsel or in the latter's absence, upon a valid waiver, and in the presence of any of the parents, elder brothers and sisters, his spouse, the municipal mayor, the municipal judge, district school supervisor, or priest or minister of the gospel as chosen by him; otherwise, such extrajudicial confession shall be inadmissible as evidence in any proceeding.

(e) Any waiver by a person arrested or detained under the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, or under custodial investigation, shall be in writing and signed by such person in the presence of his counsel; otherwise the waiver shall be null and void and of no effect.

(f) Any person arrested or detained or under custodial investigation shall be allowed visits by or conferences with any member of his immediate family, or any medical doctor or priest or religious minister chosen by him or by any member of his immediate family or by his counsel, or by any national non-governmental organization duly accredited by the Commission on Human Rights of by any international non-governmental organization duly accredited by the Office of the President. The person's "immediate family" shall include his or her spouse, fiancé or fiancée, parent or child, brother or sister, grandparent or grandchild, uncle or aunt, nephew or niece, and guardian or ward.

As used in this Act, "custodial investigation" shall include the practice of issuing an "invitation" to a person who is investigated in connection with an offense he is suspected to have committed, without prejudice to the liability of the "inviting" officer for any violation of law.

People v Alicando GR No. 117487 (December 2, 1995)

Facts: Accused was convicted with a crime of rape with homicide of a 4 year old girl. He was arrested and during the interrogation he made a confession of the crime without the assistance of a counsel. By virtue of his uncounseled confession the police came to know where to find the evidences consisting of the victim’s personal things like clothes stained with blood which was admitted to court as evidences. The victim pleaded guilty during the arraignment and was convicted with the death penalty. The case was forwarded to the SC for automatic review.

People v Macam 238 SCRA 306 (1994)

Facts: Accused was charged and prosecuted for robbery with homicide as guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Defense assails the court decision contending the constitutional rights of the accused were violated for subjecting them to a police line up at the hospital where they were identified by the victims without the presence of their counsel and without any warrant.

IssueL Whether or not the constitutional rights of the accused were violated.

Held: Although the accused were arrested without a warrant such defect was cured during the proceeding when the defense failed to object on the issue during the initial proceedings before the court. Having failed to assail the issue beforehand the accused is estopped to assail the validity of their arrest as they further voluntarily submitted their self before the court by entering the plea of not guilty instead of moving to quash the information before the court on ground of an invalid arrest. It is also held that any identification of an uncounseled accused made in a police line-up is inadmissible. HOWEVER, the prosecution did not present evidence regarding appellant’s identification at the line-up. The witnesses identified the accused again in open court. Also, accused did not object to the in-court identification as being tainted by illegal line-up. The witnesses and victims positively identified the accused thereby further affirming the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. SC affirmed the decision of the lower court. 

People v Bolanos 211 SCRA 262 (1992)

Facts: Police authorities arrested the accused for murder. Together with the accused the police boarded a jeep to take him to their station. While on board the jeep the accused started admitting killing the deceased. This extrajudicial confession was used as evidence in court and the accused was convicted.

Issue: Whether or not accused-appellant was deprived of his constitutional right to counsel.

People v Agustin 240 SCRA 541 (1995)

Facts: Quiaño, the gunman who killed the victims, confessed during the investigation conducted by Baguio City Fiscal Erdolfo Balajadia in his office that he was the triggerman. He implicated Abenoja, Jr., who engaged him to kill Dr. Bayquen for a fee, Cartel, who provided the armalite, and a certain "Jimmy." During the investigation, Wilfredo Quiaño was assisted by Atty. Reynaldo Cajucom. Stenographic notes of the proceedings during the investigation as transcribed with the sworn statement of Quiaño was signed, with the assistance of Atty. Cajucom, and swore to before City Fiscal Balajadia. The following day, Agustin was apprehended, and was investigated and was afforded the privileges like that of Quiaño. Agustin’s defense interpose that he was forced to admit involvement at gunpoint at Kennon Road. He further declared that although he was given a lawyer, Cajucom (a law partner of the private prosecutor), he nevertheless, asked for his uncle Atty. Oliver Tabin, and that Atty. Cajucom interviewed him from only two minutes in English and Tagalog but not in Ilocano, the dialect he understands. The promise that he would be discharged as a witness did not push through since Quiaño escaped. However the RTC convicted him, since conspiracy was established, hence this appeal.

People v Lucero 244 SCRA 425 (1995)

Facts: Accused-appellant was convicted for robbery with homicide. While he was in custodial investigation the accused cannot afford a lawyer thus one was provided for him in the person of Atty. Peralta as his counsel. Counsel explained to the accused his constitutional rights but Atty. Peralta observed no reaction from the accused. He left to attend the wake of a friend and the police authorities started to take statements from the accused. Apparently during the custodial investigation no counsel was around while accused gave his extrajudicial confession which was used against him as evidence in court and merit his conviction.

Issue: Whether or not the extrajudicial confession of the accused may be admissible during the trial.

People v Deniega 251 SCRA 626 (637)

Facts: The accused-appellants were convicted of rape and homicide. The prosecution was based solely on the alleged extrajudicial confessions taken by the police officers without the presence of a counsel during custodial investigation. It was also notable that the prosecution did not present any witness to the actual commission of the crime and the basis of the lower court’s conviction to the accused was based on their alleged extrajudicial confessions.

Issue: Whether or not the lower court erred in convicting the appellants based on their extrajudicial confession.