V.

CITIZENSHIP
A. Who are Filipinos
B. Modes of Acquiring Citizenship
C. Natural Born and Naturalized Citizens
D. Loss and Re-acquisition of Philippine Citizenship
1. Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9225 or the Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition
Act of 2003
E. Dual Citizenship and Dual Allegiance

XI. JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

A. Concept of Judicial Power

Judicial Power

Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies
involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine
whether or not there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government.
(Sec. 1(2), Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution)

The authority to settle justiciable controversies or disputes involving rights that are
enforceable and demandable before the courts of justice or the redress of wrongs for
violations of such rights and to determine whether or not there has been grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the government. (Lopez v. Roxas, G.R. No. L-25716, July 28, 1966).

Where Vested

Vested in one Supreme Court and such lower courts as may be established by law.
(PHIL. CONST., art. VIII, § 1.)

Hence, they may neither attempt to assume or be compelled to perform non-judicial

functions. They may not be charged with administrative functions, except when
reasonably incidental to the fulfillment of their duties (Meralco v. Pasay Transportation
Co., G.R. No. L-37878, Nov. 25, 1932).

Necessity of Applicable Law

Before a tribunal, board, or officer may exercise judicial or quasi-judicial acts, it is

necessary that there be a law that give rise to some specific rights of persons or
property under which adverse claims to such rights are made, and the controversy
ensuing therefrom is brought, in turn, before the tribunal, board or officer clothed with
power and authority to determine what that law is and thereupon adjudicate the
respective rights of the contending parties. (Santiago Jr. v. Bautista, G.R. No. L-25024,
March 30, 1970).

Thus, an award of honors to a student by a board of teachers may not be reversed by a

court where the awards are governed by no applicable law. (Id) The court has no
authority to entertain an action for judicial declaration of citizenship because there was
no law authorizing such proceeding (Channie Tan v. Republic, G.R. No. L-14159, April
18, 1960).

Courts cannot reverse the award of a board of judges in an oratorical contest (Felipe v.
Leuterio, G.R. No. L-4606, May 30, 1952).

Jurisdiction

The power to hear and decide a case.

 Who Defines: Congress shall have the power to define, prescribe and apportion
the jurisdiction of the various courts, but may not deprive the Supreme Court of
its jurisdiction over cases enumerated in Sec. 5, Art. VIII (PHIL. CONST., art.
VIII, § 2.),
 No law shall be passed increasing the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
as provided in the Constitution without its advice and concurrence (PHIL.
CONST., art. VI, § 30.)

Scope of Jurisdiction

The power to control the execution of its decision is an essential aspect of jurisdiction. It
cannot be the subject of substantial subtraction, for our Constitution vests the entirety of
judicial power in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by
law. (Echegaray v. SOJ, G.R. No. 132601, Jan. 19, 1999)

Limitations of Judicial Power

1. Political Questions: A question, the resolution of which has been vested by the
Constitution exclusively In the people, in the exercise of their sovereign capacity, or In
which full discretionary authority has been delegated to a co-equal branch of the
Government (Tanada v. Cuenco, G.R. No. L-10520, Feb. 28, 1957).

2. Separation of Powers: The Supreme Court and its members should not and cannot
be required to exercise any power or to perform any trust or to assume any duty not
pertaining to or connected with the administering of judicial functions. (Manila Electric
Co. v Pasay Transportation, G.R. No. 37878, Nov. 25, 1932)

3. Not the function of the judiciary to give advisory opinion: The function of the
courts is to determine controversies between litigants. They do not give advisory
opinions. (Director of Prisons v Ang Cho Kio, G.R. No. 30001, June 23, 1970)
Expanded Jurisdiction and Authority of the Supreme Court

Art. VIII, Sec.1, par. 2, of the Constitution expanded the power, authority and jurisdiction
of the courts of justice, particularly the Supreme Court, to determine whether any
branch of the government has committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction.

Under this expanded jurisdiction conferred to the Supreme Court, the political question
doctrine is no longer the insurmountable obstacle to the exercise of judicial power or the
impenetrable shield that protects executive and legislative actions from judicial inquiry
or review (Oposa v. Factoran, Jr. G.R. No. 101083, July 30, 1993)

Constitutional Safeguards to Ensure Judiciary Independence

1. The Supreme Court is a constitutional body; it may not be abolished by the

legislature. (CONST., Art. VIII, Sec. 4)

2. The members of the Supreme Court are removable only by impeachment. (CONST.,
Art. XI, Sec. 2)

3. The Supreme Court may not be deprived of its minimum original and appellate
jurisdiction; appellate jurisdiction may not be increased without its advice and
concurrence. (CONST., Art. VIII, Sec. 2)

4. The Supreme Court has administrative supervision over all inferior courts and
personnel. (CONST., Art. VIII, Sec. 6)

5. The Supreme Court has the exclusive power to discipline judges/justices of inferior
courts. (CONST., Art. VIII, Sec.11)

6. The members of the Judiciary have security of tenure. (CONST., Art. VIII, Sec. 2)

7. The members of the Judiciary may not be designated to any agency performing
quasi-judicial or administrative functions. (CONST., Art. VIII, Sec. 12)

8. Salaries of judges may not be reduced (CONST., Art. VIII, Sec. 10); the Judiciary
enjoys fiscal autonomy. (CONST., Art. VIII, Sec. 3)

9. The Supreme Court, alone, may initiate and promulgate the Rules of Court.
(CONST., Art. VIII, Sec. 5(5))
10. The Supreme Court, alone, may order temporary detail of judges. (CONST., Art.
VIII, Sec. 5(3))

11. The Supreme Court can appoint all officials and employees of the Judiciary.
(CONST., Art. VIII, Sec. 5(6))
B. Judicial Review

Judicial Review

 The power of the Supreme Court to declare a law, treaty, ordinance, etc.
unconstitutional (PHIL. CONST., art. VIII, § 4(2).)
 Lower courts may also exercise the power of judicial review, subject to the
appellate jurisdiction of the SC. (PHIL. CONST., art. VIII, § 5(2).)
 Only Supreme Court decisions set precedents. As thus, only SC decisions are
binding on all.

Scope of Judicial Review

The courts have the power to pass upon the validity and the constitutionality of laws
enacted by the legislature, and other bodies of the government. (Nachura, 2006)

Functions of Judicial Review

1. Checking — invalidating a law or executive act that is found to be contrary to the

Constitution

2. Legitimating — upholding the validity of the law that results from a mere dismissal of
a case challenging the validity of the law

3. Symbolic — to educate the bench and bar as to the controlling principles and
concepts on matters of grave public importance for the guidance of and restraint upon
the future (Salonga v. Cruz Paño, G.R. No. 59524, Feb.18, 1985).

Doctrine of Judicial Supremacy

When the judiciary allocates constitutional boundaries, it neither asserts superiority nor
nullifies an act of the Legislature. It only asserts the solemn and sacred obligation
assigned to it by the Constitution to determine conflicting claims of authority under the
Constitution and to establish for the parties in an actual controversy the rights which that
instrument secures and guarantees to them.

Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction or Doctrine of Prior Resort

Under the principle of primary jurisdiction, courts cannot or will not determine a
controversy involving a question within the jurisdiction of an administrative body prior to
the decision of that question by the administrative tribunal where the:
 1. Question demands administrative determination requiring special knowledge,
experience, and services of the administrative tribunal;
2. Question requires determination of technical and intricate issues of a fact; or
3. Uniformity of ruling is essential to comply with purposes of the regulatory statute
administered.

NOTE: In such instances, relief must first be obtained in administrative proceeding

before a remedy will be supplied by the courts even though the matter is within the
proper jurisdiction of a court. The judicial process is accordingly suspended pending
referral of the claim to the administrative agency for its view.

Rationale of Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction or Doctrine of Prior Resort

1. To take full advantage of administrative expertness; and

2. To attain uniformity of application of regulatory laws which can be secured only if
determination of the issue is left to the administrative body.

Instances Where the Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction or Doctrine of Prior Resort

Finds No Application

1. By the court's determination, the legislature did not intend that the issues be left
solely to the initial determination of the administrative body;
2. The issues involve purely questions of law; and
3. Courts and administrative bodies have concurrent jurisdiction.

Raising the Issue of Primary Jurisdiction

The court may motu proprio raise the issue of primary jurisdiction and its invocation
cannot be waived by the failure of the parties to argue it, as the doctrine exists for the
proper distribution of power between judicial and administrative bodies and not for the
convenience of the parties. In such case the court may:

1. Suspend the judicial process pending referral of such issues to the administrative
body for its review; or
2. If the parties would not be unfairly disadvantaged, dismiss the case without
prejudice. (Euro-Med Laboratories Phil. v. Province of Batangas, G.R No.
148106, 17 July 2006)

1. Requisites

Requisites of Judicial Review (A-Lo-E-Mota):

1. Actual case or controversy;

2. Locus Standi;
 3. The question of constitutionality must be raised at the Earliest opportunity;
and
4. The question of constitutionality must be the lis Mota of the case

Exception: The Court can waive the procedural rule on standing in cases
that raise issues of transcendental importance.

Guidelines in determining whether or not a matter is of

transcendental importance:

- The character of the funds or other assets involved in the case;

- The presence of a clear case of disregard of a constitutional or
statutory prohibition by the public respondent agency or instrumentality
of the government; and
- The lack of any other party with a more direct and specific interest in
the questions being raised (Chamber of Real Estate and Builders’
Association, Inc. v. Energy Regulatory Commission, et al., G.R. No.
174697, July 8, 2010).

a. Actual Case or Controversy

Justiciable Controversy

- A definite and concrete dispute touching on the legal relations of

parties having adverse legal interests, which may be resolved by a
court of law through the application of a law (Cutaran v. DENR, G.R.
No 134958, Jan. 31, 2001).

Requirements for Justiciability

1. That there be an actual controversy between or among the parties

to the dispute;
2. That the interests of the parties be adverse;
3. That the matter in controversy be capable of being adjudicated by
judicial power; and
4. That the determination of the controversy will result in practical
relief to the complainant.

Actual Case/Controversy

- An actual case or controversy involves a conflictof legal rights, an

assertion of opposite legal claims, susceptible of judicial resolution as
distinguished from a hypothetical or abstract difference or dispute.
(PHILCONSA v Philippine Government, G.R. No. 218406, Nov. 29,
2016)
 - There must be a contrast of legal rights that can be interpreted and
enforced on the basis of existing law and jurisprudence. (Id.)
- It is the parties' duty to demonstrate actual cases or controversies
worthy of judicial resolution. Pleadings must show a violation of an
existing legal right or a controversy that is ripe for judicial
determination. (Falcis v. Civil Registrar General, G.R. No. 217910,
Sept. 3, 2019)
- Facts are the basis of an actual case or controversy. There must be
sufficient facts to enable the Court to intelligently adjudicate the issues.
(Id.)

Ripe for Adjudication

- A constitutional question is ripe for adjudication when the

governmental act being challenged has had a direct adverse effect on
the individual challenging it. It is also necessary that there be a law that
gives rise to some specific rights of persons or property, under which
adverse claims are made. (Santiago Jr. v. Bautista, G.R. No. 25024,
March 30, 1970)
- For a case to be considered ripe for adjudication, it is a prerequisite
that:

 an act had then been accomplished or performed by either

branch of government before a court may interfere, and
 the petitioner must allege the existence of an immediate or
threatened injury to himself as a result of the challenged action.
(PHILCONSA v. Philippine Government, G.R. No. 218406,Nov.
29, 2016)

b. Proper Party/Locus Standi

- Legal standing or locus standi refers to a party’s personal and

substantial interest in a case, arising from the direct injury it has
sustained or will sustain as a result of the challenged governmental
action. (Integrated Bar of the Philippines v. Zamora, G.R. No.
141284, 15 Aug. 2000)

NOTE: The term “interest” means a material interest, as distinguished from mere
interest in the question involved, or a mere incidental interest.

To have standing, one must show that: (I-T-R)

1. He has suffered some actual or threatened Injury as a result

of the allegedly illegal conduct of the government;
2. The injury is fairly Traceable to the challenged action; and
 3. The injury is likely to be Redressed by a favorable action.
(Francisco, Jr. & Hizon v. Toll Regulatory Board, G.R. Nos.
166910, 19 Oct. 2010)

SPECIAL RULES ON LEGAL STANDING

Taxpayer’s standing

Taxpayers have been allowed to sue where there is a claim that public funds are
illegally disbursed or that public money is being deflected to any improper purpose, or
that public funds are wasted through the enforcement of an invalid or unconstitutional
law. (Ocampo v. Enriquez, G.R. No. 225973, 08 Nov. 2016)

Concerned citizen standing

As concerned citizens, petitioners are also required to substantiate that the issues are
of transcendental significance, or of paramount public interest. In cases involving such
issues, the imminence and clarity of the threat to fundamental constitutional rights
outweigh the necessity for prudence. (Ibid.)

Legislative standing

For legislators, they have standing to maintain inviolate the prerogatives, powers, and
privileges vested by the Constitution in their office and are allowed to sue to question
the validity of any official action, which infringe upon their legislative prerogatives. (Ibid.)

Associational or third-party standing

An association has the legal personality to file a suit and represent its members if the
outcome of the case affects their vital interests. An organization has the standing to
assert the concern of its constituents. (Executive Secretary v. Court of Appeals, G.R.
No. 131719, 25 May 2004)

Environmental standing

The liberalization of standing first enunciated in Oposa v. Factoran (G.R. No. 101083,
30 July 1993) insofar as it refers to minors and generations yet unborn, is now
enshrined in the Rules which allows the filing of a citizen suit in environmental cases.
The provision on citizen suits in the Rules “collapses the traditional rule on personal and
direct interest, on the principle that humans are stewards of nature.” (Arigo v. Swift,
G.R. No. 206510, 16 Sept. 2014)
NOTE: The capacity to sue on behalf of the succeeding generations can only be based
on the concept of intergenerational responsibility

Voter’s standing

There must be a showing of obvious interest in the validity of the election law in
question. (David v. Macapagal-Arroyo, G.R. No. 171396, 3 May. 2006)

c. Raised at the earliest possible opportunity

- The constitutional question must be raised at the earliest possible

opportunity, such that if it is not raised in the pleadings, it cannot be
considered at the trial, and, if not considered at the trial, it cannot
be considered on appeal.

Exceptions:

1. In criminal cases, the constitutional question can be raised at any

time at the discretion of the court.
2. In civil cases, the constitutional question can be raised at any stage
if it is necessary to the determination of the case itself.
3. In every case, except where there is estoppel, the constitutional
question may be raised at any stage if it involves the jurisdiction of
the court. (Cruz, 2015)

Two ways to apply the “earliest opportunity” element of judicial

review

1. Vertical Application - The constitutional argument must have been

raised very early in any of the pleadings or processes prior in time
in the same case.
2. Horizontal Application - The threshold is not only whether the
earliest opportunity was in the pleadings and processes prior in
time in the same case, but also whether the grounds for the
constitutional objection was already apparent when a prior case
relating to the same issue and involving the same petitioner was
being heard. (Angkla v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 246816, 15 Sept.
2020)

NOTE: However, there is no reason to distinguish between horizontal and vertical with
regard to earliest opportunity. The threshold is not whether the earliest opportunity was
in the pleadings and processes prior in time in the same case, but whether the grounds
for the constitutional objection was already apparent when the prior case was being
heard, regardless of the vertical or horizontal nature of the case in which it could have
been raised.

d. Necessary to the determination of the case itself

- Lis mota is a Latin term meaning the cause or motivation of a legal

action or lawsuit.
- The constitutionality of an act of the legislature will not be
determined by the courts unless that question is properly raised
and is necessary to the determination of the case.
- The Court will not touch on the issue of unconstitutionality unless it
really is unavoidable or is the very lis mota of the case. As long as
there is some other basis that can be used by the courts for its
decision, the constitutionality of the challenged law will not be
touched, and the case will be decided on other available grounds.
Without a constitutional question that underpins the Constitution,
there is no lis mota because there is no legal argument. It is not
enough for petitioners to say they are attacking the constitutionality.
The attack should be a legal question. (Angkla v. COMELEC, G.R.
No. 246816, 15 Sept. 2020)
2. Political Questions Doctrine

Elements of a Political Question

1. Under the Constitution to be decided by the people in their sovereign

capacity; or
2. Specifically delegated to the Legislature or executive branch of the
Government; and
3. Concerned with issues dependent upon the wisdom, not legality, of a
particular measure. (Tañada v. Cuenco, G.R. No. L-10520, February 28,
1957)

NOTE: The doctrine that the Power of Judicial Review cannot be

exercised when the issue is a political question. It constitutes another
limitation on such power of the judiciary. (Francisco v. House of
Representatives, G.R. No. 160261, 10 Nov. 2003)

Effect of the Expanded Definition of Judicial Power on the Political

Question Doctrine (2004, 1997, 1995 BAR)

The 1987 Constitution expands the concept of judicial review. Under the
expanded definition, the Court cannot agree that the issue involved is a
 political question beyond the jurisdiction of the

court to review. When the grant of power is qualified,

conditional or subject to limitations, the issue of

whether the prescribed qualifications or conditions

have been met or the limitations respected is

justiciable—the problem being one of legality or

validity, not its wisdom. Moreover, the jurisdiction to

delimit constitutional boundaries has been given to

the SC. When political questions are involved, the

Constitution limits the delimitation as to whether or

not there has been a grave abuse of discretion

3. Moot Questions
4. Operative Fact Doctrine
C. Judicial Independence and Fiscal Autonomy
D. Appointments to the Judiciary
1. Qualifications of Members
2. Judicial and Bar Council
a. Composition
b. Powers
E. The Supreme Court
1. Composition, Powers, and Functions
a. Power to Promulgate Rules
2. En Banc and Division Cases
3. Administrative Supervision Over Lower Courts