LEGAL ENGLISH REVIEWER: OCTOBER 5, 2024

1. Stare decisis is a legal doctrine that mandates courts to follow precedents established
in previous cases when making decisions on similar legal issues. The term originates
from Latin, meaning “to stand by things decided.” This principle is fundamental in
common law systems, where it promotes consistency and predictability in the law.

Horizontal and Vertical Stare Decisis

 Horizontal Stare Decisis: This aspect refers to a court’s obligation to follow its own
prior decisions. For example, if the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has made a ruling
in one case, it will generally apply that same ruling in future cases unless there is a
strong justification for deviating from it.
 Vertical Stare Decisis: This involves lower courts being bound by the decisions of
higher courts within the same jurisdiction. For instance, all federal district courts must
follow rulings made by the U.S. Supreme Court.
2. The term “en banc” is derived from French, meaning “on the bench.” In legal contexts,
it refers to a procedure in which all judges of a court participate in hearing a case, rather
than just a smaller panel of judges. This practice is particularly relevant in appellate
courts where cases are typically reviewed by panels consisting of three judges.

In the context of the Philippine judiciary, “en banc” refers to a session where all
members of a court convene to hear a case. This term is primarily used in relation to the
Supreme Court of the Philippines, which can sit en banc or in divisions. The en banc
sessions are significant as they allow for a collective decision-making process on cases
that may have substantial implications for law and governance.

3. The term “Primus inter pares” is a Latin phrase that translates to “first among equals.”
It is used to describe a person who holds a position of leadership or authority within a
group while still being considered equal to the other members of that group. The concept
emphasizes the idea of equality among peers, where one individual may have certain
privileges or responsibilities but does not possess absolute power over others.

Example:

 The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, although they hold an important
administrative role, they do not have authority over other justices’ decisions.

 In many committees or boards, chairs may be viewed as primus inter pares—

leading discussions while maintaining equal voting rights with other members.

4. A per curiam decision is a judicial opinion issued collectively by a court, rather than
attributed to a specific judge. The term “per curiam” is derived from Latin, meaning “by
the court.” This type of opinion typically does not identify any individual judge as the
 author, reflecting the collective judgment of the court or panel of judges who heard the
case.

It is important to note that per curiam decisions are not always unanimous; dissenting or
concurring opinions may accompany them. In instances where justices disagree with the
majority view but still participate in a per curiam decision, they may write separate
opinions to express their positions.

5. Pro hac vice is a Latin term that translates to “for this occasion/event only.” In the
legal context, it refers to a situation where a court allows an attorney who is not licensed
to practice in a particular jurisdiction to participate in a specific case. This permission is
granted for that particular instance and does not confer any broader rights or privileges
to practice law in that jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court has addressed this principle in various rulings, emphasizing that
decisions made under pro hac vice cannot be cited as precedent for future cases. This
limitation arises from concerns regarding equal protection under the law and adherence
to statutory requirements.

6. Obiter dictum, a Latin term meaning “that which is said in passing,” refers to remarks
or statements made by a judge that are not essential to the decision of the case at hand.
In the context of Philippine jurisprudence, obiter dicta can provide insight into legal
principles but do not carry the same weight as the ratio decidendi, which is the binding
part of a judicial decision.

In legal terms, obiter dictum includes observations or comments made by judges that
may be interesting or relevant but are not necessary for resolving the specific issues
before them. These remarks do not establish binding precedent and are considered
persuasive rather than obligatory for future cases. For instance, if a court discusses
hypothetical scenarios or provides commentary on legal principles unrelated to the
case’s outcome, those statements would be classified as obiter dicta.

7. People vs. Amarela

Facts:

On February 10, 2009, AAA, a single housekeeper, attended a beauty contest with her
aunt in Maligatong, Baguio District, Calinan, Davao City. During the event, she felt the
urge to urinate and attempted to reach the comfort room located near the basketball
court where the contest was being held. However, on her way there, she encountered
Juvy D. Amarela, who allegedly pulled her towards a daycare center and assaulted her.
AAA claimed that Amarela punched her in the abdomen and raped her under a
makeshift stage.

After the assault by Amarela, AAA was assisted by three men who intervened when she
shouted for help. She then went to Godo Dumandan’s house and was taken to the
residence of Junard G. Racho because Dumandan thought AAA’s aunt was not home. At
 Racho’s residence, AAA alleged that Racho also assaulted her after boxing her
abdomen when she refused to comply with his demands.

AAA reported these incidents to her mother the following day after returning home alone
from Racho’s place.

II. TRIAL COURT DECISION

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found both Amarela and Racho guilty of rape based on
AAA’s testimony, which it deemed clear and credible. The RTC did not give much weight
to the denials of both accused as they could not overcome AAA’s categorical statements
regarding their actions.

III. APPELLATE COURT DECISION

Upon appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s decision but noted several
inconsistencies in AAA’s testimony that raised doubts about its credibility. The appellants
argued that there were discrepancies between AAA’s affidavit-complaint and her
testimony in court; specifically:

Inconsistencies in Testimony: There were material differences between what AAA

stated in her affidavit and what she testified during trial.

Identification Issues: Given that the crime scene was dark and she had only seen
Amarela for the first time during this incident, identifying him posed significant
challenges.

Lack of Corroborating Evidence: Medical findings did not support claims of physical
injuries or forced entry.

Issues:

 Whether the inconsistencies between AAA’s affidavit and court testimony undermined
her credibility.
 Whether it was plausible for AAA to positively identify her assailants given the described
lighting conditions.
 Whether medical findings corroborated allegations of forced penetrative sex.
 Whether the identity of the accused was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court found significant doubts regarding AAA’s credibility due to
inconsistencies in her accounts between her affidavit and court testimony. The
discrepancies raised questions about whether she could have accurately identified
Amarela in a dark environment where visibility was poor.
The Court emphasized that proving the identity of an offender is crucial in criminal
cases; thus, it must be established beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution failed to
 provide sufficient evidence supporting AAA’s claims or establishing a clear narrative of
events leading up to the alleged rapes.

Ultimately, due to these doubts and failures in establishing proof beyond reasonable
doubt regarding both Amarela’s and Racho’s identities as perpetrators, the Supreme
Court reversed the RTC’s conviction.

Conclusion: The Supreme Court acquitted both Juvy D. Amarela and Junard G. Racho
due to insufficient evidence proving their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

8. Cayetano vs. Monsod

Facts:

The case revolves around the appointment of Christian Monsod as Chairman of the
Commission on Elections (COMELEC) by President Corazon Aquino. Renato L.
Cayetano challenged this appointment, arguing that Monsod did not meet the
constitutional requirement of having been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten
years, as stipulated in Section 1(1), Article IX-C of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.
Monsod passed the bar in 1960 and worked briefly in his father’s law firm before
pursuing various roles, including positions with international organizations and local
corporations, and serving on significant commissions. His nomination was confirmed by
the Commission on Appointments on June 5, 1991.

Issues:

1. Did Christian Monsod meet the constitutional requirement of being engaged in the
practice of law for at least ten years?
2. What constitutes the practice of law?

Ruling:

The Supreme Court ruled that Christian Monsod met the constitutional
requirement of having been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years. The
petition filed by Renato L. Cayetano was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi:

The Court’s decision was based on a broad interpretation of what constitutes “practice of
law.” It emphasized that engaging in legal work is not limited to court appearances but
includes a variety of activities requiring legal knowledge and skills, such as preparing
legal documents, providing legal advice, and representing clients in different capacities.
The Court noted that Monsod’s extensive professional background included roles where
he applied legal principles and techniques, thus satisfying the requirement set forth by
the Constitution.

The ruling highlighted that:

  The framers intended a liberal interpretation regarding what constitutes practicing
law.
 The Commission on Appointments had properly evaluated Monsod’s qualifications
without showing any grave abuse of discretion.
 Activities performed outside traditional litigation still qualify as practicing law if they
involve applying legal knowledge regularly.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld Christian Monsod’s appointment as

Chairman of COMELEC, affirming that his diverse experiences collectively satisfied the
necessary qualifications under Philippine law.

Practice of law means any activity, in or out of court, which requires the
application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience. (Cayatano
v Monsod)

9. Imbong vs. Ochoa

The case involves a challenge to the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 10354, known
as the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012 (RH Law). The
petitioners argue that the RH Law violates several provisions of the Philippine
Constitution related to rights such as life, health, religion, and others.

Facts:

The RH Law was enacted to provide access to reproductive health services and
information, particularly for poor and marginalized Filipinos. Following its enactment,
various groups challenged its constitutionality on multiple grounds, including violations of
rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

Issues:

 Whether the RH Law violates the right to life.

 Whether it infringes on religious freedom.
 Whether it contravenes due process and equal protection clauses.
 Whether there is an actual case or controversy allowing for judicial review.
Ruling:

Right to Life: The Court ruled that while individual members may express personal
views on when life begins, it ultimately determined that the RH Law does not violate
constitutional protections regarding life.
Religious Freedom: The Court found that provisions requiring health workers to
distribute contraceptives against their religious beliefs were unconstitutional but upheld
other aspects of the law that did not infringe upon religious freedoms.
Due Process and Equal Protection: The Court concluded that the definitions within the
RH Law were not vague and did not violate due process rights; it also ruled that
prioritizing services for poor individuals was consistent with equal protection principles.
 Judicial Review: The Court affirmed its jurisdiction over this matter as an actual case or
controversy existed due to the law’s implementation affecting medical practitioners’
duties.
One Subject-One Title Rule: The Court held that despite claims from petitioners about
deceptive legislative intent regarding population control measures, the RH Law did not
violate this rule since “reproductive health” and “responsible parenthood” are interrelated
concepts.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court upheld most provisions of the RH Law while declaring certain parts
unconstitutional concerning religious freedom rights for health workers who object based
on their beliefs.

 "THE MOOT AND ACADEMIC PRINCIPLE'

first, there is a grave violation of the Constitution;

second, paramount public interest;
third, to guide the bench, the bar, and the public; and
fourth, the case is capable of repetition yet evading review.
 JUDICIAL REVIEW:
o Actual controversies
o Locus standi
o Issue was raised in the earliest possible opportunity
o Constitutionality is the lis mota of the case