Sumpay Law Office

28/05/2026

You still show up...

24/05/2026

The Fr Joaquin G Bernas SJ Institute for Continuing Legal Education, in partnership with the Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in Manila, is hosting 𝑶𝒓𝒅𝒆𝒓 𝑼𝒏𝒅𝒆𝒓 𝑷𝒓𝒆𝒔𝒔𝒖𝒓𝒆: 𝑰𝒏𝒕𝒆𝒓𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒂𝒍 𝑳𝒂𝒘, 𝑫𝒊𝒑𝒍𝒐𝒎𝒂𝒄𝒚, 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑺𝒕𝒂𝒌𝒆𝒔 𝒇𝒐𝒓 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑷𝒉𝒊𝒍𝒊𝒑𝒑𝒊𝒏𝒆𝒔 — a forum examining the state of the international rules-based order at a moment of extraordinary strain. Speaking at the forum will Dr Mamadou Hébié, Associate Professor of International Law at the Grotius Centre for International Legal Studies, Leiden University, and former Legal Officer and Special Assistant to the President of the International Court of Justice.

Learn more: https://www.ateneo.edu/events/2026-05-25-order-under-pressure-international-law-diplomacy-stakes-philippines

16/05/2026

16/05/2026

CONGRESSIONAL IMMUNITY FROM ARREST
BY JUDGE M@RLO C@MP@NILLA

The US Constitution provides that Members of Congress are to be free from arrest when attending or traveling to and from Congress, except in cases of treason, felony, or breaches of the peace. The phrase “treason, felony, and breach of the peace” encompasses all criminal offenses. (Williamson v. United States, 207 U.S. 425) Thus, Members are only privileged from arrests arising from civil suits, which were common in America at the time the Constitution was ratified. (Long v. Ansell, 293 U.S. 76) However, in practice, since the abolition of imprisonment for debt, this particular clause has lost most of its importance. (Edward S. Corwin, The Constitution and What It Means Today) Thus, there is technically no parliamentary immunity in the United States.

The 1916 Jones Law and the 1935 Philippine Constitution had adopted the parliamentary immunity in all cases except “treason, felony, and breach of the peace”. Applying the Williamson case, the immunity should be confined to civil arrest, which the court could not issue under the rule in the Jones Law and the 1935 Constitution that no person shall be imprisoned for debt.

Although the legislature had no immunity from criminal arrest under the Jones Law, Article 145 of the 1932 Revised Penal Code recognized parliamentary immunity from arrest in all cases except offenses punishable by more than 12 years of imprisonment, and penalized a person who violated such immunity.

The 1973 Constitution provided parliamentary immunity from arrest during legislative sessions, except for offenses punishable by more than 6 years' imprisonment. It is a settled rule that the Revised Penal Code cannot enlarge the parliamentary immunity under the Constitution. (Martinez v. Morfe, G.R. No. L-34022, March 24, 1972) Accordingly, a portion of Article 145 of the Code, which provides parliamentary immunity from arrest for an offense punishable by more than six years' imprisonment, is inoperative or unconstitutional.

The 1987 Constitution adopted the rule on parliamentary immunity from the 1973 Constitution. Thus, arresting a congressman for cyber unlawful use of means of publication, which is punishable by less than 6 years of imprisonment, violates parliamentary immunity under the Constitution and constitutes the crime of violation of parliamentary immunity under the Revised Penal Code. On the other hand, arresting a congressman for attempted murder, kidnapping, or r**e, which is punishable by more than 6 years of imprisonment, is not a violation of parliamentary immunity under the Constitution. Thus, it is not a crime.

This writing is exclusively for bar exam reviewees.

11/04/2026

Justice Marvic Leonen’s advice for anyone wanting to become a good lawyer. ⚖️

(Originally posted in 2023.)

11/04/2026

4 DAYS LEFT!

Pay as you file!

With the deadline fast approaching, the BIR is reminding taxpayers to pay their exact 2025 Annual Income Tax on the day of filing their Return.

Deadline: on or before April 15, 2026.

11/04/2026

LECTURES ON ABANDONMENT OF THE LANDMARK CASE OF TULAGAN
BY JUDGE MARLO CAMPANILLA

In People vs. Tulagan, G.R. No. 227363, March 12, 2019, the Supreme Court recognized that crimes under the RPC might overlap with those under RA No. 7610 and provided guidelines on which law would apply. THIRTY-FOUR (34) Supreme Court cases reaffirmed the landmark case of Tulagan. However, in Grammatical vs. People, G.R. No. 260233, and People vs. ###266039, G.R. No. 266039, August 12, 2025, the Supreme Court En Banc, adopted the principle of complementarity and expressly abandoned the Tulagan case. In the Grammatical case, there is no overlap. RA No. 7610 on sexual abuse and child prostitution is just complementary to the provisions under the RPC on r**e, sexual assault, and acts of lasciviousness.

Judge Marlo Campanilla will lecture on the comprehensive effect of the complementarity principle in the Grammatical case to multiple Supreme Court principles that had evolved since 1992, when RA No. 7610 was enacted. Although the Grammatical case is covered by the cut-off rule for the 2026 Bar Exam, it is advisable to follow the new principle because the Grammatical case presents simplified rules compared to the complicated Tulagan guidelines.

09/04/2026

ECC provides benefits and services to workers who met work-related sickness, injuries or death.

09/04/2026

“A plea of guilty without understanding is no plea at all."