LawRio

27/08/2025

The effectiveness of a special power of attorney (SPA) automatically ends with the death of the person who granted it, and any acts carried out by the agent afterward are void—except under narrow exceptions provided by law, the Supreme Court (SC) has ruled.

Click the link in the comments for the full story.

06/08/2025

𝗦𝗨𝗕𝗦𝗜𝗗𝗜𝗔𝗥𝗬 𝗜𝗠𝗣𝗥𝗜𝗦𝗢𝗡𝗠𝗘𝗡𝗧
(Tagalog translation in the comments.)

In criminal law, subsidiary imprisonment is a legal fallback. It steps in when a person is convicted and ordered to pay a fine, but has no money or property to settle it. The law recognizes that some people simply can’t afford to pay, but at the same time, it does not let penalties go unserved just because the convict is poor.

Under Republic Act No. 10159, which amended Article 39 of the Revised Penal Code, if the accused truly has no means to pay the fine, they may be required to serve time in jail instead. The length of this substitute imprisonment is based on the amount of the fine and the prevailing highest minimum wage at the time of conviction. For example, if the minimum wage is ₱610 per day and the fine is ₱6,100, then the equivalent would be 10 days in jail.

If the person was sentenced to both jail time and a fine, and they already served the jail time, they may still be required to serve additional time for the unpaid fine. But there are limits. The law says the subsidiary imprisonment in this situation cannot exceed one-third of the original jail term and must not go beyond one year. This ensures that the penalty remains reasonable and proportionate.

If the sentence was only a fine and there was no jail time originally, the person can still be jailed in default of payment, but only up to six months for grave or less grave offenses, and only up to fifteen days for light offenses.

However, if the original penalty is more than six years of imprisonment, or if the law itself prohibits it, then subsidiary imprisonment cannot be imposed. This includes some special laws like the Dangerous Drugs Act, where fines must be paid no matter what. The law draws the line when the primary punishment is already severe.

Another important rule is that the court must expressly state in its decision that subsidiary imprisonment will apply in case the fine is not paid. If the court fails to mention it, even if the accused is poor, the law does not allow the jail time substitute. The order must be clear and explicit.

Serving subsidiary imprisonment also does not erase the fine. If later on the person becomes financially capable, they still have to pay what they owe. Jail time does not cancel the debt, it only enforces the penalty for the moment.

Subsidiary imprisonment is not meant to punish those who are poor. It exists to make sure that all penalties are carried out, even when payment is not possible. At the same time, it has built-in protections so that the punishment does not go too far or become excessive. It’s a way to uphold the authority of the court while keeping things fair for those who genuinely cannot afford to pay.

30/07/2025

Via En Banc Resolution No. 78, Series of 2025, the Human Settlements Adjudication Commission (HSAC) issued the 2025 Revised Rules of Procedure. The Revised Rules mark a significant change as it introduced the Rule on Ex*****on Pending Appeal and Preliminary Attachment. With these procedural innovations, the HSAC aims to make its adjudicatory process more stakeholder-centric.

Anchored on DOJ Opinion No. 37, Series 2023, secured by Officer-in-Charge - Executive Commissioner Fidel J. Exconde, Jr., the Rule on Ex*****on Pending Appeal states that, in the absence of a stay order from the Court of Appeals, decisions and resolutions of the Commission shall become final and executory after the lapse of fifteen (15) calendar days from the parties’ receipt thereof.
This means parties do not have to wait for the decision of an appellate court because HSAC’s judgments are considered final and executory, unless stayed by the appellate court.

Meanwhile, the Rule on Preliminary Attachment provides added security for the buyers of real estate, for the property subject of the transaction shall be attached to ensure that the developer does not renege on its obligation to deliver the subject property to the buyer.

HSAC's OIC-Executive Commissioner Fidel J. Exconde, Jr. lauded the 2025 Revised Rules of Procedure as it underscores the Commission's commitment to a just, speedy, and inexpensive adjudicatory process, which is aligned with DHSUD Secretary Jose Ramon Aliling's 8-point Agenda.

"Through these rules, we intend to make our dispute resolution more efficient, accessible, and responsive," OIC-Executive Commissioner Exconde added.

The 2025 Revised Rules were published on 30 June 2025 in the Philippine Star and shall become effective after fifteen (15) calendar days from its publication. The Revised Rules will also be accessible to the public through the official HSAC website at www.hsac.gov.ph.

24/07/2025

📢 𝗖𝗦𝗖 𝗿𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟱 𝗥𝘂𝗹𝗲𝘀 𝗼𝗻 𝗔𝗱𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗖𝗮𝘀𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗖𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗹 𝗦𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗶𝗰𝗲 (𝗥𝗔𝗖𝗖𝗦)!

The updated RACCS reflects key laws, Supreme Court rulings, and evolving governance practices streamlines how disciplinary and non-disciplinary cases are handled in government.

Chairperson Atty. Marilyn B. Yap, DPA led the Commission to act swiftly in completing the RACCS and ensuring its swift release to strengthen capabilities at resolving disciplinary cases. This revised framework promotes accountability, transparency, and efficiency in the civil service.

Key features include:
⚖️ Integration of RA No. 11032 and RA No. 9285
👩‍⚖️ Virtual and clarificatory hearings
📄 Electronic filing
💼 Revised rules on dishonesty and sexual harassment cases

📖 Read the full news release here: https://csc.gov.ph/csc-revises-rules-on-administrative-cases-in-the-civil-service

16/07/2025

10/06/2025

In line with its Strategic Plan for Judicial Innovations 2022-2027, the (SC) has amended the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice (2004 Notarial Rules) to modernize and streamline notarial reporting.

In an En Banc Resolution in A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC, the SC approved amendments to the 2004 Notarial Rules, specifically on the submission of copies of notarial entries and instruments acknowledged by notaries public.

Under the Amended 2004 Notarial Rules, notaries public are now required to keep in portable document format (PDF) the certified copy of each month’s notarial entries and the duplicate original copy of instruments acknowledged before them.

These should be emailed to the clerk of court within the first 10 days of the following month using the notary public’s official email address. If there are no entries for the month, a formal statement confirming this must be submitted instead.

All PDF files must be sent as direct attachments to the transmittal email. They must not be submitted as external links to cloud storage, file-sharing platforms, or similar sites. PDF files should not be compressed into archive formats such as ZIP (.zip) or RAR (.rar), and must not require additional extraction or conversion prior to access.

Notaries are prohibited from charging any fees for digitizing, transmitting, or processing these documents.

Courts retaining electronic duplicate original copies of notarized documents are directed to conduct an inventory and assessment of these materials. A report on the results must be submitted to the Office of the Court Administrator, with a copy furnished to the SC’s Management Information Systems Office.

The Amended 2004 Notarial Rules was published on June 6, 2025, in two newspapers of general circulation and shall become effective 15 days from publication or on June 21, 2025.

Read the full text of the SC’s March 4, 2025 Resolution in A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC, Re: 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, at https://tinyurl.com/bdzaatrx.

Copying of this content is subject to the SC PIO’s Credit Attribution Policy: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution-policy/.

04/06/2025

AN INFORMED CITIZENRY IS A POWERFUL ONE!

So many “opinions” have emerged from Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment case that I am flabbergasted by the preposterous interpretations of some; making me wonder if they deliberately misinterpret the law. Just the thought of my beloved law students and countrymen being misled makes me shudder. Hence, I would like to enlighten the public on some questions regarding the said impeachment case.

1. CAN SENATE FURTHER DELAY THE IMPEACHMENT CASE?

Let us briefly reminisce the progenitor of the impeachment’s default.

The Articles of Impeachment were transmitted to the Senate in February 2025, yet the Articles of Impeachment will only be presented by the House of Representatives on June 11. It will only be after such time that it will be referred to the Committee on Rules.

Can the Senate further delay such impeachment case?

No. Under Article XI, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution, trial by the Senate shall “forthwith proceed.”

This means without delay or immediately. Some might say that a few months of delay will do no harm. In trivial matters that can be argued but in the realm of Constitutional interpretation, it cannot.

The word “forthwith” was not placed by our Framers just for embellishment.

I would like to remind our legislators that in interpreting the Constitution, it is a basic postulate that the Framers mean what they say. Moreover, the words used by the Framers have a specific purpose. Every word employed in the suprema lex must be interpreted to exude its deliberate intent which must be maintained inviolate against disobedience and defiance. When the Constitution categorically states something, it should be accepted and complied with by all the branches of the government. (See Chavez v. JBC, G.R. No. 202242, April 16, 2013)

Accordingly, further delaying the impeachment trial transgresses the highest law of the land. It cannot be justified by the expedient citation of internal rules let alone opinions. In fact, no congressional enactment, including statutes or rules of procedure can trump on a constitutional mandate.

2. CAN THE 20th CONGRESS’S JURISDICTION BE QUESTIONED SINCE IT MIGHT BE DEEMED AS A NEW COMPLAINT WHICH WILL VIOLATE THE ONE YEAR PROSCRIPTION AGAINST FILING AN IMPEACHMENT COMPLAINT?

No.

With utmost respect to this asseveration by some, such proposition is devoid of any legal basis. The prohibition is found under Article XI, Section 3(5) of the Constitution which explicitly states that: “No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a period of one year.”

The word initiate under the 1987 Constitution has a technical meaning. In Fransisco v. House of Representatives, the Court elucidated that: when Section 3 (5) says, "No impeachment proceeding shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a period of one year," it means that no second verified complaint may be accepted and referred to the Committee on Justice for action.

To clarify, the initiation of an impeachment complaint happens before the House of Representatives and not in the Senate. The one year proscription applies only if there is another impeachment complaint filed before the House of Representatives and referred to the Committee on Justice within the same year that the previous impeachment complaint was also filed and referred.

Simply stated, the one year ban can only exist in the House of Representatives where an impeachment complaint is exclusively initiated, not in the Senate.
Hence, there is no gainsaying that a Senate with a new composition does not violate the said prohibition.

3. CAN THE IMPEACHMENT CASE CONTINUE EVEN IF THE 19TH CONGRESS ADJOURNS ON JUNE 13, 2025?

To disentangle the confusion, the public must know that there is a difference between the 19th Congress’s adjournment sine die and the expiration of the said Congress.

When we say the Congress will adjourn sine die, it means the termination of its regular legislative sessions. What ceases are its legislative duties.
On the other hand, the 19th Congress expires not on its adjournment sine die but on June 30, 2025. This means that even after the said adjournment, the 19th Congress’s composition remains senators and members of the House of Representatives until June 30, 2025, when the 20th Congress commences.

It is likewise worthy to emphasize that when it comes to the non-legislative function of Congress, it continues even after the adjournment sine die since only its legislative function terminates upon the adjournment.

Since an impeachment is non-legislative in nature, the 19th Congress can still continue with the impeachment trial even after June 13, 2025.

4. DOES THE 20th CONGRESS HAVE JURISDICTION OVER AN IMPEACHMENT CASE UNDER THE 19th CONGRESS?

YES!

In Pimentel Jr. v. Joint Committee of Congress (G.R. No. 163783 - June 22, 2004), the Supreme Court declared that if the Congress’s function is non-legislative in nature, the body may change its membership but it retains its authority, to wit:

“The legislative functions of the Twelfth Congress may have come to a close upon the final adjournment of its regular sessions on June 1, 2004, but this does not affect its non-legislative functions, x x x”

If a certain committee, board or body is mandated by the Constitution to perform a particular duty, its membership may change, but it retains its authority and cannot be deemed functus officio until it has accomplished its purposes.

Applying these doctrines by analogy, even if the 19th Congress will bow out of existence on June 30, 2025, only its membership is altered but the authority to perform its constitutional mandate to try and decide the impeachment is retained.

Hence, there is no legal impediment as to the 20th Congress’s authority or jurisdiction to continue the impeachment trial.

TAGALOG SUMMARY

1. PWEDE BANG PATULOY NA IPAGPALIBAN NG SENADO ANG IMPEACHMENT?

HINDI. Sa ilalim ng ating Saligang Batas (Article XI, Section 3(5)), ang paglilitis sa Senado ay kailangang mag umpisa at magpatuloy agad agad at hindi pwedeng ipagpaliban.

Ang salitang “forthwith” ay hindi inilagay ng mga nagsulat ng Konstitusyon para lamang pampaganda or dekorasyon.

Ang mga salita na ginamit ng Framers ng Konstitusyon ay may tiyak o partikular na saysay. Ito ay dapat bigyang kahulugan na naaayon sa kanilang intensyon at hindi maaaring suwayin. Kapag malinaw ang sinabi ng Konstitusyon, ito ay dapat tanggapin at sundin ng lahat ng sangay ng pamahalaan.

Kaya ang patuloy na pagpapaliban sa impeachment ay pagsuway sa Saligang Batas.

2. MAAARI BANG KWESTIYUNIN ANG HURISDIKSYON NG 20TH CONGRESS DAHIL ITO AY LALABAG SA ONE YEAR PROSCRIPTION NA PAGSASAMPA NG IMPEACHMENT COMPLAINT SA PAREHONG OPISYAL SA LOOB NG ISANG TAON?

HINDI. Ang Article XI, Section 3(5) ay may teknikal na kahulugan. Sa Fransisco v. House of Representatives, ipinaliwanag ng Korte Suprema na ang ibig sabihin ng “initiate” ay and pagsampa ng verified complaint sa mababang kapulungan at pagrefer nito sa Committee on Justice.

Sa madaling salita, ang pagsasampa ng impeachment complaint laban sa isang impeachable official ay nangyayari sa Kamara at hindi sa Senado.

Ang pagbabawal ay nag aapply lamang kapag may bagong complaint na inihain sa Kamara at nirefer sa Committee sa loob ng isang taon matapos na may naunang impeachment complaint na sinampa din at nirefer sa Committe.

Ang “one year ban” ay nangyayari laming sa Kamara at hindi sa Senado. Kaya naman kahit magkaroon ng bagong mga miyembro ang Senado sa June 30, 2025, hindi nito nilalabag ang “one year ban”.

3. MAAARI BANG ITULOY ANG IMPEACHMENT KAHIT ANG 19TH CONGRESS AY MAG “AADJOURN” SA JUNE 13, 2025?

OO. May kaibahan ang “adjournment sine die” ng 19th Congress sa pagtatapos ng termino nito.

Kapag sinabing “adjournment sine die” ang natatapos ay ang kanilang “legislative” na trabaho. Sa kabilang banda, ang 19th Congress ay magtatapos sa June 30, 2025.

Kahit magkaroon sila ng “adjournment sine die” sa June 13, 2025, nananatili pa din silang myembro ng Kongreso hanggang June 30, 2025.

Kaapag “non-legislative” ang trabaho ng Kongreso, ito ay nagpapatuloy kahit matapos ang “adjournment sine die”.

Dahil ang impeachment ay “non legislative”, maaari pa ding ipagpatuloy ng 19th Congress ang impeachment trial kahit pagkatapos ng June 13, 2025 hanggang June 30, 2025.

4. MAY HURISDIKSYON BA ANG 20TH CONGRESS SA IMPEACHMENT NA NAGSIMULA NOONG 19TH CONGRESS?

OO. Sa Pimentel Jr. v. Joint Committee of Congress (G.R. No. 163783 - June 22, 2004), sinabi ng Korte Suprema na kapag ang trabaho ng Kongreso ay “non-legislative,” ang mga myembro nito ay maaaring magbago or mabago pero hindi mawawala ang kanyang kapangyarihan na gawin ang minamandato ng Konstitusyon.

Kapag ang isang komite, “board” or “body” ay inuutusan ng Konstitusyon na gawin ang isang tungkulin, maaaring mapalitan and komposisyon nitto pero may otoridad pa din itong tapusin ang nasabing tungkulin.

Kaya naman kahit magtapos ang 19th Congress sa June 30, ang mababago lamang ay ang mga miyembro pero mananatili ang kapangyarihan nitong litisin at desisyunan ang impeachment.

Walang legal na balakid para ipagpatuloy ng 20th Congress ang impeachment.

impeachment

Franklin Drilon Senator Risa Hontiveros Senator Koko Pimentel Bam Aquino Kiko Pangilinan Senate of the Philippines House of Representatives of the Philippines Leila de Lima Atty. Chel Diokno

21/05/2025

DRUG REHAB FIRST!!

The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that government employees who tested positive for illegal drugs should be given opportunities to undergo rehabilitation, and dismissal from service may only be considered if they refuse to cooperate or fail the intervention program.

In a press conference on Tuesday, SC mouthpiece Atty. Camille Sue Mae Ting revealed that the high court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ (CA) decision finding Muntinlupa City Office Engineer Carlito P. Salomon guilty of grave misconduct for testing positive for shabu twice.

The high court emphasized that “drug use, and the resulting addiction or dependence, is not just a crime but a sickness that requires treatment.

“The SC ruled that government employees who test positive for illegal drug use must first be given a chance to undergo rehabilitation,” Atty. Ting said.

But the court suspended the penalties and ordered Salomon’s retesting with the condition that if he tests negative, no treatment will be required, and the Civil Service Commission (CSC) may reassess the release of his benefits and his eligibility for future public service.

Meanwhile, if he tests positive, he will undergo a drug dependency examination and enter an intervention program. Once certified fully rehabilitated and fit to work by his doctor, the SC ordered CSC to reassess his status for possible reinstatement.

10/05/2025

VOTE WISELY. YOUR FUTURE DEPENDS ON IT!!🗳️⚖️

As the midterm elections draw near, be reminded of the words of wisdom from Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, which he shared during the 2022 elections.