1. Macariola v.

Asuncion
A.M. Case No. 133-J
May 31, 1982

Makasiar, J.:
FACTS: Bernardita R. Macariola, complainant, vs. Honorable Elias B. Asuncion,
Judge of the Court of First Instance of Leyte, respondent.
The complainant charged the respondent for his acts being one not of a judge.
The alleged acts were portrayed when the respondent issued a final judgment
wherein said complainant was a party to the case and that there was a
partition of properties. On October 16, 1963, the judgment rendered became
final due to lack of appeal. On March 6, 1965, Dr. Arcadio Galapon and his wife
sold a portion of Lot 1184-E with an area of around 1306 m
2
to Judge Elias
Asuncion and his wife Victoria Asuncion. On August 31, 1966, the conveyance
was made and it was transferred to The Traders Manufacturing and Fishing
Industries Inc. wherein the respondent and his spouse are stockholders [as
President and Secretary]. The complainant alleged in her complaint that Judge
Asuncion violated several laws, including Art. 14 of the Code of Commerce.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Code of Commerce is still operative due to the
change in the control of sovereignty from Spain to USA.
SC RULING: No. When there was a change in the control of the sovereignty of
the Philippines, there was no express re-enacting by the new sovereign of the
Code of Commerce therefore abrogating such law. When there is change in
sovereignty, political laws are merely suspended while municipal laws created
during the control or exercise of sovereignty will be abrogated. Political law
would be defined as branch of public law which deals with the organization
and operation of the governmental organs of the State and defined the
relations of the State with the inhabitants territory, and the coverage does not
include statutes on Commerce. Therefore, the Code of Commerce has been
abrogated and deemed inoperative because it is not within the scope of
Political Law and that it was not expressly re-enacted by the new sovereign.


2. Defensor-Santiago v. COMELEC
G.R. No. 127325
March 19, 1997

Davide, Jr., J.:
FACTS: On December 6, 1996, Atty. Delfin filed with the COMELEC a Petition to
Amend the Constitution to Lift Term Limits of Elective Officials, by Peoples
Initiative or hereinafter referred to as the Delfin Petition, and asked the
COMELEC for an order to fix the time and dates for the gathering of signatures, the
publications of the amendments in newspapers of general and local circulation, and
instructing municipal election registrars to assist those who will sign the petitions in
the designated stations.
On December 1996, the petitioner, Defensor-Santiago, filed an action for
prohibition on the grounds that the amendments in the Delfin Petition are
revisions and that the Resolution No. 2300 of the COMELEC stating that RA 6735 is
an enabling law for the initiative, is not applicable to Initiative on the Constitution
but only for Local and National Initiative.
ISSUES:
a. Whether or not the RA 6375 is an enabling law.
b. Whether or not the changes passed were amendments.
HELD:
a. No. RA 6375 explicitly allows only local and national initiative and not Initiative
on the Constitution. Therefore, there was no enabling law in order for the
amendments to be implemented.
b. No. By changing the term or tenure of position of the elected officials is a
substantive change and it violates the synchronization of elections and the principle
of guaranteeing equal access of opportunities for public service and avoiding
political dynasties. Therefore violating Article XVII, Sec. 2 that the Peoples Initiative
may contain only amendments, not revisions.

3. Lambino, et. al. v. COMELEC
G.R. No. 174153
October 25, 2006

Carpio, J.:
FACTS: On February 15, 2006, Raul Lambino, Enrico Aumentado with other groups
and individuals commenced the gathering of signatures for an initiative to amend
the 1987 Philippine Constitution and filed with the COMELEC to hold a plebiscite so
as to ratify their initiative. The petition satisfied the qualification on having the
support of 12% of the total registered voters, with each legislative district
supported by 3% of its registered voters. The petition included an amendment of
Article VI, Sections 1-7, and Article VII, Sections 1-4, wherein the changes will shift
the Bicameral-Presidential system to Unicameral-Parliamentary form of
government. In the plebiscite, it was asked whether they approve of the
amendments changing the system or form of government.
ISSUE: Whether or not the amendments passed by the Lambino group are
amendments.
SC RULING: No. As defined in this case, an amendment is a change that adds,
reduces, or deletes without altering the basic principle involved, while a revision is a
change that generally affects several provisions of the Constitution, which then
changes the basic principle. In this case, the changes included were not
amendments but a revision since it alters the basic principle of the separation of
powers and changes the form of government.







4. Laurel v. Misa





































5. The Holy See v. Rosario





















6. USA v. Guinto





















7. Republic v. Villasor





















8. Sanders v. Veridiano





















9. Bureau of Printing v. BoP Employees Association





















10. PNB v. Pabalan





















11. Villavicencio v. Lukban





















12. Calalang v. Williams





















13. AKBAYAN v. Aquino





















14. Oposa v. Factoran





















15. Basco v. PAGCOR





















16. Casibang v. Aquino





















17. Rodriguez v. Gella





















18. Ynot v. IAC





















19. Romualdez-Marcos v. COMELEC
G. R. No. 119976
September 18, 1995
Kapunan, J.:
Facts: On March 23, 1995, Cirilo Roy Montejo, the incumbent
Representative of the First District of Leyte and a candidate of the same
position, filed a petition for the disqualification of his opponent, Mrs.
Imelda Marcos, due to lack of residency. On March 29, 1995, the petitioner
filed an "Amended/Corrected Certificate of Candidacy" wherein instead of
having a residency of seven months, she changed it to "since childhood."
On May 11, 1995, the petitioner was proclaimed the winner.
Issue: Whether or not the petitioner was rightfully proclaimed as the
winner despite the constitutional requirement on residency.
SC Ruling: Yes. For a person to be qualified as a Member of the House of
Representatives, he must be a natural-born citizen and on the day of the
elections must be thirty-five years of age, able to read and write, a
registered voter in the district in which he shall be elected, and a resident
thereof for a period of not less than one year immediately preceding the
day of the election. Montejo challenged the residency and the Court ruled
that she was a resident of Leyte because it was her domicile of origin or
birth. Therefore, she is eligible to be the Representative of the First District
of Leyte and that in Political Law, residency and domicile have no
distinction.









20. Osmea v. Pendatun





















21. Casco Philippine Chemical Co. v. Gimenez
G.R. No. L-17931
February 28, 1963

Concepcion, J.:

Facts: Pursuant to RA 2609, the Central Bank of the Philippines issued
Circular No. 95, fixing a uniform margin fee of 25% on foreign exchange
transactions. Several times in November and December 1959, the
petitioner, engaged in manufacture of synthetic resin glues, bought foreign
exchange for the importation of urea and formaldehyde, which are raw
materials for production of glues, and paid a margin fee of P33, 765.42. In
May 1960, the petitioner made another purchase and paid for a margin fee
of P6, 345.72. The petitioner made a request for refund since the payment
is exempt from said fee. Even though the Central Bank issued vouchers,
there was no approval of said vouchers. The question raised is whether or
not the products exempted are urea and formaldehyde, instead of urea
formaldehyde in accordance with the bill passed versus the enrolled bill.

Issue: Whether or not the enrolled bill should be followed over the journal.

Held: Yes. According the enrolled bill, what is being exempted is the urea
formaldehyde. The journal which states that what is exempt is the urea
and formaldehyde, is but a typographical error when the law was passed
and printed, and finally signed by Congress. Therefore, what is being
exempt, despite typographical error, but still signed by Members of
Congress, is urea formaldehyde. The journal is but a record of proceedings,
thus the enrolled bill or the law itself, shall prevail.
22. Ang Bagong Bayani v. COMELEC
23. Senate v. Ermita
24. Tolentino v. Sec. of Finance




25. Marcos v. Manglapus
G.R. No. 88211
September 15, 1989

Cortes, J.:

Facts: After the failed coup attempt in the Manila Hotel by the Marcos
loyalists, there were strings of failed attempt as well by Imelda Marcos
when she was in Hawaii by bringing in weapons of mass destruction, and
as well as the open grounds to invade the country due to the declining of
our economy at the latter part of the Marcos regime. There was a petition
by the Marcos Family to return to the Philippines from Hawaii for the
former President to die in his native land, our country, Philippines. The
President then banned them due to clear and present danger to national
security, public safety or public health.
Issue: Whether or not the President acted beyond her scope of her
authority.
SC Ruling: No. The Court ruled that she did not act beyond her scope,
because at that time, Marcos and his family posed danger and threat to
national interest and welfare. Therefore, prohibiting their return despite
their rights under the Constitution on abode, and the international laws
supporting thereof.


26. Estrada v. Desierto; Estrada v. Arroyo
27. Sarmiento III v. Mison
28. De Castro v. JBC and Arroyo
29. Villena v. Sec. of Interior
30. David v. Arroyo
31. LAMP v. Sec. of DBM
32. Monsanto v. Factoran
33. Kilosbayan v. Guingona, Jr.
34. Brillantes v. Yorac
35. Francisco v. House of Representatives