Constitutional Law One

Professor: Judge Edilwasif T. Baddiri

Required Textbook

Bernas S.J., Fr. Joaquin (2011) The 1987 Philippine Constitution: A Comprehensive Reviewer,
Manila: Rex Book Store, Inc.
Bernas S.J., Fr. Joaquin (2003) The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A
Commentary, Manila: Rex Book Store, Inc.
Nachura, Antonio (2015) Outline Reviewer in Political Law, Quezon City: VJ Graphil Arts, Inc.

A. COURSE DESCRIPTION
This course is a 3-unit subject covering the basic principles dealing with the structure of
the Philippine Government.

B. COURSE OBJECTIVE
By the end of the course, students should be able to master the constitutional provisions
on:

a.) National Territory,

b.) Declaration of State Principles and Policies,
c.) Functions of the Legislative, Executive and Judicial Departments, and
d.) Principles of Checks and Balances.

C. COURSE OUTLINE AND TIMEFRAME

The 1987 Philippine Constitution

Definition
Classification
Essential Parts of the Philippine Constitution

Important Constitutional Principles

Separation of Powers Principle

 Pangasinan Transportation Inc. v. Public Service Commission, G.R. No. 47065,
June 26, 1940
“xxx The theory of the separation of powers is designed by its originators to secure
action and at the same time to forestall overaction which necessarily results from undue
concentration of powers, and thereby obtain efficiency and prevent deposition.”
 Belgica v. Ochoa, Jr., 710 SCRA 1, November 19, 2013
“xxx The principle of separation of powers refers to the constitutional demarcation of the
three fundamental powers of government. It means that the “Constitution has blocked
out with deft strokes and in bold lines, allotment of power to the executive, the legislative
and the judicial departments of the government.” To the legislative branch of
government, through Congress, belongs the power to make laws; to the executive
branch of government, through the President, belongs the power to enforce laws; and to
the judicial branch of government, through the Court, belongs the power to interpret
laws. Because the three great powers have been, by constitutional design, ordained in

1
 this respect, “[e]ach department of the government has exclusive cognizance of matters
within its jurisdiction, and is supreme within its own sphere.” Thus, “the legislature has
no authority to execute or construe the law, the executive has no authority to make or
construe the law, and the judiciary has no power to make or execute the law.” The
principle of separation of powers and its concepts of autonomy and independence stem
from the notion that the powers of government must be divided to avoid concentration of
these powers in any one branch; the division, it is hoped, would avoid any single branch
from lording its power over the other branches or the citizenry. To achieve this purpose,
the divided power must be wielded by co-equal branches of government that are equally
capable of independent action in exercising their respective mandates. Lack of
independence would result in the inability of one branch of government to check the
arbitrary or self-interest assertions of another or others.”

Principles of Checks and Balances

This principle of separation of powers under the Presidential system goes hand in hand
with the system of checks and balances, under which each department is vested by the
Fundamental Law with some powers to forestall, restrain or arrest a possible or actual misuse or
abuse of powers by the other departments. [ANNOTATION: Political or Justiciable Question,
59 SCRA 652, September 17, 1974]

 San Miguel Corporation v. Secretary of Labor G.R. No. L-39195 (1975)

“xxx There is an underlying power in the Courts to scrutinize the acts of administrative
agencies on questions of law and jurisdiction although no right of review is given by
statute. This is designed to keep the administrative agency within its jurisdiction and to
protect substantial rights of parties affected by its decisions. It is part of the system of
checks and balances which restricts the separation of powers and forestalls arbitrary
and unjust adjudication.”

Principle of Comity
 St. Aviation Services Co. Pte., Ltd. v. Grand International Airways, Inc., G.R. No.
140288, October 23, 2006
“xxx In the absence of a special contract, no sovereign is bound to give effect within its
dominion to a judgment rendered by a tribunal of another country; however, under the
rules of comity, utility and convenience, nations have established a usage among
civilized states by which final judgments of foreign courts of competent jurisdiction are
reciprocally respected and rendered efficacious under certain conditions that may vary in
different countries.”

Hierarchy of Laws

1. Constitution
2. National Laws
3. International Laws
4. Administrative Rules and Regulations

2
 5. Ordinances

 The Heirs of Mario Malabanan v. The Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. 179987,
April 29, 2009 (See separate opinion of Justin Brion)
“xxx In light of our established hierarchy of laws, particularly the supremacy of the
Philippine Constitution, any consideration of lands of the public domain should start with
the Constitution and its Regalian doctrine; all lands belong to the State, and he who
claims ownership carries the burden of proving his claim. Next in the hierarchy is the
Public Land Act (PLA) for purposes of the terms of the grant, alienation and disposition
of the lands of the public domain, and the Property Registration Decree (PRD) for the
registration of lands. The PLA and the PRD are special laws supreme in their respective
spheres, subject only to the Constitution. The Civil Code, for its part, is the general law
on property and prescription and should be accorded respect as such. In more concrete
terms, where alienable and disposable lands of the public domain are involved, the PLA
is the primary law that should govern, and the Civil Code provisions on property and
prescription must yield in case of conflict.”

Power of Judicial Review

 Garcia vs. Executive Secretary, 583 SCRA 119, April 02, 2009
The power of judicial review is the power of the courts to test the validity of executive
and legislative acts for their conformity with the Constitution.—In asking the Court to
declare Section 19 of R.A. No. 8479 as unconstitutional for contravening Section 19,
Article XII of the Constitution, petitioner Garcia invokes the exercise by this Court of its
power of judicial review, which power is expressly recognized under Section 4(2), Article
VIII of the Constitution. The power of judicial review is the power of the courts to test the
validity of executive and legislative acts for their conformity with the Constitution.
Through such power, the judiciary enforces and upholds the supremacy of the
Constitution. For a court to exercise this power, certain requirements must first be met,
namely: (1) an actual case or controversy calling for the exercise of judicial power; (2)
the person challenging the act must have “standing” to challenge; he must have a
personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain,
direct injury as a result of its enforcement; (3) the question of constitutionality must be
raised at the earliest possible opportunity; and (4) the issue of constitutionality must be
the very lis mota of the case.

 Metropolitan Manila Development Authority vs. Concerned Residents of Manila

Bay 643 SCRA 90, February 15, 2011
“xxx It is an oft-repeated rule that the Court has no power to issue advisory opinions,
much less “directives” requiring progress reports from the parties respecting the
execution of its decisions—the requirements of “actual case or controversy” and
“justiciability” have long been established in order to limit the exercise of judicial review;
Needless to say, the “continuing mandamus” in this case runs counter to principles of
“actual case or controversy” and other requisites for judicial review. The Court may,
under extraordinary circumstances, issue directives with the end in view of ensuring that
its decision would not be set to naught by administrative inaction or indifference.”

3
Doctrine of Operative Fact
 League of Cities of the Philippines v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 176951, November 18,
2008
“xxx Under the operative fact doctrine, the law is recognized as unconstitutional but the
effects of the unconstitutional law, prior to its declaration of nullity, may be left
undisturbed as a matter of equity and fair play. In fact, the invocation of the operative
fact doctrine is an admission that the law is unconstitutional. The operative fact doctrine
is a rule of equity. As such, it must be applied as an exception to the general rule that an
unconstitutional law produces no effects.”

Political Questions Doctrine

 Tañada v. Cuenco, G.R. No. L-10520, February 28, 1957
“xxx It is well-settled doctrine that political questions are not within the province of the
judiciary, except to the extent that power to deal with such questions has been conferred
upon the courts by express constitutional or statutory provisions. It is not easy, however,
to define the phrase `political question', nor to determine what matters, fall within its
scope. It is frequently used to designate all questions that lie outside the scope of the
judicial questions, which under the constitution, are to be decided by the people in their
sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated
to the legislative or executive branch of the government." In short, the term "political
question" connotes, in legal parlance, what it means in ordinary parlance, namely, a
question of policy. In other words, it refers to "those questions which, under the
Constitution, are to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to
which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the Legislature or executive
branch of the Government." It is concerned with issues dependent upon the wisdom, not
legality, of a particular measure.”

Inherent Powers of Government

A. Police Power
 MMDA v. Bel-Air Village Association Inc., G.R. No. 135962, March 27, 2000
“xxx Police power is an inherent attribute of sovereignty. It has been defined as the
power vested by the Constitution in the legislature to make, ordain, and establish all
manner of wholesome and reasonable laws, statutes and ordinances, either with
penalties or without, not repugnant to the Constitution, as they shall judge to be for the
good and welfare of the commonwealth, and for the subjects of the same. The power is
plenary, and its scope is vast and pervasive, reaching and justifying measures for public
health, public safety, public morals, and the general welfare. It bears stressing that police
power is lodged primarily in the National Legislature. It cannot be exercised by any
group or body of individuals not possessing legislative power. The National Legislature,
however, may delegate this power to the President and administrative boards as well as
the lawmaking bodies of municipal corporations or local government units. Once
delegated, the agents can exercise only such legislative powers as are conferred on
them by the national lawmaking body.”

4
B. Power of Eminent Domain
 National Transmission Corporation v. Oroville Development Corporation, G.R. No.
223366, August 1, 2017
“xxx Eminent domain is the right or power of a sovereign state to appropriate private
property to particular uses to promote public welfare. It is an indispensable attribute of
sovereignty; a power grounded in the primary duty of government to serve the common
need and advance the general welfare.12 The power of eminent domain is inseparable
in sovereignty being essential to the existence of the State and inherent in government.
But the exercise of such right is not unlimited, for two mandatory requirements should
underlie the Government's exercise of the power of eminent domain, namely: (1) that it is
for a particular public purpose; and (2) that just compensation be paid to the property
owner.13 These requirements partake the nature of implied conditions that should be
complied with to enable the condemnor to keep the property expropriated.”

C. Power of Taxation
 Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority vs. Marcos, 261 SCRA 667, September
11, 1996
“xxx As a general rule, the power to tax is an incident of sovereignty and is unlimited in
its range, acknowledging in its very nature no limits, so that security against its abuse is
to be found only in the responsibility of the legislature which imposes the tax on the
constituency who are to pay it. Nevertheless, effective limitations thereon may be
imposed by the people through their Constitutions. Our Constitution, for instance,
provides that the rule of taxation shall be uniform and equitable, and Congress shall
evolve a progressive system of taxation. So potent indeed is the power that it was once
opined that the power to tax involves the power to destroy. Verily, taxation is a
destructive power which interferes with the personal and property rights of the people
and takes from them a portion of their property for the support of the government.
Accordingly, tax statutes must be construed strictly against the government and liberally
in favor of the taxpayer. But since taxes are what we pay for civilized society, or are the
lifeblood of the nation, the law frowns against exemptions from taxation and statutes
granting tax exemptions are thus construed strictissimi juris against the taxpayer and
liberally in favor of the taxing authority. A claim of exemption from tax payments must be
clearly shown and based on language in the law too plain to be mistaken. Elsewise
stated, taxation is the rule, exemption therefrom is the exception. However, if the grantee
of the exemption is a political subdivision or instrumentality, the rigid rule of construction
does not apply because the practical effect of the exemption is merely to reduce the
amount of money that has to be handled by the government in the course of its
operations.

The power to tax is primarily vested in the Congress; however, in our jurisdiction, it may
be exercised by local legislative bodies, no longer merely by virtue of a valid delegation
as before, but pursuant to direct authority conferred by Section 5, Article X of the
Constitution. Under the latter, the exercise of the power may be subject to such
guidelines and limitations as the Congress may provide which, however, must be
consistent with the basic policy of local autonomy.”

5
Immunity from Suit
 Kawananakoa v. Polybank, 205 U.S. 349, 353, (1907)
“xxx Philippine jurisprudence has also accepted Holmes’ dictum to the effect that a
“sovereign is exempt from suit, not because of any formal conception or obsolete theory,
but on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal right against the
authority that makes the law on which the right depends.”

Doctrine of Qualified Agency

 Villena v. Secretary of Interior, G.R. No. L-46570, April 21, 1939
“xxx The doctrine, recognizing that the Constitution has established a single and not a
plural executive, postulates that all executive and administrative organizations are
adjuncts of the Executive Department, the heads of the various executive departments
are assistants and agents of the Chief Executive, and except in cases where the Chief
Executive is required by the Constitution or the law to act in person or the exigencies of
the situation demand that he act personally, the multifarious executive and administrative
functions of the Chief Executive are performed by and through the executive
departments, and the acts of the secretaries of such departments, performed and
promulgated in the regular course of business, are, unless disapproved or reprobated by
the Chief Executive, presumptively the acts of the Chief Executive.”

Non-Delegation of Power
 Rubi v. Provincial Board, 39 Phil. 660 (1919)
“xxx Legislative power must remain where the people have lodged it. However, there are
two exceptions to this rule: (1) by immemorial practice legislative power may be
delegated to local governments; (2) the Constitution itself might in specific instances
allow delegation of legislative power, e.g. Article VI, Sections 23(2) and 28(2).”

Power of Control
 Mondano v. Silvosa, G.R. No. L-7708, May 30, 1955
“xxx Control means the power of an officer to alter or modify or nullify or set aside what a
subordinate officer had done in the performance of his duties and to substitute the
judgment of the former for that of the latter.”

Power of Supervision
 Mondano v. Silvosa, G.R. No. L-7708, May 30, 1955
“xxx In administrative law, supervision means overseeing or the power or authority of an
officer to see that subordinate officers perform their duties. If the latter fail or neglect to
fulfill them the former may take such action or step as prescribed by law to make them
perform their duties.”

 Drilon vs. Lim 235 SCRA 135, August 04, 1994

“xxx Where the Secretary of Justice reviews, pursuant to law, a tax measure enacted by
a local government unit to determine if the officials performed their functions in
accordance with law, that is, with the prescribed procedure for the enactment of tax
ordinances and the grant of powers under the Local Government Code, the same is an

6
 act of mere supervision, not control. An officer in control lays down the rules in the doing
of an act. If they are not followed, he may, in his discretion, order the act undone or re-
done by his subordinate or he may even decide to do it himself. Supervision does not
cover such authority. The supervisor or superintendent merely sees to it that the rules
are followed, but he himself does not lay down such rules, nor does he have the
discretion to modify or replace them. If the rules are not observed, he may order the
work done or re-done but only to conform to the prescribed rules. He may not prescribe
his own manner for the doing of the act. He has no judgment on this matter except to
see to it that the rules are followed. In the opinion of the Court, Secretary Drilon did
precisely this, and no more nor less than this, and so performed an act not of control but
of mere supervision.”

 Joson vs. Torres 290 SCRA 279, May 20, 1998

“xxx The power of supervision means "overseeing or the authority of an officer to see
that the subordinate officers perform their duties” If the subordinate officers fail or neglect
to fulfill their duties, the official may take such action or step as prescribed by law to
make them perform their duties. The President's power of general supervision means no
more than the power of ensuring that laws are faithfully executed, or that subordinate
officers act within the law. Supervision is not incompatible with discipline. And the power
to discipline and ensure that the laws be faithfully executed must be construed to
authorize the President to order an investigation of the act or conduct of local officials
when in his opinion the good of the public service so requires.”

Doctrine of Constitutional Supremacy

 Manila Price Hotel vs. GSIS, 267 SCRA 408
“xxx A constitution is a system of fundamental laws for the governance and
administration of a nation—it is supreme, imperious, absolute and unalterable except by
the authority from which it emanates. Since the Constitution is the fundamental,
paramount and supreme law of the nation, it is deemed written in every statute and
contract. Under the doctrine of constitutional supremacy, if a law or contract violates any
norm of the Constitution, that law or contract, whether promulgated by the legislative or
by the executive branch or entered into by private persons for private purposes, is null
and void and without any force and effect. Since the Constitution is the fundamental,
paramount and supreme law of the nation, it is deemed written in every statute and
contract.”

Separation of Church and State

 Austria v. NLRC, G.R. No. 124382
“xxx The Supreme Court ruled that the case, being a labor issue, did not concern an
ecclesiastical (or purely religious affair). It was a secular matter and had no relation
whatsoever with the practice of faith, worship or doctrines of the church, and thus the
NLRC had jurisdiction.”

Political Law
 People v. Perfecto, 43 PHIL 887
 Macariola v. Asuncion, AM No. 133-J, May 31, 1982

Scope of Political Law

7
Constitutional Law
Administrative Law
Public Corporations/Local Government Code
Law on Public Officers
Election Laws

Interpretation/Construction of the Philippine Constitution

 Francisco v. House of Representatives, GR 160261, Nov. 10, 2003
 Civil Liberties Union v. ES, 194 SCRA 317

1. Verba Legis
2. Ratio Legiset Anima
3. Utmagisvaleat quam pereat

Effectivity and Rules of Construction

 De Leon vs. Esguerra, G.R. No. L-78059, August 31, 1987

Brief History
Malolos Constitution
1900 McKinley’s Instructions
Spooner Amendment
1902 Philippine Bill
1916 Jones Law (Philippine Autonomy Act)
Tydings-McDuffie Act (Philippine Independence Act)
1935 Constitution
Japanese Occupation Order No. 1 (Philippine Executive Commission)
1973 Constitution
Freedom Constitution
1987 Philippine Constitution

Preamble
 Re: Letter of Tony Q. Valenciano, re: Holding of Religious Rituals at the Halls of Justice
Building in Quezon City, AM No. 10-4-19-SC, March 7, 2017 (Include Dissenting Opinion
of Justice Leonen)

Article I: The National Territory

Definition of Terms
1. Aerial Domain- refers to airspace above the land and waters of the state
2. Archipelago- body of water studded with islands
3. Archipelagic State- constituted wholly by one or more archipelagos and may include
other islands
4. Archipelagic Principle- this concept is meant that an archipelago shall be regarded as
a single unit, so that the waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the
archipelago, irrespective of their breadth and dimensions, form part of the internal waters
of the state, subject to its exclusive sovereignty.
5. Baselines-lines drawn along the low water mark of an island or group of islands, which
mark the end of the internal waters and the beginning of the territorial sea.
6. Continental Shelves-

8
 7. Exclusive Economic Zones- extend 200nm from the baseline.
8. Fluvial Domain- refers to water mass which includes internal waters, territorial sea,
seabed, subsoil, insular shelves, exclusive economic zone, and other submarine areas.
9. Internal waters- refer to all bodies of water located inside the baseline of the territory
including the sea, lakes, rivers, streams, etc.
10. Maritime Zones- include internal waters, the territorial sea, the contiguous
zone, the exclusive economic zone, the continental shelf, the high seas and
the Area.
11. Seabed –refers to the land that holds the sea, lying beyond the seashore, including
mineral and natural resources.
12. Straight baseline method- Straight baselines, these are drawn connecting selected
points on the coast without appreciable departure from the general shape of the coast.
13. Subsoil-refers to everything beneath the surface soil, and the seabed, including mineral,
and natural resources.
14. Terrestrial Domain- refers to land mass, which may be integrated or dismembered, or
partly bound by water or consist of one whole island.
15. Territorial sea- It is the belt of sea outwards from the baseline and up to 12 nautical
miles beyond. Regardless its width. However, that where the application of the 12-mile
rule to neighboring littoral states would result in overlapping.
16. UNCLOS- is a body of treaty rules and customary norms governing the uses of the sea,
the exploitation of its resources, and the exercise of jurisdiction over maritime regimes.
17. Contiguous zone- is an area of water not exceeding 24 nautical miles from the
baseline. It thus extend 12 nautical miles from the edge of the territorial sea.
18. Continental Shelf / Insular Shelf- refers to the seabed and subsoil of the submarine
areas adjacent to the coastal state but outside the territorial sea to a depth of 200 meters
or, beyond that limit, to where the depth allows exploitation, and the seabed and subsoil
of areas adjacent to islands.
19. High Seas- are all parts of the sea that are not included in Exclusive Economic Zone, in
the territorial sea or in the internal waters of a state, or in the archipelagic waters of an
archipelagic state.
20. Sovereignty- pertains to the exclusive legal authority of a state over its waters,
especially its internal waters and territorial seas. The state essentially has territorial
sovereignty over these waters.
21. Sovereign right- is a term used in UNCLOS to pertain to the entitlements or privileges
of a state to a defined area of a sea called the exclusive economic zone.

Sovereignty
 R.A. 5446 (Sabah)
 PD 1596, June 11, 1978 (Kalayaan Island Group)
 R.A. 9255 or the New Baselines Law of 2009.
 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea
 Reagan v. Commissioner, 30 SCRA 968
 People v. Gozo, 53 SCRA 476
 Magallona v. Ermita, 655 SCRA 476
 Most Rev Pedro Arigo v. Scott Swift, GR 206510, Sept 16, 2014
 The South China Sea Arbitration: Philippines v. China, July 12, 2016
 The South China Sea Dispute: Philippine Sovereign Rights and Jurisdiction in the West
Philippine Sea (Justice Carpio’s Ebook)

9
Concept of Auto Limitation
 People vs. Gozo, G.R. No. L-36409, October 26, 1973 *is the property of a state-force
due to which it has the exclusive capacity of legal self-determination and self-restriction."
 Magallona, et. al. vs. Ermita, G.R. No. 187167, August 16, 2011

Archipelagic Doctrine
 Magallona, et. al. vs. Ermita, G.R. No. 187167, August 16, 2011

Concept of the State

 Laurel vs. Misa, G.R. No. L-409, January 30, 1947

State Immunity from Suit

 Lansang vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 102667, February 23, 2000
 Amigable vs. Cuenca, G.R. No. L-26400, February 29, 1972
 City of Caloocan vs. Judge Allarde, G.R. No. 107271, September 10, 2003
 Air Transportation Office vs. Ramos, G.R. No. 159402, February 23, 2011

Article II: Declaration of Principles and State Policies

Definition of Terms
1. State- state refers to a community of persons, more or less numerous, permanently
occupying a definite portion of territory, independent of external control, and possessing
an organized government to which the great body of inhabitants render habitual
2. People- A community of persons sufficient in number and capable of maintaining the
continued existence of the community and held together by a common bond of law.
3. Territory- is the fixed portion of the surface of the earth inhabited by the people of the
state.
4. Sovereignty- The supreme and uncontrollable power inherent in a State by which that
State is governed.
5. Legal Sovereignty- is the supreme power to affect legal interests either by legislative,
executive or judicial action. This is lodged in the people but is normally exercised by
state agencies.
6. Political Sovereignty- sum total of all the influences of a State, legal and non-legal
which determine the course of law.
7. Imperium- This is the authority possessed by the State embraced in the concept of
sovereignty.
8. Dominium- Capacity of the State to own property.
9. Jurisdiction- is the manifestation of sovereignty. The jurisdiction of the state is
understood as both its authority and the sphere of the exercise of that authority.
10. Government- That institution or aggregate of institutions by which an
independent society makes and carries out those rules of action which are necessary to
enable men to live in a social state, or which are impose upon the people forming that
society by those who possess the power or authority of prescribing them.
11. Administration- consists of the set of people currently running the institution.
12. Governmental (Constituent)- are the compulsory functions which constitute the
very bonds of society.
13. Proprietary (Ministerial)—optional functions of the government for achieving a
better life for the community.
14. De Jure Government- one established by authority of the legitimate sovereign.

10
 15. De Facto Government- one established in defiance of the legitimate sovereign.
16. Presidential government- form of government’s identifying feature is what is
called the “separation of powers.
17. Republic- is a representative government run by the people and for the people.
18. Republican state- is a state wherein all government authority emanates from the
people and is exercised by representatives chosen by the people.
19. Democratic State- In the view of the new Constitution, the Philippines is not only
a representative or republican state but also shares some aspects of direct democracy
such as “initiative and referendum”. The word democratic is also a monument to the
February Revolution which re- won freedom through direct action of the people.
20. Constitutional authoritarianism- as understood and practiced in the Marcos
regime under the 1973 Constitution, was the assumption of extraordinary powers by the
President, including legislative and judicial and even constituent powers.
21. Doctrine of Incorporation- Every state is, by reason of its membership in the
family of nations, bound by the generally accepted principles of international law,
which are considered to be automatically part of its own laws.
22. International Law- deals with the conduct of states and of international
organizations and with their relations inter se, as well as with some other relations with
persons, natural or juridical.
23. Family- means a stable heterosexual relationship. The family is not a creature of
the State.

Legal Value of Article II

 Tondo Medical v. CA, 527 SCRA 746 (2007) *non self-executing provisions
 Bases Conversion and Development Authority vs. Commission on Audit, 580 SCRA 295

Fundamental Principles and State Policies

 Tañada vs. Angara, G.R. No. 118295, May 1997
 Legaspi vs. CSC, G.R. No. L-72119, May 29, 1987
 Oposa vs. Factoran, G.R. No. 101083, July 30, 1993
 Imbong vs. Ochoa, G.R. No. 204819, G.R. No. 204819, April 8, 2014 (right to life as a
natural law)
 Espina vs. Zamora, G.R. No. 143855, September 21, 1010

Section 1. Philippines as a Democratic and Republican State

Functions of Government
 Bacani v. NACOCO, 100 PHIL 468 (1956)
 ACCFA v. CUGCO, 30 SCRA 649 (1969)
 PVTA v. CIR, 65 SCRA 416 (1975)
 PHHC v Court of Industrial Relations, 150 SCRA 296
 Spouses Fontanilla v. Hon. Maliaman, GR Nos. 55963, February 27, 1991
 VFP v. Reyes, 483 SCRA 526 (2006)
 Ramiscal v. Sandiganbayan, 499 SCRA 375 (2006)
 Alzaga v. Sandiganbayan, 505 SCRA 848 (2006)
 Javier v. Sandiganbayan, 599 SCRA 324 (2009)
 MIAA v. CA, 495 SCRA 591 (2006)
 Philippine Society v. COA, 534 SCRA 112 (2007)

11
  Serana v. Sandiganbayan, 542 SCRA 224 (2008)
 Shipside Inc v. CA, GR 143377, Feb 20, 2001
 PVTA v. CIR, GR L-32052, July 25, 1975
 Rosas v. Montor GR 204105, October 14, 2015
 People v. Perfecto, 43 Phil 887
 Vilas v. City of Manila, 229 US 345
 Laurel v. Misa, 77 Phil 856

De Jure and De Facto Government

 Co Kim Cham v. Valdez Tan Keh, 75 PHIL 113 (1945) * governments by the Philippine
Executive Commission and the Republic of the Philippines during the Japanese military
occupation being de facto governments, it necessarily follows that the judicial acts and
proceedings of the courts of justice of those governments, which are not of a political
complexion, were good and valid, and, by virtue of the well-known principle of postliminy
(postliminium) in international law, remained good and valid after the liberation or
reoccupation of the Philippines by the American and Filipino forces under the leadership
of General Douglas MacArthur.
 In re Letter of Associate Justice Puno, 210 SCRA 588
 Republic v. Sandiganbayan, GR No. 104768, July 21, 2003

Sovereignty
 People v. Gozo, 53 SCRA 476 (1973)
 Tanada v. Angara, 272 SCRA 18

Section 2. Generally Accepted Principles of International Law

Treaties and Agreements

 Agustin v. Edu, 88 SCRA 195
 JBL Reyes v. Bagatsing, GR No. 65366, October 25, 1983
 Tanada v. Angara, 272 SCRA 18 (1997)
 Bayan v. Zamora, GR 138570, October 10, 2000
 Bayan v. Romulo, GR 159618, Feb 1, 2011

Equal Standing of International Law and Municipal Law

 Lim v. Executive Secretary, GR 151445, April 11, 2002
 Shangri-La v. Developers, GR 159938, March 31, 2006
 Philip Morris, Inc. v. Fortune Tobacco Corporation, GR 158589, June 27, 2006

Recognition of Foreign Judgments

 Mijares v. Ranada, GR 139325, April 12, 2005

Soft Law
 Pharmaceutical v. DOH, GR 173034, October 9, 2007
 Article 2, UN Charter

Doctrine of Incorporation

Doctrine of Transformation

12
  SOJ v. Lantion, GR 139465 *In the Philippines, statutes and treaties may be invalidated
if they conflict with the Constitution.
 Philip Morris v. CA, GR 91332, July 16, 1993 *While international law is made part of the
law of the land, it does not imply primacy of international law over national law.
 Vinuya v. ES, GR 162230
 Saguisag v. ES, GR 212426
 Bayan v. DND Sec. Gazmin, GR 212444

Section 3. Civilian Supremacy and AFP Role

 IBP v. Zamora, 338 SCRA 81 (2000)
 Kulayan v. Tan, 675 SCRA 482 (2012)
 Alih v. Castro, GR 69401, June 23, 1987

Section 4. Duty of Government to the People

 People v. Tranquilino Lagman, GR L-45892
 People v. Primitivo De Sosa, GR L-45893, July 13, 1938
 PD No. 1706, The National Service Law, Aug 8, 1980

Section 5. Maintenance of Peace and Order

 Kilosbayan v. Morato, 246 SCRA 540 (1995) and MR 250 SCRA 130
 Kulayan v. Tan, 675 SCRA 482 (2012)

Section 6. Separation of Church and State

 United Church of Christ in the Philippines, Inc v. Bradford United Church of Christ, Inc
674 SCRA 92 (2012)

Section 7. Independent Foreign Policy

 Lim v. Executive Secretary, GR 151445, April 11, 2002
 Saguisag v. ES, GR 212426
 Bayan v. DND Sec. Gazmin, GR 212444

Section 8. Freedom from Nuclear Weapons

 Bayan v. Zamora, GR 138570, October 10, 2000

Section 9. Social Order

Section 10. Social Justice

 Calalang v. Williams, 70 Phil 726

Section 11. Personal Dignity and Human Rights

Section 12. Family Life; Mother; Unborn

 Roe v. Wade, 410 US 113 (1973)
 Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 US 390 (1922)
 Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 262 US 510 (1925)
 Wisconsin v. Yoder 40 LW 4476 (1972)
 Ginsberg v. New York, 390 US 629 (1968)
 Orceo v. COMELEC, GR 190779 March 26, 2010

13
  Imbong v. Ochoa, GR 204819, April 8, 2014: The RH Law does not violate the right of an
unborn child as guaranteed in S12, A2. The question of when life begins is a scientific
and medical issue that should not be decided without proper hearing and evidence. The
framers of the Constitution intended “conception” as “fertilization” and protection is given
upon “fertilization.” Not all contraceptives are ban. Only those that kill or destroy the
fertilized ovum are prohibited. The intent of the framers was to prevent the Legislature
from passing a measure that would allow abortion. The IRR redefinition of abortifacient
in S4a of the RH Law is violative of S12, A2. S7 of the RH Law which excludes parental
consent in cases where a minor undergoing a procedure is already a parent or has had
a miscarriage is anti-family and is violative of S12, A2.
 Orceo v. COMELEC, GR 190779, March 26, 2010

Section 13. Vital Role of Youth

 Basco v. PAGCOR, 197 SCRA 252
 Boy Scouts of the Philippines v. COA, GR 177131, June 7, 2011

Section 14. Role of Women and Equality of Men and Women

Section 15. Right to Health

 Imbong v. Ochoa: The RH Law does not violate S15. It does not do away with RA 4729
(Regulation of Contraceptive Drugs and Devices) and RA 5921 (Regulation of
Pharmacy) – laws that prohibit the sale and distribution of contraceptives without
prescription,

Section 16. Right to a Balanced and Healthful Ecology

 Oposa v. Factoran, 224 SCRA 792 (1993)
 LLDA v. CA, 231 SCRA 292 (1994) and 251 SCRA 42 (1995)
 MMDA v. Residents of Manila Bay, GR No. 171947, December 18, 2008
 Boracay Foundation, Inc. v. The Province of Aklan, 674 SCRA 555 (2012)
 C&M Timber v. Alcala, GR 111088, June 13, 1997
 MMDA v. Residents of Manila Bay, GR No. 171947, December 18, 2008
 Boracay Foundation Inc v. Province of Aklan, 674 SCRA 555
 Paje v. Casino, GR 207267, Feb 3, 2015
 Internation Service v. Greenpeace Southeast Asia, GR 209271 and GR 209430

Section 17. Education, Science and Technology, Arts, Culture and Sports
 Guingona v. Carague
 Philconsa v. Enriquez: S5, Art14 which provides for the highest budgetary priority to
education is merely directory.

Section 18. Labor Protection

 PNB v. Dan Padao, GR 180849, November 2011
 JMM Promotion v. CA, GR 120095, Aug 5, 1996
 PASE v. Drilon

Section 19. Self-Reliant and Independent National Economy

 Garcia v. BOI, 191 SCRA 288 (1990)
 Tanada v. Angara, 272 SCRA 18 (1997)
 Association of Philippine Coconut Dessicators v. PCA, GR 110526, Feb 10, 1998

14
  Pharmaceuticals v. Duque, Oct 9, 2007: Free enterprise does not call for the removal of
protective regulations.

Section 20. Role of Private Sector

 Marine Radio Communications Association of the Philippines v. Reyes, 191 SCRA 205
 Boracay Foundation, Inc. v. The Province of Aklan, 674 SCRA 555 (2012)

Section 21. Promotion of Comprehensive Rural and Agrarian Policy

 Wilson P. Gamboa v. Finance Secretary Margarito Teves, et al GR 176579 June 28,
2011 (See Dissent of Abad- Section 21 is not self-executing, thus need for CARL)

Section 22. Promotion of Rights of Indigenous Cultural Communities

Section 23. Community-Based Private Organizations

Section 24. Vital Role of Communications

 PLDT v. NTC, 190 SCRA 717

Section 25. Local Economy

 Rodolfo G. Navarro, et al. v. Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita, et al., GR 180050, 12
April 2011. (Section 25 as part of IRR of LGU provision on local autonomy)
 Belgica v. ES, 2013 *With PDAF, a Congressman can simply bypass the local
development council and initiate project on his own. Thus, insofar as individual
legislators are authorized to intervene in purely local matters and thereby subvert
genuine local autonomy, the 2013 PDAF Article and similar forms are deemed
unconstitutional.

Section 26. Equal Access to Political Opportunities and Political Dynasties

 Pamatong v. COMELEC, 427 SCRA 96 (2004)

Section 27. Honesty and Integrity in Public Service

Section 28. Full Public Disclosure

Executive Privilege
 Neri v. Senate, GR 180643, March 25, 2008
 Wilson P. Garcia v. Finance Secretary Teves
 Briccio Pollo v. Chairperson Karina David, GR 181881
 Philippine Savings Bank and Pascual Garcia III v. Senate Impeachment Court, GR
200238, Feb 9, 2012
 In Re: Production of Court Records, 14 February 2012

Article VI: The Legislative Department

Section 1. Legislative Power; Non-Delegation

Who may exercise legislative power?

1. Congress
2. Regional/Local legislative power
3. People’s initiative on statutes

15
a) Initiative and referendum
4. The President under a martial law rule or in a revolutionary government

General Rule: Non-Delegation of Legislative Power

Exception:
1. Delegation to local governments and administrative bodies
2. Grant of Quasi-Legislative Power; In general: LGU and Administrative Bodies
 Rubi v.Provincial Board of Mindoro 39 Phil. 660
 Antipolo Realty Corp. v. NHA 153 SCRA 399
 PITC v. Angales, GR 108461
 Atitiw v. Zamora 471 SCRA 329
 SEC v. Interport 567 SCRA 354
3. In instances allowed by the Constitution, e,g., Article VI, Section 23(2) and 28(2)

Issue on Delegation of Legislative Power

Valid delegation
Requisite of a valid delegation
 Agustin v. Edu 88 SCRA 1
 Free Telephone Workers v. Min. of Labor 108 SCRA 757
 Guingona v. Carague 196 SCRA 221

Complete in Itself/ Completeness Test

 Arena v. Gatmaitan 101 Phil 328
 Marcos v. CA 278 SCRA 696
 Social Justice Society v. Dangerous Drug Board 570 SCRA 410
 Pacific Steam v. LLDA 608 SCRA 442

Fixes a Standard/Sufficient Standard Test

 People v. Rosenthal 68 Phil 628
 Eastern Shipping Lines v. POEA 166 SCRA 533
 Tablarin v. Gutierez 152 SCRA 730
 Conference v. POEA 243 SCRA 666
 Osmeña v. Orbos 220 SCRA 703
 Viola v. Alunan 277 SCRA 409
 Abakada v. Ermita 469 SCRA 1
 Beltran v. Secretary of Health 476 SCRA 168
 Bayan v. Ermita 488 SCRA 226
 Abakada v. Purisima, 562 SCRA 251 (2008)

Filling in the Details

 Fernandez v. Sto. Tomas, 242 SCRA 192
 Chiongbian v. Orbos, 245 SCRA 253
 Rodrigo v. Sandiganbayan, 309 SCRA 661
 Tondo Medical v. CA, 527 SCRA 746 (2007)
 Pichay v. Office of the Deputy Executive Secretary, 677 SCRA 408 (2012)
 Arroyo v. DOJ, 681 SCRA 181 (2012)

16
Undue Delegation of Legislative Power
 People v. Vera, 65 PHIL 56
 US v. Barrias, 11 SCRA 327 (1908)
 US v. Panlilio, 28 PHIL 608 (1914)
 People v. Maceren, 79 SCRA 450 (1977)
 People v. Dacuycuy, 173 SCRA 90 (1989)
 Cebu Oxygen v. Drilon, 176 SCRA 24 (1989)
 Ynot v. IAC, 148 SCRA 659 (1987)
 Pharmaceutical v. DOH (2007)
 Abakada v. Purisima
 Philippine Coconut v. Republic, GR 178193, January 24, 2012

Executive Misapplication
 Tatad v. Secretary DOE, 281 SCRA 330 (1997) and MR 282 SCRA 337 (1997)

Mere Directive
 Dagan v. PRC, 578 SCRA 585 (2009)

PDAF Case
Dap Case

Section 2. Senate Composition

Section 3. Qualifications of Senator

 Poe-Llamanzares v. COMELEC, March 8, 2016

Section 4. Senator: Term of Office; Voluntary Renunciation

Section 5. Composition of the House of Representatives; Apportionment; Party List

Par. 2; Party-List Representation

 Ang Bagong Bayani v. COMELEC GR 147589
 Veterans Federation Party v. COMELEC GR 136781
 AKLAT v. COMELEC 427 SCRA 712
 Partido ng Manggagawa v. COMELEC 484 SCRA 671
 Citizens v. COMELEC 521 SCRA 524
 Bantay v. COMELEC 523 SCRA 1
 Phil. Guardians v. COMELEC GR 190529
 BANAT v. COMELEC 586 SCRA 210
 Albayon v. COMELEC GR 189466
 Layug v. COMELEC 666 SCRA 321
 Magdalo v. COMELEC 673 SCRA 651
 Atong Paglaum et. al., GR 203766, April 12, 2013
 PGBI v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 190529, April 29, 2010
 Ang Ladlad LGBT Party v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 190582, April 8,2010
 ANAD v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 206987, September 10, 2013
 Coalition of Associations of Senior Citizens v. COMELEC, G.R. 206844-45, July 23,
2013
 Bello v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 191998, December 7,2010

17
  ABC v. COMELEC, GR. No. 193256, March 22, 2011
 Abang Lingkod Party-List v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 206952, October 22, 2013
 Cocofed-Philippine Coconut Producers Federation, Inc. v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 207026,
August 6, 2013
 Milagros Amores v. HRET, G.R. No. 189600, June 29, 2010

Pars. 1, 3, and 4; Rules on Apportionment

Reapportionment through Special Law
 Tobias v. Abalos 239 SCRA 106
 Mariano v. COMELEC 242 SCRA 211
 Sema v. COMELEC 558 SCRA 700

Rules on Apportionment
(1) In accordance with the number of their respective inhabitants and on the basis
of a uniform and progressive ratio

 Montejo v. COMELEC 242 SCRA 415

 Herrera v. COMELEC GR 131499, November 17, 1999

(2) Contiguous, compact and adjacent territory

(3) Population size

 Samson v. Aguirre 315 SCRA 53

 Herrera v. COMELEC GR 131499, November 17, 1999
 Aldaba v. COMELEC GR 188078, January 25, 2010
 Aquino v. COMELEC GR 189793, April 17, 2010
 Navarro v. Ermita GR 180050, April 12, 2011

(4) Following the return of every census, Congress shall make a reapportionment

 Bagabuyo v. COMELEC GR 176970

Section 6. Qualifications of Representatives

Citizenship
 Bengzon v. Cruz, GR 142840, May 7, 2001

Domicile and Residence

 Aquino v. COMELEC, 243 SCRA 400 (1995)
 Marcos v. COMELEC, 248 SCRA 300 (1995)
 Domino v. COMELEC, GR 134015 (July 19, 1999)
 Perez v. COMELEC, GR 133944, October 28, 1999
 Fernandez v. HRET, 608 SCRA 733 (2009)

Additional Qualifications
 Maquera v. Borra, 15 SCRA 7
 Social Justice Society v. Dangerous Drugs Board, GR No. 157870, November 3, 2008

Section 7. Term of Representatives

18
  Dimaporo v. Mitra, 202 SCRA 779
 Farinas v. Executive Secretary, GR 147387 (Dec. 10, 2003)
 Quinto v. COMELEC, GR No. 189698, December 1, 2009

Section 8.Regular Elections

 Codilla v. De Venecia GR No. 150605, December 10, 2002

Section 9. Special Elections

 Tolentino v. COMELEC, GR 148334, January 21, 2004

Section 10. Salaries

 Philconsa v. Mathay, 18 SCRA 300 (1966)

Section 11. Privilege from Arrest; Parliamentary Freedom of Speech

Privilege from Arrest

 People v. Jalosjos, 324 SCRA 689
 Trillanes v. Pimentel, 556 SCRA 471

Parliamentary Freedom of Speech

 Jimenez v. Cabangbang, 17 SCRA 876 (1966)
 Antonino v. Valencia, 57 SCRA 70
 Pobre v. Defensor Santiago, AC No. 7399, August 25, 2009
 Trillanes v. Castillo-Marigomen, GR. 223451

Section 12. Disclosure of Financial and Business Interests

Section 13. Prohibitions on Members of Congress

 Liban v. Gordon, GR No. 175352, July 15, 2009

Section 14. Prohibitions Related to the Practice of Profession

 Puyat v. De Guzman, 113 SCRA 31

Section 15. Regular Session; Special Session

Section 16. Officers of Congress; Quorom; Discipline; Journal/Records

Officers of Congress
 Defensor-Santiago v. Guingona GR 134577 November 18, 1998

Meaning of “a quorum to do business” and “compulsion to attend”

 Avelino v. Cuenco - 83 Phil. 17 [1949]
 People v. Jalosjos - 324 SCRA 689
 Datu Michael Abas Kida v. Senate of the Philippines, GR 196271, 18 October 2011

Internal Rules and Discipline

 Arroyo v. De Venecia - 277 SCRA 268 [1997]
 Osmeña v. Pendatun- 109 Phil. 863 [1960]
 Santiago v. Sandiganbayan – 356 SCRA 636

19
Duty to Keep Journals and Records
 US v. Pons – 34 Phil. 729 [1916]
 Casco Phil. Commercial Co. v. Gimenez - 7 SCRA 347 [1963]
 Morales v. Subido – 27 SCRA 131 [1969]
 Astorga v. Villegas – 56 SCRA 714 [1974]
 Phil. Judges Assn. v. Prado -227 SCRA 703
 Abakada v. Ermita 469 SCRA 1

Section 17. Electoral Tribunal

Jurisdiction of Electoral Tribunal

Nature and Power
 Angara v. Electoral Commission – 63 Phil. 134 [1936]

Pre-proclamation controversies v. Election Contests; Scope of inquiry; When Proper

Election Contest
 Vera v. Avelino 77 Phil. 192 [1946]
 Roces v. HRET – 469 SCRA 681 [2005]
 Seneres v. COMELEC – 585 SCRA 557 [2009]
 Limkaichong v. COMELEC – 594 SCRA 434 [2009]
 Aquino v. COMELEC -243 SCRA 400 [1995]
 Perez v. COMELEC – GR 133944, October 28, 1999
 Aggabao v. COMELEC – 449 SCRA 400 [2005]
 Barbers v. COMELEC – 460 SCRA 569 [2005]
 Rasul v. COMELEC – GR 134142, August 24, 1999
 Guerero v. COMELEC – GR 137004, July 26, 2000
 Villarosa v. HRET – GR 143351, September 14, 2000
 Abayon v. HRET – GR 189466, February 11, 2010
 Garcia v. HRET – GR 134792, August 12, 1999
 Lazatin v. HET, GR No. 84297, December 8, 1988

Pre-proclamation controversy
 Chavez v. COMELEC – 211 SCRA 315 [1991]

Composition
 Abbas v. SET – 166 SCRA 651 [1988]
 Pimentel v. HRET – GR 141489, November 29, 2002

Independence
 Bondoc v. Pineda – 201 SCRA 792 [1991]

Action/Decision
 Robles v. HRET – 181 SCRA 780 [1990]
 Arroyo v. HRET – 246 SCRA 384 [1995]
 Lerias v. HRET – 202 SCRA 808 [1991]
 Sandoval v. HRET – GR 149380, July 3, 2002
 Lokin v. COMELEC – GR 179431-32
 Sema v. HRET – GR 190734, March 26, 2010
 Duenas v. HRET 593 SCRA 316 [2010]

20
Section 18. Commission on Appointments
 Daza v. Singson, 180 SCRA 496 (1989)
 Coseteng v. Mitra, 187 SCRA 377 (1990)
 Guingona v. Gonzales, 214 SCRA 789 (1992); MR, 219 SCRA 326 (1993)
 Drilon, et al v. Speaker, GR No. 180055, July 31, 2009

Section 19. Constitutions of the Electoral Tribunal and the Commission on Appointments

Section 20. Records and Books of Accounts

Section 21. Inquiries in Aid of Legislation

Power of Inquiry
 Senate v. Ermita- 488 SCRA 1 [2006]
 Gudani v. Senga- 498 SCRA 671 [2006]
 Remoro v. Estrada, G.R. NO. 174105, April 2, 2009
 Neri v. Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations, G.R.
No. 180643, March 25, 2008
 Garcillano vs. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 170338, December 23, 2--8

Nature and Essence

 Neg. O. II Elec. Coop. v. Sangguniang Panlungsod- 155 SCRA 421 [1991]

Requisites
 Bengzon v. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee- 203 SCRA 767

1. In aid of legislation
 Standard v. Senate- 541 SCRA 456 [2007]
 De la Paz v. Senate- 579 SCRA 521 [2009]
 Romero v. Estrada- 583 SCRA 396 [2009]

2. In Accordance with Duly Published Rules of Procedure

 Garcillano v. House- GR 170338, December 23, 2008

3. Respect for the Rights of Persons Appearing In or Affected by Such

Inquires
 Neri v. Senate- 564 SCRA 152 [2008]

Power to Punish a Person Under Investigation

 Arnault v. Nazareno- 87 PHIL. 25 [1950]
 Sabio v. Gordon- 504 SCRA 704 [2006]

Sec. 22 Appearance of Heads of Departments in Congress

 Senate v. Ermita- 488 SCRA 1 [2006]

Sec. 23. Declaration of a State of War; Emergency Powers

Delegation of Emergency Powers/Military Powers

21
  SANLAKAS v. Executive Secretary, 421 SCRA 656 [2004]
 Ampatuan v. Hon. DILG Sec. Puno, GR 190259, June 7, 2011

Sec. 24. Bills Originating in the House of Representatives

 Guingona v. Carague- 196 SCRA 221 [1991]
 Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance- 235 SCRA 630 [1994]
 Alvarez v. Guingona- 292 SCRA 695 [1998]
 Southern Cross Cement v. Phil. Cement, GR 158540, July 8, 2004

Appropriation of Public Revenue for Public Purpose

 Pascual v. Secretary of Public Works- 110 PHIL. 331 [1960-1961]

Sec. 25. Rules on Appropriation

 DPWH v. Quirino, GR No. 183444, October 12, 2011

 (par. 5) Goh v. COMELEC GR No. 212584, November 25, 2014

Limits on Power to Appropriate

 Brillantes v. Comelec, GR 163193, June 15, 2004

Prohibition of Increase
Prohibition on “riders” in appropriation bills
 Garcia v. Mata- 65 SCRA [1975]
 Atitiw v. Zamora, GR 143374, Sept. 30, 2005
 Farinas v. Executive Secretary, GR 147387, Dec. 10, 2003

Transfer of Funds
 Demetria v. Alba- 148 SCRA 208 [1987]
 Liga v. COMELEC- 232 SCRA 219 [1994]
 Nazareth v. Villar, G.R. No. 188635, 29 January 2013, 689 SCRA 385
 Pichay v. Office of the Deputy Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 196425, 24 July 2012, 677
SCRA 408
 Philconsa v. Enriquez- 235 SCRA 506
 Sanchez v. COA- 552 SCRA 471

Sec. 26.Subject and Title of Bills; Three Readings

General Prohibition of “Riders”

 Cordero v. Cabatuando- 6 SCRA 418 [1962]
 Philconsa v. Gimenez- 15 SCRA 479 [1965]
 Alalayan v. NPC- 24 SCRA 172 [1968]
 Insular Lumber Company v. CTA- 104 SCRA 710 [1981]
 Tio v. Vediogram Regulatory Board- 151 SCRA 208 [1987]
 Phil. Judges Assn. v. Prado- 227 SCRA 703 [1993]
 Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance- 235 SCRA 630 [1994]
 Tobias v. Abalos- 239 SCRA 106 [1994]
 Tatad v. Sec. of DOE- 281 SCRA 330 [1997]
 De Guzman v. Comelec, GR 146319, October 26, 2001
 Abakada v. Ermita- 469 SCRA 1 and MR [Sept. 1, 2005 & Oct. 18, 2005]

22
  BANAT v. COMELEC- 595 SCR 477 [2009]
 Datu Michael Abas Kida v. Senate of the Philippines, GR 196271, 18 October 2011
 Abas Kida v. Senate of the Philippines, G.R. No. 196271, October 18, 2011

Sec. 27. Procedure in Passage of Bills; Item Veto

Passage of Bills
 Arroyo v. De Venecia, 277 SCRA 268 [1997]
 Abakada v. Ermita- 469 SCRA 1

Presidential Veto
 CIR vs. CTA- 185 SCRA 329 [1990]
 Gonzales v. Macaraig- 191 SCRA 452 [1990]
 Bengzon v. Drilon- 208 SCRA 133 [1992]
 Philconsa v. Enriquez- 235 SCRA 506 [1994]
 Bolinao Electronics v. Valencia, 11 SCRA 486 (1964)
 Tanada v. Tuvera, 146 SCRA 446 (1986)

Sec. 28. Taxation

Scope and Purpose

 Planters v. Fertiphil- 548 SCRA 485

Limitations on the Power: Uniform and Equitable

 CIR v. CA- 261 SCRA 236 [1996]
 Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Lingayen Gulf Electric Power Co., Inc, 164 SCRA
27
 Tolentino v. Sec. of Finance- 235 SCRA 506
 Tan v. Del Rosario- 237 SCRA 324 [1994]

Progressive System
Delegated Tax Legislation
 Southern Cross Cement v. Phil. Cement, GR 158540, July 8, 2004
 Abakada v. Ermita- 469 SCRA 1 [2005]
 Spouses Constantino v. Cuisia, GR 106064, Oct. 13. 2005

Exemptions
 Abra Valley College v. Aquino- 162 SCRA 106 [1988]
 Bayan v. Zamora, GR 138570, October 10,2000
 Republic v. City of Kidapawan- 477 SCRA 324 [2005]
 John Hay People’s Alternative Coalition v. Lim, GR 119775, Oct. 24, 2003
 Lung Center v. QC, GR 144104, June 29, 2004
 Garcia v. Executive Secretary, GR 101273, July 3, 1992
 Lladoc v. CIR, 14 SCRA 292
 Central Mindanao University v. DAR, GR 100091, October 22, 1992
 Commissioner v. CA, GR 124043, October 14, 1998
 Systems Plus Computer College v. Caloocan City, GR No. 146382, August 7, 2003

Sec. 29. Fiscal Powers of Congress; Limitations; Special Funds

23
Fiscal Powers of Congress
 Pascual v. Secretary of Public Works- 110 PHIL. 331 [1960-1961]
 MIAA v. Mabunay- GR 126151, January 20, 2000
 Guingona v. Carague- 169 SCRA 221 [1991]
 COMELEC v. Hon. Quijano- GR 151992, September 18, 2002

Special Funds
 Gaston v. Republic Planters Bank- 158 SCRA 626 [1988]
 Osmena v. Orbos- 220 SCRA 703 [1993]
 Philippine Coconut v. Republic- 663 SCRA 514 [2012]

Impoundment
 Araullo v. Aquino III, GR No. 209287 (2014)

Sec. 30. Appellate Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

 First Lepanto Ceramics v. CA- 237 SCRA 519 [1994]
 Diaz v. CA- 238 SCRA 785 [1994]
 Fabian v. Desierto, GR 129742, September 16, 1998
 Villavert v. Desierto, 326 SCRA 355 [2000]
 Tirol v. COA, GR 133954, August 3, 2000
 Cabrera v. Lapid- 510 SCRA 55 [2006]

Sec. 31. Titles of Royalty and Nobility

Sec. 32. Initiative and Referendum

 Garcia v. COMELEC, 237 SCRA 279 (1994)
 SBMA v. COMELEC- 262 SCRA 492 [1996]
 Defensor- Santiago v. COMELEC- 270 SCRA 106 [1997]
 Lambino v. COMELEC, GR 174153, GR 174299, October 25, 2006

Article VII: Executive Department

Section 1. Executive Power; Privileges; Immunities

Scope of Power
 Marcos v. Manglapus- 177 SCRA 668 [1989]
 Villena v Secretary of Interior 67 Phil 451, 456 (1939)

Example of exercise
Valid Exercise
 Philconsa v. Enriquez- 235 SCRA 506 [1994]
 Webb v. de Leon- 247 SCRA 652
 Djumantan v. Domingo- 240 SCRA 746 [1995]
 Chavez v. PCGG- GR 130716, December 9, 1998
 Pontejos v. Ombudsman- 483 SCRA 83 [2006]
 Banda v. Ermita- 618 SCRA 499 [2010]

Invalid Exercise

24
  Laurel v. Garcia- 187 SCRA 797 [1990]
 Review Center v. Ermita- 583 SCRA 42 [2009]
 Biraogo v. Truth Commission- 637 SCRA 78 [2010]

Executive Privilege
 US v. Nixon- 418 US 683 [1974]
 Almonte v .Vasquez- 244 SCRA 286 [1995]
 Senate v. Ermita- GR 169659, April 20, 2006 [E.O. 464]
 Neri v. Senate- GR 180643, March 25, 2008
 Akbayan v. Aquino- GR 170516, July 16, 2008

Immunity from Suit

 Soliven v. Makasiar 167 SCRA 393 [1988]
 Harlow v. Fitzgerald 457 US 800 [1982]
 Clinton v. Jones 520 US 681 [1997]
 Gloria v. CA- GR 119903, August 15, 2000
 Estrada v. Desierto- GR 146740-15 and GR 146738, March 2, 2001 and MR- April 3,
2001
 David v. Arroyo- 289 SCRA 162 [2006]

The Cabinet
 Constantino v. Cuisia- 472 SCRA 505 [2005]

Section 2. Qualifications of the President

 Tecson v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 161434, March 3, 2004
 Poe-Llamanzares v.COMELEC, G.R. No. 221697, March 8, 2016

Section 3. Vice President

Section 4. Election, Term Limits and Canvass

 Anson-Roa v. Arroyo, GR 162384, March 24, 2004

Congress as National Board of Canvassers

 Macalintal v. COMELEC GR NO 157013, July 10, 2003
 Brillantes v. COMELEC- 432 SCRA [2005]
 Pimentel v. Joint Committee- GR 163783, June 22, 2004
 Lopez v. Senate- GR 163556, June 8, 2004
 BANAT v. COMELEC, GR 177508, August 7, 2009

Breaking President or Vice-President Tie

 Presidential or Vice- Presidential Controversies
 Defensor- Santiago v. Ramos- 253 SCRA 559 [1996]
 Tecson v. Lim- 424 SCRA 277 [2005]
 Poe v. GMA, Pet Case No. 002, March 29, 2005
 Macalintal v. PET- 635 SCRA 783 [2010]

Term Limit on the President

 Pormento v. Estrada, GR 191988, August 31, 2010
 Macalintal v. COMELEC, GR No. 157013, July 10, 2003

25
  Pimentel v. Joint Canvassing Committee, June 22, 2004
 Fernando Poe, Jr. v. Arroyo, PET Case No. 002, March 29, 2005
 Legarda v. De Castro, PET Case No. 003, March 31, 2005

Section 5. Oath

Section 6. Official Residence; Salary

Section 7. Vacancy at the Beginning of the Term of the Presidency

Section 8. Vacancy During the Term of the Presidency

 Estrada v. Desierto, 353 SCRA 452, 2001; MR, 356 SCRA 108, 2001
 Lozano, et al v. Macapagal-Arroyo, February 6, 2001

Section 9. Vacancy in the Vice Presidency

Section 10. Vacancies in Both the Presidency and the Vice Presidency

Section 11. Incapacity of the President

 Estrada v. Desierto, 353 SCRA 452, 2001; MR, 356, SCRA 108, 2001

Section 12. Serious Illness of the President

Section 13. Prohibitions

 Rafael v. Embroidery & Apparel Control Board- 21 SCRA 336 [1967]
 CLU v. Exec. Secretary- 194 SCRA 317 [1991]
 Flores v. Drilon, 223 SCRA 568, 1993
 Bitonio v. COA, G.R. no. 147392, March 12, 2004
 Public Interest Group v. Elma, GR No. 138965, June 30, 2006
 De la Cruz v. COA, GR 138489, November 27, 2001
 Funa v. Ermita- 612 SCRA 308 [2010]
 Enrique U. Betoy v. The Board of Directors, National Power Corporation, GR 15655657,
04 October 2011

Other Prohibitions
 Doromal v. Sandiganbayan- 177 SCRA 354 [1989]
 Espiritu v. Del Rosario, GR. No. 204964, 738 SCRA 464, 2014

Section 14. Appointments of Acting President

Section 15. Prohibited Appointments

 In Re Appointments of Valenzuela and Vallarta, AM No. 98-5-01-SC, Nov. 9, 1998
 De la Rama v. CA, G.R. No. 131136, Feb. 28, 2001
 De Castro v. Judicial and Bar Council, GR No. 191002, April 20, 2010 and May 1, 2010
 Velicaria-Garafil v. Office of the President, G.R. No. 20337, June 16, 2015

Section 16. Power to Appoint; Commission on Appointments

Nature of the Appointing Power
 Government v. Springer- 50 PHIL 259 [1927]

26
  Roxas v. Lopez 17 SCRA 756
 Bermudez v. Exec, Secretary- GR 131429 [August 4, 1999]
 Datu Michael Abas Kida v. Senate of the Philippines, reconsideration, GR 196271,
February 2012

Kinds of Presidential Appointments

 Pimentel v. Ermita- 471 SCRA 587 [2005]

Scope of the Power of the Commission on Appointments

 Sarmiento III v. Mison- 156 SCRA 549 [1987]
 Bautista v. Salonga- 172 SCRA 1260 [1989]
 Quintos- Deles v. CA- 177 SCRA 259 [1989]
 Pobre v. Mendieta- 224 738 [1993]
 Flores v. Drilon- GR 104732, June 22, 1993
 Rufino v. Endriga- 496 SCRA 13 [2006]

Congress Requiring Confirmation by the Commission on Appointments on Other

Appointments
 Calderon v. Carale- 208 SCRA 254 [1992]
 U-sing v. NLRC- 221 SCRA 680 [1993]
 Tarrosa v. Singson- 232 SCRA 553 [1994]
 Manolo v. Sistoza- 312 SCRA 239 [1999]
 Soriano v. Lista, GR 153881, March 24, 2004

Recess or Ad- Intern Appointments and Temporary Appointments

 Pimentel v. Ermita, GR 164978, October 13, 2005
 Quintos-Deles v. Commission on Appointments, 177 SCRA 259, 1989
 Matibag v. Benipayo, GR No. 149036, April 2, 2002
 Abas Kida v. Senate of the Philippines, GR No. 196271, October 18, 2011

Section 17. Power of Control

 Lacson-Magallanes v. Pano 21 SCRA 395, 1967
 Maceda v. Macaraig, Jr 197 SCRA 771
 Roque v. Director of Lands, L-25373, July 1, 1976
 Ang-Angco v. Castillo 9 SCRA 619, 1963
 NAMARCO v. Arca 29 SCRA 648, 1969
 Drilon v. Lim 235 SCRA 135, 1994
 Joson v. Torres 290 SCRA 279, 1998
 PASEI v. Torres-225 SCRA 417 [1993]
 De Leon v. Carpio- 178 SCRA 457 [1989]
 Hutchison v. SBMA- GR 131367, August 31, 2000
 Dadole v. COA, GR No. 125350, Dec. 3, 2002
 Domingo v. Zamora, GR 142283, Feb. 6, 2003
 DENR v. DENR Employees, GR No. 149724, Aug. 19, 2003
 Villaluz v. Zaldivar, 15 SCRA 710
 Chavez v. Romulo- 431 SCRA 534 [2004]
 KMU v. Dir.-Gen. of NEDA- 487 SCRA 623 [2006]
 Tondo Medical Center Employees v. CA, GR No. 167324, July 17, 2007

27
  Malaria Employees v. Executive Secretary, GR No. 160093, July 31, 2007
 Orosa v. Roa, GR No. 14047, July 14, 2006
 Phillips Seafood v. BOI, GR No. 175787, February 4, 2009
 Biraogo v. Truth Commission, GR No. 192935, December 7, 2010
 Angeles v. Gaite- 605 SCRA 409 [2009]
 Boy Scouts of the Philippines v. Commission on Audit, GR 177131, 07 June 2011

Power of Supervision
 Drilon v. Lim- 235 SCRA 135 [1994]

Faithful Execution Clause

 PRA v. Bunag, GR 143784, Feb. 5, 2003
 Romualdez v. Sandiganbayan, GR 152259, July 29, 2004
 Banda v. Executive Secretary Ermita, G.R. No. 166620, April 20, 2010
 Prospero Pichay v. Office of the Deputy Executive Secretary for Legal Affairs, G.R. No.
196425, July 24, 2012
 Hontiveros-Baraquel v. Toll Regulatory Board, GR No. 181293, 2015
 Datu Zaldy Uy Ampatuan v, Hon. Puno, G.R. No. 190259, June 7, 20122
 Province v. COA, G.R. 182573, September 28, 2010.

Section 18. President’s Powers as Commander in Chief

 Lansang vs. Garcia, 42 SCRA 448
 Aberca v. Ver, 160 SCRA 590
 IBP v. Zamora, GR 141284, August 15, 2000
 Lacson v. Perez, GR 147780-81, 147799 and 1477810, May 10, 2001
 Sanlakas v. Executive Secretary, GR No. 159085, February 3, 2004
 David v. Macapagal-Arroyo, GR 171396, May 2006
 David v. Ermita, GR No. 171409, May 3, 2006
 Gudani v. Senga, GR No. 170165, April 15, 2006
 Ampatuan v. Puno, 651 SCRA 228
 Fortun v. Arroyo, GR 190293, March 20,2012
 Guamaua v. Espino 96 SCRA 403, 403-7 (Martial Law Summary)

Section 19. Executive Clemency

Purpose of Executive Clemency

 Cristobal v. Labrador 71 PHIL 34 [1940-1941]

Constitutional Limits on Executive Clemency

 Llamas v. Orbos 202 SCRA 844 [1991]
 People v. Salle- 250 SCRA 581 [1995]
 People v. Bacang 260 SCRA 44 [1996]
 Drilon v. CA 202 SCRA 378 [1991]
 Torres v. Gonzales 152 SCRA 272 [1987]
 People v. Casido 269 SCRA 360 [1997]

Pardon: Nature and Legal Effects

 Monsanto v. Factoran 170 SCRA 190 [1989]

28
  Garcia v. COA 226 SCRA 356 [1993]
 Sabello v. Department of Education, GR No. 87687, December 26, 1989
 People v. Salle, Jr GR No. 103567, December 4, 1995
 Garcia v. COA, 226 SCRA 356, 1993
 Echegaray v. Sec. of Justice, GR No. 132601, Jan 19, 1999

Section 20. Foreign Loans

 Spouses Constantino v. Cuisia, GR 106064, October 13, 2005

Section 21. Foreign Relations: Senate Concurrence in International Agreements

 USAFFE Veterans Association v. Treasurer, 105 PHIL 1030, 1959
 Gonzales v. Hechanova- 9 SCRA 230 [1963]
 World Health Organization v. Aquino, 48 SCRA 242
 Bayan v. Executive Secretary Zamora, 343 SCRA 449, 2000
 Pimentel v. Executive Secretary, 2005
 Lim v. Executive Secretary, GR No. 151445, April 11, 2002
 Secretary of Justice v. Judge Lantion, GR No. 139465, Oct. 17, 2000
 Abaya v. Ebdane- 315 SCRA 720 (2007)
 Pharmaceutical v. DOH- GR 173034, October 9, 2007
 Vinuya v. Executive Secretary, GR No. 162230, April 28, 2010
 Bayan Muna v. Romulo, 641 SCRA 244

Other Foreign Affairs Power

 Vinuya v. Romulo- 619 SCRA 533 [2010]

Article VIII: Judicial Department

Section 1. Judicial Power

Definition and Scope

 Marbury v. Madison – Cranch 137 [1803]
 Santiago v. Baustista – 32 SCRA 188 [1970]
 Radiowealth v. Agregado – 86 Phil. 429 [1950]
 In re Laureta – 148 SCRA 382 [1987]
 In re Borromeo – 241 SCRA 405 [1995]
 Echegaray v. Secretary of Justice – GR 132601, January 19, 1999
 Planters v. Fertiphil – 548 SCRA 485 [2008]
 RE: Letter to UP Law Faculty, A.M. No. 10-10-4-C, June 7, 2011
 Pichay v. Office of the Deputy Executive Secretary- 677 SCRA 408 [2012]

Limits
 Manila Electric Co. v. Pasay Transit Co. 57 Phil. 60 [1932-1933]
 Noblejas v. Teehankee – 23 SCRA 405 [1968]
 Erdito Quarto v. Honorable Ombudsman Simeon Marcelo, et al., GR 169042, 05 October
2011

Principle of Judicial Restraint

 Francisco Jr v. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261, 10 November 2003

29
Grave Abuse of Discretion
 PCGG v. Desierto, GR 132120 , Feb. 10, 2003
 Estipona v. Lobrigo, G.R. No. 226679, August 15, 2017
 Domingo v. Scheer – 421 SCRA 468 [2004]
 Presidential Ad Hoc v. Desierto – 548 SCRA 295 [2008]
 Reyes v. Belisario – 596 SCRA 31 [2009]
 Eloisa L. Tolentino v. Atty. Roy M. Loyola, et al., GR 153809, 27 July 2011

Advisory Opinions
 Channie Tan v. Republic, 107 PHIL 632
 Santiago, Jr v. Bautista, 32 SCRA 188
 Felipe v. Leuterio, 91 PHIL 482
 Director of Prisons v. Ang Cho Kio – 33 SCRA 494 [1970]

Justiciable Controversy
 Angara v. Electoral Commission, 63 Phil 134
 US v. Nixon- 418 US 683 [1974]
 Marcos v. Manglapus – 177 SCRA 668 [1989]
 Daza v, Singson – 180 SCRA 496 [1989]
 Garcia v. BOI – 191 SCRA 288 [1990]
 Djumantan v. Domingo – 240 SCRA 746 [1995]
 Mariano v. COMELEC – 242 SCRA 211 [1995]
 PPI v COMELEC -224 SCRA 272
 SBMA v. COMELEC – 262 SCRA 492 [1996]
 Tanada v. Angara – 272 SCRA 18 [1997]
 Arroyo v. De Venecia -277 SCRA 268 [1997]
 CIR v. Santos – 277 SCRA 617 [1997]
 Garcia-Rueda v. Pascasio – 278 SCRA 769[1997]
 Defensor-Santiago v. Guingona, GR 134577, November 18, 1997
 Tatad v. DOE – 281 SCRA 330 [1997]
 Telecom v. COMELEC - 289 SCRA 337 [1998]
 Miranda v. Aguirre – GR 133064, September 16, 1999
 Cutaran v. DENR – 350 SCRA 697 [2001]
 Estrada v. Desierto – GR 146740-15, March 2, 2001 and MR April 3, 2001
 Cawaling v. COMELEC – GR 146319, October 23, 2001
 Montesclaros v. COMELEC – GR 152295, July 9, 2002
 John Hay Peoples Alternative Coalition v. Lim, GR 119775, October 24, 2003
 Velarde v. Social Justice Society, GR 159357, April 28, 2004
 Panganiban v. Philippine Shell, GR 131471, Jan. 22, 2003

Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction

 SMART v. NTC, GR 151908, August 12, 2003
 Buac v. COMELEC – 421 SCRA 92
 Information Technology v. COMELEC -460 SCRA 291
 Senate v. Ermita, GR 169659, April 20, 2006
 Garcia v. Executive Secretary – 583 SCRA 119 [2009]

Distinguish from Declaration Relief

30
  Macasiano v. NHA – 224 SCRA 236 [1993]
 Tano v. Socrates – 278 SCRA 154 [1997]

Conclusive Character of Supreme Court Judgment

 In re Subpoena Duces Tecum dated Jan. 11, 2011 – 614 SCRA 1

Plenary Judicial Power; Derivative; PET

 Macalintal v. PET – 635 SCRA 783 [2010]
 Hacienda Luisita v. PARC, GR No. 171101, November 22, 2011
 Sana v. CESB, GR No. 192926, November 15, 2011
 Madrigal v. DOJ GR No. 168903, 726 SCRA 544, June 18, 2014
 Torrecampo v. MWSS, 649 SCRA 482

Sec. 2. Power of Legislative Apportion Jurisdiction

 Mantruste Systems v. CA -179 SCRA 136 [1989]
 Malaga v. Penachos – 213 SCRA 516 [1992]
 Lupangco v. CA, 160 SCRA 848 (1988)

Sec. 3 Fiscal Autonomy

 Radiowealth v. Agregado – 86 Phil. 429 [1950]
 Bengzon v. Drilon, 208 SCRA 133 (1992)
 In re clarifying and strengthening the Philippine Judicial Academy – 481 SCRA 1
 RE: Petition for the recognition of the exemption of GSIS, A.M. No. 08-2-01-0, February
11, 2010
 In re COA Opinion on Computation of Appraised Value of Properties -678 SCRA 1 [2012]

Sec. 4. Composition; En Banc and Division Cases

Filling-in Vacancy in Supreme Court; 90 days

 De Castro v. JBC – 615 SCRA 666 [2010]

Referral to En Banc; Par. 3; Case Only; Modification of Doctrine

 Fortich v. Corona – GR 131457, August 19, 1997
 People v. Dy, GR 115326-37, Jan. 16, 2003
 People v. Ebio, GR 147750, Sept 29, 2004
 Firestone Ceramics v. CA, GR No. 127245, June 28, 2000
 Republic v. Garcia – 527 SCRA 495 [2007]
 Apo Fruits Corporation and Hijo Plantation, Inc v. Land Bank of the Philippines, GR
164195, 05 April 2011.
 In re; Letter of Atty. Estelito P. Mendoza Re: G.R. No. 178083 – Flight Attendant and
Stewards Association of the Philippines (FASAP) v. Philippine Airlines, Inc (PAL), et al.,
A.M. No. 11-10-1-SC, 13 March 2012

Sec. 5. Powers of Supreme Court

Judicial Review Requisites

 Macasiano v. NHA – 224 SCRA 236 [1993]
 Liban v. Gordon – 639 SCRA 709 [2011]

31
Administrative Agencies; No Power
 Serrano v. Gallant – 582 SCRA 254 [2009]

First: Ripe for Adjudication

 PACU v. Secretary of Education – 97 Phil. 806 [1955]
 Tan v. Macapagal – 43 SCRA 678 [1972]
 Solicitor General v. MMDA – GR 102782, December 18, 1991
 Militante v. CA, GR 107040, April 12, 2000
Pimentel v. HRET – GR 14189, November 29, 2002
 Constantino v. Cuisia – 472 SCRA 505
 Senate v. Ermita 488 SCRA 1 [2006]
 David v. Arroyo – 489 SCRA 162 [2006]
 Suplico v. NEDA – GR 178830, July 14, 2008
 Province of North Cotabato v. GRP Panel
 Lozano v. Nograles – 589 SCRA 356 [2009]
 Drilon v. De Venecia – 594 SCRA 749 [2009]
 De Castro v. JBC – 615 SCRA 666 [2010]
 LAMP v. Sec. of Budget and Management – 670 SCRA 373 [2012]

Second: Standing
Legislators and Government Officials
 Gonzales v. Macaraig, Jr.- 191 SCRA 452 [1990]
 Philconsa v. Enriquez- 235 SCRA 506 [1994]
 Del Mar v. PAGCOR, GR 138298, November 29, 2000
 Sandoval v. PAGCOR- GR 138982, November 29, 2000
 Jaworski v. PAGCOR- 419 SCRA 420
 SANLAKAS v. Executive Secretary, GR 159085, Feb. 3, 2004
 Farinas v. Executive Secretary, GR 147387, Dec. 10, 2003
 Province of Batangas v. Romulo- 429 SCRA 736 [2004]
 Disomangcop v. Datumanong-444 SCRA 203 [2004]
 CHR- employees v. CHR- 444 SCRA 300 [2004]
 Pimentel v. Executive Secretary- 462 SCRA 622
 Pimentel v. Ermita- 495 SCRA 170 [2006]
 Prov. Of North Cotabato v. GRP Peace Panel- 564 SCRA 402 [2008]
 Concepcion v. COMELEC- 591 SCRA 420 [2009]
 Drilon v. De Venecia- 594 SCRA 749 [2009]
 Biraogo v. PTC- 637 SCRA 78 [2010]

Taxpayers
 Pascual v. Secretary of Public Works- 110 PHIL 331 [1960-1961]
 Gonzales v. Marcos- 65 SCRA 624 [1975]
 Gonzales v. Narvasa, GR 140835, August 14, 2000
 Information Technology Foundation v. Comelec, GR 159131, Jan. 13 2004.
 Sanlakas v. Executive Secretary- 421 SCRA 656 [2004]
 Velarde v. SJS- 428 SCRA 283 [2004]
 Brillantes v. COMELEC- 432 SCRA 269 [2004]
 Domingo v. Carague- 456 SCRA 450
 Republic v. Nolasco- 457 SCRA 400

32
  Constantino v. Cuisia- 472 SCRA 305
 Abaya v. Ebdane- 515 SCRA 720 [2007]
 Planters v. Fertiphil- 548 SCRA 485 [2008]
 Roque v. COMELEC- 599 SCRA 62 [2009]
 Mamba v. Lara, GR 165109, December 14, 2009
 De la Llana v. Chairperson, COA- 665 SCRA 176 [2012]
 Galicto v. Aquino-667 SCRA 150 [2012]
 Initiatives for Dialogue v. PSALM- 682 SCRA 602 [2012]

Citizens and Associations; Transcendental Importance

 Legaspi v. CSC- 150 SCRA 530 [1987]
 Oposa v. Factoran- 224 SCRA 792 [1993]
 PASEI v. Torres-225 SCRA 417 [1993]
 Joya v. PCGG- 225 SCRA 540 [1995]
 Kilosbayan v. Morato- 246 SCRA 436 [1995]
 Tatad v. Garcia 243 SCRA 436 [1995]
 Board of Optometry v. Colet- 260 SCRA 88 [1996]
 Anti-Graft League of the Philippines- 260 SCRA 250 [1996]
 Telecom v. COMELEC- 289 SCRA 337 [1998]
 Chavez v. PCGG- GR 130716 [May 19,1999]
 IBP v. Zamora- GR 141284 [August 15, 2000]
 Bayan v. Zamora- GR 138570, October 10, 2000
 Cruz v. Secretary of DENR- gr 135385, December 6, 2000
 Lozano v. Macapagal-Arroyo – GR 146579, February 6, 2001
 Lim v. Exec. Secretary- GR 151445 April 11, 2002
 Chavez v. PEA- GR 133250, July 9, 2002
 Tolentino v. COMELEC- 420 SCRA 438 [2004]
 Agan v. PIATCO- 420 SCRA 575 [2004]
 Tichangco v. Enriquez- 433 SCRA 324 [2004]
 Automotive Industry Workers Alliance v. Rumolo- 449 SCRA 1
 Pimentel v. Office of the Executive Secretary- 462 SCRA 622
 Senate v. Ermita- 488 SCRA 1 [2006]
 Purok v. Yuipco- 489 SCRA 382 [2006]
 David v. Arroyo- 489 SCRA 162 [2006]

Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

 Holy Spirit v. Defensor- 497 SCRA 581 [2006]
 Henares v. LTFRB- 505 SCRA 104 [2006]
 Francisco v. Fernando- 507 SCRA [2006]
 Public interest Center v. Roxas- 513 SCRA 457 [2007]
 Garcia v. J.G. Summit- 516 SCRA 483 [2007]
 Kilosbayan v. Ermita- 526 SCRA 353 [2007]
 Tondo Medical v. CA- 527 SCRA 746 [2007]
 Anak Mindanao v. Executive Secretary- 531 SCRA 583 [2007]
 Pharmaceutical v. Duque- 535 SCRA 265
 Chavez v. Gonzales-545 SCRA 441 [2008]
 Akbayan v. Aquino- 558 SCRA 468 [2008]
 SJS v. Dangerous Drugs Board- 570 SCRA 410 [2008]

33
  Garcillano v. House- GR 170338, Dec. 23,2008
 White Light v. City of Manila- 576 SCRA 416 [2009]
 Chamber of Real Estete v. Romulo- 614 SCRA 605 [2010]
 Chamber of Real Estate v. ERC- 624 SCRA 556 [2010]
 Southern Hemisphere v. ATC- 632 SCRA 146 [2010]
 Orlando A. Reyes v. City of Manila, GR 196063, 14 December 2011.
 Jelbert B. Galicto v. H.E. President Benigno Simeon C. Aquino, III, GR 193978, 28
February 2012.
 Bayan v. Romulo- 641 SCRA 244 [2011]
 Magallona v. Ermita- 655 SCRA 476 [2011]

Other Rules: Raise at Earliest Opportunity and Constitutionality is the Very Lis Mota
 People v. Vera- 65 PHIL. 56 [1937-1938]
 Mirasol v. CA- 351 SCRA 44 [2001]
 Matibag v. Benipayo- 380 SCRA 49 [2002]
 Estarja v. Ranada- 492 SCRA 652 [2006]
 Moldex v. HLURB- 525 SCRA 198 [2007]
 Gobenciong v. CA- 550 SCRA 502 [2008]
 Heirs v. Marasigan- 548 SCRA 409 [2008]
 Abakada v. Purisima- 562 SCRA 251 [2008]
 ABS- CBN v. Phil. Multi-Media- 576 SCRA 262 [2009]
 CSC v. Andal- 608 SCRA 370 [2009]
 BPI v. Shemberg- 628 SCRA 70 [2010]
 Macalintal v. PET- 635 SCRA 783 [2010]
 Sergio I. Carbonilla, et al. v. Board of Airlines Representatives, GR 193247,
 Office of the President v. Board of Airlines Representatives GR 194276, 14 September
2011
 Reiterating Moldex v. HLURB
 Hacienda Luisita v. PARC, GR 171101, November 22, 2011
 Sana v. CESB, GR 192926, November 15, 2011
 Gamboa v. Teves- 652 SCRA 690 [2011]

Moot Cases
 David v. Arroyo, 489 SCRA 162 (2006)
 Suplico v. NEDA, GR 178830, July 14, 2008
 Mattel Inc. v. Francisco, GR No. 166886, July 30, 2008
 Araullo, et al v. Aquino, et al, GR No. 209287, July 1, 2014 (p. 22)

Political Questions; Requisites

 Baker v. Carr- 369 US 169 [1962]
 Torrecampo v. Metropolitan- 649 SCRA 482 [2011]

Textually Demonstrable Commitment

 Osmena v. Pendatun- 109 PHIL. 683 [1960]
 Arroyo v. De Venecia- 277 SCRA 268 [1997]
 Defensor-Santiago v. Guingona- GR 134577, November 18, 1998
 ICMC v. Calleja- GR 85750, September 28, 1990
 Tanada v. Angara, 272 SCRA 18 [1997]

34
  Garcia v. Corona, GR 132451, Dec. 17, 1999

Judicially Discoverable and Manageable Standards

 Liang v. People- GR 125865, March 26, 2001

Effect of Unconstitutionality; Par. 2(a); Operative Fact Doctrine

 Article 7, New Civil Code
 De Agbayani v. PNB- 38 SCRA 429 [1971]
 Philippine Coconut v. Republic, supra.
 Hacienda Luisita, Inc. v. Presidential Agrarian Reform Council, GR 171101, Nov. 22,
2011 (Operative Fact Doctrine applies to unconstitutional executive act)
 CIR v. San Roque Power Corporation, GR 187485, Oct 8, 2013 (Operative Fact Doctrine
does not apply to a mere administrative practice; there must be a law or executive
issuance)

Automatic Review; Paragraph 2 (d)

 Garcia, et al. v. People- 318 SCRA 434
 Pearson v. IAC, GR 74454, Sept. 3, 1998
 People v. Mateo- 433 SCRA 640
 People v. Duavis, GR 190681, 07 December 2011

Question of Law; Paragraph 2(e)

 Cebu Woman’s Club v. De la Victoria- GR 120060 [March 9, 2000]

Change of Venue; Paragraph 4

 People v. Gutierrez- 36 SCRA 172 [1970]

Power to Promulgate Rules; Paragraph 5

Enforcement of Constitutional Rights, Pleading, Practice, and Procedure in All Courts
 First Lepanto v. CA- 231 SCRA 30 [1994]
 Lina v. Purisima- 82 SCRA 344 [1978]
 Santero v. CFI- Cavite- 153 SCRA 728 [1965]
 Damasco v. Laqui- 166 SCRA 214 [1988]
 Carpio v. Sulu Resources- GR 148267, August 8, 2002
 Baguio Market Vendors v. Hon. Cortes- GR 165922, February 26, 2010
 In re Petition for Recognition- 612 SCRA 193 [2010]
 In re Exemption of NPC- 615 SCRA 1 [2010]
 In re: in the matter of clarification of Exemption from payment of all Court Sheriff’s Fees
of Cooperatives, A.M. 12-2-03-0,13 March 2012-668 SCRA 1 [2012]
 Sto. Tomas v. Paneda- 685 SCRA 245 [2012]

Admission to the Practice of Law, the Integrated Bar, Disciplinary Powers, and Legal
Assistance to the Underprivileged
 In re Cunanan- 94 PHIL. 534 [953-1954]
 Javellana v. DILG 212 SCRA 475 [1992]
 Velez v. De Vera- A.C. No. 6697, July 25, 2006
 In re letter of UP Law Faculty- 644 SCRA 543 [2011]

Limits of Power

35
Simplified and Inexpensive Procedure for Speedy Disposition
Uniform for All Courts of the Same Grade
Not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights
 Bustos v. Lucero- 81 PHIL. 648 [1948]
 PNB v. Asuncion- 80 SCRA 321 [1977]
 Fabian v. Desierto, GR 129742, September 16, 1998
 People v. Lacson- 400 SCRA 267 [2003]
 Planters v. Fertiphil- 426 SCRA 414 [2004]
 Tan v. Bausch- 478 SCRA 115 [2005]
 Republic v. Gingoyon- 478 SCRA 474 [2005]
 Camp John Hay v. BIR- GR 172457, December 24, 2008

Procedure of Special Courts and Quasi-Judicial Bodies Effective Unless Disapproved by

SC
 LBP v. De Leon- GR 143275, September 10, 2002
 Tan v. COMELEC- 507 SCRA 352 [2006]

Supervision over the Judiciary

 Ampong v. CSC- 563 SCRA 293 [2008]

Sec. 6. Supervision of Courts

 Maceda v. Vasquez- 221 SCRA 464 [1993]
 De Vera v. Pelayo, GR 137354, July 6, 2000;
 Caoibes v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 132177, July 19, 2001;
 Fuentes v. OMB, GR 124295, October 23, 2001
 Dolalas v. Office of the Ombudsman-265 SCRA 819 [1996]
 Garcia v. De la Pena, 299 SCRA 776 [1994]
 Maningas v. Barcenas, AM P-99-1315, Nov. 3, 1999
 Gorospe v. Sandoval, AM RTJ-00-1534, Feb. 15, 2000
 Caoibes v. Ombudsman, GR 132177, July 19, 2001
 Fuentes v. Ombudsman, GR 124295, Oct. 23, 2001
 Adajar v. Develos- 475 SCRA 361 [2005]
 Garcia v. Miro- 582 SCRA 127 [2009]
 Escalona v. Padillo, AM P-10-2785, September 21, 2010

Sec. 7. Qualifications of Members of Judiciary

 In re JBC v. Judge Quitain, JBC No. 013, August 22, 2007
 Kilosbayan v. Ermita, GR No. 177721, July 3, 2007
 Topacio v. Ong, GR No. 179895, December 15, 2008
 Republic vs. Sereno, G.R. 237428

Sec. 8. Judicial and Bar Council

Composition
 Chavez v. JBC-676 SCRA 579 [2012]
 De Castro v. JBC- 615 SCRA 666 [2010]

Sec. 9. Appointment of Justices and Judges

Sec. 10. Diminution of Salary

36
  Nitafan v. CIR- 152 SCRA 284 [1987]

Sec. 11. Security of Tenure; Power to Discipline

 Vargas v. Rilloraza- 80 PHIL. 297 [1948]
 De La Llana v. Alba- 112 SCRA 294 [1982]
 People v. Gacott- 246 SCRA 52 [1995]
 Lumpas v. Tamin, AM no. RTJ-99-1519

Sec. 12. Non-Judicial Assignments

 In Re Judge Manzano, 166 SCRA 246
 Macalintal v. Presidential Electoral Tribunal, 635 SCRA 783 [2010]

Sec. 13. Conclusions of the Supreme Court-How Reached?

 Consing v. Court of Appeals, GR 78272, August 29, 1989

Sec. 14. Contents of Decision; Petition for Review; Motion for Reconsideration
Decision expressing clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based
Sufficient
 Air France v. Carrascoso- 18 SCRA 155 [1966]
 People v. Bravo- 227 SCRA 285 [1993]
 Hernandez v. CA- 208 SCRA 429 [1993]
 Francisco v. Permskul- 173 SCRA 324 [1989]
 People v. Landicho- 285 SCRA 1 [1996]
 People v. Co- 245 SCRA 733 [1995]
 People v. Macoy- 275 SCRA 1 [1997]
 ABD v. NLRC- 286 SCRA 454 [1998]
 People v. Gastador, GR 123727 [April 14, 1999]
 People v. Ordonez, GR 136591, July 10, 2000
 People v. Orbita, GR 1365891, July 11, 2002
 Lorbes v. CA, 351 SCRA 716
 People v. Mendoza, GR 143702, Sept. 13, 2001
 Asia Traders v. CA- 423 SCRA 114 [2004]
 Tichangco v. Enriquez- 433 SCRA 324 [2004]
 Ceferina Lopez Tan v. Spouses Antazo, GR 187208, 23 February 2011.
 Donnina C. Halley v. Printwell, Inc. GR 157549, 30 May 2011.
 Hon. Waldo Q. Flores v. Atty. Antonio F. Montemayor, GR 17046, 8 June 2011
 Reiting Solid Homes v. Laserna. Art VIII, Section 14 applies only to the judiciary)

Insufficient
 People v. Escober- 157 SCRA 541 [1988]
 Nicos v. CA – 206 SCRA 127 [1992]
 People v. Viernas – 262 SCRA 641 [1996]
 People v. Bugarin – 273 SCRA 384 [1997]
 People v. Nadera – 342 SCRA 490 [2000]
 Madrid v. CA, GR 130683, May 31 2000
 Yao v. CA, GR 132428, October 24, 2000
 People v. Dumaging, GR 135516, September 20, 2000
 Ong Chiu Kwan, GR 13006, November 23, 2000

37
  Spouse Yu Eng Cho v. Pan America World Airways, Inc., GR 123560, March 27, 2000
 Kao v. C.A., G.R. No. 105014, December 18,2001
 People v. Pastor, 379 SCRA 181 (2002)
 People v. Lizada, GR 143468, Jan 24, 2003
 Consing v. CA-425 SCRA 192 [2004]
 Velarde v. SJS-428 SCRA 283 [2004]
 Report on the Judicial Audit (MTC of Tambulig)- 472 SCRA 419 [2005]
 Lacurom v. Tienzo- 535 SCRA 252 [2007]
 Salazar v. Marigomen- 537 SCRA 25 [2007]
 De la Pena v. CA- 579 SCRA 396 [2009]
 Office of the President and Presidential Anti- Graft Commission v. Calixto R. Cataquiz,
GR 183445, 14 September 2011.
 Republic of the Philippines (University of the Philippines) v. Legaspi, GR 177611, 18 April
2012

Legal basis must be stated if a petition for review or motion for reconsideration of a
decision shall be refused due course or denied
 Borromeo v. CA- 186 SCRA 1 [1990]
 JRB Realty v. CA-271 SCRA 229 [1997]
 Komatsu v. CA-289 SCRA 604 [1998]
 Martinez v. CA, GR 123547, May 21, 2001
 Protacio v. Laya-582 SCRA 417 [2009]
 Nationwide Security and Allied Services, Inc. v. Ronald P. Valderama, GR 186614, 23
February 2011. Reiterating Philippine Health care Providers, Inc. v. CIR.
 Re: Verified Complaint of Engr. Oscar L. Ongjoco, A.M. OCA IPI No. 11-184-CA-J, 31
January 2012.
 Agoy v. Araneta Center, GR 196358, 21 March 2012. Reiterating Borromeo v. CA

Sec. 15. Period for Making Decisions

 Dizon v. Judge Lopez- 278 SCRA 483 [1997]
 Mosquera v. Legaspi, AM RTJ-99-1511, July 10,2000
 OCA v. Salva, AM RTJ-98-1412, July 19, 2000
 Dela Cruz v. Bersamira, AM RTJ-00-1567, July 24, 2000
 Heirs of Sucaldito v. Cruz, AM RTJ-991456, July 27, 2000
 Sulla v. Ramos, AM-MTJ-00-1319, September 27, 2000
 Seares v. Salazar, AM MTJ-98-1160, November 22, 2000
 Gil v. Jonolo, AM RTJ-00-1602, December 5, 2000
 Aslarona v. Echavez, AM RTJ-03-1803, Oct. 2, 2003
 Unitrust Dev’t Bank v. Caoibes, AM RTJ-03-1745, Aug, 20, 2003
 Re: Request of Judge Javellana, AM 01-6-314-RTC, June 19, 2003
 Salud v. Alumbres, AM RTJ-00-1594, June 20,2003
 Samson v. Mejia, AM RTJ-02-1710,June 17,2003

Supplemnent:
 Sibayan-Joaquin v. Judge Javellana, A.M. No. RTJ-00-1601, Nov. 13,2001

Sec. 16. Report to the President and to Congress

38
Article IX: Constitutional Commissions

A. Common Provisions

Section 1. Independent Commissions

 Macalintal v. COMELEC, GR 157013, July 10, 2003
 Ombudsman v. Civil Service Commission, GR No. 159940, February 16, 2005

Section 2. Prohibition on Members

Section 3. Salary

Section 4. Power to Appoint

Section 5. Fiscal Autonomy

 CSC v. DBM, 482 SCRA 233

Section 6. Promulgation of Rules

 Macalintal v. COMELEC, GR No. 157013, July 10, 2003
 Sabili v. COMELEC, GR 193261, April 24, 2012

Section 7. Decisions of the Commissions

Review of final orders, resolutions and decisions:

1. Rendered in the exercise of quasi-judicial functions
2. Rendered in the exercise of administrative functions

 Filipinas Engineering and Machine Shop v. Ferrer, 135 SCRA 25

 Saligumba v. CA, 117 SCRA 669
 PTTC v. COA, 146 SCRA 190 (1986)
 Cua v. COMELEC, 156 SCRA 582 (1987)
 Estrella v. COMELEC, GR No. 160465, May 27, 2004
 Mison v. COA, 187 SCRA 445 (1990)
 Paredes v. COMELEC, 127 SCRA 653 (1984)
 Ambil v. COMELEC, 344 SCRA 358 [2000]
 Mateo v. CA, GR No. 113219, August 14, 1995
 Reyes v. Regional Trial Court, GR No. 108886, May 5, 1995
 ABS-CBN v. COMELEC, 323 SCRA 611
 Salva v. Makalintal, GR 132603, September 18, 2000
 Garces v. CA, GR. No. 114 795, July 17, 1996
 Dumayas v. COMELEC, GR Nos. 141952-53, April 29, 2001
 Aguilar v. COMELEC, GR No. 185140, June 30, 2009
 Cayetano v. COMELEC, GR 193846, April 12, 2011
 Dela Llana v. The Chairperson, COA, GR 180989, February 7, 2012
 Cagas v. COMELEC, 663 SCRA 644 (2012)

Section 8. Other Functions

B. Civil Service Commission

39
Section 1. Composition; Qualifications; Term
 Gaminde v. COA –347 SCRA 655 (2000)
 Mathay Jr. v. CA, GR No. 124374, December 15, 1999

Section 2. Scope of the system

 Cuevas v. Bacal, GR 139382, December 6 2000

Under Civil Service Law

PARAGRAPH 1
 MWSS v. Hernandez – 143 SCRA 602 [1986]
 NSC v. NLRC – 168 SCRA 122
 UP v. Regino – 221 SCRA 598 [1993]
 Mateo v. CA – 247 SCRA 284 [1995]
 DOH v. NLRC – 251 SCRA 700 [1995]
 Juco v. NLRC – 277 SCRA 528 [1997]
 Feliciano v. Gison – 629 SCRA 103 [2010]

GOCCs Under the Corporation Code

 BLISS v. Calejo – 237 SCRA 271 [1994]
 Postigo v. Philippine Tuberculosis society – 479 SCRA 628
 LRTA v. Venus – 485 SCRA 301

PARAGRAPH 2
Classifications and Appointments
 HIGC v. CSC – 220 SCRA 148 [1993]
 Mauna v. CSC – 232 SCRA 388 [1994]
 Rimonte v. CSC – 244 SCRA 498 [1995]
 Gloria v. De Guzman – 249 SCRA 126 [1995]
 Atty. Ellas Omar A Sana v. Career Executive Service Board, GR 192926, 15 November
2011

Competitive
 Samson v. CA – 145 SCRA 654[1986]

Non-Competitive
 Astraquillo v. Mangalupas – 190 SCRA 280 [1990]
 Office of the President v. Buenaobra – 501 SCRA 302

Policy-Determining

Primarily Confidential
 Borres v. CA – 153 SCRA 120 [1987]
 Grino v. CSC – 194 SCRA 458 [1991]
 Santos v. Macaraig – 208 SCRA 74 [1992]
 Hilario v. CSC – 243 SCRA 206 [1995]
 Rosete v. CA – 264 SCRA 147 [1996]
 CSC v. Salas – 274 SCRA 414 [1997]
 Acahacoso v. Macaraig – 195 SCRA 235 [1991]

40
  Felix v. Buenaseda – 240 SCRA 139 [1995] (par.2)
 Pamantasan ng Maynila v. CSC – 241 SCRA 503 [1995]
 Province of the Camarines Sur v. CA – 246 SCRA 231 [1995]
 PEZA v. Mercado – 614 SCRA 683 [2010]
 CSC v. CA – 635 SCRA 749 [2010]

Permanent
 Luego v. CSC – 143 SCRA 327 [1986]
 Pangilinan v. Maglaya – 225 SCRA 511 [1993] (par.2)

Reorganization
 Santiago v. CSC – 178 SCRA 733 [1989]
 Montecillo v. Civil Service Commission, GR NO. 131954. June 28, 2001
 Gatmaitan v. Gonzales – 492 SCRA 591
 Nieves v. Blanco – 673 SCRA 638 [2012]

Appointment vs. designation

 Binamira v. Garucho – 188 SCRA 154 [1990] (par.2) (designation by Dept. Sec.)

Removal for Cause/Security of Tenure

Cause for Removal: PARAGRAPH 3

1. Loss confidence
 Hernandez v. Villegas – 14 SCRA 544 [1965]

2. Abolition of Office
 Briones v. Osmena – 104 PHIL. 588 [1958]
 Eugene v. CSC – 243 SCRA 196 [1995]

3. Reorganization
 Romualdez-Yap v. CSC – 225 SCRA 285 [1993]
 Fernandez v. Sto Tomas – 242 SCRA 192 [1995]
 Chato v. Natividad – 244 SCRA 787 [1995]
 Divinagracia v. Sto. Tomas – 244 SCRA 595 [1995] (par.3)
 Vinzon-Chato v. Zenarosa, GR 120539, October 20, 2000
 De Guzman v. Comelec, GR 129118, July 19, 2000
 Cuevas v. Bacal, GR 139382, December 6, 2000

4. Qualification for Eligibility

 Mayor v. Macaraig – 194 SCRA 672 [1991

5. Abandonment; Acceptance of Incompatible/Other Employment

 Canonizado v. Aguirre, 323 SCRA 312 [2001]
 Salvador v. CA, GR 127501, May 5, 2000

Due Process in Removal

 Enrique v. CA – 229 SCRA 180 [1994]
 CSC v. Magnaye – 619 SCRA 347 [2010]
 Rubenecia v. CSC – 244 SCRA 640 [1995]

41
  Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office Board Of Directors v. Marie Jean C. Lapid, GR
191940, 12 April 2011

Security of Tenure
 Chua v. CSC – 206 SCRA 65 [1992]
 NLTD v. CSC – 221 SCRA 145
 Cabagnot v. CSC – 223 SCRA 59 (
 Marohombsar v. CA, GR 126481, February 18, 2000
 Ong v. OP – 664 SCRA 413 [2012]

Electioneering or Partisan Political Activity

 Santos v. Yatco – 106 PHIL 21
 People v. De Venecia – 14 SCRA 864 [1965]

Right to Self-Organization and Right to Strike

 SSS Employees v. CA – 175 SCRA 686 [1989]
 Balingasan v. CA – 276 SCRA 557 [1997]
 Jacinto v. CA – 281 SCRA 557 [1997]
 De la Cruz v. CA – 305 SCRA 303
 GSIS v. Kapisanan – 510 SCRA 622

Temporary Employees
 Gloria v. CA, GR 119903, August 15, 2000

Section 3. Purpose of a Civil Service System

 Lazo v. CSC, 236 SCRA 469

Section 4. Oath or Affirmation

Section 5. Standardization of Compensation

Section 6. Prohibition of Appointment of “Lame Ducks”

 People v. Sandiganbayan, GR No. 164185, July 23, 2008

Section 7. Prohibitions; Appointments; Office; Employment

 Flores v. Drilon – 223 SCRA 568 (1993)
 In re Eduardo Escala, 653 SCRA 141
 La Carlota City v. Rojo , GR 181367, 24 April 2012

Sec. 8 Prohibitions; Compensation; Foreign Gift/Office/Title

 Sedusasta v. Municipality of Surigao – 72 PHIL. 482 [1941]
 Peralta v. Mathay – 38 SCRA 296 (1971)
 Santos v. CA – GR No. 139792, Nov. 22, 2000
 Cabili v. CSC, GR No. 156503, June 22, 2006
 Benguet State University v. Colting, GR No. 169637, June 8, 2007
 Herrera, et al v. NPC, GR No. 166570, December 18, 2009
 NEA v. CSC – 611 SCRA 14 [2010]

42
Doctrine of Finality – Refers to a rule that a court will not judicially review an
administrative agency’s action until it is final.

 Yap v. COA – 619 SCRA 154 [2010]

 Sergio I. Carbonilla, et al v. Board of Airlines, GR 193247
 Office of the President v. Board of Airlines, GR 194276, 14 September 2011
 PEZA V. COA – 675 SCRA 513[2012]
 Dimagiba v. Espartero – 676 SCRA 420 [2012]

C. Commission on Elections

Section 1. Composition; Qualifications; Term

 Cayetano v. Monsod, 201 SCRA 210 (1991)
 Brillantes v. Yorac, 192 SCRA 358 (1990)
**It is expressly stipulated in S1(2) that no member can be appointed or designated in a
temporary or acting capacity.
 Matibag v. Benipayo, 380 SCRA 49
Ad interim appointments are permanent.
 Hayudini v. Comelec, GR No. 207900, 723 SCRA 223, April 22, 2014
 Naval v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 207851, July 8, 2014
**A provincial board member cannot be elected and serve for more than three consecutive
terms.
 Timbol v. Comelec, G.R. No. 206004, February 24, 2015
**To minimize the logistical confusion caused by nuisance candidates, their certificates of
candidacy may be denied due course or cancelled by respondent. —To minimize the logistical
confusion caused by nuisance candidates, their certificates of candidacy may be denied due
course or cancelled by respondent. This denial or cancellation may be “motu proprio or upon a
verified petition of an interested party,” “subject to an opportunity to be heard.”
 Jalover v. Osmena, G.R. No. 209286, September 23, 2014
**To successfully challenge a winning candidate’s qualifications, the petitioner must clearly
demonstrate that the ineligibility is so patently antagonistic to constitutional and legal principles
that overriding such ineligibility and thereby giving effect to the apparent will of the people would
ultimately create greater prejudice to the very democratic institutions and juristic traditions that
our Constitution and laws so zealously protect and promote.

Does not talk about qualification of COMELEC’s Chairman and Commissioner

Section 2. Powers and Functions

Administrative Power
 Alfiado v. Comelec, GR 141787, September 18, 2000
 Columbres v. Comelec, GR 142038,September 18, 2000
 Sahali v. Comelec, GR 134169, February 2, 2000
 Claudio v. Comelec, GR 140560, May 4, 2000
 De Guzman v. Comelec, GR 129118, July 19, 2000
 Social Weather Station, Inc v. COMELEC, GR NO. 147571, May 5, 2001
 Information Technology Foundation v. Comelec, GR 159139, Jan 13, 2004
 Buac v. Comelec, 421 SCRA 92
 Capalla v. COMELEC – 673 SCRA 1 [2012]

43
Election Contests
 Flores v. COMELEC – 184 SCRA 484 [1990]
 Galido v. COMELEC – 193 SCRA 78 [1991]
 Mercado v. BES – 243 SCRA 422 [1995]
 Relampagos v. Cumba – 243 SCRA 690 [1995]
 People v. Delgado – 189 SCRA 715 [1990]
 Garces v. CA – 259 SCRA 99 [1996]
 Zarate v. Comelec and Lallave – GR 129096, November 19, 1999
 Regalado v. CA, GR 115962, February 15, 2000
 Faelnar v. People,GR 140850-51, May 4, 2000
 Tan v. Comelec, GR 148575, Dec. 10, 2003
 Alauya v. Comelec, GR 158830, August 10, 2004

Powers Not Given

Deputizing Law Enforcement Agencies
 People v. Basilla – 179 SCRA 87[1989]

Registration of Parties and Organization

 LDP v. Comelec, GR 161265, February 24, 2004
 Atienza v. COMELEC – 612 SCRA 761 [2010]
 Lokin v. COMELEC – 674 SCRA 538[2012]

Prosecution of Election Offenses

 People v. Inting – 187 SCRA 788 [1990]
 Corpus v. Tanodbayan – 149 SCRA 281[1987]
 COMELEC v. Silva – 286 SCRA 177[1998]
 Comelec v. Hon. Espanol, GR 149164, Dec. 10, 2003
 Arroyo v. DOJ – 681 SCRA 181[2012]

Recommendatory Powers

Section 3. Decisions
 Pangilinan v. COMELEC – 228 SCRA 36[1993]
 Sarmiento v. Comelec – 212 SCRA 307[1992]
 Carnicosa v. COMELEC – 282 SCRA 512[1997]
 Ramas v. COMELEC – 286 SCRA 189[1998]
 Garvida v. Sales – 271 SCRA 767[1997]
 Velayo v. Comelec, GR 135613, March 9, 2000
 Sebastian v. Comelec, GR 139573, Mach 7, 2000
 Soller v. Comelec, GR 139853, September 5, 2000
 Barroso v. Ampig et al, GR138218, March 17, 2000
 Maruhon v. Comelec, GR 139357, May 5,2000
 Balindong v. Comelec, GR 153991, Oct. 16, 2003
 Jaramilla v. Comelec, GR 155717, Oct. 23, 2003
 Bautista v. Comelec, GR 154796-97, Oct. 23, 2003
 De Llana v. Comelec, GR 152080, Nov. 28, 2003
 Repol v. Comelec, GR 151418, Apr. 28, 2004

44
  Pedragoza v. COMELEC – 496 SCRA 513
 Cayetano v. COMELEC – 479 SCRA 514
 Munoz v. COMELEC – 495 SCRA 407
 Tan v. COMELEC – 507 SCRA 352
 Enriquel v. COMELEC – 613 SCRA 809
 Mendoza v. COMELEC – 616 SCRA 443
 Maria Laarni L Cayetano v. Comelec, GR 193846, 12 April 2011 (also in Sec. 7, Art IX-A)

Section 4. Supervision/Regulation of Public Utilities, Media Grants, Privileges

 Unido v. COMELEC, 104 SCRA 17
 Sanidad v. COMELEC, 181 SCRA 529 (1990)
 Osmena v. COMELEC – 199 SCRA 750 [1991]
 Philippine Press Institute v. COMELEC, GR No. 119654, May 22, 1995
 Telecom v. COMELEC – 289 SCRA 337 [1998]
 ABS-CBN v. COMELEC, GR No. 133486, Jan. 28, 2000
 SWS v. COMELEC, GR No. 147571, May 5, 2001

Section 5. Favorable Recommendation for Pardon, Amnesty, Parole or Suspension of

Sentence

Section 6. Free and Open Party System

 Liberal Party v. COMELEC, GR No. 191771, May 6, 2010

Section 7. No Block-Voting

Section 8. Prohibition on Political Parties

Section 9. Election Period

Section 10. No Harassment and Discrimination

Section 11. Funds

D. Commission of Audit

Section 1. Qualifications; Term

 Mison v. COA, 187 SCRA 445

Section 2. General Function; Powers

Examine and Audit: Government revenues and Government expenditures

 Blue Bar Coconut Phil. Tantuico – 163 SCRA 716 [1988]
 DBP v. COA – 231 SCRA 202 [1994]
 Eslao v. COA – 236 SCRA 161 [1994]
 J.F.F. Manacop v. CA – 266 SCRA 235 [1997]
 Polloso v. Gangan, GR 140563, July 14, 2000
 Uy v. COA, GR 130685, March 21, 2000
 Aguinaldo v. Sandiganbayan – 265 SCRA 121 [1996]
 DBP v. COA, 422 SCRA 459 [2004]

45
  Home Development Mutual Fund v. COA, GR 142297, June 15, 2004
 DBP v. COA – 498 SCRA 537 [2006]
 Nava v. Palattao – 499 SCRA 745 [2006]
 Gualberto De Llana v. COA, GR 180989, 7 Feb. 2012
 Candelario L. Versoza Jr. v. Guillermo N Carague, GR 157838, 7 February 2012
 Philippine Coconut v. Republic – 663 SCRA 514 [2012]

Audit Jurisdiction
 Caltex v. COA – 208 SCRA 726 [1992]
 Mamaril v. Domingo – 227 SCRA 206[1993]
 Philippine Airlines v. COA – 245 SCRA 39 [1995]
 CIR v. COA – 218 SCRA 203 [1993]
 CSC v. Pobre, GR 160568, Sept. 15, 2004
 Luciano Velos, et al. v. Commission On Audit, GR 193677,6 Sept. 20011
 Boy Scout of the Philippines v. COA, GR 177131, 7 June 2011
 Dela Llana v. COA – 665 SCRA 176 [2012]

Settle Government Account

 Philippine Operations, Inc. v. Auditor General, 94 Phil 868 [1953-1954]
 ICNA v. Republic, 21 SCRA 40 [1967]
 Dingcong v. Guingona, 162 SCRA 782 [1988]
 NHC v. COA – 226 SCRA 55 [1993]
 Euro-Med v. Province of Batangas, 495 SCRA 30 [2006]

Define Scope and Techniques of Auditing Procedures

 Danville Maritime v. COA,175 SCRA 701 [1989]

Promulgate Accounting and Auditing Rules

 Leycano v. COA, 482 SCRA 215

Decide Administrative Cases Involving Expenditures of Public Funds

 NCMH v. COA, 265 SCRA 390 [1996]
 Ramos v. Aquino, 39 SCRA 256 [1971]
 Salva v. Carague, 511 SCRA 258
 City of Basilan v. Hechanova, 58 SCRA 711 [1974]

Section 3. COA Jurisdiction

 Luciano Veloso v. Commisssion on Audit, GR 193677, 6 September 2011

Section 4. Annual Report to the President and to Congress

Article X. Local Government

Section 1. Territorial and Political Subdivisions of the Philippines

 Cordillera Broad Coalition v. COA, GR No. 79956, January 26, 1990

Section 2. Local Autonomy

 Limbona v. Conte Mangelin, et al, GR No. 80391, February 28, 1989
 San Juan v. CSC, 196 SCRA 69 (1991)

46
  Drilon v. Lim – 235 SCRA 135 [1994]
 Magtajas v. Pryce Properties, GR No. 111097, July 20, 1994
 Judge Leynes v. COA, GR No. 143596, Dec. 11, 2003
 Batangas CATV v. CA and Batangas City, GR No. 138810, September 29, 2004
 CREBA v. Secretary of DAR, GR 183409, June 18, 2010

Section 3. Local Government Code

 Garcia v. COMELEC, 227 SCRA 100 (1993)
 Malonzo v. COMELEC, 269 SCRA 380 (1997)
 Malonzo v. Zamora – 323 SCRA 875

Section 4. Supervision by the President

 Ganzon v. CA, 200 SCRA 271
 Joson v. Torres, 290 SCRA 279
 Drilon v. Lim, 235 SCRA 135 (1994)
 Bito-onon v. Fernandez – 350 SCRA 732
 National Liga v. Paredes – 439 130 [2004]
 SJS v. Atienza – 545 SCRA 92 [2009]
 Province of Negros v. COA, GR No. 182574, September 28, 2010

Section 5. Taxation Power of Local Government

 LTO v. City of Butuan, 322 SCRA 805
 Lina v. Pano, 364 SCRA 76 (2001)
 Petron v. Mayor, GR No. 158881, April 16, 2008
 Yamane v. BA Lepanto Condominium, GR No. 154993, October 25, 2005
 Philippine Petroleum v. Municipality of Pililla, GR No. 90773, June 3, 1991
 Acebedo Optical v. CA, GR 100152, March 21, 2000
 PLDT v. City of Davao, GR 143867, March 25, 2003
 John Hay People’s Alternative Coalition v. Lim, GR No. 119775, October 24, 2003
 Manila Electric v. Province of Laguna, GR No. 131359, May 5, 1999
 Batangas Power v. Batangas City, GR No. 152675, April 28, 2004
 Smart Communications v. City of Davao, GR No. 155491, September 16, 2008

Section 6. Share in National Taxes

 Pimentel v. Aguirre, 336 SCRA 201 (2000)
 Province of Batangas v. Executive Secretary, GR No. 152774, May 27, 2004
 Alternative Center v. Zamora, GR No. 144256, June 8, 2005
 League of Cities v. COMELEC August 24, 2010

Section 7. Equitable Share in the National Wealth

Section 8. Term of Local Officials

 Borja v. COMELEC, 295 SCRA 157
 Lozanida v. COMELEC, GR No. 135150, July 28, 1999
 Adormeo v. COMELEC, GR No. 147927, February 4, 2002
 Socrates v. COMELEC, 391 SCRA 457 (2002)
 Latasa v. COMELEC, GR No. 154829, Dec. 10, 2003
 David v. COMELEC, 271 SCRA 90 (1997)

47
  Rivera v. COMELEC – 523 SCRA 41
 Montebon v. COMELEC, 551 SCRA 50
 Ong v. Alegre, GR No. 163295, January 23, 2006
 Laceda v. Lumena – GR 182867, November 25, 2008
 Dizon v. COMELEC, GR No. 182088, January 30, 2009
 Bolos v. COMELEC – 581 SCRA 786 [2009]
 Aldovino v. COMELEC – 609 SCRA 234 [2009]
 Datu Michel Abas Kida v. Senate of the Philippines, GR 196271, February 2012
(reconsideration; holdover provision in RA 9054 Unconstitutional as Congress in passing
RA 10153 has made clear)

Section 9. Sectoral Representatives

 Supangan Jr. v. Santos, GR No. 84662, August 24, 1990

Section 10. Creation, Abolition, Change of Boundaries

 Tan v. COMELEC, 142 SCRA 727 (1986)
 Tobias v. Abalos – 239 SCRA 106 [1994] (metes and bounds)
 Mun. of Jimenez v. Judge Baz – 265 SCRA 182 [1996](de jure corporation)
 Cawaling v. COMELEC – GR146319, October 26, 2001
 League of Cities of the Philippines v. COMELEC, GR 176951, Nov. 29, 2008
 Sema v. COMELEC, 558 SCRA 700
 Camid v. Office of the President, GR No. 161414, January 17, 2005
 Navarro v. Executive Secretary, GR No. 180050, February 10, 2010

Section 11. Metropolitan Political Subdivisions

 MMDA v. Bel-Air Village Association Assoc., GR No. 135962, March 27, 2000
 MMDA v. Garin, GR No. 130230, April 15, 2005
 Gancayco v. City Government of Quezon City, 658 SCRA 853

Section 12. Highly Urbanized Cities, Component Cities

 Abella v. COMELEC, GR No. 100710, September 3, 1991

Section 13. Local Government Units Grouping Themselves

Section 14. Regional Development Councils and Other Similar Bodies

 Pimentel v. Ochoa – 676 SCRA 551 [2012]

Sec. 15 Purpose, and how many Autonomous Regions

Section 15. Autonomous Regions

 Disomangcop v. Sec. of DPWH,GR 149848, Nov. 25, 2004
 Abas Kida v. Senate of the Philippines, GR No. 196271, October 18, 2011

Section 16. General Supervision of the President

 Ampatuan v. Hon Ronaldo Puno, GR 190259. 17 June 2011 (Proclamation 1946 and
AOs and 273 –A do not violate the principle of local autonomy under Section 16, Article
X of the Constitution, and Section 1 Article V of the Expanded ARMM Organic Act)
 Kulayan v. Tan – 675 SCRA 482 [2012]

48
Section 17. Powers Not Vested to the ARMM
 Datu Michel Abas Kida v. Senate of the Philippines, GR 196271, 18 October 2011. (The
framers decided to reinstate the provision in order to make it clear, once and for all, that
these are the limits of the powers to the autonomous government; those not
enumerated are actually to be exercised by the national government; the autonomy
granted to the ARMM cannot be invoked to defeat national policies and concerns Since
the synchronization of elections not just a regional concerns but a national one, the
ARMM is subject to it; the regional autonomy granted to the ARMM cannot be used to
exempt the region from having act in accordance with national policy mandated by no
less than the Constitution)

Sections 18 and 19. Organic Act for Autonomous Regions

 Abbas v. COMELEC, 179 SCRA 287 (1989)
 Ordillos v. COMELEC, 192 SCRA 100 (1990)
 Badua v. CBA, 194 SCRA 101 (1991)
 Atitiw v. Zamora, 471 SCRA 329
 Cordillera Broad Coalition v. COA, GR No. 82217, Jan. 29, 1990
 Pandi v. CA, GR No. 116850, April 11, 2002
 Sema v. COMELEC, GR No. 177597, July 16, 2008
 Province of North Cotabato v. GRP Panel
 Datu Michael Abas Kida v. Senate of the Philippines, February 2012 (means that only
amendments to, or revisions of, the organic Act Constitutionally-essential to creation of
autonomous regions – i.e. , those aspects specially mentioned in the Constitution which
Congress must provide for the Organic Act – require ratification through a plebiscite)

Section 20. Legislative Powers of the Autonomous Regions

 Province of North Cotabato v. Government of the Philippines Peace Panel, 568 SCRA
492

Section 21. Preservation of Peace and Order

Article XI. Accountability of Public Officers

Section 1. Public Office

Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to
the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act with
patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.

 Hipolito v. Mergas – 195 SCRA 6 [1991]

 Bornasal, Jr. v. Montes – 280 SCRA 181 [1997]
 Almario v. Resus – AM NO. P941076, [November 22, 1999]
 Juan v. People, GR 132378, January 18, 2000
 Re; AWOL of Antonio Makalintal, AM 99-11-06-SC, February 15, 2000
 Estrella v. Sandiganbayan, GR 125160, June 20, 2000
 Malbas v. Blanco, A.M P99-1350, December 12, 2001
 Manaois v. Lemeo, AM MTJ-03-1492, Aug. 26, 2003
 Re; Gideon Alibang, AM 2003-11-SC June 15, 2004
 ABAKADA v. Purisima – 562 SCRA 251[2008]
 Salumbides v. OMB, GR 180917, April 23, 2010

49
Section 2. Officers Subject to Removal by Impeachment
The President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Supreme Court, the Members of the
Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman may be removed from office, on
impeachment for, and conviction of, culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft
and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust. All other public officers and
employees may be removed from office as provided by law, but not by impeachment.
 Ombudsman v. CA – 452 SCRA 714 [2005] (exclusive list)

Impeachable Officer in a Quo Warranto Proceeding

 Republic vs. Sereno, G.R. 237428
Impeachment is not an exclusive remedy by which an invalidly appointed or invalidly
elected impeachable official may be removed from the office. The language of Section 2,
Article XI of the Constitution does not foreclose a quo warranto action against
impeachable officers. The provision uses the permissive term “may” which denote
discretion and cannot be construed as having a mandatory effect, indicative of a mere
possibility, an opportunity or an option.

Section 3. Procedure for Impeachment

 In re Gonzales, 160 SCRA 771 (1988)
 Marcoleta v. Brawner – 582 SCRA 474 [2009])
 Romulo v. Yniguez, 141 SCRA 260 (1986)
 Francisco v. House of Representatives, 415 SCRA 44
 Estrada v. Desierto, 353 SCRA 452 (2001); MR, 356 SCRA 108 (2001)
 Gutierrez v. Committee on Justice, 643 SCRA 198

Section 4. Sandiganbayan
 Nunez v. Sandiganbayan – 111 SCRA 433 [1982] (creation of Sandiganbayan)
 Lecaros v. Sandiganbayan – 128 SCRA 324 [1984] (crimes in relation to public office)
 Cunanan v. Arceo – 242 SCRA 88 [1995] (averment of the nature of the crime
committed)
 Balmadrid v. Sandiganbayan, GR No. 58327, March 22, 1991
 Binay v. Sandiganbayan – GR NO. 120681-83 [October 1, 1999]
 Mayor Layus v. Sandiganbayan – GR 134272, December 8, 1999
 Abbot v. Mapayo, GR 134102, July 6, 2000
 Defensor-Santiago, 356 SCRA 636 (2001)

Section 5. Ombudsman
 Baluyot v. Holganza, GR 136374, February 2000
 Garcia v. Ombudsman, GR 127710, February 16, 2000
 Lapid v. CA, GR 142261, June 29, 2000
 Tirol v. COA, GR 133954, August 3, 2000
 Mamburao v. Desierto, 429 SCRA 76
 Carandang v. Desierto, 639 SCRA 293
 Lacson v. ES, 649 SCRA 142
 People v. Morales, 649 SCRA 182
 Quarto v. Marcelo, 658 SCRA 580

Section 6. Appointments

50
  Ombudsman v. CSC, GR No. 162215, July 20, 2007

Section 7. Tanodbayan as Special Prosecutor

 Quimpo v. Tanodbayan – 146 SCRA 137 [1986]
 Zaldivar v. Sandiganbayan, 160 SCRA 843 (1988)
 Acop v. Ombudsman, GR No. 120422, September 27, 1995
 Deloso v. Domingo, 191 SCRA 545
 Almonte v. Vasquez, GR No. 95367, May 22, 1995
 Azarcon v. Sandiganbayan G.R. No. 116033. February 26, 1997
 Camanag v. Hon Guerrero – 286 SCRA 473 [1997]
 Macalino v. Sandiganbayan, 376 SCRA 452
 BIR v. Ombudsman, GR No. 115103, April 11, 2002
 Laurel v. Desierto, GR No. 145368, April 12, 2002
 Office of the Ombudsman v. Valera – 471 SCRA 715 [2005]
 Perez v. Sandiganbayan – 503 SCRA 252
 Calingin v. Desierto 529 SCRA 720 [2007]

Section 8. Qualifications

Section 9. Appointments

Section 10. Rank

Section 11. Term

Section 12. Prompt Action on Complaints

 Laurel v. Desierto, GR No. 145368, April 12, 2002
 Almonte v. Vasquez, 244 SCRA 286 (1995)
 Uy v. Sandiganbayan, GR No. 105965, March 20, 2001
 Raro v. Sandiganbayan, GR 108431, July 14, 2000
 Bautista v. Sandiganbayan, GR 136082, May 12, 2000
 Roxas v. Vasquez, GR NO. 114944, June 19, 2001
 Kara-an v. Ombudsman, GR 119990, June 21, 2004
 People v. Sandiganbayan – 451 SCRA 413 [2005]
 Laxina v. Ombudsman – 471 SCRA 542 [2005]
 Gemma P. Cabalit v. Commission On Audit-Region VII, Gr 180236, 17 January 2012
(Power of the Ombudsman to determine and impose administrative liability is
mandatory)
 Gonzales III v. OP – 679 SCRA 614 [2012]

Section 13. Powers; Functions; Duties

In General
 Cruz v. Sandiganbayan – 194 SCRA 474 [1991]
 Maceda v. Vasquez – 221 SCRA 464 [1993]
 Macalino v. Sandiganbayan – 376 SCRA 452
 Garcia v. Miro, GR No. 148944, Feb 5, 2003
 Honasan II v. Panel of Investigating Prosecutors – GR No. 159747, April 13, 2004
 Samson v. OMB, GR 117741, Sept 29, 2004

51
  Corpuz v. Sandiganbayan, GR 162214, Nov. 11, 2004
 Khan, Jr. v. Ombudsman, GR No. 125296, July 20, 2006
 Ombudsman v. Estandarte, GR No. 168670, April 13, 2007
 Ombudsman v. Lucero, November 24, 2006
 Ombudsman v. CA, GR No. 169079, July 17, 2007
 Sangguniang Barangay v. Punong Barangay, GR No. 170626, March 3, 2008
 Perez v. Sandiganbayan, GR No. 166062, September 26, 2006
 Buencamino v. CA, GR No. 175895, April 4, 2007
 Medina v. COA, GR No. 176478, February 4, 2008
 Villas Nor v. Sandiganbayan, GR No. 180700, March 4, 2008
 Ombudsman v. Rodriguez, GR No. 172700, July 23, 2010
 OMB v. Estendarte – 521 SCRA 155 [2007]
 Salvador v. Mapa – 539 SCRA 34 [2000]
 OMB v. Masing – 542 SCRA 253 [2008]
 Medina v. COA – 543 SCRA 684[2008]
 Borja v. People – 553 SCRA 250 [2008]

Preventive Suspension and Imposition of Penalties

 Buenaseda v. Favier – 226 SCRA 645 [1993]
 Hagad v. Gozo-Dadole – 251 SCRA 243 [1995]
 Vasquez v. Hobilla-Alinio – 271 SCRA 67 [1997]
 OMB v. CA – 491 SCRA 92
 OMB v. Madriaga – 503 SCRA 631
 OMB v. CA 507 SCRA 593
 Estorja v. Ranada – 492 SCRA 652
 OMB v. Lucero – 508 SCRA 593
 Balbastro v. Junio – 527 SCRA 680 [2007]
 OMB v. CA – 527 SCRA 798 [2007]
 COA v. CA – 529 SCRA 245 [2007
 OMB v. Santiago – 533 SCRA 305 [2007]
 Govenciong v. CA – 550 SCRA 502 [2008]
 Marahomsalic v. Cole – 547 SCRA 98
 OMB v. Lisondra – 548 SCRA 83
 Miro v. Abugan – 549 SCRA 34
 Cesa v. OMB – 553 SCRA 357
 OMB v. De Sahagun – 562 SCRA 122
 OMB v. samaniego – 564 SCRA 502
 Boncalon v. OMB – GR 171812, December 24, 2008
 OMB v. Beltran – 588 SCRA 574 [2009]
 OMB v. Apolonio, GR 165132, 07 March 2012 (Power to directly impose
administrative penalties, including removal from office)

Jurisdiction over Criminal Cases

 Natividad v. Felix – 229 SCRA 680 [1994] (Amount)
 Lastimosa v. Vasquez – 243 SCRA 497 [1995] (Prosecutor’s assistance)
 Presidential v. desierto – 528 SCRA 20 [2007]

Fact-finding distinguished from Preliminary Investigation

52
  Raro v. Sandiganbayan, GR 108431, July 14, 2000
 Serapio v. Sandiganbayan, GR 148468, Jan 28, 2003

Section 14. Fiscal Autonomy

Section 15. Right to Recover Properties Unlawfully Acquired

 Heirs of Gregorio Licaros v. SB, GR 157438, October 18, 2004
 Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-finding Committee on Behest Loans v. OMB Desierto,
GR 135715, 13 April 2011. (reiterating Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding
Committee on Behest Loans v. Desierto, GR 130140; provision applies only to
civil actions for recovery of ill-gotten wealth, and not to criminal cases)

Section 16. Loan, Guaranty or Other Form of Financial Accommodation

Section 17. Declaration of Assets and Liabilities

Section 18. Allegiance of Public Officers

 Caasi v. CA, 191 SCRA 229 (1990)
 Sampayan v. Daza – 213 SCRA 807 [1992]

Week 15

Article XII. National Economy and Patrimony

Definition of Terms
1. REGALIAN DOCTRINE - All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal,
petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or
timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources are owned by the State.
(Section 2, Art. XII)
2. IMPERIUM - Government authority possessed by the State expressed in the concept of
Sovereignty.
3. DOMINIUM - Capacity of the State to own or acquire property; the foundation for the
early Spanish decress embracing the feudal theory of jura regalia.
4. JURA REGALIA – all lands were held from the crown; in broad sense, the term refers to
royal rights to which the King has by virtue of his prerogatives; private title to land must
be traced to some grant, express or implied from the Spanish Crown and thereafter, the
Philippine Republic.
5. FORESHORE LAND – that strip of land that lies between the high and low water marks
and that is alternatively wet and dry according to the flow of the tide; inalienable unless
converted by law int alienable lands.
6. SUBMERGED LAND – all lands permanently or periodically covered by tidal waters up
to but not above the line of mean high tide.
7. ANCESTRAL DOMAIN – an all-embracing concept referring to lands, inland waters,
coastal areas, and includes ancestral lands, etc., and other lands individually owned,
whether alienable or not, hunting grounds, burial grounds, worship areas, etc.; They
include lands which may no longer be exclusively used by indigenous cultural
communities but traditionally had access for their subsistence and traditional activities.
8. ANCESTRAL LAND - narrower concept referring to lands utilized by cultural
communities under the claim of individual or traditional group ownership; includes, but

53
 are not limited to residential lots, rice terraces, etc.; Those held under the same
conditions but are limited to lands that are not merely occupied and possessed but are
also utilized by cultural communities.
9. PRIVATE LAND - lands of private ownership including both lands owned by private
individuals and those which are patrimonial property of the State or of municipal
corporations.
10. PUBLIC UTILITY – a utility corporation that renders service to the general public for
compensation; service is not confined to privileged individuals but is open to an indefinite
public.
11. FILIPINIZATION – Filipino ownership.
12. NATIONALIZATION – State ownership.
13. MONOPOLY – when there is only one seller or producer of a product or service for
which there are no substitute; joint acquisition or maintenance by members of a
conspiracy, formed for that purpose, of the power to control and dominate trade and
commerce in a commodity to such an extent that they are able, as a group, to exclude
actual or potential competitors from the field, accompanied with the intention and
purpose to exercise such power.
14. MINERAL – refers to all naturally occurring inorganic substance in solid, gas, liquid, or
any intermediate state excluding energy materials such as coal, petroleum, natural gas,
radioactive materials and geothermal energy. (Sec. 4 (e), A.M. No. 09-6-8-C)
15. WILDLIFE – means wild forms and varieties of flora and fauna, in all developmental
stages including those which are in captivity or are being bred or propagated. (Sec. 4
(g), A.M. No. 09-6-8-C)
16. WRIT OF KALIKASAN – a remedy available to a natural or juridical person entity
authorized by law, people’s organization, NGO, or any public interest group on behalf of
persons constitutional right to a balance and healthful ecology is violate or threatened
with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or a private
individual or entity, involving environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice
the life, health or property of inhabitants.
17. MINERAL LAND – refer to those lads of public domain which has been classified as
such by the Secretary of Natural Resources in accordance with the prescribed and
approved criteria, guidelines and procedure. (Sec. 3 (f), P.D. No. 705)
18. NATIONAL PARK – refers to a forest land reservation essentially of primitive or
wilderness character which has been withdrawn from settlement or occupancy and set
aside as such exclusively to preserve the scenery, the natural and historic objects and
the wild animals or plants therein, and to provide enjoyment of these features in such a
manner as will leave them unimpaired for future generations. (Sec. 3 (h), P.D. No. 705)
19. INDIGENOUS CULTURAL COMMUNITY – refers to a group of people sharing common
bonds of language, customs, traditions and other distinctive cultural traits, and who
have, since time immemorial, occupied, possessed and utilized a territory. (Sec.4 (d),
R.A. No. 7586)
20. NATURAL RESOURCES – refers to life-support systems such as the sea, coral reefs,
soil, lakes, rivers, and forests as well as useful products found therein such as animals,
wildlife, tress and other plants, including the aesthetic attributes of scenic sites that are
not man-made. (Sec. 3 (3), R.A. No. 7611)
21. ENVIRONMENT COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE (ECC) – refers to the document issued
by the government agency concerned certifying that the project under consideration will
not bring about an unacceptable environmental impact statement system.

54
 22. EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE (EEZ) – the water, sea bottom and subsurface
measured from the baseline of the Philippine archipelago up to 200 nautical miles
offshore.
23. FINANCIAL AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AGREEMENT – a contract involving
financial or technical assistance for large-scale exploration, development, and utilization
of natural resources.
24. SUBSISTENCE FISHERMAN – refers to fishing that is carried out primarily to feed the
family and relatives of the person doing the fishing.
25. FISHWORKER – a person regularly or not regularly employed in commercial fishing and
related industries, whose income is either in wage, profit-sharing or stratified sharing
basis, including those working in fish pens, fish cages, fish corrals etc.
26. INTEGRATED FOREST MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT (IFMA) – is a production
sharing contract entered into by and between the DENR and a qualified applicant
wherein it grants the right to develop, manage, protect and utilize a specified area.

Section 1. Threefold Goal of the National Economy

xxx a more equitable distribution of opportunities, income, and wealth; a sustained
increase in the amount of goods and services produced by the nation for the benefit of
the people; and an expanding productivity as the key to raising the quality of life for all,
especially the underprivileged.

Section 2. Regalian Doctrine

Public Domain and Regalian Doctrine

 Lee Hong Kok v. David, 48 SCRA 372
 Carino v. Insurer Government, 41 PHIL 935
 Laurel v. Garcia, 187 SCRA 797 (1990)
 Almeda v. Court of Appeals, GR No. 85322, April 30, 1991
 Director of Lands v. Kalahi Investments, Inc, GR No. 48066, January 31, 1989
 Land Mgt. Bureau v. CA, GR 112567, February 7, 2000
 Republic v. De Guzman, GR 105630, February 23, 2000
 Pua v. CA, GR 134992, November 20, 2000
 Cruz v. Sec. of DENR, GR 135385, December 6, 2000
 Chavez v. PEA, GR 133250, July 9, 2002
 Dipido v. Gozun – 485 SCRA 586
 Chavez v. NHA – 530 SCRA 235 [2007]
 Republic v. Enciso, GR No. 160145, November 11, 2005
 Philippine Geothermal v. Napocor, GR No. 144302, May 27, 2004
 La Bugal-B’laan v. Ramos, GR 127872, Dec. 1, 2004
 JG Summit Holdings v. CA G.R. No. 124293, January 31, 2005
The fact that PHILSECO owns land cannot deprive stockholders of their right of first
refusal. No law disqualifies a person from purchasing shares in a landholding
corporation even if the latter will exceed the allowed foreign equity, what the law
disqualifies is the corporation from owning land. This is clear from the provision under
Sec. 2, Article XII of the Constitution: xxx the State may directly undertake such
activities, or it may enter into co-production, joint venture, or production-sharing
agreements with Filipino citizens, or corporations or associations at least sixty per
centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens.

55
Alienation
 Sta. Rosa Mining v. Liedo – 156 SCRA 1 [1987] (mining claims)
 San Miguel Corporation v. CA – 185 SCRA 722 [1990] (possession in the concept of an
owner)
 Republic v. Bantigue Point development Corporation, GR 162322, 14 March 2012
(burden on applicant to prove land sought to be registered is alienable or disposable on
a positive act the government)

Utilization
 Miners v. Factoran – 240 SCRA 100[1995] (Jura regalia)
 Tano v. Socrates – 278 SCRA 154 [1997] (Subsistence fisherman)
 Villaflor v. CA - 280 SCRA 297 [1997] (private ownership)
 Republic v. CA and PREC – GR 103882, [November 25, 1998] 299 SCRA 199
 Republic v. Rosemoor Mining and Dev’t Corp. , GR 149927, Mar 30, 2004
 Alvarez v. PICOP – 606 SCRA 444 [2009]
 IID v. PSALM – 682 SCRA 602 [2012]

Section 3. Lands of the Public Domain

 Director of Lands v. Aquino, 192 SCRA 296 (1990)
 Republic v. CA, 160 SCRA 228 (1988)
 Apex Mining v. Southeast Mindanao Gold, Inc, GR No. 152613, June 23, 2006
 Dir. of Lands v. IAC, 146 SCRA 509 (1986)
 Ten Forty Realty v. Lorenzana, GR No. 151212, Sept. 10, 2003
 Chavez v. PEA, GR No. 133250, July 9, 2002
 Republic v. Southside, 502 SCRA 587
 Republic v. T.A.N., 555 SCRA 477

Section 4. Specific Limits of Forest Lands and National Parks

Section 5. Ancestral Lands and Domain

 Cruz v. Sec. of DENR, 347 SCRA 128 (2000)

Section 6. Common Good

 Telecom v. COMELEC, 289 SCRA 337 (1998)

Section 7. Private Lands

 Republic v. CA, 235 SCRA 567
 Zaragosa v. CA, GR No. 106401, September 29, 2000
 Ramirez v. Vda. De Ramirez, 111 SCRA 704 (1982)
 Halili v. CA, 287 SCRA 465 (1998)
 Lee v. Republic, 366 SCRA (2001)
 Frenzel v. Catito, GR No. 143958, July 11, 2003
 Lentfer v. Wolff – 441 SCRA 584 [2004]
 Muller v. Muller – 500 SCRA 65
 Mulller v. Muller, GR No. 149615, August 29, 2006
 Matthews v. Taylor Spouses, GR No. 164584, June 22, 2009
 Hulst v. PR Builders, GR No. 156364, September 25, 2008
 Ting Ho v. Teng – 558 SCRA 421 [2008]

56
  Hulst v. PR Builders – 566 SCRA 333[2008]
 Osmena v. Osmena – 611 SCRA 164 [2010]
 Beurmer v. Amores – 686 SCRA 770 [2012]

Section 8. Exception for Former Filipino Citizens

 Republic v. CA, 235 SCRA 567 (1994)

Section 9. Independent Economic and Planning Agency

Section 10. Filipinization

 Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS, 267 SCRA 408 (1997)
 Army and Navy Club v. CA, 271 SCRA 36 (1997)
 Tanada v. Angara, 272 SCRA 18 (1997)
 J.G. Summit Holdings v. CA, GR 124293, November 20, 2000

Section 11. Public Utilities

 Bagatsing v. Committee, 246 SCRA 344 (1995)
 Albano v. Reyes, 175 SCRA 36 (1997)
 Tatad v. Garcia, 243 SCRA 436 (1995)
 Telecom v. COMELEC, 289 SCRA 337 (1998)
 Republic v. Express Telecom 373 SCRA 316
 Del Mar v. Pagcor [2001]
 PTC v. NTC, GR 138295, Aug. 28, 2003
 Associated Communications v. NTC, GR No. 144109, February 17, 2003
 Eastern Telecom v. Telecom Technologies, GR No. 135992, July 23, 2004
 Royal Cargo Corp. v. CAB – 421 SCRA 21
 Metropolitan v. Adala – 526 SCRA 465 [2007]
 PAGCOR v. BIR, 645 SCRA 338
 Francisco v. TRB – 633 SCRA 470 [2010]
 Wilson P. Gamboa v. Finance Secretary Malgarito B Tebes, GR 176579, 28 June 2011.
Definition of capital refers only to share of stock entitled to vote in the election of
directors, and thus in the present case only to common share, and not the total
outstanding capital stock comprising
 Express Investment v. Bayantel – 687 SCRA 50 [2012]
(JG Summit Holdings Inc v. CA 345 SCRA 13, Nov 20, 2000); MR on:
 JG Summit Holdings v. CA 412 SCRA 10, Sept 24, 2003
It is crystal clear that a shipyard cannot be considered a public utility. A shipyard is a
place or enclosure where ships are built or repaired. Its nature dictates that it serves but
a limited clientele whom it may choose to serve at its discretion. While it offers its
facilities to whoever may wish to avail of its services, a shipyard is not legally obliged to
render its services indiscriminately to the public. It has no legal obligation to render the
services sought by each and every client. The fact that it publicly offers its services does
not give the public a legal right to demand that such services be rendered.

Section 12. Filipino First Policy

 Tanada v. Angara, 272 SCRA 18 (1997)

Section 13. Trade Policy

 Espina v. Zamora, 631 SCRA 17

57
Section 14. Development and Practice of Professions

Section 15. Agency to Promote Cooperatives

Section 16. Corporations

 NDC v. PVB, 192 SCRA 257 (1990)
 Boy Scouts of the Philippines v. COA, GR 177131, 07 June 2011.
Section 16, Article XII should not be construed so as to prohibit Congress from creating
public corporation. In fact, Congress has enacted numerous laws creating public
corporations or government agencies or instrumentalities vested with corporate powers.
Moreover, Section 16, Article XII, which relates to National Economy and Patrimony,
could not have tied the hands of Congress in creating public corporation to serve any of
the constitutional policies or objective.

Section 17. Temporary Take-Over

 Agan v. PIATCO, 420 SCRA 575
 David v. Macapagal-Arroyo, GR No. 171396, May 2006

Section 18. Nationalization

 Republic v. PLDT, 26 SCRA 620 (1968)
 PLDT v. NTC, 190 SCRA 717 (1990)
 PLDT v. Eastern Telecom, 213 SCRA 16 (1992)

Section 19. Monopolies and Combinations

 Energy Regulatory Board v. CA, GR No. 113079, April 20, 2001
 Garcia v. Executive Secretary, GR No. 132451, December 17, 1999
 Tatad v. Secretary of Energy, 281 SCRA 330
 Eastern Assurance v. LTFRB, GR No. 149717, Oct. 7, 2003
 Avon v. Luna, GR No. 153674, December 20, 2006

Section 21. Foreign Loans

Section 22. Acts Inimical to the National Interest

Article XVI. General Provisions

Section 1. Flag of the Philippines

Section 2. Name, National Anthem or a National Seal

Section 3. Immunity From Suit

 Liang v. People GR 125865, January 28, 2000
 Calub v. CA, GR 115634, April 27, 2000
 Lansang v. CA, GR 102667 February 23, 2000
 Mancenido v. CA, GR 118605, April 12, 2000
 Shell v. Jalos – 630 SCRA 399(2010)
 China National Machinery & Equipment Corp. (Group) v. Hon. Cesar D. Santamaria,
 Gr 185572, 07 February 2012, 665 SCRA 189 (2012) (Revisits and reiterates several

58
  Cases : GTZ v. CA, Holy See v. Rosario, DFA v. NLRC)

Foundation of the Rule: A suit against the State

 Santos v. Santos - 92 PHIL. 281 (1952 – 1953)
 Republic v. Feliciano – 148 SCRA 424 ) 1887
 Republic of Indonesia v. Vinzons (2005)

Unincorporated Agencies
 Mentran v. Paredes – 79 PHIL. 819 (1947 – 1948 )
 NAC v. Teodoro – 91 PHIL. 203 (1952)
 Mobil Philippines v. Customs Arrestre – 18 SCRA 1120 (1966)
 Del Mar v. PVA – 51 SCRA 340 (1973)
 CAA v. CA – 167 SCRA 28 (1988)
 Farolan v. CTA – 217 SCRA 340 (1993)
 PNR v. IAC – 217 SCRA 401 (1993)
 Republic v. Nolasco – 457 SCRA 460 (2005)
 Republic v. Unimex – 518 SCRA 20 (2007)
 Professional Video v. TESDA – 591 SCRA 83 (2009)

Government Officers
 Ministero v. CFI – 40 SCRA 464 (1971
 Syquia v. Almeda-Lopez – 84SCRA 312 [1978]
 Festejo v. Fernando – 94 SCRA 54 [1979]
 Aberca v. Ver – 160 SCRA 590 [1988]
 Shauf v. CA – 191 SCRA 713 [1990]
 Vidad v. RTC – 271 [1993]
 Regional Director v. CA – 229 SCRA 557 [1994]
 Africa v. PCGG/Villanueva v. Sandiganbayan – [January 1992]
 DOH v. Phil. Pharmawealth – 518 SCRA 240 [2007]

Foreign Government
 Baer v. Tizon – 57 SCRA 1 [1974]
 US v. Ruiz – 136 SCRA 487 [1985]
 Sanders v. Veridiano – 162 SCRA 88 [1988]
 U.S v. Reyes – 219 SCRA 192 [1993]
 The Holy See v. Rosario – 238 SCRA 524 [1994]
 JUSMAG v. NLRC – 239 SCRA 224 [1994]
 Larkins v. NLRC – 241 SCRA 598 [1995]
 Minucher v. CA – GR 142396, Feb, 11, 2003

Consent by Law
 Carabao v. Agricultural product Com. – 35 SCRA 224 [1970]
 Arcega v. CA – 66 SCRA 230 [1975]
 Rayo v. CFI – 110 SCRA 456 [1981]
 Municipality of San Fernando v. Firme – 195 SCRA 692 [1991]
 Republic v. NLRC – 263 SCRA 290 [1996]

Exceptional Circumstance to avoid injustice

59
  DOH v. Canchela – 475 SCRA 218 [2005]

Agency – Propriety
 United States v. Guinto – 182 SCRA 644 [ 1990]
 Fontanilla v. Maliaman – 194 SCRA 486 [1991]
 PRC v. CA – 256 SCRA 667 [1996]

Waiver
 Republic v. Purisima – 78 SCRA 470 [1977]
 Santiago v. Republic – 87 SCRA 294 [1978]
 Traders Royal Bank v. IAC – 192 SCRA 305 [1990]
 Republic v. Sandoval – 220 SCRA 124 [1993]
 Delos Santos v. IAC – 223 SCRA 11 [1993]
 DA v. NLRC – 227 SCRA 693 [1993]
 EPG v. Sec. of DPWH – 354 SCRA 566 [2001]

Resulting Liability
 Philrock v. Board of Liquidators – 180 SCRA 171 [1989]
 Liang v. People – GR 125865 [January 28, 2000] ADB immunity)
 Republic v. Hidalgo – 477 SCRA 12 [2005] (writ execution)
 Philippine Agila v. Lichauco – 489 SCRA 22 [2006]
 U.P. v. Dizon – 679 SCRA 54 [2012]

Section 4. AFP

Section 5. AFP Requirement and Goals

Section 6. Police Force

 Quilonia v. The General Court Martial – GR No. 9660, March 4, 1992
 Carpio v. Executive Secretary – 206 SCRA 290 (1992)
 Department of Budget v. Manila’s Finest, GR No. 169466, May 9, 2007
 Mendoza v. PNP, GR No. 139658, June 21, 2005

Section 7. War Veterans

Section 8. Pensions and Benefits for Retirees

Section 9. Protection of Consumers from Trade Malpractices

Section 10. Development of Filipino Capability and Communication Structures

Section 11. Ownership and Management: Mass Media and Advertising

Section 12. Consultative Body for Indigenous Cultural Communities

Article XVII. Amendments or Revisions

Section 1. Amendment or Revision

60
  Imbong v. COMELEC, 35 SCRA 28 (1970)
 Lambino v. COMELEC, 505 SCRA 160

Section 2. Initiative
 Defensor-Santiago v. COMELEC, 270 SCRA 106 (1997); MR (1997)
 Lambino v. COMELEC, 505 SCRA 160 (2006)

Section 3. Constitutional Convention

Section 4. Ratification
 Gonzales v. COMELEC, 21 SCRA 774 (1967)
 Tolentino v. COMELEC, 41 SCRA 702 (1971)

Article XVIII Transitory Provisions

Sec. 1 First Election Under the New Constitution

Sec. 2 Term of First House Members and Local Officials

Sec. 3 Status of Laws and other Legislation Passes Prior to the Constitution

Sec. 4 Status of Treaties and International Agreements

Sec. 5 Presidential Term and Synchronization

Sec. 6 President Legislative

Sec. 7 Sectorial Representation

Sec. 8 Metropolitan Authority

 MMDA v. Bel-Air Village Association, GR 135962, March 27, 2000

Sec. 9 Sub-Provinces

Sec. 10-11 Security of Tenure Judges

Sec. 12-14 Cases Filed Prior to Effectivity of New Constitution

Sec. 15 Term of Carry-over Commission

Sec. 16 Career Civil Service Officers

 Dario v. Mison – 176 SCRA 84 [1989] (reorganization)
 Mendoza v. Quisumbing – 186 SCRA 108 [1990]
 Ontiveros v. CA. G.R. No. 145401 May 7, 2001

Sec. 17-18 Readjustment of salary

Sec. 19-21 Reversion of lands and real rights illegally acquired

Sec. 22 Idle/Abandoned lands

61
Sec. 23 Advertising Entities

Sec. 24 Private Armies

Sec. 25 Foreign Military Bases, Troops or Facilities

 Bayan v. Zamora, GR 138570, October 10, 2000

Sec. 26 Sequestration Orders

 Joya v. PCGG – 225 SCRA 568 [1993]
 Republic v. Sandiganbayan – 221 SCRA 189 [1993] (powers of PCGG)
 Cojuangco v. Roxas – 195 SCRA 797 [1991] (vote of sequestered shares )
 Araneta v. Sandiganbayan – 242 SCRA 482 [1995] (investigate/prosecutory powers)
 Rumualdez v. Sandiganbayan – 244 SCRA 152 [1995] (authority over ill-gotten wealth)
Republic v. Sandiganbayan – 240 SCRA 376 [1995] judicial action)

Section 27. Effectivity

 De Leon v. Esguerra, 152 SCRA 602 (1987)
 Section 26. Ill-Gotten Wealth; Sequestration/Freeze Orders
 Cojuangco v. Roxas, 195 SCRA 797 (1991)

Classroom Policies

Students are expected to have read the assigned materials for the class sessions and
will be called for recitation.

Attendance is checked. University rules governing absences are observed.

Cell phones and other electronic devices must be kept in silent mode. Students must
refrain from using these devices during classroom sessions.

Plagiarism and cheating are grave offenses of intellectual dishonesty and are punishable
by university rules.

Consultation and discussion is available upon request of the student. Email me:
ebaddiri@gmail.com

62