CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1

First Semester, 2019

Prof Dante B. Gatmaytan

dan.gatmaytan@gmail.com

Grades will be computed using the following formula: Recitation 50%; Midterm Exam
20%; Final Exam 30%. This formula may be changed at the Professor's discretion.

DANTE GATMAYTAN, LEGAL METHOD ESSENTIALS 3.0 (2017). [METHOD]

DANTE GATMAYTAN, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW IN THE PHILIPPINES: GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE (2015).
[CLIP}

DANTE GATMAYTAN, MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AND POLITICS (2017)

"Without commitment you will never start. Or more importantly, without

consistency, you will never finish."

Denzel Washington
NAACP Image Awards 2017

"Now, for a 45-minute fight, you gotta train hard for 45,000 minutes."
Mickey Goldmill
Rocky n (1979)

Preliminary Readings and Basic Concepts

Mark Tushnet, The Politics of Constitutional Law, in THE POLITICS OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW:
A PROGRESSIVE CRITIQUE 219-235 (David Kayris ed., 1990)

PETER IRONS, A PEOPLE'S HISTORY OF THE SUPREME COURT: THE MEN AND WOMEN WHOSE CASES
AND DECISIONS HAVE SHAPED OUR CONSTITUTION 395-408 (1999)

Scott Barclay and Shauna Fisher, Cause Lawyers in the First Wave of Same Sex
Marriage Litigation, in CAUSE LAWYERS AND SOCIAL MOVEMENTS 84-97 (Austin Sarat &
Stuart A. Scheingold eds, 2006)

Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 US (2015) available at

https://www.supremecourtgov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf.

MICHAEL WILLRICH, PDX: AN AMERICAN HISTORY 285-336 (2011)

IAN MILLHISER, INJUSTICES: THE SUPREME COURT'S HISTORY OF COMFORTING THE COMFORTABLE
'AND AFFLICTING THE AFFLICTED 255-274 (2015)
GILLIAN THOMAS, BECAUSE OF SEX: ONE LAW, TEN CASES, AND FIFTY YEARS THAT CHANGED
AMERICAN WOMEN'S LIVES AT WORK 169-186 (2016)

Dante Gatmaytan, Lost in Transmission: Rule of Law Challenges in the Philippines, 8

IMPUNITY WATCH L.J• 8-45 (2018)

Pacifico A. Agabin, The Politics of Judicial Review over Executive Action: The
Supreme Court and Social Change in UNCONSTITUTIONAL ESSAYS 167-198 (1996)
 Roger Lee Mendoza, Breast Milk versus Formula: Courts, Health Marketing and
Asymmetric Information, 2:1 ICAN: INFANT, CHILD, & ADOLESCENT NUTRITION 7-14 (2010)

II. Interpreting the Constitution

3 From Sec. 1, Art. VIII of 1987 Const.,
that so long there is Grave Abuse of
Discretion amounting to Lack of or
Excess of Jurisdiction, Court shall
have power to Review – even over
proceedings of a co-equal branch of
government, like the proceeding for
filing of Impeachment Complaints in
Congress.
4 If there is no Actual Controversy,
Court CANNOT Review – House Bills
are NOT justiciable, as they have not
yet passed into law, even if the bills
threaten to compromise Judicial Fiscal
Autonomy.
7 Verba Legis – Plain Reading – 1935
Const. provides Congress with power
to authorize Expropriation of Lands for
public use upon Just Compensation.
NO violation of Due process or Equal
Protection, as Tuason was paid Just
Compensation and other lands were
appropriated as well.
9 1935 Const. DOES NOT provide
Congress with power to amend the
Const. HOWEVER, they may
PROPOSE amendments to the People
for Ratification. As such, NO LAW
prohibits Congress from passing a
Resolution of Both Houses that
amends the Const. NOTE: Since
Congress failed to reapportion
themselves, they are considered De
Facto Officers, NOT Illegal Officers.
11 The Const. Convention is vested
with sovereign powers delegated by
the People – It’s proposals cannot be
valid without ratification by the People.
Proposals of the Const. Convention
must follow Jus Corgens – peremptory
norms, or certain fundamental
principles of Internat’l Law.
GATMAYTAN, CLIP, Introduction and Chapter 1. 1 Sec. 10(2), Art. XII of 1987 Const. provides for Filipino First Policy –
is complete in itself and operative without aid of legislation. MPHC was
GATMAYTAN, METHOD Chapters 2 to 3. allowed to match the bid even after the bidding period.
2 1935 Const. provides for non-diminution of Judicial Officers’ salaries
1 Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS, 267 SCRA 408 (1997) – Const. also provides for Separation of Powers. Thus, Legislature was
not allowed to diminish the Judiciary’s income.
2 Endencia v. David, 93 Phil. 696 (1953)
3 Francisco v. The House of Representatives, 415 SCRA 44 (2003)
4 In Re Supreme Court Judicial Independence v. Judiciary Development Fund, UDK-
15143 (Resolution), January 21, 2015
5 Ratio Legis est Anima – Reason of the Law is Its
Interpretation Soul - That salaries of Judges Nitafan et al., must be
subjected to Income Tax pursuant the Intent of the
Framers of the 1987 Const. – OVERTURNED
5 Nitafan v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 152 SCRA 284 (1987) Endencia Ruling.
6 Filoteo Jr. v. Sandiganbayan. 263 SCRA 222 (1996) 6 1987 Const. is not prospective in application – That confession
be made in presence of counsel pursuant Sec. 20, Art. III of 1987
Const. DOES NOT APPLY – Enforce the Law during the
RAISSA ROBLES, MARCOS MARTIAL LAW: NEVER AGAIN 43-67 (2016) occurrence of the cause of action.
7 Tuason & Co., Inc. v. Land Tenure Administration, 31 SCRA 413 (1970)
8 Sec. 2, Art. XVII of 1987 Const. provides for AMENDMENTS to the
Adoption and Amendment of the Constitution Constitution by People’s Initiative, in which Congress shall provide for
implementation of this right. RA 6735 is UNCONST. in so far as it provides
to “propose, enact, approve or reject, in whole or in part, the Const….”
10 1935 Const. provides that ratification must be done in “an election” –
8 Santiago v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 127325, March 19, 1997 Only ONE plebiscite to ratify ALL amendments to the Const. To amend
Voting Age ahead of the other amendments is unconst. NOTE: Const.
9 Gonzales v. COMELEC, 21 SCRA 774 (1967) Convention is STILL under 1935 Const., even if it’s in the business of
amending or drafting a new Const.
10 Tolentino v. COMELEC, 41 SCRA 702 (1971)
11 Planas v. COMELEC, 49 SCRA 105 (1973) (main opinion)
12 Javellana v. Executive Secretary, 50 SCRA 30 (1973) (Read the opinions of Justices
Concepcion, Makasiar, and Zaldivar) 13 Sec. 2, Art. XVII of 1987 Const. provides that People’s Initiatives can ONLY
13 Lambino v. COMELEC, 505 SCRA 160 (2006) AMEND the Const., NOT Revise. The Lambino Test, 1) Quantitative, on the number
of affected provisions and 2) Qualitative, on the far-reaching changes in the Nature of
the Basic Government Plan.

Vicente V. Mendoza, Congress as a Constituent Assembly, 91 PHIL. L J. 236-240

III.
16 Judicial Review – The Judicial
Branch of government is tasked with
interpreting the constitution. Conflicts
between co-equal Branches of Gov.
shall be resolved by the Judiciary, as
Branch of Gov. expected to be
objective in the interpretation of Issues
and Laws via Judicial Review.
Requisites for Judicial Review:
1) An actual case or controversy
2) Pleaded by the property party
3) Const. question raised at the
earliest opportunity.
4) Const. question must be the very
lis mota of the case.
18 Political Question – is a matter of
policy, which shall be determined by
the People and its Representatives.
The Supreme Court cannot choose
between two roads more fit for an
aqueduct, despite the risk of harm to
Life and Property – This is a matter for
the Executive.
(2018) 14 The Supreme Court is vested with Judicial Power (Sec. 1, Art. VIII of 1987
Judicial Review
A. Separ ation of Powers
14 In Re: Laureta and Maravilla, 148 SCRA 382 (1987)
15 Demetria v. Alba, 148 SCRA 208 (1987)
B. Theory and Justification of Judicial Review
16 Angara v. Electoral Commission, 63 Phil. 139 (1936)
C. Justiciable and Political Questions
17 Miranda v. Aguirre, G.R. No. 133064, September 16, 1999
3 Francisco v. The House of Representatives, 415 SCRA 44 (2003)
18 Torrecampo v. MWSS, G.R. No. 188296, May 30, 2011
Const.). Decisions of the SC cannot be Modified or Reversed (Sec. 4(3), Art. VIII
of 1987 Const.). Separation of Powers – Other branches of government cannot
divest Supreme Court of its Judicial Power – To question a SC Decision by filing
the Decision at the Tanodbayan violates Separation of Powers.
15 Supreme Court deemed PD 1177 unconst. for vesting undue Legislative
Power to the President. The 1973 Const. provides for specific conditions in
which funds may be transferred between branches – that appropriation is for the
augmentation of an item and that the fund be from savings. PD 1177 does not
specify for what purpose or where the funds shall come from.
17 Justiciable Question - Involves 1) A demandable and enforceable right,
2) An act or omission violative or right, and 3) A remedy available by law.
No creation of cities may be done violative of the criteria supplied in the
Local Government Code and without a plebiscite (Sec. 10, Art. X of 1987
Const.). RA 7720 converted the Municipality of Santiago to the City of
Santiago w/o a plebiscite. This is a Justiciable Question.

Dante B. Gatmaytan, Changing Constitutions: Judicial Review and Redemption in the Philippines, in MORE
EQUAL THAN OTHERS: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AND POLITICS 53-73 (2017)
12 Petitioner Javellana sought to enjoin the Executive Secretary from implementing the 1973 Constitution. The ratification of the Constitution is being contested because Martial Law suppressed media
and all forms of information, so there was no way for the people to actually know about the contents of the Constitution and the implications of their ratifying it. Furthermore, there were no voting
precincts, which is a requisite to conduct plebiscites. Instead, citizen assemblies were conducted, where there were no qualifications for voters. In some areas, citizen assemblies were not even
constituted at all. In the end, the Court ruled that issue was a political question that is not under the purview of the Supreme Court. They concluded that the ascertainment made by the President as to the
validity of the citizen assembly is presumed to be valid. The majority opinion was of the view that since the constitution was already being implemented, there was nothing that the Court could do.
22 The Comprehensive Agreement on the Bangsamoro and the Framework 19 There is NO actual case or controversy. Petitioners, by virtue of the
Agreement on the Bangsamoro are still Const., since the Executive Branch assailed Act 2706, were still able to obtain the required permits to operate a
has not promised the MILF to amend the Const. themselves – NO actual Private School. Thus, there is no violation of Due Process or Equal
case or controversy. Protection of the law at the time of the case.

23 Assailed are 20 RA 7854 converts the Municipality of Makati into a City and is deemed
provisions of RA 6557 Const. as it does not change the territory or jurisdiction of Makati.
insofar as it considered D. Requisites of Judicial Review See GATMAYTAN, CLIP, Chapter 4. Meanwhile, there is no actual case or controversy regarding the possibility
‘Aquaculture’ under of Mayor Binay’s term restarting, as it has not come to pass yet.
‘Agriculture’. MOOT –
as RA 7881 was
passed which amended 1. Actual Case or Controversy Prematurity: 21 Court cannot prohibit Congress from enacting into law a bill that would
the assailed provision. lowering the minimum age in the SK nor compel Congress to allow
petitioners to vote in the upcoming SK Elections as the law has not yet
24 Assailed was Proc. 19 PACU v. Secretary of Education, 97 Phil. 806 (1955) come to pass and to compel Congress would violate Separation of Powers.
38 declaring a State of
Rebellion. Petitioners
20 Mariano v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 118577, March 7, 1995
were fearful of 21 Montesclaros v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 152295, July 9, 2002
warrantless arrests and
illegal detention. MOOT 22 Philippine Constitution Authority v. Philippine Government, G.R. No. 218406, November 29, 2016
– Proc. 38 has been
lifted before the case 25 Court may decide on Moot cases if the Court deems the
began. Mootness: case is capable of repeating. Proc. 427 and Gen. Ord. 4 –
declares a State of Rebellion and that the AFP suppress
27 CHR Employees rebellion – was lifted at the time of the case, which
Assoc. is a proper party 23 Atlas Fertilizer v. Secretary of DAR, G.R. No. 93100, June 19, 1997 rendered the case moot. Proc. & Gen. Ord. are Const. as
as the Rank & File the Pres. Is imbued with Commander-in-Chief powers
Employees of the CHR 24 Lacson v. Perez, 357 SCRA 756 (2001) (Sec. 18, Art. VII of the 1987 Const.).
shall be directly injured
by the reshuffling of
25 Sanlakas v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 159085, February 3, 2004
positions, which would 26 Petitioners, who were “citizens, taxpayers and artists deeply concerned with the preservation
only benefit the higher
ranks.
2. Proper Party of the country’s artistic wealth”, did not have standing as they are not legal owners of the
paintings, as they are now in possession of Christie’s New York in agreement with the PCGG.
28 The Worker’s
Alliance do not have 26 Joya v. PCGG, G.R. 96541, August 24, 1993
standing, as they failed
to substantiate how 27 CHR Employees Assoc. v. CHR, G.R. 155336, November 25, 2004
they would be directly
injured be transferring
28 Automotive Industry Workers Alliance v. Romulo, G.R. 157509, Jan 18, 2005
supervision of NLRC
29 Petitioners have standing as citizens to compel officials to fulfil a public duty.
from NLRC Chairman to Citizen Standing: Court interprets Art. 2, NCC that laws must first be published at the Official Gazette
DOLE Chairman.
to become effective, unless the law to be passed provides for a date of effectivity.

29 Tanada v. Tuvera, 136 SCRA 27 (1985)
30 Chavez v. PEA and Amari, G.R. 133250, July 9, 2002
Associational Standing:
31 KMU Labor Center v. Garcia, G.R. 115381, December 23, 1994
IBP v. Zamora, 338 SCRA 81 (2000)
Executive Secretary v. Court of Appeals, 429 SCRA 781, May 25, 2004
GMA Network, Inc. v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 205357, September 2, 2014
30 Public Estates Authority may only lease alienable lands to private corporations
(Sec. 2, Art. XII of 1987 Const.). The Manila Bay is not alienable land, and thus
cannot be leased. Petitioners have standing as Citizens, with a right to Information
and Equitable Diffusion of Natural Resources and Distribution of Lands.
31 Const. of Memorandum No. 90-935, allowing provincial
operators to charge passenger rates within a rate of 15%
above or 15% below the official rate of the LTFRB for one
year. The Court ruled that petitioner KMU has legal
standing to sue because members of the organization
suffered and continue to suffer because of the fare hikes,
being that they avail of public transportation daily.

Taxpayer's Standing:
Information Technology Foundation of the Philippines v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 159139, January 13, 2004

Voter's Standing:

Tolentino v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 148334, January 21, 2004.

Legislative Standing:

Ople v. Torres, 293 SCRA 141 (1998)

Governmental Standing:

People v. Vera, 65 Phil 56 (1937)

 Standing for Future Generations and Fauna:

Dante Gatmaytan, The illusion of intergenerational Equity: Oposa v. Factoran as

Pyrrhic Victory, in UNDERCLASS: PUBLIC INTEREST LAW PRACTICE PERSPECTIVES 3-44 (2018)
Resident Marine Mammals of the Protected Seascape Tanon Strait v. Secretary
Reyes, G.R. No. 180771/181527, April 21, 2015
Segovia v. The Climate Change Commission, G.R. No. 211010, March 7, 2017

3. Earliest Opportunity

4. Necessity of Deciding Constitutional Questions

Arceta v. Mangrobang, G.R. No. 152895, June 15, 2004

Angara v. Electoral Commission, 63 Phil. 139 (1936)

IV. Territory, People, and Government

A. Territory

See Exec. Ord. No. 292 (1987), Book 1, sec. 3.

Republic Act No. 9522 (2009).

Magallona v. Ermita, G.R. No. 187167, July 16, 2011

In the Matter of the South China Sea Arbitration, PCA Case N° 2013-19, July 12,
2016, available at http://www.pcacases.com/pcadocs/PH-CN%20-
%2020160712%20-°/020Award.pdf.

The Province of North Cotabato v. The Government of the Republic of the

Philippines Peace Panel on Ancestral Domain, G.R. No. 183591, October 14,
2008
Cruz v. Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources, G.R. No. 135385,
December 6, 2000

B . People

1. Citizenship

Article IV (Citizenship), Sections 1-5

See Exec. Ord. No. 292 (1987), Book I, sections 5 to 9.

Republic Act No. 9139 (2000)

Aznar v. COMELEC, 185 SCRA 703 (1990)

Tecson v. Commission on Elections, 424 SCRA 277 (2004)
Co v. Electoral Tribunal of the House of Representatives, 199 SCRA 692 (1991)
Willie Yu v. Defensor-Santiago, 169 SCRA 364 (1989)
Angat v. Republic, 314 SCRA 438 (1999)
Bengson III v. Cruz, 357 SCRA 545 (2001)
 Tan Co v. Civil Register of Manila, 423 SCRA 426 (2004)
Republic v. Sagun, G.R. No. 187567, February 15, 2012
Go v. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. 202809, July 2, 2014
Republic v. Go Pei Hung, G.R. No. 212785, April 4, 2018
In Re Mahtani v. Republic, G.R. No. 211118, G.R. No. 21, 2018
David v. Senate Electoral Tribunal, G.R. No. 221538, September 20, 2016

Labo v. COMELEC, 176 SCRA 1 (1989)

Maquiling v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 195649, April 16, 2013
Frivaldo v. COMELEC, 257 SCRA 727 (1996)
Sobejana-Condon v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 198742, August 10, 2012

Republic Act No. 8171 (1995)

Republic Act No. 9225 or "An Act Making the Citizenship of Philippine Citizens who
Acquire Foreign Citizenship Permanent, Amending for the Purpose 'Commonwealth
Act No. 63, As Amended and for other Purposes" (August 29, 2003)
2. Suffrage

Art. V, Sections 1-2

Gallego v. Verra, 73 Phil. 453 (1941)

Romualdez v. RTC, 226 SCRA 408, 415 (1993) AKBAYAN v.
COMELEC, 355 SCRA 318 (2001) Kabataan Party List v. COMELEC,
G.R. No. 221318, December 16, 2015
Palatino v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 189868, December 15, 2009
Ceniza v. COMELEC, 95 SCRA 703 (1980)
Gonzales v. COMELEC, L-40117, February 22, 1975
Macalintal v. COMELEC, 405 SCRA 614 (2003)
See Republic Act No. 9189 or "An Act Providing for a System of Overseas Absentee
Voting by Qualified Citizens of the Philippines Abroad, Appropriating Funds Therefor,
and for other Purposes" (February 13, 2003) as amended by Republic Act No.
10590.

C. Government

Government of the Philippines, Defined

See Exec. Ord. No. 292 (1987), Introductory Provisions, section 2.

U.S. v. Dorr, 2 Phil. 332 (1903)

Constituent and Ministrant and Functions of the Government

Bacani v. NACOCO, 100 Phil. 468 (1956)

ACCFA v. CUGCO, 141 Phil 334 (1969)

De Facto and De Jure Government

Co Cham v. Valdez, 75 Phil. 113 (1945)

Revolutionary Government
 Republic v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 104768, July 21, 2003

Parens Patriae

Samahan ng mga Progresibong Kabataan v. Quezon City, G.R. No. 225442, August 8,
2017

Immunity from Suit

See Exec. Ord. No. 292 (1987), nook I, sections 10-11.

Republic v. Feliciano, 148 SCRA 424 (1987)

Merritt v. Government of the Phil. Island, 34 Phil. 311 (1916)
Philippine Agila Satellite Inc. v. Trinidad-Lichauco, G.R. No. 142362, May 3, 2006
Minucher v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 142396, February 11, 2003
GTZ v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 152318, April 16, 2009
Vigilar v. Aquino, G.R. No. 180388, January 18, 2011
Arigo v. Swift, G.R. No. 206510, September 16, 2014

Money Claims

Ministerio v. Court of First Instance, 40 SCRA 464 (1971)

Inherent Powers of the State

Rubi v. Provincial Board, 39 Phil. 660 (1919)

Agustin v. Edu, 88 SCRA 195 (1979)
Zabal v. Duterte, G.R. No. 238467, February 12, 2019

V. The Branches of Government

A. Congress

1. Power, Composition, Qualification and Term of Office

a. Senate
b. House of Representatives

Atong Paglaong, Inc. v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 203766, April 2, 2013
Abang Lingkod Party-List v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 206952, October 22,
2013
Ang Ladlad LGBT Party v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 190582, April 8, 2010
Dayao v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 193643, January 29, 2013
Lokin, Jr. v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 193808, June 26, 2012
Lico v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 205505, September 29, 2015.
Coalition of Associations of Senior Citizens v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No.
206844-45, July 23, 2013
COCOFED-Philippine Coconut Producers Federation, Inc. v. Commission on
Elections, G.R. No. 207026, August 6, 2013
Araro v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 192803, December 10, 2013
Aksyon Magsasaka-Partido Tinig ng Masa v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No.
207134, June 16, 2015

Aquino v. COMELEC, 248 SCRA 400 (1995)

Marcos v. COMELEC, 248 SCRA 300 (1995)
Torrayno v. COMELEC, 337 SCRA 574 137329 (2000)

2. Election

a. Regular election
b. Special election

Republic Act No. 6645 (1987)

Tolentino v. COMELEC, 420 SCRA 438, January 21, 2004

3. Organizations and Sessions

a. Election of Officers

Santiago v. Guingona, G.R. No. 134577, November 18, 1998

Baguilat v. Alvarez, G.R. No. 227757, July 25, 2017

b. Quorum

Avelino v. Cuenco, 83 Phil. 17 (1949)

c. Rules of Proceedings

Pacete v. Commission on Appointments, 40 SCRA 58 (1971)

Arroyo v. De Venecia, G.R. No. 127255, August 14, 1997

d. Discipline of Members

Alejandrino v. Quezon, 46 Phil 83 (1924)

Osmefia v. Pendatun, 109 Phil. 863 (1960)
De Venecia v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 130240, Feb. 5, 2002
Pobre v. Defensor-Santiago, A.C. 7399, August 25, 2009
Pimentel v. Senate Committee of the Whole, G.R. No. 187714, March 8, 2011

e. Journal and Record

1. The Enrolled Bill Theory

Casco Chemical Co. v. Gimenez, 7 SCRA 347 (1963)

Philippine Judges Association v. Prado, 27 SCRA 703 (1993)
2. Probative Value of the Journal

United States v. Pons, 34 Phil. 729 (1916)

3. Matters to be entered in the Journal

4. Journal Entry Rule v. Enrolled Bill Theory

Astorga v. Villegas, 56 SCRA 714 (1974)

Morales v. Subido, 27 SCRA 131 (1969)
 5. Congressional Record

f. Session

1. Regular sessions
2. Special sessions
3. Joint sessions

4. Salaries, Privileges and Disqualifications

a. Salaries

PHILCONSA v. Mathay, 18 SCRA 300 (1966)

Ligot v. Mathay, 56 SCRA 823 (1974)

b. Freedom from Arrest

People v. Jalosjos, G.R. No. 132875-76, February 3, 2000

c. Speech and Debate Clause

Jimenez v. Cabangbang, 17 SCRA 876 (1966)

Trillanes IV v. Castillo-Marigomen, G.R. No. 223451, March 14, 2018

d. Disqualifications

Adaza v. Pacana, Jr. 135 SCRA 431 (1985)

Puyat v. De Guzman, 113 SCRA 31 (1982)
Liban v. Gordon, G.R. No. 175352, July 15, 2009 and January 18, 2011

Republic Act No. 10530 (2013)

e. Duty to Disclose

5. Electoral Tribunals

Abbas v. SET, 166 SCRA 651 (1988)

Bondoc v. Pineda, 201 SCRA 792 (1991)
Codilla v. De Venecia, G.R. 150605, December 10, 2002
Reyes v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 207264, June 25, 2013
Velasco v. Speaker, G.R. No. 211140, January 12, 20162
Reyes v. v. HRET, G.R. No. 221193, October 16, 2018
Pimentel v. HRET, G.R. No. 141489, November 29, 2002
Abayon v. HRET, G.R. No. 222236, May 3, 2016

6. Commission on Appointments

Daza v. Singson, 180 SCRA 496 (1989)

Coseteng v. Mitra, Jr. 187 SCRA 377 (1990)
Guingona v. Gonzales, 214 SCRA 789 (1992)
Drilon v. De Venecia, G.R. No. 180055, July 31, 2009

DANTE GATMAYTAN, House Rules: The Rule of Law after Reyes v. Commission on Elections, in MORE
EQUAL THAN OTHERS: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AND POLITICS 185-214 (2017)
 7. Powers of Congress

a. General Plenary Powers

Sema v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 177597, July 16, 2008

Torralba v. Sibagat, 147 SCRA 390 (1987)

b. Limitations on the Legislative Power

1. Substantive limitations

GATMAYTAN, METHOD, 297-313

2. Procedural limitations

ABAKADA GURO Party List v. Purisima, G.R. No. 166715, August 14, 2008

8. Legislative Process

a. Requirements as to bills

1. Titles of bills

Lidasan v. COMELEC, 21 SCRA 479 (1967)

Cruz v. Paras, 123 SCRA 569 (1983)
Giron v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 188179, January 22, 2013

2. Requirements as to certain laws

a. Appropriation laws

Demetria v. Alba, 148 SCRA 208 (1987)

Guingona v. Carague, 196 SCRA 221 (1991)
Philconsa v. Enriquez, G.R. No. 113105, August 19, 1994
LAMP v. The Secretary of Budget, G.R. No. 164987, April 24, 2012
Belgica v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 208566, November 19, 2013
Araullo v. Aquino Ill, G.R. No. 209287, July 1, 2014
Dela Cruz v. Ochoa, G.R. No. 219683, January 23, 2018
Pichay, Jr. v. Office of the Deputy Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 196425, July 24,
2012
Nazareth v. Viliar, G.R. No. 188635, January 29, 2013

b. Tax laws
Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance, G.R. No. 115455, August 25, 1994
Lung Center v. Quezon City, G.R. No. 144104, June 29, 2004
Tan v. Del Rosario, 237 SCRA 324 (1994)
Garcia v. Executive Secretary, 211 SCRA 219 (1992)
John Hay PAC v. Lim, G.R. No. 119775, October 24, 2003

c. Appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

Fabian v. Desierto, G.R. No. 129742, September 16, 1998

Carpio-Morales v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 217126-27, November 10, 2015
 b. Procedure for the passage of bills

Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance, G.R. No. 115455, Aug. 25, 1994

Gonzales v. Macaraig, G.R. No. 87636, November 19, 1990
Bengzon v. Drilon, 208 SCRA 133 (1992)
Miller v. Mardo, 2 SCRA 898 (1961)
Kida v. Senate, G.R. No. 196271, October 18, 2011 (on certification that the bill is urgent)

c. Effectivity of laws

Tanada v. Tuvera, G.R. No. L-63915, April 24, 1985 and December 29, 1986

Executive Order No. 200, June 18, 1987

d. Q u es t i on H o ur
e. Legislative investigation

Balag v. Senate, G.R. No. 234608, July 3, 2018

In Re Sabio, G.R. No. 174340, October 17, 2006'
Bengzon v. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee, 203 SCRA 767 (1991)
Senate of the Philippines v. Ermita, G.R. No. 169777, April 20, 2006
Gudani v. Sena, G.R. No. 170165, August 15, 2006
Neri v. Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations,
G.R. No. 180643, March 25, 2008 and September 4, 2008
Garcillano v. The House of Representatives Committee on Public Information, G.R.
No. 170338, December 23, 2008
AKBAYAN v. Aquino, G.R. No. 170516, July 16, 2008
Agcaoili, Jr. v. Farinas, G.R. No. 232395, July 3, 2018 (fourth issue)

9. Other Powers:

a. Act as board of canvassers for presidential election

Pimentel v. Congress, G.R. No. 163783, June 22, 2004

b. Call a special election for Presidency

c. Decide on disability of the President
d. Legislative veto or extension for suspension of writ of habeas corpus or declaration of martial law

Padilla v. Congress, G.R. No. 231671, July 25, 2017

e. Presidential amnesties
f. Concur in treaties

Pimentel v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 158088, July 6, 2005

Bayan Muna v. Romulo, G.R. No. 159618, February 1, 2011
Saguisag v. Ochoa, G.R. No. 212426, 212444, January 12, 2016 and July 26, 2016
Wilson v. Ermita. G.R. No.189220, December 7, 2016

g. Declaration of existence of war

h. Delegation of emergency powers
i. Utilization of natural resources
j. Amendment of Constitution
 k. Power of Impeachment

Gutierrez v. The House of Representatives Committee on Justice, G.R. No. 193459,

February 15, 2011
Chief Justice Corona v. Senate, JGR No. 200242, July 17, 2012
Republic v. Sereno, G R No. 237428, May 11, 2018

B. Executive Department

1. The President

a. Qualifications, election, term and oath

Pormento v. Estrada, G.R. No. 181988, August 31, 2010

b. Privileges and salary

Republic v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 152154, July 15, 2003

Marcos, Jr. v. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. 189434, March 12, 2014

c. Succession
1. In case of vacancy at the beginning of term
2. In Case of vacancy during term
3. In case of temporary disability

Estrada v. Arroyo, G.R. No. 146738, March 2, 2001

d. Removal
e. Prohibitions
f. Exceptions to prohibition from holding another office:

Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary, 194 SCRA 317 (1991)

Cruz v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 138489, November 29, 2001
National Amnesty Commission v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 156982,
September 8, 2004

2. Powers and Functions of the President

a. Ex ec u t iv e Po w er

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

The Province of North Cotabato v. The Government of the Republic of the
Philippines Peace Panel on Ancestral Domain, G.R. No. 183591, October 14, 2008
DENR v. DENR Region 12 Employees, G.R. No. 149725, August 19, 2003
Banda v. Ermita, G.R. No. 166620, April 20, 2010
Biraogo v. Philippine Truth Commission of 2010, 637 SCRA 78 (2010)

b. Control of executive departments

Blaquera v. Alcala, G.R. No. 109406, September 11, 1998

Hutchison Ports v. SBMA, G.R. No. 131367, August 31, 2000
NEA v. COA, 377 SCRA 233 (2002)
Zabal v. Duterte, G.R. No. 238467, February 12, 2019
 c . General supervision over local governments/autonomous regions

Pimentel v. Aguirre, G.R. No. 132988, July 19, 2000

d. Power of Appointment

Bermudez v. Torres, G.R. No. 131429, August 4, 1999

Sarmiento v. Mison, 156 SCRA 549 (1987)
Calderon v. Carale, G.R. No. 91636, April 23, 1992
Manalo v. Sistoza, G.R. No. 107369, August 11, 1999
Soriano v. Lista, G.R. No. 153881, March 24, 2003
Pimentel v. Ermita, G.R. 164978, October 13, 2005
General v. Urra, G.R. No. 191560, March 29, 2011
De Castro v. JBC, G.R. No. 191002, March 17, 2010
De Rama v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 131136, February 28, 2001
Velicaria-Garafil v. Office of the President, G.R. No. 203372, June 16, 2015
Matibag v. Benipayo, G.R. No. 149036, April 2, 2002
Larin v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 112745, October 16, 1997
Funa v. Commission on Audit Chair, G.R. No. 192791, April 24, 2012
Funa v. Agra, G.R. No 191644, February 19, 2013
Funa v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 191672, November 25, 2014
Gonzales III v. Office of the President, G.R. No. 196231, September 4, 2012 and
January 28, 2014
Ifurung v. Carpio Morales, G.R. No. 232131, April 24, 2018

e. Executive Clemency

Barrioquinto v. Fernandez, G.R. L-1278, January 21, 1949

Vera v. People, 7 SCRA 152 (1963)
Cristobal v. Labrador, 71 Phil. 34 (1941)
Monsanto v. Factoran G.R. 78239, February 9, 1989
Torres v. Gonzales, 152 SCRA 273 (1987)
Risos-Vidal v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 206666, January 21, 2015

f . C o m m a n d e r -i n - C h i e f

IBP v. Zamora, G.R. No. 141284, August 15, 2000

Ampatuan v. Puno, G.R. No. 190259, June 7, 2011
Sanlakas v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 159085, February 3, 2004
Fortun v. Macapagal-Arroyo, G.R. No. 190293, March 20, 2012
Lagman v. Medialdea, G.R. No. 231658, July 4, 2017
Padilla v. Congress, G.R. No. 231671, July25, 2017
Lagman v. Pimentel Ill, G.R. No. 235935, February 6, 2018
Lagman v. Medialdea, G.R. No. 243522, February 19, 2019

Olaguer v. Military Commission No. 34, 150 SCRA 144 (1987)

Navales v. Abaya, G.R. No. 162318, October 25, 2004
In Re De Villa, G.R. No. 158802, November 17, 2004
Garcia v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 198554, July 30, 2012

g. E m e r g e n c y P o w e r s

David v. Arroyo, G.R. No. 171396, May 3, 2006

 h. Contracting and guaranteeing foreign loans

Constantino v. Cuisia, G.R. No. 106064, October 13, 2005

i. Foreign affairs

Nicolas v. Romulo, G.R. No. 175888, Feb. 11, 2009

Comm. of Customs v. Eastern Sea Trading, 3 SCRA 351 (1961)
Go Tek v. Deportation Board, 79 SCRA 17 (1977)

j. Legislation
1. Address Congress
2. Preparation and submission of the budget
3. V e t o -P o w e r
4. Emergency Powers

k. Immunity from suit

Beltran v. Macasiar, G.R. No. 82585, November 14, 1988

Gloria v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119903, August 15, 2000

3. Vice President
a. Qualifications, election, term aria °am
b. P ri v i l e g e s a n d s a l a ry
c. Prohibitions
d. S ucc essio n

C. The Judicial Department

1. Judicial Power
2. The Supreme Court
a. Composition
b . Modes of Sitting

People v. Gacott, G.R. No. 116049, July 13, 1995

c . Appointments and qualifications

Kilosbayan v. Ermita, G.R, No. 177721, July 3, 2007

d . No non-judicial work for judges

Meralco v. Pasay Trans Co., 57 Phil. 600 (1932)

Garcia v. Macaraig, 30 SCRA 106 (1971)

e . Salary

Nitafan v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 152 SCRA 284 (1987)

f . Tenure
g. Removal

In Re Gonzalez, 160 SCRA 771 (1988)

Republic of the Philippines Sereno, G.R. No. 237428, May 11, 2018, June 19,
2018
 h. Fiscal autonomy

Re: COA Opinion on Computation of Appraised Value of Properties Purchased by

Supreme Court Justices, A.M. No. 11-7-10-SC, July 31, 2012
Re: In the Matter of Clarification of Exemption From Payment of all Court and
Sheriffs Fees of Cooperatives Duly Registered in Accordance with Republic Act No.
9520 otherwise known as the Philippine Cooperative Code of 2008, A.M. No. 12 -2-
03-0, March 13, 2012

i. J urisdic tio n

Felipe v. Leuterio, 91 Phil. 482 (1952)

Almora v. Dela Rosa, G.R. No. 234359, April 3, 2018

j. D e l i b e r a t i o n s

Prudential Bank v. Castro, 158 SCRA 646 (1988)

Consing v. Court of Appeals, 177SCRA 14 (1989)
In Re: Production of Court Records and Documents and the Attendance of Court
officials and employees as witnesses under the subpoenas of February 10, 2012
and the various letters for the Impeachment Prosecution Panel dated January 19
and 25, 2012, February 14, 2012

k. V oti ng

Cruz v. DENR, G.R. No. 135385, December 6, 2000

I. Requirements as to decisions

Miguel v. JCT Group, Inc., G.R. No. 157752, March 16, 2005.
Nunal v. COA, 169 SCRA 356 (1989)
People v. Bugarin, 273 SCRA 384 (1997)
Hernandez v. Court of Appeals, 228 SCRA 429 (1993)
Yao v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 132428, October 24, 2000

m. Petition for Review/Motion for Reconsideration

Tichangco v. Enriquez, G.R. No. 150629, June 30, 2004

Martinez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 123547, May 21, 2001

n. Periods for deciding cases

Re: Delays in the Sandiganbayan, A.M. No. 00 -8-05-SC, November 28, 2001
Office of the Court Administrator v. Fuentes Ill, A.M. No. RTJ-13-2342, March 6,
2013

o. Presidential Electoral Tribunal

Macalintal v. Presidential Electoral Tribunal, G.R. No. 191818, June 7, 2011

p. A dmi nis trat ive p owe rs

1. Supervision of lower courts

See A.M. No. 18-01-05-SC, October 2, 2018-11-15

In re Demetria, A.M. No. 00-7-09-CA, March 27, 2001

Caoibes, Jr. v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 132177, July 19, 2001, G.R. No. 179120 Re:
Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr., A.M. No. 08-8-11-CA, September 09, 2008
In Re: Undated Letter of Mr. Louis C. Biraogo, Petitioner in Biraogo v. Nograles and
Limkaichong, A.M. No. 09-2-19-SC, February 24, 2009
Agcaoili, Jr. v. Farinas, G.R. No. 232395, July 3, 2018 (first and second issues)

2. Temporarily assign judges to other stations in public interest

3. Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid miscarriage of
justice

People v. Pilotin, 65 SCRA 635 (1975)

Mondiguing v. Abad, 68 SCRA 14 (1975)
People v. Sola, 103 SCRA 393 (1981)

4. Appointment of officials and employees of entire judiciary

5. Promulgate rules concerning the enforcement and protection of
constitutional rights
In the Matter of the Petition for the Writ of Amparo and Habeas Data in favor of Noriel H.
Rodriguez, G.R. No. 191805 & G.R. No. 193160, November 15, 2011
Bautista v. Dannug-Salucon, G.R. No. 221862, January 23, 2018
Dolot v. Paje, G.R. No. 199199, August 27, 2013
Infant Caram v. Segui, G.R. No. 193652, August 5, 2014
Agcaoili, Jr. v. Farinas, G.R. No. 232395, July 3, 2018 (third issue)

Republic Act No. 10353 (2012)

6. Promulgate Rules Concerning Pleading, Practice and Procedure

7. Admission to the Practice of Law
Zaldivar v. Gonzales, 166 SCRA 316 (1988)
Baguio Market Vendors Multi-Purpose Cooperative v. Cabato-Cortes, G.R. No. 165922,
February 26, 2010.
Aguirre v. Rana, Bar Matter No. 1036, June 10, 2003
In Re: Ong, A.M. No. SB-14-21-J, September 23, 2014
Zoleta v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 185224, July 29, 2015
Estipona v. Lobrigo, G.R. No. 226679, August 15, 2017

8. Integration of the Bar

In re: Edillon, 84 SCRA 554 (1978)
In re: IBP Elections Bar Matter No. 491 (October 6, 1989)

9. Legal Assistance to the Underprivileged q.

Report on the Judiciary

3 Lower courts

a. Qualifications and appointment

b. Te nu re
De La Llana v. Alba, 122 SCRA 291 (1982)

5. The Judicial and Bar Council

• Dante Gatmaytan and Cielo Magno, Averting Diversity: A Review of Nominations and
Appointments to the Philippine Supreme Court (1988-2008),
in MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AND POLITICS 53-73 (2017).

Dulay v. Judicial and Bar Council, Extended Res., G.R. No. 202143, July 3, 2012
Citizens Adaza v. President Aquino and JBC, Res., G.R. No. 202263, July 17, 2012
Chavez v. Judicial and Bar Council, G.R. No. 202242, April 16, 2013 (read the dissent of Justice Leonen)
Umali v. Judicial and Bat Council, G.R. No. 228628, July 25, 2017
Jardeleza v. Judicial and Bar Council, G.R. No. 213181, August 19, 2014
Villanueva v. Judicial and Bar Council, G.R. No. 211833, April 7, 2015
Aguinaldo, v. Aquino, G.R. No. 224302, November 29, 2016 and August 8, 2017

6. Automatic release of appropriation for the judiciary

Bengzon v. Drilon, 208 SCRA 133 (1992)

Constitutional Commissions

Legaspi v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 216572, April 19, 2016

Trade and Investment Development Corporation of the Philippines v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No.
182249, March 5, 2013
De los Santos v. Mallare, G.R. No. L-3381, August 31, 1950
Demaisip v. Bacal, G.R. No. 139382, December 6, 2000
Buklod ng Kawaning EllB v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 142801, July 10, 2001
Flores v. Drilon, G.R. No. 104732, June 22, 1993
Gaminde v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 140335, December 13, 2000
Development Bank of the Philippines v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 88435, January 16, 2002
The Special Audit Team. Commission on Audit v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 174788, April 11, 2013
Funa v. Manila Economic and Cultural Office, G.R. No. 193462, Febr uary 4, 2014
Goh v. Bayron, G.R. No. 212584, November 25, 2014