POLITICAL LAW REVIEW

2nd Semester 2020-2021

Atty. Victoria V. Loanzon

I. POLITICAL ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE

A. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
A.1 PRELIMINARY MATTERS
The Constitution serves as a reconciling popular government with rule of law. [Read Wikipedia entries
on “popular government” and “rule of law.”]
1. Province of North Cotabato v. Government, 568 SCRA 402, 583-585 (Puno, J., concurring):
Under the contractarian theory, the Philippine constitution sets out what the government can and
cannot do. The people agree to be bound by the basic tenets of the constitution. The constitution
is considered a social contract.
Notes:

2. Republic v. Sandiganbayan, 407 SCRA 10 (2003): The resulting government after the EDSA
Revolution was indisputably a revolutionary government bound by no constitution or legal
limitations except treaty obligations that the revolutionary government, as the de jure
government in the Philippines, assumed under international law. The protection accorded to
individuals under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ("Covenant") and the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights ("Declaration") remained in effect during the
interregnum.
Notes:

3. Manila Prince Hotel v. Government Service Insurance System, 267 SCRA 408 (1997): Adhering
to the
doctrine of constitutional supremacy, the Filipino First provision is, as it should be, impliedly written in
the bidding rules issued by respondent GSIS, lest the bidding rules be nullified for being violative of the
Constitution. It is a basic principle in constitutional law that all laws and contracts must conform with
the fundamental law of the land. Those which violate the Constitution lose their reason for being.
Notes:

4. Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137 (803): This is available online (Wikipedia). Congress does
not have the power to pass laws that override the Constitution, such as by expanding the scope of
the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction.
Notes:

5. Tanada v. Tuvera , 136 SCRA 27, 33-35, 30-41: Questions of rights claimed to have become
vested, of status, of prior determinations deemed to have finality and acted upon accordingly, of
public policy in the light of the nature both of the statute and of its previous application, demand
examination. An all-inclusive statement of a principle of absolute retroactive invalidity cannot be
justified.
Notes:
1|Page
 6. Araullo v. Aquino, G. R. No. 219287, July 1, 2014: The operative fact doctrine applies only to
cases where extraordinary circumstances exist, and only when the extraordinary circumstances
have met the stringent conditions that will permit its application. The doctrine of operative fact
recognizes the existence of the law or executive act prior to the determination of its
unconstitutionality as an operative fact that produced consequences that cannot always be erased,
ignored or disregarded. In short, it nullifies the void law or executive act but sustains its effects.
Notes:

7. Municipality of Tupi v. Faustino, G.R. No. 231896, August 20, 2019: The doctrine of operative
fact is an exception to the general rule, such that a judicial declaration of invalidity may not
necessarily obliterate all the effects and consequences of a void act prior to such declaration. As
a general rule, the nullification of an unconstitutional law or act carries with it the illegality of its
effects. However, in cases where nullification of the effects will result in inequity and injustice,
the operative fact doctrine may apply. 
Notes:

8. Santiago v. Commission on Elections, 270 SCRA 106 (1997): Read only pages 106-118, 135-
154, 157-158, focus on the discussion on the fact that People’s Initiative under Article XVII of
the Constitution requires an enabling law and the distinctions between referendum and initiative.
Notes:

9. Lambino v. Commission on Elections, 505 SCRA 160 (2006) and 21 November 2006
Resolution: Read pages 219-223, 228-261; Take note of the tests applied and distinction between
an amendment and a revision of the Constitution.
Notes:

10. De Leon v. Esguerra, 153 SCRA. Read pages 602-607; 607-616 (Teehankee, J. concurring): The
effectivity date of the amended or revised constitution is on the date the people cast their vote
and not the date the COMELEC announced the result of the ratification by the electorate.
Notes:

11. Magallona v. Ermita, 655 SCRA 476 (2011 ):The revision of the Philippine Baselines Law (R.A.
2|Page
 8522) is a congressional prerogative to make the existing Philippines Baselines Law (R. A.
3045) compliant with UNCLOS II; Read the discussion as to the nature of UNCLOS.
Notes:

12. In the Matter of the South China Sea Arbitration Before An Arbitral Tribunal Constituted under
Annex VII to the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea Between The Republic
of the Philippines and The People’s Republic of China, PCA Case No. 2013-19, 12 July 2016
(https://pca-cpa.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/175/2016/07/PH-CN-20160712-Award.pdf)
Notes:

13. Watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GWcgKNMxjo&feature=youtu.be (Justice

Carpio’s Lecture: “Defending Philippine Sovereign Rights in the West Philippine Sea”)
Notes:

14. Republic v. Province of Palawan, G.R. No. 170867, December 4, 2018: Read only the portion
of the decision where the Court made a distinction between municipal waters and that of
the territorial waters of the state. This is case must be read in the context of Section 7 of
Article X.
Notes:

A.2 STATE IMMUNITY[SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY

15. Republic v. Hidalgo, 534 SCRA 619 (2007): Review the aspect of the decision dealing with the
liability of the government for wrongful takeover of private property.
Notes:

16. University of the Philippines v. Hon. Dizon, 679 SCRA 54 (2012): Take note of the distinction of
government powers, concept of instrumentality of the national government, distinction between
liability and suability, role of COA on claims against the government.
Notes:

3|Page
 17. Arigo v. Swift, 735 SCRA 102 (2014): Observe the rule on claim of state immunity invoked by
the Philippine government on behalf of the U.S. government and its agents; read the discussion on
the liability of the U.S. government despite the fact that it is not a signatory of UNCLOS.
Notes:

18. Department of Education v. dela Torre et al. G.R. No. 216748, July 25, 2018: Read the portion
of the decision where state immunity may be implied through the acts of the agents of the
government.
Notes:

19. Republic v. Jose Gamir-Consuelo Diaz Heirs Association, Inc., G.R. No. 218732, November 18,
2018: Read intently the portion of the decision when government can rightfully refuse the
claim of a private property owner. When government enters into a Deed of Absolute Sale,
the terms will govern the parties and property owner cannot belatedly ask interest payment
from the government.
Notes:

A.3. SEPARATION OF POWERS AND CHECKS AND BALANCES

20. Senate of the Philippines v. Ermita, 488 SCRA 1 (2006): Read the constitutional mandate on
the conduct of congressional inquiry of Congress under Section 21 of Article VI of the
Constitution and appreciate its application in the decision.
Notes:

21. Kilusang Mayo Uno v. Director-General, National Economic Development Authority, 487 SCRA
623 (2006): To appreciate the ruling of the Court, read Sections 26 and 27, Article VI of the
Constitution. These provisions deal with the process of law-making which requires affected
stakeholders to ventilate their views in the passage of a legislative measure.
Notes:

22. Falcis III v. Civil Registrar General, G.R. No. 217910, September 3, 2019: Read portion of the
decision related to cognate rights and other alleged violation of other constitutional rights of the
petitioner; read the extent of power of judicial review of the Supreme Court.
Notes:

4|Page
 23. People v. Edgardo S. Go, G.R. No. 210816, December 10,2018: The determination of probable
cause to file a criminal information is an executive function and the Court cannot intervene unless
there is a palpable grave abuse of discretion.
Notes:

24. Belgica v. Ochoa, G.R. No. 208566, November 19, 2013: Read the portion of the decision where
there is a discussion on the restriction of post-enactment participation of Congress.
Notes:

A.3 DELEGATION OF POWERS

25. Sema v. Commission on Elections, 558 SCRA 700 (2008): Read the limitation on the power of
Congress to delegate legislative powers. The creation of provinces cannot be delegated to the
ARMM Legislative Assembly.
Notes:

26. NPC Drivers and Mechanics Association (NPC DAMA) v. National Power Corporation (NPC),
845 SCRA 487 (2017): Take note of the discussion on non-delegation of powers; significance of
designation of specific persons to compose the Board of Directors of NPC; and appreciate the
discussion of personal judgment or discretion of public officers mandated by statute and those of
designated public officers as alternates.
Notes:

5|Page
27. CoteSCUP v. Secretary of Education, G.R. No. 216930, October 9, 2018: Read discussion on the
compliance of the K to 12 Law with the two tests of valid delegation of powers.
28. Read: Bayanihan to Heal as One Act (R.A. No. 11469 [2020]), consider the extent of delegation of
powers to the IATF, focus on the exercise of police power of the government when IATF imposes
restrictions
A.4 STATE PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES
29. Ang Ladlad LGBT Party v. Commission on Elections, 618 SCRA 32 (2010): Read discussion on the
separation of the church and the state; try to appreciate the decision in the light of Section 26 of Article II
of the Constitution.
30. Imbong v. Ochoa, Jr., 721 SCRA146 (2014): Read portions of the decision related to Section 12 of
Article II of the Constitution
31. Republic v. Albios, 707 SCRA 584 (2013): Read portion of the decision on the importance of the family
and relate the decision not only to the provisions of the Family Code but also to Article XV of the
Constitution.
32. Zabal v. Duterte, – SCRA – (G.R. No. 238467, 12 February 2019): Relate the decision to Sections 15 and
16 of Article II of the Constitution; try to appreciate the valid exercise
33. Montereona et al. v. Coca-Cola Bottlers, Inc., G.R. No. 209116, January 14, 2019: Relate the decision to
Section 18 of Article II and Section 3 of Article XIII of the Constitution. It appears that while a
constitutional provision is self-executing provision, it would still require a legislative measure to amplify
the constitutional protection.

B. LEGISLATURE
1.
City of Davao v. Regional Trial Court, Br. XII, Davao City, 467 SCRA 280 (2005): Read portion on
power to amend laws and the prohibition to enact laws which cannot be repealed.
2. Government Service Insurance System v. City Treasurer of the City of Manila, 609 SCRA 330 (2009):
Read the portion of the decision on the distinction between governmental and proprietary powers of
government; appreciate the shifting of burden of payment of taxes under the beneficial use doctrine.
3. Social Justice Society v. Dangerous Drugs Board, 570 SCRA 410 (2008): Read portions of the decision
where the Court struck provisions of the law which violate constitutionally protected rights e.g. the
rights of the accused, the right of an individual filing a Certificate of Candidacy, the right of students
and employees subjected to drug test.
4. Aquino III v. Commission on Elections, 617 SCRA 623 (2010): Read the requirements under Section 5
of Article VI in the creation of congressional districts; be able to distinguish between creation of
congressional districts in cities and in provinces; and be able to understand the concept of
gerrymandering.
5. Aldaba v. Commission on Elections, 611 SCRA 137 (2010): Read the rigid requirements in amending a
city charter and the consequential creation of additional congressional district.
6. Barangay Association for National Advancement and Transparency (BANAT) v. Commission on
Elections, 586 SCRA 210 (2009)   592 SCRA 294 (2009): Read Section 5(1) and
5(2) of Article VI to appreciate the parameters in allocation of seats to party list members in
the House of Representatives.
7. Atong Paglaum, Inc. v. Commission on Elections, 694 SCRA 477 (2013): Read Section 5(2) of Article
VI to appreciate its application in the decision.
8. Reyes v. Commission on Elections, 699 SCRA 522 (2013) and 708SCRA 197 (2013): Read
the requirements for one to a have a valid Certificate of Candidacy if one intends to run as a
congressional representative and the requirement for oath taking for a member of the House of
Representatives; jurisdiction of the HRET and issues for its resolution.
9. Velasco v. Belmonte, Jr., 780 SCRA 81 (2016)
10. Baguilat, Jr. v. Alvarez, 832 SCRA 111 (2017):
11. Pobre v. Defensor-Santiago, 597 SCRA 1 (2009): Read portion of the decision on the nature of the
privilege of speech as guaranteed parliamentary immunity (speech, debate, congressional hearings);
Read Section 11 of Article VI.
12. Trillanes IV v. Castillo-Marigomen, 859 SCRA 271 (G.R. No. 223451, 14 March 2018): Read the
discussion on the extent of protection of the protection under Section 11 of Article VI.
13. Liban v. Gordon, 593 SCRA 68 (2009): Read the discussion on the remedy employed by the petitioner;
read the distinction between incompatible office and prohibited officer under Sections 13 and 14 of
Article VI.
14. Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP, 591 U.S. _ (No. 19–715, 9 July 2020), proof or evidence of legislative
purpose when a subpoena is issued; burden on the part of Congress in issuing subpoena
{https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-715_febh.pdf}
15. Neri v. Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations, 549 SCRA 77
(2008)
564 SCRA 152 (2008) {Read also Separate Opinion of Justice Carpio}: Read Sections
21 and 22 of Article VI.
16. Garcillano v. House of Representatives Committees on Public Information, Public Order and Safety,
National Defense and Security, Information and Communications Technology, and Suffrage and
Electoral Reforms, 575 SCRA170 (2008): Read the extent of protection guaranteed to the

6|Page
 resource person or witness in a congressional inquiry.
17. Balag v. Senate of the Philippines, 870 SCRA 343 (G.R. No. 234608, 3 July 2018): Read the portion of
the decision when the Court provides for circumstances a witness/resource person cited in contempt by
the Senate may be released.
18. Romero II v. Estrada, 583 SCRA 396 (2009): Read the portion of the decision that the conduct of
congressional inquiry is independent of any pending court cases, whether criminal or civil in nature
19. Agcaoili, Jr. v. Fariñas, 870 SCRA 285 (G.R. No. 232395, 3 July 2018): Read the discussion on the
power of Congress to cite resource persons/witnesses and to order their detention; pay attention to the
the remedies of parties under detention; take note of the distinction between a Petition for Habeas
Corpus and Petition for Issuance of Writ of Amparo; read the portion of the decision where the Court
amplifies judicial privilege to reject a call for members of the Court of Appeals to testify in a
congressional inquiry.
20. Belgica v. Ochoa, Jr., 710 SCRA 1 (2013): Read the portion of the decision where the Court emphasize
the role of Congress in enactment of laws; its exercise of its power under the doctrine of checks and
balances; how Congress and the Office of the President violated the doctrine of separation of powers
particularly on the post-enactment participation of members of Congress under PDAF.
21. Araullo v. Aquino III, 728 SCRA 1 (2014); 749 SCRA 284 (2015): Read Section 25(5) under
Section 25(5) to be able to appreciate the conclusion of the Court; appreciate how the Court
avoided finding any liability of particular public officers in the implementation of the DAP;
read also the discussion on operative fact doctrine.
22. Technical Education Skills Development Authority (TESDA) v. Commission on Audit, 750 SCRA 247
(2015): Read the portion of the decision dealing with compliance with provisions of a statute and
consistency with the Implementing Rules and Regulations to be able to ensure compliance with both
the intent and the letter of the law; keep in mind the test for valid delegation of powers.
23. Abakada Guro Party List v. Purisima, 562 SCRA 251 (2008): Read the portion of the decision where the
Court struck down the provision which called for the participation of members of Congress in reviewing
the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Accretion Law.

C. PRESIDENCY
READ THE FOLLOWING CASES ON CANVASS OF VOTES, PROCLAMATION OF PRESIDENT AND VICE
PRESIDENT AND SETTLEMENT OF ELECTION CONTEST BY THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL:
1. Pimentel, Jr. v. Joint Committee of Congress to Canvass the Votes Cast for President and Vice-
President in the May 10 , 2004 Elections, G. R. No.
163783 , 22 June 2004
{http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/resolutions/enbanc/2004/jun/163783.htm}: Read Section 4 of Article
VII to appreciate the role of Congress in the canvass of votes and proclamation of the country’s
President and Vice-President and the commencement of term of the President and the Vice
President. Read also Section 4 and Section 7 of Article VI to fully understand why Congress must
assume its constitutional duty under Section 4 of Article VII.
2. Macalintal v. Presidential Electoral Tribunal, 635 SCRA 783 (2010) ; 651 SCRA 239
(2011): Read Section 4 of Article VII to appreciate why the Court upheld the constitutionality
of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal.
READ THE FOLLOWING CASES ON IMMUNITY FROM SUIT OF THE
PRESIDENT:
3. Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997): Read the decision on the extent of immunity which
the President enjoys during his term.

4. T r u m p v .V a n c e ,5 9 1U . S . (N o . 1 9 – 6 3 5 ,9 J u l y 2 0 2 0 )
{https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-635_o7jq.pdf}: Read the portion of the
decision why the President cannot be compelled to produce specific documents during his term of
office.
5. Rubrico v. Macapagal-Arroyo, 613 SCRA 233 (2010): Read the portion of the decision where the
Court removed the President as respondent and reason behind this action.
6. Zabal v. Duterte, G.R. No. 238467, February 12, 2019: Read the part of the decision on presidential
immunity and the discussion on upholding the action of the president in closing Boracay Island for
six months.
7. De Lima v. Duterte, – SCRA – (G.R. No. 227635, 15 October 2019)
8. De Leon v. Duterte, – SCRA – (G.R. No. 252118, 8 May 2020) {http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/12172/,
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/12176/, and http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/12179/}: This must be read in
conjunction with Section 12, Article VII. The decision must also be appreciated in the light
“presidential status” under Section 11, Article VII.
READ THE FOLLOWING CASES IN THE LIGHT OF THE APPOINTING POWERS OF THE
PRESIDENT, COMPLIANCE WITH CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS
AND LIMITATIONS:
9. Funa v. Ermita, 612 SCURAn3i0v8e(2r0s1i0t): Read the decision in conjunction with Section 1 and Section 16
of Article VII.
10. Funa v. Agra, 691 SCRA 19(F6 i(r2s0t13S)
12. Aguinaldo v. Aquino III, 811 SCRA 304 (2016)   818
SCRA 2017 (2017); 835 SCRA 343 (2017): Read the decision as it relates to the powers of the JBC

7|Page
 and the appointing powers of the President.
13. Rufino v. Endriga, 496 SCRA 13 (2006): This case may be appreciated not only as to the discretion of
the President to appoint individuals but also in the light of qualifications of the appointees and their
term of office. Relate this to Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137(1803)
14. Almario v. Executive Secretary, 701 SCRA 269 (2013)
15. De Castro v. Judicial and Bar Council, 615 SCRA 666 (2010) {Read also Separate Opinion of Justice
Brion}: Read the decision in relation to Section 15 of Article VII
16. Velicaria-Garafil v. Office of the President, 758 SCRA 414 (2015): Read in relation to Section15,
Article VII.
17. Domingo et al. v. Ochoa, G.R. Nos. 226648-49, March 17, 2019
READ THE FOLLOWING CASES TO APPRECIATE THE POWER OF CONTROL OF THE
PRESIDENT OVER THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH:
18. Pimentel, Jr. v. Ermita, 472 SCRA 587 (2005): Appreciate the decision in the light of Section 17 of
Article VII and Section 2 of Article X.
19. Power Sector Assets and Liabilities Management Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,
835 SCRA 235 (2017): Read this decision in the light of the application of the alter ego doctrine.
20. Biraogo v. Philippine Truth Commission of 2010, 637 SCRA 78 (2010)
READ THIS CASE ALSO IN RELATION TO SECTION 23 (1) AND (2) OF ARTICLE VI:
21. Abakada Guro Party List v. Ermita, 469 SCRA 1 (2005): This must read in the light of the exercise of
delegated power to the President under Section 28(2) of Article VI.
The general rule barring delegation of legislative powers is subject to the following recognized
limitations or exceptions:
(1) Delegation of tariff powers to the President under Section 28 (2) of Article VI of the Constitution;
(2) Delegation of emergency powers to the President under Section 23 (2) of Article VI of the
Constitution;
(3) Delegation to the people at large;
(4) Delegation to local governments; and
(5) Delegation to administrative bodies.
READ THE FOLLOWING TO APPRECIATE Section 19 of Article VII AND SECTION 5, ARTICLE
IX-D – COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS:
22. Risos-Vidal v. Commission on Elections, 747 SCRA 210 (2015)
READ THE FOLLOWING CASES IN RELATION TO SECTION 3 AND 4 OF ARTICLE II AND
SECTION 18 OF ARTICLE VII:
23. Gudani v. Senga, 498 SCRA 671 (2006)
24. Kulayan v. Tan, 675 SCRA 482 (2012)
25. Fortun v. Macapagal-Arroyo, 668 SCRA 504 (2012)
26. Lagman v. Medialdea, 829 SCRA 1 (G.R. Nos. 231658, etc., 4 July 2017)
27. Padilla v. Congress of the Philippines, 832 SCRA 282 (2017)
28. Lagman v. Pimentel III, 854 SCRA 184 (G.R. Nos. 235935, et al., 6 February 2018)
29. Lagman v. Medialdea, – SCRA – (G.R. Nos. 243522, et al., 19 February 2019)
READ SECTION 21 OF ARTICLE VII AND SECTION 2, ARTICLE II TO APPRECIATE THE
FOLLOWING CASES:
30. Akbayan Citizens Action Party (Akbayan) v. Aquino, 558 SCRA 468
(2008)
30. Vinuya v. Romulo, 619 SCRA 533 (2010)   732 SCRA 595
(2014)

D. JUDICIARY

READ THE FOLLOWING CASES ON THE APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIARY:

31. Chavez v. Judicial and Bar Council, 676 SCRA 579 (2012)   696 SCRA 496 (2013)
32. Jardeleza v. Sereno, 733 SCRA 279 (2014)
33. Umali v. Judicial and Bar Council, 832 SCRA 194 (2017)
34. Villanueva v. Judicial and Bar Council, 755 SCRA 182 (2015)
READ THE FOLLOWING CASE ON THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO DEFINE THE JURISDCTION OF COURTS
35. First Lepanto Ceramics v Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 110571, March 10, 1994
READ THE FOLLOWING CASES ON THE POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW:
36. Alliance of Quezon City Homeowners’ Association v. Quezon City, G.R. No. 231896, August 20,
2019: REQUISITES OF JUDICIAL REVIEW
37. Falcis III v. Civil Registrar General, – SCRA – (G.R. No. 217910, 3 September 2019): REQUISITES OF
JUDICIAL REVIEW
38. Peralta v. PHILPOST, G.R. No. 223395, December 4. 2018: LIMITATIONS ON THE EXERCISE OF
POWER OF JUDICIAL
39. Gio-Samar v. DOTC and CAAP, G.R. No. 217158, March 12, 2019: OBSERVATION OF HIERACHY OF
COURTS; TRANSCENDENTAL IMPORTANCE DOCTRINE
40. Diocese of Bacolod v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 205728, January 21, 2015: EXCEPTIONS WHEN PARTIES
MAY RESORT TO THE SUPREMEE COURT DIRECTLY; TRANSCENDENTAL IMPORTANCE DOCTRINE
41. City of Cagayan de Oro v. CEPALCO, G.R. No. 224825, October 17, 2018: PRESUMPTION OF

8|Page
 CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A LAW
42. Sameer Overseas Placement Agency, Inc. v. Cabiles, 732 SCRA 22 (2014): EFFECT WHEN CONGRESS
REINSTATES A PROVISION ALREADY RULED AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL
43. Municipality of Tupi v. Faustino, G.R. No. 231896, August 20, 2019: OPERATIVE FACT DOCTRINE
READ THE FOLLOWING CASES ONRULE-MAKING POWERS OF THE SUPREME COURT
44. Pimentel v. Legal Education Board, G.R. No. 230042, September 10, 2019: RULE MAKING POWERS
OF THE COURT IN ADMISSION TO THE PRACTICE OF LAW
45. Re: Letter of Resignation of Atty. Brenda Jay Angeles, A.M. 18002-13SC, July 3, 2018:
APPOINTMENTS IN KEY POSITIONS IN THE S.C. MUST BE APROVED EN BANC.
46. Estipona, Jr. v. Lobrigo, 837 SCRA 193 (2017)
47. Re: Petition for Recognition of the Exemption of the GSIS from Payment of Legal Fees, 612 SCRA 191
160(2010)
READ THE FOLLOWING CASES ON THE POWER OF THE SUPREME COURT TO DISCIPLINE THE MEMBERS OF
THE BENCH, BAR AND EMPLOYEES OF THE JUDICIARY:
48. Re: Memorandum dated July 19, 2017 from Associate Justice Teresita De Castro, A.M. 17-07-05 S.C.,
July 3, 2018
49. Litonjua v. Jerry Marcelino, A.M. P-18-3865, October 9, 2018
50. Trinidad v. Alan Javier, A.M. No. P-11-2894, April 10, 2019
51. Anonymous v. Ibaretta, A.M. P-19-3916, June 26, 2019
52. San Jose Homeowners Association v. Atty. Roberto Romanillos. A.C. No. 5580, July 31, 2018:
Though the doors to the practice of law are never permanently closed on a disbarred attorney, the
Court owes a duty to the legal profession as well as to the general public to ensure that if the doors are
opened, it is done so only as a matter of justice2018:  though the doors to the practice of law are never
permanently closed on a disbarred attorney, the Court owes a duty to the legal profession as well as to
the general public to ensure that if the doors are opened, it is done so only as a matter of justice.
53. Gubatan v. Atty. Augustus Serafin D. Amador, A.C. No. 8962, July 09, 2018: The Court has the power
to sanction erring lawyers.
54. Anonymous Complaint v. Judge Buyucan, MCTC Bagabag-Diadi, Nueva Vizcaya, A.M. No. MTJ-16-
1879 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 14-2719-MTJ), July 24, 2018): The Court may act upon anonymous
complaints against the members of the judiciary.
55. Sps. Pacho v. Judge Agapito Lu, RTC-Cavite City, A.M. No. RTJ-13-2350 (Formerly OCA IPI No.
10-3507-RTJ), July 23, 2018: A judge may be sanctioned for not observing the mandatory period
within which to decide cases. The penalty may mitigated by circumstances personal to the judge.
56. OCA v. Judge Guiling et al., A.M. No. RTJ-19-2549 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 19-4920-RTJ], June 18,
2019: Judge Guiling was relieved of his judicial duties after being found GUILTY of gross dereliction
of duty, gross inefficiency, and gross incompetence for undue delay in rendering judgment in twenty-
three (23) criminal cases and forty (40) civil cases; undue delay in the resolution of motions or
incidents in seventeen (17) criminal cases and sixty-three (63) civil cases, violation of Supreme Court
rules, directives and circulars; undue delay in the submission of monthly reports; failure to maintain
the confidentiality of court records and proceedings; and violation of the rules on annulment of
marriage.

READ THE FOLLOWING CASES ON THE SAFEGUARDS TO ENSURE THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE COURT:
57. City of Manila v. Grecia-Cuerdo, 715 SCRA 182 (2014)
58. Re: COA Opinion on the Computation of the Appraised Value of the Properties Purchased by the
Retired Chief/Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, 678 SCRA 1 (2012)
59. Re: Request for Guidance/Clarification on Section 7, Rule 111 of Republic Act. No. 10154 Requiring
Retiring Government Employees to Secure a Clearance of Pendencyon-Pendency of Cases from the
Civil Service Commission, 706 SCRA 502 (2013)
60. Galicto v. Aquino III, 667 SCRA 150 (2012)
61. Moldex Realty, Inc. v. Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board, 525 SCRA 198 (2007)
62. League of Cities of the Philippines v. Commission on Elections, 608 SCRA 636 (2009)

E. CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS
1. Funa v. Duque III, 742 SCRA 166 (2014)
2. Civil Service Commission v. Department of Budget and Management, 464 SCRA 115 (2005)
3. Torres v. De Leon, 781 SCRA 110 (2016)
4. Career Executive Service Board v. Civil Service Commission, 819 SCRA 482 (2017)
5. Civil Service Commission v. Catacutan, G.R. No. 224651, July 3, 2019
6. Aguirre v. Civil Service Commission, G.R.No. 215932, June 3, 2019
7. Civil Service Commission v. Richard Rebong, G.R. No. 215932, June 3, 2019
8. Suriaga v. Commission on Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 238191, August 28, 2019
9. Funa v. Villar, 670 SCRA 579 (2012)
10. Philippine Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v. Commission on Audit, 534 SCRA 112
(2007)
11. Lazaro v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 213323, January 22, 2019
12. Rotaras v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 211999, August 20, 2019
13. Bayani F. Fernando v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 237938, December 4, 2018

9|Page
 14. Funa v. MECO, G.R. No. 193462, February 4, 2014
15. Orlondo et al. v. Commission on Audit, G.R. 211293, June 4, 2019
16. Binga Hydroelectric Plant, Inc. v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 218721, July 10, 2018
17. Bagumbayan-VNP Movement Inc. v. Commission on Elections, G.R. 206719. April 10, 2019
18. Zapanta v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 233016, March 5, 2019

II. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

A. ADMINISTRATIVE ORGANIZATION
1. GSIS Savings /family Bank Employees Union v. Secretary Villanueva, G.R. No. 210773, January 23,
2019
2. Bayani F. Fernando v. Commission on Audit, supra
3. Funa v. MECO, supra
4. Orlondo et al. v. Commission on Audit, supra
5. Biraogo v The Philippine Truth Commission, G.R. No. 192935, December 7, 2010

B. ADMINISTRATIVE RULE-MAKING
1. Securities and Exchange Commission v. GMA Network, Inc., 575 SCRA 113 (2008)
2. The Chairman and Executive Director, Palawan Council for Sustainable Development v. Lim, 801
SCRA 304 (2016)

C. ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATION AND JUDICIAL REVIEW

1. Villanueva v. Palawan Council for Sustainable Development, 691 SCRA 556 (2013)
2. Narra Nickel Mining and Development Corporation v. Redmont Consolidated Mines Corporation,
777 SCRA 258 (2015)
3. Ombudsman v. Fetalvero, G.R. No. 211450, July 25, 2018
4. Secretary of DAR v. Heirs of Abucay, G.R. No. 186432, March 12, 2019
5. Bonat v. Prilla, G.R. No. 219525, August 6, 2018
6. Board of Investments v. SR Metals, Inc., G.R. No. 219927, October 3, 2018
7. Jaka Investments Corporation v. Urdaneta Village Association, Inc., G.R. Nos. 204187 and 206606,
April 1, 2019
8. Spouses Rodriguez v. HLURB, G.R, No. 183324, June 19, 2019
9. Sto. Tomas v. Del Valle et al., G.R. No. 223637, August 28, 2019

III. LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS

A. ELIGIBILITY AND QUALIFICATIONS FOR PUBLIC OFFICE
1. Limkaichong v. Commission on Elections, 583 SCRA 1 (2009)
2. Civil Service Commission v. Cortes, 723 SCRA 609 (2014)

B. LIABILITIES OF PUBLIC OFFICERS UNDER BIDDING RULES AND CONTRACTS

1. Gwendolyn Garcia v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. 205904, October 17, 2017
2. Castilo-Co v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.184766, August 15, 2018: Review the Arias doctrine
3. Ombudsman v. P/Supt. Espina, G.R. No. 213500, March 15, 2017
4. Ombudsman v. P/Supt. Petrasanta, G.R. No. 227269, August 18, 2019
5. Andaya et al. v. Field Investigation Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 237837, June 10, 2019
6. Office of the Ombudsman v. Blor et al., G.R. No. 227405, September 5, 2018
7. Degamo v. Ombudsman and Relampagos, G.R. No. 212216, December 5, 2018
8. Ombudsman v. Celiz et al., G.R. No. 236183, June 26, 2019
C. GRANT OF FINANCIAL BENEFITS TO PUBLIC OFFICERS
GRANT FOR FINANCIAL REWARDS BASE ON NEGOTIATIONS WITH EMPLOYEES
1. GSIS Savings Family Bank Employees Union v. Secretary Villanueva, supra
2. DPWH v. COA, G.R. No. 237987, March 19, 2019
3. DBP v. COA, G.R. No. 210838, July 3, 2018
GRANT OF BENEFITS EMANATING FROM SPECIAL FUND
4. Rotaras v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 21199, August 30, 2019
5. Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority et al. v. COA, G.R. 230566, January 22, 2019
6. Bayani v. Fernando v. COA, supra
GRANT OF COST OF LIVING ALLOWANCE
7. PhilHealth CARAGA Region v. COA, G.R. No. 230218, August 14, 2018
8. PhilHealth v. COA, G.R. No. 22710, July 24, 2018
9. Balayan Water District v. COA, G.R. No. 229780, January 22, 2019
10. Torcuator v. COA, G.R. No. 210631, March 12, 2019

10 | P a g e
D. PERSONNEL MOVEMENTS AND DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
1. Baculi v. Office of the President, 820 SCRA 1 (2017)
2. Campol v. Balao-as, 810 SCRA 50 (2016)
3. Bagaoisan v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 242005, June 6, 2019
4. Dator v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 237742, October 8, 2019
5. Atty. Purina Jabinal v. Ombudsman, G.R. no. 232094, July 24, 2019
6. Villanueva v. People, G.R. No. 237738, June 10, 2019

E. SUSPENSION, REINSTATEMENT AND DISMISSAL OF PUBLIC OFFICERS

1. Loida Villanueva v. F./Inspector Rolando Reotique, G.R. No. 221647, November 27, 2018
2. Moreno v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 238566, February 20, 2019)
3. Lee v. Sales, G.R. No. 205294, July 4, 2019
4. San Diego v. Fact-Finding Investigation Committee, G.R. No. 214081, April 10, 2019
5. Police Director General v. PO2 Mayo, G.R. No. 218534, September 15, 2018

F. IMPEACHMENT
1. Office of the Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals, 452 SCRA 714 (2005)
2. Gutierrez v. House of Representatives Committee on Justice, 643 SCRA 198 (2011)
3. Republic v. Sereno, 863 SCRA 1 (G.R. No. 237428, 11 May 2018)
Note: The Supreme Court has recently ruled that former Chief Justice Corona is entitled to all his
retirement benefits and that his surviving spouse is entitled to receive full survivor benefits.

G. SANDIGANBAYAN AND OMBUDSMAN

1. Gonzales III v. Office of the President, 679 SCRA 614 (2012)   714 SCRA 611 (2014)
2. Ifurung v. Carpio Morales, 862 SCRA 684 (G.R. No. 232131, 24 April 2018)
3. Office of the Ombudsman v. Andutan, Jr., 654 SCRA 539 (2011)
4. People v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 232197-98, April 16, 2018
5. Sherwin Gatchalian v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 229288, August 1, 2018

H. PUBLIC OFFICE AND RESPONSIBILITY

1. Carpio Morales v. Court of Appeals (Sixth Division), supra
2. Senator Jinggoy Estrada v. Ombudsman et al., G.R. No. 212761, July 31, 2018
3. Domingo et al. v. Ochoa, G.R. Nos. 226648-49, March 27, 2019
4. Villanueva v. People, G.R. No. 237738, June 10, 2019
5. Gracia Padaca v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 201800, August 8, 2018

I. ILL-GOTTEN WEALTH AND STATE RECOVERY

1. Republic v. Ombudsman et al., G.R. No. 198366, June 26, 2019
2. Republic v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 222364, June 26, 2019
3. PCGG v. Ombudsman et al., G.R. No. 194619. March 20, 2019
4. Sabio v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 219824-25, February 12, 2019

J. TERMINATION OF OFFICIAL RELATIONS

1. Re: Application for Retirement of Judge Moslemen T. Macarambon under Republic Act No. 910, as
Amended by Republic Act No. 9946, 673 SCRA 602 (2012)
2. Fetalino v. Commission on Elections, 686 SCRA 813 (2012)
3. Ocampo v. Commission on Audit, 698 SCRA 136 (2013)
4. Re: Letter of Court of Appeals Justice Vicente S.E. Veloso for Entitlement to Longevity Pay for His
Services as Commission Member III of the National Labor Relations Commission, 758 SCRA 1
(2015)
5. Re: Application for Optional Retirement Under Republic Act No. 910, as Amended by Republic Act
No. 5095 and Republic Act No. 946, of Associate Justice Martin S. Villarama, Jr., 857 SCRA 368
(A.M. No. 15-11-01-SC, 6 March 2018)
6. Ombudsman v. Pacuribot, G.R. No. 193336, September 26. 2018: The death of a public officer
terminates his service with the government and extinguishes any liability he may have incurred.

IV. ELECTION LAW

A. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
1. Bagumbayan –VNP v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 206719, April 10, 2019
2. Cagas v. Commission on Elections, 663 SCRA 645(2012)
3. Kabataan Party-List v. Commission on Elections, 777 SCRA 574 (2015)

B. DISQUALIFICATION AND CANCELLATION OF CERTIFICATE OF CANDIDACY

1. Jalosjos v. COMELEC, 698 SCRA 742 (2013)
11 | P a g e
 2. Dimapilis v. COMELEC, 823 SCRA 451 (2017)
3. Reynaldo S. Zapanta v. COMELEC, supra
4. Santos v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 235058, September 4, 2018
5. Sevilla v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 227797, November 13, 2018
6. Aguilar v. Benlot, G.R. No. 232806, January 21, 2019
7. Halili v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 231643, January 15, 2019
C. SUBSTITUTIONS
1. Miranda v. Abaya, 311 SCRA 617 (1999)
2. Tagolino v. Commission on Elections, 693 SCRA 574 (2013)
3. Federico v. Commission on Elections, 689 SCRA 134 (2013)

D. CITIZENSHIP, DOMICILE AND REPATRIATION

1. Arnado v. Commission on Elections, 767 SCRA 168 (2015)
2. Agustin v. Commission on Elections, 774 SCRA 353 (2015)
3. Caballero v. Commission on Elections, 771 SCRA 213 (2015)

E. CAMPAIGNS
1. Penera v. Commission on Elections, 599 SCRA 609 (2009)   605 SCRA 574 (2009)

F. ELECTIONS, WINNERS, ELECTION CONTESTS AND SECOND PLACERS

1. Ongsiako- Reyes v. HRET, G.R, No. 221103, October 18, 2018
2. Velasco v. Speaker Belmonte, G.R. No. 211140, January 12, 2016
3. Martinez III v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, 610 SCRA 53 (2010)
4. Tañada, Jr. v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, 785 SCRA 314 (2016)
5. Maquiling v. Commission on Elections, 696 SCRA 420 (2013)   700 SCRA 367 (2013)
6. Dela Cruz v. Commission on Elections, 685 SCRA 347 (2012)

G. ELECTION OFFENSES
1. Lluz v. Commission on Elections, 523 SCRA 456 (2007)
2. People v. Randolph S. Ting, G.R. No. 221505, December 5, 2018
3. Velez v. People, G.R. No. 215136, August 28, 2019

V. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS [Local Governments]

A. FISCAL AUTONOMY AND SELF-RELIANCE
1. Manila International Airport Authority v. Court of Appeals, 495 SCRA 591 (2006)
2. Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority (MCIAA) v. City of Lapu-Lapu, 757 SCRA 323 (2015)
3. Pimentel, Jr. v. Ochoa, 676 SCRA 551 (2012)
4. Gov. Mandanas v. Ochoa, Jr., 869 SCRA 440 (G.R. No. 199802, 3 July 2018)
5. Republic v. Provincial Government of Palawan, – SCRA – (G.R. Nos. 170867 and 185941, 4
December 2018)
6. Noemi Cruz and Heirs of Cruz v. City Treasurer of Makati, supra
7. Republic v. Province of Palawan, supra
8. Municipality of Tupi v. Faustino, supra
9. City of Cagayan de Oro v. CEPALCO, supra
10. Alliance of Quezon City Homeowners’ Association, Inc v. Q.C., supra

B. LOCAL AUTONOMY AND NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY

1. Batangas CATV, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 439 SCRA 326 (2004)
2. League of Provinces of the Philippines v. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, 696
SCRA 190 (2013)

C. LOCAL AUTONOMY AND DECISION-MAKING

1. Province of Rizal v. Executive Secretary, 477 SCRA 436 (2005)
2. MWSS v. Quezon City, G. R. No. 194388, November 7, 2018: As a general rule, that is, that local
government units cannot levy any taxes, fees, or charges of any kind on the national government or its
agencies and instrumentalities. However, any real property owned by the Republic or its political
subdivisions is exempt from the payment of real property tax "except when the beneficial use thereof
has been granted, for consideration or otherwise, to a taxable person." [Note: This was the tenor of the
ruling of the Court in GSIS v. City Treasurer of Manila, G.R. No. 186242, December 23, 2009.] Being
an instrumentality of the national government, petitioner is not liable to respondent Local Government
of Quezon City for real property taxes, except if the beneficial use of its properties has been extended
to a taxable person.
3. MMDA v. D.M. Consunji, Inc. and R-II Builders, G.R. No. 222432, February 20,2019
4. New Sun Valley Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Sangguniang Barangay Sun Valley, G.R. No.
156686, July 27, 2011
12 | P a g e
 5. Knights of Rizal v. D.M. Consunji, Inc., G.R. No. 213948, April 18, 2017

D. CREATION AND ALTERATION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS

1. League of Cities of the Philippines (LCP) v. Commission on Elections, 571 SCRA 263
(2008)   608 SCRA 636 (2009)   628 SCRA 819 (2010)   643 SCRA 149
(2011)   648 SCRA 344 (2011)   652 SCRA 798 (2011)
2. Navarro v. Ermita, 612 SCRA 131 (2010)   648 SCRA 400 (2011)
3. Umali v. Commission on Elections, 723 SCRA 170 (2014)
4. Del Rosario v. Commission on Elections, – SCRA – (G.R. No. 247610, 10 March 2020)
{http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/12457/}

E. SUPERVISION OVER AND DISCIPLINE OF LOCAL OFFICIALS

1. Office of the City Mayor of Angeles City v. Dr. Josefino E. Villaroman, G.R. No. 234830, June 10,
2019
2. Provincial Government of Camarines Norte v. Gonzales, 701 SCRA 635 (2013)
3. Ombudsman v. Chipoco, G.R. No. 232406, August 19, 2019
4. Ombudsman Carpio-Morales v. Court of Appeals, Mayor Binay et al., G.R. Nos. 217126-27,
November 10, 2015
5. People v. Randolph Ting, G.R. No. 221505, December 5, 2018

F. ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURES
1. Bayani F. Fernando v. COA, G.R. Nos. 237938 and 237944-45, December 04, 2018
2. Alfredo Germar v. Feliciano P. Legaspi, G.R. No. 232532, October 1, 2018
3. La Carlota City, Negros Occidental v. Rojo, 670 SCRA 482 (2012)
4. Vicencio v. Villar, 675 SCRA 468 (2012)

G. TERM LIMITS AND RECALL

1. Edgardo Aguilar v. Elvira Benlot, supra
2. Christian Halili v. COMELEC, supra
3. Ferdinand V. Sevilla v. COMELEC, supra
4. Abundo v. Commission on Elections, 688 SCRA 149 (2013)
5. Albania v. Commission on Elections, 826 SCRA 191 (2017)
6. Goh v. Bayron, 742 SCRA 303 (2014)

H. AUTONOMOUS REGIONS
1. Sema v. Commission on Elections, 558 SCRA 700 (2008)

VI.GOVERNMENTAL POWERS AND INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS

THE BILL OF RIGHTS
A. FUNDAMENTAL POWERS AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS
1. Drugstores Association of the Philippines v. National Council of Disability Affairs,
803SCRA 25(2016): Due process clause and the equal protection clause when as
yardsticks in the exercise of police power may restrict property rights.
2. CoTESCUP v. Secretary of Education, G.R. No. 216930, October 2018: The adoption of
the K to 12 program is an inherent exercise of police power.
3. Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) v. Abecina, 795 SCRA 214 (2016): The
government may not be allowed to use one’s private property without just compensation.
4. City Government of Manila v. Alejandro Roces-Prieto et al. G.R. No. 231366, July 8, 2019: The local
government unit must mebody in an ordinance all the requisites for the valid exercise of eminent
domain.
5. Philippine Health Care Providers, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 600 SCRA 413 (2009):
In giving due course to the petition, the Court scrutinized the nature of contract between the parties
and the supervision of the government agency to determine if indeed Petitioner has any tax liability.
6. City of Cagayan de Oro v. CEPALCO, supra: An ordinance enjoys the presumption of
constitutionality. The purpose of the imposition must be construed as a regulatory measure rather than
a tax measure.
B. DUE PROCESS
1. Republic v. Cagandahan, 565 SCRA 72 (2008): The Philippines being a signatory to the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, the Court upheld an individual’s right to self-determination.
2. Naomi Cruz and Heirs of Cruz v. Treasurer of Makati, G.R. No. 210 894, September 10, 2018: Right to
actual notice is required before a property is auctioned for tax delinquency
3. Allied Banking Corporation (now PNB) v. Eduardo de Guzman, Jr., G.R. No. 225199, July 9, 2018: To
make the respondent liable, notice must be established to relieve one from a liability under a contract

13 | P a g e
 of loan.
4. Aguirre v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 220224, August 28, 2019: The denial of due process in
administrative proceedings entitles the party to seek judicial relief.
5. Cudia v. Superintendent of the Philippine Military Academy, 751 SCRA 469 (2015): The right to
counsel in administrative proceedings is not mandatory.
6. Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U.S. 110 (1989): A state can create an irrebuttable presumption that a
husband is the father of a child born into his family.
7. Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997): The ban on assisted suicide was rational in that it
furthered such compelling state interests as the preservation of human life and the protection of the
mentally ill and disabled from medical malpractice and coercion. To rule that physician-assisted
suicide as a constitutionally protected right would start down the path to voluntary and perhaps
involuntary euthanasia.
8. Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003): A Texas law criminalizing consensual, adult homosexual
intercourse violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment .[You may want to read
Bowers v. Hardwick 478 U.S. 186 (1986) which found that the Fourteenth Amendment does not
prevent a state from criminalizing private sexual conduct involving same sex couples.]
9. Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ___ (No. 14-556, 26 June 2015): The Fourteenth Amendment requires
a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between
two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State.
10. White Light Corporation v. City of Manila, 576 SCRA 416 (2009): If due process were confined solely
to its procedural aspects, there would arise an absurd situation of arbitrary government action, provided
the proper formalities are followed. Substantive due process completes the protection envisioned by the
due process clause. It inquires whether the government has sufficient justification for depriving a
person of life, liberty, or property.
11. Government Service Insurance System v. Montesclaros, 434 SCRA 441 (2004): The proviso denying
any survivorship benefit fi marriage is contracted within the three-year prohibited period is unduly
oppressive. In outrightly denying a dependent spouse's claim, there is outright confiscation of benefits
due the surviving spouse without giving the surviving spouse an opportunity to be heard.
12. Republic v. Albios, 707 SCRA 584 (2013): The right to marry is not imposed by statute. For marriage
to be valid consent must be given freely.
13. Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network, Inc. v. Anti-Terrorism Council, 632 SCRA 146 (2010):
When a particular litigant claims that a statute is unconstitutional as applied to him or her; if the
litigant prevails, the courts carve away the unconstitutional aspects of the law by invalidating its
improper applications on a case to case basis. Moreover, challengers to a law are not permitted to raise
the rights of third parties and can only assert their own interests.
14. Palacios v. People, G.R. No. 240646, March 18, 2019: The right to preliminary investigation
is substantive, not merely formal or technical. To deny petitioner's motion for reinvestigation on the
basis of the provisions of A.M. No. 11-6-10-SC would be to deprive him of the full measure of his
right to due process on purely procedural grounds.

C. EQUAL PROTECTION
1. Biraogo v. Philippine Truth Commission of 2010, 637 SCRA 78 (2010): The creation of the Philippine
Truth Commission violated the equal protection clause when it singled out the administration of
President Arroyo. It is marred with "adventure in partisan hostility."
2. Garcia v. Hon. Drilon, 699 SCRA 352 (2013): VAWC law is constitutional. It meets all the elements of
the equal protection clause. The guaranty of equal protection of the laws is not a guaranty of equality in
the application of the laws upon all citizens of the state. It is not, therefore, a requirement, in order to
avoid the constitutional prohibition against inequality, that every man, woman and child should be
affected alike by a statute. Equality of operation of statutes does not mean indiscriminate operation on
persons merely as such, but on persons according to the circumstances surrounding them. It guarantees
equality, not identity of rights.
3. Republic v. Manalo, 860 SCRA 580 (G.R. No. 221029, 24 April 2018): If a legislative classification
impermissibly interferes with the exercise of a fundamental right or operates to the peculiar
disadvantage of a suspect class strict judicial scrutiny is required since it is presumed unconstitutional,
and the burden is upon the government to prove that the classification is necessary to achieve a
compelling state interest and that it is the least restrictive means to protect such interest.
4. Sameer Overseas Placement Agency, Inc. v. Cabiles, 732 SCRA 22 (2014):
There is no constitutional doctrine that causes injustice in the face of empty
procedural niceties. Constitutional interpretation is complex, but it is never
unreasonable.
5. U.S. v. Windsor, 570 U.S. ___ (No. 12-307, 26 June 2013):
The Court held that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA),
which denied federal recognition of same-sex marriages, was a violation of
the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

D. SEARCHES AND SEIZURES

1. Laud v. People, 741 SCRA 239 (2014): Human remains may be subject of a search warrant.
2. Los Angeles County v. Rettele, 550 U.S. 609 (2007): The Fourth Amendment allows warrants to issue
on probable cause, a standard well short of absolute certainty. Valid warrants will issue to search the
14 | P a g e
 innocent, and people like Rettele and Sadler unfortunately bear the cost.
3. Miguel v. People, 833 SCRA 440 (2017): The warrantless arrest of the appellant was not justified.
The Court reversed his conviction.
4. People v. Sapla, – SCRA – (G.R. No. 244045, 16 June 2020) {http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/12724/}:
The Bill of Rights is the bedrock of constitutional government. If people are stripped naked of their
rights as human beings, democracy cannot survive and government becomes meaningless. Even if the
search conducted can be characterized as a search of a moving vehicle, the operation undertaken by the
authorities in the instant case cannot be deemed a valid warrantless search of a moving vehicle.
5. Riley v. California, 573 U.S. ___ (No. 13–132, 25 June 2014): Reasonableness balancing tends
to value privacy most in cases where government interests are low but privacy interests are high and
universally shared. Cell phone searches implicate privacy interests and enjoy constitutional protection.
6. Dela Cruz v. People, 730 SCRA 655 (2014): The RTC and the CA erred when they held that the
extraction of petitioner’s urine for purposes of drug testing was "merely a mechanical act, hence,
falling outside the concept of a custodial investigation."
7. Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001): Where the Government uses a device that is not in general
public use, to explore details of a private home that would previously have been unknowable without
physical intrusion, the surveillance is a Fourth Amendment "search," and is presumptively
unreasonable without a warrant.
8. Estrada v. Sandiganbayan (Fifth Division), 872 SCRA 139 (G.R. No. 217682, 17 July 2018): The
AMLC's ex parte application for the bank inquiry order based on Section 11 of R.A. No. 9160, as
amended by R.A. No. 10167, did not violate substantive due process because the physical seizure of
the targeted corporeal property was not contemplated by the law.
9. Pollo v. Constantino-David, 659 SCRA 198 (2011): The constitutional guarantee is not a prohibition of
all searches and seizures but only of "unreasonable" searches and seizures. Petitioner failed to prove
that he had an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy either in his office or government-issued
computer which contained his personal files.
10. Lucas v. Lucas, 650 SCRA 667 (2011): While the tenor [of Section 4, Rule on DNA Evidence]
appears to be absolute, the rule could not really have been intended to trample on the substantive rights
of the parties. It could have not meant to be an instrument to promote disorder, harassment, or
extortion.
11. People v. Eanna O’Cochlain, G.R. No. 229071, December 10, 2018
12. People v. Jimboy Suico, G.R. No. 229940, September 10, 2018

E. PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

1. Gamboa v. Chan, 677 SCRA385 (2012)
2. Vivares v. St. Theresa’s College, 737 SCRA 92 (2014)
3. Lee v. Ilagan, 738 SCRA 59 (2014)
4. Writ of Habeas Data(A.M.08-1-16-SC)
5. Data Privacy Act of 2012 (R.A. No. 10173)

F. FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION, RIGHT TO ASSEMBLY AND ACADEMIC FREEDOM

1. Ellen Tordesillas et al. v. DILG Secretary, G.R. No. 210088, October 1, 2018
2. Chavez v. Gonzales, 545 SCRA 441 (2008)
3. Disini, Jr. v. Secretary of Justice, 716 SCRA 237 (2014)   723 SCRA 109 (2014)
4. Movie and Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB) v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting
Corporation, 448 SCRA 575 (2005)
5. GMA Network, Inc. v. Commission on Elections, 734 SCRA 88 (2014)
6. Diocese of Bacolod v. Commission on Elections, 747 SCRA 1 (2015)
7. 1-United Transport Koalisyon (1-Utak) v. Commission on Elections, 755 SCRA 441 (2015)
8. Nicolas-Lewis v. Commission on Elections, – SCRA – (G.R. No. 223705, 14 August 2019)
9. Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844 (1997)
10. Social Weather Stations, Inc. v. Asuncion, 228 SCRA xi (1993)
11. Re: Letter of the UP Law Faculty Entitled “Restoring Integrity: A Statement by the Faculty of the
University of the Philippines College of Law on the Allegations of Plagiarism and Misrepresentation
in the Supreme Court,” 644 SCRA 543 (2011)

12. Fortun v. Quinsayas, 690 SCRA 623 (2013)

13. Pharmaceutical and Health Care Association of the Philippines v. Duque III, 535 SCRA 265 (2007)
{Read Separate Opinion of C.J. Puno}
14. Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 555 U.S. 460 (2009)
15. Walker v. Texas Div., Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc., 576 U.S. ___ (No. 14-144, 18 June 2015)
16. Bayan v. Ermita, 488 SCRA 226 (2006)
17. Integrated Bar of the Philippines v. Atienza, Jr., 613 SCRA 518 (2010)

G. FREEDOM OF RELIGION
1. Peralta v. Philippine Postal Corporation (Philpost), – SCRA – (G.R. No. 223395, 4 December 2018)
2. Estrada v. Escritor, 408 SCRA 1 (2003)   492 SCRA 1 (2006)
3. Re: Letter of Tony Q. Valenciano, re: Holding of Religious Rituals at the Halls of Justice Building in

15 | P a g e
 Quezon City, 819 SCRA 313 (A.M. No. 10-4-19-SC, 7 March 2017)
4. Valmores v. Achacoso, 831 SCRA 442 (G.R. No. 217453, 19 July 2017)

H. LIBERTY OF ABODE AND FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT

1. Gudani v. Senga, 498 SCRA 671 (2006)
2. Marcos v. Manglapus, 177 SCRA 668 (1989)
3. Samahan ng mga Progresibong Kabataan (SPARK) v. Quezon City, 835 SCRA 350 (2017)
4. Genuino v. De Lima, 861 SCRA 325 (G.R. Nos. 197930, 199034, 199046, 16 April 2018)
4. Precautionary Hold Departure Order (A.M. No. 18-07-05-SC [7 August 2018])

I. RIGHT TO INFORMATION
1. Nagkakaisang Maralita ng Sitio Masigasig, Inc. v. Military Shrine Services-Philippine Veterans
Affairs Office, Department of National Defense, 697 SCRA 359 (2013)
2. 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, 14 February 2012
(http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/notice.pdf) {Last Accessed: 5
November 2013 (8:37:12am)}
3. Sereno v. CRTM of NEDA, G.R. No. 175210, February 01, 2016
4. Antolin v. Domondon, G.R. No. 165036, July 5, 2010

J. RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION
1. Bank of the Philippine Islands v. BPI Employees Union-Davao Chapter-Federation of Unions in BPI
Unibank, 627 SCRA 590 (2010)
2. Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000)

K. EMINENT DOMAIN
1. Republic v. Decena, G.R. No. 212786, July 10, 2018
2. Republic v. Silvestre, G.R. No. 212786, July 30, 2018
3. Republic v. Spouses Esquito, G.R. No. 221995, October 3, 2018
4. National Transmission v. Lacson-De Leon, G.R. No. 221624, July 4. 2018
5. LBP v. Navarro, G.R. No. 196264, June 20, 2019
6. LBP v. Francisco, G.R. No. 203242, March 12, 2019
7. Secretary of the Department of Public Works and Highways v. Tecson, 700 SCRA 243 (2013)
 756 SCRA 389 (2015)
8. Land Bank of the Philippines v. Dalauta, 835 SCRA 1 (2017)
9. Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority v. Lozada, Sr., 613 SCRA 618 (2010)
10. Republic v. Heirs of Saturnino Q. Borbon, 745 SCRA 40 (2015)
11. National Power Corporation v. Heirs of Macabangkit Sangkay, 656 SCRA 60 (2011)

L. CONTRACT CLAUSE
1. Lepanto Consolidated Mining Co. v. WMC Resources Int’l. Pty. Ltd., 507 SCRA 315 (2006)

M. FREE ACCESS TO COURTS

1. Ayala Land Inc. v. The (Alleged) Heirs of the Late Lucas Lactao, G.R. No. 208213, August 8, 2018
2. Re: Query of Mr. Roger C. Prioreschi re Exemption from Legal and Filing Fees of the Good Shepherd
Foundation, Inc., 596 SCRA 401 (2009)

N. RIGHTS OF SUSPECTS (Read also The Anti-Torture Act of 2009 [R.A. No. 9745])
1. Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428 (2000)
2. Palacios v. People, G.R. No. 240676, March 18, 2019
3. People v. Rodel Belmonte, G.R. No. 224588, July 4, 2018
4. People v. Chavez, 735 SCRA 728 (2014)
5. Johnny Garcia Yap v. People, G.R. No. 234217, November 14, 2018
6. Melky Concha and Romeo Managuelod v. People, G.R. No. 208114, October 3, 2018
7. People v. Lauga, 615 SCRA 548 (2010)
8. Miguel v. People, supra
9. People v. Endino, 352 SCRA 307 (2001)
10. People v. Sandiganbayan, Relampagos et al., G.R. No. 219824-25, February 12, 2019

O. RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED

1. People v. Valdez, 776 SCRA 672 (2015)
2. Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region v. Olalia, Jr., 521 SCRA 470 (2007)
3. Enrile v. Sandiganbayan (Third Division), 767 SCRA 282 (2015) and 796 SCRA 431 (2016)
4. Neptali Salcedo v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 223869, February 13, 2019
5. Tumbocon v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 235412-15, November 5, 2015
6. Gerardo H. Villa v. Stanley Fernandez, G.R. No. 219548, October 17, 2018
16 | P a g e
 7. Escobar v. Sandiganbayan and People, G.R. No. 228349, September 18, 2018
8. People v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 232197-98, April 16, 2018
9. People v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 233557-67, June 19, 2019
10. Cagang v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 206438 and 206458, July 31, 2018
11. Jaylo v. Sandiganbayan (First Division), 746 SCRA 452 (2015)
12. Johnny Garcia Yap v. People, G.R. No. 234217, November 14, 2018

P. PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (Read the Rules on Writ of Amparo [A.M. No. 07-9-12-
SC]) and Writ of Habeas Data [A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC]) {See Also Philippine Act On Crimes Against
International Humanitarian Law, Genocide and Other Crimes Against Humanity [R.A. No. 9851])
1. In the Matter of the Petition for Habeas Corpus of Datukan Malang Salibo v. Warden, Quezon City
Jail Annex, BJMP Building, Camp Bagong Diwa, Taguig City, 755 SCRA 296 (2015)
2. Secretary of National Defense v. Manalo, 568 SCRA 1 (2008)
3. Razon, Jr. v. Tagitis, 606 SCRA 598 (2009)   612 SCRA 685 (2010)
4. Republic v. Cayanan, 844 SCRA 183 (2017)
5. De Lima v. Gatdula, 691 SCRA 226 (2013)
6. Navia v. Pardico, 673 SCRA 618 (2012)
7. Pador v. Arcayan, 693 SCRA 192 (2013)
8. Caram v. Segui, 732 SCRA 86 (2014)

17 | P a g e
Q. SELF-INCRIMINATION
1. Disini v. Sandiganbayan, 621 SCRA 415 (2010)
2. United States v. Balsys, 524 U.S. 666 (1998)

R. CRUEL AND INHUMAN AND PUNISHMENTS

1. Corpuz v. People, 724 SCRA 1 (2014)
2. Republic Act No. 10951 (2017)

S. DOUBLE JEOPARDY
1. People v. Velasco, 340 SCRA 207 (2000)
2. People v. Sandiganbayan (Fourth Division), 559 SCRA 449 (2008)
3. Ivler v. Modesto-San Pedro, 635 SCRA 191 (2010)

T. SELF-INCRIMINATION
1. Disini v. Sandiganbayan, 621 SCRA 415 (2010)
2. United States v. Balsys, 524 U.S. 666 (1998)

U. CRUEL AND INHUMAN AND PUNISHMENTS

1. Corpuz v. People, 724 SCRA 1 (2014)
2. Republic Act No. 10951 (2017)

V. DOUBLE JEOPARDY
1. People v. Velasco, 340 SCRA 207 (2000)
2. People v. Sandiganbayan (Fourth Division), 559 SCRA 449 (2008)
3. Ivler v. Modesto-San Pedro, 635 SCRA 191 (2010)

W. EX POST FACTO LAWS AND BILLS OF ATTAINDER

1. Salvador v. Mapa, 539 SCRA 34 (2007)
2. Valeroso v. People, 546 SCRA 450 (2008)
3. Republic v. Cojuangco, Jr., 674 SCRA 492 (2012)
4. Bureau of Customs Employees Association (BOCEA) v. Teves, 661 SCRA 589 (2011)

VII. CITIZENSHIP
Read 1. R.A. Nos. 9139 and 9225)
Cases:
1. Poe-Llamanzares v. Commission on Elections, 786 SCRA 1 (2016)
2. Republic v. Sagun, 666 SCRA 321 (2012)
3 So v. Republic, 513 SCRA 267 (2007)
4. Calilung v. Datumanong, 523 SCRA 108 (2007)
5. David v. Agbay, 753 SCRA 526 (2015)
6. Tan v. Crisologo, 844 SCRA 365 (2017)

VIII. EDUCATION, SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ARTS, CULTURE AND

SPORTS
1. University of the Philippines Board of Regents v. Court of Appeals, 313 SCRA 404 (1999)
2. Pimentel v. Legal Education Board, – SCRA – (G.R. No. 230642, 10 September 2019)
3. De La Salle University, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 541 SCRA 22 (2007)
4. Leus v. St. Scholastica’s College Westgrove, 748 SCRA 378 (2015)

IX. NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY

1. Diamond Drilling Corporation of the Philippines v. Crescent Mining Development Corporation, G.R.
No. 201785, April 10, 2019
2. Hulst v. PR Builders, Inc., 532 SCRA 74 (2007)   566 SCRA 333
(2008)
3. Gamboa v. Teves, 652 SCRA 690 (2011)   682 SCRA 397 (2012)
4. Roy III v. Herbosa, 810 SCRA 1 (2016)
5. Florencia Garcia-Diaz v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 193236, September 17, 2018
6. Maynilad v. DENR, G.R. No. 202897, August 06, 2019
7. Initiatives for Dialogue and Empowerment Through Alternative Legal Services, Inc. (IDEALS, Inc.)
v. Power Sector Assets and Liabilities Management Corporation (PSALM), 682 SCRA 602 (2012)
8. Resident Marine Mammals of the Protected Seascape Tañon Strait v. Reyes, 756 SCRA 513 (2015)
9. Associated Communications & Wireless Services – United Broadcasting Networks v. National
Telecommunications Commission, 397 SCRA 574 (2003)
10. Metropolitan Cebu Water District (MCWD) v. Adala, 526 SCRA 465 (2007)
18 | P a g e
11. Manila International Airport Authority v. Court of Appeals, 495 SCRA 591 (2006)
12. Liban v. Gordon, 639 SCRA 709 (2011)
13. Boy Scouts of the Philippines v. Commission on Audit, 651 SCRA 146 (2011)

X. PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

1. Pimentel, Jr. v. Office of the Executive Secretary, 462 SCRA 622 (2005)
2. Saguisag v. Ochoa, Jr., 779 SCRA 241 (2016)   798 SCRA 292 (2016)
3. Zivotofsky v. Kerry, 576 U.S. ___ (No. No. 13–628, 8 June 2015)
4. Secretary of Justice v. Lantion, 343 SCRA 377 (2000)
5. Province of North Cotabato v. Government of the Republic of the Philippines Peace Panel on
Ancestral Domain (GRP), 568 SCRA 402 (2008)
6. Tañada v. Angara, 272 SCRA 18 (1997)
7. Liang v. People, 323 SCRA 692 (2000)   355 SCRA 125 (2001) {See Justice Puno’s
Concurring Opinion}
8. Minucher v. Court of Appeals, 397 SCRA 244 (2003)
9. Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region v. Olalia, Jr., 521 SCRA 470 (2007)
10. Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region v. Muñoz, 800 SCRA 467 (2016)
11. Hamdi v. Rumsfield, 542 U.S. 507 (2004)
12. Medellin v. Texas, 552 US 491 (2008)

19 | P a g e
20 | P a g e
10 | P a g e
 X. PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW
1. Pimentel, Jr. v. Office of the Executive Secretary, 462 SCRA 622 (2005)
2. Saguisag v. Ochoa, Jr., 779 SCRA 241 (2016)   798 SCRA 292 (2016)
13. Zivotofsky v. Kerry, 576 U.S. ___ (No. No. 13–628, 8 June 2015)
14. Secretary of Justice v. Lantion, 343 SCRA 377 (2000)
15. Province of North Cotabato v. Government of the Republic of the Philippines Peace Panel on
Ancestral Domain (GRP), 568 SCRA 402 (2008)
16. Tañada v. Angara, 272 SCRA 18 (1997)
17. Liang v. People, 323 SCRA 692 (2000)   355 SCRA 125 (2001) {See Justice Puno’s
Concurring Opinion}
18. Minucher v. Court of Appeals, 397 SCRA 244 (2003)
19. Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region v. Olalia, Jr., 521 SCRA 470 (2007)
20. Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region v. Muñoz, 800 SCRA 467 (2016)
21. Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507C(2o00l4l)e
22. Medellin
552 U v..S.Texas,
U n iv49e1 r(2s0i0t8y)

11 | P a g e
Nicolas v. Romulo, 578 SC R A 4 3 8 ( 200 9 )
( F ir s t S e e s ter, 2020-2021)

12 | P a g e