Consti First Exam Cases

1. Macariola v Asuncion : states that after the sovereignty was passed from Spain to US and to
the Philippines, Art. 14, which sourced from the Spanish Code was now abrogated because
whenever there is a change in sovereignty, political laws of the previous are abrogated
2. Javellana v Executive Secretary: Defined political and justiciable questions, in relation to the
ratification of 1973 constitution
i. Political Question - a question of policy, be decided by people
ii. Justiciable Question- implies a given right, legally demandable and enforceable
3. Endencia v David: about the garnishment of Judges’ salaries through income tax, as cited in
Perfecto v Meer. In this case, however, it is stated that there is a breach by the Legislative
department in the jurisdiction and function of the Judiciary as the one who interprets and apply
the law, by doing that in this case
4. Manila Prince Hotel v GSIS: provided an example of “self executing” law.
5. Lawyer’s League v Aquino : stated that the Aquino presidency was not merely a de facto
government but in fact, also a de jure government.
6. Santiago v COMELEC: stated the RA 6735 is not an enabling law for the people’s initiative.
7. Lambino v COMELEC:
8. Tolentino v COMELEC: stated the role of plebiscite, and provided that the plebiscite may be
cast together with normal elections, given that the people are sufficiently informed of the
amendments to be voted upon.
9. Holy See v RTC: The Holy See is immune from suit for he is exercising a non-proprietal
function.The donation was made not for commercial purpose, but for the use of petitioner to
construct thereon the official place of residence of the Papal Nuncio.
10. Liang v People: provided that the courts needs to protect the right for due process of both
prosecution and defense and that the “immunity” from suit, is not absolute and shall be subject to
exception if one is done outside one’s “official capacity”.
11. City of Angeles v CA: Court ruled that public officials are not immune from damages in the
exercise of their own personal capacity arising from acts done in bad faith. The public officials
concerned deliberately violated the law and persisted in their violations, going so far as
attempting to deceive the courts by their pretended change of purpose and usage for the center,
and “making a mockery of the judicial system.” Indisputably, said public officials acted beyond
the scope of their authority and jurisdiction and with evident bad faith
12. Meritt Government v Gov’t of the Philippine Islands: by consenting to be sued, the state
doesn’t concede to its liability. It’s not an admission of guilt.By consenting to be sued a state
simply waives its immunity from suit
13. Villacencio v Lukban : provided that the Philippines is a government of laws, not of men. It
may serve to protect individual liberty from illegal encroachment
14. Ynot v IAC: There is, finally, also an invalid delegation of legislative powers to the officers
mentioned therein who are granted unlimited discretion in the distribution of the properties
arbitrarily taken