Article IX: Constitutional Commissions

A. Common Provisions

Section 1. Independent Commissions

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

The independent constitutional commission are the CSC, COMELEC, and COA.
1. To ensure independence of the Commissions:
a. Constitutionally created, may not be abolished by statute.
b. Independent
c. Conferred certain powers and functions which cannot be reduced by statute
d. Chari and Members cannot be removed except by IMPEACHMENT
e. C and M are given a long term of office of SEVEN YEARS
f. C and M cannot be re appointed on the same position
i. Rotational Scheme of Appointments – 1st appointees shall serve for
7 , 5 and 3 years. After the first are appointed, the scheme is
intednded to prevent the possibility of one President appointing all
Commissioners.

Section 2. Prohibition on Members

Inhibitions/Disqualifications (HPMF):
1. Shall not during tenure hold any other office or employment

2. Shall not engage in the practice of any profession

3. Shall not engage in the active management of control of any business that might
affect the function of his office

4. Shall not be financially interested, directly or indirectly in any contract or franchise or

privilege granted by government of any of its subdivisions, agencies, or
instrumentalities, including GOCC or their subsidiaries.

Section 3. Salary

1. The salaries of C and M are high and cannot be decreased during their tenure.

Section 4. Power to Appoint

1. They shall appoint their officials and employees in accordance with Civil Service
Law.

Section 5. Fiscal Autonomy

 CSC v. DBM, 482 SCRA 233 - “no report, no release” policy cannot be validly enforced
against offices with fiscal autonomy. “AUTOMATIC”, no condition to fund releases to it
may be imposed.

1. Enjoys Fiscal Autonomy, their approved annual appropriations shall be automatically

and regularly released
a. Fiscal Autonomy – a guarantee given by the Constitution, intended as a
guarantee of separation of powers and independence from political agency.

Section 6. Promulgation of Rules

 Macalintal v. COMELEC, GR No. 157013, July 10, 2003 – “Congress cannot assume
power to review rules promulgated by the Commission, because the Commission has
the power to approve, review, amend, and revise the IR for the oversees absentee votig

1
 act of 2003, congress went beyond the constitutional authority. COMELEC was trampled
of the independence of COMELEC.”

 Sabili v. COMELEC, GR 193261, April 24, 2012

1. Each commission en banc may promulgate its own rules concerning pleadings and
practice before it.
2. Commissions may promulgate its OWN PROCEDURAL RULES.
3. Shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights, though subject to
disapproval by the SC.
4. Incase of conflict between rule of procedure by the Commission and Rules of Court,
the rule of Commission should prevail if it is before Commission. BUT if the
proceeding is before a court, the Rules of Court shall prevail.

Section 7. Decisions of the Commissions

Review of final orders, resolutions and decisions:

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

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

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

1. Each Commission shall decide by a majority vote of all its members nay case or
matter brought before it within 60-days from the submission of decision or resolution.

a. Majority vote – vote of ALL MEMBERS, not only those who participated in the
deliberations.
b. The court exercise extraordinary jurisdiction but the proceedings is limited to
issues involving GADALEJ.
c. The case maybe elim
2. Vote of majority will still favor even if during the pendency the some Commissioners
who participated in the deliberations had retired prior to the promulgation of the
decision. The votes of the retired one merely be considered withdrawn. Only the
votes of the remaining Commissioners considered for the purpose of deciding the
controversy.
3. Enforcement of Decision – final decisions of the CSC are enforceable by a writ of
execution that the CSC may itself issue.

Section 8. Other Functions

1. Other functions may be provided by the law

2
B. Civil Service Commission

Section 1. Composition; Qualifications; Term

 Gaminde v. COA –347 SCRA 655 (2000)
 Mathay Jr. v. CA, GR No. 124374, December 15, 1999

1. Composition – 1 Chairman and 2 Commissioners, cannot be appointed or

designated in temporary or acting capacity.

2. Qualifications
a. Natural Born Citizen of the Ph
b. Atleast 35 years old at the time of their appointment
c. Proven capacity for public administration
d. Not a candidate for any the elections immediately in the appointment

3. Term – 7 years Chairman, 1st Commissioner 5 years and 2nd commissioner three
years.

 Nature of powers of the CSC – the Commission is an administrative agency.

 City council has no powers to appointment.

 As central personnel agency of the Government, establish a career service and adopt
measure to promote morale, efficiency, integrity, responsiveness, progressiveness and
courtesy in the civil service.

 Can only be abolished by Legislature

 Power to hear and decide administrative cases in original jurisdiction.

 Authority to recall appointment initially approved in disregard of applicable provisions of

Civil Service Law and regulations.

 No jurisdiction over a case of separation from government service .

Section 2. Scope of the system

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

1. Embraces all branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities and agencies of the

Government, including government-owned and controlled corporations with original
charters.

a. Original Charters – created by law by an act of Congess, or by special law.

Under Civil Service Law

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

GOCCs Under the Corporation Code

3
  BLISS v. Calejo – 237 SCRA 271 [1994]
 Postigo v. Philippine Tuberculosis society – 479 SCRA 628
 LRTA v. Venus – 485 SCRA 301

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

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

 Made according to merit and fitness as determined, as far as practicable by

competitive examination.

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

 Non determined by competitive examinations, but merit and fitness are required

Policy-Determining

 These are non-competitive positions in-charged with the duty to formulate a method
of action for the government or any of its subdivisions.

Primarily Confidential
 Borres v. CA – 153 SCRA 120 [1987]
 Grino v. CSC – 194 SCRA 458 [1991]
 Santos v. Macaraig – 208 SCRA 74 [1992]
 Hilario v. CSC – 243 SCRA 206 [1995]
 Rosete v. CA – 264 SCRA 147 [1996]
 CSC v. Salas – 274 SCRA 414 [1997]
 Acahacoso v. Macaraig – 195 SCRA 235 [1991]
 Felix v. Buenaseda – 240 SCRA 139 [1995] (par.2)
 Pamantasan ng Maynila v. CSC – 241 SCRA 503 [1995]
 Province of the Camarines Sur v. CA – 246 SCRA 231 [1995]
 PEZA v. Mercado – 614 SCRA 683 [2010]
 CSC v. CA – 635 SCRA 749 [2010]

 It is considered primarily confidential if there is a close intimacy between the

appointee and appointing authority which insures freedom of intercourse without
embarrassment, or freedom from misgiving of betrayal of personal trust on
confidential matters of state.

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

 An appointment issued to a person who meets all the qualification requirements of

the position to which he/she is being appointed to, including the appropriate
eligibility, in accordance with the provisions of law, rules and standards promulgated
in pursuance thereof.

4
Reorganization
 Santiago v. CSC – 178 SCRA 733 [1989]
 Montecillo v. Civil Service Commission, GR NO. 131954. June 28, 2001
 Gatmaitan v. Gonzales – 492 SCRA 591
 Nieves v. Blanco – 673 SCRA 638 [2012]

 An employee may be re-assigned from one organizational unit to another in the

same agency, provided, that such re-assignment shall not involve a reduction in
rank, status and salary; and does not require the issuance of an appointment.

o Reassignment is defined as the movement of an employee from one

organizational unit in the same department or agency which does not involve
a reduction in rank, status, or salary and does not require the issuance of an
appointment.

o Demotion is a movement from one position to another involving the issuance

of an appointment with diminution in duties, responsibilities, status or rank
which may or may not involve reduction in salary.

Appointment vs. designation

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

 Where the person is merely designated and not appointed, the implication is that he
shall hold the office only in a temporary capacity and may be replaced at will by the
appointing authority.

o Appointment is defined as the selection, by the authority vested with the

power, of an individual who is to exercise the functions of a given office.
When completed, the appointment results in security of tenure. It is said that
appointment is essentially executive.

o Designation connotes merely the imposition by law of additional duties on an

incumbent official and is legislative in nature.

Removal for Cause/Security of Tenure

Cause for Removal: PARAGRAPH 3

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

 Officials and employees holding primarily confidential positions continue only for so
long as confidence in them endures. The termination of their official relation can be
justified on the ground of loss of confidence.

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

 Abolition of office does not imply removal of the incumbent officer, it is done in good
faith and not merely as a cover for a removal otherwise not allowed by the
Constitution
o Requisites of Abolition of Office to be constitutional
 In good faith
 Not for personal or political reasons
 Not in the violation of law

5
 3. Reorganization
 Romualdez-Yap v. CSC – 225 SCRA 285 [1993] – “PNB was authorized to undergo
reorganization and to effect a reduction to “achieve greater efficiency and economy in
operations.”
 Fernandez v. Sto Tomas – 242 SCRA 192 [1995]
 Chato v. Natividad – 244 SCRA 787 [1995]
 Divinagracia v. Sto. Tomas – 244 SCRA 595 [1995] (par.3)
 Vinzon-Chato v. Zenarosa, GR 120539, October 20, 2000
 De Guzman v. Comelec, GR 129118, July 19, 2000
 Cuevas v. Bacal, GR 139382, December 6, 2000

 A reorganization is carried out in "good faith" if it is for the purpose of economy or to

make bureaucracy more efficient.

4. Qualification for Eligibility

 Mayor v. Macaraig – 194 SCRA 672 [1991]

 If a person is not qualified for a position cannot acquire security of tenure in an office.
It is only acquire by one who has the qualifications for that office.

5. Abandonment; Acceptance of Incompatible/Other Employment

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

 Abandonment of an office is the voluntary relinquishment of an office by the holder,

with the intention of terminating his possession and control thereof.
 The act of finding employment elsewhere does not bar reinstatement of an illegally
terminated employee.

Due Process in Removal

 Enrique v. CA – 229 SCRA 180 [1994]
 CSC v. Magnaye – 619 SCRA 347 [2010]
 Rubenecia v. CSC – 244 SCRA 640 [1995]
 Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office Board Of Directors v. Marie Jean C. Lapid, GR
191940, 12 April 2011

 Sec. 40. Summary Proceedings. - No formal investigation is necessary and the

respondent may be immediately removed or dismissed if any of the following
circumstances is present;
o When the charge is serious and the evidence of guilty is strong.
o When the respondent is a recidivist or has been repeatedly charged and there is
reasonable ground to believe that he is guilty of the present
o When the respondent is notoriously undesirable

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

 Security of Tenure is important in the system, to have a guarantee against arbitrary

impairment, whether total or partial of the right to continue in the position held

Electioneering or Partisan Political Activity

6
  Santos v. Yatco – 106 PHIL 21
 People v. De Venecia – 14 SCRA 864 [1965]

 Partisan political campaign means every form of solicitation of the elector’s vote in favor
of “a specific candidate”, includes contribution of money for election purposes and
distribution of handbills. But he can mention candidate for public office whom he support.
Only role is in any election is to VOTE only. (military in service is also covered by this
provision).
o Exemptions: members of the Cabinet and public officers and employees holding
political offices.

Right to Self-Organization and Right to Strike

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

They have the right to organize and join unions, associations or societies but
government employees may not engage in strikes to demand changes in the terms and
conditions of employment because the terms and conditions of employment are provided
by law.

 Civil Service unionize according to:

o Article III, Section 8 which guarantees the right of all, including those employed
in the public and private sectors to forms unions.
o Article IX, Section 2(5) Right to self-organization shall not be denied to
government employees
o Article XIII, Section 3, the right of workers to self-organization, collective
bargaining and negotiations, and peaceful concerted activities, including the right
to strike in accordance with the law.
 Right to strike of public teachers – they have the right to strike considering that they
should not abandoned their office, or not during office hours

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

 Temporary employees of the Government shall be given such protection as may be

provided by law.

 While a temporary transfer or assignment of personnel is permissible even without the

employees prior consent, it cannot be done when the transfer is a preliminary step
toward his removal, or is a scheme to lure him away from his permanent position, or
designed to indirectly terminate his service, or force his resignation. Such a transfer
would in effect circumvent the provision which safeguards the tenure of office of those
who are in the Civil Service.

 The mantle of its protection extends not only to employees removed without cause but
also to cases of unconsented transfers which are tantamount to illegal removals.

Section 3. Purpose of a Civil Service System

 Lazo v. CSC, 236 SCRA 469

 To establish and promote professionalism and efficiency in public service.

7
  CSC cannot dictate to the appointing who among those qualified should be appointed,
their power is only limited to attesting to the eligibility or ineligibility of the appointee.

Section 4. Oath or Affirmation

 To uphold and defend the constitution, public officers and employees owe the State and
the Constitution allegiance at all times.

 Oath for those religious person

 Affirmation for those person who doesn’t want to give “oath” to the Bible or to God.

Section 5. Standardization of Compensation

 Congress shall provide for the standardization of compensation of government

officials and employees including GOCC with original charters depends on the
responsibilities and qualifications.

Section 6. Prohibition of Appointment of “Lame Ducks”

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

 1 year rule or prohibition, cannot appoint losing candidate in any government

office. This is to avoid spoils system or political activity in support of their party
during the elections

Section 7. Prohibitions; Appointments; Office; Employment

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

No elective official shall be eligible for appointment or designation in any capacity to any
public office or position during his tenure, except allowed by law like the VP, he or she
can be a member of the Cabinet. Congress can sit in the Judicial and Bar Council.

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

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

 Not allowed to receive additional, double or indirect compensation unless

authorized by law or accept without the consent of Congress any present,
emoluments, office or title of any kind from any foreign government.
 Pensions and gratuity not considered as additional or double or indirect
compensation.

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

 Yap v. COA – 619 SCRA 154 [2010]

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

8
C. Commission on Elections

Section 1. Composition; Qualifications; Term

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

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

 1 Chairman and 6 Commissioners

 Qualifications
o Natural-Born Citizen of Ph
o At least 35 year old from the time of appointment
o Not a candidate for any elective position immediately preceding elections
o Majority members and chairman must be a member of the Ph Bar
engaged in the Practice of Law for atleast 10 years
 Shall be appointed by the president with consent from the commission on
appointments
 Term without reappointment
o 7 years – 3 members
o 5 years – 2 members
o 3 years – 2 members

Section 2. Powers and Functions

Administrative Power – Enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct
of an election, plebiscite initiative, referendum, and recall.
 Alfiado v. Comelec, GR 141787, September 18, 2000
 Columbres v. Comelec, GR 142038,September 18, 2000
 Sahali v. Comelec, GR 134169, February 2, 2000
 Claudio v. Comelec, GR 140560, May 4, 2000
 De Guzman v. Comelec, GR 129118, July 19, 2000
 Social Weather Station, Inc v. COMELEC, GR NO. 147571, May 5, 2001
 Information Technology Foundation v. Comelec, GR 159139, Jan 13, 2004
 Buac v. Comelec, 421 SCRA 92
 Capalla v. COMELEC – 673 SCRA 1 [2012]

Election Contests - Exclusive jurisdiction over all contests relating to the elections, returns,
and qualifications of all electives.
 Flores v. COMELEC – 184 SCRA 484 [1990]

9
  Galido v. COMELEC – 193 SCRA 78 [1991]
 Mercado v. BES – 243 SCRA 422 [1995]
 Relampagos v. Cumba – 243 SCRA 690 [1995]
 People v. Delgado – 189 SCRA 715 [1990]
 Garces v. CA – 259 SCRA 99 [1996]
 Zarate v. Comelec and Lallave – GR 129096, November 19, 1999
 Regalado v. CA, GR 115962, February 15, 2000
 Faelnar v. People,GR 140850-51, May 4, 2000
 Tan v. Comelec, GR 148575, Dec. 10, 2003
 Alauya v. Comelec, GR 158830, August 10, 2004

Powers Not Given

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

Registration of Parties and Organization

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

Prosecution of Election Offenses

 People v. Inting – 187 SCRA 788 [1990]
 Corpus v. Tanodbayan – 149 SCRA 281[1987]
 COMELEC v. Silva – 286 SCRA 177[1998]
 Comelec v. Hon. Espanol, GR 149164, Dec. 10, 2003
 Arroyo v. DOJ – 681 SCRA 181[2012]
 Cumigad v People, GR No. 245238, 27 August 2020

Recommendatory Powers – recommend to Congress measures to minimize election

spending, and recommend to the President removal of any officer or employee it has deputized.

Section 3. Decisions
 Pangilinan v. COMELEC – 228 SCRA 36[1993]
 Sarmiento v. Comelec – 212 SCRA 307[1992]
 Carnicosa v. COMELEC – 282 SCRA 512[1997]
 Ramas v. COMELEC – 286 SCRA 189[1998]
 Garvida v. Sales – 271 SCRA 767[1997]
 Velayo v. Comelec, GR 135613, March 9, 2000
 Sebastian v. Comelec, GR 139573, Mach 7, 2000
 Soller v. Comelec, GR 139853, September 5, 2000
 Barroso v. Ampig et al, GR138218, March 17, 2000
 Maruhon v. Comelec, GR 139357, May 5,2000
 Balindong v. Comelec, GR 153991, Oct. 16, 2003
 Jaramilla v. Comelec, GR 155717, Oct. 23, 2003
 Bautista v. Comelec, GR 154796-97, Oct. 23, 2003
 De Llana v. Comelec, GR 152080, Nov. 28, 2003
 Repol v. Comelec, GR 151418, Apr. 28, 2004
 Pedragoza v. COMELEC – 496 SCRA 513
 Cayetano v. COMELEC – 479 SCRA 514
 Munoz v. COMELEC – 495 SCRA 407
 Tan v. COMELEC – 507 SCRA 352
 Enriquel v. COMELEC – 613 SCRA 809
 Mendoza v. COMELEC – 616 SCRA 443
 Maria Laarni L Cayetano v. Comelec, GR 193846, 12 April 2011 (also in Sec. 7, Art IX-
A)

 COMELEC en banc or two divisions, shall promulgate rules of procedure in order to

expedite disposition of election cases.

10
Section 4. Supervision/Regulation of Public Utilities, Media Grants, Privileges
 Unido v. COMELEC, 104 SCRA 17
 Sanidad v. COMELEC, 181 SCRA 529 (1990)
 Osmena v. COMELEC – 199 SCRA 750 [1991]
 Philippine Press Institute v. COMELEC, GR No. 119654, May 22, 1995
 Telecom v. COMELEC – 289 SCRA 337 [1998]
 ABS-CBN v. COMELEC, GR No. 133486, Jan. 28, 2000
 SWS v. COMELEC, GR No. 147571, May 5, 2001

 To have an equal opportunity, time space and the right to reply, to have a free, orderly,
honest, peaceful, and credible elections.

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

Sentence

 Pardon, Amnesty, Parole, or Suspension of sentence for violation of election laws, rules,
and regulations shall be granted by the President without the favorable recommendation
of the COMELEC.

Section 6. Free and Open Party System

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

 To evolve according to the free choice of the people

 Political parties – group of person pursuing the same political ideals in a government and
includes its branches and divisions

Section 7. No Block-Voting

 Block-Voting is prohibited except for those registered under the party list-system.

Section 8. Prohibition on Political Parties

 Political party refers to an organized group of citizens advocating the same

ideology or platform.

 Cannot register as political parties:

o Religious Denomination or sectors

o Those who seek to achieve goals through violation and unlawful means
o Those who refuse to uphold and adhere to the Constitution
o Those supported by foreign government

 Political parties shall not be represented in the voters’ registration boards of

election, but they shall be entitled to appointment poll watchers in accordance
with law.

Section 9. Election Period

 The election shall commence 90 days before the day of election and shall end
thirty days thereafter.

Section 10. No Harassment and Discrimination

 Bona fide candidates for any public office shall be free from any for of
harassment and discrimination,

11
 o Basically not immunity from suit.

o Example of discriminitation – unequal treatment in the availment of media

facilities

Section 11. Funds

 Funds certified by the Commission for the expenses of holding a regular or

special elections shall be provided in the regular or special appropriations and be
released automatically upon certification by the chair of the commission.

D. Commission of Audit

Section 1. Qualifications; Term

 Mison v. COA, 187 SCRA 445

 1 Chairman and 2 Commissioners

 Qualifications:
o Natural-Born Citizen of Ph
o At least 35 years old at the time of the appointment
o CPA not less than 10 years auditing experience or member of the Philippine
Bar engaged in the practice of law for at least 10 years.
o Not a candidate for any elective position in the elections immediately
preceding the appointment.
 Shall be appointed by the President with the consent of Commission on
Appointments
 Term shall be Seven years without reappointment
o Chairman – 7 years
o 1 Commissioner- 5 years
o 1 Commissioner – 3 years

Section 2. General Function; Powers

Examine and Audit: Government revenues and Government expenditures

 Blue Bar Coconut Phil. Tantuico – 163 SCRA 716 [1988]
 DBP v. COA – 231 SCRA 202 [1994]
 Eslao v. COA – 236 SCRA 161 [1994]
 J.F.F. Manacop v. CA – 266 SCRA 235 [1997]
 Polloso v. Gangan, GR 140563, July 14, 2000
 Uy v. COA, GR 130685, March 21, 2000
 Aguinaldo v. Sandiganbayan – 265 SCRA 121 [1996]
 DBP v. COA, 422 SCRA 459 [2004]
 Home Development Mutual Fund v. COA, GR 142297, June 15, 2004
 DBP v. COA – 498 SCRA 537 [2006]
 Nava v. Palattao – 499 SCRA 745 [2006]
 Gualberto De Llana v. COA, GR 180989, 7 Feb. 2012
 Candelario L. Versoza Jr. v. Guillermo N Carague, GR 157838, 7 February 2012
 Philippine Coconut v. Republic – 663 SCRA 514 [2012]
 Madera vs. COA, G.R. No. 244128, September 8, 2020

Audit Jurisdiction
 Caltex v. COA – 208 SCRA 726 [1992]
 Mamaril v. Domingo – 227 SCRA 206[1993]
 Philippine Airlines v. COA – 245 SCRA 39 [1995]
 CIR v. COA – 218 SCRA 203 [1993]
 CSC v. Pobre, GR 160568, Sept. 15, 2004
 Luciano Velos, et al. v. Commission On Audit, GR 193677,6 Sept. 20011

12
  Boy Scout of the Philippines v. COA, GR 177131, 7 June 2011
 Dela Llana v. COA – 665 SCRA 176 [2012]

Settle Government Account

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

Define Scope and Techniques of Auditing Procedures

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

Promulgate Accounting and Auditing Rules

 Leycano v. COA, 482 SCRA 215

Decide Administrative Cases Involving Expenditures of Public Funds

 NCMH v. COA, 265 SCRA 390 [1996]
 Ramos v. Aquino, 39 SCRA 256 [1971]
 Salva v. Carague, 511 SCRA 258
 City of Basilan v. Hechanova, 58 SCRA 711 [1974]
 Delos Santos v. COA, GR No. 198457, 13 August 2013
 Madera v. COA, GR No. 244128, 8 September 2020

Section 3. COA Jurisdiction

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

 No law shall be passed exempting any entity of the Government or its subsidiary
or any investment of public funds, from the jurisdiction of the COA.

Section 4. Annual Report to the President and to Congress

 COA submits to the President and Congress an annual report covering financial
condition and operation of the Government.

Article X. Local Government

Section 1. Territorial and Political Subdivisions of the Philippines
 Cordillera Broad Coalition v. COA, GR No. 79956, January 26, 1990

 The provinces, cities, municipalities, and barangays

 There shall be Autonomous Regions in Muslim Mindanao and Cordilleras

 Reason why word Barangay is retained in spite of its links with previous regime:
o It has a historical significance in Asia
o Existing laws use the term
o There are continuing references to it in public discussions

Section 2. Local Autonomy

 Limbona v. Conte Mangelin, et al, GR No. 80391, February 28, 1989
 San Juan v. CSC, 196 SCRA 69 (1991)
 Drilon v. Lim – 235 SCRA 135 [1994]
 Magtajas v. Pryce Properties, GR No. 111097, July 20, 1994
 Judge Leynes v. COA, GR No. 143596, Dec. 11, 2003
 Batangas CATV v. CA and Batangas City, GR No. 138810, September 29, 2004
 CREBA v. Secretary of DAR, GR 183409, June 18, 2010

Autonomy is either:

13
 1. decentralization of administration
a. no valid constitutional challenge
b. delegation of administrative powers to broaden the base of governmental power.
2. decentralization of power
a. abdication by the national government of political power in favor of the local
government

 Significance of declaration of local autonomy - Meant to free local governments

from the well-nigh absolute control by the legislature

 Autonomy – us either decentralization of administration or decentralization of

power

 Decentralization of administrative power – when the central government

delegates administrative powers to political subdivisions to broaden the base of
government power, to be more responsive and accountable and ensure fullest
development as self-reliant.

 Decentralization of power – involves an abdication of political power in favor of

local government units.

 Local autonomy – local governments have certain powers given by the

constitution, subject to:

 Power of control by Congress

 General supervision by the President

 Municipal governments are only agents of the national government. Local

councils exercise only delegated legislative powers conferred on them by
Congress as the national lawmaking body.

Section 3. Local Government Code

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

 The congress shall enact a local government code.

 The present form of local government consists of an executive distinct from the
legislative body.
 Initiative and referendum - the legal process whereby the registered voters of
local government unity may directly propose, enact or amend any ordinance.

Section 4. Supervision by the President

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

Scope of President’s supervisory powers:

 President can only interfere in the affairs and activities of a local government unit if he finds that
the latter had acted contrary to law;

14
  Cannot interfere in local affairs as long as the concerned local government unit acts within the
parameters of the law and the Constitution;

 Otherwise, violates the principle of local autonomy and the doctrine of separation of powers.

 Liga ng mga Barangay is not subject to the control by the Chief Executive or his alter ego.

Section 5. Taxation Power of Local Government

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

 Local government has the power to create its own sources of revenue and to levy taxes,
fees and charges subject to guidelines and limitations.

Section 6. Share in National Taxes

 Pimentel v. Aguirre, 336 SCRA 201 (2000)
 Province of Batangas v. Executive Secretary, GR No. 152774, May 27, 2004
 Alternative Center v. Zamora, GR No. 144256, June 8, 2005
 League of Cities v. COMELEC August 24, 2010
 Mandanas vs. Ochoa GR No. 199802 and G.R. No. 208488 July 3, 2018
 Mandanas vs. Ochoa GR No. 199802 and G.R. No. 208488 April 10, 2019

 Local government shall have a just share as determined by law, in the national
taxes which shall be automatically released to them.
a. Congress cannot impose conditions on the release of the share of local
governments
i. The LGU shall have a just share in the national taxes
ii. Just share shall be determined by law
iii. Just share shall be automatically released to the LGU
Section 7. Equitable Share in the National Wealth

1. Local government shall be entitled to an equitable share in the proceeds of the

utilization and development of national wealth within their respective area.
2. Fund sources of local government are:
a. Local taxes, fees, and charges
b. Share in the national taxes
c. Share it its proceeds in the utilization of natural resources within their area
d. Other sources of revenues
3. Scope of the power to levy taxes, fees, and charges
a. Subject to guidelines and limitations as congress ma provide

Section 8. Term of Local Officials

 Borja v. COMELEC, 295 SCRA 157
 Lozanida v. COMELEC, GR No. 135150, July 28, 1999
 Adormeo v. COMELEC, GR No. 147927, February 4, 2002
 Socrates v. COMELEC, 391 SCRA 457 (2002)

15
  Latasa v. COMELEC, GR No. 154829, Dec. 10, 2003
 David v. COMELEC, 271 SCRA 90 (1997)
 Rivera v. COMELEC – 523 SCRA 41
 Montebon v. COMELEC, 551 SCRA 50
 Ong v. Alegre, GR No. 163295, January 23, 2006
 Laceda v. Lumena – GR 182867, November 25, 2008
 Dizon v. COMELEC, GR No. 182088, January 30, 2009
 Bolos v. COMELEC – 581 SCRA 786 [2009]
 Aldovino v. COMELEC – 609 SCRA 234 [2009]
 Datu Michel Abas Kida v. Senate of the Philippines, GR 196271, February 2012
(reconsideration; holdover provision in RA 9054 Unconstitutional as Congress in passing
RA 10153 has made clear)
 Tallado vs. Comelec, G.R. No. 246679, March 2, 2021

 The term of office of LGU (except barangay) shall be three years, no official shall
serve more than three consecutive therms.
 Why is their limit of term impose in section 8?
a. To prevent political dynasties
b. Enhance the freedom to choice of the people.
The term of the barangay officials in the office may be determined by law but according
to the local autonomy code it limits their term in three years.

Section 9. Sectoral Representatives

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

 Legislative bodies of local governments shall have sectoral representation as

may be prescribed by law.
 The president shall appointment the secretary of local government, but
it says as may be provided by law.
Section 10. Creation, Abolition, Change of Boundaries
 Tan v. COMELEC, 142 SCRA 727 (1986)
 Tobias v. Abalos – 239 SCRA 106 [1994] (metes and bounds)
 Mun. of Jimenez v. Judge Baz – 265 SCRA 182 [1996](de jure corporation)
 Cawaling v. COMELEC – GR146319, October 26, 2001
 League of Cities of the Philippines v. COMELEC, GR 176951, Nov. 29, 2008
 Sema v. COMELEC, 558 SCRA 700
 Camid v. Office of the President, GR No. 161414, January 17, 2005
 Navarro v. Executive Secretary, GR No. 180050, February 10, 2010
 Navarro v. Ermita GR 180050, April 12, 2011

 No province, city, municipality, or barangay may be created, divided merged,

abolished or its boundary substantially altered.
 Who should participate in a plebiscite for the creation for a new province? – the
plebiscite should be in the unit or units affected.
Section 11. Metropolitan Political Subdivisions
 MMDA v. Bel-Air Village Association Assoc., GR No. 135962, March 27, 2000
 MMDA v. Garin, GR No. 130230, April 15, 2005
 Gancayco v. City Government of Quezon City, 658 SCRA 853

Section 12. Highly Urbanized Cities, Component Cities

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

 Highly urbanized and component cities whose charters prohibit their voters from
voting for provincial elective officials shall be independent of the province
 How many kinds of cities are provided in the provisions?
a. Highly urbanized as determined by law

16
 b. Cities not raised to the highly urbanized category but existing charters
prohibit their voters from voting in provincial elections
c. Component cities, cities under a province in some way.

Section 13. Local Government Units Grouping Themselves

Section 14. Regional Development Councils and Other Similar Bodies

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

Sec. 15 Purpose, and how many Autonomous Regions

Section 15. Autonomous Regions

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

 Reason behind the creation of autonomous regions is because of the cultural

diversity, its historical and cultural heritage, economic and social structures and
other relevant characteristics.
Section 16. General Supervision of the President
 Ampatuan v. Hon Ronaldo Puno, GR 190259. 17 June 2011 (Proclamation 1946 and
AOs and 273 –A do not violate the principle of local autonomy under Section 16, Article
X of the Constitution, and Section 1 Article V of the Expanded ARMM Organic Act)
 Kulayan v. Tan – 675 SCRA 482 [2012]

Section 17. Powers Not Vested to the ARMM

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

 Powers which are not given to autonomous regions

a. No jurisdiction over national defense and security, foreign relations and
foreign trade
b. Customs and tariff, quarantine, currency, monetary affairs, foreign
exchange, banking and quasi banking, external borrowing, post and
communications, air and sea transport, immigration and deportation,
citizenship and naturalization
c. General auditing

Sections 18 and 19. Organic Act for Autonomous Regions

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

17
  Law will be the charter of the autonomous regions – charter will be the Organic
Act which shall be passed by congress.
 Only congress can create province because creating a province necessarily
involves creating a legislative district.
Section 20. Legislative Powers of the Autonomous Regions
 Province of North Cotabato v. Government of the Philippines Peace Panel, 568 SCRA
492

1. Administrative Organization
2. Creation of Sources of Revenues
3. Ancestral Domain and Natural Resources
4. Personal, Family, and Property Relations
5. Regional, Urban, and Rural Planning Development
6. Economic, Social, and tourism Development
7. Educational policies
8. Preservation and development of the cultural heritage
9. Other matters as may be authorize by law for the promotion of the General Welfare
of the people of the region

Section 21. Preservation of Peace and Order

 The president is still the Commander-in-Chief for the region as is is still part of
the Republic

Article XI. Accountability of Public Officers

Section 1. Public Office
Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to
the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act with
patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.

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

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

 Command to leads a modest lives, that even if the public officer is independently
wealthy, he should not live in a manner that flaunts his wealth

Section 2. Officers Subject to Removal by Impeachment

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

Impeachable Officer in a Quo Warranto Proceeding

18
  Republic vs. Sereno, G.R. 237428
Impeachment is not an exclusive remedy by which an invalidly appointed or invalidly
elected impeachable official may be removed from the office. The language of Section 2,
Article XI of the Constitution does not foreclose a quo warranto action against
impeachable officers. The provision uses the permissive term “may” which denote
discretion and cannot be construed as having a mandatory effect, indicative of a mere
possibility, an opportunity or an option.

1. Impeachable officers
 The president
 The vice president
 The members of the constitutional commissions
 The ombudsman

2. Grounds for impeachment:

 Culpable violation of the constitution
 Treason
 Bribery
 Graft and corruption
 Other high crimes
 Betrayal of public trust.
Any form of violation of the oath of office even if such violation may not be criminally
punishable offence.

Section 3. Procedure for Impeachment

 In re Gonzales, 160 SCRA 771 (1988)
 Marcoleta v. Brawner – 582 SCRA 474 [2009])
 Romulo v. Yniguez, 141 SCRA 260 (1986)
 Francisco v. House of Representatives, 415 SCRA 44
 Estrada v. Desierto, 353 SCRA 452 (2001); MR, 356 SCRA 108 (2001)
 Gutierrez v. Committee on Justice, 643 SCRA 198
 Re: Letter of Mrs Ma. Cristina Roco Corona, A.M. No. 20-07-10-SC, 12 January 2021

Process of impeachment - HOR shall have the exclusive power to initiate all cases of
impeachment

 There must be verified

complaint for impeachment
or by any citizen with
endorsement by any
member of HOR

 Shall be included in the

ORDER of Business
within ten session days
 Referred to the proper
committee within three
session days
 After hearing, the
committee by the
majority vote oof all its
members submits report
to the House within 60
days from referral

19
  The resolution shall be calendared for consideration by the house within
10 session days from receipt.
 A vote of atleast 1/3 of all members of the house whether to affirm of
override
 In case voted at least 1/3 of all members of the house it shall constitute
the articles of impeachment, and trials by the senate shall proceed

1. No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once
within a period of one year.
2. The senate shall have the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment. NO
person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of all the members of the
senate.
3. Judgement in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than removal of office and
disqualification.
4. Congress shall promulgate its rules on impeachment
5. Impeachment – remove an officer in the public offices that does not deserve to hold
office and disqualification in holding any office under the republic.

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

 Anti-graft court – Sandiganbayan, the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction on private

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

 Ombudsman – an independent office composed of ombudsman to be known as

tanodbayon
o 1 – overall deputy
o At least 1 deputy each for Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao
o Ombudsman has the power to investigate any illegal act or omission of
any public official, even if the offense committed by the official is not
related to the performance of his function.
Section 6. Appointments
 Ombudsman v. CSC, GR No. 162215, July 20, 2007

 The officials and employees of the office of ombudsman other than the deputies shall be
appointed by the ombudsman according to the civil service law.

20
Section 7. Tanodbayan as Special Prosecutor
 Quimpo v. Tanodbayan – 146 SCRA 137 [1986]
 Zaldivar v. Sandiganbayan, 160 SCRA 843 (1988)
 Acop v. Ombudsman, GR No. 120422, September 27, 1995
 Deloso v. Domingo, 191 SCRA 545
 Almonte v. Vasquez, GR No. 95367, May 22, 1995
 Azarcon v. Sandiganbayan G.R. No. 116033. February 26, 1997
 Camanag v. Hon Guerrero – 286 SCRA 473 [1997]
 Macalino v. Sandiganbayan, 376 SCRA 452
 BIR v. Ombudsman, GR No. 115103, April 11, 2002
 Laurel v. Desierto, GR No. 145368, April 12, 2002
 Office of the Ombudsman v. Valera – 471 SCRA 715 [2005]
 Perez v. Sandiganbayan – 503 SCRA 252
 Calingin v. Desierto 529 SCRA 720 [2007]

Section 8. Qualifications
1. Ombudsman and its deputies qualifications:
a. Natural born citizens
b. 40 years old
c. Recognize probity and independence
d. Members of the Philippine bar
e. Not candidate of election immediately preceding.

Section 9. Appointments

 The president shall appoint the Ombudsman and his deputies with at least six nominees
prepared by judicial and bar council.

Section 10. Rank

 Ombudsman and his deputies shall have the rank of chairman and members, they shall
receive the same salary, which shall not be decreased during their term of office.

Section 11. Term

 Ombudsman shall serve for 7 years without reappointment. Not qualified to run in the
election immediately succeeding cessation from office.

Section 12. Prompt Action on Complaints

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

Section 13. Powers; Functions; Duties

In General
 Cruz v. Sandiganbayan – 194 SCRA 474 [1991]

21
  Maceda v. Vasquez – 221 SCRA 464 [1993]
 Macalino v. Sandiganbayan – 376 SCRA 452
 Garcia v. Miro, GR No. 148944, Feb 5, 2003
 Honasan II v. Panel of Investigating Prosecutors – GR No. 159747, April 13, 2004
 Samson v. OMB, GR 117741, Sept 29, 2004
 Corpuz v. Sandiganbayan, GR 162214, Nov. 11, 2004
 Khan, Jr. v. Ombudsman, GR No. 125296, July 20, 2006
 Ombudsman v. Estandarte, GR No. 168670, April 13, 2007
 Ombudsman v. Lucero, November 24, 2006
 Ombudsman v. CA, GR No. 169079, July 17, 2007
 Sangguniang Barangay v. Punong Barangay, GR No. 170626, March 3, 2008
 Perez v. Sandiganbayan, GR No. 166062, September 26, 2006
 Buencamino v. CA, GR No. 175895, April 4, 2007
 Medina v. COA, GR No. 176478, February 4, 2008
 Villas Nor v. Sandiganbayan, GR No. 180700, March 4, 2008
 Ombudsman v. Rodriguez, GR No. 172700, July 23, 2010
 OMB v. Estendarte – 521 SCRA 155 [2007]
 Salvador v. Mapa – 539 SCRA 34 [2000]
 OMB v. Masing – 542 SCRA 253 [2008]
 Medina v. COA – 543 SCRA 684[2008]
 Borja v. People – 553 SCRA 250 [2008]

Preventive Suspension and Imposition of Penalties

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

Jurisdiction over Criminal Cases

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

Fact-finding distinguished from Preliminary Investigation

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

Powers of the ombudsman:

22
  Investigate on its own, compliant by any person any act or omission of any public
officers of GOCC with original charter.
 Jurisdiction over disciplinary cases of public school teachers modified as Magna
Carta for Public School Teacher that says such cases must first go to a
committee appointed by the Sec of Education.
 Impose penalties in administrative cases
 The special prosecutor may not file an information without authority. Power to
prosecute and power to authorize the filling of information
 Rule making power
 Preventative suspend

Section 14. Fiscal Autonomy

Section 15. Right to Recover Properties Unlawfully Acquired

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

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

Section 17. Declaration of Assets and Liabilities

1. Public officer must submit under oath his SALN

 President
 VP
 Members of the cabinet
 Congress
 SC
 Constitutional Commissions
 AFP (General or flag rank)

Section 18. Allegiance of Public Officers

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

Week 15

Article XII. National Economy and Patrimony

Definition of Terms
1. REGALIAN DOCTRINE - All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal,
petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or
timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources are owned by the State.
(Section 2, Art. XII)
2. IMPERIUM - Government authority possessed by the State expressed in the concept of
Sovereignty.
3. DOMINIUM - Capacity of the State to own or acquire property; the foundation for the
early Spanish decress embracing the feudal theory of jura regalia.
4. JURA REGALIA – all lands were held from the crown; in broad sense, the term refers to
royal rights to which the King has by virtue of his prerogatives; private title to land must

23
 be traced to some grant, express or implied from the Spanish Crown and thereafter, the
Philippine Republic.
5. FORESHORE LAND – that strip of land that lies between the high and low water marks
and that is alternatively wet and dry according to the flow of the tide; inalienable unless
converted by law int alienable lands.
6. SUBMERGED LAND – all lands permanently or periodically covered by tidal waters up
to but not above the line of mean high tide.
7. ANCESTRAL DOMAIN – an all-embracing concept referring to lands, inland waters,
coastal areas, and includes ancestral lands, etc., and other lands individually owned,
whether alienable or not, hunting grounds, burial grounds, worship areas, etc.; They
include lands which may no longer be exclusively used by indigenous cultural
communities but traditionally had access for their subsistence and traditional activities.
8. ANCESTRAL LAND - narrower concept referring to lands utilized by cultural
communities under the claim of individual or traditional group ownership; includes, but
are not limited to residential lots, rice terraces, etc.; Those held under the same
conditions but are limited to lands that are not merely occupied and possessed but are
also utilized by cultural communities.
9. PRIVATE LAND - lands of private ownership including both lands owned by private
individuals and those which are patrimonial property of the State or of municipal
corporations.
10. PUBLIC UTILITY – a utility corporation that renders service to the general public for
compensation; service is not confined to privileged individuals but is open to an indefinite
public.
11. FILIPINIZATION – Filipino ownership.
12. NATIONALIZATION – State ownership.
13. MONOPOLY – when there is only one seller or producer of a product or service for
which there are no substitute; joint acquisition or maintenance by members of a
conspiracy, formed for that purpose, of the power to control and dominate trade and
commerce in a commodity to such an extent that they are able, as a group, to exclude
actual or potential competitors from the field, accompanied with the intention and
purpose to exercise such power.
14. MINERAL – refers to all naturally occurring inorganic substance in solid, gas, liquid, or
any intermediate state excluding energy materials such as coal, petroleum, natural gas,
radioactive materials and geothermal energy. (Sec. 4 (e), A.M. No. 09-6-8-C)
15. WILDLIFE – means wild forms and varieties of flora and fauna, in all developmental
stages including those which are in captivity or are being bred or propagated. (Sec. 4
(g), A.M. No. 09-6-8-C)
16. WRIT OF KALIKASAN – a remedy available to a natural or juridical person entity
authorized by law, people’s organization, NGO, or any public interest group on behalf of
persons constitutional right to a balance and healthful ecology is violate or threatened
with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or a private
individual or entity, involving environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice
the life, health or property of inhabitants.
17. MINERAL LAND – refer to those lads of public domain which has been classified as
such by the Secretary of Natural Resources in accordance with the prescribed and
approved criteria, guidelines and procedure. (Sec. 3 (f), P.D. No. 705)
18. NATIONAL PARK – refers to a forest land reservation essentially of primitive or
wilderness character which has been withdrawn from settlement or occupancy and set
aside as such exclusively to preserve the scenery, the natural and historic objects and
the wild animals or plants therein, and to provide enjoyment of these features in such a
manner as will leave them unimpaired for future generations. (Sec. 3 (h), P.D. No. 705)
19. INDIGENOUS CULTURAL COMMUNITY – refers to a group of people sharing common
bonds of language, customs, traditions and other distinctive cultural traits, and who
have, since time immemorial, occupied, possessed and utilized a territory. (Sec.4 (d),
R.A. No. 7586)
20. NATURAL RESOURCES – refers to life-support systems such as the sea, coral reefs,
soil, lakes, rivers, and forests as well as useful products found therein such as animals,

24
 wildlife, tress and other plants, including the aesthetic attributes of scenic sites that are
not man-made. (Sec. 3 (3), R.A. No. 7611)
21. ENVIRONMENT COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE (ECC) – refers to the document issued
by the government agency concerned certifying that the project under consideration will
not bring about an unacceptable environmental impact statement system.
22. EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE (EEZ) – the water, sea bottom and subsurface
measured from the baseline of the Philippine archipelago up to 200 nautical miles
offshore.
23. FINANCIAL AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AGREEMENT – a contract involving
financial or technical assistance for large-scale exploration, development, and utilization
of natural resources.
24. SUBSISTENCE FISHERMAN – refers to fishing that is carried out primarily to feed the
family and relatives of the person doing the fishing.
25. FISHWORKER – a person regularly or not regularly employed in commercial fishing and
related industries, whose income is either in wage, profit-sharing or stratified sharing
basis, including those working in fish pens, fish cages, fish corrals etc.
26. INTEGRATED FOREST MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT (IFMA) – is a production
sharing contract entered into by and between the DENR and a qualified applicant
wherein it grants the right to develop, manage, protect and utilize a specified area.

Section 1. Threefold Goal of the National Economy

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

1. Three fold goal of the national economy:

 More equitable distribution of wealth
 Increase of wealth for the benefit of the people
 Increased productivity
Section 2. Regalian Doctrine

REGALIAN DOCTRINE - All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal,
petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or
timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources are owned by the State.
(Section 2, Art. XII)

Public Domain and Regalian Doctrine

 Lee Hong Kok v. David, 48 SCRA 372
 Carino v. Insular Government, 41 PHIL 935
 Laurel v. Garcia, 187 SCRA 797 (1990)
 Almeda v. Court of Appeals, GR No. 85322, April 30, 1991
 Director of Lands v. Kalahi Investments, Inc, GR No. 48066, January 31, 1989
 Land Mgt. Bureau v. CA, GR 112567, February 7, 2000
 Republic v. De Guzman, GR 105630, February 23, 2000
 Pua v. CA, GR 134992, November 20, 2000
 Cruz v. Sec. of DENR, GR 135385, December 6, 2000
 Chavez v. PEA, GR 133250, July 9, 2002
 Dipido v. Gozun – 485 SCRA 586
 Chavez v. NHA – 530 SCRA 235 [2007]
 Republic v. Enciso, GR No. 160145, November 11, 2005
 Philippine Geothermal v. Napocor, GR No. 144302, May 27, 2004
 La Bugal-B’laan v. Ramos, GR 127872, Dec. 1, 2004
 JG Summit Holdings v. CA G.R. No. 124293, January 31, 2005
The fact that PHILSECO owns land cannot deprive stockholders of their right of first
refusal. No law disqualifies a person from purchasing shares in a landholding

25
 corporation even if the latter will exceed the allowed foreign equity, what the law
disqualifies is the corporation from owning land. This is clear from the provision under
Sec. 2, Article XII of the Constitution: xxx the State may directly undertake such
activities, or it may enter into co-production, joint venture, or production-sharing
agreements with Filipino citizens, or corporations or associations at least sixty per
centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens.

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

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

 When does land of the public domain become private land? – when acquired from the
government either by purchase or by grant.

Limits imposed on jura regalia of state:

 Only agricultural land of the public domain may be alienated
 The exploration, development, and utilization of all natural resources shall
be under the full control and supervision of the State.
 All agreements with the qualified private sector may be for only a period
not exceeding twenty five years, renewable for another twenty five years.
 The use and enjoyment of the marine wealth of the archipelagic waters,
territorial sea, and exclusive economic zone shall be reserved for Filipino
citizens.
 Utilization of natural resources in rivers, lakes, bays, and lagoons may be
allowed on a “small scale”
Requisites for reclaimed land as private property:
 Proof that the land had been classified as alienable.
 Must show proof of having acquired the property.

Who are qualified to take part in the exploration, development, and utilization of
the natural resources.
 Filipino citizens and corporations or associations at least 60% of whose
capital is owned byFilipino citizen.

May the state enter into service contracts with foreign owned corporations.
 Yes but subject to strict limitations in the last 2 paragraph of section 2.
Financial and technical agreements are a form of service contract. Such

26
 service contracts may be entered into only with respect to minerals,
petroleum and other mineral oils. The grant is subject to several
safeguards:
i. That the service contract be crafted in accordance with a general
law setting standard or uniform terms, conditions and requirements
ii. The president be the signatory for the government
iii. The president report the executed agreement to congress within
thirty days.

Section 3. Lands of the Public Domain

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

Classification of lands of the public domain which is an exclusive prerogative of

the Executive Department – President are the following:
 Agricultural
 Forest or Timber
 Mineral Lands
 National Park
Mixed classifications of land is not allowed. (partly mineral or partly agricultural)
– it must be completely mineral or completely agricultural.

Rules on the disposition and exploitation of agricultural lands of the public

domain:
 Private corporations or associations may not acquire alienable lands of the
public domain
 Qualified individuals may acquire a maximu of 12 hectares only of
alienable land of the public domain
 Private corporations may hold alienable lands of the public domain by
lease up to a max of 1,000 hectares and for a period of 25 years
renewable for another 25 years
 Qualified individuals may lease land of the public domain up to a
maximum of 500 hectares.
Public land become private land – issuance of certificate of registration

Section 4. Specific Limits of Forest Lands and National Parks

 Such forest lands and national parks shall be conserved and may not be increased or or
diminished except by law.

Section 5. Ancestral Lands and Domain

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

 The state, shall protect the rights of the indigenous cultural communities to their
ancestral lands t ensure economic, social, and cultural well-being.

27
  ANCESTRAL DOMAIN – an all-embracing concept referring to lands, inland waters,
coastal areas, and includes ancestral lands, etc., and other lands individually owned,
whether alienable or not, hunting grounds, burial grounds, worship areas, etc.; They
include lands which may no longer be exclusively used by indigenous cultural
communities but traditionally had access for their subsistence and traditional activities.
 ANCESTRAL LAND - narrower concept referring to lands utilized by cultural
communities under the claim of individual or traditional group ownership; includes, but
are not limited to residential lots, rice terraces, etc.; Those held under the same
conditions but are limited to lands that are not merely occupied and possessed but are
also utilized by cultural communities.
Section 6. Common Good
 Telecom v. COMELEC, 289 SCRA 337 (1998)

 The right to own, establish, and operate economic enterprises, subject to the duty of the
state to promote, distributive justice and to intervene the common good so demands.

Section 7. Private Lands

 Republic v. CA, 235 SCRA 567
 Zaragosa v. CA, GR No. 106401, September 29, 2000
 Ramirez v. Vda. De Ramirez, 111 SCRA 704 (1982)
 Halili v. CA, 287 SCRA 465 (1998)
 Lee v. Republic, 366 SCRA (2001)
 Frenzel v. Catito, GR No. 143958, July 11, 2003
 Lentfer v. Wolff – 441 SCRA 584 [2004]
 Muller v. Muller – 500 SCRA 65
 Mulller v. Muller, GR No. 149615, August 29, 2006
 Matthews v. Taylor Spouses, GR No. 164584, June 22, 2009
 Hulst v. PR Builders, GR No. 156364, September 25, 2008
 Ting Ho v. Teng – 558 SCRA 421 [2008]
 Hulst v. PR Builders – 566 SCRA 333[2008]
 Osmena v. Osmena – 611 SCRA 164 [2010]
 Beurmer v. Amores – 686 SCRA 770 [2012]

 PRIVATE LAND - lands of private ownership including both lands owned by private
individuals and those which are patrimonial property of the State or of municipal
corporations.

Who may acquire private land

 Filipino citizens
 Filipino corporations and associations
 Aliens but only by hereditary succession
 Natural born citizen of the Philippines who lost Philippine citizenship
Section 8. Exception for Former Filipino Citizens
 Republic v. CA, 235 SCRA 567 (1994)

Section 9. Independent Economic and Planning Agency

 The national economic development authority shall function as the independent

planning agency of the government, until otherwise congress provides.

Section 10. Filipinization

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

28
  FILIPINIZATION – Filipino ownership.

Section 11. Public Utilities

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

PUBLIC UTILITY – a utility corporation that renders service to the general public for
compensation; service is not confined to privileged individuals but is open to an
indefinite public.

Section 12. Filipino First Policy

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

 Promote preferential use of Filipino Labor, Domestic Materials and local produced goods
and adopt measures that help make them competettive.

Section 13. Trade Policy

 Espina v. Zamora, 631 SCRA 17

 Trade policy that serves the general welfare and utilizes all forms and arrangements of
exchange on the basis of equality and repciprocity.

Section 14. Development and Practice of Professions

 To sustain the development of a reservoir of national talents consisting of Filipino

Scientists and other professions shall be promoted by the state.

Section 15. Agency to Promote Cooperatives

 Congress create agency to promote the viability and growth of cooperatives as

instruments for social justice and economic development.

Section 16. Corporations

 NDC v. PVB, 192 SCRA 257 (1990)

29
  Boy Scouts of the Philippines v. COA, GR 177131, 07 June 2011.
Section 16, Article XII should not be construed so as to prohibit Congress from creating
public corporation. In fact, Congress has enacted numerous laws creating public
corporations or government agencies or instrumentalities vested with corporate powers.
Moreover, Section 16, Article XII, which relates to National Economy and Patrimony,
could not have tied the hands of Congress in creating public corporation to serve any of
the constitutional policies or objective.

 Shall not provide formation, organizations or regularization of private corporations.

GOCC may be established by special charters in the interest of common good.

Section 17. Temporary Take-Over

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

 The state may during a national emergency temporarily take over or direct the operation
of any privately owned public utility or business affected with public interest.

Section 18. Nationalization

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

 NATIONALIZATION – State ownership

 In the interest of national welfare and defense establish and operate vital industries upon
payment of just compensation

Section 19. Monopolies and Combinations

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

 MONOPOLY – when there is only one seller or producer of a product or service for
which there are no substitute; joint acquisition or maintenance by members of a
conspiracy, formed for that purpose, of the power to control and dominate trade and
commerce in a commodity to such an extent that they are able, as a group, to exclude
actual or potential competitors from the field, accompanied with the intention and
purpose to exercise such power.

Section 21. Foreign Loans

 May only be incurred in accordance with law and regularization of the monetary
authority. The information on foreign loans obtained and guaranteed by the
Government shall be available to the public.

Section 22. Acts Inimical to the National Interest

 Acts circumvent or negate to the provisions shall be inimical to national

interest and subject to criminal and civil sanctions

Article XVI. General Provisions

30
Section 1. Flag of the Philippines

 The Flag shall be red, white, blue, with a sun and three stars

 Consecrated and honored by people and recognize by law

Section 2. Name, National Anthem or a National Seal

 The congress may by law, adopt a new name for the country, national anthem or
national seal

 Which shall be reflective and symbolic ideals, history and traditions of the people

 Such will take effect only upon its ratification by the people in a national referendum

Section 3. Immunity From Suit

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

 The state may not be sued without its consent.

 When is a suit against the State?

 When the Republic is sued by name

 When the suit is against unincorporated government agency

 When suit is on its face against a government officer but the case is such
that ultimate liability will belong not to the officer but to the government.

Foundation of the Rule: A suit against the State

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

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

Government Officers
 Ministero v. CFI – 40 SCRA 464 (1971
 Syquia v. Almeda-Lopez – 84SCRA 312 [1978]
 Festejo v. Fernando – 94 SCRA 54 [1979]
 Aberca v. Ver – 160 SCRA 590 [1988]
 Shauf v. CA – 191 SCRA 713 [1990]

31
  Vidad v. RTC – 271 [1993]
 Regional Director v. CA – 229 SCRA 557 [1994]
 Africa v. PCGG/Villanueva v. Sandiganbayan – [January 1992]
 DOH v. Phil. Pharmawealth – 518 SCRA 240 [2007]

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

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

 Either expressly or implied

o Express consent when there is a law expressly granting authority to sue

the State or any its agencies

o Implied Consent when:

 The state enters into a private contract

 The state enters into an operation that is essentially a business

operation

Exceptional Circumstance to avoid injustice

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

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

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

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

Section 4. AFP

32
  Composed of citizen of armed force which shall undergo military training and
serve as may be provided by law for the security of the State.

Section 5. AFP Requirement and Goals

 Take an oath or affirmation to uphold and defend the constitution.

 State strengthen the patriotic spirit and nationalist consciousness of the

military and respect for people’s rights in the performance if their duty.

 Professionalism in the AFP ad adequate remuneration and benefits shall be

a prime concern of the state.

No members of the AFP shall engaged directly or indirectly to partisan political

activity

 Cannot be appointed for civilian position if in active service

 No extension of service during their retirement

 Recruited proportionally from all provinces and cities of the Philippines

 Chief of Staff of AFP tour of duty shall not exceed three years.

Section 6. Police Force

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

 Shall establish and maintain one police force to be controlled by a national police
commission.

Section 7. War Veterans

 Provided with adequate care, benefits, and other forms of assistance to war vaterans
and veterans of military campaigns, and their spouses and orphans.

Section 8. Pensions and Benefits for Retirees

 State shall review from time to time the pensions and other benefits due to retirees of
both government and public offices

Section 9. Protection of Consumers from Trade Malpractices

 Shall protect consumers from trade malpractices and from substandard or hazardous
products.

Section 10. Development of Filipino Capability and Communication Structures

 Provide policy for environment for the full development of Filipino capability and the
emergence of communication structures suitable to the needs and aspiration of the
nation.

Section 11. Ownership and Management: Mass Media and Advertising

 Shall be limited only to citizens of the Ph or to corporations or associations owned and

managed by such citizens.

33
  Only Filipino Citizens or corporations at least 70% of the capital owned by such citizens
shall be allowed to engage in the advertising industry.

Section 12. Consultative Body for Indigenous Cultural Communities

 Congress to create the body to advise the President on policies affecting indigenous
cultural communities, the majority of the members of which shall come from
communities.

Article XVII. Amendments or Revisions

Section 1. Amendment or Revision

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

 The congress upon vote of ¾ of all its members

 Constitutional Convention

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

 Directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition of atleast 12% of the
total number of registered voters

 Legislative district must be represented by at least 3% of the registered voters

Section 3. Constitutional Convention

 Congress may vote 2/3 of all members to call a constitutional convention or

 by majority vote of all its members,

 submit to electorate the question of calling such convention

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

 Any amendment or revision of the constitution shall be valid when ratified by a majority
votes cast in a plebiscite shall be held not earlier than 60 days nor later than ninety days
after the approval of such amendment or revision.

What is constituent power and legislative power:

 Constituent power is the power to formulate a constitution or propose amendments to or
revisions of the constitution and to ratify such proposal – to be exercised by congress by
constitutional convention or commission by people through initiative and referendum and
the sovereign electorate. – it does not need the approval of the Chief executive

 Legislative power is the power to pass, repeal or amend ordinary laws or statutes –
ordinary power of Congress and of the people through initiative and referendum. – need
approval of the Chief Executive, except when done by the people through initiative and
referendum.

34
Article XVIII Transitory Provisions

Sec. 1 First Election Under the New Constitution

 First elections of Members of Congress under the Constitution shall be held on the 2 nd
Monday of May, 1987.

 First Local Elections shall be held on a date to be determined by the president, can be
simultaneous with the election of all members of congress. The members of the city or
municipal councils in the Metropolitan Manila Area.

 The purpose of transitory provisions is to facilitate the transition from the old constitution
to the new.

 The transitory provision is not only from freedom constitution, but also from the 1973
constitution.

Sec. 2 Term of First House Members and Local Officials

 The senators, members of HOR and local officials first elected under this constitution
shall serve until noon of June 30, 1992.(5 years)

 For senators, elected in 1992, the first 12 obtaining the highest number of votes shall
serve for 6 years and the remaining 12 for 3 years only. To establish a system electing
Senators, every 3 years only twelve new senators are elected.

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

 Shall remain operative until amended, repealed, or revoked

Sec. 4 Status of Treaties and International Agreements

 Treaties and International Agreements which have not been ratified shall not be
renewed or extended without the concurrence of at least 2/3 of all the members of the
senate

Sec. 5 Presidential Term and Synchronization

 6 years for President and Vice President elected in Feb 7 1986 election for purposes of
synchronization of elections extended to June 30, 1992. But regular election shall be
held every second Monday of 1992.

Sec. 6 President Legislative

 Shall continue to exercise legislative power until the first congress is convened.

Sec. 7 Sectorial Representation

 Until law is passed, the president may fill by appointment from a list of nominees by the
respective sectors

Sec. 8 Metropolitan Authority

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

 Otherwise provided by Congress, the President may constitute the Metropolitan

Authority to be composed of the heads of all local government units comprising the
metropolitan manila area

Sec. 9 Sub-Provinces

35
  Shall continue to exist and operate until it is converted to a regular province or its
component municipalities are reverted to the mother province.

Sec. 10-11 Security of Tenure Judges

 All courts at the time of ratification shall continue to exercise jurisdiction. It shall remain
operative unless amended or repealed by the SC or the congress

 The members of the judiciary shall continue office until they reach the age of 70 years or
become incapacitated or removed for cause.

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

 The SC within 1 year after the ratification adopt systematic plan to expedite the decision
or resolution of cases or matters pending in the SC and the lower courts prior the
effectivity of the constitution, including all special courts and quasi-judicial bodies.

Sec. 15 Term of Carry-over Commission

 The members of the Constitutional Commissions shall continue office for one year after
the ratification, unless they are removed for cause or becoming incapacitated. No case
shall a member serve longer than 7 years including service before the ratification.

Sec. 16 Career Civil Service Officers

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

 Career Civil Service Employee separated dur to ratification as a result of the

reorganization shall be paid separation pay and retirement and other benefits

Sec. 17-18 Readjustment of salary

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

Sec. 22 Idle/Abandoned lands

Sec. 23 Advertising Entities

Sec. 24 Private Armies

Sec. 25 Foreign Military Bases, Troops or Facilities

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

Sec. 26 Sequestration Orders

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

Section 27. Effectivity

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

36
  Cojuangco v. Roxas, 195 SCRA 797 (1991)

Classroom Policies

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

Attendance is checked. University rules governing absences are observed.

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

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

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

37