PP vs. G.

Perfecto
Facts: This was a case of violation of Art. 256 of the Spanish Penal Code filed against the
accused-appellant filed by the Philippine Senate. It all began when Mr. Gregorio Perfecto, editor
of La Nacion, published an article, following the convening of the Philippine Senate, regarding a
report by its secretary of missing documents, specifically testimonies of witnesses regarding a
certain investigation on oil companies. Mr. Perfecto was found guilty in the Municipal Court,
CFI of Manila as well as the Supreme Court. Accused-appellant, however, filed a motion for
reconsideration.

Issue: Whether or not Art. 256 of the Spanish Penal Code is still in force.

Ruling: The Supreme Court held that the affirmed decision should be reversed and the accused-
appellant be acquitted. The members of the court discussed two (2) main points: 1) the Philippine
Libel Law, Act No. 277, has abrogated Art. 256 of the SPC when it took effect; 2) Art. 256 of
the SPC is not in force anymore due to the effect of the change of sovereignty, that is, Spanish to
American. The general principles of public law is that previous political relations of the ceded
nation is abrogated. The Supreme Court placed emphasis on the word “political” designating the
laws regulating relations of the inhabitants with the sovereign.

Macariola vs. Asuncion

Facts: This was a complaint, before the Supreme Court, filed by Bernardita Macariola against
Judge Elias Asuncion, alleging among others that the respondent Judge violated pars. 1 & 5, Art.
14 of the Code of Commerce, being then a presiding judge before the CFI of Leyte and yet
engaged himself in commerce as a stockholder and high-ranking officer of a certain corporation.
The complaint stemmed from a civil case filed at the sala of then CFI presiding judge, Judge
Asuncion, wherein complainant Macariola was a party therein. Sps. Asuncion acquired a portion
of the property involved in the civil case filed. Their acquisition of said property, however, was
done after a decision, rendered in said case, has become final and that the same was acquired
from another person not involved in the case.

Issue: Whether or not pars. 1 & 5, Art. 14 of the Code of Commerce is in force.

Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled, among others, that respondent did not violate pars. 1 & 5,
Art. 14 of the Code of Commerce. The Code of Commerce is part of the commercial laws of the
Philippines which is political in nature as it regulates the relationship between the government
and its officials and employees. Art. 14 of the Code of Commerce, partakes, specifically the
nature of an administrative law because it regulates conduct of certain public officers and
employees with respect to engaging in business. The Supreme Court noted that the laws
concerning Code of Commerce is of Spanish regime. With the transfer of sovereignty, from
Spanish to the United States of America to the Philippines, it totally abrogated Code of
Commerce.

Francisco vs. House of Representatives

Facts: Former President Estrada filed an impeachment complaint against, then, Chief Justice
Hilario Davide, Jr., which was consequently rejected by the Committee on Justice after finding
the same as insufficient in substance. Thereafter, a second impeachment complaint was again
filed, against Chief Justice Davide, a resolution of which was signed by 1/3 of the members of
the House. Eighteen petitions then ensued praying, among others, that the Court exercise judicial
review on the 2nd impeachment against, then, Chief Justice Hilario Davide and that House
Impeachment Rules be declared unconstitutional.

Issue:

Ruling: Well-settled principles of constitutional construction:

1. Verba legis -ordinary meaning except when technical terms are employed
2. When there is ambiguity, ratio legis est anima -interpretation must be in accordance with
the intent of the framers (Civil Liberties Union vs. Exec. Sec.)
 3. Ut magis valeat quam pereat -must be interpreted as a whole (Chiongbian vs. De Leon)
4. May also include, if all else fails, the debates and opinions during constitutional
convention
-judicial review is essential for the enforcement and maintenance of the separation of powers
between the branches of the state
-the inherent power of judicial matters involving constitutional questions incident to
impeachment proceedings lies with the judicial branch of the state

Essential requisites for judicial review

1. Actual case/controversy
2. Locus standi - person challenging must have a personal and substantial interest in the case such
that he has sustained, or will sustain, direct injury as a result of its enforcement
3. Question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity
4. issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case

Civil Liberties Union vs. Executive Secretary

Facts: Petitioners seek to declare the Executive Order No. 204 issued by former President Cory Aquino,
as unconstitutional for allowing Cabinet members, undersecretary or assistant secretary to hold not more
than 2 office in the government and government corporations as well as to receive corresponding
compensation thereto. Said executive order runs counter with Sec. 13, Art. VII of the Constitution.

IBP vs. Hon. Ronaldo Zamora

This is a special civil action instituted by the IBP against the respondents, seeking, among others the
nullification of the order of President Estrada deploying the Marines to aid the PNP in its visibility patrol
in the Metropolis questioning the ground for said deployment.
-The petitioner invokes the Commander-in-chief’s power under Sec. 18, Art.VII of the Constitution when
it called the Marines to aid the PNP in its visibility patrol.
Essential requisites for judicial review
1. Actual case/controversy
2. Locus standi - person challenging must have a personal and substantial interest in the case such
that he has sustained, or will sustain direct injury as a result of its enforcement
3. Question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity
4. issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case
Issue: Whether or not the President committed a grave abuse of discretion by calling the Marines?

Gamboa v Teves, G.R. No. 176579, June 28, 2011

Manila Prince Hotel v GSIS, G.R. No. 122156, February 3, 1997

Pamatong v Comelec, G.R. No. 161872, April 13, 2004
Tañada v Angara, G.R. No. 118295, May 2, 1997
Mabanag v Lopez-Vito, 78 Phil 1

Imbong v Ferrer, G.R. No. L-32432, September 11, 1970

Facts: RA 6132 enacted Reso No. 2 and 4, expressly repealing RA 4914
-Reso No. 4 provides that the convention shall be composed of 320 delegates apportioned among existing
representative district according to the number of their respective inhabitants with a proviso that
representative district shall be entitled to atleast 2 delegates with the same qualification as that of the
members of the House of Representatives as well as the other details relating to apportionment of
delegates (with further proviso that it shall not be inconsistent with the provisions of this resolution)
-RA 6132 was enacted for implementation of the 2 resolutions
-Congress acting as legislative body of the state in the exercise its broad law-making authority and not as
a constituent assembly

Tolentino v Comelec, G.R. No. L-342150, October 16, 1971

Planas v Comelec, G.R. No. L-35925, January 22, 1973
Javellana v Executive Secretary, G.R. no. L-36142, March 31, 1973
Sanidad v Comelec, G.R. No. L-44640, October 12, 1976
Lawyers League for a Better Philippines v Aquino, G.R. No. 73748, May 22, 1986
In Re: Saturnino Bermudez, G.R. No. 76180, October 24, 1986
Republic v Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 104768, July 21, 2003
 De Leon v Esguerra, G.R. No. 78059, August 31, 1987
Lambino v Comelec, G.R. No. 174153, October 25, 2006
Occena v Comelec, G.R. No. 56350, April 2, 1981
Defensor-Santiago v Comelec, G.R. No. 127325, March 19, 1997
Gonzales v Comelec, G.R. No. L-28196, November 9, 1967

Lambino v COMELEC
-the petitioners, upon resolution of the Comelec denying petition to amend the 1987 Constitution, elevated the matter to the
SC
-