People vs. Bayabos, G.R. No. 171222, Feb.

18, 2015
What is the extent of liability of schools and school authorities under R.A. No. 8049, a.k.a. the “Anti-
Hazing Law”?
➢ Under the “Anti-Hazing Law”, the failure by school authorities to take any action to prevent the
offenses as provided by the law exposes them to criminal liability as accomplices in the criminal
acts
CoTesCUP vs. Sec. of Education, G.R. No. 216930, etc., Oct. 09, 2018
Does the K to 12 law limit access to education (by making kindergarten compulsory) and cause a de facto
privatization of senior high school education (through the voucher system) in violation of the
constitutional mandate of free high school education?
➢ No, the Senior High School Voucher program (subsidy given to those who will enroll in non-
DepEd schools) does not force students to enroll in private SHS. It simply offers a viable
alternative to both student and government — to the student, a subsidized private education; and
to the government, decongested public schools. The voucher system is one of the mechanisms
established by the State through RA No. 6728, otherwise known as the Government Assistance to
Students and Teachers in Private Education Act, in conformity with the mandate of the
Constitution, to promote and make quality education accessible to all Filipino citizens, as well as
the recognition of the State of the complementary roles of public and private educational
institutions in the educational system and the invaluable contribution that the private schools have
made and will make to education
Did the legislators violate the Constitution when they made kindergarten and senior high school
compulsory under the K to 12 law (R.A. No. 10533)?
➢ There is no conflict between the K to 12 Law and related issuances and the Constitution when it
made kindergarten and senior high school compulsory. The Constitution is clear in making
elementary education compulsory
Is the implementation of the K to 12 Law (R.A. No. 10533) a limitation on the right of senior high school
students to choose their professions?
➢ There is no conflict between the K to 12 Law and its IRR and the right of the senior high school
students to choose their profession or course of study. Petitioners have failed to show that the
State has imposed unfair and inequitable conditions for senior high schools to enroll in their
chosen path. The K to 12 Program is precisely designed in such a way that students may choose
to enroll in public or private senior high schools which offer the strands of their choice
Will the faculty from HEI stand to lose their academic freedom when they are transferred to senior high
school level as provided in the K to 12 Law?
➢ the Court does not agree with petitioners that their transfer to the secondary level, as provided by
the K to 12 Law constitutes a violation of their academic freedom. While the Court agrees, in
principle, that security of tenure is an important aspect of academic freedom — that the freedom
is only meaningful if the faculty members are assured that they are free to pursue their academic
endeavors without fear of reprisals. Civil servants, like petitioners, may be removed from service
 for a valid cause, such as when there is a bona fide reorganization, or a position has been
abolished or rendered redundant, or there is a need to merge, divide, or consolidate positions in
order to meet the exigencies of the service. Hence, petitioners' contention that the law is
unconstitutional based on this ground is specious.
Does the use of the MT or the regional or native language under K to 12 Law (R.A. No. 10533) as
primary medium of instruction for kindergarten and the first three (3) years of elementary education
contravene Section 7, Article XIV of the 1987 Constitution,?
➢ There is no conflict between the use of the MT as a primary medium of instruction and Section 7,
Article XIV of the 1987 Philippine Constitution. The deliberations of the Constitutional
Commission also confirm that MT or regional languages may be used as a medium of instruction.
it was never the intent of the framers of the Constitution to use only Filipino and English as the
exclusive media of instruction. It is evident that Congress has the power to enact a law that
designates Filipino as the primary medium of instruction even in the regions but, in the absence
of such law, the regional languages may be used as primary media of instruction.
La Sallian Foundation vs. CIR, G.R. No. 202792, February 27, 2019
Whether or not the petitioner foundation has lost its tax-exempt status under the 1987 constitution?
➢ Petitioner Foundation has presented adequate legal and factual basis to prove that it remains as a
tax exempt entity under Article XIV, Section 4, Paragraph 3 of the 1987 Constitution. Based on
jurisprudence and tax rulings, a taxpayer shall be granted with this tax exemption after proving
that: (1) it falls under the classification of non-stock, non-profit educational institution; and (2)
the income it seeks to be exempted from taxation is used actually, directly and exclusively for
educational purposes
Obergefell vs. Hodges, 576 US _____ (No. 14–556 SCOTUS June 26, 2015)
Are the constitutional rights of the petitioners (same-sex-couples) violated by the States that denied them
the right to marry or to have their marriages given full recognition?
➢ The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person and couples of the
same-sex may not be deprived thereof. The fundamental liberties protected by the 14th
Amendment extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy,
including intimate choices defining personal identity and beliefs.
What are the four principles and traditions that demonstrate the reasons “that marriage is fundamental
under the Constitution” apply with equal force to same-sex couples?
➢ The four principles/traditions demonstrating the reasons marriage is fundamental under the
Constitution apply to the same-sex couples:
- First. The right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in individual autonomy.
- Second. It supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed
individuals.
- Third. It safeguards children and families and thus, draws meaning from related rights of
childrearing, procreation, and education.
- Fourth. There is no difference between same- and opposite-sex couples with respect to the
principle that marriage is a keystone of the Nation’s social order.
Republic vs. Manalo, G.R. No. 221029, April 24, 2018
Considering the declared State policy on marriage, is the application of par. 2, Art. 26 of the Family Code
limited only to those foreign divorce initiated by the alien spouse?
➢ NO. It is also applicable to divorce initiated by the Filipino spouse to guarantee full respect of
human rights and to ensure fundamental equality before the law of men and women.
Dan vs. Dan, G.R. No. 209031, April 16, 2018
Did petitioner’s totality of evidence establish the psychological incapacity of Italian respondents and
satisfy the standards of Republic vs. Molina?
➢ NO. Petitioner’s evidence failed to establish respondents psychological incapacity that must be
characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and (incurability).
Falcis III vs. Civil Registrar General, G.R. 217910, Sept. 3, 2019
Does the 1987 Constitution define, or restrict, marriage on the basis of sex, gender, sexual orientation, or
gender identity or expression?

Pimentel vs. Legal Educ. Board, G.R. No. 230642, Sept. 10, 2019
Are par. 9 LEBMO 7-2016 and LEBMC 18-2018, which prescribes the passing of PhiLSAT as a pre-
requisite for admission to Philippine law school, a valid exercise of police power?
➢ The subject of the PhiLSAT is to improve the quality of legal education. It is indubitable that the
State has an interest in prescribing regulations promoting education and thereby protecting the
common good. Improvement of the quality of legal education, thus, falls squarely within the
scope of police power. The PhiLSAT, as an aptitude test, was the means to protect this interest
Is LEBMO No. 1-2011, insofar as it prescribes the qualifications/classifications for faculty members,
deans, and deans of graduate schools of law, valid and constitutional?
➢ The LEB is also empowered under Section 7(c) to set the standards of accreditation taking into
account, among others, the "qualifications of the members of the faculty" and under Section 7(e)
of R.A. No. 7662 to prescribe "minimum qualifications and compensation of faculty members[.]"